Blog

This session is a continuation on from Heatsink 101, during this 1 hour presentation we will dig deeper into how heatsinks work and discuss why they are not as simple as they look.

Bombshell Gets The Kiss-Off: Sex symbol Megan Fox has been dropped from the cast of Transformers 3, Hollywood tattle Nikki Finke of Deadline.com has learned.

Megan, who played star the love interest of Shia LaBeouf’s Samuel James Witwicky in the first two films in the blockbuster franchise, will not return to the series when the third movie opens in 2011, a rep for Paramount Studios confimed to CNN.com’s Marquee Blog on Wednesday.

The “official” word is that Fox has been dumped because T3’s storyline marks the beginning of a new chapter for Samuel and it would be better if the character were not tied down to a girlfriend — even one who looks like Mikaela Banes However, as we celeb-gawkers know, Megan has a long history of tense relations with director Michael and much of the rest of the Transformers cast and crew.

After tabloid rumors surfaced claiming that Megan would be killed off in the forthcoming Transformers feature, the beauty angrily compared her director to “Hitler” and “Napoleon” in an interview with Britain’s Wonderland Magazine’s September/October 2009 issue.

“He’s like Napoleon and he wants to create this insane, infamous mad-man reputation,” Megan said at the time. “He wants to be like Hitler on his sets, and he is. So he’s a nightmare to work for but when you get him away from set, and he’s not in director mode, I kind of really enjoy his personality because he’s so awkward, so hopelessly awkward.”

Shortly thereafter, members of the film’s crew posted an open letter on the director’s site, condemning the actress for her behavior on set and viciously branding Megan, “the grump of the set,” “thankless, classless, graceless,” “unfriendly,” along with a host of other unflattering adjectives.

Shia LaBeouf’s character is expected to move in a new direction with a new love interest for Transformers 3.

National Research Council (5/19/10)

The National Research Council issued new three reports emphasizing why the U.S. should act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop a national strategy to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change. The reports by the Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, are part of a congressionally requested suite of five studies known as America’s Climate Choices.

“These reports show that the state of climate change science is strong,” said Ralph J. Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences. “But the nation also needs the scientific community to expand upon its understanding of why climate change is happening, and focus also on when and where the most severe impacts will occur and what we can do to respond.”
The report suggests a range of emissions from 170 to 200 gigatons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent for the period 2012 through 2050 as a reasonable goal, a goal that is roughly in line with the range of emission reduction targets proposed recently by the Obama administration and members of Congress. Even at the higher end of this range, meeting the target will require a major departure from “business-as-usual” emission trends. The report notes that with the exception of the recent economic downtown, domestic emissions have been rising for most of the past three decades. The U.S. emitted approximately 7 gigatons of CO2 equivalent in 2008 (the most current year for which such data were available). If emissions continue at that rate, the proposed budget range would be used up well before 2050, the report says.

A carbon-pricing system is the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions. Either cap-and-trade, a system of taxing emissions, or a combination of the two could provide the needed incentives. While the report does not specifically recommend a cap-and-trade system, it notes that cap-and-trade is generally more compatible with the concept of an emissions budget.
Carbon pricing alone, however, is not enough to sufficiently reduce domestic emissions, the

report warns. Strategically chosen, complementary policies are necessary to assure rapid progress in key areas such as: increasing energy efficiency; accelerating the development of renewable energy sources; advancing full-scale development of new-generation nuclear power and carbon capture and storage systems; and retrofitting, retiring, or replacing existing emissions-intensive energy infrastructure. Research and development of new technologies that could help reduce emissions more cost effectively than current options also should be strongly supported.

NRC Reports and Free Summaries

Clean Fleet Climate Action Reports

The compelling case that climate change is occurring and is caused in large part by human activities is based on a strong, credible body of evidence, says Advancing the Science of Climate Change, one of the new reports. While noting that there is always more to learn and that the scientific process is never “closed,” the report emphasizes that multiple lines of evidence support scientific understanding of climate change. The core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for — and in many cases is already affecting — a broad range of human and natural systems,” the report concludes. It calls for a new era of climate change science where an emphasis is placed on “fundamental, use-inspired” research, which not only improves understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change but also is useful to decision makers at the local, regional, national, and international levels acting to limit and adapt to climate change.

The report recommends that a single federal entity or program be given the authority and resources to coordinate a national, multidisciplinary research effort aimed at improving both understanding and responses to climate change. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, established in 1990, could fulfill this role, but it would need to form partnerships with action-oriented programs and address weaknesses that in the past have led to research gaps, particularly in the critical area of research that supports decisions about responding to climate change.

Substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions will require prompt and sustained efforts to promote major technological and behavioral changes, says Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change, another of the new reports. Although limiting emissions must be a global effort to be effective, strong U.S. actions to reduce emissions will help encourage other countries to do the same. In addition, the U.S. could establish itself as a leader in developing and deploying the technologies necessary to limit and adapt to climate change.

An inclusive national policy framework is needed to ensure that all levels of government, the private sector, and millions of households and individuals are contributing to shared national goals. Toward that end, the U.S. should establish a greenhouse gas emissions “budget” that sets a limit on total domestic emissions over a set period of time and provides a clear, directly measurable goal. However, the report warns, the longer the nation waits to begin reducing emissions, the harder and more expensive it will likely be to reach any given emissions target.
We must manage and minimize the risks of climate change, says the third report, Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change. Some impacts – such as rising sea levels, disappearing sea ice, and the frequency and intensity of some extreme weather events like heavy precipitation and heat waves – are already being observed across the country. The report notes that policymakers need to anticipate a range of possible climate conditions and that uncertainty about the exact timing and magnitude of impacts is not a reason to wait to act. In fact, it says boosting U.S. adaptive capacity now can be viewed as “an insurance policy against an uncertain future,” while inaction could increase risks, especially if the rate of climate change is particularly large.

Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

Can’t afford another ‘accountability’ manager

This is a response to “Changes at state ferries to target waste” [NWThursday, May 13].

The efforts “aimed at addressing waste and the lack of accountability” at Washington State Ferries is a typical, bureaucratic response to the problem. The story tells of “hiring a deputy ferries director to hold managers more accountable” to fix problems in the state ferry system. In the private sector, which helps pay the state’s bills, every manager at every level is continually held accountable for his or her actions.

Businesses do not need and cannot afford another manager to accomplish their goals. Neither does Washington State Ferries.

— Ted Nelson, Federal Way

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

Prior to Google’s announcement earlier today of its open sourcing the VP8 video codec, a spokesperson for MPEG LA — the licensing agent that manages the patent portfolio for multimedia technologies relating to the H.264 codec, among others — agreed to answer ten questions submitted to the agency in advance. Those questions regard how it licenses the codec that Microsoft and Apple consider the best solution for HTML 5, the next markup language for the Web.

Here, Betanews presents the questions and MPEG LA’s responses without editorial comment.

1. One of the principal confusions we see people having, evidently, concerns the royalties process for non-commercial video. We know that MPEG LA does not charge royalties to the producers of videos encoded using H.264, for the non-commercial use of video made with cameras that use this codec, or through software that uses this codec. But royalties are paid, by someone, at some time, and perhaps people would have a better understanding of this process if they could comprehend who, when, and why. Because people evidently are under the impression that they will, at some time, owe a bill to MPEG LA; and the current conspiracy theory is that it will come due in 2015, which is the expiration date for the current royalty-free terms.

MPEG LA: Please permit me to provide some general background with respect to our AVC/H.264 (“AVC”) License: The AVC License is effectively divided into two halves: (i) sublicenses granting the rights to “manufacture and sell” AVC Products and (ii) sublicenses granting the rights to “use” such AVC Products to provide AVC Video content for remuneration. An AVC Product is defined to be a product that contains one AVC decoder, one AVC encoder or a single product including a combination of the two (for example, hardware products, software products, etc.).

In the case of (i) sublicenses granting the rights to make and sell AVC Products, the party that offers the end products concludes the License and is responsible for the applicable royalties associated with the products they distribute. Included in the royalty paid by a Licensee for the manufacture and sale of AVC encoders/decoders is the limited right for a Consumer to use the encoders/decoders for their own personal use (for example, in a teleconference or to watch personal video content). But, when the encoders/decoders are used to provide AVC video content to an end user for remuneration, the provider of such video service may be responsible for a royalty for the right to use the encoders/decoders in connection with the remunerated video. Specifically, AVC Video offered on a Title-by-Title, Subscription, Free Television, or Internet Broadcast basis will benefit from coverage under the AVC License (the first three bear royalties; the fourth [Internet Broadcast] does not).

2. Has there ever been an instance in the history of the MPEG LA organization when an individual has been responsible for royalties for non-commercial use of technologies in its portfolio?

MPEG LA: Individuals are responsible when they make [or] provide video for remuneration of the type for which a license is required and a royalty is payable, but there has been no instance where a consumer or end user was pursued for a royalty.

3. Is it possible for any party to be held responsible in five years’ time for the non-commercial use this year of technology in MPEG LA’s portfolio?

MPEG LA: We assume that by “non-commercial use” you mean something such as a Web site that distributes AVC video content free to end users (which is referred to in our AVC License as “Internet Broadcast AVC Video”). While that Web site would benefit from being a Licensee to our AVC License, it does not pay a royalty for the distribution of such video through December 31, 2015. Decisions regarding royalties for the period after 2015 are considered near the end of the prior term when then current business models and related conditions can be taken into account.

4. If a Web site were to charge subscription fees for up-front access to its content, and among that content happened to be links to, or embedded streams of, videos that were created using H.264 for which there appeared to be no commercial intent at the time of creation, is anyone responsible for royalties? The producer, the Web site, the viewer? (For example, say The Wall Street Journal under a paywall was to host an H.264 video that it presents as having been independently produced, and the paywall pertains to the site as a whole.)

MPEG LA: Yes, since the Web site is receiving remuneration for the AVC video content it makes available on a subscription basis, it would benefit from the coverage our AVC License provides. The amount of royalties owed, if any, would depend on the number of Subscribers to that website during a calendar year: 100,000 or fewer subscribers/year = no royalty; 100,001 – 250,000 subscribers/year = $25,000; 250,001 – 500,000 subscribers/year = $50,000; 500,001 – 1,000,000 subscribers/year = $75,000; and more than 1,000,000 subscribers/year = $100,000.

Next: Why are browser and plug-in makers also responsible for royalties?

5. If a Web site were to present a video produced using H.264 as an advertisement for a product or service sold commercially through that site, is that considered a commercial use of the codec, and if so, who’s responsible (and for how much, if you can say)?

MPEG LA: Assuming there is no remuneration for the video itself (in this case, an advertisement), this would fall under “Internet Broadcast AVC Video.” The Web site would benefit from being a Licensee to our AVC License, but would not need to pay a royalty for the distribution of such video at least the license term ending December 31, 2015.

6. When an independent producer wishes to legitimately sell (or make commercial use of) a video or movie produced using technologies in MPEG LA’s portfolio, how does this producer make arrangements with MPEG LA?

MPEG LA: For more information about MPEG LA’s AVC License or to request a copy of the License, the producer should visit this page.

7. Since a plug-in technology such as Adobe Flash (which utilizes H.264) may or may not be used by viewers in the processing of videos that were distributed commercially, and for which royalties were apparently paid, why is Adobe responsible for royalties also? And why would the manufacturer of a (hypothetical) H.264 codec plug-in for Mozilla Firefox be responsible as well?

MPEG LA: As explained earlier, Adobe is considered a seller of its AVC Product, and Adobe would benefit from coverage under our AVC License. The royalties owed, if any, would depend on the number of units Adobe distributed during a calendar year: 100,000 or fewer units/year = no royalty; 100,001 ??” 5,000,000 units/year = US$0.20/unit; 5,000,001+ units/year = $0.10/unit, with a cap of $5 million in 2010. Adobe and Mozilla would be responsible for paying the royalty as described above since they are the providers of the AVC Products.

8. Some are under the understanding that when an open source, non-commercial codec that does not use H.264 is used in the processing or creation of videos that may be playable in consoles or with devices or software that utilize H.264, the creator of that codec is not responsible for royalties to MPEG LA. In other words, if a developer avoids the use of H.264 technology to create a video that a true H.264 codec recognizes as compatible, no charges apply. Is that accurate, and why or why not?

MPEG LA: By definition, an H.264 video is playable using an H.264 codec. To the extent that is true, coverage is provided and applicable royalties are payable under the AVC License.

9. Is there any reason for individuals to suspect that, if today they happen to use technology that attempts to be compatible with H.264, and that is later found to infringe upon MPEG LA patents, the individual users themselves (the viewers and producers of videos using infringing codecs) would become liable for unpaid royalties?

MPEG LA: As answered in #2 above, the consumer, or end user, is not responsible for concluding our AVC License or paying a royalty. However, as also explained in #1 above, when the encoders/decoders are used to provide AVC video content to an end user, the provider of such video service will benefit from coverage under the AVC License.

10. Under current US law, an Internet service provider is granted “safe harbor” against liability for copyright infringement, if the system with which videos or other content is hosted there, or flows through their channels, is automatic and without the ISP’s intervention. That law is said to apply to YouTube (and thus Google) when videos from a major content producer (such as Viacom) are uploaded there (although Viacom is, of course, challenging this). But it’s my understanding that Google is a payer of royalties to MPEG LA and others, for the use of H.264 in the display of YouTube videos, which may include content where it’s protected against copyright infringement. Why do royalties apply to the providers of videos which may include not only non-commercial works but non-authorized or illicit ones as well?

MPEG LA: Google is responsible for the use of patents in connection with any distribution of AVC video content that occurs on its Web site because its Web site is where the transaction took place with the end user, regardless of who supplied the video or whether the video infringed anyone’s copyright.

Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee

…and we thought we’d have to wait until Friday. Chrysler Group LLC has finally released all the details, high-res images and a video of the all-new 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee. Read to go on sale nationwide next month, the 2011 Grand Cherokee has been completely reengineered and redesigned for 2011 with a new sculpted body, panoramic dual-pane sun roof and a world-class interior with premium soft-touch materials. Chrysler says this will be our first hint at the future quality of its vehicles – as a result of its partnership with Fiat SpA.

“Capability highlights include a choice of three 4×4 systems, new Jeep Quadra-Lift Air Suspension and Selec-Terrain systems and towing capability of 7,400 lbs,” Chrysler said in a statement. “On-road dynamics are improved courtesy of new independent front and rear suspension systems and a new body structure that dramatically increases torsional stiffness.”

Click here for more news on the Jeep Grand Cherokee.

2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee Interior

Power for the 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee will come from Chrysler’s 3.6L Pentastar V6 unit making 290-hp delivering up to 23 mpg and over 500 miles on one tank of gas. That boasts an 11 improvement in fuel-economy over the outgoing model.

The 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee will be available in 3 models: Laredo, Limited and Overland. The 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo 4×2 model starts at $30,995, while the 4×4 Grand Cherokee Laredo model starts at $32,995. Prices for the 2011 Grand Cherokee Limited 4×4 start at $39,995, while the Overland 4×4 model start at $42,995. Optional features include a 360-hp 5.7L V8 and a Trailer Tow Group

The all-new 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee will be built at the Jefferson North Assembly Plant (JNAP) in Detroit.

Hit the jump for the high-res image gallery and a video of the 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee in action.

2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee:

2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee in Action:

– By: Omar Rana

Robert Redford calls on the President to get off his butt and start leading America away from dirty fossil fuels toward a clean energy future — in a video and blog post (and, no doubt, on MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann tonight at 8:55 pm EDT):

Okay, the “get off his butt” part was my interpretation of the video and this blog post:

Mr. President: Now is the Time For Clean Energy

Thursday, May 20, 2010, marks one month since BP’s oil rig exploded off the Gulf Coast, killing 11 people and unleashing one of the worst environmental disasters our nation has ever seen.

Since then, millions of gallons of oil have gushed into the ocean, poisoning marine life and threatening hundreds of miles of coastal waters, beaches and estuaries from the mouth of the Mississippi to the Florida Keys.

This is the clearest picture we could have of our failed national energy policy, which extends over many decades and administrations. Yet, shockingly, our elected officials in the Senate continue to drag their feet on enacting the policies that would bring the real change we need to shift our country from dirty to clean energy sources, while creating jobs and cutting our dependence on oil.

This oil disaster is threatening marine life and habitat in a region that accounts for about 70 percent of U.S. production of shrimp and oysters, as well as millions of pounds each year of red snapper, grouper, bluefin tuna, and other fish. Fishing has been shut down from the Mississippi River to the Florida Panhandle — an area of 46,000 square miles, or roughly the size of the state of Pennsylvania. These closures are devastating to thousands of Gulf Coast families who depend on this bounty for their livelihood. Many of these people are still reeling from the trauma of Hurricane Katrina five years ago.

I am glad that President Obama announced that he would appoint an independent commission to look at the causes of the blowout and determine what we must do to prevent this from ever happening again. This is an important first step in addressing the national tragedy and coming up with real solutions to prevent future drilling disasters.

But it is not enough.

Right now, the Senate has legislation on the table that would help move us in a new direction and put America back in control of its energy future. The American Power Act, drafted by Senators Kerry and Lieberman, is not perfect — but it is a significant step toward cutting our dependence on fossil fuels, limiting carbon pollution, and encouraging businesses to shift to clean energy sources.

Unfortunately, the full Senate continues to stall — weighed down by too much infighting and too many special interests. That’s why we need the president to assert his voice and leadership by letting the Senate — and the American people — know that he is serious about getting clean energy and climate legislation passed this year.

Americans want action. It is time for President Obama to use the power of his office to make sure we clean up this mess, and get America on a path to cleaner, safer energy.

In order to help get this message out, I’ve just recorded a new hard-hitting television commercial, produced by my colleagues at the Natural Resources Defense Council, calling on President Obama to lead us to a clean energy future.

In making this plea for leadership, Redford joins many others begging him for leadership, including CP:

• Is Obama blowing his best chance to shift the debate from the dirty, unsafe energy of the 19th century to the clean, safe energy of the 21st century?
• Tim Wirth: “The president should deliver a major speech on climate change to the American public, using all the props and charts he can muster to bring the message home. The public interest requires it.”
• Obama’s campaign pollster: “In the aftermath of the oil spill disaster, voters overwhelmingly support a comprehensive clean energy bill…. Voters understand the dangers of our dependence on oil. Now, they’re ready to hold Congress accountable.”

NYT columnist Tom Friedman has another column on the subject:

No, the gulf oil spill is not Obama’s Katrina. It’s his 9/11 — and it is disappointing to see him making the same mistake George W. Bush made with his 9/11. Sept. 11, 2001, was one of those rare seismic events that create the possibility to energize the country to do something really important and lasting that is too hard to do in normal times.

Sadly, President Obama seems intent on squandering his environmental 9/11 with a Bush-level failure of imagination. So far, the Obama policy is: “Think small and carry a big stick.” He is rightly hammering the oil company executives. But he is offering no big strategy to end our oil addiction. Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman have unveiled their new energy bill, which the president has endorsed but only in a very tepid way. Why tepid? Because Kerry-Lieberman embraces vitally important fees on carbon emissions that the White House is afraid will be exploited by Republicans in the midterm elections. The G.O.P., they fear, will scream carbon “tax” at every Democrat who would support this bill, and Obama, having already asked Democrats to make a hard vote on health care, feels he can’t ask them for another.

I don’t buy it. In the wake of this historic oil spill, the right policy — a bill to help end our addiction to oil — is also the right politics. The people are ahead of their politicians. So is the U.S. military. There are many conservatives who would embrace a carbon tax or gasoline tax if it was offset by a cut in payroll taxes or corporate taxes, so we could foster new jobs and clean air at the same time. If Republicans label Democrats “gas taxers” then Democrats should label them “Conservatives for OPEC” or “Friends of BP.” Shill, baby, shill.

Why is Obama playing defense? Just how much oil has to spill into the gulf, how much wildlife has to die, how many radical mosques need to be built with our gasoline purchases to produce more Times Square bombers, before it becomes politically “safe” for the president to say he is going to end our oil addiction? Indeed, where is “The Obama End to Oil Addiction Act”? Why does everything have to emerge from the House and Senate? What does he want? What is his vision? What are his redlines? I don’t know. But I do know that without a fixed, long-term price on carbon, none of the president’s important investments in clean power research and development will ever scale.

Obama has assembled a great team that could help him make his case — John Holdren, science adviser; Carol Browner, energy adviser; Energy Secretary Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize winner; and Lisa Jackson, chief of the Environmental Protection Agency. But they have been badly underutilized by the White House. I know endangered species that are seen by the public more often than them….

We know the problem, and Americans are ready to be enlisted for a solution. Of course we can’t eliminate oil exploration or dependence overnight, but can we finally start? Mr. President, your advisers are wrong: Americans are craving your leadership on this issue. Are you going to channel their good will into something that strengthens our country — “The Obama End to Oil Addiction Act” — or are you going squander your 9/11, too?

When you are criticized by both Robert Redford and Tom Friedman for failure to lead on the same issue, you are definitely screwing up.

A rounded, plasticky take on the iPad. That’s how Nvidia’s latest Android tablet prototype struck me. It’s pretty nice. But not as nice as the inside. More »

Today the United States has 94,000 U.S. troops serving in Iraq and President Barack Obama’s plan is to remove 44,000 of them in 15 weeks time.

Yet a delay in forming Iraq’s new government following the March 7 elections is causing concern for U.S. officials.

Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Sunni Ayad Allawi are the two leading contenders to be the next prime minister, and both are arguing they have the right to form the next government. The concern is that a Maliki government could leave Sunnis feeling slighted, while an Allawi government could lead to Shiite militias reactivating.

Meanwhile violence in Iraq has increased in recent months. The latest example was a coordinated attack by three suicide bombers on a soccer field in the Shiite-dominated town of Tal Afar that killed at least 10 people and wounded 120. Al Qaeda insurgents with Sunni ties are being blamed for the attack.

Incidents like these, along with uncertainty about the next government, leave some to question if the deadline is feasible.  “It’s going to be difficult,” one military official told Fox on the condition of anonymity.  “Large movements always come with increased risk and not since the Iraq surge have we seen the Army attempt to move such a large number of soldiers,” this official said.

Even the Iraq surge in 2007 doesn’t amount to the effort this drawdown is going to take. This Presidential deadline calls for 44,000 troops to leave in 3 and half months, while the surge moved in 30,000 troops over a 3 month period.

The Army claims it can move 25,000 troops in 4 weeks.

But according to some in the Pentagon moving that many troops so quickly comes with inherent risks. “Instead of moving 5 bus loads of troops with security, we’ll have to move 15,” this military official told Fox. That translates to bigger targets. “You also run the risk of an emboldened adversary who ramps up his efforts to attack.”

The top U.S. Commander in Iraq, General Raymond Odierno, has said he is fully committed to drawing down to 50,000 by the end of August. His chief spokesman, Major General Steven Lanza, says the U.S. is on track to meet the troop goal, and it is important to remember progress that’s been made. “Two years ago, the Iraq government and the people here were on brink of civil war, in terms of sectarian violence,” Lanza said. “We have not seen these people revert back to sectarian violence. We have not seen the people lose faith in the Iraqi security forces. We have not seen this government fracture.”

Senior military sources say adjusting the 50,000 troop deadline has not been raised with the President because there is still time to do it successfully. But these sources say if in June some of the key hurdles have not been met, then it will be up to the President to press on or adjust.

2011 Chevrolet Volt

Quietness is a common attribute of hybrid vehicles. While this rarely poses a problem to the average person (in fact many people find this quality a positive one), there is one insular group out there to which this poses a threat; the visually impaired.

To address this issue, a group of carmakers and advocates for the blind have banded together to present to Congress a proposal for minimum noise levels that future electric and hybrid vehicles would be required to make.

An NHTSA study performed last year showed that hybrid vehicles tend to hit pedestrians more often than other types of vehicles in those scenarios where the approaching vehicle could not be seen. The language presented to Congress by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, the American Council for the Blind, and the National Federation for the Blind, could become part of the Motor Safety Act of 2010; a bill currently before Congress that would create a whole host of new auto safety rules.

– By: Stephen Calogera

Source: CNNMoney

Filed under: Spy Photos, SUV, Crossover, Land Rover, Off-Road

Land Rover may be hard at work prepping its all-new LRX, but that doesn’t mean the rest of the model range is being put on the back-burner. New versions of the Range Rover and Range Rover Sport debuted for 2010, as did the LR3-replacing LR4, and now it appears that the automaker is giving its LR2 (or Freelander, as it’s still referred to overseas) a slight nip/tuck for the new model year.

Our spies have captured this lightly camouflaged prototype out testing, sporting what appears to be a revised front fascia. From what we can tell, it looks like Land Rover will be breaking up the front bumper by adding another air intake to the middle of the LR2’s face, which leads us to believe that the front foglamps will be repositioned lower on the vehicle. Aside from that, not much else appears to be changing on the LR2, but we won’t be surprised if some interior adjustments crop up for the 2011 model year, hopefully inspired by the renovated (and greatly improved) instrument panels in the rest of the range.

We’ll be very interested to see what the future holds for the LR2 here in the States, especially with the smaller, more efficient and cheaper LRX in the pipeline. Currently, the LR2 doesn’t account for a particularly sizable chunk of Land Rover’s sales, and we won’t be surprised if prospective buyers look toward the sleeker, more attractive LRX as a more worthy alternative.

[Source: CarPix]

Spy Shots: Land Rover Freelander/LR2 facelift caught testing originally appeared on Autoblog on Wed, 19 May 2010 16:56:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Gary Pierce, one of four commissioners on the Arizona Corporate Commission, that oversees state utilities, is threatening an energy boycott against Los Angeles.  The move is reminiscent of the Russian embargo of Natural Gas to Europe a couple of winters ago. Los Angeles gets a quarter of its power from nuclear, hydro and coal plants in Arizona.

The Arizona commissioner wrote the letter in retaliation against the Los Angeles City Council which approved a resolution directing city staff to consider which contracts with Arizona could be terminated in protest over Arizona’s draconian new immigration law. Berkeley and San Francisco are among other cities considering a boycott over the law.

Border wars: they’re not just between nations.
(more…)

It appears that way. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) summoned members of the doctors lobby to Capitol Hill Wednesday evening for an update on the Democrats’ plans to prevent Medicare doctors from receiving a 21 percent pay cut at the end of this month.

She doesn’t have an easy sell.

The American Medical Association, the nation’s largest doctors lobby, agreed to support health care reform under the condition that Democrats would return later in the year to scrap the sustainable growth rate (SGR), the flawed formula dictating doctors’ Medicare payments. Trouble is, the cost of doing so runs upwards of $200 billion, and Senate budget hawks from both parties aren’t about to let such an enormous expense fly through the chamber without offsets elsewhere in the budget.

Which introduces the second problem: Where do Democrats find $200+ billion at a time when budget deficits are already well above $1 trillion? (Answer: They don’t.)

Historically, Congress has allocated temporary funds to prevent similar SGR-dictated cuts from hitting Medicare doctors, and they’ll almost certainly have to go that route again this year. But that plan risks alienating the powerful AMA, which has been crystal clear about its unwillingness to accept anything less than a full repeal of the SGR.

“The AMA cannot support a proposal that would result in steeper future payment cuts and a substantially higher cost for a permanent solution, making it more difficult, if not impossible to repeal the Medicare physician payment formula,” J. James Rohack, the president of the AMA, said in a statement.

The political pickle for Pelosi and the Democrats is this: How to prevent the Medicare cut without (1) adding too much to the deficit, and (2) reneging on a promise to the AMA that could haunt you in November?

And you thought your job was stressful.

Finally the euro got a breather with a halt to the relentless beating it’s taken day in and day out.

You can take your pick of reasons: the selloff was overdone, shortcovering, voodoo.

The surge was was so powerful, the currency is now back to where it was TUESDAY MORNING.

From FinViz:

Join the conversation about this story »

Mark Hitchcock Legal Fellow, EDF

Yesterday’s federal court ruling issuing an injunction against portions of the 2009 salmon Biological Opinion is disappointing and even alarming. We are extremely appreciative of Earthjustice and NRDC for their great work in handling the litigation, but dismayed that a federal judge chose to strike down measures that were recently endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences. As Doug Obegi from NRDC points out, the Court ignored numerous findings that the salmon protections at issue are supported by the best available science.

In halting implementation of protections for salmon, the Court regurgitated old arguments and invented some new ones. Weighing the costs of an injunction against the benefits to salmon and our natural ecosystem, the court wrote:

“Harms that have been caused by [environmental] water supply reductions include but are not limited to: destruction of permanent crops; fallowed lands; increased groundwater consumption; land subsidence; reduction of air quality; destruction of family and entity farming businesses; and social disruption and dislocation, such as increased property crimes and intra-family crimes of violence, adverse effects on schools, and increased unemployment leading to hunger and homelessness.” (¶ 6, page 91)(Emphasis added).

While there are serious problems with the claims made in the first part of this excerpt, the second half of that statement is absurd and unsupported by evidence elsewhere in the opinion. Salmon are now being blamed for domestic violence? Fish cause property damage and are the cause of California’s failing schools? Really? Where is the evidence to support these findings? Have we lost all perspective?

Further, it is highly questionable whether there is any credible evidence that reductions in water supplies are to blame for the other evils cited by the Court. The Department of Water Resources has made clear that the huge majority of water reductions are a result of drought – not the relatively limited protections attributable to the effort to prevent salmon from becoming extinct. In its decision the Court acknowledged expert testimony that “it is a combination of factors, including the three-year drought, the global economic recession, the foreclosure crisis, and the collapse of the real estate market and construction industry, that are mainly driving crop and job losses, food bank needs, and credit problems in the Central Valley” (¶196 at 83). However, it ultimately chose to ignore that testimony. The Court's decision also ignored expert testimony “that the commercial fishing industry has suffered tremendous losses as a result of the near total collapse of California’s salmon fishery, which precipitated a shutdown of the salmon fishing seasons in 2008 and 2009 and threatens another shutdown in the future” (¶ 204 at 86).

While we recognize the economic pain felt throughout the Central Valley and genuinely feel for those in need, it is unreasonable and unfair to blame salmon for the impacts of the nation’s worst recession since the 1930’s.

Given that the viability of California salmon is at stake, it’s alarming that the court eliminated essential protections based on reasoning that ignored the effects of the economic collapse and years of devastating drought. Instead, the Court relied on unsupported claims that doing the bare minimum necessary to ensure the existence of salmon has lead to “intra-family crimes of violence”, failing schools, hunger and homelessness. Once again, where is the evidence to support such serious claims?

Speaking of comics to mock pseudoscience… today’s Calamities of Nature pretty much nails it. Not much to add here.

Tip o’ the ecliptic to Scott Romanowski.

Filed under: Concept Cars, Government/Legal, Technology, Electric

Hands down, one of the few pleasures of driving a hybrid is cruising around in all-electric mode. There’s just something that’s undeniably cool about silently whisking along, but if a new auto safety bill makes its way into law, we can kiss even that one pleasure goodbye. A coalition of automotive manufacturers and advocacy groups for the blind have joined forces to make sure that silent-running vehicles will make more noise in the future. The logic is that the blind and other pedestrians are at risk of being struck by quiet hybrids and EVs. We can’t really argue with that one.

If passed, the bill would have the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration propose regulations for an “alert sound” within a year and a half, and finalize the rules within three years. Drivers would not be able to turn off the noise. So far, there’s no word as to how loud the noise would be or what it will sound like, but the technology already exists to make that sound signature variable – concept cars like the Brabus Smart High Voltage EV shown above can simulate the sound of everything from a buzzing bee to a good ol’ American V8 with hidden speakers inside and outside of the vehicle, with the sound varying according to engine speed. If we absolutely have to be making a racket while we drive on all-electric power, we vote for sounding like George Jetson’s daily commuter, but we’re not exactly crazy about user-selectable EV ‘ringtones,’ lest one’s daily commute become an auditory assalt of Star Wars Tie Fighters and clydesdales.

[Source: The Detroit News]

Report: Washington to require that ‘quiet’ cars get alert sounds originally appeared on Autoblog on Wed, 19 May 2010 16:41:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Remember back in 2008, when Pakistan ordered YouTube to be blocked and took down a chunk of the wider internet outside of Pakistan in the process? One hopes they’ve got the technical details worked out this time, because Mr. LemurBoy alerts us to the news that the Pakistani High Court is so disturbed by the fact that there’s an “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!” page (hopefully you’ve already heard why that’s controversial…) on Facebook that it has ordered all of Facebook to be blocked through the end of May. Originally, only that specific page had been ordered to be blocked, but apparently that wasn’t enough:

Lawyers with the Islamic Lawyers Forum appealed to the higher court on Wednesday, saying the entire site should be blocked because it had allowed the page to be posted in the first place

Of course, that makes me wonder. If someone created a similar webpage just “on the internet,” would Pakistan order that all of the internet should be blocked? If it was on a piece of paper, would all paper be blocked from import?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

What!?!?!?! No Froyo? No Android 2.2? No Flash? Sorry, folks, the first day of Google I/O is a slight snoozer as far as hard Android news is concerned. (Don’t worry, it’s coming on Thursday.)

But there are plenty of application developers and even some new hardware (new to you, anyway) here at Moscone West. So stay tuned. We still have tons of great stuff to bring you.