Difference Between A Plasma Tv And Lcd Tv

Posted on 26th April 2016 by in Public Relations

By Adriana Noton

If you have recently started looking for a new TV, you know that choosing the right TV that meets your needs can be a difficult decision. Plasma TV and LCD TV are the two main choices in the TV market. Before you select one of these types of large, slim, and flat display TVs, it is important to understand the difference between the two so you do not regret your purchase.

Plasma TV

Plasma TV technology is loosely based on the fluorescent light bulb. Between the plates of glass there are very small cells where such gases as ionized neon, argon, and xenon are injected and preserved in plasma form. When the ionized (electrically charged) gas is in its sealed plasma form, they produce the colored images green, blue phosphors, and red. When the Plasma TV set is being used, the gas is electrically charged at specific intervals which then hit the colors (each group of red, green, and blue phosphors is called a pixel) and produces the image on the television. Plasma TV technology make use of the burning of phosphors to produce the image. Plasma TV advantages include: high quality image, better contrast ratio, color accuracy, and color saturation, the display of the color black is quite vivid, and viewers are able to clearly view the television image at different angles. Plasma TVs are available in a larger screen size than the LCD TVs. Plasma TV disadvantages include: screen burn of static images, excessive heat production, and the glass screens are fragile.

YouTube Preview Image

LCD TV

LCD TVs use different technology than plasma televisions. LCD panels consist of 2 layers of clear material, which are polarized and then ‘glued’ together. One layer has been coated with a specific polymer that holds the individual liquid crystals. An electrical current passes through each crystal which permits the crystals to allow light in or block the light in order to produce and display the television images. LCD crystals require an external light source for the image to be created by the LCD so that it is visible to the person watching the television. LCD TVs are not as good at tracking motion as Plasma. They have poorer contrast ratio and individual pixels can burn out resulting in small, visible, black or white dots to appear on the screen. The big screen sizes are not as common as with the plasma. The advantages of LCD TVs include: less power is needed, less heat is needed and generated, they do not emit radiation, they have increased image brightness over plasma, perform better at higher altitudes, they are lighter in weight, and they have a longer display life.

For many people, it is essential that they have the right television. Today, Plasmas and LCDs are used all over the world When you understand the differences between the LCD TV and Plasma TV which includes the advantages and disadvantages of each one, you will be in a better position to get a TV that meets your personal needs and preferences.

About the Author: If you like to follow the latest trends of the electronic world, go to this online shopping site and experience a large assortment of Plasma TV prices and LCD TV deals for many famous brands.

Source: isnare.com

Permanent Link: isnare.com/?aid=666046&ca=Computers+and+Technology

Motion Picture Association of America

Posted on 26th April 2016 by in Uncategorized

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is an American trade association that represents the six major Hollywood studios. It was founded in 1922 as the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA) to advance the business interests of its members. In its formative years it took on the role of devising guidelines for film content which resulted in the creation of the Production Code, and currently administers the MPAA film rating system.

More recently, the MPAA has advocated for the motion picture and television industry through lobbying to protect creative content from piracy and for the removal of trade barriers. The MPAA has long worked to curb copyright infringement, including recent attempts to limit the sharing of copyrighted works via peer-to-peer file-sharing networks. Former Democratic Senator Chris Dodd is the chairman and CEO.

The MPAA was founded as the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA) in 1922 as a trade association of member motion picture companies. At its founding, MPPDA member companies produced approximately 70 to 80 percent of the films made in the United States.[1] Former Postmaster General Will H. Hays was named the association’s first president.[2]

The main focus of the MPPDA in its early years was on producing a strong public relations campaign to ensure that Hollywood remained financially stable and able to attract investment from Wall Street, while simultaneously ensuring that American films had a “clean moral tone”.[1][3] The MPPDA also instituted a code of conduct for Hollywood’s actors in an attempt to govern their behavior offscreen. Finally, the code sought to protect American film interests abroad by encouraging film studios to avoid racist portrayals of foreigners.[2][4]

From the early days of the association, Hays spoke out against public censorship,[4][5] and the MPPDA worked to raise support from the general public for the film industry’s efforts against such censorship.[6] Large portions of the public both opposed censorship, but also decried the lack of morals in movies.[7]

At the time of the MPPDA’s founding, there was no national censorship, but some state and municipal laws required movies to be censored, a process usually oveseen by a local censorship board.[7] Thus, in certain locations in the US, films were often edited to comply with local laws regarding the onscreen portrayal of violence and sexuality, among other topics. This resulted in negative publicity for the studios and decreasing numbers of theater goers, who were uninterested in films that were sometimes so severely edited that they were incoherent.[2] In 1929 more than 50 percent of American moviegoers lived in a location overseen by such a board.[7]

In 1924, Hays instituted “The Formula”, a loose set of guidelines for filmmakers, in an effort to get the movie industry to self-regulate the issues that the censorship boards had been created to address. “The Formula” requested that studios send synopses of films being considered to the MPDDA for review. This effort largely failed, however, as studios were under no obligation to send their scripts to Hays’s office, nor to follow his recommendations.[7]

In 1927, Hays oversaw the creation of a code of “Don’ts and Be Carefuls” for the industry.[7] This list outlined the issues that movies could encounter in different localities. Hays also created a Studio Relations Department (SRD) with staff available to the studios for script reviews and advice regarding potential problems. Again, despite Hays’s efforts, studios largely ignored the “Don’ts and Be Carefuls”, and by the end of 1929, the MPPDA received only about 20% of Hollywood scripts prior to production,[2] and the number of regional and local censorship boards continued to increase.[7]

In 1930, the MPPDA introduced the Production Code, sometimes called the Hays Code. The Code consisted of moral guidelines regarding what was acceptable to include in films.[8] Unlike the “Dont’s and Be Carefuls”, which the studios had ignored, the Production Code was endorsed by studio executives.[2] The Code incorporated many of the “Don’ts and Be Carefuls” as specific examples of what could not be portrayed. Among other rules, the code prohibited inclusion of “scenes of passion” unless they were essential to a film’s plot, “pointed profanity” in either word or action, “sex perversion”, justification or explicit coverage of adultery, sympathetic treatment of crime or criminals, dancing with “indecent” moves, and white slavery.[9] Because studio executives had been involved in the decision to adopt the code, MPPDA-member studios were more willing to submit scripts for consideration. However, the growing economic impacts of the Great Depression of the early 1930s increased pressure on studios to make films that would draw the largest possible audiences, even if it meant taking their chances with local censorship boards by disobeying the Code.[2]

In 1933 and 1934, the Catholic Legion of Decency, along with a number of Protestant and women’s groups, launched plans to boycott films that they deemed immoral.[10] In order to avert boycotts which might further harm the profitability of the film industry, the MPPDA created a new department, the Production Code Administration (PCA), with Joseph Breen as its head. Unlike previous attempts at self-censorship, PCA decisions were binding—no film could be exhibited in an American theater without a stamp of approval from the PCA,[7] and any producer attempting to do so faced a fine of $25,000.[2] After ten years of unsuccessful voluntary codes and expanding local censorship boards, the studio-approved and agreed, nationwide Production Code was enforced as of July 1, 1934.[7]

In the years that immediately followed the adoption of the Code, Breen often sent films back to Hollywood for additional edits, and in some cases, simply refused to issue PCA approval for a film to be shown.[2][11] At the same time, Hays promoted the industry’s new focus on wholesome films[12] and continued promoting American films abroad.[13]

For nearly three years, studios complied with the Code. By 1938, however, as the threat of war in Europe loomed, movie producers began to worry about the possibility of decreased profits abroad. This led to a decreased investment in following the strictures of the code, and occasional refusals to comply with PCA demands.[2] That same year, responding to trends in European films in the run-up to the war, Hays spoke out against using movies as a vehicle for propaganda.[14]

In 1945, after 24 years as president, Hays stepped down from his position at the MPPDA, although he continued to act as an advisor for the Association for the next five years.[15]

In 1945, the MPPDA hired Eric Johnston, four-time president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, to replace Will Hays.[16] During his first year as president, Johnston rebranded the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).[2]

He also created the Motion Picture Export Association (MPEA) to promote American films abroad by opposing production company monopolies in other countries.[17][18] In 1947, the MPEA voted to discontinue film shipments to Britain after the British government imposed an import tax on American films.[19] Johnston negotiated with the British government to end the tax in 1948, and film shipments resumed.[20]

In 1956, Johnston oversaw the first major revision of the Production Code since its implementation in 1930. This revision allowed the treatment of some subjects which had previously been forbidden, including abortion and the use of narcotics, so long as they were “within the limits of good taste”. At the same time, the revisions added a number of new restrictions to the code, including outlawing the depiction of blasphemy and mercy killings in films.[21]

Johnston was well-liked by studio executives, and his political connections helped him function as an effective liaison between Hollywood and Washington.[22] In 1963, while still serving as president of the MPAA, Johnston died of a stroke.[23] For three years, the MPAA operated without a president while studio executives searched for a replacement.[24]

The MPAA hired Jack Valenti, former aide to President Lyndon Johnson, as president of the MPAA in 1966.[25] In one of his first actions as president, in 1968 Valenti replaced the Production Code with a system of voluntary film ratings, in order to limit censorship of Hollywood films and provide parents with information about the appropriateness of films for children.[26] In addition to concerns about protecting children,[27] Valenti stated in his autobiography that he sought to ensure that American filmmakers could produce the films they wanted, without the censorship that existed under the Production Code that had been in effect since 1930.[26]

In 1975, Valenti established the Film Security Office, an anti-piracy division at the MPAA, which sought to recover unauthorized recordings of films to prevent duplication.[25][28] Valenti continued to fight piracy into the 1980s, asking Congress to install chips in VCRs that would prevent illegal reproduction of video cassettes,[29] and in the 1990s supported law enforcement efforts to stop bootleg distribution of video tapes.[30] Valenti also oversaw a major change in the ratings system that he had helped create—the removal of the “X” rating, which had come to be closely associated with pornography. It was replaced with a new rating, “NC-17”, in 1990.[31][32]

In 2001, Valenti established the Digital Strategy Department at the MPAA to specifically address issues surrounding digital film distribution and piracy.[25][33]

After serving as president of the MPAA for 38 years, Valenti announced that he would step down in 2004.[34] In September of that year, he was replaced by former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman.[25] During his tenure, Glickman focused on tax issues and anti-piracy efforts.[35] He led lobbying efforts that resulted in $400 million in federal tax incentives for the movie industry, and also supported a law which created federal oversight of anti-piracy efforts.[36] Glickman stepped down as president of the MPAA in 2010.[35][37]

After a search which lasted over a year, the MPAA hired former US Senator Chris Dodd to replace Glickman in March 2011.[38] In his role as president, Dodd has focused on anti-piracy efforts, trade, and improving Hollywood’s image since becoming MPAA president.[39] He traveled to China in 2011 in an effort to encourage the Chinese government to both crack down on piracy and further open their film market.[40] In 2012, he spoke out in support of the passage of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA).[41] After the two bills were shelved, Dodd indicated that Hollywood might cut off campaign contributions to politicians who failed to support the movie industry in the future.[42] Dodd has also highlighted the need for movie studios to embrace technology as a means of distributing content.[43]

On December 24, 2014, it was known from the Sony Pictures Entertainment hack, that the MPAA made false statements of the deals made with media search engines that lost in court against the MPAA, in order to make it appear that these companies made bigger payments to MPAA instead of what actually was made.[44][45]

The MPAA administers a motion picture rating system used in the United States to rate the suitability of films’ themes and content for certain audiences. The system was first introduced in November 1968, and has gone through several changes since then.[46][47] The ratings system is completely voluntary, and ratings have no legal standing.[48][49] Instead, theater owners enforce the MPAA film ratings after they have been assigned,[50] with many theaters refusing to exhibit non-rated films.[51] An unrated film is often denoted by “NR” in newspapers and so forth, although it is not a formal MPAA rating.[52]

In 2006, the film This Film Is Not Yet Rated alleged that the MPAA gave preferential treatment to member studios during the process of assigning ratings,[53] as well as criticizing the rating process for its lack of transparency. In response, the MPAA posted its ratings rules, policies, and procedures, as well as its appeals process, online.[54]

The ratings currently used by the MPAA’s voluntary system are:[55]

The original members of the MPAA were the “Big Eight” film studios, Paramount Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Loews, Universal Studios, Warner Bros., Columbia Pictures, United Artists, and RKO Pictures.[56] Two years later, Loews merged with Metro Pictures, Goldwyn Pictures, and Louis B. Mayer Productions to form Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.[57]

United Artists briefly resigned from the organization in 1956 over a ratings dispute, although they rejoined later in the decade.[58] By 1966, Allied Artists Pictures had joined the original members.[59] In the following decade, new members joining the MPAA included Avco Embassy by 1975, and Walt Disney Studios in 1979.[60][61][62] The next year, Filmways became a MPAA member, but was later replaced in 1986 along with Avco Embassy, when the De Laurentiis Entertainment Group and Orion Pictures joined the MPAA roster.[61]

In 1995, the MPAA members were: the Walt Disney Studios; Paramount Pictures; Universal Studios; Warner Bros; 20th Century Fox; MGM—which included United Artists after their 1981 merger—and Sony Pictures Entertainment, which included Columbia and TriStar Pictures after their acquisition in 1989.[63][64] Turner Entertainment joined the MPAA in 1995, but was purchased in 1996 by Time Warner.[65][66]

As of 2013, the MPAA member companies are: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures; Paramount Pictures Corporation; Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; Universal City Studios LLC; and Warner Bros Entertainment Inc.[67]

The MPAA’s concerted efforts at fighting content sharing began in 1975 with the establishment of the Film Security Office, which sought to recover unauthorized recordings of films in order to prevent duplication.[25][28] The MPAA has continued to pursue a number of initiatives to combat illegal distribution of Hollywood films, especially in response to new technologies. In the 1980s, it spoke out against VCRs and the threat that the MPAA believed they represented to the movie industry,[68] with MPAA president Jack Valenti drawing a parallel between the threat of the VCR and that of the Boston Strangler.[69] In 1986, the MPAA asked Congress to pass a law that would require VCRs to come equipped with a chip to prevent them from making copies.[29] Legal efforts at stopping homemade copies of broadcast television largely ended, however, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that such copying constituted fair use.[70] The MPAA continued to support law enforcement efforts to stop bootleg production and distribution of videos tapes and laserdiscs into the 1990s,[30][71] and in 2000 took legal action against individuals posting DVD decryption software on the Internet.[72] Following the release of RealDVD—an application that enabled users to make copies of DVDs—RealNetworks sued the DVD Copy Control Association and the major studios in 2008 over the legality of the software; RealNetworks accused the MPAA of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act,[73] but the judgment found there were no grounds for the claim and dismissed the suit.[74] As of 2013, the MPAA has also continued to support law enforcement efforts to prevent illegal distribution of copyrighted materials online.[75] The MPAA and its British counterpart, the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT), also funded the training of Lucky and Flo, a pair of Labrador Retrievers, to detect polycarbonates used in the manufacturing of DVDs.[76]

In the early 2000s, the MPAA began to focus its anti-file sharing efforts on peer-to-peer file sharing, initially using a combination of educational campaigns[77] and cease and desist letters to discourage such activity. In the first six months of 2002, the MPAA sent more than 18,000 such letters to internet service providers that hosted copyright-infringing content.[78]

In late 2004, however, the MPAA changed course and filed lawsuits in a concerted effort to address copyright infringement on a number of large online file-sharing services, including BitTorrent and eDonkey.[79] The following year, the MPAA expanded its legal actions to include lawsuits against individuals who downloaded and distributed copyrighted material via peer-to-peer networks.[80]

The MPAA also played a role in encouraging the Swedish government to conduct a raid of the Pirate Bay file-sharing website in May 2006.[81] Swedish officials have acknowledged that part of the motivation for the raid was the threat of sanctions from the World Trade Organization, along with a letter from the MPAA.[82][83]

In 2013, the Center for Copyright Information unveiled the Copyright Alert System, a system established through an agreement between the MPAA, the Recording Industry Association of America, and five of the USA’s largest internet service providers.[84] The system uses a third-party service to identify content being distributed illegally. Users are then informed that their accounts are being used for possible copyright infringement and are provided with information about ways to get authorized content online.[85] Users who receive multiple notices of infringement may have “mitigations measures” imposed on them, such as temporary slowing of their Internet service, but the system does not include termination of subscriber accounts. Subscribers facing such action have a right to appeal to the American Arbitration Association.[86]

In January 2015 details from the Sony Pictures Entertainment hack revealed the MPAA’s lobbying of the United States International Trade Commission to mandate US ISPs either at the internet transit level or consumer level internet service provider, implement IP address blocking pirate websites as well as linking websites.[87]

The MPAA has also produced publicity campaigns to discourage piracy. The Who Makes Movies? advertising campaign in 2003 highlighted workers in the movie industry describing how piracy affected them. The video spots ran as trailers before movies, and as television advertisements.[88] In 2004, the MPAA began using the slogan “You can click, but you can’t hide”. This slogan appeared in messages that replaced file-sharing websites after they had been shut down through MPAA legal action.[89] It also appeared in posters and videos distributed to video stores by the MPAA.[90] Also in 2004, the MPAA partnered with the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore to release a trailer shown before films in theaters called You Wouldn’t Steal a Car.[91] The trailer was later placed at the beginning of the video on many DVDs in such a way that it could not be bypassed (not being able to skip or fast-forward), which triggered criticism and a number of parodies.[92]

In 2005, the MPAA commissioned a study to examine the effects of file sharing on movie industry profitability. The study concluded that the industry lost $6.1 billion per year to piracy, and that up to 44% of domestic losses were due to file sharing by college students. In 2008, the MPAA revised the percentage of loss due to college students down to 15%, citing human error in the initial calculations of this figure. Beyond the percentage of the loss that was attributable to college students, however, no other errors were found in the study.[93]

The MPAA has itself been accused of copyright infringement on multiple occasions. In 2007, the creator of a blogging platform called Forest Blog accused the MPAA of violating the license for the platform, which required that users link back to the Forest Blog website. The MPAA had used the platform for its own blog, but without linking back to the Forest Blog website. The MPAA subsequently took the blog offline.[94]

Also in 2007, the MPAA released a software toolkit for universities to help identify cases of file sharing on campus. The software used parts of the Ubuntu Linux distribution, released under the General Public License, which stipulates that the source code of any projects using the distribution be made available to third parties. The source code for the MPAA’s toolkit, however, was not made available. When the MPAA was made aware of the violation, the software toolkit was removed from their website.[95]

In 2006, the MPAA admitted having made illegal copies of This Film Is Not Yet Rated (a documentary exploring the MPAA itself and the history of its rating system)[96] — an act which Ars Technica explicitly described as hypocrisy[97] and which Roger Ebert called “rich irony”.[98] The MPAA subsequently stated that it had the legal right to copy the film despite this being counter to the filmmaker’s explicit request, because the documentary’s exploration of the MPAA’s ratings board was potentially a violation of the board members’ privacy.[96]

FEMA accused of misusing trained disaster workers as public-relations workers

Posted on 25th April 2016 by in Uncategorized

Monday, September 12, 2005 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is being criticized for misallocation of personnel in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. FEMA representatives said they requested volunteers from fire departments around the U.S., to handle its community relations campaign. However, a document FEMA sent to local fire departments asked for firefighters with very specific skills and who were capable of working in “austere conditions”. Fire departments around the nation responded by sending crews to the FEMA staging ground in Atlanta. Some of these crews were unaware that they were only going to be used for public relations work. Others, however, merely hoped that FEMA would allocate them to rescue and damage control operations once it saw their qualifications.

The firefighter’s objections are particularly poignant as one of FEMA public relations training seminars coincided with New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin plea for firefighters on national television, to relieve his own exhausted crews. It is unclear if FEMA’s request for firefighters prevented any municipalities from responding to Mayor Nagin’s request.

Some firefighters have objected to their use as FEMA public relations officers because their municipalities must bear the cost of their salaries, as well as endure reduced firefighting capacity. FEMA has stated that it sought to use firefighters to avoid background checks required of federal employees.

Firefighters began receiving their assignments Monday, September 5th. Among these was a crew of 50 assigned to tour the devastated areas with President Bush and the press.

FEMA accused of misusing trained disaster workers as public-relations workers

Posted on 25th April 2016 by in Uncategorized

Monday, September 12, 2005 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is being criticized for misallocation of personnel in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. FEMA representatives said they requested volunteers from fire departments around the U.S., to handle its community relations campaign. However, a document FEMA sent to local fire departments asked for firefighters with very specific skills and who were capable of working in “austere conditions”. Fire departments around the nation responded by sending crews to the FEMA staging ground in Atlanta. Some of these crews were unaware that they were only going to be used for public relations work. Others, however, merely hoped that FEMA would allocate them to rescue and damage control operations once it saw their qualifications.

The firefighter’s objections are particularly poignant as one of FEMA public relations training seminars coincided with New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin plea for firefighters on national television, to relieve his own exhausted crews. It is unclear if FEMA’s request for firefighters prevented any municipalities from responding to Mayor Nagin’s request.

Some firefighters have objected to their use as FEMA public relations officers because their municipalities must bear the cost of their salaries, as well as endure reduced firefighting capacity. FEMA has stated that it sought to use firefighters to avoid background checks required of federal employees.

Firefighters began receiving their assignments Monday, September 5th. Among these was a crew of 50 assigned to tour the devastated areas with President Bush and the press.

How Do Braces Work?

Posted on 24th April 2016 by in Dentist

Dental braces and retainers are one of the most effective and non-invasive orthodontic treatments to straighten your teeth. Whether you have a problem of misalignment, such as an overbite or underbite, or you have crooked, uneven or crowded teeth, dental braces can help improve their position gradually but permanently. If you are facing this problem of teeth in Calgary, you can get in touch with a leading Calgary orthodontist for braces treatment.

The orthodontist will perform a clinical exam as well as take digital images of the teeth and the entire mouth. The initial steps will also include taking pictures and impressions of your teeth in order to prepare custom-fitted braces. A detailed braces treatment plan will be prepared to ensure systematic treatment, and the patient will get an idea of how long the treatment will continue.

Dental braces essentially work by applying pressure on the teeth to gradually move them into the desired position. The pressure has to be continuous, and the position of the teeth will improve over a period of time. Braces are made up of several small components, and each component performs a specific role to help achieve the expected results in the shortest possible period of time.

YouTube Preview Image

Dental braces include brackets that are bonded over the front surface of each affected tooth. This bonding is done with a dental bonding agent, or the brackets may be fixed with orthodontic bands. These brackets hold the arch wires that will actually move the teeth into their targeted position. Traditional metal braces include brackets made of steel. However, more discreet options are available in the form of tooth-colored porcelain brackets or clear plastic brackets.

Orthodontic bands wrap around each tooth to act as an anchor for the brackets. Bands can also be made in steel, clear plastic or porcelain. Bands may not be required in every case, and some patients will only have brackets but no bands. Arch wires are attached to the brackets and perform the role of tracks to guide the desired movement of the teeth. Patients can receive the latest braces treatment in Calgary from leading dentists in the area.

Article Source: sooperarticles.com/health-fitness-articles/dental-care-articles/how-do-braces-work-751048.html

About Author:

Sierra Centre is a well known and professional dental office serving the city of Calgary in Canada. This dentistry practice offers a wide variety of dental procedures which includes but not limited to Invisalign®, teeth whitening, dentures, dental implants, crowns and bridges and porcelain veneers. To learn more, visit sierracentre.com. Author: Jenny Rebecca Wilson

Facebook hired PR firm to discredit Google, reveals leaked correspondence

Posted on 24th April 2016 by in Uncategorized

Thursday, May 12, 2011 

Facebook hired a public relations firm to systematically discredit Google by paying two journalists to plant negative pieces in U.S. newspapers, leaked correspondence discloses. The new revelations are likely to increase tension between the two companies, which are already fierce rivals.

The social network has confirmed the validity of the leaked emails, seen by Wikinews, which suggest executives at the social networking giant hired Burson-Marsteller, a high profile PR and communications firm, to discredit Social Circle, a rival website run by Google. Burson-Marsteller then recruited two journalists — Jim Goldman and John Mercurio — to push editors at The Washington Post and USA Today to publish editorials criticising Social Circle over its privacy settings. The story was exposed after Burson-Marsteller approached a blogger to publish the propaganda, but the blogger posted the correspondence online.

Burson-Marsteller has been forced to apologize for taking on Facebook as a client, admitting the orders to discredit Google violated company policy. “The assignment on those terms should have been declined,” a spokesperson said. The revelations are likely to be incredibly damaging for the firm, who have represented a number of controversial clients in the past. Facebook, however, said the allegations against Google were valid, insisting there were genuine privacy concerns with Social Circle. Google has declined to comment on the issue.

Facebook hired PR firm to discredit Google, reveals leaked correspondence

Posted on 24th April 2016 by in Uncategorized

Thursday, May 12, 2011 

Facebook hired a public relations firm to systematically discredit Google by paying two journalists to plant negative pieces in U.S. newspapers, leaked correspondence discloses. The new revelations are likely to increase tension between the two companies, which are already fierce rivals.

The social network has confirmed the validity of the leaked emails, seen by Wikinews, which suggest executives at the social networking giant hired Burson-Marsteller, a high profile PR and communications firm, to discredit Social Circle, a rival website run by Google. Burson-Marsteller then recruited two journalists — Jim Goldman and John Mercurio — to push editors at The Washington Post and USA Today to publish editorials criticising Social Circle over its privacy settings. The story was exposed after Burson-Marsteller approached a blogger to publish the propaganda, but the blogger posted the correspondence online.

Burson-Marsteller has been forced to apologize for taking on Facebook as a client, admitting the orders to discredit Google violated company policy. “The assignment on those terms should have been declined,” a spokesperson said. The revelations are likely to be incredibly damaging for the firm, who have represented a number of controversial clients in the past. Facebook, however, said the allegations against Google were valid, insisting there were genuine privacy concerns with Social Circle. Google has declined to comment on the issue.

Facebook hired PR firm to discredit Google, reveals leaked correspondence

Posted on 23rd April 2016 by in Uncategorized

Thursday, May 12, 2011 

Facebook hired a public relations firm to systematically discredit Google by paying two journalists to plant negative pieces in U.S. newspapers, leaked correspondence discloses. The new revelations are likely to increase tension between the two companies, which are already fierce rivals.

The social network has confirmed the validity of the leaked emails, seen by Wikinews, which suggest executives at the social networking giant hired Burson-Marsteller, a high profile PR and communications firm, to discredit Social Circle, a rival website run by Google. Burson-Marsteller then recruited two journalists — Jim Goldman and John Mercurio — to push editors at The Washington Post and USA Today to publish editorials criticising Social Circle over its privacy settings. The story was exposed after Burson-Marsteller approached a blogger to publish the propaganda, but the blogger posted the correspondence online.

Burson-Marsteller has been forced to apologize for taking on Facebook as a client, admitting the orders to discredit Google violated company policy. “The assignment on those terms should have been declined,” a spokesperson said. The revelations are likely to be incredibly damaging for the firm, who have represented a number of controversial clients in the past. Facebook, however, said the allegations against Google were valid, insisting there were genuine privacy concerns with Social Circle. Google has declined to comment on the issue.

Cheap Hood Ornaments Where To Find Good Deals

Posted on 17th April 2016 by in Trucks

Submitted by: Jojo Brando

There are lots of places to find cheap hood ornaments for your car, truck or big rig. Finding good deals on inexpensive hood adornment is not hard. If you are a cheapskate or just a bargain hunter, read on to find where to find good deals on cheap chrome hood gems

The chrome hood ornaments including the flying goddess, flying angel, flying lady, and chrome hood adornment happen to be available online and offline from diverse merchants. There are some strategies that you can use to ensure that you get the best deals on low-price hood gems. First and foremost, make sure that you plan well in advance before you start shopping.

One popular place to find cheap hood ornament is your local automotive store. It might sound strange but your local source might carry a large assortment of hood ornaments. The best way to seek a bargain is to see if the store will match a price from another outlet or an online store. Most stores are willing to do this especially if you are a local customer and you also promise to refer additional customers to his store.

YouTube Preview Image

Another way to find low-priced hood ornament is a group buy. A group-buy, usually a group or friend, car club, approaches a merchant and offers to purchase a quantity of a particular item or items. Most online and offline merchants are able to offer such discounts, because your group or club is buying so many at a time. This type of transaction is easy both online and your local automotive facility.

The key here is to do your homework. If you have a unique talent or can offer special services, you can offer a swap or gig with a local shop. Take for example, if you are a webmaster or a graphic designer, you can offer your service to the shop for a discount towards the hood ornament. Another example, let s say you are own a landscaping company or knowledgeable about landscaping, you can offer a simple service for discount or equal swap. This type of swap is not always easy, but it does not hurt to try. After all, what do you have to loose.

If you are unable to bargain for hood ornament, then online is definitely your best bet. First you go your favorite search engine to search for cheap hood ornaments . You will be rewarded with a vast number of sellers for hood ornaments. Do a simple price comparison yourself to see which store offers the best prices and service including free shipping. You would be surprised how much money you can save on front hood embellishment by going directly to the seller. In fact, if you are lucky, you might find a store who is offering hood decoration on sale or for sale. Better yet, you can ask for group discount if you still have your group intact. Then again, you might just go solo to buying you cheap hood ornament.

The outlook of finding cheap hood ornaments seems dreary at first, but there are some inventive ways that savvy shoppers can find great deals on these discounted hood adornment. The low-cost hood gems can be found online, or in rare cases, through local automotive accessory outlet. The online shopping venture commonly yields better results in less time than shopping locally for good deals

About the Author: Jojo Brando is a sales associate and part-time article writer on auto accessories for Showtrix.com and 300FX. Find more information about where to find

Cheap Hood Ornaments

at http://www.showtrix.com

Source:

isnare.com

Permanent Link:

isnare.com/?aid=613389&ca=Automotive

Facebook hired PR firm to discredit Google, reveals leaked correspondence

Posted on 15th April 2016 by in Uncategorized

Thursday, May 12, 2011 

Facebook hired a public relations firm to systematically discredit Google by paying two journalists to plant negative pieces in U.S. newspapers, leaked correspondence discloses. The new revelations are likely to increase tension between the two companies, which are already fierce rivals.

The social network has confirmed the validity of the leaked emails, seen by Wikinews, which suggest executives at the social networking giant hired Burson-Marsteller, a high profile PR and communications firm, to discredit Social Circle, a rival website run by Google. Burson-Marsteller then recruited two journalists — Jim Goldman and John Mercurio — to push editors at The Washington Post and USA Today to publish editorials criticising Social Circle over its privacy settings. The story was exposed after Burson-Marsteller approached a blogger to publish the propaganda, but the blogger posted the correspondence online.

Burson-Marsteller has been forced to apologize for taking on Facebook as a client, admitting the orders to discredit Google violated company policy. “The assignment on those terms should have been declined,” a spokesperson said. The revelations are likely to be incredibly damaging for the firm, who have represented a number of controversial clients in the past. Facebook, however, said the allegations against Google were valid, insisting there were genuine privacy concerns with Social Circle. Google has declined to comment on the issue.