Posts Tagged ‘About’

PostHeaderIcon Study: Everything You Didn't Know About Premier League Social Data

Study: Everything You Didn't Know About Premier League Social Data
The relationship between football and social media is becoming more relevant every day. Recently Real Madrid's and Barcelona's Twitter and Facebook social accounts grew to over 192 million followers – more than triple Spain's current population.
Read more on Business 2 Community

Dylan Scott Thinking Out Loud To Over 1 Million In 7 Days
NASHVILLE, Tenn., March 6, 2015 /PRNewswire/ — Sidewalk/Curb Records Recording Artist Dylan Scott launched "Thinking Out Loud" on his Facebook page and YouTube Channel on February 24th to overwhelming fan response. Dylan's deep baritone take …
Read more on PR Newswire (press release)

PostHeaderIcon Was our 'Year of Outrage' much ado about nothing?

Was our 'Year of Outrage' much ado about nothing?
On a more personal level, there are credit card summaries reminding us where and when we spent our money, portfolio statements revealing how the little we managed to salt away compounded or contracted,and social media scrapbooks that capture the highs …
Read more on Detroit Free Press

Norton High School students STEP up to college
Transitions at Bridgewater offers students weekly workshops covering topics such as money management, social skills, campus and social media safety and interview skills. The Inclusive Concurrent Enrollment program gives students an … The Self …
Read more on Attleboro Sun Chronicle

What 2015 Has In Store For Native Ads, TV And Email
One of Facebook's most successful ad-product developments has been the ability to upload “custom audiences” that marry advertisers' customer lists with those individuals' social profiles (subject to various privacy policies, of course), enabling …
Read more on TechCrunch

PostHeaderIcon Questions about trademarking?

Question by Xzxz: Questions about trademarking?
I currently own a twitter account that I make a living off and i’m looking to expand to other networks and turn it into a brand with shirts and continue going from there.. but before I go through with the expansion steps i’m looking to get it trademarked but would I qualify for a trademark as long as the name isn’t taken? Also what perks would come with it? If somebody took my name on another social media network or tried to be an impostor would I have the power to go to facebook/twitter with my trademark and be like “I want this removed I own the rights.” Thanks, all advice is appreciated.

Best answer:

Answer by Jake
I have to believe a trademark would not give you as much protection as preemptively securing the domain name and account on all the social sites you can. There are many celebrities, presumably with registered stage names who were not quick enough to be the one tp own their name on twitter.

The U.S. trademark office:

some basics on copyright, which might overlap.

What do you think? Answer below!

PostHeaderIcon Q&A: In the last Republican debate when they asked everyone about the Fed why did they skip Ron Paul?

Question by Foghorn: In the last Republican debate when they asked everyone about the Fed why did they skip Ron Paul?
I think he had the answer the so called elite didn’t want to hear.

Best answer:

Answer by Truth
Of course, the same reason why Fox News and Conservative Senators are so vehemently against OCW.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

PostHeaderIcon 6 Q's About the News | Spiders That Thrive in a Social Web

6 Q's About the News | Spiders That Thrive in a Social Web
WHAT have he and his co-author, Kate L. Laskowski, recently determined about character-building in social spiders? HOW did the results differ for spiders that were exposed to the same group day after day compared to those that were shifted from one set …
Read more on New York Times (blog)

30 million people use this social network … and you've probably never heard
I'm talking about We Heart It — the vapidly named, Pinterest-like social network that's massively popular among teenagers, virtually unknown among everyone else and now, as of today, displaying native ads to its nearly 30 million active users. If that …
Read more on Washington Post

Twitter Is The Favorite Social Network Of Terrorists
According to a new report by the Woodrow Wilson Center's Gabriel Weimann, terrorists are using social media for the same reasons most us do — quick, easy, anonymous communication — and these new tactics are making it difficult for counterterrorism …
Read more on Business Insider

PostHeaderIcon Do you agree with Newt “Paul Ryan’s plan is extreme social engineering” Gingrich about Republican infighting?

Question by The Equalist – FOUR MORE YEARS: Do you agree with Newt “Paul Ryan’s plan is extreme social engineering” Gingrich about Republican infighting?
Do you agree with Newt Gingrich, the man who called Paul Ryan’s plan “extreme right-wing social engineering”, that the news media is trying to cause Republican infighting, and that he’s above all of that?

Also, did the news media make Newt Gingrich ridicule Paul Ryan’s plan? Because Newt Gingrich is above fighting other Republicans.

Best answer:

Answer by Daniel

Give your answer to this question below!

PostHeaderIcon Why does the media only care about the dead person named Whitney Houston?? What about the others??!?

Question by Nebula: Why does the media only care about the dead person named Whitney Houston?? What about the others??!?
I find it funny and very disturbing how the news/media relentlessly covers the passing of Whitney Houston, while they fail to acknowledge the thousands of others who die every 9, give or take, seconds. I mean yes, Whitney Houston was influential, and still is today, but I come on.

Why not glorify the Polish dad who was struggling to provide for his family but died in a car crash?
Why not glorify the American soccer mom who died suddenly of breast cancer?
Why not glorify the kidnapped teens who were brutally raped and murdered in south Africa???

Come on media, why not care about these people? I’m sick of the fact celebrities get glorified beyond belief for days, weeks, years on from their passing. Every person is essentially equal. Everyone is a being and has a spirit. A death is a death. How horrible is the world we’re living in that this has to be the only news coverage on television??!?! Sickening when you think about it.
@mr warrior thanks for answering. Not once did I ask for every death to be televised did I? that was your idea not mine. I was simply making a point of how ridiculous it is to praise one individual over another. It’s like, if you die, whoops sorry you’re out of luck. no one will care because Whitney Houston just died!! sorry. all I’m asking is for the media to be a little more raw and less… celebrity based. That is all.

Best answer:

Answer by Adavin
because its media and she was a large part of it for a long time.

they cater to their own

Give your answer to this question below!

PostHeaderIcon Q&A: Why does Obama lie about taking money from specail interest groups and lobbyists?

Question by S. P: Why does Obama lie about taking money from specail interest groups and lobbyists?
Obama. He has completely snowed his supporters into believing that he is against special interest and accepting funding from lobbyists. One look at where all that money is coming from tells another story.
Obama’s presidential campaign has received nearly $ 5 million dollars from securities and investment firms and $ 866,000 from commercial banks through October of 2007. Obama’s top contributor so far is Goldman Sachs (provider of $ 369,078 to Obama), identified by Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) investigators as “a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry.” Eight of Obama’s top twenty election investors are securities and investment firms: Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros. (number 2 at $ 229,090), J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. (# 4 at $ 216,759), Citadel Investment Group (#7 at 4166,608), UBS AG ($ 146,150), UBS-America ($ 106,680), Morgan Stanley ($ 104,421), and Credit Suisse Group ($ 92,300). The last two firms are also known to be leading privatization advocates (Center for Responsive Politics 2007a).

Meanwhile, Obama’s presidential run has been “assisted” by more than $ 2 million from the health care sector and nearly $ 400,000 from the insurance industry through October of 2007 (Center for Responsive Politics 2007b). Obama received $ 708,000 from medical and insurance interests between 2001 and 2006 (Center for Responsive Politics 2007c). His wife Michelle, a fellow Harvard Law graduate, was until a recently a Vice President for Community and External Affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals, a position that paid her $ 273, 618 in 2006 (Sweet 2007).

And Obama’s sixth largest contributor is Exelon, the proud Chicago-based owner and operator of more nuclear power plants than any entity on earth (Center for Responsive Politics 2007a).

Go figure.

As for his “lobbyist ban,” last August the Los Angeles Times reported that Obama “raised more than $ 1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation’s capital.” Campaign finance expert Stephen Weissman observed that this raised troubling questions about the practical relevance of Obama’s much-ballyhooed pledge to turn down donations from “federal lobbyists.”

“Obama’s rise to national prominence and presidential viability, Helman discovered, depended significantly on PAC and lobbyist money.”

As Los Angeles Times reporter Dan Morain explained, “some of the most influential [lobbyist] players, lawyers and consultants among them, skirt disclosure requirements by merely advising clients and associates who do actual lobbying, and avoiding regular contact with policymakers. Obama’s ban does not cover such individuals.”

Thus, to give one example, Obama received $ 33,000 in the first quarter of 2007 from the Atlanta-based law firm Alston & Bird, which maintains a large lobbying division in Washington. Obama’s $ 33,000 came bundled from a number of “consultants” employed by the firm.

Also deleted from Obama’s “ban” are state lobbyists. Obama took $ 2000 from two Springfield, Illinois lobbyists for Exelon, which spent $ 500,000 to influence policy in Washington in 2006 and gave $ 160,000 directly to Obama (Morain 2007).

An especially big dent in the armor of Obama’s effort to sell himself as the noble repudiator of lobbyist, PAC, and special interest money generally was inflicted in early August of 2007. That’s when the Boston Globe published a widely circulated article titled “PACs and Lobbyists Aided Obama’s Rise: Data Contrast With His Theme.” Globe reporter Scott Helman reviewed campaign finance records to find that a “more complicated truth” lurked “behind Obama’s campaign rhetoric.” Obama’s rise to national prominence and presidential viability, Helman discovered, depended significantly on PAC and lobbyist money, including large sums from “defense contractors, law firms and the securities and insurance industries” to his own powerful PAC “Hopefund.” Of special interest was Helman’s determination that Obama was retaining close and lucrative funding relationships with leading Washington-based lobbyists and lobbying firms while technically avoiding direct contributions from those key campaign finance players.
Sorry, I think I should have posted this in elections. It is a question of ethics as well I suppose.

Best answer:

Answer by jnf5278
who knew! why isn’t this information being shared with the public? if this is true, it is a clear indication that the media is not doing there job…but i guess i already knew that. i assume it’s because politics is a dirty game no matter the player.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

PostHeaderIcon What do you thing about this article?

Question by gord: What do you thing about this article?
Anna Politkovskaya and the Self-Defense of Democracy
By Jon Hellevig
The writer is a Finnish lawyer who has lived in Moscow for 15 years. He has written the book Expressions and Interpretations ( discussing Russia’s social development from the viewpoint of philosophy and judicial philosophy. He is also the author of several books on the Russian tax and labor law.

The murder of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya has once again induced a surge of anti-Russianism in Finland. Politicians, so-called researchers and media declare that Russian leaders masterminded the murder. Many people cautiously avoid these direct expressions, while being highly critical of the Russian government. Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja falls somewhere between the two groups, whereas Markku Kivinen from the University of Helsinki affiliated Aleksanteri Institute and MP Heidi Hautala clearly belong to the latter. It is obviously not in the interests of the Russian President to have a well known journalist killed (pointing this out would not be necessary, but for the continuous smear campaign against Russia). Based on information I received from Jukka Mallinen (translator of Politkovskaya’s “Putin’s Russia” into Finnish), there were no Russian government officials behind the murder. On the other hand, there is reason to put forward an alternative motive, which is quite possible — that the murder was orchestrated by those wishing to create the kind of public opinion climate to compliment an anti-Russian agenda.

In our culture, we usually honor the memory of the deceased by saying positive things about the departed in times of sorrow. One would like to show the same respect for Politkovskaya as well. But I cannot keep quiet when I see how her memory has been turned into a weapon to hit the Russian people in a manner that hinders Russia’s development.

Some are not happy with the opportunities that have been created during Putin’s presidency.This includes the chance for many to now actively participate in a democratically run market economy. Upon the Soviet breakup, criminal elements took advantage of the weakness of a young nascent democracy by grabbing and stealing enormous possessions. Putin, courageously challenged the Mafia and oligarchs (often separated through a fine line drawn on water).

Thirsty for “revenge”, some of the non-Russian former Soviet states egg on the EU to engage Russia in a confrontational manner They overlook that Russia and the Russian people were the biggest victims of communism. Led by Yeltsin, the Russian people freed themselves from that burden and encouraged this spirit to other former prisoner-countries. Due to Russia’s large land mass encompassing troubled regions, Russia unwillingly gets drawn into dirty games. This predicament gets twisted into the claim of a revanchist Russia bullying small, defenseless others.

Given the uncritical fanfare accorded to Politkovskaya’s work as a journalist, there is reason to critically review it. A case in point is her book “Putin’s Russia”, (published in 2004) which has been translated into several languages.

In this book, she emotionally focuses on peoples’ life situations (a style used in Karl Marx’s Das Kapital, where he childishly tries to prove his theories of capital through the stories of people’s everyday lives). Politkovskaya begins and ends her book with a stated disgust of Putin (as per the English translation of the book, see the Introduction as well as pages 281 and 282). She states her dislike of Putin “because he was a product of the Russian security service” (as if George Bush Sr.’s politics should be condemned on the grounds that he headed the CIA; a prevalent talking point in some circles). According to Politkovskaya, the KGB influenced Putin “does nothing but destroy civil liberties as he has all through his career”. No mention is made of Putin’s support for the late democratic mayor of St. Petersburg, Anatoly Sobchak. At the end, Politkovskaya states she is disgusted with Putin because there is a war in Chechnya (as if he started it). She adds that in her view, he is a cold, cynical, racist, who is prone to lying (among other references in her book, see pages 281-82). Politkovskaya does not like the fact that this evil (in her view) man goes to Easter church services (pages 279 and 280).

Politkovskaya attacks Putin for being a “racist” and then like a racist claims that Silvio Berlusconi as a European has better powers of thinking than Russia’s Putin (page 279).

Politkovskaya’s likening of Putin with Stalin (page 272) shows that neither the journalist nor her prize givers and back patters have any sense of proportion. But one should remember that the purpose of this investigative journalist was to tell us about her feelings on why she abhors another person.

Politkovskaya displayed no perception that all phenomena in society are based on social practices and that only a positive historical process can promote the wellbeing of society. She does not understand that the basis of a working society was totally destroyed in the Soviet Union and that it was not until 1990 that the building of a democracy, market economy and society at large was started from the ruins of the bankrupt Soviet estate. Through glimpses of peoples’ life experiences, she brings up some of Russia’s problems, such as the undeveloped democracy, criminality, corruption, the poor condition of the army, low pensions and the state of the judicial system. In her state of disgust, Politkovskaya did not analyze what has been done about these matters during Putin’s presidency. Nor does she consider the impact of decisions taken under him. Instead, she writes of human tragedies like the suicide of an alcoholic and about a former friend of hers; a busy businesswoman who went into politics to grab more riches, etc. She tries to convince the reader that Putin is to be blamed for a tragic suicide and a woman politician’s ruthlessness (who succeeded remarkably well). Politkovskaya’s idea was that from day one of his presidency, Putin alone had to make sure that all in Russia was right. Much like if President Tarja Halonen was responsible for the unemployment in Kainuu and drunks at Hakaniemi Market Square.

In one of her brief accounts, Politkovskaya mentions an 80 year old man, who had been found frozen to a floor in Irkutsk, Siberia (page 194). The journalist says the emergency services refused to come to the rescue claiming “the man was so old he could obviously not be all right”. According to Politkovskaya – Putin should have stopped this. She seemingly suggests that it was brave of her to have said as much.

Politkovskaya writes of an impoverished former navy captain Aleksey Dikinin (page 198). His fate is attributed to Putin (with Politkovskaya having the guts to say so). She does not even think of referencing Soviet Communism as the main culprit Mind you, her chronicling of Dikinin was in the first year of Putin’s presidency (2000). Since then, there has been an enormous increase in pensions. I have personally experienced this in the Russian hinterland. At the beginning of this year, I visited a friend of mine in the native village of Azikeevo, situated in the Ural Mountains region of Bashkortostan. A road connection to Azikeevo was opened about ten years ago, at approximately the same time that gas and heating systems were installed. A couple of years ago, phone connections were completed to every cottage. Without any prompting, my friend’s 70 year old uncle repeatedly lauded how good living conditions had become. In a healthy spirit, this senior citizen regularly takes care of horses, cows and chickens. Some retired teachers in that village (a married couple) said that pensions were now so good that they could support their children’s families (there is a photo report of this trip at

Politkovskaya was far from expert on government, military and legal matters. Topics which Putin has frequently discussed in an openly candid way.

Politkovskaya’s writing on terrorist dramas sugarcoated the actions of terrorists. Through their deeds, terrorists try to hurt the society they hit. By killing innocent people, they create public discussion designed to fault the leaders of the target country (reference how terrorists sparked a change in government in Spain). This is incomprehensible logic for a sound person to comment on.

In “Putin’s Russia”, Politkovskaya blames Putin for government corruption in Ekaterinburg. There is no acknowledgement on her part that this political environment was evident BEFORE Putin became president. Putin proposed to correct this by having the political center play a more active role with the outlying regions. Instead of lauding this action (a popular one with most Russians), Politkovksaya wrongly concluded it to be anti-democratic. A stance overlooking how the political center was more democratic than the most “independent” of Russian regions. The regional governors operated under the cloak of democracy. They were chosen through “democratic” elections, as in the Soviet Union (in another connection, Politkovskaya remembered how people were elected in the Soviet Union, page 271). A colorful bunch of criminals and adventurers appointed themselves as governors under the shelter of formal electing and voting procedures. This view is acknowledged by the European Commissioner for Human Rights (see: Alvaro Gil-Robles, Report on Visits to the Russian Federation, 2004). In these conditions, anyone wanting to be governor had himself elected by using threats, bribes, blackmail and bodily harm. Putin’s proposal to strip the regional governors of their mandates made a positive impression. Democracy is now practiced in much more civilized circumstances, based on a democratic competition between the regional parliament and the president. To have the courage to rise against a powerful elite and to succeed is an unbelievably big achievement. In the West, this reality is not fully appreciated, let alone understood. Instead, Politkovskaya’s blinded disgust with Putin is uncritically accepted as the gospel.

Politkovskaya characterizes Putin as seeking “revenge” against the oligarchs. Her characterization of the Mikhail Khordorkovsky owned and operated YUKOS is flawed (pages 275, 276, 284 and 285). She erroneously claims that this business entity “operated in daylight” and “gave five percent of its profits to charity”. YUKOS flagrantly violated tax laws and other legislation through (among other things) criminal tax paradise companies (I reference a Sitra Report: Suuri Maa Pitka Kvartaali, Big Country Long Quartile, 2005).

Furthermore, Politkovskaya claims that Khodorkovsky got into trouble with Putin because he supported “the liberal opposition”. She omits the fact that Khodorkovsky supported the Communist Party. The romantic side of her activity would be lost if this point was made. She did not state the ulterior motive behind Khodorkovsky’s political activism. The “democratic” parties sold him top positions in electoral candidate lists to enable him to place his own trusted candidates. This was how he planned to carry through a takeover of the Russian Duma. But is this the kind of democracy desired by Politkovskaya, Tuomioja and Hautala? In Finland, this advocacy would be considered treason.

A number of anti-Putin analysts admit that former YUKOS CEO Mikhail Khodorkovsky had committed crimes, while rhetorically asking “but why Khodorkovsky, just Khodorkovsky”? The answer is clear: others were quicker to realize that their criminal activities in Russia were over. A society cannot be built on revenge. Putin offered an invitation for all to move forward. Russia loses if there is a large scale injustice. This does not mean that democracy has no right to self-defense. This is Putin’s Russia, and mine.

Best answer:

Answer by Alex B. Ph.D.
What do I think? I think its REALLY long

Add your own answer in the comments!

PostHeaderIcon Is there a conspiracy by the government and media to keep us from panicking about the economy?

Question by : Is there a conspiracy by the government and media to keep us from panicking about the economy?
Social security is going to go broke.

1 in 7 homeowners are in default on their mortgages.

1 in 20 Americans defaulted on their credit cards last quarter.

I feel like I’m reading press releases from Al-jazeera about economy. “AP–The economy only shed 400,000 jobs last month, an improvement from last month.” What the heck kind of wording is that?

It’s like saying “The cancer didn’t move to your vital organs, it’s only in your liver, so that’s good”

Best answer:

Answer by THINK
You can panic if you want to.

Give your answer to this question below!