Hasta La Gadget!

Surfers are celebrating a major win after a California court ruled against a Silicon Valley billionaire who had tried to deny public beach access near his private property.

Judge Barbara Mallach of San Mateo Superior Court ruled Wednesday that Vinod Khosla, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, violated the California Coastal Act when he closed off a road on his property that area locals have used for decades to access Martin’s Beach, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The lawsuit was filed by environmental nonprofit Surfrider in 2013 after surfers complained that Khosla had padlocked a gate leading to the popular beach spot, covered signs that directed the public to the beach and hired security guards to deter trespassers.

According to Joe Cotchett, attorney for the Surfrider Foundation, the ruling represents a victory for the 99 percent, saying in a press release that “It affirms that great wealth cannot be used to circumvent and ignore the law. Everyone can again visit Martin’s Beach.”

The fight over this particular beach access, which is only an hour from Silicon Valley, seems to have added to tensions between locals and the influx of wealthy people who are buying property in the area.

“It’s the issue of the growing gap between the very wealthy versus everyone else, and this sort of captures it in a snapshot,” John Teshy, who teaches at the University of California, Hastings law school, told the Los Angeles Times. “High-tech billionaires are kind of gods in California, and it has that framework to make it all very interesting and newsworthy, but in terms of law, you have to get down to the particular facts.”

Here are the facts: The gate that Khosla padlocked (which can easily be walked over) is located just off California Highway 1 and is the only way to access the public beach from land. Local surfers and beachgoers prize the beach, which is protected by rocky cliffs on both sides, because of its seclusion. For decades, previous property owners have charged a small parking fee and kept the private road open to the public.

Khosla bought the 53-acre property for $32.5 million in 2008 and kept the beach open to the public for two years despite the fact that he was paying $500,000 to $600,000 a year in maintenance costs and liability insurance.

In 2010, after receiving county court orders — which he believed were unfair — to keep the beach access open 24/7 and charge visitors $2 for parking, Khosla ordered his property manager to close the gate permanently.

Then, in 2012, a group of five local surfers known as “Martin’s 5” were arrested on charges of trespassing after crossing over the gate to go surfing. Despite video footage, the case was eventually dismissed after the District Attorney claimed there was insufficient evidence.

Now that Khosla has been ordered to open the gate to the public (Mallach ruled that he had no right to deny access without first obtaining a Coastal Development Permit), many locals and even some tourists have flocked to enjoy the beautiful beach.

“We love the fact that the beaches in California belong to everybody,” Nikki Toth, a visitor from Arkansas who heard of the rulings and brought her kids to the beach, told the San Francisco Chronicle. “This is a great opportunity for them to learn the story of public access firsthand.”

Martin’s 5: Battle for the Beach from The Inertia on Vimeo.

Lifetime’s Aaliyah biopic has undergone quite a bit of changes and controversy over the past few months. First, Zendaya dropped out of the lead role, which she later revealed was because of the movie’s production value and issues with the music rights. Nickelodeon star Alexandra Shipp replaced Zendaya and then the late R&B singer’s family voiced their reservations and issues with the film. Yet production has continued moving forward and now we have our first look at it.

Lifetime posted a short teaser of the movie, titled “Aaliyah: The Princess of R&B,” to their Facebook page on Friday. In it, Shipp dances in baggy camo pants, Timberlands and a sports bra — a signature Aaliyah look. Check out the promo below:

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1”; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));

“Aaliyah: The Princess of R&B” premieres on Saturday, Nov. 15 at 8 p.m. ET on Lifetime.

Need more mobile data? Between September 28th and October 31st, AT&T will double the data on its shared family & friends plans. 15 through 50GB plans now ring in at 30 to 100GB per month for the same price—but only if you lock in a new or updated plan during the promotion [AT&T via Engadget]

Read more…

Fundraising appeals to help the world’s poor usually focus on compelling causes that tug on our heartstrings, such as sending children to school or feeding them nutritious meals. It is harder to build a compelling case for “improved data collection.” Yet, health, education, microfinance and land titling programs all depend on high-quality data to improve the lives of poor people.

The U.N. General Assembly is considering the Sustainable Development Goals, a blueprint to guide its efforts to meet the needs of the world’s poorest. Included in those goals, is a call for higher quality data that is broken down in a number of ways such as gender, age, race, and ethnicity. Some leading institutions, like the Copenhagen Consensus Center, have questioned the need for better data and specifically the need for better data broken down by sex claiming “we already have sufficiently available gender disaggregated data,” and the cost of any additional data of this kind is “too high relative to any potential benefit.” They are wrong on both counts.

In the past, policy makers and development professionals mainly relied on highly aggregated data — national-level statistics, or averages taken across large groups. But averages across groups often hide gaps in which the needs of some individuals or sub-groups are not being met. For instance, national school enrollment rates may hide the fact that the rates differ markedly for boys and girls, or for rural and urban communities.

While some data broken down by sex are available in the realms of nutrition and schooling, for many topics, gender disaggregated data are simply unavailable. A recent study on women’s land ownership for example, found that only one-third of African countries have any data on women’s land ownership based on nationally representative or large sample surveys. The lack of data leads to the perpetuation of unfounded claims that are repeatedly referenced and exert profound influence on the agendas of development organizations.

Land is not the only asset for which data are scarce. Many development projects rely on mobile phones to disseminate information on health, agriculture, or business management. But if women lack access to mobile phones, these projects may inadvertently disadvantage them. Currently, the Cherie Blair Foundation estimates that women in low- and middle-income countries are 21 percent less likely than men to own a mobile phone. But this estimate is based on limited information, because there is no systematic data on mobile phone ownership.

One reason that the Copenhagen Consensus does not want to promote the collection of additional gender-disaggregated data is because they believe that it is not possible or cost-effective to identify the owners of assets within households. Yet, the Gender Asset Gap Project, a collaborative research project that my colleagues and I initiated in 2009, has collected individual-level ownership data on the full range of physical and financial assets in Ecuador, Ghana, and the state of Karnataka, India. The data on land, housing, livestock, financial assets, and even mobile phones across all three countries found strikingly different patterns in different countries. For instance, in Ecuador, couples usually own their homes jointly, whereas in Karnataka and Ghana, men own housing. On the other hand, savings accounts are typically individually owned in all three countries. Through our detailed data collection and analysis, we identified key questions that provide critical information with minimal additional cost.

So what should be done? A first step would be to modify studies already being conducted. For example, many household surveys ask about the various parcels of land owned by household members. Adding one simple question, “Who owns the parcel?” provides information on whether the land is owned individually by a man or woman, or jointly by the couple. Asking whose name is on the title (or registration deed) provides further information about legal rights. Numerous studies have found instances where couples claim to own property jointly, but the title lists only the husband’s name. The wife may then have no legal rights over the property. The cost of adding these questions to existing surveys is minimal but the potential benefit is significant.

To be sure, understanding all of the nuances of asset ownership would require more than one or two questions in a household survey. It requires understanding of the legal frameworks and how the laws are implemented. Family law, including laws regarding marital property and inheritance, affect patterns of property ownership. Additional questions could identify who within the household has the right to sell or mortgage the property and who decides what crops to grow. But the few additional questions would provide an important basis for monitoring women’s asset ownership.

When it comes to improving the lives of the world’s poor, data collection may not be as sexy of a focus as improving access to clean water or more nutritious food. But better data is essential to monitoring progress and ultimately maximizing impact. It is critical that the General Assembly adopt the recommendation for better data at the individual level so that countries and develop organizations are better equipped to tackle the problems of poverty in a meaningful way. If we don’t truly understand what is happening at the individual level, we have little hope of solving the problems.

GLENEAGLES, Scotland (AP) — For the first time in 10 appearances, Phil Mickelson spent an entire day at the Ryder Cup without hitting a single shot.

U.S. captain Tom Watson benched Mickelson and Keegan Bradley for both sessions Saturday at Gleneagles, even though both wanted to play. Joining them on the sidelines was Webb Simpson, the last of the three captain’s picks. Mickelson and Bradley rallied to take down Rory McIlroy and Sergio Garcia in the opening session of fourballs matches Friday, but they lost badly in foursomes when Bradley couldn’t keep it in the short grass and Mickelson couldn’t make enough putts.

“They didn’t perform all that well yesterday afternoon,” Watson said. “They really wanted to go today. These are the best pairings for alternate shot.”

Mickelson will play only three matches this week, his fewest since going 3-0 as a rookie at Oak Hill in 1995.

Asked to comment as he walked down the first fairway, Mickelson said, “Whatever it takes to win.”

“I want our team to win, and whatever we have to do is all I care about,” he said.

When asked whose decision it was not to play, Mickelson smiled and put in his ear phones to listen to coverage of other matches on the radio.

Mickelson and Bradley formed America’s best team two years ago at Medinah when they went 3-0, asking to sit out the final session to be fresh for singles. Both wound up losing their singles matches as Europe rallied from a 10-6 deficit to win.

They made it four in a row Friday by rallying to take down Rory McIlroy and Sergio Garcia with an eagle-par-birdie finish. But the pair struggled in foursomes.

Watson was second-guessed for not giving them a rest Friday afternoon. They got plenty of rest on Saturday.

The Americans, who won two matches and halved another in Saturday morning fourballs, sent out Jimmy Walker and Rickie Fowler for a fourth straight match. They had halved all three of their matches.

“I’m riding the horses,” Watson said. “Jimmy and Rickie really played well. Three times they halved matches. That’s better than not winning.”

Mickelson, a five-time major champion, has not won a tournament since the British Open last summer at Muirfield, though he finished one shot behind McIlroy in the PGA Championship last month at Valhalla.

Bradley has gone more than two years without winning, and he had to rely on a captain’s pick to make this team.

Two of Watson’s three picks — Bradley and Simpson — did not play at all on Saturday. Simpson, who said he texted Watson the morning of the picks to lobby for one, will go into Sunday singles having played only 14 holes on Friday morning.