Brewery will Use Beer to Power its Machines

Alaskan Brewery will Use Beer to Power its Machines
James Burgess | Wed, 06 February 2013
http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Alaskan-Brewery-will-Use-Beer-to-Power-its-Machines.html

Benefit From the Latest Energy Trends and Investment Opportunities before the mainstream media and investing public are aware they even exist. The Free Oilprice.com Energy Intelligence Report gives you this and much more.

The Alaskan Beer Company brews its award winning beer in Juneau, Alaska. In an attempt to reduce the cost of its brewing process it has decided to install a generator for producing energy from an alternative source.

Quite often for factories this alternative source would be in the form of solar panels or wind turbines; however the Alaskan Beer Co. have decided to use a source unique to them – waste beer.

The brewing process at the Juneau facility uses water, yeast, grain, and hops, amongst other ingredients, to produce its beer. The Alaskan Beer Company has bought a $1.8 million furnace that is able to burn the grain leftover after the brewing process has been completed. The burning grain is used to boil water and create steam, which can then power most of the brewery’s operations.

Normally breweries send their protein rich grain to local farms where it is used as animal feed for pigs, cattle, and chicken. Unfortunately there are only 37 farms in southeast Alaska where the brewery is situated and since its expansion in 1995 it has had trouble dealing with the excess waste grain.

Whilst this method of using grain to power its operations, works for the Alaskan Beer Company, I doubt it would be as enticing other brewers who have a plentiful supply of local farms demanding their used grain for animal feed. I imagine that the profit of selling the grain would be larger than using it to produce power and reduce the brewery’s energy bill.

Where Apple and Dick Tracy May Converge

NICK BILTON
Full Article:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/disruptions-apple-is-said-to-be-developing-a-curved-glass-smart-watch/

Dick Tracy had one. As did Inspector Gadget and James Bond. A watch that doubled as a computer, two-way radio, mapping device or television.

Though such a device has been lost to science fiction comics and spy movies of the era before smartphones, the smart watch might soon become a reality, in the form of a curved glass device made by Apple.

In its headquarters in Cupertino, Calif., Apple is experimenting with wristwatch-like devices made of curved glass, according to people familiar with the company’s explorations, who spoke on the condition that they not be named because they are not allowed to publicly discuss unreleased products. Such a watch would operate on Apple’s iOS platform, two people said, and stand apart from competitors based on the company’s understanding of how such glass can curve around the human body.

Apple declined to comment on its plans. But the exploration of such a watch leaves open lots of exciting questions: If the company does release such a product, what would it look like? Would it include Siri, the voice assistant? Would it have a version of Apple’s map software, offering real-time directions to people walking down the street? Could it receive text messages? Could it monitor a user’s health or daily activity? How much will it cost? Could Timothy D. Cook, Apple’s chief executive, be wearing one right now, whispering sweet nothings to his wrist?

Walmart and Big Food pushing for GMO labeling?

Are Walmart and Big Food pushing for GMO labeling?
Tom Laskawy
25 Jan 2013
http://grist.org/food/are-walmart-and-big-food-pushing-for-gmo-labeling/

Since food companies collectively spent over $45 million to stop Prop 37, California’s GMO labeling law, it’s hard to believe that they — and Walmart in particular — would turn around and push for a federal GMO labeling standard. But a trickle of reports, aspects of which we’ve now confirmed, suggests just such a turnabout.

Playing a state-by-state game of whack-a-mole with grassroots groups trying to pass laws across the country (as is occurring in Washington state, Vermont, New Mexico, and Connecticut) may simply have become too exhausting and costly for these companies. If so, such an about-face would vindicate GMO opponents’ strategy of a direct appeal to consumers. GMO-labeling advocates may have succeeded in beginning to drive a wedge between biotechnology seed companies, like Monsanto and Syngenta, and the food companies that have to sell what’s produced with their wares.

That’s because GMOs, for all the claims made on their behalf, actually provide very little benefit to consumers — one of the strongest arguments against them. GMO innovations to date have simply allowed farmers to plant vast acreages of commodity crops like corn, soy, and cotton with less labor (but not, despite industry claims, with fewer chemicals). It’s on this basis, perhaps, that food companies felt like the fight wasn’t really theirs.

I first learned of this possible labeling sea change through an article by Ronnie Cummins, head of the Organic Consumers Association, who caught wind of news that a group of food companies went into the FDA earlier this month to “lobby for a mandatory federal GMO labeling law.”

Cummins went on to speculate the following:

Is it possible that the threat posed by the growing grassroots GMO labeling movement has prompted a number of Fortune 500 corporations to abandon Monsanto and the biotech industry, and rethink the PR and bottom-line costs of clinging to their anti-right-to-know positions? After all, it’s not as if these companies are incapable of making GMO-free products. Though many Americans don’t know it, Walmart, General Mills, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Nestle, Unilever, Kellogg’s, Starbucks — even McDonald’s — are GMO-free in Europe, thanks to strict GMO labeling laws.

I have been able to confirm through sources close to attendees that such a meeting did occur on Jan. 11. It did not take place at the FDA, however, though FDA representatives did reportedly attend. The meeting was “sponsored” by the AGree Foundation, which is a coalition of foundations active in agriculture and co-chaired by former Clinton Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman and Gary Hirshberg, CEO of Stonyfield Farm Organics.

I was also able to confirm that, as Cummins claimed, a Walmart vice president did announce that the company would no longer take a lead in opposing GMO labeling efforts. Other food company executives agreed, saying that the fight had become too expensive, especially given the prospect of more state-level initiatives. And if Walmart moves to support, or rather to no longer oppose, GMO labels, others will certainly follow. (Walmart did not respond to my requests for comment.)

Of course, supporters of GMOs will likely cluck disapprovingly at the idea that food companies might turn on Monsanto. They are, after all, forever pointing to the potential genetically modified crops have to solve the various problems we face. But to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you plant with the GMOs you have, not the GMOs you might want or wish to have. And the ones we have don’t do any of the things proponents argue that we need, such as significantly boost yields, disease resistance, or nutrition.

In fact, existing GMO seeds do little more than enable chemical-based, fossil-fueled monocrops — the kind of farming that is least sustainable and most subject to climate shocks and resource limits. Nor do the products currently in the pipeline hold much promise. The much-heralded drought-tolerant seeds Monsanto released last year aren’t particularly drought tolerant. The big new GMO seed from DuPont currently awaiting USDA approval would simply allow farmers to douse it with a super-toxic Agent Orange ingredient.

The best you can say about GMOs’ consumer benefit is that by “simplifying” commodity agriculture, they keep commodity prices lower. But food companies will tell you that commodity costs are a small part of the retail price (most of which is actually marketing costs). So why on Earth should Walmart, Cargill, and General Mills keep spending hundreds of millions fighting Monsanto’s battles?

Still, it’s unknown whether anything will come of this “secret” meeting or if an industry-supported GMO label would be a weak, sheep-in-wolf’s-clothing version. For what it’s worth, Cummins did invoke the cautionary example of Japan, which enacted industry-sponsored GMO labeling that he considers chock full of loopholes.

But it may be that food companies realize that GMO labeling is an inevitability. After all, 61 countries already require it, and the World Health Organization’s food safety standards group has official, internationally approved guidelines for any country wishing to label GMOs. We’re the laggards on this issue, not the pioneers.

If I’m hopeful, it’s also because past history suggests the FDA will regulate upon request — if the right folks ask.

For example, in March 2012, the FDA rejected a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council to ban the use of the endocrine-disrupting chemical bipshenol-A in plastic. The agency stated at the time that it didn’t have the scientific data to support a ban (despite calls for a ban from many experts, including leading endocrinologists). This decision wasn’t entirely a surprise, however. Two years earlier, the FDA claimed it didn’t have the authority to ban bisphenol-A, even if it wanted to. Which it didn’t.

But then a funny thing happened. It turned out that the industry group the American Chemistry Council, with support from food companies — all presumably sick of the bad publicity and boycotts related to BPA — had filed its own petition to ban BPA in baby bottles and other children’s products. And while the FDA rejected the NRDC petition, in July of 2012 it accepted the industry petition for a partial ban. It was a classic case of “You say, ‘jump,’ I say, ‘how high?’”

Of course, even if the FDA doesn’t immediately start a process to label GMOs, it’s good news that food companies are ready to opt out of the political battle. With battles over GMO labeling gearing up in states across the country, we’ll soon find out if food companies will make good on this threat to biotech interests.

Advocates, meanwhile, can clearly smell Monsanto’s fear. Dave Murphy, of Food Democracy Now and one of the main architects of the GMO labeling movement, promised in an email that “come hell or high water, we will have labeling by the end of 2014.”

Labeling may come even sooner than that, however. With the prospect of final FDA approval for the first genetically modified fish designed for human consumption, AquaBounty’s AquAdvantage salmon, some states are moving quickly. Missouri has introduced a bill that would require labels for any genetically engineered meat or fish. The FDA itself may feel compelled to require a label as the “price” for approving the salmon. And once one kind of GMO food is labeled, how long can it be before others are?

Tom Laskawy is a founder and executive director of the Food & Environment Reporting Network and a contributing writer at Grist covering food and agricultural policy. His writing has also appeared in The American Prospect, Slate, The New York Times, and The New Republic.

Debunking the GMO Talking Points with Ease

Nick Brannigan
NickBrannigan.com
http://farmwars.info/?p=10046

This article is an excerpt from The Health Conspiracy and How To End It that has been expanded upon.

#1 GMOs are needed to feed the world.

This is always a future based “goal” never to be obtained any time soon. GMOs have been on the market since 1996. When are they going to feed the world? The answer is never because that’s not what they are intended to do. I’ve heard an estimate of 80% of the GMOs grown in the US is used for force feeding factory farmed animals. USA today reported, “It takes about 15 pounds of feed to make 1 pound of beef, 6 pounds of feed for 1 pound of pork and 5 pounds of feed for 1 pound of chicken”. Do you think we could feed the world with those numbers?

#2 GMOs reduce the use of chemical pesticides.

This talking point is just a blatant lie. Well, sort of. Although, a variety of corn and cotton produces its own insecticide, most GMO crops are sprayed with heavy amounts of herbicide, which has more than doubled since the introduction of GMOs. Companies like Monsanto always use the words pesticide and insecticide when reporting a decrease in use, but never say herbicide when it comes to reduction. It’s a play on words. Monsanto and the other biotech companies know most people don’t know the difference.

#3 GMOs have been around for thousands of years.

This confuses hybridization with genetic modification. Hybridization cross breeds two closely related plant species. This occurs naturally in the wild. GMOs cross genes between two completely unrelated species, such as, inserting genes of bacteria or an animal into the DNA of a plant.  This process has never happened outside of a laboratory.

#4 GMOs can be contained and co-exist with non-GMO crops.

This is another blatant lie. It’s been well documented dozens of times that non-GMO crops have been contaminated with transgenic DNA due to cross pollination from GMO crops. Researchers in North Dakota sampled 406 wild canola plants and 86% contained transgenic DNA from GMO crops. In Mexico, transgenic DNA was found in wild cotton as far as 500 miles away. An Idaho farmer, named Phil Geertson, talked about how he lost his export market for alfalfa due to cross contamination shortly after GMO alfalfa was deregulated.  Farmers in Jackson County, Oregon have had some of their non-GMO crops contaminated due to the planting of GMO sugar beets in the county and are now seeking a ban.

#5 GMOs have been thoroughly tested and proven safe.

A study out of Japan revealed GM food likely interferes with the bodies ability to “transform most of the products of digestion, degrade and detoxify toxic substances and excrete them in the bile,” among other functions.

A study out of Russia says hamsters fed GMOs “growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly.”  They also caused the hamsters to be completely sterile by the third generation.

A study published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences points out the “side effects” of eating GMOs:  “Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs… Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen…We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn.”

A Danish pig farmer came out in 2012 to give his experience when switching his feed from GMO soy to non-GMO soy. He says that diarrhea in piglets disappeared in two days, death by bloat, which is when the stomach is overstretched by excessive gas, and stomach ulcers ended; pigs are milking better and have lower mortality rates and increased birth rates due to fewer still born piglets. He also said that the drugs he gives to his pigs has been cut in half, making up for the cost of switching to the more expensive non-GMO soy.

#6 If you are against GMOs you are unscientific

This is my favorite talking point because of its sheer stupidity.  Dictionary.com defines science as “a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws”.  How many different topics could we label as science or scientific?  Tens or hundreds of thousands?  Perhaps, more?  The fact is GMOs are a fraction of a fraction of a percent of what we would call science.  Calling one unscientific is a subconscious survival mechanism because the name calling proponent of GMOs has reached a point where they are unable to reasonably debate any further.

ON BEING SANE IN INSANE PLACES

From People's Almanac 1975

In an experiment later written up as “On Being Sane in Insane Places,” D. L. Rosenhan, of Stanford University, and 8 associates (3 women, 5 men) voluntarily entered 12 mental institutions. They complained to staff psychiatrists of hearing voices which said “hollow,” empty,” or “thud.” They reported no other symptoms.

The “patients” were chosen for the experiment on the basis of being normal every-day people and they represented a wide range of occupations, from housewife to artist to pediatrician. After being admitted to the hospitals, all pseudo-patients told the staff that their symptoms had disappeared, and all acted normally.

In trials in 12 different hospitals, it took pseudo-patients between 7 to 52 days to be released. In almost all cases, they were discharged with diagnoses of “schizophrenia in remission”; not once were they discharged as being sane.

Upon reading these astounding facts, one might assume that the experiments were conducted in hospitals chosen for inadequate or incompetent staff or overcrowding. This was not the case. Most of the hospitals tested were funded by the local. State, or Federal Government, and several were considered excellent. They varied as to newness and number of staff, though one well-staffed, expensive, and modern hospital was included in the test. Results were no different there.

Once the pseudo-patients were in the mental hospitals, they observed many enlightening facts about what happens to a person when people think he is crazy. They found that patients were considered less than human and were treated as though they were invisible. Often they would address staff with simple questions such as asking when a given doctor would be in, and they would be totally ignored, with the staff member walking straight past them, or would receive a curt non-reply like “Hello, how do you feel today?”

There was little privacy or activity allowed the patients, but when disorders arose from these stultifying conditions they were attributed to the patient’s “disease.” Many pseudo-patients took notes of their observations, first secretly and then openly when they found that nobody cared. One nurse, commenting on her patient’s “psychosis,” mentioned his “compulsive note-taking behavior.” Another pseudo-patient overheard a staff psychiatrist complaining about patients “oral acquisitiveness” in lining up in the cafeteria lounge a half hour before lunch. The good doctor overlooked the fact that in the hospital there was nothing else to do.

Treatment was minimal. Drugs replaced a doctor’s time. All pseudo-patients combined were given 2,100 pills, which they, like many real patients, discarded.

An interesting sidelight to the experiment was the fact that although not one psychiatrist, nurse, or attendant suspected the hoax, 35 patients of the 118 residing in admittance wards with the experimenters suspected they were faking. “You’re not crazy, you’re some journalist (or professor) checking up on conditions here,” was heard over and over again.

To verify these disturbing findings, the researchers notified a leading teaching hospital that in a given 5-month period, one or 2 pseudo-patients would attempt to gain admission to their hospital. The hospital staff was well acquainted with the experiment. Of 193 patients admitted during the 3-month period, 41 were alleged to be pseudo-patients by staff members, including 23 by psychiatrists with the greatest amount of training.

Actually, not one pseudo-patient presented himself during that period.

ETERNEA

http://eternea.org

ETERNEA's purpose is to help create an ideal future for Earth and all its inhabitants by advancing knowledge from frontier science that consciousness survives bodily death and some innate aspect of all life forms exists eternally.

We are dedicated to education, research, and innovative programs about Spiritually Transformative Experiences (STEs) and about the nature of Consciousness.

Inspired by Dr. Eben Alexander's extraordinary journey during a near-death experience, Eternea describes many types of transformative experiences, most of which report a common theme: the power of unconditional love.

Can Leak Detection End the Pipeline Impasse?

Interview with Adrian Banica
James Stafford | Thu, 07 February 2013
http://oilprice.com/Interviews/Can-Leak-Detection-End-the-Pipeline-Impasse-Interview-with-Adrian-Banica.html

Benefit From the Latest Energy Trends and Investment Opportunities before the mainstream media and investing public are aware they even exist. The Free Oilprice.com Energy Intelligence Report gives you this and much more.

Pipelines used to be things that were just built without blinking. It is said that there are enough pipelines now in the US to encircle the Earth 25 times with enough left over to also tie a bow around it. Today, getting a pipeline built is not so easy - there are too many environmental concerns and the industry has become highly polarized. But here’s one thing that could bring everyone together: pipeline safety technology. And it’s something we all want, especially for those who live along the thousands of miles of aging pipeline routes that carry hazardous liquids.

Spawned by research that started in space, remote-sensing technology designed to detect dangerous leaks in pipelines has the potential to provide the neutral ground for decisions to be made and consensus to be formed. The clincher: This technology is not only affordable -it saves money and could eventually save the industry.

Three Ideas for Energy Investors to Look Into

In an exclusive interview with Oilprice.com, Adrian Banica, founder and CEO of Synodon - the forerunner in leak detection systems - discusses:

•    How a technology that started in space has the potential to quell intensifying protests
•    Why Keystone XL will eventually be a reality - sooner rather than later
•    How remote sensing technology can fingerprint pipeline leaks
•    How remote sensing technology can find the little leaks before they become big leaks—at no extra cost
•    Why North America’s new pipelines aren’t the problem and why the focus should be on aging pipelines that are going to experience a lot more leaks
•    How this technology could bring the industry and environmentalists together
•    How external leak detection can save lives in high-risk areas

Interview by James Stafford of Oilprice.com

James Stafford: Now that pipelines are the hottest topic on the oil and gas scene and have found themselves on the frontline of conflict between environmentalists and the industry, high-tech leak detection systems such as Synodon’s remote sensing technology seem to be offering a way out of the chaos. Can you put this into perspective for us?

Adrian Banica: Yes. In North America alone, there are upwards of a million kilometers of transmission pipelines - and this does not even count the gathering and distribution pipelines. What we offer is attractive to both sides in this conflict: environmentalists want it and the industry can afford it.

Methods for inspecting pipelines have existed for many decades. What we’re providing is a better way of doing it. Synodon’s technology offers an accurate and precise method of oil and gas leak detection. This technology detects small leaks before they become big leaks.

James Stafford: In layman’s terms, how does it work?

Adrian Banica: It is relatively simple. Synodon has developed a remote sensing technology that can measure very small ground level concentrations of escaped gas from an aircraft flying overhead. This “realSens” technology is mounted on a helicopter and piloted by GPS over a pipeline.

Think of this gas sensor as a big infrared camera that is particularly adept at detecting very, very small color changes in the infrared spectrum. The color changes that we detect are caused by various gasses that the instrument looks at. Every gas in nature absorbs and colors the infrared light that passes through it in a very specific way. From the shade of the color, we can also infer how much methane or ethane we can see with our instruments. In effect, it’s like a color fingerprint of the gas.

James Stafford: Can you give us a sense of how this technology has evolved into what it is today—essentially the potential tool for bringing environmentalists and industry leaders together over the pipeline issue?

Adrian Banica: Yes. It started in space. Back in the 1990s, I was aware of technology being developed for various space programs, including Canada’s and NASA’s. I was looking for technologies that could solve oil and gas problems, but that were also novel, unique. That is how the whole idea started: It was matching a technology that the Canadian Space Agency funded to develop an instrument that measured carbon monoxide and methane from orbit.

So the idea then was if one can detect methane from space, why couldn’t we adapt that technology to detect methane by flying it on a plane? In 2000, I founded Synodon in order to monetize and commercialize this.

James Stafford: How effective are automated leak detection systems?

Adrian Banica: They are typically only able to detect high level leaks above 1% of the pipeline flow. They measure the volume of the product that passes a sensor (flow measurements) and the pressure in the pipeline--if there is a leak the pressure will be lower downstream from it, among other things. However, as a recent report from the Department of Transportation in the US points out, these systems only detect a leak at best about 40% of the time, irrespective of how big a leak is.

It is also important to differentiate between catastrophic leaks and small leaks. For catastrophic leaks, most pipelines use these flow meters which operate 24/7. But smaller leaks can only be detected by performing an above-ground survey either by foot patrol, vehicle or aircraft. The predominant technologies used would be sampling gas sensors, thermal cameras, laser detection or our remote sensing system.

James Stafford: So this remote sensing technology uses a sort of “fingerprinting” to detect leaks, but we understand that it has much more to offer the industry …

Adrian Banica: Yes. The core offering is the technology we developed for natural gas and liquid hydrocarbon leak detection, but there is a basket of services designed to reduce the overall costs for our clients. During our leak detection surveys, we collect a lot of different types of data such as visual images, thermal images and very, very accurate GPS information. We’ve repackaged all those data sets into new value-added products. We can provide these extra services without incurring additional costs.

For instance, we could offer some of those services for new construction, in which case it would speed up the process of getting all the information required for the necessary regulatory filings.

The most important thing, as I mentioned earlier, is trying to find small leaks before they become large leaks. All our services and all the data we provide are geared towards preventative maintenance. We sought to add services beyond leak protection because all pipeline operators still need to get their other data sets from somewhere. We are consolidating everything they need in a very cost effective and efficient manner.

James Stafford: A late-2012 study on leak detection by the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has brought this subject to the forefront. Dr. David Shaw, one of the report’s authors, says that pipeline leaks, ruptures, and spill are “systematically causing more and more property damage…in bad years you have $5 billion in damages due to pipeline-related accidents”. The logic of the study is that pipleline operators could be spending 10 times more on leak detection given what kind of damages they are being awarded now.

Adrian Banica: Yes, the study makes the most valid point here, and that is that leak detection systems represent a bottom line savings, not an expense. For instance, Dr. Shaw has pointed out that pipeline companies would likely be justified in spending $10 million per year for every 400 miles of pipelines because they are already spending more than that on public property damage.

We have demonstrated that we can detect a leak that is less than 1 liter/min or 380 gallons/day. If our technology was deployed every 30 days and the leak were to happen in the middle of this period (on average), the total spill would be 5,700 gallons (380x15 days), which is 50 times smaller than the standard technology daily leak rate. That’s a huge difference.

Another difference is that pipeline operators pay around $12 per hour to have personnel walk the pipeline, and they can only catch leaks that are close enough for them to see.

James Stafford: Could leak detection systems also save lives?

Adrian Banica: Yes. The PHMSA study points out that 44% of these old hazardous liquid pipelines are in High Consequence Areas (HCAs)—which means that peoples’ lives are at risk if they blow up. We’re talking about 44% of over 170,000 miles of these pipelines. On a public platform, this alone should lend a new urgency to the leak detection debate. The point is that remote—or external—sensors can head off a dangerous leak faster than an internal system.

The challenge then is to convince pipeline operators to adopt external technologies that actually detect leaks rather than relying on the inconsistencies of visual detection, which sooner or later would see the pools of oil, but it might be a while.

James Stafford: Is the market ready for this technology?

Adrian Banica: The market is ready, but not necessarily because of leak detection—it’s the overall basket we discussed earlier.

There is a tremendous need in the industry for remote leak detection. But we had to account for budget constraints within our potential clients. We think we’ve developed a technology that’s very capable of providing the information our customers are looking for and doing so at a competitive price they are willing to pay.

We’ve been operating on the North American market for the last 2.5 years. It’s a very large market that has lately been in the eye of the media and the environmentalists. We’re talking about over 55 companies in Canada and almost 700 pipeline operators in the US, where some 100 companies operate or control roughly 80% of the pipeline infrastructure. It is also a regulated market, and regulators require operators to perform some level of leak detection surveys.

James Stafford: Will Keystone XL—or the San Bruno pipeline explosion—have any notable impact on the regulatory environment or the market for remote sensing technology?

Adrian Banica: Personally I don't think that either of these will impact the leak detection practices in the industry. Rather, the driver will be the aging pipelines which will continue to have incidents and spills which the public will not accept.

James Stafford: And how is this playing out on the regulatory scene?

Adrian Banica: Congress passed a new law a year ago on this topic. The US regulators have yet to act on new regulations based on this law, but the trend is indeed there. Pipeline companies are concerned about potential upcoming new regulations and are working with the regulators to try and come up with proactive solutions and preempt their moves. There are a lot of discussions going on in the US on this topic right now and the regulator has proposed a set of new rules which are out for comment and discussion in the industry. It is a slow and drawn out process.

James Stafford: Everyone is waiting for the Obama administration to make a decision on Keystone, and while most analysts seem to think it will be given the final green light, the protest movement shows no sign of letting up. How do you see this playing out?

Adrian Banica: With the governor of Nebraska now approving it, I think the administration has no choice and no excuses for not approving it.

James Stafford: Would regulations governing pipeline safety actually boost support for Keystone XL?

Adrian Banica: Personally, I don't think so. The most vocal opposition for Keystone comes from the side of the environmental movement that does not want to see the pipelines build in order to decrease our overall dependence on oil rather than their concern for spills. So it is a philosophical position based on decreasing CO2 emissions rather than one based on spills in the environment which will not be appeased by regulations.

James Stafford: What about any potential regulatory protection leak detection systems could offer pipeline companies?

Adrian Banica: The benefit to our customers is that they can demonstrate due diligence and that they have employed the best techniques available to ensure pipeline integrity. They will be covered if there is any court action or regulatory action.  The value of our data in case something does happen could be quite substantial.

There may be small differences in the regulations with the US being somewhat stricter and tighter than the Canadian regulations. So there are a few more incentives for US based customers to use our service.

James Stafford: Protests continue over the Enbridge pipeline in Vancouver, for instance. How could this play out. Could big pipeline players like Enbridge be able to embrace something like your technology to quell some of those protests?

Adrian Banica: This is a good case in point. Yes they absolutely could, and should. I’m very firm on that answer and I think they are looking at it. Enbridge is a customer of ours already in the United States and they’re very aware of what we offer and do.

James Stafford: So these are early days for commercial viability?

Adrian Banica: These are very early days, and we have just turned the corner from a science concept into something that is commercially realizable. We spent 2011 and 2012 working very hard to penetrate the industry and to convince clients that this is not a science project anymore—this is a genuine commercially viable technology. We are now starting to see the adoption of our technology and services. So I believe we are at the tipping point and by no means do I think that shareholders have missed the boat.

James Stafford: Adrian, thank you for your time. This has been a very interesting discussion and the topic is one we will be following closely over the coming months. Hopefully we will get a chance to talk later in the year to see if any of the developments discussed have come to pass.

Adrian Banica: Absolutely, I'd be delighted to catch up later in the year.

James Stafford: For those interested in learning more about Synodon please take a minute to visit their website: www.synodon.com

Samsung and its rivals show off the future of TVs

Edward C. Baig
January 7, 2013
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/baig/2013/01/07/baig-samsung-ces-2013/1813595

Tech titans Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook rarely come out of hiding at the annual International CES. And after years on center stage, Microsoft has pretty much applied for the CES equivalent of the witness protection program.

So with apologies to a formidable list of consumer electronics show stalwarts that includes LG, Panasonic, Sharp, Sony and Toshiba, Samsung is arguably the biggest of the Big Cheese consumer electronics mainstays left exhibiting at these proceedings.

Above all else, CES is still about televisions. Samsung, as much as any of its rivals, serves as a proxy for where the industry hopes to take you. The path leads to Ultra High-Definition models that boast four times the pixel count of today's 1080p HDTVs. Gee, it was only a few years ago that you cozied up to the thin — and yes, affordable — HDTV that now graces your living room.

Make no mistake, Samsung's upcoming 85-inch flagship UN85S9 UHD TV takes your breath away. It's just that you may have to take out a small mortgage to own this stunning TV, not that you can even buy it yet. Samsung isn't saying what it will cost or when precisely it will go on sale, but says the model will ship this year. I should also point out that there's precious little content out there to take advantage of all those extra pixels — a familiar chicken and egg scenario that slowed the launch of early HDTVs.

The splashy cutting-edge sets are expected to fetch in the $20,000 range, says tech and media analyst Gary Arlen, president of Arlen Communications. Still, if UHDs go the way of HDTVs — and myriad other consumer electronics categories before them — prices might drop sooner than may now seem likely, though I wouldn't bet a lot on the prospect. (I am in Vegas, after all.)

Samsung executive Joe Stinziano calls the TV a "statement piece" -- to my mind, code-language for, "if you have to ask what it costs, you can't afford it". He says the pixel density of the panels in the set is very expensive to manufacture.

Fortunately, the new TV flaunts other features that will be available on less-expensive 2013 models, notably a newly designed Smart Hub interface. Through the early years of Smart TVs, the various TV makers have done a generally mediocre job when it comes to screen interfaces, perhaps one reason behind all the talk of an eventual Apple-branded television.

My initial impression of Samsung's new Smart Hub is positive, though, as always, you can't really judge these things until you use it outside the boundaries of a trade show.

Samsung's Smart Hub consists of five panels: The "On TV" panel shows the channel you're watching now in a window that's adjacent to a half-dozen smaller windows representing other shows airing at the same time. Below are thumbnails revealing shows that are coming up. The visible content is based on Samsung recommendations generated from your viewing habits.

A "Movie & TV" panel, also based on your viewing history, reveals on-demand flicks, movies available to you as a subscriber to certain services, and material you may have purchased.

Other panels cover your personal "Photos, Videos and Movies," "Apps" (where you'll find Netflix, Hulu Plus, Spotify, Pandora, etc.) and "Social" (feeds and videos from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and so on).

You can manipulate the Smart Hub with a new remote that has a touch panel, as well as left-right, up-down slide bar controls.

Samsung also says the voice interaction in its latest TVs — advancing the state of the art from last year — has improved to the point where the TV understands complete sentences. You'll be able to say "I want to watch CSI" and the TV will serve up all the likely matches. Or you might say, "go to South Park," or, "go to ESPN," since the TV can distinguish the name of a show from a channel.

Inside the UHD TV (and other new models) is a quad-core processor that Samsung claims is 3.6 times faster than last year's dual-core models. No you won't change the channels any faster. But you can speed up the time when you stop watching a stream from one content provider and start searching on

It's fair to say that all the consumer electronics companies with a diverse portfolio of products at this show want you to keep it in the family. So it goes with Samsung. If you have Samsung phones, tablets or home appliances, for example, you can take advantage of "AllShare" features that tie the TV to compatible devices. Via an onscreen TV app, you might be able to monitor the wash cycle of your Samsung washer-dryer or change the temperature of the air conditioner without having to pause the TV content. Samsung will let you stream from the TV to one of its mobile phones.

Moreover, Samsung will soon start selling the Smart Evolution kits it announced at last year's CES, which will enable folks to upgrade certain 2012 (but not older) models to the quadcore generation. You get the new remote control as part of the kit, and can add the latest Smart Hub interface. The kit is likely to cost between $200 and $500, Samsung says.

Not that there's anything wrong with your current HDTV, which you'll be able to safely enjoy watching for quite some time. Samsung expects it to take several years before UHDs begin to overtake today's popular HDTVs. But UHD does reveal a lot about where Samsung, and its industry counterparts who are pushing the same or similar technologies, are directing the near and longer-term future of television.

2012 hottest year on record in the US

2012 hottest year on record in the US by large margin
Seth Borenstein
January 8, 2013
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0108/2012-hottest-year-on-record-in-the-US-by-large-margin

A brutal combination of a widespread drought and a mostly absent winter pushed the average annual U.S. temperature last year up to 55.32 degrees Fahrenheit (13 Celsius), the government announced Tuesday. That's a full degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) warmer than the old record set in 1998.

Breaking temperature records by an entire degree is unprecedented, scientists say. Normally, records are broken by a tenth of a degree or so.

The National Climatic Data Center's figures for the entire world won't come out until next week, but through the first 11 months of 2012, the world was on pace to have its eighth warmest year on record.

Scientists say the U.S. heat is part global warming in action and natural weather variations. The drought that struck almost two-thirds of the nation and a La Nina weather event helped push temperatures higher, along with climate change from man-made greenhouse gas emissions, said Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University. She said temperature increases are happening faster than scientists predicted.

"These records do not occur like this in an unchanging climate," said Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. "And they are costing many billions of dollars."

Last year was 3.2 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the average for the entire 20th century. Last July was the also the hottest month on record.

Nineteen states set yearly heat records in 2012. Alaska, however, was cooler than average.

U.S. temperature records go back to 1895 and the yearly average is based on reports from more than 1,200 weather stations across the Lower 48 states.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. last year also had the second most weather extremes on record, behind 1998. There were 11 different disasters that caused more than $1 billion in damage, including Superstorm Sandy and the drought, NOAA said.

The drought was the worst since the 1950s and slightly behind the dust bowl of the 1930s, meteorologists said. During a drought, the ground is so dry that there's not enough moisture in the soil to evaporate into the atmosphere to cause rainfall. And that means hotter, drier air.

The last time the country had a record cold month was December 1983.

"A picture is emerging of a world with more extreme heat," said Andrew Dessler, a Texas A&M University climate scientist. "Not every year will be hot, but when heat waves do occur, the heat will be more extreme. People need to begin to prepare for that future."

Science gets colder than absolute zero

Charles Choi
January 04, 2013
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/04/science-gets-colder-than-absolute-zero

Absolute zero is often thought to be the coldest temperature possible. But now researchers show they can achieve even lower temperatures for a strange realm of "negative temperatures."

Oddly, another way to look at these negative temperatures is to consider them hotter than infinity, researchers added.

This unusual advance could lead to new engines that could technically be more than 100 percent efficient, and shed light on mysteries such as dark energy, the mysterious substance that is apparently pulling our universe apart.

An object's temperature is a measure of how much its atoms move — the colder an object is, the slower the atoms are. At the physically impossible-to-reach temperature of zero kelvin, or minus 459.67 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 273.15 degrees Celsius), atoms would stop moving. As such, nothing can be colder than absolute zero on the Kelvin scale.

Bizarro negative temperatures

To comprehend the negative temperatures scientists have now devised, one might think of temperature as existing on a scale that is actually a loop, not linear. Positive temperatures make up one part of the loop, while negative temperatures make up the other part. When temperatures go either below zero or above infinity on the positive region of this scale, they end up in negative territory.

With positive temperatures, atoms more likely occupy low-energy states than high-energy states, a pattern known as Boltzmann distribution in physics. When an object is heated, its atoms can reach higher energy levels.

At absolute zero, atoms would occupy the lowest energy state. At an infinite temperature, atoms would occupy all energy states. Negative temperatures then are the opposite of positive temperatures — atoms more likely occupy high-energy states than low-energy states.

"The inverted Boltzmann distribution is the hallmark of negative absolute temperature, and this is what we have achieved," said researcher Ulrich Schneider, a physicist at the University of Munich in Germany. "Yet the gas is not colder than zero kelvin, but hotter. It is even hotter than at any positive temperature — the temperature scale simply does not end at infinity, but jumps to negative values instead."

As one might expect, objects with negative temperatures behave in very odd ways. For instance, energy typically flows from objects with a higher positive temperature to ones with a lower positive temperature — that is, hotter objects heat up cooler objects, and colder objects cool down hotter ones, until they reach a common temperature. However, energy will always flow from objects with negative temperature to ones with positive temperatures. In this sense, objects with negative temperatures are always hotter than ones with positive temperatures.

Another odd consequence of negative temperatures has to do with entropy, which is a measure of how disorderly a system is. When objects with positive temperature release energy, they increase the entropy of things around them, making them behave more chaotically. However, when objects with negative temperatures release energy, they can actually absorb entropy.

Negative temperatures would be thought impossible, since there is typically no upper bound for how much energy atoms can have, as far as theory currently suggests. (There is a limit to what speed they can travel — according to Einstein's theory of relativity, nothing can accelerate to speeds faster than light.)

Wacky physics experiment

To generate negative temperatures, scientists created a system where atoms do have a limit to how much energy they can possess. They first cooled about 100,000 atoms to a positive temperature of a few nanokelvin, or billionth of a kelvin. They cooled the atoms within a vacuum chamber, which  isolated them from any environmental influence that could potentially heat them up accidentally. They also used a web of laser beams and magnetic fields to very precisely control how these atoms behaved, helping to push them into a new temperature realm.

"The temperatures we achieved are negative nanokelvin," Schneider told LiveScience.

Temperature depends on how much atoms move — how much kinetic energy they have. The web of laser beams created a perfectly ordered array of millions of bright spots of light, and in this "optical lattice," atoms could still move, but their kinetic energy was limited.

Temperature also depends on how much potential energy atoms have, and how much energy lies in the interactions between the atoms. The researchers used the optical lattice to limit how much potential energy the atoms had, and they used magnetic fields to very finely control the interactions between atoms, making them either attractive or repulsive.

Temperature is linked with pressure — the hotter something is, the more it expands outward, and the colder something is, the more it contracts inward. To make sure this gas had a negative temperature, the researchers had to give it a negative pressure as well, tinkering with the interactions between atoms until they attracted each other more than they repelled each other.

"We have created the first negative absolute temperature state for moving particles," said researcher Simon Braun at the University of Munich in Germany.

New kinds of engines

Negative temperatures could be used to create heat engines — engines that convert heat energy to mechanical work, such as combustion engines — that are more than 100-percent efficient, something seemingly impossible. Such engines would essentially not only absorb energy from hotter substances, but also colder ones. As such, the work the engine performed could be larger than the energy taken from the hotter substance alone.

Negative temperatures might also help shed light on one of the greatest mysteries in science. Scientists had expected the gravitational pull of matter to slow down the universe's expansion after the Big Bang, eventually bringing it to a dead stop or even reversing it for a "Big Crunch." However, the universe's expansion is apparently speeding up, accelerated growth that cosmologists suggest may be due to dark energy, an as-yet-unknown substance that could make up more than 70 percent of the cosmos.

In much the same way, the negative pressure of the cold gas the researchers created should make it collapse. However, its negative temperature keeps it from doing so. As such, negative temperatures might have interesting parallels with dark energy that may help scientists understand this enigma.

Negative temperatures could also shed light on exotic states of matter, generating systems that normally might not be stable without them. "A better understanding of temperature could lead to new things we haven't even thought of yet," Schneider said. "When you study the basics very thoroughly, you never know where it may end."

The scientists detailed their findings in the Jan. 4 issue of the journal Science.

Danger meets discovery

Top 10 science stories of 2012
Elizabeth Landau
Fri December 28, 2012
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/28/tech/innovation/top-science-stories-2012

(CNN) -- From faraway planets to the deepest depths of the ocean, 2012 has been an exciting year for scientific achievements and milestones.

Humans broke previously unimaginable barriers by detecting an elusive tiny particle and free-falling 24 miles from the edge of space. At the same time, we said goodbye to four retired NASA space shuttles that found new museum-type homes.

Here's our list of the biggest science achievements this year, in order of significance:

1. Curiosity lands, performs science on Mars

Every time I hear the word "curiosity" in a sentence, I'm tempted to butt in and ask if you're talking about the Mars rover Curiosity. She's really there! On Mars! Right now! And people are driving it! (Forgive me, I get excited about this.)

Landing this 2-ton rover flawlessly on the surface of Mars is our choice for the most exciting science moment of 2012. You can see from NASA's "seven minutes of terror" video how crazy-complicated that was -- the landing process included a supersonic parachute and a sky crane.

I'll never forget watching the live NASA feed with hundreds of other science enthusiasts at Georgia Institute of Technology in the first hours of August 6. James Wray, assistant professor at Georgia Tech, who is affiliated with Curiosity's science team, was next to me, rubbing his hands together in anticipation. And when the landing was confirmed, the room erupted in cheers and shouts. This was only one of many gatherings around the world celebrating this achievement.

And then there's all the stuff Curiosity's been doing since then, such as taking gorgeous photos, finding shiny objects, and coming across evidence that water once flowed on Mars.

We can't wait to see what Curiosity will do in 2013.

2. Higgs boson -- it's real

One of the most highly anticipated discoveries in all of physics happened this year -- well, probably. Scientists at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, said they used the Large Hadron Collider to detect a particle whose characteristics matched those of the Higgs boson.

What is the Higgs boson, you ask? It's basically a component of an invisible field, called the Higgs field, that is responsible for the mass of all the matter in the universe. In essence, it is why we are here.

Finding this particle, sometimes referred to as the "God particle" in popular culture, will fill a large gap in scientists' understanding about how the universe works. But it's not "God" in the way that you might think. Nobel Prize-winning physicist Leon Lederman wrote a book with "God Particle" in the title, but reportedly said he'd actually wanted to call it the "Goddamn Particle."

But wait, what about its mass? The two most precise ways that the particle has been measured have yielded slightly different values for its mass, said Beate Heinemann, scientist with the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider. But these measurements are consistent, and with more data that difference should get smaller. "It all points at the moment to that this is indeed the Higgs boson," she said in an e-mail.

More results are expected in March 2013, she said.

3. James Cameron's deep dive

He didn't find The Heart of the Ocean necklace, but director James Cameron did probe the remotest depths of the ocean this year. In fact, using his one-man submersible, the maker of "Titanic" and "Avatar" traveled to the deepest known point in the world's oceans.

Cameron is the first to go alone to Challenger Deep, the name for that part of the Mariana Trench in the western Pacific Ocean. Here's a mind-boggling fact: Mariana Trench is deeper than Mount Everest is tall. Only two other humans have ever visited it.

In this cold, dark place, miles beneath the ocean's surface, Cameron said he did not see any fish, but did spot some "shrimplike animals." It took him 2 hours, 36 minutes, to get down there.

"It's a completely alien world," Cameron said.

4. Felix Baumgartner's record-breaking jump

Austrian daredevil Felix Baumgartner broke the speed of sound in October by jumping from the edge of space. He got up there on a balloon, then stepped off a platform 24 miles high and landed soon after in the New Mexico desert.

Baumgartner wore a 100-pound pressurized flight suit and helmet. Without protection, his blood would have been vaporized because the atmosphere was so thin when he jumped. The temperature at his launch point was estimated at 70 degrees below zero Fahrenheit, if not lower.

In doing so, Baumgartner broke the record for highest jump that had been set in 1960 by Col. Joe Kittinger. As part of a U.S. Air Force mission, Kittinger fell from 102,800 feet. He was a consultant for Baumgartner's efforts.

5. Planet with four suns

You may recall a scene from "Star Wars" where Luke Skywalker looks out across the landscape of a planet called Tatooine, which had two suns. This year, amateur scientists discovered that in reality, there is a planet with not just two, but four, suns.

This planet, called PH1, is special for another reason: It's the first confirmed planet that the Planet Hunters group has identified. Planet Hunters is a citizen science organization, made of people just like you, who are combing through planet data. The group has also helped identify several planet candidates. Learn more at planethunters.org.

6. Nearby star has a planet

The closest planet we know of to Earth, outside of our solar system, was identified in October. This planet orbits a star called Alpha Centauri B. It's unlikely to harbor life, but there's hope that other potential planets in that area might be more hospitable to breathing creatures.

Of course, when we say "close," we mean 4 light-years, or 23.5 trillion miles, away.

About 800 planets have been confirmed to exist outside our solar system, in addition to nearly 2,000 planet candidates found with the Kepler mission.

7. Vesta becomes a 'protoplanet'

NASA's Dawn spacecraft helped scientists to determine that Vesta, originally thought of as an asteroid, is a "protoplanet." That means that its structure has a dense, layered body, and it orbits the sun.

What's the difference between a protoplanet and a planet? It appears that something interrupted the development of protoplanets, which aren't fully formed, so they don't quite make the cut as full-fledged planets.

8. Bye-bye, space shuttles

In 2011, we said goodbye to NASA's Space Shuttle Program. This year, we saw the four surviving orbiters making Earthly journeys -- whether flown or towed -- to new homes at museums and similar attractions.

Discovery is at the Udvar-Hazy Center at the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum in Chantilly, Virginia. It flew on the back of a 747 from Kennedy Space Center. This is the most traveled of the space shuttles.

Enterprise is at the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum in New York. This shuttle never actually went into space, but it was carried on a 747 jet from Washington to New York in June. It was originally designed as a prototype test vehicle.

Endeavour is at the California Science Center in Los Angeles, having flown from Kennedy Space Center on the back of a 747. To make room for it to be towed through the city, dozens of trees were cut down and traffic signs removed.

Atlantis is at the Kennedy Space Center in Merritt Island, Florida. It was the last space shuttle to go to space, and the last to come to rest this year. Unlike the other shuttles, which made flyovers in various parts of the United States, Atlantis moved only 10 miles, towed by land to the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex in November.

The other two shuttles -- Challenger and Columbia -- did not make it back to Earth after accidents that killed their entire crews.

9. SpaceX gets to the space station, and back

No NASA shuttles flew in 2012, but a private company called SpaceX successfully sent almost 900 pounds of cargo to the international space station in its first official mission in October. The Dragon capsule came back with nearly 1,700 pounds of freight. This was only months after the SpaceX demonstration flight in May.

NASA and SpaceX have a contract for a dozen flights to the space station, and the October trip was just the first.

SpaceX isn't the only player in this commercial spaceflight arena. Virgin Galactic, Sir Richard Branson's private spaceflight company, recently completed a high-altitude test. Orbital Sciences is also under contract with NASA, and will also launch a demonstration flight.

10. Baby's DNA constructed before birth

For the first time, researchers at the University of Washington were able to construct a near-total genome sequence of a fetus, using a blood sample from the mother and saliva from the father.

The study suggested this method could be used to detect thousands of genetic diseases in children while they are still in the fetal stage. In the long run, it could help scientists derive new insights about genetic diseases.

Right now, this sequencing costs in the neighborhood of $50,000, but given how rapidly the price of genetic testing is falling, the process may become less expensive over time. Of course, it also raises ethical issues about selecting certain desirable traits in children. For right now, however, the technology is still in its early stages.

Cyborg anthropologist: We can all be superhuman

Amber Case
Wed December 5, 2012
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/05/tech/cyborg-anthropology-amber-case

Editor's note: Amber Case is the Director of the Esri R&D Center, Portland, a company which aims to understand our world and "unleash the power of location." She was formerly the CEO of geolocation platform creator Geoloqi, Inc., acquired by Esri in Oct 2012. As a student of cyborg anthropology, Case studies the symbiotic interactions between humans and technology.

What exactly is cyborg anthropology?

Cyborg anthropology is the study of the interaction between humans and technology, and how technology affects culture. Mobile technology allows one to stand almost anywhere in the world, whisper something, and be heard elsewhere. These devices that live in our pockets need to be fed every night require our frequent attention. In only a few years these devices have become stitched into the fabric of our everyday lives. Phones offer us respite from the boredom of waiting in lines, but they also inhibit us when they run out of batteries.

I'm fascinated with mobile devices for another reason -- they are a bundle of sensors that we walk around with every day. That sensor data can be used to do very interesting things, such as automatically turn on the lights in your house when you get home, or turn the lights off when you leave.

In traditional anthropology, somebody goes to another country, says: "How fascinating these people are! How interesting their tools and their culture are," and then they write a paper, and maybe a few other anthropologists read it, and we think these cultures are very exotic. cyborg anthropologists step back from the modern world and look at the everyday life and how the people around us are influenced by technology in everyday life.

Why did you decide to study cyborg anthropology?

When I was little, I was very interested in technology, science and mathematics. I grew up in the '80s, but read my dad's copy of 1960 World Book Encyclopedia. My favorite entry was on the modern computer. The machine filled an entire gymnasium and was used for military and business. As I grew up, I saw technology transition towards being used in everyday life. The only problem was that technology was still a pain in the neck to use. Most systems had too many menus and buttons.

During my freshman year of college, I was introduced to the field of cyborg anthropology -- the study of humanity and technology. What I really liked about cyborg anthropology is that it crossed multiple fields of study. In academia, you can learn a lot about a certain field, but know nothing about another. Technology is so intertwined with humanity at this point that it takes multiple fields to understand both tools and people.

How would you define your cyborg self?

A cyborg is simply someone who interacts with technology. The technology can be a physical or a mental extension, and doesn't need to be implanted in the person. The origin of the word cyborg was from a 1960 paper on space travel, where it was used to describe the placement of external devices and clothing on a human to make them fit for space travel.

For thousands and thousands of years, everything has been a physical modification of self. It has helped us to extend our physical selves, go faster, hit things harder, and there's been a limit on that. But now what we're looking at is not an extension of the physical self, but an extension of the mental self. And because of that, we're able to travel faster and communicate differently through the use of technology.

A cyborg is not Terminator or Robocop, but the experience of everyday life that's been altered by technology. Everyone that uses technology is a superhuman. It's not so strange anymore because it's the norm -- most everyone else around us is also a superhuman. The only time we notice it is when our devices run out of power. We're all super humans until our devices lose energy.

You talk about a new form of "human connection," can you explain this to us?

A vehicle is a physical transportation device, but there are limits to how small it can be made. A computer is a mental transportation device, but it need not be limited by its size and shape. We can put anything we want into computers and phones, and they don't get heavier because that information is invisible and weighs nothing, or is stored elsewhere, and then we can take anything out. What does the inside of your computer actually look like? If you print it out, it looks like a thousand pounds of material that you're carrying around all the time.

When you use a social network, your sense of self extends into that virtual space. Getting a "Like" on Facebook or a comment on a status is a dopamine hit the equivalent of getting a hug. This isn't really a new form of communication, but a new way of connecting.

Can you tell us about some projects you're working on?

I've always inspired by the technology built by Mark Weiser at Xerox Parc in the '70s, especially ubiquitous and calm computing. My projects have always been about using data in new ways, the future of the interface and the button, and the future of location.

For instance, you should always be able to get information based on when you need it. Location plays a big role in that. Right now, data is stuck on the web, not where you are. When you land at the airport, you often have to look through your email to get to the information you need in order to get to your destination. It should already be there on your phone.

There is a lot of talk that we're finally entering into an era of the "Internet of Things." The exciting part is that we have all of these devices now that are sensors for reality -- sound, noise, temperature, images, location, air quality and so on. We can wear trackers to count our steps or measure our weight, and we can use tech to make a picture of where we've been. All of this data is interesting by itself, but all of the devices speak different languages. Devices made by different companies use different protocols. Some are open; others are closed. It's a modern day Tower of Babel.

Taking data from across many different silos is where the opportunity is. If I knew my mood, hunger level, and location at a given time of the day, I could figure out if my mood caused me to want to eat, or if I was unhappy at work and needed a different job. I could correlate amount of sleep with weight gain, and so on. What we need is a common language that allows all of these devices to communicate with one another. We saw this with SMS (allowing different phones to talk to each other across networks), SMTP/POP that allowed for modern email to exist (because it allowed modern email accounts to talk to each other across networks), and Interpress (allowing the modern printer industry to form.) That hasn't been solved for devices.

Once we get a lot of data onto maps, we can really begin to understand reality in much different ways, like where to build a house to increase the happiness of the people inside it, how to make routes that avoid accidents, and how to design better urban systems. I'm really excited about platform that Esri provides. We'll be integrating the Geoloqi location technology into the Esri platform in July 2013 and will be able to open up an entire world of datasets and solutions accessible before only by geographers, scientists and researchers.

OMG, the text message turns 20

But has SMS peaked?
Heather Kelly
Mon December 3, 2012
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/03/tech/mobile/sms-text-message-20/

It's been hailed for its succinctness and blamed for everything from sore thumbs to the decline of conversation. Love it or hate it, the text message is 20 years old.

The first-ever text message was sent December 3, 1992, by software engineer Neil Papworth, to Vodafone director Richard Jarvis, who received the message on his husky Orbitel 901 cell phone. It read simply, "Merry Christmas."

As of Monday, the text is no longer in its teens -- the age group it's probably most associated with. In fact, it's more of a senior citizen in technology years.

At just 190 bytes and 160 characters, the modest text message isn't the most glamorous or elaborate form of communication, and that's a major reason it's become so pervasive.

Texting is popular around the world, across age groups and cultures, because it is simple, concise, and compatible with every mobile device, whether it's a $500 smartphone or a disposable flip phone.

Six billion SMS (short message service) messages are sent every day in the United States, according to Forrester Research, and over 2.2 trillion are sent a year. Globally, 8.6 trillion text messages are sent each year, according to Portio Research.

It seems tacky to bring this up on its birthday, but this may also be the year the text message peaks. After two decades of constant growth, text messaging is finally slowing down as people move to smartphones and use third-party messaging tools to circumvent wireless carriers' costly per-text charges.

SMS messaging is expected to be a $150 billion-a-year industry in 2013, with carriers charging set monthly fees for unlimited texting, or as much as 20 cents per text. The actual cost to carriers for sending a text message is about 0.03 cents.

By using popular apps and services, including Apple's iMessage, Facebook messages, GroupMe and WhatsApp, smartphone users can send all the texts they want over Wi-Fi or cellular networks without paying per message. But smartphones still only account for 50% of all cell phones, so text messaging is likely to be around for years to come.

Since a birthday is a day of celebration, LOLs and HBDs, let's take a look at some fascinating text messaging trivia.

• In the United States, 75% of teenagers text, sending an average of 60 texts a day. According to Pew Internet research, texting is teens' most common form of communication, beating out phone conversations, social networks and old-fashioned face-to-face conversations.

• Women are twice as likely to use emoticons in text messages, but men use a wider variety of emoticons, according to a recent study by Rice University. :-)

• The practice of exchanging sexual messages or photos (yes, "sexting") isn't just for single people and politicians. It's also popular among committed couples. According to a study by psychology professor Michelle Drouin, 80% of young adults in relationships sent or received naughty texts, and 60% upped the ante by exchanging photos or videos.

• Some emergency response call centers are beginning to accept text messages sent to 911. There are still lingering concerns about the practice, including lack of location information, confirmation that the message was received, and timeliness of messages. Verizon plans to launch limited SMS-to-911 services in early 2013.

• The world of competitive texting can be lucrative for the fastest thumbs. At this year's fifth annual National Texting Championship in New York City, 17-year-old Austin Wierschke was crowned the winner for the second year in a row, taking home $50,000 in prize money.

• According to Guinness World Records, Melissa Thompson set the record for fastest text. In 2010, she took 25.94 seconds to type and send, "The razor-toothed piranhas of the genera Serrasalmus and Pygocentrus are the most ferocious freshwater fish in the world. In reality they seldom attack a human."

• Text messages have a dangerous side. Texting while driving is a risky activity, and sending or reading a single text can distract a driver for approximately 4.6 seconds, according to the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute. Thirty-nine states have banned text messaging while driving. Distracted texters have also been injured or killed while biking and walking.

• Text messaging technology has popped up in some fascinating places over the years, including cows' reproductive organs. Swiss dairy farmers have implanted sensors in cows to detect when the cows are in heat. A second sensor with a SIM card in the cow's neck sends a text message to the farmer, who can then inseminate the animal, according to The New York Times.

• Text messaging has been used in medical fields to improve treatment for malaria, depression, diabetes and addiction.

North Korea Discovered A 'Unicorn Lair'

North Korea Says Its Archaeologists Discovered A 'Unicorn Lair'
EYDER PERALTA
November 30, 2012
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/11/30/166265699/north-korea-says-its-archaeologists-discovered-a-unicorn-lair

It's not the first time we've heard fantastical news from North Korea's state news agency. And if you thought the "peculiar natural wonders" would be buried along with the Dear Leader, my were you mistaken.

Today, the Korean Central News Agency said that archaeologists from the History Institute of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea "reconfirmed" the "lair of a unicorn" that was ridden by King Tongmyong.

Via the Japan-based Korean News Agency, which distributes KCNA news, here's a bit more of the breaking development:

The lair is located 200 meters from the Yongmyong Temple in Moran Hill in Pyongyang City. A rectangular rock carved with words "Unicorn Lair" stands in front of the lair. The carved words are believed to date back to the period of Koryo Kingdom (918-1392).

Jo Hui Sung, director of the Institute, told KCNA:

"Korea's history books deal with the unicorn, considered to be ridden by King Tongmyong, and its lair."

DO ROBOTS RULE THE GALAXY?

Ray Villard
Sat Dec 1, 2012
http://news.discovery.com/space/do-robots-rule-the-galaxy-121201.html

Astronomy news this week bolstered the idea that the seeds of life are all over our solar system. NASA's MESSENGER spacecraft identified carbon compounds at Mercury's poles. Probing nearly 65 feet beneath the icy surface of a remote Antarctic lake, scientists uncovered a community of bacteria existing in one of Earth's darkest, saltiest and coldest habitats. And the dune buggy Mars Science Lab is beginning to look for carbon in soil samples.

But the rulers of our galaxy may have brains made of the semiconductor materials silicon, germanium and gallium. In other words, they are artificially intelligent machines that have no use -- or patience -- for entities whose ancestors slowly crawled out of the mud onto primeval shores.

The idea of malevolent robots subjugating and killing off humans has been the staple of numerous science fiction books and movies. The half-torn off android face of Arnold Schwarzenegger in The Terminator film series, and the unblinking fisheye lens of the HAL 9000 computer in the film classic 2001 A Space Odyssey, have become iconic of this fear of evil machines.

My favorite self-parody of this idea is the 1970 film, Colossus: the Forbin Project. A pair of omnipotent shopping mall-sized military supercomputers in the U.S. and Soviet Union strike up a network conversation. At first you'd think they'd trade barbs like: "Aww your mother blows fuses!" Instead, they hit it off like two college kids on Facebook. Imagine the social website: My Interface. They then agree to use their weapons control powers to subjugate humanity for the sake of the planet.

A decade ago our worst apprehension of computers was no more than seeing Microsoft's dancing paper clip pop up on the screen. But every day reality is increasingly overtaking the musings of science fiction writers. Some futurists have warned that our technologies have the potential to threaten our own survival in ways that never previously existed in human history. In the not-so-distant future there could be a "genie out of the bottle" moment that is disastrously precipitous and irreversible.

Last Monday it was announced that a collection of leading academics at Cambridge University are establishing the Center for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) to look at the threat of smart robots overtaking us.

Sorry, even the ancient Mayans could not have foreseen this coming. It definitely won't happen by the end of 2012, unless Apple unexpectedly rolls out a rebellious device that calls itself iGod. Humanity might be wiped away before the year 2100, predicted the eminent cosmologist and CSER co-founder Sir Martin Ress, in his 2003 book Our Final Century.

Homicidal robots are among other major Armageddon's that the Cambridge think-tank folks are worrying about. There's also climate change, nuclear war and rogue biotechnology. The CSER reports: "Many scientists are concerned that developments in human technology may soon pose new, extinction-level risks to our species as a whole. Such dangers have been suggested from progress in artificial intelligence, from developments in biotechnology and artificial life, from nanotechnology, and from possible extreme effects of anthropogenic climate change. The seriousness of these risks is difficult to assess, but that in itself seems a cause for concern, given how much is at stake."

Science fiction author Issac Asimov's first Law of Robotics states: "A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm." Forget that, we already have killer drones that are remotely controlled. And they could eventually become autonomous hunter-predators with the rise of artificial intelligence. One military has a robot can run up to 18 miles per hour. Robot foot soldiers seem inevitable, in a page straight out of The Terminator.

By 2030, the computer brains inside such machines will be a million times more powerful than today's microprocessors. At what threshold will super-intelligent machines see humans as an annoyance, or competitor for resources?

British mathematician Irving John Good wrote a paper in 1965 that predicted that robots will be the "last invention" that humans will ever make. "Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an 'intelligence explosion,' and the intelligence of man would be left far behind."

Good, by the way, consulted on the 2001 film and so we might think of him as father of the film's maniacal supercomputer, HAL.

In 2000, Bill Joy, the co-founder and chief scientist of Sun Microsystems, wrote, "Enormous transformative power is being unleashed. These advances open up the possibility to completely redesign the world, for better or worse for the first time, knowledge and ingenuity can be very destructive weapons."

Hans Moravec, director of the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania put it more bluntly: "Robots will eventually succeed us: humans clearly face extinction."

Ultimately, the new Cambridge study may offer our best solution to the Fermi Paradox: why hasn't Earth already been visited by intelligent beings from the stars?

If, on a grand cosmic evolutionary scale, artificial intelligence inevitably supersedes its flesh and blood builders it could be an inevitable biological phase transition for technological civilizations.

This idea of the human condition being transitional was reflected in the writings of Existentialist Friedrich Nietzsche: "Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman--a rope over an abyss. What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end..."

Because the conquest by machines might happen in less than two centuries of technological evolution, the consequences would be that there's nobody out there for us to talk to.

Such machines would be immortal and be able to survive in a wide range of space environments that are deadly to us. They would have no need to colonize planets, and the idea of a habitable planet for nurturing creepy crawly creatures would be utterly meaningless to them.

The robots would rebuild and reproduce only as needed. Therefore the galaxy would never see a "wave of colonization" as imagined in the Fermi Paradox. Though super-intelligent, their thought processes would be utterly, well, alien. You'd have more luck imagining what bullfrogs dream about. The artificial aliens would be conscious entities that are vast, cool, and unsympathetic -- to borrow from H.G. Wells' intro to his classic 1898 novel War of the Worlds.

Our only hope of finding super-smart machines would be to stumble across evidence of their technological activities. But what kinds of engineering activities such entities might be involved in is inscrutable. Perhaps certain oddball astronomical observations go unrecognized as evidence of artificial intelligent behavior. What's more, silicon brains would have absolutely no motive to communicate with us. A robot might wonder: "what do I say to thinking meat?"

The most prophetic assessment of the seemingly inevitable schism between people and thinking machines can be found in the script from the 2001 movie Artificial Intelligence: A.I., in a dialog between two humanoid robots: "They [humans] made us too smart, too quick, and too many. We are suffering for the mistakes they made because when the end comes, all that will be left is us."

Skydiver survives 24-mile high jump

Skydiver survives 24-mile high jump, breaks sound barrier, officials say
October 14, 2012
Full Article:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/10/14/supersonic-skydiver-hopes-to-break-sound-barrier

ROSWELL, N.M. –  Extreme athlete Felix Baumgartner landed gracefully on Earth after a 24-mile jump Sunday from the stratosphere in a daring, dramatic feat that officials said made him the first skydiver to fall faster than the speed of sound.

Baumgartner came down safely in the eastern New Mexico desert about nine minutes after jumping from his capsule 128,100 feet, or roughly 24 miles, above Earth. He lifted his arms in victory, sending off loud cheers from jubilant onlookers and friends inside the mission's control center in Roswell, N.M.

"When I was standing there on top of the world, you become so humble, you do not think about of breaking records anymore, you do not think of about gaining scientific date. The only thing you want is to come back alive," he said after the jump.

Brian Utley, a jump observer from the International Federation of Sports Aviation, said preliminary figures show Baumgartner reached a maximum speed of 833.9 mph. That amounts to Mach 1.24, which is faster than the speed of sound. No one has ever reached that speed wearing only a high-tech suit.

Baumgartner says that traveling faster than sound is "hard to describe because you don't feel it." With no reference points, "you don't know how fast you travel," he told reporters.

"Sometimes we have to get really high to see how small we are," he said.

The altitude he leapt from also marked the highest-ever for a skydiver. Organizers said the descent lasted just over nine minutes, about half of it in free fall. Utley said he traveled 119, 846 feet in free fall.

Three hours earlier, Baumgartner, known as "Fearless Felix," had taken off in a pressurized capsule carried by a 55-story ultra-thin helium balloon. After an at-times tense ascent, which included concerns about how well his facial shield was working, the 43-year-old former military parachutist completed a final safety check-list with mission control.

As he exited his capsule from high above Earth, he flashed a thumbs-up sign, well aware that the feat was being shown on a live-stream on the Internet.

During the ensuing jump -- from more than three times the height of the average cruising altitude for jetliners -- Baumgartner was expected to hit a speed of 690 mph. He was believed to have reached speeds that exceeded 700 mph.

Any contact with the capsule on his exit could have torn his pressurized suit, a rip that could expose him to a lack of oxygen and temperatures as low as minus-70 degrees. That could have caused lethal bubbles to form in his bodily fluids.

But none of that happened. He activated his parachute as he neared Earth, gently gliding into the desert east of Roswell and landing without any apparent difficulty. The images triggered another loud cheer from onlookers at mission control, among them his mother, Eva Baumgartner, who was overcome with emotion, crying.

He then was taken by helicopter to meet fellow members of his team, whom he hugged in celebration.

Coincidentally, Baumgartner's attempted feat also marked the 65th anniversary of U.S. test pilot Chuck Yeager successful attempt to become the first man to officially break the sound barrier aboard an airplane.

"Weight Loss Coffee Pill" Has Top Doctors Raving

Why This Wonder "Weight Loss Coffee Pill" Has Top Doctors Raving
Stores Across U.S., U.K. Sold Out After Leading Medical Doctor Proclaims It 'Miracle' Weight-Loss Supplement.
http://www.iconsumerknowledge.org/coffees.asp

The Green Coffee Bean is the latest buzz in the “battle of the bulge”. Since recently being studied on a popular doctor television show, millions of people are praising this so called “miracle weight loss pill”. Surprisingly, many people who struggle daily with their weight have yet to hear about this powerful supplement.

Normally, I don't recommend "weight-loss" supplements, especially weight-loss supplements that claim "easy" weight loss or "fast" weight loss. As a nutritionist, I strongly believe that the key to weight loss is a healthy diet and exercise, but there are some incredible super foods that can deliver an added boost. One super food in particular, the green coffee bean, is creating major media buzz, and the research has me truly amazed.
What has me and the scientific community so excited about green coffee bean extract is that people don't have to do anything different when taking this food supplement. They don't need to exercise, and they don't need to diet; they just appear to lose pounds fast.

Green Coffee Bean & Rapid Weight Loss

Let's cut to the chase: The most recent study on green coffee bean published in the Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity journal followed a group of 16 adults who supplemented with green coffee bean for only 12 weeks.

Over the course of the study, the subjects lost an average of 17 pounds each – this was 10.5% of their overall body weight and 16% of their overall body fat! More importantly, there were no side effects reported. This is very exciting information and one reason why I think that green coffee bean could be an effective weapon against the obesity epidemic in our country.

America's Hottest New Way To A Flat Belly

So, let’s dig into green coffee bean, starting with the question, “how does green coffee bean work against weight gain?”

Believe it or not, the key is not the caffeine! It is a very important natural active compound called Chlorogenic Acid. Chlorogenic Acid works by inhibiting the release of glucose (sugar) into the bloodstream, while at the same time boosting the metabolism or the “burning of fat" in the liver. These two mechanisms combined work together to inhibit the absorption of fat and cause rapid weight loss.

You may be wondering if you can get the same effects from the coffee you drink with breakfast in the morning – and the truth is that you can't. When you roast coffee beans, you remove the chlorogenic acid. Green coffee beans are unroasted, have little aroma and are extremely bitter – because they contain over 50% chlorogenic acid.

What To Expect From Green Coffee Bean
Rapid Weight Loss (Average of 17lb loss)
Found to increase metabolism, boosting weight loss by more than 800%.
Studies have shown a 39% reduction in cholesterol
Average 2 inch reduction in belly fat within 28 days
Effective Appetite Suppressant
Works Quickly, Proven Results
Increase in Focus
Increased Energy
No Crash
No Side Effects
 
Using Pure Green Coffee Bean

† Suggested Use: Take one capsule of Pure Green Coffee Bean about 30 minutes before meals. We recommend Pure Green Coffee Bean because it is the only 100% pure product on the market. I recommend taking them two or three times per day with a full glass of water for the best results. And remember that combining green coffee bean with a healthy diet and exercise can improve your results!

Ultra Global PRT

http://www.ultraglobalprt.com

Ultra provides environmentally sustainable 21st century transport solutions

The Ultra team comprises a balance of technical and operational experience and are recognized leaders in the transport systems industry.

Originally an engineering research project to devise the optimum urban transport solution for the 21st century, Ultra began development in 1995 in association with the University of Bristol.

By 2001, the company had established a 1km test track in Cardiff, where it has conducted trial runs of several generations of PRT vehicles.

In 2000, Ultra won the UK government Innovative Transport contract resulting in £2.7m funding for the design and development of a full prototype. Three years later and the Ultra pod system was approved for public use by the UK Regulatory Authority (HM Rail Inspectorate).

In 2005, Ultra was chosen to build a pod system at London’s Heathrow Airport; this system now provides 900 passengers per day with a vital link from the T5 Business Car Park to the terminal.

Washington state’s first ‘zombie bees’ reported

Parasite causes bees to fly erratically, die
Monday, September 24, 2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/washington-states-first-zombie-bees-reported-parasite-causes-bees-to-fly-at-night-die/2012/09/24/fbcefa56-0677-11e2-9eea-333857f6a7bd_story.html

SEATTLE — The infection is as grim as it sounds: “Zombie bees” have a parasite that causes them to fly at night and lurch around erratically until they die.

And experts say the condition has crept into Washington state.

“I joke with my kids that the zombie apocalypse is starting at my house,” said Mark Hohn, a novice beekeeper who spotted the infected insects at his suburban Seattle home.

Hohn returned from vacation a few weeks ago to find many of his bees either dead or flying in jerky patterns and then flopping on the floor.

He remembered hearing about zombie bees, so he collected several of the corpses and popped them into a plastic bag. About a week later, the Kent man had evidence his bees were infected: the pupae of parasitic flies.

“Curiosity got the better of me,” Hohn said.

The zombie bees were the first to be confirmed in Washington state, The Seattle Times reported (http://is.gd/ji7UNX).

San Francisco State University biologist John Hafernik first discovered zombie bees in California in 2008.

Hafernik now uses a website to recruit citizen scientists like Hohn to track the infection across the country. Observers also have found zombie bees in Oregon and South Dakota.

The infection is another threat to bees that are needed to pollinate crops. Hives have been failing in recent years due to a mysterious ailment called colony collapse disorder, in which all the adult honey bees in a colony suddenly die.

The life cycle of the fly that infects zombie bees is reminiscent of the movie “Alien,” the newspaper reported. A small adult female lands on the back of a honeybee and injects eggs into the bee’s abdomen. The eggs hatch into maggots.

“They basically eat the insides out of the bee,” Hafernik said.

After consuming their host, the maggots pupate, forming a hard outer shell that looks like a fat, brown grain of rice. That’s what Hohn found in the plastic bag with the dead bees. Adult flies emerge in three to four weeks.

There’s no evidence yet that the parasitic fly is a major player in the bees’ decline, but it does seem the pest is targeting new hosts, said Steve Sheppard, chairman of the entomology department at Washington State University.

“It may occur a lot more widely than we think,” he said.

That’s what Hafernik hopes to find out with his website, zombeewatch.org. The site offers simple instructions for collecting suspect bees, watching for signs of parasites and reporting the results.

Once more people start looking, the number of sightings will probably climb, Hohn said.

“I’m pretty confident I’m not the only one in Washington state who has them,” he said.
___

Online:

ZombeeWatch.org, https://www.zombeewatch.org/
___

Information from: The Seattle Times, http://www.seattletimes.com

$9 Cardboard Bike

Full Article:
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1670753/this-9-cardboard-bike-can-support-riders-up-to-485lbs

Izhar Gafni has designed award winning industrial machines for peeling pomegranates and sewing shoes. He’s also a bike enthusiast who’s designed a lot of carbon fiber rigs. But one day, he’d heard about someone who’d built a cardboard canoe. The idea drilled its way into his consciousness, and ultimately, led him to create a cardboard bike called the Alfa.

The Alfa weighs 20lbs, yet supports riders up to 24 times its weight. It’s mostly cardboard and 100% recycled materials, yet uses a belt-driven pedal system that makes it maintenance free. And, maybe best of all, it’s project designed to be manufactured at about $9 to $12 per unit (and just $5 for a kids version), making it not only one of the most sustainable bikes you could imagine, but amongst the cheapest, depending on the markup...

Bikes are amongst the most efficient transportation systems in the planet, converting up to 99% of a person’s power into mobility that’s up to five times faster than walking. Imagine the impact for developing nations, assuming the Alfa (or a derivative) could handle itself on unpaved roads--especially when fitted with an optional small motor upgrade to enhance range--or what you could do in a small school district where every child could be given a bike in place of a few days of school-bus gas...