Four Ways to Put Your Stuff in the Cloud

The technology industry brings us a smorgasbord of wonderful stuff that goes on forever. I'm profoundly grateful. But I've never understood its long-standing infatuation with one of its most famous inventions: buzzwords. About 90% of the ones it creates are confusing rather than clarifying, especially since few catch on with the non-geek majority. Cloud computing — the most pervasive buzzword du jour — is particularly pointless. Cloud is a synonym for the Internet, a concept we've all understood reasonably well for 15 or more years. Why rename it now?

The fact that I grouse about the terminology doesn't mean I'm skeptical about the idea it describes. Actually, I love the idea of keeping photos, music, video and other files on the Internet. Doing so means I can get to my goodies from my laptop, my smart phone and my iPad, without trying to remember which items I stored where. And having an online backup or two of essential files is a humongous relief if your hard drive goes kerflooey — as so many drives will, sooner or later.

Putting your digital possessions in the cloud isn't tough. There are a bunch of sensible ways to do it, each with its own upsides, plus a downside or two. Herewith, a quick guide to four of them.

1. Sync everything everywhere.

The simplest way to store your stuff in the cloud is to keep saving it on your computer's hard drive, just as you've been doing forever. All you need is a synching service that instantly and silently clones the contents of folders you specify to all your computers as well as to an online drive where everything's available all the time.

Box.net and SugarSync will give you 5 GB of space for free, which is more than enough to judge whether their offerings will make your life easier. (Longtime fan favorite Dropbox offers a more parsimonious 2 GB; it also suffered from an unnerving security glitch last month that briefly let anyone log into any account without providing a password.) Besides providing software for Windows PCs and Macs, all these services have apps for iPhones and Android handsets that give you on-the-go access to the files you've synched from one or more computers.

The biggest gotcha with synching is that it can get unaffordable fast, especially if you want to shuttle copious amounts of disk-hogging videos as well as relatively slender files such as photos and MP3s. If I wanted to use SugarSync to back up the entire contents of my MacBook Air's solid-state drive, I'd need to spring for the 250-GB plan, which costs $24.99 a month or $249.99 a year. Instead, I'm selective — I make do with the 30-GB version, which is $4.99 a month or $49.99 a year.

One other tip: synching services only work if you're running their software on all your computers and it's functioning properly. I've occasionally discovered that such utilities have quietly conked out without me noticing. It pays to check them from time to time to make sure they're moving files back and forth as promised.

2. Use one or more online storage services for little or nothing.

With services such as Box, Dropbox and SugarSync, you've got two options: limit your uploads to a few gigabytes and pay nothing, or pay a monthly fee for more space. Or you could ignore them altogether for one or more services that provide more spartan online storage at much lower price tags.

Last week, for instance, Amazon.com started allowing anyone who pays for its Cloud Drive service to upload an unlimited quantity of music. There are some catches, but for $20 a year you can store all your MP3s on the Web, plus another 20 GB of files of any type — a good, budget-minded alternative to a synching service.

For photos and videos, Google's Picasa Web Albums service is even more tightwad-friendly: 20 GB of storage costs a measly $5 a year. And you might not even need to pay that much, since photos of less than 2048-by-2048 resolution and videos that run for less than 15 minutes don't count against your freebie allotment of 1 GB of space.

And then there's Microsoft's SkyDrive, which gives you 25 GB of Web-based space for anything, for free.

All these services have a no-frills feel compared to their pricier rivals. Cloud Drive and Picasa don't do fancy automatic synching of files of all sorts, and SkyDrive does it only for 5 GB of files, and only in conjunction with a low-profile Microsoft service called Live Mesh. But if they give you what you need, the price is certainly right.

3. Put a hard drive on the Web.

I have more than a few tech-savvy friends who instinctively bristle at the notion of entrusting their prized files to a SugarSync, a Google or anybody else. Rather than pay for the privilege of uploading data to distant servers in undisclosed locations, they prefer to keep it at home under their own supervision. Fine. It's possible to do that while also putting your files in the cloud, by using a storage device that piggybacks on your home network's Internet connection to make your content available (with password protection) on any Net-connected device.

Storage systems that do this abound, such as Western Digital's My Book World Edition and Iomega's Home Media Drive Cloud Edition. I like Buffalo's CloudStor, which starts at $159.99 for a version that packs a 1-TB hard drive. Its built-in software, powered by a clever service called PogoPlug, makes setting up the drive and reaching your files from any browser just about painless, with no knowledge of networking minutiae required. All 1 TB (or more) of disk space is up for grabs — a mammoth amount of real estate by cloud-based storage standards.

My major reservation about these gizmos is the same one that makes them appealing to many folks: they don't duplicate your files to a remote server. For priceless treasures like your best family photos, you don't just want to have a backup — you want backups of your backups. And — not to get too depressing here — it's best if some of the backups are stored somewhere other than your house, just in case disaster strikes. Unlike my more paranoid pals, I'm comfortable allowing outfits like SugarSync and Google to manage my data. They'll surely do a better job of backing everything up than I would if left to my own devices.

4. Put your computer on the Web.

Still reading? Maybe you don't care to use a fully Web-based service and don't want to invest in a networked storage device. If so, you still have options in the form of software that can put the contents of any PC on your home network onto the Internet. For instance, PogoPlug (the software I admire in Buffalo's CloudStor) is also available as a stand-alone, downloadable version for Windows and Macs. Install it on a computer and run it at all times, and it gathers up all the photos, music, videos and other files on the computer and lets you access them from any browser and from PogoPlug's apps for the iPhone, iPad and Android. As with the CloudStor version, it's about as hassle-free as networking gets, and there's a less-powerful free version.

Even more than with networked drives, it's important to remember that the PogoPlug software isn't a substitute for a backup strategy. And it requires you to leave your computer on, something that's more plausible if you own a desktop PC that stays put than if you tote a laptop.

If none of these approaches appeals to you, there's another viable strategy: wait. Even more options are on the way, the most notable of which is Apple's iCloud service. Due this fall, it aims to deliver the simplest, most comprehensive approach to storing data on the Net, at least if you're equipped with a full complement of Apple devices, such as a Mac, an iPhone, an iPod Touch, an iPad or any combination of those products. Steve Jobs, as you'd expect, says that iCloud "just works." If he's right, count me in — but until then, I'm a happy SugarSync customer.

By: Harry Maccracken (time magazine)

What Would ‘The Good Wife’ Do?

Two years ago, “The Good Wife,” a CBS drama, opened with a familiar tableau: a politician apologizing for sexual peccadilloes. By his side, also caught in the glare of cameras, was his pale, stone-faced wife. What was going through her mind? Since then, politicians continue to face the cameras asking forgiveness. But wives have become conspicuous by their absence; the public no longer expects them to stand by their philanderers. What are these wives thinking? The show’s creators, Robert and Michelle King, who write together and have been married since 1987, speculate about the pressures peculiar to the wives of errant politicians as they weigh whether to forgive their husbands.

THE image has indeed changed. There is no wife standing by her man anymore: the political calculation doesn’t demand it. Jenny Sanford didn’t stand beside Gov. Mark Sanford. Huma Abedin wasn’t at Representative Anthony D. Weiner’s side.

But what hasn’t changed is the melodrama of these political scandals. Clinton, McGreevey, Edwards, Spitzer, Sanford, Schwarzenegger, Weiner. Speaking as television writers: they’re over the top.

One can imagine the studio notes. “We like the husband who impregnates his housekeeper, but keeping her in the same house for a decade seems a bit mustache-twirling.” “Love the presidential candidate cheating with his videographer, but do you need the wife to have cancer?” “Tweeting semi-naked photos from the congressional gym: good — very hip. But making his wife pregnant: isn’t that too on-the-nose?”

But here we are. Reality isn’t constrained by studio notes.

Reality is also usually grayer than fiction. The bad husband must have some good in him, or why would the wronged wife love him in the first place? And if the husband is not all bad, if this indiscretion is just a moment of weakness, or a decade of weakness, is there hope? Is there something in the husband for the wife to forgive?

That’s what interested us in “The Good Wife,” back when things seemed so innocent: just call girls and wide stances. How does a wife deal with two betrayals simultaneously: betrayal by infidelity, and betrayal by public humiliation? And how does the wronged wife deal with both, while suddenly judged by the public for every step and misstep?

The question still fascinates us.

Obviously the betrayed wife’s dilemma is complicated by the overlap between the private and the public spheres. The husband’s sin is magnified by the media. It’s everywhere. How can a wife forgive when she can’t get away from the photos, the tweets, the dress, the hooker’s interview, the surprise son?

And then there is the husband’s dilemma, that of the public penitent. The confessing politician has two audiences: the spouse and the public. And the two interests conflict. A wife wants privacy to heal the relationship or to dissolve it. The public wants details.

Robert (Michelle doesn’t completely agree with this): Also confession as a public act is patently hypocritical. It can’t help but have an agenda: political rehabilitation. To my mind, Catholics have it right. Confession, whether to a wife or to a priest, is a private matter. As soon as you make it public, it’s performance. Was there ever a more hurtful or mortifying confession than Mark Sanford’s as he proclaimed his love for his Argentine mistress?

But that’s the irony of public life: how can a politician make amends otherwise? He has to be in the public eye. If he has offended the public, if he has lied to them, then he needs to make amends to his public. So he has to say something. Is it even an option for him to shut up?

Michelle (Robert marginally agrees): Yes, but the wife has to wonder if she’s being used as a way to resurrect his career. Even if she does forgive him, does she want that forgiveness to be used to save his job?

The wife didn’t run for office. She doesn’t benefit from a public airing of her marital problems. At the very moment when she should be allowed to consider only herself and her family, she’s forced to think about public consequences.

Robert (Michelle doesn’t agree): And what does the wronged wife do if she truly believes in her husband’s political worthiness? Is it wrong for her to forgive him if she merely believes it serves a worthy political end?

Michelle: Yes.

Robert: But doesn’t that reduce her to only a spouse, and not address her as a thinking political being?

Michelle: No.

Robert: In the end, I can’t help but sympathize with the disgraced candidate. He is surrounded by hypocrisy. Voters are appalled that he would do what he did or tweet what he tweeted when they have their own particular skeletons in their closets.

Michelle: The difficulty comes when you impregnate the woman you’re paying to clean those closets.

Robert: ...

Michelle: I’m sorry, go on.

Robert: That’s why the crisis manager’s admonition to “admit everything” always seems a bit ridiculous. What don’t you admit? Once you start digging, there’s no stopping. Do you admit what you did in third grade, in high school, in your darkest thoughts?

Michelle: No, you don’t. But the problem is, once you’re thinking about what to admit, you’re in the world of strategy. You’re trying to manipulate the system to save your career. In the best of all possible worlds, you ignore the public consequences and apologize privately, and accept whatever happens.

Robert: Which unfortunately makes for bad drama.

Robert/Michelle: “The Good Wife” was always meant to be a show about “politics” and how it wasn’t just something that happens in Washington, in the State House, in a campaign office. It happens everywhere: among co-workers, friends, enemies, companions, spouses. And our main character, the wronged spouse, came to realize that. She discovered that righteousness is often a pose, and that her husband’s enemies were sometimes worse than her husband.

Given that, the triumph of our betrayed character was not in forgiving. It was deciding not to retreat into her victimhood. If she were ever going to suffer from any mistakes again, they were going to be her mistakes and not her husband’s.

In the end, to forgive or not to forgive seems like half the equation. The more important half is making forgiveness irrelevant.

By ROBERT KING and MICHELLE KING (NY times magazine)

Protest Yacht, Bound for Gaza, Is Diverted by Israeli Forces

JERUSALEM — Israeli naval forces boarded a French yacht off the Gaza coast on Tuesday as the yacht tried to breach the Israeli maritime blockade of the Palestinian enclave. The forces met no resistance, Israeli military officials said, and steered the boat toward the Israeli port of Ashdod.

The yacht is a remnant of an international flotilla that had planned to challenge the blockade last month but was mostly thwarted.

The flotilla organizers had wanted to mark a year since the last flotilla, whose attempt to reach Gaza ended in bloodshed, and to highlight the restrictions on the movement of people and goods in and out of Gaza. Israel says that its blockade is essential to prevent the smuggling of weapons into Gaza, which is run by Hamas, the Islamic militant group. The naval blockade was formally imposed in early 2009 during Israel’s military offensive in Gaza.

In May 2010, Israeli naval commandos met with tough resistance when they boarded a large Turkish passenger vessel trying to breach the blockade, and fatally shot nine activists on the ship. The episode led to intense international pressure on Israel to ease its restrictions on Gaza.

The amount and variety of goods allowed in to the enclave over land crossings has increased significantly, and Egypt recently reopened the Rafah passenger crossing on its border with Gaza. But the capacity of the crossing is limited; there are currently 23,000 Palestinians on a waiting list to leave Gaza by way of Rafah, according to Gisha, an Israeli advocacy group that focuses on freedom of movement for Palestinians. The export of goods has also been severely limited to a small amount of agricultural produce.

The latest flotilla, which organizers had hoped would include up to 10 vessels and some 300 passengers, was beset by problems from the outset. Israel worked intensely at the diplomatic level to stymie the operation, and most of the vessels in the flotilla were prevented from leaving Greek ports by the Greek authorities. Members of the flotilla also said that two of the vessels were sabotaged.

The lone yacht that managed to set out for Gaza this week, the Dignite-Al Karama, left the French island of Corsica with 16 passengers and crew on board. Among them were an honorary member of the French parliament, a crew from Al Jazeera and an Israeli journalist.

The French-flagged yacht anchored in international waters before the last leg of its voyage on Monday, according to organizers from the Free Gaza Movement.

The boat represented “the steadfastness and determination of the flotilla movement to sail until the blockade is broken,” the group said in a statement issued hours before the yacht was taken over.

On Tuesday morning the Israeli Navy made contact with the yacht and requested that it change course, a call that the vessel ignored. The Israeli military released a recording of a radio exchange with someone on board, who said the vessel was a “private cruiser boat,” that it carried no cargo, and that its final destination was Gaza.

Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai, the Israeli military’s chief spokesman, said that the captain had lied to the Greek authorities during its voyage, telling them that the yacht’s destination was Egypt.

“After dialogue reached a dead end, naval commandos boarded the yacht and took control of it without facing resistance,” General Mordechai continued.

The military said that when the yacht reached Ashdod, the passengers would be questioned by the Israeli police and then turned over to immigration authorities.

By: Isabela Kershner (nytime magazine)

Why the Arab Spring Never Came to the U.A.E.

About 100 supporters of government gathered outside the Federal Supreme Court in Abu Dhabi in a rare public demonstration, July 18, 2011.

To understand why the Arab Spring has largely passed by the United Arab Emirates, take a moment to listen to Naser Al Hammadi. "What more do we need?" says the 30-year-old electrical engineer. "Here, everything is taken care of. Our education. Our health care. We have free housing."

Hammadi's sentiment was repeated by a group of about 150 men gathered outside the Federal Supreme Court in Abu Dhabi in a rare public demonstration Monday morning. In the 110-degree heat, the government supporters rallied in a park across the street from court, chanting in support of the U.A.E.'s ruler, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan, and passing out national flags and scarves featuring the ruler and the crown prince, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al Nahyan. Inside, five Emirati intellectuals, jailed since April, were appearing for their second day in court, fighting charges that they were "perpetrating acts that pose a threat to state security, [by] undermining the public order, opposing the government system and insulting" the U.A.E.'s rulers. "We Emiratis rarely speak to the media but we have come here to enhance our voices," says Khaled Al Hosani, another Emirati who joined the gathering. "They [the accused] are not allowed to speak on behalf of us."

The U.A.E.'s wealth shields it from the sort of economic pressures that have sparked unrest in Egypt and Tunisia. The country has one of the highest incomes per capita in the world, and fat government coffers make sure the needs of locals are met, including free housing, health care and education, and heavily subsidized energy. A relatively small and close-knit citizenry with close ties to the ruling families has also staved off mass discontent with how ordinary Emiratis are governed.

So as protests and bloodshed drifted from Egypt to Bahrain and next door to Yemen, all was peaceful on the Emirati street. Beneath that stability, however, were small fractures that led to the government cracking down on efforts it perceived to be a threat. Authorities blocked a website, UAE Hewar, where many of the bloggers had posted calls for a constitutional monarchy and more direct democracy, culminating in a petition signed by 133 Emiratis in March. By the next month, the U.A.E. government also dissolved the elected boards of the Jurists' Association and the Teachers' Associations, some of the most prominent nongovernmental groups in the country, after members signed the petition calling for reforms.

Police then arrested the five dissidents currently being tried: Ahmed Mansour, an engineer who is also a member of Human Rights Watch's Middle East advisory board; Nasser bin Ghaith, a lecturer at the Abu Dhabi branch of the Sorbonne University; and the activists Fahad Salim Dalk, Ahmed Abdul Khaleq and Hassan Ali Al Khamis. Monday's proceedings heard several witnesses in a session lasting five hours. The trial will resume July 25.

For the government supporters gathered outside of court Monday, what stung the most is an assertion that the U.A.E.'s rulers have bribed the masses into silence through the generous social welfare pact. "I can say what I want," says Ali Saleh Al Mansoori, a 28-year-old who works at the Abu Dhabi International Airport. "I am not being bribed."

A poll commissioned last month by The Doha Debates, the Qatar-based public forum, reported that many Gulf Arabs are afraid to speak out against their rulers in any capacity. That contrasted with the perspective of Arab respondents outside the Gulf, who live in the rest of the Middle East and North Africa, who said they felt they now had a more open political environment.

In defense of the Gulf sheikhs, one Emirati among the pro-government demonstratos, who asked not to be named, points out that the U.A.E. has a type of democracy that works well for them since their rulers' offices are open to Emiratis seeking a hearing. "Sheikh Khalifa has his majlis for the nationals every Friday and Sunday for locals," he says, referring to the traditional tribal court where Emirati citizens can petition their rulers. "Feel open to criticize but do it the right way and respect the culture." In September 2011, nearly 130,000 Emiratis will be eligible to vote for the members of the Federal National Council, the a largely advisory body. In 2006, only 7,000 voters could participate.

Human rights groups have called for the U.A.E. to drop the charges. "We consider all five men prisoners of conscience and call on the U.A.E. authorities to release them unconditionally," said Philip Luther, Middle East and North Africa deputy director at Amnesty International. Christopher Davidson, a professor at Durham University in England and author of several books on the U.A.E., said, "I know two of the five people and these are not two who would insult anyone." In Abu Dhabi, the bloggers did receive some, perhaps more quiet, support. "Yes, we have our basic needs," says Noor Mubarak, a 30-year-old engineer. "But this is not enough. I want the right to express myself. They should have the right to express themselves." But on this day, at least, her view was the exception.

By: Angela Shah for Time magazine

'The Most Humble Day of My Life': Murdoch Grilled in U.K. Hacking Scandal

BSkyB chairman James Murdoch, left, and News Corp. chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch appear before a parliamentary committee on phone hacking at Portcullis House in London on July 19, 2011

Rupert Murdoch sparred Tuesday with a committee of lawmakers over the phone-hacking scandal that has rocked his global empire, reeling from tough questioning before recovering his composure and rebuffing his interrogators with flashes of his legendary toughness. The elder Murdoch banged his hands on the table and said the day was the most humble of his life, becoming flustered when committee members peppered with him questions and turning to his son James for some answers.

He recovered later in a tense question-and-answer session with lawmakers, pushing back with firm denials of wrongdoing. Murdoch, 80, said he was "shocked, appalled and ashamed" at the hacking of the phone of a murdered schoolgirl by his now-shuttered News of the World tabloid. He said he had seen no evidence that victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attack and their relatives were targeted by any of his papers.

Murdoch said he was not responsible for the hacking scandal, and his company was not guilty of willful blindness. He repeatedly batted away questions about operations at the News of the World by saying he wasn't really in touch with the tabloid or didn't know what was going on there.

Murdoch also told the committee that he didn't believe the FBI had uncovered any evidence of hacking Sept. 11 victims in a recently launched inquiry. He said he lost sight of News of the World because it is such a small part of his company and spoke to the editor of the paper only around once a month, talking more with the editor of the Sunday Times in Britain and the Wall Street Journal in the U.S.

James Murdoch apologized for the scandal, telling British lawmakers that "these actions do not live up to the standards our company aspires to."

The younger Murdoch said the company acted as swiftly and transparently as possible. Rupert Murdoch acknowledged, however, that he did not investigate after the Murdochs' former U.K. newspaper chief, Rebekah Brooks, told parliament years ago that the News of the World had paid police officers for information.

Asked by lawmakers why there was no investigation, he said: "I didn't know of it." He says the News of the World "is less than 1 percent" of his News Corp., which employs 53,000 people. Murdoch also said he was not informed that his company had paid out big sums — 700,000 pounds ($1.1 million) in one case — to settle lawsuits by phone hacking victims.

James Murdoch said his father became aware of the settlement "in 2009 after a newspaper report. It was a confidential settlement. " He said a civil case of that nature and size would be dealt with by the executives in the country involved — in this case James Murdoch, the head of News Corp.'s European and Asian operations.

James Murdoch says news organizations need to put a stronger emphasis on ethics in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal, telling lawmakers that "we do need to think in this country more forcefully and thoughtfully about our journalistic ethics."

The value of the Murdochs' News Corp. added around $1.5 billion while they were being grilled, trading 3.8 percent higher at $15.54. The stock has taken a battering over the past couple of weeks, shedding around 17 percent of its value, or around $8 billion. Rupert Murdoch's wife Wendi Deng and News Corp. executive Joel Klein, who is overseeing an internal investigation into the wrongdoing, sat behind him as he spoke. The elder Murdoch denied that the closure of the News of the World was motivated by financial considerations, saying he shut it because of the criminal allegations.

There has been speculation that Murdoch wanted to close the Sunday newspaper in order to merge its operations with the six-days-a-week Sun, which some have said will relaunch as a seven-day publication. Asked by a Tuesday whether there was a financial motive for closing the paper, Rupert Murdoch said: "Far from it."

Politicians also pushed for details about the Murdochs' ties to Prime Minister David Cameron and other members of the British political establishment.

In a separate hearing, lawmakers questioned London police about reports that officers took bribes from journalists to provide inside information for tabloid scoops and to ask why the force decided to shut down an earlier phone hacking probe after charging only two people. Detectives reopened the case earlier this year and are looking at a potential 3,700 victims.

The scandal has prompted the resignation and subsequent arrest of Brooks and the resignation of Wall Street Journal publisher Les Hinton, sunk the Murdochs' dream of taking full control of lucrative satellite broadcaster British Sky Broadcasting and raised questions about his ability to keep control of his global media empire. Rupert Murdoch is eager to stop the crisis from spreading to the United States, where many of his most lucrative assets — including the Fox TV network, 20th Century Fox film studio, The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post — are based.

By Associated Press (Time magazine)

Who Are Teens' Sexual Role Models? Turns Out, It's Their Parents

Parents may think their teens aren't listening to them about anything, let alone sex, but new research shows that 45% of them consider their parents — not friends or celebrities — their sexual role models.

The study from the University of Montreal upends conventional wisdom that teens put no stock in what their parents think. More teens relied on parental advice than on guidance from their friends, who influenced just 32% of survey respondents. Even fewer — 15% — cared what celebrities thought.

For lead author Jean-Yves Frappier, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Montreal and president of the Canadian Paediatric Society, the study's findings reinforced his belief that parents need to stay involved in their kids' lives even if they perceive their teens would prefer they get lost.

Even many of Frappier's medical colleagues dismiss parental influence during the teen years as a lost cause. “People are surprised parents are role models,” he says. “But I'm not. Parents are the most important role models for teens.”

That parents matter comes as a big surprise to moms, 78% of whom responded that they believed their children looked to their friends for guidance on sexual behavior. “The mothers think that friends are role models, so that means that the parents kind of quit,” says Frappier, who presented the results at the Canadian Paediatric Society's annual conference last month. “They talk to their teens and the teens turn them away, so they think there's no use. But that is not the case.”

The survey canvassed 1,171 teens between 14 and 17 years old and 1,139 mothers, asking about sources of sexual health information, communication about sexual health, family functioning and sexual activities. Researchers probed attitudes toward love, relationships, dating and contraception, then asked whom teens perceived as their role models on those issues. Teens could choose more than one; although parents and friends garnered the most votes, 15% selected music/movie celebrities and 7% indicated they turned to sports/television celebrities for guidance.

When teens look to their parents for the scoop on sexual health, fewer are sexually active: 17% of boys and 22% of girls who say their parents are role models report sexual activity, versus 40% of boys and 39% of girls who say they're not influenced by their moms and dads.

What might be most significant is the third of teens who report having no role models. They are more likely to be sexually active than those who rely upon their parents but less likely than those who specifically excluded their parents.

The bottom line? Talk about sex with your teens, even if they appear to be tuning you out. The more sexuality is discussed, the less teens are sexually active. That doesn't mean sitting down and announcing a family conclave on Sexuality 101. Take the opportunity to use a newspaper or magazine article or a television show to spark a discussion about values. Teens may roll their eyes and feign annoyance, but they may come back days or weeks later with a related question.

“Parents are more important than they think,” says Frappier. “It's the role of the teen to be autonomous and turn away, but it is the role of the parent to remain a role model.”

By: Bonnie Rochman (time magazine)