for 20190228

1970s-era musicians sue Sony, UMG to reclaim song rights

NEW YORK (Reuters) - David Johansen, John Waite and other prominent 1970s musicians filed lawsuits on Tuesday accusing Sony Music Entertainment Inc and UMG Recordings Inc of improperly refusing to let them reclaim rights to songs they had long ago signed away.

The proposed class actions filed in Manhattan federal court said U.S. copyright law gives songwriters who bargained away their works on unfavorable terms a “second chance” to reclaim their rights by filing termination notices after 35 years.

But they said Sony and UMG have “routinely and systematically” ignored hundreds of notices, mainly because they deemed the songs “works made for hire” under their recording contracts and therefore not subject to being reclaimed.

The named plaintiffs in the Sony case are Johansen, formerly of the New York Dolls and who as Buster Poindexter recorded “Hot Hot Hot;” John Lyon, who performs as Southside Johnny; and Paul Collins, known for the Paul Collins Beat.

Plaintiffs suing UMG, a unit of France’s Vivendi SA, include Waite, formerly of The Babys and later known for his 1984 hit “Missing You;” and Joe Ely, a guitarist who has performed with The Clash, Bruce Springsteen and others.

Sony and UMG did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by the law firm Blank Rome and by Evan Cohen, a Los Angeles lawyer.

SEC goes after Elon Musk over another tweet

“We represent well over 100 artists from the late ‘70s and early ‘80s who want to own their U.S. copyrights, but are being stonewalled by Sony and Universal after sending notices,” Cohen said in an interview. “In many cases, we are talking about artists who have never received royalties from the recordings.”

Both lawsuits cover recording artists who served termination notices effective Jan. 1, 2013 or later.

They seek injunctions requiring that the notices be honored, monetary damages and other remedies.

(Question) What is the meaning of "who served termination notices"?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Question) In the 2nd paragraph, does "contrast with" mean "not follow" "not conform to"?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Facebook may bum us out, but we'll pay for it anyway

Bloomberg 2019年2月

Would you be better off without Facebook? Would society benefit, too?

A team of economists, led by Hunt Allcott of New York University, has just produced the most impressive research to date on these questions.

In general, the researchers' findings are not good news for Facebook audits users. Getting off the platform appears to increase people's well-beings and significantly decrease political polarization.

Allcott and his coauthors began by asking 2,884 Facebook users, in November 2018, how much money they would demand to deactivate their accounts for a period of four weeks, ending just after the midterm elections.

To make their experiment manageable, the researchers focused on about 60 percent of users who said that they would be willing to deactivate their accounts for under $102.

The researchers divided those users into two groups. The Treatment group was paid to deactivate. The Control group was not. Members of both groups were asked a battery, of questions, exploring how getting off Facebook affected their lives.

The most striking finding is that even in that short period, those who deactivated their accounts seemed to enjoy their lives more, as a result. In response to survey questions, they showed decreases in depression and anxiety. They also showed improvements in both' happiness and life satisfaction.

Why is that? The researchers don't have an answer to that question, but they do show that deactivating Facebook gave people a nice gift: about 60 minutes per day on average. Those who got off the platform spent that time with friends and family, and also watching television alone. Interestingly, they did not spend more time online (which means that contrary to what you might expect, they did not replace Facebook with other social media platforms, such as Instagram).

Getting off Facebook also led people to pay less attention to politics. Those in the Treatment group were less likely to give the right answers to questions about recent news events. They were also less likely to say that they followed political news.

Perhaps as a result deactivating Facebook led to a major decrease in political polarization. On political questions, Democrats and Republicans in the Treatment group disagreed less sharply than, did those in the Control group. (This is not because the groups were different: members of both groups, selected randomly, were equally willing to give up use of Facebook for the right amount of money.) It is reasonable to speculate that while people learn about politics, on their Facebook page, what they see is skewed in the direction they prefer which leads to greater polarization.

At this point, you might be thinking that these findings are absolutely terrible for Facebook. Indeed, those in the Treatment group reported, that they were planning to use the platform less in the future and after the experiment ended, they were doing exactly that.

But here's the rub. After one month without Facebook, the median amount that users would demand to deactivate their account for another month, was still pretty high: $.87. The United States has 172 million Facebook users. Assuming that the median user demands $87 to give up use of the platform for a month, a little multiplication suggests that the platform is providing Americans with benefits: If each user gets the equivalent of $87 in benefits per months, the total amount is in the hundreds of billions of annually.

With that finding in mind, Allcott and his coauthors oiler a strong conclusion, one that should provide a lot of comfort to Facebook executives. The researchers insist that on balance, Facebook produces "enormous flows of consumer surplus," in the form of those hundreds of billions of dollars in benefits, for which users pay nothing at all (at least not in monetary terms), Maybe that’s right but maybe not.

Recall that those who deactivated their accounts reported that they were better off along multiple dimensions-happier, more satisfied with their lives, less anxious, less depressed. So here's a real paradox; Facebook users are willing to give up a significant sum of money, each month to make themselves more miserable. To resolve the paradox, consider two possibilities. The first is that the important measure -the gold standard- is people's actual experience.

When people say that they would demand $S7 to give up use, of Facebook for a months they are making a big, mistake. The monetary figure might reflect a simple habit (maybe people are just used to having Facebook. in their lives) or a prevailing social norm, or even a kind of addiction.

The second possibility is that survey answers about personal well-being - including everything that people really care about.

For example, Allcott and his coauthors show that Facebook users know more about politics. Those who follow politics might become more anxious and depressed ― but a lot of people still follow politics. They don’t follow politics to get happy. They Follow politics because they are curious, and because they think that's what good citizens do.

Similarly, Facebook users might want to know what their friends are doing and thinking because that's good to know, whether or not that knowledge makes them happier. Both of these possibilities undoubtedly capture part of the picture. But let's not lose sight of the most striking implication of the new research: Voluntary use of Facebook (and probably Twitter as well) is making a lot of people stressed and sad. For many of us, deactivating might well turn out to be a gift that keeps on giving.

(質問)

Does Facebook require the users to pay some money to deactivate their accounts?

I cannot understand the paragraph starting from "But here’s the rub."    Many Americans would like to deactivate their account for $87. If so, I cannot understand "if each user gets~".

I cannot understand the paragraph starting from "The first is that ~"

Does “volunary use” mean “use for free”?

■

Apple suppliers feel 'extraordinary' change in China demand

TSMC and Nidec cut 2019 forecasts as trade war holds back global economy

CHENG TING-FANG, LAULY LI and MITSUTOSHI MASUNO, Nikkei staff writers
January 17, 2019 20:46 JST  Updated on January 18, 2019 05:33 JST

Nidec Chairman Shigenobu Nagamori stands to leave a press conference in Tokyo on Thursday. The "maestro of M&A" said he was stunned by China's slowdown. (Photo by Takaki Kashiwabara)

TAIPEI/TOKYO -- Major Asian Apple suppliers are slashing their 2019 sales forecasts, with some citing the "extraordinary" drop-off in Chinese demand, as the trade war casts a wide shadow over the global economy.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., the world's biggest contract chipmaker and sole supplier of iPhone core processor chips, and Japan's Nidec, sole supplier of the motor that makes iPhones vibrate when receiving calls or texts, are the latest to deliver downbeat assessments for 2019. TSMC expects a 22% drop in revenue for January to March, while Nidec has cut its full-year profit outlook by more than 25%.

"We have faced extraordinary changes," Nidec Chairman Shigenobu Nagamori told reporters at a Thursday news conference as the company reversed a previous forecast of a record profit. The headwinds for business in China turned out to be stronger than expected, with demand for automotive and home appliance motors also tumbling there.

The Kyoto Prefecture-based manufacturer performed strongly for the half through September, with net profit rising to new highs.

The tide shifted in November, however. "We saw big slumps in November and December," Nagamori said.

"Orders, sales and shipments in all business segments around the world saw major shifts," he explained.

Nagamori, known as Japan's M&A maestro for his aggressive pursuit of other companies, has led Nidec to robust growth over the years, riding China's growth. Now it expects full-year operating profit to decline for the first time in six years -- a 25.6% downgrade from its earlier estimate to 145 billion yen ($1.33 billion) for the year ending March 31 -- as well as its first drop in sales in nine years.

Looking down: Apple suppliers are caught in the crossfire of the tariff war between Beijing and Washington.  © Reuters

Nidec's warning follows a string of pessimistic announcements by tech companies, including Samsung Electronics, Nanya Technology and Apple, which blamed the trade tensions for falling iPhone sales in China.

TSMC's outlook in particular may be cause for concern. The company is seen as a barometer of global electronics demand as it supplies almost all the key chip designers around the world, including Apple, Huawei's semiconductor arm HiSilicon Technologies, Qualcomm, Nvidia, Broadcom, AMD, MediaTek, NXP Semiconductors and Xilinx.

At an earnings conference on Thursday, company executives cited the trade war, economic uncertainty and falling demand for high-end smartphones for cutting its forecast.

Chief executive C.C. Wei said TSMC had seen a "sudden drop in demand" for high-end smartphones, which industry observers generally take to mean iPhones and Huawei's premium models. Wei also cited a big decline in demand for chips used in cryptocurrency mining, as well high inventory levels.

Speaking to reporters after the conference, chief financial officer Lora Ho said, "The trade war causes a lot of uncertainties, which is a negative factor for demand and the business environment."

Ho also said her company has implemented a "hiring freeze" and is adopting strict cost controls in response to the situation.

For the current January to March period, TSMC said it expects revenue of between $7.3 billion and $7.4 billion. That represents a 22% quarterly decline -- falling short of a market consensus of a roughly 13% decline -- and a more than 9% drop on the year, the biggest year-on-year fall for a single quarter since 2009.

Wei said the overall semiconductor industry, excluding memory, will grow by only 1%. The foundry segment, which involves making chips for other companies, will see no growth, he said. TSMC controls 56% of this segment by revenue. The company itself will grow between zero and 3% in 2019, according to Ho.

TSMC, seen as a barometer of global chip demand, says it is still committed to 5G and other cutting-edge tech. 

The chipmaker, which is also a major global buyer of semiconductor equipment, cut its $11 billion capital spending plans for 2019 by " a few million dollars" between $10 billion and $11 billion. Nevertheless, the company said it still believes that 5G and artificial intelligence computing can drive chip demand, and said it is committed to continuing to invest amid the industry downturn.

For all of 2018, TSMC generated NT$1.03 trillion of record revenue, up 5.5% on the year, while net income rose 2.3% to NT$351.13 billion. In dollar terms, revenue rose 6.5% to a record $34.2 billion -- in line with the target it set in October despite having lowered its projection several times in 2018 to reflect slower mobile demand.

Mark Li, an analyst at Bernstein Research, said his agency expects iPhone shipments to decline by around 13% from 2018. "We think the current major slowdown at TSMC is mainly due to lackluster iPhone sales, and we forecast that TSMC could only grow some 0.5% for all 2019, but would resume growth of around 9% for 2020," Li said.

Li said 2019 could be a challenging year for TSMC, despite the company having a diversified customer base. "We do see risks for the Taiwanese chip titan to fall into decline if demand does not rebound in the second half of the year," the analyst added.

Questions

“Never install prerelease software on your production PC.”

In this sentence, “production PC” means not “PC for producing (manufacturing) something” but “your main PC” or “PC that you mainly use for work or at home”.

If you think of other expressions that use “production” in the same meaning, can you show me sentences?

What is the difference between

“This is the message I’d like to leave with you” and

“This is the message I’d like to leave you with.”

Does “contriubte” usually mean “do something for free”?

For example,

“Your PC’s computing power is contributed to route other peoples’ calls”

“The vendor claims that their firewall can block more than 99.99% of malware attacks, and the manager wants to verify it. I think it next impossible counting all the incidents of virus infection in our company during the past 12 months.”

Does “next impossible” mean “almost impossible”?

Does “counting” mean “considering” or “if we consider”?

Does the following two sentences mean the same?

“Hold the circuit board FROM SIDES.”

“Hold the circuit board ON THE EDGES.”<=Is this sentence correct?

Do you prefer “or” or “and”?

(In a petshop) Do not touch cats and dogs.

Do not toush cats or dogs.

Is the following sentence correct?

“If circuit boards are damaged, remove them in suitable ways for each circuit board.”

Does the following sentence have the same meaning?

“If circuit boards are damaged, remove them ACCORDINGLY.”

Does “if possible” and “as much/far as possible” have almost the same meaning?

“Use a flat worktable if possible”

“Use a flat worktable as much/far as possible.”

Which is preferable in front of “optimum”? “the” or “an”

Grounding is an optimum means against static electricity discharge.

Grounding is the optimum means against static electricity discharge.

(I think it is “the” because “optimum” means “the best”)

For me it seems that “leave” has two meanings:

“I left the room” = go away from

“I left some milk” =keep

How do you distinguish? “Leave + location” = “go away from” & “Leave + object” = “keep”?

If a company has announced plans to construct a large factory in your community, would you support this addition?

If a company has announced plans to construct a large factory in my community, I would support, rather welcome, this addition to my area. It would help my community become economically flourish, and would contribute to revival of manufacturing industry in Japan.

Located in the edge of the Metropolitan Tokyo area, my community has considerable number of residents to spend time in commuting to Tokyo, where there are a lot of better and wider range of job opportunities. Long commuting time forces some wives to work as a part timer. The factory would also result in community flourishment with accompanying advent of shops and restaurants targeting the workers. More people means greater spending and economic growth.

A significantly important role in employment and prosperity that manufacturing used to play in Japan has completely disappeared about 30 years ago, when Japanese companies began factory transfer to neighboring countries with cheaper labor cost. However, discouraged by higher and higher labor cost and expense to meet the increasingly severer environmental regulations there, a trend to come back to Japan has just begun. The construction of a large factory in my area would add a momentum to this tendency.

Some environmental experts may concern about emission of hazardous pollutants, but it is a story of the past. Long years of environmental diseases have been motivating the Japanese government and manufacturers to develop state-of-the-art environmental protection technologies. Companies’ fear about negative reputation by environmental-conscious consumers also contributes to development of more sophisticated technologies. It results in almost no pollutant emission from factories in Japan.

In conclusion, the construction of a large factory would provide only advantages and no adverse effect at all in my community.

Essay about large univ vs small college

My essay about “Is a large university better than a small college?”

(My first essay (Please just read. Do not proofread.)

From my experience, a large university is better than a small collage.

Firstly, a large university enables students to have broader viewpoints by communicating with students who have different interests and skills. A large university has several faculties, such as engineering, agriculture, and economics. Universities are the only place where people have time, energy, and change to exchange ideas with one another, without thinking about the social ranks.

Secondly, graduates from large universities have advantage in finding jobs. A large university has a lot of graduates in the business world. This means there is a strong tie. For example, some companies prioritize students of specific universities because they feel the corporate culture fits with such students. After entering a company, graduates from the same university tend to communicate more with those from different universities.

Thirdly, a large university will survive for more years. It is very pitiful if universities that we graduate from disappear. In Japan, many universities and colleges cannot gather enough students because of low birthrate and the existence of too many universities. They are on the verge of abolishment. Most large universities are famous and prestigious enough to gather students. There are great number of graduates who do not mind donating to continue the presence of the university.

I am a graduate of one of the large universities. More than 25 years since graduation, there is no influence of my university on my life any more, but I am proud that my university is still as popular as at the time of my graduation.

(My second essay (Please proofread. I rewrote my essay by myself)

My experience indicates that a large university is better than a small collage, as a graduate of one of the large universities in Japan.

First of all, the existence of several faculties in a large university, not only one or two, enables the students to communicate with those having different interests and skills. This helps the students nurture broader viewpoints through idea exchange with one another, without thinking about the social ranks. I would not have been able to take advantage of getting acquainted with engineering, agriculture, and law students.

Secondly, the fact that there are a lot of graduates in the business world has a positive effect on students’ job-seeking activities. Innumerous number of graduates have a strong tie, resulting in more frequent communication with those from the same university. Some companies prioritize students of specific universities because of ease in working with such students.

Thirdly, a large univertisy has less chance of abolishment. It is very pitiful if our universities disappear. The low birthrate and the abundance of universities in Japan recently plunges some universities and colleges to the verge of abolishment. On the other hand, the fame and prestige that most large universities have still enable gathering of students. Even if large universities become less popular, there are graduates who do not mind donating money to continue its presence.

It is true that various merits of small colleges are widely recognized, such as homey (?) atmosphere and concentration of students of the same interests. However, the above-mentioned superiority of large universities make them surpass small colleges.

Japan Times /NY Times

Net neutrality never stood a chance

Farhad Manjoo

STATE OF THE ART

I remember the first time I ever heard about net neutrality. It was around 2004 or 2005, and when the full idea was explained to me hey, let's prevent phone and cable companies from influencing the content we see online I was surprised there was even a fight about the idea.

It seemed obvious that the internet's great promise was that it operated outside the purview of existing communications monopolies. Because phone and cable companies couldn't easily dictate what happened online, the internet was exploding in dozens of genuinely new ideas. Among those were blogs, Skype, file-sharing, YouTube, Friendster, Netflix ideas 1 that scrambled our sense of what was possible in media and communication, and, in the process, posed existential threats to the established giants.

Other than the phone and cable companies themselves, I couldn't see why anyone might oppose the simple premise of protecting the environment that had made all these things possible. Did they hate clean water, too? Yet a decade and a half later as Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, buries net neutrality alive with his repeal of its rules, an act that took effect Monday I'm no longer surprised that there was a fight over this. Instead, I'm surprised that net neutrality lasted this long. Activists are still fighting to resurrect it, and while they are winning some battles after all, net neutrality, remains extremely popular I'm increasingly resigned to their long-run defeat.

Net neutrality was too good for us. And even if rules are restored, the notion that the internet should afford at least a minimally competitive landscape for new entrants now seems as antiquated as Friendster.

What's driving this view is what has happened over the last decade, which hasn't been too kind to disruptive competition online. By the time Tom Wheeler, an F.C.C. chief under President Barack Obama, handed down rules to protect neutrality in 2015, we had already strayed quite far from the internet of the early 2000s, where upstarts ruled our lives.

Today, the internet is run by giants. A handful of American tech behemoths Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft control the most important digital infrastructure, while a handful of broadband companies AT&T, Charter, Comcast and Verizon control most of the internet connections in the United States.

The idea that large companies can't dictate what happens online is laugh able now. Big companies, today, pretty much are the internet. In this world, net neutrality didn't have a chance.

So, what now?

There's a misunderstanding that the repeal of net neutrality will result in immediate and drastic change online. That won't happen. With lawsuits and legislation pending, with the media still paying attention and with activists poised to pounce on obvious infractions, broadband companies are going to be extremely careful, in the short run, to be on their best behavior. The internet won't be slower tomorrow. You won't be blocked from certain sites. You aren't going to be charged more.

As I argued last fall, a vibrant network doesn't die all at once. Instead it grows weaker over time, with innovative start-ups finding it ever more difficult to fight entrenched incumbents.

I've also noted often over the last few years that big companies have been crushing small ones over and over again for much of the last decade. One lesson from everything that has happened online recently Facebook, the Russians and Cambridge Analystical bots and misinformation everywhere is that, in the absence of stringent rules and enforcement, everything on the internet turns sour. Removing the last barriers to unfair competition will only hasten that process.

It's not going to be pretty.

"History shows us that companies that have the technical capacity to do things, the business incentive to do them and the legal right they will take advantage of what is made available to them," said Jessica Rosenworcel, an F.C.C. commissioner and a Democrat, who voted against the repeal of net neutrality last year.

By repealing neutrality rules, the government has just given our online overlords that legal right, she cautioned.

"Now they can block websites and censor online content," Ms. Rosenworcel said. "That doesn't make me feel good and if you rely on the internet to consume or create, it shouldn't make you feel good, either."

China paves a road with solar panels

JINAN, CHINA

Experiment broadens Beijing effort to dominate renewable energy market BY KEITH BRADSHER On a smoggy afternoon, huge logging trucks and oil tanker trucks thundered down a highway and hurtled around a curve at the bottom of a hill. Only a single, unreinforced guardrail stood between the vehicles and a ravine.

The route could make for tough driving under any conditions. But experts are watching it for one feature in particular: The curve is paved with solar panels.

"If it can pass this test, it can fit all conditions," said Li Wu, the chairman of Shandong Pavenergy, the company that made the solar panels that carpet the road. If his product fares well, it could have a major impact on the renewable energy sector, and on driving, too.

The experiment is the latest sign of China's desire to innovate in, and dominate, the increasingly lucrative and strategically important market for renewable energy.

The country already produces three quarters of the solar panels sold globally, and its wind-turbine manufacturing industry is also among the world's largest.

The potential appeal of solar roads ― modified solar panels that are installed in place of asphalt ― is clear. Generating electricity from highways and streets, rather than in fields and deserts packed with solar panels, could conserve a lot of land. Those advantages are particularly important in a place like China, a heavily populated country where the demand for energy has risen rapidly.

Because roads run through and around cities, the electricity could be used practically next door to where it is generated. That means virtually no power would be lost in transmission, as can happen with projects in outlying locations. And the land is essentially free, because roads are needed anyway. Roads must be resurfaced every few years' at great cost, so the installation of durable solar panels could reduce the price of maintenance.

Solar roads could also change the driving experience. Electric heating strips can melt snow that falls on them. Light-emitting diodes embedded in the surface can provide illuminated signage to direct drivers to exits and alert them to traffic hazards.

Such roads are finally becoming viable. Prices have fallen drastically in recent years ― thanks in large part to soaring Chinese production, a solar panel costs a tenth of what it did a decade ago. Road builders in China even want to design solar roads that can wirelessly recharge electric cars running on them, emulating a recent American experiment.

China's leaders in solar road development are Pavenergy and Qilu Transportation. The two companies are working together here in Jinan, in Shandong Province, with Pavenergy making panels for Qilu, a large, state-owned highway construction and management company that operates the road.

The surface of these panels, made of a complex polymer that resembles plastic, has slightly more friction than a conventional road surface, according to Zhang Hongchao, an engineering professor at Tongji University in Shanghai. Professor Zhang, who helped develop Pavenergy's road surface, said that the friction could be adjusted as needed during the manufacturing process to ensure a level of tire grip equal to that of asphalt.

The location of the solar road on a long curve at the bottom of a hill was not Pavenergy's first choice. The site was chosen because of its proximity to an electricity substation, ensuring that it would be connected to the grid. China is adding solar and wind energy sites so quickly across the country that power generation projects farther from substations sometimes face delays of years in getting connected.

The main Western rival to Pavenergy and Qilu is Colas, a French road-building giant that has developed 25 experimental solar roads and parking lots, mostly in France but also in Canada, Japan and the United States. The biggest of Colas's solar sites, a country road in Normandy that opened a year and a half ago, has only half the surface area of the new solar highway in Jinan. Colas has been leery of putting solar panels on high-speed roads like the Chinese highway because of safety concerns; Professor Zhang said the panels were completely safe.

Still, a number of challenges mean the wide deployment of solar roads is a long way off. For one, they are less efficient than rooftop solar panels at converting the sun's light into electricity. They lie flat and are intermittently covered by vehicles, so solar panels on a road produce only around half the power that rooftop ones tilted toward the sun do.

Solar roads are also more expensive than asphalt. It costs about $120 a square meter, or about $11 a square foot, to resurface and repair an asphalt road each decade. By comparison, Pavenergy and Colas hope to be able to bring the cost of a solar road to $310 to $460 a square meter with mass production.

Panels on a highway would most likely need to be replaced less often than asphalt, Professor Zhang said. And a soworth of electricity from each square meter of solar panels. So it could roughly pay for itself, compared with asphalt, over about 15 years.

Less clear is whether the panels would be able to take the pounding of millions of tires each year for more than a decade, or whether they might be stolen. Several square feet of solar panels disappeared less than a week after they were installed in Jinan in late December, raising worries of theft or even industrial espionage.

Local police officers, facing criticism for not providing better security, said that the panels must have been crushed into tiny pieces and scattered by heavy trucks. Pavenergy declined to comment.

In the United States, installing solar roads is more complicated. With the exception of some bridges and sections of interstate highways, American roads tend to be built with a lot of asphalt, but with less concrete underneath than roads elsewhere, said Kara M. Kockelman, a transportation engineering professor at the University of Texas.

The problem with asphalt is that it compresses slightly under the weight of trucks. The blue silicon of solar cells, the panels' electricity-generating component, can withstand being mashed by many tons of weight. But the nearly paper-thin cells snap when bent, like a thin sheet of sugar. (This is not as much of an issue in China, where highways are built with very thick concrete bases.)

Still, executives in China are hopeful. They say that the technology is ready and that they are not concerned even by the complications of American highway construction.

"If conditions permit," said Xu Chunfu, Qilu's chairman, "I would like to build a solar road in the United States."

Trump is not playing by your rules

David Brooks Occasionally you can see eternity in a speck of time, and occasionally you can see the logic of an entire historic moment in one event. And so it was with the Group of 7 summit meeting last weekend in Quebec.

The failure of that summit wasn't fundamentally about trade, or even the Western alliance. It was about the steady collapse of the postwar order and the way power structures are being reorganized and renegotiated across societies and across the world.

The postwar order was a great historic achievement. The founding generation built a series of organizations and alliances to fight communism, create a stable trading system, combat global poverty and promote democracy.

But the next generation lost the thread.

European elites were so afraid of nationalism that they fell for the illusory dream of convergence ― the dream that nations could effortlessly merge into a cosmopolitan Pan-European community. Conservatives across the Western world became so besotted with the power of the market that they forgot what capitalism is like when it's not balanced by strong communities.

Progressives were so besotted with their own educated-class expertise that they concentrated power upward and away from the people at the same time that technology was pushing power downward and toward the people. Elites of all stripes were so detached they didn't see how untrammeled meritocracy divides societies between the "fittest" and the rest.

Those who lost faith in this order began to elect wolves in order to destroy it. The wolves ― whether Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orban, Rodrigo Duterte.-Recep Tayyip Erdogan or any of the others ― don't so much have shared ideology as a shared mentality.

It begins with 1, some monumental sense of historic betrayal. This leads to 2, a general outlook that says the world is a naszy place, and 3, a scarcity mindset that says politics is a zero-sum game in which groups must viciously scramble to survive. This causes 4, a pervasive sense of distrust and suspicion, and 5, the rupture of any relationship built on friendship or affection, and finally 6, the loss of any sense that there is such a thing as the common good.

Wolves perceive the world as a war of all against all and seek to create the world in which wolves thrive, which is a world without agreed-upon rules, without restraining institutions, norms and etiquette.

What you see then is not merely a disagreement about trade or this or that, but two radically different modes of politics, which you might call high trust politics versus low-trust politics.

The Group of 7 is an organization built in a high-trust age. It's based on the idea that the member nations have shared values, have shared historical accomplishments, have a carefully nurtured set of relationships and live in a community of general friendship. Canada and the U.S. are neighbors and friends.

But in the low-trust Trumpian worldview, values don't matter; there are only interests. In the Trumpian worldview, friendship is just a con that other people try to pull on you before they screw you over. The low-trust style of politics is realism on steroids.

Whether it's on the world stage, at home or in his own administration, Trump is trying to transform the nature of relationships. Trump takes every relationship that has historically been based on affection, loyalty, trust and reciprocity and turns it into a relationship based on competition, self-interest, suspicion and efforts to establish dominance. By destroying trust and reciprocity he creates an environment in which he can thrive.

This is a fundamental challenge to the way politics is done. What Trump did to the G-7 is essentially the same thing he did to the G.O.P. He simply refused to play by everybody else's rules and he effectively changed the game. Trump is really good at destroying systems people have lost faith in.

It's why he is more comfortable dealing with dictators like Putin and Kim Jong-un than with democrats like Justin Trudeau. He and the dictators are basically playing the same game.

The episode illustrates that the core divide in our politics is no longer the conventional left-right divide. The core issue in our politics is over how we establish relationship. You can either organize relationship at a high level ― based on friendship, shared values, loyalty and affection ― or you can organize relationship at a low level, based on mutual selfish interest and a brutal, ends-justify-the-means mentality.

The grand project for those of us who believe in a high-level, civilized world order is to find ways to restore social trust. It is to find ways to restructure power ― at all levels ― in order to reinspire faith in the system. It is to find common projects ― locally, globally and internationally ― that diverse people can do together.

As Jonathan Sacks writes in his 2007 book, "The Home We Build Together," there's only one historically proven way for people to build community across difference. It's when they build things together.

In his inaugural address as president of South Africa, Nelson Mandela said, "The time to build is upon us." So it is now. That's the only way to head off a moral race to the bottom.

What umbrellas can teach us about diversity

The rainy season is upon us in most parts of japan. It is called "baiu" or "tsuyu" which literally translates as "plum rainy season" ― so-called because plum get ripe around this time of the year.

While the name is rather exotic, it is the month when we have so much rain. Because of that, June is not the ideal month for tourists to visit )apan. Two other months 1 strongly recommend avoiding are July and August as it is so hot and humid in Tokyo ― though there are some places like Hokkaido that are spared from the rainy season and remain comfortable.

Even though this may not be the ideal month to visit Japan, tourists from overseas might find people's behavior here rather interesting. That is, how so many people carry around umbrellas.

Visitors from the United Kingdom might not give a second thought to the number of umbrellas. But North Americans may be surprised to see this rather unique behavior and wonder what is going on.

I first noticed that this behavior of Japanese may not be universal around the world when I saw quite a few people in the United States, for example, walking in the rain without umbrellas. They seemed not to be so bothered by it. I realized that what we take for granted as a custom in the country of origin may not be common practice elsewhere.

So, I tried to explore the background of this seemingly unique behavior in Japan. First, I started with facts. According to the Global Umbrella Study results, the number of umbrellas per capita in Japan is 3.3 ―the largest in the world. The global average is 2.4.

Through further research, I hit upon several hypothetical reasons to explain the behavior. For example, one hypothesis is that the number of rainy days in a year correlates with umbrella-carrying behavior. If it rains a lot in the area, it is natural that people learn to carry around umbrellas. However, this hypothesis was rejected as Japan is ranked 13th in the world (with some 100 days) in terms of rainy days.

Another hypothesis centers on the duration of rain. As rain tends to persist (it often rains day in and day out with only a few clear days in June), people make it a custom to carry umbrellas, knowing that it will likely rain at some point in the day.

Another reason that sounded convincing was high humidity. Compared with many parts of North America and Europe, it is more humid in Japan and it does not dry out quicldy after rain so people try to avoid getting wet even in a light rain. The number of people in Japan bothered by their clothes getting wet is 25 percent, second only to the U.K. at 39 percent.

Some interesting features in Japan regarding the umbrella sets it apart from other countries. In Japan, 62 percent of the umbrellas in use are the standard type and just 21 percent are the folding type, compared to 55 percent worldwide. Now transparent vinyl umbrellas account for 10 percent of the total in Japan because they are inexpensive (costing from¥500 to¥l,000) and are disposable. They're particularly popular among the younger generation and make up about 25 percent of the umbrellas they own.

Over the past two decades, disposable umbrellas have been imported to Japan in large quantities, mainly from China. Their low price is one of the reasons for their popularity and the increased frequency of sudden downpours in recent years may also have led people to buy them. Umbrellas seem to have become such a low-ticket item that they may not mind misplacing or losing them. In fact, train conductors warn against leaving umbrellas on the subway on rainy days, indicating how often people forget them.

Another peculiar rain-related tendency of Japanese people is their frequency of checking the weather forecast ― up to 3.4 times a day, which is 1.1 times more than the world average of 2.3 times a day. Some people argue that the frequency in which Japanese check the forecast and their wariness of rain are related to their almost universal behavior of carrying umbrellas. Whether chis behavior points to the preparedness of the Japanese is unclear, but the theory sounds reasonable, as people here think of rain as a nuisance given the humid climate and try to avoid the inconvenience of suffering from the consequences.

The historical development of umbrellas in Japan is quite interesting. Umbrellas were first developed in the 8th century and the first Japanese-style folding umbrella was made during the 16th century. It used to be for aristocrats but became a daily item for ordinary people in the 17th century.

During the Edo Period, umbrellas became props for kabuki, Japanese dance and tea ceremony and formed an important part of Japanese culture. Accordingly, the artistic aspect of umbrellas were pursued in addition to the practical use. It was in the early 1800s that the Western-style umbrella was brought to Japan from the U.K., but their production did not begin until after the Meiji Restoration in the late 19th century.

Though the umbrella is a minor example, it teaches us at least two things. One is that observation is very important visiting new places. Noticing the differences between one's own country and others, however small they may be, can be the first step to realizing that diversity exists. Noticing diversity leads to more questions about the backgrounds and reasons, which may help people become more aware and sensitive to different lifestyles. We talk about importance of diversity today, but tend to focus on gender, race, nationality, etc. Even small things such as umbrellas can lead to a new awareness of diversity found in cultures and lifestyles.

Today, there are at least two opposing views about diversity. One school of thought encourages people to appreciate diversity as it leads to constructive and healthy debate. The other is based on an intolerance of differences.

The latter may divide people into small worlds of their own where they confirm to their own beliefs and make little effort to see the differences and their potential.

Which view we take is up to us. It starts with paying attention to small differences such as umbrella-carrying behavior and an inquisitive mind to explore the reasons behind differences. People may not like the rainy season, but it can offer a key to better understanding how people act differently.

Yoko Ishikura is a professor emeritus of Hitotsubashi University and serves as an independent consultant in the area of global strategy, competitiveness and global talent. She is a member of the World Economic Forum's Global Future Council.

Akita dogs’ popularity down in Japan (Newspaper Article & My Essay)

Akita dogs’ popularity down in Japan, surging overseas秋田犬、海外人気が急上昇
(週刊ST 2018/5/11)

Hollywood actor Richard Gere, French film star Alain Delon and Russia's figure skating sensation Alina Zagitova have something in common: They adore Akita dogs.

And they're not alone. In recent years, foreign ownership of one of Japan's most famous indigenous breed(在来種)s has skyrocketed, outstrip(~を抜く)ping domestic demand for the fluffy, perky-eared(耳がピンとした) pooch(犬)es. Yamaguchi said in his garden in Takasaki, Gunma Prefecture.

The number of Akitas registered by overseas owners jumped from just 33 in 2005 to 359 in 2013, and then 3,967 in 2017.

Yamaguchi has around 20 at any given time(常時), many of them tiny fluff-ball puppies.

Originally a hunting breed(もとは狩猟犬で), Akitas emerged from the northern prefecture of the same name. They are large, around 60 to 70 cm tall at the shoulders(肩の部分で測った身長が60-70cmである) and between 40 to 50 kg, with prominent(突き出した) ears and deep-set eyes(くぼんだ目).

Local ownership of Akitas has been on the decline(減少して), with no more than 3,000 puppies registered each year over the last decade, from a peak of 40,000 in the 1970s.

The housing situation in Japan is affecting the number of people who can own dogs as large as Akitas, said Kosuke Kawakita, head of the Akita dog preservation association's Tokyo branch.

Foreign owners have picked up the slack(不足を補っている), with Yamaguchi saying he travels overseas about 20 times a year to personally deliver Akitas to their new owners.

His dogs sell for around 200,000 yen each. Most of his clients are from the United States, Russia and China, but he has also flown to France, Egypt, Kuwait and Indonesia.

“Akita dogs are responsive(反応が良い). That's their most attractive feature,” Yamaguchi said. “They understand how you feel just by being near you(人の近くにいるだけで人の気持ちが分かる). And they're loyal.”

That faithful character is central to the true story of Hachiko, an Akita who in the 1920s waited patiently each day at Tokyo's Shibuya Station for his master to return from work, even a decade after his master's death.

Hachiko is commemorated(しのばれている) in a statue outside the station, as well as elsewhere in Tokyo, and his story was turned into a Hollywood film in 2009, starring Gere(リチャードギア主演で).

Other famous Akita admirers include deaf-blind political activist Helen Keller, who brought one back to the U.S., and Russian President Vladimir Putin, who received one as a gift from the Akita governor.

In China, the dogs have become so sought-after(人気の) that some pet shops began selling “fake Akitas” with falsified(偽の) pedigree certificates(血統書), Kawakita said.

Yamaguchi hopes the popularity won't simply be a fad(流行). He said owners in Japan “have a big responsibility” to keep the Akita breed alive.

“Dogs will not thrive(繁栄する) if the country of origin stops producing them,” he said. (AFP-Jiji)

(My Essay)

Japanese people thank Japanese dog lovers in foreign countries. They contribute to the thriving of Japanese dogs that have not been popular in Japan.

When Japan was a premodern country, dogs were regarded as laborers. They were watchdogs to keep family safe from thieves, kept an eye on cows so that they did not escape from rice fields, and carried heavy objects. For these purposes, strong, big, and healthy dogs were chosen.

However, after mechanization, dogs do not need to do these jobs. Dog are required to be pretty pets. As many kinds of dogs are increasingly imported from foreign countries, dogs originated in Japan have lost popularity. Dogs bred in foreign countries are prettier, more loyal to owners, and fit more to the modern lifestyle. Japan failed in breeding dogs in that way. Probably it is not because of lack of technologies, but also because of their belief that human beings should not change the nature.

Big dogs do not fit the Japanese modern lifestyle. Houses are built close to each other, and many people are concerned about noise. People are so busy that they cannot walk dogs every day. Gardens and rooms are too narrow for dogs to run freely. People’s income has dropped during the recent economic recession, and they cannot afford food for big dogs. Cats are gaining popularity because they are smaller and eat less, and need less time to take care of.

I have a cat of American origin, and I chose the type because it is well known as active and obedient to the owners. Japanese cars have not been bred to have specific characters, and are difficult to predict their characters before they grow up.