Peter Thiel Wants to Inject Himself With Young People’s Blood | Vanity Fair
▻http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/08/peter-thiel-wants-to-inject-himself-with-young-peoples-blood
Given Thiel’s obsession with warding off death, it comes as no surprise that the Silicon Valley billionaire is interested in at least one radical way of doing it: injecting himself with a young person’s blood.
@aude_v je pense que c’est l’idée depuis un moment…
Journée mondiale des donneurs de sang : appel aux jeunes générations
▻http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2017/06/14/journee-mondiale-des-donneurs-de-sang-l-appel-du-president-de-l-efs-aux-jeun
Je pose ça là pour investigation future (éventuelle)
No, Peter Thiel is not harvesting the blood of the young
▻https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/14/no-peter-thiel-is-not-harvesting-the-blood-of-the-young
Dow Chemical Donates $1 Million to Trump, Asks Administration to Ignore Pesticide Study | Vanity Fair
▻http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/dow-chemical-endangered-species
In addition to Pruitt’s long history of, per the AP, aligning “himself in legal disputes with the interests of executives and corporations,” Dow has another reason to be hopeful the government will conveniently ignore any lingering concerns about killing off entire species: Andrew Liveris is a close adviser to Donald Trump who was literally standing next to the president in February when he signed an executive order “mandating the creation of task forces at federal agencies to roll back government regulations.”
Dow also donated $1 million to underwrite Trump’s inaugural festivities, the AP reports, but God help the person who dares to wonder aloud if the check was some sort of an attempt to curry favor with the administration. As Rachelle Schikorra, Dow’s director of public affairs, told the AP, any such suggestion is “completely off the mark.”
How a Grad Student Found Spyware That Could Control Anybody’s iPhone from Anywhere in the World
▻http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/how-bill-marczak-spyware-can-control-the-iphone
Last summer, Bill Marczak stumbled across a program that could spy on your iPhone’s contact list and messages—and even record your calls. Illuminating shadowy firms that sell spyware to corrupt governments across the globe, Marczak’s story reveals the new arena of cyber-warfare. The night it happened, right after midnight on August 10, Bill Marczak and his girlfriend were staying up late to watch Star Trek reruns in their spare one-bedroom apartment, in El Cerrito, California, just north of (...)
#Apple #DEA #FinFisher #Gamma #Hacking_Team #smartphone #iPhone #spyware #écoutes #exportation #sécuritaire #activisme #surveillance #hacking #ACLU #CitizenLab (...)
##Pegasus
13 Hours : The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi - Michael Bay
▻http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/01/13-hours-secret-soldiers-of-benghazi-review
There’s much talk in 13 Hours of how hard it is to distinguish good Libyans from bad ones, but that sense of ambiguity is only nominally applied to the Americans in the picture. Bay never stops to interrogate his film’s context, to ask more probing questions than “Where the hell was the air support?”
Reconstitution hollywoodienne de l’attaque du poste diplomatique et de l’annexe secrète de la CIA à Benghazi en 2012. À la gloire des private contractors qui ont des grosses balls, pas comme ces lavettes de Yale et de Stanford. Ça explose de partout, les tangos (les ennemis, on ne sait pas trop qui, d’ailleurs l’esprit du scénario est de dire que personne de sensé ne comprend rien à ce qui se passe en #Libye, à part qu’il y a des #armements partout) se font tirer dessus comme des lapins… Il me semble que, comme dans La Chute du faucon noir, au final le #film se retourne contre l’intention de son réalisateur.
Monica Lewinsky: ‘The shame sticks to you like tar’
Nearly 20 years ago, Monica Lewinsky found herself at the heart of a political storm. Now she’s turned that dark time into a force for good
▻https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/16/monica-lewinsky-shame-sticks-like-tar-jon-ronson
Lewinsky was once among the 20th century’s most humiliated people, ridiculed across the world. Now she’s a respected and perceptive anti-bullying advocate. She gives talks at Facebook, and at business conferences, on how to make the internet more compassionate.
Either way, misogyny is still thriving. When the Guardian began researching the online harassment of its own writers, they discovered something bleak: of the 10 contributors who receive the most abuse in the comment threads, eight are women – five white, three non-white – and the other two are black men. Overall, women Guardian writers get more abuse than men, regardless of what they write about, but especially when they write about rape and feminism. I noticed something similar during my two years interviewing publicly shamed people. When a man is shamed, it’s usually, “I’m going to get you fired.” When a woman is shamed it’s, “I’m going to rape you and get you fired.”
With statistics like these, it’s no surprise that many consider this an ideological issue – that the focus should be on combatting the misogynistic, racist abuse committed by men. But Lewinsky doesn’t see it that way. “A lot of vicious things that happen online to women and minorities do happen at the hands of men,” she says, “but they also happen at the hands of women. Women are not immune to misogyny.”
“That happened to you,” I say. “With people like Nancy Friday. You found yourself being attacked by ideologues.”
“Yes,” Lewinsky says. “I think it’s fair to say that whatever mistakes I made, I was hung out to dry by a lot of people – by a lot of the feminists who had loud voices. I wish it had been handled differently. It was very scary and very confusing to be a young woman thrust on to the world stage and not belonging to any group. I didn’t belong to anybody.”
Her plan after graduating was to get a job and lead “a much more private life, and move towards a more normal developmental path”. But she found that nobody would employ her. The stigma outweighed her qualifications and aptitude. She couldn’t even get volunteer work with a charity. “I was going through such a hard time,” she says, “I felt so shattered, it took me six months to even get up the courage to approach this particular organisation. And when I did, they told me my working there ‘wasn’t a good idea’. It was a very desolate 10 years for me. I was really floundering. I could not find my way.”
Shame and Survival
▻http://www.vanityfair.com/style/society/2014/06/monica-lewinsky-humiliation-culture
Tinder and the Dawn of the “Dating Apocalypse”
▻http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/08/tinder-hook-up-culture-end-of-dating
So where is this all going to go? What happens after you’ve come of age in the age of Tinder? Will people ever be satisfied with a sexual or even emotional commitment to one person? And does that matter? Can men and women ever find true intimacy in a world where communication is mediated by screens; or trust, when they know their partner has an array of other, easily accessible options?
Paris En Flammes
▻http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/07/paris-en-flammes
Une extraordinaire (et mensongère) pub pour la #LDJ.
Was Paris’s Chief Rabbi rescued from an axe-wielding Nazi mob ?
▻http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11813857/Was-Pariss-Chief-Rabbi-rescued-from-an-axe-wielding-Nazi-mob.html
Police and Jewish authorities in Paris say Vanity Fair’s article about alleged anti-Semitic attack “has nothing to do with reality”
#PEP
#Torture, American-Style: The Role of Money in Interrogations | Vanity Fair
▻http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/07/torture-american-style-hoffman-report
Why, exactly, did the United States end up torturing detainees during George W. Bush’s administration’s war on terror, when there was no scientific proof that coercive interrogations would yield valuable intelligence, and ample proof that it would harm our national security interests, elicit false information and spread unnecessary ill will throughout the Muslim world, possibly for generations to come?
It’s a head scratcher, to say the least, but a blockbuster report issued last week suggests one answer: greed. Specifically, the greed of psychologists who hoped to receive, and in some cases did receive, financial benefits in exchange for providing the Pentagon with intellectual and moral cover for its torture of detainees.
Saudi Princess Maha bint Mohammed bin Ahmad al-Sudairi and Her Multi-Million Dollar Shopping Problem
▻http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2015/04/saudi-princess-maha-paris-shopping-scandal
It’s an old gambit—slipping out of a hotel in the dead of night to dodge the bill. But it’s a bit tricky when you have an entourage of 60 people, a balance of more than $7 million, and a fleet of limousines and other vehicles waiting to collect you and your mountains of bags. That was the situation at 3:30 A.M. on May 31, 2012, when Princess Maha bint Mohammed bin Ahmad al-Sudairi reportedly attempted to make something of a run for it at Paris’s five-star Shangri-La Hotel, in the 16th Arrondissement, where she and her retinue had occupied 41 rooms for five months. After a tense standoff that involved calls to high-ranking diplomats and officials, she was allowed to leave, whereupon she checked into the nearby Royal Monceau, owned by Qatar, a friendly neighbor of Saudi Arabia.
Perhaps Princess Maha thought she could slip away because just three years earlier in Paris, according to press accounts, she almost succeeded in ducking out on a $20 million tab during an epic shopping spree through the boutiques of the Avenue Montaigne, the Place Vendôme, and elsewhere. When
–-> t’as oublié un « h », cher Philippe... ah, le #shopping c’est vraiment pas ton truc...
Corrigé ! j’étais sans doute déstabilisé par la princesse (ou plutôt les moyens de la princesse)
The Chinese Century
By Joseph E. Stiglitz
▻http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2015/01/china-worlds-largest-economy
(...)
Ultimately, the Soviet system was to fail (...) The world was now dominated by a single superpower, one that continued to invest heavily in its military. That said, the U.S. was a superpower not just militarily but also economically.
The United States then made two critical mistakes. First, it inferred that its triumph meant a triumph for everything it stood for. But in much of the Third World, concerns about poverty—and the economic rights that had long been advocated by the left—remained paramount. The second mistake was to use the short period of its unilateral dominance, between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of Lehman Brothers, to pursue its own narrow economic interests—or, more accurately, the economic interests of its multi-nationals, including its big banks—rather than to create a new, stable world order. The trade regime the U.S. pushed through in 1994, creating the World Trade Organization, was so unbalanced that, five years later, when another trade agreement was in the offing, the prospect led to riots in Seattle. Talking about free and fair trade, while insisting (for instance) on subsidies for its rich farmers, has cast the U.S. as hypocritical and self-serving.
(...)
(...) if we ponder the rise of China and then take actions based on the idea that the world economy is indeed a zero-sum game—and that we therefore need to boost our share and reduce China’s—we will erode our soft power even further. This would be exactly the wrong kind of wake-up call. If we see China’s gains as coming at our expense, we will strive for “containment,” taking steps designed to limit China’s influence. These actions will ultimately prove futile, but will nonetheless undermine confidence in the U.S. and its position of leadership. U.S. foreign policy has repeatedly fallen into this trap. Consider the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership, a proposed free-trade agreement among the U.S., Japan, and several other Asian countries—which excludes China altogether. It is seen by many as a way to tighten the links between the U.S. and certain Asian countries, at the expense of links with China. There is a vast and dynamic Asia supply chain, with goods moving around the region during different stages of production; the Trans-Pacific Partnership looks like an attempt to cut China out of this supply chain.
Another example: the U.S. looks askance at China’s incipient efforts to assume global responsibility in some areas. China wants to take on a larger role in existing international institutions, but Congress says, in effect, that the old club doesn’t like active new members: they can continue taking a backseat, but they can’t have voting rights commensurate with their role in the global economy. When the other G-20 nations agree that it is time that the leadership of international economic organizations be determined on the basis of merit, not nationality, the U.S. insists that the old order is good enough—that the World Bank, for instance, should continue to be headed by an American.
Yet another example: when China, together with France and other countries—supported by an International Commission of Experts appointed by the president of the U.N., which I chaired—suggested that we finish the work that Keynes had started at Bretton Woods, by creating an international reserve currency, the U.S. blocked the effort.
And a final example: the U.S. has sought to deter China’s efforts to channel more assistance to developing countries through newly created multilateral institutions in which China would have a large, perhaps dominant role. The need for trillions of dollars of investment in infrastructure has been widely recognized—and providing that investment is well beyond the capacity of the World Bank and existing multilateral institutions. What is needed is not only a more inclusive governance regime at the World Bank but also more capital. On both scores, the U.S. Congress has said no. Meanwhile, China is trying to create an Asian Infrastructure Fund, working with a large number of other countries in the region. The U.S. is twisting arms so that those countries won’t join.
(...)
We should take this moment, as China becomes the world’s largest economy, to “pivot” our foreign policy away from containment. The economic interests of China and the U.S. are intricately intertwined. We both have an interest in seeing a stable and well-functioning global political and economic order. Given historical memories and its own sense of dignity, China won’t be able to accept the global system simply as it is, with rules that have been set by the West, to benefit the West and its corporate interests, and that reflect the West’s perspectives. We will have to cooperate, like it or not—and we should want to. In the meantime, the most important thing America can do to maintain the value of its soft power is to address its own systemic deficiencies—economic and political practices that are corrupt, to put the matter baldly, and skewed toward the rich and powerful.
A new global political and economic order is emerging, the result of new economic realities. We cannot change these economic realities. But if we respond to them in the wrong way, we risk a backlash that will result in either a dysfunctional global system or a global order that is distinctly not what we would have wanted.
#Chine #Etats-Unis #force
#Snowden Speaks : A Vanity Fair Exclusive
▻http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/04/edward-snowden-interview
“Every person remembers some moment in their life where they witnessed some injustice, big or small, and looked away, because the consequences of intervening seemed too intimidating,” former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden tells Vanity Fair about his motivation for leaking tens of thousands of secret documents. “But there’s a limit to the amount of incivility and inequality and inhumanity that each individual can tolerate. I crossed that line. And I’m no longer alone.”
George R.R. Martin Has a Detailed Plan For Keeping the Game of Thrones TV Show From Catching Up To Him - Vanity Fair
▻http://www.vanityfair.com/vf-hollywood/george-r-r-martin-interview
Long entretien avec George RR Martin, en particulier sur sa façon de déjouer les attentes du lecteur (pour le dire poliment).
– You have very strong reversals and you keep the reader off balance. You might think you’re in Sword in the Stone territory early on — you can see the book it might become, with Bran as the hero, but then it’s like a con game between you and the reader.
– I think you write what you want to read. I’ve been a reader, a voracious reader, since I was a kid in Bayonne. “George with his nose in a book,” they always called me. So I’ve read a lot of stories in my life, and some have affected me very deeply; others I forget five minutes after I put ‘em down. One of the things I’ve come to really appreciate is a kind of unpredictability in my fiction. There’s nothing that bores me quicker than a book that just seems, I know exactly where this book is going. You’ve read them, too. You open a new book and you read the first chapter, maybe the first two chapters, and you don’t even have to read the rest of it. You can see exactly where it’s going. I think I got some of that when I was growing up and we were watching TV. My mother would always predict where the plots were going, whether it was I Love Lucy or something like that. “Well, this is going to happen,” she would say. And, sure enough, it would happen! And nothing was more delightful, when something different happened, when it suddenly took a twist. As long as the twist was justified. You can’t just arbitrarily throw in twists and turns that make no sense. Things have to follow. You want the thing in the end where you say, “Oh my God, I didn’t see that coming, but there was foreshadowing; there was a hint of it here, there was a hint of it there. I should have seen it coming.” And that, to me, is very satisfying. I look for that in the fiction that I read and I try to put it into my own fiction.
– Like with Bran getting pushed, you foreshadow that, too, so the reader doesn’t feel cheated. Same with the Red Wedding.
There’s always this tension between fiction and life. Fiction has more structure than life does. But we have to hide the structure. We have to hide the writer, I think, and make a story seem like it was true. Too many stories are too structured and too familiar. The way we read, the way we watch television, the way we go to movies, all give us certain expectations of how a story is going to go. Even for reasons that are totally unconnected with the actual story itself. You go to a movie, who’s the big star? O.K., if Tom Cruise is the star, Tom Cruise is not going to die in the first scene, you know? ‘Cause he’s the star! He’s got to go through. Or you’re watching a TV show and its name is Castle. You know that the character Castle is pretty safe. He’s gonna be there next week, too, and the week after.
You shouldn’t know that, ideally. The emotional involvement would be greater if somehow we could get past that. So that’s what I try to do, you know? Bran is the first of the major characters you meet, after the prologue. So you think, “Oh, O.K., this is Bran’s story, Bran’s gonna be a hero here.” And then: Whoops! What just happened to Bran there? Immediately, you’re changing the rules. And, hopefully, from that point, the reader is a little uncertain. “I don’t know who’s safe in this movie.” And I love that, when people say to me, “I never know who’s safe in the books. I can never relax.” I want that in my books. And I want that in the books I read, too. I want to feel that anything can happen. Alfred Hitchcock was one of the first ones to do that, most famously in Psycho. You start watching Psycho and you think she’s the heroine. Right? You followed her all the way. She can’t die in the shower!
– Were there writers that you read as a kid, or shows that you watched, that did that kind of thing? The Twilight Zone did it.
The Twilight Zone was famous for its twist endings. Twist endings are hard to do. I worked on the revived Twilight Zone in the mid-eighties, and the network was constantly on us, saying, “You have to have more twist endings!” And what we discovered is, it’s a lot harder to do a twist ending in 1987 than it is to do a twist ending in 1959. The audience has seen tens of thousands of more shows, and they’ve gotten far more sophisticated. We tried to remake some of the classic Twilight Zones, like Anne Francis is a mannequin coming into a store in the original, and we tried to remake that. Three minutes into it, they say, “She’s a mannequin.” Ha ha ha ha! Or the one where the woman has an operation. She’s supposedly hideously ugly and she’s having an operation to make her beautiful. But if you notice how they film that, you never see anyone’s face. You just see her with her bandages. And, of course, they take it off, and she’s incredibly beautiful, and everybody reacts with horror – and you see that they’re all idiot pig people! Well, the minute you remake that, the modern audience says, “They’re not showing us anyone’s faces.” So, trick endings are harder to do. The audience is increasingly sophisticated and wary of such things.
#spoil : d’un autre côté, quand tu arrives à la fin, t’as envie de gueuler tant il a twisté les persos. Et puis ça s’arrête sans que les principaux enjeux soient résolus. On te casse les couilles pendant 15 volumes à te dire « fais gaffe, l’hiver arrive » et l’histoire se coupe abruptement à l’arrivée de l’hiver. Alors que toi, t’attendais que ça, que l’hiver arrive et que les choses sérieuses commencent. Certes, il a mis beaucoup d’inattendu dans les destins des persos, mais certains, c’est plus « perdus de vue » qu’autre chose.
Tu as juste l’impression de t’être tapé un prologue interminable et paf, le mec démissionne au moment où l’intrigue est en place...
J’ai eu l’impression que Martin en a eu ras le cul de son histoire et qu’il a posé le stylo au milieu en beuglant : tadammmm, j’ai terminé !
Ah bon ? Parce qu’à la fin du 15, y a un épilogue, quand même... Et QUE deux volumes pour l’hiver qu’on te promet comme le plus interminable de tous les temps ?
Bon, je n’ai pas encore lu le numéro 0.
c’est qu’illes vont tou·te·s mourrir en 5 minutes une fois l’hiver venu ...
#divination #spoil ^^
L’entretien parle de son plan pour ne pas être rattrapé par la série parce qu’il écrit trop lentement !
Il lui reste deux (gros) livres à écrire, le 6 et le 7 selon le découpage original :
« Le sixième volume de la série a pour titre The Winds of Winter (Les Vents de l’hiver) et quatre chapitres écrits à l’origine pour A Dance with Dragons sont intégrés à ce livre en juin 201027. À la publication de A Dance with Dragons, une centaine de pages de The Winds of Winter sont déjà écrites. Martin espère écrire ce livre plus rapidement que le précédent mais, ayant tiré la leçon de ses estimations passées trop optimistes, se refuse désormais à faire des prévisions précises sur la date de sa publication6. Il estime néanmoins que finir le livre en trois ans serait raisonnable.
Le titre annoncé du septième volume est A Dream of Spring (Un rêve de printemps). Martin compte bien conclure sa saga avec ce tome mais laisse néanmoins la porte ouverte à un éventuel huitième livre si cela s’avérait nécessaire30. Il sait déjà dans les grandes lignes comment il va conclure sa saga et le destin de ses principaux personnages et a indiqué que le dénouement serait plus proche d’une fin douce-amère que d’une happy end. En réponse aux questions qui lui ont été posées sur l’éventualité de sa mort avant d’avoir terminé son œuvre, Martin a annoncé qu’il ne permettrait pas qu’un autre écrivain finisse son histoire à sa place. Cependant, il a informé les producteurs de la série télévisée de la manière dont il souhaitait que l’histoire se termine en cas de décès. »
▻http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Tr%C3%B4ne_de_fer#Volumes_six_et_sept
Mais non mais il va pas raconter tout l’hiver ! L’hiver c’est le climax, la fin est (relativement) proche et ensuite il fera un épilogue ou ils mourront tous tristes et sans enfants, avec aperçu de leur absence d’avenir sur une génération.
(Et notons en passant que les bouquins sont nettement plus féministes que la série)
L’argument qui me semble le plus fort à vrai dire, au delà des considérations de fond, c’est que 50 % de la masse textuelle est relatée du point de vue de femmes. Pour le reste, y’aurait pas mal à dire, mais je ne cherche à convaincre personne : )
Je suis assez d’accord avec @baroug : la série cède aux facilités de la narration accrocheuse contemporaine en boostant le cul pour avoir l’air sulfureux tout en ne présentant que le regard du mec lubrique. Il y a beaucoup moins de cul dans les livres et les personnages féminins sont effectivement très importants. Autant la série biche les « femmes de » dont Martin se tamponne un peu, autant le livre suit des destins féminins particuliers que la série élude.
Manière, Martin semble avoir une affection particulière pour les personnages un peu border line, ceux qu’on colle régulièrement à l’autre bout de la table de banquet, les moches, des éborgnés, les handicapés, les survivants. Je ne peux pas en dire beaucoup plus sans spoiler à mort, mais même si j’aime beaucoup la série TV (c’est beau, dans le genre), j’ai été agréablement surprise par le style d’écriture, par la manière dont sont déroulées les intrigues et je suis vachement moins frustrée depuis que je sais qu’il y a une suite. Parce que ça faisait trop : « j’ai arrêté parce que j’en ai marre ».
Donc, merci @mona !
Vraiment.
Oui, c’est très lent. Tellement lent comme bouquin, que j’ai abandonné après le troisième tome. Les noces m’ont bien surprises : tant d’action d’un coup, j’ai frôlé la crise cardiaque. Le quatrième tome démarre tellement pas, qu’il m’est tombé des mains et que seuls mes ronflements ont pu me réveiller.
J’ai pas lu les bouquins @aude_v alors je ne peu pas participer a la discussion. Mais je suis le sujet avec intérêt. :)
Le truc, c’est que pratiquement tous les bouquins actuels sont construit sur l’idée d’exposer toutes les nombreuses ramifications de l’enjeu principal : qui va tenir le trône pour quand l’hiver sera là avec son merdier tant attendu ? Et c’est sûr que là, on aura toutes les cartes en main pour comprendre les actes et les motivations.
Pour ce qui est des points de vue... je ne trouve pas les personnages si manichéens... mais c’est vrai que ça s’affine au fur et à mesure. Il y a quelques gentils naïfs, mais comme ils sont de moins en moins naïfs, forcément... Beaucoup de gens retords, des retournements, des conversions.
C’est ça que j’aime : les personnages qui survivent apprennent. D’ailleurs, ceux qui refusent de s’adapter ont une fâcheuse tendance à moins bien survivre que les autres. Tu verras, tu auras d’autres points de vue. Et je continue à trouver une certaine égalité de traitement entre les hommes et les femmes. En tout cas, les femmes sont loin de jouer les plantes décoratives dans cette histoire, ce sont des personnages forts et souvent féroces.
Le point de vue féminin ne suffit probablement pas mais déjà, ça se pose là : la moitié de la saga est tout de même racontée de points de vue de femmes, et une bonne part a des ambitions, des désirs, des volontés qui s’opposent au contexte patriarcal de l’univers de GOT. Quant aux points de vue, si globalement en effet on reste plutôt dans la tête des personnages les plus sympathiques (plutôt que des gentils à proprement parler vu qu’on peut considérer qu’il n’y en a pas), mais très vite, les points de vue se multiplient, changent, et y’a des taré-e-s dans le loy.
“What’ll Become of Me?” Finding the Real Patsey of 12 Years a Slave
With 12 Years a Slave putting Solomon Northup’s story in the spotlight, Katie Calautti attempts to discover the fate of Patsey—and learns just how impossible it can be to find one woman when that woman was a slave.
▻http://www.vanityfair.com/vf-hollywood/patsey-12-years-a-slave
Mia’s Story | Vanity Fair
▻http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1992/11/farrow199211
Whatever you already know about this tangled and painful situation, you’ve only heard half: the case against Mia Farrow. This is the other half and it isn’t any prettier. It concerns Woody Allen’s behavior and what it has done to Mia Farrow and the 11 children involved. The author breaks new ground on one of the year’s most shocking stories.
by Maureen Orth (1992)
There was an unwritten rule in Mia Farrow’s house that Woody Allen was never supposed to be left alone with their seven-year-old adopted daughter, Dylan. Over the last two years, sources close to Farrow say, he has been discussing alleged “inappropriate” fatherly behavior toward Dylan in sessions with Dr. Susan Coates, a child psychologist. In more than two dozen interviews conducted for this article, most of them with individuals who are on intimate terms with the Mia Farrow household, Allen was described over and over as being completely obsessed with the bright little blonde girl. He could not seem to keep his hands off her. He would monopolize her totally, to the exclusion of her brothers and sisters, and spend hours whispering to her. She was fond of her daddy, but if she tried to go off and play, he would follow her from room to room, or he would sit and stare at her. During the school year, Allen would arrive early at Mia Farrow’s West Side Manhattan apartment, sit on Dylan’s bed and watch her wake up, and take her to school. At her birthday party last July, at Farrow’s country house in Bridgewater, Connecticut, he promised that he would keep away from the children’s table so that Dylan could enjoy her birthday party with her friends, but he seemed unable to do that. Allen, who was a fearful figure to many in the household, was so needy where Dylan was concerned that he hovered over her through the whole party, and when the cake arrived, he was right behind her, helping to blow out the candles.
Calling attention to someone’s birthday-party behavior may seem trivial at best. However, Dr. Coates, who just happened to be in Mia’s apartment to work with one of her other children, had only to witness a brief greeting between Woody and Dylan before she began a discussion with Mia that resulted in Woody’s agreeing to address the issue through counseling. At that point Coates didn’t know that, according to several sources, Woody, wearing just underwear, would take Dylan to bed with him and entwine his body around hers; or that he would have her suck his thumb; or that often when Dylan went over to his apartment he would head straight for the bedroom with her so that they could get into bed and play. He called Mia a “spoilsport” when she objected to what she referred to as “wooing.” Mia has told people that he said that her concerns were her own sickness, and that he was just being warm. For a long time, Mia backed down. Her love for Woody had always been mixed with fear. He could reduce her to a pulp when he gave vent to his temper, but she was also in awe of him, because he always presented himself as “a morally superior person.”
Yves Béhar on Re-Inventing the Way Silicon Valley Thinks About Design | Vanity Fair #design #wearable
▻http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/02/yves-behar-design-silicon-valley
New Government Documents Show the Sean Parker Wedding Is the Perfect Parable for Silicon Valley Excess - Alexis C. Madrigal - The Atlantic
▻http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/13/06/new-government-documents-show-the-sean-parker-wedding-is-the-perfect-parable-for-silicon-valley-excess/276521
weddings are great and I’m sure it was a good party.
But, of course, that’s also part of the new Silicon Valley parable: dream big, privatize the previously public, pay no attention to the rules, build recklessly, enjoy shamelessly, invoke magic, and then pay everybody off.
#facebook #disruption quand tu nous tiens
▻http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2013/09/sean-parker-wedding-story
▻http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2013/09/photos-sean-parker-wedding.sw.24.sean-alexandra-parker-wedding-ss18.jpg ▻http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2013/09/photos-sean-parker-wedding.sw.20.sean-alexandra-parker-wedding-ss14.jpg
▻http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2013/09/photos-sean-parker-wedding.sw.5.sean-alexandra-parker-wedding-ss01.jpg ▻http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2013/09/photos-sean-parker-wedding.sw.15.sean-alexandra-parker-wedding-ss10.jpg
Why Iran’s Hackers Might Be Scarier Than China’s | Mother Jones
▻http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/who-has-scarier-hackers-china-or-iran
Ultimately, Clarke says, it doesn’t matter which country poses more of a threat because “the difference between hacking infrastructure and spying is only a couple of keystrokes. It’s still all about getting in. And once you’re in, it’s relatively easy to do the destruction you want to do.”
#cybersécurité #chine #iran #états-unis via @pierrealonso j’en profite pour glisser ça #shameless ▻http://fluxetfixe.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/e-peril-jaune
#Cyberdéfense : la #France reconnaît son retard
▻http://abonnes.lemonde.fr/international/article/2013/06/03/cyberdefense-la-france-reconnait-son-retard_3423012_3210.html
Nous allons mettre en œuvre, au sein de la doctrine nationale, la capacité informatique offensive, associée à la capacité de renseignement"
Tiananmen : la Chine renforce la #censure du Web (Checklist du 4 juin 2013)
Le début du mois de juin est toujours tendu en Chine. A l’approche de l’anniversaire du massacre de la place Tiananmen, le 4 juin, la sécurité est renforcée pour éviter les manifestations. Si les universités de Pékin sont particulièrement surveillées (NY Times), la Toile est également scrutée par le gouvernement, qui n’a encore jamais reconnu sa responsabilité dans la répression sanglante qui a touché des centaines d’étudiants en 1989. Les autorités ont ainsi"calfeutré" les brèches de la Grande Muraille pare-feu de Chine, note le Hollywood Reporter. Selon Greatfire.org, qui surveille la censure sur Internet, l’accès à la version non expurgée de Wikipédia, qui comprend un long article sur les évènements, a été interdite lundi. Les internautes chinois avaient jusqu’ici accès à deux versions de l’encyclopédie : une version « http », dont les autorités pouvaient bloquer certains articles, et une version « https », non censurée. La technique de censure de Sina Weibo, le Twitter chinois, a également évolué (Memeburn, ZDNet) : désormais, il est possible d’effectuer des recherches « sensibles », comme « les incidents du 4 juin », sur le site de microblogging. Mais les résultats obtenus, filtrés par les autorités, n’ont pas de rapport avec les thèmes recherchés. « C’est une technique que George Orwell aurait admirée », estime le blog QZ, car les internautes ne sont même plus conscients qu’ils sont censurés. Le WSJ note que le gouvernement n’intervient que rarement en renfort des outils de censure propres à chaque site. Cette année, les autorités paniquent, ajoute un activiste cité parThe Australian, pour qui les nombreux blocages mis en place par la Grande Muraille du Web sont de moins en moins efficaces à l’heure des réseaux sociaux.
Sur l’Iran, ce long article de Vanity Fair :
Silent War
▻http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2013/07/new-cyberwar-victims-american-business
#les_acteurs_que_je_sais_jamais_leur_nom : Allison Janney
Il me semble que Ze Ouest Wing affiche une belle collection de ceusses que je sais jamais leur nom. Sauf si, évidemment, tu te décides à apprendre par cœur le casting.
All the Deaths in Quentin Tarantino’s Movies, Charted | Vanity Fair
▻http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2013/02/quentin-tarantino-deaths-movies
