Blog

  • 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.

  • Confessions of a Poet Laureate

    William Blake: Oberon, Titania and Puck with Fairies Dancing, c. 1785

    It never crossed my mind that I would become the poet laureate of the United States. The day I received the call from the Library of Congress, I was carrying a bag of groceries from the car to the house when the phone rang. They didn’t beat around the bush, but told me straight out that this was an honor and not a job they were offering to me. Of course, I was stunned, and without letting the groceries out of my hand, told them that I needed to think about it for a while and that I would call them back tomorrow. My first thought was, who needs this?

    I’d heard about the endless reading tours of previous laureates, the elaborate projects they had devised and administered to make poetry more popular in United States, and none of it appealed to me very much. There’s a good reason why I have lived in a small village in New Hampshire for the last thirty-seven years. I like to hear roosters crow in the morning and dogs bark at night. “No way,” I told my wife. I was going to call them back and politely decline. But to my surprise, speaking to my children, I changed my mind. My son and daughter told me, separately, that if I refused this great honor I would come to regret my decision some day. I knew right away that they were right. I thought some more about it, but I kept going back to what they said. So, I accepted.

    The appointment was announced on August 2, 2007. For the next few weeks my phone didn’t stop ringing. I gave countless interviews over the phone or in person, appeared on TV and radio shows, had film crews and photographers at my house, and received hundreds of emails, letters, and packages with poetry manuscripts whose authors wanted instant critique or endorsement. I’d be lying if I didn’t admit I enjoyed the attention. It was very strange to be talking to so many different people about poetry every day: the big television networks whose reporters were astonished to hear that anyone in America reads or cares for poetry, and the better newspapers and radio stations where one encountered well-informed people who asked probing questions.

    Still, the amount of attention was not only overwhelming but also full of surprises. I was asked, for instance, to read a poem to an annual convention of Kansas businessmen in Topeka, to be photographed in New York’s most popular ice cream parlor eating one of their huge concoctions, to have my picture taken in a butcher shop chopping meat with a cleaver, to read a poem at the unveiling of the new vintage of a famous California vineyard, and so on. Since I had an office at the Library of Congress and spent a few days there every month, I got a few invitations from official Washington, which I mostly turned down, including one from Laura Bush to the White House.

    William Blake: Milton a Poem/in12 Books,1804/1811, “The Author & Printer W. Blake, 1804, To Justify the Ways of God to Men” (The British Museum)

    I don’t know if you are aware of this, but our poet laureates are not called upon to write occasional poems. The position is privately endowed—originally from a fund set up by industrialist scion Arthur M. Huntington in 1936—since it is unimaginable that the Congress of the United States would ever agree to part with a penny for the purpose of promoting poetry. The Republicans, especially, are always worried that someone in the arts is undermining the religious and family values of our country. They suspect poets of being subversives, free-thinkers, sex-fiends, and drug addicts. Their fears are not entirely without foundation. There have not been many American poets, living or dead, you’d want to bring home to meet your grandmother or have speak to your Bible study group.

    I figured all the hoopla would end after a couple of months, but it continued during the entire year I served. The position of the laureate has become very well known to the press and the public thanks to my fourteen predecessors, so sooner or later every small town newspaper, regional magazine, and radio station across the country would get around to asking me for an interview. I almost never said no.

    Over the years, I had read too many essays by literary critics and even poets, which proclaimed confidently that poetry is universally despised and read by practically no one in United States. I recall my literature students rolling their eyes when I asked them if they liked poetry, or my old high school friends becoming genuinely alarmed upon learning that I still did. Patriotic, sentimental and greeting card verse has always been tolerated, but the kind of stuff modern poets write allegedly offends every one of those “real Americans” Sarah Palin kept praising in the last election.

    During the time I served as the poet laureate, however, I found this not to be true. In a country in which schools seem to teach less literature every year, where fewer people read books and ignorance reigns supreme regarding most issues, poetry is read and written more than ever. Anyone who doesn’t believe me ought to take a peek at what’s available on the web. Who are these people who seem determined to copy almost every poem ever written in the language? Where do they find the time to do it? No wonder we have such a large divorce rate in this country. I won’t even describe the thousands of blogs, the on-line poetry magazines, both serious ones and the ones where anyone can post a poem their eight-year daughter wrote about the death of her goldfish. People who kept after me with their constant emails and letters were part of that world. They wanted me to announce what I propose to do to make poetry even more popular in United States. Unlike my predecessors who had a lot of clever ideas, like having a poetry anthology next to the Gideon Bible in every motel room in America (Joseph Brodsky), or urging daily newspapers to print poems (Robert Pinsky), I felt things were just fine. As far as I could see, there was more poetry being read and written than at any time in our history.

    The obvious next question is how much of it is any good? More than one would ever imagine. America may be going to hell in every other way, but fine poems continue to be written now and then. Still, if poetry is being written and being read now more than ever, it must be because it fulfills a profound need. Where else but in poems would these Americans, who unlike their neighbors seem unwilling to seek salvation in church, convey their human predicament? Where else would they find a community of likeminded souls who care about something Emily Dickinson or Billy Collins has written? If I were asked to sum up my experience as the poet laureate, I would say, there’s nothing more interesting or more hopeful about America than its poetry.

  • Green Day “American Idiot” Musical Tops Broadway Box Office

    You’d have to be a real “American Idiot” not to love Green Day. Just ask the legion of fans that are coming out in strong numbers to support the Grammy-winning band’s big debut on Broadway.

    American Idiot’s first week on the Great White Way was a smash, according to The Wall Street Journal.

    After opening last Tuesday, the musical treatment of the band’s 2004 album brought in a whopping $777,860 during the week ending Sunday. And that’s in addition to the $464,946 the show took in the previous week when the show was still in previews.

    The musical tells the story of a new generation of American youth who struggle to find meaning of life in a post-Sept. 11 world.

    Green Day’s American Idiot is currently playing at the St. James Theatre at 246 West 44th Street in New York City and with shows scheduled through early September.

  • Shatter OST on the NA PlayStation Store this week

    You’ve played the game, now buy the music! That’s probably what Sidhe’s thinking. They’ve just announced that Shatter’s soundtrack is coming to the PlayStation Store.

  • Locust + Baby Oil + Heat + Intense Light = Amazing Video | Visual Science

    Flight and fluid dynamics scientist Adrian Thomas of the The Oxford Animal Flight Group made this motion study of a tethered desert locust. As it turns out, the gorgeous look of this video is dictated by the constraints of shooting insects and smoke currents. The black and white makes it easier to shoot, by providing more flexibility with two additional F-stops, and reducing the elements to their most basic parts. Thomas used high-speed video, shooting at 1000 frames per second in order to catch the 20-per-second wing beats of the locust, blasting it all with five kilowatts of light to bring out the smoke. Using another neat trick, the smoke is created by heating baby oil. The desert locust is a good subject because it tolerates the heat and light and is likely to behave normally in these conditions.

    These careful studies of insect flight dynamics have yielded significant results. Thomas: “The major obstacle to small micro-air-vehicles is power efficiency. The power density of current battery technologies is not sufficient to allow current flapping micro-air-vehicles to fly for long enough periods to be effective. The careful design of insect wings is one of the features that allows insects smaller than current micro-air-vehicles to achieve migratory flights taking many days and crossing continents.”

    Video and still image courtesy Adrian Thomas, Animal Flight Group, Oxford University

  • A casi 430 km/h en un Ford GT

    ford-gt-heffner.jpg

    Unas de las pocas buenas cualidades de los norteamericanos es que tienen la capacidad de organizar un evento para todo y para toda ocasión. Uno de ellos, es llevar a todos aquellos que tengan un deportivo capaz de establecer un récord de velocidad máxima en un tramo de 1 milla (1,6 kilómetros), a una pista aérea en desuso con el objetivo de descargar adrenalina, mostrar de lo que son capaces sus coches y de no ser un peligro en un camino público.

    En Miami se organizó el evento llamado Exotics Rally Miami One Mile en donde el objetivo es ir lo más rápido posible al final de poco más de kilómetro y medio que dura cada carrera. Uno de los competidores resultó ser un Ford GT, preparado por Heffner, de quien ya os habíamos mostrado un impresionante Lamborghini Gallardo que alcanzaba casi 1000 caballos.

    Pero este Ford GT necesitó una potencia de 1900 caballos(¡!) y una presión en los dos turbos de 41 libras, suficiente para que el piloto se ponga a rezar mientras acelera y así evitar que explote el motor en cualquier momento. Afortunadamente para Heffner, el Ford GT resistió y no sólo eso, sino que estableció un récord de velocidad entre los superdeportivos: 425,6 km/h al final de los 1.600 metros.

    La falta de algún aditamento aerodinámico en el coche, hace pensar que parezca increíble que el coche no despegara a tal velocidad…

    Vía | 6Speedonline



  • Brando, We Want a Double Down [Plea]

    This classic chicken sandwich USB hub would have served us just fine a month ago, but the world has changed since then thanks to a couple of pieces of chicken that were sick and tired of business as usual. More »