Saturday 26 February 2011

Article for the 1st of March


Google faces fresh EU search complaint

By Nikki Tait and Richard Waters, FT.com
February 23, 2011 -- Updated 0208 GMT (1008 HKT)
Google is facing fresh anti-trust complaints in Europe.
Google is facing fresh anti-trust complaints in Europe.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • A fresh complaint accuses Google of abusing its dominant position in the EU search market
  • France's 1plusV alleges Google illegally "tied" its search engine and advertising service
RELATED TOPICS
(FT) -- A fresh complaint accusing Google of abusing its dominant position in the online search market and blocking the development of rival search businesses has been filed with the European Union's antitrust watchdog.
It comes from a French company, 1plusV, related to Ejustice.fr, one of three companies that originally filed complaints against Google with the European Commission last year.
These prompted Brussels to open an in-depth probe against Google, looking at whether the search company gave preferential treatment to its own services when ranking results and whether its contractual relationships with advertisers may also have breached competition rules.
1plusV, which was formed in 2004 and is controlled by Bruno Guillard, is alleging Google illegally "tied" its search engine and its Adsense advertising service -- which allows advertisers to buy a keyword that, when typed in as a search query, produces a commercial link alongside the search results.
Mr Guillard said on Tuesday that in order to secure some revenue from the vertical search engines that 1plusV had developed it was necessary to use Adsense, and that this, in turn, proved technically impossible without using Google's own search engine.
The complaint -- described by 1plusV as a "follow-up" to the first Ejustice.fr complaint -- alleges this tying "kills off" competing search technologies. "1plusV accuses Google of pursuing a strategy of foreclosure against vertical search engines," it claims. The complaint also details other alleged competition breaches, including discrimination in favour of Google's services in search results, and "apparent retaliatory" actions against other sites run by 1plusV after the Ejustice.fr complaint was filed.
It comes at a sensitive time. In another sign of the growing pressure on regulators to subject Google to greater antitrust scrutiny, a prominent US lawmaker has called on the Department of Justice to take a close look at the company's proposed acquisition of travel search company ITA.
John Conyers, lead Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, wrote to Christine Varney, head of antitrust enforcement at the agency, urging that the proposed deal be reviewed "carefully to ensure competition and transparency will be protected in the online travel industry".
Mr Conyers also highlighted issues raised last week by the American Anti-trust Institute, which had claimed the deal highlighted broader problems with Google's growing dominance of the search market, even if it was not clear the ITA acquisition would harm the online travel business. Google said the AAI's grounds for broadening the regulatory investigation were "vague new standards [with] no basis in the law".
On Tuesday, 1plusV said it was not pressing for a disclosure of Google's search algorithm, but believed there were other changes the commission could impose on Google.
Google has consistently denied dominating the online search market, and contested individual allegations made against it. It said its behaviour was driven by the desire to give users of its search facilities the best results.
Google on Tuesday said: "We continue to work co-operatively with the European Commission, explaining many aspects of our business. We believe there is always room for improvement."

Article for the 1st of March


February 24, 2011, 1:06 PM

A Parent’s Struggle With a Child’s iPad Addiction

I think my 6-year-old is addicted to the iPad.
He asks for it constantly. He wants to use it in the car. He wants to use it at every unscheduled moment at home. He brings it to the dinner table.
When I tell him it’s time to shut off the iPad and head up to bed, or put his shoes on, or head out to the bus, he doesn’t hear me the first three times I ask. Sometimes, he gets bizarrely upset when I say I have to take it away now — out-of-character upset. That’s what makes me think he’s addicted.
And trust me — having read The New York Times series on the physiological effects of electronics on young minds, I’m plenty worried.
FDDP
The Times’s technology columnist, David Pogue, keeps you on top of the industry in his free, weekly e-mail newsletter.
Sign up | See Sample
Now, before you begin sending the volleys of “bad parent” e-mails, let me reassure you: I’ve described what my son wants, not what he gets. We do have policies. The rule for my three kids is: no electronics on school days except what you actually need for schoolwork. No gadgets at mealtime or bedtime. Gadgets are O.K. when you’re home sick or in the car for long trips.
My older two kids manage to stick with those rules (mostly). My youngest, though, asks for that darned iPad constantly.
And I’ll be straight with you: I generally enforce the rule, but sometimes it’s tough. Because, let’s face it: When he’s on the iPad, he’s happy. He’s quiet. He’s engaged. And in this family, the two older siblings form a tween bloc (my oldest are 13 and almost 12), and then there’s a big age gap. So it can be hard to find activities, games or conversations that involve all three simultaneously.
The iPad is a magic electronic babysitter that creates instant peace in the household. If you told me you’d never, even occasionally, be tempted to hand it over, I’d say I doubt you.
What makes my feelings on this subject even more complicated is that, in general, my 6-year-old isn’t playing mindless video games. He’s not allowed to play shoot-‘em-ups or violent games at all. Instead, he’s encouraged to play creative apps — and most of the time, he does.
He spends hours, for example, playing with Puppet Pals, an amazing free app that lets you create animated cartoons. You choose a backdrop — say, the Wild West, or a pirate ship. Then you drag cutout characters around with your fingers; you can move them left, right, up, down, or forward and backward (they get smaller when you move them farther away). You provide the dialogue yourself. The app records everything you do, both audio and character motions. Later, you can play back the whole thing for your proud papa. Yes, my 6-year-old is creating his own animated shorts.
He also loves EasyBeats, a music app where you lay down one instrument track at a time, as the four-measure pattern loops over and over. He builds complex rhythms, one layer at a time.
Come on, how can apps like that be bad for a kid? Is it really that much different from playing with paper cutouts? Or blocks? Or a toy drum set?
When he does play games, he favors thinking games like Cut the Rope (a clever physics-based puzzle game) or Rush Hour (strategy puzzles). Heck, even Angry Birds involves some thinking. You have to plan ahead and calculate and use resources wisely.
In the old days, we used to tut-tut about how much TV kids watched — but parents usually made an exception for educational shows like “Sesame Street” and “Between the Lions.” How is this any different? Shouldn’t we make exceptions for creative and problem-solving apps?
In other words, I’m doing a lot of thinking lately. Is a gadget automatically bad for our children just because it’s electronic? What if it’s fostering a love of music, an affinity for theater and expertise in strategy and problem-solving? Is it a bad thing for a kid to be so much in love with mental exercises? Am I really being a good parent by yanking THAT away?
For now, I’m trying to live by the mantra, “Moderation in all things.” As long as iPad use is part of a balanced diet of more physical play and non-electronic activities, I think my little guy will probably be O.K.
But I’d love to hear your (non-judgmental) thoughts in the comments.

Article for the 1st of March


February 22, 2011, 4:21 PM

Cellphone Use Tied to Changes in Brain Activity

Researchers from the National Institutes of Health have found that less than an hour of cellphone use can speed up brain activity in the area closest to the phone antenna, raising new questions about the health effects of low levels of radiation emitted from cellphones.
The researchers, led by Dr. Nora D. Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, urged caution in interpreting the findings because it is not known whether the changes, which were seen in brain scans, have any meaningful effect on a person’s overall health.
But the study, published Wednesday in The Journal of the American Medical Association, is among the first and largest to document that the weak radio-frequency signals from cellphones have the potential to alter brain activity.


“The study is important because it documents that the human brain is sensitive to the electromagnetic radiation that is emitted by cellphones,” Dr. Volkow said. “It also highlights the importance of doing studies to address the question of whether there are — or are not — long-lasting consequences of repeated stimulation, of getting exposed over five, 10 or 15 years.”
Although preliminary, the findings are certain to reignite a debate about the safety of cellphones. A few observational studies have suggested a link between heavy cellphone use and rare brain tumors, but the bulk of the available scientific evidence shows no added risk. Major medical groups have said that cellphones are safe, but some top doctors, including the former director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Center and prominent neurosurgeons, have urged the use of headsets as a precaution.
Dr. Volkow said that the latest research is preliminary and does not address questions about cancer or other heath issues, but it does raise new questions about potential areas of research to better understand the health implications of increased brain activity resulting from cellphone use.
“Unfortunately this particular study does not enlighten us in terms of whether this is detrimental or if it could even be beneficial,” Dr. Volkow said. “It just tells us that even though these are weak signals, the human brain is activated by them.”
Most major medical groups, including the American Cancer Society, theNational Cancer Institute and the Food and Drug Administration, have said the existing data on cellphones and health has been reassuring, particularly a major European study released last year by the World Health Organizationthat found no increased risk of rare brain tumors among cellphone users.
When asked to comment on the latest study, the leading industry trade group,CTIA – The Wireless Association, released a statement emphasizing recent studies that have shown no elevated cancer risk associated with cellphone use.
“The peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices, within the limits established by the F.C.C., do not pose a public health risk or cause any adverse health effects,” said John Walls, vice president of public affairs for the trade group, adding that leading global health groups “all have concurred that wireless devices are not a public health risk.”
But the new research differed from the large observational studies that have been conducted to study cellphone use. In Dr. Volkow’s study, the researchers used brain scans to directly measure how the electromagnetic radiation emitted from cellphones affected brain activity..
The randomized study, conducted in 2009, asked 47 participants to undergo positron emission tomography — or PET — scans, which measure brain glucose metabolism, a marker of brain activity. Each study subject was fitted with a cellphone on each ear and then underwent two 50-minute scans.
During one scan, the cellphones were turned off, but during the other scan, the phone on the right ear was activated to receive a call from a recorded message, although the sound was turned off to avoid auditory stimulation.
Whether the phone was on or off did not affect the overall metabolism of the brain, but the scans did show a 7 percent increase in activity in the part of the brain closest to the antenna when the right phone was turned on. The finding was highly statistically significant, the researchers said. They said the activity was unlikely to be associated with heat from the phone because it occurred near the antenna rather than where the phone touched the head.
In the past, any concerns about the health effects of cellphones have been largely dismissed because the radiofrequency waves emitted from the devices are believed to be benign. Cellphones emit nonionizing radiation, waves of energy that are too weak to break chemical bonds or to set off the DNA damage known to cause cancers. Scientists have said repeatedly that there is no known biological mechanism to explain how nonionizing radiation might lead to cancer or other health problems.
But the new study opens up an entirely new potential area of research. Although an increase in brain glucose metabolism happens during normal brain function, the question is whether repeated artificial stimulation as a result of exposure to electromagnetic radiation might have a detrimental effect.
Although speculative, one theory about how an artificial increase in brain glucose metabolism could be harmful is that it could potentially lead to the creation of molecules called free radicals, which in excess can damage healthy cells. Or it may be that repeated stimulation by electromagnetic radiation could set off an inflammatory response, which studies suggest is associated with a number of heath problems, including cancer.
Among cancer researchers and others interested in the health effects of cellphones, the study, listed in the medical journal under the heading “Preliminary Communications,” was met with enthusiasm because of the credibility of the researchers behind it and the careful methods used.
“It’s a high-quality team, well regarded, and if nothing else they’re showing that radiation is doing something in the brain,” said Louis Slesin, editor ofMicrowave News, a newsletter on the health effects of electromagnetic radiation. “The dogma in the cellphone community says that it doesn’t do anything. What she’s shown is that it does do something, and the next thing to find out is what it’s doing and whether it’s causing harm.”
Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, former director of the Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and now chief medical officer for the Intrexon Corporation, a biotechnology company in Germantown, Md., said, “I think it’s a very well-designed study, and they have clearly shown that there is biologic activity being induced in the nerve cells in the region where the antenna is the closest.” Dr. Herberman said skeptics about the risks of cellphones have focused on the fact that the type of radiation they emit is too weak to break chemical bonds and cannot plausibly be implicated in cancer. However, the new research suggests a potentially different pathway for cancer and other health problems to develop.
“I think it’s an important new direction to go in for biologists to start delving deeper into sorting out what might be going on,” Dr. Herberman said.
In an editorial accompanying the Journal article, Henry C. Lai, a University of Washington professor of bioengineering who has long raised concerns about cellphone safety, said he hoped the data would broaden the focus of cellphone research and health.
“The bottom line is that it adds to the concern that cellphone use could be a health hazard,” said Dr. Lai. “Everybody is worried about brain cancer, and the jury is still out on that question. There are actually quite a lot of studies showing cellphone radiation associated with other events, like sleep disturbances. But people have not been paying a lot of attention to these other types of studies.”
Dr. Volkow said future research may even show that the electromagnetic waves emitted from cellphones could be used to stimulate the brain for therapeutic reasons. She said the research should not set off alarms about cellphone use because simple precautions like using a headset or earpiece can alleviate any concern.
“It does not in any way preclude or decrease my cellphone utilization,” she said.