In this task, you are given news articles and you need to generate a highlight, i.e., a short summary, with a maximum length of 10 lines.
--------
Question: (CNN) -- A Dutch court intervened Friday to stop a 13-year-old girl from attempting to sail around the world by herself, stripping her parents of sole custody. Laura Dekker will find out on Friday whether the Dutch Court will back her record attempt. Laura Dekker's parents support her round-the-world ambition, which sparked concern from child protection officials because of her age. They took the case to court to prevent the solo trip. On Friday the Dutch High Court in Utrecht ruled that the Child Protection Board will share custody over Laura with her parents for two months. The move prevents the parents from permitting Laura to set off on her trip alone, though Laura will remain at home with her father, Dick Dekker, a court official said. During those two months, a child psychologist will assess Laura's mental state and ability to carry out a solo round-the-world journey, a court official said. A guardian will be appointed to oversee the case until the court next meets Oct. 26. The court will then make a final ruling on whether her parents may have the final say about their daughter's plans, the court official said. Is the court right to block her bid? Have your say below . Laura's parents are happy about Friday's decision, family lawyer Peter de Lange said. He said the parents are especially pleased that the court didn't prevent Laura from making the journey, because they hope she can still proceed with her plans. The teenager was out sailing Friday, de Lange said. She is pleased with the decision and hopes she can still make a solo trip, he said. Laura believes she will be able to convince the court that she is fit to make the trip alone, de Lange said. Social workers took the action to stop the teen from attempting to become the youngest person to circumnavigate the globe because they believe the voyage would be too dangerous. Laura said she has dreamed of sailing around the world since she was 10 and her parents are determined to help her achieve her goal. She called the attention that has been heaped on her case "a bit over the top." Just this week, a British teenager became the youngest person to sail around the world solo when he returned to Britain after a nine-month trip. Guinness World Records confirmed the feat. Mike Perham, 17, had a support team sailing alongside him during the trip. He said he doesn't think age alone should determine whether Laura Dekker is ready for such an adventure. It's "whether she's got the physical strength, the mental strength, or the technical ability," he said. "Can she strip an engine blindfolded? Can she build boats? Is she an electrician? Is she a mechanic as well? You can't just be a sailor for a trip like this." Another sailor, Robin Knox-Johnston, also said age shouldn't be the only determining factor. He was the first person to circumnavigate the globe alone without stopping -- in 1969, when he was 29. "It's really more a question, is that person, that young person, mature enough to be able to look after themselves and deal with everything that's going to come at you when you get out alone at sea?" he said. Gold medal-winning Olympic sailor Shirley Robertson insisted that sailing is an experience-based sport and that Laura may not be ready for such a great challenge. "Mike Perham has four years on Laura. That's a big difference," she told CNN. "Mike had already completed challenges such as sailing across the Atlantic before embarking on his ultimate quest. "There's a world of difference between sailing a small craft on the Ijsselmeer and sailing around the world with all the challenges that presents." Robertson also pointed out that "we live in a culture of record-breaking and fame-seeking," with people constantly looking to be the youngest or quickest at anything. "Why does she need to sail around the world on her own now? Why not sail with a parent first to gain more experience?" CNN's Ashleigh Nghiem, Francesca Church and Paul Armstrong contributed to this story.

Answer: Laura Dekker, 13, wants to become youngest person to sail solo around globe .
Dutch social workers say it is too dangerous and want to prevent her .
Court ruled Child Protection Board to share custody of Laura with her parents .
Move prevents the parents from permitting Laura to set off on her trip .


Question: (Mashable) -- For all their buzz and value, location-based social networks haven't really gone mainstream yet. Only 7 percent of Americans are aware of location-based social networks, according to data from Edison Research. Part of the explanation for this is that the majority of mobile users aren't using smartphones. And as a result, just 10 percent of those surveyed use mobile location services at least once a week, according to the Mobile Marketing Association's latest Mobile Consumer Briefing survey. For smartphone users, like those of the iPhone (a popular device among early adopters), that number jumps all the way up to 63 percent. Still, even with smartphones predicted to overtake feature phones sometime next year, there may still be adoption hurdles for location-based social networks. Here's a look at why location-based services haven't yet hit critical mass and what those platforms are doing about it. Privacy concerns remain an issue . Kristine van Dillen, director of industry initiatives and partnerships at the Mobile Marketing Association, said location-based services aren't growing as quickly as they should be. One reason for the lag is concern over privacy and who has access to users' data. Sites like PleaseRobMe.com, which humorously bring awareness to location-based privacy issues, may have scared some social media users from opting in. Furthermore, the use of geo-location data for commercial purposes has also raised concerns, prompting the Congressional subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection to hold hearings on the issue. Concerns about loopholes in Foursquare that give others the ability to announce your check-inshave also been raised. "There's still a perceived risk in accessing location data," van Dillen said. Location-based service providers are addressing these concerns by giving consumers more control. Most current iterations of the popular location-based networks allow users to opt-out of location tagging and notifying users when their location is being shared. Consumer education is also key. Users need to know how their location data will be used, and feel comfortable that the companies that have access to it will behave responsibly, according to van Dillen. She said consumers will become more comfortable sharing information with their friends and trusted applications. Brands will view these services as less risky, and more mainstream, and new types of location-based services will come to the forefront. Where is the value? Because of privacy concerns, it is imperative for location-based services to clearly communicate the value proposition to users. Without a clear picture of what they're getting in return, users may be hesitant to share location data. One of the ultimate promises of location-based check-ins is more accurately targeted advertising. For some users, the privacy concerns of sharing their location might be trumped by the potential utility of receiving highly targeted advertising and promotions. However, even though Gowalla, Foursquare, BrightKite and Yelp allow for check-ins at "places," rather than just map coordinates, which makes the data more valuable for targeted advertising, actual advertiser value hasn't yet totally materialized. Michael Boland, a senior analyst and program director at BIA/Kelsey said check-ins represent the makings of a business model, but they haven't reached their full potential value yet because there isn't a well-defined system to buy and sell advertising. "I think it does have a lot of staying power. We're only going to see it grow and evolve," he said. For early adopters, though, the long-term promise of more value through targeted ads, coupons and deals, along with the game mechanics (i.e., badges and "mayor" competitions) instituted by some networks has made location-based services worth the potential privacy headaches. As Twitter and Facebook move into the location tagging space, they might finally take the trend mainstream. During its Chirp developer conference in April, Twitter announced the launch of its annotations feature, which gives users the ability to attach metadata to tweets, including location. Facebook, meanwhile, will also reportedly soon enable members to add location details to their status updates and release an API so other apps can offer location ability to Facebook users. Each network faces the usual hurdles for location adoption. For Twitter, the biggest problem might be convincing users of the value of location-enabled tweets. Twitter has yet to clearly communicate to users what they get in return for adding location to their tweets. On their knowledge base page explaining the feature they write that location will help you "add context to your updates and help you join the local conversation, wherever you are." Twitter gives an example of one user tweeting about the weather in one location, while another user tweets about traveling to that very location. Unfortunately for Twitter, compared to sites like Foursquare and Gowalla which clearly indicate the value -- every check-in is part of a game, you can find your friends, get tacit recommendations for places to go, and maybe score a deal or two -- Twitter is only communicating what feels like a very niche and impractical value proposition. Further, because location is off by default for all users, without a more clearly communicated message, the feature may remain off for many people. Facebook, meanwhile, faces the other major problem: Privacy. Because Facebook has had so many different privacy issues over the years, many users are wary of new features. And Facebook hasn't always had the best track record when it comes to rolling out new features in a way that people trust. So how they roll out location to users and how well they do at making users feel that their information is safe may be make or break for location on Facebook. One thing Facebook does have in its favor is a great track record of getting people to eventually use new services en masse -- concerns or not. When Facebook launched its news feed feature in 2006 it faced a very vocal user backlash. A few months and a few tweaks later, the feature was widely used and has become an integral part of the service. The advantage for both Twitter and Facebook is that their users already have a built-in network of followers and friends, so they don't have to sign up for a new service and start adding people to it. The location feature is simply an add-on to their existing account. "Facebook could really be the looming giant that could wipe all [other location services] away," Boland said. "Facebook has proven to have so many users who are mobile. If they turn on that feature, it's the looming category killer." What remains to be seen is if the users will go for it. © 2010 MASHABLE.com. All rights reserved.

Answer: Sites and apps that let users track their locations get buzz from tech media .
But the sites are not achieving mainstream popularity, according to surveys .
Only 7 percent of Americans are aware of location-based social networks .
Facebook and Twitter may soon popularize the idea, however.


Question: (CNN) -- Comprehensive immigration reform. Suddenly the phrase is on everyone's lips. From President Barack Obama to rising Republican star Sen. Marco Rubio to right-wing television hosts Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. As if by magic, everybody's for it after six years of ducking and using reform as a political wedge issue -- everybody wants to get it done. But what exactly is it? What kinds of changes will it entail, and what will they mean for America? After more than 10 years of on-and-off debate in Washington, the most important piece of the puzzle is still rarely discussed and poorly understood. Obama often talks about reform without even mentioning it. It never came up on the campaign trail. It's not what brought Latinos out to vote in record numbers. And although it's likely to be included in the framework for reform expected to be released Monday by a bipartisan group of Senators, the concept gets very little attention from the media, English- or Spanish-language. iReport: Under deportation, above fear . What's the most important piece of comprehensive immigration reform you never heard of? It's fixing the legal system so it works for the future -- for immigrants and the U.S. economy. Many Americans think reform is about the 11 million unauthorized immigrants already living in the United States. Many have been here for years and have put down roots. We're not going to deport them -- not even the harshest restrictionists think that's practical. Nor are most likely to go "home" voluntarily, no matter how difficult we make their lives with tough enforcement. For the overwhelming majority, America is home by now. And they are sure to be the most contentious issue when the immigration debate resumes in months to come. News: Possible compromise on immigration reform takes shape . But most contentious is not the same as most important. We all must ask: What created this problem in the first place? Exactly what is it about the broken immigration system that produced this vast underground world of workers and families -- a population the size of Ohio? The root cause: For less-skilled foreigners who want to come to work legally in the United States, there is no "line" -- no available visas. The two existing programs for low-skilled temporary workers are for seasonal labor only: farmhands, landscaping crews, summer and winter resort workers. And there are virtually no permanent visas to be had for unskilled workers. There simply is no avenue for an uneducated Mexican unless he has family members living legally in the U.S. who can sponsor him for a family visa. Many, if not most, of the 11 million already here would have preferred to enter the country legally if that were possible. But they and others like them have no lawful option. This wouldn't be a problem if we didn't need immigrant workers. But we do. And we're going to need them increasingly as the economy recovers. This isn't because American workers are somehow lacking or inadequate. On the contrary, for the most part, it's because Americans are doing better than in decades past. We're becoming better educated and aspiring to the kinds of jobs for which our better educations prepare us. News: GOP needs to back immigration overhaul, lawmakers say . In 1960, half of the native-born men in the labor force were high school dropouts happy to do physically demanding, low-skilled work. Today, less than 10% of the native-born men in the labor force are high school dropouts. And meanwhile, far from shrinking, the demand for low-skilled labor is growing over time. In 1955, for example, 25 cents of every dollar spent on food was spent in a restaurant. Today, the figure is nearly 50 cents. And one of the fastest-growing occupations in America is home health aide. But very few Americans with high school diplomas aspire to careers as busboys or home health aides. And they shouldn't -- their educations equip them to do more productive work, making better wages and contributing more to the economy. No, we don't need as many immigrant workers in a down economy -- and far fewer want to come to the U.S. when jobs are scarce. But we still need some, and they need a legal way to get here. And whatever program we create needs to be flexible, growing in good times to accommodate rising labor needs and shrinking back in down times when demand subsides. Don't get me wrong: The goal of reform is not to increase the overall number of unskilled immigrants entering the country. What's needed is to end illegal immigration by creating ways for needed workers to come legally -- creating worker visas and establishing a system that allows employers who can't find enough willing and able Americans to connect easily and quickly with lawful immigrants. This is not just an economic imperative. Without it, there can be no successful immigration law enforcement. Even the best, most effective enforcement is no match for the dynamism of the U.S. economy. As long as there are jobs available, foreigners will want to come to work here. And if we want to prevent them from coming illegally, we need to create lawful alternatives. Finding a solution for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants already in the country addresses the mistakes of the past but fixes nothing going forward. Unless we create ways for the immigrants of the future to enter legally, we're going to find ourselves in exactly the same predicament a decade or two down the road -- wondering what to do about 10 or 20 million unauthorized immigrants living among us but beyond the rule of law. The only way to prevent this: a legal immigration system that works. Now if only Obama would mention it. Then we'd have some hope of getting somewhere as the debate resumes. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Tamar Jacoby .

Answer:
Tamar Jacoby: Immigration reform in air, but focus tends to be on the undocumented .
She says for real reform, discussion must be on providing unskilled worker visas .
She says there's no way to "get in line" if no visas are available .
Jacoby: In dynamic economy, entry will always outpace enforcement .