Wb News: Jul 15, 2009

Now It's The UK's Turn For Some Bogus Piracy Stats
Wednesday, July 15, 2009

There are plenty of instances of misleading and otherwise bad stats being used by anti-piracy groups, like the recent BSA numbers from Canada that were basically made up. Now, a group from the UK is saying that piracy costs that country's economy tens of billions of pounds. It makes the same mistake as plenty of other studies before it: counting every instance of piracy, or perhaps even just the availability of copyrighted material on file-sharing networks, as a lost sale. It's fallacious to assume that every single person that downloads a piece of content, or simply has access to it for free, would pay for it if the free version wasn't available. Furthermore, any study like this that says an entire economy is being harmed by X amount of money because of piracy is pretty much bogus. This money that's supposedly being lost because of piracy isn't being lost by the economy, as undoubtedly it's being spent elsewhere. It's not being flushed down the toilet or turned into ether, it's just not ending up in content companies' bank accounts.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Now It's The UK's Turn For Some Bogus Piracy Stats

[Source: Good Times Society - by The American Illuminati]

Now It's The UK's Turn For Some Bogus Piracy Stats

[Source: World News]

Now It's The UK's Turn For Some Bogus Piracy Stats

[Source: Circulation News]

Now It's The UK's Turn For Some Bogus Piracy Stats

Now It's The UK's Turn For Some Bogus Piracy Stats

posted by 88956 @ 11:49 PM, ,

Those Skeptical Egyptians

PDF

You can see the gulf in the world that Obama is trying to bridge when you compare the shock that some in Washington feel when they see Obama actually trying to stop illegal West Bank settlements and the latest poll from Egypt:

Large majorities continue to believe the US has goals to weaken and
divide the Islamic world (76%) and control Middle East oil (80%). Eight
in 10 say the US is seeking to impose American culture on Muslim
countries (80%). Six in ten say it is not a goal of the US to create a
Palestinian state. These numbers are virtually unchanged from 2008.

Those Skeptical Egyptians

[Source: Good Times Society - by The American Illuminati]

Those Skeptical Egyptians

[Source: Mma News]

Those Skeptical Egyptians

[Source: Home News]

Those Skeptical Egyptians

[Source: Broadcasting News]

Those Skeptical Egyptians

[Source: Advertising News]

Those Skeptical Egyptians

Those Skeptical Egyptians

posted by 88956 @ 9:42 PM, ,

Norb Vonnegut: What Would Grove Do?

Today, Acrimoney is pleased to introduce Grove O'Rourke from Sachs, Kidder, and Carnegie.

Grove manages about $2 billion in total assets for wealthy families. He's seen it all inside his investment bank. He'll be joining Acrimoney for a new guest series: What Would Grove Do? As a regular on our blog, Grove will discuss market events, trading lingo, and how to work with financial advisers.

On June 10, 2009, The New York Times reported that authorities are indicting seven executives for selling tax shelters. Acrimoney believes, however, the article contains broader implications for understanding investments. Even if you've never seen a tax shelter.

Acrimoney: Thanks for visiting, Grove.

Grove: Glad to join your team.

Acrimoney: Nobody's ever heard of Sachs, Kidder and Carnegie. Before we review the NYT article, can you tell us more about your firm?

Grove: You'll hear plenty this September.

Acrimoney: Oh?

Grove: That's when the novel, Top Producer, goes on sale.

Acrimoney: Hey, wait a minute. You're a work of fiction?

Grove: I prefer to think of myself as an amalgamation of the good guys in finance--advisers who put their clients' interests first.

Acrimoney: Then, you can give us an insider's view?

Grove: With no fear of Wall Street retribution. What's somebody going to do, delete me?

Acrimoney: Okay then. We know tax shelters were all the rage from 1994 to 2004. What did you tell your clients?

Grove: Shelters are more toxic than Chernobyl. You remember the 1986 nuclear disaster in the Ukraine?

Acrimoney: Do we ever...

Grove: According to the NYT, the tax shelters charged fees equal to a "percentage of the tax savings."

Acrimoney: What's the problem?

Grove: It violates Rule Number One--never bet against the IRS. The returns from tax shelters all come at the expense of Uncle Sam. It's like picking a fight with the umpire.

Acrimoney: You said these investments were more toxic than Chernobyl. What tipped you off?

Grove: Fees.

Acrimoney: Too high?

Grove: So high, in fact, they triggered Rule Number Two--investment fees over 2 percent are a red flag.

Acrimoney: Two percent fees are too high for any investment?

Grove: Every rule has an exception. But I'm a careful guy when it comes to my clients. And the truth is, I start scrutinizing fees well before they hit 2 percent.

Acrimoney: How much were the tax shelter fees?

Grove: 4.5 percent.

Acrimoney: You're kidding.

Grove: It gets worse. On COBRA, one of the shelters named in the NYT article, investors paid nonrefundable fees of $1.06 million and signed nondisclosure agreements before they could view documents.

Acrimoney: Hang on. They paid $1.06 million up front? Before they could "examine the merchandise?"

Grove: Danger Will Robinson. Or, "Buyer beware," for those who didn't watch much television in the 1970s.

Acrimoney: Wait a minute. Are you making up these details?

Grove: You can't make this stuff up--

Acrimoney: Hey, that's our line.

Grove: If you don't believe me, click here to see my source: Bitten by a COBRA?

Acrimoney: You have two rules. Are there any others?

Grove: Rule Number Three--watch out for Wall Street's kitschy acronyms. They sound smart. But they're usually shorthand for manufactured products with big fees and questionable value. The tax shelters in the NYT article, for example, included COBRA and SOS.

Acrimoney: COBRA is an acronym for a tax shelter?

Grove: Most people think of health insurance when they hear COBRA. According to the US Government, COBRA stands for Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985. That's a mouthful.

Acrimoney: But there's a different COBRA?

Grove: One tax shelter used COBRA as the acronym for Currency Options Bring Reward Alternatives.

Acrimoney: That's ridiculous.

Grove: SOS stands for "Short Options Strategy." But I prefer "Sack of..." Just kidding.

Acrimoney: Hey, can you Save Our Shekels?

Grove: You bet. Next week, let's talk about how to communicate with financial advisers.

Acrimoney: That's it for today. Grove, thanks for joining us on Acrimoney.

Grove: Wouldn't miss it for the world. I look forward to guest blogging.

www.acrimoney.com

Conservatives launch Sotomayor attack

PDF

Prominent Republicans and conservative interest groups seek to portray Sonia Sotomayor as racist and un-American

Prominent Republicans and conservative interest groups have unleashed a campaign to portray President Barack Obama's supreme court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, as racist for suggesting that white men don't always make the best judges and un-American for using a Spanish pronunciation of her name.

What Obama has portrayed as Sotomayor's strength as an American of Puerto Rican descent raised in the Bronx who made it to Princeton and Yale, bringing areas of experience and understanding not immediately evident among the white male majority on the supreme court, is being played by her opponents as evidence that she was nominated because she has a racial agenda.

Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the house of representatives, and Karl Rove, George Bush's chief strategist, have both called Sotomayor "racist" and said she should withdraw as a nominee over comments she made in 2001. In a talk at the University of California, she offered the view that a female Hispanic judge would better understand certain issues around race and gender than a white male.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," she said. "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."

To some Americans, Sotomayor's comments appear self-evident. They point to the personal experience that Thurgood Marshall brought as a black man elevated to the supreme court during the civil rights era. But conservatives said her comments are evidence that she will be biased against whites and men.

Gingrich, in a Twitter feed to more than 340,000 followers, said she should resign. "Imagine a judicial nominee said, 'My experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.' New racism is no better than old racism," wrote Gingrich.

He sent a second tweet a few minutes later saying: "White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw."

Rove and two Republican members of congress also called Sotomayor racist.

The White House warned the Republicans to be "exceedingly careful" about such language. Some Republican strategists said the tactic could backfire if it alienates large numbers of Hispanics who support the party.

But other conservatives took up the cudgel.

Rush Limbaugh, the country's most popular talk radio host with millions of listeners, said the party should press the issue.

"If the GOP [Republican party] allows itself to be trapped in the false premise that it's racist and sexist and must show the world that it isn't, then the GOP is extinct," he said.

Critics are also using Sotomayor's pronunciation of her own name as a stick to beat her. The judge, whose parents hail from the Spanish-speaking US territory of Puerto Rico, uses a Hispanic pronunciation. Some critics have taken up a call by a prominent conservative magazine, the National Review, arguing that she should Anglicise it. The writer, Mark Krikorian, said that "there ought to be limits" to the demands made on English-speakers to try and pronounce foreign names.

While the accusations of racism are considered extreme among many Americans, they are likely to shape the challenges to Sotomayor when she faces her congressional confirmation hearing.

Obama sees Sotomayor's background as reflecting the "quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient" he said he wants to see in the next supreme court justice.

But that experience and understanding is being interpreted by some Republicans as bias. Senator Orrin Hatch, a member of the judiciary committee, portrayed Obama's desire for empathy in a supreme court justice as "a code word for an activist judge".

Hatch, said that while he is keeping an open mind, the judge will have to answer for her 2001 comments. He said he will not support her if she intends to use the law to implement social policy.

"I will focus on determining whether Judge Sotomayor is committed to deciding cases based only on the law as made by the people and their elected representatives, not on personal feelings or politics," Hatch said in a statement.

Critics have also latched on to Sotomayor's history of legal activism in the 1980s when she served on the board of a legal group tackling discrimination against minorities in New York and cases involving alleged racism involved in police brutality and the imposition of the death penalty.

The group won cases that redrew constituency boundaries to increase the number of Hispanic elected officials. It also launched a defamation case, and lost, against a former Reagan administration official for claiming that most Puerto Ricans in the city were on food stamps.