France Warns on Credit Rating
May 31st, 2010Via: Reuters:
France admitted on Sunday that keeping its top-notch credit rating would be “a stretch” without some tough budget decisions, following German hints that Berlin may resort to raising taxes to help bring down its deficit.
Euro zone trade unions are preparing for possible confrontations in the coming week if governments impose austerity measures or labor reforms unilaterally.
But ministers made clear they were ready to take unpopular steps to prevent the Greek debt crisis spreading to their economies, although doubts are growing about whether the Spanish government in particular has enough support to get its way.
Budget Minister Francois Baroin indicated on Sunday that France should not take for granted its AAA rating, which allows Paris to borrow relatively cheaply on international markets and finance its big budget deficit.
“The objective of keeping the AAA rating is an objective that is a stretch, and it is an objective that, in fact, partly informs the economic policies we want to have,” Baroin said.
“We must maintain our AAA rating, reduce our debt to avoid being too dependent on the markets, and we must do this for the long term,” he told Canal+ TV in an interview.
Baroin later clarified that the target was “a demanding (objective) which we’re committed to.”
France has forecast its deficit will hit 8 percent of gross domestic product this year, but aims to bring it down to within the European Union’s 3 percent limit by 2013.
Talks are under way on pension reform and Paris has frozen central government spending, barring pensions and interest payments, between 2011 and 2013. It is also considering a constitutional amendment to set binding budget deficit limits.
How to Get a Written Apology from the U.S. Government for Being Mistakenly Added to the Terrorist No Fly List
May 31st, 2010Via: ABC News:
The United States has issued a written apology to a jet-setting billionaire businessman with close ties to former President Bill Clinton whose name was added to the no-fly list in the wake of the attempted Christmas day bombing of an American passenger plane.
Greece Urged to Give Up Euro
May 31st, 2010WARNING: This is not a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any financial instrument.
I’m not sure how much of this is piece is short-the-euro hype, but here it is in any event. Just be aware that the shortside euro trade has been VERY easy money lately. When the mainstream news is going with the easy money trade, watch out.
From a technical analysis perspective, though, while a double bottom of sorts is in on EUR/USD, a bearish descending triangle is shaping up. My call would be to stick to the short side for the moment, BUT to consider covering and reverse it long if that triangle breaks to the upside. A break above the top line of that triangle means that the double bottom “won” so to speak.
As of now, though, I don’t believe that double bottom. For it to be real, that is, for it to signal a major reversal, I’m guessing that interval between the pivots would have to be much longer, a few weeks at least. This is just about a week.
That said, if that top line of the triangle is taken out, it’s going to set off a short covering rally.
Via: Times:
THE Greek government has been advised by British economists to leave the euro and default on its €300 billion (£255 billion) debt to save its economy.
The Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR), a London-based consultancy, has warned Greek ministers they will be unable to escape their debt trap without devaluing their own currency to boost exports. The only way this can happen is if Greece returns to its own currency.
Greek politicians have played down the prospect of abandoning the euro, which could lead to the break-up of the single currency.
Speaking from Athens yesterday, Doug McWilliams, chief executive of the CEBR, said: “Leaving the euro would mean the new currency will fall by a minimum of 15%. But as the national debt is valued in euros, this would raise the debt from its current level of 120% of GDP to 140% overnight.
“So part of the package of leaving the euro must be to convert the debt into the new domestic currency unilaterally.”
Greece’s departure from the euro would prove disastrous for German and French banks, to which it owes billions of euros.
McWilliams called the move “virtually inevitable” and said other members may follow.
“The only question is the timing,” he said. “The other issue is the extent of contagion. Spain would probably be forced to follow suit, and probably Portugal and Italy, though the Italian debt position is less serious.
“Could this be the last weekend of the single currency? Quite possibly, yes.”
BP Collects Billions in U.S. Government Contracts
May 31st, 2010Via: Muckety:
Daniel Gross of Slate poses the question: How do we punish BP?
The options he suggests – boycotting BP products, charging for the cleanup, even nationalizing the company – are less than satisfying.
Here’s another possibility: How about barring BP from the federal trough?
According to USASpending.gov, BP has received more than $9 billion in defense contracts since 2000. Contracts with Veterans Affairs, Transportation, Commerce and other federal agencies total additional millions.
Pro Publica reports that the Environmental Protection Agency is considering a ban on BP getting government contracts:
Over the past 10 years, BP has paid tens of millions of dollars in fines and been implicated in four separate instances of criminal misconduct that could have prompted this far more serious action. Until now, the company’s executives and their lawyers have fended off such a penalty by promising that BP would change its ways. That strategy may no longer work.
The EPA issued a statement saying it could issue a ban after reviewing “the frequency and pattern of the incidents, corporate attitude both before and after the incidents, changes in policies, procedures, and practices.”
A total ban would not only cancel company contracts, but would prevent BP from drilling on federal land, including offshore sites.
The EPA had already been in talks with BP before the spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Agency officials confirmed to Pro Publica that the talks were suspended after the Gulf disaster.
Israel Stations Nuclear Missile Subs Off Iran
May 31st, 2010Via: Times:
Three German-built Israeli submarines equipped with nuclear cruise missiles are to be deployed in the Gulf near the Iranian coastline.
The first has been sent in response to Israeli fears that ballistic missiles developed by Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, a political and military organisation in Lebanon, could hit sites in Israel, including air bases and missile launchers.
The submarines of Flotilla 7 — Dolphin, Tekuma and Leviathan — have visited the Gulf before. But the decision has now been taken to ensure a permanent presence of at least one of the vessels.
The flotilla’s commander, identified only as “Colonel O”, told an Israeli newspaper: “We are an underwater assault force. We’re operating deep and far, very far, from our borders.”
MATT SIMMONS: THERE’S ANOTHER, MUCH LARGER LEAK THAN THE ONE WE’RE BEING SHOWN, CALL IN THE MILITARY, NUKE THE WELL
May 30th, 2010The person who sent this wrote, “Thanks for your work, Kevin. We’re heading to the hills.”
Might not be a bad idea.
Via: Bloomberg:
Matt Simmons, founder and chairman emeritus of Simmons & Co., talks with Bloomberg’s Mark Crumpton and Lori Rothman about BP Plc’s leaking oil well in the Gulf of Mexico.
Research Credit: gulftribunal.com
Top Kill Failed
May 29th, 2010Now they want to cut off the damaged riser from the well and TRY to cap it with a valve.
Via: AP:
BP has failed in its latest attempt to plug the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico with mud and cement, the company said Saturday.
BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles said the company determined the “top kill” method had failed after studying it for three days. The method involved pumping heavy drilling mud into a crippled well 5,000 feet underwater.
“We have not been able to stop the flow,” Suttles said. “We have made the decision to move onto the next option.”
It was the latest setback for the company trying to stop the crude from further fouling waters, wildlife and marshland. Other attempts included a gigantic box placed over the leak and a tube inserted to siphon the oil away. The box failed after ice-like crystals clogged it, while the tube was removed to make way for the top kill after it sucked up more than 900,000 gallons of oil.
The spill is the worst in U.S. history and has dumped between 18 million and 40 million gallons into the Gulf, according to government estimates.
BP says it’s already preparing for the next attempt to stop the leak. Under the new plan, BP would use robot submarines to cut off the damaged riser from which the oil is leaking, and then try to cap it with a containment valve. The new attempt would take four days to complete.
“We’re confident the job will work but obviously we can’t guarantee success,” Suttles said of the new plan.
U.S. Department of Defense Wants Autonomous Robot Army by 2034
May 29th, 2010Via: TechnoFascism Blog:
“It will save lives”, or so the argument goes. Sending a robot warrior onto the battlefield instead of humans seems like the logical next step in a world moving toward greater efficiency and automation. Everyone seems in love with this new technological trend of automated devastation: from the corporations that will profit from the sale of them; to the military leaders who admire the increased killing power of the robotic drones.
As I write this, in 2010, fully autonomous killer robots are still in the early trial phase, when scientists are still working out the bugs and lawyers are still clambering over liability issues. However, according to recent estimates there are at least 6000 robots at some level of autonomous operation in active deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan.
According to an article in Military Aerospace, former U.S. Air Force (USAF) Chief of Staff General T. Michael Moseley said, “We’ve moved from using UAVs primarily in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance roles before Operation Iraqi Freedom, to a true hunter-killer role with the Reaper.” Currently, the U.S. Air Force’s fleet stands at 195 Predators and 28 Reapers.
As the armed forces rapidly move toward greater use of these robotic warriors, one can only wonder what this horrific automated battlefield will look like twenty years from now. Fortunately for us, there is no need to speculate about the future role of killer robots. We have only to look at one of the military’s playbooks for the development and deployment of robotic systems: the “2009 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap” released by the U.S. Department of Defense.
The main point that can be gleaned from a careful reading of this Roadmap is not if the front-line military will be composed almost entirely of automated, killer robots but when. And we don’t have to wonder too long about when either, for this document gives the answer to that question too: by about 2034 — if everything goes according to plan.
Afghans Believe U.S. is Funding Taliban
May 29th, 2010NATO Forces Supplied Food, Water and Arms to Taliban Forces in Southern Afghanistan
By some miracle, the article doesn’t mention opium.
Via: Guardian:
It’s near-impossible to find anyone in Afghanistan who doesn’t believe the US are funding the Taliban: and it’s the highly educated Afghan professionals, those employed by ISAF, USAID, international media organisations – and even advising US diplomats – who seem the most convinced.
One Afghan friend, who speaks flawless English and likes to quote Charles Dickens, Bertolt Brecht and Anton Chekhov, says the reason is clear. “The US has an interest in prolonging the conflict so as to stay in Afghanistan for the long term.”
Research Credit: AM
The Web Shatters Focus, Rewires Brains
May 29th, 2010The QuickImage plugin for Firefox may be used to very easily turn image loading on and off.
Via: Wired:
During the winter of 2007, a UCLA professor of psychiatry named Gary Small recruited six volunteers—three experienced Web surfers and three novices—for a study on brain activity. He gave each a pair of goggles onto which Web pages could be projected. Then he slid his subjects, one by one, into the cylinder of a whole-brain magnetic resonance imager and told them to start searching the Internet. As they used a handheld keypad to Google various preselected topics—the nutritional benefits of chocolate, vacationing in the Galapagos Islands, buying a new car—the MRI scanned their brains for areas of high activation, indicated by increases in blood flow.
The two groups showed marked differences. Brain activity of the experienced surfers was far more extensive than that of the newbies, particularly in areas of the prefrontal cortex associated with problem-solving and decisionmaking. Small then had his subjects read normal blocks of text projected onto their goggles; in this case, scans revealed no significant difference in areas of brain activation between the two groups. The evidence suggested, then, that the distinctive neural pathways of experienced Web users had developed because of their Internet use.
The most remarkable result of the experiment emerged when Small repeated the tests six days later. In the interim, the novices had agreed to spend an hour a day online, searching the Internet. The new scans revealed that their brain activity had changed dramatically; it now resembled that of the veteran surfers. “Five hours on the Internet and the naive subjects had already rewired their brains,” Small wrote. He later repeated all the tests with 18 more volunteers and got the same results.
When first publicized, the findings were greeted with cheers. By keeping lots of brain cells buzzing, Google seemed to be making people smarter. But as Small was careful to point out, more brain activity is not necessarily better brain activity. The real revelation was how quickly and extensively Internet use reroutes people’s neural pathways. “The current explosion of digital technology not only is changing the way we live and communicate,” Small concluded, “but is rapidly and profoundly altering our brains.”
What kind of brain is the Web giving us? That question will no doubt be the subject of a great deal of research in the years ahead. Already, though, there is much we know or can surmise—and the news is quite disturbing. Dozens of studies by psychologists, neurobiologists, and educators point to the same conclusion: When we go online, we enter an environment that promotes cursory reading, hurried and distracted thinking, and superficial learning. Even as the Internet grants us easy access to vast amounts of information, it is turning us into shallower thinkers, literally changing the structure of our brain.
Back in the 1980s, when schools began investing heavily in computers, there was much enthusiasm about the apparent advantages of digital documents over paper ones. Many educators were convinced that introducing hyperlinks into text displayed on monitors would be a boon to learning. Hypertext would strengthen critical thinking, the argument went, by enabling students to switch easily between different viewpoints. Freed from the lockstep reading demanded by printed pages, readers would make all sorts of new intellectual connections between diverse works. The hyperlink would be a technology of liberation.
By the end of the decade, the enthusiasm was turning to skepticism. Research was painting a fuller, very different picture of the cognitive effects of hypertext. Navigating linked documents, it turned out, entails a lot of mental calisthenics—evaluating hyperlinks, deciding whether to click, adjusting to different formats—that are extraneous to the process of reading. Because it disrupts concentration, such activity weakens comprehension. A 1989 study showed that readers tended just to click around aimlessly when reading something that included hypertext links to other selected pieces of information. A 1990 experiment revealed that some “could not remember what they had and had not read.”
Even though the World Wide Web has made hypertext ubiquitous and presumably less startling and unfamiliar, the cognitive problems remain. Research continues to show that people who read linear text comprehend more, remember more, and learn more than those who read text peppered with links. In a 2001 study, two scholars in Canada asked 70 people to read “The Demon Lover,” a short story by Elizabeth Bowen. One group read it in a traditional linear-text format; they’d read a passage and click the word next to move ahead. A second group read a version in which they had to click on highlighted words in the text to move ahead. It took the hypertext readers longer to read the document, and they were seven times more likely to say they found it confusing. Another researcher, Erping Zhu, had people read a passage of digital prose but varied the number of links appearing in it. She then gave the readers a multiple-choice quiz and had them write a summary of what they had read. She found that comprehension declined as the number of links increased—whether or not people clicked on them. After all, whenever a link appears, your brain has to at least make the choice not to click, which is itself distracting.
A 2007 scholarly review of hypertext experiments concluded that jumping between digital documents impedes understanding. And if links are bad for concentration and comprehension, it shouldn’t be surprising that more recent research suggests that links surrounded by images, videos, and advertisements could be even worse.
In a study published in the journal Media Psychology, researchers had more than 100 volunteers watch a presentation about the country of Mali, played through a Web browser. Some watched a text-only version. Others watched a version that incorporated video. Afterward, the subjects were quizzed on the material. Compared to the multimedia viewers, the text-only viewers answered significantly more questions correctly; they also found the presentation to be more interesting, more educational, more understandable, and more enjoyable.
Research Credit: JT



