Kristen Bell, an actress best known for playing the title character on “Veronica Mars,” really love sloths. “I’ve been obsessed with sloths for as long as I can remember. They must be my spirit animal or something,” Bell recently told the Insider. Read full article > >

Read more from the original source:
Kristen Bell cried tears of joy when a sloth came to her birthday party (Video)

Kristen Bell, an actress best known for playing the title character on “Veronica Mars,” really love sloths. “I’ve been obsessed with sloths for as long as I can remember. They must be my spirit animal or something,” Bell recently told the Insider. Read full article > >

See the rest here:
Kristen Bell cried tears of joy when a sloth came to her birthday party (Video)

About the daters … Last book read … Rebecca:  “SuperFreakonomics.” Jeremy:  “First In: An Insider’s Account of How the CIA Spearheaded the War on Terror in Afghanistan.” Read full article > >

Visit link:
Date Lab: A tall order for a picky guy

The jury in the insider trading trial of hedge fund founder Raj Rajaratnam will have to restart deliberations after a juror is dismissed.

Go here to read the rest:
Galleon jury to deliberate again

Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi is embracing his insider role as a former lobbyist and Republican Party chairman, seeing it as a reassuring presence.

Excerpt from:
A Proud ‘Lobbyist’ and ‘Southerner’ Weighs ‘President’

Given the seriousness of the insider trading claims against Rajat K. Gupta, why doesn’t the government bring criminal charges?

See original here:
DealBook: Curious Accusations in S.E.C.’s Insider Case

The Times is hosting an interesting forum on the gender gap among Wikipedia’s contributors. I found Justine Cassell’s contribution pretty interesting : As for the source of the gender imbalance, I think it may be revealed if we compare what Wikipedia looks like from the outside vs. what it looks like to a contributor. To those of us who don’t spend time contributing, it does indeed look like Wikipedia is a democracy of knowledge — a place where all we know is gathered together and made available to all of us equally. ho wouldn’t want to be involved in such a lofty enterprise?  From the inside, on the other hand, Wikipedia may feel like a fight to get one’s voice heard. One gets a sense of this insider view from looking at the “talk page” of many articles, which rather than seeming like collaborations around the construction of knowledge, are full of descriptions of “edit-warring” — where successive editors try to cancel each others’ contributions out — and bitter, contentious arguments about the accuracy of conflicting points of view. Flickr users don’t remove each others’ photos. Youtube videos inspire passionate debate, but one’s contributions are not erased.  Despite Wikipedia’s stated principle of the need to maintain a neutral point of view, the reality is that it is not enough to “know something” about friendship bracelets or “Sex and the City.” To have one’s words listened to on Wikipedia, often one must have to debate, defend, and insist that one’s point of view is the only valid one… However, it is still the case in American society that debate, contention, and vigorous defense of one’s position is often still seen as a male stance, and women’s use of these speech styles can call forth negative evaluations. Women may be negatively judged for speaking their mind in clear ways and defending their position. A woman who wishes to collaboratively construct knowledge and share it with others might not choose to do so as part of a forum where engaging in debate and deleting others’ words is key. It seems to me that is not just a Wikipedia problem,  but a societal problem likely extending out from families and schools. Defending your words strikes me as a really good thing. Dissuading women from doing that strikes me as just the opposite. That said, I’m not convinced that there’s nothing that can be done. For whatever reason, I think Internet sites that allow trolling and aimless idiocy to run roughshod have a disproportionate effect on women. (Terri Oda hints at exactly that here .)  I don’t know if that’s because trolls and idiots are more likely to say something sexist or what. But I don’t think the problem is aggressive argumentation, so much as its weak people saying these behind a cloak of anonymity which they’d never say publicly. In World of Warcraft, I almost never talk in the public channels as they seem to be a haven for racists. When Matt was here, and before I was actually blogging, I was often tempted to comment. But it seemed that whenever a social science post came through, no matter how well written, in comments, it eventually came down to black people having smaller brains. Or some such. Enforcing strong standards in comments is a kind of general value that, I think, has specific impact on women and others. I don’t know that this sort of control is even possible with Wikipedia, or ultimately desirable. It also has says some downsides. It necessarily shrinks the realm of debate. It’s always open to abuse by moderators. The intelligence of those who have something to say, but simply lack the requisite social skills to say it respectfully, is lost.  Finally there’s the fact that diversification of contributors, means diversification of demands. You are no longer at the bar with your boys any more. Incorporating women voices isn’t just a matter of getting a bunch of people with a different make-up of chromosomes to nod along. It’s a matter of opening yourself to people who, fairly regularly, will dispute what you have to say, in ways that, initially at least, don’t even seem credible to you. But often the most interesting lines of attack are the ones that seem preposterous at first glance, and yet stick with you. For my money, that’s the real “strong debate”–one that occurs along lines that you don’t simply disagree with, but that you’ve never even bothered to consider.  In effect you trade one group of critics for another.  Which is fine. I’m kind of sick of dudes who are “internet-smart.” At least the fucking feminists are interesting.

Here is the original post:
WikiWomen

The numbers are out. New data just released from Experian Hitwise show that, between January 2010 and November 2010, Facebook.com was visited more times than any other website in the United States. Traffic to Facebook was greater than that to Google back in March, but this is the first time that the year-end numbers put the social networking giant on top of the world’s biggest search site. In a bit of irony that must make Google crazy, Google is actually driving lots of users to its hottest competitor. The number-one search term for the second year running was “Facebook,” and four out of the top ten search terms included the F-word. The statistics aren’t an airtight victory for Facebook, however. If you add all of Google’s network sites together, it’s still in the number one spot wit 9.85% of all visits versus 8.93% for Facebook. The big difference: Google has YouTube, the fifth-most popular Web site. Yahoo Mail and Yahoo.com notched up the third and fourth place spots, bringing Yahoo properties to number three overall with 8.12% of all U.S. visits. Read the full story at Business Insider .

Read this article:
It’s Official: Facebook More Trafficked Than Google in 2010

Time to be thankful you’re not a hedge-fund manager. Federal authorities announced that they’re widening their insider-trading inquiry to include some of the nation’s most powerful investment firms. Sources said the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s Office…

Go here to read the rest:
Feds Widen Insider-Trading Probe

Custom utility belts for nomadic bon vivants Created for the W Hotel concept of a high-profile,