Ed Helms Performs At The Tonight Show
rePost::15. Inside Terry Gilliam’s head | JessicarulestheUniverse
On the fence whether I was going to watch this. Now, I probably will.
Imaginarium is the film Heath Ledger was doing at the time of his death, and it takes three fine actors to fill the vacancy: Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell. Having four actors play the same role usually leads to confusion, but in this case it actually makes sense—the character’s appearance depends on the person who’s looking at him. The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus feels like a big, fantastic pop-up book: the spectacle overwhelms the story, but do you really care?
via 15. Inside Terry Gilliam’s head | JessicarulestheUniverse.
rePost::Honesty or Corruption? | Filipino Voices
How true are these statements? anybody care to comment?
3. Villar passed measures “to make Pag-IBIG Fund contributions compulsory and to increase housing investments with the SSS.”
“Pag-IBIG is a main source of funding of Speaker Villar’s companies.”
Honesty or corruption?
4. Villar “incorporated in the landmark Comprehensive and Integrated Shelter Finance Act, Republic Act 7835, the recapitalization of the NHMFC, and the amendment to the Agri-Agra Law to include housing investment.”
It “mandates banks to extend to housing loans not utilized for agriculture and agrarian-reform credit. In other words, loanable funds for agriculture and agrarian credit are to be re-channeled to housing, Speaker Villar’s business.”
Honesty or corruption?
5. Villar co-authored House Bill 11005, which “increased the capital of the NHMFC” and is the main source of funding of Speaker Villar’s companies…. President Estrada admitted that the National Home Mortgage and Finance Corp. is at present bankrupt.… Increasing the capitalization of a bankrupt government financial institution benefited Representative Villar’s housing companies.”
Honesty or corruption?
6. “All lands covered by CARP [Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program] cannot be used for residential, agricultural, industrial or other uses unless a clearance, conversion or exemption for a particular property is first issued by DAR [Department of Agrarian Reform].”
“Speaker Villar’s companies are developing or have developed 5,950 hectares or almost 60,000,000 square meters of CARP land into residential subdivisions without the appropriate DAR issuances that would authorize such lands to be used for residential purposes.”
Honesty or corruption?
7. “Manuela Corp. applied for and was granted a loan of P1 billion by the SSS…. Another P2-billion loan would be syndicated with another government financial institution, the GSIS. Total syndicated loan from the two GFIs: P3 billion.
“Manuela Corp., a housing and realty corporation, is owned by the family of the wife of Speaker Villar. An indirect financial accommodation.”
Honesty or corruption?
via Honesty or Corruption? | Filipino Voices.
rePost::He Wasn’t The One We’ve Been Waiting For – Paul Krugman Blog – NYTimes.com
He Wasn’t The One We’ve Been Waiting For
Health care reform — which is crucial for millions of Americans — hangs in the balance. Progressives are desperately in need of leadership; more specifically, House Democrats need to be told to pass the Senate bill, which isn’t what they wanted but is vastly better than nothing. And what we get from the great progressive hope, the man who was offering hope and change, is this:
I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements of the package that people agree on. We know that we need insurance reform, that the health insurance companies are taking advantage of people. We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because if we don’t, then our budgets are going to blow up and we know that small businesses are going to need help so that they can provide health insurance to their families. Those are the core, some of the core elements of, to this bill. Now I think there’s some things in there that people don’t like and legitimately don’t like.
In short, “Run away, run away”!
Maybe House Democrats can pull this out, even with a gaping hole in White House leadership. Barney Frank seems to have thought better of his initial defeatism. But I have to say, I’m pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in.
via He Wasn’t The One We’ve Been Waiting For – Paul Krugman Blog – NYTimes.com.
rePost::Memo: NYT’s Sulzberger, Robinson Explain ‘Important Decision About Our Future’ | paidContent
Hmm, hearing the news (from facebook post of gelo) that NYTimes would put up some sort of paywall made me think how much I would pay for their service.
Let’s see:
10 PhP per day x 6 days a week (I don’t read much of anything sunday) x 52 weeks a year / 46 Php/USD: around 68 $ per year
I’d pay an extra 12$ if they give me full feeds of the NYT stuff I follow, so I can read it at google reader. Must mark this post to remind myself to subscribe when they put up the paywall.
On the Record . . . From Arthur + Janet
Vol. 1 2010: An Important Decision about Our Future
Today we are announcing that we will be introducing a paid model for NYTimes.com at the beginning of 2011. As you will see in the press release, we have chosen a metered approach that will offer users free access to a set number of articles per month and then charge users once they exceed that number.
The metered model implementation is an integral part of our comprehensive plan for enhancing NYTimes.com. In 2010 we will continue initiatives such as Times Open, Times Topics and our work to develop more active communities and more fully integrate the real-time Web. We will continue to develop new online products and offerings as part of our effort to enhance the user experience for our readers and advertisers.
Our strategy is to build the metered model while we remain focused on making NYTimes.com more compelling, interactive and entertaining, providing many more reasons for online audiences to visit our site and stay longer. In the weeks ahead, we will be adding resources to achieve these critically important goals.
Since NYTimes.com is, by a variety of standards, one of the world’s most popular and successful news Web sites, why are we changing our model at all?
We are doing so because we believe that a second revenue stream will be an important part of our future. While digital advertising will continue to be the major contributor to our success on the Web, we expect that online subscription revenue will improve our ability to grow an important part of this business.
via Memo: NYT’s Sulzberger, Robinson Explain ‘Important Decision About Our Future’ | paidContent.
QOTD:Quote Of The Day: » The opposite of “open” is “theirs”
If we allow others to make decisions about what the Net is for — preferring some content and services to others — the Net won’t feel like it’s ours, and we’ll lose some of the enthusiasm (= love) that drives our participation, innovation, and collaborative efforts.
So, if we’re going to talk about the value of the open Internet, we have to ask what the opposite of “open” is. No one is proposing a closed Internet. When it comes to the Internet, the opposite of “open” is “theirs.”
via Joho the Blog » The opposite of “open” is “theirs”.
Quote::Fear of Time Travel : Aardvarchaeology
I find this actually true, people worry of things that probably wouldn’t happen to them, even worse prepare for it. I have the graphic of the one page guide to how to create some stuff we take for granted now for the unlikely nay almost impossible chance that I time travel to the past.
I’m pessimistic. I have a feeling that I’d end up dead, plague-struck, imprisoned or a manual labourer pretty soon. (If I were a woman I’d reckon the first sexual assault would come within hours.) And the funny thing is that somehow I actually worry about this time-slip scenario. It’s akin to the low-level anxiety it causes me in the real world to be living off stipends and not having much of a steady income. But actually, somewhere deep down I’m more afraid of being time-machined barehanded into the Stockholm of Svante Nilsson’s stewardship.
via Fear of Time Travel : Aardvarchaeology.
rePost::MLQ3 on Tumblr!: A Philippinres That Works: Benigno S. Aquino III
nice read. napanood na ni noy ang invictus???
We must find a unity that transcends the divisions of today, based on a shared commitment to transforming our country into one that works: One where traffic flows well, garbage is collected efficiently, crimes are solved, justice is served, and our kids are educated properly. It works in the sense that you do not have to flee the country to move up in the world, improve your lot in life, and rise to the highest level your personal merits can achieve.
We are a nation of sacrifice, of diligence, dedication and, idealism, because we are a people imbued with compassion even when we have officials who lie, cheat, and steal. Our faith teaches us that we are our brother’s keeper. Our logic should tell us that in taking care of others, their growth equals our own.
In the movie “Invictus,” Nelson Mandela says, “In order to rebuild our nation, we must exceed our own expectations.” It requires us to insist, always, that we are not a nation of crooks, of thieves, of murderers who get off scot-free and where justice is won by the highest bidder.
In May, you will be asked to make a choice. Will you choose transformation and change or will you choose to uphold the status quo?
We have already made our choice. Ours is a journey towards transformation. I ask you today to join us in this journey now.
via MLQ3 on Tumblr!: A Philippinres That Works: Benigno S. Aquino III.
rePost::Seven Essential Elements of Quantum Physics : Uncertain Principles
nice read. read the whole thing. People have a fixation with a probabilty or 1 the sure thing and 0 the impossible, when the truth is almost always somewhere in the middle.
3) Probability is all we ever know. When physicists use quantum mechanics to predict the results of an experiment, the only thing they can predict is the probability of detecting each of the possible outcomes. Given an experiment in which an electron will end up in one of two places, we can say that there is a 17% probability of finding it at point A and an 83% probability of finding it at point B, but we can never say for sure that a single given electron will definitely end up at A or definitely end up at B. No matter how careful we are to prepare each electron in exactly the same way, we can never say for definitiviely what the outcome of the experiment will be. Each new electron is a completely new experiment, and the final outcome is random.
via Seven Essential Elements of Quantum Physics : Uncertain Principles.