Get Software

Its A Small World After All!

Well it has certainly been too long!

First of all, Comic-Con was awesome! Thank you so much to all who came out and said hello!





I am so thankful to Joey and Gallery Nucleus for inviting me to be a part of this show! This piece is one of the deepest and most intricate that I have ever made, and it was so much fun to figure out! I cannot wait to see all of the other pieces from all of the incredible artists in this exhibit. Here are a few more detail shots of my piece, titled Aloha! Bienvenue! Welcome!:






Lastly, for those of you who couldnt make it to Comic-Con, I now have copies of Confetti up in the shop! I will also be taking them on the road to APE and CTN-x this fall - I hope to see some of you there!




More updates soon! Have a lovely week!

Available link for download

Its All in the Love Triangle

I often get asked by people who have missed The Hunger Games craze what makes all the teenage girls go wild over it. Most people just know the movie/book as the one about all the kids killing each other. And how  could that possibly be appealing to teenage girls?

And I say that there is one vital ingredient: a love triangle.

You see, The Hunger Games is rich with ideas. There are kids killing each other because the government thinks that it is okay to punish the peasants for being peasants. The higher power like to think they are walking cupcakes. Any moment there could be an uprising.

But no, lets not obsess over all these problems. Lets not even acknowledge them. Because, in amongst all of the futuristic political turmoil, the only thing on the teenaged minds is the obviously really important love triangle between our heroine, Katniss, the man shes thrusted into the competition with, Peeta, and her buddy from District 12, Gale. I personally didnt have a problem with the love triangle in the books. It is kinda sad how Katniss has to pretend to be in love with Peeta so she can survive, but her true love lies with Gale. But the love triangle is so horribly done in the movie...and yet, little teenage fangirls who havent picked up the book have got their armour and picked their side.

If we were just going by the movie, why are we even picking? Katniss clearly does not need a man. Of course being in a battleground where everyone is waiting for you to die isnt going to make you fall in love with anyone. There are obviously bigger things on your mind...like, I dont know, surviving? Peeta is kinda boring in the movie, and sure, his frosting skills may be clever, but Im not sure the way to my heart is by disguising yourself as a rock. And then theres Gale, who pops up every now and again so that the audiences can go "awwwwwww" (this actually happened). You just dont pick who you want to team up with by looking at their rock disguise skills or the fact that they make you go "awwwwwww" for three seconds. And yet, theres people out there who are willing to marry Peeta or Gale. Sure, they may have read the rest of the series and have gained enough material to back them up, but at the heart of it all, theres a girl who has bigger things on her mind. Katniss is what makes The Hunger Games. Not the love triangle.

Since Twilight came around (well, it has probably been a lot longer than that, but I cant remember teenagers ever being so vociferous), teenage girls have been programmed to get on teams. The teams in mind are Team Edward - the vampire - and Team Jacob - the werewolf. Never mind that the person were supposedly choosing for is Bella Swan, who is extremely boring, extremely clumsy and extremely...I dont know...morose? Of course, the picking and choosing isnt based on personalities - mainly because no-one in the love triangle seems to have one - but it is based on looks. And boy, to teenagers get rowdy about those looks. Unlike The Hunger Games, theres not a whole lot of extra meaning in Twilight, but then again, I couldnt tell you whats so romantic about a guy who watches you sleep for months on end, or the other guy who is just plain creepy. What Twilight has done, though, is changed the face of teen entertainment forever. I wasnt the biggest fan of Harry Potter, but that had people obsessing over trying their own spells and thinking they could run into walls at train stations (I kid...but if you did that Im totally not judging you). Now, well never have a teen movie that doesnt obsess over love triangles more than anything else. Unless they make a movie about my life so far.

Just think of all the teenage hormones which could have been saved if love triangles werent so in. But then again, think of all the money that could have been lost had The Hunger Games not had a love triangle to merchandise from. All of those t-shirts which couldnt have been made. All of those meme that couldnt have been generated. All of those "awwwwwwws" that couldnt have been muttered in amongst all of the killing. Things could have been a lot different...

What is your opinion on the state of teenage fandom? How did you think the love triangle was handled in The Hunger Games?

Available link for download

jetAudio HD Music Player Plus v8 0 1 Paid Patched APK Material Design All Versions

Requiere Android 2.3 En Adelante

 jetAudio para Windows es el reproductor de medios de mayor audiencia y más descargado en CNET.COM y, ahora usted puede escuchar el mismo sonido de alta calidad en su teléfono Android utilizando jetAudio . Reproduce casi cualquier tipo de archivos de música digital que tiene (wav.,. mp3,. ogg,. flac,. m4a,. mpc,. tta,. wv,. simio. mod,. SPX,. wma * y más) y, proporciona un sonido de muy alta calidad con varios efectos y accesorios como ancha, Reverb, X-Bass.
Viene con 32 presets de ecualización que proporcionará una amplia gama de experiencia auditiva.

Para aquellos que quieran personalizar su propia experiencia de sonido, sino que también permite 10/20 bandas de ecualizador gráfico y otras funciones avanzadas de reproducción, incluyendo el control de la velocidad de reproducción, la decoloración, AGC y mucho más.


NOVEDADES

V8.0.1
- Corrección de errores
V8.0.0
- Perfiles de efectos de sonido: cambia todos los ajustes de efectos de sonido mediante la conmutación de perfiles
- Exposición circular del arte del álbum
- Tiempo de intervalo ajustable
- Menú de ajustes rápidos: cambia instantáneamente los ajustes de la interfaz de usuario
- Arte del álbum para AIFF, WAV
- Mejor calidad de sonido rápida / lenta
- Formato Opus
*: Sólo para la versión Plus


Mas Información y Descarga Desde Google Play



Enlace Del Apk Desde Aquí

Enlace Alterno Del Apk Desde Aquí






JetAudio HD Music Player Plus v8.0.1 [Mod Material Design]

Apk Universal - Desde Aquí o Desde Aquí

Available link for download

Janet Tavakoli All Bark No Bite

Janet Tavakoli has always been more bark than bite. Being provocative is part of her shtick.

In her latest commentary, she accuses Goldman CFO David Viniar of lying about Goldmans exposure to AIG on a September 16, 2008 earnings call (the AIG bailout was negotiated later that day). This ridiculous conspiracy about Goldman and AIG just wont die, apparently.

On the call, Viniar said: "I would expect the direct impact of our credit exposure to [AIG] to be immaterial to our results." As Tavakoli acknowledges, its a strong statement to say that a CFO lied to the public. Its also a patently absurd statement in this case. Yes, I know, Goldman is evil, Goldman owns the government, yada yada yada. Anyway, back in the real world, Goldmans exposure to AIG almost certainly was immaterial.

Lets go over this again. The total notional amount of CDS protection that Goldman bought from AIG was roughly $20 billion. But "exposure" in credit derivatives is equal to the cost of replacing a credit derivative in the market, not the notional amount of the transaction. Think about it this way: if you buy a $300,000 homeowners insurance policy on your house, and your insurer goes bust, youre not out $300,000. The cost to you is simply the cost of buying another insurance policy to replace the first one. In Goldmans case, the cost of replacing its trades with AIG was about $10 billion. Against that $10 billion, Goldman held $7.5 billion in cash collateral. It then hedged the remaining $2.5 billion of exposure with CDS on AIG. This is why Viniar said that Goldmans direct exposure to AIG was immaterial.

So what are Tavakolis arguments? One is the Immaculate Negotiation argument:

The government could have stepped in and renegotiated its contracts. ... Goldman Sachs would have been out billions of dollars in collateral had a bankruptcy?like settlement been negotiated with AIG, and that is material.

Saying that Goldman wouldve taken a material loss if "a bankruptcy?like settlement been negotiated with AIG" is the equivalent of saying that Goldman wouldve taken a material loss if theyd agreed to take a material loss. Its true, but theres no way Goldman would ever have agreed to a "bankruptcy-like settlement" — why would they? As someone who has actually been involved in these kinds of negotiations, let me explain how the AIG/Goldman negotiations would have played out:

AIG: Would you be willing to accept, say, 70 cents on the dollar?
Goldman: No.

THE END

Seriously, what could AIG have threatened Goldman with? If they didnt accept a haircut, AIG would file for bankruptcy? Fine, Goldman wouldve just seized the $7.5 billion in cash collateral, and collected the remaining $2.5 billion from its counterparties on the now-triggered CDS on AIG (on which more below), covering Goldmans full bilateral exposure to AIG. Thats what it means to be "hedged."

(This is also why the Fed paid Goldman and the other counterparties 100 cents on the dollar to terminate their CDS contracts with AIG, which this Bloomberg article portrays as some sort of gift to the banks. But the Bloomberg article also relies on the Immaculate Negotiation argument — how, exactly, was the Fed supposed to get the counterparties to agree to take a haircut? The Fed had just demonstrated to the entire world that it wasnt willing to let AIG file for Chapter 11. How do you suppose those negotiations would have gone? The Fed couldnt say, "You can either take a haircut to 70 cents or AIG will file for bankruptcy and youll only get 50 cents," because everyone knew the Fed wasnt willing to put AIG in bankruptcy.)

Now, with regard to that $2.5 billion in CDS on AIG, Tavakoli argues that "It is never a given that hedges will pay off when the chips are down." Thats true, and theres no guarantee that the counterparties who sold CDS on AIG to Goldman wouldve been able to make the payouts. But these CDS trades, like most standard single-name CDS trades, were margined daily. At the close on September 16, the CDS spread on AIG was 53 percent upfront and 500bps running, which means that the counterparties who sold Goldman CDS on AIG would have already posted around $1.4 million in collateral (excluding Independent Amounts). So the maximum potential shortfall to Goldman was about $1.1 billion — and the only way theyd lose that amount is if the counterparties they bought CDS on AIG from all somehow couldnt pay. Viniar was entirely justified in assuming that these counterparties wouldve paid the remaining $1.1 billion.

Tavakoli also argues that Goldman had exposure because AIGs failure would have caused a system-wide meltdown:

If AIG had gone under, the already illiquid market would have frozen. Collateral requirements for all trading would have increased (just as they did the week Bear imploded), and Goldman would have had problems collecting from many trading counterparties.

That may be true, but not only is that not the issue, theres also no way Viniar could possibly have known how the mayhem following an AIG default would have affected Goldman. Its not like he couldve said, "Yes, our exposure is material because an AIG default will cause hedge fund clients A, B, and C to withdraw their prime brokerage accounts, initial margins to rise by X, and 2-year swap spreads to fall Y basis points." No one knew what would happen if AIG was allowed to file for Chapter 11 — not even the Great Janet Tavakoli. Remember also that what Viniar said was that he expected "the direct impact of [Goldmans] credit exposure" to be immaterial. He wasnt talking about Goldmans exposure to a broad systemic meltdown, and no one thought he was either.

Finally, Tavakoli argues that Goldmans exposure to AIG included "reputation risk." Yes, Im sure that if AIG had failed, Goldmans reputation for having prudently managed its counterparty risk wouldve been devastating.

I own all 4 of Tavakolis books, and its undeniable that shes extremely smart. But like I said before, in her public commentary, shes all bark and no bite.

Available link for download

Its all in the wrap

I was recently a guest blogger over at A Blissful Nest. Check out my post on fun and inexpensive ways to wrap up your small gifts this holiday season!



Happy Holidays!
Pam

Available link for download