Today In History - World-of-Newave.info http://answers.world-of-newave.info/today-in-history.htm Latest news and articles about Today In History en-us Copyright (c)2004-2008.§/Newave SARL. All rights reserved. webmaster@world-of-newave.com (Webmaster) Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:00:21 GMT Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:00:21 GMT Newave Lisa XML Engine v1.0 - http://www.world-of-newave.info/about.htm 60 http://www.world-of-newave.info/images/wi8831.gif World-of-Newave.info - Knowledge and Informational Database http://www.world-of-newave.info/ 88 31 {NEWS > BREAKING NEWS} - Crowdsourcing Book Excerpt: The Canary in the Coal Mine http://articles.world-of-newave.info/news/breaking-news/crowdsourcing-book-excerpt-the-canary-in-the-coal-20080913513.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/news/breaking-news/crowdsourcing-book-excerpt-the-canary-in-the-coal-20080913513.htm Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:00:00 GMT First identified by journalist Jeff Howe in a June 2006 Wired magazine article, "crowdsourcing" describes the process by which the power of the many can be leveraged to accomplish feats that were once the province of the specialized few. Howe reveals that the crowd is more than wise -- it's talented, creative and stunningly productive. Crowdsourcing activates the transformative power of today's technology, liberating the latent potential within us all. It's a perfect meritocracy, where age, gender, race, education and job history no longer matter, where the quality of work is all that counts and every field is open to people of every imaginable background. If you can perform the service, design the product or solve the problem, you've got the job. But crowdsourcing has also triggered a dramatic shift in the way work is organized, talent employed, research conducted and products made and marketed. As the crowd comes to supplant traditional forms of labor, pain and disruption are inevitable. When the original article was published, crowdsourcing still constituted a nascent business model. A few small companies had achieved limited successes with it, and large companies had only begun to test the waters. In this excerpt, Howe argues that in just two years crowdsourcing has revolutionized an entire industry -- stock photography -- and may well be poised to create disruption in other fields as well. - - - Adapted from Crowdsourcing: How the Power of the Crowd is Driving the Future of Business, by Jeff Howe. More at Howe's Crowdsourcing Blog. Chapter 7: The Canary in the Coal Mine There's a story people like to tell about Bruce Livingstone. In late 2005, Getty Images, the world's largest photo agency, was looking to acquire Livingstone's company, iStockphoto, the world's most successful crowdsourcing company. Long before the contracts were drawn up, Livingstone, to show his commitment to the deal, tattooed the word "Getty" in cursive across the tender flesh on his inner wrist. Then he e-mailed Getty CEO Jonathan Klein photos of the tattoo under the message: "Don't make me write another word after this!" It's just the kind of tale -- emblematic of determination and just the right amount of quirky eccentricity -- that tends to burnish the reputation of its subject. In Livingstone's case, it has the added benefit of being demonstrably true. With his penchant for muscle cars, rockabilly haircuts and, yes, tattoos, it's tempting to call Livingstone an unlikely CEO. But I prefer to think of Livingstone as a perfectly reasonable chief for some corporation from, say, the year 2020. A company not unlike iStockphoto. Located in a single, cavernous room inside a former factory in downtown Calgary (Alberta, Canada), iStockphoto houses a tiny fraction of its actual workforce. And Livingstone, dressed in T-shirt and jeans, occupies a desk -- chosen, it would seem, at random -- in the middle of the floor. The corner office clearly loses significance in a company that thrives on decentralization. Jeff Howe explains crowdsourcing, which activates the transformative power of today's technology, liberating the latent potential within us all. Video: Courtesy of Jeff Howe Westeel Rosco built the factory in 1925 to manufacture nails, screws and other bits of hardware. Unlike Westeel Rosco, iStock's products -- stock photos, illustrations and videos -- aren't manufactured on-site. They're created by a global, fluid workforce of 60,000 part-time photographers and artists, only a fraction of whom make a living from the work they sell on iStock. Yet they have a devotion to the company matched by few traditional firms. The full-time staffers who spend their days in the old Westeel Rosco plant play a support role for the community -- and community is the only applicable word -- that is making the product iStock brings to market every day. And that community has been very, very good to Livingstone and his investors. In the course of several years iStock has grown from a hobby to the third-largest purveyor of stock images in the world. When Getty purchased iStock in early 2006, Livingstone took home more than half of the $50 million Getty paid for the company. The first stock photo agency was founded in 1920, and for most of the 20th century the industry was an afterthought, trafficking in the outtakes from commercial magazine assignments. Very few photographers tried to make a living off the market in preexisting images alone. This changed after the desktop publishing revolution of the mid-1980s led to a rapid growth in the publishing industry, and to a commensurate demand for images. Suddenly photographers were making six figures a year selling photos they'd already been paid to shoot. It was like minting money. Stock photography is, in relative terms, a tiny industry. The annual global gross for the entire business is estimated to be around $2 billion, which makes it a bit bigger than the market for gift baskets, but a little smaller than the annual sales of orchids. But this little industry has undergone big changes, and could well be a case study in how the crowd will impact much larger businesses. In just the last few years the influx of talented amateurs armed with inexpensive, high-resolution digital cameras has upended the economics of stock photography. Five years ago, a professional-quality image was still a scarce resource. No more. This isn't to say the market for high-end photographs has disappeared. A gifted photographer will always find work. But the professional no longer has a lock on the middle and lower ends of the stock photo business. With a modicum of training, just about anyone can take a decent shot. Sophisticated cameras and photo-editing software do the rest. iStock exploits this fact. Design firms and other small companies working on a budget quickly embraced what became known as the "microstock" model. One graphic designer told me he went from paying hundreds of dollars an image to less than $10. "I pass on some of the savings to my clients and keep the rest. We're both delighted." iStock might be great for buyers, but it's caused all sorts of headaches for professional stock photographers. In my original Wired article about crowdsourcing I quoted a Los Angeles-based photographer, Mark Harmel, saying that this influx of cheap images had caused a slight decline in his income from stock photo sales, which had dropped to $60,000. But in the two years since that decline has fallen off a cliff, to $35,000 in 2007. "If I look at the trend line, it just keeps going down. I'm really concentrating on getting assignments now," says Harmel. "I recently came back from London with 70 really wonderful shots. I'll probably use them on my website, but it's not worth my time to bother submitting them to a stock agency. They won't sell." Harmel's far from alone. In fact, Getty's other businesses have struggled in the crowdsourced era. In the year I spent writing this book the company's stock slid 60 percent, falling to just under $22 by February 2008. That month Getty was acquired by the private equity firm Hellman Friedman for $2.4 billion, a considerably lower figure than the company had originally sought. According to a report released at the time of the sale, Goldman Sachs estimates that Getty's core business -- the sale of rights-managed, professionally produced images -- will continue to suffer an irreversible decline, falling to just 29 percent of its revenues by 2012. In the same period the investment bank projects iStock to continue its rapid rate of growth. iStock sold $72 million worth of images in 2007, a figure expected to jump to $262 million by 2012. In this light, paying $50 million for a crowdsourced photo company looks like the smartest decision Getty ever made. The company is in the midst of transforming its business, from one reliant exclusively on professionals to one that is at least equally reliant on amateurs. As the Goliath of the industry, where Getty goes its competitors are sure to follow, which is to say, stock photography itself has been utterly transformed through crowdsourcing, in which a once-scarce commodity has become abundant. The question to ask is whether the upheaval roiling stock photography is only a leading indicator, like the minor volcanic eruptions that can precede a catastrophic earthquake. Already the trend is migrating to other fields. Most immediately, the same dynamics that made the stock photo ubiquitous -- affordable digital SLR cameras and burgeoning communities of enthusiastic amateurs -- are affecting other markets for visual images. So-called "citizen paparazzi" use cellphone cameras to snap impromptu shots of stars and then sell them to new photo agencies such as Scoopt, which specialize in buying up and marketing their work. Amateurs can beat professional paparazzi for the simple reason that they vastly outnumber them. It's a question of probability: The throng of pedestrians in Greenwich Village, for instance, have a much better chance of catching an unkempt Gwyneth Paltrow than a single paparazzo. And photography may well be just the beginning. iStock itself is doing a burgeoning business in the sale of stock video footage, and the crowd is also making commercials, collaborating on TV scripts, and recording and distributing their own music. They're writing political analysis, creating their own video games, and making feature-length movies. For the time being, all this activity has taken place in something of a parallel universe, without causing any of the economic upheaval visited on the stock photo or pornography industries. But those universes are beginning to collide as more companies attempt to package all this outpouring of creativity into a marketable product. While crowdsourcing has already emerged as a potent force in the media and entertainment industries, it's also profoundly influenced the way even Fortune 100 companies like Procter & Gamble do business. Once famous for its insular culture, Procter & Gamble now crowdsources much of its R&D process, using global networks of scientists such as InnoCentive and NineSigma, which boast a combined membership of 2 million professional and amateur researchers. Even companies operating in a conventional field such as mining have found crowdsourcing applications. The Canadian gold-mining group Goldcorp put geological survey data online and offered a $575,000 prize to anyone who could identify likely areas for exploration. Goldcorp says the contest produced 110 targets that yielded $3 billion in gold. Following its lead, the mining giant Barrick Gold Corporation recently offered $10 million to anyone who could improve its silver-extraction process. The open call of crowdsourcing is also being used by companies such as Google (to develop applications for its Android mobile platform) and Netflix (to improve its recommendation system). The question is whether the iStock secret sauce can be applied to industries like television and journalism and, possibly, even beyond to any business that traffics in bits and bytes. To answer that question, it helps to know what's in the secret sauce. The Community Is the Company iStock has been compared to a cult, and the analogy isn't entirely unfair. It's no accident that the most successful companies in the web's second coming -- most of whom traffic in the crowd's creative output -- are led by outsize personalities. "Bruce is to iStock what Tom is to MySpace," notes Garth Johnson, iStock's VP of Business Development. (Johnson resigned his position after this book went to press.) For those readers over the age of 30, Tom is Tom Anderson, the president of the social networking behemoth MySpace and the first "friend" to greet any new user. Under this new archetype of a company -- in which the community, as much as the customer, comes first -- the cult of personality plays a crucial role in community building, and Livingstone has been as essential to the growth of the iStock community as Anderson has been to MySpace's. "Bruce has a really strong, extremely charismatic personality online," says Johnson. "And that's really helped us build the community." It's safe to say that iStock has left the community-building phase behind: Sixty-thousand people have combined to create an enormous portfolio of over 3.5 million images and 100,000 videos. By contrast, Getty's other divisions combined only use 2,500 photographers. The iStockers offer the company their artwork, and in return iStock goes to extraordinary lengths to keep the iStockers happy. The site offers the budding photographer all manner of free tutorials, and the forums buzz -- at a rate of 38 posts per minute -- with questions about lens sizes, polarized filters and F-stop settings. iStock doesn't offer a chance to get rich. It offers the chance to make friends and become a better photographer. "We don't own anything, the community does" says Johnson. "Everything we do affects these people, whether they're just earning enough to pay for their equipment, or they're making mortgage payments from their photo sales. They all want a voice, and we have to give it to them, because really, the community is the company." The upside to this state of affairs should be obvious -- a dedicated, efficient workforce with no expectation of receiving a living wage -- but there are downsides as well: Even the smallest changes can roil the fickle, passionate community of iStockers. In March 2006, iStock launched a new feature on its web forums, a "forometer" which measured an iStocker's popularity through "bafflingly complex scientific methods" including the date and number of posts to the forum. The forometer displayed its results through a set of red, yellow or green bars. It did not go over well. The community questioned the principles behind the feature, as well as its functionality. Not long after its launch, the feature had been removed. Employees may be hell on overhead, but they're paid to accept all but the most draconian policies with a polite nod. Communities, on the other hand, aren't paid to stick around, and nothing stops them from selling their photos to one of iStock's many competitors. "They don't work for us," Livingstone laughs. "We work for them." If the iStocker feels a sense of ownership over the site, that's understandable: The iStock community predates iStock the company. Livingstone didn't set out to revolutionize an industry, he just wanted to fill a personal need and help a few friends at the same time. In 2000 Livingstone was running a small graphic design and web-hosting firm in Calgary. Bruce is an avid photographer himself, and over the years he had developed an extensive network of photographers and designers. Early in the year he took 2,000 of his images and put them online. Anyone could download his photos in exchange for giving him an e-mail address. Livingstone's friends decided they wanted to share their images with the public, too. That June the budding community instituted a credit system: A user could download one image for every image of theirs that had been downloaded by someone else. It was a classic example of the gift economy, the non-monetary exchange that grew up alongside the internet. During iStock's early years, everyone took something and gave something in turn. "The feeders and the eaters were the same people," as Livingstone puts it. Everyone profited by acquiring new images, though no one made (or spent) a dime. Soon friends of friends heard about Bruce's nifty idea and started uploading their images, too. Then around 2002 a wider public got wind of iStock, and the site began to hit critical mass. Soon Livingstone was paying $10,000 a month for the bandwidth to support it. He could have taken advertising to cover the cost of hosting, but he felt that would violate the spirit of the site. "The focus was on the community, and good design. Advertising would have cluttered the site," says Livingstone. Instead, he started charging a quarter for each image, and he opened the system up to the public. This proved to be a momentous decision. Word quickly spread among publishers that there was a site offering cheap, usable images, and photographers began flocking to iStock to upload their portfolios. Traffic to the site skyrocketed, and soon Livingstone raised the price to $1 per image. "I thought it might become a sideline business," he says. It quickly became much more than that. The quality of the images wasn't always as high (or as consistent) as a traditional stock agency's, but the differences were indiscernible to the general consumer, and after all, you couldn't beat the price. By 2004 a host of other so-called "micro-stocks" had sprung up with strategies similar to iStock's. The professionals panicked. Microstock photos, they charged, were flooding the market with subpar images. At first, the industry aligned itself against iStockphoto and other microstock agencies such as ShutterStock and Dreamstime. Then in early 2006, Getty announced it would buy iStockphoto for $50 million. "If someone's going to cannibalize your business, better it be one of your other businesses," Getty CEO Jonathan Klein told me shortly after the sale. Smaller magazines, nonprofit organizations, and all manner of websites have continued to flock to iStock's high-volume, low-cost model. As of February 2008, iStockphoto had 2 million regular customers purchasing photographs, video footage, illustrations and animations. "Bruce's brilliance," Jonathan Klein once told me, "is that he turned community into commerce." Livingstone uses a slightly different formulation: "I turned commerce into community," iStockphoto has perfected the Jedi Mind Trick that's at the heart of crowdsourcing. It's an incredibly cost-effective strategy -- iStock boasts a 55 percent profit margin. And yet, Livingstone stumbled into this business model by creating a context -- a community of like-minded enthusiasts -- in which financial measures take a backseat to considerably less tangible concerns. Ask someone in the office, and they'll tell you: It's not about the money. Ask an iStocker and they'll tell you the same thing. In fact -- would-be crowdsources take note: If it is about the money, it won't work. It will fizzle, not sizzle, as one of iStock's designers put it. "What's funny is, the money people, they pretty quickly get pulled aside in the forums by the core people. Or they just don't have a voice. People will ignore them, like 'Oh, that's just so and so, they're just here to make money.'" That doesn't mean the iStockers are unmotivated by self-interest. The more a photographer's images are downloaded, the more recognition they receive in the community, and the more credits they earn to download other people's photos to use in their own designs. And the additional income is also welcome, of course. Unlike other cases in which large corporations have attempted to monetize community, iStock does reward its contributors. It paid out $21 million in 2007. It's significant that people in online communities like iStock's react with great hostility to the idea that crowdsourcing is a form of cheap labor -- despite the fact it demonstrably is. After all, no one wants to feel exploited. In the end, what iStock provides is an invaluable if impossible-to-measure currency: meaning. The crowd will give away their time -- their excess capacity -- enthusiastically, but not for free. It has to be a meaningful exchange. Wired.Com Crowdsourcing Book Excerpt: The Canary in the Coal Mine {new window}   Www.Wired.Com - First identified by journalist Jeff Howe in a June 2006 Wired magazine article, "crowdsourcing" describes the process by which the power of the many can be leveraged to accomplish feats that were once the province of the specialized few. Howe reveals that the crowd is more than wise -- it's talented, creative and stunningly productive. Crowdsourcing activates the transformative power of today's technology, liberating the latent potential within us all. It's a perfect meritocracy, where age, gender, race, education and job history no longer matter, where the quality of work is all that counts and every field is open to people of every imaginable background. If you can perform the service, design the product or solve the problem, you've got the job. But crowdsourcing has also triggered a dramatic shift in the way work is organized, talent employed, research conducted and products made and marketed. As the crowd comes to supplant traditional forms of labor, pain and disruption are inevitable. When the original article was published, crowdsourcing still constituted a nascent business model. A few small companies had achieved limited successes with it, and large companies had only begun to test the waters. In this excerpt, Howe argues that in just two years crowdsourcing has revolutionized an entire industry -- stock photography -- and may well be poised to create disruption in other fields as well. - - - Adapted from Crowdsourcing: How the Power of the Crowd is Driving the Future of Business, by Jeff Howe. More at Howe's Crowdsourcing Blog. Chapter 7: The Canary in the Coal Mine There's a story people like to tell about Bruce Livingstone. In late 2005, Getty Images, the world's largest photo agency, was looking to acquire Livingstone's company, iStockphoto, the world's most successful crowdsourcing company. Long before the contracts were drawn up, Livingstone, to show his commitment to the deal, tattooed the word "Getty" in cursive across the tender flesh on his inner wrist. Then he e-mailed Getty CEO Jonathan Klein photos of the tattoo under the message: "Don't make me write another word after this!" It's just the kind of tale -- emblematic of determination and just the right amount of quirky eccentricity -- that tends to burnish the reputation of its subject. In Livingstone's case, it has the added benefit of being demonstrably true. With his penchant for muscle cars, rockabilly haircuts and, yes, tattoos, it's tempting to call Livingstone an unlikely CEO. But I prefer to think of Livingstone as a perfectly reasonable chief for some corporation from, say, the year 2020. A company not unlike iStockphoto. Located in a single, cavernous room inside a former factory in downtown Calgary (Alberta, Canada), iStockphoto houses a tiny fraction of its actual workforce. And Livingstone, dressed in T-shirt and jeans, occupies a desk -- chosen, it would seem, at random -- in the middle of the floor. The corner office clearly loses significance in a company that thrives on decentralization. Jeff Howe explains crowdsourcing, which activates the transformative power of today's technology, liberating the latent potential within us all. Video: Courtesy of Jeff Howe Westeel Rosco built the factory in 1925 to manufacture nails, screws and other bits of hardware. Unlike Westeel Rosco, iStock's products -- stock photos, illustrations and videos -- aren't manufactured on-site. They're created by a global, fluid workforce of 60,000 part-time photographers and artists, only a fraction of whom make a living from the work they sell on iStock. Yet they have a devotion to the company matched by few traditional firms. The full-time staffers who spend their days in the old Westeel Rosco plant play a support role for the community -- and community is the only applicable word -- that is making the product iStock brings to market every day. And that community has been very, very good to Livingstone and his investors. In the course of several years iStock has grown from a hobby to the third-largest purveyor of stock images in the world. When Getty purchased iStock in early 2006, Livingstone took home more than half of the $50 million Getty paid for the company. The first stock photo agency was founded in 1920, and for most of the 20th century the industry was an afterthought, trafficking in the outtakes from commercial magazine assignments. Very few photographers tried to make a living off the market in preexisting images alone. This changed after the desktop publishing revolution of the mid-1980s led to a rapid growth in the publishing industry, and to a commensurate demand for images. Suddenly photographers were making six figures a year selling photos they'd already been paid to shoot. It was like minting money. Stock photography is, in relative terms, a tiny industry. The annual global gross for the entire business is estimated to be around $2 billion, which makes it a bit bigger than the market for gift baskets, but a little smaller than the annual sales of orchids. But this little industry has undergone big changes, and could well be a case study in how the crowd will impact much larger businesses. In just the last few years the influx of talented amateurs armed with inexpensive, high-resolution digital cameras has upended the economics of stock photography. Five years ago, a professional-quality image was still a scarce resource. No more. This isn't to say the market for high-end photographs has disappeared. A gifted photographer will always find work. But the professional no longer has a lock on the middle and lower ends of the stock photo business. With a modicum of training, just about anyone can take a decent shot. Sophisticated cameras and photo-editing software do the rest. iStock exploits this fact. Design firms and other small companies working on a budget quickly embraced what became known as the "microstock" model. One graphic designer told me he went from paying hundreds of dollars an image to less than $10. "I pass on some of the savings to my clients and keep the rest. We're both delighted." iStock might be great for buyers, but it's caused all sorts of headaches for professional stock photographers. In my original Wired article about crowdsourcing I quoted a Los Angeles-based photographer, Mark Harmel, saying that this influx of cheap images had caused a slight decline in his income from stock photo sales, which had dropped to $60,000. But in the two years since that decline has fallen off a cliff, to $35,000 in 2007. "If I look at the trend line, it just keeps going down. I'm really concentrating on getting assignments now," says Harmel. "I recently came back from London with 70 really wonderful shots. I'll probably use them on my website, but it's not worth my time to bother submitting them to a stock agency. They won't sell." Harmel's far from alone. In fact, Getty's other businesses have struggled in the crowdsourced era. In the year I spent writing this book the company's stock slid 60 percent, falling to just under $22 by February 2008. That month Getty was acquired by the private equity firm Hellman Friedman for $2.4 billion, a considerably lower figure than the company had originally sought. According to a report released at the time of the sale, Goldman Sachs estimates that Getty's core business -- the sale of rights-managed, professionally produced images -- will continue to suffer an irreversible decline, falling to just 29 percent of its revenues by 2012. In the same period the investment bank projects iStock to continue its rapid rate of growth. iStock sold $72 million worth of images in 2007, a figure expected to jump to $262 million by 2012. In this light, paying $50 million for a crowdsourced photo company looks like the smartest decision Getty ever made. The company is in the midst of transforming its business, from one reliant exclusively on professionals to one that is at least equally reliant on amateurs. As the Goliath of the industry, where Getty goes its competitors are sure to follow, which is to say, stock photography itself has been utterly transformed through crowdsourcing, in which a once-scarce commodity has become abundant. The question to ask is whether the upheaval roiling stock photography is only a leading indicator, like the minor volcanic eruptions that can precede a catastrophic earthquake. Already the trend is migrating to other fields. Most immediately, the same dynamics that made the stock photo ubiquitous -- affordable digital SLR cameras and burgeoning communities of enthusiastic amateurs -- are affecting other markets for visual images. So-called "citizen paparazzi" use cellphone cameras to snap impromptu shots of stars and then sell them to new photo agencies such as Scoopt, which specialize in buying up and marketing their work. Amateurs can beat professional paparazzi for the simple reason that they vastly outnumber them. It's a question of probability: The throng of pedestrians in Greenwich Village, for instance, have a much better chance of catching an unkempt Gwyneth Paltrow than a single paparazzo. And photography may well be just the beginning. iStock itself is doing a burgeoning business in the sale of stock video footage, and the crowd is also making commercials, collaborating on TV scripts, and recording and distributing their own music. They're writing political analysis, creating their own video games, and making feature-length movies. For the time being, all this activity has taken place in something of a parallel universe, without causing any of the economic upheaval visited on the stock photo or pornography industries. But those universes are beginning to collide as more companies attempt to package all this outpouring of creativity into a marketable product. While crowdsourcing has already emerged as a potent force in the media and entertainment industries, it's also profoundly influenced the way even Fortune 100 companies like Procter & Gamble do business. Once famous for its insular culture, Procter & Gamble now crowdsources much of its R&D process, using global networks of scientists such as InnoCentive and NineSigma, which boast a combined membership of 2 million professional and amateur researchers. Even companies operating in a conventional field such as mining have found crowdsourcing applications. The Canadian gold-mining group Goldcorp put geological survey data online and offered a $575,000 prize to anyone who could identify likely areas for exploration. Goldcorp says the contest produced 110 targets that yielded $3 billion in gold. Following its lead, the mining giant Barrick Gold Corporation recently offered $10 million to anyone who could improve its silver-extraction process. The open call of crowdsourcing is also being used by companies such as Google (to develop applications for its Android mobile platform) and Netflix (to improve its recommendation system). The question is whether the iStock secret sauce can be applied to industries like television and journalism and, possibly, even beyond to any business that traffics in bits and bytes. To answer that question, it helps to know what's in the secret sauce. The Community Is the Company iStock has been compared to a cult, and the analogy isn't entirely unfair. It's no accident that the most successful companies in the web's second coming -- most of whom traffic in the crowd's creative output -- are led by outsize personalities. "Bruce is to iStock what Tom is to MySpace," notes Garth Johnson, iStock's VP of Business Development. (Johnson resigned his position after this book went to press.) For those readers over the age of 30, Tom is Tom Anderson, the president of the social networking behemoth MySpace and the first "friend" to greet any new user. Under this new archetype of a company -- in which the community, as much as the customer, comes first -- the cult of personality plays a crucial role in community building, and Livingstone has been as essential to the growth of the iStock community as Anderson has been to MySpace's. "Bruce has a really strong, extremely charismatic personality online," says Johnson. "And that's really helped us build the community." It's safe to say that iStock has left the community-building phase behind: Sixty-thousand people have combined to create an enormous portfolio of over 3.5 million images and 100,000 videos. By contrast, Getty's other divisions combined only use 2,500 photographers. The iStockers offer the company their artwork, and in return iStock goes to extraordinary lengths to keep the iStockers happy. The site offers the budding photographer all manner of free tutorials, and the forums buzz -- at a rate of 38 posts per minute -- with questions about lens sizes, polarized filters and F-stop settings. iStock doesn't offer a chance to get rich. It offers the chance to make friends and become a better photographer. "We don't own anything, the community does" says Johnson. "Everything we do affects these people, whether they're just earning enough to pay for their equipment, or they're making mortgage payments from their photo sales. They all want a voice, and we have to give it to them, because really, the community is the company." The upside to this state of affairs should be obvious -- a dedicated, efficient workforce with no expectation of receiving a living wage -- but there are downsides as well: Even the smallest changes can roil the fickle, passionate community of iStockers. In March 2006, iStock launched a new feature on its web forums, a "forometer" which measured an iStocker's popularity through "bafflingly complex scientific methods" including the date and number of posts to the forum. The forometer displayed its results through a set of red, yellow or green bars. It did not go over well. The community questioned the principles behind the feature, as well as its functionality. Not long after its launch, the feature had been removed. Employees may be hell on overhead, but they're paid to accept all but the most draconian policies with a polite nod. Communities, on the other hand, aren't paid to stick around, and nothing stops them from selling their photos to one of iStock's many competitors. "They don't work for us," Livingstone laughs. "We work for them." If the iStocker feels a sense of ownership over the site, that's understandable: The iStock community predates iStock the company. Livingstone didn't set out to revolutionize an industry, he just wanted to fill a personal need and help a few friends at the same time. In 2000 Livingstone was running a small graphic design and web-hosting firm in Calgary. Bruce is an avid photographer himself, and over the years he had developed an extensive network of photographers and designers. Early in the year he took 2,000 of his images and put them online. Anyone could download his photos in exchange for giving him an e-mail address. Livingstone's friends decided they wanted to share their images with the public, too. That June the budding community instituted a credit system: A user could download one image for every image of theirs that had been downloaded by someone else. It was a classic example of the gift economy, the non-monetary exchange that grew up alongside the internet. During iStock's early years, everyone took something and gave something in turn. "The feeders and the eaters were the same people," as Livingstone puts it. Everyone profited by acquiring new images, though no one made (or spent) a dime. Soon friends of friends heard about Bruce's nifty idea and started uploading their images, too. Then around 2002 a wider public got wind of iStock, and the site began to hit critical mass. Soon Livingstone was paying $10,000 a month for the bandwidth to support it. He could have taken advertising to cover the cost of hosting, but he felt that would violate the spirit of the site. "The focus was on the community, and good design. Advertising would have cluttered the site," says Livingstone. Instead, he started charging a quarter for each image, and he opened the system up to the public. This proved to be a momentous decision. Word quickly spread among publishers that there was a site offering cheap, usable images, and photographers began flocking to iStock to upload their portfolios. Traffic to the site skyrocketed, and soon Livingstone raised the price to $1 per image. "I thought it might become a sideline business," he says. It quickly became much more than that. The quality of the images wasn't always as high (or as consistent) as a traditional stock agency's, but the differences were indiscernible to the general consumer, and after all, you couldn't beat the price. By 2004 a host of other so-called "micro-stocks" had sprung up with strategies similar to iStock's. The professionals panicked. Microstock photos, they charged, were flooding the market with subpar images. At first, the industry aligned itself against iStockphoto and other microstock agencies such as ShutterStock and Dreamstime. Then in early 2006, Getty announced it would buy iStockphoto for $50 million. "If someone's going to cannibalize your business, better it be one of your other businesses," Getty CEO Jonathan Klein told me shortly after the sale. Smaller magazines, nonprofit organizations, and all manner of websites have continued to flock to iStock's high-volume, low-cost model. As of February 2008, iStockphoto had 2 million regular customers purchasing photographs, video footage, illustrations and animations. "Bruce's brilliance," Jonathan Klein once told me, "is that he turned community into commerce." Livingstone uses a slightly different formulation: "I turned commerce into community," iStockphoto has perfected the Jedi Mind Trick that's at the heart of crowdsourcing. It's an incredibly cost-effective strategy -- iStock boasts a 55 percent profit margin. And yet, Livingstone stumbled into this business model by creating a context -- a community of like-minded enthusiasts -- in which financial measures take a backseat to considerably less tangible concerns. Ask someone in the office, and they'll tell you: It's not about the money. Ask an iStocker and they'll tell you the same thing. In fact -- would-be crowdsources take note: If it is about the money, it won't work. It will fizzle, not sizzle, as one of iStock's designers put it. "What's funny is, the money people, they pretty quickly get pulled aside in the forums by the core people. Or they just don't have a voice. People will ignore them, like 'Oh, that's just so and so, they're just here to make money.'" That doesn't mean the iStockers are unmotivated by self-interest. The more a photographer's images are downloaded, the more recognition they receive in the community, and the more credits they earn to download other people's photos to use in their own designs. And the additional income is also welcome, of course. Unlike other cases in which large corporations have attempted to monetize community, iStock does reward its contributors. It paid out $21 million in 2007. It's significant that people in online communities like iStock's react with great hostility to the idea that crowdsourcing is a form of cheap labor -- despite the fact it demonstrably is. After all, no one wants to feel exploited. In the end, what iStock provides is an invaluable if impossible-to-measure currency: meaning. The crowd will give away their time -- their excess capacity -- enthusiastically, but not for free. It has to be a meaningful exchange.
In this excerpt from the new book {...}
Published: September 5, 2008, 10:00 pm - Indexed: September 7, 2008, 10:19 am - Page Size: 49KB
Category: News > Breaking News

]]> News > Breaking News {NORTH AMERICA > RENTALS} - RENTERS, LAST CHANCE TO OWN W/ZERO DOWN!! (santa rosa) $2950 4bd http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/north-america/united-states/california/metro-areas/san-francisco-bay-area/business-and-economy/real-estate/rentals/renters-last-chance-to-own-w-zero-down-santa-rosa-2008091337.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/north-america/united-states/california/metro-areas/san-francisco-bay-area/business-and-economy/real-estate/rentals/renters-last-chance-to-own-w-zero-down-santa-rosa-2008091337.htm Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:50:25 GMT $2,950.00 INCLUDES TAX+INS+MI. TOTAL EST. PAYMENT ON $375K!!!!!! PICK YOUR HOUSE AND OWN WITH NO DOWN PAYMENT-Never in the history of real estate have home prices been so low and mortgage rates low, with bank foreclosures costing 40% of what they did 18mos ago and rates in the 6's!! SO WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? The government wants you to buy a house with no money down, that's right, NO MONEY DOWN!! 1.Do you have a credit score over 620? 2.Have you had steady employment for the last 2 years? 3. Have you not owned a mortgage in the last three years? 4. Do you want keys for your own house? If the answers are yes,yes,yes,and yes, then we want you to call us now!!!! We have over 400 property listings in Sonoma County under $375,000, most of them bank owned. We are one of the select few that are FHA approved. We have the best programs with the best rates, fast service and NO JUNK FEES GUARANTEED!!Banks can't offer you a loan with no money down, but the government can and will. But this opportunity won't last long, a new bill has been passed and will go into effect October 2008 that will stop the foreclosures, prices will re-correct themselves, and the wave will end, so don't wait call, get pre-approved today, and start shopping for your home! CALL 7 DAYS A WEEK @ 707-581-6999 Ext. 102 and ask for HENRY or email at henry@wholesalemortgageco.com List#R4 Sfbay.Craigslist.Org RENTERS, LAST CHANCE TO OWN W/ZERO DOWN!! (santa rosa) $2950 4bd {new window}   Sfbay.Craigslist.Org - $2,950.00 INCLUDES TAX+INS+MI. TOTAL EST. PAYMENT ON $375K!!!!!! PICK YOUR HOUSE AND OWN WITH NO DOWN PAYMENT-Never in the history of real estate have home prices been so low and mortgage rates low, with bank foreclosures costing 40% of what they did 18mos ago and rates in the 6's!! SO WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? The government wants you to buy a house with no money down, that's right, NO MONEY DOWN!! 1.Do you have a credit score over 620? 2.Have you had steady employment for the last 2 years? 3. Have you not owned a mortgage in the last three years? 4. Do you want keys for your own house? If the answers are yes,yes,yes,and yes, then we want you to call us now!!!! We have over 400 property listings in Sonoma County under $375,000, most of them bank owned. We are one of the select few that are FHA approved. We have the best programs with the best rates, fast service and NO JUNK FEES GUARANTEED!!Banks can't offer you a loan with no money down, but the government can and will. But this opportunity won't last long, a new bill has been passed and will go into effect October 2008 that will stop the foreclosures, prices will re-correct themselves, and the wave will end, so don't wait call, get pre-approved today, and start shopping for your home! CALL 7 DAYS A WEEK @ 707-581-6999 Ext. 102 and ask for HENRY or email at henry@wholesalemortgageco.com List#R4
Published: September 4, 2008, 6:50 pm - Indexed: September 4, 2008, 7:12 pm - Page Size: 1KB
Category: Regional > North America > United States > California > Metro Areas > San Francisco Bay Area > Business and Economy > Real Estate > Rentals

]]> Regional > North America > United States > California > Metro Areas > San Francisco Bay Area > Business and Economy > Real Estate > Rentals {EUROPE > COMPUTERS AND INTERNET} - History shaped Google's Trojan Horse http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/europe/united-kingdom/business-and-economy/computers-and-internet/history-shaped-google-s-trojan-horse-2008098567.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/europe/united-kingdom/business-and-economy/computers-and-internet/history-shaped-google-s-trojan-horse-2008098567.htm Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:26:04 GMT Unravelling the Chrome masterplan... with Windows 2.03 Analysis When people buy software - buy it in seriously large amounts - it isn't just today's binary they're choosing. They're buying what they think is a bit of the future - they're buying a piece of risk insurance. This explains why very mature and well-proven systems often lose out to the Newest Kid on the Block. It also explains the enduring effectiveness of FUD and Vapourware.? Theregister.Co.Uk History shaped Google's Trojan Horse {new window}   Www.Theregister.Co.Uk - Unravelling the Chrome masterplan... with Windows 2.03 Analysis When people buy software - buy it in seriously large amounts - it isn't just today's binary they're choosing. They're buying what they think is a bit of the future - they're buying a piece of risk insurance. This explains why very mature and well-proven systems often lose out to the Newest Kid on the Block. It also explains the enduring effectiveness of FUD and Vapourware.?
History shaped Google's Trojan Horse | The Register {...}
Published: September 4, 2008, 2:26 pm - Indexed: September 4, 2008, 9:19 pm - Page Size: 27KB
Category: Regional > Europe > United Kingdom > Business and Economy > Computers and Internet

]]> Regional > Europe > United Kingdom > Business and Economy > Computers and Internet {ISSUES > BIAS AND BALANCE} - Ignoring Palin's video message, CBS reporter claimed McCain campaign "prove[d]" Palin has "no connection" to Alaskan Independence Party http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/ignoring-palin-s-video-message-cbs-reporter-claimed-2008099136.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/ignoring-palin-s-video-message-cbs-reporter-claimed-2008099136.htm Wed, 03 Sep 2008 23:41:57 GMT On the September 2 edition of the CBS Evening News, discussing "reports" that Gov. Sarah Palin "participated in Alaska's Independence Party [AIP], which has called in the past for the state to secede from the union," CBS correspondent Nancy Cordes reported: "Today, the McCain campaign released her voter registration records to prove Palin is a lifelong Republican with no connection to the Independence Party." But Cordes did not note that Palin addressed the AIP's 2008 state convention in a video message in which she said the group "plays an important role in our state's politics," that she reportedly addressed the party's convention with a video message in 2006, or that the McCain campaign has acknowledged that Palin "visted" the AIP's 2000 convention. Further, in a September 2 post on his ABCNews.com Political Punch blog, ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper reported that Gail Fenumiai, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, "says that Palin's husband Todd was a member of the AIP from October 1995 through July 2002, except for a few months in 2000." According to its website, "The Alaskan Independence Party can be summed up in just two words: ALASKA FIRST!" [emphasis in the original]. The website further states that the party's "goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives: 1) Remain a Territory. 2) Become a separate and Independent Nation. 3) Accept Commonwealth status. 4) Become a State." The website asserts that "[t]he call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream of the Alaskan Independence Party's founding father, Joe Vogler." As TPM Media's Greg Sargent has noted, in a 1991 "interview that's now housed at the Oral History Program in the Rasmuson Library at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks," Vogler asserted: "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. And I won't be buried under their damn flag. I'll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home." In a video message to the AIP's 2008 state convention -- available on the party's website and highlighted on the website's front page -- Palin asserted that the AIP "plays an important role in our state's politics" and said she "share[s] your party's vision of upholding the constitution of our great state." Palin stated: I'm Governor Sarah Palin and I am delighted to welcome you to the 2008 Alaskan Independence Party Convention in the golden heart city of Fairbanks. Your party plays an important role in our state's politics. I've always said that competition is so good, and that applies to political parties as well. I share your party's vision of upholding the constitution of our great state. My administration remains focused on reining in government growth so individual liberty and opportunity can expand. I know you agree with that. We have a great promise to be a self-sufficient state, made up of the hardest-working, most grateful Americans in our nation. So as your convention gets under way I hope that you all are inspired by remembering that all those years ago, it was in this same city that Alaska's constitution was born. And it was founded on hope and trust and liberty and opportunity. I carry that message of opportunity forward in my administration, as we continue to move our state ahead and create positive change. So I say good luck on a successful and inspiring convention. Keep up the good work, and God bless you. Further, on the September 2 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer reported that Palin also "sen[t] a video to this party's convention in 2006." In a September 1 post on Political Punch, Tapper reported that McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers "says that Palin didn't attend the AIP convention in 1994, 'but she visited them when they had their convention in Wasilla in 2000 as a courtesy since she was mayor.' " From the September 2 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric: CORDES: After yesterday's revelation that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, questions are flying about how much the McCain campaign knew about other issues like the probe into Palin's firing of her public safety commissioner, or reports that she participated in Alaska's Independence Party, which has called in the past for the state to secede from the union. MARK CHRYSON (former chairman, Alaskan Independence Party): All I know is she was at the convention in '94 with her husband and several hundred other people. CORDES: Today, a senior official close to the vetting process told CBS News those concerns are either unfounded or were dismissed during a long examination that started way back in May, when they began compiling dossiers on 21 possible picks. Palin's was 40 pages, single-spaced. Eventually that list of 21 shrank to just six. Palin and the other finalists were asked to provide even more personal data. Today, the McCain campaign released her voter registration records to prove Palin is a lifelong Republican with no connection to the Independence Party. And it blamed the Obama campaign for stirring the pot on all this, something that campaign strongly denies. Mediamatters.Org Ignoring Palin's video message, CBS reporter claimed McCain campaign "prove[d]" Palin has "no connection" to Alaskan Independence Party {new window}   Mediamatters.Org - On the September 2 edition of the CBS Evening News, discussing "reports" that Gov. Sarah Palin "participated in Alaska's Independence Party [AIP], which has called in the past for the state to secede from the union," CBS correspondent Nancy Cordes reported: "Today, the McCain campaign released her voter registration records to prove Palin is a lifelong Republican with no connection to the Independence Party." But Cordes did not note that Palin addressed the AIP's 2008 state convention in a video message in which she said the group "plays an important role in our state's politics," that she reportedly addressed the party's convention with a video message in 2006, or that the McCain campaign has acknowledged that Palin "visted" the AIP's 2000 convention. Further, in a September 2 post on his ABCNews.com Political Punch blog, ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper reported that Gail Fenumiai, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, "says that Palin's husband Todd was a member of the AIP from October 1995 through July 2002, except for a few months in 2000." According to its website, "The Alaskan Independence Party can be summed up in just two words: ALASKA FIRST!" [emphasis in the original]. The website further states that the party's "goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives: 1) Remain a Territory. 2) Become a separate and Independent Nation. 3) Accept Commonwealth status. 4) Become a State." The website asserts that "[t]he call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream of the Alaskan Independence Party's founding father, Joe Vogler." As TPM Media's Greg Sargent has noted, in a 1991 "interview that's now housed at the Oral History Program in the Rasmuson Library at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks," Vogler asserted: "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. And I won't be buried under their damn flag. I'll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home." In a video message to the AIP's 2008 state convention -- available on the party's website and highlighted on the website's front page -- Palin asserted that the AIP "plays an important role in our state's politics" and said she "share[s] your party's vision of upholding the constitution of our great state." Palin stated: I'm Governor Sarah Palin and I am delighted to welcome you to the 2008 Alaskan Independence Party Convention in the golden heart city of Fairbanks. Your party plays an important role in our state's politics. I've always said that competition is so good, and that applies to political parties as well. I share your party's vision of upholding the constitution of our great state. My administration remains focused on reining in government growth so individual liberty and opportunity can expand. I know you agree with that. We have a great promise to be a self-sufficient state, made up of the hardest-working, most grateful Americans in our nation. So as your convention gets under way I hope that you all are inspired by remembering that all those years ago, it was in this same city that Alaska's constitution was born. And it was founded on hope and trust and liberty and opportunity. I carry that message of opportunity forward in my administration, as we continue to move our state ahead and create positive change. So I say good luck on a successful and inspiring convention. Keep up the good work, and God bless you. Further, on the September 2 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer reported that Palin also "sen[t] a video to this party's convention in 2006." In a September 1 post on Political Punch, Tapper reported that McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers "says that Palin didn't attend the AIP convention in 1994, 'but she visited them when they had their convention in Wasilla in 2000 as a courtesy since she was mayor.' " From the September 2 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric: CORDES: After yesterday's revelation that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, questions are flying about how much the McCain campaign knew about other issues like the probe into Palin's firing of her public safety commissioner, or reports that she participated in Alaska's Independence Party, which has called in the past for the state to secede from the union. MARK CHRYSON (former chairman, Alaskan Independence Party): All I know is she was at the convention in '94 with her husband and several hundred other people. CORDES: Today, a senior official close to the vetting process told CBS News those concerns are either unfounded or were dismissed during a long examination that started way back in May, when they began compiling dossiers on 21 possible picks. Palin's was 40 pages, single-spaced. Eventually that list of 21 shrank to just six. Palin and the other finalists were asked to provide even more personal data. Today, the McCain campaign released her voter registration records to prove Palin is a lifelong Republican with no connection to the Independence Party. And it blamed the Obama campaign for stirring the pot on all this, something that campaign strongly denies.
Media Matters - Ignoring Palin's video message, CBS reporter claimed McCain campaign "prove[d]" Palin has "no connection" to Alaskan Independence Party {...} CBS' Nancy Cordes reported: "Today, the McCain campaign released her voter registration records to prove Palin is a lifelong Republican with no connection to the [Alaskan] Independence Party." But Cordes did not note that Palin addressed the AIP's 2008 state convention in a video message in which she said the group "plays an important role in our state's politics," that she reportedly addressed the party's convention with a video message in 2006, that the McCain campaign has acknowledged that Palin "visited" the AIP's 2000 convention, or that her husband reportedly was a registered member of the party. {...}
Published: September 3, 2008, 11:41 pm - Indexed: September 4, 2008, 9:26 am - Page Size: 23KB
Category: Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance

]]> Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance {LITERATURE > CYBERPUNK} - The history of urawaza in the Japan Times http://articles.world-of-newave.info/arts/literature/genres/cyberpunk/the-history-of-urawaza-in-the-japan-times-2008095023.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/arts/literature/genres/cyberpunk/the-history-of-urawaza-in-the-japan-times-2008095023.htm Wed, 03 Sep 2008 01:13:07 GMT I wrote an article for today's Japan Times about the history of urawaza. Urawaza is the name of a book I wrote; it's a collection of lifestyle tips and tricks, and it was published in April by Chronicle Books. Here, I explain the origins of the concept, the word, and the proliferation of the idea in Japan and the US. Urawaza?quirky, everyday Japanese tips?head West (Japan Times)Urawaza: Secret Everyday Tips and Tricks from Japan (Amazon) ( Lisa Katayama is a guest blogger.)... Boingboing.Net The history of urawaza in the Japan Times {new window}   Www.Boingboing.Net - I wrote an article for today's Japan Times about the history of urawaza. Urawaza is the name of a book I wrote; it's a collection of lifestyle tips and tricks, and it was published in April by Chronicle Books. Here, I explain the origins of the concept, the word, and the proliferation of the idea in Japan and the US. Urawaza?quirky, everyday Japanese tips?head West (Japan Times)Urawaza: Secret Everyday Tips and Tricks from Japan (Amazon) ( Lisa Katayama is a guest blogger.)...
The history of urawaza in the Japan Times - Boing Boing {...}
Published: September 3, 2008, 1:13 am - Indexed: September 3, 2008, 11:08 am - Page Size: 33KB
Category: Arts > Literature > Genres > Cyberpunk

]]> Arts > Literature > Genres > Cyberpunk {NORTH AMERICA > RENTALS} - **3-12 Month Terms, **Furnished 4 bedroom Home* **OCT. Occupancy. (alamo square / nopa) $10500 4bd http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/north-america/united-states/california/metro-areas/san-francisco-bay-area/business-and-economy/real-estate/rentals/3-12-month-terms-furnished-4-bedroom-home-oct-occupancy-2008091204.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/north-america/united-states/california/metro-areas/san-francisco-bay-area/business-and-economy/real-estate/rentals/3-12-month-terms-furnished-4-bedroom-home-oct-occupancy-2008091204.htm Tue, 02 Sep 2008 20:28:52 GMT View this on the web: http://www.ubayp.com/rent/_props/1392mcallister/index.html 1392 McAllister St., Alamo Square Bask in the exquisite period detail of this historic and tastefully furnished 4 bedroom, 2 bath home! This home seamlessly blends old world elegance with the comfort of today's modern living. No detail has been left untouched in this tastefully furnished home. This luxury property resides in the historic Alamo Square area of San Francisco; the "Painted Ladies" (Victorian houses) surrounding the neighborhood park have been depicted in hundreds of postcards and movies. The park includes tennis courts and a recently updated children’s playground. 4 bedrooms including a tremendous great room at roof level with a luminous circular turret and round bed Large double parlor, formal dining room and office space Gas fireplaces in master bedroom and dining room Beautifully remodeled full kitchen with oven/range, dishwasher, refrigerator with ice maker, microwave All utilities included plus wireless internet, cable TV Weekly maid service included 1-car parking included 2 months' security deposit required Sorry, no pets No smoking Located a short walk from the restaurants and shops of Hayes Valley Easy access to the Symphony, Opera, Museums, Civic Center and Union Square Alamo Square in San Francisco is best known for its “Postcard Row,” a stunning view of seven Painted Ladies and the city skyline. Alamo Square has an impressive history dating back to the early 1800s as a watering hole. Now it is a neighborhood gathering spot surrounded by stunning Victorians, all as impeccably maintained as the famous homes on Steiner Street. Alamo Square has experienced a recent growth in restaurants, cafés, and bars, mainly along Divisadero. Consider NOPA, BlueJay Café, Little Star Pizza, Tsunami, Alamo Square Seafood Grill, a homey breakfast at Eddie’s Café, and for amazing dessert try candybar. There are great cafés like Café Abir, Apollo Coffee, Mojo Bicycle Café and On The Corner (with good music at night). Funky bars include Fly Bar, Madrone, Bar 821, and soon MiniBar. There are even a few boutiques like Still Life. Additional photos & info Contact Relocation tel. 415.901.2804 relocation@ubayp.com Rent $10500 Sq ft (approx) 2600 Address 1392 McAllister St. San Francisco CA 94115 Bedrooms 4 plus convertible sofa bed Bathrooms 2 Parking 1-car parking Washer/Dryer In unit Building Type Single family home Outdoor Space None Available October San Francisco and East Bay Rentals Sfbay.Craigslist.Org **3-12 Month Terms, **Furnished 4 bedroom Home* **OCT. Occupancy. (alamo square / nopa) $10500 4bd {new window}   Sfbay.Craigslist.Org - View this on the web: http://www.ubayp.com/rent/_props/1392mcallister/index.html 1392 McAllister St., Alamo Square Bask in the exquisite period detail of this historic and tastefully furnished 4 bedroom, 2 bath home! This home seamlessly blends old world elegance with the comfort of today's modern living. No detail has been left untouched in this tastefully furnished home. This luxury property resides in the historic Alamo Square area of San Francisco; the "Painted Ladies" (Victorian houses) surrounding the neighborhood park have been depicted in hundreds of postcards and movies. The park includes tennis courts and a recently updated children’s playground. 4 bedrooms including a tremendous great room at roof level with a luminous circular turret and round bed Large double parlor, formal dining room and office space Gas fireplaces in master bedroom and dining room Beautifully remodeled full kitchen with oven/range, dishwasher, refrigerator with ice maker, microwave All utilities included plus wireless internet, cable TV Weekly maid service included 1-car parking included 2 months' security deposit required Sorry, no pets No smoking Located a short walk from the restaurants and shops of Hayes Valley Easy access to the Symphony, Opera, Museums, Civic Center and Union Square Alamo Square in San Francisco is best known for its “Postcard Row,” a stunning view of seven Painted Ladies and the city skyline. Alamo Square has an impressive history dating back to the early 1800s as a watering hole. Now it is a neighborhood gathering spot surrounded by stunning Victorians, all as impeccably maintained as the famous homes on Steiner Street. Alamo Square has experienced a recent growth in restaurants, cafés, and bars, mainly along Divisadero. Consider NOPA, BlueJay Café, Little Star Pizza, Tsunami, Alamo Square Seafood Grill, a homey breakfast at Eddie’s Café, and for amazing dessert try candybar. There are great cafés like Café Abir, Apollo Coffee, Mojo Bicycle Café and On The Corner (with good music at night). Funky bars include Fly Bar, Madrone, Bar 821, and soon MiniBar. There are even a few boutiques like Still Life. Additional photos & info Contact Relocation tel. 415.901.2804 relocation@ubayp.com Rent $10500 Sq ft (approx) 2600 Address 1392 McAllister St. San Francisco CA 94115 Bedrooms 4 plus convertible sofa bed Bathrooms 2 Parking 1-car parking Washer/Dryer In unit Building Type Single family home Outdoor Space None Available October San Francisco and East Bay Rentals
**3-12 Month Terms, **Furnished 4 bedroom Home* **OCT. Occupancy. {...}
Published: September 2, 2008, 8:28 pm - Indexed: September 2, 2008, 10:11 pm - Page Size: 13KB
Category: Regional > North America > United States > California > Metro Areas > San Francisco Bay Area > Business and Economy > Real Estate > Rentals

]]> Regional > North America > United States > California > Metro Areas > San Francisco Bay Area > Business and Economy > Real Estate > Rentals {NEWS > BREAKING NEWS} - Inside Chrome: The Secret Project to Crush IE and Remake the Web http://articles.world-of-newave.info/news/breaking-news/inside-chrome-the-secret-project-to-crush-ie-and-2008092333.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/news/breaking-news/inside-chrome-the-secret-project-to-crush-ie-and-2008092333.htm Tue, 02 Sep 2008 05:00:00 GMT .chrome_what {width:250px;float:left;margin-right:12px;border-right-style:NONE;border-right-width:5px;border-right-color:#4d6387;} .chrome_what h5 {font-size:1.2em;margin-top:9px;} .chrome_what .kicker {color:#333;margin-bottom:9px;} .chrome_what li {list-style-type:none;padding-bottom:9px;list-style-position:inside;} .li_alt{} Chrome: Here's What Shines Google wanted a browser optimized for cloud computing, with a design emphasis on simplicity and speed. Key features: Speed Blazing fast JavaScript engine opens the door to more advanced Web applications. Navigation The "omnibox" combines the search and address boxes, and pop-up thumbnails show your most-visited destinations. Availability The open source software was launched in over 40 languages, but Windows only; Mac and Linux versions are in the works. Reliability Tabs run in isolation, so if one crashes, no others are affected. Also, you can drag tabs to create new windows. Privacy Browsing history is now searchable and editable; incognito mode offers private surfing. One key change they had in mind was something called a multiprocess architecture, the system that helps the computer keep going when an application crashes or freezes. Why not extend that idea to browsers, so if something crashes in a tab, the other tabs are unperturbed? Also, for that matter, why not set things up so that you can drag an existing tab to create a new window? Starting from scratch had other advantages. You could design it to look cleaner and run faster, the twin dogmas of the Google corporate religion. Around June 2006, Goodger, Fisher, and another former Mozillan named Brian Ryner cooked up a small prototype. Their first big decision involved the choice of a rendering engine, the software that processes the HTML code of a Web page into the stuff that appears on your screen. The two major open source options were Gecko, used by Firefox, and WebKit, which powers Apple's Safari browser. The word was that WebKit (which had already been adopted by the group developing Google's Android mobile operating system) could be nasty fast — three times as fast as Gecko, in one example. In a few weeks, they had a simple application running WebKit on Windows that kept going even when a Web page crashed a tab. Early on, Goodger recalls, "our prototypes had a picture of a little tab that was unhappy, and if a tab died you'd see that. It was the first piece of personality in the product." Not long after that, Brin and Page came by to check in on the furtive beginnings of their browser. "I remember sitting at my desk, which at the time had a stuffed snake running along the back of it," says Pam Greene, an engineer on the team. "Sergey was bouncing on one of those exercise balls, watching Darin give a demo, and petting the snake." No one will say exactly when the browser project got the official green light. Pichai recalls an executive meeting when Schmidt no longer seemed as opposed as he had been. If Google did go for it, the CEO said, the team had to produce something very different from Explorer and Firefox. In addition, a Google browser would have to be fast, and it would have to be open source. Which, of course, was exactly what the team already had in mind. In any case, by the autumn of 2006 the line between unofficial concept and formal project had been crossed. "One Friday, there was a meeting called with like an hour's notice," engineer Brett Wilson says. "We were told, 'The management is thinking about doing our own browser — what do you think about that?' Everybody was a combination of excited and freaked out." Part of the freak-out was they knew full well that building a competitive browser was a massive undertaking. There were also mixed feelings because of the group's attachment to Firefox, an icon of open source development and a hedge against Microsoft's dominance. "The fear was that people were going to read this as sabotaging Firefox," says Erik Kay, an engineer who joined the team in October 2006. The Googlers were mollified by the fact that their browser would be 100 percent open source: Google's innovations could potentially find their way into the Mozilla codebase. "We really want to make Firefox successful, as well as other open source browsers," Upson says. As part of Google's Firefox effort, Pichai had been meeting with Mozilla head Mitchell Baker, and at some point he told her about Google's project. Baker now says a Google browser is a mixed bag for Mozilla and Firefox. She sees the effort as a vindication of Mozilla's belief that browser choice is essential. "If Google comes up with some good new ideas, that's really great for users," she says. "Competition spurs the best in us." But she also understands that many of her users will download Google's app. "We expect people will try it and come back," she says. "Mozilla exists because independence is important." The Illustrated History: To introduce Chrome and its development team, Google asked noted artist Scott McCloud to create a 32-page comic (available online) that depicts the browser's two-year gestation and special features. A less weighty issue was what to dub the product. After considering some ridiculous codenames (Upson says they were so awful that he took the un-Googly step of a top-down veto), the project borrowed its moniker from the term used to describe the frame, toolbars, and menus bordering a browser window: chrome. One more hire was key. Because Chrome was supposed to be optimized to run Web applications, a crucial element would be the JavaScript engine, a "virtual machine" that runs Web application code. The ideal person to construct this was a Danish computer scientist named Lars Bak. In September 2006, after more than 20 years of nonstop labor designing virtual machines, Bak had been planning to take some time off to work on his farm outside Århus. Then Google called. Bak set up a small team that originally worked from the farm, then moved to some offices at the local university. He understood that his mission was to provide a faster engine than in any previous browser. He called his team's part of the project "V8." "We decided we wanted to speed up JavaScript by a factor of 10, and we gave ourselves four months to do it," he says. A typical day for the Denmark team began between 7 and 8 am; they programmed constantly until 6 or 7 at night. The only break was for lunch, when they would wolf down food in five minutes and spend 20 minutes at the game console. "We are pretty damn good at Wii Tennis," Bak says. They were also pretty good at writing a JavaScript engine. "We just did some benchmark runs today," Bak says a couple of weeks before the launch. Indeed, V8 processes JavaScript 10 times faster than Firefox or Safari. And how does it compare in those same benchmarks to the market-share leader, Microsoft's IE 7? Fifty-six times faster. "We sort of underestimated what we could do," Bak says. Speed may be Chrome's most significant advance. When you improve things by an order of magnitude, you haven't made something better — you've made something new. "As soon as developers get the taste for this kind of speed, they'll start doing more amazing new Web applications and be more creative in doing them," Bak says. Google hopes to kick-start a new generation of Web-based applications that will truly make Microsoft's worst nightmare a reality: The browser will become the equivalent of an operating system. Google also brought in reinforcements to implement the multiprocess architecture that allowed each open tab to run like a separate, self-contained program. In May 2007, it acquired GreenBorder Technologies, a software security firm whose technology was designed to isolate IE and Firefox activities into virtual sessions, or "sandboxes," where malware intrusions couldn't mess with other activities or data on your computer. When the deal was announced publicly, tech pundits wondered whether it meant that Google was going into the antivirus business. Only after the acquisition did GreenBorder's engineers learn that their job was to construct sandboxes for the tabs of a new browser. "It was confusing," says Carlos Pizano, one of the GreenBorder hires. "They would not say what they wanted to sandbox." The team was growing, but the process never got bogged down in bureaucracy. In the project's early stages, Chromers would all have lunch together at a table in one of the Google cafés. Soon even the largest table couldn't accommodate them all. Working in an open source spirit, every engineer was free to check out any piece of code and tweak or improve it. Rakowski always tried to keep things light, one day awarding tins of chrome polish to the best bug catchers. As the plumbing aspects of the product fell into place, activity focused on user interface. From the beginning, the Chrome team hoped that its visual presentation would be so understated that people wouldn't even think they were using a browser. The mantra became "Content, not chrome," which is sort of weird given the name of the browser. ("We've learned to live with the irony," Mark Larson says.) The clearest expression of this comes when you drag a tab containing a Web application like Gmail to its own separate window and specify that you want an "app shortcut." At that point, the tabs, buttons, and address bars fall away and the Web app looks pretty much like a desktop app. Welcome to the cloud era. Any tab in Chrome can be dragged out to start a new window. When deciding what buttons and features to include, the team began with the mental exercise of eliminating everything, then figuring out what to restore. The back button? No-brainer. The forward button? Less essential, but it survived. But if you're a big fan of the browser status bar — that meter that tells you what percent of a page has loaded — you're out of luck with Chrome. And then there was the bookmarks bar. At first, engineers thought they could kill it. Chrome introduces several new navigation methods, including one where the browser figures out where you want to go next with no typing required. And when you do type something in, you use the "omnibox," a combination of address bar and search box: Just tell it what you're thinking and it delivers a Web address, search results, or popular destinations that fit your query, all in non-intrusive text underneath the box. It's a bulked-up version of "I'm Feeling Lucky." Still, user tests showed that some people just love to navigate by clicking on the bookmark bar. The compromise: If the user has previously configured the bar in IE or Firefox, Chrome will import the setup. Otherwise, users won't have a bookmark bar unless they choose to. It's incredible that something as potentially game-changing as a Google browser has stayed under wraps for two years. It wasn't until mid-2007, about a year into the project, that the team let employees outside the group even see what they were doing. At the first of a series of Tech Talks featuring the current prototype (events designed, in part, as a way of recruiting internally for the ever-growing team) the reaction was volcanic. Googlers broke into spontaneous applause when various features, like dragging a tab into a new window, were demo'd. As the number of people who knew about Chrome increased, the inevitable occurred — word did leak out to a blog or two, yet nothing came of those stray items. No reporter put it all together. "I think it was because rumors about Google browsers have been around so long — it's like sightings of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster," Upson says. On the eve of the launch, Pichai shares some of his ambitions for Chrome. How many people will use it? "Many millions," he says. "I want my mom to use it. I want my dad to use it." The Google imprimatur doesn't assure success, but Pichai believes that even if Chrome doesn't snare huge market share, its innovations will improve the landscape. "We benefit directly if the Web gets better," he says. As launch approaches, the team has just moved into new space in a freshly renovated building on the Google campus, and there's another all-hands gathering in the biggest conference room available. It's standing room only. Milk and cookies are provided. After some initial business, Rakowski hands the floor over to Goodger. The rumpled engineer talks about the benefits of making Chrome an open source product — the code will be publicly released and a community will emerge to determine the browser's evolution. "We'll be able to scale our testing efforts," he says. "It'll enable people to do things we haven't thought of. And it'll generate trust that we're not doing something evil." As the meeting breaks up, the energy level is over the top, and not just because of the sugar rush. The Chrome team is close to unleashing the product that Google was destined to create. First, though, there are five bugs to swat. Senior writer Steven Levy (steven_levy@wired.com) also writes about Jay Walker's in the October issue of Wired. Wired.Com Inside Chrome: The Secret Project to Crush IE and Remake the Web {new window}   Www.Wired.Com - .chrome_what {width:250px;float:left;margin-right:12px;border-right-style:NONE;border-right-width:5px;border-right-color:#4d6387;} .chrome_what h5 {font-size:1.2em;margin-top:9px;} .chrome_what .kicker {color:#333;margin-bottom:9px;} .chrome_what li {list-style-type:none;padding-bottom:9px;list-style-position:inside;} .li_alt{} Chrome: Here's What Shines Google wanted a browser optimized for cloud computing, with a design emphasis on simplicity and speed. Key features: Speed Blazing fast JavaScript engine opens the door to more advanced Web applications. Navigation The "omnibox" combines the search and address boxes, and pop-up thumbnails show your most-visited destinations. Availability The open source software was launched in over 40 languages, but Windows only; Mac and Linux versions are in the works. Reliability Tabs run in isolation, so if one crashes, no others are affected. Also, you can drag tabs to create new windows. Privacy Browsing history is now searchable and editable; incognito mode offers private surfing. One key change they had in mind was something called a multiprocess architecture, the system that helps the computer keep going when an application crashes or freezes. Why not extend that idea to browsers, so if something crashes in a tab, the other tabs are unperturbed? Also, for that matter, why not set things up so that you can drag an existing tab to create a new window? Starting from scratch had other advantages. You could design it to look cleaner and run faster, the twin dogmas of the Google corporate religion. Around June 2006, Goodger, Fisher, and another former Mozillan named Brian Ryner cooked up a small prototype. Their first big decision involved the choice of a rendering engine, the software that processes the HTML code of a Web page into the stuff that appears on your screen. The two major open source options were Gecko, used by Firefox, and WebKit, which powers Apple's Safari browser. The word was that WebKit (which had already been adopted by the group developing Google's Android mobile operating system) could be nasty fast — three times as fast as Gecko, in one example. In a few weeks, they had a simple application running WebKit on Windows that kept going even when a Web page crashed a tab. Early on, Goodger recalls, "our prototypes had a picture of a little tab that was unhappy, and if a tab died you'd see that. It was the first piece of personality in the product." Not long after that, Brin and Page came by to check in on the furtive beginnings of their browser. "I remember sitting at my desk, which at the time had a stuffed snake running along the back of it," says Pam Greene, an engineer on the team. "Sergey was bouncing on one of those exercise balls, watching Darin give a demo, and petting the snake." No one will say exactly when the browser project got the official green light. Pichai recalls an executive meeting when Schmidt no longer seemed as opposed as he had been. If Google did go for it, the CEO said, the team had to produce something very different from Explorer and Firefox. In addition, a Google browser would have to be fast, and it would have to be open source. Which, of course, was exactly what the team already had in mind. In any case, by the autumn of 2006 the line between unofficial concept and formal project had been crossed. "One Friday, there was a meeting called with like an hour's notice," engineer Brett Wilson says. "We were told, 'The management is thinking about doing our own browser — what do you think about that?' Everybody was a combination of excited and freaked out." Part of the freak-out was they knew full well that building a competitive browser was a massive undertaking. There were also mixed feelings because of the group's attachment to Firefox, an icon of open source development and a hedge against Microsoft's dominance. "The fear was that people were going to read this as sabotaging Firefox," says Erik Kay, an engineer who joined the team in October 2006. The Googlers were mollified by the fact that their browser would be 100 percent open source: Google's innovations could potentially find their way into the Mozilla codebase. "We really want to make Firefox successful, as well as other open source browsers," Upson says. As part of Google's Firefox effort, Pichai had been meeting with Mozilla head Mitchell Baker, and at some point he told her about Google's project. Baker now says a Google browser is a mixed bag for Mozilla and Firefox. She sees the effort as a vindication of Mozilla's belief that browser choice is essential. "If Google comes up with some good new ideas, that's really great for users," she says. "Competition spurs the best in us." But she also understands that many of her users will download Google's app. "We expect people will try it and come back," she says. "Mozilla exists because independence is important." The Illustrated History: To introduce Chrome and its development team, Google asked noted artist Scott McCloud to create a 32-page comic (available online) that depicts the browser's two-year gestation and special features. A less weighty issue was what to dub the product. After considering some ridiculous codenames (Upson says they were so awful that he took the un-Googly step of a top-down veto), the project borrowed its moniker from the term used to describe the frame, toolbars, and menus bordering a browser window: chrome. One more hire was key. Because Chrome was supposed to be optimized to run Web applications, a crucial element would be the JavaScript engine, a "virtual machine" that runs Web application code. The ideal person to construct this was a Danish computer scientist named Lars Bak. In September 2006, after more than 20 years of nonstop labor designing virtual machines, Bak had been planning to take some time off to work on his farm outside Århus. Then Google called. Bak set up a small team that originally worked from the farm, then moved to some offices at the local university. He understood that his mission was to provide a faster engine than in any previous browser. He called his team's part of the project "V8." "We decided we wanted to speed up JavaScript by a factor of 10, and we gave ourselves four months to do it," he says. A typical day for the Denmark team began between 7 and 8 am; they programmed constantly until 6 or 7 at night. The only break was for lunch, when they would wolf down food in five minutes and spend 20 minutes at the game console. "We are pretty damn good at Wii Tennis," Bak says. They were also pretty good at writing a JavaScript engine. "We just did some benchmark runs today," Bak says a couple of weeks before the launch. Indeed, V8 processes JavaScript 10 times faster than Firefox or Safari. And how does it compare in those same benchmarks to the market-share leader, Microsoft's IE 7? Fifty-six times faster. "We sort of underestimated what we could do," Bak says. Speed may be Chrome's most significant advance. When you improve things by an order of magnitude, you haven't made something better — you've made something new. "As soon as developers get the taste for this kind of speed, they'll start doing more amazing new Web applications and be more creative in doing them," Bak says. Google hopes to kick-start a new generation of Web-based applications that will truly make Microsoft's worst nightmare a reality: The browser will become the equivalent of an operating system. Google also brought in reinforcements to implement the multiprocess architecture that allowed each open tab to run like a separate, self-contained program. In May 2007, it acquired GreenBorder Technologies, a software security firm whose technology was designed to isolate IE and Firefox activities into virtual sessions, or "sandboxes," where malware intrusions couldn't mess with other activities or data on your computer. When the deal was announced publicly, tech pundits wondered whether it meant that Google was going into the antivirus business. Only after the acquisition did GreenBorder's engineers learn that their job was to construct sandboxes for the tabs of a new browser. "It was confusing," says Carlos Pizano, one of the GreenBorder hires. "They would not say what they wanted to sandbox." The team was growing, but the process never got bogged down in bureaucracy. In the project's early stages, Chromers would all have lunch together at a table in one of the Google cafés. Soon even the largest table couldn't accommodate them all. Working in an open source spirit, every engineer was free to check out any piece of code and tweak or improve it. Rakowski always tried to keep things light, one day awarding tins of chrome polish to the best bug catchers. As the plumbing aspects of the product fell into place, activity focused on user interface. From the beginning, the Chrome team hoped that its visual presentation would be so understated that people wouldn't even think they were using a browser. The mantra became "Content, not chrome," which is sort of weird given the name of the browser. ("We've learned to live with the irony," Mark Larson says.) The clearest expression of this comes when you drag a tab containing a Web application like Gmail to its own separate window and specify that you want an "app shortcut." At that point, the tabs, buttons, and address bars fall away and the Web app looks pretty much like a desktop app. Welcome to the cloud era. Any tab in Chrome can be dragged out to start a new window. When deciding what buttons and features to include, the team began with the mental exercise of eliminating everything, then figuring out what to restore. The back button? No-brainer. The forward button? Less essential, but it survived. But if you're a big fan of the browser status bar — that meter that tells you what percent of a page has loaded — you're out of luck with Chrome. And then there was the bookmarks bar. At first, engineers thought they could kill it. Chrome introduces several new navigation methods, including one where the browser figures out where you want to go next with no typing required. And when you do type something in, you use the "omnibox," a combination of address bar and search box: Just tell it what you're thinking and it delivers a Web address, search results, or popular destinations that fit your query, all in non-intrusive text underneath the box. It's a bulked-up version of "I'm Feeling Lucky." Still, user tests showed that some people just love to navigate by clicking on the bookmark bar. The compromise: If the user has previously configured the bar in IE or Firefox, Chrome will import the setup. Otherwise, users won't have a bookmark bar unless they choose to. It's incredible that something as potentially game-changing as a Google browser has stayed under wraps for two years. It wasn't until mid-2007, about a year into the project, that the team let employees outside the group even see what they were doing. At the first of a series of Tech Talks featuring the current prototype (events designed, in part, as a way of recruiting internally for the ever-growing team) the reaction was volcanic. Googlers broke into spontaneous applause when various features, like dragging a tab into a new window, were demo'd. As the number of people who knew about Chrome increased, the inevitable occurred — word did leak out to a blog or two, yet nothing came of those stray items. No reporter put it all together. "I think it was because rumors about Google browsers have been around so long — it's like sightings of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster," Upson says. On the eve of the launch, Pichai shares some of his ambitions for Chrome. How many people will use it? "Many millions," he says. "I want my mom to use it. I want my dad to use it." The Google imprimatur doesn't assure success, but Pichai believes that even if Chrome doesn't snare huge market share, its innovations will improve the landscape. "We benefit directly if the Web gets better," he says. As launch approaches, the team has just moved into new space in a freshly renovated building on the Google campus, and there's another all-hands gathering in the biggest conference room available. It's standing room only. Milk and cookies are provided. After some initial business, Rakowski hands the floor over to Goodger. The rumpled engineer talks about the benefits of making Chrome an open source product — the code will be publicly released and a community will emerge to determine the browser's evolution. "We'll be able to scale our testing efforts," he says. "It'll enable people to do things we haven't thought of. And it'll generate trust that we're not doing something evil." As the meeting breaks up, the energy level is over the top, and not just because of the sugar rush. The Chrome team is close to unleashing the product that Google was destined to create. First, though, there are five bugs to swat. Senior writer Steven Levy (steven_levy@wired.com) also writes about Jay Walker's in the October issue of Wired.
Get Wired's take on technology business news and the Silicon Valley scene including IT, media, mobility, broadband, video, design, security, software, networking and internet startups on Wired.com {...}
Published: September 2, 2008, 5:00 am - Indexed: September 6, 2008, 10:05 am - Page Size: 51KB
Category: News > Breaking News

]]> News > Breaking News {ISSUES > BIAS AND BALANCE} - Glenn Beck, Debra Saunders falsely claimed Palin supports benefits for same-sex partners of state employees http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/glenn-beck-debra-saunders-falsely-claimed-palin-2008096082.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/glenn-beck-debra-saunders-falsely-claimed-palin-2008096082.htm Mon, 01 Sep 2008 19:06:15 GMT In recent days, syndicated columnist Debra Saunders and CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck have falsely claimed that Gov. Sarah Palin, Sen. John McCain's presumptive vice-presidential running mate, supports benefits for same-sex partners of state employees. In fact, while Palin did veto a bill in 2006 that would have prevented state officials from granting spousal benefits to same-sex couples, she stated that she vetoed the bill because the Alaska attorney general had advised her that it was unconstitutional, not because she supported spousal benefits for same-sex couples. Moreover, Palin indicated in a 2006 questionnaire that she disagreed with the Alaska Supreme Court's ruling that same-sex couples are entitled to the same spousal benefits given to other state employees, and also reportedly said that she would support a ballot question banning benefits for same-sex couples. In an August 31 column, Saunders wrote that Palin "is not a hard-core social conservative. For example, Palin supported awarding benefits for same-sex couples." Similarly, on the August 29 edition of CNN Newsroom, Beck claimed of Palin: "She is the first administration in Alaska's history to provide benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian employees. So she's not -- she's, she's common sense. ... Real conservatives have common-sense values, and they'll look at things and say, 'OK, I believe in traditional marriage. But why would I stop somebody from getting, you know, benefits, they've lived together for 20 years?' " Beck later added, "I have to know more about Sarah Palin, but what I do know, if she is who I think she is, I'll pull the lever for John McCain." However, as Media Matters for America has documented, while Palin vetoed a bill in 2006 that would have prevented state officials from granting spousal benefits, her actions followed a 2005 Alaska Supreme Court ruling that the state's policy of denying spousal benefits to same-sex partners of public employees violated the Alaska Constitution and a 2006 state Supreme Court order requiring the state to issue regulations granting such benefits by January 1, 2007. Palin stated that she vetoed the bill because the Alaska attorney general had advised her that the bill was unconstitutional, citing the attorney general's stratement that the bill "effectively eliminated the regulatory process as a way to comply with the Court's order," and not because she believed same-sex partners of public employees should receive benefits. Indeed, in the veto message, Palin's office stated that she disagreed with the Alaska Supreme Court's actions: "The Governor's veto does not signal any change or modification to her disagreement with the action and order by the Alaska Supreme Court." Further, in a written questionnaire Palin completed during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign, the conservative group Eagle Forum Alaska asked: "Do you support the Alaska Supreme Court's ruling that spousal benefits for state employees should be given to same-sex couples?" Palin replied: "No, I believe spousal benefits are reserved for married citizens as defined in our constitution." The Anchorage Daily News also reported on August 6, 2006, that Palin believes "[e]lected officials can't defy the court when it comes to how rights are applied, she said, but she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to homosexual couples." As Media Matters has noted, the Associated Press falsely suggested in an August 29 article that Palin supports benefits for same-sex partners of state employees. Similarly, on the August 29 edition of PBS' NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, New York Times columnist David Brooks asserted of Palin: "She's evangelical, but she's pretty progressive on gay and lesbian issues." Brooks offered no evidence for his assertion. From the August 29 edition of CNN Newsroom: JOHN ROBERTS (host): So Glenn, you mentioned that she is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative here. Now, some of the outrage here, if we are to look at the announcement, where they mentioned Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton as paradigm-breakers for the Democratic Party. If part of this pick is designed to appeal to those Hillary Clinton voters who feel disaffected by the fact, A, that she did not win the nomination, B, that she was not chosen as the vice-presidential running mate, those people may be slightly to the right of center in the Democratic Party in terms of issues like national security, but they would hardly be described as conservatives. How does this ticket appeal to those voters? BECK: Because she's -- because she's a conservative. Now, listen, we're very early on the curve on here. So I'm speaking here with just what I know at this point. But when you look at her on the surface, she is somebody who does defend traditional marriage. She opposes same-sex marriage. However, she is the first administration in Alaska's history to provide benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian employees. So she's not -- she's -- she's common sense. What -- too many conservatives have allowed the Republican Party to be shaped by people who are not common sense. It's exactly the same thing that happened with the NRA. Before Charlton Heston got involved with the NRA, the NRA was about to implode on itself, because there were people who said, "No compromise ever. If I want a tank, I can have a tank." Finally, the common-sense people said, "There's no reason for a tank. We can compromise on some things. You don't need every single possible weapon at your disposal. We understand what the Second Amendment is for. It's not about hunting; it is about protection. But there are some common-sense things that we can unite on." The NRA transformed and went from imploding to becoming a real force. The same thing with the Republicans. They're about to implode, because they have -- they have lost their way. Real conservatives have common-sense values, and they'll look at things and say, "OK, I believe in traditional marriage. But why would I stop somebody from getting, you know, benefits, they've lived together for 20 years? Would I stop somebody from their life partner going to visit them in the hospital? That's ridiculous." ROBERTS: Glenn, you've made no secret of your distaste for Senator John McCain. The fact that he has now chosen Governor Palin as his running mate, does that square things with conservatives that he still has a problem with? BECK: I will tell you this. It has made me -- I just said to somebody last night, and I'm a quasi-fan of Mitt Romney. And I said just last night, even if he puts Mitt Romney on there, I cannot put my hands on that lever and pull it down. Sarah Palin, because I believe she's exactly the kind of reformer that the Republicans need, where Mitt Romney or anyone else that was running before was not, she may -- I will today tell you, I may pull the lever for John McCain. I have to know more about Sarah Palin, but what I do know, if she is who I think she is, I'll pull the lever for John McCain. Mediamatters.Org Glenn Beck, Debra Saunders falsely claimed Palin supports benefits for same-sex partners of state employees {new window}   Mediamatters.Org - In recent days, syndicated columnist Debra Saunders and CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck have falsely claimed that Gov. Sarah Palin, Sen. John McCain's presumptive vice-presidential running mate, supports benefits for same-sex partners of state employees. In fact, while Palin did veto a bill in 2006 that would have prevented state officials from granting spousal benefits to same-sex couples, she stated that she vetoed the bill because the Alaska attorney general had advised her that it was unconstitutional, not because she supported spousal benefits for same-sex couples. Moreover, Palin indicated in a 2006 questionnaire that she disagreed with the Alaska Supreme Court's ruling that same-sex couples are entitled to the same spousal benefits given to other state employees, and also reportedly said that she would support a ballot question banning benefits for same-sex couples. In an August 31 column, Saunders wrote that Palin "is not a hard-core social conservative. For example, Palin supported awarding benefits for same-sex couples." Similarly, on the August 29 edition of CNN Newsroom, Beck claimed of Palin: "She is the first administration in Alaska's history to provide benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian employees. So she's not -- she's, she's common sense. ... Real conservatives have common-sense values, and they'll look at things and say, 'OK, I believe in traditional marriage. But why would I stop somebody from getting, you know, benefits, they've lived together for 20 years?' " Beck later added, "I have to know more about Sarah Palin, but what I do know, if she is who I think she is, I'll pull the lever for John McCain." However, as Media Matters for America has documented, while Palin vetoed a bill in 2006 that would have prevented state officials from granting spousal benefits, her actions followed a 2005 Alaska Supreme Court ruling that the state's policy of denying spousal benefits to same-sex partners of public employees violated the Alaska Constitution and a 2006 state Supreme Court order requiring the state to issue regulations granting such benefits by January 1, 2007. Palin stated that she vetoed the bill because the Alaska attorney general had advised her that the bill was unconstitutional, citing the attorney general's stratement that the bill "effectively eliminated the regulatory process as a way to comply with the Court's order," and not because she believed same-sex partners of public employees should receive benefits. Indeed, in the veto message, Palin's office stated that she disagreed with the Alaska Supreme Court's actions: "The Governor's veto does not signal any change or modification to her disagreement with the action and order by the Alaska Supreme Court." Further, in a written questionnaire Palin completed during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign, the conservative group Eagle Forum Alaska asked: "Do you support the Alaska Supreme Court's ruling that spousal benefits for state employees should be given to same-sex couples?" Palin replied: "No, I believe spousal benefits are reserved for married citizens as defined in our constitution." The Anchorage Daily News also reported on August 6, 2006, that Palin believes "[e]lected officials can't defy the court when it comes to how rights are applied, she said, but she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to homosexual couples." As Media Matters has noted, the Associated Press falsely suggested in an August 29 article that Palin supports benefits for same-sex partners of state employees. Similarly, on the August 29 edition of PBS' NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, New York Times columnist David Brooks asserted of Palin: "She's evangelical, but she's pretty progressive on gay and lesbian issues." Brooks offered no evidence for his assertion. From the August 29 edition of CNN Newsroom: JOHN ROBERTS (host): So Glenn, you mentioned that she is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative here. Now, some of the outrage here, if we are to look at the announcement, where they mentioned Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton as paradigm-breakers for the Democratic Party. If part of this pick is designed to appeal to those Hillary Clinton voters who feel disaffected by the fact, A, that she did not win the nomination, B, that she was not chosen as the vice-presidential running mate, those people may be slightly to the right of center in the Democratic Party in terms of issues like national security, but they would hardly be described as conservatives. How does this ticket appeal to those voters? BECK: Because she's -- because she's a conservative. Now, listen, we're very early on the curve on here. So I'm speaking here with just what I know at this point. But when you look at her on the surface, she is somebody who does defend traditional marriage. She opposes same-sex marriage. However, she is the first administration in Alaska's history to provide benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian employees. So she's not -- she's -- she's common sense. What -- too many conservatives have allowed the Republican Party to be shaped by people who are not common sense. It's exactly the same thing that happened with the NRA. Before Charlton Heston got involved with the NRA, the NRA was about to implode on itself, because there were people who said, "No compromise ever. If I want a tank, I can have a tank." Finally, the common-sense people said, "There's no reason for a tank. We can compromise on some things. You don't need every single possible weapon at your disposal. We understand what the Second Amendment is for. It's not about hunting; it is about protection. But there are some common-sense things that we can unite on." The NRA transformed and went from imploding to becoming a real force. The same thing with the Republicans. They're about to implode, because they have -- they have lost their way. Real conservatives have common-sense values, and they'll look at things and say, "OK, I believe in traditional marriage. But why would I stop somebody from getting, you know, benefits, they've lived together for 20 years? Would I stop somebody from their life partner going to visit them in the hospital? That's ridiculous." ROBERTS: Glenn, you've made no secret of your distaste for Senator John McCain. The fact that he has now chosen Governor Palin as his running mate, does that square things with conservatives that he still has a problem with? BECK: I will tell you this. It has made me -- I just said to somebody last night, and I'm a quasi-fan of Mitt Romney. And I said just last night, even if he puts Mitt Romney on there, I cannot put my hands on that lever and pull it down. Sarah Palin, because I believe she's exactly the kind of reformer that the Republicans need, where Mitt Romney or anyone else that was running before was not, she may -- I will today tell you, I may pull the lever for John McCain. I have to know more about Sarah Palin, but what I do know, if she is who I think she is, I'll pull the lever for John McCain.
Media Matters - Glenn Beck, Debra Saunders falsely claimed Palin supports benefits for same-sex partners of state employees {...} Syndicated columnist Debra Saunders and CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck both falsely claimed that Gov. Sarah Palin supports benefits for same-sex partners of state employees. In fact, while Palin did veto a bill that would have prevented state officials from granting spousal benefits to same-sex couples, she stated that she did so because the Alaska attorney general had advised her that the bill was unconstitutional, not because she supported spousal benefits for same-sex couples. She has also reportedly said that she would support a ballot question banning benefits for same-sex couples. {...}
Published: September 1, 2008, 7:06 pm - Indexed: September 2, 2008, 8:40 am - Page Size: 26KB
Category: Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance

]]> Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance {ISSUES > THE SOUTH} - Partition in Scotland http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/territorial-disputes/united-states/the-south/partition-in-scotland-2008094402.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/territorial-disputes/united-states/the-south/partition-in-scotland-2008094402.htm Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:54:49 GMT From the GuardianI would not lose any sleep if the Scots voted to repeal the 1707 act. Independence need not end the United Kingdom: Scotland and England shared a monarch before 1707, as Britain and Canada do today. Separation need be no more radical than the partial autonomy of a dozen European countries from their neighbours. Borders were not sealed or passports cancelled under the Government of Ireland Act 1920. If eastern Europe can handle partition, so can Britain.The phased withdrawal of the subvention would be traumatic, but it would do Scotland nothing but good to learn that public money does not grow on English trees. If economic history teaches anything, it is that huge inflows of aid rot an economy, while "unearned" wealth, as from oil, is usually wasted. The phased end of the subsidy would be thoroughly good for Scotland, not bad.Partition is the new politics, despite being the hobgoblin of centralism. It is through partition that Ireland is booming, Slovakia reviving and the Baltic states prospering. The British government is in favour of it for everyone else, even forcing it on the former Yugoslavia and Iraq/Kurdistan. This year it welcomed Montenegro to Europe's community. By what hypocrisy do Westminster grandees ridicule Scotland's ambition?Big federal states were fine when governments were small and unobtrusive. Today's governments are elephantine and unresponsive to local sentiment. That is why Spain, France and Italy have all opted for constitutional devolution in the past two decades, fending off separatist pressure. Anti-federalism is why European public opinion revolted against Brussels last year, and why there is no more talk of a Scandinavian union. As for size being crucial to viability, this is corporatist rubbish. If Denmark is viable, why not Scotland?All such considerations must anyway bow before self-determination. If the Scots want to repeal the 1707 act (as some Britons want to repeal the European Union's treaties), the British cannot deny it. The story of the past