Category: News

Aarhus, Shaw Energy Recruitment Ltd

Candidates MUST have “large offshore steel construction, steel structures placed at the sea bed, and thereby, the interaction between waves, wind and soil conditions”.

Offshore Foundation Design Engineers (based in Aarhus – Denmark), ref 1004-17

Department
Are you motivated to lift a new offshore wind turbine foundation group off the ground and contribute as an Offshore Foundation Design Engineer, then this might be the right challenge for you. With your excellent Pro-Engineer skills, you will be the person visualising the different offshore foundation solutions.

The Tower and Structure department currently consists of more then 35 highly skilled employees located in Denmark, India, U.S. and China. The department is the competence centre for design, analyses and structural verification of main components in the nacelle, tower and foundation solutions and the department uses state of the art technologies in order to do so.

Responsibilities and Tasks
• Drive the development and verification of offshore foundation solutions
• Solid robust design of secondary structures such as platforms, ladders, service crane, J-tubes, anodes etc.
• Ensure that the wind turbine or foundation sub system meets the technical specifications in cooperation with design engineers from other departments
• Work innovatively from specification to production and installation
• Globally work together with suppliers, production, installation and transportation to ensure an integrated product development
• Perform preliminary strength validation using e.g. ANSYS Workbench
• Work closely together with structural engineers in mapping and benchmarking different offshore foundation concepts

Qualifications and Work Experience
• You have a bachelor or master’s degree in Offshore, Civil, Mechanical or Marine engineering
• You hold solid experience with Pro-Engineer or other 3D design tool
• You have experience with FE analysis
• You have 3+ years experience with integrated product development, preferably from an R&D organisation.
• Experience in the offshore wind energy sector is seen as a great benefit
• You have good knowledge of manufacturing processes of large offshore structures
• You have the desire and the ability to understand a wide range of multidisciplinary technical disciplines within a complete wind turbine and how it affects the foundation design.
• You are very conscious about quality and thorough in your work and you find it easy to work with other people in a project organisation
• You are independent and structured, and you have an infectious sense of humour
• You are flexible, you enjoy teamwork and you can work with a global mindset
• You have good English skills both verbally and in writing
• As a person you have drive and passion for what you do and you keep focus on the target
• You are responsible and willing to take ownership of design tasks and drive solutions
• You enjoy working in a team with professionals from many different disciplines
• You are attracted by an international environment with a high level of activity

What we offer
We offer you a challenging and demanding job with excellent professional and personal development opportunities in an inspiring, international work environment at the world’s leading manufacturer of wind turbines. We have a high focus on personal development and have a well functioning business academy. The job will bring you in contact with internal and external customers/suppliers around the world.

Additional Information
Your primary work location will be at our R&D centre in Aarhus, Denmark which is the largest R&D centre for wind turbines in the industry

 

 

Filed under: Sedan, Subaru, Long-Term Garage

After spending a week circumnavigating the country in a pair of BMW sedans on One Lap of America a couple of weeks back, you might think that the drive home to Detroit from South Bend would’ve been a bit of a disappointment. On the contrary, we were glad to see our long-term 2010 Subaru Legacy 2.5GT, and have been so every day since then. Not that we didn’t enjoy the 550i (2010 model) or remember why we absolutely love the 335d, but there’s a lot to be said for simplicity over unnecessary complication.

For one, the cruise control switchgear on the steering wheel spoke in the Subie is infinitely easier to use than the hidden stalk on the Bimmers. The Legacy’s arrangement is a model of ergonomic excellence, whereas the BMW necessitated that we give step-by-step how-to directions to our co-drivers from the back seat. Repeatedly.

And don’t even get us started on the differences in navigation systems. While the 2.5GT’s is far from perfect, its touchscreen is still much easier to negotiate than either of the two generations of iDrive we experienced in the BMWs – much improved though they are. We do wish that higher functions (address entry, etc.) could be accessed on the move – at least when there is more than one person in the car. Why can’t automakers learn that this safety ‘feature’ should have an automatic override tied to the passenger seat weight sensor that’s already there to govern airbag deployment?

Did we mention how much we like the utterly intuitive dual-zone HVAC controls? Crisp display, a couple of rockers and a handful of buttons – it’s simplicity itself.

One area where our Subaru is arguably oversimplified is with its sunroof controls: It has two single-function switches – one for tilt, and one for slide open/close. Unless it’s a small cost win, we can’t see why there isn’t a unified dual function switch as on most other cars. At least they are differentiated in look and feel for less fumbling about.

Photos by Chris Paukert / Copyright (C)2010 Weblogs, Inc.

2010 Subaru Legacy 2.5GT: Simplicity of switchgear a welcome trait originally appeared on Autoblog on Mon, 24 May 2010 15:31:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

One little trick you can do to get out of debt faster is to send in your credit card payments as soon as you can, says No Credit Needed.

Don’t just pay the bills when they’re due. By sending in your payments sooner, you can reduce your average daily balance and thereby reduce your total interest charges. It’s a small thing, but when tackling debt, it’s the small things that add up to reducing a big balance.

5 Simple Debt Reduction Tips [No Credit Needed]

After more than a year of looking at Yahoo’s operations, CEO Carol Bartz seems to have settled on a new business model — namely, outsourcing various parts of the company’s sprawling web empire to other companies. Today saw two similar announcements: one has online-dating site Match.com taking over Yahoo’s personal classifieds service, and the second has mobile giant Nokia assuming command of a joint venture involving the web company’s mobile email, chat and mapping services. In similar moves made earlier this year, Yahoo merged much of the operation of its health site with Healthline Networks and management of its online shopping service was effectively handed over to PriceGrabber.

In the Match.com pairing — the value of which wasn’t disclosed by the companies — users of Yahoo’s personals site will gradually be transitioned to something called “Match.com on Yahoo.” The web service had been expected by some to sell the personals business outright, with analysts giving the unit an estimated value of $500 million. In the Nokia deal, meanwhile, the Finland-based mobile handset company will provide its mobile mapping technology for use in all of Yahoo’s services, while Yahoo’s email and chat will become the engine behind Nokia’s new Ovi email and chat features.

On the one hand, outsourcing and partnering with others around some of its business units makes sense for Yahoo, where Bartz has been trying hard to rationalize its sprawling empire by cutting costs and improving its return on investment. At the same time, however, many of these deals seem to fall into the category of “too little, too late,” as Kevin noted in his analysis of the Nokia deal. Like the company’s most substantial outsourcing attempt of all — the multibillion-dollar deal with Microsoft to partner on search — they seem to be an admission that Yahoo has failed to make much of these businesses on its own, and is satisfied to simply take a small share of someone else’s business in return.

So if it’s no longer interested in trying to dominate search (at least, not by itself), and it doesn’t want to own mobile in a major way, or be a controlling force in many of the things it used to want to do online (shopping, dating, health etc.) then what does Yahoo want to do? It seems that the company has its heart set on doing the same thing that AOL — another former web star that has seen better days — wants to do: become a major media company. Yahoo, which has been hiring dozens of high-profile journalists to write for its expanding blog network and just bought a content company called Associated Content for $100 million, says it is now “the world’s largest media company” and is betting its future on that status.

That may be an ambitious goal, but at least the company seems to know what it wants to be when it grows up, which is a start — although Bartz seemed less than precise about it in her interview with Mike Arrington at TechCrunch’s Disrupt conference, in which she answered the question “What is Yahoo?” by saying that it is a “great company that is very, very strong in content for its users… it’s a place where you can just get it together.” What Bartz needs to do now is to find a way to put some meat on those bones, and to do that she is going to need more than just a talent for using expletives.

Related GigaOM Pro Content (sub req’d): Why Google Should Fear the Social Web

Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr user Yodel Anecdotal

---

Might We Suggest…

• Storing Apps on SD the Froyo Way
  

  We all rejoiced when we heard that in Froyo, Android would officially implement a way to store…

I’ve been getting all my games from the same store since Mario knows when. Would’ve loved some form of a membership discount or whatnot, but unfortunately for me, they don’t have any of those. For GameStop, that’s

Suwon, South Korea was named the Intelligent Community of the Year last Friday. They won over the other six finalists, including some of my favorites – Dublin, Ohio; Tallinn, Estonia; and Eindhoven, Netherlands. Stockholm, Sweden was the 2009 Intelligent Community of the Year. Suwon is just 15 miles from Seoul. South Korea has now produced three of the last five Intelligent Community winners.

What I find most fascinating about this competition and these communities is how it reveals the culture of the participating communities and countries. “Happy Suwon” is the marketing tagline for the winning community. “Fast-fast” is their operating style. They get input from the people, make decisions, do things, measure results, move on. Always fast-fast. Eindhoven and Tallinn are fiercely strategic and highly encouraging of collaboration and innovation. The US communities seem more haphazard and free-flowing. In the European and Asian communities, there seems less conflict about the proper government role in moving a community forward. They seem to talk more about what should be done rather than to argue the proper approach to getting it done.

All of these communities put a strong emphasis on world class infrastructure – telecommunications, transportation, and education systems. They are working hard to put these in place and to make use of them to increase their economic competitiveness.

Last Friday the Obama Administration released another in a series of historic clean energy policies; standing with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and leaders from the labor and environmental communities, the President called on automobile and truck makers to ramp up fuel efficiency standards throughout the next two decades. The announcement not only extends the historic Clean Car program the Administration announced at this time last year, but also sets the first-ever efficiency standards for the trucking sector.



As the Gulf oil spill disaster continues, any step to decrease our reliance on dirty fuels is a step in the right direction. Making our cars and trucks more efficient not only helps our environment by limiting air pollution, but also increases our security by decreasing our need for imported oil. After all, cars and trucks guzzle 20 percent of the oil used in our country and emit a quarter of our national greenhouse gas emissions. We use almost 20 million barrels of oil every day, and improving efficiency is the cheapest and fastest way to change this pattern of overconsumption. The new standards will help clean our air and stabilize our climate, while encouraging new technology and saving us all a few dollars at the gas pump.

As reported here on Thursday, the House Armed Services Committee set the Obama administration’s plans for closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay back significantly last week. Marking up the next fiscal year’s defense bill, the panel voted unanimously to prevent the Defense Department from spending any money to buy the Thomson Corrections Center in Illinois — a necessary step for the administration to transfer Guantanamo’s remaining detainee population ahead of finally shuttering the place.

Last week, however, the committee only released a summary of its language. Now the full text is available, ahead of this week’s House floor vote on the bill. Here’s what the Fiscal Year 2011 Defense Authorization actually says about Obama’s Guantanamo plan:

SEC. 1034. PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FUNDS TO MODIFY OR CONSTRUCT FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES TO HOUSE DETAINEES TRANSFERRED FROM UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act may be used to construct or modify any facility in the United States, its territories, or possessions to house any individual described in subsection (c) for the purposes of detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense.

But the committee doesn’t close a door without opening a window, so the mark-up text requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report by next April ahead of any such Thomson-based or Thomson-like transfer of Guantanamo detainees, spelling out in more detail what the administration’s planning is on the controversial subject.

(d) REPORT ON USE OF FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES TO HOUSE DETAINEES TRANSFERRED FROM
GUANTANAMO.—
(1) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than April 1, 2011, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the con- gressional defense committees a report, in classified or unclassified form, on the merits, costs, and risks of using any proposed facility in the United States, its territories, or possessions to house any individual described in subsection (c) for the purposes of detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense.

(2) ELEMENTS OF THE REPORT.—The report required in paragraph (1) shall include each of the following:
(A) A discussion of the merits associated with any such proposed facility that would justify—
(i) using the facility instead of the facility at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and
(ii) the proposed facility’s contribution to effecting a comprehensive policy for continuing military detention operations. (B) The rationale for selecting the specific
site for any such proposed facility, including details for the processes and criteria used for identifying the merits described in subparagraph (A) and for selecting the proposed site over reasonable alternative sites.
(C) A discussion of any potential risks to any community in the vicinity of any such proposed facility, the measures that could be taken to mitigate such risks, and the likely cost to the Department of Defense of implementing such measures.

(D) A discussion of any necessary modifications to any such proposed facility to ensure that any detainee transferred from Guantanamo Bay to such facility could not come into contact with any other individual, including any other person detained at such facility, that is not approved for such contact by the Department of Defense, and an assessment of the likely costs of such modifications.
(E) A discussion of any support at the site of any such proposed facility that would likely be provided by the Department of Defense, including the types of support, the number of personnel required for each such type, and an estimate of the cost of such support.
(F) A discussion of any support, other than support provided at a proposed facility, that would likely be provided by the Department of Defense for the operation of any such proposed facility, including the types of possible support, the number of personnel required for each such type, and an estimate of the cost of such support.
(G) A discussion of the legal issues, in the judgment of the Secretary of Defense, that could be raised as a result of detaining or imprisoning any individual described in subsection (c) at any such proposed facility that could not be raised while such individual is detained or imprisoned at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

On Friday, however, White House Press Secretary Robert Gates floated the prospect that the House committee’s setback could prompt the Justice Department to use its budgeted money to fund the Guantanamo transfer, thereby keeping the prospect of closing Guantanamo this year alive.

There is no question that tools exists today to significantly reduce fuel consumption by medium and heavy-duty trucks. The recent National Academy of Sciences’ report on reducing emissions from these vehicles explored this in-depth as did another recent report from NESCAUM. The key question is: can we deploy these tools at an acceptable cost?

The answer is closer to “yes” than ever before, thanks in part to President Obama’s statement last week instructing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop rules to reduce emissions from medium and heavy-duty trucks – which consume over a quarter of the nation’s liquid fuels.

The most advanced of our fuel-saving tools, such as the hybrid system for medium-duty trucks, face a significant upfront cost barrier. While these systems can payback over the lifetime of the vehicle, the ROI timeline is too extended for most businesses to justify the cost without external incentives. Other, more incremental strategies such as single-wide tires face cultural and cost barriers as well. The resulting upfront capital cost versus long-term operating savings conundrum slows the adoption of these tools and delays emission reductions.

Fuel-saving components need to be produced at a large enough scale to spread out the fixed costs over time while simultaneously bringing the dollar cost down. By creating a nationwide standard for greenhouse gas emissions, the President has put us on a path to finally reach this scale. Imagine that instead of spreading the fix costs of developing and producing medium-duty hybrid powertrains, or single wide tires over a few hundred vehicles a year, these costs are spread over tens of thousands of trucks annually. The ROI for any one unit will instantly be much more attractive. This is what can happen with a strong federal rule.

How will this impact the business community? Consumers, shippers and carriers will be better off with more efficient, cleaner trucks. Operating costs will be lower and less exposed to fuel price volatility. The increased capital costs should be manageable with the advantages of scaled economies. Some of the increased upfront cost will likely be recouped through hire residual values too.

Of course, technological improvements alone aren’t sufficient. There remain many opportunities to reduce emissions through better operational practices, particularly for freight. From reducing empty backhauls, cutting idling, dropping curb weight, decreasing packaging and improving trucking loading, every truck trip can get more done. Some trips can be avoided all together or simply moved to more efficient modes of transportation.

Medium-and-heavy duty trucks will continue to play a vital role as we transition into a carbon constrained world. These trucks are needed to deliver food and beverages to restaurants and stores, drop off packages at homes and offices, and move goods across the nation. However, they will use less fuel for each of these actions. That’s a good thing for the environment, our pocketbooks and energy security.

As they embark on their lives post their favorite disaster-themed series, some Lost fanatics are consumed by thoughts of what if series creators Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof had ended things differently? Well, they didn’t leave you wondering for long. Shortly after Sunday night’s 2.5 series finale, Lost producers released their three top secret alternate endings on Jimmy Kimmel’s Lost Recap Special. Approximately 13.5 million Americans tuned in for the last episode of the mystery adventure series.

Whaddya think?

Last winter saw the rise of the quilted jacket trend. If one were to keep the trend moving for this coming season, why not look to a brand that has been crafting it for the longest time. Guaranteed classic and quality outerwear is in store again for Lavenham’s Autumn/Winter 2010 collection and the bevy of choices will have you warm for days on end. The range consists mostly of quilted jackets, but there are other variations as well such as vests.

Continue reading for more images.

Sadly I wasn’t familiar with mathematician and science writer Martin Gardner‘s work. Fortunately, although he passed away this weekend at age 95, he’s left a huge body of work to absorb; this show is a fine place to start. [Vimeo] More »

On June 25, 2010, the shareholders of XTO Energy, Inc. (XTO) will decide at a special shareholders’ meeting whether or not XTO should become a wholly owned subsidiary of ExxonMobil Corp. (XOM).

When Michelle wrote about the deal last December, she noted at the time that XTO’s senior executives had agreed to take consulting agreements rather than the larger sums they could have received under their employment agreements’ change in control (“CIC”) terms.  But it wasn’t until XTO filed its merger proxy last Friday afternoon that we learned just how lucrative those consulting deals will be.

In all, the five NEOs would have received an aggregate $114.35 million more if they had stuck with the CIC provisions in their employment agreements. But the money that they’ll get from the consulting jobs are a lot higher than one might have assumed after reading the 8-K that XTO filed last December. As a group, they’re still getting approximately $190,340,000 in cash and stock if the deal goes through.

The merger proxy also shows that some NEOs are sacrificing a lot more than others. For Bob Simpson, the company’s founder and Chairman of the Board of Directors, the difference is relatively small – $1.65 million. Simpson will receive $84.42 million under the consulting agreement instead of the $86.07 million he would have received per his employment agreement. But for the other NEOs, the difference between what they’ll get from the consulting agreements – compared to what they would have received from the employment agreements – is a lot more dramatic:

Executive	Title	Consulting agreement (in Millions)	Employment agreement (in Millions)
Keith Hutton	CEO	$48.09	$99.89
Vaughn Vennerberg II	President	$37.14	$70.71
Louis Baldwin	EVP/CFO	$11.92	$24.13
Timothy Petrus	EVP-Acquisitions	$8.77	$23.89

According to the chart on p. 108 of the merger proxy, the lion’s share of those payments will come from stock grants and retention payments, although the salaries and bonuses also pay very well. The consulting agreements will end on the first anniversary after the merger is completed; however, the parties can renew them for another year by agreement.

The proxy also discloses that director Jack Randall’s employer, Jefferies & Company, Inc., which provided merger-related financial advice to XTO, will get a transaction fee of $24 million if the merger goes through, plus out-of-pocket expenses, legal fees, and indemnification from “certain liabilities.”  According to the filing, Randall participated in the directors’ merger deliberations, but he abstained from voting on the merger “…to avoid any perception of a potential conflict of interest arising out of his employment with Jefferies.”

We’ll see what the shareholders think when they vote next month.  But the company’s top executives certainly have millions of reasons to hope that the merger goes through.

Image source: blmurch via Flickr.

All our friends across the pond, as well as any expatriates living in our neck of the woods have a new application to check out.  Heck, even us yanks could do well with a little English culture added to our lives.  The London Evening Standard and Handmark have joined together and now the popular tabloid style London daily paper can be read right from your Android device.

Hit the break for the full press release, as well as a few screenshots.  Now if you’ll pardon me, it’s time for tea here in Appalachia.

Thanks Dan!

This is a post by Android Central. It is sponsored by the Android Central Accessories Store

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

Now more than a month into the mammoth, out-of-control, no-end-in-sight oil spill at Deepwater Horizon, the unanswered questions, data gaps and withheld information surrounding BP’s use of dispersants are flowing in seemingly as fast as the oil is leaking.

With each passing day, it seems we know less and less about the composition and safety of these dispersants, other available dispersants, and even whether the use of dispersants– especially on this unprecedented scale – is to be advised at all.

It begs the question: Isn’t having ready answers to such questions the reason why the federal government was required to develop a contingency plan in the first place? 

As I noted in an earlier post, BP has to date released more than 700,000 gallons of two dispersants, Corexit® 9527 and Corexit® 9500, that are among the least effective of the 18 dispersants that EPA has approved under the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, and they appear to be among the more toxic based on limited short-term toxicity tests conducted on fish and shrimp.

Those data, plus the massive volumes involved and BP’s proposal to inject the dispersants into deep water, led EPA on May 20 to direct BP to identify and start using more effective and less toxic dispersants. BP responded over the weekend, maintaining steadfastly that Corexit® is the best choice given the circumstances.

Several impressions emerge in reading BP’s response. First, the most glaring: Big sections appear to have been redacted as confidential business information. In releasing BP’s response to its directive, EPA stated:

BP and several of the dispersant manufacturers have claimed some sections of BP's response contain confidential business information (CBI). By law, CBI cannot be immediately made public except with the company's permission. EPA challenged these companies to make more information public and, as a result, several portions of the letter can now be made public. EPA is currently evaluating all legal options to ensure that the remaining redacted information is released to the public. EPA continues to strongly urge these companies to voluntarily make this information public so Americans can get a full picture of the potential environmental impact of these alternative dispersants.

Whether or not it is technically legal, BP’s heavy invoking of CBI protection – in light of its dumping of what will soon exceed one million gallons of proprietary formula into the Gulf of Mexico – is deeply troubling.

It’s good to hear EPA is evaluating “all legal options” – one of which under Section 14 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) provides that CBI “shall be disclosed if the [EPA] Administrator determines it necessary to protect health or the environment against an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.”

While under this provision, EPA generally must notify a company 15 days in advance of releasing the information, there is an emergency exception: Where “the Administrator determines that the release of such data is necessary to protect against an imminent, unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment,” only 24 hours notice is required.

In this context EPA has some nontrivial burdens to meet: “imminent” and “unreasonable” risk. But if this situation doesn’t meet those tests, what does?

Second, I can’t help but highlighting the pretty remarkable reference by BP to its substantial concern for “the potential long term effect and persistence of the chemicals in each dispersant.” Too bad that concern didn’t lead BP to demand or at least support long-term toxicity testing of Corexit®.

But BP’s concern is strong enough to lead them to point out that one of the other dispersants has a chemical in it (identity withheld) that “may degrade to a nonylphenol.” BP helpfully points out that nonylphenols “have been identified by various government agencies as potential endocrine disruptors.”

This, from a company in an industry that has done its level best to undermine researchers’ and government’s efforts to identify and act to control endocrine disruptors. Has a new leaf turned?

Finally, what is perhaps most remarkable about BP’s response, and more broadly the responses of scientists to the dispersant issue, is how little we know about what’s in these dispersants, what their effects will be on marine environments and on the workers and responders who are exposed to them – and even on the fundamental question of whether they should be being used at all to control a spill of this nature and magnitude. It appears we don’t have answers even to basic questions such as:

• Do the dispersants actually work to reduce the impact of the oil?
• Is it better to disperse the oil or leave it undispersed?
• Is the mixture of oil and dispersant more or less toxic than the oil by itself?

See articles here, here and here for some examples of the questions scientists are raising.

Is it too much to hope, next time around, that we might have a contingency plan in place that has asked and answered such questions before something like this happens again?

Com a assinatura “Chevrolet & Você”, a empresa reforça os valores mais reconhecidos por quem admira e usa a marca, como a segurança, o conforto, a performance, o bem-estar e a qualidade do serviço de atendimento ao cliente. As peças, que são assinadas pela WMcCann, começaram a circular na última quarta-feira (19/05/2010), nos principais canais de TV do país e nas mídias impressas e online.

A nova comunicação da marca é norteada pelo símbolo “&”, que representa os conceitos de união, parceria e comprometimento. “Optamos por destacar nossos valores mais reconhecidos para gerar um sentimento de proximidade com nossos clientes. O objetivo da campanha é reforçar ainda mais o posicionamento da Chevrolet e mostrar que tudo que fazemos é pensando na satisfação de nossos consumidores.

Com a frase “Tudo o que fazemos é com você, por você, para você”, a Chevrolet espera valorizar vários atributos da marca, como a confiança, qualidade e segurança para seus clientes. Para sustentar esse posicionamento, essa ação apresenta o Novo Serviço Chevrolet e o Chevrolet Road Service, serviços exclusivos que possuem o objetivo principal de garantir tranqüilidade e comodidade aos clientes na realização de serviços nas concessionárias ou em caso de alguma necessidade específica relacionada ao carro ou ao cliente, que precise de suporte do serviço de atendimento 24 horas para os carros em garantia como troca de pneu, atendimento com moto ou carro patrulha e consulta de condições das estradas.

A ação

A estratégia de lançamento da nova ação da marca Chevrolet conta com quatro comerciais para TV aberta e a cabo, anúncios de página dupla e tripla nas principais revistas de interesse geral e especializada, além de mídia digital.

As peças publicitárias destacam o compromisso da marca com o cliente. Os filmes e anúncios mostram diversas situações nas quais os proprietários de veículos Chevrolet podem contar com a marca. “Pensamos em um “&” como um símbolo de aproximação entre a Chevrolet e seus clientes. Ele aparece na vida das pessoas sempre de forma inusitada e lúdica: onde eles estiverem, a Chevrolet vai estar presente”, diz Colossi.

Para complementar, a música “Por Você”, de autoria do cantor e compositor Frejat, dá o tom ao filme e reforça tudo o que a Chevrolet faria pelo seu cliente. “A trilha sonora é mais que um pano de fundo, ela traduz um conceito, além de ser impossível não lembrar o refrão “por você” o tempo todo, o que é excelente para a marca”, completa Eric Sulzer, diretor de criação da WMccann.

Fonte: Maxpress

Responding to customer complaints, Pharos has announced the free replacement of faulty Pharos Traveler 137 handsets, currently being sold on Cincinnati’s Bell’s network in USA.

The handsets had been presenting with issues related to a faulty power buttons, which would fail to start after charging overnight, requiring a soft reset to fix, and also with a faulty battery meter, meaning in some handsets the battery meter may read 100% when it is actually empty.

The handsets, which originally shipped with Windows Mobile 6.1, will be swapped out free of charge for Windows Mobile 6.5 versions.

"It’s true that Pharos is a very small player compared to the big names in the smartphone business," a spokesman said, "but maybe the way they treat their customers shows that it can be better to deal with a small outfit that cases."

More at Twice.com

Back at CTIA 2010, Motorola announced the world’s first rugged Android handset with iDEN push-to-talk functionality: the i1. At launch, Motorola was only willing to spill the beans on one carrier who’d be getting the handset: Sprint.

We just unearthed some pretty irrefutable proof that someone else will be getting the i1: Boost Mobile. Yep — say hello to the first pre-paid Android handset in the US.

Read the rest at MobileCrunch >>

Yes, supercar manufacturers have recalls too – they just don’t happened to be in the million units recall range. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said Lamborghini is recalling 428 units of its 2007-2008 Murcielago LP640 and LP640 roadsters in the United States due to a potential fire hazard caused by a defective fuel tank.

“Stress generated by the back and forth movement of gasoline inside the fuel tank during lateral and longitudinal accelerations, accompanied by vertical vibration, could cause detachment of one or more spot welds holding the fuel pump support inside the fuel tank,” said Lamborghini in documents filed with the NHTSA. “A slow fuel leak could develop at the detached spot weld, which could potentially result in a fire only if an external ignition source is present.”

The supercar maker said that there have been no injuries, fires or accidents related to the recall, which is expected to begin in June. Owners can call Lamborghini at (508) 808-9562.

– By: Kap Shah

Source: Inside Line