Open up your mind and say, ahh...

Though it took hundreds of thousands of years for fossil fuels to form naturally, chemical engineers at the University of Michigan did it in a minute.

By “pressure cooking” green microalgae in 1,100-degree-Fahrenheit sand for around 60 seconds, the researchers converted more than half of the slimy algae into biocrude oil, which can be further refined into various forms of biofuel.

It’s an exponential improvement over Mother Nature, and a breakthrough for the lab. Two years ago, the team sped the process up to under a half hour, converting around 50 percent of the microalgae into biocrude.

“We’re trying to mimic the process in nature that forms crude oil with marine organisms,” said Phil Savage, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Michigan who conducted the study along with doctoral student Julia Faeth.

Instead of waiting for dead organisms to decompose under layers of sediment over the course of millions of years, Savage and Faeth filled a steel pipe with wet, green microalgae of the genus Nannochloropsis, and pushed it into the hot sand. A minute’s exposure heated the algae to 550 degrees all the way through, and 65 percent of it became biocrude.

In addition to the time savings, Savage is trying to streamline the process of creating algal biofuel by starting with wet algae. Traditionally, algal biofuel producers dry algae before extracting biocrude. That takes time and costs quite a bit of money – which explains why algal biofuels cost around $20 per gallon. Savage and Faeth said that they can’t yet estimate any cost savings for their method, but any simplification of the process could potentially bring prices down.

While the results are certainly promising, don’t expect to fill up with algal biofuel anytime soon. The Michigan team conducted their tests with just 1.5 milliliters of microalgae, and still don’t know why they hit a sweet spot at the minute mark. Savage and Faeth suppose that researchers previously overestimated how long it took to create biocrude, and that affected the yield of prior experiments.

“My guess is that the reactions that produce biocrude are actually must faster than previously thought,” Savage said.

Though nature took a while to create fuel, more time spent in a pressure cooker could actually be deleterious to the algae. ”For example, the biocrude might decompose into substances that dissolve in water, and the fast heating rates might discourage that reaction,” Faeth said.

Even if further research shows that it’s completely feasible to create large volumes of crude from algae in short periods of time, biofuel producers still have to generate enough heat to get large amounts of algae up to 1,100 degrees. That’s going to require a great deal of energy, not to mention algae. While algae doesn’t displace farmland the same way ethanol and other crops grown for fuel do, the US would still need enough algae to cover the state of New Mexico to meet its energy demands with biofuel.

It is that time of year. Everyone is running around like a turkey with its’ head chopped off. SO. MUCH. IS. GOING. ON.  Even if you don’t have “stress at the workplace”, this infographic touches upon some things that everyone can apply to their own lives, no matter the producer. Let’s face it—everyone has stress in their life. Hopefully this infographic will enable you to see the light at the end of the tunnel. It can be incredibly hard at times, even with the right management.

I read an article about a study evaluating the different forms of stress management for one of my social work classes. The study within the article brought up four different ways of managing stress: 1) source management, 2) relaxation, 3) thought management, and 4) prevention (Epstein, 32).  Through the study conducted, the researchers were able to conclude that “the…study showed clearly that prevention is by far the most helpful competency when it comes to managing stress” (Epstein, 34).

So, although things like yoga and acupuncture help to lighten the load, avoiding stress in the first place is the number one way to deter the bad feelings and physical harm caused by it. We must practice self-care. This will enable us to further help others. Happy Sunday, y’all.

Epstein, Robert. (2011).Fight the frazzled mind. Scientific American Mind, 30-35.

Image: Volvo Cars

The Highway Loss Data Institute, a division within the automaker-supported Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), released findings on how active safety systems help drivers when their vehicles are fitted with crash avoidance technology and adaptive headlamps. But interestingly, lane departure warning systems aren’t living up to their claimed potential. And in some cases, the tech may be increasing the number of crashes.

The study examines property damage liability (PDL) claims, meaning claims filed by a driver who’s been involved in a collision with another vehicle.

Unsurprisingly, vehicles fitted with collision avoidance systems that automatically alert the driver of an impending crash – and in the case of the Acura, Mercedes-Benz and Volvo vehicles involved in the study, automatically brake to avoid a collision – saw declines of up to 14 percent. The Acura and Mercedes vehicles lead the list, with Volvo’s autonomous braking system reducing crashes by 10 percent. However, the Volvo system the Institute tested also included lane departure and fatigue warning systems, and the IIHS hedges its findings by saying the inclusion of those systems could have an effect on the results.

Adaptive headlamps, which change direction based on the angle of the steering wheel, also reduce PDL claims by as much as 10 percent.

What wasn’t expected in the study were findings that lane departure warning systems, which alert the driver when they begin to veer outside their lane, increased the PDL claims, although the IIHS would only say “the increases were not statistically significant and the results suggest these particular systems aren’t reducing overall crashes.”

The IIHS points out that the two vehicles it tested with the lane departure warning system – one Buick and another Mercedes-Benz – faired the worst in the study, with the Volvo tester doing slightly better, although that system also came bundled with the auto-braking feature and fatigue warning system, which could negate some of the issues.

Early IIHS research indicated that lane departure warning systems would prevent over 7,000 fatal crashes each year, but those estimates were strictly theoretical, and this recent study puts those claims into question.

“Lane departure warning may end up saving lives down the road, but so far these particular versions aren’t preventing insurance claims,” says Matt Moore, vice president of HLDI. “It may be that drivers are getting too many false alarms, which could make them tune out the warnings or turn them off completely. Of course, that doesn’t explain why the systems seem to increase claim rates, but we need to gather more data to see if that’s truly happening.”

Photo: General Motors

As automakers continue to load vehicles with the features and functionality people expect from their portable devices, the in-dash user interface has become a branding battleground – and the Achilles’ heel of the increasingly connected car. While giving a smartphone or tablet undivided attention is common – if not considered rude, depending on your circle of friends – calling up a Pandora station on your iPhone while driving has the potential to put your life, and others on the road, at risk.

Automakers have to strike a balance between providing drivers the smartphone-enabled applications they desire, while making them safe to access on the fly. But that poses its own issues, including liability concerns and a fear that the feds – fired up about distracted driving – could mandate or outright ban these newest technologies in the car. U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood has personally called out automakers for putting tech prowess and profit before public safety, and has singled out Ford’s Sync system in particular.

But as automakers have pushed smartphone integration as a way to bring connectivity to the car – and attempted to emulate the slick touch screens of the devices – the most cutting-edge automotive UIs have largely been a series of failures. After soaring from the success of Sync, for example, the follow-up MyFord Touch system brought the Dearborn-based automaker down a few pegs. In a test of the Ford Edge last year, Consumer Reports called MyFord Touch “frustrating” and “a complicated distraction when driving.” A few months later, Ford dropped to 23rd from fifth place the previous year in J.D. Power & Associates’ 2011 Initial Quality Study, largely based on customer’s complaints with the largely capacitive touch-based system.

Ford declined to comment for this story, but claims an 80 percent “take rate” on MyFord Touch in the Edge and Explorer. The automaker also took the unprecedented step earlier this year of sending software upgrades to all owners of vehicles with the system. But one owner we spoke with doesn’t feel it saves the system.

Greg Gill of San Juan Capistrano, California, is a self-described “diehard Ford owner” who purchased his 2011 Edge about a year ago. “Before that, I owned two Expeditions and an Explorer,” said the VP of marketing for the National Auto Sport Association. Gill considers himself tech savvy and knew about the issues with MyFord Touch. “But I still bought it,” he said. “I thought, ‘That’s everybody else. I’m not going to have any problem with it.’ And what a nightmare it’s been.”

“The touchscreen is very clunky,” he told Wired. “I’m constantly tapping it multiple times and looking at it. There are so many things that have not been done well – even after the upgrade. And when I took it in for service, the dealer said, ‘Everybody’s coming in with these issues. Nobody’s happy with their MyFord Touch.’” Gill contends that he’s “still a satisfied Edge owner, but I could not recommend the vehicle overall because of MyFord Touch.”

Automakers are learning from the Blue Oval’s stumble

While Ford had a huge head start with the initial Sync system, other automakers are learning from the Blue Oval’s stumble with its latest high-tech release – and if not designing radically different systems, then at least pouring resources into consumer education. For the launch of Cadillac’s CUE system – which, from our early experiences with it, looks and functions similar to MyFord Touch – that will debut on the new XTS sedan, the GM luxury brand is taking a blitzkrieg approach to tech support, including giving everyone who purchases the XTS in its first year an iPad preloaded with an app that simulates the CUE user interface.

Cadillac is also dispatching 25 “connected consumer specialists” to dealerships to ensure that salespeople become familiar with CUE, and dealers are required to staff stores with two “certified technology experts” trained by the CUE specialists. Additionally, Cadillac is setting up a dedicated call center to handle questions on CUE, will have representatives scouring Internet forums and social media sites to spot concerns and is even prepared to send specialists to XTS owners’ homes who have still unresolved issues with the system.

“We’re trying to think of every way that a customer might ask for help,” said Scott Fosgard, a General Motors spokesperson. “If you’re a CUE owner and having problems, we’ll meet you at your place of work or home, whatever’s convenient.”

To coincide with the launch of the new 2013 GS, Lexus is creating two new tech positions at each of its dealerships: a vehicle delivery specialist to go over the features of a vehicle with new owners, and a vehicle technology specialist to serve as a contact for customers who have questions on how to use their vehicle’s electronics. “We need to provide a standardized method to get information to a wide variety of audiences, and owners’ manuals allow us to achieve that,” said Kevin Pratt, product education manager for Lexus. “However, we recognize that the best way for people to understand and get the full benefit of the features in their car is to be shown how to use them.”

Lexus is also employing an iPad app designed specifically for the GS to educate customers on the car’s features. Owners can even use the Facetime to contact a dealer and get remote personal tutorials on the tech in their vehicles.

But if the UI is properly designed in the first place, it should be intuitive enough that you don’t need a tech expert to make house calls or even an owner’s manual (see: Apple). “I think a lot of people have gotten used to Apple devices,” said Mark C. Boyadjis, an analyst who covers automotive electronics at IHS Global. “And when Apple owners have a question, there’s the Genius Bar.”

But Boyadjis points out that, unlike a smartphone, people typically own a car for years. And he notes that the recent rate of change in automotive infotainment may leave many new car buyers lagging in terms of tech. “I think people still to this day are familiar with the two-knob car radio,” he said. “That was the user interface for last 40 or 50 years. People who bought their last car in 2005 and upgrade to a 2012 model are going to see a completely different Human Machine Interface,” Boyadjis added. “They’re going to be introduced to touch screens. Many of them are going to be introduced to voice recognition for the first time. It’s not always something you can read in your user manual; you need to sit down and use it.”

As with any technology, pioneers are often punished for being first out the gate.

And while it’s economically feasible for a luxury brand to sink significant resources into owner education, consumers of lesser means could be left in the lurch as tech trickles down to more mass-market vehicles. “For the smaller automakers, there could be some issues,” Boyadjis tells Wired. “The GMs, Fords and Toyotas of the world have developed this because they’re the bigger players. But when it comes to Mazda or Mitsubishi or Subaru, they’re pushing to put some of this stuff in their cars. But even their newer systems are not super HMI focused, and they don’t have the R&D budget to spend.”

According to Cadillac CUE program manager Jeff Massimilla, while UI issues were addressed in the design phase, the lead up to the launch of the XTS is the first time GM has developed such as extensive tech support program. “The goal was to design a system that’s easy to use and that’s similar to Apple devices, Android devices or other device on the market that are intuitive.”

And then prepare for any potential tech-fail fallout by pumping money into training and support.

As with any technology, pioneers are often punished for being first out the gate. (We’re looking at you, Apple Newton.) Consider the clunky, pre-smartphone, first-generation BMW iDrive, which was pilloried by the automotive press when it debuted in 2001. Since its introduction, iDrive has become one of the more intuitive systems available as BMW refined and iterated on the original concept of a single knob and a handful of buttons to control a multitude of complex functions. Many luxury automakers later copied the concept, and it’s easy to envision similar evolutions with touch screens, capacitive buttons and haptic feedback. But the growing pains of new technology and unrefined UI paradigms are a tough sell for consumers holding onto vehicles for years or even decades, particularly when compared to the monthly and yearly upgrades of smartphones and tablets. It’s a brave new world for automakers, and it’s one that needs constant attention and an unwavering pursuit of usability before an iPhone-like revolution takes place inside the car.

For many American consumers mobile payments are still something to run away from–and fast.

That’s what research from the University of California has turned up. A new study there implies that shoppers in the U.S. aren’t yet ready for the mobile payment movement.

A large percentage of the American citizens questioned in a nationwide phone study called “Mobile Payments: Consumer Benefits and New Privacy Concerns” were found to “overwhelmingly oppose the revelation of contact information (phone number, email address and home address) to merchants when making purchases with mobile payment systems” and “an even higher level of opposition exists to systems that track consumers’ movements through their mobile phones.” 

The numbers are stark. When asked if they thought their phones should “share information with stores when they visit and browse without making a purchase,” 96% objected to the tracking, 79% said they definitely would forbid it and 17% said they “probably” wouldn’t allow it–meaning just 4% were indifferent or positive about the idea. When the question was instead about information sharing (phone number, address and so on) at the actual point of sale, 81% objected to phone number sharing–a mere 15% said they’d probably allow it and 3% definitely so. Similar figures emerged when the information shared was home address.

In terms of email addresses, survey respondants were more inclined to share, with 33% definitely or probably happy to share the transaction information. Still 51% said they definitely wouldn’t share email addresses.

And overall, 74% of resondants said they are “not at all likely” or “not too likely” to adopt mobile payment systems, while just 24% say they are likely to do so.

This all sounds very, very bleak for the future of mobile pay tech in the U.S., which is being being pushed by companies such as NCR, Square, Verifone, and even behemoths like PayPal. This news also, um, squares with a recent alert for the Center for Democracy and Technology which worries that mobile payments can “expose” more personal information to multiple groups at the point of sale than traditional transactions, even via credit card, do…right down to third party app writers.

But the numerous different parties in the mobile pay game needn’t worry yet. There may have been a stuble flaw in the questionnaire asked by the University of California team. The problem arises from the study question that asks, “would you voluntarily give McDonalds your phone number and personal details when you walk in their store?” Who among us would respond any way other than: “Of course not!”? After all, that sort of question taps into the part of our personality that is apt to click on a “don’t share my personal details with third party advertisers” when we sign up for in-store loyalty cards. When it comes to privacy issues nd technology, our default setting is: suspicious. And for good reason.

And that’s the key to unravelling this problem right there: When you do use a current-tech store loyalty card you are effectively voluntarily giving the store your personal information, and “tracking” yourself. It’s why the cards exist of course–they’re partly there as a sales incentive, to get customers back in the door via money-off offers, but mainly so the store can collate information about customers and work out what kind of products to stock, what offers to run, and what future products to plan for. And if you have multiple loyalty cards, you’re giving this information away all over the place. A similar situation exists for Groupon coupons, and their ilk. Admittedly, this is on a store-by-store basis (assuming you tick the “don’t share my information” box), but millions of happy consumers do this anyway.

A new Pew Research survey shows that 80% of American adults use the Net, and 71% of those use it for shopping–meaning they’ve typed in all their personal details into store interfaces. And, if you think about it, Google already knows much of this stuff already. And Paypal certainly knows where you spend your online money, on what items and how frequently. Facebook is also trying to get into this game too, and it knows everything about you. All these firms aggregate Big Data independantly, and though this fact sometimes gets blown out of proportion by the media or lawmakers, it still goes on and we (sometimes even merrily) participate.

For these reasons and others education is one route to making consumers warm to the idea of mobile payment. That is, eventually it might make sense for mobile pay industry leaders to join together for a marketing campaign that points out to consumer that they already share much of this highly personal information with merchants and numerous third party companies (like consumer research firms).

And then there’s the novel fact that may surprise consumers: A mobile payments standard may actually allow them better control over this data, because instead of being shared across different loyalty schemes and different merchants and third parties, it’s all corraled in one place–in their phone (or whatever mobile pay app they’re using). It’s all but certain you’ll be able to configure this system to choose how much personal information you share on each transaction, or by store, or by date, or by whatever criteria you choose. The stores themselves may then opt to not offer you discounts, coupons or other incentives, but that’s your choice.

And the Californian research team behind the paper have another solution in mind: ”Adapting provisions of California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, which prohibits merchants from requesting personal information at the register when a consumer pays with a credit card, to mobile payments systems.” This would work because as the survey says personal sharing is a worry, and consumers would actually welcome controls, and “Song-Beverly could be adopted to accommodate those who wish to share their transaction data.”

Essentially, whichever of the many vying firms gets a singificant early grip on the mobile payments market will have to take part in a large-scale, open, frank, “hearts and minds” PR campaign to explain the benefits of signing up to sharing at least some personal information. And they’ll likely have to back it up with some fleet-footed lobbying.

Image: Flickr user Luz Adriana Villa A.

Via Fast Company: http://www.fastcompany.com

The simple one-page profile platform About.me is now available on iPhones.

Since its 2010 launch and acquisition by AOL, around 1.5 million people have built a splash page, a collection of their social media handles. An About.me page consists of a background photo, as little as two or three lines of text and buttons linking to a person’s social networks.

It’s a summary of who you are online that you can attach to email signatures, attach to Twitter and now view on your phone. The personal pages are short and sweet. The sleek interface packs a punch with its analytics system. Stats include views per month, clicks, links to you, average time spent on people and more.

Now, About.me iPhone app users can make pages on-the-go as well as connect with people on the street with the mobile app. The ‘Who’s Nearby’ feature — unique to the app — is something that will appeal to people watchers, co-founder Ryan Freitas told Mashable.

“There is this ability to create an opportunity for discovery, to see the way people are literally around you in a geographical location and how they represented themselves creatively,” Freitas said. “They have done something interesting to show off who they are as a person.”

The app brings many pieces of the successful web platform to the iPhone. About.me creators say much of the website’s appeal lies in the ability for people to browse the directory, not limited to friends.

“People enjoy the people-watching we provide,” Freitas said. “Not voyeurism, but about getting additional information about the people around you.”

Privacy consistently being a controversial topic with location-based apps, About.me requires users to opt-in to become visible on the network.

The app does more than finding businesses on the go, says Freitas. It’s about finding interesting people to follow on Twitter or cool websites to visit.

“With the app, it doesn’t always need to be about utility,” Freitas said. “It can be about something as simple as finding out interesting people around you who you haven’t met yet.”

About.me is now working on apps for iPad and Android market.

Convio, a leading provider of engagement solutions that helps non-profits fundraise and do more for their missions, announced today the results of its 2012 Online Marketing Nonprofit Benchmark Index Study. The annual study focuses on non-profits’ website traffic and registration, email file growth, online revenue and advocacy.

This year’s study analyzes data compiled from more than 700 non-profit organizations in the United States and Canada. It also looks at 19 different non-profit sectors, including animal welfare, disaster and international relief, disease and health services, and human and social services. The full study can be accessed here.

“At a macro-level, online engagement is continuing to grow at a healthy clip,” said Vinay Bhagat, founder and chief strategy officer for Convio, in a press release. “In fact, the past six years of data illustrate that online fundraising is mirroring the growth rate of retail e-commerce, which is good news for non-profits. I am particularly encouraged to see strong acceleration in monthly giving — a new metric we added to the study this year — as it points to donors being more financially secure in support of a rebounding economy.”

Take a look at this infographic from Convio to learn how online giving affects non-profits and the services they provide. Do you donate to non-profits using online methods? Let us know in the comments.

Image courtesy of iStockphoto, bamlou.