‘Atari’ Is in Trouble Again

Atari is declaring bankruptcy — twice. Both the U.S. video game company and its French parent have done so, the latest twist for the company which largely invented the video game industry and remains synonymous with it, despite having seen its glory days end by the mid-1980s.

But wait. Even though the Atari name celebrated its fortieth anniversary last year, it’s a mistake to talk about Atari as if it’s a corporate entity which has been around for four decades. (The Los Angeles Times’ Ben Fritz, for instance, refers to it as an “iconic but long-troubled video game maker.”) Instead, it’s a famous name which has drifted from owner to owner. It keeps being applied to different businesses, and yes, for all its fame, it does seem to be a bit of a jinx.

Here’s a quick rundown of what “Atari” has meant at different times (thanks, Wikipedia, for refreshing my memory):

1972-1976: It’s an up-and-coming, innovative startup cofounded by Nolan Bushnell and Ted Dabney.

1976-1984: It’s part of Warner Communications (which, years later, merged with Time Inc. to form Time Warner, overlord of this website). It’s a massively successful maker of video games and consoles, but then it crashes, along with the rest of the industry.

1984-1996: Atari morphs into a semi-successful maker of PCs when it’s acquired by Tramel Technology, a company started by Jack Tramiel, the ousted founder of Commodore.

1996-1998: Tramiel runs Atari into the ground. After merging with hard-disk maker JTS, the company and brand are largely dormant.

1998-2000: Atari resurfaces under the ownership of  toy kingpin Hasbro as a line of games published under the Atari Interactive name.

2000-present: It becomes a corporate entity controlled by French game publisher Infogrames, which increasingly emphasizes the Atari moniker over its own and takes over completely in 2008. In recent years, it’s focused on digital downloads, mobile games and licensing of its familiar brand and logo.

The above chronology doesn’t account for Atari’s original business: arcade games. As far as I can tell, the arcade arm was owned at different times by Warner Communications/Time Warner (twice!), Pac-Man purveyor Namco and arcade icon Midway, among other companies. But use of the Atari brand on arcade hardware petered out in 2001.

Basically, Atari has never been one well-defined thing for more than twelve years, max, at a time. That the name has survived at all is a testament to its power and appeal. And even though the current Atari has fallen on hard times, I’ll bet that the brand survives for at least a few more decades, in one form or another. Several forms, probably.

Gaming News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Title Post: ‘Atari’ Is in Trouble Again
Url Post: http://www.news.fluser.com/atari-is-in-trouble-again/
Link To Post : ‘Atari’ Is in Trouble Again
Rating:
100%

based on 99998 ratings.
5 user reviews.
Author: Fluser SeoLink
Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment

Read More..

Djokovic getting the hang of winning in Australia

MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) — Novak Djokovic is really starting to get the hang of how to handle himself at the Australian Open.

An expression often used Down Under — "Keep your shirt on" — is designed to discourage anyone from becoming unnecessarily overexcited.

Djokovic took it literally after his 6-1, 4-6, 6-1, 6-4 win Tuesday night over fifth-seeded Tomas Berdych, advancing to the semifinals at an 11th consecutive Grand Slam tournament.

The 2-hour, 31-minute victory took exactly half the time of his five-set, fourth-round win two nights previously against Stanislas Wawrinka. In the early hours of Monday morning, Djokovic ripped his sweat-drenched shirt off and flexed his muscles, mimicking his victory celebration after the 5:53 victory over Rafael Nadal in the 2012 Australian Open final.

That was acceptable at the time to the Rod Laver Arena crowd, which was still abuzz at 1:40 a.m. following five sets of high-level tennis.

After the Berdych match, however, he realized there was no need to raise the roof. Djokovic calmly pumped his fist once and walked to the net; he later joked about the ice baths he'd taken in between matches on the advice of local hero Lleyton Hewitt.

"It was a great performance. I was hoping to have a shorter match ... just not to go over 5 hours," Djokovic said, in a comparatively subdued mood after a considerably more routine victory. "It's always going to be tough against Tomas; he's an established player. He has a big game, big serve. He can compete against anyone on any surface."

In the semifinals, Djokovic will meet No. 4-seeded David Ferrer.

Ferrer survived a quarterfinal battle with fellow Spaniard Nicolas Almagro. Almagro had three chances to serve for the match, but Ferrer broke each time.

A usually mild-mannered pro, Ferrer showed his aggression at times when he threatened to spike his racket and even smashed his water bottle in the changeover after he'd dropped serve in a frustrating fourth set that featured eight breaks of serve.

He'd never lost to Almagro in 12 previous meetings and, as the No. 1 Spaniard in the draw in the absence of 11-time major winner Rafael Nadal, felt a responsibility to reach the semis.

"It was (a) miracle I won this match," Ferrer said of his comeback 4-6, 4-6, 7-5, 7-6 (4), 6-2 win. "I tried to fight every point; that's my game. I always fight."

Ferrer survived once in the third set and twice in the fourth when Almagro was serving for the match, but held his nerve and finally advanced to his third semifinal in the last four Grand Slam events.

"In the important moments, I played more consistent in my game," Ferrer said. "Of course, in the next round, the semifinals, I need to play my best tennis, better than today."

Djokovic acknowledged Ferrer's work ethic, saying the 30-year-old Spaniard was "one of the most respected guys on the tour because he never gives up."

"He plays every single match of his career with 100 percent," Djokovic said.

"I'm expecting a long one," he added.

Ferrer has never been past a major semifinal.

There are only three men left in the draw who have won Grand Slam titles — Djokovic has won five, including the last two in Australia. He's aiming to be the first man in the Open era to win three consecutive Australian titles.

The other two are in action Wednesday, with 17-time Grand Slam winner Roger Federer against 2008 Australian finalist Jo-Wilfried Tsonga of France. Andy Murray, who broke the 76-year drought for British men at the major tournaments by winning the U.S. Open last year, will play Jeremy Chardy of France.

On the women's side, defending champion Victoria Azarenka faces Svetlana Kuznetsova, who has won the U.S. Open and the French Open, and 15-time major winner Serena Williams is against 19-year-old American Sloane Stephens, who is playing her first quarterfinal at a Grand Slam.

Maria Sharapova completed a career Grand Slam last year by winning the French Open, a few months after losing the Australian Open final to Azarenka. After her 6-2, 6-2 quarterfinal win over Ekatrina Makarova on Tuesday, she has conceded only nine games in five matches — a record in Australia.

"To be honest, those are not the stats you want to be known for," Sharapova said.

After opening with a pair of 6-0, 6-0 wins, Sharapova thrashed seven-time major winner Venus Williams 6-1, 6-3 in the third round and Belgian Kristen Flipkens 6-0, 6-1 in the fourth.

Li Na has reached the semifinals in three of the last four years at Melbourne Park after beating Agnieszka Radwanska 7-5, 6-3. The 30-year-old Chinese player lost the 2011 final in Australia to Kim Clijsters, then won her breakthrough Grand Slam at the French Open a few months later. She hasn't been back to a major final since.

Djokovic won his first major title in Australia in 2008, then didn't make another final in his next 11 Grand Slam events. He's won four since then and is the top-ranked man in tennis, crediting the lessons from his experiences back then.

"At the start of my career, I went through a lot of different kinds of challenges physically, mentally," he said. "Everybody makes mistakes. I was aware of the fact that I need to improve because I wasn't feeling well, especially in the heat. I had lots of health issues.

"I don't want to go through it again. I am aware of the importance of an everyday practice and recovery basis. So as long as it's like that, I think I'll be all right."

Read More..

The Well Column: Facing Cancer, a Stark Choice

In the 1970s, women’s health advocates were highly suspicious of mastectomies. They argued that surgeons — in those days, pretty much an all-male club — were far too quick to remove a breast after a diagnosis of cancer, with disfiguring results.

But today, the pendulum has swung the other way. A new generation of women want doctors to take a more aggressive approach, and more and more are asking that even healthy breasts be removed to ward off cancer before it can strike.

Researchers estimate that as many as 15 percent of women with breast cancer — 30,000 a year — opt to have both breasts removed, up from less than 3 percent in the late 1990s. Notably, it appears that the vast majority of these women have never received genetic testing or counseling and are basing the decision on exaggerated fears about their risk of recurrence.

In addition, doctors say an increasing number of women who have never had a cancer diagnosis are demanding mastectomies based on genetic risk. (Cancer databases don’t track these women, so their numbers are unknown.)

“We are confronting almost an epidemic of prophylactic mastectomy,” said Dr. Isabelle Bedrosian, a surgical oncologist at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. “I think the medical community has taken notice. We don’t have data that say oncologically this is a necessity, so why are women making this choice?”

One reason may be the never-ending awareness campaigns that have left many women in perpetual fear of the disease. Improvements in breast reconstruction may also be driving the trend, along with celebrities who go public with their decision to undergo preventive mastectomy.

This month Allyn Rose, a 24-year-old Miss America contestant from Washington, D.C., made headlines when she announced plans to have both her healthy breasts removed after the pageant; both her mother and her grandmother died from breast cancer. The television personality Giuliana Rancic, 37, and the actress Christina Applegate, 41, also talked publicly about having double mastectomies after diagnoses of early-stage breast cancer.

“You’re not going to find other organs that people cut out of their bodies because they’re worried about disease,” said the medical historian Dr. Barron H. Lerner, author of “The Breast Cancer Wars” (2001). “Because breast cancer is a disease that is so emotionally charged and gets so much attention, I think at times women feel almost obligated to be as proactive as possible — that’s the culture of breast cancer.”

Most of the data on prophylactic mastectomy come from the University of Minnesota, where researchers tracked contralateral mastectomy trends (removing a healthy breast alongside one with cancer) from 1998 to 2006. Dr. Todd M. Tuttle, chief of surgical oncology, said double mastectomy rates more than doubled during that period and the rise showed no signs of slowing.

From those trends as well as anecdotal reports, Dr. Tuttle estimates that at least 15 percent of women who receive a breast cancer diagnosis will have the second, healthy breast removed. “It’s younger women who are doing it,” he said.

The risk that a woman with breast cancer will develop cancer in the other breast is about 5 percent over 10 years, Dr. Tuttle said. Yet a University of Minnesota study found that women estimated their risk to be more than 30 percent.

“I think there are women who markedly overestimate their risk of getting cancer,” he said.

Most experts agree that double mastectomy is a reasonable option for women who have a strong genetic risk and have tested positive for a breast cancer gene. That was the case with Allison Gilbert, 42, a writer in Westchester County who discovered her genetic risk after her grandmother died of breast cancer and her mother died of ovarian cancer.

Even so, she delayed the decision to get prophylactic mastectomy until her aunt died from an aggressive breast cancer. In August, she had a double mastectomy. (She had her ovaries removed earlier.)

“I feel the women in my family didn’t have a way to avoid their fate,” said Ms. Gilbert, author of the 2011 book “Parentless Parents,” about how losing a parent influences one’s own style of parenting. “Here I was given an incredible opportunity to know what I have and to do something about it and, God willing, be around for my kids longer.”

Even so, she said her decisions were not made lightly. The double mastectomy and reconstruction required an initial 11 1/2-hour surgery and an “intense” recovery. She got genetic counseling, joined support groups and researched her options.

But doctors say many women are not making such informed decisions. Last month, University of Michigan researchers reported on a study of more than 1,446 women who had breast cancer. Four years after their diagnosis, 35 percent were considering removing their healthy breast and 7 percent had already done so.

Notably, most of the women who had a double mastectomy were not at high risk for a cancer recurrence. In fact, studies suggest that most women who have double mastectomies never seek genetic testing or counseling.

“Breast cancer becomes very emotional for people, and they view a breast differently than an arm or a required body part that you use every day,” said Sarah T. Hawley, an associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan. “Women feel like it’s a body part over which they totally have a choice, and they say, ‘I want to put this behind me — I don’t want to worry about it anymore.’ ”

---

We hope you’ll “Like” Well on Facebook, where you’ll find news and conversations about fitness, food and family health.

Read More..

DealBook: Can Britain Forge Looser Ties to Europe Without Losing Influence?

LONDON — Last year, Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain used his appearance at the World Economic Forum to vent frustration with the European Union, listing some of the policies he would ditch if he could throw off Europe’s regulatory shackles.

“In the name of social protection, the E.U. has promoted unnecessary measures that impose burdens on businesses and governments, and can destroy jobs,” he argued, adding a list of directives that he would like to scrap.

One year later, Mr. Cameron is following through on that pledge. He is promising to renegotiate Britain’s ties to the 27-nation bloc, forge a new and looser relationship, and is expected to say on Wednesday that he would put the outcome of those talks to a referendum.

A speech on Europe, planned for last week, was postponed because of the crisis in Algeria. It has been rescheduled for Wednesday, ahead of a possible visit by Mr. Cameron to Davos, Switzerland.

It was unclear whether Mr. Cameron would attend Davos this year and speak on the same theme. But his tough line on Europe echoes growing British disenchantment with a bloc whose single currency union, which the British never joined, has been in crisis for three years.

Yet, supposing Mr. Cameron were to succeed in scaling down Britain’s involvement, some central questions will arise. Can Britain play a more limited role in Brussels and still retain significant influence there? And what might that mean for Britain’s full participation in one of the world’s biggest single markets?

In their 40-year history of engagement with a unifying Europe, Britons have never embraced the ideal of unity; instead they have seen their ties to the Continent in pragmatic terms. Increasingly, London’s conclusion seems to be that the costs in terms of regulatory burdens and financial contributions are not outweighed by clear benefits.

Mr. Cameron argues that to stabilize support for the European Union in Britain, the relationship must be loosened and focused more on the bloc’s single market of almost 500 million people.

Britain, which is in the second tier of European Union membership, not only stayed out of the euro — and unlike most of the others on the sidelines has no intention of joining — but also does not participate in Europe’s Schengen passport-free travel zone. The British government also announced last year that it would opt out of a range of justice and security policy areas.

A group of Conservative lawmakers argued last week for five treaty changes, including those that would allow any country to block new European Union legislation on financial services, and would repatriate social and employment laws to national capitals. Britain’s euro skeptics are also blunt in their criticism of the bloc’s agricultural, fisheries and regional aid programs

Many would ideally like to keep just one element of European Union membership, access to the single market, though achieving such status looks highly improbable.

Even those who sympathize with Mr. Cameron’s stance argue that a more detached position comes at the price of reduced influence, though they contend the cost of not changing would be higher. They also argue that leverage in some of the policy areas is of limited value anyway.

“There is a trade-off, there is no doubt,” said Mats Persson, director of Open Europe, a research organization that favors a change in Britain’s relationship with the union. “If you reduce the level of E.U. influence in the British economy and society, you will lose some influence over some policy areas.”

But Mr. Persson argues that “if there is no change in Britain’s E.U. relationship, its membership is in question, which would really reduce its influence.”

Others worry that Britain is weakening its own position. Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform, a research institute in London, says that already “British influence in Brussels is at its lowest level in the 25 years I have been following the E.U.”

And critics argue that standing back from more policy arenas would increase the country’s sense of alienation from the bloc and fuel popular sentiment that things are stacked against Britain. A more detached relationship could also prove a disadvantage in the deal-making culture that prevails in Brussels.

Officially, decisions on legislation in Brussels are made by national governments under a complex series of rules before going to the European Parliament, whose approval is also required. In some cases, like tax policy, all 27 national governments need to agree, though in many others a weighted majority is required.

But relatively few decisions are actually put to a vote by governments. In practice, countries strike informal agreements and compromises, often trading support on one issue for a reciprocal agreement, sometimes in an unrelated area of policy.

For example, Britain once supported Germany, which wanted to water down planned rules on takeovers, in exchange for help from Berlin to soften new European Union legislation on workers’ rights.

The fewer areas in which a country participates, the less influence it has to barter.

Something similar affects another area of unofficial influence: control of crucial positions in Brussels. When the last round of top European Union jobs was decided, Tony Blair, a former British prime minister, was a contender to become the president of the European Council, the body in which national governments meet. But Britain’s absence from the euro currency and the Schengen zone made this a nonstarter.

The prime minister at the time, Gordon Brown, wanted a top economic post for Britain in the European Commission, the executive of the bloc. Instead, he got a foreign policy position for Catherine Ashton, reflecting the fact that Britain remained an engaged player in that area.

The euro has dominated the agenda in Brussels for the last three years, but Britons have reduced prospects of making big careers in this policy area because London has no power to lobby for them.

“If you are in the Treasury in London, why the hell would you go to Brussels?” said one European Union official not authorized to speak publicly.

That trend now looks likely to extend to justice and security policy. Britain recently held the most senior position in the justice and home affairs directorate of the European Commission, partly because the British used to be enthusiastic about cooperation in that forum. A Briton, Rob Wainwright, is currently the director of Europol, the bloc’s law enforcement agency.

But given the government’s decision to distance itself, it will be harder for Britons to get such top jobs in the future.

Declining career prospects for British officials are reflected in staff recruitment figures, released in April 2011. They showed that the European Commission now employed more Poles than Britons, though Britain has a larger population and joined the European Union’s forerunner more than 30 years before Polish accession in 2004.

Britain has fewer than half France’s number of European Commission officials, and the situation seems destined to deteriorate because relatively few Britons are applying for entry-level jobs.

All this risks creating a downward spiral in British influence, which the country would need to counter by being more effective in the areas in which it remains.

“I think Britain still could have clout in more limited areas if it keeps friends and allies,” Mr. Grant said. “But the fact that we are not, for example, so engaged in justice and home affairs weakens our bargaining power across policy areas and weakens the career prospects of British officials.”

Mr. Grant added, “There has been a steady diminution in the last few years, which you could plot on a graph: the more you distance yourself the less influence you have.”

Read More..

DealBook: Thai Magnate's $11.2 Billion Bid Poised to Win Fraser & Neave

HONG KONG — After four months of fierce bidding between two Asian tycoons, a multibillion-dollar battle for control of Fraser & Neave appears to have reached its end.

A bidding deadline on Monday evening set by Singapore’s takeover regulator came and went, meaning the victor will probably be TCC Assets, which is controlled by Charoen Sirivadhanabhakdi of Thailand. TCC Assets raised its offer on Friday to 9.55 Singapore dollars a share, valuing Fraser & Neave at 13.76 billion Singapore dollars ($11.19 billion).

That was apparently enough to chase away a counteroffer by Overseas Union Enterprise, which is part of the Indonesian billionaire Mochtar Riady’s Lippo Group and is led by Mr. Riady’s son Stephen.

Overseas Union had entered the contest for Fraser & Neave in November, when it bid 9.08 dollars a share.

Under the terms of the auction process — set last week by the takeover regulator, the Securities Industry Council, and intended to remove uncertainty for shareholders — Overseas Union had until 6 p.m. on Monday in Singapore to submit an increased offer.

Had it done so, TCC Assets would have had 24 hours to counter, and the auction would have continued until one of the parties failed to submit a counteroffer.

In a statement after the deadline passed, Overseas Union confirmed it had not made a new bid, saying that in order to succeed it “would need to significantly increase the offer price to a level which is no longer as attractive to Overseas Union, in particular, given the potential impact of the recent measures taken by the Singapore government in relation to the property market.”

Fraser & Neave, established in 1883 to sell carbonated drinks in Southeast Asia, owns businesses that include beverages, shopping centers and full-service apartments. In September, the company agreed to sell its controlling stake in Asia Pacific Breweries, the maker of Tiger Beer, to Heineken in a deal worth $4.6 billion.

TCC Assets already owned a 30 percent stake in Fraser & Neave, and in September made an initial takeover bid for the company at 8.88 dollars a share. Since then, TCC Assets has increased its stake to 40 percent. The Thai company’s revised bid on Friday represented a 5.2 percent premium to the offer submitted by Overseas Union in November.

The passing of Monday’s deadline without a new bid from Overseas Union means shareholders are likely to favor the higher offer from TCC Assets when they vote on the deal. A vote has yet to be scheduled.

Investors in Fraser & Neave have been bullish for months. On Monday, an hour before the deadline, the stock closed at a record high of 9.74 dollars. That was up 1.7 percent from the closing price on Friday and above any of the takeover bids that had been announced.

Overseas Union is being advised by Credit Suisse, Bank of America Merrill Lynch and C.I.M.B. of Malaysia. TCC Asset’s advisers are the United Overseas Bank, DBS of Singapore and Morgan Stanley.

Read More..

Samsung decides to kick RIM when it’s down by bashing BlackBerry in new ad [video]

Samsung (005930) is well known for its clever ads mocking Apple (AAPL) and its fans, but the company has decided to pick on a less powerful target in its newest ad that takes swipes RIM (RIMM) and its BlackBerry smartphones. The ad revolves around an office that is implementing its own bring-your-own-device policy and is meant to show that both the Galaxy S III and the Galaxy Note II are ideal business phones that can enable greater creativity. While most workers in the ad happily switch to Samsung smartphones after the BYOD policy is put in place, one of them insists on clinging to his BlackBerry, which prompts one of his coworkers to ask, “Are you finally going to retire that thing?” The full video is posted below.

[More from BGR: BlackBerry 10 OS walkthrough, BlackBerry Z10 pricing]

This article was originally published on BGR.com

Gadgets News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Read More..

Jim, John Harbaugh ready for rematch at Super Bowl

SANTA CLARA, Calif. (AP) — Jim and John Harbaugh have exchanged a handful of text messages, and plan to leave it at that. No phone conversations necessary while the season's still going. No time for pleasantries, even for the friendly siblings.

There is work to be done to prepare for the Super Bowl, prepare for each other, prepare for a history-making day already being widely hyped as "Harbowl" or "Superbaugh" depending which nickname you prefer.

"It doesn't matter who the coach is, what relationship you have with the person on the other side," 49ers coach Jim Harbaugh said so matter-of-factly Monday afternoon.

Their parents sure aren't picking sides for the Feb. 3 matchup in New Orleans.

These days, the Harbaughs' longtime coaching father, Jack, stays away from game-planning chatter or strategy sessions with his Super Bowl-bound coaching sons. Baltimore's John Harbaugh and little brother Jim have been doing this long enough now to no longer need dad's input.

Yet, they still regularly seek it. And, their father does offer one basic mantra: "Get ahead, stay ahead."

"Probably the greatest advice that I've ever been given and the only advice that I've ever found to be true in all of coaching, I think we mentioned it to both John and Jim ... the coaching advice is, 'Get ahead, stay ahead,'" Jack Harbaugh said.

"If I'm called upon, I'll repeat that same message."

His boys still call home regularly to check in with the man who turned both on to the coaching profession years ago, and the mother who has handled everything behind the scenes for decades in a highly competitive, sports-crazed family — with all the routine sports clichés to show for it.

The Harbaugh brothers will become the first siblings to square off from opposite sidelines when their teams play for the NFL championship at the Superdome.

Not that they're too keen on playing up the storyline that has no chance of going away as hard as they try.

"Well, I think it's a blessing and a curse," Jim Harbaugh said Monday. "A blessing because that is my brother's team. And, also, personally I played for the Ravens. Great respect for their organization. ... The curse part would be the talk of two brothers playing in the Super Bowl and what that takes away from the players that are in the game. Every moment that you're talking about myself or John, that's less time that the players are going to be talked about."

Both men love history, just not the kind with them making it.

"I like reading a lot of history ... I guess it's pretty neat," John Harbaugh offered Monday. "But is it really going to be written about? It's not exactly like Churchill and Roosevelt or anything. It's pretty cool, but that's as far as it goes."

Nice try, guys.

John watched the end of Jim's game from the field in Foxborough, Mass., as Baltimore warmed up for the AFC championship game. Jim called his sister's family from the team plane before takeoff after a win at Atlanta and asked how his big brother's team was doing against New England.

The improbable Super Bowl features a set of brothers known around the NFL as fierce competitors unafraid to make a bold move during the season. Unafraid to upset anyone who stands in their way.

In fact, each one made a major change midseason to get this far — John fired his offensive coordinator, while Jim boosted his offense with a quarterback switch from Alex Smith to Colin Kaepernick.

Leading up to Sunday's games, parents Jack and Jackie said they would wait to decide whether to travel to New Orleans if both teams advanced or stick to what has been working so well — watching from the comfort of their couch in Mequon, Wis.

"We enjoy it very much. We get down in our basement, turn on the television and just have a fantastic day watching outstanding football," Jack said last week. "We share our misery with no one but ourselves. Not only the misery, but the ups and downs, the ins and outs of an outstanding professional game."

And, no, the Harbaughs weren't looking ahead to a potential big trip to the Big Easy.

Jack insists his wife is quick to pull out that old sports cliche: "It's one game at a time. I think it's very appropriate," he said.

Jim figures they won't possibly miss this history-making game.

"I think they'll be there," he said with a smile.

The brothers, separated in age by 15 months, have taken different paths to football's biggest stage — years after their intense games of knee football at the family home. They tried to beat each other at cards, or whatever other game it was at the time. Sometimes, they tried to beat each other up. Sister, Joani Crean, often got in on the fun, too.

The 49-year-old Jim never reached a Super Bowl, falling a last-gasp pass short during a 15-year NFL career as a quarterback. The 50-year-old John never played in the NFL.

Still, both will tell you, "Who's got it better than us? No-body!" — one catchphrase they got from their dad.

"We can't put into words what it means to see John and Jim achieve this incredible milestone," their brother-in-law, Indiana basketball coach Tom Crean, said on Twitter. "We talked to Jim (before) his team plane left. All he wanted to know was how was John doing? How were they playing? One incredible family who puts the care, well-being and love for each other at the forefront like most families do. Again, we are very proud of them. Going to be exciting to watch it unfold."

John worked his way up from the bottom of the coaching ranks, while Jim was the star college quarterback at Michigan, a first-round draft pick and eventual Pro Bowler who made coaching his career once he retired.

John already has the one-up, while Jim's team is the early favorite. John's Ravens beat the 49ers 16-6 on Thanksgiving night 2011, in Jim's rookie season as an NFL coach — though both know that means nothing now.

"I just want everybody to know, that was a four-day deal and every story has been told," John said. "We're not that interesting. There's nothing more to learn. The tape across the middle of the room story, OK, you got it? It's OK. It was just like any other family, really. I really hope the focus is not so much on that. We get it, it's really cool and it's exciting and all that."

Said Jim, "Completely new business."

In spite of his efforts to avoid the topic, Jim did take the opportunity to express how proud he is of John.

"He's a great football coach, a real grasp of all phases — offense, defense, special teams. I think he could coordinate at least two of those phases and do it as well as anyone in the league," Jim said. "I've got half the amount of coaching experience he does. Again, it's not about us. I keep coming back to that. I'm really proud of my brother. I love him. That's the blessing part, that this is happening to him."

And, fittingly for the big brother, John feels the exact same way.

___

AP Sports Writer Dave Ginsburg in Baltimore contributed to this story.

___

Online: http://pro32.ap.org/poll and http://twitter.com/AP_NFL

Read More..

Well: An Unexpected Road Hazard: Obesity

Obesity carries yet another surprising risk, according to a new study: obese drivers are more likely than normal weight drivers to die in a car crash.

Researchers reviewed data on accidents recorded in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, managed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Beginning with 41,283 collisions, the scientists selected accidents in which the cars, trucks or minivans were the same size.

Then the investigators gathered statistics on height and weight from driver’s licenses and categorized the drivers of wrecked cars into four groups based on body mass index. The study, published online Monday in the Emergency Medicine Journal, also recorded information on seat-belt use, time of day of the accident, driver sex, driver alcohol use, air bag deployment and collision type.

In the analysis, there were 6,806 drivers involved in 3,403 accidents, all of which involved at least one fatality. Among the 5,225 drivers for whom the researchers had complete information, 3 percent were underweight (a B.M.I of less than 18.5), 46 percent were of normal weight (18.5 to 24.9), 33 percent were overweight (25 to 29.9) and 18 percent were obese (a B.M.I. above 30).

Drivers with a B.M.I. under 18 and those between 25 and 29.9 had death rates about the same as people of normal weight, the researchers found. But among the obese, the higher the B.M.I., the more likely a driver was to die in an accident.

A B.M.I. of 30 to 34.9 was linked to a 21 percent increase in risk of death, and a number between 35 and 39.9 to a 51 percent increase. Drivers with a B.M.I. above 40 were 81 percent more likely to die than those of normal weight in similar accidents.

The reasons for the association are unclear, but they probably involve both vehicle design and the poorer health of obese people. The authors cite one study using obese and normal cadavers, in which obese people had significantly more forward movement away from the vehicle seat before the seat belt engaged because the additional soft tissue prevented the belt from fitting tightly.

“This adds one more item to the long list of negative consequences of obesity,” said the lead author, Thomas M. Rice, an epidemiologist with the Transportation Research and Education Center of the University of California, Berkeley. “It’s one more reason to lose weight.”

Other factors that might have affected fatality rates — the age and sex of the driver, the vehicle type, seat-belt use, alcohol use, air bag deployment and whether the collision was head-on or not — did not explain the differences between obese and normal weight drivers.

“Vehicle designers are teaching to the test — designing so that crash-test dummies do well,” Dr. Rice said. “But crash-test dummies are typically normal size adults and children. They’re not designed to account for our nation’s changing body types.”

Read More..

DealBook: With Tax Advantages Looking Shaky, Private Equity Seeks a New Path

As Washington grapples with the country’s fiscal woes, the private equity industry is grudgingly facing a new reality: its long-held tax advantages are likely to disappear.

For years, private equity has quashed efforts to raise taxes on so-called carried interest income, the profits partners receive as part of their compensation. Those earnings are considered capital gains, so they are taxed at a much lower rate than ordinary income.

While few concede defeat publicly, the industry is rethinking its strategy. Rather than trying to stop the changes outright, lawyers and executives behind the scenes are trying to minimize the hit if it happens.

Private equity recognizes the shifting politics. In the current budget debate, sacred cows like the tax deductions for home mortgage interest and charitable donations are on the table, along with potential cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

“Once they start looking for revenues, carried interest will be on the list,” said Anne Mathias, director of Washington policy research at Guggenheim Partners, a financial services firm. “You can hear it already: ‘We need that money, or Grandma won’t get a new hip.’ ”

Democrats and Republicans alike are looking at eliminating loopholes as part of a broader effort to overhaul the tax code. Changes to the treatment of carried interest could bring in $17 billion over 10 years, according to Congressional estimates.

“There is absolutely no reason why income earned for managing other people’s money shouldn’t be taxed in the same way as income earned teaching or working in a factory,” said Representative Sander M. Levin, Democrat of Michigan, who introduced the latest carried interest bill in 2012. Legislation based on Mr. Levin’s bill is likely to be part of a broader package if carried interest comes into play.

Officially, the private equity industry remains opposed to change. Its lobbying group, the Private Equity Growth Capital Council, began an extensive public relations campaign last year to improve the industry’s image during the presidential race, in which the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, was criticized for his actions as chief executive of the private equity firm Bain Capital.

The trade group also increased its Congressional lobbying. To highlight the industry’s economic contributions, it arranged 70 meetings in which House members visited private-equity-owned companies or met their chiefs. For example, Representative Robert Hurt, Republican of Virginia, toured a distribution center for Dollar General, a retailer previously owned by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts.

“We will continue to do what we have always done,” said Steve Judge, chief executive of the trade group.

He and others argue that it is appropriate to treat private equity income as capital gains because managers have money at risk and actively reorganize companies. Mr. Judge also noted that private equity is already paying more under the deal to avert the fiscal cliff, which raised the capital gains tax rate to 20 percent from 15 percent, on top of the 3.8 percent capital gains surcharge enacted on wealthy taxpayers to finance President Obama’s health care law.

But even as the industry continues to press its case, many of its members acknowledge that the carried interest break is coming to an end. “At some point it’s inevitable, so they will deal with it,” said Bradley Morrow, a senior private markets consultant at Towers Watson. If the proposal does re-emerge, the industry is expected to focus its lobbying on softening transition rules.

One issue will be the amount of carried interest reclassified as ordinary income. Mr. Levin’s 2012 bill would convert 100 percent of carried interest. By contrast, an earlier version of the bill proposed capping the affected income at 50 percent to 75 percent.

The industry is also likely to focus on how quickly any changes would go into effect. Lobbyists will probably push for a longer delay, even if it means little or no cap, said Micah W. Bloomfield, a tax lawyer with Stroock & Stroock & Lavan. That would give partners more time to pocket capital gains or restructure funds before the rate increase took effect.

Another point of contention will be the treatment of profits that partners earn when they sell stakes in their firms, a sum known as enterprise value. Currently, profits attributable to enterprise value are treated as capital gains. In earlier bills, they would have been reclassified as ordinary income.

“What people complained most vociferously about in the earlier bills was the treatment of enterprise value,” said James R. Brown, a tax lawyer with Willkie Farr & Gallagher. If a fund manager sold the business, “all the gain from the sale would have been considered ordinary income,” Mr. Brown said. “That’s a big difference in how any other business is taxed when it’s sold.”

The Obama administration and Congressional proponents of reform acknowledge the problem. Mr. Levin’s latest bill included provisions to treat enterprise value as capital gains. The issue is particularly important for large, publicly traded firms like Blackstone and K.K.R. As partners near retirement, they see it as crucial to get capital gains tax treatment when they divest their stakes.

But the issue is complex. Congressional tax staff, worried that firms could redefine some carried interest as enterprise value, wrote the language of the bill narrowly to prevent abuse.

Private equity advocates argue that the bill still casts too wide a net, and that some legitimate profits from business sales would end up classified as ordinary income.

“They may think they have solved the issue, but they haven’t,” said one industry lobbyist, who requested anonymity because of the delicacy of the discussions.

Beyond transition rules, firms might consider adapting their own structures if the break does end.

The simplest strategy — one already occurring — is to accelerate the recognition of accrued capital gains. Funds might also remove some unrealized carried interest from their investment partnerships altogether, said Steven Rosenthal, a visiting fellow at the Washington-based Tax Policy Center. They could do that by shifting ownership of the gains to an affiliate by distributing securities of equal value.

These ideas may not all work, but funds are preparing nonetheless. Many have added language to partnership agreements, reserving the right to restructure, Mr. Brown said.

Tax lawyers have been searching for a broader escape hatch for years, in something of a cat-and-mouse game with legislators. In one early proposal, the lawyers suggested that general partners borrow money from limited partners to help capitalize a fund. They also explored setting up funds using foreign corporations that allow income to flow through to their owners as capital gains. But legislators rejected those ideas in later bills.

A potential strategy still being discussed involves setting up new funds as America-based C corporations, which the Internal Revenue Service taxes separately from their owners. In one possibility, a private equity firm would create a corporate holding company to buy and manage each individual portfolio company, instead of buying them through a partnership.

The private equity partners would then receive holding company shares, rather than being paid with carried interest. The private equity managers would pay ordinary income taxes on the initial share distribution, but any further increase in the shares’ value would be considered capital gains.

The structure is similar to one used in venture capital, said Patrick B. Fenn, a tax lawyer with Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. “People are looking at this, but no one has gotten to the point where they’d do it for their next fund,” Mr. Fenn said. “You won’t see any real reaction on structures until we see the specifics.”

Added Mr. Morrow of Towers Watson: “There are a number of ideas on the drawing boards. I’m not sure any of them will work, but the tax lawyers and accountants are certainly working on it.”

Read More..

Russia Underworld Gathers for Aslan Usoyan’s Burial

Andrey Smirnov/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

People lay flowers on the grave of Aslan Usoyan at a cemetery just outside the Moscow city limits on Sunday.

MOSCOW — Aslan Usoyan, a Russian underworld boss who was killed by a sniper on Wednesday as he walked out of a restaurant in downtown Moscow, was buried in a snowy plot of land under a wooden cross on Sunday in a cemetery just beyond the Moscow city limits.

The scene at Khovanskoye Cemetery — where black-clad toughs formed a procession in their Mercedes Geländewagens, and security officers told journalists to avoid the area for their own safety — was a modest one for a mobster of Mr. Usoyan’s status, perhaps in part because of the government’s efforts to avoid the pageantry that has unfolded around the funerals of Russian mob bosses in the past.

Mr. Usoyan, a Kurd born in 1937 in Tbilisi, Georgia, rose through the ranks of the Vory v Zakone, or Thieves-in-Law, a shadowy criminal organization that emerged in the Soviet prisons, to become boss of the Moscow underworld. Mr. Usoyan survived four stints in prison, the gang wars of the 1990s and two assassination attempts, including one in 2010.

Many of Mr. Usoyan’s contemporaries are interred at the best cemeteries in Moscow and St. Petersburg, but Mr. Usoyan’s relatives wanted him to be laid to rest in his birthplace. But a plane carrying Mr. Usoyan’s body was reportedly turned away from Georgia, fueling rumors that the country had refused to allow Mr. Usoyan to be buried there. (Membership in Thieves-in-Law carries a criminal sentence of more than five years in Georgia.) And then all the cemeteries inside the Moscow beltway turned away his relatives as they sought a burial place.

On Friday, they traveled with his body to Donetsk, Ukraine, and had left for Georgia to bury him before dusk on Saturday when a Tbilisi airport denied landing rights to the plane carrying the coffin, a member of Mr. Usoyan’s family told Georgian television. The plane returned to Donetsk.

Back in Moscow, people within the mayor’s office told the news agency Interfax that “there would be no discussion” of a burial plot within the city limits.

Mr. Usoyan’s family eventually settled on a plot south of the city, where several hundred mourners, many of whom appeared to be from the Caucasus like Mr. Usoyan, arrived to pay their respects on Sunday.

It was a far cry from the 2009 funeral for the kingpin Vyacheslav K. Ivankov, better known as Yaponchik, who was shot to death in Moscow outside of a Thai restaurant.

He was buried at the Vagankovo Cemetery, several miles from the Kremlin, where some of Russia’s most celebrated artists, like the poet Sergei Yesenin and the folk singer Vladimir Vysotsky, are interred. Hundreds of rough-looking men carrying wreaths with inscriptions like “Forgive us, we could not protect you” gathered to see Mr. Ivankov buried in a coffin that was rumored to be equipped with an air-conditioner.

Russian mobsters are partial to ornate graves, and even in smaller cities like Yekaterinburg the burial markers show them wearing designer suits, casually smoking cigarettes or standing with their favorite BMW.

Mr. Usoyan, by contrast, was buried under a relatively simple Russian Orthodox cross.

On a bed of roses in front of the grave, mourners placed a black-and-white photograph of Mr. Usoyan wearing a pinstriped suit, and dozens of wreaths carrying inscriptions to “Grandpa Hassan,” Mr. Usoyan’s nickname, were stacked nearby.

Sergei Kanev, a crime reporter for Novaya Gazeta, said that the authorities had barred Mr. Usoyan’s relatives from burying his body in Moscow, to avoid what he called a “bandit spectacle,” like the one at Mr. Ivankov’s funeral.

“The government tried to do everything it could this time to avoid the sense that this is a country of thieves,” Mr. Kanev said in a telephone interview. “They could not have him buried as a hero.”

Mr. Usoyan was generally recognized as Russia’s most powerful crime boss, the successor to Mr. Ivankov. The police have not named any suspects in his killing.

Read More..