Facebook Launches iPad App, Mobile Platform

Facebook Launches iPad App, Mobile Platform – After months of anticipation and leaks, Facebook on Monday launched a mobile app platform and an iPad app.

Facebook users previously had to use their computers for most of their Facebook gaming and app needs, but now they should be able to play and participate from almost any device with a web browser -- and they may get a better experience if it happens to be an Apple iOS device.

Though this launch had been described as an affront to Apple, the new Facebook mobile versions will defer to Apple's native platform and even its payments system whenever possible.

A big reason why Facebook apps, especially games, did not work on phones was because iOS devices do not support Flash. Facebook has helped a select set of developers -- Audiovroom, Branchout, Flixster, Gilt Groupe, Huffington Post, EA, Moblyng, Storm8, Wooga and Zynga -- create HTML5 versions of a selection of their apps and game titles that will work in mobile web browsers.

Facebook has finally launched an iPad app, after months of anticipation

But HTML5 still does not offer the performance that many complex apps require, so if the developers have created native versions of their apps, they can also connect Facebook users directly to that native app.

Now, when a friend sends you an invitation to play Words With Friends, and you view it on the Facebook app on your iPhone, you can click to play and be taken to the Words With Friends app. If you do not have the app, you will be directed to Apple's App Store.

If you are using an Android phone, you will be taken to an HTML5 version in your mobile web browser. Facebook CTO Bret Taylor told AllThingsD Monday that Facebook is also working on an update to its native Android application.

While many people will appreciate having a more consistent Facebook app experience, this launch also should make it much easier for users to find new mobile apps through their friends. Mobile app discovery has been a huge challenge for developers, and social could help unlock that problem by showing people what apps their friends are using.

"We really hope that we can fill a gap in app discovery here," Taylor said.

On the downside, there is one place Facebook was not able to negotiate a consistent experience for users: payments, which was a major sticking point in ongoing discussions with Apple.

Facebook Credits cannot be used to pay for virtual goods in native iOS apps or mobile web apps running within a Facebook app on iOS. Instead, users will have to buy separate in-app currency through Apple's own in-app payment system. The move comes after Facebook just required all of its game developers to switch to exclusive use of Credits earlier this year.

"We realize there's some inconsistency," Taylor admitted. He would not say if Facebook gets a share of revenue for in-app purchases it refers to Apple.

As for the Facebook iPad app, it has been close to being released for over a year, according to people who have seen it and worked on it -- though the app has changed in scope throughout.

Along with the ability to use Facebook platform apps, the iPad version will feature "an immersive and full-screen photos experience," plus new and speedy chat and messages interfaces, Taylor said. ( foxnews.com )

READ MORE - Facebook Launches iPad App, Mobile Platform

What's in a ring? Palace confirms that Prince William will not be wearing a wedding band when he marries Kate Middleton

What's in a ring? Palace confirms that Prince William will not be wearing a wedding band when he marries Kate Middleton - Prince William has decided not to wear a wedding ring following his marriage to Kate Middleton, palace officials have revealed.

According to senior royal sources, the Prince discussed the issue with his fiancée but has chosen not to. 'It is simply down to personal preference,' an aide said.

Kate, 29, will wear a band fashioned from a lump of Welsh gold already owned by the Royal Family which will be given to her in the traditional way during the April 29 Westminster Abbey wedding ceremony, the Mail can reveal.

Breaking with tradition: Prince William will not be wearing a wedding ring after his marriage to Kate Middleton on April 29

The use of Welsh gold in royal wedding bands is a long-standing tradition.

Most male royals do wear a wedding ring of some kind, with the exception of the Duke of Edinburgh.

Like many members of the upper classes, Prince Charles wears a gold wedding ring under a signet ring on the little finger of his left hand given to him by the Duchess of Cornwall.

His signet ring bears the fleur-de-lys crest of the Prince of Wales and is believed to have been a gift from his parents.

He also wore a ring given to him by his first wife, Diana, Princess of Wales, until the day after his engagement to Camilla.

William's decision not to sport a wedding band is likely to cause some surprise, however, as it is so commonplace nowadays.

Symbol: Prince Charles wears a wedding ring under a signet ring on the little finger of his left hand given to him by the Duchess of Cornwall, who he married in 2005

But a St James's Palace aide insisted that it was a decision that Kate was happy with.

'It was something the couple discussed but Prince William isn't one for jewellery - he doesn't even wear a signet ring - and decided he didn't want to. It really is just down to personal preference,' they said.

'Catherine will wear a ring fashioned from a lump of Welsh gold owned by the Royal Family that has been smelted down. The couple have both had a hand in the design. This is the ring Prince Harry will carry and hand over in the traditional way.'

Another source added: 'It is quite common for men in that strata of society not to wear a traditional wedding band. If they do, they tend to wear it with their family signet ring but William doesn't have one of those.'

Most male royals, including Prince Edward (left), do wear a wedding ring of some kind, with the exception of the Duke of Edinburgh (right)

Prior to the Second World War is was unheard of for men to wear wedding rings. It then became customary for soldiers serving overseas to wear a wedding band to remind them of home and their commitment to their wives and families.

The popularity of wedding rings for men has since soared, but there is still divided opinion on whether wearing one is obligatory or not.

Although wearing a wedding ring for men in the past was not crucial, most modern brides would not hear of her new husband’s fourth finger going unadorned.

David Miller, director of Debretts, a leading authority on etiquette, said: 'Wearing a wedding ring used to be uncommon for men but now it is quite accepted practice. That said, it really is a matter of personal choice and members of the Royal Family often chose to wear it with a signet ring on the little finger of their left hand.

'Although this is a very modern royal wedding in so many ways, I think there will be a few surprises of this kind to come.'

According to some customs, the wedding ring forms the last in a series of gifts, which also may include the engagement ring, traditionally given as a betrothal present. This tradition was already in use in Ancient Rome and is possibly much older.

After marriage, the ring is worn on the hand it had been placed on during the ceremony. By wearing rings on the fourth finger, a married couple symbolically declares their eternal love for each other. ( dailymail.co.uk )

READ MORE - What's in a ring? Palace confirms that Prince William will not be wearing a wedding band when he marries Kate Middleton

Pastor loses job after questioning hell's existence

Pastor loses job after questioning hell's existence - New book is spurring debate over the traditional view of hell as a place of eternal torment for damned souls — When Chad Holtz lost his old belief in hell, he also lost his job.

The pastor of a rural United Methodist church in North Carolina wrote a note on his Facebook page supporting a new book by Rob Bell, a prominent young evangelical pastor and critic of the traditional view of hell as a place of eternal torment for billions of damned souls.

Two days later, Holtz was told complaints from church members prompted his dismissal from Marrow's Chapel in Henderson.

"I think justice comes and judgment will happen, but I don't think that means an eternity of torment," Holtz said. "But I can understand why people in my church aren't ready to leave that behind. It's something I'm still grappling with myself."

Chad Holtz was fired from his position as pastor of a church in Henderson, N.C., after posting on his Facebook page a defense of a forthcoming book by megachurch pastor Rob Bell, in which Bell challenges millions of Christians’ understanding of the afterlife.

The debate over Bell's new book "Love Wins" has quickly spread across the evangelical precincts of the Internet, in part because of an eye-catching promotional video posted on YouTube.

Bell, the pastor of the 10,000-member Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Mich., lays out the premise of his book while the video cuts away to an artist's hand mixing oil paints and pastels and applying them to a blank canvas.

He describes going to a Christian art show where one of the pieces featured a quote by Mohandas Gandhi. Someone attached a note saying: "Reality check: He's in hell."

"Gandhi's in hell? He is? And someone knows this for sure?" Bell asks in the video.

In the book, Bell criticizes the belief that a select number of Christians will spend eternity in the bliss of heaven while everyone else is tormented forever in hell.

"This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus' message of love, peace, forgiveness and joy that our world desperately needs to hear," he writes in the book.

For many traditional Christians, though, Bell's new book sounds a lot like the old theological position of universalism — a heresy for many churches, teaching that everyone, regardless of religious belief, will ultimately be saved by God. And that, they argue, dangerously misleads people about the reality of the Christian faith.

"I just felt like on every page he's trying to say 'It's OK,'" said Southern Baptist Seminary President Albert Mohler at a forum last week on Bell's book held at the Louisville institution. "And there's a sense in which we desperately want to say that. But the question becomes, on what basis can we say that?"

Bell argues that hell has assumed an outsize importance in Christian teaching, considering the word itself only appears in the New Testament about 12 times, by his count.

"For a 1st-century Jewish rabbi, where you go when you die wasn't the most pressing question," Bell told The Associated Press. "The question was how can you enter into the shalom and peace of God right now, this day."

Bell denies he's a universalist, and his exact beliefs on what happens to people after death are hard to pin down, but he argues that such speculation distracts people from an urgent point. In his telling, hell is something freely chosen that already exists on earth, in everything from war to abusive relationships.

The near-relish with which some Christians stress the torments of hell, Bell argues, keep many believers needlessly afraid of a loving God, and repel potential Christians who might otherwise be curious about the faith's teachings.

"The heart of the Christian story is that God is love," he said. "But when you hear the word 'Christian,' you don't necessarily think 'Oh, sure, those are the people who don't stop talking about God's love.' Some other things would come to mind."

Ancient debate

About the only thing everyone agrees on is that this is not a new debate in Christianity. It stretches to antiquity, when Christianity was a persecuted sect in the Roman Empire, and the third century theologian Origen developed a theory that contemporary critics charged would mean that everyone, even the devil himself, would ultimately be saved. Church leaders eventually condemned ideas they attributed to Origen, but he has had a lasting influence across the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant traditions.

Those traditions often disagree, even internally, on what awaits souls after death. The Catholic Church, which has a formal process for identifying souls in heaven through canonization, pointedly refrains from saying that anyone is without a doubt in hell. Protestants reject the concept of purgatory, in which sins can be atoned for after death, but disagree on other questions. The lack of consensus is enabled partly by ambiguities in the Bible.

Evangelical opposition to Bell is exemplified in a succinct tweet from prominent evangelical pastor John Piper: "Farewell, Rob Bell."

Page Brooks, a professor at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, thinks Bell errs in a conception of a loving God that leaves out the divine attributes of justice and holiness.

"It's love, but it's a just love," Brooks said. "God is love, but you have to understand you're a sinner and the only way to get around that is through Christ's sacrifice on the cross."

Making his new belief public is both liberating and a little frightening for Holtz, even though his doubts about traditional doctrines on damnation began long before he heard about Rob Bell's book.

A married Navy veteran with five children, Holtz spent years trying to reconcile his belief that Jesus Christ's death on the cross redeemed the entire world with the idea that millions of people — including millions who had never even heard of Jesus — were suffering forever in hell.

"We do these somersaults to justify the monster god we believe in," he said. "But confronting my own sinfulness, that's when things started to topple for me. Am I really going to be saved just because I believe something, when all these good people in the world aren't?"

Gray Southern, United Methodist district superintendent for the part of North Carolina that includes Henderson, declined to discuss Holtz's departure in detail, but said there was more to it than the online post about Rob Bell's book.

"That's between the church and him," Southern said.

Church members had also been unhappy with Internet posts about subjects like gay marriage and the mix of religion and patriotism, Holtz said, and the hell post was probably the last straw. Holtz and his family plan to move back to Tennessee, where he'll start a job and maybe plant a church.

"So long as we believe there's a dividing point in eternity, we're going to think in terms of us and them," he said. "But when you believe God has saved everyone, the point is, you're saved. Live like it." ( Associated Press )

READ MORE - Pastor loses job after questioning hell's existence

Get your credit cards in order for 2011

Get your credit cards in order for 2011 - For most of us, flipping the calendar to a new year means thinking about taxes. While you're waiting for your W-2 to arrive in the mail, consider using the next few weeks to map out your credit card strategy for 2011. This could be the year you turn your credit cards into valuable, money-saving tools instead of accounts that suck finance charges from your bank accounts. Even if you've already hit some setbacks on your new year's resolutions, the first month of the year still gives you plenty of time to get your credit cards in order.

1. Check your credit report.

You get one free credit report every twelve months from each of the three major credit reporting agencies. Use the start of the new year to start a new habit: checking one of those reports every four months. Because credit card issuers sometimes take weeks to post changes to your account status or your average balance, looking at a free credit report every January, May and September gives you many of the same benefits as a paid monitoring service. Although it always costs a few dollars to check your FICO score, some websites can estimate your credit score for free.

2. Review your cards' rewards.

Credit card issuers changed many of their reward programs in 2010. Last year's favorite card might not give you the same benefits in 2011. Some programs added redemption fees that make enjoying rewards expensive and impractical. Likewise, some card issuers made their products even more attractive by eliminating foreign transaction fees or expanding their rewards programs. Using your bank statements, your desktop financial software, or an automatic budget monitoring tool like Mint.com, review how much you actually spend each year in each purchasing category. You could be overlooking an opportunity to earn bigger rewards by using one of the cards already in your wallet.

3. Match your spending to the best new reward programs.

Some lenders have targeted affluent prospects, while other credit card issuers focus on heavy travelers or frequent grocery shoppers. Although opening a new credit card account may impact your FICO score by a few points, you might consider an affinity credit card from a website or a retailer where you shop often. Some cards offer bonus rebates for shopping in a certain category, like making travel purchases or buying groceries. Other card issuers offer special online shopping portals that let you earn extra discounts of up to 20% of common purchases.

4. Compare your best cards to new offers.

With the banking industry generally healthy again after a few years of crisis management, attractive credit card offers have started arriving in consumers' mailboxes once more. You could wind up saving money with a lower APR or earning bigger and better rewards during 2011 than with your current cards. Although most lenders have adopted upfront balance transfer fees of up to five percent, you could still save money on balances you'll need to float for a while.

5. Balance your balances.

The most popular credit scoring systems consider both the number of credit cards you hold and the amount of available credit on each account. Imagine you've got just two credit cards. One has a balance of $9,000 against a $10,000 credit line and the other boasts a completely unused credit limit of $25,000. Under most scoring systems, you'd score lower than a consumer with the same $9,000 debt spread out evenly across five cards with credit lines of $7,000 each. Many experts estimate that credit utilization rates of 30-50% across all your open accounts can help you earn the highest credit scores.

6. Roll your debt snowball.

Dave Ramsey popularized the "debt snowball" idea on his syndicated radio show, and it makes a great money metaphor when snow's falling on most of the United States. Instead of paying down the credit card with the highest interest rate, set a goal to quickly pay off the account with the smallest balance. That way, you can enjoy the endorphin rush of closing out a redundant account. You may lose a few credit score points if you close out an older credit line, but your improved credit utilization should offset the drop. Whether you want to eliminate debt entirely

Changing your mindset about credit cards can help you build a stronger financial foundation that combines convenience with value and security. Even though banks and merchants continue to battle over the fairness of transaction processing fees, the right reward program can put most of those surcharges back into your account. Additional features, like fraud protection and warranty extensions, can help mitigate annual fees or finance charges over the course of the year. Use the first month of 2011 to start tracking how much you spend and how much you save on each credit card, so you can make even better decisions in 2012.

Important Note! The information in this article is believed to be accurate as of the date it was written. Please keep in mind that credit card offers change frequently. Therefore, we can not guarantee the accuracy of the information in this article. Please verify all terms and conditions of any credit card prior to applying. ( cardratings.com )

READ MORE - Get your credit cards in order for 2011

Is it really a wonder drug?

is it really a wonder drug? - Last week, researchers claimed everyone over 45 should take an aspirin a day to prevent against cancer and heart disease. Victoria Lambert investigates medicine's apparent new cure-all.

Should aspirin be added to the water supply? This was the vision which sprang to mind last week when academics advised that the benefits of taking a small daily dose of aspirin far outweigh any side-effects for most healthy people aged 45 and over.

The pronouncement by a panel of experts speaking at the Royal Society of Medicine, comes a month after research from Oxford University, published in The Lancet, showed that taking 75mg of aspirin - a quarter of the standard over-the-counter pill - daily for five years reduces the risk of getting bowel cancer by a quarter, and deaths from the disease by a third. Research is expected to be published shortly showing similar effects for other cancers.

Aspirin: is it a 'put it in the water' moment?

This simple painkiller has many well established benefits. It thins the blood, which is why it is routinely prescribed for people who already have heart disease or who have had a stroke. It is also often prescribed for people who may be at high risk of these illnesses – because of high blood pressure or diabetes, for example. And it’s used widely for blood-clotting disorders and to help prevent recurrent miscarriage, migraines, cataracts, gum disease and pre-eclampsia (a serious complication of pregnancy).

But should low-dose aspirin now be taken daily by healthy people who want to stay that way? Is this a watershed in the history of public health medicine – a 'put it in the water’ moment?

No is the simple answer, since it cannot be taken by certain people (including most children under 16). But Professor Gordon McVie, senior consultant at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, is evangelical about the benefits of aspirin. 'For me this is clear cut,’ he says. 'Aspirin is cheap and effective, and there is huge potential to cut the cases of illness particularly colon cancer.’

In agreement is Peter Elwood, Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Wales in Cardiff, who led the first randomised trial into the benefits of aspirin for heart disease patients in 1984 (and who has himself taken aspirin daily for the past ten years). 'Breakthrough is an overused word but in this case it is justified,’ he says.’ There is disagreement around the peripheral issues – how much to give, should there be an age range – but overall it seems clear to me that the latest work proves taking aspirin every day will increase your chance of survival against important diseases.’

The study which seems to have tipped the scales is principally the work of Oxford neurologist Professor Peter Rothwell (who has also started taking low-dose aspirin daily). He believes that aspirin’s effect on bowel cancer is unlikely to be an isolated phenomenon, given the similarities in how cancers of different types develop. Last week he also advised that with the risk of cancer rising between 40 and 55, 45 would be an optimal age to start taking it.

Scientists have a theory as to why aspirin might be beneficial for human physiology. Professor McVie explains: 'It seems that around the time we developed an increased morbidity from heart diseases and stroke, natural salicylates (a plant hormone similar to the active ingredient in aspirin) disappeared from our diet. Most plants used to be stuffed with these but when we started growing foods using pesticides and fertilisers we also took out the salicylates – so perhaps it’s a question of putting them back into food and restoring the balance in our bodies.’

But despite the excitement, not every doctor is reaching for the prescribing pad just yet.

For one thing, aspirin’s usefulness in warding off heart attacks and strokes in healthy people is in doubt. The latest research, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in March and involving almost 30,000 men and women, found it had no significant effect on heart attacks and strokes in low-risk populations.

And last year, the influential Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin (DTB), warned aspirin should not be used to prevent future heart attacks and strokes in people with no obvious sign of cardiovascular disease, as the risks outweigh any potential benefits.

The biggest drawback of taking aspirin is that it can irritate the lining of the stomach. Although for most people this side effect is mild, it can occasionally cause ulcers and in a small number of cases, serious bleeding, particularly in elderly people.

But what of the recent study on bowel cancer, the third most common cancer in Britain and which kills 600,000 people worldwide annually? Some doctors point out that while the study shows thousands of lives might indeed be saved by aspirin, the reduction in absolute risk of bowel cancer is about 1.5% (from 4% to 2.5%) .

Dr Ike Iheanacho, the DTB’s editor, says that the reduction in risk is a 'sizeable benefit’ from society’s point of view.

'But one problem with this kind of data is that it’s often reported as if the benefit to the individual is huge,’ he says.

'In effect, around 60 people would have to take the aspirin continuously for around 5 years to prevent one death from bowel cancer during a 20-year period,’ he says. 'While that remains a considerable benefit, it could clearly put a very different perspective on things for an individual deciding whether to take aspirin for this purpose.

'And this particular research didn’t report adverse events related to aspirin. Let’s not forget that the drug can cause major internal bleeding and this can kill. If you’re going to advise people to take aspirin, you have to factor in potential harms to give them a balanced view of the potential effects of treatment.’

The blanket prescribing of any drug is also at odds with the 'stratified’ response that most oncologists predict will be the future of cancer treatment – in other words, medical interventions will be tailored to our genetic makeup and our individual risk.

One way forward might be to give aspirin only to those at high risk of bowel cancer, an idea Professor McVie has said he supports; he believes that in a few years a blood test to detect those at higher risk will become available.

Overall, with medical opinion divided, the feeling is that the public will need to make up their own minds about whether to take low dose aspirin. Professor Peter Whorwell, a gastro-enterologist at Manchester University, advises that anyone considering taking it on a daily basis should discuss with their GP whether they also need to take drugs to protect the stomach.

Back to Professor McVie who with a family history of heart disease, confirms that he too has been taking aspirin daily for more than 20 years. 'I saw some data long before it was verified and published, and I was convinced,’ he says. 'After this month’s data, I’m pretty chuffed with myself now.’ ( telegraph.co.uk )


Who shouldn’t take aspirin?

• Aspirin should not be given to anyone under 16 unless under specialist advice. It can cause Reye’s syndrome, a potentially fatal disease, in this age group
• Aspirin should be avoided if you have a stomach (peptic) ulcer, haemophilia or other bleeding disorder, or an allergy to aspirin or to other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID). These include ibuprofen and diclofenac
• Low-dose aspirin should only be taken with caution by certain groups, including those with asthma, allergies, liver, kidney or digestive problems.
• Pregnant and breastfeeding women should only take aspirin on the advice of a GP.
• Aspirin can interact with certain other medicines. Ask your doctor or pharmacist or read the patient information leaflet

READ MORE - Is it really a wonder drug?

How To Tell When It's Time for a New Car

How To Tell When It's Time for a New Car. If you're one of those people who feels like your car is an old friend, deciding when it's time to let go can be agonizing. Even if you feel like your car is more your enemy than your friend, thanks to expensive and inconvenient repairs, deciding to pull the plug and get a new car can be tough.

Faced with an expensive repair bill, how do you know if you should go ahead and get the car fixed, or cut your losses and buy something new?

The Math Myth

At some point, almost every car owner will be faced with repair bills. And as the bills start to add up to a large proportion of a car's value, many owners start to figure that their car has officially kicked the bucket. But thinking that way is actually a costly mistake.

This way of thinking confuses a car's potential monetary value with its actual value. At a basic level, a car's value -- any car's value -- is its ability to provide transportation. An older car and new car can both do that. The question drivers whose cars are on life support should be asking is: How can I get the transportation a car provides at the lowest cost? Once you take a car's potential monetary value out of the equation, the math becomes clear.

For instance let's say you have a 2000 Honda Civic DX in fair condition with 100,000 miles on it. According to Kelley Blue Book, it has a trade-in value of about $2,000. Then let's say you need to have the head gaskets replaced. According to repair estimates from Repair Pal, in the DC Metropolitan area, that can cost you anywhere from $861 to $1,135 -- about half the value of the car.

Faced with this, most people would opt to get a new car. After all, $1,000 worth of work is a lot to spend on a car that's worth only $2,000. But, you shouldn't act so quickly, because while it would take about $1,000 to keep that old Civic on the road, buying yourself a new Honda Civic costs about $16,000. Now the math isn't so clear, is it?

The Real Math

Here's the math any car owner should do when deciding if their older car has shuffled off the mortal coil: Compare the cost of the old car over a year to the cost of a new car over the same timeframe. Chances are, if your car is more than five years old, you're looking at some hefty repair bills. You're also probably looking at owning the car free and clear -- which means no more monthly loan payments.

Look again at the Civic situation. If you spend $1,000 a year on the old Civic, plus $1,571 a year on gas (that's what the EPA says it would cost to drive a 2000 Honda Civic 15,000 miles per year), that adds up to a total yearly cost of $2,571, plus insurance.

Now, let's take a look at the cost of a new Civic. Assume you can get one for $16,000 (which is about the average price buyers are paying for the car nationally, according to TrueCar, a company that collects new car pricing data), taxes, tags and title included. If you get $2,000 for trading in your old Civic, you're going to have $14,000 left to pay.

According to Bankrate, if you get a four-year loan for that $14,000 at four percent interest, you're looking at a monthly payment of $323. Over a year, those payments add up to $3,869 -- plus gas, which the EPA says will run you $1,465 if you drive the new Civic 15,000 miles this year. Even before you factor in insurance costs, which tend to be higher for new cars, keeping the old Civic makes more financial sense. In fact, keeping it could save you $2,763 over the year.

Other Factors to Consider

Of course, there are other things you should think about. If your older car is consistently unreliable and causes you to miss work show up late, or repeatedly leaves you stranded along dark highways, it might be time for a new one. Also, there are some problems that are incredibly difficult and expensive to fix, pushing the cost of the old car above the cost of a new one. If your car has had a number of major issues, and your mechanic sees more coming down the pike, it might be time to start thinking about a new ride.

There are also some people who like getting a new car, and don't mind that they are spending more to do so. There's even the argument that getting older cars off the road in favor of newer, more fuel-efficient and less polluting models benefits all of us.

Still, when deciding if your car is finally dead, the one factor you shouldn't be looking at is the ratio between repair costs and the car's sale value. Instead, do a hard comparison of your old car's cost and what a new car would cost you over a year before you decide it's time to pull the plug. ( yahoo.com )

READ MORE - How To Tell When It's Time for a New Car

McAfee Antivirus Program Goes Berserk, Freezes PCs

McAfee Antivirus Program Goes Berserk, Freezes PCs. McAfee software goes berserk, misidentifies harmless file and locks up PCs around the world


Computers in companies, hospitals and schools around the world got stuck repeatedly rebooting themselves Wednesday after an antivirus program identified a normal Windows file as a virus.

The exterior of security software maker McAfee Inc. headquarters is shown in Santa Clara, Calif., in this Oct. 2007 file photo. Computers in companies, hospitals and schools around the world got stuck repeatedly rebooting themselves Wednesday after a McAfee antivirus program identified a normal Windows file as a virus.

(Paul Sakuma/AP Photo)

McAfee Inc. confirmed that a software update it posted at 9 a.m. Eastern time caused its antivirus program for corporate customers to misidentify a harmless file. It has posted a replacement update for download.

McAfee could not say how many computers were affected, but judging by online postings, the number was at least in the thousands and possibly in the hundreds of thousands.

McAfee said it did not appear that consumer versions of its software caused similar problems. It is investigating how the error happened "and will take measures" to prevent it from recurring, the company said in a statement.

The computer problem forced about a third of the hospitals in Rhode Island to postpone elective surgeries and stop treating patients without traumas in emergency rooms, said Nancy Jean, a spokeswoman for the Lifespan system of hospitals. The system includes Rhode Island Hospital, the state's largest, and Newport Hospital. Jean said patients who required treatment for gunshot wounds, car accidents, blunt trauma and other potentially fatal injuries were still being admitted to the emergency rooms.

In Kentucky, state police were told to shut down the computers in their patrol cars as technicians tried to fix the problem. The National Science Foundation headquarters in Arlington, Va., also lost computer access.

Intel Corp. appeared to be among the victims, according to employee posts on Twitter. Intel did not immediately return calls for comment.

Peter Juvinall, systems administrator at Illinois State University in Normal, said that when the first computer started rebooting it quickly became evident that it was a major problem, affecting dozens of computers at the College of Business alone.

"I originally thought it was a virus," he said. When the tech support people concluded McAfee's update was to blame, they stopped further downloads of the faulty software update and started shuttling from computer to computer to get the machines working again.

In many offices, personal attention to each PC from a technician appeared to be the only way to fix the problem because the computers weren't receptive to remote software updates when stuck in the reboot cycle. That slowed the recovery.

It's not uncommon for antivirus programs to misidentify legitimate files as viruses. Last month, antivirus software from Bitdefender locked up PCs running several different versions of Windows.

However, the scale of this outage was unusual, said Mike Rothman, president of computer security firm Securosis.

"It looks to be a train wreck," Rothman said. ( The Associated Press ).

READ MORE - McAfee Antivirus Program Goes Berserk, Freezes PCs

The greenest way to make a holiday fire

Hearth Burn. The greenest way to make a holiday fire. The holiday season means one thing to me: Sitting around the fireplace, slowly getting sloshed on eggnog. I keep seeing fake logs for sale, made from "green" materials like recycled cardboard or coffee grounds. Are these synthetic products really any greener than a piece of real wood?

You'll forgive the Lantern for starting this column with a bit of sensible home-heating advice: A Yule log burning in the hearth may be festive, but it's a terribly inefficient source of energy. (All that air getting sucked out through your chimney means your home may actually end up colder than it would be otherwise.) If that's not enough to dissuade you from making a holiday fire, you may as well choose the most responsible source of fuel. Yes, it's true—those eco-friendly fake logs can be better for the environment than real wood. But so were those retro petroleum-and-sawdust Duraflame logs from the 1970s.

Real wood's green credentials are obvious: It's renewable and doesn't require much processing before you stick it in your fireplace. Some commercial producers do use kilns to dry their firewood, rather than letting them air dry, and transporting logs over long distances can be energy-intensive. With a little effort, though, you can probably find a locally sourced option—or source some firewood from your own backyard. Even the wood sold in big-box stores tends to be pretty eco-friendly when it comes to resource use, as it's typically low-quality timber that manufacturers won't otherwise use.

Fake logs are also pretty efficient when it comes to resources. In fact, they were invented in the late 1960s by a cedar-products company looking for ways to use up the detritus from pencil making. A traditional log substitute would be made by mixing some of this sawdust with an equal amount of petroleum wax, another manufacturing byproduct. In other words, it's made entirely of recycled industrial materials. (You can also find 100-percent-sawdust logs, but those are more commonly used in wood stoves rather than fireplaces.) There is a downside: The sawdust and wax must be mixed and then extruded, molded, or compressed to get those clean, pretty tubes—a process that requires additional energy. And thanks to their petroleum content, fake logs produce significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions (PDF) than natural firewood.

In recent years, manufacturers have been fiddling with the basic makeup of wax-fiber logs and trumpeting the green credentials of the resulting products. Two popular offerings, as you note, are logs in which the sawdust has been replaced with coffee grounds and ones in which both the sawdust and the wax have been swapped out for ground-up waxed cardboard boxes. A third option is to replace the petroleum wax with a plant-based binder, as Duraflame has done with all its logs.

The coffee and cardboard logs have an obvious appeal, since they're made from waste products that would otherwise be headed to a landfill. (Waxed cardboard boxes, used to transport fruit and vegetables, generally aren't recyclable.) Logs with natural waxes also make use of low-grade byproducts, such as solid palm stearine (from the refining of palm oil), tall oil (from the processing of soft pine into paper), and fatty tallow (from butchered cows). These ingredients have the benefit of being renewable and not derived from fossil fuels, but they could pose a problem if those crops were not harvested sustainably. For example, palm oil has been linked to deforestation and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. And some green-minded consumers might not be comfortable with the use of animal products to sustain their holiday fire.

Still, as we've seen, nearly all fireplace fuel options help wring the maximum use out of raw materials. So no matter what you toast your S'mores with, the Lantern thinks you can generally feel OK about it, in an I'm-using-every-part-of-the-buffalo kind of way.

So far we've talked about what goes into a log; now let's consider what comes out of it. You might think that burning natural firewood would produce the cleanest emissions. In fact, the opposite is true. When organic material doesn't burn all the way through, it releases tiny bits of particulate matter—linked to lung and heart disease, not to mention burning eyes and runny noses—and other hazardous substances, such as carbon monoxide, benzene, formaldehyde, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Concerns about emissions from fireplaces are great enough that some communities call for "burn bans" on days when the air quality is particularly low.

Artificial logs emit all the same pollutants as natural firewood, but they do so at significantly lower rates. A 2005 report from the EPA and Environment Canada (PDF) analyzed emissions from several varieties of fake logs, including those made from sawdust and coffee grounds, and compared them with reported figures for firewood. On average, a fire built with fake logs emitted 9 grams of particulate matter per hour, while wood-fueled fires emitted 36 grams. The fakes also released less carbon monoxide: 42 grams per hour, compared with firewood's 214 grams. The fakes also produced much less carbon monoxide, benzene, formaldehyde, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

There were some differences observed among the fakes, though. The coffee logs, for example, produced slightly less particulate matter than the others and had the second-lowest carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emissions. However, the differences between the best- and worst-performing fakes were much smaller than the differences between the most-polluting fakes and firewood.

Franken-logs tend to outperform their natural cousins because they pack in much more energy per unit of weight, on account of their wax content and relative lack of moisture. That means you don't have to burn nearly as much fake wood to get an equivalent amount of heat and light. The fake logs also burn more completely, producing fewer pollutants.

If you already have wood piling up in your backyard, however, the Lantern thinks you should use what you've got rather than buy a fake log that's less polluting. Just make sure that tree came down early in the year. Wood that's properly dried, or "seasoned," burns more cleanly and efficiently. (Getting your fire as hot as possible, as quickly as possible, will also reduce emissions.) The EPA's Burn Wise campaign recommends splitting wood into logs 3 to 5 inches in diameter and then storing them outdoors, covered and off the ground, for at least six months before burning. If you have a lot of wood and use your fireplace often, you might consider investing in a moisture meter. Otherwise, knock two logs against one another—if they're dry enough, they'll make a hollow sound, as opposed to a dull thud. ( slate.com )

READ MORE - The greenest way to make a holiday fire

How to dispose of old electronics in a responsible way

Pulling the Plug. How to dispose of old electronics in a responsible way. I just got a new laptop for Christmas and don't know what to do with my old one. I've heard that most electronic waste ends up being exported to Asia, where poor laborers recycle the scrap under unhealthy, unsafe conditions. How do I get rid of my old computer in an environmentally and socially responsible way?

Where do old electronics end up?

Electronic waste, or e-waste, is a growing concern for a number of reasons. First of all, it's literally growing—recent reports indicate that the planet will soon generate 50 million metric tons of discarded computers, phones, and televisions annually. That's a small fraction of all the trash we produce, but those mountains of dead gadgets pose a special problem, thanks to the range of hazardous components they contain—stuff like lead, mercury, and cadmium. In light of this, several states have recently passed landfill bans on e-waste.

But the social justice issue you bring up—the fact that a lot of e-waste ends up in informal salvage yards in Africa and Asia—has captured much of our attention lately. The Lantern, for example, vividly remembers this 60 Minutes segment from 2008, in which correspondent Scott Pelley followed a shipment of old TVs and computer parts collected during a community recycling event in Denver to Guiyu, China, a "wasteland" where workers use dangerous, primitive methods—like open-air burning and acid baths—to exhume precious metals from the scrap. Toxic residue from these operations can cause serious health and pollution problems—one 2007 study showed that children in Guiyu had significantly higher levels of lead in their blood than did children in a neighboring village with no e-waste processors.

The Basel Action Network, the watchdog organization that accompanied Pelley to China, estimates that 80 percent of the electronic waste collected for recycling in America actually gets shipped to developing countries, with most winding up in informal salvage yards like the one in Guiyu. That's why BAN and other activists would like to halt all exports of hazardous e-waste to poor countries. Recycling trade groups disagree with BAN's assessment and argue that putting a stop to exports would penalize those countries with adequate facilities.

It's a complicated problem, but one that's worth our attention—even if, as individuals, our solutions may be imperfect. So before you lose yourself in your new laptop—or music player, or mobile phone—spare a few minutes thinking about how to send your old gadget to a peaceful, responsible rest.

Your first step is to figure out whether your old device is still usable. If so, find it a new home. Older relatives, who may not need quite as much processing firepower, are good candidates. (Papa Lantern enjoys Bollywood soundtracks and NPR podcasts on his hand-me-up iPod.) If you decide to sell or donate your device to a stranger, make sure to scrub your personal information (PDF). And don't give anything away unless it really does work; otherwise, you're just pushing the disposal problem onto someone else.

Craigslist and eBay are always options for selling a machine in good condition. It may not be easy to give away an old computer, though. Harried nonprofit employees often lack the time or technical expertise to wipe data or configure old software systems, but many organizations around the United States will take computers and fix them up. Here's one comprehensive list of donation options from the Community Microsoft Authorized Refurbisher program, which provides low-cost Windows licenses to companies that install them on spruced-up, secondhand computers and then redistribute those machines.

When evaluating your choices, look for evidence that donated computers are being put back into circulation: Ask for the names of recipient schools and charities. A reputable refurbisher should also be able to provide a description of how they repair and test their machines, and offer free or low-cost hard drive wiping. If you do decide to donate your computer, do it fast—even if a machine can be repaired, it won't do anyone much good if it's too old to run current software.

Machines that are more than five years old should be recycled. Look for recyclers that have registered with the Basel Action Network's e-Stewards program. These companies have pledged—among other things (PDF)—not to export hazardous electronic waste to developing countries. (In the next few months, the e-Stewards will be converted into a fully fledged certification program with independent, on-site auditing.) The EPA, along with other stakeholders, has also developed a set of guidelines for electronics recycling. Facilities certified to those standards—known as R2, for "Responsible Recycling"—are just starting to be announced. There's been heated debate over the relative merits of the two programs, but the Lantern's take is that both represent a major step forward in terms of transparency and responsibility.

If you can't get access to an e-Steward, the California-based Electronics TakeBack Coalition recommends manufacturer-sponsored programs as the next best option. In many states, in fact, manufacturers are required by law to cover the cost of collecting and recycling. The caveat here is that even companies that have made strong environmental commitments may not be particularly transparent about where the material they receive ends up—depending on which downstream processors they use, there's always a danger that junked machines will land in a foreign salvage yard. But producer responsibility is a key part of the e-waste puzzle, so the Lantern believes it's worth the risk, especially if the alternative is dumping your electronics in the trash.

Finally, if your manufacturer doesn't take back its products, the coalition suggests the comprehensive collection programs at Best Buy or Staples. For cell phones, try the mail-in programs run by Capstone Wireless and Call2Recycle, both of which have signed the e-Steward pledge.

Local recycling events organized by community groups or charities can be a good way to get rid of unwanted electronics, but environmental groups warn that the companies running these collections often sell what they stockpile to brokers, who then export it. Free events are the most dubious. If you're not asked to pay a small recycling fee—particularly for old, bulky cathode-ray televisions, whose components aren't valuable enough to offset the cost of recycling them responsibly—check to make sure that someone, like a government group or manufacturer, is footing the bill.

If all this gives you a headache, consider making the following resolution: In 2010, I will curb my e-lust. After all, the fewer electronics you accumulate, the fewer you eventually have to get rid of. The Lantern—a true child of the Silicon Valley—understands that this is a tough pledge. But isn't that the point of a New Year's resolution? ( slate.com )

READ MORE - How to dispose of old electronics in a responsible way

The Vita Myth

The Vita Myth. Do supplements really do any good?. Deciding what to eat for dinner can be mind-bending. How do we keep track of the ever-evolving recommendations for what to put on, and leave off, the plate? Red meat might cause cancer! But don't replace it with tofu—soy concoctions might be carcinogenic, too! Don't even try to figure out where carbs stand this week. And the verdict on coffee, chocolate, and alcohol changes faster than you can order a mocha martini.

Vitamins—with their promise to bridge the gap between the nutrients our bodies need and those they get—have always seemed reassuringly simple: Just pop a multivitamin and let your body soak in those extra nutrients. But not any longer. During the past few years, study after study has raised doubts about what, if any, good vitamins actually do a body. They could even pose some real medical risks.

Half of all American adults take some sort of nutritional supplement. But research on a wide variety of patient populations and medical conditions has failed to find much evidence that multivitamins, the most commonly used of the lot, prevent major chronic diseases in healthy people. The most recent knock came this spring, when a study of more than 160,000 post-menopausal women, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, found that the all-in-one pills did not prevent cancer, heart attacks, or strokes and did not reduce overall mortality.

Individual vitamins and minerals haven't fared much better under scientific scrutiny, with research debunking some of the reputed benefits of vitamin B6, calcium, niacin, and others. In 2006, the National Institutes of Health convened an independent panel of experts to evaluate the evidence that vitamins could prevent chronic disease. The scientists ultimately issued a report stating that studies "do not provide strong evidence for beneficial health-related effects of supplements taken singly, in pairs, or in combinations."

The news on antioxidants, the darlings of the vitamin menagerie, is even more troubling. These compounds, which include vitamins A, C, and E, selenium, beta carotene, and folate, fight free radicals, unstable compounds thought to damage cells and contribute to aging. But not only do antioxidant supplements fail to protect against heart disease, stroke, and cancer; they actually increase the risk of death, according to a 2007 analysis of research on more than 232,000 people, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, as well as other studies.

Exactly why they might increase mortality is unclear, but doctors at prominent research institutions—including New York's Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and Seattle's Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center—have highlighted some unsettling connections between supplemental antioxidants and an increased risk of a variety of cancers. Popping certain kinds of antioxidant pills can feed latent cancers growing in the body, for instance, and reduce the effectiveness of chemotherapy.

These observations make a certain intuitive sense, since vitamins and minerals play an important role in the replication of healthy cells—why shouldn't they be doing the same for cancerous cells? (Feeding mice a diet poor in antioxidants, on the other hand, can actually help shrink their brain tumors.) Scientists are also beginning to suspect that the body may actually need free radicals—which help kill cancer cells, ensure optimal immune function, and regulate blood sugar, among other things—so we shouldn't necessarily be mopping them all up.

The list of worrisome findings goes on, but it doesn't seem to have put a dent in the $25 billion supplement industry. Sales are not only robust but rising in the United States. Doctors still recommend multivitamins as part of basic preventative care. Despite the demonstrated risk, as many as 80 percent of cancer survivors swallow a daily dose, according to a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2008.

Vitamins have a powerful psychological hold over us. As precautionary health measures go, supplements are easy. Compare the two seconds required to swallow a pill with the constant vigilance necessary to exercise and eat right. And the fact that vitamins are available without a prescription makes them seem safe—even though it probably makes them less so, since they're not regulated by the FDA as drugs, and manufacturers are not required to prove that they're effective at treating disease.*

But the risk-benefit calculus has changed. We know more about the risks, and it's clear that there's also less potential benefit. During the early 20th century, diseases like scurvy and rickets were common until researchers began to isolate compounds in food—which became known as vitamins—that could altogether cure these ailments. It must have been remarkable to see devastating diseases alleviated with common foodstuffs.

During an era when many people legitimately had nutritional deficiencies, placing your bets on a multi might have been reasonable. But today, of course, actual deficiencies are much less common. Our salt, milk, flour, juice, cereal, and more are all fortified with extra nutrients, and a 2009 study published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine suggests that most of the kids who end up taking vitamins in the United States today don't actually need them.

If vitamins are useful for anything, it's probably for tapping into our old friend the placebo effect. In a 2008 survey, 38 percent of doctors confessed to recommending vitamins because they believed the pills could promote health purely through the power of positive expectations. Consider a famous 1975 study designed to probe whether vitamin C supplements alleviated colds better than a placebo, an inert lactose tablet. It turned out that it didn't matter much which pill the subjects were actually taking. What mattered was what they thought they were getting: Those who believed they were taking vitamin C had fewer and milder cases of the sniffles than those who believed they were just swallowing lactose. That would be reason enough to pop a supplement—there are worse things than deceiving yourself into better health—if it weren't for the emerging evidence that the pills might be capable of causing real harm.

That's not to say that vitamins aren't important. Vitamins are critical to all sorts of bodily functions, and we have to get them through diet because our bodies can't make them on their own. The Office of Dietary Supplements at the NIH recommends that we get certain levels of a variety of kinds of vitamins, and that recommendation is sound. But encouraging us to get a complete suite of vitamins is not the same as suggesting that we get them by popping a pill.

In fact, the reports littering the ODS site seem to converge upon the same point: There is some good news for supplements, but it's extremely limited. The 2006 NIH panel, for instance, concluded that postmenopausal women should probably take calcium and vitamin D to safeguard their bones; that pregnant women should keep taking folate; and that adults with age-related macular degeneration, an eye disease, should take a combination of antioxidants and zinc.

But beyond that, the panel's strongest recommendation was that scientists conduct further research on the risks and benefits of vitamins. For every study that turns up disconcerting vitamin side effects, there seem to be two more that conclude that we simply don't know enough yet about supplements to make evidence-based recommendations.
Until we do, we should stop treating supplements like health candy and more like prescription meds, to be used only when there's a demonstrated need. Doctors should create individualized regimes, tailored to a particular patient's deficiencies. As for the rest of us, we can put the pills back on the shelf and save our cash for one of those martinis. ( slate.com )

READ MORE - The Vita Myth

Time levels good and bad in the long term

Time levels good and bad in the long term. Time really does heal all wounds, according to research which shows that we soon get used to both good and bad events in life.

The study claims that getting divorced or being sacked does not affect a person's satisfaction in the long term.

However it also finds that the happiness people enjoy from getting married or having children also fades after a few years.

Researchers who analysed the emotions recorded by thousands of people conclude that people get used to "life-changing" events fairly quickly, which may explain why becoming richer does not always mean getting happier.

Dr Yannis Georgellis, co-author and senior lecturer in economics at Brunel University, said: "The findings will be interesting for economists and psychologists worldwide as it reveals new mechanisms to explain what makes us happy."

In the study, published in the latest issue of the Economic Journal, economists and psychologists studied the effect of a series of life-changing events on several thousand Germans recorded over 20 years.

Participants in the research project noted their levels of happiness before and after they experienced marriage, childbirth, divorce, widowhood, unemployment or being sacked.

Analysis of their emotions disclosed that these events had a strong effect on a person's happiness levels at the time, but that the effect soon faded.

It was found that the life satisfaction of having a child disappeared after they reached their second birthday.

The study also found that marriage had no effect on a person's happiness more than five years after their wedding.

Only unemployment was found to have a "consistent" effect on a person's happiness for each of the five years after it occurred.

The researchers said: "Adaptation is a double-edged sword. While it does mean that the pleasure of a pay rise, or of marriage or children, might fade away over time, it also implies that 'time heals all wounds'. Here adaptation is welcome, as it takes the edge off initially painful events as time passes."

They claim this process of getting used to dramatic events may explain why people do not become happier as they earn more money.

"That extra thousand pounds may produce a great deal of pleasure initially, but becomes less important as time goes on, even to the extent of retreating into the background humdrum of what makes up our daily lives." ( telegraph.co.uk )

READ MORE - Time levels good and bad in the long term

Google's digitization of books

Google's digitization of books. The Google Books settlement with U.S. writers and publishers, now scheduled for release Nov. 13, is the result of a four-year tussle over the question of whether the company has the right to digitize millions of books, both those in print and those out of print.

Google began its digitizing project in 2005, going to several major university libraries and digitizing every book it found there. The company said its aim is to increase the amount of knowledge available online. But the Authors Guild of America accused the company of "massive copyright infringement" and began a class-action lawsuit against it. Publishers later joined in. That class action has resulted in Google displaying only snippets of books not yet in the public domain.

Google's book digitizing project impacts readers, writers and the book publishing industry. (Carsten Koall/Getty Images)

A $125-million US settlement was announced in 2008 but was dragged back to court in June of this year amid accusations that it was unfair, following an antitrust investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice. Although the deal is being worked out in a U.S. court, it will apply to everyone connected to the publishing business around the world.

Under the terms of the settlement, Google will have the right to digitize any book published up to Jan. 5, 2009, and available for sale in the U.S. This includes almost all Canadian books in print, as virtually all books published in Canada are available in the U.S.

For readers, it could mean access to millions of books, including some long out of print, on the internet. The most likely subscribers to the Google service would be public, school or university libraries. Individual readers would also have the option to buy books — at prices ranging from $1.99 to $29.99 US.

The intention is to have a searchable database with millions of titles. Consumers will be able to download and print books in a PDF format. They will also be able to read them online or on devices such as iPhones and digital readers. Google Editions, an online service that will let readers buy electronic versions of books, was launched this October.

Concerns for readers

The main issue for readers is privacy. Because you are searching and reading on a public network, there is little assurance that your browsing and reading habits are private. Here are some of the questions raised by groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

• Are your reading habits safe from fishing expeditions by the government or lawyers in civil cases?
• How will Google itself use information about your reading history?
• How will Google combine information about your reading habits with other information it may have about you through its other products?

Issues for authors

The service presents enormous opportunities, by putting a diverse array of books into the hands of a huge volume of readers. Some authors are welcoming the prospect that people around the world will have access to their work. But both writers and publishers have concerns about compensation and how their works might be used.

Google has agreed to pay $60 US per title for in-print books it has already digitized. There is potential for additional compensation from books sold through the online service and ads posted alongside any Google book. The company has pledged a total pot of $45 million, but authors have to apply to get their money. If they ignore the issue, or are unaware of the Google Books settlement, they get nothing.

The sheer size and scope of the Google deal is a concern for many players, from authors and publishers to governments and potential competitors. Google's deal states that the company has a right to digitize any book, unless it is explicitly withheld. So any author who does not want his or her book included in the deal had to opt out by May of this year.

Similarly, authors and publishers who want to be compensated for the digitizing of their book have to register with the Book Rights Registry, a U.S.-based not-for-profit organization created expressly for the purpose of administering copyright fees for Google Books. If authors don't register, no one will be making efforts to track them down.

For "orphan" works — those for which the copyright holder is unknown or cannot be found — Google stands to claim all the proceeds of offering them to the public. It has an effective legal monopoly on these works, which is of concern to the company's potential competitors.

Public domain

In the U.S., books become public domain 70 years after the death of the author. But international rules for when works come into public domain vary by country, with different regimes for Britain, Australia, the European Union and Canada, whose copyright act is currently under review.

The U.S. Copyright Office, the European Union, Germany, France, five U.S. attorneys general, Microsoft, Yahoo and Amazon are among those who have opposed the deal. Google agreed to appoint EU members to its Book Rights Registry, which would usurp the role played by national copyright organizations. Even Chinese writers groups have come forward to object.

Many of the international aspects of the deal are still to be worked out. Google has said it plans to use geo-blocking technology to prevent access to books in other countries until agreements are reached there.

Timeline

2004: Google announces it has agreements with major U.S. university libraries to digitize their books.

September 2005: Authors Guild in the United States launches a class-action suit.

October 2005: Five large U. S. publishers sue Google over copyright infringement.

October 2008: The Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers settle with Google.

June 11, 2009: A U.S. court begins reviewing the settlement agreement to see if it is fair.

Sept. 4, 2009: Authors whose books have been digitized by May 2009 had until this date to opt out of the settlement.

Nov. 13, 2009: Court to finalize settlement agreement.

June 5, 2010: Deadline for authors to apply for payment through the Books Rights Registry.

( cbc.ca )

READ MORE - Google's digitization of books

Small business needs 'free' thinking, Wired editor says

Small business needs 'free' thinking, Wired editor says. Wired magazine editor Chris Anderson has made waves with his book Free: The Future of a Radical Price, by suggesting that companies need to start thinking about how to attract customers by giving away some of their products and services for nothing.

It's a message he delivered in a speech to Canadian entrepreneurs in Toronto on Wednesday, as part of Small Business Week. Anderson discussed his keynote, the book and some of the misconceptions of his idea of "free"

Wired magazine editor Chris Anderson thinks Google and Microsoft are mirror images of each other. (Ben Margot/Associated Press)

Can you summarize the focus of your speech?

One of the messages of Free is that [free] is an incredible accelerator of small business formation. We think of "free" a lot in terms of producers offering free products, but also as consumers, we take advantage of free products. For businesses starting up today, the availability of free software like open source or hosted solutions — the fact that you don't need hardware because there's so much available in the cloud — this has basically lowered the cost of starting a business to the point where you can do it on a credit card.

The internet has a set of tools for where we work, and the fact that it is increasingly free has made it the golden age of the small company. It's a great time to start companies right now. It's never been cheaper. If you can do the company increasingly online, you can take advantage of "free" as a way to start your company, but also as a way to sell and market your products.

There are a lot of misconceptions about your book. You've mentioned situations where companies such as Gillette essentially give razors away but make their money on selling blades. That's not really what you mean by "free," right?

That is the traditional form of free, which is that it's not really free. You end up paying for it later. That continues to be a totally viable business model, and some of the book is about that. That's not really why I wrote the book or what it focuses on. Instead, the book focuses on the unique characteristics of digital markets. The reason that free is a bit of a trick in the traditional sense is that products can't really be free. The razor has a real cost and it gets paid back really quickly. The thing about digital goods is that there are no real costs. When you open a document in Google Docs or when you use Google Maps or Gmail, the cost of serving you as a customer is so close to zero that they can effectively round down. As a result, you can have a viable, profitable business model by having one per cent of your customers paying and the rest getting it for free. That allows the first real kind of free, where someone's paying and money is being made, but it's certainly not you.

One of Google's top executives was in town a few weeks ago and said that Canadian businesses have done a poor job of using the web to expand to a global level. It sounds like what you're saying is that in order to take advantage of the idea of "free," you essentially have to be addressing a global market. The bigger the market, the better, right?

Exactly. Converting a small percentage of a large number.

So in the context of Canadian small businesses, do you agree with Google's assessment, that Canadian companies aren't doing as well at that?

We have to make a distinction between physical goods and digital goods. With physical goods, not much has changed. It's a little easier to sell them online — you have distribution channels like Amazon and eBay — but you're still somewhat constrained by the economics of the real world. For digital goods, there is no reason for every digital company not to be a global digital company, unless you're selling tax services for one particular Canadian province [for example]. In general, if you're a software company offering software as a service, of course it's global. Not only should you be offering it globally, which is innate in the internet, you should also be thinking about global demand and marketing and using a free version to propagate a sample of your product to the widest possible audience. Every web company is a global company, whether they know it or not. The question is, are they thinking like a global company?

But aren't things like geoblocking and licensing a constraint to getting your digital goods to a global audience? Something like Hulu, the website that streams television shows for free, is largely constrained to the United States because of these issues.

There are legacy issues, but that has nothing to do with the infrastructure or Hulu's own business, it's that they get the content from companies who are locked into geographic restrictions. It's the same for Amazon with books and music and games. You have to unwind these geographic contracts and exclusivities and sometimes this takes decades. But there's nothing intrinsic about this; it's a hangover from 20th-century distribution models and it's just a matter of time before it goes away.

How much of an effect has Google had on this idea of free? They offer a large number of products, many of which are free. Was the rise of Google a watershed in this whole idea?

I think so. Google is the poster child for free. They have more than 300 products and almost all of them are free to consumers. Some are advertising-supported, some are not. Some are just plain, old free. Each one of them has its own sort of industrial logic, but what they all do is take advantage of digital economics — it costs very little for Google to offer these products to you. Every one that you use sort of reinforces your attachment to Google, the brand, the network. Some day they'll make money from you. If you click on one ad a week, you're profitable for Google, even if you're using every one of their services. It just takes so little to pay back the cost of doing this. So yes, they are the canonical company based on a free business model.

What they've done is taken the media model of advertising-supported and extended it across the board to products and services of all sorts, from word processing and spreadsheets to email to applications software to hosting. They showed just how far the media business model could extend and how much a powerful advertising engine could subsidize in the form of other products and services.

That's great and inspiring, but it has also created what many people worry is an emerging monopoly. I'll just point out the irony — Microsoft took its monopoly on operating systems and applications software to subsidize its entry into the online world and search. Google is taking its monopoly on search and using it to subsidize its entry into operating systems and word processing and spreadsheets. They're absolute mirror images of each other, and it's just fascinating to watch it play out.

So if Google is the poster child of free, is Microsoft the counter-poster child of not-free?

Microsoft has been competing with free for 30 years. They had to get people to pay for software in the first place. Software used to be something that you got free with a computer, with the mainframe. Then they had to compete with piracy. Then they had to compete with software that came bundled with the computer, so they released Microsoft Works that came with it. Then they had to compete with open source, then software as a service, now they have to compete online with Google. Microsoft has had more history with competing with free than any company in the world. They've done so very effectively so far, but it's only getting harder. In the next year, you'll see Word and Office become free online services. Right now they offer a service to small businesses called BizSmart by which all their enterprise software is free to companies that are less than three years old and have less then $1 million in revenue. They're definitely using free, but they're not as successful at it as Google. But nobody is.

I'm sure you get asked this a lot, but what's the solution for news organizations and newspapers? How do the media make "free" work?

I do get asked this a lot. This is one of the most misunderstood things around. The book doesn't argue that everything should be free or that newspapers should be 100 per cent free. The book argues instead for something called "freemium," which is a combination of free and paid. The book goes out of its way to identify the Wall Street Journal and WSJ.com as the best model. That is, it's a hybrid. The most popular content is free and advertising-supported, but as you dig deeper, the niche content — or maybe if you just read more stories in the case of the Financial Times and FT.com, where after 10 stories a month you have to pay — as the importance to you of this publication becomes more clear, they switch you from a free to a paid user. That is 90 per cent free, 10 per cent paid.

The problem is what's free and what's paid is an equation that every publication has to answer for itself. You can't just say, "We'll do what the Wall Street Journal is doing," because you may not be the No. 1 business publication in the United States or have a commodities trading desk that people will pay for. That model works well for the Wall Street Journal, but would it work for the Globe [and Mail]? I don't know, and that's why we're all stumbling our way toward figuring out which freemium model works for us. ( cbc.ca )

READ MORE - Small business needs 'free' thinking, Wired editor says

Small businesses flock to Twitter, Facebook

Small businesses flock to Twitter, Facebook. Small businesses are using social media, services like Facebook and Twitter, like never before to communicate with customers, advertise on the cheap and create buzz around their business.

"I think Facebook and Twitter, whether we like it or not, have become the new word-of-mouth," said Donna Dooher, executive chef and owner of Mildred's Temple Kitchen in Toronto.

Mike Charbonneau of the Revue Cinema said he uses Twitter as a 'digital marquee.' (CBC) But while the technology may be new, some small business owners see the idea behind social media as old.

"We speak to each other differently. So for us it makes sense to explore the possibility to use those networking opportunities to create some buzz around our business."

For Willie Cromack of John Henry Bikes in Vancouver, using social media is about informing his customers — many of his company's tweets and Facebook posts include tips on riding — and maintaining an online reputaton.

"We do a lot of talking on our social networks to get people to understand that we're good people, and we're not going to mess them around," said Cromack.

Lewis Hilsenteger of iUpgrade, a store selling pre-owned Apple products that opened in June 2008, said using Facebook and Twitter is about survival.

"I don't think we would be around within this year without social media," said Hilsenteger.

Because he's selling a specialized high-tech product, Hilsenteger said his customers need to know what's in his store at a given moment. Many of them receive his tweets directly to their iPhones, he said.

"Most of [our customers], either through Twitter or through our website, find it important to know what our inventory is and how quickly it turns around, particularly because the inventory is changing so often. They don't know that there will always be another one," said Hilsenteger.

Use Twitter, Facebook for different tasks

Twitter and Facebook offer services that are in some ways similar — a stream of updates delivered over the internet — but businesses tend to use them for different purposes.

'We do a lot of talking on our social networks to get people to understand that we're good people, and we're not going to mess them around.'—Willie Cromack, John Henry Bikes

Twitter updates are just text, and no more than 140 characters, but they can include links to web pages. Twitter users can follow these updates so they can see them as soon they're posted.

Dooher said Twitter is great for daily updates delivered quickly.

"We do use Twitter every day before lunch service, and we tweet out our quickie [lunch special] of the day.

"That's just helping them make a decision. If they choose to come down, that's great. They know exactly what they're going to get. If it's something that doesn't appeal to them, they move on," she said.

Mike Charbonneau, marketing director for the Revue Cinema in Toronto, said he uses Twitter as a "digital marquee" for his community movie theatre.

"That's really what we use Twitter for, to let people know on a daily basis what's playing," said Charbonneau. "If they don't check us out at the website, if they don't check us out in the magazine we publish, if they don't check us out on Facebook, well, hopefully they will on Twitter."

The updates, or tweets, are public and searchable, so it's possible for anyone searching Twitter to find posts there. Charbonneau said that feature has helped expand the Revue's audience beyond its Roncesvalles neighbourhood.

Mildred's Temple Kitchen earned a mention in the blog of Peter Merholz — who coined the word "blog" — after someone recommended the restaurant to him over Twitter. A member of the kitchen's staff saw the recommendation and thanked Merholz's friend for the referral.

Facebook, on the other hand, offers more options for its posts. There's no limit on the size of the updates, and they can include photos and video. Links to other websites can include more information on the content there, including a thumbnail view. As well, discussions are more intuitively organized on Facebook, so they're easier to follow.

'A good place to go'

However, Facebook updates will more than likely only be seen by users who become fans of the Facebook page of a business or join its Facebook group.

A fan of the Revue Cinema started a "Friends of the Revue" Facebook group, which Charbonneau subsequently took over.

"People can go there and have a discussion, post pictures, so for people who are big fans of the Revue, that's a good place to go," Charbonneau said.

Willie Cromack of John Henry Bikes said he uses the company's Facebook fan page for prizes and communicating with his customers, but his posts can get lost among updates from friends.

"More conversation can take place [on Facebook], but it takes a more entertaining comment to get the responses," said Cromack.

"You can't just say, 'We got some boxes in today.' You have to have a video, a picture, a link that says, I'm going to be more entertaining today than the next guy," he said.

Cromack uses other social media sites, like Flickr and YouTube, to host his business's pictures and videos, and links to them from Twitter, Facebook and the company's blog.

Businesses can also invite their Facebook fans to special events, and Facebook will remind them when the date is approaching.

"The really good thing about Facebook is the events component. We frequently have special programming at the Revue," said Charbonneau. "Facebook's great for that."

Facebook and Twitter also differ in the number of people who use them. Facebook has over 300 million users worldwide, while Twitter, a newer service, expects to have 25 million users by the end of 2009. However, the businesses we talked to all had more Twitter followers than Facebook fans.

"We try to use Facebook for some special offers. Sometimes we'll have a discount provided strictly for members of the Facebook group that only they would know about," said Hilsenteger.

Free advertising

Because Twitter and Facebook are free services, they're especially attractive to small businesses in a tight economy.

"As a non-profit organization, you can imagine, the more ways we can get our message out about what's playing, the easier it is for us to fill the seats with people," said Charbonneau.

"Social media has allowed companies like ours to reach a significant amount of people with little or no cost at all," said Hilsenteger.

Cromack said Twitter, Facebook and his company's blog allow him to compete with bigger companies on a more level playing field.

"This is a great opportunity for us to be best-in-class, first-in, to have the same size of screen that Coke and IBM work with, and I could be as good or better than them without spending a ridiculous amount of money," said Cromack.

Dooher said social media offer an attractive alternative to traditional advertising media.

"We were being pushed to look at online advertising, print advertising, radio advertising, which really is a big investment of money, and it's very hard to get a return on that investment," she said.

"But word-of-mouth is always been the best way to promote a hospitality facility. And it's free," said Dooher.

However, tweeting every day and updating Facebook pages does take time, and the small business owners we talked to cautioned against getting lost in social media.

"We have a website, we have a newsletter, we have Facebook, we have Twitter, and sometimes I think, 'Oh, and we cook! Oh yes, I forgot about that!'" said Doohan.

"I find it's important to remember what you do, and not to get too caught up in [social media]. And we were getting a caught up in it. We were losing our minds, and we thought, 'What are we doing? Why are we doing this?'" she said.

Doohan said he found delegating some of the social media responsibilities to other members of her staff helpful.

"I will confess to you, I am 55 years of age, so it's not technology that I'm very comfortable with or familiar with, and I have engaged the services and the consultation of many of the young people that work with me," she said.

Cromack also recruited his employees to help with writing the daily biking tips for Twitter, recording videos for posting on YouTube and writing reviews of new products.

"Once I worked out the system that I wanted, and the plan I wanted in place, then I could delegate sections of it to staff," said Cromack.

"It is time-consuming, but in the end, so is talking to a customer, so it depends on where you think your time is valuable," he said. ( cbc.ca )

READ MORE - Small businesses flock to Twitter, Facebook