text:
MySQL Awards
Best SQL Database - Linux Journal Reader's Choice Awards 2013
MySQL has won the Linux Journal Readers Choice Award for Best SQL Database 2013.
2nd December 2013
Best SQL Database - Linux Journal Reader's Choice Awards 2012
MySQL has won the Linux Journal Readers Choice Award for Best SQL Database 2012.
14th December 2012
MySQL 5.6 - The 10 Best Open Source Products Of 2012 by CRN
MySQL 5.6 is once again selected by CRN as one of the best open source products by delivering faster performance and being more scalable, reliable and manageable to keep pace with the exponential rate of data worldwide.
12th December 2012
Best Open-Source Database -- The 10 Best Open-Source Products Of 2011 by CRN
MySQL 5.6, now in Development Milestone Release, includes significant advances in text-based search inside a database, as well as performance enhancements. With the growth of the world's data set to explode like never before with the advent of data-capturing and data-creating mobile devices, MySQL 5.6 is firmly in place as the strongest open-source database.
14th December 2011
Best Database -- Linux Journal Reader's Choice Awards 2011
MySQL with its dolphin mascot takes first place again this year, with more than twice as many votes as its closest competition, PostgreSQL.
1st December 2011
Best Database Management -- php|architect's 2011 Impact Awards
MySQL was voted as the winner in the Database Management category in 2011 Impact Awards! Selected by the subscribers of php|architect magazine, the winners represent the projects that have had the most impact on the day-to-day lives of PHP developers.
1st June 2011
Best Database -- Linux Journal Reader's Choice Awards 2010
Voted by more than 12,000 readers, MySQL remains the "Best Database" selected by Linux Journal Reader's Choice Awards three years running.
29th October 2010
MySQL Workbench -- The 10 best cross-platform applications
Although this tool is new to the world, you will not find a better database administration tool anywhere for any platform. With this MySQL admin tool, you can work your MySQL magic on all platforms.
17th May 2010
Best Open Source Database -- PC WORLD (Russia)
MySQL was named among the best products of 2009 by PC World Russia.
12th January 2010
Top 10 Open Source Hall of Famers
InfoWorld's top picks for the most indispensable open source software of all time
What's wrong with using a database you actually like? As the huge and active MySQL user community attests, nothing at all. MySQL's easy administration, excellent read performance, and transparent support for large text and binary objects make it the top choice for many Web sites.
16th August 2009
LinuxQuestions.org: MySQL Database of the Year
The members of http://www.LinuxQuestions.org have once again selected MySQL as their favorite database. Thanks to everyone who voted!
13th February 2009
2009 Developer.com Database Tool of the Year: MySQL Workbench
Nominations to find the best products and technology began in September and the submissions this year were abundant. With finalist announced in November, voting began. The voting made it very clear which products were to win. Not only were more votes received than in the last two years, but there was also a clear margin of victory between first and second place.
Congratulations to the finalists and especially to all the winners.
14th January 2009
2008 Best Open Source Software: Database
"MySQL is the choice for many Web sites thanks to its excellent read performance, transparent support for large text and binary objects, and incredibly easy administration," noted the editors at InfoWorld. Further, the helpful user base, and some poster-child deployments including eBay, Yahoo, and Craigslist were taken in account.
4th August 2008
2008 Windows IT Pro Community Choice Award
Windows IT Pro forum visitors and several Windows user groups were asked to vote on their product preferences in seven broad technology categories. MySQL has been named the Silver Winner in the Light Database Tools category.
1st August 2008
Best Open Source Software: Database
InfoWorld's BOSSIES recognize the Best Open Source Software for business, from small offices to large enterprises. Open source software has established itself as a cornerstone of modern business computing, and the open source community is arguably the greatest driver of innovation in software today.
14th September 2007
German PHP Magazin Reader's Choice 2007
The Readers of the German PHP Magazin chose MySQL as the best database management system of the year 2007. This shows again how popular MySQL is among PHP developers.
1st March 2007
Audemars Piguet "Changing Times Award"
MySQL AB has been awarded the "European Entrepreneur of the Year 2006" award at a gala dinner in Geneva. The award was the main prize handed out at the Audemars Piguet "Changing Times Award" created to recognize the European entrepreneur whose private company has had the biggest impact, on the largest number of people over the last three years.
The event, which gathered over 200 VIP guests, played host to some of the most important players in today's European technology industry. Audemars Piguet, Weber Shandwick and the European Tech Tour entertained a cross-section of their most important guests from various industries such as private banking, pharmaceutical, automotive, telecommunications, Internet, private equity and local government who were all in attendance to enjoy the evening, share ideas, and show support for today's emerging entrepreneurs.
1st December 2006
AlwaysOn Top 100 Private Company
MySQL has been chosen by AlwaysOn as one of the Top 100 Private Company award winners. The company was handpicked by the AlwaysOn editorial panel based on a set of five criteria - technology innovation, market potential, customer adoption, media buzz and investor value creation. The AO100 was selected from over 1,000 companies, peer-nominated by leading venture capitalists, investment bankers and industry analysts. The AO100 consists of private companies at all stages of development, from early- to late-stage.
12th July 2006
2006 Software Development Times 100
The 4th annual SD Times 100 recognizes the leaders and innovators of the software development industry.
"The winners of this year's SD Times 100 awards have demonstrated their leadership in shaping the software development industry," said David Rubinstein, Editor-in-Chief of SD Times. "We took into account each nominee's products and services, its reputation among development managers, and the new ideas it brought out. These select individuals and organizations are the ones we've identified as helping to move the art of development forward."
1st June 2006
Software Development Magazine Productivity Award
For the past 15 years, the Software Development Jolt Product Excellence and Productivity Awards have been presented annually to showcase products that have "jolted" the industry with their significance and made the task of creating software faster, easier, and more efficient. Jolt Cola, the fabled soft drink quaffed by software developers for sustenance during project development marathons, sponsors the awards presentation.
MySQL 5.0 was presented a Productivity Award at a ceremony at this year's SD West 2006 conference in California and featured in the June 2006 issue of Software Development magazine.
15th March 2006
LinuxQuestions.org: MySQL Database of the Year
LinuxQuestions.org is a free, friendly and active Linux Community with over 150,000 members and over 1,400,000 posts. Founded in 2000 LQ offers forums, reviews, a Linux hardware compatibility list, a Linux knowledge base in wiki format, Linux tutorials, a free Linux download site and more. LQ has forums for everything from Linux Newbies to Linux in the Enterprise and has over 20 officially recognized Linux distribution forums.
The Members Choice Awards allow members of the Linux community to choose their favorite products in a variety of categories including Linux Distribution of the Year, Office Suite of the Year and Web Browser of the Year.
7th March 2006
AlwaysOn Top 100 Private Company
For the second year in a row, MySQL AB has been selected as one of the industry's "Top 100 Private Companies" by the AlwaysOn editorial team — based on a set of five criteria: innovation, market potential, customer adoption, media buzz and investor value creation.
25th July 2005
CertCities 10 Hottest Certifications
Earlier this year, MySQL certification was named as one of the 10 hottest for this year by certcities.com.
20th July 2005
Every year, since 1996, Red Herring editors have selected the top 100 private companies whose products and services define the future of business innovation. During Red Herring's Venture Market Europe event, its editors announced that MySQL AB has been selected for the Red Herring Top 100 Europe — calling us "The IKEA of Databases". According to the magazine, "Each of the companies selected for the Red Herring 100 Europe has the potential to impact current markets - or create entirely new ones.
13th April 2005
LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Award: MySQL Database of the Year
LinuxQuestions.org is a free, friendly and active Linux Community with over 150,000 members and over 1,400,000 posts. Founded in 2000 LQ offers forums, reviews, a Linux hardware compatibility list, a Linux knowledge base in wiki format, Linux tutorials, a free Linux download site and more. LQ has forums for everything from Linux Newbies to Linux in the Enterprise and has over 20 officially recognized Linux distribution forums.
The Members Choice Awards allow members of the Linux community to choose their favorite products in a variety of categories including Linux Distribution of the Year, Office Suite of the Year and Web Browser of the Year. Winners were presented with the award at the LinuxWorld Conference & Expo in Boston.
24th February 2005
Red Herring Magazine's 100 Most Innovative Companies
After a long and rigorous process of evaluating more than 1,200 entries from more than 900 companies, the Red Herring editorial team has chosen MySQL AB as one of the industry's most innovative companies. This list is also published in the December 13, 2004 issue of Red Herring Magazine (http://www.redherring.com/)
10th December 2004
MySQL AB #22 on the DM Review 100
The DM Review 100 constitute the top 100 companies in the business intelligence space as determined by DM Review readers.
The list is determined based on the results of a product usage and vendor rating survey of the publication's readers conducted over the Web by The Gantry Group LLC. Survey respondents were presented with a questionnaire that examined more than 225 vendors in nine product categories. Respondents were also asked to rank each vendor for overall customer service and satisfaction. MySQL came in 22nd in the final top 100.
6th December 2004
Linux Journal Readers' Choice Award
The readers of Linux Journal have voted MySQL 'best database' for the seventh time in as many years.
1st November 2004
AlwaysOn Top 100 Companies of 2004
AlwaysOn and KPMG announced the AO100 - Their list of the Top Private Companies for 2004. The two groups surveyed more than 1,000 venture investors, investment bankers, top entrepreneurs and executives, who nominated more than 700 companies to determine the AO100 winners.
They selected MySQL AB as an innovator in the sector, demonstrating leadership in revenue and customer growth, and game-changing approaches and technologies that are likely to disrupt existing markets and entrenched players.
10th July 2004
Developer.com Product of the Year: Best DBMS or Related Technology of the Year
Readers of Developer.com chose MySQL as the best product of the year in the category "DBMS or Related Technology".
Winners in other categories include the 802.11g wireless standard, Xmlspy and Amazon.com web services.
22nd May 2004
2004 SIIA CODiE Winner: Best Open Source Product or Service
A broad panel of judges selected this year's Codie Awards finalists from a pool of over 800 nominations from more than 600 companies.
MySQL was chosen as Best Open Source Product or Service.
20th May 2004
SD Times selected MySQL AB as the shaker in the Database and Data Access category. Against traditional rivals and some new faces, MySQL AB was chosen for continuing to challenge the established enterprise software giants while entrenching itself into application-specific deployments.
"Each year, the editors of BZ Media's SD Times 100 look for companies and influencers which set the technical and market leadership for the software development industry," said Alan Zeichick, editor-in-chief of SD Times. "When choosing the 2004 SD Times 100, we carefully considered each organization's offerings and reputation with developers, as well as the attention and conversation we've heard around the company and its products and technologies, as a sign of leadership within the industry."
15th May 2004
Database of the Year, 2003 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards
The Linux enthusiasts at linuxquestions.org voted for MySQL as databse of the year against closed and open source competitors
10th January 2004
Finalist, Best Open Source Product or Service, 19th Annual Codie Awards
A broad panel of judges selected this year's Codie Awards finalists from a pool of over 800 nominations from more than 600 companies.
MySQL is in the running for Best Open Source Product or Service. The results will be announced at a black tie gala in May 2004.
19th December 2003
2003 OSDir Editor's Choice for Best Application (Database)
The editors at O'Reilly OSDir.com say "MySQL is like Starbucks. It's yummy, and there's one on every block."
We will not be held accountable if you try eating or drinking MySQL to see if it really is yummy, but we appreciate their enthusiasm.
19th December 2003
Reasoning, the leading provider of automated software inspection (ASI) services, concluded that the code quality of MySQL ranks higher than commercial equivalents.
Specifically, Reasoning found that MySQL code quality was 6x better than that of comparable proprietary code
15th December 2003
Linux Journal Readers' Choice Award
The readers of Linux Journal have voted MySQL 'best database' for the sixth time in as many years. This year, over 7,500 readers visited the Linux Journal Web site and voted on their favorites in 28 categories.
15th October 2003
German Linux Enterprise Reader's Choice 2003
The Linux Magazin asked their readers to select the most popular tools. The readers chose MySQL as the best product of the year in the category DBMS.
8th October 2003
German PHP Magazin Reader's Choice 2003
Readers of PHP Magazin chose MySQL as the best DBMS of the year. MySQL won clearly with 83% percent of the votes. This shows how popular MySQL is among PHP developers.
8th October 2003
Developer.com Product of the Year 2002
The MySQL database was named the 'Database-Related Product of the Year' by the readers of Developer.com. MySQL beat out other finalists, including Microsoft SQL Server 2000, Oracle9i, IBM's DB2 database and PostgreSQL.
'With a number of excellent products making it into the finalists - including products from Microsoft, IBM, Oracle and Sybase - in 2002 it was the 'little guy' that stood out and took the honors,' noted Developer.com editors.
4th April 2003
Swedish Guldmusen ('Golden Mouse') award for Swedish IT Product of the Year
The Golden Mouse award is given by two of Sweden's most prominent magazines, Affärsvärlen and Computer Sweden, in cooperation with IT-företagen, Invest in Sweden Agency and Comdex Scandinavia.The Golden Mouse for Swedish IT Product of the Year is awarded to a product that is technologically advanced and has reached market success as well as received attention beyond the Swedish borders. It can be hardware, software, or a combination of both.
16th January 2003
Linux Journal Editors' Choice Award 2002
The MySQL database was selected to receive Linux Journal's Editors' Choice Award in the database category. The Linux Journal Editors' Choice Awards are well-known as the premier forum for recognizing outstanding product developments and achievements in the Linux market. The award winners are listed in the September 2002 issue of Linux Journal
1st September 2002
Linux Journal Readers' Choice Award 2002
The MySQL database has won, for the fifth year in a row, the Linux Journal Readers' Choice Award in the database category. Linux Journal's annual Readers' Choice Awards allow members of the Linux community to pick their favorite products in a number of categories. Almost 6,000 Linux Journal readers visited the Linux Journal web site and voted on their top choices in 25 categories this year for the Readers' Choice awards.
6th January 2002
View Older Awards


text:
5.57: Lens
The tiny object on this woman's finger is life-changing for her. It lets her see clearly without wearing glasses. You probably recognize the object as a contact lens. You may even wear contact lenses yourself.
What Is a Lens?
A lens is a transparent object with one or two curved surfaces. It is typically made of glass (or clear plastic in the case of a contact lens). A lens refracts, or bends, light and forms an image. An image is a copy of an objected formed by the refraction (or reflection) of visible light. The more curved the surface of a lens is, the more it refracts the light that passes through it. There are two basic types of lenses: concave and convex. The two types of lenses have different shapes, so they bend light and form images in different ways.
Concave Lens
A concave lens is thicker at the edges than it is in the middle. You can see the shape of a concave lens in the Figure below. From the diagram, it's clear that the lens causes rays of light to diverge, or spread apart, as they pass through it. Note that the image formed by a concave lens is on the same side of the lens as the object. It is also smaller than the object and right-side up. However, it isn't a real image. It is a virtual image. Your brain "tricks" you into seeing an image there. The light rays actually pass through the glass to the other side and spread out in all directions. You can explore the formation of images by a concave lens at this URL: http://phet.colorado.edu/sims/geometric-optics/geometric-optics_en.html
Convex Lens
A convex lens is thicker in the middle than at the edges. You can see the shape of a convex lens in the Figure below. A convex lens causes rays of light to converge, or meet, at a point called the focus (F). A convex lens forms either a real or virtual image. It depends on how close the object is to the lens relative to the focus. You can interact with an animated convex lens at this URL: http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/index.php?topic=1395.msg5241#msg5241
Q: An example of a convex lens is a hand lens. Which of the three convex lens diagrams above shows how a hand lens makes an image?
A: You've probably looked through a hand lens before. If you have, then you know that the image it produces is right-side up. Therefore, the first diagram must show how a hand lens makes an image. It's the only one that produces a right-side up image.
- A lens is a transparent object, typically made of glass, with one or two curved surfaces. A lens refracts light and forms an image.
- A concave lens is thicker at the edges than it is in the middle. This causes rays of light to diverge. The light forms a virtual image that is right-side up and smaller than the object.
- A convex lens is thicker in the middle than at the edges. This causes rays of light to converge. The light forms a real or virtual image depending on the distance of the object from the lens.
- lens: Transparent object with one or two curved surfaces that forms images by refracting light.
At the following URL, vary the location of the object in the animation and observe what happens to the image. What can you infer from your observations? http://www.physicsclassroom.com/shwave/lenses.cfm
- What is a lens? What does it do?
- Describe the image formed by a concave lens.
- Explain how a hand lens forms an enlarged image of an object.
Notes/Highlights Having trouble? Report an issue.
|Highlighted Text
|Show More

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Are you open over Chinese New Year?Do you have a link to your web site?CheersMike
eg: for a two layers PCB order (10pcs, 50*50mm), total price is less than $100.00.
Just a few topics down Elecrow are doing colour boards for a similar price to Itead, although I've not yet seen the quality. So why pay $100? It's a large difference.
$9.90 is apparently enough - I have been purchasing from them at that price for 2 years now.http://blog.iteadstudio.com/how-itead-make-your-pcb-prototype/
Real-PCB,You mention in your subject line and in a post that there is no tolling cost for reorders but do not tell us what the toolong cost is so we can determine what future orders will cost, if you want to be considered for real you should let us know what the tooling cost is. You say factory costs in China are more than $9.90 for 10 boards maybe you should just contract with Itead.com or seeedstudio.com and making $90 per order that is pretty good money for transferring orders.
...but do not tell us what the toolong cost is so we can determine what future orders will cost...
That's still not answering the question.Quote...but do not tell us what the toolong cost is so we can determine what future orders will cost...You state price as under $100, but how much of that is tooling cost? i.e. on a subseqyent re-order for the same amount will it be $50, $25...I still don't see how it can compete with the prices available via Iteadstudio/Seeedstudio/Elecrow as quoted above.
Please enter a valid email to subscribe
We need to confirm your email address.
To complete the subscription, please click the link in the
email we just sent you.
Thank you for subscribing!
via Egeo 16
Torino, 10131


text:
Web Stories
Frank Taplin, alumnus and donor, dies
Posted May 13, 2003; 04:13 p.m.
Frank Taplin Jr., a member of Princeton's class of 1937 and a longtime donor, neighbor and friend of the University, died Sunday, May 11, of heart failure. He was 87.
A memorial service will be held at 4 p.m. Sunday, June 8, in the University Chapel .
Among his many gifts to the University was Taplin Auditorium in Fine Hall, the recital hall used frequently for concerts by the Department of Music and professional artists.
In lieu of flowers, the Taplin family has requested that donations be made in his name to organizations supporting causes that Taplin had championed: education, music, the environment and human rights.
Contact: Eric Quinones (609) 258-3601


text:
Found 2 Sportdog SD400 Wetland collars yesterday for $99 each. Should I buy um?
Found 2 Sportdog SD400 Wetland collars yesterday for $99 each. Should I buy um?
I would do some research on Sport Dog. There is lots of information about the reliablity of Sport Dog on this site. You can do a search. There is probably a reason they are so cheap. So, I would day no.
Wayne Nutt
Go Nutts with dog training
HRCH Patton's Parker Co. Shadow "Shadow"
HRCH Clineline Hijacker "Jack"
HRCH Marks a Lot Midnight Hudson, SH "Hudson" RIP (5/26/01-6/18/15)
Castile Creeks Rawhide, MH "Rowdy"
Look at the Product Review section. The latest topic is on TT vs SportDog
Daren Galloway
Bought a Tri Tronics e-collar for my lab in 2005. It's still going strong and has taken a beating over the years. Bought a SportDog e-collar (the equivalent to my TT collar) for my daughter's beagle and after 2 years it quit working. It was just out of warranty and I still need to call them about it. Not sure what they're response will be, so I can't comment on their customer service yet. Most likely I'll never own a SportDog collar again, but that's just my opinion. Have heard similar stories from other guys who have owned SportsDog collars.
Worst collar that you can buy.
In fact, they are so bad, that there should be a law against them.


text:
Nice looking dog!
I saw Finn run a few weeks ago with Kelly. You got a good deal.
Ok thanks for the info.
Finn has been awesome so far. That boy can jump thats for sure. Went outside this morining to him standing on the back casting deck of my bass boat! Kelly was a real informative on a lot things on how to build Finn's confindence in me as a handler and on how to handle the dog as well.
Good luck very nice dog!
HRCH Scaupgetters Tarnation QAA
HR Blackie 2 CGN, WCI
Hashtag Mickey
"Dont cry because its over. Smile because it happened."
Dr. Seuss


text:
No-Li Brewery making history
SPOKANE, Wash. - Spokane's own No-Li brewhouse is making history by creating a federally-approved style of brewing beer Spokane-style. While it could help grow our local economy, lawmakers in Olympia may put a damper on things.
The brewers at No-Li fought to get that new style of beer and its an exciting time for Spokane and our local craft beer business community, but any growth that excitement might foster could be crushed by a tax hike being considered by state lawmakers.
"Well we're pretty much under a continuous expansion right now," Mark Irvin said. "Now we've got a Spokane style beer, and it's really cool because there isn't another one in the United States."NoLi Brewery vo
"Everything that goes into every pint of beer or every No-Li bottle is Spokane style, its all from this region," John Bryant said.
Partners John Bryant and Mark Irvin are excited for what this could mean for Spokane.
"It has to be brewed in Spokane, it needs to be packaged in Spokane by Spokane residents and for our local economy," Bryant said.
But they are cautiously optimistic as lawmakers in Olympia are considering Governor Jay Inslee's proposed budget now, which includes a dramatic increase in the beer excise tax.
If passed, Washington brewers paying just under $5 a barrel now would pay $20 in tax for every barrel they sell.
"Essentially what you will do is put a lead weight right on top of this growing economy," Bryant said.
That tax would likely force Washington beer makers to relocate; in Oregon, for example, brewers pay about half of our current tax.
"If you look at what Oregon is doing in the craft brewing industry and the number of jobs and taxes they're creating by living wage jobs it is incredible and what we can do here in Spokane has just scratched the surface," Bryant said.
However if the tax passes and brewers chose to stay in Washington the added costs will be passed on to consumers. That's why Bryant and other brewers are urging beer lovers to send a message to Olympia.
"Help support us so we can create jobs in this great town so when your kids get out of high school or college they don't immediately move to Seattle or Colorado, lets get them to stay here but we got to create a local economy," he said.
- Idaho city officials eye former mill site along Spokane River
- Spokane man accused of sexually assaulting women faces serious penalties
- Trinity Catholic School breaks ground on new facillity
- New report says Spokane spends $1M on cops in schools
- Spokane man splits top prize in television reality show
- A robot that picks apples? Replacing humans worries some


text:
This Family-Friendly City Hotel Offers 62 Rooms With All the Necessary Comforts For a Pleasant Stay. In Addition To a Lobby With a 24-Hour Check-Out Service,
3 star hotel offering 78 rooms. Located in the midst of the major shopping streets in the heart of Lyon, 10 minutes walk from the old city and the National
Situated 10 minutes from the city center and five minutes from the Part Dieu train station, right in the heart of the Montplaisir business district and
The Novotel Lyon Gerland is a hotel close to the city centre of Lyon and the major transport routes.
Le Royal is a grand family residence right in the heart of Lyon, between the Saône and Rhone rivers. Your home in Lyon has 74 non smoking rooms and suites
Campanile Lyon Centre Forum Part Dieu is located within walking distance of Place Bellecour, lined with 18th-century buildings, and approximately 19 miles
Welcome to the BEST WESTERN Le Longchamp located in the heart of west Lyon in a residential area.
83 air-conditionned rooms with unique decoration, located in the heart of the city, on the peninsula, the hotel provides atmosphere and charm in its establishement.
Best Western Crequi Lyon Part Dieu is located approximately a quarter-mile from Theater de la Tete D'or and 16 miles from Saint Exupery Airport.
The Comfort Hotel® Paray-le-Monial is the ideal headquarters for guests making a pilgrimage to the medieval historic center and amazing religious heritage
Find great deals on quality Massieux, France hotels & resorts, or indulge at one of our luxury resorts. Take advantage of the many amenities that can be included with your stay such as in-room internet access, wifi, room service, fitness center, pool, hot tub, steam room, and shuttle services to and from the airport. Browse our Massieux, France hotels and resorts and plan your Massieux, France vacation today!


text:
- Alumni
- Calendar of Events
- Career Development
- Library
- Multimedia
- Newsroom
From left: Natalie LeVeck '11, Entertainment Law Practicum Executive Director Barbara Rubin '78 and Jessica Kantor '09
Entertainment Law Practicum a Pipeline to Prominent Attorney Roles
Whether it's spending time on set with a star, negotiating a deal for a director or hammering out the terms of a visual effects contract, Loyola's Entertainment Law Practicum leads to a lot of plum Hollywood roles for its participants. Alumnae Jessica Kantor '09 and Natalie LeVeck '11 are prime examples. The two broke into the business with the help of internships secured while they were students. Now top counsel for a major movie studio, the alumnae met while working for the former law firm of Assistant Professor Barbara Rubin '78, executive director of the practicum.
"Through the Entertainment Law Practicum and the relationship I had built with Barbara Rubin, I was able to obtain and successfully complete my first entertainment law internship" said Kantor, Vice President of Business and Legal Affairs for Legendary Pictures, the studio behind such blockbusters as THE HANGOVER SERIES, PACIFIC RIM, INCEPTION, BATMAN BEGINS and the DARK KNIGHT SERIES. Named to the Hollywood Reporter's "Next Gen 2013: Hollywood's New Class," her professional highlight reel includes the business and legal work on the Jackie Robinson hit 42: THE TRUE STORY OF AN AMERICAN LEGEND and the upcoming reboot of GODZILLA.
"Jessica and Natalie exemplify the value of this program to our graduates' careers, and their intelligence, skills and personality reflected well on Loyola when they were interns and now, as alumni," said Professor Jay Dougherty, founder of the program and recent recipient of the Public Counsel of the Year Award by the Association of Media & Entertainment Counsel. "When many law firms and most companies will not take on the responsibility – and cost – of training brand-new lawyers, we recognize that our students must learn not just to think like lawyers, but to have the skills and experience of lawyering on the day they graduate and pass the bar."
The Entertainment Law Practicum requires students to complete 56 hours of field work at entertainment-law internships. Additionally, they write a paper about their experiences and attend a course that includes talks with Hollywood power players.
Practicum director Rubin and Entertainment Law Concentration head Dougherty facilitate internship opportunities using their industry connections. Rubin, partner and chair of the Entertainment Department at Glaser Weil, ran business and legal affairs for Spelling Television, was a department head at A&E and worked at CBS and Disney before going into private practice. Dougherty was assistant general counsel at Turner Broadcasting System and senior vice president of production & worldwide acquisition legal affairs at Twentieth Century Fox.
Above all, Rubin and Dougherty know talent. "Everybody raves about our interns," said Rubin. "I had interns for many years – mainly Loyola interns. And I hired most of them as lawyers. Many of them are working in very important jobs in the industry. They work hard, they're smart; they try to figure things out for themselves."
For LeVeck, participating in internships at Loyola was career-defining. "I wasn't sure I wanted to do entertainment law," said LeVeck, a former journalist who is now Senior Counsel at Legendary. "But the second I had my first entertainment internship, within one week, I knew I wanted to be on the entertainment path."
Kantor and LeVeck first crossed paths at Rubin's former firm, Peter, Rubin & Simon, LLP. Their paths diverged, with Kantor moving to the entertainment practice at Sheppard Mullin. But they stayed in touch, and after Kantor landed at Legendary, she encouraged LeVeck to join her.
"We're a very collaborative team," said Kantor. "Half the time we'll be sending language back and forth to one another to ask, 'What do you think about this? Let's tweak it a little further.'"
LeVeck credits her internship experience both in the Entertainment Law Practicum and beyond with helping her cultivate the skills for which she now receives accolades. "I interned at three different studios and two law firms. That really prepared me for most of what I'm doing now," said LeVeck, who had stints at NBC Universal, MGM and Lionsgate Entertainment during law school. "The hands-on experience of the internship I did was how I learned many of the things I do."
But nothing could have prepared LeVeck for a recent trip to the set of the upcoming tent-pole feature Godzilla. After spending months working out deals for the movie, the Legendary duo flew to the production and had an unexpected encounter: Kantor arranged for LeVeck to meet one of her idols, Breaking Bad star Bryan Cranston. "You don't usually get opportunities like that if you're at a firm," LeVeck said with a smile.
Inspired by their meaningful internships, the two dealmakers task their interns with important assignments such as researching memos, helping draft contract provisions and performing other work critical to studio operations. "Barbara always mentored us, so it's something we believe in," said Kantor. "And both of us do that. We have interns every semester. And we take it very seriously."
Kantor and LeVeck count another Loyola alum as a mentor – Marty Willhite '97, Chief Operating Officer & General Counsel at Legendary. "He inspires us to be bold, decisive, innovative and thoughtful," said Kantor. "He leads by example."
The Legendary alumnae pay particular attention to candidates from Loyola – for the same reason Rubin did when she ran her own firm. They want interns who ask questions and go the extra mile.
Describing the qualities they value in their interns, Kantor observed, "Practical knowledge is a huge thing, as is a real intellectual curiosity. We have interns who are not just working hard, but also truly engaging with their projects in a meaningful way." In short, "They get it."
Media Relations
Burns 126
919 Albany St.
Los Angeles, CA 90015


text:
Web Stories
'Town hall meeting' planned on University's financial outlook
Posted January 25, 2010; 11:15 a.m.
A "town hall meeting," scheduled to provide an update on how economic conditions are affecting the University's budget, is set for 3 to 5 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 9, in Richardson Auditorium, Alexander Hall.
The session is open to all members of the campus community.
Presentations will be made by Provost Christopher Eisgruber, Executive Vice President Mark Burstein, Vice President for Finance and Treasurer Carolyn Ainslie and Vice President for Human Resources Lianne Sullivan-Crowley.
They will discuss the outlook for this year, as well as for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. There also will be a question-and-answer period.
Those who cannot attend the Feb. 9 meeting can learn more about Princeton's economic health by reading the Report of the Priorities Committee to the President (.pdf).


text:
Mother with brain tumor finds comfort at Gilda's Club
2012 Gilda's Run set for Oct. 21
MADISON, Wis. - You'd never know it by simply meeting her or being a student in her class, but six years ago, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater assistant professor Heather Neimeier had her life turned upside down when she was diagnosed with a brain tumor.
"It is life changing. The first thing that went though my mind was my son," Neimeier said.
Neimeier's symptoms started mild -- tingling and numbness in her hands. After a visit with a neurologist and an MRI, she suddenly found herself battling a brain tumor.
Despite an unsuccessful operation, Neimeier is back in the classroom today because a radiation treatment was successful. But the tumor is still there -- only smaller and growing slower.
"The difficulty for me is that once you have cancer, for a lot of us, it's not over -- there's no cure," Neimeier said.
Neimeier considers herself a survivor, and she continues to find support and guidance at Gilda's Club of Madison. It's a place where people can gather -- even children and families -- to talk, to educate and to comfort. Patients, survivors, family and friends are all invited, and it's support that can make a world of difference.
"They're more likely to have successful outcomes," said Lannia Stenz, executive director of Gilda's Club of Madison. "Their stress is going to be reduced. They're going to be able to better deal with financial aspects of what's going on in their life -- all of those pieces come together for better quality of life."
Neimeier said Gilda's has changed her life and has given her a positive outlook on her life with cancer.
"It's changed how I deal with the cancer," Neimeier said. "For me, having cancer is a bit like standing on a trap door. It feels like I'm living my life -- and I have a wonderful life -- and I know that every time I go in for a scan, my life could change again, and I could fall down that trap door."
This survivor, however, knows that if that trap door were to ever open again, she'd be greeted by the iconic red doors of Gilda's Club, behind which waits a community to help her through it.
"I feel like it has provided me with a community that will be there for me, and my family," she said.Mother with brain tumor finds comfort at Gilda's Club
All of the services Gilda's offers -- from professionally licensed support groups, to family dinners, child care, even yoga and children's karate -- are free. It's why donations are vital to keep Gilda's going, and it's why they're very excited about the 2012 Gilda's Run on Oct. 21.
Gilda's Club hopes to bring in more than $35,000 to provide these important services to cancer patients, survivors and their families. All of the funds raised will stay in the Madison area.
For more information about the Gilda's Run, go to http://www.gildasclubmadison.org/.


text:
Need a Toronto airport taxi? Toronto Airport Limo Service has is providing its professional service since 1995. Airport Limo Toronto is reliable services anytime anywhere in Toronto area. Services that you wont ever get elsewhere.
Royal Canadian Limo stands alone in his class.our luxury services consists on Suvs,Lincoln Town Cars,streches ,Flat rate Taxis and hummer.Mississauga Airport Limo take pride to provide services on the occasions such as ; a wedding, anniversary, prom
Car & Van Shuttle Services Acton Ontario


text:
Michael Levi and Peter Orszag on America's Energy Future
Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment, Director of the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change, Council on Foreign Relations
Vice Chairman of Global Banking, Citigroup
Editor, CFR.org, Council on Foreign Relations
OPERATOR: I would now like to turn the conference over to Mr. Robert McMahon. Sir, please begin.
ROBERT MCMAHON: Thank you. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to this Council on Foreign Relations on-the-record media conference call on America's energy future. I'm Robert McMahon, editor of cfr.org, and we are very fortunate to have two experts on hand to help map out that future.
Michael Levi is CFR's senior fellow for energy and the environment, and he directs the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change and is author of the new book "The Power Surge: Energy, Opportunity and the
Battle for America's Future."
Peter Orszag is vice chairman of global banking at Citigroup and former director of the Office of Management and Budget and a CFR adjunct senior fellow.
It is an especially timely moment for us to be discussing U.S. energy issues. Across the country, debates are playing out about the shale and fracking revolutions. A new proposed Obama administration budget underscores support for renewables, and we just passed the third anniversary of the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico as well, just to name a few topical areas.
But I'm going to begin with a brief discussion with Michael and Peter and then open up for your questions. And I want to begin with Michael.
Michael, in your book, "The Power Surge," you write that, quote, "Everything we once knew about American energy seems to be changing," end quote. Can you sketch out what that means and maybe what opportunities it's presenting?
MICHAEL LEVI: Absolutely. When you look at the American energy scene, pretty much every piece of it is evolving in ways that we could not or did not project or predict a few years ago. Oil production is going up rather than going down, and that's happening in parts of the country that people did not expect oil supplies to be coming from.
Five years ago, we were talking about the consequences of becoming dependent on imported natural gas. Now we're talking about whether we should export natural gas. Oil consumption, which seemed like it would go up forever, has fallen steadily over the last seven years. And renewable energy production has doubled at the same time, in part because of government support but in part because of some pretty radical declines in cost that people didn't anticipate.
At the same time that you've had these changes in the energy world you also have had big changes in how energy effects the broader world around us. A lot of what we think we know about energy we figured out in the 1970s, in the aftermath of the first energy crisis, the first Earth Day. We focused on how energy affected the economy, security and the environment, but the way those relationships work has changed since then.
Forty years ago, self-sufficiency, producing all the oil we consume would have really meant a lot more independence from the rest of the world. Today, energy independence is a much more elusive goal, even if we were able to produce all the oil we consume. The relationship between energy and the economy has changed. And the role of climate change in how we have to think about our energy choices has evolved pretty radically too. The last time we thought really seriously about energy as a country, climate change wasn't such a big issue. Today, it should be pretty central to how we think about our future.
MCMAHON: So one of the things that comes through the book -- you have these great anecdotal scenes from the -- like the state of Ohio, for example, which has taken on a new kind of significance as a battlefield state, I guess you could say. But it -- not really involving a lot of action, seemingly a lot of action from Washington that's led us to this moment. Could you talk a little bit about, you know, how much of this has sort of evolved on its own, how much was guided from a hand above?
LEVI: So a lot of what has happened has come from the ground up, rather than from Washington. We've seen this oil and gas boom driven by technologies that at some critical points did get some support from Washington, but that are pretty much being driven by private innovation, private investment onto private lands. The gains in renewable energy have been pushed in part by technology but in part by significant support from government, and the decline in oil consumption has been -- has been spurred by high oil prices, but also by fuel economy standards that steer people into more efficient cars and trucks. So we have a mix of different pieces.
What's critical going forward is that in order to capture the opportunities, or at least some of the opportunities that the changes create, we will need action from Washington. We will need smart rules for oil and gas development so that it can grow but also so that bad actors don't have serious accidents like the Deepwater Horizon disaster and ruin the party for everyone else. We need to have rules that help us use this abundant natural gas to replace coal in our power system and drive down emissions. We need support from government for further innovation and clean energy and steps that help private companies in the market take into account the damages to the climate that are created by overconsumption of fossil fuels and the harm to national security that comes when we use too much oil.
MCMAHON: So we're -- this is happening against a backdrop of, among other things, the sequester drama playing out in Washington. And your most-of-the-above approach would need to involve some crossing of aisles to make it work, to sort of frame a sensible energy policy. Where is that going to happen? Where is that going to start? Or are there things that are starting that we should be following and keeping an eye on?
LEVI: I think we should start small. It's been a while since we had some serious cooperative steps on energy. The first thing we can do is try to have the two sides not tear each other down too aggressively, so have each side focus on the gains that are important to it rather than on just opposing its traditional enemies. But let me give you one example of a small area where we could make gains. The president has proposed an energy security trust which would take money from expanded -- or from new leases for oil and gas and steer some of it towards support for innovation in technologies that use less oil. That's a small area. I think the proposal could be improved, but it's one where people who support new oil and gas drilling and people who support clean energy innovation could get together.
Another area where you could make progress without requiring new spending is improving the way we do permitting for energy development. Whether you want to do more oil and gas development or you want more clean energy development, you're going to need to build new things; you're going to need to build new facilities, you're going to need to build pipelines and power lines to move energy from where it's produced to where you need to use it -- all of those can't happen if we're in an environment where it's borderline impossible to build anything new.
MCMAHON: Got it. So, practical beginner steps there.
Peter, from an economist's perspective, can you talk a little bit about the economic impact of the shale revolution?
PETER ORSZAG: Sure, and this is one of the themes that Michael highlights in his excellent book. But let me just give a little bit more specificity to it.
The question is, what would the, you know, potentially dramatic new production, especially as it spreads to tight oil from shale formations, have on the economy? We've already seen significant effects from the dramatic decline in natural gas prices, but as this revolution spreads to the oil market also, what will the impact be?
My colleague, Ed Morse, has put out a report that tries to quantify some of these things, so let me just give you some flavor, because the effects are quite significant.
New production plausibly could amount to something like 7 percent of additional -- of global production by, say, 2020. A reasonable estimate from that additional production is that the additional supply, along with the reaction to the price reduction that is associated with the additional supply overall would reduce prices, oil prices by something like 16 percent in 2020, which is a quite significant impact.
And then the question is what does that price reduction and the new production itself do to GDP, and the answer is that it -- you know, a reasonable approach suggests that it would raise real GDP in 2020 by something like 2 (percentage points) to 3 percentage points, which is the equivalent of approximately 300 (billion dollars) to $600 billion a year.
Just to kind of walk through that very quickly. The first impact is when you've got a lot of new oil and gas production, that adds to real GDP directly because of the value of the new output, if you will, and a reasonable estimate there is that that accounts for about half of the total impact on the economy.
But in addition to that, you then have a kind of multiplier effect from that new production, as there are secondary effects. You can imagine, for example, the reduction in natural gas prices lead -- stimulates activity in petrochemicals and steel and, you know, other very energy intensive sectors. And when -- so that's one kind of indirect effect.
And then the second indirect effect is on consumers because, as energy prices decline, they've got more disposable income to spend. You can think of that component as basically being a tax cut. And in fact, the price reductions, the -- kind of of the order of magnitude that I mentioned would amount to almost $100 billion a year in new economic activity that's being driven by the lower prices and freeing up disposable income in household budgets. So you can imagine -- you can think of that almost as if it's a -- basically $100 billion a year tax cut.
So these are pretty big effects. I mean, one way of thinking about a 2 (percent) to 3 percent increase -- percentage point increase in GDP by 2020 is if that were spread evenly between now and today so that you get to the extra 2 (percent) to 3 percent by 2020, that's, you know, 30, 40 basis points a year. And to put that in context, that would be the equivalent of moving GDP growth from, say, 2 (percent) to almost 2 1/2 percent a year, which is, in today's economy, quite a noticeable effect. So this is a pretty big deal, and it's important that we -- that we -- well, it would be -- it would be very beneficial if we were to actually experience those kinds of gains.
MCMAHON: So let's take another underlying issue here that we haven't addressed yet directly, which is climate impact and, say, the role of price in carbon. Could you talk a little bit about that and how that plays into this?
ORSZAG: Yeah. And this is another theme throughout Michael's book, but one of the -- obviously, the underlying issues in the energy sector writ large and that has broader economic consequences is climate. And as an economist, I just want to emphasize that it -- the core thing that is missing right now, it is -- it is beneficial from a climate perspective that natural gas prices have declined, and that has led to some shifting of electricity generation from coal to natural gas.
But the biggest missing thing in terms of our response to the threat of significant climate change is price in carbon. We've got to attach some price to carbon and carbon equivalent greenhouse gasses in order to generate the responses from private firms and from households that would be desirable.
So just to calibrate this, you know, there are a whole variety of proposals out either for cap-and-trade, which would establish a price for carbon, or to just impose a carbon tax. And let me just give you some specificity with regard to a carbon tax.
If you consider there are a whole range of proposals out there, but if you consider a tax of $25 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent, the impact would be from a revenue perspective that you'd raise north of $100 billion a year. So just to, you know, come back to the discussion.
You had mentioned the sequester earlier. If you imposed a carbon tax of about that amount, you could eliminate -- you could more than eliminate, actually, the impact of the sequester and still -- and do so in a way that would be beneficial from the perspective of driving an appropriate response to the threat of climate change, because by attaching a price to carbon, you not only raise revenue, but you are also then generating a deeper incentive to shift towards, for example, natural gas both in energy -- electricity generation, but ultimately possibly in transportation, also, which is much less prevalent in the United States than it is elsewhere. So it's very important that we ultimately, either through cap and trade or a carbon tax, attach some price to carbon because without that, I think it's unlikely that we are going to respond in the way that we should to the threat of climate change, which is one of the themes that is pervasive throughout Michael's book.
MCMAHON: Great. Well, thank you both for framing these issues on the revolution, as it were. I want to open it up now to people on the call. And this is just a reminder that this is a Council on Foreign Relations on-the-record media conference call with Michael Levi and Peter Orszag. And operator, can you -- can you please see who we have as the first question?
OPERATOR: Yes, sir.
At this time, we'll open the floor for questions. (Gives queueing instructions.)
Our first question comes from Ed Brookes (sp) with the Financial Times.
QUESTIONER: Hi. Good morning. Thanks so much for taking the question.
I wanted to ask your thoughts on natural gas exports and how the administration's going to view those. We are now two years since the last permit for exports to non-free-trade-agreement countries was awarded. And obviously the risk -- now, a little speculation about what's going to happen and the fact there's been so much of a delay. It suggests there might be a bit of debate about this inside the administration and there's a very lively debate outside about whether natural gas should be exported in large quantities or whether it should be retained for the benefit of U.S. consumers. Wondering, I guess, your thoughts both on what the administration will do and what they should do and whether the two things are the same.
MCMAHON: Michael, do you want to take that on natural gas exports?
LEVI: Sure, and I talk about natural gas exports in the book.
Look, it's a straightforward debate. There are a lot of domestic players who think they would benefit from trapping natural gas inside the United States, whether that is consumers of natural gas in households, electric power generators or in particular, some segments of manufacture in particular, particularly fertilizer makers and some other chemicals makers who think that they could be better off if we trapped this gas here.
On the other side, you would have benefits, if you would allowed exports, not only from operating the terminals and selling this overseas but because allowing exports would simulate additional production and allow you to capture gains in the field, but also upstream where people produce steel, cement and other products that go into natural gas wells. I've done estimates that suggest that you might be able to net something on the order of a few billion dollars a year from allowing exports. Not anything spectacular, but the economic benefits, the net benefits should be positive.
To me, the bigger question when you talk about a government decision on natural gas exports is, what would be the broader ramifications for American trade relationships if we were to say no to natural gas exports. Right now, we are challenging China, the WTO, on its own exports of rare earth materials, its own restrictions on exports. Why do they want to restrict exports? They say it's for environmental reasons. Some people there, also, certainly talk about it as a way to boost domestic competitiveness. We'd be writing the Chinese brief if we took the same stance on our own natural gas exports.
I think this also gets to a deeper point. Part of what's happening with this oil and gas boom is it's convincing a lot of people that we no -- we may no longer need global markets. We may no longer need this structure that we spent decades, particularly since the 1973 oil crisis, building to help us be more resilient in the face of a volatile global market. And saying we're going to keep this here and secede, in some ways, from the market plays into this idea that now we don't need the rest of the world. I think that's very wrong-headed. We do need the rest of the world. We are part of an integrated global market and we need to be thinking about how our energy decisions affect our role in that market, our role in the world and our security and prosperity, given that structure, not in the context of some fanciful, hoped for world where we get to isolate ourselves from everyone else.
MCMAHON: Thanks, Michael.
Peter, do you want to jump in on this?
ORSZAG: Yes. I would just add two quick points. The first is, Michael kind of hinted at this, but a key question in terms of what the impact of exports of LNG would be even on domestic producers because you can go out and ask the folks who are building, you know, natural gas-powered electricity generation, you know, how much risk are you taking on that there's going -- you're assuming prices will remain low and that there might be some significant and additional risk if there are major exports, or the same question for chemical facilities and what have you, any energy-intensive plant.
And the answer that you get from most of the -- most of the business folks is that there -- they have looked into this and they're aware of that risk, but that their belief is that the elasticity of supply from the shale formations is significant enough that they don't expect a significant price increase. So that's a key question, which is how much of a -- of a hit would there be even to the folks who would be perceived as being damaged.
But I think the bigger point is the one that Michael made, which is it is very difficult as a general principle to justify export restrictions on something like this, where there is no -- you know, there's no proprietary national security technology concern.
And as a general principle, I think we will get ourselves twisted in a pretzel trying to -- as Michael actually has already pointed out, trying to argue the opposite side of the case with regard to the things that we'd like to be in, you know, a global free market kind of situation, but then exempting a particular category ourselves. And in any case, it's also not from a national perspective, I think, in our national self-interest to do so. So this is one of these situations where an export restriction could harm the macroeconomy and could also be counter to our other interests in terms of at least avoiding hypocrisy on trade policy writ large.
LEVI: Let me build briefly on something Peter said about prices, because one of the fears is that prices would rise so much from exports that it would endanger what's happening in manufacturing in this country because of low energy costs.
When I traveled in Ohio while I was working on the book, I met with the owner of a company that had tripled in size over the last few years because they were building compressors for natural gas production. There are all of these impacts on manufacturing that are happening that we do want to preserve. But when you look at the global market, what you see is that it's expensive to liquefy natural gas, it's expensive to take that liquefied natural gas and ship it to another part of the world and then it's expensive to take that and turn it back into gas.
And what that total price means -- and the total cost of doing that is substantially larger than the cost of extracting the gas in the first place -- what that means is that U.S. prices will always remain substantially lower than overseas ones, because if U.S. prices get driven too high by demand from exports, they'll price themselves out of the global market.
QUESTIONER: Yeah. Just I -- I just have one follow up on that. We've been talking a bit here as though it's a kind of a binary thing, exports or not exports. Obviously, those -- I think it's 17 projects of -- put applications into the Energy Department for export of gas to nonfree trade agreement countries. Are you then arguing that all 17 of those should get permits if they want them?
LEVI: Well, each of the projects has its own idiosyncrasies, so I'm not going to judge whether each is appropriate for approval. What I would say is that if you had to pick a handful of them, it is far from clear how you would make that choice.
Part of the reason we have so many applications is that people are afraid that it will become a first come, first serve regime, and so they're getting in line with their $50 application just in case that's how we do it.
MCMAHON: Thanks a lot for that question.
Operator, do we have another question, please?
OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from John Broder with New York Times.
QUESTIONER: Hello, Michael, Peter. Thanks for doing this call.
One of the apparent losers in this revolution is the domestic coal industry. They seem to see their salvation as exports. Could you talk a little bit about what the prospects are for domestic coal producers and shippers in those terminals?
MCMAHON: Mike, you want to jump in first?
LEVI: Sure. So we have seen an increase in coal exports from the United States, and as natural gas prices some coal out of the domestic market, you'll see almost certainly an increase in coal exports. There are a couple of big -- at least a couple of big questions that still surround that. The first is that transporting this can be expensive, depending on where it's coming from and where you're trying to get it to. The second is, there's substantial local opposition to some of the proposed coal export terminals, particularly the ones that would actually make the most economic sense in principle, for example, for taking Powder River Basin coal and moving it to Asia.
And then the third -- and this is more of a policy and desirability question -- is how do we think about coal exports in a carbon-constrained world. I think we have a pretty poor understanding of the net impact of coal exports on global emissions, because we don't really know whether U.S. coal exports would replace coal that comes from somewhere else or add to the total global consumption of coal. That different has big consequences for climate. I think there's some interesting analysis going on on that now that will shed some more light in the next several months, but we'll still be in a pretty -- in a pretty murky world there.
I would -- I would add one other piece. While we are seeing perhaps lower demand for rail transport of coal because there's less demand for coal and power generation, there's a significant compensating effect because rail is now being used substantially for moving oil around the country.
MCMAHON: Peter, anything to add on the coal front?
ORSZAG: Yeah, I would just highlight the point that Michael made about leakage. The core question is whether export -- from a climate perspective is whether exports of coal from the United States would, on net, add to non-U.S. coal consumption. And you can imagine in countries that are importing coal or have very high production costs of coal, that all that it would do is substitute. But for countries that have significant coal at relatively low cost, it is difficult to see why they would pay for imports from the United States, given the transportation costs, unless it was, you know, effectively a net-add. So that's a crucial question. It's one of the -- it's one of the reasons why some people have been concerned about imposing a carbon tax, say, only in the United States because if you -- if the net effect of those coal exports were to -- if they were, say, all added to consumption abroad, instead of being substituted for other forms of coal abroad, the net impact on the climate, obviously, would not be -- would not be beneficial because it doesn't matter where a carbon emission comes from. It still has the same impact on the environment.
LEVI: I should add that this sort of dynamic is important not just for coal but for other fuels and not just for climate change but for economics and security. If you take a look at oil, for example, and look at the potential impact of increased U.S. oil production, one of the things you find is that it's unlikely to have a very large impact on prices or on emissions because it would largely substitute for oil from other sources.
When I was writing the book, I visited with the secretary-general of OPEC and had an interesting discussion about the U.S. oil boom and the potential impact on his member countries. And one of the things he emphasized -- and you can judge for yourself whether you think he is bluffing or not -- is that from their perspective, there's probably room for everyone. We'll produce a bit more. They won't increase their supplies as much. The net result will be a smaller change in global production than one might expect, and as a result, a smaller change in oil prices but also in emissions.
MCMAHON: Thank you. Thank you for that question.
Operator, is there another question?
OPERATOR: Yes, our next question comes from Andrew Stull with Houlihan.
QUESTIONER: Yes, can the two speakers comment on the subject of thorium and liquid fluoride reactors? Is that an alternative energy source for electrical power generation? If you spend any time looking at this technology which the U.S. developed in the '60s and hasn't really followed up with in terms of development, it seems that it's a pretty compelling solution, low-cost. It's a safe form of electrical power generation through nuclear power. And it's a terrible way to make weapons-grade uranium for bomb making. So I was curious is there are -- if the two of you have any comment on that. And I haven't read your book, so maybe you cover it.
LEVI: So let me -- let me say two basic things here. First, one of the patterns you find when you look at the history of energy technologies is that people are most optimistic about the technologies that aren't in use because they are able to look at them without necessarily having full knowledge of the challenges that come when you try to actually deploy them.
So I would be very careful, as with a host of other technologies, in expecting really big things from a technology that hasn't been tested commercially at scale in the field.
But more broadly on nuclear, five years ago, nuclear already was having a tough time in the United States competing against coal. Today, nuclear is in even tougher economic straits, regardless of the technology choice. Cheap natural gas makes it tough to make money at peak times when prices are high and electricity demand is high. And at the same time, subsidized windpower generation, which tends to be dominant at night when it's really windy, cuts nighttime power prices, which is another way that nuclear plants make a lot of money.
So what we've actually seen in the last year or two is a couple of nuclear power plants come up for safety upgrades and decide to shut down instead of spending the money even to do the safety upgrades because it's not even worth that money to continue producing power at a relatively low -- at a relatively low price.
So nuclear is strongly challenged in the face of the developments happening in this country. If I were to pick one factor that could really boost nuclear power across the board in this country, independent of the particular technology, it's what Peter talked about, it's a price on carbon. Nuclear power doesn't generate carbon dioxide emissions, and so if you penalize technologies that do, nuclear power gets a big boost.
At that point, I think we'd have to wait and see whether it's nuclear or renewables or carbon capture and sequestration that takes advantage of the opportunity to make big gains. But absent something that really gives nuclear full credit for that advantage that it has over other technologies, I don't think you're going to see big nuclear gains in the United States.
MCMAHON: Now, Michael, at this point, nuclear's about 15, 20 percent of overall energy?
LEVI: It's about 20 percent of electricity production.
MCMAHON: Electricity production. Got it. Peter, anything to add?
ORSZAG: No, I would just -- going beyond the centrality of carbon price, just one quick comment on technology, which is we haven't had, at least in terms of U.S. design, any significant advances, but there's at least the possibility that Bill Gates and associates' emphasis on a traveling wave reactor could -- and I'm not saying will -- but could have, you know, a sort of breakthrough moment. But we will have to wait and see.
In the meanwhile, I think it's clear that the biggest impetus to nuclear would be a carbon price.
MCMAHON: And as Michael said, we're seeing the same kind of scrutiny with some of the new car models that are rolling out, whether it's electric or battery or hybrids or whatever.
ORSZAG: Right.
LEVI: And that's an important part of the process. You don't figure out the problems and you don't find solutions until you actually get things out in the field. People tend to -- when we talk about innovation and energy technologies, people -- (this is mine ?) sent ahead to the labs, and that's a big part of it, but an equally big part is getting things out there, figuring out not only how to operate them in different ways to how to finance them properly, how to get business models that actually work.
MCMAHON: Thanks. Operator, do we have another question?
OPERATOR: Yes. Our next question comes from independent journalist Dan Morgan (sp).
QUESTIONER: Yes. You talked at length about the impact of natural gas on the -- on coal. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about the impact in the transportation sector. A couple of ways: the -- obviously, compressed natural gas for the heavier vehicles, but also whether or not you see this as kind of black swan for biofuels because a number of biofuel companies are -- have announced they're switching their feedstocks from biomass to natural gas -- to gasified natural gas, produce syngas and make fuels from that with no biomass involved.
I wonder if you could address that.
MCMAHON: Peter, do you want to kick that one off?
ORSZAG: Sure, I'll start. First, I mean, this is a -- with a caveat that I'm going to turn to in a second -- this is a significant area in which we could see growth and expansion. The sort of trite comparison I like to make is Armenia, which is not generally known as a world leader in anything, holds at least one global record, which is that three-quarters of its cars and trucks run on natural gas. In the U.S., it's something like 0.1 percent instead of 75 percent. So that just gives you some sense of, you know, the upward possibility. But the big -- the big question is, how do we get there, because in order for this to work there's a lot of changes that are required, the most elemental of which involves filling stations. There are -- and I'm a little fuzzy, but I think there are only a couple thousand, let's say 2(,000) or 3,000 natural gas stations across the country, and there are more than 100,000 traditional gasoline stations. So that just illustrates that there would have to be significant investment even in that most elemental form of capacity in order to see a broader shift in the transportation sector.
MCMAHON: Michael, do you want to add something?
LEVI: Yeah, let me build on that a bit. And I love that Peter points out that Armenia has this much natural gas-using cars and trucks. You always find this in peculiar countries. You find it in Armenia, you find it in Iran, you find it in Pakistan. The thing those countries have in common is they tend to control natural gas prices, so you don't need to worry about those prices when you buy a natural gas-fueled vehicle. And in particular, they tend to hold them below what market rates would otherwise be so that natural gas option is attractive. I don't think we're going to head down that road in the United States. I think you laid out some of the options in a nice way. Compressed natural gas in cars has the big challenge of being a lot less energy-dense, so you can't go as far on a tank of gas. And that combines with the infrastructure issue that Peter talked about to make it pretty tough to see very large-scale penetration of those.
I met with a battery executive -- battery company executive. They typically brag about their plug-in electric cars. He bragged about his compressed natural gas car that he was using to save money while he worked on trying to make -- break through some batteries. But he also pointed out that there was a filling station, a very rare filling station, one of five in the Silicon Valley area, between his house and his work, so he was able to fill up pretty much every day on one way or the other of his commute.
You talked about the conversion of natural gas into liquid fuels. I think that's a big wild card going forward. It's in principle a straightforward thing to do. It uses established chemical processes; it is being done elsewhere in the world, though often at pretty high costs. The challenge will be to see whether investment can really flow into that in a big way, because any investor in that area faces at least three big risks. They face a price risk on natural gas. They face a price risk on gasoline or diesel or whatever fuel they're competing with. And they face a price risk on construction, and these are usually multi-billion-dollar, very challenging plants, aside from some of the small ones that are being converted the way the questioner alluded to.
So multiple big risks often deter investors. But this is an area that I would really watch to see whether natural gas in the United States, cheap natural gas, can ultimately make a big market on -- big impact on our market for gasoline and diesel and jet fuel.
MCMAHON: And there was part of the question on biofuels, which I thought was kind of interesting. Michael you've written about this recently, about the sort of -- what's happening with ethanol. Do you want to just talk a little bit about that?
LEVI: Well, I think that the -- what the questioner was asking about was the conversion of plants -- of facilities that convert biomass into liquid fuels and then changing that to operate on natural gas. In the biofuels world, we've been starting to see some big challenges. I don't want to get into the weeds on that, but what I'll see is that if you look naively at the mandates that are out there and see that they mandate very large volumes of biofuels in the next 10 years, you can go from that and say, well, we're going to cut U.S. oil demand by another million barrels a day over the next decade as a result of that. I think if you look at the real world, you'll see that we're not delivering on those biofuels the way we expected to, and we've waived the mandate in large part the last several years and I think we'll continue to waive the mandate until there is a significant alternative. Unfortunately, if investors and entrepreneurs believe that you will repeatedly waive the mandate for their product in the future, they don't tend to put a lot of money into trying to deliver solutions that comply with it.
MCMAHON: Great, thanks. Just a reminder to all: This is a Council on Foreign Relations on-the-record media conference call on "America's Energy Future." We're speaking with Michael Levi and Peter Orszag. Any other questions, Operator?
OPERATOR: Yes, we have a question from Erika Karp with UBS.
QUESTIONER: Hello, gentlemen. Thank you very much for doing this call.
My question relates to your views on whether the issues at hand, climate change in particular, is a question of financial market stability. And the reason I ask is, you know, when you look at the most recent science, whether it's about the extent of Arctic ice melt or the -- you know, anyone who's experienced this -- either the Sandy storm surge, which I guess was like a 1 in 800 year event statistically.
But when you look at this stuff and when you think about the extent to which we do ultimately need some kind of carbon tax, and then when we look at the value of what some people refer to as stranded assets that sit in these gas and oil companies, which represent probably 10, 15 percent of the world's market cap, there are those that argue that the value of those assets for the companies is probably 50, 60 percent less than what the current market cap is.
And so it makes we wonder, do we link climate science in this dialogue to financial market stability? And then, are we experiencing maybe a little bit of a lack of urgency -- or a lot of lack of urgency -- to get something done policywise here?
MCMAHON: Peter, do you want to start on that?
ORSZAG: That's very -- yeah, let me jump in on that. I think what this highlights is I have long believed -- and I still believe -- that the right way to think about climate change is not the way typically framed, which is about the central estimate of what the impact on GDP would be if we have a certain increase in temperature and so on and so forth, because most of the interesting stuff is not what happens in expectation but rather what happens in terms of variance and risk and -- so that the right way to think about taking -- or the better way to think about taking action today to address climate change in, for example, to attach some price to carbon, would be to reduce the risk of severe events, and the problem with that perspective is it is almost impossible to quantify the benefit of moving from a low probability to an even lower probability when neither of those is known with certainty.
But nonetheless, I do think that there is enough -- there's enough reason to be concerned that we will be upping the prevalence of severe weather -- weather shock and that that will have an impact not only on the energy sector, as you mentioned, but, frankly, a much broader impact.
And to your point about complacency, the reason that I highlight that perspective, the sort of tail event, is I think it's very easy -- and we've seen repeated examples of this -- for people to ignore relatively small tail risks of very extreme events and then not have any action that it tries to mitigate it.
So it -- it's a -- unfortunately, I think a common human tendency, it's especially true in democracies, that policy tends to be driven by a crisis, and the thing about kind of a gradual long-term increase in risk -- which is, I think, the best way to think about increasing concentration of greenhouse gases, is that there's no single forcing event that -- you know, that strikes you as saying, well, we must act today because tomorrow we'll fall off a cliff. That's not the case. It's just -- it is gradually ratcheting up the risk factor.
And the problem with climate as opposed to many other kinds of scenarios or risks that we might face is that it is extraordinarily difficult to undo once you've exposed yourself to that risk. So in lots of other settings, you can build up exposure to a risk and then quickly mitigate that risk. So in -- you know, if the risk is a highly leveraged financial institution, you can relatively rapidly de-lever and inject more capital into those institutions and thereby reduce the risk.
With carbon and greenhouse gases, that's a much more difficult thing to undo because the risk factor really arises from the concentration of greenhouse gases as opposed to the emission rates, and the only thing you can really quickly affect is the emission rates.
MCMAHON: Michael, you want to add to that?
LEVI: Well, I think Peter really nailed the framing for how we think -- should be thinking about this. We think about it too often as an optimization problem -- how do you get the most likely outcome to be as good as possible? How do you gain a few percentage points on GDP by fine-tuning the system when what we really need to be thinking about is big risks and how to reduce those big risks?
You asked about the impact on oil and gas companies. The first thing I'd say is that if we had a solid carbon policy that in one way or another, put a price on emissions, the biggest -- the biggest hit in the fossil fuel world wouldn't be to oil or gas companies, it would be to coal companies and to utilities that depend on coal or are committed in big ways through infrastructure projects to using coal. Coal is really the number one fuel that gets hit by a serious effort to deal with climate change. Natural gas in the -- at least for the next decade or so would be boosted as a result of a serious effort to deal with climate change because you would see an incentive to move from coal to gas before a shift from gas to zero carbon energy really took over.
Oil is more complicated. Typically, when you look at the kinds of carbon prices people talk about, the kinds of prices that the president talked about a few years ago, the kinds of prices that John McCain talked about in the 2008 campaign, they have a pretty limited effect on oil, at least for the next few decades. I think that real-world carbon policy would have a larger effect on oil, but again it would really start to bite, not in the near term, but over the longer run.
And then you need to get into questions like, how much do oil companies discount their future cash flows relative to now? So the estimates you have that say they would lose 50 percent of their value or so tend to assume that barrel -- oil produced in 2040 is worth the same as a barrel of oil produced today. For a company that probably has an internal hurdle rate of 15 percent or so, I don't think that's an appropriate comparison.
MCMAHON: Thanks, operator. Do we have another question?
QUESTIONER: May I ask a follow-up question?
MCMAHON: Sure. Please go ahead.
QUESTIONER: And again this -- I apologize, this may be, you know, further afield, but it seems like one of the important issues related to energy is actually water. And so I'm wondering, can you make any comments about kind of the nexus of energy and water policy? And as an example, I understand that, you know, 50 percent of the fracking done -- fracking, obviously, uses massively more water than anything else, but I understand that about half of the fracking that's done is done in water-stressed areas. So it seems like if we have energy policy, we also need consistent water policy. Do you -- is this too far afield for you and what you've dealt with? Can you make a few comments?
ORSZAG: It's Peter. Let me -- can I jump in on that?
MCMAHON: Sure.
ORSZAG: A couple comments. The first, in water as in climate, the core problem from my perspective is inadequate pricing. We are never going to regulate our way out of water problems. So whenever you try to impose some kind of efficiency standard, so you've got, you know -- you run into a water shortage and you impose, you know, alternative day sprinkling of your -- of your lawn or -- actually, the great example is, you know, low-water-flush toilets that were installed in New York City or, you know, similar things on showers, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. You get a corresponding and offsetting response. So if you prohibit people from watering their lawn except on Tuesdays and Thursdays, they will water them a little bit more intensively those days. If you have low-flow showers, they often will take longer showers. There are offsetting behavioral responses that try to undo the impact of what you're ostensibly trying to accomplish.
The only way to really get at that is through pricing. So if you face a price for your water use, your incentives are aligned properly and it's a lot simpler and, sort of, more straightforward. And I would say writ large across the United States, but this is also a global problem, we are not adequately pricing water because it is politically challenging. And one way to get around that is kind of a block price where you have a certain base level of water use that's exempted and then beyond that there's a marginal price that's associated with the use. And we could be doing that much more aggressively than we are in the United States.
And you're also right. I'm a little less sure that fracking is the best example of the connection, but there are undoubtedly examples of connections between water and energy and energy and water. One of which is that water problems in the north -- the northern region of the north-south kind of water divide in China were so severe that there were actually problems running some traditional power plants and that led to a very significant increase in, basically, kind of, smaller-scale generators that -- almost home-scale generators being added to run electricity for housing and for some small power -- I mean, for some small production facilities. And that, then, had an effect on the fuel input that was used in those generators.
So there absolutely is connections, as would be expected given two dominant forces in the economy. But again, I think the cleanest way of dealing with water issues is not to believe that we can regulate our way out of them because I think that's almost a fool's errand. A much better way, which is not used as aggressively as it should, is to price water.
LEVI: Let me add just a little. I think Peter's right on this.
If we got a better understanding of the shale resource and of where the -- where the good wells will be and the bad wells will be -- because right now our understanding is relatively poor. We drill a lot of wells that aren't all that successful so that we can make sure that we hit the right spots. If we had a better understanding what was going on underground, we would use less water, we would have fewer truck trips for that, to bring that water in, so less community disruption and the economics of the industry would get better. So there are opportunities where you can make gains on the water front and on the economic and other environmental impacts for under -- at the -- at the same time.
MCMAHON: Does that have a bearing on the Keystone issue, as well, Michael, with the Oglalla reservoir? Is that sort of a different --
LEVI: I think that's a totally different --
MCMAHON: Totally.
LEVI: -- a totally different world and a complicated issue that we're probably not going to nail down on this call. (Laughter.)
MCMAHON: Thank you. Operator, do we have another question?
OPERATOR: Yes, we have a question from Byra Shawna (sp) with Middle East Broadcasting Network.
QUESTIONER: Yeah, I thank you for the question.
I want to ask you about how oil search will shape with U.S. relations with the world, especially with the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia.
And another question, how do you see the role of the United States, maybe, in the energy market? Will we see Washington exploiting some conflics in the Middle East, in other regions, just to -- (inaudible) -- control the energy world market?
MCMAHON: To Michael, geopolitics.
LEVI: So I think it's important to separate those questions into two pieces. One is, what impact should what's happening in the United States have on U.S. relationship with the rest of the world?
The other is, what impact will what's happening in the United States have on what's happening in the rest of the world? And let's focus on oil -- gas is a different story and we can come back to that later if we want to, but in the oil world, we remain dependent on global markets and we would remain dependent even if we produced all of the oil that we consume. When things go haywire in the Middle East and the price of oil spikes, it spikes here too and it would continue to even if we produced all of our own crude. When we saw the conflict in Libya a couple of years ago, the price of oil coming from Canada into the United States increased by more than the price of oil from the Middle East did. So while we would get some insulation from the broader economic consequences of price spikes because we would be, essentially, sending money from U.S. consumers to U.S. producers in the event of a spike, we would be far from fully insulated because even that shock that moves money from consumers to producers would still hurt the economy in the short run.
So as a matter of principle and substance, we need to continue to be engaged in making sure that we have stable global markets and that oil and other resources and other commerce are able to move freely and reliably around the world. Now, that's the matter -- that's the theory. As a matter of practice, I have no doubt that what's happening in the United States will influence domestic debates. Energy policy has never been firmly and consistently anchored in entirely in reality and I don't see any reason for that to change. There are a lot of people who will believe that the United States can be less engaged in the rest of the world because of this and they'll press that point in debates over things -- everything from diplomatic engagement to military force structure and I think that probably has real-world consequences.
You also find when you travel in the Middle East that a lot of people are genuinely scared that the United States will be less engaged. When you travel in China, people ask consistently about whether the United States will continue to protect the sea lanes that connect not only the Middle East to North America, but also to Chinese and other Asian markets. And no matter how much we do to say we're still going to be there -- and you've heard that from the national security adviser last week, you heard it from the special envoy for international energy at the State Department a month or so ago -- no matter how many times people hear U.S. officials say we're still there, they're not going to be fully confident because of these trends. And I'm sure they will hedge against the possibility that the United States could become substantially less engaged.
So real-world consequences will result as much from people's perceptions of what these developments mean as they will from the reality on the ground.
MCMAHON: Peter, anything to add to that?
ORSZAG: I think that was very well said and I have nothing to add to that.
MCMAHON: All righty. Operator, we have another question, please.
QUESTIONER: Yes, we have a question from Whitney Stanco (sp) with Guggenheim Security.
QUESTIONER: Thanks, Michael and Peter, for doing a call. This is great. Quick follow-up: You guys talked about LNG exports, but there's some thought that the next export debate around the corner is whether or not we should export crude oil and whether or not our refining capacity here will be maxed out in terms of its ability to process all the light sweet crude we've got going on here.
So, just any quick thoughts on that -- you know, how do you think the political debate is different than LNG exports and whether or not you think exporting crude is also in the U.S. interest.
MCMAHON: Michael, exporting crude?
LEVI: So this is a really peculiar area and we're going to have to face up to it well before the United States is able to produce as much oil as it consumes, because of this mismatch in oil types that you point to.
As a matter of substance, there are far fewer losers from allowing oil exports than there are from allowing natural gas exports. I mean, Peter and I both said early on that there are net gains from allowing natural gas exports but there are winners and losers. Allowing oil exports doesn't create much in the way of down side, but it does create up side opportunities to use our refineries more efficiently and to add additional supplies to the market. But as a matter of politics, oil exports will almost certainly be more difficult than natural gas exports. Gas exports is largely, right now, about different interest groups with different preferences. Oil exports I'm sure will hit at this basic belief that people hold very intensely in this country, that producing oil here and using oil here is the surefire route to increase national security. And the idea of oil exports just seems intuitively to fly in the face of what most people assume makes sense for American prosperity. So I expect that oil exports may be a much more charged debate, even if the substance doesn't necessarily merit it.
MCMAHON: Peter, did you want to add in on that?
ORSZAG: Well, yeah. I mean, in natural gas, the debate over exports, while I think it should, you know, be resolved in favor of exports, is at least understandable because natural gas markets historically have been somewhat segmented and it hasn't -- you know, it's not effectively a global market. In oil, that's just not the case and it would be highly -- even more ironic for the United States to say, we will prohibit -- or not allow -- exports of oil when for decades now, we have been reliant on or at least, you know, been the beneficiary of other countries' exports. It just -- I agree with Michael that the debate is coming, but I think it would be hugely, just in terms of our stand in the world and our ability to not look like hypocrites, odd to say that we are going to prohibit or discourage the export of oil, should that prove to be economically sensible.
MCMAHON: And that's going to be the final word on this call. Our hour is up. And I want to thank our two guests, Michael Levi and Peter Orszag, for navigating us through this brave new world of America's energy. And thanks to everyone on the call as well. This concludes this Council on Foreign Relations on-the-record media conference call. Thank you.
ORSZAG: Thanks very much.
LEVI: Thank you.
Terms of Use: I understand that I may access this audio and/or video file solely for my personal use. Any other use of the file and its content, including display, distribution, reproduction, or alteration in any form for any purpose, whether commercial, non commercial, educational, or promotional, is expressly prohibited without the written permission of the copyright owner, the Council on Foreign Relations. For more information, write email@example.com.


text:
DESSERT TABLE INSPIRATION | look what I sniffed out! | This is Not Your Mother's Viennese Table…
On a visit to Chic Florals & Events, while scrolling down the page I suddenly caught sight of something I knew I had seen before, elsewhere. I remember totally loving it but, of course, whenever that first time was, I had been distracted by some other bit of loveliness elsewhere, and left it behind. Well, thankfully I stumbled upon it once again, and no way is it getting left in my dust this time. It's just too pretty, too chic, and too great an idea to risk forgetting about all over again.
How sharp does that look? There's something so incredibly exquisite about this idea… and while I can't speak for all dessert cheese tables, I'll risk it and say that if you set up a smartly chosen arrangement of low-stink factor milky delights, and label those suckers in such a way as has been done here by the amazing Maybelle Imasa-stukuls, I'd say you've got a guaranteed hit on your hands. And why's that?
… Because people LOVE CHEESE. And the only thing people love more than cheese is cheese spread across a slice of baguette.
Karen Mordechai of Sunday Suppers styled and snapped this loveliness for a guest blog post on The Bride's Guide with Darcy Miller, Martha Stewart's wedding blog.
The objective, in Karen's words: "we decided to create a dessert cheese table—very much in the French fashion—using a rustic chic look for décor, staying within the given color palette of cream and white."
By the way, adding comb honey to the tablescape is a magnificent idea, if you ask me. Not only is it easy on the eyes (who hasn't stared at that captivating little jar of tightly packed honeycomb, just waiting for a good reason to buy it?), but spread on bread or paired with a strong cheese, it's one heck of a treat for the palate. Your guests will LOVE it!
- Styling + Photography by Karen Mordechai of Sunday Suppers
- Found via: Chic Florals & Events
- Signage: Maybelle Imasa-stukuls


text:
Web Stories
Goodman to speak on career experiences at NBC, Olympics
Posted September 29, 2008; 06:20 p.m.
Brett Goodman, a 1990 Princeton alumnus and a senior vice president at NBC Universal Sports and Olympics, will speak at 7:30 p.m. Monday, Oct. 6, in 2 Robertson Hall.
Goodman will participate in the Office of Career Services' IMAGINE Speaker Series, discussing his unimagined career journey. His address will be followed by a reception in the Shultz Dining Room.
Goodman, whose title at NBC is vice president for strategic partnerships and business affairs, graduated from Princeton with an A.B. in English. He went on to earn a law degree from Columbia University Law School.
He is a key contributor to NBC's coverage of the Olympic Games, creating strategic alliances with the international and U.S. Olympic Committees, athletes and agents. He also sets up partnerships with advertisers and promoters.
Goodman serves as counsel to the division, negotiating revenue-sharing deals with the Olympic Committees, NFL, NHL, PGA and others. He has a background in intellectual property, including trademark, copyright and talent negotiations. He won an Emmy Award as a researcher on NBC's telecast of the 1992 Olympic Games in Barcelona.