On October 12th, class is in session.
We are packing the day with keynotes and panels with prominent, insightful influencers and hands-on workshops led by our team of experts. No buzzwords, no BS—just straight to the business of influence.
Whether that's best business practices, crafting a unique perspective on your feed, we'll show you how to thrive in the classroom and in real life. A good mix of both is a must for success.
Our professors come from all walks of life — influencers and brands alike. They've found success and don't have plans on stopping anytime soon. You'll be learning from the best.
Stop by the Fohr office in SoHo to kick off the conference. Speakers, peers, and members of the Fohr team will be in attendance. Drinks and new friends are guaranteed.
Start your day off with breakfast and coffee from the Crosby. Catch up with your new friends before heading to class.
James Nord will kick the day off with opening remarks about the sessions ahead.
Sai De Silva is widely regarded by the industry andher peers as one of the best influencers around. Hear how she got to the level she's at whileremaining true to herself.
Influencers from different verticals discuss how they grew their following on YouTube and how they approach different social media channels.
He offers a unique point of view different from most athletes and influencers and he's committed to honing his craft day after day. It's no wonder that surrounding him is the company of top brands and highly creative peers. Learn from his example how to stay motivated and inspired.
As a lifestyle influencer and entrepreneur, Patrick has worked with brands like American Express and Grey Goose. He was able to grow his following to nearly 500k by forging strong brand relationships, and he will speak on the lessons he's learned along the way.
Tezza delves into her unique experience as a photographer and sheds light on how she experienced rapid growth in a time when growth overall has been stagnant. Be ready for advice and knowledge you can use right away.
Everyone's favorite school subject. Refresh and replenish with a spread from the Crosby before jumping into your next study session. Chat with peers, speakers, and the Fohr team.
With her illustrious pedigree and amazing experience, Erika, a crowd favorite from last year, returns to Fohr U. She and James Nord will pick up the conversation where they left off last year, taking a look at the influencer industry from a high level. They'll look at where it's been, and where it's going.
Our team will lead breakout sessions in their areas of expertise across themes of getting brand deals, content creation, negotiation and understanding analytics.
Igee Okafor will lead a panel of top menswear influencers in New York City. They'll discuss in depth how they've grown (in a time period when no one grows), how they understand (and double-down) on their niche, and how they use their "menswear" group to collectively raise each of their profiles. Even if you're not a menswear influencer, these business-minded yet artistic gentlemen will have something to teach anyone.
End the day with a keynote by Fohr CEO James Nord on the state of influencer marketing as we begin to look forward to 2019.
Time to relax—you've earned it! Put the books away and celebrate with a bottle or two of bubbly. Everyone loves a good graduation party.
Between Prince and Spring, The Crosby Street Hotel sits on a cobbled street in the heart of New York's vibrant SoHo neighborhood. Close to shopping, restaurants, and opportunities for spontaneous photo sessions.
Need to know more? Feel free to email us anytime.
What is Fohr U: School of Business & Influence?
It's a hands-on day of learning and networking tailored especially for influencers — macro and micro alike.
Why should I attend this conference?
This conference goes beyond influencer marketing. After all, you need a healthy balance of good business and creative influence to succeed in the industry. Take notes on general business advice and matters as specific as transitioning your feed to sponsored content. Who knows — you may even apply this stuff to your day job.
How do I register / buy tickets?
You can register and buy tickets on this site or click here.
In short: SoHo, New York City. To be specific: Crosby Street Hotel at 79 Crosby St, New York, NY 10012.
Are food and drink included?
Included in price of admission is a tasty breakfast and lunch provided by the Crosby on the day of the conference. At 5pm we'll switch to booze with an Happy Hour full of premium spirits. The day before, you're more than welcome to join us in our SoHo office for a Happy Hour to get acquainted with your fellow influencers and members of our team.
There will be about 100 people in attendance.
Tickets cost $300 pre-enrollment and $400 for general.
Guests will need to enroll themselves.
I work at a brand or agency. Can I attend?
You sure can, but do know that the day will be catered towards influencers. That being said, the insights we'll share will be useful for anyone in the business of influencer marketing.
Will there be a brand conference?
Yes! We actually held our brand conference, Fohr U: School of Arts & Sciences, earlier this year in June. Stay tuned for our next one. Brands can stay up to date by signing up to our mailing list here.
Do I have to stay the entire time?
You're more than welcome to come and go as you please.
Will there be any audio or video recordings?
There are currently no plans for any recordings.
Can I create content at the conference?
Of course! Just remember to tag us @fohr.co on Instagram or use #FohrU if you're into hashtags.
I'm an influencer on Fohr. Do I get a discount?
Unfortunately, we are unable to give discounts to Fohr users.
Yes! When you purchase your ticket in August, you have the option to pay in three installments. If you purchase in September, you can pay in two installments.


text:
Critique of Classic Rock.
When I drive I usually listen to classic rock stations. As a result, over the years I have internalized a man's despair as a primary marker of human condition, as this music genre has been a perfect medium to telegraph his existential ennui.
An unhappy man – the main hero of any rock song – searching for a culprit of his unhappiness, often turns his gaze to his romantic partner ('The Woman'). His lament can be broken down into following categories:
I come home from hard work and you're not home. (Santana, Led Zeppelin)
Why did you leave me, woman? (Allman Brothers, Led Zeppelin)
Can't get laid (ZZ Top)
Stay away, woman, I can't take you anymore (The Guess Who).
She's so annoying I have no choice but to kill her (Jimi Hendrix, Guns'n'Roses).
Maybe because the birth of rock coincided with the peak of Beat generation culture, with its heroes 'rebelling' against 'the system' by simply leaving women and children behind and running away from responsibilities by going 'on the road', it was easy for rock pioneers to designate a woman as the main culprit of a man's unhappiness. She was just the lowest hanging fruit. Still, it could have been worse. I think we have to give credit to classic rock bands for avoiding singling out the other usual suspects: minorities and immigrants. Even Lynyrd Skynyrd dodged a bullet there.
December 15, 2018 bearing light Deep thoughts, Off topic Leave a comment
Guest Post: Life for Yourself as a Way Towards Putinism.
(Below is a essay by Dmitry Ahtyrsky which originally was written in Russian. I helped translate it into English as I think its message is not only applicable to Russia, but to modern-day US, and it echoes a lot of what I was writing about recently but with more depth and insight.)
By Dmitry Ahtyrsky.
One of the central shortcomings of anti-Bolshevistic discourse of post-Soviet Russia during Perestroika was the gospel of the so-called 'life for yourself.' The old notion of serving the ideals has compromised itself, as those ideals turned out to be false, simulative, manipulative, and buffoonish. As a result, selfish cynicism has been declared to be an ideal condition. "Thoroughly chewing your food, you help the society."[1] Abstract economic doctrines of such economists as (Milton) Friedman's, which are regarded as either neo-liberal or neo-conservative and which state that your best contribution to society is to maximize your own profit, proved to be conveniently handy.
'Life for yourself' evangelists, however, have ignored the fact that the society in USSR has not been collectivist, but, on the contrary, it has been deeply atomized. A cog didn't serve in the interest of parts of the mechanism that comprised the machine. It didn't serve anyone at all; to be more precise, it served only in its appearance, without possessing an agency. A society is a society, as opposed to a mere collection of individuals, only when it includes free, voluntarily cooperating persons. Even if this collection of individuals as a whole serves a purpose, that purpose is not the well-being of the whole, but some external interests. Moreover, those interests are those of a deity or an evolutionary process, but, instead, of people, who, along with the power, have also appropriated the function of speaking on behalf of a deity, delivering the laws of God and/or Nature to the masses. Enthusiasm fueled by repression is false. Such conditions of reigning false enthusiasm nurture atomized, profit-seeking, self-interested egoists – and 'social' becomes a euphemism either for a direct coercion or corrupt interactions. In such a system the word 'corruption' means a 'corruption' of a coercive hierarchy rather than a disintegration of horizontal societal bonds – producing a maxim that 'the only thing worse than a corrupt totalitarian regime is a NON-corrupt totalitarian regime.' The absence of genuine horizontal collectives not overseen from above – the collectives of equal individuals – IS an absence of 'society'. As a result, every separate person in such a simulative 'society' resides in his own solitary confinement cell and can interact only with prison guards.
When such an atomized individual finally leaves the heavily structured system of control and domination – the system that has stimulated atomization, as opposed to collectivism – he's being invited to continue behaving in the same way he did under the false collectivism: "Live for yourself." What does such an invitation mean and where does it lead us given the absence of civil society and its institutions? Did those advocates understand that the emergence and operation of civil society are simply impossible in a world where such an egotistic manifest reaches its goal and plants itself in the mass consciousness of all those separate atoms, unaccustomed to critical thinking?
Naturally, those 'living for themselves' never became citizens. As a result, the 'civil rights' that they have received turned out to be no more than a simulation, a weak forgery prompting giggles from slave holders and slave traders. The 'freed' contingent failed to form a society. Individuals haven't learned how to be free, as this pseudo-freedom of an egoist offered neither equality nor brotherhood. In this egoistic pseudo-freedom there can be only masters and servants.
Instead of leading towards freedom, the hatred of all things 'social' led, instead, towards the 'new old slavery'. Unable to self-organize, the sheep found themselves not on greener pastures, but inside another corral. Civil society emerges only through free, uncoerced striving towards a common good, which is understood on the basis of a peer-to-peer networking consensus.
This striving towards the common good assumes a decidedly critical analysis of power. Resistance against such power that seeks to suppress and control by decomposing the social whole into atoms represents striving for the common good and not, as a authorities would like us to believe, an 'anti-social behavior'. Actual resistance is possible only in an atmosphere of mutual help and cooperation; only after this condition has been met can the emergent force – in the form of civic association – work with the 'administration.
One can argue that even the most selfless and idealistic knights, when they acquire power, could become tyrants. This can happen when there's a misperception that the structure of oppression can one day become 'ours', when people put their trust in it without any levers of control, hoping that, at last the 'wrongs will be righted.' They won't be. Civil society is a constant civic activism, constant peer-to-peer cooperation counteracting the corrupt and parochial social tendencies. Any state lacking such social activism will, in a very short time, become a fascist, totalitarian state.
It is precisely this kind of process that we're witnessing yet again. And Putin isn't even an initiator of it. Putinism is, among other things, a result of cynical-egoistical constructs that show contempt towards anything 'communal', that scorn any altruism. Constructs that are more fitting for a mob boss in a strictly enforced criminal hierarchy than for a free citizen.
By the way, any talk of "homeland" or, in a broader sense, of common good, is frequently understood as being about the rulers – in the words of Saltykov-Shchedrin "Many tend to confuse the two concepts: "Fatherland" and "Your Excellency," or, as an old Soviet adage goes, "In our country everything is for the good of a man, and I have even seen that man." The possible aversion (the consequence of the past simulations) towards the idea of common good can be compared to an attempt to cure a headache with a guillotine. Thus, Putinism, with its characteristic assessment of any social activity as 'everything is paid for' and 'everything is PR' is the logical extension of such egotistic denial of 'communal.' As it turns out, the exalted egoistic cynicism of 'free individuals-wolves' can effortlessly convert into 'extreme declaration of forced jubilation' at the appearance of the master.
Let's not confuse 'common good' with 'Your Excellency'. Let's not forget that the word 'republic' literally means 'common affair.' The existence of this 'common affair' and the shared efforts in the name of 'common good' is precisely what enables a person to be free, to possess individual freedom, as well as freedom of choice and a claim to privacy. Refusal of the 'communal' destroys the 'private', producing the atomized lack of individual space. Under slavery both the common and the private cease to be. A slave lacks both individuality and society.
An egoistic cynic will, inevitably, conclude that a 'bad master' can be rid of by means of a 'good master.' Such cynic is ready to accept a mediocre master if that means protection from social chaos. This dynamic will continue until social cynicism is overcome. True freedom is only possible within an amiable, friendly framework, in the openness towards an equally free and respected Other. Such openness yields real, as opposed to simulative, society. And this openness transforms an atom into a person.
[1] A popular quote from a Soviet satire 'Twelve Chairs' by I.Ilf and E. Petrov
November 28, 2018 bearing light Deep thoughts, Philosophy Leave a comment
The Grand Inquisitor, the Strong, and the Weak.
The dilemma raised in the Grand Inquisitor passage of Brothers Karamazov can be summed up as such: Can people come to 'love thy neighbor as yourself' on their own, without being prodded either by whip or by carrot, or, in Dostoyevsky's words, by authority or by bread? Can they be good without witnessing miracles or submitting to an authority?
This is a monumental ask. An average working man can barely take care of himself. We see weak, scared people around us everywhere. How can we ask of them to reject their simple, undemanding comforts to take care of a stranger or mind some higher ideals? Such a demand, Grand Inquisitor argues, should be made only of a strong person, the one who understands and can handle that understanding both physically and mentally. It's not easy to do, even for the strong. Grand Inquisitor is a strong person but not in a sense that he can bend the weaker people to his will (although he can certainly do it through the authority vested in him). His strength rests in recognition that such weakness exists in most people (rather than pretending, like libertarians, that it doesn't), reconciling with it and availing himself to do the dirty, ungrateful job himself: being a guide to the weak, depraved and scared of freedom masses, to provide them security and happiness in exchange for freedom.
Happiness in this context is different from the way we view happiness. In Grand Inquisitor's world human happiness is an abdication of responsibility, of having to make tough decisions. It is a faculty that is better relegated to the figure of authority. And really, we know many people who have handed over that capacity (to be happy) to others.
In his own way, Grand Inquisitor is right: he views his job as a burden that he has to carry in order to relieve the unwashed masses from having to think and take responsibilities – attributes (or side effects) that come with freedom. He saves the weak from having to live in freedom, which they, as he demonstrated to Jesus, can't handle on their own. But Jesus is also right: What good is 'goodness' if it is mandated or ordered by an authority? What if people only love their brother out of fear of a vengeful deity in the afterlife or a state/church authority in this life? Can people be good on their own free will? Jesus, by refusing to show miracles or wield authority, deliberately erred on the side of a free choice or free will of anyone to come to the conclusion that we're all brothers and we have to love each other.
Is Jesus then the voice of the strong few and Grand Inquisitor – the voice of the weak many? This conclusion would flatter those who think of themselves as strong. Not only do they find themselves on top of the worldly hierarchy, they are also invited to think of themselves as doing God's work.
But if you're also a thinking person, the implications of the Grand Inquisitor/Jesus metaphor are so horrendous, so bone-chilling and so threatening to your daily way of life that, upon understanding the core of this argument (that if you choose to be free you essentially become an outcast), the only sensible course of action is to forget you ever read this and retreat back into the world of busyiness and daily errands. And that's what billions of us do. Career, family, sports, TV shows, travel, weekend BBQ. Proving Dostoyevsky right yet again: that we're the feeble-minded creatures of routine, that we're indeed the weak who, when given a choice, prefer Grand Inquisitor's world order to Jesus's.
This sticky psychological residue, this constant cosmic and public directive to be 'doing something' haunts me from time to time to this day. It's impossible to shed it completely, as I'm a product of my time and our contemporary values, which I've diligently internalized and excelled at for decades.
I remember how disdainful I was towards the what I considered 'rabble' during my subway commute to and from work. I understand now that my short tolerance for the riff-raff was borne out of my own misery, although I would deride anyone who would've pointed that out to me at the time. Of course, I considered myself strong, because of the shit I had to deal with on the trading desk, the kind of shit the unwashed couldn't even come close to comprehending. My definition of 'strength' was itself faulty. I equated it with my social position and the efforts I undertook to get there.
But, in Jesus's terms, strength is a mental preparedness for a life of obscurity and nothingness. This preparedness is what frees you from the toxic treadmill. It's the ability to say 'fuck it' and disappear into the woods or into the desert. It's very hard to do. Smart, driven but weak people, like for example hedge funders and tech bros, understand it, if only subconsciously, when they accumulate real estate in Vermont or in New Zealand, hoping to, one day, enjoy the serene beauty and solitude after years on the battlefield. Of course that day never comes because, according to our modern day ethos, abandonment of the game is an admission of defeat, an anathema. Fear to appear weak is a driving force behind ambition and is a definition of weakness. The entire Trump administration reeks of that fear.
The strong among us are those who are not afraid to be labeled losers. It's those few who either abandoned the conventional rat race or were never part of it to begin with. It takes either balls or total insanity to do it. Jon Stewart, who left his successful and beloved show to tend a rescue animals farm. Crazy cat ladies. Priests – genuine kind, not the pedophiles and the pseudo pious (Pharisees). The social workers. The hermits. Artists who create art for art's sake. Everyone who's involved in an activity that would get a condescending giggle from a run-of-the-mill New York cocktail party crowd.
Is it possible to be strong and stay in the game? Yes, if you do it for others. This way you become a Grand Inquisitor.
October 24, 2018 bearing light Deep thoughts, Off topic, Philosophy Leave a comment
My 2008 Trading Journal.
Trading journal 2008
I can't believe it's been 10 years since Lehman collapse. The one thing that is usually lost in the conversation about 2008 is that it was all over before 2008. The time to be short was 2007, before the term 'subprime' made it into the mainstream conversation.
Looking back it's easy to say we saw what was coming. Our desk was mainly short throughout the entire 2007 and parts of 2008, and even though we were overall bearish, none of us could have estimated the scale of what's to come. No bear, no matter how prescient, could have foreseen the magnitude of the carnage. We thought that no matter how bad it is, it was going to be contained within our market. What lack of imagination! One can have the wrong trade on; one can have the right trade on; and then one can have the right trade on without even knowing why he's right. I thought I was right because I saw shitty collateral and overleverage. Turns out I was right because I underestimated the indolence and infantilism and cynicism of people at the top. I thought they were buying residual pieces for yield. Turns out they were buying those pieces to squeeze a few remaining points from the already dying beast, to keep the game rolling on fumes just for a few more months.
To build the logical chain of events that could unfold, the upcoming avalanche from layers upon layers of leverage and stupidity and short-term self-interest, that would require more than a Math PhD or an MBA. In fact, the logic itself was a flawed tool of assessment under those circumstances. A student of human frailty and irrationality, a philosopher was needed then. But philosophy was in short supply on the trading floors.
But back then I, and everybody else were immersed in the minutia of hourly quotes and moves on Bloomberg screen. That was my world and nothing existed outside of it. Check out a few pages of my journal. You'll see daily, hourly oscillations between feeling important and useless. You'll find glee interchanged with despair; exhilaration followed by frustration and self-hatred. I was killed and resurrected several times over the course of the day. Surviving the vicious vagaries of market mistakenly lead you to award yourself some super powers, some kind of Heart of Darkness-style battle weariness – a mental compensation for a pathetic indoor life of spreadsheets and numbers and fluorescent air-conditioned offices.
The irony is that we thought we knew everything about the world. The idea was that those who can't define what a CDS is should not render their opinion, simply because they don't know what's going on. That feeling of omniscience and superiority was borne out of proximity to and usage of obscure tools and familiarity with indecipherable terms that could have enormous impact on any aspect of a layman's life. Stepping out from the office onto the busy New York street, I always looked at those unsuspecting pedestrians with pity and wondered how can they go about their business without knowing what was coming? If only they knew that bid-offers that were ticks apart yesterday were points apart today! Do you even know what that means?! We thought that in our exclusive corners, with mechanisms that set the whole world in motion we were modern day bond vigilantes. Bond vigilantes! We were weeks away from coming hat in hand to politicians who couldn't even understand what the fuck we were talking about.
And in the end, we fucked it all up. And the little guy, as always, was left to foot the bill.
August 27, 2018 bearing light Deep thoughts, Philosophy, Wall Street Leave a comment
On Beauty, the Good, and the Value of Abstract Thought.
Who can say with certainty what beauty is? Today beauty is not a mutually shared value, but an individual property, it's in the 'eye of the beholder'. But what if the 'beholder' is wrong?
While we're skilled at assigning value to many events or properties, we prefer to render our opinion using tangible indicators. With formulas or a monetary gauge, the outcome is black and white and doesn't require any sort of torturous, ambiguous weighing of pros and cons. The critics can be shut down by a simple retort: it's just math.
We are on much shakier ground, however, when we attempt to assign value to events of philosophical nature: things that are good or bad, right and wrong.
Like beauty, which is hard to define but easy to point out, the right and the wrong are abstractions, escaping a definition. We know it when we see it.
I know that Ancient Greek statues and Renaissance paintings are beautiful. To know this I don't need to rely on technical measurements. Classical art evokes stronger emotions and a sense of awe. It invites contemplation and promotes selfless thoughts. It represents universal humanity and its collective struggles and victories. However, when we observe a piece of postmodernist art, like, say, a shark in a formaldehyde tank, we're not invited to ponder what it represents or what it's meant to evoke or inspire. The value of a Damien Hirst's shark tank, unlike that of a Renaissance painting, is rather in its originality, in that 'no one has thought of that before'. Novelty and originality are cute, but they are not synonymous with beauty. Novelty art may carry a shock or entertainment value but it does not bring out something that is 'unsaid but strongly felt'. But, novelty aside, there's a more trenchant analysis of value here: we're asked to marvel at the commercial value of the entity: what it was sold for and who bought it. Against such an ironclad argument one will be hard pressed to mount an adequate objection.
Because of this overreliance, either out of fear or out of habit, on the technical tools to assess the intangibles and abstractions (like beauty), we have developed a 'spiritual' disability. We're afraid or unable to declare that something is 'wrong' or 'ugly', because then we would be forced to make our case without relying on our preferred methods of argument. In order for our argument to be heard and taken seriously, we would have to show that what we think is wrong is 'unprofitable'. But what if ugliness is profitable? How do we make our case then?
This discomfort with abstractions has broader implications. It seeps into and corrupts our public life.
The spirit of law is routinely violated even when the letter of law is upheld. Technically many criminals, especially white collar ones, are found to have done nothing wrong, and yet we often feel that the justice has not been served. How do we get that feeling? The law was upheld, we should accept it and go on with our business. But that feeling of a lack of closure, that some wrong hasn't been righted doesn't leave us. No law was broken when banks structured and sold mortgage-backed securities to gullible customers. The same bankers could not be touched or stripped of their bonuses because they were bound by contracts. The sanctity of contracts is sacred under the law and is indifferent to public ire. A decade later, the President of the United States pardons a conspiracy peddler and a racist felon. Technically, all of the above abides the letter of the law, but violates the spirit of the law. This spirit is something that we struggle to define even when we feel its validity and importance. Here, our reliance on numbers and technology and the letter of law gave an opening to clever, self-serving charlatans: they appeal to our reason to get away with crime. Reason, they say, tells us we have to move on. We nod, as if under a spell, and move along.
One can argue that it's quite a big leap from Damien Hirst's art to the pardoning of Joe Arpaio. I think these two are connected, two sides of the same coin. It's a libertine ethos, when things are done simply because they can be done. It's the proverbial "everything is allowed" Karamazovian lament. This mode of thinking and operating, that ugliness and beauty are the same because both can be profitable, has debased our moral radar: we have forgotten how to discern the good from the bad. And it's not like we were very good at it to begin with, but at least back in the day we could use religion is a guide – a poor and violent guide, sure, but one that facilitated a communal, agreed upon appreciation of things that can not be measured by P&L. Today we don't even have that.
This intellectual capitulation creates social apathy and sense of hopelessness. The apathy, in turn, opens the door for various self-serving hucksters.
Technocratic arguments are routinely and skillfully deployed to wear us down, to make us doubt our own assessments. The poor can not be helped because 'numbers'. The rich needs another tax cut because 'growth'. 'Numbers' and 'growth' are magic words, near-religious incantations coming out of the Koch brothers pantheon, that are tailored to shut down any nascent public debate. And, indeed, how can one counter 'numbers' and 'growth' with 'feelings' and 'spirit'? He will be laughed out of the room.
We're in a bind here. If ugliness and beauty are the same because both can be profitable how do we discern one from the other? Furthermore, if one, against all odds, is capable to arrive at conclusion about what 'good' is, he will not only face a lack of available avenues to address the disbalance, but a whole variety of social, economic and political impediments that prevent him from acting out the 'good.'
A few years ago on this blog I ruminated on the concept of freedom and I arrived at the definition of freedom as the ability to be a good citizen. And how can one be a good citizen today? Does that also follow that without the ability to know beauty we can not be free?
August 9, 2018 bearing light Deep thoughts, Off topic, Philosophy, Religion Leave a comment
Impunity As a Result of 80s and 90s Pop Culture.
"The wicked flee when no one pursueth."
Being an adult in the room has not been cool for several decades, since about 1970s, I'd estimate. The last movie about an adult in the room – a sober, responsible government official who defeats the bad guy was probably 'Jaws'. Since then it's all been downhill.
The 1980s were the worst offender. "Why do you have to wreck the company?" Charlie Sheen asks Michael Douglass in 'Wall Street'. "Because it's wreckable!" he snaps back. And with this, he embodied the spirit that has been haunting us ever since.
In the beloved 1980s teenage comedy "Ferris Bueller's Day Off' we're asked to sympathize with Ferris – a rebellious but smooth teenager whose quest to skip school is impeded by numerous antagonists: school principal and his nagging sister. It's a cool, funny movie that I used to enjoy watching. But the more I think about it now (thinking is really a fun killer – you've been warned) the more I sympathize with a worry-wart Cameron and Ferris's older sister, rather than a free-wheeling, fuck-the-rules Ferris. Cameron is actually a much more complex character because he had some semblance of a development arc. Ferris ends up his day in the same way he started it: a spoiled brat never to be held accountable by anyone. This movie, along with a bunch of other classics like Animal House and Caddyshack are 1980s version of 'move fast and break things' mindset of a modern day.
Then came the 90s with Goodfellas (still watch it every time it's on), Glengarry Glenross (Alec Baldwin kills it!), and again, we were asked to relate to and even hold as paragons of a certain postmodernist virtue, characters who break the rules and/or assert power by sheer force or insult. But it is written so well, by such talented writers, and played so brilliantly, that it's hard to look away. It's just fun, it's over-the-top for dramatic effect, why even bother overanalyzing it?
Even more recently, in The Hangover, one of the villains was a character's nagging wife, bent on spoiling the guys' fun. The existence of such a caricature makes it easy for a male character to abandon responsibility when there's a 'big bad mommy'-type out there whose sole purpose is to stifle guys' (and they're almost always guys) freedom and fun. 'Big bad mommy' represents not necessarily a female force, but is a stand in for an overweening government, a 'big brother'. If you want to write a buddy comedy, but have to adhere to basic screenwriting rules that require you to have an antagonist, such a trope villain (a nagging wife, an obsessive school principal) is the lowest hanging fruit, but it always works. It's easy to write, easy for an audience to understand, and easy for many to relate to, as in their daily grind they, too, fight their own version of a 'big bad mommy.'
But who and what's there to rebel against now? Who is the 'nagging wife' in our lives today? A 'Big bad mommy' doesn't run things anymore. Evil clowns from 'It', like Stephen Miller, do. But the appeal of rebelliousness didn't go anywhere. A man has been told that he has to rebel against someone or something, otherwise his life will lack meaning. If, instead of being a feckless high school student, you're finding yourself to be an adult in the room, to hold all the reigns of power, the game stops being fun because then you are asked for accountability. But, as we learned over the decades of pop-culture message, guys can not be held accountable and should, instead, be praised and even mimicked for their unorthodox way of skirting responsibility.
The late Christopher Hitchens was obsessed with women's ability to kill a man's fun. Oh, I used to love Hitch, I thought he was, like, the smartest guy I ever read. (Made me think that if I was 25 today, I'd probably be reading up Jordan Peterson and marveling at his brilliance). Hitch was incredibly skillful with words and precision, and gave his thick sentences double, triple meaning. Now, since I'm in the middle of deconstructing our treasured pop culture icons, I find him to be an example of incredible talent and rare wordsmanship wasted on the service of excusing one's anti-social behavior by manufacturing an artificial villain.
Of course, a 'big bad mommy' prototype does not have to be a literal mother or a wife. It is a gray-suited government official, an SEC bureaucrat, a DMV worker, even a Nurse Ratchet – anyone who makes the proverbial trains run on time, keeps order in an institution. I added Nurse Ratchet on the list because the villain of an iconic Milos Forman's movie (my favorite movie for a period of time) was a metaphor for totalitarianism, but today we suffer from a different ailment: chaos. We do not live in a world where our dreams of freedom are being stifled by sadistic nurses; we live in a world where the lunatics have overtaken the asylum. Again, I invite you to think of Jack Nicholson's character – a rebellious man totally devoid of any responsibility. And again, this is the kind of role models we grew up with and internalized. Is there any wonder then that people 'running' things (I intentionally put 'running' in quotes) prefer to think of themselves as victims yearning to break free? Break free from what? From liberals calling them names?
Hillary was an ultimate stand in for a 'nagging wife' type. She was that school principal that could, should she have won, hold at least some of the 'Ferris Buellers' accountable. She presented not just political but existential threat to our schoolyard order (or rather lack of it). And this could not be allowed to happen.
So, who should be the villain then, you might ask. Good scripts and good stories are those that, in addition to or rather instead of, external villain, focus on the internal demons of the character. Someone's fear manifesting as aggression. Someone's insecurity manifesting as bravado. Someone's 'unresolved childhood trauma' manifesting as cruelty. The dark forces we fight are within us. The bottom line is, no one is really trying to 'get' us. "Wicked flee where no one pursueth." But how do you have fun then, when no one 'pursueth' you?
June 18, 2018 bearing light Deep thoughts, Philosophy, screenwriting Leave a comment
The other day a senior White House official, Kelly Sadler, made a comment about ailing Sen. McCain: "It doesn't matter. He's dying anyway." Sadler was referring to McCain's advanced cancer in the context of his opposition and thus a possible 'no' vote on a confirmation of another woman of questionable morals, Gina Haspel, Trump's nominee for CIA director. One wonders: how can a public official or just any human being display such a lack of basic decency? What is it that has the capacity to make us into such assholes?
A moment of self-reflection brought back the memories of my early days on Wall Street. Back in a heyday, long before the shit hit the fan, there was a feature in the mortgage bonds called 'prepayment penalty.' Prepayment risk was one of the several risks of holding a mortgage bond. Still innocent about the ways of Wall Street, I couldn't initially grasp what exactly was the problem when the borrower pays off the mortgage early. I was quickly disabused of my naivete by a shrewd and seasoned co-worker: that risk meant that a bondholder would have to reinvest that money at a different, probably lower rate. So naturally, the bondholders wanted to get compensated for carrying that risk. Thus Wall Street, he enlightened me, came up with a brilliant solution: prepayment penalty paid by the borrower. With this observation he accomplished two things: he revealed how the real world works, and how still unprepared I was for being a player in that world. As this new piece of info sinked in, I gazed upon the buzzing trading floor in embarrassment at my own inadequacy: these were all killers and I didn't think like a killer. This is how you were supposed to think: if a borrower is late on his mortgage – he pays a penalty; if he's early – he still pays a penalty. You get to write these rules, you get a chicken for dinner every time. It's almost like these masters of the universe WANTED the unwitting borrower to make a mistake; no, worse – in a cruel twist they also wanted to punish him for a prudent individual conduct. Why? Because this way they collect more fees. Of course, this industry would soon forget how it sought to punish a borrower for his attempt at paying off his debts and would blame the whole thing on him being a shiftless deadbeat. But that reckoning was still years away. At that moment, I was determined to become a killer like them.
Where am I going with this? Once I learned about this clever mechanism I didn't feel outraged. It didn't cause any internal conflict. What it produced instead was a self-satisfied chuckle, a realization that I was on the other, winning, side of this trade. It felt like an initiation into a special club. That it was I who, directly or indirectly, stood to benefit from all those poor schmucks who played by the rules written by 'us'. Yes, at that point I have considered myself to belong to 'Us', the winners. I mean I was smart and worked 14-hour days and took plenty of abuse to get there, so, surely, I deserved it. In a set up like this it was just a matter of time before a disparaging word or a caustic comment towards the losers would slip off the tip of my tongue. I became a good cog.
Women like Kelly Sadler – also a good, loyal cog, blond and pretty and useful to the regime in many capacities, are often predisposed to not understand a toxic dynamic happening before her eyes, because her current status and a future lobbying career depend on not understanding it. She can smell that power the way I could smell that money.
The moment of initiation into a special exclusive club is the moment you lose your internal moral compass. Grateful of the rare privilege you want to prove being worthy of the membership. In the company of powerful men the misfortunes of the distant others is an odd topic to bring up. At best it will create suspicion about you having the right qualifications, about you having an understanding of the mission at hand. At worse, you'll risk expulsion. Smart club administrators seek to invite new members from humble origins, minorities, women. They know those will be the best, most ruthless and most dedicated defenders of the club's mission. The sense of belonging, of a need to belong, will trump the sense of right and wrong in most people most of the time. And indeed, throughout the history, women, especially white, privileged women, have been the loyal foot soldiers and defenders of the worst atrocities.
Kelly Sadler's comment, put in that context, is a logical and totally predictable occurrence. She wasn't thinking about McCain, or his family or even about how this will sound, should it ever come out, to an outside public. All she did was channel what everyone in that room was thinking. Judging by those standards she's proved worthy of the membership.
May 12, 2018 bearing light Deep thoughts, Feminism, Wall Street 1 Comment
Eagles Win
Eagles. Broad St Philly pic.twitter.com/4OocyhtE4i
— Jason Cohen (@PokerJason) February 5, 2018
It was heart, not brains that fueled massive celebrations last night in Philly after Eagles win. It was the same kind of heart that makes people go to Times Square on NYE at freezing temperatures. Perhaps it was the same kind of irrationality that made people pull the lever for Trump. It defies rational analysis. People climbed poles that have been greased and turned over cars. Why? If you asked them they would holler ecstatically and incoherently in your face but would not give you an answer. Any verbal means of expression would feel awfully inadequate under that unique circumstance.
Eric Hoffer in his book 'The True Believer' dissects the above sentiment to its basic elements. Human irrationality and passions are a phenomenon with a much bigger political and social implications than we, especially on the left, are willing to assign to it. He points out many culprits, but central of them all is the desire to belong to a cause, often combined with the lack of other channels of expression for one's personal passions.
To express oneself with words, the kind of words that will telegraph one's personal sentiments with 100% precision is a skill that takes time to learn and practice. It would be a big ask of a rough-and-tumble, starved for victory blue collar Philly crowd. It is this inability to express oneself that manifests itself in physical form during significant political or social events.
I saw the amount of pent up energy being released yesterday that would put to shame any other march or celebration that I've seen before, and I've seen a lot. Obama victory in 2008 comes close, and I still remember and relish that magic and camaraderie in the air, but it does not come nowhere near to a high-octane, visceral, shambolic riot ("a Russian riot – senseless and ruthless") of a first ever Super Bowl win.
If I had to pick one defining characteristic to describe a sports fan whose drought has been broken? A lack of irony. A lack of irony expressed in the irrational. I like that. It's pure art. A good piece of art lacks irony. To be ironic is to be unsure about the resulting effect on the audience, thus deploying irony as a shield against a possible misunderstanding. Why should I then take such an artist or an author or a person at his word?
Those riff-raff on the streets last night, climbing greased poles, turning cars and eating horse manure? Oh, there was zero irony there. It was beautiful. It was like winning WWII. It was beautiful because it was driven by heart and defied any classification and any explanation. I watched the spectacle from my apartment trying to find appropriate words. It was a tall order, even though I spent years perfecting my writing skills – a pastime that teaches you descriptive rigor, which in turn teaches you things about yourself. (One of the side effects of this process was the realization that I dislike Russian rock music. Because, you guessed it, it's ironic.) But I digress. To ask that euphoric mob 'how do you feel' would be to insult them. That would be asking them to use a medium of expression that lacks adequate conducive qualities.
Mining that irrationality of the crowd is a skill currently perfected by hucksters. It is used to sell us stuff and make us vote for conmen. Can Democrats relearn to harness those forces for the common good next November?
February 6, 2018 bearing light Deep thoughts, Philosophy Leave a comment
A Trader Learns About the Universe
If a question was posed to me ten years ago, at my professional peak, whether a tree makes a sound if it falls in the woods with no one around, I'd pause, wondering whether the questioner had too much spare time on his hands or was just being a dick, then, with a stare and a tone tailored to let him know that he's an idiot, I'd answer with a smug "Of course it does. Now fuck off" and go back to my Bloomberg.
Back then I practiced what I called a 'pragmatic practicality' philosophy. That pragmatic, no-nonsense worldview came in handy for the low-brow (albeit pretend, ironic low-brow), hustling, locker room world of a trading floor, with its references to Goodfellas and Airplane! and Caddyshack. I thought I have found all the answers – and they resided in science and logic, in numbers and common sense. Never a philosopher I worshipped reason; Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins were authorities on thought and staples in my modest library – modest, you see, because no time to read – with highlighted passages and main arguments memorized as I prepared myself for a random argument with an imaginary religious person: If your god is omnipotent can he create a stone that he himself can't lift? If God loves us why does he allow the unimaginable sufferings in this world? The burden of proof is on you to prove His existence, not on me to prove the negative. Check, mate. Pretty solid.
Ironically, it was quantum mechanics – a discipline of physics – that put cracks in my philosophical certainty. The conventional Newtonian physics failed to provide a satisfying answer to a few things, one among them is a problem of conscience. As a busy person with no time to ponder I tucked it into the farthest mental compartment to be dealt with later. That part, which I now know is called 'the Hard Problem', deals with an elusive but stubborn problem of consciousness origins. Not the mechanical part, which merely explains how the neurons interact with each other and how information received through eyes and ears is stored in the brain. Hard Problem deals with figuring out how those physical processes produce thought, and more importantly, feelings of awe and other irrational human emotions. How does that neural interaction produce goosebumps when I hear a, say, David Gilmour's sick guitar riff? Is it similar to a Catholic nun crying rapturously after meeting the Pope? Are these experiences rooted in the same place, even though she's religious and I'm not? This has put me into intellectual stupor.
Beauty after the rain on a random drive.
Just as Hitchens and Dawkins like to portray religion as a safety blanket used by those who are afraid to search for answers, my worship of scientific reason was no different: a subconscious search for certainty so that I can get on with my life. Psychologically it was the same security blanket, but only for those who are too smart to believe in the supernatural.
Well, I am too smart to believe in the supernatural, but at some point I also acknowledge that my scientific inflexibility manifested the other side of the same coin – fear of the unknown. I wanted to know, but instead of fairy tales I wanted formulas.
That search led me to quantum physics – a series of books for beginners and YouTube videos, where formulas revealed a world functioning under a totally different set of rules – rules that are incompatible with our standard understanding of the physical world. A world where the presence (or absence) of the observer affects the subsequent events. This is where the 'tree in the woods' quiz came up again. This time I wasn't so sure it made a sound: if there's no ear or any sort of receiver, the sound wave simply dissipates without being captured. Thus no sound! A devotee of logic I couldn't argue with that.
Mouth agape I kept reading. Some things were too hard to comprehend, like the entangled particles phenomenon, where two particles no matter how far from each other behave in a simultaneous manner. You observe one particle and its twin, which, no matter the distance between them, act in total unison with each other. There's not even a fraction of a millisecond between their moves. Einstein called this phenomenon a 'Spooky action at a distance.' Or take even the simple concept of space: would we even know what space is if it was empty; if there were no objects in the universe would it be possible for us to know the difference between a centimeter and a million miles? A working person, in a numbing daily grind, doesn't think about this stuff at all. Well, I have time to think about it now – so I should.
Atlantic City, inviting to contemplation.
So how do these findings – that the universe is an observer-dependent entity, square off with our philosophical longings?
The philosophical questions arise from our mental facilities. Subatomic particles act out in a manner that suggests a link between our thoughts and their behavior. Our neural circuitry has the power to form reality. Our reality is a collapsed wave function of probabilities. We were given tools, unlike animals, to ponder our existence. The problem is we were given the tools but no instruction manual. If we didn't have conscience then there would be no such concepts as morality and the good and the bad, just like there's no morals in the animal kingdom. Lions eating an antelope is neither good nor bad. But we, humans, we were given a hammer; there must be a nail somewhere.
In a nutshell that was the logic behind Kant's Categorical Imperative. To put Kant in simple terms, he posited that because we possess a faculty of reason we should use it to discern good from bad. (As an aside, this kind of thinking is incompatible with the way Wall Street thinks: everything is looked at through the profit angle. On Wall Street, like in an animal kingdom, there is no right or wrong; whatever makes money is right. Which is, if you think about it further, a sad commentary on a bunch of super smart guys suppressing their ample mental facilities and their sense of wonderment at the altar of profit. But deep down they know they're too smart for this shit. This dissonance manifests itself in odd ways like 'radical transparency' and 'transcendental meditation' – pseudo-philosophies whose sole purpose is not enlightenment but profit. A vicious circle.)
But there are things that exist outside our thoughts. While out thoughts change the outcome of a quantum experiment they can not change certain abstract concepts like mathematical formulas. They exist outside of our mental realm.
Abandoned Railway in Philly
If we accept Kant's notion that there IS such a thing as 'the right thing to do' and it is as certain as a mathematical concept that exists even if we don't think of it (2+2 = 4 even before we were born and will remain so after we die), then our duty as sentient species is to find out what it is.
But how? How do we get to determine what is good and what is bad. This is where the science fails. How does one proceed further then?
I think it is the confluence of science, philosophy and arts (particularly literature) – the trifecta – that should be employed to help us understand our predicament. The three disciplines should be given equal weight; each alone can never be sufficient enough for our inquiry. Traditional science explains the mechanics of the world; quantum physics elevates the role of the observer; philosophy poses the questions we have to (no, must!) ask ourselves as sentient beings; and literature frames the human existence into a context which in turn helps us to categorize the events and give them moral meaning.
Don't you already feel like a fugitive from Plato's cave seeing the light for the first time? After thinking this way there is no going back.
So what does that all mean? Is there good or bad and how does one have to live? Again and again through history, people from different walks of live who ever embarked on contemplating on this question came up with similar answer. An atheist Tolstoy and a religious Dostoyevsky have similar conclusions: the suffering that we see around us is not indicative of a vengeful deity nor of a singular depravity of a human soul. It is but inevitable part of our existence, like a crest of a wave would not be a crest without a trough. Without the bad we would not know what good is. But, still if we MUST know what is good, certain classics might help. Tolstoy found meaning in the irrational; Dostoyevsky found meaning in loving others.
I like this idea. I like the idea of meaning in the irrational – that is things that carry no profit or fame. Can you put a price on a sense of awe?
September 14, 2017 bearing light Deep thoughts, Philosophy, Religion 2 Comments
Certitude vs Doubt
I find it interesting that many Republican politicians, upon leaving public office, undergo a curious transformation. Their right-wing fervor subsides, they mellow out and turn into normal, reasonable, even compassionate human beings. Look at Bush II and Schwarzenegger. Such post-factum metamorphoses don't befall Democrats; retired Dems don't become hardline pro-life, supply-siders and foreign policy hawks after leaving office. Such ideological shift is a purely Republican phenomenon. I won't be the first to conclude that right-wing politics is a total act, a show. Fox News would be a prime example of such a glittering, buffoonish arcade, selling Tarot reading to the gullible. In fact, this 'total act' theory holds up if you look at how any of the GOP and its satellite outfits operate: they put on a show to sell you a product. And when a right-wing pundit or a politician leaves the racket he doesn't have to be a salesman anymore. Thus the subsequent mellowing. A John Kasich is more likely to become a hippie upon retirement than a Chuck Schumer to become a hardliner. Democrats believe in their product, thus they have no need for a later change of heart; Republicans merely use their product as a tool, easily discarded when no longer useful for business.
Right-wing politics is an act that doesn't require special training. All it requires is a projection of certitude. Perhaps such certitude is why it is easy, for a liberal, for the sake of argument or for fun, to assume the role of a conservative. We can make ourselves sound like Bill O'Reilly without any effort. Hell, a Fox News personality is an easy game. To take it a few notched up on a difficulty scale, any leftie in my circle can provide a lucid, informed argument, quoting both dead and living conservative intellectuals and sound like William F. Buckley in the process. Normally, they would be talking about personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, etc. They would be quoting Burke, Hayek, Ayn Rand, Grover Norquist, etc. We'd talk about the deterioration of traditional values and sound like Frum and Brooks and Charles Murray. Of course, that doesn't mean we would agree with the argument we were making; it means that we are informed enough to be able to make it, to assume that kind of mindset, to see where the other side is coming from. An average informed liberal, if asked, can defend conservatism better than an average conservative. We just don't want to.
Conservatives are incapable of a similar role-play. A conservative's attempt to play a liberal would quickly deteriorate into making an over-the-top caricature: "Let's put all the disabled Muslim lesbians on welfare; let's abort all babies; let's take all the guns away!" Conservatives are incapable of speaking the language of liberalism, even for the sake of gamesmanship, because that language eschews simplicity. Liberalism is an awareness of the essential duality of a human nature. If conservatives made an honest attempt to speak liberal, honest being the key word, it would make them pause and ponder, which would then prevent them from engaging in a half-assed, mocking affectation. (Btw, that also explains why the majority of actors and screenwriters are lefties: they are required, by their trade, to ponder what it's like to walk in someone else's shoes). A conservative worldview, like a Jerry Bruckheimer movie, is a rather simplistic, one-dimensional realm where bad guys are bad and the good guys are good. A well-written conservative character, on the other hand, would, through a personal accident or a personal flaw, begin to see others' humanity, not just his own. A priest who doubts the existence of God; a Wall Street shark who finds Jesus – you get the idea. Real life makes that happen to a conservative, but not before he leaves the circus for good. On twitter I follow several former Bush staffers and GOP operatives who don't hold any public office anymore, and all of them have undergone a massive turn of heart. Today they sound like bleeding-heart liberals, talking about helping the poor, forgiveness, compassion, etc.
A thoughtful argument of a conservative trying to imitate a liberal would go something like this: Personal responsibility is a great idea, but there will always be people among us who will need help. As a society, we can't leave them on the side of the road. Free markets is also a good idea but they can't function properly without at least some regulations: the vulnerable must be protected from the unscrupulous and the contracts need to be enforced. These functions need government interference. Abortion is bad, but banning it is antithetical to individual liberty – a revered conservative notion, btw. Religion has a place in society but should be kept private and if you must bring it up in public life, focus on its calls for mercy rather than on a watchful, vengeful Deity.
To come up with these arguments a conservative would be forced to think about a particular circumstance, an individual story, a person behind the statistic. But nuance and ambivalence don't sell. Simplicity and certitude do. Today's Republicans operate on such a contrived certitude; they claim to know how things should be, and the reason things are not this way is because the pure, unentangled experiment in their minds has not yet been tried. If you point out that it has, like in Kansas, they will counter that we should just give it more time. Paul Ryan knows, just knows, that health care for every American is a certain road to serfdom. Why? He just knows.
If Paul Ryan were to write a story, his main character would be devoid of a pensive, wistful state. If that character were to find himself thinking, it would be about how to maximize profits or defeat the baddies. His life story would be a cookie-cutter amalgam of hard work, overcoming adversity, becoming rich and driving into the sunset in a convertible. There would be no underlying theme, no personal struggle, no moral ambivalence.
For the foreseeable future Republicans will keep successfully selling their product; they have perfected the trade over the decades and they have a talented salesman. In the meantime, Democrats can ponder about the following narrative: an effete hipster from Brooklyn moves South, buys a gun and becomes a badass.
April 2, 2017 bearing light Deep thoughts, Philosophy, Republicans, screenwriting Leave a comment

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


can help. Perfect for students who have to write Animal Farm essays. The Best of Beat The gmat / mgmat How-To-Study List - This provides links to a number of useful articles by Manhattan Prep staff on popular site Beat the gmat. Another Iron Law of Studying for the gmat - It's a waste of time to challenge answers to official guide problems. Techniques for Managing gmat Stress - Forget data sufficiency - anxiety can be your biggest challenge on the gmat. How to Prepare in 14 Days (If You Absolutely must) - While you should always give yourself more time, this article outlines a last-resort, two-week gmat plan of study for the student who needs to prep in a hurry.
Enjoy free narrative essay important decision essays, Research Paper on Study. Study skills, academic skills, or study strategies are approaches applied to learning. How is it scored? 26 essential study skills Essay writing help and study. Interpreting Manhattan Prep Assessment Reports - Struggling to understand your practice test scores? Purdue University Writing Lab helps writers on Purdue. To provide students with additional guidance as they prep for test day, Manhattan Prep has compiled and polished up these articles by our instructors. What is the gmat? Study Tips Articles Planning and Executing Your gmat Preparation - So you've got to take the gmat.


A very Good Morning on the lovely Sunday , Hope everyone had a great weekend . And today i'm writing about Lipton All new Ice Tea that will be on shelves from 7th may in all major convenient and provison stores and all petrol stations across Malaysia Including Sabah & Sarawak .
Wanted To taste It before everyone else ?
The answer Is , Yes You can get to try and It is free from 21st april .
RIUH ar APW, Jalan Riong, Bangsar - one bottle of Lipton Green Ice Tea with every Purchase of a DahMakan meal.
Lipton is giving away one bottle of Lipton Green Ice Tea with every DahMakan Prime Member meal ordered. Limited to the first 500 deliveries.
Alright, above are all the location, Date and Time that be shown, enjoy this all new free cold beverage with friends and family along this two weekends of April and during the month of May. Track the truck down and play the game on the big screen that attach on the truck, there will be a lot of Laughter and enjoy moments will be happening.
Don't forget to grab a bottle of the new Lipton Green Ice Tea to experience the delicious and refreshing new flavours for yourself, Spread the fun and let your friends know about the event! Upload your photos on Instagram, hashtag #LETSMOVE and #myLITMOVE.


This house was built in 1869 for the family of Col. Charles H. Buehler. Originally this house was built in the style of Italianate but was later modified between 1888-1891 with the addition of the round tower and other renovations to reflect the current Queen Anne style. In 1958, the house began to be used by the Theta Chi fraternity. The property was not well maintained, culminating in the house being uninhabited for some time due to the damage that occurred. In disrepair, Gettysburg College began the process of restoring the home, focusing on the exterior restoration first.
Parrett provided all-wood Sapele Mahogany authentic true divided lite windows for this restoration. Beautiful, operable curved glass with concealed balance single hung windows were constructed from templates to match the radius dimensions of the existing units. Standard rectangular and Variation 6 hung windows were also provided, as well as stationary hung windows units with dummy hardware. These quality windows from Parrett will provide dependable service for years to come.


Article Title: "Return Policies Run Gamut For Goods You Buy Online "
Does the sweater you ordered online not fit? Is there a loose leg on the office furniture that came to your door? What about that scanner that doesn't seem to want to scan?
Most online retailers offer at least some type of return policy. But policies can vary widely from site to site. That's why it's best to check out the details before clicking "buy."
"Policies run the entire gamut," said Frank Fiore, a guide to online shopping for About.com and author of several books. Sometimes you'll get 100% of your money back, he says. Other times, you're lucky to get a store credit.
Seattle's Amazon.com Inc. accepts most returned items for a full refund within 30 days of delivery. The most notable exceptions are compact discs, digital video discs and video games that have been opened. That's because a consumer could open up a disc, make a copy and then mail it back.
In addition to its own online stores, Amazon.com also offers online ordering services for several brick-and-mortar retailers. The general policy for these Amazon.com partners, such as Target Stores and Office Depot, is that you can't return the items at the physical stores. You have to ship them back.
According to the Office Depot return and exchanges page on Amazon.com, most merchandise is accepted for return within 30 days of purchase. Exceptions include unopened software and computers.
BMG Music Service, a unit of Germany's Bertelsmann AG, follows a similar hard line when it comes to music sales. Its returns policy is to "allow members to return an item for replacement or credit if it is damaged, defective or incorrect."
In such instances, BMG offers to send out a replacement copy of the original music selection, credit the customer's account or provide an alternate selection.
BMG encourages you to send a cover note with the returned merchandise, explaining the grievance and preferred method of resolution.
Dell Inc., based in Round Rock, Texas, lets you return new hardware, parts and unopened software within 30 days.
Customers fill out an online form, after which they receive a credit return authorization number. The items must be returned "in as-new condition" no more than five days after Dell issues the number. Shipping costs for the return must be paid by the customer.
Household goods retailer Fingerhut Companies Inc., based in Hopkins, Minn., also offers a return option within 30 days of receiving the item. Between 30 and 180 days after receipt, Fingerhut's general policy is to consider a prorated cash or credit adjustment based on the age and condition of the product.
After 180 days, no returns are offered.
As with most other retailers, software and music CDs can be accepted for credit or refund only if the original packaging was not opened. "Identical product" exchanges are sometimes granted, however.
Apparel and outdoor living retailer L.L. Bean Inc. asks that customers who ship back merchandise complete the returns section on their order's packing slip or fill out a downloadable form.
For each item that is being returned, the form asks customers to mark one of 17 "reason codes." Codes include such issues as "quality unsatisfactory," "care instructions failed," "too small" or "did not like material."
L.L. Bean requires the shipping charge to be paid on return items, but waives the charge for U.S. customers who simply are exchanging merchandise.
RitzCamera.com, the online unit of Ritz Camera Centers Inc. in Beltsville, Md., has a shorter time limit for returned items. It's 10 days for all wireless phone, digital and video products and 30 days for all other items except opened software.
Unlike most other online retailers, RitzCamera.com provides exchanges at its 1,200 Ritz retail locations. Damaged or defective goods can be exchanged or returned only online.
Staples Inc. of Framingham, Mass., has one of the more liberal return policies. Returns are accepted at the more than 1,500 Staples stores in the U.S., with a full refund offered on office supplies regardless of the purchase or delivery date. Free pickup on returned items is provided if the goods are defective.
Computer hardware, digital cameras, phones and office furniture purchased from Staples must be returned within 14 days of receipt. The reason for the shorter period, notes Staples on its site, is "because technology changes so quickly."
Target.com, the online unit of Minneapolis' Target Corp., offers in-store return services on most items. Its 90-day returns policy is one of the longest in effect among major online and offline retailers.
According to Fiore, in-store returns are becoming more common. "The problem and cost of getting the purchase back to the merchant was driving away Web shoppers, but things are changing," he said. "Many stores are allowing for pickup and returns at their local store."
Walmart.com offers in-store return options for most products, with exceptions for computer-related goods, and perishable items such as flowers and food.
The Bentonville, Ark.-based retailer's time window for returned items varies from 15 days to 90 days, depending on the item.
"Find out the return policy before you buy," Fiore said. "Just as important, find out how you can reach them if there is a problem. An e-mail address is not enough. Get a phone number too."


Hard to believe, but FCP X is well over two years old and already into its ninth iteration.
Its popular multicam tool arrived with version three in January of last year. In the past 12 months alone, no less than four new versions have been released, bringing dual viewers, a unified import window, support for native REDCODE RAW, MXF, Sony XAVC (up to 4K) and optional Rec. 709 display of ARRI ALEXA ProRes captured in Log C.
Recent improvements also include a handy freeze-frame tool, chapter markers for QuickTimes and DVDs, better audio channel editing tools, and FCPXML 1.2 to facilitate audio and metadata export/import. (FCPXML uses Extensible Markup Language, or XML, to exchange Project and Event data and metadata between FCP X and third-party applications.) Plus, there are a host of bug fixes and performance improvements.
Apple claims its 64-bit FCP X has outsold all previous 32-bit versions of FCP combined, and there's no reason to doubt this, for two reasons.
FCP X is faster and less confusing to set up than FCP 7, to which I can personally attest. It better hides the sprawling technical complexity of today's HD, 2K and 4K formats. In fact, in conversation over the past year with several popular digital video experts — recognizable names all — I'm struck by the fact that all admitted using FCP X, at least for basic editing. One mentioned — and I think this is key — he felt guilty because using FCP X was too easy.
Many "pros" still dismiss FCP X out of hand, typically with no experience using it, and I'm reminded of "serious" PC users who once vehemently disparaged Mac owners (like me) because real computing required command-line entry. A mouse-driven GUI was for amateurs. Not that long ago, really.
Consider this: FCP X is a feature-rich 64-bit pro app with a challenging learning curve (I'm still climbing), which, at the same time, provides a relatively easy interface for those otherwise intimidated by professional NLEs. This includes a worldwide market of young media makers, many without editing preconceptions or prior professional experience, a new generation who often shoot with DSLRs or tablets or smartphones, and who wouldn't object to editing on tablets or smartphones either, technology permitting.
A broad, new user base, growing laterally and exponentially. That's reason No. 1 for FCP X's mushrooming popularity.
Reason No. 2 is its low price: $299. Apple offers a free trial, too. For 30 days only, FCP X is as gratis as DaVinci Resolve Lite (which, with a superficially similar user interface, plays very well with FCP X). If broke, cut fast!
Convenience, too, plays a role: FCP X is readily downloaded from Apple's App Store, while subsequent notices of version updates (always free) are automatically pushed to your Mac. This way, every FCP X user stays up to date.
FCP X shares effects files called Smart Motion Templates with Apple's motion graphics app, Motion 5 ($50). These include most of FCP X's built-in effects. Smart Motion Templates can be created from scratch or customized in Motion, which has given rise to Internet swapping of homebrew FCP X effects. That's how, in a pinch, I downloaded a free 8-point garbage matte a year ago. Saved my bacon.
This summer, I edited two unusual projects in FCP X. In one, I shot 4K with a Canon C500, recorded as 4K ProRes to an AJA Ki Pro Quad. Thanks to Thunderbolt, eSATA and USB 3.0, I was able to edit and view 4K ProRes on my 17-inch MacBook Pro. Upon import, I also made low-res 2K "proxies," which are mostly what I edited. I graded the flat Canon Log images in FCP X as well. You can see my workflow depicted and footage displayed in the video below.
I also shot a 22-minute reel for Canon and Cooke Optics demonstrating the "Cooke Look" obtained by mini S4/i primes on a Canon C500. The results were recorded as 1920 x 1080, 12-bit, uncompressed, again using Canon Log. The extremely high data rate required a Codex S onboard recorder. Using Codex's Virtual File System, I backed up both original uncompressed files and also ProRes 4444 copies with a 3D LUT applied. I edited with the latter.
My early 2011 17-inch MacBook Pro, tricked out with an internal SSD and 16GB of RAM, kept up just fine. Over the course of both edits, I had only one crash, which happened immediately after final review of the second project, just before rendering for output. Yes, I was backed up. But one of the most extraordinary features of FCP X is one of the least mentioned: Crashes are rare but when they do occur and FCP X is restarted (after automatically sending a report to Apple), not a keystroke or edit is missing. I consider this close to magic.
Admittedly, if this summer's 4K shoot were repeated now, I'd entertain an alternative, more capable FCP X workflow. On the horizon — in a matter of weeks — is a new release of FCP X to accompany the introduction of the radically reconceived Mac Pro workstation previewed in June at Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference, with the possibility also of a new 4K Thunderbolt Display.
You've probably seen pictures of it: black, barrel-shaped, 10 inches tall. Hollow like a chimney, which is what it is, its airflow facilitated by a silent turbine hidden under the top. The whole thing is about six-and-a-half inches in diameter.
Inside are up to 12 cores of CPU horsepower, dual GPUs with up to 6GB of VRAM and third-generation PCI Express with 40 Gigabyte/sec internal bandwidth to support internal flash storage that's 10 times faster than today's 7200 rpm SATA hard drives.
In other words, 7 teraflops of computing power. Remember Cray supercomputers? Top speed, circa 2004, Cray Inc.'s massive X1 (size of a Sub-Zero fridge), developed with NSA funding, naturally, was 5.9 teraflops.
I/O includes six Thunderbolt 2.0 ports (25 times faster than FireWire 800, twice as fast as the original Thunderbolt), four USB 3.0 ports, two Gigabit Ethernet ports, and the very latest HDMI, version 1.4, which carries a 4K signal to a 4K monitor in a single cable. Per Apple, the new Mac Pro drives at least three 4K monitors at once and permits daisy-chaining up to 36 devices via Thunderbolt 2.0.
New horizons indeed for FCP X.
Autodesk Smoke 2013 – Super NLE?


text:
GAZPROM FORMALLY WINS CONTROLLING STAKE IN NTV.
Publication: Monitor Volume: 7 Issue: 88
May 7, 2001 07:00 AM Age: 22 years
Gazprom formally won a controlling stake in NTV television on May 4, when the Cheryomushkinsky municipal court in Moscow ruled in the gas giant's favor in a suit brought by Leadville Investment Ltd., a Gazprom proxy, against Media-Most, NTV's erstwhile parent company. In the court battle, Gazprom argued that Media-Most had violated the terms of an agreement the two sides had reached last November over the latter's debts, The gas giant demanded ownership rights over a 19-percent stake in NTV and stakes in Media-Most's other companies, all of which Media-Most had put up as collateral for a US$262 million loan. Gazprom previously owned 46 percent of NTV, but was able to take over the channel's board and change its management in a controversial NTV shareholders meeting held in early April. The May 4 court decision gives Gazprom formal ownership of a 65-percent stake in NTV.
Under last November's agreement, Gazprom was supposed to sell the 19-percent stake in NTV to foreign investors through Deutsche Bank. It is possible that Gazprom might still decide to sell an NTV stake. Over the weekend, a newspaper listed the Alfa Group, the powerful pro-Kremlin financial-industrial group headed by Pyotr Aven and Mikhail Fridman, as one possible buyer and Germany's Kirsch media group as another. According to the paper, Alfa-Group recently extended a US$7 million credit to NTV. The same paper, featured an interview with Ukrainian businessman Vadim Rabinovich, who said that he was continuing negotiations with Gusinsky about buying out the latter's remaining stake in NTV (around 30 percent) but that "many questions" remained (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, May 5; see also the Monitor, April 19, 24).
The May 4 court decision also awarded Gazprom control of 25-percent-plus-one-share packets in twenty-three other Media-Most companies, including the Seven Days publishing house, which also effectively fell under Gazprom's control last month after its head switched allegiances from Media-Most founder Vladimir Gusinsky to Gazprom, and Radio Ekho Moskvy, which remains one of the last outposts of the "opposition" Media-Most. Radio Ekho Moskvy's team of journalists has been in negotiations with Gusinsky and Gazprom about acquiring a controlling share in the radio station, but this possibility looks less likely now, given that the May 4 court decision makes it more likely that Gazprom will block any such a move. Media-Most spokesman Dmitry Ostalsky denounced the court decision, saying that it represented the biggest threat to Radio Ekho Moskvy's editorial independence. Media-Most, he said, was considering an appeal (Russian agencies, KMnews.ru, May 4; Kommersant, Moscow Times, May 7).
FOREIGN MINISTRY ATTACKS U.S. FOR NOT ARRESTING GUSINSKY.
CRACKS IN THE RULING ESTABLISHMENT OF BE..Next
RUSSIA AND INDIA DISCUSS MISSILE DEFENSE..


Exam centres have the option of whether or not to accept you or your child as a private candidate for their exams. They are not required to do so. But if you follow the guidelines below, you will make it easier for them to accept your entry.
• Contact your chosen exam centre before enrolling a Wolsey Hall course to check that they will accept you or your child for your proposed sitting (either May/June or October/November). Note that many centres, particularly in the Northern hemisphere, do not offer a October/November sitting.
• Apply for exam registration as early as possible.
• On receipt of your entry, your centre will issue you with a 'Statement of Entry'. Check carefully that the information there is correct. Contact the centre at once if it is not.
• If you require access arrangements, make sure your chosen centre is aware of this. Most will do their best to accept you if they have the facilities. They will advise you of the evidence they will need to submit your application to the exam board, and how you can obtain it.
• Be punctual for the exam. If you're late, you may not be allowed to sit the exam. If you have a problem in getting the centre on time, telephone the Exams Officer at once.
Your legal name must be used when writing your name on the answer paper, and not a nickname or an adopted name which has not been changed by deed poll.
If you have any queries on your results, contact the centre immediately and they will advise you how to proceed.


text:
This article is from the Encyclopedia of North Carolina edited by William S. Powell. Copyright © 2006 by the University of North Carolina Press. Used by permission of the publisher. For personal use and not for further distribution. Please submit permission requests for other use directly to the publisher.
by Peter J. Robinson, 2006
Additional research provided by Daniel W. Barefoot, Charles Battle, and Laura Hegyi.
See also: Wet Year; Tornadoes
Part 1: Introduction; Part 2: Hurricanes in Colonial and Nineteenth-Century North Carolina; Part 3: Twentieth-Century Hurricanes; Part 4: Devastating Hurricanes of the 1990s and Early 2000s
Hurricanes are the most spectacular and destructive weather events experienced in North Carolina. Commonly formed off the coast of Africa over the warm tropical waters of the Atlantic Ocean, embryonic hurricanes drift westward across the ocean, slowly drawing energy and moisture from the warm waters. If the storm continues to gain strength, as is typical when it approaches the Caribbean Basin, winds may exceed 74 miles per hour, the threshold for a hurricane. Hurricanes are divided by size and wind speed into five numerical categories, with a category five hurricane being the most intense. Generally, as hurricanes move away from the warm tropics and into the cooler mid-latitudes, they lose energy so that windspeeds slowly decrease. Consequently, many hurricanes will have passed their peak by the time they reach North Carolina. Also, because hurricanes tend to weaken once they move inland, those coming in from the coast may initially be severe, but may rapidly lose power as they track inland. Nevertheless, a number of category four hurricanes have crossed into North Carolina over the past 100 years, and North Carolinians are well aware of the devastating force and impact that hurricanes have had on the state.
Keep reading >> Part 2: Hurricanes in Colonial and Nineteenth-Century North Carolina
Jay Barnes, North Carolina's Hurricane History (3rd ed., 2001).
"Hurricane Irene Makes Landfall in North Carolina." Image courtesy of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Available from https://www.flickr.com/photos/gsfc/6085588376/ (accessed August 17, 2012).
Barefoot, Daniel W.
Battle, Charles
Hegyi, Laura
Robinson, Peter J.
Coastal Plain
Encyclopedia of North Carolina, University of North Carolina Press.
1 January 2006 | Barefoot, Daniel W.; Battle, Charles; Hegyi, Laura; Robinson, Peter J.


If you're on my site, you already know I'm a designer, but I'm not only that. I'm a communicator, a team member, a problem solver, and a critical thinker. If you're looking for a doormat designer to simply follow a list, disappear, and deliver a design, I'm not your guy. However, if you need a collaborator that wants nothing more than to help your business succeed, let's get in touch!
Identifying the problem and establishing the primary purpose and goals of the project.
Gathering data & inspiration, creating mood boards, and determining clients' design preferences.
Brainstorming creative solutions, utilizing research and inspiration to help generate ideas.
Move forward with a concept, establish style guide establishing colors, typography, etc., and test/revise product.
A visually effective and beautiful User Interface will establish trust and value in your company. I'll help you bring your vision to life!
A smooth user experience is imperative. Have an app or product idea and need user-flow diagrams or wireframes? Look no further!
A logo is the face of your business, it should have deeper meaning and beauty than clip-art. Allow a professional to take the reins!
Need an infographic? Digital Illustrations? Banner Ads? Labels? Icons? I'm here for all of your graphic design needs.
A cohesive, recognizable brand will ensure customers identify and continue to value your product. Let's talk about your brand!
If you're looking for a beautiful website to showcase your business that looks great on all devices, let's talk!