Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Viacom media take over drama - Economist

American media
Sumner’s lease
The future of Viacom is shrouded in uncertainty and mired in litigation
May 28th 2016  | NEW YORK | From the print edition
*




UNDER normal circumstances, a nasty public power struggle between a company’s controlling shareholder and its chief executive might put a dampener on the share price. But the circumstances at Viacom, a media conglomerate, are anything but normal. Sumner Redstone (pictured), an ailing 92-year-old mogul, recently kept control of his $42 billion media empire after a humiliating legal battle to prise it from his hands. Now the focus has shifted to the leadership of Philippe Dauman, the CEO of Viacom, prompting another round of lawsuits. Although the drama makes the firm’s future more uncertain, investors seem more excited.
Like many a television soap opera, recent events have been absorbingly far-fetched. First came a lawsuit by Manuela Herzer, a former lover of Mr Redstone’s who had been written out of his will. Her reinstatement would have threatened the tycoon’s control of Viacom and another media giant, CBS. A judge threw out that lawsuit on May 9th. Then, on May 20th, Mr Redstone ejected Mr Dauman from a trust that will decide the fate of his holdings after his death. Three days later Mr Dauman filed a lawsuit to block the move, arguing that Mr Redstone was mentally incompetent and that Shari Redstone, his daughter, was pulling the strings in an “unlawful corporate takeover”. Mr Redstone’s lawyers filed their own suit in response.

The share price has surged as the lawsuits have flown. The removal of Mr Dauman from the trust raises the prospect of his dismissal from the firm. That seems to promise the change in strategy at Viacom that many believe is overdue. Eric Jackson, an activist investor who has blasted Mr Dauman’s leadership, believes the share price, currently around $42, could rise by another $10 or more if Mr Dauman is fired. A long-standing confidant of Mr Redstone, and a spring chicken by comparison at 62, Mr Dauman has fallen out of favour as Viacom has floundered. The company’s share price fell by close to 40% over the past year. For nearly a decade before that under Mr Dauman it was the worst performer in its peer group. Since September 2006 Viacom’s shares have nudged up a little while Disney’s have more than tripled in value.
All parts of Viacom are underperforming. Its movie business, Paramount, has lagged behind the other big Hollywood studios for four years in a row; in April it reported a quarterly loss of $136m after disappointing box-office receipts for “Zoolander 2”. The company’s portfolio of cable channels, including MTV, Nickelodeon and Comedy Central, has lost more viewers in America than its big competitors—a decline of 35% over the past five years, by one measure. The cable networks remain lucrative but profits are falling as subscribers turn off and advertisers turn away.
Mr Dauman’s critics claim that he has run the company like the lawyer he is at a time when it required a creative leader. They say he never came up with a strategy for growth, resisting efforts to embrace the digital era. He pushed an aggressive buy-back programme to support the share price, which Mr Redstone was known to watch assiduously. If he kept Mr Redstone’s confidence, former executives say, he lost that of his workforce. Senior bosses and talented TV stars have left to work elsewhere. The 52nd floor of the Viacom building in New York, where Mr Dauman’s office is located, is a mirthless place, “like the gallows”, says one former employee.
If Mr Dauman is to keep his job it will require some fancy footwork. Ms Herzer’s lawsuit had challenged Mr Redstone’s competence to write her out of his will, which he did last autumn; she accused Shari Redstone of manipulating her father to her own benefit. If Ms Herzer had won her suit, control of Viacom and CBS might have gone to the trust on which Mr Dauman and an ally on Viacom’s board, George Abrams, held seats (Mr Abrams was also removed on May 20th).
At the time, Mr Dauman, in support of Mr Redstone and his daughter, gave sworn testimony on the nonagenarian’s “engaged and attentive” state of mind (though the decisive testimony was Mr Redstone’s own, in which he repeatedly called his former paramour a “fucking bitch”, in a lucid but deeply unpleasant videotaped tirade). Now, to regain his position at the trust, and, perhaps, to remain in the 52nd-floor suite, Mr Dauman is having to make the opposite case. Fortunately for him, lawyers are good at presenting either side of an argument.

Monday, May 30, 2016

Why Bono of U2 band is a great world leader - Fortune


Bono: I Will Follow
Irish rock icon Bono leads a widely acclaimed, data-driven, global organization that influences governments, rallies C-suites, and raises hundreds of millions of dollars for people living in poverty. What’s his secret? An ability to convince others that they are the true leaders of change, not him. Here’s what business can learn from a music legend.
“Why isn’t everyone proclaiming this to the hills? Isn’t this big news?” Bono, lead singer of the Irish band U2, is working the crowd. It is the fourth night of the Innocence and Experience Tour in New York City’s Madison Square Garden, a multimedia spectacle with two stages, a catwalk, and an untold number of cathedral-high digital screens—a pageant of rock-and-roll theatricality that feels justifiably epic for a band that has sold 175 million records, won 22 Grammys, and notched the highest-grossing world tour in history. But that’s not the crowd Bono is working. As throngs of U2 faithful rush the arena for the July 2015 concert, the band’s 55-year-old front man is at a makeshift meet-and-greet three floors above and a world away. There, in a curtained, pop-up sanctuary, behind rows of chairs and rigging equipment, Bono embraces House minority leader Nancy Pelosi. He claps a fund manager on the shoulder and says warmly, “We are winning the fight against AIDS.” Statistics pour out of his mouth like so much small talk as he welcomes the 30 or so gathered VIPs: The United Nations had just issued a report showing that new HIV infections have fallen by 35%, AIDS-related deaths by 41%, and millions more people than expected are getting life-saving medication. Bono relates the news as if he is an infectious-disease expert, not a rock star. As it happens, he’s both.

Click to enlarge.
Bono (No. 14, World’s Greatest Leaders) finds a potential ally in the crowd. It’s young Barbara Bush, the daughter of former President George W. Bush and granddaughter of the first President Bush, whom Bono wickedly prank-called from U2’s Zoo Tour concert stage in the early 1990s. All is forgiven. “I saw your sister last week, swollen with child,” he says to Barbara Bush, talking about her twin, Jenna Bush Hager. “Absolutely beautiful she was!” Then he leans in for the drop. “You know, I do want to call your dad,” he says. “I have for about a week.” The world is now on track to eliminate the AIDS epidemic by 2030. Had she heard? “Your father, he was part of this,” Bono says, referring to the creation of Pepfar (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) in 2003, the legislation that has earmarked some $60 billion in the fight against AIDS to date. It remains the largest financial commitment of any country to combat a single infectious disease. It had bipartisan support. Its passage brought global attention to an illness that was on its way to becoming a deadly, uncontrollable pandemic. Says Bono: “I don’t think the American people understand how many lives they’ve saved.” Later he reformulates the message, spinning it into a clever political tagline: “If you’re a taxpayer, you’re an AIDS activist.”
The line reflects a classic scrimmage call from Bono’s leadership playbook: One, spread the credit liberally for every success. Two, remind people that they are essential to the mission. Three, ask for more. Repeat steps one through three.



Lest you think Bono is some dilettante celebrity hobnobbing with the Davos crowd, consider the man’s record. Fewer people have been more effective at shining a stage light on poverty, particularly in Africa, and in influencing governments and large corporations to work together to alleviate it. For Bono, the “lobbying” effort began with the global Jubilee 2000 initiative, a campaign founded by British economist Ann Pettifor to ask world leaders to forgive the debts of the poorest countries by the turn of the millennium. The campaign was inspired by the biblical decree that every 49 years, debts should be forgiven and slaves freed; Bono was moved by the notion—it spoke to his deeply held Christian ethos. And so in the late 1990s, the rock star found himself in the office of then–U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, stumbling through his prepared pitch. His career as a lobbyist might have ended there, Bono says, were it not for the kindness of Summers’ chief of staff, Sheryl Sandberg, who stepped in to help.

Bono poses with Bill Gates at the World Economic Forum annual meeting in January 2015 to mark the 10-year anniversary of Red.
Photograph by Fabrice Coffrini—AFP/Getty Images
What appealed to Bono, perhaps even more than the mission, was the strategy behind the effort. Musician Bob Geldof, the creator of the Live Aid concert, walked him through the math. “The $125 million we raised with that show was less than what African countries were paying in interest on the debt every day,” says Bono. Even a slate of showy benefit concerts would ­never solve the problem. Forgiving the debt would—by freeing up resources that could, in turn, be used for education, infrastructure, health care, and more.
The campaign led to the cancellation of more than $100 billion of debt owed by 35 of the globe’s poorest countries, according to the World Bank. To Bono, though, what mattered wasn’t just the outcome; it was also the strategy behind it. Debt forgiveness was a clever use of leverage, and the idea stuck.

Click to enlarge.
In 2005 he started the One campaign, a volunteer-led movement to influence lawmakers to commit resources to funding programs that truly change the lives of the poor—from Pepfar (which continues to provide lifesaving antiretroviral drugs); to the Global Fund, the Geneva-based not-for-profit that finances select local programs fighting AIDS, TB, and malaria; to Gavi, a public-private partnership that provides needed vaccines to kids; to an effort that Bono is particularly excited about now: the Electrify Africa Act, which was passed by Congress in December 2015 and signed into law in February. Its aim is to help some 50 million people in sub-Saharan Africa get electricity for the first time through the support of private investment in the region. It made it through a gridlocked Congress with almost no fanfare. But for One members, who had been engaged in a yearlong campaign of targeted support, it was a wonky dream come true.
The driving notion of the One campaign, again, is leverage—think of it as a scaling mechanism for Bono’s own commitment, a Willy Wonka–like device that amplifies the voices of 7 million like-minded activists. For the past 10 years these volunteers have faxed, called, written, tweeted, and visited lawmakers to deliver on their funding commitments. But candy stripers they’re not. The training is in-depth and sophisticated, teaching volunteers everything from the minutiae of the appropriations process to Capitol Hill etiquette, and giving them congressional-level briefings on health, education, and energy-security issues in Africa.



As nonprofits go, its constituency of volunteers is surprisingly purple—neither liberal blue nor conservative red, at least in rhetoric. The organization, like Bono, is thoroughly cloaked in bipartisan cloth—a staunchly inclusive, make-no-villains enterprise. “There is nothing quite like them on the Hill,” says Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware. “They come every year. They’re polite, prepared, and persistent.”
When he finally got to sit down with Helms, he quoted Matthew 25, which talks about suffering. “There was nothing about judgment there,” says Bono. “How could addressing this disease not be at the center of Christ’s mission? That’s where we ended up.” Helms welled up, offered a blessing, and got to work. Not only did he change his mind on AIDS funding, but he lobbied the White House himself. “Dick Cheney came into the Oval Office and said, ‘Jesse Helms wants you to listen to Bono’s ideas,’ ” an amused President Bush said in his speech announcing the aid package. Then the 80-year-old senator became a fan of the band, attending concerts like they were revival meetings. Beltway insiders were genuinely surprised. Bono’s liberal friends, including bandmate the Edge, were appalled. “It was a real miracle,” laughs Pelosi. But Bono has a simpler take: “When you have a person who may appear rigidly opposed to something, look for ways to widen the aperture of their narrow idealistic view,” he says. “We like to think of ourselves as an ­unlikely group having unlikely conversations that get stuff done,” he says.The cross-the-aisle approach found its apex with Pepfar. The tale, indeed, is now the stuff of legend on the Hill—an Atticus Finch tale of how Bono got North ­Carolina’s Sen. Jesse Helms to change his mind. Bono, for his part, waves off the credit. “I don’t accept that it was me,” he says. “But I will say that we found a way to deal with the supposed ‘opposition’ by taking them out of caricature.” On the religious right in the 1980s, there was no greater opponent of AIDS funding than Helms, who railed against the LGBT community as “perverts” and as “weak, morally sick wretches” falling prey to “a gay disease.” Bono was unfazed. Tapping the network of evangelical faith leaders whom he had worked with during the debt-forgiveness campaign, Bono began to meet with conservative lawmakers about Pepfar. It was a conversation of data and faith, two languages with which he is deeply familiar. “We showed them the obvious similarity between HIV and the leprosy of the early New Testament,” he says. “This fight is not just foreign aid.”



It’s a message that cuts across the generations, which has become one of One’s enduring strengths. When U2 finally takes the stage at New York’s Madison Square Garden last July, Bono fulfills a promise he made to the young Barbara Bush at the meet-and-greet just moments earlier. He tells his rock-and-roll flock about the UN report announcing huge gains in the fight against AIDS, and then mentions a name that some in the raucous arena have probably forgotten. “We need to thank President Bush,” shouts the singer. The crowd goes wild.
Repeat steps one through three.
“I don’t want to be in Heaven unless you’re all here.” Again, Bono is working the crowd. Always working the crowd. This time the stage is in Heaven. That’s the name of the restaurant in Kigali, Rwanda, where yet another unlikely group of allies has gathered. We are on the second day of a three-day due diligence trip that has brought One staff together with execs at the Global Fund, health experts, security advisers, and a handful of corporate bigwigs who have partnered with One’s now-famous branding operation, called Red.
Red was launched at Davos in 2006 to find creative ways for companies to contribute money to the Global Fund while raising awareness. “We operate like a start-up,” says Red CEO Deb Dugan. “We work hand in hand with companies’ marketing departments to accomplish their business goals.” In the past 10 years more than $350 million has gone to the Global Fund through the sale of Red-branded products from partners like Coca-Cola, Starbucks, and Nike. Apple  AAPL -0.16%  has contributed more than $106 million of that amount in the past 10 years. “It’s been a unique way for us to use our skills to raise awareness and participate in changing things for the better,” Apple CEO Tim Cook—who, like most of Red’s corporate partners, was personally courted by Bono—tells Fortune. “Bono has this unusual mix of traits that combines idealism and action,” Cook says. “Most people only have one, but he has both. We bet on him.”

In 2004, Apple sold thousands of special-edition U2 iPods and box sets; in 2014, Apple released its “Songs of Innocence” for free via iTunes—which in turn boosted sales of U2’s back catalogue.
Photograph by Tim Mosenfelder—Getty Images
Muhtar Kent, CEO of Coca Cola  KO 0.20% , is equally effusive about Bono. “There is no one better who can harness the emotion and soul and value of people,” says Kent. The two officially joined forces on World AIDS Day in 2011, where Kent stood onstage with Bono—and Presidents Bush, Clinton, and Obama—and pledged to partner with Red. Coca-Cola has raised $8 million since 2011 and has pledged $6 million more through 2018. All of it goes to the Global Fund.
“He dreams big and then works so hard to get things done,” says the Coke CEO of Bono. The two have become close since 2011 and traveled together across Africa. Each of them has a child who graduated from Columbia University the same year—another chance for bonding.
Add to that list of Bono admirers Howard Schultz. Last summer when the Starbucks  SBUX -0.25%  CEO tore his Achilles tendon, he says, Bono came to check on him. “Just him alone,” says Schultz, “walking through my door and spent an entire day.” But while Schultz clearly cherishes the friendship, he seems genuinely inspired by the rock star’s humanitarian bent and leadership ability. “I can tell you that he is a true authentic servant leader,” says Schultz. “He might be onstage and the lights are very bright. But when the cameras are off and no one is watching, I think that’s when you really know who someone is. He’s the real deal.”
“There is no one better who can harness the emotion and soul and value of people than Bono. He dreams big and then works so hard to get things done.”
—Muhtar Kent, CEO, Coca-Cola
Other friends who have become allies in Bono’s war on poverty—including celebrity chef Mario Batali and Bank of America  BAC 1.09%  vice chair Anne Finucane—have made the effort to join him in Kigali. The trip, says Finucane, whose company has given $10 million to Red since 2014 and just committed an additional $10 million over the next five years, has reinforced her resolve to help: “It was life changing,” she says, to put actual faces and names to the lives saved by two pills a day.
A congressional delegation—Sen. Coons, a Democrat, and Rep. Kay Granger, a Republican from Texas­—is also on hand. Granger leads an appropriation subcommittee that funds all the work that One lobbies for. Earlier in the day the traveling entourage descended upon a 50-acre plot of land filled with solar panels, an array developed by Gigawatt Global, which is providing electricity to the area. Microphone in hand, Bono—clad, as always, in the mildest of rock uniforms: something black, something leather, serious boots, earrings—­delivers the Bono Experience: some data, some stories, some good news, and loads of gratitude for the contributions of those in the room.
He is at once expected and surprising. I have to remind myself every so often that the man in the cool shades (which he wears, by the way, to protect eyes that have been troubled by glaucoma for two decades) is a rock star. With 13 studio albums—seven of which hit No. 1 on the Billboard charts—U2 is among the most successful bands in rock history. Part of the secret to its success has been its independence. “We own our masters, we own ourselves,” Bono says, and the band members operate as equal, collaborative artists, without the pressure of corporate overlords.

“Actions, actions, actions,” says Bono. “It’s about being useful, and that’s what I want to be.”
Photograph by Sam Jones
“They don’t sound like anyone else,” says Tom Freston, the founder of MTV and One’s board chair. “And they’ve been making music that resonates with people for decades.” But as Bono has grown in music stature, he has also matured as a businessman. He co-founded Elevation, a private equity firm created in 2004, a high performer thanks to investments in Facebook  FB -0.08% , Yelp  YELP 0.78% , BioWare, and Pandemic Studios. And in 2014 he became a special partner in TPG Growth, a global investment group with $7 billion under management. The founder, Bill McGlashan, had purchased Fender the year before and asked Bono to join the guitar company’s board. Bono’s ability to think strategically about Fender’s future earned him a fan in McGlashan.
For Bono there is a wondrous simpatico between music, development work, and investing. And in each area his relentless drive is unmistakable. When asked point-blank about where this drive comes from, Bono seems unsure. “You know,” he says, “we have a family prayer. And that is to be useful.” He falls silent. “I think that’s as close to it as I can get” to an answer.
Being Irish also plays an important part in Bono’s identity, and one that helps him explain, at least to himself, why he’s been so drawn to development work. He posits that “Ireland has a real living memory of famine and shaking off colonialism,” and is still healing the scars of violence, poverty, and despair. “I believe development can work in Africa because it worked in Ireland.”
Bono, born Paul Hewson, lost his mother at 14, a heartbreaking event that turned him toward art. “It was to heal the wound,” he says. U2 has been together since they were teenagers at the progressive Mount Temple high school in Dublin. “We couldn’t play our instruments, so we had to be punk rockers.” It was also where he fell in love with Alison Stewart, whom he would eventually marry. “I met my wife and my band in the same week,” he likes to say. Bono and Alison Hewson have four children: daughters Jordan, 26, and Eve, 24, who both live in New York City, and sons Elijah, 16, and John, 14. Living mostly in Dublin has let Bono have a fairly normal life, close to friends and family, including people who aren’t all that impressed with the rock star thing. One sore point is that U2 has chosen to domicile one of their companies in the Netherlands for tax purposes. He’s defended the move publicly as smart business but doesn’t wave off the critique. “I hear about things down at the pub, all right,” he says.
But make no bones, Bono’s Irish sensibility and sense of history seem to give him a courage to act where others might look away. Ten years ago, when Bono first visited University Teaching Hospital in Kigali, there were three people to a cot, another three underneath on the floor, and long lines of desperate people waiting for a test to confirm that they were going to die of a disease that was being managed effectively in wealthier countries. No medicine was coming. It resurrected deep moral questions for Bono about who gets access to life-saving medication and why—and how political indifference and systemic poverty are often the only things condemning people to terrible deaths. “Why should where you live determine whether you live?”
The Bono Balance Sheet
Bono and U2, idealistic capitalists, have shown a knack for creating and deploying wealth over the past four decades.
* Album sales
U2 has released 13 albums since 1980 and has sold about 175 million records for (very roughly estimated) revenue of about $1.8 billion.
* Touring, earning
U2’s 360° Tour, from 2009 to 2011, was the highest-grossing tour of all time, with a final gross of $736.4 million, according to Live Nation.
* Boardroom Bono
Bono co-founded Elevation Partners, a private equity group and early Facebook investor. He sits (with bandmate the Edge) on the board of Fender Guitars and advises Fender’s owner, equity fund TPG Growth.
* Go, Go, NGO
The advocacy group Red has raised $350 million since 2006 to combat AIDS, connecting Bono with leaders at Nike, Starbucks, Coca-Cola, and other top corporations.
* Apple, Core
In 2004, Apple sold thousands of special-edition U2 iPods and box sets; in 2014, Apple released its “Songs of Innocence” for free via iTunes—which in turn boosted sales of U2’s back catalogue.
Ten years later there is real cause to be optimistic. The same facility now has 560 beds in an orderly collection of low, mostly single story buildings arranged by specialty: surgery, oncology, maternity, and pediatrics. Some $70 million has come to Rwanda through carefully monitored programs funded by the Global Fund. A countrywide health care system that helps screen and support HIV-affected Rwandans, particularly in rural areas, seems to be working. AIDS deaths have been reduced from 13,000 in 2000 to 3,000 in 2014. Best of all, there were only 36 known examples of mother to child transmission of HIV in 2014.
Bono and his One co-founders—British activists Jamie Drummond and Lucy Matthew—take a rare moment to enjoy the progress when the delegation visits last August. (Bobby Shriver is the group’s fourth co-founder.) Drummond, Matthew, and Bono met during the Jubilee effort. Bandmates of a different sort, they’ve collaborated for so long, they speak to each other in shorthand, finishing each other’s sentences while they huddle over laptops and plan strategy.



Drummond shares a story that describes the way they have learned to think about development work. “In the 1990s I worked on things called complex emergencies,” he says, massive humanitarian catastrophes when the world seems at its worst: Ethiopia after the civil war, Afghanistan as the Taliban was taking over, Rwanda after the genocide. “It feels important; it’s grim and highly addicting work.” The media shows up; rock stars throw concerts. But what if you could stop the emergency from happening? What if you could get ahead of it?


If Bono has a motto, he’s adapted it from St. Francis: Go into all the world to preach the gospel, and if necessary, use words. “I love that one,” he says. “Actions, actions, actions. It’s about being useful, and that’s what I want to be.”
This year One arranged for 200 of its volunteers to meet with 30 U.S. senators (or high-level staffers), an extraordinarily high number, to advocate for “replenishing” the Global Fund, among other tasks. The training of next-generation leaders is critical for the long-term prospects of the enterprise. “In order for this to be sustainable, it can’t depend on me,” says Bono.
Interestingly, though, One is becoming ever more dependent on something else: Africa. There are more than 3 million One members on the continent; it is the organization’s fastest-growing cohort. And with this shift in membership has come an evolution of message: pushing the “ask” conversation less toward financial aid and more toward assistance in development. After Rwanda, Bono and his One/Red delegation visited the CoCreation Hub in Lagos, an incubation space for technology entrepreneurs with a focus on social impact. Women’s issues, health, good governance, and anti-corruption ideas are in high demand, and everyone is eager to address the nearly $1 billion in oil revenue that goes missing every month. “What could that money do for the education sector?” asks Owoicho Apochi Nelson, education advocate and entrepreneur.

Jane Anika from Green Energy Africa, a local NGO, shows two Maasai girls how to use a solar lamp in the village of Koora, Kenya.
Photograph by Tara Todras-Whitehill
While the One team assembles a roundtable discussion on women’s rights issues in Nigeria—a major campaign of the group is called “Poverty is sexist”—Bono says the main goal of the trip is “trade and entrepreneurship.” That, he says, “is the key to ending extreme poverty on the continent. Especially now, Africa needs jobs, millions of them. But without outside investment, which is typically afraid of the risks, it’s not going to happen.”
To that end, last June Bono began working with TPG-Satya, a new partnership specifically focused on Africa investment. It was born of a meeting at his home in Dublin with McGlashan, his partner in TPG Growth, and One board member, African investor and development expert Dr. Mohamed “Mo” Ibrahim. Its purpose it to find smart investments that can ethically operate at scale, creating jobs along the way. “Business investments can also deliver social value,” says Bono, sounding a refrain he repeats frequently. “And for anything we do in the least developed economies, I won’t be taking a profit.”
On the second Monday in March, Bono and the band are back in the studio—if not quite in profit mode, then in a creative one, hopefully. They are working on some new material for when the I+E Tour picks up again later this year. U2’s celebrated front man is getting all philosophical. “We really were a band of thieves,” he says of the early days of One. It’s an operating principle he brought from being in the band, where everyone is equal. “The best ideas should prevail wherever they come from—even if they’re from outside the band. In fact, everything is possible as long as it’s not your idea,” he laughs. And that’s the faith he’s bringing to the next 10 years. “The ideas are out there.”
When Bono says he is a follower, he does mean Christ, specifically where it relates to caring for the poor. “I’ve just never felt that I could wear the badge,” he says. “I’m a true believer. I just don’t go on about it because I’m suspicious of people who do.” But in an elegant switch, One turns politicians around the world into followers as well—­followers of the will of their citizens. “We hold them accountable,” says Bono.
There have been rough moments in this journey, certainly. “I’ve spent way too much time in the hospital lately,” says Bono. In 2010 he was rushed into surgery after a herniated disc and compressed sciatic nerve nearly paralyzed him. It forced the band to cancel the U.S. leg of their 360° Tour. Then, in November 2014, Bono had a nasty cycling accident in New York’s Central Park, damaging his eye socket and pinky finger, fracturing his left shoulder, and driving his bone through the skin of his left arm in six places. It was a humbling reminder that even the greatest spirit is still the captive of the body.
He shares a piece of advice given to him by his friend Brendan Kennelly, an Irish poet. Bono says he’s using the words as inspiration for his songwriting: “If you really want to get to the place”—the dark heart of the matter— “write as if you’re dead. You won’t be worrying about what anyone is thinking, won’t have any ego.”
Bono says that’s his plan now: He’s going to write songs as if they were the last ones he’ll ever write. He pauses for effect—hell, the man is Irish—and then says: “But I sure hope they’re not.”
A version of this article appears in the April 1, 2016 issue of Fortune.

Sunday, May 29, 2016

Science behind a nice cup of coffe - RealSimple.com

2012 U.S. Barista Champion Katie Carguilo spills the beans on
The Right Equipment
Carguilo likes the clean, robust taste that comes from a manual dripper, since it filters out oil and sediment. And she’s not alone. As basic as it is, the pour-over has become the latest thing at gourmet coffee shops. Cone-shaped drippers work fine, but Carguilo prefers the flat base of the Kalita Wave (shown at right, $38; filters, $13 for 100). “The grounds lie evenly, so the water saturates them equally,” says Carguilo.
The Right Water
If you don’t like the flavor of your tap water, use filtered or bottled.

Fresh Grounds
Grind beans within a half hour of brewing. A burr grinder is ideal but pricey ($50 or more). It creates uniform grounds and prevents the coffee from ending up too weak or too bitter. For a manual dripper, medium size (similar to raw sugar granules) is best. (Learn how to choose the best gourmet coffee beans.)
Read more: Where to Store Coffee: Pantry vs. Freezer
Magic Ratio
To brew 16 ounces of coffee (two big cups), use 5 tablespoons (or 28 grams) of coffee and 16 ounces of water.
Read more: How to Buy Gourmet Coffee Beans
Master the Pour-Over
Total brew time: 3 to 5 minutes
1. As your kettle heats, place a dripper lined with a paper filter on a mug or a carafe. Rinse the filter with hot water to get rid of paper dust and to preheat the cone.
2. Place ground coffee in the dampened filter.
3. After the water boils, wait 10 seconds for it to settle. Slowly pour just enough hot water (in a circular motion) to saturate all the grounds.
4. Pause 30 seconds to let the coffee “bloom.” It will bubble and soften.
5. Pour again, raising the water level to an inch above the grounds. Wait a few moments until
the water trickles through the dripper. Repeat this process of “pulse pouring,” which helps prevent overflow, until you have your desired amount of brewed coffee.
This article originally appeared on RealSimple.com.

Saturday, May 28, 2016

Six numbers to show Hillary Clinton is still favourite - NBC News

The 2016 general election race is now a virtual tie. Hillary Clinton is reeling from more negative headlines about her use of a private email server, while Donald Trump careens from news cycle to news cycle as fact-checkers scramble to sift through his claims.
And the big question on everyone's lips for the next 160-some days will be: So, who's gonna win?
The most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal polls shows Clinton clinging to a narrow lead.


But a deep analysis of data from the poll shows that Clinton is still currently the more likely of the two candidates to emerge as the winner when the voting's all over on Nov. 8, 2016.
First, the requisite caveats: Clinton is deeply unpopular, she has a persistent and severe problem on issues of trustworthiness, she faces possible defections from Bernie Sanders supporters, she's getting absolutely demolished in the white male vote and she's (self-admittedly) a less intuitive politician than her husband, which means that an onslaught of Trump attacks are likely to change some of the dynamics of the race going forward.
But with all that on the table, here are six numbers that show why — right now — Hillary Clinton is better positioned to win the presidency than her GOP rival.
The advantage for a generic Democratic candidate over a generic Republican is 4 percentage points
One of the most basic questions we ask in every NBC/WSJ poll is whether or not voters want to see a Republican or a Democrat elected president, no matter who the nominees of each party may be. And as recently as last fall, the generic Republican option edged out the Democratic one. Not so anymore, with 47 percent of voters favoring a Democratic president and 43 percent choosing a Republican one. If the advantage holds, it would defy the notion that Americans are reluctant to grant a party the presidency after it's held the White House for eight years. (The last time that happened? George H.W. Bush in 1988.) Nothing about the unpopular Clinton or the even-less-popular Trump is "generic," but Dems have the advantage on this fundamental measure of party strength.
The Democratic Party is nearly breaking even on favorability, while the GOP is under water.
Let's be real: It isn't a fun time to be a party establishment type, no matter what side of the aisle you're on. Both parties are pretty unpopular, but Democrats are doing a lot better than their GOP rivals. On the popularity scale, Democrats are just barely underwater, at a net negative three point favorability rating. Republicans? They can at least say they're doing better than their nominee (who's at a net negative 29 point rating) but they're not far behind, with only 24 percent of voters giving the party a thumbs up, compared to 49 percent giving it a thumbs down.
Barack Obama's approval rating is 51 percent.
Hillary Clinton is adamant that she's running for her own first term, not Barack Obama's third term. But as the Democratic Party nominee, a key part of her message is building on Obama's vision and the "progress" his administration has promoted. Even as majority of the electorate — 53 percent — say they're interested in a change candidate, the man currently steering the ship has hit his highest approval rating since his second inauguration. Obama's high rating — which includes support from a majority of independents and women as well as 82 percent of Sanders voters — means that he'll be a powerful surrogate for Clinton once the Democratic primary is in the history books.
Trump is under-performing with white women by 10 points.
It's no secret that Trump has a problem with female voters. But he *does* enjoy a slight advantage over Hillary Clinton when it comes to only white women, leading with 46 percent to Clinton's 42 percent. That might look like a boon for Trump until you compare his share of the white female vote by the margin won by Mitt Romney four years ago. Romney beat Barack Obama by 14 points with white women, winning them 56 percent to 42 percent. Trump is under-performing badly with a part of the electorate that makes up almost four in 10 voters, and it's definitely no certainty that there are enough white men out there to cut his losses.
Trump's showing a nine-point drop in the suburbs.
Plenty of experts argue that the rural-urban cultural divide is so deeply entrenched that the suburbs are where the election will be won and lost. And, as he is with white women, Donald Trump is showing significant weakness with this slice of electorate. In 2012, Obama won urban suburbs 57 percent to 41 percent, according to NBC's Dante Chinni. Clinton is matching Obama's performance at 57 percent now, but Trump has slid to 32 percent. Swing suburban areas of the battleground states — places like Fairfax County, Virginia or Bucks County, Pennsylvania — are almost sure to help determine the general election winner. Right now, Clinton is enjoying a big head start.
Clinton has a 10-point advantage on the commander-in-chief test.This poll showed that Trump has very significant advantages when it comes to questions about economic issues. He handily beats Clinton when voters are asked which candidate would better on trade, dealing with Wall Street or managing the economy. But Clinton has a ten point advantage (43 percent to 33 percent) when voters are asked who would be the best commander-in-chief. Yes, Clinton's disadvantage on the economy is a big deal, particularly for the significant portion of voters who still aren't feeling any impact from the economic recovery. But an advantage on the commander-in-chief test is something any candidate covets, particularly in courting late deciders and swing voters.

Friday, May 27, 2016

What is wrong with the EU - Financial Times

Pope Francis pulled no punches in November 2014 when he addressed the European Parliament on the EU’s deepening malaise. “In many quarters we encounter a general impression of weariness and ageing, of a Europe which is now a ‘grandmother’, no longer fertile and vibrant. As a result, the great ideas which once inspired Europe seem to have lost their attraction, only to be replaced by the bureaucratic technicalities of its institutions,” the pope said.
Just a few weeks ago, Francis revisited his theme. In a Vatican speech that sounded almost like an Old Testament lament, he asked: “What has happened to you, the Europe of humanism, the champion of human rights, democracy and freedom? What has happened to you, Europe, the home of poets, philosophers, artists, musicians, and men and women of letters? What has happened to you, Europe, the mother of peoples and nations, the mother of great men and women who upheld, and even sacrificed their lives for, the dignity of their brothers and sisters?”
In these remarks he had in mind the EU’s stumbling and, in some countries, defiantly mean-spirited response to the refugee and migrant emergency that erupted last year on the bloc’s southern borders. However, the pope is not the only world leader friendly to the EU who worries that the 28-nation bloc is in the grip of some more profound crisis, or combination of crises. These range from economic stagnation, voters’ disenchantment with traditional political parties and the rise of national populism to the no longer inconceivable prospect that the EU will one day be as irrelevant to Europe’s future as the Holy Roman Empire was by the time Napoleon did away with it in 1806. In Britain, meanwhile, voters are preparing for a June 23 referendum on whether or not to stay in the EU, a decision that is certain to have substantial consequences for all Europe, especially if the verdict is to leave.


All four books under review recognise that the EU is in deep trouble, but they differ in their proposed solutions. Brendan Simms and Giles Merritt hold that much closer integration, at least among France, Germany and the rest of the 19-nation eurozone, is essential to restoring Europe’s fortunes. Chris Bickerton doubts that this is a realistic prospect, contending that the EU is floundering and losing its appeal because of a lack of democracy and accountability in Brussels and — a particularly valuable insight — because of a broader mistrust that separates citizens from political elites in practically every member state. For his part, John R Gillingham is relentlessly negative about the EU, asserting that it is unravelling at a precipitous rate and that, if it is to survive, it will have to abolish the euro and renationalise its political institutions.
As Simms observes in Britain’s Europe, an entertaining and cogently argued book, the life of the EU and its predecessor, the European Economic Community, established by the 1957 Treaty of Rome, has coincided with the most peaceful and prosperous era in European history. But this is no guarantee that all will be well forever. “The failure of the European project, and the collapse of the current continental order, would be not only a catastrophic blow to the populations on the far side of the Channel but also to the United Kingdom, which would be directly exposed to the resulting storms, as it always has been,” Simms warns.

A history professor at the University of Cambridge, Simms writes that the political and social systems of England, and later Britain, have always been shaped by military, political and economic pressures originating in continental Europe. It started with the emergence of the 10th-century English state in response to Viking invasions. Centuries later, the threat of Louis XIV’s France prompted the 1688-89 Glorious Revolution, which sealed England’s future as a parliamentary democracy, and the 1707 Anglo-Scottish union, which created the UK. In the post-1945 era, the cold war division of Europe and the EEC’s launch exerted a decisive influence over British security and economic policies.
Simms refers more than once to the pithy phrase of Winston Churchill in 1913, when he was First Lord of the Admiralty — Europe is “where the weather comes from”. The storms of 1914 and 1939 proved Churchill’s point. But the other organising theme of Simms’s book is that Britain has repeatedly shown, especially in the 20th century, that it can prevail in the harshest circumstances without sacrificing democracy and the rule of law. In the author’s opinion, this experience has made British history and political culture so distinctive that, even though the UK ought to stay in the EU, it is unlikely ever to give up sovereignty to the extent required to create a unified Europe.
The best way forward, Simms says, is for the eurozone to engage in “a single collective act of will” and establish a federation, just as the UK emerged in 1707 and the US came out of the constitutional convention of 1787. Furthermore, Britain should welcome a strong, united eurozone because it would serve the most enduring English and British interest down the ages — namely, the elimination or at least reduction of dangers emanating from the continent.
It is an eloquent argument, but one suspects that it will not completely convince Bickerton, a political scientist also at Cambridge. He builds a case in The European Union: A Citizen’s Guide that Europe’s fundamental problem lies in its flawed methods of democratic representation. “Hostility towards the EU today is part of a much wider crisis in European politics which does not arise from the EU as such. It is really a crisis of politics tout court, driven by hostility to the very [national] political institutions that an earlier generation of Eurosceptics had believed they were defending,” Bickerton writes.
In his view, this — quite apart from the EU’s disputes over everything from refugees to Greek debt — is what makes unlikely a great leap forward in European integration. “After all, the EU is only as strong as its member states. And if they cannot command the authority of their citizens, then the EU is as threatened as they are,” he says.
In what is a lucid, helpful guide to the EU’s structures and operating methods, Bickerton observes that another troubling issue is the lack of transparency in the way the EU makes laws. Behind closed doors the European Commission, national governments, the European Parliament’s main political party groups and thousands of lobbyists cut deals, ensuring that about 80 per cent of laws sail through the EU legislature with a minimum of public debate. One might wish for the parliament, as the EU’s only directly elected institution, to stand up for more openness. Instead, Bickerton says, the opposite is true. As in some Faustian bargain, the parliament sells its soul as the representative body of the peoples of Europe in order to maximise its influence as an organ of the EU’s hybrid lawmaking system.
For all the EU’s faults, Bickerton leans to the view that Europe would be a more unstable place without it. “To argue that life would be better without the EU implies a heroic effort of constructing afresh a new model of existence for Europe and for the countries that make it up. In a risk-averse age, replacing the EU with something else is perhaps the riskiest of all projects,” he says.
Merritt is no more enamoured than Bickerton with the EU’s lack of openness, commenting: “Distant, remote, inscrutable, politically unanswerable, untouched by the new austerity, and seemingly indifferent to criticism, the EU institutions have increasingly fewer friends or even sympathetic ears”. However, he says it is not all their fault: “Blaming Brussels for Europe’s weaknesses is to shoot the messenger. The member governments are in the EU’s driving seat, and they have been making a poor job of driving.”
The founder of Friends of Europe, a Brussels think-tank, Merritt has decades of experience in the EU capital and an undimmed passion for a united Europe: “the case for genuine political integration”, he writes, is “no longer a theoretical goal but a practical necessity”. His book’s chief virtue is that, with chapters on Africa, Asia and the digital revolution, it places the EU’s challenges in broader global and technological contexts. He rightly emphasises that, for the sake of Europe’s younger generations, the vital task is to inject more dynamism into the economy so that Europe, which at times seems to display a “cultural resistance to becoming more innovation-friendly”, can hold its own in an increasingly competitive world.
Merritt pinpoints the shortcomings of the commission, which he describes as staffed by virtually unsackable officials immersed in “a culture of arrogance and inertia”. As for the EU legislature, it “isn’t a real parliament: it can’t raise taxes, it can’t declare war, and it doesn’t provide the EU executive with any sort of democratic legitimacy. That’s the nub of the EU’s problem: when things go wrong, there’s no mechanism for ousting those who have been responsible for taking far-reaching political decisions on behalf of the people of Europe”.
Such criticisms have force because the author making them is a devout EU supporter. By contrast, Gillingham — an American historian of modern Europe and an outspoken critic of the Union — has written a book whose anti-EU animus submerges its more perceptive passages. The chapters on EEC history up to the early 1980s are a useful corrective to much writing on the EU, insofar as they stress the importance for Europe’s postwar development of non-European factors, such as expanding global trade and the protection provided by Washington’s leadership of the western alliance.
Once the book turns to events after 1985, however, everyone and everything involved with the EU comes under sneering attack. The ideas of Jacques Delors, the commission’s most influential president, who served from 1985 to 1995, are “invariably woolly and tedious, as well as contradictory”. Jean-Claude Juncker, Commission president since 2014, is an “apparatchik” who is well-versed in “Orwellian policymaking”. There is a “pervasive culture of corruption” in Europe and “the so-called European Dream is dead”.
Gillingham’s polemic might have carried more weight if his book were not riddled with basic errors of fact. He wrongly describes Antoine Pinay as Charles de Gaulle’s prime minister in the 1960s (Pinay was premier in 1952-53 and finance minister in 1958-60). He misdates the start of François Mitterrand’s term as French president to 1978 (it was 1981). He incorrectly says Silvio Berlusconi first became Italian prime minister in 1992 (it was 1994). Bizarrely, he states that Pascal Lamy was “president of the IMF” (no such job exists, and Lamy was director-general of the World Trade Organisation).
Gillingham has a point when he asserts that the EU’s “present sorry state was not predetermined, but due to a history of unsound thinking, bad attitudes, poor policymaking and inertia”. However, one does not have to be a blind admirer of the EU to recognise the argument of Simms, Bickerton and Merritt that Europe, including Britain, might be in even more trouble without it. In less than a month we shall know whether a majority of Britons agree.

Thursday, May 26, 2016

China’s Richest Man Just Picked a Fight With Disneyland - Fortune

Posted: 24 May 2016 11:25 PM PDT

Over the weekend, China’s richest man, Dalian Wanda Group founder Wang Jianlin, took to the state airwaves to pick a public fight with Disney.
His target was Disney’s biggest one-time investment in China so far, the $5.5 billion Shanghai Disneyland opening in mid-June. Disney’s Chinese partner on the project expects 10 million annual visits to the Shanghai resort, which is a less than three-hour commute for more than 300 million Chinese.
“The frenzy of Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck and the era of blindly following them have passed. [They are] entirely cloning previous IP, cloning previous products, with no more innovation,” Wang said a nearly hour-long interview on CCTV on Sunday. He added that competition from his company would ensure that Disney China would be unprofitable over the next 10 to 20 years.
Wanda didn’t shy away from its founder’s comments: today the company’s public relations team sent a transcript of Wang’s statements to reporters.
Wang’s comments come as Wanda is in the midst of a spectacularly dramatic turnaround for a company that almost qualifies for Fortune’s Global 500 list. Wanda says overall revenue rose 19% in 2015 to $45 billion, and most was driven by real estate. At the end of 2014, Wanda counted 99 Wanda plazas around China, sprawling complexes complete with luxury apartments, movie theaters, restaurant chains, and shopping.
Now Wanda is switching from a real estate developer to an entertainment and tourism company.
By the end of 2015, Wanda had closed 35 plazas, a third of the total, according to estimates by Insite Research.
It has focused on entertainment with deals such as its $3.5 billion purchase of movie production company Legendary Entertainment earlier this year and the AMC movie theater chain in 2012.
Its biggest new venture is creating amusement parks for China’s growing middle class.
By the end of 2020, Wanda says its goal is to amass 200 million tourist visits and $15.5 billion in tourism revenue from potentially 15 to 20 new amusement parks in mainland China. This weekend is the grand opening of Wanda’s first theme park in the southern city of Nanchang.
“Disney didn’t believe that China has Wanda,” Wang said in the CCTV interview. “They shouldn’t have entered China. We have a [saying]: one tiger is no match for a pack of wolves. Shanghai has one Disney, while Wanda, across the nation, will open 15 to 20.”
“Moreover there’s another issue,” he said. “The most important problem, and that is their high cost to open the park. With the scale similar to our Nanchang park, their Shanghai park costs $5.5 billion. I have no way to even comprehend this. We internally analyzed why they spend so much money on it, and we can’t explain it in a sentence or two.”
Wang’s comments ring both prideful and nationalistic. His company is switching from a real estate developer to a services company catering to China’s middle class, a segment Disney also has squarely in its sights.
The war is on.
This article originally appeared on Fortune.com

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Should we be afraid of robots taking our jobs - The Independent

Economists are increasingly concerned over the impact of the “rise of robots” and other technological innovations on employment levels.
Now a former McDonald’s CEO has warned that robots will take over the fast food industry because they are cheaper and more efficient than humans.
Ed Rensi, claims that if low skilled employee insist on having an increase income in the US, their employers will be forced to replace them with more productive and cost-effective robotic innovations.

How fearful should we be about the rise of the robots?
“It’s cheaper to buy a $35,000 [£24,000] robotic arm than it is to hire an employee who’s inefficient making $15 [£10.20]an hour bagging French fries,” Rensi said during an interview on Fox.
"It's nonsense and it’s very destructive and it’s inflationary and it’s going to cause a job loss across this country like you’re not going to believe," he added.
Rensi believes lawmakers should do away with a federal minimum wage and instead leave it to the states.

“I think we ought to have a multi-faceted wage program in this country.If you’re a high school kid, you ought to have a student wage. If you’re an entry level worker you ought to have a separate wage,” Rensi said.
His comment came as US democratic lawmakers and trade unions across the country are fighting to raise the minimum wage of a person to $15 hour.
Hundreds of McDonald's and Taco Bell employees walked out in the largest strike in the history of the fast food industry in 2012 to demand a $15/hour wage. By 2015, the movement had spread to 270 cities across the US.

In California the minimum wage is set to rise from $10 (£7.02) an hour to $15 (£10.60) the highest state-wide minimum wage anywhere in the US, it was announced in March.
In the UK, some fifteen million UK jobs are at risk of being taken over by robots in the coming decades, according to the latest calculations by the Bank of England.

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Electric car use in USA has reached mile stone - CNBC

Electric cars remain a noteworthy sight almost everywhere but Scandinavia, where Norwegians have bucked the trend by buying alternative-fuel vehicles.
The Norwegian government has encouraged car drivers to switch to rechargeable electric vehicles in the hope of reducing climate-changing carbon dioxide emissions. It has done this through a mixture of tax breaks and other measures, as well as building an extensive network of charging stations.

Daniel Sannum Lauten | AFP | Getty Images
Christian Blakseth charges his electric car's batteries in Oslo, Norway.
The government's strategy has proved highly successful; recent quarterly data suggest around 25 percent of all newly registered autos in the country are plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) — a category that includes both pure electric and hybrid vehicles — according to information provider IHS and other sources.

"Norway has what is probably the world's best incentives for zero emission vehicles and a correspondingly the world's highest number of electric cars per capita by a wide margin," according to the EV Norway, which provides information on the country's electric vehicle market, website.  

In the first three months of 2016, Norway registered 11,124 pure electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), representing 24.4 percent of all new vehicles, according to IHS. PHEVs combine a conventional gasoline or diesel engine with an electric motor and a rechargeable battery.
The comparison with other advanced economies — even those where electric vehicles are comparatively popular — is stark. In the first three months of the year, only 2,244 or 1.8 percent of vehicles newly registered in the Netherlands, Europe's second-biggest per capita buyers of electric vehicles, were PEVs.
Electric vehicle registrations as a proportion of overall market:
* Norway: 24.4%
* Netherlands: 1.8%
* France: 1.5%
* UK: 1.3%
* Germany: 0.7%
Data from IHS covering the first three months of 2016.

Pierre-Henry Deshayes | AFP | Getty Images
Electric cars crowd the bus lane during the morning rush hour towards Oslo.
No data were available for the first quarter for U.S. or China, which are both major markets for electric vehicles, when CNBC contacted IHS. 

However, IHS's last Automotive Plug-in Electric Vehicle Index showed 0.6 percent of vehicles newly registered in the U.S. in the second quarter of 2015 were PEVs, compared to 0.4 percent for China and 0.3 percent for Japan.
Norway’s incentives
Norway's push for electric cars dates backs 20 years and is based on the assumption that vehicles that run fully or partially on renewable energy are better for the local environment, the climate worldwide and for the preservation of fossil fuels.  

Since then Norway, which is one of the world's main oil producers, has developed the world's most extensive network of charging stations for electric cars, the locations of which are listed on a publicly available database. The stations mostly date from a government infrastructure drive in 2009-2010.
Plus, Norwegians enjoy a range of benefits if they buy or drive electric vehicles. These include exemptions from purchasing taxes (which are extremely high in Norway), no charges on toll roads, free parking and access to public bus lanes.
Norway's Parliament met its target of 50,000 zero-emission vehicles on the road three years early, in April 2015, and there were 70,000 vehicles on the road by the end of last year, according to the Norwegian Electric Vehicle Association. Its official goal is 100,000 electric cars by 2020, but the organization says this is probably too modest.

Pros and cons
Other than lower emissions, less air and noise pollution and reduced reliance on non-renewable energy sources, electric car users enjoy a quieter and smoother drive and say the engines are more reliable than petroleum-powered internal combustion equivalents.
Another benefit is electric vehicles can be charged from home if one has a suitable inlet and are economical to run in countries where electricity is cheap.
However, electric cars are expensive to run compared with similar small or medium-sized gas vehicles and there is a limited choice of brands and styles available. Prices for mass-market EVs such as the Ford Focus Electric and 2016 edition of the Nissan Leaf start at around $29,0000 in the U.S., according to the car companies' websites.
By comparison, the starting price for a new, conventionally-fueled Ford Focus is around $17,225 and a Nissan Versa Sedan sells from $11,990.
"Generous subsidies and tax breaks are playing a role in supporting demand, but overall adoption rates are constrained by factors such as relatively low real-world driving ranges (i.e. issues with battery storage and density), limited model availability and, most importantly, high costs compared to internal combustion engine vehicles. The latter has been amplified by the collapse in the crude oil price in 2015," Charlie Thomas, head of strategy at Jupiter, a U.K. boutique asset management firm, said in a report last week.
Europe's most popular electric cars by year-to-date sales:

1. Nissan Leaf: 6,168
2. Renault Zoe: 5,578
3. Tesla Model S: 3,378
4. Volkswagen e-Gold: 2,228
5. BMW i3: 1,567
Source: European Alternative Fuels Observatory

Another downside is PEVs need to be refueled more frequently and for longer periods of time than their petrol-run equivalents. They are not ideal for those who drive long distances without breaks, although battery capacity is steadily improving.
Nissan boasts that the 2016 Leaf, available from $26,700 in the U.S. after the federal tax credit, will be the first affordable all-electric car to drive for more than 100 miles (107 miles) on a single charge.
Analysts say global ownership of PEVs could rocket when the total cost of purchasing and running one falls below internal combustion engine vehicles. Forecasts suggest this could be as soon as 2020.
"This could have a profound impact on the supply and demand dynamics in this market. Some estimates suggest electric vehicles could represent up to 50 percent of new car sales by 2040, although this figure may be constrained by a persistently low oil price," Thomas said.


Monday, May 23, 2016

Scientists 'find cancer's Achilles heel' - BBC News

Scientists 'find cancer's Achilles heel'

  • 4 March 2016
  •  
  • From the section Health
  •  
  •  comments
Lung cancerImage copyrightSPL
Scientists believe they have discovered a way to "steer" the immune system to kill cancers.
Researchers at University College, London have developed a way of finding unique markings within a tumour - its "Achilles heel" - allowing the body to target the disease. 
But the personalised method, reported in Science journal, would be expensive and has not yet been tried in patients. 
Experts said the idea made sense but could be more complicated in reality. 
However, the researchers, whose work was funded by Cancer Research UK, believe their discovery could form the backbone of new treatments and hope to test it in patients within two years. 
They believe by analysing the DNA, they'll be able to develop bespoke treatment.
People have tried to steer the immune system to kill tumours before, but cancer vaccines have largely flopped.
One explanation is that they are training the body's own defences to go after the wrong target.
The problem is cancers are not made up of identical cells - they are a heavily mutated, genetic mess and samples at different sites within a tumour can look and behave very differently.

'Exciting'

They grow a bit like a tree with core "trunk" mutations, but then mutations that branch off in all directions. It is known as cancer heterogeneity. 
The international study developed a way of discovering the "trunk" mutations that change antigens - the proteins that stick out from the surface of cancer cells.
Professor Charles Swanton, from the UCL Cancer Institute, added: "This is exciting. Now we can prioritise and target tumour antigens that are present in every cell - the Achilles heel of these highly complex cancers.
"This is really fascinating and takes personalised medicine to its absolute limit, where each patient would have a unique, bespoke treatment."
There are two approaches being suggested for targeting the trunk mutations.
The first is to develop cancer vaccines for each patient that train the immune system to spot them. 
The second is to "fish" for immune cells that already target those mutations and swell their numbers in the lab, and then put them back into the body. 

'Early days'

Dr Marco Gerlinger, from the Institute of Cancer Research, said: "This is a very important step and makes us think about heterogeneity as a problem and why this gives cancer this big advantage.
"Targeting trunk mutations makes sense from many points of view, but it is early days and whether it's that simple, I'm not entirely sure.
"Many cancers are not standing still but they keep evolving constantly. These are moving targets which makes it difficult to get them under control. 
"Cancers that can change and evolve could lose the initial antigen or maybe come up with smokescreens of other good antigens so that the immune system gets confused."

Analysis

James Gallagher, health editor, BBC News website

Google’s Vision of the Future: Convenience With a Cost - TIME Business


Posted: 18 May 2016 06:58 PM PDT

If opening musical numbers are any indication, Google wanted to make sure everyone knew it was going to be a mind-blowing yet quirky day right from the start.
After two years holed up in San Francisco’s Moscone Center, Google’s annual I/O developer conference kicked off outside on Wednesday, in a white-tented amphitheater on the company’s campus in Mountain View. To begin, two musicians, placed in what looked like giant crows’ nests, played strings that ran the length of the forum, stretching from their perches to the metalwork above the stage where Google CEO Sundar Pichai would soon appear. The tune was a number by Yann Tiersen, whose jaunty French folk music has found a wide and loving audience through films like Amélie.

The video that followed took that vibe and gave it a Four Loko. Reeling kaleidoscopes gave way to edgy edits of young men in brightly colored jumpsuits leaping into the air for no particular reason. Installations around the grounds proved aggressively whimsical, too. There was a bus converted into what looked like a pirate ship decorated with whale ribs and antlers, a station where people could pretend to throw a phone and control a robot arm that flung fluorescent pink paint onto a big white cube, and Hershey-kissed shaped cocoons that swung from trees.
These details weren’t pointless decorations. They matter because they’re reflections of what Google views as its corporate psyche. And if Google has its way, the company’s technology is going to be pinch hitting for your own personality in the near the future. It will become harder to tell where you stop and Google starts.
“Every single conversation is different, every single context is different,” said Pichai during his keynote address, his first since becoming Google CEO after a major reorganization. He promised that Google is working to account for the variation among billions of users with billions of needs and desires and dialects with “an ambient experience that extends across devices.”
Wednesday’s keynote conveyed some important details. One, Google is focusing on doing anything and everything that will make your life easier, more convenient and less overwhelming. Another is that Google’s artificial intelligence, machine learning and natural language processing technologies have gotten so advanced that the company’s leaders are confident their gizmos won’t just serve as tools for you, but they’ll even serve as your stand-in in some cases.
One of Google’s videos imagined the future capabilities of Google Home, a voice-controlled speaker powered by the search engine’s smarts. (It’s similar to Amazon’s Echo.) In this button-less future, Google will wake up your kids for you; it will update you on your package statuses and answer almost any other question you might have. With little more than a greeting articulated in its vicinity, Home will warn you of flight delays and kindly push back your restaurant reservations. It will do your scheduling, your nannying. It will literally be your Google Assistant, the apt name given to the device’s core technology.
It doesn’t really matter who changes your dinner reservations. Asking the host at Andina to move your meal back 30 minutes isn’t a creative moment for you as an individual. But Google’s announcements portend a future in which our friends might not know if they’re talking to us or computers pretending to be us, and in which we could come off as pretty weird if we’re not paying attention.
Take Google’s new messaging app, Allo, described as “a smart messaging app which learns over time to make conversations easier, more expressive and more productive.” Google touted Allo’s ability to scan your texts, understand the context and supply readymade human-like responses for you (“Cute dog!” and “That’s good!”). Not just when you were sent words, but even when you were sent pictures.
There are some cases when this kind of super-smart response-generator will save you precious seconds. Your friend says “I’m on my way,” Google suggests the response of “Meet you there,” you pick it and all is well. But outsourcing things like text responses can be trickier. Even if Google has solved the giant A.I. hurdle of disambiguation — meaning it can understand different meanings of words that sound the same, like the example Pichai gave of ordering a curry and not the basketball player Steph Curry — trouble spots remain, like sarcasm.
For example: A friend emailed me a couple months ago and I opened up the message in my Google Inbox app. He had been sick and miserable and wrote, with false enthusiasm, “Also, I haven’t pooped for two straight days!” The pre-written responses Google supplied me included “That’s brilliant!” and “Well done you!” Both of which would have made me sound not only insensitive but also kind of British.
To be sure, the stuff Google displayed to an eager audience of 7,000 people was cool. The company’s new tools promise to give us richer, more accurate search results to vaguer and less-informed queries. We can stand in front of a statue and say “Who designed this?” and get the answer. We can say “show me pictures of my cat” and Google will pull them right up. These products will warn us of things we didn’t know we needed to be warned of, remind us when we forget and help manage our unmanageable lives. But we’re going to have to make sure to hold on to our humanity as it gets easier to let Google and other tech companies take the words right out of our mouths.

Sunday, May 22, 2016

US Federal interest rate rise fears - Financial Times

More than half of economists expect the Federal Reserve to tighten monetary policy at one of its next two meetings, in stark contrast to market views at the start of the month when concern over lacklustre global growth and choppy financial markets seemingly stayed the US central bank’s hand until 2017.
Fifty-one per cent of the 53 leading economists surveyed by the Financial Times said they believed the US central bank would lift rates in June or July after the release last week of the minutes of the Fed’s April policy setting meeting.
Many of the economists who spoke with the FT, including several who believed the Fed would wait until September to lift rates, said the move would be dependent on several key economic reports over the coming weeks — including data on payrolls, retail sales and consumer spending.


Despite a lacklustre start to the year — economists put the risk of a US recession over the coming 12 months at 20 per cent — several indicators have improved from the first-quarter lull.
Retail sales and industrial production accelerated in April, a preliminary reading of consumer confidence rebounded in May to its highest level in nearly a year, and inflation firmed.
“The Fed has positioned itself very firmly if the data improve back to moderate,” said Lindsey Piegza, an economist with Stifel Nicolaus. “They’re not looking for a strong economy or a solid economy, they’re looking for moderate. They’re trying to remind the market that the bar for that second rate increase is much lower than in previous rate cycles.”
After the Fed’s well-telegraphed rate rise in December, financial conditions tightened drastically as bond and equity markets shuddered. The brief but dramatic global sell-off, linked in part to fears over an economic slowdown in China and the rout in commodity prices, has also magnified attention on financial markets.
“Should the Fed be this sensitive to financial markets? No,” said Paul Mortimer-Lee, an economist with BNP Paribas. “But no one borrows at the overnight rate. If financial markets move a lot, it tells you one move in the overnight rate is having a big effect.”
The FT survey, conducted between May 18 and 20, nonetheless underlined some division between economists, with more than a third saying the Fed was likely to wait until September before it next tightens policy.
Many investors and economists warned that June had the potential for pockmarks from a series of events that could rekindle market volatility. Two-fifths of the economists surveyed said the UK referendum on its membership of the EU, which is to be held days after the US central bank’s June policy meeting, was enough to keep the Fed on hold.
More than 90 per cent of economists said the Fed would lift rates once or twice this year. None expected more than three 25 basis point increases in 2016. For 2017, the cohort forecast three more shifts that would lift the federal funds rate to between 1.5 and 1.75 per cent.
Top Fed policymakers have rapidly reoriented the market to a rate rise as soon as next month. Last week Bill Dudley of the New York Fed said it would be reasonable to expect an increase in June or July, a similar line struck by three other Fed presidents.
Market expectations had flatlined before the comments and hawkish April minutes. Traders now put the odds at nearly 50:50 that the Fed will move by July.
“The market consistently underestimates a change in Fed policy a month before the event,” Ms Piegza added. “It is clear the Fed is not going to wait for the market.”
eric.platt@ft.com

Saturday, May 21, 2016

Apple Never Wants You to Leave its New Store - TIME Business


Posted: 19 May 2016 02:17 PM PDT
Apple’s new flagship store, in the center of San Francisco, will be opening to the public on May 21 — both in the sense of doing business and quite literally.
The cavernous two-floored space is a rectangular prism made of glass and steel, filled with more straight lines than a geometry textbook. It’s perfectly in keeping with Apple’s clean, modern aesthetic. But this particular prism has something special and new: the equivalent of 42-foot tall patio doors making up its face. They slowly slide apart like portals on the starship Enterprise, beckoning the public to walk in and sit right down.
Katy Steinmetz for TIME Katy Steinmetz for TIMEApple’s new flagship store in San Francisco’s Union Square opens May 21, 2016. “I hope as you came in you saw the openness and the transparency,” Angela Ahrendts told reporters gathered for a preview of the world’s newest Apple Store Thursday. In 2014, Ahrendts gave up a gig as Burberry’s CEO to run Apple’s retail and online operations. It would be hard to miss her message or the double-entendre, given that those two buzzwords are king around Silicon Valley—and in broader American business and public life today.
Ahrendts gave a speech to mark the occasion, noting that it was 15 years to the day since Apple opened its first retail locations in California and Virginia. The stores are now a considerable success, with 480 shops in 18 countries and boasting the most revenue per square foot of any physical retail location.
Ahrendts said the San Francisco store would be the first to contain elements that make up the “overarching vision of the future of Apple retail.” Essentially, Apple wants people to view its stores not just as a place to spend money, but as a community center where they can come, kick back and hang out. There will be music and walkabouts and talks. Think of her vision as a twenty-first century version of the local bookstore.
apple-store4Five elements make up the future of Apple’s retail operation, Ahrendts said, calling the Union Square shop “the first, largest global flagship and the future of what you will see going forward.” Each facet is part of a grand “town square” metaphor, starting with the “avenue,” an open area of what she called “little boutiques” where people can stroll around just as they might through the surrounding stores in Union Square. Apple has created a new position, called a Creative Pro, to staff these areas, billing them as artsy spins on the Genius who won’t just tell you the specs of the latest iPhone’s camera but might explain backlighting and the rule of thirds.
Katy Steinmetz for TIME Katy Steinmetz for TIMEThe “avenue” on the first floor of Apple’s new flagship store in San Francisco.The second is the “board room,” a meeting place that Ahrendts described as a home for the thousands of aspiring entrepreneurs and startups that overfloweth in San Francisco, potentially helping Apple strengthen its ties to small businesses. And the third is Apple’s new take on the Genius Bar, those areas where customers can go get help with their hardware and software. It’s called a “Genius Grove,” all the “significant” stores will have them. And yes, these groves will be lined with actual trees—with leather seats wrapped around their bases, no less.
Katy Steinmetz for TIME The San Francisco flagship is unusual in that its “genius grove” only has one set of trees. In most cases the table replacing the “genius bar” will be buttressed by tree-seating on either side. The word bar, Ahrendts believes, denotes noise and chaos. “Sometimes getting your phone repaired is like going to the dentist,” she said. But if that phone is an iPhone, getting it fixed will soon be more like going to a cafe run by a proprietor with a real passion for plants. With the bar replaced by a table plus the tree-benches, she said, seating will be quadrupled. Sit, relax, she said. Just listen to the music.
The fourth feature is what Apple is calling “the forum,” a sleek, open take on a classroom where a musician might lead a workshop on sound editing or a developer might come talk shop with other app-makers. Attendees will have the choice of sitting on wooden boxes, leather boxes or leather balls. And there won’t be hard rules about showing up to class on time, even if there is strictly whimsical seating available. “The next generation, they just want to flow, they want to come and go as they want,” Ahrendts said. “They don’t want a formal presentation.”
IMG_1491 There’s enough seating in the new “forum” at San Francisco’s Apple store to accommodate about 100. 

The final tweak will only be shared by the most “significant” stores: a public plaza open 24/7, with promises of free Wi-Fi and live acoustic music every week, though that appears to be some time from fruition in the City by the Bay. San Francisco’s version has a 65-foot living wall and a giant sign spelling out the word LOVE in rainbow lights, but reporters weren’t allowed outside during our sneak preview because the space isn’t finished.
In fact, dozens of construction workers were still swirling about the place immediately before the event, placing topiaries and sweeping off newly poured concrete. Attendees were “in the kitchen, if you will, before the meal’s quite ready,” Ahrendts said. If the dish comes off like Apple wants, going to an Apple Store could start to feel more like an event and less like a place for transactions. Which means that if all you want to do is replace that power cord your cat chewed up, you should stick to Apple’s most popular store: the one online.
Katy Steinmetz for TIME Katy Steinmetz for TIME