Roush Technologies Limited, the European engineering business which was acquired from Roush Enterprises by an investor group in December 2007, has announced a new organisational structure. The move, which creates five clearly defined profit centre business units, reflects the new company’s future direction and growth ambition.
Two of the new business units - Product Development and Prototype Technologies – will host Roush’s rapidly expanding and more general, non-automotive engineering activities. The company has been proactively and progressively broadening its engineering base – with recent projects in sectors such as renewable energy, rail infrastructure and military protection.
Andrew Williams, who led the investor buyout, is Executive Chairman of the new company, supported by Managing Director, John Mitchell and Finance Director, Gary Robertson.
Five internal appointments have been made to create a strong management team to lead the new business units.
Paul Turner becomes Technical Director of Product Development – a unit which now carries a broader engineering remit – but also incorporates all the company’s established powertrain engineering, engine design and technology based development activities, such as hybrid drive and alternative fuels.
Dave Wood becomes Manager of Prototype Technologies – a unit which has a growing track record in the areas of design, evolution and build of innovative engineering concepts - as well as the creation of show cars, advanced system integration and covert vehicle engineering.
Dave Jones is appointed as General Manager of the company’s Automotive Group – which includes all vehicle build, garage services – and OE and aftermarket technical support for products such as the Ford GT and Mustang,
Alec Pell-Johnson becomes Head of Consultancy Services – which provides search, recruitment and human resources support – as well as interim and project outplacement of engineers and contractors.
David Mountain – whose Mountune race engine and performance parts business was acquired by Roush in 2004 – becomes Technical Director, Motorsports - a newly created umbrella unit under which the company will expand its activities in the sector - including further development of the Mountune brand.
Chairman, Andrew Williams says, “This reorganisation clearly aligns and communicates the core competencies and ambitions of the business in a defined and market facing way. It is an initial stage in our plans to take the business forward – and some of the programmes and developments which we will announce shortly will be further confirmation of the strength and ambition which exists in the new company. We have some top people, a sound engineering base and a proven track record from which to grow”.
http://www.paddocktalk.com/
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Powerful Concept Testing Tool Sets Major Milestone
San Francisco, CA – A powerful and proven concept testing tool has reached an important landmark. The Ipsos Vantis Database is one of the most reliable resources available to marketers for testing new product propositions and assessing their market readiness. Just recently the Vantis Database team tested its 10,000th concept, a significant milestone for the forecasting application.
The Database provides a
multi-dimensional evaluation of new ideas and innovations, allowing users to test their new product ideas within a ‘real world’ context, set benchmarks for future performance, and understand the how and why of their performance before going to market. It offers concept testing solutions for manufacturers and marketers of products outside of consumer packaged goods, including consumer electronics, automotive, durable products, health, finance, technology, and communications.
The Ipsos Vantis Database acts as a compass for new product ideas, measuring and tracking the success of thousands of products. The Ipsos Vantis team provides in-depth analysis and interpretation, translating the research results into potential real world performance measures like sales and revenue. The Database is global, including 41 countries.
“The Database of Vantis Key Forecasting Measures is one of Ipsos’ most significant points of differentiation,” says Tim Carter, Manager with Ipsos Vantis. “Every client conducts concept testing but, outside of consumer packaged goods, few have the ability to benchmark or evaluate the scores from their concept tests. By comparing a client concept test scores with scores for similar competitive concepts, the Ipsos Vantis Database offers reliable measures for the strength of their idea.”
A Double Landmark
The 10,000th concept test also happens to be occurring at another milestone in the company’s history. 2008 marks the 20th anniversary of the establishment of Vantis as an organization. Since 1988, Vantis has worked with many of the world’s leading brands and marketers to bring real world solutions to their innovation needs. In 2002, Vantis became part of the Ipsos Group, a global leader in survey-based research.
“The growth of the Database has been phenomenal. We started last year at the 8000 mark and tested an additional 2000 in 2007 alone. By 2010, we expect to double the entire Database to 20,000 tested concepts,” adds Carter. “The fact that it is happening at the same time of our 20th anniversary as a team adds to the excitement of the occasion.”
http://www.pr-inside.com/
The Database provides a
multi-dimensional evaluation of new ideas and innovations, allowing users to test their new product ideas within a ‘real world’ context, set benchmarks for future performance, and understand the how and why of their performance before going to market. It offers concept testing solutions for manufacturers and marketers of products outside of consumer packaged goods, including consumer electronics, automotive, durable products, health, finance, technology, and communications.
The Ipsos Vantis Database acts as a compass for new product ideas, measuring and tracking the success of thousands of products. The Ipsos Vantis team provides in-depth analysis and interpretation, translating the research results into potential real world performance measures like sales and revenue. The Database is global, including 41 countries.
“The Database of Vantis Key Forecasting Measures is one of Ipsos’ most significant points of differentiation,” says Tim Carter, Manager with Ipsos Vantis. “Every client conducts concept testing but, outside of consumer packaged goods, few have the ability to benchmark or evaluate the scores from their concept tests. By comparing a client concept test scores with scores for similar competitive concepts, the Ipsos Vantis Database offers reliable measures for the strength of their idea.”
A Double Landmark
The 10,000th concept test also happens to be occurring at another milestone in the company’s history. 2008 marks the 20th anniversary of the establishment of Vantis as an organization. Since 1988, Vantis has worked with many of the world’s leading brands and marketers to bring real world solutions to their innovation needs. In 2002, Vantis became part of the Ipsos Group, a global leader in survey-based research.
“The growth of the Database has been phenomenal. We started last year at the 8000 mark and tested an additional 2000 in 2007 alone. By 2010, we expect to double the entire Database to 20,000 tested concepts,” adds Carter. “The fact that it is happening at the same time of our 20th anniversary as a team adds to the excitement of the occasion.”
http://www.pr-inside.com/
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Education, technology, and the 2008 campaign
University of Maryland students cheer for Barack Obama at a recent campaign rally.
The Feb. 12 primaries in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia further advanced the notion that the 2008 presidential campaign now boils down to three legitimate candidates.
With sweeps of all three of the so-called Potomac primaries, Arizona Sen. John McCain solidified his hold on the Republican nomination. And though Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois also swept all three contests, winning by wide margins over his rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, the two remain in a virtual dead heat in the race for delegates as the primary season rolls on.
As the campaign picture continues to become clearer, it’s time to take a closer look at the positions of all three candidates on issues relating to education and technology.
All three candidates believe the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) needs reform—but Clinton and Obama would go much farther than McCain in proposing changes to the law.
Both Clinton and Obama call for more funding to make NCLB work, but Clinton also addresses what she considers a fundamental problem with the law’s structure: She believes school accountability should be based on the year-to-year performance of students, rather than on how schools with disparate local funds stack up against each other.
Instead of asking low-income schools to catch up to wealthier institutions, she says, the program should deliver rewards and sanctions based on individual school improvement.
Obama would use federal resources to help states write new assessments that accurately measure students’ knowledge, including 21st-century skills such as critical thinking. He also favors making science education a higher priority in schools, and he wants to implement a comprehensive tracking and feedback system to measure the performance of both students and teachers from year to year.
McCain, meanwhile, wants to add greater flexibility under NCLB for children with disabilities and those with limited English proficiency. But he stops short of advocating wholesale changes to the law and its accountability measures.
Of the three candidates, Obama has been the most vocal about the need for schools to change to meet the needs of 21st-century learners. One big project that Obama wants to undertake is the creation of twenty “innovation school districts” throughout the country.
Obama’s Innovation Districts (IDs) plan would let districts apply for grants to implement education reforms, and twenty districts across the country would receive the grants. The IDs bill would appropriate $1.5 billion yearly for these districts, or about $75 million per district. These districts then would be viewed as models for educational innovation in other districts.
IDs would focus on teacher recruitment, training, and retention, offering pay increases to high-performing teachers and financial incentives to teachers willing to work in low-income schools. They also would be free to offer bonuses for subject-matter experts to teach math, science, and other high-need subject areas. IDs would be required to partner with local universities, charitable foundations, or community institutions to develop and execute their reform plans and would be divided evenly between urban and rural areas.
Obama said his plan would support and try to replicate successful initiatives already occurring on a local level, and these IDs would be led by school boards, principals, and teachers who are ready to forget business-as-usual and try a new path forward. These IDs would receive substantial new resources, but in return, they would be required to try systemic new reforms and would be held responsible for the results.
“Today, a child in Chicago is not only competing for jobs with one in Boston, but thousands more in Bangalore and Beijing who are being educated longer and better than ever before,” said Obama during a speech at an education forum in Chicago. “…We know that good schools will require both the structural reform and the resources necessary to prepare our kids for the future.”
This IDs plan is based on the Innovation District bill that Obama introduced in the Senate in both 2006 and 2007, which remains in committee.
Though Obama has favored charter schools, which he feels support change and progress, both he and Clinton strongly oppose private-school vouchers, believing they take away needed resources from public schools. McCain, however, has supported vouchers and school-choice initiatives, believing that public support for a child’s education should follow that child into the school the parent chooses.
All three candidates seem to realize the importance of rewarding teachers for their hard work. Obama supports paying teachers more for extra work and for those who raise student achievement, McCain has proposed $1 billion in tax breaks for teachers rated excellent by their states, and Clinton wants to attract and support outstanding teachers by offering better pay.
Recognizing that a child’s chances for success in school depend largely on the start he or she gets at home, both Clinton and Obama are pushing heavily for early childhood education, and both are promoting programs to help parents teach and guide their children. McCain hasn’t addressed early childhood education in his campaign.
Clinton wants to create a $10 billion Early Head Start program to expand pre-kindergarten education nationwide, with the goal of giving every four-year-old an opportunity to attend preschool. She also aims to give new parents support and training to promote healthy development of their children.
“I see an America where children are prepared before they go to school,” Clinton said on Feb. 12, speaking in El Paso, Texas.
Obama, meanwhile, has proposed a “Zero to Five” plan, which would provide support to young children and their parents. According to Obama, what makes his plan unique is the emphasis it places on early care and education for infants.
Technology-related issues
All three candidates say they support the need for fast and ubiquitous broadband access across the country.
Clinton wants tax incentives, under a “Connect America” plan, to encourage broadband providers to deploy services in underserved areas. She also has called for federal support of state and local broadband programs, including municipal broadband projects.
Obama takes a position similar to Clinton's, saying he would seek to create new programs that would help roll out broadband service to more of the United States.
McCain has been less specific about how he would address the issue. But in 2005, McCain authorized legislation that would prohibit states from outlawing municipal broadband projects. At the time, he said he was concerned that the U.S. had fallen behind more than a dozen other countries on broadband adoption.
As for “net neutrality,” the idea that internet service providers should treat all traffic equally for all users, McCain has been noncommittal—but he has supported efforts to make an internet tax moratorium permanent, recently calling the internet “likely the most popular invention since the light bulb.”
Both Obama and Clinton have supported the concept of net neutrality. In a November technology policy paper, Obama stated: “Users must be free to access content, to use applications, and to attach personal devices,” while Clinton has cosponsored Senate legislation to “require all broadband providers to treat all internet traffic equally.”
Both Democrats also have pledged support for more innovative research. Obama has pledged to make the research-and-development tax credit permanent, and he has called for patent reform—primarily by giving the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office more resources to improve the quality of patents.
Clinton has an even more detailed plan. She champions an “innovation agenda” as one of her top issues, and she wants to increase the basic research budgets at the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and the Department of Defense by 50 percent over the next ten years.
Clinton also would require that federal research agencies set aside at least 18 percent of their research budgets for discretionary funding of high-risk research, and she would increase funding for research on internet and IT-based tools, including supercomputing and simulation software.
In addition, Clinton wants to study the impact of electronic media on children’s cognitive, social, and physical development.
Clinton wants to commission this study to help protect children against violence and sexual content in the media—especially the internet and video games. In 2005, she tried to pass the Family Entertainment Protection Act, which aimed to impose fines on those who would sell games rated “Mature” or “Adult Only” to minors, as well as ensure that consumers have a mechanism to file complaints with the FTC, but the bill never became law.
In a speech Clinton gave in March 2005, she said: “Media in kids’ lives is a moving target, and we need better, more current research to study the new interactive, digital, and wireless media dominating our kids’ lives. While we know a great deal about traditional media platforms and kids, we know very little about multi-user domains, P2P, and wireless technologies. … The media is the message; the process has an impact.”
Clinton would use the results of the study’s findings—which, she believes, based on findings of a previous Kaiser Family Foundation study, would show how media violence contributes to anxiety, desensitization, and increased aggression among children—to create one uniform ratings system that would be shown throughout every program or at least after every commercial break, so that parents can jump into a program at any point and learn what’s in it and whether it’s appropriate for their children to watch.
Clinton also hopes this research will prompt the television industry to air more public service announcements about the effect of TV on children and the need for parents to help their children use media in the best way possible. She hopes food advertisers will be more responsible about the effect they are having on future generations and the effect they are going to be having on increasing health care costs.
Finally, Clinton hopes such research will help reveal what works best to help parents monitor what their children access on the web.
Obama’s response to the effects of the media and technology on children could be described as more hands-off. In an interview with Common Sense Media, Obama said he would prefer the industry to take more personal responsibility before any government action is taken.
“I would call upon the video game industry to give parents better information about programs and games by improving the voluntary rating system we currently have. Broadcasters and video game producers should take it upon themselves to improve the system … but if the industry fails to act, then my administration would,” he said.
Obama agreed in part with Clinton’s research initiative, saying, “We need to understand the impact of these new media better. That’s why I supported federal funding to study the impact of video games on children’s cognitive ability.”
http://www.eschoolnews.com/
The Feb. 12 primaries in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia further advanced the notion that the 2008 presidential campaign now boils down to three legitimate candidates.
With sweeps of all three of the so-called Potomac primaries, Arizona Sen. John McCain solidified his hold on the Republican nomination. And though Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois also swept all three contests, winning by wide margins over his rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, the two remain in a virtual dead heat in the race for delegates as the primary season rolls on.
As the campaign picture continues to become clearer, it’s time to take a closer look at the positions of all three candidates on issues relating to education and technology.
All three candidates believe the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) needs reform—but Clinton and Obama would go much farther than McCain in proposing changes to the law.
Both Clinton and Obama call for more funding to make NCLB work, but Clinton also addresses what she considers a fundamental problem with the law’s structure: She believes school accountability should be based on the year-to-year performance of students, rather than on how schools with disparate local funds stack up against each other.
Instead of asking low-income schools to catch up to wealthier institutions, she says, the program should deliver rewards and sanctions based on individual school improvement.
Obama would use federal resources to help states write new assessments that accurately measure students’ knowledge, including 21st-century skills such as critical thinking. He also favors making science education a higher priority in schools, and he wants to implement a comprehensive tracking and feedback system to measure the performance of both students and teachers from year to year.
McCain, meanwhile, wants to add greater flexibility under NCLB for children with disabilities and those with limited English proficiency. But he stops short of advocating wholesale changes to the law and its accountability measures.
Of the three candidates, Obama has been the most vocal about the need for schools to change to meet the needs of 21st-century learners. One big project that Obama wants to undertake is the creation of twenty “innovation school districts” throughout the country.
Obama’s Innovation Districts (IDs) plan would let districts apply for grants to implement education reforms, and twenty districts across the country would receive the grants. The IDs bill would appropriate $1.5 billion yearly for these districts, or about $75 million per district. These districts then would be viewed as models for educational innovation in other districts.
IDs would focus on teacher recruitment, training, and retention, offering pay increases to high-performing teachers and financial incentives to teachers willing to work in low-income schools. They also would be free to offer bonuses for subject-matter experts to teach math, science, and other high-need subject areas. IDs would be required to partner with local universities, charitable foundations, or community institutions to develop and execute their reform plans and would be divided evenly between urban and rural areas.
Obama said his plan would support and try to replicate successful initiatives already occurring on a local level, and these IDs would be led by school boards, principals, and teachers who are ready to forget business-as-usual and try a new path forward. These IDs would receive substantial new resources, but in return, they would be required to try systemic new reforms and would be held responsible for the results.
“Today, a child in Chicago is not only competing for jobs with one in Boston, but thousands more in Bangalore and Beijing who are being educated longer and better than ever before,” said Obama during a speech at an education forum in Chicago. “…We know that good schools will require both the structural reform and the resources necessary to prepare our kids for the future.”
This IDs plan is based on the Innovation District bill that Obama introduced in the Senate in both 2006 and 2007, which remains in committee.
Though Obama has favored charter schools, which he feels support change and progress, both he and Clinton strongly oppose private-school vouchers, believing they take away needed resources from public schools. McCain, however, has supported vouchers and school-choice initiatives, believing that public support for a child’s education should follow that child into the school the parent chooses.
All three candidates seem to realize the importance of rewarding teachers for their hard work. Obama supports paying teachers more for extra work and for those who raise student achievement, McCain has proposed $1 billion in tax breaks for teachers rated excellent by their states, and Clinton wants to attract and support outstanding teachers by offering better pay.
Recognizing that a child’s chances for success in school depend largely on the start he or she gets at home, both Clinton and Obama are pushing heavily for early childhood education, and both are promoting programs to help parents teach and guide their children. McCain hasn’t addressed early childhood education in his campaign.
Clinton wants to create a $10 billion Early Head Start program to expand pre-kindergarten education nationwide, with the goal of giving every four-year-old an opportunity to attend preschool. She also aims to give new parents support and training to promote healthy development of their children.
“I see an America where children are prepared before they go to school,” Clinton said on Feb. 12, speaking in El Paso, Texas.
Obama, meanwhile, has proposed a “Zero to Five” plan, which would provide support to young children and their parents. According to Obama, what makes his plan unique is the emphasis it places on early care and education for infants.
Technology-related issues
All three candidates say they support the need for fast and ubiquitous broadband access across the country.
Clinton wants tax incentives, under a “Connect America” plan, to encourage broadband providers to deploy services in underserved areas. She also has called for federal support of state and local broadband programs, including municipal broadband projects.
Obama takes a position similar to Clinton's, saying he would seek to create new programs that would help roll out broadband service to more of the United States.
McCain has been less specific about how he would address the issue. But in 2005, McCain authorized legislation that would prohibit states from outlawing municipal broadband projects. At the time, he said he was concerned that the U.S. had fallen behind more than a dozen other countries on broadband adoption.
As for “net neutrality,” the idea that internet service providers should treat all traffic equally for all users, McCain has been noncommittal—but he has supported efforts to make an internet tax moratorium permanent, recently calling the internet “likely the most popular invention since the light bulb.”
Both Obama and Clinton have supported the concept of net neutrality. In a November technology policy paper, Obama stated: “Users must be free to access content, to use applications, and to attach personal devices,” while Clinton has cosponsored Senate legislation to “require all broadband providers to treat all internet traffic equally.”
Both Democrats also have pledged support for more innovative research. Obama has pledged to make the research-and-development tax credit permanent, and he has called for patent reform—primarily by giving the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office more resources to improve the quality of patents.
Clinton has an even more detailed plan. She champions an “innovation agenda” as one of her top issues, and she wants to increase the basic research budgets at the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and the Department of Defense by 50 percent over the next ten years.
Clinton also would require that federal research agencies set aside at least 18 percent of their research budgets for discretionary funding of high-risk research, and she would increase funding for research on internet and IT-based tools, including supercomputing and simulation software.
In addition, Clinton wants to study the impact of electronic media on children’s cognitive, social, and physical development.
Clinton wants to commission this study to help protect children against violence and sexual content in the media—especially the internet and video games. In 2005, she tried to pass the Family Entertainment Protection Act, which aimed to impose fines on those who would sell games rated “Mature” or “Adult Only” to minors, as well as ensure that consumers have a mechanism to file complaints with the FTC, but the bill never became law.
In a speech Clinton gave in March 2005, she said: “Media in kids’ lives is a moving target, and we need better, more current research to study the new interactive, digital, and wireless media dominating our kids’ lives. While we know a great deal about traditional media platforms and kids, we know very little about multi-user domains, P2P, and wireless technologies. … The media is the message; the process has an impact.”
Clinton would use the results of the study’s findings—which, she believes, based on findings of a previous Kaiser Family Foundation study, would show how media violence contributes to anxiety, desensitization, and increased aggression among children—to create one uniform ratings system that would be shown throughout every program or at least after every commercial break, so that parents can jump into a program at any point and learn what’s in it and whether it’s appropriate for their children to watch.
Clinton also hopes this research will prompt the television industry to air more public service announcements about the effect of TV on children and the need for parents to help their children use media in the best way possible. She hopes food advertisers will be more responsible about the effect they are having on future generations and the effect they are going to be having on increasing health care costs.
Finally, Clinton hopes such research will help reveal what works best to help parents monitor what their children access on the web.
Obama’s response to the effects of the media and technology on children could be described as more hands-off. In an interview with Common Sense Media, Obama said he would prefer the industry to take more personal responsibility before any government action is taken.
“I would call upon the video game industry to give parents better information about programs and games by improving the voluntary rating system we currently have. Broadcasters and video game producers should take it upon themselves to improve the system … but if the industry fails to act, then my administration would,” he said.
Obama agreed in part with Clinton’s research initiative, saying, “We need to understand the impact of these new media better. That’s why I supported federal funding to study the impact of video games on children’s cognitive ability.”
http://www.eschoolnews.com/
The future belongs to crowds
Martha Stewart and Oprah Winfrey are my favorite entertainers when it comes to picking up a few new lifestyle tips.
I learned from Martha’s show and Oprah’s magazine that on the Internet you can rent a handbag. There are two Web sites operating in the US -- BagBorrowOrSteal.com and FromBagsToRiches.com -- plus at least three in Britain, one in Germany, one in Australia and one in Canada.
Isn’t that great? I didn’t know this! Sure, I knew that you can rent a car or a DVD, but a handbag? That’s news. Rent-a-bag is a new concept that seems to be filling a real need -- and a growing number of women are embracing it.
The idea would probably work in Turkey. Turkish women love to have fabulous handbags. We all know you can spend a lot of money on a handbag and two or three months later you see another one that you like better and “must have.” Some even like to tote designer brands. In that case rent a bag might be just the thing for you.
Another accessory that women like to wear is scarves. I have over 50 scarves. Sometimes I like to wear one to add a little color or accent to my outfit. I even have a couple of headscarves that have come in handy over the years. Sometimes I wear one when I have to attend a funeral here. Back in the late 1970s when I first came to Turkey, I lived in Ankara. If I had to go down to the center for errands or shopping, I would wear a headscarf and raincoat so I would not attract attention to myself. My motives in covering my head were as a sign of respect or were for protection.
Probably an Internet site for scarves and headscarves would thrive here.
For TZ readers who live abroad or have not lived in Turkey very long, let me put things into historical context for you:
The university headscarf ban dates back to the 1980s, but was significantly tightened in 1997 when army generals, with public support, ousted a government they deemed too Islamist.
Soner Çağatay, a Turkish researcher at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, in an interview on NPR news explains that the Turkish idea of secularism has kept covered women from universities. Çağatay continues by saying that the notion of secularism was established in the 1920s by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, who was deeply influenced by French writers and scientists.
Just this past week a ban on female students wearing Muslim headscarves in Turkey’s universities was lifted. Critics said the law denied women an education and was against religious freedom.
Secularist supporters waving Turkish flags have begun to protest in public.
There has been an ongoing passionate and fierce debate on the issue of headscarves.
I believe it was Tolstoy who wrote, “Happiness does not depend on outward things, but on the way we see them.” I think most would agree that this takes a special maturity.
In my home country a person can wear a cross in public and others don’t care; and Arabs can wear their traditional dress in the university classroom and nobody blinks an eye. But maybe people do not feel threatened because my country’s government is over two hundred years old.
The 20th president of the US, James A. Garfield, was dealing with some similar issues in the 1880s and he said, “Next in importance to freedom and justice is popular education, without which neither freedom nor justice can be permanently maintained.” Garfield had a point.
Here is a thought to consider: Maybe every person should be free to do what he or she wants to do as long as it does not hinder everybody else’s freedom.
Where does the future lie in Turkey?
By the way, don’t forget! If you are having trouble storing all your handbags and hate the clutter in your closet or are bored with your bag collections, maybe a site in Turkey to rent bags and other accessories will open soon.
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/yazarDetay.do?haberno=133865
I learned from Martha’s show and Oprah’s magazine that on the Internet you can rent a handbag. There are two Web sites operating in the US -- BagBorrowOrSteal.com and FromBagsToRiches.com -- plus at least three in Britain, one in Germany, one in Australia and one in Canada.
Isn’t that great? I didn’t know this! Sure, I knew that you can rent a car or a DVD, but a handbag? That’s news. Rent-a-bag is a new concept that seems to be filling a real need -- and a growing number of women are embracing it.
The idea would probably work in Turkey. Turkish women love to have fabulous handbags. We all know you can spend a lot of money on a handbag and two or three months later you see another one that you like better and “must have.” Some even like to tote designer brands. In that case rent a bag might be just the thing for you.
Another accessory that women like to wear is scarves. I have over 50 scarves. Sometimes I like to wear one to add a little color or accent to my outfit. I even have a couple of headscarves that have come in handy over the years. Sometimes I wear one when I have to attend a funeral here. Back in the late 1970s when I first came to Turkey, I lived in Ankara. If I had to go down to the center for errands or shopping, I would wear a headscarf and raincoat so I would not attract attention to myself. My motives in covering my head were as a sign of respect or were for protection.
Probably an Internet site for scarves and headscarves would thrive here.
For TZ readers who live abroad or have not lived in Turkey very long, let me put things into historical context for you:
The university headscarf ban dates back to the 1980s, but was significantly tightened in 1997 when army generals, with public support, ousted a government they deemed too Islamist.
Soner Çağatay, a Turkish researcher at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, in an interview on NPR news explains that the Turkish idea of secularism has kept covered women from universities. Çağatay continues by saying that the notion of secularism was established in the 1920s by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, who was deeply influenced by French writers and scientists.
Just this past week a ban on female students wearing Muslim headscarves in Turkey’s universities was lifted. Critics said the law denied women an education and was against religious freedom.
Secularist supporters waving Turkish flags have begun to protest in public.
There has been an ongoing passionate and fierce debate on the issue of headscarves.
I believe it was Tolstoy who wrote, “Happiness does not depend on outward things, but on the way we see them.” I think most would agree that this takes a special maturity.
In my home country a person can wear a cross in public and others don’t care; and Arabs can wear their traditional dress in the university classroom and nobody blinks an eye. But maybe people do not feel threatened because my country’s government is over two hundred years old.
The 20th president of the US, James A. Garfield, was dealing with some similar issues in the 1880s and he said, “Next in importance to freedom and justice is popular education, without which neither freedom nor justice can be permanently maintained.” Garfield had a point.
Here is a thought to consider: Maybe every person should be free to do what he or she wants to do as long as it does not hinder everybody else’s freedom.
Where does the future lie in Turkey?
By the way, don’t forget! If you are having trouble storing all your handbags and hate the clutter in your closet or are bored with your bag collections, maybe a site in Turkey to rent bags and other accessories will open soon.
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/yazarDetay.do?haberno=133865
Saturday, December 29, 2007
The Future of Nanomaterials
The DC-based research and consulting firm Social Technologies recently released a series of 12 briefs that shed light on the top areas for technology innovation through 2025. The brief on “nanomaterials,” by futurist Peter von Stackelberg, is the fourth trend in the series.
“In the next 10 to 20 years, we’ll see major breakthroughs in nanomaterials and related processes used to produce many of our consumer and industrial products,” von Stackelberg forecasts. Here’s why.
TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
Small is the key word that describes the world of nanotechnology. The concept centers on miniaturization, and involves the creation of particles, fibers, films, coatings, and other materials that are significantly smaller than the typical bacterium—between one and 100 nanometers in size.
Because these particles are so tiny, nano-objects can access previously impenetrable areas. That means they can make consumer products lighter, stronger, and more efficient—creating a significant competitive advantage for the companies incorporating them into their goods. In an era when consumers are demanding products that are more effective, protective, and assistive, nanomaterials provide the perfect fit.
Industries and consumers are also demanding more efficient use of resources and fewer waste streams. Again, nanomaterials fit the bill. Additionally, rising energy costs and the insecurity of petroleum supplies are driving research into nanomaterials that can boost production from alternative sources, or cut demand via greater energy efficiency.
CHALLENGES AHEAD
As nanotech emerges as a major technological force over the coming decades, it will face a variety of obstacles. These include:
Mastering nanoscale behavior. To date, the potential interactions of nanoscale matter are not understood, von Stackelberg explains. “As research progresses, we may find that nanomaterials do not act as expected, leading to unanticipated and potentially harmful consequences. Once understanding improves about how matter behaves at the nanoscale, researchers will be able to develop increasingly sophisticated applications of nanotech while avoiding human side effects.”
Public fears. The perception of the benefits vs. hazards of nanotech will have a significant impact on consumer acceptance of the technology. “A survey conducted in 2006 showed that although 42% of those polled had no awareness of nanotech, 20% had heard a little about it and 11% were quite familiar with it,” von Stackelberg says—noting that the majority of those in the know believed that the risks of nanotech outweigh the benefits (35%). Only 15% said they believe the benefits outweigh the risks, and 7% said the benefits and risks are about equal.
Nanotech risks. “Obviously, a rational assessment of the true risks of nanotechnology are needed to ensure that wildcards like ‘grey goo’ don’t dominate the discussions of risk while other, more realistic risks are ignored,” he points out. The potential for severe risk have been identified by the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, and include:
Health and environmental risks. A growing body of scientific evidence reports that nanomaterials have the potential to pollute air, soil, and water and to damage human health. Some of the most interesting properties of nanomaterials—such as the ability of nanoparticles to penetrate human cells—also present health risks if these particles escape into the environment, where they can be absorbed into people’s bodies. “Our understanding of the potential health and environmental implications of nanotech are extremely limited,” adds von Stackelberg.
Proliferation of “nanolitter.” As more sophisticated nanomaterials become widely used, nano-byproducts will need to be dealt with. For instance, it isn’t currently known whether nanoparticles used to treat cancer can remain in a patient’s body or be excreted. “The reality is that nanomaterials which are useful and benign in one setting can actually be harmful in another,” von Stackelberg explains.
Criminal or terrorist use. Small, powerful weapons made from nanomaterials would be difficult for society to defend against.
FORECASTS
Although the underlying concepts of nanotechnology were thought up in 1959, only during the 1990s were the first tentative steps taken toward identifying and developing nanomaterials. “Between the end of the first decade of the 21st century and 2025, a number of gamechangers will need to occur if nanotech is to advance significantly,” von Stackelberg says. These gamechangers include:
A shift from “passive” to “active” nanotech. In the coming decades, nanotech will likely make the transition from simple nanomachines—particles, crystals, rods, tubes, and sheets of atoms—to more complex ones that contain valves, switches, pumps, and motors.
Nanoscale tools. To work at the nanoscale, new tools will be needed to allow researchers and technicians to see, measure, and manipulate individual atoms and molecules. “One promising approach uses dynamic light scattering, a technique that measures how much nanoparticles jiggle when hit with laser light,” von Stackelberg shares. “Many scientists agree that this method has the potential to do rapid, accurate measurement, and is expected to be operational by 2010.”
Nanofabrication. Currently, manufacturing processes for nanomaterials are extremely expensive, produce only small amounts of material, and generate a significant amount of impurities and waste, von Stackelberg says. “But consider this: Assembly of nanodevices today is at the same stage as the automobile industry was before Henry Ford developed the assembly line.”
LEARN MORE
To determine the relevance of these findings and forecasts for major business sectors, set up an interview with Peter von Stackelberg by sending an email to Hope Gibbs, leader of corporate communications, at hope.gibbs@socialtechnologies.com.
Peter von Stackelberg ) Futurist
Peter von Stackelberg, the leader of Social Technologies’ Futures Interactive program, brings more than a decade of experience as a futurist, strategic thinker, and writer. He also serves as an adjunct instructor in strategic management of technology and innovation at the State University of New York–Alfred, and as an advisor to the computer animation program at Alfred State. Peter has previously worked as a journalist, business analyst, university webmaster, e-commerce project manager, published poet, and computer artist. He is former editor-in-chief of Shaping Tomorrow and the founder of Applied Futures and FuturesWatch.org. He received a BA in journalism from Ryerson Polytechnical University in Toronto, Canada, and an MS in studies of the future from the University of Houston–Clear Lake, and has taken graduate courses in creative writing, computer art, and art history in pursuit of an MA in Humanities. Areas of expertise: Biotechnology, energy (green, renewable, oil), nanotechnology, future of technology, scenario planning.
http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail&ID=19388
“In the next 10 to 20 years, we’ll see major breakthroughs in nanomaterials and related processes used to produce many of our consumer and industrial products,” von Stackelberg forecasts. Here’s why.
TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
Small is the key word that describes the world of nanotechnology. The concept centers on miniaturization, and involves the creation of particles, fibers, films, coatings, and other materials that are significantly smaller than the typical bacterium—between one and 100 nanometers in size.
Because these particles are so tiny, nano-objects can access previously impenetrable areas. That means they can make consumer products lighter, stronger, and more efficient—creating a significant competitive advantage for the companies incorporating them into their goods. In an era when consumers are demanding products that are more effective, protective, and assistive, nanomaterials provide the perfect fit.
Industries and consumers are also demanding more efficient use of resources and fewer waste streams. Again, nanomaterials fit the bill. Additionally, rising energy costs and the insecurity of petroleum supplies are driving research into nanomaterials that can boost production from alternative sources, or cut demand via greater energy efficiency.
CHALLENGES AHEAD
As nanotech emerges as a major technological force over the coming decades, it will face a variety of obstacles. These include:
Mastering nanoscale behavior. To date, the potential interactions of nanoscale matter are not understood, von Stackelberg explains. “As research progresses, we may find that nanomaterials do not act as expected, leading to unanticipated and potentially harmful consequences. Once understanding improves about how matter behaves at the nanoscale, researchers will be able to develop increasingly sophisticated applications of nanotech while avoiding human side effects.”
Public fears. The perception of the benefits vs. hazards of nanotech will have a significant impact on consumer acceptance of the technology. “A survey conducted in 2006 showed that although 42% of those polled had no awareness of nanotech, 20% had heard a little about it and 11% were quite familiar with it,” von Stackelberg says—noting that the majority of those in the know believed that the risks of nanotech outweigh the benefits (35%). Only 15% said they believe the benefits outweigh the risks, and 7% said the benefits and risks are about equal.
Nanotech risks. “Obviously, a rational assessment of the true risks of nanotechnology are needed to ensure that wildcards like ‘grey goo’ don’t dominate the discussions of risk while other, more realistic risks are ignored,” he points out. The potential for severe risk have been identified by the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, and include:
Health and environmental risks. A growing body of scientific evidence reports that nanomaterials have the potential to pollute air, soil, and water and to damage human health. Some of the most interesting properties of nanomaterials—such as the ability of nanoparticles to penetrate human cells—also present health risks if these particles escape into the environment, where they can be absorbed into people’s bodies. “Our understanding of the potential health and environmental implications of nanotech are extremely limited,” adds von Stackelberg.
Proliferation of “nanolitter.” As more sophisticated nanomaterials become widely used, nano-byproducts will need to be dealt with. For instance, it isn’t currently known whether nanoparticles used to treat cancer can remain in a patient’s body or be excreted. “The reality is that nanomaterials which are useful and benign in one setting can actually be harmful in another,” von Stackelberg explains.
Criminal or terrorist use. Small, powerful weapons made from nanomaterials would be difficult for society to defend against.
FORECASTS
Although the underlying concepts of nanotechnology were thought up in 1959, only during the 1990s were the first tentative steps taken toward identifying and developing nanomaterials. “Between the end of the first decade of the 21st century and 2025, a number of gamechangers will need to occur if nanotech is to advance significantly,” von Stackelberg says. These gamechangers include:
A shift from “passive” to “active” nanotech. In the coming decades, nanotech will likely make the transition from simple nanomachines—particles, crystals, rods, tubes, and sheets of atoms—to more complex ones that contain valves, switches, pumps, and motors.
Nanoscale tools. To work at the nanoscale, new tools will be needed to allow researchers and technicians to see, measure, and manipulate individual atoms and molecules. “One promising approach uses dynamic light scattering, a technique that measures how much nanoparticles jiggle when hit with laser light,” von Stackelberg shares. “Many scientists agree that this method has the potential to do rapid, accurate measurement, and is expected to be operational by 2010.”
Nanofabrication. Currently, manufacturing processes for nanomaterials are extremely expensive, produce only small amounts of material, and generate a significant amount of impurities and waste, von Stackelberg says. “But consider this: Assembly of nanodevices today is at the same stage as the automobile industry was before Henry Ford developed the assembly line.”
LEARN MORE
To determine the relevance of these findings and forecasts for major business sectors, set up an interview with Peter von Stackelberg by sending an email to Hope Gibbs, leader of corporate communications, at hope.gibbs@socialtechnologies.com.
Peter von Stackelberg ) Futurist
Peter von Stackelberg, the leader of Social Technologies’ Futures Interactive program, brings more than a decade of experience as a futurist, strategic thinker, and writer. He also serves as an adjunct instructor in strategic management of technology and innovation at the State University of New York–Alfred, and as an advisor to the computer animation program at Alfred State. Peter has previously worked as a journalist, business analyst, university webmaster, e-commerce project manager, published poet, and computer artist. He is former editor-in-chief of Shaping Tomorrow and the founder of Applied Futures and FuturesWatch.org. He received a BA in journalism from Ryerson Polytechnical University in Toronto, Canada, and an MS in studies of the future from the University of Houston–Clear Lake, and has taken graduate courses in creative writing, computer art, and art history in pursuit of an MA in Humanities. Areas of expertise: Biotechnology, energy (green, renewable, oil), nanotechnology, future of technology, scenario planning.
http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail&ID=19388
LEAKED:Mazda Furai Concept
"Zoom-Zoom" philosophy goes on race track with Mazda's new concept car. It is back to the future as Mazda wants to give a reminder of its overall win at the 24 Hours of Le Mans in 1991. Some official photos have leaked just two weeks before Detroit Motor Show 2008, where the Furai Concept is making first public appearance. The name Furai (pronounced foo-rye) means "sound of wind".
The Furai is not a typical non-functional concept as it is designed to really perform. The basis of the car is a 2005 Courage C65 chassis, which is an LMP2-class entry in the American Le Mans Series. The body resembles the style of the Nagare concept car. It's the fifth concept of the family – after Nagare, Ryuga, Hakaze and Taiki concepts, that clearly represent Mazda's exploration of a new design language for its future cars. So far the company has not confirmed if these design cues will finally take root in a production car.
The car is powered by a mid-mounted, three-rotor Mazda 20B rotary engine, that gives around 450 hp thanks to E100 ethanol fuel. Mazda's studio in Southern California led by North American design boss Franz Von Holzhausen is responsible for the design of the Furai, and further developed by the racecar specialists at Swift Engineering. As a result, the Furai is able to generate about 80 percent of the downforce of the original race-spec bodywork, which is phenomenal achievement given the fact that Furai has never seen a wind tunnel.
Mazda Furai actually made a couple of hot laps around Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca piloted by ALMS ace Jamie Bach. Swift and Mazda worked closely to come up with an innovative intake configuration. Unlike a traditional F1-style snorkel, the Furai takes breath through a shallow, leaflike cup known informally as an "air fang." As the air flows through, twin vortices on either side of the device are generated, which then dump fresh air directly down the intake without incurring the efficiency losses of a traditional snorkel. Will we ever see this in a production car?
http://news.trend.az/index.shtml?show=news&newsid=1102718&lang=EN
The Furai is not a typical non-functional concept as it is designed to really perform. The basis of the car is a 2005 Courage C65 chassis, which is an LMP2-class entry in the American Le Mans Series. The body resembles the style of the Nagare concept car. It's the fifth concept of the family – after Nagare, Ryuga, Hakaze and Taiki concepts, that clearly represent Mazda's exploration of a new design language for its future cars. So far the company has not confirmed if these design cues will finally take root in a production car.
The car is powered by a mid-mounted, three-rotor Mazda 20B rotary engine, that gives around 450 hp thanks to E100 ethanol fuel. Mazda's studio in Southern California led by North American design boss Franz Von Holzhausen is responsible for the design of the Furai, and further developed by the racecar specialists at Swift Engineering. As a result, the Furai is able to generate about 80 percent of the downforce of the original race-spec bodywork, which is phenomenal achievement given the fact that Furai has never seen a wind tunnel.
Mazda Furai actually made a couple of hot laps around Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca piloted by ALMS ace Jamie Bach. Swift and Mazda worked closely to come up with an innovative intake configuration. Unlike a traditional F1-style snorkel, the Furai takes breath through a shallow, leaflike cup known informally as an "air fang." As the air flows through, twin vortices on either side of the device are generated, which then dump fresh air directly down the intake without incurring the efficiency losses of a traditional snorkel. Will we ever see this in a production car?
http://news.trend.az/index.shtml?show=news&newsid=1102718&lang=EN
Friday, November 16, 2007
Solar Panels - The Power of the Future is Now Here
Solar panels are basically a panel that uses the sun's energy to produce electricity. Solar panels harvest sunlight and convert it to electricity that can power lights and appliances just the ones that you use in your house. Solar Cells, or photovoltaic cells, are arranged in a grid-like pattern on the surface of the solar panel. These solar voltaic cells collect sunlight during the daylight hours and covert it into electricity. Solar panels in the past have been mostly with silicon, which is used in computers as well. More recently solar panels have used other materials and metals because the cost of silicon is starting to rise as competetion for this precious material is becoming fierce while supply is not increasing.
And still other solar panels are made with a different kind of silicon alloy in a rolling process. The solar cells created in this way can be more strong, produce more watts of electricity, and they are thinner which makes them weigh less. This can be very important for applications like solar cars. Finally, NASA and other goverment sponsored space programs use a very expensive solar panel made from gallium arsenide via a sophisticated and expensive procedure. Solar cells made this way produce alot of electricity for their size and weight, but they are much too expensive for anyone other than the government to buy.
Lately, a whole new type of solar panel is being made from plastic which are promising because they are much cheaper to produce. I'll be writing more on this as more is made available to the public about them. However, for now allow me to dream about the different ways this could be used. Suppose you want to power your laptop in a remote location, or use a GPS device while backpacking in the wilderness for an extended period of time. These plastic solar panels could power just about any appliance that you use in your home out in a remote location.
The amount of power solar panels produce is determined by the quality of the solar panel and the materials and technology used in making the solar panel. When buying solar panels, most people expect to pay about 4 or 5 dollars a watt. The price will slowly, but surely come down in price over time. More and more companies are starting to research and develop solar panels with exciting new discoveries and developments that are starting to shine light on the solar panel industry. If you pay attention to the stock market you will notice that there are many publically traded solar panel based companies now that you can invest in. To name a few there is Daystar DSTI, XSunX XSNX, WorldWater WWAT.
Currently, solar panels are very popular in remote locations and recreation vehicles, but this is changing. Solar Panels are now becoming popular in urban areas where clean energy advocates and law makers are creating incentives for this clean, safe, and quiet alnernative energy source. I can imagine a day where housetops will all be covered with mini powerplants in the form of solar panels. This will be a great and beautiful thing for a number of reasons. This will put power in the hands of the individual property owner. No longer will you be at the mercy of the power company to raise rates on you. Even if you don't choose to put solar panels on your house to zero your electricity bill, you will also benefit. Power companies will have to lower their rates due to the increased competetion from the home based mini solar panel powerplant. This will be good for national security and protect us from terrorists. If solar panels don't take off and replace nuclear power, our planet will become an easy target for terrorist who will then have thousands of nuclear power plants to target for their next attack. Also, we will be stuck with an untold amount of radioactive waste to dispose of. And, nobody wants this stuff stored in their backyard or even anywhere in their state. It reduces property value and creates anxiety over possible messy leaks and exposure.
There is much more to be written about this subject, so please visit my website for more information about solar panels: http://www.solarpanel.be
Noah Stephens is an expert on photovoltaic solar panels. Visit his website http://www.solarpanel.be
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)