Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Amazon deforestation brings loss of microbial communities

Amazon deforestation brings loss of microbial communities [ Back to EurekAlert! ] Public release date: 24-Dec-2012
[ | E-mail | Share Share ]

Contact: Klaus Nusslein
nusslein@microbio.umass.edu
413-545-1356
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

An international team has found that a troubling net loss in diversity among the microbial organisms responsible for a functioning ecosystem is accompanying deforestation in the Amazon rainforest, leaving it less able to deal with added outside stress

AMHERST, Mass. An international team of microbiologists led by Klaus Nsslein of the University of Massachusetts Amherst has found that a troubling net loss in diversity among the microbial organisms responsible for a functioning ecosystem is accompanying deforestation in the Amazon rainforest.

Nsslein, an expert in tropical rain forest microbial soil communities, says, "We found that after rainforest conversion to agricultural pastures, bacterial communities were significantly different from those of forest soils. Not only did the pasture soils show increased species numbers, these species were also less related to one another than in rainforest soil. This is important because the combination of lost forest species and the homogenization of pasture communities together signal that this ecosystem is now a lot less capable of dealing with additional outside stress."

He and colleagues studied a large farm site over the past four years at the frontier where farmers drive agriculture into pristine rainforest in Rondonia, Brazil, to convert rainforest to agricultural use. Findings in part validated previous research showing that bacteria in the soil became more diverse after conversion to pasture. However, in its fourth year, their study overcame limitations of earlier investigations to show that changes in microbial diversity occurred over larger geographic scales. Results appear in the current issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In addition to Nsslein at UMass Amherst, the research group includes first author Jorge Rodrigues at the University of Texas at Arlington with Brendan Bohannan at the University of Oregon, James Tiedje at Michigan State University, and others at the University of Sao Paulo. Lead investigators Nsslein and Rodrigues emphasize that the study is an equal collaboration among the four research groups.

Findings do not support earlier study conclusions, instead they show that the loss of restricted ranges for different bacteria communities results in a biotic homogenization and net loss of diversity overall. Scientists worry that the loss of genetic variation in bacteria across a converted forest could reduce ecosystem resilience. The researchers hope their work will provide valuable data to those making decisions about the future of the Amazon rainforest.

Biologist and first author Jorge Rodrigues of the University of Texas at Arlington adds, "We have known for a long time that conversion of rainforest land in the Amazon for agriculture results in a loss of biodiversity in plants and animals. Now we know that microbial communities which are so important to the ecosystem also suffer significant losses."

As Nsslein and colleagues point out, the Amazon represents half of the world's rainforest and is home to one-third of Earth's species, yet the Amazon has one of the highest rates of deforestation. Agriculture is one of the largest and most dynamic parts of Brazil's economy, so dealing with standing rainforests in the tropics will be tricky, but nevertheless, it is vital that the issue is tackled."

Rodrigues says he and colleagues are currently compiling findings about the potential for recovery of the microbial diversity after pastureland is abandoned and returned to "secondary forest." At the same time, Nsslein and colleagues are leading an effort to investigate how the redundancy of functions provided by soil microbes provides resilience to the effects of agricultural land use change to support a stressed ecosystem to recover stability.

"Whether bacterial diversity will completely recover from ecosystem conversion will depend in part on whether the taxa lost due to conversion are truly locally extinct or whether they are present in the pasture sites but of such low abundance that they are undetectable in our study," the authors write.

###

This work was supported by grants from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture and the Research Support Foundation of the State of So Paulo.


[ Back to EurekAlert! ] [ | E-mail | Share Share ]

?


AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.


Amazon deforestation brings loss of microbial communities [ Back to EurekAlert! ] Public release date: 24-Dec-2012
[ | E-mail | Share Share ]

Contact: Klaus Nusslein
nusslein@microbio.umass.edu
413-545-1356
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

An international team has found that a troubling net loss in diversity among the microbial organisms responsible for a functioning ecosystem is accompanying deforestation in the Amazon rainforest, leaving it less able to deal with added outside stress

AMHERST, Mass. An international team of microbiologists led by Klaus Nsslein of the University of Massachusetts Amherst has found that a troubling net loss in diversity among the microbial organisms responsible for a functioning ecosystem is accompanying deforestation in the Amazon rainforest.

Nsslein, an expert in tropical rain forest microbial soil communities, says, "We found that after rainforest conversion to agricultural pastures, bacterial communities were significantly different from those of forest soils. Not only did the pasture soils show increased species numbers, these species were also less related to one another than in rainforest soil. This is important because the combination of lost forest species and the homogenization of pasture communities together signal that this ecosystem is now a lot less capable of dealing with additional outside stress."

He and colleagues studied a large farm site over the past four years at the frontier where farmers drive agriculture into pristine rainforest in Rondonia, Brazil, to convert rainforest to agricultural use. Findings in part validated previous research showing that bacteria in the soil became more diverse after conversion to pasture. However, in its fourth year, their study overcame limitations of earlier investigations to show that changes in microbial diversity occurred over larger geographic scales. Results appear in the current issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In addition to Nsslein at UMass Amherst, the research group includes first author Jorge Rodrigues at the University of Texas at Arlington with Brendan Bohannan at the University of Oregon, James Tiedje at Michigan State University, and others at the University of Sao Paulo. Lead investigators Nsslein and Rodrigues emphasize that the study is an equal collaboration among the four research groups.

Findings do not support earlier study conclusions, instead they show that the loss of restricted ranges for different bacteria communities results in a biotic homogenization and net loss of diversity overall. Scientists worry that the loss of genetic variation in bacteria across a converted forest could reduce ecosystem resilience. The researchers hope their work will provide valuable data to those making decisions about the future of the Amazon rainforest.

Biologist and first author Jorge Rodrigues of the University of Texas at Arlington adds, "We have known for a long time that conversion of rainforest land in the Amazon for agriculture results in a loss of biodiversity in plants and animals. Now we know that microbial communities which are so important to the ecosystem also suffer significant losses."

As Nsslein and colleagues point out, the Amazon represents half of the world's rainforest and is home to one-third of Earth's species, yet the Amazon has one of the highest rates of deforestation. Agriculture is one of the largest and most dynamic parts of Brazil's economy, so dealing with standing rainforests in the tropics will be tricky, but nevertheless, it is vital that the issue is tackled."

Rodrigues says he and colleagues are currently compiling findings about the potential for recovery of the microbial diversity after pastureland is abandoned and returned to "secondary forest." At the same time, Nsslein and colleagues are leading an effort to investigate how the redundancy of functions provided by soil microbes provides resilience to the effects of agricultural land use change to support a stressed ecosystem to recover stability.

"Whether bacterial diversity will completely recover from ecosystem conversion will depend in part on whether the taxa lost due to conversion are truly locally extinct or whether they are present in the pasture sites but of such low abundance that they are undetectable in our study," the authors write.

###

This work was supported by grants from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture and the Research Support Foundation of the State of So Paulo.


[ Back to EurekAlert! ] [ | E-mail | Share Share ]

?


AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.


Source: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-12/uoma-adb122012.php

christina hendricks lifelock camp david hawaii weather the jerk lake havasu halo 4

Monday, December 24, 2012

PCR's guide to video conferencing | The latest ... - PCR-online.biz

PCR's guide to video conferencing

We take a look at some of the latest options available to keep users and businesses connected.

SCOPIA VC240 - price varies
Distributor: Midwich
THEY SAY: The SCOPIA VC240 high-definition desktop video conferencing system integrates advanced video conferencing into a Samsung high-resolution 24-inch LCD monitor.
SPECS: 23.6-inch widescreen monitor, 1920x1080 screen resolution, 720P live video, advanced screen layouts.

LIFE CHAT LX-3000 - ?24.99
Distributor: Gem Distribution, Ingram Micro, Westcoast
THEY SAY: Sit back with the LifeChat LX-3000 and enjoy the quality digital sound, made even better with total-comfort leatherette ear pads. With the USB connection, you can get plugged in fast and when you?re ready to talk, the noise- cancelling microphone makes sure you?re heard crystal clear.
SPECS: USB connection, leatherette ear pads, six-foot cable, noise- cancelling microphone.

PLANTRONICS CALISTO P620-M - ?119.99
Distributor: Micro-P
THEY SAY: The first wireless speakerphone designed for unified communications, Calisto 620 seamlessly integrates calls from laptops, smartphones or tablets in a lightweight portable solution that is hassle-free and sounds great.
SPECS: Bluetooth mini USB adapter, up to seven-hours talk time, 360- degree room coverage, PC wideband audio, compact and wireless design.

LOGITECH CONFERENCE CAM - ?199
Distributor: Gem Distribution, Spire Technology
THEY SAY: Combines HD 1080p 30 frames per second video with high- quality full-duplex speakerphone clarity for business-grade video conferencing. Now groups can collaborate over video from anywhere ? no more competing for those overbooked conference room systems or huddling around a single PC just to have a video meeting.
SPECS: Motorised pan, tilt and zoom, integrated onmi-directional speaker with eight-foot range, 1080p HD video calling, Carl Zeiss Optics lens, ten-foot range remote control.

LOGITECH HD PRO C920 - ?99
Distributor: Gem Distribution, Spire Technology
THEY SAY: The C920 is the first webcam with UVC H.264 technology ? the only webcam that enables true HD 1080p video on Skype. It takes the bandwidth off your PC with UVC H.264 encoding on board and lets users enjoy full HD at the highest resolution quality ? HD 1080p at 30 frames per second.
SPECS: Full HD 1080P video calling, Logitech Fluid Crystal technology, Carl Zeiss lens, built-in dual stereo mics with auto noise reduction.

PLANTRONICS MDA200 - ?76.61
Distributor: Micro-P
THEY SAY: Designed to combat communications challenges, the MDA200 headset communications hub lets users manage PC voice and multimedia, while still maintaining connectivity to their desk phone.
SPECS: Remote call control, wideband audio, true voice clarity, one touch answer functionality, plug- and-play connectivity.

SCOPIA XT1000 - price varies
Distributor: Gem Distribution, Ingram Micro, Westcoast
THEY SAY: Featuring a 720p HD sensor, the LifeCam HD 6000 automatically sharpens your images with auto focus while TrueColor adjusts exposure for bright, vibrant footage. Plus, you?re sure to catch every angle with the 360-degree lens rotation while the widescreen presents a remarkably cinematic feel.
SPECS: Mobile HD video, 720p resolution, plastic element lens, noise reduction microphone, TrueColour technology, auto focus.

LIFECHAT LX-2000 - ?19.99
Distributor: Gem Distribution, Ingram Micro, Westcoast
THEY SAY: The behind-the-head design provides convenient comfort that won?t mess up your hair. And, adjusting the volume or muting the microphone is effortless, thanks to inline volume and microphone controls. Time to go? Because the set is foldable, you can swiftly store the LifeChat LX-2000 for travel.
SPECS: Foldable design, behind-the- head frame, inline volume and microphone controls.

LIFECAM CINEMA - ?35.65
Distributor: Gem Distribution, Ingram Micro, Westcoast
THEY SAY: Don?t miss a thing ? enjoy high-quality 720p HD widescreen video together with crystal clear audio, with the LifeCam Cinema.
SPECS: HD video, 720p resolution, glass element lens, noise reduction microphone, TrueColour technology, auto focus.

SUPERIOR SOUND STEREO HEADSET - ?14.99
Distributor: Group Gear
THEY SAY: This high-performance headset is designed for ultimate comfort, whilst supporting voice recognition applications and is fully compatible with VOIP applications such as Skype.
SPECS: 20hz ? 20Khz frequency response, 110dB/mW sensitivity, 32ohm impedance, 4m cable.

ASUS XTION MOTION SENSOR - ?105.99
Distributor: VIP Distribution
THEY SAY: The world?s first and exclusive professional PC motion sensing development solution. The Xtion PRO development solution allows developers to apply the latest motion-sensing technology in various applications and industries such as education, medical, conferences, games and many more.
SPECS: The Xtion tracks the user?s hand motions without any delay, which turns their hand into a controller. With RGB, Xtion can capture the user?s image, which is useful for human detection in video conferencing.

PLANTRONICS BLACKWIRE C310-M - ?27.90
Distributor: Micro-P
THEY SAY: Simple-to-use, comfortable and durable, the Blackwire C310-M USB headset is the perfect choice for conference calls, web-based training, and PC multimedia applications.
SPECS: Inline volume and mic controls, indicator lights, dynamic EQ, noise-cancelling microphone, wideband audio.

CONTACTS
Gem Distribution: 01279 822822
Group Gear: 0121 503 0666
Ingram Micro: 0871 973 3000
Micro-P: 01282 776776
Midwich: 01379 649200
Spire Technology: 01202 810302
VIP Computers: 0871 622 7500
Westcoast: 0118 912 6000

Want to receive up-to-the-minute tech news straight to your inbox? Then click here?to sign up for the completely free PCR Daily Digest and Newsflash email services. You can also follow PCR on Twitter?and Facebook.

Tags: Retail, Distribution, sector guide, video conferencing

blog comments powered by

Source: http://www.pcr-online.biz/news/read/pcr-s-guide-to-video-conferencing/029873

free agents nfl 2012 milwaukee bucks bear grylls us news law school rankings gael glen rice jr bars

WSJ: Acer Iconia B1 tablet hitting in early 2013, priced at around $99

Image

More info on that ultra budget tablet from Acer that made a sketchy FCC appearance roughly a week or so ago: The Wall Street Journal's been chatting with a "person with direct knowledge," who offered up an intriguing price tag of "around $99" for the Iconia B1. The slate is said to feature similar specs as older Amazon and Barnes & Noble devices, including a 7-inch 1,024 x 600 display and a 1.2GHz processor. As for availability, the device will apparently be targeted at developing nations, with no word on whether it will make it to the US.

Filed under: ,

Comments

Source: The Wall Street Journal

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2012/12/24/acer-iconia-b1/

jay z patsy cline pierre thomas beyonce gives birth portlandia kelly clarkson playoffs

Two debacles in 12 hours (cbsnews)

Share With Friends: Share on FacebookTweet ThisPost to Google-BuzzSend on GmailPost to Linked-InSubscribe to This Feed | Rss To Twitter | Politics - Top Stories News, RSS Feeds and Widgets via Feedzilla.

Source: http://news.feedzilla.com/en_us/stories/politics/top-stories/272587786?client_source=feed&format=rss

extremely loud and incredibly close south carolina primary squirrel appreciation day billy beane kathy griffin road conditions newt gingrich wives

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Decision to give a group effort in the brain

Decision to give a group effort in the brain [ Back to EurekAlert! ] Public release date: 23-Dec-2012
[ | E-mail | Share Share ]

Contact: Karl Leif Bates
karl.bates@duke.edu
919-681-8054
Duke University

DURHAM, N.C. -- A monkey would probably never agree that it is better to give than to receive, but they do apparently get some reward from giving to another monkey.

During a task in which rhesus macaques had control over whether they or another monkey would receive a squirt of fruit juice, three distinct areas of the brain were found to be involved in weighing benefits to oneself against benefits to the other, according to new research by Duke University researchers.

The team used sensitive electrodes to detect the activity of individual neurons as the animals weighed different scenarios, such as whether to reward themselves, the other monkey or nobody at all. Three areas of the brain were seen to weigh the problem differently depending on the social context of the reward. The research appears Dec. 24 in the journal Nature Neuroscience.

Using a computer screen to allocate juice rewards, the monkeys preferred to reward themselves first and foremost. But they also chose to reward the other monkey when it was either that or nothing for either of them. They also were more likely to give the reward to a monkey they knew over one they didn't, preferred to give to lower status than higher status monkeys, and had almost no interest in giving the juice to an inanimate object.

Calculating the social aspects of the reward system seems to be a combination of action by two centers involved in calculating all sorts of rewards and a third center that adds the social dimension, according to lead researcher Michael Platt, director of the Duke Institute for Brain Sciences and the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience.

The orbital frontal cortex, right above the eyes, was activated when calculating rewards to the self. The anterior cingulate sulcus in the middle of the top of the brain seemed to calculate giving up a reward. But both centers appear "divorced from social context," Platt said. A third area, the anterior cingulate gyrus (ACCg), seemed to "care a lot about what happened to the other monkey," Platt said.

Based on results of various combinations of the reward-giving scenario the monkeys were put through, it would appear that neurons in the ACCg encode both the giving and receiving of rewards, and do so in a remarkably similar way.

The use of single-neuron electrodes to measure the activity of brain areas gives a much more precise picture than brain imaging, Platt said. Even the best imaging available now is "a six-second snapshot of tens of thousands of neurons," which are typically operating in milliseconds.

What the team has seen happening is consistent with other studies of damaged ACCg regions in which animals lost their typical hesitation about retrieving food when facing social choices. This same region of the brain is active in people when they empathize with someone else.

"Many neurons in the anterior cingulate gyrus (ACCg) respond both when monkeys choose a drink for themselves and when they choose to give a drink to another monkey," Platt said. "One might view these as sort of mirror neurons for the reward system." The region is active as an animal merely watches another animal receiving a reward without having one themselves.

The research is another piece of the puzzle as neuroscientists search for the roots of charity and social behavior in our species and others. There have been two schools of thought about how the social reward system is set up, Platt said. One holds that there is generic circuitry for rewards that has been adapted to our social behavior because it helped humans and other social animals like monkeys thrive. Another school holds that social behavior is so important to humans and other highly social animals like monkeys that there may be some special circuits for it, Platt said.

This finding, in macaques that have only a very distant common ancestor with us and are "not a particularly prosocial animal," suggests that "this specialized social circuitry evolved a long time ago presumably to support cooperative behavior," Platt said.

###

The research was supported by grants from the Ruth K. Broad Biomedical Foundation, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Institute of Mental Health (MH095894), and Department of Defense (W81XWH-11-1-0584).

CITATION: "Neuronal reference frames for social decisions in primate frontal cortex," Steve W.C. Chang, Jean-Franois Garipy, Michael L. Platt. Nature Neuroscience, Dec. 24, 2012. Doi: 10.1038/nn.3287



[ Back to EurekAlert! ] [ | E-mail | Share Share ]

?


AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.


Decision to give a group effort in the brain [ Back to EurekAlert! ] Public release date: 23-Dec-2012
[ | E-mail | Share Share ]

Contact: Karl Leif Bates
karl.bates@duke.edu
919-681-8054
Duke University

DURHAM, N.C. -- A monkey would probably never agree that it is better to give than to receive, but they do apparently get some reward from giving to another monkey.

During a task in which rhesus macaques had control over whether they or another monkey would receive a squirt of fruit juice, three distinct areas of the brain were found to be involved in weighing benefits to oneself against benefits to the other, according to new research by Duke University researchers.

The team used sensitive electrodes to detect the activity of individual neurons as the animals weighed different scenarios, such as whether to reward themselves, the other monkey or nobody at all. Three areas of the brain were seen to weigh the problem differently depending on the social context of the reward. The research appears Dec. 24 in the journal Nature Neuroscience.

Using a computer screen to allocate juice rewards, the monkeys preferred to reward themselves first and foremost. But they also chose to reward the other monkey when it was either that or nothing for either of them. They also were more likely to give the reward to a monkey they knew over one they didn't, preferred to give to lower status than higher status monkeys, and had almost no interest in giving the juice to an inanimate object.

Calculating the social aspects of the reward system seems to be a combination of action by two centers involved in calculating all sorts of rewards and a third center that adds the social dimension, according to lead researcher Michael Platt, director of the Duke Institute for Brain Sciences and the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience.

The orbital frontal cortex, right above the eyes, was activated when calculating rewards to the self. The anterior cingulate sulcus in the middle of the top of the brain seemed to calculate giving up a reward. But both centers appear "divorced from social context," Platt said. A third area, the anterior cingulate gyrus (ACCg), seemed to "care a lot about what happened to the other monkey," Platt said.

Based on results of various combinations of the reward-giving scenario the monkeys were put through, it would appear that neurons in the ACCg encode both the giving and receiving of rewards, and do so in a remarkably similar way.

The use of single-neuron electrodes to measure the activity of brain areas gives a much more precise picture than brain imaging, Platt said. Even the best imaging available now is "a six-second snapshot of tens of thousands of neurons," which are typically operating in milliseconds.

What the team has seen happening is consistent with other studies of damaged ACCg regions in which animals lost their typical hesitation about retrieving food when facing social choices. This same region of the brain is active in people when they empathize with someone else.

"Many neurons in the anterior cingulate gyrus (ACCg) respond both when monkeys choose a drink for themselves and when they choose to give a drink to another monkey," Platt said. "One might view these as sort of mirror neurons for the reward system." The region is active as an animal merely watches another animal receiving a reward without having one themselves.

The research is another piece of the puzzle as neuroscientists search for the roots of charity and social behavior in our species and others. There have been two schools of thought about how the social reward system is set up, Platt said. One holds that there is generic circuitry for rewards that has been adapted to our social behavior because it helped humans and other social animals like monkeys thrive. Another school holds that social behavior is so important to humans and other highly social animals like monkeys that there may be some special circuits for it, Platt said.

This finding, in macaques that have only a very distant common ancestor with us and are "not a particularly prosocial animal," suggests that "this specialized social circuitry evolved a long time ago presumably to support cooperative behavior," Platt said.

###

The research was supported by grants from the Ruth K. Broad Biomedical Foundation, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Institute of Mental Health (MH095894), and Department of Defense (W81XWH-11-1-0584).

CITATION: "Neuronal reference frames for social decisions in primate frontal cortex," Steve W.C. Chang, Jean-Franois Garipy, Michael L. Platt. Nature Neuroscience, Dec. 24, 2012. Doi: 10.1038/nn.3287



[ Back to EurekAlert! ] [ | E-mail | Share Share ]

?


AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.


Source: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-12/du-dtg122112.php

carole king crystal renn matilda cab calloway melissa gilbert deadliest catch dwts

Drones Are Like Structured Finance ? LewRockwell.com Blog

Drone and structured finance are both new technologies. Structured finance products, like securitization of mortgages into tranches including subprime, didn't by themselves cause the financial blowup in 2007 and 2008. They were operating as a financial innovation within a bigger game of mortgage creation and a housing bubble pushed by the government and the FED. In the same way, drone warfare is a killing innovation. It's not a first cause of the bubble in the U.S. kills of people overseas. It's an innovation within something bigger, which is the U.S. initiated "war on terror."

That war never was a real war. It never was declared. It never had an identifiable enemy. It never had clear aims that would bring it to a close, if it were a war. The "war on terror" was a convenient blanket term to cover attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama retired the term "war on terror" from his official vocabulary, but the administration still speaks of terrorism, counterterrorism and kill lists.

What happened with structured finance and what's happening with drones is that the adoption and increased use of the technologies come to have an independent effect on the underlying phenomena, the housing bubble and the war on terror's killing bubble. Being effective and low-cost technologies, they heighten the bubbles as people use them intensively. The indiscriminate use or broad use or overuse of these technologies cause problems all their own? and, in the hands of their users, who were investment bankers and now U.S. government officials,? they become contributory causes of new problems.

I've run across a 3-month old article by a member of the Leadership, Rosa Brooks. You can read it here or here. What led me to this was my interest in nearby Niagara Falls Air Base being turned into a drone center, for the Leadership cannot think of anything better for American men and women to do than to produce death and spying at a distance, for export and for domestic use.

Brooks doesn't condemn the War on Terror, or empire, or any of the basic causes that have driven the overseas killing machine of the U.S. government and made welcome to it the drone technology; but she does recognize that unrestricted drone killing has serious drawbacks to the U.S. government and the rule of law. It's always good to find criticism of government coming from within the Leadership itself. Hers are both direct and indirect. I'll mention a few.

She indirectly admits that the U.S. killing machine overseas is more or less unbounded, and the use of drones has made it even more unbounded because drones lower the cost of killing. The killing machine is not hemmed in by law or morality. It is not restrained by objections coming from mass society due to the costs or due to Americans getting killed and injured. It is not restrained by the mass conscience, so to speak, of mass society. She writes:

"If killing a suspected terrorist based in Yemen or Somalia will endanger expensive manned aircraft, the lives of U.S. troops and/or the lives of many innocent civilians, U.S. officials will reserve such killings for situations of extreme urgency and gravity (stopping another 9/11, finally getting Osama bin Laden). But if all that appears to be at risk is an easily replaceable drone, officials will be tempted to use lethal force more and more casually.

"And this, of course, is exactly what has been happening over the last four years. Increasingly, drone strikes have targeted militants who are lower and lower down the terrorist food chain, rather than terrorist masterminds. Strikes increasingly target individuals who pose speculative, distant future threats rather than only those posing urgent or catastrophic threats. And drone strikes have spread ever further from 'hot' battlefields, migrating from Pakistan to Yemen to Somalia (and perhaps to Mali and the Philippines as well). Although drone strikes are believed to have killed more than 3,000 people since 2004, only a tiny fraction of the dead appear to have been so-called 'high-value targets'."

Ms. Brooks admits that the killing is going on in secret, "...President Obama?s administration still refuses to openly acknowledge that the CIA uses drone strikes anywhere other than Pakistan (and this was acknowledged only recently and grudgingly."

She admits that the War on Terror has no ending: "But outside Afghanistan, the United States is not in a conventional war. It?s in an open-ended conflict with an inchoate, undefined adversary..."

She admits that no one outside the officials who direct the killing even know who the enemies or combatants are..."administration assertions about who is a combatant and what constitutes a threat are entirely non-falsifiable because they?re based wholly on undisclosed evidence."

She admits that the U.S. killings in this "murky context" are operating way beyond the law:

"In this murky context, it?s facile to assert that the law of war 'obviously' applies to all U.S. drone strikes and leave it at that. That amounts, in practice, to a claim that the executive branch has the unreviewable power to kill anyone, anywhere, at any time, based on secret criteria and secret information discussed in a secret process by largely anonymous individuals."

It becomes clear that Brooks is very worried about an Executive that operates a secret killing operation over large portions of the world with few restraints on a basis that asks everyone else to "trust" them. She writes "Do we really want to live in a world in which the U.S. government?s justification for killing is so malleable?" and "...'trust us' is a pretty shaky foundation for the rule of law."

Her other pragmatic or utilitarian worries about unrestricted drone warfare are equally of note. She argues that the U.S. is setting very dangerous precedents. Drones are very cheap. Other nations can use them secretly too, as the U.S. has, and they can cry "terrorist" just as vaguely and indiscriminately as the U.S. has: "Other states ? and ultimately, nonstate actors ? will follow America?s example, and the results won?t be pretty."

Another of her reservations is that the drone strikes are creating more terrorists than they are killing. Another is they are destabilizing societies.

While all of these criticisms and more have been voiced by libertarian and other critics of U.S. policies and the Empire, it is good to see the critique making its way into the Leadership. Ms. Brooks is a lawyer whose writing here shows a concern for the rule of law. It's unclear precisely what she wants, other than some kind of legal framework to control drone use and perhaps control the Executive. Such vagueness is often the case in the intramural struggles within the Leadership. It's only when a person abandons the Leadership or any hope of getting ahead within it or any dependence on its favors that the possibility of radical critiques opens up.

Abandon the Empire.

UPDATE: Here are two more examples of innovations that have become overused. These were sent to me by a correspondent.

Electroshock weapons, or the taser. Their wide adoption by police was supposed to substitute for other forms of violence at lower cost, but the taser has resulted in more violence and deaths. Police shootings seem not to have declined. Reports of the public's misuse of civilian tasers are much harder to find than reports of police misuse.

Anti-depressants. These were supposed to improve upon drugs like Valium. Their wide adoption and over-prescription by government-licensed doctors have resulted in far more side effects and sometimes suicidal/homicidal behavior in some persons.

I wonder if there is a general law at work here concerning innovations in the hands of government and government-regulated industries making matters worse. This has been true of military innovation, poison gas, and WMD. Government tinkering around with uncurable and easily spread viruses is clearly a danger.

Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/129297.html

Zeek Rewards elvis presley elvis presley vanessa bryant vanessa bryant Prince Harry naked Prince Harry Vegas

Saturday, December 22, 2012

Big Food Corporations Are Making The World Fat - Business Insider

NESTLE, THE WORLD?S biggest food company, has creative ways to reach far-flung corners of the world. One of them is to work through people like Flavia Medeiros, a microdistributor in S?o Paulo. She sells to Brazilians who might not at first sight have the cash or inclination to buy Nestl? products. Ms Medeiros?s stockroom is packed high with Nestl? cereals, yogurts, candies, chocolate milk and infant formula. Her local recruits sell products door-to-door, often with IOUs provided by the company. In a sister programme the company has a large boat gliding up and down the Amazon, selling packaged food and ice cream to the people living along its banks. Nestl? is thinking about kitting out a second boat. Such sales techniques make some health advocates apoplectic.

For food and drinks companies, rising obesity rates present a conundrum. Companies have a duty to their shareholders to make money. All big food companies are working hard to sell more products to more of the world. Many unhealthy products are very profitable. But companies do not want to be vilified for helping to make people fatter. The spectre of government regulation looms large. Many firms are now conflicted, continuing to hawk unhealthy products yet also touting elaborate plans to improve nutrition. They insist they will help lower obesity rates, not raise them, but there is room for doubt.

Over the past decade sales of packaged foods around the world have jumped by 92%, to $2.2 trillion this year, estimates Euromonitor, a research outfit. In Brazil, China and Russia sales are three to four times their level in 2002. Many food companies offer both indulgent products and healthy ones such as Nestl??s Greek yogurts.

chart

Soft drinks are another matter. Coca-Cola and PepsiCo control nearly 40% of the world?s fizzy-drinks market between them (see chart 4). Sales of soft drinks across the world have more than doubled in the past decade, to $532 billion; in India, Brazil and China sales of fizzy drinks have more than quadrupled. This is troubling, given that sugary drinks accounted for at least 20% of America?s weight gain between 1977 and 2007, according to Gail Woodward-Lopez and her colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley.

These impressive sales figures look set to rise further. Nestl? is buying local companies in China and adapting its own portfolio for the Chinese market. Many Chinese find coffee too bitter for their liking, so Nestl? is offering Smoovlatte, a coffee drink that tastes like melted ice cream. Kraft, a food mammoth, split itself in two in October. Mondelez International, the new company that now makes the hallowed Oreo biscuit, is pushing for global domination of the snack market. It plans to increase its investment in emerging markets, which already account for 44% of its revenue.

Fast-food chains, too, have spread far into developing markets. McDonald?s is now in 119 countries (see box at the end of this section). Yum! Brands, owner of KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut, derives 60% of its profit from the developing world, and there is plenty of growth potential left. Yum!?s chief executive, David Novak, explains that the company has 58 restaurants for every 1m Americans, compared with just two restaurants for every 1m people in emerging markets.

But even as they are expanding, food companies are keen to show that they take the obesity problem seriously. The International Food and Beverage Alliance (IFBA), a trade group of ten giants including Coca-Cola, Mondelez and Nestl?, has given global promises to make healthier products, advertise food responsibly and promote exercise. More specific pledges are being made in rich countries, where obesity rates are higher and scrutiny is more thorough. In England 21 companies have struck a "Responsibility Deal" with the Department of Health which commits them to helping people consume fewer calories. In America, the biggest and most closely watched market, 16 companies have promised to cut 1.5 trillion calories from their offerings by 2015 (an amount based on a rough calculation of how much the average American should cut from his or her diet to be healthy). And virtually every company has a plan of its own to improve nutrition, some more robust than others.

There are three general approaches: cut out bad ingredients, add good ones or introduce new products. Kraft says it has come up with 5,000 healthier products since 2005, either by improving the recipe for those already on the market or launching new ones. Coca-Cola has reduced the average number of calories in its drinks by 9% since 2000 and continues to study new types of low-calorie sweeteners in addition to those it is already using. Jonathan Blum, who was appointed Yum! Brands? chief nutrition officer in March, says he is systematically reviewing the company?s restaurant offerings for what he calls its three pillars: choice, transparency and nutritional content. Nestl?, in particular, wants to be seen as a company that makes healthy food. "It is a core business strategy," explains Janet Vo?te, Nestl??s global head of public affairs, who used to work at the WHO. The company has set up a new institute to combine nutritional and biomedical research, in the hope of creating foods that provide a medicinal benefit. Nestl? is examining its entire portfolio to make sure its products are healthier and tastier than those of its direct competitors.

The effort to offer healthier products is constrained by two main factors. First, there is little agreement on how to define healthy and junky food respectively. A carrot is clearly healthy and a sweet fizzy drink is not, but the distinction is not always as obvious as that. A company may reduce the sugar content of a biscuit, but that does not make it healthy. A hamburger may be "energy dense", as nutritionists put it, with a lot of calories packed in, but it has some nutritional value. Even a deep-fried Oreo, a cannonball of fat and sugar, will not doom the consumer to obesity if eaten only occasionally.

The uncertainty over which foods are healthy and which are junky makes it difficult to gauge how much progress the industry has achieved. Nestl? has a detailed "nutritional profiling" system to determine whether a product is an appropriate part of a healthy diet, and boasts that 74% of its offerings meet the test. A small Kit-Kat chocolate bar qualifies.

chart

Make me virtuous, but not yet

The food industry?s second problem is one of timing. Public companies may say they want to offer healthier foods in the long term, but they have a responsibility to their shareholders to boost profits in the short term. Even as companies develop nutritious products, they will keep marketing fizzy drinks and crisps until consumers stop buying them. Sales of "better-for-you" products--which Euromonitor defines as foods that have been tweaked to contain less sugar, fat or salt than similar products--have more than doubled in the past decade. Even so, they accounted for just 7% of drink and packaged-food sales last year. Yum!?s Mr Blum cautions against making too many changes too quickly. "This is not a sprint," he says. "Consumers say they want to eat healthy, but their behaviour tends to be slightly different." He adds: "We have pride in fried, we?re a fan of the pan."

PepsiCo has seen the industry?s most tumultuous experiment. Indra Nooyi, who became chief of the fizzy-drinks-and-crisps company in 2006, set out to sell healthier products. She hired Derek Yach, who had worked on tobacco and diet at the WHO, and set bold targets to reduce salt, saturated fat and added sugar in the company?s products. In 2010 PepsiCo declined to advertise its sugary drinks during America?s Super Bowl, launching a marketing campaign for social causes instead. Shareholders began to revolt. They wanted PepsiCo to give its full support to money-making products, healthy or not.

So Ms Nooyi has had to backtrack. In February PepsiCo will not just advertise at the Super Bowl; it is sponsoring the Super Bowl half-time show. Appearing on CNBC, an American business network, in September, Ms Nooyi cast herself as a football enthusiast. "You can?t watch a game in a mancave without doing Doritos, Pepsi and Lay?s," she said.

Dr Yach left PepsiCo in October to lead a new think-tank at the Vitality Group, which runs health-incentive programmes. Speaking a few weeks after his departure, he said that both investors and health advocates will have to show more patience. For decades food research centred on taste, not nutrition, so "we?re talking about pretty radical changes." For investments in healthy foods to succeed, executives need to give them ample time and marketing support.

Some want to see quicker progress and stronger regulation. Kelly Brownell of Yale University reckons that food companies will continue to push junky foods. They are under pressure to sell as much food as possible, and Yale?s research shows that children are more likely to gorge on sugary foods than on wholesome ones. Marion Nestle of New York University (no connection with Nestl?) thinks that food companies will not change unless governments require them to. "Their hands are tied. They can only do this in a very limited way because of concern over short-term shareholder value." Dr Brownell argues that the food industry has followed the script of the tobacco companies, emphasising personal responsibility and funding health research. So far, promises to make products healthier and limit advertising have helped fend off legislation, but not everyone is happy about that. "No place in the world have we had self-regulation shown to be successful at solving the issue," says Barry Popkin of the University of North Carolina.

Boyd Swinburn of Melbourne?s Deakin University is particularly troubled by the prominent role that food companies are playing in shaping politicians? plans for fighting obesity. Several government agencies in America were mulling voluntary guidelines to limit marketing of unhealthy foods to children, but strong lobbying has caused the idea to stall. Food companies are among those that present their views to the WHO, which advises countries on nutrition and food policy, through the WHO?s "public dialogue" process. For example, companies encouraged the WHO to present a menu of possible policies on food marketing, rather than a single prescription. Food companies have also given money to the WHO?s American branch, which unlike its equivalents in other parts of the world has no rules against such donations.

This makes some at the WHO?s Geneva headquarters shudder. But Nestl??s Ms Vo?te thinks most food companies are acting appropriately. Health advocates want diets to change and big companies can help. "We do respect that there are areas where there are conflicts of interest," she says, "but there are also areas where there is a convergence of interest." In April Nestl? and the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) announced they would co-operate on diabetes education and prevention. "This approach is a recipe for more business as usual, more obesity and more diabetes," trumpeted Dr Swinburn and 14 other leading academics in the Lancet, a British medical journal. "It?s not tobacco," retorts Ann Keeling of the IDF. "This is something we did with a lot of consideration."

The big question for the food industry is whether it can continue to make money even as it cuts calories. The first progress report on the food firms? pledge to remove 1.5 trillion calories from America?s diet is due next year. The evaluator, appointed by an independent foundation, is Dr Popkin. He will judge which products have been made healthier, by how much, and whether consumers have simply switched from the more nutritious products to less healthy ones. But "their definition of healthy is not my definition of healthy," he says.

Dr Popkin is also concerned that the industry may change its practices in rich countries but not in poorer ones. Diet sodas make up 22% of Coca-Cola?s sales by volume in Europe and nearly one-third in North America but just 6% in Latin America. Another report due next year may shed some light on this. The Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation are sponsoring a study of food companies? role in fighting over- and undernutrition in both rich and poor countries. If the companies turn out to have been slow to act, governments will have all the more incentive to take matters into their own hands.

Even as companies develop nutritious products, they?will keep marketing fizzy drinks and crisps until consumers stop buying them.

Click here to subscribe to The Economist

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/big-food-corporations-are-making-the-world-fat-2012-12

the replacements how to hard boil eggs new nfl uniforms easter derbyshire the matrix oceans 11