85 People, a group that could easily fit on a single subway car:
85 Wealthy Elites Have As Much Wealth As Half The World’s Population
The extent to which both global wealth has become cornered by a virtual handful of so-called “global elite” is exposed in a new report by Oxfam on Monday. He warned that the 85 richest people in the world share a combined wealth of £ 1 billion , as much as the poorest 3.5 billion of the world population .
The organization fears that the development of this concentration of economic resources is threatening the political stability and increasing social tensions.
The report found that in recent decades , the rich have successfully managed to skew political influence policies in their favor on issues ranging from financial deregulation , tax havens to reduce tax rates on high incomes and cuts in public services for most. Since the late 1970s , tax rates for the wealthy have declined in 29 of the 30 countries for which data are available , according to the report .
Curious as to how the Defense Department could be spying on you next? PBS checked in with DARPA about the latest in drone camera technology for the NOVA special “Rise of the Drones,” including the world’s highest-resolution camera. Actually seeing the sensor on ARGUS-IS, or Autonomous Real-Time Ground Ubiquitous Surveillance Imaging System, is still classified, but the basics of how it works have been deemed fit for public consumption. ARGUS-IS uses 368 imaging chips like those found in cell phone cameras, to stitch together a 1.8 billion pixel video. That means from 17,500 feet in the air, ARGUS-IS can see someone on the ground waving their arms. And it generates that kind of high-definition video for an area 15 square miles across. It can see a bird flying through a parking lot from more than three miles in the air. It can store a million terabytes of video a day, up to 5,000 hours of footage, so soon drones will not only be able to see everything that happens on the ground, but also keep that record. Whether or not ARGUS has been used in the field is still classified. Let’s get real, though: Does this cool a toy get put in a corner?
Apple is the world’s largest company – with nearly $600 billion in market value – getting bigger is a tough challenge. Still hasn’t learned how to charm the world’s largest population:
If you’re the world’s largest company – with nearly $600 billion in market value – getting bigger is a tough challenge. But if Apple can learn how to charm the world’s largest population, the possibilities are limitless.
Tim Cook, Apple’s reserved and soft-spoken CEO, has a tendency to wax euphoric about the China market and his company’s place in it. When asked last year by an analyst whether China could replace the U.S. as Apple’s biggest market, Cook positively gushed. “How far can it go?” he responded, referring to China’s prospects. “Certainly in my lifetime I’ve never seen a country with as many people rising into the middle class, with people wanting to buy Apple products.” He didn’t directly answer the analyst’s question, but concluded, “The sky is the limit.” You may think you know the story of Apple (AAPL) in China — how the men and women who make iPods and iPhones for Apple partner Foxconn labor under punishing conditions. But there’s another Apple Goes to China story, and this one is the tale of an underdog — yes, underdog — that has the potential to unlock billions and billions of dollars in additional revenue, just by eking out market share gains in core products such as smartphones and PCs. If you think Apple, the most valuable company in the world, with a market cap of nearly $600 billion, has nowhere to go but down, we humbly suggest you turn your gaze to the East. Even as China experiences a sharper-than-expected economic slowdown, it continues to mint millions of consumers who covet Apple’s products. In its fiscal first half of the year, Apple has reported $12.4 billion in sales from greater China, and analysts believe Apple could garner $25 billion or more in China sales in calendar 2012. And that’s up from $13.3 billion last fiscal year, and almost nothing five years ago. In 2007 — the year before the iPhone became available internationally — Apple’s annual revenue from China was “a few hundred millions of dollars,” Cook has said. The company didn’t open its first store in China, a modern glass-and-metal structure in Beijing, until 2008, a full seven years after launching its retail strategy in the U.S.The company has yet to secure a deal to run the iPhone on the China Mobile network. For years the two companies have been negotiating; every year the rumor mill churns that a deal between the two is imminent. There’s fresh speculation, once again, that the iPhone 5 will be the device that seals the deal. A source at China Mobile will say only that the two companies continue to have conversations, but that no final deal has been reached. But just as the availability of the iPhone on new carriers in the U.S. expanded Apple’s reach, a China Mobile deal would have a huge impact on Apple’s presence in China. The cellphone company has a 66% market share in China. Meanwhile Apple is moving in smaller, smart ways to further immerse itself in the China market. The new iOS 6 operating system integrates popular sites in China like Sina Weibo, the microblog that’s more or less the equivalent of Twitter. And the Mac OS 10.8 upgrade includes a package of popular Mandarin sites, including Youku, a video destination. And while it lacks the massive reach of its Chinese competitors and Samsung, Apple has dramatically expanded the number of stores it permits to sell its devices; there are 11,000 places in China to buy the iPhone, up 138% from last year. The aggressive expansion plainly continues. One Shanghai suburb boasts two Apple licensee stores. “Business has been very good,” says Xie Li-jun, the manager of one of the stores.
The world’s first genetically modified humans have been created, it was revealed last night. The disclosure that 30 healthy babies were born after a series of experiments in the United States provoked another furious debate about ethics. So far, two of the babies have been tested and have been found to contain genes from three ‘parents’. Fifteen of the children were born in the past three years as a result of one experimental programme at the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas in New Jersey. The babies were born to women who had problems conceiving. Extra genes from a female donor were inserted into their eggs before they were fertilised in an attempt to enable them to conceive. Genetic fingerprint tests on two one-year- old children confirm that they have inherited DNA from three adults –two women and one man. The fact that the children have inherited the extra genes and incorporated them into their ‘germline’ means that they will, in turn, be able to pass them on to their own offspring. Altering the human germline – in effect tinkering with the very make-up of our species – is a technique shunned by the vast majority of the world’s scientists. Geneticists fear that one day this method could be used to create new races of humans with extra, desired characteristics such as strength or high intelligence. Writing in the journal Human Reproduction, the researchers, led by fertility pioneer Professor Jacques Cohen, say that this ‘is the first case of human germline genetic modification resulting in normal healthy children’. Some experts severely criticised the experiments. Lord Winston, of the Hammersmith Hospital in West London, told the BBC yesterday: ‘Regarding the treat-ment of the infertile, there is no evidence that this technique is worth doing . . . I am very surprised that it was even carried out at this stage. It would certainly not be allowed in Britain.’ John Smeaton, national director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said: ‘One has tremendous sympathy for couples who suffer infertility problems. But this seems to be a further illustration of the fact that the whole process of in vitro fertilisation as a means of conceiving babies leads to babies being regarded as objects on a production line. ‘It is a further and very worrying step down the wrong road for humanity.’ Professor Cohen and his colleagues diagnosed that the women were infertile because they had defects in tiny structures in their egg cells, called mitochondria. They took eggs from donors and, using a fine needle, sucked some of the internal material – containing ‘healthy’ mitochondria – and injected it into eggs from the women wanting to conceive. Because mitochondria contain genes, the babies resulting from the treatment have inherited DNA from both women. These genes can now be passed down the germline along the maternal line. A spokesman for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), which regulates ‘assisted reproduction’ technology in Britain, said that it would not license the technique here because it involved altering the germline. Jacques Cohen is regarded as a brilliant but controversial scientist who has pushed the boundaries of assisted reproduction technologies. He developed a technique which allows infertile men to have their own children, by injecting sperm DNA straight into the egg in the lab. Prior to this, only infertile women were able to conceive using IVF. Last year, Professor Cohen said that his expertise would allow him to clone children –a prospect treated with horror by the mainstream scientific community. ‘It would be an afternoon’s work for one of my students,’ he said, adding that he had been approached by ‘at least three’ individuals wishing to create a cloned child, but had turned down their requests.