alocispepraluger102

cnbc is financial pornography

http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=pr...p;categoryid=14 Posted: Tue., Sep. 18, 2007, 12:31pm PT Rupert Murdoch takes aim at CNBC Fox Business Network to launch on Oct. 15 By MICHAEL LEARMONTH Rupert Murdoch vowed that News Corp.'s upcoming Fox Business Network would take a very different approach to business news than CNBC, casting the upcoming battle as Wall Street vs. Main Street. "It's going to be different from CNBC, just as Fox News is different from CNN," Murdoch told Wall Streeters at the Goldman Sachs-sponsored conference Tuesday. "CNBC is a financial channel for Wall Street; we're for Main Street." CNBC has had little competition, short of Bloomberg TV, since CNN shuttered CNNfn in late 2004. Fox Business Network is set to launch in 34 million homes on Oct. 15. "They dwell too much on failures and scandals and politics," Murdoch said of CNBC. "We want to spend a lot of time on innovation, successes and people who are making money." Murdoch said the launch of FBN and the acquisition of Dow Jones coincide with what he believes to be "a unique point in history" where demand for financial information will increase for decades as prosperity and entrepreneurial culture spread around the globe. He said he expects News Corp.'s $5 billion acquisition of Dow Jones to be completed in December. CNBC and Dow Jones have an exclusive content agreement that runs through 2012, but Murdoch said the deal covers only business news and won't prevent Fox Business Net from using the brand or the content. "There is no reason we could not have Wall Street Journal coverage of politics, international affairs, lifestyle, travel, you name it," he said. CNBC spokesman Kevin Goldman didn't dispute Murdoch's interpretation of the agreement. "We're about providing fast, accurate, actionable and unbiased business news to people with a lot of money and those who aspire to have a lot of money," he said. News Corp. has already identified $100 million in savings at Dow Jones that Murdoch described as the "low-hanging fruit." He added that the company employs 1,600 journalists globally at Dow Jones Newswires and the Wall Street Journal and that they could be better leveraged by having wire reporters "work closely with the paper itself." Murdoch said he hadn't decided whether to switch WSJ.com from a subscription to a solely advertising-supported business model. The switch would mean a short-term $30 million hit to the bottom line, eventually offset by higher ad revenue. Cost savings, he said, "are not really what we're about; we're about expanding revenues." Sensitive that Wall Street has been wary of News Corp. stock, Murdoch defended his record of acquiring and launching new businesses. "When we started Fox News, I was considered an idiot," he said. "How could I possibly do that, spend a billion dollars? It's worth $10 billion today. Two years ago you were laughing at me about (buying) MySpace. What's that worth today? Certainly more than 20 times what we paid for it." It took Fox News five years to reach full distribution in more than 90 million homes across the U.S. He said if the company produced "the channel we think we can," full distribution for FBN would come in the same time frame. Weeks from its scheduled launch, Fox Business Network has been busy lining up talent. The network named four new anchors on Tuesday: Peter Barnes, Jenna Lee, Nicole Petallides and Cody Willard. They join David Asman, Dagen McDowell, Cheryl Casone, Stuart Varney and Rebecca Gomez, who were named last week. Read the full article at: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117972202.html

Noj, I was rootin' for your guys to win that one. I heard whistles before the kick so I assume the TO was called in time, but I felt sorry for Janikowski nonetheless. What a MF mindf*ck! Definititely seemed like a home field gift for Shanahan. Janikowski should have made it the second time too. Still, a 52-yarder, that's no gimme. I don't think the defense should be given that sort of demand with time outs. Either call it early enough to stop the snap of the ball, or the refs should ignore a defensive team in that situation. I know I've seen them ignore coaches in that situation in the past, or maybe they just ignore the Raiders. But hey, it was in Denver so Shanahan gets whatever his little elvish heart desires and the ball gets spotted an extra 12 inches every time the home team runs the ball. I hate the NFL. What Shanahan did was completely within the rules. A few years ago they gave coaches the right to call timeouts from the sideline, what they usually do is call the ref over and let them know that they'll be calling a timeout "at the last second" prior to the snap. As long as they gave the ref the heads up that the timeout is coming, they are granted the timeout. What Shanahan did was the new millennium version of "icing the kicker"...and in this case it worked. I still think it's kind of shitty, but there is no cheating involved. I don't want to hear that kind of good reasoned argument, I'm trying to whine here. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll continue to wallow in the agony of Raider fandom. your raiders got hosed bigtime.

enjoy it while it lasts.

the only way this was discovered was through our data gathering devices. way back when, aloc could have issued some forgissimo cd's and no one would have noticed.

You dig? my cats do!

the database is from 1991

The Bergen County NJ library system that I belong to, allows access via ProQuest.umi.com to the complete run of the Times for free. All I need is my 14 digit library card number. I'm more interested in reading the Times from 1923-1986 than almost anything published by them in the last 20 years. One of the highlights of my scatter shot Times reading was finding my Grandfather listed in a list of debtors being taken to court by a creditor in the middle of the depression. Roots baby! digging in old old newspapers is one of life's great pleasures

i wouldnt take those stats to the bank. it was probably more like 2700 paying subscribers.

New York Times to end paid Internet service Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:37pm EDT By Robert MacMillan NEW YORK (Reuters) - The New York Times Co said on Monday it will end its paid TimesSelect Web service and make most of its Web site available for free in the hopes of attracting more readers and higher advertising revenue. TimesSelect will shut down on Wednesday, two years after the Times launched it, which charges subscribers $7.95 a month or $49.95 a year to read articles by columnists such as Maureen Dowd and Thomas Friedman. The trademark orange "T's" marking premium articles will begin disappearing Tuesday night, said the Web site's Vice President and General Manager Vivian Schiller. The move is an acknowledgment by The Times that making Web site visitors pay for content would not bring in as much money as making it available for free and supporting it with advertising. "We now believe by opening up all our content and unleashing what will be millions and millions of new documents, combined with phenomenal growth, that that will create a revenue stream that will more than exceed the subscription revenue," Schiller said. Figuring out how to increase online revenue is crucial to the Times and other U.S. newspaper publishers, which are struggling with a drop in advertising sales and paying subscribers as more readers move online. "Of course, everything on the Web is free, so it's understandable why they would want to do that," said Alan Mutter a former editor at the San Francisco Chronicle and proprietor of a blog about the Internet and the news business called Reflections of a Newsosaur. "The more page views you have, the more you can sell," he said. "In the immediate moment it's a perfectly good idea." The longer-term problem for publishers like the Times is that they must find ways to present content online rather than just transferring stories and pictures from the newspaper. Most U.S. news Web sites offer their contents for free, supporting themselves by selling advertising. One exception is The Wall Street Journal which runs a subscription-based Web site. TimesSelect generated about $10 million in revenue a year. Schiller declined to project how much higher the online growth rate would be without charging visitors. The company expects to record a "substantially increased number of unique users referred to and accessing the site" once TimesSelect disappears, it said in a statement. TimesSelect includes online access to 23 news and opinion columnists as well as several tools to customize the Web site. It also offers access to the Times archives back to 1851. Starting on Wednesday, access to the archives will be available for free back to 1987, and as well as stories before 1923, which are in the public domain, Schiller said. Users can buy articles between 1923 and 1986 on their own or in 10-article packages, the company said. Some stories, such as film reviews, will be free, she said. American Express will be the first sponsor of the opened areas on the site, and will have a "significant advertising presence" on the homepage and in the opinion and archives sections, the company said. Schiller declined to say what the financial impact would be on the Times. No employees would lose their jobs, she said. TimesSelect had about 227,000 paying subscribers as of August. People who receive the paper at home get access to it for free, as do students. In total, about 787,400 people have access to TimesSelect now, the company said. The number of subscribers met the paper's expectations, Schiller said. "We consider TimesSelect very successful," she said. Paying TimesSelect subscribers will receive a pro-rated refund on their credit cards, she added. © Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world. Reuters journalists are subject to the Reuters Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.

There's gotta be a bunch of 7/4s around this country. And they're named David Beardsley. Check this Secor out. Must be a very distant relative. And I plan to keep it that way. Good idea. I know a lot of microtonalists. They out do record collectors and jazz fans for strangeness. they make us free jazzers seem normal.

BS - it said there are 0 people in the US named Nessa. I know of about 100 and can provide a picture (taken in December, at my father's memorial celebration) of around 15. you are definitely an uncommon sort.

http://howmanyofme.com/

http://www.texasjim.com/NASApix/NASA%20pix.htm

bought it a long time ago when it was new, and it has never left my favorite vinyl stack.

Thanks! a really enjoyable listening experience.

List of major sanctions in Formula One Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:16pm BST LONDON (Reuters) - The following is a list of previous major sanctions meted out in Formula One after championship leaders McLaren were stripped of their 2007 constructors' points on Thursday. 2007 - McLaren stripped of all their constructors' points, fined $100 million and barred from scoring any more points this year as a result of Ferrari technical information found in their possession. The team had already lost 15 constructors' points from the Hungarian Grand Prix after world champion Fernando Alonso impeded team mate Lewis Hamilton at the end of qualifying. - 2006 - Turkish Grand Prix organisers handed a $5 million fine after a podium controversy at August race. Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat presented the winner's trophy and was introduced as "President of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", recognized only by Turkey. - 2005 - BAR (now Honda) disqualified from San Marino Grand Prix and suspended for two subsequent races after being found to have an illegal secondary fuel tank. - 2002 - Champions Ferrari, Germany's Michael Schumacher and Brazilian Rubens Barrichello fined $1 million for Austrian Grand Prix podium debacle. Barrichello had dominated the race but was ordered to let Schumacher win. The German then broke podium protocol by insisting Barrichello join him on the top step. Half the fine was suspended for a year, payable only if they reoffended within 12 months. - 2000 - McLaren fined $50,000 and docked 10 points in the constructors' championship for a missing seal on an electronic control unit after Finland's Mika Hakkinen won the Austrian Grand Prix. Hakkinen kept the race win. - 1998 - Hungarian Grand Prix organisers fined $1 million after a track invasion at race won by Schumacher. Seventy five percent was suspended, payable if there was a similar incident within two years. - 1997 - Schumacher excluded from the final championship classification, but allowed to keep his race wins, after collision with Canadian Jacques Villeneuve in title-deciding European Grand Prix in Jerez. - 1994 - Schumacher handed a two-race suspension, and disqualified from British Grand Prix, for ignoring a black flag warning. - 1984 - Tyrrell excluded from competing in the second half of the championship and their results for the whole season cancelled for a technical infringement. The team, competing against turbo-charged rivals with a normally-aspirated engine, ran light for much of the race before having lead shot pumped in with the fuel at the final pitstop to bring the cars back up to the legal weight. © Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world. Reuters journalists are subject to the Reuters Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3017964

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketba...ex_book_in.html

Very stiff penalty. What do you mean "if they don't make the playoffs?" the cool running, suave conn man is blowing steam. this happened just because the jets coach was once a pat insider.

a 6'er of the estimable thirsty dog siberian night

have you heard 'holiday for bones?'

this thread shows much promise.

wenty years in a dying industry Commentary: Why media revolution only just beginning By David Callaway, MarketWatch Last Update: 12:01 AM ET Sep 13, 2007 SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- The daytime city editor at The Boston Herald came running over the minute I sat down at my desk that Monday morning. "Dave, I'm glad someone from (the business desk) is here. The Dow is down more than 300 points in the first hour. This seems big. What do you think?" Well, even for a young reporter four weeks into his first full-time job, I could figure this one out. While any 300-point drop in $INDU) is news, the one that morning of Oct. 19, 1987 represented almost a 14% drop in the famous stock market index, equivalent to a loss of more than 1,800 points on the Dow at today's levels. Not bad for the first hour of trading. By the end of the day, the Dow had fallen 508 points, or almost 23%, triggering declines in markets around the world, fears of a global recession after five years of boom times on Wall Street, and the coining of the term Black Monday. By sheer luck, I happened to be in the right place at the right time in the Herald newsroom that morning, and got to write the story. The news business is like that. It remains one of the biggest news events I ever covered -- so big that I didn't even get a front page byline. The tabloid newspaper blew out the whole front page with a frantic image of the New York Stock Exchange trading floor and the headline "Meltdown on Wall Street." Twenty years later, as I prepare to mark a different September anniversary this week - two decades in business journalism -- the sense of fear and foreboding among readers and investors remains fresh in my mind. Crowds of people massed outside the Fidelity Investments walk-in center on Congress Street that day to watch the Dow plunge on the window ticker. The Boston Stock Exchange was locked down to reporters. The words recession and stock market crash rang from Boston to Wall Street and every other regional stock market in the country, most of them now closed. Those same words ring through the markets today. The same concern and fear are out there, just hiding behind terms such as subprime, hedge funds and credit crisis, instead of junk bonds, program trading and portfolio insurance. The market looks vulnerable. Even Alan Greenspan, a rookie Fed chief in 1987 who faced a trial by fire, says the current markets look a lot like they did that autumn. But the difference between now and then is that we know what happened then. The markets rebounded at the end of 1987 to finish the year higher. The crisis ended. And though we've endured several more crises in the intervening decades -- the Salomon Brothers trading scandal, the Mexican currency crisis, the collapse of Barings Plc, the Long-Term Capital Management crisis, the bursting of the Internet bubble -- the markets over the long term have managed to continue rising. The Dow today is more than six times what it was 20 years ago, despite the daily fear and loathing chronicled by the business press. Investors who hung in there and did not give way to panic did great. Which brings me to my own industry. Back in 1987, it was widely assumed that newspapers were dying. The post-Watergate rush to become a reporter was over. Circulations were down. And new technologies were threatening. At one point, the hot new thing was to deliver news by fax machine, and papers were going to die because readers would be able to get news quicker by fax. They would even be able to tailor the type of news they wanted to receive. Imagine that? In my section of the paper, which we affectionately called FIN for "financial," we kept abreast of the market's movement with an old Dow Jones news ticker, which clacked out spools of dark blue, inky copy all day long, and market updates once an hour. You had to get up from your desk, where primitive word processors had been installed only a year before, and walk over to the ticker, which was close to a blood stain on the aging carpet that newsroom legend held had been there ever since a printer coughed up a lung two decades before that. It was right out of The Front Page. I'm told the rug has been cleaned. But 20 years later The Herald is still there, breaking news and still providing a daily slap upside the head to its larger, more comfortable rival, The Boston Globe. In the meantime, the industry has morphed completely. Business journalism took off in the late 1980s, then continued to grow in the 1990s as companies like Bloomberg News came on the scene. The Wall Street Journal launched a subscription Web site in the mid-'90s and soon after companies like MarketWatch, TheStreet.com, The Motley Fool, and a host of new Web sites from legacy business began competing for the online financial news reader. But while the names changed and new companies came on the scene to compete with old, the stories remained the same -- thrilling, devastating, frightening, heart-wrenching -- all in need of real journalists to report them and tell the world. There's been a lot said about the latest craze in news dissemination recently, in which some Web sites electronically post news based on how many readers have hit the stories, instead of letting editors decide. This is a fascinating development in online community and user-generated editorial. But go to any one of these sites and ask yourself the simple question, what's going on in the news today. At one of the sites Wednesday afternoon, the lead story was a video from YouTube headlined "Leave Britney Alone." Another site led with "How to hide beer in the office." Clearly an under-emphasized talent, but hardly newsworthy on a day oil prices hit $80 a barrel and Vladimir Putin dissolved the Russian government. I know I'll come under fire for stepping into this, and maybe after 20 years I'm in danger of becoming the curmudgeon I always thought some of my older journalistic brethren were. But as long as there are Enrons and Worldcoms out there; hedge funds and pyramid schemes; crimes and wars and corrupt leaders, there will be journalists who will find platforms to report on them -- whatever the technology. Indeed, this is not the beginning of the end for journalism. It wasn't 20 years ago either. It's a bull market for those who can write a sentence and tell a story and know how to do it across the mediums of print, Web, audio, video and mobile. The stories are there for the taking. Oh, and one more thing about my first job at The Herald. It was owned at the time by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., in-coming owner of Dow Jones & Co., which publishes MarketWatch. So 20 years of excitement later, here we go again. End of Story David Callaway is editor-in-chief of MarketWatch.

"According to a recent study, many of them prefer pasta to all other pleasures. A survey by SWG, a polling company, found that nearly half of all Italian men and women would never give it up and would rather have a plate of spaghetti than sex."