Men Feel Threatened When Girlfriends Succeed

Men may subconsciously suffer a bruised ego when their wives or girlfriends excel, regardless of whether it's in the academic or social realm and regardless of whether the couple is in direct competition, a new study suggests.

Psychology researchers found that men had lower self-esteem when their romantic partner succeeded than when their partner failed. Women, meanwhile, were unruffled by the performance of their husbands or boyfriends, the study showed.

"It makes sense that a man might feel threatened if his girlfriend outperforms him in something they're doing together, such as trying to lose weight," lead study author Kate Ratliff, of the University of Florida, said in a statement. "But this research found evidence that men automatically interpret a partner's success as their own failure, even when they're not in direct competition."

Ratliff and her colleague Shigehiro Oishi, of the University of Virginia, conducted a series of five experiments to look at how self-esteem may be affected by the success or failure of a romantic partner in heterosexual Americans and Dutch couples.

In one study, they recruited 32 undergraduate couples from the University of Virginia. Each participant was given a "test" of social intelligence. The participants read five different scenarios describing a problem someone was having at work or home and had to choose between two different pieces of advice to deal with that conundrum. The students were told there was a correct answer (determined by counselors) and their score on the test would measure their "problem-solving and social intelligence."

The researchers didn't actually grade the tests and the participants were not given their own "scores," but they were told their partner scored either in the top or bottom 12 percent of all university students.

Hearing their partners' scores generally didn't shake the participants' explicit self-esteem, or how they said they felt about themselves in a questionnaire.

But the researchers also measured the participants' subconscious self-esteem, by giving them an Implicit Association Test, which gauges attitudes and feelings that people may not want to report through rapid word associations on a computer screen. Those with high self-esteem, for example, are more likely to associate the word "me" with words like "excellent" or "good" than words such as "bad" or "dreadful." 

Compared with men who believed their partner scored in the bottom 12 percent, men who were told their partner had ranked in the top 12 percent showed lower implicit self-esteem. There was not much difference in the implicit self-esteem of women who thought their partner scored high and women who believed their partner scored low, the experiment found.

The researchers said that similar experiments held true in the Netherlands, which has one of the narrowest gender gaps in labor, education and politics.

Why the disparity? The researchers write that one possibility is that men are typically more competitive than women and thus may be more likely to see a partner's success as their own failure. Gender stereotypes may compound this effect.

"There is an idea that women are allowed to bask in the reflected glory of her male partner and to be the 'woman behind the successful man,' but the reverse is not true for men," the researchers write.

The researchers also point to previous studies showing that women tend to look for ambition and success when selecting a mate.

"So thinking of themselves as unsuccessful might trigger men's fear that their partner will ultimately leave them," Ratliff and Oishi wrote. They noted one of their experiments showed that men who were told to think about a time their partner was successful (in either the intellectual or interpersonal domain) were less optimistic about the future of their relationship than men who thought about their partner's failure.

PORK AND PROTECTIONISM IN AMERICA

China’s farmers, and the land they tilled, were once seen as a sacred symbol of the nation’s ambitious plans for a self-sufficient economy. Over the past several years, though, industrial complexes and housing have encroached on the country’s farmland—even as middle-class people, the beneficiaries of industrial growth, demand more meat, milk, and other farm-grown food. In order to feed a population of nearly one and a half billion, Chinese companies began a global hunt for food—buying farmland in Africa, Latin America, and elsewhere, and snapping up companies that manufacture grain, sugar, spirits, and milk.

Still, for years, Chinese companies avoided the U.S. food and agriculture market, partly out of fear that they wouldn’t be welcome. Now, that is changing. China’s largest state-run food company, known as COFCO, has said that it hopes to invest in American food and farming businesses. And in May, China’s largest hog processor, Shuanghui International Holdings Ltd.,announced plans to buy the American processor Smithfield Foods, Inc. for nearly five billion dollars.

Now, as a U.S. foreign-investment panel reviews the Smithfield deal, Chinese fears of American protectionism appear to be coming true. The planned acquisition has emerged as a symbol of foreign intrusion, raising concerns about how this could hurt American workers, national security, and the economy at large.

Daniel Slane, a commissioner with the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, which is tasked with monitoring U.S.-China relations, argues that Shuanghui could eventually outsource production to China and then import bacon and sausage into the U.S., at the expense of American workers. “Smithfield has forty-six thousand employees, including people who are just cutting various parts of the pork,” he said. “If I can get that done for two dollars an hour in China, why would I pay somebody sixteen dollars an hour in North Carolina?” Critics also point to endemic food-safety problems in China, which include hog corpses floating in Chinese rivers and pork tainted with banned substances.

Some even argue that Chinese ownership of Smithfield could pose a national-security threat. “The proximity to multiple U.S. bases and key military installations would provide a potential staging area for Chinese espionage efforts to advance the nation’s military program,” a group of farmers wrote to the government panel reviewing the deal. Smithfield “is a significant supplier of pork products to U.S. military installations,” they wrote, and if a merger went through, a Chinese-owned business “would control a portion of the food supplied to U.S. troops.”

Tim Gibbons, the communications director at the Missouri Rural Crisis Center, a nonprofit concerned with preserving family farms, summed up the wary attitude: “I am uncomfortable with foreign countries and their corporations owning and controlling our food,” he told me.

C. Larry Pope, Smithfield’s C.E.O., called such criticism bunk. “The bottom line is that this is all about U.S. exports to the Chinese market, not Chinese exports, or a loss of US competitiveness,” he said in testimony before the Senate. Smithfield has also said that the deal will benefit American farmers, since having a Chinese owner at the helm could increase export opportunities to that country. Pope added that the company’s rigorous food-safety protocols would remain strong under Shuanghui control.

None of this is new: Americans have long had a love-hate relationship with investors from abroad. On the one hand, the American penchant for capitalism and equal opportunity has always enticed foreign investors, from the French funding the Revolutionary War to the British helping finance the construction of the Erie Canal. Indeed, last year, direct foreign investment in the U.S. hit a record $2.7 trillion, following three decades of steady increases.

On the other hand, Americans have long grappled with an existential fear of foreigners controlling U.S. land and food resources. In 1887, Congress passed a law prohibiting alien land-ownership in federal territories, which was backlash to a growing number of foreigners acquiring homesteads and large tracts of land as the country expanded. “The feudal landlord system should find no encouragement in America,” read an April 1887 piece in the Chicago Daily Tribune. In the early twentieth century, amid a wave of Japanese migration, states passed laws prohibiting people “ineligible for citizenship”—a code for those mainly of Asian descent—from owning land. In 1948, the U.S. Supreme Court deemed California’s alien land law racist and unconstitutional; meanwhile, the U.S., after the Second World War, became more attractive for foreign investment.

By the nineteen-seventies, direct investment from abroad had reached record levels. Much of the money was coming from Middle Eastern states flush with oil money and from wealthy Europeans living under the Soviet glare and looking for places with well-protected land rights. The weakened value of the U.S. dollar made American assets a steal.

Farmland, in particular, was a hot commodity, since it was seen as a stable long-term investment. According to news reports, Prince Franz Josef II, then the ruler of Liechtenstein, had bought sixteen thousand acres of prime ranch land in Texas; the Flick family, heirs of German industrialist and infamous Nazi member Friedrich Flick, owned a cattle ranch in Kansas; and descendants of Prince von Metternich owned a farm in Iowa.

This raised the ire of Americans who were loath to relinquish to foreigners the soil that fed them. “Buying by outsiders is taking away the family-based farming communities that have helped make this country what it is,” a farmer told Time in 1978, in an article titled “The Selling of America.” Farmers worried that European aristocrats and oil-wealthy sheiks were driving up the price of land while also wresting control of the nation’s food supply.

“The general thinking was that it would be bad policy to allow foreigners to own the land on which our food is grown,” Roger McEowen, director of the Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation at Iowa State University, told me.

In response to the backlash, Congress called hearings on whether foreign investment should be curtailed. In 1978, it began requiring foreign buyers of farmland to report their holdings to the Secretary of Agriculture. Several Midwestern states also passed laws, or tightened existing laws, limiting foreigners’ rights to own farmland. The laws, for the most part, worked. Today foreigners hold less than two per cent of all agricultural land in the U.S., only a slightly higher percentage compared to a quarter century ago. However, this share is growing as more foreign entities, including pension funds and other investors, look to cash in on a boom in farmland values and commodity prices.

Today, complaints over the Smithfield deal are similarly prompting government scrutiny. And the outcry follows a familiar script: The lament for the vanishing family farm, the dissent over foreigners controlling our food supply, and the anxiety over a triumphant other, in this case the Chinese, who already own nearly $1.3 trillion in Treasury securities. The Senate last month held a hearing on the deal, titled “Smithfield and Beyond: Examining Foreign Purchases of American Food Companies.” And the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a secretive interagency group formed in 1975 by President Ford, has taken up its own examination of the deal.

The truth is that the sale faces few serious stumbling blocks. It’s unlikely that the foreign-investment committee will stop it. Only the U.S. President has the authority to suspend a transaction while it’s being reviewed by that committee; and just twice in American history has a President done that. (Both suspensions, it so happens, were transactions involving Chinese companies.) Virtually no one can stop a deal after the committee has approved it, and in this case, the Smithfield deal is expected to win approval. Smithfield shareholders are set to vote on it next month, and the company has said it plans to close the sale in the second half of this year.

Again and again in U.S. history, the economic arguments for foreign investment have trumped politics. Indeed, foreign companies now own plenty of American food brands. Ben & Jerry’s ice cream is owned by Unilever, a British and Dutch company. Gerber, the baby-food company, belongs to Nestle, a Swiss company. And just a few years ago, the U.S. meat processor Swift & Co. was bought by the Brazilian meatpacking giant JBS. Americans will likely have to get used to the idea of companies from China, and the rest of the world, owning more American food and farms.

Business of Greening The World

India and China need to take the lead in international climate talks and create demand, says clean energy entrepreneur Assaad W Razzouk 

A clean energy entrepreneur Assaad W Razzouk says the prevalent climate change discourse needs a serious over-haul before there is any real impact. Group Chief Executive and Co-Founder of Sindicatum Sustainable Resources, Razzouk believes Asia — India and China specifically, need to take the lead in international climate talks and create demand instead of waiting for the west to do it. Recently in Delhi, he shared his views on the environment, carbon trading and Asia’s future with BW.

Razzouk started out his career in 1988 at Price Waterhouse, New York City where he spent 5 years and left as the Manager of International Capital Markets. Born in 1964, Razzouk was an investment banker at Nomura International plc in London from 1993 to 2002. Co-founder of Sindicatum — a global sustainable resources company headquartered in Singapore, he is passionate about the environment and the private sector’s role and often writes for international publications. Razzouk says carbon markets are just a tool and the focus needs to be on the larger problem of climate change. Emphasizing the need for each sector, enterprise, institution and authority to take action, he is confident the current slump in international carbon markets should not worry investors.

Started in 2005, Sindicatum owns and operates clean energy projects located in China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines and the United States. At present, it has 18 investment projects — 15 operational and an additional 14 projects, where the it advises others on greenhouse gas abatement and sustainability. So far, it has committed more than $250 million to greenhouse gas reduction and sustainability projects. It is a project development company which finances its own projects, works in joint venture with asset owners. In India, Sindicatum’s projects are focussed on the sugar industry and the use of bagasse technology to generate power from the waste from these factories. 

Excerpts from the interview:

What do you think of the collapse of the international carbon market created by UNFCCC?
Yes, there was a collapse in the European carbon markets — one cannot have a market without the ability to adjust supply and demand. Europe determined some projections for itself in 2005 and then it got hit by a financial crisis, production fell and as a result its emissions were nowhere near what they thought they were going to be. But the market had already been given a supply of carbon credits and it had no legislative mechanism to take it back. So the prices went down. Personally I don’t think there is a 3 to 5 year scenario where you are not going to see them go back up because at 4 Euros or 5 Euros the European carbon credits are useless and can drive no policy goal/ achieve no policy goal.

Global carbon markets are really an effort — a whimper of an effort — to have some coordination between the nations on a problem that is global by nature. The carbon trading markets are a symptom and tool, while climate change is the disease we all need to address through all available provisions. At the end of the day these carbon credits are a subsidy. Currently there is no demand and thus the collapse. We just need demand because without demand we have thousands of projects that are stranded today. In some cases we are longer abating any green house gasses.

Where is that demand going to come from? We can no longer just count on the west. We have to own our climate change issues because we are suffering from it. The demand should come from the aviation industry, the shipping industry worldwide and self regulating initiatives in countries like India and China - so that they are not forced by ... say like in the current international carbon market the EU commission.

China is doing its bit. At present it has 7 pilot schemes in carbon trading markets. By 2016 they will have a nation-wide cap in trade similar to the EU ETS scheme. This will allow offsets from Chinese projects that will help ultimately reduce climate change impact.

Here, I feel the need to go into the background on the carbon markets because I believe that the solution to meet the 2050 goals requires both the government as well as the private sector intervention. The latter is mobilized principally through the carbon market. The governments alone simply cannot afford to tackle the problem. The money is in the private sector.

What are your views on climate change?
We have a lot of issues in terms of the emissions and the environment, which by definition are all of a global nature. Since, what you emit from a coal fired power plant in India in effect affects the whole world. There already exists a consensus - we have to reduce emissions to 20 billion tonnes by 2050.

Today, global emissions are around 30 billion tonnes per year and they are growing fast – growing fastest probably in Asia. By Asia I mean principally India and China followed by the high population countries of south East-Asia. The solution to control these emissions is coming together of different tools – legislation of laws and regulations, performance standards and then the market. The former two are government driven while the latter is driven by the private sector.

Taking the various segments of an economy and the tools available, which I have just listed, in effect you can safely conclude that 50 per cent of the emissions goal can be treated via the market as opposed to via government.

So, if you are a government committed to reducing emissions – an I don’t know any in Asia – you will legislate for some industries (buildings and cars beings a perfect example) you will introduce performance standards for other industries, you will introduce carbon tax and you will phase out fossil fuel subsidies without riots in the street. It is very easy to do because the point is that principal recipients of fossil fuel subsidies are not the poorest members of society. And finally you will introduce a carbon trade. The renewable energy credits, to me, are more a part of legislative action.

What are the biggest hurdles in this path?
Within the market are fossil fuel subsidies – at present around $2 trillion per year. You have to think about the number for a bit - 2 TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR! The US is $500 billion. China is $300 billion and India is just a bit less than $200 billion. Imagine how big that number is compared to the economy. Fossil fuel subsidies are skewing the market and in effect renewable energy is at a disadvantage because of all these fossil fuel subsidies.

There is some grassroots or entrepreneurial efforts to react to the introduction of renewable energy or feed-in tariffs by setting up solar plants, wind plants etc but it pales in comparison to fossil fuel subsidy. There are approximately 1000 coal fired power plants on the drawing boards in Asia - bulk located in China and India, 76 per cent of the total. The 2 countries have 760 coal fired power plants on  the board... those coal fired power plants can only be built if the coal pricing makes sense. The fact that coal prices do not include pollution it causes only causes more disconnect between what is needed and what exists. It is a major policy failure.

And the solution is a long drawn process with planning needed for a minimum of 20 years. So, if you are focused on a 4 to 5 year political cycle you will never focus on the issue properly. That is why the problem is not being addressed in a forceful manner.

Where does Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and its subsequent carbon trading market fit in?
Carbon Credits generated under CDM are important because it is a symptom of what's going on around it. They are needed to incentivise the private sector to reduce their emissions.

Where do you see India in the larger context of clean energy and emission reduction – the main points of entry into the climate change discourse?  
In my view an important country like India needs to be shouting and banging on the table at the UNFCCC meetings... but they are quite.

China and India are probably the most vulnerable to climate change. The Indian parliament will find it very difficult to mobilize $ 50 billion of aid within 2 weeks like the US congress did for the hurricane victims. The people who are dying or at the risk of dying due to climate change are predominantly here in asia not in the united states.

In the UNFCCC meetings historically there has been the debate is anchored around responsibility, where developing countries like India say – ‘you the developed countries created this problem, you are much wealthier so you go solve it and we expect some really big cheques while you are at it’. The wealthy countries – don’t have these big cheques because their wealth is with the private sector not with the government; and/ or don’t want to give the big cheques; and/ or they are not at the frontline of the suffering.

Next step - you can either complain for the next 20 years and try to get them to pay for their past sins, but in the meantime you are going to degrade and they are going to be fine. Or you can take leadership and effectively run ahead of the west. I think, India and China I think in particular have historical responsibility to take leadership – because everybody listens to them. If they talk.

So India and China could solve the current credit problem, if they decided to enact caps on their emissions and took on binding commitments.

But there is a huge disconnect between some of the rhetoric and the action on the ground. I am not impressed by how much solar capacity or wind capacity is being installed by India or China because of the 760 coal fired power plants mentioned earlier. These coal fired power plants lock in coal infrastructure for 50 years. The consequences of what is going on is well documented by international forums like the world bank or Indian institutes themselves like TERI. The estimates of what will be in 20 to 30 years in India, Bangladesh, China and South East Asia – where you already have Jakarta, Bangkok at the risk of being flooded within 30 years.

Could you briefly explain the business model of Sindicatum?
We are a company that is focused on Green House Gas (GHG) mitigation. We finance, build and operate clean energy projects mostly in Asia that reduce GHG. We work with the 3 primary sectors – the agricultural sector, utilities like cement and steel and mining. The agricultural sector which generates an enormous amount of waste, in India close to 30% to 40 % onions do not even get to the market. Most agricultural products it is the same story. So we focus on waste from agriculture, waste from coal mining industry, municipal and industrial waste.

We go to asset owners who produce this waste and effectively buy from them this waste/ pollution, subsequently build a power plant and sell clean energy, which is fuelled with that waste.

In the process we generate environmental commodities like carbon credits, electricity or bio-diesel or biogas. And we sell these having taken risk of building, designing and operating the plants. In each country our projects/ approach is tailored to environmental legislative and kind of political conditions.

How did Sindicatum zero in on India and the sugar industry for the clean energy projects?
Trial and error. In India we have struggled for many years to settle down on a specific specialty - at the moment almost our entire focus is on sugar industry. Bagasse co-generation – that is generating fuel, heat, electricity from the waste products of the sugar industry.

The company felt it is an area which is extremely important - of the 10,000 to 12,000 mw potential that can be generated out of bagasse barely 3500 mw is being generated. There is about 8500 mw capacity, which can be added. The second feature is that the Indian sugar industry needs foreign capital and foreign equity coming to sector. Third is the fact that there is no technology risk because the technology is indigenous and only needs to be upgraded. It is all boilers and turbines that India has been working with for many years now.

On a macro level India is a bottom-up company. This is oversimplifying it, but for example China is a top-to-down country and India is a bottom-to-up country. Chinese government says do X and everybody does, while in India the government says do X and everybody does not do it. Instead the private sector takes the initiative - moving from bottom to top. Within the Indian private sector we picked based on the scale of emissions of the sector and diversification of risks and investment, which fits India with its different weather patterns, perfectly. There are a lot of actors in this sector - no one company that owns half the sugar industry.

For me personally another important aspect of the Indian sugar sector is very appealing – the number of people involved. There are the sugar cane farmers and sugar mill employees – thus making it electorally safe. It is an industry with a large number of people dependent on it and is not going anywhere.  

If we take a look at the whole packaging - we want to work with a private sector that is important in India, we want it to be in multiple states, with multiple counter parties and dependent on multiple sources for its revenue and the sugar industry fits all our criteria.

It is true that we all need to eat less sugar, but that is different story altogether (he jokes).

Are all your projects registered with different carbon trading markets?
Not necessarily. They are registered where ever you need to be registered, for example US projects by definition cannot be registered with CDM but you could register it with Californian carbon market, of course only if it qualifies for carbon off-sets. In effect we take a project and we maximize its impact depending on its location and its type.

Basically we adjust - you do not need to register with CDM if carbon credits are not fundamental to the project’s well being. And we adjust the pricing with our partner company accordingly - for example when a carbon credit was priced 15 Euros, we priced the project where we put more money on the table compared to the Indian partner because we are counting on these carbon credits to come in the next 10 years.

Are the Asian projects registered with the international CDM board?
No. Neither the existing nor the projects in the pipeline are intended to be registered with CDM. But if we can earn Renewable Energy Certificates (REC) within India we look forward to them.

But the Indian REC market is yet to become popular...
Yes very true. But how we see it is that REC market is legislative - implying that your project qualifies or does not qualify by definition. It is not like we are doing anything special for the renewable energy certificates. REC is a renewable energy subsidy similar to fossil fuel subsidies - either you have a subsidy or you don't. If you don't the price of producing renewable energy goes up and projects become uneconomic, so you do lesser number of projects. - See more at: http://www.businessworld.in/news/opinion/interviews/business-of-greening-the-world/1056804/page-1.html#sthash.KxcGXAZb.dpuf

Another Canvas to Doodle On

Micromax takes a whack at Samsung’s Note with a phablet and stylus 

There’s a long standing joke that what Samsung did to Apple, Micromax will do to Samsung. In a sense, companies like Micromax, Karbonn and others are certainly gobbling up what could have been Samsung’s share, if they had had more affordable phones. IDC recently reported that their data shows homegrown vendors shipped more than Samsung in Q2 of this year, if you leave out Japan. And on the heels of that piece of news, Micromax comes up with another large smartphone, the Canvas Doodle 2, the company’s closest answer to Samsung’s Note series, a new version of which is to launch on 4 September.

 

A Multi-Fold Flip Cover – And Aluminum? 

If you can close your eyes and visualise a Samsung phone, you can do the same for a Micromax phablet. They follow exactly the same design “language” or whatever else you would like to call round-shouldered large phones encased in no end of plastic. The Doodle 2 looks the same as all those as well, but claims to have an aluminum body. Honestly, I am not sure that does very much to counter the tackiness of plastic in this particular design, but well, there you have it. The aluminum certainly feels very plasticky. Now the funny thing is, the Doodle 2 comes with a flip cover, the back of which is transparent plastic. This does an effective job of making the aluminum, if it is that, look like plastic anyway. But it’s an interesting case, protective of the screen but not thick enough to be of much help if you decide to drop the device. The white flip cover, which hopefully can be cleaned with a wet cloth when needed, has an interesting design with foldable segments so you can make a little pyramid of it and use it as a stand.

 

Two problems I need to mention with the flip cover is that it makes the power button a little difficult to get to by feel and then it overshoots the bottom edge of the phone spot that it sticks out a bit and is sharp to the touch. These things should have been finessed. I was also a bit unhappy with its power cable which while flat and tangle free, is a tight unpolished fit into the micro USB slot – you have to struggle with it to get it in or out.

 

A Specs Bump

If you are a specs junkie, you may be disappointed that the Doodle 2 (the model is A240) isn’t running on an octa-core processor. Now, that would have been a jump over previous models and variants. But well, it works fast enough on its quad-core 1.2GHz MediaTek MT6589 processor which is adequate unless you are a heavy gamer and need the maximum available for processor-hungry games. There is 1GB RAM and 16GB storage, 11 of which is available. The screen is a 5.7 inch 1280x720 HD with a density of 320 dpi. I found the display a little glare filled and burning out on whites, but otherwise the colours are good and so are the viewing angles. The battery to power all this is a 2600 mAh. The Doodle 2 is on Android 4.2.1, which is about the best it can do for now. The Doodle 2 is a dual sim but can run only one 3G connection.

 

Doodling On The Doodle

Taking a good whack at Samsung’s Note series, Mcromax has put added a stylus to the Doodle package. It’s a double tipped (thick and thin) metallic little accessory, thankfully not called the M-Pen, though a few apps follow the Samsung naming convention. The stylus has no place to slip into on the smartphone, so its owner will have to be ultra careful. It doesn’t work too badly, though it doesn’t have the sophistication of the Note’s S-Pen which works with a digitizer layer on the screen and also has a lot of non writing or drawing related gimmicks such as bringing up information on a hover or scrolling, taking a screen shot, etc. The Note’s S-pen doesn’t use a rubber tip which is on the Doodle and which sticks to the screen a bit. The Doodle’s stylus is basically for doodling, which you can do in a doodling app, any other appropriate app you find on the 

Play Store, or even in messages to friends. Overall, it doesn’t work too badly but you have to be careful of the angle of the tip if you want to get an unbroken drawing or text.

 

Camera And Multimedia

The cameras are 12MP and 5MP and these run a stock Android interface. The cameras are really average, doing okay in daylight but coming up with grainy noisy pictures in low light. Browsing is not exceptionally smooth but I didn’t encounter stutters as such. It’s neither remarkable for speed nor for the lack of it. Videos played fine, but sound is terribly tinny, a bit low, and not full-blooded.

 

The cost: Rs 19,990

 

The Doodle 2 A240 is an upgrade of Micromax’s previous Doodle A111, also a 1.2GHz quad core device. Other specs such as the camera, space, etc., are bumped up. The stylus and the cover is also different. So is the aluminum. The same apps are on both devices too. The A111 came in at a Rs 15,990 price point. I wouldn’t say that old Doodle users need to upgrade to the Doodle 2 because it’s a specs bump not a big change. The Doodle 2 mostly beats the Samsung Galaxy Mega 5.8 on specs though the Mega has expandable storage, removable battery and more sensors. If you are getting a deal on the Note 2 (as the Note 3 becomes available) and you anticipate a lot of stylus work, you may want to consider that. If however there is a considerable price difference and you are on a budget, think of the Doodle 2 for a stylus toting large smartphone.

Sensex gains 400 points; more measures seen crucial

The BSE Sensex rose over 2 percent on Thursday as blue chip shares including HDFC surged tracking a rebound in the rupee from a record low in the previous session after the Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) move to provide dollars directly to oil companies.

The rupee rebounded after the RBI announced late on Wednesday a special window "with immediate effect" to sell dollars to state-run oil companies through a designated bank.

Still, traders say the government will ultimately need to act to shore up India's sagging economy. Policymakers are at least seen scrambling for solutions to what some economists are now describing as a crisis.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh also told parliament he was willing to make a statement on the state of the economy on Friday, when the lawmakers asked him what steps the government was considering to take to deal with the falling rupee.

"More government measures are expected but more walk than talk is required," said Deven Choksey, managing director of K R Choksey Securities.

The benchmark BSE index rose 2.25 percent, or 404.89 points, to end at 18,401.04, rising for a second consecutive session.

The broader NSE index rose 2.35 percent, or 124.05 points, to end at 5,409.05. It had risen as much as 2.7 percent earlier in the day but August derivatives expiry related selling weighed in the final hour of trade.

The stocks gained for the second day in spite of foreign selling of about $1.12 billion worth of shares in the previous nine sessions through Wednesday.

Whether shares can sustain the gains will depend on government action, traders said.

India's central bank should look into the possibility of monetising gold holdings, Trade Minister Anand Sharma said on Thursday, while Oil Minister Veerappa Moily said India is working out the details of measures aimed at lowering the country's fuel consumption.

Among blue chip shares mortgage lender Housing Development Finance Corp Ltd (HDFC.NS) surged 6.5 percent and ITC Ltd (ITC.NS) ended 2.5 percent higher.

State-owned oil companies gained after the RBI announced measures to provide dollars to Indian Oil Corp Ltd (IOC.NS), Hindustan Petroleum Corp (HPCL.NS) and Bharat Petroleum Corp (BPCL.NS) "until further notice".

IOC rose 0.9 percent and BPCL ended 1.2 percent higher, while HPCL fell 0.5 percent after earlier rising as much as 3.4 percent.

Oil and Natural Gas Corp Ltd (ONGC.NS) also gained 2.1 percent on expectations of a hike in diesel prices after parliament's monsoon session ends on September 6.

Software exporters such as Tata Consultancy Services and HCL rose to record highs on improving U.S. business prospects.

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd (TCS.NS_6">TCS.NS) ended 2.1 percent higher after earlier making its all-time high at 1,970 rupees, while HCL Technologies Ltd (HCLT.NS) rose 3.8 percent after hitting a record high of 1,026.15 rupees.

Tata Motors Ltd (TAMO.NS) rose 2.7 percent after Barclays upgraded shares to "overweight" from "underweight", citing improving performance at unit Jaguar Land Rover Ltd (JLR).

However, among stocks that fell, Fortis Healthcare Ltd (FOHE.NS) dropped 1.5 percent after Morgan Stanley downgraded it to "underweight" from "equal-weight", saying an improvement in margins/returns will take time as leverage remains high.

Facebook considers adding profile photos to facial recognition

Facebook Inc (FB.O) is considering incorporating most of its 1 billion-plus members' profile photos into its growing facial recognition database, expanding the scope of the social network's controversial technology.

The possible move, which Facebook revealed in an update to its data use policy on Thursday, is intended to improve the performance of its "Tag Suggest" feature. The feature uses facial recognition technology to speed up the process of labeling or "tagging" friends and acquaintances who appear in photos posted on the network.

The technology currently automatically identifies faces in newly uploaded photos by comparing them only to previous snapshots in which users were tagged. Facebook users can choose to remove tags identifying them in photos posted by others on the site.

The changes would come at a time when Facebook and other Internet companies' privacy practices are under scrutiny, following the revelations of a U.S. government electronic surveillance program.

Facebook, Google Inc (GOOG.O) and other companies have insisted that they have never participated in any program giving the government direct access to their computer servers and that they only provide information in response to specific requests, after careful review and as required by law.

Facebook Chief Privacy Officer Erin Egan said that adding members' public profile photos would give users better control over their personal information, by making it easier to identify posted photos in which they appear.

"Our goal is to facilitate tagging so that people know when there are photos of them on our service," Egan said.

She stressed that Facebook users uncomfortable with facial recognition technology will still be able to "opt out" of the Tag Suggest feature altogether, in which case the person's public profile photo would not be included in the facial recognition database.

Facial recognition technology has been a sensitive issue for technology companies, raising concerns among some privacy advocates and government officials. Tag Suggest, which the company introduced in 2011, is not available in Europe due to concerns raised by regulators there.

Google's social network, Google+, also employs similar technology, but requires user consent. And it has banned third-party software makers from using facial recognition technology in apps designed for its Glass wearable computer.

Egan said Facebook was not currently using facial recognition technology for any other features, but that could change.

"Can I say that we will never use facial recognition technology for any other purposes? Absolutely not," Egan said. But, she noted, "if we decided to use it in different ways we will continue to provide people transparency about that and we will continue to provide control."

Facebook also amended its Statement of Rights and Responsibilities on Thursday, adding and tweaking the language so that members under 18 years of age are deemed to have affirmed that a parent or legal guardian has agreed to allow marketers to use some of their personal information in ads.

The language was the result of a recent court-approved legal settlement regarding its "sponsored stories" ads

Lok Sabha approves Land Bill

The Bill offers a fair compensation and rehabilitation to land owners in both rural and urban areas

A more consultative and time-consuming but more rigorous process of acquiring land for both government and private purposes was today adopted by the Lok Sabha, replacing an antediluvian law dating back to 1894.

While industry complained that the new law would push up the cost and time-frame of setting up new enterprises, "The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2012", seeks to give a fair deal to farmers wanting to sell their land to meet industrial needs, especially valuable multicrop land. The policy to be adopted in the case of arable land has been left to the state governments, Rural Development MinisterJairam Ramesh said, after three states – Kerala, Haryana and Punjab, represented to the centre that all land in their state was multicrop and if there was a bar on selling multi crop land to industry, there would be no industrialisation in their state.

Also Read: Things you must know about the Land Acquisition Bill

The Bill also offers industry the option of leasing land from farmers. It offers payment of compensation up to four times the market value in rural areas and two times the market value in urban areas.

The Bill prescribes identification of project affected families through a social impact assessment after which consent of 80 per cent of these families must be taken. This includes people deriving their livelihood from the land in question for three years prior to the acquisition.

Also Read: Land Acquisition Bill aims to address widespread injustices, says Jairam Ramesh

The Bill includes tenants and sharecroppers among beneficiaries for compensation and R & R and provides for application of its clauses with retrospective effect in three circumstances: if land has been acquired by any entity (government or industry) and no compensation has been given; if compensation has been awarded but 50 per cent of the farmers or more have not accepted compensation; and land was acquired five years ago but no compensation has been paid or no possession has taken. These rules will apply to land acquired for Special Economic Zones (SEZs) as well. Whether the land taken back should be returned to the original owners or should be attached to the state government’s land bank has been left to the states.

The Bill says that the much maligned ‘urgency’ clause under which land could forcibly be acquired on grounds of ‘urgency’ would cease to exist, except in cases of defence, national security or natural disasters.

The BJP earlier questioned the Bill on various counts ranging from its urgency clause to the broad definition of public purpose which allows acquisition for almost any private project.

Taking part in discussions on the Bill, BJP leader Rajnath Singh told the Lok Sabha that while the bill sought to protect farm land, it left the final decision to the state government not to farmers.

Farmers group Bharatiya Kisan Union expressed apprehension about the Bill saying that without amendments it would be a disaster for farmers. BKU leader Yudhvir Singh said that circle rates are being considered for compensation which would shortchange farmers.

Activist Medha Patkar told Business Standard that the government has kept itself out of the need to seek people's consent. If the government is to follow PESA Act it would be bound to listen to community organisations. How can it not respect the wish of the people while expecting others to do so? She asked. She also criticised the all cash compensation and relief offered under the Bill. Cash can't compensate loss of livelihood, Patkar said.

Military ready to go to Syria if needed: France

The US, France and Britain are believed to be preparing possible military action against Assad's regime

The French military is ready to commit forces to an operation in Syriaif President Francois Hollande decides to do so, the defence minister said on Thursday.

But the chief of state, who met with the head of the Syrian opposition, stopped short of announcing military intervention over a suspected chemical weapons attack.

Hollande offered his political and humanitarian support for the Western-backed Syrian National Coalition, but said the group will only be a viable alternative to Syrian President Bashar Assad if it has military credibility and if the international community can stop the spiral of violence.

The United States, France and Britain are believed to be preparing possible military action against Assad's regime after an apparent poison gas attack in Syria on August 21.

UN experts are currently in Syria investigating the attack.

"The Armed Forces are in a position to respond to the requests and the decisions of the president once he reaches that point" of committing French forces to an international intervention in Syria, Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said.

Hollande does not need French parliamentary approval to launch any military action that lasts less than four months.

Hollande, who has spoken out strongly against Assad's government, today stressed the importance of a political solution and making the Syrian opposition a stronger alternative, notably with increased firepower.

Hollande said he told Syrian opposition leader Ahmad al-Jarba that "France will offer all its help. Its political help, its support, as it we have for months. But also its humanitarian, material aid."

"Everything must be done to reach a political solution, but that will not happen unless the coalition is capable of appearing as an alternative, with necessary force, notably its army," Hollande said.

"We will only achieve this if the international community is capable of bringing a stop to this escalation of violence, of which the chemical massacre is just one illustration."

A French official said the aim of any French action would be to shock Assad's government into understanding that they cannot use chemical weapons. Assad blames the poison gas attack on the opposition.

The official, who spoke on condition because he was discussing sensitive military issues, said the goal was not to launch a war. Al-Jarba, speaking alongside Hollande, said "this crime will not go unpunished.

India May Buy Gold From Citizens To Ease Rupee Crisis

With 31,000 tonnes of commercially available gold in the country, diverting even a fraction of that to refiners would sate domestic demand for the metal

India is considering a radical plan to direct commercial banks to buy gold from ordinary citizens and divert it to precious metal refiners in an attempt to curb imports and take some heat off the plunging currency.

A pilot project will be launched soon, a source familiar with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) plans told Reuters. India has the world's third-largest current account deficit, which is approaching nearly $90 billion, driven in a large part by appetite for gold imports in the world's biggest consumer of the metal.

With 31,000 tonnes of commercially available gold in the country — worth $1.4 trillion at current prices — diverting even a fraction of that to refiners would sate domestic demand for the metal. India imported 860 tonnes of gold in 2012.

"We will start a pilot project among some banks where we will allow them to buy back gold from individual households," the source, an official familiar with the central bank's gold policymaking, said. "This will start soon, we have discussed (it) with banks."

The RBI will ask the banks to buy back jewellery, bars and coins for rupees. Lenders will have to offer better rates than pawn shops and jewellers to lure sellers.

Any talk of using the country's gold to help meet India's international obligations revives memories of a 1991 balance of payments crisis - when India flew 67 tonnes of gold to Europe as collateral for a loan to avoid a sovereign debt default.

Earlier on Thursday, Trade Minister Anand Sharma said the RBI should look into the possibility of monetising gold holdings.

It was not immediately clear whether Sharma was referring to the 557.7 tonnes of gold the RBI holds in its own reserves, or gold in private hands. He did not give more details of how the proposal would work.

"I have not said there should be any mortgaging of the gold, or auction of the gold, that is incorrect. I have just said the RBI should look into ... how they can benefit the people, particularly with regard to the bonds or the monetisation," Sharma said in response to a question in parliament.

Earlier this week in comments reported in the national media, Sharma said "even if 500 tonnes is monetised at today's value it takes care of your CAD", or current account deficit.

Selling gold reserves may sit badly with Indians, many of whom saw the 1991 sale as a public humiliation. The secret operation was only exposed after a vehicle carrying the first consignment of bullion broke down on its way to the airport from the central bank.

"It (pledging gold) will be a desperate measure, and it will send a very wrong signal to the entire country because all the time we've maintained that things are under control even though things are adverse," said Madan Sabnavis, chief economist at CARE Ratings in Mumbai.

Such a sale would also dent international gold prices which took a hit earlier this year after Cyprus said it was considering selling its gold reserves to shore up its finances.

India has taken multiple steps this year to curb imports of gold, its second-biggest import after oil, including raising duty three times to 10 percent.

The rupee, the worst-performing emerging market currency in Asia this year, rebounded from a record low on Thursday after the RBI said it will provide dollars directly to state oil companies to shore up the currency.

In comments published by The Hindu newspaper last week, David Gornall, chairman of the London Bullion Market Association, said India could raise $23 billion by swapping gold for a payable currency for a period of its choice, while remaining the long-term holder of the gold.

Gold forms an essential part of a bride's dowry in India and is considered auspicious as a gift or offering at religious festivals.