Источник
Business news and blog articles from The Huffington Post
27 мая, 23:08

'Pirates 5' Eyes Box Office Domination While 'Baywatch' Drowns

  • 0

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); Box office numbers prove Disney knew what it was doing when the studio decided to make the fifth installment of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise.  “Dead Men Tell No Tales” opened on Friday and is leading the Memorial Day-weekend box office with about $110 million in ticket sales worldwide. About $23.4 million comes from domestic ticket sales. The film had a production budget of $230 million and is well on its way to making that back.  The film, which again stars Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow, and other franchise favorites Orlando Bloom, Geoffrey Rush and Keira Knightley, has been largely panned by critics and currently has a 32 percent fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. In a scathing New York Times review, A.O. Scott wrote, “This movie would be a rip-off even if someone paid you to see it. Because, to be honest, it’s barely a movie at all.” But reviews like these (and there are many) haven’t kept the viewing public out of their seats or from enjoying the film. The movie currently has a 78 percent fresh rating from audiences.  While “Pirates” is expected to sail through to a $275 million opening-weekend, according to The Hollywood Reporter, “Baywatch” is drowning after it opened with only $4.6 million in ticket sales on Thursday. Disappointing sales followed on Friday, when the film, which stars Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson and Zac Efron, took in around $5.7 million.  Like “Pirates 5,” “Baywatch” was also trashed by critics and its fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes from professional reviewers currently sits at 19 percent. Audiences ― the few who have seen the movie anyway ― appear to enjoy the film much more. The audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes is currently at 71 percent fresh. But even if “Baywatch” is drowning, it’s not completely dead in the water. According to Deadline, the film is on track to earn around $26.8 million over the four-day weekend. Considering it cost less that $70 million to make, the film will more than likely make its money back, especially once it opens in foreign markets. That’s why producers are already talking about a sequel.  -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

27 мая, 15:18

Doing The Right Thing Shouldn’t Be This Remarkable

  • 0

New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu stood up last week and delivered a moving, bracingly honest speech to explain why he removed four Confederate monuments from his city. “You elected me to do the right thing, and this is what it looks like,” Landrieu told the crowd gathered at New Orleans’ former city hall. “These monuments purposefully celebrate a fictional, sanitized Confederacy, ignoring the death, ignoring the enslavement and the terror that it actually stood for.” While it was remarkable to see a Southern politician speaking boldly and clearly about race ― in the face of death threats and protests ― it was perhaps even more notable to see a leader publicly demonstrating the character of his convictions. Landrieu’s speech went viral. As the country grows ever more cynical, divided and partisan, we’re not used to honesty and courage from our leaders. Seeing a politician stand up for what he or she believes is the right thing is increasingly rare. Political discourse and civic life has so devolved in 2017 that a man charged with physical assault, Republican Greg Gianforte, was elected to Congress Thursday in Montana with the backing and full support of his party. Just the day before, Gianforte, a self-made tech millionaire, wrapped his hands around the neck of a reporter, threw him to the ground, and repeatedly punched him for asking a question.   Comparing a longtime politician in Louisiana (Landrieu comes from a political family and is a former lieutenant governor) to an upstart businessman-cum-politician may seem like a stretch. But these two men make a neat case study on the state of ethics and integrity in 2017. These days the public no longer expects leaders to do what’s right. We’ve grown accustomed to name-calling and carefully crafted milquetoast middle-of-the-road statements. We’re used to lying, and we expect leaders to put party and their own careers before all else. “Norms have shifted,” said Gautam Mukunda, the author of Indispensable: When Leaders Really Matter and a professor at Harvard Business School. “We expect leaders to be bad, and people live up to what you expect of them. We’ve created a self-fulfilling prophecy of bad behavior and it is profound.” To many Americans, politics is either a massive conspiracy, a “House of Cards” dystopia, or a playground for craven buffoons, a la “Veep.” We are no longer surprised as we witness leaders live up to these expectations, lying about meeting with foreign agents, changing their stories, and blaming everyone but themselves when things go wrong. You could see footprints of our lower standards all over the Gianforte incident. Instead of apologizing for his naked act of aggression, Gianforte initially released a statement blaming the reporter, Ben Jacobs of The Guardian. “It’s unfortunate that this aggressive behavior from a liberal journalist created this scene at our campaign volunteer BBQ,” the statement read. Worse, the statement was false. It claimed Jacobs shoved the microphone in Gianforte’s face and refused to lower it after being asked, but audio and witness accounts from a Fox News crew refuted the claims. Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan gamely admitted what Gianforte did was wrong, and called on him to apologize, but he also said would support his election if that’s what the people of Montana wanted. Of course, we can’t actually know what the people in Montana thought of the assault. A majority of voters cast their ballots before the body-slam. It’s easy to imagine a different politician simply stepping out of the race in the face of such an incident. Remember when Howard Dean appeared to scream in one speech and it doomed his entire bid for the presidential nomination? Some conservative pundits tried to spin the assault this week as a good thing: “Gianforte, the manly and studly candidate, threw the 125-pound wet dishrag reporter from The Guardian to the ground,” Rush Limbaugh said of the incident, according to an online transcript of his show posted on his website. Laura Ingraham, while gamely allowing that politicians should stay cool in such situations, also tried to cast Jacobs as wimpy for not fighting back. What “would most Montana men do if ‘body slammed’ for no reason by another man?” she asked in a tweet. Politicians always need to keep their cool. But what would most Montana men do if "body slammed" for no reason by another man?— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) May 25, 2017 As is too often the case in 2017, partisanship blinded us from even distinguishing right from wrong. The increasing divide between right and left and the intensely personal way each side attacks the other means that even ethics are now partisan. Republicans and Democrats call each other “bad” or “evil,” and there is often no higher playing field where everyone agrees to nonpartisan standards and values (don’t hit people, don’t lie, etc.). “I don’t think Obama was perfect, but it’s hard to imagine more of a straight-arrow person. Not a hint of scandal,” Mukunda said. Yet somehow half of America just didn’t it see it that way. People who disagree with his politics won’t typically acknowledge that he acted with respect for the office. “You don’t hear a lot of that,” Mukunda said. Yet at the same time, people are hungry for heroes ― men and women with humility who will stand up for what’s right. When former acting Attorney General Sally Yates refused to enforce President Donald Trump’s travel ban because she believed it was unconstitutional, many people found it thrilling. When Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) criticizes the Trump administration for its failings, he’s lauded. Indeed, we need people like this to set examples, Mukunda says. “The extent that we have culturally deprived people of that is troubling.” It’s also highly dysfunctional. Integrity is the bedrock of a properly functioning organization, Joseph Badaracco told HuffPost recently. Badaracco has been teaching an introductory course in ethics, leadership and accountability to Harvard Business School students for the past decade. He defines integrity as a consistency between what you believe, say and do. “It all hangs together,” he said. “There’s a way in which integrity shouldn’t be newsworthy ― we assume it, rely on it and count on it,” Badaracco said. “It’s not exactly like obeying the laws of gravity, but we ought to be able to assume it’s there.” The ability to know what’s right and follow through on it with conviction isn’t something Badaracco believes can really be taught to people by the time they reach Harvard Business School. “We don’t teach people how to have integrity. Or even teach the importance of it,” he says. “If someone doesn’t understand that, they have a deficiency in their education or development and we can’t remedy that.” Badaracco says his focus is on making hard decisions. The grey areas. “Not right versus wrong where a person with integrity will know what’s right,” he explains. “But right versus right where it’s not really clear.” But civil discourse has devolved from this graduate-school-level thinking. Americans elected Trump, a man whose most original thinking seems to come through in his creative penchant for name-calling. Many mistook Trump’s plainspoken manner for authenticity, and perhaps conflated this with honesty and integrity. These are not the same things. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

27 мая, 08:17

Top Trump Economic Adviser: Coal Doesn't Make Sense Anymore

  • 0

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); Donald Trump spent months promising miners that he’d make the ailing coal mining industry great again during his election campaign. But it seems one of the president’s top economic aides has other ideas. Gary Cohn, director of the White House National Economic Council, told reporters aboard Air Force One Thursday night that coal “doesn’t make sense anymore,” as he talked up other energy sources. “Coal doesn’t even make that much sense anymore as a feedstock,” he said, CNN Money reported. Feedstock refers to what’s used to produce energy. Cohn called natural gas a “such a cleaner fuel,” and pointed out that America has become an “abundant producer” of the fossil fuel. He also praised renewable energy. “If you think about how solar and how much wind power we’ve created in the United States, we can be a manufacturing powerhouse and still be environmentally friendly,” Cohn said. Cohn’s outlook is far removed from Trump’s campaign chorus about bringing back coal and eliminating regulations to boost jobs. “Miners ... get ready because you’re going to be working your asses off,” he said during a campaign speech a year ago. In March, Trump declared at a ceremony in the White House surrounded by miners that he would “put our miners back to work.” “My administration is putting an end to the war on coal,” he said. “We’re going to have clean coal, really clean coal.” Statistics show that the coal industry began losing jobs long before the Obama administration imposed environmental restrictions — contradicting Trump’s claims — because it’s not economically competitive with other energy sources. “The market conditions are not there,” Dan Bucks, a coal policy expert and former director of revenue for the coal-producing state of Montana, told HuffPost in March. “Federal policy is only one variable, and market conditions are the larger factor.” Coal mining accounted for some 65,000 jobs in the U.S. in 2015, according to government data. Estimates of the number of renewable energy jobs in the United States vary, but they’re conservatively believed to be in the hundreds of thousands. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=5919db31e4b086d2d0d8d170,58de7502e4b0ca889ba1a514 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

27 мая, 05:36

Melania Trump Steps Out In Floral Jacket Worth A Year's Income

  • 0

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); First lady Melania Trump made a mega-colorful debut on a Sicily street Friday in a Dolce & Gabbana floral jacket worth a mind-blowing $51,500. The silk jacket by the Italian fashion house, plastered with large 3D flowers, was featured on a Dolce & Gabbana runway just months ago. But Americans appeared to be buzzing more about the cost than the fashion. A number of news reports compared the price to an entire year’s salary for many jobs in the U.S. — even the cost of a house in some areas. The median American family income in 2015, according to government statistics, was $55,775.  The first lady’s style choice wasn’t quite a “let them eat cake moment.” Cake would be way more affordable. Instagram site Whitehousewardrobe, which tracked the first lady’s clothing on her husband’s first international trip as president, drew some scathing remarks about the extravagance of the jacket as President Donald Trump proposes dismantling the economic safety net for working-class Americans. #DolceGabbana for #FLOTUS! Incredible look!! ❤️ 3D Floral Jacket ($51k) http://shopstyle.it/l/C4r, Miss Dea clutch, jacquard sheath & pumps. IDs from @heavenqrf! #MelaniaTrump #Melania #dgwomen A post shared by White House Wardrobe (@whitehousewardrobe) on May 26, 2017 at 5:27am PDT It’s not clear if Melania Trump paid for the jacket; Dolce & Gabbana isn’t saying. It was reported earlier this year that the first lady pays for her own clothing and doesn’t accept free fashion or loaned outfits to promote designers. The extravagance of the clothing choice got on lots of American nerves. The Washington Post pointed out that voters erupted in 2009, when former first lady Michelle Obama wore a pair of $540 Lanvin kicks to help out at a Washington food bank. Times have changed. US First Lady Melania Trump arrives for a visit at the Chierici Palace City Hall of Catania on the sidelines of a G7 summit of the Heads of State and of Government in Taormina ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ THANK YOU @flotus #melaniatrump ❤ #DGWoman #DGStyle ❤❤❤ A post shared by stefanogabbana (@stefanogabbana) on May 26, 2017 at 8:04am PDT type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=58f4ddede4b0bb9638e53827 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

26 мая, 23:36

We Pay Low Prices For Chinese Food Because Of Racial Biases About ‘Cheap’ Labor

  • 0

You may not think it, but there’s a direct relationship between plunging your chopsticks into that white, quart-sized box of cheaply priced Chinese food — and a laborer diligently driving a spike to lay the railroad tracks that became the gateway to the American West.  May, which is Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, marks the anniversary of the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad. It was largely built by Chinese immigrants from 1864 to 1869, working at a grueling pace for less money than white workers. And these labor practices have an impact today on how much we’re willing to pay for Chinese food ― rooted in a perception that Chinese labor is inherently “cheap,” historians say. The earliest Chinese restaurants in America were created for Chinese railroad laborers, who were under contract and lacked negotiating power as they laid tracks from Omaha, Nebraska, to Sacramento, California ― cutting through the Rocky Mountains and the Sierra Nevada. With Chinese laborers earning an estimated two-thirds of what white workers made, owners had to keep restaurant prices low, Beatrice Chen, programming vice president at the Museum of Chinese in America, explained to HuffPost.  The mainstream American consumer mindset is that there is a ceiling to how much we’re willing to pay for Chinese food. “This perception of Chinese restaurants has stuck, even though high-end Chinese restaurants in Asia are common and popular,” Chen said. “The mainstream American consumer mindset is that there is a ceiling to how much we’re willing to pay for Chinese food, even if they are made with the same fresh ingredients and intricate cooking techniques as say, French or Japanese cuisine.” ‘Cheap Labor’ And ‘Job Stealers’ The railroad also laid the foundation for perceptions of Chinese people themselves. White workers at the time were unionizing, and were less willing to work for lower wages. Railroad executives had been skeptical of the aptitude of Chinese workers, but the laborers set out to prove them wrong, Chen explained. “This led to the general perception that Chinese were willing to work for lower wages and were job stealers,” she said.  But what was perceived as a robotic work ethic might have just been survival, Beth Lew-Williams, an assistant professor at Princeton specializing in Asian American history, told HuffPost in an interview in December. She pointed out a discriminatory labor system within the railroad.  Chinese were paid less, given the worst strenuous jobs. People against the Chinese saw this as revealing of their innate nature. “It was a race-based dual wage system at the time,” Lew-Williams said. “Chinese were paid less, given the worst strenuous jobs. People against the Chinese saw this as revealing of their innate nature. That Chinese were fundamentally ‘cheap’ labor and designed to do this back-breaking labor.” On top of negative perceptions, Chinese contributions were largely erased through history. Chen said that of the 17,000 railroad workers, 15,000 were Chinese, though estimates vary. A photo below of the final stake being driven into the track at Promontory Summit, Utah, would have people believe they didn’t contribute at all. “I hope that telling and disseminating American history told from Asian American perspectives will illuminate that Asian Americans are not necessarily quiet (per the stereotype), but rather, Asian American history/stories and perspectives tend to be silenced in the mainstream,” Chen said.  Building A Railroad, And Then Banned Following completion of the tracks, the U.S. implemented the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, stemming further immigration of Chinese laborers. It was the first major law that banned a group’s immigration to the U.S. based on ethnicity. “The Chinese were originally seen as racially unassimilable,” Lew-Williams said. “They could not become Americanized. They were simultaneously racially inferior, backwards, savage heathen ― and in some dangerous ways ― superior.” The act was technically repealed on Dec. 17, 1943, allowing 105 Chinese visas per year. The measure was largely seen as an attempt to maintain U.S.-China relationships against Japan during World War II. In 1965, the Immigration and Nationality Act fully reversed exclusionary practices, which some historians say was meant to prop up Asians as the “model minority” during the Civil Rights movement ― sending a message to other minority groups.  An Immigrant Story For Today  Much has been written about the dangers in grouping together Asian Americans as a model minority monolith and erasing the experiences of immigrants. Peter Kwong, a former Asian American studies professor at Hunter College, pointed out that the struggles of the original Chinese Americans have persisted. “Because some Chinese people succeeded doesn’t mean working-class Chinese have the same capability and upward mobility. It’s a class issue,” Kwong told HuffPost in an interview before he died in March.   It may be that food is the easiest lens through which to view such thorny topics as class, race, social mobility and how much value we place on a given culture.  If you take price as a surrogate for prestige ... there are some cuisines we are willing to pay for and some we are not willing to pay for, and that is related partly, I think, to how we evaluate those national cultures and their people. Krishnendu Ray, a professor of food studies at New York University, has written about the topic, and said that we might simply hold less veneration for food from certain countries that we see as less well-off.  “If you take price as a surrogate for prestige ... there are some cuisines we are willing to pay for and some we are not willing to pay for, and that is related partly, I think, to how we evaluate those national cultures and their people,” Ray said in Voice of America.  Eddie Huang, owner of Baohaus and a host on Vice, often talks about how mainstream appreciation of food and culture remain a barometer for how conditional your status is as a foreigner, and of your stock value in America.  Huang has expressed dismay that immigrants like his parents feel they have to work harder just to achieve the same pay as non-immigrants. And thumbing his nose to any such established expectation, Huang has said in the past:  “I sell Taiwanese gua bao for a full f**king price in America.”   Read more from HuffPost on Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.  -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

26 мая, 21:12

Weekend Roundup: Trump’s Siding With Saudi Arabia Against Iran Deepens The Mideast Divide

  • 0

In a speech in Riyadh ostensibly billed as seeking to unite the Muslim world against terrorism, U.S. President Donald Trump instead further inflamed the Shia-Sunni schism in the region by signaling America’s embrace of the Saudi anti-Iran vision for the Middle East. It was, of course, left unmentioned that the so-called Islamic State, which claimed credit for the truly evil atrocity in Manchester days later, derives part of its fanatic ideology from the fundamentalist Wahhabism strain of Islam that legitimates Saudi Arabia’s monarchy.   One can only imagine how the images of Trump partaking in a traditional sword dance with Saudi officials played to voters who had just gone to the polls in Iran and overwhelmingly returned the reformist leader Hassan Rouhani to the presidency. Rouhani’s re-election was due in no small part to the nuclear and sanctions relief deal he negotiated with the United States and other major powers. That deal was crucial to former U.S. President Barack Obama’s effort to not only curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but to establish a new balance in America’s Mideast policy between Sunni and Shia powers as well. It is a tragic mistake for the Trump administration to reverse that policy at the very moment it was producing results in Iran. Seyed Hossein Mousavian, who once headed the Foreign Relations Committee of Iran’s National Security Council, underscores this shift in Iran. “The Iranian electorate has spoken in its decision between two stark alternatives: strengthening civil society and engaging with the world, or turning inward with economic populism and combative foreign policy,” he writes. “In decisively voting for Rouhani, Iranians have endorsed diplomacy and moderation. And they have done so in direct contrast to U.S. President Donald Trump, who has called for increasing tensions with Iran and championed isolationist foreign policy.” Abolhassan Bani-Sadr concurs that Iran’s election was a milestone. The first president of the Islamic Republic of Iran told The WorldPost this week that Rouhani’s landslide win marked a level of democratic culture in his country not seen since before the pro-American shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi: “In this election ― for the first time since the early days of the revolution itself and the rule of our democratic Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, back before the shah ― the core debates were about human rights, the rights of citizenship and democracy. I am a good barometer to measure this shift, after all, since I was forced out of office in those early revolutionary days by the ayatollahs for promoting these values. This gives us reason to believe that democratic culture is spreading and deepening in Iran.” Despite Trump’s anti-Iran remarks in Riyadh, Bani-Sadr’s hope and expectation is that this budding advance of democratic culture in Iran will make it more difficult for Washington to demonize Tehran. Reza Marashi of the National Iranian American Council expects that, given Rouhani’s victory, Iran will continue to try to engage the U.S.-Saudi alignment and damp down rivalry. But it is a two-way street, he says: “Rouhani’s track record demonstrates that sustained engagement can lower tensions and produce peaceful solutions to conflict. By electing him to a second term, Iran has once again extended its hand. It remains to be seen if the world will unclench its fist.” Turning to other key events, in an article ahead of the G-7 summit in Sicily, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe highlights the populist backlash against free trade and globalization. “We are approaching the 10-year mark since the start of the global financial crisis,” he writes. “Many countries and regions have made tenacious efforts to ride out the crisis and ensure a growth path. Looking at things globally, however, much remains to be done on issues such as youth unemployment, wage levels and productivity. The key to overcoming these challenges,” he boldly states, “is free trade.” But trade, he goes on to stipulate, must not only be free, but fair. Above all, its benefits must be spread more inclusively both within societies and globally, the Japanese leader says, if the zero-sum alternative of protectionism is to be avoided. Finally, Singapore’s scholar-statesman George Yeo explains this week why “civilizational states” in Asia, like China and to some extent Japan, are less prone to populism than the West. As he sees it, China’s largely homogenous Han people, not unlike Japan’s even more homogenous population, “bow before the ideal of a common ancestry and destiny” that ties them together more strongly than any factional or individual interests might divide them. Other highlights in The WorldPost this week: Trump Reportedly Called Germans ‘Very Bad,’ Vowed To Stop German Car Sales In The U.S. Inside North Korea’s Secret Cyber Warfare Cell Climate Change Is Turning Antarctica Green Elon Musk Is ‘Cautiously Optimistic’ After Talking To Trump About Paris Climate Pact There’s A New Type Of Pollution Invading The Oceans WHO WE ARE     EDITORS: Nathan Gardels, Co-Founder and Executive Advisor to the Berggruen Institute, is the Editor-in-Chief of The WorldPost. Kathleen Miles is the Executive Editor of The WorldPost. Farah Mohamed is the Managing Editor of The WorldPost. Alex Gardels and Peter Mellgard are the Associate Editors of The WorldPost. Suzanne Gaber is the Editorial Assistant of The WorldPost. Rosa O’Hara is the Social Editor of The WorldPost. Katie Nelson is News Director at HuffPost, overseeing The WorldPost and HuffPost’s news coverage. Nick Robins-Early and Jesselyn Cook are World Reporters. EDITORIAL BOARD: Nicolas Berggruen, Nathan Gardels, Arianna Huffington, Eric Schmidt (Google Inc.), Pierre Omidyar (First Look Media), Juan Luis Cebrian (El Pais/PRISA), Walter Isaacson (Aspen Institute/TIME-CNN), John Elkann (Corriere della Sera, La Stampa), Wadah Khanfar (Al Jazeera) and Yoichi Funabashi (Asahi Shimbun). VICE PRESIDENT OF OPERATIONS: Dawn Nakagawa. CONTRIBUTING EDITORS: Moises Naim (former editor of Foreign Policy), Nayan Chanda (Yale/Global; Far Eastern Economic Review) and Katherine Keating (One-On-One). Sergio Munoz Bata and Parag Khanna are Contributing Editors-At-Large. The Asia Society and its ChinaFile, edited by Orville Schell, is our primary partner on Asia coverage. Eric X. Li and the Chunqiu Institute/Fudan University in Shanghai and Guancha.cn also provide first person voices from China. We also draw on the content of China Digital Times. Seung-yoon Lee is The WorldPost link in South Korea. Jared Cohen of Google Ideas provides regular commentary from young thinkers, leaders and activists around the globe. Bruce Mau provides regular columns from MassiveChangeNetwork.com on the “whole mind” way of thinking. Patrick Soon-Shiong is Contributing Editor for Health and Medicine. ADVISORY COUNCIL: Members of the Berggruen Institute’s 21st Century Council and Council for the Future of Europe serve as theAdvisory Council — as well as regular contributors — to the site. These include, Jacques Attali, Shaukat Aziz, Gordon Brown, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Juan Luis Cebrian, Jack Dorsey, Mohamed El-Erian, Francis Fukuyama, Felipe Gonzalez, John Gray, Reid Hoffman, Fred Hu, Mo Ibrahim, Alexei Kudrin, Pascal Lamy, Kishore Mahbubani, Alain Minc, Dambisa Moyo, Laura Tyson, Elon Musk, Pierre Omidyar, Raghuram Rajan, Nouriel Roubini, Nicolas Sarkozy, Eric Schmidt, Gerhard Schroeder, Peter Schwartz, Amartya Sen, Jeff Skoll, Michael Spence, Joe Stiglitz, Larry Summers, Wu Jianmin, George Yeo, Fareed Zakaria, Ernesto Zedillo, Ahmed Zewail and Zheng Bijian. From the Europe group, these include: Marek Belka, Tony Blair, Jacques Delors, Niall Ferguson, Anthony Giddens, Otmar Issing, Mario Monti, Robert Mundell, Peter Sutherland and Guy Verhofstadt. MISSION STATEMENT The WorldPost is a global media bridge that seeks to connect the world and connect the dots. Gathering together top editors and first person contributors from all corners of the planet, we aspire to be the one publication where the whole world meets. We not only deliver breaking news from the best sources with original reportage on the ground and user-generated content; we bring the best minds and most authoritative as well as fresh and new voices together to make sense of events from a global perspective looking around, not a national perspective looking out. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

26 мая, 18:17

Billionaire Who Made Fortune Polluting Oceans To Donate Wealth To Clean Them Up

  • 0

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); This story is part of a series on ocean plastics. Our oceans may have found an unlikely savior. Norwegian billionaire Kjell Inge Røkke, who accrued his wealth in part through offshore oil drilling, announced this month that he’s donating the majority of his wealth to help save the oceans. Røkke is funding a 600-foot research yacht, which will tackle some of the most pressing environmental concerns of our time ― including how to rescue endangered species and eliminate plastic trash from our big blue seas. “There may not be any economic rationale for the private construction of such a ship, but the case is compelling from the oceans’ point of view,” Røkke said in a statement.  News of the research vessel comes at a time when environmental experts are growing increasingly concerned about the state of our oceans, while the public remains mostly uninterested.  Among a number of initiatives, the Research Expedition Vessel will remove 5 tons of plastic a day from the oceans and melt them down. Some of the plastics will be used for fuel for the ship, and those that can’t be used for other purposes will be returned to waste management facilities on land. Experts, including the World Wildlife Fund, which Røkke has partnered with, agree that collection isn’t enough. That’s why the researchers on board the ship will also work to develop plastic alternatives and identify ways to keep plastics from entering the ocean to begin with, Nina Jensen, CEO of WWF Norway, told HuffPost. WWF works to protect endangered species and natural places. A devastating amount of plastic gets dumped or leaches into marine waters regularly. While precise figures are challenging to nail down, one of the best estimates available says 19 billion pounds of plastic wind up in the ocean every year. At this rate, there will be more plastic than fish (by weight) in the ocean by 2050. Additionally, due to overfishing, pollution and other issues, more than a third of populations of marine fish, mammals, birds and reptiles have been lost since the 1970s, according to WWF.  RESEARCH EXPEDITION VESSEL (REV) from moodmasters on Vimeo. It’s unclear how much the construction of the REV will actually cost, but its proposed amenities and research initiatives are expansive. Outfitted with two helipads and modern laboratories, the REV will accommodate 60 scientists and 40 crew members, and it may be the largest yacht in the world when it’s delivered in 2020, according to Business Insider.  WWF Norway will be charged with helping to develop the project and will reach out to scientific communities, among other tasks. An independent committee will be responsible for choosing projects to pursue, and researchers from all over the world will have a chance to apply. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=59104e54e4b0d5d9049dc664,590816f6e4b05c397681f20b,591c586ce4b0a7458fa49711,590c1a02e4b0104c734db229 Worth $2.7 billion, Røkke owns nearly 67 percent of Aker BioMarine, a shipping and offshore drilling conglomerate, according to Forbes. Jensen admitted that it might seem unusual for an environmental group to partner with an oil tycoon, but that such collaborations are necessary to make significant progress. “One of Nina Jensen’s guiding principles is that the world would be a much better place if we spend more time talking to those we disagree with, rather than just spending time with like-minded people,” Heidi Katrine Bang, public relations manager at WWF Norway, told HuffPost. WWF Norway and Røkke first began working together about a decade ago, Bang added. Though they disagree on a number of issues, including oil exploration, they will continue to have ongoing discussions about those differences, Jensen told Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten. Røkke will continue to be involved with Aker.  “We will still challenge Mr. Røkke when we disagree with him,” Jensen told Aftenposten. In addition to conducting research, the REV will be available for private charters, which will help generate funding. It will also be used privately by the Røkke family, but it’s primary purpose will be to identify how to better protect the oceans and marine life.  “We probably know more about outer space than the ocean space,” Røkke wrote said in a statement released by WWF. “The research vessel facilitates increased knowledge of the challenges, and for finding measures of improvement. The focus is on possibilities and solutions.”  CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misstated the amount of plastic the Research Expedition Vessel will collect on a daily basis. It will collect about 5 tons of plastic a day.  -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

26 мая, 17:16

I Used An App To Buy Only Ethical Food. It Was Really Hard.

  • 0

As I walked up to the banana pileup, I knew I was in trouble. Sure, those things are an excellent (and affordable) healthy snack, but they are almost universally sourced from producers with serious ethical issues. Yet I still wanted them. What would Michael Pollan do?! Sheepishly, I scanned the banana barcode using HowGood, a free app intended to help shoppers make more ethical food purchases. I’d been using the app all week to try to make all the “right” choices at the grocery store. The app revealed, unsurprisingly, that the bananas did not meet HowGood’s sustainability standards, but there were no other banana options in the store. There were also no other options that met the app’s standards, it turned out, in two other stores where I looked for a better alternative. Eventually, I bit my lip and bought some verboten bananas. The app that led to my banana boondoggle was created by brothers Arthur and Alexander Gillett in 2007 with the aim of creating an unbiased, one-stop source of information about food companies’ ethical practices and histories, cutting through the confusing web of product labels, academic studies and Internet hot takes to separate the greenwashers from the genuine foodie heroes. The app relies on a research team — which includes input from hundreds of scientists, academics, farmers and grocers — that has rated over 200,000 products across 70 different indicators that fit into three broader categories. They include how the products are grown, how they are produced or processed, and how the company operates. Those ratings are boiled down to one of just four ratings — “good,” “great,” “best” or, if a product is determined not to meet standards in all three categories, no rating whatsoever. Easy, right? HowGood co-founder and CEO Alexander Gillett admitted to HuffPost that simplicity was the goal. “For each of the different included inputs, the idea is to take all the complexity of the food system and simplify it so you don’t have to have a Ph.D. in each of these fields or understand the difference in every single input to be able to vote with your dollars,” Gillett said. The ratings can be accessed using the company’s smartphone app, which debuted three years ago and has been slowly attracting an audience and investors ever since, bringing in a new round of funding in the range of $4 million this year. Using the app, shoppers like me can scan any product with a barcode or search the HowGood database to quickly view product ratings. Some grocery stores — about 257 across 26 states — are even working with the startup to display the ratings next to products’ price tags, with more to come, according to Gillett.  “The shelf labeling is going about as fast as we can do it,” Gillett added, noting that licensing the app’s ratings for the in-store labeling is the startup’s primary source of revenue. For now, it appears the HowGood rollout hasn’t made much of a dent in the Midwest, where I’m based. The nearest store already sporting HowGood shelf labels was more than an hour’s drive away. Without shelf labels to rely on, I was left scanning each product that piqued my curiosity, a process that felt time-consuming and grew increasingly frustrating when the app began to time out. Then, in large sections of the first store I visited, my phone lost signal altogether, which rendered the app useless. At two other stores where my signal was stronger, however, I was able to easily compare ratings on products like different brands of coconut oil (all of them were “great”) and feel-good frozen entrees from the likes of Amy’s and Evol (some of them, surprisingly, better than others). When my phone had a strong signal, the process was certainly quicker than scrolling through pages of Google search results and looking for insights into company practices. But what about situations — such as my own personal bananagate — in which shoppers have no highly rated options to choose from? And how reliable are these ratings in the first place? Experts in food ethics admire the effort behind the app but aren’t so sure. Dan Crossley is the executive director of the U.K.-based Food Ethics Council, a nonprofit group. Crossley said he feels that tools like HowGood hold a lot of potential to help shoppers make more informed decisions in the grocery aisle, but noted that past attempts at developing these sorts of ratings have come up short because the science behind the ratings often isn’t robust enough to capture the nuances inherent in our food system. He said he wasn’t sure if HowGood has succeeded where many others have failed. The result could even do more harm than good. “Well-intentioned simplification can end up resulting in greater confusion,” Crossley added. Lauren Ornelas, the founder and executive director of the food justice-oriented Food Empowerment Project, was also concerned that the work could be oversimplifying the issue at hand. In response to concerns about the ways in which most commercial chocolate is sourced, Ornelas’ organization launched its own “chocolate list” and an accompanying app about six years ago that identifies which chocolate brands their group has reviewed and recommends. Researching that project, Ornelas added, was a huge undertaking for their small organization. And it was a process that revealed many products are neither “good” nor “bad” — most fall in a gray area in between. That gray area, she said, is less evident in the HowGood approach. “This makes something that’s very complicated seem very simplistic,” Ornelas told HuffPost. One particular rating in the app also caught Ornelas’ eye: Driscoll’s raspberries were rated “good,” owing to the brand’s high company conduct score — but the company has been the subject of widespread allegations of farmworker abuses and calls for a global boycott of its products. The surprising rating made Ornelas question who might be weighing in on the app’s product ratings. “Who is setting this criteria and deciding what’s the best one out there?” Ornelas added. “If you’re claiming to be any type of entity that’s forcing companies to be more transparent, you have the responsibility to be more transparent yourself.” In response to a question about the Driscoll’s rating, Gillett said that seemingly controversial companies can sometimes rate better than anticipated using their system because the companies are being compared to the rest of the industry — in other words, everyone is being graded on a curve. “Oftentimes it’s the case where a company has problems in one area and needs improvement but it’s just a well-publicized version of that and the rest of the industry is performing worse,” Gillett explained. In addition, Gillett said the company welcomes input from users concerning product ratings and considers that input when it is reviewing ratings, a process that automatically begins anytime a product’s ingredients or sourcing change and is also carried out manually on a regular basis. function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); There’s still plenty of reason to be skeptical of all of this. Paul Thompson, a philosophy professor at Michigan State University who has been studying food ethics issues for 35 years, admitted that the HowGood app was “doing a pretty fair job of covering the bases” on a wide range of food ethics issues. If it becomes more widely used, he said, it could encourage more food companies to embrace better practices. But still, Thompson said, a more just food system probably won’t be achieved through an app — or through more “woke” shopping habits in the first place. “Anyone who seriously thinks that an app is going to make their food decisions for them is not really engaged in food ethics,” Thompson added. “Food justice usually is about building relationships on a local community level. Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but I still think that a relation mediated by an app is not really a relationship.” Personally, I share Thompson’s skepticism. The app wasn’t particularly easy to use and I’m unsure how many shoppers would take the time to go to three different stores in search of an ethical banana. I’m even less sure that the number of people making such an effort would hit a critical mass capable of shifting the entire food system. But would it hurt if some people do? Probably not. Gillett, for his part, remains optimistic. “You can really make a difference in peoples’ lives by switching from one product to another and supporting the companies with the best practices,” Gillett added. “We’re empowering people to engage and help move the needle.” type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=57d05ebce4b06a74c9f22eab,57b7188fe4b03d513687e091,58ff3b5de4b0288f5dc7d949 ―- Joseph Erbentraut covers promising innovations and challenges in the areas of food, water, agriculture and our climate. Follow Erbentraut on Twitter at @robojojo. Tips? Email [email protected] -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

26 мая, 16:44

5 Lessons From Big Business That I’ve Gladly Taken Home

  • 0

Major corporations get a bad rap, in the media and online. It's not hard to understand why - as in so many other things, the abuses from the few lead to the suspicion of the many. I've spent my entire professional career in and around large organizations, from the front line to the executive suite. In my experience, bad apples are fewer and farther between than the impression Facebook or the evening news would have you accept. Much of what goes on inside corporations is a lot like what goes on outside of them. Groups of people, coming together, trying to create something useful to make life a little better for themselves, their loved ones, and/or the population at large. Corporations, volunteer organizations, church groups, book clubs, knitting circles, and even friends planning a party, all have this in common. Maybe that’s why the lessons I've learned inside the big glass buildings have often been so useful on the outside. So, in a continuation of my efforts to decouple the idea of evil from the idea of organization. I humbly offer five useful things I learned about life from big business. 1. Be productive, but connected. Even the most dysfunctional corporation requires output from its employees. The better ones are crystal clear about what that output is, and what resources the employees need to produce it. Being productive means owning your side of that equation - looking for clarity regarding what you're supposed to accomplish, and what you’ll need in order to get it done. This hunt itself, and the subsequent search for the resource needs it uncovers, is rarely a linear, straightforward process. It usually involves a lot of questions, and invariably, other people. That's where being connected comes in. None of us can produce our output in a vacuum; neither can we sacrifice it in support of the relationships around us. The trick is to do both. Keep tasks on track while maintaining relationships. In the rest of my life, my goals include fitness, financial health, and vacations - to name just a few. Being crystal clear about what my goals are, and then holding their achievement in balance with family and friends, is a never ending process. I learned it at work, and I use it everywhere. 2. Find a mentor. Then find another one. In the old days, the apprentice/mentor relationship was one of the primary mechanisms for skill transfer between generations. Today, the term "mentor" has a broader meaning; many companies attempt to encourage mentoring in a variety of ways, from structured matching programs to informal encouragement. Much of the conversation still follows the old-fashioned definition, where one relationship lasts several years, or a whole career. While finding such a mentor can be a positive, life-changing thing for both sides, it's not the only way for you to learn and grow. Mentor and protégé alike may benefit equally from a sort of micro-mentoring relationship - one that teaches a single skill, or lasts for only a few weeks. Not every cup of coffee leads to marriage, nor should it. I need help in all parts of my life - home improvement, financial management, and parenting, to name a few. And, I know some things, too. Being open to sharing information with others about such personal topics has served me well, far beyond the office. 3. Get along with people you don't get along with. If there's one thing you learn in a large company, it's that you don't always have control over who's around you. We've all been thrust into situations forcing us to work with a thorny, difficult, or downright abrasive personality. Some of us have may have even been called that ourselves! (Hey! I'm looking at me when I say that.) Over time, those who are successful in big business learn how to make the best of such situations and learn that sometimes, behind the difficulty lies a talented, helpful, even kind person. To find it requires some combination of clear boundaries, tolerance, and patience. I don't know how many times I've been across the counter, or the support desk phone line, from someone whose help I needed but who didn't seem particularly helpful. Getting better at finding the human behind the problem, and making the best of the situation at hand, always brings me right back to clear boundaries, tolerance, and patience. Three things I continue to need well after the workday ends. 4. Do scary things. Public speaking may be one of humanity's biggest fears, but big business just does not care. Spend enough time in a company and you'll find yourself in front of a room full of people explaining something, or maybe asking for money. You may also find yourself face to face with angry customers, a CEO, or even the media. When you do, the fear and dread you face won't stop you, not because they're not paralyzing, but because - well, not doing it just isn't an option. Public speaking made me nervous too, but only the first hundred times or so. Learning to press on despite that fear has proven useful to me time and again – at work, and in personal situations from skydiving to dating. 5. Don't stop growing. Some of the best employers are also the most demanding. Sometimes the constant drive to do more feels like the worst form of the rat race. But here, too, hides an upside: You can't keep doing more, or doing better, unless you keep learning. When you have a job that demands constant development, you're left with no recourse but to develop. So much so that it's often surprising to look back over your own resume over the last few years and realize how far you've come. I don't think I'll ever have the desire or the luxury, to stop learning. That's true in business, for sure, but also at home. Parenting is constant learning; marriage is constant learning. In recent years, even my car seems to have spawned a technological learning curve. Welcoming those opportunities and tackling them head-on has brought me a lot more joy and satisfaction in life than I would have gotten by ignoring them, or fighting for the status quo. --------------------------------------- Work is neither perfect, easy, nor stress-free; I know this. Much of my professional life is dedicated to improving the workplace, and I sense a whole lot of job security in my field. Even so, dwelling for years in the halls of corporations hasn't taken my soul or left me depleted. Rather, the perspective and tools I've gotten in those contexts have been a strong force elsewhere in the best parts of my life today. That’s why, from where I sit, being anti-evil doesn't mean you have to be anti-corporation. There’s a whole lot of good going on there too – just like everywhere else. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

26 мая, 14:29

People Whose IDs Were Stolen In Bot Push Against Net Neutrality Demand FCC Probe

  • 0

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); Several victims of imposters who used their names to send messages opposing net neutrality are calling on the Federal Communications Commission to investigate the acts. The 14 victims are also calling on the FCC to inform up to 450,000 others whose names might also have been hijacked in the sham campaign — and remove the faked comments from the commission’s messages site. Thousands of identical comments opposing net neutrality were sent to the FCC, according to the activist group Fight for the Future, which helped arrange the group letter to the FCC.  Spam bots attached to names snatched in data hacking are believed to have generated the comments. Both the GOP and Democrats, along with 80 percent of Americans, support net neutrality, which would follow current FCC regulations to continue to allow internet users access to everything on the web regardless of a consumer’s service provider. Yet the Trump administration wants to restrict access in a drive toward increased commercialization of the internet and higher fees for consumer access to information and “fast lane” charges for content providers. The 14 victims also want the FCC to share any information from an investigation into who is responsible for the hijacking operation. “We are disturbed by reports that indicate you have no plans to remove these fraudulent comments from the public docket,” they wrote to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. “Whoever is behind this stole our names and addresses, publicly exposed our private information without our permission, and used our identities to file a political statement we did not sign onto. Hundreds of thousands of other Americans may have been victimized too.” Trump picked Pai to champion his war on net neutrality. HuffPost has contacted the FCC for comment. Fight for the Future has established the Comcastroturf website, where people can check to see if their names have been included in the spam campaign. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=58a1c458e4b0cd37efcfeae1,58a27050e4b0cd37efcfec97,590258a1e4b0bb2d086c3cca -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

26 мая, 06:51

6 Summer Scams And How To Avoid Them

  • 0

As the weather gets warmer, mosquitos and ticks re-enter our lives, and along with them comes their larger cousin, the scam artist. There are ways to prepare for those seasonal meal stealers. The same goes for scams, as foreknowledge is the best repellent. Ticks and mosquitos aren’t harmless — they are well-known vectors for serious illnesses. Scam artists are also vectors for a plague that affects millions of people each year: identity theft. But sometimes a scam is of the simpler smash-and-grab variety. Either way, some scams never seem to get old, as evidenced by the huge number of people that continue to fall for them no matter how many warnings we issue. There are always new variations that snare even the wariest consumers. With that, I give you this summer’s smorgasbord of scams. 1. The Summer Rental Scam It’s not the easiest thing on earth to find a summer rental that has all the right elements: a reasonable distance from the beach, the right number of bedrooms and bathrooms, a pets welcome policy. So, when you do find the right one, the tendency for most people is to pounce. Don’t be most people. If you get scammed on a rental, you’re not going to know till you show up at the front door and a puzzled person peers back at you. Oh yeah, and good luck finding the rental office, because it’s an abandoned drive-in. The best thing you can do is visit the property in question beforehand. If you are working with a real estate agent, ask for his or her license number and check it, request references if there are no reviews online and confirm that the address is real and the premises are truly available for rent. Some home-rental websites have their own vetting processes and offer guarantees that will protect you in case of fraud. 2. Summer Job as Credit Application It is not completely bizarre to need a background check before getting hired, but chances are that the young person in your life looking for a summer job is not applying to be a bank clerk or armored car driver. When it comes to providing personally identifiable information to an employer, use your head. It is sadly a common occurrence that when kids are offered a “job,” they provide their information for tax purposes, including their Social Security number, and then never hear back. The reason: The only “job” was a robbery. Their identity is stolen, and because kids will be kids, it often takes a long time for them to realize the jerk who flaked on a summer job offer gutted their creditworthiness. Never provide sensitive personal information to a job site or anyone claiming to offer a job at the start of the process. Before you show up for an interview, make sure the job is legit: You can figure this out by doing an online search or making a few phone calls. 3. Door-Knocker Scams Summer is the time for door-knocking scams. It can be anything really. Sometimes the knocker wants you to help save an endangered species or an embattled population far away, sometimes they are selling a lawn service, home maintenance or sustainably produced electricity — all these causes, services and products may be legitimate, but the person offering them … not so much. If a stranger comes to your door, your level of suspicion should be high from a personal and digital security perspective. If you like what a knocker has to say, tell them that you will go online to help their cause or buy a product, and send them on their way. 4. Wi-Fi Scams This is a year-round thing, but people still get got all the time by phony Wi-Fi scams, and the problem is only getting worse now that more municipalities are offering free access to the internet. The problem is that free Wi-Fi doesn’t guarantee secure Wi-Fi. Always check with the network provider or someone of authority before logging on to any new wireless connection. Use a VPN, or virtual private network, to conduct any transactions that involve sensitive information. (Here are 50 more ways to avoid falling victim to hackers.) 5. Front Desk & Fake Menu Scams Hotel scams are many and various, and it’s best just to remember that you are a target whenever you are traveling, but there are two scams that are sufficiently common. The first is the front desk scam, which is pretty simple. You check in late, you’re tired and your phone rings. The scammer doesn’t know when you checked in. He or she is calling random rooms. You are told there is a problem with your credit card. Can you please confirm the number? The second scam to look out for is the menu scam. Scammers produce fake ones, and then steal your credit card information when you call to place an order. If you get a call from the front desk, hang up and call back or go in person to confirm your payment method. Use your smartphone to order food or call the front desk for suggestions. 6. Moving Scams Summertime is moving time. Just make sure your relocation isn’t a moving experience of the hair-pulling kind. While there are many great services out there, there are also some fraudulent ones that could wind up costing you big time. With new online services like Task Rabbit and Angie’s List to name but two, there are ways to choose a moving service, large or small, that suits your needs and provides reviews. Just make sure you check out their reputation online before they show up at your door. You May Have Identity Theft Repellent Just as mosquitoes can ruin a summer picnic, a good scammer can turn a winning day into a master class on losing your mind as bank accounts are drained, credit cards are maxed out and large purchases are made in your name. There’s a way out, and you may already be covered. If you think you might have been a victim of identity theft, it’s important to monitor your credit for anything out of the ordinary — primarily accounts and delinquencies you don’t recognize. You can get a copy of each of your three major credit reports for free once a year at AnnualCreditReport.com and you can use a free tool like Credit.com’s credit report card to check for signs of identity theft every month. It’s also a good idea to check with your insurance agent, bank, credit union or the HR department where you work. It is increasingly more common as a perk of your relationship with the institution to be offered free access to a program that provides education, proactive assistance and damage control if you become a victim of identity theft. If it’s not free, you may be able to get it at a minimal cost. (Full disclosure: CyberScout, a company I founded in 2003, provides these services to institutional clients, and they in turn offer the service to their clients, customers, members or employees.) -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
26 мая, 04:09

Californian Sues Jelly Belly Over Sugar-Packed Jelly Beans

  • 0

A California woman claims that the candy company Jelly Belly tricked her into buying its Sport Beans, a candy that doubles as a diet supplement to “fuel” the body and help burn fat, which had more sugar than she thought. Jessica Gomez, of San Bernardino County, filed a class-action lawsuit against the jelly bean company in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles in February. She claims that the company attempted to mask how much sugar was in its Sport Beans Energizing Jelly Beans by labeling sugar as “evaporated cane juice” on the list of ingredients, Forbes magazine reported. “The term ‘evaporated cane juice’ is false or misleading because it suggests that the sweetener is ‘juice’ or is made from ‘juice’ and does not reveal that its basic nature and characterizing properties are those of a sugar,” an attorney representing Gomez wrote in a letter to the company. The lawsuit also alleges that Jelly Belly misleads its consumers by claiming the Sport Bean contains carbohydrates, electrolytes and vitamins as a way of advertising the product for athletes, according to court newswire Legal News Line. Gomez accuses the company of fraud, negligent misrepresentation and product liability. The nutritional information on the Sport Beans’ packaging says that one serving size of the product (28 grams) contains 17 grams of sugar and lists “evaporated cane juice” as the first ingredient for each flavor. However, the Sport Beans website lists “cane sugar” on its ingredient list and says that one serving contains 19 grams of sugar. In an April motion to dismiss the case, attorneys for Jelly Belly said, “This is nonsense,” according to the San Francisco Gate. “No reasonable consumer could have been deceived by Sports Beans’ labeling,” the motion read. “Gomez could not have seen ‘evaporated cane juice’ without also seeing the product’s sugar content on its Nutrition Facts panel.” While it may seem shortsighted to assume that a jelly bean does not contain sugar, Gomez’s lawsuit does point to a larger issue on food labels. Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition and author of Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health, said in a 2014 blog post that “evaporated cane juice is the food industry’s latest attempt to convince you that ... it is natural and healthy, better for you than table sugar and much better for you than high fructose corn syrup.” And the U.S. Food and Drug Administration seems to agree. Last year, the FDA announced that labeling sweeteners derived from sugar cane as “evaporated cane juice” is misleading and encouraged companies to relabel the ingredient as “sugar.” The FDA said in a 2016 press release that the term is misleading because “it suggests that the sweetener is fruit or vegetable juice or is made from fruit or vegetable juice, and does not reveal that the ingredient’s basic nature and characterizing properties are those of a sugar.” Gomez’s attorneys and representatives of Jelly Belly did not respond to HuffPost’s requests for comment by the time of publication. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.