Public opinion stopped GM, says campaigner - Green Living, Environment - The Independent

Public opinion stopped GM, says campaigner

Global resistance has halted the biotech giants, reports Environment Editor Michael McCarthy from the IoS co-sponsored Sustainable Planet Forum

Sunday, 26 September 2010

• Share

  Close

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Reddit

  • Google
  • Stumble Upon
  • Fark
  • Newsvine

  • YahooBuzz
  • Bebo
  • Twitter
  • Independent Minds
• Print
• Email
• Text Size
  • Normal
  • Large
  • Extra Large

AFP/Getty Images

A grower examines his (unmodified) maize in Paraguay

• More pictures

Sponsored Links

'); google_ad_client = 'ca-pub-5964551156905038'; if (ref_url.indexOf("/arts-entertainment") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '6756172661+4791354580'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/environment") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '6756172661+1107748553'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/indybest") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '6756172661+3474960607'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/life-style") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '6756172661+2301525710'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/money") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '6756172661+3913758598'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/news") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '6756172661+1985344535'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/offers") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '6756172661+4759364625'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/opinion") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '6756172661+6546546544'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/sport") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '6756172661+5668950562'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/student") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '6756172661+4306162616'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/travel") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '6756172661+9352556589'; } else { google_ad_channel = '6756172661'; } google_ad_output = 'js'; google_max_num_ads = '4'; google_ad_type = 'text'; google_image_size = '728x90'; google_feedback = 'on'; }else { document.write('

'); }

'); } else { document.write(''); } 5) $("div.box").removeAttr("style"); }); });

Sponsored Links

Ads by Google

Concerned about GM foods?
Organic Agriculture Prohibits GMOThe Organic Valley Family of Farms
www.organicvalley.coop

Win a Trip to Hawaii
Visit Nature's Path for a Chanceto Win an Eco Vacation in Hawaii!
www.Facebook.com/NaturesPath

Mosaic Helps Farmers
South Fort Meade Mine is criticalto helping food supply. Learn how.
www.SaveSouthFortMeade.com

Organic Food- SunOrganic
Wholesome certified organic food toeat with confidence. Fast delivery.
www.sunorganic.com

The tide has turned globally against the introduction of genetically modified crops, Lord Melchett, the former director of Greenpeace and campaigner for organic farming and food, said yesterday.

Fifteen years ago, many governments thought GM crops and food would become the norm, but it has not happened because of rising public resistance around the world, and it will not happen, he said.

"This is a redundant technology and many people in Europe may be unaware of the extent of the resistance to GM in places like India and China, because they swallow the GM industry line that it is supported all across the world," he said. "I have to say that where we are now with GM leaves me feeling very optimistic."

Related articles

• Let MoD tackle climate, says Lucas
• Search the news archive for more stories

Speaking at the Sustainable Planet forum in Lyon, France, he said GM technology, put forward by firms such as Monsanto, the US agribusiness giant and pesticide manufacturer, had achieved its initial success only "through secrecy", he said. Many aspects of it had been kept a secret from farmers and consumers, but once labelling of GM products began, public support collapsed. He cited the case of Monsanto's GM bovine growth hormone milk.

"America is where we're told GM is a huge success, and where everyone from farmers to consumers loves GM, but it's simply not true," he said. "If anybody tells you this, ask them, where is GM wheat? Monsanto had it ready to go but it was stopped by American farmers. Ask them, where is the GM version of alfalfa, the fourth most commonly grown crop in the world? American farmers went to court to stop it being commercialised," he told the conference, which is being co-sponsored by the French newspaper Libération, The Independent and La Repubblica from Italy.

Lord Melchett is now the policy director of the Soil Association, the organic farming and food campaigning body. An organic farmer himself, he has been one of Britain's most prominent anti-GM activists and in 1999, when head of Greenpeace, led a raid to trash a field of trial GM crops in Norfolk.

He and 27 other Greenpeace volunteers were arrested and charged with criminal damage, but acquitted by a jury after claiming that the damage they had prevented – potential contamination of non-GM crops by pollen from the GM trial – was greater than the damage they had caused.

In the Lyon forum yesterday, attended by thousands of people, Lord Melchett joined with a French anti-GM campaigner, Philippe Martin, to examine the question (perhaps reflecting French preoccupations) of whether it is possible now to have a menu with no GM items on it.

Mr Martin, a socialist MP and council leader from Le Gers, the south-western France department with the highest percentage of farmers in the country, began by saying there were four great existential questions: Who are we? Where do we come from? Where are we going? What's for dinner?

He said that, personally, he would not like a menu without confit de canard on it (his local regional speciality of preserved duck), but that was a matter of choice. He was concerned about cases where consumers might have no choice at all.

He hit out at the decision by the European Commission last July to authorise the import of six more GM strains of maize to be used for animal feed. Lord Melchett agreed, saying it was vital to label clearly milk and meat that came from animals fed on GM products. "There is a huge amount of GM soya fed to chickens, pigs and dairy cows, and you will eat it whether you want to or not," he said. "Simply to get these products labelled is a crucial battle."

Anti-GM demonstrators briefly disrupted a debate between two senior French politicians at yesterday's conference. They carried banners on to the stage at the Lyon opera house to protest against what they called the French government's "hypocritical" approach to genetically modified foods.

Their target was the senior French environment minister, Jean-Louis Borloo, who was debating with François Hollande, the former Socialist party leader, on whether green issues and mainstream politics were compatible. France has taken a restrictive attitude to GM foods in public, the demonstrators said, but quietly approved the planting of a score of GM plant varieties earlier this year.

Mr Borloo replied that France had done more than any other EU nation to slow the advance of GM and make certain that Brussels undertook scientific studies before giving approval for new products

via independent.co.uk

Posted via email from moneytalks's posterous

19 Facts About The Deindustrialization Of America That Will Blow Your Mind

The United States is rapidly becoming the very first "post-industrial" nation on the globe.  All great economic empires eventually become fat and lazy and squander the great wealth that their forefathers have left them, but the pace at which America is accomplishing this is absolutely amazing.  It was America that was at the forefront of the industrial revolution.  It was America that showed the world how to mass produce everything from automobiles to televisions to airplanes.  It was the great American manufacturing base that crushed Germany and Japan in World War II.  But now we are witnessing the deindustrialization of America.  Tens of thousands of factories have left the United States in the past decade alone.  Millions upon millions of manufacturing jobs have been lost in the same time period.  The United States has become a nation that consumes everything in sight and yet produces increasingly little.  Do you know what our biggest export is today?  Waste paper.  Yes, trash is the number one thing that we ship out to the rest of the world as we voraciously blow our money on whatever the rest of the world wants to sell to us.  The United States has become bloated and spoiled and our economy is now  just a shadow of what it once was.  Once upon a time America could literally outproduce the rest of the world combined.  Today that is no longer true, but Americans sure do consume more than anyone else in the world.  If the deindustrialization of America continues at this current pace, what possible kind of a future are we going to be leaving to our children?

Any great nation throughout history has been great at making things.  So if the United States continues to allow its manufacturing base to erode at a staggering pace how in the world can the U.S. continue to consider itself to be a great nation?  We have created the biggest debt bubble in the history of the world in an effort to maintain a very high standard of living, but the current state of affairs is not anywhere close to sustainable.  Every single month America does into more debt and every single month America gets poorer.

So what happens when the debt bubble pops?

The deindustrialization of the United States should be a top concern for every man, woman and child in the country.  But sadly, most Americans do not have any idea what is going on around them.

For people like that, take this article and print it out and hand it to them.  Perhaps what they will read below will shock them badly enough to awaken them from their slumber.    

The following are 19 facts about the deindustrialization of America that will blow your mind....

#1 The United States has lost approximately 42,400 factories since 2001.  About 75 percent of those factories employed over 500 people when they were still in operation.

#2 Dell Inc., one of America’s largest manufacturers of computers, has announced plans to dramatically expand its operations in China with an investment of over $100 billion over the next decade.

#3 Dell has announced that it will be closing its last large U.S. manufacturing facility in Winston-Salem, North Carolina in November.  Approximately 900 jobs will be lost.

#4 In 2008, 1.2 billion cellphones were sold worldwide.  So how many of them were manufactured inside the United States?  Zero.

#5 According to a new study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute, if the U.S. trade deficit with China continues to increase at its current rate, the U.S. economy will lose over half a million jobs this year alone.

#6 As of the end of July, the U.S. trade deficit with China had risen 18 percent compared to the same time period a year ago.

#7 The United States has lost a total of about 5.5 million manufacturing jobs since October 2000.

#8 According to Tax Notes, between 1999 and 2008 employment at the foreign affiliates of U.S. parent companies increased an astounding 30 percent to 10.1 million. During that exact same time period, U.S. employment at American multinational corporations declined 8 percent to 21.1 million.

#9 In 1959, manufacturing represented 28 percent of U.S. economic output.  In 2008, it represented 11.5 percent.

#10 Ford Motor Company recently announced the closure of a factory that produces the Ford Ranger in St. Paul, Minnesota. Approximately 750 good paying middle class jobs are going to be lost because making Ford Rangers in Minnesota does not fit in with Ford's new "global" manufacturing strategy.

#11 As of the end of 2009, less than 12 million Americans worked in manufacturing.  The last time less than 12 million Americans were employed in manufacturing was in 1941.

#12 In the United States today, consumption accounts for 70 percent of GDP. Of this 70 percent, over half is spent on services.

#13 The United States has lost a whopping 32 percent of its manufacturing jobs since the year 2000.

#14 In 2001, the United States ranked fourth in the world in per capita broadband Internet use.  Today it ranks 15th.

#15 Manufacturing employment in the U.S. computer industry is actually lower in 2010 than it was in 1975.

#16 Printed circuit boards are used in tens of thousands of different products.  Asia now produces 84 percent of them worldwide.

#17 The United States spends approximately $3.90 on Chinese goods for every $1 that the Chinese spend on goods from the United States.

#18 One prominent economist is projecting that the Chinese economy will be three times larger than the U.S. economy by the year 2040.

#19 The U.S. Census Bureau says that 43.6 million Americans are now living in poverty and according to them that is the highest number of poor Americans in the 51 years that records have been kept.

So how many tens of thousands more factories do we need to lose before we do something about it?

How many millions more Americans are going to become unemployed before we all admit that we have a very, very serious problem on our hands?

How many more trillions of dollars are going to leave the country before we realize that we are losing wealth at a pace that is killing our economy?

How many once great manufacturing cities are going to become rotting war zones like Detroit before we understand that we are committing national economic suicide?

The deindustrialization of America is a national crisis.  It needs to be treated like one.

If you disagree with this article, I have a direct challenge for you.  If anyone can explain how a deindustrialized America has any kind of viable economic future, please do so below in the comments section.

America is in deep, deep trouble folks.  It is time to wake up.

via theeconomiccollapseblog.com

Posted via email from moneytalks's posterous

Congressional Food Fascism Legislation

Congressional Food Fascism Legislation
By Stephen Lendman
9-24-10

 

Two earlier articles addressed corporate friendly legislation masquerading as pro-consumer. In fact, they'll destroy safe food, empower agribusiness and drug giants, and harm small farmers and consumers. Access them through the following links:   http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2009/07/hr-2749-agribusiness-empowering-act.html   http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2010/08/legislation-for-greater-agribusiness.html   This article is a brief follow-up on where things now stand, as the Senate tries to circumvent growing public opposition.   On July 29, 2009, the House passed HR 2749: Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 "To amend the (1938 as amended) Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to improve the safety of food in the global market, and for other purposes."   On March 3, 2009, S. 510: FDA Food Safety Modernization Act was introduced, the Senate's version of the House bill. It stalled after being assailed as anti-consumer and small farmer as well as failing to help food safety. In fact, like the House bill, it's cover for greater industry consolidation, destructive to consumer welfare.   On July 29, 2010, S. 3669: Food Safety Enforcement Act of 2010 was introduced "to increase criminal penalties for certain knowing violations relating to food that is misbranded or adulterated." Referred to committee, it's being considered before a full Senate vote.   Then on September 13, S. 3767: Food Safety Accountability Act of 2010 was introduced "to establish appropriate criminal penalties for certain knowing violations relating to food that is misbranded or adulterated." Also referred to committee, it's being debated before a full Senate vote - likely soon before Congress adjourns to campaign for the November 2 elections.   Despite their language, neither House or Senate bills help food, drug or nutrient supplement safety. Both impair them by empowering agribusiness and drug giants - why it's crucial to defeat the Senate measures while there's time.   So far, one senator (also a physician) remains outspoken and opposed, Tom Coburn (R. OK), saying:   "While some regulations are potentially onerous, but perhaps reasonable - such as requiring every facility to have a scientifically-based, but very flexible, food safety plan - others give FDA sweeping authority with potentially significant consequences....on the whole this bill represents a weighty new regulatory structure on the food industry that will be particularly difficult for small producers and farms to comply with (with little evidence it will make food safer)." In fact, there's none.   Dr. Rima Laibow, Medical Director of the Natural Solutions Foundation alerts everyone to "2 health freedom emergencies," S. 510, and S. 3767, saying:   After S. 510 stalled, S. 3767 was introduced. It's now in the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration, an upcoming vote, likely passage, then full Senate debate before adjourning to campaign. Of major concern is that "S. 510 will be introduced into (S. 3767) as an amendment, (along with) perhaps elements of the long-discredited fake dietary supplement 'safety' bill, S. 3002."   On September 23, she said the Judiciary Committee's Executive Committee considered S. 3767, slightly amended it, but not enough to matter. Passage of a combined S. 3767/S. 510 will "CRIMINALIZE THE DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD," benefitting corporate giants by harming small farmers (including organic ones) and consumers.   Revised language won't stop the FDA, FTC, Department of Agriculture, or other government agencies from deciding any time that "some rule, regulation, guideline or standard had not been met," including "secret" S. 510 provisions.   At issue is protecting small farmers and consumers as well as safe organic and locally grown food and dietary supplements. These bills will restrict or prevent them from being sold on the pretext of non-complaince with regulations, or in some cases claiming they're unsafe.   This is precisely what Ag and drug giants want, giving them full control over the nation's food, drugs, and dietary supplements. In other words, everything ingested for sustenance, nutrition, health and welfare will be in their hands to dominate, process, industrialize, taint, restrict, or prohibit for profit at the expense of consumers, small farmers, and other producers who'll be harmed.   One of many concerns is a provision calling for up to 10 years in prison for "misbranding," with no clear definition provided. For example, the FDA defines misbranding as any food or supplement claiming potential health benefits, even if scientifically proved. "Adulteration" is another issue, by definition including minor or inadvertent administrative or clerical errors, unrelated to food safety.   With regard to vitamins, minerals, and other dietary supplements, the Life Extension Foundation (lef.org) highlighted the problem, headlining "Congress Seeks to put Dietary Supplement Makers in Jail for Ten Years," saying:   Drug giants want to prevent your right to freely choose dietary supplement for health. S. 3767 masquerades as consumer friendly by "punish(ing) anyone who knowingly contaminates food for sale. Since there are already strong laws to punish anyone who commits this crime, this bill (is just cover to enrich) pharmaceutical interests."   "The sinister scheme behind (it) is to exploit the public's concern (for) food safety. Drug companies want to convince your Senators that an overreaching law needs to be enacted to grant the (corporate run) FDA powers to define 'food contamination' any way it chooses."   Besides empowering corporate giants, at issue "is that the FDA will use this as a hammer to threaten and coerce small companies into signing crippling consent decrees that will deny consumers access to truthful non-misleading information about natural approaches to protect against age-related disease." In addition, by so doing, they'll harm their own interests, shutting down many businesses for not being able to show why their products are beneficial.   A Final Comment   If passed, these House and Senate bills will empower agribusiness, legitimize unhealthy industrial food, put small farmers and producers out of business, and harm consumers by restricting their choices, besides making them pay exorbitantly higher prices.   In 1970, Henry Kissinger said: "Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control people."   Concentrating power in the hands of a few Ag/drug giants places everyone at risk. They plan world dominance by patenting all life forms to force-feed GMO foods and drugs on everyone, despite their harm to human health. Safe organic and family farm food will be restricted or disappear. So will beneficial dietary supplements.   Demand Congress defeat these bills and enact "The Food Freedom Amendment," saying:   "No provision of Federal Law giving regulatory oversight to any Federal department or agency shall be deemed to apply (a) to any home, home business, homestead, home or community garden, small farm, organic or natural agricultural activity, (b) to any family farm or ranch, or (c) to any natural or organic food product, including dietary supplements, as protected under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994."   The issue is clearly drawn - defeat Agbiz and Big Pharma or (more than ever) they'll harm human health and welfare. It's our choice if we act - quickly.   Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.   http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/. >

via rense.com

Despite their language, neither House or Senate bills help food, drug or nutrient supplement safety. Both impair them by empowering agribusiness and drug giants - why it's crucial to defeat the Senate measures while there's time.

Posted via email from moneytalks's posterous

Another Hidden Tax Outrage In ObamaCare

Another Obama (Reid, Pelosi, Democrat) Nightmare

9-24-10

 

Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it? That's $3,800 on a $100,000 home etc.   When did this happen? It's in the healthcare bill. Just thought you should know. SALES TAX TO GO INTO EFFECT 2013  (Part of HC Bill)   REAL ESTATE SALES TAX   So, this is "change you can believe in"? Under the new health care bill - did you know that all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax?     The bulk of these new taxes don't kick in until 2013 (presumably after obama's reelection). You can thank Nancy, Harry and Barack and your local Democrat Congressman for this one. If you sell your $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax.     This bill is set to screw the retiring generation who often downsize their homes. Is this Hope & Change great or what? Does this stuff makes your November and 2012 votes more important?   Oh, you weren't aware this was in the obamacare bill? Guess what, you aren't alone. There are more than a few members of Congress that aren't aware of it either (result of clandestine midnight voting for huge bills they've never read). AND, there are a few other surprises lurking. http://www.gop.gov/blog/10/04/08/obamacare-flatlines-obamacare-taxes-home Forward this article with the emailer below to every single person in your address book because an election is coming in November.   - Source Unknown

via rense.com

Posted via email from moneytalks's posterous

Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home - InterNACHI Message Board

Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home

We encourage you to read the provisions of the Cap and Trade Bill that has passed the House of Representatives and being considered by the Senate. We are ready to join the next march on Washington!
This Congress and whoever on their staffs that write this junk are truly out to destroy the middle class of the USA....

A License Required for your house

Thinking about selling your house - A look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and trade bill) This is unbelievable!

Only the beginning from this administration! Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!

Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the "Cap & Trade" bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.

The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year.

• No one is excluded.

However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure these voters get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class America will have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else.

But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this:

• A year from now you won't be able to sell your house. Yes, you read that right.

The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes ("mobile homes") are included.

• In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator.
• To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured.
• Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements.
• Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a "label" in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner.
• If you don't get a high enough rating, you can't sell. And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act.

The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program (AKA the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009") and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he alone determines to be in the government's best interest. Requirements are set low initial y so the bill will pass Congress; then the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year.

• The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings.
• However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time.

Sect. 202:
Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America .

Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act.

You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (i.e., ex$pen$ive) to meet in a few years. Oh, goody! The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements if you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants.

You should expect requirements such as "can't have an income of more than $50K per year", "home selling price can't be more than $125K", or anything else to target the upper middle class (and that's YOU) and prevent them from qualifying for the grants.
Most of us won't get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more "change you can believe in."

Sect. 204:
Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for "at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act."

This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help enforce the labeling program. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year.

Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label.
And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often - maybe every year.
But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time.

Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program.

Sect. 304:
Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d), Application of National Code to State and Local Jurisdictions, that 1 year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards.

a license required for your home - Google Search

H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us)
__________________

---

Signed, Frank Carrio, CMI
Certified Master Inspector & Consultant
Certified Commercial Building Inspector
Certified, WDI Inspector
Founder & Current President, New Hampshire State Chapter NACHI
NACHI, State Representative for Legislative Affairs
Retired: ICC Certified Member
Retired: Code Compliance Inspector.
Retired: ASTM Committee Member
New Hampshire License #0096
www.Americascertifiedinspectioncompanyllc.com

via nachi.org

Posted via email from moneytalks's posterous

Bill would let feds block pirate websites worldwide • The Register

Bill would let feds block pirate websites worldwide

• Alert
• Print
• Post comment
• Retweet
• Facebook

Copyright enforcement as censorship

By Dan Goodin in San Francisco • Get more from this author

Posted in Law, 21st September 2010 21:22 GMT

Free whitepaper – The Register Guide to Enterprise Virtualization

US lawmakers have introduced legislation that would allow the federal government to quickly block websites anywhere in the world if they are dedicated to sharing copyrighted music or other protected content.

The “Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act” would empower the US Department of Justice to shut down, or block access to, websites found to be “dedicated to infringing activities.” Sites that use domain names registered by a US-based company, or a top-level-domain administered by a US-based company, would find their internet addresses frozen.

The bill also contains provisions to block sites with domain names and TLDs that are maintained by overseas companies, which are immune to US laws. Under the legislation, US attorneys would be authorized to obtain court orders directing US-based internet service providers to stop resolving the IP addresses that allow customers to access the sites. That would have the effect of making the sites inaccessible to US-based web users who don't use some sort of proxy service.

The bill, which was introduced on Monday, is sponsored by Senators Orin Hatch and Patrick Leahy and has support from at least 10 other senators. It is scheduled to be added to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s agenda for a Thursday hearing.

As Wired.com points out, it's one of the most ambitious copyright enforcement bills introduced since 2008. That was the year a bill with similar language was introduced, and then ultimately watered down amid threats of a veto by the Bush administration, which worried it would result in the feds serving as pro bono lawyers for the RIAA and other private copyright holders.

Freedom to Tinker blogger Wendy Seltzer calls piracy enforcement an “all-purpose” charge akin to tax evasion and reminds us of the recent hazards in allowing the Russian government to police Microsoft's copyrights. ®

via theregister.co.uk

Posted via email from moneytalks's posterous

NetSuite is Looking for 150 News Employees - What Will the Cloud Workforce Look Like?

By Klint Finley / September 20, 2010 9:30 PM / 0 Comments

Sharedigg -->

This post is part of our ReadWriteEnterprise channel, which is a resource and guide for IT managers and technologists in the Enterprise. The channel is sponsored by Intel. As you're exploring solutions for your enterprise, check out this helpful resource from our sponsors: All New 2010 Intel Core vPro Processors and Microsoft Office 2010: Your Best Choice for Business PCs

Netsuite has been growing the past few years despite, or perhaps because of, the recession. And on Friday the cloud-based ERP provider announced it is seeking to fill 150 unfilled positions in almost every area - including sales, customer service and support, and engineering. The positions are listed on the company's careers page. Is Netsuite's aggressive hiring a sign of health in the tech industry, a sign of things to come for the enterprise job market, or both?

While the "great recession" has been declared "officially over" since summer of 2009, unemployment is still at 9.6% nationally. Meanwhile, IT workers are burning out and looking for new jobs - and they're pretty confident they'll find those new jobs. Netsuite's success and aggressive hiring may be evidence that those workers aren't deluded.

However, Netsuite's 150 new jobs is a drop in the bucket compared to the 200,000 - 250,000 jobs AMI Partners predicts small businesses will lose to the cloud. I'd like to believe that cloud computing will just mean we all get to work regular 40 hour weeks instead of the average 72, but considering that eliminating positions has been specifically mentioned as a reason to migrate to the cloud, I rather doubt that.

TechRepublic's Jason Hiner, following our own Sarah Perez's work, predicted IT will split into two tracks:

1. Business analysts - "IT professionals who work directly for individual companies -- rather than part of a provider or consultancy -- will have to become much more business savvy."

2. Technology experts - "They will rarely work directly for one company, but will rather work with various companies to help solve their IT problems, implement new technologies, and manage their IT infrastructures."

InfoWorld's highlighted the following possible future trends for the fully cloudified IT work force:

• Little job growth in data centers - the economies of scale will reduce the number of workers needed.
• A reduction in the number of technical staff such as server administrators, database administrators, and infrastructure and network people.
• A greater demand for IT workers with business skills, specifically business process management.
• A greater need for IT staff to deal with contract management and supplier relationship management
• More demand cloud platform specific development - for example, Salesforce.com certified developers

In their book Mashup Corporations authors Andy Mulholland, Chris S. Thomas and Paul Kurchina call for IT to become ITC - "Information and Communications Technology." Forrester analysts Josh Bernoff and Ted Schadler call for IT to take on a new role in their book Empowered. The pair calls on IT to become supporters instead of controllers of new technologies in the enterprise (see our interview with Bernoff). We reported last night that social media jobs are experiencing growth, and there will be a need for technical and security staff to support the social enterprise.

In the meantime, IT workers with desirable skills still have job options, as Netsuite's expansion shows. But IT pros need to start considering which side of the cloud they want to work on, and start figuring out what skills they will need to secure those positions.

Employers wanting to avoid short-term IT staffing issues and long-term shortages of cloud speciality skills would do well to give IT employees the chance to learn and use resilient cloud-based skills and start thinking about how key staffs' roles will change in the future.

via readwriteweb.com

Posted via email from moneytalks's posterous

How to Get Great Interviews

September 20, 2010 · View Comments

I’m fortunate that so many people want to interview me to hear my take. I receive many requests for interviews, and lately, so many that I’ve had to turn some down so that I have time to enough work so that people will have a reason to interview me in the future. Not all interviews are created equally, and I wanted to give you some ideas on how to spruce up yours, so that when you land a chance to interview someone you think your audience will appreciate, you’ll have something engaging to share.

First – Homework

What turns me off fast is when someone sends me a form-letter feeling interview (this is often done in email, but I’ve had the face-to-face version at events). If you’re just interviewing me to add to a stable of similar content, it’s not going to be that interesting for either of us. The first way to get a great interview is to have some actual homework done on the subject you’re intending to capture in the interview. Know what you can about them. Read a few blog posts. Read some old interviews. Jot some things down that you saw on their LinkedIn profile or from their Twitter stream. Homework ensures that the subject knows you’ve taken the time and effort to make the interview worth both your time.

Second – Intent

It’s amazing how people giving interviews don’t realize that they follow the same arcs as stories. Your interview should have some sense of a beginning, middle, and end, and try to service a great story. By the way, some of my favorite interviews to read in print come from Rolling Stone magazine and the cover interview of Esquire magazine. (I like these for their pop culture reference as well as for how well-written they are. You can name your fancy schmancy places, too.)

Third – Brevity

Ten questions isn’t an ideal interview length. The number 10 just comes into our head due to cultural conditioning. If you asked from three to seven really good questions, you’ll have a much better interview than pushing out ten questions because that’s what you want to see in print or on your video. OR if there are 10 questions, make them much smaller/simpler to answer. Maybe you write about real estate, and your questions are like: “urban or the burbs?” It still accomplishes the goal of brevity.

Fourth – Rapport

On video, it’s amazing how some folks giving an interview act like tripods to their video camera. With great rapport comes an opening up of the subject you’re interviewing. Have you ever watched a Barbara Walters interview? Say what you will about her, but she knows how to open people up. Same can be true in email interviews. You can say something to your subject that gets them into the right mindset to share their best with you.

Fifth – Posting and Promotion

When you do the interview, it’s your job to get the promotion. Quite often, people push on me to promote their interview with me. There are two problems with this for me (your mileage may vary): 1 – I don’t like talking about myself so I’m less likely to share your interview link, and 2 – it immediately makes me think you’ve interviewed me for traffic value alone and so you’ve left a bad taste in my mouth about how I perceive the value of the interview.

There are exceptions to this, always, but just know that it could happen with your interview subject, especially if they’re someone who gets interviewed a lot.

Troubleshooting – Nerves

In person, or over the phone, one of the things I notice a lot is that when someone’s nervous, they say “Um” more than they breathe. Relax. The person across from you is mostly human. I’ve been fortunate to sit across from some really really smart people and really famous people, and I use something my friend Steve Garfield taught me to be good with this: people are people.

It might sound overly simple, but if you remember that we’re all people with fears, hopes, insecurities, and more, then you’ll be far less likely to treat your subject like someone you’re not worthy to be around, and that will help with the ums.

Troubleshooting – Bad Responses

If you ask an interviewee a question that could likely get you a one word answer, you’ll get a one word answer. Yes and no questions are one word territory. Questions like, “What kind of car do you drive?” are very brief answer questions. Instead, you could ask, “Tell me about the experience of driving your new Camaro.” Then, you’ll get something a bit more. Hint: bad responses almost always come from bad questions.

Troubleshooting – Technical Glitches

I’ve had several situations where I’ve conducted an interview and had a technical glitch with the resulting media (audio, video, what have you). There’s really no way to get around it. Contact your subject, explain what happened, apologize, and ask whether another shot is possible. They’ll decide if it’s okay. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t. Depends on time, but I’m always grateful to hear that something went wrong, because if I was wondering when it’d come out, I now know why it didn’t.

Find New Subjects

I write for Entrepreneur magazine now as one of my fun side projects. When I go through their magazine, I don’t find article after article about the big name entrepreneurs. I find story after story talking about someone new that we don’t yet know very well, and we get into their heads to learn how they’re bringing a new approach to the world. You’d get more from an interview with Glenda Watson Hyatt and Mark Horvath and Marjorie Clayman than you’ll ever get from me and Scoble and Gary Vaynerchuk and the like.

And your community will get more, too.

via chrisbrogan.com

Posted via email from moneytalks's posterous

Creating a Blog In a Niche You Know Nothing About

Miscellaneous Blog Tips 33 comments

A guest post by Adam from Things To Learn.

I’ve been blogging for over two years now and I will be the first to admit that I haven’t been the best blogger in the world. Far from it. There were several stretches where I didn’t blog regularly or I wrote posts that just didn’t cut the mustard.

The blog that I was maintaining was in the ever crowded personal finance (PF) niche. Frankly, I know a lot about financial planning (I have a master’s in it) and I thought that I would thoroughly enjoy writing about it. Man was I wrong. If you ask any expert in the field, they will tell you that everything PF has already been written. In order to separate yourself from the hundreds of PF blogs out there, you have to put your own spin on the topics or just talk about your personal experiences. Well, I wasn’t that great at putting a spin on the topics and my wife and I don’t really live a fascinating financial life.

So, I slowly continued the blog. I stuck to it for about 2 years and decided that I just wasn’t having fun with it. I still enjoyed writing, but I was just burnt out writing about personal finance. I knew it was time for a change but I just didn’t know what. I don’t really have any hobbies and everything else just seemed so saturated already.

Blogging On Something You Don’t Know

As I was enjoying a nice walk around Washington DC with my wife, something caught my eye. None of the buildings were tall. I wondered what the deal was and figured that plenty of other people may have thought the same thing. I did some quick research at home and found out that there is some crazy law that doesn’t allow the buildings to be tall in the city. Weird.

After I learned about the topic, I had other random questions/things pop into my head and they just kept coming. An endless supply of blog posts! I wrote them down on a piece of paper with the title “Things To Learn”. I knew right then and there that I needed to create a blog on the topic. I was going from writing about things that I knew inside and out to something that I had no clue about. Why would I do that?

Why Should You Blog In a Niche You Know Nothing About

You Have An Almost Endless Supply of Blog Posts

Many great bloggers started writing about things that they wanted to know more about. For example, J.D. from Get Rich Slowly started his site when he was $35,000 in debt. Obviously, personal finance wasn’t his strong point at the time but he started the blog to learn more about the subject and it has now grown to one of the most popular blogs on the web. Heck, even Darren started this blog because he wanted to learn more about making money on the web.

Personally, I have been thinking about my new blog for weeks now. To date, I have approximately 100 “things to learn” in my Wordpress drafts. You know what, the ideas keep coming too. Whether I am reading a book or having a conversation with a stranger, the thoughts keep flowing. You can do that with any niche too. Especially if you are constantly trying to learn more about it.

It Never Gets Old

Most new bloggers fizzle out after a few months because they feel like no one is listening. Hey, it happened to me a few months after I started. But, I stuck with it and my blog has made a few bucks here and there.

Believe it or not, I don’t really care if my new site has readers. I mean, there is a small part of me that likes the interaction but I am doing it more for me. I want to learn and blogging about things I am interested in gives me pleasure. The place that I want to get my interaction is from other sites like this one. I am saving some of my better posts for other blogs and I will be interacting with the readers here.

I think that by blogging in niche you know nothing about, it will be difficult run out of things to write. I mean, I bet it may get a little old after a while. If I had to guess, I would say that many of the bloggers that have been around for a long time will tell you that it’s starting to get old. I imagine the thought of quitting has crossed their mind. Even though they started out knowing nothing about the niche, now they do and it would get old. However, they are now probloggers and are making good money. How many small bloggers that burnt out posting about what they know can say that?

* * * * *

How many of you started blogging in a niche you know nothing about? Have you seen the same results that I mentioned? What other positives can you see with blogging in a niche you know nothing about?

Adam spends his time finding out what the closest city to the north pole is or what the largest country is. He enjoys learning new things every day and sharing them with those who are willing to listen.

via problogger.net

Posted via email from moneytalks's posterous

Tamara Monosoff: Inventions

The Complete Inventor's Guide

Learn how to take your idea to market from Entrepreneur's resident inventions expert Tamara Monosoff.

By Tamara Monosoff

Print Email Share Get the Mag Weekly Updates Comments (7)

One of the strengths of our free-market economic system is competition. After all, because of competition, we have choices in both quality and price in the services we use, the places we shop and the products we buy. However, if you are an inventor or manufacturer of a new product, competition can be a major problem. For this reason, I am often asked how to protect an invention or new product from being stolen or "knocked off."

In my experience, the answer to the competitive challenges is to create a strategy based on the goals for the invention, the specific product itself, and the approach to be taken.

Inventors take one of two main approaches to making money with their invention: licensing the invention to another company or becoming a manufacturer themselves. There is some overlap in strategy for these two approaches. However, there are also some differences, especially in the underlying thinking. I will first talk about strategy for a licensing approach.

Before outlining some strategic options, I should mention that the magnitude of fear of showing others an invention at this stage is often overblown. In my experience, it is rare that a company will knock off an invention at this stage. Most product companies, including those inclined to knock off products, have dozens of new products in progress at any given time. They are focused on finishing and launching the backlog. In many cases where "theft" is assumed, it is very likely that it is mere coincidence. I am frequently presented with very similar ideas from people who could not have known of each other.

I should also address points I have made elsewhere about patents and nondisclosure agreements. They are tools that can be useful, but in general, they’re far less powerful and effective on their own in the real world of competitive consumer products than most inventors and many advisors believe them to be.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, and while I will address several of the legal tools used in this process, this is based on my own experience and should not be considered legal advice.

Strategy for the Licensing Approach
When licensing an invention, the main objective is to create the perceptions with the company you are approaching to license your product that your invention would be of value to them and it is in their best interest to enter into a legal licensing agreement with you and pay you for it rather than simply copying it and saying "thank you for the suggestion."

Here are several ways to create the perception of value:

• A prototype that clearly illustrates the functionality, creativity and utility of the invention is a useful, if not essential, tool. Despite the fact that these people look at products every day, the impact of being able to hold and try a new product vs. describing it or showing a drawing, is substantial.
• Provide information. Product teams at companies, especially small or midsize companies, are wearing many, many hats. This is, after all, one reason inventors can be helpful to them. When a product manager advocates for launching a new product, being equipped with critical market data that supports his decision can radically increase his commitment to an invention. Therefore, market research can have a major impact. And by this I mean information about safety issues and competitive products, and useful market statistics or stats they may not have considered to be relevant. And personally, we love it when inventors have actual focus group data from the core target customers.
• Be someone they would want to work with. While this may seem secondary, based on first-hand experience, I can say that for companies who have licensed products before, the perception of the inventor and how easy (or difficult) they think it would be to work with them is a real factor. As many business gurus have said, people do business with people they like. When speaking with potential licensing partners, focus on success, supporting their efforts and working together--and be yourself. Be smart but not overly distrustful or suspicious.

Once the value of the invention has been established, it’s important to be clear that to secure rights to take this product to market, the prospective licensing partner will need to execute a licensing agreement. In licensing negotiations, intellectual property protection, or at least the appearance of protection, is often essential, in spite of the inherent weaknesses I mentioned above.

Learn and understand the available options from a qualified professional. While technically it is possible to write and submit intellectual property filings oneself, I recommend using a qualified and registered patent attorney or agent. There are nuances in the use of language, and leveraging and applying IP law is difficult to pick up from scratch.

In this process, the most important phrase I can think of is "patent pending." Being able to present your product as patent-pending adds to the perceived value and it conveys a warning ("We better not copy this or we could get sued"). So file what you can to be able to legitimately write "patent pending" on your sell sheet, prototype, website, business card, and anywhere your product will be displayed.

Depending on complexity and the attorney or patent agent’s rates, having a utility patent drafted and filed by a professional can cost thousands of dollars. However, if you believe licensing to be a viable approach, having been issued a viable utility patent, or having one in process, is a useful tool in this situation.

If filing a utility patent immediately is not an option, there are other ways to achieve patent-pending status. Perhaps the fastest and least expensive way is to file a provisional patent application. A "provisional" never actually becomes a patent but acts as a place-holder (or date-holder) for when, and if, you do file a patent.

An inventor has 12 months from the date a "provisional" is filed to then file the utility patent application. In addition to being able to use the words "patent pending" during this period, it also provides time to find a licensing partner. At this juncture, a number of options exist:

• Once a partner has been found, the utility patent can then be filed.
• The "provisional" can actually be licensed as part of the negotiation--as well as the burden to file the utility patent. 
• The licensee may license the "provisional" and find they are content to proceed without the utility patent as any number of current products lack patents.

Strategy for the Manufacturing Approach
Many of these steps can be taken if the approach is to take a product to market. However, the philosophical approach will be different.

When taking the product to market, there is no need to create the "perception" of value with another manufacturer. In fact, in this approach, the assumption should be made that once the product has begun to garner meaningful market share, competitors will take notice. And since licensing the invention is not the main goal, securing IP for the purpose of creating an asset to license also has less relevance. Therefore, the defensive strategy in this approach is going to be designed to hinder the competition’s ability to copy you by increasing the risk and cost--perceived or real--of knocking you off. This will buy precious lead time to market. So the strategy is to use whatever legal tools are available--and cost-justified--to create hurdles to being copied and to win through marketing.

While some inventions are patentable, in my experience, patentability of an invention is often uncertain. I have frequently spoken with inventors who spent the majority of their available capital on their patent applications to find that the end result was either a declined application or drastically narrowed-down, less-useful version of their original application; this is why many product companies don’t even bother with patents. That same money is used to develop a great product and to win at marketing.

If the cost/benefit of filing and maintaining a utility patent is questionable, then it may be useful to file a provisional patent application at a fraction of the cost of a patent. This will delay the need to file an actual patent for 12 months, which may or may not be the chosen path, and provides 12 months’ lead time with the ability to use the warning of "patent pending" on packaging during this period.

While the cost/benefit of a patent can be questionable at this stage, the benefit of a trademark is clear. First, a trademark can be asserted by simply starting to use the ™ after the brand and product name (done by typing "tm" between parenthesis). Second, filing for a federally registered trademark costs significantly less than a patent, and the bar for demonstrating infringement is less stringent. The goal here is for your customer to think of your company and product name when they think of the product, e.g. "iPhone®" or "BlackBerry®" rather than "cell phone."

While brand awareness--and legal ownership--is clearly a part of winning at the market, there are many other strategies that can be part of your strategic marketing plan:

• Create a great product and offer your retailers and consumers great value from the start.
• Design packaging that is both eye-catching and easily merchandised.
• Develop a targeted advertising and PR campaign that fits your budget. Note: Limiting advertising to trade publications targeting retail buyers and at trade shows and using PR to create national brand awareness and demand from end users is often most cost-effective early on. 
• Get placement in major retailers first. This means you must sell aggressively. While not a guarantee, many retailers will think hard before granting a peg or shelf space to an item that is similar (a knock-off) to yours. They will choose your competitor if the new item wins at marketing (is of better quality or is priced in a way that improves their margin). 
• Be a reliable vendor with excellent customer service.
• Secure your brand footprint in the retailer by developing complementary products quickly.
• Reserve as many URLs as you can financially justify that are related to your product and brand names and concepts.
• Be generous, make friends in the industry and build your competitive intelligence. 
• Know who the most likely competitors are and watch them carefully.

Regardless of the path you choose to take, there will always be risks. And in business--especially the product business--the threat of competition is always present. However, if defending the invention/product is incorporated into a cohesive strategic plan with multiple tactics based on the approach to be taken, the chances of success will be dramatically improved.

The Reality of Patents and NDAs
Some would say that the "obvious" way to protect your product is to file a patent. And sure, there are some situations where a useful patent has been issued to an inventor who has the financial wherewithal to police and defend it.

By now I hope the limitations of patents are clear. Let me summarize the reasons:

• Most products are not patentable. (Don’t believe me? Go to Target or Walmart and read the packaging of 50 products. How many are patented?) 
• All patents are not equal. A design patent, which covers the precise design of a product, is much more limited as a defensive tool than a broad utility patent. Even if the product has a utility patent (or is patent-pending), the patent will have limitations as to what is actually considered to be the protected intellectual property (IP)--the "claims." In other words, a patent doesn’t necessarily protect the entire product; it may only cover some small aspect of it. Given the number of new patents being issued each day, there are fewer available claims for basic products every year. 
• There is no "patent police." If someone knocks off a product and it can be shown that someone has infringed on a patent, it is up to the inventor to engage in, and pay for, the legal battle to prove and to stop the infringer from continuing. Since the argument may not be clear-cut, this can be a costly legal proceeding. Many inventors lack the financial capital to fight a legal battle with a well-heeled knock-off company.

It should now be clear that a patent is often not the end-all answer that many inventors and professional advisors assume it to be. That’s the bad news. The good news is that knowing this, an inventor can focus on creating a winning strategy.

I would also like to briefly touch on another often-misunderstood legal document: the nondisclosure agreement (NDA). While there are benefits to using an NDA, its usefulness is generally overstated. Here’s why:

• First, many--probably most--manufacturers will not sign an NDA. They see no reason to obligate themselves to an inventor with whom they have no prior relationship. 
• Second, an NDA is not a patent. Most NDAs don’t say anything about not stealing the product idea, so the parties to the NDA are simply promising not to tell anyone else. 
• Third, there is the potential of including a noncompete clause of some sort in an attempt to address the last point. However, doing so will further reduce the number of companies to whom you will be able to actually pitch your invention as few will sign these. I have also personally found very few venture capitalists and professional investors willing to sign NDA agreements.

Tamara Monosoff is the author of Your Million Dollar Dream: Regain Control & Be Your Own Boss (hit #1 on Amazon in 3 categories: Marketing, Entrepreneurship & Home-Based Businesses). She is also the best-selling author of The Mom Inventors Handbook, Secrets of Millionaire Moms, co-author of The One Page Business Plan for Women in Business, and CEO of www.MomInvented.com . Connect on Twitter and Facebook .

via entrepreneur.com

Posted via email from moneytalks's posterous