AT&T Breaching Net-Neutrality Rules Despite Lifting Some FaceTime Restrictions

AT&T continues to breach net-neutrality regulations despite an announcement that it would begin offering Apple’s FaceTime service to more of its iPhone and iPad subscribers, digital rights groups said.

The nation’s second-largest carrier said Thursday it was expanding the ability of its customers to use the FaceTime application, at no extra charge, for Apple iOS 6 customers with LTE coverage who have subscribed to any tiered plan. The company said the changeover should begin rolling out in the “next eight to 10 weeks.”

AT&T was limiting the iPhone’s FaceTime video-chat service on its cellular networks to users with new, shared data plans, which are generally more expensive. In September, the iPad 3 and newer iPad models, the iPhone 4S and the new iPhone 5 running iOS 6 became capable of using FaceTime over cellular networks instead of solely Wi-Fi.

But despite the change, Public Knowledge said that, until AT&T begins offering the service on all of its cellular plans like Sprint and Verizon do — including for AT&T customers with unlimited data — the company will be violating net neutrality rules.

“This is a step in the right direction,” said John Bergmayer, senior staff attorney with Public Knowledge.

Public Knowledge and other groups have been meeting with AT&T since September, when they threatened to challenge the FaceTime blocking with the Federal Communications Commission. He said within the coming months, if AT&T doesn’t open up FaceTime to all plans where subscribers have compatible Apple devices, he might demand the FCC’s intervention.

Apple’s FaceTime app allows live video conversations between users of Apple devices.

Net neutrality rules prohibit DSL and cable companies from unfairly blocking services they don’t like and require them to be transparent about how they manage their networks during times of congestion. The regulations do allow for certain kinds of mobile network management during periods of congestion, but these cannot unfairly target services that compete with the carriers’ own services.

Mobile carriers like AT&T and Verizon face fewer rules, but are banned from interfering with alternate calling services such as Skype that compete with the carriers’ services.

The nation’s largest carrier, Verizon, is already suing the FCC over the rules. A federal appeals court struck down a previous FCC attempt to enforce similar principles against Comcast after the cable internet provider was caught secretly interfering with peer-to-peer file sharing.

AT&T in August said that the main reason why it was not breaching the FCC’s net-neutrality rules was because the FaceTime application comes pre-installed on the iPhone and iPad. The company said it was not blocking the app, but that it reserved the right to enforce “some reasonable restrictions” to manage expected traffic congestion of the data-hogging app.

Read More..

James Bond returns: 007 things to know before seeing “Skyfall’

NEW YORK (TheWrap.com) – Fifty years after Sean Connery traveled to Jamaica in “Dr. No,” James Bond is back for the 23rd time in “Skyfall,” an instant classic in the Bond canon and a breath of fresh air for the franchise.

Bond has been on hiatus for close to four years, leaving some with the sour taste of “Quantum of Solace” – a bloated, action-heavy film many would rather forget. Daniel Craig as Bond seemed so promising in “Casino Royale,” his first film as the trigger-happy secret agent, where we found him playing cards, swilling martinis and bedding Eva Green.

Now Bond returns Thursday in Sam Mendes‘ “Skyfall,” joining forces with some old allies (Judi Dench as M) and new friends (Ben Whishaw as Q and Ralph Fiennes as a government official).

For a franchise celebrating its golden anniversary, it’s hard to imagine 007 could still surprise, but Mendes has issued a full-blown reboot, and TheWrap is here to help you catch up with seven things even the biggest Bond fan should know before seeing “Skyfall.”

Who got rid of the Bond girls?

When you think of Bond, you think of scantily clad women and passionate sex scenes – Ursula Andress traipsing out of the water in her bikini. Denise Richards in a midriff-baring tank top. Green and Craig in a hotel in Montenegro.

This time around, Bond girls are left on the sidelines. Berenice Marlohe appears briefly for instant salivation. But aside from Naomie Harris, the Bond girls play smaller roles, and, to everyone’s surprise, are mostly clothed – no bikinis, no lingerie. Just one shower scene in the shadows.

Craig spends more time with his shirt off than all of the women put together. Eat your heart out ladies.

Where are the exploding pens?

Every Bond fan alive has gadget-envy. From the jet pack in “Thunderball” to the stun-gun cell phone in “Tomorrow Never Dies,” 007 always has an array of toys at his disposal.

No more. The more modern society gets, the less Bond has to work with. Facing the most dangerous cyber terrorist in the world, Q outfits the secret agent with little more than a gun (indeed, a special gun) and a radio.

Radio? Yes, radio.

Is James Bond too old for the job?

When we first see 007, he seems the same chiseled, debonair exemplar of British fortitude. Yet we soon discover much has changed in the world of the 00s. It appears Bond dies a few minutes into the movie, but he resurfaces as a scruffy drunk, taking shots of booze at a bar on a tropical island. This Bond would rather fall asleep drunk at a bar than go home to his gorgeous mate.

When Bond is subjected to a full physical and mental evaluation, his fitness is failing, his aim askew and his mental state muddled.

The government questions his return as a 00, leaving his future up in the air.

When did the villains stop caring about money?

MI6, the legendary British intelligence outfit, appears in even worse shape. It has long been home to some of the world’s best agents, willing to go undercover at a moment’s notice in service to queen and country.

Yet on Bond’s 50th anniversary, its strategies are antiquated, and its field agents, ready as ever to engage in fire fights, appear defeated. Long gone are villains like Goldfinger (“Goldfinger”) and crime syndicates like Janus (“Goldeneye”). Cyber-crime is the new danger, and its perpetrators don’t want money, they want chaos.

What’s a secret agent to do when nerds rule the world?

Is this a Bond villain to remember?

How is it that only the Coen Brothers and Mendes recognize Javier Bardem’s talent as a villain? After his chilling portrayal of Anton Chiguhr in “No Country for Old Men,” the Coen Brother’s Oscar-winning Western, Bardem returns to his evil ways as Raoul Silva, a former MI6 agent hell bent on revenge.

His hair is blonde, his accent is spine-tingling and his plan pure evil. He doesn’t fit the typical Bond stereotype. He’s not Russian, he’s not wealthy and he’s not affiliated with a larger organization. He’s a lone wolf.

He’s also the best Bond villain in years, leaving us to wonder: who will they recruit next?

Does the song remain the same?

For those living under a rock, Adele sings the “Skyfall” theme song, bringing a little extra cultural cache and British bluster to the film. It’s been years since a Bond movie used the classic opening, replete with fake blood, gunshots and a roving spotlight, but “Skyfall” takes us into new territory – underwater.

While plenty of Bond openings have featured fire and sexy silhouettes, Mendes chooses aquatic optics and a submerged graveyard. Though the scene will divide critics, the song itself shows off Adele’s powerful voice. Considering some of the recent entries – remember Madonna’s “Die Another Day”? – this is progress.

Did Christopher Nolan inspire Mendes?

James Bond is one of the most famous characters in film history, but “Skyfall” appears heavily influenced by Nolan’s Batman films. In keeping with the Craig-led Bonds (which began one year after “Batman Begins”), “Skyfall” is darker than earlier films, both literally (a night scene in Shanghai) and thematically (the constant fear of an attack at home).

When M makes a speech to Parliament, she proclaims the world scarier than ever because our enemies are now in the shadows – a choice Nolanism. The villains’ yearning for chaos rather than financial reward echoes Liam Neeson’s League of Shadows, Heath Ledger’s Joker and Tom Hardy’s Bane.

The new Bond also resembles the new Batman, a man struggling with his role in a changed world, an outcast who only wants to serve his country.

Believed dead, he only returns to England because of an attack on British soil.

Upon his return, Bond is now a lone vigilante a la the caped crusader, standing on a roof waiting for his next move – or perhaps the bat signal.

Movies News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Read More..

Doctor and Patient: Comparative Effectiveness Studies Lack Impact

“Comparative effectiveness” studies, which compare one treatment for a particular illness against another to determine which works better, have received a lot of attention and billions of dollars in federal support in the last few years. But when I mentioned comparative effectiveness research recently to a colleague who I know is particularly interested in treatments and the clinical trials behind them, he let out a loud snort and guffaw before I even finished saying the words.

“It’s a great idea, but it’s not real life,” he said, regaining his composure. “Or at least not the real life of a lot of doctors and patients.”

To explain, he described a newly published study on treating children who are thought to have swallowed a small foreign object, like a coin or a toy. He reeled off a long list of laboratory tests, scans, scopes and X-rays that the researchers recommended for such cases, adding, “Those experts assume that everyone lives near big medical centers like theirs, but not all of my patients do. And what are we going to do if the insurance company doesn’t approve of all the tests we order?”

It took only a cursory review of comparative effectiveness research over the last decade for me to realize that my colleague was right. Despite many useful and even potentially cost-saving findings, many of them failed to change doctors’ practice and patient care.

Now a group of researchers has offered a cogent analysis in the journal Health Affairs to explain this failure. And they have done so using methods about as different from comparative effectiveness as research can be.

The researchers talked to more than 50 doctors, patient advocates and other health care experts, each of whom had created, conducted or evaluated comparative effectiveness research or helped introduce the findings into clinical practice. During the interviews, they referred to trials of blood pressure medications, spine surgery, antipsychotic drugs, a heart rhythm device, heart catheterizations and bone marrow transplantation, and then asked why some of these studies seemed to inspire enduring changes while others did not.

A handful of factors came up again and again. Those interviewed frequently referred to the fact that many of these studies did not address the actual needs of practicing clinicians and patients. For instance, one study of medications for treating psychosis focused on the differences in efficacy among the drugs, but mental health care providers really wanted to know about differences in safety.

Sometimes, too, a study’s conclusions required such a significant shift in thinking that doctors and patients had difficulty adjusting to the change, like the recent recommendations against using measures of the prostate-specific antigen, or PSA, as a screening test for cancer. Other times, the findings were so nuanced or ambiguous, with such complicated restrictions on what worked best when, that they simply were not incorporated into professional guidelines or recommendations.

But perhaps the most common reason for these studies’ failures came down to dollars. In the current health care system, clinicians are rewarded for doing and ordering more. Pharmaceutical and medical device firms reap fortunes from physicians’ orders, and a single change could cost them billions. Studies that endorse anything less than another expensive procedure or a newer and more expensive medication or the latest device are often destined for failure or a protracted struggle against drug and device companies that are willing to put up a costly fight.

“The incentives are all out of whack,” said Justin W. Timbie, the lead author and a health policy researcher at the RAND Corporation in Arlington, Va. “The current system favors treatments that are well paid, not necessarily those that are most effective.”

For example, one study found that generic diuretic pills that cost pennies a day worked better for patients with high blood pressure than newer drugs that could be as much as 20 times as expensive. Because hypertension affects tens of millions of Americans, this finding had the potential to save the health care system billions of dollars.

But the finding never really took hold; the percentage of patients taking the cheaper diuretics barely increased. Physicians had a difficult time changing their prescribing habits; limited funding prevented researchers from widely disseminating the results; and pharmaceutical companies waged an aggressive marketing campaign that included paying health care experts to speak about the study in a way that made their expensive drugs seem better.

Based on their findings from these interviews, Dr. Timbie and his fellow investigators offer several suggestions that may improve the impact of these studies. These include realigning financial incentives to support recommended changes in practice; incorporating a broad range of perspectives, like those of practicing doctors and patients, in the design, goals and interpretation of such studies; and, above all, proceeding with a clear strategy for all future comparative effectiveness research.

Despite the challenges, the researchers remain optimistic about the future. And for good reason. Their study was initiated by policy makers and financed by the federal office responsible for health care policy coordination and planning. And representatives from the new national organization, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, whose mission is to develop and oversee such studies, have reviewed and discussed the suggestions with Dr. Timbie and the other authors of the study.

“The track record to now has not been great, but for the first time, comparative effectiveness research is a priority for the country,” Dr. Timbie said. “The whole process of generating new evidence has a degree of governance that has never existed before.”

“It’s all about impact now,” he added.

Read More..

News Analysis: For Obama, Housing Policy Presents Second-Term Headaches

A second-term president may be just the person to tackle America’s housing problems.

When President Obama first came into office, home prices were crashing, foreclosures were soaring and the previous Bush administration had just initiated the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-backed entities that agree to repay mortgages if the original borrower defaults.

With the market in shambles in 2009, the Obama administration pursued a tentative housing policy, for the most part avoiding big moves that might have further weakened the housing market or banks. Eventually, there were some bolder initiatives, like the national mortgage settlement with big banks as well as the Treasury Department’s aid programs for homeowners.

But as President Obama’s first administration comes to an end, the government is still deeply embedded in the mortgage market. In the third quarter, various government entities backstopped 92 percent of all new residential mortgages, according to Inside Mortgage Finance, a publication that focuses on the home loan industry.

Mr. Obama’s economic team has consistently said it wants the housing market to work without significant government support. But it has taken few actual steps to advance that idea.

“I think Obama is absolutely committed to reducing the government’s role,” said Thomas Lawler, a former chief economist at Fannie Mae and founder of Lawler Economic and Housing Consulting, an industry analysis firm. “But no one’s yet found a format to do that.”

Housing policy is hard to tackle because so many people have benefited from the status quo. The entire real estate system — the banks, the agents, the home buyers — all depend on a market that provides fixed-rate, 30-year mortgages that can be easily refinanced when interest rates drop. That sort of loan is rare outside of the United States. And any effort to overhaul housing and the mortgage market could eventually reduce the amount of such mortgages in the country, angering many and creating a political firestorm.

In other words, the best person to fundamentally change how housing works may be a president who won’t be running for office again.

Most immediately, the housing market has to be strong enough to deal with a government pullback. Some analysts think it’s ready. “I think the housing recovery is far enough along that they can start winding down Fannie and Freddie,” said Phillip L. Swagel at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, who served as assistant secretary for economic policy under Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr.

The administration can take smaller steps first. Mr. Lawler, the housing economist, thinks the government could start to reduce the maximum amount that it will guarantee for Fannie and Freddie loans. In some areas, like parts of the Northeast and California, it is as high as $625,000. Before the financial crisis, it was essentially capped at $417,000.

The big question is whether the private sector — banks and investors that buy bonds backed with mortgages — will pick up the slack when the government eases out of the market. If they don’t, the supply of mortgages could fall and house prices could weaken.

Banks say their appetite depends on how new rules for mortgages turn out. In setting such regulations, some tough choices have to be made.

The new rules will effectively map the riskiness of various types of mortgages. In determining that, regulators will look at the features of the loans and the borrowers’ income. Banks say they are unlikely to hold loans deemed risky, and their lobbyists are pressing for legal protection on the safer ones, called qualified mortgages.

The temptation will be to make the definition of what constitutes a qualified mortgage as broad as possible, to ensure that the banks lend to a wide range of borrowers. But regulators concerned with the health of the banks won’t want a system that incentivizes institutions to make potentially risky loans.

One set of qualified mortgage regulations, being written by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, could be completed as early as January. Other regulators, like the Federal Reserve, are expected to take longer in finishing their mortgage rules.

Resolving the conflict between mortgage availability and bank strength may depend on the person who replaces Timothy F. Geithner as Treasury secretary. Mr. Geithner is stepping down at the end of Mr. Obama’s first term.

The Obama administration faces other daunting decisions.

One is how to deal with the considerable number of troubled mortgages still in the financial system. Banks might be reluctant to make new loans until they have a better idea of the losses on the old loans. “If you don’t ever deal with these problems, you may never get to where you want to go,” said Mr. Lawler, the housing economist.

To help tackle that issue, the new administration might decide to make its mortgage relief programs more aggressive. It might even aim for more loan modifications, writing down the value of the mortgages to make them easier to pay. The Federal Housing Finance Agency, the regulator that oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, has effectively blocked such write-downs on the vast amount of loans those entities have guaranteed.

A new Obama administration may move to change the agency’s stance on write-downs, perhaps by replacing its acting director, Edward DeMarco. If that happened, it would be a sign that the White House had a taste for more radical housing actions. The agency declined to comment.

Then there’s what to do with the Federal Housing Administration, another government entity that has backstopped a huge amount of mortgages since the financial crisis. The housing administration was set up to focus on lower-income borrowers, and it backs loans that have very low down payments. Its share of the market has grown since the crisis. The F.H.A. accounted for 13 percent of the market in the third quarter, according to Inside Mortgage Finance.

The new administration has to decide whether it wants the F.H.A. to continue doing as much business. The risk is that a big pullback by the F.H.A. could reduce the availability of mortgages to lower-income borrowers. Banks almost certainly won’t want to write loans with minuscule down payments since they are considered riskier.

Ultimately, housing policy comes down to one question: Which borrowers should get the most subsidies?

Right now, the government largess encompasses a wide swath of borrowers. But most analysts believe government support should be focused on lower-income borrowers.

“We will know that the Obama administration is serious about housing finance reform when it comes up with a proposal for affordable housing,” said Mr. Swagel, the University of Maryland professor.

Read More..

Time to bury two election myths

With the election over and the votes counted, we now have data to refute a couple of persistent electoral myths -- one involving economics, the other polling.

Myth One: “No president has been reelected with an unemployment rate higher than ... .” This hoary notion never made much sense. Put the unemployment rate and the incumbent’s vote percentage on a graph and you can immediately see that the two bear almost no relationship to each other.

Two main reasons explain this. One is that the unemployment rate sometimes goes up when times are getting better and down when things get worse. As an economy improves, more people start looking for work, sometimes leading to a temporary increase in the unemployment rate; conversely, when things get worse and discouraged workers drop out of the market, the rate can drop.

LIVE ANALYSIS: The Times breaks down Election Day

The other reason is that voters respond much more to the direction of change than they do to the status quo. In other words, whether voters perceive the economy as getting better or worse matters more than the economy’s absolute level. And the number of jobs created in the economy provides a much better measure than the unemployment rate.

Myth Two: “In an equally divided country, self-identified Democrats and Republicans should be roughly equal in polls.” This misconception launched a thousand debates over whether published polls were “skewed” in favor of Democrats. It also caused some Republican pollsters to fool themselves -- and presumably their clients -- by weighting poll results to match a preconceived idea of what the balance between the two parties “should” be.

In the end, the election returns proved them wrong. As exit polls showed, voters who identified themselves as Democrats outnumbered those who identified as Republicans 38% to 32% this year, about the same margin that the major pre-election polls showed.

Asking voters which party they identify with is one of the most important parts of any poll. Pollsters use party identification to analyze other data, looking at how self-identified Democrats and Republicans view issues differently. And, of course, party identification powerfully predicts voting behavior. Republicans who weighted their polls to narrow the partisan gap ended up producing results that made Mitt Romney and other GOP candidates appear to be in better shape than they were.

PHOTOS: America goes to the polls

Of course, those pollsters didn’t set out to fool themselves. They were trying to solve a riddle: If Democrats and Republicans are close to parity in the results -- President Obama ended up beating Romney by about 2 percentage points in the popular vote -- how can Democrats have a six-point edge in party identification?

The answer is actually pretty simple. Over the last decade, a significant number of people who vote for Republicans have stopped identifying themselves as Republicans. That includes a lot of ardent conservatives. Instead of calling themselves Republicans, those voters now identify as independents. No similar movement has taken place among Democrats.

As a result, the group of voters who identify as independent no longer sits at the center of the political spectrum. Instead, independents heavily tilt toward the Republicans. Polls that take those independents into account and then weight their results to show more Republicans are, in effect, double counting.

The other result of that shift: A Democrat no longer has to win independents to gain a majority. Indeed, Obama lost self-identified independents by five points, 45% to 50%, according to the exit polls. He beat Romney 56% to 41% among voters who identified themselves as ideologically “moderate.”

PHOTOS: Paul Ryan's past

Follow Politics Now on Twitter and Facebook

david.lauter@latimes.com

twitter.com/@DavidLauter

Read More..

The 8 Missions That Should Dominate Obama's Technology Agenda

Now that the election is over, we hit up some of the smartest, hungriest folks in tech to get their wishlist for the next four years with Obama running the show. From immigration reform to education and an end to partisan gridlock, tech entrepreneurs will be demanding a lot of the president in his next term. Nerd cred or not, it’s clear Obama needs to deliver to keep the tech economy vibrant, and the startup world’s most creative minds making a beeline to the United States.

1. Get to Work on Immigration Reform

Kevin Hartz, CEO Eventbrite
Technology has made the world a much smaller and more open place. It’s also been a clear economic growth driver. As such, immigration reform to help attract talent worldwide, and incentives to new businesses to drive growth are top of mind. Either way, the innovation economy makes unequivocal positive impact independent of politics.

Naval Ravikant, founder AngelList
Passing the Startup Visa would be incredible. It would help us import more scarce technical talent. We need to separate the skilled and unskilled immigration debate. Pushing educational initiatives into technical education would also be good. What’s going on right now is that, as Dilbert creator Scott Adams put it, “the smart are getting richer” – mostly through huge leverage in the form of cloud computing, smartphones, open source, etc. Declaring a war on the rich could spill over into the smart. The better solution is to create a more technically leveraged workforce.

Other than that, don’t mess with the current system too much. I’d leave the rest of the system as is. One thing I am concerned about is that politicians are so intent on punishing bankers and private equity funds for the 2008 crash that they’re going to increase taxes and financial red-tape on entrepreneurs along the way.

2. Set Some Policies on Privacy and Personal Data

Andy Hickl, co-founder and president Saga
I really hope that the next administration is going to have something to say about how companies handle personal data. Tech companies are swimming in personal data collected from their users — and users are only too eager to fork over some bit of private info to get their hands on the latest app or gadget. Many tech companies are doing the right thing and taking extra steps to safeguard their users’ data. But how much is enough? What’s the gold standard? Until we get some Federal framework in place that lays out how companies should safeguard personal data, it’s still going to be the Wild West.

Anthony Goldbloom, CEO of Kaggle
As a data company that does work in healthcare, HIPAA, the legislation that attempts to protect patient privacy, does far more harm than good. It does not fully protect patient privacy, while making it difficult for medical researchers to access the data that might contain life-saving insights, and for healthcare companies to use predictive modeling (a great tool for supporting preventative medicine). HIPAA should be reworked to better support getting insights out of medical data. In practice, it’s almost impossible to fully protect patient privacy anyway

A nice-to-have would be measures that simplify the administrative burdens involved in running a company. For instance, we have employees in California, Indiana and New Jersey. We file tax returns in each jurisdiction and have different obligations to our employees in different jurisdiction. Streamlining this process is not something a president can do alone, but it’s unlikely to happen without a presidential push.

Narges Bani Asadi, CEO, Bina Technologies
Those of us at the intersection of big data and genomics are also very concerned about privacy mandates. The genomics revolution must define “clear policies” on who can access and use whole genome data – including health insurance providers and third-party data storage companies such as “cloud computing”
services.

The Obama administration may indeed need to influence the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which protects patients’ medical information, or the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which is intended to prevent employers and insurance companies from misusing genetic data. Additionally, patients need to be informed about what it means to have their genome sequenced– who can access their data, how it might be used, and the consequences of specific test results.

3. Better Math and Science Education, and More Funding for Research

Jeff Bonforte, CEO, Xobni
Obama should prioritize research and development in fundamental, long time-frame science areas like space, environmental preservation and recovery, energy, materials, etc. This has many benefits, but the most important are to inspire the next generations of entrepreneurs, inventors and innovation. Disruption begets disruption. Core improvements in these areas drive massive innovation downstream. For example, fund internet development and you get Google, et al. Fund energy breakthroughs and we will see massive improvements in computing ubiquity and power.

For the short term, citizens that are safe, healthy, educated and well-employed provide fertile markets for both existing players and new entrants alike. But massive imbalances of wealth distribution ultimately makes these goals impossible, and undermines startup markets.

Dean Rotchin, president and CEO, Blackjet

BlackJet’s biggest issue right now is talent, and we are not alone. I believe Obama’s clear focus on education, especially in math and science is critical for solving this problem in the long term.

Real wealth creation results from finding and developing new and better solutions. So, the idea of cutting education in public schools, universities and research institutions would be antithetical to solving our problems. In fact, cuts to education and research could be catastrophic for the tech industry, which is for the most part a function of the skills of our workforce. Adversely affect the education system, and the tech industry suffers and wealth creation suffers as well. We need a political approach that promotes education and research in order to cultivate talent, encourage the talent to stay in the U.S., and help grow our advantages in technology.

4. Political Reform, and an End to Partisan Bickering

Chris C. Kemp, co-founder and CEO of Nebula.
Today, a gap is widening between how citizens interact with society, businesses, and each other and how they interact with their government. Never before has it been easier to richly interact with every person you’ve ever known, every company and brand you interact with. In Barack Obama’s second term, government agencies should be “re-booted” and “re-tooled” to interact directly with citizens through the web, social, and mobile applications that have become so ubiquitous in our lives. They need to retool their infrastructures to support direct engagement with citizens and more efficient execution of their missions.

Jason Cavnar, co-founder and CEO, Singly
As a citizen, I am looking for a leader who will actually lead. The U.S. political climate has reached an unacceptable and unsustainable point of stagnation and contentiousness. We sit at the crossroads of major historical shifts and we are not, as a nation, capitalizing on them, let alone leading in them. We are seeing huge economic, intellectual and spending capital springing up in what were previously third-world countries. And security, liberty and information access are all colliding forces that require speed and intellect. So leadership, boldness and intelligence are at a premium.

Peter Caparso, president Adyen
The bottom line is that we need someone to cross over party lines and create bipartisanship cooperation to get the economy moving. There has been so much bickering between the two parties that has led to minimal growth that for the sake of the country we need to put aside differences. As a fast-growing tech company, it is paramount that we have an environment where businesses can invest and grow without fear of financial contraction.

Pages: 1 2 View All

Read More..

War Widow’s Lawsuit Says Nat Geo, Fox Depicted Dead Husband’s Body, Aired Family Photo

NEW YORK (TheWrap.com) – An Army staff sergeant‘s widow says in a lawsuit against National Geographic and Fox that a documentary from the companies depicted her husband’s dead body and showed a private family photo she believes was taken from his laptop after he died.

The suit seeks unspecified damages and to ban Nat Geo and Fox from using military family members’ images, names or likenesses for commercial purposes without their permission.

Nat Geo declined to comment.

Donnice Roberts, of Carthage, Texas, has two children with Staff Sergeant Kevin Casey Roberts. He was killed by an IED in 2008 during what was to be his last mission in Afghanistan, after two tours in Iraq. He enlisted two months after the September 11 2001 attacks, and received the Bronze Star and Purple Heart.

A year after he died, according to the lawsuit, she learned from another service member that he had seen a documentary called “Inside: Afghan ER” on the Armed Forces Network, broadcast in German, that depicted her husband’s dead body. It also featured a family photo from a trip to Disney World that she believes was taken from his laptop.

“Mrs. Roberts was very disturbed that her image, and more importantly, her children’s image would be broadcast around the world without their knowledge or permission,” the lawsuit said. “This is particularly true given the fanaticism associated with jihadist determined to kill Americans, including American women and children.”

“Moreover, Mrs. Roberts has fears and concerns that her minor children are depicted as the children of a warrior in the war on terror, which is fought by fanatic, radical individuals who have shown a propensity and desire to kill Americans, including women and children,” the lawsuit adds.

The lawsuit said the lawsuit was produced and distributed by the National Geographic Society and further promoted and distributed by Fox Cable Networks, Inc. and Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. through the cable network NatGeo and affiliated websites. The suit said it aired worldwide.

Roberts said when she contacted National Geographic Society seeking a copy of the photo, she was told she would need to sign a waiver. She refused.

(Pamela Chelin contributed to this story)

TV News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Read More..

A Collective Effort to Save Decades of Research at N.Y.U.

The calls started coming in late on Tuesday and early Wednesday: offers of dry ice, freezer space, coolers. By the end of Thursday there were dozens more: A researcher at Weill Cornell Medical College would clear 1,000 tanks to save threatened zebra fish; another, at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, promised to replace some genetically altered mice that were lost; and a doctor at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia even offered take over entire experiments, to keep them going.

As hurricane-driven waters surged into New York University research buildings in Kips Bay, on the East Side of Manhattan, investigators in New York and around the world jumped on the phone to offer assistance — executing a reverse Noah’s ark operation, to rescue lab animals and other assets from a flooding vessel.

“I’ve had 43 people who have offered to help so far, and some of them are direct competitors,” said Gordon Fishell, associate director of the N.Y.U. Neuroscience Institute, who lost more than 5,000 genetically altered mice when storm waters surged the night of Oct. 30, cutting off power. “It’s just been unbelievable,” he said. “It really buoys my spirits and my lab’s.”

Staff members at N.Y.U. worked around the clock to preserve research materials, running in and out of darkened buildings without elevator service, hauling dry ice and other supplies up anywhere from 2 to more than 15 floors.

The university’s medical center also got instant help, from almost every major research institution in the area.

The response reflects large shifts in the way that science is conducted over the past generation or so. Individual labs always compete to be first, but researchers increasingly share materials that are enormously expensive and time-consuming to reproduce. The loss of a single cell line or genetically altered animal can slow progress for years in some areas of biomedical research.

“We are totally dependent on each other in the life sciences now, for a very large number of cell lines and extracts, research animals and unique chemical tools and antibodies that might not have backup copies anywhere in the world, or in very few places,” said Dr. Steven Hyman, director of the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research at the Broad Institute of M.I.T. and Harvard. “Losing any of these tools tears a significant hole in the entire field.”

Danny Reinberg, a professor of biochemistry at N.Y.U.’s medical school, has studied genetics for 30 years, accumulating valuable mice strains and stocks of extracts from cell nuclei that would be extremely difficult to replace. The extracts must be stored at minus 112 degrees Fahrenheit.

Dr. Reinberg said he lost all of his mice: nine strains, including more than 1,000 animals that died in the storm surge. But he managed to save all of the cell extracts by moving some containers into freezers at N.Y.U. labs that weren’t affected and others to the Rockefeller, Columbia and Cornell medical centers, each of which cleared space, he said.

“We were able to save many things; it was just phenomenal to get that kind of help,” said Dr. Reinberg, whose house in New Jersey has had no power.

“Later in the week, at a Starbucks, I could finally download all my e-mail, and there were messages from people at the University of Pennsylvania and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, asking how they could help us re-establish the mouse lines we lost,” he said.

Some scientists have become interdependent because their students, who develop a specialty in specific tissues or animals, often move among labs. Research projects sometimes draw on experiments or analyses the students worked on at more than one place.

One researcher working in Dr. Fishell’s lab was formerly a student of Dr. Stewart Anderson of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who sent Dr. Fishell a text message on Wednesday to offer help. “I told him that even if it costs money, we’re happy to keep experiments rolling, if we’re able to,” Dr. Anderson said.

By late Thursday, freezer space in minus-112-degree units was extremely tight in the city. So was dry ice.

Susan Zolla-Pazner, director of AIDS research at the Manhattan Veterans Affairs Medical Center, had lost power in her 18th-floor lab in the department’s building at 23rd Street and First Avenue. She finally hired a company to haul her 20 freezers-full of specimens, for safekeeping.

“We spent all of Tuesday and Wednesday hauling 1,300 pounds of dry ice up to the 18th floor, using the stairs, to stabilize the freezers first,” said Dr. Zolla-Pazner, who is also a professor of pathology at N.Y.U. School of Medicine. “And the dry ice people would only take cash. I have about 25 to 30 people working for me, and everyone was out there on 23rd Street, reaching into their pockets to get what we needed. It was a herculean and heroic effort on the part of everyone here, and that is the story that needs to be told.”

Read More..

Investors on Wall St. React Nervously

Henny Ray Abrams/Associated Press

A trader on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on Wednesday. A day after the election, the outlook of continued divided government in Washington and little prospect for compromise unnerved traders.

A one-two punch of worries about the post-election picture in the United States and economic weakness in Europe sent stocks reeling Wednesday, with major indices falling more than 2 percent. Some industry sectors, like finance and managed care, fell substantially more than that over fears they would be hurt by tougher regulations and other adverse policies in President Obama’s second term.

The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index recorded its worst performance since June, falling 33.86 to 1,394.53, while the Dow Jones industrial average fell 312.95 to 12,932.73. It was the Dow’s first close below the psychologically important 13,000 level since August.

Shares also came under pressure after Barclays sharply reduced its year-end target for the S.&P. 500 to 1,325 from 1,395 — 5 percent below where the broad-based index closed Wednesday.

“Within the equity market in the near term, we believe there will be nowhere to hide,” said Barry Knapp, chief United States equity strategist at Barclays. “In the near term, we generally suggest cutting risk.”

Many market strategists expect that the market will remain volatile between now and mid-January. If Congress and the president cannot come up with a plan to cut the deficit, hundreds of billions in Bush-era tax cuts are set to expire at the beginning of 2013 while automatic spending cuts will sharply cut the defense budget and other programs.

Known as the fiscal cliff, this simultaneous combination of sweeping reductions in government spending and tax increases could push the economy into recession in 2013, economists fear.

In the wake of President Obama’s re-election, companies in some sectors, like hospitals and technology, will see a short-term pop, said Tobias Levkovich, chief United States equity strategist with Citi. Other areas, like financial services as well as coal and mining, are likely to be hurt, Mr. Levkovich said.

Indeed, coal companies were among the worst hit Wednesday. The coal industry is particularly sensitive to new environmental regulations, while Mr. Obama has pushed in the past for more investments in renewables and alternative energy sources that could reduce coal demand in the long-term.

Shares of Alpha Natural Resources, a coal giant, were down 12.2 percent to $8.45, while Arch Coal was off 12.5 percent to $7.58.

But HCA Holdings, a hospital operator, jumped 9.4 percent, to $33.85 a share. As a result of Mr. Obama’s victory, Goldman Sachs said it upgraded its rating on HCA to buy from neutral, and raised its price target to $39 from $31. It also raised price targets for Tenet Healthcare and Community Health Systems, although both are still rated neutral.

Goldman downgraded shares of Humana, a leading managed care company, to sell, and its shares fell 7.9 percent to $70.16. Goldman warned that Humana and other managed care providers could be hurt as health care reform moves forward, especially new rules for health insurers that become effective in 2014.

Shares of Wall Street firms and big banks were also hard hit. While Mitt Romney favored substantially altering the Dodd-Frank financial regulations passed in the summer of 2010 and easing many regulations, President Obama has supported stricter rules for the financial services industry. In addition, one of the industry’s fiercest critics, Elizabeth Warren, was elected to the Senate from Massachusetts, unseating her Republican opponent, Scott Brown.

Bank of America fell 7.1 percent to $9.23 while Goldman Sachs dropped 6.6 percent to $117.98 and JPMorgan Chase sank 5.6 percent to $40.48.

Read More..

Death toll rises to three in Fresno chicken plant shooting

Two more people have died after a worker opened fire at a Fresno chicken plant Tuesday morning, authorities said, including the suspected gunman.

The Fresno County coroner's office said Tuesday afternoon that the death toll stood at three and included suspect Lawrence Jones, 42. Police described one of the victims as a 32-year-old man who was pronounced dead at the Valley Protein plant; no information was immediately available about the second victim.

Jones, a "discharged parolee" who had worked at the plant for about 14 months, clocked in to work shortly before 5 a.m. and at about 8:30 "pulled out a handgun and began opening fire" near a cold storage section of the building, Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer said.

Officers found Jones outside the building with an apparent gunshot wound to the head, Dyer said. They also found a 32-year-old woman who had been shot in the lower back.

Three men were found inside: the 32-year-old who was pronounced dead at the scene, a 34-year-old shot in the head and a 28-year-old shot in the neck. The victims were all taken to a local hospital, along with Jones.

Dyer said investigators still weren't sure what prompted Jones to open fire, but said a coworker told authorities Jones "did not appear himself when he came in to work." Hours later, Dyer said, he pulled out a gun and started shooting.
"I heard pops," said Yeprem Barbarian, who passed the plant during the shooting on his way to his tire shop. "I thought it was tires. Then I walked in, turned on the TV and saw the police cars and sirens showing up."

Officers were searching Jones' Fresno home to ensure there were no other victims, Dyer said.

No one answered a telephone number listed for the plant, also known as Apple Valley Farms Inc. All calls instead went to an answering machine.

"Unfortunately, due to an emergency we are closed for the day," the message said.

Read More..