Thursday, June 12, 2014

EU to investigate Apple's tax affairs - BBC NEWS

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27788238

The European Commission is to open a formal investigation into Apple, Starbucks and Fiat in relation to tax arrangements with three EU countries.
The firms' respective arrangements with Ireland, the Netherlands and Luxembourg will be investigated.
Announcing the move, tax commissioner Algirdas Semeta said that "fair tax competition is essential".
Last year, a US Senate investigation accused Ireland of giving special tax treatment to Apple.
The European Commission will look at whether the companies' tax affairs breach EU rules on state aid.
Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said: "In the current context of tight public budgets, it is particularly important that large multinationals pay their fair share of taxes."
Countries in Europe cannot allow certain firms to pay less tax than they should, Mr Almunia added.
Sanctions
The investigations will focus on "transfer pricing", or whether the countries allowed the multinational firms to charge one part of the company over the odds for goods or services from another part of the company as a way of shifting profits.
Under Commission rules, companies must charge their subsidiaries market rates.
Sanctions for a breach of tax rules could include an attempt to claw money back from Apple, Starbucks and Fiat.
Apple said that it had not had "any special tax deal with the Irish government".
"We have received no selective treatment from Irish officials," the company said. "Apple is subject to the same tax laws as scores of other international companies doing business in Ireland."
The Irish finance ministry said Apple "did not receive selective treatment and there was no 'special tax rate deal'".
"Ireland is confident that there is no state aid rule breach in this case and we will defend all aspects vigorously," the Department of Finance said.
Last year's US Senate committee investigation revealed that Apple had been able to funnel profits into Irish subsidiaries or "ghost companies" that had no declared tax residency anywhere in the world, cutting billions from its tax bill.
The Senate committee hearing revealed that Apple designated its Irish entities as unlimited companies, which meant it did not have to publish annual accounts.
The Irish arrangement allowed Apple to pay just 1.9% tax on its $37bn in overseas profits in 2012, despite the fact the average tax rate in the OECD countries that make up its main markets was 24% last year.
In a 40-page memorandum, the Senate committee said: "Ireland has essentially functioned as a tax haven for Apple."
Starbucks' tax row
Coffee giant Starbucks has been embroiled in a tax controversy for a number of years.
In 2012, the multinational admitted that it had a special tax deal with the Dutch government which allowed it to transfer money to its Dutch sister company in royalty payments.
Starbucks said on Wednesday that its Dutch tax arrangements conformed with financial law.
"We comply with all relevant tax rules, laws and OECD guidelines and we're studying the Commission's announcement related to the state aid investigation in the Netherlands," a Starbucks spokesperson said.
The Dutch finance ministry said it was confident that its tax system was "robust".
"We are confident that the investigation by the EC will in the end result in the conclusion there is no state aid involved," a spokesman told the BBC.
Fiat 'compliant in Luxembourg'
The European Commission is also investigating the tax arrangements of Fiat's financial firm, Fiat Finance and Trade.
Fiat said that while its financial arm is headquartered in Luxembourg, the investigation is into the government concerned.
"We are compliant with all Luxembourg regulations," the company added.
Luxembourg has already riled the European Commission over the firm.
The Commission said on Wednesday that it was launching infringement proceedings against Luxembourg for giving only partial answers to requests for information about Fiat Finance and Trade tax rulings.

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

China’s Real Estate Downturn Spells Trouble for Global Economy - TIME

http://time.com/2851514/chinas-real-estate-downturn-spells-trouble-for-global-economy/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

June 10, 2014
    
A sales assistant talks to visitors in front of models of apartments at a real estate exhibition in Shenyang, Liaoning province April 17, 2014.Sheng Li—Reuters

The world's largest trading nation's economic growth remains heavily dependent on property, meaning a sharp downturn in that sector would be felt across Asia and beyond


“Will the government save the market if housing prices fall?” That was the question being asked in China this week — not by stressed-out mortgage holders, but by the country’s most famous (and wealthy) property mogul, Pan Shiyi.
Pan, the chairman of giant real estate developer SOHO China, has made a series of pronouncements in recent weeks that reflect an increasingly bearish long-term outlook for China’s property sector.
At an industry forum in late May, Pan compared the nation’s real estate prospects to the Titanic. “It [the real estate industry] will soon hit the iceberg in front of it,” he declared.

Pan’s outlook may be bleak, but is borne out by statistics. According to Standard & Poor’s, residential housing prices in China will drop by 5% this year — a dramatic reversal from last year’s rise of 11.5%.

That’s bad news for China’s property holders, but potentially also a worrying sign for global investors. With Chinese economic growth heavily dependent on the real estate sector, which accounts for 20% of GDP by some estimates, a sharp slowdown in the property market would be felt far beyond China’s borders. (China is, after all, the world’s largest trading nation.)

After more than a decade of sizzling double-digit growth, the government is targeting 7% growth this year. But the potential for a real estate correction means that the actual number could be much lower.

There are already some signs that imports are being affected as consumer confidence weakens. The General Administration of Customs announced Sunday that imports in May declined 1.6% year on year — a drop that surprised industry analysts. That compared to an increase of 0.9% year on year in April.

With prices trending sharply downward, the president of the country’s largest residential real estate developer, Vanke, has declared that the “golden age” for property is over. “The period when everyone made money from property is gone,” Yu Liang was quoted as saying recently.

A conflagration of factors is driving the decrease in prices, not least repressive market policies that restrict the number of properties city dwellers can own. Markets in larger cities are also being flooded with knockdown properties being dumped by overextended investors or government officials looking to rid themselves of any undeclared assets in light of a recent and severe government crackdown on corruption.

Chinese media reported Monday that one coal-mining magnate was attempting to offload 100 apartments in a coveted location along Beijing’s Second Ring Road.


Little wonder, then, that the property mogul Pan is on the lookout for the visible hand of the government. But, for now at least, state intervention seems unlikely. In a report late last month, the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development declared that it would stay on the sidelines and “respect the adjustment role of the laws of the market in the real estate sector.”

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Underpaying Employees Can Hurt a Company’s Bottom Line - TIME

http://time.com/2828130/minimum-wage-hike-job-loss/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

June 6, 2014
    
Fast-food workers and supporters organized by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) protest outside of a Burger King Worldwide Inc. restaurant in Los Angeles, California, U.S., on Thursday, Aug. 29, 2013.Bloomberg—Bloomberg via Getty Images

There's little evidence to indicate that raising wages will lead to job losses, and studies show that high-wage companies fare better than lower-wage ones.


Just this week, Seattle workers won a significant battle when the city raised its minimum wage to $15 an hour. Richmond, Calif, recently voted to hike theirs to $13 by 2018, while polls indicate San Francisco voters favor a $15minimum. Even the CEO of McDonalds is somewhere between neutral and positive on raising the minimum wage.

People continue to argue that increasing the price of labor will reduce the number of jobs. However, the oft-cited study in the fast-food industry by economists David Card and Alan Krueger show small to no negative employment effects. And a comprehensive study of minimum wages in European countries concludes that there is “no general evidence that minimum wages reduced employment.” But even if higher minimum wages do cost jobs, should U.S. policymakers care? Maybe not.
Contrary to what you may think, the U.S. is actually a comparatively low-wage country. According to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, in 2013 the U.S. ranked23rd out of 28 industrialized countries in terms of hourly earnings. These data suggest that the U.S. can easily afford to pay more and not jeopardize its competitive standing.
Moreover–and this is important–there is essentially no relationship between average hourly earnings and that country’s competitiveness as measured, for instance, by balance of trade statistics. In 2012, countries with high wages—such as Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark, to take a few examples—ran a large balance of trade surpluses, while low-wage countries such as Portugal, Iceland and the U.S. ran a balance of trade deficits.

Nor, for that matter, do high-wage companies invariably suffer, as University of Colorado Denver management professor Wayne Cascio’s comparison of higher-wage (and benefits) Costco with lower-wage (and benefits) Sam’s Club so nicely illustrated. The issue is not what people cost, but what they can do, their innovativeness, and their productivity. Poorly paid people are more likely to quit, and turnover is costly. Underpaid people are unlikely to be engaged with their work or to exert discretionary effort. There is simply little reason to believe that raising wage rates will unduly harm country or company competitiveness.

But most fundamentally, policymakers need to ask what sort of economy they want to create: a) an economy with low-wage jobs—and maybe one with few environmental or safety protections as well—such as Bangladesh, or b) an economy with high-wage employment and working conditions that do not sicken and kill people—think Denmark or Singapore.

Some years ago I had the privilege of working with the Ministry of Manpower in Singapore. Although Singapore has no national minimum wage, the government has consistently pursued policies to raise not just the education and training levels of the workforce, but also income. Early in Singapore’s history, it was a hub for low-cost manufacturing. When low-wage manufacturers complained they would be forced to move their operations out of Singapore as wage levels rose, the government’s response was: learn to be more efficient and productive, or go. Why would the government want to encourage the preservation of low-wage work—a policy that would also retard the growth in national median income?

Missing from the minimum wage discussion are the effects of wages and other job conditions on people’s physical, psychological and economic well being. And what about the “social pollution” caused by companies who pay people so little that their food and health care must then be subsidized by the public? Many advanced industrialized economies have chosen a “high road” policy path that has produced higher incomes and, not coincidentally, much better health outcomessuch as longer life expectancy and lower rates of infant mortality. Economics teaches us that trade-offs are inevitable. Trading off job quality for job quantity might be a poor choice.

Jeffrey Pfeffer is Thomas D. Dee II Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.

Monday, June 9, 2014

These Are America’s 7 Most Profitable Products - TIME

June 7, 2014 at 2:07am
http://time.com/2837247/most-profitableproducts/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

    

This post is in partnership with 24/7Wall Street. The article below was originally published on 247wallst.com.
Successful companies frequently depend on just one product for a large share of their sales. That’s true for some of the most iconic brands, including Coca-Cola, Marlboro, Jack Daniels, and Apple. In many cases, these products not only represent an outsized share of their company’s revenue, but they also have tremendous profit margins that serve as the foundation of the company’s profitability.
Nearly all the most profitable products are market leaders in their industry and are mass produced in incredible quantities. As a result, the company can apply significant pressure on suppliers to lower costs, while still selling to customers at the highest possible price.

For instance, Apple sold more than 150 million iPhones in its latest full fiscal year, up 20% from the year before, when the company sold 125 million iPhones. Very few smartphone or consumer electronics devices can match that volume, which gives Apple notable leverage in negotiations for components and with carriers. Today, most Americans own a smartphone, and a huge number of these are iPhones.
The most profitable products tend to rely on the power of their brand, which can command a premium price and sell extraordinary numbers of units. In fact, some of these products, including Coca-Cola, Harley-Davidson and Jack Daniels, are also among the world’s most valuable brands, according to brand consultancy group Interbrand.
One major factor that helps to shape product profitability is exceptional management. On one hand, businesses that spend too much on areas such as research and development or marketing can cut deeply into a product’s margins. Of course, controlling expenses is a balancing act. A product that is not well-built or marketed is one that will fizzle away.
Clearly, the ability to develop or market a product well can be a huge source of popularity as well. Apple’s iPhone is hugely popular because it is, by most accounts, one of the most well-built and user-friendly smartphones made by a consumer electronics company. Coca-Cola and Marlboro likely owe much of their popularity to their world-famous advertising.
Product profitability is among the most difficult financialmeasurements to gauge from the financial information released by public companies. As a result, finding credible and reliable information on a product’s profitability is also quite difficult. Public companies tend to guard data on product profits, and rightly so. This information is equivalent to a trade secret that corporations do not want their competitors to have, even if the figures can be estimated.


Based on data from by Capital IQ, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the S&P 500 companies that produce consumer products. We only considered corporations that have a single product that is considered to be the company’s flagship brand, or represents the largest single contributor to revenue. To account for the opaque nature of product profitability, 24/7 Wall St. only considered products of publicly traded companies that disclosed significant details about their operations. We excluded companies with an operating margin of less than 15%, as well as companies that did not break out revenue by division or product. In order to estimate product operating margin, in the cases when the product’s margin or revenue was not provided, we used the company or division’s operating margin as a proxy. If it was clear that the brand power of the product and high volume of sales allow the company to sell the product at a premium, we awarded the product a higher operating margin. Market share values listed are for the U.S. exclusively, and come from various industry sources. Variations of existing, well-established products, such as the iPhone 5c, Jack Daniels Honey and Diet Coke, were counted as part of the parent brand.

These are America’s most profitable products.
1. iPhone
> Operating margin: 41%
> Product revenue: $91.3 billion
> Market share: 45.0%
Industry: Computer hardware
A majority of Americans now own smartphones, according to Pew Research Center. Last year, 45% of all smartphones sold were iPhones. The iPhone is one of the world’s most profitable products and a primary driver in Apples’ (NASDAQ: AAPL) financial success. The company’s fiscal 2013 sales increased by $14.4 billion, or 9%, from the year before. Much of the growth was due to strong iPhone 5 sales, as well as the successful introductions of iPhone 5S and lower-cost 5c. Net sales of the iPhone totaled $91.3 billion last year, up 16% from 2012, when sales increased by more than 70% from the year before. Interbrand named Apple the world’s most valuable brand last year.

2. Marlboro
> Operating margin: 32%
> Product revenue: $18.7 billion
> Market share: 40.3%
> Industry: Tobacco
Despite a massive decline in American smoking habits since the 1960s, Marlboro cigarettes are still among America’s most profitable products. Altria Group, Marlboro’s parent company, shipped roughly 130 billion packs of cigarettes last year, including 111 billion packs of Marlboros, down slightly from the year before. The Marlboro brand, however, still dominates U.S. tobacco markets, controlling more than two-fifths of the tobacco market in America. The brand has been the top-selling cigarette nationwide for the past 35 years. While smoking is on the decline, the Marlboro brand can be found on a variety of smokeless tobacco products as well, including snus. Altria Group shipped 787.5 million units of smokeless tobacco products last year, up slightly from 2012.

3. Monster
> Operating margin: 26%
> Product revenue: $2.1 billion
> Market share: 34.6%
> Industry: Soft drinks

Like several other energy drink brands, Monster has come under some scrutiny for its brightly colored labels and flashy advertising, because such tactics tend to attract a young audience. One can of Monster has roughly five times the caffeine found in a can of Coke. Monster does not children or pregnant women consume its products. Despite bad press, Monster Beverage Corporation’s revenue has steadily increased in recent years. Sales rose more than 9% last year.
Free Daily Newsletter  subscribe Terms & Conditions
   

America’s Most Profitable Products

By Thomas C. Frohlich and Alexander E.M. Hess June 6, 2014 6:19 am EDT

7. Harley-Davidson Motorcycles (NYSE: HOG)
> Operating margin: 17%
> Product revenue: $4.1 million
> Market share: 54.9%
> Industry: Motorcycles
The 100-plus year old Harley-Davidson company has built a dedicated community of motorcycle enthusiasts. The approximately 1 million worldwide members Harley Owners Group, which the company introduced in 1983, promotes sales, events, rallies, and bike trips. Perhaps as a result, Harley-Davidson is among the world’s 100 most valuable brands, according to Interbrand’s 2013 report. The distinctive culture associated with Harley-Davidson is widespread beyond the U.S. Last year, China held its fifth annual Harley-Davidson National Rally, drawing thousands of riders. Nearly 168,000, or 55%, of new motorcycles registrations in the U.S. last year were Harley-Davidsons, according to the company. Revenue at the company’s motorcycle and related products segment rose 6.4% last year from $4.9 billion to $5.3 billion. In addition to selling motorcycles, the company also services vehicles and provides financing, which help bring its company-wide operating margin up to nearly 20%.

6. Enfamil
> Operating margin: 24%
> Product revenue: $2.0 billion
> Market share: 40.0%
> Industry: Packaged foods and meats
Enfamil is one of the best-selling infant formula brands in the world. While it trailed Abbott Laboratories’ Similac brand in market share, the company claims to be the number one formula brand recommended by pediatricians. Its stellar brand has clearly helped Mead Johnson stay profitable in every year for the last 10 years. The company reported net sales of $4.2 billion in its most recent fiscal year, with Enfamil sales accounting for a large portion of the sales. Although a declining U.S. birth rate has raised some concerns about growth, the company continues to expand its presence in emerging markets and makes more than half of its revenues in Asia.

5. Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO)
> Operating margin: 24%
> Product revenue: $13.7 billion
> Market share: 42.4%
> Industry: Soft drinks
Coca-Cola’s total revenue dropped 2.4% last year, as consumers’ preferences continued to shift towards less sugary, healthier drinks. Even with these developments, however, Coca-Cola remains the dominant player in the soda market. The 128-year-old company controlled 36% of the U.S. market in 1977, and 42% last year. Coca-Cola distributes more than 500 different beverage brands around the globe. In all, the company and its numerous bottlers sold a total of 28.2 billion unit cases of Coke and other beverages in 2013, up 2% from the year before. As of 2013, Coca-Cola trailed only Google and Apple on Interbrand’s list of the world’s 100 most valuable brands.

4. Jack Daniels Tennessee Whiskey
> Operating margin: 25%
> Product revenue: $2.0 billion
> Market share: 2.4% (U.S.; largest American whiskey)
> Industry: Alcohol
Jack Daniels is the top-selling American whiskey, and one of the largest spirits brands, in the world. It is also Brown-Forman Corporations’ principal product, and its biggest driver of growth. Although branding for Jack Daniels has often invoked the company’s Southern heritage, the drink is popular worldwide, having benefited from rising whiskey demand overseas. According to Advertising Age, an increasingly large proportion of Jack Daniels revenue comes from international sales due to a recent bourbon boom. Jack Daniels is sold in a number of different variations, including Tennessee Whiskey, Single Barrel, Ready-to-Drinks, Tennessee Honey, and Winter Jack. The company reported net sales of $3.9 billion in fiscal 2014. Jack Daniels’ popularity domestically and abroad is largely the driver behind the company’s continued growth, according to Brown-Forman.


3. Monster
> Operating margin: 26%
> Product revenue: $2.1 billion
> Market share: 34.6%
> Industry: Soft drinks
Like several other energy drink brands, Monster has come under some scrutiny for its brightly colored labels and flashy advertising, because such tactics tend to attract a young audience. One can of Monster has roughly five times the caffeine found in a can of Coke. Monster does not children or pregnant women consume its products. Despite bad press, Monster Beverage Corporation’s revenue has steadily increased in recent years. Sales rose more than 9% last year.

2. Marlboro
> Operating margin: 32%
> Product revenue: $18.7 billion
> Market share: 40.3%
> Industry: Tobacco
Despite a massive decline in American smoking habits since the 1960s, Marlboro cigarettes are still among America’s most profitable products. Altria Group, Marlboro’s parent company, shipped roughly 130 billion packs of cigarettes last year, including 111 billion packs of Marlboros, down slightly from the year before. The Marlboro brand, however, still dominates U.S. tobacco markets, controlling more than two-fifths of the tobacco market in America. The brand has been the top-selling cigarette nationwide for the past 35 years. While smoking is on the decline, the Marlboro brand can be found on a variety of smokeless tobacco products as well, including snus. Altria Group shipped 787.5 million units of smokeless tobacco products last year, up slightly from 2012.

1. iPhone
> Operating margin: 41%
> Product revenue: $91.3 billion
> Market share: 45.0%
> Industry: Computer hardware
A majority of Americans now own smartphones, according to Pew Research Center. Last year, 45% of all smartphones sold were iPhones. The iPhone is one of the world’s most profitable products and a primary driver in Apples’ (NASDAQ: AAPL) financial success. The company’s fiscal 2013 sales increased by $14.4 billion, or 9%, from the year before. Much of the growth was due to strong iPhone 5 sales, as well as the successful introductions of iPhone 5S and lower-cost 5c. Net sales of the iPhone totaled $91.3 billion last year, up 16% from 2012, when sales increased by more than 70% from the year before. Interbrand named Apple the world’s most valuable brand last year.
By Thomas C. Frohlich and Alexander E.M. Hess

Sunday, June 8, 2014

How Would Humans Know If They Lived in a Multiverse? - Live Science



How Would Humans Know If They Lived in a Multiverse?

By Tanya Lewis, Staff Writer   |   June 02, 2014 01:44pm ET


Our universe may be one of many, physicists say.
Some theories in physics give rise to the idea of multiple universes, where nearly identical versions of the known universe exist. But if such a multiverse does exist, how would people know, and what would it mean for humanity?
There may be ways to find out if the known universe is one of many, said Brian Greene, a theoretical physicist and author at Columbia University in New York.
"There are certain versions of the multiverse that, should they be correct, might be most susceptible to confirmation," Greene told Live Science. [5 Reasons We May Live in a Multiverse]
Spotting a multiverse
For example, in the multiverse suggested by string theory, a model that says the universe is composed of one-dimensional strings, the known universe might exist on a giant 3D membrane, Greene told Live Science.
In such a world, "if the universe is a loaf of bread, everything we know about takes place on one slice," he said. Conceivably, debris from collisions that migrated off our slice into the wider cosmos might leave missing energy signatures, which a particle accelerator like the Large Hadron Collider at CERN might be able to detect, Greene said.
Some theories of inflation, the notion that the universe expanded rapidly in the first fractions of a second after the Big Bang, suggestanother kind of multiverse. The Big Bang could be one of many big bangs, each giving rise to its own universe — a cosmic bubble in a sea of other bubbles.
In such a scenario, the known universe might collide with another one, which might leave an imprint on the cosmic microwave background, the radiation signature left over from the Big Bang, Greene said.
Greene stressed that all of these notions are highly speculative — "There's reason to take the ideas seriously, but they are far from science fact," he said.
Is free will dead?
But if a multiverse does exist, it could have some wacky consequences. A world with an infinite number of universes would virtually ensure that conditions in one universe would repeat in another, Greene said. In other words, there would almost certainly be another version of you reading this article, written by another version of me.
In such a multiverse, you might decide to read the article in one universe and not read it in another. What would that mean for the notion of free will?
Perhaps it's a moot point. "I think free will bit the dust long before multiverse theory," Greene said.
Scientific equations describe the particles that make up all matter, including humans, Greene said. While more-complex structures arise that have no relevance to a single particle — temperature, for instance — everything still has a "fundamental microphysical underpinning," he said.
That means free will is merely a human sensation, not actual control.
"When I move my teapot, that sensation is absolutely real," Green said. "But that's all it is. It's a sensation."
Maybe in another universe, there's a Brian Greene that believes in free will.

5 Reasons We May Live in a Multiverse


Here are 5 different scientific theories on the possible existence of multiverses :-

( 1 )

Mathematical Universes

Credit: WGBH Educational Foundation
Scientists have debated whether mathematics is simply a useful tool for describing the universe, or whether math itself is the fundamental reality, and our observations of the universe are just imperfect perceptions of its true mathematical nature. If the latter is the case, then perhaps the particular mathematical structure that makes up our universe isn't the only option, and in fact all possible mathematical structures exist as their own separate universes.
"A mathematical structure is something that you can describe in a way that's completely independent of human baggage," said Max Tegmark of MIT, who proposed this brain-twistin gidea. "I really believe that there is this universe out there that can exist independently of me that would continue to exist even if there were no humans."
This story was provided by SPACE.com, a sister site to LiveScience. Follow Clara Moskowitz on Twitter @ClaraMoskowitz or SPACE.com@Spacedotcom. We're also on Facebook & Google+.


( 2 )

Daughter Universes

Credit: NASA/JPL
The theory of quantum mechanics, which reigns over the tiny world of subatomic particles, suggests another way multiple universes might arise. Quantum mechanics describes the world in terms of probabilities, rather than definite outcomes. And the mathematics of this theory might suggest that all possible outcomes of a situation do occur — in their own separate universes. For example, if you reach a crossroads where you can go right or left, the present universe gives rise to two daughter universes: one in which you go right, and one in which you go left.
"And in each universe, there's a copy of you witnessing one or the other outcome, thinking — incorrectly — that your reality is the only reality," Greene wrote in "The Hidden Reality."


( 3 ) 

Parallel Universes

Credit: Shutterstock/Sandy MacKenzie
Another idea that arises from string theory is the notion of "braneworlds" — parallel universes that hover just out of reach of our own, proposed by Princeton University's Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario, Canada. The idea comes from the possibility of many more dimensions to our world than the three of space and one of time that we know. In addition to our own three-dimensional "brane" of space, other three-dimensional branes may float in a higher-dimensional space.
Columbia University physicist Brian Greene describes the idea as the notion that "our universe is one of potentially numerous 'slabs' floating in a higher-dimensional space, much like a slice of bread within a grander cosmic loaf," in his book "The Hidden Reality" (Vintage Books, 2011).
A further wrinkle on this theory suggests these brane universes aren't always parallel and out of reach. Sometimes, they might slam into each other, causing repeated Big Bangs that reset the universes over and over again. [The Universe: Big Bang to Now in 10 Easy Steps ]


( 4 )

Bubble Universes
Credit: Shutterstock/Victor Habbick
In addition to the multiple universes created by infinitely extending space-time, other universes could arise from a theory called "eternal inflation." Inflation is the notion that the universe expanded rapidly after the Big Bang, in effect inflating like a balloon. Eternal inflation, first proposed by Tufts University cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin, suggests that some pockets of space stop inflating, while other regions continue to inflate, thus giving rise to many isolated "bubble universes."
Thus, our own universe, where inflation has ended, allowing stars and galaxies to form, is but a small bubble in a vast sea of space, some of which is still inflating, that contains many other bubbles like ours. And in some of these bubble universes, the laws of physics and fundamental constants might be different than in ours, making some universes strange places indeed.


( 5 )


Infinite Universes

Credit: Shutterstock/R.T.Wohlstadter
Scientists can't be sure what the shape of space-time is, but most likely, it's flat (as opposed to spherical or even donut-shape) and stretches outinfinitely. But if space-time goes on forever, then it must start repeating at some point, because there are a finite number of ways particles can be arranged in space and time.
So if you look far enough, you would encounter another version of you — in fact, infinite versions of you. Some of these twins will be doing exactly what you're doing right now, while others will have worn a different sweater this morning, and still others will have made vastly different career and life choices.
Because the observable universe extends only as far as light has had a chance to get in the 13.7 billion years since the Big Bang (that would be 13.7 billion light-years), the space-time beyond that distance can be considered to be its own separate universe. In this way, a multitude of universes exists next to each other in a giant patchwork quilt of universes. [Visualizations of Infinity: A Gallery]

Saturday, June 7, 2014

Internet Giants Erect Barriers to Spy Agencies - New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/07/technology/internet-giants-erect-barriers-to-spy-agencies.html?emc=edit_th_20140607&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=56381892&_r=0

By DAVID E. SANGER and NICOLE PERLROTHJUNE 6, 2014
Google servers in Douglas County, Ga. The company is encrypting more data as it moves between servers. CreditConnie Zhou/Google

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. — Just down the road from Google’s main campus here, engineers for the company are accelerating what has become the newest arms race in modern technology: They are making it far more difficult — and far more expensive — for the National Security Agency and the intelligence arms of other governments around the world to pierce their systems.
As fast as it can, Google is sealing up cracks in its systems that Edward J. Snowden revealed the N.S.A. had brilliantly exploited. It is encrypting more data as it moves among its servers and helping customers encode their own emails. Facebook, Microsoft and Yahoo are taking similar steps.
After years of cooperating with the government, the immediate goal now is to thwart Washington — as well as Beijing and Moscow. The strategy is also intended to preserve business overseas in places like Brazil and Germany that have threatened to entrust data only to local providers.
Google, for example, is laying its own fiber optic cable under the world’s oceans, a project that began as an effort to cut costs and extend its influence, but now has an added purpose: to assure that the company will have more control over the movement of its customer data.
Photo
Robert Litt, of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, bemoaned the new lack of the cooperation.CreditYuri Gripas/Reuters
A year after Mr. Snowden’s revelations, the era of quiet cooperation is over. Telecommunications companies say they are denying requests to volunteer data not covered by existing law. A.T.&T., Verizon and others say that compared with a year ago, they are far more reluctant to cooperate with the United States government in “gray areas” where there is no explicit requirement for a legal warrant.
But governments are fighting back, harder than ever. The cellphone giant Vodafone reported on Friday that a “small number” of governments around the world have demanded the ability to tap directly into its communication networks, a level of surveillance that elicited outrage from privacy advocates.
Vodafone refused to name the nations on Friday for fear of putting its business and employees at risk there. But in an accounting of the number of legal demands for information that it receives from 14 companies, it noted that some countries did not issue warrants to obtain phone, email or web-searching traffic, because “the relevant agencies and authorities already have permanent access to customer communications via their own direct link.”
The company also said it had to acquiesce to some governments’ requests for data to comply with national laws. Otherwise, it said, it faced losing its license to operate in certain countries.
Eric Grosse, Google’s security chief, suggested in an interview that the N.S.A.'s own behavior invited the new arms race.
“I am willing to help on the purely defensive side of things,” he said, referring to Washington’s efforts to enlist Silicon Valley in cybersecurity efforts. “But signals intercept is totally off the table,” he said, referring to national intelligence gathering.
“No hard feelings, but my job is to make their job hard,” he added.
In Washington, officials acknowledge that covert programs are now far harder to execute because American technology companies, fearful of losing international business, are hardening their networks and saying no to requests for the kind of help they once quietly provided.

Robert S. Litt, the general counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees all 17 American spy agencies, said on Wednesday that it was “an unquestionable loss for our nation that companies are losing the willingness to cooperate legally and voluntarily” with American spy agencies.
“Just as there are technological gaps, there are legal gaps,” he said, speaking at the Wilson Center in Washington, “that leave a lot of gray area” governing what companies could turn over.
In the past, he said, “we have been very successful” in getting that data. But he acknowledged that for now, those days are over, and he predicted that “sooner or later there will be some intelligence failure and people will wonder why the intelligence agencies were not able to protect the nation.”
Companies respond that if that happens, it is the government’s own fault and that intelligence agencies, in their quest for broad data collection, have undermined web security for all.
Many point to an episode in 2012, when Russian security researchers uncovered a state espionage tool, Flame, on Iranian computers. Flame, like the Stuxnet worm, is believed to have been produced at least in part by American intelligence agencies. It was created by exploiting a previously unknown flaw in Microsoft’s operating systems. Companies argue that others could have later taken advantage of this defect.
Worried that such an episode undercuts confidence in its wares, Microsoft is now fully encrypting all its products, including Hotmail and Outlook.com, by the end of this year with 2,048-bit encryption, a stronger protection that would take a government far longer to crack. The software is protected by encryption both when it is in data centers and when data is being sent over the Internet, said Bradford L. Smith, the company’s general counsel.
Mr. Smith also said the company was setting up “transparency centers” abroad so that technical experts of foreign governments could come in and inspect Microsoft’s proprietary source code. That will allow foreign governments to check to make sure there are no “back doors” that would permit snooping by United States intelligence agencies. The first such center is being set up in Brussels.
Microsoft has also pushed back harder in court. In a Seattle case, the government issued a “national security letter” to compel Microsoft to turn over data about a customer, along with a gag order to prevent Microsoft from telling the customer it had been compelled to provide its communications to government officials. Microsoft challenged the gag order as violating the First Amendment. The government backed down.
Hardware firms like Cisco, which makes routers and switches, have found their products a frequent subject of Mr. Snowden’s disclosures, and theirbusiness has declined steadily in places like Asia, Brazil and Europe over the last year. The company is still struggling to convince foreign customers that their networks are safe from hackers — and free of “back doors” installed by the N.S.A. The frustration, companies here say, is that it is nearly impossible to prove that their systems are N.S.A.-proof.
Continue reading the main story

Most American companies said they never knowingly let the N.S.A. weaken their systems, or install back doors. But Mr. Snowden’s documents showed how the agency found a way.
In one slide from the disclosures, N.S.A. analysts pointed to a sweet spot inside Google’s data centers, where they could catch traffic in unencrypted form. Next to a quickly drawn smiley face, an N.S.A. analyst, referring to an acronym for a common layer of protection, had noted, “SSL added and removed here!”


Google was already suspicious that its internal traffic could be read, and had started a program to encrypt the links among its internal data centers, “the last chink in our armor,” Mr. Grosse said. But the slide gave the company proof that it was a regular target of the N.S.A. “It was useful to have proof, in terms of accelerating a project already underway,” he said.
Facebook and Yahoo have also been encrypting traffic among their internal servers. And Facebook, Google and Microsoft have been moving to more strongly encrypt consumer traffic with so-called Perfect Forward Secrecy, specifically devised to make it more labor intensive for the N.S.A. or anyone to read stored encrypted communications.
One of the biggest indirect consequences from the Snowden revelations, technology executives say, has been the surge in demands from foreign governments that saw what kind of access to user information the N.S.A. received — voluntarily or surreptitiously. Now they want the same.
At Facebook, Joe Sullivan, the company’s chief security officer, said it had been fending off those demands and heightened expectations.
Until last year, technology companies were forbidden from acknowledging demands from the United States government under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But in January, Google, Facebook, Yahoo and Microsoft brokered a deal with the Obama administration to disclose the number of such orders they receive in increments of 1,000.
As part of the agreement, the companies agreed to dismiss their lawsuits before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

“We’re not running and hiding,” Mr. Sullivan said. “We think it should be a transparent process so that people can judge the appropriate ways to handle these kinds of things.”
The latest move in the war between intelligence agencies and technology companies arrived this week, in the form of a new Google encryption tool. The company released a user-friendly, email encryption method to replace the clunky and often mistake-prone encryption schemes the N.S.A. has readily exploited.
But the best part of the tool was buried in Google’s code, which included a jab at the N.S.A.'s smiley-face slide. The code included the phrase: “ssl-added-and-removed-here-; - )”

Steve Lohr contributed reporting from New York and Mark Scott from London.

Friday, June 6, 2014

7 Things Happy People Choose to Do Every Single Day - TIME

http://time.com/2837221/happy-people/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

6:41 AM ET
    

Science shows that you can have an impact on only 12 percent of the things that determine whether you're happy. The happiest people among us understand that if you make the right choices, that small sliver is enough.



This post is in partnership with Inc., which offers useful advice, resources, and insights to entrepreneurs and business owners. The article below was originally published atInc.com.
What separates the world’s happiest people from the rest of us?
P
About one-third of the U.S. population describes itself as “very happy,” according to the polling agency Harris Interactive–a higher number than I think many of us might expect.
These are the people in your office who are upbeat and eager no matter what unexpected challenges come their way, and the ones who seem to get genuinely excited over the smallest opportunities and kindnesses. They’re the folks in your social circles who endure hardship with smiles on their faces and who seem hard-wired always to look on the bright side.
Studies show that half of happiness is determined by genetics, and a little under 40 percent is governed by the impact of external events. You own the 12 percent of the package that’s left, however, and it turns out that the choices you make within that sliver make all the difference between being happy or not. Happier people realize this, and as a result they make seven key choices every day.

1. They choose to exercise.

There are many happy people who aren’t in great physical shape, so how does this make sense? The explanation is that you need onlyseven minutes of exercise a day if you’re exercising for the sake of happiness. That’s enough to make your body release endorphins, the neurotransmitters responsible for that famous “runner’s high.” They might not even call it exercise, but happy people find at least a small period of time each day to devote to moving around.

2. They choose to spend time outside.

Just 20 minutes a day outside is enough to elevate your level of happiness. You can even combine this with choice No. 1 and take your short exercise break outside. A simple walk at lunch or even a little time in the backyard, on the patio, or at a nearby park makes the difference. They might not even realize its impact on their happiness, but happy people make it a point to get outdoors.

3. They choose to focus on their families.

Three-quarters of Americans surveyed by the Pew Research Center in 2010 said that their family was “the most important, most satisfying element of their lives,” according to U.S. News report on the study. So, bury the hatchet with your brother-in-law and focus on your parents, children, or siblings if you want to be happier. Happy people might not always want to, but they find at least a few minutes every day (often much more) to do things to improve their family relationships.

4. They choose to make time for friends.

Friends are the family we choose for ourselves, and at least some small amount of social time with them every day is necessary if you want to improve happiness. Even just checking in with friends for a few minutes on the phone or a 10-minute conversation or activity together can make a difference. If you’re truly among the busiest people among us, merge this with choices No. 1 and 2, and exercise outside together. Happy people might not always have as much time as they’d like, but they find a way to interact with friends.

5. They choose to find meaning in their work.

It’s uniquely American in that work satisfaction can make or break our happiness, but as an entrepreneur, you probably think about this choice all the time: Part of happiness comes from using your gifts and talents every day to make some kind of difference. Happy people might not have found their dream job or their true calling–heck, they might not love their work–but they find a way to put their daily tasks in perspective and to take pride and joy from what they do.

6. They choose to contribute to their communities.

Being part of a community gives you a sense of belonging and helps improve your sense of self-worth, even as you work to define who you truly are. Thus, every day, truly happy people find a way to share something with their broader communities–going beyond their families and groups of close friends. Happy people might be involved with professional associations, church groups, athletic organizations, or something else, but they make sure to find some way to share with them every day.

7. They choose to get enough sleep.


It’s true: Lack of sleep will ruin your life. If you don’t get enough shuteye, you’ll be more likely to be irritable, your judgment gets impaired, and your libido suffers, all of which affect your overall happiness. Happy people might be no less busy than the rest of us, but they squeeze something else out of their lives if necessary. They give up television watching, Internet surfing, or simply worrying about things they can’t affect–and they choose to get at least seven or eight hours of sleep every day.