Month: September 2010

  • The Face of Facebook

    The Face of Facebook

    Mark Zuckerberg opens up.

    by Jose Antonio Vargas September 20, 2010

     

    Mark Zuckerberg founded Facebook in his college dorm room six years ago. Five hundred million people have joined since, and eight hundred and seventy-nine of them are his friends. The site is a directory of the world’s people, and a place for private citizens to create public identities. You sign up and start posting information about yourself: photographs, employment history, why you are peeved right now with the gummy-bear selection at Rite Aid or bullish about prospects for peace in the Middle East. Some of the information can be seen only by your friends; some is available to friends of friends; some is available to anyone. Facebook’s privacy policies are confusing to many people, and the company has changed them frequently, almost always allowing more information to be exposed in more ways.

    According to his Facebook profile, Zuckerberg has three sisters (Randi, Donna, and Arielle), all of whom he’s friends with. He’s friends with his parents, Karen and Edward Zuckerberg. He graduated from Phillips Exeter Academy and attended Harvard University. He’s a fan of the comedian Andy Samberg and counts among his favorite musicians Green Day, Jay-Z, Taylor Swift, and Shakira. He is twenty-six years old.

    Zuckerberg cites “Minimalism,” “Revolutions,” and “Eliminating Desire” as interests. He likes “Ender’s Game,” a coming-of-age science-fiction saga by Orson Scott Card, which tells the story of Andrew (Ender) Wiggin, a gifted child who masters computer war games and later realizes that he’s involved in a real war. He lists no other books on his profile.

    Zuckerberg’s Facebook friends have access to his e-mail address and his cell-phone number. They can browse his photograph albums, like one titled “The Great Goat Roast of 2009,” a record of an event held in his back yard. They know that, in early July, upon returning from the annual Allen & Company retreat for Hollywood moguls, Wall Street tycoons, and tech titans, he became Facebook friends with Barry Diller. Soon afterward, Zuckerberg wrote on his Facebook page, “Is there a site that streams the World Cup final online? (I don’t own a TV.)”

    Since late August, it’s also been pretty easy to track Zuckerberg through a new Facebook feature called Places, which allows users to mark their location at any time. At 2:45 A.M., E.S.T., on August 29th, he was at the Ace Hotel, in New York’s garment district. He was back at Facebook’s headquarters, in Palo Alto, by 7:08 P.M. On August 31st at 10:38 P.M., he and his girlfriend were eating dinner at Taqueria La Bamba, in Mountain View.

    Zuckerberg may seem like an over-sharer in the age of over-sharing. But that’s kind of the point. Zuckerberg’s business model depends on our shifting notions of privacy, revelation, and sheer self-display. The more that people are willing to put online, the more money his site can make from advertisers. Happily for him, and the prospects of his eventual fortune, his business interests align perfectly with his personal philosophy. In the bio section of his page, Zuckerberg writes simply, “I’m trying to make the world a more open place.”

    The world, it seems, is responding. The site is now the biggest social network in countries ranging from Indonesia to Colombia. Today, at least one out of every fourteen people in the world has a Facebook account. Zuckerberg, meanwhile, is becoming the boy king of Silicon Valley. If and when Facebook decides to go public, Zuckerberg will become one of the richest men on the planet, and one of the youngest billionaires. In the October issue of Vanity Fair, Zuckerberg is named No. 1 in the magazine’s power ranking of the New Establishment, just ahead of Steve Jobs, the leadership of Google, and Rupert Murdoch. The magazine declared him “our new Caesar.”

    Despite his goal of global openness, however, Zuckerberg remains a wary and private person. He doesn’t like to speak to the press, and he does so rarely. He also doesn’t seem to enjoy the public appearances that are increasingly requested of him. Backstage at an event at the Computer History Museum, in Silicon Valley, this summer, one of his interlocutors turned to Zuckerberg, minutes before they were to appear onstage, and said, “You don’t like doing these kinds of events very much, do you?” Zuckerberg replied with a terse “No,” then took a sip from his water bottle and looked off into the distance.

    This makes the current moment a particularly awkward one. Zuckerberg, or at least Hollywood’s unauthorized version of him, will soon be starring in a film titled “The Social Network,” directed by David Fincher and written by Aaron Sorkin. The movie, which opens the New York Film Festival and will be released on October 1st, will be the introduction that much of the world gets to Zuckerberg. Facebook profiles are always something of a performance: you choose the details you want to share and you choose whom you want to share with. Now Zuckerberg, who met with me for several in-person interviews this summer, is confronting something of the opposite: a public exposition of details that he didn’t choose. He does not plan to see the film.

    Zuckerberg––or Zuck, as he is known to nearly everyone of his acquaintance––is pale and of medium build, with short, curly brown hair and blue eyes. He’s only around five feet eight, but he seems taller, because he stands with his chest out and his back straight, as if held up by a string. His standard attire is a gray T-shirt, bluejeans, and sneakers. His affect can be distant and disorienting, a strange mixture of shy and cocky. When he’s not interested in what someone is talking about, he’ll just look away and say, “Yeah, yeah.” Sometimes he pauses so long before he answers it’s as if he were ignoring the question altogether. The typical complaint about Zuckerberg is that he’s “a robot.” One of his closest friends told me, “He’s been overprogrammed.” Indeed, he sometimes talks like an Instant Message—brusque, flat as a dial tone—and he can come off as flip and condescending, as if he always knew something that you didn’t. But face to face he is often charming, and he’s becoming more comfortable onstage. At the Computer History Museum, he was uncommonly energetic, thoughtful, and introspective—relaxed, even. He addressed concerns about Facebook’s privacy settings by relaying a personal anecdote of the sort that his answers generally lack. (“If I could choose to share my mobile-phone number only with everyone on Facebook, I wouldn’t do it. But because I can do it with only my friends I do it.”) He was self-deprecating, too. Asked if he’s the same person in front of a crowd as he is with friends, Zuckerberg responded, “Yeah, same awkward person.”

    Zuckerberg grew up in a hilltop house in Dobbs Ferry, New York. Attached to the basement is the dental office of his father, Edward Zuckerberg, known to his patients as “painless Dr. Z.” (“We cater to cowards,” his Web site reads.) There’s a hundred-and-sixty-gallon fish tank in the operating room, and the place is packed with marine-oriented tchotchkes that Dr. Zuckerberg’s patients have brought him. Mark’s mother, Karen, is a psychiatrist who stopped practicing to take care of the children and to work as her husband’s office manager.

    Edward was an early user of digital radiography, and he introduced Atari BASIC computer programming to his son. The house and the dental office were full of computers. One afternoon in 1996, Edward declared that he wanted a better way of announcing a patient’s arrival than the receptionist yelling, “Patient here!” Mark built a software program that allowed the computers in the house and the office to send messages to one another. He called it ZuckNet, and it was basically a primitive version of AOL Instant Messenger, which came out the following year. The receptionist used it to ping Edward, and the kids used it to ping each other. One evening while Donna was working in her room, downstairs, a screen popped up: the computer contained a deadly virus and would blow up in thirty seconds. As the machine counted down, Donna ran up the stairs shouting, “Mark!”

    Some kids played computer games. Mark created them. In all of our talks, the most animated Zuckerberg ever got—speaking with a big smile, almost tripping on his words, his eyes alert—was when he described his youthful adventures in coding. “I had a bunch of friends who were artists,” he said. “They’d come over, draw stuff, and I’d build a game out of it.” When he was about eleven, his parents hired a computer tutor, a software developer named David Newman, who came to the house once a week to work with Mark. “He was a prodigy,” Newman told me. “Sometimes it was tough to stay ahead of him.” (Newman lost track of Zuckerberg and was stunned when he learned during our interview that his former pupil had built Facebook.) Soon thereafter, Mark started taking a graduate computer course every Thursday night at nearby Mercy College. When his father dropped him off at the first class, the instructor looked at Edward and said, pointing to Mark, “You can’t bring him to the classroom with you.” Edward told the instructor that his son was the student.

    Mark was not a stereotypical geek-klutz. At Exeter, he became captain of the fencing team. He earned a diploma in classics. But computers were always central. For his senior project at Exeter, he wrote software that he called Synapse. Created with a friend, Synapse was like an early version of Pandora—a program that used artificial intelligence to learn users’ listening habits. News of the software’s existence spread on technology blogs. Soon AOL and Microsoft made it known that they wanted to buy Synapse and recruit the teen-ager who’d invented it. He turned them down.

    Zuckerberg decided, instead, to enter Harvard, in the fall of 2002. He arrived in Cambridge with a reputation as a programming prodigy. He sometimes wore a T-shirt with a little ape on it and the words “Code Monkey.” He joined the Jewish fraternity Alpha Epsilon Pi, and, at a Friday-night party there, Zuckerberg, then a sophomore, met his current girlfriend, Priscilla Chan, a Chinese-American from the Boston suburbs. They struck up a conversation while waiting in line for the bathroom. “He was this nerdy guy who was just a little bit out there,” Chan told me. “I remember he had these beer glasses that said ‘pound include beer dot H.’ It’s a tag for C++. It’s like college humor but with a nerdy, computer-science appeal.”

    Zuckerberg had a knack for creating simple, addictive software. In his first week as a sophomore, he built CourseMatch, a program that enabled users to figure out which classes to take based on the choices of other students. Soon afterward, he came up with Facemash, where users looked at photographs of two people and clicked a button to note who they thought was hotter, a kind of sexual-playoff system. It was quickly shut down by the school’s administration. Afterward, three upperclassmen—an applied-math major from Queens, Divya Narendra, and twins from Greenwich, Connecticut, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss—approached Zuckerberg for assistance with a site that they had been working on, called Harvard Connection.

    Zuckerberg helped Narendra and the Winklevoss twins, but he soon abandoned their project in order to build his own site, which he eventually labelled Facebook. The site was an immediate hit, and, at the end of his sophomore year, Zuckerberg dropped out of Harvard to run it.

    As he tells the story, the ideas behind the two social networks were totally different. Their site, he says, emphasized dating, while his emphasized networking. The way the Winklevoss twins tell it, Zuckerberg stole their idea and deliberately kept them from launching their site. Tall, wide-shouldered, and gregarious, the twins were champion rowers who competed in the Beijing Olympics; they recently earned M.B.A.s from Oxford. “He stole the moment, he stole the idea, and he stole the execution,” Cameron told me recently. The dispute has been in court almost since Facebook was launched, six years ago. Facebook eventually reached a settlement, reportedly worth sixty-five million dollars, with the Winklevosses and Narendra, but they are now appealing for more, claiming that Facebook misled them about the value of the stock they would receive.

    To prepare for litigation against the Winklevosses and Narendra, Facebook’s legal team searched Zuckerberg’s computer and came across Instant Messages he sent while he was at Harvard. Although the IMs did not offer any evidence to support the claim of theft, according to sources who have seen many of the messages, the IMs portray Zuckerberg as backstabbing, conniving, and insensitive. A small group of lawyers and Facebook executives reviewed the messages, in a two-hour meeting in January, 2006, at the offices of Jim Breyer, the managing partner at the venture-capital firm Accel Partners, Facebook’s largest outside investor.

    The technology site Silicon Alley Insider got hold of some of the messages and, this past spring, posted the transcript of a conversation between Zuckerberg and a friend, outlining how he was planning to deal with Harvard Connect:


    FRIEND: so have you decided what you are going to do about the websites?
    ZUCK: yea i’m going to fuck them
    ZUCK: probably in the year
    ZUCK: *ear

    In another exchange leaked to Silicon Alley Insider, Zuckerberg explained to a friend that his control of Facebook gave him access to any information he wanted on any Harvard student:


    ZUCK: yea so if you ever need info about anyone at harvard
    ZUCK: just ask
    ZUCK: i have over 4000 emails, pictures, addresses, sns
    FRIEND: what!? how’d you manage that one?
    ZUCK: people just submitted it
    ZUCK: i don’t know why
    ZUCK: they “trust me”
    ZUCK: dumb fucks

    According to two knowledgeable sources, there are more unpublished IMs that are just as embarrassing and damaging to Zuckerberg. But, in an interview, Breyer told me, “Based on everything I saw in 2006, and after having a great deal of time with Mark, my confidence in him as C.E.O. of Facebook was in no way shaken.” Breyer, who sits on Facebook’s board, added, “He is a brilliant individual who, like all of us, has made mistakes.” When I asked Zuckerberg about the IMs that have already been published online, and that I have also obtained and confirmed, he said that he “absolutely” regretted them. “If you’re going to go on to build a service that is influential and that a lot of people rely on, then you need to be mature, right?” he said. “I think I’ve grown and learned a lot.”

    Zuckerberg’s sophomoric former self, he insists, shouldn’t define who he is now. But he knows that it does, and that, because of the upcoming release of “The Social Network,” it will surely continue to do so. The movie is a scathing portrait, and the image of an unsmiling, insecure, and sexed-up young man will be hard to overcome. Zuckerberg said, “I think a lot people will look at that stuff, you know, when I was nineteen, and say, ‘Oh, well, he was like that. . . . He must still be like that, right?’ ”

    In Hollywood’s version, the early founding of Facebook is, as Sorkin said in an interview, “a classical story of friendship, loyalty, betrayal, and jealousy.” Sorkin described Zuckerberg as a “brilliant guy who’s socially awkward and who’s got his nose up against the window of social life. It would seem he badly wanted to get into one of these final clubs”—one of the exclusive, élite-within-élite party clubs at Harvard. The Winklevoss twins were members of the Porcellian Club, the most prestigious.

    In the movie’s opening scene, according to a script that was leaked online, Zuckerberg and his girlfriend, Erica, a student at Boston University, sit in a campus bar, exchanging disparaging zingers. (“You don’t have to study,” he tells her. “How do you know I don’t have to study?” she asks. “Because you go to B.U.!”) Erica takes his hand, stares at him and says, “Listen. You’re going to be successful and rich. But you’re going to go through life thinking that girls don’t like you because you’re a tech geek. And I want you to know, from the bottom of my heart, that that won’t be true. It’ll be because you’re an asshole.”

    The movie is based on “The Accidental Billionaires,” by Ben Mezrich, a book about the founding of Facebook. Mezrich is also the author of a best-seller, published in 2003, about college students striking it rich. The book, titled “Bringing Down the House,” used invented scenes, composite characters, and re-created dialogue. The new book has been criticized for using similar methods. Mezrich says that the book is not “an encyclopedic” description of Facebook’s founding but is nevertheless “a true story that Zuckerberg would rather not be told,” written in what he called a “thriller-esque style.” The book draws heavily on interviews that Mezrich conducted with Eduardo Saverin, Facebook’s initial business manager, who had a falling out with Zuckerberg and sued him. Mezrich did not talk to Zuckerberg. (The producer of “The Social Network,” Scott Rudin, tried to talk to Zuckerberg and other Facebook executives, but he was rebuffed.) Mezrich sold the movie rights to the book even before it was completed. He called Sorkin his “first reader,” and handed over chapters as soon as he finished them.

    Sorkin said that creating Zuckerberg’s character was a challenge. He added that the college students were “the youngest people I’ve ever written about.” Sorkin, who is forty-nine, says that he knew very little about social networking, and he professes extreme dislike of the blogosphere and social media. “I’ve heard of Facebook, in the same way I’ve heard of a carburetor,” he told me. “But if I opened the hood of my car I wouldn’t know how to find it.” He called the film “The Social Network” ironically. Referring to Facebook’s creators, Sorkin said, “It’s a group of, in one way or another, socially dysfunctional people who created the world’s great social-networking site.”

    Sorkin insisted that “the movie is not meant as an attack” on Zuckerberg. As he described it, however, Zuckerberg “spends the first one hour and fifty-five minutes as an antihero and the last five minutes as a tragic hero.” He added, “I don’t want to be unfair to this young man whom I don’t know, who’s never done anything to me, who doesn’t deserve a punch in the face. I honestly believe that I have not done that.”

    As it happens, Sorkin’s “The West Wing” is one of Zuckerberg’s favorite television shows. He discovered it while on a trip to Spain with Chan, whom he has been dating, with a brief interruption, since 2003. In Madrid, they both got sick, and ended up watching the first season of the show in bed. In a Spanish department store, they bought DVDs of the six other seasons and eventually watched them all. Zuckerberg said that he liked the authenticity of the series—the way it captured the truth, at least as friends of his described it, of working in Washington.

    I told Sorkin that his TV series was one of Zuckerberg’s favorites. He paused. “I wish you hadn’t told me that,” he said finally. When I asked Sorkin to guess the episode that Zuckerberg liked best, he said, “The Lemon-Lyman episode”—the one in Season Three where Josh Lyman, the deputy chief of staff, played by Bradley Whitford, discovers that he has a following on an online message board and unwisely interacts with its members.

    Actually, Zuckerberg’s favorite episode, he told me, was “Two Cathedrals,” at the end of Season Two, in which Martin Sheen, who plays President Josiah Bartlet, grieves at the death of his longtime secretary and, after disclosing that he has multiple sclerosis, ponders whether he should seek reëlection. He is inside the National Cathedral and orders that it be temporarily sealed. He curses God in Latin and lights a cigarette. “It’s, like, even in journeys like Facebook, we’ve had some very serious ups and downs,” Zuckerberg said.

    Zuckerberg says that many of the details he has read about the film are just wrong. (He had, for example, no interest in joining any of the final clubs.) When pressed about the movie and what it means for his public persona, he responded coolly: “I know the real story.”

    A few days after we spoke, Zuckerberg changed his Facebook profile, removing “The West Wing” from his list of favorite TV shows.

    On a recent Thursday afternoon, Zuckerberg took me for a stroll around the neighborhood in Palo Alto where he both lives and works. As he stepped out of the office and onto a street of expensive houses, he told me about his first trip to Silicon Valley. It was during winter break in January, 2004, a month before Facebook’s launch. He was nineteen. “I remember flying in, driving down 101 in a cab, and passing by all these tech companies like Yahoo!,” he said. His gray T-shirt was emblazoned with the word “hacker.” “I remember thinking, Maybe someday we’ll build a company. This probably isn’t it, but one day we will.”

    We arrived at his house. Parked outside was a black Acura TSX, which he bought a couple of years ago, after asking a friend to suggest a car that would be “safe, comfortable, not ostentatious.” He drives a lot to relax and unwind, his friends say, and usually ends up at Chan’s apartment. She lives not far from Golden Gate Park and is a third-year medical student at the University of California, San Francisco. They spend most weekends together; they walk in the park, go rowing (he insists that they go in separate boats and race), play bocce or the board game the Settlers of Catan. Sundays are reserved for Asian cuisine. They usually take a two-week trip abroad in December. This year, they’re planning to visit China.

    Zuckerberg has found all his homes on Craigslist. His first place was a sparse one-bedroom apartment that a friend described as something like a “crack den.” The next apartment was a two-bedroom, followed by his current place, a two-story, four-bedroom house that he told me is “too big.” He rents. (“He’s the poorest rich person I’ve ever seen in my life,” Tyler Winklevoss said.) As we crossed the driveway, we spotted Chan, sitting on a chair in the back yard, a yellow highlighter in her hand, reading a textbook; she plans to be a pediatrician. There was a hammock and a barbecue grill nearby. Surprised, Zuckerberg approached her and rubbed her right shoulder. “I didn’t know you were going to be here,” he said. She touched his right hand and smiled.

    He walked into the house, which is painted in various shades of blue and beige, except for the kitchen, which is a vibrant yellow. Colors don’t matter much to Zuckerberg; a few years ago, he took an online test and realized that he was red-green color-blind. Blue is Facebook’s dominant color, because, as he said, “blue is the richest color for me—I can see all of blue.” Standing in his kitchen, leaning over the sink, he offered me a glass of water.

    He returned the conversation to the winter of 2004, describing how he and his friends “would hang out and go together to Pinocchio’s, the local pizza place, and talk about trends in technology. We’d say, ‘Isn’t it obvious that everyone was going to be on the Internet? Isn’t it, like, inevitable that there would be a huge social network of people?’ It was something that we expected to happen. The thing that’s been really surprising about the evolution of Facebook is—I think then and I think now—that if we didn’t do this someone else would have done it.”

    Zuckerberg, of course, did do it, and one of the reasons that he has held on to it is that money has never seemed to be his top priority. In 2005, MTV Networks considered buying Facebook for seventy-five million dollars. Yahoo! and Microsoft soon offered much more. Zuckerberg turned them all down. Terry Semel, the former C.E.O. of Yahoo!, who sought to buy Facebook for a billion dollars in 2006, told me, “I’d never met anyone—forget his age, twenty-two then or twenty-six now—I’d never met anyone who would walk away from a billion dollars. But he said, ‘It’s not about the price. This is my baby, and I want to keep running it, I want to keep growing it.’ I couldn’t believe it.”

    Looking back, Chan said she thought that the time of the Yahoo! proposal was the most stressful of Zuckerberg’s life. “I remember we had a huge conversation over the Yahoo! deal,” she said. “We try to stick pretty close to what our goals are and what we believe and what we enjoy doing in life—just simple things,” she said.

    Friends expect Chan and Zuckerberg to marry. In early September, Zuckerberg wrote on his Facebook page, “Priscilla Chan is moving in this weekend. Now we have 2x everything, so if you need any household appliances, dishes, glasses, etc please come by and take them before we give them away.”

    Facebook’s headquarters is a two-story building at the end of a quiet, tree-lined street. Zuckerberg nicknamed it the Bunker. Facebook has grown so fast that this is the company’s fifth home in six years—the third in Palo Alto. There is virtually no indication outside of the Bunker’s tenant. Upon walking in, however, you are immediately greeted by what’s called the Facebook Wall, playing off the virtual chalkboards users have on their profiles. One day in early August, the Wall was covered with self-referential posts. An employee, addressing the constant criticism of the site’s privacy settings, had written, “How do I delete my post??? Why don’t you care about my privacy? Why is the default for this app everyone??” Inside is a giant sea of desks—no cubicles, no partitions, just open space with small conference rooms named after bands (Run-DMC, New Edition, ZZ Top) and bad ideas (Knife at a Gunfight, Subprime Mortgage, Beacon—a controversial advertising system that Facebook introduced in 2007 and then scrapped).

    Zuckerberg’s desk is near the middle of the office, just a few steps away from his glass-walled conference room and within arm’s length of his most senior employees. Before arriving each morning, he works out with a personal trainer or studies Mandarin, which he is learning in preparation for the trip to China. Zuckerberg is involved in almost every new product and feature. His daily schedule is typically free from 2 P.M. to 6 P.M., and he spends that block of time meeting with engineers who are working on new projects. Debate is a hallmark of the meetings; at least a dozen of his employees pointed out, unprompted, what an “intense listener” Zuckerberg is. He is often one of the last people to leave the office. A photograph posted by a Facebook employee over Labor Day weekend showed Zuckerberg sitting at a long table in a conference room surrounded by other workers—all staring at their computers, coding away.

    In the early years, Facebook tore through a series of senior executives. “A revolving door would be an understatement—it was very unstable,” Breyer said. Within ten days of hiring an executive, Breyer told me, Zuckerberg would e-mail or call him and say that the new hire needed to get the boot. Things calmed down in March, 2008, when Zuckerberg hired Sheryl Sandberg, a veteran of Google who was the chief of staff for Lawrence Summers when he was Secretary of the Treasury. She joined Facebook as the company’s chief operating officer, and executives followed her from companies like eBay, Genentech, and Mozilla. A flood of former Google employees soon arrived, too.

    Meanwhile, however, most of Zuckerberg’s close friends, who worked for Facebook at the start, have left. Adam D’Angelo, who has been friends with Zuckerberg since their hacking and programming days at Exeter, teamed up with another former Facebook employee, Charlie Cheever, to start Quora.com, a social network that aggregates questions and answers on various topics. Chris Hughes, Zuckerberg’s Harvard roommate, left to join the Obama campaign and later founded the philanthropic site Jumo.com.

    In part, the exodus reflects the status that former Facebook employees have in the tech world. But the departures also point to the difficulty some people have working for Zuckerberg. It’s hard to have a friend for a boss, especially someone who saw the site, from its inception, as “A Mark Zuckerberg production”—the tag line was posted on every page during Facebook’s early days. “Ultimately, it’s ‘the Mark show,’ ” one of his closest friends told me.

    In late July, Facebook launched the beta version of Questions, a question-and-answer product that seems to be a direct competitor of Quora. To many people, the move seemed a vindictive attack on friends and former employees. In an interview, Cheever declined to comment, as did Matt Cohler, another friend who left the company, and who invested in Quora.

    Chris Cox, Facebook’s vice-president of product, said that Facebook Questions is not an attack on Quora. “We’ve been talking about questions being the future of the way people search for stuff, so it was a matter of time before we built it,” Cox told me. “Getting there first is not what it’s all about.” He added, “What matters always is execution. Always.”

    Zuckerberg’s ultimate goal is to create, and dominate, a different kind of Internet. Google and other search engines may index the Web, but, he says, “most of the information that we care about is things that are in our heads, right? And that’s not out there to be indexed, right?” Zuckerberg was in middle school when Google launched, and he seems to have a deep desire to build something that moves beyond it. “It’s like hardwired into us in a deeper way: you really want to know what’s going on with the people around you,” he said.

    In 2007, Zuckerberg announced that Facebook would become a “platform,” meaning that outside developers could start creating applications that would run inside the site. It worked. The social-game company Zynga—the maker of FarmVille and Mafia Wars—is expected to earn more than five hundred million dollars this year, most of it generated from people playing on Facebook. In 2008, Zuckerberg unveiled Facebook Connect, allowing users to sign onto other Web sites, gaming systems, and mobile devices with their Facebook account, which serves as a digital passport of sorts. This past spring, Facebook introduced what Zuckerberg called the Open Graph. Users reading articles on CNN.com, for example, can see which articles their Facebook friends have read, shared, and liked. Eventually, the company hopes that users will read articles, visit restaurants, and watch movies based on what their Facebook friends have recommended, not, say, based on a page that Google’s algorithm sends them to. Zuckerberg imagines Facebook as, eventually, a layer underneath almost every electronic device. You’ll turn on your TV, and you’ll see that fourteen of your Facebook friends are watching “Entourage,” and that your parents taped “60 Minutes” for you. You’ll buy a brand-new phone, and you’ll just enter your credentials. All your friends—and perhaps directions to all the places you and they have visited recently—will be right there.

    For this plan to work optimally, people have to be willing to give up more and more personal information to Facebook and its partners. Perhaps to accelerate the process, in December, 2009, Facebook made changes to its privacy policies. Unless you wrestled with a set of complicated settings, vastly more of your information—possibly including your name, your gender, your photograph, your list of friends—would be made public by default. The following month, Zuckerberg declared that privacy was an evolving “social norm.”

    The backlash came swiftly. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Privacy Information Center cried foul. Users revolted, claiming that Facebook had violated the social compact upon which the company is based. What followed was a tug-of-war about what it means to be a private person with a public identity. In the spring, Zuckerberg announced a simplified version of the privacy settings.

    I asked Zuckerberg about this during our walk in Palo Alto. Privacy, he told me, is the “third-rail issue” online. “A lot of people who are worried about privacy and those kinds of issues will take any minor misstep that we make and turn it into as big a deal as possible,” he said. He then excused himself as he typed on his iPhone 4, answering a text from his mother. “We realize that people will probably criticize us for this for a long time, but we just believe that this is the right thing to do.”

    Zuckerberg’s critics argue that his interpretation and understanding of transparency and openness are simplistic, if not downright naïve. “If you are twenty-six years old, you’ve been a golden child, you’ve been wealthy all your life, you’ve been privileged all your life, you’ve been successful your whole life, of course you don’t think anybody would ever have anything to hide,” Anil Dash, a blogging pioneer who was the first employee of Six Apart, the maker of Movable Type, said. Danah Boyd, a social-media researcher at Microsoft Research New England, added, “This is a philosophical battle. Zuckerberg thinks the world would be a better place—and more honest, you’ll hear that word over and over again—if people were more open and transparent. My feeling is, it’s not worth the cost for a lot of individuals.”

    Zuckerberg and I talked about this the first time I signed up for Facebook, in September, 2006. Users are asked to check a box to indicate whether they’re interested in men or in women. I told Zuckerberg that it took me a few hours to decide which box to check. If I said on Facebook that I’m a man interested in men, all my Facebook friends, including relatives, co-workers, sources—some of whom might not approve of homosexuality—would see it.

    “So what did you end up doing?” Zuckerberg asked.

    “I put men.”

    “That’s interesting. No one has done a study on this, as far as I can tell, but I think Facebook might be the first place where a large number of people have come out,” he said. “We didn’t create that—society was generally ready for that.” He went on, “I think this is just part of the general trend that we talked about, about society being more open, and I think that’s good.”

    Then I told Zuckerberg that, two weeks later, I removed the check, and left the boxes blank. A couple of relatives who were Facebook friends had asked about my sexuality and, at that time, at least, I didn’t want all my professional sources to know that I am gay.

    “Is it still out?” Zuckerberg asked.

    “Yeah, it’s still out.”

    He responded with a flat “Huh,” dropped his shoulders, and stared at me, looking genuinely concerned and somewhat puzzled. Facebook had asked me to publish a personal detail that I was not ready to share.

    In our last interview—this one over the phone—I asked Zuckerberg about “Ender’s Game,” the sci-fi book whose hero is a young computer wizard.

    “Oh, it’s not a favorite book or anything like that,” Zuckerberg told me, sounding surprised. “I just added it because I liked it. I don’t think there’s any real significance to the fact that it’s listed there and other books aren’t. But there are definitely books—like the Aeneid—that I enjoyed reading a lot more.”

    He first read the Aeneid while he was studying Latin in high school, and he recounted the story of Aeneas’s quest and his desire to build a city that, he said, quoting the text in English, “knows no boundaries in time and greatness.” Zuckerberg has always had a classical streak, his friends and family told me. (Sean Parker, a close friend of Zuckerberg, who served as Facebook’s president when the company was incorporated, said, “There’s a part of him that—it was present even when he was twenty, twenty-one—this kind of imperial tendency. He was really into Greek odysseys and all that stuff.”) At a product meeting a couple of years ago, Zuckerberg quoted some lines from the Aeneid.

    On the phone, Zuckerberg tried to remember the Latin of particular verses. Later that night, he IM’d to tell me two phrases he remembered, giving me the Latin and then the English: “fortune favors the bold” and “a nation/empire without bound.”

    Before I could point out how oddly applicable those lines might be to his current ambitions, he typed back:


    again though
    these are the most famous quotes in the aeneid
    not anything particular that i found.

    PHOTOGRAPH: CARLOS SERRAO
    Copyright. New Yorker Magazine. 2010  All Rights Reserved

    Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/09/20/100920fa_fact_vargas?printable=true#ixzz0zmPwyS5b

  • Monza mistake may cost championship - Lewis Hamilton

     

    McLaren's Lewis Hamilton makes contact with Ferrari's Felipe Massa

    Hamilton goes out on lap one in Monza (UK only)

    By Sarah Holt
    BBC Sport at Monza

    McLaren star Lewis Hamilton blamed himself for putting his title bid in jeopardy after crashing out of the Italian Grand Prix on the first lap.

    Hamilton retired at Monza after damaging his car when he tried to pass Felipe Massa's Ferrari, and as a result dropped to second in the championship.

    "It's not over," Hamilton told BBC Sport. "But it is mistakes like I made today that lose world championships.

    "I only have myself to blame and I am very disappointed in myself."

    A good start saw Hamilton gain a place from his grid position of fifth, but his eagerness to push further up the order cost him.

    McLaren's Lewis Hamilton

    Hamilton admits to 'mistake' on first lap

    His McLaren suffered front-suspension damage as he tried to squeeze past Massa at the second chicane.

    "I had a good start and in the realistic world I should perhaps have stayed there for a while," said Hamilton, the 2008 world champion.

    "I was just trying to position the car in a certain way, got too close to Felipe, he clipped my wheel and damaged the front of the car.

    "There was nothing I could do. It's a little bit of a shame and I apologise to my team."

    With five races left in a hotly-contested drivers' contest, another retirement is costly to Hamilton's quest for a second title.

    Red Bull's Mark Webber regained his championship lead after finishing sixth and is now five points ahead of Hamilton and 21 in front of Ferrari's Fernando Alonso, the winner of Sunday's Italian Grand Prix.

    Hamilton added: "My eyes aren't on Mark [Webber].

    "I really have to collect my thoughts and move on to the next race [in Singapore] to try and help the team collect as many points so either myself or Jenson [Button] can win the championship."

    You've got to make the best of your opportunities, so it wasn't the best day. We underperformed as a team and just sniffed around getting a few points.

    Mark Webber

    McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh was philosophical about Hamilton's retirement and predicts there will be many more twists as Formula 1 heads off on five long-haul races.

    "It was a racing incident," Whitmarsh told BBC Sport. "Lewis was pushing very, very hard and you have to do that.

    "It was disappointing but you have to rebuild from this.

    "It is business as normal. The championship is still tight and could go any way. It is epic; the best championship in history."

    Webber took advantage of Hamilton's error to move back into the championship lead, but the Red Bull driver was frustrated to finish in sixth place.

    Red Bull's Mark Webber

    Webber frustrated with Red Bull 'underperformance'

    "You've got to make the best of your opportunities, so it wasn't the best day," said the Australian.

    "We underperformed as a team and just sniffed around getting a few points."

    Hamilton's team-mate Button hauled himself back into contention for back-to-back world titles with second place in Monza.

    The defending champion is 22 points behind Webber with five races left, with only 24 points covering the top five drivers in the championship.

    Button charged ahead of Alonso at the start but lost out in the pit-stops as Alonso, who stopped one lap later, returned to the track ahead of the McLaren driver.

    "Jenson drove a fantastic race," Whitmarsh added. "He had the bottom of his rear-wing end plate munched off by Alonso [on lap one] but that wouldn't have helped the cause anyway, so we're not looking for excuses."

    Button explained: "I pitted before Alonso but, when I went out on harder tyres, I couldn't find any grip.

    "It's a difficult call but, without knowing all the details, I think it was the wrong call.

    McLaren's Jenson Button

    Button frustrated by lack of pace (UK only)

    "I've lost points from what I thought I was going to achieve. But it's still a very good result and I'm still only 22 points behind."

    Vettel, who finished fourth in Italy, was relieved to stay in the championship hunt.

    The German lost ground at the start, then ran wide at the first corner when he was hit from behind. Later, he lost more places when a glitch on his Red Bull slowed him momentarily.

    Vettel said: "It didn't look too good, but I had to wait and see what chances I might get and then use them.

    "It all worked so we can be proud of ourselves. I went flat-out and just tried to come back."

    Red Bull team principal Christian Horner said: "This was always about damage limitation. It's a great performance for us today - to take the lead in the drivers' championship [with Webber] and extend it in the constructors'.

    "Every proper team will be bringing a big update to the next race in Singapore. There's a few tracks that should play to our strengths, a few a bit more neutral, but nothing like here."



    Copyright B.B.C. Formula 1.com All Rights Reserved. 2010

  • Italian Grand Prix - Ferrari is back after phenomenal race at Monza

    Ferrari drivers Fernando Alonso and Felipe Massa delivered a phenomenal result for Scuderia Ferrari during their home Grand Prix at the Autodromo Nazionale di Monza in front of tens of thousands tifosi, the nickname for the Italian race fans. After the race the tifosi took possession of the start-finish straight, waving the red and yellow colored Ferrari flags to celebrate Alonso's third win of the season. Massa joined him on the third step of the podium, while Jenson Button attended the Italian festivities on behalf of McLaren after losing the lead to Alonso after his mandatory tyre pit stop. He was nevertheless content with his second place, as he knew he simply had not been able to match the relentless pace of Alonso's scarlet Ferrari during the second part of the race.

    See large picture
    Podium: race winner Fernando Alonso, Scuderia Ferrari, third place Felipe Massa, Scuderia Ferrari. Photo by

    Both Alonso and Button revived their hopes to win this year's Drivers' Championship, and Ferrari is now also back in the hunt for the Constructors' Championship. Alonso started his weekend well after, much to his own surprise, securing his first pole position for Ferrari on Saturday. Ferrari President Luca di Montezemolo was proud of the 18th win of his team at Monza. "This is a very special day for me, and one that involves contrasting and very strong emotions. There is the delight for such a great win, which I want to dedicate to all our fans. I am proud of what the Scuderia has done, both on the track this weekend and back in the factory: it is an extraordinary job."

    Magic Ferrari

    After taking the first 1-2 win of the season at Bahrain, Ferrari lost their magic touch, and were struggling to keep up with Red Bull Racing and McLaren. Their heavily criticized race in Germany gave them another 1-2 win, in Hungary Alonso and Massa were right behind the Red Bulls, but in Belgium the team lost their upwards momentum, Massa had to settle for fourth place, while Alonso retired from the race. But at Monza in front of their home crowd Ferrari did what they were expected to do: they reeled in the pole position and won the race.

    Ferrari didn't seem to be affected by the new FIA flexibility tests and the team took advantage of the problems McLaren and Red Bull encountered over the weekend. When the lights changed to green on race day, Alonso wasn't quite as quick off the line as Button and the McLaren driver managed to slip past him just before the Variante Rettifilio. "I got a reasonably good start, but Jenson's was definitely better and more effective. I tried to attack him at the first corner but I did not manage it and there were some very exciting moments, when I collided with him and with Felipe. I was worried there might be some damage, but fortunately everything was fine," Alonso reported after the race.

    Alonso was able to keep up with Button, but he could not find a way past him. His team at the pit wall worked out a strategy and when Button decided to pit, Alonso stayed out one more lap. When he pitted one lap later he rejoined the race just a few feet ahead of Button who immediately attacked him, but to no avail, the Spaniard defended his line and stayed ahead of Button. Alonso about his pit stop, "The pit stop was super: we gained the tenths that made the difference. Today, it was the mechanics who won the race and they produced a real miracle." Alonso was faster than Button on the hard tyres, and he slowly build up a gap to the McLaren and ultimately crossed the finish line 2.9 seconds ahead of Button.

    Massa made his pit stop on lap 38, and he rejoined the race behind Button. Massa was not 100 per cent satisfied with his stop, "The pit stop was not perfect and maybe the time lost there cost me second place." But the Brazilian was happy with his third place, "All race long the car worked very well and I was always competitive. All the same, it was really nice to be on the podium: seeing all the people underneath it was incredible, with the whole straight packed with fans. It was a special feeling, especially as I feel I am part Italian."

    Two-way strategy for McLaren

    Ahead of the race McLaren were not sure whether they would use the F-Duct at the high-speed Monza circuit, but after tests on Friday they decided not to put their money on just one horse, Button would race with the F-Duct, while Hamilton would race without it. Hamilton already regretted the decision after qualifying. "It would appear that we took the wrong route by running without the F-duct this weekend. I just didn't have the down force today, and the car was sliding in the corners -- I couldn't push any harder because the car just wouldn't give me any more."

    See large picture
    Start: Jenson Button, McLaren Mercedes passes Fernando Alonso, Scuderia Ferrari. Photo by

    Hamilton made a good start, but when he approached the Variante della Roggia he hit the Ferrari of Massa, his right front steering rod broke and only seconds later he ended his race in the gravel trap. Hamilton about his first lap exit, "I made a good start, gained a position, got up to fourth, and, at that moment, perhaps I should have just stayed there for a while. But I put my car up the inside of Felipe into Turn Four, trying to get third, and that was probably a little bit too much."

    Button was happy with his decision to use the F-Duct and he started the race from second position on the grid. His start was marginally better than Alonso's, and although Alonso hit him and damaged the McLaren's diffuser and left rear wing end plate, Button came out of the first chicane leading the race. The McLaren had more down force, while Alonso's Ferrari had more top speed and Button was worried about the Ferrari right behind him. "It was a very tough race mentally, and it was tricky holding off the challenge from behind. I spent the first half of the race either looking in my mirrors or at the TV screens to see where Fernando was."

    Button made his mandatory pit stop on lap 36, but lost the lead when Alonso made his stop one lap later and pulled out of the pit lane just ahead of him. Alonso kept the door shut and after that Button had no chance to overtake the Ferrari again. Although Button was happy with the result of the race, he had some doubts about the pit stop strategy, and was wondering whether his team had made the right call at the right time. Button after the race, "Maybe it was the wrong call to pit when we did, but the team felt the new prime tyres were faster than the options. But I couldn't find any grip on the new tyres, and lost a little bit of time on them."

    But team principal Martin Whitmarsh was adamant he made the right call and defended his decision. "The timing of pit stops is always an inexact science -- but, once we saw that Robert [Kubica] was immediately lapping quicker on prime tyres after his pit stop, we resolved to put Jenson on primes straight away. That was a logical and therefore sensible thing to do. It was incredibly close, and I'm sure it made edge-of-the-seat TV viewing, but on this occasion it went our opponents' way rather than our way. But that's racing."

    Red Bull in damage limitation mode

    During qualifying it became apparent Webber and Vettel were certainly not the fastest drivers on track, for the first time this season they were not able to dominate qualifying, and Red Bull decided to adapt the strategy of 'damage limitation'. The ramped up FIA flexibility tests have led to speculations Red Bull did have to make changes to the front wing and floor of the car, which in its turn could account for their lack of speed and mediocre performance at Monza.

    Webber again had a troublesome start, he experienced a lot of wheel spin as he started from the dirty side of the track, and lost five places. He then got stuck behind the Mercedes of Michael Schumacher. "I had a good scrap with Michael in the early laps, I got past him on lap six," Webber said after the race. Webber was now behind his team colleague Vettel but was able to pass him after Vettel slowed down and reported he had an engine problem.

    See large picture
    Nico Hulkenberg with Mark Webber behind him. Photo by

    Things really got frustrating for him when he tried to overtake Nico Hulkenberg in the Williams. Hulkenberg missed the first chicane at least three times and thus stayed ahead of Webber. "He was all over the place, but he was very difficult to pass because his Williams was quick in a straight line. We were convinced that he'd get a penalty for bolting the chicane too many times, and I understand that he got a warning from Charlie [Whiting, FIA race director], but he was never asked to relinquish his position," he said, making it clear he was not happy with the lack of action of the FIA Stewards.

    Webber knew Hamilton was out of the race, and he wanted to score as many points as possible, therefore he was not willing to risk everything to overtake Hulkenberg. But the Williams driver finally made a slight mistake and Webber passed him four laps before the end of the race. The Australian crossed the finish line in sixth position and scored six points and regained the lead in the Drivers' Championship.

    The race was disappointing for Vettel, after a bad start the lack of straight line speed hampered his attempts to overtake other competitors. On lap 19 Vettel reported his engine was 'dying on him' and he lost speed, but the Renault men in white in the back of the Red Bull garage determined there was nothing wrong with the engine, but all the same recommended an alternative engine setting. Vettel was able to continue his race, and even recorded the fastest lap time several times.

    A post-race investigation revealed one of the brakes had locked, which slowed him down for a few laps. The Bridgestone soft tyres lasted longer than expected, Vettel did 52 laps, almost 300 km, on his soft tyre compound before he made his mandatory stop during the very last lap of the race, he crossed the finish line one lap later in fourth position.

    FIA Stewards Report

    On Saturday during qualifying, Vitaly Petrov was given a 5-place grid penalty for impeding Timo Glock. The Stewards also investigated an incident involving Jaime Alguersuari and Schumacher, but decided the incident did not need further action. On Sunday during the race Alguersuari received a drive-through penalty for cutting a chicane and gaining advantage.

    After the race the Stewards investigated the pit stop of Sakon Yamamoto, and the HRT team was fined $20,000 for an unsafe release of Yamamoto after his pit stop. During the stop one of the mechanics checked the radio connection, but he wasn't finished when Yamamoto was given the nod to take off, the man was injured and taken by ambulance to the Medical Center for check-ups. According to the team he remained conscious and suffered no serious injuries, and HRT expects he will make a speedy recovery..

    The best of the rest: Rosberg, Kubica and Hulkenberg

    Both German Nicos did well at Monza, Rosberg again outclassed Schumacher and finished in fifth position and took over the seventh place in the Drivers' Championship from Kubica. Rosberg had a dream start and overtook both Red Bull cars, and after Hamilton had crashed, he finished the first lap in fourth position right behind Massa. He successfully kept the Renault of Robert Kubica behind him, he had an fairly uneventful race, but nevertheless had to work hard and later told he basically drove 53 qualifying laps to keep Kubica behind him. He pitted on lap 35, but lost his fourth position to Vettel. "Fifth place was an ok result today except for losing the place to Sebastian [Vettel] at the end there. It was a tough fight and I was pushing to the maximum throughout the race, firstly with Robert [Kubica] at the start and then with Sebastian towards the end," he said after the race.

    See large picture
    Excellent race for Nico Rosberg. Photo by .

    Renault's Kubica also had a good start, "I got a great start and passed Hulkenberg off the line, then the two Red Bulls in the first chicane. After Hamilton went off, I was running fifth at the end of the first lap, and from that point on I was managing the gap to Rosberg in front and Hulkenberg behind." He decided to stop a little earlier than the others and was immediately quicker on the hard tyre compound, but unfortunately for him, he lost two places right after his stop.

    "From my out lap I was at least a second quicker, but unfortunately we had a slow stop and lost a couple of seconds," the Pole explained. And continued, "That meant Hulkenberg came out of the pits level with me, and we were wheel-to-wheel under braking. He took a defensive line through the chicane, which meant Webber also got a run on me through turn three, so I lost two positions." Kubica finished in eighth position ahead of Schumacher and Rubens Barrichello.

    Hulkenberg outclassed his Williams team colleague Barrichello during qualifying and the race, during the start he lost one place, but regained two places in the first chicane. He was dicing with both Red Bull drivers all afternoon and furiously defended his sixth position. He gained one position when Kubica made his pit stop, but lost a place to Vettel after his pit stop, and then got into a memorable fight with Webber. Hulkenberg missed the first chicane several times, but was not punished for it, but Webber passed him after he made a small mistake. Hulkenberg, "It was made all the more difficult as I was struggling with the brake pedal, but it was an exciting afternoon of attacking and defending with great work in the pit stop, so I am pleased with the outcome."

    Still five races to go

    With now still five races to go, the complete top eight in the Drivers' Championship are still in the running for the title, but the last three of those eight, Massa, Rosberg and Kubica, in reality need a few major miracles and only still have a mathematical chance to win the title this year. The point of no return is approaching fast now, if one of the leaders in the championship makes a mistake, he could be out of contention for this year's title. Five Grands Prix are left on the calendar: Singapore, Japan, Korea, Brazil and Abu Dhabi.

    Korea will be unknown territory for all 12 teams, Japan and Brazil are circuits where Red Bull, McLaren and Ferrari have performed well and won races before. Singapore is an altogether different circuit, it is a high down force street circuit with very little overtaking opportunities, with tight corners and barriers close to the track, a circuit notoriously hard on the brakes, a race in the night under artificial light; it seems all ingredients are in place for yet another episode of this year's Formula One World Championship.


    Copyright.Autosport.com 2010. All Rights Reserved

  • John W. Kluge, Founder of Metromedia, Dies at 95

     


     


    September 8, 2010

    John W. Kluge, Founder of Metromedia, Dies at 95

    John W. Kluge, who parlayed a small fortune from a Fritos franchise into a multibillion-dollar communications empire that made him one of the richest men in America, died on Tuesday night at a family home in Charlottesville, Va. He was 95.

    The John W. Kluge Foundation confirmed his death.

    Mr. Kluge was the creator of Metromedia, the nation’s first major independent broadcasting entity, a conglomerate that grew to include seven television stations, 14 radio stations, outdoor advertising, the Harlem Globetrotters, the Ice Capades, radio paging and mobile telephones.

    An immigrant from Germany, Mr. Kluge (pronounced KLOOG-ee) came to the United States in 1922 and took his first job at the age of 10 as a payroll clerk for his stepfather in Detroit. He made his first million by the time he was 37.

    He made his first billion — it was actually almost two billion — in 1984, when he took Metromedia private in a $1.1 billion leveraged buyout and then liquidated the company, more than tripling his take.

    He sold the television stations, including WNEW in New York, for more than $2 billion to Rupert Murdoch, who was expanding his communications empire.

    Mr. Kluge’s sale of 11 radio stations brought close to $290 million. The outdoor advertising business went for $710 million. The Harlem Globetrotters and the Ice Capades, which together cost the company $6 million, brought $30 million.

    Critics complained that he had reaped the bonanza after having paid Metromedia’s stockholders too little when he took the company private. But Mr. Kluge maintained that the value of the company shot up afterward, when the Federal Communications Commission increased the number of television stations a company could own from seven to 12 and ruled that only two cellular telephone systems could operate in a given city.

    “That changed the price of poker,” he said.

    In 1986, Forbes magazine listed Mr. Kluge as the second-richest man in America (after Sam Walton, the founder of Wal-Mart Stores). By this year, after a bankruptcy of the Bennigan’s and Steak and Ale restaurant chains in 2008, Mr. Kluge had dropped to 109th on the Forbes list with a fortune of $6.5 billion.

    Mr. Kluge savored the chance to move into new areas of high technology. He had no patience for those he called “self-important corporation types cut out of the same cookie cutter” who tended to stick to what was safe. He often took Wall Street by surprise, but as the financial analyst Allen J. Gottesman said in 1986: “Whatever he does works out real well. You always assume there was a good reason, and you usually find out later that it was a good move.”

    Not everything he touched turned to gold. In 1965 he bought Diplomat magazine in Washington and tried to change it from a society sheet into a serious publication of world affairs. “I lost a million dollars before I ever knew I lost it,” he said.

    Three years later he negotiated a proposed $300 million merger of Metromedia with Transamerica only to join in calling off the deal “by mutual consent” in a two-paragraph statement months later, saying a merger would “adversely effect” the growth plans of both companies.

    But he never lost his zest for developing new businesses or his taste for complex financial deals.

    “I love the work because it taxes your mind,” he said in an interview for this obituary, one of the few he ever gave, after he turned 72. “Years ago, I could have taken a few million dollars and joined the country club and gotten into this pattern of complaining about the world and about the tax law.”

    He was critical of corporation executives who put themselves in the limelight. There were no public relations officers on his payroll. He liked to do business behind an unmarked door.

    “I think a great deal of publicity becomes an obstacle,” he said. “I’d love to be in the woodwork all my life. I enjoy it when I know who the other people are and they don’t know who I am.”

    But it was inevitable that people would come to know who he was, first in the business world as the man with the Midas touch and then as a generous contributor to schools and hospitals.

    In his later years his name appeared in the society columns as the host for charity parties that he and his third wife, Patricia, gave on their yacht, the Virginian, or as a guest at dinner dances. (He had taught dancing at an Arthur Murray studio when he was in college.) He grew flowers and collected paintings, African sculpture and Indian, Chinese, Greek and Egyptian objets d’art.

    But nothing gave him more pleasure than putting a deal together. And the creation of Metromedia, considered a triumph of financial structuring, may have been his greatest pleasure of all.

    The most satisfying day in his life, he said, was the day Barney Balaban of Paramount told him, “Young man, you bring me $4 million and you’ll be able to have the Paramount stock in the Metropolitan Broadcasting Company.”

    With that $4 million, Mr. Kluge got into the television business as chief executive of Metropolitan, which consisted of two stations — WNEW and, in Washington, WTTG — and two radio stations. He renamed the company Metromedia in 1961 because he intended to expand it beyond broadcasting.

    Mr. Kluge held to a simple maxim: make money and minimize taxes. He made it his business to study the tax code. In 1981, for example, he received tax benefits when he bought buses and subway cars from New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority and leased them back to the authority for a tax savings of $50 million over five years.

    He also found a way to enhance the company’s revenue by marrying the profits of broadcasting to the depreciation that came with billboard advertising.

    “I sold the banks the idea that the Ford Motor Company that advertises on radio and television would also advertise on billboards,” he recalled. “From a financial orientation, if you took the pretax profits of radio and television and the depreciation of outdoor advertising, you increase the cash flow. I impressed the bank so much that I borrowed $14 million and got our money back in 27 months.”

    John Werner Kluge was born Sept. 21, 1914, in Chemnitz, Germany. His father died in World War I. After his mother remarried, John was brought to America by his German-American stepfather to live in Detroit. The stepfather, Oswald Leitert, put him to work as a boy in the family contracting business.

    Mr. Kluge said he left home when he was 14 to live in the house of a schoolteacher. “I was driven to have an education.”

    He worked hard, and successfully, to lose his foreign accent and to get the grades he needed in high school to win a scholarship to college. He first attended Detroit City College, which was later renamed Wayne State University, and transferred to Columbia University when he was offered a full scholarship and living expenses.

    At college he distributed Communist literature. “I was never an official member of the Communist Party, but I was quite liberal,” he said many years later. But what got him in trouble was his card playing. At one point the dean called him in to warn that he was in danger of losing his scholarship.

    “I told him, ‘Dean, you will never catch me gambling again,’ ” he later recalled, “and it was then that I realized the dean of Columbia University didn’t understand the English language. I had told him he’d never catch me gambling again.”

    Mr. Kluge later channeled his fondness for gambling into high-stakes finance. “I don’t really get comfortable when I haven’t got something at risk,” he said. Even as a billionaire twice over, he borrowed money to leverage his next ventures.

    Mr. Kluge graduated from Columbia in 1937 and went to work for a small paper company in Detroit. Within three years he went from shipping clerk to vice president and part owner.

    After serving in Army intelligence in World War II, he turned to broadcasting and, with a partner, created the radio station WGAY in Silver Spring, Md., in 1946. “It cost us $90,000,” he recalled. “I went up and down the street on Georgia Avenue in Silver Spring to get investors.”

    In the 1950s he acquired radio stations in St. Louis, Dallas, Fort Worth, Buffalo, Tulsa, Nashville, Pittsburgh and Orlando, Fla. Meanwhile, he invested in real estate and expanded the New England Fritos corporation, which he had founded in 1947 to distribute Fritos and Cheetos in the Northeast, adding Fleischmann’s yeast, Blue Bonnet margarine and Wrigley’s chewing gum to his distribution network.

    In 1951 he formed a food brokerage company, expanding it in 1956 in a partnership with David Finkelstein, and augmented his fortune selling the products of companies like General Foods and Coca-Cola to supermarket chains.

    Mr. Kluge served on the boards of numerous companies, including Occidental Petroleum, Orion Pictures, Conair and the Waldorf-Astoria Corporation, as well as many charitable groups, including United Cerebral Palsy.

    His philanthropy was prodigious. About a half-billion dollars went to Columbia alone, mainly for scholarships for needy and minority students. One gift, of $400 million, was to be given to the university by his estate when he died.

    Mr. Kluge also contributed to the restoration of Ellis Island and in 2000 gave $73 million to the Library of Congress, which established the Kluge Prize for the Study of Humanities.

    Mr. Kluge and his third wife, the former Patricia Rose Gay, lived in a Georgian-style house on a 6,000-acre farm near Charlottesville called Albemarle House. He had another home in New Rochelle, N.Y., on Long Island Sound, and an apartment in Manhattan, where he kept much of his modern art collection, including works by Giacometti, Kenneth Noland, Frank Stella and Fernando Botero. He traveled to his houses in his plane and helicopter.

    Mr. Kluge became acquainted with the woman who would become his third wife at parties when she was in her mid-20s and he was about 60. “At one party,” he said, “she cooked the dinner and then she did a belly dance on the table and I said to myself, ‘Where have I been all my life?’ ”

    A small scandal erupted in 1985 when Mrs. Kluge was chairwoman of a charity ball in Palm Beach, Fla., attended by Charles and Diana, the prince and princess of Wales. The British press disclosed that a nude photograph of Mrs. Kluge had been published a decade before in a British magazine called Knave, which was owned by her first husband. To avoid embarrassment, the Kluges were traveling abroad on the night of the ball.

    Their marriage ended in divorce in 1991, and Mrs. Kluge received a big settlement as well as the Virginia estate. He married again, to Maria Tussi Kuttner, who survives him.

    Mr. Kluge is also survived by his son, John W. Kluge II; a daughter, Samantha Kluge, from his second marriage, to Yolanda Galardo Zucco; a stepson, Joseph Brad Kluge, whom he adopted; and a grandson. His first wife was Theodora Thomson Townsend.

    A convert to Roman Catholicism when he married his third wife, Mr. Kluge said he often went to church. He had planned to be buried in a crypt in a chapel he built on the grounds of Albemarle, but later changed his mind after the house was awarded to his third wife in the divorce.

    Mr. Kluge acknowledged that he had been ruled by his ambitions and traced them to the struggles of his boyhood. He recalled a conversation he had with friends in college about their aspirations. “One fellow said he wanted to be a lawyer, another a doctor,” he said. “I said one thing — that the only reason I wanted money was that I was always afraid of being a charity case and of being a ward someplace. That’s what really drove me all my life.”

    Copyright. New York Times Company. 2010. All Rights Reserved


  • Ferrari Preview for Italian Grand Prix at Monza.

    Monza

    , a special place for a special race

    This weekend's fourteenth round of the Formula 1 World Championship takes place in the historic Royal Park in Monza, one of the most beautiful and charismatic venues on the calendar. The Italian Grand Prix will be making its sixtieth visit to the famous track, although it is the sixty first running of the race, which moved to the Imola circuit just once, back in 1980. Scuderia Ferrari last won in Monza back in 2006 courtesy of Michael Schumacher, although the Prancing Horse has been first past the post here a total of seventeen times. Among the many notable victories, perhaps the most emotional came in 1988: in a season when one team won all the other races, the Monza fans witnessed Gerhard Berger and Michele Alboreto take a memorable one-two, shortly after the death of company founder, Enzo Ferrari. Phil Hill's 1960 victory for the Scuderia was also significant on the technical front as it was the last time that a front-engined Formula 1 car was first past the chequered flag.

    Naturally, as the home race, this weekend has a special significance for Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro and its "tifosi", but national pride aside there are more prosaic reasons why this is an important moment in the season: with only six races to go, the Scuderia needs to return to the top form it demonstrated in the races leading up to the summer break if it is to have a realistic chance of aiming for the championship titles.

    Monza has played a significant role in the history of motor sport, but if there is one thing it is famous for above all, it is its high speed nature, with the 2003 Italian Grand Prix holding the record for the fastest ever average race speed, at 247.585 km/h, while the 1971 event boasted the closest ever finish in the history of Formula 1, when Peter Gethin beat Ronnie Peterson by just one hundredth of a second. Back then the track layout was extremely simple, with five corners linked by fast straights. Today, safety concerns mean that chicanes have reduced top speeds, putting a premium on a car's brakes as much as its engine power, although the cars still run with minimum aero downforce, the most obvious example of which are the small wings that make their only appearance of the year here. With these unique characteristics in mind, everyone at the Gestione Sportiva has been working flat out to optimise the "Monza specification" of the F10. The starting point was to analyse the precise reasons for the performance drop-off noticed in Spa-Francorchamps a fortnight ago and the engineers now understand what caused the hiatus in the good form shown in the races just prior to the summer break. Furthermore, the team's third driver, Giancarlo Fisichella spent a day carrying out straight line aero testing at the Vairano facility last week, to validate the engineers' conclusions and to evaluate elements specifically aimed at Monza. Meanwhile, race drivers Fernando Alonso and Felipe Massa spent time at the factory, in meetings and on the simulator.

    Inevitably, in a season as closely contested as this one, it will be difficult to evaluate just how successful has been the work carried out prior to Friday's free practice sessions: even more so given the cars run in a different configuration to that seen at any other venue on the calendar. However, past showings this year at circuits that share some of Monza's characteristics -- Montreal and Sakhir for example, with the need for stability under hard braking at the end of long straights and the ability to ride the kerbs -- would indicate that the F10 should return to top form this weekend. Doing well this weekend is uppermost in the Scuderia's thoughts, given that the vast majority of the crowd in the grandstands will be cheering for the Prancing Horse and many of the Gestione staff and their families will be in the crowd. But in the harsh reality of modern motor sport, there is pressing need for Felipe and Fernando to bring home as many points as possible, because with five races remaining after this weekend, failure to do so will seriously jeopardise any hopes of lifting a championship trophy on Sunday night in Abu Dhabi in mid-November.

    -source: ferrari

     

    Copyright Motorsport.com 2010. All Rights Reserved

  • Max’s Kansas City was never supposed to be the birthplace of New York rock.

    Accidental Mythology

    Max’s Kansas City was never supposed to be the birthplace of New York rock.


    From left, Paul Morrissey, Andy Warhol, Janis Joplin, and Tim Buckley at Max's on March 8, 1968, after the opening night of the Fillmore East theater.   

    Nothing made sense about Max’s Kansas City. In the first place, there was no Max. (The poet Joel Oppenheimer, a friend of the club’s owner, Mickey Ruskin, made him up.) It had nothing to do with Kansas City, except that it served steaks. And then there was the location: on a colorless stretch of Park Avenue South office buildings near 17th Street, with no street life, barely any residents, and zero cachet. Ruskin, a journeyman restaurateur, had wanted to open a bar for his downtown artist and poet friends, like Donald Judd and Larry Poons, and the place—a lunch joint called the Southern Restaurant—was vaguely near the Village, and he could afford it, and that was that. Max’s opened on December 6, 1965.

    What happened next was one of those peculiar chemical reactions that occur once per nightlife generation, and you can see it fizz and sparkle in the pages of Steven Kasher’s new photo collection, Max’s Kansas City: Art, Glamour, Rock and Roll. Poons and Judd started dropping by right away and traded art for food. (The artwork—a Judd sculpture over the bar, Dan Flavin fluorescence overhead—would eventually pay off far better than the restaurant business.) Pretty soon, Andy Warhol started coming in. He wasn’t quite the megastar yet, just a well-known artist who’d sit in the back room at a table full of friends. Some of them were rock stars, and in the coming months, Ruskin would routinely seat people like the Rolling Stones’ Brian Jones without recognizing them. The Velvet Underground and the New York Dolls played on the small stage upstairs, becoming regular presences, followed by many others, including a youngster named Bruce Springsteen in 1972. Within a few years, the clientele was an encyclopedia of what we now think of as downtown cool: Debbie Harry, John Waters, Iggy Pop, various Ramones, even more various transvestites. The Warholian merger of art and celebrity, of high culture and low, already gassed up and ready to go, took off in this unprepossessing couple of rooms. Even the wait staff’s uniforms were a predictor: Ruskin had everyone wear black.

    It couldn’t last, of course. Like the Cedar Tavern before it and a hundred other clubs afterward, Max’s soon attracted not just bright creative lights but their hangers-on, driving away the stars. Max’s went bankrupt in 1974, and Ruskin sold the name and the space. After a few years under new management, the space at 213 Park Avenue South eventually ended up housing a Korean deli. Ruskin opened a couple of other successful places (like Kipling’s Last Resort on University Place) before his death at 50 in 1983. He was smart enough, though, to grasp that Max’s had been a once-in-a-lifetime lightning strike. The new book includes a previously unpublished interview the rock journalist and talent manager Danny Fields did with Ruskin in 1974. When Fields asks him to offer advice for aspiring restaurateurs, Ruskin says, “There is no Santa Claus, but there may be an Andy Warhol.”

    Max’s Kansas City: Art, Glamour, Rock and Roll
    By Steven Kasher
    Abrams Image
    Sept. 1. $24.95.

     

    Copyright.New York Magazine.2010 All Rights Reserved

  • Some Newspapers, Tracking Readers Online, Shift

    Daniel Rosenbaum for The New York Times

    The Washington Post newsroom displays traffic data. Raju Narisetti, a managing editor, said it helped to decide where to cut staff.

    September 5, 2010

    Some Newspapers, Tracking Readers Online, Shift

    In most businesses, not knowing how well a particular product is performing would be almost unthinkable. But newspapers have always been a peculiar business, one that has stubbornly, proudly clung to a sense that focusing too much on the bottom line can lead nowhere good.

    Now, because of technology that can pinpoint what people online are viewing and commenting on, how much time they spend with an article and even how much money an article makes in advertising revenue, newspapers can make more scientific decisions about allocating their ever scarcer resources.

    Such data has never been available with such specificity and timeliness. The reader surveys that newspapers relied on for decades took months to produce, often leaving editors with stale data.

    Looking to the public for insight on how to cover a topic is never comfortable for newsrooms, which have the deeply held belief that readers come to a newspaper not only for its information but also for its editorial judgment. But many newsrooms now seem to be re-examining that idea and embracing, albeit cautiously, a more democratic approach to serving up the news, particularly online.

    “How can you say you don’t care what your customers think?” asked Alan Murray, who oversees online news at The Wall Street Journal. “We care a lot about what our readers think. But our readers also care a lot about our editorial judgment. So we’re always trying to balance the two.”

    Editors at The Journal, like those at other large newspapers, follow the Web traffic metrics closely. The paper’s top editors begin their morning news meetings with a rundown of data points, including the most popular search terms on WSJ.com, which articles are generating the most traffic and what posts are generating buzz on Twitter.

    At The Washington Post, a television screen with an array of data — the number of unique visitors to washingtonpost.com, how many articles those visitors view and where on the Web those visitors came from — is on display for the entire newsroom. A red or green marker designates each data point, indicating whether the Web site’s goal for the month on that particular metric has been met. About 120 people in The Post’s newsroom get an e-mail each day laying out how the Web site performed in the closely watched metrics — 46 in all.

    Rather than corrupt news judgment by causing editors to pander to the most base reader interests, the availability of this technology so far seems to be leading to more surgical decisions about how to cover a topic so it becomes more appealing to an online audience.

    The Post, which provided extensive coverage of the recent elections in Britain online and in its print editions, found that online readers were not particularly interested in the topic. One of the five most viewed items on The Post’s Web site in the last year, in fact, was not a political project at all but a piece on Crocs, the popular foam footwear. Editors attributed that to Yahoo, which linked to the article.

    But that did not translate into more Croc coverage. And coverage of the British elections was not scaled back.

    Raju Narisetti, The Post’s managing editor overseeing online operations, said he saw reader metrics as a tool to help him better determine how to use online resources.

    “We ask, ‘What can we do online to make it more attractive?” ’ Mr. Narisetti said. “Can we do podcasts? Can we do a photo gallery? Can we do any kind of user-generated content?”

    He said the data has proved highly useful in today’s world of shrinking newsroom budgets. Mr. Narisetti said that when he had to reduce his staff last year, he looked at what kind of content was not performing well with readers. He discovered that long-form video had a low audience, so he reduced that department by a couple of people.

    At The Journal, editors use traffic data to inform decisions on how articles should be presented on WSJ.com. “We look at the data, and if things are getting a lot of hits, they’ll get better play and longer play on the home page,” said Mr. Murray. Conversely, articles getting low audiences will be moved down more quickly if there is no compelling news reason to keep them prominent.

    But Mr. Murray explained that the data was not always used as a blunt tool. In the case of a rather dry business development last month involving the Potash Corporation, the Canadian fertilizer maker, Journal editors decided to prominently display articles on the subject despite very low traffic numbers.

    “We didn’t put it there because it was going to be a big traffic getter. We put it there because it’s big important news in the business world,” Mr. Murray said.

    The New York Times does not use Web metrics to determine how articles are presented, but it does use them to make strategic decisions about its online report, said Bill Keller, the executive editor. “We don’t let metrics dictate our assignments and play,” he said, “because we believe readers come to us for our judgment, not the judgment of the crowd. We’re not ‘American Idol.’ ”

    Mr. Keller added that the paper would, for example, use the data to determine which blogs to expand, eliminate or tweak.

    As newspaper Web sites use technology to learn more about readers’ habits, they are also developing new ways to persuade readers to tell them more about what they want. The Los Angeles Times features what it calls a “personality quiz” for readers on its Web site. The feature adds a spin to the personalization options that Web sites have offered for the last few years with a 17-question test that asks readers things like “What does success mean to you?” and has them pick from 12 photos. A few options include images of a wedding, a gleaming sports car and a man embracing a peasant child.

    At the end of the quiz, readers are assigned a personality type like “dynamo,” who, as the quiz explains, is someone “always seeking new adventures that broaden your horizons and take you out of your comfort zone.” A customized news feed then appears each time a reader visits the Web site from the same computer.

    “It helps me understand the readers in a way that I can’t with just the metrics,” said Sean Gallagher, managing editor for online operations at The Los Angeles Times, explaining that he now pairs sports articles with food articles because surveys have shown a correlation.

    As the technology advances and allows papers to look more deeply at performance metrics, newsrooms may find that there is just some data they would rather not know.

    At a recent meeting with the top online editors of The Los Angeles Times, a consulting group that helps media companies enhance profits from their Web sites pitched new software that it said could change the industry. The newsroom would be able to know how much money — down to the penny — each of its articles online was making when readers clicked on ads.

    “I could see a business case for it,” said Mr. Gallagher, who hastened to add, “I don’t agree with that business case.”

    Software developers acknowledge that the questions can be difficult as newspapers try to reinvent their business models. But they say the dialogue is ultimately constructive.

    “By having this data and making it available, we’re spurring the conversations to take place,” said Tim Ruder, chief revenue officer for Perfect Market, the company that developed the tracking software for ad clicks. “And it’s especially healthy to have those conversations in the context of experience and not in an abstract way.”


    Copyright. New York Times Company. 2010 All Rights Reserved


     

  • Manila begins hostage crisis probe

    Three-day investigation into deaths of eight Hong Kong tourists on a bus begins in Philippines.
    Last Modified: 03 Sep 2010 06:44 GMT

    Authorities have been criticised for their handling of the hostage crisis in Manila [AFP]

    Authorities in the Philippines have begun a three-day inquiry into a botched hostage rescue operation in which eight Hong Kong tourists were killed in the capital, Manila.

    Leila de Lima, the Philippine justice secretary who is heading the probe, launched the proceedings on Friday, summoning Rico Puno, the country's undersecretary of the department of interior.

    Puno, the highest ranking official being asked to testify so far, admitted to several mistakes that led to the tourists' deaths during the 11-hour hostage standoff on August 23.

    He told the inquiry panel that he had not been prepared for the situation, which began when sacked Philippine policeman Rolando Mendoza hijacked a tourist bus in Manila.

    "I am not capable in handling hostage situations," Puno said.

    "I am not trained to do that. I do not have the experience to handle hostage negotiations."

    'Little hope'

    The hostage drama was played out on television screens around the world and ended in a botched rescue attempt in which Mendoza was also killed.

    Police eventually killed the hostage taker
    in the 11-hour crisis [Getty]

    The deaths of the Hong Kong tourists triggered public outrage over the mishandling of the crisis and investigations into whether the hostages were killed by Mendoza or by police weapons.

    Puno told the inquiry on Friday that crisis management authorities had decided against ordering police snipers to shoot Mendoza in an attempt to save the lives of everyone on board the bus.

    Alan Robles, the editor of the online news bulletin Hot Manila, told Al Jazeera: "Listening to this hearing ... there is something wrong with the values of the officials.

    "Because when they learnt of the hostage situation they didn't humour the hostage taker's demands or when they had the chance to shoot him they didn't take the chance because they didn’t want to put other people in danger.

    "It is a true Philippines tradition when there is a disaster or catastrophe and no one pays for it. So there is not much hope here."

    Siege re-enactment

    The chaotic final moments of the hostage siege will be re-enacted as part of the investigation into the tragedy.

    Among those who will help reconstruct the event is the Filipino driver of the seized bus who dramatically escaped from the vehicle's window moments before the assault by police commandos.

    De Lima said the re-enactment would take place on Monday, when authorities also intended to wrap up the investigation before submitting a detailed report to president Benigno Aquino.

    The Philippine government has admitted to making a number of errors in its handling of the crisis, which has dented relations between authorities in Hong Kong and China and the Philippines.

    Tensions were further strained this week when three coffins used to bring back some of the dead tourists were mislabelled.

    The mix-up was discovered on Thursday after the family of one victim went to a Hong Kong mortuary to identify their dead relative only to find the coffin contained the body of another victim of the hijacking.

    Source:
    Al Jazeera and agencies

  • Details of US GP's Austin track lay-out revealed

     

    Racing series  F1
    Date 2010-09-02

    By Berthold Bouman - Motorsport.com



    The organizers of the Formula One United States Grand Prix have released detailed plans of the circuit which will be built on a site located southeast of Austin-Bergstrom International Airport in Texas. The promoter of the race, Full Throttle Productions LP, will host the race from 2012 to 2021 and chairman of the Formula 1 United States Grand Prix, Tavo Hellmund, was pleased with the circuit lay-out.

    See large picture
    Formula 1 United States Grand Prix race track revealed. Photo by Full Throttle Productions LP.

    In the press release Hellmund said, "In the modern era of Grand Prix racing, I think this track layout and topography will be very special." The 3.4 mile (5.7 km) long circuit runs anti-clockwise, has 20 turns and an elevation change of 133 feet (40.5 meters). It has a long straight of approximately three-quarters of a mile (1,200 meters), the track itself will be between 39 and 52 feet wide. The circuit has been designed by German architect Hermann Tilke.

    According to Hellmund the estimated top speed on the new circuit will be around 200 mph. "It will have many of the elements of previous 'classic' circuits combined with the benefits of FIA-mandated safety for the competitors and spectators alike," Hellmund said. "Add in the amenities fans have come to expect, like rare, multiple-turn viewing opportunities for added value, and you have an ideal, world-class venue."

    The press release also stated the circuit 'combines modern features with details reminiscent of traditional races from the 1960's'. Hellmund is adamant the circuit is not just another Hermann Tilke circuit: "In the modern era of Grand Prix racing, I think this track layout and topography will be very special."

    "For the competitors, we'll have all the ingredients necessary," Hellmund added. "You'll see fast turns that require commitment from the drivers and technical turns that will test the engineers from a set-up point of view. We have a good deal of elevation to make it not only scenic but challenging also, and the view of downtown Austin is wonderful as well."

    In an interview with the Austin-American Statesman, Hellmund said he expects Turn One, which is also the highest point of the circuit, will become the 'signature corner' of the circuit and he believes it will be one of the four corners which will give drivers the best opportunity for overtaking. "Everybody will pull out and probably go three-wide into that braking turn."

    Hellmund also defended the German Tilke GmbH company, because many fans and drivers feel the design of the Tilke circuits is responsible for the lack of overtaking opportunities in modern Formula One, and said the the design of modern Formula One cars is to blame for the lack of overtaking maneuvres, rather than the design of the circuit: "They [the cars] are so on the ragged edge that it's hard to pass."

    See large picture
    Formula 1 United States Grand Prix race track revealed. Photo by Full Throttle Productions LP.

    The sections 3,4,5 and 6 have been designed to resemble the famous Maggots-Becketts corners at the British Silverstone circuit, while sections 12, 13, 14 and 15 will have 'the feel of the Hockenheimring in Germany.' Turns 16,17 and 18 were inspired by Turn 8 at the Istanbul circuit in Turkey, and according to Hellmund they will be 'similar to one gigantic turn'.

    The circuit will offer a good vantage point for spectators, due to the changes in elevation which will serve as natural grandstands. "The most essential thing is that has to be a masterpiece in its suitability for fans. Spectators have to be able to see large parts of the track from wherever they are," commented Hellmund.

    The circuit can accommodate up to 140,000 spectators; there is room for 20,000 spectators on the main grandstand at the start/finish line, and another 50,000 spectators will find a seat on the other grandstands. The plans also include a Medical Center, a Media Center, a Broadcast Center and apart from the pit building, also special team buildings.

    The costs for building the track itself are estimated around $220 million dollar, while the organizers expect the Grand Prix will bring the state of Texas between $200 million and $400 million per year. McCombs Enterprises, the investment management division for McCombs Partners, will be the main investor of this project.

    Copyright.Motorsport.com 2010 All Rights Reserved