Sunday, December 22, 2013

Desmond Elliot Not Joining Labour Party

An industry source has informed Nigeriafilms.com that popular actor Desmond Elliot turned movie director, Desmond Elliot has not joined the Labour Party to contest in the 2015 general elections, contrary to recent reports. 

We were told that the best friend of Uche Jombo has not yet decided under which party to achieve his political ambition in 2015. The industry source confirmed to us that the former 'Everyday People' actor is eyeing politics and is doing everything possible to become an Honourable come 2015. 

"Desmond has not joined the Labour Party, forget about the news reports flying around on the internet. He's yet to declare which party to make his dream come true in 2015," the source confided in Nigeriafilms.com. 

Desmond Elliot will not be the first entertainer eyeing political post. The likes of Tony One Week, Rotimi Makinde, RMD and others are with one political party serving their fatherland.

Saturday, December 21, 2013

Gowon, Danjuma Warn Leaders against Unguarded Utterances

Yakubu  Gowon

Senator Iroegbu

Former Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon (rtd.) has warned Nigerian leaders against unguarded utterances, in a veiled remark against the recent controversial public letter of former President Olusegun Obasanjo to President Goodluck Jonathan.

Gowon made the call as the guest of honour at the 6th edition of Abuja Festival of Praise, which took place at International Conference Centre.

Lord Have Mercy! Guys See What This Lady Wore to An Event

Sexy or trashy

Friday, December 20, 2013

BlackBerry Had A Whopping $4.4 Billion Net Loss

BlackBerry earnings for Q3 are out.
It's bad.
The overall net loss for the quarter was a whopping $4.4 billion. Shares were down as much as 8% pre-market on the news, but later recuperated when interim CEO John S. Chen began talking on the company's earnings call.
The company also announced a five-year manufacturing deal with Foxconn, the same company that produces gadgets for Apple and many other tech companies. Foxconn will help BlackBerry make phones for Indonesia, where BlackBerry smartphones are still very popular.
Here are the most important numbers from the earnings report:
Revenue: $1.2 billion, which is down 56% from the same quarter last year.
1.9 million smartphones sold. (It sold 3.7 million last quarter.)
Loss of $0.67 per share, or $354 million. $4.4 billion net loss, or $8.37 per share.
The company has $3.2 billion in cash on hand.
BlackBerry attempted to sell itself and go private earlier this year. That plan failed when a private equity firm called Fairfax Financial couldn't raise the $4.7 billion it needed to take BlackBerry private. Instead, Fairfax invested $1 billion in BlackBerry and its then-CEO Thorsten Heins resigned. BlackBerry now has an interim CEO named John S. Chen who will attempt to have BlackBerry focus more on business customers than everyday consumers.
On the conference call, Chen said the new deal with Foxconn would allow BlackBerry to sell its handsets to emerging markets in Asia. Those areas have the biggest growth opportunities for smartphone makers since most consumers are still using regular cell phones.

NSA Spy Panel Wants Duplicate Oversight Board Replaced

WASHINGTON (AP) — For months, two review panels given nearly identical assignments by President Barack Obama have been studying how the White House should change or limit the National Security Agency's surveillance programs. They have functioned separately — with different experts and private and public hearings — but with almost the same mandate.

So it was at least a little surprising when the first panel, which recommended changes to NSA's programs this week, urged the White House to abolish the second panel and replace it with a new one.Among 46 recommendations spelled out in a 300-page document released Wednesday by the President's Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies is a proposal to scrap the independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which plans to issue its own report on NSA surveillance in January.

The review group concluded that the independent oversight board, which is authorized only to look into matters dealing with counterterrorism and intelligence, should also consider all foreign intelligence issues. To do this, the review group urged creation of a completely new oversight board — a move that would require new legislation since Congress set up the existing one.

The new board, the review group said, "should have broad authority to review government activity relating to foreign intelligence and counterterrorism whenever that activity has implications for civil liberties and privacy."

The chairman of the oversight board, David Medine, said Thursday the review group recommendation was worth considering. Medine said that, speaking for himself, he thinks a larger role for the board would require a greater government investment in staff and resources. The board currently has four part-time members and five staffers.

The original oversight board, which was created from a 9/11 Commission recommendation, was designed to be an independent agency not completely tied to the White House or Congress. The board's members are appointed by the president but they report to Congress.

The review group's five members were appointed by Obama and reported directly to him through National Intelligence Director James Clapper. While the oversight board headed by Medine has mixed all-day hearings open to the public with classified meetings with intelligence officials, the review group did all its work in secret and was exempted by Clapper from standard public access requirements.

"The review group clearly recognized that the government needs more watchdogging than PCLOB's oversight just into counterterrorism," said Greg Nojem, a senior counsel with the Center for Democracy and Technology, a civil liberties group.

The review group even suggested a similarly unwieldy title to replace the oversight board's already weighty name: The Civil Liberties and Privacy Protection Board, or CLPP.

Medine was less enthused about that possibility, worried that the CLPP board could be derisively referred to as "clipboard."

2013: The year we stopped trusting technology

technology
The tech world achieved some remarkable things in 2013 — but miracle gadgets come at a price
ANDREW LEONARD

I wrote a cover story for the San Francisco Bay Guardian alternative weekly in 1994 that boasted the proud title “How to Connect to the Internet.” It was well received, satisfying readers’ earnest curiosity about something new and amazing. But that was two decades ago. Now, surveying the regular outbreaks of absurdity, vileness and greed that haunt my every move online, I have wondered to myself more than once during this crazy year:
Dear lord, what have I done?
That’s a joke. Kind of. But also not really. In 2013, the awesome potential of our networked digital lives was realized in countless ways. Nineties hype is now 2013 reality — one very big reason why the current tech boom appears to have more staying power than the dot-com nuttiness ever did. We do things every day with our phones that just 10 years ago we would have deemed hopelessly impractical, or the stuff of “Star Trek.”
But 2013 was also a year in which the negative consequences of our full immersion in the future became more apparent than ever — sparking, amazingly, a full-throttle culture war in the Northern California birthplace of the digital revolution.
Our new tech put a networked supercomputer in almost every pocket, created vast sums of wealth and plugged us into webs of social media that are continuing to remake how we entertain and inform ourselves, and interact with each other. There are many aspects of these developments that are genuinely exciting. But our new tech has also enabled a pervasive surveillance society and contributed to (or at the very least failed to significantly ameliorate) growing economic inequality. The emerging culture of the tech leadership class — scornful of government, dismissive of “losers,” wallowing in conspicuous consumption — has made a mockery of its incessant we’re-changing-the-world-for-the-better rhetoric.

We’re getting the tech we’ve always dreamed of, but in 2013, we also realized that we couldn’t ignore the dark side. The single best word to describe our relationship with technology in 2013?
“Backlash.”
Or maybe 2013 is just the year we started really growing up. At least I hope so, because in the worst scenario, backlash spawns another round of retaliatory aggression and we end up locked in a state of permanent squabble, rather than figuring out how to fix things. We can do better.
* * *
On Dec. 12, a group of activists aiming to publicize what they saw as the negative economic impacts of the tech economy’s takeover of San Francisco surrounded a privately owned “Google bus,” and immediately attracted intense social media attention. A provocateur took advantage of the moment to impersonate a Google employee and deliver a rant designed to exacerbate class-war tensions. “Why don’t you go to a city where you can afford it?” he screamed at the protesters. “This is a city for the right people who can afford it. You can’t afford it? You can leave. I’m sorry, get a better job.”
Before it became clear that the supposed Googler was a fake, that the rant was just another media stunt designed to provoke viral outrage and confusion, I started a Facebook thread about the incident. An impassioned and wide-ranging conversation broke out over the next several days — 160 comments and counting! —  examining in detail the economic and ecological implications of the proliferation of private buses; how best to deal with the lack of affordable housing in San Francisco; and the much larger question of how one of the most politically progressive regions in the country was struggling to deal with the economic consequences of Silicon Valley’s ascendance to the commanding heights of the U.S. economy.
It was a great conversation, with lots of meat and nuance. I was intrigued to see just how many participants in the thread were longtime veterans of the Well, the pioneering pre-Web online conferencing system founded in the Bay Area. All of these discussants, for better or worse, could be considered early adopters, people who initially embraced the Internet with gusto and believed deeply that we were on the cusp of a vast — and enthusiastically welcomed — transformation.
But here in 2013, they were coming down on all sides of the equation. Unity had disintegrated. Some worried about the culturally corrosive effects of runaway gentrification, while others defended the job-creating vigor of the tech economy. Some denounced the new arrogance of “bro-grammers,” while others attacked the dogmatic conservatism of anti-tech protesters. There was no consensus and lots of ambivalence. It was messy, and complicated.
The day after the Google bus incident, Valleywag exposed an inflammatory Facebook post by a Silicon Valley CEO attacking San Francisco’s homeless as “human trash.” A friend of mine started another Facebook thread about that story, and a longtime Silicon Valley consultant exploded in anger, declaring that it was only to be expected that “[a]fter months and months of outright hostility towards all tech workers as a class it isn’t surprising that some that aren’t very bright or tactful are lashing back.”
Wait just a minute, I thought, that’s not what’s going on here! It’s the other way around!
The growing class tension didn’t come from nowhere — it was generated by daily encounters with entitlement and arrogance and sexism. One big reason why the Google bus prankster struck a nerve is because we’ve all heard variations on the “if you can’t cut it in the new economy, you don’t deserve to live in San Francisco” theme, from real people.
I didn’t start it! You started it! No, you’re wrong, YOU started it!
Our current media ecology, in which everyone is constantly on the lookout for every incident of outrage — which then in turn gets amplified instantly across the planet via the social media megaphone — probably sharpens the edges of this conflict. We’re all a bit too quick on the draw.
Temperatures have been rising for years as the Internet economy became a creator of vast fortunes, even as incomes have stagnated or even fallen for most workers. 2013 was the year in which the pot boiled over. Now we have to figure out what we’re going to do next. Because the tech economy isn’t going away — its dominance is a crucial part of the ongoing narrative about economic growth and income inequality and social justice. It’s not enough to just create great wealth, have an awesome IPO or debut a killer app. We need to take a harder look at what we’re doing with all these tools, and whether we’re all benefiting from them.
* * *
After almost a decade as an editor and a blogger primarily concerned with economic policy, I returned to covering the technology beat full-time at the beginning of 2013. And I was thrilled to do so. What was happening in my smartphone seemed a lot more interesting — and hopeful — than what was happening in Washington, D.C. After getting bogged down and disillusioned with our country’s political response to the Great Recession, I was eager to cover a sector in which, increasingly, my science-fiction dreams were becoming manifest. Things worked. The potential for positive change using our new tools seemed extraordinary. I was excited, ready to resume my old role as something that more closely resembled a booster than a gadfly.
Indeed, when the writer Ellen Cushing launched a prescient broadside against the emerging values of Silicon Valley in her East Bay Express feature, “The Bacon-Wrapped Economy,” I unfairly dismissed (mocked, really) the piece as insufficiently appreciative of how San Francisco has always been a gold-rush town of hucksters and hustlers. Cities change, and booms are a lot better for everyone’s economic health than busts.
It’s fair to say that I have a more nuanced view of the current state of the tech economy than I did at the beginning of the year. But that nuance comes in a package wrapped in paradox. I find myself simultaneously joining and resisting the backlash. I see how the “sharing economy” is often just another way for businesses to reap profits by making an end-run around regulations — while at the same time offering real potential to address long-standing social problems, like healthcare and homelessness. I know that there are thousands of people who work in the tech sector who are determined to apply their skills and new technological capabilities to addressing social ills. It’s not all sexist brogrammers and libertarian millionaires. (But there are plenty of those, too!) One can simultaneously appreciate how a booming tech sector brings it with a vibrant economy and a robust job-creation engine while at the same time being critical of the new political influence of Silicon Valley and how that new wealth is being distributed. Even as all our devices are increasingly used to spy on us and market to us and distract us, they are also the most powerful tools that we’ve ever invented to help us get the job done — whatever that job may be.
If 2013 was the year of the great tech backlash, then let’s make 2014 the year in which we took a deep breath and said, “OK, what’s next? How do we make this work better, for everyone?”

What do ‘Duck Dynasty’ star Phil Robertson and 45 percent of Americans have in common?

“Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson called homosexuality a sin and compared it to bestiality in a GQ profile, stoking widespread controversy and earning a suspension from the television network that puts on his popular show.

What may surprise some people is that his viewpoint the part about homosexuality being a sin is espoused by nearly half the country.


Phil Robertson in A&E’s ‘Duck Dynasty.’ (Photo by Karolina Wojtasik Copyright 2013)

Even at a time when views about gay marriage are shifting quickly, the country is divided on gay rights and how it views homosexuality more broadly. And it’s important to note that views about gay rights are not the same as judgments about sin and morality. People might be fine with legalizing something they see as sinful.

A May Pew Research Center poll showed the public split right down the middle on the question of whether homosexuality is a sin, with 45 percent coming down on each side.


The data serve as a reflecting point not only of how much the public has shifted its thinking about gays in the last decade — consider that in 2003, 55 percent said homosexual behavior was a sin, and just 33 percent said it was not – but also how big a split there is in this country.

The divide is driven by a confluence of factors, including religion, geography and politics.

Robertson is an evangelical Christian. As the Pew poll shows, opposition to homosexuality runs high among white evangelicals, with 78 percent saying it is a sin.

And Robertson comes from Louisiana, a socially conservative state. In 2007 55 percent of Louisiana residents said homosexuality should be discouraged by society, 15 points higher than the nation overall in the Pew Religious Landscape survey (40 percent; 50 percent said it should be accepted).

Some prominent conservatives rushed to Robertson’s defense Thursday — not to vouch for the substance of his statement, but for his right to free speech, illustrating how the debate has become a focal point in the political realm, too.

But Robertson’s implication that gays are choosing to engage in sinful behavior is not a position that most Americans would agree with and his comparison to bestiality probably pushed him over the top.

A large majority in a March 2013 Post-ABC poll said being gay is just the way people are (62 percent), rather than something they choose to be (24 percent). In 1994, that split was a narrower 49 to 40 percent.

This much we know: Americans have moved steadily toward embracing gay rights in the last decade. For evidence of this, just look at the 17 states — including New Mexico which legalized gay marriage Thursday — plus D.C. where gay marriage is legal compared to the zero in early 2003.

Still, though, there remains a cavernous divide between advocates and opponents — not only in the gay rights debate, but on the question of morality, too. This latest incident with Robertson underscores that.

Fixbits:

Embattled Rep. Trey Radel (R-Fla.) says he’s not resigning from Congress.

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said the debt ceiling will need to be raised by early March.

Brian Boitano came out as the third gay member of the U.S. delegation to the Winter Olympic Games in Russia.

Democrats caved to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) on an immigrant bill.

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) will seek a 23rd term.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had some nice things to say about Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

Emily’s List endorsed state Treasurer Gina Raimondo (D) in her bid for governor of Rhode Island



posted from Bloggeroid