 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
(via -
Variety.com ) I read it on 02/08/10 at 09:10 PM
Posted on 02/08/10 at 10:36 PM
|
TV News: 'Big Bang' actor takes NAB TV Chairman's Award -- Thesp Jim Parsons will receive the NAB Television Chairman's Award for his role as theoretical physicist Sheldon Cooper on "The Big Bang Theory."
Tags: nab award bang chairman big
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(via -
TechStartups.com ) I read it on 11/14/09 at 08:52 PM
Posted on 11/11/09 at 04:34 PM
|
By Senior Editor Kris Smith (@croncast)
If you are looking for a meetup with more brainpower than horsepower you need to be in New York next week. Don't come for Web 2.0 East, come for the Augmented Reality Lounge being hosted by and at Portner Novelli on November 17th at 7:00 p.m..
In this room will be some of the brightest stars from the Augmented Reality and Semantic worlds. You heard that right, AR and Semantic nerds in one room. Two of the most powerful forces that are shaping how the next web will be architected and delivered both on pc's and mobile. The work of both groups will be the defining factors in how you experience the world around you.
If you would take part in shaping the future of the internet, these are the folks you should meet and talk to. Many of them are going to be in town for a panel on AR at the Web 2Open, an unconference event at the Web 2.0 Conference. The others are based in New York and take part in the Semantic Web Meetup Group. That group is organized by one of the AR panelists and semantic technologist, Marco Neumann (@neumarcx).
Other members of this panel include:
This meetup before the event is the brainchild of John C. Havens (@johnchavens), the author of the book and blog Tactical Transparency and lead organizer for the first PodCamp NYC that helped to define all that followed. John has a strong interest in Augmented Reality and saw the obvious ties between the AR world and the Semantic side that I was talking to him non-stop about.
The Augmented Reality Lounge is an event that Marco described as:
The Semantic Web is an ideal candidate to become the fabric for Augmented Reality applications in the near future. The global availability of HTTP and the flexibility of RDF, the foundational framework for the Semantic Web, make it a perfect match for distributed, heterogeneous and networked applications that can help to enable emergent Augmented Reality services.
Believe me, if there is an iteration of the web that you should be a part of it is this one. The foundation that is being built from semantic data and the interaction with the real world that augmented reality presents is one that your ideas should be a part of.
DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL CONNECTION: http://cmp.ly/4
Shape the Next Web Next Week with Augmented Reality and the Semantic Web is a post from: TechStartups.com
Tags: augmented reality , augmented reality panel , augmented semantic data , john c havens , john havens , marco neumann , new york semantic meetup , podcamp nyc , porter novelli , semantic web , tactical transparency , web 2open 
Tags: web semantic augmented reality meetup
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(via -
ksmith at filome created the group "AA - Taminania Science" | www.filome.com ) I read it on 09/28/09 at 05:28 AM
Posted on 09/28/09 at 08:24 AM
|
Publisher - homepage First shared by - tamihania syndication+ 0 | Search 1 | Shares 1
Last week, the new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Julius Genachowski, broke with precedent by proposing federal rules that enforce Net neutrality the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) shouldn't play favorites with the traffic traveling over their networks.
Proponents argue that Net neutrality promotes innovation. If software developers find more efficient ways to use the Internet, the argument goes, they shouldn't fear reprisal from ISPs that sell competing products. Broadband providers that also offer landline phone service shouldn't degrade the quality of Internet telephone calls in order to preserve their market share; the same goes for cable companies and Internet video.
But ISPs argue that they sometimes need to throttle back traffic sent by heavy users. Otherwise, they say, the network will become congested and slow to a crawl; thousands of casual users will pay the price for a few customers sucking up a disproportionate share of bandwidth. If they lose the ability to regulate traffic, the ISPs argue, they'll have to greatly increase network capacity and their customers will bear the cost.
David Clark, a researcher in the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory who for most of the 1980s was the Internet's chief architect, has been following the Net neutrality debate for decades and spoke with the News Office about the FCC's proposed rules.
Q: In what respect do ISPs have a legitimate concern?
The Internet is not, in terms of cost for byte, terribly expensive, but neither is it free. You can find some numbers reported informally in the press, and I think the numbers are somewhat reasonable, that for a residential ISP to deliver another gigabyte of information to you, the cost in terms of the investment they make in facilities allocated to that gigabyte is about ten cents. So if I watch Internet television eight hours a day every day of the month, I'm probably generating several dollars in cost. It's not several hundred dollars in cost; it's several dollars in cost. But that's probably the ISP's profit margin.
Q: So what can the ISP do?
A while back Comcast announced that they were putting a monthly cap on their Internet users over the cable system. The cap they announced was 250 gigabytes a month. And nobody blinked, because that's maybe 50 or 100 times what the average Internet user was doing.
What if I said to you, okay, for $40 a month, which is what most people pay today, I'm going to do something much more restrictive than what Comcast did: you can transfer 100 gigabytes? For $50 a month, we'll take the cap off, and you can transfer as much as you want. For an additional $10, would the high-end guys be willing to do that? A lot of people today pay a little extra to get a higher peak rate; many people subscribe to a premium version of Internet service. I think most people would say, if the high-end people are paying an extra $10 a month, that's not burdensome..
People's fear in this space is that if we take one step away from the current pricing model of all-you-can-eat flat pricing, that the world will end. All of a sudden we'll be paying by the byte, which I think everyone understands will be a real inhibitor of experimentation on the market.
Q: But why is a usage cap any better than paying by the byte?
I was talking to somebody in a school district, and they said, look, we couldn't possibly afford a per-byte charge because some kid could come and get a program running on the computer and leave it running over the weekend and blow our entire year's budget.
I really think that's the point. The user at home wants to be protected from amazing overage charges. His computer goes into a loop, or it has a virus, and the computer has five days where it does nothing but splash data out full time, and you get a bill at the end of the month for $5,000. That's what terrifies everybody. But in the wireless space, many of the broadband services are fixed price with a usage cap, and the market deals with that much better than with a per-byte charge. Because nobody knows with an Internet application how many bytes it sends. Will this cost me a penny or a dime or a dollar? But they can average over a month. They look at the bill: I sent three gigabytes last month. The cap was five. Okay! They can deal with that.
The only question is, when usage caps come in, will they be done in a reasonable way, or will lack of competitive discipline allow ISPs to try things that are really pretty abusive?
Q: But given that many cable providers and phone companies are basically local monopolies, is there enough competition to provide that pressure?
As a rule of thumb, it's nice to see four or five competitors in a market. And we only have two wireline [phone and cable] in most markets. So you might say that two isn't really enough. On the other hand, when I watch Comcast and Verizon, in our serving area here, slugging it out on television with their ads, boy there's a lot of competition going on there. Just observing what I've seen on television, they believe that they're in a very competitive situation. Comcast just sent me a note that said, "We've upgraded your service." Why'd they do that? Because they're subjected to the pressures of competition.
Q: One of Chairman Genachowski's comments that's gotten a lot of attention is that Net neutrality rules will apply to wireless services as well. What do you see happening there?
Spectrum is more scarce than, say, the capacity on the fiber to your house. When you get into a heavily used cell where a number of people are trying to do bit-rate-intensive things, there are going to be real issues in managing that scarcity and allocating it. I quoted you a number of what it cost to do a gigabyte: that number applies to an Internet service provider that's large, that's got scale, and that's probably operating in a metropolitan or suburban area. People don't want to show you their exact business models, but I've seen situations that look like that number for a rural wireless provider was more like a dollar a gigabyte.
I think the thing we're going to debate in the wireless space is whether or not there are classes of behaviors that seem to be associated with classes of applications. Should those behaviors be limited? Whether the wireless guys will say, "Look, you just can't watch as much video as you want." And they can do that in two ways. One of them is, they can say you have a monthly cap of three gigabytes. Go crazy! You want to watch video, you can blow out your monthly quota in about two days. And then you're going to be cranky. Or they could say, we're going to block certain video applications. I'm in favor of a usage cap over application-specific discrimination. Because the usage cap really does reflect to some extent what the ISP's cost structure is. Give the consumer choice.
internet cap cost month say
Tags: internet cap cost month say
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(via -
Mashable | The Social Media Guide ) I read it on 09/09/09 at 09:58 AM
Posted on 09/09/09 at 01:17 PM
|
 If you're one of the many enterprise (and increasingly, small business) users of Socialtext, you'll be excited about today's Socialtext Mobile beta launch news. If you're in the market for an Enterprise 2.0 solution for your business, there's even more reason to get Socialtext on your roadmap.
In addition to a mobile web-based application rolling out free to all customers, there are also three new dashboard widgets launching in the Socialtext web app that bring activity streams to the fore as a primary focus. The new widgets display not only what's most recent but also which content and people are most active, as well as offering a set of other powerful attention filters to help surface the most important activity happening in your workspaces and teams.
Starting out as primarily a wiki company back in 2002, Socialtext has grown to include a buffet of collaboration tools for the enterprise including blogging, microblogging, social spreadsheets, people profiles, activity streams, and a dashboard that pulls everything together in one view.
The Socialtext Desktop is an Adobe AIR client application for interfacing with Socialtext think of it like Tweetdeck or Seesmic Desktop for Twitter. The newly launching Socialtext Mobile app has a similar interface so will feel familiar to users of the desktop app, as well as sharing many of its features.
Although the mobile app has only been tested thoroughly for the iPhone, Android and BlackBerry platforms, since it is a browser application and not a platform-specific client it should work well in most full-featured browsers for other platforms including Windows Mobile and Symbian. That's one of the reasons the app will officially be considered in beta, so there will be more time to test the remaining platforms with a larger user base.
When asked why Socialtext decided to go the web app route instead of the platform-specific route, President and Chairman Ross Mayfield indicated in an interview that quicker time to market and lower overall cost were the driving factors. It's a lower development and support cost not just for us, but for our customers as well, who at the enterprise level would otherwise need to support multiple platforms instead of a single web app.
To access the app, all current Socialtext customers need to do is log into Socialtext from a mobile device, and the system will detect and direct you to Socialtext Mobile. For teams and businesses interested in giving Socialtext's approach to collaboration a try, the hosted service is free for up to 50 users with some restrictions. The goal with both the web and mobile applications is essentially to go beyond the push mechanism of the email inbox and use activity streams to connect with colleagues in real-time, from anywhere.
Let us know if you have a chance to try out Socialtext Mobile, and give us your thoughts on the beta version.
Reviews: Android, Seesmic Desktop, TweetDeck, Twitter, adobe AIR
Tags: activity streams, android, blackberry, Enterprise 2.0, iphone, Mobile 2.0, real-time, socialtext, wikis
Tags: socialtext mobile app activity web
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(via -
Wired: Epicenter ) I read it on 07/22/09 at 02:48 PM
Posted on 07/22/09 at 05:31 PM
|
File sharing veteran Limewire released a new version of its gnutella/bit torrent client Wednesday that lets users share files with their Facebook friends, download files faster via bit torrent, and seed files back into the bit torrent network.
Version 5.2 also revamps the program's private sharing feature, launched in December. Rather than sharing each file with specific people, you can now create a list of files to share with all of your personal contacts, making it easier to share vacation photos, videos and so on while keeping any potentially racier content private.
Rather than creating its own social network, Limewire put its hooks into the networks people already use, which is a wise strategy. Between twitter, blogs, email, Facebook, instant messaging, text messaging, and something called a telephone, we hardly need another way to keep tabs on our friends.
Those who prefer to organize media on their own computers, rather than trusting it to Flickr, Vimeo and so on, will likely appreciate the way Limewire lets them serve media directly to their friends, even if the hey, I just shared something with you alert comes through another service (i.e. Facebook).
The main drawback to Limewire's private sharing feature is that both users need to be running Limewire at the same time in order to share. If Limewire's creators intend for us to keep the app running at all times, they might want to think about creating separate preferences for maximum upload speed for friends and maximum upload stream for strangers, to avoid running up against ISP file bandwidth limits. Limewire product manager Nathan Lovejoy told us via phone that he'll consider adding that suggestion to a future version.
Tags: limewire files sharing friends share
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(via -
NPR Topics: News ) I read it on 07/21/09 at 04:08 PM
Posted on 07/21/09 at 08:00 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
(via -
NewTeeVee ) I read it on 07/18/09 at 11:42 AM
Posted on 07/17/09 at 04:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
(via -
Gizmodo ) I read it on 07/17/09 at 12:42 PM
Posted on 07/17/09 at 04:00 PM
|
You think you enjoyed Blu-ray vs HD DVD? Memory Stick vs SD? Pshaw! You haven't seen a format war until you've witnessed the betrayal and bloodbath that was Betamax vs VHS. Sony was supposed to win this. The company made magnetic tape out of like paper and mud back in the 1940s, turned out a "pocketable" transistor radio in the 1950s, and invented the "portable" television by 1960. They had their first video tape recorder by 1963. They weren't the only ones, but they were among the first and best. The so-called VTR business had a rocky start. The things were hulking bastards, with huge price tags and poor recording capability. A company called Ampex put out the first "home entertainment" VTR in 1963, only it cost $30,000 in the Neiman Marcus Christmas catalog, and was nicknamed Grant's Tomb because the product manager who thought it up was going to be shoved inside by the company's accountants. (He would have fit, too, the thing was so big.) Sony comes along in the middle of that decade and puts out a $1,200 "portable" VTR that came with a leatherette case and its own TV. It still weighed 65 pounds. The worst part about these 1960s VTRs was that they were basically reel-to-reelyou had to thread your own 1-inch videotape through spools and stuff, and by the end of the decade, a one-hour spool of tape was like 8 inches in diameter. Can you imagine your TiVo needing 180 spools of videotape to get the job done? As Sony toiled on the videotape problem, Matsushitawho we now call Panasonicand its independent subsidiary JVC weren't really standing out in the VTR business. Let's say this: Nobody would have guessed they'd be able to overthrow Sony and kick mecha ass within the decade. However, these guys were among the biggest manufacturers, dwarfing Sony many times over. Matsushita, known for efficiency, not innovation, tended to focus on big boring appliancesTVs, refrigerators, air conditionerswith a smaller team, branded Technics, devoted to dominating the hi-fi realm. JVC was all about TVs and audio gear, and had decent video know-how. It was Sony who solved the reel-to-reel problem withta daaa!a video cassette. It was called U-Matic, and at 3/4" thick, it was smaller than the earlier formats, but still a bit of a chunkster. Since video was a bit of a Wild West, Sony felt like it needed partners to firmly establish a format, and to avoid a format war. It asked Matsushita and JVC, who said "yes" as long as Sony adopted some changes. They key here: The partnership included a deal where everybody shared all the patents. Turns out, probably not the smartest move by Sony. Sony was right to form a posse, though. Every single electronics maker in Japan, Europe and America was trying to build a video recorder. Some American firms were obsessed with lasers (though ironically it would later be the Dutch and Japanese firms who actually put lasers to good use); other American firms were jazzed about microfilm...for video. None of them had success. Before we get on with the story, here's a list of totally failed video players and recorders: Matsushita VX-100 and VX-2000 Matsushita AutoVision Toshiba/Sanyo V-Cord Ampex InstaVision MCA DiscoVision/Magnavox Magnavision CBS Electronic Video Recording RCA HoloTape Sears/Cartridge Television Cartrivision See what I mean? A friggin' mess it was. Part of the problem was the message. Nobody knew what the hell this was all about. Sony wasn't just a pioneer in the technology, they thought hard about how to explain why you totally desperately want something bad. At one point, Sony hired Bela Lugosi to dress up one last time as Dracula, and explain that, since he worked nights, he needed to catch up on primetime shows when he got home. Get it? Vampiresthey're out killing people when Barney Miller is playing! It was a good bit, and there were a lot more like it. Little by little, the public caught on to what VCRs were for. Anyway, U-Matic, launched in 1971, wasn't a runaway success, either, but it was the bestselling video recorder to date, and the first successful VCR. In the realm of pro video, it was hot. Sony cashed in by steering from the home market to the businesses but JVC, who kept trying to pitch it for home use, got hosed. Like villains in some Shakespearean play, Matsushita and JVC kinda lurked in the background, planning for the next round when they might one-up that little charmer, Sony. The name of their plot? Video Home System, which you and I call VHS. Sony was naive. Like, crazy naive. In 1974, it asked Matsushita and JVC to partner up again, this time on a fully baked format called Betamax. They weren't asking for intellectual collaboration, just a deal to make and sell the things. It was a nice system, with really small tapes, but the problem was, the tapes only recorded for an hour. Sony was like, "That's not a problem," but everyone else was like, "Yes, it is." The would-be partners dragged their heels suspiciously, not signing any deals. Sony kinda thought that was weird, but went ahead and launched the one-hour Betamax box in 1975. Big mistake. Not long after Sony went into wide release with the one-hour Betamax, JVC pulled a two-hour VHS out of its butt. And in time for Christmas 1976 no less. Sony had another flash of naivete when it pressed on with the one-hour system for a while, even though it had a two-hour system in the works. In that gap, JVC and its big poppa Matsushita scored sales and recognition. Some people say Betamax was "better" but that depends on many factors, and could very well be an urban myth. The technologies were so close Sony's own chairman called VHS a copy of Betamax. What may have looked good in one system with certain settings might not look as good on another with different settings. And by some accounts, Betamax's more moving parts meant they were more expensive to manufacture and more costly to maintain and repair. It's not an open-and-shut case of quantity vs. quality. Either way you look at it, there are compromises. By this point, it wasn't just some anything-goes contest with a million formats. By 1976, all those above had died or were dying. In Japan, there were just two choices. The Japanese government told everyone to sort it out. Hitachi, Mitsubishi and Sharp joined Team VHS, but didn't really move forward. In February 1977, Sony grabbed Toshiba and Sanyo, and then signed the American powerhouse brand Zenith up for an order of Sony-made Betamaxes with the Zenith name on them. Was it going to happen for Betamax after all? Seemed like they'd finally drawn at least a few good cards from the deck. Sony might not have been totally screwed at that moment, but there were two American powerhouses, and the other one, RCA, was undecided. Ironically, the fate of the Japanese VCR industry relied on how well it could handle the most American of sports: Football. In other words, now that both players could manage two hours of recording time, what RCA wanted was enough recording time to capture a gamethree hours would do. What transpired next is unclear. Even though, at the time, both technologies were limited to two-hour capacity, Matsushita pledged to make RCA tape machines that could record for four hours. Was this a lie? Was it vaporware? Whatever the deal, JVC engineers pulled off a four-hour capacity six weeks later, and RCA agreed to buy 55,000 machines that year, and up to a million more in the next three years. Better yet, RCA's SelectaVision VHS decks would cost $300 less than the two-hour Betamaxes, at $1000 a pop. Although Betamax hung on for a bit longer, that, boys and girls, was the end of the competition. In 1979, Sony market share tilted downward, and by 1980, the jig was up for those poor bastards. Note: I recognize that there are other issues that might have come into play here, including Universal's lawsuit of Sony, which lead to today's Supreme Court definition of fair-use copyright law, and the fact that some studios, including Warner, began squeezing movies onto videotape early, with varying degrees of success. However, I contend that none of that changed the outcomethe war above was fought between Sony and Matsushita, and Matsushita won. SOURCES: Fast Forward: Hollywood, The Japanese, and the VCR Wars - James Lardner (Special thanks to you, Jim, for chatting me through some of this) Sony - John Nathan The History of Television - Albert Abramson Sony History - Sony Global Website Made in Japan - Akio Morita Quest for Prosperity - Konosuke Matsushita [PDF] Case Report on Betamax - Verardi et al "Why VHS was better than Betamax" - Guardian UK - Jack Schofield Gizmodo '79 is a week-long celebration of gadgets and geekdom 30 years ago, as the analog age gave way to the digital, and most of our favorite toys were just being born.

Tags: sony betamax matsushita video hour
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(via -
Techdirt ) I read it on 07/16/09 at 02:24 PM
Posted on 07/16/09 at 06:48 PM
|
I have to admit that it's been really kind of sad to watch journalists with little understanding of economics or business flail around blaming the likes of Craigslist and Google (especially Google) for their own failure in building better business models. The latest is a well-written, but poorly thought-out and argued, piece by Peter Osnos, the Vice-Chairman of the Columbia Journalism Review, suggesting reasons why Google needs to pay up its "fair share" to newspapers. There are numerous problems with the logic in the piece, but they can be summarized in two basic camps: a misunderstanding of the internet and a misunderstanding of economics.
The great thing, by the way, is that the comments on the article highlight pretty much every mistake that Osnos makes -- and, of course, as is oh-so-typical in these situations, Osnos does nothing at all to engage or respond to the comments that call out his mistakes. You want to know why newspapers are failing? It's not because of Google, it's because of this viewpoint that some journalists still hold that they're the masters of the truth, handing it out from on high, wanting nothing at all to do with the riff raff in the comments.
So, what's wrong specifically with the article? Well, he uses as his basis the idea that cable companies (and their subscribers, really) pay TV networks to be carried in cable packages, and suggests that Google should be doing the same thing -- paying newspapers as if they were networks. Of course, there are a few problems there. Television is a broadcast medium with a limit on what can be provided. The economics are entirely different than a communications medium with unlimited "space" for content. Suggesting the two are the same is simply wrong. The economics are entirely different. In one case, you have significant scarcities in terms of what gets "offered." That's not the case with the internet. Ignoring that destroys Osnos' entire argument.
Even more to the point, as one of the commenters to Osnos, Kimota, notes: "It's interesting that cable television was held up as a good example of how to extract subscription fees for content. The American Customer Satisfaction Index from the University of Michigan said in 2007 that cable and satellite TV suffered 'the lowest level of customer satisfaction among all industries covered.'" When your idea of how to save the newspaper business is to take a model mostly beloved by consumers and ask it to mimic a model almost universally hated... that's a problem, right?
The second big problem with Osnos' analysis is that he doesn't appear to understand how Google makes its money. He simply looks at the fact that it's making a ton of money, while newspapers are not, and assumes that Google's actions draw in the money that should have gone to newspapers (hence the "unfairness"). But as Scott Rosenberg notes in the comments again, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Google makes its money, which has little to nothing to do with news, but in targeted advertisements on transactional searches (searches where people are looking to buy something):
Google makes its money mostly from targeted advertising on product searches and other narrow, directed searches. The advertising on news-related searches is not nearly as valuable. Google could remove all newspapers and journalism content from its Web search catalog tomorrow and lose very little of its revenue. The links to news it provides are valuable to its users but not terribly valuable to its advertisers.
Finally, Osnos makes another big mistake, common among newspaper folks, that whoever breaks the news is obviously the most valuable source. Yet, as we were just discussing, being first doesn't always mean that you have the most useful information. Related to this, Osnos complains specifically about how Sports Illustrated broke a story, but Google News pointed more people to the Huffington Post coverage of that particular story, stating:
Most galling was that The Huffington Post's use of an Associated Press version of SI's report was initially tops on Google, which meant that it, and not SI.com, tended to be the place readers clicking through to get the gist of the breaking scandal would land.... Why did The Huffington Post come up ahead of SI.com? Because, even Google insiders concede, Huffington is effective at implementing search optimization techniques, which means that its manipulation of keywords, search terms, and the dynamics of Web protocol give it an advantage over others scrambling to be the place readers are sent by search engines. What angered the people at Sports Illustrated and Time Inc. is that Google, acting as traffic conductor, seemed unmoved by their grievance over what had happened to their ownership of the story. An SI editor quoted to me Time Inc's editor-in-chief, John Huey, noting crisply that, "talking to Google is like trying to talk to a television."
This, of course, is a gross distortion of reality, and implies totally incorrectly that somehow the Huffington Post has some power over Google that SI.com could not replicate. The fact that Sports Illustrated and other publications have made bad decisions in optimizing their content isn't Google's fault. It's their own fault. Here, let me put this in terms that old "paper" folks might get: If more people go to my store than your store because I put a better ad in the Yellow pages, it's not the fault of the Yellow pages publisher. It's your fault for having a crappy ad. By doing a better job optimizing its content, the Huffington Post effectively better "advertised" itself to Google.
Of course, old school publications like Sports Illustrated could just as easily do the same thing themselves, but they haven't. On top of that, they could offer more useful features and services that attract more people such that they specifically seek out SI's coverage. But, instead, they treat the community the same way Osnos seems to: the riff raff can comment, but they aren't a part of the "real conversation" that occurs outside of the community.
Osnos wants fairness, but the system is amazingly fair. Much more fair than it ever was in the past, in fact. The problem isn't about "fairness." It's about Osnos being upset that in a level playing field pretty much everyone but the newspapers have figured out how to play the game better. What's fair is that the newspapers haven't been able to adjust and their revenue and readership is reflecting that.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Tags: google osnos newspapers huffington si
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(via -
New York on HuffingtonPost.com ) I read it on 07/10/09 at 08:28 AM
Posted on 07/10/09 at 01:10 PM
|
NEW YORK (AP) -- Behind unmarked doors on the 17th floor of a red granite high-rise known as the Lipstick Building, FBI agents still labor to unravel a case like no other.
The agents -- already there for more than six months -- say the chore is so daunting, they need to stay in the Manhattan skyscraper at least another year.
And by the way: They intend to hang on to the copy machine.
The former headquarters of Bernard Madoff are a home away from home for the FBI and, as of July 1, a leasing opportunity for any potential tenant who can stomach its status as ground zero of the largest securities swindle in history.
"Some people may see a stigma associated with it," building manager Russell Freeman said on a recent tour of the piece of the three-floor firm that's been put on the market. "But he's out of there. His bad karma has gone with him. ... Space is space."
Space once used by Madoff himself -- a fishbowl corner office with partial views of the East River -- has been emptied of most furniture and paperwork, like the rest of the 19th floor. Only a pair of built-in cabinets and a wall-mounted television, easily 10 years old, remain.
Across the room is a matching corner office where Madoff's brother Peter worked. Two smaller glass offices were for Madoff sons Andrew and Mark. Two filing cabinet drawers still bear stickers with the name "Andy Madoff."

The three men, whose names remain on an automated directory in the building lobby, oversaw a trading floor for Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities that's now a ghost town, dead silent except for the hiss of an air conditioner.
The color theme throughout -- from the refrigerator in a galley kitchen to the trading floor desks to the many conference rooms -- is the minimalist black and ash gray favored by the 71-year-old former Nasdaq chairman, one of the original tenants when the building opened in the mid-1980s.

Floors 17 through 19 became part of a crime scene later last year when the once-prominent money manager confessed that his secretive investment advisory group actually was a massive Ponzi scheme that wiped out thousands of investors. He was sentenced to 150 years in prison last month and on Thursday decided not to appeal the sentence.
The disgraced financier has claimed he alone conned clients by recycling their money to create phantom wealth. But investigators have said they suspect members of Madoff insiders were involved and have been camped out on the 17th floor searching for evidence of a wider conspiracy.
Many of the records were paper or on microfilm and date back decades. Authorities say the firm relied on an old IBM computer to churn out statements that were fictitious.
When the scandal broke, news crews and burned investors flocked to the 34-story skyscraper -- shaped like an open lipstick tube -- to measure the financial wreckage. They didn't get far: Madoff's firm had been sealed off from the public by an army of FBI agents, federal regulators and a trustee appointed to liquidate the business assets.
Since then, the trustee has sold one of Madoff's legitimate trading operations to a new broker-dealer firm that took over the 18th floor. A staircase connecting the 18th and 19th floors will be removed, Freeman said.
As for the 17th floor, trustee Irving Picard wrote in court papers that the FBI "has advised me that they will require access to the space until, at least, approximately July of 2010." It also wanted to continue using a leased Xerox copying machine there. The cost will be covered by an industry group that compensates victims of securities fraud.
Sharing the 17th floor in separate office space is a discount brokerage headed by Wall Street veteran Muriel Siebert, the first woman to buy a seat on the New York Stock Exchange in 1967 and the only tenant allowed a dog. Siebert had a sublet with Madoff and is now paying rent to the trustee.
What remains is the 16,182-square-foot 19th floor. A bankruptcy judge recently authorized the trustee to cancel the Madoff lease there through 2012 with landlord Metropolitan Real Estate Investors, creating the vacancy in a sagging commerical real estate market.
Freeman wouldn't say what Madoff paid in rent, adding that no price has been set for the floor. There have been some feelers, but no firm offers.
Any takers who don't remodel, he said, "will certainly have to like dark colors."

Tags: madoff floor space firm trustee
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|