Blog

“Fifty percent of kills happen on the corners,” according to SmartSight inventor Matthew Hagerty. And his creation—a rifle sight camera that wirelessly transmits real-time video back to its soldier—will help ensure that our soldiers win those battles. More »

 

The Motorola i1, the first push to talk Android-powered phone, is now available on SouthernLinc Wireless. We had expected Sprint to be the first carrier to carry the Motorola i1 but we guess a little carrier no one’s heard about beat them to the punch. And it looks like Boost Mobile is hot on its heels, with MobileCrunch scoring confirmation that the i1 is on the way to the MVNO. 

The Motorola i1 is actually a rather decent phone for those in the iDEN market — it packs a 5-megapixel camera, gorilla glass screen, and is Military Spec 810F certified for blowing rain, dust, shock, vibration, temperature extremes, low pressure, salt fog, humidity and solar radiation. Now that’s a spec list for you. The i1 also comes preloaded with Opera Mini 5 (and the native browser too) and Swype, so in all, a pretty decent option for those looking for a rugged handset. [via southernlinc and MobileCrunch]

Thanks for the tip Adam!

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

The Glashütte Original Senator Diary is a first in any market, allowing you to set an alarm up to 30 days ahead of time. The watch also features a stainless steal case, panorama data display, galvanized black dial and more. It has a white gold hour, minute and sweep second hands for a more elegant appearance. At the core, the Glashütte Original Caliber 100-13, which combines the Caliber 100-03 with the extraordinary new diary appointment module for total of 600 components. Imagine the time and patience it takes for one to be crafted. It definitely shows the mechanical engineering prowess of such a watch company like Glashütte.

Continue reading for more images.

Source: Watch Luxus

A man named Mike Colleran joined General Motors in 1989, the year GM bought Saab. Colleran has been part of Saab in the United States since 2005 and is now in charge of paving the way for the brand in North America under new Dutch owner – Spyker Cars. Spyker’s purchase of Saab in February saved the Swedish automaker from shutting down.

When asked by Automotive News whether or not Saab has suffered in the past 18 months, Saab COO Colleran said: “It is difficult to understand the complete depth of that damage. Certainly the brand did suffer. I think consumers went through kind of a roller coaster ride. It tends to shake your faith just a little bit.”

Click here to get prices on the 2010 Saab 9-5.

Moving forward, Saab will operate totally separate from Spyker, Colleran said.

“We have the Spyker logo in the building because they are the parent company,” he said. “We are not operating any Spyker business out of here whatsoever, and there is no intent to do that.”

As for the new Saab 9-5 sedan, Colleran says that the Audi A6 is the vehicle’s main competitor, in terms of handling and ride. “BMW 5 series, I think. Volvo S80 I think is right in there.”

2010 Saab 9-5:

– By: Kap Shah

Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

BP (BP) has now lost about $60 billion since the Deepwater Horizon blew up and started gushing oil into the gulf.

It lost another $6 billion today, dropping about $2 with 3 billion shares outstanding. Meanwhile, check out the leak livecam. Since we’ve been watching this, we haven’t seen it more intense.

And don’t miss these horrible images of the oil slick from outer space >

Join the conversation about this story »

A few months back, we noted that James Murdoch had a rather funny view of copyright — and, by funny, we meant “wrong.” He pulled out the common refrain of someone who doesn’t actually understand the issue at all, claiming that infringement is no different than stealing a physical good, and that copyright should be treated exactly like owning a house. I’m not sure how such a total misunderstanding of copyright law resulted in him being asked to address University College London’s new Centre for Digital Humanities on the anniversary of the Statute of Anne (the first copyright law), but apparently it did, as many, many of you sent in.

Paid Content has the full transcript, and I’ll say that while he still gets a lot wrong, it becomes clear that he’s at least aware of views on the other side — though, he takes many of those views out of context or totally misrepresents them to knock down strawmen. Apparently, he’s unfamiliar with the idea of (a) properly applying liability, (b) due process, or (c) privacy. But, you know… maybe he’ll learn those next. There are some serious problems throughout his speech, most of which have to do with his confusion on basic economics, his insistence that price and value are the same thing and that there’s such a thing as a “fair price.”

Let’s highlight some key points:

I make these remarks at a time of great debate about the future of journalism. Many voices predict its demise as it goes through a transition from being a medium that is predominantly physical to one that is predominantly digital. It is in this context of real consequence that The Times and The Sunday Times will soon become among the first papers in the world to assert a fair value for their online editions.

I love the wording here: “assert a fair value.” As if implying that everyone else in the business is not asserting a fair value. But, again, we can see what the market thinks of his notion of “fair value,” but I warn him that the market tends to price things not on “fair value” (a made up concept) but on supply and demand. I’d like to see how his notion of “fair value” stands up to the notion of “widespread free competition.”

I want also to try to put into context the prevailing consensus about the digital world and the way in which it works — the consensus that the free flow of information not only can, but must, literally, be free.

This is a strawman. Cory Doctorow recently wrote up a wonderful piece about how the only people who seem to quote, “information wants to be free” are those setting up a strawman they’re trying to knock down. Even the original quote, from Stewart Brand, wasn’t just “information wants to be free.” The context was much more involved and explained why information is both free and has tremendous value. So Murdoch is setting up a total strawman to knock down, because most people aren’t claiming “information wants to be free.” Information doesn’t want anything. What we’re saying is that the market has already priced certain kinds of information… and they’re pricing it based on supply and demand. But, that’s harder to counter, so Murdoch has to pretend there are people out there insisting that information “wants” to be free.

I want to inquire — as dispassionately and factually as I can — into what drives that consensus … because I believe that the digital consensus is flawed. Although expressed in terms of high principle and morality, it is more revealing to study the economics of the thing — to find out what’s really going on.

There is no consensus. You took a quote out of context and assigned it to a group of people who didn’t make it. That you find it flawed is fine. Because it is. But you’re not arguing the point that people are actually making, you’re arguing against a strawman.

But, yes, it is much more revealing to study the economics of thing. Let’s look at the economics of supply and demand, and what happens in a market where supply is infinite, competition is much higher than before — and, most importantly, distribution, promotion and content creation costs plummet. Or are those not the economics you wish to discuss?

I want to show you that restoring the balance between creators and the means of distribution would be a huge spur to creative growth … and that an approach based on experience — on a proven approach to protecting creative vision — is the key to a thriving creative sector and a rich and continuing tradition of these digital humanities.

Forgive me. “Restore” the balance to copyright? In the last 300 years, copyright has expanded in one direction and one direction only: towards greater and greater and greater levels of protectionism for copyright holders, and against the public and the public domain. And, when I read “an approach based on experience,” I hear “please set up barriers to block out competition so I can have my old business model back.” Murdoch is basically saying, “stomp out innovation, ’cause I don’t know how to deal with it.”

First, it has a firm belief that the old rules relating to physical things like books and music are simply irrelevant to the digital world, so there is no point in looking back.

No. No one has said the old rules relating to physical things are “irrelevant.” In fact, we’re arguing that they’re very, very relevant. The issue is that the “rules” include supply and demand, and things like marginal cost. You’re the one trying to pretend those old rules shouldn’t apply in the digital world.

As many people put it, we have a new paradigm: we all own everything, so no-one owns anything. The internet — and everything on it, it is said — wants to be free.

Please point to a single person who has made this “we all own everything, so no-one owns anything” argument. We’ll be waiting. This is a false call to smear people who actually understand the economics of digital goods as “socialists.” But it’s wrong. It’s not about owning everything or that no one owns anything. In fact, quite the opposite. It’s about noting that when supply is abundant, or infinite, you can make more of anything at no cost, and thus individuals actually can own more.

Second, digital networks are depicted as forces of nature. The idea that anyone might try to shape the future, to influence events, to innovate with an outcome, is seen as foolish — or indeed out-of-touch.

No, not digital networks. But basic economics.

You can see why this vision appeals. It feels radical and new.

Well, since you’re describing a vision that almost no one subscribes to, I don’t see it actually appealing to people. But if you’re talking about those who discuss the economics of information, the reason it appeals to us has nothing to do with it being “radical and new.” It appeals to us because it’s right.

Yet there are some immediate concerns. We cannot just assume that greater connectivity is a force for good in and of itself. It might be easy to assert that if everyone, everywhere, can access anything with a browser and a broadband connection, then our society — all societies — are going to be wiser, better informed and more democratic.

Another strawman, and notice how he shifts the topic a little. There are two separate arguments here: one about the economics of content, and the other about the impact of the free flow of information on democracy. Those are two different things. There certainly is some overlap in people who talk about both of those things, but many people feel strongly about one, but not the other. But, if you’re going to make up people to tear down, you might as well lump different groups together and assume they’re all the same.

We certainly have easier, faster, cheaper ways to share with each other. But we have to face the fact that a huge amount of the capacity now available is used to distribute things without the permission of their creators, let alone any payment to them. In the first quarter of this year alone, there were 190 million downloads of Hollywood content in just 20 countries. You can add to that substantial illegal web streaming, where viewers watch without downloading. This is not the stuff of a few students outwitting the system. It is deliberate and on an industrial scale.

Yes, people share lots of unauthorized files on the internet. And so?

I am struck by the number of commentators who switch seamlessly from one strongly moral argument in favour of free content as being good for society: to another which seems to me to be completely immoral: saying that we can’t stop people distributing content without permission, so we may as well give everyone the right to do so.

Who, exactly, is making that argument? According to Murdoch, it’s basically everyone in every other part of the industry. Google and the Consumer Electronics Association are really the instigators. He doesn’t name them by name, but he makes it pretty clear. But, then, of course there are also libraries (libraries!) seeking to undermine his business. And, of course, the government. That darn BBC. It’s too good, apparently.

Take the search business. It depends on an ability to index and search other people’s material, and present the results of those searches to its users surrounded by advertising. Search is a highly profitable business, because the raw material presented to customers can be indexed at essentially zero incremental cost. Therefore, information that might only be searched or indexed with a fair price paid to the producer undermines that model.

What is this “fair price” you speak of? A fair price to point people to your business? Do you charge people to tell their friends where your store is? Of course not. You want people pointing your business out to others. It’s called free advertising, and that’s what search engines provide. It’s why there’s an entire industry called “search engine optimization.”

What is often absent from the public’s understanding and commentators’ calculation, is that without investment in original content in the first place, there will be little to index, search, and aggregate.

And… here we go with yet another strawman. No one denies that investment in original content is needed. What Murdoch is ignoring — either on purpose or through ignorance — is that we believe there are many other business models, often better business models, that don’t require locking stuff down and charging people to advertise your business. This is a huge myth that folks like Murdoch like to claim: without stronger copyright laws there are no business models. Perhaps Murdoch can’t think of those business models, but plenty of others seem to have no problem.

I’m not going to quote the next bit, but he goes on to blame pretty much every other industry, and then actually does accurately set up what my response would be:

‘So what?’ you might say. That’s competition. And in large part I would agree with you.

Except, it turns out that “large part” of agreement, isn’t so large, because he immediately qualifies it down to nothing.

But I would urge you to bear two things in mind.

First, cultural content has a social importance different from, say, the automobile or energy markets, and beyond its economic contribution — because it is the sphere of ideas, imagination, accountability and communication.

You see, says young Murdoch, my industry is more special than any of those other industries. My industry deserves protectionist policies that shrink the market and allow me to thrive with less competition.

Yet journalism — print and digital — faces trouble. In the last year in the U.S. alone, 109 newspapers shut down or stopped publishing a print edition, leaving many cities without a single paper.

The reasons are not hard to understand. Search companies and aggregators skim content from a thousand sources, sell it to clients, scoop up advertising revenues and put little or nothing back into professional newsgathering.

This is so wrong it’s laughable. Search engines and aggregators advertise your content and send you more traffic for free. They’re not taking away your ad revenue. At all.

Second, many of the pressures on content — journalism included — are caused by governments. Frankly, states provide a level of subsidised news that is: incredibly high; comprehensive; and well funded.

Okay, so let me get this straight. We’re discussing the decline of the journalism industry and your first two culprits are Google and the BBC? You leave out things like the fact that newspapers survived by basically having near-monopolies for many years, and now they have competition from many more sources? You leave out the fact that newspapers never made money from subscription fees, but always from advertising, and the advertising market has become more diverse and more difficult for newspapers to master? You leave out the fact that the newspapers took on ridiculous debt loads because of bad management decisions, and most of the newspapers that have shut down did so due to inability to pay back debt? I think your list needs to be restructured.

He then goes on to appeal to the history of The Statute of Anne, not recognizing that it was a protectionist policy for printers, not unlike protectionist policies for other monopolies in the United Kingdom. Yet, less than a century later, Adam Smith explained why such protectionism actually shrunk markets, and we started to move away from gov’t granted monopolies towards a free market. Not surprisingly, Murdoch leaves out that part of the history.

He moves on to talk about the movie business, with this nugget:

The workprint of one film, Wolverine, was stolen and posted on the internet and then downloaded 14 million times prior to theatrical release. It has now been downloaded more than 25 million times — with five European countries accounting for much of the total. This shows that great damage can be done at lightning speed.

Wait, what damage? Wolverine made a ton of money and a comparison with other movies that had a lot of similarities and had much better reviews showed that Wolverine actually made a lot more money than those other, similar films. In other words, there’s no evidence, whatsoever, that there was any damage at all. If anything, it suggests (though, does not prove) that the massive press coverage about the leak may have made more people interested in the movie.

The principles set out in the Statute of Anne represented a major step forward in the free flow of ideas.

It recognised that piracy would have led to a long-term decline in the distribution of books.

Except that this is wrong. As many studies have shown, as “piracy” has increased in both the music and movie business, so has output of music and movies. As for book piracy, the common example is Charles Dickens’ complaints about how US law actually ignored UK copyrights for many years. But it actually boosted Dickens’ reputation in America that magazines published his works, and his books and his own public lecture tours did quite well in the US. And, even though they didn’t need to, US publishers paid him royalties, because there were benefits to doing so. When Dickens came to the US, despite his complaints about “piracy” of his books, he did hundreds of paid readings that brought in a lot of money. Not bad for someone who’s career was being “destroyed.” So why is Murdoch making assertions not supported by the facts? Are the facts too inconvenient?

This is a significant sector. In 2008 it represented some 7% of the total wealth created annually in the European Union — some £743.38 (£743.38 (£743.38 (€860))) billion — and provided some 14 million people with jobs. Yet billions annually are lost to piracy and a cumulative total not far short of 200,000 jobs have already gone.

These numbers are made up. They’re from the same bogus numbers that assume that any business that touches on copyright (furniture? copyright!) only exists because of copyright.

Do not be misled by claims of high principle in this debate. When someone tells you content wants to be free, what you should hear is ‘I want your content for free’ — and that is not the same thing at all.

Sure, if you want to close off all logic and reason. Perhaps, first, after finding these mythical beasts who shout “all content wants to be free,” you should study the basic economics of information, and look for smarter business models.

We must rediscover something that should be very obvious: the importance of placing a proper value on creative endeavour.

Aha. No longer “fair value,” but “proper value.” But, here’s the thing: value is not the same thing as price. If something is valuable, people will buy it only if the price is lower than that value. But, of course, he’s not really talking about value. He’s talking about price, and making sure that the market doesn’t set the price. What “the importance of placing a proper value on creative endeavour” really means is “the government needs to help me set a higher price than the market would.” It’s a call for protectionism.

Just look at the newspaper business. For years, many newspapers have put no value at all on the work they place online.

Wrong. They put no price on it. I imagine they value it quite a lot. Of course, the same is true of most newspapers. Most newspapers, even the ones in Murdoch’s own stable, charge less for a subscription than the printing and delivery costs. By Murdoch’s own claim, he does not value his own newspapers. But, of course, that’s wrong, and it’s disingenuous as well. We all know (though Murdoch totally ignores) that the reason newspapers make money is because of advertising. The customers are the advertisers, and I imagine the newspapers have put quite a lot of value on that ad space.

In contrast, at News International here in the UK, we are proud of the quality of our journalism and the contribution we make to life around the country, and indeed for our readers around the world.

How obnoxious. Because others have a better business model than you, it means they don’t care about the quality of their journalism? Does he really think this convinces anyone?

Shouldn’t we welcome a revolution in journalism that answers the needs of readers — and provides the means for sustained further investment? Without some simple common sense — like this — the alternative we face is a grim one: to have news that is produced only by the wealthy, the amateur, or the government.

Yes, of course, we should welcome a revolution that answers the needs of readers. But you are suggesting the only way to do that is with a paywall. And when your paywall fails, then where will you be? And, must I point out the irony of James Murdoch, one of the wealthiest people around, who helps run a company that contains many properties for generating amateur content, and is giving a talk in which he’s asking for more government protection, complaining that if he doesn’t get it, journalism will only come from the wealthy, the amateur or the government? And that he makes that claim with not a shred of evidence?

Asserting a fair value for digital journalism is a starting point. I don’t think we will be alone in taking this kind of action. And although these steps have provoked some alarmist comment, no-one who really cares about the humanities of tomorrow should be either shocked or affronted by what we are doing.

Ah, now we’re back to “fair value” rather than “proper value.” And, no, you won’t be alone. But, the thing is, while others may follow you down that road, most won’t. And so you’ll have free competition, providing content equally good to that for which you’re trying to charge. How is that going to work out? I’m not “alarmed” at your company making a move destined to fail. I’m just wondering how you can’t see what’s going to happen.

Can we agree that preserving and rewarding creativity is in the long-term interest of our society?

No one would disagree with that. They only disagree with the method. Relying on gov’t granted monopolies and bad business models is the opposite of preserving and rewarding creativity.

This problem will not be solved by the creative sector alone. Governments should enforce basic property rights — even in this digital environment. Some have started. In some quarters this has caused alarm. But what is really alarming is that it is controversial at all to shut down vast pirate sites or disconnect repeat offenders who have no regard for creators’ rights.

What is alarming is the lack of due process. What is alarming is the lack of privacy rights. What is alarming is the disproportionate response to an infraction that you can’t even prove cost you any money. What is alarming is your belief that the internet is just for your business. What is alarming is your unwillingness to adapt to a changing market. What is alarming is your calling to the government to protect your business model. All of that is quite alarming. That people are worried about these things? No, that’s not alarming.

According to a detailed study by Tera Consultants, if we continue down the path we’re on, piracy could inflict a cumulative 1.2 million job losses in the European Union by 2015.

No, not a detailed study at all. The “study” by Tera Consultants was paid for by the industries looking to use it to support their demands for greater gov’t protectionism of their business and was full of easily debunked false assumptions — such as the claim that there is a correlation between internet traffic and lost jobs. Nowhere does it count the jobs aided by cheaper creation, distribution and promotion.

Is it, moreover, unreasonable to suggest that companies that make a living out of indexing and sharing the creativity of others might make a fair contribution to those who create the material they need for their businesses?

Yes. It’s not just unreasonable, but ridiculous to suggest that companies that give you free advertising should have to pay you to do that. These companies do not make a living from indexing and sharing. They make a living by providing a useful service that you failed to offer yourself… and they do so by promoting your work. That you fail to use that to your advantage and then demand they just give you money speaks to your own failures in business.

Should it be controversial to suggest that public bodies are prevented from endlessly extending their remits, profiting from work they do not create, or dampening innovation and investment?

Should it be controversial to suggest that private bodies are prevented from endlessly extending copyright, profiting from work they do not create, dampening innovation and investment in new works?

Oh, and one final point. Near the beginning of the talk, he quotes Bilbo Baggins. I’m curious, did he pay for the rights to do so? Did he pay a fair price?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

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.