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.

(CNN) -- No play can begin in a baseball game until the pitcher throws the ball. And no play can conclude until the umpire makes the call. "We're not just robots they send out there," umpire Tim McClelland (2nd from L) told author Bruce Weber. Yet these figures -- the man on the mound and the men who stand in judgment -- are vastly different in importance to the average fan. There are countless children who dream of becoming a major-league pitcher. He is, literally, the king of the hill. Umpires? Almost nobody dreams of becoming an umpire. And yet the positions share a number of similarities, according to two new books: "As They See 'Em" (Scribner), by New York Times writer Bruce Weber, and "The Complete Game" (Knopf), by former major-league pitcher (and current New York Mets broadcaster) Ron Darling. Both jobs require a great deal of command, neither gets enough training, and both are often disrespected by others in the game. Indeed, despite a library of books by and about pitchers (Jim Bouton's "Ball Four," Jim Brosnan's "The Long Season," Christy Mathewson's "Pitching in a Pinch"), Darling said he believes that people still don't understand what it takes to stand on that mound. "Within baseball circles there is a common baseball axiom, 'If pitchers weren't so stupid, hitters would never get a hit,' " he said in an e-mail. "Of course, I knew this was a fallacy so I decided to write about the travails of major league pitchers. Throwing a ball 95 mph to tin cup-sized quadrants sounds pretty difficult to me, and I wanted to express this to the reader." Umpires, on the other hand, rarely get written about at all -- in fact, they're often treated as less than human. ("The owners basically see them like bases," former baseball Commissioner Fay Vincent told Weber. "They say, 'We need a base; we need an umpire; same thing.' ") Weber found a fraternity (and they are almost all men) much like cops or soldiers: tight-lipped believers in baseball law and order. Weber immersed himself in the "land of umpires," as the book's subtitle calls it, attending umpiring school, calling games at various levels of pro ball and talking with those who were willing -- including the legendary Doug Harvey, who was called "God" for his imperious demeanor. What he found is that what looks so obvious on television at home is often a challenge on the field, a matter not just of eyesight but positioning, rule-book knowledge and basic guts. "That's really what [being an umpire] is about -- is being in charge," he said. "If there's anything that characterizes the major league umpire, it's that special kind of chutzpah." Umpires need that presence because they're often baseball's most disrespected men. Aside from the vitriol they face -- the managers kicking dirt, the spectators yelling "Kill the ump" -- they're second-guessed by broadcasters and barely tolerated by management, as Weber reveals in detailing the episodes preceding and following the 1999 umpires' strike. And yet Major League Baseball doesn't participate in umpire training or development, entrusting it to two umpire-run private schools, Weber observes. (MLB does run an annual umpire camp.) Darling echoes Weber's concerns in his own field, pitching. In these days of strict pitch counts and injury concern, pitchers are "undertrain[ed]," he says, noting that top draft choices climb the ranks "never allowed to throw more than 110 pitches." That leaves them at a disadvantage when they have to go deeper into a game or cope with a tough inning, he says. "It would be like training for the marathon and never running more than 5 miles," he says. "Identifying and preserving million-dollar arms are [the purview] of doctors, not baseball people." Darling's book is a chronicle of pitchers' thought processes, using individual innings from his pitching or broadcasting career to make his point. He talks about panic overtaking a pitcher, as it did for Darling in a 1984 game in which he got pasted by the Cubs; he also addresses the rush of pitching in a World Series game and -- in a treat for baseball fans -- goes over the extra innings in perhaps the most famous college baseball game ever, a 1981 extra-inning contest that Darling's Yale Bulldogs lost to Frank Viola's St. John's Redmen, 1-0. He says he remembered the games vividly. "I definitely watched tapes and read box scores, but I was very clear on almost all the minutiae of the good old days. A little scary and maybe a major personality flaw!" Pitchers get more support than umpires, of course. Darling observes that the relationship between a pitcher and his catcher during a well-pitched game "is one of sport's most beautiful dances. I would not have said it when I was playing, but after a shutout ... there is a love for that person immediately after the process. You did something together that could not have been done alone, and nobody can understand what you went through to get there." Umpires, too, take pride in their best moments, though few pay attention outside their fellow umpires. More common is to be vilified for missed calls. Weber devotes a moving passage in his book to a conversation with the retired Don Denkinger, a 29-year veteran remembered by fans (if he's remembered at all) for a wrong call in the 1985 World Series. Though time has dulled the pain, "I think he lives with [that call] every day," Weber said. "When a dreadful thing happens to you in front of so many people and you become famous for it, it must be devastating." Weber says his time with umpires has made him much more sympathetic to their judgmental tasks. When watching games now, the Yankees fan says, he'll focus on the umpires. "I just think umpiring is interesting. People hate 'em, and they somehow perceive of umpiring as a flaw in the game, but I don't," he said. "Now I'm always interested who the umpires are." Which is a point the umpires would appreciate. "Umpires are people, too," veteran ump Tim McClelland told Weber. "We have families; we have emotions. ... Somebody says, 'Kill the umpire,' and people go, 'Heh, heh, that's funny,' but in order to do that, you have to disassociate the umpire from the person. "We're human. We're not just robots they send out there."
"As They See 'Em" is in-depth look at baseball umpires .
"The Complete Game," by Mets broadcaster Ron Darling, gets inside pitcher's head .
Two positions have similarities: necessary command, some disrespect .

(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.
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.

San Diego, California (CNN) -- The "Dream 9," five women and four men, say that they are "undocumented and unafraid." Don't believe it. I bet they were afraid. Who wouldn't have been? The nine -- Claudia Amaro, Adriana Gil Diaz, Luis Leon Lopez, Maria Peniche-Vargas, Ceferino Santiago, LuLu Martinez Valdez, Mario Felix-Garcia, Marco Saavedra and Lizbeth Mateo-Jimenez -- spent more than two weeks in a federal immigration detention facility in Eloy, AZ. Martinez Valdez and Peniche-Vargas--had been put in solitary confinement for what was supposed to be 15 days. All because they wouldn't take "go" for an answer. Some of these "Dreamers" had been deported to Mexico by the Obama administration, though President Obama has repeatedly said that his administration is not looking to deport Dreamers--the name taken by young immigrants who are in the U.S. without papers. Three of them who were on this side of the border -- Saavedra, Martinez Valdez and Mateo-Jimenez -- "self deported" to Mexico to join the other six. Then, on July 22, all nine linked arms and marched across the border into the United States. The idea was to draw attention to the administration's repressive immigration policies. The nine asked for humanitarian parole. When that was denied, they claimed asylum. Opinion: Let's deport Rep. Steve King . Now, they have been set free. Earlier in the week, federal officials found that all nine have "credible fear" of persecution or torture in their birth countries and thus cannot be removed without a hearing before an immigration judge. Pending those hearings, the nine have now been released into the waiting arms of family members within the United States. It's a major victory for the Dreamer movement. For many, this is a heartwarming story about the power of the individual who is brave enough to make a stand. For others, it is major inconvenience. It's a story that the White House wishes would go away. Ditto for immigration reformers who are split between those who back the Dream 9 and those who want to sacrifice them for political expediency. David Leopold, former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, callously dismissed the Dream 9 action as a "publicity stunt" and a distraction. He also said it was unlikely that the three Dreamers who voluntarily left the United States would qualify for asylum. So far, Leopold has been spectacularly wrong. All nine will get asylum hearings. And the Dreamers got more warmth from Congress. Thirty-five lawmakers signed a letter asking Obama to use his discretion to release the young people from custody. The letter -- signed by Reps. Mike Honda, D-California, Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona, and Ruben Hinojosa, D-Texas, among others -- describes the activists as "victims of our broken immigration policy" who "deserve to come home to the United States." Immigration reformers were bound to lose confidence in this administration. A president can't deport nearly 2 million people in under five years, split up hundreds of thousands of families, detain thousands of undocumented children without giving them access to legal counsel, and expand Arizona-style immigration enforcement nationwide through the maniacal program known as "Secure Communities" without raising a stink. For many, what happened to the Dream 9 was the last straw. Searching for the American Dream in Mexico . Martinez-Valdez and Peniche-Vargas were in solitary confinement because, according to authorities, they started a ruckus in the dining hall. Of course they did. Didn't Obama say that the Dreamers were Americans except for legal status? This is how Americans behave. We're ornery, courageous and defiant. We yell "freedom" at the top of our lungs. These kids are Americans, all right. The next thing you know, a bunch of Dreamers will dump tea into Boston Harbor. Besides, Obama made quite a show -- before the election -- of announcing that his administration was sparing Dreamers deportation by offering deferred action and temporary work permits. Nearly 300,000 Dreamers have been awarded the special accommodation so far. There's not room for nine more? Some might not be eligible for deferred action, some might be. Let's find out. Maybe there would be more compassion on the Potomac if these young people hadn't embarrassed Obama, put the lie to the fairy tale that this administration has been compassionate toward immigrants, divided self-serving organizations such as the lawyers group AILA, and pitted one group of immigration reformers against another -- those who want to protect the Dreamers versus those who want to protect the president. I've had my differences with the Dreamer movement. I think that many of these young people have a sense of entitlement, like most young people in the United States. I didn't think it was a good idea for Dreamer activists to disrupt congressional hearings on immigration reform, or occupy the offices of reform advocates like Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Illinois. And I think much of what drives Dreamer activists within the United States is a look-at-me narcissism fed by social media and a culture where young people are told they can become the next American Idol. Opinion: House, knowledge economy needs immigrants . But I never questioned their sincerity, or dismissed anything they did as a stunt. I wouldn't presume to tell people who put their freedom at risk along the U.S.-Mexico border that the difficult decisions they're making are the wrong ones. And I certainly wouldn't do it to protect an administration that doesn't deserve protecting. The Dream 9 are back where they belong -- in the United States. But this story isn't over. The fault lines it exposed within the immigration reform movement remain. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ruben Navarrette.

Ruben Navarrette: Nine Dreamer activists were in federal immigration detention in Arizona .
They'd tried to re-enter the U.S. asking for humanitarian parole or asylum and were jailed .
He says they have been freed, granted immigration hearing, drew support from Congress .
Navarrette: DREAMers sometimes have look-at-me activism, but this request is valid .