Awwwwww

posted on 2010-09-05 10:25:34

Have you seen Robin Thicke and Paula Patton's baby Julian?! Just had to post - what a cutie

Wanted: 3G Amazon Kindle. True or False?

posted on 2010-08-26 13:14:04

I blogged on the Amazon Kindle last year, and even then I was searching for sales figures on Amazon's new baby. They proved tough numbers to find. When I spoke with someone at Amazon about Kindle sales, they couldn't (or wouldn't) provide any, adding that everything was documented online. But online articles only stated the Kindles were "flying off shelves by the thousands" - no real numbers. I had to wonder if the Kindle was really selling as well as their marketing campaigns claimed. We've all seen it happen, a product hyped to the point that we think "everyone one else has one", so we buy it. It's a backwards method, but it works with the help of PR companies and cleverly placed articles about "booming sales". So I'm reading all these articles about the Kindle and it's sales, but I don't know anyone who owns one.

I mean, here's the deal - if people like the Kindle, cool. I would maybe use the Kindle on a plane ride or on the subway. It's personal preference, and I prefer books. I like the act of turning the pages of a book, of looking at the book on my bookshelf when I'm done. I like the idea of others borrowing my books and I love having a home library full of books and music. But then, I also buy cd's and vinyl instead of downloading music. I like to have that music on hand, in my hands, like my books. I downloaded of course, but it's not my preferred method because I'm old fashioned that way. I think it's great that the Kindle can offer students a break on book fees, and give them the ability to download text books that normally cost a fortune! That's brilliant, I'm totally in support of that..but why hide sales figures? Maybe Amazon is trying to convince consumers / publishing houses that the Kindle will soon replace the book. Is that possible? The article below helped answer some of my questions, for anyone interested:

Why Amazon Won't Release Kindle Sales Figures - Jeff Bertolucci, PC World

The news is always upbeat in Kindle Land. Amazon routinely issues glowing press releases trumpeting its e-reader's impressive sales and growing popularity, but it never reveals the actual number of Kindle devices it has sold.

Thursday's news flash is a prime example. To paraphrase, Amazon reported that its third-generation Kindle (the latest model that's receiving favorable reviews) is the company's fastest-selling e-reader ever. In fact, more 3rd-gen Kindles were ordered in the first four weeks of availability than in the same timeframe following previous Kindle launches. Furthermore, the Kindle has maintained its two-year run as Amazon.com's bestselling product.

Quite impressive. But how many Kindles have you sold, Amazon? Strangely enough, the company won't say. It never has.

Why is that? Perplexed, I asked IDC mobile device analyst Susan Kevorkian, who tracks the e-reader market, to weigh in on the matter.

"There are a variety of reasons," Kevorkian replied via email. "Short term, Amazon's policy means that Kindle won't get directly, and quite possibly unfavorably, compared to iPad in terms of shipments as the iPad grows in popularity and cannibalizes the e-reader market."

Kevorkian's hypothesis makes a lot of sense. After all, iPad sales figures have been gaudily spectacular to date: Apple sold 3.27 tablets during the first full quarter of iPad sales. Assuming the Kindle's numbers are significantly lower, the disparity between the Kindle and iPad might give the impression that Amazon's device is losing the e-reader battle vs. Apple.

In reality, that's not the case at all. Amazon's Kindle strategy is to distribute digital content (e.g., e-books) to a wide range of devices from multiple vendors and on multiple platforms, including Apple's iPad, iPhone, and iPod touch, Android smartphones and (very soon) tablets, and Mac and Windows PCs.

"This strategy has taken shape over the past several months with the launch of Kindle apps for a variety of devices that extend the Kindle experience well beyond the dedicated Kindle device," Kevorkian writes.

And although Amazon has declined to release sales figures for Kindle hardware, it's been "somewhat more forthcoming about Kindle content," she adds.

For instance, the company last month announced that the late Stieg Larsson, author of the "Millennium Trilogy" novels including The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, The Girl Who Played with Fire, and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest, became the first writer to sell one million Kindle e-books.

Perhaps Kindle hardware sales stats aren't all that relevant, particularly since Amazon's e-book strategy appears to be working. Still, it'd be nice to see some numbers alongside those "fastest-selling ever" claims.

Leave a comment

Janet Fans, Get Ready

posted on 2010-08-26 15:24:54

Janet Jackson will drop greatest hits album #3 on August 31. As one of the biggest-selling recording artists in the world, Janet has 34 number one records in her catalogue. Her latest project, titled ‘Janet Jackson – Number Ones – Icon,’ brings together 11 of those #1 hits. Not bad!

According to Singers Room.com, ‘Janet Jackson – Number Ones – Icon’ spans more than 20 years, from 1986's gold "What Have You Done For Me Lately" to her 2009's "Make Me," a song which Jackson debuted that year in tribute to her brother Michael at the MTV Video Music Awards. The hits album is part of the new Icon series of albums from Universal Music Enterprises (UMe) featuring the greatest hits, signature tunes and fan favorites of the most popular artists in music history.

Leave a comment

UPDATE: "Cocaine on boobs" scene will stay in Facebook movie

posted on 2010-07-18 23:57:41

UPDATE: Under fire from Facebook execs for making the founding of Facebook sexier than it was (welcome to Hollywood!!!), the movie's producers have been debating whether or not to cut a scene that features teenage girls parading around a Sean Parker party offering guests lines of coke off their boobs. Days after producer Scott Rudin said that a scene of cocaine and bare breasts are staying in the picture. The upcoming Sony Pictures release about the origins of Facebook has been labeled fiction, but is still bringing in opposition from those portrayed. The Aaron Sorkin script is based on court documents and journalist Ben Mezrich's "The Accidental Billionaires," a partially fictionalized account of the company's early days.

Rudin told the New York Times he's been involved in dialog with Facebook execs to assuage concerns about the film. He said he allowed certain executives to read the script and made changes to accommodate small requests - aaaaaand that's about it. Hey, Que Sera...I can't wait to see the flick.

Regarding the lines-of-cocaine-from-naked-boobs clip, apparently the scene was mostly made up, though Rudin said his main concern about the scene was whether it would jeopardize a PG-13 rating.

Parker, played in the film by Justin Timberlake, was a confidant of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg but left the company after a cocaine-related arrest in 2005, according to Facebook biographer David Kirkpatrick. Sources said Facebook lawyers have expressed concerns about the "Social Network" marketing campaign, which uses a logo similar to Facebook branding. See it for yourself October 1. 'The Social Network' stars Justin Timberlake, Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield will present at MTV's Video Music Awards on September 12.

Check the latest trailer for The Social Network, the movie about Facebook. Directed by David Fincher, they say the movie's "creepy" and dark all the way through. The trailer looks that way, but I've wanted to see the story of facebook co-founders Mark Zuckerberg and Sean Parker (played by Jesse Eisenberg and Justin Timberlake - a bit of a stretch but, ok) on the big screen for a minute. Let's see it!

Little-known Belgian women’s choir, Scala and Kolacny Brothers, did their rendition of Radiohead's “Creep” for the product. Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails is recording the score for the film, which debuts October 15, 2010 - and hopefully won't give us all nightmares with it's evil soundtrack. Will watch with ears slightly covered...

Leave a comment

Toshiba Prepping 3DTV - No Glasses Required

posted on 2010-08-26 11:46:31

There's only so much 3D one can watch, but this still sounds pretty cool. Later this year, Toshiba will reportedly release a 3D television that requires no 3D glasses. Apparently Toshiba came up with a technology that displays rays of light at different angles, which eliminates the need for the glasses. Three models will be produced just in time for the holiday season, according to Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper in Japan. The cost, according to the paper, will be upwards of several thousand dollars. Calling all holiday ballers!

The people at Toshiba haven't decided upon a hard release date for their new product, concrete specifications, or any other details. I may not get one myself but if YOU do, call me up and I'll bring the popcorn!

Leave a comment

Craigslist trouble...again

posted on 2010-08-26 12:22:03

Have you checked out Anderson Cooper lately? Amber Lyon has been doing a helluva job reporting on allegations that Craigslist isn't doing all it can - or anything - to combat child sex trafficking. In the above video, when Amber posts a fictional prostitution ad--which was advertising sex for money--she brings in 15 calls in a three-hour period. Amber confronts Craig Newmark (the Craig in Craigslist) on the spot about illegal activity taking place on his website, and he has little to say. After months of non action from site owners and operators, others are calling for answers about the sex trafficking that's openly available in the "adult services" section of Craigslist.

According to PC World, seventeen attorneys general wrote an open letter to Craigslist on Tuesday demanding the "adult services" section of Craigslist be taken down immediately. In the letter, the attorneys general explained that the "increasingly sharp public criticism of Craigslist's Adult Services section reflects a growing recognition that ads for prostitution -- including ads trafficking children -- are rampant on it." The letter went on to state that, because Craigslist "cannot, or will not" screen the ads, the online ad service should stop accepting such ads altogether. The letter goes on to give examples of Craigslist "adult services" ads gone wrong. Craigslist responded to this letter (published openly, in a newspaper) with a blog post in which they asked for police reports and other evidence. The attorneys' general letter suggests this is an example of how Craigslist is "blames the victims" and that Craigslist lives in an "imagined utopia" where "every Adult Services advertisement is harmless until proven otherwise."

The 17 attorneys general who signed the letter are from the states Arkansas, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

This is not (at all) the first time Craigslist's services section has been criticized--the site has been linked to everything from murder, kidnapping and assault. After complaints, the site removed an "erotic services" to set up a new "adult services" section, the category now under fire. Craigslist said that postings to the new section would be manually reviewed, which clearly isn't happening. In late May 2009, an alleged prostitution ring named "Room Service Entertainment" was busted--a ring which reportedly operated exclusively on Craigslist. I hope they get it together over there and get rid of the creepyness! I found my first New York apartment on Craigslist. The site can be a useful resource if the people in charge start paying attention.

Leave a comment

Dr. Laura & the Conservative Talk Show Host

posted on 2010-08-20 20:06:30

Amidst criticism for her repeated use of the n-word on her radio show, Dr. Laura Schlessinger has decided to step down from her post as talk show host at years end. She's taking her crap to the world wide web. She'll no doubt be right at home, as the Internet isn't regulated in this country (only a no gambling act) and any Tom, Dick or Jamal can log on and spout ignorance. Watching Dr. Laura announce her radio resignation on Larry King the other night confirmed (for me) that she doesn’t get it. She apologized, which is what you do when you mess up. However, Dr. Laura claims she’s leaving radio because she “wants her first Amendment rights back”. She feels those rights have been violated because of backlash for racial slurs that she herself said? Hmmm. She referenced a time in radio where you could get on the air and “say whatever you wanted to say” with healthy debate. Now, according the Dr. Laura, the fun has ended thanks to groups like Media Matters and those attempting to silence opposing points of view. I disagree. Healthy debate is what makes radio so fun, especially talk format. Racial slurs have no place in a household, in our society and certainly not in a broadcast medium. That’s not fun, most people don’t enjoy it so they speak up. And Dr. Laura believes she is the victim and the exception to the rule, and that she has no accountability. She never once thought that people might be fed up with racial bigotry, that they don’t want to hear offensive terminology or racial slurs. Here’s one thing Dr. Laura now knows for sure, people realize radio is funded by advertisers and they’re taking their power back. I think it’s great.

But really…Dr. Laura needs to watch less television! Does she really think that what she sees on HBO is real life - and did she take her caller as equally ignorant? I mean, c'mon people say ni**a this ni**a that on HBO, surely that makes it so. Right? I mean, does Dr. Laura have no black friends? Was she really, with her PH.D holding self, trying to convince a caller that "the n word" is commonplace in black households and communities - because HBO says so? I don't buy it. Dr. Laura isn’t a stupid woman, and her argument isn't rational for that reason alone; she understands how and why people of different races and ethnicities are typecast on television, in advertising and in mass media. She understands hegemony, racism, classism and sexism, all which exist in mass media. She works in mass media - it’s impossible to miss these things. Dr. Laura knows the inner workings of the machine which she's a part of, she knows television is propaganda, yet she tried to throw falsities back in the face of a listener as truth and recklessly use a word that is offensive. And for what - to prove a point or teach a lesson? I think not, because when the listener responded with shock, Dr. Laura screamed back, "don't NAACP me!" No, I don't think Dr. Laura was trying to have a teachable moment or insightful dialogue. She was clearly trying to belittle this black caller with very offensive sarcasm. I have friends all over the world, of countless races and ethnicities, and we talk about words that hurt us and how badly racial slurs and stereotypes make us feel. And we would never, under any circumstance, shout those slurs at one another to make a point. Dr. Laura, are you kidding me?

Or just for fun, let's give Dr. Laura the benefit of the doubt and assume that she truly believes what she sees on the boob tube, that she believes us blacks go around ni**a this-ing and ni**a that-ing, that blacks are comfortable disrespecting their own with a term that’s defined as being dirty, dark, evil, not trustworthy, deceptive, cursed, contemptible, inferior, ignorant - a term applied to blacks way back when out of hatred and ignorance. Let's assume she believes that all us black folk have somehow managed to flip that word into a term of endearment, that we could look at those we love and call them, that. Would this justify her use of that word? No, not even then, because she knows the history of that word, just like most of us know the history of that word. How did Dr. Laura miss the very early lesson about not following the other idiots jumping off the bridge? No. Save yourself, use your good sense and don't jump. Racial slurs are wrong and so very hurtful. Doesn't obtaining a PH.D denote knowledge, wisdom, and vigor for learning? Are they handing out PH.D's nowadays? Dr. Laura knows a little something about people and society. Times have changed, and while many of us still struggle for our equality, we now know better and we do better! The reason we hear the n-word word less frequently in rap lyrics, the reason it's bleeped out in a broadcast medium, the reason many comedians don't use the same verbiage as Richard Pryor - is because we've evolved. We’ve cracked the genome. Dr. Laura cannot claim that she was raised in an environment where this language was acceptable. She lived through the civil rights movement and lots of other movements that were necessary in the name of equality and progress. She’s educated. So for me, that makes her offense that much more offensive. Dr. Laura could have shown compassion, or tried to help her caller navigate through the obviously uncomfortable occurrence of her white husband and his family using the n-word with ease. She could have educated her caller on mass media, hegemony, and had an insightful discussion about how backwards the whole thing is. But instead she was condescending and she played herself.

Let's look at the bigger picture. There’s a cancer looming in the broadcast industry, a racist entity operating under the guise of “conservative talk” – I’m talking about conservative right-wing talk show hosts. Though Dr. Laura isn't one herself (I don’t believe she’s a racist person, in my heart I don’t – I just think she’s a moron and needs to read more books / meet more blacks), her rant reminds us of the problem that exists in syndicated radio. The "broadcast police”, aka the FCC, don’t really police talk radio shows unless there’s something vulgar or indecent on the air. When the Fairness Doctrine was abolished in ’87, we saw the rise of the conservative talk show host - drunk on their entitlement, broadcasting messages rooted in racism. These right wing elitist conservative talk show hosts, the vast majority who probably never had a real friend in their life, get paid in a week what the majority of Americans make in a year, simply to relay messages of hatred and racial intolerance to their listening audience. They spew and spew and throw that sh** until they offend someone so badly, and there's a public outcry, and possibly a station fine, then groups like Media Matters step in, and PR people do damage control and suspend the offensive host (with HIS PAY - because men dominate conservative talk radio). Or they can really make it interesting and fire them - and then re-hire them. Just for the sake of the headline, right? These radio hosts are comfortable, way too comfortable, because there’s been little recourse - instead, bonuses. They are puppets for the paycheck, and their endeavors are cushioned with private funding from ultra-rich old school conservatives and crooked advertisers. All of this in the name of protecting wealth and keeping it safe. They must demonize "the Other" and keep the masses brainwashed - to keep minorities in "their place" and in no way poised to ever, ever amass any wealth or obtain political / social equality. The have and the have nots, that's how it goes? These conservative talk show hosts and their racist ideologies have been virtually encouraged. They spread their message of segregation and classism at the expense of a society which is trying its best to progress - and at the expense of other radio hosts who actually have TALENT, who could use their platform to help society. It is these jocks getting the shaft, the smaller paychecks, and the least amount of financial backing from advertisers because they get the least promotion from the sales department. Well I no longer accept that. This is not the way it should be. If we don't begin to mobilize and call it like we see it, as emotionally exhausting as it is – every time we see it, we will watch history repeat itself. We must evolve, and there's enough to go around. Even Bill Gates will tell you that.

Racial bigotry is alive because racism is a structure, and structures take a long time to change. The key is to keep talking, and doing so with love, understanding and empathy, in the spirit of progression. We want to move forward. Open and honest dialogue is the way.

Leave a comment

Steven Slater's JetBlue Escape -- Caught on Tape!

posted on 2010-08-15 10:44:48

Hold on to your face, have tissue handy from the :17 second mark, on - 'cuz that's where the action begins. Our friends at WNBC have obtained footage of the moment flight attendant Steven Slater ejected himself via inflatable slide from his (soon to be former employer) JetBlue aircraft. It's vague, but satisfying just the same. It's almost better to see less so we can re-create the rest in our head and laugh 'till we cry, which is what I'm doing right now

Leave a comment

40 U.S. billionaires pledge to give away at least 50 percent of their wealth

posted on 2010-08-04 15:14:52

Pictured: Bill and Melinda Gates, Jimmy Buffett

My mom always told me, "if you don't ask, you don't get". When I heard Bill Gates Jr. and Sr. on Larry King calling on other billionaires to give away their wealth, I wondered if it would ever work. Not to say that the very wealthy aren't generous, I believe the ultra-rich understand the power of their resources and find joy in philanthropy. However, the wealth in the United States is so unfairly concentrated - and with wealth comes power, along with the ability to generate even more wealth. It's a cycle, and those with power aren't so quick to give it up. According to a 2007 study done out of Santa Cruz University, in the United States, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). Did you read that? 15% of the wealth in the United States for the BOTTOM 80%!!!?? In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. When we take private assets, inheritances, stock ownership (which can be used to run corporations) and other factors into account, one can't help but wonder how - and if - any of this wealth will ever be re-distributed to help those who need it most. How do we begin to ever reverse this cycle?

Bill and Melinda Gates, along with Jimmy Buffett, launched "The Giving Pledge" in June to convince U.S. billionaires to give away most of their fortune during their lifetimes or after their deaths and to publicly state their intention with a letter of explanation. Gates and Buffett called on about 80 of the wealthiest people in the United States to join them in their generous philanthropy and help to create a better world with their resources. So far, 40 have answered with big contributions. No, this doesn't mean the rest of us will receive checks in the mail - don't wait by the mailbox, my friends. It does mean that a lot more money will be put into science, medicine, education, the poor, and other causes that deserve attention (but may not be government priority). Hats off to the Gates family, who have used their wealth as a resource to help people all over this country and the world. I love how Bill and Melinda Gates are comfortable speaking freely about wealth, class and power, something many people in their position dare to openly discuss. Check out www.givingpledge.org for more information, and below are a few excerpts from letters written by billionaires who have stepped up and taken the pledge. Some had insightful and beautiful things to say about giving. After all, you can't take it with you...

* Laura and John Arnold, hedge fund manager: "We view our wealth in this light -- not as an end in itself, but as an instrument to effect positive and transformative change."

* New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg: "If you want to do something for your children and show how much you love them, the single best thing -- by far -- is to support organizations that will create a better world for them and their children. And by giving, we inspire others to give of themselves, whether their money or their time."

* Philanthropist Eli and Edythe Broad: "Those who have been blessed with extraordinary wealth have an opportunity, some would say a responsibility -- we consider it a privilege -- to give back to their communities, be they local, national or global."

* Investor Warren Buffett: "Were we to use more than one percent of my claim checks (Berkshire Hathaway stock certificates) on ourselves, neither our happiness nor our well-being would be enhanced. In contrast, that remaining 99 percent can have a huge effect on the health and welfare of others."

* Microsoft founder Bill and Melinda Gates: "We have been blessed with good fortune beyond our wildest expectations, and we are profoundly grateful. But just as these gifts are great, so we feel a great responsibility to use them well. That is why we are so pleased to join in making an explicit commitment to the Giving Pledge."

* Hotel magnate Barron Hilton: "It is my hope that others are inspired by my father's story, and by our family's steadfast adherence to his charitable philosophy."

* Corporate executive Jon and Karen Huntsman: "It has been clear to me since my earliest childhood memories that my reason for being was to help others."

* Banker George Kaiser: "I had the advantage of both genetics (winning the 'ovarian lottery') and upbringing. As I looked around at those who did not have these advantages, it became clear to me that I had a moral obligation to direct my resources to help right that balance."

* Media entrepreneur Gerry and Marguerite Lenfest: "The ultimate achievement in life is how you feel about yourself. And giving your wealth away to have an impact for good does help with that feeling."

* Business Wire founder Lorry Lokey: "There's an old saying about farmers putting back in to the ground via fertilizer what they take out. So it is with money. The larger the estate, the more important it is to revitalize the soil."

* Moviemaker George Lucas: "My pledge is to the process; as long as I have the resources at my disposal, I will seek to raise the bar for future generations of students of all ages. I am dedicating the majority of my wealth to improving education."

* Tashia and John Morgridge, former Cisco CEO: "The more personally involved we have become with the causes we support the more effective we seem to be."

* Peter Peterson, founder of Blackstone Group equity firm: "As I watched and learned from my father's example, I noticed how much pleasure his giving to others gave him. Indeed, today, I get much more pleasure giving money to what I consider worthwhile causes than making the money in the first place."

* David Rockefeller, patriarch of the Rockefeller family: "Our family continues to be united in the belief that those who have benefited the most from our nation's economic system have a special responsibility to give back to our society in meaningful ways."

* Jeff Skoll, former eBay executive: "The world is a vast and complicated place and it needs each of us doing all we can to ensure a brighter tomorrow for future generations."

* Asset manager Tom Steyer and Kat Taylor: "Surely the pleasure we derive from St. Francis' active verbs of consoling, understanding, loving, giving and pardoning far outweigh any selfish and passive pleasures of owning, having, or possessing."

* Media magnate Ted Turner: "I'm particularly thankful for my father's advice to set goals so high that they can't possibly be achieved during a lifetime and to give help where help is needed most. That inspiration keeps me energized and eager to keep working hard every day on giving back and making the world a better place for generations to come."

* Former Citigroup executive Sanford and Joan Weill: "Our Pledge is this: We will continue to give away all of the wealth we have been so fortunate to make except for a very small percentage allocated to our children and grandchildren between now and the time we pass because we are firm believers that shrouds don't have pockets."

Leave a comment

Hugh Hefner: Playboy, Activist, Rebel

posted on 2010-08-03 09:41:12

I got a chance to check out Hugh Hefner: Playboy, Activist, Rebel. The film, directed by Brigitte Berman, was less about the Playboy years and more about Hefner's rebellion against the pervasive social norms that existed during Playboy's inception. While I was always interested, I learned there's much more to Hugh Hefner than meets the eye (as is usually the case with people). He had an active role in the fight for racial integration and abortion rights, and conveyed his points of view via his magazine - a risk few mainstream publications and big brands were willing to take at the time. With commentary from Hugh Hefner, Gene Simmons, Mike Wallace, Reverend Jesse Jackson, Tony Curtis and a few others, the docu-style movie features some crazy old school footage of the beginnings of Playboy and life "in the mansion". Talk about free love! Hef went out of his way to create a loving and creative atmosphere in his home and his life, and stayed true to his beliefs of inclusiveness; he has zero tolerance for racial or sexual discrimination. He spoke a lot about Dr. Martin Luther King and the civil rights era. The film elaborated on the sexual revolution, women's rights and sex laws - many of which Hefner helped to change. Also discussed were the death of playmate Dorothy Stratton and Hefner's dark depression post the suicide of his favorite long time secretary, who was under pressure from religious organizations and the government to link her boss to a non-existent drug ring. This is a movie worth watching. I now understand why Hugh Hefner is beloved by so many

Leave a comment