Blog

Technology: CDMA
Announced Carrier: Sprint
Announced Release Date: May, 2010

The BlackBerry Bold 9650 was created for consumers using a CDMA carrier.  The 9650 version of the Bold supports 3G technology, includes WiFi, a 3.2MP camera with video capture, 512 MB flash memory, and optical trackpad.  We will update the remaining specs when they become available.

 

Spirals on Revolving Bike Wheel Exercise Weak Eyes

DR. OTTO THOMPSON, an optometrist of Waukegan, “Illinois, in exercising and strengthening weakened eyes of patients, makes use of an old bicycle wheel covered with a dark cloth and marked with a spiral yellow line that ends at a colored “flasher.” The patient is instructed to look at the yellow line and, as the wheel turns clockwise, his gaze eventually reaches the flasher, whereupon the eye movements start all over again.

The treatment is based on the principle that eye muscles need exercise just like any other muscles of the body if they are to remain strong and one’s eyesight is to be at its best.

Defying Death in a Parachute

Credited with 275 official parachute jumps, W. F. Scott, familiarly known as “Scotty,” holder of the Navy record jump of 15,200 feet, tells here of some particularly close calls in which he brushed elbows with the Grim Reaper. Scotty is jumping again now after a two months’ enforced vacation caused by an automobile accident, after which his life was despaired of — ironic testimony to the relative safety of air and land travel!

by W. F. SCOTT
Champion Parachute Jumper of the Navy

FOR sheer thrills none of my experiences during ten years of parachute jumping can compare with those of the summer and fall of 1928. On July Fourth I made a successful jump on Lake Keuka, near Hammondsport, N. Y., but the wind caught my ‘chute and entangled the harness so that I was dragged through the water with my head partially submerged, for two miles. On August 15 I dropped on a Washington apartment house in the heart of the city after encountering six different cross winds, was barely able to catch the ledge of the building top, couldn’t quite reach the fire escape just below, and had to hang suspended for several minutes before three policemen came to the rescue. Only five days later I landed full tilt on a group of high tension wires of 35,000 voltage, on the edge of Boiling Field, Washington.

That July Fourth experience was a terrific battle with death. Never will I forget it, for only by a miracle am I now alive to describe it. My purpose in going to Hammondsport was not only to make an exhibition jump but to make an official test of a new type of rubber suit designed to save the lives of aviators who are forced to resort to their ‘chute over a body of water.

Now, I’m barely five feet tall, yet this suit was made for a man who measures five feet eight. However, I was sealed in the contraption, which was all in one piece, including the stockings. Sealed in is right. The front of the suit was laced up with heavy thumbscrews against rubber gaskets. Rubber bands were placed around my wrists and adhesive tape bound around my neck mighty tight. So tight, in fact, that when I jumped I thought I was going to choke when the wind struck me full force.

The plane was an O-L-8, a new amphibian. With Lieut. Harvey Bowes at the controls we sailed out, 9 miles from Ithaca, into the center of beautiful Lake Keuka, which is 5 miles wide, 22 miles long and at least a couple of miles at its deepest point. The jump from 4,000 feet was satisfactory enough, but when the ‘chute snapped open, about 1200 feet below my leap, an enormous hole ripped open along the back of the rubber suit, due, no doubt, to the shock of the wind against the heavy harness around my body.

However, everything else seemed to be all right until I hit the water. Always, of course, a jumper aims to disengage the parachute from his body as soon as he lands. This I attempted to do, but I was so badly entangled that I failed. Meanwhile the wind and water were waging a fierce struggle for supremacy over what was to be my fate, the water pouring into the gaping hole in the rubber suit, thereby tending to pull me beneath the surface, and the wind spasmodically catching hold of the ‘chute and forcing it along the water at a fast rate of speed.

Bear in mind also that the rubber suit itself weighed about 20 pounds dry, with five additional pounds of lead in the sole of each shoe, presumably for the purpose of maintaining my body in an upright position at all times while in the water.

Pretty soon the suit acted just like a giant bucket of water attached to my person, dragging my head beneath the surface every now and again. And now a sudden gust of wind caught the ‘chute, just as Captain H. C. Richardson, in charge of the test, noticed my plight and headed for me in his speed boat from a point perhaps 200 yards away. Whereupon for over two miles I was in a helpless, and apparently hopeless, situation. Inextricably entangled in the harness, which was still strapped to my body, I was hurtled, at dizzy speed, through the water, occasionally rolling over the surface, but more often with my nose exposed to a six-inch covering of water.

For perhaps half of that terrible ride I was fully conscious, able to observe almost everything that was going on, but utterly unable to help myself. Then all went blank. However, Captain Richardson told me afterwards that my face had been completely submerged for six minutes before he and his assistants were able to drag me out. Even then my face had turned blue in color. But quickly they took me to the nearest dock, offered first aid for almost an hour, shot a stomach pump into me and let me lie down for a spell. Only Captain Richardson’s rare presence of mind and speed of action saved my life, combined with the fact that the rescue party was able to locate me, thanks to the fact that the parachute and harness were able to float on the surface, thereby rendering them visible to the rescue party for hundreds of yards.

My experience of August 20, 1928, was easily the second most thrilling of a lifetime. A big movie company that makes news reels wanted to take some pictures of myself and three other Navy men jumping simultaneously from a plane over Boiling Field, Washington. The film was to be called the “race to earth,” but it might well have been termed “the race with death.” I won the pictorial race handily enough, but almost lost my life during the venture.

From a 1500 foot elevation we all jumped from a Navy Ford transport. Once my ‘chute was open and I was speeding towards the earth, 1 took careful note of a. spot on the field where I wanted to land, but a strong wind blew up suddenly and upset my plans. Imagine my horror to realize, when only a couple hundred feet from the ground, that I was likely to drop full tilt on a group of high tension wires of 35,000 voltage, near the roof of a hangar!

Unfortunately, however, it was too late for me to accomplish much towards guiding the ‘chute, so within a few seconds I found myself suspended on one of those dangerous wires like a canary on a perch. True enough, the wires were barely six feet from the ground, but since I measure only five feet from head to toe, I wasn’t any too near the ground at that particular moment. By some miracle, however, none of my body actually was touching the wires, though my ‘chute was wrapped around them, and at any moment I might make a contact that would mean my death.

Nevertheless, I somehow contrived to undo my breast strap and both leg straps, but while so doing, my right toe barely touched a section of the wire, with the result that a great wall of flame shot out, badly scorching several shroud lines on the ‘chute. But I scrambled quickly to the ground and asked an attendant at the field to have the power shut off. This he did immediately, so that I was able to recover my ‘chute without further damage to it.

Talk about a strong wind blowing you all over the heavens! I’ll wager I’ll always remember the events of August 15, 1928, when I was fortunate enough to set a new Navy altitude record of 15,200 feet.

My pilot, Lieut. Ernest W. Litch of the Naval Air Station near Washington, took me up in a Vought Corsair biplane for what I hoped would be a record jump for all Navy parachute men. When we reached 15,200 feet I signalled Litch that I was ready and then, when he had slowed down to the customary jumping speed of 80 miles an hour, I poised for a brief moment to visualize the scene below. The capital city looked like a tiny park from the great height of 3 miles.

For this particular jump I took the precaution of wearing two parachutes, one of the regulation seat type and the other of the back type for emergency use. However, the first one opened up satisfactorily enough. \et I soon found myself well nigh helpless before a strong north wind which carried me well over the city. I was like a cork bobbing about in a strong sea, for no sooner did I find myself down to an elevation of 5,000 feet, than a south wind caught me and started swinging the ‘chute back towards the Potomac River from whence I had come.

Now, the average parachute jump takes only from 30 seconds to one minute, so one can well imagine how I felt when, after being aloft 15 minutes, I began to realize that I would be lucky to even make a safe landing, let alone a good one. All the while, of course, as I neared the earth I kept looking about for a possible landing place. Two hundred yards or so from the ground, in one of the most crowded sections of the city, I was forced to conclude that my best bet was to try to land on a nearby apartment house. I was unable to make the roof, however, but skimmed over it, my feet catching in a radio aerial.

Fortunately for me, the ‘chute caught on the ledge at the top. But I couldn’t quite reach down far enough to catch the fire escape six feet below, so I just hung there. Meanwhile hundreds of people were watching me from the ground, and to add a bit of humor to my hazardous situation, an excited woman threw open a window in an apartment nearby, and while I swung like a pendulum with each new movement of the wind, she entreated me if I wanted a glass of water.

I assured the good lady that I did not, and while so doing three policemen came to my rescue, raised a ladder to the roof, and I managed to clamber down the fire-escape to safety.

How does it feel to make a jump? Well, there’s a new kind of thrill most every time, depending largely on how the winds and currents are behaving. But generally the first sensation is of a rushing wind and a terrific descent. Then, after you pull the rip-cord you get something of a jolt as the ‘chute opens. After that it’s all pretty much plain sailing until you hit the ground, granted that you know how to guide your giant parasol.

This is entirely a matter of proper manipulation of the shroud lines, whereby you are able to pull the side of the ‘chute in the direction you want to slip, assuming that the wind is not blowing particularly hard. In thus maneuvering your shroud lines you also are able to increase your rate of descent since a parachute works on the principle of a column of air massed directly underneath the lifeboat of the air.

Different jumpers have their own individual methods of leaping from a plane, but I believe that it is possible to make this generalization: if you are in an open cockpit plane, then stand where the trailing edge of the lower wing fastens on to the fuselage, forming a V,’ and dive towards the tail, fall as far as you desire, and then release the ‘chute. On the other hand, if you are in a cabin type of closed plane, you simply dive straight forward out the door.

GE partners with Nissan to advance the understanding and state of technology for enabling the electric vehicle infrastructure.  …

… "there are a number of potential issues that must be studied and quantified, such as whether clusters of electric vehicles will tax the local electrical distribution system, including transformers. " …

Via GE: Electric car smart charging

As I mentioned previously, the spring game is not a preview of the upcoming season. However, you can learn some things from it. Here are a few things that I learned about the offensive line.

Mike Adams will be the left tackle this year.

If the spring depth chart missing any indication of competition between Adams and Miller wasn’t enough, or all the talk about Adams being leaner and stronger during practice didn’t convince, the spring game erased any doubt in my mind about who the starter will be at LT.

That is not to say that I think Adams will be dominant or finally live up to the Orlando Pace comparisons. I just think that he has clearly separated himself as the best left tackle on the roster.

I observed Adams getting beat off the ball without even getting a hand on his man on at least one occasion. I also watched as the scarlet team ran the ball almost exclusively to his side on a scoring drive.

The flashes of greatness combined with Andrew Miller failing to impress makes Mike Adams the clear starter at LT going into the summer. I am not the only one to think this.

If Adams can stay focused and continue to improve over the course of the summer and fall, Ohio State will have the answer to one of the very few questions facing the team heading into the season.

On that note, I would like to make a general observation about spring practice.

Has an Ohio State team ever had so few question marks heading into a season? On top of that, has an Ohio State team ever had its question marks so conclusively answered during spring practice?

LT is one of the few positions that might still be up in the air going into the summer (more on the others as we get to them) and I would hardly call it up in the air at this point.

I am extremely happy with the players who stepped up this spring, including Mike Adams.  All of the questions that I had at the beginning of the spring were answered, and relatively quickly.

This is good, because outside of the question marks, the rest of the team are proven starters returning from a Rose Bowl championship squad. On that note…

J.B. Shugarts is primed to have a dominating season.

As I was watching the offensive line in the spring scrimmage, I couldn’t help but notice Shugarts. Time after time he stopped the pass rusher across from him cold in his tracks, including but not limited to bull rusher extraordinaire John Simon.

I was very impressed with Shugarts’ performance and look for big things from him this year.

I still think Marcus Hall will move to guard.

Even though he is #2 on the depth chart at RT and I think he will stay there this season, I don’t think his natural position is on the edge.

First, he appeared to struggle mightily with pure speed rushers off the edge, including on the very first play of the spring game.

Second, he is too good to keep off the field. J.B. Shugarts will still be around at RT next season, but Ohio State will be looking to replace Bryant Browning at guard.

It only makes sense for Hall to follow in the footsteps of his fellow Glenville alumni and replace Browning at guard in 2011. For now though, he is the best back up RT in the conference, and that’s not bad either.

Boren, Brewster, and Browning are solid in the middle.

They took care of business last year, they are going to take care of business this year.

With Shugarts coming into his own at RT and Adams apparently making strides at LT, this offensive line is going to be one of the cornerstones of Ohio State’s championship run next season.

Since our last report on online work based on Elance statistics, a full financial quarter has passed. The result on Elance: $20 million more for freelancers. Boosting over $260 million since its birth, Elance has risen above any other online new-media-related marketplace, hovering around the #550 position in Alexa’s global Internet traffic … (read more)

You may recall a few weeks back that we wrote about how the Labour party in the UK had come under fire for a really bad campaign poster that portrayed an opposing candidate from the Conservative party as if he were a character in a BBC television program — photoshopping the candidate’s head onto the a promotional shot from the TV show. Labour ended up pulling the poster after the ad seemed to only help the competition — but also after some questioned whether or not Labour (the party in power that had drafted the infamous Digital Economy Bill) was infringing on copyrights of the TV show in using the image from the show. Eventually, Peter Mandelson, the guy who basically wrote the Digital Economy Bill and was its main champion, took “responsibility” for the poster.

So it’s a bit bizarre to hear that Labour and Mandelson have put out a second, quite similar, poster that appears to be just as questionable on the copyright front. Misterfricative writes in to alert us to a new controversy over yet another campaign poster involving the Conservative candidate photoshopped into an image from a BBC television program. Once again, the poster has been “withdrawn” over other aspects of the controversy, but it certainly looks like this should be Mandelson’s second strike, right? After all, these posters are supposedly his responsibility. If he wants to set a good example, perhaps he should cut off his own internet access. But I guess he shouldn’t worry. After all, as Mandelson himself pointed out, once kicked off, he can pay up in order to file an appeal.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Last week, FOX’s musical hit Glee prompted big laughs and even bigger ratings during its eagerly-anticipated “Power of Madonna” episode. In tribute to The Material Mom, the cast of did a remake of the 1990 “Vogue” video — starring Jane Lynch’s “Sue Sylvester” as the pop diva.

Check out this side-by-side comparison of the Glee version vs. Madonna’s original. So downright uncanny at times you can’t tell the difference!

The online conversation between Gary Becker and Richard Posner is one of my favorite things on the web. Currently they are taking on the the idea of the US implementing a value-added tax. First a bit from Becker, as excerpted by me:

1) A flat VAT tax would be more efficient for two reasons than a progressive income tax that raises the same revenue: it does not discourage savings relative to consumption, and it induces fewer distortions on other behavior because it has flat rather than rising tax rates. A flat income tax eliminates the effects of rising tax rates, but still distorts savings behavior.

2) The downside of a value added tax to anyone concerned about growing government spending and taxing is very much related to its upside; namely, that a VAT is a more efficient and relatively painless tax. … For example, the VAT rate in Europe started low but now ranges from 15 to 25%, and averages about 20%. In Denmark, for example, the VAT rate was 9% in 1962, but quickly rose to 25% by 1992, and has remained at that level.

3) However, the problems is that a VAT would be introduced not as a partial or full substitute for personal and corporate income taxes, but rather as an additional tax. This would make it much easier to close the fiscal gap by maintaining or increasing government spending and overall tax levels.

4) Since high taxes and high levels of government spending would discourage economic growth and raise rather than lower the overall distortions in an economy, I am highly dubious about introducing a VAT into the federal tax system unless accompanied by a major overall of this system. One big improvement that does not involve a VAT would be to flatten the present income tax rates and greatly reduce the various exemptions, so that the tax basis is widened. Even then it is necessary to be vigilant about combating the incentives government officials have to increase flat taxes over time, whether they are flat income taxes or flat value added taxes.

Now Posner:

1) Because (assuming no exemptions) the tax base for a VAT is so broad—all goods and services—a VAT can generate enormous tax revenues at a low tax rate, which reduces the distortionary effect of the tax. … The VAT also avoids the double taxation of savings under a corporate plus individual income tax system, further encourages savings by making consumption more costly, and reduces the disincentive effects of heavy income taxation. … Of course the benefits of the VAT are greatest if it is substituted for income taxes and other inefficient taxes rather than being added to the existing tax system to generate additional tax revenues.

2) Becker’s main objection to the adoption of the VAT by the federal government, which is similar to the objection to taxes on Internet sales and indeed any new taxes that do not merely replace existing taxes, is that by increasing government revenues it will increase the size of government relative to the private economy, and if (as is doubtless true) government is less efficient, the result will be a reduction in economic welfare. … I agree but on the other side of the issue is our awful fiscal situation.

3) In light of the nation’s fiscal bind, the imposition of a federal VAT becomes a more attractive prospect. One immediate beneficial effect, provided that the VAT was not entirely additive to existing taxes but was coupled with some reduction in corporate and payroll taxes, would be a reduction in export prices and therefore an increase in exports and hence a reduction in our trade deficit, which is a contributor to our public debt. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade permits VAT to be rebated on exports, thus lowering the cost to the foreign buyers.

4) More important, the VAT would increase federal tax revenues with minimal distortion because it is an efficient tax. To the extent (even if modest) that it replaced less efficient taxes, it would increase economic efficiency and thus increase the rate of economic growth. Most important, by discouraging consumption in favor of savings, a VAT would reduce the interest rate on our public debt and the Treasury’s dependence on foreign lenders.

The saga of the Android 2.1 upgrades continues, with Motorola Europe posting on its Facebook page that the upgrade for the Milestone has been delayed.

"We regret to say the UK 2.1 update has suffered further delays and been pushed back at least another 2 weeks. Additional operator approvals are now required which were not planned for originally. As we don’t want to cause any further disappointment, we will now post about the update only once the launch date is 100…% confirmed. Sincere apologies for the frustration caused and thanks for your continued patience."

The good news is they’re taking their time to get things right. Bad news is it’s taking time. Hang in there, folks. [Facebook via TheUnwired’s Arne Hess on Twitter]

[JURIST] French Justice Minister Michele Alliot-Marie and Jordan’s King Abdullah II met Sunday to discuss increasing cooperation between France and Jordan’s judicial and legislative branches and strengthening the ties between the two countries. Alliot-Marie told reporters that France would send legal experts to Jordan to help strengthen its court system. Sunday’s talks follow the protocol signed by France and Jordan last April to enhance the countries’ legal cooperation. The protocol provides for the exchange of current legal and judicial releases and research highlighting the countries’ judiciary, and underscores revisions of Jordan’s current civil and criminal laws.
Jordan has employed a series of legal reforms to address the concerns of many human rights groups. Last year, Human Rights Watch (HRW) urged Jordan to restore its rule of law by ending extrajudicial detentions of crime victims, personal enemies, and persons freed by the courts. Per the 1954 Crime Prevention Law, which is currently in effect, government officials have the power to order administrative detentions on mere suspicions of improper behavior rather than on the showing of evidence that a crime has been committed. HRW asserted that the formulation and application of Jordan’s Crime Prevention Law violates international standards as well as Articles 7 and 8 of the Jordan Constitution, which states that “Personal freedom shall be guaranteed,” and that “No person may be detained or imprisoned except in accordance with the provisions of the law.” The HRW report alleges that Jordan officials frequently circumvent the judicial system under which potential defendants are afforded due process and also that the subjects of such extrajudicial detentions are often the victims of crimes rather than the perpetrators themselves.

Covidien is recalling a number of tracheostomy tubes, used to help people breathe on ventilators, due to issues with the tubes leaking. The trach tube problem has resulted in at least 1,200 reported incidents, including at least three deaths. 

The FDA announced the tracheostomy tube recall on April 23, warning that the cuff of the tubes do not always hold in air as they should. If the cuffs leak, it could adversely affect ventilation, decreasing the amount of oxygen being received by patients. This could lead to serious injury or death under some circumstances.

Covidien sent a letter to customers (pdf) on April 13, alerting them that it had received reports of “serious adverse health consequences” due to problems with some versions of its cuffed Shiley tracheostomy tubes, as well as some custom and specialty tracheostomy tubes. Covidien has told FDA that it has received reports of at least three deaths and 1,200 incidents connected with the recalled trach tubes, according to FDA officials.

In the affected units, the cuff does not hold air due to leaks in the pilot balloon inflation assembly. This can cause the ventilation system to lose the ability to create positive pressure in the airway, leading to a sudden decrease in the amount of oxygen being received by the patient, or a sudden increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in their blood.

The medical device recall affects 62 product codes and their associated lot numbers for Shiley Tracheostomy Products and Custom Shiley Tracheostomy Products, commonly referred to as “trach tubes”. All of the recalled devices were manufactured between November 2008 and December 2009. A complete list of the affected product codes and lot numbers is available in the FDA and Covidien press releases.

The FDA and Covidien are recommending that customers return any products affected by the recall. They can contact the company’s technical services department at 1-800-635-5267. Any healthcare professionals or patients who have experienced adverse events associated with this product should contact the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program at www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm.

Oddworld creator Lorne Lanning has some bad news for fans waiting for a new entry in the series. He recently told G4TV that the next Oddworld title has been shelved. There’s still some a silver lining to this

In a half-century of hunting, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) has turned up nary a whisper from E.T. But for renowned physicist Stephen Hawking, the non-success of SETI and others who hope to contact alien life might be for the best: Aliens, he says, might not like us.

Hawking caused waves with this suggestion in his new Discovery Channel special, which debuted last night. He has long believed that extraterrestrial life exists, simply because of the sheer vastness of the universe. While much of what’s out there might be simple microbial life, there may indeed be new civilizations far more advanced than our own. But that doesn’t mean they’ll be friendly.

Said Hawking: “We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet. I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonise whatever planets they can reach” [The Times].

Should aliens decide to drop in on our pale blue dot, he predicts they may come not in a spirit of peace and understanding, but more likely in the spirit with which Europeans conquered Native Americans and colonized what’s now the United States. These alien wanderers similarly might see human society as primitive and unimportant, and attack our planet for its resources, he says.

While Hawking contends that contacting E.T. would be quite risky for us, he also considers the possibility that we’ll never get the chance, even if there are advanced civilizations on distant worlds. “Perhaps they all blow themselves up soon after they discover that E=mc2. If civilizations take billions of years to evolve, only to vanish virtually overnight, then sadly we’ve next to no chance of hearing from them” [MSNBC].

The four-part TV special, which DISCOVER previewed in our April issue, took Hawking and the producers three years to create. Besides the alien menace, Hawking also had a little fun with time travel last night, throwing a party for time travelers and sending out invitations after the party (nobody from the future comes). The third and fourth parts, covering the life and death of the universe, air this coming Sunday, May 2.

For another take on Hawking’s comments, head to Bad Astronomy where Phil Plait takes a more skeptical view of the potential for doom-wielding alien visitors.

Related Content:
DISCOVER: Stephen Hawking Is Making His Comeback
DISCOVER: Inside the World of Stephen Hawking
DISCOVER: Hawking’s Exit Strategy
DISCOVER: The Best in Science Culture This Month
Cosmic Variance: Hawking: Beware the Alien Menace!
Bad Astronomy: In Which I Disagree With Stephen Hawking

Image: “Independence Day” / Centropolis Entertainment

One of the most talked about — and controversial — new rules in the Senate Agriculture Committee’s new derivatives bill would require banks to spin off their derivatives desks. Reports indicate that the rule made it into Senate Democrats’ final version revised on Sunday. While it sounds like a fine idea for banks to simplify their businesses by not dealing derivatives, the provision would harm the market.

Perusing the Ag bill (.pdf), you won’t find any language explicitly calling for banks to spin off their derivatives business. That’s because this would be an indirect consequence caused by another provision which would forbid federal assistance for an institution that engages in the derivatives business. Without being able to utilize Federal Depository Insurance Corporation funds or emergency loans from the Federal Reserve, banks will feel they have no choice but to spin off their derivatives desks. This is a strange sort of indirect way to require banks to get out of the business of derivatives. The legislation could have instead simply forbid depository institutions from dealing derivatives. This indirect method gets there too, but only in a round-about way.

In theory, a bank could choose to continue dealing derivatives and opt out of being eligible for government assistance. But there’s little chance any depository institution could afford to shed its FDIC charter. The once traditional investment banks that obtained a bank holding company status so to gain access to the Fed’s emergency funding during the crisis — including Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley — might decide to rethink that move if the rule is passed. The thought of losing their lucrative derivatives businesses could cause them to choose to revert back to traditional investment banks.

It’s also useful to note that the institutions which were the biggest problems during the crisis — Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns, Merrill Lynch, AIG and Fannie/Freddie — were not depository banks who would have qualified for such assistance. The provision would not have prevented these institutions from trading derivatives. As a result, in all likelihood, it would have had no effect in preventing the financial crisis.

Forcing banks to spin off their derivatives desks would devastate the banking industry and put U.S. firms at a significant disadvantage in the global financial market. One of the most important characteristics of a swaps dealer is its capital adequacy and creditworthiness. Counterparties and clearing houses will want to be comfortable that swap dealers won’t default. With this provision, non-U.S. banks that are still permitted to deal derivatives will have a significant advantage for this reason.

If a derivatives desk doesn’t have a bank behind it with lots of capital to better ensure its survival, the market will become less efficient. Large amounts of collateral will have to be posted for trades, and derivatives will become much more expensive. While it may be prudent to reduce the derivatives market to some extent, these new rules might go too far. Despite their recent bad press, derivatives serve an important function in both business and banking.

Foursquare has been in the news a lot lately, thanks to huge valuations and a surging number of users. The location-based service is generating a lot of hype, but no one knows if this will translate into actual mainstream success. One sign that may point in that direction is that it’s starting to get attention from mainstream celebrities, or rather, … (read more)

It remains conventional wisdom ignorance that a climate and clean energy jobs bill would not be good for farmers.  In fact, the future prosperity of U.S agriculture is tied to clean energy and the effects of climate change. Farmers are particularly vulnerable to the increased water shortages, widespread drought and floods, and lower crop yields that would result from global warming. And they are on the front lines every day, living and working the land, highly aware of these devastating consequences to farm productivity (see “A Stormy Forecast for U.S. Agriculture“).

Clean energy legislation, on the other hand, creates 3 new paychecks for farmers: a pay check for leasing a small portion of land for sustainable energy development like putting in a wind turbine that can earn them $3,000 to $15,000 per year, a paycheck for sequestering carbon in their soils by engaging in more sustainable and productive farming practices, and a paycheck for producing 2nd generation biofuel crops. CAP Director of Agriculture and Trade Policy Jake Caldwell has the story in this repost.

Curbing global warming pollution now through comprehensive, bipartisan clean energy and climate legislation in Congress that establishes a price on carbon pollution will bring real financial benefits to farmers, while reducing America’s dependence on oil and enhancing our overall competitiveness in agriculture and the wider economy.

Comprehensive clean energy and climate energy legislation will triple potential revenue streams for farmers and rural communities. Farmers can earn real money in at least three different ways in the new low-carbon economy. Farmers can receive new income for leasing wind turbines or providing land for other clean energy production, growing switchgrass or other feedstocks for advanced biofuels, and sequestering carbon under their crops and forestland.

Here are the facts:

• The Department of Energy estimates that if 5 percent of the nation’s energy comes from wind power by 2020, rural America could see $60 billion in capital investment. Farmers and rural landowners would derive $1.2 billion in new income and see 80,000 new jobs created over the next two decades.
• A University of Tennessee and 25×25 study predicts that a well-designed carbon offsets trading system that pays farmers to conserve carbon through good soil and forest management practices will grow farm revenue by $13 billion a year.
• Other producers will be able to receive matching payments through programs such as the Biomass Crop Assistance Program that promote growing energy crops and biomass to feed the nation’s need for advanced biofuels and lessen our dependence on oil.

U.S. agriculture is a critical bridge between global warming challenges and solutions. Our agricultural and forest lands sequester 246 million metric tons of carbon annually, absorbing 13 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. And the Congressional Budget Office has suggested that this number could rise to 50 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions with the appropriate incentives.

But agriculture is also carbon intensive. Our farms produce more than 413 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per year and generate two-thirds of all nitrous oxide emissions and significant methane emissions. Nitrous oxide and methane are both more potent greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide. The agricultural sector is responsible for 6 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions overall.

Farmers’ central role in carbon production and sequestration makes them critically important players in the clean energy and climate change legislative efforts. Comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation must clearly define a role for U.S. agriculture that reduces carbon emissions, invests in rural-based clean energy to enhance our national security and lessen our dependence on oil, and provides new sources of revenue to boost incomes and jobs in rural America.

We simply will not reduce global warming pollution successfully without American farmers’ full participation.

The following policy provisions are key components of comprehensive reform that can help ensure that energy and climate legislation provides real benefits to America’s farmers:

Increase rural clean energy production

Comprehensive clean energy and climate change legislation must promote energy cost savings and rural-based clean energy in wind, solar, geothermal, bioenergy, and other renewables immediately by setting a price on carbon, reducing emissions, and establishing consistent and high-level national renewable and energy efficiency standards. Other recommendations include:

• Extend the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant financing program for wind, solar, geothermal, and bioenergy projects that benefit rural communities. This Section 1603 provision has been a particularly powerful incentive to encourage community-based renewable energy projects, including wind, in rural areas. But Congress should improve the transparency and data-gathering components of Section 1603 to expand its capacity to track the grants’ supply-chain aspects so as to ensure the program continues to create good, well-paying jobs for U.S. companies and workers.
• Provide direct grants for clean energy projects. Congress should dedicate $300 million toward increasing farm-based clean energy, including the Rural Energy for America Program, by providing grants and loan guarantees directly to farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses seeking to design and construct their own clean energy projects. Projects and technologies might include bioenergy facilities, manure digesters, energy efficiency projects, and wind and solar power.
• Increase funding for Clean Renewable Energy Bonds to finance wind, bioenergy, and geothermal projects. Revenue raised from Clean Renewable Energy Bonds should be shared between state and local governments, public power producers, nonprofit utilities, and electric cooperatives.
• Reinvest direct payment commodity subsidies in renewable energy and energy efficiency. The federal government automatically pays $5.2 billion in commodity-based ìdirect paymentî subsidies each year to people who may or may not even farm. The Government Accountability Office has found that USDA paid 69,120 individuals who had been dead at least three years between 1999 and 2005. We should reinvest the $5.2 billion per year in outdated direct payment commodity subsidies into initiatives to promote low-carbon, agriculture-based energy in USDA programs. This funding can provide incentives to encourage energy efficiency on farms and renewable energy such as wind turbines, solar, biomass, and geothermal power.

Establish time-limited agricultural offsets to carbon-intensive industries

Investments in agriculture and forestry can help curb greenhouse gas emissions. The agriculture and forestry sectors are good candidates to provide offsets to reduce the greenhouse gas reduction costs for major emitters in the initial stages of a carbon pollution reduction program. Comprehensive clean energy and climate change legislation should:

• Establish a carbon offsets market. The offsets market would be part of a carbon pollution reduction program and would allow farmers to create and sell carbon offsets to polluting entities. This would reduce the cost of emissions reductions for polluters, and farmers would be paid for what they do so well—their longstanding carbon sequestration and land stewardship efforts.
• Designate USDA as the lead agency for agriculture and forestry offset projects. Establish a list of eligible projects with precise definitions that rewards early adopters, including producers that practice reduced tillage agriculture today.
• Ensure that carbon offsets are measurable, additional, verifiable, and permanent. Efforts that fall short of full compliance threaten to undermine the integrity and achievement of pollution reductions.
• Provide incentives to encourage global emissions reductions. The federal government should utilize carbon offsets or other means to effectively encourage emissions reductions on a global scale from permanent avoided deforestation through such initiatives as the United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries.

Encourage farmers to reduce emissions and sequester carbon

Farmers should be rewarded for other activities in the agricultural sector that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or sequester carbon, but may not qualify as an eligible carbon offset project. Legislation should set aside a number of allowances to fund an incentive program for activities that:

• Promote U.S. agricultural lands as a carbon sink. Incentives can encourage farmers to undertake projects in agriculture or forestry that reduce greenhouse gases, or sequester carbon, and prevent the conversion of land that would otherwise release emissions.
• Enhance soil quality. Reducing disturbance of the soil, producing more biomass, and ensuring that biomass is absorbed by the soil will all help increase the amount of carbon in the soil. The result: fewer harmful greenhouse gas emissions in the air.
• Encourage restoration of federal forest and grazing lands. These restored lands can be used to sequester additional carbon.
• Promote activities with carbon benefits and improved carbon management. The federal government can utilize conservation easements, carbon sequestration contracts, and similar tools to encourage better carbon benefits on public and private lands, and should monitor and verify all activities in an open and transparent manner.

Promote energy efficiency in rural communities

Energy efficiency retrofitting is the most cost-effective way to reduce household energy costs while providing manufacturing and construction jobs in local rural communities.

• Implement a Rural Energy Savings Program to allow rural homeowners to obtain low-interest loans to help pay for many of the upfront costs of weatherization and energy efficiency home improvements. Farmers can pay back the low-interest loan through utility bills or attached to property taxes, so payback continues even if the homeowner moves away from the property. The USDA estimates such a program could cost $995 million to issue $4.9 billion in low-interest loans. More than 1 million rural homes would become energy efficient, and 34,000 auditing and weatherization jobs, mostly in rural communities, would be created by 2020.
• Help manufacturers in rural areas build clean energy products. Provide low-cost loans or tax credits, such as the incentives in the proposed IMPACT Act and the Clean Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit program, to help manufacturers located in rural areas to retool to produce clean energy technologies and improve industrial efficiency.
• Increase support and availability of USDA’s Home Repair Loan and Grant Program for rural areas. Low-income families who own homes in need of repair under the current program are eligible to receive loans and grants to undertake home renovations, including replacing heating and water systems. The program’s priorities should be expanded to include energy efficiency improvements and modernization of homes.

Invest in clean energy research, development, and deployment

Any comprehensive clean energy legislation should support the establishment of a Clean Energy Deployment Administration, or Green Bank, to rapidly and affordably develop and deploy emerging and existing clean energy and energy efficiency technologies in all regions of the country. It should also:

• Establish an overarching clean rural energy venture capital fund. The fund of $2 to $3 billion would act as a catalyst for further private and public sector capital to promote research, development, and deployment of clean energy technologies in targeted regional areas. It would jumpstart capital to be injected into regional areas with a strong mix of private and public research institutions, natural resources, businesses, nonprofits, and a workforce conducive to clean energy development.
• Expand funding of the farm bill’s existing Title IX overall clean energy initiatives. This should include clean energy research and development programs such as the Rural Energy for America Program. And it should increase support for renewable energy and energy efficiency program research, development, and deployment activities in wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal technologies beyond current $600 to $800 million levels.
• Provide additional research and development funding for carbon sequestration in agriculture and forestry. Research should examine the significant potential of biochar to sequester carbon. Other areas of research should include efforts to reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions, as well as carbon dioxide and improvements in measuring greenhouse gas reductions.

Support sustainable bioenergy and biofuels

Comprehensive clean energy legislation must bring advanced biofuels—made from agricultural waste, wood chips, or dedicated energy crops such as switchgrass—to commercial scale as rapidly as possible. Biomass growers are primarily located in rural areas, and the high costs of collecting and transporting biomass means that many production facilities are also in these communities. We must ensure a stable long-term market for advanced biofuels by making targeted short-term investments in the current generation of biofuels’ fuel infrastructure needs.

• Support loan guarantees for the construction and deployment of advanced biofuel refineries. USDA’s Biorefinery Assistance program has in the recent past been the sole federal source of loan guarantees to develop, construct, and retrofit commercial-scale advanced biorefineries attempting to produce cellulosic biofuels at commercial levels, and it should receive an additional $300 million. This core funding will allow the program to issue loan guarantees for biorefinery projects established primarily in rural communities.
• Provide incentives to farmers to begin growing advanced biofuel crops. USDA’s Biomass Crop Assistance Program provides funding to producers and farmers of renewable energy crops of up to 75 percent of the cost of establishing the energy crop and annual payments for up to 15 years for crop production, and should receive additional support.
• Increase support for the current national Renewable Fuel Standard. This will require better funding and interagency strategic implementation of the program, particularly regarding its emphasis on rewarding biofuels’ performance characteristics. Congress should also ensure that legislative definitions of “renewable biomass” adhere to certifiable environmental and land use safeguards on ecologically valuable and vulnerable public and private lands, and provide a means to measure lifecycle greenhouse gas reductions.
• Encourage farmer-owned and -operated biorefinery and biofuel plant cooperatives and biomass enterprise zones. Direct producer payments and other targeted incentives can help farmers engaged in the establishment of farmer and locally owned biorefineries and biofuel facilities, but should be temporary and phased out over a 10-year period, and should have majority local ownership. Farmers will also need technical and financial assistance to encourage them to pool resources and enter into larger biomass enterprise zones that would maximize economies of scale and regional geographic proximity. Biomass enterprise zones could facilitate the co-location of biomass growing, production, and processing. And marketing alliances could encourage collaboration on facility construction, storage, and transportation infrastructure to enable biobased products to enter the retail market efficiently.
• Spur consumer demand and retail infrastructure. The United States must create requirements and strong incentives to make biofuel blends reliably available at filling stations by promoting the installation of new blender fuel pumps and distribution infrastructure that allow drivers to choose between traditional 100 percent gasoline blends and 85 percent biofuel blends. It should increase renewable fuel infrastructure grants to $100 million in each fiscal year.

Spur rural innovation in clean energy

Innovation clusters—designated regional centers where local businesses, universities, public sector institutions, and others interact in a coordinated manner to push forward research, development, and deployment of innovative technologies—should be encouraged in rural areas. Local leadership and communities can set innovation priorities appropriate to their regions and strengthen U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace. Innovation clusters, if properly implemented, can drive the commercialization of new technologies and products, create jobs, generate revenue, and attract skilled workers to rural areas.

• Invest $150 million in clean energy innovation hubs. The hubs will tackle high-priority technological challenges in the clean energy sector by linking highly integrated solution-oriented teams in designated regions to move technology from the laboratory to pilot phase to commercialization. Support for clean energy hubs will solve energy challenges, create jobs, and promote economic growth in regional rural and urban areas.
• Invest $100 million in regional economies and applied innovation to support the creation of regional innovation clusters in rural areas. The clusters should build on the momentum generated by the clean energy innovation hubs and seek to address national economic and strategic priorities, including clean energy and energy efficiency. They should also rely on local (and often rural) leadership to design and implement the initiatives. A key component of establishing regional innovation clusters is to allow local decision makers to deploy their knowledge of local and regional advantages and strengths of particular geographic areas. Local leadership in rural communities should work to bind together local businesses, nonprofits, universities, and research and development institutions. These can combine with natural resources advantages to pursue applied innovation in a manner that will move clean energy technology from research to commercialization.

Promote U.S. agricultural exports

Clean energy legislation should strengthen agriculture’s role in meeting the National Export Initiative’s goal to double U.S. exports by 2015. The federal government should also:

• Support and conclude trade negotiations. The United States should work on a variety of international trade fora and agreements that provide market access for U.S. agricultural products, including: the WTO Doha round of negotiations; bilateral free trade agreements with Korea, Panama, and Colombia; and the newly launched Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Conclusion

Comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation will deliver real, tangible benefits to America’s hardworking farmers. New income opportunities will emerge in clean energy generation, including wind power produced directly on the farm and a variety of carbon conservation efforts. Farmers growing energy crops for advanced biofuels will earn matching payments while lessening our dependence on oil and enhancing our national security. Clean energy and action on climate change represents real money in farmers’ pocketbooks, and a healthier climate for all Americans.

Related Post:

• USDA: Economic benefits of climate bill for farmers ‘easily trump’ the costs

The world is full of stupid people; it’s just one of those facts we all know and live with as we carefully step through each and every day of our lives. Sometimes, when we watch television, or read magazines, we pay particular attention to some of these people, in morbid curiosity, as they do what they do best — make fools of themselves. While there may be billions of fools out there, these 12 very famous people have been deemed fit to be recognized as being dumber than a fifth grader.



Sarah Palin

Yes, we knock on ex-Governor Sarah Palin quite a bit, but let’s face it; she asked for every sentence. The woman is clueless in every way, and unless the subject has to do with cooking moose, she has no idea what she’s talking about in any given conversation. She shows, time after time, how ignorant she is each and every time she steps in front of a camera and opens her mouth — it’s as simple as that. In case you’ve grown comfortable and managed to forget already, the video above should serve as an unpleasant reminder of just how stupid the former governor of Alaska really is.



Paris Hilton

Image Source

Of all the vapid, self-important, talentless rich-kids to have made a name for themselves after leaving Daddy’s penthouse, Paris Hilton has got to be the most successful. How she got where she is today is no secret — sex sells — but the fact that she’s not only remained in the public eye but actually gained favor is inexplicable. This is the same girl who asked if they sell walls at Walmart. This is the girl who didn’t know what a soup kitchen was, the girl who’s deluded enough to believe that she’s actually made “all” her money on her own, without any help. She may be good enough at memorizing lines to ace a short commercial during a presidential election, but she’s not fooling anyone.



Sherri Shepherd

Unimaginably moronic simpleton that she is, Sherri Shepherd somehow managed to get through life not just somewhat successfully, but the woman regularly co-hosts one of the most-watched shows on TV. How she got this far is beyond reason and will probably never be known, but she’s made sure to show the world just how incredibly inept she truly is on several occasions. In the video above, she asserts that “Jesus came first” when confronted with the historical fact that Christians came after the Romans, who came after the Greeks. This wasn’t her first rodeo, though — she still hasn’t decided whether or not the world is flat.



Miss South Carolina Teen USA, Caite Upton

Caite Upton made a fool of herself in front of audiences the world over when she opened her mouth on live television to answer a simple question regarding the ignorance of her fellow Americans during the 2007 Miss Teen USA competition. “Like such as” became the catchphrase of the entire year, and the state of South Carolina collectively hid its face in shame. Not surprisingly, Upton has managed to get herself another gig in front of the camera; this time it’s TV’s The Amazing Race, in which she’s currently competing alongside her boyfriend of the moment. In her bio for the show, she’s listed her achievements as simply “being able to overcome the embarrassment from the flub I made on national television during the Miss Teen USA pageant.”



Glenn Beck

There’s no way to tip-toe around this one, Glenn Beck is an extreme example of just how low the standards have become for someone to host a show on a major news network. The man is beyond ignorant, which he proves time and again (every time his show airs), but it’s never so readily apparent as when he pulls out his chalkboard to attempt to prove some sort of point. In the hilarious clip shown in the video above, Beck attempts to spell the word OLIGARCHY. Needless to say, it doesn’t end well.



“Speidi”

Few people in this world are more hatable than Heidi Montag and Spencer Pratt. There simply isn’t one shred of humanity between the two of them that would warrant not hating them, but their being a couple of grade-A douchebags isn’t what gets them on this list. While most of what they do is — on the surface — nothing but a desperate bid for more media attention, it becomes pretty plainly obvious that they are actually and truly stupid people when examined more closely. Watching the video above will make you cringe, and may actually cause permanent damage to the part of your brain that tries to cope with immense stupidity, so watch at your own risk.



Jessica Simpson

Jessica Simpson, though somehow able to make the majority of Americans adore her despite her severe case of man-jaw, is a vapid waste of good film — on a good day. The classic clip shown above of Simpson difference between chicken and tuna is unforgettable, but it was far from the only instance of its kind. Among the very best of the rest are gems like her mistaking buffalo wings for actual buffalo wings, and our absolute favorite: “On my first day of junior high I was in Geography class, and the teacher asked us if anybody knew the names of the continents. And I was sooo excited. I was like, Damnit! It’s my first day of 7th grade, I’m in junior high and I know this answer. So I raised my hand I was the first one and I said A-E-I-O-U!”




Kanye West

Image Source

Whether you’re a fan of his music or not, Kanye West has made himself quite the spectacle over the last few years. For having sold as many albums as he’s sold, Kanye has actually managed to become more famous for acting stupid than he has for his music. That achievement alone makes him something of a historical figure, but to top it all off the guy decided he was going to “write” a “book.” In a feeble attempt to add author to his ever-growing resume, Kanye released Thank You and You’re Welcome, a stirring philosophical masterpiece of third-grade proportions. To add further fodder for insults, he couldn’t even put the “book” together by himself and had to share a byline with some random guy nobody had ever heard of before. He’s also notorious for not understanding the difference between capital and lowercase letters; if you ever feel the urge to be like Kanye while you lurk around the Internet, you should try this handy bookmarklet for your browser.



Britney Spears

Image Source

Britney Spears was America’s sweetheart for a good month or so before she started racking up skank-points and behaving badly, but it wasn’t her penchant for scandal that made her eligible to be on this particular list. Spears earned her spot by a mix of sheer force of will and mush for brains. Aside from going completely insane and pulling a Sinead’o on her head, it was always Britney’s way with words that really made us pause (and work out what she meant to say). She’s said a great deal of truly stupid things over the years, like having been to “lots” of overseas places, Canada being one of them, but our very favorite quote from the queen B has to be this gem: “I’ve never wanted to go to Japan. Simply because I don’t like eating fish. And I know that’s very popular out there in Africa.” 



Tara Reid

Image Source

When the subject of grotesquely stupid Hollywood dimwits is broached, somebody usually blurts out the name Tara Reid — sometimes as an involuntary muscle response. She got her start in an episode of Saved by the Bell (not the good one, one of the crappy spin-offs), then moved on to appear in a slew of shows and movies, playing one terrible role after another. The girl was nominated twice at the Raspberry Awards; once for Worst Supporting Actress and once for Worst Actress. She’s a terrible actress, and a drunk to boot, but more than anything else she’s just plain dumb. If this girl were to play a game of chess with a stuffed animal, she’d probably lose; she even stated that she “makes Jessica Simpson look like a rock scientist.” Yes, a “rock scientist,” and we don’t think she meant “geologist,” either.




Carrie Prejean

Carrie Prejean, at first glance, seems like a decently well put-together young woman. In the short news blips, sound bites, and rehearsed interviews, Prejean comes across as remarkably level-headed for what she is — an idiot. She may not be on the same level as Tara Reid, but this girl is not going to be winning any of Ben Stein’s Money anytime soon. In the video above, she makes a strong attempt to keep her composure and remember her rehearsed responses while she’s being interviewed by Larry King, but finds herself locked in a mental hamster’s wheel (which is about all she has rattling around up there) when King asks about her motives for wanting to settle out of court in the recent drama surrounding her behavior and the title of Miss California USA. Apparently, inappropriate is the biggest word she knows, and she’s not afraid to use it — inappropriately.



George W. Bush

Normally, there would be a heavy sense of propriety that would stop somebody from including a man with such a lofty title in a list such as this. Clearly, G.W. is an exception to that rule, as no list of this sort could possibly be complete without the master of grammatical embarrassment’s official inclusion. Bush was no weekend-warrior in the fight against the English language, either; the man left a trail of butchered phrases everywhere he went, and hundreds of “Bushisms” have been collected over the years to prove it. Entire books have been released with nothing but his hilariously misguided adventures in public speaking — which makes him the indisputable champion of this list.