Work suspended at Leiv Eiriksson rig off Greenland after protesters demand to know how owner Cairn Energy would cope with leak on scale of Deepwater Horizon An Arctic oil rig was forced to stop drilling by environmental activists demanding to know how its owner would respond to an oil leak on the scale of last year’s Deepwater Horizon spill. Edinburgh-based Cairn Energy said drilling was suspended at its Leiv Eiriksson rig off the coast of Greenland after 18 Greenpeace protesters breached a restricted area. The activists launched from the Greenpeace ship Esperanza in five inflatable speedboats from outside a 500m exclusion zone set up by Danish authorities. Campaigner Ben Ayliffe said: “Cairn Energy is hiding its oil spill response plan, so we’re going to the one place where there must be a copy of it. It’s obvious why Cairn won’t tell the world how it would clean up a BP-style oil spill here in the Arctic, and that’s because it can’t be done. “Experts say the freezing temperatures and remote location mean a deep water blow-out in this stunning pristine environment would be an irreversible disaster. If they published the plan, the dangers of investing in such a high-risk venture would be laid bare. We have to draw a line in the ice and stop the Arctic oil rush.” Cairn announced this week that it had begun drilling in two wells in the region. The two wells are approximately 160km and 300km off Nuuk, the capital of Greenland. Each drilling operation is in water deeper than 900m. Last week, two Greenpeace protesters occupied the company’s 53,000-tonne drilling vessel.They hung from the underside of the rig in an Arctic survival pod and had enough supplies to keep them there for 10 days, but were removed by Danish police. Cairn has asked a court in the Netherlands to legally prevent Greenpeace from disrupting any future deep-sea drilling operations. In a statement, the company said: “Cairn confirms that members of Greenpeace have boarded the semi-submersible drilling vessel, the Leiv Eiriksson, owned by Ocean Rig. The protesters have breached the safety exclusion zone and entered a restricted area on the rig. In accordance with the strict health and safety practices employed in this drilling programme and in order to ensure safe operating conditions, drilling has been suspended. “Cairn respects the rights of individuals and organisations to express their views in a safe and peaceful manner, but would be concerned with any action that presents a risk to the safety of people and/or equipment.” The company added: “Wherever it is active, Cairn operates in a safe and prudent manner. The Greenland Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum has established some of the most stringent operating regulations anywhere globally, which mirror those applied in the Norwegian North Sea. Cairn takes its responsibilities such as oil spill contingency and response plans very seriously. “Cairn, working closely with the Greenland authorities, has developed an extensive emergency response and oil spill response plan. As stipulated by Greenland Authorities, the oil spill response documents are not publicly available.” Greenland Greenpeace Oil and gas companies Oil spills BP oil spill Oil Activism Protest Oil Commodities Energy Fossil fuels Cairn Energy guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Work suspended at Leiv Eiriksson rig off Greenland after protesters demand to know how owner Cairn Energy would cope with leak on scale of Deepwater Horizon An Arctic oil rig was forced to stop drilling by environmental activists demanding to know how its owner would respond to an oil leak on the scale of last year’s Deepwater Horizon spill. Edinburgh-based Cairn Energy said drilling was suspended at its Leiv Eiriksson rig off the coast of Greenland after 18 Greenpeace protesters breached a restricted area. The activists launched from the Greenpeace ship Esperanza in five inflatable speedboats from outside a 500m exclusion zone set up by Danish authorities. Campaigner Ben Ayliffe said: “Cairn Energy is hiding its oil spill response plan, so we’re going to the one place where there must be a copy of it. It’s obvious why Cairn won’t tell the world how it would clean up a BP-style oil spill here in the Arctic, and that’s because it can’t be done. “Experts say the freezing temperatures and remote location mean a deep water blow-out in this stunning pristine environment would be an irreversible disaster. If they published the plan, the dangers of investing in such a high-risk venture would be laid bare. We have to draw a line in the ice and stop the Arctic oil rush.” Cairn announced this week that it had begun drilling in two wells in the region. The two wells are approximately 160km and 300km off Nuuk, the capital of Greenland. Each drilling operation is in water deeper than 900m. Last week, two Greenpeace protesters occupied the company’s 53,000-tonne drilling vessel.They hung from the underside of the rig in an Arctic survival pod and had enough supplies to keep them there for 10 days, but were removed by Danish police. Cairn has asked a court in the Netherlands to legally prevent Greenpeace from disrupting any future deep-sea drilling operations. In a statement, the company said: “Cairn confirms that members of Greenpeace have boarded the semi-submersible drilling vessel, the Leiv Eiriksson, owned by Ocean Rig. The protesters have breached the safety exclusion zone and entered a restricted area on the rig. In accordance with the strict health and safety practices employed in this drilling programme and in order to ensure safe operating conditions, drilling has been suspended. “Cairn respects the rights of individuals and organisations to express their views in a safe and peaceful manner, but would be concerned with any action that presents a risk to the safety of people and/or equipment.” The company added: “Wherever it is active, Cairn operates in a safe and prudent manner. The Greenland Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum has established some of the most stringent operating regulations anywhere globally, which mirror those applied in the Norwegian North Sea. Cairn takes its responsibilities such as oil spill contingency and response plans very seriously. “Cairn, working closely with the Greenland authorities, has developed an extensive emergency response and oil spill response plan. As stipulated by Greenland Authorities, the oil spill response documents are not publicly available.” Greenland Greenpeace Oil and gas companies Oil spills BP oil spill Oil Activism Protest Oil Commodities Energy Fossil fuels Cairn Energy guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …One of the saddest stories in American politics, which happens all too often, is when small and medium sized community-based businesses lobby against common-sense regulations that would help them compete against the big-business conglomerates that dominate their industry. Because of a knee-jerk fear of any regulation, a lot of times the big companies will convince their smaller brethren to be the lead lobbyists fighting something that would actually go a long ways in helping the small guys have a more level playing field with the big dogs. The classic example lately is on banking policy. The six biggest banks in America control assets equaling more than 64 percent of our national GDP, and because they are Too Big To Fail, they end up getting major market advantages over smaller financial institutions. These Wall Street behemoths’ economic clout is making it harder and harder for credit unions and smaller community banks to survive, which is a terrible shame because they are the ones who do most investing in small businesses at the local level. In the financial reform bill that was passed last year, most of the regulations that were passed were designed to create oversight of these biggest banks and leave the smaller ones alone, since the problems that caused the financial collapse were all centered in what the big banks were doing, yet the smaller banks and credit unions frequently sided with the big banks out of a mindless fear of any regulation at all. One important aspect of this is an issue I have been working on a lot with a coalition of retail businesses and consumer groups, swipe fee reform. If you live in D.C. or in a state or congressional district targeted by the bankers, it’s tough to miss the ubiquitous and alarming ads about how Congress wants to take away your debit card. These confusing advertisements — sponsored by the Electronic Payments Coalition (read: Bank of America, Capital One, Citi, JPMorgan Chase, MasterCard, Visa, et al.) — imply that banks will be so robbed by the swipe fee cap in the 2010 Wall Street reform law that their customers will have to do without things like free checking and debit cards. A debit card “swipe fee” is what Visa and MasterCard charge retailers, and in turn consumers, for every transaction made with a card. The fees generally cost businesses 1 to 2 percent of every transaction, and handed $16.2 billion to the big banks in 2009. ( Banks and credit unions themselves have admitted the per transaction fees far exceed the actual cost of service.) Sen. Durbin offered an amendment to the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that required the Federal Reserve to provide some regulation of debit card swipe fees so that the big banks who thoroughly dominate this market (Visa and MasterCard, which are subsidiaries of the big banks, represent more than 80 percent of the debit card market) couldn’t just charge any outrageous swipe fees. When Durbin offered his amendment 63 Senators voted for it, including some Republicans. But the big banks have plenty of money, lobbyists, and influence — and they keep chipping away at this. The Senate is expected to vote on an amendment to delay any swipe fee reform when they return from recess June 6. Small banks and credit unions have been convinced to help out their big Wall Street competitors, even though the Durbin Amendment exempts small banks by only applying the fee cap to banks and credit unions with $10 billion or more in assets. In fact, it is clear that small banks and credit unions would actually benefit from the Durbin Amendment . In its suit challenging the swipe fee cap in the U.S. District Court in South Dakota, TCF Bank shed some real light on how well the small bank exemption will work and help small banks compete with the previously unchecked Wall Street giants: If TCF begins charging its customers a “swipe fee” or a monthly fee for services, customers will switch to one of the 99 percent of banks not affected by the Durbin Amendment, which can continue to offer free checking/debit account and recover all related costs as they do today. Each TCF branch is surrounded by branches of competitors who are exempt from the Durbin Amendment. Indeed, in Minnesota, for example, only seven banks that accept deposits will be subject to the forthcoming Durbin Amendment regulations, while over 400 exempt banks and savings institutions (not counting credit unions) compete with TCF branches in Minnesota. Readers of American Banker, an industry publication, also agreed that small banks win under the Durbin Amendment: (T)here’s a healthy dose of skepticism, at least among American Banker readers, that some of the doomsday scenarios bankers are predicting (such as merchants pitching big-bank cards at the point of sale) will come to pass, according to the recent online poll. Sixty percent of online voters took the side of industry consultant Andrew Kahr, who wrote in a recent Viewpoint that the Durbin amendment will actually help banks under $10 billion in assets because the regulation exempts them from a pending 12-cent cap on interchange fees. The problem here is that those who oppose the Durbin Amendment can’t even get their story straight. It’s unfortunate that some community bankers have gotten caught up on the wrong side of this battle, but the bottom line still couldn’t be clearer. This is a straightforward fight between Main Street retailers/community banks/consumers and the Wall Street/big bank set. The community bankers and credit unions should be smart and get on the correct side of the issue. And Democrats who are helping the big banks over small Main Street businesses should have their heads examined, because those kind of politics make no sense. One final point: with the bad news today on jobs, and the Republicans’ determination that no new jobs legislation should pass through Congress, it is very clear that the only chance we have for making big improvements in the economy in the short term is by taking on these big Wall Street banks that are hoarding so much money. Swipe fee regulation injects money straight into the economy through lower retail prices and more money for struggling small businesses, so that is one important thing we can do. And we need to force these banks to start writing down mortgages on underwater loans, which would help revive the housing market and inject a major amount of new money into the economy because of lowered monthly house payments. The big banks have way too much of our money, and they aren’t making the loans that would create more jobs, so let’s free up some of that money to help the economy.
Continue reading …One of the saddest stories in American politics, which happens all too often, is when small and medium sized community-based businesses lobby against common-sense regulations that would help them compete against the big-business conglomerates that dominate their industry. Because of a knee-jerk fear of any regulation, a lot of times the big companies will convince their smaller brethren to be the lead lobbyists fighting something that would actually go a long ways in helping the small guys have a more level playing field with the big dogs. The classic example lately is on banking policy. The six biggest banks in America control assets equaling more than 64 percent of our national GDP, and because they are Too Big To Fail, they end up getting major market advantages over smaller financial institutions. These Wall Street behemoths’ economic clout is making it harder and harder for credit unions and smaller community banks to survive, which is a terrible shame because they are the ones who do most investing in small businesses at the local level. In the financial reform bill that was passed last year, most of the regulations that were passed were designed to create oversight of these biggest banks and leave the smaller ones alone, since the problems that caused the financial collapse were all centered in what the big banks were doing, yet the smaller banks and credit unions frequently sided with the big banks out of a mindless fear of any regulation at all. One important aspect of this is an issue I have been working on a lot with a coalition of retail businesses and consumer groups, swipe fee reform. If you live in D.C. or in a state or congressional district targeted by the bankers, it’s tough to miss the ubiquitous and alarming ads about how Congress wants to take away your debit card. These confusing advertisements — sponsored by the Electronic Payments Coalition (read: Bank of America, Capital One, Citi, JPMorgan Chase, MasterCard, Visa, et al.) — imply that banks will be so robbed by the swipe fee cap in the 2010 Wall Street reform law that their customers will have to do without things like free checking and debit cards. A debit card “swipe fee” is what Visa and MasterCard charge retailers, and in turn consumers, for every transaction made with a card. The fees generally cost businesses 1 to 2 percent of every transaction, and handed $16.2 billion to the big banks in 2009. ( Banks and credit unions themselves have admitted the per transaction fees far exceed the actual cost of service.) Sen. Durbin offered an amendment to the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that required the Federal Reserve to provide some regulation of debit card swipe fees so that the big banks who thoroughly dominate this market (Visa and MasterCard, which are subsidiaries of the big banks, represent more than 80 percent of the debit card market) couldn’t just charge any outrageous swipe fees. When Durbin offered his amendment 63 Senators voted for it, including some Republicans. But the big banks have plenty of money, lobbyists, and influence — and they keep chipping away at this. The Senate is expected to vote on an amendment to delay any swipe fee reform when they return from recess June 6. Small banks and credit unions have been convinced to help out their big Wall Street competitors, even though the Durbin Amendment exempts small banks by only applying the fee cap to banks and credit unions with $10 billion or more in assets. In fact, it is clear that small banks and credit unions would actually benefit from the Durbin Amendment . In its suit challenging the swipe fee cap in the U.S. District Court in South Dakota, TCF Bank shed some real light on how well the small bank exemption will work and help small banks compete with the previously unchecked Wall Street giants: If TCF begins charging its customers a “swipe fee” or a monthly fee for services, customers will switch to one of the 99 percent of banks not affected by the Durbin Amendment, which can continue to offer free checking/debit account and recover all related costs as they do today. Each TCF branch is surrounded by branches of competitors who are exempt from the Durbin Amendment. Indeed, in Minnesota, for example, only seven banks that accept deposits will be subject to the forthcoming Durbin Amendment regulations, while over 400 exempt banks and savings institutions (not counting credit unions) compete with TCF branches in Minnesota. Readers of American Banker, an industry publication, also agreed that small banks win under the Durbin Amendment: (T)here’s a healthy dose of skepticism, at least among American Banker readers, that some of the doomsday scenarios bankers are predicting (such as merchants pitching big-bank cards at the point of sale) will come to pass, according to the recent online poll. Sixty percent of online voters took the side of industry consultant Andrew Kahr, who wrote in a recent Viewpoint that the Durbin amendment will actually help banks under $10 billion in assets because the regulation exempts them from a pending 12-cent cap on interchange fees. The problem here is that those who oppose the Durbin Amendment can’t even get their story straight. It’s unfortunate that some community bankers have gotten caught up on the wrong side of this battle, but the bottom line still couldn’t be clearer. This is a straightforward fight between Main Street retailers/community banks/consumers and the Wall Street/big bank set. The community bankers and credit unions should be smart and get on the correct side of the issue. And Democrats who are helping the big banks over small Main Street businesses should have their heads examined, because those kind of politics make no sense. One final point: with the bad news today on jobs, and the Republicans’ determination that no new jobs legislation should pass through Congress, it is very clear that the only chance we have for making big improvements in the economy in the short term is by taking on these big Wall Street banks that are hoarding so much money. Swipe fee regulation injects money straight into the economy through lower retail prices and more money for struggling small businesses, so that is one important thing we can do. And we need to force these banks to start writing down mortgages on underwater loans, which would help revive the housing market and inject a major amount of new money into the economy because of lowered monthly house payments. The big banks have way too much of our money, and they aren’t making the loans that would create more jobs, so let’s free up some of that money to help the economy.
Continue reading …YUMA, Ariz. — A 73-year-old man’s shooting rampage in towns near the Arizona border left six people dead Thursday, including the suspect and the attorney who represented his ex-wife in their divorce. Police said Carey Hal Dyess also wounded one person in the shootings around Yuma, a city of about 200,000, before he was found dead of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound nearly six hours after the first shots were fired. The lawyer was killed while packing up his office on his last day of work. “This is not a random act,” Yuma Police Chief Jerry Geier said. “These victims were targeted.” Yuma County Sheriff Ralph Ogden said the first shooting was reported shortly after 5 a.m. in Wellton, about 25 miles east of Yuma. The woman was in critical condition at a Phoenix hospital. He said Dyess then fatally shot four people around town before driving to Yuma and killing prominent attorney Jerrold Shelley at about 9:20 a.m. The bodies in Wellton were found between 8:20 and 9:45 a.m. Police believe Dyess drove back toward Wellton, pulled over and fatally shot himself. His body was found at 10:47 a.m. inside a vehicle. Neither police nor the sheriff would identify the other four dead. Shelley was killed in his downtown law office. Shelley represented Dyess’ ex-wife in their 2006 divorce, which was Dyess’ fifth. Vida Florez, a Yuma attorney who knew Shelley, said she learned of the shooting after leaving court. She said she heard from a witness who spoke to the police about what happened inside the office. “They said the shooter came in and told the secretary to `Get out of here,’” Florez said. “She did, and he shot Jerry Shelley and he left.” Shelley also was one of the lawyers representing seven young men – three sets of brothers – who sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of Tucson after accusing a priest of repeatedly raping them when they were children. A man and woman were found dead in a small farm house outside the nearby town of Wellton, said Yuma police Sgt. John Otero. The tree-shaded home was set back about 100 feet from a highway, with a cow pasture in front. The downtown shooting prompted officials to block off a street and to lock down the nearby county courthouse and some schools. Those buildings were later reopened. Court records show Dyess was involved in two civil court cases, one in Yuma and one in Wellton. A judge issued an order of protection against Dyess in one of the cases in 2006, and a court clerk said it stemmed from Dyess’ divorce. No information was immediately available on those cases. Court records also show the 2006 divorce was Dyess’ fifth, with the previous four divorces all in Washington state. The divorce file showed that Theresa and Carey Dyess were married in Tombstone in May 2002 and the couple filed for divorce in 2006. Theresa Dyess alleged there had been domestic violence and she asked for and received an order of protection. No details of that incident were immediately available in the court file. Carey Dyess later took out a protection order against Theresa Dyess, records showed. The divorce was granted and the couple later agreed on a property split that gave Theresa Dyess the couple’s home in Wellton once she bought out her former husband’s share. A lawyer for Carey Dyess filed a brief in October 2008 that said Carey Dyess had not been paid more than a year after the divorce became final. “Mr. Dyess is sick and believes (his ex-wife) is `holding out,’ waiting for him to die, Yuma attorney Gregory Torok wrote in a court petition. The file shows the issue led to a final settlement two months later. Dyess also took out an order of protection against a man he identified as `my wife’s boyfriend,” who he alleged was harassing him by driving by his home every day. Yuma attorney Amanda Taylor described Shelley as a good man who was dedicated to his Mormon beliefs. She said Shelley’s wife also worked in the office, and that they have two grown children. “This is very frightening” she said. “You know, family law, that’s some of the most dangerous law to practice because it’s so emotional, but it’s usually the younger ages when it’s about custody issues.” She said Shelley was wrapping up a long career. “He was retiring. He literally was packing up his office today,” Taylor said. “He was an excellent family man. Well-respected in this community. Very kind. I’m just sick. I’ve lost such a good friend.” Others in Yuma expressed similar feelings of grief, with Mayor Al Krieger calling the shootings a tragedy for the victims and their families. “It’s one of those things where someone went and did something very, very foolish,” Krieger said. “I’m sorry for the loss of life.” Yuma County Presiding Judge Andrew Gould issued a statement through the Arizona Supreme Court saying officials were “thankful that those within the courthouse are safe,” but shocked and saddened at the violent acts that occurred in the close-knit community. Gov. Jan Brewer said she was “horrified” at the news and expressed sympathy for the victims’ families. “Many questions remain unanswered at this point, but I know that law enforcement and investigators will be working to piece together this tragedy in the days ahead,” she said in a statement. “In the meantime, this cruel violence has left a void in our hearts.” ___ Myers reported from Phoenix. Associated Press writer Mark Carlson also contributed to this report.
Continue reading …YUMA, Ariz. — A 73-year-old man’s shooting rampage in towns near the Arizona border left six people dead Thursday, including the suspect and the attorney who represented his ex-wife in their divorce. Police said Carey Hal Dyess also wounded one person in the shootings around Yuma, a city of about 200,000, before he was found dead of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound nearly six hours after the first shots were fired. The lawyer was killed while packing up his office on his last day of work. “This is not a random act,” Yuma Police Chief Jerry Geier said. “These victims were targeted.” Yuma County Sheriff Ralph Ogden said the first shooting was reported shortly after 5 a.m. in Wellton, about 25 miles east of Yuma. The woman was in critical condition at a Phoenix hospital. He said Dyess then fatally shot four people around town before driving to Yuma and killing prominent attorney Jerrold Shelley at about 9:20 a.m. The bodies in Wellton were found between 8:20 and 9:45 a.m. Police believe Dyess drove back toward Wellton, pulled over and fatally shot himself. His body was found at 10:47 a.m. inside a vehicle. Neither police nor the sheriff would identify the other four dead. Shelley was killed in his downtown law office. Shelley represented Dyess’ ex-wife in their 2006 divorce, which was Dyess’ fifth. Vida Florez, a Yuma attorney who knew Shelley, said she learned of the shooting after leaving court. She said she heard from a witness who spoke to the police about what happened inside the office. “They said the shooter came in and told the secretary to `Get out of here,’” Florez said. “She did, and he shot Jerry Shelley and he left.” Shelley also was one of the lawyers representing seven young men – three sets of brothers – who sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of Tucson after accusing a priest of repeatedly raping them when they were children. A man and woman were found dead in a small farm house outside the nearby town of Wellton, said Yuma police Sgt. John Otero. The tree-shaded home was set back about 100 feet from a highway, with a cow pasture in front. The downtown shooting prompted officials to block off a street and to lock down the nearby county courthouse and some schools. Those buildings were later reopened. Court records show Dyess was involved in two civil court cases, one in Yuma and one in Wellton. A judge issued an order of protection against Dyess in one of the cases in 2006, and a court clerk said it stemmed from Dyess’ divorce. No information was immediately available on those cases. Court records also show the 2006 divorce was Dyess’ fifth, with the previous four divorces all in Washington state. The divorce file showed that Theresa and Carey Dyess were married in Tombstone in May 2002 and the couple filed for divorce in 2006. Theresa Dyess alleged there had been domestic violence and she asked for and received an order of protection. No details of that incident were immediately available in the court file. Carey Dyess later took out a protection order against Theresa Dyess, records showed. The divorce was granted and the couple later agreed on a property split that gave Theresa Dyess the couple’s home in Wellton once she bought out her former husband’s share. A lawyer for Carey Dyess filed a brief in October 2008 that said Carey Dyess had not been paid more than a year after the divorce became final. “Mr. Dyess is sick and believes (his ex-wife) is `holding out,’ waiting for him to die, Yuma attorney Gregory Torok wrote in a court petition. The file shows the issue led to a final settlement two months later. Dyess also took out an order of protection against a man he identified as `my wife’s boyfriend,” who he alleged was harassing him by driving by his home every day. Yuma attorney Amanda Taylor described Shelley as a good man who was dedicated to his Mormon beliefs. She said Shelley’s wife also worked in the office, and that they have two grown children. “This is very frightening” she said. “You know, family law, that’s some of the most dangerous law to practice because it’s so emotional, but it’s usually the younger ages when it’s about custody issues.” She said Shelley was wrapping up a long career. “He was retiring. He literally was packing up his office today,” Taylor said. “He was an excellent family man. Well-respected in this community. Very kind. I’m just sick. I’ve lost such a good friend.” Others in Yuma expressed similar feelings of grief, with Mayor Al Krieger calling the shootings a tragedy for the victims and their families. “It’s one of those things where someone went and did something very, very foolish,” Krieger said. “I’m sorry for the loss of life.” Yuma County Presiding Judge Andrew Gould issued a statement through the Arizona Supreme Court saying officials were “thankful that those within the courthouse are safe,” but shocked and saddened at the violent acts that occurred in the close-knit community. Gov. Jan Brewer said she was “horrified” at the news and expressed sympathy for the victims’ families. “Many questions remain unanswered at this point, but I know that law enforcement and investigators will be working to piece together this tragedy in the days ahead,” she said in a statement. “In the meantime, this cruel violence has left a void in our hearts.” ___ Myers reported from Phoenix. Associated Press writer Mark Carlson also contributed to this report.
Continue reading …An hour before the disastrous June jobs report was released yesterday morning, NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell chatted with “Fox & Friends” anchor Brian Kilmeade about the media's spin job on the Obama economy. [See video of the segment embedded below the page break]
Continue reading …An hour before the disastrous June jobs report was released yesterday morning, NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell chatted with “Fox & Friends” anchor Brian Kilmeade about the media's spin job on the Obama economy. [See video of the segment embedded below the page break]
Continue reading …We’re a few days out from E3 , that magical place where dreams are made and fanboys and girls from all walks of life are simultaneously appeased and slightly disappointed. Surprises are expected from all of the big three this year — particularly Nintendo. How will the gaming giant top last year’s 3DS debut ? All signs point to the announcement of a Wii followup, which we’ve heard alternately referred to as the “Wii HD” and “Project Cafe.” Rumors, leaks, and the occasional bit of confirmed information have been rampant in the months and weeks leading up to the event. We’ve weaved it all together into one handy guidebook, to make sure that we’re all on the same page, come Tuesday morning. Let’s start with a genuine bit of information: back in April, the company’s CEO, Satoru Iwata, confirmed that Nintendo is, in fact, working on an HD followup to the Wii that is most likely due out in 2012. A few days prior to that revelation, the requisite blurry images of console concepts surfaced, detailing controllers with embedded touchscreens that display the system’s 1080p gameplay via a technology called Stream Screen. These certainly weren’t the first concepts of the console we’ve seen — and they were apparently first brought to light by the folks at 4Chan. Continue reading Nintendo Wii HD / Project Cafe rumor roundup: What will E3 hold for the gaming giant? Nintendo Wii HD / Project Cafe rumor roundup: What will E3 hold for the gaming giant? originally appeared on Engadget on Sat, 04 Jun 2011 11:01:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink
Continue reading …The UN Programme on HIV/Aids (UNAids) has called for increased funding for the early treatment of people with HIV. The head of the agency, Michael Sidibe, said a new study showed it could reduce the risk of HIV transmission by 96%. He said the challenge was to expand access to drugs, and deal with social factors…
Continue reading …