Blog

Taptu, a mobile search engine that specializes in indexing mobile-friendly websites, just launched a new version of its iPhone app. The new app now includes real-time search results, which are powered by OneRiot. In addition to including these real-time search results, Taptu also worked hard on improving the speed of the app and on providing more relevant search results. Taptu offers apps for the iPhone, iPod touch (iTunes link) and Android, as well as a mobile optimized website.

Sponsor

Taptu first integrated real-time search results from OneRiot in its mobile web interface and in its Android app last month. The mobile apps definitely provide a far superior way of using the service than the mobile site, however.

There are two ways to access real-time search results in the app. The homepage now displays the hottest trending topics, and a single click on one of these opens up OneRiot search results.

In addition, you can also do a normal search and then select “latest buzz” from the options menu right next to the search box. This same menu also allows you to restrict search to images, videos, blog or Wikipedia articles, as well as to sites and blogs about sports, news or apps.

For a closer look at Taptu’s feature set, also have a look at our review of the service’s web app.
Discuss

Filed under: Technology, Ford

Before we get into the nitty and/or gritty of what Ford is up to with their pending Sync app store, we should share with you a few facts FoMoCo shared with us. In 2010 fully 28 percent of the driving population will be between the ages of 16 and 31. These folks, known as Millenials (though us altecachers still prefer “Generation Y”) love their smart phones and social networks the way the Baby Boomers loved the Beatles and Generation X loved moping around and bad tribal tattoos.

As such, the number one access point to the internet is no longer a computer — it’s a mobile device.

Now we turn to Ford’s Sync, a piece of software developed with Microsoft’s help using the Seattle software giant’s Microsoft Auto platform. While on the surface Sync has often appeared as little more than a fancy way to spin songs off your iPod, in reality it’s a sophisticated piece of middleware that allows the vehicle to harness the power of a given mobile device. In other words, Sync allows whatever Ford/Lincoln/Mercury vehicle you’re driving to act as a controller for your iPhone/Droid/Pre/whatever.

Handsfree access to your favorite songs and phone numbers is one thing, but what about all those fancy-pants apps you’ve spent so much time (and maybe money) downloading? Are they to be totally forgotten while you’re in the car? Admittedly, you might be saying “of course,” but Millenials think different. Besides, what if there were smart phone apps that actually enhanced the driving experience? With your hands on the wheels and eyes on the road, how would you access them? Here’s a larger point, how does the internet work at 70 mph? Ford thinks it’s got the answers to most if not all of these questions.

Continue reading Ford goes open source, gets students to develop phone apps for Sync

Ford goes open source, gets students to develop phone apps for Sync originally appeared on Autoblog on Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

by Michael A. Livermore

On December 22nd, 2008, a quiet evening in the town of Harriman, Tennessee was interrupted when 1.2 billion gallons of toxic coal ash sludge burst out of a nearby landfill, poisoning the land and water in its path and causing untold hardship for families whose lives were turned upside down. A year later, the underlying cause of this massive environmental disaster is still unregulated.

Despite some rumblings and tentative first steps, the EPA has a long way to go before adopting rules that require safer storage of this dangerous muck. At the very least, the agency should move quickly to ban the slurry from being kept in unlined ponds where, even without a spill, it threatens public health by seeping carcinogens into the water supply.

Clean up of the spill is still ongoing—the Tennessee Valley Authority, the entity responsible for the plant in Kingston, says it’s likely to take another two or three years and at least $933 million total to finish the job. Add that to the health costs of contaminated water and respiratory issues of having this stuff around, and the benefits of regulations far outweigh the price electricity companies would pay to comply.

Last year’s spill was a consequence of TVA’s underinvestment in adequate protection.  What began as a dike designed to keep about 5 feet of coal ash from flowing into the nearby creek eventually had to contain a mountain of gelatinous waste that was a notable feature of the area’s landscape. With no regulation requiring it, only nominal improvements were made to keep the slurry in place and nothing was done to keep the toxins out of the drinking water.

This kind of behavior is just another way society hides the expensive consequences of burning dirty fuel. “Cheap” energy prices too often comes at the expense of hazards foisted onto unsuspecting neighbors. The families of Harriman experienced the true cost of cheap coal the hard way.

There is much more work to be done to uncover all the health risks associated with unlined coal ash ponds and to conduct a complete cost-benefit analysis of regulating these sites. But most of the missing information is on the benefit side of the equation, so further research is likely to strengthen the economic case for EPA to step in.

Hopefully many years will pass without another spill, but as the head of TVA has recently acknowledged, plants will need to change their storage practices to truly prevent another disaster like Kingston. It’s unclear that we can rely on these facilities to learn from TVA’s mistakes and protect their neighbors from harm without strong rules requiring adequate protection. The EPA should regulate quickly knowing that doing so will yield far more benefits than costs.

Related Links:

Copenhagen coal in the stocking?

The top green stories of the ‘00s

Top 10 worst Christmas gifts

Night, New Year’s Eve, in a snowy forest, as if by magic, flared festive lights on the Christmas tree. And all around the mysterious lights lit up! Sparkled snow drifts began to shine – as if covered with deposits of diamonds. Give yourself a sense of celebration!

It’s Tuesday and that can only mean it’s time for our weekly feature, the BlackBerry Buzz. Numbers are out on the top handsets in use for the U.S. market and Research In Motion (RIM) ought to be pleased. Out of the 10 handsets most used in 2009 through October, BlackBerry devices grabbed three spots, including the second place overall according to Nielson’s data. CNet notes that Apple’s iPhone 3G took the top spot at 4.0% of all U.S. subscribers. However, due to multiple product lines, Research In Motion continues to have a greater market share overall. Bear in mind that this list is comprised of popular mobile phones, not just smartphones. In fact, other than the iPhone and the BlackBerry devices all other phones are what I’d consider to be feature phones. That’s telling — it says to me that RIM continues to transition well into the consumer space as the smartphone market continues to rise in popularity.

But one of the least popular functions of a BlackBerry might be using it to surf the web. While waiting for a WebKit browser out of the RIM acquisition of Torch Mobile, it’s clear that many BlackBerry owners use Opera for their browsing needs. Opera shared their 2009 state of the web report and in the U.S., six of the top 10 handsets that most use the Opera browser were BlackBerry devices. I doubt RIM needed affirmation of their weak browser, but it’s there in black and white. I also wonder what the impact to Opera will be when BlackBerry handsets do gain a WebKit browser — it won’t likely be good for Opera.

Burlington Northern (BNI) has just published an internal video interview with its soon-to-be owner Warren Buffett about what Berkshire Hathaway (BRK) plans to do with the company.

The answer?

Nothing.

In classic Buffett form, he insists he has no plans to do anything with the railroad excpet let it run itself as it’s always done.

You’ll see. Several times throughout the interview he’s asked about this or that (pension stuff, infrastructure, etc.) and his answer is the same each time. Burlington’s management will handle it. It’s none of his — or anyone else at Berkshire’s — business.

At the end he notes that it’s taken him 79 years, but that with this acquisition he’s finally fulfilled a boyhood dream.

—-

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• Why Buffett Finished Off Burlington: It’s the Inventories, Stupid
• Doug Kass: Warren Buffett’s Burlington Buy Is Bad News For Berkshire
• Buffett Bets $44 Billion On U.S. Railroad!

Vinnie alerts us to a story out of Chicago, where two of the larger regional supermarket chains, Jewel and Dominick’s, recently put out ads congratulating Michael Jordan for all of his accomplishments (at the time of his induction into the NBA Hall of Fame). But, according to Jordan and his lawyer these newspaper ads celebrating Jordan’s accomplishments were actually trademark infringement. Now, it is true that there are certain publicity rights when it comes to celebrities and “endorsements,” but it’s hard to see how a congratulatory message from local Chicago grocers would be seen by any moron in a hurry as an “endorsement” (no matter how good his outside jumper might be). I guess the solution is just to stop recognizing Jordan’s achievements altogether.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Mobile and social entertainment company Digital Chocolate has launched its newest game, MMA Pro Fighter, on Facebook—and it’s teaming up with Offerpal Media to monetize it. The game lets players create and train their own mixed martial arts (MMA) fighters; players use virtual goods and abilities (like extra stamina) to gain the upper hand, and that’s where Offerpal’s offer-based ads come in.

Players can earn Pro Points, the game’s currency, by completing the offers. I asked Trip Hawkins, Digital Chocolate’s CEO, if the company had taken any of the negative press surrounding offer-based ads—and Offerpal in particular—into account before partnering with them for the game’s launch. His commentary on the ads, the overall “scam” debate, and some insight into what’s coming down the pike in 2010 follows.

Tameka Kee: Is this Digital Chocolate’s first foray into offer-based ads?

Trip Hawkins: “We’ve used offers in previous Facebook games like Tower Bloxx, but we think MMA Pro Fighter has a superior design for the use of virtual currency and offer networks. [This] is a very new economic model [that] will mature over time.”

Did you have any concerns about working with Offerpal? How will the company make sure that the ads aren’t “scamming” users?

“We intend to operate with integrity and transparency; there are several methods available that can help both us as the client company and the offer networks themselves do a good job. There’s been some healthy debate and humility of late that will help the industry improve and mature—but we have confidence in Offerpal.”

Will the Offerpal platform translate to mobile as well? For example, if I’m playing MMA Pro Fighter on the iPhone, can I still access the offers?

“We do see Offerpal and offer completion networks in general making the transition to mobile devices, and expect to see more of this in 2010. For now, MMA Pro Fighter is only on Facebook on the desktop. The goal is to extend all of our games to many platforms—we’re a mobile and cross-platform company—but I don’t have specifics about when this game will be available on mobile, or which device yet.”

Can you offer any insight into the upcoming Nanostars virtual goods project? Will offer-based ads be part of the monetization?

“NanoStars will debut in January and use several payment methods, including offer networks.”

Related

• Digital Chocolate Adds Virtual Goods To Games Mix With NanoStars Project | paidContent
• Amid ‘Scam’ Accusations, Social Ad Firm Offerpal Installs A New CEO

by Sam Hummel

With the exception of a few hours of shut-eye, I stayed up all Friday night to watch the last hours of the COP15 negotiations. It was absolutely gripping, shocking, heart-wrenching, inspiring and in the end came with some measure of relief. (BTW—for anyone that would like to watch any part of Friday night’s negotiations it is all online here. I have found this partial transcript useful for skipping around in the many hours of footage.)

I have not seen a single news article that has done justice to what happened overnight. In fact, I’ve seen many that I feel misunderstand or mischaracterize what happened. Watching the questions journalists asked during the final press conferences, I kept saying to my computer screen “Were you not watching!?” so I suppose it should come as little surprise that I, as someone who watched the entire thing, feel a number of the articles written thus far leave readers with misimpressions.

In particular, I would like to address five things that I’ve seen reported or opined in various media (primarily on the left) over the last two days that I believe are fallacies, based on what I witnessed.

Fallacy #1—The “Copenhagen Accord” text preempted a better agreement from being adopted at COP15.

For Venezuela or Cuba or Nicaragua or Sudan or Tuvalu to suggest that continuation of the deadlocked plenary with the negotiators of the 193 countries could have produced an adoptable document contradicts the evidence of the last two years and two weeks of negotiations.  According to what I heard negotiators saying, many proposed texts had been floated but nothing had achieved the kind of support that would make it signable. This was pointed out in very diplomatic terms by the negotiators from Grenada (AOSIS representative), Ethiopia (AU representative), the LDC representative, the Maldives, Norway, UK and many more. As the COP15 began its last day, there was *no deal* of any kind ready for the many world leaders present that day to sign. Why any reporters or commentators would give air-time to the suggestion that the UNFCCC negotiation process had produced something better, I’m having a hard time understanding. If that something better wasn’t going to get signed, it wasn’t better.

I think the Norwegian diplomat said it best when speaking to the full plenary of negotiators saying (I paraphrase) that the negotiators as a group needed to be able to be self-critical and recognize that after two years and 2 weeks of negotiating *they* had failed their heads of state and the world by failing to have something ready for their leaders to sign when they came to Copenhagen. Given that reality, he said, the heads of state made an “unprecedented effort” talking directly to each other and brokered a deal where there had been *none.* (You can find his excellent comments at 1:26 into the plenary video linked above.)

Fallacy #2—The poor countries of the world rejected the Accord.

The claim I’ve seen in some early articles that “the poor countries of the world rejected” the deal is totally inaccurate. It is deeply unfair to throw all the developing nations in an undifferentiated block like this. Sudan, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Cuba and Tuvalu quite vociferously opposed the Accord on both procedural and content grounds. But among the dozens of developing nation representatives that took the floor Friday night, they were in a clear minority.

While recognizing the many short-comings of the Accord, one developing nation after another pleaded with the countries mentioned above to drop their opposition so that the Accord could be adopted.  This pleading was truly heart-wrenching. I will never forget the desperate words of the President of Maldives literally begging these nations to drop their opposition to the Accord. (2:52 into the overnight plenary video)  His pleading was followed by a long applause and similar appeals by negotiators from dozens of other countries and the representatives of nearly every major UN coordinating group, each stating that the parties in their group, through them, wished to express their support for the passage of the Accord. Those bodies include the Alliance Of Small Island States (AOSIS), the Least Developed Countries (LDC), the Africa Group, and the African Union (AU).

Notably, the G77 (a caucus which represents 130 developing nations) did not make a statement in support of the Accord. However, that may have been more of a result of who was representing them than a sign of their collective will. The official G77 representative was from Sudan. After prefacing his remarks by saying he was speaking only on behalf of Sudan, he rejected the Accord with a hyperbole-filled, cynical statement that included a claim that the Accord had the “same values” that created the Holocaust. (You can find his remarks 32 minutes into the recording linked above.) His Holocaust comparison was roundly condemned by nearly every nation that spoke afterward, and several other aspects of his remarks were objected to as well. After that, many G77 countries took the floor to independently endorse the Accord.

Unfortunately, because the handful of opposing nations could not be convinced to support the adoption of the Accord as a decision of the COP15, instead a decision was unanimously passed for the COP15 to “take note” of the Accord.  The COP also agreed that individual countries should have the opportunity to associate themselves as parties agreeing to the Copenhagen Accord, listing their names in an addendum to accompany the Accord. Until that addendum is prepared, we won’t know the exact tally of who was for and against the Accord’s adoption. But judging by the statements made on the plenary floor, I think the final tally will show that many more developing nations supported it than opposed it.

In conclusion, it is my opinion that the more accurate record of what happened is that while many developing (and developed) countries were disappointed by the COP15’s inability to produce a signable text better than the Accord, the overwhelming majority of them were in support of adopting the Accord as a decision of the COP.

Fallacy #3—The Accord came out of an undemocratic backroom deal that minimized the voice of developing nations.

Initially, the strongest and most compelling argument raised by the handful of nations actively opposing the adoption of the Accord was that the Accord had come out of an undemocratic, non-representative backroom deal that had circumvented the UNFCCC process. They are without-question correct on one of those points: it is true that the Accord was brokered outside of the UNFCCC negotiating process by a body made up of less than the 193 countries assembled. With the COP15 in total deadlock (according to many of the negotiators who spoke last night) and with many heads of state on the scene, the President of the COP, Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, invited 28 heads of state and their lead negotiators to a series of “Friends of the Chair” meetings to try to break the impasse. Obama was a participant in some of these meetings.

According to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who also participated in many of those meetings, the 28 nations selected were intentionally representative of all the major UN negotiating groups, the major carbon emitters, the major economies, diverse regions and the majority of the world’s population. I can’t find a complete list of the participating nations online anywhere but the representative of Grenada listed 23 in her remarks:

Sweden (outgoing President of the EU)
Spain (incoming President of the EU)
Saudi Arabia (head rep for OPEC)
Russian Federation
Norway (leader in climate funding)
Maldives
Lesotho (head rep for LDCs)
South Africa
Bangladesh
Algeria (head rep of the Africa Group)
Denmark (COP15 President)
Mexico (COP16 President)
Germany
France
UK
Ethiopia (head rep for the African Union)
Colombia
Korea
China (largest national population)
India (2nd largest national population)
US (3rd largest national population)
Brazil
Grenada (head rep for AOSIS)

The representative nature of the group was defended and presented in persuasive fashion by a number of negotiators, particularly the lead negotiator of Grenada.  As the official representative of the Alliance of Small Island States, the Grenada negotiator said about the Friends of the Chair meeting (paraphrasing) “We were there; we saw the process as legitimate,” “Everyone was negotiating in good faith,” “It was a difficult session, in which AOSIS fought for every single thing, but as you can see we did not get much,” “we regret that this meeting is dividing us… but we stand by the document and we stand by the process.” (Her full remarks can be heard 1:11 into the overnight plenary video.) In his post COP press conference, the UN Secretary General also stood by the process.

The convening of the Friends of the Chair meeting does not represent an undemocratic process. The role of the nation convening an international conference is to do everything possible to make the conference a success. With the conference on the verge of total failure, it was entirely appropriate for the Prime Minister of Denmark to convene these heads of state and try a new strategy for producing a document that could be adopted. (The characterization of this move as somehow throwing out all the groundwork laid over the last two years is specious. The Accord, while sadly lacking the details found in other draft texts, clearly builds on issues and texts that have been deeply explored in the international climate policy negotiations these last two years.) The Friends of the Chair process would have been undemocratic if the resulting document had been adopted as a COP decision without its being proposed to all countries for consideration and consensus.  That was not the case.

While I think the Danish Prime Minister’s attempt to present the Accord to the general body and call for a vote 1 hour later (with regional caucusing to take place during the intervening hour) was ambitious, naive, misguided or manipulative, depending on your perspective—plenty of complaints were aired in the press about the Danes’ facilitation of the negotiations throughout the COP—I think it is worth noting that while the Prime Minister came in for hot criticism by the dissenting countries, he was commended generously for his good faith efforts by many more.

Fallacy #4—The Accord is a worthless “sham” and failure.

Consider this for a moment: Would the President of the Maldives and representatives of so many other nations have spent hours begging the dissenting nations (listed above in Fallacy #2) to unblock the passage of the Accord if it were truly worthless? True, it is not nearly the agreement we need. Everyone, from the COP President himself to Ban Ki-Moon to Obama to every single negotiator on the floor last night acknowledged as much. Critically important things did not make it into the text, such as legally-binding reduction targets and a commitment to reduce emissions quickly enough to possibly achieve a less than 1.5 degrees Celsius warming. And the funding that is pledged in the Accord is paltry when compared to the recent bank bailouts (a common refrain heard in the debates over funding). But when the conference was about to end with absolutely nothing, it’s foolish to say it would have been better to adopt nothing. That would have been truly worthless.

I’m tempted to elaborate here the numerous merits of the Accord that I heard delegates reference in the overnight session and that I understand from what I read in it, but there are certainly many people more qualified to do that. The best enumeration of the Accord’s accomplishments that I’ve found thus far is on Politico.com’s COP 15 “Arena.”

But there is just one thing I have to exclaim: the importance of getting an agreement under which the major developing nation emitters recognize they have a responsibility to act cannot be overstated! This undermines a major rallying cry of US political opponents of climate legislation who rile the American public up by denouncing the fact that (up to now) the UNFCCC negotiated texts would require the US to act while China, Brazil, India and other big [current] emitters aren’t.  Recall that this “disparity” is *the* grounds on which the Kyoto Protocol was rejected outright by a 95-0 vote in the US Senate in 1997. It has taken 12 years and an unprecedented level of negotiations to get that disparity rectified through the Copenhagen Accord. Nothing to sneeze at.

Fallacy #5—Obama is to blame!

I have hardly read a positive word about Obama in regards to the Accord. On the right, Obama is being trashed for having agreed to spend billions of dollars, going along with the “global climate hoax” and taking his eye off the economy for 10 seconds. On the left, activists are calling Obama a sell-out and an underminer of the UN. In the case of progressive activists, I think the critique shows a sincere misunderstanding of where the hold-up is when it comes to getting the US to act on climate issues. The hold-up is and has been in the US Senate for nearly two decades. I’ve often wondered why Obama doesn’t just come to the podium and point that out: “Hey everybody, I’d just like to say that the Executive Branch and the House of Representatives are ready to act but we can’t do anything as long as you let your Senators filibuster and block every meaningful climate bill proposed.”  I understand he probably doesn’t do that because it would make working with the Senate testy, but I don’t understand why the activists that are currently trashing Obama can’t make the Senate their rallying cry and point of emphasis. It’s clear to me from the way Obama has directed stimulus money that he wants to act on climate issues (not just talk, as some have accused), but that he knows he can’t without the US Senate’s cooperation.

There’s something else, though, that I didn’t understand until this week: Only the Executive Branch has the authority to represent the US Government in international affairs—not any member of Congress or the Supreme Court. So, Obama can’t say at the negotiations “go talk to the Senators about why they won’t agree to a carbon cap.” Instead, he has to represent why they won’t agree to a carbon cap and try to get those obstacles addressed in some way. (As I mentioned in Fallacy #4, the Accord removes a stumbling block that has been the grounds for inaction by the US Senate for the last 12 years!)

The other thing the Executive Branch’s authority in foreign affairs means is that it would be incredibly unwise for Obama to agree to anything that would be rejected outright by the US Senate. Besides being fruitless (recall: Senate rejection of the Gore-endorsed Kyoto Protocol), it would undermine confidence and trust in his ability to faithfully represent the US Government in international affairs.

Finally, why should Obama get so much blame given that he did not broker the Accord by himself (as he himself acknowledged)?  Clearly, his role in the Friends of the Chair meetings was significant. I wasn’t there, of course, but by most accounts (Ban Ki-moon, Rasmussen, Obama, the Grenada negotiator, and others) the meetings were a collective, good faith effort in which different leaders stepped forward at different times to make the Accord possible. Robert Orr, UN Assistant Secretary for General Policy and Planning, gave a fascinating description of those meetings when asked by Andrew Revkin of the NY Times about Obama’s role. Here are some excerpts: “Certainly at key times President Obama played a key role, meeting with leaders from large developing countries. It is equally safe to say that at other parts of the negotiations other leaders were central. There were key moments where African leaders, small island developing state leaders took the lead… It was not driven by one leader, or two leaders, or three leaders. I would [use] two hands to count the number of leaders that played key roles.” (you can watch his full description beginning 35 minutes into this press conference)

Cause for Hope

The things I saw, in every segment of the COP15 negotiations that I had the opportunity to watch, gave me hope. Clearly, the Accord is not the climate deal we need to avert increasing climate-related crises and catastrophes. Everyone I heard negotiating was in agreement on that.  However, there were several things I witnessed that that may not have been codified in a deal, but which gave me much hope:

Many countries in their delegation press conferences or in the speeches by their heads of state enumerated steps that they are already taking, even without a legally-binding, global agreement with caps and targets.
Representatives from developing nations described how they are more than ready to go low-carbon, but their main limitation is access to technology—both funding and know-how. (Under the Accord $23 billion of short-term funding has already been pledged over the next 3 years.)
Observers noted that the gap between scientists and politicians has closed significantly over the last two years—to the point where heads of state were debating 1.5 vs 2 degrees Celsius with high levels of scientific acumen. (also 35 minute mark in Robert Orr press conference)
The fact that 133 heads of state came to COP15 signals a huge commitment of global political emphasis and attention.
Yver de Boer reported that 50% global emissions reductions by 2050 and 80% by 2050 from industrialized countries was very much on the table with plenty of willingness from the heads of state to make it happen, but that there simply wasn’t enough time to get it into the Accord in a politically “responsible way.”
The last-minute, hands-on negotiations of heads of state was an unexpected development that produced significant confusion but also delivered an incredible breakthrough that has opened a new way forward for climate negotiations.

Related Links:

Brazil’s Lula signs law cutting CO2 emissions

Copenhagen blame game is obstacle to 2010 climate deal

Greenpeace Spain demands Denmark release its director

Let the Copenhagen fallout continue.

Friday night, after a two-week diplomacy fest that could be called “difficult” at best, leaders of some of the most powerful countries in the world announced that they reached an 11th hour agreement to conclude the United Nations Copenhagen climate summit. After speaking to the assembly, President Barack Obama spent the day going in and out of meetings with Chinese prime minister Wen Jiabao. They met later with Mammoghan Singh of India, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil, and South African President Jacob Zuma, before a White House official leaked that these big players had reached an agreement.

Obama had flown to Denmark for the meeting’s final day, hoping to snatch an agreement from the jaws of growing defeatism among those desiring a climate accord. Obama’s 15-hour, seat-of-the-pants dash through Copenhagen was marked by doggedness, confusion and semi-comedy. Constrained by partisan politics at home, and quarrels between rich and poor nations abroad, he was determined to come home with a victory, no matter how imperfect [AP].

And the result was far from perfect. First, the nations assembled failed to meet a binding agreement, as many feared would happen going into the meeting. In addition, the document that remained at the end was the work of those five nations, which has now ignited a storm of protest around the world. Despite the fact that South Africa’s leader was around for the 11th hour agreement, for instance, its climate representatives are now steaming mad. South Africa’s environment minister Buyelwa Sonjica and her two top climate change negotiators said Tuesday that part of the blame rested with the way the host guided the conference. In their first media briefing since returning from talks in the Danish capital that ended Saturday, the trio described an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion that Denmark was plotting to force its own position on other nations [AP].

Europeans, too, balked at Copenhagen’s conclusion. U.K. Climate Secretary Ed Milliband, in a Guardian editorial, also slammed the process, but pointed the finger at China in particular. We did not get an agreement on 50% reductions in global emissions by 2050 or on 80% reductions by developed countries. Both were vetoed by China, despite the support of a coalition of developed and the vast majority of developing countries [The Guardian]. European Union representatives reacted negatively to the loose agreement, both for not being part of the talks among the five nations and for the agreement’s failure to set binding goals. The markets reacted too. European and United Nations carbon prices fell the most since February after the Copenhagen climate accord didn’t set targets that would boost demand for permits [Bloomberg].

Copenhagen did result in one actual ruling: One hopeful sign is the accord’s pragmatic agreement to pay countries to prevent deforestation. Reversing one of the Kyoto Protocol’s failures, which perversely rewarded countries for planting trees but not for protecting them, this is precisely the kind of big picture cooperation between developed and developing economies that is needed to make a dent in global emissions [CNN]. The U.S. pledged $100 billion to aid poor nations in reducing emissions, and China promised greater transparency in how it cuts carbon, but neither of those are binding.

The parlor game this week is explaining why the Copenhagen talks went down in flames. Writing for CNN, Lisa Margonelli of the think tank New America Foundation says the meeting’s scope was a disadvantage, not an advantage, as gathering the world together to craft rules that would be agreeable and effective was “scientifically and practically naive.” The BBC blames 24 hour news, EU politics, and even the snowy weather for giving skeptics ammunition. (No, apparently we haven’t gotten past the weather/climate issue. Just ask Homer Simpson.)

The BBC hit it closest with their number one reason, however: “Key governments do not want a global deal.” As long as that’s the case, and major U.N. meeting occur in this format, no climate conference will produce anything but a document so wishy-washy that the effect on global emissions is negligible.

Related Content:
80beats: Copenhagen Roundup: Protests, Walkouts, and the Money Wars
80beats: Day One: U.N. Climate Summit Begins in Copenhagen
80beats: Climatologist Steps Down as “ClimateGate” Furor Continues
Discoblog: Another “Climate Trick” Controversy: Copenhagen Prostitutes Giving Freebies
The Intersection: I’m Going to Copenhagen

Image: White House / Pete Souza

When you put xenomorphs, predators, and gung-ho space marines together in a dark place, you don’t really need a reason for the fighting to erupt. That’s exactly what happens in this Aliens vs. Predator trailer. Yeah, it’s

Filed under: Videos

The Ken Block/DC Shoes marketing machine shows no signs of slowing as we drift bass-ackwards into 2010, and to close out the year, Block and his crew have released four new videos to delight, amaze and discombobulate.

Although the Gymkahana Two Director’s Cut and Block vs. Pastrana: Game of Suck Highlights vids are an entertaining diversion before the holidays, it’s the Gymkhana Two Artist Remix that’s set to challenge Major Lazer’s Pon de Floor (look it up) for the most mind-warping, psychedelic-addled clip of 2009. The less said, the better, so jump first and ask questions later. Tip of the D/C-branded baseball cap to Scotto for the tip.

Continue reading VIDEO: New spots from Ken Block prove he’s got more skills, better drugs

VIDEO: New spots from Ken Block prove he’s got more skills, better drugs originally appeared on Autoblog on Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Label-Aire is proud to introduce improved versions of its label applicator line:

* The NEW 3111-NV Air-Blow
* The NEW 3114-NV Tamp-Blow
* The NEW 3115-NV Wipe-On

All new models now feature a wealth of extra features as standard across the product line.

3111-NV Air-Blow
3114-NV Tamp-Blow

3111-NV & 3114-NV Labelers

The Label-Aire Model 3111-NV was designed for high-speed air-blow labeling applications at a standard dispense speed of up to 1,500″ (38.1 m) of web per minute or up to 2,000″ (50.8 m) with the optional powered rewind. Advanced features include Velocity Compensation for improved label placement accuracy, a microprocessor controller with digital display, and ambidextrous parts. Zero Downtime Labeling allows your production to continue without costly interruptions. Missing label compensation virtually eliminates unlabeled products. Furthermore, the 3111-NV comes standard with a heavy duty double stack stepper motor-at no extra charge. The standard 7.13″ (181 mm) wide applicator can be configured with a 4.13″ (105 mm) wide or a 7.13″ (181 mm) wide air grid. Not only can the 3111-NV be easily converted to left- or right-hand use, it can also apply labels to the top, side, or bottom of products with a label dispense accuracy of up to +/- 1/32″ (.8 mm). Adding to the 3111-NV’s versatility are the availability of tamp-blow and wipe-on conversion kits.

The Label-Aire Model 3114-NV was designed for high-speed tamp-blow labeling applications at a standard dispense speed of up to 1,500″ (38.1 m) of web per minute or up to 2,000″ (50.8 m) with the optional powered rewind. Advanced features include Velocity Compensation for improved label placement accuracy, a microprocessor controller with digital display, and ambidextrous parts. Zero Downtime Labeling allows your production to continue without costly interruptions. Missing label compensation virtually eliminates unlabeled products. Furthermore, the 3114-NV comes standard with a heavy duty double stack stepper motor-at no extra charge as well as a standard 1″ to 10″ (25.4 mm to 254 mm) adjustable stroke. Not only can the 3114-NV be easily converted to left- or right-hand use, it can also apply labels to the top, side, or bottom of products with a label dispense accuracy of up to +/- 1/32″ (.8 mm). Adding to the 3114-NV’s versatility are the availability of air-blow and wipe-on conversion kits.

3115-NV Labeler

The Label-Aire Model 3115-NV was designed for high-speed wipe-on labeling applications at a standard dispense speed of up to 1,500″ (38.1 m) of web per minute or up to 2,000″ (50.8 m) with the optional powered rewind. Advanced features include Velocity Compensation for improved label placement accuracy, a microprocessor controller with digital display, and ambidextrous parts. Zero Downtime Labeling allows your production to continue without costly interruptions. Missing label compensation virtually eliminates unlabeled products. Furthermore, the 3115-NV comes standard with a heavy duty double stack stepper motor-at no extra charge. Not only can the 3115-NV be easily converted to left- or right-hand use, it can also apply labels to the top, side, or bottom of products with a label dispense accuracy of up to +/- 1/32″ (.8 mm). Adding to the 3115-NV’s versatility are the availability of tamp-blow and air-blow conversion kits.

As markets become more competitive manufacturers are looking to reduce costs wherever they can. CILS has been approached by a number of product manufacturers seeking a cost-effective replacement for metal rating plates.

One such manufacturer called in CILS to review their production systems, as their existing metal plates were outdated and needed replacing. CILS were asked to advise on whether computer imprintable labels would offer the durability needed for the products and what cost savings could be made.

Following a review by the CILS technical team a solution was proposed using CILS computer imprintable polyester labels. This resulted in a cost saving of over $36,000.00 per annum – or around 20% of annual spend.

• CILS durable imprintable labels offer a wide choice of adhesives for any application from low energy plastics to oily and greasy metal components
• Durable print resistant to abrasion, heat and chemicals
• Adhesives to suit any application – eliminate the need for additional fixings
• Produce durable labels in-house using your thermal transfer or office laser printer
• Thermal transfer print packages available consisting of printer, software, ribbons and durable labels matched to your requirements

Yet interestingly, this demographic disaster starts to unfold next year.

The Economist: SINCE the 1970s China’s birth rate has plummeted while the number of elderly people has risen only gradually. As a result its “dependency ratio”—the proportion of dependents to people at work—is low. This has helped to fuel China’s prodigious growth. But this “demographic dividend” will peak in 2010.

The evolution of China's elderly and child population is shown below in an Economist graphic.

It shows that from 1975 - 2010, China's one child policy helped create an economically-beneficial situation whereby the proportion of dependents in the population fell over time. Thus the country had increasingly more workers (producing economic output) per dependent (consuming output).

However, 2010 and onwards is when it's time to pay the piper. The proportion of elderly dependents will enter a multi-decade growth phase, whereby there will be increasing numbers of non-working dependents for each working-age person to support. Thus what was once a substantial tailwind reverses into a GDP-grinding headwind, starting next year.

Chart via The Economist

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• Iraq Doubling Its Oil Supply To China
• CEO Of Goldman Sachs-Owned Molycorp Is Psyched About Treasury's Protectionist Attitude Towards China And Gold Mining
• Bank Of China Official: The World Is Running Out Of Money To Buy US Debt

We don’t normally show “unboxings” here because they are typically targeted at the hardcore geek crowd, and we like to talk about the business of mobile technology. But this one was worth breaking the rule for…

In the video, a UK gadget blog films what is perhaps the most unusual boxing ever. The phone being un-boxed is the Maemo-powered Nokia (NYSE: NOK) N900 smartphone, which is also called a “tablet.” The phone comes packaged in a black shiny cube, called a “hack box,” according to the TracyAndMatt blog (via TechCrunch Europe). To open it, they must connect their computer to the box via a mini-USB port and enter various commands on their computer screen. When the codes are cracked, the lid pops open with a puff of smoke. Inside is the normal assortment of phone gear…The hacker box is not for retail, but rather for tech reviewers, but it makes you wonder how mainstream of a product they expect the phone to be? Video after the jump….