Tag Archives: google

Amazon Rules the World


MDC says, Can you only imagine you’re good friends with Jeff Bezos, and you had a great day, and you can’t wait to tell him about it. So you email Jeff Bezos at Amazon to share the details, and then you ask him, politely: “Enough about me Jeff, how was your day?”

Jeff doesn’t want to upstage you-;but he can’t help it, if he’s being truthful:

“Not bad,” he’ll say. “I made more than $6 billion in five minutes.”

This is no joke. Amazon’s stock jumped 7.1 percent yesterday afternoon, on the news of its amazing third quarter earnings report.

At 4 p.m., as the market closed, it was trading at $972 a share; five minutes later in after hours trading, it popped to $1,041.15. And since Bezos still owns about 17 percent of Amazon’s common stock, if you do the math-;boom, $6.24 billion.

That puts Bezos’s total net worth at about $83.5 billion, and should return him to the top spot on the list of the world’s richest people .

He wasn’t the only master of the universe to see a giant leap Thursday. Larry Page and Sergei Brin picked up $1.2 billion and $1.15 billion each, after Alphabet’s stock surged on an earnings report. And Bill Gates is worth an extra $340 million based on Microsoft’s jump.

In closing; MDC states that Jeff Bezos of Amazon made as much in 5 minutes ,than Donald Trump claims he’s worth.



MDC highlighted the new Google Zipper Taxi Cab back in April of 2012.  It appears NYC, has its hands full with the presence of Uber & Lyft at the moment.

MDC says and bets accordingly , the Google Zipper will not appear in NYC  .

The mayor’s office said that there would be 5000 driverless cabs on New York City streets by 2014.

NYC’s new fleet of 9,000 taxis will be dubbed the “Zipper” and each car in the Google squadron will be called a “Zippie”.

The good news? All Zippies will be electric-bio-fuel hybrids filled with sweet amenities that leave regular NYC Taxi cabs in the dust. Google will not only equip each Zippie with an ATM machine, but vending machines built into the front-seat-back-seat divider will dispense everything from mouthwash to mascara to condoms and even hot food like a NY slice. According to Google, the vending machine offers will change from day to night and season to season to accommodate different needs and tastes. And if you’ve ever been one to step into a regular NYC taxi cab only to be met with a funky smell, or disturbing unmentionables left on the seat, you’ll finally be able to sit in hygienic peace. The new Zippies will be self-sanitizing, turning up a 12 horsepower vacuum to suck up all that unsightliness as soon as passengers exits the car.

So how does it work? The Zipper model is similar to that of the yellow cab, and you can either hail a Zippie — which will be recognized by Google’s above-head-mounted super sensors as a signal to stop — use the Zippie Android app on your smartphone, or hit one of the over 50,000 giant red “+1″ buttons that will be placed around the city. Once you are in the vehicle you can either speak your destination into the Zippie’s “G-phone”, or G-chat your destination to the Zippie via your smart phone, from there the car will take you where you need to go. Foreign tourists don’t need to worry about mastering English; the G-phone currently recognizes over 80 different languages.

At the start of the program, only a limited number of Zippies will go to Brooklyn and Queens.

MDC highlighted the future of autonomous cars in a past article, informing you about what to look out for in the future.



Let’s Delete some Contacts ?

MY digital address book lists 2,743 contacts. This is not because I’m popular or extroverted; I’m neither. It’s because this collection of names stretches back two decades, the oldest contacts tracing to a 1996 Palm Pilot and preserved through transfers involving more devices than I care to remember. It covers life in four cities and work on countless reporting projects. The idea of organizing and pruning this slow-motion data dump is by now unthinkable.

One result is that when I start to tap in the name of someone I’m looking for, I often turn up several others as well. Maybe an expert source on a subject I’ll never write about again. Or the best plumber in a place where I no longer live. Possibly a former colleague I have since learned actively dislikes me. Probably at least one name I just can’t place. And, perhaps, someone who is dead.


I might take that moment to delete one or more of these entries. But not the ones for the deceased. Those I keep.

I seldom talk about this habit, because I assume it sounds weird. But recently I was intrigued to read about an incident described in “Becoming Steve Jobs,” the new book by Brent Schlender and Rick Tetzeli. A couple of years after Mr. Jobs died, the anecdote goes, John Lasseter, a founder of Pixar and a close friend of Mr. Jobs’s, showed Tim Cook, the chief executive of Apple, the “favorites” list on his iPhone contacts app. It still included Mr. Jobs. “I’ll never be able to take that out,” he said. Mr. Cook responded by pulling out his phone, which also included Mr. Jobs’s contact entry.

I’m not sure if this says something unusual about Mr. Jobs, or Mr. Cook and Mr. Lasseter. But to me it suggests something more universal. However our tools are designed, human behavior determines how we really use them. So while there may not be anything logical about hanging on to the contact details of the departed, Mr. Lasseter’s comment makes perfect sense. And maybe that makes me feel (a little) less weird for thinking that my contacts list has accidentally acquired an involuntary-memories feature, a memento mori functionality.

Digital technology has already had notable effects on the ways we mourn, remember the dead, and even think about the afterlife. This has mostly come to our attention as a side effect of the broader tech-driven redefinition of social and public life: a personal blog becomes a kind of monument to be preserved, a social-media profile becomes a site of communal grieving. To some extent, digital services have adjusted to this development: Facebook accounts, for example, can be “memorialized,” a setting that allows friends to share remembrances, but stops posting upsetting birthday reminders.
In those public contexts, maintaining a digital connection to the dead seems normal. Unfriending the deceased in full view of your Facebook social circle, for example, might look (or feel) callous. Whatever the reason, we seem to prefer keeping these symbolic ties intact whether they are deeply personal or otherwise. Almost a year after his suicide, Robin Williams’s Twitter profile lists nearly 1.5 million followers.

In contrast, an address book or contacts app is a distinctly unpublic setting. Even in our “share”-crazy era, this collection of names and coordinates is not a thing to be broadcast and commented upon. Mr. Lasseter’s showing Mr. Cook his contacts might be the most unusual aspect of that story. Certainly nobody looks at my address book but me. Which entries I choose to delete or preserve is a purely personal matter.

And yes, of course, random reminders of those who have passed away can be jarring. I’m 46, an age that’s hard to reach without losing friends and former colleagues who died well before their time. In some cases, the circumstances were a shock, not just unexpected but unnerving, and unfair. Two were suicides, and one of those was a woman I’d been quite close to in my 20s. You might assume I wouldn’t enjoy being reminded of tragedy, and you’d be right.
BUT for starters, as anyone who has been to a funeral knows, to contemplate any death is also to remember a life, and how it intertwined with and influenced one’s own. I was sad to learn that the writer William Zinsser passed away in May at age 92. But what a life! I worked with him as a young editor years ago, and kept in casual touch for a while afterward: I went to see him play piano, we corresponded about sheet music, that sort of thing. He was a master of the craft, as you’d expect from the author of “On Writing Well,” but what sticks with me is how profoundly kind and generous he was to such a minor acquaintance. He was an example of how to be; any prompt to remember him, I’ll take.

Less sentimentally, there’s Gore Vidal. As a longtime fan, I lament his absence. His entry in my address book, however, consists of a fax number in Italy that worked in 1999. I know it worked because I used it to try to persuade him to write an essay for The New York Times Magazine, where I was then an editor. His response came in a 3 a.m. message on my home answering machine, dismissing the idea, my employer and me. Colorfully. Clearly there’s no sensible reason to save this contact, but whenever I stumble upon it I know: I’ll never be able to take that out.

I’ve picked a couple of familiar names to make a point that applies to the many contacts in my address book that you would not recognize. Each brings to mind memories that I welcome, even those who died far too young. And while I’m publicly skeptical of the theory that digital technology usefully allows us to offload our memories, I secretly worry that it’s true enough to make deleting contacts feel a bit like shredding pages of a diary, or even zapping cells from my brain.

Or maybe something even more troubling: The convenient-by-design act of deleting the name of a dead friend with a simple tap or click can feel like overtly participating in removing that person from the world.

Not long after I read that Steve Jobs anecdote, Grantland posted a short video in which Gay Talese thumbed through, and discussed, his address book. Of course it’s not digital (in fact, it’s leatherbound), but it dates back more than 50 years, and its pages are a gorgeous jumble of handwriting, cross-outs and even paper scraps of new information taped over old entries. The author reads out some celebrated names from this de facto record of personal encounters and professional curiosity. Some, naturally, are dead. “I make a point of not erasing names, as a rule,” he remarks. “I don’t think that it’s ethical to erase the past.”

My address book lacks the aesthetic charisma of Mr. Talese’s analog object, just as any given Pinterest board is less fascinating and visually distinct than your grandmother’s adolescent scrapbook. Contacts software is designed for efficiency and ease of use, not emotional evocation or stealth autobiography. But Mr. Talese’s point holds true for my digital object anyway: “Those people listed in that book have next to nothing in common with any other person in that book,” he observes, “except through me.” For this reason, among others: “That book is a connection to my whole life.”

Mr. Talese has lived a singular life. But then again, haven’t we all? And while for someone my age the urge to preserve a digital address book is tied to memories of physical reference points for personal objects (a clothbound volume, ink on paper), a young person today is collecting what could be a contact list that will reach back to childhood. It seems to me that even a simple ledger of everyone you’ve ever known is actually an amazing thing, whether anybody gets around to filming you scrolling through it or not.

I can understand why a reminder of a particular death may be painful enough to remove it from a place where it might pop up unexpectedly. As a practical matter, my habit means that any workaday search for the local electrician’s phone number, or whatever, can inadvertently spark a melancholy pang. And just as I have at least some happy associations with even the most heartbreaking losses, every instance of remembrance carries sadness. As fondly as I remember Bill Zinsser, seeing his name will always make me regret not staying in better touch for longer than I did. Other names remind me of things I wish I’d said, or things I wish I hadn’t.

This means that to erase those names would feel like an attempt not just to erase these people, but to erase some part of myself. Perhaps these reminders will in some way make me do a better job with all those other contacts, over the course of whatever life we have left. Even if that proves to be wishful thinking, I’d rather live with these entries than make them disappear. What Steve Jobs’s former colleagues have decided to carry is in some sense a trace of his life. To me, that sounds like something worth keeping. What I’ve lost is part of who I am. So is what I choose to save.
Source : nytimes

Why so few Black employees in Tech ?

We already knew that Google, Facebook, and Twitter employed relatively few African Americans, but new details show that the gap is truly striking. All three companies have disclosed their full EEO1 reports, detailed accounts of their employees’ race and gender demographics that the law requires them to submit to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The reports show that out of a combined 41,000 Twitter, Facebook, and Google employees, only 758, or 1.8 percent, are black. To put this in perspective, all of those workers could fit onto a single Airbus A380. Have a look:

African Americans comprise 13 percent of the overall workforce, which means they are underrepresented at Google, Facebook, and Twitter by a factor of 7. Here’s a visual comparison of the black employees…



versus all other employees:

Race and gender gaps in tech hiring have been hot-button issues as of late. Since last May, when Rev. Jesse Jackson showed up at Google’s shareholder meeting, he has won some serious diversity concessions from major tech companies—but the pace of minority hiring remains slow. As the Guardian noted yesterday, Facebook hired 1,216 new people last year, and only 36 were black. Since last year, the percentage of black Google workers has not changed.

It should be easier to shift workplace demographics at smaller companies. Twitter, with fewer than 3,000 employees in 2014, has a huge black user base that is sometimes referred to as “Black Twitter.” Jackson wants the company to do more to move the needle. “I am very disappointed,” he told the Guardian. “We are becoming intolerant with these numbers. There’s a big gap between their talk and their implementation.”

Source: Airplane image: Anthony Lui/Noun Project & mother jones

The Smartphone Map App Battle

MDC enjoys both map apps, but we feel having real-time satellite imagery creates certain privacy issues.

For a long time, Apple Maps was a laughing stock. Then it started getting better. Apple ironed out the glitches, began updating Apple Maps every day, and introduced Flyover, which gave you a 3-D view of major cities as they would look from the sky.

Now it’s taken that technology one step further in an effort to win the mapping war versus Google: Apple Maps is going real-time.

Thanks to a new update, London’s Big Ben clock tower will now show the real time, while the iconic London Eye will rotate. Those are the only real-time updates we’ve spotted so far, but Apple is reportedly looking to add more moving elements to cities over the following year.

Of course, in a real sense, Apple Maps isn’t real-time in the true sense of the word. What it has done is to cleverly map on (no pun intended) moving, animated elements onto the static images used by Flyover’s wireframes. This is something Apple hinted at in its original patent for the Flyover 3-D camera, but which we’ve not had the pleasure of seeing up until now.

Compared to real-time traffic updates and the like, it’s certainly a gimmick, but it’s a great one. It also opens up tons of possibilities for future expansions: such as days shifting in real-time from day to night, weather effects, or even seasonal changes.

Hey, it’s not totally crazy to think that Apple could use the technology for useful features like the aforementioned traffic updates: giving you an idea of congestion from a single glance.

For now, we’ll have to “make do” with watching the London Eye spin, but given Apple’s recent efforts at improving its mapping services thanks to the mysterious minivans (plus the numerous patents the company holds in this area), it’s a promising start to what could be a fantastic new feature.

Source: cult of Mac 

Banksy’s a Bust


Banksy’s a bust! The NY Post pens a column out of jealously and gallery owner Greed.

MDC says, the NY Post utilized an extended reach last year to establish an exclusive of breaking news following Banksy’s NYC visit . Unfortunately , all of the New York papers lagged behind because the artist Banksy was super elusive and Way Too Smart.

The below mentioned galleries are selling, STOLEN artwork. The art was created for public enjoyment , for the NewYawkers to enjoy . Utilizing a paid public relations company to spin their frustrations of GREED is sickening and maybe that’s why Banksy created, Better out Than In. MDC asks to utilize a little brain power on this one.

Artworks by the British graffiti artist during his NYC tour last year are selling so poorly, even the Brooklyn Museum won’t take one for free!

Banksy embarked on a surprise, one-month tour last October, leaving the city littered with free artwork, from a mini-Sphinx recreated with cinder blocks and Styrofoam in Willets Point, Queens, to a painting of a balloon heart on a factory wall in Red Hook, Brooklyn.

“People were basically seeing dollar signs,” said Joseph Gross Gallery director Casey Gleghorn, whose gallery repped a truck-door piece from the NYC tour with “The grumpier you are, the more assh—s you meet” written across it.

Two big pieces repped by Manhattan’s Keszler Gallery — the balloon-heart wall and a spray-painted car door — failed to sell in Miami in February, despite a $250,000 offer on the balloon and $145,000 for the car door. They had wanted between $400,000 and $600,000 and up to $300,000 respectively.

“It gave the impression that Banksy’s market was weak, but people were just asking too much for them. People were getting greedy,” said Gleghorn.

Stephan Keszler of Keszler Gallery is now slashing the prices of his four NYC Banksy pieces — which include the Sphinx from a side street behind Citi Field and the “grumpy” truck door — for the Art Silicon Valley fair next week. He quotes $300,000 for the Sphinx, high $200,000s for “grumpy,” $425,000 for the balloon wall and $200,000 for the car door.

Dealing with the post-Banksy frenzy was “overwhelming,” said Cara Tabachnick, whose family owns the East Williamsburg building on Graham Avenue where Banksy painted two geishas.

Her family approached the Brooklyn Museum to offer it to them for free — although the museum would have to cover removal costs — but never heard back after museum staff visited. “They, I guess, decided it wasn’t worth it,” said Tabachnick.

To protect the painting, the building owners covered it with plexiglass and then a roller door on top. Art lovers must ask the shop staff at the opticians on the ground floor to let them have a peek.

A specialist in preservation and an art auctioneer are both expected to visit the piece to see whether they should try removing the wall — which would likely cost tens of thousands of dollars.

Tabachnick reckons her piece could be worth up to $650,000. “We have a real sense of pride and excitement around the piece . . . Doesn’t mean we know what to do with it,” she said.

One roller door that Banksy emblazoned with a fake Plato quote was repped by Keszler Gallery, but the owner of the Greenpoint store where the work was done has taken it off the market and put it in storage.

Source; nypost

Goldman Sachs Secrets


Goldman Sachs said it’s now barring its investment bankers from trading individual stocks and bonds, a source told Bloomberg News.

Goldman employees were notified on Friday of the change, which takes effect immediately, the source said. They also aren’t allowed to invest in activist or event-driven hedge funds, the person said. Previously, bankers needed approval before they could invest in individual stocks.

The change came on the same day that a former employee at the New York Federal Reserve Bank released examiner’s recordings of her ex-colleagues’ dealings with Goldman Sachs.

The former examiner, Carmen Segarra, sued the New York Fed last year, alleging that she was fired in 2012 because she refused to change her finding that Goldman didn’t have a conflict-of-interest policy. Her case was dismissed in April and she’s appealing.

Public radio’s “This American Life” released a transcript of the show that includes excerpts of conversations it said were secretly recorded by Segarra. In the transcript, Segarra described how she felt that her Fed colleagues handled Goldman Sachs with kid gloves. “What I was sort of seeing and experiencing was this level of deference to the banks, this level of fear,” she said.

The New York Fed said it “categorically rejects” Segarra’s allegations.

MDC says , this will have zero affect on Goldman Sachs since they have an advantageous position throughout the legal and lobbying sectors. In her recordings a Goldman employee says that “consumer laws don’t apply” to their wealthiest clients, for instance, and that she should pretend she didn’t hear incriminating statements.

MDC restates, the game is different and you will never really see the true players behind the curtain .

Source: Bloomberg

Google owns Street Art?

There’s a joke here about Google owning everything (“all your art is belong to us”?) but if you’re the sort of person who enjoys looking at interesting graffiti, you might enjoy this anyway.

The company just announced that it’s added a collection of street art to its existing art database, which originally included only 100-some-odd examples of street work. Now that number has grown to more than 5,000, with images that include murals and etchings (like the one by Banksy below), in addition to your usual graffiti.

If that sounds like little more than a well-organized group of Google image search results, you can also use Street View to explore buildings that have been tagged — even some that have been demolished or are closed to the public (RIP 5 Pointz).