The next time you want a man to know that you desire him - just let your "smart memory bra" do the talking!
A brassiere that lifts the bust when a woman is aroused has been unveiled at a lingerie exhibition in Paris.
The "smart memory bras" have heat-sensitive foam which pushes up boobs as sexual attraction causes body temperature to rise, reports The Sun.
As the body cools down, the foam relaxes and the bust appears normal again. Inventors at the Slovenia-based Lisca lingerie firm stumbled on the concept when developing bras that adapt to changing weather conditions.
Designer Suzana Gorisek said: "As the body changes, so does the bra." The revolutionary lingerie will hit British stores in summer for around 25-pound each.
A spokesman for Lisca said: "It's healthier than an ordinary bra because it will always provide the perfect fit."
Monday, May 18, 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
A giant leap toward space-based solar power
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. for decades has generated power for its customers by splitting atoms, burning natural gas and capturing the force of falling water. More recently, the San Francisco utility began turning to the sun, wind, boiling geysers and even fermented cow manure to produce electricity.
Now, PG&E wants to turn to outer space.
A Manhattan Beach start-up called Solaren Corp. seeks to launch an array of giant solar power collectors into orbit 23,000 miles above Fresno and beam the energy to Earth. PG&E has signed a contract to buy the power -- if Solaren can make the technology work.
The proposal is a potential energy game-changer, supporters say. But, critics dismiss it as pie in the sky.
The scheme highlights a growing dispute as utilities struggle to meet ambitious requirements for energy from renewable sources: Should electricity come from big, bold projects such as huge desert fields of sunlight-reflecting mirrors or should it come from smaller, close-to-the-user efforts such as rooftop solar panels? Should big power companies handle electron delivery or do-it-yourselfers?
Solaren won't discuss the details or costs of its plan, other than to give a ballpark price tag at more than $2 billion, to generate enough electricity for 150,000 homes across much of Northern and Central California. It has asked utility regulators to keep the information confidential, for now.
But executives say that by 2016 they can put together the technology to harness energy that constantly bathes Earth from 93 million miles away.
"If our numbers are anywhere near where we think they will be, we will be able to provide power at a cost that's comparable with anything on Earth, that is much cleaner and all from space," says Gary Spirnak, Solaren's chief executive.
Spirnak points to a 2007 study by the National Security Space Office as evidence that a such a space-based power system is feasible:
"There is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental stewardship, advancement of general space faring and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a space-based solar power capability."
He acknowledges that raising more than $2 billion during a recession won't be easy, but says having a guaranteed power purchase agreement with PG&E should carry some weight with potential investors.
The Public Utilities Commission is reviewing Solaren's contract with PG&E, a unit of PG&E Corp. Regulators are charged with ensuring that the deal helps the utility meet a requirement to get one-fifth of its power from renewable sources by 2012. PG&E has asked for a ruling before Oct. 29.
Consumer advocates and more Earth-bound proponents of renewable energy are extremely skeptical.
California will be unable to meet its looming 20% renewable energy requirement, let alone a more ambitious 30% goal by 2030, if utilities and regulators continually embrace expensive, flashy and unproven technologies, they say. Policymakers, instead, should stick with reliable alternative sources -- such as geothermal, wind and centralized solar, sunlight concentrated by mirrors -- that have been operating commercially for decades.
"There are a lot of speculative plays," says V. John White, director of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technology in Sacramento. "We have a lot of PowerPoints floating around that I don't think will turn into power plants."
The concept behind space-based solar power is simple, Solaren says.
Four or five rocket launches would be needed to put enough solar collectors into a stationary orbit to produce 200 megawatts of power, about half the output of a modern natural-gas-fired plant. The solar energy would be converted radio waves and beamed to a receiving station in Fresno, leaving unscathed any birds or airplanes that get in the way of the highly diffused beam. There, it would be converted to either alternating or direct electric current and dispatched to customers via high-voltage transmission lines.
Spirnak acknowledges that nothing on this scale has been attempted, but the basic technology is proven. Commercial communications satellites have been powered by solar energy for more than four decades. The satellites use the sun's power, available 24 hours a day in space, to make electricity. The electricity is turned into radio waves to bounce television, telephone and other signals around the globe.
Experience with larger scale, experimental radio transmissions converted to electrical power is limited, PG&E wrote in the regulatory filing. In 1975, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory transmitted 34 kilowatts of energy about a mile. Last year, a former JPL scientist, John Mankins, transmitted a small amount of power generated by ground-based solar cells 92 miles between two Hawaiian islands.
"The challenge," PG&E spokesman Jonathan Marshal says, is "putting enough hardware up in space and doing it economically."
Solaren and PG&E emphasize that ratepayers won't pay a penny of Solaren's costs until the company starts streaming power into their homes and businesses. PG&E isn't investing in the project up front, agreeing only to buy power once it's flowing, common practice in the utility business.
"There's no risk to our customers. They'll pay only for the power that's delivered," Marshal says. "We're not investing in the project or paying advance fees."
Consumer advocates say they're heartened that PG&E isn't asking customers to pay up front for what might turn out to be little more than a science fiction fantasy.
"We think the chance of this company ever getting this solar farm -- literally and figuratively -- off the ground is quite remote," says Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, a San Francisco-based group that monitors investor-owned utilities.
PG&E, which gets 12% of its power from renewable sources, is grandstanding when it touts contracts to buy space power, Toney says. It should be putting "more focus into local renewables closer to home," such as placing solar panels on the roofs of homes and businesses, he says.
Solaren's plan is a "very serious" effort to put an admittedly "trial size" power plant in space, says Frederick H. Pickel, an energy consultant and engineering economist in Los Angeles.
"If this works, it changes the whole game," he says. "If they manage to reduce the cost sufficiently for space-based solar generation, the electric game changes, the natural gas game changes and, perhaps, even the oil game changes."
Now, PG&E wants to turn to outer space.
A Manhattan Beach start-up called Solaren Corp. seeks to launch an array of giant solar power collectors into orbit 23,000 miles above Fresno and beam the energy to Earth. PG&E has signed a contract to buy the power -- if Solaren can make the technology work.
The proposal is a potential energy game-changer, supporters say. But, critics dismiss it as pie in the sky.
The scheme highlights a growing dispute as utilities struggle to meet ambitious requirements for energy from renewable sources: Should electricity come from big, bold projects such as huge desert fields of sunlight-reflecting mirrors or should it come from smaller, close-to-the-user efforts such as rooftop solar panels? Should big power companies handle electron delivery or do-it-yourselfers?
Solaren won't discuss the details or costs of its plan, other than to give a ballpark price tag at more than $2 billion, to generate enough electricity for 150,000 homes across much of Northern and Central California. It has asked utility regulators to keep the information confidential, for now.
But executives say that by 2016 they can put together the technology to harness energy that constantly bathes Earth from 93 million miles away.
"If our numbers are anywhere near where we think they will be, we will be able to provide power at a cost that's comparable with anything on Earth, that is much cleaner and all from space," says Gary Spirnak, Solaren's chief executive.
Spirnak points to a 2007 study by the National Security Space Office as evidence that a such a space-based power system is feasible:
"There is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental stewardship, advancement of general space faring and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a space-based solar power capability."
He acknowledges that raising more than $2 billion during a recession won't be easy, but says having a guaranteed power purchase agreement with PG&E should carry some weight with potential investors.
The Public Utilities Commission is reviewing Solaren's contract with PG&E, a unit of PG&E Corp. Regulators are charged with ensuring that the deal helps the utility meet a requirement to get one-fifth of its power from renewable sources by 2012. PG&E has asked for a ruling before Oct. 29.
Consumer advocates and more Earth-bound proponents of renewable energy are extremely skeptical.
California will be unable to meet its looming 20% renewable energy requirement, let alone a more ambitious 30% goal by 2030, if utilities and regulators continually embrace expensive, flashy and unproven technologies, they say. Policymakers, instead, should stick with reliable alternative sources -- such as geothermal, wind and centralized solar, sunlight concentrated by mirrors -- that have been operating commercially for decades.
"There are a lot of speculative plays," says V. John White, director of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technology in Sacramento. "We have a lot of PowerPoints floating around that I don't think will turn into power plants."
The concept behind space-based solar power is simple, Solaren says.
Four or five rocket launches would be needed to put enough solar collectors into a stationary orbit to produce 200 megawatts of power, about half the output of a modern natural-gas-fired plant. The solar energy would be converted radio waves and beamed to a receiving station in Fresno, leaving unscathed any birds or airplanes that get in the way of the highly diffused beam. There, it would be converted to either alternating or direct electric current and dispatched to customers via high-voltage transmission lines.
Spirnak acknowledges that nothing on this scale has been attempted, but the basic technology is proven. Commercial communications satellites have been powered by solar energy for more than four decades. The satellites use the sun's power, available 24 hours a day in space, to make electricity. The electricity is turned into radio waves to bounce television, telephone and other signals around the globe.
Experience with larger scale, experimental radio transmissions converted to electrical power is limited, PG&E wrote in the regulatory filing. In 1975, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory transmitted 34 kilowatts of energy about a mile. Last year, a former JPL scientist, John Mankins, transmitted a small amount of power generated by ground-based solar cells 92 miles between two Hawaiian islands.
"The challenge," PG&E spokesman Jonathan Marshal says, is "putting enough hardware up in space and doing it economically."
Solaren and PG&E emphasize that ratepayers won't pay a penny of Solaren's costs until the company starts streaming power into their homes and businesses. PG&E isn't investing in the project up front, agreeing only to buy power once it's flowing, common practice in the utility business.
"There's no risk to our customers. They'll pay only for the power that's delivered," Marshal says. "We're not investing in the project or paying advance fees."
Consumer advocates say they're heartened that PG&E isn't asking customers to pay up front for what might turn out to be little more than a science fiction fantasy.
"We think the chance of this company ever getting this solar farm -- literally and figuratively -- off the ground is quite remote," says Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, a San Francisco-based group that monitors investor-owned utilities.
PG&E, which gets 12% of its power from renewable sources, is grandstanding when it touts contracts to buy space power, Toney says. It should be putting "more focus into local renewables closer to home," such as placing solar panels on the roofs of homes and businesses, he says.
Solaren's plan is a "very serious" effort to put an admittedly "trial size" power plant in space, says Frederick H. Pickel, an energy consultant and engineering economist in Los Angeles.
"If this works, it changes the whole game," he says. "If they manage to reduce the cost sufficiently for space-based solar generation, the electric game changes, the natural gas game changes and, perhaps, even the oil game changes."
Fiancee identifies man killed by Inglewood police
man killed by Inglewood police this morning as they broke up a party has been identified as Marcus Smith, 31, of Compton, by a woman who said she was the man’s fiancee.
The Los Angeles County coroner’s office confirmed Smith’s identity.
Kalonna LaCount, 30, a secretary at Kaiser Permanente, said she and Smith were at a birthday party in the 800 block of South Osage Avenue when police officers showed up and told guests to disperse. LaCount said she and Smith were walking down a stairway together when Smith slipped. LaCount said she then saw Smith’s body jerk as police fired their weapons.
She said she did not see Smith brandishing a weapon, although she was not certain whether Smith was armed or owned a gun.
"He had his hands in the air," LaCount said. "The more he stumbled, the more they shot."
LaCount spoke hours after Inglewood police released a statement that there had been an officer-involved shooting on Osage Avenue. The statement said the suspect was killed and an officer injured.
A police spokesman later said that the suspect had a loaded semi-automatic handgun.
LaCount, wearing a green dress splattered with her fiancé’s blood, sat on the steps of the apartment building where the shooting occurred and wept as she recounted the moments before Smith’s death. LaCount said she and Smith had been together for 17 years and have three girls, all under age 12.
As she spoke, she turned to her brother, Taqwa LaCount, 25, and said: "He’s dead. Can you believe it? What am I going to do?"
Another witness account of the shooting came from Inglewood resident Charisma Bailey, 28, who lives at the apartment where the party was held. Bailey said party-goers were wearing masks and beads for the event’s Mardi Gras theme.
Bailey said she was standing next to the window of her second-story apartment, looking down the stairs when officers approached the property, holding flashlights and guns. "The next thing you know they’re shooting and he’s falling down the steps," she said of Smith.
The Los Angeles County coroner’s office confirmed Smith’s identity.
Kalonna LaCount, 30, a secretary at Kaiser Permanente, said she and Smith were at a birthday party in the 800 block of South Osage Avenue when police officers showed up and told guests to disperse. LaCount said she and Smith were walking down a stairway together when Smith slipped. LaCount said she then saw Smith’s body jerk as police fired their weapons.
She said she did not see Smith brandishing a weapon, although she was not certain whether Smith was armed or owned a gun.
"He had his hands in the air," LaCount said. "The more he stumbled, the more they shot."
LaCount spoke hours after Inglewood police released a statement that there had been an officer-involved shooting on Osage Avenue. The statement said the suspect was killed and an officer injured.
A police spokesman later said that the suspect had a loaded semi-automatic handgun.
LaCount, wearing a green dress splattered with her fiancé’s blood, sat on the steps of the apartment building where the shooting occurred and wept as she recounted the moments before Smith’s death. LaCount said she and Smith had been together for 17 years and have three girls, all under age 12.
As she spoke, she turned to her brother, Taqwa LaCount, 25, and said: "He’s dead. Can you believe it? What am I going to do?"
Another witness account of the shooting came from Inglewood resident Charisma Bailey, 28, who lives at the apartment where the party was held. Bailey said party-goers were wearing masks and beads for the event’s Mardi Gras theme.
Bailey said she was standing next to the window of her second-story apartment, looking down the stairs when officers approached the property, holding flashlights and guns. "The next thing you know they’re shooting and he’s falling down the steps," she said of Smith.
This Mom Didn’t Have to Die
On this trip through West Africa with my “win-a-trip” contest winner, I was reminded of one of the grimmest risks to human life here. Despite threats from warlords and exotic disease, it’s something even deadlier: motherhood.
One of the most dangerous things an African woman can do is become pregnant. So, along with the winner of my contest for college students, Paul Bowers, I have been visiting the forlorn hospitals here in West Africa. According to the World Health Organization, Sierra Leone has the highest maternal mortality in the world, and in several African countries, 1 woman in 10 ends up dying in childbirth.
It’s pretty clear that if men were dying at these rates, the United Nations Security Council would be holding urgent consultations, and a country such as this would appoint a minister of paternal mortality. Yet half-a-million women die annually from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth without attracting much interest because the victims are typically among the most voiceless people in the world: impoverished, rural, uneducated and female.
Take Mariama, a 21-year-old pregnant woman with a 3-year-old child living in a village here in southern Sierra Leone. Mariama started bleeding one afternoon before we arrived, but her family had no money and was reluctant to seek medical care. When she was already half-dead, she was finally taken into the government hospital in Bo.
She was off-the-charts anemic, but there was no blood available for a transfusion. In that situation, the woman’s relatives are checked to see if they are of the same type and can give, but Mariama was accompanied only by her mother, who was too fragile to donate blood.
The only obstetrician, serving an area with two million people, was away, so nurses suggested that in the absence of a transfusion, Mariama receive a plasma expander for her blood. But that would have cost $4, and Mariama and her mother had no money at all.
So Mariama continued to hemorrhage right there in the maternity ward. At 1 a.m. the next morning, she died.
“We did our best to save her,” said Regina Horton, a nurse-midwife at the hospital. “But we had no blood.”
I’ve seen women dying like this in many countries — on the first win-a-trip journey in 2006, a student and I watched a mother of three dying in front of us in Cameroon — and it’s not only shattering but also infuriating. It’s no mystery how to save the lives of pregnant women; what’s lacking is the will and resources.
Indeed, Sierra Leone is now making progress with the help of the United Nations Population Fund, which is renovating hospital wards, providing free medicines and trying to ensure that poor women don’t die because they can’t pay $100 for a Caesarian section. The Bush administration cut off all American funds for the U.N. Population Fund, hobbling it, but this year President Obama has moved to restore the money. Other organizations that are focused on this issue include the White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood, CARE and Averting Maternal Death and Disability.
A bill introduced in Congress in March — the Newborn, Child, and Mother Survival Act — would establish American leadership in this area. But it has attracted pathetically little attention.
If the lives of women like Mariama were a priority, there would be many simple ways to keep them alive. For example, they could routinely be given anti-malarials and deworming medicine during pregnancy to flush out parasites. They should also receive daily iron tablets to overcome anemia, and a bed net. All this would cost just a few dollars and would leave pregnant women far less likely to die of hemorrhages.
Caesarian sections are necessary for perhaps 1 in 10 births worldwide, but village women put their trust in traditional birth attendants (partly because the attendants also perform genital cutting on girls, creating a bond). Doctors and nurses often are harsh and contemptuous toward uneducated women so that patients stay away until it is too late. If doctors and nurses had as good a bedside manner as the birth attendants, hospitals would be better used and lives saved.
Still, one sees the — limited — progress in Mabinti Kamara, who is 25 and went into labor in her village. When an arm came out, it was apparent that the fetus was sideways, so the birth attendant pushed hard on Mabinti’s abdomen to complete the process.
On Mabinti’s fourth day of labor, she was finally taken to a hospital in the city of Makeni, where a surgeon found that she had a ruptured uterus. The surgeon removed the dead fetus and repaired the uterus. Mabinti then lay on her bed in pain, disconsolate at losing her child. Still, the maternity ward was filled with women like her. Just a few years ago, they all would have died. They are reminders that women can be saved in childbirth — but only if their lives become a prioriority
nytimes.com
One of the most dangerous things an African woman can do is become pregnant. So, along with the winner of my contest for college students, Paul Bowers, I have been visiting the forlorn hospitals here in West Africa. According to the World Health Organization, Sierra Leone has the highest maternal mortality in the world, and in several African countries, 1 woman in 10 ends up dying in childbirth.
It’s pretty clear that if men were dying at these rates, the United Nations Security Council would be holding urgent consultations, and a country such as this would appoint a minister of paternal mortality. Yet half-a-million women die annually from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth without attracting much interest because the victims are typically among the most voiceless people in the world: impoverished, rural, uneducated and female.
Take Mariama, a 21-year-old pregnant woman with a 3-year-old child living in a village here in southern Sierra Leone. Mariama started bleeding one afternoon before we arrived, but her family had no money and was reluctant to seek medical care. When she was already half-dead, she was finally taken into the government hospital in Bo.
She was off-the-charts anemic, but there was no blood available for a transfusion. In that situation, the woman’s relatives are checked to see if they are of the same type and can give, but Mariama was accompanied only by her mother, who was too fragile to donate blood.
The only obstetrician, serving an area with two million people, was away, so nurses suggested that in the absence of a transfusion, Mariama receive a plasma expander for her blood. But that would have cost $4, and Mariama and her mother had no money at all.
So Mariama continued to hemorrhage right there in the maternity ward. At 1 a.m. the next morning, she died.
“We did our best to save her,” said Regina Horton, a nurse-midwife at the hospital. “But we had no blood.”
I’ve seen women dying like this in many countries — on the first win-a-trip journey in 2006, a student and I watched a mother of three dying in front of us in Cameroon — and it’s not only shattering but also infuriating. It’s no mystery how to save the lives of pregnant women; what’s lacking is the will and resources.
Indeed, Sierra Leone is now making progress with the help of the United Nations Population Fund, which is renovating hospital wards, providing free medicines and trying to ensure that poor women don’t die because they can’t pay $100 for a Caesarian section. The Bush administration cut off all American funds for the U.N. Population Fund, hobbling it, but this year President Obama has moved to restore the money. Other organizations that are focused on this issue include the White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood, CARE and Averting Maternal Death and Disability.
A bill introduced in Congress in March — the Newborn, Child, and Mother Survival Act — would establish American leadership in this area. But it has attracted pathetically little attention.
If the lives of women like Mariama were a priority, there would be many simple ways to keep them alive. For example, they could routinely be given anti-malarials and deworming medicine during pregnancy to flush out parasites. They should also receive daily iron tablets to overcome anemia, and a bed net. All this would cost just a few dollars and would leave pregnant women far less likely to die of hemorrhages.
Caesarian sections are necessary for perhaps 1 in 10 births worldwide, but village women put their trust in traditional birth attendants (partly because the attendants also perform genital cutting on girls, creating a bond). Doctors and nurses often are harsh and contemptuous toward uneducated women so that patients stay away until it is too late. If doctors and nurses had as good a bedside manner as the birth attendants, hospitals would be better used and lives saved.
Still, one sees the — limited — progress in Mabinti Kamara, who is 25 and went into labor in her village. When an arm came out, it was apparent that the fetus was sideways, so the birth attendant pushed hard on Mabinti’s abdomen to complete the process.
On Mabinti’s fourth day of labor, she was finally taken to a hospital in the city of Makeni, where a surgeon found that she had a ruptured uterus. The surgeon removed the dead fetus and repaired the uterus. Mabinti then lay on her bed in pain, disconsolate at losing her child. Still, the maternity ward was filled with women like her. Just a few years ago, they all would have died. They are reminders that women can be saved in childbirth — but only if their lives become a prioriority
nytimes.com
New Mood in Antitrust May Target Google
For decades, the nation’s biggest antitrust cases have centered on technology companies. And they have all been efforts by the government to deal with powerful companies with far-reaching influence, like AT&T, the telephone monopoly; I.B.M., the mainframe computer giant; and Microsoft, the powerhouse of personal computer software.
Last week, the Obama administration declared a sharp break with the Bush years, vowing to toughen antitrust enforcement, especially for dominant companies. The approach is closer to that of the European Union, where regulators last week fined Intel $1.45 billion for abusing its power in the chip market.
In this new climate, the stakes appear to be highest for Google, the rising power of the Internet economy.
The new antitrust leadership, legal experts say, is likely to scrutinize networks — technology platforms that become so dominant that everyone feels the need to plug into them. The advantages to the companies that control such networks snowball as they attract more users, advertisers or software developers.
Internet search and search advertising, like personal computer operating software, is one example, said Herbert Hovenkamp, an antitrust expert at the University of Iowa law school. “Google is a dominant network, as is Microsoft,” Mr. Hovenkamp said. “Networks become competitive only if everyone has the same chance.”
Google’s corporate behavior is already being closely monitored. Last year, Google abandoned a planned search advertising partnership with Yahoo, after the Justice Department said it intended to file suit to block the agreement on antitrust grounds. Google has 64 percent of the Web search market in America, while Yahoo has 21 percent and Microsoft 8 percent, according to comScore, a research firm.
In recent weeks, antitrust officials have opened two inquiries. The Justice Department is looking into Google’s settlement with authors and publishers for its book-search service to see if it violates antitrust laws. And the Federal Trade Commission is examining whether Google’s sharing two board members with Apple reduces competition, since both companies offer Web browsers and phone operating systems.
Eric E. Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, said earlier this month that the close scrutiny was not surprising. “Information is incredibly important, and we should expect governments around the world to pay attention to what we do,” he said.
Google’s power is a cause of worry in many industries — media, advertising, telecommunications and software. Yet being large, successful and ambitious is not an antitrust violation. “You’ve got to be big, and you have to be bad,” observed Andrew I. Gavil, a law professor at Howard University. “You have to be both.”
In the Microsoft case, the software giant’s monopoly in personal computer operating systems was not an antitrust problem. It was its corporate actions, including using contracts and bullying tactics to stifle competition, that broke the law, the federal courts ruled. Such strong-arm practices, legal experts say, have not been part of the Google story.
Unless Google is shown to engage in a pattern of anticompetitive conduct, the company is likely to face constant scrutiny, but not a major federal suit, antitrust experts say. Even with misconduct, they say, complex antitrust cases like the one against Microsoft take years to come to fruition. “There will be a lot of agonizing about Google, and it will raise concerns, but I don’t see a big Google case in the offing,” said Michael Katz, an economist at New York University’s Stern School of Business.
Instead, Google is likely to be watched step by step. One area to watch, antitrust experts say, is whether Google uses its search engine to give it a leg up in new businesses.
Last month, the company announced that Google Profiles, a service that gives people a page to publish their name, photo and other personal information, would be featured below Google’s search results when someone typed in a name. That could give Google Profiles an edge over profiles from Facebook and other social networks, which have to earn their search result rankings.
Google, according to Randal C. Picker, an antitrust expert at the University of Chicago law school, is using its search engine to “leverage” another Google service. Such tactics, he said, echo Microsoft’s linking of its Windows operating system to its Web browser. “It is the kind of thing that is likely to get antitrust attention,” Mr. Picker said.
The company says Google Profiles is an effort to improve Web search, and comes in response to users’ requests for greater control over their online identities. Google also says its software scans other social networks, and those results typically appear near the top of a search for a person’s name. “We designed Profiles to encourage user choice, not limit it,” said Adam Kovacevich, a Google spokesman.
In her speech last week, Christine A. Varney, head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, said the touchstone of antitrust policy should be “the protection of consumer welfare.”
By that standard, Google seems an elusive target for antitrust enforcers, since most of its services are free. And in the new markets it is entering, including cellphone software and online alternatives to desktop programs, Google is an insurgent going up against large, well-heeled rivals, notably Microsoft.
“If what Google really has is an enormous scale advantage in Internet search and advertising — and it is not engaged in exclusionary or other bad behavior — I would be very reluctant to step in,” said Mr. Hovenkamp of the University of Iowa.
Last week, the Obama administration declared a sharp break with the Bush years, vowing to toughen antitrust enforcement, especially for dominant companies. The approach is closer to that of the European Union, where regulators last week fined Intel $1.45 billion for abusing its power in the chip market.
In this new climate, the stakes appear to be highest for Google, the rising power of the Internet economy.
The new antitrust leadership, legal experts say, is likely to scrutinize networks — technology platforms that become so dominant that everyone feels the need to plug into them. The advantages to the companies that control such networks snowball as they attract more users, advertisers or software developers.
Internet search and search advertising, like personal computer operating software, is one example, said Herbert Hovenkamp, an antitrust expert at the University of Iowa law school. “Google is a dominant network, as is Microsoft,” Mr. Hovenkamp said. “Networks become competitive only if everyone has the same chance.”
Google’s corporate behavior is already being closely monitored. Last year, Google abandoned a planned search advertising partnership with Yahoo, after the Justice Department said it intended to file suit to block the agreement on antitrust grounds. Google has 64 percent of the Web search market in America, while Yahoo has 21 percent and Microsoft 8 percent, according to comScore, a research firm.
In recent weeks, antitrust officials have opened two inquiries. The Justice Department is looking into Google’s settlement with authors and publishers for its book-search service to see if it violates antitrust laws. And the Federal Trade Commission is examining whether Google’s sharing two board members with Apple reduces competition, since both companies offer Web browsers and phone operating systems.
Eric E. Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, said earlier this month that the close scrutiny was not surprising. “Information is incredibly important, and we should expect governments around the world to pay attention to what we do,” he said.
Google’s power is a cause of worry in many industries — media, advertising, telecommunications and software. Yet being large, successful and ambitious is not an antitrust violation. “You’ve got to be big, and you have to be bad,” observed Andrew I. Gavil, a law professor at Howard University. “You have to be both.”
In the Microsoft case, the software giant’s monopoly in personal computer operating systems was not an antitrust problem. It was its corporate actions, including using contracts and bullying tactics to stifle competition, that broke the law, the federal courts ruled. Such strong-arm practices, legal experts say, have not been part of the Google story.
Unless Google is shown to engage in a pattern of anticompetitive conduct, the company is likely to face constant scrutiny, but not a major federal suit, antitrust experts say. Even with misconduct, they say, complex antitrust cases like the one against Microsoft take years to come to fruition. “There will be a lot of agonizing about Google, and it will raise concerns, but I don’t see a big Google case in the offing,” said Michael Katz, an economist at New York University’s Stern School of Business.
Instead, Google is likely to be watched step by step. One area to watch, antitrust experts say, is whether Google uses its search engine to give it a leg up in new businesses.
Last month, the company announced that Google Profiles, a service that gives people a page to publish their name, photo and other personal information, would be featured below Google’s search results when someone typed in a name. That could give Google Profiles an edge over profiles from Facebook and other social networks, which have to earn their search result rankings.
Google, according to Randal C. Picker, an antitrust expert at the University of Chicago law school, is using its search engine to “leverage” another Google service. Such tactics, he said, echo Microsoft’s linking of its Windows operating system to its Web browser. “It is the kind of thing that is likely to get antitrust attention,” Mr. Picker said.
The company says Google Profiles is an effort to improve Web search, and comes in response to users’ requests for greater control over their online identities. Google also says its software scans other social networks, and those results typically appear near the top of a search for a person’s name. “We designed Profiles to encourage user choice, not limit it,” said Adam Kovacevich, a Google spokesman.
In her speech last week, Christine A. Varney, head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, said the touchstone of antitrust policy should be “the protection of consumer welfare.”
By that standard, Google seems an elusive target for antitrust enforcers, since most of its services are free. And in the new markets it is entering, including cellphone software and online alternatives to desktop programs, Google is an insurgent going up against large, well-heeled rivals, notably Microsoft.
“If what Google really has is an enormous scale advantage in Internet search and advertising — and it is not engaged in exclusionary or other bad behavior — I would be very reluctant to step in,” said Mr. Hovenkamp of the University of Iowa.
Republicans in Senate Lower Expectations of a Court Fight
While there is growing anticipation that the summer will bring the spectacle of a pitched Supreme Court confirmation battle, some Senate Republicans are lowering expectations that they are planning any major political fight.
President Obama has not yet named his choice to succeed Justice David H. Souter, but several Republicans acknowledge that it is unlikely they will be able to derail the nomination absent some startling revelation about the candidate.
Those Republicans, including senior staff aides and some senators, suggested in interviews that they believed Mr. Obama’s first nominee for the court would be confirmed without great difficulty no matter how they framed the issues during the confirmation process.
Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, has said he would not necessarily be opposed to a nominee who is gay or an abortion rights advocate. In a recent interview, Mr. Sessions made it clear that whatever his preferences for resistance on the nominee, he could count the numbers.
“Well, the Democrats have a strong majority on the committee,” he said, referring to the fact that with Senator Arlen Specter’s switch to the Democratic Party, the majority increased to 12 to 7, from 11 to 8.
Mr. Sessions said he expected that Mr. Obama would take care to avoid selecting a nominee with any personal problems involving issues like ethics or taxes.
“Assuming no serious problems, we should have a good discussion about the role of a judge,” Mr. Sessions said. Asked what kind of candidate could be rejected, he replied that the Senate should not confirm anyone who would take personal views to the bench or who wanted “to promote a political agenda.”
Mr. Obama’s candidate is certain to declaim, as do all judicial nominees, that he or she will interpret the law and not promote any personal agendas.
A senior Republican Senate official not connected to Mr. Sessions said, “Everyone up here can see the political pieces on the board.” The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss the situation candidly, added, “No one is talking about the possibility of defeating any nominee, barring something coming out of left field.”
The official said that not only did Democrats have command of the committee and a strong majority in the Senate, but that any nomination would also come at a time when the president’s public standing was high.
A second top Republican Senate aide, also not connected to Mr. Sessions, said, referring to Mr. Obama, “Elections have consequences; he won.”
“Obviously, we’re going to stand up for our principles,” the aide continued, “but the other side has won this right to choose someone this time.”
Some other aides and one senator other than Mr. Sessions who asked not to be quoted all referred in interviews to the coming confirmation process as an “educational opportunity,” a description that suggests a more modest political goal than attacking or defeating a nominee.
But all of those interviewed said they understood that Senate Republicans would have to be sensitive to the concerns of outside conservative advocacy groups that will take a sharply adversarial position on the nominee. Some networks of conservatives have already been mapping outlines of strategy to oppose potential nominees, compiling and distributing brief dossiers on what they believe are the weak points of candidates on speculative lists.
The difference in the fervor of the conservative advocacy groups (the outsiders) and the Senate Republicans (the insiders) mirrors in some ways the situation Democrats faced for many years. Liberal advocacy groups mounted several campaigns against the nominees of President George W. Bush and his Republican predecessors that were not taken up in a full-throated way by Senate Democrats.
A result was chronic friction between the two groups, with senators complaining that the liberal groups were unrealistic and the advocates describing the senators as timid and even supine in the face of efforts to tilt the courts in a conservative direction.
Some of the senior Republican Senate officials said there was a widespread understanding that the conservative groups would use the occasion of a Supreme Court nominee by a Democratic president as an issue both to rally supporters and to raise political donations, much as liberal groups did with Republican court nominees.
“We’re not lowering expectations as much as setting them realistically,” one aide said. “They have their own agendas as well,” the aide added, referring to the use by outside groups of a Supreme Court nomination to fire up supporters. Republican officials all said that they expected Mr. Obama’s nominee to be a supporter of abortion rights and that that fact by itself would not be an obstacle to confirmation.
Mr. Sessions said anticipation over the confirmation process was inevitable because the issues were inherently important.
“We’re choosing someone with the power to redefine the Constitution,” he said. “That’s a big deal.”
And while that has always been so, the modern Supreme Court confirmation process first took on the drama of a special political moment with the 1987 battle over President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork. The nomination, which was defeated, featured an all-out fight with both sides deploying modern political tactics.
The scene was repeated four years later when the confirmation battle over Clarence Thomas riveted the nation and resulted in his confirmation.
President Obama has not yet named his choice to succeed Justice David H. Souter, but several Republicans acknowledge that it is unlikely they will be able to derail the nomination absent some startling revelation about the candidate.
Those Republicans, including senior staff aides and some senators, suggested in interviews that they believed Mr. Obama’s first nominee for the court would be confirmed without great difficulty no matter how they framed the issues during the confirmation process.
Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, has said he would not necessarily be opposed to a nominee who is gay or an abortion rights advocate. In a recent interview, Mr. Sessions made it clear that whatever his preferences for resistance on the nominee, he could count the numbers.
“Well, the Democrats have a strong majority on the committee,” he said, referring to the fact that with Senator Arlen Specter’s switch to the Democratic Party, the majority increased to 12 to 7, from 11 to 8.
Mr. Sessions said he expected that Mr. Obama would take care to avoid selecting a nominee with any personal problems involving issues like ethics or taxes.
“Assuming no serious problems, we should have a good discussion about the role of a judge,” Mr. Sessions said. Asked what kind of candidate could be rejected, he replied that the Senate should not confirm anyone who would take personal views to the bench or who wanted “to promote a political agenda.”
Mr. Obama’s candidate is certain to declaim, as do all judicial nominees, that he or she will interpret the law and not promote any personal agendas.
A senior Republican Senate official not connected to Mr. Sessions said, “Everyone up here can see the political pieces on the board.” The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss the situation candidly, added, “No one is talking about the possibility of defeating any nominee, barring something coming out of left field.”
The official said that not only did Democrats have command of the committee and a strong majority in the Senate, but that any nomination would also come at a time when the president’s public standing was high.
A second top Republican Senate aide, also not connected to Mr. Sessions, said, referring to Mr. Obama, “Elections have consequences; he won.”
“Obviously, we’re going to stand up for our principles,” the aide continued, “but the other side has won this right to choose someone this time.”
Some other aides and one senator other than Mr. Sessions who asked not to be quoted all referred in interviews to the coming confirmation process as an “educational opportunity,” a description that suggests a more modest political goal than attacking or defeating a nominee.
But all of those interviewed said they understood that Senate Republicans would have to be sensitive to the concerns of outside conservative advocacy groups that will take a sharply adversarial position on the nominee. Some networks of conservatives have already been mapping outlines of strategy to oppose potential nominees, compiling and distributing brief dossiers on what they believe are the weak points of candidates on speculative lists.
The difference in the fervor of the conservative advocacy groups (the outsiders) and the Senate Republicans (the insiders) mirrors in some ways the situation Democrats faced for many years. Liberal advocacy groups mounted several campaigns against the nominees of President George W. Bush and his Republican predecessors that were not taken up in a full-throated way by Senate Democrats.
A result was chronic friction between the two groups, with senators complaining that the liberal groups were unrealistic and the advocates describing the senators as timid and even supine in the face of efforts to tilt the courts in a conservative direction.
Some of the senior Republican Senate officials said there was a widespread understanding that the conservative groups would use the occasion of a Supreme Court nominee by a Democratic president as an issue both to rally supporters and to raise political donations, much as liberal groups did with Republican court nominees.
“We’re not lowering expectations as much as setting them realistically,” one aide said. “They have their own agendas as well,” the aide added, referring to the use by outside groups of a Supreme Court nomination to fire up supporters. Republican officials all said that they expected Mr. Obama’s nominee to be a supporter of abortion rights and that that fact by itself would not be an obstacle to confirmation.
Mr. Sessions said anticipation over the confirmation process was inevitable because the issues were inherently important.
“We’re choosing someone with the power to redefine the Constitution,” he said. “That’s a big deal.”
And while that has always been so, the modern Supreme Court confirmation process first took on the drama of a special political moment with the 1987 battle over President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork. The nomination, which was defeated, featured an all-out fight with both sides deploying modern political tactics.
The scene was repeated four years later when the confirmation battle over Clarence Thomas riveted the nation and resulted in his confirmation.
Which ministry is least green? The one that runs climate change
One in three government buildings has the lowest possible rating for energy efficiency, according to official figures seen by the Observer, which show the Department for Energy and Climate Change is one of the worst offenders.
The dire state of the public estate, which includes government offices, laboratories and museums, will make uncomfortable reading for the department's secretary of state Ed Miliband. He recently announced ambitious plans to cut the energy use of UK buildings as part of the overall targets to cut the country's carbon footprint by 80% by 2050.
The DECC, which is responsible for promoting energy efficiency in the country and is housed in Whitehall Place in London, scored a G, the lowest on a seven-point energy performance scale for its buildings. The Home Office, which moved into a new office building only a few years ago, and the Department of Health were also given the bottom rating, while, on average, government buildings scored an F.
The ratings for 267 government buildings come from the government's own energy efficiency assessments and were published in response to parliamentary questions from Greg Clark, Miliband's Tory shadow.
Overall, 98 buildings were rated G and a further 34 scored F. In total, more than 70% were rated E or below, which means that they are less energy-efficient than normal buildings of their type. None scored A.
"The fact that DECC is a G is pretty bad," said Clark. "I'm sure that they've gone into a less-than-functional building, but part of the role of DECC is to fly the flag and show how things could be done, and surely in the whole of central London they could have sourced an up-to-date office block that they could be proud of?"
A spokesman for the DECC pointed out that it had only moved into its building in Whitehall Place in October, but was determined to make it more energy-efficient: "This is not easy as our new home is a Grade II-listed heritage building and more than 100 years old - making it difficult to match the energy-efficiency standards of new buildings."
There are already plans in place to improve the way the building uses energy and the electricity comes from renewable sources. "We are also looking into methods of improving the building's energy efficiency, such as introducing additional motion and daylight sensors, upgrading downlighters and fluorescent tubes, and upgrading the fans system and boiler sequencing system," the spokesman added.
Each of the energy assessments included recommendations for cutting a building's energy use. The Treasury's office building, rated at F and responsible for about 4,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, was encouraged to switch to a less carbon intensive fuel, for example. At four of the Department of Health's six offices in Whitehall, energy assessors recommended that "simultaneous operation of heating and cooling systems" should be minimised.
A Home Office spokesman said the department was looking at ways to reduce its energy use through increased staff awareness and new technologies such as LED lights, energy monitors and upgraded lighting and air-conditioning controls.
There were also buildings that performed relatively well. The Foreign Office building, constructed in the 19th century, had a better than typical energy performance, scoring 92 when a performance of 100 means the building is performing normally for its type. This gave it a grade D. The Ministry of Justice and the Wales Office were both rated at C, the highest for any public buildings.
Paul King, of the UK Green Building Council, said the energy performance numbers might be disappointing but he was not surprised. "What it underlines is that government buildings are a sample of our very many buildings in this country that are in a terrible state because of their energy use. For the vast majority of buildings we have no idea how bad they are," he said.
About 45% of the UK's carbon emissions come from energy use in buildings and 18% from public and commercial buildings. In 2006, the government pledged to cut, by 2020, the environmental impact of its buildings by 30% relative to 1999-2000 levels. "Three years on, the reality is that more than a third of government buildings are in the worst possible band for efficiency," said Clark. "Conservative policy would see public buildings in the top quartile for energy performance by driving the highest standards of energy efficiency and carbon emissions reduction."
A spokesman for the Office for Government Commerce, which is responsible for refurbishing the government estate, said it had achieved a 2.5% drop in carbon emissions last year and that plans were now in place to deliver a 12.5% reduction by 2010-11, against 1999-2000 levels.
The most polluting government-owned site is the Department for Environment's Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) complex in Weybridge, with an energy rating of 761, emitting 20,000 tonnes of CO2 per year. The vast majority of buildings score below 200.
A department spokesman said it was "fully committed" to improving energy efficiency in all its sites. "Some of our buildings are listed and older; others, such as the VLA sites, are as much laboratory as office, and so their energy use is higher to account for specialist equipment which needs ventilation and water," he said.
"Many of the activities and processes carried out in the laboratories are energy-intensive and there are limited opportunities for improving efficiencies which do not impact on the health, safety and security requirements within the laboratory environment." The department has also installed "energy perfectors" at many of its sites, which optimise the voltage of the electricity supply to match the appliances being used.
But Clark said the government was not moving quickly enough, particularly with its departmental headquarters buildings, where the average rating is F. "They're not medieval buildings; they're mostly Edwardian, and the technologies are there to improve them. If the government isn't doing it, how can it have a leading role in persuading everyone else to do it?"
King said the government's figures were the tip of the iceberg: "The only thing that sets the government buildings apart is that we actually know how bad they are because of this quirk of European policy that has required these energy certificates for public buildings. What we desperately need is similar information about the rest of the UK's buildings."
How the system works
Energy performance certificates (EPCs) will be familiar to anyone buying, selling or renting a home. By surveying the size and state of a property and the kinds of energy used, the EPC provides a rating on a seven-point scale, from a green-coloured A for most efficient to a red-coloured G for least efficient.
Display energy certificates (DECs) have been mandatory for all public buildings since October and have a crucial difference to EPCs - the rating is based on actual energy use. A rating of 100 means the building is performing as expected and is banded D. The higher the number, the less efficient the building, with the G band representing an energy performance value above 150.
The dire state of the public estate, which includes government offices, laboratories and museums, will make uncomfortable reading for the department's secretary of state Ed Miliband. He recently announced ambitious plans to cut the energy use of UK buildings as part of the overall targets to cut the country's carbon footprint by 80% by 2050.
The DECC, which is responsible for promoting energy efficiency in the country and is housed in Whitehall Place in London, scored a G, the lowest on a seven-point energy performance scale for its buildings. The Home Office, which moved into a new office building only a few years ago, and the Department of Health were also given the bottom rating, while, on average, government buildings scored an F.
The ratings for 267 government buildings come from the government's own energy efficiency assessments and were published in response to parliamentary questions from Greg Clark, Miliband's Tory shadow.
Overall, 98 buildings were rated G and a further 34 scored F. In total, more than 70% were rated E or below, which means that they are less energy-efficient than normal buildings of their type. None scored A.
"The fact that DECC is a G is pretty bad," said Clark. "I'm sure that they've gone into a less-than-functional building, but part of the role of DECC is to fly the flag and show how things could be done, and surely in the whole of central London they could have sourced an up-to-date office block that they could be proud of?"
A spokesman for the DECC pointed out that it had only moved into its building in Whitehall Place in October, but was determined to make it more energy-efficient: "This is not easy as our new home is a Grade II-listed heritage building and more than 100 years old - making it difficult to match the energy-efficiency standards of new buildings."
There are already plans in place to improve the way the building uses energy and the electricity comes from renewable sources. "We are also looking into methods of improving the building's energy efficiency, such as introducing additional motion and daylight sensors, upgrading downlighters and fluorescent tubes, and upgrading the fans system and boiler sequencing system," the spokesman added.
Each of the energy assessments included recommendations for cutting a building's energy use. The Treasury's office building, rated at F and responsible for about 4,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, was encouraged to switch to a less carbon intensive fuel, for example. At four of the Department of Health's six offices in Whitehall, energy assessors recommended that "simultaneous operation of heating and cooling systems" should be minimised.
A Home Office spokesman said the department was looking at ways to reduce its energy use through increased staff awareness and new technologies such as LED lights, energy monitors and upgraded lighting and air-conditioning controls.
There were also buildings that performed relatively well. The Foreign Office building, constructed in the 19th century, had a better than typical energy performance, scoring 92 when a performance of 100 means the building is performing normally for its type. This gave it a grade D. The Ministry of Justice and the Wales Office were both rated at C, the highest for any public buildings.
Paul King, of the UK Green Building Council, said the energy performance numbers might be disappointing but he was not surprised. "What it underlines is that government buildings are a sample of our very many buildings in this country that are in a terrible state because of their energy use. For the vast majority of buildings we have no idea how bad they are," he said.
About 45% of the UK's carbon emissions come from energy use in buildings and 18% from public and commercial buildings. In 2006, the government pledged to cut, by 2020, the environmental impact of its buildings by 30% relative to 1999-2000 levels. "Three years on, the reality is that more than a third of government buildings are in the worst possible band for efficiency," said Clark. "Conservative policy would see public buildings in the top quartile for energy performance by driving the highest standards of energy efficiency and carbon emissions reduction."
A spokesman for the Office for Government Commerce, which is responsible for refurbishing the government estate, said it had achieved a 2.5% drop in carbon emissions last year and that plans were now in place to deliver a 12.5% reduction by 2010-11, against 1999-2000 levels.
The most polluting government-owned site is the Department for Environment's Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) complex in Weybridge, with an energy rating of 761, emitting 20,000 tonnes of CO2 per year. The vast majority of buildings score below 200.
A department spokesman said it was "fully committed" to improving energy efficiency in all its sites. "Some of our buildings are listed and older; others, such as the VLA sites, are as much laboratory as office, and so their energy use is higher to account for specialist equipment which needs ventilation and water," he said.
"Many of the activities and processes carried out in the laboratories are energy-intensive and there are limited opportunities for improving efficiencies which do not impact on the health, safety and security requirements within the laboratory environment." The department has also installed "energy perfectors" at many of its sites, which optimise the voltage of the electricity supply to match the appliances being used.
But Clark said the government was not moving quickly enough, particularly with its departmental headquarters buildings, where the average rating is F. "They're not medieval buildings; they're mostly Edwardian, and the technologies are there to improve them. If the government isn't doing it, how can it have a leading role in persuading everyone else to do it?"
King said the government's figures were the tip of the iceberg: "The only thing that sets the government buildings apart is that we actually know how bad they are because of this quirk of European policy that has required these energy certificates for public buildings. What we desperately need is similar information about the rest of the UK's buildings."
How the system works
Energy performance certificates (EPCs) will be familiar to anyone buying, selling or renting a home. By surveying the size and state of a property and the kinds of energy used, the EPC provides a rating on a seven-point scale, from a green-coloured A for most efficient to a red-coloured G for least efficient.
Display energy certificates (DECs) have been mandatory for all public buildings since October and have a crucial difference to EPCs - the rating is based on actual energy use. A rating of 100 means the building is performing as expected and is banded D. The higher the number, the less efficient the building, with the G band representing an energy performance value above 150.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)