Big Bloomberg is watching you.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/10/news/companies/bloomberg-goldman-sachs/index.html?section=money_topstories
Goldman catches Bloomberg reporters spying on terminal users
By James O'Toole @jtotoole May 10, 2013: 5:19 PM ET
Big Bloomberg is watching you.
That was the unsettling realization Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500) executives came to a few weeks ago when a Bloomberg reporter inadvertently revealed the surveillance capabilities reporters from the news and financial data provider have over users of Bloomberg terminals.
Traders throughout the financial world depend on Bloomberg terminals for real-time data on markets of all kinds as well as news and instant messaging. The machines reportedly rent for $20,000 a year and are used by thousands of subscribers, bringing in a substantial portion of the company's revenue.
In a recent conversation with a Goldman executive, a Bloomberg reporter mentioned that a partner at the bank hadn't logged into his terminal recently. This prompted concern from Goldman that Bloomberg journalists could be tracking users on the terminals, a bank spokesman said.
The news was reported earlier by the New York Post.
Bloomberg spokesman Ty Trippet said the company had quickly addressed Goldman's concerns.
"Limited customer relationship data has long been available to our journalists, and has never included clients' security-level data, position data, trading data or messages," he said in an email.
Journalists also couldn't see what news stories users read and what securities they viewed, though they could access details on when users had logged into their terminals, when they became subscribers and what sorts of functions they were using.
"In light of [Goldman's] concern as well as a general heightened sensitivity to data access, we decided to disable journalist access to this customer relationship information for all clients," Trippet said.
In a memo to Bloomberg employees Friday afternoon, CEO Dan Doctoroff called the newsroom's access to customer data "a mistake."
"Client trust is our highest priority and the cornerstone of our business, and we are deeply committed to ensuring the complete integrity and confidentiality of our clients' data in all situations and at all times," Doctoroff wrote.
Goldman said its business relationship with Bloomberg, founded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, was unaffected by the issue.
[less]
Police Commissioner Ray Kelly launched a stinging rebuke to the federal government’s secret phone and Internet monitoring campaign — and suggested leaker Edward Snowden was right about privacy “abuse.”
“I don’t think it ever should have been made secret,” Kelly said today, breaking ranks with US law-enforcement officials.
His blast came days after the Obama administration and Attorney General Eric Holder outraged New York officials by endorsing a federal monitor for the NYPD.
Kelly appeared to firmly reject Holder’s claim that disclosure of the monitoring campaign seriously damaged efforts to fight terrorism.
“I think the American public can accept the fact if you tell them that every time you pick up the phone it’s going to be recorded and it goes to the government,” Kelly said. “I think the public can understand that. I see no reason why that program was placed in the secret category.”
“Secondly, I think if you listen to Snowden, he indicates that there’s some sort of malfeasance, people . . . sitting around and watching the data. So I think the question is: What sort of oversight is there inside the [National Security Agency] NSA to prevent that abuse, if it’s taking place?”
Kelly has been on the receiving side of this kind of criticism.
The NYPD secretly spied on Muslim organizations, infiltrated Muslim student group and videotaped mosque-goers in New Jersey for years, it was revealed in 2012. The NYPD said its actions were lawful and necessary to keep the city safe.
After the vast federal phone-Internet monitoring program was revealed, President Obama said he had struck the right balance between ensuring security and protecting privacy.
But yesterday, Kelly indicated Obama was wrong.
“I think we can raise people’s comfort level if in fact information comes out as to that we have these controls and these protections inside the NSA,” he said.
Allies of Kelly viewed his criticism as payback for Holder’s decision to recommend — at the 11th hour of a controversial court case — that a federal monitor oversee the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program.
“Everything that Ray Kelly does has a purpose,” said City Council Public Safety Chairman Peter Vallone Jr. (D-Queens). “If Eric Holder wants to lecture Police Commissioner Kelly on how to fight crime in New York, then one of the world’s foremost experts on public safety [Kelly] can lecture Holder on how to fight terrorism.”
Holder and other law-enforcement officials have trashed Snowden and his claim about out-of-control government snooping.
Kelly said of the leaker:
“He tried to give the impression, it seems to me, that these system administrators had carte blanche to do what they wanted to do,” he said. “I think it’s a problem if that’s in fact what’s happening.”
Additional reporting by Carl Campanile
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by columbiacounty
over 12 years ago
Posts: 12708
Member since: Jan 2009
se,why?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by aboutready
over 12 years ago
Posts: 16354
Member since: Oct 2007
Well, in terms of being on topic, the topic being real estate, this is not. Someone recently pointed out how similar your posting style is to riversider's. hmm.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by greensdale
over 12 years ago
Posts: 3804
Member since: Sep 2012
So what is your conclusion AR?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by greensdale
over 12 years ago
Posts: 3804
Member since: Sep 2012
aboutready?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by columbiacounty
over 12 years ago
Posts: 12708
Member since: Jan 2009
fuck you, stupid.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by greensdale
over 12 years ago
Posts: 3804
Member since: Sep 2012
c0lumbiac0unty answering for aboutready. hmm.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by columbiacounty
over 12 years ago
Posts: 12708
Member since: Jan 2009
SE, why.
isn't this enough for you?
what will it take?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by aboutready
over 12 years ago
Posts: 16354
Member since: Oct 2007
My conclusion is that you're boring, endlessly repetitive and someone I'd try to avoid at a party within three minutes of meeting. You're creepy.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by greensdale
over 12 years ago
Posts: 3804
Member since: Sep 2012
>You're creepy.
Does that mean I'd miss the interesting small talk about your bad bananas?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by columbiacounty
over 12 years ago
Posts: 12708
Member since: Jan 2009
hfscomm1
Comment removed.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by aboutready
over 12 years ago
Posts: 16354
Member since: Oct 2007
Only if somebody asked about freshdirect. In a couple of minutes that would be over. Unlike you here. Who can discuss something minute and unimportant relentlessly. You're boring.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by aboutready
over 12 years ago
Posts: 16354
Member since: Oct 2007
And derivative. And repetitive. And unkind.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by greensdale
over 12 years ago
Posts: 3804
Member since: Sep 2012
>And unkind.
our delicate flower petal
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by aboutready
over 12 years ago
Posts: 16354
Member since: Oct 2007
No, not at all. Just observant. You're a shitty person, morally, hb.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by greensdale
over 12 years ago
Posts: 3804
Member since: Sep 2012
I'm shitty but you are running away with other people's money.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by aboutready
over 12 years ago
Posts: 16354
Member since: Oct 2007
No, idiot, they are returning MY money. Amounts I overpaid according to contract law. That would be the landlord, not other tenants.
LIAR.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by greensdale
over 12 years ago
Posts: 3804
Member since: Sep 2012
You overpaid nothing. You entered into a market rate lease on an arms-length basis. You have no damages. Only entitlement and anger.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by aboutready
over 12 years ago
Posts: 16354
Member since: Oct 2007
The contract wasn't legal. Do you understand? Are you that stupid? If a landlord offers an illegal contract, and it is proven so, the legal one prevails. That's the law, idiot. Damages are automatically assessed.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by greensdale
over 12 years ago
Posts: 3804
Member since: Sep 2012
Who was damaged because the contract was illegal?
Not you.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by aboutready
over 12 years ago
Posts: 16354
Member since: Oct 2007
It doesn't fucking matter. You take money illegally from people, even if they buy the product or sign the lease, there are damages. You DO NOT understand the law.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by greensdale
over 12 years ago
Posts: 3804
Member since: Sep 2012
>t doesn't fucking matter. You take money illegally from people, even if they buy the product or sign the lease, there are damages. You DO NOT understand the law.
Watch your language lady.
Sure, there were damages. Yet the windfall you are receiving doesn't come from the people who caused the damages - the owners of StuyTown and PCV during the time you rented there.
And YOU had no damages. Zero. Others did. You didn't.
And as part of the settlement where you received your big windfall, others are being damaged right now in the form of higher rents including mid-lease increases.
You have no damages. You just have free money. And you are proud of it. Screw everyone else, right?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by alanhart
over 12 years ago
Posts: 12397
Member since: Feb 2007
Why does aboutready have a language lady? And why isn't she just called a Tagalog tutor? And why does AR have to watch her? Does she have Alzheimer's?
And didn't ST/PCV get sold at a huge discount, so that the new owners would have some wiggle room to pay liabilities that run with the land (in a manner of speaking)? And isn't it good law that teaches wholesale violators of housing law that they will have to compensate widely, not just to the most aggrievedly burdened, when they knowingly abuse the law? Don't you think a grand example is set, to deter others from doing the same? Yes, you do.
Screwdrivers, right? No, sidecars.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by greensdale
over 12 years ago
Posts: 3804
Member since: Sep 2012
>And didn't ST/PCV get sold at a huge discount, so that the new owners would have some wiggle room to pay liabilities that run with the land (in a manner of speaking)?
The settlement payments are yielding higher rents for other tenants. Those are the people who are being punished.
>And isn't it good law that teaches wholesale violators of housing law that they will have to compensate widely, not just to the most aggrievedly burdened, when they knowingly abuse the law?
Widely, except what we have are payments going to people like AR who were never intended to be subsidized. She and her family didn't even initially seek a subsidy - they knowingly, on an arms-length basis, entered into a market rate lease. They've never been harmed.
So to summarize:
AR gets money she doesn't deserve, and feels entitled to it.
Costs are passed on to other renters
The current owners had nothing to do with the initial problems
Original subsidy comes from taxpayers of the State of New York who have gotten nothing back in return
And all I'm asking is that she take the windfall she will undeservedly be receiving and donate it to appropriate housing causes.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Riversider
over 12 years ago
Posts: 13572
Member since: Apr 2009
In society there are always going to be people who take advantage of the system, skirt the rules etc. It's not illegal in most cases but not the best example one can set. Faye Dunaway had a rent controlled/stabilized apt, that she was providing to her son if i recall. Nora Ephron deluded herself into believing she deserved a $1500 a month Apthorp apt, an then you had Charles Rangel with his 3 or 4 rent controlled units he clearly didn't need. List goes on, and it's very distinguished.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Riversider
over 12 years ago
Posts: 13572
Member since: Apr 2009
Get rid of these programs, and the problem goes away. This was all supposed to be some temporary arrangement during World War II. If as a society it's decided we need to help the lowest strata, then the renter should apply for a rent subsidy each year an be required to disclose everything, income assets, etc. Have a job where you earn over $100k/200k etc, too bad, Have a 2nd home, sell it or live in it, Have savings use it. It's that simple.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Riversider
over 12 years ago
Posts: 13572
Member since: Apr 2009
In her article, Ephron complains that the law deregulating her apartment allowed landlords to be "utterly capricious" in charging her "fair-market value" for her eight rooms.
This sounds odd coming from a Hollywood director — was Ephron any less capricious in charging whatever she could get for "Sleepless in Seattle"? — but it's the rentocrat, not the director, talking here.
Like European nobles in crumbling castles, rentocrats are above money grubbing. They deserve their homes because of their longevity and their virtues. They compare rent control to Fulbright scholarships — a stipend wisely provided to worthy intellectuals and artists. They will announce, with a straight face, that they're entitled to keep their apartments because of the extensive "emotional investment" they have made in the buildings.
They scorn tacky landlords obsessed with getting higher rents so they can pay for nonemotional investments like furnaces. Ephron writes witheringly about the beehive hairdo and pink silk suits of the building manager, a "frightening" woman — and a resident of New Jersey. The Apthorp tenants were appalled at the landlords' efforts to renovate the property — how bourgeois! — so they could get permission to charge higher rents.
The Apthorp tenants did consent to some profiteering of their own by charging illicit "key money," like the $24,000 that Ephron paid to the previous tenant in order to get her apartment. But what was acceptable for tenants became a "crime," as Ephron tells it, when one of the landlords started taking a cut of the action. Why should he get anything? It's only his building.
Now that she's left the Apthorp and become the happy owner of her own apartment, Ephron ascribes her former madness to being so deliriously in love with her old home that she couldn't imagine leaving it. But I can't buy the love diagnosis. As a recovering rentocrat, I think our madness has more to do with guilt.
No matter how much you love your rent-stabilized apartment, no matter how smug you feel bragging to your friends about your deal, in your heart you know it's not fair you're paying so little. It's like buying stolen goods: you can revel in the low price, but you know it comes at someone else's expense.
And you know exactly who that someone is. You're living on his property. You're a squatter, but you don't want to admit it. So you tell yourself it's not really his property anyway, and you're more worthy of it than he is, and you couldn't survive anywhere else, and anyway this is all about something far more profound than money. But it's not.
There are so many Monday Morning QB's commenting that this circle-jerk is brain drainn of epic proportions
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by greensdale
over 12 years ago
Posts: 3804
Member since: Sep 2012
Mayor will cancel free Bloomberg Terminals for city after his term ends
By TARA PALMERI
Last Updated: 5:26 AM, July 8, 2013
Posted: 12:45 AM, July 8, 2013
The free Bloomberg Terminals the mayor brought with him to City Hall will be leaving when he does, The Post has learned.
If Mayor Bloomberg’s successor wants to use the data-rich computers, taxpayers will have to pay the going rate of $20,000 per terminal per year.
With 60 terminals throughout the government — including 35 at City Hall — the tab would come to $1.2 million a year.
A spokesman for Bloomberg LP, the mayor’s information-services firm, said the fees for 25 of the terminals, which were already being used by the city’s financial departments, were waived when he took office in 2002.
That’s because Bloomberg wanted to add 35 terminals for his inner circle at City Hall, and paid for those himself to avoid creating a conflict of interest, officials said.
“The city was a paying client before Mike Bloomberg became mayor, and to remove any possible conflicts, the company agreed to provide free terminal use as long as he remained in office,” said spokesman Ty Trippet.
“We don’t expect that would continue after he leaves office” in December.
Trippet didn’t respond when asked why Bloomberg wouldn’t continue donating the terminals to the city.
The city Comptroller’s Office, its Finance Department and the mayor’s budget office were paying customers before Bloomberg’s election, using their 25 terminals to crunch financial information.
The “Bloomberg Boxes,” as the terminals have come to be known, are found in banks and on trading desks around the world.
Using six monitor displays, they offer subscribers real-time market data and a way to submit trades electronically, as well as news and Web browsing.
Bloomberg added 35 of the terminals for his “bullpen” at City Hall, where he and his senior aides work.
“The economic-development and budget teams people use it for financial data,” said his spokesman, Marc La Vorgna.
“I use it for its news-aggregation capabilities. It has better real-time news delivery and aggregation abilities than anything I’ve ever used. Some people just use it for the dual-monitor feature, which can really help your productivity.”
The next mayor will have to determine whether the terminals are worth spending taxpayer dollars to maintain.
Bloomberg LP’s more than 315,000 terminal subscribers account for 85 percent of its revenues.
Last year, the company took in $7.9 billion while holding to its policy of not giving discounts for multiple accounts.
Two months ago, The Post disclosed that reporters for Bloomberg News, the journalism arm of Bloomberg LP, were accessing terminal log-in information to snoop on traders at Goldman Sachs.
Officials at Bloomberg LP confirmed the reporters had used the terminals for years to monitor when subscribers were logged on and what types of sites they were looking at.
After a complaint by Goldman, Bloomberg LP cut off reporters’ access to private client data and Bloomberg News editor in chief Matt Winkler apologized, calling it an “inexcusable” error.
'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
Feds want to watch Bloomberg frisking people:
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2013/06/bloomberg_hates.php
se, why?
Payback
'NSA should come clean about domestic spying': Ray Kelly
By JENNIFER BAIN
Last Updated: 6:18 PM, June 17, 2013
http://www.nypost.com/f/mobile/news/local/nsa_should_come_clean_ray_kelly_dfAKlqJ4keYDNiJqANhIMO
Police Commissioner Ray Kelly launched a stinging rebuke to the federal government’s secret phone and Internet monitoring campaign — and suggested leaker Edward Snowden was right about privacy “abuse.”
“I don’t think it ever should have been made secret,” Kelly said today, breaking ranks with US law-enforcement officials.
His blast came days after the Obama administration and Attorney General Eric Holder outraged New York officials by endorsing a federal monitor for the NYPD.
Kelly appeared to firmly reject Holder’s claim that disclosure of the monitoring campaign seriously damaged efforts to fight terrorism.
“I think the American public can accept the fact if you tell them that every time you pick up the phone it’s going to be recorded and it goes to the government,” Kelly said. “I think the public can understand that. I see no reason why that program was placed in the secret category.”
“Secondly, I think if you listen to Snowden, he indicates that there’s some sort of malfeasance, people . . . sitting around and watching the data. So I think the question is: What sort of oversight is there inside the [National Security Agency] NSA to prevent that abuse, if it’s taking place?”
Kelly has been on the receiving side of this kind of criticism.
The NYPD secretly spied on Muslim organizations, infiltrated Muslim student group and videotaped mosque-goers in New Jersey for years, it was revealed in 2012. The NYPD said its actions were lawful and necessary to keep the city safe.
After the vast federal phone-Internet monitoring program was revealed, President Obama said he had struck the right balance between ensuring security and protecting privacy.
But yesterday, Kelly indicated Obama was wrong.
“I think we can raise people’s comfort level if in fact information comes out as to that we have these controls and these protections inside the NSA,” he said.
Allies of Kelly viewed his criticism as payback for Holder’s decision to recommend — at the 11th hour of a controversial court case — that a federal monitor oversee the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program.
“Everything that Ray Kelly does has a purpose,” said City Council Public Safety Chairman Peter Vallone Jr. (D-Queens). “If Eric Holder wants to lecture Police Commissioner Kelly on how to fight crime in New York, then one of the world’s foremost experts on public safety [Kelly] can lecture Holder on how to fight terrorism.”
Holder and other law-enforcement officials have trashed Snowden and his claim about out-of-control government snooping.
Kelly said of the leaker:
“He tried to give the impression, it seems to me, that these system administrators had carte blanche to do what they wanted to do,” he said. “I think it’s a problem if that’s in fact what’s happening.”
Additional reporting by Carl Campanile
se,why?
Well, in terms of being on topic, the topic being real estate, this is not. Someone recently pointed out how similar your posting style is to riversider's. hmm.
So what is your conclusion AR?
aboutready?
fuck you, stupid.
c0lumbiac0unty answering for aboutready. hmm.
SE, why.
isn't this enough for you?
what will it take?
My conclusion is that you're boring, endlessly repetitive and someone I'd try to avoid at a party within three minutes of meeting. You're creepy.
>You're creepy.
Does that mean I'd miss the interesting small talk about your bad bananas?
hfscomm1
Comment removed.
Only if somebody asked about freshdirect. In a couple of minutes that would be over. Unlike you here. Who can discuss something minute and unimportant relentlessly. You're boring.
And derivative. And repetitive. And unkind.
>And unkind.
our delicate flower petal
No, not at all. Just observant. You're a shitty person, morally, hb.
I'm shitty but you are running away with other people's money.
No, idiot, they are returning MY money. Amounts I overpaid according to contract law. That would be the landlord, not other tenants.
LIAR.
You overpaid nothing. You entered into a market rate lease on an arms-length basis. You have no damages. Only entitlement and anger.
The contract wasn't legal. Do you understand? Are you that stupid? If a landlord offers an illegal contract, and it is proven so, the legal one prevails. That's the law, idiot. Damages are automatically assessed.
Who was damaged because the contract was illegal?
Not you.
It doesn't fucking matter. You take money illegally from people, even if they buy the product or sign the lease, there are damages. You DO NOT understand the law.
>t doesn't fucking matter. You take money illegally from people, even if they buy the product or sign the lease, there are damages. You DO NOT understand the law.
Watch your language lady.
Sure, there were damages. Yet the windfall you are receiving doesn't come from the people who caused the damages - the owners of StuyTown and PCV during the time you rented there.
And YOU had no damages. Zero. Others did. You didn't.
And as part of the settlement where you received your big windfall, others are being damaged right now in the form of higher rents including mid-lease increases.
You have no damages. You just have free money. And you are proud of it. Screw everyone else, right?
Why does aboutready have a language lady? And why isn't she just called a Tagalog tutor? And why does AR have to watch her? Does she have Alzheimer's?
And didn't ST/PCV get sold at a huge discount, so that the new owners would have some wiggle room to pay liabilities that run with the land (in a manner of speaking)? And isn't it good law that teaches wholesale violators of housing law that they will have to compensate widely, not just to the most aggrievedly burdened, when they knowingly abuse the law? Don't you think a grand example is set, to deter others from doing the same? Yes, you do.
Screwdrivers, right? No, sidecars.
>And didn't ST/PCV get sold at a huge discount, so that the new owners would have some wiggle room to pay liabilities that run with the land (in a manner of speaking)?
The settlement payments are yielding higher rents for other tenants. Those are the people who are being punished.
>And isn't it good law that teaches wholesale violators of housing law that they will have to compensate widely, not just to the most aggrievedly burdened, when they knowingly abuse the law?
Widely, except what we have are payments going to people like AR who were never intended to be subsidized. She and her family didn't even initially seek a subsidy - they knowingly, on an arms-length basis, entered into a market rate lease. They've never been harmed.
So to summarize:
AR gets money she doesn't deserve, and feels entitled to it.
Costs are passed on to other renters
The current owners had nothing to do with the initial problems
Original subsidy comes from taxpayers of the State of New York who have gotten nothing back in return
And all I'm asking is that she take the windfall she will undeservedly be receiving and donate it to appropriate housing causes.
In society there are always going to be people who take advantage of the system, skirt the rules etc. It's not illegal in most cases but not the best example one can set. Faye Dunaway had a rent controlled/stabilized apt, that she was providing to her son if i recall. Nora Ephron deluded herself into believing she deserved a $1500 a month Apthorp apt, an then you had Charles Rangel with his 3 or 4 rent controlled units he clearly didn't need. List goes on, and it's very distinguished.
Get rid of these programs, and the problem goes away. This was all supposed to be some temporary arrangement during World War II. If as a society it's decided we need to help the lowest strata, then the renter should apply for a rent subsidy each year an be required to disclose everything, income assets, etc. Have a job where you earn over $100k/200k etc, too bad, Have a 2nd home, sell it or live in it, Have savings use it. It's that simple.
In her article, Ephron complains that the law deregulating her apartment allowed landlords to be "utterly capricious" in charging her "fair-market value" for her eight rooms.
This sounds odd coming from a Hollywood director — was Ephron any less capricious in charging whatever she could get for "Sleepless in Seattle"? — but it's the rentocrat, not the director, talking here.
Like European nobles in crumbling castles, rentocrats are above money grubbing. They deserve their homes because of their longevity and their virtues. They compare rent control to Fulbright scholarships — a stipend wisely provided to worthy intellectuals and artists. They will announce, with a straight face, that they're entitled to keep their apartments because of the extensive "emotional investment" they have made in the buildings.
They scorn tacky landlords obsessed with getting higher rents so they can pay for nonemotional investments like furnaces. Ephron writes witheringly about the beehive hairdo and pink silk suits of the building manager, a "frightening" woman — and a resident of New Jersey. The Apthorp tenants were appalled at the landlords' efforts to renovate the property — how bourgeois! — so they could get permission to charge higher rents.
The Apthorp tenants did consent to some profiteering of their own by charging illicit "key money," like the $24,000 that Ephron paid to the previous tenant in order to get her apartment. But what was acceptable for tenants became a "crime," as Ephron tells it, when one of the landlords started taking a cut of the action. Why should he get anything? It's only his building.
Now that she's left the Apthorp and become the happy owner of her own apartment, Ephron ascribes her former madness to being so deliriously in love with her old home that she couldn't imagine leaving it. But I can't buy the love diagnosis. As a recovering rentocrat, I think our madness has more to do with guilt.
No matter how much you love your rent-stabilized apartment, no matter how smug you feel bragging to your friends about your deal, in your heart you know it's not fair you're paying so little. It's like buying stolen goods: you can revel in the low price, but you know it comes at someone else's expense.
And you know exactly who that someone is. You're living on his property. You're a squatter, but you don't want to admit it. So you tell yourself it's not really his property anyway, and you're more worthy of it than he is, and you couldn't survive anywhere else, and anyway this is all about something far more profound than money. But it's not.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/03/opinion/03tierney.html?_r=0
Nora Ephron is dead.
We have a real life Aboutready right here right now costing other people money for no reason.
Riversider, replying on your own posts yet again. Not a good sign, buddy.
Hb=liar
RS=liar
Therefore hb=rs.
Hi Ab0utready, did you return any bananas to Fresh Direct this weekend?
http://tinyurl.com/m5kpmfj
Bloomberg: "Life-Threatening" Community Safety Act Great For Al Qaeda, Lawyers
http://gothamist.com/2013/06/24/bloomberg_city_council_legislation.php
Way too funny
There are so many Monday Morning QB's commenting that this circle-jerk is brain drainn of epic proportions
Mayor will cancel free Bloomberg Terminals for city after his term ends
By TARA PALMERI
Last Updated: 5:26 AM, July 8, 2013
Posted: 12:45 AM, July 8, 2013
The free Bloomberg Terminals the mayor brought with him to City Hall will be leaving when he does, The Post has learned.
If Mayor Bloomberg’s successor wants to use the data-rich computers, taxpayers will have to pay the going rate of $20,000 per terminal per year.
With 60 terminals throughout the government — including 35 at City Hall — the tab would come to $1.2 million a year.
A spokesman for Bloomberg LP, the mayor’s information-services firm, said the fees for 25 of the terminals, which were already being used by the city’s financial departments, were waived when he took office in 2002.
That’s because Bloomberg wanted to add 35 terminals for his inner circle at City Hall, and paid for those himself to avoid creating a conflict of interest, officials said.
“The city was a paying client before Mike Bloomberg became mayor, and to remove any possible conflicts, the company agreed to provide free terminal use as long as he remained in office,” said spokesman Ty Trippet.
“We don’t expect that would continue after he leaves office” in December.
Trippet didn’t respond when asked why Bloomberg wouldn’t continue donating the terminals to the city.
The city Comptroller’s Office, its Finance Department and the mayor’s budget office were paying customers before Bloomberg’s election, using their 25 terminals to crunch financial information.
The “Bloomberg Boxes,” as the terminals have come to be known, are found in banks and on trading desks around the world.
Using six monitor displays, they offer subscribers real-time market data and a way to submit trades electronically, as well as news and Web browsing.
Bloomberg added 35 of the terminals for his “bullpen” at City Hall, where he and his senior aides work.
“The economic-development and budget teams people use it for financial data,” said his spokesman, Marc La Vorgna.
“I use it for its news-aggregation capabilities. It has better real-time news delivery and aggregation abilities than anything I’ve ever used. Some people just use it for the dual-monitor feature, which can really help your productivity.”
The next mayor will have to determine whether the terminals are worth spending taxpayer dollars to maintain.
Bloomberg LP’s more than 315,000 terminal subscribers account for 85 percent of its revenues.
Last year, the company took in $7.9 billion while holding to its policy of not giving discounts for multiple accounts.
Two months ago, The Post disclosed that reporters for Bloomberg News, the journalism arm of Bloomberg LP, were accessing terminal log-in information to snoop on traders at Goldman Sachs.
Officials at Bloomberg LP confirmed the reporters had used the terminals for years to monitor when subscribers were logged on and what types of sites they were looking at.
After a complaint by Goldman, Bloomberg LP cut off reporters’ access to private client data and Bloomberg News editor in chief Matt Winkler apologized, calling it an “inexcusable” error.
tpalmeri@nypost.com