April 13, 2016

No Image

Today in Movie Culture: 'Doctor Strange' Meets 'Inception,' Martin Scorsese Gets Animated and More

Here are a bunch of little bites to satisfy your hunger for movie culture:

Mashup of the Day:

The new Doctor Strange trailer reminded so many people of Inception that there’s already a mashup of the two movies (via Live for Films):

[embedded content]

Poster Trend of the Day:

With the release of the Doctor Strange one-sheet, it’s become clear there’s a trend occurring with Benedict Cumberbatch movie posters:

When your poster artist finally admits they don’t know how to draw Benedict Cumberbatch: pic.twitter.com/UMqh8fZSaM

— Eric Heisserer (@HIGHzurrer) April 13, 2016

Visual Effects Parody of the Day:

This Funny or Die parody of performance capture is four years old, but since it features Jon Favreau it’s newly relevant in advance of Disney‘s The Jungle Book remake:

Movie Comparison of the Day:

Couch Tomato shows us 24 reasons Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is already basically a live-action remake of Disney‘s animated version of The Jungle Book:

[embedded content]

Vintage Image of the Day:

Director Stanley Donen, who turns 92 today, on the set of Singin’ in the Rain with stars Gene Kelly and Donald O’Connor:

Film History of the Day:

The Nerdwriter looks at the history of the serial and how Star Wars holds a special place in that history:

[embedded content]

Cosplay of the Day:

Old people dressing up as old Han Solo and Leia, like this duo at the Emerald City Comic-Con, is a new kind of adorable cosplay (via Fashionably Geek):

Filmmaker in Focus:

PBS turned Martin Scorsese into a cartoon character in this animated adaptation of an interview where the filmmaker talks about framing (via Geek Tyrant):

[embedded content]

Supercut of the Day:

Celebrate the sounds of No Country for Old Men with this supercut tribute to the Coen Brothers‘ Best Picture winner (via Cinematic Montage Creators):

[embedded content]

Classic Trailer of the Day:

Today is the 15th anniversary of the release of Bridget Jones’s Diary. Watch the original trailer for the series starter starring Renee Zellweger, Hugh Grant and Colin Firth below.

[embedded content]

and

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Golden State Warriors Complete Best Season In NBA's 70-Year History

Guard Steph Curry of the Golden State Warriors has led the team to the top of the NBA for the past two seasons.

Guard Steph Curry of the Golden State Warriors has led the team to the top of the NBA for the past two seasons. Thearon W. Henderson/Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption Thearon W. Henderson/Getty Images

Four years ago, in superstar guard Stephen Curry’s injury-truncated third season, the Golden State Warriors went 23-43 and missed the playoffs by 13 games.

On Wednesday night, they beat the Memphis Grizzlies 125-104 to finish their regular season 73-9, breaking the Chicago Bulls’ 20-year-old NBA record for most wins in a season.

And this weekend when the playoffs begin, the Warriors will start their pursuit of a second straight championship with a series against the Houston Rockets.

Driving it all has been Curry, whose mind-blowing three-point shooting range — he was shooting 50 percent from beyond 30 feet earlier this season — is emblematic of how the game is changing. Curry’s virtuosity has also made some sports video games obsolete because he outperforms the virtual players. NBA 2K gameplay director Mike Wang told All Things Considered‘s Ari Shapiro:

“In real life, you’ve got to take good shots,” Wang said. “You know, with Steph, he’s, like — he could … shoot in double teams with two guys draped all over him and still hit the shot. So that’s something that we need to go back to the drawing board and see if we can get that back into our game.”

Steph Curry just hit his 400th three of the season. No other player has even had more than 300 in a season. VIDEO: https://t.co/wuhRi7eYuQ

— NBA on ESPN (@ESPNNBA) April 14, 2016

Curry led the scoring Wednesday night with 46 points, including 10-19 three-point shooting.

“I just try to keep pushing myself and try not to have any limits,” Curry told ESPN’s Doris Burke after the game. He said his teammates, their focus and their eagerness to take on the challenge is what got the Warriors the record.

Golden State is also the first NBA team to make it through a season without losing two games in a row, and without losing twice to the same team, ESPN reported.

There had been some question about how aggressively the Warriors would pursue the wins record — they locked up home-court advantage through the playoffs a week ago and could have rested their players ahead of the playoffs — but the players were eager to make history.

“I’m only 26. When I’m 36, I’ll be looking to rest more,” guard Klay Thompson told reporters after the team’s April 7 win.

Curry also was all-in on the record chase, CSN Chicago reported:

“We have an opportunity to do something that has never been done before in history,” Curry said. “So many great players have suited up since the NBA began, and for us 15 guys to say we’ve accomplished something as a group that’s never been done before, that’s remarkable. So, we earned the right to have a 48-minute game to eclipse that mark and we have to go out and finish the job and do it the right way.”

Warriors coach Steve Kerr was a bench player on the 1995-1996 Bulls team that previously held the record, and was asked about the two seasons after Wednesday’s game.

“It feels different as a coach than it did as a player,” Kerr said, but he added that the two seasons went the same way — “lose one, get angry, win ten.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Want To Set Up A Shell Corporation To Hide Your Millions? No Problem

A police officer stands outside the Mossack Fonseca law firm Tuesday as organized crime prosecutors raid the offices in Panama City.

A police officer stands outside the Mossack Fonseca law firm Tuesday as organized crime prosecutors raid the offices in Panama City. Arnulfo Franco/AP hide caption

toggle caption Arnulfo Franco/AP

The leaking of more than 11 million documents from Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca earlier this month cast new light on the arcane world of offshore shell companies, long a favorite hiding place for the very rich.

But actually setting up a shell corporation turns out to be something that any average Joe can do. In fact, you can do it in just a little more time than it takes to open an email account, with the help of one of the army of law firms and financial advisers that specialize in them.

“You can do it over the phone. You can do it over the Internet. It’s relatively easy to do, depending on where you are and what you want to set up,” says Tom Cardamone, managing director of Global Financial Integrity, a nonprofit research group that looks for ways to stop illicit financial flows.

“It can be a matter of just a few hundred dollars or a few thousand dollars. You can set up an anonymous shell company in Delaware the same day,” he says.

The ease with which such accounts can be established is one reason more and more money is pouring into them each year.

“A growing fraction of the world’s wealth, and particularly of the wealth in tax havens, is owned via shell companies, so it’s obviously a business that is booming and is doing extremely well,” says Gabriel Zucman, assistant professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley and the author of The Hidden Wealth of Nations.

Because the industry is shrouded in secrecy, any estimates of its size are at best an educated guess, Zucman says. But he estimates that 60 percent of the money held in accounts in Swiss banks is under the names of shell corporations.

For those with money to hide, the lures of a shell corporation are many.

In most places you don’t have to attach your name to a shell corporation, making it virtually impossible for tax authorities or law enforcement officials to tell who owns it. But if you really want to cover your tracks, you can set up interlocking shell companies in different places, such as the British Virgin Islands or Bermuda, Cardamone says.

“You can create an anonymous shell in one jurisdiction that controls an anonymous trust in a completely different country that also controls a bank account in a third country,” Cardamone says.

Once your shell company is up and running, you can use it to stash any spare millions you may have lying around.

“Now you’re the owner of a company that can open, for instance, bank accounts all over the world. Or that can buy real estate all over the world. It makes it easy for you to hide your identity and to be an anonymous owner of wealth all over the world,” Zucman says.

Perhaps the most surprising thing of all is that establishing a shell corporation — at least by itself — doesn’t technically violate any law, Cardamone says.

“There’s nothing illegal about setting up such a corporation. It’s what happens after that that can cause the problem, whether it’s tax evasion or money laundering,” he says.

In other words, it’s not having a secret shell corporation that can get you in trouble. It’s how you use it.

Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of firms offer help setting up shell companies, often as part of a set of financial and legal services, and many are located in the United States.

Most of these firms don’t actually process the transaction themselves but farm it out to a much larger firm that specializes in them, such as Mossack Fonseca. The Panamanian law firm is considered one of the largest such firms in the world.

With so much money pouring into these companies, big investors such as private equity firms have been eager to get a part of them. For example, the Carlyle Group was an early investor in one of the biggest firms, Hong Kong-based Offshore Incorporations Limited, but sold its share to a Scandinavian firm in 2011.

“I think they saw this as a growth industry, obviously something that particularly was experiencing strong growth from the developing world, particularly China. And it was kind of a new industry that hadn’t attracted much attention from outsiders before,” says Jason Sharman, professor of political science at Australia’s Griffith University.

As the use of shell corporations has grown, the United States and other developed countries have attempted to crack down on them. They increasingly require banks to turn over more information about accounts held by their own citizens.

As the Mossack Fonseca case has shown, major banks such as Deutsche Bank and UBS have in the past played roles in helping their clients set up offshore bank accounts.

Regulators say such efforts are making a dent in stopping tax evasion. They’ve made it much harder for many citizens of the United States and Europe to hide their money. (The rules don’t apply to people from China, Russia and Brazil, where much of the newest money comes from.)

But Zucman isn’t sure the major banks are really ready to cooperate with law enforcement.

“After all, for decades they’ve been exactly the opposite,” Zucman says. “They’ve been helping their clients evade taxes, hiding them behind shell companies, and so we can ask ourselves: Is it just enough to now ask these very same individuals and these very same institutions to now play the taxman’s job?”

“Up to this point there hasn’t been the political will to address the issue of anonymous shell companies,” Cardamone says. “These things have been in place for decades. This is not something that’s been created recently. So there’s also the issue of changing the way business has always been done. No matter what the issue is, changing something that’s been happening for decades is always difficult to do.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Why It's Getting Harder To Decide When To Treat High Blood Pressure

The pressure is a little high. Now what?

The pressure is a little high. Now what? Disability Images/Science Source hide caption

toggle caption Disability Images/Science Source

Are you ready for some more uncertainty about blood pressure treatment?

Decisions about blood pressure have gotten more difficult over the past couple of years as experts in the U.S. have failed to reach consensus on recommendations about when drug therapy should be started. Now there’s new evidence that could make the decisions even more challenging.

Let’s review first where there is agreement. Around the world, high blood pressure causes a lot of harm. Your risk of health problems — such as heart disease, stroke and kidney disease — increases with higher blood pressure. Your lifestyle can influence your blood pressure. A healthful diet, at least moderate physical activity and weight control can bring down your blood pressure. Those are good habits for everyone, in fact.

Medicines can help reduce the risk for people with higher blood pressure, say 150 millimeters of mercury and above for systolic pressure, the top number. Too many people have untreated and uncontrolled marked elevations of blood pressure and many devastating health problems could be prevented if we could help people get proper treatment.

What about medicines for people whose blood pressure is high but less than 150? Most doctors agree that people younger than 60 would do well to keep their blood pressure less than 140. The consensus is that the benefit of drugs for those who didn’t respond to lifestyle changes exceeds the risks of treatment.

Some believe that for older patients, who may be more sensitive to medications, the recommendations should be more permissive and not push for treatment that brings blood pressure below 140. Then there’s the SPRINT trial, whose results were released last November and suggested that people without diabetes, even older people, would benefit by seeking to get their blood pressure down to around 120.

Another study, called HOPE-3 for short, added important evidence about the treatment of blood pressure that will further unsettle the field. The findings were published April 2 by in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The researchers in the study randomized 12,705 people with at least one cardiovascular risk factor (like high cholesterol) to get blood pressure medication or placebo. At the time of randomization, the average systolic blood pressure was 138. Some people’s pressures were higher and some were lower, or course. In fact, a third of the people had a beginning blood pressure less than 132.

So what did HOPE-3 find? The blood pressure medications worked. Study participants in the group that got blood pressure medicine had their systolic blood pressure lowered about 6 points more than those in the placebo group. However, after almost six years of follow-up, the investigators determined that lower blood pressure didn’t translate into lower risk. The risks of death from cardiovascular causes, heart attacks, strokes and other problems weren’t different between the groups.

The investigators explored the data further and found some evidence that the group in the highest third of blood pressure at the start (an average top number of 154) seemed to have a lower risk, while the group in the lowest third at the start (average of 122) seemed to do worse. These analyses were planned at the outset of the study, so we tend to give them a bit more weight.

So what happened?

HOPE-3 used common antihypertensive medications, an angiotensin receptor blocker called candesartan and a diuretic called hydrochlorothiazide. Could the results be explained by something about these medications?

Participants in the study had an average age of 65 years, about half were women, a quarter were smokers and almost all were overweight. Was there something special about them?

Or could it be that pushing blood pressure to ever-lower levels, even in a group at modest risk of heart disease and stroke, is just not producing benefit?

We don’t know for sure.

The field is waiting eagerly for the next version of national guidelines about blood pressure. A group of experts in the field will look at all the evidence and give its opinion about whom to treat and when.

But how useful will general guidelines be for individual patients, given the conflicting evidence? How confidently will the experts be able to recommend strategies for people in the middle range of blood pressure?

The ultimate decision about treatment for each person should be informed by the fact that a definitive benefit hasn’t been consistently shown for lowering blood pressure below 140 in people without known disease (we call this primary prevention). The results of the HOPE-3 indicate that the lower your blood pressure is, the less likely you are to benefit from starting drug therapy.

As always, if your blood pressure is in the range where there is controversy and you want to lower your blood pressure, your best first move is to adopt a healthful lifestyle and see what happens — and, of course, talk with your physician. Meanwhile, experts will be poring over the recent studies to try to reconcile the disparate results.

In medicine, we like it when the latest data bring clarity to personal decisions about treatments. But the reality is that studies often go in different directions and leave us even more uncertain about what to do next. That uncertainty, though, is still important information as you consider your options.

The disappointing conclusion about blood pressure is that we need more studies and more evidence. We also need better evidence — information that is more precise about what is likely to happen to us personally if we take medications for blood pressure.

We need to move faster to get the knowledge that is attuned to our personal characteristics and that can guide our decisions about the blood pressure number that’s best and also the drug that would work best for each of us, if we need one. This is the hope of President Obama’s Precision Medicine Initiative. Given the mixed evidence we have, this new era of knowledge cannot come fast enough.

Harlan Krumholz is a cardiologist and the Harold H. Hines Jr. Professor of Medicine at Yale School of Medicine. He directs the Yale-New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation and is a co-director of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars Program.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Watch: First 'Doctor Strange' Trailer Introduces a New Way to Save Lives

Doctor Strange

The first teaser trailer for Marvel’s Doctor Strange just debuted on Jimmy Kimmel Live!, introduced by its star, Benedict Cumberbatch, and it looks amazing. Near the end, Cumberbatch says two words that are probably key to the whole movie, but before that his presence as the titular character is felt in every frame as he strides through a variety of settings, both mundane and fantastical.

What’s even more surprising, though, is the appearance of Tilda Swinton as The Ancient One, a master who may be ready to teach Doctor Strange a thing or two. We also catch glimpses of Rachel McAdams, Chiwetel Ejiofor and some spectacular visual effects.

Watch the teaser below.

[embedded content]

Marvel’s Doctor Strange will open in theaters on November 4, 2016.

Doctor Strange

Let’s block ads! (Why?)