Another life cut tragically short. Michael Fortunato, who appeared on season two of MTV's Catfish series, died on Saturday, Oct. 12, of a pulmonary embolism, MTV reports. He was 26.
Fortunato's younger sister, Gena, confirmed the news on Monday, Oct. 14. An autopsy has yet to be released, but a spokesperson for the Farmington, Conn., medical examiner's office told MTV that the young man died at Hartford Hospital from a pulmonary embolism resulting from deep vein thrombosis. Other contributing factors included obesity and cardiomyopathy.
Fortunato, a New Jersey native, was one of the subjects of MTV's popular docudrama Catfish, which helps couples in online relationships meet in real life. (The term "catfish" refers to a person who creates fake personal profiles on the Internet in order to trick someone else into falling in love with him or her.)
Prior to appearing on the show, Fortunato had been in a seven-year online-only relationship with Ashley Sawyer. Their first meeting was documented in the series' 10th episode of the second season.
Sawyer told MTV that Fortunato had texted her the morning of his death about going to the hospital, but that he later changed his mind. According to Gena, he was en route to seek medical care when he swerved and hit a fence; two hours later, she got the call that he had died.
"I don't even know where to start," Gena told MTV. "He was a little kid at heart -- a gentle giant. He's somebody who put everybody before himself; everybody else came before him. The biggest heart that you'd ever meet."
Added Sawyer, 20, who told MTV she and Fortunato were "very much in love": "He would give anybody the last shirt he had -- anything. He would put his life on hold just to make sure other people moved forward. He always put people first."
Play now, pay later: consistency matters when it comes to kids and sleep.
iStockphoto.com
Parents learn the hard way that late bedtimes make for cranky kids the next day. But inconsistent bedtimes may have a greater effect on children's behavior, a study says.
Kids who didn't go to bed on a regular schedule had more behavior problems at home and at school. When those children were put to bed at the same time each night, their behavior improved.
That data came from an ongoing study of 10,230 British schoolchildren. Mothers were asked if their child had a regular bedtime during the school week. That information was collected when the children were ages 3, 5 and 7.
The mothers were also asked to complete a standardized test that measures behavior, including conduct problems, hyperactivity, emotional symptoms, problems with peers and positive behavior.
Children who went to bed after 9 p.m. were rated as having more behavior problems than children who went to bed earlier. That's no surprise; there's abundant evidence on the effects of lack of sleep on children's school performance and behavior.
But irregular bedtimes actually caused worse behavior than short sleep.
Teachers were asked to rate some of the children's behavior at age 7. They too reported more behavior problems in children with irregular bedtimes.
The good news is that the behavior problems improved when children were shifted to a more regular schedule. The scientists call that a "clear dose-response pattern." And behavior deteriorated in children who had regular bedtimes at age 5 and were on a more random plan by age 7, the parents said.
The sleep issues could affect behavior in two ways, according to the researchers at University College London. It could mess up children's circadian rhythms, which are slow to change. And it could affect maturing brain regions involved in regulation of behavior.
Pediatricians should ask about irregular bedtimes, the researchers say, not just how many hours a kid is logging.
This study has shortcomings. It doesn't report how much the children actually slept, but rather how much their mothers said they slept. And it could be that the families with random bedtimes had other problems that affected the child's behavior.
Lack of sleep causes health problems in children and adults, including weight gain and insulin resistance.
And regular bedtimes are recommended for adults too, because maintaining a regular circadian rhythm makes it easier to fall asleep and wake up on time. No word if it makes grownups less cranky. But it probably couldn't hurt.
The new season of AMC's "The Walking Dead" is just around the corner, which means one thing: Zombies are on the mind.
"Zombie culture" is everywhere these days — TV, comic books, research societies and even zombie-themed 5Ks. So since it seems the brain eaters will rise any day now, you'd better get ready. How will you stay alive among the undead?
Neuroscientist Bradley Voytek and mathematician Richard Smith? (who prefers to write his name with a question mark) have some ideas. Their tongue-in-cheek research paints dire pictures of how humanity would fare in the case of a zombie invasion. [Zombie Facts: Real and Imagined (Infographic)]
Zombie survival kit
Voytek, a postdoctoral scholar at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, said the best chance of surviving a zombie invasion involves quarantine, a body of water, and leather neck and shin guards, said Voytek.
Once a group of hardscrabble survivors sets up its defensible compound, what always happens? They let someone in who's been bitten and infected, but hasn't yet turned into a zombie.
"Anyone entering the compound from the infected zone must spend a day or two in the quarantined area," Voytek said, adding that the quarantine is the "zombie equivalent of decompression."
Then, a leather jacket with a high collar and some leather boots go a long way. "Leather is hard to bite through," Voytek told LiveScience. "This would be very effective against the surprise behind-the-shoulder or ankle-biter zombies."
If you want to survive the zombie invasion, make sure to use geography and the Earth's plentiful water to your advantage. "Corpses don't do well in water," Voytek noted. "If you can find a yacht, large boat or an island to move to, you'd fare much better."
Zombies by the numbers
Smith?, a math professor at the University of Ottawa, created a model of a fictional zombie outbreak, published in a 2009 study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
By his estimates, a city with a population of 500,000 people could become totally zombiefied in four days. But he holds out hope for human survival.
"We can actually deal with zombies," Smith? said. "We just have to be collaborative about it. If we fight them individually, we're not going to be too effective, because most individuals just aren't good at fighting. We have this illusion that we can shoot a moving being in the head from some distance, and that's just not true. But if we pool our resources, learn from experience and apply those lessons again and again, we can get better at fighting zombies as a group."
Smith?, a native Australian, also likes Voytek's water-based defense. "Assuming its origins are on the outside, Australia has geography on its side," Smith? said. "If there's a zombie on a plane — well, it takes 24 [hours] to get to Australia from almost anywhere. There's a lot better chance the zombie would infect others, take over and crash the plane rather than land in Australia."
But both Smith? and Voytek say their tongue-in-cheek zombie research is actually respected.
"Oh, I'm sure some academics turn up their noses at this, but so far, no one's done so to our faces," Voytek said. "My best defense against any complaints of dabbling in nonsense is to also continue doing really good science. I love science, and I love my job. If I have to come down from the ivory tower on occasion, I'm more than happy to do so. It's fun."
The season 4 premiere of "The Walking Dead" airs Sunday, Oct. 13, at 9 p.m. ET.
Follow us @livescience, Facebook & Google+. Original article on LiveScience.
Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
As talks between Republican and Democratic leaders lumber on in Washington, the American public sees an economic crisis looming if Congress is unable to raise the country's debt ceiling. But the people seem just as conflicted on the issue as their elected representatives.
An Associated Press-GfK poll released last week highlights the apparent conflict in public opinion. Six in 10 said that if no deal is reached and the U.S. defaults on its debts, a major economic crisis was likely. Yet only half as many, 30 percent, said they supported raising the debt limit to avoid such a default.
What gives?
There is a connection between the two questions. Those who said an economic crisis was "extremely likely" if the U.S. defaulted were most apt to say they backed an increase in the debt limit — 40 percent said they would support raising it and 17 percent said they opposed an increase in the debt limit to avoid default, while 42 percent were neutral. Similarly, those who said a crisis was unlikely were more apt to oppose raising the federal debt limit — 47 percent opposed it, 16 percent supported it and 37 percent were neutral.
The common thread? All those neutral views. On this deeply complex issue, a lot of people are just not sure what to do, regardless of how big a crisis they see in the distance. All told, nearly half of Americans say they neither support nor oppose raising the federal debt limit in order to avoid defaulting on U.S. government debts.
The plurality choosing a neutral position could reflect a public that hasn't yet sorted through the implications of such a policy change. Or it could reflect a lack of knowledge on the issue or simply a lack of strong feelings about it.
A CBS News poll conducted in early October found 77 percent of Americans would rather see an agreement on the debt ceiling that they didn't fully support than have Congress not reach an agreement and see the U.S. default on its debts.
A separate question in the AP-GfK poll prompted a similar response: Just 10 percent said they thought Congress should avoid increasing the debt ceiling under any circumstances, while 41 percent would support an increase if it is made at the same time as significant spending cuts, and 44 percent would support an increase with a separate debate on spending and deficits.
The AP-GfK Poll was conducted Oct. 3-7 and involved online interviews with 1,227 adults. The survey had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points for all respondents.
The survey used GfK's KnowledgePanel, a probability-based Internet panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Respondents to the survey were first selected randomly using phone or mail survey methods and were later interviewed for this survey online. People selected for KnowledgePanel who didn't have online access were given that access at no cost to them.
___
Online:
AP-GfK Poll: http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com
___
Follow Jennifer Agiesta on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/JennAgiesta
Christmas has come early this year and it comes in the form of Orlando Bloom in nothing but a sock!
That’s right, a sock.
Apparently, the Romeo & Julietbroadway star was filming a movie at the beginning of this year when he decided to get buck wild and strip down next to nothing!
He revealed to Andy Cohen and the Watch What Happens Live audience that it doesn’t take much for him to go nude!
Orly answered the viewer's nudetastic question by saying:
“Well you’re in luck. Earlier this year I spent about seven days on set wearing just a cock sock because I'm nude in a film called Zulu."
Um, he wore nothing but a sock for seven days and there aren’t any pictures to show for it?!
We are so jealous of the production team — they probably got an eyeful. LOLz!
Don’t believe us? Ch-ch-check out the clip (below)!!
Did you hear about the professor who wrote all the financial advice you’ll ever need onto one index card?
If not, take a look. It’s remarkably accurate and comprehensive. Usually I spend 1000 words or more trying to get one idea across. This week, I’m going to make every sentence count.
Here’s the maximum amount of financial advice I can offer in a single column.
(Incidentally, I was also inspired by Morgan Housel’s Motley Fool column, 43 Thoughts About Investing and the Economy.)
If you can’t find something to disagree with among these 27 tips, I’m not trying hard enough.
Saving
There is no shame in using tricks to get yourself to save money. Use multiple savings accounts; put your credit card in the freezer; set up automated transfers. Whatever works for you is fine.
Think of your next raise as an opportunity to save more, not an opportunity to spend more.
The best way to make saving a habit isn’t skipping lattes; it’s keeping your housing and transportation expenses low.
Credit
Credit cards are useful, dangerous power tools. Using them frequently makes it more likely that you’ll cut your thumb off. A lot of sad stories begin, “I always paid off my credit card every month, until…”
Check your free annual credit reports for errors.
Credit scores are simpler than you think. If you pay your bills on time, you’ll have a good credit score. If you don’t, you won’t.
Insurance
If someone depends on your income, buy life insurance—boring term life insurance, not whole or universal.
Insure against financial disasters, not annoyances. Buy renters or homeowner’s insurance, car insurance, disability insurance, and health insurance.
By the same token, never buy extended warranties, smartphone insurance, travel insurance, or payment protection plans.
Investing
It’s possible to beat the market, but it’s so unlikely, you should never try. Invest in inexpensive index funds or target-date funds.
Max out your tax-advantaged accounts (401(k), IRA) before investing in a taxable account.
Don’t invest in anything that promises impressive returns with little or no risk.
College
Student loans are awful. If you’re a middle-class family, plan to send your kids to a community college, in-state public university, military academy, or elite private college.
The rest are unaffordable without massive debt—and don’t provide a better education.
Retirement saving comes before college saving. If you can’t afford to save for college, don’t.
Even if you can’t afford to save now, open a 529 college savings plan for grandparents or other family members to contribute to.
Buying a house
Aggressively paying down a mortgage is usually better than investing.
The best measure of your readiness to buy a house is the size of your down payment. Be wary of making a down payment under 20%, even through a government loan program.
Stretching to buy more house than you can afford leads to painful and avoidable financial misery.
Taxes
Again, the best way to save on taxes is to contribute to your 401(k) or other retirement plan. Clever tax-avoidance schemes are often illegal and almost always stupid.
Your tax rate will probably drop in retirement, even if taxes go up overall.
If you always hire someone to do your taxes, try doing it yourself (with tax software) once. If you always do it yourself, try hiring someone. Either way, you might save money or learn something.
Family matters
Couples have assorted ways of merging and managing their finances. It’s a practical issue, not a moral one.
Having said that, couples who intend to spent retirement together should look at their investment portfolio as a single unit.
Forcing kids to save or donate part of their allowance deprives them of the opportunity to learn worthwhile lessons.
Grab bag
“Don’t try to keep up with the Joneses” sounds like the most facile advice.
In practice, it’s among the most difficult: it means voluntarily living in a way different from most of your peer group. At least some of the time, you’ll feel deprived and your peers will feel judged.
Luck plays a bigger part in our financial success or failure than most of us want to believe. Forgetting this is bad karma. Nearly everyone should own US savings bonds.
What would you add? Let’s hear your financial wisdom at its pithiest.
Matthew Amster-Burton is a personal finance columnist at Mint.com. Find him on Twitter @Mint_Mamster.
White House press secretary Jay Carney uses a visual aid comparing what Republican lawmakers said against what financial leaders said as he briefs reporters at the White House Thursday.
Charles Dharapak/AP
Thursday's White House briefing came just after House Republicans offered to raise the debt ceiling for six weeks, without reopening the government.
"I expect I know at least some of the questions you'll ask," said White House press secretary Jay Carney.
Everyone in the room wanted to know two things: 1) Will the president sign a "clean," six-week debt limit increase? 2) Will he then negotiate with Republicans over the budget, even if the government is still shut down?
On the first question about the debt limit, Carney was relatively clear, if verbose:
"It would be far better for the economy if we stop this episodic brinksmanship and mothball the nuclear weapon, a threat of default, for a longer duration. But it's certainly at least an encouraging sign that based on today's statement by the speaker they're not listening to the debt limit and default deniers, who seem to suggest against all the accumulated wisdom of financial experts that it'd be OK for the U.S. to enter territory it's never entered before, and default for the first time in our history."
In other words, yes.
Obama would very likely sign a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling for six weeks. Except Carney then added a question of his own:
"If there's a recognition we can't default, why is there this insistence that you [meaning Republicans] keep the nuclear weapon in your back pocket to threaten default in the near term?"
On negotiations, Carney was a bit mushier.
"Can I ask a very straightforward question?" asked ABC's Jonathan Karl. "Is the president willing to engage in budget negotiations with Republicans if the government is still shut down?"
Carney explained that Obama will have "conversations" but won't pay a "ransom."
"If the Republicans think, or the Tea Party that is driving Republican decision-making thinks, that they can extract concessions by punishing the American people, by punishing the American economy to get what they want, the answer is no. The president is meeting with House Republicans today, so the idea that this is about having a conversation, well, they're having a conversation today."
Of course, one man's negotiation is another man's conversation is another man's ransom.
After Carney spoke for a few more minutes, Karl dryly noted, "That was a very long answer to a yes or no question."
"Our position is clear," Carney replied, though it was clearly not.
"I think we ought to see whether they're serious about putting the matches and the gasoline aside," he said.
At that point, the convoluted nonanswers had gotten to be too much.
Typically the White House briefing room is a reserved place, where people wait their turn to speak. It was not my turn to speak.
But I couldn't help it.
"You see it as a ransom, but it's a metaphor that doesn't serve our purposes," I protested to Carney. "We're trying to be accurate in our description of what's going on."
Finally, I tried to sum up what we'd learned so far.
"You said we need to see whether they're serious about putting the matches and gasoline aside. You've also said they want to keep a nuclear weapon in their back pocket. So, is keeping the nuclear weapon in the back pocket the same as putting the matches and gasoline aside? Or, even better, can we stop talking matches and gasoline and nuclear weapons and start talking about what's actually happening?"
Carney's response was not much clearer.
But an hour later, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid emerged from a White House meeting with the president and was asked whether he would negotiate with Republicans over the budget if the government were still partially shut down.
"Not gonna happen," said Reid.
Three simple words. Now that wasn't so hard, was it?
