Eike Batista's Fortune Continues To Evaporate As MMX Declares $400 Million Loss
As debt owed by Batista’s listed companies has increased, Batista’s companies have not hit revenue and production targets. OGX announced this week that output from its offshore oil wells fell to 11,300 barrels of oil equivalent a day (bpd) in February, from 13,200 bpd in January. February’s figures were 25 per cent below the 15,000 bpd the company had promised to be a “stabilisation” level for its output, according to an investor note from Banco Bradesco BBI. “This is one more disappointment for the market,” said Ariovaldo Santos, a broker with H Commcor in Sao Paulo. By the same token, iron ore miner MMX announced net loss of $400 million in 2012, 40 times higher than $10 million loss in the previous year, mainly because of MMX’s withdraw of a large investment from Chile. Such news sent MMX shares into a nosedive on Wednesday: stock prices dropped 7.0% at one point, but finally closed down just 0.94% after CEO Carlos Gonzalez explained in a conference that MMX’s flagship Serra Azul iron ore project in Brazil was being expanded. Also helping Batista’s case was Jose Formigli, head of Petrobras’ exploration and production unit, who announced on the same day that the Brazilian oil giant is considering using a port controlled by one of Batista’s companies.
However, the market has been punishing his companies as they fail to deliver. Below is a look at stock performance from 1/1/13 to 3/19/13:
MPX- down 7.44%
OGX- down 42.69%
LLX- down 0.83%
MMX- down 28.99%
Even though EBX group’s enterprises total investment between 2011 and 2012 totaled $ 15.5 billion, according to EBX group’s website , most companies of the group still require large amounts of capital injection to hit production targets. Two weeks ago, Batista unveiled a partnership with one of Latin America’s largest investment banks, BTG Pactual, run by Brazilian billionaire Andre Esteves. The main goal: to attract new partners and fresh capital. The market reacted well and shares in Eike Batista’s companies rallied more than 20% the following day. Last Friday, Brazilian daily Valor Economico reported that Batista was about to sell half of his shares of MPX, the group’s energy arm, to German group E.ON for $961 million. “We think that MPX gains by distancing itself from EBX,” JPMorgan Securities analysts led by Gabriel Salas said in a client note on Tuesday.
From February 2012 through February 2013, Batista’s fortune fell at a rate of $50 million a day. If his fortune continues to disappear at the same pace, he won’t even be on the Forbes Billionaires list next year.
As if another device is needed to make people worse spellers than spell check, two German entrepreneurs have invented the self-correcting pen.
The Lernstift is a regular pen with real ink, but inside is a special motion sensor and a small battery-powered Linux computer with a WiFi chip. In conjunction the parts allow the pen to recognize specific movements, letter shapes and know a wide assortment of words. If it senses bad letter formation or messy handwriting, it will gently vibrate. The goal is also to make it smart enough that when you misspell a word it will vibrate as well.
“The pen will have two functions — calligraphy and orthography mode,” Daniel Kaesmacher, the 33-year-old co-founder of Lernstift said. “When it comes to orthography mode — the pen will be able to recognize words and compare the word it recognized to a language database. If the word isn’t recognized it will vibrate.”
With that spelling and writing functionality, Lernstift, which means ‘Learning Pen’ in German, is aimed at kids just learning to write. In fact, co-founder Falk Wolsky, 36, had the idea for the pen last year while his 10-year-old son was doing his homework.
“His son had been struggling with his work and staying focused and Falk thought there should be a pen that gives him some sort of signal so he stays focused,” Kaesmacher explained.
The smart pen has been in development over about a year and a half. The company has gone to Kickstarter for funding but the potential of such a device is obvious for school age children.
Bringing any product to the general market is a tough task. “We have a lot of testing to do and we will start soon with a whole school class,” Kaesmacher said.
Eventually they plan to have the pen work with smartphones and tablets. An app could allow parents to see their child’s progress, and similar to other digital pens, like the Livescribe Pulse, notes could be uploaded and sent via e-mail. What makes the Lernstift so much different than the competition is that it works like a regular pen as other similar devices require screens or special paper.
“The basic functionality is all in the pen, there is no app needed to perform the basic activities,” Kaesmacher said. “But there are a lot more possibilities.”
среда, 11 сентября 2013 г.
Here's The Map Of 'GTA 5's' Los Santos
Earlier today, an image in a Reddit thread about Grand Theft Auto V
included a very interesting leak from some prematurely released copy of
Brady Games‘ strategy guide: a full map of Los Santos , the game’s new setting and stand-in for Los Angeles.
Despite some initial grumblings about how small it can look, the
detail below gives some sense of scale. You can see not only the city,
but a vast expanse of wilderness, rural areas and small towns outside of
it, not unlike the developer’s picture of San Andreas back on the PS2.
Rockstar co-founder Dan Houser told The Guardian that his game was about “the endpoint of the American dream,” and Los Angeles seemed like a fitting place to play it out.
The last iteration of the GTA series came out in 2008, though 2010′s
Red Dead Redemption felt more like a part of the series than not. Grand
Theft Auto 5 is likely the most-hyped release of a big fall in video
games, and analysts are predicting
that sales could reach up to 25 million in the first year.That’s a good
thing, because from what we’ve seen so far, this is one of the most
ambitious video game projects ever undertaken. The map gives you some
idea of just how much world is being built here, but it doesn’t show you
the full tennis and golf games embedded inside, the most elaborate
shooter mechanics the series has ever seen, the underwater sections, the
in-game TV shows, or any of the rest of the ridiculous number of
activities available to the player in this open world. Rockstar has
advertised a dizzying amount of content, so it’s not surprising that
according to this article
in Scottish Newspaper The Scotsman, it’s also the most expensive game
ever made, though Rockstar has yet to respond to requests to confirm
that figure.
Aside from the main game, every copy of GTA 5 also comes with Grand
Theft Auto Online, a fully multiplayer version that the developers are
touting as its own game entirely.
Grand Theft Auto kicks off the fall blockbuster season next week on September 17th. Follow me on Twitter
Note: an earlier version of this article said that Rockstar had
released a map. That was due to a twitter error and has since been
corrected.
iPhone 5S To Ring In The New With Expected Fingerprint Sensing Home Button
Tuesday will tell, but multiple rumors are pointing to a subtle
design distinction for the forthcoming iPhone 5S. Along with new Gold
and Graphite colors, the home button is expected have a new look
signifying the inclusion of a fingerprint scanner within.
FOX News anchor (and now app developer) Clayton Morris first claimed, in an interview last month,
that “sources” told him that the home button will “have a silver ring
around it.” Speculation was raised by the inclusion in the invitation
for Tuesday’s announcement of three silver-bordered rings along with the
brightly-colored circles reminiscent of the iOS 7′s new palette. (I
have inserted iPhone 5 home buttons into those rings in the spoof on Apple AAPL+0.61%‘s invitation above.) The features is also shown on questionable “leaked” photos of 5S packaging, but these could have been generated in response to Clayton as opposed to anything Apple is actually doing.
Additionally, Sonny Dickson released high-resolution photos
on Friday of a sensor purported to be attached to the new home button,
but there has need no independent corroboration of the actual
functionality of the leaked part.
Most accounts have indicated that initially the sensor will be able
to authenticate a user on the device, as the lock screen passcode does
now, but not yet be capable of secure payments. The payment piece will
obviously be a really big deal, and many companies are pursuing that
grail, but fingerprint authentication, if it works reliably, will be a
big boon to Apple in winning over enterprise IT departments. Wells FargoWFC-0.93% analyst and AllThingsD contributor Maynard Um, quoted this morning in USA Today,
says that, “Enterprises want to know devices are in the right hands,
and this pretty much guarantees it. [the inclusion of a fingerprint
scanner] addresses enterprise security issues for Apple and will open up
that market to the company more.” Um is bullish on the new technology
that Apple bought from Authentec, and on Thursday he raised his price
range estimate for Apple by almost 10% (from $485-$525 to $525-$575) in
advance of the 5S release.
“Everyone is looking at what this new phone can do, and one of the
key things is fingerprint authentication,” Um told USA Today. “People
are underestimating what this technology can do.” Indeed, the
authentication feature has been the one genuinely new aspect of the 5S
that has surfaced, leading me to speculate
that the “S” will stand for “security.” In combination with iOS 7′s
iCloud Keychain, the fingerprint scanner could make the use of the new
iPhones both more spontaneous and more secure.
Sebastien Taveau, the CTO of Validity Sensors, one of Authentec’s
major competitors, reminds us in the USA Today article that, ”The swipe
and PIN was one of the things Steve Jobs
hated. It was in the way of the user experience.” This could be the
biggest post-Jobs improvement in user experience undertaken by Apple
under Tim Cook, and its success (or failure) will tell us a lot about
the future viability of the company’s ability to innovate.
Apple will not be alone, particularly in the pursuit of biometric
authentication for payments. PayPal president David Marcus predicts
that, ”Within the next two years the vast majority of high-end
smartphones will have biometrics and mainly fingerprint logins. It’s
going to be very useful for payments.” PayPal is partners with GoogleGOOG+0.02%,
BlackBerry, Lenovo and Validity Sensors in the FIDO Alliance (Fast
Identity Online) a trade group that is charged with developing open
standards for biometric alternatives to passwords and PINs. Apple, you
will notice, is not a member of that group, indicating it intends to go
its own way with this technology.
It’s Official: Robert Downey Jr. is Hollywood’s Highest-Paid Actor
Marvel
How much green does it take to be the highest-paid actor in
Hollywood? This year, that magic number is $75 million—and the man who
brought home the big bucks (accrued between June 2012 and June 2013) was
… Robert Downey Jr. The Iron Man actor topped this year’s Forbes list of the highest paid actors.
Though Forbes points out that Downey had a long history of failure in the years before he went superhero, his franchises (Iron Man and The Avengers)
are proven box-office winners — and the actor’s bank accounts show it.
The list looks only at estimated earnings, unlike the magazine’s other
rankings; their power list, for example, takes into consideration
factors like social-media visibility.
Here are the rest of this year’s top ten:
Channing Tatum ($60 million), Hugh Jackman ($55 million), Mark
Wahlberg ($52 million), Dwayne Johnson ($46 million), Leonardo DiCaprio
($39 million), Adam Sandler ($37 million), Tom Cruise ($35 million),
Denzel Washington ($33 million) and Liam Neeson ($32 million).
Worth noting: another result of this list looking at earnings alone
is that fortunes can change rapidly. Though he still squeezed out a
top-ten spot, thanks to Jack Reacher, Tom Cruise was last year’s leading earner with—you guessed it—$75 million coming in between May 2011 and May 2012.
Also worth noting: Forbes separates out actors from
actresses in this listing. That move makes sense for the list-keepers,
though the lack of comparison obscures one of the more interesting facts
that can be learned from these lists. While women—especially Oprah—fare
well in rankings of power and in earnings lists for celebrities
overall, their pay in Hollywood lags by millions. Forbes hasn’t yet released their 2013 list for women, but last year’s top earner was Kristen Stewart, who made $34.5 million on the heels of Twilight and Snow White.
That would put her around the bottom of the top ten if the list were
co-ed; only one other woman (Cameron Diaz, $34 million) could hope to
place. The list’s No. 10 (Jennifer Aniston, $11 million) made only about
a third as much Washington and Neeson, her male counterparts.
Sure, this isn’t a movie profits = take-home pay situation, but compare the last Twilight installment to Jack Reacher. Reacher has grossed $216.6 million worldwide against a $60 million budget; Breaking Dawn 2
has grossed $829.7 million against a $120 million budget. Her movie
made (grosses minus budget) more than five times more and more than $500
million more than his did; he took home a half a million dollars more
than she did. There’s no Iron Woman to compete with Downey—but we’ll just wait and see how Gwyneth Paltrow shakes out.
This morning, Forbes released their annual list of
the 100 most powerful celebrities in the world—and though the cast of
the top 10 features unsurprisingly big names, there are two observations
worth mentioning.
One is Oprah Winfrey. Oprah has been a power-list pro, but her
venture into running her own cable network (OWN) has been a bit of a
rough road. Forbes estimates that she made $77 million between
June 2012 and June 2013 — an impressive sum, but still $88 million less
than she earned over the previous 12 months. Not that there aren’t
bright spots: just this week, the network announced that they would double their 16-episode order of Tyler Perry’s The Have And The Have Nots, OWN’s first scripted drama, after it drew the network’s biggest debut ratings in its history.
(MORE: Oprah Expert on How Winfrey’s Brand Changed America)
The other noteworthy takeway is the gender breakdown of the top power-players. Here’s the full top 10:
Oprah Winfrey
Lady Gaga
Steven Spielberg
Beyoncé Knowles
Madonna
Taylor Swift
Bon Jovi
Roger Federer
Justin Bieber
Ellen DeGeneres
That’s 60% female — and 80% of the top 5. This breakdown is actually a bit more male-dominated than last year’s list,
which featured Jennifer Lopez (1), Oprah Winfrey (2), Rihanna (4), Lady
Gaga (5), Britney Spears (6), Kim Kardashian (7) and Katy Perry (8).
The 2011 list, by contrast, featured just three women in those elite spots.
And while this year’s list reflects no major leap for gender equality it’s still noteworthy, because Forbes changed the way they calculate the ramkings. The Forbes Power
equation takes into account earnings, frequency of media mentions,
social-media strength and marketability, based on polling. It’s a new
methodology, aiming to rank real fame and discount metrics (like
magazine-cover numbers) that tend to help reality-television stars and
gossip-friendly personalities. This year, they’ve also expanded the
social-media ranking beyond just Facebook and Twitter, to YouTube and
elsewhere. That’s how folks like, well, most of the women in last year’s
top 10, fell from their spots, ceding space to celebs like Beyoncé and
Madonna.
The new formula seems to have worked: one would be hard pressed to
argue that Beyoncé is not more powerful than Kim Kardashian, even if she
doesn’t generate as much gossip. It seems that no matter how you define
fame, women have it.
A few weeks after determining that Robert Downey Jr. is the highest-paid actor in Hollywood, Forbes has announced that Angelina Jolie
is his female counterpart, the highest-paid actress in the biz. The
magazine estimates that she earned $33 million in the year that ended in
June of 2013.
Jolie has been more visible recently as an activist and a health advocate, having recently told the world in a New York Times op-ed that
she opted for a preventative double mastectomy, than as an actress.
But, after a few years away from the on-screen limelight—The Tourist and Salt came out in 2010 and her 2011 roles were a voice in Kung Fu Panda 2 and behind the cameras with In the Land of Blood and Honey—she earned enough starring in next year’s Maleficent to top the list. Forbes‘
list looks only at “entertainment-related revenue,” which includes both
new projects and continuing payment for older projects, but does not
consider fees and taxes.
The rest of the top earners are:
Jennifer Lawrence ($26 million)
Kristen Stewart ($22 million)
Jennifer Aniston ($20 million)
Emma Stone ($16 million)
Charlize Theron ($15 million)
Sandra Bullock ($14 million)
Natalie Portman ($14 million)
Mila Kunis ($11 million) and
Julia Roberts ($11 million)
Here’s one take-away: there’s big money in Snow White-related projects.
And here’s another: though the observation may be approaching broken-record territory, it’s worth looking at Forbes‘
actor list next to the actress list. Most of the top-ten actors made
well over $33 million, with nine and ten on the list (Denzel Washington
and Liam Neeson) making the same amount or less than Angelina Jolie
made; both of them made more than everyone else on the actresses list.
That means that, were the list gender-blind, we’d see that nine out of
ten of the top earners in Hollywood this past year were male. (And not
by just a hair: the top male earner made more than twice what the top
female earner did.)
Now compare that factoid to another Forbes list, the ranking of the most powerful celebrities,
a metric that takes into account both hard dollars and inchoate fame.
This year’s list was woman-heavy, with Oprah Winfrey, Lady Gaga, Beyonce
Knowles, Madonna, Taylor
Swift and Ellen DeGeneres all making the top ten. Actors and actresses
don’t dominate that list, but it’s clear that the entertainment industry
is far from a bastion of male domination. When it comes to television
personalities and musicians, women are more powerful. Measured strictly
in dollars, a woman—Madonna—comes out on top with $125 million in
earnings. (Number two is Steven Spielberg at $100 million; he was ranked
third overall.)
So there’s no question that women can be just as famous and rich as
men can. It’s just that they’re not paid as much in Hollywood. Part of
the reason is the movies in which they star, with female-led action
franchises (Twilight or The Hunger Games, for example) tending to trend toward teen markets and make less worldwide, on average, than male-led comic-book franchises (Iron Man),
though they also cost less to make. But it’s not just franchises
(that’s not how Denzel Washington got on the list, for example) and
there’s no easy formula by which a film’s budget or gross can be plugged
in to get the star’s appropriate pay quote. The Forbes lists
are news because it’s hard to figure out exactly what these people earn
and why and how—but, while the lists reveal the how the numbers add up,
the list alone can’t reveal what went into those figures.
And because there’s no easy explanation, these numbers are even more
worth watching and thinking about. There’s a difference between earning
$75 million in a year and earning $33 million, even though it may seem
like nobody should complain about either: even if the salary difference
between Robert Downey Jr. and Angelina Jolie were the same as the
national gender pay gap (again, according to Forbes) she would have made more than $60 million, nearly twice as much as she did.
Long criticized for being one-dimensional (and way too-powerful), Superman deserves more respect from fans
The one foe that Superman has never vanquished in his long career –
the iconic character celebrates his 75th birthday later this year —
isn’t Lex Luthor (come on), Bizarro, or the alien consciousness
known as Brainiac. No, his greatest enemy is something much more
mundane: namely, a simple lack of respect. While movie audiences and
comic fans swoon at the sight of fellow DC Comics characters Batman
or Green Lantern — to say nothing of Marvel Comics heroes like Iron
Man, Spider-Man or Wolverine — poor Superman is continually being
dismissed as boring, out of touch, or just a plain-old d–k.
Even within his own stories, he’s too long had to put up with being
mistaken for a bird or a plane. This, to be blunt, is just plain wrong.
Let us be clear: Superman is the ultimate superhero, and it’s time
everyone recognized that fact.
It’s not that Superman was the first superhero, as such. You could, after all, trace his lineage back through earlier pulp characters like the Lone Ranger and Zorro, who used dual identities to battle corruption and crime; or Doc Savage and Philip Wylie’s Gladiator,
heroes with abilities beyond those of normal men, and see how Superman
creators Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel came up with their Man of
Tomorrow. Nevertheless, there’s something in the way that those
influences mixed together, the alchemy that resulted that, whether by
accident and/or design in synthesizing a character that really has
everything a superhero needs to be successful.
Think about it. Superman pretty much embodies the template for the
perfect crime-fighting hero Secret identity? Check. Brightly-colored
costume? Yup. Super-powers? Oh boy, does he have some awesome powers
(and some that are admittedly less-than-awesome). Desire to do the right thing, even at the cost of his life? Just ask poor Lois Lane (or, these days,
Wonder Woman). Anguish that comes with being an outsider who can never
fully be integrated into the society he protects? Dear reader: He’s an
alien who, on a daily basis, has to deal with the fact that he is the
final survivor of his entire race – and whose entire social circle
consists of people who only know him through work and pile their own
overwhelming expectations on him. Compared with Superman, Spider-Man has
it easy.
As if that wasn’t enough, Superman has proven to be an almost
endlessly flexible character, and one who’s proven himself to be easily
recreated to serve different purposes for different audiences throughout
his existence. Siegel and Shuster’s original “bold humanist response to
Depression-era fears of runaway scientific advance and soulless
industrialism” (to quote Grant Morrison, current writer of Action Comics, in his 2011 book Supergods)
was transformed into a patriotic war hero in the 1940s. Subsequent
years found him functioning as the patriarchal head of a metaphorical
Superfamily and a transformative avatar of identity fluidity in the 1950s and ’60s, and a successful Super-Yuppie in the 1980s. And that’s just in the comics alone. Other representations include Christopher Reeves’ comedic Clark Kent in the 1970s’ movies and the almost comically emo Clark of Smallville.
Throughout those various portrayals, though, the core of Superman
stayed true: That he was, at heart, an almost-impossibly good man, a
hero that never gives up, and always does the right thing. That
lack of cynicism or self-interest is is often pointed to, sneeringly, by
those who find the character too one-dimensional (and also complain
about him being too powerful). But such thinking misses the point of
Superman and the very notion of superheroes: These aren’t realistic
characters; they’re idealized characters, ones created as
purposeful and eager rejections of realism in favor of adventure and
wish-fulfillment and worlds filled with evil geniuses and impossible
monsters. Any counter-argument against such a staggeringly simple
premise feels small-minded and sad, to me: You can imagine any number of dangers and ultimate evils, but you have a problem with a good guy who doesn’t give up? I ask. You just need to imagine harder.
Superman is the alpha and omega of superheroes; the template for the
modern superhero, and illustrative of the extremes to which the concept
can be idealized. He is, ultimately, the pure superhero made fictional
flesh. And, honestly? He really deserves a little bit more respect for
that, thank you very much.
I recently got into an argument over Wonder Woman.
To be fair to both myself and my friend, neither of us had meant for
our discussion to escalate into an argument. Both of us were coming from
the same place—that we wanted a Wonder Woman movie already, thank you
very much—although she was, at least, more realistic about the obstacles
standing in the way of such a project.
Actually, that’s not entirely correct. It’s not that I don’t understand
how and why various attempts to bring the character to live-action have
failed—it’s that I have trouble accepting them. Saying that the
character’s mythological roots are too distancing from mainstream (read:
non-nerd) audiences doesn’t hold water for me, given that we’re about
to get a second Thor movie. And those who complain that the character is too rooted in a past era are directed to watch Captain America: The First Avenger.
No, according to my friend, the biggest obstacle to a Wonder Woman
movie ever being made is that the character lacks the central narrative
anything like those given to her DC Comics compatriots Superman and
Batman, resulting in a superhero without a clear purpose or core
personality. A strong argument, I must admit, even if I can point to
how movies from Marvel Studios often cherry-pick those elements from
comic-book histories to create a ”movie version” of a character that can
engage new audiences.
And I was struck by another thought: Perhaps Wonder Woman is, too much of an icon for adaptation. Maybe the real reason we haven’t seen a live-action Wonder Woman is because she’s … Wonder Woman.
Sure, on a story level, Wonder Woman is no different than Thor, Iron
Man, Captain America, and so on. But in another sense, Wonder Woman is
just a little bit more charged than those other characters.
Wonder Woman, after all, is the female superhero to most
people. The hardcore comic fans know that’s not actually true, and would
possibly delight in telling you about superheroines like Captain
Marvel, Power Girl or Valkyrie or any of their crime-fighting sisters.
Even those who have never read a comic book could possibly, with a
moment or two’s thought, come up with names like Batgirl, Black Widow or
Storm from the X-Men movies. Of all of those characters,
however, only Wonder Woman has anywhere near the iconic status of a
Superman, Batman or Spider-Man.
That raises the stakes for a potential Wonder Woman movie, in some way. If Man of Steel
failed, it would’ve been bad news for Warner Bros and sad for Superman
fans, but it wouldn’t have impacted the legion of other superhero movies
out there in any way. Same with the next Thor or Captain America movies; they’re just films about those particular characters, with no real weight or importance beyond that. A Wonder Woman movie, however…? That comes with a little bit more baggage.
A Wonder Woman movie would be the first to have a solo superheroine since 2004′s Catwoman, and would have to shoulder the same mentality that argues that, because Sucker Punch flopped in 2011, female-led action movies are too much of a risk for studios (That, despite the success of The Hunger Games). A Wonder Woman movie wouldn’t be seen as “just” a movie about Wonder Woman, but a movie for all
female superheroes, under both a microscope for hidden meanings and the
sheer, crushing expectation of creating something that is, well, worth
what’s now become a noticeable wait for a solo female superhero movie.
What if the difficulty in making a Wonder Woman movie has nothing to do with actually making the movie, but instead is all about coming to terms with the pressures that come from who Wonder Woman is in the metatextual sense. Could it be that making a Wonder Woman movie is just… too scary for most filmmakers to want to attempt?
Most people know Sean Hyman from his regular appearances on Fox
Business, CNBC, and Bloomberg Television, but what they don’t know is
that Sean is a former pastor, and that his secret to investing is woven
within the Bible.
Perhaps that can explain why, despite his uncanny ability to predict
precise moves in the stock market, Sean is often laughed at for his
unique stance on investing.
For example . . . a few months ago Sean appeared on Bloomberg
Television. At that time, Best Buy (BBY) was dropping to all-time lows
of $16 a share. Sean predicted the stock could go down to $11 a share,
and would then quickly rebound to $25 per share, and after that would
rally to $40 per share over the next year.
Another commentator on the show actually mocked Sean for his stance,
saying “$40 on Best Buy? If that’s the case Apple (AAPL) is going to
$1,500. That’s the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!” (Editor’s
Note: At the time, Apple was trading at $650 per share).
Within a few weeks, Sean would receive the last laugh.
Best Buy dropped down to $11.20 a share and has since rebounded to $30 a
share, continuing its path to $40 . . . exactly as Sean predicted.
(Ironically, Apple has dropped down to about $400 per share).
During a recent private dinner with Sean, once he’d blessed the food, I
wasted no time asking him what his secret is for investing so
successfully.
I expected Sean to say that it was his years of experience at Charles
Schwab or perhaps one of the complicated algorithms he uses for timing
the stock market.
So when Sean responded that his secret to investing was the Bible, I was thoroughly shocked.
Yes, I knew Sean was a Christian (anyone who spends more than 1 minute
with him will pick that up!). However, people usually keep their faith
separate from things like . . . investing.
But not Sean.
For Sean, the Bible is his FOUNDATION for investing.
He explained to me how there is actually a “Biblical Money Code” woven into Scripture.
Sean says it is this Biblical Money Code that took him from making a mere $15,000 a year to now giving away up to $50,000 a year. Sean also credits this code with helping him turn his father’s $40,000 retirement account into $396,000.
Certain investment titans, Sean says, such as Warren Buffett and John Templeton, have already used this code to amass billions.
What Sean had to say impressed me so much that I asked him to put a
presentation together that reveals how anyone could use this “Biblical
Money Code.” (Click here to watch it now)
I’ve personally watched this presentation several times and it is already spreading virally.
During the video, Sean uses the teachings of King Solomon, Jesus of
Nazareth, and the Apostle Paul to show how anyone can get out of debt . .
. make sound investments . . . and morally build substantial wealth.
Sean even reveals a “debilitating ‘financial sin’ that blinds many .
. . and could be costing you up to 41% of your life savings at this
very moment.” What’s so deceiving about this sin is how innocent and safe it appears at first.
And at the end, he finishes up with his “12-12-12 plan for investing.”
This is a simple step-by-step plan to go from being a saver, to an
investor, to a philanthropist.
Despite the Bombs, Hollywood Posts a Record Summer
(NEW YORK) — In the end, Hollywood made it through a precarious
minefield of summer box-office bombs with a heftier wallet. The summer
concluded with a record $4.7 billion in box-office revenue despite much
maligned flops like “The Lone Ranger,” ”After Earth” and “White House
Down.”
The summer movie season closed out on Labor Day weekend as the boy
band concert film “One Direction: This Is Us” took in an estimated $18
million from Friday to Monday for Sony Pictures, according to studio
estimates Monday. That wasn’t enough to unseat the Weinstein Co.
historical drama “Lee Daniels’ The Butler,” which stayed on top for the
third week with $20 million.
It was a positive note on which to end a tumultuous but profitable
summer for Hollywood. More than ever before, the industry packed the
summer months with big-budget blockbusters that ranged from the hugely
successful “Iron Man 3″ to the disastrous “The Lone Ranger.” Though the
movie business has always been one of hits and misses, this summer
brought particular attention to some big whiffs.
Yet the box office saw a 10.2 percent increase in revenue over last
summer (not accounting for inflation), with attendance rising 6.6
percent. A portion of the revenue bump could be attributed to rising
ticket prices which, on average, went up 27 cents from last year.
But the plethora of major releases — a more than 50 percent increase
from last year in films costing $75 million or more to make — meant
moviegoers had a parade of highly-marketed, big-budget options through
the early, most sought-after weeks of the summer. That meant faster
blockbuster turnover that may have been better for the industry as a
whole, but often came at the expense of individual films.
“It was one of the most interesting summers I’ve ever seen,” said
Paul Dergarabedian, analyst for box-office tracker Hollywood.com. “It
was this mix of great news and bad news at the same time.”
So what to make a summer (which is considered to run from the first
weekend in May to Labor Day) that often seemed like a weekly punch line
but ended up doing robust business overall? The lessons were hard to
deduce.
The biggest hit of the summer was Disney’s “Iron Man 3,” which made
$408.6 million domestically and $1.2 billion worldwide. Disney gave some
of that back, though, with Gore Verbinski’s “The Lone Ranger,” which
took in just $88.4 million in North America despite costing more than
$215 million to make. (Studios split box-office revenue in half with
theater owners.)
Despite successes like Warner Bros.’ “Man of Steel,” Universal’s
“Despicable Me 2″ and Paramount’s “World War Z,” ”The Lone Ranger”
became the masked face of Hollywood’s summer. It was the most
spectacular flop among many others, including “Turbo,” ”After Earth,”
”White House Down,” ”The Wolverine” and “The Hangover Part III.”
John Fithian, president of the National Association of Theater
Owners, applauded the record summer revenue as a sign of industry
strength but suggested studios are jamming too many blockbuster releases
into too narrow of a summertime window. This summer followed an
especially poor first quarter for the box office.
“A few of those films suffered because of the congestion,” said
Fithian. “I would encourage studios to look at some of those other
months. In January and February of this year, we had very little
product. We had very few big budget movies. Maybe one of the takeaways
of the summer is: We’ve got a whole bunch of movies, let’s spread a few
of them out a bit more and take advantage of the whole calendar.”
Studios, though, consider the first few months of summer to be, as
Dergarabedian says, “primetime” — when kids are out of school and movies
have the widest audience possible.
“I don’t think anything’s going to change,” says Dergarabedian. Rather, he says, “The lesson is: Try to keep the costs down.”
That worked for several low or medium budget horror films this
summer, including “The Conjuring” and “The Purge.” Several less
expensive comedies also succeeded, like Seth Rogan’s apocalyptic romp
“This Is the End,” Jason Sudeikis’ road trip farce “We’re the Millers”
and the summer’s top comedy, “The Heat,” with Melissa McCarthy and
Sandra Bullock.
Some, like Sharlto Copley, who co-stars in the science-fiction
thriller “Elysium” ($178 million worldwide on a $115 million budget)
hoped some of the summer’s high-cost misfires would push the studios to
devote more resources to other types of films. Even Steven Spielberg,
generally considered the father of the modern blockbuster, made
headlines when he said Hollywood would “implode” if it continued to
focus only on bigger and bigger blockbusters.
“The opportunity to do something original and on a very big scale
seems to be getting rarer and rarer these days,” said Copley. “Maybe if
you have a few more bad times, you’ll see the studios investing in
smaller projects.”
But the top six films of the summer were all sequels or part of
existing franchises, including “Monsters University” and “Fast and
Furious 6.” The high cost of marketing a film (which can rival or
surpass production costs for summer tentpole releases) also makes it
likely studios will continue to increasingly depend on summer popcorn
fare.
North American box-office performance is only part of the story,
anyway. The robot-monster clash “Pacific Rim,” made for $190 million,
was considered one of the summer’s failures after opening with $37.2
million domestically. But it’s made more than $404 million worldwide.
Ultimately, the movie business remains an unpredictable animal, where
supposedly sure things like Will Smith and Johnny Depp don’t always
come through, and micro-budget horror like “The Purge” or an
unremarkable caper like “Now You See Me” can bring in tens of millions.
“There’s something to be said for the stars all being aligned,” said
Rory Bruer, head of distribution for Sony Pictures, which released “One
Direction: This Is It,” as well as several of the summer’s biggest
disappointments like “White House Down” and “After Earth.” ”Sometimes
you don’t hit it at the right moment.”
Estimated ticket sales for Friday through Monday at U.S. and Canadian
theaters, according to Hollywood.com. Where available, latest
international numbers for Friday through Sunday are also included. Final
domestic figures will be released on Tuesday. 1. “Lee Daniels’ The Butler,” $20 million.
2. “One Direction: This Is Us,” $18 million ($14.5 million international).
3. “We’re the Millers,” $15.9 million ($10.9 million international).
4. “Planes,” $10.7 million ($7.9 million international).
5. “Instructions Not Included,” $10 million.
6. “Elysium,” $8.3 million ($17.9 million international).
7. “Mortal Instruments,” $6.8 million ($9.2 million international).
8. “The World’s End,” $6.1 million ($410,000 international).
9. “Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters,” $6.1 million ($11.4 million international).
10. “Getaway,” $5.5 million.
___
Estimated weekend ticket sales Friday through Sunday at international
theaters (excluding the U.S. and Canada) for films distributed overseas
by Hollywood studios, according to Rentrak: 1. “Elysium,” $17.9 million.
2. “One Direction: This Is Us,” $14.5 million.
3. “The Conjuring,” $12.1 million.
4. “Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters,” $11.4 million.
5. “Monsters University,” $11 million.
6. “We’re the Millers,” $10.9 million.
7. “Grown Ups 2,” $10.3 million.
8. “Mortal Instruments,” $9.2 million.
9. “Now You See Me,” $8.7 million.
10. “Smurfs 2,” $8.5 million.
Gestural Design Process Like Iron Man Used, From Tesla & SpaceX Founder Elon Musk (Tweets)
Science non-fiction is becoming a phrase that brings to mind Elon Musk. Let’s review: to his credit, we have a sideways-flying rocket ship that is reusable; a high-tech, super-high-speed transportation concept (800 mph); and what is widely considered the best car on the planet, an electric car. Musk is also thinking about a future metropolis for Mars.
Scientist, entrepreneur, and nerd superstar Elon Musk seems to have
just glided straight onto some high-flying, science-Zen wave and is able
to navigate it, without end, taking us all along to the space age. His
non-fiction, which sometimes makes our science-fiction look normal, is
quite impressive. Musk’s latest such announcement is something out of an
“Iron Man” movie, specifically the part where Tony Stark gesturally
made an Iron Man suit.
Credit: Marvel Studios/Paramount Pictures
OK, it’s not exactly at that level, but it’s the same concept. Musk
has tweeted that he and his team have figured out how to design rocket
parts (for his highly regarded private rocket company, SpaceX) using
hand gestures (more or less as Tony Stark did).
Last Friday, the Tesla Motors and SpaceX founder & CEO tweeted that he and his team had “figured out how to design rocket parts just w hand movements through the air.”
Don’t believe him? Well, he said he’d be posting a video to demonstrate….
Does this guy not sleep?
Musk and team actually seem to have gotten the idea from Iron Man. Iron Man director Jon Favreau actually got on twitter to ask Musk, “Like in Iron Man?”
Musk replied, ”Yup. We saw it in the movie and made it real. Good idea!”
Favreau is of course a VIP, so he then got better access to the news
than most of us could dream to be granted. 4 hours ago, Favreau tweeted,
“Visiting @elonmusk at #SpaceX to see what he’s up to… http://say.ly/REy6CdC.”
Apparently, though, this isn’t the first time the two have hooked up.
Favreau also tweeted the following 4 hours ago: “Fun Fact: SpaceX was
where we filmed Hammer Industries in Iron Man 2.”
'Transformers 4' gets a revealing title and a sandy poster
Four years after the war in Chicago, the Transformers may be facing extinction.
At least that’s the main takeaway from the perfectly hyperbolic new title for Michael Bay’s fourth franchise installment — Transformers: Age of Extinction.
Paramount revealed the title and a brand new, sand-covered poster,
Tuesday, for the Mark Walhberg-starrer that’s scheduled to hit theaters
on June 27, 2014.
Yahoo! Movies
premiered the title and poster and hinted that Dinobots (you know,
robots that turn into dinosaurs) may factor into the story, but no
additional plot details were provided for the fourquel. The poster only
leaves us with more questions. Are the Transformers facing extinction? Are they already assumed to be extinct? Will the Transformers need to be excavated, Jurassic Park-style? Or…recreated Jurassic Park-style?
Are we even talking about Transformers!? Maybe they’re doing just fine
and the humans are the ones in danger of extinction!
вторник, 3 сентября 2013 г.
Are you watching breacking bad??, because I am and love it very much as it is one of the best in this year near Game of Thrones which one I'm watching too. So here I have some news about Breacking bad's ending::::::>
Dean Norris Deconstructs “Breaking Bad’s” Hank Schrader
Dean Norris, who plays the DEA agent on AMC’s gripping series, talks
to Andrew Romano about his character, Sunday’s big plot twist, and the
show’s coming conclusion.
Another Sunday, another nail-biting episode of Breaking Bad.
(WARNING: This story contains spoilers. If you haven’t seen the Sept. 1 episode yet, stop reading now!)
When
last week’s installment, “Confessions,” ended, it seemed as if Jesse
Pinkman (Aaron Paul) was about to incinerate Walter White’s house. And
Hank Schrader (Dean Norris), who was devastated by the devious
confession video that Walt (Bryan Cranston) slid to him across the table
of a local Mexican restaurant, seemed about to give up.
Ursula Coyote/AMC
Not
so much, it turns out. In this Sunday’s episode, “Rabid Dog,” Hank is
right back on the case. First, he catches Jesse pouring gasoline on the
Whites’ carpet. Then he extracts a videotaped confession from the
troubled young meth cook. Then he convinces the kid to wear a wire to a
meeting with Walt. By the end of the episode—after Jesse, who’s
convinced that Walt is plotting to kill him, bails on the
rendezvous—Schrader and Pinkman are cruising through Albuquerque in
Hank’s cop car and hatching a new plan to nab Heisenberg. They are, in
other words, a team—an improbable (but, come to think of it, inevitable)
team.
To
help process the latest twists and turns in a series with no shortage
of them, I gave Dean Norris—a.k.a. Hank Schrader himself—a call. Norris
was gracious enough to tell me what Hank was actually thinking when he
watched Walt’s confession video, why Jesse and Hank’s new partnership
makes perfect emotional sense—and to hint at where Breaking Bad is heading next.
“Hank
wants to be the guy who fights injustice,” Norris explained. “And I
think [creator] Vince [Gilligan] does, too. That’s part of Vince’s
character. That there’s some sort of, you know, karmic justice in the
world, and Hank represents that force. He’s not going to let Walt get
away with what he’s done.”
Was
Norris suggesting that Hank will come out on top—that he'll wind up
defeating Walt? He wouldn’t elaborate. But when I asked for one word to
describe how Breaking Bad would end, Norris chose carefully.
“Properly,” he said. Make of that what you will.
Edited excerpts from our conversation:
THE DAILY BEAST: Last week I criticized Walt’s confession video,
and I got into some trouble with my fellow fans. My take was that it
seemed like more of a clever plot twist than something that stemmed from
character—yours in particular. I don’t think Hank would’ve felt like he
was in such a corner—that the video was “the last nail in our coffin,”
as he put it. But you’ve clearly thought about this more than I have.
Tell me why I’m wrong.
DEAN
NORRIS: The thing about Hank is that he has his own hubris. In the way
that Walt couldn’t let somebody else take credit for the blue meth, and
it kept Hank on his trail, Hank too feels he’s the guy who has to bring
Heisenberg down. And I think it’s a legitimate concern: if he goes to
the DEA he might lose his job—and then he wouldn’t be able to get Walt.
He needs to do that for his own soul.
“Hank’s not going to let Walt get away with what he’s done.”
The
so-called confession complicates his predicament. I don’t think Hank
feels that he would get in trouble. But he knows the video would confuse
matters such that it would keep him off the case--and that more than
likely Walt would die before he got the chance to prosecute him.
So
that’s what was going through Hank’s head when he sees the video—maybe
less that he could get in trouble, or that the DEA would believe he was
Heisenberg, and more that if he shows it to anyone the whole case would
get snared up in red tape and he be able to finish the job?
Right. Exactly. There was actually a line to that effect in that episode initially.
What was the line?
I
think Hank said to Marie at one point, “I want to be the guy who brings
him in.” When Hank comes home and has a little sip of the Knob
Creek--it was in that scene. Hank just can’t give up the ghost. Walt is
his white whale. He wants to nail him.
And he prefers to go rogue at this point.
Right.
And here’s the other thing: throughout the series, Hank has gone to the
DEA and they’ve never believed him. About Gus Fring, about everybody
else. And he’s always been right. So at this point he’s like, “Fuck it.
I’ll do it myself. I’ll get Walter.”
Let’s
talk about Sunday’s episode. We find out pretty quickly that Hank was
following Jesse. How did we go from Hank saying the video was the “last
nail in our coffin” to Hank catching Jesse in the act of trying to burn
down Walt’s house? Was following Jesse part of Hank’s plan? Or was he
just acting out of desperation?
Hank
has been on the rogue case. No question about it. He’s been following
Walter White. The GPS led to the garage scene. And he’s been following
Jesse Pinkman as well.
Last
Sunday, Hank was just reacting to the truth of that DVD--that he’s
fucked in terms of DEA help. That was clearly the most despondent he’s
been about this whole thing. But he picks himself up off the ground when
he realizes Jesse is over at the Whites’ house. “That’s gotta be
something.” And once again, before being completely knocked out, Hank
gets one last chance to beat Heisenberg.
What
can you tell us about Jesse’s plan to “burn Walt to the ground?” At the
end of the episode he and Hank are riding around together like
partners. Is Hank onboard? He seems increasingly willing to work outside
the law to catch Walt.
That’s
true. That’s part of what’s happening with him. As Hank’s desperation
rises, he realizes that for better or for worse he has to work with
Jesse.
And
that’s a smart thing about Hank, by the way. He’s not going to say no
just because. Instead he says, “OK, this kid knows what’s going on. He’s
got a plan. I’m going to listen to him.” What else is Hank going to do?
Jesse is his key to getting Walt. And that’s so important to Hank that
he’s willing to listen to this junkie kid to do it. Hank is smart
enough, and desperate enough, and egoless enough--at this point Hank has
no ego left; whatever it takes to get Walt--that he’s willing to check
it out.
Is Hank beginning to respect Jesse more?
I
think he is. And that started, just barely, during the interrogation
scene in episode three. As he starts to comprehend the monstrosity that
is Walter White, Hank realizes that Walt has just beat this kid up
emotionally. He sees that Jesse was betrayed.
It’s
almost as if Hank sees he and Jesse as being the same in some way, even
though they’re so different. They’ve both been hurt by Walter White.
That
is exactly the thing that allows Hank to cut Jesse some slack. He
realizes this kid has been manipulated and burned by Walt, and Hank has
just felt that himself.
Also,
Hank realizes how much he himself has been motivated by that betrayal,
and he’s hoping that the same sense of betrayal will motivate Jesse.
He’s hoping that Jesse hates Walt so much now that the kid will be on
his side for good.
When you read the pilot, what was your first impression of Hank ? How would you have described him at that point?
My
first impression was the same as a lot of people’s. I saw him as part
of the comic relief of the show—and they kind of needed it in the
beginning, before Saul Goodman appeared. And Hank was written that way.
To be a blowhard—a boisterous guy. A douchebag, really. In the audition
for the pilot, Hank was even more racist. More jokes about Mexicans.
More over-the-top.
Over
the course of the show, though, my impression of Hank has changed
almost as much as my impression of Walt has. He seems much more
vulnerable now—much more three-dimensional than the macho bulldog we
first met in Season 1. Has your conception of the character changed,
too?
Oh
yeah. Absolutely. That started in Season 2, when Hank shoots Tuco. Then
about four episodes later he has this panic attack. But it’s not until
Season 3 where you see the repercussions—where he ends up on the bed
with his wife and he says, “I’m just not the man I thought I was. I
don’t think I can do this anymore.” Once he almost gets his head cut
off, that’s it. I think that’s a life-changing event. [Laughs]
Why do you think Vince and the rest of the writing team decided to deepen Hank’s character so much? Was it a surprise to you?
These
things kind of happen over time. Vince has said that as we got to know
each other, he got more comfortable going in that direction. But I’ve
often wondered why. It’s almost like I needed to re-audition. [Laughs]
Do you think Hank is the hero of the show?
I
think he wants to be. He’s the only one who hasn’t compromised himself.
Even Jesse, who is in many ways the heart of the show--he’s still a
compromised character. He committed murder. But Hank is the one guy who
has had the opportunity to compromise himself--he certainly could have
lied about beating up Jesse, saved himself a lot of hassle, saved
himself from getting his head almost cut off--and he didn’t. Because he
wants to have a clean soul. That’s where he is now. He wants to be the
guy who fights injustice.
And
I think Vince does, too. That’s part of Vince’s character. That there’s
some sort of, you know, karmic justice in the world, and Hank
represents that force. He’s not going to let Walt get away with what
he’s done.
But
then--and this is what’s so brilliant about Breaking Bad—Hank also says
in Sunday’s episode that he’s willing to let Jesse die to get Walt.
There’s always that grey area in every character. That complexity. Hank
is not all “white knight.”
Right.
I think that’s the first time in five seasons that you see that from
Hank. It reflects the desperation he’s feeling now. It’s all in that one
little line; you don’t see a whole lot of it other than that.
What were you feeling when you shot the scene?
When
I played it, in my mind the line was… Hank was putting up a little bit
of a front. I don’t think Hank felt completely comfortable saying he
would let Jesse die. His “so be it” attitude was kind of a macho
thing—for his partner’s benefit. Hank was kind of sad that he had go
there.
Is that kind of complexity and desperation something we can expect from Hank as the season progresses toward the finale?
A
little bit. But Hank is still the guy who wants to do good police work.
He’s not going to go plant a gun on Walt. He’s not going to lie or fake
the case--which another agent could be desperate enough to do.
It’s
the end of the first half of season five. Hank’s on the toilet. Did he
figure out all at once that Walt was Heisenberg, or do you think that he
had an inkling earlier?
I
don’t think Hank knew. I think that’s the whole conceit of the show,
and it’s one that I buy into. I’m the one who looks at the character.
Hank wasn’t stupid, so he got close. He figured out the whole elaborate
Gus Fring thing. He got the Jesse Pinkman stuff. But it was just so
implausible that the Walter White Hank knew could ever possibly be this
Heisenberg guy. And that’s a central point of the whole show: it’s the
guy next door who commits a mass murder, and the neighbors always go,
“He was such a nice guy. He was quiet.”
So
I don’t think it was failing of Hank Schrader. It’s what we do as human
beings--we slot people into certain categories. Walt was his brother.
How could this guy Hank had barbecues with, and hung out with, and who
has a baby--it’s not even plausible that he could be Heisenberg. I think
that whole revelation on the toilet was exactly that: a revelation.
Then we return with the half-season premiere
and that scene with Hank and Walt in the garage, which was one of the
best I’ve ever seen on television, your performance in particular. How
difficult was it to capture that strange mix of sadness and rage and
betrayal and confusion?
That
scene took some developing. When we first did, there was a lot more
rage. We kind of knew that wasn’t how we were going to end up doing it,
but we needed to get that one out. Once we did, that rage kind of stayed
there, and we just whittled it down to what I had talked to Bryan about
the night before, when I knew the scene was coming up: betrayal and
hurt.
That’s
the thing. Hank and Marie don’t have any family. The only family they
have is Walter White and Skyler and the kids. This is his brother. So
there’s anger and rage, but there is also a lot of hurt and betrayal.
This is a guy Hank has known for 20 years--a guy who is supposed to be
his brother. We realized that was the thing at the heart of the scene
for Hank. So when we layered that in, having already played the rage, it
was really nice.
No spoilers, of course, but what are one or two words that you would use to describe how Breaking Bad ends?
“Properly.”
Were you surprised by the ending when you first found out?
I’m surprised by every script I get. Seriously.
How does Hank deal with so much purple everywhere? Marie is a bit obsessed.
That’s why he drinks the Knob Creek.
And why he brews Schraderbrau.
[Laughs]
Last question: what ever happened to Hank’s mineral collection? He spent so much time assembling it.
He
probably boxed it up and put it in the closet. That was his “I’m not a
cop anymore” phase--“I’m going to do something that’s the complete
opposite of what a cop does, that’s completely inert.” And he just sat
there and stared at minerals.
But
in a way, although it kills Hank, the W.W. thing rejuvenates him, too.
Sometimes men are not all that complicated—they just need a task. So now
Hank’s back to doing what he loves to do. It’s hurtful and it’s hard,
but it’s his purpose in life—trying to catch the bad guy.
No more rocks now that he’s a cop again.
No more minerals.
понедельник, 2 сентября 2013 г.
Some days I' going to post WHAT's NEW news!!!
So here you have the first what's new news:
The top 10 hot gadgets of 2013
10. Nvidia Project Shield
This
portable gaming device claims to redefine gaming on the go. The Android
gadget, with top-of-the-range audio and visual quality, lets you play
high-quality games away from your home. You can also connect the device
to your PC using wifi, so you can play your favourite games without
having to get off the couch.
It's still in development, but should
be shipping to the USA and Canada in the second half on 2013. Nvidia
say they want to ship to other countries, including the UK, as soon as
they can after launch.
9. Cambridge Audio Minx Air
This sound system can play your music from whatever device you want - smartphone, tablet or computer.
Using
Cambridge Audio's expertise in hi-fi design and wireless streaming
quality, you can listen to your favourite song in high quality while
still being able to use your phone or tablet.
The device can also play the radio, and is compatible for both Apple and Android products.
Costing £330, you can buy one online or in store at Richer Sounds.
8. Pebble
Billed as "the first watch for the 21st century," the Pebble watch has different faces that you can download and customise.
Pebble
connects to iPhone and Android smartphones using Bluetooth, alerting
you with a silent vibration to incoming calls, emails and messages.
With apps you can turn the watch into a stopwatch, GPS, mp3 player and computer, to use while you're on the go.
Initially
funded through Kickstarter, those who donated have already got their
watches. You can pre-order one for $150 online for when more become
available.
7. Fujifilm X100S
This retro-styled camera brings together the best of traditional photography and its digital counterpart.
With
a 16.3MP X-Trans CMOS sensor and on-chip phase detection, the X100S now
has a better autofocus speed than previous models. This is supported by
a new processor, the 'EXR Processor II', which includes a new 'Lens
Modulation Optimiser' function.
With an improved user interface
and viewfinder, this is a serious camera for serious photographers. It
can be bought online for £1,099.
6. PaperTab
Combining the flexibility of paper with the endurance of digital, PaperTab is set to change the way we work on documents.
PaperTab
only allows the user to open one thing at a time, but have several
papers. This means users can do things like share PDFs just by tapping
two tablets together, fast-forward during a video by bending the
display, and opening emails by touching two displays together.
Unfortunately, the device is still in construction and there has been no word on a release date - or a price.
5. Sony 4K OLED TV
This will be the world's first Ultra High Definition television that uses Organic LEDs, with a native 3,840 x 2,160 OLED panel.
The
56-inch set gives outstanding detail and high-quality image, and
experts are saying it will change the way we watch television for good.
Again, no release date or price has been mentioned - but technology fans
are desperate to get their hands on the newest piece of TV tech.
4. Google Glass
This highly anticipated piece of technology will allow wearers to have a hands-free technological experience.
While
you wear the lightweight glasses, you can use your voice to command
them to take pictures, record video, send messages, find directions and
translate your speech.
The glasses connect to the Internet and use Google's services to create a hands-free smartphone, right in front of your eyes.
Google
are testing the product on a lucky few who applied to be "Glass
Explorers", but they will be released to a wider audience soon.
3. Sony PlayStation 4
Sony have only given tantalising details of the PS4, but by all accounts it will provide a new boost for gaming.
The
controller has replaced some buttons with touchscreen technology, and
the console now has a share function which lets you record, edit and
upload gaming footage and share it online with friends.
Industry
analysts say that they don’t expect to see one until the E3 gaming expo
this June, and will probably be released in December.
2. Samsung Galaxy S4
Samsung unveiled their new Android phone earlier this month in New York, and are expecting it to outsell Apple's products.
Among new feature is the Galaxy S4's remote technology which allows users to control functions without touching the screen.
"Smart
pause" means people can pause a video by looking away from the screen,
while "smart scroll" lets users scroll through emails without touching
the screen, the S4 detecting the movements of the eyes and wrist.
Users can also change music tracks or accept a call with a simple wave of a hand.
The Galaxy S will be rolled out globally at the end of April, and will be available on several different contracts.
1. 3D printers
3D printing is
already causing waves, with the technology being used in dozens of
industries across the world including clothing, engineering and
medicine.
Using technology which maps out an object, the printers
then layer thin slices of plastic - or other materials - on top of each
other to create a 3D object.
It is hoped that 3D printers can
provide cheap and quick production, possibly providing solutions to
problems such as forensic investigations.
Some companies, such as
RepRap, are trying to produce 3D printers available for home use, as
most are only used in industrial or commercial settings.
As if another device is needed to make people worse spellers than spell check, two German entrepreneurs have invented the self-correcting pen.
