[Quote]:

DealBook called the occasion traditionally “tense,” as employees “are called one by one into a managing partner’s glass-walled office, where they are informed of their bonus numbers, as well as any stock awards or deferred cash payments they will get.” Afterward, “employees return to their desks, where some celebrate, others sulk and still others trade gossip via the firm’s internal instant-messaging system.”

Luckily for us, a few also reach out to reporters. A trader told Carney, “One girl was actually crying, I think.” Another said, “My number was so low I thought I was fired.

Must be nice to work somewhere where you think you’re getting fired because you received a bonus.

Fun fact. In 1833, after South Carolina (of all places) began rattling the sabers of succession, none other than Andy Jackson went before congress and got the Force Bill passed, allowing him to – should the need arise – form an army to crush the Union’s enemies….

South Carolina.

[Quote]:

Generates random financial advice and impenetrable finance jargon. Impress your stock broker.

TEPCO conducted the endoscopy of the Containment Vessel of Reactor 2 to see the inside. TEPCO’s spokesman Matsumoto said in the press conference that the white specs in the video is from gamma rays.

Here are Mainichi Daily News and Japan Times reports

[Quote]:

The bogus numbers Carr cites—which I’ll get to in a moment—actually represent a substantial retreat from even more ludicrous statistics the copyright industries long peddled. In my previous life as the Washington editor for the technology news site Ars Technica, I became curious about two implausible sounding claims I kept seeing made over and over—and repeated by prominent U.S. Senators!—in support of more aggressive antipiracy efforts. Intellectual property infringement was supposedly costing the U.S. economy $200–250 billion per year, and had killed 750,000 American jobs. That certainly sounded dire, but those numbers looked suspiciously high, and I was having trouble figuring out exactly where they had originated. I did finally run them down, and wrote up the results of my investigation in a long piece for Ars. Read the whole thing for the full, farcical story, but here’s the upshot: The $200–250 billion number had originated in a 1991 sidebar in Forbes, but it was not a measurement of the cost of “piracy” to the U.S. economy. It was an unsourced estimate of the total size of the global market in counterfeit goods. Beyond the obvious fact that these numbers are decades old, counterfeiting of physical goods imported in bulk and sold by domestic retail distributors is, rather obviously, a totally different phenomenon with different policy implications from the problem of illicit individual consumer downloads of movies, music, and software. The 750,000 jobs number had originated in a 1986 speech (yes, 1986) by the secretary of commerce estimating that counterfeiting could cost the United States “anywhere from 130,000 to 750,000″ jobs. Nobody in the Commerce Department was able to identify where those figures had come from.

These are the numbers that were driving U.S. copyright policy as recently as 2008—and I’m still seeing them repeated in “fact sheets” circulated by SOPA boosters. Finally, in 2010, the Government Accountability Office released a report noting that these figures “cannot be substantiated or traced back to an underlying data source or methodology.” Now, if a single journalist could discover as much with a few days work, minimal due diligence should have enabled highly paid lobbyists to arrive at the same conclusion. The only way to explain the longevity of these figures, if we charitably rule out deliberate deception, is to infer that the people repeating them simply did not care whether what they were saying was true. If I were a legislator, I would find this more than a little insulting

[Quote]:

I’m really beginning to wonder about the MPAA’s PR people and their near total inability to think through how their statements will be perceived. It’s put out a response to the DDoS attacks from Anonymous by trying to “take back” the moral high ground on the free speech issue. Yes, they’re claiming that the DDoS is a free speech violation and then wrap themselves in the First Amendment:

Unfortunately, some groups believe that speech or ideas that they disagree with should be silenced. This could not be more wrong. No matter the point of view, everyone has a right to be heard.

The motion picture and television industry has always been a strong supporter of free speech. We strongly condemn any attempts to silence any groups or individuals.

The Internet is home to creativity, innovation and free speech. We want to keep it that way. Protecting copyrights and protecting free speech go hand in hand.”

Ok. So then you condemn SOPA and PIPA, right? Since those are attempts to silence people. But here’s the thing: “free speech” issues are about government censorship. Such as passing a bad law that allows the government to take down websites. Having some people protest you may be annoying, but it’s not a free speech issue (other than, perhaps, in arguing the protesters’ rights to free speech. Trying to regain the high ground on this issue is pretty transparently ridiculous by the MPAA — and simply calls much more attention to who’s actually trying to stifle free speech by passing bad laws that allow for censorship.

[Quote]:

I read EULAs so you don’t have to. I’ve spent years reading end user license agreements, EULAs, looking for little gotchas or just trying to figure out what the agreement allows and doesn’t allow.

I have never seen a EULA as mind-bogglingly greedy and evil as Apple’s EULA for its new ebook authoring program.

(…)

Exactly: Imagine if Microsoft said you had to pay them 30% of your speaking fees if you used a PowerPoint deck in a speech.

(…)

The nightmare scenario under this agreement? You create a great work of staggering literary genius that you think you can sell for 5 or 10 bucks per copy. You craft it carefully in iBooks Author. You submit it to Apple. They reject it.

Under this license agreement, you are out of luck. They won’t sell it, and you can’t legally sell it elsewhere. You can give it away, but you can’t sell it.

The positive spin would be that this is exactly like the well-accepted iOS App Store: you’re gambling that Apple will accept your app(/book), and if they don’t then you’re completely out of luck as you have no other way to sell it without rewriting it entirely for another platform. It’s not as simple as copy/pasting text and pictures into another authoring tool if you’ve done anything interactive that involves iOS code.

You could also say “well, that’s what you give up to get iBooks Author for free.”

But is this the world we want to move into? Where Amazon controls whether you can continue to read the books you’ve bought from them? And where Apple can reject your work after months of effort and leave you stranded?

[Quote]:

“Radical secularism” is gaining ground in American society and poses a “grave threat” to the Catholic Church’s freedom of expression in the public square, Pope Benedict XVI told a group of U.S. bishops on Thursday (Jan. 19).

The delegation of bishops from the mid-Atlantic region, led by Washington Cardinal Donald Wuerl, is in Rome for a series of regular “ad limina” visit that occur once every five years.

Benedict said bishops must help Catholic politicians understand that it is “their personal responsibility to offer public witness to their faith,” especially regarding the respect for human life.

I don’t understand, US politicians already lie about things to get their way, are blatant hypocrites, and shelter criminals.

What other Catholic values does he want them to pick up? Wide-spread institutionalized pedophilia?

[Quote]:

With mounting concerns over childhood obesity and its associated health risks in the U.S., would a ban on junk-food advertising aimed at children be more effective than the current voluntary, industry-led ban? According to published research from a University of Illinois economist, advertising bans do work, but an outright ban covering the entire U.S. media market would be the most effective policy tool for reducing fast-food consumption in children.

[Quote]:

Here’s the deal, Mr. Fucking Hollywood—don’t donate more money. Take your $9 million and shove it up your ass.