Split (1)

train · 2.59M rows

text stringlengths 11 92.3k
Money – Is That What You Want?
As a veteran career coach, Pamela York Klainer has encountered nearly every professional challenge under the sun. Her clients range from young entrepreneurs who are nervous about making it on their own to high-powered executives who are trying to spend more time with their families. But, she says, at the root of most such problems lies one issue: money. How much of it do people really want, and what are they prepared to give up in order to get it?
A money autobiography helps to pinpoint that discontinuity. The owner of a marketing firm, for instance, recently came to Klainer to express concern that she was unhappy with how hard she was working. This woman, who was in her forties, wanted to spend more time with her family — yet she was constantly pushing herself to meet high financial goals. Thanks to an inheritance from her parents, she was already worth several million dollars. But she wouldn’t allow herself to touch that fortune until she had amassed one of her own. When Klainer asked her why, the executive seemed at a loss: “It was just a rule that she’d made for herself,” Klainer says.
While writing her money autobiography, this executive realized that she was trying to “measure up to her parents,” who were self-made millionaires, says Klainer. “Using an inheritance to make your life easier wasn’t seen as a legitimate thing to do.” Now this executive is reevaluating her self-imposed “rule” and thinking about donating some of her wealth to a charity.
In fact, many clients discover that they are living by rules about money that were handed down to them by their parents — and that no longer apply. Barbara Moore, 48, started seeing Klainer last November. Two years after she launched her own Internet-consulting business, Moore was plagued with doubts. She was earning enough to maintain her lifestyle, but her income was less than it had been when she was assistant director of libraries at the University of Rochester.
When Moore wrote her money autobiography, she began to see that she was defining success in the same way that her Depression-era parents — one a professor, the other a high-school teacher — had defined it. “To them, you always had to make more money every year, and you never quit a well-paying job,” she says.
Writing a money autobiography can help you understand your attitudes about money and how they affect your life. To help you get started, Pamela York Klainer offers three suggestions.
Start at the beginning. When do you first remember having money? What tone did your family’s discussions assume when money was the subject? Search through your childhood memories; then work your way up to the present. You don’t have to tell your story chronologically, but early experiences with money often lay the groundwork for adult behavior.
Contact Pamela York Klainer by email ([email protected]).
A version of this article appeared in the May 1999 issue of Fast Company magazine.
A $1.5 million Pagani Zonda registered in Monaco spun out of control at 199 mph earlier this week on Italy's A10 autostrada. Miraculously, the young Italian-Argentine-German driver survived, but sadly, the black Zonda F gave its life so he might hoon catastrophically another day.
According to reports, forensics have revealed that the driver — a German citizen — lost control at approximately 320 km/h (198.8 mph), sending the $1.5 million supercar into a spin. It hit a guardrail on its right side, lost a wheel, overturned and shot across the roadway, where it collided with a Mercedes — with whom the driver was apparently racing — and came to rest on the opposite guardrail. Both the 28-year-old driver and his 21-year-old Lithuanian passenger were unhurt.
An Italian-Argentine citizen of Germany in a Monaco-registered Pagani Zonda F? Again, thanks to a carbon-composite safety cell, Darwin ignores the baller rich.
Thanks to Giordi for the tip!
Sigd marks the biblical union between the Jewish people and God.
Every year, thousands of Ethiopians from all over Israel congregate in Jerusalem to pray together, led by their religious leaders, the "Kessim." They recite prayers marking the desire for 'return to Jerusalem', while overlooking the old city.
(MENAFN - PRLog) GirlFights.Club, Ltd. announced today the feature film, previously known as GirlFight: Model Kombat, will now be known as Girl Blood Sport.
The Web site provides a link to an 8-page colorized press book with several screenshots depicting girls engaged in fight poses, fight and death scenes, what to expect, an introduction to the ring girls called "cage girls," in the film, a behind-the-scenes look into the construction of the fight cage encapsulating the girl fights in the film, and interviews with Lindsey McComb and Chelsi. The IMDB page appears to be under construction but lists Russell Brown as the director/producer and a run time boasting over 130 minutes from a previously-announced 76-minute run time.
According to IMDB, the synopsis of the film: "Chaos follows a deadly duo of maniac assassins after they host a brutal, no-holds-barred tournament inside a sinister steel cage surrounded by razor-sharp barb-wire after luring hungry, aspiring models into the backwoods of Columbus, Ohio with a prize too good to be true. Just as they turn the tide on each other, a mysterious and haunting violent vixen, literally with an ax to grind threatens their status as deadly assassins in this blood-soaked, sweat-drenched nightmare you'll never forget. Inspired by shockingly true events."
Several videos can be found on IMDB and a google search returned an online presence.
Matching listings for DVDs and Blu-rays on Amazon.com and IMDB indicate a release date of April 20, 2020.
For more information, visit the official movie web site at http://www.GirlBloodSport.com .
It seems industries are being disrupted at an ever-faster pace. The threat and opportunity presented by the emergence of cheaper, faster, better innovations has captured the attention of established firms, hopeful startups and investors of all kinds. But while cheaper, faster, better often wins, it doesn't necessarily win right away.
The tale of digital music offers a powerful lesson in how and why we need to grasp the ecosystem surrounding an innovation if we hope to understand disruption.
In 1978, engineers at Sony successfully married a compact playback device with lightweight headphones to create the prototype for a product that would become a worldwide smash. In 1979, the Walkman was introduced in the Japanese market, selling out its entire stock of 30,000 units in three months.
For a decade after its launch, the Walkman retained a 50% market share in the U.S. (46% in Japan) in a space teeming with competition, even with a price premium of about $20 over rivals' offers.
In the late 1990s, when the sun had set on cassettes as the preferred music-delivery format in favor of compact discs and, for the technologically savvy, digital MP3 files. But electronics firms worldwide were betting that the CD would soon follow the cassette to extinction. Which MP3 player would get there first and become the next Walkman?
In 1998, South Korea's Saehan Information Systems created the first portable digital audio player, called MPMan. It sold 50,000 units globally the first year. By the launch of the iPod in 2001, about 50 portable MP3 players were available in the U.S.—and no firm had achieved anything near the dominance that the Walkman had enjoyed 20 years earlier.
The story was very different for MP3s than it had been for the Walkman and cassettes. You couldn't buy them in traditional retail settings. Downloading an album—legally or not—could be a multihour affair. It didn't matter that MPMan was first—it wouldn't have mattered if it was sixth, 23rd, or 42nd. Without the widespread availability of MP3s and broadband, the value proposition couldn't come together.
The MP3 player market did eventually consolidate around one product: Apple's iPod. But the iPod, launched in late 2001—three years after MPMan—was anything but a first mover. How can we understand the iPod's victory, despite its delayed entry?
Apple waited, and then waited some more. It finally made its move, putting the last two pieces in place to create a winning innovation: an attractive, simple device supported by smart software.
Steve Jobs knew that, on its own, the MP3 player was useless. He understood that, for the device to have value, other co-innovators in the MP3 player ecosystem first needed to be aligned. And, in October 2001, when Apple announced the iPod, those pieces were finally in place: Both MP3s and broadband were widely available.
The first-generation iPod for Macintosh retailed at $399, had 5GB of capacity, and could store up to 1,000 songs. It boasted an intuitive interface design and was, for its time, lightweight. But the value of the device was cemented by its seamless integration with the iTunes music management software. Despite being available only for Mac users, the iPod was the fastest-selling MP3 player ever.
In April 2003, Apple announced the iTunes Music Store, an online retail hub where customers could browse and buy music for 99 cents a song (or $9.99 an album).
By 2005, the iTunes library had grown to 1.5 million songs. Apple would make scant profit from selling songs at 99 cents per download and 10 percent commission. By the end of 2009, it had sold nearly 8 billion songs, but that translated to revenue of just $800 million—before accounting for the store's operational costs. That's trivial when compared with $22 billion in iPod sales at that time. Nevertheless, the iTunes store gave the iPod legitimacy in a world of shady MP3 accessibility.
According to NPD Group, sales of portable CD players were still more than double those of MP3 players during the holiday season of 2004. But between the third quarters of 2004 and 2005, sales of the iPod rocketed 616%. As the same customer base kept repurchasing new and better iPods, Apple's profits also soared: By 2008, it had captured 48% of the MP3 player market. SanDisk's Sansa MP3 player was the iPod's closest competitor, with 8% market share.
Few would deny that the iPod is a great product, surpassing any other MP3 player offering. But six times better? After all, Apple was three years late. But perhaps that logic should be flipped: Perhaps everyone else was three years too early. Jobs tended to be late for everything because he wanted everything to be ready for him (we saw that again with the iPhone).
In 2008, reflecting on catching technology waves, he said, "Things happen fairly slowly, you know. They do. These waves of technology, you can see them way before they happen, and you just have to choose wisely which ones you're going to surf. If you choose unwisely, then you can waste a lot of energy, but if you choose wisely, it actually unfolds fairly slowly. It takes years."
Jobs's discipline paid off. In the three years between the launch of MPMan and the iPod, each element in the MP3 player ecosystem turned from red to green. Instead of waiting at the red light with everyone else—wasting precious resources and time—Apple drove right on through a green light toward the finish line, becoming, according to The Economist, "the Walkman of the early 21st century."
Ron Adner is professor of strategy and entrepreneurship at theTuck School of Business at Dartmouth College. This text is adapted from his book, The Wide Lens: A New Strategy for Innovation.
If the New York Times account is to be credited, McCain should stick with the “Maliki was ‘inartful’” explanation. “Mistranslated and taken out of context” is not gonna fly.
[T]he interpreter for the interview works for Mr. Maliki’s office, not the magazine. And in an audio recording of Mr. Maliki’s interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Mr. Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Mr. Obama’s position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence.
As I’ve mentioned before, Maliki, of the Shiite Dawa Party which opposed the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq in the first place, has long-standing ties to Iran and Syria — and has expressed support for Hezbollah. The only thing that surprises me about this story is that anyone is surprised.
There are many factors, but I see them in the following order. First, there is the political rapprochement we have managed to achieve in central Iraq. This has enabled us, above all, to pull the plug on al-Qaida. Second, there is the progress being made by our security forces. Third, there is the deep sense of abhorrence with which the population has reacted to the atrocities of al-Qaida and the militias. Finally, of course, there is the economic recovery.
Notice: No credit to or thanks for the efforts and sacrifices of the United States and our armed forces, much less the surge. In fact, Maliki’s major observation about American troops, other than that he wants them out of Iraq “as soon as possible,” is that he wants the power to prosecute them for “offences or crimes committed by US soldiers against our population” – a major sticking point in negotiations over a status of forces agreement.
New York, NY, April 1, 2015 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today called upon state legislatures to halt consideration of “religious freedom” laws that have been perverted to empower businesses to discriminate against the LGBT community and others.
ADL urged Congress and the 17 states with existing Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (“RFRA”) to revise these laws to ensure they cannot be used to discriminate or harm others.
ADL is an ardent advocate for religious freedom, but America’s protections for free exercise of religion were never intended to be a sword to harm or discriminate against others.
While we are pleased that Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas has urged his state legislature to change a recently passed bill, we urge him to veto the current problematic version, which is similar to Indiana’s controversial new “religious freedom” law.
ADL also calls on state legislatures deliberating a similar measure to cease consideration of them. And in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s deeply troubling Hobby Lobby decision, we urge Congress and states with existing RFRAs to review, and if necessary amend, their laws to ensure they cannot be used to discriminate or harm the rights of others.
We have been pleased to see the outpouring of objections to these bills, particularly by the business community, which recognizes and values the importance of equality in their communities.
Indiana’s new law and the Arkansas legislation are part of a multiyear trend by state legislatures to move forward “religious freedom” bills that empower businesses to discriminate based on religious belief.
Although such bills appear to primarily target the LGBT community, businesses could use them to deny service based on religion, gender or ethnicity. Last year, at least eight such measures were filed in state legislatures. All but Mississippi’s failed when an Arizona bill – similar to the new Indiana law – was vetoed under intense pressure from civil rights groups and major business interests. So far this year, 14 state bills have been filed.
Contrary to claims of proponents, the Indiana, Arkansas and other state measures are not the same as the 1993 federal RFRA.
ADL supported the federal law because it was a shield to protect the religious exercise of individuals and faith-based institutions from government infringement. It was never intended to apply to for-profit businesses or be raised as a defense in private disputes. However, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 Hobby Lobby decision extended federal RFRA protections to for-profit, close corporations, and served as the impetus for even broader, problematic state bills that have come in reaction to progress on marriage equality.
Last month the ADL submitted a statement to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice outlining the detrimental implications of the Hobby Lobby decision and misinterpretation of the federal RFRA.
Mexico City just launched a massive experiment in digital democracy. It is asking its nearly 9 million residents to help draft a new constitution through social media.
The crowdsourcing exercise is unprecedented in Mexico—and pretty much everywhere else. Chilangos, as locals are known, can petition for issues to be included in the constitution through Change.org (link in Spanish), and make their case in person if they gather more than 10,000 signatures. They can also annotate proposals by the constitution’s drafters via PubPub, an editing platform (Spanish) similar to Google Docs.
There’s a big catch, however. The constitutional assembly—the body that has the final word on the new city’s basic law—is under no obligation to consider any of the citizen input. And then there are the practical difficulties of collecting and summarizing the myriad of views dispersed throughout one of the world’s largest cities.
That makes Mexico City’s public-consultation experiment a big test for the people’s digital power, one being watched around the world.
Fittingly, the idea of crowdsourcing a constitution came about in response to an attempt to limit people power.
However, trying to retain some control, the Mexican congress decided that only 60% of the delegates to the city’s constitutional assembly would be elected by popular vote. The rest will be assigned by the president, congress, and Mancera, the mayor. Mancera is also the only one who can submit a draft constitution to the assembly.
Mancera’s response was to create a committee of some 30 citizens (Spanish), including politicians, human-rights advocates, journalists, and even a Paralympic gold medalist, to write his draft. He also called for the development of mechanisms to gather citizens’ “aspirations, values, and longing for freedom and justice” so they can be incorporated into the final document.
The mechanisms, embedded in an online platform (Spanish) that offers various ways to weigh in, were launched at the end of March and will collect inputs until September 1. The drafting group has until the middle of that month to file its text with the assembly, which has to approve the new constitution by the end of January.
Mexico City didn’t have a lot of examples to draw on, since not a lot of places have experience with crowdsourcing laws. In the US, a few local lawmakers have used Wiki pages and GitHub to draft bills, says Marilyn Bautista, a lecturer at Stanford Law School who has researched the practice. Iceland—with a population some 27 times smaller than Mexico City’s—famously had its citizens contribute to its constitution with input from social media. The effort failed after the new constitution got stuck in parliament.
Most Mexicans, 66%, consider there is little or no respect for the law.
Half of them see democracy as a system in which everyone participates but few benefit.
Nearly a third have no trust in the federal government at all, and more than 40% distrust political parties and lawmakers.
More than 70% don’t trust their fellow Mexicans.
To engage with its jaded residents, the city built the site with eye-catching drone video of the city.
And it’s been posting videos on YouTube of members of the drafting committee, encouraging citizens to participate. One of the drafters, Carlos Cruz—a former gang member who has created several programs to keep youth from getting involved in organized crime—talks about raising the minimum wage and reducing inequality (Spanish).
Kiosks where citizens can participate.
There are various levels of participation on offer, from ranking the city’s biggest problems in an online survey to making detailed comments on draft proposals. For people without internet access, 300 computer kiosks have been set up throughout the city with staff to guide them through the process.
“For this to be awesome, there have to be hundreds of thousands of answers,” said Diego Cuesy, a city policy analyst who helped build the platform.
Convincing chilangos to share their views is just the first step, though. Then comes the task of making sense of the cacophony that will likely emerge. Some of the input can be very easily organized—the results of the survey, for example, are being graphed in real time. But there could be thousands of documents and comments on the Change.org petitions and the editing platform.
Ideas are grouped into 18 topics, such as direct democracy, transparency and economic rights. They are prioritized based on the amount of support they’ve garnered and how relevant they are, said Bernardo Rivera, an adviser for the city. Drafters get a weekly delivery of summarized citizen petitions.
The drafting group has pledged to respond to petitions on Change.org with more than 5,000 signatures, and to have a few of its members meet with petitioners who gather more than 10,000. More than 50,000 signatures earns an audience with the full committee.
An essay about human rights on the PubPub platform.
The most elaborate part of the system is PubPub, an open publishing platform similar to Google Docs, which is based on a project originally developed by MIT’s Media Lab. The drafters are supposed to post essays on how to address constitutional issues, and potentially, the constitution draft itself, once there is one. Only they—or whoever they authorize—will be able to reword the original document.
User comments and edits are recorded on a side panel, with links to the portion of text they refer to. Another screen records every change, so everyone can track which suggestions have made it into the text. Members of the public can also vote comments up or down, or post their own essays.
In nearly three weeks, Change.org has collected more than 200 petitions, which have been signed by more than 10,000 people. So far the most popular, with some 3,500 supporters, calls for politicians to be considered service providers, not staffers, and to be paid only for the time they work and “not for weeks when all they are seen doing is sleeping or playing with their iPads.” The next most popular is about animal rights.
Meanwhile, on PubPub, only one member of the drafting group has published a document—a dense academic essay on the legal framework the city should use to protect human rights—which has picked up two annotations. A group of university students has added around 20 texts, though most of them remain unedited.
To be fair, it’s early days yet. Things may pick up as more events are held to get citizens engaged. But even if many of them participate, says Antonio Martínez, a digital rights lawyer, there’s nothing spelling out how the inflow of ideas will influence the drafting group’s decisions. “It’s a bit of a show,” he says.
Others argue that there’s still value in the platform even if all the citizen comments end up in some lawmaker’s drawer. Luis Fernández, president of Participating for Mexico, an NGO, says it will help generate discussion. “The more information there is about the topics that have to be incorporated, the more information sources constitutional delegates will have to better do their job,” he said.
Cuesy, from the city, admits that it’s hard to track whether and how citizens’ digital input can modify officials’ views and behavior. It’s a question that the city is trying to answer through the experiment. “We’re going through a learning curve,” he said.
CALGARY, Alberta (AP) The Flames are alone in first place heading into the new year thanks to a big game from their best players.
Johnny Gaudreau and Matthew Tkachuk each scored twice and added two assists, propelling Calgary to an 8-5 victory over the San Jose Sharks on Monday night.
Sean Monahan had five assists for the Flames, a career high for points in one game. Gaudreau and Tkachuk tied their career bests.
"I was happy with the way our team played," Gaudreau said. "It was going back and forth and back and forth for a little, but found a way to take it over in the third and get a big team win."
Calgary never trailed and finished 2018 atop the Pacific Division, two points up on Vegas and three ahead of the Sharks.
Mikael Backlund had two early goals and Elias Lindholm and James Neal also scored for the Flames, who improved to 8-1-3 in their last 12 home games. Lindholm set a career high with his 18th goal and added two assists.
"Our first line is contributing and driving the bus, but a lot of guys chipped in today and that was big for the team, too," Backlund said.
Joonas Donskoi had two goals to lead San Jose. Lukas Radil, Brent Burns and Joe Thornton also scored, but the Sharks lost in regulation for just the second time in 11 games (7-2-2).
"Every time we scored, they answered," captain Joe Pavelski said. "It was one of those weird nights where everything that was directed at the net found the way in."
Lindholm gave Calgary a 5-3 lead with 27 seconds left in the second period on a pretty goal. Gaudreau raced down the right wing before stopping sharply, then sending a pass across the slot to Lindholm, who one-timed it past goalie Aaron Dell.
Donskoi's second of the night, 48 seconds into the third, drew the Sharks back within a goal, but Calgary restored its two-goal cushion on the first goal in 25 games for Neal.
His fourth of the season and first since Nov. 1 was a lucky one. Sam Bennett patiently circled the Sharks end with the puck before firing it across the slot and banking it in off Neal's skate.
"Great play by Benny and it felt good to see it go in," said Neal, who hit a post in the second period. "As of late, when you're getting shots and you're getting back into your groove, I think it's visible, as a player and spectators watching, I think you can see my game start to get going a little bit more. It was a nice break."
Three minutes later, goals 41 seconds apart from Gaudreau - his 20th and 21st of the season - made it 8-4 and put the game away.
It was a feisty game throughout and tempers flared in the final minute. With 41 seconds left, all 10 skaters on the ice got involved in a melee in the Flames end. Then, with 23 seconds to go, a hit from Bennett on Radim Simek crumpled the Sharks defenseman, and Barclay Goodrow jumped in to fight Bennett, who was assessed a match penalty.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.