Sunday, July 31, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Hearsay Social and Crowdtap bag venture capital funding | News | Research
Hearsay Social and Crowdtap bag venture capital funding
29 July 2011 | By Brian Tarran
US— Venture capital firms are continuing to invest big in social media research and marketing companies, with monitoring and management platform Hearsay Social and brand community builder Crowdtap the latest recipients of funds.
Hearsay bagged $18m in a Series B financing round led by New Enterprise Associates, with participation from existing investor Sequoia Capital, while Crowdtap raised $7m in a Series A round supported by Foundry Group, GSA Venture Partners and Mr Youth, which was a seed investor in the business.
The Hearsay platform is specifically designed for brands with local branches and representatives who want to centrally manage, monitor and deploy content on sites like Facebook, Linkedin and Twitter. Crowdtap, meanwhile, pulls together communities of “brand influencers” to take part in polls and discussions. Participants are largely recruited through Facebook.
Follow us on
Have your say
Related images
Jg
Friday, July 29, 2011
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Crowdfunding: How to Leverage It
How to Overcome the Problem With Small Crowdfunding Amounts While crowdfunding is booming there's a problem that comes with it. The seed capital amounts it enables you to raise tend to be small. The majority of crowdfunding transactions raise $25,000 or under for the borrower. This amount is
Jg
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Get Off To A Solid Start - Investors.com
Registration Benefits
- IBD Forums
- Participate in an IBD Forum and connect with other IBD subscribers.
- IBD Screen Center
- Access six valuable screens that show you top stocks in different categories.
- My Stock Lists
- Get customized stock lists to track your portfolio, watch lists and more!
- My Routine
- Create shortcuts to your favorite Investors.com features.
via investors.com
Jg
Monday, July 25, 2011
New $1 million fund opens to applications from startups
Check out this website I found at nzte.govt.nz
Jg
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Here, There Be Dragons - Michael Hirsh
Leon Panetta was blunt, even for a guy who is known to speak his mind. In the heady aftermath of the Osama bin Laden mission, Panetta’s authority on Capitol Hill was all but unquestioned. Despite an atmosphere of bitter partisanship, the longtime Democrat was about to be confirmed as Defense secretary by a vote of 100-0, a rare feat in any era. Now Panetta, the outgoing CIA director, was telling a rapt audience of senators at his confirmation hearing that America’s national-security defense apparatus was underestimating the gravest danger out there. “We talk about nuclear. We talk about conventional warfare. We don’t spend enough time talking about the threat of cyberwar,” he said. “There’s a strong likelihood that the next Pearl Harbor that we confront could very well be a cyberattack.”
Whoa. Really? You mean, thousands of people could die in a cyberattack? How exactly would this happen? Could it be like some sort of monstrous video game run amok? Or the 1980s classic War Games, in which a teenage Matthew Broderick almost hacks his way into starting a nuclear war? One thing is certain: Panetta is hardly alone in his alarm; indeed, he is channeling the fears of the nation’s top generals and spooks.
On July 14, the Pentagon rolled out its first-ever “cyberspace strategy”—a critical need for the United States because, as Deputy Defense Secretary Bill Lynn declared with alliterative flair that day, “bits and bytes can be as threatening as bullets and bombs.” The U.S. government is now spending about $12 billion a year to wage both offense and defense in cyberspace, and it has set up a Cyber Command at Fort Meade in Maryland. The Homeland Security Department conducts regular war games that it calls “cyberstorming.” A new multibillion-dollar military-industrial complex is emerging, with giant defense contractors like Boeing and Northrop Grumman transforming themselves into part-time cybersecurity contractors.
In truth, cyberskeptics abound. They include many independent analysts as well as some of Panetta’s high-level colleagues in the Obama administration. These skeptics say that much of the alarm stems from a fear of the unknown rather than from concrete evidence of life-and-death threats. It is, they suggest, a 21st-century version of the medieval mapmakers who would mark the boundaries of the known world and then draw mythical beasts on the other side conveying the message: “Here, there be dragons.”
Here was Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, in a recent interview with National Journal: “Very serious four-star generals tell me that cyber is the thing they worry about of all the potential threats, because there is so much that is unknown, and because our laws and military doctrines are so far behind.” For military officers who are trained to plan for every variable, the prospect that an attack on the United States might include some exotic cyber component is the dragon they understand the least. And critics worry that this fear is only going to create the biggest dragon of all: a permanent military-cyber industrial complex not unlike the one that President Eisenhower warned of at the dawn of the nuclear age.
As a result, some skeptical cyberexperts say, the most serious threat may come not from abroad but from our own perceptions and overreactions. Recall the hype around Y2K, the computer glitch that was supposed to paralyze systems around the world once their calendars ticked over to the year 2000. Or think back to a half-dozen “cyberattacks” that turned out to be much less dangerous than believed. To cite just one example: In 1998, someone tried to hack into the Defense Department’s computers in what then-Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre called “the most organized and systematic attack to date” on U.S. military systems. Suspicions focused on Iraqis conducting “information warfare.” Then it came to light that the culprits were a couple of California teenagers (real-life Matthew Brodericks) egged on by an Israeli teenager.
The danger is that the U.S. government will do what it has been arguably doing in spades since 9/11: overreact. Spend too much. Go overboard with surveillance. Crimp and constrain freedoms, this time involving the Internet.
WHAT “WAR”?
“That is the history of counterterrorism in this country,” says Neal Pollard, a cyberterrorism expert who has advised the U.S. and British governments, including the U.S. director of national intelligence. “There’s not a whole lot that’s new here. We used to hear about an ‘electronic Pearl Harbor.’ And a ‘digital Pearl Harbor.’ Those types of martial metaphors have gone back to the late ’90s. I don’t think they are particularly helpful. Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack taking out our battleships. Well, we don’t have battleships anymore. We’ve been hearing these kinds of terms for nigh 15 years without any sort of precise thought behind them.”
Pollard is hardly alone. Jim Steinberg, the just-retired deputy secretary of State and an intelligence expert who has followed the cyber strategizing closely, warns that an overreaction could have deeply troubling and far-reaching consequences. In an interview with NJ, he said that overreacting could lead to “measures that significantly balkanize, cramp, and damage the benefits of the cyberworld, in terms of personal freedoms and economic growth.” It could also unnecessarily ratchet up international tensions, “because countries can’t figure out how to manage the perceived activities of others in cyberspace.”
The race to master the perceived threats—or to even learn of their existence—could trigger an expensive and unnecessary new arms race, Steinberg continued. “It could be like the nuclear rivalry in the Cold War, which is that each side becomes preoccupied with the potential danger that the other could pose and begins to orient its own policy around those dangers.” Such a development could end up being self-defeating if it constrains Internet activity too much (although, of course, Cold-War era defense spending created the Internet in the first place).
“When we start throwing out [words like] cyberwar … we have to define what … we’re talking about.” —Howard Schmidt, White House cybersecurity coordinatorThe bottom line, says Steinberg: “You never say never. But I think the likelihood of a cyberattack that leads to losses of life on a scale of 9/11 is still extremely unlikely.” Asked about Panetta’s comments, Steinberg administers a gentle scolding. The idea of a cyber Pearl Harbor or a cyber 9/11 “tends to be shorthand in order to get people to pay attention,” he says.
The White House’s own cybersecurity coordinator, Howard Schmidt, pointedly avoids using the term “cyberwar,” saying that most cyberthreats are closer to criminal acts than to military actions. “Words do matter,” Schmidt remarked at a conference in February. “When we start throwing out these things, like we’re in the midst of a cyberwar, or that cyberwar is around the corner, there’s a lot of [those things] that don’t actually apply, so we really have to define what it is that we’re talking about.”
It’s a critical distinction. Wars—whether conventional or irregular—entail the organized killing and maiming of large numbers of people over extended periods of time. Especially after a decade in which the post-9/11 “war on terrorism” led to long and bloody real wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the term should be used sparingly.
Even skeptics agree that we need to worry about cyberespionage—about foreign states or rogues or terrorists probing the U.S. defense grid. We need to worry, perhaps, about some future version of Stuxnet, the now infamous computer virus that is believed to have sabotaged Iran’s nuclear centrifuges. We may need to worry about new cyber components in future wars.
But about cyberwar itself? Perhaps not so much.
NIGHTMARE SCENARIOS
When pressed, cyberhawks in Congress and in the Defense and Homeland Security departments say the worst nightmare scenarios they can imagine involve a disruption of the nation’s power grid or banking system. “The water supply is contaminated. Sewage treatment is attacked. The floodgates are opened,” Rep. Jim Langevin, D-R.I., a cofounder and cochairman of the House Cybersecurity Caucus, told NJ. “God forbid this would happen in middle of winter and a section of the country is without power,” he adds. Yes, that could be ugly and economically paralyzing, but it’s hard to imagine mass fatalities. Some people could freeze to death.
Thornberry, the Texas House member, argues that hackers could cause a large-scale loss of life by “making a nuclear power plant do something it’s not supposed to do” or by “interfering with air-traffic-control systems.”
But even there, Pollard suggests, the threat is probably being hyped. “I don’t think it’s realistic to talk about terrorist groups bringing down air-traffic-control systems,” he says. “First, the technology required to do that is not trivial. You have to launch multiple attacks on the telecom system, on GPS, on the beaconing system. Second, pilots know how to fly airplanes without all those electronics if those databases are corrupted. And thirdly, there are not too many people who would benefit from those types of attacks. Terrorist groups would, but we have not seen terrorist groups go that way.”
It’s a similar story with worries about a cyber infiltration that makes a nuclear plant go haywire. In a now-famous experiment by Idaho National Labs, researchers deployed a computer attack that caused a turbine to destroy itself by literally spinning off its axis—an effect not unlike what Stuxnet supposedly accomplished. But Pollard points out that authorities can put safeguards and redundant systems into place to prevent the worst. The simplest solution, he says, is that “you just don’t connect it to the Internet.”
One of the things that scares U.S. military officials the most about cyberwar is that, if an attack comes, they may not know who the enemy is. Cyberexperts say the toughest problem of all is “attribution”—knowing who’s breaking into your grid and where they are if you wish to retaliate. Stuxnet first appeared more than a year ago, and many experts suspect it was a joint U.S.-Israeli project. But that remains an unsolved mystery, which may be the case in many future incidents.
“The next Pearl Harbor … could well be a cyberattack.” —Defense Secretary Leon Panetta“What could be coming from a nation-state might appear to be coming from individual in a remote location,” Langevin says. “A ‘botnet’ attack [referring to an infected group of computers] could be made to look like it was coming from some little old lady in Idaho, or someplace in Sweden. What years ago could be achieved only through kinetic weapons could be achieved through a few keystrokes.” Think Thunderball, but without James Bond around to figure it out and save us.
Even now, we can’t seem to keep up with the cyber surprise attacks. Authorities say that whole terabytes of information, more than exists in the Library of Congress, have already been “exfiltrated” or stolen from U.S. government computers and the networks of defense companies. Among the more alarming incidents: In March, a foreign intelligence service took 24,000 files from a defense contractor, Lynn said (he would not identify the government, but China is the likeliest suspect). “A great deal” of the stolen data in such cases “concerns our most sensitive systems, including aircraft avionics, surveillance technologies, satellite communications systems, and network security protocols,” Lynn said on July 14.
More than 100,000 “security incidents” occur in the United States every year, according to the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team. More than half of them involve “phishing,” or hackers posing as other people to break into secure computer systems. Michael McConnell, the former director of national intelligence, echoed Panetta in telling a Senate hearing last year: “The cyber risk has become so important that, in my view, it rivals nuclear weapons in terms of seriousness.”
It all sounds terrifying until one begins to look a little more closely at the facts. Lynn cites only one successful penetration of U.S. classified computers used by the Defense Department or the intelligence community. That was in 2008, when a flash drive infected by a “foreign intelligence agency” was inserted into a U.S. military laptop in the Middle East and uploaded a spybot onto a network run by the U.S. Central Command. “That code spread undetected on both classified and unclassified systems, establishing what amounted to a digital beachhead, from which data could be transferred to servers under foreign control,” Lynn wrote in Foreign Affairs last year.
But little seems to have come of that beachhead. The vast majority of cyberattacks against the United States amount to spying or misguided mischief, without anything like the consequences envisioned in War Games. Warnings about cyberspying and malevolent hacking have been around for more than 10 years. Even today, however, most experts believe that known rogue actors, such as al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, don’t have anything close to the technical sophistication to infiltrate the U.S. defense or intelligence computer system.
The occasional global hackers who have cropped up—one prominent example was “Lulz Security,” a pirate hacker group that appeared suddenly this year and then abruptly disbanded—have done little but paralyze servers and act as an annoyance. (WikiLeaks succeeded in breaking into the State Department computers, but only because it had an inside accomplice: Army Pvt. Bradley Manning, according to authorities.) As far as nation-states go, the Cold War principle of deterrence is still operative: What you do to us, we can do to you—and more. Indeed, China, which desperately seeks to restrict Internet freedom and this year arrested hundreds of people for fear that a “Jasmine Spring” could imitate the Arab Spring, seems more worried about battening down its own cyberhatches even as it probes our own.
Last year, in her biggest strategic speech on this topic, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton issued a Churchillian warning about the “new information curtain” descending on countries like China and Iran. U.S. officials agree that in the strategic struggle for freedom that still persists across the world, the United States shouldn’t do anything to cripple the free flow of information on the Internet. Lynn acknowledges concerns that “cyberspace is at risk of being militarized,” and he says that the Pentagon wants to avoid that. But he isn’t specific on how. “Far from ‘militarizing’ cyberspace, our strategy of securing networks to deny the benefit of an attack will help dissuade military actors from using cyberspace for hostile purposes,” Lynn says. “Establishing robust cyberdefense no more militarizes cyberspace than having a navy militarizes the ocean.”
MURKY MISSIONS
Yet the Government Accountability Office, Congress’s investigative arm, says in a forthcoming report that the Pentagon doesn’t seem to have a very clear idea about how it plans to conduct “cyberdefense,” how much it plans to spend, or even who is in charge. In the report, scheduled to be published on July 25, GAO is expected to harshly criticize the way that the Defense Department has managed its Cyber Command. “They have confused Capitol Hill and the public,” says Davi D’Agostino, the GAO’s director of defense capabilities and management and the main author of the report. “We are still seeing problems with ground rules and command and control. Is it clear who does what to whom?” Many of the problems seem to be driven, again, by a confusion about the unknowns. Among them: Who should carry out “offensive operations” and when, and how much money should be committed. Three different parts of the Defense Department delivered three different budget estimates for Cyber Command, D’Agostino says.
Another big unknown is who would take the lead in coordinating a response to what might or might not be a hostile action by another country. Lynn, in laying out the Pentagon’s cyber strategy, suggested that a compromise of the nation’s infrastructure could also cripple the military at a time of crisis. “Ninety-nine percent of the electricity the U.S. military uses comes from civilian sources,” he said. “Ninety percent of U.S. military voice and Internet communications travel over the same private networks that service homes and offices.”
But if the U.S. military were compromised because of a mysterious attack on civilian infrastructure, would Washington retaliate militarily? The Obama administration tries to make it sound straightforward. “If it’s an attack on military systems, the DOD would obviously have the lead. If it’s infrastructure, then it’s a DHS lead,” says White House spokesman Bob Jensen. But what if both are hit or if it’s not clear for weeks or months or years what the real target is and who the perpetrator was? Asked about this at a news conference, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright, said that an act of war in cyberspace will be “in the eyes of the beholder.”
There have been disturbing improvements in cybermartial capabilities, and most evidence suggests that the expertise is accumulating mainly in governments, not among private hackers. “The most sophisticated sort of threat comes from state-connected actors,” Thornberry warns. Moscow was suspected of taking down computers in Georgia and Estonia in recent years. Richard A. Clarke, a former adviser to the National Security Council, wrote in his 2010 book, Cyber War, that Israel’s attack on a suspected Syrian reactor in 2007 may have involved some clever cyberjamming. Clarke says that the Israelis transmitted computer data packets that fooled the Syrian air defense network in an almost Stuxnet-like way. “Those packets made the system malfunction, but they also told it not to act [like] there was anything wrong with it,” Clarke wrote. “The sky would look just like it had when it was empty, even though it was, in actuality, filled with Israeli fighters.”
THE STUXNET QUESTION
To date, the most devastating cyberattack may have been launched is believed to have been from, not at, the United States: Stuxnet, which apparently sabotaged the controls systems in Iran’s uranium-enrichment process. According to a recent analysis of Stuxnet by Symantec, the cybersecurity firm, the virus caused Iranian centrifuges to spin beyond their normal tolerance levels, fatally damaging them, while at the same time relaying false information to the plant operators that all was well. The virus was also believed to have disabled kill switches, so that operators couldn’t turn the centrifuges off as they spun out of control. For all the attack’s importance, it didn’t actually hurt or kill anyone—a key distinction between cybersecurity and real war. Indeed, if Stuxnet preempted the U.S. or Israel from launching an actual military assault on Iran’s nuclear complex, attacks in cyberspace might actually prevent death in the real world.
That said, the reported success of the Stuxnet attack also demonstrates the risks. U.S. military and intelligence officials are right to prepare for the day when some other nation such as China or Russia could launch its own Stuxnet—which could conceivably provoke a military response by Washington if it can pin down the culprit (again, a very big “if”). Steinberg and other former or current U.S. officials acknowledge that the United States could confront a brilliant rogue actor who has mastered cybertools, such as the aggrieved Pakistani computer scientist in David Ignatius’s new novel, Bloodmoney, who exposes the identities of several CIA agents to terrorists and causes their deaths. A more realistic fear, say Steinberg and others, is that some country or terrorist group might simply add cyber to its arsenal of physical weapons.
“So let’s imagine that you had a 9/11 [terrorist attack] and then somebody hacked a 911 system and the emergency communications in New York,” Steinberg says. But that’s different from preparing for a separate war fought exclusively in cyberspace. “What would be the strategic end?” Steinberg asks. “You can’t do that much damage to bring the United States to its knees. Even if the odds of attribution are low, a country has to worry that it risks a counterattack.”
The most nefarious hacking is really about espionage, but that’s been going on forever anyway. “We’re all grownups, right? I mean, people spy on each other, right? Surprise, surprise,” says Steinberg, who refused to give specifics about how much activity China or Russia was up to. “There’s no reason that the basic activities that states engaged in pre-cyberworld are not going to extend to the cyberworld. Why wouldn’t they? Why would you expect states to behave differently in terms of their interest in knowing what the other guy is doing? … Aldrich Ames is just as dangerous as a botnet.”
Yet even there the real dangers of stealing secrets about new technologies or encryption are probably exaggerated, says a technological consultant who spent most of his career with the National Security Agency. Most secrets in the cyberage don’t last very long, and the nation’s greatest strength “has to do with the preservation of intellectual capital,” he says. “Microsoft has to turn out software with a half-life of six months,” he says. “Is your intellectual capital embodied in the software that you run on your computer systems every day, or is it the as-yet-unleashed ideas inside the minds of your staff?”
The time that China and other nations spend trying to hack into U.S. know-how may just steal energy and dedication from their own entrepreneurial efforts—and, ultimately, their national security. It is a lesson that Leon Panetta and the others who manage America’s defense should remember. Yes, cyber expertise can potentially be used as a threat as much as an economic boon. But cyberwar still belongs to the realm of fiction.
Want the news first every morning? Sign up for National Journal's Need-to-Know Memo. Short items to prepare you for the day.
This article appeared in the Saturday, July 23, 2011 edition of National Journal.
Jg
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Friday, July 22, 2011
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
XanZaMar for Small Business: TODAY's PICKS | Funding, Venture Capital & Angel I...
XanZaMar for Small Business: TODAY's PICKS Funding, Venture Capital & Angel I...: "Today’s picks are about the positive change taking place in what has been an oppressive lending scene. One of the first questions I hear fro..."
Monday, July 18, 2011
Bioscience: Discovery is in Virginia's DNA | Richmond Times-Dispatch
Founded in 1607 by a venture-backed company in London, Virginia has long been the destination of choice for entrepreneurs and start-up companies. That same tradition of discovery continues today with nearly 300 biotechnology and medical device firms that are expanding the frontiers of modern medicine.
These dedicated scientists, clustered around research universities such as Virginia Commonwealth University, are pioneering new therapeutic medicines, more effective diagnostics and life-saving medical devices.
According to a new study by Miami-based Archstone Consulting, there were more than 1,500 active clinical trails conducted last year by Virginia researchers on new medicines, including those targeting cancer, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, mental health disorders and respiratory diseases.
In addition to the National Science Foundation and biopharma companies with facilities in Virginia (such as Pfizer, Merck, Novozymes, Abbott Laboratories, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Teva Pharmaceuticals), the commonwealth is also home to the Janelia Farm Research Campus of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI). This $500 million, world-class biomedical research complex in Loudoun County houses several hundred of the world's top scientists who use emerging and innovative technologies to pursue biology's most challenging problems.
Clearly, biotechnology has asserted itself as a vital contributor to Virginia's economic growth.
* * * * *
The commonwealth's $13 billion bioscience and device industry directly employs more than 20,000 people, up 23 percent between 2001 and 2008. Annual average wages approach $78,000, far above the national average wage of $45,229, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Between 2001 and 2008, the number of Virginia bioscience companies grew by 55 percent, in contrast to 18 percent growth in the private sector statewide, and 14 percent across the U.S. Indirectly through suppliers, vendors and services-related companies, Virginia's bioscience industry employs nearly 80,000 people.
Thanks to the high quality of Virginia's intellectual property and aggressive state investor tax credits, private investors also recognize the long-term value of Virginia's robust bioscience industry. Between 2004 and 2009, Virginia biotechnology and device companies attracted $405 million worth of venture capital. That puts Virginia in the top 20 nationally.
With nearly 50 bioscience companies active in the community, the Greater Richmond region is one of the strongest life science clusters in the state. This is directly attributable to the close proximity to a leading research university, a developing angel capital community, a cadre of experienced bioscience entrepreneurs, and the foresight and determination to develop the Virginia Biotechnology Research Park, one of the most significant industry accomplishments to date.
Any region in the country would be proud to have Richmond-area companies such as Health Diagnostic Laboratory, Intelliject, Lyotropic Therapeutics, GPB Scientific, B.I. Chemicals or ECR Pharmaceuticals.
* * * * *
Underlying this hopeful environment are some potentially worrisome issues.
On the surface, Virginia's biotech sector seems to match up well in terms of the percentage of research and development activity taking place at state academic institutions. In fiscal 2008, Virginia ranked 17th in the nation in the amount of academic research and development dollars spent on biosciences. Of the $70 billion in academic funding, more than $550 million was allocated to bioscience research in Virginia.
That's good enough to place Virginia in the top 20, but it also points up how far the commonwealth has to go. Virginia is bookended by two states — North Carolina and Maryland — that rank fifth and sixth in the nation, respectively. In short, state policymakers and the academic research community must take action now to gain full advantage of growth in the life sciences industry.
Seeking to capitalize on the growing nucleus of innovative research-based companies, Gov. Bob McDonnell earlier this year signed into law the Virginia Refundable Research & Development Tax Credit. Biotech and other advanced technology firms are now eligible for up to a 15 percent tax credit (or cash refund) of their qualified R&D expenses, and up to 20 percent when partnering with Virginia's public or private universities.
The new legislation complements the Virginia Innovation Investment Act, enacted by the General Assembly in 2010. That initiative rewards Virginians who invest in advanced technology companies with a 100 percent exclusion from capital gains taxes if an investment is made in the next three years.
And that is not all. Virginia also matches federal Small Business Innovation Research awards, provides aggressive tax credits for angel investors, has a state-funded seed-stage investment program and a stable corporate tax rate of 6 percent. All of these attributes in a state that consistently ranks first or second as the best place for business in America.
Virginians themselves have plenty of cause for optimism about the impact of biotechnology on their lives. Those sanguine sentiments go far beyond new tax policies and new high-wage jobs, as pivotal as those elements continue to be. Biotechnology-derived medicines are saving lives or managing debilitating diseases every day for millions around the world.
These are the ideals that animate the commonwealth's 21st century explorers: the ambitious, innovative and driven people who are the face of Virginia's inspiring bioscience community.
via bit.ly
Jg
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Researchers identify wild orgy gene | TG Daily
Ménage à trois? Wild orgies? One night stands? Who says science can't be sexy?
Certainly not Binghamton University researchers, who are hard at work uncovering the sultry secrets behind human sexual behavior.
The team - led by Dr. Justin Garcia - recently identified a dopamine receptor gene known as DRD4 that is purportedly linked to chronic infidelity and "uncommitted" one-night stands.
And wouldn't you know it?
The very same gene has already been linked to alcoholism, gambling addiction and a predilection for really bad horror movies.
Oddly enough, another study claimed the mysterious gene was responsible for political liberalism, along with "openness" to new social situations.
"What we found was that individuals with a certain variant of the DRD4 gene were more likely to have a history of uncommitted sex, including one-night stands and acts of infidelity," Garcia confirmed.
"The motivation seems to stem from a system of pleasure and reward, which is where the release of dopamine comes in. In cases of uncommitted sex, the risks are high, the rewards substantial and the motivation variable - all elements that ensure a dopamine 'rush.'"
Garcia also noted that individuals carrying the "thrill-seeking" gene were twice as likely to have a history of one-night stands as those without the variant.
"[Still], the study doesn't let transgressors off the hook. These relationships are associative, which means that not everyone with this genotype will have one-night stands or commit infidelity.
"Indeed, many people without this genotype still have one-night stands and commit infidelity. The study merely suggests that a much higher proportion of those with this genetic type are likely to engage in these behaviors," he added.
[Via LiveScience]
via tgdaily.com
Jg
AngelNetwork.com, LLC Defines Angel Investing | Daily Rosetta - Personal Finance News You Can Use
Escondido, CA (PRWEB) February 17, 2008
AngelNetwork.com, LLC educates business owners and investors on the ins and outs of funding. Many entrepreneurs know they need funding, yet have no clue on how to get it, says Edward Bracken, Co-Founder of AngelNetwork.com, LLC. AngelNetwork.com not only offers assistance in getting the proper funding to assist in the startup or growth of a business, they offer the education needed to make the entire process work.
Investing in a Jatropha Plant/Plantations – Biodiesel – BrazilRio de Janeiro, Brazil (PRWEB) April 14, 2008
Abcesso Technology ltda intend to be large scale biodiesel producer in Brazil, and the first supplier of Jatropha biodiesel worldwide.
The first phase of project is to cultivate 1.000 hectares of land in 2008. Second phase in 2009 - 2010 is expand cultivating to 10,000 hectares.
Abcesso Technology ltda are now offering shares in the developing plantation which hope to grow to 100,000 hectares.
Each share is priced at US $2,000 and represents the planting of 625 Jatropha trees and the associated costs of building biodiesel refineries and press/oil extraction facilities.
Predicting...
Many entrepreneurs are aware of the term venture capitalist. However, some are unaware of sources such as angel investors. Angel investors typically invest their own funds as opposed to venture capitalists who typically professionally manage pooled funds of others. The term angel originally comes from England where it was used to describe wealthy individuals who provided money for theatrical productions. AngelNetwork.com, LLC brings both entrepreneurs and angel investors together through a strategic system based on an educational foundation. With over ten years of successful experience and expertise they have found that when both parties are educated they both reap rewarding benefits.
AngelNetwork.com, LLC, a powerful force in the angel investing industry, is taking great strides in establishing a community of knowledgeable investors and entrepreneurs. The educational information AngelNetwork.com provides entrepreneurs includes access to audio interviews with experts in the industry; better language for pitching to investors; steps to becoming compliant; the education to create better, more compelling investor presentations; a better understanding of valuation and what an investor is looking for.
More Information about AngelNetwork.com, LLC
AngelNetwork.com, LLC has been serving high net worth investors and entrepreneurs since 1997. They are an educational membership site that provides information to both high net worth investors and entrepreneurs to help them successfully invest in, raise capital for and structure their early stage, emerging growth and pre-IPO investment opportunities.Contact details
Edward Bracken
AngelNetwork.com, LLC
T: 760-489-1342This Press Release has been submitted by PREasy.com
via dailyrosetta.com
Jg
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Angel investment on increase
Arizona Business & Money
Angel investment on increase
Banks are lending, but rules are strict
by John Yantis - Jun. 15, 2011 05:55 PM
The Arizona RepublicBusiness owners trying to raise capital in Arizona are finding an improving market as long as they can show meticulous loan officers and angel investors a good plan for how to spend the money, attorneys who structure the deals say.
Although the capital markets remain nowhere near the heyday of the recent past, banks are lending, providing that borrowers meet more stringent requirements regarding assets and/or equity, said Ryan Berry, an attorney in corporate and securities law at Polsinelli Shughart in Phoenix.
"The important thing is many of them now have directives from . . . their boards of directors and from their investment officers to deploy capital, which they didn't have awhile ago," he said.
"That's not to say they're going to go out and make bad loans. You certainly still have to justify it. In cases of real-estate development, oftentimes folks are saying they're seeing requests for 50 percent equity in the project, but there is money available now to borrow."
Berry is the chairman of a panel of attorneys, financiers and bank representatives that today will discuss financing and protecting business assets in troubled economic times. The discussion is part of a seminar, "Ridin' the Storm Out." It is one of more than 40 training opportunities for those participating in the State Bar of Arizona's 78th annual convention at the Westin La Paloma hotel in Tucson.
In addition to real-estate investments, Berry said, the news also has been better for the owners of startup companies who often have to find funding from angel investors or venture capitalists instead of banks because entrepreneurs often lack assets and revenue.
He said banks have told his firm they are expanding to meet the so-called middle market, money lent to companies that do less than $25 million in annual revenue. Some are willing to go down to $10 million in revenue if the company shows promise, he said.
"Banks are more open to smaller loans," he said. "Banks have said, 'We want to start generating revenue off the deposits and assets we know we have.' The only way they're going to do that is to get loans out there."
Larry Hecker, a panelist and corporate- and securities-law attorney at Hecker & Muehlebach in Tucson, said accessing capital is still challenging despite some promising economic signs.
"The capital sources seem to be fewer and more difficult to penetrate," he said. "There have been several trends that are developing.
"You're seeing a lot more focus on valuation now than you had in the past. In some cases, the term sheets are getting more complicated and more detailed and the due-diligence process more intense."
Hecker serves as counsel to Desert Angels, a non-profit organization of accredited investors in Tucson who seek to invest in regional startup or early-stage companies.
There are encouraging signs, he said, adding that members of the Desert Angels invested nearly $3 million in 13 deals in 2010. Eight of the transactions involved follow-on funding. The money was given primarily for high-tech ventures in several industries. So far this year, the group has been involved in four deals.
More so than in the past, investors and entrepreneurs are intensely negotiating the valuation of startups, Hecker said.
When a group of angels or a venture capitalist is going to invest, the valuation of the company is important because the amount invested buys a percentage of the company. Most angel investors look to exit the company in four to six years from the date of investment.
Entrepreneurs still have avenues like U.S. Small Business Administration loans. Most banks have lending officers who are well-versed in the subject, Berry said.
"It's important if you're thinking about entering that market that you clean up your own credit report," Berry said. "The problem is a lot of people got theirs dinged up over the last few years."
He suggests those looking to expand their business look at assets and come up with a detailed business plan on how the money will be spent.
"As an example, if you've been running your business in a way that's advantageous to your own personal tax situation and it looks like it's been losing money in certain situations, that's not going to really play well at the bank because they're going to want something that looks like it's profitable, they can lend against it and they're not going to be exposed," Berry said.
Hecker said business owners should be prepared for hard questions from investors, including what's unique about their idea, technology or service. Investors also will consider management teams carefully, he said.
"Be prepared to explain to an investor how and when they're going to get their money back, what is the exit strategy," he said, adding that it's important that business owners practice their pitch to ensure they get through it in the allotted time given.
"Oftentimes, people get up to make their presentations and they have 20 slides, and they start rushing, and the most important ones may be at the end, and you really can't give them the focus and attention they deserve," Hecker said.
He recommends that owners of early-stage companies look for alternative sources of capital, including government grants and programs.
The publicly available marketing data that Berry reviews shows that loan issuances in the first quarter of 2011 rose more than 60 percent from the same quarter in 2010, an indicator that there is a lot of pent-up demand.
"Now, it's down from the last quarter of 2010, but still it's up when you're looking at it from last year to this year as opposed to just quarter to quarter," Berry said. "It's certainly a good trend."
Although the future appears brighter, there are still a lot of businesses working their way through the bankruptcy process, he said. For those on the precipice of insolvency, the panel will discuss ways to delay foreclosure and retain parts of the business.
"It's not as cut and dried as sometimes people think about going into bankruptcy," Berry said. "It's not 'We give up. Here are all of our assets.' You do have the opportunity sometimes to put together a plan on how you can work out the existing obligations that you have and maybe repay them on a different timetable than was originally in the loan document."
Recent economic data indicate the recovery is not as healthy as was hoped, but the overall trend appears headed in the right direction, he said.
OAS_AD('Bottom2') -->-->
Digg thisvia azcentral.com
Jg
Friday, July 15, 2011
Ernst & Young Decodes the DNA of Entrepreneurs | Startup America Partnership
Can you identify an entrepreneur based on their behavior and traits alone? Ernst & Young, founders of the World Entrepreneur of the Year Program, recently conducted a survey of 685 entrepreneurial business leaders to identify common traits and characteristics shared by successful entrepreneurs. While no “entrepreneurship gene” has been identified, the findings of the report can serve as an important guide for those looking to become successful entrepreneurs.
The first finding of the report was that entrepreneurs are made, not born. While some entrepreneurs start young, like those featured at yesterday’s Young Entrepreneur Summit at the White House, most harness years of experience obtained through education and corporate environments. More than half of respondents to the survey even identified themselves as “transitioned” entrepreneurs, entering the field after traditional employment.
The survey also discovered that entrepreneurs rarely develop only one startup or venture. After learning better practices and methods the first time, entrepreneurs generally return to create new companies and new startups. As a result, serial entrepreneurs develop a significant number of all new ventures.
The entrepreneurs in the survey also confirmed much of what we’ve been hearing as we talk to entrepreneurs across the country: there is a deficit of capital, talent, and expertise that creates a serious obstacle for entrepreneurs. As many as 6 out of 10 respondents to the survey noted access to capital as the most difficult challenge they had to overcome when developing their venture. The report noted the importance of creating entrepreneurial ecosystems as a solution, something we are supporting across the country with our Startup Region initiatives.
When exploring the specific characteristics that entrepreneurs hold, the survey found that entrepreneurs generally have similar core traits. They feel in direct control of their venture and the environment, believing that their actions can directly influence results. Entrepreneurs also accept calculated risk and see opportunity in situations where others see disruptions.
Finally, the survey discovered that traditional companies could learn from entrepreneurial leaders. New entrepreneurial ventures tend to encourage innovation and place larger shares of ownership in the hands of the employees. Traditional companies generally do not have incentives to creatively innovate, but doing so can be enormously beneficial. Big companies and startups can work together to both benefit each other and the overall economy.
While there is no blueprint or specific guide for starting up a new company, there are many common traits and practices shared by entrepreneurs. They have common characteristics, a thirst for innovation and they know they can constantly learn to become better entrepreneurs. Anyone involved in entrepreneurship or looking to start a company should check out the great report from Ernst & Young and explore all of the advice that the survey respondents had to offer.
Jg
Ernst & Young Decodes the DNA of Entrepreneurs | Startup America Partnership
Can you identify an entrepreneur based on their behavior and traits alone? Ernst & Young, founders of the World Entrepreneur of the Year Program, recently conducted a survey of 685 entrepreneurial business leaders to identify common traits and characteristics shared by successful entrepreneurs. While no “entrepreneurship gene” has been identified, the findings of the report can serve as an important guide for those looking to become successful entrepreneurs.
The first finding of the report was that entrepreneurs are made, not born. While some entrepreneurs start young, like those featured at yesterday’s Young Entrepreneur Summit at the White House, most harness years of experience obtained through education and corporate environments. More than half of respondents to the survey even identified themselves as “transitioned” entrepreneurs, entering the field after traditional employment.
The survey also discovered that entrepreneurs rarely develop only one startup or venture. After learning better practices and methods the first time, entrepreneurs generally return to create new companies and new startups. As a result, serial entrepreneurs develop a significant number of all new ventures.
The entrepreneurs in the survey also confirmed much of what we’ve been hearing as we talk to entrepreneurs across the country: there is a deficit of capital, talent, and expertise that creates a serious obstacle for entrepreneurs. As many as 6 out of 10 respondents to the survey noted access to capital as the most difficult challenge they had to overcome when developing their venture. The report noted the importance of creating entrepreneurial ecosystems as a solution, something we are supporting across the country with our Startup Region initiatives.
When exploring the specific characteristics that entrepreneurs hold, the survey found that entrepreneurs generally have similar core traits. They feel in direct control of their venture and the environment, believing that their actions can directly influence results. Entrepreneurs also accept calculated risk and see opportunity in situations where others see disruptions.
Finally, the survey discovered that traditional companies could learn from entrepreneurial leaders. New entrepreneurial ventures tend to encourage innovation and place larger shares of ownership in the hands of the employees. Traditional companies generally do not have incentives to creatively innovate, but doing so can be enormously beneficial. Big companies and startups can work together to both benefit each other and the overall economy.
While there is no blueprint or specific guide for starting up a new company, there are many common traits and practices shared by entrepreneurs. They have common characteristics, a thirst for innovation and they know they can constantly learn to become better entrepreneurs. Anyone involved in entrepreneurship or looking to start a company should check out the great report from Ernst & Young and explore all of the advice that the survey respondents had to offer.
Jg
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Monday, July 11, 2011
How To Attract Investors For Your Small Business
Let's face it – your million-dollar business idea is never going to get off the ground. You'll push it on company after company until you've drained your piddly seed money and your network's resources. Eventually, you'll end up eating Dinty Moore Beef Stew on a futon in your parents' basement, complaining about how nobody "gets" you.
At least, that's what will happen without a little financial help. Venture capital firms are comprised of private investors who research, negotiate and (hopefully) fund businesses in their early stages of development. Even some of the leaders in business today - Home Depot, Starbucks and Google, to name a few - relied on venture capital in their early stages. (To learn more, check out Cashing In On The Venture Capital Cycle.)
In Pictures: 8 Tips For Starting Your Own Business
Studying the Competition
Applying for venture capital isn't quite as informal as the ABC TV show "Shark Tank" would have you believe. Before you have the opportunity to present your idea or invention to the sharks, paperwork filing, business-plan writing and demographic analysis must be conducted. Many of these firms receive up to 5,000 business plans per year, all competing against your business plan for funding consideration. Only 10% of these plans are seriously considered, and 1-2% are actually picked up and funded. And this process can often take years.In a situation like this, the smallest details (punctuation, accurate bookkeeping and sentence structure) could mean the difference between the inbox and the paper shredder. Obviously, attention to detail is a quality that will pay off tenfold.
Who Is Eligible?
Individual firms have their own criteria for funding. Since venture capitalists are private investors and boards, they have the freedom to alter conditions in order to suit their own causes. Think of venture capital funding as educational grants or bursaries – certain benchmarks must be met on the applicant's end before funding will be considered.
- Edit, edit, edit
Considering the volume of business plans that venture capitalists weed through every year, it's often the low points - not the high points - that stand out. Punctuation, grammar, appealing graphics and concise writing may not bring your plan to the front of the pile, but at least it won't wind up in the recycle bin right off the bat.Consider the last time you updated (or created) a resume and the amount of editing and revision work was put into those few pages before even daring to send it to a prospective employer. Business plans are often 25-50 pages long, and it's easy to let a typo slip through the cracks. With a document as important as a business plan, it's worth the expense to hire a professional copy editor and save on the anxiety felt with a spelling error that's discovered down the road.
When writing a business plan, it's best not to rely on page count to determine length. As with any good story, the number of words is irrelevant – it's over when it's supposed to be over. Ensure that your plan has all pertinent information and answers any questions that may arise. Making the business plan as thorough and clean as possible will appeal to the reviewers' senses of meticulousness, and gain the firm's trust in your abilities. (To learn more, see 4 Steps To Creating A Stellar Business Plan.)
- Do Your Research and Know Your Audience
Some of the "best" ideas lose their luster between the brain and the paper. When we realize how difficult or involving a new idea may become, frustration and defeatism set in. The only way to avoid this is to cover all avenues of research in your business plan. Not only so you fully understand what you're getting into and can answer any questions that may arise, but also so the venture capitalists can grasp the concept without over-thinking or speculating.If a similar product to yours already exists, focus on the aspects that make yours different. Pinpoint your target demographic and the level of competition for that audience, and consider your return on investment (ROI).
Yes, the technology (or science, or mechanics) of an idea is important to explain, but not as important as to whom the idea will be sold, how much it costs and its competition. Work on those factors before you outline 15 pages dedicated to the uniqueness of the hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engine that will power your invention.
- Round Peg in a Round Hole
Most venture capital firms focus on one type of business or product, such as: wireless technology, health care, alternative energy, etc. Your idea for a series of children's books that are pre-packaged with Ritalin probably wouldn't fare too well in an automotive-focused firm. Due diligence is required here, to ensure that you're not just wasting time and money by sending a great idea to the wrong firm.
- Team Up
It's tempting when starting a business or introducing a product to try to brave the waters alone. But having a group in on the idea will allow you to be as creative as possible, while filtering or revamping the loose ends. Don't think of this as profit sharing – think of it as a group of co-workers acting as a bouncing wall for ideas. (Learn more in Should You Have A Business Partner?)If at First …
Remember that the face-to-face meetings between young inventors and venture capital boards don't come on day one. If an idea is worth hearing – and luck and timing collide at just the right moment – a well-written, thorough and appealing business plan can catch the eye of just the right person. And if it doesn't, wash, rinse and repeat.Check out last week's business highlights in Water Cooler Finance: My iPad Beats Your Toyota.
Jg
Venture capital, angel investors and Private Equity Investors Directory | Wealth Building
Posted by admin on Jul 11, 2011 in Useful E-Books | 0 comments
Jg
Sunday, July 10, 2011
News Headlines
US NewsPage 1 of 5 | Next Page
Show Entire ArticleTech Investors Crowd into 'Crowd Commerce'CNBC.com | June 16, 2011 | 01:30 PM EDT
On the heels of LinkedIn’s successful initial public offering, many of Silicon Valley’s biggest investors are throwing millions in seed capital at a handful of startups looking to cash in on something called “crowd commerce,” where everything and everyone has a price.
The concept of crowd commerce is a simple one: use the GPS capability of a smart phone to connect people who need something done with people willing to do it.
“We’re all about capturing the value of urgency,” said Bo Fishback, CEO of Zaarly, a crowd commerce company born out of the Startup Weekend conference earlier this year in Los Angeles.
Within three days of his pitch, Fishback said he raised a million dollars from some of the industry’s most well-known investors including Groupon founders from the venture capital firm Lightbank, legendary angel investor Ron Conway, and others. Celebrities Ashton Kutcher, Demi Moore, and LeVar Burton are also investors.
Page 1 of 5 | Next Page
Show Entire Article
via cnbc.com
Jg
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Friday, July 8, 2011
MBA Student Harbach Provides Angel Investors With Entrepreneurial Expertise
Austin Business Journal
“Angel network hires McCombs student”
May 20, 2011
MBA student Jeff Harbach was appointed as The Central Texas Angel Network’s first full-time employee to handle investor relations. Harbach is currently completing his MBA in France at one of Europe’s most prestigious business schools, HEC Paris, and will embark upon his new role in August. The Austin Business Journal reports:
The move to a full-time employee coordinating CTAN’s activities is the latest in a series of indicators that the popularity of angel investing is surging in Central Texas. Such growth is a positive development for local entrepreneurs seeking investment in early-stage companies and investors who want to be involved in Austin’s startup community.
“We want to strengthen the [executive director] position for entrepreneurs to get advice and investments,” Harbach said.
Harbach is an MBA candidate focusing on entrepreneurship and marketing. He owns several small businesses, including two 7-Eleven franchise stores. At McCombs, Harbach is a member of the Entrepreneur Society, the CleanTech Group, the Graduate Consulting Group, the Graduate Finance Association, the Graduate Real Estate Society and the Sports, Entertainment & Media Association.
via mccombstoday.org
Jg
Startup that got stuck heads west
Tim Carlock hasn't given up on his entrepreneurial dream, but he has decided that it won't come true in St. Louis.
Carlock, 30, spent most of the last two years working on Nexly.com, which he envisions as a clearinghouse for small businesses that need to outsource functions like information technology or marketing.
He's tried to take advantage of the resources available to startups here, like the Information Technology Entrepreneur Network and the Innovate Venture Mentoring Service. He's gone through most of the startup money that he raised from family and friends, but the business is struggling to gain traction.
So, Carlock has sold his house here and he's moving to San Francisco.
Is it a desperate search for greener pastures? Perhaps, but Carlock has spent a little time in the Bay Area, and he thinks it has some of the elements that he finds lacking in St. Louis.
One of those elements is money. Carlock went through a training program on how to approach angel investors, and he hired a consulting firm to help him search for investors. He decided not to make a formal pitch to the Arch Angels, a network of private investors here, because he believed that "the likelihood of getting funding was very low."
After he moves west, Carlock says, "I have no illusions; it's going to be hard, but at least there are more resources. It's a more active (investor) community, and their attitude is different."
Carlock also thinks Silicon Valley will be an easier place to find both customers and service providers for Nexly's outsourcing database. For him, St. Louis was a tough place to meet the business partners he needed.
"I came to the conclusion that staying here is a death sentence for my business," Carlock said. "I don't like that conclusion, because it seems very defeatist, but I can't escape the laws of supply and demand or profit and loss."
Those words, of course, were spoken by someone who's already viewing his hometown through a rearview mirror, and may be viewing his destination through rose-colored glasses. Do his experiences hold any lessons for St. Louis? Is there a way to make the area more supportive of would-be entrepreneurs?
Jim Brasunas, director of the Information Technology Entrepreneur Network, knows Carlock and says he wishes him well. Solo entrepreneurs without previous startup experience, he says, have a harder-than-average time raising money, so Nexly "probably didn't hit enough of the high spots to get real traction here."
On the West Coast, Carlock will find more sources of money but also more entrepreneurs competing for that money. If Carlock has a strong business plan, Brasunas said, a move west probably will improve his chances of getting funded.
However, Brasunas disputes the characterization that things are slow here. ITEN has 160 members and is adding between six and 10 new ones each month. The Innovate mentoring service is advising 85 startups. He can point to modest success stories such as Hexagrid, a Chesterfield company that recently won an international cloud-computing award.
"We've had to lose a few here and there, but the trend line is positive," Brasunas says.
Unfortunately, he can now count Nexly among the losses. Taking one bright, ambitious entrepreneur away from St. Louis doesn't sink the area's chances of building a more vibrant business community, but it certainly doesn't help, either.
via stltoday.com
Jg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)