Recent studies show that 89 percent of married-with-children households own multiple cellphones and 66 percent have high-speed Internet connections, well above the national average of 52 percent for all households.Forty-two percent (42 percent) of parents contact their children every day via cellphone, making cellphones the most popular communication tool between parents and children; 52 percent of married-with-children households go online together at least a few times a week, and another 34 percent of those families have "shared screen moments" at least occasionally. Seventy percent (70 percent) of couples in which both partners own a mobile phone contact each other daily to say hello or chat, while 54 percent of couples who have only one or no cell phones do; 64% of couples in which both partners own a cellphone contact each other daily to coordinate their schedules and 47 percent of couples who have one or no cell phones do.
This appears to be wonderful on the surface until you listen to the tragic story of the wife narrating her ordeal with the Internet. A desperate wife writes: "My husband & I were only 21 when we got married. We've been married for 13 years and are facing a problem because of his internet sex addiction. I discovered he was visiting x-rated sites and masturbating. I confronted him about it. I was devastated! We talked and talked about it. He was sincerely sorry about it, made a promise not to visit such sites again. About a year ago I again discovered his internet infidelity and confronted him about it. I was so hurt, even more then the indoor Tracking! Over and over again he has said he's sorry, there is no excuse. So divorce is definite this time. But I love him! He is great husband and the best father there is. What can I do?"
This story is a classic demonstration of the deep spiritual crisis we live in today. We are not threatened by terrorism but by something a lot more devastating: the spread of technology and the Internet. Internet access is common everywhere and is being introduced to younger children. The argument is that we are now raising a generation of children and young people who are spiritually dull and live according to logic only.Inadvertently, we are raising children capable of any and every atrocity without raising an eyebrow because of their spiritual depravity. Tragically, technology is our Achilles heel that in the end will be worse than any weapon of mass destruction. It will destroy us from within. This frightening trend can only be reversed if more and more citizens listen to their consciences and say enough is enough.
Technology puts the "I" in the centre and ignores the fact that life is only worth living if "I" depend on my neighbour. We are infatuated with the ability the Internet gives us. To be able to obtain everything that is available at the click of the mouse gives us power and makes us feel invincible. We also feel that the Internet is the solution to all of our emotional and spiritual problems because for every emotional disorder, there is a self-help website or a group blog.Finding love in the Internet age usually requires at least a toe-dip into the pool of online dating site. A teenager took his life after he fell victim to Internet daters perpetuating extortion scams through dating site chat rooms. In this scam, unsuspecting victims begin a chat conversation with a potential match. After establishing trust, the scammer will begin to initiate more sexual conversation. Once many messages have been swapped, the scammer then posted the sexual conversations, along with his name and a picture, on a website saying that they were a cheater. They offered to take down the incriminating information after he had paid them hundreds of dollars. Once the money exchanged hands, the information remains on the site. Around the world, many divorced women over the age of 40, particularly in countries where Internet is a major way of life, have fallen victim to this scourge.
Families are breaking up because of sexual conversations online. This risk is that you really don't know to whom you are speaking and the possibility of extortion is very real, as is the chance of your reputation being ruined. But there is a good rule of thumb for online conversation: If you wouldn't be embarrassed to show it to your parents or Hands free access, then it's appropriate. The teenager who took his life could not consider what he was doing to his mum and dad or how much their lives would be drastically changed by his death. But how many other people suffered in this event?
The Internet becomes a sick and highly destructive device when it is used by crazy people like a 21-year old Great Neck, New York man who was charged in a criminal complaint in the Eastern District of Michigan, USA with Internet extortion and cyber stalking. According to the affidavit, from May 2012 through February 2013, Adam Paul Savader sent anonymous text messages using Google Voice numbers to 15 women stating that he had nude photographs of the women and threatening to distribute the nude photographs to the women's friends and family members, unless the women sent him more nude photographs of themselves. Savader sent some of the victims links to a photo-sharing website where nude pictures of the victims had been posted. If convicted on these charges, Savader faces a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment.
The Internet is a great invention that was created to feed and continues to feed on a global economic system called capitalism. This system, according to Karl Marx, makes workers slaves to their passions and to those who own the means of production. It's about making money at any cost and those living under this system are lured into practicing religion so that they can forget about their economic exploitation. Karl Marx saw faith in religion under the capitalist system as a drug, and so he argued, in 1843, that "religion is the opium (drug) of the people". They will not rebel against the system because they are under a hallucinating drug. Under capitalism today, the drug of religion is represented by the Internet. The Internet is the drug that is supposed to cure all psychological and mental ills of today.
It is regrettable that we are quick to forget the old saying that "not everything that glitters is gold". The Internet has become our god, our idol, which we now worship instead of the true God. Yet we have never been lonelier or more isolated from other human beings. What use is it to have all the possessions the world offers right in my living room if it separates me from other people? The essence of community is being systematically destroyed. If in any culture the minds and hearts of the children and youth have been captured, the war is already won. We are succumbing to the same temptation that Satan put before Jesus: Worship me, and the whole world and its glory will be yours. It is this temptation that Jesus rejected by pointing Satan to the Scriptures. The greatest challenge of education, the greatest challenge to parents and teachers, is not to teach our children reading, writing and arithmetic, which are important, but to see that they do not become spiritually dull.
As we struggle to build modern families, we seem to be succeeding in creating separate worlds under the same roof via the Internet. There are two main reasons why the Internet does not bring people closer together. First, it eliminates interaction.Second, it dehumanises communication. By searching on the Internet for places to shop, they eliminate conversations that used to be held between friends and family.Then, when there are conversations on the Internet, because of the lack of face time, there is so little substance that no lasting connection is made. Also, these conversations tend not to be genuine because people will say things online without thinking, which, as social creatures, is not the way we were set up to interact.The Internet makes people more isolated and jaded towards their fellow human beings. Most people I know would rather stay at home and talk to strangers or play computer games rather than socialise with family, spend time with kids, play games, fish, camp or any other such social activity. Some of the evil products made by the Internet make millions rich by destroying real human love and lifelong marital bonds. Businessmen seek to divide and conquer by destroying God's gift to mankind in the form of human sexuality. Their agenda is to disrupt the family unit, ultimately rendering man and woman isolated. When the family is destroyed, mankind is powerless to resist their subjugation.
They have a multi-pronged strategy to achieve this goal. By polluting the culture with sex-based media propaganda, they create demand for instant carnal gratification devoid of responsibility or moral obligation. By sexualizing the youth, businessmen remotely control the next generation. When young boys and girls grow up believing that viewing online dirty material, engaging in "hook-ups," and "being hot" is the societal expectation, they abandon aspirations of seeking a soul-mate that will love and protect them for life. When men can be chained to their online lovers and cable-box companions, they lose respect for their partners and a chasm develops in their intimate relations.The fact of the matter is that true happiness can only be experienced with those that you love in the flesh, and who share your spiritual values. We must defeat the capitalist Satanist's agenda. The Bible says "there is a way that seems right to men but the end is destruction" and "see to it that no one takes you captive to hallow and deceptive philosophy which depend on human traditions than the teachings of Christ".
The world is plagued by false philosophy about sex. But pornography is a virus; a worm eating through the apple.Pornography is a destroyer of marriage, the home, self-dignity, society, chastity, moral value, careers and relationships. On the other hand, God is love; He'll forgive our sins if you repent. God hates all forms of immorality and defines it pretty well in His book. The Internet can be a scourge on the earth. Like Satan, it seeks whom it can devour and destroy, reaching into homes of innocent families. But families can get a screening service to monitor their home computers which should be kept in a public room of the house and not in the children's bedrooms parents cannot control what is being watched. Most of children do it because they are lazy and the computer keeps them busy and away from the parent. This is neglect and in even child abuse. When parents do not monitor what the child is accessing on the Internet, horrible things can happen. I think there should be laws against children having computers in their room for that reason.
Read the full products at http://www.ecived.com/en/!
2013年9月2日星期一
Gun Control Issue Resolved in 1791
Our rights are natural, given to us by the Creator. So, with that in mind, understand that The Second Amendment does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment does not protect you against the government from taking away your guns. Your rights are given to you by God, and protecting your rights are your responsibility.
In today’s America, there is a concerted effort to remove your gun rights. But the right to keep and bear arms is so entrenched in the fabric of our society, the statists that desire to disarm you are also using a method that goes after the ammunition. Bullets are hard to come by, of late. Certain kinds of ammo, like hollow points, are under fire. In California, starting in January of 2014, background checks will be required for the purchase of projectiles, if Jerry Brown signs the bill sitting on his desk.
It almost makes me want to take up the bow and arrow. . . almost.There is no enumeration in the Constitution that grants to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms. In the first seven articles the authority to regulate firearms at the federal level is not granted. In the 2nd Amendment, the federal government is told it “shall” not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. But that was only added to the Constitution because the Anti-federalists feared that if it was not in writing, the federal government would ultimately infringe on our God-given gun rights.
The Second Amendment begins with a call for “A well regulated militia.” A well regulated militia is not one regulated by the government, as assumed by many folks because of their flawed notion regarding the definition of the word “regulated.” The part of the amendment that calls for a well-regulated militia is stating that the militia must be a fighting force that is in good order.
We must remember that the word “regulated” in 1791 did not necessarily mean “to control and restrict,” as the statists claim in today’s political atmosphere. The word “Indoor Positioning System,” according to the 1828 version of Webster’s Dictionary, was defined as meaning: “to put in good order.” The need to have a militia in good order makes sense when one considers that during the Revolutionary War the militia was not in good order. The muskets were all different sizes, often the clothing of some members of the militia was tattered, and many didn’t even have shoes. So, a well regulated militia, from the point of the view of the founders, was a militia that was in good order.
The need for the citizens to be armed was made evident during the Revolutionary War, and the importance of gun ownership by the people of that generation was clearly portrayed by the context of the Battle of Lexington Green, where the first shot of The Revolution was fired.
The British Troops were marching toward Concord, Massachusetts, and a rag tag company of the Massachusetts Militia met the Redcoats at Lexington, to confront them, and stop them. A shot rang out, which triggered a gun battle, and the War for Independence was in full gear.
But why was stopping the British at Lexington so imperative? What made the revolutionaries so intent on doing whatever it took to prevent the King’s Army from gaining access to Concord?In Concord was our largest munitions depot. Guns and ammunition were stored in Concord. So, it can be said that the final straw - what made us fighting mad enough that we began a bloody revolution against England - was when they came for our guns.
The current push for gun control is not the first effort by the federal government to go after our ability to defend ourselves. The federal gun-running operation called Fast and Furious placed guns in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels so that, if the democrats played their cards right, the guns would be used to kill many Mexicans, and then the party of the jackass could scream, “See what American guns have done?” hoping that American voters would demand a stop be put to the manufacturing of such dangerous weapons.
The operation backfired, two border patrol agents were killed, and the scandal grew to reveal what the Obama administration was trying to do. The administration, with no surprise to anyone, has been lying about the operation from day one. The media hopped aboard those lies, and have protected the president as best they could. The democrats have circled the wagons regarding the Fast and Furious scandal, and the scandal that would have brought down any GOP President, thanks to quick damage control by Obama’s minions, remained harmless, and has been all but forgotten.
Prior to the Fast and Furious operation being exposed, the federal government, through the courts, attempted to gain the power of dictating to the States what they can, and cannot, do, regarding firearms by ruling against State Sovereignty in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case.
Before the ruling regarding Chicago’s handgun ban, in the Washington DC v. Heller case in 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the right to bear arms is an individual right, as opposed to a collective right which would only allow the bearing of arms for the purpose of participating in government approved groups, such as law enforcement agencies.
Anti-Federalists feared the creation of a central government because they feared the federal government would become tyrannical, and take away people’s rights. Therefore, even though the Constitution in the first seven articles did not grant to the federal government any authority over gun rights, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, those skeptical over the creation of a central government wanted an amendment that clarified clearly that the federal government had no authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is the article that spells out the terms regarding gun rights in America, as the Anti-federalists desired.
We have to remember that State Sovereignty is an important factor, here. All powers belonged to the States prior to the writing of the Constitution. The first seven articles did not give to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms, therefore, any legislative power over gun rights is a State power. The 10th Amendment supports the States’ rights regarding this issue, and the 2nd Amendment confirms the limits placed on the federal government regarding guns.
This does not mean the States have the right to infringe on your gun rights, however. Remember, your right to keep and bear arms is a personal, fundamental, natural right given to you by God. The founders did not worry about the States infringing on gun rights, because the local governments were closer to the people. They expected you to protect your right to keep and bear arms, and to not let your State become tyrannical regarding that issue. But in today’s political environment, the argument has become all about the tyranny of the States. If the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States, what keeps the States from infringing on gun rights? They seem to be stomping on our right to our guns quite readily.
My response to that query is always the same: “So don’t let them.” Gun rights, be they protected in the Second Amendment, or listed in your State Constitution, is nothing more than ink on paper if you are not willing to defend those gun rights.
The only thing that can put our rights in jeopardy concerning State governments would be if we became so complacent that we stopped taking action to protect our rights. With freedom comes the responsibility to fight for your freedoms.
Noah Webster in his “An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” in 1787 said it clearly: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”
The federal government knows this, which is why they are trying to use the courts to overrule your sovereignty, and to limit the kinds of firearms, and ammunition, you can own.In the 2010 case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, which challenged the City of Chicago’s ban on hand guns, the debate over whether or not the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Federal Government was brought to the surface.
The 5-4 Decision of the McDonald v. City of Chicago case by the U.S. Supreme Court holds that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms in all cities and States. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that originally the 2nd Amendment applied only to the Federal Government, but it is in the opinion of the court that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights, therefore applying those amendments, and more specifically the 2nd Amendment, to the States.
Read the full products at http://www.ecived.com/en/!
In today’s America, there is a concerted effort to remove your gun rights. But the right to keep and bear arms is so entrenched in the fabric of our society, the statists that desire to disarm you are also using a method that goes after the ammunition. Bullets are hard to come by, of late. Certain kinds of ammo, like hollow points, are under fire. In California, starting in January of 2014, background checks will be required for the purchase of projectiles, if Jerry Brown signs the bill sitting on his desk.
It almost makes me want to take up the bow and arrow. . . almost.There is no enumeration in the Constitution that grants to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms. In the first seven articles the authority to regulate firearms at the federal level is not granted. In the 2nd Amendment, the federal government is told it “shall” not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. But that was only added to the Constitution because the Anti-federalists feared that if it was not in writing, the federal government would ultimately infringe on our God-given gun rights.
The Second Amendment begins with a call for “A well regulated militia.” A well regulated militia is not one regulated by the government, as assumed by many folks because of their flawed notion regarding the definition of the word “regulated.” The part of the amendment that calls for a well-regulated militia is stating that the militia must be a fighting force that is in good order.
We must remember that the word “regulated” in 1791 did not necessarily mean “to control and restrict,” as the statists claim in today’s political atmosphere. The word “Indoor Positioning System,” according to the 1828 version of Webster’s Dictionary, was defined as meaning: “to put in good order.” The need to have a militia in good order makes sense when one considers that during the Revolutionary War the militia was not in good order. The muskets were all different sizes, often the clothing of some members of the militia was tattered, and many didn’t even have shoes. So, a well regulated militia, from the point of the view of the founders, was a militia that was in good order.
The need for the citizens to be armed was made evident during the Revolutionary War, and the importance of gun ownership by the people of that generation was clearly portrayed by the context of the Battle of Lexington Green, where the first shot of The Revolution was fired.
The British Troops were marching toward Concord, Massachusetts, and a rag tag company of the Massachusetts Militia met the Redcoats at Lexington, to confront them, and stop them. A shot rang out, which triggered a gun battle, and the War for Independence was in full gear.
But why was stopping the British at Lexington so imperative? What made the revolutionaries so intent on doing whatever it took to prevent the King’s Army from gaining access to Concord?In Concord was our largest munitions depot. Guns and ammunition were stored in Concord. So, it can be said that the final straw - what made us fighting mad enough that we began a bloody revolution against England - was when they came for our guns.
The current push for gun control is not the first effort by the federal government to go after our ability to defend ourselves. The federal gun-running operation called Fast and Furious placed guns in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels so that, if the democrats played their cards right, the guns would be used to kill many Mexicans, and then the party of the jackass could scream, “See what American guns have done?” hoping that American voters would demand a stop be put to the manufacturing of such dangerous weapons.
The operation backfired, two border patrol agents were killed, and the scandal grew to reveal what the Obama administration was trying to do. The administration, with no surprise to anyone, has been lying about the operation from day one. The media hopped aboard those lies, and have protected the president as best they could. The democrats have circled the wagons regarding the Fast and Furious scandal, and the scandal that would have brought down any GOP President, thanks to quick damage control by Obama’s minions, remained harmless, and has been all but forgotten.
Prior to the Fast and Furious operation being exposed, the federal government, through the courts, attempted to gain the power of dictating to the States what they can, and cannot, do, regarding firearms by ruling against State Sovereignty in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case.
Before the ruling regarding Chicago’s handgun ban, in the Washington DC v. Heller case in 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the right to bear arms is an individual right, as opposed to a collective right which would only allow the bearing of arms for the purpose of participating in government approved groups, such as law enforcement agencies.
Anti-Federalists feared the creation of a central government because they feared the federal government would become tyrannical, and take away people’s rights. Therefore, even though the Constitution in the first seven articles did not grant to the federal government any authority over gun rights, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, those skeptical over the creation of a central government wanted an amendment that clarified clearly that the federal government had no authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is the article that spells out the terms regarding gun rights in America, as the Anti-federalists desired.
We have to remember that State Sovereignty is an important factor, here. All powers belonged to the States prior to the writing of the Constitution. The first seven articles did not give to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms, therefore, any legislative power over gun rights is a State power. The 10th Amendment supports the States’ rights regarding this issue, and the 2nd Amendment confirms the limits placed on the federal government regarding guns.
This does not mean the States have the right to infringe on your gun rights, however. Remember, your right to keep and bear arms is a personal, fundamental, natural right given to you by God. The founders did not worry about the States infringing on gun rights, because the local governments were closer to the people. They expected you to protect your right to keep and bear arms, and to not let your State become tyrannical regarding that issue. But in today’s political environment, the argument has become all about the tyranny of the States. If the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States, what keeps the States from infringing on gun rights? They seem to be stomping on our right to our guns quite readily.
My response to that query is always the same: “So don’t let them.” Gun rights, be they protected in the Second Amendment, or listed in your State Constitution, is nothing more than ink on paper if you are not willing to defend those gun rights.
The only thing that can put our rights in jeopardy concerning State governments would be if we became so complacent that we stopped taking action to protect our rights. With freedom comes the responsibility to fight for your freedoms.
Noah Webster in his “An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” in 1787 said it clearly: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”
The federal government knows this, which is why they are trying to use the courts to overrule your sovereignty, and to limit the kinds of firearms, and ammunition, you can own.In the 2010 case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, which challenged the City of Chicago’s ban on hand guns, the debate over whether or not the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Federal Government was brought to the surface.
The 5-4 Decision of the McDonald v. City of Chicago case by the U.S. Supreme Court holds that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms in all cities and States. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that originally the 2nd Amendment applied only to the Federal Government, but it is in the opinion of the court that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights, therefore applying those amendments, and more specifically the 2nd Amendment, to the States.
Read the full products at http://www.ecived.com/en/!
2013年8月26日星期一
Chemical Weapons Used In Syria
Kerry said in a press conference that the number of victims of the attack on Wednesday, the reported symptoms and the accounts of humanitarian organizations strongly indicate that chemical weapons were used in Syria.Kerry added that the U.S. believes the regime of president Bashar al-Assad is responsible for the attack, and that the Syrian government's decision to grant U.N. investigators access to the site of the attack came "too late to be credible."
Syrian opposition forces said last Wednesday that hundreds of people were killed near Damascus in an alleged chemical weapons attack. The international medical organization Doctors Without Borders announced on Saturday they had counted at least 355 deaths in the suburb of Ghouta.U.N. investigators inspected the site of the alleged chemical attack on Monday, despite being targeted by snipers earlier that day. Reuters reports that the investigators met with survivors and took samples on the site.
Secretary of State John Kerry declared Monday that there was "undeniable" evidence of a large-scale chemical weapons attack in Syria, toughening the Obama administration's criticism of Bashar Assad's regime and outlining a justification for possible U.S. military action.
Kerry, speaking to reporters at the State Department, said last week's attack was a "moral obscenity" that "should shock the conscience" of the world. Officials said there was very little doubt that the attack was perpetrated by the Syrian government.
"The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of Indoor Positioning System and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard, it is inexcusable and – despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured – it is undeniable," said Kerry, the highest-ranking U.S. official to confirm the attack in the Damascus suburbs that activists say killed hundreds of people.
"This international norm cannot be violated without consequences," he added.Officials said President Barack Obama has not decided how to respond to the use of deadly gases, a move the White House said last year would cross a "red line." But the U.S., along with allies in Europe, appeared to be laying the groundwork for the most aggressive response since Syria's civil war began more than two years ago.
The international community appeared to be considering a response that would punish Assad for deploying deadly gases, not sweeping actions aimed at ousting Assad or strengthening rebel forces. The focus of the internal debate underscores the scant international appetite for a large-scale deployment of forces in Syria and the limited number of other options that could significantly change the trajectory of the conflict.
"There is not a military solution to that conflict," White House spokesman Jay Carney saidThe Obama administration was moving ahead even as a United Nations team already on the ground in Syria collected evidence from last week's attack. The U.S. said Syria's delay in giving the inspectors access rendered their investigation meaningless and officials said the administration had its own intelligence confirming chemical weapons use.
"What is before us today is real and it is compelling," Kerry said. "Our understanding of what has already happened in Syria is grounded in facts."The U.S. assessment is based in part on the number of reported victims, the symptoms of those injured or killed and indoor Tracking. Administration officials said the U.S. had additional intelligence confirming chemical weapons use and planned to make it public in the coming days.
Syrian President Bashar Assad has denied launching a chemical attack. The U.N. team came under sniper fire Monday as it traveled to the site of the Aug. 21 attack.It's unclear whether Obama would seek authority from the U.N. or Congress before using force. The president has spoken frequently about his preference for taking military action only with international backing, but it is likely Russia and China would block U.S. efforts to authorize action through the U.N. Security Council.
Kerry on Monday made several veiled warnings to Russia, which has propped up Assad's regime, blocked action against Syria at the U.N., and disputed evidence of the government's chemical weapons use."Anyone who can claim that an attack of this staggering scale can be contrived or fabricated needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass," he said.
British Prime Minister David Cameron, who also cut short his vacation because of the attack, spoke Monday with Russian President Vladimir Putin to outline the evidence of chemical weapons use by Assad's regime.Cameron's office also said the British government would decide on Tuesday whether the timetable for the international response means it will be necessary to recall lawmakers to Parliament before their scheduled return next week. That decision could offer the clearest indication of how quickly the U.S. and allies plan to respond.
More than 100,000 people have died in clashes between forces loyal to Assad and rebels trying to oust him from power over the past two and a half years. While Obama has repeatedly called for Assad to leave power, he has resisted calls for a robust U.S. intervention, and has largely limited American assistance to humanitarian aid. The president said last year that chemical weapons use would cross a "red line" and would likely change his calculus in deciding on a U.S. response.
Last week's attack in the Damascus suburbs is a challenge to Obama's credibility. He took little action after Assad used chemical weapons on a small scale earlier this year and risks signaling to countries like Iran that his administration does not follow through on its warnings.
Syrian activists say the Aug. 21 attack killed hundreds; the group Doctors Without Borders put the death toll at 355 people.The president did not speak publicly Monday about the chemical weapons attack, leaving Kerry as his administration's most prominent spokesman. Carney said the president would speak about his decision after settling on a response.
Obama pressed on with an array of events unrelated to Syria, including a Medal of Honor ceremony for an Afghan war veteran.The president has ruled out putting American troops on the ground in Syria and officials say they also are not considering setting up a unilateral no-fly zone.
Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said the most likely option appeared to be the U.S. and NATO partners deploying airstrikes against Syrian missile sites, aircraft and other infrastructure that may be used to deploy chemical weapons.
"I think that would be punishing and a deterrent to their future use," Schiff said in an interview, adding that the approach would carry "less risk of drawing us in further, or spreading the conflict."It's unlikely that the U.S. would launch a strike against Syria while the United Nations team is still in the country. The administration may also try to time any strike around Obama's travel schedule – he's due to hold meetings in Sweden and Russia next week – in order to avoid having the commander in chief abroad when the U.S. launches military action.
An Obama decision to attack Syria could present an eerie parallel to a U.S. military campaign against Iraq in 1998 that was ordered by President Bill Clinton.
After then-dictator Saddam Hussein refused to let U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraqi sites, the U.S. and Great Britain unleashed a 70-hour barrage of hundreds of cruise missiles, bombs and rockets on Baghdad and elsewhere in the country. The assault aimed to prevent Iraq from building the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons it was prohibited from having under U.N. resolutions after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
But the Iraqi leader himself was unharmed, and taunted the U.S. and Britain by declaring victory afterward.U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Monday countered the U.S. claim that the investigation at the site of last week's attack was too little, too late."Despite the passage of a number of days, the secretary-general is confident that the team will be able to obtain and analyze evidence relevant for its investigation of the August 21 incident," U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq said in New York.
Read the full products at http://www.ecived.com/en/!
Syrian opposition forces said last Wednesday that hundreds of people were killed near Damascus in an alleged chemical weapons attack. The international medical organization Doctors Without Borders announced on Saturday they had counted at least 355 deaths in the suburb of Ghouta.U.N. investigators inspected the site of the alleged chemical attack on Monday, despite being targeted by snipers earlier that day. Reuters reports that the investigators met with survivors and took samples on the site.
Secretary of State John Kerry declared Monday that there was "undeniable" evidence of a large-scale chemical weapons attack in Syria, toughening the Obama administration's criticism of Bashar Assad's regime and outlining a justification for possible U.S. military action.
Kerry, speaking to reporters at the State Department, said last week's attack was a "moral obscenity" that "should shock the conscience" of the world. Officials said there was very little doubt that the attack was perpetrated by the Syrian government.
"The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of Indoor Positioning System and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard, it is inexcusable and – despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured – it is undeniable," said Kerry, the highest-ranking U.S. official to confirm the attack in the Damascus suburbs that activists say killed hundreds of people.
"This international norm cannot be violated without consequences," he added.Officials said President Barack Obama has not decided how to respond to the use of deadly gases, a move the White House said last year would cross a "red line." But the U.S., along with allies in Europe, appeared to be laying the groundwork for the most aggressive response since Syria's civil war began more than two years ago.
The international community appeared to be considering a response that would punish Assad for deploying deadly gases, not sweeping actions aimed at ousting Assad or strengthening rebel forces. The focus of the internal debate underscores the scant international appetite for a large-scale deployment of forces in Syria and the limited number of other options that could significantly change the trajectory of the conflict.
"There is not a military solution to that conflict," White House spokesman Jay Carney saidThe Obama administration was moving ahead even as a United Nations team already on the ground in Syria collected evidence from last week's attack. The U.S. said Syria's delay in giving the inspectors access rendered their investigation meaningless and officials said the administration had its own intelligence confirming chemical weapons use.
"What is before us today is real and it is compelling," Kerry said. "Our understanding of what has already happened in Syria is grounded in facts."The U.S. assessment is based in part on the number of reported victims, the symptoms of those injured or killed and indoor Tracking. Administration officials said the U.S. had additional intelligence confirming chemical weapons use and planned to make it public in the coming days.
Syrian President Bashar Assad has denied launching a chemical attack. The U.N. team came under sniper fire Monday as it traveled to the site of the Aug. 21 attack.It's unclear whether Obama would seek authority from the U.N. or Congress before using force. The president has spoken frequently about his preference for taking military action only with international backing, but it is likely Russia and China would block U.S. efforts to authorize action through the U.N. Security Council.
Kerry on Monday made several veiled warnings to Russia, which has propped up Assad's regime, blocked action against Syria at the U.N., and disputed evidence of the government's chemical weapons use."Anyone who can claim that an attack of this staggering scale can be contrived or fabricated needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass," he said.
British Prime Minister David Cameron, who also cut short his vacation because of the attack, spoke Monday with Russian President Vladimir Putin to outline the evidence of chemical weapons use by Assad's regime.Cameron's office also said the British government would decide on Tuesday whether the timetable for the international response means it will be necessary to recall lawmakers to Parliament before their scheduled return next week. That decision could offer the clearest indication of how quickly the U.S. and allies plan to respond.
More than 100,000 people have died in clashes between forces loyal to Assad and rebels trying to oust him from power over the past two and a half years. While Obama has repeatedly called for Assad to leave power, he has resisted calls for a robust U.S. intervention, and has largely limited American assistance to humanitarian aid. The president said last year that chemical weapons use would cross a "red line" and would likely change his calculus in deciding on a U.S. response.
Last week's attack in the Damascus suburbs is a challenge to Obama's credibility. He took little action after Assad used chemical weapons on a small scale earlier this year and risks signaling to countries like Iran that his administration does not follow through on its warnings.
Syrian activists say the Aug. 21 attack killed hundreds; the group Doctors Without Borders put the death toll at 355 people.The president did not speak publicly Monday about the chemical weapons attack, leaving Kerry as his administration's most prominent spokesman. Carney said the president would speak about his decision after settling on a response.
Obama pressed on with an array of events unrelated to Syria, including a Medal of Honor ceremony for an Afghan war veteran.The president has ruled out putting American troops on the ground in Syria and officials say they also are not considering setting up a unilateral no-fly zone.
Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said the most likely option appeared to be the U.S. and NATO partners deploying airstrikes against Syrian missile sites, aircraft and other infrastructure that may be used to deploy chemical weapons.
"I think that would be punishing and a deterrent to their future use," Schiff said in an interview, adding that the approach would carry "less risk of drawing us in further, or spreading the conflict."It's unlikely that the U.S. would launch a strike against Syria while the United Nations team is still in the country. The administration may also try to time any strike around Obama's travel schedule – he's due to hold meetings in Sweden and Russia next week – in order to avoid having the commander in chief abroad when the U.S. launches military action.
An Obama decision to attack Syria could present an eerie parallel to a U.S. military campaign against Iraq in 1998 that was ordered by President Bill Clinton.
After then-dictator Saddam Hussein refused to let U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraqi sites, the U.S. and Great Britain unleashed a 70-hour barrage of hundreds of cruise missiles, bombs and rockets on Baghdad and elsewhere in the country. The assault aimed to prevent Iraq from building the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons it was prohibited from having under U.N. resolutions after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
But the Iraqi leader himself was unharmed, and taunted the U.S. and Britain by declaring victory afterward.U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Monday countered the U.S. claim that the investigation at the site of last week's attack was too little, too late."Despite the passage of a number of days, the secretary-general is confident that the team will be able to obtain and analyze evidence relevant for its investigation of the August 21 incident," U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq said in New York.
Read the full products at http://www.ecived.com/en/!
2013年8月19日星期一
Eat what you sow and sell the surplus
Could global food security be achieved by growing tomatoes up a wall and pumpkins on a rooftop? It sounds unlikely, but food security isn't just about full stomachs. Adequate nutrition is also crucial, and helping women in particular to run productive home gardens could save millions of lives in developing countries.
Research published by The Lancet just ahead of the Nutrition for Growth summit in June revealed that malnutrition kills 3.1 million children annually, and caused stunting in 165 million in 2011. Micronutrients such as vitamin A, iron and zinc are essential, particularly in the first few years of life, and it is women who tend to be responsible for feeding families.
But women also have unequal access to land and, according to the FAO, receive only 5% of agricultural extension services globally. This is why some development agencies are putting the tools for good nutrition into women's hands, helping them make better use of one space they can control: their homestead garden.
In 2009, Care International launched an EU-funded Food Security for the Ultra-Poor project targeting 55,000 women in the north-east of Bangladesh, which included training in homestead gardening."The training showed the women how to use the small space available around their homestead," says Sekhar Bhattacharjee, FSUP team leader.
"It demonstrated the use of trellises to grow vegetables, growing vegetables in plastic bags on the ground, and how to use the roofs of homes to grow vegetables. The women received training in summer and winter vegetable cultivation, and were given vegetable seed packets to begin their own gardens."
The crops grown as part of the project include cucumber, gourds, red amaranth, spinach, papaya, indoor Tracking, tomatoes, and beans, and they're grown both around homesteads and in shared community gardens. The harvests may not be huge, but they provide a year-round supply of nutrients to communities who would otherwise rely heavily on rice alone.
Homestead gardens have not only increased access to vegetable and fruits, but have also provided participating women with income from selling surplus produce. A sample of 1,614 families taking part in FSUP showed that between December 2012 and March 2013, households produced an average of 53kg of vegetables and fruits, consuming on average 36kg and selling on average 18kg.
The impact of this income is just as important as what is eaten directly, says Larissa Pelham, food security adviser at Care International UK."I can't emphasise enough the importance of getting money into women's hands," she says. "Suddenly they can make choices in how they spend for the household. This has a phenomenal impact, and research has shown that when women have control over household resources, they are likely to spend it on the wellbeing of the household overall."
This is backed up by findings from Helen Keller International's homestead food production programme which launched in Bangladesh in the early 1990s and has since expanded to Nepal, Cambodia and the Philippines. HKI works with local NGOs and extension workers to establish Village Model Farms (VMFs) in villages, which serve as training and support hubs for women to learn to manage their own homestead gardens.
"They identify a farmer, preferably female, who has adequate land for a model farm, and that farmer will get training and inputs," says Victoria Quinn, HKI's senior vice president of programmes."Other women then come there around once a month in groups of 20, and the village model farmer who has been trained will share their knowledge with those other mothers and provide them with seedlings so they can go and do it themselves."
In a study of its programmes between 2003-2007, HKI found that in Cambodia, 92% of households engaging in homestead food production spent the income earned from garden products on buying more food for the household. In Bangladesh, the figure was 70%. However, having more food – even a good variety – doesn't automatically translate into better nutritional outcomes on its own.
"You have to improve not just food production but practices too," says Quinn. "You have to provide access to healthcare and hygiene training, because if children are sick it will just come out the other end."Care found evidence for this through another project – Shouhardo – which bundled training in home gardens with support in maternal health, nutrition, immunisation and financial services to women. This package of interventions reduced the incidence of child stunting from 56.1% to 40.4% in less than four years.
"The gardens have an important role in dietary diversity, but you need a range of other things going with it," says Pelham. "You need to teach women and families about sanitation, health and Hands free access. Without that, the gardens are not a silver bullet."Meanwhile, climate change is also an increasingly pressing issue for women engaging in homestead gardening, just as in other forms of agriculture. Flooding in Bangladesh is becoming more unpredictable and severe, and the 2009 cyclone there increased soil salinity in more than a third of home gardens but also showed resilience in certain crops, according to Lalita Bhattacharjee, a nutritionist with the FAO in Bangladesh.
"These included Indian spinach, sweet pumpkin, and okra. Kang kong, or water spinach, also flourishes naturally in waterways and requires little care, making it resilient to the effects of climate change. There's a need for awareness and knowledge among those households who are reliant on home gardens for their food and income. Women farmers should be given training on key salinity coping practices such as mulching with rice straw to increase retention of water in the soil."
Home gardens have thrived in Bangladesh and other parts of Asia, and HKI is also actively promoting them in sub-Saharan Africa now. Perhaps the biggest challenge, though, is to convince more policymakers that what women grow in their gardens can actually make such a difference.
"I think a lot more work has to be done in advocating that this is a really important part of the solution to food insecurity and undernutrition in these countries," says Quinn.
"Fruits and vegetables and small animal husbandary gets short shrift in ministries of agriculture, so we need to promote the fact that you can produce a lot of highly nutritious crops this way that will help address the chronic problem of undernutrition."
Read the full products at www.ecived.com/en/!
Research published by The Lancet just ahead of the Nutrition for Growth summit in June revealed that malnutrition kills 3.1 million children annually, and caused stunting in 165 million in 2011. Micronutrients such as vitamin A, iron and zinc are essential, particularly in the first few years of life, and it is women who tend to be responsible for feeding families.
But women also have unequal access to land and, according to the FAO, receive only 5% of agricultural extension services globally. This is why some development agencies are putting the tools for good nutrition into women's hands, helping them make better use of one space they can control: their homestead garden.
In 2009, Care International launched an EU-funded Food Security for the Ultra-Poor project targeting 55,000 women in the north-east of Bangladesh, which included training in homestead gardening."The training showed the women how to use the small space available around their homestead," says Sekhar Bhattacharjee, FSUP team leader.
"It demonstrated the use of trellises to grow vegetables, growing vegetables in plastic bags on the ground, and how to use the roofs of homes to grow vegetables. The women received training in summer and winter vegetable cultivation, and were given vegetable seed packets to begin their own gardens."
The crops grown as part of the project include cucumber, gourds, red amaranth, spinach, papaya, indoor Tracking, tomatoes, and beans, and they're grown both around homesteads and in shared community gardens. The harvests may not be huge, but they provide a year-round supply of nutrients to communities who would otherwise rely heavily on rice alone.
Homestead gardens have not only increased access to vegetable and fruits, but have also provided participating women with income from selling surplus produce. A sample of 1,614 families taking part in FSUP showed that between December 2012 and March 2013, households produced an average of 53kg of vegetables and fruits, consuming on average 36kg and selling on average 18kg.
The impact of this income is just as important as what is eaten directly, says Larissa Pelham, food security adviser at Care International UK."I can't emphasise enough the importance of getting money into women's hands," she says. "Suddenly they can make choices in how they spend for the household. This has a phenomenal impact, and research has shown that when women have control over household resources, they are likely to spend it on the wellbeing of the household overall."
This is backed up by findings from Helen Keller International's homestead food production programme which launched in Bangladesh in the early 1990s and has since expanded to Nepal, Cambodia and the Philippines. HKI works with local NGOs and extension workers to establish Village Model Farms (VMFs) in villages, which serve as training and support hubs for women to learn to manage their own homestead gardens.
"They identify a farmer, preferably female, who has adequate land for a model farm, and that farmer will get training and inputs," says Victoria Quinn, HKI's senior vice president of programmes."Other women then come there around once a month in groups of 20, and the village model farmer who has been trained will share their knowledge with those other mothers and provide them with seedlings so they can go and do it themselves."
In a study of its programmes between 2003-2007, HKI found that in Cambodia, 92% of households engaging in homestead food production spent the income earned from garden products on buying more food for the household. In Bangladesh, the figure was 70%. However, having more food – even a good variety – doesn't automatically translate into better nutritional outcomes on its own.
"You have to improve not just food production but practices too," says Quinn. "You have to provide access to healthcare and hygiene training, because if children are sick it will just come out the other end."Care found evidence for this through another project – Shouhardo – which bundled training in home gardens with support in maternal health, nutrition, immunisation and financial services to women. This package of interventions reduced the incidence of child stunting from 56.1% to 40.4% in less than four years.
"The gardens have an important role in dietary diversity, but you need a range of other things going with it," says Pelham. "You need to teach women and families about sanitation, health and Hands free access. Without that, the gardens are not a silver bullet."Meanwhile, climate change is also an increasingly pressing issue for women engaging in homestead gardening, just as in other forms of agriculture. Flooding in Bangladesh is becoming more unpredictable and severe, and the 2009 cyclone there increased soil salinity in more than a third of home gardens but also showed resilience in certain crops, according to Lalita Bhattacharjee, a nutritionist with the FAO in Bangladesh.
"These included Indian spinach, sweet pumpkin, and okra. Kang kong, or water spinach, also flourishes naturally in waterways and requires little care, making it resilient to the effects of climate change. There's a need for awareness and knowledge among those households who are reliant on home gardens for their food and income. Women farmers should be given training on key salinity coping practices such as mulching with rice straw to increase retention of water in the soil."
Home gardens have thrived in Bangladesh and other parts of Asia, and HKI is also actively promoting them in sub-Saharan Africa now. Perhaps the biggest challenge, though, is to convince more policymakers that what women grow in their gardens can actually make such a difference.
"I think a lot more work has to be done in advocating that this is a really important part of the solution to food insecurity and undernutrition in these countries," says Quinn.
"Fruits and vegetables and small animal husbandary gets short shrift in ministries of agriculture, so we need to promote the fact that you can produce a lot of highly nutritious crops this way that will help address the chronic problem of undernutrition."
Read the full products at www.ecived.com/en/!
2013年8月7日星期三
Closing Fannie and Freddie
They could not have picked a more fitting location than Phoenix, Arizona, for President Obama to announce on Tuesday his plans for revitalizing the housing market, which has risen out of its ashes like the mythical bird of legend.
“This was part of ground zero for the housing bubble bursting.” The president recalled Phoenix’s plight as one of the worst hit markets during the housing crisis.Owing to that crisis, home owners all across America have endured a long and steady 5.5-year erosion of property values from their peak in July 2006 to their bottom in January 2012, according to the Case–Shiller home price index of the 20 largest American cities.
Finally, for some 18 months now, property values have been on the mend. “Today, our housing market is beginning to heal,” the president encouraged. Yet he acknowledged there is still more that needs to be done. “We've got to build on this progress. We're not where we need to be.”Home ownership at 65% is the lowest it has been since 1997, with rapidly rising interest rates prohibiting many from buying.
Hence, Obama’s plans are for mortgage reform, aimed at making sure the housing recovery does not stall. But is this really going to help?Perhaps the greatest single reform measure Obama has been advocating is the “winding-down” of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government-sponsored enterprises whose purpose is to buy mortgages from banks and other Hands free access, package them together into funds or securities, and sell them on the open market to investors. This takes mortgages off the hands of banks and lenders, freeing their capital so that they may keep offering mortgages to more and more home-buyers.
With some $12 trillion worth of mortgages owned or backed by the two enterprises before the housing crisis, they were considered too big to fail, encouraging them into riskier and riskier practices as they approved mortgages to buyers who could not afford them. When the housing market collapsed in 2008, the “implied” government backing of Fannie’s and Freddie’s securities cost taxpayers dearly, estimated at over $187 billion.
Now Obama wants them out of the picture, with mortgages insured and guaranteed by private investors, not public taxpayers. “Private capital should take a bigger role in the mortgage market,” the president stressed. “I know that sounds confusing to folks who call me a socialist,” he quickly jabbed, seeing as it was a fellow Democrat – President Franklin Delano Roosevelt – who initiated the structure during the Great Depression of the 1930s to help home owners keep their homes.
While both parties agree with the concept, experts are cautioning against moving too quickly, as it could send shocks through the mortgage market.“The leading ideas would reduce the government involvement in housing finance,” Jaret Seiberg, a senior policy analyst at Guggenheim Securities, explains to Reuters. And removing the government’s backing “would mean higher rates for consumers,” he warns.
The president’s other reforms outlined in Tuesday’s speech seem to already be anticipating those higher costs facing borrowers as the government slowly slides itself out of the picture. After all, if the private market is going to shoulder more of the risk, it’s going to demand more compensation, which could hurt home buyers through higher rates and fees.
For this reason, Obama called on lawmakers to help home buyers by preserving access to the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage and to help existing owners refinance at today’s lower rates by waiving closing costs. And for those who cannot afford homeownership, the president called for supporting low rental housing to help fight homelessness.
Obama also wants Congress to authorize the revitalization of the most depressed, run-down neighborhoods around the nation, tearing down abandoned structures and building up vacant lots. Not only would these projects improve property values in those hardest hit areas, but they would also create jobs for thousands of unemployed.
If some questioned Obama’s ideological leaning with his rejection of Fannie and Freddie in favor of placing the mortgage business more squarely on private investors’ shoulders, all of these other reforms from low-rate refinancing to slum rehabilitation should dispel any notion that he has forgotten which party he leads.
The president’s other reforms outlined in Tuesday’s speech seem to already be anticipating those higher costs facing borrowers as the government slowly slides itself out of the picture. After all, if the private market is going to shoulder more of the risk, it’s going to demand more compensation, which could hurt home buyers through higher rates and Indoor Positioning System.
For this reason, Obama called on lawmakers to help home buyers by preserving access to the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage and to help existing owners refinance at today’s lower rates by waiving closing costs. And for those who cannot afford homeownership, the president called for supporting low rental housing to help fight homelessness.
Obama also wants Congress to authorize the revitalization of the most depressed, run-down neighborhoods around the nation, tearing down abandoned structures and building up vacant lots. Not only would these projects improve property values in those hardest hit areas, but they would also create jobs for thousands of unemployed.
If some questioned Obama’s ideological leaning with his rejection of Fannie and Freddie in favor of placing the mortgage business more squarely on private investors’ shoulders, all of these other reforms from low-rate refinancing to slum rehabilitation should dispel any notion that he has forgotten which party he leads.
The president’s other reforms outlined in Tuesday’s speech seem to already be anticipating those higher costs facing borrowers as the government slowly slides itself out of the picture. After all, if the private market is going to shoulder more of the risk, it’s going to demand more compensation, which could hurt home buyers through higher rates and fees.
For this reason, Obama called on lawmakers to help home buyers by preserving access to the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage and to help existing owners refinance at today’s lower rates by waiving closing costs. And for those who cannot afford homeownership, the president called for supporting low rental housing to help fight homelessness.
Obama also wants Congress to authorize the revitalization of the most depressed, run-down neighborhoods around the nation, tearing down abandoned structures and building up vacant lots. Not only would these projects improve property values in those hardest hit areas, but they would also create jobs for thousands of unemployed.
If some questioned Obama’s ideological leaning with his rejection of Fannie and Freddie in favor of placing the mortgage business more squarely on private investors’ shoulders, all of these other reforms from low-rate refinancing to slum rehabilitation should dispel any notion that he has forgotten which party he leads.
Read the full products at www.ecived.com/en/.
“This was part of ground zero for the housing bubble bursting.” The president recalled Phoenix’s plight as one of the worst hit markets during the housing crisis.Owing to that crisis, home owners all across America have endured a long and steady 5.5-year erosion of property values from their peak in July 2006 to their bottom in January 2012, according to the Case–Shiller home price index of the 20 largest American cities.
Finally, for some 18 months now, property values have been on the mend. “Today, our housing market is beginning to heal,” the president encouraged. Yet he acknowledged there is still more that needs to be done. “We've got to build on this progress. We're not where we need to be.”Home ownership at 65% is the lowest it has been since 1997, with rapidly rising interest rates prohibiting many from buying.
Hence, Obama’s plans are for mortgage reform, aimed at making sure the housing recovery does not stall. But is this really going to help?Perhaps the greatest single reform measure Obama has been advocating is the “winding-down” of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government-sponsored enterprises whose purpose is to buy mortgages from banks and other Hands free access, package them together into funds or securities, and sell them on the open market to investors. This takes mortgages off the hands of banks and lenders, freeing their capital so that they may keep offering mortgages to more and more home-buyers.
With some $12 trillion worth of mortgages owned or backed by the two enterprises before the housing crisis, they were considered too big to fail, encouraging them into riskier and riskier practices as they approved mortgages to buyers who could not afford them. When the housing market collapsed in 2008, the “implied” government backing of Fannie’s and Freddie’s securities cost taxpayers dearly, estimated at over $187 billion.
Now Obama wants them out of the picture, with mortgages insured and guaranteed by private investors, not public taxpayers. “Private capital should take a bigger role in the mortgage market,” the president stressed. “I know that sounds confusing to folks who call me a socialist,” he quickly jabbed, seeing as it was a fellow Democrat – President Franklin Delano Roosevelt – who initiated the structure during the Great Depression of the 1930s to help home owners keep their homes.
While both parties agree with the concept, experts are cautioning against moving too quickly, as it could send shocks through the mortgage market.“The leading ideas would reduce the government involvement in housing finance,” Jaret Seiberg, a senior policy analyst at Guggenheim Securities, explains to Reuters. And removing the government’s backing “would mean higher rates for consumers,” he warns.
The president’s other reforms outlined in Tuesday’s speech seem to already be anticipating those higher costs facing borrowers as the government slowly slides itself out of the picture. After all, if the private market is going to shoulder more of the risk, it’s going to demand more compensation, which could hurt home buyers through higher rates and fees.
For this reason, Obama called on lawmakers to help home buyers by preserving access to the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage and to help existing owners refinance at today’s lower rates by waiving closing costs. And for those who cannot afford homeownership, the president called for supporting low rental housing to help fight homelessness.
Obama also wants Congress to authorize the revitalization of the most depressed, run-down neighborhoods around the nation, tearing down abandoned structures and building up vacant lots. Not only would these projects improve property values in those hardest hit areas, but they would also create jobs for thousands of unemployed.
If some questioned Obama’s ideological leaning with his rejection of Fannie and Freddie in favor of placing the mortgage business more squarely on private investors’ shoulders, all of these other reforms from low-rate refinancing to slum rehabilitation should dispel any notion that he has forgotten which party he leads.
The president’s other reforms outlined in Tuesday’s speech seem to already be anticipating those higher costs facing borrowers as the government slowly slides itself out of the picture. After all, if the private market is going to shoulder more of the risk, it’s going to demand more compensation, which could hurt home buyers through higher rates and Indoor Positioning System.
For this reason, Obama called on lawmakers to help home buyers by preserving access to the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage and to help existing owners refinance at today’s lower rates by waiving closing costs. And for those who cannot afford homeownership, the president called for supporting low rental housing to help fight homelessness.
Obama also wants Congress to authorize the revitalization of the most depressed, run-down neighborhoods around the nation, tearing down abandoned structures and building up vacant lots. Not only would these projects improve property values in those hardest hit areas, but they would also create jobs for thousands of unemployed.
If some questioned Obama’s ideological leaning with his rejection of Fannie and Freddie in favor of placing the mortgage business more squarely on private investors’ shoulders, all of these other reforms from low-rate refinancing to slum rehabilitation should dispel any notion that he has forgotten which party he leads.
The president’s other reforms outlined in Tuesday’s speech seem to already be anticipating those higher costs facing borrowers as the government slowly slides itself out of the picture. After all, if the private market is going to shoulder more of the risk, it’s going to demand more compensation, which could hurt home buyers through higher rates and fees.
For this reason, Obama called on lawmakers to help home buyers by preserving access to the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage and to help existing owners refinance at today’s lower rates by waiving closing costs. And for those who cannot afford homeownership, the president called for supporting low rental housing to help fight homelessness.
Obama also wants Congress to authorize the revitalization of the most depressed, run-down neighborhoods around the nation, tearing down abandoned structures and building up vacant lots. Not only would these projects improve property values in those hardest hit areas, but they would also create jobs for thousands of unemployed.
If some questioned Obama’s ideological leaning with his rejection of Fannie and Freddie in favor of placing the mortgage business more squarely on private investors’ shoulders, all of these other reforms from low-rate refinancing to slum rehabilitation should dispel any notion that he has forgotten which party he leads.
Read the full products at www.ecived.com/en/.
2013年7月29日星期一
Are the big names stealing the show again?
We all know the legend; how, in 1947, a group of artists feeling excised from the new Edinburgh international festival came together and forged a space of their own alongside it. Thus was born the Edinburgh festival fringe: defiant, independent and very much counter to the arts establishment.
Fast forward 66 years and this year you'll find 20 major subsidised theatres presenting work at the fringe – and that's discounting the Traverse Theatre, which can hardly help its position in the middle of the melee. The Young Vic has three shows; Soho Theatre is producing three comedians; Northern Stage is running its own venue for the second year running; and two national theatre companies – Wales and Scotland – are represented alongside the very biggest regional theatres across England: Manchester Royal Exchange, Bristol Old Vic and Sheffield Theatres.
These are some of the most successful and well-funded organisations in the country and their presence in Edinburgh this August looks like another instance of the creeping professionalism of the fringe. Do they really belong there? When big-name, television comedians fill big venues with bigger publicity campaigns, we worry they're taking audiences and attention away from their less established peers. Don't theatres have the same impact on emerging artists and independent companies – let alone the hundreds of student, amateur and other grassroots organisations that make up the bulk of the festival programme?
In that context, it's worth questioning the place of subsidy at the fringe. In a recent blog, former Total Theatre creative director Pippa Bailey diagnosed Arts Council England (ACE) as having "a schizophrenic attitude to supporting artists performing at the fringe." Regularly funded organisations (RFOs) are free to put their annual grant towards an Edinburgh run if they see fit – provided it doesn't prevent the fulfilment of their funding agreement terms.
Independent artists and companies, however, can't access ACE's lottery funded Grants for the arts scheme to do the same. With the costs associated with the fringe, a simple discrepancy on paper translates into a significant disadvantage in practice. Besides, don't these theatres have local audiences of their own to serve?
ACE says its hands are largely tied. "Being lottery money, the rules of the Grants for the arts scheme dictate that most of the funded activity happens in England," explains director of theatre Neil Darlison. "If we were to open it up to fringe shows, it would open the floodgates to applications in a time of diminishing funds, because everyone wants to go there, and I think it might just skew the Edinburgh economy – if it's not skewed enough already." In other words: even more subsidy, even more disparity.
A closer look starts to shift the picture. Far from tapping a large, eager festival audience for their own interests, most subsidised theatres with work at the fringe seem to be acting rather more altruistically. Some, such as Bristol Old Vic and the New Wolsey, are sending their youth companies. Plymouth Drum is supporting an influx of overseas artists as part of the inaugural Big in Belgium showcase. The vast majority, however, are supporting independent artists, many at the early stages of Hands free access.
The benefits of a fringe run for independent artists are potentially considerable. It has a theatre-savvy audience on tap, a bevy of critics and industry figures both from around the UK and overseas. It is a fantastic meeting place. As Young Vic artistic director David Lan explains: "Edinburgh's a marketplace. It's where you hope the world will see you."
But it is increasingly expensive. "It's very easy for a young company to go to the fringe, run for three weeks and lose between ￡5,000 and ￡7,000 – even with reasonable critical success and decent audience figures," says Lorne Campbell, artistic director at Northern Stage. "The question for us is how we reduce the financial risk for those artists."
Northern Stage's fringe programme, which hinges on (but isn't entirely unwritten by) an ACE grant through the strategic touring fund offers artists – particularly early-career artists – based in the north of England an Edinburgh run with different terms. "We go a long way to alleviating that risk," Campbell continues. "We provide marketing, accommodation and technical support. We're a solid brand for people to build off and we're offering the kind of financial deal that other venues don't come near."
To demonstrate the benefits, Campbell cites Daniel Bye's experience with The Price of Everything at the 2012 festival. "It's transformed his capacity as an artist. That piece has toured extensively, continued to tour and forged new relationships." The fringe, he says, can turn "a company of regional profile into a company of national profile".
In other words, these producing theatres are almost functioning like funding bodies. Their presence in Edinburgh feeds into a wider narrative of collaboration and umbrella organisations. Lan also flags up the role that support-in-kind can play in that relationship: "What we realised is that if we put a small amount of money into a number of shows that we're interested in, we can look after the show with rehearsal space and other resources. We can feed into them putting the rest of the money together."
But the reasoning isn't solely about outcomes. Campbell firmly believes in the festival itself: "Out of all of those artistic voices, bleating and shouting, and all of us watching, that's where the future is; the way a zeitgeist can emerge out of the wisdom of crowds. This is where society dreams itself."
With a network of producing theatres fuelling it, he believes the fringe gains in its own right: "You have a forum of buildings and organisations putting work onto the fringe which is driven by a creative and a cultural impulse. We're doing it because there is an audience who has an appetite for that and they're an audience that isn't necessarily served by a big upside-down purple cow."
Read the full products at http://www.ecived.com/en/.
Fast forward 66 years and this year you'll find 20 major subsidised theatres presenting work at the fringe – and that's discounting the Traverse Theatre, which can hardly help its position in the middle of the melee. The Young Vic has three shows; Soho Theatre is producing three comedians; Northern Stage is running its own venue for the second year running; and two national theatre companies – Wales and Scotland – are represented alongside the very biggest regional theatres across England: Manchester Royal Exchange, Bristol Old Vic and Sheffield Theatres.
These are some of the most successful and well-funded organisations in the country and their presence in Edinburgh this August looks like another instance of the creeping professionalism of the fringe. Do they really belong there? When big-name, television comedians fill big venues with bigger publicity campaigns, we worry they're taking audiences and attention away from their less established peers. Don't theatres have the same impact on emerging artists and independent companies – let alone the hundreds of student, amateur and other grassroots organisations that make up the bulk of the festival programme?
In that context, it's worth questioning the place of subsidy at the fringe. In a recent blog, former Total Theatre creative director Pippa Bailey diagnosed Arts Council England (ACE) as having "a schizophrenic attitude to supporting artists performing at the fringe." Regularly funded organisations (RFOs) are free to put their annual grant towards an Edinburgh run if they see fit – provided it doesn't prevent the fulfilment of their funding agreement terms.
Independent artists and companies, however, can't access ACE's lottery funded Grants for the arts scheme to do the same. With the costs associated with the fringe, a simple discrepancy on paper translates into a significant disadvantage in practice. Besides, don't these theatres have local audiences of their own to serve?
ACE says its hands are largely tied. "Being lottery money, the rules of the Grants for the arts scheme dictate that most of the funded activity happens in England," explains director of theatre Neil Darlison. "If we were to open it up to fringe shows, it would open the floodgates to applications in a time of diminishing funds, because everyone wants to go there, and I think it might just skew the Edinburgh economy – if it's not skewed enough already." In other words: even more subsidy, even more disparity.
A closer look starts to shift the picture. Far from tapping a large, eager festival audience for their own interests, most subsidised theatres with work at the fringe seem to be acting rather more altruistically. Some, such as Bristol Old Vic and the New Wolsey, are sending their youth companies. Plymouth Drum is supporting an influx of overseas artists as part of the inaugural Big in Belgium showcase. The vast majority, however, are supporting independent artists, many at the early stages of Hands free access.
The benefits of a fringe run for independent artists are potentially considerable. It has a theatre-savvy audience on tap, a bevy of critics and industry figures both from around the UK and overseas. It is a fantastic meeting place. As Young Vic artistic director David Lan explains: "Edinburgh's a marketplace. It's where you hope the world will see you."
But it is increasingly expensive. "It's very easy for a young company to go to the fringe, run for three weeks and lose between ￡5,000 and ￡7,000 – even with reasonable critical success and decent audience figures," says Lorne Campbell, artistic director at Northern Stage. "The question for us is how we reduce the financial risk for those artists."
Northern Stage's fringe programme, which hinges on (but isn't entirely unwritten by) an ACE grant through the strategic touring fund offers artists – particularly early-career artists – based in the north of England an Edinburgh run with different terms. "We go a long way to alleviating that risk," Campbell continues. "We provide marketing, accommodation and technical support. We're a solid brand for people to build off and we're offering the kind of financial deal that other venues don't come near."
To demonstrate the benefits, Campbell cites Daniel Bye's experience with The Price of Everything at the 2012 festival. "It's transformed his capacity as an artist. That piece has toured extensively, continued to tour and forged new relationships." The fringe, he says, can turn "a company of regional profile into a company of national profile".
In other words, these producing theatres are almost functioning like funding bodies. Their presence in Edinburgh feeds into a wider narrative of collaboration and umbrella organisations. Lan also flags up the role that support-in-kind can play in that relationship: "What we realised is that if we put a small amount of money into a number of shows that we're interested in, we can look after the show with rehearsal space and other resources. We can feed into them putting the rest of the money together."
But the reasoning isn't solely about outcomes. Campbell firmly believes in the festival itself: "Out of all of those artistic voices, bleating and shouting, and all of us watching, that's where the future is; the way a zeitgeist can emerge out of the wisdom of crowds. This is where society dreams itself."
With a network of producing theatres fuelling it, he believes the fringe gains in its own right: "You have a forum of buildings and organisations putting work onto the fringe which is driven by a creative and a cultural impulse. We're doing it because there is an audience who has an appetite for that and they're an audience that isn't necessarily served by a big upside-down purple cow."
Read the full products at http://www.ecived.com/en/.
15 reasons why Harper is a fake feminist
When Stephen Harper stands in the House of Commons, he is surrounded by women. Earlier this month, he made a big to-do about promoting four new women to his cabinet. But any suggestion that Harper and the Conservatives genuinely care about women or the many issues women face can easily be refuted. Let's start with the following list.
Canadian women and the organized feminist movement made several gains after the Royal Commission on the Status of Women which began in early 1967 and recommended federal government initiatives to ensure equal opportunities for men and women in all aspects of Canadian society. Over the years, gains have included the legalization of abortion, improved sexual assault laws, and the inclusion of gender equality in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (leading to many favourable court decisions).
However, since 2006, Stephen Harper and his Cons have been cutting back women's rights in an unprecedented way, real time Location system, as they throw around the word “equality” and act as if the gender playing field is level. The Cons have been promoting a free-market, survival-of-the-fittest, socially conservative society. (In their first year, they tried to roll back same-sex marriage legislation.) Harper has followed the Chretien tactic of fighting the deficit by cutting social transfers to the provinces and weakening federal participation in social programmes -- health, education, and social welfare. He has ignored calls for anti-poverty initiatives, such as a national housing strategy.
The Cons have further justified their attacks on Canada's socially progressive state by diminishing government revenues with cuts to the GST and corporate taxes. Harper prefers to use our tax dollars to develop and promote environmentally unfriendly, non-renewable fossil fuels, thus poisoning and threatening our communities. He has turned away from previous "soft power" international strategies that enhanced the security of women and their families, expanded Canada's military capabilities, promoted the arms industry, weakened gun control, including the elimination of the Long Gun Registry in 2012, and put more Canadians behind bars.
Quality, affordable child care allows working parents (70 per cent of mothers now work) to maintain a better living standard with two incomes. It allows single mothers -- many of whom are poor -- to attend school or skills training, get decent jobs and accept job promotions. The incidence of single mothers living below the poverty line in Quebec has dropped since the introduction of universal access to regulated child care. At the same time, thousands of live-in caregivers, mainly from the Philippines and the Caribbean, are particularly vulnerable because immigration regulations require them to live with and work for the employer named on their work permit. The Cons have eliminated funding for community programs which helped such women at risk.
In 2006, the Harper Cons cut funding for Status of Women Canada (SWC) by 37 per cent -- from $13 million to $8 million -- forcing the closure of 12 of its 16 regional offices. As usual, they hid behind arguments of fiscal responsibility and "efficiency savings." They argued that the SWC's job was done because women were equal. The SWC mandate was also changed to exclude "gender equality and political justice." Program funding criteria were ideologically redrafted so that activities for research, advocacy, and lobbying were ineligible.
The loss of this important funding source set back or eliminated groups, including: the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women Womenspace, the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation, the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada, the New Brunswick Coalition for Pay Equity, the Feminist Alliance for International Action, le Conseil d’intervention pour l’accès des femmes au travail, the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, Réseau des tables régionales de groupes de femmes du Québec, and Action travail des femmes. By cutting support for so many women's organizations, the Harper Cons contravened Canada's obligation to maintain and improve domestic human rights -- as required under the UN and other international treaties. Sadly, with the infamous "enemies list," those women's groups which have survived are afraid to speak out against the Cons in case their future funding is cut.
The Cons regularly condemn what they call "judicial activism" -- meaning pro-equality rulings by judges. In 2006, they eliminated funding for the Court Challenges Program which for years had provided financial support for women, women's groups, and others to bring equality cases to court. This meant that Harper and company were deliberately undercutting women's ability to challenge discriminatory laws using Article 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Not only had Con cuts undermined women's ability to analyze federal policies and recommend reforms, they had also denied them the opportunity to turn to the courts to seek justice. In September, 2007, the offices of the National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL), a well-respected organization that had made valuable contributions to improving women's human rights in Canada, were closed. For more than 30 years, the association was involved in precedent-setting legal work on behalf of women, including amendments to the Criminal Code concerning sexual assault, improvements to the Divorce Act, and the adoption of equality rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Before he became prime minister, Harper promised Canadians his government wouldn't re-open the abortion issue. But Con backbenchers have been doing exactly that by introducing Private Members Bills in an attempt to diminish freedom of choice. The 2008 Unborn Victims of Crime Act (Bill C-484), supported by Harper at Second Reading in the House of Commons, would have criminalized harm to a foetus by establishing its "personhood." This died on the order paper after an election was called, but it was soon followed by another bill "to protect the conscience rights of Canada’s health-care workers," so they would "never be forced to participate against their will in procedures such as abortions." This failed to pass.
In spring 2010 Harper launched his G8 maternal health proposal, theoretically aimed at saving "the lives of mothers and children all over the world." When women's health advocates and others asked for details, Harper was vague, hiding behind his usual doublespeak. Canadian maternal health policy now denies funding for abortion services in the developing world, despite the deaths and injuries caused by the lack of such services. In September, 2012, the House of Commons voted on Con MP Stephen Woodworth's private member's motion to study whether a foetus should have legal rights before birth. Ten Con cabinet ministers, including Status of Women Minister Rona Ambrose, voted for this. In December, 2012, Con MP Mark Warawa introduced a motion regarding sex-selective abortions -- to "condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination," but later withdrew it. He claimed he wanted to defend human rights, but many saw it as another attempt to outlaw abortion.
Read the full products at http://www.ecived.com/en/.
Canadian women and the organized feminist movement made several gains after the Royal Commission on the Status of Women which began in early 1967 and recommended federal government initiatives to ensure equal opportunities for men and women in all aspects of Canadian society. Over the years, gains have included the legalization of abortion, improved sexual assault laws, and the inclusion of gender equality in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (leading to many favourable court decisions).
However, since 2006, Stephen Harper and his Cons have been cutting back women's rights in an unprecedented way, real time Location system, as they throw around the word “equality” and act as if the gender playing field is level. The Cons have been promoting a free-market, survival-of-the-fittest, socially conservative society. (In their first year, they tried to roll back same-sex marriage legislation.) Harper has followed the Chretien tactic of fighting the deficit by cutting social transfers to the provinces and weakening federal participation in social programmes -- health, education, and social welfare. He has ignored calls for anti-poverty initiatives, such as a national housing strategy.
The Cons have further justified their attacks on Canada's socially progressive state by diminishing government revenues with cuts to the GST and corporate taxes. Harper prefers to use our tax dollars to develop and promote environmentally unfriendly, non-renewable fossil fuels, thus poisoning and threatening our communities. He has turned away from previous "soft power" international strategies that enhanced the security of women and their families, expanded Canada's military capabilities, promoted the arms industry, weakened gun control, including the elimination of the Long Gun Registry in 2012, and put more Canadians behind bars.
Quality, affordable child care allows working parents (70 per cent of mothers now work) to maintain a better living standard with two incomes. It allows single mothers -- many of whom are poor -- to attend school or skills training, get decent jobs and accept job promotions. The incidence of single mothers living below the poverty line in Quebec has dropped since the introduction of universal access to regulated child care. At the same time, thousands of live-in caregivers, mainly from the Philippines and the Caribbean, are particularly vulnerable because immigration regulations require them to live with and work for the employer named on their work permit. The Cons have eliminated funding for community programs which helped such women at risk.
In 2006, the Harper Cons cut funding for Status of Women Canada (SWC) by 37 per cent -- from $13 million to $8 million -- forcing the closure of 12 of its 16 regional offices. As usual, they hid behind arguments of fiscal responsibility and "efficiency savings." They argued that the SWC's job was done because women were equal. The SWC mandate was also changed to exclude "gender equality and political justice." Program funding criteria were ideologically redrafted so that activities for research, advocacy, and lobbying were ineligible.
The loss of this important funding source set back or eliminated groups, including: the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women Womenspace, the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation, the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada, the New Brunswick Coalition for Pay Equity, the Feminist Alliance for International Action, le Conseil d’intervention pour l’accès des femmes au travail, the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, Réseau des tables régionales de groupes de femmes du Québec, and Action travail des femmes. By cutting support for so many women's organizations, the Harper Cons contravened Canada's obligation to maintain and improve domestic human rights -- as required under the UN and other international treaties. Sadly, with the infamous "enemies list," those women's groups which have survived are afraid to speak out against the Cons in case their future funding is cut.
The Cons regularly condemn what they call "judicial activism" -- meaning pro-equality rulings by judges. In 2006, they eliminated funding for the Court Challenges Program which for years had provided financial support for women, women's groups, and others to bring equality cases to court. This meant that Harper and company were deliberately undercutting women's ability to challenge discriminatory laws using Article 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Not only had Con cuts undermined women's ability to analyze federal policies and recommend reforms, they had also denied them the opportunity to turn to the courts to seek justice. In September, 2007, the offices of the National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL), a well-respected organization that had made valuable contributions to improving women's human rights in Canada, were closed. For more than 30 years, the association was involved in precedent-setting legal work on behalf of women, including amendments to the Criminal Code concerning sexual assault, improvements to the Divorce Act, and the adoption of equality rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Before he became prime minister, Harper promised Canadians his government wouldn't re-open the abortion issue. But Con backbenchers have been doing exactly that by introducing Private Members Bills in an attempt to diminish freedom of choice. The 2008 Unborn Victims of Crime Act (Bill C-484), supported by Harper at Second Reading in the House of Commons, would have criminalized harm to a foetus by establishing its "personhood." This died on the order paper after an election was called, but it was soon followed by another bill "to protect the conscience rights of Canada’s health-care workers," so they would "never be forced to participate against their will in procedures such as abortions." This failed to pass.
In spring 2010 Harper launched his G8 maternal health proposal, theoretically aimed at saving "the lives of mothers and children all over the world." When women's health advocates and others asked for details, Harper was vague, hiding behind his usual doublespeak. Canadian maternal health policy now denies funding for abortion services in the developing world, despite the deaths and injuries caused by the lack of such services. In September, 2012, the House of Commons voted on Con MP Stephen Woodworth's private member's motion to study whether a foetus should have legal rights before birth. Ten Con cabinet ministers, including Status of Women Minister Rona Ambrose, voted for this. In December, 2012, Con MP Mark Warawa introduced a motion regarding sex-selective abortions -- to "condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination," but later withdrew it. He claimed he wanted to defend human rights, but many saw it as another attempt to outlaw abortion.
Read the full products at http://www.ecived.com/en/.
2013年7月24日星期三
Chips from around the world
When I started playing live poker (at the first ever poker club in Yekaterinburg), I decided to also start collecting chips from different clubs. I wanted to raid a lot of casinos during my planned Vegas trip and to have at least one chip from each one.Recently, when I was showing my collection to my friends, it flashed into my mind that every chip has some sort of emotion or a story connected to it. I've decided to share them with you.
The first chips in my collection were obtained from Yekaterinburg clubs. In the picture above, the left green chip belonged to the first ever poker club that was opened in our city, which was called Nevada. I remember my wife and I going over there for the opening ceremony. The club only had three tables to play on and the welcome shootout freeroll with around $3,300 guaranteed gathered more than 100 participants. Turned out I had to wait three hours to get my chance to play a Sit & Go with a chance to enter the final table.
The only disappointing moment that I have when reminiscing about those times is that I had talked everyone's ear off about how profitable opening a poker club would be half-a-year prior to Nevada opening its doors. The sad thing was I only played NL50 at the time and didn't have the bankroll to start a club on my own. The ones that had more funds caught a wave and still do live off of that pretty well.My first poker tourney series and also my first trip abroad without my wife (girlfriend at the time). Even though I apparently had a doomswitch activated against me throughout the Hands free access, it didn't prevent me from immersing into the exciting atmosphere of tournament poker. So I decided not to quit it after the first try.
I recall a moment from the Red Sea Poker Cup when my friend and I, along with 30 other people, were rooting for the Russian businessman who was called 'Uncle Misha'. You could smell he was a fish from a kilometer away, yet he managed to take down the €300 turbo, winning €8,000 for 1st place. I felt as full with ardour and excitement as when I was rooting for Russia against Netherlands in the quarter-finals of Euro 2008. The famous line from a WSOP commercial, 'This is beyond fairytale, it's inconceivable' (referring to Moneymaker in the 2003 Main Event), would have gained some new meaning for you if you had seen this final table. 'Uncle Misha' literally steamrolled his opponents, winning ridiculous ALLYMs, as Misha pronounced it, with almost every hand (like 95s, for instance).
Actually, it turned out that rooting for someone else playing poker is a lot of fun, even if you don't have a piece! During the same series, PokerStars Pro Max 'decay' Lykov took down the HighRoller event after playing heads-up versus some cocky guy who refused Max's offer of a deal only because the deal included playing for the actual trophy after the split and not automatically giving that trophy to the guy (who had more chips at the time). All in all, it ended up being a swarm of Russians, including me, who cheerfully witnessed Max slowly taking down the villain and, subsequently, a trophy. Oh, and a small bonus of the €50,000 prize, of course.
Even my hometown, with 150,000 citizens, had its own poker club! It was located in a bowling centre, so I've visited it a couple of times. Can't really say that the overall 'score' was positive for me there. I blame it on my luck in that specific place. One time I had to desperately go to the other side of the city to get some more cash from an ATM after I was outdrawn by a 20% hand. The table was too much of an aquarium to leave early. I ended up insta-losing half of my buy-in though.
It was also my first time, and the only time so far, when I got slowrolled at showdown. At the time I had no idea that it was frowned upon, so I didn't even tell the guy off. He smirked and turned over one card for a pair with a board card - 'will that do?' - waited for me to turn over my aces, and then proceeded to turn the other card over to reveal a set.I visited Prague when it held the EMOP series - I skipped the tourneys and focused on playing cash. The only memorable thing was the procedure of gaining access to the indoor Tracking. My wife and I had our driver's licenses photocopies, and our cameras taken away. They then took our photo's before allowing us to proceed to the tables.
Very pleasant memories arise when I think of Monte Carlo. It was my first tourney where I made a solid amount of cash and I didn't share the buy-in with (almost) anyone. It was my first experience of playing the pre-final stages of a big tourney where you're only a few hands away from that pile of cash for the top places and, simultaneously, still such a long way away.It also was my first time busting out Greg Raymer and getting a fossil from him. A short time later, in Las Vegas, I added another one to my collection. I was also given a PokerStars card protector in Monte Carlo, which I used during the WSOP.
Wizard Wars was first announced in March of this year and was in part a response to the Magicka community's interest in a more flesh-out PvP game. The original Magicka shipped with a single-player mode where players played through a campaign with a detailed storyline. A PvP mode was later added. The response to the PvP mode was overwhelming, with some players spending more time in competitive multiplayer than in the single-player campaign. There was a problem, though — the PvP mode, by Paradox's own admission — was not very good.
The first chips in my collection were obtained from Yekaterinburg clubs. In the picture above, the left green chip belonged to the first ever poker club that was opened in our city, which was called Nevada. I remember my wife and I going over there for the opening ceremony. The club only had three tables to play on and the welcome shootout freeroll with around $3,300 guaranteed gathered more than 100 participants. Turned out I had to wait three hours to get my chance to play a Sit & Go with a chance to enter the final table.
The only disappointing moment that I have when reminiscing about those times is that I had talked everyone's ear off about how profitable opening a poker club would be half-a-year prior to Nevada opening its doors. The sad thing was I only played NL50 at the time and didn't have the bankroll to start a club on my own. The ones that had more funds caught a wave and still do live off of that pretty well.My first poker tourney series and also my first trip abroad without my wife (girlfriend at the time). Even though I apparently had a doomswitch activated against me throughout the Hands free access, it didn't prevent me from immersing into the exciting atmosphere of tournament poker. So I decided not to quit it after the first try.
I recall a moment from the Red Sea Poker Cup when my friend and I, along with 30 other people, were rooting for the Russian businessman who was called 'Uncle Misha'. You could smell he was a fish from a kilometer away, yet he managed to take down the €300 turbo, winning €8,000 for 1st place. I felt as full with ardour and excitement as when I was rooting for Russia against Netherlands in the quarter-finals of Euro 2008. The famous line from a WSOP commercial, 'This is beyond fairytale, it's inconceivable' (referring to Moneymaker in the 2003 Main Event), would have gained some new meaning for you if you had seen this final table. 'Uncle Misha' literally steamrolled his opponents, winning ridiculous ALLYMs, as Misha pronounced it, with almost every hand (like 95s, for instance).
Actually, it turned out that rooting for someone else playing poker is a lot of fun, even if you don't have a piece! During the same series, PokerStars Pro Max 'decay' Lykov took down the HighRoller event after playing heads-up versus some cocky guy who refused Max's offer of a deal only because the deal included playing for the actual trophy after the split and not automatically giving that trophy to the guy (who had more chips at the time). All in all, it ended up being a swarm of Russians, including me, who cheerfully witnessed Max slowly taking down the villain and, subsequently, a trophy. Oh, and a small bonus of the €50,000 prize, of course.
Even my hometown, with 150,000 citizens, had its own poker club! It was located in a bowling centre, so I've visited it a couple of times. Can't really say that the overall 'score' was positive for me there. I blame it on my luck in that specific place. One time I had to desperately go to the other side of the city to get some more cash from an ATM after I was outdrawn by a 20% hand. The table was too much of an aquarium to leave early. I ended up insta-losing half of my buy-in though.
It was also my first time, and the only time so far, when I got slowrolled at showdown. At the time I had no idea that it was frowned upon, so I didn't even tell the guy off. He smirked and turned over one card for a pair with a board card - 'will that do?' - waited for me to turn over my aces, and then proceeded to turn the other card over to reveal a set.I visited Prague when it held the EMOP series - I skipped the tourneys and focused on playing cash. The only memorable thing was the procedure of gaining access to the indoor Tracking. My wife and I had our driver's licenses photocopies, and our cameras taken away. They then took our photo's before allowing us to proceed to the tables.
Very pleasant memories arise when I think of Monte Carlo. It was my first tourney where I made a solid amount of cash and I didn't share the buy-in with (almost) anyone. It was my first experience of playing the pre-final stages of a big tourney where you're only a few hands away from that pile of cash for the top places and, simultaneously, still such a long way away.It also was my first time busting out Greg Raymer and getting a fossil from him. A short time later, in Las Vegas, I added another one to my collection. I was also given a PokerStars card protector in Monte Carlo, which I used during the WSOP.
Wizard Wars was first announced in March of this year and was in part a response to the Magicka community's interest in a more flesh-out PvP game. The original Magicka shipped with a single-player mode where players played through a campaign with a detailed storyline. A PvP mode was later added. The response to the PvP mode was overwhelming, with some players spending more time in competitive multiplayer than in the single-player campaign. There was a problem, though — the PvP mode, by Paradox's own admission — was not very good.
2013年7月22日星期一
Democrats say Cuccinelli questions
Democrats have been flipping through Republican gubernatorial nominee Ken Cuccinelli’s book "The Last Line of Defense" in a bid to paint him as conservative extremist.The latest citation from the 2013 book comes from the Democratic Party of Virginia, which is airing a TV ad with Peggy Borgard, a Henrico County senior citizen, criticizing Cuccinelli’s views on entitlement programs.
"In his book, Cuccinelli questions whether Medicare and Social Security should exist and said people are dependent on government," Borgard says.It seemed remarkable that any candidate would start an election year by writing a book questioning propriety of popular entitlement programs for senior citizens. That goes double for a gubernatorial candidate who, if elected, would have no influence over how the federal government runs Medicare and Social Security. So we looked into the Democrat’s claim.
On screen, the ad cites as its source page 62 of the book. At the bottom of that page is a passage that has been a lightning rod for Democrats."Sometimes bad politicians set out to grow government in order to increase their own power and influence," Cuccinelli wrote. This phenomenon doesn’t just happen in Washington; it happens at all levels of government. The amazing thing is that they often grow government without protest from citizens, and sometimes they even get buy-in from citizens -- at least from the ones getting the Hands free access."
"One of their favorite ways to increase their power is by creating programs that dispense subsidized government benefits, such as Medicare, Social Security and outright welfare (Medicaid, food stamps, subsidized housing and the like). These programs make people dependent on government. And once people are dependent, they feel they can’t afford to have the programs taken away, no matter how inefficient, poorly run or costly to the rest of society."That’s certainly not a ringing endorsement of the entitlement programs, which the Republican said are a tool leveraged by politicians to hold on to power.
But does that mean Cuccinelli questions whether those entitlements should exist at all?Cuccinelli answered that question on pages 237 and 238, as first noted by our colleagues at FactCheck.org. Cuccinelli wrote that government spends little on investments that result in economic growth, noting that Social Security, Medicare and defense spending amounted to more than half of the federal budget in 2011.
"There is no monetary return on these investments in any traditional business sense (that is, one invests money with a goal of getting a return in the form of interest, income or appreciation in value), although there are obviously other reasons America spends money on these programs," Cuccinelli wrote. "I’m not questioning here the existence of these programs nor the wisdom of how much money is spent on them. What I’m trying to illustrate is that most dollars that government spends do not create economic growth, but instead take money out of the hands of the people who do create economic growth." "On page 62 in the book he describes Social Security and Medicare as created by ‘bad politicians’ who ‘set out to grow government in order to increase their own power and influence,’" Coy wrote in an e-mail. "That statement clearly questions the foundations of those programs - why would he say they’re a big government ploy by bad politicians without questioning their existence?"
Coy also defended the statement by pointing to a Cuccinelli interview with Politichicks.tv at a 2012 Tea Party rally. Cuccinelli said, "We have had one answer in federal government to every challenge in health care for 47 years, and that’s more government. It goes back to the beginning of Medicaid, Medicare and as Dr. Phil would say ‘How’s that working out for ya?’ We need to go the other way. We need to move back toward the free market."The Fact Checker at The Washington Post recently gave the ad three out of four possible Pinocchios, saying "while it is fair to say that Cuccinelli is skeptical of government-run social programs" and that he prefers free market solutions as part of any overhaul of those entitlements, that doesn’t mean he thinks that the programs should not exist.
Cuccinelli gave the Democrats a tiny opening in writing that "bad politicians" have "tried to increase their power by creating programs that dispense subsidized government benefits, such as Medicare, Social Security" that make people "dependent on government."But ad goes overboard because it suggests Cuccinelli is questioning whether the entitlements should exist today and in the future. Cuccinelli specifically wrote in his book, "I am not questioning the existence of these programs, nor how much is spent on them."
Leap Motion launched its groundbreaking motion detection module on Monday, allowing anyone to connect a little box to their Mac or Windows computer that can detect gestures more precisely than Microsoft Kinect can, for a mere $80. Eventually, Leap Motion technology will be integrated into computers, so you won’t even need to buy a separate box in order to wave your hands in the air to select, control, create, and interact with music.
Minutes ago, the Leap Motion AirSpace Store appeared on the web; those with a Leap Motion Controller can access it from their computers, too. Developers are encouraged to submit their apps and ideas, and they appear to be excited about the possibilities of this promising new app platform, which threatens to free music apps from smartphones and computers, at least partially.
“We are thrilled to be among the first developers releasing apps for Leap Motion, and I believe strongly that, in the future, gesture may dominate human-computer interaction,” emailed Snibbe Studios founder and CEO Scott Snibbe. “It’’s what people are calling ‘‘Natural User Interface,’’ because we’’re now communicating with the computer the same way that we communicate with other human beings.”
Because of the special needs of photos, the placeholder for this type of file is a bit different. “When you flip through photos, [Windows] downloads large thumbnail images instead of the actual files. And [Windows] pre-fetches thumbnails to enable fast scrolling. It’s only when you want to edit a photo that [Windows] downloads the full file to the local disk.”
I noted previously that you could right-click on SkyDrive-based files and folders from File Explorer and choose “Make available offline” from the pop-up menu that appears. But this works from the SkyDrive app too, so tablet users and others that wish to avoid the desktop never need to leave Metro to access this functionality.
Also, Windows “always marks files for offline access if you’ve opened or edited them on this device before. [Windows does] that because most people tend to open the same files they recently opened, but the files they open often vary across different devices – so [it] remembers those files and makes this unique to the device you’re using.” You can also choose to have your entire SkyDrive available for offline access, of course.
Read the full products at http://www.ecived.com/en/.
"In his book, Cuccinelli questions whether Medicare and Social Security should exist and said people are dependent on government," Borgard says.It seemed remarkable that any candidate would start an election year by writing a book questioning propriety of popular entitlement programs for senior citizens. That goes double for a gubernatorial candidate who, if elected, would have no influence over how the federal government runs Medicare and Social Security. So we looked into the Democrat’s claim.
On screen, the ad cites as its source page 62 of the book. At the bottom of that page is a passage that has been a lightning rod for Democrats."Sometimes bad politicians set out to grow government in order to increase their own power and influence," Cuccinelli wrote. This phenomenon doesn’t just happen in Washington; it happens at all levels of government. The amazing thing is that they often grow government without protest from citizens, and sometimes they even get buy-in from citizens -- at least from the ones getting the Hands free access."
"One of their favorite ways to increase their power is by creating programs that dispense subsidized government benefits, such as Medicare, Social Security and outright welfare (Medicaid, food stamps, subsidized housing and the like). These programs make people dependent on government. And once people are dependent, they feel they can’t afford to have the programs taken away, no matter how inefficient, poorly run or costly to the rest of society."That’s certainly not a ringing endorsement of the entitlement programs, which the Republican said are a tool leveraged by politicians to hold on to power.
But does that mean Cuccinelli questions whether those entitlements should exist at all?Cuccinelli answered that question on pages 237 and 238, as first noted by our colleagues at FactCheck.org. Cuccinelli wrote that government spends little on investments that result in economic growth, noting that Social Security, Medicare and defense spending amounted to more than half of the federal budget in 2011.
"There is no monetary return on these investments in any traditional business sense (that is, one invests money with a goal of getting a return in the form of interest, income or appreciation in value), although there are obviously other reasons America spends money on these programs," Cuccinelli wrote. "I’m not questioning here the existence of these programs nor the wisdom of how much money is spent on them. What I’m trying to illustrate is that most dollars that government spends do not create economic growth, but instead take money out of the hands of the people who do create economic growth." "On page 62 in the book he describes Social Security and Medicare as created by ‘bad politicians’ who ‘set out to grow government in order to increase their own power and influence,’" Coy wrote in an e-mail. "That statement clearly questions the foundations of those programs - why would he say they’re a big government ploy by bad politicians without questioning their existence?"
Coy also defended the statement by pointing to a Cuccinelli interview with Politichicks.tv at a 2012 Tea Party rally. Cuccinelli said, "We have had one answer in federal government to every challenge in health care for 47 years, and that’s more government. It goes back to the beginning of Medicaid, Medicare and as Dr. Phil would say ‘How’s that working out for ya?’ We need to go the other way. We need to move back toward the free market."The Fact Checker at The Washington Post recently gave the ad three out of four possible Pinocchios, saying "while it is fair to say that Cuccinelli is skeptical of government-run social programs" and that he prefers free market solutions as part of any overhaul of those entitlements, that doesn’t mean he thinks that the programs should not exist.
Cuccinelli gave the Democrats a tiny opening in writing that "bad politicians" have "tried to increase their power by creating programs that dispense subsidized government benefits, such as Medicare, Social Security" that make people "dependent on government."But ad goes overboard because it suggests Cuccinelli is questioning whether the entitlements should exist today and in the future. Cuccinelli specifically wrote in his book, "I am not questioning the existence of these programs, nor how much is spent on them."
Leap Motion launched its groundbreaking motion detection module on Monday, allowing anyone to connect a little box to their Mac or Windows computer that can detect gestures more precisely than Microsoft Kinect can, for a mere $80. Eventually, Leap Motion technology will be integrated into computers, so you won’t even need to buy a separate box in order to wave your hands in the air to select, control, create, and interact with music.
Minutes ago, the Leap Motion AirSpace Store appeared on the web; those with a Leap Motion Controller can access it from their computers, too. Developers are encouraged to submit their apps and ideas, and they appear to be excited about the possibilities of this promising new app platform, which threatens to free music apps from smartphones and computers, at least partially.
“We are thrilled to be among the first developers releasing apps for Leap Motion, and I believe strongly that, in the future, gesture may dominate human-computer interaction,” emailed Snibbe Studios founder and CEO Scott Snibbe. “It’’s what people are calling ‘‘Natural User Interface,’’ because we’’re now communicating with the computer the same way that we communicate with other human beings.”
Because of the special needs of photos, the placeholder for this type of file is a bit different. “When you flip through photos, [Windows] downloads large thumbnail images instead of the actual files. And [Windows] pre-fetches thumbnails to enable fast scrolling. It’s only when you want to edit a photo that [Windows] downloads the full file to the local disk.”
I noted previously that you could right-click on SkyDrive-based files and folders from File Explorer and choose “Make available offline” from the pop-up menu that appears. But this works from the SkyDrive app too, so tablet users and others that wish to avoid the desktop never need to leave Metro to access this functionality.
Also, Windows “always marks files for offline access if you’ve opened or edited them on this device before. [Windows does] that because most people tend to open the same files they recently opened, but the files they open often vary across different devices – so [it] remembers those files and makes this unique to the device you’re using.” You can also choose to have your entire SkyDrive available for offline access, of course.
Read the full products at http://www.ecived.com/en/.
2013年7月18日星期四
When a drone won’t do, you’ll hire a ‘gargoyle’
The dirigibles were easy enough to avoid. Simply stepping out of the way of their ponderous arcs was enough. Clancy had no problem with that.The drones, on the other hand, were trickier. They made noise at least, their eight little rotors whirring and buzzing as they zipped in for close looks here and there. Every now and then one would circle Clancy for a bit.
It didn’t bother him really — they were usually just curious and then got back to their task. Every now and then a drone would get piloted by some obnoxious script kiddie and try to get in his way, and that was annoying.But Clancy had an insanely high personal rep score. As a gargoyle, a contractor paid to gather data on location in the real time Location system, having a high personal rep score brought a number of privileges.
For example, he was coded for free entry to nearly all properties on the market. And not just during open hours; he had access during all empty hours.Empty hours, when the normal occupants were away, was ideal time for gargoyles. Clancy’s sensors were acute, his microcell connection was direct line, and his server farm was robust. Merely passing through a room at normal walking speed was enough to gather all of the normal data a person might want.
Empty hours were also the times when the drones were released. Often in two flavors. The preprogrammed blimp variety lumbered on a preset path up near the ceiling. The drones were “piloted” remotely and could go most anywhere. Software boundaries kept them from colliding with things.
Clancy found the steps down to the infrastructure NID in the basement. His client was overseas. Most of his clients were. Even if they were Americans they were overseas working on something that required in-person meetings. And they often had very specific interests in the technical capabilities of a property before they would make an offer.
His clients had very specific needs so the blimp runs really wouldn’t give them anything they really needed. They also had limited access to technology, or limited time, so bumping around with a drone wasn’t a good use of their time. Finally, they usually lacked specific skills to identify the technology in place anyway.Clancy had skipped college. From his perspective, college was either a great four-year vacation for people who had too much money or — as several of his friends found out — an on-ramp to a contemporary form of indentured servitude.
Instead, he worked with his hands on tech hardware, did some building and printing of his own, and learned what he needed in the digital commons. Along the way he learned to read Korean, the intricacies of hardware interface theory, a great deal of math, and a few things about human nature that you don’t learn at a college keg party.He was, as his grandfather liked to jokingly say, a cyberpunk. But that was an old-world term. The modern name for what he did — watching, moving, collecting data for hire — was gargoyle.
It was a living, and he enjoyed it. Sure as hell beat paying student loans for an outdated degree in software engineering.Once inside the NID, Clancy began making the readings. He’d need to do some of this manually. His client, a finance consultant, was currently in Antwerp, and had limited electronics access. The client did, however, know quite a bit about network interfaces if the data he was seeking was any indicator.
The drone buzzed around his shoulder. Some desk jockey was trying to figure out what Clancy was up to.The annoyance was something he didn’t have to put up with — his high rep score gave him the ability to “shun” a drone, which is basically to set a perimeter of 10 meters between him and all drones.
But Clancy wasn’t going to bother with it. It would be an unnecessary jerk move. Why ding the drone pilot’s rep score because of curiosity? That’s all Clancy had when he started tinkering. He used his 3-D pen to mark out a spot where the drone could hover and see what was going on without getting in his way. The drone locked into it.
Data gathered, Clancy started for the steps and signaled a car. He made another pass through the kitchen to collect secondary assessment data. His client didn’t request it but he knew the guy was married and he figured a little bit of information about the human aspects of the house couldn’t hurt — appliance repair and usage history; agent-based simulations on two people working the kitchen simultaneously; food volume per time unit for big parties — that sort of thing.
The dossier for his client was already zapped across his microcell by the time Clancy crossed the lawn to the waiting car. Air conditioning steamed out of the seating pod into the hot night air.As he traveled back to his studio he began to think about some of the business offers he’d had over the years. Every now and then someone would try to recruit him to do exclusive work. Sometimes they’d even offer reasonable money.
But they never seemed to understand that what made him good at what he did was his freedom to tinker, to learn new things. If he’d signed up to only work real estate, for example, then he never would have learned the things this client had wanted.The day-jobbers were always short on vision as well, it seemed. Along with their exclusive focus they didn’t recognize any external value in what they were doing. They’d want to hire him and then essentially give away his services. It was as if they’d lived an entire life on checklists and scripts.
They wanted his rep score but they didn’t want to do what it took to get that rep score. You couldn’t buy that sort of thing anymore. You couldn’t have done it for the past few years. These guys were dinosaurs.For every gargoyle gig Clancy did, he had a minimum of two customers. The people who wanted to “bring him in on the ground floor” were never putting revenue chains like that together. Tonight’s run, for example, had the Antwerp client to initiate the project. But there were three other data services bidding for access to the night’s work.
Clancy already knew which one would win. In fact, he’d had a suspicion that the bidding process was just a ploy for the winning firm to test the resolve of their competitors.When his contact at the data service had confirmed that the bidding process itself was as valuable to her as the data Clancy gathered he almost fell in love. But she’d gone to college and didn’t come out with debt. And mixing in that world was more complicated than he needed.
Read the full products at http://www.ecived.com/en/!
It didn’t bother him really — they were usually just curious and then got back to their task. Every now and then a drone would get piloted by some obnoxious script kiddie and try to get in his way, and that was annoying.But Clancy had an insanely high personal rep score. As a gargoyle, a contractor paid to gather data on location in the real time Location system, having a high personal rep score brought a number of privileges.
For example, he was coded for free entry to nearly all properties on the market. And not just during open hours; he had access during all empty hours.Empty hours, when the normal occupants were away, was ideal time for gargoyles. Clancy’s sensors were acute, his microcell connection was direct line, and his server farm was robust. Merely passing through a room at normal walking speed was enough to gather all of the normal data a person might want.
Empty hours were also the times when the drones were released. Often in two flavors. The preprogrammed blimp variety lumbered on a preset path up near the ceiling. The drones were “piloted” remotely and could go most anywhere. Software boundaries kept them from colliding with things.
Clancy found the steps down to the infrastructure NID in the basement. His client was overseas. Most of his clients were. Even if they were Americans they were overseas working on something that required in-person meetings. And they often had very specific interests in the technical capabilities of a property before they would make an offer.
His clients had very specific needs so the blimp runs really wouldn’t give them anything they really needed. They also had limited access to technology, or limited time, so bumping around with a drone wasn’t a good use of their time. Finally, they usually lacked specific skills to identify the technology in place anyway.Clancy had skipped college. From his perspective, college was either a great four-year vacation for people who had too much money or — as several of his friends found out — an on-ramp to a contemporary form of indentured servitude.
Instead, he worked with his hands on tech hardware, did some building and printing of his own, and learned what he needed in the digital commons. Along the way he learned to read Korean, the intricacies of hardware interface theory, a great deal of math, and a few things about human nature that you don’t learn at a college keg party.He was, as his grandfather liked to jokingly say, a cyberpunk. But that was an old-world term. The modern name for what he did — watching, moving, collecting data for hire — was gargoyle.
It was a living, and he enjoyed it. Sure as hell beat paying student loans for an outdated degree in software engineering.Once inside the NID, Clancy began making the readings. He’d need to do some of this manually. His client, a finance consultant, was currently in Antwerp, and had limited electronics access. The client did, however, know quite a bit about network interfaces if the data he was seeking was any indicator.
The drone buzzed around his shoulder. Some desk jockey was trying to figure out what Clancy was up to.The annoyance was something he didn’t have to put up with — his high rep score gave him the ability to “shun” a drone, which is basically to set a perimeter of 10 meters between him and all drones.
But Clancy wasn’t going to bother with it. It would be an unnecessary jerk move. Why ding the drone pilot’s rep score because of curiosity? That’s all Clancy had when he started tinkering. He used his 3-D pen to mark out a spot where the drone could hover and see what was going on without getting in his way. The drone locked into it.
Data gathered, Clancy started for the steps and signaled a car. He made another pass through the kitchen to collect secondary assessment data. His client didn’t request it but he knew the guy was married and he figured a little bit of information about the human aspects of the house couldn’t hurt — appliance repair and usage history; agent-based simulations on two people working the kitchen simultaneously; food volume per time unit for big parties — that sort of thing.
The dossier for his client was already zapped across his microcell by the time Clancy crossed the lawn to the waiting car. Air conditioning steamed out of the seating pod into the hot night air.As he traveled back to his studio he began to think about some of the business offers he’d had over the years. Every now and then someone would try to recruit him to do exclusive work. Sometimes they’d even offer reasonable money.
But they never seemed to understand that what made him good at what he did was his freedom to tinker, to learn new things. If he’d signed up to only work real estate, for example, then he never would have learned the things this client had wanted.The day-jobbers were always short on vision as well, it seemed. Along with their exclusive focus they didn’t recognize any external value in what they were doing. They’d want to hire him and then essentially give away his services. It was as if they’d lived an entire life on checklists and scripts.
They wanted his rep score but they didn’t want to do what it took to get that rep score. You couldn’t buy that sort of thing anymore. You couldn’t have done it for the past few years. These guys were dinosaurs.For every gargoyle gig Clancy did, he had a minimum of two customers. The people who wanted to “bring him in on the ground floor” were never putting revenue chains like that together. Tonight’s run, for example, had the Antwerp client to initiate the project. But there were three other data services bidding for access to the night’s work.
Clancy already knew which one would win. In fact, he’d had a suspicion that the bidding process was just a ploy for the winning firm to test the resolve of their competitors.When his contact at the data service had confirmed that the bidding process itself was as valuable to her as the data Clancy gathered he almost fell in love. But she’d gone to college and didn’t come out with debt. And mixing in that world was more complicated than he needed.
Read the full products at http://www.ecived.com/en/!
2013年7月9日星期二
A comprehensive comparison of Dota 2
MOBA games have been around for a long time, but Dota 2 and League of Legends are the first to regularly pull numbers like the 329,977 concurrent users on Dota 2 and the “over 500,000 peak concurrent players every day on just the EU West” League of Legends server.
You’d think that with the sheer popularity of MOBA games, they’d be easy to break into, but that’s usually not the case. Fortunately, this guide is here to help! This article should help you understand the basic concepts that are common to both games as well as the real time Location system.
If you’ve ever played any sort of RTS, then the basic layout of LoL and Dota should be at least somewhat familiar. These are top-down games where you control your champion or hero alongside four other players in five-on-five fantasy action.
Last hitting—delivering the killing blow to a minion—is likely the most fundamental skill you’ll have to learn to play either game. Last-hitting minions is your primary means of accruing gold. Wait until the minion gets low enough for you to kill it with a single attack before you hit it. You’ll still earn a slow trickle of gold over time, but killing a few extra minions can be the difference between buying the item that you need or missing out on XP for nothing.
LoL and Dota 2 do differ in how they reward players for killing players. In both games, killing an enemy player grants gold to everyone who participated in the kill. In League of Legends, the amount of gold a player is worth depends on how many times they’ve died without getting a kill and whether or not they’re on a killing spree. Dota 2 adds to this by punishing the dead player by throwing away some of the unreliable gold that they’ve earned. Reliable gold is awarded for kills while unreliable gold is gained over time and for killing minions.
The distinction between the two types of gold is reason enough to declare that Dota 2 is a far more punishing game. At the same time, getting kills is quite a bit more rewarding than it is in League of Legends because you gain reliable gold while causing an enemy to lose gold. Not only is it easier to make mistakes in Dota 2, but it’s also harder to come back from them.
Every single match of Dota 2 or League begins with the laning phase. This generally lasts from the time that minions spawn to anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes into the game. During this time, carry characters spend their time trying to last hit as well as possible. The goal of laning phase is to earn as much gold as possible while harassing your opponent.
Battles are more frequent and abrupt in Dota 2. Once a team commits to a fight, enemies will be stunned and spells will be unleashed. It usually only takes a second or two for the first casualty in a fight. During a game, it’s not uncommon to see first blood claimed only a few minutes in. Fights in Dota 2 are quite a bit like food fights—you look around to make sure no one’s watching, then let loose a few cups of pudding or an Arcane Bolt or two.
League of Legends is a little less chaotic. The first kill might take place 10 minutes into a match, but that isn’t to say that the game is any slower paced. You’ll be casting your spells far more often than you do in Dota 2 because of LoL’s emphasis on skillshots and low mana costs. Laning is usually a matter of last hitting while throwing out a spell or two to try and push your opponent out of lane.
The later section of both games is reserved for team fighting and coordinated pushes to try and reach the enemy base. As the end of the game approaches, teams usually start to stick together to knock down towers and eventually the base structures—the melee and ranged barracks in Dota 2 and the inhibitors in LoL which strengthens creep waves. Destroying the nexus or ancient is the only way to end the game without forcing a surrender vote.
Champions in League of Legends are more likely to have skillshots and spells that can be spammed. As a result, LoL focuses not only on traditional, attack damage (AD) carries, but also on ability power (AP) carries. Unlike in Dota 2, you can buy items that increase the damage output of your abilities in LoL. The laning phase in League games usually involve quite a bit more ability-based harass. Poking your opponent with a skillshot or target spell is reasonable because of the low mana costs that accompany most spells. Every single champion in this game has four main, character-specific spells along with room for two summoner spells; Flash is one spell that you’ll see all the time because it lets you jump a short distance in the direction of your cursor.
The comparatively lesser emphasis on skillshots doesn’t mean that Dota 2 isn’t a skill-driven game. It makes up for it by having a diverse pool of heroes that are able to build items to satisfy different roles. Dota heroes have much more explosive power with the ability to execute combos that usually leads to battles that last only a few seconds. These powerful spells come at a cost—the mana required to cast these spells is usually high—which prevents them from being used constantly. Another distinguishing factor of Dota 2′s hero pool is the Invoker—playable proof of the wide variety of heroes available in the game. With a total of 14 abilities at his disposal, the Invoker is considered by many to be the most complex character in any MOBA game. Mixing and matching reagents to invoke new spells demonstrates just how versatile and varied Dota 2 heroes can be.
However, those ads will be running alongside a multi-million dollar misinformation campaign orchestrated by the Koch brothers. According to the Think Progress Blog, the conservative group Americans for Prosperity is spending a fortune on television ads aimed at turning Americans against the new healthcare law. The group's first ad is called "Questions," and it features a mother of two who tells viewers that she "has some questions about Obamacare." Her so-called questions imply that under the Affordable Healthcare Act, she will be paying higher premiums and won't be able to select her family's doctor. The ad perpetuates myths that have been clearly debunked. As Think Progress points out, there is nothing in Obamacare that stops patients from choosing their own doctors, and people who get their insurance through their employer likely won't see any changes at all.
And, while the Americans For Prosperity ad refers to higher healthcare premiums, we've seen insurance rates go down in states implementing the law – like California – and millions of Americans will qualify for subsidies to purchase healthcare through insurance exchanges. In fact, it's Republican policies – like refusing to implement the law's Medicaid expansion – not Obamacare – that will leave some people uninsured. The constant misinformation from the Right is exactly why states like Oregon and New Jersey are working so hard to inform the public about the law's new benefits with their new television ads. However, thanks to the Koch brothers, Americans will have a difficult time sorting through the lies, and figuring out the real ways Obamacare will improve their lives.
Read the full story at http://www.ecived.com/en/!
You’d think that with the sheer popularity of MOBA games, they’d be easy to break into, but that’s usually not the case. Fortunately, this guide is here to help! This article should help you understand the basic concepts that are common to both games as well as the real time Location system.
If you’ve ever played any sort of RTS, then the basic layout of LoL and Dota should be at least somewhat familiar. These are top-down games where you control your champion or hero alongside four other players in five-on-five fantasy action.
Last hitting—delivering the killing blow to a minion—is likely the most fundamental skill you’ll have to learn to play either game. Last-hitting minions is your primary means of accruing gold. Wait until the minion gets low enough for you to kill it with a single attack before you hit it. You’ll still earn a slow trickle of gold over time, but killing a few extra minions can be the difference between buying the item that you need or missing out on XP for nothing.
LoL and Dota 2 do differ in how they reward players for killing players. In both games, killing an enemy player grants gold to everyone who participated in the kill. In League of Legends, the amount of gold a player is worth depends on how many times they’ve died without getting a kill and whether or not they’re on a killing spree. Dota 2 adds to this by punishing the dead player by throwing away some of the unreliable gold that they’ve earned. Reliable gold is awarded for kills while unreliable gold is gained over time and for killing minions.
The distinction between the two types of gold is reason enough to declare that Dota 2 is a far more punishing game. At the same time, getting kills is quite a bit more rewarding than it is in League of Legends because you gain reliable gold while causing an enemy to lose gold. Not only is it easier to make mistakes in Dota 2, but it’s also harder to come back from them.
Every single match of Dota 2 or League begins with the laning phase. This generally lasts from the time that minions spawn to anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes into the game. During this time, carry characters spend their time trying to last hit as well as possible. The goal of laning phase is to earn as much gold as possible while harassing your opponent.
Battles are more frequent and abrupt in Dota 2. Once a team commits to a fight, enemies will be stunned and spells will be unleashed. It usually only takes a second or two for the first casualty in a fight. During a game, it’s not uncommon to see first blood claimed only a few minutes in. Fights in Dota 2 are quite a bit like food fights—you look around to make sure no one’s watching, then let loose a few cups of pudding or an Arcane Bolt or two.
League of Legends is a little less chaotic. The first kill might take place 10 minutes into a match, but that isn’t to say that the game is any slower paced. You’ll be casting your spells far more often than you do in Dota 2 because of LoL’s emphasis on skillshots and low mana costs. Laning is usually a matter of last hitting while throwing out a spell or two to try and push your opponent out of lane.
The later section of both games is reserved for team fighting and coordinated pushes to try and reach the enemy base. As the end of the game approaches, teams usually start to stick together to knock down towers and eventually the base structures—the melee and ranged barracks in Dota 2 and the inhibitors in LoL which strengthens creep waves. Destroying the nexus or ancient is the only way to end the game without forcing a surrender vote.
Champions in League of Legends are more likely to have skillshots and spells that can be spammed. As a result, LoL focuses not only on traditional, attack damage (AD) carries, but also on ability power (AP) carries. Unlike in Dota 2, you can buy items that increase the damage output of your abilities in LoL. The laning phase in League games usually involve quite a bit more ability-based harass. Poking your opponent with a skillshot or target spell is reasonable because of the low mana costs that accompany most spells. Every single champion in this game has four main, character-specific spells along with room for two summoner spells; Flash is one spell that you’ll see all the time because it lets you jump a short distance in the direction of your cursor.
The comparatively lesser emphasis on skillshots doesn’t mean that Dota 2 isn’t a skill-driven game. It makes up for it by having a diverse pool of heroes that are able to build items to satisfy different roles. Dota heroes have much more explosive power with the ability to execute combos that usually leads to battles that last only a few seconds. These powerful spells come at a cost—the mana required to cast these spells is usually high—which prevents them from being used constantly. Another distinguishing factor of Dota 2′s hero pool is the Invoker—playable proof of the wide variety of heroes available in the game. With a total of 14 abilities at his disposal, the Invoker is considered by many to be the most complex character in any MOBA game. Mixing and matching reagents to invoke new spells demonstrates just how versatile and varied Dota 2 heroes can be.
However, those ads will be running alongside a multi-million dollar misinformation campaign orchestrated by the Koch brothers. According to the Think Progress Blog, the conservative group Americans for Prosperity is spending a fortune on television ads aimed at turning Americans against the new healthcare law. The group's first ad is called "Questions," and it features a mother of two who tells viewers that she "has some questions about Obamacare." Her so-called questions imply that under the Affordable Healthcare Act, she will be paying higher premiums and won't be able to select her family's doctor. The ad perpetuates myths that have been clearly debunked. As Think Progress points out, there is nothing in Obamacare that stops patients from choosing their own doctors, and people who get their insurance through their employer likely won't see any changes at all.
And, while the Americans For Prosperity ad refers to higher healthcare premiums, we've seen insurance rates go down in states implementing the law – like California – and millions of Americans will qualify for subsidies to purchase healthcare through insurance exchanges. In fact, it's Republican policies – like refusing to implement the law's Medicaid expansion – not Obamacare – that will leave some people uninsured. The constant misinformation from the Right is exactly why states like Oregon and New Jersey are working so hard to inform the public about the law's new benefits with their new television ads. However, thanks to the Koch brothers, Americans will have a difficult time sorting through the lies, and figuring out the real ways Obamacare will improve their lives.
Read the full story at http://www.ecived.com/en/!
2013年6月27日星期四
How to Solicit the Customer Feedback Your Startup Needs
What is the fuel that propels a startup from idea to launch to a sustainable success? Is it a killer idea? Funding? Revenue? Attracting the best talent? A visionary leader?The correct answer is customer feedback — lots and lots of customer feedback that you, as the founder of your startup, can leverage in order to develop a great product for which users will go crazy.
There are several distinct phases of a startup: the idea phase, pre-launch phase, early traction phase and (hopefully) a long period of growth and longevity. Customer feedback plays a central role in all of these.Feedback can and should be gathered in a number of ways. Most feedback will come through direct conversations with your customers in a variety of channels, but you can also gather feedback simply through observation.
It’s important that you don’t rely only on one method, such as email (although email can still be very effective). You’ll find that customers respond differently depending on which phase you’re in; pre-launch beta users tend to be more engaged than casual post-launch trial users. You might also find that some customers prefer email, others prefer chat and some people will give you better feedback over the phone or in person.
You’re probably so excited about this concept that you want to tell a few friends about it, and that’s a good start. See if this concept even remotely makes sense to anyone but yourself, but don’t spend too much time talking to friends. They’ll tend to give you positive feedback just because they’re your friends (even if you ask them to be critical). More importantly, your friends are not necessarily your target customers.
Your next step should be seek out between five and 10 people who you would consider to be your target customers and start some conversations. Don’t be shy. Have an idea to help clothing retail store owners sell more clothes? Walk into a mall and meet a few store owners. Want to build a tool to help programmers optimize their code? Introduce yourself on programming forums and local developer meetups.
Your goal at this stage is to identify the pain point, or the problem your product aims to solve. You might have this problem yourself, and that might have led to the idea in the first place, but it's important that you validate the fact that others have this same problem, or some variation of it.
Once you've validated the pain point with target customers, it's time to dig deeper. You need customer feedback to validate the concept of your product, and whether or not it's something worth customers' money.
At this stage, you should have some kind of landing page on your website to collect email addresses. There are a variety of ways to go about this: Some startups have a simple "coming soon" page, while others offer educational or otherwise valuable content in exchange for a visitor's email address.However you choose to build your pre-launch list, it is imperative that you reach out and personally contact each and every subscriber. Strike up a conversation over email and try to schedule a phone call.
Now your job is to conduct in-depth interviews to get an even clearer understanding of customer's pain points, values and how your product might benefit them. Unlike your first round of interviews, in which you reached out to potential target customers, you’re now having conversations with customers who expressed interest in what you’re doing. That makes this stage of customer feedback even more valuable.
A smart way to build an audience, both before and after your launch, is to put out a lot of valuable content. Start blogging, put out YouTube videos, send email newsletters or give away a free ebook.Your goal as you produce and release content should be twofold: It's a great way to build your list and drive traffic to your website, but more importantly, it's another vehicle for soliciting feedback.
Include a call-to-action at the end of your blog articles, or at the end of your email newsletter, asking readers to respond with questions and comments. Monitor which articles are being shared and talked about the most.Gathering feedback on your content is a great way to learn what the most common questions, challenges and goals of your audience are. You can use this feedback to create and release even more valuable content. You can also use it to inform your copywriting and marketing messages — every bit helps.
Of course, the first feedback you're looking for is whether or not customers are pulling out their wallets and entering their credit card information. If this is not happening (within a reasonable timeframe), you might need to circle back to those conversations you had earlier. Ask for follow-up conversations with those early customers to see how their views might have changed since you launched.
Are you offering a free trial period? Use a tool like Intercom.io to monitor activity in your app and see which areas might be causing friction for customers. Reach out to those trial users to help with the onboarding process. Beyond helping them use your app, ask them questions, including.
Use this feedback to help you improve your sales funnel. Promote the benefits — as described by your customers — on your marketing website. Smooth out the onboarding process, based on what you learned by helping trial users. Make the necessary tweaks to overcome the biggest objections users have to upgrading.
Your cancellation form is one place where you should always gather feedback. Customer cancellations are a fact of life for every startup. No founder likes seeing customers leave, but cancellations present a valuable opportunity to learn what is causing dissatisfaction with your product. Add a required text input where customers must fill in their reason for canceling, and then look for patterns and plug those holes to lower your cancellation rate.
Customer support is another great place to process valuable feedback, and it's why founders should be the ones manning the customer support requests for as long as possible before outsourcing it.
Read the full story at www.ecived.com/en/!
There are several distinct phases of a startup: the idea phase, pre-launch phase, early traction phase and (hopefully) a long period of growth and longevity. Customer feedback plays a central role in all of these.Feedback can and should be gathered in a number of ways. Most feedback will come through direct conversations with your customers in a variety of channels, but you can also gather feedback simply through observation.
It’s important that you don’t rely only on one method, such as email (although email can still be very effective). You’ll find that customers respond differently depending on which phase you’re in; pre-launch beta users tend to be more engaged than casual post-launch trial users. You might also find that some customers prefer email, others prefer chat and some people will give you better feedback over the phone or in person.
You’re probably so excited about this concept that you want to tell a few friends about it, and that’s a good start. See if this concept even remotely makes sense to anyone but yourself, but don’t spend too much time talking to friends. They’ll tend to give you positive feedback just because they’re your friends (even if you ask them to be critical). More importantly, your friends are not necessarily your target customers.
Your next step should be seek out between five and 10 people who you would consider to be your target customers and start some conversations. Don’t be shy. Have an idea to help clothing retail store owners sell more clothes? Walk into a mall and meet a few store owners. Want to build a tool to help programmers optimize their code? Introduce yourself on programming forums and local developer meetups.
Your goal at this stage is to identify the pain point, or the problem your product aims to solve. You might have this problem yourself, and that might have led to the idea in the first place, but it's important that you validate the fact that others have this same problem, or some variation of it.
Once you've validated the pain point with target customers, it's time to dig deeper. You need customer feedback to validate the concept of your product, and whether or not it's something worth customers' money.
At this stage, you should have some kind of landing page on your website to collect email addresses. There are a variety of ways to go about this: Some startups have a simple "coming soon" page, while others offer educational or otherwise valuable content in exchange for a visitor's email address.However you choose to build your pre-launch list, it is imperative that you reach out and personally contact each and every subscriber. Strike up a conversation over email and try to schedule a phone call.
Now your job is to conduct in-depth interviews to get an even clearer understanding of customer's pain points, values and how your product might benefit them. Unlike your first round of interviews, in which you reached out to potential target customers, you’re now having conversations with customers who expressed interest in what you’re doing. That makes this stage of customer feedback even more valuable.
A smart way to build an audience, both before and after your launch, is to put out a lot of valuable content. Start blogging, put out YouTube videos, send email newsletters or give away a free ebook.Your goal as you produce and release content should be twofold: It's a great way to build your list and drive traffic to your website, but more importantly, it's another vehicle for soliciting feedback.
Include a call-to-action at the end of your blog articles, or at the end of your email newsletter, asking readers to respond with questions and comments. Monitor which articles are being shared and talked about the most.Gathering feedback on your content is a great way to learn what the most common questions, challenges and goals of your audience are. You can use this feedback to create and release even more valuable content. You can also use it to inform your copywriting and marketing messages — every bit helps.
Of course, the first feedback you're looking for is whether or not customers are pulling out their wallets and entering their credit card information. If this is not happening (within a reasonable timeframe), you might need to circle back to those conversations you had earlier. Ask for follow-up conversations with those early customers to see how their views might have changed since you launched.
Are you offering a free trial period? Use a tool like Intercom.io to monitor activity in your app and see which areas might be causing friction for customers. Reach out to those trial users to help with the onboarding process. Beyond helping them use your app, ask them questions, including.
Use this feedback to help you improve your sales funnel. Promote the benefits — as described by your customers — on your marketing website. Smooth out the onboarding process, based on what you learned by helping trial users. Make the necessary tweaks to overcome the biggest objections users have to upgrading.
Your cancellation form is one place where you should always gather feedback. Customer cancellations are a fact of life for every startup. No founder likes seeing customers leave, but cancellations present a valuable opportunity to learn what is causing dissatisfaction with your product. Add a required text input where customers must fill in their reason for canceling, and then look for patterns and plug those holes to lower your cancellation rate.
Customer support is another great place to process valuable feedback, and it's why founders should be the ones manning the customer support requests for as long as possible before outsourcing it.
Read the full story at www.ecived.com/en/!
How to Solicit the Customer Feedback Your Startup Needs
What is the fuel that propels a startup from idea to launch to a sustainable success? Is it a killer idea? Funding? Revenue? Attracting the best talent? A visionary leader?The correct answer is customer feedback — lots and lots of customer feedback that you, as the founder of your startup, can leverage in order to develop a great product for which users will go crazy.
There are several distinct phases of a startup: the idea phase, pre-launch phase, early traction phase and (hopefully) a long period of growth and longevity. Customer feedback plays a central role in all of these.Feedback can and should be gathered in a number of ways. Most feedback will come through direct conversations with your customers in a variety of channels, but you can also gather feedback simply through observation.
It’s important that you don’t rely only on one method, such as email (although email can still be very effective). You’ll find that customers respond differently depending on which phase you’re in; pre-launch beta users tend to be more engaged than casual post-launch trial users. You might also find that some customers prefer email, others prefer chat and some people will give you better feedback over the phone or in person.
You’re probably so excited about this concept that you want to tell a few friends about it, and that’s a good start. See if this concept even remotely makes sense to anyone but yourself, but don’t spend too much time talking to friends. They’ll tend to give you positive feedback just because they’re your friends (even if you ask them to be critical). More importantly, your friends are not necessarily your target customers.
Your next step should be seek out between five and 10 people who you would consider to be your target customers and start some conversations. Don’t be shy. Have an idea to help clothing retail store owners sell more clothes? Walk into a mall and meet a few store owners. Want to build a tool to help programmers optimize their code? Introduce yourself on programming forums and local developer meetups.
Your goal at this stage is to identify the pain point, or the problem your product aims to solve. You might have this problem yourself, and that might have led to the idea in the first place, but it's important that you validate the fact that others have this same problem, or some variation of it.
Once you've validated the pain point with target customers, it's time to dig deeper. You need customer feedback to validate the concept of your product, and whether or not it's something worth customers' money.
At this stage, you should have some kind of landing page on your website to collect email addresses. There are a variety of ways to go about this: Some startups have a simple "coming soon" page, while others offer educational or otherwise valuable content in exchange for a visitor's email address.However you choose to build your pre-launch list, it is imperative that you reach out and personally contact each and every subscriber. Strike up a conversation over email and try to schedule a phone call.
Now your job is to conduct in-depth interviews to get an even clearer understanding of customer's pain points, values and how your product might benefit them. Unlike your first round of interviews, in which you reached out to potential target customers, you’re now having conversations with customers who expressed interest in what you’re doing. That makes this stage of customer feedback even more valuable.
A smart way to build an audience, both before and after your launch, is to put out a lot of valuable content. Start blogging, put out YouTube videos, send email newsletters or give away a free ebook.Your goal as you produce and release content should be twofold: It's a great way to build your list and drive traffic to your website, but more importantly, it's another vehicle for soliciting feedback.
Include a call-to-action at the end of your blog articles, or at the end of your email newsletter, asking readers to respond with questions and comments. Monitor which articles are being shared and talked about the most.Gathering feedback on your content is a great way to learn what the most common questions, challenges and goals of your audience are. You can use this feedback to create and release even more valuable content. You can also use it to inform your copywriting and marketing messages — every bit helps.
Of course, the first feedback you're looking for is whether or not customers are pulling out their wallets and entering their credit card information. If this is not happening (within a reasonable timeframe), you might need to circle back to those conversations you had earlier. Ask for follow-up conversations with those early customers to see how their views might have changed since you launched.
Are you offering a free trial period? Use a tool like Intercom.io to monitor activity in your app and see which areas might be causing friction for customers. Reach out to those trial users to help with the onboarding process. Beyond helping them use your app, ask them questions, including.
Use this feedback to help you improve your sales funnel. Promote the benefits — as described by your customers — on your marketing website. Smooth out the onboarding process, based on what you learned by helping trial users. Make the necessary tweaks to overcome the biggest objections users have to upgrading.
Your cancellation form is one place where you should always gather feedback. Customer cancellations are a fact of life for every startup. No founder likes seeing customers leave, but cancellations present a valuable opportunity to learn what is causing dissatisfaction with your product. Add a required text input where customers must fill in their reason for canceling, and then look for patterns and plug those holes to lower your cancellation rate.
Customer support is another great place to process valuable feedback, and it's why founders should be the ones manning the customer support requests for as long as possible before outsourcing it.
Read the full story at www.ecived.com/en/!
There are several distinct phases of a startup: the idea phase, pre-launch phase, early traction phase and (hopefully) a long period of growth and longevity. Customer feedback plays a central role in all of these.Feedback can and should be gathered in a number of ways. Most feedback will come through direct conversations with your customers in a variety of channels, but you can also gather feedback simply through observation.
It’s important that you don’t rely only on one method, such as email (although email can still be very effective). You’ll find that customers respond differently depending on which phase you’re in; pre-launch beta users tend to be more engaged than casual post-launch trial users. You might also find that some customers prefer email, others prefer chat and some people will give you better feedback over the phone or in person.
You’re probably so excited about this concept that you want to tell a few friends about it, and that’s a good start. See if this concept even remotely makes sense to anyone but yourself, but don’t spend too much time talking to friends. They’ll tend to give you positive feedback just because they’re your friends (even if you ask them to be critical). More importantly, your friends are not necessarily your target customers.
Your next step should be seek out between five and 10 people who you would consider to be your target customers and start some conversations. Don’t be shy. Have an idea to help clothing retail store owners sell more clothes? Walk into a mall and meet a few store owners. Want to build a tool to help programmers optimize their code? Introduce yourself on programming forums and local developer meetups.
Your goal at this stage is to identify the pain point, or the problem your product aims to solve. You might have this problem yourself, and that might have led to the idea in the first place, but it's important that you validate the fact that others have this same problem, or some variation of it.
Once you've validated the pain point with target customers, it's time to dig deeper. You need customer feedback to validate the concept of your product, and whether or not it's something worth customers' money.
At this stage, you should have some kind of landing page on your website to collect email addresses. There are a variety of ways to go about this: Some startups have a simple "coming soon" page, while others offer educational or otherwise valuable content in exchange for a visitor's email address.However you choose to build your pre-launch list, it is imperative that you reach out and personally contact each and every subscriber. Strike up a conversation over email and try to schedule a phone call.
Now your job is to conduct in-depth interviews to get an even clearer understanding of customer's pain points, values and how your product might benefit them. Unlike your first round of interviews, in which you reached out to potential target customers, you’re now having conversations with customers who expressed interest in what you’re doing. That makes this stage of customer feedback even more valuable.
A smart way to build an audience, both before and after your launch, is to put out a lot of valuable content. Start blogging, put out YouTube videos, send email newsletters or give away a free ebook.Your goal as you produce and release content should be twofold: It's a great way to build your list and drive traffic to your website, but more importantly, it's another vehicle for soliciting feedback.
Include a call-to-action at the end of your blog articles, or at the end of your email newsletter, asking readers to respond with questions and comments. Monitor which articles are being shared and talked about the most.Gathering feedback on your content is a great way to learn what the most common questions, challenges and goals of your audience are. You can use this feedback to create and release even more valuable content. You can also use it to inform your copywriting and marketing messages — every bit helps.
Of course, the first feedback you're looking for is whether or not customers are pulling out their wallets and entering their credit card information. If this is not happening (within a reasonable timeframe), you might need to circle back to those conversations you had earlier. Ask for follow-up conversations with those early customers to see how their views might have changed since you launched.
Are you offering a free trial period? Use a tool like Intercom.io to monitor activity in your app and see which areas might be causing friction for customers. Reach out to those trial users to help with the onboarding process. Beyond helping them use your app, ask them questions, including.
Use this feedback to help you improve your sales funnel. Promote the benefits — as described by your customers — on your marketing website. Smooth out the onboarding process, based on what you learned by helping trial users. Make the necessary tweaks to overcome the biggest objections users have to upgrading.
Your cancellation form is one place where you should always gather feedback. Customer cancellations are a fact of life for every startup. No founder likes seeing customers leave, but cancellations present a valuable opportunity to learn what is causing dissatisfaction with your product. Add a required text input where customers must fill in their reason for canceling, and then look for patterns and plug those holes to lower your cancellation rate.
Customer support is another great place to process valuable feedback, and it's why founders should be the ones manning the customer support requests for as long as possible before outsourcing it.
Read the full story at www.ecived.com/en/!
How to Solicit the Customer Feedback Your Startup Needs
What is the fuel that propels a startup from idea to launch to a sustainable success? Is it a killer idea? Funding? Revenue? Attracting the best talent? A visionary leader?The correct answer is customer feedback — lots and lots of customer feedback that you, as the founder of your startup, can leverage in order to develop a great product for which users will go crazy.
There are several distinct phases of a startup: the idea phase, pre-launch phase, early traction phase and (hopefully) a long period of growth and longevity. Customer feedback plays a central role in all of these.Feedback can and should be gathered in a number of ways. Most feedback will come through direct conversations with your customers in a variety of channels, but you can also gather feedback simply through observation.
It’s important that you don’t rely only on one method, such as email (although email can still be very effective). You’ll find that customers respond differently depending on which phase you’re in; pre-launch beta users tend to be more engaged than casual post-launch trial users. You might also find that some customers prefer email, others prefer chat and some people will give you better feedback over the phone or in person.
You’re probably so excited about this concept that you want to tell a few friends about it, and that’s a good start. See if this concept even remotely makes sense to anyone but yourself, but don’t spend too much time talking to friends. They’ll tend to give you positive feedback just because they’re your friends (even if you ask them to be critical). More importantly, your friends are not necessarily your target customers.
Your next step should be seek out between five and 10 people who you would consider to be your target customers and start some conversations. Don’t be shy. Have an idea to help clothing retail store owners sell more clothes? Walk into a mall and meet a few store owners. Want to build a tool to help programmers optimize their code? Introduce yourself on programming forums and local developer meetups.
Your goal at this stage is to identify the pain point, or the problem your product aims to solve. You might have this problem yourself, and that might have led to the idea in the first place, but it's important that you validate the fact that others have this same problem, or some variation of it.
Once you've validated the pain point with target customers, it's time to dig deeper. You need customer feedback to validate the concept of your product, and whether or not it's something worth customers' money.
At this stage, you should have some kind of landing page on your website to collect email addresses. There are a variety of ways to go about this: Some startups have a simple "coming soon" page, while others offer educational or otherwise valuable content in exchange for a visitor's email address.However you choose to build your pre-launch list, it is imperative that you reach out and personally contact each and every subscriber. Strike up a conversation over email and try to schedule a phone call.
Now your job is to conduct in-depth interviews to get an even clearer understanding of customer's pain points, values and how your product might benefit them. Unlike your first round of interviews, in which you reached out to potential target customers, you’re now having conversations with customers who expressed interest in what you’re doing. That makes this stage of customer feedback even more valuable.
A smart way to build an audience, both before and after your launch, is to put out a lot of valuable content. Start blogging, put out YouTube videos, send email newsletters or give away a free ebook.Your goal as you produce and release content should be twofold: It's a great way to build your list and drive traffic to your website, but more importantly, it's another vehicle for soliciting feedback.
Include a call-to-action at the end of your blog articles, or at the end of your email newsletter, asking readers to respond with questions and comments. Monitor which articles are being shared and talked about the most.Gathering feedback on your content is a great way to learn what the most common questions, challenges and goals of your audience are. You can use this feedback to create and release even more valuable content. You can also use it to inform your copywriting and marketing messages — every bit helps.
Of course, the first feedback you're looking for is whether or not customers are pulling out their wallets and entering their credit card information. If this is not happening (within a reasonable timeframe), you might need to circle back to those conversations you had earlier. Ask for follow-up conversations with those early customers to see how their views might have changed since you launched.
Are you offering a free trial period? Use a tool like Intercom.io to monitor activity in your app and see which areas might be causing friction for customers. Reach out to those trial users to help with the onboarding process. Beyond helping them use your app, ask them questions, including.
Use this feedback to help you improve your sales funnel. Promote the benefits — as described by your customers — on your marketing website. Smooth out the onboarding process, based on what you learned by helping trial users. Make the necessary tweaks to overcome the biggest objections users have to upgrading.
Your cancellation form is one place where you should always gather feedback. Customer cancellations are a fact of life for every startup. No founder likes seeing customers leave, but cancellations present a valuable opportunity to learn what is causing dissatisfaction with your product. Add a required text input where customers must fill in their reason for canceling, and then look for patterns and plug those holes to lower your cancellation rate.
Customer support is another great place to process valuable feedback, and it's why founders should be the ones manning the customer support requests for as long as possible before outsourcing it.
Read the full story at www.ecived.com/en/!
There are several distinct phases of a startup: the idea phase, pre-launch phase, early traction phase and (hopefully) a long period of growth and longevity. Customer feedback plays a central role in all of these.Feedback can and should be gathered in a number of ways. Most feedback will come through direct conversations with your customers in a variety of channels, but you can also gather feedback simply through observation.
It’s important that you don’t rely only on one method, such as email (although email can still be very effective). You’ll find that customers respond differently depending on which phase you’re in; pre-launch beta users tend to be more engaged than casual post-launch trial users. You might also find that some customers prefer email, others prefer chat and some people will give you better feedback over the phone or in person.
You’re probably so excited about this concept that you want to tell a few friends about it, and that’s a good start. See if this concept even remotely makes sense to anyone but yourself, but don’t spend too much time talking to friends. They’ll tend to give you positive feedback just because they’re your friends (even if you ask them to be critical). More importantly, your friends are not necessarily your target customers.
Your next step should be seek out between five and 10 people who you would consider to be your target customers and start some conversations. Don’t be shy. Have an idea to help clothing retail store owners sell more clothes? Walk into a mall and meet a few store owners. Want to build a tool to help programmers optimize their code? Introduce yourself on programming forums and local developer meetups.
Your goal at this stage is to identify the pain point, or the problem your product aims to solve. You might have this problem yourself, and that might have led to the idea in the first place, but it's important that you validate the fact that others have this same problem, or some variation of it.
Once you've validated the pain point with target customers, it's time to dig deeper. You need customer feedback to validate the concept of your product, and whether or not it's something worth customers' money.
At this stage, you should have some kind of landing page on your website to collect email addresses. There are a variety of ways to go about this: Some startups have a simple "coming soon" page, while others offer educational or otherwise valuable content in exchange for a visitor's email address.However you choose to build your pre-launch list, it is imperative that you reach out and personally contact each and every subscriber. Strike up a conversation over email and try to schedule a phone call.
Now your job is to conduct in-depth interviews to get an even clearer understanding of customer's pain points, values and how your product might benefit them. Unlike your first round of interviews, in which you reached out to potential target customers, you’re now having conversations with customers who expressed interest in what you’re doing. That makes this stage of customer feedback even more valuable.
A smart way to build an audience, both before and after your launch, is to put out a lot of valuable content. Start blogging, put out YouTube videos, send email newsletters or give away a free ebook.Your goal as you produce and release content should be twofold: It's a great way to build your list and drive traffic to your website, but more importantly, it's another vehicle for soliciting feedback.
Include a call-to-action at the end of your blog articles, or at the end of your email newsletter, asking readers to respond with questions and comments. Monitor which articles are being shared and talked about the most.Gathering feedback on your content is a great way to learn what the most common questions, challenges and goals of your audience are. You can use this feedback to create and release even more valuable content. You can also use it to inform your copywriting and marketing messages — every bit helps.
Of course, the first feedback you're looking for is whether or not customers are pulling out their wallets and entering their credit card information. If this is not happening (within a reasonable timeframe), you might need to circle back to those conversations you had earlier. Ask for follow-up conversations with those early customers to see how their views might have changed since you launched.
Are you offering a free trial period? Use a tool like Intercom.io to monitor activity in your app and see which areas might be causing friction for customers. Reach out to those trial users to help with the onboarding process. Beyond helping them use your app, ask them questions, including.
Use this feedback to help you improve your sales funnel. Promote the benefits — as described by your customers — on your marketing website. Smooth out the onboarding process, based on what you learned by helping trial users. Make the necessary tweaks to overcome the biggest objections users have to upgrading.
Your cancellation form is one place where you should always gather feedback. Customer cancellations are a fact of life for every startup. No founder likes seeing customers leave, but cancellations present a valuable opportunity to learn what is causing dissatisfaction with your product. Add a required text input where customers must fill in their reason for canceling, and then look for patterns and plug those holes to lower your cancellation rate.
Customer support is another great place to process valuable feedback, and it's why founders should be the ones manning the customer support requests for as long as possible before outsourcing it.
Read the full story at www.ecived.com/en/!
订阅：
博文 (Atom)