Author: Serkadis

U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd today introduced a long-awaited financial regulatory reform bill that includes a variety of significant corporate governance provisions, including proxy access, “say on pay,” and majority voting.

Dodd, Senator Charles Schumer, and seven other Senate Democrats introduced the 1,136-page bill, which also would create a single bank regulator, provide for self-funding the SEC, and establish a new consumer financial protection agency.
“It is the job of this Congress to restore responsibility and accountability in our financial system to give Americans confidence that there is a system in place that works for and protects them,” Dodd said at a press conference. “We must create a sound foundation to grow the economy and create jobs.”

The bill would require public companies to hold advisory votes on compensation at shareholder meetings held more than one year after the law is enacted, which means that the first mandatory votes most likely would not occur until 2011. The bill also directs the SEC to issue rules within a year of the enactment date.

The bill directs the SEC to issue a rule on proxy access within 180 days, but does not set minimum standards. The bill directs the SEC to work with the stock exchanges to require majority voting provisions as a listing requirement, but authorizes the SEC to exempt certain firms. Under the bill, companies would have to obtain investor consent to have staggered board terms; firms with existing classified boards would be required to seek approval at their next annual meeting. Issuers also would be required to adopt “claw back” policies. Companies also would have to provide disclosure on their selection of their board leadership structures.

You can turn any network attached storage device into a Time Machine back-up drive with one simple step.

Simply download this app package and drag your drive onto it. The script adds the drive as a Time Machine capable device and then you can simply add it under Time Machine System Preferences.

The full script is right here if you want to roll your own:

on open names
set volumeName to names as text
set macAddress to (do shell script "ifconfig en0 | grep ether | tr -d '\\011' | sed s/ether// | sed 's/ //g' | sed s/://g")
set hostName to (do shell script "hostname -fs")
tell application "Finder"
set theSize to round (((capacity of startup disk) / 1024 / 1024) / 1024)
end tell

do shell script "defaults write com.apple.systempreferences TMShowUnsupportedNetworkVolumes 1" with administrator privileges

do shell script "sudo hdiutil create -size " & theSize & " -type SPARSEBUNDLE -nospotlight -volname \"Backup of " & hostName & "\" -fs \"Journaled HFS+\" ~/" & hostName & "_" & macAddress & ".sparsebundle" with administrator privileges
do shell script "mv ~/" & hostName & "_" & macAddress & ".sparsebundle /Volumes/" & volumeName & "/" with administrator privileges

tell application "Finder" to eject volumeName

tell application "System Preferences"
activate
end tell

tell application "System Events"
tell application process "System Preferences"
set frontmost to true
click menu item "Time Machine" of menu "View" of menu bar 1
end tell
end tell

end open

via MacOSXHints

Democrats have been showing a fresh determination to make Republicans’ near-unanimous opposition to a national health care overhaul — and its implications for women — the GOP’s Achilles heel during next year’s midterm elections.

Democrats have produced a hit list of 32 House Republicans from districts that voted for President Obama last year. And they’re touting a video of Republican men repeatedly interrupting Democratic women during Saturday’s House floor debate on health care.

But that tactic just got a lot more complicated.

There is growing outrage among the Democrats’ own activist base over new and far-reaching abortion restrictions contained in the historic health care bill approved Saturday by the Democratic-controlled House.

And some of the party’s staunchest supporters are suggesting that Democrats will have their own problems with health care — and women voters — come 2010 because of the proposed abortion limits and the Catholic Church’s pivotal role in ensuring that restrictions would make it into the bill.

“This has already hurt the Democrats,” says Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, which has now turned its attention to the Senate, where members are considering their own health care legislation.

When and if the Senate passes a health care bill, it will be melded with the House version and sent back to both chambers for a vote. Few are predicting that the abortion limits will survive.

But the party still has to engage in some immediate damage control.

“It really breaks my heart when your supposed friends pass a health care bill for 49 percent of the population, and a partial health bill for the other 51 percent of the population,” said O’Neill. “We’re furious at the Democrats, and dismayed about what’s going on.”

In an interview Monday with ABC, President Obama acknowledged the growing backlash among the Democrats’ liberal base, saying “there are strong feelings on both sides” of the abortion amendment issue. “And what that tells me,” the president said, “is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we’re not changing the status quo.”

“I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill,” he said.

“And we’re not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions.”

Will Language Survive?

The so-called Stupak amendment included in the House bill would prevent women eligible for government tax credits for health insurance from using that money to enroll in any plan that covers abortion. Of 258 House Democrats, 64 voted for the amendment, along with 176 Republicans, guaranteeing its passage.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops actively lobbied for the amendment, offered by Democrat Bart Stupak of Michigan and Republican Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania. The Catholic Church, though opposed to abortion funding, has long advocated for universal health care as a fundamental human right and essential to the common good. Stupak was among 19 Democrats who in midsummer vowed to oppose any health overhaul plan that didn’t specifically prevent taxpayer money from being used for abortions.

The Senate is far less likely to impose such restrictions. And though both pro-choice and anti-abortion activists say they don’t expect the abortion language to be in a final bill hammered out between House and Senate leaders, the Catholic Church isn’t going away. Its leaders have pronounced unacceptable two bills now under consideration in the Senate.

Barry Lynn, who heads Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said he’s been “horrified” by the church’s influence on the sweeping health care bill.

“What we saw over the weekend was an act of unparalleled arrogance on the part of church officials,” he said. “Basically, they were claiming they would kill health care for the sick and the poor if the Democrats didn’t give them the votes to impose religious doctrine into law.”

“It’s scandalous that this religious group has such extraordinary control over the fate of women’s lives in this country,” Lynn said.

Backlash Among Liberal Lawmakers

By late Monday, Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado had collected more than 40 signatures from fellow members who vowed they would not vote for a combined House-Senate health care bill if it contains language “that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law.”

And Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, in a Monday interview with MSNBC, said that she is confident the abortion language will be stripped.

“We’re all going to be working very hard — particularly the pro-choice members — to make sure that’s the case,” she said.

And there’s no question that they’ll have some vigorous prodding from their base.

“We were outraged that these people — all these people who voted for the Stupak amendment — were willing to just ignore the needs of women,” said Judy Waxman of the National Women’s Law Center.

Ted Miller, communications director for NARAL Pro-Choice America, echoed the sentiment. “We will hold those lawmakers who voted for this measure accountable for abandoning women and capitulating to extreme factions of the anti-choice movement,” he said.

“Our focus now is defeating any attempt to add the Stupak abortion ban to the Senate bill,” he said.

Waxman characterized the health care debate as a “perfect storm” for the Catholic Church because of the narrow margin of passage for the overall bill.

“We are hopeful we will not have this amendment,” Waxman said. “In fact, we will make sure this amendment is not in the Senate version.”

The Democratic strategists who are cooking up ways to get out the vote next year may be trying to make sure of the same — so that health care ends up being a negative next year not for them, but for their erstwhile opponents.

 

Related stories:

KHN: How The House Abortion Restrictions Would Work

NPR: What Would The Stupak Amendment Do?

 

New location just opened, and if you mention this post you get 0% off. Stop having a boring life.

Thanks, to everyone that sent this one in!

Read

This one’s from a couple months back, but I missed it at the time. Reader Amber Walker sends in this fantastic video interview with Tom Delonge of the band Blink-182 from the Guitar Center blog, where he makes many of the points that we discuss here, noting how technology has made it cheaper to make, promote and distribute music, and he thinks the big opportunity is in giving your music away for free, and recognizing that there are other things to sell, such as merchandise, but also subscriptions and other types of events.

Some quotes:

The one thing I’ve learned is that, like any other type of art, it evolves. So if you’re a business that supports a type of art, you need to evolve with the art. Now, a lot of things have happened that have made creating art a lot easier with the computer. And it’s also made the distribution of art a lot easier…. What I have chosen to believe is that if you look at your band with a modern filter, your band has so much potential to have all these different elements about it. You can create all this really cool merchandise and concert/live experiences. You can create a really cool portal on your website. You can mix all these elements together and I always believe that if the tools are available, you can monetize all these other elements, and not really worry about selling the record. In fact, I believe that, you should take down every barrier and put as much music out there for free…

In my mind, the way the music industry is changing is that music is easier to make and it’s easier to give away for free. And that will enable the band and the music and the art and everything to be bigger than it’s ever been. It’s just how do you collect that and how do you build your business…

I think the internet’s a funny thing, because anything… that cuts through the noise on the internet will get found. The beautiful thing about the Western world is that all good art will get found no matter what. It just might take a little bit more time for some than others…. To try to really make a presence known, a band needs to capitvate people online first, no matter what — it can be with a video or a film. It can be a song or a live broadcast. It needs to be something that’s really clever. To do that, you should study the campaigns that work….

Of course, he notes that at the core of this is still good music. He says that you don’t remember a band years later just for the marketing, but you need that to get attention, and then you need the music to live for itself, which leads to an interesting mantra:

The true art is not just creating the music. The true art is seeing how many people that music can touch in various ways. That’s the art. Because you can be as artistic as you want and no one hears it and no one likes it. The true art is trying to break through the noise and getting millions of people to notice.

Sounds quite a bit like the difference between invention and innovation that we talk about, doesn’t it? Nice to see yet another artist who has this all figured out.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

The question before the European Council — made up of heads of state and key ministers from the EU’s 27 member nations — was whether Internet access should be interpreted as a fundamental human right, and whether obstructing access could be construed as a rights violation. The answer came this morning, and it is apparently no.

A declaration from the European Parliament this morning provided glimpses of a newer round of compromise language for the EU’s new regulatory framework for telecommunications. That language will be even more conciliatory than last week, when the European Commission (EC) announced the new regulatory authority. Although the EC made it appear at the time that adoption of its new framework was merely a formality at that point, that wasn’t actually the case.

As the Parliamentary communiqué acknowledged, the Council (which oversees high-level legislation) made a long debate out of how best to implement the “neutral net” provision that Comm. Viviane Reding proclaimed last week was as good as adopted. That provision was already a reworded form of the original Amendment 138 to the telecom framework, which would have proclaimed that “no restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end-users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on freedom of expression and information.” That original language would have implied that Internet use was a fundamental human right; in which case, restricting access rights for prisoners would have been on a level with restricting food.

That’s how Council members viewed the situation, as they rejected that language twice, triggering what Parliament termed a conciliation session. There, members of Parliament joined with the Council to rearrange the text, which prior to this morning had read as follows: “A prior fair and impartial procedure shall be guaranteed, including the right to be heard of the person or persons concerned subject to the need for appropriate conditions and procedural arrangements in duly substantiated cases of urgency in conformity with European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The right to an effective and timely judicial review shall be guaranteed.”

That text has apparently been tweaked once again, and the full Parliament is scheduled to vote on that text later this month. A revised draft has yet to be released.

At issue was whether France would be able to continue prosecuting its HADOPI “three strikes” law, which would restrict Internet service to individuals after three instances of complaints of copyright violation. After having been struck down by the French high court, a revised version of the law was passed last month guaranteeing judicial review of any final access rights suspension.

It’s that “judicial review” that was maintained in the latest version of the telecoms framework, which may finally reconcile the new framework with French law.

When the EC approved the November 5 version of the framework, it was either a tremendous victory or an historic defeat for Internet users’ rights, depending upon whom you asked. In the UK, Green Party leader Caroline Lucas proclaimed, “The message from this EU legislation is clear: Access to the Internet is a fundamental right and proper procedures must be followed when challenging internet users on alleged copyright infringement. It is now up to national governments to respect this.”

A close read of the text may prove otherwise: Although the European Convention is cited, it’s only with respect to granting due process for a hearing into whether access suspension violates the citizen’s existing rights to free expression — it doesn’t add Internet access as a fundamental right. In fact, that’s perhaps the primary reason for the clarification in the first place.

But the existence of the clarification was called out by French activist group La Quadrature du Net. Upon first reading the amended amendment, group leader Philipe Aigrain argued that the new language would reduce existing freedoms guaranteed by human rights conventions — adopting the stance of European countries other than France where lawmakers have argued existing free speech rights extend to the Internet, such that access rights are free speech rights. Thus the watering down of the proposal, stated the group, “amounts to legitimizing an Orwellian surveillance of the Net.”

Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

I know that there’s a certain of percentage of people who want nothing to do with Modern Warfare 2. It’s all meatheads and explosions, right? I’m inclined to agree to a degree—Opie and Anthony were talking about the game this morning, and a real life member of the military called in and complained, “If you want to play war, why not join the Army?”—but no matter. There’s plenty of things to do today that have nothing to do with the game. Let’s take a look!

• Real Madrid attempt to overcome a 5-0 deficit against Segunda Dvivisión B team Alcorcón in the Copa del Rey. It airs this afternoon on GolTV and your friendly neighborhood Internet stream.

• Maybe you want to see a good movie? Star-Trek is now out on Blu-ray, and you can find—wink, wink!—a Blu-ray rip of Public Enemies online. Pretty good movie, and it totally makes you want to rob a bank. That was the point, right? Also keep your eyes peeled for the movie Moon, which has a very Solyaris feel to it.

• Do you read books still, either of the paper variety or using one of those new-fangled e-book devices? I’ll go ahead and recommend Viral Loop by my old professor Adam Penenberg. It’s about how businesses grow on the Internet. If you read TechCrunch for pleasure then you’ll probably like it. If you’re into sports at all, you may want to track down a copy of Brett Hart’s autobiography, My Life Inside The Cartoon World of Wrestling. The paperback version came out a few days ago, and I’m waiting for the UPS man to deliver it. I’m very excited.

• Sort of on the same topic of books, download the game Fatale for $7. It’s an interactive version of Oscar Wilde’s play Salome.

• Start making appointments for CES. Oh, wait, that’s us~!

• Download and watch every single Fedor Emelianenko fight from Usenet. (Thank God for alt.binaries.mma!) I recommend his fights with Antônio Rodrigo Noguiera and Mirko Cro Cop. Oh, Pride, how I miss thee.

• Fire up Silent Hill 2 and lament to yourself, “Why hasn’t a game been able to convey sheer and utter hopelessness like this game did eight years ago?”

• Download Microsoft COFEE for the sole reason of saying to your friends, “Dude, I just downloaded Microsoft COFEE. I have no idea what it does, and I have no idea how to use it, but it’s so great.”

• Download the Sirius XM App for the iPhone (and iPod touch), then leave it on channel 202 The Virus. Let’s face it: Opie & Anthony and Ron & Fez are the only reason to pay for Sirius XM these days.

• Take the push-up challenge, and become a reasonable facsimile of a fit person.

• Do some Christmas ( or whatever holiday you celebrate) shopping. Only a couple of weeks left!

• Write my Razer Naga review for me, so I can concentrate on farming for Honor in Arathi Basin. (I think I won six matches last night. It rocked.)

• Read the latest issue of Figure 4 Weekly, or read an exciting back issue of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter.

See, there’s plenty of stuff to do today if you want nothing to do with Modern Warfare 2. It’s a big world out there, tiger, and it’s up to you to make the most of it. Unlike me~!

Shortly after their acquisition of Playfish, Electronic Arts is set to streamline operations, sacking 1,500 employees from different levels, and can…

Jonathan Silver has been named executive director of the Department of Energy’s loan program. He had been a co-founding managing director of Core Capital Partners, before leaving in 2008.

PRESS RELEASE

Underscoring his commitment to strengthen and streamline the Department of Energy’s operations, Secretary Steven Chu today named Jonathan Silver Executive Director of the Department’s loan program office. In this role, Silver will oversee the Department’s Loan Guarantee Program as well as the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program. 

Silver will report directly to Secretary Chu, helping accelerate the application review process for both programs. As Executive Director, Silver will be responsible for staffing the programs and leading origination, analysis, and negotiation, as well as managing the full range of the Department’s alternative energy investments.

“The loan programs at DOE play a critical role in spurring investment in a clean energy economy, creating new jobs, and fighting carbon pollution,” said Secretary Chu. “Jonathan’s background and expertise will help us dramatically expand our efforts and capitalize on the many significant opportunities we have in front of us.”

President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created a new Section 1705 under Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 for the rapid deployment of renewable energy projects and related manufacturing facilities, electric power transmission projects and leading edge biofuels projects that commence construction before September 30, 2011. Within 60 days of taking over at the Department, Secretary Chu announced the first loan guarantee to Solyndra, Inc. to support the company’s construction of a commercial-scale manufacturing plant for its proprietary cylindrical solar photovoltaic panels. Since then, DOE has made additional conditional commitments to Beacon Power and Nordic Windpower and issued advanced technology vehicle loans to Nissan, Ford, Tesla, Fisker and Tenneco.

The ATVM program has $7.5 billion in appropriations to support up to $25 billion in loans.  The Recovery Act provided $4 billion in appropriations to support up to $32 billion in loan guarantees. Those credit subsidies complement more than $50 billion in additional loan guarantee authority the Department has to advance nuclear, clean coal, and advanced renewables and energy efficiency technologies.

Prior to his appointment, Silver was a venture capitalist and the Managing General Partner of Core Capital Partners, an early-stage investor in alternative energy, advanced manufacturing, telecommunications and software. Earlier, Silver was a Managing Director, and the Chief Operating Officer, of Tiger Management. He began his career at McKinsey and Company.

Silver has extensive public sector experience as well, having served as a policy advisor to the Secretaries of Commerce, Interior and Treasury in the 1990s. During this time, Silver was also a member of the team that negotiated the first clean car agreement with the nation’s auto manufacturers. He has also served on numerous non-profit boards, including, for many years serving as Chairman of the board of American Forests.

Silver is a graduate of Harvard University and did graduate work at the Institute of Political Studies in Paris and the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva. He has received both Fulbright and Rotary Graduate Fellowships.

ShareThis

Last week Tesla asked me if I’d like to take the new Tesla Roadster Sport for a day to see what I thought. This is the newer Tesla Roadster that shaves 2/10 of a second off the 0-60 time, and the car is a couple of inches bigger than the original (making it possible for me to fit my 6′4 frame into into it comfortably).

I agreed immediately. The only rules were that only I could drive it (some nonsense about insurance), and I had to have it back by 6 pm. I did return the vehicle on time, but as you can see from the video just about everyone from the office and most of my friends came by to take it for a spin, too.

I’ve been in a Tesla before but this is the first time i’ve driven one. With no gears and a silent motor, the experience is like driving a golf cart. At least it would be if golf carts could hit 100 mph on the freeway on ramp and hugged the road like it was glued there.

Thanks Tesla. Sorry about that scratch in the bumper.

Video is below:

Listen, I don’t care if you heard it from John Cusack that the world will explode from a global apocalypse on December 21, 2012. He’s wrong and a bad actor. NASA, home of the smartest government employees, is going out of its way to inform everyone that they will still have to pay off those credit card bills in 2013. Sorry.

NASA’s 2012 FAQ

Q: What is the origin of the prediction that the world will end in 2012?
A: The story started with claims that Nibiru, a supposed planet discovered by the Sumerians, is headed toward Earth. This catastrophe was initially predicted for May 2003, but when nothing happened the doomsday date was moved forward to December 2012. Then these two fables were linked to the end of one of the cycles in the ancient Mayan calendar at the winter solstice in 2012 — hence the predicted doomsday date of December 21, 2012.