Blog

Lehman Brothers bankruptcy examiner Anton Valukas blames the Securities and Exchange Commission for not cracking down on the risky behavior that led to the investment bank’s demise in a hearing today on Capital Hill. His investigation will conclude that the regulatory framework was insufficient to keep Lehman’s appetite for risk in check. As its leverage grew, the SEC sat by without forcing the firm the rein in its borrowing. Lehman’s failure followed.

Valukas’s findings can be summed up by the following short paragraph contained within his testimony (.pdf):

So the agencies were concerned. They gathered information. They monitored. But no agency regulated.

The SEC was Lehman’s chief regulator through its Consolidated Supervised Entity (CSE) Program. In her testimony (.pdf), current Chairperson Mary Schapiro admits the program failed:

Under the CSE program, the SEC undertook for the first time the consolidated oversight of the five largest U.S. investment banks, whose operations were global in scope and extended well beyond the types of products and business lines typically found in a registered broker-dealer. Participation by the CSE firms in this regime was voluntary, and the consolidated oversight of these holding companies was more prudential in nature than the SEC’s traditional rule-based approach for broker-dealer regulation. In brief, this program reflected a profoundly different approach to oversight and supervision for the Commission. Properly executing the program called for a correspondingly significant expansion in human, financial, managerial, technological and other resources devoted to the oversight and examination of CSE holding companies and their subsidiaries.

The SEC believed at the time that it was stepping in to address an existing gap in the oversight of these entities. Once, the agency took on that responsibility, however, it had to follow through effectively. Notwithstanding the hard work of its staff, in hindsight it is clear that the program lacked sufficient resources and staffing, was undermanaged, and at least in certain respects lacked a clear vision as to its scope and mandate.

The program was discontinued in 2008. One of the major problems with the program was that the SEC did not actually audit financial firms. Instead, it relied on third-party auditor reports. This is part of the reason why the SEC did not pick up on Lehman’s now famous Repo 105 transactions, which hid some of the firm’s leverage from regulators. Also from Schapiro’s testimony:

As discussed in the Examiner’s Report, regulators (including Commission staff), rating agencies and the Lehman Board, were unaware of Lehman’s use of Repo 105 transactions. For purposes of the CSE program, the Commission did not perform an audit of Lehman’s balance sheet. Instead, the Commission depended on the integrity of the balance sheet information provided by Lehman’s management which was audited or, in the case of quarterly reports, reviewed, by Lehman’s auditors. Lehman did not disclose in its audited financials that it was undertaking repos as sales – on the contrary, Lehman’s disclosure would lead one to believe that it accounted for all of its repos as financings and that the repos were properly reported as such on the balance sheet.

So the problem wasn’t only that the SEC failed to act — the problem was also that the SEC didn’t understand precisely what was going on in Lehman. Yet, Valukas somewhat disputes that. He found that the SEC certainly knew enough to act (his emphasis below):

The SEC knew that Lehman was reporting sums in its reported liquidity pool that the SEC did not believe were in fact liquid; the SEC knew that Lehman was exceeding its risk control limits; and the SEC should have known that Lehman was manipulating its balance sheet to make its leverage appear better than it was. Yet even in the face of actual knowledge of critical shortcomings, and after Bear Stearns’ near collapse in March 2008 following a liquidity crisis, the SEC did not take decisive action.

This represents failures in both supervision and enforcement on the part of the SEC. Presumably, Congress’ new systemic risk regulator to be created from financial reform would hope to do a better job. The Lehman bankruptcy examiner appears to provide evidence that a regulator must have enforcement authority and the will to act. Schapiro’s testimony could be interpreted to assert that audit authority is necessary as well.

The Fiat 500 4-door hatchback is finally a reality, and as per Autonews, this special version has been approved to arrive in Europe and the US as early as next year. The upcoming 4-door 500 will compete with the likes of the Opel Meriva and the Scion xD which are all basically categorized as small MPVs. Though Fiat hasn’t confirmed anything, we’re expecting a more powerful engine taking into consideration the extra weight courtesy of the bigger platform and the larger cargo space. One last thing. No one really has a problem with Fiat 500 expanding its lineage but they’ll better come up with a different name for the four-door hatch. [via autonews (sub req)]

What to make of this WebOS exploit? It was discovered by the Intrepidus Group security firm, and it has to do with the way the operating system handles SMS messages. Basically, WebOS doesn’t perform a common security check on incoming SMS messages, meaning that any craftily formed SMS can essentially take out the entire phone.

There’s a video that explains what’s going on. That’s it up there, yes.

It should be noted that this flaw only affects WebOS versions older than 1.4, so if you’re plugging along on an older revision of the operating—why?—be sure to upgrade ASAP.

Shame, too, since WebOS is the nicest-looking of the modern phone operating systems (Android, iPhone OS, and BlackBerry).

via Bit-Tech (love the new layout, guys!)

Continuando com a apresentação das gatas que chamam a atenção nos eventos ao redor do mundo, aqui estamos mais uma vez com um evento que aconteceu no começo do ano, com várias fotos das garotas que estavam junto das máquinas em exibição.

O Salão de Tóquio contou com o lançamento de vários veículos, e como de costume, um carro bonito deve ter uma garota bonita ao seu lado. Nesse detalhe os japoneses também mostram que sabem o que fazem, colocando belas moças para animar o ambiente. Vejam as imagens a seguir.

Booth Babes presentes no evento

Via | Carscoop

A recent study by NetProspex of 50 top companies found Microsoft to be the leader in their use and utilization of social networks.

The survey, the first by sales and marketing contact database NetProspex, ranked the top 50 companies based on their social network membership, frequency of social media posts on Twitter and other blogs, and the friendliness or connectedness of a sample of employees for each organisation.

The survey found that almost half of companies analysed have employees throughout their organisation on social networking sites, with Microsoft leading the way.

Following Microsoft was Amazon and eBay, and next Google and Walt Disney.  Apple, who does not even have a twitter account, was placed tenth.

In many ways “getting” social networking more than other companies, Microsoft was an early investor in Facebook, the first to make a search deal with Twitter to access their real time data (a move soon followed by Google) and of course has made social networking central to many of their platforms, including bringing the Xbox Live service to their Windows Phone 7 devices, and putting Twitter, Facebook and MySpace as the central home page of the KIN phones.

Read more about the study at Reuters here.

Do our readers appreciate this focus on social networking, or does it not really suite people who use their phones for business rather than entertainment?  Let us know your thoughts below.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                              

CONTACT:  Charlie McBarron

PHONE: 217/801-0227 

 

EDUCATION EMPLOYEES WILL BOARD BUSSES WEDNESDAY TO DELIVER AN SOS TO STATE LAWMAKERS

Pro-revenue Springfield rally could be biggest ever

April 19, 2010 – Springfield, IL – Thousands of education employees will head to Springfield Wednesday to participate in what might be the largest rally of its kind ever in the state capitol. 

It’s estimated that more than 4,000 Illinois Education Association (IEA) members from throughout Illinois will participate in the SOS (Save Our Schools, Save Our State) rally, which is expected to draw as many as 15,000 participants. 

The rally, sponsored by the Responsible Budget Coalition (RBC), is focused on convincing lawmakers to take action to end the state budget crisis. State government is facing a shortfall of $13 billion. Unless there is an increase in revenue, it is estimated as many as 20,000 education employees will be laid off, causing larger class sizes, the elimination of music, arts and sports programs in many districts and an overall decline in education quality statewide. 

“Children throughout Illinois will be denied a top quality education by these drastic cuts,” said IEA President Ken Swanson. “We have a crisis that is on the brink of becoming a tragedy. The legislature must act now.” 

Swanson said the best solution is for the Illinois House to pass HB 174, or something like it, which would provide a comprehensive tax reform measure. HB 174 cleared the Illinois Senate last spring but has not been voted on in the House. 

“It will take revenue to save our schools and save our state,” Swanson said. “Our message to lawmakers is they must end the bad behavior that led to this crisis and address the revenue needs of the state.” 

# # #

Of all the days that you can lose Apple’s secret iPhone… [The Next iPhone Saga] More »

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

Google Buzz should not have changed Gmail to such an extent that its existing users found themselves sharing personal information on a social network without their consent. That’s the message sent in a letter to Google CEO Eric Schmidt yesterday, made public today by Canada’s Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart.

In that letter, Stoddart and her counterparts from nine countries asked Google to provide them with a report about the lessons the company has learned from the Buzz experience, and how those lessons will improve the way Google rolls out products in the future.

“It is unacceptable to roll out a product that unilaterally renders personal information public, with the intention of repairing problems later as they arise. Privacy cannot be sidelined in the rush to introduce new technologies to online audiences around the world,” wrote the privacy regulators for Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, and the United Kingdom (PDF available here). “Unfortunately, Google Buzz is not an isolated case. Google Street View was launched in some countries without due consideration of privacy and data protection laws and cultural norms. In that instance, you addressed privacy concerns related to such matters as the retention of unblurred facial images only after the fact, and there is continued concern about the adequacy of the information you provide before the images are captured.”

Although the United States does not have a specifically defined “commissioner of privacy,” the Federal Trade Commission does oversee privacy issues. Its statement on the matter came last month from outgoing Commissioner (now retired) Pamela Jones Harbour, whose message before a global privacy roundtable in Barcelona (PDF available here) was not without venom:

Think about it: when Gmail first emerged, social networking was barely even a reality. When consumers, especially early adopters, created their Gmail accounts, their expectations did not include social networking. In my view, therefore, a reasonable consumer would consider the initial opt-in of Buzz to be a material change in her relationship with Google. Consumers, not companies, should exercise the ultimate decision on whether they want to sign up for new “features” that might expose additional data.

I am especially concerned that technology companies are learning harmful lessons from each other’s attempts to push the privacy envelope. Of course, providing new features to users, and making the user experience more enjoyable, are excellent goals. These efforts may win new users while also building additional loyalty in existing users. But even the most respected and popular online companies — the ones who claim to respect privacy — continue to launch products where their guiding privacy principle appears to be, “Throw it against the wall, see if it sticks — and if not, we can always pull it back.” Deeds speak louder than words, and this is turning into a dangerous game of “copycat” behavior. And unlike a lot of tech products, consumer privacy cannot be run in beta. Once data are shared, control is lost forever. In the extreme, it is only a matter of time before one might imagine the introduction of new “features” that incorporate, for example, genomic information, or data from personal health records. The privacy stakes will only get higher.

Google does not show any signs of pulling Buzz back, having implemented one new privacy provision earlier this month: giving existing Buzz users a second chance to choose which other members are on their friends list. In Buzz’s initial rollout, the system selected new friends on members’ behalf after first perusing their list of most common Gmail recipients. New members could override those choices, but that override was not very intuitive. As a result, many new members ended up publishing their frequent Gmail contacts as “friends,” to be seen by other Buzz members, even though those contacts may have been less than friends…or more than friends.

Although Buzz product manager Todd Jackson’s message last April 5 remained apologetic on behalf of the company’s first attempt, he maintained Google’s “stick-to-it-iveness” with regard to the principle that the establishment of one’s new social network can be an automatic thing.

“Shortly after launching Google Buzz, we quickly realized we didn’t get everything right and moved as fast as possible to improve the Buzz experience. We made a number of changes to the getting started experience based on your feedback, the most significant of which was replacing auto-following with suggestions for people to follow,” Jackson wrote. “Rather than automatically setting you up to follow the people you e-mail and chat with most, Google Buzz now suggests people for you to follow instead. This way, Buzz is still simple to set up (no one wants to peck out an entire social network from scratch) but you aren’t set up to follow anyone until you choose to do so.”

It’s that notion that “no one wants to peck out her social network” that still draws the ire of privacy regulators, including Stoddart, who believe it should be obvious that no one wants their social network to suddenly appear out of the blue, fully formed, for the world to see and disseminate.

In essence, you took Google Mail (Gmail), a private, one-to-one Web-based e-mail service, and converted it into a social networking service, raising concern among users that their personal information was being disclosed. Google automatically assigned users a network of “followers” from among people with whom they corresponded most often on Gmail, without adequately informing Gmail users about how this new service would work or providing sufficient information to permit informed consent decisions. This violated the fundamental principle that individuals should be able to control the use of their personal information.

Users instantly recognized the threat to their privacy and the security of their personal information, and were understandably outraged. To your credit, Google apologized and moved quickly to stem the damage.

While your company addressed the most privacy-intrusive aspects of Google Buzz in the wake of this public protest and most recently (April 5, 2010) you asked all users to reconfirm their privacy settings, we remain extremely concerned about how a product with such significant privacy issues was launched in the first place. We would have expected a company of your stature to set a better example. Launching a product in “beta” form is not a substitute for ensuring that new services comply with fair information principles before they are introduced.

Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

An article in The Economist from earlier this month highlights what many Techdirt readers know well: the current state vs the historical intent of copyright brought forward by The Statute Of Anne.

When Queen Anne gave her assent on April 10th the following year—300 years ago this week—to “An act for the encouragement of learning” they were less enthused. Parliament had given them rights, but it had set a time limit on them: 21 years for books already in print and 14 years for new ones, with an additional 14 years if the author was still alive when the first term ran out.

Thinking about the times, one could see how such a system might encourage the creation of more works of art.  An artist is given a limited time on which they have a monopoly on the production of copies of their works, a limited time for exclusively monetizing their works via those copies.  After 14, 21 or possibly 28 years, the author had better have another work available to copyright if they decide to continue living off the proceeds of their works.

But today’s rules give no such incentive.  An artist that creates a popular work is almost guaranteed of being able to derive income from that single success well into their afterlife.  Not only is the artist not incentivized to continue their creation, some of their descendant generations can rest on their laurels, allowing lawyers to gather income for them — often from well-intentioned future artists who actually are trying to create new work from the existing.

The Economist goes on to highlight:

Copyright was originally the grant of a temporary government-supported monopoly on copying a work, not a property right.

Surely there will be copyright supporters who will cringe at such a statement. They believe that copyright is "intellectual property", and therefore their arguments often confuse the requirements for laws that support copyright with those that support physical properties.

At the moment, the terms of trade favour publishers too much. A return to the 28-year copyrights of the Statute of Anne would be in many ways arbitrary, but not unreasonable. […]. The value society places on creativity means that fair use needs to be expanded and inadvertent infringement should be minimally penalised. None of this should get in the way of the enforcement of copyright, which remains a vital tool in the encouragement of learning. But tools are not ends in themselves.

Encouragement of learning, inadvertent infringement, societal values. These are all crucial with the original intent of the establishment of copyright. Yet over time the publishing industry and others have shifted the focus, and thus the legal system, away from the benefits that society gains from access to these works towards a radically limited system focusing on maximizing control (in the hopes of maximizing profits).

A few hours, weeks or even years of work turn into a lifetime (plus) guarantee of exclusivity. Where is the social value in that? How does this current system encourage learning? Though it is great to see a popular media outlet like The Economist talking about a reduction in current copyright terms, it would be even more fantastic to see them tackle the alternatives to copyright systems.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

General Motors announced today the opening its new Seoul Advanced Design Studio in South Korea. The studio is based out of Seoul’s Gangnam area, which is considered not only the most stylish part of Korea’s capital.

“Our car designers get inspiration from life and Gangnam is a place where people worship design, style and fashion,” said Ed Welburn, GM Vice President of Global Design. “Our Korean designers will sample perfection every day surrounded by some of the top brands and fashion houses in the world and this ideal location will nurture their creative souls.”

GM Daewoo President and CEO Mike Arcamone said that design will continue to be a key to the company’s success. The Korean designers are responsible for cars like the Chevrolet Cruze, Spark and yet to be launched Aveo, said Arcamone.

“Seoul Advanced Design Studio demonstrates GM’s support of GM Daewoo, and in turn, our support for Seoul’s year long initiative aimed at capitalizing on its World Design Capital status,” Arcamone said.

– By: Kap Shah

Google has been taking a lot of heat lately over its privacy practices, to be expected for a company its size. And it’s not about to get any easier for the giant tech company, privacy representatives from ten countries have now sent a joint letter to Google asking it to step up its privacy practices. The cases cited as con… (read more)

Rule of the Road No. 11:  The daily log  book as an oath or affirmation

This week, I’ll be wrapping up my “Rules of the Road” series of blogs for truck accident lawyers from my recent seminar. These 12 rules were shared with lawyers throughout the country during a truck accident litigation seminar I spoke at in New Orleans.

I had a truck driver e-mail me yesterday on the subject. This is what he wrote:

Company only allows 15 min. for pre- and post-trips combined and makes us sign time sheet for 15 min. total time for pre and post, because thats all they pay. I’ve told them they should allow 30 min. per day but not company policy. How can i get them to pay me for that time?

Sadly, there isn’t much this truck driver can do if he is like most truckers. Even though his company is violating federal and state safety rules, he is likely an at-will employee.  His e-mail is a good example of the pressure put on so many drivers by bad trucking companies to break the rules. The company should clearly reconsider, because in a jurisdiction that allows punitive damages, this company policy may well justify punitives if the pressure to perform 15-minute inspections contributes to a clearly preventable truck accident.

What Truckers Write in Their Log Books and What They Actually Do

Almost any experienced trucking expert will say it should normally take 30 minutes (at the very least 20) to perform a proper pre-trip inspection.  This leads to the issue of log books and the contrast between what truck drivers write in their logs and what many actually do in real life.

It’s no secret that log falsification within the industry is rampant, despite attempts by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the good motor carriers to curb log violations. Many truckers derisively cal these log books “lie books.”  It gives you an idea of the scope of this problem.

And it is a problem. Log book forgeries are used to get around hours of service violations. Hours of service violations are meant to stop fatigued driving.  As the science has shown, a fatigued truck driver is as dangerous in judgment and reaction time as a drunk driver – only this impaired person is behind the wheel of an 80,000 pound tractor-trailer on our roads.

Lying on Log Books is Easy to Spot

Luckily, lying on log books is pretty easy to spot. Most experienced truck accident lawyers can find it, or the experts these lawyers rely upon will be able to find it, without too much trouble.  Normally, it’s a matter of matching up where a trucker says he is with receipts to show he couldn’t possibly be where he said he was at a certain time. Gas, restaurant receipts, etc. are also a great way to show speeding.

The rule that many lawyers should use is 49 CFR § 395.8(7): A driver shall certify to the correctness of all log book entries by singing the form containing the driver’s duty status record with his legal name or name of record. The driver’s signature certifies that all entries required by this section are true and correct.

Frankly, the mistake many lawyers make is not emphasizing how big a deal it is to lie on log books. Falsifying logs is a very big deal. Not only is the driver lying to his employer, but he’s lying to the federal government as well. And he is putting all of us at risk.

Remember, § 395.8(7) treats the signature on the driver’s log the same as an oath or affirmation in court.  It requires that all entries on the log are true and correct. This means lawyers shouldn’t simply use log books to impeach the driver’s credibility, but they should also emphasize that lying is the same as lying in court after swearing an oath to tell the truth.

I’ll be back on Thursday with my last “Rules of the Road” blog, which will discuss how important it is for everyone to really know the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Rules, in order to stop preventable truck crashes.

–    Steven M. Gursten is a partner of Michigan Auto Law. He is past president of the American Association for Justice Truck Litigation Group, and has received the top reported trial verdict in Michigan for truck accidents. Last year, Steve was named a Michigan Lawyers Weekly Leader in the Law for his efforts in promoting truck safety in Michigan.

– Photo courtesy of Creative Commons, by bfishadow

Related information:

Michigan Truck Accident Investigation

Lawyer Video: Truck Accident Wrongful Deaths

How to File a Truck Accident Lawsuit

Previous blogs from “Rules of the Road Every Truck Accident Lawyer Needs to Know” series:

Rules of the Road: Intro for Truck Lawyers

Truck Driver Fatigue

Truck Lawyers: Get Your Hands on Those Discovery Documents!

Investigate the Trucker’s Background and History

Truck Driver Qualification Files

What Truck Accident Lawyers Must Know About Black Boxes

How to Nab the Tired Trucker

Why is the Pre-trip Inspection the Most Violated Safety Rule?

Why Weather is Never an Excuse

How Trucking Companies Dodge Federal Safety Laws

That Truck Driver Should Never Have Been on the Road

Michigan Auto Law exclusively handles car accident, truck accident and motorcycle accident cases throughout the entire state of Michigan. We have offices in Southfield, Sterling Heights, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids and Detroit to better serve you. Call (800) 777-0028 for a free consultation from one of our expert attorneys.

GigaOM’s flagship conference, Structure, returns on June 23rd and 24th for two days of deep insight into the cloud computing industry. Taking place at the Mission Bay Conference Center in San Francisco, Structure 2010 promises to be our best edition yet.

The $1.4 trillion IT market is undergoing a massive shake-up due to cloud computing. From the chips that power the compute clouds to the broadband that transports the computation and the software that ties it all together, cloud computing is creating a fundamental shift in how we think about and buy computing services. And at each point in the chain, such disruption creates another opportunity. At Structure 2010 you will learn about those opportunities and how to profit from them — and network with the people making it all happen.

Our list of top-tier speakers is growing every day. Check out these keynotes by the top names in cloud computing:

• * Paul Maritz, CEO, VMware
• * Erich Clementi, Vice President, Strategy and General Manager, Enterprise Initiatives, IBM
• * Dr. Donald Ferguson, CTO CA, Inc.
• * Marc Benioff, Chairman and CEO, salesforce.com

For the most up-to-date list of speakers, see the Structure 2010 web site.

Register early and save $100 on your ticket.

Structure 2010 also represents a great way to directly address one of the most influential tech audiences anywhere. Call Mike Sly at (415) 235-0358 to find out how your company can exhibit.

Jan Van Dokkum, the former president of UTC Power has joined Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Buyers as an operating partner to oversee the VC fund’s growing cleantech portfolio (h/t PeHUB for the info).

Van Dokkum will work closely with Kleiner Perkin’s portfolio companies to help them commercialize their technology.  Energy storage developer Bloom Energy, biofuel developers Codexis, which is expected to issue shares on Thursday and Amyris, which just filed with the SEC for an IPO, are all Kleiner Perkins portfolio companies. While some have revenues, it’ still uncertain  for most of them if  they can evolve into commercial success stories.

Several major insurance companies say they may seek compensation from Toyota Motor Corp. for old accident claims where sudden acceleration problems with Toyota or Lexus vehicles may have been a factor. 

State Farm Insurance Cos., Allstate Corp, Geico and other major insurers say they may request that Toyota cover the cost of some of the accident claims dating back several years, which could allow them to reimburse drivers for deductibles paid in those cases. The move could cost Toyota millions, and comes as the company has agreed to pay a $16.4 million criminal fine for allegedly covering up the problem.

Insurers say they are going back through old accident files and finding incidents where drivers of vehicles that have been subject to a Toyota recall for sudden acceleration problems claimed that their vehicles sped out of control. Those accidents took place before insurers realized there was a defect in the vehicles.

Toyota has recalled nearly 9 million vehicles since September 2009, with 8.5 million recalled due to complaints that they can accelerate out of control. The acceleration recalls were done in waves, starting with 4.2 million recalled for problems involving the floormats, and then later recalls indicated that there was a mechanical or electrical problem with the gas pedals.

When insurers discover that defective vehicle problems are a key factor in an accident, they can request that the auto maker reimburse them for the claim, a practice known as subrogation. If the insurance company is successful obtaining reimbursement, they would then reimburse their insureds for any deductibles that may have been paid in the claims. However, this will likely be limited to limited to minor accident claims for property damage, as major Toyota accidents involving a personal injury from a defective vehicle would likely require a lawsuit to obtain reimbursement.

The gas pedal problems have resulted in a number of Toyota consumer class action lawsuits, Toyota injury lawsuits and Toyota wrongful death lawsuits filed by family members of people allegedly killed when their vehicles accelerated out of control. Earlier this month a number of federal Toyota lawsuits were consolidated and centralized as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. U.S. District Judge James Selna has scheduled the first MDL conference for May 13. Some estimates place the number of overall lawsuits against Toyota in state and federal courts at about 200.

In addition to the lawsuits, the U.S. Department of Transportation fined the company $16.4 million, accusing the Japanese automaker of covering up the problem for months; an accusation supported by what the government says are internal documents showing the company knew about the problems but waited before alerting the government and consumers. The company announced today that it intends to pay the fine.

Randall Parker forwarded me a link to a study about abundance of mate choice affecting the quality of the choice.

Quantity may determine quality when choosing romantic partners

The context in which humans meet potential mates has a hidden influence on who they decide to pursue. In particular, when people have a large number of potential dating partners to select among, they respond by paying attention to different types of characteristics – discarding attributes such as education, smoking status, and occupation in favor of physical characteristics such as height and weight.

A number of studies in recent years have looked at what happens to humans when faced with extensive choice – too many kinds of chocolate, or too many detergents to choose from at the grocery store. Under such circumstances, consumer psychologists believe that the brain may become “overwhelmed,” potentially leading to poorer quality choice or choice deferral. Psychological scientist Alison Lenton, of the University of Edinburgh, and economist Marco Francesconi, of the University of Essex, wanted to know if the same was true of mate choice, given that humans have been practicing this particular choice for millennia. “Is having too many mate options really like having too many jams?” they ask. The study is published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

To find out how people respond to relatively limited versus extensive mate choice, Lenton and Francesconi analyzed data from 84 speed dating events, which is where people meet with a series of potential dates for three minutes each. Afterward, the men and women report their choices (a “yes” or “no” for each person). It should surprise no one that choosers generally preferred people who were taller, younger, and well-educated. Women also preferred partners who weren’t too skinny, and men preferred women who weren’t overweight. Beyond that, though, the attributes that speed daters paid attention to depended on how many opposite-sex speed daters attended the event.

At bigger speed dating events, with 24 or more dates, both male and female choosers were more likely to decide based on attributes that could be judged quickly, such as their dates’ height, and whether they were underweight, normal weight, or overweight. At smaller events, choosers were more likely to make decisions based on attributes that take longer to identify and evaluate, such as their dates’ level of education, their type of job, and whether or not the person smokes.

“Obviously, I think we look for different attributes in partners than what we look for in a chocolate, a jam or a 401(k) plan,” says Lenton. “But one of the points we’re trying to make in this article is it’s the same brain we’re carrying around. There are constraints on what our brains can do – they’re quite powerful, but they can’t pay attention to everything at once.” And if the brain is faced with abundant choice, even about who to go out with, it may make decisions based on what it can evaluate most quickly. As a result, this previously invisible aspect of the choice environment has the potential to determine one’s romantic fate.

The consumerists’ quandary. I’m surprised this phenomenon hasn’t been discussed more by game instructors. It would seem logical that the number of girls as well as the number of men in a pickup environment would have an effect on how we choose mates and how we ourselves are perceived as mates. How many times have you stood in front of a huge aisle displaying 62 varieties of vitamins and just said “fuck it” and grabbed the cheapest, or the nearest, brand? If “choice deferral” or choice constriction happens with vitamin brands, then it could conceivably happen with girl brands.

So what are the take-home points from this study? What should we men, always on the lookout for a quicker route to getting laid and loved, learn from the study’s conclusions?

1. In groups that have a lot of men, (for example, clubs and bars on busy nights), women will evaluate your mate potential on “superficial” (i.e. readily discernible) qualities like height and looks.
2. A corollary to number 1 is that in venues where there is a lot of male competition for the women to choose among, and you are average or below in superficial traits, you will not get many chances to run game on the girls.
3. In groups of few people, (for example, book clubs or painting classes), women will evaluate your potential as a partner on more “meaningful” qualities that can only be discovered during the course of lengthier conversations.
4. A corollary to number 3 is that women will be more likely to grant an average looking man an audition at an event that has few other men from which the women can choose. She will also want to know more about each man she joins in conversation.

If you imagine each woman has a tingle-o-meter that oscillates with varying strength to the proportion of male attractiveness traits present in a man she is talking with, and that also oscillates according to the number of other men in her visual field, then you can visualize how a typical woman will react to you in different environments. If you are great looking and tall, you will get a lot of insta-play from women where large numbers of other men are present. She will be choosing you almost entirely based on your easily perceived high value traits, and will likely be more forgiving of any shortfalls you may have in the less visually oriented suite of male attractiveness traits. So if you’re a broke, uneducated, Johnny Depp lookalike, you’ll want to make nightclubs your venue of choice, and you’ll want to close the deal sooner rather than later, before she has an inclination to dig deeper into your value as a man.

If you are not great looking or tall, then you’ll want to steer clear of venues where there will be a lot of men. You will do best in smaller groups with few men, let’s say bars on a weeknight, where the women will be open to learning more about you, and also likelier to overlook any physical shortcomings you may have. She will be choosing you based on a mixed package of easily perceived physical traits and less obvious high value male traits such as dominance, physical assuredness, humor, and charm/game. So if you have tight game but lack the looks to easily acquire auditions to demonstrate your game, you’ll want to focus on environments with few other men around, like day game or really any venue on a night besides Friday or Saturday night.

Since by definition most men are not in the top 10% of looks and height, it stands to reason that pickup instructors should not be teaching game to newbies in high energy environments like nightclubs. The best place to practice game is any place where a bunch of superficially high value men will not show up to distract the girl.

Some other conclusions we can draw from the study:

• This “choice abundance mentality” by women can be artificially triggered. If you have a lot of guy friends who are worse looking than you, then bring your posse to the local club. Faced with all those men to choose from, the women will naturally gravitate to you as the most superficially appealing man of the group.
• Addendum to the above: your friends can’t be *too* dorky, because then the women will tar you with the same dork brush.
• Also, if one of your less good looking friends has better game than you, and the environment you are in is sufficiently low key that he can run his game undistracted, then he may steal the girls’ attention from you. Good looks on a man are great, but good game is even better.
• If you are very good looking but a so-so conversationalist, you will want to stay away from things like book clubs, where the homelier men with sharp wits will absolutely crush you. I’ve seen it happen. Score one for the smooth talking Voltaires.
• If you are very good looking but have no game, suit up and hit da clubs on a busy night where women can instantly compare your looks to a ton of other men. Physical presence game is all you’ll need. Try to get used to one night stands.
• Homelier men should focus on gaming one or two girls in a night. They need more time to allow their heart light to shine. Theirs is a big stage with lots of props and a multitude of scenes to tell the story. Homelier men must be better at building connections with women, because a strong emotional connection will handily compensate for a weak physical magnetism.
• Good looking men should maximize the number of girls they hit on in a night. They don’t need a lot of time to attract attention. Theirs is a small stage featuring a one-act play and a very large audience all vying to get his autograph after the show. By maximizing the number of targets and compressing time spent with each target into a few minutes, they maximize their chance for a same night lay.
• If you have a sucky job and few ostentatious credentials to wave around, but your game is tight, you’ll want to hit on girls in large venues. The girls will be less likely to grill you on your educational and career background, and more likely to enjoy the spontaneous feelings you evoke in them. In other words, choice abundance means that girls are going to be too distracted to bother figuring out your life story. A confused girl is an easily gamed girl.
• If you have a great job, money, and conventional cred, but your game is weak, you’ll want to hit on girls on slow nights in smaller venues, or day game and insta-date them. Maximize your strengths and minimize your weaknesses. A calm, focused girl is a future time oriented girl who will judge on substance more than flash. (Note: sluts excluded.)
• Where there are a lot of men, you can create the illusion of male scarcity (and thus increase your odds of successfully gaming a girl) by walking away from girls early in a conversation. Always end conversations first, seem needlessly distracted, and make it seem like you are a man who has options, even if technically in a bar with more men than women, you don’t.
• If you are looking for a wife or girlfriend, you may want to shift your base of operations to smaller venues or events where you will be less tempted by choice abundance to invest time gaming the flashiest chicks whose key attribute is how good to go they are.

Apropos the study, only go to speed dating events where the women rotate. You will seem in higher demand than you really are.

Filed under: Biomechanics is God, Dating, Game, Girls, Guy Rules, Self-aggrandizement, The Big City Life

Interesante titular el que os mostramos. Pocas horas después de su lanzamiento, se han agotado todas las unidades del nuevo Ferrari 599 GTO. La marca italiana Ferrari puede estar de enhorabuena ya que ha conseguido vender las 599 unidades que lanzó al mercado en su debut oficial.

Por otra parte, también cabe mencionar que algunos clientes con el poder adquisitvo necesario para comprar este modelo que han esperado hasta el inminente Salón de Beijing, tendrá que seguir esperando para disfrutar de este superdeportivo.

La propia Ferrari afirmó durante la presentación del 599 GTO que “Los futuros propietarios no se sentirán decepcionados. Hemos creado un maravilloso auto, el más potente de nuestra historia, un auto único que nosotros esperamos para otorgarle un nombre histórico: GTO”.

Related posts:

1. Ferrari 599 GTO, primera image oficial
2. Ferrari 458, fotos espía
3. El Ferrari Dino 246GT es único por…

If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it. Looking back over the last 120 years, one can see many false starts for the electric car industry. Some of the very first horseless carriages were electric vehicles, and automakers have been teasing us with images of a future propelled by electric cars even during the muscle car movement. The closest we ever came was the EV1 program, which fizzled and failed after a few years. So how do we make sure that this time it sticks?

The energy policy committee at last week’s SAE World Congress mulled over this issue. Their conclusion is that electric vehicles still need significant support before they can stand on their own merits, or the switch from gas to electric vehicles could stall before it ever really gets started.

(more…)

Via Peter Feaver, this year’s annual Military Times poll — valuable not for any individual year’s findings, since it solicits responses and therefore isn’t scientific, but for measuring trends among career military folks — finds a largely conservative officer corps that isn’t buying what the GOP is selling:

An exclusive survey of some 1,800 active-duty troops shows the percentage of self-identified Republicans has decreased by one-third since 2004, from 60 percent to 41 percent, while the percentage of self-identified independents has nearly doubled to 32 percent during the same period.

The big drop appears to have occurred in 2008 and 2009, indicative of broader political sentiments in the country during that period. But that doesn’t translate into increased warmness for the Democrats or for President Obama. While uniformed sentiment on Obama will probably take another year to track as a poll trend, this year finds them “virtually divided” on the president. Yes, the guy who ordered two big troop increases to Afghanistan. Yet, somewhat surprisingly, the respondents are “more pessimistic about the mission in Afghanistan” than in recent years.

Alas, the crosstabs are for subscribers and I am not a subscriber.