Category: News

  • OverREACTing: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant

    Federal and California law both protect reporters against police searches aimed at uncovering confidential sources or seizing other information developed during newsgathering activities. Yet on Friday, agents with the Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team (REACT) executed a search warrant at Gizmodo editor Jason Chen’s home, searching for evidence related to Gizmodo’s scoop on what appears to be a pre-release version of Apple’s next iPhone model. The warrant does not reveal whether Chen himself is considered a criminal suspect, or what alleged crime the police are investigating, but Chen was not arrested. All of his computers and hard drives (among other materials) were seized for further search and analysis.

    Under California and federal law, this warrant should never have issued. First, California Penal Code Section 1524(g) provides that “[n]o warrant shall issue for any item or items described in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code.” Section 1070 is California’s reporter’s shield provision (which has since been elevated to Article I, § 2(b) of the California Constitution). The items covered by the reporter’s shield protections include unpublished information, such as “all notes, outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort,” if that information was “obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.” The warrant explicitly authorizes the seizure of such protected materials and information, including the photographs and video taken of the iPhone prototype, as well as research regarding the Apple employee who purportedly lost the phone. This fact alone should have stopped this warrant in its tracks.

    Second, the warrant likely violates the Privacy Protection Act (or PPA, 42 USC § 2000aa et al.). Congress passed the PPA to ensure special protection for journalists by prohibiting government search and seizure of both “documentary material” (explicitly including photos and video) and “work product material,” material which is or has been used “in anticipation of communicating such materials to the public.” 42 USC § 2000aa-7(a) and (b). The PPA includes an exception for searches targeting criminal suspects (which Chen may or may not be), but that exception does not apply “if the offense to which the materials relate consists of the receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of such materials or the information contained therein.” 42 USC § 2000aa(a)(1). Violations of the PPA could render the law enforcement agencies or the individual officers who searched Chen’s house liable for damages no less than $1,000.

    The purpose of the PPA and state shield law is to prevent police from rummaging through sensitive information contained in a reporter’s notes and communications. This search warrant is particularly worrisome on this point because it is so plainly overbroad. An officer seeking a search warrant must demonstrate to the issuing judge both probable cause that a crime was committed and that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the materials sought and searched are relevant to that crime. The warrant issued in the Chen case was remarkably broad, seeking “all records and data located and/or stored on any computers, hard drives, or memory storage devices, located at the listed location.” That a computer or hard drive may be capable of storing information relevant to the case is not enough. Unless the warrant application provided a factual basis to tie Chen’s computer (and “digital cameras,” “display screens,” “mice,” “cassette tapes,” “CD-ROM disks,” etc.), any information obtained from them could be thrown out. Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal appellate court for California and the surrounding states) in its 2009 opinion in United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing Inc., 579 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2009), identified a series of guildelines meant to ensure that even otherwise lawful warrants authorizing the search and seizure of computers do not give officers too much access to private data that might be intermingled with evidence of a crime. This warrant does not appear to comply with those guidelines.

    The police appear to have gone too far. The REACT team, “a partnership of 17 local, state, and federal agencies” with a “close working partnership with the high tech industry,” seems to have leapt eagerly to Apple’s aid before it looked at the law. Putting the presumed interests of an important local company before the rights guaranteed by law is an obvious occupational hazard for a police force charged with paying particular attention to the interests of high tech businesses. Now that First Amendment lawyers, reporters, and others have highlighted the potential legal improprieties of this search, the task force should freeze their investigation, return Chen’s property, and reconsider whether going after journalists for trying to break news about one of the Valley’s most secretive (and profitable) companies is a good expenditure of taxpayer dollars.

    [Colorado Law Professor Paul Ohm has more on this issue at Freedom to Tinker, in particular looking at the effect of Comprehensive Drug Testing on this search.]

  • Come Clean, Austin, Where Has All That DWP Money Gone?

    EDITOR’S NOTE: The City Council voted 9-5 Tuesday — one vote short of the two-thirds needed to take jurisdiction of the nearly 5 percent DWP power rate after learning it is permanent, not temporary as many of them, the press and the public believed. Parks, who had opposed the increase and could have supplied the 10th vote, was absent. Alarcon, Cardenas, Hahn, Wesson and Garcetti supported the permanent rate hike. (I erred earlier in saying Zine, missing that Garcetti’s name is now at the bottom of the alphabetical list.)

    Austin Beutner has made transparency of the DWP a top priority so taking his word at face value I’ve sent him several requests for information about DWP rates, plans and policies.

    Of course, words can mean different things to different people but I’ll go with Wikipedia which says transparency “implies openness, communication, and accountability” which in a government sense includes “open meetings, financial disclosure statements, freedom of information legislation, budgetary review, audits, etc.”
    beutner.jpg
    Based on the DWP’s long history of obfuscation, half-truths and outright lies, it could take the middle-aged Beutner the rest of his life to shed light into all the darkness of DWP machinations.

    We know with certainty that Beutner’s real job is to be just transparent enough to get massive rate hikes through the City Council which means giving then enough cover so that they can overcome their phobic fear of the wrath of voters.

    There must be thousands of questions to ask about what has happened to ratepayers’ billions in recent years, why water mains are bursting and the electrical system aging, why there’s so little green energy, why no comprehensive planning, why salaries are so high, how hundreds of millions can be turned over as “surplus” to general fund every year…

    Today, Jan Perry’s Energy and Environment Committee is asking questions about why the DWP needs to spend $6 million a year more for “dumping privileges for dumping dirt, asphalt, and concrete” at landfills on top of the $4 million already allocated.

    Questions also could be asked about why the DWP is spending $11.125 million to buy warehouse and industrial property for the mayor’s “clean tech corridor” near downtown and is intending — with help from the other bottomless pit of public wealth, the Community Redevelopment Agency — to buy jobs with massive subsidies.

    “The Clean Technology Business Incubator will help CRA/LA fulfill its
    role of economic development and job creation by encouraging research
    and development in green technologies such as renewable energy,
    recycling and next-generation transportation,” said Calvin Hollis,
    CRA/LA Interim Chief Executive Officer, according to CurbedLA.

    Apart from dressing up the DWP to look respectable, Beutner’s real task as “Jobs Czar” is to turn our bankrupt city government into an economic engine the way the Soviet Union and China in their Communist heydays tried to do without success before turning to that old-fashioned notion of free enterprise capitalism.

    Perhaps, he knows something Stalin and Mao did not.

    Certainly, a key area of flagrant DWP spending is its crash program to meet the mayor’s artificial political goal of achieving 20 percent renewables by 2010 no matter how much it costs, no matter that there is no plan to get rid of coal plants or to methodically go green at a cost the public can afford.

    Other People’s Money has always been something the mayor has generously spent and this report Monday from the Tehachapi News shows just how desperate the DWP officials are to please the mayor without regard to cost or common sense:

    “At the April 13 Airport Commission board meeting, Tehachapi Municipal
    Airport Manager Tom Glasgow offered a clue as to why the Los Angeles
    Department of Water and Power needs its huge rate increase.

    “In January, the DWP was fueling its Bell Ranger jet turbine helicopter
    at the Tehachapi airport as it ferried crews to a new wind farm
    construction site 10 miles to the northeast of Tehachapi.

    “The roads had not yet been carved out of the mountains, and the DWP was
    utilizing sky cranes to carry out work. The department would drive
    crews to the airport and airlift them by helicopter to the job site.

    “Jet fuel sales jumped from 186 gallons in January 2009 to 1,821 gallons
    in January 2010.”

    Money is no object when it’s other people’s and that’s what DWP’s green energy plan is all about: Buying wind and solar power and renewable energy credits on the open market at a premium because they failed to carry out their stated goal more than a decade ago to reduce reliance on coal for nearly half the city’s power, why they even dragged their feet on rooftop solar to the point LA couldn’t even power a square block with solar.

    This frantic politically-driven policy of buying renewables was so successful the DWP actually achieved the goal of 20 percent in March but the mayor’s failure to get his 20 to 30 percent rate hike could diminish that to 12 percent by the year’s end.

    At that level, LA not only would have the state’s dirtiest energy portfolio but also the one with the lowest level of clean energy.

    Transparency is the issue and Beutner has to come clean about all the questions about DWP before he has any chance of getting his hands on more of the public’s money.

    To do that, he’s going to have to take the politics out of water and power policy, rein in payroll costs that make up nearly 60 percent of DWP spending after buying water and fuel — not the 25 percent of total costs he claims — and put forward clear long-term plans for rebuilding the infrastructure, generating renewable energy, closing coal plants and do all that at rates that don’t kill more jobs than they create and bankrupt more people than they enrich.

    In other words, the mission of DWP must be what it’s supposed to be: Providing water and power for the City of Los Angeles, not serving the political games of the mayor. It’s a utility that provides public services, not a jobs or wealth redistribution program.

  • Nails in the Global Warming Coffin by Philip Stott

    Article Tags: Philip Stott

    article image

    Click source to read FULL report from Philip Stott

    Source: web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times

    Read in full with comments »   


  • Should Goldman Have "Moved the Line"?

    The Goldman hearing before a Senate subcommittee continued this afternoon with Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) addressing Goldman’s role in market making with regard to synthetic Collateralized Debt Obligations — the type of security at the heart of the SEC’s claim. McCaskill actually uses an accurate analogy for Goldman’s role, calling it a bookie. She’s right: as a market maker, Goldman and other investment banks act a lot like a bookie by lining up investors who want to take separate sides of a bet. But she takes the analogy a little too far.

    Bookies set the “line” of a bet, the price and return that can result from a bet. McCaskill accuses Goldman of doing a bad job of setting the line, since those who bet on the housing market lost quite badly, while those who bet against it did quite well. The problem with this claim, however, is that unlike bookies, market makers don’t set the line — the market does. All the traders do is align investors based on market demand and supply.

    So why did those who shorted the housing market in early 2007 make so much money? Because the market was very, very wrong. Thus, any securities that would have provided a short on the subprime mortgage market would have been very, very lucrative. The same thing happens when an underdog is largely expected to lose a sporting event, but wins. If the odds were 50 to 1 for that game, then anyone who took that bet would be rewarded very handsomely.

    But Goldman, and other broker-dealers, didn’t set the housing market odds — investors did. Most got it very wrong, which is why so many lost so much money. Investors were so far off, they triggered the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. The few that got it right, however, made a killing.





    Email this Article
    Add to digg
    Add to Reddit
    Add to Twitter
    Add to del.icio.us
    Add to StumbleUpon
    Add to Facebook



  • Watch: Sengoku Basara: Samurai Heroes gameplay and details

    A lot of Sengoku Basara fans missed out when the previous titles weren’t released in the US, but thankfully, that changes with Sengoku Basara: Samurai Heroes, a.k.a. Sengoku Basara 3 in Japan. Looking to see more of

  • Government and venture capital

    Stumbled across some interesting research on government support of startup businesses. First, this new piece on the Vox site:

    We are all for policy support for entrepreneurs. But, we believe it must be channelled correctly. An approach that seeks to pick winners ex ante is likely to fail. We base this assessment in part on the very poor performance of policy interventions of this type (Lerner 2009). Our view is also based on the underlying firm dynamics that are observed in the data and discussed above. We instead believe policymakers should focus more consistently on the many small businesses and entrepreneurs that make large and small improvements to the economy. The best support policymakers can provide is to encourage competition among local banks and financiers. Governments should forget about picking winners and focus on picking the right system.

    Me: Right, capital access is important. But then I took a look at that Lerner report (Boulevard of Broken Dreams: Why Public Efforts to Boost Entrepreneurship and Venture Capital Have Failed — and What to Do About It) by Josh Lerner at Harvard. Here is an interesting bit of a Q&A he did with the NYTimes Freakonomics blog (anything in bold is mine):

    Q. Are government interventions to boost entrepreneurship always successful? Why do these programs fail?

    A. Sadly, for every successful effort such as those in Israel and Singapore, there are numerous unsuccessful ones.

    First, they can simply get it wrong: allocating funds and support in an inept or, even worse, a counterproductive manner. Decisions that seem plausible within the halls of a legislative body or a government bureaucracy can be wildly at odds with what entrepreneurs and their backers really need. When Australia legalized the venture capital limited partnership structure earlier this decade, for instance, legislators worried that foreign funds or firms might exploit the favorable tax treatment these entities enjoyed. So they required that each company backed by a venture partnership have at least half its assets in Australia. The venture funds found that this restriction handicapped the companies in their portfolio. The entrepreneurs could not expand their software development activities in India or their manufacturing operations in China without putting the venture funds’ tax status in danger, even as they competed against American ventures that made heavy use of “off-shoring.”

    Q. You write about “The Neglected Art of Setting the Table” i.e. establishing a favorable environment for entrepreneurs. Tell us about the ideal place setting.

    A. Often, in their eagerness to get to the “fun stuff” of handing out money, public leaders neglect the importance of setting the table, or creating a favorable environment. Such efforts to create the right climate for entrepreneurship are likely to have several dimensions. Ensuring that creative ideas can move easily from universities and government laboratories is critically important. However, many entrepreneurs come not from academia, but rather from corporate positions, and studies have documented that, for these individuals, the attractiveness of entrepreneurial activity is very sensitive to tax policy (particularly low capital gains tax rates). Also important is ensuring that the law allows firms to enter into the needed contracts — for instance, with a potential financier or a source of technology — and that these contracts can be enforced.

  • The Competition: BlackBerry 6 ups RIM’s game

    Our friends at CrackBerry.com are all over the big announcement at WES 2010, having just finished up a Liveblog of the keynote and posting details on the upcoming operating system out of Waterloo: BlackBerry 6. RIM is really upping their game with this release: they’re making their OS more touchscreen-friendly, revamping the entire UI to be a lot prettier and more user friendly, making notifications easy to get to, adding a webkit-based browser, and even changing their app launcher up by adding clearer categories.

    Of course, we’d be remiss if we didn’t mention the latest buyout rumor du jour – RIM.  This time it’s from the Toronto Globe and Mail, who cite analyst speculation but rightly smack it all down. Now that we’ve seen that RIM is aggressively working on improving their own OS instead of looking for a from-scratch jumpstart, we think it’s safe to say that the chances of RIM being interested in Palm are rapidly approaching zero.

    Combine that with the rumored BlackBerry vertical slider and Palm definitely is going to have some strong competition on their hands. What do you think – How does webOS fare against this upcoming BlackBerry OS?

  • Lindsay Lohan HIV-Positive? Twitter Hacker Claims LiLo Slept With Tommy Mottola

    For those who still aren’t sick of hearing about The Lohans, there’s quite a few nasty rumors making their way around the Twitterverse this afternoon — and it seems they originated on her father’s account.


    Some Twitter hacker claims Lindsay has HIV and Daddy is suing- mad….

    On Tuesday morning, Michael Lohan’s account on the microblogging website was reportedly hacked by a mysterious phantom who sent out a series of Tweets about the overzealous stage dad and his fallen starlet daughter. Among the most notable were statements which claimed Lindsay had an affair with music mogul Tommy Motolla (The man Michael Jackson once called “The Devil.”) when she was underage and that the ex-Mean Girl is HIV-positive.

    The Tweets in question read: “It’s time you learned the truth. The truth about Tommy Motolla engaging in an affair with my then-17 year old daughter,” followed by “the truth about my daughter living with HIV for the rest of life based on the decisions she’s made…..”

    Michael, who’s spent the past several months on a full court press to get the 23-year-old actress into rehab, promptly shut down the HIV and Mottola affair rumors. The elder Lohan has issued a statement vowing legal venegence against the culprit.

    “NOTICE,There is an imposter on Twitter,and whoever the imposter is that posted that disgusting comment about my daughter, is now on notice…My attorney ,Lisa Bloom will be contacting the authorities to find out who is responsible for this “criminal act” of ID theft,/imperaonation [SIC]….”

    Michael told X17 Online: “I will NOT let this continue to happen. These are 100% lies and I will sue whoever did this.”

  • Closing the Gap: Android Web traffic heavier than iPhone in US. Maybe.

    So hot on the heels of my “Top 5 Ways for Android to Close the Gap” series, Android is closing the gap. Go figure! xD

    UPDATE: Or maybe this whole AdMob report is bogus because their traffic samples skew heavily towards Android and away from iPhone? Dan Frommer explains why.

    AdMob is reporting that Google’s mobile OS overtook iPhone in terms of Web traffic in the United States for the month of March. According to the mobile ad network’s latest monthly metrics report, Android phones accounted for 46% of all mobile traffic in the Unites States last month, while iPhone OS accounted for 39% of the traffic. AdMob uses mobile ad impressions to measure traffic – it’s “a proxy for overall traffic,” as TechCrunch put it.

    Worldwide, iPhone OS still reigns supreme with a 46% grab of mobile Web traffic as measured by platform. Android was up to 25% share in March’s global reports.

    Another interesting Android tidbit in the March report is that of the 34 Android devices currently on the market, 11 of them accounted for 96% of the platform’s Web traffic. Motorola’s Droid (Verizon) was responsible for 32% of the Android traffic all on its own. Google’s Nexus One “Superphone”? Two percent. No wonder Verizon dropped it like a hot potato now that the HTC Incredible is on its way.

    Note that AdMob is the same AdMob that was recently acquired by Google for $750 Million. That deal has yet to be approved by the Feds.

    Source: AdMob, Business Insider

    Via: TechCrunch


  • Fiesta S1600 Sports Edition Announced for UK

    UK admirers of the Ford Fiesta will get to savor a limited edition model of the Fiesta dubbed the Fiesta S1600. The special edition will be a sportier variant of the Fiesta and its production will be limited to 650 models only. Based on the Fiesta Zetec-S, the S1600 body kit will include an all new front bumper, side skirting, a spoiler and a rear diffuser.

    Ford Fiesta S1600 3

    The limited edition model will adore the classic Ford color configuration with blue double stripes against a white body or vice versa. Another specialty will be the 17-inch white alloy wheels for the petrol version and 16-inch for the diesel. Talk about engine choices and the limited edition will feature a 1.6 liter Ti-VCT Duratec with 120 PS petrol and 1.6 liter TDCi with 95 PS diesel optons. The S1600 is readily available and it costs £16,665.






  • Expert: Gulf Oil Spill Won’t Ruin Your Shrimp Dinner

    The idea of eating a platter of shrimp pulled from the same water where a sunken oil rig continues to leak 42,000 gallons of oil each day may not be appetizing to some, but some guy who claims to know a lot about the topic says you need not fret.

    Says Mike Voisin, past president of the National Fisheries Institute:

    No one should be worrying about whether the shrimp they’re having for dinner is going to have oil on it… First, no company wants to put that kind of product on the market… And those areas that have oil in them will be blocked by state health officials and not harvested.

    Voisin also claims that fish like tuna and shrimp will instinctively migrate away from the oil spill. He did admit that oysters are the most at risk because they lack the ability to move.

    Though a good chunk of domestically caught seafood comes from the Gulf of Mexico, 80% of the seafood consumed in the U.S. is imported.

    But if the spill moves further toward land it could wreak long-term havoc on the ecosystem and the Gulf fishing industry.

    “We’re very concerned that east of the Mississippi River, based on currents and winds we’re dealing with now, this oil will reach the shore,” says Chuck Wilson, a Louisiana State University oceanography and coastal sciences professor. “That could be a huge environmental problem and a significant financial blow to fisheries… But your food will be safe.”

    Seafood safe despite oil in Gulf of Mexico, experts say [CNN]

  • Tell us your favorite local, sustainable sandwich shops

    by Tom Philpott

    A couple of weeks ago, I penned a long tribute to the sandwich—specifically, locally owned sandwich shops that combine a high degree of cooking skill with a zeal for great ingredients from local farmers and producers.

    To me, these shops represent a nexus that joins skilled cooks, the surrounding farm community, and a broad swath of the local citizenry. They make terrific local food accessible, and keep food dollars circulating within their surrounding communities. And they also make a mean sandwich—no small thing in a world awash in horrible food.

    In my piece, I highlighted Chapel Hill’s path-breaking Sandwhich, Brooklyn’s glorious Bierkraft, and New Orleans’ sublime Cochon Butcher. Now that I’ve revealed to you, food-loving reader, my sandwich obsessions, I want to hear about yours.

    The Grist food section is plotting a slideshow of our nation’s great new-wave sandwich shops—and we want you to send in photos and a short description of your favorite ones.

    What we’re looking for is joints that are a) locally owned—no chains; b) creative; c) zealous about sourcing local ingredients; and d) capable of knocking out consistently and mind-blowingly good sandwiches.

    Here’s what to do. Identify a sandwich shop that meets those criteria. Take a snapshot of your favorite offering from there, and a few more of scenes from the place—you know, a sandwich artisan working her trade; a menu board full of temptations; what have you. Write a short—<300 word—case for why the place rocks. Send it all to me: tphilpott[at]grist[dot]org. (Feel free to use Flickr for the photos.) Deadline: May 7.

    People whose nominations we highlight in the slideshow will get the glory of being published on Grist (believe me, there is no glory on Earth like it); and one of those plastic shopping-bag thingies, the ones that crumple down to a fist-sized ball. Oh yeah, and they say “Grist” on them!

    Don’t just sit there staring slack-jawed. Go find great sandwiches. Hit the bricks!

    Related Links:

    Time for the public to reinvest in food-system infrastructure

    What a D.C. private school can teach us about public-school lunches

    With a bit more cash and lots of ingenuity, school lunches could be much better






  • Six amazing hybrid animals

    Ligers, tigons and grolar bears, oh my! Take a look at some of these otherworldly hybrid animals and you’ll realize the possibilities are endless. 

    Though they rarely occur in nature, individuals from different but closely related species do occasionally mate, and the result is a biological hybrid — an offspring that shares traits from both parent species. You may have heard of the mysterious sheep-pig creature, but it turns
    out that one isn’t a true hybrid.

    Here are six bizarre, but truly unique half-breeds.

     

    image name

    (Photo: Wiki Commons / GNU)

    Zebroids

    A zebroid is the
    offspring of a cross between a zebra and any other equine, usually a
    horse or a donkey. There are zorses, zonkeys, zonies, and a host of other
    combinations.

    Zebroids are an interesting example of hybrids bred from
    species that have a radically different number of chromosomes. For
    instance, horses have 64 chromosomes and zebra have between 32 and 44
    (depending on species). Even so, nature finds a way.

     

     


    image name

    (Photo: Jason Douglas / Wiki Commons / public domain)

    Savannah cats

    Savannah cats

    are the name given to the offspring of a domestic cat and a serval — a
    medium-sized, large-eared wild African cat. The
    unusual cross became popular among breeders
    at the end of the 20th
    century, and in 2001 the International Cat Association accepted it as a
    new registered breed.

    Interestingly, savannahs are much more social than
    typical domestic cats, and they are often compared to dogs in their
    loyalty. They can be trained to walk on a leash and even taught to play
    fetch.

     

     


    image name

    (Photo: aliwest44 / Flickr)

    Ligers

    Ligers are the cross of a male lion and
    a female tiger, and they are the largest of all living cats and
    felines. Their massive size may be a result of imprinted genes which are
    not fully expressed in their parents, but are left unchecked when the
    two different species mate. Some female ligers can grow to 10 feet in
    length and weigh more than 700 pounds.

    Ligers are distinct from tigons,
    which come from a female lion and male tiger. Various other big cat
    hybrids have been created too, including leopons (a leopard and a lion
    mix), jaguleps (a jaguar and leopard mix), and even lijaguleps (a lion
    and jagulep mix).

     

     


    image name

    (Photo: Mark Interrante (aka pinhole) / Flickr)

    Wholphins

    A cross between a false killer whale
    and an Atlantic bottlenose dolphin, wholphins are hybrids
    that have been reported to exist in the wild. There are currently two in
    captivity, both at Sea Life Park in Hawaii.

    The wholphin’s size, color, and shape are intermediate between the parent
    species. Even their number of teeth is mixed; a bottlenose has 88
    teeth, a false killer whale has 44 teeth, and a wholphin has 66.

     

     

    image name

    (Photo: via Inhabitots.com)

    Grolar bears

    The offspring of a grizzly bear and a
    polar bear, a
    grolar bear
    is one beast you don’t want to meet in the woods.
    Interestingly, unlike many hybrid animals on this list, grolar bears are
    known to occur naturally in the wild.

    Some experts predict that polar
    bears may be driven to breed
    with grizzly bears
    at an increased frequency due to global warming,
    and the fact that polar bears are being forced from their natural
    habitats on the polar ice.

     

     


    image name

    (Photo: via readthesmiths.com)

    Beefalo

    Beefalo are the fertile
    offspring of domestic cattle and American bison. Crosses also exist
    between domestic cattle and European bison (zubrons) and yaks (yakows).
    The name given to beefalo might be the most suggestive, since the breed
    was purposely created to combine the best characteristics of both
    animals with an eye towards beef production.

    A USDA study showed that beefalo
    meat, like bison meat, tends to be lower
    in fat and cholesterol
    . They are also thought to produce less damage
    to range-land than cattle.


    Bryan Nelson is a regular contributor to Mother Nature Network, where a
    version of this post

    originally appeared.

    More from Mother Nature Network

    Check out Yahoo! Green on Twitter and Facebook.

  • Google’s Android Fragmentation Problem Persists: AdMob

    Motorola’s Droid is the most used Android handset on the AdMob network — with 32 percent of traffic — so it might appear that Google’s Android fragmentation issues are over. Unfortunately, that’s not the case, according to the March metrics report from AdMob, which tracks smartphone usage through ads it provides mobile application developers — Android use on the AdMob network continues to be split fairly evenly among devices running three different versions of the OS. Such fragmentation challenges consumers and developers alike, as apps that run on one Android device may not run on another and consumers can feel that they’re missing out.

    To put the fragmentation issue in perspective: Some 96 percent of all Android traffic on AdMob’s network was generated from just two devices on a single version of the OS in September 2009. Seven months later, that same amount of traffic came from 11 different devices across Android versions 1.5, 1.6 and 2.1, as shown by the AdMob graph below.

    With the exception of Google’s Nexus One, carriers and handset makers ultimately control what Android version consumers use — carriers also have a say as to which updates get pushed to phones, so Google can’t upgrade every capable handset to its latest version of Android. And even in the case of the Nexus One, Google is backtracking on its strategy to gain greater control — the once web sales-only phone will be sold directly by Vodafone stores in the UK, while the version Google planned for Verizon Wireless isn’t coming to market after all.

    Google has started to take steps to reduce the fragmentation, most recently by creating core applications outside of the base Android platform and making them available for download on both old and new Android handsets. As I pointed out last month, such an effort helps reduce fragmentation on existing handsets because “only the base Android functionality would be in the hands of carriers and handset makers, while third-party developers — and Google itself — would expand Android functionality through downloadable software.”

    But Google needs to think about fragmentation when it comes to future handsets as well. Further decoupling of Android’s base functionality from installable software could come with Google’s Froyo and Gingerbread — code names for the next two Android iterations. Froyo is expected to debut in three weeks at a Google developer conference, but given the ultimate lack of control on what Android version a handset runs, a bigger (and totally unexpected) announcement would be Google pulling Android 1.x for new phones. Until Google exerts this type of control or decides to take an Apple-like approach and specifies standard hardware requirements for Android devices, the fragmentation issue is likely to continue.

    Related research on GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

    Google’s Mobile Strategy: Understanding the Nexus One

    Chart courtesy of AdMob

  • Can good climate legislation pass via reconciliation? [WITH TEACUP PIGS]

    by David Roberts

    As the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman climate bill teeters on the precipice, some greens are once again pushing for climate legislation to move through the budget reconciliation process, which requires only a 51-vote majority, instead of the standard bill process, which (thanks to absurd filibuster rules) requires a 60-vote supermajority.

    Kate Sheppard has a post making the most salient point: it almost certainly ain’t gonna happen. The Senate voted 67-31 last April to rule it out for climate legislation; the Senate Budget Committee passed a similar amendment last week. Maybe if Graham bails and the KGL process falls apart completely it will revive a reconciliation push, but it’s highly unlikely. That would require political brass balls, and neither the Senate Dem caucus nor Obama has demonstrated any on this issue.

    What about the substance, though? Is a climate bill via reconciliation a good idea on the merits?  As we contemplate these weighty and (my colleagues tell me) deathly boring issues, let us carry along with us some tiny little teacup pigs. OMFG SO CUTE.

    Reconciliation 101

    Reconciliation is widely misunderstood. It’s not an all-purpose procedural trick that allows the Senate to pass legislation with a simple majority. It was designed to ease passage of the federal budget, and ever since the famed Byrd Rule, only provisions that have direct budgetary impact can be included in it. The health-care reform bill didn’t pass via reconciliation—it passed with 60 votes in the Senate and was amended via reconciliation. The amendments affected only aspects of the bill that had direct budgetary impact (subsidies, taxes, etc.). The other parts of HCR, like insurance industry reforms, couldn’t have passed via reconciliation, because they aren’t budget-related. (Read this classic post in which Jon Chait basically loses his mind trying to explain this, for the gazillionth time, to political reporters.)

    So: only budget-related items—taxing and spending—can pass via reconciliation. What does this mean for climate legislation?

    Climate through the reconciliation filter

    You can think of good climate policy as a three-legged stool: legislation, regulation, and investment. U.S. elites like to pretend that all regulation is “command and control” and discredited in our enlightened neoliberal age, but neither America nor any other developed democracy behaves that way in practice. Regulations are rules of the road, and most roads need rules. (Energy markets, in particular, are in dire need of both simpler and greener rules.)

    Reconciliation would effectively chop off the regulatory leg of the stool. It would, for instance, rule out at least half the provisions in the Waxman-Markey ACES bill that was passed by the House last summer, most importantly renewable-energy standards (which drive cleantech deployment and innovation) and energy-efficiency standards (which save money and reduce emissions). On the bright side, it would also preclude any rollback of EPA authority or preemption of state climate programs.

    Reconciliation allows for changes to taxes and expenditures. In climate legislation, money can be raised (sticks) and spent (carrots) in a number of ways. It can be raised through a price on carbon: a cap-and-trade system like ACES, a hybrid system like the (rumored) KGL bill, a cap-and-dividend system like the Cantwell-Collins pony, or the much-feted “simple carbon tax.” Despite the heated disputes among proponents of those different systems, they’re more or less equivalent economically.

    Money could also be raised by rolling back existing tax breaks and subsidies to fossil fuels. Solve Climate has an excellent post on how difficult it is to determine exactly what counts as a subsidy, but also the potentially enormous sums involved.

    Money can be spent any number of ways—as free permits under a cap-and-trade system or cash under a carbon tax—on a number of things: clean energy RD&D, dividends to taxpayers, reductions in distortionary taxes, and (most likely!) transition assistance to pay off affected and politically opposed industries.

    It’s clear, then, that in terms of carbon pricing and spending, reconciliation offers quite a bit of flexibility to satisfy industry demands and smooth out regional disparities. In this way it is unlike health-care reform, the structure of which simply couldn’t have worked without the regulatory measures; a climate bill through reconciliation would be incomplete, but a clear improvement over the status quo.

    Two bills?

    The above considerations suggest a possible strategy: pass efficiency and clean-energy standards in a separate bill through the normal committee process, and pass carbon pricing/spending through reconciliation.

    Problem is, it’s not clear that either of those bills could get enough support to pass. Renewable-energy standards have failed many times before in the Senate, and the one that passed through Bingaman’s Energy Committee is weak to the point of useless. Same for its efficiency provisions; for reasons that continue to mystify me, the Senate isn’t that bold on efficiency either.

    Nor is it clear that there are 50 votes in the Senate for a climate pricing system. Check out Brad Johnson’s compendium of silly climate-related amendments that have found majority support in the Senate, including a couple with the absurd stricture that no climate policy raise electricity or gasoline prices. Even now in E&E’s running compendium of Senate climate votes [PDF], there are only 39 in the “yes” or “probably yes” category.

    This is to say nothing of the simple fact that it’s incredibly difficult to get any bill going in the Senate, much less two. The order could screw things up too: Pushing a bill through reconciliation first could so exacerbate partisan tensions as to make passage of a separate energy bill impossible. Passing an energy bill first could further sap the already tenuous political will to price carbon.

    To sum up

    There is a path to strong climate policy that travels through reconciliation. But for it to succeed would require a strong, coordinated push from Senate Democrats, in concert with the White House and at considerable political risk, for bills that likely wouldn’t be much stronger than what KGL proposes.

    If there were political will for such a push, on either end of Pennsylvania Ave., it would be swinging behind the existing bill. There are some signs of life, but as yet nothing of the intensity that will be required to secure victory against long odds. Fecklessness, it seems, rules the day, and reconciliation is not a path for the feckless.

    In short, reconciliation—like Cantwell-Collins, like the carbon tax, like the energy-only bill, like so many others that have come and gone in this debate—is another pony, gamboling just out of reach, enticing largely because it it’s hypothetical, serving mostly to distract attention from the haggard pack horse that is, for all her faults and infirmities, the only ride we’ve really got. 

    Related Links:

    Senate Dem leader vows action on both climate and immigration

    The upside of the Senate climate bill’s troubles

    Kerry says climate bill is not dead






  • Review: 2010 Royal Enfield G5 Classic is a real-world time machine

    Filed under: ,

    2010 Royal Enfield G5 Classic – Click above for high-res image gallery

    *Ahem.* Said in our very best Monty Python Cockney accent: “And now for something completely different.”

    The last couple of motorcycles we’ve reviewed – namely the Ducati Hypermotard 1100 EVO SP and Aprilia Dorsoduro – have been V-twin powered machines with horsepower figures that flirt with three digits and top speeds well over The Ton. Either of these bikes can quite easily loft the front wheel (or the rear, if that sort of thing is your bag, baby), burn up the drive rubber with reckless abandon or grind their hard bits into oblivion with the kinds of ludicrous lean angles that are normally seen only at weekend MotoGP races.

    However, today’s review is most definitely not that kind of bike. In fact, you might say it’s diametrically opposed to either of the aforementioned pavement pounders. The subject of this test is the brand-new-for-2010 Royal Enfield G5 Classic, and the question that was on our minds when we first laid our eyes and sweaty palms on the machine was this: Is it possible that a classically styled, low-horsepower, single-cylinder motorcycle that traces its heritage way back to the 1950s can be as fun to ride as a much more powerful, fully modern and well-equipped model? Read on, friends.

    Photos by Jeremy Korzeniewski / Copyright (C)2010 Weblogs, Inc.

    Continue reading Review: 2010 Royal Enfield G5 Classic is a real-world time machine

    Review: 2010 Royal Enfield G5 Classic is a real-world time machine originally appeared on Autoblog on Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:57:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

    Permalink | Email this | Comments

  • AMD Unveils Two New Six Core Processors And 890FX Chipset

    AMD today unveiled two new processors featuring six cores for the general consumer. The two new processors – Phenom II 1055T and the Phenom II X6 1090T – run at 2.8Ghz and 3.2Ghz respectively. Both the processors have 3MB of L2 cache, and 6Mb of L3 cache. The TDP of both the processors is rated at 125W. The processors will work on motherboards with either AM2+ or AM3 socket, having proper BIOS support.

    “With AMD Phenom II X6 processors, discerning customers can build an incredible, immersive entertainment system and content creation powerhouse. AMD is answering the call for elite desktop PC performance and features at an affordable price.”- said Bob Grim, Director of Client Platform Marketing at AMD.

    amd-logo1

    The processors also feature AMD’s “Turbo CORE” technology, which can automatically overclock up to 3 cores. This will allow an increase in performance for single threaded applications. Both the processors have been built on the 45nm fabrication process. The processors contain 904 million transistors and have a die size of 346mm2. AMD also launched the 890FX chipset. The 890FX chipset is more or less identical to its predecessor – the 790FX.

    The new chipset is built on the 65nm fabrication process. The main difference is the new SB850 Southbridge. The new chipset has support for 14 USB 2.0 ports, and 6 SATA ports but has no USB 3.0 ports. AMD calls the 890FX chipset, a Dx11 based ATI graphics card and a Thuban based six core processor combination – Leo – the successor to the “Dragon” platform.

    The MSRP for the Phenom II X6 1090T is 285$ while that of Phenom II X6 1050T is 199$. At this price point the AMD Phenom II X6 processors, seem a much more valuable option compared to the six core i7-980X CPU from Intel, which cost 1000$.

    AMD Unveils Two New Six Core Processors And 890FX Chipset originally appeared on Techie Buzz written by Rajesh Pandey on Tuesday 27th April 2010 12:54:34 PM. Please read the Terms of Use for fair usage guidance.

    Don’t miss these Related Posts:

    Join Techie Buzz on Your Favorite Social Networking Sites


  • Q&A: Peter Gleick Weighs in on the Bottled Water Battle

    Why do people buy billions of gallons of expensive bottled water in the U.S., a country where most of the tap water is cheap and extremely high quality? In his new book “Bottled and Sold,” international water expert Peter Gleick looks for answers in the bigger questions about why we buy bottled water, and defines alternatives for the future.

    Bottled Water Battle

    “Bottled and Sold” available online at Amazon.com

    By Circle of Blue

    J. Carl Ganter: Welcome to Circle of Blue Radio’s Series 5 in 15, where we’re asking global thought leaders five questions in 15 minutes, more or less. These are experts working in journalism, science, communication design, and water. I’m J. Carl Ganter. Today’s program is underwritten by Traverse Internet Law, tech savvy lawyers, representing internet and technology companies.

    There’s a war going on over what kind of water you drink–bottling companies have waged a campaign against tap water and it’s paying off, according to Pacific Institute President and MacArthur Fellow Peter Gleick. Why do people buy billions of gallons of expensive bottled water in the U.S., a country where most of the tap water is cheap and extremely high quality? Some consumers don’t like the taste of their tap water. Bottled water is usually readily available, and some companies have launched fear campaigns against the tap, while others produce misleading advertising. But banning the bottle isn’t the solution, Gleick says. Instead, it’s time to take a hard look at the bigger picture to understand why we buy bottled water so as to define alternatives for the future.

    Q: Dr. Gleick, thanks for joining us today. I wanted to ask, as a scientist, what drew your real interests to bottled water and to writing a book–Bottled & Sold?

    A: I think the whole story about bottled water is a remarkable one. You have to ask yourself, how did we get to this point, how did we get to a situation where billions and billions of gallons of bottle water are sold in a country where tap water is universally available and of incredibly high quality for the most part and remarkably cheap. How did we get to the point where bottled water, where water itself became a commodity to be bottled and sold? That’s what this book tries to deal with. This book tries to address the history of bottled water, the strange stories behind bottled water, the reasons why people drink bottled water or say they buy bottled water, and how we can get out of the situation we’re in.

    Q: You’re pointing out here that there’s a bigger story about how we view and use water–where does bottled water fit in?

    A: Well, here is the big story. The big story is not just bottled water. The big story is the state of the world’s water as a whole and why bottled water has become an important component of that. There are plenty of people who think that we should just get rid of bottled water, that we should ban bottled water, but that’s not what this book argues. I don’t think that’s really the story. What we have to ask ourselves is why do people drink bottled water, when for the most part in a country like the United States and many other parts of the world, tap water is incredibly available and cheap and high quality. Why do we buy bottled water? When we ask that question, we come up with a different set of issues. All of a sudden we understand that there’s a war on tap water by commercial interests. There are places where people don’t like the taste of their tap water or they fear the quality of their tap water. There are places where we just can’t get water conveniently because our water fountains are disappearing one by one. There’s a whole campaign to market and advertise water in a commercial sense to us to make us think, well, you know what, to be sexier, to be skinnier, to be more popular, we have to buy this or that brand of bottled water. What this book says is if we really don’t like the idea of bottled water, we better think about why people buy this bottled water and tackle those problems themselves.

    Q: Tell us some of the secrets–why are people so drawn to buying bottled water?

    A: I think there are four principle reasons why people buy bottled water. I do believe there’s war on tap water, a war being fought by commercial interests who would much rather sell us a very expensive commercial product than have us simply rely on what we’ve always relied on for more than a century now, that is the water coming out of our taps. So people are being made to fear their tap water. That’s one reason why people buy bottled water. A second is people sometimes don’t like the taste of their tap water, and that’s a legitimate concern. In some places, tap water doesn’t taste very good. For that reason, people choose to buy bottled water. A third is that we’re marketed, we’re bombarded with advertising about how this or that brand of bottled water will make us popular or make us more stylish or make us skinnier or sexier or all of the tools of marketing are being used to push bottled water on to consumers. The fourth reasons is it’s increasingly hard to find tap water. Bottled water is really convenient. Think about where you are at any given moment of the day, and you can probably find somebody selling bottled water within a few tens or hundreds of feet, in a vending machine or a 7-11 or some other convenience store. Bottled water has become pretty ubiquitous, and yet our water fountains are disappearing. For all of these reasons, I think sales of bottled water have exploded, and we’ve become increasingly reliant on what used to be a pretty odd thing to think about, that is commercially packaged pieces of plastic holding a little bit of water.

    Q: Are there some larger discussions that play, perhaps around human rights, regulations, even fundamental values, that deserve or demand new attention?

    A: Bottled water is a piece, only a piece, of the world’s water problems. I would be the first to acknowledge, and this book clearly acknowledges, that there are parts of the planet where you don’t want to drink the tap water. Either there is no tap water because governments or communities have failed to meet their basic human needs for water, they’ve failed to provide safe, reliable tap water for people, and bottled water is the only alternative. The problem is that it’s an alternative only for the rich. In places where there is no acceptably clean tap water, the wealthier parts of communities buy bottled water. They spend the money necessary to buy safe water, but that leaves out of the equation billions of people who can’t afford to buy bottled water and who don’t have access to safe tap water. The answer is not to provide bottled water for everybody. The answer is to spend the money and to build the infrastructure to provide safe, clean and affordable tap water for everybody. But in other parts of the world, in developed countries where we have safe tap water, I think we really need to look deeply within ourselves and within our communities about what bottled water really means and whether we ought to be addressing the reasons people buy bottled water.

    Q: There’s a huge complex here built around a largely profitable commodity in a plastic bottle. How can a company shift its earnings away from bottled water and explain that to its shareholders? How could they or would they change?

    A: A number of companies and a number of big companies are making a lot of money selling us bottled water. Bottled water has become a commodity, and I don’t argue in the book that we ought to ban bottled water. I don’t that’s realistic. I think bottle water could be considered a commodity like any other commodity. I do believe, however, that in places where governments have failed to provide safe drinking water from municipal systems, safe tap water, that what we ought to require is that there be universal access to safe tap water, that we provide the alternative to bottled water, and that we marginalize bottled water. Bottled water ought to be a choice that people make, but it shouldn’t be a requirement. That’s something that most parts of the world don’t have the luxury of having at the moment. We don’t have the luxury of safe tap water in many parts of the world, but if we’re not going to ban bottled water, bottled water is going to be a commodity that’s available. I think there are other things that we ought to do to make it a marginalized commodity. If people really want to spend the money to buy bottled water, fine, let them, but let’s remove the reasons that people buy bottled water. Let’s put in place, for example, pretty strict rules about advertising and marketing; about false advertising; [and] about letting companies claim that bottled water is safer than tap water, which for the most part in richer countries, it isn’t. Let’s put in place rules so that they can’t claim it makes you skinnier or sexier without proof that it can do the things its advertisements claim. Let’s make sure that tap water tastes good everywhere. That’s not magic–we know how to make tap water taste good, and in places where it doesn’t taste good municipalities ought to make sure that it does. Let’s remove that as a reason. Let’s rebuild our water fountain infrastructure. There ought to be water fountains everywhere so that people can get safe, inexpensive tap water whenever and wherever they are. Finally, I think there ought to be pretty strict regulations on the quality of bottled water, and there aren’t in most parts of the world.

    Q: Do you have a specific marketing story you can share that really caught your eye during the research for the book?

    A: One of the problems that we face on the marketing side is that we have in place pretty strict rules for false advertising, but what we don’t have in place is enforcement of those rules. You get, especially on the Internet, where people can say almost anything they want without much oversight, [or] without much enforcement of false marketing laws, you get bottled water companies saying things that simply aren’t true. You get bottled water companies advertising oxygenated water, as though magically you could get more oxygen to the human body through bottled water than you can get through breathing–which you can’t. You get marketing of bottled waters that will tell you that you can lose weight, and there is, of course, no shortage of diet scams in any industry, but even the bottled water industry is susceptible to marketing scams for dieting. There’s no magic bottled water that can make you lose weight. There are all sorts of advertisements for magically clustered or magnetically re-arranged or cosmically altered bottled waters that are just crap, and yet there is no adequate control by the Federal Trade Commission, by the Food and Drug Administration, by any federal or international agency to protect the public. I think that makes people spend money on waters that don’t do them any good without much government protection.

    Q: Can you give us some examples?

    A: There are many different kinds of bottled water. There is a small subset of water bottlers that make all sorts of claims for what their magic bottled waters can do. They’re magnetically altered. They’re electrically altered. They’re physically altered. There magic chemicals added to them that give them special properties. Most of this stuff is garbage, and it’s time that our regulatory agencies stepped up and really did their job in protecting the public. There are more traditional bottled waters that come from reliable bottlers, and even many of them hint that their bottled waters are safer than tap water, that they’re more protected than tap water, and for the most part it’s just not true.

    Q: On the bottles we buy, there are different labels–there’s spring water, regular water, what’s the difference?

    A: There’s lots of different kinds of bottled water, and there’s lots of different labels that we see on our bottled water, but the two principle differences are spring water and stuff that doesn’t say spring water. Spring water, in theory, is water that comes from ground water aquifers, either from an actual spring or from a well drilled into or nearby a naturally flowing spring. Then there are the other waters, which are typically in the United States and elsewhere, [that are] simply reprocessed municipal water. More than 40 percent of the bottled water sold in the United States is simply reprocessed municipal water. It comes from municipal taps. It comes from municipal water systems, and it sometimes runs through additional processing, but it’s certainly no safer than our municipal water. Yet, people don’t understand that. People think, well, if it’s bottled, it must be better than our tap water, and it isn’t. Now spring water itself, in some ways I would argue, is even riskier than reprocessed municipal water. At least municipal water we know is supposed to meet federal standards for tap water already. Spring water is, in my opinion, at risk of contamination that municipal water isn’t. The book talks about some of the risks of spring water. I think, for the most part, bottled water is relatively safe, just as for the most part our tap water is safe, but we don’t inspect bottled water as frequently or as carefully as we inspect municipal water. I actually think tap water often is far better monitored and inspected and protected than some of the bottled waters that are sold in the United States.

    Q: And one of the other major questions with spring water particularly is who owns it? Do you touch on that in the book?

    A: I do. One of the controversies about bottled water is where it comes from. Increasingly, because a lot of the bottled water sold in the U.S. is labeled spring and hence has to come from or near natural springs, there’s more and more controversy over where that water is coming from or what the local impacts on local communities are going to be. There are more and more stories, some of which are described in the book, about local communities opposing bigger and bigger bottled water companies coming in and taking their local spring water. In some cases, they’ve dried up local springs or local wetlands. In some cases, there’s concerns about massive amounts of truck traffic driving through local communities as these big water companies come in and build massive bottled water plants. There is this part of the movement against bottled water, a local movement against some of these big bottling companies, and I think there’s going to be more and more pressure on these big companies not to take water from some of these local communities in ways that cause problems. I think that’s part of the movement against bottled water.

    Q: And finally, so what’s your vision for bottled water in the next few years?

    A: I see two possible futures. I see a future in which we fail to protect our tap water and we continue to fail to provide basic water, basic clean and affordable water for all of the world’s people. In that future, bottled water is a bigger and bigger deal. We bottle more of it. We sell it to people who can afford it. The poor continue to suffer from the lack of availability of safe, inexpensive tap water, and water related diseases continue to plague especially the world’s poor. I think that’s a future we could easily see in which bottled water becomes a bigger and bigger story, a bigger and bigger commodity. But I see another possible future, and that is one in which we continue to have bottled water available as a commodity, but it becomes a weird thing. It becomes something that people only buy because they have a lot of money or because they really think that it’s something that they want for reasons of style or glamour. But, for the most part, bottled water becomes once again what it used to be–that is a small and insignificant part of our water story. What we really have is we have extensive, widely available, inexpensive, high quality, good tasting tap water for everybody. As long as we fail to provide good safe tap water for everybody, bottled water has a niche. It has a foothold, but as soon as we provide safe tap water for everybody, then bottled water becomes something that unnecessary. If we can make it unnecessary, then it won’t disappear, but it will once again become a small part of the water story and not a big part.

    Q: J. Carl Ganter: Thanks so much for joining us. We’ve been speaking with Peter Gleick, President of the Pacific Institute and author of the new book, Bottled and Sold. To learn more about global issues and the stories behind them, be sure to tune in to Circle of Blue online at CircleofBlue.org.

    Our theme is composed by Nedev Kahn, and Circle of Blue Radio is underwritten by Traverse Legal, PLC, internet attorneys specializing in trademark infringement litigation, copyright infringement litigation, patent litigation and patent prosecution. Join us gain for Circle of Blue Radio’s 5 in 15. I’m J. Carl Ganter.

  • Plug Greece’s Latest Soaring Bond Yields Into This Debt-Trap Equation And Watch The Whole Thing Spiral Out Of Control

    According to Bloomberg, Greece’s 2-year bond continues to rout, and now yields 15.07%. The 10-year is moving in the same direction, now yielding 9.76%. Remember, even at previously lower yields, Greece looked set on the path for default:

    ‘[Before:] In order for Greece to simply stop increasing its total outstanding debt, it thus has to achieve a primary budget surplus of about 7.44% if interest payments are not to push the budget into deficit, according to Mr. Münchau. This is assuming the economy doesn’t grow. If the economy can manage 2% growth, then Greece needs a 4.96% budget surplus just to tread water.”

    The above analysis, originally from Eurointelligence, used the simple yet effective ‘debt sustainability rule’ to calculate what budget surplus is necessary to keep the total national debt from growing, based on interest rates and GDP growth.

    It is calculated as “the break-even primary balance (PB) requires a country to sustain the debt-to-GDP ratio (b), with marginal interest on future bond issues (i) and the rate of nominal growth (g): PB = b*(i-g).” In Greece’s case a recent value for debt-to-GDP (b) is 123%.

    But… it was based on the older, lower bond yields. Now things are even worse. If we plug the latest 9.76% 10-year bond yield into the equation, we get the following. (Note we aren’t even plugging in Greece’s 2-year yield, assuming the country would borrow for ten years instead to fund itself. It works for our purposes, this is a back of the envelope)

    Chart

    This table shows that even with strong 4% GDP growth, Greece would need to achieve a huge 7.08% budget surplus just to keep its debt to GDP ratio from rising further. Too bad Greece’s economy is expected to contract this year, rather than grow, and it has a budget deficit, rather than a surplus!

    Thus the latest spike in yields means Greece is truly a goner. Note this is even with the planned IMF 45 billion euro bailout. Markets know the bailout is coming yet are still pushing yields higher.

    The math above makes it clear. Debt/GDP will likely rise rapidly this year due to a shrinking economy and a huge budget deficit. As debt/GDP rises, it only makes the equation above even uglier — It becomes harder and harder to dig yourself out of the hole.

    This is the debt trap in action.

    Join the conversation about this story »

  • Rent movies now on YouTube (and let’s get ’em on Android soonest)

    YouTube Movie Rental

    Played around a little bit over the weekend with renting a movie on YouTube. And when I say "played around," I mean clicked about three times and had "Reservoir Dogs" available for 24 hours for just $1.99. No muss, no fuss. And best of all, no third-party app or download to do it. Watching full-screen wasn’t quite as good as on a DVD (never mind BluRay), but for the price, it wasn’t bad at all. And even better was how easy it was.

    Point is, YouTube (at least to me) has already proven itself as a viable streaming movie rental service (look out, Netflix). How long until we see such service on an Android smartphone? Let’s get that done, Google. Check it out for yourself at YouTube.com/store.