In Battle For Web Traffic, The Left Is Beating The Right

 

By David Kaplan - Wed 27 May 2009

 

The Dems are controlling more than just the White House and Congress.

 

They’re also collectively winning the battle for traffic among political sites. According to the latest comScore (NSDQ: SCOR) numbers, left-leaning sites attracted 6.4 million uniques in April, while the major blogs on the right 4.8 million.

 

The right is not without some bragging rights. Individually, the right had one more site in comScore’s top 20 political blog sites than their left wing counterparts (nine to eight), and many of the conservative sites, like MichelleMalkin.com, had enormous growth, while liberal stalwarts like DailyKos and MyDD appeared to be dropping uniques year-over-year.

 

However, since these are comScore numbers, websites are sure to disagree with the findings. TalkingPointsMemo, for example, tells me the 203,000 uniques that comScore assigned to them is way off; they claim to have had 1.4 million in April.

 

There was one main reason the liberal sites collectively came out ahead: Huffington Post’s dominant 5.6 million uniques, which dwarfs the number-two site Drudge Report’s 1.7 million monthly visitors.

 

That’s a gap that conservative reporter and TV pundit Tucker Carlson is angling to fill with his new political news site The Daily Caller, which The Hill described as a right-wing version of HuffPo.

 

For his part, Carlson told a conference that he plans to position it as a “general-interest newspaper-format style site” that will focus on the Obama Administration. I spoke briefly to Carlson today about the project, which he said is scheduled to launch in three weeks.

 

He declined to offer any further details on whether the site would be ad supported or where the investment money was coming from.

 

Photo Credit: The Situationist

 

Source: http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-in-political-site-traffic-wars-libs-win-tucker-carlson-readies-right-st/

 

Posted via web from Global Business News

North Korea's Nervous Neighbours

By Joe Havely

 

North Korea's second nuclear test has sent shockwaves through northeast Asia, catching many of its neighbours off guard and raising questions over the future stability of the region.

 

Here we take a look at how Japan, South Korea and China see the changing regional security framework.

 

Japan

 

Japan's military

Active personnel: 239,000  Annual budget: $43.5bn  Nuclear weapons: None, but thought to be capable of producing a bomb within timeframe of approximately six months

 

After twice firing long-range rockets through Japan's airspace, the recent escalation in military posturing by North Korea has once again rattled Japanese nerves. Japan and the Korean peninsula have a troubled history, particularly related to the brutal occupation of Korea by the Japanese imperial army in the run-up to and during the second world war.

 

Now North Korea's nuclear and missile tests have reignited a sensitive debate in Japan over strengthening the country's armed forces. Japan is due to release new national defence guidelines later this year and some are calling for fundamental changes to the country's post-war pacifist constitution.

 

In particular questions are being asked about whether the military, which is barred from offensive action, should be allowed to carry out pre-emptive strikes against perceived imminent threats. Some are even calling for Japan, the only country in history to have suffered nuclear attack, to develop its own nuclear weapons.

 

Given its advanced civilian nuclear energy programme it has been widely accepted that -  should it take the decision to go nuclear - Japan could build a weapon within as little as six months.

 

At the moment Japan has no so-called power projection weapons – systems such as aircraft carriers, long-range missiles or other weapons that allow it to project force well beyond its borders. But calls are growing in some quarters for Japan's exclusively defence-oriented military posture to change.

 

One former Japanese defence chief has said the country needs to take a more proactive stance and should not be in a position to "sit and wait for death".

For many of Japan's regional neighbours the prospect of a militarily resurgent Japan, perhaps one armed with nuclear weapons, revives troubling memories of the country's wartime past.

 

South Korea

 

South Korea's military

Active personnel: 687,000  Annual budget: $22.6bn  Nuclear weapons: None, but thought have technical capability to produce a bomb

 

Since the end of the Korean war more than half a century ago, South Koreans have lived with the threat that the war with their northern neighbour could once again turn hot.

 

On near-constant alert against the North's 1.2 million-strong army, South Korea has an armed forces of about 687,000, backed up by around 28,000 US personnel stationed in the country.

 

While in terms of simple manpower the odds would appear to be stacked in North Korea's favour, analysts say there is little doubt the technologically superior South Korean and US forces would prevail in the event of conflict. Nonetheless any war on the Korean peninsula would come at a terrible price.

 

Seoul, the South Korean capital, lies less than 60km from the heavily-fortified "demilitarised zone" that divides the two Koreas. On the other side of the zone, hundreds of North Korean artillery and rocket batteries stand ready to make good on the North's threat to turn Seoul into "a sea of ashes".

 

For half a century most South Koreans have felt secure enough under the pledge of US security guaranties. But with North Korea now rattling its nuclear sabre louder than ever, there is also the prospect that a jittery South Korea may be persuaded to develop its own nuclear arsenal – particularly if Japan also opts to go down the nuclear path.

 

In 2004 South Korea admitted that its scientists had produced a small amount of near-weapons grade uranium four years earlier, raising the prospect that it would not be that far of a technical leap for the South to develop its own bomb.

 

At the time the government said the material, amounting to less than a gram in weight, was produced by a group of rouge scientists operating without official approval. But questions remain over the laser enrichment technique the scientists had apparently used – a technique so expensive that most experts say its only utility would be would be for military purposes.

 

China

 

China's military

Active personnel: 2,225,000  Annual budget: $58.3bn  Nuclear weapons: Yes, thought to have about 176 nuclear warheads and bombs

For years China has been North Korea's biggest supplier of aid and has been seen as the closest the reclusive country has to an ally.

 

It is North Korea's biggest trade partner by far, with Chinese loans accounting for much of the rest of North Korea's imports - effectively propping up the North Korean economy

 

China, which has its own nuclear arsenal, is believed to have had some role in training North Korean nuclear engineers, although its association with the North's weapons programme is extremely murky. But recent developments have shown that even China has little real ability to keep a tight rein on its unpredictable neighbour.

For years China has advocated cautious diplomacy as the best way of dealing with North Korea.

 

Beijing brokered the six-nation disarmament talks, and has revived them several times from the brink of collapse. But with North Korea now having walked away from those talks vowing never to return, Chinese officials are becoming increasingly impatient with their troublesome ally.

 

China has traditionally been wary of any moves that could push the North Korean regime to collapse – a move that could potentially send millions of refugees streaming across its borders. Now it has to balance that fear with the prospect of a regional arms race and a bellicose North Korea triggering Japan to rebuild its own armed forces.

 

Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2009/05/20095294403287112.html

Posted via email from Global Business News

Bing's Meaning: But It's Not Google

by Michael Arrington on May 28, 2009

 

Everyone knew today was the day that Microsoft was going to launch their new search engine. Everyone’s been talking about it for months, and the press and marketing efforts were carefully tailored to maximize the impact. Thursday, May 28, 2009 was supposed to be Microsoft Bing Day.

 

A little after 8 am this morning Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer  himself took the stage at the exclusive All Things Digital conference near San Diego, California and announced to a few hundred elite executives that Microsoft would soon be releasing its new search engine, and that it would be called Bing .

 

One problem right off the bat: the Bing.com site wasn’t live. And since press didn’t know the name until Ballmer said it, it took a while for the news to spread.

 

Another problem: A team of Google engineers based in Sydney was simultaneously announcing a stealth project 4+ years in the making called Wave. And it wasn’t being announced to a select few top business executives. Instead, the team that created it was showing it to 4,000 developers at the Google IO conference in San Francisco, California.

 

You know that scene in the Lord Of The Rings movie where the huge eye of Sauron on top of that mountain swings its view from the alliance troops massed at the Black Gate of Mordor over to the real action, Frodo with the Ring at the Cracks of Doom?

That’s basically what happened today. The eyes of the world, and the press , swung from San Diego to San Francisco as they realized what was happening. And what was happening was this: Google stole Microsoft’s thunder with one of the most ambitious and exciting products the tech world has seen in a long while.

 

At the end of the Google Wave presentation, 4,000 developers stood up and cheered like nothing we’ve seen outside of a Steve Jobs keynote. That picture above isn’t the crowd of gray haired execs cheering Bing. It’s a mass of engineers going wild over a new open source communications platform from Google. And yes, that guy on the right was literally waving his laptop in the air in excitement.

 

The fact that everyone in attendance was still glowing from a free Android G2 phone that was handed out the day before didn’t hurt, either.

 

So what happened? Well, the company that will do no evil will certainly engage in a little stealth black ops mission when its required. Google knew full well exactly when Bing was going to launch. And they carefully planned the Wave launch to occur just minutes afterwards. They knew the crowd was ready for something cool. Not only did they have that free phone, but the day before Google VP Engineering Vic Gundotra told the crowd that there would be a big announcement the next day.

 

People were ready and willing to be wowed.

 

And while Wave certainly deserves every bit of positive attention it got today, the fact that it’s an open source project didn’t hurt, either. San Francisco engineers love open source like east coast liberals love Obama.

 

Microsoft never stood a chance. As far as the San Francisco developer crowd is concerned, Bing stands for “But It’s Not Google.”

 

Source: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/28/what-just-happened-thursday-was-supposed-to-be-bing-day/

Posted via web from Pulse Poll

Searching for the Meaning of Bing

POSTED BY LEVI SUMAGAYSAY ON MAY 28TH, 2009

 

Microsoft’s new/revamped search engine, Bing, will be released June 3.  It promises to deliver more than the customary list of results when called upon to do a search; it is “more of a decision engine,” according to Microsoft SVP Yusuf Mehdi.

 

There will be inevitable exploration of the meaning of the moniker. (Bing has a certain ring to it. It’s much better, of course, than the boring “Live Search.”) Plus there is the bigger question of whether Bing will make a dent in Google’s dominance. But search for clues to another issue Bing brings up: Will it end the Microsoft-Yahoo search flirtation?

 

By some accounts, Bing seems like it would be more useful than a Google or Yahoo search. If you’re searching for something you’d like to buy, for example, Bing theoretically will serve up reviews, as well as places to buy the item and related accessories, laid out in a prettier and more organized way than just a simple vertical list of links.

 

Search for a movie star, and Bing shows you ways to refine your search by movie, images, or quotes, among other things. Below that, you get a list of related searches, such as searches for who that actor might be dating. Bing supposedly will add more features as it continues to try to provide more context with each search.

 

A possible positive for Microsoft: The depth of the searches seems to offer more opportunities for ad revenue. CEO Steve Ballmer has stressed the importance of search and advertising — Google’s bread and butter — in the past.

 

Of course, some people think simple is best, which is part of why Google’s so successful. Early impressions suggest Bing will lure some people who want to achieve a specific goal when doing a search, but that users’ trust in Google to bring them the most relevant results in the most basic of manners won’t wane. The trick will be to get people to think of Bing, too, when they think they might want an enhanced search. Microsoft will be spending a lot of money on the Bing branding campaign, CEO Steve Ballmer said today.

 

So this brings us to what this means for the long-running Microsoft-Yahoo partnership possibility. Is it still going to happen? After all, would Microsoft invest so heavily in Bing if it really thought a deal with Yahoo was imminent?

 

Also, some think that Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz’s statement yesterday that the Sunnyvale company would consider selling search for “boatloads of money”really meant that she doesn’t want to sell. (See Gems from D7: On Yahoo, on the iPhone.) As for Microsoft, it will probably be concentrating its search efforts on rolling out Bing and making it sing.

 

Source: http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv/2009/05/searching-for-the-meaning-of-bing.html

Posted via web from Global Business News

New ID Rules Begin June 1 for Mexico, Canada trips

 

AP – FILE - This Jan. 29, 2008 file photo shows an electronic message board warning those crossing the border …

 

 

 

 

By MANUEL VALDES, Associated Press Writer – Sat May 30,

 

BLAINE, Wash. – New rules requiring passports or new high-tech documents to cross the United States' northern and southern borders are taking effect Monday, as some rue the tightening of security and others hail it as long overdue.

 

The rules are being implemented nearly eight years after the Sept. 11 attacks and long after the 9/11 Commission recommended the changes. They were delayed by complaints from state officials who worried the restrictions would hinder the flow of people and commerce and affect border towns dependent on international crossings.

 

In 2001 a driver's license and an oral declaration of citizenship were enough to cross the Canadian and Mexican borders; Monday's changes are the last step in a gradual ratcheting up of the rules. Now thousands of Americans are preparing by applying for passports or obtaining special driver's licenses that can also be used to cross the border.

 

"It's sad," said Steve Saltzman, a 60-year-old dual Canadian-American citizen as he entered the U.S. at the Peace Arch crossing in Blaine, Wash., on Thursday. "This was the longest undefended border in the world. Now all of the sudden it is defended, and not nearly as friendly."

 

Near the border crossing, local Blaine resident Mike Williams disagreed. "This concept was past due," said Williams. "Because it's not a safe world and it's becoming more dangerous all the time."

 

In one Texas border community, long lines were reported at a local courthouse as people rushed to apply for the required documents. But it remains to be seen if the new requirement will cause traffic backups at points of entry and headaches for people unaware of the looming change.

 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials say they're confident the transition will be smooth.

 

"Our research indicates approximately 80 percent of the individuals coming in now, U.S. and Canadians, are compliant," and are crossing with proof of citizenship, said Thomas Winkowski, assistant commissioner for field operations at Customs and Border Protection.

 

The higher noncompliance areas, he said, are primarily U.S. citizens in the southern border region.

 

Travelers who do not comply with the new requirements will get a warning and be allowed to enter the U.S. after a background check, said Michele James, director of field operations for the northern border that covers Washington state.

 

"We're going to be very practical and flexible on June 1 and thereafter," James said.

 

The new rule, which also affects sea crossings, is the final implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, a security measure crafted from recommendations from the 9/11 Commission.

 

It's part of a gradual boost in security along the northern border that has featured millions of dollars in upgrades and the hiring of hundreds of more customs officers and U.S. Border Patrol agents.

 

Before the new rule, travelers only needed to show identification, such as a driver's license, and orally declare their citizenship. In 2008, the federal government changed that rule to require proof of citizenship, such as a birth's certificate or a passport.

 

Winkowski said people expected delays at points of entry in 2008 after proof of citizenship became a requirement, but no serious backlogs appeared.

 

He said U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue its outreach campaign through the summer to inform Americans of the new passport requirement.

 

Under the new rule, travelers also can use a passport card issued by the U.S. State Department to cross land borders. The card does not work for air travel. At $45 for first-time applicants, it's a more affordable alternative to the traditional passport, which costs $100. More than 1 million passport cards have been issued since last year.

 

Identification documents available under the "Trusted Traveler" programs are also accepted. Those require fees ranging from $50 to more than $100. These programs, developed by the U.S, Canadian and Mexican governments, allow vetted travelers faster access to the border. In some cases, members in these programs have their own lanes at border crossings.

 

Enhanced driver's licenses, which use a microchip to store a person's information, also can be used to cross the northern and southern borders. Washington state, Vermont, New York, and Michigan are the only states that offer them so far. An application process and interview are required for these licenses.

 

There will be some exceptions. Children under 16 traveling with family, people under 19 traveling in youth groups, Native Americans and members of the military will be able to use different forms of identification. Also, travelers in cruises that depart from a U.S. port, sail only within the Western Hemisphere and return the same port do not have to comply.

 

The U.S. State Department said there has been no spike in passport applications because of the June 1 deadline. The increase came in 2007 when it became required to show a passport for air travel to Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean. That year a backlog of applications accumulated, affecting travelers nationwide.

 

The number of U.S. passport card applications, however, has increased as June 1 approaches, said Brenda Sprague, head of the passport division of the department's Bureau of Consular Affairs.

 

For states along the vast northern border, which for decades enjoyed fewer restrictions than the southern border, the changes sparked a wave of opposition when they were first proposed.

 

Concerns appear to have died down, however. In Washington state, for instance, the governor's office said it was pleased with the federal government's progress.

In the border town of Weslaco, Texas, Jesus Gonzalez said he crosses into Mexico about three times a month for medical needs, but he had not yet applied for any of the documents.

 

Asked if the new requirement would affect him, Gonzalez pointed back across the bridge toward Nuevo Progreso, Mexico: "It's going to affect them more," he said. "Businesses are going to hurt a tad bit and I feel sorry for them."

__

Associated Press Writers Eileen Sullivan and Matthew Lee in Washington, D.C., and Christopher Sherman inMcAllen, Texas contributed to this report.

 

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090530/ap_on_re_us/us_border_crossing_rules

 

Posted via web from Global Business News

World's Undiscovered Gas and Oil is Largely North of Arctic Circle

ARCTIC OIL: The estimate comes at a time when a shrinking Arctic icecap due to global warming is making exploration more feasible. (Nabil Najjar / For the Times/ October 3, 2007)

From the Los Angeles Times

The most likely place for oil in the Arctic is off northern Alaska in the Chukchi Sea, the researchers report. But conservationists warn of drilling in the fragile environment.

By Margot Roosevelt

May 29, 2009

 

A full 30% of the world's undiscovered gas and 13% of its undiscovered oil are estimated to be located north of the Arctic Circle, U.S. Geological Survey researchers said in a paper published Thursday in Science magazine.

The estimate is relatively small compared with known reserves in the major oil-exporting countries, but it is likely to greatly benefit Russia, which has the largest territory in the region, the researchers noted. However, they said, the most likely place for oil in the Arctic is off northern Alaska in the Chukchi Sea.

The study, presented by Donald L. Gautier and colleagues, is the first detailed, peer-reviewed and geologically based assessment of natural resources in that region. Most of the undiscovered oil and gas will be found underwater, on continental shelves, the researchers said.

The estimate comes at a time when a shrinking Arctic icecap due to global warming is making exploration more feasible. Tensions have risen among nations around the Arctic Circle over how the resources should be exploited.

 

Republican Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has endorsed increased exploration. But conservationists warn that plunging drilling pads into the frozen Beaufort and Chukchi seas and in Bristol Bay could open the door to a catastrophic oil spill in one of the most fragile environments on Earth.

 

Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-arctic-oil29-2009may29,0,3651730.story?track=rss

 

Posted via web from Global Business News

Went Walkabout. Brought Back Google Wave.

5/28/2009 09:15:00 AM

Back in early 2004, Google took an interest in a tiny mapping startup called Where 2 Tech, founded by my brother Jens and me. We were excited to join Google and help create what would become Google Maps. But we also started thinking about what might come next for us after maps.

As always, Jens came up with the answer: communication. He pointed out that two of the most spectacular successes in digital communication, email and instant messaging, were originally designed in the '60s to imitate analog formats — email mimicked snail mail, and IM mimicked phone calls. Since then, so many different forms of communication had been invented — blogs, wikis, collaborative documents, etc. — and computers and networks had dramatically improved. So Jens proposed a new communications model that presumed all these advances as a starting point, and I was immediately sold. (Jens insists it took him hours to convince me, but I like my version better.)

We had a blast the next couple years turning Where 2's prototype mapping site into Google Maps. But finally we decided it was time to leave the Maps team and turn Jens' new idea into a project, which we codenamed "Walkabout." We started with a set of tough questions:

 

Why do we have to live with divides between different types of communication — email versus chat, or conversations versus documents?

 

Could a single communications model span all or most of the systems in use on the web today, in one smooth continuum? How simple could we make it?

 

What if we tried designing a communications system that took advantage of computers' current abilities, rather than imitating non-electronic forms? 

 

After months holed up in a conference room in the Sydney office, our five-person "startup" team emerged with a prototype. And now, after more than two years of expanding our ideas, our team, and technology, we're very eager to return and see what the world might think. Today we're giving developers an early preview of Google Wave.

A "wave" is equal parts conversation and document, where people can communicate and work together with richly formatted text, photos, videos, maps, and more.

 

Here's how it works: In Google Wave you create a wave and add people to it. Everyone on your wave can use richly formatted text, photos, gadgets, and even feeds from other sources on the web. They can insert a reply or edit the wave directly. It's concurrent rich-text editing, where you see on your screen nearly instantly what your fellow collaborators are typing in your wave. That means Google Wave is just as well suited for quick messages as for persistent content — it allows for both collaboration and communication. You can also use "playback" to rewind the wave and see how it evolved.

As with Android, Google Chrome, and many other Google efforts, we plan to make the code open source as a way to encourage the developer community to get involved. Google Wave is very open and extensible, and we're inviting developers to add all kinds of cool stuff before our public launch. Google Wave has three layers: the product, the platform, and the protocol:

 

The Google Wave product (available as a developer preview) is the web application people will use to access and edit waves. It's an HTML 5 app, built on Google Web Toolkit. It includes a rich text editor and other functions like desktop drag-and-drop (which, for example, lets you drag a set of photos right into a wave). 

 

Google Wave can also be considered a platform with a rich set of open APIs that allow developers to embed waves in other web services, and to build new extensions that work inside waves.

 

The Google Wave protocol is the underlying format for storing and the means of sharing waves, and includes the "live" concurrency control, which allows edits to be reflected instantly across users and services. The protocol is designed for open federation, such that anyone's Wave services can interoperate with each other and with the Google Wave service. To encourage adoption of the protocol, we intend to open source the code behind Google Wave. 

 

So, this leaves one big question we need your help answering: What else can we do with this?

If you're a developer and you'd like to roll up your sleeves and start working on Google Wave with us, you can read more on the Google Wave Developer blog about the Google Wave APIs, and check out the Google Code blog to learn more about the Google Wave Federation Protocol. 

If you'd like to be notified when we launch Google Wave as a public product, you can sign up at http://wave.google.com/. We don't have a specific timeframe for public release, but we're planning to continue working on Google Wave for a number of months more as a developer preview. We're excited to see what feedback we get from our early tinkerers, and we'll undoubtedly make lots of changes to the Google Wave product, platform, and protocol as we go.

We look forward to seeing what you come up with!

Posted by Lars Rasmussen, Software Engineering Manager

 

Source: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/went-walkabout-brought-back-google-wave.html

Posted via web from Global Business News

GigaOM To Charge For Annual Subscription Service

By David Kaplan - Thu 28 May 2009

 

Tech news blog network GigaOm has unveiled a $79 subscription service, that will offer exclusive research and analysis, the blog’s founder Om Malik (pictured, right) said in a post. The service, dubbed GigaOM Pro, is debuting with 17 research pieces that are available for download as PDFs. GigaOM Pro is divided into four verticals around Green IT, Infrastructure, the Connected Consumer, and Mobile.

 

The plan for a paid subscription service took shape three years ago, Om wrote, the company was embarking on a funding round. Even in 2006, when online advertising was growing at substantial double digits, Om said he realized that ad-support alone wouldn’t cut it. Since then, it has expanded into the conference business and several events. The service is using WordPress’ BuddyPress social platform to run the content.

 

—ReadWriteWeb: In an interview, Om told RWW’s Richard MacManus that GigaOM Pro’s Analyst Network will operate in tandem with the blog’s content. As the analysts provide the data, the blog will pick up from there and “connect the dots.” It also represents Om’s view that, as media companies evolve, analysts and bloggers will need to develop a closer link, if readers are to be expected to pay for content.

 

Photo Credit: Flickr/jyri

 

Source: http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-gigaom-to-charge-for-annual-subscription-service/

Posted via web from Global Business News

Abortion Doc George Tiller Gunned Down at Church

AP – The body of a shooting victim is removed from the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kan., Sunday, …

 

 

 

 

 

 

WICHITA, Kan. – The attorney for George Tiller says the late-term abortion provider was shot and killed at his church in Wichita, Kan.

 

Attorney Dan Monnat says Tiller was shot as he served as an usher during Sunday morning services at Reformation Lutheran Church. Monnat said Tiller's wife, Jeanne, was in the choir at the time of the shooting.

 

The clinic run by the 67-year-old doctor has repeatedly been the site of protests for about two decades.

 

A protester shot Tiller in both arms in 1993, and his clinic was bombed in 1985. Capt. Brent Allred said police were looking for a gunman who fled in a 1993 light blue Ford Taurus registered in Merriam.

 

No other details about the shooting were immediately released.

 

WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — Late-term abortion doctor George Tiller, a prominent advocate for abortion rights wounded by a protester more than a decade ago, was shot and killed Sunday at his church in Wichita, a city official said.

 

A City Hall official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak about the case told The Associated Press that the 67-year-old doctor was killed Sunday morning at Reformation Lutheran Church.

 

Police spokesman Gordon Bassham would not confirm the victim's identity pending notification of relatives. He said the shooting occurred at 10:03 a.m. and the gunman fled the scene in a 1993 powder blue Ford Taurus registered in another part of the state.

 

Bassham said no suspects were in custody. He said it is not clear whether one or more suspects were involved.

 

Capt. Brent Allred said police were looking for a gunman who fled in a 1993 light blue Ford Taurus registered in Merriam.

 

Anti-abortion group Operation Rescue issued a statement denouncing the shooting.

Tiller has been among the few U.S. physicians performing late-term abortions. His clinic has repeatedly been the site of protests for about two decades and he was shot and wounded in both arms by a protester in 1993.

 

He remained prominent in the news in recent years, in part because of an investigation begun by former Kansas Attorney General Phil Kline, an abortion opponent.

 

Prosecutors had alleged that Tiller had gotten second opinions from a doctor who was essentially an employee of his, not independent as state law requires, but a jury in March acquitted him of all 19 misdemeanor counts against him.

 

Abortion opponents also questioned then-Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' ties to Tiller before the Senate confirmed her this year as U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary. Tiller donated thousands of dollars to Sebelius over the years.

 

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090531/ap_on_re_us/us_tiller_shooting

Posted via web from Global Business News

Mark Cuban Sues SEC Over Insider Trading Documents

Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cu… 

AP - May 26, 5:18 pm EDT

By SCHUYLER DIXON,

Associated Press Writer

 

DALLAS (AP)—Mark Cuban sued the Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday for access to documents detailing the insider trading case against theDallas Mavericks owner.

 

The Dallas billionaire filed requests for records in December under the Freedom of Information Act. That was a month after the SEC brought a civil action against Cuban, accusing him of selling shares of Internet search engine company Mamma.com after receiving confidential information about a private offering.

 

Cuban’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, claims the SEC improperly rejected some requests, didn’t respond quickly enough to appeals of rejections and failed to conduct adequate searches for some records.

 

Cuban provided a copy of his lawsuit to The Associated Press after it was reported by The Dallas Morning News. He didn’t comment further. An SEC spokesman declined comment.

 

The lawsuit said Cuban sought records of investigations involving Copernic Inc., the name for Mamma.com established two years ago, and an array of current and former Cuban enterprises, including the Mavericks, HDNet and Broadcast.com Inc.

 

According to the lawsuit, the SEC missed deadlines to respond to appeals of several rejected requests, leaving Cuban no choice but to sue.

 

“Because the SEC has failed to timely respond to Mr. Cuban’s FOIA/Privacy Act appeals, Mr. Cuban has exhausted his administrative remedies,” the lawsuit said.

 

The SEC was vague in rejecting many of the requests, the lawsuit said, and sometimes claimed investigations were ongoing when the agency was on record as having completed the probes. The lawsuit also cited President Barack Obama’s executive order from January declaring that federal agencies “should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure.”

 

The lawsuit was filed two days after Cuban appeared in federal court for a hearing on his motion to have the case dismissed. The hearing allowed attorneys to articulate arguments previously stated in motions and briefs since the suit’s filing in November.

 

U.S. District Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater didn’t immediately rule on the motion.

 

The SEC alleges that Cuban avoided a $750,000 loss by selling his 600,000 shares, which represented a 6.3-percent stake in Mamma.com, after executives told him of plans for a private offering. Cuban’s legal team doesn’t acknowledge those facts as true. But even if they are, Cuban’s lawyers contend, he didn’t engage in insider trading because he wasn’t legally an “insider.”

 

Source: http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-markcuban-insidertrading&prov=ap&type=lgns

Posted via web from Global News Feed

Wikipedia Blocks Scientology From Altering Entries

By Glenn Chapman - Fri May 29, 2009

 

SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) - Wikipedia has blocked the Church of Scientology from editing entries at the communally-crafted online encyclopedia due to an unrelenting battle over the group's image.

 

A "longstanding struggle" between admirers of Scientology and critics of the group prompted Wikipedia on Thursday to bar online edits from computer addresses "owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates."

 

An array of editors believed to have taken sides in a Scientology public-image war at Wikipedia have also been barred from tinkering with topics related to the church.

 

"Each side wishes the articles within this topic to reflect their point of view and have resorted to battlefield editing tactics," senior Wikipedia editors said in arbitration committee findings backing the decision.

 

"The worst casualties have been biographies of living people, where attempts have been repeatedly made to slant the article either towards or against the subject, depending on the point of view of the contributing editor."

 

A church spokeswoman downplayed the development, saying the Wikipedia arbitration committee is part of a routine process for handling conflicts at the website.

 

"Do Scientologists care what has been posted on Wikipedia? Of course," said Karin Pouw.

 

"Some of it has been very hateful and erroneous. We hope all this will result in more accurate and useful articles on Wikipedia."

 

Source: http://tech.yahoo.com/news/afp/20090529/tc_afp/usitinternetreligionscientologywikipedia_20090529222413

Posted via web from Global Business News

Google Wave Could Transform Net Communications

May 29th, 2009

 

What do you get when you use e-mail, instant messaging, blogs, wikis and other collaboration tools as a starting point for an entirely new communications model?

 

The answer is Google Wave.

 

Google previewed its latest Web-based application at the Google I/O developer’s conference this week. The Google Maps team, lead by Lars and Jens Rasmussen, developed the application to allow people to communicate and work together with richly formatted text, photos, videos, maps and other tools.

 

Wave is the Rasmussens’ answer to questions like: Could a single communications model span all or most of the systems in use on the Web today, in one smooth continuum?

 

And what if we tried designing a communications system that took advantage of computers’ current abilities, rather than imitating nonelectronic forms? It took the brothers two years to come up with some answers that take the form of Wave.

 

Catching the Wave

 

In Google Wave you create a wave, which often starts with instant messaging, and add people to it. Everyone on your wave can use richly formatted text, photos, gadgets and even feeds from other sources on the Web. They can insert a reply or edit the wave directly.

 

“It’s concurrent rich-text editing, where you see on your screen nearly instantly what your fellow collaborators are typing in your wave,” said Lars Rasmussen, a software engineering manager at Google.

 

“That means Google Wave is just as well suited for quick messages as for persistent content — it allows for both collaboration and communication. You can also use ‘playback’ to rewind the wave and see how it evolved.”

 

Wave is an HTML 5 app, but it can also be considered a platform with a rich set of open APIs that allow developers to embed waves in other Web services, and to build new extensions that work inside waves.

 

Source: http://www.techeroid.com/2009/05/29/google-wave-could-transform-net-communications/

 

Posted via web from Pulse Poll

The Future of US Capitalism

Published  by Davide Accomazzo, Adjunct Professor of Finance

 on May 4, 2009 in America's Financial Crisis, Economics and Public Policy

The financial turmoil of the last eighteen months has brought to everyone’s attention the problems and dichotomy of our present monetary and financial systems. While we are now dealing with the consequences of too much credit, it is also important to note that a system without credit (and—much to the delight of the populists—without bankers) would be a much poorer and less innovative social system.

So far, the attempted solutions suggested have varied from more leveraged credit to the substitution of the fiat currency system and the central bank with a gold-linked scheme.

 

The problem with most of these suggestions is a massive confusion about how the U.S. system really works, how it should work, and how we would like it to work (and here it gets really problematic as every individual interest invariably jockeys for a better position).

The issue with a fiat currency system is that it is backed by the credibility of the government and the central bank, which should be acting independently as a guardian of the currency. Governments have inherent conflicts of interest and may feel pressured to regularly weaken the currency as a means of veiled taxation; other sectors of the population will also look favorably on consistent inflation to reduce the burden of borrowing. The central bank is supposed to act independently to counterbalance these inherent social and political dynamics.

Unfortunately, in the case of the U.S. and many other countries, the central bank, is hardly independent or focused on one true objective of financial stability. In reality, a central bank’s independence is very limited; true independence would require practically no accountability and a large degree of secrecy, which comes, of course, with its own problems.

 

The fine balance between a government’s and a society’s pull toward credit excesses and the countervailing force of the central bank is the key to successful economies.

One way for the U.S. to begin heading back in that direction would be to simplify the objectives of the central bank (i.e., the Federal Reserve) and eradicate its current internal conflicts between credit management, currency management, growth management, price stability and banking supervision. In other forums, I have advocated that system supervision and price stability (including currency) should be the only focus of any central bank.

 

The Federal Reserve’s obsession with uninterrupted growth and constant business cycle management is a political objective completely inconsistent with its true existential mandate.

Recent populist calls for the dismantling of central banks around the world as a solution to this problem are very disingenuous and they miss the level of complexity our system has reached over decades. A potential return to some sort of gold standard and the eradication of the central bank will accomplish nothing positive. A financial system built on credit is far superior to no credit at all, but because of the system’s inherent instability, there is a great need for fiscal management and strict regulatory supervision.

 

The answer is a better, more functional and less sclerotic central bank—not a system left to its own devices.

The unfortunate truth (and yes I do believe in free markets and in maximum rational levels of freedom in every aspects of society) is that full free markets have never existed and cannot exist for two reasons: the natural tendency of humans to jockey for personal (or group) interests and the reflexivity of market action, which distorts self-adjusting dynamics.

 

As far as having a gold-linked currency goes, the shiny metal has had its chances over history and has invariably failed to function in the best interest of society at large.

The fact is that gold is subject to the same credibility issues of governments and central banks (that is, the idea of its value is still based on collective faith). Gold failed during the times of the Spanish empire, which drowned in a sea of inflation, during the California gold rush, and during the Great Depression. Gold is certainly not the answer at a systemic level, but it is an accepted temporary hedge, and until better checks and balances are found in our present system, it is an asset that deserves a small place in most portfolios.

Socialism (and certainly communism) in classic terms were concerned with gaining control of the means of production; nowadays that is a trivial issue and quite impossible to accomplish when most means of production are held offshore and a larger percentage of the economy is represented by services. The key to today’s socialism is control of capital creation—the unholy union of governments and central banks. Gov-centralbank-ism?

 

The future of capitalism will depend on our ability to clarify the objectives of central banks as well as America’s ability to create modern institutional checks and balances.

 

Note: The current fiat monetary system is based on a currency that is backed simply by faith and trust in the government. In other words, the currency is not at the present time convertible into anything—it is just a piece of paper that tracks relative interest rates and rates of growth among countries. Ultimately, currency value rests on the faith investors have in the government that the real value will not be debased. In the past, currencies have been linked to commodities (usually gold or silver) with a conversion ratio—this served to limit government actions to inflate the money supply and debase real purchasing power. During this economic mess there have been many voices that have invoked a return to some sort of gold standard. And as the everyday business of economic life is being thrown into question, calls for a move to some kind of socialism and away from the supposedly free markets are being made.

 

Source: http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/blog/index.php/2009/05/04/857

Posted via email from Global Business News

B-1 Video Shows Taliban Human Sacrifice, Military Claims

By Noah Shachtman 

May 29, 2009

 

Earlier this month, a series of American airstrikes on a village in western Afghanistan killed dozens and dozens of people — including at least 25 civilians. Now, U.S. forces are weighing the release of a classified video, taken from a B-1 bomber involved in the battle. The military is convinced that the footage will justify American troops’ actions during the firefight — and show that the Taliban committed “human sacrifice” in the village of Garani. Human rights groups say the video may only reinforce just how questionable those airstrikes really were.

 

“There is indeed video from a B-1 bomber,” U.S. Central Command chief Gen. David Petraeus tells National Public Radio. “What it will prove is that the targets of these different strikes were the Taliban.”

 

What it does not prove, is that there were not civilians killed. I think we agree, actually, that there were civilians killed in this incident along — again — with a substantial number of Taliban. This is a very tough case because this was a very significant ambush of an Afghan force that had our advisers with it, and it was in response to that force — literally rescuing that force at the request of Afghan political leaders as well as Afghan police and military leaders — that our forces then moved in a very tough fight that these bombs were dropped.

 

Secretary of State Clinton, President Obama, and new U.S. ambassador to Kabul Karl Eikenberry have allapologized for the civilian deaths in Garani. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, those killed include “an Afghan Red Crescent volunteer and 13 members of his family who had been sheltering from fighting in a house that was bombed in an air strike.”

 

But U.S. military officials continue to defend their troops’ actions. According to them, at about 3pm on May 4th, a coalition “quick reaction force” arrived in the village of Garani to help a combined force of Afghan National Police and Afghan National Army that had been ambushed by hundreds of Taliban fighters.  An Afghan sergeant had been shot — and was trapped by heavy Taliban machine gun and rocket-propelled grenade fire.

 

American F/A-18 jets were sent in, to zoom up low and fast over the town. The idea was to scare off militants while coalition troops tried to rescue the sergeant.  When that failed, the coalition forces began bombing. From approximately 4pm to 6pm, the fighter planes dropped four bombs 500-lb bombs on “enemy compounds.” As the battle continued, the F/A-18s made a number of strafing runs over Garani, shooting off flares and firing its 20mm guns.

 

After a lull, the bombing began again. American military officials won’t say what event, specifically, caused the airstrikes to restart; they do admit, however, that at least some of the Taliban force may have left Garani during this period. Locals tell Human Rights Watch that most of the fighting had died down. Nevertheless, over the course of the next three hours, the F/A-18s dropped five more 500 pound munitions on compounds and a grove where insurgents had gathered. “It was like Judgment Day,”

 

Habibullah, a health worker, tells Human Rights Watch. “Words cannot describe how terrible it was. Who can bear to see so many killed, from a two-day-old baby to a 70-year-old woman?”

 

A B-1 bomber, flying far overhead, dropped four one-ton munitions onto a pair of large mud-brick compounds. Villagers say more than 160 civilians, mainly women and children, had taken shelter inside the buildings, which were near a mosque and residential compounds. According to the military, observation from forces on the ground and the video from the B-1’s weapons sight show that the buildings were on the outskirts of the village, and packed with Taliban. The video shows two groups of fully-grown adults going inside the compounds. Radio traffic confirmed the insurgents’ presence. Additional footage shows women and children streaming into other buildings that were not bombed, the military says.

 

The U.S. also claims it has intelligence showing that the “Taliban’s deliberate planning to create a civilian casualty disaster for us,” Lt. Commander Christine Sidenstricker, a spokesperson for U.S. Forces Afghanistan, tells Danger Room. The militants planned to draw U.S. fire onto buildings crammed with innocents, she says.

 

If not enough women and children were killed, the Taliban made plans to use grenades to ensure an international outcry over civilian deaths. American intelligence also shows Taliban fighters congratulating themselves on forcing survivors to lie to doctors — and on taking American compensation money meant for the victim’s families, Sidenstricker adds. “This wasn’t collateral damage. It was human sacrifice by the Taliban. Deliberate civilian murder.”

It’s a claim U.S. officials have repeated any number of times, when civilians have been caught in firefights between coalition forces and the Taliban. Rachel Reid, Afghanistan researcher for Human Rights Watch, finds the argument unconvincing.

 

“The U.S. military spokespeople can be quick to blame Taliban shielding for civilian deaths, even when unproven, but this does not remove their responsibility to avoid civilian harm under the laws of war. In fact they have cried foul over Taliban shielding so many times, they ought to now be anticipating the tactic,” Reid tells Danger Room.

 

Yes, there’s “some evidence of Taliban shielding in Garani village. To deliberately risk the lives of civilians for military gain is a ruthless tactic of the insurgents.” But even if that’s true — and even if the B-1 video shows exactly what Petraeus and Sidenstricker say it does — “there are many questions that remain to be answered by the U.S.” about the Garani incident, Reid says.

 

“Although the U.S. had intelligence that some insurgents remained, the proportionality of such a heavy air attack must still be in doubt. If they were unaware of the civilian presence, their intelligence is cast into doubt… If they knew that civilians were still present, and dropped 8 bombs anyway, then what was the calculation of military gain versus civilian death that was made?”

 

Perhaps more of those questions will be answered next week, when the military hopes to show this supposedly-definitive B-1 video.

[Photo: USAF]

 

Source: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/b-1-video-shows-taliban-human-sacrifice-military-says/

Posted via email from Global Business News