[UA-C] E-Commerce revenue estimated at $301 billion, workforce of 1.2 million (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 21:56:50 -0500 From: Paul Nielson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Universal Access Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [UA-C] E-Commerce revenue estimated at $301 billion, workforce of 1.2 million COMMUNICATIONS-RELATED HEADLINES for June 10, 1999 E-COMMERCE : U.S. INTERNET REVENUE PUT AT $301 BILLION Issue: Internet With a workforce of 1.2 million people, the Internet industry was more productive than almost any other last year, generating $301 billion in revenues. Researchers from the University of Texas Graduate School of Business, who conducted the study financed by Cisco Systems, found that the Internet rivaled the automobile ($350 billion) and telecommunications ($270 billion) industries and that e-commerce was the fastest growing component with $102 billion in revenues. Cisco commissioned the study -- which it intends to repeat on a quarterly basis -- in order to obtain better data to help gauge the scope of the Internet industry. The Dept. of Commerce, which is currently gathering data on e-commerce and will release an updated report on the digital economy this month or next, cautioned against taking immoderate actions based on these numbers [such as switching industries] while others were concerned with the definition of the term online business. [SOURCE: Washington Post (E7), AUTHOR: Leslie Walker] (http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-06/10/215l-061099-idx.html) See Also: NET'S IMPACT REVISED UPWARD [SOURCE: San Jose Mercury News, AUTHOR: Deborah Claymon] (http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/indepth/docs/econ061099.htm) (c)Benton Foundation, 1999. Redistribution of this email publication -- both internally and externally -- is encouraged if it includes this message.
(Fwd) Censorship in science.
The following is an editorial published in New Scientist, 5 June 1999 http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19990605/editorial.html Control is all Who needs crude censorship when corporate bodies call the shots in research? YOU ARE UNLIKELY to have come across a slim, bimonthly publication called Index on Censorship. But perhaps you should have. Its contents, dedicated to freedom of expression everywhere in the world, are often disturbing. There are reports of journalists being locked up, editors shot and reporters fleeing abroad in fear of their lives from various unpleasant nations around the world. And the Index reports that this kind of nastiness has been going on for a long time: the Roman Emperor Domitian was apparently so annoyed by one book that he not only had its author killed but also crucified the bookseller, too. Now for the first time the Index has turned its attention to censorship in science (www.indexoncensorship.org) with some mixed but interesting results. Currently, not too many scientists are actually being locked up. Where the Index's writers seek evidence of outright persecution, they quickly find themselves drawn towards those two famous examples of Galileo and Nikolai Vavilov. One annoyed the Catholic Church and the other fell foul of Lysenko and the communist line on genetics. If there is censorship in science, the Index makes plain that it is a lot more subtle than being sent to a Soviet labour camp -- not lying, but failing to tell the whole truth. Where censorship may now be powerful is in the non-publication of awkward data, or, as one Index author puts it, "It is the facts removed from debate that can colour black as white." We know only too well that tobacco companies hid their knowledge of the dangers and addictiveness of tobacco and even provided research funds that helped deflect researchers' interest elsewhere. More and more science is corporate -- which includes government funded -- science, and more science affects the food we eat and the lives we live. Does that mean we will never be able to know the whole picture about discoveries that affect us intimately, especially as more diverse sources of funds dry up? Corporate science has, of course, no choice but to serve corporate needs which, as another Index author points out, tends to force the world to fit the corporation rather than the other way around. Agriculture becomes monoculture, wildlife vanishes, and we eat only what is convenient to vast vertically-integrated producers. Science then comes to be seen not as Frankenstein, unleashing unpredictable forces, but worse, as a Strangelove bent on complete control. Which perhaps goes a long way to explaining why in Europe, where the links between big organisations and social change are always regarded with deep suspicion, there has been such an outcry against genetically modified foods. Perhaps it is not so much in the food as in the way it was forced onto our plates. end quote --- WD "Bill" Loughman Berkeley, California USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It is the Local that Learns -- Christchurch speech by vivian Hutchinson, 3 June 1999
I t i s t h e L o c a l t h a t L e a r n s -- some thoughts on community governance by vivian Hutchinson vivian Hutchinson is a trustee of The Jobs Research Trust and the editor of The Jobs Letter. He is a long-time writer and activist on employment issues, and provider of social services in Taranaki. This paper is based on a speech to the Community Governance Forum, held at the Christchurch Convention Centre, 2-3 June 1999. The forum was attended by mayors and local government leaders from throughout New Zealand. - 1. I'm here to support the growth of "community governance" as a legitimate and important function of local government. Beyond the traditional roads, rates and rubbish agenda of local bodies, I believe the calling of leadership at this time is also the necessary task of community-building. Community-building is the soul work of governance. It is about creating support and connection amidst a local and global landscape which is increasingly insecure and fragmented. As we "take our communities into the new millennium" -- the theme of this forum -- the leadership task of ensuring connection and participation, from all members of our community, will become an important face of the local governance role. A couple of weeks ago, retiring Treasurer Bill Birch delivered his final Budget to Parliament. At the beginning of his speech, he talked about how, when he was a child, he used to talk to his neighbours. Today, Bill now observes his grandchildren talking to people on the other side of the world using the internet. His message in the Budget was one of new opportunities in front of a new generation. The question that came to me, at the time, was that I wondered whether his grandchildren still speak to the people next-door? I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't. It seems to me that the huge growth of a globalised communications technology has not been matched with an equal growth in the human skills of community-building. Political leaders may wax lyrically about the extended families and closely-knit neighbourhoods of our own or our parent's youth ... yet the sad reality is that our present landscape holds less hope of establishing this important sense of connection in the lives of our children and grandchildren. Amidst our internet websites and Sony playstations ... we seem less and less able to look at each other and say: "we". Community-building is soul work because it is here that we begin to acknowledge the truth of our inter-dependence with one another. People are deeply woven. Biologically, the human being remains dependent on its parents -- and later in life, on its children -- for much longer than many other creatures. Because of this, the human family does not operate under "market" principles -- and your own family doesn't either. We have fundamental needs and responsibilities that we share between each other and across generations. But we've been sadly lacking in a governance that understands the wisdom of this in both our local and national affairs. Many of the themes of our political management in the last ten years have been about celebrating and promoting opportunities for independence ... while lambasting and denigrating the one-in-seven New Zealanders who are economically dependent on "state handouts". The truth of our woven lives ... is conspicuously missing. I see, in the call for "community governance", an opportunity for us to look again at our deeper relationships with one another -- relationships that go beyond the oppositional thinking of dependence and independence. Community governance is an opportunity for us to reclaim the "we" in our lives. 2. These are not just fragmented times ... it goes deeper than that. The structures that hold together our community life -- described in this forum as our "social capital" or our "civic society" -- are currently under severe stress. I acknowledge the comments made here by Dunedin Mayor Sukhi Turner when she compared the social state of our country today with the New Zealand she knew over 20 years ago. It was not a comparison to be proud of. Wairoa Mayor Derek Fox has also spoken of his challenges in leading a community consumed by the chronic long-term unemployment on our East Coast. We know his story is repeated in many of the streets in our own towns and cities. These stories bring home a picture of stress within the communities which you seek to govern better. It's not a pretty picture. I can tell you that, amongst my colleagues in social services, there are many stories of severe under-resourcing, under-caring, burn-out and a gradual feeling of collapse. Last year, I was one of the people who walked on the Hikoi of Hope from Cape Reinga to Parliament Grounds in Wellington. I want to thank the mayors in this room who opened up their councils and civic chambers to the Hikoi as it traveled through your
FW: workstress (fwd)
FYI -- From: MichaelP[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] SUNDAY INDEPENDENT (London) June 13 Bosses under fire over stress at work By Rachel Sylvester Bullying bosses, unrealistic deadlines and excessive working hours will be outlawed under a new, legally binding code being planned by ministers. They are convinced that workplace stress is fast becoming a major health problem. Whitehall sources accept that the move will almost certainly lead to a spate of legal claims against companies and will "upset'' many employers. But they are convinced that tough action is essential. The Health and Safety Executive has already written a draft code, warning that stress can be "far more damaging" to people in the long term than physical illness. Companies could be forced to shorten the hours worked by their staff, take on more people to relieve existing workers or improve workplace conditions in order to fulfil their duty to reduce stress levels. A series of public meetings is planned next month to assess the scale of the problem and draw up proposals for tackling it. The move follows a government-backed study which found that almost a quarter of workers claims to suffer "extreme stress" in the office. About 1,000 of the 4,000 employees interviewed, who ranged from cleaners to surgeons, said they had suffered physical or mental ill-health as a result of workplace pressure. They reported symptoms including tiredness, headaches, sleeplessness and excessive drinking. Trades unions have long called for companies to be forced to take responsibility for stress in the workplace. However, the Confederation of British Industry argues that companies should not be made to pay for stress which workers bring into the office from home. The Government believes that a legally binding "approved code of practice" - formally defining stress and bringing it under health and safety legislation - is the best way forward. This would mean that a court could rule that an employer had broken the law if it did not follow the guidelines. Insiders acknowledge that it could be difficult to define "stress" - as an activity deemed stressful by one person could be a stimulating challenge to another. However, ministers are determined to tackle a problem which they believe is undermining the British workforce and believe that the problems can be overcome. "Stress can be as dangerous as a piece of equipment in the workplace," a Whitehall source said. The draft code, already drawn up by the Health and Safety Executive, defines stress as "the reaction people have to excessive pressures or other types of demand placed on them. It arises when they worry that they can't cope". It says that symptoms associated with stress include anxiety, depression and heart disease, and employers have a responsibility to reduce their employees' exposure to such risk. "Stress is not the same as ill-health," the draft states. "But in some cases, particularly where pressures are intense and continue for some time, the effects of stress can be more sustained and far more damaging, leading to psychological problems and physical ill-health." The code, which would have to be approved by an independent panel of experts, is also likely to identify things which could exacerbate stress - including bullying, organisational style and working conditions. Employers will be told to tackle these problems at source and train managers to spot work-related stress in their staff. The draft code says that even "if it is not reasonably practicable to prevent work-related stress at source completely, employers should seek to mitigate, as far as is reasonably practicable, the consequences of the stress that remains." ** -- For MAI-not (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and links to other MAI sites please see http://mai.flora.org/
