Related searches: Captain America, First Avenger, Captain America, WonderCon SF, The Fantastic Four, Chris Evans, Jon Hamm, Marvel Comics
WonderCon SF was held last weekend and from all accounts it was not only a blast, it may have set an attendance record. With the wave of movies based on popular comic book characters, there were more costumes of those characters in movies slated for release, like The First Avenger: Captain America.
As reported in this space, The First Avenger: Captain America is a movie based on the Marvel Comics hero of the same name. The First Avenger: Captain America, to be produced by Marvel Entertainment and directed by Joe Johnston (The Wolfman) has a release date is July 22, 2011, as of this writing. Chris Evans, "The Human Torch" from The Fantastic Four movie series is signed to play the government-serum-enhanced WWII soldier Steve Rogers.
But what do fans think of Chris Evans as Steve Rogers? I asked that of a number of fans at WonderCon SF, including one who had no problem being on video. That Captain America said he liked the choice of Chris Evans, who "was the only good part about The Fantastic Four."
But what about Jon Hamm, the star of the TV series Mad Men, which has developed a cult following? "I think Chris Evans adds a certain amount of youth to it. Because if you think about it, a soldier on the battle field is going to be pretty young" (Evans is 30 and Jon Hamm is 40). I didn't find anyone who disagreed with "Captain America" on Chris Evans, so it seems like fans are now ready to give Evans the thumbs up.
Stay tuned.
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
More big earthquakes projected for 2010 than 2009, 2008, and 2007
As reported in the blog post on the 7.7 Indonesian earthquake of today, an analysis of online information published by the US Geological Survey revealed this information:
The skeptic would offer that this current trend of "significant earthquakes" could be slowed by a lull, but even excluding 2010, the number of "significant earthquakes" has increased from 56 in 2007 to 72 in 2009 in looking at the USGS information.
One reason for this increase in number may be improved earthquake sensing technology. Indeed, the USGS reports that this is the case. But there's a problem in the basic logic presented by the USGS, a large earthquake has damaging impacts such that more sensitive technology would make no difference, a large quake is just that: big. People know when an earthquake larger than 6 on the Richter Scale strikes. Moreover the USGS points to improved technology between 1931 and today, not within the last decade.
So we come back to the apparent fact that we have more earthquakes of significant (read: large) size projected for 2010 than in over the last four years.
Stay tuned.
In all there have been 23 "significant earthquakes" of above 4 on the Richter Scale in 2010 thus far, according to the US Geological Survey. And of those, 17 have been over 6 on the scale. There were 72 "significant earthquakes" in all of 2009 and 58 in 2008, and 56 in 2007.
If this rate continues according to this blogger's calculations, there will be 92 "significant earthquakes" for 2010, 20 more than in 2009 and 44 more than for all of 2008, and 46 more than in all of 2007.
The skeptic would offer that this current trend of "significant earthquakes" could be slowed by a lull, but even excluding 2010, the number of "significant earthquakes" has increased from 56 in 2007 to 72 in 2009 in looking at the USGS information.
One reason for this increase in number may be improved earthquake sensing technology. Indeed, the USGS reports that this is the case. But there's a problem in the basic logic presented by the USGS, a large earthquake has damaging impacts such that more sensitive technology would make no difference, a large quake is just that: big. People know when an earthquake larger than 6 on the Richter Scale strikes. Moreover the USGS points to improved technology between 1931 and today, not within the last decade.
So we come back to the apparent fact that we have more earthquakes of significant (read: large) size projected for 2010 than in over the last four years.
Stay tuned.
Sumatra Indonesia Earthquake 7.7 on Richter Scale
This is the second time in 2010 Indonesia has suffered from a "significant earthquake."
In all there have been 23 "significant earthquakes" of above 4 on the Richter Scale in 2010 thus far, according to the US Geological Survey. And of those, 17 have been over 6 on the scale. There were 72 "significant earthquakes" in all of 2009 and 58 in 2008, and 56 in 2007.
If this rate continues according to this blogger's calculations, there will be 92 "significant earthquakes" for 2010, 20 more than in 2009 and 44 more than for all of 2008, and 46 more than in all of 2007.
According to The Times Online UK, the Sumatra Indonesia Earthquake struck at 5:15 AM or 22:15 GMT, 125 miles away from the coast of the city of Sibolga and 29 miles below the surface of The Earth. As of this writing there were no reports of major damage or casualties, and tsunami warnings were stopped.
Stay tuned.
Google can fix News Media's big Internet problem
Related searches: MSM, news media, Google, Google AdSense, Google news, blogger, youtube, youtube partner, Rupert Murdoch, New York Times, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr.
At times it's good to take a step back and look at how news media's changing. Yes, it's done everyday, but I'm referring to this blogger pulling away from what I now call "The systems approach to blogging" for a moment to reflect on the changes in media I've seen. While there are many small news media developments that are really interesting, the one large one that bugs me is what I've referred to before: the fragmentation of news media and the involvement of Google.
Again, the "fragmentation of media" is news media created by many individuals and groups, often for niche markets or interests. What's happening is that as more people discover blogs and how to use them, as well as social networks and mobile social networks, it's harder for any one news outlet, individual, group, or company to make money. And Google's adding to this problem.
In protecting one news media group, Google's making it harder for other news media organizations and individuals to make money online. Google is protecting established news organizations online at the expense of smaller and newer ones. How? With Google News.
Google News favors established news websites. But what if it didn't do that. What if what was posted was the result of a pure automated content analysis, and whatever was posted first that met the criteria was listed? That would open up more media platforms and push out established media. It would force larger media organizations to partner with existing blogs and perhaps buy them, or vice-versa.
Why? Because smaller but smarter media publishers would have a fighting chance to generate traffic and earn ad dollars from that volume.
Why Google and not Bing or Yahoo for this approach? For several reasons. First, Google still controls, as of this writing, Google controls approximately 70 percent of the search engine market. And even with the advent of Bing, Google's search engine share doesn't seem to be threatened one bit.
Google also owns Blogger and has Google Adsense, the online advertising platform that's almost symbiotically linked to Blogger. Google could actually increase its own ad revenue base by leveling the news playing field. And it could give Google News placement priority to content that was created by Google account holders who were YouTube Partners. That program is also part of Google AdSense, go Google wins again.
While Google takes full advantage of its integrated web systems in this way, bloggers win by being able to see a simple reward for hard work and teaming up. The bigger the blog staff and the more active the blog, the more traffic it draws.
Who loses? Established news websites that do not understand how to write for the Internet, that's who. Google has been protecting and coddling these news organizations for far too long, and in the process slowing their growth in the Internet business.
The problem is too many journalists and news organizations don't understand that when they're writing online, they are in effect creating a new web page. The basic rules of web site design for search are consistently violated and so often that it's criminal. Titles have nothing to do with the subject of the article post. The subject name, the primary keyword, at times doesn't appear in the first paragraph and it it does, it's there only once.
I could go on and on.
Google leveling the playing field would force old media organizations to ship up or get out. And it would work as a breakwater against media fragmentation by essentially rewarding teams of bloggers.
What would Rupert Murdoch think about this? Not much, probably. What about Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., the publisher of the New York Times? Can't imagine he would be thrilled with the change. But it would force those organizations, and others, to produce better content that can be found on the Internet.
Over time, it would also force media consolidation, and help smaller media teams to actually have a better chance be rewarded for being competitive, and that reward is to earn a living.
At times it's good to take a step back and look at how news media's changing. Yes, it's done everyday, but I'm referring to this blogger pulling away from what I now call "The systems approach to blogging" for a moment to reflect on the changes in media I've seen. While there are many small news media developments that are really interesting, the one large one that bugs me is what I've referred to before: the fragmentation of news media and the involvement of Google.
Again, the "fragmentation of media" is news media created by many individuals and groups, often for niche markets or interests. What's happening is that as more people discover blogs and how to use them, as well as social networks and mobile social networks, it's harder for any one news outlet, individual, group, or company to make money. And Google's adding to this problem.
In protecting one news media group, Google's making it harder for other news media organizations and individuals to make money online. Google is protecting established news organizations online at the expense of smaller and newer ones. How? With Google News.
Google News favors established news websites. But what if it didn't do that. What if what was posted was the result of a pure automated content analysis, and whatever was posted first that met the criteria was listed? That would open up more media platforms and push out established media. It would force larger media organizations to partner with existing blogs and perhaps buy them, or vice-versa.
Why? Because smaller but smarter media publishers would have a fighting chance to generate traffic and earn ad dollars from that volume.
Why Google and not Bing or Yahoo for this approach? For several reasons. First, Google still controls, as of this writing, Google controls approximately 70 percent of the search engine market. And even with the advent of Bing, Google's search engine share doesn't seem to be threatened one bit.
Google also owns Blogger and has Google Adsense, the online advertising platform that's almost symbiotically linked to Blogger. Google could actually increase its own ad revenue base by leveling the news playing field. And it could give Google News placement priority to content that was created by Google account holders who were YouTube Partners. That program is also part of Google AdSense, go Google wins again.
While Google takes full advantage of its integrated web systems in this way, bloggers win by being able to see a simple reward for hard work and teaming up. The bigger the blog staff and the more active the blog, the more traffic it draws.
Who loses? Established news websites that do not understand how to write for the Internet, that's who. Google has been protecting and coddling these news organizations for far too long, and in the process slowing their growth in the Internet business.
The problem is too many journalists and news organizations don't understand that when they're writing online, they are in effect creating a new web page. The basic rules of web site design for search are consistently violated and so often that it's criminal. Titles have nothing to do with the subject of the article post. The subject name, the primary keyword, at times doesn't appear in the first paragraph and it it does, it's there only once.
I could go on and on.
Google leveling the playing field would force old media organizations to ship up or get out. And it would work as a breakwater against media fragmentation by essentially rewarding teams of bloggers.
What would Rupert Murdoch think about this? Not much, probably. What about Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., the publisher of the New York Times? Can't imagine he would be thrilled with the change. But it would force those organizations, and others, to produce better content that can be found on the Internet.
Over time, it would also force media consolidation, and help smaller media teams to actually have a better chance be rewarded for being competitive, and that reward is to earn a living.
Nicollette Sheridan's One Shining Moment 2010 with Marc Cherry
Related searches: Nicollette Sheridan, One Shining Moment 2010, Marc Cherry, ABC Studios, Jennifer Hudson
Nicollette Sheridan, who's famous for being on Desperate Housewives is getting her "One Shining Moment 2010" with Marc Cherry. Nicollette Sheridan is suing Marc Cherry, the creator of Desperate Housewives for $20 million in a wrongful termination claim.
Sheridan charges that Marc Cherry hit her and then killed off her character "Edie Britt", thus getting rid of her, when she tried to complain about it.
Whatever the case, ABC Studios is standing behind Marc Cherry according to EOnline: "While we have yet to see the actual complaint, we investigated similar claims made by Ms. Sheridan last year and found them to be without merit."
The lawsuit covers assault, wrongful termination, and gender violence. It reads that Cherry hit her across the head and face. Yikes. Here's a copy of the lawsuit you can read: LAWSUIT.
I'll post another blog on this after reading the suit in depth. Meanwhile, here's the video of Jennifer Hudson singing One Shining Moment as part of CBS' video to end the amazing 2010 NCAA Championship and Duke v. Butler, a game for the ages.
Stay tuned.
Nicollette Sheridan, who's famous for being on Desperate Housewives is getting her "One Shining Moment 2010" with Marc Cherry. Nicollette Sheridan is suing Marc Cherry, the creator of Desperate Housewives for $20 million in a wrongful termination claim.
Sheridan charges that Marc Cherry hit her and then killed off her character "Edie Britt", thus getting rid of her, when she tried to complain about it.
Whatever the case, ABC Studios is standing behind Marc Cherry according to EOnline: "While we have yet to see the actual complaint, we investigated similar claims made by Ms. Sheridan last year and found them to be without merit."
The lawsuit covers assault, wrongful termination, and gender violence. It reads that Cherry hit her across the head and face. Yikes. Here's a copy of the lawsuit you can read: LAWSUIT.
I'll post another blog on this after reading the suit in depth. Meanwhile, here's the video of Jennifer Hudson singing One Shining Moment as part of CBS' video to end the amazing 2010 NCAA Championship and Duke v. Butler, a game for the ages.
Stay tuned.
Monday, April 05, 2010
Tiger Woods Press Conference doesn't register on Twitter
The now completed Tiger Woods Press Conference held in Augusta, Georgia is the top search in both Google Trend areas, but it did not cause "Tiger Woods" to break into the top tag area of Twitter. A reason for this may be that Twitter top tags are generally reached whenever a news story is covered by more than one television channel at the same time.
The exceptions to the rule are large scale sports and entertainment events like the Academy Awards or the Super Bowl. But in the case of the Tiger Woods Press Conference, one channel, the niche Golf Channel, had the entire press conference, and not everyone gets the Golf Channel.
But now that television news programs are reporting on the Tiger Woods Press Conference, perhaps Tiger Woods will break the Twitter top tags today. But if these tweets are any indication, probably not:
And then there are tweets that communicate my feelings:
Amen.
Stay tuned.
The exceptions to the rule are large scale sports and entertainment events like the Academy Awards or the Super Bowl. But in the case of the Tiger Woods Press Conference, one channel, the niche Golf Channel, had the entire press conference, and not everyone gets the Golf Channel.
But now that television news programs are reporting on the Tiger Woods Press Conference, perhaps Tiger Woods will break the Twitter top tags today. But if these tweets are any indication, probably not:
HARLAND_1 RT @ImsoExotic #WhatsThePoint in Tiger Woods Still explaining his self to the World who are we to Judge #He-IS-talking-TO-sponsers #NotUS
half a minute ago from Twitterrific
thegolfblog 3 female reporters make Tiger Woods squirm. male reporters lie down. full video of Tiger Woods presser: http://bit.ly/aMRIBe
half a minute ago from web
And then there are tweets that communicate my feelings:
bestnewactress I hope Tiger Woods wins the Masters...and instead of giving a speech, throws up his middle finger and walks off the green.
less than a minute ago from web
Amen.
Stay tuned.
Did lawyers suing Chevron in Ecuador case file fraudulent reports?
 |
| What does Ecuador President Rafael Correa think? |
In a blockbuster development that could effectively crash Ecuador's entire case against Chevron (or as the plaintiffs claim, the Ecuadorian indigenous groups even though President Rafael Correa is reported to pay close attention to the case) - the charge that Chevron failed to clean up alleged environmental damage made during oil production operations during Chevron / Texaco operation in Ecuador until 1992 - fraudulent reports were filed claiming dangerous contamination was found at Amazon oil well sites.
The person who's signature is on the report and said to be its author, Dr. Charles Calmbacher, gave sworn testimony made in a deposition released by Chevron today that he did not sign or write the report that was used as a major arguing case by The Amazon Defense Coalition against Chevron.
According to The Wall Street Journal, Charles Calmbacher's name was misspelled on the very same report that lawyers suing Chevron said was written by him, and Calmbacher said his report exonerated Chevron - that "I concluded that I did not see significant contamination that posed immediate threat to the environment or to humans or wildlife around it," in a statement provided to the WSJ by Chevron.
According to an email from Karen Hinton, a spokesperson for the Amazon Defense Coalition, which serves as the "fiscal agent" for the lawsuit and organizational home for the plaintiff's legal work in Ecuador...
"Dr. Calmbacher clearly agreed to have his signature placed on materials, including reports, that were to be submitted to the court, and he acknowledged he was actively reviewing the reports with out local, technical team. We are bewildered, frankly, at his testimony"
Hinton points to comments made by Dr. Calmbacher on August 27th, 2004, when the New York Times quoted him as saying "Their defense is a lot like the tobacco industry saying there is no evidence linking smoking and lung cancer." However, according to a news post on Chevron's website, the statement was made before Calmbacher started the work and finished the report.
The Chevron website press release explains...
After the lawsuit was filed against Chevron in 2003, the plaintiffs' lawyers nominated Dr. Calmbacher, and the court appointed him to conduct judicial inspections of oil well sites in the former Petroecuador-Texaco Petroleum Co. concession area to assess alleged environmental damage. Dr. Calmbacher led those inspections for the plaintiffs, supervising the taking of soil and water samples, from August to October 2004.
The fraudulent reports were filed in February and March 2005, and later used by Lago Agrio court appointee Richard Cabrera in his $27 billion damage assessment against Chevron. Cabrera never investigated Sacha 94 or Shushufindi 48, yet specified more than $101 million damages based on the fabricated findings. Dr. Calmbacher also inspected Sacha 6 and Sacha 21, yet the plaintiffs' lawyers failed to submit reports containing his conclusions regarding those well sites. Dr. Calmbacher testified that he did not find a risk to human health or the environment, or a need for further clean-up, at any of the Texaco Petroleum-remediated sites he inspected. He also said he never concluded that Texaco Petroleum's remediation in Ecuador in the 1990's was not successful.
So, the Amazon Defense Coalition's leaving out a key detail regarding who filed the report. The person all of this falls on is Steven Donziger, the lead lawyer on this case, who's made a name for himself and admitted that he would make billions from a win against Chevron as I explained in this video in 2008:
Hinton of the Amazon Defense Coalition was contacted for a response on the disconnect between the statement she pointed to from the New York Times in 2004 and the completion and filing of the Calmbacher report in 2005.
The main question is who falsified and filed that report?
Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)