Posts
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.dfd1843a9cc600850b4d12dd7048131d.141&show_article=1
Beijing authorities plan to build a "seven-star hotel" modelled after Dubai's Burj Khalifa -- the world's tallest building -- in a $1.3 billion joint project with Saudi Arabia.
The hotel will be erected in western Beijing's Mentougou district some 30 kilometres (18 miles) from the Chinese capital's centre, the state-run Beijing Morning Post said in a Thursday report, quoting a local parliamentary meeting.
A district official, who declined to give his name, confirmed the project and its price tag in comments to AFP on Friday.
He said that the Saudi side was expected to foot the entire bill but he refused to provide other details, such as why such an expensive project would be located in the underdeveloped rural area.
The Beijing Morning Post said the building's design would be patterned after the 828-metre (2,717-foot) Burj Khalifa's distinctive slender, tapering design, but did not say how tall the planned structure would be.
The "seven-star" classification is not officially recognised internationally, as no formal body awards ratings above five stars, but there are a handful of luxury hotels around the world that still use the distinction.
Dubai's Burj Al Arab is one such establishment, and in Beijing, the Pangu 7 Star Hotel built near the 2008 Olympic stadium also claims the rating.
The announcement of the Mentougou project comes at a time when China is attempting to crack down on high-end developments and use more land for affordable housing, amid general discontent over soaring property prices.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Journal’s Paper on ESP Expected to Prompt Outrage
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/science/06esp.html?_r=4&partner=rss&emc=rss
Full paper here (.pdf)
By BENEDICT CAREY
Published: January 5, 2011
One of psychology’s most respected journals has agreed to publish a paper presenting what its author describes as strong evidence for extrasensory perception, the ability to sense future events.
Work by Daryl J. Bem on extrasensory perception is scheduled to be published this year.
The decision may delight believers in so-called paranormal events, but it is already mortifying scientists. Advance copies of the paper, to be published this year in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, have circulated widely among psychological researchers in recent weeks and have generated a mixture of amusement and scorn.
The paper describes nine unusual lab experiments performed over the past decade by its author, Daryl J. Bem, an emeritus professor at Cornell, testing the ability of college students to accurately sense random events, like whether a computer program will flash a photograph on the left or right side of its screen. The studies include more than 1,000 subjects.
Some scientists say the report deserves to be published, in the name of open inquiry; others insist that its acceptance only accentuates fundamental flaws in the evaluation and peer review of research in the social sciences.
“It’s craziness, pure craziness. I can’t believe a major journal is allowing this work in,” Ray Hyman, an emeritus professor of psychology at the University Oregon and longtime critic of ESP research, said. “I think it’s just an embarrassment for the entire field.”
The editor of the journal, Charles Judd, a psychologist at the University of Colorado, said the paper went through the journal’s regular review process. “Four reviewers made comments on the manuscript,” he said, “and these are very trusted people.”
All four decided that the paper met the journal’s editorial standards, Dr. Judd added, even though “there was no mechanism by which we could understand the results.”
But many experts say that is precisely the problem. Claims that defy almost every law of science are by definition extraordinary and thus require extraordinary evidence. Neglecting to take this into account — as conventional social science analyses do — makes many findings look far more significant than they really are, these experts say.
“Several top journals publish results only when these appear to support a hypothesis that is counterintuitive or attention-grabbing,” Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, a psychologist at the University of Amsterdam, wrote by e-mail. “But such a hypothesis probably constitutes an extraordinary claim, and it should undergo more scrutiny before it is allowed to enter the field.”
Dr. Wagenmakers is co-author of a rebuttal to the ESP paper that is scheduled to appear in the same issue of the journal.
In an interview, Dr. Bem, the author of the original paper and one of the most prominent research psychologists of his generation, said he intended each experiment to mimic a well-known classic study, “only time-reversed.”
In one classic memory experiment, for example, participants study 48 words and then divide a subset of 24 of them into categories, like food or animal. The act of categorizing reinforces memory, and on subsequent tests people are more likely to remember the words they practiced than those they did not.
In his version, Dr. Bem gave 100 college students a memory test before they did the categorizing — and found they were significantly more likely to remember words that they practiced later. “The results show that practicing a set of words after the recall test does, in fact, reach back in time to facilitate the recall of those words,” the paper concludes.
In another experiment, Dr. Bem had subjects choose which of two curtains on a computer screen hid a photograph; the other curtain hid nothing but a blank screen.
A software program randomly posted a picture behind one curtain or the other — but only after the participant made a choice. Still, the participants beat chance, by 53 percent to 50 percent, at least when the photos being posted were erotic ones. They did not do better than chance on negative or neutral photos.
“What I showed was that unselected subjects could sense the erotic photos,” Dr. Bem said, “but my guess is that if you use more talented people, who are better at this, they could find any of the photos.”
In recent weeks science bloggers, researchers and assorted skeptics have challenged Dr. Bem’s methods and his statistics, with many critiques digging deep into the arcane but important fine points of crunching numbers. (Others question his intentions. “He’s got a great sense of humor,” said Dr. Hyman, of Oregon. “I wouldn’t rule out that this is an elaborate joke.”)
Dr. Bem has generally responded in kind, sometimes accusing critics of misunderstanding his paper, others times of building a strong bias into their own re-evaluations of his data.
In one sense, it is a historically familiar pattern. For more than a century, researchers have conducted hundreds of tests to detect ESP, telekinesis and other such things, and when such studies have surfaced, skeptics have been quick to shoot holes in them.
But in another way, Dr. Bem is far from typical. He is widely respected for his clear, original thinking in social psychology, and some people familiar with the case say his reputation may have played a role in the paper’s acceptance.
Peer review is usually an anonymous process, with authors and reviewers unknown to one another. But all four reviewers of this paper were social psychologists, and all would have known whose work they were checking and would have been responsive to the way it was reasoned.
Perhaps more important, none were topflight statisticians. “The problem was that this paper was treated like any other,” said an editor at the journal, Laura King, a psychologist at the University of Missouri. “And it wasn’t.”
Many statisticians say that conventional social-science techniques for analyzing data make an assumption that is disingenuous and ultimately self-deceiving: that researchers know nothing about the probability of the so-called null hypothesis.
In this case, the null hypothesis would be that ESP does not exist. Refusing to give that hypothesis weight makes no sense, these experts say; if ESP exists, why aren’t people getting rich by reliably predicting the movement of the stock market or the outcome of football games?
Instead, these statisticians prefer a technique called Bayesian analysis, which seeks to determine whether the outcome of a particular experiment “changes the odds that a hypothesis is true,” in the words of Jeffrey N. Rouder, a psychologist at the University of Missouri who, with Richard D. Morey of the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, has also submitted a critique of Dr. Bem’s paper to the journal.
Physics and biology, among other disciplines, overwhelmingly suggest that Dr. Bem’s experiments have not changed those odds, Dr. Rouder said.
So far, at least three efforts to replicate the experiments have failed. But more are in the works, Dr. Bem said, adding, “I have received hundreds of requests for the materials” to conduct studies.
Full paper here (.pdf)
By BENEDICT CAREY
Published: January 5, 2011
One of psychology’s most respected journals has agreed to publish a paper presenting what its author describes as strong evidence for extrasensory perception, the ability to sense future events.
Work by Daryl J. Bem on extrasensory perception is scheduled to be published this year.
The decision may delight believers in so-called paranormal events, but it is already mortifying scientists. Advance copies of the paper, to be published this year in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, have circulated widely among psychological researchers in recent weeks and have generated a mixture of amusement and scorn.
The paper describes nine unusual lab experiments performed over the past decade by its author, Daryl J. Bem, an emeritus professor at Cornell, testing the ability of college students to accurately sense random events, like whether a computer program will flash a photograph on the left or right side of its screen. The studies include more than 1,000 subjects.
Some scientists say the report deserves to be published, in the name of open inquiry; others insist that its acceptance only accentuates fundamental flaws in the evaluation and peer review of research in the social sciences.
“It’s craziness, pure craziness. I can’t believe a major journal is allowing this work in,” Ray Hyman, an emeritus professor of psychology at the University Oregon and longtime critic of ESP research, said. “I think it’s just an embarrassment for the entire field.”
The editor of the journal, Charles Judd, a psychologist at the University of Colorado, said the paper went through the journal’s regular review process. “Four reviewers made comments on the manuscript,” he said, “and these are very trusted people.”
All four decided that the paper met the journal’s editorial standards, Dr. Judd added, even though “there was no mechanism by which we could understand the results.”
But many experts say that is precisely the problem. Claims that defy almost every law of science are by definition extraordinary and thus require extraordinary evidence. Neglecting to take this into account — as conventional social science analyses do — makes many findings look far more significant than they really are, these experts say.
“Several top journals publish results only when these appear to support a hypothesis that is counterintuitive or attention-grabbing,” Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, a psychologist at the University of Amsterdam, wrote by e-mail. “But such a hypothesis probably constitutes an extraordinary claim, and it should undergo more scrutiny before it is allowed to enter the field.”
Dr. Wagenmakers is co-author of a rebuttal to the ESP paper that is scheduled to appear in the same issue of the journal.
In an interview, Dr. Bem, the author of the original paper and one of the most prominent research psychologists of his generation, said he intended each experiment to mimic a well-known classic study, “only time-reversed.”
In one classic memory experiment, for example, participants study 48 words and then divide a subset of 24 of them into categories, like food or animal. The act of categorizing reinforces memory, and on subsequent tests people are more likely to remember the words they practiced than those they did not.
In his version, Dr. Bem gave 100 college students a memory test before they did the categorizing — and found they were significantly more likely to remember words that they practiced later. “The results show that practicing a set of words after the recall test does, in fact, reach back in time to facilitate the recall of those words,” the paper concludes.
In another experiment, Dr. Bem had subjects choose which of two curtains on a computer screen hid a photograph; the other curtain hid nothing but a blank screen.
A software program randomly posted a picture behind one curtain or the other — but only after the participant made a choice. Still, the participants beat chance, by 53 percent to 50 percent, at least when the photos being posted were erotic ones. They did not do better than chance on negative or neutral photos.
“What I showed was that unselected subjects could sense the erotic photos,” Dr. Bem said, “but my guess is that if you use more talented people, who are better at this, they could find any of the photos.”
In recent weeks science bloggers, researchers and assorted skeptics have challenged Dr. Bem’s methods and his statistics, with many critiques digging deep into the arcane but important fine points of crunching numbers. (Others question his intentions. “He’s got a great sense of humor,” said Dr. Hyman, of Oregon. “I wouldn’t rule out that this is an elaborate joke.”)
Dr. Bem has generally responded in kind, sometimes accusing critics of misunderstanding his paper, others times of building a strong bias into their own re-evaluations of his data.
In one sense, it is a historically familiar pattern. For more than a century, researchers have conducted hundreds of tests to detect ESP, telekinesis and other such things, and when such studies have surfaced, skeptics have been quick to shoot holes in them.
But in another way, Dr. Bem is far from typical. He is widely respected for his clear, original thinking in social psychology, and some people familiar with the case say his reputation may have played a role in the paper’s acceptance.
Peer review is usually an anonymous process, with authors and reviewers unknown to one another. But all four reviewers of this paper were social psychologists, and all would have known whose work they were checking and would have been responsive to the way it was reasoned.
Perhaps more important, none were topflight statisticians. “The problem was that this paper was treated like any other,” said an editor at the journal, Laura King, a psychologist at the University of Missouri. “And it wasn’t.”
Many statisticians say that conventional social-science techniques for analyzing data make an assumption that is disingenuous and ultimately self-deceiving: that researchers know nothing about the probability of the so-called null hypothesis.
In this case, the null hypothesis would be that ESP does not exist. Refusing to give that hypothesis weight makes no sense, these experts say; if ESP exists, why aren’t people getting rich by reliably predicting the movement of the stock market or the outcome of football games?
Instead, these statisticians prefer a technique called Bayesian analysis, which seeks to determine whether the outcome of a particular experiment “changes the odds that a hypothesis is true,” in the words of Jeffrey N. Rouder, a psychologist at the University of Missouri who, with Richard D. Morey of the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, has also submitted a critique of Dr. Bem’s paper to the journal.
Physics and biology, among other disciplines, overwhelmingly suggest that Dr. Bem’s experiments have not changed those odds, Dr. Rouder said.
So far, at least three efforts to replicate the experiments have failed. But more are in the works, Dr. Bem said, adding, “I have received hundreds of requests for the materials” to conduct studies.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Cool Theme Music
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Kinect Creators Making PC Controller (MSFT)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/01/03/businessinsider-kinect-creators-making-pc-controller-2011-1.DTL
Matt Rosoff, provided by
Business Insider January 3, 2011 04:00 AM Copyright Business Insider. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
It looks like a motion-controlled interface is coming to the PC next year--but not from Microsoft.
PrimeSense, the privately held Israeli company that licensed core Kinect technology to Microsoft, announced that it is teaming up with PC and peripheral maker Asus to create a similar device for the PC.
It's called Wavi Xtion, and the companies are showing it off at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas this week. The companies imagine it being used not for games, but for browsing multimedia content and accessing the Internet and social networks--basically, the main things consumers use their PCs for.
There will also be APIs for third-party developers and a Wavi Xtion store where developers can sell motion-controlled apps.
The system will launch in the second quarter, but the companies haven't released pricing info yet.
Last month, a Korean game developer claimed that Microsoft was working on a version of Kinect for the PC, but Microsoft hasn't confirmed any such plans. Hackers figured out how to hook a Kinect up to a Windows PC almost immediately, and have come up with some pretty interesting applications.
Matt Rosoff, provided by
Business Insider January 3, 2011 04:00 AM Copyright Business Insider. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
It looks like a motion-controlled interface is coming to the PC next year--but not from Microsoft.
PrimeSense, the privately held Israeli company that licensed core Kinect technology to Microsoft, announced that it is teaming up with PC and peripheral maker Asus to create a similar device for the PC.
It's called Wavi Xtion, and the companies are showing it off at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas this week. The companies imagine it being used not for games, but for browsing multimedia content and accessing the Internet and social networks--basically, the main things consumers use their PCs for.
There will also be APIs for third-party developers and a Wavi Xtion store where developers can sell motion-controlled apps.
The system will launch in the second quarter, but the companies haven't released pricing info yet.
Last month, a Korean game developer claimed that Microsoft was working on a version of Kinect for the PC, but Microsoft hasn't confirmed any such plans. Hackers figured out how to hook a Kinect up to a Windows PC almost immediately, and have come up with some pretty interesting applications.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Goldman Sachs sinks $450 million in Facebook, seeks $1.5 billion more from investors
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/why-facebook-is-such-an-important-friend-for-goldman-sachs/
Why Facebook Is Such a Crucial Friend for Goldman
By PETER LATTMAN
Goldman Sachs and Facebook have friended each other.
In investing $450 million in the social networking giant, Goldman has established itself as the leading candidate to win the lucrative and prestigious assignment of Facebook’s initial public offering, whenever that day comes. It also positions itself to reap millions of dollars in banking fees. Goldman has already begun the process of wooing its wealthy clients to invest alongside it in Facebook, forming an investment vehicle that seeks to raise as much $1.5 billion for the Internet company.
But Goldman’s bold move is also likely to focus the attention of regulators at the Securities and Exchange Commission, which last month began an inquiry into the surge in trading shares of privately held Internet companies.
While the investment by Goldman is being hailed as a huge coup on Wall Street, the deal — in particular the investment pool being formed for its clients — could become a lightning rod for regulators and policy makers as they examine the growing shadow market in Facebook shares.
For Goldman, the investment in Facebook is in many ways a return to the firm’s roots. Long before Facebook became a social and cultural phenomenon, Goldman was “friending” America’s hottest companies and their chief executives, from Sears Roebuck in the 1900s to Ford in the 1950s to eBay in the 1990s. By collecting so many important friends, and obsessively tending to those relationships, Goldman generates big fees.
In addition to the potential banking fees generated by an initial public offering of Facebook, there is the billions of dollars of unlocked paper wealth realized by Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s 26-year-old chief, and his fellow executives. Goldman, as a lead Facebook investor, will most likely have a leg up in winning the assignment to manage that money, too.
The firm’s Facebook investment came together over the last month, according to a person involved in the deal who spoke only on the condition of anonymity. After the spike in trading in Facebook over the last several months — in a November auction, Facebook shares traded at a $56 billion valuation — Mr. Zuckerberg expressed an interest in raising money to legitimize the $50 billion valuation.
Mr. Zuckerberg felt that gaining the imprimatur of a major investor at such lofty levels would validate Facebook in the eyes of its Silicon Valley competitors with whom it is negotiating deals, this person said.
Helping play matchmaker was Yuri Milner, chief executive of DST Global, a Russian firm that invested $50 million alongside Goldman. Goldman has a close relationship with DST and Mr. Milner, a Russian businessman who has emerged as a leading venture capital investor in Internet companies.
Mail.ru, the publicly traded sibling of DST Global, has an existing stake in Facebook, as well large positions in Groupon and Zynga, two other popular Web-based businesses. Goldman was a lead underwriter of Mail.ru’s successful $1 billion initial public offering on the London Stock Exchange in November.
The Facebook investment, made from Goldman’s balance sheet, also sheds light on the firm’s private equity strategy in the wake of the Dodd-Frank regulatory overhaul.
Although the Facebook investment represents a negligible percentage of Goldman’s roughly $900 billion balance sheet, it is symbolically significant because it had been unclear whether the firm would, after the financial crisis, be using its balance sheet to make these types of illiquid, risky investments.
A Goldman spokesman declined to comment.
The closest analogue to Goldman’s Facebook investment may be the firm’s longtime alliance with the New York fashion designer Ralph Lauren. In 1994, Mr. Lauren was looking for money to expand his business, and Goldman invested a minority stake and took a seat on the company’s board. Goldman underwrote Ralph Lauren’s initial public offering in 1997. Today, Mr. Lauren’s company remains a loyal client of the firm. And when Mr. Lauren sold $1 billion of stock last year to cash out one-quarter of his stake in his company, Goldman handled the trade.
Perhaps even more intriguing than Goldman’s direct stake in Facebook is the “special purpose vehicle” that it is creating to allow its wealthy clients to invest in Facebook alongside the firm.
Goldman is charging stiff fees for the privilege — a 4 percent placement fee and a 5 percent cut of the investment’s profits, according to two people with direct knowledge of the deal. Despite the rich price of entry, the firm has told clients it suspects the deal will be substantially oversubscribed.
Clients of Goldman will have to invest a minimum of $2 million and will be prohibited from selling their shares until 2013, according to one of those people. The firm has warned prospective investors that if they invest, they will not be able to trade Facebook stock in a private marketplace.
Goldman did not pioneer this type of investment structure. Over the last several months, a number of smaller Wall Street brokerages have formed vehicles to enable individual investors to acquire shares in private Internet companies like Facebook and Twitter. Two of these brokerages are EB Exchange Funds of San Francisco and J. P. Turner & Company in Atlanta.
These are the vehicles that have drawn the scrutiny of the S.E.C. On Monday, a spokesman for SecondMarket, a leading marketplace for these transactions, said that it had received a request for information from the S.E.C. about “pre-I.P.O. pooled investment funds” and that it was cooperating with the inquiry.
The S.E.C. generally requires companies with more than 499 shareholders to report their quarterly earnings and audited financial information to the public. Under a technical interpretation of the statute, the vehicle that Goldman is creating for its clients would be considered a single Facebook shareholder of record. But several securities lawyers say an argument exists that these structures subvert the spirit of the law because they are disguising what is really a stealth initial public offering.
“This is one of those arcane technical and policy questions that are debated at securities law conferences,” said Marc Morgenstern, a securities lawyer in San Francisco and the managing partner of Blue Mesa Partners, a venture capital firm. “Companies forming today, like Facebook, are growing so quickly, and their stocks are being distributed so broadly, that they may not fit neatly within securities laws enacted decades ago.”
The S.E.C.’s inquiry could have collateral consequences for the venture-capital firms that invest in fast-growing companies like Facebook, lawyers say. “I would be surprised if the S.E.C. simply creates a rule that says you must look through investment pools to determine the number of stockholders you have,” said Stephen E. Fox, a securities lawyer at Herrick, Feinstein, who points out that venture capital firms have hundreds of investors, yet have historically been counted as one investor.
Although the Facebook investment looks promising at the moment, Goldman and its investors could be buying into a social networking investment bubble at a nosebleed valuation. During the dot-com bubble, Goldman invested about $100 million in Webvan, the online grocer that never got off the ground and eventually collapsed in bankruptcy.
Even amid the questions over possible regulatory issues and skepticism over Facebook’s price, Goldman’s Wall Street rivals were grousing about the investment on Monday.
“Despite the vertigo-inducing valuation, any of Goldman’s competitors would have loved to have taken their place in this deal,” said William D. Cohan, the author of a forthcoming book on the investment bank. “In that sense, it’s classically brilliant Goldman.”
Susanne Craig and Azam Ahmed contributed reporting.
Why Facebook Is Such a Crucial Friend for Goldman
By PETER LATTMAN
Goldman Sachs and Facebook have friended each other.
In investing $450 million in the social networking giant, Goldman has established itself as the leading candidate to win the lucrative and prestigious assignment of Facebook’s initial public offering, whenever that day comes. It also positions itself to reap millions of dollars in banking fees. Goldman has already begun the process of wooing its wealthy clients to invest alongside it in Facebook, forming an investment vehicle that seeks to raise as much $1.5 billion for the Internet company.
But Goldman’s bold move is also likely to focus the attention of regulators at the Securities and Exchange Commission, which last month began an inquiry into the surge in trading shares of privately held Internet companies.
While the investment by Goldman is being hailed as a huge coup on Wall Street, the deal — in particular the investment pool being formed for its clients — could become a lightning rod for regulators and policy makers as they examine the growing shadow market in Facebook shares.
For Goldman, the investment in Facebook is in many ways a return to the firm’s roots. Long before Facebook became a social and cultural phenomenon, Goldman was “friending” America’s hottest companies and their chief executives, from Sears Roebuck in the 1900s to Ford in the 1950s to eBay in the 1990s. By collecting so many important friends, and obsessively tending to those relationships, Goldman generates big fees.
In addition to the potential banking fees generated by an initial public offering of Facebook, there is the billions of dollars of unlocked paper wealth realized by Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s 26-year-old chief, and his fellow executives. Goldman, as a lead Facebook investor, will most likely have a leg up in winning the assignment to manage that money, too.
The firm’s Facebook investment came together over the last month, according to a person involved in the deal who spoke only on the condition of anonymity. After the spike in trading in Facebook over the last several months — in a November auction, Facebook shares traded at a $56 billion valuation — Mr. Zuckerberg expressed an interest in raising money to legitimize the $50 billion valuation.
Mr. Zuckerberg felt that gaining the imprimatur of a major investor at such lofty levels would validate Facebook in the eyes of its Silicon Valley competitors with whom it is negotiating deals, this person said.
Helping play matchmaker was Yuri Milner, chief executive of DST Global, a Russian firm that invested $50 million alongside Goldman. Goldman has a close relationship with DST and Mr. Milner, a Russian businessman who has emerged as a leading venture capital investor in Internet companies.
Mail.ru, the publicly traded sibling of DST Global, has an existing stake in Facebook, as well large positions in Groupon and Zynga, two other popular Web-based businesses. Goldman was a lead underwriter of Mail.ru’s successful $1 billion initial public offering on the London Stock Exchange in November.
The Facebook investment, made from Goldman’s balance sheet, also sheds light on the firm’s private equity strategy in the wake of the Dodd-Frank regulatory overhaul.
Although the Facebook investment represents a negligible percentage of Goldman’s roughly $900 billion balance sheet, it is symbolically significant because it had been unclear whether the firm would, after the financial crisis, be using its balance sheet to make these types of illiquid, risky investments.
A Goldman spokesman declined to comment.
The closest analogue to Goldman’s Facebook investment may be the firm’s longtime alliance with the New York fashion designer Ralph Lauren. In 1994, Mr. Lauren was looking for money to expand his business, and Goldman invested a minority stake and took a seat on the company’s board. Goldman underwrote Ralph Lauren’s initial public offering in 1997. Today, Mr. Lauren’s company remains a loyal client of the firm. And when Mr. Lauren sold $1 billion of stock last year to cash out one-quarter of his stake in his company, Goldman handled the trade.
Perhaps even more intriguing than Goldman’s direct stake in Facebook is the “special purpose vehicle” that it is creating to allow its wealthy clients to invest in Facebook alongside the firm.
Goldman is charging stiff fees for the privilege — a 4 percent placement fee and a 5 percent cut of the investment’s profits, according to two people with direct knowledge of the deal. Despite the rich price of entry, the firm has told clients it suspects the deal will be substantially oversubscribed.
Clients of Goldman will have to invest a minimum of $2 million and will be prohibited from selling their shares until 2013, according to one of those people. The firm has warned prospective investors that if they invest, they will not be able to trade Facebook stock in a private marketplace.
Goldman did not pioneer this type of investment structure. Over the last several months, a number of smaller Wall Street brokerages have formed vehicles to enable individual investors to acquire shares in private Internet companies like Facebook and Twitter. Two of these brokerages are EB Exchange Funds of San Francisco and J. P. Turner & Company in Atlanta.
These are the vehicles that have drawn the scrutiny of the S.E.C. On Monday, a spokesman for SecondMarket, a leading marketplace for these transactions, said that it had received a request for information from the S.E.C. about “pre-I.P.O. pooled investment funds” and that it was cooperating with the inquiry.
The S.E.C. generally requires companies with more than 499 shareholders to report their quarterly earnings and audited financial information to the public. Under a technical interpretation of the statute, the vehicle that Goldman is creating for its clients would be considered a single Facebook shareholder of record. But several securities lawyers say an argument exists that these structures subvert the spirit of the law because they are disguising what is really a stealth initial public offering.
“This is one of those arcane technical and policy questions that are debated at securities law conferences,” said Marc Morgenstern, a securities lawyer in San Francisco and the managing partner of Blue Mesa Partners, a venture capital firm. “Companies forming today, like Facebook, are growing so quickly, and their stocks are being distributed so broadly, that they may not fit neatly within securities laws enacted decades ago.”
The S.E.C.’s inquiry could have collateral consequences for the venture-capital firms that invest in fast-growing companies like Facebook, lawyers say. “I would be surprised if the S.E.C. simply creates a rule that says you must look through investment pools to determine the number of stockholders you have,” said Stephen E. Fox, a securities lawyer at Herrick, Feinstein, who points out that venture capital firms have hundreds of investors, yet have historically been counted as one investor.
Although the Facebook investment looks promising at the moment, Goldman and its investors could be buying into a social networking investment bubble at a nosebleed valuation. During the dot-com bubble, Goldman invested about $100 million in Webvan, the online grocer that never got off the ground and eventually collapsed in bankruptcy.
Even amid the questions over possible regulatory issues and skepticism over Facebook’s price, Goldman’s Wall Street rivals were grousing about the investment on Monday.
“Despite the vertigo-inducing valuation, any of Goldman’s competitors would have loved to have taken their place in this deal,” said William D. Cohan, the author of a forthcoming book on the investment bank. “In that sense, it’s classically brilliant Goldman.”
Susanne Craig and Azam Ahmed contributed reporting.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Gahan Wilson: 50 Years of Playboy Cartoons
I recently found 'Gahan Wilson: 50 Years of Playboy Cartoons' for $49 on Amazon. Published in January of 2010, the collection was originally priced at $125. Hardback with slipcover case, beautiful.
As prolific as Gahan Wilson has been, one must admire that he is both writer and illustrator. The last volume of the Playboy collection contains a biography/appreciation and a 32 page interview with Gahan Wilson, along with several of his short stories. The interview goes into a lot of detail about Wilson's process, his relationship with Hugh Hefner, and there are notes about how specific cartoons develop or change and why.
In the interview, Wilson mentions Steven-Charles Jaffe's biographical film documentary, 'Gahan Wilson: Born Dead, Still Weird', which I have been seeking out since it's debut in 2007.
I own nearly every Gahan Wilson collection, and the Playboy collection includes plenty of his brilliant classics that I've seen and many I have not. Granted, this is a complete collection compiled by date, and not a compilation of selected works, so we are reading at once what was originally intended as an experience separated over time, created for a particular market and publisher. However, thinking about the counterbalance between the New Yorker and Playboy, Wilson has enjoyed a range of freedom to toggle between that allows the working cartoonist to represent himself unapologetically and without fear of being pigeon holed. Although some cartoons are clearly aimed at Playboy, it would be interesting to know how many if any of his cartoons were created regardless of the magazines, given his unique brand of humor. Further, I would love to hear a similar interview discussing his approach and editing parameters at the New Yorker.
The Playboy collection is divided into three volumes:
Vol. 1('57-'73) Vol. 2('74-'93) Vol. 3('94-'08)
The first volume contains probably the most celebrated of Wilson's cartoons and is characterized by a lighter, almost painterly illustrative style. While the second volume includes many strong cartoons, it is in my opinion the least consistent of the three volumes, employing redundant themes that get a bit shticky and the artwork also seems a bit more crude. I might say that, for example, he belabors the cross hatching at times, that the cartoons are heavy or busy, and the drawings less solid. The third volume reflects imaginative and hilarious writing in a mature voice, accompanied by really fun, playful and confident artwork that seems very 'clean' and orderly, and perhaps simplified.
The images in the collection are full size and better print quality than in most collections, revealing details that might have been poorly represented in reproductions. Overall, Wilson let's his artwork go where it will and experiments, sometimes the water colors achieve an atmospheric vignette, with or without crosshatching, else he renders with a simple line or line and wash combo, leaving space to breathe and reducing the visual load.
I have read that Wilson has struggled with alcohol and it would be interesting to identify with certainty how that comes out in the cartoons. He is self aware about his own paranoia which is harnessed in his work, and at times I believe I am seeing extreme variation in the drawing style that might indicate an altered state - not so much the bizarre imagery as much as the actual line quality or slant of the shapes.
Wilson mentioned in an article that he would depict scenes from Edgar Allan Poe because they (Playboy) realized that people didn't really know the work - he has also cited H.P. Lovecraft. The appreciation section of Vol. 3 mentions the influence of Basil Wolverton and Chester Gould upon Wilson's work. Although it is known that Gary Larson was inspired by both Gahan Wilson and Charles Addams (and Wilson by Charles Addams), I couldn't help but wonder if Wilson was at all influenced or impacted by Gary Larson's arrival onto the scene during the 80s - a few of Wilson's captions from the second and third volumes seem to have a Larson-like ring to them, and in certain instances in the third volume the simplified visual style is more free of heavy hatching, and somewhat visually evocative of Larson.
To completely blow my speculation apart, I found a reference to cartoonist B. Kliban (January 1, 1935 – August 12, 1990) as a primary inspiration for Larson. More Kliban galleries here and here. Read more about B. Kliban on wiki. Doesn't this Kliban cartoon bear a curious resemblance to Brian from Family Guy? Some reviews online mention the influence of Shel Silverstein - looking through Kliban's cartoons, I found one in particular that fits the bill.
Regardless of style and format, ideas may stand on their own - afterall, the gag panel cartoon is itself a shared format. While stylistic borrowing threatens encroachment, it is ultimately a delivery mechanism dependent upon concept, though not entirely independent from the visual expression. A great artist may not create a body of cartoon work without great ideas, but a great writer may communicate volumes with minimal or derivative artistic vehicle. A unique, expressive and recognizable visual style is harder to quantify or protect. Having both sides of the equation, Gahan Wilson has stood on his own for over half a century, delivering funny, compelling ideas through brutally funny drawings.
Incidentally, I read the Charles Addams biography and was disappointed to learn that, unlike Gahan Wilson and Gary Larson, Addams was primarily an illustrator and relied heavily on gag writers, which was the standard arrangement with the NYer at that time. While Addams enjoyed the celebrity, unique identity, and prosperity, he also suffered from the pressure to maintain because he was not the source of the writing.
I'm glad to see and consider Gahan Wilson's body of work in Playboy as a whole. I'm reluctant to say that my favorite collections are 'Still Weird' and 'Even Weirder'. I would like to cull together Wilson's contributions from the Complete Cartoons of the New Yorker collection and consider those works relative to the Playboy collection.
Note that Gary Larson was invited to draw a cover for the New Yorker in 2003, 'an offer that was too prestigious to refuse'. Published in 2003 and originally priced at $135, 'The Complete Farside 1980-1994' collection is available on Amazon for $75).
As prolific as Gahan Wilson has been, one must admire that he is both writer and illustrator. The last volume of the Playboy collection contains a biography/appreciation and a 32 page interview with Gahan Wilson, along with several of his short stories. The interview goes into a lot of detail about Wilson's process, his relationship with Hugh Hefner, and there are notes about how specific cartoons develop or change and why.
In the interview, Wilson mentions Steven-Charles Jaffe's biographical film documentary, 'Gahan Wilson: Born Dead, Still Weird', which I have been seeking out since it's debut in 2007.
I own nearly every Gahan Wilson collection, and the Playboy collection includes plenty of his brilliant classics that I've seen and many I have not. Granted, this is a complete collection compiled by date, and not a compilation of selected works, so we are reading at once what was originally intended as an experience separated over time, created for a particular market and publisher. However, thinking about the counterbalance between the New Yorker and Playboy, Wilson has enjoyed a range of freedom to toggle between that allows the working cartoonist to represent himself unapologetically and without fear of being pigeon holed. Although some cartoons are clearly aimed at Playboy, it would be interesting to know how many if any of his cartoons were created regardless of the magazines, given his unique brand of humor. Further, I would love to hear a similar interview discussing his approach and editing parameters at the New Yorker.
The Playboy collection is divided into three volumes:
Vol. 1('57-'73) Vol. 2('74-'93) Vol. 3('94-'08)
The first volume contains probably the most celebrated of Wilson's cartoons and is characterized by a lighter, almost painterly illustrative style. While the second volume includes many strong cartoons, it is in my opinion the least consistent of the three volumes, employing redundant themes that get a bit shticky and the artwork also seems a bit more crude. I might say that, for example, he belabors the cross hatching at times, that the cartoons are heavy or busy, and the drawings less solid. The third volume reflects imaginative and hilarious writing in a mature voice, accompanied by really fun, playful and confident artwork that seems very 'clean' and orderly, and perhaps simplified.
The images in the collection are full size and better print quality than in most collections, revealing details that might have been poorly represented in reproductions. Overall, Wilson let's his artwork go where it will and experiments, sometimes the water colors achieve an atmospheric vignette, with or without crosshatching, else he renders with a simple line or line and wash combo, leaving space to breathe and reducing the visual load.
I have read that Wilson has struggled with alcohol and it would be interesting to identify with certainty how that comes out in the cartoons. He is self aware about his own paranoia which is harnessed in his work, and at times I believe I am seeing extreme variation in the drawing style that might indicate an altered state - not so much the bizarre imagery as much as the actual line quality or slant of the shapes.
Wilson mentioned in an article that he would depict scenes from Edgar Allan Poe because they (Playboy) realized that people didn't really know the work - he has also cited H.P. Lovecraft. The appreciation section of Vol. 3 mentions the influence of Basil Wolverton and Chester Gould upon Wilson's work. Although it is known that Gary Larson was inspired by both Gahan Wilson and Charles Addams (and Wilson by Charles Addams), I couldn't help but wonder if Wilson was at all influenced or impacted by Gary Larson's arrival onto the scene during the 80s - a few of Wilson's captions from the second and third volumes seem to have a Larson-like ring to them, and in certain instances in the third volume the simplified visual style is more free of heavy hatching, and somewhat visually evocative of Larson.
To completely blow my speculation apart, I found a reference to cartoonist B. Kliban (January 1, 1935 – August 12, 1990) as a primary inspiration for Larson. More Kliban galleries here and here. Read more about B. Kliban on wiki. Doesn't this Kliban cartoon bear a curious resemblance to Brian from Family Guy? Some reviews online mention the influence of Shel Silverstein - looking through Kliban's cartoons, I found one in particular that fits the bill.
Regardless of style and format, ideas may stand on their own - afterall, the gag panel cartoon is itself a shared format. While stylistic borrowing threatens encroachment, it is ultimately a delivery mechanism dependent upon concept, though not entirely independent from the visual expression. A great artist may not create a body of cartoon work without great ideas, but a great writer may communicate volumes with minimal or derivative artistic vehicle. A unique, expressive and recognizable visual style is harder to quantify or protect. Having both sides of the equation, Gahan Wilson has stood on his own for over half a century, delivering funny, compelling ideas through brutally funny drawings.
Incidentally, I read the Charles Addams biography and was disappointed to learn that, unlike Gahan Wilson and Gary Larson, Addams was primarily an illustrator and relied heavily on gag writers, which was the standard arrangement with the NYer at that time. While Addams enjoyed the celebrity, unique identity, and prosperity, he also suffered from the pressure to maintain because he was not the source of the writing.
I'm glad to see and consider Gahan Wilson's body of work in Playboy as a whole. I'm reluctant to say that my favorite collections are 'Still Weird' and 'Even Weirder'. I would like to cull together Wilson's contributions from the Complete Cartoons of the New Yorker collection and consider those works relative to the Playboy collection.
Note that Gary Larson was invited to draw a cover for the New Yorker in 2003, 'an offer that was too prestigious to refuse'. Published in 2003 and originally priced at $135, 'The Complete Farside 1980-1994' collection is available on Amazon for $75).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)