Thursday, September 2, 2010
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Friday, July 16, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Duff, the Heritage Alliance Web site (www.heritagealliance.com) has been updated.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
attorney general in charge of the defense of the federal
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act during the Bush
Administration, in 1997 Kagan essentially re-wrote a
key section of the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists' (ACOG) position on partial-birth
abortion.
calling for a FULL INVESTIGATION of events that took place
during Elena Kagan's tenure in the Clinton White House.
Evidence has surfaced indicating that she manipulated expert
testimony in order to overturn laws banning partial-birth
abortion.
We are also calling for a review of discrepancies in her
testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, especially
concerning her notes to President Clinton giving political
advice about abortion cases being considered by the federal
judiciary.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Today, 9:38 PM
Republican Sen. John McCain says he plans to vote against confirming Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.
The Arizona senator's decision makes him the latest in the GOP to oppose President Barack Obama's nominee to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.
McCain says Kagan is unlikely to exercise judicial restraint, based on her decision as dean of Harvard Law School to bar military recruiters from the campus career services office because of the ban on openly gay soldiers.
Democrats have more than enough votes to confirm Kagan. So far, no Republican has announced plans to back her.
McCain is outlining his opposition in an opinion article to be published in Thursday's editions of USA Today.
Show Original Article
Previous: W.Va. Gov Says He'll Consider Run for Byrd's Seat
Next: Experts: 'Ridiculous' Lawsuit Won't Nix Arizona Law on Illegals
Show All Articles in Newsmax - Inside Cover
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Angel-Backed Companies More Likely to Succeed, Says Harvard Study
A new study published by professors at the Harvard Business School shows that angel-backed companies are more likely to succeed and show more growth than those funded by venture firms alone. Researched and written by William Kerr and Josh Lerner, the report found that companies with angel funding see between 30% and 50% higher growth figures in terms of website traffic, are more likely to survive for four years, and are also in a better position to receive further rounds of funding.
Angel investing itself has seen large growth over the last several months with the creation of various organizations, events, firms and legislation to spur it on. We've discussed the Open Angel Forum series of events, the creation of "Super Angel" firms, the curated Venture Hacks AngelList, as well as current legislation both helping and hurting angel investments.
Angel investing has become more common, and as this report shows, this is largely due to the value and success it tends to breed. But why are angel investments the secret sauce for some companies? As the report points out, its the intangibles that angels bring to the table that could be playing a large role in company success.
"Access to capital per se may not be the most important value-added that angel groups bring. Some of the 'softer' features, such as angels' mentoring or business contacts, may help new ventures the most," the report says.
One of the other reasons that companies could tend to be more successful with angel funding is because of the human face placed on the investments. Angels are usually investing in companies at an early stage, and are investing their own capital in the company. Entrepreneurs may be more likely to work that extra bit harder when they know they are playing with the personal cash of an actual person, not the collected funds of an entire firm without a human name.
The reputation of the angel could play a large role as well, both for the attitude of the people running the company, and for the audience they are looking to attract. Most angels tend to be successful entrepreneurs themselves, and thus are likely well known in the startup scene. The chance to sit and talk with these investors, let alone receiving funding from them, is likely a treat for most entrepreneurs, so they may be more likely to be more careful with their money.
Additionally, when the public hears of a new startup that may not immediately interest them, the mention of particular angel investors can change their mind. As angel investors mature, they build their own personal portfolio of companies they noticed and provided early funds for, so when company XYZ launches with angel funding from an influential angel investor, that alone can attract people to the product. I know personally that I have looked into startups I otherwise would have largely ignored simply because an important angel investor was certain they'd be a hit.
As the report mentioned above, the "softer" features provided by the angels are also a large help to the companies. In his email newsletter yesterday, angel investor Jason Calacanis discussed loyalty and how he goes to bat for the people who are loyal to him and his companies. He mentioned that whenever he invests in a company, he immediately becomes an evangelist for that company and it's founders, doing all he can to promote it. This may not be the same for all angels, but when influential investors like Jason get behind your company, they do their best to make sure good things happen.
I would be interested to see similar data from this report that compares companies with solely angel funding versus those with more traditional VC firm funding mixed in. The influence of angel investors is significant, but I would think the angels alone are not enough to create more successful businesses at a higher rate. But the lesson here is, if your startup has the opportunity to include some angel investors (especially at the early stages), it would seem like a wise decision to go ahead with.
Photo by Flickr user Brooke Anderson.
Discuss
http://bit.ly/dcaq0i
Millions of People Now Get Live Streaming Video Sent to Their Phones
Live video, from around the world, streaming right through the phone in your hand: that's pretty incredible. It's not science fiction anymore, it's now something that millions of people have experienced.
San Francisco's Justin.tv announced today that almost one and a half million people have downloaded the company's live video stream viewing app to their iPhones in the first month it's been available. From Leo Laporte's This Week in Tech to the Future of Money conference to a lot of content I don't care to watch, Justin.tv is definitely getting traction. This isn't the only company fast finding a lot of consumer interest in mobile video streaming, either.
Competitor Ustream made a similar announcement when it hit the iTunes store in January, saying more than one hundred thousand people downloaded that app in its first 24 hours. Ustream has Justin Bieber content, which you may consider an asset or a liability, depending on your perspective. The point is: people love live streaming video to mobile handsets.
Justin.tv said today that it has made major stability updates to its app (sometimes these things still feel like tin cans with string between them) and added push notifications to alert users when their favorite live shows are broadcasting. The iPhone app already contributes about 20% of the company's total new account sign-ups, it said today.
We don't know how many downloads the Ustream app has seen since it first entered the iTunes app store and was featured prominently there, but if we assume that the same one half of once percent of users rate the Ustream app as have rated the Justin.tv app, then Ustream would have seen well more than 11 million downloads so far. Presumably if the app had in fact passed 10 million by now, we would have heard about it.
The moral of the story, though, is that live streaming video sent to mobile phones is here and people like it. Live video broadcasting from mobile is much, much less popular of course, but content consumption is always less popular than creation.
It's exciting to imagine how a more mature mobile live streaming video market will look. I'm ready to watch all kinds of things happen live on my phone.
Discuss
http://bit.ly/bMvaxI
Opera Brings "The World's Fastest Browser" to the Mac
After a number of beta releases over the course of the last few months, Opera just released the first stable version of its Opera 10.52 browser for the Mac. This is the first production version of Opera for the Mac that features the company's new Carakan JavaScript engine and Vega graphics library. Opera 10.52 also supports multi-touch gestures on modern Apple laptops and Growl notifications.
The company claims that this new version is the "world's fastest browser." In our somewhat unscientific tests (using the SunSpider benchmark), Opera did indeed best the latest development version of Chrome by a small margin (512ms vs. 571ms). During actual usage, this speed difference is hardly noticeable, however.
The Mac version is generally on par with the Windows version that Opera released in March 2010. Opera for the Mac features the company's widget platform, Opera Turbo for faster browsing on slow networks, Opera Link for bookmark syncing and support for HTML5 and CCS3.
While it's somewhat hidden in the sidebar, the Mac version of Opera also features Opera Unite, the web and media server that the company now builds into its desktop browsers.
For a more detailed look at all of the new features in Opera 10.52 for the Mac, also have a look at our earlier review of the Windows version.
Discuss
http://bit.ly/atksZZ
Facebook Testing HTML5 Video for iPad? Apparently Not
A number of bloggers are today reporting a noticeable change to Facebook's website when viewed from the built-in Safari web browser on the Apple iPad: videos now work. Previously, videos appearing in a user's News Feed wouldn't play on the iPad due to Facebook's use of Adobe Flash technology, which is not supported. Apple has, somewhat notoriously, banished Flash from its mobile devices, including the iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch, in favor of supporting the HTML5 web standard instead.
Although still in development, HTML5, the latest revision to the markup language used to create web pages, offers a feature that allows videos to play in a web browser without the need for a plugin like that used by Adobe Flash.
But has Facebook actually implemented HTML5 on its site?
ReadWriteWeb's Jared Smith provided essential technical perspective for the writing of this report.
Transcoding, Not HTML5
In our tests this morning, it appears that Facebook isn't actually using HTML5 to display the videos. Instead, what appears to be going on is that Facebook.com is detecting that you've arrived to the website via the Safari web browser on the iPad. When you then attempt to play a video on the iPad, it doesn't play inline (something that would have been a clear confirmation of an HTML5 implementation). Instead, Facebook is linking out to the actual video, transcoded to MP4, a video format that plays on Apple devices.
We confirmed this by uploading a video file to Facebook in WMV format (a non-iPad compatible video format) and then attempting to play it on the iPad. It played as an MP4 file.
Still Being Rolled Out
Also interesting: this implementation of transcoding (converting one format to another) appears to be still in the initial stages of rollout.
We went to one user's News Feed (belonging to our own Marshall Kirkpatrick, in fact) and discovered he had uploaded two video files last night using iCamcorder. On the iPad, the earlier video played, launching as a full-screen MP4. The other, when clicked, informed us that we needed Flash in order to view it.
Both videos were uploaded around the exact same time last night - sometime after midnight EST and the newer one is the one that plays. We've asked Facebook to confirm what's going on here but have not yet heard back.
Why Not HTML5?
It's interesting that Facebook has chosen to do transcoding instead of using HTML5, especially considering how many other major media sites are making the switch.
A number of publishers, when alerted to the iPad's impending launch, quickly pushed out HTML5-compatible versions of their websites. In many cases though, those changes are just skin-deep. Despite Apple's claims (via the "iPad-ready websites" section on the company's website) that many major publishers have switched over to the new web markup language, it's not an entirely accurate statement. For some of the sites listed, only portions of their content has been made "iPad-ready." Reuters, Time and MLB.com, for instance, were recently called out for claiming iPad-readiness when, in fact, they don't offer 100% of their website content for iPad visitors. MLB.com directs you to download an iPad app if you want to see videos, for example, while the other two only offer some of their content in an iPad-ready format.
Apparently, using HTML5 throughout the site isn't required to be dubbed "iPad-ready" by Apple. Now it appears that Facebook is making changes to get on that list, too.
Discuss
http://bit.ly/aHJyxS