Category: News

Addiction researchers constantly wade through the ways that drugs like cocaine change your brain, and a new study in Science has pointed to a new epigenetic factor. Cocaine, the researchers say, can scramble the way genes turn on and off in a key brain region associated with pleasure and reward.

Ian Maze said his team gave one group of mice repeated doses of cocaine and other group repeated doses of saline with just one blast of cocaine at the end to study the differences. The team paid particular attention to a protein called G9a, whose behavior in the nucleus accumbens region of the brain seems to be altered by cocaine use. The role of the protein appears to be to shut down genes that shouldn’t be on. One-time use of cocaine increases levels of G9a. But repeated use works the other way, suppressing the protein and reducing its overall control of gene activation [TIME]. The researchers found that the overactive genes caused brain cells in the region to grow more connections to each other. The growth of such neural connections can reflect learning. But in the case of addiction, that may involve learning to connect a place or a person with the desire for more drugs [TIME].

G9a changes in the cocaine-addicted mice were persistent, too. Maze showed that even after a week of abstinence, mice given a new dose of cocaine still had elevated levels of gene activation in the nucleus accumbens, meaning G9a levels were still low…. Maze also showed that when he intervened and raised G9a levels, the mice were less attracted to cocaine [TIME].

Though this was just a rodent study, National Institute on Drug Abuse director Nora Volkow said it could be a crucial piece of the cocaine addiction puzzle. “One of the questions we’ve had all along is, after discontinuing a drug, why do you continue to be addicted? This is one of the mechanisms that probably is responsible for these long-lasting modifications to the way people who are addicted to drugs perceive the world and react to it,” she said [Reuters]. Much more research is necessary, but the research could point the way to the development of addiction medications down the road.

Related Content:
80beats: Pepper Spray & Cocaine Could Be a Lethal Combo
80beats: One-Third of U.S. Cocaine Tainted with Dangerous Livestock Drug
80beats: Honeybees Get High on Cocaine and Dance, Dance, Dance

Image: iStockphoto

Industrial employment in Illinois fell 5.7% over the past twelve months according to the 2010 Illinois Manufacturers Directory, an industrial directory published annually since 1912 by Manufacturers’ News, Inc (MNI).

MNI reports Illinois lost 51,925 industrial jobs and 709 manufacturers between November 2008 and November 2009, more than double the loss reported in the year before, and one of the sharpest declines MNI has ever reported in the 98 years it has been tracking the state’s industry.

Manufacturers’ News reports Illinois is now home to 20,079 manufacturers employing 854,081 workers, compared to the 1,104,707 industrial jobs reported by MNI twenty years ago.

“It’s a perfect storm of negative conditions,” says Tom Dubin, President of Manufacturers’ News.

“The country has suffered deep losses in manufacturing employment due to automation and technology, outsourcing and the recession. Combine that with Illinois’ high taxes, deficit spending and generally unfavorable business climate, and it’s easy to see why the state has shed thousands of industrial jobs.”

Employment in the furniture/fixture sector experienced the sharpest decline, down 12.5% over the past twelve months. Employment in wood products fell 11.4%, according to MNI.

MNI reports industrial machinery and equipment remains Illinois’ largest industrial sector by employment with 133,480 jobs, down 6.9% due partially to layoffs at three Caterpillar locations.

Second-ranked fabricated metals accounts for 100,626 jobs, down 5.1% over the past twelve months, while third-ranked food products manufacturing accounts for 95,040 industrial jobs, down 2.1%.

All other industrial sectors in Illinois lost jobs within the past year and included transportation equipment, down 9.7%, following layoffs at the Ford Assembly plant in Chicago, the closure of an ETX Transmissions facility in Mundelein, and layoffs at Great Dane Trailers in Kewanee, among others.

Printing/publishing fell 9.5%; textiles/apparel was down 9.2%; electronics down 8.3%; primary metals down 7.4%; rubber/plastics down 6.2%; stone/clay/glass down 5.8% and paper products down 4.4%.

Bright spots over the year included the expansion of Tempel Steel in Chicago and Baldwin Technology Co. in Addison, as well as the opening of German company Vetter’s first domestic facility in Skokie, which will package pharmaceuticals.

In addition, Blackhawk Biofuels opened a new biodiesel plant in Danville, spurring job growth for the East Central region of the state

Manufacturers’ News reports Northeast Illinois accounts for 70% of the state’s industrial employment, with 593,370 jobs, down 6% over the year. Job losses in Cook County represented 41% of the state’s losses, with the region home to 323,736 industrial jobs, down 21,446 or 6.2%.

Declines were also seen in the collar counties with DeKalb County down 13.3%; Kane down 6.3%; Will down 5.2% and Lake 1.5%.

Northwest Illinois accounts for 81,788 jobs, down 5,742 or 6.6%. East Central Illinois is home to 58,219 jobs, down 5.7%, while West Central Illinois is down 7.6% and currently home to 56,137 industrial workers.

Employment in Southwest Illinois fell 6.4% and now accounts for 38,527 jobs, while Southeast Illinois saw a drop of 7.1%, with the region currently home to 28,491 jobs.

MNI’s city data shows industrial jobs in Chicago dropped 8% over the year, with the city now home to 114,092 industrial jobs. Rockford accounts for the second most jobs in the state with 23,355, down 6.9% over the year.

Third-ranked Elk Grove Village accounts for 22,077 jobs, down 6.5%, while Franklin Park is home to 12,556, down 6.4%. Fifth-ranked Decatur is home to 11,444 industrial workers, down 2.2% over the past twelve months.

Detailed profiles of Illinois’ 20,079 manufacturers can be found in the 2010 Illinois Manufacturers Directory, available in print for $199 and on CD-ROM from $282.

Each profile provides up to 30 facts, including vital contact information (phone, Web, e-mail), 61,680 executives by name and title, product(s) manufactured, annual sales, number of employees, and more.

Visitors to mnileads.com may generate custom profiles of manufacturers using thirteen different criteria, including area or zip code, county, SIC, sales volume, number of employees, and more.

Manufacturers’ News, Inc., publisher of manufacturers’ directories since 1912, compiles and produces manufacturing guides, statistics and databases for all 50 states. MNI also maintains IndustryNet.com, an industrial search engine designed specifically for locating manufacturers and suppliers nationwide.

For more information, contact Manufacturers’ News, Inc., 1633 Central St., Evanston, IL, 60201, 847-864-7000, FAX 847-332-1100.

Logarithms are cool. Sure, some of you may have flashbacks to middle school and may collapse on the floor twitching upon their mere mention, but seriously, logs are the language of the Universe. Our senses (eyesight and hearing) are sensitive logarithmically, and a lot of ways the world behaves make a lot more sense when you plot them using logs.

For those of you scratching your heads, a simple way to think of logs is to think factors of ten. Instead of counting like we normally do — 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on — in log space you count by factors of 10: 1, 10, 100, 1000, and so on. There are lots of advantages to this, one being that you can make graphs that show things that are very small and very big on the same plot. Using regular numbers, it would be hard to make a graph showing the size of a human (2 meters tall) and a skyscraper (200 meters tall) on the same plot, but using logarithms, they are only two ticks apart in size. Easy peasy.

And if you take this idea to the extreme, what do you get? Why, you could get a plot of the whole freaking Universe, from the surface of the Earth out to the fires of the Big Bang itself!

But who would do such a thing? Astronomers at Princeton, that’s who.

[Click to exponentiate.]

That picture is just a small piece of a much larger graphic showing, well, everything. At the bottom is the Earth and at the top is the most distant thing we can see: the cosmic microwave background, the cooling fireball from the Big Bang. Included are planets, asteroids, stars, galaxies, and pretty much everything you can think of, all plotted out for your perusal. The vertical axis represents distance, and the horizontal is cleverly done in Right Ascension, sorta like longitude (East/West) on the sky. That way they get the whole sky — the whole Universe — on one graph.

I know xkcd did something like this, but I’d love to see this done up as a vastly scrollable webpage with actual images instead of dots, and the objects actually described (rollovers, popups, links, whatever). If done correctly, that would cause a wave of nerdgasms across the web, and not-so-incidentally be an awesome learning tool. Any takers?

Tip o’ the order of magnitude to Stuart at @astronomyblog.

This year’s Edge World Question Center is out, posing the query mentioned in the title. My own answer is kind of lukewarm — the internet did allow me to find my future wife, which certainly changed the way I think about a lot of things, but that’s not the tack I wanted to take for this project. Instead, I’m basically giving credit to you blog readers for keeping me honest. (Among other things.)

But many of the other answers are fascinating. Just to pick some at semi-random, I enjoyed the responses from Danny Hillis, Anthony Aguirre, Frank Wilczek, Victoria Stodden, Martin Rees, Scott Atran, Lisa Randall, Irene Pepperberg, and Clay Shirky. Keep thinking!

Wade Roush wrote:

There’s a new player on the venture scene in Boston. The team behind the U.S. branch of Fidelity Ventures, the venture investing wing of Fidelity Investments, has left Fidelity and relaunched itself under the name Volition Capital, according to an announcement today.

The new firm—in which Fidelity has no ownership stake—says it will invest in “high-potential, founder-owned technology companies” in the United States and Canada, and that it will shun seed-stage investments in favor of “growth equity” support for companies that already boast $5 million to $50 million in revenues and are at or near the break-even point. (”We prefer to invest in companies that don’t need external capital, but can benefit from taking it,” the company says on its new website.)

Former Fidelity partners Larry Cheng, Andy Flaster, Roger Hurwitz, and Rob Ketterson are Volition’s managing partners. Geraldine Alias and Sean Cantwell have come along as principals, and Steve Daley and Dave Gordon are associates. In its announcement, the firm also described venture partner Anne Mitchell and senior vice president of business development Jill Roosevelt as senior members of Volition’s founding team.

Volition partners were not immediately available to comment on the spin-out. The move follows Fidelity’s exit from the private equity businesses last summer, when it announced the shutdown of Fidelity Private Equity Partners. That division had $500 million under management but was reportedly unable to raise new capital amidst the financial crisis.

Volition’s team has brought most of the Fidelity Ventures portfolio with it. The firm says it has formed a “sub-advisory” agreement with Fidelity to continue to manage the 20 U.S. software, Internet, and services companies in which its principals invested at Fidelity, along with six companies from the portfolio of Fidelity Growth Partners Europe. The firm’s U.S. portfolio includes companies like open-source code database provider Black Duck, Postgres database maker, browser maker Flock, and federated identity management company Ping Identity.

Fidelity Biosciences, Fidelity’s Cambridge, MA-based life sciences investing division, isn’t part of the Volition switchover.

Comments | Reprints | Share:  

 
 
 

This is a guest post from Fred Wilhelms, a lawyer whose concerns about SoundExchange we recently wrote about. Due to the length of the post, we’ve put some of it after the jump, so you’ll need to click through to read the whole thing — but, trust us, it’s worth it.

Back before New Years, Techdirt’s Mike Masnick picked up on my comment to p2pnet.net regarding the list of artists SoundExchange said it couldn’t find. I wrote that the list was not on the website. I was wrong about that, and Mike got suckered into repeating it. I went blissfully without the Internet for a couple weeks (yes, it is possible) and missed the whole thing. I just got it wrong. The list is there. I just couldn’t find it.

My apologies, in order, to SoundExchange, Mike, and his readers. The list itself is a very interesting document on several levels, and I will be dealing with that later. This particular note has a specific purpose relating to Mike’s piece.

SoundExchange folks like Director Dick Huey and staffer Laura Williams have been gushing all over about SoundExchange’s new open communications policy. I have been trying to engage them in actual conversation, rather than simply criticizing their serial press releases. Their campaign seems to be faltering, however, as they’ve resorted to commenting on my supposed factual errors to third parties like Techdirt rather than deal with me directly. I don’t mind. It’s the tactic they’ve used with outside critics like me for years. It’s arrogant, but what can we expect from an organization where the Board of Directors is hand-picked by the RIAA?

So, let me take this opportunity to deal with the “Top Ten Reasons Laura Williams Tells Techdirt Why I Am So, So Wrong About SoundExchange (But Won’t Tell Me Directly).”

1. About the “missing” list of unpaid artists, I said it wasn’t on the website. They said:

“Not sure how FW missed this. It’s at http://soundexchange.com/performer-owner/does-sx-have-money-for-you/unpaid-artists/. It’s been there all along, old website and new, and this version is easier to use than ever.”

As noted before, I missed it.

There used to be a link directly from the homepage to the list, and a rolling counter of artists removed from the list. Those are gone. I used the search function on the site for “unregistered artists” (the term SoundExchange used to use to describe the entries on the list) and came up with nothing. I’m not sure how “easier” the list is to use, given that the alphabetizing scheme used by SoundExchange is even more idiosyncratic than the old one, but I will deal with the contents of the list, and what it means, separately.

All that aside, SoundExchange is right about this. I just missed the list.

2. About what happens to forfeited money, I said SoundExchange gets to keep the money. They said:

There’s a whole bunch of misdirection and spin going on in those 70 words.

There’s no “congressional mandate.” The forfeiture is permitted by Federal regulation adopted by the Copyright Office, specifically, 37 CFR 261.8. A regulation is not a “congressional mandate,” although I admit that mandate stuff makes it sound like it is something SoundExchange has to do, rather than something that SoundExchange asked the Copyright Office to do for them, which is what really happened. SoundExchange wants everyone to think they are forced by Congress into taking money from artists they can’t find, even if that really isn’t so.

Perhaps SoundExchange wants everyone to think it is a matter of Federal law because they don’t want anyone looking at the regulation itself. You see, the regulation requires that all money that should be paid to an unidentified or unlocated recipient be placed in a segregated trust account. I’ve asked SoundExchange repeatedly over the years to advise me where the “segregated trust account” is held, but the inquiries are always met with silence. I’ve also asked them to tell me how much money is in that segregated trust account. They’ve ignored that too. I don’t think the segregated trust account exists, for the simple reason that SoundExchange doesn’t have the slightest idea which artists are entitled to what share of the undistributed money.

About “repeatedly declining” to forfeit more artist money, they say this as if refusing to take money from people who don’t know about it is an act of moral courage. They also say this as if they actually never intended to do it again, when history proves otherwise. In January, 2007, immediately after the deadline for the first forfeiture, SoundExchange announced they were going ahead with a second one. Strangely, for an organization that claims to be so vitally concerned with serving artists, they never mentioned the new forfeiture program anywhere but on the website page that linked to the list of unregistered artists. In other words, you had to already know they had your money in order for you to find out they were going to take it. There was not one press release announcing the forfeiture, and not even a notice about it anywhere on the website, or anywhere else for that matter. In blunt point of fact, SoundExchange “declined” to go through with the second forfeiture only because there was public outrage that they would do it again and try to keep it a secret. SoundExchange clearly wants everyone to pretend that they never really meant to try a second forfeiture. The problem is, they did.

I said SoundExchange gets to keep money it forfeits from unfound artists. SoundExchange disputes that and claims that “those funds go directly to the artists and rights holders who are currently registered,” which is utter bull. As that regulation so clearly states, SoundExchange doesn’t pay the money “directly” to anyone. They get to use the forfeited funds to defray their own expenses, which, when you come down to it, means they get to use it for their own purposes. Technically, SoundExchange doesn’t “keep the money,” so the “correction” is correct in a very strict literal sense. However, reality shows that they don’t keep it because they spend it, which doesn’t match up with what they say here.

Now, of course, if they reduce their own expenses, that makes more money available for distribution to registered artists and copyright holders because they have to take less out of the current receipts. That’s a good thing, but reality tells me that there are a couple problems. First of all, anyone who has ever worked for a non-profit that must keep a lid on expenses can tell you that “extra” money that can be used to defray expenses tends to get used up pretty fast. In the case of SoundExchange, I can clearly imagine that the forfeited money financed a good part of the musicFIRST campaign for the terrestrial radio performance royalty. Secondly, take a look at what happens to whatever money does get through that “expense” process to be paid to registered recipients. As royalty money is split 50/50 between artists and copyright holders, and, by their own estimates, 70% of the copyright holder royalties goes to the four RIAA members who directly control six of the eighteen seats on the SoundExchange board (and who appointed the other twelve out of the goodness of their hearts), that means that 35 cents out of every forfeited artist royalty dollar goes to the four RIAA members. The one thing SoundExchange got right in its “correction” of my comment is the idea that this is a “windfall.” I don’t think they meant it the way it actually comes out, because the greatest windfall ends up in the lap of the RIAA labels, but they won’t tell you that outright and if you ask them about it, like I have, they ignore you. Because they can.

If SoundExchange actually spent that forfeited money on improving their efforts to find the artists, like the language of the forfeiture regulation actually intends that they do, that would be fine. But they don’t, and their “correction” of my comment is nothing but more smoke and mirrors to hide that.

Click the read more or comments link below to see the additional eight points Wilhelms raises in response to SoundExchange.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

2:16pm UK, Monday January 11, 2010

SPONSOR

Dharshini David, Business correspondent

As Cadbury prepares its final defence against a hostile bid from America’s Kraft, Italian manufacturer Ferrero appears to have secured a loan that would allow it make an offer for the 200-year old confectioner – with or without Hershey.

Over the weekend, Cadbury’s chairman, Roger Carr, accused Kraft of merely being a puppet of key shareholder Warren Buffett, who’s warned Kraft against paying too much for Cadbury.

Tomorrow Cadbury will set out its final argument against Kraft – basically a call to shareholders not to allow it to fall into the hands of the makers of Philadelphia cheese.

It will update figures for last year and claim that Kraft undervalues its prospects for growth. Kraft itself, by contrast, it will say is a low -growth prospect; the very reason it wants to get its hands on Dairy Milk and Cadbury’s other coveted brands

Shareholders ultimately will decide whether Cadbury succumbs to Kraft. But the battle has to be played out to a timetable is dictated by Takeover Panel rules:

January 12 The last day Cadbury can mount a defence, and publish key financial details.

January 15 Cadbury won a three-day extension which means it can publishes more financial details after markets close ( but it failed to win an extension for its defence documents)

January 19 The last day Kraft can raise its offer – unless other bidders move in

January 23 Deadline other who have already expressed interest in Cadbury such as Hershey and Italy’s Ferrero, to submit a fully financed bid. If not, they have to wait another six months to mount a bid.

February Deadline for votes from Cadbury shareholders if Kraft is going to exceed the 50% it needs to win. If Kraft fails, it has to wait 12 months before bidding again for Cadbury. Also the deadline for a new bidder to throw their hat into the ring.

Cadbury may feel that with Tuesday’s document, they have persuaded shareholders that they need to see a bid far in excess of 800p per share and so convince them to turn their back on Kraft (which is offering 769p).

But the next couple of weeks could mean an eventful ride for the company – with plenty of scope for others to enter the fray.

If it is not someone who’s already expressed an interest – like Hershey and Ferrero – then the timetable starts again.

When the music finally stops, Cadbury could yet find itself in different hands.

Share Investor Links

Share Investor Blog – Stockmarket & Business commentary
Share Investor New Zealand Business News– Get more business news
Discuss this topic @ Share Investor Forum – Register free
Share Investor’s Daily Forex Updates

Recommended Amazon Reading

	Security Analysis: Sixth Edition, Foreword by Warren Buffett (Security Analysis Prior Editions) by Benjamin Graham Buy new: $47.25 / Used from: $46.96 Usually ships in 9 to 11 days
	The Four Filters Invention of Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger by Bud Labitan Buy new: $33.25 / Used from: $43.89 Usually ships in 24 hours

Adriana gets a fast glimpse of the cute, compact little LG Lotus Elite — the newest version of last year’s LG Lotus messaging phone —  at CES 2010 in Las Vegas. Is it a win or a fail? You decide.

Economist Simon Johnson has a post today on his Baseline blog calling for a supertax on banker bonuses in the U.S. Great Britain and France have created such excise taxes, though Johnson wants a U.S. version to directly fall on individual bankers’ shoulders. I hate to harp on the same point again and again, but as I wrote on Friday, attacking compensation fails to directly address or solve the real problem: systemic risk.

If you’re on board with Johnson’s assumptions, his arguments make sense. His rejoinders to the common criticisms of a banker tax employ pretty simple logic: who cares if talent leaves the big banks — all the better for systemic risk; the cash from these bonuses isn’t rightfully the banks’, as the bailouts made that revenue possible; and such a tax might seem incredibly drastic, but unreasonable actions (paying huge bonuses now) call for unreasonable responses (taxing them accordingly).

So imagine that the U.S. collects this tax. Let’s say it’s worth $10 billion per year. That a lot of money. What does Uncle Sam do with it? Use it to pay for healthcare? For the wars in the Middle East? For a future bailout fund? Herein lies the problem with a punitive excise tax: the government gets to spend the money as it pleases, which may or may not coincide with the actual problem it’s created to address. In this case, that’s bank risk.

Given the ridiculous level of national debt the U.S. has incurred up to now, additional tax revenue might not sound too bad, even if Congres does use the money as it pleases. But for any supertax to have any chance of actually alleviating the problem it’s meant to correct, then that revenue must be placed, and left, in a superfund for the Treasury to pay for future financial crises. I find it hard to believe that Congress would let that happen. Given all of its many other priorities, the idea that it would really isolate all that cash from its general fund seems unlikely.

And to reiterate my point from Friday, I also think it needlessly involves the government too deeply into the business of deciding what people should be paid. If you ensure that these institutions will be stable, then you don’t have to bother taxing compensation: their employees can be paid whatever they like without threatening the U.S. economy. And again, the way you do that is through higher capital and lower leverage levels. That takes care of the compensation problem, since these firms will have fewer profits to distribute to their bankers and traders.

I fully understand the outrage many feel about bank employees again collecting billions in bonuses as the rest of the economy continues to struggle — after taxpayers saved the very firms distributing that cash. But that populist anger isn’t reason to disregard sensible policy. Washington should focus on ensuring a more stable financial system and more reasonable compensation levels will necessarily follow.

• Key Competitors: Nothing as of yet.
• Power: Synchronous electric-motor – 170-hp / 184 lb-ft.
• Performance: 0-37 mph 4.5 seconds; 0-62 mph 9 seconds; top speed 90 mph.
• Total Range/Charge Time: 100 miles / 4.5 hours.
• Production: Nothing planned.

Joining the MINI E, the BMW Concept ActiveE is the latest edition to BMW’s Project i and MegaCity program. As you can see, it is based on the BMW 1-Series Coupe with the power train replaced by a 170-hp electric-motor. BMW has said nothing about production plans for the Concept ActiveE but says that the goal is to test “the use of electric drive for everyday purposes in a vehicle which offers the driving pleasure which is characteristic of BMW automobile.”

Besides the design and technology, we really like the overall blue illuminated trim on the ActiveE.

You know the drill – click through for the live high-res image gallery.

2010 Detroit: BMW Concept ActiveE:

All Photos Copyright © 2009 Stephen Calogera – egmCarTech.

BMW Concept ActiveE:

– By: Stephen Calogera

The Promise to Me initiative empowers women to make their health a priority by reminding them to schedule their own annual gynecologic exams and pass the reminder to friends. It’s a promise you make to yourself and a friendly reminder to keep it.

January is National Cervical Health Awareness Month, and Hologic partnered with the National Cervical Cancer Coalition to help uninsured women get their screenings. Many women who get cervical cancer aren’t routinely screened for the disease.

A simple way you can help in a snap:

For every woman who makes a promise, Hologic will donate $1 to the National Cervical Cancer Coalition (NCCC) to fund cervical cancer screenings for uninsured women. Passing the promise to friends extends your ability to help even more.

Don’t think you need a reminder to schedule your annual exam? If you’re taking the pill, you might remember shortly before your prescription is about to run out, but some doctors get booked up several weeks in advance. That means you’d have to get a new refill over the phone, if possible, and then your annual exams and prescription refill times would be all off kilter! Yip, that happened to me once. Some insurance companies want you to have your annual exam no sooner than a year before your last one, but, of course, if health concerns come up, you’d visit your doc immediately.

So, maybe you just never, never, ever forget to schedule your appointment. Well, maybe your friends do! After you sign up (just your name and email address), you have the opportunity to also send the message to friends who may need the reminder. The whole process takes under a minute. I did it as I was writing this post.

Even if you and all of your friends are super organized and don’t need reminders emailed to you, just make the promise anyway to do your part in helping to fund cervical cancer screenings for uninsured women. It’s totally free, and the only email you’ll receive is related to the initiative. Plus, you can unsubscribe whenever you want.

PS – At Promise to Me, you may also sign up for a reminder to get your mammogram.

(Image via stock.xchng)

Post from: Blisstree

You Can Help During Cervical Cancer Month

A teaser trailer for the new action movie The A-Team has been leaked! The motion picture remake of NBC’s ’80s crime-fighting classic features Liam Neeson, Bradley Cooper, Quinton “Rampage” Jackson, Sharlto Copley, Patrick Wilson, and Jessica Biel.

The A-Team Movie is scheduled for release in July 2010.

Schoot Schuman answers some questions provided by Pedestrian TV during a recent book signing in Melbourne. In this interview, Mr. Schuman reveals some of his philosophies about the art of taking street style photos. He also touches briefly on current projects that are on the works which include a possible accessories line and television show based on his popular blog – The Sartorialist.

Visit Pedestrian for the Interview.

Image from: Pedestrian TV