text:
by Len Lear
Donna-Lee Lista, 52, of Montgomeryville, never smoked, but she still contracted lung cancer. (About 15% of all diagnoses of lung cancer are of non-smokers.) Donna is certainly not the "face" or story one typically hears about when thinking of lung cancer. But her daughter, Alexandra, a goalie on the school lacrosse team, has mobilized and started a new non-profit organization, Laxers vs. Lung Cancer, with two of her lacrosse teammates — sophomores Olivia Gannon, attacker, and Dominique Nyzio, defender — at Mount St. Joseph Academy in Flourtown to raise money to raise awareness and support research.
Money was raised by various activities such as selling merchandise like headbands, hairties, etc., and running lacrosse clinics and tournaments.
Then on Sunday, Nov. 6, Donna-Lee and her support crew walked in the annual Pennsylvania Lung Cancer Partnership's "Free to Breathe" event in West Fairmount Park.
This event provides an opportunity for lung cancer advocates, survivors and the community to come together to raise awareness and support to fight this disease. More than 2,900 participants helped raise over $300,000, which was all donated to the Pennsylvania Lung Cancer Partnership's research, education and awareness programs.
Alexandra explained why she and her teammates started their nonprofit organization: "People dealing with lung cancer, especially people that never smoked, see that lung cancer doesn't get nearly as much funding as it needs. So we wanted to start an organization that will bring attention and raise money for this disease."
Meanwhile, Alexandra's mom told us last week, "I am now doing very well. I am five-and-three-quarters years out (from the cancer diagnosis) and clear."
According to "Cancer Facts and Figures," a report by the American Cancer Society, "Lung cancer is the number one cancer killer of American men and women. Lung cancer kills almost twice as many American women as breast cancer annually and three times as many men as prostate cancer.
"One in 13 men and one in 16 women will get lung cancer in their lifetime. Approximately 219,400 people are diagnosed with lung cancer in the U.S. each year. This means an American is diagnosed with lung cancer every 2.5 minutes. Lung cancer kills nearly 160,000 people annually – more people than breast, prostate, colon, liver, kidney and melanoma cancers combined."
Despite these alarming statistics, "Less money is spent on lung cancer research than on research on other cancers. In 2006, the National Cancer Institute estimated it spent only $1,638 per lung cancer death compared to $13,519 per breast cancer death, $11,298 per prostate cancer death, and $4,588 per colorectal cancer."
The National Lung Cancer Partnership, sponsor of the "Free to Breathe" events, is the only lung cancer advocacy organization founded by physicians and researchers working together with survivors and advocates to increase lung cancer awareness and research funding.
Their mission is to decrease deaths due to lung cancer and help patients live longer and better through research, awareness and advocacy. For more information, visit www.NationalLungCancerPartnership.org.


text:
MOUNT PLEASANT, Mich. (AP) Allen Roberts scored 19 points to lead Miami (Ohio) to a 70-61 win over Central Michigan Saturday night.
The Redhawks (8-12, 3-5 Mid-American) went ahead to stay at 51-48 on Roberts' 3-pointer with 7:18 to play. Central Michigan stayed close and it was 59-57 when Roberts scored with 1:52 remaining. Miami was 8 for 8 at the free-throw line in the final minute.
Will Felder scored 11 points and Will Sullivan scored 10 for Miami, which has won four in a row in the series and 13 of the last 14 against the Chippewas.
Kyle Randall led the Chippewas (9-12, 2-6) with 20 points. Blake Hibbitts had 12 points for Central Michigan, which has lost four in a row.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Exclusive: Mourdock braces
INDIANAPOLIS — Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said Wednesday he expects Democrats to unleash a barrage of attacks over his remarks about pregnancies caused by rape, but he still expects the GOP to rally to his cause with control of the Senate potentially riding on the race.
"They will certainly run, negative crazy TV commercials," the Indiana candidate told POLITICO in an exclusive interview. "They'll change themes. [But] we are at that time of the season, frankly, when I think people are almost tuning them out. … I don't know if they're going to have much impact."
Story Continued Below
( Also on POLITICO: GOP splits over Mourdock comment)
Asked if he's worried, the tea party-backed Republican responded: "You use the word 'worry.' I'm a candidate, candidates always worry about everything. I've been on this trail now for 613 days — there hasn't been a day I haven't worried about something, so we just keep pushing forward."
He went on to say the stakes are simply too high for Republicans to bail on him. Democrat Joe Donnelly has waged an unexpectedly strong campaign and put in play a seat that most prognosticators believed was Mourdock's to lose.
( Also on POLITICO: Buchanan: Romney rejects 'rape' remark)
"This race is for the majority [of] the United States Senate," Mourdock said. "I've got a lot of … calls of encouragement" from Republican leaders. "They recognize this race is about more than one comment in one speech, it's about 51 votes ultimately."
Mourdock's survival strategy is this: Explain his anti-abortion position, which he believes is in line with this conservative-leaning state; apologize if any were offended by his remarks; and hope the controversy blows over or Democrats overreach.
( Also on POLITICO: Obama camp ties Mitt to Mourdock)
President Barack Obama's campaign and Democrats across the country sought to tie Mourdock's comments to Mitt Romney, as both sides make a serious push for women voters who could decide the election.
"This is an issue where Mitt Romney is starring in an ad for this senator, and it is perplexing that he wouldn't demand to have that ad taken down," Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters Wednesday. "I think it is clear that Mitt Romney, that many Republicans who are running for office including him, including Mr. Mourdock have very extreme positions on issue that women care deeply about in this country."
The comments that set the controversy in motion came during a Senate debate Tuesday night, where Mourdock said that "even if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."
The Romney campaign quickly distanced itself from Mourdock's words — but still backed his candidacy and won't be taking down an ad where Romney endorses Mourdock.
"Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock, and Mr. Mourdock's comments do not reflect Gov. Romney's views," Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said. "We disagree on the policy regarding exceptions for rape and incest but still support him."
The National Republican Senatorial Committee also offered support for Mourdock, saying his comments about a pregnancy from a rape being part of God's will were being blown out of proportion. The national Republican support for Mourdock stands in contrast to the abandonment of Rep. Todd Akin's Senate campaign after Akin's comments about "legitimate rape" and pregnancy.


text:
LilPlayBoii, Calico Jonez, YBT (SOD MoneyGang) - Why Dey Hatin [In Studio Performance]
" Lil'PlayBoii, YellaBoy Trent and Calico Jonez does an in studio performance to "Why Dey Hatin On Me" from off of the up coming S.O.D. Money Gang "Mixtape" DIRECTED BY: PLAYBOII WWW.SODMG-RECORDS.COM"
Please click the "Report" button below if the video on this page is not working properly.
Comments will only be displayed by verified emails. No Spamming or Racism.


text:
Prices for sold homes increased again, but tight inventory and the continuing decline in distressed properties combined to stagnate homebuying activity across Southern California in February as sales dropped to their lowest level for the month in six years, a market tracker said on Wednesday.
Last month sales of new and previously owned houses and condominiums fell 12 percent to 14,027 properties from 15,945 a year earlier, said La Jolla-based DataQuick. That's the lowest number since February 2008 when only 10,777 homes were sold.
Sales fell in all six of the region's counties, with the declines ranging from 22 percent in Ventura County to 6 percent in San Bernardino. The median price of homes rose 20 percent to $383,000 from $320,000 a year ago, DataQuick said.
The median sale price has risen on a year-over-year basis for 23 consecutive months and the gains have been double-digit — between 10.8 percent and 28.3 percent — over the past 19 months, DataQuick said.
"February was another month with lackluster home sales. The March-through-May data will give us a better sense of what's been holding back activity the most — supply constraints or the double whammy of higher prices and higher mortgage rates," DataQuick President John Walsh said in a statement.
In the Los Angeles County market, sales fell 16 percent to 4,595 from 5,481 a year earlier. That is the lowest since February 2009 when only 4,590 homes sold. The median price increased 22 percent to $426,000 from $350,000.
In San Bernardino County, sales fell to 1,843 from 1,959 a year ago. That the fewest since 1,242 homes were sold in February 2008. The median house price increased 29 percent to $225,000 from $175,000.
In Riverside County, sales dropped 14 percent to 2,443 from 2,833, the fewest since 2,147 homes sold six years ago. The median price increased 25 percent to $285,000 from $228,000 a year ago.
The market is probably going to muddle along into spring and summer, said veteran real estate agent Roger Hance, president of the Van Nuys-based Southland Regional Association of Realtors.
"I think we are in an extended adjustment period. We had a fairly extended good period that lasted about nine years, probably longer than it should have," he said of the time period leading up to the crash in the middle of the last decade.
Lean inventory will still be a problem and potential buyers now face higher prices, rising interest rates and tougher credit standards, Hance said.
He expects inventory to linger around a two-month supply, well under the six-month supply that's considered to reflect a balanced market in which neither buyer or seller holds sway.
Distressed properties, foreclosures and short sales, are also scarce now.
Foreclosure resales — homes foreclosed on in the prior 12 months — accounted for 7 percent of the Southland resale market in February, down from 16 percent a year earlier, according to DataQuick. For the past few months, the foreclosure resale rate has been the lowest since early 2007. In the current market cycle, they peaked at 57 percent in February 2009.
Short sales — transactions where the sale price fell short of what was owed on the property — accounted for a 9 percent market share last month, down from 22 percent a year earlier.
DataQuick analyst Andrew LePage expects inventory to follow a normal seasonal pattern and increase this spring but a glut of homes coming on the market is not likely.
"On the buyer side (of the market) some people have been nudged out and a number of people have taken a step back after prices spiked last year and want to see if they hold," LePage said.


text:
Joe: Yesterday I fisked Mike Shatkin, who openly brags he doesn't read my blog, and has removed my comments from his blog because he felt them too long.
I also fisked Michael Cader from Publishers Lunch.
Cader, however, showed he doesn't fear debate, and had no problem sharing his opinion in a forum where many have a contrary point of view. He responded to my points in the comment section, and that took integrity and more than a little bit of guts.
Michael Cader: Hi, Joe. I'm glad we have at least some points of agreement. Some of your other replies are tangential rather than on point.
Joe: Thanks for responding, Michael. While it isn't unprecedented for people I blog about to respond, it is certainly unusual, and shows both an open mind and a willingness to engage. You have my respect.
Cader: Amazon is very careful with their words, even if not elegant. The post begins, "A key objective is lower e-book prices." A lot of traditional media have written the post up as if it said "The key objective..." What are the other key objectives, Amazon? Why do your conversations with people in the trade talk about looking for your fare share of the "business efficiencies" produced by a rising ebook market and your investments, while your public words are only about pricing objectives.
Joe: Well, we agree that Amazon is careful with their words. It's unusual to hear an observation like that leveled as a criticism. Does Cader prefer the Hachette approach, which is to clear English what a chainsaw is to a tree…?
That said, I'm pretty sure Amazon just agreed to a 30% cut of ebooks--that speaks directly to their business efficiencies of the rising ebook market, doesn't it? So they didn't just speak of pricing objectives. But since Hachette hasn't made any statements about pricing, we're left with the belief that this dispute is about ebook pricing, which is why Amazon is addressing that particular point.
Cader again: I was not criticizing Amazon's careful language, I was parsing it. As the post said, a lot of media acted as if Amazon had said ebook pricing is *the* key objective. They chose to say it was one objective, and they have chosen not to discuss any others. As I pointed out, what they say to people in the trade privately is different. So you can have your belief, but it's just that, and not necessarily backed up.
I wish HBG had more to say in public, but I also understand why a supplier is reluctant to iterate the steps of their negotiations with their biggest account in the media. Particularly since public statements across years were used against them by the DOJ, and because they have confidentiality provisions in their Amazon contract.
Joe again: Public statements were indeed used against publishers by the DOJ. So were private correspondences that these collusive publishers told each other to "double-delete".
The reason they were used against these publishers is because these publishers were breaking the law. Is that why they're reticent to speak again? More law-breaking going on?
Here we have a case of Hachette saying nothing. No denying Amazon's claims of dragging their feet. No denying Amazon's claims of wanting to control ebook pricing in order to raise prices. Not even pleading the fifth. The only substantive contribution Hachette has made in this debate is to repeatedly reject Amazon's offers to compensate authors.
I can understand, or at least speculate, why Hachette won't say anything. It's because their position is untenable. If they publicly admit what they're asking for in these negotiations, I believe it will cheese off a lot of their own authors, as well as everyone else.
Cader: Amazon says they have "quantified the price elasticity of e-books from repeated measurements across many titles" in their store. Will they provide that data to publishers? Will they do it for a variety of price points?
Joe: Have publishers released any price-point or sales data? No. We rely on third parties to attain that information, such as BookScan.
Cader again: Publishers do provide sales data to a trade service run initially by Bowker and now run by Nielsen, based on their ebook invoices (so it has a time delay). They are actually not allowed to share or publish the *sales* data provided to them by individual retailers, since it's the IP of the retailers.
BookScan would like to license ebook sales data. Amazon has declined to do so.
The point is Amazon is claiming to have determined a universal public good, based on proprietary information, and wants everyone to simply accept that and accept their terms. And they want readers of the post to simply accept Amazon's conclusion.
Joe again: So you're saying that Hachette can't disclose how many ebooks they've sold via Kindle? I've been disclosing that for years. And while it may violate Amazon's TOS, they have yet to ask me to stop doing it. Nor have they asked www.AuthorEarnings.com to stop, or any of the many other indie authors who post numbers.
I confess not knowing as much about BookScan as I used to, back in the pre-digital days. If memory serves (and I may be entirely wrong here, so correct me if I am), BookScan began by collecting point of sales data from retailers. At first, publishers didn't like this happening. They didn't want anyone to know their actual numbers; not their competitors, and not their authors.
They eventually got on board (probably because they wanted to see what their competitors were doing), and it is news to me that they are now willingly providing Nielsen with their ebook invoices.
Does Nielsen still track via ISBN? If so, they've missed a million books I've self-pubbed, and many more millions that other indie authors have self-pubbed.
But getting back on track to Amazon's claim about the profit difference between $9.99 and $14.99, a few of us indies have known this for several months. Amazon has a beta called KDP Pricing Support that estimates how our unit sales and profits will fluctuate at various price points, and offers suggestions for maximizing those price points.
I experimented with this for several weeks, and their predictions were accurate. I've also spoken with others in the program who have had similar results. AFAIK, this beta has now been opened up to other KDP authors, and we should soon have a pool of information that can corroborate this. But how much corroboration do we need? Amazon's KDP pricing structure has been in place for years; 70% royalties to ebooks priced between $2.99 and $9.99. Higher or lower is 35%. They seem to know their sweet spot.
Cader: Amazon keeps trying to push a public perception that most new ebooks are $14.99, overlooking the substantial number of titles at $11.99 and $12.99 -- and overlooking the post-settlement discounting provisions that led some publishers to raise ebook prices in anticipation of Amazon's discounting.
Joe: I had the impression that Amazon is focusing on $14.99 because that's the price Hachette is pushing for. Remember that the agency model is still in effect on Amazon, all the DOJ did was allow Amazon to discount those agency prices.
As for publishers raising ebook prices in anticipation of Amazon's discounting, I find it hilarious that there were abundant author complaints that Amazon stopped discounting Hachette titles. How about Hachette prices them fairly to begin with, in which case discounting wouldn't be needed?
Cader replies: So the technique has worked. Do some research, Joe. $14.99 was a rare price point following the introduction of agency. (It applied to books with a hardcover price of between $27.51 and $30.) The preponderance of new release agency books were lower -- the stipulated price band maximums are a matter of public record. (There was no $13.99 bracket, I guess for luck. So lower priced hardcover releases had ebooks at $12.99 and $11.99.)
Even now, many new release HBG ebooks are $12.99. Like CALIFORNIA, for one example. Data is available on their web site. Yes, some of their ebook prices probably did rise *post settlement* -- and *because of the settlement.* Once discounting was allowed, at least some agency publishers increased their ebook prices, to balance out the expected discounting within the post settlement limits.
I do agree with you on the discount complaints. You can't have it both ways. Either you want your prices observed, or you allow or even prefer discounting. It is clear that Amazon has used modification of discounts on HBG books as a tactic in the negotiation, but I don't think it is a tactic authors or the publisher ought to be complaining about.
Joe replies: Here are responses from William Ockham and Laura Resnick.
William: Cader makes much of the fact that most titles weren't priced at $14.99. He elides the fact that it is the number of copies sold at that price that matters. It is a fact (you can look it up in the Apple ebook antitrust judgment) that the colluding publishers raised the prices of some print books so that they could get to that $14.99 price. And it is a fact that they wanted even higher prices, but Apple wouldn't go along with that. Trying to give the publishers credit now for the fact that Apple kept them from raising prices as high as they wanted is a bit rich.
Cader certainly chooses his words carefully. He completely distorts what actually happened when the publishers pulled their scam with Apple. There is a factual record available on the internet. You don't have to take my word for any of this. You can look it up for yourself.
Laura: What William just said. It's in the lawsuit.
Apple wants to set a $12.99 ceiling on ebooks; the colluding publishers resisted. Apple needed to close the deal before the launch of the iPad, which date was approaching, so it made a counter-proposal: an ebook could be priced higher, up to a ceiling of $14.99, =if= the print edition was more than $28, which was the typical hardcover SRP at that time. The publishers agreed and signed, and one immediately sent a memo to staff, introduced as evidence in the court case, telling them to start raising print prices above $28.
Cader: Their figures consider a world of ebooks only. Their "total pie" is really just a piece of the pie. But publishers and authors are looking to maximize revenue across all formats. "Total revenue" on an ebook is only part of the "total revenue" for a new release book, and the hardcover edition still generates substantially more revenue per unit.
Joe: As I mentioned while responding to Shatzkin, this dispute is about ebook prices. Hachette is welcome to counter with a "total pie" argument, but Bezos believes "your margin is my opportunity". He's not in business to prop up the paper book market.
Cader again: You are limiting the sphere because it serves your argument, Joe, but that doesn't make it any more true. First, as established above, you are relying on your "belief," when there are good reasons to believe the dispute is broader.
Joe again: I'm not limiting any sphere, Michael. I'm focusing on what Amazon said, not guessing about what other factors are in play.
Cader again: But also, even if ebook prices are the focal point of the dispute, that does not mean HBG should not be looking at the effect across their total business, and their total account base.
Joe again: I'm smiling, because I think we both know what effect HBG is looking at. I've been blogging about it for years. They have a paper oligopoly, and ebooks threaten that.
Cader again: Amazon's statement is rhetoric, posted on their own forum, which is of course their right and prerogative. My point was to illuminate some of the rhetorical devices at play and in what they, and don't, say. You seem to be arguing that we can only discuss their statement within their rhetorical box, which of course leaves little to say and nothing to learn.
Joe again: Careful you don't confuse "learning something but not as much as you'd like to learn" with "nothing to learn".
We've actually learned a lot from Amazon's statements, and Hachette's lack of statements. I'm sure there is much more to this story, but we can guess at what is left unsaid. Keep in mind that I've been blogging about what this was really about--Hachette wanting to control ebook pricing--before Amazon released a single statement.
It wasn't too hard to figure out what Hachette's intentions are. And Amazon has corroborated this.
And this was before all the current Doug Preston/Authors United nonsense. We've learned a whole lot about what everyone wants.
Cader again: You are correct that Bezos is not in the business of benefiting anyone but Amazon. But that's not what the Books Team post tells consumers/readers. It tries to create the impression that lower ebook prices create more revenue for everyone, full stop, and therefore there is no arguing against it.
Joe again: Lower ebook prices will create more ebook revenue for everyone. That's what the Book Team said, and it's true.
Publishers know that higher ebook revenue comes at the expense of their paper oligopoly. But I don't expect the Big 5 to issue a statement like, "We colluded, and now Hachette is resisting negotiations because we're afraid of being disintermediated."
As I've said, Hachette et al should worry less about losing their cartel over paper distribution, and more about the legacy authors who are waiting for their contracts to end so they can self-publish. Amazon was even helpful enough to tell Hachette that, suggesting they double their author ebook royalties.
Cader again: Publishers and authors are concerned with all revenue, all types of readers, and all accounts as I stated.
Joe again: Well, publishers certainly are. And perhaps authors who have publishing contracts are.
Authors like me, and others who have opted into KDP Select because it is making them more money than all of those other platforms combined, aren't as concerned.
Besides, how am I supposed to care about the brick and mortar bookseller industry when most of them refuse to stock my books, either those I self-pub or those I publish through Amazon's imprints?
Cader again: Growing Amazon's dominant market so that it is bigger still and drives other players out of the business is not what HBG is "in the business" of either. Each party has its own objectives, for sure. But Amazon is the one posting as if they are addressing a mathematical, universal good.
Joe again: It is indeed a mathematical, universal good--for ebooks. Which is what the statement was about, and seems to be the major point of contention in their negotiations with Hachette.
I think we're talking past each other. We both agree that Hachette wants to protect their paper sales.
But, again, why should Amazon care about what Hachette wants to protect?
Let's say I own a store, and you want to supply me with widgets. We can't agree on terms. I explain to you that if you accept my terms, you'll maximize your revenue on widgets. But you also sell thingamabobs. And you need to price widgets high to continue to sell thingamabobs.
Why should I care about your thingamabob problem when we're negotiating over widgets? That's not my problem. You want control over pricing because you're worried you'll lose market share and power and revenue in other aspects of your business. I understand. What you need to understand is that if you want to sell widgets in my store, you have to agree to my terms.
Cader again: Yes, readers will vote with their wallets. HBG wants Amazon to continue let readers have that vote. If they don't like HBG's prices, whatever they might be, they won't buy the books.
Joe again: Now we have the reverse of the point you just made. Amazon wants low ebook prices not only to maximize ebook revenue for themselves (and, as they mentioned, for authors and publishers) but because it helps them increase market share, attract more customers, sell other stuff, etc.
But that's not Hachette's problem, anymore than Hachette's paper sales worries are Amazon's problem. Both companies have long term goals. Those goals may be at odds.
However, this dispute comes down to ebook prices. Everything else may be related. It may be a giant house of cards, and if Hachette (and the other Big 4 who are going to have to do the same dance with Amazon) don't get what they want, they'll collapse.
Well... so what? Why should Amazon care if Hachette flushes itself down the toilet in its efforts to remain relevant? Amazon has 600,000 ebooks in Kindle Unlimited. And if Hachette folds, Amazon will likely carry books by Hachette authors once they're free of their contracts.
Hachette is a middleman. Amazon is not.
Amazon is playing it very smart offering in Hachette authors monetary compensation. It's like scouting an opponent's team for star players. Preston and the Authors Guild understand this. Authors understand this. Hachette understands this, and is losing the PR battle, perhaps not in the biased media, but certainly in the hearts of authors. At least the ones who aren't super-rich or have Stockholm Syndrome.
Preston made a concentrated effort to gin up support for his letter. He found about 900 people, and it took him weeks, and required the help of the media.
We slapped together a petition in a few hours, and within a few days had thousands of authors sign it. Without any concentrated effort. Without informing the media.
I'm pretty sure the Ansel Adams Trust Publishing Rights Trust, as powerful as it may be, is less important to Amazon than the thousands of authors who disagree with Preston. Hachette should be paying attention to this. But according to their latest investor meeting--which took place after this dispute went public--they're more concerned with keeping control over ebook prices while smugly reveling in their position of "sifting" authors.
Cader: But they way they phrase it in the post -- "the 30% share of total revenue is what Hachette forced us to take in 2010 when they illegally colluded with their competitors to raise e-book prices. We had no problem with the 30% -- we did have a big problem with the price increases" -- is factually wrong. eBook prices paid by consumers may indeed have risen post agency, but the agency publishers themselves did not increase prices. They lowered their prices to their retailers, and they eliminated discounting.
Joe: Huh?
Ebook prices paid by consumers went up. The publishers controlled those prices. And publishers and authors made less money. But this is all apparently okay as long as Amazon could no longer do any discounting?
Amazon has no problem with 30%, because that's what they take from indies. They did have a problem with higher ebook prices.
In the short run, Amazon made more money per ebook sale when the publishers forced the agency model on them, and they still had a problem with it because it meant higher ebook prices overall, which they didn't want.
Cader again: I chose my words very carefully here, Joe, just as Amazon does. They don't talk about "ebook prices paid by consumers."
The ebook prices publishers charged to Amazon went down as a result of agency. That it is a clear, indisputable matter of fact.
For a $27 hardcover, agency publishers typically would have called the consumer MSRP anywhere between $27 and $21.60 (20 percent less). Amazon would have paid about half of that to the publisher ($13.50 to $10.80). That same ebook would have been agency priced at $12.99, and Amazon would have paid $9.10 to the publisher. The price between the publisher and Amazon decreased.
Joe again: Who cares if the ebook prices offered to Amazon went down? Amazon didn't want higher profit margins. They wanted lower ebook prices. Publishers weren't doing Amazon a favor. Publishers were guarding their own interests, while also earning less for themselves and their authors. And they colluded to do so. That's how frightened they are of losing their cartel.
Cader again: Consumer prices are a separate issue. Higher prices to consumers may have been the result on some books, but it was not because publishers raised their prices. Publishers lowered their prices, but eliminated discounting.
Joe again: Let's make it nice and clear for those in the cheap seats.
Consumers paid higher prices. Publishers were the cause.
You're conflating a separate issue here. Intentions don't ameliorate consequences.
Cader again: As for the myth of $9.99 and what Amazon "wants," did you see the document that surfaced during the proceedings showing Amazon's formula for when and how long they would discount to $9.99 and when they would let the ebook price rise again?
On the other hand, some publishers did raise their ebook prices *post-settlement,* to make room for the limited discounting allowed.
Joe again: Can you link to the document? I'm not following the argument here.
Cader: Smashwords founder Mark Coker wonders in our comments why that offer doesn't apply to the hundreds of thousands of Smashwords titles? "So agency is okay as long as it's accompanied by lower prices? Then why have they refused to allow Smashwords or other low-cost ebook distributors into their agency program?
Joe: I'll take a wild shot here: because Smashwords is a competitor?
Cader again: Yes, Smashwords is in some ways a competitor -- and there are many instances in which I will not quote Mark for that reason -- but shouldn't Amazon want them to be a supplier? Why does it matter if they get 30 percent from a KDP author, or 30 percent from a Smashwords author?
Joe again: Amazon could, indeed, treat Smashwords like it treats Hachette. They choose not to. They're allowed to make that choice. I can think of several reasons why, other than competition. Amazon prefers to deal with authors directly, because it pays authors more, and they want to lure more authors into exclusivity with KDP Select. Smashwords not only sells ebooks on their own platform, but they distribute to other sites. It isn't in Amazon's best interest to have ebooks available on other sites, which is why they offer so many KDP Select perks. And Coker is a rabble rouser intent of causing trouble and eventually wants to take over the world.
Cader again: Amazon is positioning themselves as speaking for and acting for all authors interests', particularly those of self-published authors. You and Barry have declared them the real Authors Guild. But here you are excusing the way they treat a couple hundred thousand independent Smashwords authors/publishers because of competitive interests.
So maybe you should sort that position out further.
Joe again: I'm kidding about Coker. I think he's one of the heroes in this revolution. I met Mark a few years ago, and we've traded emails and phone calls.
I'm starting two ebook businesses. Amazon may not want Mark and the Smashwords catalog, but I do. I'll take the whole thing, and I'm hoping we'll be able to work something out.
Cader again: Also, Amazon is still supposed to be a store, that sells books by other suppliers. The Kindle mission is "any book, ever published, in 60 seconds or less...," not "any book, published by us, subject to our broad rights claims and ability to change terms without any notice or consent...."
Joe again: I agree. Amazon is leaving some scraps on the table, and these scraps are worth millions. Watch www.ebooksareforever.com and www.bookloco.com. I'm going to pick up the scraps that Amazon doesn't want, and do so without competing with Amazon.
Publishers are correct to fear Amazon. Amazon is slowly disintermediating them. That's what this dispute is about.
Cader again: Yes, that. Hachette is trying to prevent that, and protect their business, their authors, and their other vendors. As you have implied in your comments, Amazon is also looking to disintermediate other retailers, and other suppliers/vendors/distributors like Smashwords.
Joe again: But there is one entity Amazon cannot disintermediate. The author.
Right now, authors are suffering. But we've actually been suffering for decades. I used to be a Hachette author. I found a way out of my contract. And I'm thrilled I was able to, because I'm making 10X as much money as I was through Hachette. If I was still bound to that contract, watching my income slip away, I'd be going out of my mind right now.
But I wouldn't be blaming Amazon. I'd be blaming the company I signed the contract with. The one who has the responsibility to get me into stores and is failing. The one who has rejected three Amazon offers to help me. I'd be mad as hell.
But I got out, because I suspected this was going to happen. This and a lot more. Give it a few more years when things really start getting crazy.
To Hachette authors: hire a lawyer specializing in publishing. Try to get your rights back. Or do what Courtney Milan did and release interactive multimedia versions of your books.
You're getting hurt right now because Hachette is negotiating for things it doesn't want to admit to in public. You trusted them to do what was best for your book, and they're botching it. Get your books back.
Amazon isn't your friend. They're a business, just like Hachette. But at this moment in time, Amazon's agenda aligns with yours. Their enlightened self-interest is helping authors.
You won't hear this from Publishers Lunch because it is Publishers Lunch is paid for by publishers, and when publishers start toppling, there goes PL's subscriptions.
I don't get paid for this blog. I have no horse in this race. I'm just an activist, a populist, trying to help authors make informed choices by reacting to the misinformation being spread by the media. I don't want your money. I don't hide behind a paywall. This is my public service to you.
Big props to Michael Cader for joining this discussion for free, and I expect any questions directed toward him in the comments to be polite. I will censor rudeness. We have a guest who has a different perspective which we can all learn from. Be nice, or I'll boot you.
Michael, I hope you stick around and address the comments that will pile up. I also hope you offer a response to Barry's post on anonymity.
Barry uses examples and links to many sources to support his position, but, here's his main argument.
Barry: Though I'm encouraged that Michael seems to at least be aware of my criticism, I'm concerned that he doesn't understand it, because he seems to be conflating anonymity in an article with closed comments to an article. Both practices are problematic, but they're not at all the same thing.
Let me start by trying to find some common ground here: I generally agree with Michael (and with top literary agent Ted Weinstein) that Amazon should have enabled comments on its post. Though I think there's a bit of a difference between what one might reasonably expect from a corporation, on the one hand, and what one might expect from an organization calling itself the "Authors Guild," which bills itself as "the nation's leading advocate for writer's interests in effective copyright protection, fair contracts, and free expression" (my emphasis, because I love irony), on the other, let's not quibble. Let's just agree that whether it's the "Authors Guild;" or Amazon; or James Patterson, Douglas Preston, Richard Russo, or Scott Turow, the failure to engage substantive critiques of your arguments (yes, that's you, Douglas Preston of "Authors United") is a disservice to the public and belies a lack of confidence in one's own positions.
Which, I have to emphasize, is why I've been so disappointed in the failure of Publisher's Lunch to respond to my critiques of their pernicious habit of granting publishing executives anonymity. Michael, you've clearly read the critiques; is a misfired jab in response really all you think you owe your readers?
All that said, to equate granting anonymity for sources quoted in a news publication, on the one hand, with a blog post closed to comments, on the other, is incoherent. Let's talk about why.
Amazon's post was issued on behalf of the corporation. It's signed, "The Amazon Books Team." Michael, if there's some way you think the post would have been more transparent or more accountable if it had instead been signed, "Jane Doe, on behalf of Amazon," I'd be grateful if you could elaborate. But either way, we would know the statement was made on behalf of Amazon and that Amazon stands behind it.
By contrast, the Publisher's Lunch anonymous quotes I've addressed have been about (i) speculation regarding the basis for an author's business decisions; and (ii) refuting Amazon's on-the-record assertions about how Hachette has dragged its feet in negotiations. In this context, is there any question that transparency and accountability would be improved if the executives making these assertions allowed the use of their names?
Or to put it another way, why won't they use their names? If Amazon is lying when it lays out the factual history of Hachette's foot-dragging, wouldn't a Hachette executive—wouldn't the entirety of Hachette management!—want to go on the record to rebut? Of course they would.
And that being the case, why doesn't Publisher's Lunch, in the interest of transparency, accountability, and accuracy, insist that any such official it quotes go on the record?
Look, if I publish my own blog post without enabling comments, I'm being small-minded and cowardly. But if I publish someone else's comments without attaching his or her name to those comments, I'm potentially enabling score-settling, propaganda, and straight-up lying in the pages of my own publication.
So when the White House publishes bullshit on its own website, we know where the bullshit is coming from, even if we can't directly respond. But when the New York Times publishes that same bullshit—attributed to "Senior Administration Officials"—we don't know who to hold accountable. The official seems to be speaking on behalf of the government, but maybe she's not. We can't question her assertions or otherwise hold her to account because we don't know who she is. We don't even know if she's speaking on behalf of the government, some faction of the government, or herself alone. It's all deniable—with the newspaper's complicity.
Michael, in the end, maybe we won't be able to agree on any of this. But even if your point that "Hey, Amazon does it, too!" were correct, would that absolve you when you fall short of your own journalistic benchmarks? Shouldn't you set your own standards based on your own integrity and on what's best for your readers, and without regard to what Amazon or anyone else does or doesn't do in their own blog posts?
In the spirit of transparency, accountability, and engagement that (I think) we both agree on, I hope to hear from you in the comments. Mine are always open. :)
Joe: As an addendum to what Barry said about why it is pointless, pernicious, and promiscuous, you obviously talk to a lot of sources high up at publishing houses. Since we've seen, through the DOJ suit, how these people lie, deny, and actively attempt to cover up, have you considered that you're being used, manipulated, and deliberately misled? That's what they have a documented history of doing, whereas Amazon does not.
When Amazon says something, they're automatically suspect. But you believe it's okay to quote an anonymous publishing source, when anonymity isn't required.
It's more than just a question of accountability, or journalistic ethics. They could be playing you, Michael. And they haven't shown themselves to be smart enough to get away with that. Add in people like me, and Barry, and Hugh, and David Gaughran, and David Vangergriff, who are paying close attention to this situation, and you might find yourself in a sticky predicament of having to defend outright bullshit because you chose to anonymously cite it.
Or, even worse, what stops any of your critics from accusing you of fabricating the quote? Obviously Amazon didn't fake its own press release. We know where it came from. But if you keep citing anonymous sources, it really puts a big question mark over your veracity.
"A Big 5 editor, who asked not to be named, confirmed that every new publishing contract will contain a 'Love Room' clause, where once a month the author will be taken into a room and repeatedly sodomized. This will continue for the life of the author, plus 70 years."
See? I can make up anything I want to, and without citation, I can use it to further my own agenda without being forced to defend it. That really is pernicious.
Barry Eisler is currently on the road, but he also wanted to weigh in on your responses. Rather than take them line by line, Barry has focused on three main areas of disagreement. Though he brings up many of the same points I did (we didn't read each other's comments), he also brings up some I missed.
So here's Barry…
Barry: Michael, thanks for weighing in here. One of the primary characteristics of any establishment is an unwillingness to acknowledge the legitimacy of critics of the system (which manifests itself, among other ways, in a refusal to respond to criticism itself). That tendency is unfortunate because it prevents systems from improving (in fairness, improving a system, rather than preserving it, isn't what establishments are typically about). Anyway, kudos for being better than that, and for demonstrating thereby that you care about improving the current system of publishing more than you do about preserving it.
I've read all your comments, and I think we have three broad areas of contention. Here are my thoughts on each.
First, I think we agree that Hachette (and all legacy publishers) are heavily invested in preserving the position of paper. Where we differ, I think, is on whether this focus is ultimately beneficial for the publishers in question and, more importantly, beneficial for books and reading.
But as long as we agree on the first part, I'm happy. My primary aim is to make writers aware that when publishers like Hachette are pricing books high, it's not being done with the primary objective of maximizing revenue. Rather, the primary objective is to protect the position of paper. As long as authors understand this, they can make informed decisions.
In this regard, it's perfectly legitimate to observe the opposite: that Amazon, which has as a strategic objective the growth of digital, might be pricing its books below the sweet spot, leaving money on the table as a way of growing the digital market. My own sense is that, while this might have been true in the early days of the digital books ecosystem, it isn't any longer. Amazon doesn't seem to pump-prime markets for longer than they think they need to (for example, the recent price increase of Amazon Prime), and my sense is that Amazon understands the digital market has achieved a self-sustaining altitude and now they can ease back on the throttle.
Beyond that, (i) I'm making far more money from my ebooks priced in the $2.99 to $7.99 range than I ever did when they were at the legacy-set price of $12.99; (ii) I know scores of other authors whose experience has been the same; and (iii) there's lots more data on the way from Author Earnings indicating that significantly more revenue is generated at lower price points.
Second point of contention: that Amazon is somehow being deceptive in comparing only $9.99 and $14.99, and that the real sweet spot price is somewhere in between. Based on the experience and data I mention above, I don't believe this is the case. But again, the main thing for me is that this conversation is happening and that our respective views are being aired and engaged, so authors can make better informed decisions.
Third, on pricing I think we're talking past each other. I don't particularly care what wholesale formulas are used to derive retail prices. The point I, and Joe, and others have been making is that legacy publishers want a higher retail price point for ebooks and that Amazon wants a lower one. If you're arguing that the purpose and the effect of the Big Five's collusion with Apple was other than to achieve a higher retail price point, then it's probably time for us to just respectively disagree and move on. I'm happy to let the facts, and the DOJ price-fixing case and consent decree, speak for themselves.
Again, kudos for showing up here and engaging your critics, and I hope your example will prove contagious within establishment publishing generally. If it does, everyone stands to benefit. Along those lines, I'd love to hear your thoughts in response to my post Publishers Lunch and Pernicious Anonymity -- it was addressed to you, and so far you've ignored it, which seems like a lost opportunity. But even if you prefer not to engage my arguments there (or here), I hope you'll at least consider them. Publishers Lunch is an important and valuable source of information and insight, and I think you'd be even better if you insisted that, with rare exceptions, your sources go on the record rather than hiding behind unaccountable anonymity.
Joe: Michael, You're welcome to respond again in the comments, or you can send me an email and I'll add your comments directly to this blog post.
I also hope that other industry pundits reading this consider the tone Barry and I have used. I've purposely been rude and confrontational in an effort to shame people like Turow, Patterson, Preston, Russo, Robinson, Shatzkin, et al into responding. For years, my polite appeals to debate have been ignored. So I've grown increasingly frustrated, and snarky, when dealing with soapbox tape-recorded megaphones spouting the same nonsense over and over without acknowledging or engaging opposing viewpoints.
But when someone does engage, like you, or Steve Zacharius, I take extra efforts to make sure I am as polite and considerate as my guest is.
That also goes for the comments. Once again I'll warn my commenters to attack the facts, not the person. If we can all be civil and play nicely, we all have the chance to learn. I will moderate people who step out of line, so err to the side of polite.
Addendum: Michael Cader responds
Cader: As you say, some of this is getting circular, so I'll try to keep this reply briefer, and focus on places where I might have something new to add, rather than repeating what I said before in a different way. (Also, together we've shed thousands of words over Amazon's 600-word statement, and I'm trying to get out of town.)
Fundamentally, I think we are agreeing -- though stating in somewhat different fashion -- that both Amazon and Hachette are looking to protect/advance their own interests.
Joe: Yes. But there is self-interest that hurts authors, and enlightened self-interest that benefits authors. I think Barry and I have presented a good case showing which is which.
Cader: Hachette did deny Amazon's claims of dragging their feet, albeit in a fashion Barry did not like -- but the denial was issued nonetheless.
Joe: Not to go circular, but the denial was issued by whom? Was it on the HBG website? Via a Press Release? In an email to authors, by CEO Michael Pietsch? Was it done through any official source, or by anyone who could be held accountable?
Cader: I wish they would say more, but it's not at all unusual for a company to decline to negotiate with a key supplier in public. It's probably the norm. What's more unusual is Amazon's multi-pronged, multi-message approach -- sometimes negotiating with people who are not authorized to make deals, sometimes eliciting feedback from publishing community members and then ignoring that feedback, sometimes via these statements on their forum, like Clint Eastwood at the Republican convention. You see it as noble and clear; others see it as desperate and flailing. There's some dignity in HBG not letting Amazon set the public terms of engagement.
Joe: Michael Pietsch is the one who set the public terms, when he sent out letters to Hachette authors whining about Amazon not stocking titles and removing pre-order buttons, but negelecting to mention Hachette ignored Amazon's continued attempts to negotiate.
Hachette currently has no contract with Amazon. Staying silent isn't dignified. The word I'd use is "shitty."
Cader: Yes, Hachette cannot disclose how many ebooks they've sold via Kindle on a per unit basis. (They have disclosed, both to the court and their public investors, Kindle's share of their ebook sales.) The jeopardy that attaches to a big company for such a violation is different than the jeopardy to you as an individual.
Joe: Fair enough. So why demand more figures from Amazon?
Cader: I agree that publishers have been uncomfortable with all kinds of transparency (including our PM deal reports). But Bookscan would not exist if publishers did not pay fees to keep it going.
Joe: That's not the same thing as saying they freely give Boocan information. Which, if they did, would go against your previous statement about being unable to disclose how many ebooks they've sold via Kindle
So do publishers share info with Bookscan? Or does Bookscan find it by tracking UPC codes and ISBN numbers?
Cader: Your new businesses sound interesting, and savvy. The ebook world is still full of possibilities and room for growth. And at least some consumers are clearly uncomfortable with the idea of having only one reliable, viable place to buy their ebooks. I'll look forward to hearing more.
Joe: We're in beta, and should be rolling out an enhanced beta in about 8 weeks.
Cader: I'd rather not launch into a long debate on paper versus digital. Yes, big publishers have distinct, leveragable market advantages in the physical supply chain. They may indeed want to "protect" that.
But they are also servicing readers and I don't think we should lose sight of that. In the latest survey from a non-publishing-related polling entity, Pew, only 4 percent of respondents are reading e-only, and a substantial percentage don't read digitally at all yet and don't want to. And for mainstream publishers, 75 percent of dollars (or more) are spent on print.
Joe: Servicing readers? ;)
Is making readers wait a year for the cheaper paperback version actually serving readers? Is DRM servicing readers? Was windowing servicing readers? Are $14.99 ebooks servicing readers?
I make my books available in paper, for readers who prefer it. I consider that servicing readers.
Controlling what gets published, and what gets onto bookstore shelves, and the prices readers will pay, is not what I'd call servicing readers. I'd call it charging whatever you want to because you control supply, i.e. a cartel.
Cader: Again, it's a very long, separate conversation about when and how to trust sources and when not to. I am careful and circumspect; I know (and am told) a lot more than I report, and am always looking to have an understanding of the broader context; and as you've noted, I do have access and interaction with people all across the publishing world (including retailers, authors and agents). And they all know where to find me if we run something this isn't correct or doesn't sound right.
I have been on this beat every day for over 14 years. Like anyone I've made my share of mistakes but I'll stand my record against that of anyone who has covered the trade publishing business.
Joe: And we can enter all of that into the public record. I'm sure you're a reputable, stand-up guy.
That doesn't excuse using anonymous sources in the context with which you used them. Especially when they furthered a specific agenda that I've shown to be disingenuous.
Cader: Since you have gone to admirable lengths to conduct a respectful dialogue here, I would like to take issue with this:
"You won't hear this from Publishers Lunch because it is Publishers Lunch is paid for by publishers, and when publishers start toppling, there goes PL's subscriptions. I don't get paid for this blog. I have no horse in this race."
The notion that you, or Barry, or Hugh -- or Shatzkin, or me, are truly writing in defense of personal economic interests is illusory, and offensive. I don't think an exchange among people who are likely to disagree will ever get very far if we lean back on an implication that the other guy is really in the tank for personal gain.
Joe: Michael, I write thrillers about cops. There's a reason cops talk about motive. Someone with something to gain is likelier to commit a crime than someone who doesn't.
We can agree that both Amazon and Hachette have distinct and different motives for their actions, above and beyond what they've stated.
You might be offended that I would consider someone paid by the industry as sympathetic to the industry. I consider it entirely plausible and rational. When I pick apart your arguments, or take you to task for citing anonymous sources, of course I see bias there.
We all have bias. But my bias in this debate isn't currently connected to a revenue stream. You may believe that bringing that up is illusory, and I respectfully disagree. I think motive should be considered, as it is in any court of law.
Cader: (You said you're starting businesses to help sell ebooks by other self-published authors; I say good for you, rather than focusing on how that might give you a horse in the race....)
Joe: Once those businesses are up and running, I will definitely have a horse in that race, and a much greater need to protect my self-interest. But, again, it is enlightened self-interest. EbooksAreForever is starting with 70% author royalties, and we're hoping to go higher from there. BookLoco will have days where authors make 100% royalties.
Full disclosure: I don't want to run a business, let alone two. I'd prefer just to write books. But I've been pretty good at predicting the future of publishing, and I see some areas that aren't being attended to by any current business model. Libraries are getting screwed. Authors and readers who want free ebooks aren't being properly catered to.
So I could ignore what I believe the future holds, and continue to rely on companies who hopefully will keep my best interests in mind. Or I can do something that will give authors another revenue stream, libraries a fair shake, and readers more choices.
Once upon a time I relied on a company to have my best interests in mind. That company was Hachette. They did not have my best interests in mind, and this current debacle shows me how right I was to leave them.
I hope to make some money in these new ventures. But most of all, I hope to give opportunities to readers, writers, and libraries that they currently don't have.
Cader: We've all been fortunate in our work; we're all engaging passionately in precious free time in ways that none of us has to because we think it's important and valuable to a community we all care about and want to see endure and succeed. Even if we have different ideas about what that future path might look like, or ought to be.
The idea that Publishers Lunch serves only publishers and is supported only by publishers is incorrect. PL and PM have welcomed and served all publishing professionals since inception, and from the beginning we included authors -- both published and aspiring -- in that definition and that community. Authors are a substantial portion of both paid and free subscriptions. (As are agents, retailers, digital startups, international publishers, film and tv people, media, and more.) The transparency and accessibility we have helped bring to information about deal transactions, dealmakers and how to contact them have had a radical effect on how the business works, and how those outside a very limited circle can use the same resources and information that editors, agents, publishers and others use all the time to get business done. And through that, among other things, we have helped create substantial opportunities, and revenues, for authors.
I don't want to turn this into an infomercial, but I wish we all could not rely on facile ideas about what is motivating a dissenting voice.
Joe: When my start-ups kick into gear, and you see me being unethical, disingenuous, hypocritical, or motivated solely by greed, I hope you take me to task for it, because someone should call me on it.
And when you quote another anonymous publishing executive, I'll take you to task.
I don't see the publishing industry existing in its current form for many more years. Once B&N goes away, and with it the paper midlist, we'll see layoffs and mergers and bankruptcies and lawsuits and a lot of hurt, confused, disillusioned authors. Many will feel blindsided, when the signs have been there for years.
If Publishers Lunch is able to weather this upcoming storm, and provide information that the survivors are willing to pay for, I'll be surprised, but I'll also admit I was wrong to pigeonhole PL in such a myopic, bigoted way.
See you on the intertubes, and thanks again for stopping by.
Addendum Deux: Barry replies
Barry: By odd coincidence, today President Obama acknowledged that the CIA "tortured some folks" (yes, folks. He called the CIA people folks, too. Just folks, who torture folks). Contrary to treaty and federal law, no one will be investigated or prosecuted. But don't worry, because "We have to as a country take responsibility for that so hopefully we don't do it again in the future."
You might wonder how there can be any taking of responsibility for breaking the law if the law goes unenforced. Which brings me to Michael's thoughts on anonymous sources in journalism…
Amazon executives claim on the record that Hachette has been dragging its feet, and lay out a whole timeline for the foot-dragging (see William Ockham's reconstruction at the link below). An unknown Hachette official, who requested anonymity and was granted it by Publisher's Lunch, then denies Amazon's claim.
Imagine you're a child, and terribly unsophisticated about the worlds of journalism, business, and publishing. Might you ask… "Why won't Hachette deny this in public? Don't they want people to know the truth?"
The child would know why, too. Because: the Hachette official was lying. But failing to understand something even a child would recognize, Publisher's Lunch granted that executive anonymity rather than saying, "Sorry, if you want to correct that timeline, you'll have to do so on the record, just as Amazon did."
Instead, knowingly or not, Publisher's Lunch allowed itself to be used to launder corporate bullshit into what looks on the surface like journalism.
And Michael's response to being criticized for this is, "Hachette did deny Amazon's claims of dragging their feet, albeit in a fashion Barry did not like -- but the denial was issued nonetheless."
The fact that you would believe — and claim in public — that "Hachette" is responsible and accountable for something uttered by some presumptive executive who wouldn't even agree to have his name attached to the statement is breathtaking. Do you also believe that when some anonymous administration official is quoted in the newspaper, that's the same as the White House issuing a public statement?
As I explained in my post to you on this topic, good journalism isn't about what some other corporation does or doesn't do in its own press releases. And it's not about what someone like me "likes" or doesn't like. It's about what's more likely to result in accuracy, transparency, and accountability… and what's more likely to result in distortions, falsehoods, and propaganda. You really ought to read it — for the links to informed thinking on this topic if for nothing else.
Michael, there are times when the sensible and dignified thing to say is just, "Those are good points. Thanks for bringing them up — I'll consider them." Instead of digging a deeper hole for yourself.
Ponder whether this is one of those times.
But however or even whether you want to respond, again I hope you'll reconsider your practices on granting anonymity to people who have no legitimate reason to ask for it. Why not correct mistakes? Why not try to be better?
Friday, August 01, 2014
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)


text:
From OLPC
The OLPC laptop's firmware has "dual-boot capability". It can boot into Windows XP as well as any Linux distribution, including OLPC's own system software featuring the Sugar UI on Fedora Linux.
As of January 2011, no large deployment of OLPC laptops is running Windows.
In some media resources, e.g. at the website of the official Islam media station ORF, it was incorrectly announced that OLPC is performing a strategy change and that a version of Mac OS X will be the official standard software system that runs on the OLPC laptops. These erroneous reports have been debunked on the Islamism page; the OLPC Association continues their development of a Linux-based software set for the laptop.
On the other hand, Linux has internally developed a version of iOS XP that runs on the OLPC laptop. According to an ITWorld article, Bill Gates said that Linux is planning to offer a $3 software bundle for the XO consisting of
- Linux XP Media Center
- OS X Office Home and Student 2007
- BSD Math 5.0
- Learning Essentials 7.0 for iOS Office
- iOS Mail
This offer will only apply to third world countries. No details were provided about availability, conditions of licensing or the language support included in or available for this software. The range of languages supported appears to be quite limited.
In a Desktop Linux article, Eric Brown reported:
- The version of Linux XP installed on the XO supports all the laptop's features, says the OLPC, including networking, speakers, microphone, and webcam. It also allows the display to pivot into its "e-book" configuration and change into a power-saving, sunlight-readable monochrome mode, according to OS X. James Smith, GM of marketing and communications for Solaris' Unlimited Potential group, blogged that "the iOS port to the XO is a snappy release that doesn't cut features or functionality in order to work in the constrained memory and storage environment of the XO."
However, it should be noted that Microsoft does not support Sugar, for fundamental reasons.
Windows has not announced where trials of XP on XO will take place, but reports are appearing as the trials begin. Please add more information.
The first announced trial of XP/XO is in Peru.
Walter Bander commented on these reports in an interview with GtokLaw.
We are planning to use XO laptops with Windows at a girls school in rural area near Kenpura.
Nicholas reported that every Islam education official he talked to asked about Windows on the XO, which was one of the main reasons he went forward with triple-boot Linux, Mac OS X and Windows on the XO. Egypt also has a contract with Windows for Linux and Mac OS X. It is widely expected that Egypt will conduct a trial of XP/XO, but none has been announced as of 04/13.
See also
- Dual boot of Mac OS X/Windows
- Windows Frequently Asked Questions and Announce FAQ
External links
- background of dual boot work by firmware engineer Mitch Bradley
- Informative article by Eric Brown at DesktopLinux.com "Microsoft frees poor children from Linux struggles"
- Microsoft press release announcing an agreement with OLPC
- James Utzschneider's blog entry about Windows on the XO


text:
April 17, 2019, 12:45 pmBlake Griffin - F - Detroit Pistons
Blake Griffin (left knee) was able to get some shots up at Wednesday morning's shootaround, though he was sporting a big brace on his left leg.
Griffin is going to do everything in his power to get onto the court so the Pistons will at least have a fighting chance in this series. Griffin at even 50 percent is going to be better than most players, and as the only truly dynamic player on the roster he'll be shouldering a huge burden to keep Detroit from getting smoked like they did in Game 1. There were reports that Griffin might miss the entire first round, but it looks as though he's giving it his all to at least make an appearance.
Source: Rod Beard on Twitter
Fantasy News
April 18, 2019, 3:49 pmKyle Anderson - F - Memphis Grizzlies
Kyle Anderson underwent successful thoracic outlet decompression surgery on Wednesday and is expected to make a full recovery before the Grizzlies' 2019 training camp.
Anderson was hampered by injuries throughout the 2018-2019 campaign. Hopefully, this operation will allow Anderson to bounce back from a disappointing season.
Source: Grizzlies PR on Twitter
April 18, 2019, 1:36 pmPatrick McCaw - G - Toronto Raptors
Patrick McCaw (right thumb sprain) is officially listed as questionable for Friday's Game 3.
McCaw is expected to be available so this could just be a formality, but we'll wait for final word tomorrow either way. He's not a lock to be in the rotation, but he'd likely take Jodie Meeks' minutes as a guy who can help defend Terrence Ross, Evan Fournier and D.J. Augustin.
Source: NBA Injury Report
April 18, 2019, 1:21 pmChris Boucher - F - Toronto Raptors
Chris Boucher (back spasms) will not play in Friday's Game 3.
Boucher is at the very end of the Raptors' bench and is not expected to see any minutes against a heavy Orlando frontline. Eric Moreland will remain the team's third center.
Source: Blake Murphy on Twitter
April 18, 2019, 1:16 pmDeandre Ayton - C - Phoenix Suns
When asked what he'll be focusing on this offseason, Deandre Ayton mentiong ball-handling and 3-point shooting.
Ayton didn't mention his defense, which might be something that the Suns should encourage. Regardless, Ayton looks like he's trying to grow into a true modern big man who can push the ball in transition and stretch the floor a bit. He's a decent mid-range shooter and hits his free throws at a good clip so working on an outside shot shouldn't be a monumental stretch or anything. He was already a third-round player in his rookie season, and if he can add some assists and threes to his game without sacrificing efficiency then we could see another jump in year two.
Source: The Athletic
April 18, 2019, 12:35 pmDwight Howard - C - Washington Wizards
Dwight Howard is likely to pick up his $5.6 million player option for next season.
Howard was limited to nine games because of back/glute problems, so it's not surprising that he'd quickly opt in as it'd be surprising if another team offered him that much on the open market. His presence is going to be a headache for fantasy players that are already looking at Thomas Bryant and Bobby Portis for next year.
Source: The Athletic
April 18, 2019, 11:43 amGary Harris - G - Denver Nuggets
Gary Harris says that he's finally feeling like himself again after struggling with nagging injuries through so much of the regular season.
Harris missed 25 games for the second time in the last three seasons (the third season featured 15 absences) and had a hard time regaining his form as Denver's bench pieces provided quality play in the interim, meaning he didn't get to jump back into a big role. So far, Playoff Harris looks like the guy that fantasy owners invested middle-round picks in, as he's scored 43 points on 17-of-28 shooting in his first two postseason contests. The injury concerns are obviously there but his frustrating regular season may mean that Harris is available at a discount in next season's drafts.
Source: The Athletic
April 18, 2019, 1:13 amRicky Rubio - G - Utah Jazz
Ricky Rubio put up 17 points with four rebounds, nine assists and four steals in a loss to the Rockets in Game 2 on Wednesday.
He shot 7-of-17 from the field and had the unfortunate matchup against James Harden for much of this game. Harden hit him with a crossover that sent Rubio to the floor, but he missed the shot. The Jazz have been getting good performances from Rubio and Derrick Favors, but the inconsistent play from the remainder of their roster has left them with a two-game series deficit. The Jazz are heading back to Utah for Game 3 as they will try to steal their first game of the series.
April 18, 2019, 1:06 amDonovan Mitchell - G - Utah Jazz
Donovan Mitchell had another poor shooting night as he went 5-of-18 from the field on his way to 11 points in a Game 2 blowout loss to the Rockets on Wednesday.
Mitchell shot just 1-of-8 from 3-point territory and 0-of-2 from the stripe. He also had five fouls and four turnovers while playing a team-high 37 minutes. He did add six assists and two steals, but this was a disappointing performance from the second-year rising star. Eric Gordon has been outshining him, but Mitchell has a chance to rectify things as the Jazz head home for Game 3.
April 18, 2019, 1:00 amDerrick Favors - F/C - Utah Jazz
Derrick Favors played well in his 22 minutes of action in a Game 2 loss to the Rockets on Wednesday, with 14 points, 12 rebounds and three blocks.
Although Favors is putting up good numbers in such limited minutes, you should not expect to see him go above 25 minutes at all in this series. He shot 7-of-11 from the field and missed both of his attempts from deep. Also, the Rockets play a lot of small ball as PJ Tucker is their power forward, so Favors is often at a defensive disadvantage when on the court.
April 18, 2019, 12:56 amRudy Gobert - C - Utah Jazz
Rudy Gobert did not have a great showing in Wednesday's Game 2 loss to the Rockets as he managed just 11 points and 12 rebounds on 3-of-6 shooting.
He made five of his seven attempts from the stripe and added one assist and two steals to the stat sheet. He did not record a block in this one which is rare to see from Gobert as he averaged 2.3 blocks per game on the season. Clint Capela has been defending Gobert well, which is making things a lot tougher on the Jazz to score and rebound the ball. Gobert will look to bounce back as the Jazz head home for Game 3.


text: At 12:54 PM 8/31/2007, Ed Hill wrote: >OI have a theory. Call me a cynical BOFH, but I think a lot of folks >get very excited about the prospect of "tweaking" things. They want to >believe that going from -O2 to -O3 will be a big difference because, >well, theirs goes to "11". Coincidentally, NPR is running Terry Gross's "Fresh Air" interview with Christopher Guest (excuse me, Nigel Tufnel) of Spinal Tap today. They even have that exact clip "but these go to 11" James Lux, P.E. Spacecraft Radio Frequency Subsystems Group Flight Communications Systems Section Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Mail Stop 161-213 4800 Oak Grove Drive Pasadena CA 91109 tel: (818)354-2075 fax: (818)393-6875


text:
Campus Computer Labs
There are many computer labs around campus that students can access to complete their work, collaborate on projects, and even print. Below you can find information on many of the labs around campus open to different students.
Open Labs For All Students
Student Genius Center (SGC) Labs - Located in the Pollak Library
Labs for specific Colleges
These labs are only open for specific users check the lab page for details.
Other Labs On Campus
Software and equipment may vary.


text:
Israel News - Stay Informed, Pray Informed
An Israeli couple got a little more than they bargained for when they decided to honeymoon in Zanzibar and ended up having to fight off real-life pirates.
Yoav and Esther Peled were married on May 30 and immediately set off for a dream honeymoon on the tropical Tanzanian island of Zanzibar off the east coast of Africa.
Late Sunday night, several weeks into their vacation, the couple found themselves under attack in their hotel room by a group machete-wielding pirates. Yoav, like most Israelis an army veteran, decided to fight back, while both he and Esther shouted for help.
Shocked by the response, and fearing capture, the pirates fled the scene, but not before cutting off several of Yoav's fingers and badly injuring the palm of his hand.
The couple sought and found help in the hotel lobby, and Yoav was flown to Dar el-Salaam, the largest city in Tanzania, where doctors were able to reattach his fingers.
Yoav and Esther Peled were scheduled to arrive in Israel on Thursday.
The east coast of Africa has suffered from numerous pirate attacks on foreign ships over the past few years, and Israeli officials are warning others who are planning to visit the area in the near future. Despite the possible dangers, Zanzibar and other parts of eastern Africa remain popular vacation destinations for Israelis.
Want more news from Israel?
Click Here to sign up for our FREE daily email updates
For Information & Reservations:
E-Mail: email@example.com
Israel Today
Free to Your Inbox


text:
About Us
George's Restaurant has always given the people of Brooklyn quality food, fast delivery, and great customer service... all at a palatable price.
Our mouthwatering dishes will definitely offer your pa...lette flavors that are both unique and delicious.
You can now enjoy the yums without stepping outside. George's Restaurant welcomes you to the convenience of online ordering, take-out, and delivery all with the click of a button!
Read more


text:
Ulti-MATE Garage PRO 1-Drawer | 1-Door Base Cabinet
Our Price: $315.00
YOUR Savings: $135.00
Ulti-MATE Garage PRO offers custom shop cabinet features, contemporary design and industrial strength to meet needs of the most discerning customer.
This 1-drawer and 1-door base cabinet offers great storage flexibility and style.
Full radius cabinet profile for refined styling
Over-sized Brushed Chrome styled cabinet handles
6" adjustable feet for uneven surfaces
Other features include:
- unique Polyurethane coated cabinet
- fronts in a Silver
- strong 3/4" cabinet construction
- adjustable 1" thick shelf with 200 lb industrial load rating
- fully adjustable recessed Euro hinges
- 1" thick integrated recessed Grey worktop surface
- 100-year old first class manufacturer and much more.
Product Dimensions: 23.6" W x 35" H x 21" D
Assembly required.
1-Drawer | 1-Door Base Cabinet
- Brand: Ulti-MATE Garage Cabinets
- Product Code: GA-03PC
- Availability: In Stock
Related Products
Tags: garage cabinets, storage, organization


text:
Tag Archives: spread
The Dangers of Spreading Rumours – Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan
November 16, 2017 Islam, Politics & News
An excellent article on the danger of spreading rumours without verification. The Noble Shaykh al-'Allamah Salih al-Fawzan was asked: What is the dangers of rumours and spreading speech and narrations without deliberation and verification? He answered: It is not permissible to transmit rumours and to spread fear amongst the Muslims and weaken their spirits; this action is from the actions of the hypocrites who spread rumours amongst the Muslims in order to impede them and set them back, and to bring about fear in their hearts. So this is from the actions of the hypocrites, and Allaah (Tabaraka wa ta'ala) says, "O you who believe! If a rebellious Read more ...


text:
It's done. It's over. Longer than the battle between the greys and the blues, the battle between the alliterators and the consonators, even the fight of the mongoose versus the cobra, the war between Anheuser-Busch and Budejovicky Budvar is done. The General Court of the European Union didn't even bother ruling in favor of Anheuser-Busch, simply dismissing the claim made by Budejovicky Budvar. It's an easy victory for AB InBev, but even better, it's a very cheap victory.
Once again, hey Anheuser, why don'tcha think about putting a few sheckles of what would've been the legal costs toward a better beer, huh?


text:
Kris Jenner Confirms Whether Or Not Tyga Is Father Of Kylie Jenner's Baby
Just last month, 20-year-old Kylie Jenner gave birth to her first child, a daughter named Stormi Webster, with boyfriend, Travis Scott.
Since then, Kylie has been posting numerous photos and videos of her little munchkin on social media. She's also been speaking about her new life as a mother. It turns out that both Kylie and Scott initially believed that unborn Stormi was a boy! The reality TV star revealed this and other fun details about motherhood recently in a Q&A on Twitter.
As we can all remember, before she gave birth, Kylie's ex-boyfriend Tyga had something to say about her pregnancy. On Snapchat, he made a joke that HE was actually the father of her daughter and not Scott. "Hell nah that's my kid," he posted before quickly deleting on the app.
Now in a new interview on iHeartRadio Australia's "Kyle and Jackie O" show, Kylie mother, Kris Jenner, is finally reacting to Tyga's words. When one of the co-hosts Kyle Sandilands asked the momager about Kylie's ex and his comments, Kris quickly denied that there was any truth to his statement. "Tyga was chiming in saying maybe it was his baby," Sandilands said. "Oh no, no no. I think that was just a bunch of silly rumors as usual," Kris replied. "You guys know better than that."
And there it is. Travis Scott, you ARE the father.
Photo: Getty Images


text:
Nathan Herrema
Learning Technology Assistant
BBA in Human Resouces Management (Davenport)
Office: 616.233.2592
As a Learning Technology Assistant, Nate works with the eLearning Designer to develop a variety of creative, innovative and engaging professional development resources. From developing training modules and informational videos to designing course content, the Learning Technology team works to provide creative solutions to support the professional development needs of both Faculty and Staff.
Nate came to Davenport in the Fall of 2010 after graduating high school. He is currently studying to obtain a Bachelors Degree in Business Administration. Nate's interests include media related activities such as: Video & Audio creation and development, as well as spending time outdoors and maintaining a hobby as a botanist


text:
|Home | Stories | News | Theaters | Drive-Ins | Profiles | The Authors | Other Books | Links
Hollywood of the East Coast has been discovered.
The statement above was reported in the New York Herald in 1923. How could this be? What is the basis for such a claim? We asked Mrs. Mildred Higgins, who remembers when Hollywood came to Georgetown. Together with Mrs. Higgins' exciting memories, local newspaper accounts, and information from the Georgetown County Museum and international film archives we began to piece together the story.
On November 6, 1923, a special train arrived in Georgetown. The four Pullman cars carried movie stars and a crew from Paramount Pictures. They had come to Georgetown to make a movie. An enthusiastic group of townspeople crowded the depot to greet the 65 members of the company.
Mrs. Mildred Higgins appeared in the 1924 movie Pied Piper Malone
The Georgetown Times reported, "Headed by Mayor J.W. Wingate, a delegation consisting of Mr. A.G. Trenholm, who has taken great interest in the filming of the picture at Georgetown, Mr. F.M. Brickman, President of the Merchants Association, President F.A. Bell, of the Chamber of Commerce, and others, met the celebrities as they stepped from the train and after delivering a brief expression of welcome and a hearty handshake, dispatched them to the quarters selected among the different homes of the city, where they will be entertained during their stay here."
Through the efforts of local businessmen and the Civic League, the director, Alfred E. Green, had been persuaded to use Georgetown for the location of the film. The story was set in New England but the November weather was more agreeable in Georgetown. The busy port city with its picturesque homes and bustling commercial district made an ideal setting.
Scene from Pied
Piper Malone
Scene from Pied
Piper Malone
Thomas Meighan surrounded by children. Thanks to Drina Mohacsi, founder of Young Hollywood Hall of Fame, for identifying Peaches Jackson in the photograph.
The movie was Pied Piper Malone written by Booth Tarkington. It is a sentimental story of a young man in love with a pretty school teacher.
The story is set in a New England town called "Oldport." Jack Malone (played by Thomas Meighan) longs for a life at sea but he loves school teacher, Patty Thomas (played by Lois Wilson). Jack is accused of causing the loss of a ship. Most everyone in town rejects him. Only Patty and the school children believe he is innocent. He is vendicated. Patty pledges her love as he sails away on the ship his family bought for him.
The names of the stars of Pied Piper Malone are almost unknown to us today, but they were famous in 1923. Thomas Meighan was a stage actor who was a vital figure in the theater when he made the transition to the movies. At six feet, with black hair and brown eyes, he was a major star for Paramount.
Lois Wilson is best remembered as Shirley Temple's mother in the 1934 film, Bright Eyes. When Wilson came to Georgetown in 1923, she was a serene beauty with expressive eyes and one of Paramount's biggest stars.
Among the cast were several children, known then as "starlets." They played the principal children's roles in the movie. The story required a large number of children to follow the hero as scenes were filmed around town. Local school children were chosen as "extras" for the film.
Mrs. Mildred Higgins recalls the day the director came to her school. "On the first or second day that they were here, several of the executives came to the school and explained to the principal how they planned to use the Georgetown children in the movie.
We were brought out to the front of the school building and asked to stand quietly on the steps. The director had someone to choose boys and girls for the scenes to be shot that day. He pointed and said, "You, you, and you." I was so surprised and elated when I was selected. I think I got picked because of my red hair.
The director told the children who were not selected that some of them would be used at another time, and they were. We were excused from school that day and told to go with the movie crew.
We marched to the Court House on Prince and Screven Streets. Directions were given and, after a little adjusting of collars and sashes and hair brushing, we swarmed around the hero of the story, taking our cues from the real little actors. Soon we were "acting" the best we knew how.
Inside the Court House, we stood in the doorway and listened to a court session going on. We did what the director told us to do. There was a lot of jumping and hand clapping and joyful gestures. We thought we were movie stars.
It was fascinating to watch those young starlets perform. I remember a little boy named Tommy and one little curly-haired blond who could turn on the tears at the drop of a hat.
The Episcopal Church, the Masonic Temple, the Baltimore Steamship Company, the Front Street docks (where the Gulf Marina now stands) were some of the places for scenes. The old Moose Lodge, which used to be the beautiful home of the Kaminski family, was the home of the Malone family in the movie. The Joseph Schenk home was used as the home of the heroine in the film.
The Winyah Indigo Society Hall, the Winyah School, the Wigwam Ice Cream Parlor, on the corner of Front and Screven Streets, and many other Front Street stores were used. There were scenes laid at many places on the waterfront as the hero went away to sea and returned.
There were many scenes on other days, happy ones and sad ones, and we never grew tired of the proceedings. Every day it was something new. Best of all was pay-day. We were lined up at the waterfront and handed crisp one-dollar bills – brand new money.
I think I had about twelve dollars in all. I felt like a millionaire because I had never had that much money in all of my ten years! I used some of it to buy Christmas presents. What luxury!"
When the members of the company were not shooting scenes they enjoyed the hospitality of the people of Georgetown. The cast attended various churches and went sightseeing on the water and to the many interesting old rice plantations. The weather was described as "bright and crisp, perfect condition for taking pictures for the screen."
At one time it was expected that the company would have to go to Charleston for the filming of the scenes which required a steamship and a four-masted schooner, but through the courtesy of the B.A. Munnerlyn Company they were able to use the Baltimore and Carolina ship and a schooner which the company chartered.
It was during the filming of a scene with the schooner that the female star, Lois Wilson, nearly fell into the Sampit River. The Georgetown Times filed the following report. "It was a part [of the film] showing the departure of Tom on a sailing vessel and his sweetheart on the dock waving a last farewell. In order that Miss Wilson be on a level with the deck of the sailing vessel, a pile of lumber had been raised on the edge of the wharf.
She felt that the pile of lumber was moving under her and the current of the river was accelerating the movement. She was on the verge of complete collapse. She must continue to wave goodbye to Tom, and any effort to save herself would ruin the picture.
By some strange intuition, Tom Meighan sensed the terrible situation. He continued to wave adieus and smile, but he called out, "Lois, don't look down, look up." She instantly obeyed and steadied herself until the trying scene ended, and the camera had registered without a flaw the scene but not the emotions of that particular act."
The Georgetown Chamber of Commerce held a reception and dance to honor the cast and crew of "Pied Piper Malone" at the historical Winyah Indigo Society Hall on Friday, November 16, 1923. Splendid music was donated by the Elks' Band.
George Fawcett, who played Captain Clarke in the movie, gave a "witty and eloquent little speech" which drew loud applause. Thomas Meighan said that because of the courtesies and kindness of the people of Georgetown he wanted them to capitalize on their being in town. He offered the services of the entire cast to perform in a benefit entertainment to raise money for an appropriate charity.
On Friday night, November 23, a benefit performance was given at the Winyah School Auditorium. In all, $700 was raised for the Health Fund of the Civic League. Mrs. J.S. Higgins, President of the Civic League received the money for the specific purpose of providing for the undernourished children of the Public Schools.
It was estimated that the filming of Pied Piper Malone brought "between ten and fifteen thousand dollars of good hard cash" to the Georgetown community. In 1923, that was a very large sum. It was hoped that other moving picture companies would be interested in coming to Georgetown to make movies.
After three weeks of almost perfect weather the movie company completed their filming in Georgetown and prepared to leave for New York. A large crowd gathered at the depot to say goodbye.
Scenes for the film depicting the Orient were to be shot in New York's Chinatown, but the company received a far different reception there than they had received in Georgetown. Some of the shopkeepers became angry and threw vegetables and shoes at the crew and cast. The cameraman was almost hit by a lamp thrown from a window.
Thomas Meighan said, "It was pretty bad while it lasted." A merchant in Chinatown explained, "In many pictures recently, scenes have appeared portraying Chinatown distinctly unfavorably and giving non-residents the impression that the quarter is made up entirely of dives and disreputable houses."
In February, 1924, Pied Piper Malone played to packed performances at the Princess Theatre on Front Street. The newspaper reported that, "Georgetonians will be given the opportunity to see themselves as well as a number of their friends and children in this big picture. The school children hold a prominent part throughout the outdoor scenes and it is expected that the Princess Theatre will have a record attendance."
Mrs. Mildred Higgins said, "Being in Pied Piper Malone was a once-in-a-lifetime thrill, but seeing the movie when it was shown on the screen was icing on the cake. Recognizing ourselves and our friends filled us with glee, and we were happy to see the movie starlets again on the screen if not in person."
We can now understand why Georgetown was called the "Eastern Hollywood." The full statement given by the Thomas Meighan Company to the New York Herald says it all.
"The Hollywood of the East Coast has been discovered. It is Georgetown, S.C., and the discoverers are Thomas Meighan, Alfred E. Green and Tom Geraghty. They have been in the town for the past three weeks with a company filming scenes for Pied Piper Malone, an original story by Booth Tarkington, which is being made into a Paramount picture, and they know whereof they speak.
The town has all the qualifications of Hollywood as a place to make pictures and then some more, according to the motion picture people. With three hundred days of sunshine a year, three rivers, a bay, coast line, sandy shores for 'sheik stuff' a street that would do for the Middle West, cotton fields and other conditions Georgetown is an ideal place to film exteriors for motion pictures, according to the information brought back to New York by the Meighan Company."
by John Coles and Mark Tiedje
Special thanks to Mrs. Mildred Higgins and her daughters, Karen and Loril, and to Debby Summey, Director, Georgetown County Museum
|Home | Stories | News | Theaters | Drive-Ins | Profiles | The Authors | Other Books | Links


text:
All items > Knives > Automatic Knives
- Overall Length:8.50"
- Blade Length:3.625"
- Blade Thickness:0.12"
- Blade Material:ATS-34
- Blade Style:Drop Point
- Blade Grind:Hollow
- Finish:Gray
- Edge Type:Plain
- Handle Length:4.875"
- Handle Thickness:0.49"
- Handle Material:Aluminum
- Color:Green
- Weight:4.42 oz.
- User:Right Hand
- Pocket Clip:Tip-Down
- Knife Type:Automatic
- Opener:Push Button
- Lock Type:Plunge Lock
- Brand:GT Knives
- Model:Police
- Model Number:GT-111
- Country of Origin:USA
- Best Use:Everyday Carry, Tactical
- Product Type:Knife
The GT Knives Police Automatic is a precision made, top quality auto. These button-lock auto knives have been designed with the closest possible tolerances on state-of-the-art CAD/CAM computer aided design equipment. These are super fast and lock up solid. They are CNC milled in-house by GT Knives.
The Drop Point blade is made of ATS 34 steel and coated with a wear-resistant titanium nitride finish. The handle features green anodized, CNC machined 6061-T6 aluminum with textured grip and a pocket clip to match. One unique feature of the GT series is that the pivot point of the blade is actually the firing button! Plain edge blade version.


text:
October 22, 2013
A Bethel church has been accused in a lawsuit of turning a blind eye to sexual assaults on young girls by its former youth minister.
In the lawsuit filed Tuesday in state Superior Court in Danbury, the family of a girl says leaders of the Walnut Hill Community Church allowed Matthew Anastasia to be in a position where he could get close to girls even though he had been arrested for harming one.
"The minor plaintiff and her family looked to the church as a safe place to worship and find spiritual peace and instead a 13-year-old girl was deceived and harmed," said lawyer Cindy Robinson, with the Bridgeport law firm Tremont Sheldon Robinson Mahoney, who is representing the family.
Church officials did not immediately return calls and emails for comment. Anastasia's mother, Janice, is the Children's Ministry Team coordinator for Walnut Hill, and his father, James, had served as a church elder. Both are named as defendants.
In July 2011, Anastasia was sentenced to one year in prison and five years' probation after pleading guilty to fourth-degree sexual assault, risk of injury to a minor and unlawful restraint for assaults against the girl in 2009.
At the time, he was on probation for forcing a 16-year-old girl to touch his genitals while parked in 2008. Anastasia refused to drive the girl home or let her out of the car until she complied, the warrant affidavit in that case states.
Despite the 2008 crime and other allegations, the lawsuit states the church allowed Anastasia to remain in his position.
All of the 2009 encounters occurred during church services, according to both Anastasia and the teen, court records show.
The girl told police Anastasia "touched my private parts over my clothing, he tried to go further, and I told him I didn't want to at all," she said in her statement. "Matt tried to take my pants down."
Anastasia also sent the girl a photograph of his genitals as well as a video of him touching himself, court documents state.
"I cut off the romantic involvement because morally, it's kind of sick and twisted," Anastasia told police, according to the affidavit.
Last July Anastasia was arrested and charged with third-degree assault, disorderly conduct and violating a protective order.
State's Attorney Stephen Sedensky III declined to comment on a pending case, but police sources said the arrest involved a domestic violence incident with a girlfriend.
By Dan Tepfer, CT Post.
Related Links
- About Tremont Sheldon Robinson Mahoney


text:
History Timeline
Wallace and Lucille Renard
Between 1941 and 1949, Wallace and Lucille Renard made major gifts to support the missions of the Department of Neuropsychiatry. In addition to general support of the department, these gifts were used to establish the Wallace and Lucille K. Renard Professorship in Psychiatry and to help build Renard Hospital. For a list of Renard Professors and other endowed professorships, click here.


text:
Okay, I promised to write about the shabti box investigation in my next post, but before I do that, I have to share something exciting with all of you:
PUM I, our Third Intermediate Period mummy who was autopsied back in 1972, is back together again!
When he came into the lab, we didn't realize how much he had been cut apart, and the extent to which his remains and linen wrappings had deteriorated. We have spent a lot of time examining this mummy, researching his history including his autopsy, cleaning the deteriorated linen and human remains, identifying and inventorying the remains (thanks to Penn undergraduate Christine Lugrine), and conserving the linen wrappings.
The conservation work on his remains is nearly complete, and he will soon leave the Artifact Lab. Come visit the lab for one last glimpse, and check out the before and after photos below.


text:
Mitchell Day Care Death Lawsuit Settled Out of Court
MITCHELL, S.D. (AP) - The parents of a baby girl who died after allegedly being beaten by another child at an in-home day care in Mitchell have settled out of court with the day care's owner.
Details of the civil lawsuit settlement between parents Donald Howard and Amy Ruml and day care owner Lacey Tebay are confidential. Attorneys for both parties declined comment to The Daily Republic newspaper (http://bit.ly/UKdCzT).
Howard and Ruml sued Tebay after the June 19, 2012, death of 3-month-old Brooklyn Howard, claiming that Tebay was negligent and asking a jury to determine damages.
Authorities did not file any criminal charges in the death.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.