Ukraine crisis could hit Russian GDP

15 April 2014 Last updated at 13:50 The increased spending in Crimea could hit growth in Russia The Russian economy may see zero growth this year because of the Ukraine crisis, Russia's finance minister has admitted.

The minister, Anton Siluanov, warned the country's economy faced "the most difficult conditions since the 2008 crisis", Russian news agencies said.

Mr Siluanov said Russia had already seen capital flight of $63bn in the first three months of 2014.

Russia's annexation of Crimea is also set to increase state spending.

Mr Siluanov told a government meeting: "GDP growth is estimated as rather low, 0.5%. Perhaps it will be around zero."

He added that money was leaving the country because of geopolitical instability - understood to mean Russia's involvement in the Ukraine crisis and increased pressure in eastern Ukraine.

The capital flight, according to Mr Siluanov, was the result of the mass conversion of roubles into foreign currencies.

The continued slowdown in growth has also been linked to a dependence on energy exports and an economy in need of modernisation.

"Continuing capital flight lowers the opportunities for economic investment and creates risk of an unbalanced budget. The main reason for capital flight is instability in the way the geopolitical situation develops," said Mr Siluanov.

Continue reading the main story

To an extent, our difficulties - I emphasise only to a certain extent - are tied to attempts of certain forces to push us into an artificial crisis”

End Quote Dmitry Medvedev Russian Prime Minister Over the past three years, Russia has seen economic growth fall from 4.3% in 2011 to 1.3% in 2013.

'Artificial crisis'

Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev recently told residents of Crimea that the government would be increasing salaries and pensions, in addition to putting extra money into the peninsula's infrastructure, following its recent controversial annexation.

Mr Siluanov warned Mr Medvedev not to spend too much in the region, stating that announcements were made "without analysing the real needs of Crimea and Sevastopol".

Mr Medvedev described the Ukraine crisis as "artificial" and said it was only partly responsible for the economy's bleak outlook.

"We of course cannot ignore the political elements of the current period," he said.

"To an extent, our difficulties - I emphasise only to a certain extent - are tied to attempts of certain forces to push us into an artificial crisis."

With pro-Russia forces occupying buildings in cities across eastern Ukraine, and the central government threatening to retake control by force, tension continues to build in the region.

US Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew recently urged other countries to contribute more to the economic rescue of Ukraine.

View the original article here

Could offices change from sitting to standing?

15 April 2014 Last updated at 00:12 A number of studies have suggested that constantly sitting at work is bad for you. So could workplaces be rejigged around standing up, asks would-be stander Chris Bowlby.

Medical research has been building up for a while now, suggesting constant sitting is harming our health - potentially causing cardiovascular problems or vulnerability to diabetes.

We can't simply fix it by heading for the gym.

This has big implications not just for homes - usually blamed for "couch potato" lifestyles - but for sedentary workplaces too, especially the modern office.

But when it comes to the average office, reducing sitting is a huge challenge. It means rethinking architecture, spending a lot of money, changing the office routine. Adjustable sit-stand desks can cost many hundreds of pounds.

The current common arrangement of rigid rows of desks, beloved of businesses wanting to cut down on renting floor space, does not suit employees who want more physical choice in how they work

Advocates say more standing would benefit not only health, but also workers' energy and creativity. And some big organisations and companies are beginning to look seriously at change.

Continue reading the main story

Georgina Hurst, sales manager at VM Turbo, a software firm in Fleet, Hampshire:

"We converted the office about eight or nine months ago. We removed the standard desks and put in 12 high tables. We're in a serviced office and asked them to remove the old desks. The new desks are at chest level and cost us £350 each.

"We do 150-200 calls a day per person. We've built an environment using music in the background to get people up and running (psyched up). We decided that if we are standing, we'd be able to project our voices better. And so we decided it would be better to have these high tables. We started without any chairs but have now added high chairs as people may not want to stand all day. The high chairs cost £70 each. We probably stand 40% of the time, sit 30% and walk around the office 30% of the time. No-one has said they want to go back to the old desks since we converted the office."

US firm General Electric's British plant in Groby, Leicestershire, is considering giving staff a choice. "It's becoming more well known that long periods of sedentary behaviour has an adverse effect on health," says GE engineer Jonathan McGregor, "so we're looking at bringing in standing desks."

But the cost must be calculated. Senior management at the site are asking for data on illnesses and time off before making a final decision.

Prices vary according to design but they cost more than conventional desks. UK firm Elite Office Furniture manufactures sit/stand desks in the UK and charges £500 per desk for orders of 50 or more. One of its major clients is Google which has fitted a large number in its London office, although it will not divulge just how many the search giant has bought. Another UK firm, National Office Furniture Supplies, charges a similar amount and would bill £15-£50 to remove each old desk. It tends to sell only two or three desks to clients who have employees with specific needs. Yet another firm, Back Care Solutions, charges just under £400 but this compares with a standard desk which costs £172.

For anyone wanting, say, 1,000 desks changed, it's easy to see how cost would be an obstacle. And there's an issue. People have to choose to stand. Forcing offices to stand up might harm morale.

Chris Bowlby works at a makeshift standing desk

Ergonomics expert Alan Hedge is sceptical about how far workers can change. Some will simply want to stay sitting, he points out. And those with adjustable desks don't mix well with the sitters.

But he thinks employees should still be encouraged to move around much more. "We need to think of sitting like driving," he says. "Take a break regularly." Small adjustments - abolishing the tea trolley, for instance - can encourage people to move around more.

The whole concept of sitting as the norm in workplaces is a recent innovation, points out Jeremy Myerson, professor of design at the Royal College of Art. "If you look at the late 19th Century," he says, Victorian clerks could stand at their desks and "moved around a lot more".

"It's possible to look back at the industrial office of the past 100 years or so as some kind of weird aberration in a 1,000-year continuum of work where we've always moved around."

What changed things in the 20th Century was "Taylorism" - time and motion studies applied to office work. "It's much easier to supervise and control people when they're sitting down," says Myerson.

In the US and UK, "there's a tendency to treat workplace design as a cost, not an investment", he suggests. "Denmark has just made it mandatory for employers to offer their staff sit-stand desks."

Continue reading the main story

BBC Radio 1Xtra presenter Trevor Nelson presents his programmes standing up, from one of the few electronically adjustable desks that did find their way into the BBC's new building.

"I think you've got to think of doing something during the day that doesn't involve going to a gym", he says.

For him, it's not just about health benefits.

"I feel more aware, I feel sharper, standing gives me more energy while I'm on air".

And while offering an option to stand seems a good idea, forcing everybody to give up their swivel chair would have consequences. "A lot of people felt having their own desk and chair was a symbol of job security and status," says Myerson.

What might finally change things is if the evidence becomes overwhelming, the health costs rise, and stopping employees from sitting too much becomes part of an employer's legal duty of care.

Fred Turok founded the LA Fitness chain of gyms and is now chair of the physical activity network for the Department of Health. "The best way to get the biggest returns," he says, "is to get those people who currently do no exercise to do some exercise. Even 10 minutes a day having elevated your heartbeat will see the biggest financial returns to the economy as well as the emotional and social returns for the individual."

Standing in the Doctors Commons in the mid-19th Century

But that message, he adds, "has not yet got through to the people who are designing our space".

So what happened when I started to cut back on sitting? I found myself standing, but at the far side of my office, at a higher desk not meant for regular work. I had only been able to find one desk fixed at around my height, usually used for specialised technical jobs. The computer connection was bad, and there was no phone. Getting this changed, I was told, would be costly.

Continue reading the main story

Most of us are guilty of excess sitting. We sit at work, in the car and at home, moving only to shift from one seat to another. But some studies suggest that those who sit all day live around two years less than those who are more active, says Michael Mosley.

Design gurus talk a lot about mobile technology liberating workers. But for many, the need for computer and landline is still more like a leash.

"If what we are creating are environments where people are not going to be terribly healthy and are suffering from diseases like cardiovascular disease and diabetes," says Prof Alexi Marmot, a specialist on workplace design, "it's highly unlikely the organisation benefits in any way."

How did I feel after days of more standing? After some initial aches and pains standing for prolonged periods, I began to get used to it. Sitting back in a chair felt more cramped than before. But when standing, I was quite cut off from my colleagues, most of whom wondered what on earth I was doing.

Follow @BBCNewsMagazine on Twitter and on Facebook

View the original article here

'RoboClam' could anchor submarines

10 April 2014 Last updated at 01:33 By James Morgan Science reporter, BBC News RoboClam was inspired by nature - the razor clam is 'the Ferrari of diggers' A new burrowing robot for anchoring miniature submarines has been developed - inspired by the humble razor clam.

"RoboClam" could be used to lay undersea cables, and potentially even destroy mines, its inventors say.

The device mimics the digging action used by razor clams to turn solid soil into liquid "quicksand", helping them slide through.

A prototype is described in the journal Bioinspiration and Biomimetics by engineers from MIT in Boston, US.

Continue reading the main story

The cool thing is this technology is already 10 times more efficient than any anchor”

End Quote Dr Kerstin Nordstrom University of Maryland They set out to design a new low-power, light-weight anchor for autonomous underwater vehicles.

"Luckily, nature had already done the work for us," said Dr Kerstin Nordstrom, of the University of Maryland, who collaborated on the research.

The answer was poking out of mudflats off the coast at nearby Gloucester, MA.

The Atlantic razor clam, Ensis directus, has been dubbed "the Ferrari of underwater diggers".

An animal of its modest frame (10-20cm) should only be strong enough to penetrate 2cm into packed sand. But it can burrow up to 70cm in just over a minute.

The MIT researchers say their robot digs as fast as a razor clam

Compared to existing anchor technology "the razor clam is about 10 times more efficient," Dr Nordstrom told the BBC's Science in Action.

To dig for half a kilometre, it would only use the energy in an AA battery.

"But when you try plunging the shell into the sand, it doesn't actually penetrate very far," said Dr Nordstrom.

"What this shows is the clam must be actively doing something to the ground when it digs."

The prototype was bulky but RoboClam will be developed into a sleeker unit

To find out the razor clam's secret, they studied its digging action and modelled it mechanically.

The repeated open-shut of the clam's valves turned the hard-packed soil around it into quicksand.

"The clam's trick is to move its shells in such a way as to liquefy the soil around its body, reducing the drag acting upon it," said Amos Winter, of MIT's Department of Mechanical Engineering.

"Pushing through sand costs a lot of energy. But if the sand is excited, it's actually very easy. That's the trick," added Dr Nordstrom.

By mimicking the action of the razor clam, they built their own robotic prototype - which has achieved the same digging speed - about 1cm per second.

The first "RoboClam" can only reach 20cm, and requires a significant rig of machinery to propel it.

But having demonstrated the principle, the team now aims to develop a larger, self-contained unit, that can burrow more than 10 metres.

This could be used to anchor larger vessels, and may have military applications - such as detonating mines, the researchers suggest.

"The cool thing is this technology is already 10 times more efficient than any anchor. If we can keep scaling things up, some day it will affect big boats," said Dr Nordstrom.

"Also - undersea cable installation is happening more and more frequently. If we can do it more efficiently we can save costs and cause less disturbance to the environment," she said.

Amos Winter agrees: "Having a system that could just latch onto the cable, work its way along, and automatically dig it into the soil would be great," he said.

VIDEO: The tech that could change TV adverts

As more people watch television through on-demand streaming services and box sets, advertisers are finding it increasingly difficult to attract the attention of audiences.

But new video techniques are allowing advertisers to change the brand names or products that appear in television shows after they have been filmed and edited, which could help make their products more attractive.

Click's Marc Cieslak reports.

Watch more clips on the Click website. If you are in the UK you can watch the whole programme on BBC iPlayer.

Don't Get Banned From Selling on Amazon - It Could Be Forever!

Pigs could grow human organs

In a new stem cell breakthrough, pigs could be used to grow human organs for use in transplants.

The idea behind "chimeric animals" is not limited to pigs either, rat stem cells have been injected in to mouse embryos producing mice with rat organs. The research could spell an end to the long waiting lists patients have to endure when in need of a transplant.

Scientists have found they can create chimeric animals that have organs belonging to another species by injecting stem cells into the embryo of another species. The researchers injected stem cells from rats into the embryos of mice that had been genetically altered so they could not produce their own organs, creating mice that had rat organs.
 View: Full article |  Source: Telegraph

  Discuss: View comments (15)

View the original article here

Could flogging solve our prison crisis?

http://shop.ebay.co.uk/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p5197.m570.l1313&_nkw=dvd+with+media+on+it&_sacat=See-All-CategoriesAmerica's prison system is in a state of crisis. Since the declaration of a war on drugs 40 years ago, our country has amassed the largest prison population the world has ever seen. Overcrowding and unconstitutional conditions have gotten so bad that one of the worst offenders, California, was recently ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court to either transfer 33,000 people to other jurisdictions or simply let them go. Now former police officer turned criminal justice professor Peter Moskos has devised a modest proposal that, he argues, could solve the problem of our congested prisons overnight: give prisoners the option of being flogged instead of being imprisoned.

Moskos makes a compelling 154-page argument in flogging’s favor. He points out that since physical brutality is already a part of prison life -- for example, 1 in 20 prisoners report having been sexually assaulted by other inmates or staff in the past year -- and corporal punishment is a much faster and cheaper method of retribution, prison may actually be the more inhumane and less fiscally responsible option. Although his outrageous idea may conjure up unsavory reminders of U.S. slavery, by the end of "In Defense of Flogging," Moskos might just have you convinced.

Salon spoke with Moskos about the feasibility of flogging, the reasons behind our prison population explosion -- and why so many Americans want to see prisoners suffer.

The first reaction people seem to have to the premise of your book is: "Is this guy for real?" So, are you? 

Yes, I am for real. People have to read beyond the title of the book because I’m not actually pro-flogging; however, I am entirely serious about my belief to offer it as a choice instead of prison. I was much more hesitant when I started working on the book, but as I did my research and writing, I succeeded in convincing myself! 

I think flogging is evil, but it’s the lesser evil of the two. I think it’s strange for people to say that even though flogging might be better than prison, we still can’t do it because it’s bad. That’s not much of an argument. I always try to keep the focus on prison because that’s really what the book is about. But flogging is essential on a huckster level to get the book noticed. If I had written a book called "Why Prisons?" nobody would read it. I already wrote a book calling for drug legalization and no one read that one. 

Many people will find the brutality of flogging horrifying, and some may even think it's torture, but you argue that prison is a worse, dishonest punishment. 

Flogging should horrify people. But taking away a significant chunk of someone’s life is far worse than any punishment that is virtually instantaneous. We should be honest about prison and recognize that we’re sentencing people to years of confinement and torture. But we don’t do that. We still have this hogwash about prison being good for the soul. Deep down I think we all understand that no one leaves prison in a better position than they went in. 

Also, prison has physical and sexual abuse. It’s so bizarre that we’ve gotten to a point where we consider prison normal and think it’s OK to imprison 2.3 million people. The U.S. has more prisoners than China, and they have a billion more people than we do. America is running an experiment in incarceration that has never happened in the world before, and to our own detriment. 

A big part of my argument rests on the idea that flogging would be a choice, not imposed, because consenting to the flog takes away much of the protest that it’s cruel and barbaric. If flogging were such a bad choice, nobody would choose it. 

Is flogging letting people off too easily? 

Usually when I talk to liberals, they start by saying it’s horrible. Then I compare it to prison and they decide it’s not enough. It can be either too hard or too soft, but it can’t be both. If our society has gotten to the point where whipping somebody is considered too lenient then what have we become? Flogging is cruel and barbaric, so I would hope that would be punishment enough. 

How did the U.S. become the most heavily incarcerating country in the world? 

The War on Drugs is the short answer. The increase has happened since 1970, and if it weren’t for widespread drug policy changes that created longer sentences and "get tough" laws of three strikes and you’re out, I don’t think we’d have massive incarceration. Since we don’t have alternatives, all we can do is add more years. That’s how we went from having normal levels of incarceration to seven times the normal rate.

If prisons are so terrible and ineffective, why do they persist? 

Mostly because people won’t think outside the box, but also because a lot of people still believe prisons can be reformed in some magical way that make them good for prisoners. I don’t buy that for a second. There’s also a strong desire for punishment and retribution, and that’s not necessarily bad if it’s kept in check. 

It’s much harder to attack prisons now than ever before because so many people make money off of them -- whether it's people employed by prisons or the private companies that own them. People who are pro-prison don’t hide the fact that their goal is to create jobs, which, to me, is a morality issue. You cannot have a jobs program based on human bondage. When people say flogging is reminiscent of slavery -- which it is -- I tell them that prisons are the true descendant because we really do lock black and Hispanic people up so other people can make money off of them. The Corrections Corporation of America even helped draft the anti-immigration laws, and the CEO essentially said that if we criminalize more people then we’ll have to house them somewhere. They’re just so open about it. 

What effect does 2.3 million prisoners have on U.S. society? 

Prisons cost us a lot of money, which is a big problem now with all the budget crises. If California could return to its 1970 level of incarceration, they would reduce their budget deficit by 50 percent. In that sense, it’s real money. 

Additionally, the burden is excessively on the poor. A lot of people, myself included, don’t personally know anybody in prison. Yet when I talk to students at the public university where I teach, a lot of them can’t imagine not knowing anyone in prison. The people locked up are almost always poor, and usually they’re black. This goes back to the War on Drugs, disproportionate arrest rates, and not having the money to hire a lawyer who can keep you out of prison. 

And the people who suffer aren’t just the prisoners themselves. 

It’s no surprise that kids who grow up with incarcerated parents don’t do as well, because even criminals can be half-decent parents. It’s certainly better than no parent, which is the case for the 1.5 million children in this country who have a parent in prison. Losing someone who can provide for your family makes it harder to escape poverty, and then you’re more likely to end up in prison yourself. 

There’s a tipping point where incarcerating too many people makes it impossible for the community to function. When you remove so many potential workers, communities break down. Most people who are released end up back in prison. In part that’s because they aren’t able to find legitimate jobs and end up committing crime to get money. In that sense, a vicious cycle is created. 

If we simply gave people the money we spend on locking them up, I’m sure most would stay out of prison. Some might say they aren’t morally deserving, but I don’t really care about that. If it’s cheaper and prevents crime, I’m all for handing out money so that people can stay out of trouble. Anyway, eventually they’re all released, and since we don’t want them to commit more crimes, it’s in our selfish best interest to help them. 

If a radical overhaul of the prison system is the goal, why not offer solutions in that vein instead of advocating for something most Americans will find abhorrent?

I wanted to throw a hand grenade into this debate because I don’t really see it going anywhere. My argument is a sort of old progressive call for prison abolition that is wrapped in a punitive conservative façade. I have a lot of friends who don’t support the prison system, but not supporting it isn’t enough. We must figure out alternatives because it’s not getting better just by talking about it. Prison reform has been advocated for decades and the movement has failed. No one’s listening to them. I’m all for finding a third way, but it’s too naive to keep waiting for the perfect solution. I don’t expect to see flogging implemented any time soon, and I’d be a bit unsettled if it were, but if the trade-off is significantly reducing our prison population, then let's do it. 

Could fines be effective? 

For some people, but not for most because most people in prison are poor and get locked up precisely because they have no money. Fining would be a good solution in theory, but it just does not prove effective in real life. Also, America is a punitive society. Most supporters of the death penalty recognize it doesn’t deter crime, which is fascinating because that perspective is purely retributive. So, you can’t discount mainstream values. 

What about prison as rehabilitation? 

I’m skeptical of rehabilitation because of its religious and paternalistically based origins, which assume there are genetically inferior classes and that it’s our obligation to help them. That idea has done a lot of bad in this world. Also, rehabilitation implies there’s something to rehabilitate to, that someone simply took the wrong path and needs to correct it, but if you grow up in poverty then that’s the only culture you know. So, working with someone isn’t rehabilitating them; it’s educating them on how to conform to prized social norms. And if we want that to have any chance of success, we have to separate that process from incarceration. 

You say prison reform simply creates an "improved system of evil." What steps should the government take to solve the prison problem? 

Everything from sentencing reform and alternative sentencing to drug courts to re-entry programs to better policing to policies that reduce poverty. All those things are needed. The problem is that these kinds of programs are the first to have their funding taken away in tight budget times. 

What would you think about America if people began advocating flogging? 

Some Americans might advocate for whipping people, but I’m not one of those. I think it’s about giving people a choice of punishment, and hopefully there would be some other choices out there. It’d be nice if more people would advocate for a different drug policy. As politically unfeasible as advocating for legalizing drugs may be right now, it’s probably the most likely option that would happen. The past 10 years have shown a big change in that debate. It used to be completely taboo to talk about it and now medicinal marijuana is up for referendum in some states. That’s the biggest practical step people should fight for because drug prohibition is really the root of most of the evils in the prison system.

View the original article here

Gorse fires 'could cause deaths'

3 May 2011 Last updated at 16:22 There were gorse fires across NI over the bank holiday weekend

Police are warning that those deliberately starting gorse fires were putting people's lives at risk and would face prosecution.

There were gorse fires across NI over the bank holiday weekend - at one stage an average of one call every 45 seconds was being received.

The worst of the blazes on Tuesday is at Glenshesk near Ballycastle.

The Mournes and Gortin were also badly affected, although the flames there have now subsided.

BBC NI reporter Alexandra McKenzie was in Ballycastle on Tuesday afternoon. She said that although fears the fire would spread to the Ballypatrick forest have not been realised, damage was nonetheless extensive.

"The fire has wiped out hundreds of acres of farmland. That will take years before it can be used again," she said.

"There are points when you drive along that you can hardly see in front of your car, you can hardly see where you're going the smoke is so thick.

"It's even difficult to breathe."

Two boys, aged 10 and 15, have been questioned by police about a gorse fire in County Tyrone.

They said they were also following up reports that a man with a petrol can was seen in the Rostrevor area on Saturday evening and that two youths were spotted lighting fires on Slieve Gullion Mountain in south Armagh on Sunday night.

Assistant Chief Constable Gary White said the thought that "individuals may be deliberately causing such destruction is very hard to comprehend".

"Not only are they putting livestock in danger, and destroying the habitat of wildlife, but as seen in the necessary evacuations in Annalong and the Lenamore Road in Omagh, homes and therefore the lives of residents are being threatened," he said.

"I would also appeal to those people who are causing the fires to think of their actions and the consequences involved which will most certainly include prosecution."

A fire on the Munie road in Ballymena on Friday is also believed to have been started deliberately. Police said it claimed around 40 acres of land and, at one stage, threatened to destroy a farm house and out buildings.

'Community problem'

Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Chief Fire Officer Peter Craig said it had been "phenomenally busy".

"What we are highly concerned with is protecting life, property and infrastructure," he said.

"In Rostrevor, I saw a ball of flames rolling towards a property. Firefighters, the local community and property owners themselves worked extremely hard to make sure that that person's home did not go up in flames."

Mr Craig said this was a "community problem" and adults should question young people about where they are going.

"Not only are they putting the community at risk, they are putting themselves at risk," he said.

The NIFRS said the holiday weekend had been the busiest in its history.

In a 24-hour period from midday on Sunday, the fire service received 927 calls and sent appliances to a total of 376 incidents. Gorse and grassland fires accounted for 194 of these.

Humphrys could be 'clearer' on AV

3 May 2011 Last updated at 16:37 John Humphrys clashed with the prime minister several times during the 20-minute interview The BBC has said Today presenter John Humphrys could have been "clearer" about how the alternative vote works during an interview with David Cameron.

Mr Humphrys told Mr Cameron it was incorrect to argue that some people's votes could be counted more often than others under the system.

In response, the prime minister said the presenter was "completely wrong" and should go "back to school".

A BBC spokesman said the disagreement was part of a "lively" exchange.

The argument came less than 48 hours before voters decide whether to change the way MPs are elected.

Counting dispute

Voters will be asked whether to stick with the current first-past-the-post system, in which voters select one candidate and the individual with the most votes, wins or switch to the alternative vote, in which voters can list candidates in order of preference if they choose.

Under the AV system, if one candidate gets more than half the votes, they are elected straight away.

If not, the candidate with the fewest votes drops out and their second preferences are handed out to remaining candidates.

This process continues until someone gets over half the votes or no more votes can be distributed.

The dispute during Tuesday's interview came after Mr Cameron said the current system was "simple, fair and decisive" and under AV "you start counting some people's votes more than once".

Mr Humphrys said this was "simply not true".

Mr Cameron replied: "Yes you do. You count all the votes and then you start eliminating candidates and then you count people's preferences."

The BBC presenter continued: "And I have a second preference as well as you or anybody else and you count them again as well, so you don't count some people's votes more than others."

The prime minister said this was not the way the "complicated" system worked and that the interviewer was "completely wrong" but Mr Humphrys suggested the process was, in fact, "terribly simple".

Pressed again, Mr Cameron replied: "If you vote for a Labour candidate and I vote for a Monter Raving Loony candidate and the Monter Raving Loony comes last, my second preference is then counted again."

'Quite worrying'

When Mr Humphrys replied "so is mine", the prime minister said he "didn't understand the system" he was explaining.

Continue reading the main story

At the moment MPs are elected by the first-past-the-post system, where the candidate getting the most votes in a constituency is elected.

On 5 May all registered UK voters will be able to vote Yes or No on whether to change the way MPs are elected to the Alternative Vote system.

Under the Alternative Vote system, voters rank candidates in their constituency in order of preference.

Anyone getting more than 50% of first-preference votes is elected.

If no-one gets 50% of votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their backers' second choices allocated to those remaining.

This process continues until one candidate has at least 50% of all votes in that round.

"It is quite worrying if actually the lead broadcaster on the BBC does not understand the system," he added. "I do think that is worrying. Back to school."

The two men clashed again minutes later when Mr Humphrys suggested first-past-the-post was used by "no other major democracy". Mr Cameron said he was "absolutely staggered" by this and insisted that the system was used "by half the voters in the world" including in the US.

The official "No" campaign in the referendum have claimed AV would undermine the principle of "one person, one vote" that it says has underpinned British democracy and argued that only three countries around the world use it.

The "Yes" campaign have said AV would more clearly reflects the range of voters' views, is used to elect Labour and Tory leaders and that first-past-the-past has been not been used by any devolved UK legislature set up since 1997.

In a statement, the BBC said Today and other programmes had "spelled out in great detail how AV would work" if introduced.

"During a lively Today interview, David Cameron and John Humphrys disagreed over a technicality when the AV referendum was discussed," a spokesman for the corporation added.

"John Humphrys was trying to reflect the point of contention between the campaigns over whether some people, in effect, have more than one vote under AV.

"In hindsight, he could have made this clearer".

Sony sued, could bleed billions after breach

Sony

UPDATED: 10 p.m. PST

Gamers and government officials are irate over Sony's admission that a massive security breach gave hackers access to large amounts of personal data from the company's PlayStation Network and, surprise(!), one gamer has already filed a lawsuit.

Meanwhile, analysts estimate the hammered game company could lose billions of dollars from the debacle.

On Tuesday afternoon, Sony of America's director of communications said that "an illegal intrusion" in their system has caused a "compromise of personal information." And while Sony officials don't believe credit card information was taken, they say that hackers may have taken names, addresses, email addresses, birthdates and passwords among other things.

On Wednesday Kristopher Johns of Alabama filed a suit in U.S. District Court accusing Sony of "negligence in data security" and of not taking "reasonable care to protect, encrypt, and secure the private and sensitive data of its users" as well as for taking too long to notify him and other customers that their data had been pilfered.

Johns and his attorneys are seeking class action status for the case as well as monetary compensation and free credit card monitoring for everyone affected.

"Sony's breach of its customers' trust is staggering," J.R. Parker, co-counsel in the case, told IGN. "Sony promised its customers that their information would be kept private. One would think that a large multinational corporation like Sony has strong protective measures in place to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of personal information, including credit card information. Apparently, Sony doesn't."

There are some 77 million user accounts with the PlayStation Network and Qriocity service, which allows gamers to play games online together as well as purchase and play movies and music.

As we previously reported, the PlayStation Network abruptly went offline last Wednesday, April 20. On Tuesday gamers grew increasingly irate as news of the data theft spread, wondering why it had taken Sony six days to reveal that personal information had been taken. Sony responded Tuesday evening by issuing a follow-up statement insisting that they did not know that personal data had been taken until Monday.

Answering customer questions
On Wednesday evening, Patrick Seybold, Director of Corporate Communications for Sony of America, attempted to calm customer fears by posting a series of answers to frequently asked questions.

"We are currently working with law enforcement on this matter as well as a recognized technology security firm to conduct a complete investigation," he wrote. "This malicious attack against our system and against our customers is a criminal act and we are proceeding aggressively to find those responsible."

He explained that, though Sony can’t rule out the possibility that credit card data was taken, it is unlikely because that data had been encrypted. He added that there was no risk that the three-digit credit card security codes from customer cards were taken because Sony never collected that information.

The personal data that was illegally accessed, on the other hand, "was not encrypted, but was, of course, behind a very sophisticated security system that was breached in a malicious attack" Seybold explained.

He added that Sony is currently working on a new system software update that will require all users to change their password once PlayStation Network is restored. And he said Sony is in the midst of initiating several measures "that will significantly enhance all aspects of PlayStation Network’s security and your personal data, including moving our network infrastructure and data center to a new, more secure location."

International outrage
Still, government officials from several countries are bringing the hammer down on Sony.

via Reddit

While many people are angry about the PlayStation Network data breach, some folks are having a bit of fun at Sony's expense. Here's a new look at Sony's "It Only Does Everything" motto for the PlayStation 3.

In the UK, the Information Commissioner Office — a government agency that seeks to uphold information rights and data privacy — says it's looking into whether or not Sony has done enough to protect sensitive user information, and if it alerted the public to the breach in a timely manner.

"The Information Commissioner's Office takes data protection breaches extremely seriously," the organization told Eurogamer Wednesday. "Any business or organization that is processing personal information in the UK must ensure they comply with the law, including the need to keep data secure. We are contacting Sony and will be making further enquiries to establish the precise nature of the incident before deciding what action, if any, needs to be taken by this office."

Meanwhile, according to several Australian newspapers, the Australian Privacy Commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim, has said he will be opening an investigation into the breach. And in the U.S., outraged Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) sent a letter to Sony of America CEO Jack Tretton demanding answers about the company’s failure to notify millions of customers about the data breach in a timely manner.

But in Japan where Sony is based, one of the highest ranking government officials — Chief Cabinet Secretary Yuko Edano — issued a more diplomatic statement directed at Sony.

"Private businesses must safeguard the personal information they have with the maximum care possible," he said, according to game site Kotaku.

Financial fallout
Meanwhile, estimates are rolling in about how much this debacle is going to cost Sony.

As VentureBeat reports, estimates are ranging anywhere from $20 million in lost revenues for a couple of weeks of down time to $24 billion for the total costs of dealing with the loss of personal customer data.

Michael Pachter, a video game analyst for Wedbush Morgan, told VentureBeat he estimates that Sony makes about $500 million in annual revenue from PSN which comes out to about $10 million per week. Sony has estimated it will take another week to get the network up and running on top of the week it's been down — hence the low-end $20 million guess.

On the other end of the spectrum, Forbes has cited a study from security think tank Ponemon Institute that estimates it costs $318 per compromised record for a data breach. With 77 million PlayStation Network user accounts that adds up to the $24 billion estimate.

On a Frequently Asked Questions page created by Sony, the company has admitted that some gamers are already asking for compensation. Its response: "While we are still assessing the impact of this incident, we recognize that this may have had financial impact on our loyal customers. We are currently reviewing options and will update you when the service is restored."

Meanwhile, as Kotaku reports, Hulu is offering compensation to some of its Hulu Plus subscribers who rely on the PlayStation Network to access their TV and Movie content. Reads a letter sent to some subscribers:

Unfortunately, due to the outage on PlayStation Network, Hulu Plus subscribers cannot currently access the application on the PS3. We understand this is frustrating, and we are looking forward to Sony restoring access to the application as soon as possible. In the meantime, we'd like to offer you a 1-week credit toward your Hulu Plus subscription.

Despite the enormity of this mess, some folks can't help but have a little fun at the expense of Sony.

As you can see, the National Nerd Relief Fund is hoping to raise money to help get the PlayStation Network back up and running as soon as possible ... for the sake of Sony fanboys everywhere.

For related news, please see:

Winda Benedetti writes about games for msnbc.com. You can follow her tweets about games and other things right here on Twitter.

If I could do anything with my life…

it’d be to golf every day. Happy Friday everyone!

Sheer physical poetry

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

Be the first to like this post.

View the original article here