'Friends' Thanksgiving episodes are coming to movie theaters

The hit NBC sitcom, which marked its 25th anniversary last month, followed six friends through their life in New York. The show ran for 10 years -- and in that decade, we got to see Joey, Rachel, Ross, Phoebe, Monica, and Chandler share lots of Thanksgivings together.

There was the time Chandler forlornly made jokes from inside a box. There was the time Rachel tried and failed to make trifle, proving yet again that Joey will eat anything and everything. And, of course, everyone's favorite -- the time Monica put a turkey on her head, prompting Chandler to accidentally profess his love.

Fans can rewatch all of these beloved moments on the big screen in the lead-up to Turkey Day. Eight classic Thanksgiving episodes, which have been newly remastered in 4K resolution, will be screened at 700 movie theaters across the United States on November 24 and 25. The two-day screening will show four episodes a day.

Tickets go on sale Friday on Fathom Events, which is owned by AMC Entertainment.

The Thanksgiving screenings are the latest in a series of special events -- there was a pop-up "Friends" experience in New York last month, and nationwide screenings on the 25th anniversary, which attracted more than 230,000 viewers, according to Fathom Events.

"Fans showed up in full force for our initial 'Friends' screenings, so we know there is demand for more," said Ray Nutt, CEO of Fathom Events, in a press release. "We're excited to put eight classic episodes on the big screen for fans to celebrate with their friends, just in time for Thanksgiving."

"Friends" has a huge international fan base too -- there was a special anniversary theater screening in Canada last month, and UK cinemas will show 12 iconic episodes in December.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

from CNN.com - RSS Channel kalo berita gak lengkap buka link disamping https://ift.tt/2oC2Bqn

The reason Mark Zuckerberg's comments are laughable

What Zuckerberg did was shift the focus from the telling of lies, and his platform's complicity in their dissemination, to the marketplace-of-ideas concept in which information is put into the world without any prejudgment of its worth and veracity, and the winnowing of the true from the false is left to time and the working of the market.

This is a very familiar strategy that allows the vehicle of falsehood and defamation to escape criticism by placing the responsibility of discernment on those who are the recipients of the information the platform innocently delivers.

Behind this strategy lie two oft quoted statements by Justice Louis Brandeis: "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants" and "the remedy for harmful speech is more speech, not enforced silence." And behind these two free speech platitudes is the assumption that when bad or false ideas are allowed to see the light of day, that light will expose them for what they are and they will wither and die.

The only counter argument to this happy picture is all of recorded history; for, as survey research has repeatedly shown, the result of putting into the conversation dangerous and scurrilous views is that those views receive a broader distribution than they otherwise could have hoped for, and are taken up by people who would never have heard of them had they not been indiscriminately published. Zuckerberg is putting his faith (a word carefully chosen) in a mechanism and a process that doesn't exist.

One can understand why. He is pledged to two contradictory ambitions. On the one hand, he doesn't want to censor anyone's speech, but on the other he doesn't want his platform to be the vehicle of evil effects. As he put it earlier (in a 2018 interview with Recode), "there are two core principles at play here. There's giving people a voice, then there's keeping the community safe." "Look," he says almost plaintively, "I want to make sure our products are used for good."

But how can he make sure of that without setting himself up as the arbiter of the good, something he very much does not want to do. In his public pronouncements, Zuckerberg tacks back and forth between the two contradictory positions he wants simultaneously to occupy.

At times he promises that artificial intelligence technology will come up with algorithms that will allow us to flag harmful speech without any input from fallible and prejudiced human judgment. At other times, he is less optimistic and says things like "people use tools for good and bad."

So in one moment Zuckerberg is putting his faith in technology and in another he is throwing up his hands. At one point the pendulum swung from the giving-everyone-a-voice side to the keeping-the-community-safe side. Facebook removed pages belonging to conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his website InfoWars because, the company announced, they violated "community standards." But of course community standards are various and volatile and it is easy to imagine community standards that clash and in clashing, take away any principled basis for the action Facebook has taken. If it's Alex Jones and InfoWars this time, who is going to be next?

It is easy to poke fun at Zuckerberg's performance in the past couple of years, but to be fair he is simply a particularly visible emblem of the tensions and contradictions that emerge whenever there is an attempt to draw a line between speech that is a genuine contribution to democratic deliberation and speech that threatens democracy's foundations.

Facebook and other social media platforms are ever trying to draw that line, but no such line can ever be drawn because the distinction between speech that helps us to make decisions and speech that corrupts the decision-making process will always be a partisan one. The dilemma that produces Zuckerberg's comical performances is baked into the situation. Neither Facebook nor any other platform will ever be able to strike the balance Zuckerberg seeks.

So what should Zuckerberg and his platform do? Well, they could continue to argue, as they have in the past, that theirs is a tech, not a media, company and is therefore not responsible for the content that utilizes them as a conveyor. (Kind of like Western Union.)

Or they could embrace a media identity and accept the responsibility of monitoring (by some mechanism not yet devised) the truth and falsehood of, at the least, political advertisements that appear on their site.

To do the first -- that is, to do nothing -- is to risk the wrath of those politicians who are already accusing them of being complicit in the doing of bad things. To do the second is to risk being accused by all sides of being partisan, something that is also already happening. Right now, in the context of the #MeToo movement and other markers of a heightened cultural sensitivity, the latter risk would seem to be a better bet, but, needless to say, not a safe bet.

Facebook's precarious non-position got no easier to hold Wednesday, when fellow digital titan Twitter banned political ads entirely. Patience thins and Zuckerberg's critics will not wait much longer for a response. Between a rock and a hard place doesn't begin to cover it.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

from CNN.com - RSS Channel kalo berita gak lengkap buka link disamping https://ift.tt/2ptQAn6

The fabled Democratic dinner that makes history

This was originally published in the November 1 edition of CNN's Meanwhile in America, the daily email about US politics for global readers. Sign up here to receive it every weekday morning.

The biggest moment yet in the Democratic campaign for President takes place Friday at the Liberty and Justice celebration (formerly the Jefferson Jackson dinner, before the party stopped ignoring those two presidents' slave-owning legacies.)

This rowdy festival in Iowa is a fabled political moment. Campaigns shell out for hundreds of tickets for supporters. Candidates march through downtown Des Moines to the event, putting on shows of organizing and financial muscle that help handicap the field. In a test of dexterity, nerves and message, each candidate gets about 10 minutes onstage, no notes allowed.

Subscribe to Meanwhile in America

It was here in 2007 that Barack Obama supercharged a slumbering campaign and went on to win Iowa, the nomination and the presidency. Sick looks on the faces of Hillary Clinton's staff after his soaring address told the story. Four years earlier, John Kerry's do-or-die speech had launched a comeback that helped him grab both the caucuses and the nomination.

Now the pressure is on Joe Biden to send a jolt through a campaign that threatens to fizzle in Iowa. It might also be a last chance for struggling Kamala Harris, who just slashed her staff. And Iowa favorites Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and the rising Pete Buttigieg could land decisive blows by emulating Kerry and Obama.

But hanging over everything is the question that's beginning to haunt Democrats — do they have anyone who can stand up to the ferocious tactics and financial war chest of President Donald Trump?

Let's block ads! (Why?)

from CNN.com - RSS Channel kalo berita gak lengkap buka link disamping https://ift.tt/36l5Y5W

So what's wrong with UK elections in December?

And if you know anything at all about British politics, right about now, you're thinking: "Wait, what? An election ... in December?" Yes, it's the first time in nearly a century that Brits will vote this late in the year.

The UK doesn't have a fixed election date -- like so many other British things, election timing is a matter of tradition more than law -- but 11 of the last 13 general elections have been in the spring. Nobody under the age of 70 has much memory of voting while surrounded by Christmas trees, mangers and reindeer decorations in a village hall or school.

There's a reason for that. The UK is dark in December. Really dark. On December 12, London will have less than eight hours of daylight, with sunrise just before 8 a.m. and sunset at a few minutes to 4 p.m. It'll be even darker in Scotland, with Edinburgh managing just over seven hours of sunshine. And that's IF the sun shines at all; the stereotype about London's constant clouds isn't entirely true, but it's not NOT true either, especially in the winter.

Will voters really trudge through the dark and cold to cast their ballots, when they could be Christmas shopping? Remember, more than 4 out of 5 British voters cast their ballots in person, marking their X's by hand in the boxes next to their preferred candidates' names.

At least Parliament did stick with one convention when setting the election date: They chose a Thursday.

But even that could come back to haunt them -- because ballots are counted overnight by hand, the election results will come in on Friday the 13th. Ho, ho, ho.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

from CNN.com - RSS Channel kalo berita gak lengkap buka link disamping https://ift.tt/34kNn8q

The second coming of a paradise island: How Sri Lanka bounced back from crisis

(CNN) — It has mile after mile of powder sand beaches lapped by clear, warm surf. It has beautiful unspoiled jungles.

It has incredible food, UNESCO-rated historical sites and diving resorts, charming railways, hiking, safaris and relaxation.

It was even named the top country to visit in 2019 by Lonely Planet.

In other words, it's paradise. But for much of the past six months, these idyllic spots have stood empty of all but a few visitors.

The place is Sri Lanka, the South Asian island nation off the southeastern tip of India, lapped by the warm waters of the Indian Ocean.

And the reason why no one was visiting? A series of terrorist attacks targeting churches and luxury hotels in its capital city Colombo that left 250 people dead in April of this year.

The attack brought a thriving travel industry -- some 2.33 million annual visitors last year -- instantly to its knees as safety fears underscored by official travel warnings drove many people to cancel trips and stay away.

But, against strong odds -- exacerbated by the fact Sri Lanka had just a decade earlier emerged from a bloody 26-year civil war between government forces and Tamil Tiger rebels in the island's north -- the country has begun to reestablish itself as a prime destination.

State of emergency

After the Easter Bombings, visitor numbers in Sri Lanka declined by around 70%.

Courtesy Sri Lanka Tourism

A paradise lost seems to have been born again.

And while this is clearly good news for Sri Lanka, and for those looking to vacation there in the months to come, it's also a valuable case study for the travel industry in how a destination rebounds from adversity. It also sheds light on changing attitudes among tourists to places that have been blighted by violence.

For Sri Lanka, immediately after the attacks things looked bleak. Already reeling from the loss of lives, the island was also forced to face the brutal financial consequences.

Bookings were canceled. Flights were pulled. Hotels shut down. Tour guides, souvenir sellers, drivers -- pretty much anyone whose livelihood depended on tourism -- saw their income vanish overnight.

Tourism is Sri Lanka's third largest foreign exchange earner, bringing around $4.4 billion annually. An estimated half a million Sri Lankans depend on tourism directly, while two million rely on it indirectly.

So the impact was devastating.

In May, a month after the attacks, visitor numbers were down by around 70%.

Caught off guard and unable to pay wages, some employers were forced to let their staff go.

Visitor decline

Tourism brings around $4.4 billion to the island nation each year.

Pixabay/Creative Commons

Sri Lankan-born Farzana Dobbs, co-owner of boutique hotel Rosyth Estate House, reduced her workers' pay to three-quarters for the months of May and June after guests either canceled or postponed their vacations.

"May was dire," she tells CNN Travel. "We went to full pay from July as we just don't want to lose our workers.

"I think some of the worst hit are the drivers. Most of them have taken leases on their vehicles. They have payments to make and families to look after, and they have no income whatsoever."

Chauffeur and guide Prasad Brandigampola relied on his wife's income when he suddenly found himself with no work, but says many of his peers struggled to make ends meet.

"For two months there was nothing," he says. "Everyone feels it."

Sarah Masters from the UK, who has been traveling to Sri Lanka for about 20 years, felt she had no choice but to cancel her 2019 holiday to the island nation.

"We held on for a while, but the UK Foreign Office said it wasn't safe to go," she tells CNN, referencing the travel warning issued to British travelers after the bombings.

"We finally gave in and canceled when they extended the advice by another two weeks. We were concerned we were going to lose our money."

Masters has many friends who live on the island and says they, like others, have been feeling the strain.

"Our friends who have a hotel business in Sri Lanka have been struggling, which isn't a surprise," she says. "One friend lost her job, as there was no work at the hotel she's based at."

In the weeks after the attacks, Sri Lanka's beaches and tourist areas remained pretty much deserted, with hotel occupancy dropping by around 85%.

Deserted island

The decline in tourists meant that many workers found themselves unemployed or with little income.

Courtesy Sri Lanka Tourism

The tourism industry the country had come to rely so heavily on was on life support. If it was to avoid total collapse, Sri Lanka desperately needed a plan.

The solution, it realized early on, was not to sit idly by and wait for recovery. It needed to go on the offensive to quickly win back its visitors.

Less than a month after the attacks, the government began working with a team of experts in crisis management.

Kishu Gomes, chairman of Sri Lanka Tourism, made no secret of the fact his country would have to work hard to reel back visitors. In May, he spoke of "aggressively planning to reassure the world" that it would be safe for them to return.

That first step clearly paid off. Just weeks later, in June, many countries, including the United States, revised their advice to their citizens. Warnings of possible imminent attacks were replaced by "exercise caution" notices.

While dozens of people suspected of links to the attacks were arrested in the immediate aftermath, by July the government was reviewing law enforcement. A former police inspector and ex-defense secretary were detained amid accusations of grave negligence.

It's uncertain whether these measures or the fact that hotels were slashing prices by up to 60% can be credited but, the first shoots of recovery were starting to be seen. Visitors were trickling back.

Also aiding the recovery was Sri Lanka's July decision to reintroduce visa-free arrivals for visitors from an expanded list of countries that already included EU nations and the United States. Further measures included a reduction in airline ground charges and aviation fuel prices.

Numbers remained significantly down on the previous year, but the disparity was dropping steadily.

According to the country's Tourism Ministry, a total of 115,701 international tourists arrived in Sri Lanka during July, which marked a decline of over 40% from that same period last year. In August, arrivals increased to 142,587, a 28.3% decline from August 2018. By September the drop was 27.2% year-on-year, with 108,575 arrivals, down from 149,087.

Slow recovery

Visitor numbers have been steadily rising again since June.

Courtesy Sri Lanka Tourism

Sam Clark, co-founder of Experience Travel Group, a tour operator specializing in authentic travel experiences in Asia, says that a revival in interest in Sri Lankan holidays could also be partly put down to a willingness among travelers to show solidarity.

"We've had a lot of people calling to say they'd like to come out and support Sri Lanka and now seems like a good time to go," Clark tells CNN Travel.

Of course, Sri Lanka's plight isn't unique. It's one of several global destinations to have experienced terrorist attacks over the past two decades, however experts say the relative speed with which the island has bounced back could be down to changing attitudes among travelers.

The Indonesian island of Bali experienced two major deadly terrorist attacks in 2002 and 2005. The first killed over 200 people, more than half of which were tourists, while the second resulted in the deaths of 20 people.

The Indonesian island nation experienced a dip in visitors on both occasions, but while it managed to recover each time, this took years, not months.

Tunisia was also struck by a series of attacks aimed at tourists in 2015, which resulted in the deaths of 59 foreign visitors.

The shocking incidents led to beach resorts being closed and the north African country being removed from the destination lists of charter airlines and tour operators.

However, the Tunisia tourism industry has clawed its way back in the last few years, largely thanks to government efforts to improve security and the manner in which its security forces respond to terrorist threats.

As a result, the country is expecting to log a record 9 million tourists in 2019.

Traveler resilience

Some travelers are choosing to go to Sri Lanka sooner than planned, to show solidarity.

Courtesy Sri Lanka Tourism

"If you compare Sri Lanka with Egypt and Tunisia, these countries have had a frequent number of attacks. You would think tourists would never go back," says Dr. Yeganeh Morakabati, an expert in tourism disaster management, recovery and impacts at the UK's Bournemouth University.

"Every time they've been attacked there has been a drop. But after a short while, the numbers go back up.

"In Tunisia, the attack was targeted at tourists. And even with that, they are recovering."

According to Dr. Morakabati, this suggests tourists aren't as deterred by terrorist attacks as they were a decade or so ago.

"Terrorism does reduce willingness to travel," she adds. "But markets are not reacting in the same way they used to. If you look at the Bali attacks of 2002, people were more shocked than you would say they are with Sri Lanka now."

This certainly seems to be the case when taking a close look at hotel bookings before and after such attacks.

For instance, New York hotels took 34 months to recover from the 9/11 attacks in 2001, while bookings had returned to normal in London nine months after the 7/7 bombings in 2005.

Meanwhile the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013 had a very limited effect on reservations.

However, a 2015 study by the World Travel and Tourism Council found that while the travel and tourism sector has become more resilient over the years, the time required to bounce back is very specific to the destination affected.

It can range from as short as two months to as long as 22 months, with the average recovery time being 13 months.

"The perceived level of safety and security is a key decision-making factor for travelers in selecting their destination," says Tiffany Misrahi, vice president of policy at the WTTC.

"But what you deem unsafe changes with time and familiarity with a destination. Overall, people tend to avoid destinations where there are known conflicts or crisis events.

"Destinations which people feel they know and trust, and believe in the stability of the society, are likely to be more resilient," she adds, citing the 2017 London Bridge attack, which didn't affect overall international arrivals that year, as an example.

"People are becoming more resilient to shocks. But different types of travelers have different risk thresholds."

Government action

The train journey from Nuwara Eliya to Kandy is one of Sri Lanka's main attractions.

Pixabay/Creative Commons

Morakabati stresses that Sri Lanka's timeline to full recovery will ultimately depend on whether there is another attack or not.

"Terrorism attracts a lot of attention," she says. "But the shorter the period since the terrorist attack, the higher subjective probability people attach to it.

"The key task is to mitigate the occurrence of similar attacks. It's very difficult to prevent, but if Sri Lanka can mitigate it, they will recover."

Misrahi shares this sentiment, stressing that the way a destination responds to a crisis is critical, as the wrong approach can stall the process considerably.

"It is important for both governments and the private sector to improve their management to effectively address the crisis and enhance their responsiveness to shocks so as to ensure a speedy recovery," she adds.

"In terms of preparedness, building strong coalitions is essential. It is also very important to understand one's vulnerabilities, assess readiness and create emergency action plans and practicing them."

She also affirms that Sri Lanka has the potential to emerge from this greater than before, provided the government responds in the correct way.

"A crisis can sometimes be an opportunity to rebuild stronger and better and even rethinking a destination's product offering," says Misrahi. "In a way, a destination can start fresh."

While there are still concerns that Sri Lanka's upcoming presidential elections could renew tensions in the island nation, hotel worker Harin Thomas also feels that some good can come from the devastating events of April 21.

He notes that security on the island nation was stepped up considerably in the months after the attacks, while hotels and tour operators have had time to regroup during what would have been one of their peak seasons.

"This situation has given everyone the chance to see things in a different way," he says. "We are looking at how we can offer a better service in the future."

Thomas attributes this adaptability to the spirit of a nation that's experienced more than its fair share of trials and tribulations over the years.

"Yes, we had a very unfortunate incident," he continues. "But we are very resilient. As a nation, we have decided to move forward."

Let's block ads! (Why?)

from CNN.com - RSS Channel kalo berita gak lengkap buka link disamping https://ift.tt/329Bcdb

Tetris: The Soviet 'mind game' that took over the world

Like many of history's greatest ideas, Tetris came about quite unintentionally.

Alexey Pajitnov was a software engineer at the Soviet Academy of Sciences in Moscow, tasked with testing a new type of computer, the Electronika 60. To do so, he wrote a simple game based on a puzzle from his childhood. It would help asses how powerful the computer was -- and provide a bit of fun.

Little did he know that the resulting game would go on to become one of the greatest, most addictive and most successful of all time.

It was June 6, 1984, and Tetris had just started its journey from behind the Iron Curtain.

The original version of Tetris.

Tetris is a puzzle game in which geometric shapes called "tetrominoes" fall down onto a playing field, and the player has to arrange them to form gapless lines. Pajitnov took inspiration from pentomino, a classic board game consisting of all the different shapes that can be made by combining five squares -- 12 in total -- with the goal of arranging them in a wooden box like a jigsaw puzzle.

To simplify things, he knocked that down to four squares, thus reducing the number of shapes from 12 to seven. He called the game Tetris, combining the Greek numeral "tetra" (meaning four) and tennis, his favorite sport.

Pajitnov himself was immediately hooked. "I couldn't stop myself from playing this prototype version, because it was very addictive to put the shapes together," he said on the phone from Seattle, where he now lives.

Tetris was inspired by pentomino, a classic board game. Credit: Shutterstock

But creating a video game in Soviet Russia at the height of the Cold War was far from easy. It was only through the sheer brilliance of its design that Tetris was transformed from a quirky test program into a worldwide phenomenon.

Word of mouth

Although Tetris became immediately popular among programmers with access to an Electronika 60, the machine had no graphical capabilities -- and less memory than today's calculators. Pressed with requests to create a version of the game for the IBM PC, a more widespread computer with better graphics, Pajitnov assigned the job to Vadim Gerasimov, a 16-year-old student on a summer job at his office (today an engineer at Google). The game spread quickly. "It was like a wood fire. Everyone in the Soviet Union who had a PC had Tetris on it," said Pajitnov.

Pajitnov wasn't making any money off the game, nor did he intend to. Ideas were owned by the state and the very concept of selling software as a product was unfamiliar to him. People were just sharing Tetris through word of mouth and by copying it onto floppy disks.

Then, Pajitnov heard rumors that the game might have crossed borders and was being played in other Eastern bloc countries. In 1986, he got a message via telex -- a forerunner of the fax machine -- from Robert Stein, a salesman for a London-based software company called Andromeda. Stein, who had seen Tetris in Hungary, wanted to secure the rights to sell it as a computer game in the West. He offered significant money in advance.

"My English was really bad at that time, so I put together some kind of positive answer, saying we were very glad to receive the proposal and that some agreement could be made," said Pajitnov. He knew that doing business directly with a Western firm could have landed him in jail, even before making any money, so he started investigating how he could sell the rights to Tetris through the state.

Stein, however, interpreted his response as a green light and immediately started producing the game. But as he was preparing to launch, he received another telex from Elorg -- short for Electronorgtechnica, the Soviet organization that oversaw software and hardware exports. It said that the rights had not been officially granted and that his launch was illegal.

Eventually, Stein cleared the rights, and Tetris was released as a commercial PC title in the UK and the US in 1988. The game played up its Soviet origins through Kremlin-themed illustrations and Cyrillic characters. But the misunderstanding between Pajitnov and Stein showed how tricky it would be to export a video game from Soviet Russia to the West for the first time -- an issue that led to years of confusion and legal battles, and is even rumored to have landed on the desk of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.

Pajitnov and his son with the UK and US PC versions of Tetris in 1989. Credit: Wojtek Laski/Hulton Archive/Getty Images

The Game Boy

Tetris was selling well on computers, but the big money in the games sector was being made elsewhere: consoles. Henk Rogers, a Dutch video game developer and businessman living in Japan, was the first to realize that Tetris was a perfect match for the Game Boy, a new handheld system released by Nintendo in Japan in early 1989. The console was about to launch in North America and Europe too, and Rogers set out to convince the company to bundle a copy of the game in the box, a common practice outside of Japan.

"I made a handshake deal with Minoru Arakawa, the founder of Nintendo of America, to have Nintendo include Tetris in every Game Boy," said Rogers in a phone interview. "He said, 'Why should I include Tetris? I have Mario.' And I said, 'If you want little boys to buy your Game Boy, then include Mario. But if you want everyone to buy your Game Boy, then you should include Tetris.'"

Rogers set out to obtain the necessary permissions, and soon realized what a challenge that would be. He had already published a version of Tetris in Japan, for the popular Nintendo Famicom home system, only to discover that there were half a dozen companies all claiming to own the rights to the game. "So I got on a plane and went to Moscow on a tourist visa to track down the source of the rights, Elorg -- and talk my way into it," he said.

Once in Moscow, Rogers made little progress until he hired an interpreter -- one who he's convinced was a KGB agent, because she swiftly secured him an appointment with Elorg.

"She knew immediately where everything was, so that was fishy. They're not supposed to talk to foreigners, and I wasn't supposed to talk to the Russians, let alone people inside the government. So I broke all kinds of rules by being there. They interrogated me for two hours. I thought they were trying to figure out whether they were gonna send me to Siberia or not," he said.

But among the officials in the room was Alexey Pajitnov, who immediately took a liking to Rogers. "Alexey was the only guy in the room who actually knew anything about games," Rogers recalled. "I explained how business worked, and we became friends. A week later, I left Moscow with a signed agreement for Tetris on the Game Boy."

Henk Rogers and Alexey Pajitnov in Moscow's Red Square.

The Game Boy version of Tetris sold 35 million units and helped the console become one of the most successful of all time. It is still considered by many -- Pajitnov included -- to be the best version of Tetris, and it created an unprecedented synergy between hardware and software, epitomizing the gaming mantra "easy to learn, hard to master."

Delayed royalties

Despite the game's success, Pajitnov was still not making any money from it. "There was a lot of legal trouble, and when the question of ownership and the original source of the game came up, I decided that I wanted everything to go smoothly and I granted the rights to the Computer Center of the Soviet Academy of Sciences for 10 years," he said.

The legal trouble culminated in a skirmish between Nintendo and Atari over the home console rights for Tetris. A judge ruled in Nintendo's favor in late 1989, dealing a lethal blow to Atari, which had already produced hundreds of thousands of now useless copies of its version of the game, under the tagline "Tetris: The Soviet Mind Game." Nintendo took a different approach, opting for the slogan "From Russia with fun."

Pajitnov left Moscow for Seattle in 1991, with the help of his friend Henk Rogers. And when his deal over the rights expired in 1995, he finally started receiving royalties for the game. "And they've been fine so far," he said.

Pajitnov and Rogers in 2018.

In 1996, Pajitnov and Rogers founded the Tetris Company, to handle licensing for Tetris and its spinoffs. In 2005, the Tetris Company bought Elorg -- which after the fall of the Soviet Union had transformed from a state-owned company into a private one -- gaining total control of all Tetris rights worldwide. The company has even standardized and trademarked the names and colors of every Tetris piece -- officially called Tetriminos, rather than the generic tetrominoes, although they have many unofficial nicknames.

Tetris has been the subject of several scientific studies. One found that playing the game can be effective in fighting off cravings for food and even drugs, while another noted an increase in the thickness of some parts of the brain in people who had played regularly. Playing Tetris for prolonged periods of time can lead to players dreaming to about the falling pieces or interpreting real-world objects as tetrominoes and mentally re-arranging them -- a phenomenon known as "the Tetris Effect."

To date, Tetris has been released on over 65 platforms, a world record, with more than half a billion downloads on mobile devices, according to the Tetris Company. Pajitnov has personally worked on over 100 variants of the game.

The latest, released in early 2019 to coincide with the game's 35th anniversary, is an online multiplayer version called "Tetris 99," which can be played by up to 99 players simultaneously. Since 2010, an eSports tournament based on the 1989 Nintendo Entertainment System version of Tetris has seen the world's best players gather in Portland, Oregon. Some of the matches, which can surpass 30 minutes in length, have garnered over 10 million views on YouTube.

"It hasn't lost any of its play value and nothing has come to replace Tetris," said Henk Rogers, explaining the game's enduring popularity.

"It's like 'Happy Birthday.' There have been lots of songs that come and go, but 'Happy Birthday' is it still always sung in the same way. Tetris has become the 'Happy Birthday' of computer games."

Let's block ads! (Why?)

from CNN.com - RSS Channel kalo berita gak lengkap buka link disamping https://ift.tt/2r23Cc4

A teenager admitted to killing a 10-year-old girl. But in China, he can't be charged

The case, in the northeastern city of Dalian, has provoked intense debate over when and how young offenders should be punished.

Under China's Criminal Law, those aged 14 to 18 can be held criminally liable if they have committed a serious offense, such as homicide, rape, drug trafficking, robbery or arson. Those over 18 can be charged criminally for any kind of offense.

But those under 14 can't be charged and punished as criminals. They are either returned to their parents to be disciplined or -- more rarely -- sent to a correctional facility for young offenders, according to Michelle Miao, a criminal law expert at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

The girl's body was found on October 20, hours after her older brother dropped her off at a painting class, according to the state-run China Daily.

When the girl failed to return home, her parents went out to look for her, the newspaper reported. They found her body near their home and alerted police, who that night detained a 13-year-old boy. Police said the boy confessed to the killing following an interrogation.

Speaking to local news outlet Jinyun News, the girl's father said the boy had brought his daughter to his home, sexually assaulter her and stabbed her to death. He then disposed of the body in a wooded area, according to her father.

Police said the boy wouldn't be charged because he is under 14 years old and therefore hadn't reached the age of legal responsibility, according to Article 17 of China's Criminal Law. This legal doctrine -- known as doli incapax, a latin phrase meaning incapable of criminal intent or malice -- aims to avoid sentencing a child as an adult, because he doesn't have the maturity to appreciate the wrongfulness of what he has done.

The boy was instead sent to a juvenile rehabilitation center for three years. Miao said that punishment "is a relatively harsh measure, since it involves restricting his movements, making it akin to a form of detention."

'The demon is protected'

The case has generated heated debate in China. "The girl is dead but the demon who killed her is being protected!," one user fumed on Weibo, China's equivalent to Twitter, adding that the alleged perpetrator would be able to "start a new life in three years."

Many comments called for young offenders to be punished more harshly. "It doesn't matter if a person is 10 or 70 years old," one user wrote. "Age should not be an excuse for crimes." Another said he felt strongly that "there should be no age limit for those vicious criminal cases."

Some state-run media outlets also weighed in. "When justice can't be fully realized, some people might decide to take matters into their own hands to achieve what they believe to be fair," one commentary on state-run CCTV said.

Miao said that the argument boiled down to a "philosophical debate between two views of society."

"Some people will argue that victims must be protected at all cost by setting the age of criminal responsibility at a low level, while others will say that the rights of the young offender -- and his ability to rehabilitate -- must be secured by setting it higher," she said, adding that positions have hardened in recent years as more and more very young offenders commit serious crimes.

By setting the threshold for criminal responsibility at 14 years old, China has placed itself in the camp of those wanting to secure young offender's rights. Most European countries start prosecuting young people from ages 12 to 16, with the notable exceptions of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Switzerland, which have set the limit around 10 years old, according to Child Rights International Network.

In many countries and regions, it is much lower. In North Carolina, it is six years old and in 19 other US states it ranges between 7 and 11 years old, according to the National Juvenile Defender Center. The US has a juvenile criminal justice system, but young offenders are often tried as adults by prosecutors in severe cases.

In India, Singapore, Brunei and Malawi, it is seven years old. In Zambia and Kenya, it is eight years old.

But many of these jurisdictions will only charge a child as a criminal if he or she has been proven to be sufficiently mature and capable of discerning between right and wrong, according to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, which recommends setting the minimum age at 12 or higher.

The fresh outcry over the law comes after a series of similar cases in China. In March 2019, a 13-year-old boy was detained in Jiangsu province for allegedly hacking his mother to death after an argument, according to a police statement. He was send home and was awarded a guardian until the state decides how to handle his case since he can't be charged, according to Chinese state media.

Last December, Chinese media reported that a 12-year-old boy in Hunan had stabbed his mother to death. His case caused widespread outrage because he was allowed to return to school nine days after the murder. That same month, a boy from Hunan province, aged 13, reportedly confessed to police that he killed both his parents with a hammer. He was also released and allowed to return to school, due to his young age, according to Chinese media.

None of the children were held criminally responsible because they were all under 14, according to state-run China Daily.

However a revision of the law is now underway that will introduce harsher penalties. On October 21, the National People's Congress, the country's top legislative body, reviewed revised drafts of the Law on the Protection of Minors and the Law on the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency.

The new texts introduce three levels of offenses, from bad behavior to serious crime. They list eight corrective measures, which also apply to children under 14, including being sent to a special school for juvenile delinquents. Their implementation will ensure that a young offender is not just sent home with no punishment, as is often the case today.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

from CNN.com - RSS Channel kalo berita gak lengkap buka link disamping https://ift.tt/320iK6p

Schiff says transcripts from impeachment inquiry interviews could come 'as early as next week'

Schiff made the revelation when he told CNN's Chris Cuomo on "Cuomo Prime Time" that accusations from Republicans that the minority party isn't getting enough time to ask questions in the closed-door depositions are false.

"Those arguments you've heard are almost completely false, with only one exception," Schiff said. "And when you see the transcripts, and we expect to begin releasing them as early as next week, you'll see that the Republicans have every bit as much time to ask questions."

The public release of the transcripts would mark a significant step for the public's knowledge of what's been said in the impeachment inquiry's depositions thus far. All the interviews have been behind closed doors, and what is known about them has come from the release of witnesses' opening statements to the media and leaks from those inside the room.

The House voted on Thursday to formalize procedures for the impeachment inquiry, including moving toward the public release of transcripts and public hearings. The inquiry is rooted in a whistleblower complaint that deals with a phone call President Donald Trump had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25. A transcript of the conversation released by the White House shows Trump repeatedly pushed Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

There is no evidence of wrongdoing by either Joe or Hunter Biden.

During the interview Schiff compared the House impeachment probe into Trump to Watergate, positing that "the main difference is the President now has Fox (News') prime time" programming's support.

"Now I will say this: The present circumstances are also very different than Watergate and I think for a very fundamental reason, and that is in Watergate it wasn't that the existence of tapes made all the difference," Schiff told Cuomo.

"You know it was certainly important, you know, in this impeachment proceeding, we have the existence of the call record, but I don't think that's really what differentiates then from now. I think the main difference is the President now has Fox prime time and that allows his supporters to live in this alternative fact world."

He added: " And, frankly, I think if Richard Nixon had had Fox prime time, he would have never been forced to leave office. And that is what we're up against. You know, an information environment in which you can live in a world devoid of facts."

Fox News' prime-time shows have consistently offered the President friendly coverage of the probe. Trump has repeatedly highlighted the unprecedented connection between Fox News and the Oval Office throughout his presidency, often quoting Fox News anchors on Twitter or posting videos of their monologues defending him.

The President laid bare his view that the outlet works for him and his supporters earlier this year when he suggested that the network is not sufficiently loyal to him by tweeting that it "isn't working for us anymore."

When asked if he thought there was a legitimate chance that Trump could be removed from office, Schiff said his focus remains carrying out the investigation.

"I don't want to prejudge even what we decide in the House. We're going to finish our investigation and the public testimony and then as a deliberative body and in consultation with our constituents and our conscience and make a decision on whether the remedy of impeachment is warranted," he said.

CNN's Brian Stelter, Clare Foran, Jeremy Herb, Alex Rogers and Haley Byrd contributed to this report.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

from CNN.com - RSS Channel kalo berita gak lengkap buka link disamping https://ift.tt/334USjj

Australian union says Qantas should ground 737 fleet over cracking issue

The US Federal Aviation Administration ordered inspections of Boeing 737 NG, or Next Generation, aircraft in September after the company told the agency that structural cracks had been found on heavily used planes.

On Friday, Qantas confirmed that it had pulled three 737-NG planes from service after they "were found to have a hairline crack."

"These aircraft have been removed from service for repair," the company said in a statement.

The move came just days after the carrier was forced to respond to the matter. On Wednesday, Qantas confirmed it pulled at least one aircraft with 27,000 flight cycles from service after an inspection revealed cracking, and on Thursday the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association said in a statement that a crack had been found in a second Qantas airliner.

"These aircraft should be kept safe on the ground until urgent inspections are completed and advice in relation to the ongoing nature of the wing cracks is confirmed by Boeing" and US regulators, union federal secretary Steve Purvinas said in a statement.

The cracks in 737 NG planes have been found on what is known as a "pickle fork," a part of the fuselage that helps to attach the wings to the aircraft. The problem was discovered when some used passenger planes were being stripped down for conversion to freighter jets.

Boeing (BA) said in a filing to the US Securities and Exchange Commission last week that all 737 NG aircraft with over 30,000 flight cycles and a third of those with more than 22,600 cycles had been inspected, and that cracks had been found on a "small percentage" of them. It said that additional assessments are underway to determine the potential implications for younger planes.

There are about 6,800 of the 737 NG jets in service around the world. Their model names are the 737-700, 737-800 and 737-900.

The Boeing 737 NG is an older version of the company's 737 MAX aircraft. All 737 MAX planes have been grounded since March after two fatal crashes killed 346 crew and passengers, putting the company's safety record under the spotlight.

Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority downplayed the risk to the flying public from issues with the 737 NG.

"There is no evidence to suggest that we should be grounding the whole fleet at this point," spokesman Peter Gibson told Australian broadcaster ABC on Thursday.

"The problems are being seen during a range of a certain number of cycles — take off and landings — and that is when the inspections are being done," he said. "The inspections don't take long, they take about an hour. So, it's not a huge process to check the aircraft."

Chris Snook, head of Qantas Engineering, said the union's comments were "irresponsible" and the airline would "never operate an aircraft unless it was completely safe to do so." Snook added that required inspections on all 737 NG aircraft would be completed by Friday.

"Even when a crack is present, it does not immediately compromise the safety of the aircraft," he said.

Boeing said in a statement earlier this month that safety and quality are its top priorities.

"Boeing regrets the impact this issue is having on our customers worldwide," said the aircraft maker. "We are working around the clock to provide the support needed to return all airplanes to service as soon as possible."

CNN Business' Chris Isidore and Michelle Toh contributed to this report.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

from CNN.com - RSS Channel kalo berita gak lengkap buka link disamping https://ift.tt/3263dCa

Fact-checking White House claims that House impeachment resolution is unconstitutional

In a statement, White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said that the resolution "fails to provide any due process whatsoever to the Administration," calling it "unconstitutional."

Trump echoed his administration's complaints in an interview with British radio station LBC that aired soon after the vote. Referring to the resolution he said, "They gave us absolutely no rights."

Facts First: The resolution does not violate due process nor is it unconstitutional. In fact, part of the resolution explicitly details the rights available to the President in the impeachment inquiry.

In a section authorizing the Judiciary Committee to conduct proceedings, the resolution notes these should include "such procedures as to allow for the participation of the President and his counsel."

According to a fact sheet released by the House Rules Committee, these procedures include the opportunity for the President or his counsel to present their case, attend hearings, request additional testimony, cross-examine witnesses and raise an objection to testimony given. There is a caveat that "if the President unlawfully refuses to cooperate with congressional requests," then the extent of the administration's participation is at the committee chairman's discretion.

While the Trump administration might not like the impeachment resolution on principle, the resolution is devoted to outlining the procedures, rights of all parties and consequences. Therefore, it's inaccurate to say the resolution fails to provide due process, when due process is interpreted by legal scholars as the right to fair procedures that must be predetermined before any attempts to "deprive" them of "life, liberty or property."

William Banks, a law professor at Syracuse University, told CNN that "some will see the new procedures as providing due process, and there is no harm in that view. As such 'due process' is a synonym for 'fairness.'"

"There is nothing in the Constitution or any law, nor any rules of the House, that prescribes a particular procedure for impeachment proceedings," Banks added.

The Constitution notes only the basis for impeachment and that the House "shall have the sole power of impeachment" while the Senate "shall have the sole power to try all impeachments."

"The House resolution is not in any way 'unconstitutional,'" Banks said. "The resolution provides more than is required."

Let's block ads! (Why?)

from CNN.com - RSS Channel kalo berita gak lengkap buka link disamping https://ift.tt/337ryZQ

READ: Trumps change residency from New York to Florida

Read the documents here:

Let's block ads! (Why?)

from CNN.com - RSS Channel kalo berita gak lengkap buka link disamping https://ift.tt/3314MTc

Trump ditches New York to become a Florida resident, court documents show

The President changed his permanent residence to his Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, in late September, and first lady Melania Trump followed suit in October, in forms filed with the Palm Beach County Circuit Court.

In a series of tweets Thursday night, Trump said he was leaving New York because he's been "treated very badly" by politicians in the Empire State.

"1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the White House, is the place I have come to love and will stay for, hopefully, another 5 years as we MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, but my family and I will be making Palm Beach, Florida, our Permanent Residence," Trump tweeted.

"I cherish New York, and the people of New York, and always will, but unfortunately, despite the fact that I pay millions of dollars in city, state and local taxes each year, I have been treated very badly by the political leaders of both the city and state. Few have been treated worse. I hated having to make this decision, but in the end it will be best for all concerned. As President, I will always be there to help New York and the great people of New York. It will always have a special place in my heart!"

The documents assert that the Florida resort is now Trump's "predominant and principal home." They list his former address as that of Trump Tower in New York, and the addresses of his "other places of abode" as those of the White House and the private Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey.

Trump has spent 307 days at one of his properties since taking office, including 239 days at one of his golf clubs, according to a CNN tally.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, was not sad to see Trump go.

"Good riddance. It's not like @realDonaldTrump paid taxes here anyway," Cuomo tweeted. "He's all yours, Florida."

The New York Times first reported the switch in residence.

The change was primarily for tax purposes, a person close to the President told the Times. Florida does not collect income tax.

The person close to the President also told the Times that Trump was enraged by the Manhattan district attorney's lawsuit in pursuit of his tax returns. It is unclear how switching residences would affect the lawsuit.

That suit, which all sides see heading to the Supreme Court for an election-year showdown, has not gone Trump's way so far. A federal judge in early October dismissed Trump's effort to prevent his tax returns from being turned over to a New York grand jury -- a decision that an attorney for Trump appealed minutes later.

The appeals court immediately ordered a temporary stay of the subpoena. But last week, that appeals court expressed skepticism that Trump can block a subpoena from New York state prosecutors for his tax returns.

CNN's Erica Orden, Kevin Liptak and Nikki Carvajal contributed to this report.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

from CNN.com - RSS Channel kalo berita gak lengkap buka link disamping https://ift.tt/2pjotXX

Regina King Reads ‘Let’s Meet Again in Five Years’ - The New York Times

Listen and subscribe to our podcast from your mobile device: Via Apple Podcasts | Via RadioPublic | Via Stitcher

In love with her college boyfriend but worried that they were too young for lifelong love, Karen Kaplan came up with a plan: They would break up but agree to meet again 60 months later to see if they were still both single and interested.

On this week’s Modern Love podcast, Regina King reads Ms. Kaplan’s thought-provoking essay, “Let’s Meet Again in Five Years.”

Ms. King won an Academy Award for her role in “If Beale Street Could Talk.” She currently stars in the HBO series, “Watchmen.” Ms. Kaplan is a writer in Summit, N.J. Stay tuned after the reading to hear more from her, Ms. King, the Modern Love editor Daniel Jones and another surprise guest.

Sign up for Love Letter to get a weekly dose of real stories that examine the highs, lows and woes of relationships.

Watch the trailer for the Modern Love TV show, coming to Amazon Prime Video on Oct. 18; read past Modern Love columns and Tiny Love Stories; check out the updated anthology “Modern Love: True Stories of Love, Loss, and Redemption”; follow Modern Love on Facebook.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

"modern" - Google News
October 31, 2019 at 03:48AM
https://ift.tt/2pfTiwF

Regina King Reads ‘Let’s Meet Again in Five Years’ - The New York Times
"modern" - Google News
https://ift.tt/33BJDyM

WeWork and its ousted CEO accused of pregnancy discrimination

Medina Bardhi, who said she was pregnant twice while at the company and took maternity leave each time, alleges that the discrimination started when she interviewed for the job in 2013, according to a complaint filed Thursday with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She said Neumann asked her at the time if "she was going to get married and become pregnant."

When she became pregnant in March 2016, she said she was "forced" to tell her boss she was expecting early on because of the nature of how Neumann traveled for business. Neumann had a "penchant for bringing marijuana on chartered flights and smoking it throughout the flight while in the enclosed cabin" and Bardhi "could not expose her unborn child" to this, according to the complaint. Neumann's use of marijuana while on planes has been previously reported by the Wall Street Journal.

Bardhi alleges the discrimination continued. She claims that prior to taking leave, there were multiple troubling comments made by Neumann and Jennifer Berrent, a longtime WeWork executive who currently serves as chief legal officer. Neumann allegedly characterized her maternity leave as "retirement" and "vacation," while Berrent allegedly referred to her pregnancy as a "problem" that had "to be fixed."

In a statement to CNN Business regarding the full complaint, a WeWork spokesperson said: "WeWork intends to vigorously defend itself against this claim. We have zero tolerance for discrimination of any kind. We are committed to moving the company forward and building a company and culture that our employees can be proud of."

A representative for Neumann pointed CNN Business to WeWork for its company statement.

In the complaint, Bardhi alleges that months before she went on her first maternity leave at WeWork, Neumann and Berrent hired a man to the chief of staff role, paying him a salary of $400,000 with a $175,000 signing bonus. Bardhi said she was paid a salary of $150,000 for the same job.

"Such a blatantly gender-based pay disparity was the norm and part of a pattern and practice at WeWork," according to the complaint.

Upon returning after her leave, Bardhi said she was "demoted" and her role was "drastically and materially reduced," while male employees, who were being paid more than her, were elevated and replaced her. Bardhi alleges that after disclosing her second pregnancy, Neumann, Berrent and other leadership looked for her permanent replacement. When she returned the second time, she learned she was no longer part of the CEO office and was "sidelined and denied any meaningful work for months," the complaint alleges.

Bardhi points to the condition of the lactation room available to employees as a sign of its lack of care given to new moms. According to the complaint, the lactation room she had to use was "inexcusably unsanitary" despite there being between five and 10 employees who were similarly using it at the time.

Bardhi said she was fired one week after Neumann stepped down as CEO after the disastrous IPO attempt.

According to Douglas Wigdor, a lawyer representing Bardhi, the hope is that "after a thorough investigation, the EEOC will consider bringing a pattern or practice class action against WeWork in order to help bring about change in the company's employment policies and practices."

Over the past year, there have been other complaints filed by former employees who say they were retaliated against and ultimately fired for reporting incidents internally. ​One former employee is accusing the company of retaliating against her for reporting being sexually assaulted at two company events. The company has disputed the lawsuit's claims in a statement: "These claims against WeWork are meritless and we will fight this lawsuit. WeWork has always been committed to fostering an inclusive, supportive, and safe workplace. WeWork investigated this employee's complaints, took appropriate action, and this employee was terminated solely because of her poor performance." In another case, a former vice president is suing the company over alleged age discrimination. WeWork declined to comment on the case.

Neumann's role at the company, and the culture he fostered, has lately been the subject of intense scrutiny. After filing IPO paperwork in August, the company faced a barrage of criticisms for how it operated: It had staggering losses, no women on its board and CEO Adam Neumann had unchecked power and numerous potential conflicts of interest.

As part of a rescue deal from Japanese conglomerate SoftBank — which now controls WeWork — Neumann will be able to sell up to $970 million in stock back to SoftBank, receive a $500 million loan to repay a credit line, and a $185 million fee for consulting for SoftBank, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

from CNN.com - RSS Channel kalo berita gak lengkap buka link disamping https://ift.tt/2BZo6nZ