Hi all, I am opening this thread, keeping in mind the following > Only way to improve english is by reading it from all angles The sole purpose of this thread would be to serve as a repository of newspaper editorials, opinion…
Hi all,
I am opening this thread, keeping in mind the following
Only way to improve english is by reading it from all angles
The sole purpose of this thread would be to serve as a repository of newspaper editorials, opinion pages etc. This is help us in many ways, like improving vocabs, building a reading speed and you name it.
Lets rock 'n roll. I would be updating this thread every night to supply enuf for the next day's reading. :)
I would be doing the following
1. Read the passage with timer (in my cell) on.
2. Note down the new words in a notepad (lookup their meanings during lunch hours)
3. Practise various speed reading techniques (latent reading, eye-fixation, mouse reading etc.)
4. And above all, I'd like to beat the timer while reading the next article
Veterans please suggest, what else should we do.
P.S. I have a couple of selfish reasons too, the first being I am not allowed to open any newspaper websites/blogs from my office machine and I jst love the layout of PG, its bettr to find it all here.
-------
On a lighter note, it's a bitter-sweet feeling to be thanked and groaned on the same post! Versatility breeds difference of opinion.. Heee!
1 Like
Fruit of the poisonous tree - Hindu Editorial (02/03/2012)
When the rot runs deep, partial remedies won't do. By cancelling the 122 licences for 2G spectrum that were the product of an illegal policy process that was contrary to public interest and "violative of constitutional principles", the Supreme Court has struck a blow for justice, transparency and ethical business practices. For those business houses used to bending or breaking laws to rake in excess profits, Thursday's verdict is a lesson that will forever remain etched in their institutional memory. The present case may relate to the telecom sector but there is hardly any industry in India today where unscrupulous companies have not sought to use their nexus with elected leaders and government officials to get ahead in their quest for quick and easy profits. Influence peddling and rent seeking have been the bane of the Indian economy and reforms do not seem to have reduced their incidence. The lesson for corporate India from the Supreme Court's landmark judgment is that there is little to be gained - and a lot to be lost - from doing business this way.
Senior ministers have gone out of their way to highlight the fact that Thursday's judgment places former Telecom minister A. Raja at the centre of the 2G scam. The Court also records how he disregarded the advice of the Prime Minister and the Finance Ministry at various points during the formulation and implementation of the policy of first come, first served. But even if the letters and notes cited in the judgment provide adequate legal cover for Dr. Manmohan Singh and Finance Minister P. Chidambaram - two weeks from now, the trial court will rule on whether the latter has anything to answer for - the United Progressive Alliance government cannot escape political culpability. Here was a case where Mr. Raja went against the stated advice of the Prime Minister. The fact that several companies were cherry-picked from the pool of spectrum applicants was known, as was the fact that some made huge profits by quickly disposing of the precious national resource they had been allocated so cheaply. Even if we accept that Mr. Raja took the UPA leadership for a ride, what is inexplicable - and unforgivable - is the government's failure immediately to investigate the scam despite its broad contours being so visible. Even after the Comptroller & Auditor General's magisterial report exposed what had transpired, senior ministers refused to accept the fact that there had been any loss to the exchequer. If today the UPA stands politically exposed, it is as much for the way it has dealt with the post-scam fallout as for the original sin of failing to sell spectrum through a transparent process.
Keywords: 2G spectrum scam, Subramanian Swamy, 2G licenses, 2G trial, Swamy plea, Chidambaram, A. Raja, spectrum allocation, Centre for Public Interest Litigation, 2G scam
When the rot runs deep, partial remedies won't do. By cancelling the 122 licences for 2G spectrum that were the product of an illegal policy process that was contrary to public interest and "violative of constitutional principles", the Supreme Court has struck a blow for justice, transparency and ethical business practices. For those business houses used to bending or breaking laws to rake in excess profits, Thursday's verdict is a lesson that will forever remain etched in their institutional memory. The present case may relate to the telecom sector but there is hardly any industry in India today where unscrupulous companies have not sought to use their nexus with elected leaders and government officials to get ahead in their quest for quick and easy profits. Influence peddling and rent seeking have been the bane of the Indian economy and reforms do not seem to have reduced their incidence. The lesson for corporate India from the Supreme Court's landmark judgment is that there is little to be gained - and a lot to be lost - from doing business this way.
Senior ministers have gone out of their way to highlight the fact that Thursday's judgment places former Telecom minister A. Raja at the centre of the 2G scam. The Court also records how he disregarded the advice of the Prime Minister and the Finance Ministry at various points during the formulation and implementation of the policy of first come, first served. But even if the letters and notes cited in the judgment provide adequate legal cover for Dr. Manmohan Singh and Finance Minister P. Chidambaram - two weeks from now, the trial court will rule on whether the latter has anything to answer for - the United Progressive Alliance government cannot escape political culpability. Here was a case where Mr. Raja went against the stated advice of the Prime Minister. The fact that several companies were cherry-picked from the pool of spectrum applicants was known, as was the fact that some made huge profits by quickly disposing of the precious national resource they had been allocated so cheaply. Even if we accept that Mr. Raja took the UPA leadership for a ride, what is inexplicable - and unforgivable - is the government's failure immediately to investigate the scam despite its broad contours being so visible. Even after the Comptroller & Auditor General's magisterial report exposed what had transpired, senior ministers refused to accept the fact that there had been any loss to the exchequer. If today the UPA stands politically exposed, it is as much for the way it has dealt with the post-scam fallout as for the original sin of failing to sell spectrum through a transparent process.
Keywords: 2G spectrum scam, Subramanian Swamy, 2G licenses, 2G trial, Swamy plea, Chidambaram, A. Raja, spectrum allocation, Centre for Public Interest Litigation, 2G scam
Not playing at a theatre near you - Hindu Editorial (02/03/2012)
First Rushdie, then the cancellation of a seminar and film screening on Kashmir at a Pune college, now Taslima Nasreen. It seems there is no end to India's capacity for easy surrender when it comes to the freedom of expression. In each instance, religious extremists of one kind or another have got away with intimidating the organisers of the particular event while the government and its law enforcing arm all too quickly abdicate responsibility for protecting a constitutionally guaranteed right, on the excuse that the event threatened the maintenance of public order. In cancelling the release of Taslima Nasreen's autobiographical book Nirbasan, the Kolkata Book Fair was advised by the local police that a group called the Milli Ittehad Parishad had complained about the event. Although the publishers of the book went ahead with a scaled down launch at a different venue, the incident has once again, within a space of three weeks, underlined a collective failure to stand up to bullying by religious fundamentalists. In Pune, it was both Hindu extremists and the local police who forced first the cancellation of the documentary on Kashmir, Jashn-e-Azadi, and then the entire seminar where it was to be screened. In another incident, even a seminar that was to be held in Hyderabad on the Rushdie episode and its implications for freedom of expression was cancelled under pressure from the police who feared it could provoke violence. All this is clearly unheeding of several Supreme Court verdicts, including the landmark Ore Oru Gramathile judgment, that public authorities must protect the freedom of expression, and cannot resort to bans in the name of upholding law and order.
That such pusillanimity has come to the fore during elections in important States where political parties are seeking votes on communal platforms - despite all the evidence that minority voters do not want to be treated in this way - is a sad reflection on the condition of the world's largest democracy and its leaders. Under the benevolent gaze of the state, a disparate but highly effective 'Thought Police' consisting of religious reactionaries, moral guardians, and hypersensitive prigs have proliferated around the country. They have a diktat on every form of cultural and artistic expression. What is equally worrying, though, is the absence of collective resistance by 'civil society' to this growing intolerance. While thousands of people have taken to the streets to protest the corruption of the political class, the repeated assault on the right to free expression goes almost unchallenged, even though the two are linked in fundamental ways.
Keywords: Taslima Nasreen, Nirbasan, free speech, Salman Rushdie, communal politics, communal violence, freedom of expression, religious extremism, Ore Oru Gramathile judgment, freedom of expression
First Rushdie, then the cancellation of a seminar and film screening on Kashmir at a Pune college, now Taslima Nasreen. It seems there is no end to India's capacity for easy surrender when it comes to the freedom of expression. In each instance, religious extremists of one kind or another have got away with intimidating the organisers of the particular event while the government and its law enforcing arm all too quickly abdicate responsibility for protecting a constitutionally guaranteed right, on the excuse that the event threatened the maintenance of public order. In cancelling the release of Taslima Nasreen's autobiographical book Nirbasan, the Kolkata Book Fair was advised by the local police that a group called the Milli Ittehad Parishad had complained about the event. Although the publishers of the book went ahead with a scaled down launch at a different venue, the incident has once again, within a space of three weeks, underlined a collective failure to stand up to bullying by religious fundamentalists. In Pune, it was both Hindu extremists and the local police who forced first the cancellation of the documentary on Kashmir, Jashn-e-Azadi, and then the entire seminar where it was to be screened. In another incident, even a seminar that was to be held in Hyderabad on the Rushdie episode and its implications for freedom of expression was cancelled under pressure from the police who feared it could provoke violence. All this is clearly unheeding of several Supreme Court verdicts, including the landmark Ore Oru Gramathile judgment, that public authorities must protect the freedom of expression, and cannot resort to bans in the name of upholding law and order.
That such pusillanimity has come to the fore during elections in important States where political parties are seeking votes on communal platforms - despite all the evidence that minority voters do not want to be treated in this way - is a sad reflection on the condition of the world's largest democracy and its leaders. Under the benevolent gaze of the state, a disparate but highly effective 'Thought Police' consisting of religious reactionaries, moral guardians, and hypersensitive prigs have proliferated around the country. They have a diktat on every form of cultural and artistic expression. What is equally worrying, though, is the absence of collective resistance by 'civil society' to this growing intolerance. While thousands of people have taken to the streets to protest the corruption of the political class, the repeated assault on the right to free expression goes almost unchallenged, even though the two are linked in fundamental ways.
Keywords: Taslima Nasreen, Nirbasan, free speech, Salman Rushdie, communal politics, communal violence, freedom of expression, religious extremism, Ore Oru Gramathile judgment, freedom of expression
Russia's Bad Bet on Syria - NY Times Editorial (02/01/2012)
Thirty years ago, President Hafez al-Assad of Syria had his army crush a Sunni revolt in Hama. When it was over, as many as 20,000 Syrians were killed and neighborhoods were bulldozed. On Wednesday, social media sites and services were abuzz with Syrians determined to keep the memory of that atrocity alive.
Another Assad - Bashar - is now in power and repeating history. Since the largely peaceful revolt against his regime began last March, security forces have killed nearly 6,000 protesters and the toll is rising. Yet the United Nations Security Council is paralyzed, unable to condemn Mr. Assad, much less impose the international economic sanctions that might force him to end the killing or leave power.
Foreign ministers from the United States, other Western nations and the Arab League are back at the Council this week pushing for a tough resolution and speaking out forcefully. But Russia, supported by China and India, is still defending Mr. Assad and blocking constructive action. Moscow, which values arms deals with Damascus over the Syrian people, vetoed the last resolution in October.
The new draft resolution repeats demands initially made by the Arab League for Syria to withdraw troops from the cities and release all political prisoners. It also endorses the league's proposal for a political transition that would have Mr. Assad yield power to his deputy, establish a unity government and prepare for free elections.
The Russians, Chinese and Indians - invoking Libya - insist that they will not abide foreign military intervention in Syria or let a resolution be exploited to permit the use of force. That complaint loses credibility when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton stipulates publicly, as she did Tuesday, that "there is no intention to seek any authority or to pursue any kind of military intervention." It should be relatively easy to write a resolution to rule out military action, assuming Russia is not playing games.
Meanwhile, the European Union, the United States and the Arab League - which separately imposed sanctions on Syria - need to implement them strictly. In time, this pressure could persuade army and business elites to abandon the government.
We're not optimistic Mr. Assad will ever go along. But passing the resolution would unite the international community around a peaceful solution. It must be as strong as possible so there is no doubt where the world stands: with the Syrian people and against the Assad butchery.
Thirty years ago, President Hafez al-Assad of Syria had his army crush a Sunni revolt in Hama. When it was over, as many as 20,000 Syrians were killed and neighborhoods were bulldozed. On Wednesday, social media sites and services were abuzz with Syrians determined to keep the memory of that atrocity alive.
Another Assad - Bashar - is now in power and repeating history. Since the largely peaceful revolt against his regime began last March, security forces have killed nearly 6,000 protesters and the toll is rising. Yet the United Nations Security Council is paralyzed, unable to condemn Mr. Assad, much less impose the international economic sanctions that might force him to end the killing or leave power.
Foreign ministers from the United States, other Western nations and the Arab League are back at the Council this week pushing for a tough resolution and speaking out forcefully. But Russia, supported by China and India, is still defending Mr. Assad and blocking constructive action. Moscow, which values arms deals with Damascus over the Syrian people, vetoed the last resolution in October.
The new draft resolution repeats demands initially made by the Arab League for Syria to withdraw troops from the cities and release all political prisoners. It also endorses the league's proposal for a political transition that would have Mr. Assad yield power to his deputy, establish a unity government and prepare for free elections.
The Russians, Chinese and Indians - invoking Libya - insist that they will not abide foreign military intervention in Syria or let a resolution be exploited to permit the use of force. That complaint loses credibility when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton stipulates publicly, as she did Tuesday, that "there is no intention to seek any authority or to pursue any kind of military intervention." It should be relatively easy to write a resolution to rule out military action, assuming Russia is not playing games.
Meanwhile, the European Union, the United States and the Arab League - which separately imposed sanctions on Syria - need to implement them strictly. In time, this pressure could persuade army and business elites to abandon the government.
We're not optimistic Mr. Assad will ever go along. But passing the resolution would unite the international community around a peaceful solution. It must be as strong as possible so there is no doubt where the world stands: with the Syrian people and against the Assad butchery.
Making It Worse in Europe - NY Times (01/31/2012)
European Union leaders failed on Monday to move forward on their most urgent task: increasing the bailout fund to protect Europe's ailing economies from defaulting on their bonds.
Instead, leaders of 25 of 27 European countries agreed to sign a new fiscal compact that will legally restrict them from fighting recessions with robust fiscal stimulus. Most economists outside the euro zone consider this approach a dangerous one. Those countries account for more than 20 percent of the world's economy. Condemning them to longer and deeper recessions will drag down economies elsewhere that depend on trade, from the United States to China.
Without a bigger bailout fund, investors will likely keep betting against weakened economies like Italy and Spain, pushing up their interest costs and, consequently, adding to their deficits. Nevertheless, Europe's leaders deferred action on more money until March. Market speculators may not agree to wait.
The world has gotten used to failed European summit meetings. What is particularly disheartening about this one is that some European leaders seem to believe they succeeded. "Considering the time frame, this was a real masterpiece," Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said of the new fiscal pact. It was only in December that she made clear to other European leaders that adopting a fiscal pact to balance their budgets and reduce debt was an essential precondition for Germany to continuing to pay its fair share of European debt-relief costs.
The fiscal pact imposes substantial fines on any signatory nation whose deficit averages more than 0.5 percent of gross domestic product over a full economic cycle, a condition the United States would have had great trouble meeting over the past three decades. The summiteers also made ritual nods in the direction of more jobs and higher growth, without providing any new money to achieve this.
As the European Union's biggest economy, and biggest contributor to the bailout fund, Germany continues to determine the approach in managing the Continent's economic crisis. Others, particularly those needing help paying their bills, have little choice but to go along, whether or not they really believe that German-dictated austerity will help their ailing economies. Many leaders - Prime Minister Mario Monti of Italy, for example - have made clear that they do not.
A leader wiser than Mrs. Merkel would build a stronger European Union by helping her neighbors grow their way out of debt, not squeeze them to the breaking point. A wise leader would also remind German voters that the prosperity of their own export-dependent economy requires sustained demand in neighboring countries.
Poor German leadership in this crisis has exacted an increasing economic and social price from Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Belgium and France. The longer Germany insists on putting fiscal austerity ahead of growth, the more likely it becomes that Germany, too, will suffer economic pain.
European Union leaders failed on Monday to move forward on their most urgent task: increasing the bailout fund to protect Europe's ailing economies from defaulting on their bonds.
Instead, leaders of 25 of 27 European countries agreed to sign a new fiscal compact that will legally restrict them from fighting recessions with robust fiscal stimulus. Most economists outside the euro zone consider this approach a dangerous one. Those countries account for more than 20 percent of the world's economy. Condemning them to longer and deeper recessions will drag down economies elsewhere that depend on trade, from the United States to China.
Without a bigger bailout fund, investors will likely keep betting against weakened economies like Italy and Spain, pushing up their interest costs and, consequently, adding to their deficits. Nevertheless, Europe's leaders deferred action on more money until March. Market speculators may not agree to wait.
The world has gotten used to failed European summit meetings. What is particularly disheartening about this one is that some European leaders seem to believe they succeeded. "Considering the time frame, this was a real masterpiece," Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said of the new fiscal pact. It was only in December that she made clear to other European leaders that adopting a fiscal pact to balance their budgets and reduce debt was an essential precondition for Germany to continuing to pay its fair share of European debt-relief costs.
The fiscal pact imposes substantial fines on any signatory nation whose deficit averages more than 0.5 percent of gross domestic product over a full economic cycle, a condition the United States would have had great trouble meeting over the past three decades. The summiteers also made ritual nods in the direction of more jobs and higher growth, without providing any new money to achieve this.
As the European Union's biggest economy, and biggest contributor to the bailout fund, Germany continues to determine the approach in managing the Continent's economic crisis. Others, particularly those needing help paying their bills, have little choice but to go along, whether or not they really believe that German-dictated austerity will help their ailing economies. Many leaders - Prime Minister Mario Monti of Italy, for example - have made clear that they do not.
A leader wiser than Mrs. Merkel would build a stronger European Union by helping her neighbors grow their way out of debt, not squeeze them to the breaking point. A wise leader would also remind German voters that the prosperity of their own export-dependent economy requires sustained demand in neighboring countries.
Poor German leadership in this crisis has exacted an increasing economic and social price from Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Belgium and France. The longer Germany insists on putting fiscal austerity ahead of growth, the more likely it becomes that Germany, too, will suffer economic pain.
Facebook Going Public - The Guardian
Status update: going public. Valuation up to $100bn.
It started in a single Harvard dorm room as a way to connect often lonely students, then spread rapidly across Ivy League universities from a house in Palo Alto, before becoming the subject of a Hollywood hit film. Now the social network believes it has become so important to so many that it describes itself as a "social utility" without which, it is hoping, its worldwide total of 845 million users cannot function.
Facebook, created in 2004 by the then teenage Mark Zuckerberg, is now planning to float on the New York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq. It hopes it is worth $100bn - easily more than Barclays Bank or BAE Systems - an extraordinary sum of money for a business that was founded so few years ago. Its revenues may be an impressive-sounding $3.7bn in 2011, but the impending share offering demands that willing investors accept it is worth a stratospheric 27 times that revenue, a figure Rupert Murdoch has reckoned would make Apple "look really cheap".
The assumption is that Facebook will one day generate revenues to reach the $100bn mark, and in this game there can be only one comparison: Google. The world's favourite search engine went public in 2004, and delivered on the promise. In the year before its flotation, its revenues were just $961m, and its valuation demanded at the time was $23bn - at 24 times, similar to Facebook now. Today Google generates nearly $10bn a quarter, and its shares priced at $85 at issue are now $583.
If Facebook can repeat Google's trick it will demonstrate that for all the talk about the rise of India and China, it is still Silicon Valley that creates the most lucrative and innovative companies on the planet. And, while Facebook may exist only on desktops, tablets and mobile phones, the internet is the frontier of our times, the place where fortunes of the size of Zuckerberg's paper $28bn can be made in the time it once may have taken to travel to and from the New World. Assuming, that is, Zuckerberg can meet the expectations placed upon him.
Brent Hoberman, who floated Lastminute.com in 2000, knows a little about the pressures of a highly priced float. When asked at the time if he was happy to get his company on to the London stock market, Hoberman was equivocal. "It was quite stressful really," he said. "We were valued for perfection, which put an incredible pressure on us." Lastminute's shares fell by as much 95% at the worst point, a reminder that the buzz of the moment is never enough if the underlying financial model does not convince.
Facebook starts with some advantages that a company like Lastminute did not have. It is already profitable, making $1bn after tax last year, and has amassed a cash pile of about $3.9bn. It has long won the battle to be the world's leading social network, and continues to grow financially, with revenues expected by some to hit $7bn in 2012. But while Google is the dominant player in a new advertising category, internet search, Facebook is competing in a melee for display advertising in which newspapers, broadcasters and a range of other popular websites chase revenue.
Its advocates argue that Facebook has the potential to become a force for change, developing in directions not immediately foreseen. The social network had developed its own currency, Facebook credits, and has become the host environment for other media, for Farmville and other games (which provide at least 12% of revenues), for Spotify in music and even the Guardian in news media.
It has the capacity, Hoberman argues, to be a "disruptive force" in industries ranging from games to payments, new areas such as telecommunications, and advertising, where the company is only beginning to exploit some of the possibilities of selling personally targeted ads. The challenge is whether it can do so without infringing users' privacy, although Hoberman argues that "people who think young people worry about that are out of touch".
More importantly, arguably, are the key personalities. Its success will depend a great deal on Zuckerberg. His letter to investors eulogised the importance of the "hacker way", a corporate republic based on coders who get things done, and his partnership with chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg, the former Clinton era junior politico who handles the speaking, political and regulatory issues that the shy, geeky Zuckerberg does not. Success in the US technology industry depends to a surprising degree on the energy and vision of the founders - from the late Steve Jobs to Larry Page at Google demonstrating what can be achieved to the failure of Jerry Yang, who recently quit the long struggling Yahoo.
Popular knowledge of Zuckerberg - whose 28% personal stake plus control of votes from associates gives him control of his own destiny - derives largely from a script by Aaron Sorkin, whose Social Network film grossed $225m, rather modest by Facebook standards. It portrays a driven and somewhat ruthless executive whose masterwork is a response to being jilted by his girlfriend and who is prepared to drop his closest friend, Eduardo Saverin, as he gets ahead. It is not until the end do we learn that Zuckerberg and Saverin settled their dispute, with the Facebook founder helping ensure that he was left with a lucrative near-$5bn stake in yesterday's money. Not everybody can reward former friends so well.
The real Zuckerberg will have his own part to play. His success or otherwise in matching the $100bn of expectations will set the overall narrative for the next internet generation. In other words, the next five years.
Status update: going public. Valuation up to $100bn.
It started in a single Harvard dorm room as a way to connect often lonely students, then spread rapidly across Ivy League universities from a house in Palo Alto, before becoming the subject of a Hollywood hit film. Now the social network believes it has become so important to so many that it describes itself as a "social utility" without which, it is hoping, its worldwide total of 845 million users cannot function.
Facebook, created in 2004 by the then teenage Mark Zuckerberg, is now planning to float on the New York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq. It hopes it is worth $100bn - easily more than Barclays Bank or BAE Systems - an extraordinary sum of money for a business that was founded so few years ago. Its revenues may be an impressive-sounding $3.7bn in 2011, but the impending share offering demands that willing investors accept it is worth a stratospheric 27 times that revenue, a figure Rupert Murdoch has reckoned would make Apple "look really cheap".
The assumption is that Facebook will one day generate revenues to reach the $100bn mark, and in this game there can be only one comparison: Google. The world's favourite search engine went public in 2004, and delivered on the promise. In the year before its flotation, its revenues were just $961m, and its valuation demanded at the time was $23bn - at 24 times, similar to Facebook now. Today Google generates nearly $10bn a quarter, and its shares priced at $85 at issue are now $583.
If Facebook can repeat Google's trick it will demonstrate that for all the talk about the rise of India and China, it is still Silicon Valley that creates the most lucrative and innovative companies on the planet. And, while Facebook may exist only on desktops, tablets and mobile phones, the internet is the frontier of our times, the place where fortunes of the size of Zuckerberg's paper $28bn can be made in the time it once may have taken to travel to and from the New World. Assuming, that is, Zuckerberg can meet the expectations placed upon him.
Brent Hoberman, who floated Lastminute.com in 2000, knows a little about the pressures of a highly priced float. When asked at the time if he was happy to get his company on to the London stock market, Hoberman was equivocal. "It was quite stressful really," he said. "We were valued for perfection, which put an incredible pressure on us." Lastminute's shares fell by as much 95% at the worst point, a reminder that the buzz of the moment is never enough if the underlying financial model does not convince.
Facebook starts with some advantages that a company like Lastminute did not have. It is already profitable, making $1bn after tax last year, and has amassed a cash pile of about $3.9bn. It has long won the battle to be the world's leading social network, and continues to grow financially, with revenues expected by some to hit $7bn in 2012. But while Google is the dominant player in a new advertising category, internet search, Facebook is competing in a melee for display advertising in which newspapers, broadcasters and a range of other popular websites chase revenue.
Its advocates argue that Facebook has the potential to become a force for change, developing in directions not immediately foreseen. The social network had developed its own currency, Facebook credits, and has become the host environment for other media, for Farmville and other games (which provide at least 12% of revenues), for Spotify in music and even the Guardian in news media.
It has the capacity, Hoberman argues, to be a "disruptive force" in industries ranging from games to payments, new areas such as telecommunications, and advertising, where the company is only beginning to exploit some of the possibilities of selling personally targeted ads. The challenge is whether it can do so without infringing users' privacy, although Hoberman argues that "people who think young people worry about that are out of touch".
More importantly, arguably, are the key personalities. Its success will depend a great deal on Zuckerberg. His letter to investors eulogised the importance of the "hacker way", a corporate republic based on coders who get things done, and his partnership with chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg, the former Clinton era junior politico who handles the speaking, political and regulatory issues that the shy, geeky Zuckerberg does not. Success in the US technology industry depends to a surprising degree on the energy and vision of the founders - from the late Steve Jobs to Larry Page at Google demonstrating what can be achieved to the failure of Jerry Yang, who recently quit the long struggling Yahoo.
Popular knowledge of Zuckerberg - whose 28% personal stake plus control of votes from associates gives him control of his own destiny - derives largely from a script by Aaron Sorkin, whose Social Network film grossed $225m, rather modest by Facebook standards. It portrays a driven and somewhat ruthless executive whose masterwork is a response to being jilted by his girlfriend and who is prepared to drop his closest friend, Eduardo Saverin, as he gets ahead. It is not until the end do we learn that Zuckerberg and Saverin settled their dispute, with the Facebook founder helping ensure that he was left with a lucrative near-$5bn stake in yesterday's money. Not everybody can reward former friends so well.
The real Zuckerberg will have his own part to play. His success or otherwise in matching the $100bn of expectations will set the overall narrative for the next internet generation. In other words, the next five years.
additionally you may also contribute on this thread :-
http://www.pagalguy.com/discussions/analyze-the-hindu-editorial-25009756
Pay and play
One year on, China's most-hyped tax is still mostly hype (The Economist, This week Issue)
THE vast city of Chongqing in south-west China is famous for its hills, which punish the knees, and its skyline, which strains the neck. The metropolis, straddling the Yangzi river, is sprawling outward as well as upwards (see picture), and its municipal government is keen to capture more of the value created by its rapid development. A year ago it pioneered a tax on large single-family homes and new luxury flats. Some 1,400km (870 miles) downstream, Shanghai also imposed a tax on luxury second apartments.
Such property taxes are common elsewhere in the world, championed by economists, resented by homeowners. But in China, they are a novelty. Advocates argue that such taxes could ease two of China's biggest economic problems. The first is the speculative fever that so often grips the housing market. The second is the debt that troubles local governments.
This debt reflects China's peculiar division of fiscal revenues and responsibilities. The constitution, in an intriguing phrase, promises to give "full play to the initiative and enthusiasm" of the country's local authorities, but its fiscal arrangements give them little to play with. In 2010 local governments accounted for over four-fifths of public spending but collected just 45% of the country's tax revenues, a gap amounting to 4.1 trillion yuan ($600 billion) or just over 10% of GDP.
Handouts from the central government fill much of that gap. Meanwhile, local governments' favourite source of cash lies underfoot. In 2006-10 across China they sold land-use rights to over 22,000km2 of land, an area the size of New Jersey.
Such sales are lucrative, but also divisive. Urban land in China belongs to the state, whereas rural land is owned "collectively". This hazy definition lets officials use their power as representatives of the state to displace villagers on the urban fringe. Officials pay the farmers compensation on the basis of the land's agricultural value, whereas developers buy the land at a price nearer to its commercial value. So city governments profit at the expense of villagers. The shenanigans provoked a remarkable uprising in the small southern town of Wukan in December, and protests happen elsewhere almost daily.
To calm rural discontent, larger cities now offer more generous compensation, Joyce Yanyun Man of Peking University says. But the property market is slowing and sales are faltering. That will make it harder for local governments to repay the huge debts they incurred during the stimulus programme of 2009-10, when the central government urged state banks to lend to local governments in order to stave off the effects of the global financial crisis. Localities now have a pressing need to find other sources of revenue.
China already imposes taxes on property-as many as a dozen, according to Bo-sin Tang of Hong Kong Polytechnic University. But most cover the buying or selling of it. None reflects its market value or falls on the most common form of property: homes. The taxes therefore make a paltry contribution to local coffers.
China's government has talked about introducing a fully fledged tax on home ownership since 2003. What has stopped it? The logistical barriers should not be underestimated, says Mr Tang. The government must clarify who owns what, and decide what a property is worth. Fair valuations need expertise and independent judgment-both in short supply in China. Unfair valuations, on the other hand, will breed resistance and evasion, which China already has in abundance.
But the biggest obstacle is political. Most urban residents own their home. Some, including many party officials, own several. For them, a property tax would be a levy not on their home, but on the wealth they have locked up in property that often lies vacant. The Communist Party does not want an angry middle class.
These political sensitivities are apparent even in the pioneering cities. Chongqing, for example, charges a puny rate (0.5-1.2%) on a tiny number of properties-barely 8,500, according to Xinhua, the state news agency. The much-ballyhooed experiment netted just 90m yuan in its first ten months, less than 0.2% of Chongqing's tax revenue.
To put a lid on property speculation and plug the hole in municipal finances, China's property taxes will have to cover more homes in more cities. None has yet volunteered, though faltering land sales may give them a prod. And some cities might take the plunge if the central government offered to lift the curbs it has placed on property speculation. In the realm of property taxation, alas, China's local authorities have shown neither initiative nor enthusiasm.
PS: Kindly provide a summary for this one.
Let water, not profits, flow - The Hindu
As a finite, life-giving resource, access to water must remain a fundamental right. The state, as custodian under the public trust doctrine, should uphold the right of the citizen to clean, safe drinking water. It is such a strong, rights-based approach that should underpin official policy on water in India. Many areas in the country are water-stressed, and there are simmering inter-State disputes on sharing river waters. The National Water Policy 2012, now published in draft for public comments, should ultimately take a holistic view of the issue. The draft text makes some references to the importance of water for people and Nature, but is disproportionately focussed on treating water as an economic good. Such an approach predicated on realising the costs that go into the supply of water can only distort access and prices in the long run, affecting less affluent citizens. To suggest, for instance, that the state should exit the service-provider role and become a regulator is only a step away from abandoning the equity objective. Private sector water services have clearly failed in many countries, including those in the global North, and local governments have taken over again. In the current year, for-profit private water companies in England are raising tariffs, while the publicly-owned service in Scotland is not. Just over a decade ago, water wars in Bolivia reversed privatisation moves. Evidently, private partnership imposes the burden of extra costs.
Few will argue that there is no case for reforms in the way water is managed as a resource in India. In urban and semi-urban areas, the lack of adequate public investments has weakened municipal systems. This has led to commodification and unsustainable extraction from aquifers for rising rates of profit. In this context, the proposal to separate groundwater rights from land title by amending the Indian Easements Act, 1882 merits serious consideration. Coming up with an alternative framework acceptable to all stakeholders, however, is a big challenge. Moreover, an assessment of the national water balance at the basin level is essential for amending the law. This the Centre should pursue, as the Planning Commission has suggested, during the 12 Plan. Such data can persuade the States to support comprehensive legislation to address inter-State riparian issues. Again, if there is any one factor that renders much of India's water unusable, it is industrial pollution. This issue calls for urgent action, and the policy can cover major ground if it lays greater emphasis on making the 'polluter pays' principle work. A clean-up can make a lot more of India's water bodies and groundwater available for use by people.
As a finite, life-giving resource, access to water must remain a fundamental right. The state, as custodian under the public trust doctrine, should uphold the right of the citizen to clean, safe drinking water. It is such a strong, rights-based approach that should underpin official policy on water in India. Many areas in the country are water-stressed, and there are simmering inter-State disputes on sharing river waters. The National Water Policy 2012, now published in draft for public comments, should ultimately take a holistic view of the issue. The draft text makes some references to the importance of water for people and Nature, but is disproportionately focussed on treating water as an economic good. Such an approach predicated on realising the costs that go into the supply of water can only distort access and prices in the long run, affecting less affluent citizens. To suggest, for instance, that the state should exit the service-provider role and become a regulator is only a step away from abandoning the equity objective. Private sector water services have clearly failed in many countries, including those in the global North, and local governments have taken over again. In the current year, for-profit private water companies in England are raising tariffs, while the publicly-owned service in Scotland is not. Just over a decade ago, water wars in Bolivia reversed privatisation moves. Evidently, private partnership imposes the burden of extra costs.
Few will argue that there is no case for reforms in the way water is managed as a resource in India. In urban and semi-urban areas, the lack of adequate public investments has weakened municipal systems. This has led to commodification and unsustainable extraction from aquifers for rising rates of profit. In this context, the proposal to separate groundwater rights from land title by amending the Indian Easements Act, 1882 merits serious consideration. Coming up with an alternative framework acceptable to all stakeholders, however, is a big challenge. Moreover, an assessment of the national water balance at the basin level is essential for amending the law. This the Centre should pursue, as the Planning Commission has suggested, during the 12 Plan. Such data can persuade the States to support comprehensive legislation to address inter-State riparian issues. Again, if there is any one factor that renders much of India's water unusable, it is industrial pollution. This issue calls for urgent action, and the policy can cover major ground if it lays greater emphasis on making the 'polluter pays' principle work. A clean-up can make a lot more of India's water bodies and groundwater available for use by people.
Coping with disasters - TheHindu
Nothing tests the political will and administrative efficiency of a government like a natural disaster. More than long-term development projects and poverty-alleviating schemes, it is the response mechanisms activated in times of emergency that people remember. In Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, a month after cyclone 'Thane' made landfall, the affected communities are still struggling to put their lives back together. Given the magnitude of destruction in the coastal areas, especially Puducherry and the districts of Cuddalore and Villupuram, normality could not have been restored in a matter of days. The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam government in Tamil Nadu led by Chief Minister Jayalalithaa did well in the aftermath of the cyclone, clearing uprooted trees from the roads and reaching food to the victims. But with tens of thousands of electricity poles falling to the fury of the cyclone, power supply has returned only in phases, spread over a month, to the affected areas. More disconcertingly, a lot remains to be done in terms of rehabilitation for the people who lost their homes and means of livelihood. Farmlands have been ravaged, leaving farmers and workers without any means of income during harvest time. Many have resorted to taking loans or withdrawing deposits for day-to-day sustenance.
In this context, the decision of the State government to construct one lakh concrete houses at a cost of Rs.1,000 crore to replace huts damaged in the cyclone is a significant step in easing the misery of the victims. Too often, the enthusiasm shown by officialdom in the days immediately after a disaster dries up in a couple of weeks. As seen in the construction of houses for those affected by the tsunami in 2004, delays can stretch to years. Without the pressure of public opinion, governments tend to under-perform and fail to keep promises made at the time of the calamity. And almost inevitably, housing projects for disaster victims, which take a longer time to complete, drop off the priority list of the authorities. As pointed out by Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, 'Thane' caused damage on a scale rarely seen before. Tamil Nadu and Puducherry will need substantial help from the Central government in carrying out long-term rehabilitation measures. The State, which sought Rs.5,248 crore from the National Disaster Response Fund, has so far been given Rs.500 crore. Whatever it takes, the State and Central governments must speedily ensure that the people traumatised by 'Thane' and the North-East monsoon are able to lead a normal life again.
Nothing tests the political will and administrative efficiency of a government like a natural disaster. More than long-term development projects and poverty-alleviating schemes, it is the response mechanisms activated in times of emergency that people remember. In Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, a month after cyclone 'Thane' made landfall, the affected communities are still struggling to put their lives back together. Given the magnitude of destruction in the coastal areas, especially Puducherry and the districts of Cuddalore and Villupuram, normality could not have been restored in a matter of days. The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam government in Tamil Nadu led by Chief Minister Jayalalithaa did well in the aftermath of the cyclone, clearing uprooted trees from the roads and reaching food to the victims. But with tens of thousands of electricity poles falling to the fury of the cyclone, power supply has returned only in phases, spread over a month, to the affected areas. More disconcertingly, a lot remains to be done in terms of rehabilitation for the people who lost their homes and means of livelihood. Farmlands have been ravaged, leaving farmers and workers without any means of income during harvest time. Many have resorted to taking loans or withdrawing deposits for day-to-day sustenance.
In this context, the decision of the State government to construct one lakh concrete houses at a cost of Rs.1,000 crore to replace huts damaged in the cyclone is a significant step in easing the misery of the victims. Too often, the enthusiasm shown by officialdom in the days immediately after a disaster dries up in a couple of weeks. As seen in the construction of houses for those affected by the tsunami in 2004, delays can stretch to years. Without the pressure of public opinion, governments tend to under-perform and fail to keep promises made at the time of the calamity. And almost inevitably, housing projects for disaster victims, which take a longer time to complete, drop off the priority list of the authorities. As pointed out by Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, 'Thane' caused damage on a scale rarely seen before. Tamil Nadu and Puducherry will need substantial help from the Central government in carrying out long-term rehabilitation measures. The State, which sought Rs.5,248 crore from the National Disaster Response Fund, has so far been given Rs.500 crore. Whatever it takes, the State and Central governments must speedily ensure that the people traumatised by 'Thane' and the North-East monsoon are able to lead a normal life again.
Keep the good work!
It is difficult for me to read editorials unless i do it online !!!
gud work
A tragic impasse
Russia and China may have acted rashly in vetoing a sharply worded draft United Nations Security Council Resolution on Syria but the United States, France and Britain - who have reacted with predictable fury - cannot escape their responsibility for an impasse which leaves the world unable to act on the unfolding humanitarian disaster in that country. The urgency of the situation is obvious; fierce fighting continues in several cities, with civilian deaths in Homs reported at up to 300 over the past few days alone. By U.N. estimates, at least 5,400 people have been killed since the uprisings started in March 2011. India voted for the draft, noting that it expressly rules out intervention in Syria under Article 42 of the U.N. Charter, and supporting the resolution's call for political dialogue between President Bashar al-Assad's government and opposition groups under the auspices of the Arab League. Moscow, however, has been hostile to all drafts on this matter, even the latest which dropped the demand that Mr. Assad step down. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says the call made for government forces to withdraw to barracks is not balanced by a similar requirement for armed opposition groups and will thereby endanger any political process.
The West has only itself to blame for alienating what could have been powerful and influential allies in this terrible and protracted crisis. Russia's unwillingness to go along with a U.S.-led process stems, in large measure, from its anger at western conduct over Libya. The U.N. resolution of March 2011 imposed only a no-fly zone but served, in reality, as a cover for NATO's aim of violent regime change there. Today, Russia and China both believe they were deceived into abstaining rather than using their veto. Though Moscow has sought to distance itself from the brutalities of the Assad regime, which is now using heavy weapons against protesters, Saturday's veto is a shot in the arm for Damascus. But Washington's approach, which has included strident calls for President Assad to go, does not open a path for an urgent political solution to the violence either. One of the problems is that the opposition to the regime is severely fragmented. The Syrian National Council is at odds with both the Free Syrian Army and the National Co-ordination Committee. Furthermore, with the regime in Damascus drawn from the 10 per cent Alawite Shia minority, Sunni extremist groups have jumped into the fray. The P-5 and Arab League, along with India, Brazil and South Africa, must go back to the drawing board and come up with a new plan of action that can end the violence and set the stage for a Syrian-led political solution.
Russia and China may have acted rashly in vetoing a sharply worded draft United Nations Security Council Resolution on Syria but the United States, France and Britain - who have reacted with predictable fury - cannot escape their responsibility for an impasse which leaves the world unable to act on the unfolding humanitarian disaster in that country. The urgency of the situation is obvious; fierce fighting continues in several cities, with civilian deaths in Homs reported at up to 300 over the past few days alone. By U.N. estimates, at least 5,400 people have been killed since the uprisings started in March 2011. India voted for the draft, noting that it expressly rules out intervention in Syria under Article 42 of the U.N. Charter, and supporting the resolution's call for political dialogue between President Bashar al-Assad's government and opposition groups under the auspices of the Arab League. Moscow, however, has been hostile to all drafts on this matter, even the latest which dropped the demand that Mr. Assad step down. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says the call made for government forces to withdraw to barracks is not balanced by a similar requirement for armed opposition groups and will thereby endanger any political process.
The West has only itself to blame for alienating what could have been powerful and influential allies in this terrible and protracted crisis. Russia's unwillingness to go along with a U.S.-led process stems, in large measure, from its anger at western conduct over Libya. The U.N. resolution of March 2011 imposed only a no-fly zone but served, in reality, as a cover for NATO's aim of violent regime change there. Today, Russia and China both believe they were deceived into abstaining rather than using their veto. Though Moscow has sought to distance itself from the brutalities of the Assad regime, which is now using heavy weapons against protesters, Saturday's veto is a shot in the arm for Damascus. But Washington's approach, which has included strident calls for President Assad to go, does not open a path for an urgent political solution to the violence either. One of the problems is that the opposition to the regime is severely fragmented. The Syrian National Council is at odds with both the Free Syrian Army and the National Co-ordination Committee. Furthermore, with the regime in Damascus drawn from the 10 per cent Alawite Shia minority, Sunni extremist groups have jumped into the fray. The P-5 and Arab League, along with India, Brazil and South Africa, must go back to the drawing board and come up with a new plan of action that can end the violence and set the stage for a Syrian-led political solution.
Come rich, come single
Immigration, we know, has long been the favourite whipping boy of the right wing and has been a dominant campaign issue in recent national elections around Europe. The compulsion of cohabitation with either the extreme fringe or the centre tests the inventiveness of traditional rightwing parties as they search for ways to appease anti-immigrant vote banks without appearing overly illiberal or undemocratic. Given the biting austerity and high unemployment they are presiding over, it is hardly surprising that the Tories in the current Liberal-Conservative coalition in the United Kingdom should seek refuge in tougher immigration rules. Immigration Minister Damian Green's recent observations on restricting British visas only to the wealthy, the highly skilled and the very best in other respects seem unexceptionable but are, if anything, aimed at preparing the ground for the adoption of a controversial policy to curb family migration. The government-sponsored Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) report of last October sets new income criteria for citizens and settled residents who wish to sponsor foreign spouses or children. It proposes a minimum threshold where a person's salary before tax would be above the amount that would entitle him or her to income-related benefits. A January 2012 report of the MAC also claims a strong correlation between non-European immigration and the displacement of British workers.
Despite the anecdotal evidence of welfare fraud periodically trotted out by the British press, the targets of the proposed family migration measures are not scroungers, potential destitutes or recipients of state benefits, but people earning average wages who have families to support. Many of these individuals are South Asians or of South Asian descent. It is ironic, given that commitment to the family is an oft repeated conservative platitude, that the Cameron government should seek to put in place policies that would allow the right to family life only to those British residents who are affluent and deny it to working people whose income is less than the cut-off. Therein lies the harshness of the new criteria. Indeed, their application could attract legal challenge for violating Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, i.e. the right to respect for private and family life. There may be an element of tawdriness involved but Britain is entitled to cherry pick and fast-track wealthy individuals seeking to set up home there. What it ought not to do is discriminate against its own residents and citizens. The right to marry and have a family cannot be means-tested.
Immigration, we know, has long been the favourite whipping boy of the right wing and has been a dominant campaign issue in recent national elections around Europe. The compulsion of cohabitation with either the extreme fringe or the centre tests the inventiveness of traditional rightwing parties as they search for ways to appease anti-immigrant vote banks without appearing overly illiberal or undemocratic. Given the biting austerity and high unemployment they are presiding over, it is hardly surprising that the Tories in the current Liberal-Conservative coalition in the United Kingdom should seek refuge in tougher immigration rules. Immigration Minister Damian Green's recent observations on restricting British visas only to the wealthy, the highly skilled and the very best in other respects seem unexceptionable but are, if anything, aimed at preparing the ground for the adoption of a controversial policy to curb family migration. The government-sponsored Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) report of last October sets new income criteria for citizens and settled residents who wish to sponsor foreign spouses or children. It proposes a minimum threshold where a person's salary before tax would be above the amount that would entitle him or her to income-related benefits. A January 2012 report of the MAC also claims a strong correlation between non-European immigration and the displacement of British workers.
Despite the anecdotal evidence of welfare fraud periodically trotted out by the British press, the targets of the proposed family migration measures are not scroungers, potential destitutes or recipients of state benefits, but people earning average wages who have families to support. Many of these individuals are South Asians or of South Asian descent. It is ironic, given that commitment to the family is an oft repeated conservative platitude, that the Cameron government should seek to put in place policies that would allow the right to family life only to those British residents who are affluent and deny it to working people whose income is less than the cut-off. Therein lies the harshness of the new criteria. Indeed, their application could attract legal challenge for violating Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, i.e. the right to respect for private and family life. There may be an element of tawdriness involved but Britain is entitled to cherry pick and fast-track wealthy individuals seeking to set up home there. What it ought not to do is discriminate against its own residents and citizens. The right to marry and have a family cannot be means-tested.
with Babu sir's permission 😃 😃
Battling the king of maladise : The Hindu
Cricketer Yuvraj Singh's cancer diagnosis is distressing, and he will hopefully bounce back with the help of the best treatment available. But this is also a moment for India to consider how its public health policy is dealing with the long and dark shadow of cancer. An estimated 800,000 new cancer cases occur in India annually, imposing huge costs on state and society in providing tertiary care for advanced chronic cases. Mortality due to the scourge is projected to go up from 730,000 in 2004 to 1.5 million in 2030. The evidence on the causes clearly points to the need to strengthen key policy goals - preventing new cases, offering low or no-cost treatment, improving quality of life or palliation. Arguably, the single biggest intervention that public policy can make is to tighten curbs on the use of tobacco, given that major cancers in Indian men are linked to it. It is worth pointing out that India has the world's highest number of oral cancers, linked to the tobacco chewing habit. In general, screening and early diagnosis for cancer will benefit both men and women. The unfortunate reality is that India cannot quickly scale up screening in a cost-effective manner, and must therefore focus on early detection to enhance survival rates.
Seeking out the best treatment - especially in expensive domestic corporate hospitals or facilities abroad - is an option open to a minority of Indians. The imperative is to improve access to diagnosis within the country, and subsidise costly medication. The High Level Expert Group of the Planning Commission on Universal Health Coverage has suggested a sound approach to improve access to cancer treatment. The Centre should unhesitatingly accept its recommendations and devote the funds necessary to equip health sub-centres in all areas to screen and refer patients to Primary Health Centres for detailed examination, laboratory sampling, breast and cervical examination. District hospitals and higher institutions in the public system should be equipped to offer surgery, therapy and palliative care. Equally vital is the suggestion that essential medicines be made available free to all patients, and paid for through enhanced public procurement. It is relevant to point out that effective prevention programmes, detection and advances in treatment have reduced cancer death rates significantly in America. The US policy has translated into prevention of more than a million deaths in two decades, as the American Cancer Society points out in its annual report for 2012. India needs more ultrasound machines, endoscopes and training for doctors in district hospitals, to drive down death rates. If Yuvraj Singh were to be the ambassador for such an agenda, speedy progress is possible.
Talk less, text more
Seven months from now, all mobile phone handsets sold in India, including the imported ones, will have to meet stringent electromagnetic emission limits. The yet to be notified regulations will make mobile handsets relatively less harmful to use compared with the ones sold prior to September 1. The decision to reduce the specific absorption rate (SAR) - the amount of radio frequency energy absorbed by the body when using a phone - is a prudent one. India has taken a leaf out of the United States Federal Communication Commission (FCC) by adopting a stricter SAR limit of 1.6 watts per kilogram averaged over a volume of 1 gram of tissue for the head. The SAR value currently in effect is 2 watts per kilogram averaged over a volume of 10 gram of tissue. Another significant aspect is the requirement to compulsorily mention the SAR value on every handset so that consumers are aware of it. Until now, companies have been tucking this information in the handset manuals or their websites. But the worse culprits are the cheap phones sourced from a few countries that have much higher emission levels than the currently permitted SAR limit. It is quite unlikely that even the mandatory requirement of having the SAR value embossed on every unit will prevent such gadgets from being sold.
The solution, therefore, is to spread and increase awareness of the possible risks of long-term exposure to radio frequency radiation. Radiowaves, unlike X-rays and gamma rays, are non-ionising in nature and do not have the energy to damage cellular DNA. Several studies, including a 2001 and 2006 follow-up Danish study, found no link between long-term use and risk of cancer. However, a 2009 Swedish study found such a link in those people who had used mobile phones for at least ten years, especially those below 20 years of age, even though the precise mechanism by which the cancer is caused is not known. Hence it is wise to adopt a precautionary approach to minimise radiation risk as there has been increased usage and for a longer duration. The percentage of children, including younger children, using mobile phones is also rising. It is a fact that close contact of the phone with the ear heats up the tissues after prolonged use. This can be eliminated and the risk greatly minimised by using mobiles only for short calls, using texting options, and relying on hands-free modes for communication. Needless to say, younger children should be discouraged from using cellular phones as their skulls are thinner than adults and the cells are likely to be more sensitive to mobile phone radiation as they are still in a growing state.
---
@Chandrakant - M no knighthood 😛
Seven months from now, all mobile phone handsets sold in India, including the imported ones, will have to meet stringent electromagnetic emission limits. The yet to be notified regulations will make mobile handsets relatively less harmful to use compared with the ones sold prior to September 1. The decision to reduce the specific absorption rate (SAR) - the amount of radio frequency energy absorbed by the body when using a phone - is a prudent one. India has taken a leaf out of the United States Federal Communication Commission (FCC) by adopting a stricter SAR limit of 1.6 watts per kilogram averaged over a volume of 1 gram of tissue for the head. The SAR value currently in effect is 2 watts per kilogram averaged over a volume of 10 gram of tissue. Another significant aspect is the requirement to compulsorily mention the SAR value on every handset so that consumers are aware of it. Until now, companies have been tucking this information in the handset manuals or their websites. But the worse culprits are the cheap phones sourced from a few countries that have much higher emission levels than the currently permitted SAR limit. It is quite unlikely that even the mandatory requirement of having the SAR value embossed on every unit will prevent such gadgets from being sold.
The solution, therefore, is to spread and increase awareness of the possible risks of long-term exposure to radio frequency radiation. Radiowaves, unlike X-rays and gamma rays, are non-ionising in nature and do not have the energy to damage cellular DNA. Several studies, including a 2001 and 2006 follow-up Danish study, found no link between long-term use and risk of cancer. However, a 2009 Swedish study found such a link in those people who had used mobile phones for at least ten years, especially those below 20 years of age, even though the precise mechanism by which the cancer is caused is not known. Hence it is wise to adopt a precautionary approach to minimise radiation risk as there has been increased usage and for a longer duration. The percentage of children, including younger children, using mobile phones is also rising. It is a fact that close contact of the phone with the ear heats up the tissues after prolonged use. This can be eliminated and the risk greatly minimised by using mobiles only for short calls, using texting options, and relying on hands-free modes for communication. Needless to say, younger children should be discouraged from using cellular phones as their skulls are thinner than adults and the cells are likely to be more sensitive to mobile phone radiation as they are still in a growing state.
---
@Chandrakant - M no knighthood 😛
Remedies for Misconduct in War Zones - NYTimes
Americans are barred from suing the government for misconduct in a war zone, there would be no way to hold officials accountable for even gross violations of constitutional rights in those situations. Such an outcome would do extraordinary damage to principles of law and provide untenable protection for officials, who claim a national security interest in shielding their misconduct.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is scheduled to rehear a case on this issue on Wednesday. Vance v. Rumsfeld involves two men who worked for an American security firm in Iraq and were detained by American military forces for three months and six weeks, respectively, after they expressed concern that the firm was involved with illegal activity, including weapons trafficking. They claimed that they were tortured by the military while in custody. They were eventually released with no charges filed.
Last summer, in a 2-to-1 vote, a panel of the appeals court ruled that the two men could sue government officials, including the former secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, for monetary damages for intentional mistreatment, even if that conduct happened in a war zone. Judge David Hamilton wrote that the wrongdoing alleged "violates the most basic terms of the constitutional compact between our government and the citizens of this country" - and that the suit was allowed under the landmark Bivens case, which lets citizens sue officials for damages for violating their constitutional rights.
The dissenter on the panel, Judge Daniel Manion, argued that previous Supreme Court rulings have been very cautious about extending the right to sue to new circumstances and that it should be up to Congress to address the "special factors" raised in this case. The dissent rests heavily on concerns about "the risk of the judiciary prying into matters of national security or disrupting the military's efficient execution of a war."
In a similar Bivens case involving Jose Padilla, a Fourth Circuit appeals court panel last month cited national security concerns in ruling that a citizen abused in the war on terrorism cannot sue for damages for the mistreatment.
The fundamental problem with this view is its failure to recognize the difference between judicial deference to the executive branch and an abdication of a court's responsibility to provide a check and balance. Bivens lawsuits are brought in those cases when there is no other remedy available. As Justice John Harlan wrote in 1971, it is "damages or nothing" when it is too late to keep the harm from occurring with a different kind of legal action. Imposing damages can also help deter similar misconduct.
Such suits are necessary to make sure the government is operating within the law. Merely claiming a national security interest does not allow officials to violate constitutional rights with impunity. The judges' duty is to defend the Constitution, without exception.
Americans are barred from suing the government for misconduct in a war zone, there would be no way to hold officials accountable for even gross violations of constitutional rights in those situations. Such an outcome would do extraordinary damage to principles of law and provide untenable protection for officials, who claim a national security interest in shielding their misconduct.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is scheduled to rehear a case on this issue on Wednesday. Vance v. Rumsfeld involves two men who worked for an American security firm in Iraq and were detained by American military forces for three months and six weeks, respectively, after they expressed concern that the firm was involved with illegal activity, including weapons trafficking. They claimed that they were tortured by the military while in custody. They were eventually released with no charges filed.
Last summer, in a 2-to-1 vote, a panel of the appeals court ruled that the two men could sue government officials, including the former secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, for monetary damages for intentional mistreatment, even if that conduct happened in a war zone. Judge David Hamilton wrote that the wrongdoing alleged "violates the most basic terms of the constitutional compact between our government and the citizens of this country" - and that the suit was allowed under the landmark Bivens case, which lets citizens sue officials for damages for violating their constitutional rights.
The dissenter on the panel, Judge Daniel Manion, argued that previous Supreme Court rulings have been very cautious about extending the right to sue to new circumstances and that it should be up to Congress to address the "special factors" raised in this case. The dissent rests heavily on concerns about "the risk of the judiciary prying into matters of national security or disrupting the military's efficient execution of a war."
In a similar Bivens case involving Jose Padilla, a Fourth Circuit appeals court panel last month cited national security concerns in ruling that a citizen abused in the war on terrorism cannot sue for damages for the mistreatment.
The fundamental problem with this view is its failure to recognize the difference between judicial deference to the executive branch and an abdication of a court's responsibility to provide a check and balance. Bivens lawsuits are brought in those cases when there is no other remedy available. As Justice John Harlan wrote in 1971, it is "damages or nothing" when it is too late to keep the harm from occurring with a different kind of legal action. Imposing damages can also help deter similar misconduct.
Such suits are necessary to make sure the government is operating within the law. Merely claiming a national security interest does not allow officials to violate constitutional rights with impunity. The judges' duty is to defend the Constitution, without exception.
Film publicity in Hollywood - Economist
THIS awards season is the first in many years to applaud a silent feature film. "The Artist", described by its director Michel Havanicius as "a love letter to cinema", recently won a Golden Globe for best picture (comedy or musical) and is up for ten Academy Awards, including the best-picture gong. A new exhibition at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts entitled "The Birth of Promotion: Inventing Film Publicity in the Silent-Film Era" dovetails neatly with the public's renewed interest in the silver screen. The show concentrates on promotional materials from the silent-film era, revealing the humble beginnings of film publicity in Hollywood.
The exhibition works chronologically from the origins of film to the days when silent films gave way to sound and the Golden Age of Hollywood. The earliest objects on show are some text-heavy fliers for lectures and slides from the pre-cinema era. These primitive moving pictures were often works of science rather than entertainment, with film-makers experimenting with locomotion or human vision. Character and narrative would be introduced later. This text-heaviness persists on fliers for the earliest film serials, which were short episodes with a central character, such as "The Hazards of Helen". Besides photos of the eponymous Helen, the fliers feature four lengthy paragraphs describing her adventures.
These early offerings now appear crude when viewed alongside the Path film posters that followed just a few years later. Simplicity ruled with these, with posters featuring a striking visual, a sense of atmosphere and the film's title. Many have the actress Pearl White (who starred in "The Perils of Pauline", pictured above) drawn in a rich array of colours. Similar techniques were in play at Fox (later 20th Century Fox); artists such as Louis D. Fancher, Adrian Gil-Spear and George Hood created their gouache posters from the mid-teens.
The newly founded studios were quick to capitalise on star power. Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks, Rudolf Valentino and Lillian Gish are all well-represented here, but the exhibition includes lesser-known films such as the juvenile comedy "Dragon Alley", and "Flaming Crisis", which promised "a notable cast of coloured artists". (Unfortunately, little information is available for the latter, except that it was a Hollywood-style production with an audience heavily proscribed by Jim Crow-era regulations.) For A-list films the studios rolled out merchandise, too. Among the more novel items is a fake hotel key with a tag to promote Chaplin and Pola Negri in "Hotel Imperial". Celebrity product endorsements are another highlight. A print ad shows Douglas Fairbanks shilling for yerba mat (an herbal tea) as an extension of his role in "The Gaucho". Actresses served as early spokesmodels for cosmetics-a tub of Colleen Moore Face Powder from the Owl Drug Company and a sample of Mary Pickford Cleansing Cream are nostalgic examples.
But perhaps the most instructive items in the exhibition are the business letters and catalogues that distributors sent to theatres in advance of film releases. One letter, from David O. Selznick's Select Films, offers the Adele Theatre in Eamon, Georgia, the right to screen four films a week for $25 and an additional weekly newsreel for free. A list of available films offers titles, actor names, release dates and plot summaries, as well as "Catchlines for Profit" for theatres to entice viewers. A broadsheet tells theatre managers and owners that "The difference between capacity houses and ordinary returns can be described in one word - E-X-P-L-O-I-T-A-T-I-O-N."
Distributors meant for theatres to exploit their well-planned advertising campaigns. But there was an element of sexual exploitation in the images, too. The promotional materials on show pre-date the Hays Code, which brought censorship rules to Hollywood, so there are plenty of bare shoulders and slinky gowns. One image for Rudolf Valentino's "Son of the Sheik" features Valentino standing behind the actress Vilma Banky with his hands cupping her shoulders. The eye is drawn to her bust, clad only in what appears to be a lacy brassiere. A handful of "exploitation films" reveal these seductive techniques, like "The Unchastened Woman", starring Theda Barr, and Clara Bow's "Poisoned Paradise", which was billed as "The Forbidden Story of Monte Carlo".
By the end the exhibition shifts to publicity for sound films around 1930, with ads promising "human dialogue and unique sound effects". This hasty coda brings the silent era to an unceremonious end. But this exhibition is a lovingly prepared tribute all the same. There are sentimental touches-the title cards are re-created in the style of silent film inter-titles, with filigreed borders and white text on black cardstock. It seems fitting that Hollywood should be aflutter this season for a film that recalls those great, early days.
THIS awards season is the first in many years to applaud a silent feature film. "The Artist", described by its director Michel Havanicius as "a love letter to cinema", recently won a Golden Globe for best picture (comedy or musical) and is up for ten Academy Awards, including the best-picture gong. A new exhibition at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts entitled "The Birth of Promotion: Inventing Film Publicity in the Silent-Film Era" dovetails neatly with the public's renewed interest in the silver screen. The show concentrates on promotional materials from the silent-film era, revealing the humble beginnings of film publicity in Hollywood.
The exhibition works chronologically from the origins of film to the days when silent films gave way to sound and the Golden Age of Hollywood. The earliest objects on show are some text-heavy fliers for lectures and slides from the pre-cinema era. These primitive moving pictures were often works of science rather than entertainment, with film-makers experimenting with locomotion or human vision. Character and narrative would be introduced later. This text-heaviness persists on fliers for the earliest film serials, which were short episodes with a central character, such as "The Hazards of Helen". Besides photos of the eponymous Helen, the fliers feature four lengthy paragraphs describing her adventures.
These early offerings now appear crude when viewed alongside the Path film posters that followed just a few years later. Simplicity ruled with these, with posters featuring a striking visual, a sense of atmosphere and the film's title. Many have the actress Pearl White (who starred in "The Perils of Pauline", pictured above) drawn in a rich array of colours. Similar techniques were in play at Fox (later 20th Century Fox); artists such as Louis D. Fancher, Adrian Gil-Spear and George Hood created their gouache posters from the mid-teens.
The newly founded studios were quick to capitalise on star power. Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks, Rudolf Valentino and Lillian Gish are all well-represented here, but the exhibition includes lesser-known films such as the juvenile comedy "Dragon Alley", and "Flaming Crisis", which promised "a notable cast of coloured artists". (Unfortunately, little information is available for the latter, except that it was a Hollywood-style production with an audience heavily proscribed by Jim Crow-era regulations.) For A-list films the studios rolled out merchandise, too. Among the more novel items is a fake hotel key with a tag to promote Chaplin and Pola Negri in "Hotel Imperial". Celebrity product endorsements are another highlight. A print ad shows Douglas Fairbanks shilling for yerba mat (an herbal tea) as an extension of his role in "The Gaucho". Actresses served as early spokesmodels for cosmetics-a tub of Colleen Moore Face Powder from the Owl Drug Company and a sample of Mary Pickford Cleansing Cream are nostalgic examples.
But perhaps the most instructive items in the exhibition are the business letters and catalogues that distributors sent to theatres in advance of film releases. One letter, from David O. Selznick's Select Films, offers the Adele Theatre in Eamon, Georgia, the right to screen four films a week for $25 and an additional weekly newsreel for free. A list of available films offers titles, actor names, release dates and plot summaries, as well as "Catchlines for Profit" for theatres to entice viewers. A broadsheet tells theatre managers and owners that "The difference between capacity houses and ordinary returns can be described in one word - E-X-P-L-O-I-T-A-T-I-O-N."
Distributors meant for theatres to exploit their well-planned advertising campaigns. But there was an element of sexual exploitation in the images, too. The promotional materials on show pre-date the Hays Code, which brought censorship rules to Hollywood, so there are plenty of bare shoulders and slinky gowns. One image for Rudolf Valentino's "Son of the Sheik" features Valentino standing behind the actress Vilma Banky with his hands cupping her shoulders. The eye is drawn to her bust, clad only in what appears to be a lacy brassiere. A handful of "exploitation films" reveal these seductive techniques, like "The Unchastened Woman", starring Theda Barr, and Clara Bow's "Poisoned Paradise", which was billed as "The Forbidden Story of Monte Carlo".
By the end the exhibition shifts to publicity for sound films around 1930, with ads promising "human dialogue and unique sound effects". This hasty coda brings the silent era to an unceremonious end. But this exhibition is a lovingly prepared tribute all the same. There are sentimental touches-the title cards are re-created in the style of silent film inter-titles, with filigreed borders and white text on black cardstock. It seems fitting that Hollywood should be aflutter this season for a film that recalls those great, early days.
How 'Shadow Inventory' Is Killing the Housing Market - TIME.com
Recently, there have been lots of positive signs coming out of the real estate market. Foreclosure rates are down, housing starts are up, and homes have appreciated in value in some markets for the first time since 2006. Even so, two reports surfaced last week indicating that, for the nation as a whole, home prices dropped by 3.5% to 5% in 2011. And one factor hurting the prices of homes that are for sale is the enormous number of homes that aren't for sale - but that should be.
The Case-Shiller housing index was released last week, stating that home prices had dropped 3.7% in 2011, compared with the previous year. CoreLogic, a real estate research firm, also recently released a report estimating that prices had dropped in 2011 - by 5%.
"While overall prices declined by almost 5% in 2011, nondistressed prices showed only a small decrease," said Mark Fleming, CoreLogic's chief economist. "Until distressed sales in the market recede, we will see continued downward pressure on prices."
Most housing experts agree: prices won't rise until all distressed inventory (a.k.a. foreclosures and short sales) is moved through the market. Distressed sales keep prices low because banks want to get rid of such properties asap, and they're willing to sell at a loss so long as the homes are out of their hands.
Exactly how many foreclosures need to be cleared out of the system is somewhat unknown, however. While about 3.5 million homes are officially for sale at any particular time, millions of homes that otherwise would be for sale are currently off the market. It's these properties that are known as "shadow inventory."
There are many reasons why homes that could be for sale aren't. Some are stalled in the foreclosure process, which can easily take more than a year in some states. Some banks decide against putting certain homes on the market either because they can't process all their distressed inventory, or because flooding the market would drive prices further down. Technically, shadow inventory also refers to homeowners who would like to sell but are waiting for market conditions to improve.
How much shadow inventory exists? No one knows for sure. Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development released the January Scorecard, which reported that the number of homes left off the market decreased from 3.9 million units at the beginning of 2011 to 3.6 million at the end of the year. These figures include homes that defaulted through a Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac loan. While lenders who participated in such loans are required to report data regarding how much inventory is left off the market, other lenders are under no such obligation. Therefore, it's difficult for housing analysts to estimate just how much shadow inventory is out there at any given time. According to the Wall Street Journal, the number could be anywhere from 3 million to 10 million homes.
About 4.4 million homes were sold in 2011, according to Bloomberg. There are about 3.5 million homes on the market now, and if you were to add millions and millions of shadow inventory homes into the mix, it would take years to sell all these properties to get to a point where the market was "normal."
The Administration recognizes that distressed inventory is holding back the housing recovery and has made efforts to minimize the number of homes facing foreclosure. Recently, the Home Affordable Modification Program was expanded so that more underwater homeowners would qualify for assistance. President Obama is pushing a mortgage-refinancing program to allow homeowners to reduce how much principal they owe, and the Fed recommended that lawmakers enact a government-sponsored program to rent out foreclosed properties. Owners who defaulted on their loan could potentially rent their old homes, which might otherwise be sold by the banks at a loss or fall into the category of vacant shadow inventory. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have also revised their forbearance program that will allow owners who've lost their job to opt out of paying their mortgages for up to a year.
It's hard to gauge which, if any, of these programs will make much of a difference in the housing market. Considering the staggering amount of distressed homes and shadow-inventory properties around the country, there really is no quick-fix solution - and likely, no way that housing prices are going to rebound substantially in the near future.
Recently, there have been lots of positive signs coming out of the real estate market. Foreclosure rates are down, housing starts are up, and homes have appreciated in value in some markets for the first time since 2006. Even so, two reports surfaced last week indicating that, for the nation as a whole, home prices dropped by 3.5% to 5% in 2011. And one factor hurting the prices of homes that are for sale is the enormous number of homes that aren't for sale - but that should be.
The Case-Shiller housing index was released last week, stating that home prices had dropped 3.7% in 2011, compared with the previous year. CoreLogic, a real estate research firm, also recently released a report estimating that prices had dropped in 2011 - by 5%.
"While overall prices declined by almost 5% in 2011, nondistressed prices showed only a small decrease," said Mark Fleming, CoreLogic's chief economist. "Until distressed sales in the market recede, we will see continued downward pressure on prices."
Most housing experts agree: prices won't rise until all distressed inventory (a.k.a. foreclosures and short sales) is moved through the market. Distressed sales keep prices low because banks want to get rid of such properties asap, and they're willing to sell at a loss so long as the homes are out of their hands.
Exactly how many foreclosures need to be cleared out of the system is somewhat unknown, however. While about 3.5 million homes are officially for sale at any particular time, millions of homes that otherwise would be for sale are currently off the market. It's these properties that are known as "shadow inventory."
There are many reasons why homes that could be for sale aren't. Some are stalled in the foreclosure process, which can easily take more than a year in some states. Some banks decide against putting certain homes on the market either because they can't process all their distressed inventory, or because flooding the market would drive prices further down. Technically, shadow inventory also refers to homeowners who would like to sell but are waiting for market conditions to improve.
How much shadow inventory exists? No one knows for sure. Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development released the January Scorecard, which reported that the number of homes left off the market decreased from 3.9 million units at the beginning of 2011 to 3.6 million at the end of the year. These figures include homes that defaulted through a Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac loan. While lenders who participated in such loans are required to report data regarding how much inventory is left off the market, other lenders are under no such obligation. Therefore, it's difficult for housing analysts to estimate just how much shadow inventory is out there at any given time. According to the Wall Street Journal, the number could be anywhere from 3 million to 10 million homes.
About 4.4 million homes were sold in 2011, according to Bloomberg. There are about 3.5 million homes on the market now, and if you were to add millions and millions of shadow inventory homes into the mix, it would take years to sell all these properties to get to a point where the market was "normal."
The Administration recognizes that distressed inventory is holding back the housing recovery and has made efforts to minimize the number of homes facing foreclosure. Recently, the Home Affordable Modification Program was expanded so that more underwater homeowners would qualify for assistance. President Obama is pushing a mortgage-refinancing program to allow homeowners to reduce how much principal they owe, and the Fed recommended that lawmakers enact a government-sponsored program to rent out foreclosed properties. Owners who defaulted on their loan could potentially rent their old homes, which might otherwise be sold by the banks at a loss or fall into the category of vacant shadow inventory. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have also revised their forbearance program that will allow owners who've lost their job to opt out of paying their mortgages for up to a year.
It's hard to gauge which, if any, of these programs will make much of a difference in the housing market. Considering the staggering amount of distressed homes and shadow-inventory properties around the country, there really is no quick-fix solution - and likely, no way that housing prices are going to rebound substantially in the near future.