Tum hi hu Translate in English Cannot live away from you for a moment Ashiqui 2 songs

Cannot live away from you for a moment

Only for you each day I live

My all life all time I give you

I wish there should be no moment without you

On every breath your name is written

Because only you are

Now you are

Now my life it is only you

My peace and pain

Now you are my love

Because only you are

Now you are

Now you are my love

Kelly Clarkson: Pink Is Only Human, Relax On The Criticism

Kelly Clarkson says Pink is only human, in case anyone forgot.

After Pink came down with an illness last month and was forced to cancel a show in England, fans called out the singer and accused her of skipping out on the commitment. But it was actually on doctor’s orders that Pink begged out of the Birmingham, England, concert last month, and she was unable to reschedule it.

It wasn’t exactly as if Pink was playing hookey either. She told fans she had an ear and respiratory infection as well as rotavirus, a condition that causes fever, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pains.
“I had absolutely no choice in the matter, no control over the circumstances, and physically could not get my sick a– on stage,” she said. “Even a doctor told me I could not go on stage whether I wanted to or not,” Pink wrote to fans.
After watching the criticism mount, Kelly Clarkson defended Pink with a facetious post on WhoSay: “How dare you only work 364 days this year. I can’t believe you got sick. That never happens to anyone ….ever. You’re so lazy.”
For good measure, Clarkson included a big hashtag: “Name one person that has her schedule, sings while flying and is a mom.”
Clarkson concluded: “Seriously people. Tired of seeing everyone giving her crap. We’re all human. Relax.”
Pink herself had responded to the critics in a long and emotional message to fans last week.
“The next time I schedule dates- ill [sic] have to say to myself–’if, God forbid I have to cancel one show, those fans will turn on me like rabid dogs and question the moral fabric of my character.’ For the loyal and understanding fans–I am so so sorry if I’ve hurt you in any way. For the rest of you–Kindly kiss my entire almost back to healthy a**.”
Pink added: “That’s why I never phone it in. I go on stage and pour my f—ing heart and body out on that stage. I ruin my body and my vocal chords, make myself sicker, come hell or high water. I don’t lip sync, I don’t rely on dancers to do my work for me. I try to put the best show on that I can, that any human being can, and I don’t stop until I know you’re happy.”
Kelly Clarkson and Pink have had each others’ back before. When Clarkson won a Grammy earlier this year, Pink tweeted a message of support: “Congrats to Kelly Clarkson for the award and that loveable speech.
Kelly Clarkson tweeted back to Pink: “this just made my night! I love you!”

Alessandra Ambrosio: Mommy Duty In Santa Monica

Tending to her parental responsibilities, Alessandra Ambrosio took her son Noah to a doctor’s appointment in SoCal yesterday afternoon (May 8).

The Victoria’s Secret stunner looked springtime sexy in a lime green sweater over a coral top with distressed jeans and strappy sandals as she carried her little guy to the medical center.

In a recent interview, Alessandra shared some of her summer wardrobe preferences and it sounds like she tends to keep it pretty simple.

Ambrosio explained, “In the summer I wear shorts with a bright top and ankle boots or just sandals. I'll add a nice scarf, maybe a hat, some cool sunglasses. It’s all about the accessories.”

Lisa Lampanelli: I've Lost 106 Pounds!

Lisa Lampanelli has lost a total of 106 pounds in the last 13 months, according to In Touch

"I'm officially a skinny bi---!" she told the magazine.

Since undergoing gastric-sleeve surgery on April 9, 2012, the comedienne has been able to maintain a slender frame thanks to exercise and portion control. And at 142 pounds, Lampanelli told In Touch, "I feel like I've reached the weight I'm supposed to be."

But, her work isn't over. "I have to figure out my addiction issue and how I even got overweight in the first place," she said.

‘Game Of Thrones’ King Richard Madden to Play Prince in Disney’s ‘Cinderella’

The King of the North will now be a Disney Prince. Richard Madden, who plays Rob Stark in HBO’s Game of Thrones, has been cast in Kenneth Branagh‘s live-action remake of Cinderella as the Prince. He was rumored to be up for the role in April and now officially joins a cast that includes Lily James (Downton Abbey) as Cinderella andCate Blanchett as the wicked stepmother.

Selena Gomez Countersues Perfume Company

Last month she became the target of a lawsuit from the Adrenalina perfume company for allegedly skipping out of an endorsement deal, but now Selena Gomez is firing back with an attack of her own.

The “Wizards of Waverly Place” babe just filed a countersuit claiming that Adrenalina actually owes her millions of dollars.

Gomez’s documents state that the company went bankrupt and didn’t have the money to make or promote her signature scent.

And since Adrenalina promised Selena a 5% royalty on the sales of her scents (guaranteed minimum of $5.2 million), she’s requesting they pay up!

Halle Berry Rocks Leather Pants While Shopping in WeHo!

Halle Berry is a fashionista in black leather pants as she heads towards Sunset Kids on Wednesday (May 8) in West Hollywood, Calif. The 46-year-old pregnant actress tried to do some shopping at the children’s clothing store, however, was surprised to learn that it was closed! PHOTOS: Check out the latest pics of Halle Berry Last week, Halle hit up the Kinara Spa for some pregnancy pampering in Los Angeles. 15+ pictures inside of Halle Berry wearing her leather pants while out doing some shopping in WeHo…

World War Z's Behind-The-Scenes Breakdown Is A Must-Read

If you follow the movie industry closely, there's nothing more fascinating than an autopsy of a disaster, when the people behind a film get away from the promotional speak and soundbites and really dig into what made a film fall apart. It's rare to get that level of candor at any point, but it's practically impossible to get it before a film opens. Which is what makes Vanity Fair's cover story on World War Z an absolute, stop-everything must-read.

Brad Pitt doesn't chime in on the various setbacks and disasters on the film, and the conversations with Marc Forster aren't especially enlightening-- talking about a film that endured expensive reshoots and a complete rewrite of the third act, Forster says "For me, it’s like, I had a good time on this film. I didn’t feel like it was a big drama." But conversations with many other people on the project, including Pitt's Plan B producing partner Dede Gardner and Damon Lindelof, who was brought in to rewrite the film's ending, reveal a film that ran into all kinds of problems that might tank a smaller film. Millions of dollars of debts from the film's first shooting location, in Malta, went unpaid because someone lost the forms in a drawer. They shot an entire battle scene set in Russia even when everyone on the film now admits (with 20/20 hindsight) that they knew it didn't work for the script. And while Forster denies pervasive rumors that he and Pitt stopped speaking to each other on set, he admitted his falling-out with the film's on-set visual effects supervisor: “John Nelson and I, it was a chemistry thing." Nelson, who won an Oscar for Gladiator, was replaced during post-production.

Of course, these are all just standalone facts, and you've really got to read the whole thing for a story that sounds a whole lot more interesting than the version of World War Z that we'll see onscreen on June 21. From the moment Forster made the decision to adapt Max Brooks's heady novel as an action-packed adventure, the whole thing seemed to snowball into a mass of bad decisions. But did Lindelof and co-writer Drew Goddard manage to right the ship? More importantly, do you feel remotely inspired to pay for a ticket to this and find out for yourself? 

The Dastardly Benefits of iOS Homogenization

The Android OS offers a world of customization. Apple's iOS? Not so much, unless setting a child's picture as wallpaper is your idea of customization. So why does iOS kick Android to the curb when it comes to mobile Web browsing, shopping and app purchases? Don't tell the advertising genuises who came up with Apple's "Think Different" campaign, but maybe it's getting everybody to think the same that spurs such iOS success.

Google's Android offers up more cool homescreens and customizations than Apple's iOS. In iOS, you get to jiggle your stack of icons around on the iPhone or iPad homescreen and swap out the background photo.

Woohoo. I can hardly contain my excitement.

There are no live tiles, like Windows Phone. There are no fancy weather images, no retro themes, no widgets -- no creativity, really.

At the same time, anyone in my family and friends network can call me up and ask me questions about how to do something with their iPhone or iPad, and usually I can walk them through it. If I'm sitting next to them, I can show them. But hand me an Android phone, and I have to spend some time figuring it out, what I'm looking at, how it behaves, and then make sure I show them the simplest series of steps to get from A to B.

Not that most iPhone owners need help very often.

And therein lies the problem.

iPhone and iPad owners get such a powerful boost of productivity by having a set of simple-to-use tools. My argument is that they can get to know their iPhones better than other smartphone users (on average, of course).

Consequently, we get the proof in the near-constant flow of reports that say how iOS dominates mobile Web browsing usage, shopping usage, app buying usage, etc. All that comes despite an influx of Android-based tablets and a gazillion Android phones.

The latest report came in the form of a research note released by Piper Jaffray's longtime Apple analyst Gene Munster, who said that not only is iOS the leading platform in the U.S., but that its "users are generally more engaged with their mobile devices."

Another noted Apple watcher, John Gruber of Daring Fireball fame, made a point recently on an Android vs. iOS Branch.com topic that despite the distasteful notion, iPhone customers might be better customers than your average Android customer. Not better people, not smarter people, but perhaps just more likely to be engaged as a customer who gets the most out of their chosen phone or tablet.

I think there's more to it than that. I think there's been a tendency for Apple fans -- especially the older ones -- to have made a very conscious choice about what they were buying.

These customers have been engaged in mobile browsing habits for years. Many Android users are newer, fresher to in-the-hand browsing, buying, researching and playing. The Apple App Store ecosystem, along with iTunes, is just so much larger and stable -- if not staid -- than everything else. That also plays a role.

This is all rah-rah Apple stuff here. Cheerleaders unite. So what? There's a piece, though, that I don't like about the iOS's larger share of utilization: Our lack of customization.

By design we have a very finely limited set of options. Very few tools. They work, though. I can build a house with a hammer and a hand saw. I know how to do that, and I can build a lot of great designs. But sometimes, I'd prefer a nail gun and a compound miter saw. I'm not a professional home builder, but dammit, I know how to use a nail gun without shooting myself in the foot.

To get pro-grade customization options on my iPhone 5, however, I have to jailbreak it and climb down into that rabbit hole.

Think Different? Yeah, Right

So in 2013, I'm finding myself at odds with Apple over its lack of customization, particularly when it comes to iOS.
I grew up on Apple. I was an Apple fan when it wasn't even cool to be an Apple fan. I thought different, just like the famous "Think Different" advertising campaign encouraged. I aligned myself with a laid-back "Mac" instead of the uptight "PC" TV ads. By the way, that Mac could do so many things easily.
But now, my iPhone 5 is pretty much like every other iPhone 5. Sure, I can set a photo or wallpaper-ish graphic as my lockscreen and my homescreen, but that's about it. Sure, I can choose from half a billion apps to place on the homescreen and dock, but it's still just a bunch of app icons acting and looking like a stack of app icons.
There's very little personality here.
Maybe the secret to Apple's success is getting everyone to think the same.
Before Apple fans get all angry and upset at the blasphemy, do some Web searches on "cool android home screens" or even "windows phone home screens." It starts getting really bad when you dive into sites like Lifehacker, which has a section on featured Android home screens. Some of them are simply cool, some are super-useful, and some are both. Some require modifications, but not all.
And what about iPhone home screens? Lifehacker has an article for iOS users, too -- but by the third paragraph, Lifehacker admits that all the customizations it features in the article can only happen with a jailbroken iPhone.
Wonderful.
But some of those home screen images caught your attention, did they not?

Benefits to Limited Option Homogenized Usage Patterns?

The problem with this customization argument is that by reducing our choices, by limiting our options, does Apple actually create a world where it wins everywhere else? Better mobile browsing usage? More mobile buying? Deeper, stronger loyalty?
Doesn't that fly in the face of reason? If I could customize my homescreen appearance, loading up on apps and widgets and notifications in ways that give me all the great stuff I want most, wouldn't that make me more loyal? More happy?
You would think so. Yet what if Apple researched all this? What if it's not just a compelling need to control the environment -- to make it easier for Geniuses to cut through the clutter and fix problems? To teach? To let a guy help Grandma figure out how to take photos and send texts -- all done during a landline conversation without even touching her iPhone to tell her how?
What if the principle of lack of control makes us more creative, or more likely to engage with other parts of our apps? More likely to use the browser than some guy who was sold a smartphone by a cellular service agent and bought it because the price was right? What if the fanciness acts as a barrier to touch, to exploration, to actually use day-to-day?
Back to the house building idea: If I only have a limited number of tools I can use to build a house, I'm going to get extraordinarily good using a hammer and a handsaw. Most days, my iPhone 5 feels like a finely crafted and well-balanced hammer. And that's cool. For a while.
Eventually, though, most every home builder drops the hammer and resorts to power tools.

Linux, Freedom and Cold Cash

"Linux is IMHO some of the best software out there," said Linux Rants blogger Mike Stone. "All things being equal, I'd pay for Linux." At the same time, however, "part of what I love about Linux is the freedom that comes with it. Software that you have to pay for isn't free -- as in freedom -- so that would definitely take away some of what I love about the OS."

Well it's spring storm season in many parts of the world, so it should come as no great surprise that we've had some storms here in the Linux blogosphere as well.

Just in the last few weeks we've had the bank that decided Windows was cheaper; we've had the shockingly FUD-filled FOSS survey; and we've had less-than-entirely-flattering words saidabout Linux's waistline, to name just a few examples.

Stormy debates have followed many of these, as one might expect, and there doesn't seem to be any end in sight to that pattern. The latest example? None other than one of TuxRadar's ever-intriguing Open Ballot polls.

'Would You Pay for Linux?'

"Depending on how you pay for it, you'll probably have to part with at least fifty quid for Windows 8, and double (or more) for OS X, and they come with almost no software compared to the average Linux distribution," the TuxRadar team began. "Yet almost all Linux distributions are free as in zero-cost.

"We've got a simple question for you: would you (or indeed, do you) pay for Linux?" they asked.

The question had barely hit the airwaves when the stampede began, with blogger after blogger racing to the scene to share their opinions. Luckily for her readers, Linux Girl was there, Quick Quotes Quill at the ready.

'Still a Bargain'

"Yes," began Slashdot blogger yagu, for example. "Actually have a number of times.

"Considering the value-add to my life and career, it's been worth it to me to pay for distributions either by contribution (voluntary) or some service fee," yagu explained. "Linux, even at a modest price, perhaps $20-50, still a bargain."

Indeed, "not only would I pay for Linux, but I think it would be a good idea," agreed Google+ blogger Kevin O'Brien. "When something is free of charge, no one cares what you think as a user. But when users are also customers who provide cash to the project, they are a force to be reckoned with.

"Think of some big change you disagree with, then ask yourself if it would have happened if the paying customers had objected to it," O'Brien added.

'I Would and I Do'

"I already pay for Linux," consultant and Slashdot blogger Gerhard Mack told Linux Girl. "My yearly Linux Foundation membership is my way of making sure that Linux development continues."
Similarly, "yes, I would pay for Linux, and indeed I do," agreed Google+ blogger Brett Legree.
Yet while Linux may be "free as in zero *financial* cost, there are other costs involved with everything, and software is no different," Legree pointed out. "Let us call them opportunity costs."

'I Would Be Willing to Pay'

As a husband and a father of four who runs a consulting business on the side, exercises regularly, and works full-time as a nuclear engineer, "my personal time is worth a lot of money to me," Legree explained.
So, "any time spent doing something that I didn't intend to do is a lost opportunity to do something that I would rather be doing," he added.
"Yes, the average Linux distribution does come with a LOT of software compared with Windows or OS X (yay Notepad & TextEdit), but sadly in my own experience it can also come with issues like kernel regressions, poor power management, generic drivers and so forth," Legree said.
"I would be willing to pay for a distribution that is stable and provides good support to take care of all of these things, but is a little more up to date -- something in between Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Fedora would be ideal for me," he concluded.
"Telling me that 'Linux is not only free but better because it comes with LibreOffice and GIMP and...' doesn't really hold a lot of water, unless you suddenly can't download and install all of those programs for Windows 8 and OS X," Legree added.

'I'll Use the Free One'

"I have no problem paying for good software, and Linux is IMHO some of the best software out there," began Linux Rants blogger Mike Stone. "All things being equal, I'd pay for Linux."
At the same time, however, "part of what I love about Linux is the freedom that comes with it," Stone added. "Software that you have to pay for isn't free (as in freedom), so that would definitely take away some of what I love about the OS."
Google+ blogger Gonzalo Velasco C. had a similar view.
"If all OSes are to be paid for, I'd certainly pay for a complete GNU/Linux suite," he began. "I'm sure it would be cheaper, and then I'll demand that the programmers make it as close to perfection as they can."
If there's a free option, however, "I'll use the free one, and contribute whenever I can," he concluded.

'It Would Raise the Cost'

"If I were in the market for a PC and retail shelves offered GNU/Linux, I would pay for it," blogger Robert Pogson concurred. "It's probably worth $10-$20 for a download, too, but with FLOSS that's not a sure income for most organizations, and it would raise the cost and complexity of shipping a distro."
What would make more sense is "for OEMs and large organizations to fund/support the distro of their choice in lieu of paying licensing fees," Pogson suggested. "That way, they have more control over the process and they get less expensive software by sharing with upstream."
In fact, "a lot of that happens with the Linux kernel and a few other applications widely used and valued by organizations supplying money, hardware and manpower," he noted.

The Virtues of Donations

The reality is that "there isn't a good way now for the world to support small FLOSS organizations/projects except by donations," Pogson opined.
"In the future it may be possible for profitable distros to share the wealth with their upstream suppliers -- RedHat, IBM, Dell, HP, SUSE and Ubuntu are doing that in several ways," he explained. "Others supply bandwidth, servers, employment, training, support and storage for distros and projects.
"The ecosystem is diverse and it seems to be working," Pogson concluded. "I expect it will scale as more users of GNU/Linux develop. It would be great if retail sales included a contribution to a foundation to support FLOSS, possibly similar to copyright fees paid for CDs."

'I Would Not Pay'

The problem with paying for software is that "one is usually paying for restrictions on that software," suggested Chris Travers, a blogger who works on the LedgerSMB project. "These restrictions usually reach what you can make out of the software."
Travers recently blogged on that very topic, he noted.
"The promise of open source is that of democratized access to software as a means of production, and license agreements interfere with that," he explained. "In the end, no, I would not pay for the privilege of someone telling me what I can or cannot make out of the software."

'I Don't Think I Would Pay'

The TuxRadar article, however, "goes with a more conventional approach to trying to monetize open source software, which is selling access to developers, usually under the heading of 'support,'" Travers noted.
"Unfortunately support agreements usually end up looking a lot like software license agreements from a property ownership perspective, and so I don't think I would pay money directly to a distribution for something critical like a support agreement unless I really liked the terms."
That said, "there are important indirect ways people (including myself) pay for Linux, and the biggest is contributing development time," he added. "Obviously non-developers cannot do this, but with bounty systems, non-developers can often pay developers for a (sometimes small) piece of a development project and thus collectively leverage cash in the way the article suggests."
In short, "I don't really think paying for a distribution outside of critical support under favorable terms is likely to be a good way to go," Travers concluded. "I think that paying for the software by helping to sponsor development (which one then effectively owns, in the sense of having the right to utilize to make products of one's choice) is a better way to go."

'Not Worth Anything to Me'

Last but not least, Slashdot blogger hairyfeet took the "no" answer even further.
"The current situation is a mess and therefore not worth anything to me," hairyfeet told Linux Girl. "I can take a disk with a 4-year-old driver in it, slap it into my drive and in 15 minutes the hardware is up and running.
"Can you do the same in Linux? Nope, because the driver model is set up all stupid in Linux," he said.
"So would I pay for Linux? Not unless the QA and support went WAY up, and I just don't see that happening," hairyfeet concluded. "A few companies have tried in the past, but none have been able to come close to the amount of support I get from that $80 copy of Windows Home."

By the Numbers: The Kardashians Have Collectively Lost 431 Pounds

Everyone's always like, "Why are the Kardashians even famous? What's their talent?" And this whole time the answer has been staring us right in the face in supermarket checkout aisles: they are highly skilled at losing weight—inhumanly so. In less than four years, the three sisters have managed to drop an impressive 431 pounds. Wow, that QuickTrim is more effective than malaria!

The family is acutely aware of which side their bread is buttered: their bodies. And they've used those butter bodies to make money through diet supplement endorsements that they advertise through tabloid exclusives about how they lost x amount of weight in x amount of time.

Khloe was the one who really got that butter ball rolling, having the first—and most—stories about her weight loss. Since July 2009, she's graced the covers of 11 tabloids, losing between 10 - 30 pounds each time around.

July 15, 2009: "Kim helped me lose 20 lbs in four weeks" -20

September 9, 2009: "Get thin fast" -25

October 7, 2009: "Don't call me fat!" -25

May 26, 2010: "Lose 12 lbs. in 3 weeks" -12

June 22, 2011: "How Kloe lost 10 lbs" -10

May 30, 2012: "Dropped 20 lbs. in 20 days" -20

November 7, 2012: "Lost 10 lbs." -10

April 3, 2013: "I'm the hot sister now!" -25
April 3, 2013: "20 lbs in 3 months" -20

May 1, 2013: "Dropped 30 pounds" -30

TOTAL LOSS OF 197 POUNDS LOST

Kourtney's weight-loss narrative makes a little more sense since she had two children in as many years. Still, the amount of combined pounds lost credited to her are probably more than she's ever weighed in life, including when she was pregnant.

January 20, 2010: "My diet secrets: lose 10 lbs in 10 days" -10

March 31, 2010: "How I lost 33 pounds" -33

December 29, 2010: "Kourtney's lost 45 lbs!" -45

November 7, 2012: "Lost 40 pounds" -40

January 2, 2013: "Lost 44 pounds" -44

TOTAL LOSS OF 172 POUNDS

Kim, who has the most famous of the body of the Kardashians—or at least, has the most seenbody of the Kardashians, thanks to her video adventures with Ray J—has received the cruelest treatment from the tabloids, as she's the only one whose weight gain has ever been pointed out, thanks to blow-by-blow coverage of her pregnancy. According to the tabloids, she's gained about 150 lbs halfway through her gestation.

September 9, 2009: Also featured in the "Get thin fast" article, but there's no number value

January 6, 2010: "How I lost 15 lbs!" -15

May 26, 2010: "Lose 12 lbs. in 3 weeks" -12

December 29, 2010: "Gained and lost 10 pounds in three weeks" +10/-10

February 16, 2011: "How Kim lost 10 pounds" -10

May 9, 2012: "Drops 15 lbs for Kanye" -15

March 6, 2013: "65 pound weight gain" +65

March 20, 2013: "Blowing up to 200 lbs" +85

April 3, 2013: "Dumped at 200 lbs"

April 10, 2013: "Now up to 205 lbs" +5

TOTAL LOSS OF 62 POUNDS

TOTAL GAIN OF 165

In total: the Kardashians lost 431.

658 pounds, in all, were discussed.

Jake Gyllenhaal & Anna Chlumsky: Words of War Event

Jake Gyllenhaal suits up while attending the Headstrong Project’s First Ever Words of War Event on Wednesday (May 8) in New York City.

The 32-year-old actor was joined at the event by pregnant actress Anna Chlumsky and Zero Hour‘s Anthony Edwards.

Words of War supports comprehensive mental healthcare for military veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. The event featured a presentation of wartime poetry, literature, theater and letters that articulate the exuberance and ideals that drive men to war, the thrill and horror of combat, the difficulties of returning home, and the experience of family members worried about their loved ones at war.

During the evening, Jake read the poem “Dulce et Decorum Est,” by Wilfred Owen and also donated $5,000 towards the cause.

25+ pictures inside of Jake Gyllenhaal at the Words of War event…

NINA DOBREV & IAN SOMERHALDER Have ‘The Vampire Diaries’ Co-Stars Split

Longtime couple Nina Dobrev and Ian Somerhalder have split after three years of dating, according toUs Weekly. A “source” spilled the beans about ‘The Vampire Diaries‘ co-stars. The source claims:

“[Nina and Ian] consummate professionals [and] will continue to work together and remain best friends, which is where the relationship started.”

Talk about awkward! If Nina and Ian have indeed split, then hopefully they’ll be able to work together without it being too difficult. Reps for Ian and Nina declined to comment to Us Weekly. This makes me think it might be true but has happened recently, so no one is ready to talk publicly. Otherwise, why not just deny it? We’ll see…