Some quotes from the book I'm reading. Looks like my style is "counter-trend". ;)
We're going to raise traders just like they raise turtles in Singapore.
The trend is your friend until the end when it bends.
High risk, high reward, it takes balls of steel to play this game.
Human emotion is both the source of opportunity in trading and the greatest challenge. Master it and you will succeed. Ignore it at your peril.
Trade with an edge, manage risk, be consistent, and keep it simple.
Good trading is not about being right, it's about trading right.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Will Singapore become like cancun?
Travel and tourism
Asia, beware Benidorm
May 15th 2008
From The Economist print edition
Booming tourism in emerging economies promises huge benefits. But not if it copies the mistakes of mature markets
WHEN low-cost air travel was taking off in Europe in the early 1990s, the German and the British ambassadors to Greece used to call each other at the end of each week during the summer, to compare notes on the bad behaviour of the visitors from their countries. No clear winner emerged. Sunburnt Brits and Germans would both get blind drunk, lose their money and passports, wind up in a fight at a beach bar and end the night in one of the Greek islands' police cells.
Tourism in Europe's Mediterranean countries is a big business, but it is not loved. It is blamed for polluting the landscape, spoiling the beaches and corrupting the locals' morals. This is partly the countries' own doing. In the 1960s the governments of Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece encouraged the building of hotels and other tourist infrastructure, which seemed the fastest way to catch up with the wealthier north. During the 40 years of breakneck development that followed, vast stretches of the Spanish coast were concreted over, transforming the Costa del Sol into the Costa del Concrete and attracting hordes of tourists in search of sun, sea and sand. Some Greek islands have come to resemble a Hellenic Hong Kong, with high-rise hotels and traffic jams.
Some people in tourism made good money, but in recent years even they have started to notice how the ugliness and the noise is keeping visitors away. The government in Madrid grew so concerned that it bought tracts of seaside land itself, to stop developers from getting their hands on it.
The package and the bill
As tourism is about to explode in the developing world, governments should heed such lessons. During the next two decades the growth of tourism in emerging economies will be two or three times that of the developed world (see article). That is something to celebrate. Mass travel is a path to development and one of the fruits of increasing wealth—travel for experience, for food and culture, and for sheer pleasure. Yet it also contains the danger that development will destroy the very thing people have come to enjoy.
Emerging economies are suspicious about the developed world telling them to act responsibly. Why shouldn't they exploit their natural resources? A pristine hard-to-reach beach with a small exclusive hotel may be just what rich Westerners want; local fishermen would prefer new schools for their children. But with tourism, it is not so clear that rapid development really is in the locals' economic interest. If their government trashes their natural habitat, it is like an investment manager who pays you big dividends out of your capital. The money is good for a while, but you lose in the long term.
Take care of your capital
That is worth remembering because the lesson from tourism in the West is that nobody keeps an eye on the capital. The bay, the ancient site, the coral reef and the fresh water have no single owner to protect them. The hotelier who raises a 1,000-room monstrosity will pay for the bricks and mortar, but not for scarring the view or wrecking an historic monument.
The question planners in these new markets should ask themselves is where they want tourism in their country to be in 20 years. At the moment tourists from emerging markets have their own tastes. Russians like two weeks on a sunny beach, wild parties and lots of retail therapy. The Chinese prefer urban travel to sea and sand. People from the Gulf states travel in big families and require halal food. Yet, with the progress of economic prosperity they will probably become more like Europeans and Americans, who want scenery, a decent environment and a smattering of history and culture. If you destroy your heritage and scenery, you will come to regret it.
From Mexico comes a cautionary tale. The country's Caribbean coast was once a natural paradise. Then data were fed into a government computer program. It digested the statistics and spat out the name of a potential touristic gold mine: a spit of sand called CancĂșn. Today CancĂșn has nearly 24,000 hotel rooms, roughly 4m visitors a year and an average of 190 flights daily. Mass tourism needs mass development, but don't pave paradise to put up a parking lot.
Asia, beware Benidorm
May 15th 2008
From The Economist print edition
Booming tourism in emerging economies promises huge benefits. But not if it copies the mistakes of mature markets
WHEN low-cost air travel was taking off in Europe in the early 1990s, the German and the British ambassadors to Greece used to call each other at the end of each week during the summer, to compare notes on the bad behaviour of the visitors from their countries. No clear winner emerged. Sunburnt Brits and Germans would both get blind drunk, lose their money and passports, wind up in a fight at a beach bar and end the night in one of the Greek islands' police cells.
Tourism in Europe's Mediterranean countries is a big business, but it is not loved. It is blamed for polluting the landscape, spoiling the beaches and corrupting the locals' morals. This is partly the countries' own doing. In the 1960s the governments of Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece encouraged the building of hotels and other tourist infrastructure, which seemed the fastest way to catch up with the wealthier north. During the 40 years of breakneck development that followed, vast stretches of the Spanish coast were concreted over, transforming the Costa del Sol into the Costa del Concrete and attracting hordes of tourists in search of sun, sea and sand. Some Greek islands have come to resemble a Hellenic Hong Kong, with high-rise hotels and traffic jams.
Some people in tourism made good money, but in recent years even they have started to notice how the ugliness and the noise is keeping visitors away. The government in Madrid grew so concerned that it bought tracts of seaside land itself, to stop developers from getting their hands on it.
The package and the bill
As tourism is about to explode in the developing world, governments should heed such lessons. During the next two decades the growth of tourism in emerging economies will be two or three times that of the developed world (see article). That is something to celebrate. Mass travel is a path to development and one of the fruits of increasing wealth—travel for experience, for food and culture, and for sheer pleasure. Yet it also contains the danger that development will destroy the very thing people have come to enjoy.
Emerging economies are suspicious about the developed world telling them to act responsibly. Why shouldn't they exploit their natural resources? A pristine hard-to-reach beach with a small exclusive hotel may be just what rich Westerners want; local fishermen would prefer new schools for their children. But with tourism, it is not so clear that rapid development really is in the locals' economic interest. If their government trashes their natural habitat, it is like an investment manager who pays you big dividends out of your capital. The money is good for a while, but you lose in the long term.
Take care of your capital
That is worth remembering because the lesson from tourism in the West is that nobody keeps an eye on the capital. The bay, the ancient site, the coral reef and the fresh water have no single owner to protect them. The hotelier who raises a 1,000-room monstrosity will pay for the bricks and mortar, but not for scarring the view or wrecking an historic monument.
The question planners in these new markets should ask themselves is where they want tourism in their country to be in 20 years. At the moment tourists from emerging markets have their own tastes. Russians like two weeks on a sunny beach, wild parties and lots of retail therapy. The Chinese prefer urban travel to sea and sand. People from the Gulf states travel in big families and require halal food. Yet, with the progress of economic prosperity they will probably become more like Europeans and Americans, who want scenery, a decent environment and a smattering of history and culture. If you destroy your heritage and scenery, you will come to regret it.
From Mexico comes a cautionary tale. The country's Caribbean coast was once a natural paradise. Then data were fed into a government computer program. It digested the statistics and spat out the name of a potential touristic gold mine: a spit of sand called CancĂșn. Today CancĂșn has nearly 24,000 hotel rooms, roughly 4m visitors a year and an average of 190 flights daily. Mass tourism needs mass development, but don't pave paradise to put up a parking lot.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Golf exercises
Getting Fit for the Links
Golf-Specific Exercises Can Pay Off --
If You Stick With Them
May 17, 2008; Page W5
A lot of golfers I know follow Mark Twain's regimen for physical fitness: "Every time I feel the urge to exercise, I lie down until it goes away."
Still, it's hard not to wonder what a little more application on the physical front could do for one's golf game, given the way golf magazines and TV commentators rhapsodize about the maniacal workouts of players such as Tiger Woods and Vijay Singh. I have nothing against exercise. In fact, I enjoy a heart-thumping 30 minutes on the elliptical trainer whenever I can find time for the gym. Ditto for the pumped-up feeling in my arms and legs after a weight workout.
But there's a difference between this type of general exercise and the golf-specific drills prescribed in articles and on videos. Golf routines usually have you assume some kind of awkward position -- standing on one leg or prone like a wounded bug on your back with feet and arms waving in the air. Then they call for repeatedly moving an isolated body part or an obscure muscle -- such as the gluteus medius -- in an unnatural way.
These exercises, in my experience, are amazingly tedious. Sometimes when you finish, you don't even feel tired; there's instead a fatigue in the microfibers of the muscles, which isn't the same as that good old satisfying "burn." You have to take it on faith the effort is worthwhile.
The most authoritative source for golf fitness advice is the Titleist Performance Institute, a supergym and golf-practice center in Oceanside, Calif. For $10,000, you can go there and get a physical workup by doctors, physical therapists, nutritionists and swing instructors, plus a new set of custom-fitted Titleist clubs. Titleist's Tour pros spend a lot of time at TPI.
Or you can log on to its Web site, mytpi.com (free after registration), and develop your own fitness program. The site goes deep with articles explaining the biomechanics of golf and provides sample workout regimes geared to different goals, such as power, balance or flexibility. Short video clips demonstrate each exercise.
The experts at TPI know their stuff, and the workouts they prescribe can help your golf game -- if diligently pursued. That's a big if.
Take, for example, Tour pro Rory Sabbatini, whose case study is posted on the site in such detail it feels like an invasion of privacy. Between February 2007, when he started working with trainer Jeff Banaszak, and February 2008, Mr. Sabbatini improved his internal hip rotation, which is key in creating a stable golf swing, from 25 to 60 degrees on one side and from 27 to 62 degrees on the other. He made dramatic progress in other measures and, more importantly, eliminated the lower left back pain that had been preventing him from practicing as much as he needed to. His world rankings during that period climbed from 42nd to eighth.
Mr. Sabbatini's progress didn't come easily. Mr. Banaszak, who runs a company called Back9Fitness, traveled to nearly every event where Mr. Sabbatini competed. Early each week he would give Mr. Sabbatini an hour of stretches and deep-tissue massage. He'd spend another 30 minutes working on Mr. Sabbatini's shoulders, trunks and hips before each round and put him through another session afterward. In addition, he supervised two or three strength workouts a week, and gave Mr. Sabbatini daily drills to do on his own. He even whipped up protein breakfast shakes for Mr. Sabbatini and prepared nutritious snacks to eat during rounds.
And that was just maintenance work. On Mr. Sabbatini's off weeks, Mr. Banaszak ordered more intense routines.
For everyday golfers, such commitment would be absurd. "Most golfers don't want anything to do with the gym, to be honest," Mr. Banaszak said. That's why he has decided to focus his business on Tour players rather than on the much larger consumer market.
But even a milder commitment to fitness can help. For those serious about improving their physical capabilities, Mr. Banaszak advises seeking out a well-trained physical therapist for an overall assessment. (The TPI Web site has links to trainers certified in its methods.) This kind of exam can identify any particular concerns, such as limited mobility or muscular imbalance, and therapists can recommend an appropriate conditioning program. After a few sessions, players can perform the exercises alone, but Mr. Banaszak recommends follow-up sessions every two to three months.
"Knowing how to adjust the intensity and when to progress is the part that you really can't do on your own," he said.
And if that's too much trouble? Dave Phillips, a TPI co-founder, said casual players can see dramatic improvements in their swing with as little as five minutes of work a day, provided it is the right kind.
Increasing internal hip rotation by just five degrees, for example, can lead to a significantly better turn behind the ball, which can increase distance and take pressure off the lower back. "Most back injuries from golf are caused because the hips aren't able to turn enough," he said, "causing the lower back to have to jump in and do a job it's not designed to."
A simple exercise to improve hip mobility is called the windshield wiper. When lying on your back, raise your knees and put your fists between them. Then, with calves parallel to the floor, push your feet out as wide as possible, hold briefly and repeat many times.
For most golfers, the two other prime areas to work are the gluteal muscles that run up the back of the upper legs and the core muscles of the lower torso. Mr. Phillips calls these the King and Queen. Both sets of muscles, he said, help the golfer brace against rotational forces during the swing and hold the body at proper angles.
The bedrock golf exercise, he said, is the deep squat, done with arms extended, holding a golf club over your head. "It involves all the most important golf muscles, both in the lower body and in the shoulders," he said. Nearly all Tour players can squat at least to where their thighs are parallel to the floor, he said, but only about 30% of American adults can.
"Those are the ones I'd work on: the King, the Queen, the hips and the deep squat," said Mr. Phillips. "Take five minutes a day while you're watching television. You'll be amazed at how your swing will improve."
Golf-Specific Exercises Can Pay Off --
If You Stick With Them
May 17, 2008; Page W5
A lot of golfers I know follow Mark Twain's regimen for physical fitness: "Every time I feel the urge to exercise, I lie down until it goes away."
Still, it's hard not to wonder what a little more application on the physical front could do for one's golf game, given the way golf magazines and TV commentators rhapsodize about the maniacal workouts of players such as Tiger Woods and Vijay Singh. I have nothing against exercise. In fact, I enjoy a heart-thumping 30 minutes on the elliptical trainer whenever I can find time for the gym. Ditto for the pumped-up feeling in my arms and legs after a weight workout.
But there's a difference between this type of general exercise and the golf-specific drills prescribed in articles and on videos. Golf routines usually have you assume some kind of awkward position -- standing on one leg or prone like a wounded bug on your back with feet and arms waving in the air. Then they call for repeatedly moving an isolated body part or an obscure muscle -- such as the gluteus medius -- in an unnatural way.
These exercises, in my experience, are amazingly tedious. Sometimes when you finish, you don't even feel tired; there's instead a fatigue in the microfibers of the muscles, which isn't the same as that good old satisfying "burn." You have to take it on faith the effort is worthwhile.
The most authoritative source for golf fitness advice is the Titleist Performance Institute, a supergym and golf-practice center in Oceanside, Calif. For $10,000, you can go there and get a physical workup by doctors, physical therapists, nutritionists and swing instructors, plus a new set of custom-fitted Titleist clubs. Titleist's Tour pros spend a lot of time at TPI.
Or you can log on to its Web site, mytpi.com (free after registration), and develop your own fitness program. The site goes deep with articles explaining the biomechanics of golf and provides sample workout regimes geared to different goals, such as power, balance or flexibility. Short video clips demonstrate each exercise.
The experts at TPI know their stuff, and the workouts they prescribe can help your golf game -- if diligently pursued. That's a big if.
Take, for example, Tour pro Rory Sabbatini, whose case study is posted on the site in such detail it feels like an invasion of privacy. Between February 2007, when he started working with trainer Jeff Banaszak, and February 2008, Mr. Sabbatini improved his internal hip rotation, which is key in creating a stable golf swing, from 25 to 60 degrees on one side and from 27 to 62 degrees on the other. He made dramatic progress in other measures and, more importantly, eliminated the lower left back pain that had been preventing him from practicing as much as he needed to. His world rankings during that period climbed from 42nd to eighth.
Mr. Sabbatini's progress didn't come easily. Mr. Banaszak, who runs a company called Back9Fitness, traveled to nearly every event where Mr. Sabbatini competed. Early each week he would give Mr. Sabbatini an hour of stretches and deep-tissue massage. He'd spend another 30 minutes working on Mr. Sabbatini's shoulders, trunks and hips before each round and put him through another session afterward. In addition, he supervised two or three strength workouts a week, and gave Mr. Sabbatini daily drills to do on his own. He even whipped up protein breakfast shakes for Mr. Sabbatini and prepared nutritious snacks to eat during rounds.
And that was just maintenance work. On Mr. Sabbatini's off weeks, Mr. Banaszak ordered more intense routines.
For everyday golfers, such commitment would be absurd. "Most golfers don't want anything to do with the gym, to be honest," Mr. Banaszak said. That's why he has decided to focus his business on Tour players rather than on the much larger consumer market.
But even a milder commitment to fitness can help. For those serious about improving their physical capabilities, Mr. Banaszak advises seeking out a well-trained physical therapist for an overall assessment. (The TPI Web site has links to trainers certified in its methods.) This kind of exam can identify any particular concerns, such as limited mobility or muscular imbalance, and therapists can recommend an appropriate conditioning program. After a few sessions, players can perform the exercises alone, but Mr. Banaszak recommends follow-up sessions every two to three months.
"Knowing how to adjust the intensity and when to progress is the part that you really can't do on your own," he said.
And if that's too much trouble? Dave Phillips, a TPI co-founder, said casual players can see dramatic improvements in their swing with as little as five minutes of work a day, provided it is the right kind.
Increasing internal hip rotation by just five degrees, for example, can lead to a significantly better turn behind the ball, which can increase distance and take pressure off the lower back. "Most back injuries from golf are caused because the hips aren't able to turn enough," he said, "causing the lower back to have to jump in and do a job it's not designed to."
A simple exercise to improve hip mobility is called the windshield wiper. When lying on your back, raise your knees and put your fists between them. Then, with calves parallel to the floor, push your feet out as wide as possible, hold briefly and repeat many times.
For most golfers, the two other prime areas to work are the gluteal muscles that run up the back of the upper legs and the core muscles of the lower torso. Mr. Phillips calls these the King and Queen. Both sets of muscles, he said, help the golfer brace against rotational forces during the swing and hold the body at proper angles.
The bedrock golf exercise, he said, is the deep squat, done with arms extended, holding a golf club over your head. "It involves all the most important golf muscles, both in the lower body and in the shoulders," he said. Nearly all Tour players can squat at least to where their thighs are parallel to the floor, he said, but only about 30% of American adults can.
"Those are the ones I'd work on: the King, the Queen, the hips and the deep squat," said Mr. Phillips. "Take five minutes a day while you're watching television. You'll be amazed at how your swing will improve."
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Bulls and bears
I've been feeling really sleepy and tired lately. Just need to endure a couple more weeks, hope I don't fall sick!
I've been having 2 coffees a day, not counting the numerous teas, but tea doesn't really have an effect, so it doesn't count. I need to cut down to one coffee a day, I think coffee is not doing much good for me.... I'm not a big fan of stimulants.
The market is not moving upward very much, though I'm still very bullish on P52. If that works out it would be the one good thing that happened this year haha!
I really need more exercise to keep me in shape. But it seems like I'm almost down with the flu, so I shouldn't get out and run. This combination of lack of exercise and sickness is not good.
In other news, I've learned how to do the sliding backward stop (skating)! Heheh, I haven't skated in months but just decided to be more daring last sunday and it worked out alright ;). Now I just need to master the forward crossover....
I've been having 2 coffees a day, not counting the numerous teas, but tea doesn't really have an effect, so it doesn't count. I need to cut down to one coffee a day, I think coffee is not doing much good for me.... I'm not a big fan of stimulants.
The market is not moving upward very much, though I'm still very bullish on P52. If that works out it would be the one good thing that happened this year haha!
I really need more exercise to keep me in shape. But it seems like I'm almost down with the flu, so I shouldn't get out and run. This combination of lack of exercise and sickness is not good.
In other news, I've learned how to do the sliding backward stop (skating)! Heheh, I haven't skated in months but just decided to be more daring last sunday and it worked out alright ;). Now I just need to master the forward crossover....
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Oil
Russia's oil industry
Trouble in the pipeline
May 8th 2008
From The Economist print edition
Despite booming demand and record prices, Russia's oil industry faces problems
WHEN the price of oil reached another record on May 6th, of over $122 a barrel, analysts pointed to attacks on pipelines in Nigeria and turmoil in Iraq as the immediate causes. Even small disruptions to supplies from such places can cause the price to jump, since only Saudi Arabia has the capacity to replace the lost production, and it does not seem inclined to do so. But to understand how supplies became so scarce in the first place, one must look at the state of the oil industry in Russia, the world's second-biggest producer.
Over the past seven years, according to Citibank, Russia accounted for 80% of the growth in oil production outside the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. The increase in its output in the early part of the decade matched the growth in demand from China and India almost barrel for barrel. Yet in April, production fell for the fourth month in a row. It is now over 2% below the peak of 9.9m barrels a day (b/d) reached in October last year. Before that, the growth in Russia's output had been slowing steadily, suggesting that the drop is not a blip. Leonid Fedun, a vice-president of Lukoil, a local oil firm, says Russia's production will never top 10m b/d. The discovery that Russia can no longer be relied upon to cater to the world's ever-increasing appetite for oil is naturally helping to propel prices to record levels.
Oil and gas have been the foundation of the regime of Vladimir Putin, Russia's outgoing president, and are also a preoccupation of his successor, Dmitry Medvedev, who was chairman of Gazprom, the state-controlled gas giant. The flow of petrodollars has created a sense of stability, masked economic woes and given Russia more clout on the world stage. Yet the malaise afflicting its most important industry is almost entirely man-made. “Geologically, there is no problem,” says Anisa Redman, an analyst at HSBC, a bank.
In principle, Russia's bonanza could continue for years: it has the world's seventh-biggest oil reserves, at 80 billion barrels, according to BP, a British oil firm. And oilmen reckon there are 100 billion more barrels to find—“the biggest exploration prize in the world”, in the words of Robert Dudley, the boss of TNK-BP, BP's Russian joint venture. But Russia has regulated the industry so poorly that production is falling despite the soaring oil price.
“Tax is the major impediment,” says Ms Redman. The government levies an export duty of 65% at prices over $25 a barrel. Add to that various corporate, payroll and production taxes, oilmen complain, and the state creams off as much as 92% of profits. Executives at TNK-BP have argued that rising costs across the oil industry will make many investments in Russia unprofitable unless the tax regime is changed. As it is, TNK-BP accounts for a fifth of BP's production, but only a tenth of its profits.
The government does offer tax breaks on production from older fields. So oil firms, naturally, have been concentrating on squeezing as much oil as they can out of those. Until recently, that was an obvious priority anyway, since fields that had fallen into ruin after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s could be revived relatively easily and cheaply. By mapping existing fields more precisely, installing new pumps and injecting water and chemicals into wells to maintain pressure, private oil firms were able to raise Russia's production from 6m b/d to almost 10m b/d, mainly from western Siberia. In 2003 alone, output jumped by 12%.
But this strategy is now yielding diminishing returns. Mr Fedun says the western Siberian fields have reached their natural limit. To keep production at today's levels requires ever more investment. To get Russia's output growing again, firms must make huge investments to develop new fields in remote provinces such as eastern Siberia and the Sakhalin region.
There has been some growth in these areas, mainly thanks to the less heavily taxed projects, called “production-sharing agreements”, that the government offered briefly in the late 1990s but has since curtailed. Strip out the production from these projects, and Russia's output has been in fitful decline since August 2006, according to analysts at Citibank. Worse, the output from these projects declined last month too. The government's ill concealed expropriation of various prize assets over the past few years has only added to the reluctance to embark upon big new projects.
Lukoil, for example, is investing $10 billion a year, but roughly 30% of that goes into gas production, which is now more lucrative than oil, given rising domestic prices for gas and lower taxation, says Mr Fedun. It has also been investing in refining, since the export tax on petrol and diesel is lower than that on crude oil. It is still projecting 4% annual growth in its output over the next 15 years, but the figure would be much higher if the government eased the tax burden, says Mr Fedun. Rosneft, the state-controlled oil champion, took on so much debt buying the plum divisions of Yukos, a private firm bankrupted by the Kremlin's zealous tax collectors, that it has little leeway for expensive new projects. Other firms are hoarding their profits and waiting for the tax regime to change.
The government did provide some $4.5 billion in tax breaks last year. But this, the oil companies argue, is barely enough to keep production stable. In his inaugural speech to the Duma as prime minister on May 8th, Mr Putin said that taxes on the industry must be reduced. However, new fields can take a decade to develop. The Kremlin has also failed to hand out exploration rights in the Arctic—the region oilmen consider most promising. And it says that in future the foreign firms with the expertise to tap offshore fields beneath frozen seas will be limited to minority shareholdings in big projects. “Oil production will be whatever the government decides it to be,” says Mr Fedun.
Meanwhile, Russia today is more dependent on oil and gas than it has ever been, argues Chris Weafer, a long-time Russia watcher and chief strategist at Uralsib, a bank. The share of oil and gas in Russia's gross domestic product has more than doubled since 1999 and now stands at above 30%, according to the Institute of Economic Analysis, a think-tank. Oil and gas account for 50% of Russian budget revenues and 65% of its exports. Yet the government has put at risk the goose that lays these golden eggs.
Trouble in the pipeline
May 8th 2008
From The Economist print edition
Despite booming demand and record prices, Russia's oil industry faces problems
WHEN the price of oil reached another record on May 6th, of over $122 a barrel, analysts pointed to attacks on pipelines in Nigeria and turmoil in Iraq as the immediate causes. Even small disruptions to supplies from such places can cause the price to jump, since only Saudi Arabia has the capacity to replace the lost production, and it does not seem inclined to do so. But to understand how supplies became so scarce in the first place, one must look at the state of the oil industry in Russia, the world's second-biggest producer.
Over the past seven years, according to Citibank, Russia accounted for 80% of the growth in oil production outside the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. The increase in its output in the early part of the decade matched the growth in demand from China and India almost barrel for barrel. Yet in April, production fell for the fourth month in a row. It is now over 2% below the peak of 9.9m barrels a day (b/d) reached in October last year. Before that, the growth in Russia's output had been slowing steadily, suggesting that the drop is not a blip. Leonid Fedun, a vice-president of Lukoil, a local oil firm, says Russia's production will never top 10m b/d. The discovery that Russia can no longer be relied upon to cater to the world's ever-increasing appetite for oil is naturally helping to propel prices to record levels.
Oil and gas have been the foundation of the regime of Vladimir Putin, Russia's outgoing president, and are also a preoccupation of his successor, Dmitry Medvedev, who was chairman of Gazprom, the state-controlled gas giant. The flow of petrodollars has created a sense of stability, masked economic woes and given Russia more clout on the world stage. Yet the malaise afflicting its most important industry is almost entirely man-made. “Geologically, there is no problem,” says Anisa Redman, an analyst at HSBC, a bank.
In principle, Russia's bonanza could continue for years: it has the world's seventh-biggest oil reserves, at 80 billion barrels, according to BP, a British oil firm. And oilmen reckon there are 100 billion more barrels to find—“the biggest exploration prize in the world”, in the words of Robert Dudley, the boss of TNK-BP, BP's Russian joint venture. But Russia has regulated the industry so poorly that production is falling despite the soaring oil price.
“Tax is the major impediment,” says Ms Redman. The government levies an export duty of 65% at prices over $25 a barrel. Add to that various corporate, payroll and production taxes, oilmen complain, and the state creams off as much as 92% of profits. Executives at TNK-BP have argued that rising costs across the oil industry will make many investments in Russia unprofitable unless the tax regime is changed. As it is, TNK-BP accounts for a fifth of BP's production, but only a tenth of its profits.
The government does offer tax breaks on production from older fields. So oil firms, naturally, have been concentrating on squeezing as much oil as they can out of those. Until recently, that was an obvious priority anyway, since fields that had fallen into ruin after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s could be revived relatively easily and cheaply. By mapping existing fields more precisely, installing new pumps and injecting water and chemicals into wells to maintain pressure, private oil firms were able to raise Russia's production from 6m b/d to almost 10m b/d, mainly from western Siberia. In 2003 alone, output jumped by 12%.
But this strategy is now yielding diminishing returns. Mr Fedun says the western Siberian fields have reached their natural limit. To keep production at today's levels requires ever more investment. To get Russia's output growing again, firms must make huge investments to develop new fields in remote provinces such as eastern Siberia and the Sakhalin region.
There has been some growth in these areas, mainly thanks to the less heavily taxed projects, called “production-sharing agreements”, that the government offered briefly in the late 1990s but has since curtailed. Strip out the production from these projects, and Russia's output has been in fitful decline since August 2006, according to analysts at Citibank. Worse, the output from these projects declined last month too. The government's ill concealed expropriation of various prize assets over the past few years has only added to the reluctance to embark upon big new projects.
Lukoil, for example, is investing $10 billion a year, but roughly 30% of that goes into gas production, which is now more lucrative than oil, given rising domestic prices for gas and lower taxation, says Mr Fedun. It has also been investing in refining, since the export tax on petrol and diesel is lower than that on crude oil. It is still projecting 4% annual growth in its output over the next 15 years, but the figure would be much higher if the government eased the tax burden, says Mr Fedun. Rosneft, the state-controlled oil champion, took on so much debt buying the plum divisions of Yukos, a private firm bankrupted by the Kremlin's zealous tax collectors, that it has little leeway for expensive new projects. Other firms are hoarding their profits and waiting for the tax regime to change.
The government did provide some $4.5 billion in tax breaks last year. But this, the oil companies argue, is barely enough to keep production stable. In his inaugural speech to the Duma as prime minister on May 8th, Mr Putin said that taxes on the industry must be reduced. However, new fields can take a decade to develop. The Kremlin has also failed to hand out exploration rights in the Arctic—the region oilmen consider most promising. And it says that in future the foreign firms with the expertise to tap offshore fields beneath frozen seas will be limited to minority shareholdings in big projects. “Oil production will be whatever the government decides it to be,” says Mr Fedun.
Meanwhile, Russia today is more dependent on oil and gas than it has ever been, argues Chris Weafer, a long-time Russia watcher and chief strategist at Uralsib, a bank. The share of oil and gas in Russia's gross domestic product has more than doubled since 1999 and now stands at above 30%, according to the Institute of Economic Analysis, a think-tank. Oil and gas account for 50% of Russian budget revenues and 65% of its exports. Yet the government has put at risk the goose that lays these golden eggs.
Long Ball
GOLF JOURNAL
By JOHN PAUL NEWPORT
The Drive to Drive
Putting? Bah. Why Everyone Digs the Long Ball
May 10, 2008;
The advice from instructors is universal: To lower your scores, work on your short game. Two-thirds of all shots, they point out, inarguably, are from 100 yards and in. That's the scoring zone. Driving is important, yes, but only as a means of placing the ball safely into play and setting up your approach shots. Straining to boom extra-long drives is counterproductive, they say, if it's coupled with a falloff in accuracy. Those long 46-inch-plus shafts that come standard in modern drivers are two inches too long for most players; the extra length may generate more clubhead speed, and thus distance, but with an unacceptable loss of control.
All of this is true. True, true, true.
On the other hand, the heck with it. There's nothing in golf -- and very little in life generally -- as deeply thrilling as knocking the bejeebers out of a golf ball and watching it soar away, gravity-free, as things normally soar only in dreams.
To look at drives merely as a means of putting your ball in the fairway is like looking at food merely as a means of getting nutrition. Maybe that works for you if you're a strict ascetic, or a Tour player trying to earn a living. But most golfers live for the long ball. Who wouldn't happily exchange an arching 300-yard beauty off the tee, even if it leads to a double bogey, for a 210-yard squibbler leading to a par? Not many, I suspect, except perhaps reluctantly on the final hole of a big-money match.
We love big drives for at least a couple of reasons. The first is the sheer intoxicating pleasure of catching one pure. Even for someone whose long drive is only 200 yards, if that's 50 yards longer than normal, it's a kick. The power seems to come from nowhere. When all the levers of the swing fire in rare perfect sequence, the ball explodes off the clubface and seems to hang in the air forever. For most of us that sensation, when we first experienced it, marks the moment golf got us in its stranglehold.
And there's no question this feeling excites women as much as men. Jim McMahon, an instructor at the range I often go to north of New York City, said that more than one of his female students, when she first connected with a clean, perfect drive, used terms to describe it that, shall we say, made him blush.
We also love monster drives because, however courteously administered, they are violent, aggressive acts, and there's always satisfaction in that. To smash a drive with all your might is to dish some serious hurt. Watching John Daly wind up and crush ball after ball over the practice-range fence may not be the catharsis that some people find in watching a wrecking ball take down a building, but it's close. It's primal and awesome. And it makes us even happier when we're the one delivering the blow successfully and not John Daly.
For men in particular, and some women, there's also the silverback-ape appeal of hitting a tee ball farther than anybody else. Women tend to bond, I'm told, around sharing experiences and finding common ground, whereas for men the subtext of any encounter is usually determining relative status. On the golf course, high status accrues to the long hitter. The low handicapper also enjoys status, but frequently his skills are the function of a country-club upbringing, or wonkish practice regimes, which impose a discount. The long hitter's aura is animal and immutable, more like that of the former college athlete. A guy may now be a CEO or a brain surgeon, but if he played linebacker at Notre Dame, that's still going to be the first thing most guys think about him.
Golfers hell-bent on learning to hit the ball deep spend lots of time at the driving range, usually ignoring the golden rule of golf practice (that nonsense above about focusing on the short game). It can get pretty ugly: beefy guys lunging at the ball, all muscle and no timing; kids with helicopter backswings and out-their-socks finishes; the majority who, despite flailing and grunting for all they are worth, squander power by swinging mainly with their arms and finishing on their back foot instead of on the front. But everyone connects every once in a while, soaking up the Pavlovian reinforcement they need to carry on. It's a noble, comic battle.
I've had a chance over the years to talk to several long-hitting Tour pros about their skills. None of them claim any special technique. Most said simply that they were always able to hit the ball longer than their peers. "It's just a gift," said 2005 U.S. Open champion Michael Campbell.
That said, they all agree that the one non-negotiable key to distance is hitting the ball square in the center of the clubface, and that to accomplish that consistently they try to feel as if they are swinging at less than full speed. Mr. Campbell uses 80% of full tilt as his goal, and others are in the same range. When the time comes for an extra-long poke on a given hole, their swing thought is often to s-l-o-w d-o-w-n, especially during the transition between backswing and forward swing.
This is the kind of analysis that most of us don't want to hear. It's too sensible and thus hopeless. Arnold Palmer's standard advice to young golfers is more appealing: "Hit it hard," he says. This strikes me as just right, so that's what I'm going with.
By JOHN PAUL NEWPORT
The Drive to Drive
Putting? Bah. Why Everyone Digs the Long Ball
May 10, 2008;
The advice from instructors is universal: To lower your scores, work on your short game. Two-thirds of all shots, they point out, inarguably, are from 100 yards and in. That's the scoring zone. Driving is important, yes, but only as a means of placing the ball safely into play and setting up your approach shots. Straining to boom extra-long drives is counterproductive, they say, if it's coupled with a falloff in accuracy. Those long 46-inch-plus shafts that come standard in modern drivers are two inches too long for most players; the extra length may generate more clubhead speed, and thus distance, but with an unacceptable loss of control.
All of this is true. True, true, true.
On the other hand, the heck with it. There's nothing in golf -- and very little in life generally -- as deeply thrilling as knocking the bejeebers out of a golf ball and watching it soar away, gravity-free, as things normally soar only in dreams.
To look at drives merely as a means of putting your ball in the fairway is like looking at food merely as a means of getting nutrition. Maybe that works for you if you're a strict ascetic, or a Tour player trying to earn a living. But most golfers live for the long ball. Who wouldn't happily exchange an arching 300-yard beauty off the tee, even if it leads to a double bogey, for a 210-yard squibbler leading to a par? Not many, I suspect, except perhaps reluctantly on the final hole of a big-money match.
We love big drives for at least a couple of reasons. The first is the sheer intoxicating pleasure of catching one pure. Even for someone whose long drive is only 200 yards, if that's 50 yards longer than normal, it's a kick. The power seems to come from nowhere. When all the levers of the swing fire in rare perfect sequence, the ball explodes off the clubface and seems to hang in the air forever. For most of us that sensation, when we first experienced it, marks the moment golf got us in its stranglehold.
And there's no question this feeling excites women as much as men. Jim McMahon, an instructor at the range I often go to north of New York City, said that more than one of his female students, when she first connected with a clean, perfect drive, used terms to describe it that, shall we say, made him blush.
We also love monster drives because, however courteously administered, they are violent, aggressive acts, and there's always satisfaction in that. To smash a drive with all your might is to dish some serious hurt. Watching John Daly wind up and crush ball after ball over the practice-range fence may not be the catharsis that some people find in watching a wrecking ball take down a building, but it's close. It's primal and awesome. And it makes us even happier when we're the one delivering the blow successfully and not John Daly.
For men in particular, and some women, there's also the silverback-ape appeal of hitting a tee ball farther than anybody else. Women tend to bond, I'm told, around sharing experiences and finding common ground, whereas for men the subtext of any encounter is usually determining relative status. On the golf course, high status accrues to the long hitter. The low handicapper also enjoys status, but frequently his skills are the function of a country-club upbringing, or wonkish practice regimes, which impose a discount. The long hitter's aura is animal and immutable, more like that of the former college athlete. A guy may now be a CEO or a brain surgeon, but if he played linebacker at Notre Dame, that's still going to be the first thing most guys think about him.
Golfers hell-bent on learning to hit the ball deep spend lots of time at the driving range, usually ignoring the golden rule of golf practice (that nonsense above about focusing on the short game). It can get pretty ugly: beefy guys lunging at the ball, all muscle and no timing; kids with helicopter backswings and out-their-socks finishes; the majority who, despite flailing and grunting for all they are worth, squander power by swinging mainly with their arms and finishing on their back foot instead of on the front. But everyone connects every once in a while, soaking up the Pavlovian reinforcement they need to carry on. It's a noble, comic battle.
I've had a chance over the years to talk to several long-hitting Tour pros about their skills. None of them claim any special technique. Most said simply that they were always able to hit the ball longer than their peers. "It's just a gift," said 2005 U.S. Open champion Michael Campbell.
That said, they all agree that the one non-negotiable key to distance is hitting the ball square in the center of the clubface, and that to accomplish that consistently they try to feel as if they are swinging at less than full speed. Mr. Campbell uses 80% of full tilt as his goal, and others are in the same range. When the time comes for an extra-long poke on a given hole, their swing thought is often to s-l-o-w d-o-w-n, especially during the transition between backswing and forward swing.
This is the kind of analysis that most of us don't want to hear. It's too sensible and thus hopeless. Arnold Palmer's standard advice to young golfers is more appealing: "Hit it hard," he says. This strikes me as just right, so that's what I'm going with.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Dubious economic data from China
Economics focus
An aberrant abacus
May 1st 2008
From The Economist print edition
Coming to terms with China's untrustworthy economic numbers
AS CHINA'S importance in the global economy increases, investors are paying more attention to its economic numbers. Yet the country's official statistics are notoriously ropy. Some commentators accuse China's government of overstating GDP growth for political reasons, others complain that the official inflation rate is fraudulently low. So which data can you trust?
One reason to be suspicious of GDP figures is that China is always one of the first countries to report them, usually only two weeks after the end of each quarter. Most developed economies take between four and six weeks to produce them.
Amazingly, most economists reckon that China has understated its growth in recent years. The country's National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) has recently revised China's GDP growth up by half a percentage point for both 2006 and 2007, to 11.6% and 11.9% respectively, thanks to stronger growth in services, which government statisticians find harder to count than industry. Yet even these revised numbers may be conservative.
Chinese provinces independently report GDP, and a weighted average of their figures consistently gives higher rates of output and growth than those reported by the central government (see chart). True, local officials have an incentive to inflate growth numbers because promotion depends upon economic performance; however, experience suggests that number crunchers in local government are more accurate than Beijing's. For instance, the figures first published for 2004 showed that the sum of the provincial GDPs was 19% bigger than the reported national figure. Lo and behold, in 2005, after a national economic census picked up more services, the NBS revised its GDP up by 17%; it also lifted the annual growth rate over the previous decade.
Stephen Green, an economist at Standard Chartered, calculates that in 2007 the combined output of the provinces was 10% more than that reported by Beijing. Their average growth rate of 13.1% was also still 1.2 percentage points higher than the revised national growth rate, although the gap has narrowed from almost three points in 2005. Perhaps, suggests Mr Green, central NBS folk have decided that they should trust their local counterparts more. But just as local officials have an incentive to inflate numbers, so Beijing has had reason recently to understate them: it wants to slow the red-hot economy. China's true GDP growth may therefore be higher still—which may appear to add to fears of overheating.
Distrust of GDP has led many China-watchers to track alternative monthly measures of growth. Jonathan Anderson at UBS uses one based on production (eg, industry, electricity and construction) and another based on expenditure (retail sales, fixed investment and net exports). Neither gauge shows the same sharp acceleration since 2004-05 as does GDP. One explanation is that the reported jump in GDP growth may be an attempt to correct previously understated growth figures; if so, this could ease overheating concerns.
The government also smoothes quarterly GDP growth; other less politically sensitive indicators, such as industrial production, are much more volatile. For instance, despite severe snow storms and weaker net exports, first-quarter GDP growth slowed by less than expected and by much less than did industrial production. The government may well have made the figures look stronger to avoid criticism of its tighter credit policy.
What does—and does not—add up
The right-hand chart ranks the reliability of other Chinese statistics, based on an analysis by Goldman Sachs. The closely watched figures for fixed-asset investment are among the least reliable. They include purchases of land, which only reflect changes in ownership, not an increase in capacity or value added. Rising land prices in recent years have therefore led to a big overstatement of the level and the growth of investment. In contrast, consumer spending is almost certainly much higher and growing faster than official figures suggest. Retail sales are often used as a proxy for private consumption, but they exclude services, the fastest-growing slice of households' budgets.
China's true inflation rate is probably higher than the consumer-price index (CPI) reports. One problem is that the CPI appears to be based on the prices of state-provided health, transport and education while ignoring their increasingly important private counterparts. Data for 36 cities collected by the National Development and Reform Commission show that inflation for medical care and education has been running at 5-10% since 2001, well above the 1-2% reported in the CPI. However, even if the official measure understates inflation, the changes in it may still be a fair gauge over time. Goldman Sachs therefore ranks it relatively high in terms of reliability.
Foreign trade is perhaps the most accurate economic indicator. Critics accuse China of fiddling its trade figures, because the value of its exports as measured by the importing country is always much bigger than what the Chinese report. This discrepancy reflects the fact that China's bilateral trade figures exclude goods shipped to Hong Kong before being re-exported. But this should not affect total export figures and detailed Hong Kong data are available to adjust bilateral trade flows.
The prize for the dodgiest figures goes to the labour market. The quarterly urban unemployment rate is meaningless because it excludes workers laid off by state-owned firms as well as large numbers of migrant workers, who normally live in urban areas but are not registered. Wage figures are also lousy. There has recently been much concern about the faster pace of increase in average urban earnings. But this series does not cover private firms, which are where most jobs have been created in recent years.
Now that China is such an engine of global growth, it urgently needs to improve its economic data. Only a madman would drive a juggernaut at full speed with a faulty speedometer, a cracked rear-view mirror and a misty windscreen.
An aberrant abacus
May 1st 2008
From The Economist print edition
Coming to terms with China's untrustworthy economic numbers
AS CHINA'S importance in the global economy increases, investors are paying more attention to its economic numbers. Yet the country's official statistics are notoriously ropy. Some commentators accuse China's government of overstating GDP growth for political reasons, others complain that the official inflation rate is fraudulently low. So which data can you trust?
One reason to be suspicious of GDP figures is that China is always one of the first countries to report them, usually only two weeks after the end of each quarter. Most developed economies take between four and six weeks to produce them.
Amazingly, most economists reckon that China has understated its growth in recent years. The country's National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) has recently revised China's GDP growth up by half a percentage point for both 2006 and 2007, to 11.6% and 11.9% respectively, thanks to stronger growth in services, which government statisticians find harder to count than industry. Yet even these revised numbers may be conservative.
Chinese provinces independently report GDP, and a weighted average of their figures consistently gives higher rates of output and growth than those reported by the central government (see chart). True, local officials have an incentive to inflate growth numbers because promotion depends upon economic performance; however, experience suggests that number crunchers in local government are more accurate than Beijing's. For instance, the figures first published for 2004 showed that the sum of the provincial GDPs was 19% bigger than the reported national figure. Lo and behold, in 2005, after a national economic census picked up more services, the NBS revised its GDP up by 17%; it also lifted the annual growth rate over the previous decade.
Stephen Green, an economist at Standard Chartered, calculates that in 2007 the combined output of the provinces was 10% more than that reported by Beijing. Their average growth rate of 13.1% was also still 1.2 percentage points higher than the revised national growth rate, although the gap has narrowed from almost three points in 2005. Perhaps, suggests Mr Green, central NBS folk have decided that they should trust their local counterparts more. But just as local officials have an incentive to inflate numbers, so Beijing has had reason recently to understate them: it wants to slow the red-hot economy. China's true GDP growth may therefore be higher still—which may appear to add to fears of overheating.
Distrust of GDP has led many China-watchers to track alternative monthly measures of growth. Jonathan Anderson at UBS uses one based on production (eg, industry, electricity and construction) and another based on expenditure (retail sales, fixed investment and net exports). Neither gauge shows the same sharp acceleration since 2004-05 as does GDP. One explanation is that the reported jump in GDP growth may be an attempt to correct previously understated growth figures; if so, this could ease overheating concerns.
The government also smoothes quarterly GDP growth; other less politically sensitive indicators, such as industrial production, are much more volatile. For instance, despite severe snow storms and weaker net exports, first-quarter GDP growth slowed by less than expected and by much less than did industrial production. The government may well have made the figures look stronger to avoid criticism of its tighter credit policy.
What does—and does not—add up
The right-hand chart ranks the reliability of other Chinese statistics, based on an analysis by Goldman Sachs. The closely watched figures for fixed-asset investment are among the least reliable. They include purchases of land, which only reflect changes in ownership, not an increase in capacity or value added. Rising land prices in recent years have therefore led to a big overstatement of the level and the growth of investment. In contrast, consumer spending is almost certainly much higher and growing faster than official figures suggest. Retail sales are often used as a proxy for private consumption, but they exclude services, the fastest-growing slice of households' budgets.
China's true inflation rate is probably higher than the consumer-price index (CPI) reports. One problem is that the CPI appears to be based on the prices of state-provided health, transport and education while ignoring their increasingly important private counterparts. Data for 36 cities collected by the National Development and Reform Commission show that inflation for medical care and education has been running at 5-10% since 2001, well above the 1-2% reported in the CPI. However, even if the official measure understates inflation, the changes in it may still be a fair gauge over time. Goldman Sachs therefore ranks it relatively high in terms of reliability.
Foreign trade is perhaps the most accurate economic indicator. Critics accuse China of fiddling its trade figures, because the value of its exports as measured by the importing country is always much bigger than what the Chinese report. This discrepancy reflects the fact that China's bilateral trade figures exclude goods shipped to Hong Kong before being re-exported. But this should not affect total export figures and detailed Hong Kong data are available to adjust bilateral trade flows.
The prize for the dodgiest figures goes to the labour market. The quarterly urban unemployment rate is meaningless because it excludes workers laid off by state-owned firms as well as large numbers of migrant workers, who normally live in urban areas but are not registered. Wage figures are also lousy. There has recently been much concern about the faster pace of increase in average urban earnings. But this series does not cover private firms, which are where most jobs have been created in recent years.
Now that China is such an engine of global growth, it urgently needs to improve its economic data. Only a madman would drive a juggernaut at full speed with a faulty speedometer, a cracked rear-view mirror and a misty windscreen.
Cool!
Innovation
Home invention
May 1st 2008 | SAN FRANCISCO
From The Economist print edition
An increasing number of tinkerers are building their own gadgets
THE standard sort of science fair can be a little bit stuffy. Precocious youngsters with a taste for laboratory notebooks spend years building experiments to compete for college scholarships. But what happens if you open the doors to a wider audience and add a bit of fun?
Such an event might look like the Maker Faire, a two-day festival which opens in San Mateo, California, on May 3rd. Like its more serious counterparts, it is a gathering of geeks, but with the addition of do-it-yourself enthusiasts, back-yard scientists, garage tinkerers, artists and crafts people. This year their eclectic projects will include fire-breathing robots, wearable computers, self-replicating three-dimensional printers (whatever they are) and giant motorised cupcakes. And everyone will be encouraged to get their hands dirty building their own electric circuits, creating their own fashion goods and launching their own rockets.
This is the third year for the Maker Faire. Last year, more than 40,000 people turned up and a further 20,000 attended a second event held for the first time that year in Austin, Texas.
The idea of playing around with technology in such a way might appear quirky, even superfluous. But nowadays it often drives innovation, says Tim O'Reilly, founder of O'Reilly Media, a publishing company whose Make and Craft magazines sponsor the event. Mr O'Reilly is something of a technology guru himself and is widely credited with coining the term Web 2.0 to capture the trend towards greater creativity, information sharing and collaboration among internet users.
Naturally, this all goes down well in California, where Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak began the personal-computer revolution in a garage, and Sergey Brin and Larry Page dreamed up Google's algorithms while in graduate school. But the idea is spreading. Mr O'Reilly points to several trends responsible for the rising popularity of do-it-yourself innovation. First, computers, sensors and other bits are cheaper than ever. This means high-tech gadgets soon become disposable. So they are often plundered to build new things. An obsolete digital camera can, for instance, be attached to a kite for aerial photography; or with few more things and the innards of a satellite-navigation system become a small unmanned aerial vehicle.
The second trend is that the internet is enabling people from all over the world to share information about their projects. Websites like Instructables.com and wikiHow.com have become popular virtual meeting places for inventors and others. They embrace the idea that you should freely share technological ideas—an approach known as “open source”. This began in computer software but is now going on with all sorts of technologies.
Addie Wagenknecht's project is typical. At the fair she is showing a multi-touch table which works like a computer screen. The device has some of the same features as a table-top device called Surface which is produced by Microsoft. But whereas that costs some $10,000, Ms Wagenknecht's version can be built with only $500 of bits (including a kit that she sells). And it has the potential to do much more, she says. Since both the hardware and the software are open-source, anyone can change things to suit their purpose, which like most things at the fair is bound to encourage even more innovation.
Home invention
May 1st 2008 | SAN FRANCISCO
From The Economist print edition
An increasing number of tinkerers are building their own gadgets
THE standard sort of science fair can be a little bit stuffy. Precocious youngsters with a taste for laboratory notebooks spend years building experiments to compete for college scholarships. But what happens if you open the doors to a wider audience and add a bit of fun?
Such an event might look like the Maker Faire, a two-day festival which opens in San Mateo, California, on May 3rd. Like its more serious counterparts, it is a gathering of geeks, but with the addition of do-it-yourself enthusiasts, back-yard scientists, garage tinkerers, artists and crafts people. This year their eclectic projects will include fire-breathing robots, wearable computers, self-replicating three-dimensional printers (whatever they are) and giant motorised cupcakes. And everyone will be encouraged to get their hands dirty building their own electric circuits, creating their own fashion goods and launching their own rockets.
This is the third year for the Maker Faire. Last year, more than 40,000 people turned up and a further 20,000 attended a second event held for the first time that year in Austin, Texas.
The idea of playing around with technology in such a way might appear quirky, even superfluous. But nowadays it often drives innovation, says Tim O'Reilly, founder of O'Reilly Media, a publishing company whose Make and Craft magazines sponsor the event. Mr O'Reilly is something of a technology guru himself and is widely credited with coining the term Web 2.0 to capture the trend towards greater creativity, information sharing and collaboration among internet users.
Naturally, this all goes down well in California, where Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak began the personal-computer revolution in a garage, and Sergey Brin and Larry Page dreamed up Google's algorithms while in graduate school. But the idea is spreading. Mr O'Reilly points to several trends responsible for the rising popularity of do-it-yourself innovation. First, computers, sensors and other bits are cheaper than ever. This means high-tech gadgets soon become disposable. So they are often plundered to build new things. An obsolete digital camera can, for instance, be attached to a kite for aerial photography; or with few more things and the innards of a satellite-navigation system become a small unmanned aerial vehicle.
The second trend is that the internet is enabling people from all over the world to share information about their projects. Websites like Instructables.com and wikiHow.com have become popular virtual meeting places for inventors and others. They embrace the idea that you should freely share technological ideas—an approach known as “open source”. This began in computer software but is now going on with all sorts of technologies.
Addie Wagenknecht's project is typical. At the fair she is showing a multi-touch table which works like a computer screen. The device has some of the same features as a table-top device called Surface which is produced by Microsoft. But whereas that costs some $10,000, Ms Wagenknecht's version can be built with only $500 of bits (including a kit that she sells). And it has the potential to do much more, she says. Since both the hardware and the software are open-source, anyone can change things to suit their purpose, which like most things at the fair is bound to encourage even more innovation.
More on electric cars, interesting...
Canada
Not on our roads
May 1st 2008 | MONTREAL
From The Economist print edition
Bureaucrats against electric cars, and progress
IN THESE times of high petrol prices and worries about climate change, you might think that any country would be proud to enjoy a lead in manufacturing electric cars. Not Canada, it seems. Two Canadian companies, ZENN Motor Company and Dynasty Electric Car, make small electric cars designed for city use; a third, which will use new battery technology developed by Exxon Mobil, plans to launch a model later this year.
But almost all these “low-speed vehicles” (or LSVs) are exported to the United States because Canada refuses to allow their use on public roads. Transport Canada, the regulatory agency, questions their safety. It doubts they would stand up in a collision with a delivery truck or a sport utility vehicle. Officials say they crash-tested one which didn't fare well, though they refuse to release the data. The agency wants LSVs confined to “controlled areas”, such as university campuses, military bases, parks and Canada's few gated communities. Its advice has carried weight with the provinces, which make the rules of the road.
It is true that the cars are made from lightweight metals and plastics. But the manufacturers allege political bias: Stephen Harper's conservative government has much support in oil-rich Alberta. Backed by thousands of would-be buyers, they are campaigning to reverse the agency's decision. “It's a ludicrous regulatory situation. All you can point to is oil and the big guys and think there's a conspiracy somewhere,” says Danny Epp of Dynasty.
Mr Epp reckons that his car should be allowed on urban streets with speed limits of around 50kph (30mph) or less. But Dynasty recently gave up the battle. In March it announced that it is being bought by a Pakistani firm, which will move production to Karachi and export to the United States from there.
ZENN—that stands for zero emission, no noise—promises to fight on. Ian Clifford, its boss, points out that there has not been a single death related to LSVs in the United States, where 44 states allow them and some 45,000 such cars are in use. And gas-guzzlers imperil public safety by polluting the air, he notes. But Mr Clifford is not expecting change soon. He claims that his campaign against Transport Canada has made him enemies. “Two senior, entrenched bureaucrats have told me personally that if it is the last thing they do, they'll keep LSVs off the road in Canada,” he says.
Not on our roads
May 1st 2008 | MONTREAL
From The Economist print edition
Bureaucrats against electric cars, and progress
IN THESE times of high petrol prices and worries about climate change, you might think that any country would be proud to enjoy a lead in manufacturing electric cars. Not Canada, it seems. Two Canadian companies, ZENN Motor Company and Dynasty Electric Car, make small electric cars designed for city use; a third, which will use new battery technology developed by Exxon Mobil, plans to launch a model later this year.
But almost all these “low-speed vehicles” (or LSVs) are exported to the United States because Canada refuses to allow their use on public roads. Transport Canada, the regulatory agency, questions their safety. It doubts they would stand up in a collision with a delivery truck or a sport utility vehicle. Officials say they crash-tested one which didn't fare well, though they refuse to release the data. The agency wants LSVs confined to “controlled areas”, such as university campuses, military bases, parks and Canada's few gated communities. Its advice has carried weight with the provinces, which make the rules of the road.
It is true that the cars are made from lightweight metals and plastics. But the manufacturers allege political bias: Stephen Harper's conservative government has much support in oil-rich Alberta. Backed by thousands of would-be buyers, they are campaigning to reverse the agency's decision. “It's a ludicrous regulatory situation. All you can point to is oil and the big guys and think there's a conspiracy somewhere,” says Danny Epp of Dynasty.
Mr Epp reckons that his car should be allowed on urban streets with speed limits of around 50kph (30mph) or less. But Dynasty recently gave up the battle. In March it announced that it is being bought by a Pakistani firm, which will move production to Karachi and export to the United States from there.
ZENN—that stands for zero emission, no noise—promises to fight on. Ian Clifford, its boss, points out that there has not been a single death related to LSVs in the United States, where 44 states allow them and some 45,000 such cars are in use. And gas-guzzlers imperil public safety by polluting the air, he notes. But Mr Clifford is not expecting change soon. He claims that his campaign against Transport Canada has made him enemies. “Two senior, entrenched bureaucrats have told me personally that if it is the last thing they do, they'll keep LSVs off the road in Canada,” he says.
Electric cars
Electric cars rely on electricity. Electricity relies on coal/oil/gas burning, and is priced according to fossil fuel prices. So running an electric car would cost less than running on fuel? Would it pollute less? I'm not convinced. In fact going by the inefficiency of the energy conversion cycle I would think maybe it pollutes more....
Electric Nissans Planned in U.S. by 2010
By EDWARD TAYLOR
May 2, 2008; Page B2
CASCAIS, Portugal -- Nissan Motor Co. Chief Executive Carlos Ghosn said he is preparing to take advantage of a "mass market" in electric vehicles he expects to emerge by 2012.
Nissan, an alliance partner of Renault SA of France, will launch electric vehicles in the U.S. and Japan in 2010, and globally by 2012, Mr. Ghosn said at a Nissan event in Portugal. He said he expects the market for electric vehicles to grow strongly due to high oil prices, a new awareness of environmental issues and breakthroughs in battery technology.
Eventually, Nissan "will have a whole lineup of electric cars," he said. "The electric car is not a niche product for us."
Mr. Ghosn said battery-technology advances have given the electric car sufficient range to make it a viable mode of transport for the shorter journeys often made by commuters in big cities. Globally about 10 million vehicles are being used in this way, he said.
High oil prices and the willingness of governments to give tax incentives for so-called zero-emission vehicles can change the economics of owning an electric car and make it "cheaper than gasoline," Mr. Ghosn said.
Nissan and Renault are in talks with "companies, governments and cities," to see what kind of incentives can make the introduction of zero-emission vehicles more attractive, he said.
Mr. Ghosn expects new areas of business will open as electric vehicles become more widespread, including making the batteries and providing access to batteries and electricity. Moving beyond merely making cars could see "a change of the business model" in the auto industry.
"In some ways it could move more toward how a mobile-phone operator works, because there the handset is only one part of the business; the rest is providing services to customers," said Mr. Ghosn.
One drawback of electric vehicles has been battery capacity, limiting their range. Another is that recharging a battery traditionally takes hours, far longer than to refuel a car with gasoline. Nissan and Renault are looking at ways to fix that. Renault will use a battery provided by Nissan for an electric vehicle to be launched in Israel, Mr. Ghosn said.
Mr. Ghosn reiterated that Nissan is open to expanding its alliance with Renault to other car companies, but he said that would happen only if it created value for Renault and Nissan's stakeholders.
Electric Nissans Planned in U.S. by 2010
By EDWARD TAYLOR
May 2, 2008; Page B2
CASCAIS, Portugal -- Nissan Motor Co. Chief Executive Carlos Ghosn said he is preparing to take advantage of a "mass market" in electric vehicles he expects to emerge by 2012.
Nissan, an alliance partner of Renault SA of France, will launch electric vehicles in the U.S. and Japan in 2010, and globally by 2012, Mr. Ghosn said at a Nissan event in Portugal. He said he expects the market for electric vehicles to grow strongly due to high oil prices, a new awareness of environmental issues and breakthroughs in battery technology.
Eventually, Nissan "will have a whole lineup of electric cars," he said. "The electric car is not a niche product for us."
Mr. Ghosn said battery-technology advances have given the electric car sufficient range to make it a viable mode of transport for the shorter journeys often made by commuters in big cities. Globally about 10 million vehicles are being used in this way, he said.
High oil prices and the willingness of governments to give tax incentives for so-called zero-emission vehicles can change the economics of owning an electric car and make it "cheaper than gasoline," Mr. Ghosn said.
Nissan and Renault are in talks with "companies, governments and cities," to see what kind of incentives can make the introduction of zero-emission vehicles more attractive, he said.
Mr. Ghosn expects new areas of business will open as electric vehicles become more widespread, including making the batteries and providing access to batteries and electricity. Moving beyond merely making cars could see "a change of the business model" in the auto industry.
"In some ways it could move more toward how a mobile-phone operator works, because there the handset is only one part of the business; the rest is providing services to customers," said Mr. Ghosn.
One drawback of electric vehicles has been battery capacity, limiting their range. Another is that recharging a battery traditionally takes hours, far longer than to refuel a car with gasoline. Nissan and Renault are looking at ways to fix that. Renault will use a battery provided by Nissan for an electric vehicle to be launched in Israel, Mr. Ghosn said.
Mr. Ghosn reiterated that Nissan is open to expanding its alliance with Renault to other car companies, but he said that would happen only if it created value for Renault and Nissan's stakeholders.
Monday, April 21, 2008
traffic lights
It's been a happy weekend. Well, at least if you discount the fact that some kid said i looked old (ouch)! Did it rain at all? No I don't think it did right? Except perhaps a small drizzle when I was at church. But if didn't see it, it didn't rain, so there.... :P
Almost 8 months now. Longer than I could imagine getting through at that time. Well, sun's up and its time to party. Or so I hope!
ćŸć°èćž«äčć ćèȘç
äŸæć°ææ„éçŽ ç¶ ç
ćłèć·Šćż é æž æ„çç
éŁçźĄäžæŹĄćéŻ
äčéœćŻæ§éç
äœè§Łæææéćæźćż
ćŸäŸæŻćż«æšéäŸżäžæć„ć
ćäœć°ç°Ąćźććææ·±
ææćŻä»„ćć
æćȘç§è·ŻäžèĄäșș
ææç¶ çèœçŒèźæçŽ ç
ćäœżçžç¶ćæąæćŻæœćèȘèș«
è„èŠèĄæć·æćŻä»„äžçç
äŸćć»èŠæŸçééæȘæ„èż
ææç¶ çèœçŒèźæçŽ ç
æŹé ćæć»ć°éąéŠŹè·ŻćŠæ€ćžćŒ
éç§çćżæ„çžœć ćçéŁèĄ
éŁéæèŠćż ć 棯çć°ç§çČć»æć»
ćŠć€äșæèĄŁèĄ«ć€ȘèäŸżæžćź¶é è·Żç
èȘ°æłć°è”°éŻæ»èŁéç
ææçœèŒæČæ怹æłæŽäžćčž
è„èȘçäžć„œć„œééćż
äčäžćŻä»„èą«ææäžéæŻćæł„ćĄ”
Almost 8 months now. Longer than I could imagine getting through at that time. Well, sun's up and its time to party. Or so I hope!
ćŸć°èćž«äčć ćèȘç
äŸæć°ææ„éçŽ ç¶ ç
ćłèć·Šćż é æž æ„çç
éŁçźĄäžæŹĄćéŻ
äčéœćŻæ§éç
äœè§Łæææéćæźćż
ćŸäŸæŻćż«æšéäŸżäžæć„ć
ćäœć°ç°Ąćźććææ·±
ææćŻä»„ćć
æćȘç§è·ŻäžèĄäșș
ææç¶ çèœçŒèźæçŽ ç
ćäœżçžç¶ćæąæćŻæœćèȘèș«
è„èŠèĄæć·æćŻä»„äžçç
äŸćć»èŠæŸçééæȘæ„èż
ææç¶ çèœçŒèźæçŽ ç
æŹé ćæć»ć°éąéŠŹè·ŻćŠæ€ćžćŒ
éç§çćżæ„çžœć ćçéŁèĄ
éŁéæèŠćż ć 棯çć°ç§çČć»æć»
ćŠć€äșæèĄŁèĄ«ć€ȘèäŸżæžćź¶é è·Żç
èȘ°æłć°è”°éŻæ»èŁéç
ææçœèŒæČæ怹æłæŽäžćčž
è„èȘçäžć„œć„œééćż
äčäžćŻä»„èą«ææäžéæŻćæł„ćĄ”
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Our sturdy golden bear
Our sturdy golden bear
Is watching from the skies
Looks down upon our colors fair
And guards us from his lair...
Our banner gold and blue
The symbol on it too
Means FIGHT for California
For California through and through!
I watched "The Bucket List" last night. Yeah I know its an old show from 2007 and its not really talked about much in the press, but its also a really moving show and I enjoyed it a lot. Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman, don't pray pray ok!
What did I learn from this movie? The Egyptians believe that they will ask you 2 questions at the pearly gates of heaven.
1) Have you had joy in your life?
2) Have you brought joy to someone else's life?
Well, I believe we should live our life's with this mantra too. Life is nothing without joy. I love the American way of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Especially the third item, not many countries I know out there which strive for this.
Here in Singapore, we say happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation. But really I think many of us have forgotten about happiness. Just take a look at the sullen faces on the mrt (Both in the morning and in the evening). And those kids who are still happy, smiling and making a lot of noise, everybody just stares at them as if they should just shut up. I hope they don't lose their joy when they grow up.
Perhaps Singapore is too crowded, I don't know. Right here in Marine Parade its still ok, not too bad. But maybe after all the condos get en-bloc and replaced by 50 storey high behemoths (like HK) then we got a serious problem. Right now, as long as the crowds are not in my back yard its ok with me. East coast park isn't too crowded either. Okay, except for the mcdonalds area, but if you have wheels, it ain't gonna take you long to get out of there to some quieter parts! Especially that stretch that connects to changi coastal road, boy thats really lovely man! But it takes quite a while to get there, not everyone would be able to make it there and back.
What does it take to look good? Ya, I know today's blog is starting to get really random. Makes it more interesting I guess! I need to get more workout, that's for sure. My tummy is getting bigger and bigger. Hey this used to be the M1 who can eat all he wants and not train to pass IPPT! Guess what? I failed last november, by 10 seconds! Well my window closes in august but definitely IPPT is not something that i fail, otherwise its an indication that there's something really wrong with my fitness.
My daily lunch diet of disgustingly unhealthy and oily local hawker center food is not suitable if I cant keep myself in good shape. Even the noodles soup which the ladies like to eat, guess what, has more salt in it than recommended for daily consumption! That's why a lot of coworkers and friends are starting to get high cholestorol and high blood pressure by the age of 35. Does that mean we are all doomed? No. Our forefathers ate such food and still remained healthy. Why? Cos they worked out, in the docks, in the fields, tapping rubber trees etc. So I gotta work out too if I want to enjoy the unhealthy hawker food.
Yah that being said, I woke up too late to go rollerblading this morning though the weather was perfect! Shucks, I should slap myself heheh.....
Well, I'm late, got to convince kids to go to Cal. Go Bears! (That's why we started off with the fight song :P)
Is watching from the skies
Looks down upon our colors fair
And guards us from his lair...
Our banner gold and blue
The symbol on it too
Means FIGHT for California
For California through and through!
I watched "The Bucket List" last night. Yeah I know its an old show from 2007 and its not really talked about much in the press, but its also a really moving show and I enjoyed it a lot. Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman, don't pray pray ok!
What did I learn from this movie? The Egyptians believe that they will ask you 2 questions at the pearly gates of heaven.
1) Have you had joy in your life?
2) Have you brought joy to someone else's life?
Well, I believe we should live our life's with this mantra too. Life is nothing without joy. I love the American way of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Especially the third item, not many countries I know out there which strive for this.
Here in Singapore, we say happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation. But really I think many of us have forgotten about happiness. Just take a look at the sullen faces on the mrt (Both in the morning and in the evening). And those kids who are still happy, smiling and making a lot of noise, everybody just stares at them as if they should just shut up. I hope they don't lose their joy when they grow up.
Perhaps Singapore is too crowded, I don't know. Right here in Marine Parade its still ok, not too bad. But maybe after all the condos get en-bloc and replaced by 50 storey high behemoths (like HK) then we got a serious problem. Right now, as long as the crowds are not in my back yard its ok with me. East coast park isn't too crowded either. Okay, except for the mcdonalds area, but if you have wheels, it ain't gonna take you long to get out of there to some quieter parts! Especially that stretch that connects to changi coastal road, boy thats really lovely man! But it takes quite a while to get there, not everyone would be able to make it there and back.
What does it take to look good? Ya, I know today's blog is starting to get really random. Makes it more interesting I guess! I need to get more workout, that's for sure. My tummy is getting bigger and bigger. Hey this used to be the M1 who can eat all he wants and not train to pass IPPT! Guess what? I failed last november, by 10 seconds! Well my window closes in august but definitely IPPT is not something that i fail, otherwise its an indication that there's something really wrong with my fitness.
My daily lunch diet of disgustingly unhealthy and oily local hawker center food is not suitable if I cant keep myself in good shape. Even the noodles soup which the ladies like to eat, guess what, has more salt in it than recommended for daily consumption! That's why a lot of coworkers and friends are starting to get high cholestorol and high blood pressure by the age of 35. Does that mean we are all doomed? No. Our forefathers ate such food and still remained healthy. Why? Cos they worked out, in the docks, in the fields, tapping rubber trees etc. So I gotta work out too if I want to enjoy the unhealthy hawker food.
Yah that being said, I woke up too late to go rollerblading this morning though the weather was perfect! Shucks, I should slap myself heheh.....
Well, I'm late, got to convince kids to go to Cal. Go Bears! (That's why we started off with the fight song :P)
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Silver: interesting
Nanotechnology
Silver tongues
Apr 17th 2008 | NEW YORK
From The Economist print edition
Regulators are looking more closely at nanotechnology claims
ANCIENT Phoenicians stored their drinking water in silver vessels, but not for aesthetic reasons. They discovered that by doing so they remained healthier. The reason for that is now understood: silver has antimicrobial properties.
In the 21st century people have realised that if you fortify Phoenician wisdom with a dash of nanotechnology, silver can be made into a far more potent bactericide. Companies have quickly seized on this idea to produce a wide variety of products, from clothes to soap and even chopsticks, containing silver nanoparticles. The claim is that they destroy germs.
But silver can also accumulate in the environment and, at certain levels, prove toxic. Nor is the general safety of nanoparticles fully understood, not least because they can react in novel ways. Some scientists think more research is needed and perhaps more regulation too. A move in that direction now seems to be under way.
Silver's natural germ-killing ability stems from its extremely slow release of silver ions (electrically charged atoms, or groups of atoms). When made into particles only a few nanometres big—a nanometre is a billionth of a metre—they shed a lot more ions and so become more potent.
America's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is worried about a large number of products claiming antimicrobial abilities. One is “Silver Wash”, a washing machine made by Samsung, which claims to employ nanotechnology to release hundreds of billions of silver ions during a wash to sanitise fabrics.
The EPA has ruled that ion-generating devices that claim to kill germs must be registered as a pesticide and tested to show they pose no unreasonable risk. The EPA says its intention is to regulate ion-generating devices rather than nanotechnology itself. But it is hard to draw a distinction. Andrew Maynard, chief science adviser for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington, DC, says functionality is an important part of the definition. Turning silver into tiny particles that behave in new ways (for example, by shedding more ions) and putting those particles into new places (such as fabrics) qualifies—or so he thinks.
One consequence of dividing a substance into nanoparticles is that the surface area of the material greatly expands. “Nanosilver is so tiny it can go right to the surface of an organism and essentially shoot ions into the organism,” says Sam Luoma, a research scientist at the John Muir Institute of the Environment at the University of California, Davis. Although this makes silver nanoparticles an extremely effective antimicrobial agent, it also raises concerns about humans' ability to withstand relatively high exposures.
Despite the unknowns, Dr Luoma and others believe there is enormous potential for good from nanosilver. It can, for example, be used in small amounts to coat medical catheters to reduce the possibility of infection without causing environmental worries. “We need to separate out the truly beneficial uses,” he adds.
The EPA will not look at benefit or necessity, but is determined to make its registration stick. It has fined one company more than $200,000 for making unsubstantiated claims about unregistered nanosilver-coated computer mice and keyboards. Firms making claims about nanotechnology need to watch out.
Silver tongues
Apr 17th 2008 | NEW YORK
From The Economist print edition
Regulators are looking more closely at nanotechnology claims
ANCIENT Phoenicians stored their drinking water in silver vessels, but not for aesthetic reasons. They discovered that by doing so they remained healthier. The reason for that is now understood: silver has antimicrobial properties.
In the 21st century people have realised that if you fortify Phoenician wisdom with a dash of nanotechnology, silver can be made into a far more potent bactericide. Companies have quickly seized on this idea to produce a wide variety of products, from clothes to soap and even chopsticks, containing silver nanoparticles. The claim is that they destroy germs.
But silver can also accumulate in the environment and, at certain levels, prove toxic. Nor is the general safety of nanoparticles fully understood, not least because they can react in novel ways. Some scientists think more research is needed and perhaps more regulation too. A move in that direction now seems to be under way.
Silver's natural germ-killing ability stems from its extremely slow release of silver ions (electrically charged atoms, or groups of atoms). When made into particles only a few nanometres big—a nanometre is a billionth of a metre—they shed a lot more ions and so become more potent.
America's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is worried about a large number of products claiming antimicrobial abilities. One is “Silver Wash”, a washing machine made by Samsung, which claims to employ nanotechnology to release hundreds of billions of silver ions during a wash to sanitise fabrics.
The EPA has ruled that ion-generating devices that claim to kill germs must be registered as a pesticide and tested to show they pose no unreasonable risk. The EPA says its intention is to regulate ion-generating devices rather than nanotechnology itself. But it is hard to draw a distinction. Andrew Maynard, chief science adviser for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington, DC, says functionality is an important part of the definition. Turning silver into tiny particles that behave in new ways (for example, by shedding more ions) and putting those particles into new places (such as fabrics) qualifies—or so he thinks.
One consequence of dividing a substance into nanoparticles is that the surface area of the material greatly expands. “Nanosilver is so tiny it can go right to the surface of an organism and essentially shoot ions into the organism,” says Sam Luoma, a research scientist at the John Muir Institute of the Environment at the University of California, Davis. Although this makes silver nanoparticles an extremely effective antimicrobial agent, it also raises concerns about humans' ability to withstand relatively high exposures.
Despite the unknowns, Dr Luoma and others believe there is enormous potential for good from nanosilver. It can, for example, be used in small amounts to coat medical catheters to reduce the possibility of infection without causing environmental worries. “We need to separate out the truly beneficial uses,” he adds.
The EPA will not look at benefit or necessity, but is determined to make its registration stick. It has fined one company more than $200,000 for making unsubstantiated claims about unregistered nanosilver-coated computer mice and keyboards. Firms making claims about nanotechnology need to watch out.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Clinton's done
DECLARATIONS
By PEGGY NOONAN
While McCain Watches
April 18, 2008
On Tuesday at Washington's Convention Center, Hillary Clinton made the best speech of her campaign. She told the American Society of Newspaper Editors how she conceives "the power and promise of the presidency." She asserted that President Bush had been "unready" for the office, did not understand its "constitutional character," exhibited in his decisions an "ideological disdain." She said she hopes to "restore balance and purpose" to the presidency, and detailed specific actions she would take immediately on entering the White House.
It was an important speech, and someone, probably many someones, worked hard on it. It was highly partisan, even polar, but it was a more thoughtful critique of the administration, more densely woven and less bromidic, than she has offered in the past, and she used a higher vocabulary. So eager was she to be heard she actually noted at one point that what she'd just said was not "a soundbite."
And here's the thing. It didn't matter. Nobody noticed. A room full of journalists didn't notice this was something new and interesting. And they didn't notice because nobody is listening anymore.
Mrs. Clinton is transmitting, but people aren't receiving. She has been branded, tagged. She's been absorbed, understood and categorized. People have decided what they think, and it's not good.
It took George W. Bush five years to get to that point. It took her five intense months. Political historians will say her campaign sank with the mad Bosnia lie, but Bosnia broke through only because it expressed, crystallized, what people had already begun to think: too much mendacity there, too much manipulation.
Timing is everything. "Too late to get serious," I wrote in my notes. For before this, Mrs. Clinton's campaign was all dreary recitation of talking points, rote applause lines followed by rote applause.
The next day the Washington Post had its latest numbers. A "majority of voters now view her as dishonest," it said, bluntly. Six in 10 said she was "not honest or trustworthy." Which itself doesn't tell us, really, anything new, but concretizes, like the Bosnia story, what is already known.
This is what I think will happen. At some future point Mrs. Clinton will leave, and at a more distant one she will try to come back. But more than one cycle will have to pass before she does. She'll need more than four years to shake off the impression she made in 2008. And this is how you'll know she's making another bid for the presidency. She will wear skirts. Gone will be the pantsuits that made her look like a small blond man with breasts. It's the new me, I wear skirts! Her first impulse is to think cosmetically. A long and weary life in politics has left her thinking this is the way to think.
All of which sounds as if I foresee a Pennsylvania drubbing for her. I do not. I just think that whatever happens in Pennsylvania, the decision has been made, the die cast. Barack Obama's supporters will not be denied. He broke through, gained purchase, held his ground, the one thing Mrs. Clinton could not afford. When I speak to superdelegates, the vibration is there: It is the moment of Obama.
And now his problem emerges. It is two-headed. It is not that he is African-American, or half so, and it is not that he is liberal. Liberalism too, one senses, is having a moment.
It is his youth, his relative untriedness, the fact that he has not suffered, been seasoned, been beat about the head by life and left struggling back, as happens to most adults by a certain time. This is what I hear from older people, who vote in great numbers. They are not hostile to his race, they are skeptical of his inexperience.
The other is elitism, a charge that clearly grates on him and unnerves his wife, who has a great deal that would be attractive in a first lady (intelligence, accomplishment, beauty) but lacks placidity, which is, actually, necessary. All first ladies, first spouses, should be like Denis Thatcher, slightly dazed, mildly inscrutable, utterly supportive. It is the only job in the world where "seems slightly drugged" is a positive job qualification. The key is to know you are not the drama, you do not draw the lightning, you are a background player who yet has deep, unseen power. (The "deep, unseen power" part keeps you serene and energized. The constant possibility of quiet revenge keeps one peppy.)
Sen. Obama seems honestly surprised by the furor his the-poor-cling-to-God-and-guns remarks elicited, and if one considers his background—intense marginalization followed by the establishment's embrace—this is understandable. He was only caught speaking the secret language of America's elite, and what he said was not meant as a putdown. It was an explanation aimed at ameliorating the elites' anger toward and impatience with normal people. It's a way of explaining them, of saying, "You have to remember they're not comfortable and educated like us, they're vulnerable and so we must try to understand them and feel sympathy for and solidarity with them." You could say this at any high-class dinner party in America and not cause a ruffle. But America is not a high-class dinner party.
Mrs. Obama said Tuesday that she is from the South Side of Chicago and a working-class home, and seemed to argue that no one from such humble beginnings could be an elitist. But America is full of people who started low, rose high and internalized what the right people think, which is another way of saying what the elites think. To rise in America is to turn left, unless you are very, very tough or protected by privilege of the financial or familial kind.
Can Mr. Obama survive this? Yes. But it made a bad impression, the kind it's hard to eradicate. Good news for him: the trope that blacks aren't snobs, they're patronized by snobs. Also, he doesn't seem haughty. He seems like a nice man. Also the person exploiting his gaffe is Mrs. Clinton.
* * *
Meanwhile, John McCain makes daily, small, incremental gains. He happily watches the Democrats fight and happily advances his cause. Did you see him on "Hardball" the other night with the college students of Villanova? They were beside themselves at the sight of him. It seems to me it would be a brilliant thing for him to announce he means to be a one-term president, that he means to have a clean, serious, one-term presidency in which he will do things those under pressure of re-election do not and cannot do. This would be received as a refreshment, a way out for the voters in a year they seem to want a way out. For many in the middle it would be a twofer. You get a good man, for only four years, and Mr. Obama gets to grow and deepen. He'll be better older.
The downside? Americans like knowing they can fire a president. It's how they keep them in line. And lame-duckness from day one would not be empowering.
If Mr. McCain went this route, how and when he said it would be everything. As with Mrs. Clinton, timing will be everything.
By PEGGY NOONAN
While McCain Watches
April 18, 2008
On Tuesday at Washington's Convention Center, Hillary Clinton made the best speech of her campaign. She told the American Society of Newspaper Editors how she conceives "the power and promise of the presidency." She asserted that President Bush had been "unready" for the office, did not understand its "constitutional character," exhibited in his decisions an "ideological disdain." She said she hopes to "restore balance and purpose" to the presidency, and detailed specific actions she would take immediately on entering the White House.
It was an important speech, and someone, probably many someones, worked hard on it. It was highly partisan, even polar, but it was a more thoughtful critique of the administration, more densely woven and less bromidic, than she has offered in the past, and she used a higher vocabulary. So eager was she to be heard she actually noted at one point that what she'd just said was not "a soundbite."
And here's the thing. It didn't matter. Nobody noticed. A room full of journalists didn't notice this was something new and interesting. And they didn't notice because nobody is listening anymore.
Mrs. Clinton is transmitting, but people aren't receiving. She has been branded, tagged. She's been absorbed, understood and categorized. People have decided what they think, and it's not good.
It took George W. Bush five years to get to that point. It took her five intense months. Political historians will say her campaign sank with the mad Bosnia lie, but Bosnia broke through only because it expressed, crystallized, what people had already begun to think: too much mendacity there, too much manipulation.
Timing is everything. "Too late to get serious," I wrote in my notes. For before this, Mrs. Clinton's campaign was all dreary recitation of talking points, rote applause lines followed by rote applause.
The next day the Washington Post had its latest numbers. A "majority of voters now view her as dishonest," it said, bluntly. Six in 10 said she was "not honest or trustworthy." Which itself doesn't tell us, really, anything new, but concretizes, like the Bosnia story, what is already known.
This is what I think will happen. At some future point Mrs. Clinton will leave, and at a more distant one she will try to come back. But more than one cycle will have to pass before she does. She'll need more than four years to shake off the impression she made in 2008. And this is how you'll know she's making another bid for the presidency. She will wear skirts. Gone will be the pantsuits that made her look like a small blond man with breasts. It's the new me, I wear skirts! Her first impulse is to think cosmetically. A long and weary life in politics has left her thinking this is the way to think.
All of which sounds as if I foresee a Pennsylvania drubbing for her. I do not. I just think that whatever happens in Pennsylvania, the decision has been made, the die cast. Barack Obama's supporters will not be denied. He broke through, gained purchase, held his ground, the one thing Mrs. Clinton could not afford. When I speak to superdelegates, the vibration is there: It is the moment of Obama.
And now his problem emerges. It is two-headed. It is not that he is African-American, or half so, and it is not that he is liberal. Liberalism too, one senses, is having a moment.
It is his youth, his relative untriedness, the fact that he has not suffered, been seasoned, been beat about the head by life and left struggling back, as happens to most adults by a certain time. This is what I hear from older people, who vote in great numbers. They are not hostile to his race, they are skeptical of his inexperience.
The other is elitism, a charge that clearly grates on him and unnerves his wife, who has a great deal that would be attractive in a first lady (intelligence, accomplishment, beauty) but lacks placidity, which is, actually, necessary. All first ladies, first spouses, should be like Denis Thatcher, slightly dazed, mildly inscrutable, utterly supportive. It is the only job in the world where "seems slightly drugged" is a positive job qualification. The key is to know you are not the drama, you do not draw the lightning, you are a background player who yet has deep, unseen power. (The "deep, unseen power" part keeps you serene and energized. The constant possibility of quiet revenge keeps one peppy.)
Sen. Obama seems honestly surprised by the furor his the-poor-cling-to-God-and-guns remarks elicited, and if one considers his background—intense marginalization followed by the establishment's embrace—this is understandable. He was only caught speaking the secret language of America's elite, and what he said was not meant as a putdown. It was an explanation aimed at ameliorating the elites' anger toward and impatience with normal people. It's a way of explaining them, of saying, "You have to remember they're not comfortable and educated like us, they're vulnerable and so we must try to understand them and feel sympathy for and solidarity with them." You could say this at any high-class dinner party in America and not cause a ruffle. But America is not a high-class dinner party.
Mrs. Obama said Tuesday that she is from the South Side of Chicago and a working-class home, and seemed to argue that no one from such humble beginnings could be an elitist. But America is full of people who started low, rose high and internalized what the right people think, which is another way of saying what the elites think. To rise in America is to turn left, unless you are very, very tough or protected by privilege of the financial or familial kind.
Can Mr. Obama survive this? Yes. But it made a bad impression, the kind it's hard to eradicate. Good news for him: the trope that blacks aren't snobs, they're patronized by snobs. Also, he doesn't seem haughty. He seems like a nice man. Also the person exploiting his gaffe is Mrs. Clinton.
* * *
Meanwhile, John McCain makes daily, small, incremental gains. He happily watches the Democrats fight and happily advances his cause. Did you see him on "Hardball" the other night with the college students of Villanova? They were beside themselves at the sight of him. It seems to me it would be a brilliant thing for him to announce he means to be a one-term president, that he means to have a clean, serious, one-term presidency in which he will do things those under pressure of re-election do not and cannot do. This would be received as a refreshment, a way out for the voters in a year they seem to want a way out. For many in the middle it would be a twofer. You get a good man, for only four years, and Mr. Obama gets to grow and deepen. He'll be better older.
The downside? Americans like knowing they can fire a president. It's how they keep them in line. And lame-duckness from day one would not be empowering.
If Mr. McCain went this route, how and when he said it would be everything. As with Mrs. Clinton, timing will be everything.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Obama
Tuesday april 15:
Michelle Obama on the Colbert Report
http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/index.jhtml
You gotta see this, its awesome!
Obama for president!
Michelle Obama on the Colbert Report
http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/index.jhtml
You gotta see this, its awesome!
Obama for president!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
