America's Worst Cities for Finding a Job !!

Can't get hired? You may just be in the wrong place.

Bad interviews or a lack of experience may not be the reason you can't land a job. Your location may be to blame. If you're seeking employment, consider moving to Washington, San Jose, or New York. Those are the three best places in the nation for finding a job, according to Juju.com.

Juju, a site that aggregates job listings, releases a monthly Job Search Difficulty Index, which measures how tough it is to find employment in 50 major cities around the country. To gauge the level of difficulty, Juju divides the number of unemployed workers in each city, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, by the number of jobs in their index of millions of online job postings.

"If you look back to November 2009, the average number of unemployed people per job posting was 6.5. This year it is 3.19," says Juju vice president Brendan Cruickshank. "This indicates that the market has gotten significantly better."

The hiring environment may be improving, but job seekers in cities that rely on unstable industries should know that they may each be competing with six, seven or eight other idle workers for one advertised job. "The cities that have continued to underperform rely on jobs from lagging industries such as manufacturing, tourism and construction," Cruickshank says. "Detroit and Las Vegas have improved from this time last year, but they continue have more unemployed individuals per open job than other large metropolitan areas."

Unemployment in Las Vegas is at 15%, almost six points above the national average. There are now nine unemployed individuals for every advertised job in Sin City, making it the nation's hardest place to find a job. Sunbelt cities like Las Vegas dominate the list of the most difficult metro areas for finding a job. Large metropolitan areas like Los Angeles, Miami and New Orleans continue to suffer as their tourism remains weak.

For every job posting in Miami, there are 8.5 unemployed people. Los Angeles and New Orleans have about 6.3 and 4 idle workers per advertised job, respectively.

There is far more hope if you're seeking employment in a city with stronger industries. Washington, D.C., is the best metropolitan area in the U.S. for finding a job, with only one unemployed person per job listing. Unemployment in the nation's capital sits at 5.9%, thanks to its stabilized job market and bounty of government, education and health care related jobs.

Other capital cities do well, too. Seven of the 15 metropolitan areas that are best for finding a job are state capitals.

We are seeing some consistent trends from the cities at the top and bottom of our rankings," Cruickshank says. "The cities that are strong performers have a large concentrations of jobs in industries that have held steady during the economic downturn, such as health care, education and government. State capitals such as Hartford and Austin perform well as a result."

Read More:- America's Worst Cities for Finding a Job

Strange story behind Sunday's 'blue' moon !!

The full moon of November arrives on Sunday and will bring with it a cosmic addition: It will also be a so-called "blue moon."

"But wait a minute," you might ask. "Isn't a 'blue moon' defined as the second full moon that occurs during a calendar month? Sunday's full moon falls on Nov. 21 and it will be the only full moon in November 2010. So how can it be a 'blue' moon?"

Indeed, November's full moon is blue moon – but only if we follow a rule that's now somewhat obscure.

In fact, the current "two- full moons in one month" rule has superseded an older rule that would allow us to call Sunday's moon "blue." To be clear, the moon does not actually appear a blue color during a blue moon, it has to do with lunar mechanics.

Confused yet?

Well, as the late Paul Harvey used to say — here now, is the rest of the story:

The blue moon rule

Back in the July 1943 issue of Sky & Telescope magazine, in a question and answer column written by Lawrence J. Lafleur, there was a reference made to the term "blue moon." [Gallery - Full Moon Fever]

Lafleur cited the unusual term from a copy of the 1937 edition of the now-defunct Maine Farmers' Almanac (NOT to be confused with The Farmers' Almanac of Lewiston, Maine, which is still in business).

On the almanac page for August 1937, the calendrical meaning for the term "blue moon" was given.

That explanation said that the moon "... usually comes full twelve times in a year, three times for each season."

Occasionally, however, there will come a year when there are 13 full moons during a year, not the usual 12. The almanac explanation continued:

"This was considered a very unfortunate circumstance, especially by the monks who had charge of the calendar of thirteen months for that year, and it upset the regular arrangement of church festivals. For this reason thirteen came to be considered an unlucky number."

And with that extra full moon, it also meant that one of the four seasons would contain four full moons instead of the usual three.

"There are seven Blue Moons in a Lunar Cycle of nineteen years," continued the almanac, ending on the comment that, "In olden times the almanac makers had much difficulty calculating the occurrence of the Blue Moon and this uncertainty gave rise to the expression 'Once in a Blue Moon.'"

An unfortunate oversight

But while LaFleur quoted the almanac's account, he made one very important omission: He never specified the date for this particular blue moon.

As it turned out, in 1937, it occurred on Aug. 21. That was the third full moon in the summer of 1937, a summer season that would see a total of four full moons.

Names were assigned to each moon in a season: For example, the first moon of summer was called the early summer moon, the second was the midsummer moon, and the last was called the late summer moon.

But when a particular season has four moons, the third was apparently called a blue moon so that the fourth and final one can continue to be called the late moon.

So where did we get the "two full moons in a month rule" that is so popular today?

A moon mistake

Once again, we must turn to the pages of Sky & Telescope.

This time, on page 3 of the March 1946 issue, James Hugh Pruett wrote an article, "Once in a Blue Moon," in which he made a reference to the term "blue moon" and referenced LaFleur's article from 1943.

But because Pruett had no specific full moon date for 1937 to fall back on, his interpretation of the ruling given by the Maine Farmers' Almanac was highly subjective. Pruett ultimately came to this conclusion:

"Seven times in 19 years there were – and still are – 13 full moons in a year. This gives 11 months with one full moon each and one with two. This second in a month, so I interpret it, was called Blue Moon."

How unfortunate that Pruett did not have a copy of that 1937 almanac at hand, or else he would have almost certainly noticed that his "two full moons in a single month assumption" would have been totally wrong.

For the blue moon date of Aug. 21 was most definitely not the second full moon that month!

Blue moon myth runs wild

Pruett's 1946 explanation was, of course, the wrong interpretation and it might have been completely forgotten were it not for Deborah Byrd who used it on her popular National Public Radio program, "StarDate" on Jan. 31, 1980.

We could almost say that in the aftermath of her radio show, the incorrect blue moon rule "went viral" — or at least the '80s equivalent of it.

Over the next decade, this new blue moon definition started appearing in diverse places, such as the World Almanac for Kids and the board game Trivial Pursuit.

I must confess here, that even I was involved in helping to perpetuate the new version of the blue moon phenomenon. Nearly 30 years ago, in the Dec. 1, 1982 edition of The New York Times, I made reference to it in that newspaper's "New York Day by Day" column.

And by 1988, the new definition started receiving international press coverage.

Today, Pruett's misinterpreted "two full moons in a month rule" is recognized worldwide. Indeed, Sky & Telescope turned a literary lemon into lemonade, proclaiming later that – however unintentional – it changed pop culture and the English language in unexpected ways.

Meanwhile, the original Maine Farmers' Almanac rule had been all but forgotten.

Playing by the (old) rules

Now, let's come back to this Sunday's full moon.

Under the old Almanac rule, this would technically be a blue moon. In the autumn season of 2010, there are four full moons:

* Sept. 23
* Oct. 22
* Nov. 21
* Dec. 21

"But wait," you might say. "Dec. 21 is the first day of winter."

And you would be correct, but only if you live north of the equator in the Northern Hemisphere. South of the equator it's the first day of summer.

In 2010, the solstice comes at 6:38 p.m. EST (2338 UT).

But the moon turns full at 3:13 a.m. EST (0813 UT). That's 15 hours and 25 minutes before the solstice occurs. So the Dec. 21 full moon occurs during the waning hours of fall and qualifies as the fourth full moon of the season.

This means that under the original Maine Almanac rule – the one promoted by Lafleur and later misinterpreted by Pruett – the third full moon of the 2010 fall season on Nov. 21 would be a blue moon.

Choose your blue moon

So what Blue Moon definition tickles your fancy? Is it the second full moon in a calendar month, or (as is the case on Sunday) the third full moon in a season with four?

Maybe it's both. The final decision is solely up to you.

Sunday's full moon will look no different than any other full moon. But the moon can change color in certain conditions.

After forest fires or volcanic eruptions, the moon can appear to take on a bluish or even lavender hue. Soot and ash particles, deposited high in the Earth's atmosphere, can sometimes make the moon appear bluish.

In the aftermath of the massive eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in June 1991, there were reports of blue moons (and even blue suns) worldwide.

Read More:- Strange story behind Sunday's 'blue' moon

Only child = Happy child ?

Now, I obviously don’t have much experience in this area, reason being I am the eldest of three kids. Of course, I get my dues of being the eldest, positive or negative.

For example, important family decisions are now always run past me (boy that makes one feel important, doesn’t it?). I am always introduced as, “This is Khristina, my eldest.” (Pride, pride) But on the other hand, I was always “reminded” to be an example to my younger siblings; yet, I always seemed to be making the mistakes.

Anyways, my point is, what is it like being an only child?

My guy, who is an only child (and only son in his immediate family), tells me when he sees others fighting with their siblings over bikes and computers, and later on in life, over property, he cannot help but feel privileged to be an only child. “We don’t have to share anything, we get all the attention, we are spoiled silly,” he guffaws.

It’s only when day to day life becomes boring is when he wishes he had a sibling, “but that is rare,” he points out.

In an interview with Rolling Stone magazine, Natalie Portman once said: “I would never have been an actress if I weren’t an only child, because my parents would never have let me be the star of the family at the expense of another child.”

In fact, the Understanding Society took up a study tracking the lives of 100,000 people in 40,000 Brit households. Here it was found on children and happiness, that:

- Seven out of 10 British teenagers are “very satisfied” with their lives.

- Children from ethnic minorities are on average happier than their white British counterparts.

But, most importantly,

- Happiness declines the more siblings there are in a household.

Okay, I may have wanted to strangle my brother once in a while, or not talk to my sister forever, but thinking of a life completely without their existence is impossible. I mean, fighting is fun too, right? And what about all the fun stuff siblings get to do together?

So, all you sibling-less or otherwise, what do you think? Is an only child ONLY a happy child? Tell me your stories.

Only child = Happy child ?

BMW 3 Series named UK's most reliable car !!

The BMW 3 Series has picked up another accolade - it's been named the UK's most reliable car in the highly respected FN50 survey.

The FN50, organised by Fleet News magazine, collects data from Britain's 50 biggest contract hire companies, whose fleets cover 1.5 million cars.

The annual survey asks the companies to name the most reliable new cars and vans on their fleets. The 3 Series came out on top this year, with Honda named the most reliable manufacturer overall. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the top commercial vehicle was the Ford Transit.

The survey is significant because fleet cars tend to rack up higher than average mileages, which is a good test of reliability. Fleet News Editor Stephen Briers said: "Businesses that depend on vehicles take reliability very seriously, and can't afford downtime through breakdowns that incur extra costs.

"This is the largest reliability survey of its kind, so any vehicle with a top ten placing will represent a safe bet for any organisation or private motorist."

Responding to Honda's top reliability placing, the company's Corporate Operations Manager Graham Avent said: "What makes it so important is the survey's size - it's great to know that out of over one million drivers, the Honda brand comes out on top."

The FN50 ten most reliable cars are as follows:

1. BMW 3 Series
2. Honda Accord
3. Audi A4
4. Nissan Qashqai
5. BMW 1 Series
6. Ford Fiesta
7. Mercedes-Benz C-Class
8. Toyota Avensis
9. Honda Civic
10. Volkswagen Golf

Most reliable commercial vehicles:

1. Ford Transit
2. Mercedes-Benz Sprinter
3. Ford Transit Connect
4. Citroen Berlingo
5. Citroen Relay
6. Vauxhall Combo
7. Nissan Navara
8. Vauxhall Vivaro
9. Volkswagen Caddy
10. Volkswagen Transporter

UK Best cars

Most Searched Words on Google !!

Most Searched Words on Google

Many of the SEO people even us, the general people, are sometimes become much eager to know the keyword trend or keyword ranking or sometimes the popularity of keywords or websites. Because if we have to popularize our website, we have to concerned about a few points such as - contents, keywords, ranking etc. As google.com is the most popular search engine today, we generally focus on Google. There are some ways to find popular keywords, most searched terms, increasing searched words etc. Without banging your head here and there, we can use google itself to gather some knowledge.

Have you heard about Google Zeitgeist ? Zeitgeist means "the spirit of the times". Google presents the aggregated results of thousands search queries around the world. There are several tools to look into these data results with the customization, you want.

Google Trends This is the simplest search option where you can view the keywords as hot topics and hot searches. If you want to know about a particular keyword, you can put it into a text box and you are done. The result will be shown regarding the trend of the keyword including Region, Cities and Languages.

source: http://www.soumyabrata.com/Article/Most-Searched-Words-on-Google.aspx