According to a NVCA and Thomson Reuters report issued this morning, U.S. venture capital firms raised $4.1 billion from 35 funds in the first quarter of 2013, an increase of 22 percent. But compared to Q4 2012, there is a 14 percent decrease by number of funds.Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/Vx9bGjb650Y/
news 10 hillary rosen j.k. rowling j.k. rowling axl rose google earnings pat burrell
Don Draper (Jon Hamm).
Photo by Michael Yarish/AMC
Slate?s Mad Men TV Club writers Hanna Rosin and Seth Stevenson were on Facebook on Monday to chat with readers about the season six premiere. The following transcript has been edited for length and clarity.
Seth Stevenson: What did everyone think of the premiere last night?
Patrick McGough: I just found the whole thing underwhelming and hard to connect to. I liked Seth's take on it in his Slate review, but it all left me cold.
Donna Lyman Semar: Thought it was quite boring. Very disappointed.
Michael Leone: I thought it was strained. Don is becoming dull. Enough with his brooding! The Betty sequence I thought completely unbelievable, and moreover, I don't give a crap about her. Even the office scenes felt tired and played out. Roger's sequence was the most interesting and amusing. I was missing Joan.
Hanna Rosin: Wow, am surprised at the negativity. Was it Don's mute moping that turned everyone off? Roger on the couch?
Jill Elswick: Roger on the couch was the best part! That speech about doors. Death was at every turn in this episode, and the male leads seemed to have lost their way (Don wrote a dud ad that turned out to really be about death!). On the other hand, Peggy and Megan?and even Betty?seemed purposeful.?Roger's tears at being confronted with the death of the shoeshine man was a key development, and it contrasted well with his lack of feeling about his mother's passing.
Hanna Rosin: Jill?you just pre-empted my Slate entry. I totally agree, the women were doing something, while the men were spinning in circles. Roger can talk?I can luxuriate in Roger talk all day. Woe to the psychiatrist who falls asleep with Roger on the couch. But it's just talk. Whereas Betty at least ventures out, talks dirty, walks down the path with a modicum of curiosity.
John Swansburg: I gotta say, I found last night's episode pretty slack. I read that AMC pressured Weiner to open the season with a two-hour episode, and this felt padded out to me. I did love when Ken Cosgrove dressed down that sycophant, though it portended bad things to come for someone.
Seth Stevenson:?Ever-amiable Cosgrove took on a much harsher edge last night. Ken's always been a bit of a fringe character, if beloved by the literary-minded New Englanders among us. Maybe bigger things are in store for him this season?
Hanna Rosin: Yes, why were they all so harsh to that poor fan boy on the couch? And personally, I like having Ken's clueless amiability as a counterpoint to all the scheming.
Steve Robertson: Pete is a full partner. Ken is a senior accounts exec. There's a new generation of juniors coming in. Juniors with the same mix of ambition and incompetence that Pete once had. Only now they look at Pete with the same type of awe and jealousy that Pete held for Don.
Seth Stevenson: Perhaps Ken is attempting to nip Pete's burgeoning fan club in the bud.
Seth Stevenson: ?Maybe it's me but I found the premiere riveting. This isn't a show like Breaking Bad or the Sopranos, where it's a breeze to chuck in some violence to goose the action whenever things are flagging. I thought there was plenty of emotional drama. Roger dealt with his mother's death, we learn that Don is cheating on Megan, Peggy is becoming a creative rock star. ... Stuff happened!
Byron Boneparth: I think the parts you mention were riveting or at least very interesting. But the whole Betty/Sandy plotline was sort of dull and seemed a bit pointless, and that was a good chunk of the episode. I would have liked more Pete and/or Joan and less of the comparatively less compelling Francises.
Seth Stevenson: I am always in favor of more Joan. And yes, in general, my energy level seems to drop a bit whenever we cut to the Francis abode.
Daniel Noa: Mad Men is about a man falling. It's a continuous fall. Not two steps forward one step back. And Don's addiction (womanizing?seduction more than sex) is not Betty's fault or Megan's fault, which is the whole point. It's his fault and he cannot exorcise his demons without drastic action (we'll see if the show can even go there). More likely, he will be emblematic of a culture and generation that destroyed itself in pursuit of, as Don calls it, "the moment before you need more happiness."
Hanna Rosin: Matt Zoller Seitz?s recap in Vulture ends on a great question: Are these fundamental human flaws or flaws of the age. Is this something the late ?60s did to us, or is this the nature of humanity? That seems to be a question overhanging this season, because Don is unchanging and seems unaffected by the times. He would be cheating on his wife if it were 1932. And in some ways, the "age" is setting them up to be better men, to open up and understand themselves better, even if it will take a few decades to get there.
Source: http://feeds.slate.com/click.phdo?i=f151a9f708cc538e5eb28be3ad1e4209
Dave Brubeck frankie muniz today show katt williams greg mcelroy new york post bob costas
On one covert video, farm workers illegally burn the ankles of Tennessee walking horses with chemicals. Another captures workers in Wyoming punching and kicking pigs and flinging piglets into the air. And at one of the country?s largest egg suppliers, a video shows hens caged alongside rotting bird corpses, while workers burn and snap off the beaks of young chicks.
Each video ? all shot in the last two years by undercover animal rights activists ? drew a swift response: Federal prosecutors in Tennessee charged the horse trainer and other workers, who have pleaded guilty, with violating the Horse Protection Act. Local authorities in Wyoming charged nine farm employees with cruelty to animals. And the egg supplier, which operates in Iowa and other states, lost one of its biggest customers, McDonald?s, which said the video played a part in its decision.
But a dozen or so state legislatures have had a different reaction: They proposed or enacted bills that would make it illegal to covertly videotape livestock farms, or apply for a job at one without disclosing ties to animal rights groups. They have also drafted measures to require such videos to be given to the authorities almost immediately, which activists say would thwart any meaningful undercover investigation of large factory farms.
Critics call them ?Ag-Gag? bills.
Some of the legislation appears inspired by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a business advocacy group with hundreds of state representatives from farm states as members. The group creates model bills, drafted by lobbyists and lawmakers, that in the past have included such things as ?stand your ground? gun laws and tighter voter identification rules.
One of the group?s model bills, ?The Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act,? prohibits filming or taking pictures on livestock farms to ?defame the facility or its owner.? Violators would be placed on a ?terrorist registry.?
Officials from the group did not respond to a request for comment.
Animal rights activists say they have not seen legislation that would require them to register as terrorists, but they say other measures ? including laws passed last year in Iowa, Utah and Missouri ? make it nearly impossible to produce similar undercover expos?s. Some groups say that they have curtailed activism in those states.
?It definitely has had a chilling effect on our ability to conduct undercover investigations,? said Vandhana Bala, general counsel for Mercy for Animals, which has shot many videos, including the egg-farm investigation in 2011. (McDonald?s said that video showed ?disturbing and completely unacceptable? behavior, but that none of the online clips were from the Iowa farm that supplied its eggs. Ms. Bala, though, said that some video showing bird carcasses in cages did come from that facility.)
The American Farm Bureau Federation, which lobbies for the agricultural and meat industries, criticized the mistreatment seen on some videos. But the group cautions that some methods represent best practices endorsed by animal-care experts.
The videos may seem troubling to someone unfamiliar with farming, said Kelli Ludlum, the group?s director of Congressional relations, but they can be like seeing open-heart surgery for the first time.
?They could be performing a perfect procedure, but you would consider it abhorrent that they were cutting a person open,? she said.
In coming weeks, Indiana and Tennessee are expected to vote on similar measures, while states from California to Pennsylvania continue to debate them.
Opponents have scored some recent victories, as a handful of bills have died, including those in New Mexico and New Hampshire. In Wyoming, the legislation stalled after loud opposition from animal rights advocates, including Bob Barker, former host of ?The Price is Right.?
In Indiana, an expansive bill became one of the most controversial of the state legislative session, drawing heated opposition from labor groups and the state press association, which said the measure violated the First Amendment.
After numerous constitutional objections, the bill was redrafted and will be unveiled Monday, said Greg Steuerwald, a Republican state representative and chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
The new bill would require job applicants to disclose material information or face criminal penalties, a provision that opponents say would prevent undercover operatives from obtaining employment. And employees who do something beyond the scope of their jobs could be charged with criminal trespass.
An employee who took a video on a livestock farm with his phone and gave it to someone else would ?probably? run afoul of the proposed law, Mr. Steuerwald said. The bill will apply not just to farms, but to all employers, he added.
Nancy J. Guyott, the president of the Indiana chapter of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., said she feared that the legislation would punish whistle-blowers.
Nationally, animal rights advocates fear that they will lose a valuable tool that fills the void of what they say is weak or nonexistent regulation.
Livestock companies say that their businesses have suffered financially from unfair videos that are less about protecting animals than persuading consumers to stop eating meat.
Don Lehe, a Republican state representative from a rural district in Indiana, said online videos can cast farmers in a false light and give them little opportunity to correct the record.
?That property owner is essentially guilty before they had the chance to address the issue,? Mr. Lehe said.
As for whistle-blowers, advocates for the meat industry say that they are protected from prosecution by provisions in some bills that give them 24 to 48 hours to turn over videos to legal authorities.
?If an abuse has occurred and they have evidence of it, why are they holding on to it?? said Dale Moore, executive director of public policy for the American Farm Bureau Federation.
But animal rights groups say investigations take months to complete.
Undercover workers cannot document a pattern of abuse, gather enough evidence to force a government investigation and determine whether managers condone the abuse within one to two days, said Matt Dominguez, who works on farm animal protection at the Humane Society of the United States.
?Instead of working to prevent future abuses, the factory farms want to silence them,? he said. ?What they really want is for the whistle to be blown on the whistle-blower.?
The Humane Society was responsible for a number of undercover investigations, including the videos of the Wyoming pig farm and the Tennessee walking horses.
Video shot in 2011 showed workers dripping caustic chemicals onto the horses? ankles and clasping metal chains onto the injured tissue. This illegal and excruciating technique, known as ?soring,? forces the horse to thrust its front legs forward after every painful step to exaggerate the distinctive high-stepping gait favored by breeders. The video also showed a worker hitting a horse in the head with a large piece of wood.
The Humane Society first voluntarily turned over the video to law enforcement. By the time the video was publicly disclosed, federal prosecutors had filed charges. A week later, they announced guilty pleas from the horse trainer and other workers.
Prosecutors later credited the Humane Society with prompting the federal investigation and establishing ?evidence instrumental to the case.?
That aid to prosecutors shows the importance of lengthy undercover investigations that would be prevented by laws requiring video to be turned over within one or two days, Mr. Dominguez said.
?At the first sign of animal cruelty, we?d have to pull our investigator out, and we wouldn?t be able to build a case that leads to charges.?
This article, "Taping of farm cruelty is becoming the crime," first appeared in The New York Times.
Copyright ? 2013 The New York Times
Jason Molina UCF Pigeon Forge Fire beyonce cyprus cyprus Bracketology
Ever since it debuted the first iMac with USB instead of legacy ports -- at a time when not including a floppy drive was also considered daring -- Apple has been ahead of the curve when it comes to the ports and interfaces on its computers. In early 2011, it replaced its DisplayPort technology with the Thunderbolt port, developed by Intel, which let its laptops connect to a new Thunderbolt display along with high-speed external hard drives.
According to Engadget's Sarah Silbert, a new "Thunderbolt Technology Update" just demoed by Intel will allow "4K video file transfer and display simultaneously." Apple expert Marco Arment sums up the announcement by saying "This could enable the first generation of desktop Retina displays."
What is the Retina Display?
"Retina Display" is Apple's brand name for a screen so high-resolution that the unaided eye can't make out individual pixels at a typical viewing distance. The first Retina Display was on the iPhone 4 in 2010, and it has since come to Apple's full-sized iPad tablet and its 13- and 15-inch MacBook Pro laptops. (The displays on the MacBook Pro laptops aren't as sharp as the ones on Apple's mobile devices, because laptops are typically used from a greater distance.)
Does this mean that Apple's displays are the sharpest ones on the market?
Not quite. Not all of Apple's products use the Retina Display; the iPad Mini, for instance, despite costing more than the Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire HD tablets, has a fuzzier screen than both. Many other mobile devices have screens with comparable sharpness to Apple's Retina gadgets. And Google's new Chromebook Pixel laptop has an even sharper display than the Retina MacBook Pros, although it's in the "old" 4:3 aspect ratio instead of today's standard 16:9.
What kind of displays should we expect to see?
Arment says that "it wouldn't surprise me" to see a 23-inch screen with 4K resolution, which means roughly 4,000 pixels horizontally. It would be four times as sharp as a 1080p HD display of the same size.
When would they be out and how much would they cost?
If Apple launched a desktop Retina Display using Intel's new technology, it would probably be sometime next year, as "production is set to ramp up in 2014."
Apple's current Thunderbolt displays cost $999 for a 27-inch screen. The Retina Display MacBook Pro laptops are available at a $200-$400 price premium over the non-Retina models, depending on what other improved specs and features they add.
Jared Spurbeck is an open-source software enthusiast, who uses an Android phone and an Ubuntu laptop PC. He has been writing about technology and electronics since 2008.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/thunderbolt-port-could-enable-desktop-retina-display-monitors-220900140.html
megan fox Lane Goodwin Romnesia eminem eminem Tagg Romney Bosses Day
In this April 4, 2013, photo, Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, center, signs legislation at the Capitol in Hartford, Conn., that includes new restrictions on weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines, a response to last year's deadly school shooting in Newtown. Neil Heslin, behind left, father of Sandy Hook shooting victim Jesse Lewis, Nicole Hockley, right, mother of Sandy Hook School shooting victim Dylan, and Conn. Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman, left, watch. (AP Photo/Steven Senne)
In this April 4, 2013, photo, Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, center, signs legislation at the Capitol in Hartford, Conn., that includes new restrictions on weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines, a response to last year's deadly school shooting in Newtown. Neil Heslin, behind left, father of Sandy Hook shooting victim Jesse Lewis, Nicole Hockley, right, mother of Sandy Hook School shooting victim Dylan, and Conn. Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman, left, watch. (AP Photo/Steven Senne)
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) ? Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy harshly criticized gun industry lobbyists on Sunday, saying they are doing too little to halt gun violence.
Just three days after he signed into law new restrictions on weapons and large-capacity magazines, the governor compared Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, to clowns and said lobbyists want to ensure that the industry can sell guns indiscriminately.
"Wayne reminds me of the clowns at the circus," Malloy said of LaPierre on CNN's "State of the Union." ''They get the most attention and that's what he's paid to do."
Representatives of the NRA did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
"What this is about is the ability of the gun industry to sell as many guns to as many people as possible even if they're deranged, even if they're mentally ill, even if they have a criminal background," Malloy said. "They don't care. They want to sell guns."
Robert Crook, executive director of the Connecticut Coalition of Sportsmen, a lobbying group, said Malloy's criticism was "absolutely false."
"It's another political statement from a governor with little knowledge," he said.
Connecticut's gun industry supports a gun trafficking task force and tighter background checks of buyers, Crook said.
Andrew Doba, a spokesman for Malloy, said the Democratic governor was criticizing lobbyists, not the gun industry. Malloy has said he wants Connecticut's large gun industry to remain in the state, though gun manufacturers say the new restrictions will hurt their business.
"People are welcome to stay in our state as long as they're producing a product that can be sold in the United States legally," Malloy said.
Nearly four months after a gunman killed 20 children and six educators at an elementary school in Newtown, lawmakers and Malloy enacted legislation that adds more than 100 firearms to the state's assault weapons ban. It also immediately bans the sale of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. People who purchased those guns and magazines before midnight Wednesday will be allowed to keep them if they're registered with the state police before Jan. 1.
Required background checks for private gun sales also take effect.
Other parts of the new law include a ban on armor-piercing bullets, establishment of a deadly weapon offender registry, expansion of circumstances when a person's mental health history disqualifies them from holding a gun permit, mandatory reporting of voluntary hospital commitments, doubled penalties for gun trafficking and other firearms violations, and $1 million to fund the statewide firearms trafficking task force.
Malloy said he preferred an "all-out ban" on magazines of more than 10 rounds of ammunition, but the legislature opposed him on the issue.
Associated PressAmerican Music Awards 2012 oregon ducks oregon ducks rob gronkowski Coughing eddie murphy Stephanie Bongiovi
During a HuffPostLive interview this past Wednesday, Academy Award winner Jeremy Irons made some controversial remarks when asked about gay marriage, questioning whether it could ultimately lead to a father marrying his son in order to avoid estate taxes.
On his website on Friday, Irons posted a response to the controversy:
I am deeply concerned that from my on line discussion with the Huffington Post, it has been understood that I hold a position that is anti gay. This is as far from the truth of me as to say that I believe the earth is flat.
I was taking part in a short discussion around the practical meaning of Marriage, and how that institution might be altered by it becoming available to same-sex partners. Perhaps rather too flippantly I flew the kite of an example of the legal quagmire that might occur if same sex marriage entered the statute books, by raising the possibility of future marriage between same sex family members for tax reasons, (incest being illegal primarily in order to prevent inbreeding, and therefore an irrelevance in non reproductive relationships). Clearly this was a mischievous argument, but nonetheless valid.
I am clearly aware that many gay relationships are more long term, responsible and even healthier in their role of raising children, than their hetero equivalents, and that love often creates the desire to mark itself in a formal way, as Marriage would do. Clearly society should find a way of doing this.
I had hoped that even on such a subject as this, where passions run high, the internet was a forum where ideas could be freely discussed without descending into name-calling.
I believe that is what it could be, but it depends on all of us behaving, even behind our aliases, in a humane, intelligent and open way.
Follow AJ Delgado on Twitter >>> @missADelgado
Source: http://www.mediaite.com/online/actor-jeremy-irons-clarifies-his-gay-marriage-remarks/
Shark Week London 2012 closing ceremony Shark Week 2012 evelyn lozada UFC 150 Caster Semenya Medal Count 2012 Olympics
President Barack Obama speaks about the BRAIN (Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies) Initiative, Tuesday, April 2, 2013, in the East Room at the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
President Barack Obama speaks about the BRAIN (Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies) Initiative, Tuesday, April 2, 2013, in the East Room at the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
President Barack Obama listens as National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Francis S. Collins speaks about the BRAIN (Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies) Initiative, Tuesday, April 2, 2013, in the East Room at the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
President Barack Obama leaves the stage in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, April 2, 2013, after he spoke about the BRAIN (Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies) Initiative. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
President Barack Obama announces the BRIAN, Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies proposal, Tuesday, April 2, 2013, East Room of the White House in Washington. The president is asking Congress to spend $100 million next year to start a new project to map the human brain in hopes of eventually finding cures for diseases like Alzheimer's. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
WASHINGTON (AP) ? President Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed an effort to map the brain's activity in unprecedented detail, as a step toward finding better ways to treat such conditions as Alzheimer's, autism, stroke and traumatic brain injuries.
He asked Congress to spend $100 million next year to start a project that will explore details of the brain, which contains 100 billion cells and trillions of connections.
That's a relatively small investment for the federal government ? less than a fifth of what NASA spends every year just to study the sun ? but it's too early to determine how Congress will react.
Obama said the so-called BRAIN Initiative could create jobs, and told scientists gathered in the White House's East Room that the research has the potential to improve the lives of billions of people worldwide.
"As humans we can identify galaxies light-years away," Obama said. "We can study particles smaller than an atom, but we still haven't unlocked the mystery of the three pounds of matter that sits between our ears."
Scientists unconnected to the project praised the idea.
BRAIN stands for Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies. The idea, which Obama first proposed in his State of the Union address, would require the development of new technology that can record the electrical activity of individual cells and complex neural circuits in the brain "at the speed of thought," the White House said.
Obama wants the initial $100 million investment to support research at the National Institutes of Health, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the National Science Foundation. He also wants private companies, universities and philanthropists to partner with the federal agencies in support of the research. And he wants a study of the ethical, legal and societal implications of the research.
The goals of the work are unclear at this point. A working group at NIH, co-chaired by Cornelia "Cori" Bargmann of The Rockefeller University and William Newsome of Stanford University, would work on defining the goals and develop a multi-year plan to achieve them that included cost estimates.
The $100 million request is "a pretty good start for getting this project off the ground," Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health told reporters in a conference call. While the ultimate goal applies to the human brain, some work will be done in simpler systems of the brains of animals like worms, flies and mice, he said.
Collins said new understandings about how the brain works may also provide leads for developing better computers.
Brain scientists unconnected with the project were enthusiastic.
"This is spectacular," said David Fitzpatrick, scientific director and CEO of the Max Planck Florida Institute for Neuroscience in Jupiter, Fla., which focuses on studying neural circuits and structures.
While current brain-scanning technologies can reveal the average activity of large populations of brain cells, the new project is aimed at tracking activity down to the individual cell and the tiny details of cell connections, he said. It's "an entirely different scale," he said, and one that can pay off someday in treatments for a long list of neurological and psychiatric disorders including schizophrenia, Parkinson's, depression, epilepsy and autism.
"Ultimately, you can't fix it if you don't know how it works," he said. "We need this fundamental understanding of neuronal circuits, their structure, their function and their development in order to make progress on these disorders."
"This investment in fundamental brain science is going to pay off immensely in the future," Fitzpatrick said.
Richard Frackowiak, a co-director of Europe's Human Brain Project, which is funded by the European Commission, said he was delighted by the announcement.
"From our point of view as scientists we can only applaud and say we will collaborate as much as possible," he said. "The opportunities for a massive worldwide collaborative effort to solve the problem of neurodegeneration and psychiatric disease will ... really become absolutely feasible," he said. "We need that."
___
Ritter reported from New York.
Associated PressGeno Smith ny giants brandon marshall ryder cup Kate Middleton Bottomless the Pirate Bay Hotel Transylvania
