ScienceDaily (Apr. 20, 2010) — Modern-day Chinese pigs are directly descended from ancient pigs which were the first to be domesticated in the region 10,000 years ago, a new archaeological and genetic study has revealed.
An international team of researchers, led by Durham University (UK) and the China Agricultural University, in Beijing, say their findings suggest a difference between patterns of early domestication and movement of pigs in Europe and parts of East Asia.
The research, published April 19 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, looked at the DNA sequences of more than 1,500 modern and 18 ancient pigs.
Lead author Dr Greger Larson, in the Department of Archaeology, at Durham University, said: "Previous studies of European domestic pigs demonstrated that the first pigs in Europe were imported from the Near East. Those first populations were then completely replaced by pigs descended from European wild boar.
"However, despite the occurrence of genetically distinct populations of wild boar throughout modern China, these populations have not been incorporated into domestic stocks.
"The earliest known Chinese domestic pigs have a direct connection with modern Chinese breeds, suggesting a long, unbroken history of pigs and people in this part of East Asia."
The finding is part of a wider research project into pig domestication and early human migration in East Asia.
The study also uncovered multiple centres of pig domestication and a complex picture of human migration across East Asia.
After pigs were incorporated into domestic stocks in Southeast Asia, the animals then migrated with people south and east to New Guinea, eventually reaching the remote Pacific, including Hawai'i, Tahiti, and Fiji, the researchers said.
The DNA analysis also found that wild boar were probably domesticated in many places including India and peninsular Southeast Asia several thousand years ago.
As current interpretations of archaeological records in these regions do not yet support these findings, the group has referred to them as "cryptic domestications."
They suggest that additional archaeological digs and new analytical techniques may help to resolve the problem.
Dr Larson added: "Our evidence suggests an intriguingly complex pattern of local domestication and regional turnover and calls for a reappraisal of the archaeological record across South and East Asia.
"We may even find additional centres of pig domestication when we take a closer look at the picture in that part of the world."
The research is part of an ongoing research project based at Durham University which aims to re-evaluate the archaeological evidence for pig domestication and husbandry and explore the role of animals in reconstructing ancient human migration, trade and exchange networks.
The DNA testing was carried out at the China Agricultural University and was analysed at Durham University and Uppsala University, Sweden.
The research was funded by the National Basic Research Programme of China and the National Key Technology R&D Programme of China.
Adapted from materials provided by Durham University, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
Source: http://newscri.be/link/1077253
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
Microsoft stealth launches 'historic' programming language
What hope is there for F#, the new language that Microsoft has sneaked into Visual Studio 2010, launched this month?
"I think it's an amazing moment," says its principal designer, Microsoft researcher Don Syme, an Australian now based in Cambridge. "It represents part of the history of programming language design and development here in the UK."
Perhaps it does. But you would not know it from most of Microsoft's marketing effort for the new Visual Studio. F# tends to get lost in the fuss about other new features. I downloaded Microsoft's Why upgrade to Visual Studio 2010? white paper and not only is F# missing from the "Top ten reasons to buy" - it's not actually mentioned at all.
That is a shame. F# is a functional programming language, and there are good reasons why functional programming deserves wider use, such as its suitability for the concurrent programming required for optimal performance on today's multi-core systems.
F# is also succinct. During a talk at the recent QCon London programming conference, Syme showed a series of slides, headed Pleasure and Pain, showing how F# code can be shorter and more expressive than its C# equivalent, sometimes to the extreme.
Following his QCon talk, I spoke to Syme about the new language. How did F# begin?
"I've been doing functional programming since 1992. I had been using the ML family of languages, including standard ML and OCaml, and wanted to see that paradigm being strong on the .NET platform. We started F# as a research project. We could experiment with the functional paradigm in practice, and understand where it was most beneficial and how it would fit in."
So how does F# differ from, say, OCaml?
According to Syme: "The core language of F# is heavily inspired by OCaml. If you look back at the ML languages, the core of these languages has been surprisingly stable, from the early seventies. It's a question of what you do around that. One of the major questions is about object-oriented programming. Another question is what you would historically have called module system design. F# differs on those design decisions from other ML languages because the aim is to build a language which integrates into the .NET component development model. That means we do embrace .NET object-oriented programming.
F# can be remarkably concise compared to C#
Speaking to Syme, Microsoft's main motive for including F# in Visual Studio becomes clear. Functional programming is popular in the financial community, where it is used for quantitative analysis. Finance is an important market.
"We find F# is very attractive to financial analysts and quantitative experts," says Syme, the reason being that it excels in data, parallel and algorithmic programming. "F# is attractive in places where the object oriented paradigm isn't a good fit for the kind of work that's being done," he says.
If F# is mainly intended for a specific programming niche, that would explain why Microsoft is not putting much energy behind promoting it. That said, it deserves more attention because of its suitability for the concurrent programming that has become necessary in order to take advantage of today's multi-core systems.
The Hejlsberg factor
Perhaps surprisingly, C# designer Anders Hejlsberg is an F# enthusiast, though he also plans to introduce functional features into C#. In a recent talk on programming futures, Hejlsberg said a functional programming language is easier to parallelize."I'm not running around modifying the state, and it doesn't matter how many threads there are because the state is safe to observe, and if two functions are independent they can be executed sequentially or in parallel and it doesn't matter ... [F#] is the first time we've seen integration of a functional programming language with an industrial-strength framework and toolset," he said.
Syme also is convinced that F# has a future that goes beyond financial analysis. He sees it as ideal for web programming, thanks to its use of lightweight "agents" that sit waiting to react to an event such as a network communication.
"We have a huge opportunity with F# to see the functional programming paradigm break out of the data-oriented kind of work, through to the modern world of web programming," he says.
The question: how to get that message through to Microsoft's marketing department? ®
Source: http://newscri.be/link/1076015
Newscribe : get free news in real time
At last, a case to expose misdeeds?
Last Friday, US authorities charged the biggest investment bank with fraud in a sub-prime mortgage security scheme that led investors to a billion-dollar loss.
NEW and potentially devastating evidence of financial manipulation by Wall Street firms has emerged, just as the United States Senate is preparing to consider a Bill this week to tighten the regulation of financial institutions.
Last Friday, the biggest US investment bank, Goldman Sachs, was charged by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with committing fraud that led to investors losing over US$1bil (RM3.2bil).
The case involves the sale to investors in 2007 of securities linked to sub-prime house mortgages – the kind of financial products that triggered the global financial crisis.
In a 22-page lawsuit, the SEC charged Goldman Sachs and its Vice President Fabrice Tourre with failing to disclose that the hedge fund Paulson & Co had a major role in working with the bank to create a security backed by sub-prime mortgages, while Paulson at the same time took a “short position” on the same mortgages to bet that their value would go down.
The security, named Abacus 2007-AC1 and known technically as a collateralised debt obligation (CDO), was created and sold by Goldman Sachs in 2007 just before the start of the financial crisis.
Abacus did very badly for those who invested in it. Within nine months of its sale, 99% of the set of mortgages in the security had been downgraded. Investors lost more than US$1bil while Paulson, which made a bet against the mortgages, profited by also US$1bil.
A major loser is the Royal Bank of Scotland (now largely owned by the UK government). It had to pay US$841mil (RM2.7bil) to Goldman (which passed most of it to Paulson) in August 2008 because it had taken over Dutch bank ABN Amro which in turn had taken on the credit risk or insurance over a significant tranche of the security that turned sour. A German bank, IKB, lost US$150mil (RM479mil).
The SEC’s enforcement officer Robert Khuzami described the fraud as follows: “Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio. The product was new and complex but the deception and conflicts are old and simple.”
The SEC accused Goldman of making statements and omissions when constructing a CDO, and failing to disclose that Paulson was involved in creating the CDO (including selecting the mortgages that went into its portfolio), that it was shorting.
Instead, Goldman informed investors that an independent firm, ACA Management, had selected the CDO portfolio, said the SEC.
It also alleged that Goldman Vice-President Tourre misled ACA Management to believe that Paulson had invested US$200mil (RM639mil) in the equity of the Abacus CDO and had thus taken a “long” position and “accordingly that Paulson’s interests in the collateral section process were aligned with ACA’s when in reality Paulson’s interests were sharply conflicting”.
s arranged a transaction at Paulson’s request in which Paulson heavily influenced the selection of the portfolio to suit its economic interests, but failed to disclose to investors, as part of the description of the portfolio selection process contained in the marketing materials used to promote the transaction, Paulson’s role in the portfolio selection process or its adverse economic interests.”
The SEC court document quoted an email to a friend from Tourre, who had coordinated the Abacus product, as saying that “with more and more leverage in the system, the whole building is about to collapse” and the only potential survivor is the fabulous Fab (himself), “standing in the middle of all these complex, highly leveraged, exotic trades he created without necessarily understanding the implications of all these monstrosities”.
This email has come back to haunt Goldman and Tourre and is destined to become one of the most cited quotations when the history of the financial crisis is written, as both a confession and a correct prophecy by a major player who helped to engender the crisis.
According to a Business Week article, the SEC’s accusations may fuel critics’ claims that Goldman put its own interests ahead of clients’ and profited from practices that led to the financial crisis.
It also quotes Christopher Whalen, an analyst at US-based Institutional Risk Analytics, as saying: “This litigation exposes the cynical, savage culture of Wall Street that allows a dealer to commit fraud on one customer to benefit another.”
Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs has denied the charges. It said it provided “extensive disclosure” to IKB and ACA about the risk of the underlying mortgage securities, and that ACA selected the portfolio. It also denied it told ACA that Paulson was going to be an investor in the CDO.
Paulson also said that it did not “sponsor or initiate” the Abacus programme and that ACA had sole authority over the selection of all collateral in the CDO.
The SEC case against Goldman will be important for exposing the mechanics of the financial institutions and instruments, speculation and manipulation that lay at the heart of the financial crisis. There is an expectation that this is only the first case and that more cases involving other banks may follow.
But as Financial Times columinist Gillian Tett points out, the subprime and CDO markets were so opaque it was often very unclear what was legal or not, and bankers were adept at “innovating” to get around the law.
In other words, what may be grossly unethical may actually not be illegal. It remains to be seen whether the SEC will succeed in this case or other cases.
Thus, given the weaknesses in the law, it is all the more important that the US Senate and administration devise and adopt new laws that reform the present extremely weak regulation of the financial markets and their instruments.
NEW and potentially devastating evidence of financial manipulation by Wall Street firms has emerged, just as the United States Senate is preparing to consider a Bill this week to tighten the regulation of financial institutions.
Last Friday, the biggest US investment bank, Goldman Sachs, was charged by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with committing fraud that led to investors losing over US$1bil (RM3.2bil).
The case involves the sale to investors in 2007 of securities linked to sub-prime house mortgages – the kind of financial products that triggered the global financial crisis.
In a 22-page lawsuit, the SEC charged Goldman Sachs and its Vice President Fabrice Tourre with failing to disclose that the hedge fund Paulson & Co had a major role in working with the bank to create a security backed by sub-prime mortgages, while Paulson at the same time took a “short position” on the same mortgages to bet that their value would go down.
The security, named Abacus 2007-AC1 and known technically as a collateralised debt obligation (CDO), was created and sold by Goldman Sachs in 2007 just before the start of the financial crisis.
Abacus did very badly for those who invested in it. Within nine months of its sale, 99% of the set of mortgages in the security had been downgraded. Investors lost more than US$1bil while Paulson, which made a bet against the mortgages, profited by also US$1bil.
A major loser is the Royal Bank of Scotland (now largely owned by the UK government). It had to pay US$841mil (RM2.7bil) to Goldman (which passed most of it to Paulson) in August 2008 because it had taken over Dutch bank ABN Amro which in turn had taken on the credit risk or insurance over a significant tranche of the security that turned sour. A German bank, IKB, lost US$150mil (RM479mil).
The SEC’s enforcement officer Robert Khuzami described the fraud as follows: “Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio. The product was new and complex but the deception and conflicts are old and simple.”
The SEC accused Goldman of making statements and omissions when constructing a CDO, and failing to disclose that Paulson was involved in creating the CDO (including selecting the mortgages that went into its portfolio), that it was shorting.
Instead, Goldman informed investors that an independent firm, ACA Management, had selected the CDO portfolio, said the SEC.
It also alleged that Goldman Vice-President Tourre misled ACA Management to believe that Paulson had invested US$200mil (RM639mil) in the equity of the Abacus CDO and had thus taken a “long” position and “accordingly that Paulson’s interests in the collateral section process were aligned with ACA’s when in reality Paulson’s interests were sharply conflicting”.
s arranged a transaction at Paulson’s request in which Paulson heavily influenced the selection of the portfolio to suit its economic interests, but failed to disclose to investors, as part of the description of the portfolio selection process contained in the marketing materials used to promote the transaction, Paulson’s role in the portfolio selection process or its adverse economic interests.”
The SEC court document quoted an email to a friend from Tourre, who had coordinated the Abacus product, as saying that “with more and more leverage in the system, the whole building is about to collapse” and the only potential survivor is the fabulous Fab (himself), “standing in the middle of all these complex, highly leveraged, exotic trades he created without necessarily understanding the implications of all these monstrosities”.
This email has come back to haunt Goldman and Tourre and is destined to become one of the most cited quotations when the history of the financial crisis is written, as both a confession and a correct prophecy by a major player who helped to engender the crisis.
According to a Business Week article, the SEC’s accusations may fuel critics’ claims that Goldman put its own interests ahead of clients’ and profited from practices that led to the financial crisis.
It also quotes Christopher Whalen, an analyst at US-based Institutional Risk Analytics, as saying: “This litigation exposes the cynical, savage culture of Wall Street that allows a dealer to commit fraud on one customer to benefit another.”
Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs has denied the charges. It said it provided “extensive disclosure” to IKB and ACA about the risk of the underlying mortgage securities, and that ACA selected the portfolio. It also denied it told ACA that Paulson was going to be an investor in the CDO.
Paulson also said that it did not “sponsor or initiate” the Abacus programme and that ACA had sole authority over the selection of all collateral in the CDO.
The SEC case against Goldman will be important for exposing the mechanics of the financial institutions and instruments, speculation and manipulation that lay at the heart of the financial crisis. There is an expectation that this is only the first case and that more cases involving other banks may follow.
But as Financial Times columinist Gillian Tett points out, the subprime and CDO markets were so opaque it was often very unclear what was legal or not, and bankers were adept at “innovating” to get around the law.
In other words, what may be grossly unethical may actually not be illegal. It remains to be seen whether the SEC will succeed in this case or other cases.
Thus, given the weaknesses in the law, it is all the more important that the US Senate and administration devise and adopt new laws that reform the present extremely weak regulation of the financial markets and their instruments.
Global Trends by MARTIN KHOR
Goldman Serves One Master Better Than the Others
As Wall Street bombshells go, the lawsuit that the Securities and Exchange Commission filed against Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is about as big as it gets.
Who knew the folks at the SEC still had it in them to accuse a major Wall Street bank of fraud? And who could have guessed that Goldman’s canned explanation for its behavior during the subprime mortgage bubble -- that it simply was serving clients’ needs -- could come so unglued so quickly?
To recap, the SEC’s complaint accuses Goldman and one of its vice presidents of selling subprime mortgage-backed securities to institutional investors, without disclosing that one of its clients, the giant hedge fund Paulson & Co., had paid Goldman to structure these securities so that they would be the world’s perfect short -- at least from Paulson’s point of view.
The securities, called Abacus 2007-AC1, became worthless within months, showing that Paulson had done its homework. The SEC said Paulson paid Goldman a $15 million fee.
The SEC said Goldman’s main infraction was telling investors who bought the securities that an independent company called ACA Management had chosen the assets that were backing them, when it was Paulson that played a major role in the process. The SEC said Goldman duped ACA into believing that Paulson was looking to take a bullish position, though the SEC’s complaint doesn’t try to explain why this somehow would excuse ACA’s decision to bow to Paulson’s influence.
Neither the fund, founded by John Paulson, nor its employees were named as defendants, because the SEC said it was Goldman that made the misstatements to investors.
Goldman Denial
The assets backing these securities, known as synthetic collateralized debt obligations, were themselves securities backed by subprime mortgages. Goldman issued a one-sentence statement denying the SEC’s allegations as “completely unfounded in law and fact.” Among the investors that the SEC says got suckered was a hapless Goldman client in Dusseldorf, Germany, called IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG.
It’s hard to imagine an allegation by the government that could be more damaging to Goldman’s reputation. This wasn’t the American public at large that Goldman supposedly ripped off, which might be forgivable or even praiseworthy from the view of Goldman’s shareholders. These were Goldman clients that Goldman allegedly ripped off, in an effort to please another Goldman client.
Throughout the aftermath of the financial crisis, Goldman and its chief executive officer, Lloyd Blankfein, have consistently stuck to the same story when asked why the bank had created and sold to its clients subprime mortgage-backed securities that quickly became worthless: The firm was merely giving those clients what they wanted.
What They Do
That’s what market makers do, Blankfein told the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission last January. “What we did in that business was underwrite to, again, the most sophisticated investors who sought that exposure,” he testified.
That may have been true when it came to the Goldman client Paulson & Co., which made $1 billion shorting these allegedly custom-made CDOs by buying credit-default swaps on them. If we are to believe the SEC’s claims, though, it wasn’t true for the Goldman clients that lost $1 billion on the CDOs, including the chumps at IKB, which lost $150 million.
While those clients may have been seeking exposure to subprime mortgages, and may even have been unconscionably stupid for doing so, they surely weren’t seeking exposure to the other side of a cherry-picked trade created for the exclusive benefit of one of the world’s largest hedge funds. They probably aren’t happy, either, with Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s, which, you guessed it, slapped AAA ratings on the CDOs’ highest rungs.
Clear in Translation
Their eyes must have been burning, too, when they saw some of the e-mails that the SEC quoted in its suit, portions of which the SEC translated from French. (The spellings and punctuation are as they appear in the SEC’s complaint.)
“More and more leverage in the system. The whole building is about to collapse anytime now,” Fabrice Tourre, the Goldman Sachs vice president who was sued for his role in putting together the deal, wrote on Jan. 23, 2007.
“Only potential survivor, the fabulous Fab … standing in the middle of all these complex, highly leveraged, exotic trades he created without necessarily understanding all of the implications of those monstruosities!!!”
A few weeks later, Tourre, now 31, e-mailed a top Goldman trader: “the cdo biz is dead we don’t have a lot of time left.” Goldman closed the Abacus offering in April 2007.
Those statements bring to mind a well-known quote from Warren Buffett, who invested $5 billion in Goldman back in September 2008 near the peak of the financial crisis: “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.”
Can’t wait to see how Goldman tries to talk its way out of this one.
A ‘black eye’ for Goldman
It may have to pay as much as US$2bil; CEO and CFO could face the axe
BANGALORE: Goldman Sachs Inc may have to cough up a big fine to settle the civil lawsuit brought by US regulators but the biggest damage would be to the reputation of the influential bank, analysts said.
Rochdale Research’s Richard Bove said Goldman may have to pay as much as US$2bil, including fees earned and penalties, and chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein and chief financial officer David Viniar could face the axe for the “devastating decline” in the firm’s persona.
Since it is a civil complaint, it may not be “life threatening” for the company and the worst could be a large monetary fine, Citigroup analyst Keith Horowitz said. “Based on our understanding, this implies the government did not find sufficient evidence to justify a criminal action, although that cannot be ruled out in the future.”
Bernstein Research estimated a worst-case liability of US$706.5mil for the company, or US$1.20 per share, based on a 2010 average diluted share count.
Oppenheimer Equity Research said the shares were likely to suffer in the near term although Goldman will continue to post strong earnings.
“At the moment, it looks as if the SEC is pursuing an agenda aimed specifically at Goldman. That likely will keep a cloud over the stock for now,” Oppenheimer analyst Chris Kotowski said.
People walk past revolving doors of the new Goldman Sachs Group Inc global HQ, also known by its address as 200 West Street, in New York’s lower Manhattan. — Reuters The lawsuit and other potential litigation may create an overhang on the shares, while upcoming regulations would cloud the earnings outlook, S&P Equity analyst Matthew Albrecht said.
The lawsuit may help the administration in swaying some on-the-fence Republicans to support a tougher financials bill that the White House had been lobbying for, Barclays said.
“These charges, and the timing of them, increase the likelihood of passage of a more onerous derivatives bill for dealers, and that could ultimately be far more costly to Goldman and its competitors,” Barclays analyst Roger Freeman said.
Goldman is seen reporting another quarter of out-sized profits, when it posts financial results tomorrow, after an unusually strong year from its fixed-income trading operation in 2009.
“While tough to quantify the impact from this complaint, we don’t see massive changes to the business model or earnings power over the long term,” UBS analyst Glenn Schorr said. — Reuters
Oppenheimer’s Kotowski said the stock would not perform well until the SEC charges were closer to resolution, but said he believed that the bank would remain highly profitable.
Goldman shares closed down about 13% at US$160.70 on Friday on the New York Stock Exchange. — Reuters
Latest business news from AP-Wire
BANGALORE: Goldman Sachs Inc may have to cough up a big fine to settle the civil lawsuit brought by US regulators but the biggest damage would be to the reputation of the influential bank, analysts said.
Rochdale Research’s Richard Bove said Goldman may have to pay as much as US$2bil, including fees earned and penalties, and chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein and chief financial officer David Viniar could face the axe for the “devastating decline” in the firm’s persona.
Since it is a civil complaint, it may not be “life threatening” for the company and the worst could be a large monetary fine, Citigroup analyst Keith Horowitz said. “Based on our understanding, this implies the government did not find sufficient evidence to justify a criminal action, although that cannot be ruled out in the future.”
Bernstein Research estimated a worst-case liability of US$706.5mil for the company, or US$1.20 per share, based on a 2010 average diluted share count.
Oppenheimer Equity Research said the shares were likely to suffer in the near term although Goldman will continue to post strong earnings.
“At the moment, it looks as if the SEC is pursuing an agenda aimed specifically at Goldman. That likely will keep a cloud over the stock for now,” Oppenheimer analyst Chris Kotowski said.
People walk past revolving doors of the new Goldman Sachs Group Inc global HQ, also known by its address as 200 West Street, in New York’s lower Manhattan. — ReutersThe lawsuit may help the administration in swaying some on-the-fence Republicans to support a tougher financials bill that the White House had been lobbying for, Barclays said.
“These charges, and the timing of them, increase the likelihood of passage of a more onerous derivatives bill for dealers, and that could ultimately be far more costly to Goldman and its competitors,” Barclays analyst Roger Freeman said.
Goldman is seen reporting another quarter of out-sized profits, when it posts financial results tomorrow, after an unusually strong year from its fixed-income trading operation in 2009.
“While tough to quantify the impact from this complaint, we don’t see massive changes to the business model or earnings power over the long term,” UBS analyst Glenn Schorr said. — Reuters
Oppenheimer’s Kotowski said the stock would not perform well until the SEC charges were closer to resolution, but said he believed that the bank would remain highly profitable.
Goldman shares closed down about 13% at US$160.70 on Friday on the New York Stock Exchange. — Reuters
Latest business news from AP-Wire
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Google: botnet takedowns fail to stem spam tide
'If one goes offline, spammers buy, rent, or deploy another'
Spam levels have remained resolutely stable despite recent botnet takedowns, according to a survey from Google's email filtering business.
Google Postini reports no lasting effect from the recent takedown of spam-spewing botnet, such as Mariposa and Mega-D. The command-and-control servers associated with the Mega-D botnet were isolated towards the end of 2009, effectively decapitating one of the top-10 junk mail sources.
"This suggests that there’s no shortage of botnets out there for spammers to use," a blog post by Postini researchers notes. "If one botnet goes offline, spammers simply buy, rent, or deploy another, making it difficult for the anti-spam community to make significant inroads in the fight against spam with individual botnet takedowns."
The Google spam filtering division concludes that going after botnets is no more effective than the previous tactic of targeting rogue ISPs. The takedown of rogue ISP 3FN bought a temporary respite from the spam deluge for about a month. However, after Real Host, another ISP, was taken out months later spam volumes recovered after only two days. The marked difference was due to use of improved disaster recovery approaches by cybercriminals.
Google's conclusions are based on an analysis of spam volumes flowing into the email in-boxes of 18 million business users working for of 50,000 organisation protected by Postini's technology. Analysis of the junk mail traffic blocked by Google's technology also shows a 30 per cent increase in the size of individual spam messages toward the end of March - signs of a possible resurgence in the use of image spam - and the use of natural disasters (such as the Haiti earthquake) and celebrity gossip in a bid to persuade recipients to waste time on junk mail messages, some of which form the kick-off point of financial fraud.
The prevalence of malware within spam, which rose from 0.3 per cent at the start of 2009 to 3.7 per cent in the second half of last year, fell back to 1.1 per cent in the first quarter of 2010. ®
Source: http://newscri.be/link/1075392
Google Postini reports no lasting effect from the recent takedown of spam-spewing botnet, such as Mariposa and Mega-D. The command-and-control servers associated with the Mega-D botnet were isolated towards the end of 2009, effectively decapitating one of the top-10 junk mail sources.
Early this year, government agencies and security firms teamed up to take-down several other botnet targets - including Waledac, Mariposa, and Zeus - using similar tactics. The operations are these botnets were either curtailed (Mariposa) or severely hampered in the process (Zeus).
These combined efforts have failed to make much difference in the volumes of spam circulating online. Spam and virus levels did dip down 12 per cent from a Q409 high but held "relatively steady" throughout the first quarter of 2010, Google Postini reports."This suggests that there’s no shortage of botnets out there for spammers to use," a blog post by Postini researchers notes. "If one botnet goes offline, spammers simply buy, rent, or deploy another, making it difficult for the anti-spam community to make significant inroads in the fight against spam with individual botnet takedowns."
The Google spam filtering division concludes that going after botnets is no more effective than the previous tactic of targeting rogue ISPs. The takedown of rogue ISP 3FN bought a temporary respite from the spam deluge for about a month. However, after Real Host, another ISP, was taken out months later spam volumes recovered after only two days. The marked difference was due to use of improved disaster recovery approaches by cybercriminals.
Google's conclusions are based on an analysis of spam volumes flowing into the email in-boxes of 18 million business users working for of 50,000 organisation protected by Postini's technology. Analysis of the junk mail traffic blocked by Google's technology also shows a 30 per cent increase in the size of individual spam messages toward the end of March - signs of a possible resurgence in the use of image spam - and the use of natural disasters (such as the Haiti earthquake) and celebrity gossip in a bid to persuade recipients to waste time on junk mail messages, some of which form the kick-off point of financial fraud.
The prevalence of malware within spam, which rose from 0.3 per cent at the start of 2009 to 3.7 per cent in the second half of last year, fell back to 1.1 per cent in the first quarter of 2010. ®
Source: http://newscri.be/link/1075392
The Dogs of War: Apple vs. Google vs. Microsoft
It’s hard to grasp the breathtaking scale of the epic war between Microsoft, Google and Apple. Billions upon billions of dollars. Entire industries at stake. This is the board. These are the pieces.
If you think about it, what’s shocking isn’t the size of Microsoft or Apple, companies that are decades old, established titans of industry (even if they have stumbled in the past) — it’s Google. In just over 10 years, Google’s become arguably the most important company on the web, spreading to anything the internet touches with astonishing speed, almost like a virus: From the web and search to books, video, mobile phones, operating systems, and soon, your TV.
Friends have become enemies, enemies more paranoid. And you know, it’s only a matter of time before Google’s remaining gaps on this map are filled out. (BTW, you can click on the picture to make it bigger.)
Back in the 1990s, “hegemony” was another way to spell “Microsoft.” It was Microsoft that looked to invade everything. It was Microsoft in the Department of Justice’s sights for antitrust issues. Anywhere there was computing, there was Microsoft. But today, it’s Apple that conquered music. Apple that revolutionized mobile phones. Apple that might make tablet computing mainstream. Not Microsoft. As the incumbent, Microsoft’s not going anywhere. But it plays catch up more often than it leads, at least when it comes to the things people care about now, like the web and mobile.
What’s at stake? Nothing less than the future. Microsoft wants computing to continue to be tied to the desktop — three screens and a cloud, as Ballmer is fond of saying. For Apple, it’s all about closed information appliances with lots of third-party apps, computers anybody can use. And for Google, all roads lead to the internet, and the internet is synonymous with Google.
This isn’t a road map. It’s a study guide.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
If things don’t change, they stay the same
SHUT UP ABOUT ADVERTISING BY PAUL LOOSLEY
The author is one of the legends of American advertising, Jerry Della Femina. The story goes that, in the middle of a brainstorming session to find a new theme line for Panasonic, Jerry, then a copywriter, leapt up and proudly suggested the words that became the slightly, un-politically correct title of the book. It seems only his art-director saw the funny side! Whether there were any Japanese in the room he doesn’t say. The book was written in 1971 and it may be that long ago since I first read it. It was written during the heydays of BBDO, DDB, Ted Bates and early Ogilvy (also legendary people you may be less familiar with like Mary Wells, Carl Ally and George Lois). So, for a change, this month I’d like to share a couple of hopefully interesting observations drawn from this belated reread.
First is that the TV show, Mad Men, is total bollocks. Anyone who has watched those rather effete, supposedly suave actors wandering across your TV screens with their shiny grey suits, clouds of cigarette smoke and dry martinis are viewing, at best a caricature, at worst a total fabrication.
Reading Della Femina’s book you would see that ad people in the 60s were quite tawdry. They didn’t hang around with models, they didn’t eat at the swankiest restaurants and they certainly didn’t regularly schtup the clients’ wives. For instance, Jerry talks about creative teams moving desks into the office stairwells because it gave them the best view of the partially dressed girls in the apartment block opposite. Day and night they perched there until the cops came and arrested them as peeping toms. And the art director who, sick of his constantly ringing telephone stabs it with a pair of scissors. These were (and probably still are) the real creative people.
Della Femina also makes the classic observation that creative people fully realise that no-one is watching the TV or buying a magazine to look at their ads. Most normal people say, on meeting a creative person, “Oh, you put the captions under the pictures”. This means there was, and remains, so much BS that creative people had no way of measuring their self worth. (Today we have, of course, entirely trustworthy creative rankings and creative award shows to help us!)
And this brings me to my second point. Much of what Jerry recounts in the book – the turns of phrase and the incidents, the anecdotes are exactly the same things that still happen in advertising today. It’s an industry that seems never to move on. Over 40 years later the industry is still saying the same dopey things and making the same dopey mistakes. (I intend to talk more about this next month).
But most of all, the thing that remains so completely the same today as then, is the fear. Jerry spends many pages discussing it. He recounts an agency president telling him: “I start worrying about losing an account the minute I get it.”
The fear of losing a piece of business has most account executives perpetually standing in a puddle of pee. And it filters down to the work. He tells a tale of a new piece of business that came in asking for “new, exciting” work. But no-one could bring themselves to show “new, exciting” work to the client; it was just too dangerous, so they showed extremely “safe and comfortable” work. And they lost the business! Naturally “new and exciting” and “safe and comfortable” go together like oil and water. Did then, does now.
My particular favourite Della Femina fear story is of the time he brought a tape recorder into a creative review board. It filled the board with terror. None of them wanted their comments to be on record, it seems they talked about anything except the creative work. As Jerry says, “it represented truth”. Last thing anyone wants or wanted.
Altogether there are so many things Jerry talks about in the book that apply now.
The people who always agree with the boss or the client – constantly on the lookout for the signals – a twitch, a certain tone of voice, a small gesture – so they can neatly preempt the boss/client before he says “It stinks.”
Ad people who could smell a recession coming as the clients stop spending.
And how keen agencies were to fire expensive older people and hire relatively inexperienced people for salaries up to 75% less. He goes on to speculate that creative people over 40 are all on an island somewhere full of burnt-out writers and art directors.
He supposes that guys who are wigged-out write wigged-out stuff.
He posits that censorship, any kind of censorship, is pure whim and fancy.
And even back in 1971 he said “boutique advertising is the new advertising” because it means you’re going to be dealing with the man who owns the store.
And he ends the book with the greatest (and most debatable) ad quote; possibly of all time. “Advertising is the most fun you can have with your clothes on.”
If you can get a copy take a look. Keep it for another 40 years and see if things have changed in 2050. Even money – nothing will change.
PS: Jerry still has an agency named after him in New York, he runs restaurants, sits on boards and writes for magazines and papers. Clearly no longer wigged-out.
> Paul Loosley is an English person who has been in Asia 30 years, 12 as a creative director, 18 making TV commercials. And, as he still can’t shut up about advertising, he tends to write every month. Any feedback; mail
p.loosley@gmail.com (but only if fully dressed)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)