Sorry, dear readers, but the crop circle discovered last week etched in a farmer's barley field in Chualar, California, was not created by aliens.
Instead -- surprise! -- it was a stunt intended to attract publicity to the release of a mobile processor used in automobiles, tablets and cell phones made by the computer graphics company NVIDIA, according to its president and CEO, Jen-Hsun Huang.
"It is true. The NVIDIA marketing team is behin
d this phenomenon," Huang said as he stood in front of a picture of the manicured field. "What you're looking at here is 310 feet in diameter. It is what people call a crop circle."
Huang made the announcement during a keynote address Sunday night at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.
Crop circle, strange lights spotted
"It's like, out of this world, it's practically built by aliens," Huang said, referring to the new Tegra K1 graphics chip.
Elaborate crop circle in California mowed down
Brett Murray, who works as a marketer for the company, told CNN in a telephone interview that the idea emerged during a brainstorming session in early December about how to introduce the new product.
They came up with the tag line, "Impossibly advanced," then tried to figure out how to "get some noise" around it, he said.
From "impossibly advanced" to "aliens" was not a big leap. "We eventually said, 'You know, what's graceful and alien? Crop circles.'"
They then set to work, swearing everyone to secrecy, hiring a Hollywood location scout to find "the perfect field in Northern California," and flying in a British group who have made crop circles before.
Starting buzz for the creation, the company called anonymous tip lines for news stations in the Bay Area, telling them: "Something's going on out in Chualar."
A crudely made video also popped up on YouTube purporting to show two men -- in reality, Murray and another NVIDIA employee -- getting out of a car and looking at strange lights coming from the farmer's field and then stumbling toward them.
By the morning of December 30, the news trucks were rolling in and, with them, throngs of curious onlookers. The company hired security to keep them from trampling over the farmer's fields.
Murray described the crop circle as "a puzzle out there for the world to solve."
The puzzle included clues to who was behind it -- for example, the number 192 is posted in two ways in the design -- as numbers on a clock and as a Braille representation.
That's the number of graphical processing unit cores in the new chip. At least one person appears to have figured it all out. John Van Vliet posted this at 12:16 a.m. Wednesday, January 1, on doubtfulnews.com: "The crop art really dose (sic) look like a graphics GPU chip if i had to bet ... one of the NEW CPU/GPU combos from AMD or Nvidia or intell."
Murray said he understood why the story attracted so much attention. "This is like Santa Claus," he said. "People want to believe."
Source: Edition.cnn.com/2014/01/06/tech/california-crop-circle-hoax
Sunday, 23 March 2014
Sunday, 2 March 2014
2014 Oscar predictions: Insiders' knowledge put to the test
It's that time again, time to pull out the ballots and read the tea leaves and see who's going to take home the trophies at Sunday's 86th Academy Awards.
Will it be "12 Years a Slave"? Leonardo DiCaprio? "Let It Go" from "Frozen"?
Oscar forecasting is a lighthearted parlor game for many and a "who cares" shrug for others. (Go ahead, commenters, let us know how you really feel!)
But to studios, agents, managers and many of the nominees, winning the Oscar is not only first-line-of-the-obituary recognition, but it also means "cold, hard cash," as Oscar winner Wendy Hiller once bluntly put it, in box-office receipts and future contracts.
With that in mind -- and with the possibility of some of this article's readers taking home cold, hard cash for winning their Oscar pools -- here are a few key indicators to follow at the 2014 Oscars Sunday night. Of course, the Oscars being the Oscars, nothing is guaranteed.
What are the best picture front-runners?
There may be nine nominees for best picture, but only three have a good chance of winning, says Tom O'Neil of the awards handicapping site GoldDerby.com: "12 Years a Slave," "Gravity" and "American Hustle." "12 Years" is the favorite among his 30 experts, with "Gravity" second at 10-3 odds and "Hustle" at 50-1. Everything else is 100-1.
The site TheCredits.org agrees. Its social awards season app, DataViz, crunched the numbers based on mentions on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and film-related sites. It determined that "12 Years" has 42% of the online mentions (as of February 24) and "Gravity" is second with 33%.
But, points out Clayton Davis of AwardsCircuit.com, in a year with divisive choices -- and "12 Years," though widely hailed, is not necessarily widely loved -- the preferential voting system for best picture can favor everybody's second choice. That's "Gravity," which also has the benefit of being the people's choice as the highest-grossing film among the nominees.
Film editing is your friend
Of course, best picture is the last category of the night. What are some of the early signs that one of these films has an edge?
The film editing category may seem minor to Oscar viewers, but it often has an outsized role in showcasing best picture winners. O'Neil observes that the best picture has won the editing Oscar more than half the time -- and if you rule out action-oriented flicks such as "Bullitt," "Star Wars" and "The Bourne Ultimatum," it's even more predictive.
This year's editing nominees include all three best picture front-runners along with "Captain Phillips," directed by the handheld-camera-favoring, quick-cutting Paul Greengrass, and "Dallas Buyers Club." "Gravity" is the favorite, says O'Neil, and that could foretell a spacey night. But even more notable will be if "12 Years" or "Hustle" grabs the trophy, since a win would be so unexpected. As for "Phillips," that would simply acknowledge the expertise of Greengrass and editor Christopher Rouse -- who won for "Ultimatum" six years ago.
Pressing the flesh
Though overt Oscar campaigning is frowned upon, there's nothing wrong with showing up at industry functions, saying the right things, posing for pictures and shaking a few hands.
That could make a difference in the best actor category, whose favorites are Matthew McConaughey ("Dallas Buyers Club") and Leonardo DiCaprio ("The Wolf of Wall Street").
Though both have some high-profile wins, they have yet to face off in the same category. (Both won Golden Globes, but McConaughey's was for a drama and DiCaprio's was for comedy.) And when it comes to politicking, DiCaprio has played the game well, says O'Neil, who points out that the "Wolf" star has been making the rounds with humor and class.
"When I look at the list of past winners of best actor, I see movie stars," he says. "There's kind of a veteran glow to it. With Leo being overdue, it's to his advantage -- and he's given the biggest performance of his career in the most talked-about movie of the year."
But McConaughey may have a secret weapon. No, not his extreme weight loss. Try "True Detective" on HBO, which has become an addictive hit.
"(One academy member) told me he's voting for McConaughey because he's addicted to 'True Detective,' " says O'Neil.
Technically speaking
"Gravity" is up for several technical awards, including production design, sound editing, sound mixing and visual effects. It's considered the front-runner for most of them. If it falters, it could be a long night for director Alfonso Cuaron and his film.
"If you see 'Gravity' lose some techs, it's indicative that it's not going all the way," says Davis.
A 'Slave' surprise
"12 Years a Slave" has fewer technical nominations but has a number of acting nods: best actor Chiwetel Ejiofor, best supporting actor Michael Fassbender and best supporting actress Lupita Nyong'o. Only Nyong'o is given a strong shot to win -- she's the top pick of GoldDerby's experts -- but if Fassbender and Ejiofor triumph, expect "Slave" to take it all.
Fassbender has the toughest road, says O'Neil. The academy has softened up about giving Oscars for villainous roles, but there's usually a wink involved -- think Christoph Waltz in "Inglourious Basterds" or even Anthony Hopkins in "The Silence of the Lambs." Not so for Fassbender's character, a vicious slave owner.
"He's pure Satan," says O'Neil.
Do the "Hustle"
"American Hustle" did even better among the major categories -- it's the only film nominated in the Big Six of picture, director, actor, actress, supporting actor and supporting actress. But of all the film's nominees, only Jennifer Lawrence -- who's won a Globe and a SAG Award, and who's the most popular actress in the world right now -- is considered a threat in her category, best supporting actress.
The key is probably Amy Adams, up for best actress. That category is considered a runaway for Cate Blanchett of "Blue Jasmine," but if the Woody Allen controversy has rubbed off on her, five-time nominee Adams could take the Oscar and indicate bigger things for the film about the '70s Abscam scandal.
Davis is doubtful, though. Even the Seahawks gave up a touchdown during the Super Bowl, he says.
"I'm sure she'll lose a couple votes, but not enough to matter," he says.
Watch Weinstein
Producer Harvey Weinstein is the master of awards gamesmanship. He makes high-quality, often audience-friendly films with good casts -- "Shakespeare in Love," "The Artist," Quentin Tarantino's films -- and he knows how to promote them.
This year he's putting his chips on his best picture nominee, "Philomena." The film has earned good reviews, done respectable box office and features the ageless Judi Dench. It has a good shot at adapted screenplay, which was co-written by star Steve Coogan, and Dench is a seven-time nominee who's won once before.
Along with Martin Scorsese's "The Wolf of Wall Street," it's probably the leading dark horse -- but whereas "Wolf" is divisive, "Philomena" is liked.
O'Neil thinks screenplay is possible -- "sometimes the most emotional movie wins" -- but thinks that might be it.
Still, at least "Philomena" picked up a best picture nomination. Weinstein's other major film, "August: Osage County," didn't even get that.
Splitting tickets
Finally, this is an odd handicapping year. Usually the best director has directed the best picture, but this year the handicappers are picking "Gravity's" Cuaron for best director and "12 Years a Slave" for best picture. When the two categories differ, it's a surprise, not an expectation.
Davis can't shake the feeling that voters won't split their votes -- and that will make "Gravity" the big winner. (Sorry, "12 Years" director Steve McQueen.) Cuaron not only won the top award from the Directors Guild, but "Gravity" also tied "12 Years" as the best film picked by the Producers Guild -- which, given the PGA's use of the preferential ballot, was an incredible shocker.
And O'Neil suggests another indicator: "Gravity" star Sandra Bullock, who's up for best actress.
"If 'Gravity' wins best picture, Sandra might go along for the rocket ride," he says. "She is 'Gravity' -- she's the whole movie."
One sure thing?
This won't predict the best picture winner, but if you're looking to check off a category on your Oscar ballot, look no further than "The Lady in Number 6: 'Music Saved My Life'," a documentary short subject about a Holocaust survivor who lived to be 110. As Mark Harris noted in Grantland, she died Sunday -- two days before Oscar voting ended. Harris sums it up: "We're done here."
Dominoes and randomness
A lot of the foregoing, of course, assumes the Oscars are logical. Let us emphasize: The Oscars are not logical. They are a popularity contest, a business proposition, a plea for attention, a throw of a dart.
Sometimes films gather momentum like so many falling dominoes, as "Argo" did last year. Other times big favorites fall short at the end: 1976's "Network" won three of four acting categories but lost best picture to "Rocky"; 1972's "Cabaret" took home eight Oscars -- including best director -- but lost best picture to "The Godfather."
And if you need any more proof that the Oscar universe can be as random as a roll of the dice, consider two words: Roberto Benigni.
Good luck in your pool.
Source: Edition.CNN.com/2014/02/27/showbiz/movies/oscars-2014-predicting-the-race/
Will it be "12 Years a Slave"? Leonardo DiCaprio? "Let It Go" from "Frozen"?
Oscar forecasting is a lighthearted parlor game for many and a "who cares" shrug for others. (Go ahead, commenters, let us know how you really feel!)
But to studios, agents, managers and many of the nominees, winning the Oscar is not only first-line-of-the-obituary recognition, but it also means "cold, hard cash," as Oscar winner Wendy Hiller once bluntly put it, in box-office receipts and future contracts.
With that in mind -- and with the possibility of some of this article's readers taking home cold, hard cash for winning their Oscar pools -- here are a few key indicators to follow at the 2014 Oscars Sunday night. Of course, the Oscars being the Oscars, nothing is guaranteed.
What are the best picture front-runners?
There may be nine nominees for best picture, but only three have a good chance of winning, says Tom O'Neil of the awards handicapping site GoldDerby.com: "12 Years a Slave," "Gravity" and "American Hustle." "12 Years" is the favorite among his 30 experts, with "Gravity" second at 10-3 odds and "Hustle" at 50-1. Everything else is 100-1.
The site TheCredits.org agrees. Its social awards season app, DataViz, crunched the numbers based on mentions on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and film-related sites. It determined that "12 Years" has 42% of the online mentions (as of February 24) and "Gravity" is second with 33%.
But, points out Clayton Davis of AwardsCircuit.com, in a year with divisive choices -- and "12 Years," though widely hailed, is not necessarily widely loved -- the preferential voting system for best picture can favor everybody's second choice. That's "Gravity," which also has the benefit of being the people's choice as the highest-grossing film among the nominees.
Film editing is your friend
Of course, best picture is the last category of the night. What are some of the early signs that one of these films has an edge?
The film editing category may seem minor to Oscar viewers, but it often has an outsized role in showcasing best picture winners. O'Neil observes that the best picture has won the editing Oscar more than half the time -- and if you rule out action-oriented flicks such as "Bullitt," "Star Wars" and "The Bourne Ultimatum," it's even more predictive.
This year's editing nominees include all three best picture front-runners along with "Captain Phillips," directed by the handheld-camera-favoring, quick-cutting Paul Greengrass, and "Dallas Buyers Club." "Gravity" is the favorite, says O'Neil, and that could foretell a spacey night. But even more notable will be if "12 Years" or "Hustle" grabs the trophy, since a win would be so unexpected. As for "Phillips," that would simply acknowledge the expertise of Greengrass and editor Christopher Rouse -- who won for "Ultimatum" six years ago.
Pressing the flesh
Though overt Oscar campaigning is frowned upon, there's nothing wrong with showing up at industry functions, saying the right things, posing for pictures and shaking a few hands.
That could make a difference in the best actor category, whose favorites are Matthew McConaughey ("Dallas Buyers Club") and Leonardo DiCaprio ("The Wolf of Wall Street").
Though both have some high-profile wins, they have yet to face off in the same category. (Both won Golden Globes, but McConaughey's was for a drama and DiCaprio's was for comedy.) And when it comes to politicking, DiCaprio has played the game well, says O'Neil, who points out that the "Wolf" star has been making the rounds with humor and class.
"When I look at the list of past winners of best actor, I see movie stars," he says. "There's kind of a veteran glow to it. With Leo being overdue, it's to his advantage -- and he's given the biggest performance of his career in the most talked-about movie of the year."
But McConaughey may have a secret weapon. No, not his extreme weight loss. Try "True Detective" on HBO, which has become an addictive hit.
"(One academy member) told me he's voting for McConaughey because he's addicted to 'True Detective,' " says O'Neil.
Technically speaking
"Gravity" is up for several technical awards, including production design, sound editing, sound mixing and visual effects. It's considered the front-runner for most of them. If it falters, it could be a long night for director Alfonso Cuaron and his film.
"If you see 'Gravity' lose some techs, it's indicative that it's not going all the way," says Davis.
A 'Slave' surprise
"12 Years a Slave" has fewer technical nominations but has a number of acting nods: best actor Chiwetel Ejiofor, best supporting actor Michael Fassbender and best supporting actress Lupita Nyong'o. Only Nyong'o is given a strong shot to win -- she's the top pick of GoldDerby's experts -- but if Fassbender and Ejiofor triumph, expect "Slave" to take it all.
Fassbender has the toughest road, says O'Neil. The academy has softened up about giving Oscars for villainous roles, but there's usually a wink involved -- think Christoph Waltz in "Inglourious Basterds" or even Anthony Hopkins in "The Silence of the Lambs." Not so for Fassbender's character, a vicious slave owner.
"He's pure Satan," says O'Neil.
Do the "Hustle"
"American Hustle" did even better among the major categories -- it's the only film nominated in the Big Six of picture, director, actor, actress, supporting actor and supporting actress. But of all the film's nominees, only Jennifer Lawrence -- who's won a Globe and a SAG Award, and who's the most popular actress in the world right now -- is considered a threat in her category, best supporting actress.
The key is probably Amy Adams, up for best actress. That category is considered a runaway for Cate Blanchett of "Blue Jasmine," but if the Woody Allen controversy has rubbed off on her, five-time nominee Adams could take the Oscar and indicate bigger things for the film about the '70s Abscam scandal.
Davis is doubtful, though. Even the Seahawks gave up a touchdown during the Super Bowl, he says.
"I'm sure she'll lose a couple votes, but not enough to matter," he says.
Watch Weinstein
Producer Harvey Weinstein is the master of awards gamesmanship. He makes high-quality, often audience-friendly films with good casts -- "Shakespeare in Love," "The Artist," Quentin Tarantino's films -- and he knows how to promote them.
This year he's putting his chips on his best picture nominee, "Philomena." The film has earned good reviews, done respectable box office and features the ageless Judi Dench. It has a good shot at adapted screenplay, which was co-written by star Steve Coogan, and Dench is a seven-time nominee who's won once before.
Along with Martin Scorsese's "The Wolf of Wall Street," it's probably the leading dark horse -- but whereas "Wolf" is divisive, "Philomena" is liked.
O'Neil thinks screenplay is possible -- "sometimes the most emotional movie wins" -- but thinks that might be it.
Still, at least "Philomena" picked up a best picture nomination. Weinstein's other major film, "August: Osage County," didn't even get that.
Splitting tickets
Finally, this is an odd handicapping year. Usually the best director has directed the best picture, but this year the handicappers are picking "Gravity's" Cuaron for best director and "12 Years a Slave" for best picture. When the two categories differ, it's a surprise, not an expectation.
Davis can't shake the feeling that voters won't split their votes -- and that will make "Gravity" the big winner. (Sorry, "12 Years" director Steve McQueen.) Cuaron not only won the top award from the Directors Guild, but "Gravity" also tied "12 Years" as the best film picked by the Producers Guild -- which, given the PGA's use of the preferential ballot, was an incredible shocker.
And O'Neil suggests another indicator: "Gravity" star Sandra Bullock, who's up for best actress.
"If 'Gravity' wins best picture, Sandra might go along for the rocket ride," he says. "She is 'Gravity' -- she's the whole movie."
One sure thing?
This won't predict the best picture winner, but if you're looking to check off a category on your Oscar ballot, look no further than "The Lady in Number 6: 'Music Saved My Life'," a documentary short subject about a Holocaust survivor who lived to be 110. As Mark Harris noted in Grantland, she died Sunday -- two days before Oscar voting ended. Harris sums it up: "We're done here."
Dominoes and randomness
A lot of the foregoing, of course, assumes the Oscars are logical. Let us emphasize: The Oscars are not logical. They are a popularity contest, a business proposition, a plea for attention, a throw of a dart.
Sometimes films gather momentum like so many falling dominoes, as "Argo" did last year. Other times big favorites fall short at the end: 1976's "Network" won three of four acting categories but lost best picture to "Rocky"; 1972's "Cabaret" took home eight Oscars -- including best director -- but lost best picture to "The Godfather."
And if you need any more proof that the Oscar universe can be as random as a roll of the dice, consider two words: Roberto Benigni.
Good luck in your pool.
Source: Edition.CNN.com/2014/02/27/showbiz/movies/oscars-2014-predicting-the-race/
John Williams, The Most Oscar Nominated Person Alive
With 49 Academy Awards nominations and 5 Oscar wins, John Williams is the most Oscar nominated person alive. The only person with more nominations than Williams is Walt Disney, who holds a record total of 59 nominations.
At age 82, Williams is one of the most prolific movie composers in the music industry, earning his 49th Academy Award nomination this year for his original musical score to The Book Thief.
With a body of work that consists of E.T., Jaws, Schindler’s List, Star Wars, Superman, and Lincoln, Williams is the man behind the music to some of the most memorable movie themes of all time.
But how is it possible to find the inspiration not only to compose such a large volume of music, but also score diverse genres that span from science fiction to historical period pieces? Williams says he often looks to nature, “I’ve always felt there is more music in trees than anywhere else.”
After working on films that have become embedded in our cultural sub-consciousness, one scene in particular stands out as one of William’s favorites, “certainly one of my favorite scenes is that bicycle scene in E.T.”
Williams recounts working on E.T. with Steven Spielberg, “I don't think that any of the scenes that Steven and I have done in our work together were done by having the music first.” The two men huddled around a piano while Williams plunked out a rough theme note by note, before it evolved into the music that accompanied the film by a full orchestra.
Viewers connect with the scene because it became a “unique in part of our experience,” “They lift of the earth and they fly over the moon and we buy it. We just accept it.”
This Sunday John Williams looks to add a sixth Oscar to his collection. But win or lose, the Academy and moviegoers can be certain; this isn’t the last they’ve heard from John Williams.
Source: News.Yahoo.com/blogs/beyond-the-headline-abc-news/john-williams-most-oscar-nominated-person-alive-230812744.html
At age 82, Williams is one of the most prolific movie composers in the music industry, earning his 49th Academy Award nomination this year for his original musical score to The Book Thief.
With a body of work that consists of E.T., Jaws, Schindler’s List, Star Wars, Superman, and Lincoln, Williams is the man behind the music to some of the most memorable movie themes of all time.
But how is it possible to find the inspiration not only to compose such a large volume of music, but also score diverse genres that span from science fiction to historical period pieces? Williams says he often looks to nature, “I’ve always felt there is more music in trees than anywhere else.”
After working on films that have become embedded in our cultural sub-consciousness, one scene in particular stands out as one of William’s favorites, “certainly one of my favorite scenes is that bicycle scene in E.T.”
Williams recounts working on E.T. with Steven Spielberg, “I don't think that any of the scenes that Steven and I have done in our work together were done by having the music first.” The two men huddled around a piano while Williams plunked out a rough theme note by note, before it evolved into the music that accompanied the film by a full orchestra.
Viewers connect with the scene because it became a “unique in part of our experience,” “They lift of the earth and they fly over the moon and we buy it. We just accept it.”
This Sunday John Williams looks to add a sixth Oscar to his collection. But win or lose, the Academy and moviegoers can be certain; this isn’t the last they’ve heard from John Williams.
Source: News.Yahoo.com/blogs/beyond-the-headline-abc-news/john-williams-most-oscar-nominated-person-alive-230812744.html
Saturday, 1 March 2014
World's Most Admired pitchmen
Fortune's World's Most Admired list is the definitive measure of corporate reputation. So it should come as no surprise that when Most Admired companies use celebrities to represent their brands, they tend to select some pretty high-wattage individuals. Fortune asked the Q Scores Company, which produces data on consumers' emotional connections with celebrities and other figures, to provide Q Scores for "brand ambassadors" associated with several of the companies on the WMAC Top 50 All-Stars list. A high Q Score, says Henry Schafer, executive vice president of the company, implies trust, integrity, believability and strong emotional bonds. (The typical celebrity, Schafer says, enjoys awareness from about 30% of the population, and of those who are aware of the celebrity, about 16% say that individual is a favorite personality.)
George Clooney
Product: Nespresso
Company: Nestlé
Most Admired Rank: 31
The actor and director, who has starred in the coffee company's commercials since 2006, enjoys off-the-charts popularity. Schafer says 85% of consumers are aware of Clooney (a whopping 55 points above the typical celebrity) and that he has a Q Score of 22, which means 22% of the population of people familiar with Clooney say he is one of their favorite personalities. On its website, Nespresso says Clooney "has charmed fans and coffee aficionados as the perfect personification of the understated elegance and authenticity that make Nespresso what it is today."
Taylor Swift
Product: Diet Coke
Company: Coca-Cola Co.
Most Admired Rank: 6
Late last year the beverage maker introduced a "collector's edition" Diet Coke can which features the Grammy winner's signature and one of her quotes: "If you're lucky enough to be different, don't ever change." Swift has high awareness among consumers --82%--and a Q Score of 20.
Beyoncé Knowles
Product: Pepsi
Company: PepsiCo
Most Admired Rank: 42
As part of a multiyear agreement reportedly valued at $50 million, the pop star's face has appeared on limited-edition soda cans, and she starred in a 60-second commercial in which she dances with images of herself from previous videos. Some 84% of consumers are aware of Beyoncé, and her Q Score is 20.
Queen Latifah
Product: Cover Girl and Pantene
Company: Procter & Gamble
Most Admired Rank: 15
P&G is doubling down on the actress and singer. Last year the consumer goods company signed longtime Cover Girl spokeswoman to represent Pantene's Truly Relaxed and Truly Natural hair care collections. "We believe her strong, playful personality and passion for life resonates with women," the company said in announcing the deal. Queen Latifah's has 76% awareness and a Q Score of 16.
David Beckham
Company: Samsung Electronics
Most Admired Rank: 21
The Korean consumer electronics giant signed the British soccer star as its global brand ambassador for the London 2012 Olympics. Despite relatively low recognition in the U.S. -- two-thirds of consumers are aware of him and his Q Score is a below-average 11 -- Beckham has credibility among soccer fans and global consumers. "David Beckham was Samsung's number one choice to be global ambassador for the sponsorship of London 2012," the company said in announcing the alliance.
Warren Buffett
Company: Berkshire Hathaway
Most Admired Rank: 4
Though the Berkshire Hathaway CEO isn't technically a celebrity spokesman, Buffett absolutely is the face of the Omaha-based holding company. His recognition rate of 43% is better than the typical celebrity's; alas, his Q Score of 15 is just average.
The Gecko
Product: GEICO
Company: Berkshire Hathaway
Most Admired Rank: 4
Sorry, Warren. Apologies to George Clooney. Your Q Scores pale compared to that of the Gecko, insurance company GEICO's Cockney-accented mascot. The Gecko has 93% awareness among consumers and a Q Score of 35. (Licensed characters, on average, have 53% awareness and an average Q Score of 27.) "He's way up there," says Q Scores' Schafer. "On an even playing field [with non-characters], he has the strongest emotional connection of them all."
Source: Money.CNN.com/gallery/leadership/2014/02/27/most-admired-celebrity-endorsements.fortune/index.html
George Clooney
Product: Nespresso
Company: Nestlé
Most Admired Rank: 31
The actor and director, who has starred in the coffee company's commercials since 2006, enjoys off-the-charts popularity. Schafer says 85% of consumers are aware of Clooney (a whopping 55 points above the typical celebrity) and that he has a Q Score of 22, which means 22% of the population of people familiar with Clooney say he is one of their favorite personalities. On its website, Nespresso says Clooney "has charmed fans and coffee aficionados as the perfect personification of the understated elegance and authenticity that make Nespresso what it is today."
Taylor Swift
Product: Diet Coke
Company: Coca-Cola Co.
Most Admired Rank: 6
Late last year the beverage maker introduced a "collector's edition" Diet Coke can which features the Grammy winner's signature and one of her quotes: "If you're lucky enough to be different, don't ever change." Swift has high awareness among consumers --82%--and a Q Score of 20.
Beyoncé Knowles
Product: Pepsi
Company: PepsiCo
Most Admired Rank: 42
As part of a multiyear agreement reportedly valued at $50 million, the pop star's face has appeared on limited-edition soda cans, and she starred in a 60-second commercial in which she dances with images of herself from previous videos. Some 84% of consumers are aware of Beyoncé, and her Q Score is 20.
Queen Latifah
Product: Cover Girl and Pantene
Company: Procter & Gamble
Most Admired Rank: 15
P&G is doubling down on the actress and singer. Last year the consumer goods company signed longtime Cover Girl spokeswoman to represent Pantene's Truly Relaxed and Truly Natural hair care collections. "We believe her strong, playful personality and passion for life resonates with women," the company said in announcing the deal. Queen Latifah's has 76% awareness and a Q Score of 16.
David Beckham
Company: Samsung Electronics
Most Admired Rank: 21
The Korean consumer electronics giant signed the British soccer star as its global brand ambassador for the London 2012 Olympics. Despite relatively low recognition in the U.S. -- two-thirds of consumers are aware of him and his Q Score is a below-average 11 -- Beckham has credibility among soccer fans and global consumers. "David Beckham was Samsung's number one choice to be global ambassador for the sponsorship of London 2012," the company said in announcing the alliance.
Warren Buffett
Company: Berkshire Hathaway
Most Admired Rank: 4
Though the Berkshire Hathaway CEO isn't technically a celebrity spokesman, Buffett absolutely is the face of the Omaha-based holding company. His recognition rate of 43% is better than the typical celebrity's; alas, his Q Score of 15 is just average.
The Gecko
Product: GEICO
Company: Berkshire Hathaway
Most Admired Rank: 4
Sorry, Warren. Apologies to George Clooney. Your Q Scores pale compared to that of the Gecko, insurance company GEICO's Cockney-accented mascot. The Gecko has 93% awareness among consumers and a Q Score of 35. (Licensed characters, on average, have 53% awareness and an average Q Score of 27.) "He's way up there," says Q Scores' Schafer. "On an even playing field [with non-characters], he has the strongest emotional connection of them all."
Source: Money.CNN.com/gallery/leadership/2014/02/27/most-admired-celebrity-endorsements.fortune/index.html
'Pay to play' on the Web?: Net neutrality explained
(CNN) -- How would you like to have to pay a fee to be able to stream YouTube videos at full speed? What if you liked downloading music from, say, Last.fm or Soundcloud, but those sites suddenly became infinitely slower than bigger sites like Amazon or iTunes?
Those are the kind of major changes to the Internet some folks are envisioning after a federal court ruling this week on what's come to be called "net neutrality."
This stuff can get really confusing, with all the government jargon, Internet lingo and competing arguments mixed up in it.
But it's also really important and could rework the Web as we know it -- like allowing the hypothetical situations above become realities.
Here's a breakdown of what this week's ruling could mean to you.
What is "net neutrality?"
Generally speaking, when folks talk about neutrality, they're referring to the ideas that led to a set of rules the Federal Communications Commission approved in 2010. The point of the rules was to keep the companies that hold the keys to the Web from playing favorites.
The "open Internet" rules prevent Internet service providers from blocking or "unreasonably discriminating" against any legal website or other piece of online content.
The philosophy behind it all, preached vociferously by Web activists, is that, in 2014, Internet access is a human right. Denying access, even in part, or giving preferential treatment to one user over another, violates that right, they say.
(The term itself was coined by Columbia law professor Tim Wu.)
What happened this week?
A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the FCC doesn't have the right to enforce those rules. The court said that the government is tasked with overseeing crucial utilities like telephone service and electricity, but that the Internet isn't considered to be one of those utilities under current law.
The decision harks back to statements and decisions made by the FCC and other government agencies in the early 2000s, when molasses-slow dial-up connections were the norm and Web access wasn't nearly as common or, some would say, necessary as it is today.
The FCC has suggested it will appeal the ruling.
So what?
Everybody who accesses the Internet does so through an Internet service provider. And these providers have been pushing for the ability to dole out that access to us on their own terms.
What does that mean? For one, companies like Verizon, who sued the FCC over the rules, would be able to pick and choose who gets the best access.
So, for example, they might start charging big fees for websites to get in the "fast lane." Those fees presumably would be no problem for the Web's monster moneymakers but tougher to take for the little guys.
Then, all of a sudden, you're starting to get two Internets -- a quick, smooth highway for the major players and a slow, bumpy trail for everybody else.
The providers could also just blatantly play favorites. So imagine AT&T, a major provider, making traffic quicker on the websites of smartphone companies that use its mobile service and slower on the sites of phone makers who don't. We're not saying they'd do that, of course. But, theoretically, they could.
Has this ever actually happened?
In 2007, Comcast started blocking some peer-to-peer networks -- the kind customers use to transfer data-heavy files like entire movies and the like.
The FCC ordered them to stop. Comcast sued the FCC. An appeals court ultimately sided with the FCC, but by that time, the backlash had been enough for Comcast to quit on its own (after paying $16 million to settle a lawsuit, that is).
For what its worth, the Web's major service providers put out statements Tuesday saying they don't have plans to change anything based on the court's decision. Of course, it would probably be bad business to make a multimillion-dollar move before the case has played itself all the way out to the Supreme Court, which is where this one might ultimately be decided.
What's the argument against the rules?
The service providers and their supporters essentially say this is a free-enterprise issue. They say they provide a service and, therefore, should be able to decide how to deliver it and how they charge customers for it.
When the FCC approved net neutrality on a 3-2 party-line vote, Commissioner Robert McDowell, one of two Republicans who opposed it, called the vote a "radical step."
"Nothing is broken in the Internet-access market that needs fixing," he said at the time.
Randal Milch, a Verizon executive vice president, said in a statement that Tuesday's ruling "struck down rules that limited the ability of broadband providers to offer new and innovative services to their customers."
Bottom line -- could it cost me money?
It's possible.
If providers start charging a premium to websites for services, you can bet those sites will turn around and pass the cost on to their customers.
Netflix, whose movie streaming is one of the Internet's biggest bandwidth hogs, already took a ding to its stock price after the court ruled. The presumption by some investors was that providers are most likely to charge more to sites like Netflix that use so much data.
For fee-based services like Netflix, it's hard to imagine monthly fees not increasing if their cost of doing business increases. And while it's obviously all still speculation, it's possible that currently free services like Google-owned YouTube -- which already offers paid subscriptions -- could adopt adopt more pay models to make up the difference.
What's next?
The ruling wasn't a complete blasting of the FCC's position. In fact, it said the body still has the right to make rules for the Web, so the commission could possibly try again with a new set of rules.
Congress could settle the issue once and for all with a new, clearly worded law. And there's always the Supreme Court if the FCC does, in fact, decide to appeal.
Source: Edition.CNN.com/2014/01/15/tech/web/net-neutrality-explained
Those are the kind of major changes to the Internet some folks are envisioning after a federal court ruling this week on what's come to be called "net neutrality."
This stuff can get really confusing, with all the government jargon, Internet lingo and competing arguments mixed up in it.
But it's also really important and could rework the Web as we know it -- like allowing the hypothetical situations above become realities.
Here's a breakdown of what this week's ruling could mean to you.
What is "net neutrality?"
Generally speaking, when folks talk about neutrality, they're referring to the ideas that led to a set of rules the Federal Communications Commission approved in 2010. The point of the rules was to keep the companies that hold the keys to the Web from playing favorites.
The "open Internet" rules prevent Internet service providers from blocking or "unreasonably discriminating" against any legal website or other piece of online content.
The philosophy behind it all, preached vociferously by Web activists, is that, in 2014, Internet access is a human right. Denying access, even in part, or giving preferential treatment to one user over another, violates that right, they say.
(The term itself was coined by Columbia law professor Tim Wu.)
What happened this week?
A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the FCC doesn't have the right to enforce those rules. The court said that the government is tasked with overseeing crucial utilities like telephone service and electricity, but that the Internet isn't considered to be one of those utilities under current law.
The decision harks back to statements and decisions made by the FCC and other government agencies in the early 2000s, when molasses-slow dial-up connections were the norm and Web access wasn't nearly as common or, some would say, necessary as it is today.
The FCC has suggested it will appeal the ruling.
So what?
Everybody who accesses the Internet does so through an Internet service provider. And these providers have been pushing for the ability to dole out that access to us on their own terms.
What does that mean? For one, companies like Verizon, who sued the FCC over the rules, would be able to pick and choose who gets the best access.
So, for example, they might start charging big fees for websites to get in the "fast lane." Those fees presumably would be no problem for the Web's monster moneymakers but tougher to take for the little guys.
Then, all of a sudden, you're starting to get two Internets -- a quick, smooth highway for the major players and a slow, bumpy trail for everybody else.
The providers could also just blatantly play favorites. So imagine AT&T, a major provider, making traffic quicker on the websites of smartphone companies that use its mobile service and slower on the sites of phone makers who don't. We're not saying they'd do that, of course. But, theoretically, they could.
Has this ever actually happened?
In 2007, Comcast started blocking some peer-to-peer networks -- the kind customers use to transfer data-heavy files like entire movies and the like.
The FCC ordered them to stop. Comcast sued the FCC. An appeals court ultimately sided with the FCC, but by that time, the backlash had been enough for Comcast to quit on its own (after paying $16 million to settle a lawsuit, that is).
For what its worth, the Web's major service providers put out statements Tuesday saying they don't have plans to change anything based on the court's decision. Of course, it would probably be bad business to make a multimillion-dollar move before the case has played itself all the way out to the Supreme Court, which is where this one might ultimately be decided.
What's the argument against the rules?
The service providers and their supporters essentially say this is a free-enterprise issue. They say they provide a service and, therefore, should be able to decide how to deliver it and how they charge customers for it.
When the FCC approved net neutrality on a 3-2 party-line vote, Commissioner Robert McDowell, one of two Republicans who opposed it, called the vote a "radical step."
"Nothing is broken in the Internet-access market that needs fixing," he said at the time.
Randal Milch, a Verizon executive vice president, said in a statement that Tuesday's ruling "struck down rules that limited the ability of broadband providers to offer new and innovative services to their customers."
Bottom line -- could it cost me money?
It's possible.
If providers start charging a premium to websites for services, you can bet those sites will turn around and pass the cost on to their customers.
Netflix, whose movie streaming is one of the Internet's biggest bandwidth hogs, already took a ding to its stock price after the court ruled. The presumption by some investors was that providers are most likely to charge more to sites like Netflix that use so much data.
For fee-based services like Netflix, it's hard to imagine monthly fees not increasing if their cost of doing business increases. And while it's obviously all still speculation, it's possible that currently free services like Google-owned YouTube -- which already offers paid subscriptions -- could adopt adopt more pay models to make up the difference.
What's next?
The ruling wasn't a complete blasting of the FCC's position. In fact, it said the body still has the right to make rules for the Web, so the commission could possibly try again with a new set of rules.
Congress could settle the issue once and for all with a new, clearly worded law. And there's always the Supreme Court if the FCC does, in fact, decide to appeal.
Source: Edition.CNN.com/2014/01/15/tech/web/net-neutrality-explained
Sunday, 24 March 2013
The Internet is a Surveillance State
(CNN) -- I'm going to start with three data points.
One: Some of the Chinese military hackers who were implicated in a broad set of attacks against the U.S. government and corporations were identified because they accessed Facebook from the same network infrastructure they used to carry out their attacks.
Two: Hector Monsegur, one of the leaders of the LulzSac hacker movement, was identified and arrested last year by the FBI. Although he practiced good computer security and used an anonymous relay service to protect his identity, he slipped up.
And three: Paula Broadwell,who had an affair with CIA director David Petraeus, similarly took extensive precautions to hide her identity. She never logged in to her anonymous e-mail service from her home network. Instead, she used hotel and other public networks when she e-mailed him. The FBI correlated hotel registration data from several different hotels -- and hers was the common name.
The Internet is a surveillance state. Whether we admit it to ourselves or not, and whether we like it or not, we're being tracked all the time. Google tracks us, both on its pages and on other pages it has access to. Facebook does the same; it even tracks non-Facebook users. Apple tracks us on our iPhones and iPads. One reporter used a tool called Collusion to track who was tracking him; 105 companies tracked his Internet use during one 36-hour period.
Increasingly, what we do on the Internet is being combined with other data about us. Unmasking Broadwell's identity involved correlating her Internet activity with her hotel stays. Everything we do now involves computers, and computers produce data as a natural by-product. Everything is now being saved and correlated, and many big-data companies make money by building up intimate profiles of our lives from a variety of sources.
Facebook, for example, correlates your online behavior with your purchasing habits offline. And there's more. There's location data from your cell phone, there's a record of your movements from closed-circuit TVs.
This is ubiquitous surveillance: All of us being watched, all the time, and that data being stored forever. This is what a surveillance state looks like, and it's efficient beyond the wildest dreams of George Orwell.
Sure, we can take measures to prevent this. We can limit what we search on Google from our iPhones, and instead use computer web browsers that allow us to delete cookies. We can use an alias on Facebook. We can turn our cell phones off and spend cash. But increasingly, none of it matters.
There are simply too many ways to be tracked. The Internet, e-mail, cell phones, web browsers, social networking sites, search engines: these have become necessities, and it's fanciful to expect people to simply refuse to use them just because they don't like the spying, especially since the full extent of such spying is deliberately hidden from us and there are few alternatives being marketed by companies that don't spy.
This isn't something the free market can fix. We consumers have no choice in the matter. All the major companies that provide us with Internet services are interested in tracking us. Visit a website and it will almost certainly know who you are; there are lots of ways to be tracked without cookies. Cellphone companies routinely undo the web's privacy protection. One experiment at Carnegie Mellon took real-time videos of students on campus and was able to identify one-third of them by comparing their photos with publicly available tagged Facebook photos.
Maintaining privacy on the Internet is nearly impossible. If you forget even once to enable your protections, or click on the wrong link, or type the wrong thing, and you've permanently attached your name to whatever anonymous service you're using. Monsegur slipped up once, and the FBI got him. If the director of the CIA can't maintain his privacy on the Internet, we've got no hope.
In today's world, governments and corporations are working together to keep things that way. Governments are happy to use the data corporations collect -- occasionally demanding that they collect more and save it longer -- to spy on us. And corporations are happy to buy data from governments. Together the powerful spy on the powerless, and they're not going to give up their positions of power, despite what the people want.
Fixing this requires strong government will, but they're just as punch-drunk on data as the corporations. Slap-on-the-wrist fines notwithstanding, no one is agitating for better privacy laws.
So, we're done. Welcome to a world where Google knows exactly what sort of porn you all like, and more about your interests than your spouse does. Welcome to a world where your cell phone company knows exactly where you are all the time. Welcome to the end of private conversations, because increasingly your conversations are conducted by e-mail, text, or social networking sites.
And welcome to a world where all of this, and everything else that you do or is done on a computer, is saved, correlated, studied, passed around from company to company without your knowledge or consent; and where the government accesses it at will without a warrant.
Source: CNN.com
Monday, 6 February 2012
CNN: 5 ways Twitter changed how we communicate
Happy birthday, @twitter. The groundbreaking microblogging site, which has alternately been
called a powerful tool for democracy and an emblem of all that's wrong
with our short-attention-span digital age, turns 5 years old today. On March 21, 2006, CEO Jack Dorsey wrote the post that started it all:
"just setting up my twttr." (For the record, Twitter, on its official blog, describes a message
from Dorsey that appears to have been posted a few minutes later,
"inviting coworkers," as the first official tweet.) Since then, the site has picked up about 200 million users, making it
one of the most-visited services on the Web. In honor of its fifth birthday, here's a look at five ways Twitter has
changed the digital communication game. 1. Made a fast flow of information faster It's decade-old news that the internet helps information -- some of it
good, some of it Snopes.com rumors -- spread fast. With Twitter, it's fast on steroids. In the Twitter echo chamber, all it takes is a few users with big
follower counts to share something. With one click, those followers
share it with their own followers. And the wildfire is set ablaze. As a result, news spreads faster than ever. Twitter's real-time news
flow has been cited as a tool in citizen uprisings in Iran and Egypt
and as invaluable for fundraising efforts for crisis situations like
last year's floods in Haiti. But it also means internet hokum can go viral before anyone can put
the brakes on it. No shortage of celebrities have "died" on Twitter, so far. And the
casualties will most likely continue to mount. 2. Removed the celebrity filter For as long as the concept of "celebrity" has existed, there have been
people paid to keep those celebrities from looking like jackasses in
public. Thankfully for us, Twitter ended all that. OK, not completely. But musicians, actors, athletes and other stars
who have taken to Twitter tend to share a lot more about themselves
than most publicists would endorse. (We're looking at you, Charlie
Sheen.) And not just scandalous stuff (although we enjoyed Kanye West's
bizarre round of self-flagellation just like everybody else). Writers share tips and give fans a glimpse at their process. Lots of
stars chat with their followers, giving fans unprecedented access.
Photos, or even just updates on their everyday lives, let fans see
stars in a way they never could before. The downside? You're liable to realize that at least one of your
favorite people has terrible grammar and can't spell. 3. Created "thought leaders" Twitter's list of 100 most popular accounts is dominated almost
entirely by celebrities and traditional media outlets. (We're fond of
No. 19.) But nestled not terribly far below are hundreds of bloggers,
podcasters and online journalists who have found a bigger audience on
Twitter than they probably would have without it. When a single tweet puts your thoughts in front of hundreds of
thousands of people, you're able to help set the agenda in your
community. 4. Strengthened the "second screen" With Twitter, nobody has to watch a TV show by themselves again. There are mobile apps that are tailored for TV, movies and other
entertainment. But for real-time chatter, it's hard to match Twitter. The advent of DVRs and streaming services like Hulu and Netflix was
threatening to kill the idea that people needed to watch a show as it
aired. But with Twitter (particularly thanks to hashtags), watching a
show during air time lets you have a real-time conversation with
thousands of fellow fans. "TV shows become events, meaning people watch them as they happen,"
Twitter CEO Dick Costolo said last month. "We're so used to creating
experiences for our users, but now our users are creating experiences
for each other." A telling detail? Twitter traffic increases by a factor of 30 whenever
"Glee" is on. And during this year's Super Bowl, there were 4,000
tweets sent per second. 5. (Over)simplified the conversation Some thoughts just can't be summed up in 140 characters. For all its ability to provide quick blasts of information, critics
have argued that Twitter dumbs down Web conversations that deserve to
be fuller and more fleshed out. Some self-aware bloggers have admitted that since the site emerged,
they're more likely to shoot out a couple of tweets on a topic than
write a full post. And more than a few high-profile tweeters have had to come back and
explain themselves after a post on the site was misinterpreted -- or
just to correct their sloppy grammar and spelling. Sometimes, they
make up words). One flip side of Twitter's increased celebrity access is that it
allows politicians and others in the spotlight to fire off tweets
without opening themselves up to follow-up questions or having to
fully explain their messages. Remember all the members of Congress who tweeted during President
Obama's 2009 economic speech instead of even pretending to pay
attention? When the leaders of a nation are debating important issues the same
way we share a link to the latest comic from The Oatmeal, we might
have a problem.
called a powerful tool for democracy and an emblem of all that's wrong
with our short-attention-span digital age, turns 5 years old today. On March 21, 2006, CEO Jack Dorsey wrote the post that started it all:
"just setting up my twttr." (For the record, Twitter, on its official blog, describes a message
from Dorsey that appears to have been posted a few minutes later,
"inviting coworkers," as the first official tweet.) Since then, the site has picked up about 200 million users, making it
one of the most-visited services on the Web. In honor of its fifth birthday, here's a look at five ways Twitter has
changed the digital communication game. 1. Made a fast flow of information faster It's decade-old news that the internet helps information -- some of it
good, some of it Snopes.com rumors -- spread fast. With Twitter, it's fast on steroids. In the Twitter echo chamber, all it takes is a few users with big
follower counts to share something. With one click, those followers
share it with their own followers. And the wildfire is set ablaze. As a result, news spreads faster than ever. Twitter's real-time news
flow has been cited as a tool in citizen uprisings in Iran and Egypt
and as invaluable for fundraising efforts for crisis situations like
last year's floods in Haiti. But it also means internet hokum can go viral before anyone can put
the brakes on it. No shortage of celebrities have "died" on Twitter, so far. And the
casualties will most likely continue to mount. 2. Removed the celebrity filter For as long as the concept of "celebrity" has existed, there have been
people paid to keep those celebrities from looking like jackasses in
public. Thankfully for us, Twitter ended all that. OK, not completely. But musicians, actors, athletes and other stars
who have taken to Twitter tend to share a lot more about themselves
than most publicists would endorse. (We're looking at you, Charlie
Sheen.) And not just scandalous stuff (although we enjoyed Kanye West's
bizarre round of self-flagellation just like everybody else). Writers share tips and give fans a glimpse at their process. Lots of
stars chat with their followers, giving fans unprecedented access.
Photos, or even just updates on their everyday lives, let fans see
stars in a way they never could before. The downside? You're liable to realize that at least one of your
favorite people has terrible grammar and can't spell. 3. Created "thought leaders" Twitter's list of 100 most popular accounts is dominated almost
entirely by celebrities and traditional media outlets. (We're fond of
No. 19.) But nestled not terribly far below are hundreds of bloggers,
podcasters and online journalists who have found a bigger audience on
Twitter than they probably would have without it. When a single tweet puts your thoughts in front of hundreds of
thousands of people, you're able to help set the agenda in your
community. 4. Strengthened the "second screen" With Twitter, nobody has to watch a TV show by themselves again. There are mobile apps that are tailored for TV, movies and other
entertainment. But for real-time chatter, it's hard to match Twitter. The advent of DVRs and streaming services like Hulu and Netflix was
threatening to kill the idea that people needed to watch a show as it
aired. But with Twitter (particularly thanks to hashtags), watching a
show during air time lets you have a real-time conversation with
thousands of fellow fans. "TV shows become events, meaning people watch them as they happen,"
Twitter CEO Dick Costolo said last month. "We're so used to creating
experiences for our users, but now our users are creating experiences
for each other." A telling detail? Twitter traffic increases by a factor of 30 whenever
"Glee" is on. And during this year's Super Bowl, there were 4,000
tweets sent per second. 5. (Over)simplified the conversation Some thoughts just can't be summed up in 140 characters. For all its ability to provide quick blasts of information, critics
have argued that Twitter dumbs down Web conversations that deserve to
be fuller and more fleshed out. Some self-aware bloggers have admitted that since the site emerged,
they're more likely to shoot out a couple of tweets on a topic than
write a full post. And more than a few high-profile tweeters have had to come back and
explain themselves after a post on the site was misinterpreted -- or
just to correct their sloppy grammar and spelling. Sometimes, they
make up words). One flip side of Twitter's increased celebrity access is that it
allows politicians and others in the spotlight to fire off tweets
without opening themselves up to follow-up questions or having to
fully explain their messages. Remember all the members of Congress who tweeted during President
Obama's 2009 economic speech instead of even pretending to pay
attention? When the leaders of a nation are debating important issues the same
way we share a link to the latest comic from The Oatmeal, we might
have a problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)