Make Money

As of August 31, 2019 at 10:50PM, 1 BTC equals 9582.4404 USD.

Register PIVOT to get BTC Bonus：PIVOT is a community for cryptocurrency investors. 
via free bitcoin

As of August 30, 2019 at 10:50PM, 1 BTC equals 9591.0596 USD.

Register PIVOT to get BTC Bonus：PIVOT is a community for cryptocurrency investors. 
via free bitcoin

(WASHINGTON) — U.S. consumer spending grew 0.6% in July, a healthy gain that suggests American shoppers are largely ignoring concerns about trade tensions and driving the economy forward.

The Commerce Department said Friday that personal incomes rose just 0.1%, the smallest gain in 10 months. With spending ahead of incomes, the savings rate fell to 7.7%, the lowest since last November, but still a solid figure by historical standards.

With trade fights discouraging business investment and cutting into exports, consumers are increasingly important to the U.S. economy. Household spending was the principal driver of growth in the April-June quarter, when spending increased by the most in five years.

"The U.S. consumer continues to display great vitality, emboldened by solid income growth and a large savings buffer," said Lydia Boussour, senior U.S. economist at Oxford Economics.

Consumers remain optimistic about the economy, but that could change. Consumer confidence was high in August, according to the Conference Board, a business research group, and Americans' assessment of the current state of the economy was the most positive it has been in nearly 19 years.

Still, 15% tariffs on about $150 billion of consumer goods imported from China are scheduled to take effect Sept. 1. Duties will be imposed on another $150 billion Dec. 1. Those levies will likely raise prices for shoes, clothes, toys and electronics, and could weigh on spending.

Some economists boosted their forecast for growth in the July-September quarter because of the report. Morgan Stanley raised its estimate for third quarter growth to 2.1%, from 1.7%.

An inflation measure in the report increased 0.2% in July and 1.4% from a year earlier, evidence that inflation remains mild. Excluding food and energy, core prices rose 0.2% in July and 1.6% from a year ago.

The inflation figures fell short of the Federal Reserve's 2% target, as they have nearly continuously since the Fed set its target in 2012. The Fed targets a modest amount of inflation as a cushion against deflation, a destabilizing drop in prices and incomes.

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell has cited low inflation as one reason the central bank cut short-term interest rates at its meeting last month. Most economists forecast additional cuts this year.

Even though incomes grew at an anemic pace in July, that follows a string of healthy gains this year that have helped fuel Americans' ability to spend. In July, wages and salaries grew more slowly than in recent months and income from interest payments fell sharply. Wages and salaries paid by manufacturing firms also dropped.

Incomes have outpaced spending in the past year, Boussour noted, growing 3%, compared with a 2.7% increase in spending.

Consumers are keeping the economy afloat but growth has still slowed this year, to a 2% annual pace in the second quarter from 3.1% in the first three months of the year.

The Trump Administration announced Thursday the rollback of an important environmental regulation on methane emissions that even some of the world's biggest oil-and-gas companies support. The fact that Big Oil backed a regulation designed to stem emissions of a potent greenhouse gas was immediately wielded by Trump's critics as evidence of how backward the move must be.

But that reaction missed an important takeaway. The oil-and-gas industry was split on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) methane rules, with some prominent companies supporting them and many smaller producers pushing for their elimination. The EPA's decision to side with a group of smaller fossil-fuel firms shows the influence these obscure companies retain within the Trump Administration—and the power they have to slow climate legislation as addressing the issue grows more urgent.

The split within the industry is partly a matter of scale. The EPA regulation—which required oil producers to implement a range of measures to stop natural gas leaks at new drilling sites, keeping methane from entering the atmosphere—posed little threat to big oil-and-gas firms, which could easily absorb the compliance costs necessitated by the 2016 rule. And because big energy companies sell natural gas, the rule actually just forced the companies to do a better job capturing their own product. "The more gas we keep in our pipes and equipment, the more we can provide to the market," said Susan Dio, president of BP America, in an emailed statement explaining the company's support for the measure.

Firms like BP, ExxonMobil and Shell expect that the U.S. and other countries where they operate will continue to pass and implement new climate legislation, and have portrayed natural gas as a better option for the power sector than coal. That argument is undercut by methane emissions, which by some estimates make natural gas no better than coal if leaks aren't vigilantly policed. Methane is more than 20 times as potent at trapping heat in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide on a pound-per-pound basis in the long term, and leaks of the gas could erase many of the gains the U.S. has made in reducing emissions.

But the EPA rollback wasn't aimed at helping the big multi-national firms. Instead, the agency said it will help smaller oil-and-gas companies, many of which are drowning in debt and vulnerable to anything that increases their compliance costs. The EPA estimated that the rollback would save companies a total of up to $19 million annually—a small sum for oil majors, but a significant expense for some other firms.

"When you have a regulatory item that's an existential threat to a group of companies," says Dylan Tanner, executive director of Influence Map, a non-profit that tracks corporate lobbying on climate, "those companies are the ones that fight the hardest to control it."

Asked on Thursday about the opposition to the move from some large energy companies, Anne Idsal, assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, said "they're not the only the one" with a position on the issue. "You've got small and mid sized companies as well," she said. "Quite frankly, it's a want and they certainly indicated" that.

This isn't the first time Trump has irked big business with regulatory cuts that industry leaders did not want. Earlier this year, the Administration softened vehicle-efficiency standards even though auto companies said it would hurt their business. And the Administration has sought to intervene in energy markets to prop up coal, to the outrage of many energy companies.

The divide in the oil-and-gas industry over methane limits foreshadows a coming conflict within the industry over how to deal with climate change. In recent years, many of the world's biggest energy firms have rallied around a carbon tax as a climate measure they can support, with some committing millions to lobby for such a policy. These companies acknowledge climate change is real and say they support some — though by no means the most aggressive — measures to solve it.

"Modest climate policy in particular is good for the oil industry," says Andrew Logan, senior director of oil and gas at Ceres, a nonprofit that pushes companies to address climate change. "It hurts coal, and if you're an oil-and-gas company, anything that hurts coal is good for you."

While these companies' proposed solutions are rejected by climate advocates, they remain more progressive on the issue than many of their smaller counterparts. Independent oil producers generally take the hardest line, opposing nearly any substantive climate policy. And their voices carry weight.

The American Petroleum Industry, a prominent trade organization, supported rolling back the EPA's methane regulation, arguing that companies should be allowed to "voluntarily" reduce methane emissions. The trade association has no formal position on a carbon tax, but generally opposes new industry regulations. No matter what big oil companies may say about climate change, the views of the smaller firms contribute to the foot-dragging on climate change by Republicans in Congress.

"You've got to remember," Heiti Heitkamp, a former Democratic Senator from North Dakota, told me earlier this year, "those major oil companies are not the industry."

As of August 29, 2019 at 10:50PM, 1 BTC equals 9432.1504 USD.

Register PIVOT to get BTC Bonus：PIVOT is a community for cryptocurrency investors. 
via free bitcoin

(NEW YORK) — There may soon be more places to get an Apple-sanctioned fix for a cracked iPhone screen.

Apple said Thursday that it will sell tools and parts to independent phone-repair shops in the U.S. and later in other countries. Repairs at these shops, though, will be limited to iPhones already out of warranty.

Customers with in-warranty repairs will still need to visit an Apple store or one of more than 5,000 authorized service providers worldwide, including all Best Buy stores in the U.S. Same goes for repairs on other products, such as Apple Watch and Mac computers, or for more complicated iPhone repairs.

Though many unofficial repair shops have been offering basic fixes such as screen replacements, they aren't necessarily using Apple parts or qualified technicians, leading to variations in quality. Now, these shops will be able to buy parts directly from Apple, as long as they have an Apple-certified technician to make those repairs.

"When a repair is needed, a customer should have confidence the repair is done right," Jeff Williams, Apple's chief operating officer, said in a statement.

With iPhone sales on the wane and people hanging on to their phones longer, Apple is trying to ramp up its services business, with offerings such as music subscriptions. It plans to launch a video streaming service this year.

Facing increasing scrutiny for its role in the teen vaping epidemic, e-cigarette maker Juul on Thursday announced a system meant to stop all retail sales of its products to anyone underage.

The company is providing more than $100 million in "incentives and financial support" to retailers who agree to implement an automated technology meant to prevent anyone underage from buying Juul devices. The system, which will be part of retailers' point-of-sale systems, will lock up and refuse to complete a sale until a valid ID is scanned electronically. It will also limit all purchases to one vaporizer and four nicotine pods, to discourage people from buying the e-cigarettes in bulk and selling them to minors.

E-cigarettes are illegal for anyone under 18, or under 21 in some states; they are intended as a healthier alternative for adult smokers. But by 2018 federal estimates, about 20% of U.S. high school students had vaped in the past month, potentially putting them at risk for nicotine addiction or other health problems. Juul, as by far the most popular brand on the market, has been blamed for most of this widespread underage use.

The new plan is meant to cut down on illegal e-cigarette purchases in two ways, Juul says. First, it will eliminate human error from clerks checking IDs. Second, it should reduce "social sourcing," by which underage users get access to products through friends or siblings. On its website, Juul already requires all buyers to be 21.

Fifty retail chains responsible for 40,000 outlets, including Cumberland Farms, Chevron ExtraMile and QuikTrip, have already agreed to implement the system, according to a company release. At least 15,000 stores are expected to complete rollout this year. By May 2021, all retailers that want to sell Juul products must use the system, the company said.

"It is no small task to change retail systems and processes at tens of thousands of retail locations—it is expensive, complex, and could cause friction with legal-age customers," the company statement said. "Some retailers will not meet the deadline for…compliance and will no longer be authorized to sell JUUL products. That's a tradeoff we must make as we continue to combat youth use of JUUL products."

The retail system is one of several moves Juul has made to curb the teen vaping epidemic—one that critics argue it started by marketing its sleek products in ways meant to appeal to young people. Last year, it suspended its U.S. Instagram and Facebook accounts, and stopped selling many of its flavored pods—including mango, cucumber and fruit—in most retail stores. Flavors are thought to be especially appealing to kids.

Juul on Thursday also announced the nationwide expansion of its "track and trace" initiative, through which parents, educators or law enforcement can enter the serial number of a contraband device into an online portal. The company will then use that information to pinpoint where its vaporizers are being sold illegally, allowing it to take appropriate action.

Vaping has been in the news this month after the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began investigating a spate of serious lung diseases, and one death, apparently linked to vaping. In an interview with CBS, Juul CEO Kevin Burns called the illnesses "worrisome," but said early reports suggest they stem from vaping THC, a compound found in marijuana. Juul pods contain liquid nicotine.

As of August 28, 2019 at 10:50PM, 1 BTC equals 10169 USD.

Register PIVOT to get BTC Bonus：PIVOT is a community for cryptocurrency investors. 
via free bitcoin

(Bloomberg) — Costco Wholesale Corp.'s first outlet in China opened on Tuesday and was soon overrun with customers willing to fight over discounted products and wait hours to pay for their purchases.

The American retail giant had to suspend operations in its Shanghai store in the afternoon citing "heavy traffic and customer flows", according to a text message sent by the company to consumers holding its membership card. The message was shared on Weibo, China's micro-blogging website.

The frenzy at Costco's store comes at a time when the U.S. and China are locked in a tit-for-tat tariff war that shows no signs of abating and is making American firms wary of investing in the largest Asian economy. Costco is also entering a market where many of its global rivals have struggled and given up. Carrefour SA sold 80% stake in its China unit at a discount in June while German wholesaler Metro AG is looking to sell its operations.

"There's no other word to describe Shanghai's Costco but crazy," a Weibo user said, who gave up on the shopping plan after seeing two-hour queues at the checkout counters. Other Weibo users shared that they had to wait three hours to enter the parking lot while some decided to walk to the store to avoid the traffic jam.

Other pictures showed customers grabbing packets of roast chicken and elbowing out other shoppers at the store. Local news reports said the retailer offered discounts as deep as 60% on some products and annual membership for just 199 yuan ($28). The sale also includes the nation's coveted fiery liquor drink from Kweichow Moutai Co. and Wuliangye Yibin Co.

Costco didn't immediately answer phone calls and an online inquiry seeking comments on Tuesday's shopping frenzy.

As of August 27, 2019 at 10:50PM, 1 BTC equals 10200.0996 USD.

Register PIVOT to get BTC Bonus：PIVOT is a community for cryptocurrency investors. 
via free bitcoin

(Bloomberg) — Philip Morris International Inc., the maker of Marlboro cigarettes in overseas markets, is in talks to reunite with Altria Group Inc. more than 10 years after the tobacco giants split their operations.

Altria shares surged the most since October 2008 on the news, rising as much as 11%. Philip Morris declined as much as 11%. The deal would be the biggest since AT&T Inc. bid for Time Warner in 2016. Philip Morris had a market value of nearly $126.4 billion at the close of trading on Aug. 23, while Altria was worth about $86.7 billion.

The companies broke apart more than a decade ago, bowing to pressure from U.S. investors who wanted higher dividends and more share buybacks. The move was also pitched as a way to set free faster-growing overseas operations while the U.S. business was entangled in smoker lawsuits.

But times have changed. Altria has recently diversified its portfolio with investments in vaping and cannabis, giving the company more growth potential even as fewer people smoke cigarettes. Some analysts and investors have argued for years that the companies should get back together, a move that would give Philip Morris more U.S. exposure.

The transaction would give Philip Morris roughly 58% ownership of the new company, with Altria holding the rest, according to a person familiar with the terms who asked not to be identified because the details haven't been made public.

They are considering a no-premium deal based on the companies' closing share prices on Aug. 23, according to the person. The companies would aim to close the deal within six months and expect to make no divestitures, the person said.

Alternative Products

There's been speculation that the companies might get back together. On Monday, Wells Fargo published a research note that said a deal could make sense now, in part because Altria has a stake in the vaping company Juul.

A reunification would combine two of the most popular smoking alternative products: IQOS and Juul. Philip Morris has been plowing billions of dollars in promoting IQOS, a heat-not-burn product used by millions consumers outside the U.S.. Altria meanwhile has invested $12.8 billion in e-cigarette upstart Juul Labs Inc., which has catapulted itself to the U.S. industry leader in smoking alternatives in just a few years.

Altria also has been planning to start selling IQOS in the U.S. this year, testing out demand in the Atlanta area with a store opening next month.

Philip Morris said in a statement that no agreement has been formally reached and any deal would be subject to board, shareholder and regulatory approval. Altria also issued a statement confirming the talks.

Like Hollywood, which has been churning out films based on blockbusters of decades past, Wall Street bankers seem to be running out of new ideas. Earlier this month, CBS Corp. agreed to reunite with Viacom Inc. in an $11.7 billion transaction, 13 years after the two media giants split.

Analysts were largely positive on a potential tie-up between Altria and Philip Morris after speculation Monday afternoon that something was brewing. RBC Capital Markets analyst Nik Modi saw several strategic reasons for a deal, including geographic alignment with international competitors and full economic benefit of IQOS in the U.S. and global access for Juul.

"The potential to reunite the companies has been often discussed, but we did not believe this would occur given the heavy regulatory burden in the U.S. market and its weakening growth profile," Stifel analyst Chris Growe said in a note. "Perhaps the FDA's approval of IQOS changed that thinking."

It was five o'clock on a recent Monday afternoon, and at one of the busiest connectors between the city's center and its surrounding neighborhoods, rush hour was in full swing. Hundreds of vehicles flowed across Dronning Louise's bridge every minute, but this being Copenhagen, the vast majority of them–some 48,000 by day's end– were bicycles, not cars. Among the surging tide of cargo bikes, fixies, and plain, old-fashioned two-wheelers, two tourists stood upright on e-scooters, their uncertain weaving prompting a few angry chimes from passing bike bells. From the sidewalk, Marie Djernes, a 24-year-old student who was standing next to her own bike as she waited for a friend, watched the scene with bemusement. "Yeah, they're a bit annoying," she said. "They don't really seem to know what they're doing."

Bird, Lime, Circ, Tier, Dott, Voi, Volo, Scoot, Trotti, Poppi: since making their first appearance in California in 2017, electric scooters with names that sound like modern-day versions of Snow White's dwarves have popped up in over 100 cities worldwide, the progeny of companies aiming to become the next Uber of alternative transport (that includes Uber itself, which, despite having recently posted $5.2 billion in losses, has its own line of e-scooters, Jump). Yet for all its success, this new form of "micromobility," as its promoters love to call it, has also brought a slew of problems, from safety risks to impassable sidewalks. The solution, say many scooter advocates in the U.S. and Europe, lies in creating the kind of infrastructure—wide bike lanes, ample parking— found in cycling-friendly cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam. But as those cities are themselves learning, e-scooters and bikes don't necessarily play well together either.

It's not hard to understand the appeal of electric scooters. For a commuter arriving by train from the suburbs, already late and facing a half mile slog on foot to the office, or a tourist with only a day in a city and a lot of ground to cover, the devices present an easy solution: download the app, add credit card information, unlock one of the seeming gazillions of scooters parked nearby, and off you go. Because they are dockless, the devices can be left anywhere, and because they run on electric batteries instead of fossil fuels, they allow users to feel good about making a climate-friendly choice. And most of all, as their heavy use among the young suggests, zipping through a city on an e-scooter is just plain fun.

But safety is a growing concern. Collisions with both cars and pedestrians have sent thousands of e-scooter users and their unwitting victims to hospitals; one study, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control for the city of Austin, Texas found roughly 20 injuries per 100,000 rides, with half of those considered serious. Scooters have also been implicated in deaths in Paris, London, San Diego, Singapore, and Barcelona, among other cities. On August 9, following four fatalities within three months, Atlanta banned their use at night. A few days later, a French organization representing 60 or so citizens injured in e-scooter collisions announced plans to sue the Paris authorities for negligence in protecting pedestrians.

With an estimated 20,000 trotinettes on its streets–many of them ridden on sidewalks, abandoned in heaps in city squares, or tossed into the Seine–it's no wonder that Paris's situation was described as "anarchy" earlier this summer by its once e-scooter friendly mayor Anne Hidalgo. But with regulations varying from country to country, and even city to city, and with an ever growing number of companies placing as many devices as they can in as many cities as possible (Madrid alone has authorized 18 different operators) in an attempt to achieve market dominance, the chaos–and the risks–seem to be growing.

At least one solution to this Wild West situation is better infrastructure, say advocates. In a safety report it released in April, the California-based e-scooter company Bird, with a presence in over 100 cities from Los Angeles to Tel Aviv, noted that it sends helmets to users who request them, but called on the cities themselves to "design for safety." Bike lanes and similar infrastructure investments, the report stated, "effectively reduce crash risk for all road users." Maxim Romain, the CEO and co-founder of the Amsterdam-based e-scooter company Dott, agrees. "We work closely with the municipality to invest in infrastructure," he says of the Dutch company, which currently operates in Belgium, France, and Italy, but hopes to expand to its home country as well. "Like everybody else, at first we put ours on the sidewalk because that's where we could [station them]. But now, we only deploy them in the parking spaces that each municipality advises. And we're helping to open 2500 more parking spaces for shared e-scooters."

In places like San Francisco and London, pro-e-scooter groups have found common cause with cyclists. InJuly, a television presenter died when the electric scooter she owned collided with a truck at the same south London roundabout where a cyclist was killed in 2018. Although the vehicles are currently banned in London, the city is reviewing their status, and recently met with representatives from Bird and Lime. Rachel White, head of policy for Sustrans, a U.K. cycling advocacy group recently told The Guardian,"Generally, another group of organizations lobbying for improved cycleways can only be a good thing." And the popularity of the devices–as well as their risks–can alter infrastructure in a way that bikes never have: on Sunday, Atlanta mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms promised in an editorial for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the city would put temporary barriers and painted lanes in place to separate e-scooters and bikes from automobile traffic.

Yet some cities with that kind of infrastructure already in place are discovering that a strong cycling culture isn't necessarily compatible with shared e-scooters either. In Copenhagen, for example, where half of all trips to work or school are made by bike, the reception has been decidedly mixed. "Egypt had 10 plagues. Copenhagen has only one," complained Berlingske newspaper's culture editor Anne Sophie Hermansen, in reference to e-scooters which, she wrote "tyrannize traffic" and "look ridiculous." On Twitter, the hashtag #løbehjulsgate–or 'e-scootergate,' has been popping up all summer to refer to the controversy the devices have generated.

Some of the resentment stems from the scooter company's appropriation of the city's public furniture. "As a cyclist in Copenhagen you feel taken into consideration, that the city has built a proper space for you," says Klaus Bondam, director of the Danish Cyclists Federation. "There's a democratic sense that has been built into the urban streetscape over several generations. That's basically being disrupted at the moment; [e-scooters] don't fit into our democratic model of how we use the urban space."

And that space can get crowded. "We have one of the largest cycling capacities anywhere," says Mikkel Halby Mindegaard, head of the Streetlife Division for the city of Copenhagen. "But we're seeing congestion on some streets from e-scooters. And we don't have sufficient parking infrastructure even for bikes. The scooters add a lot on top of that."

In Münster, Germany, where bikes outnumber citizens 2 to 1, the municipal government has thus far limited the pressure on infrastructure through regulation and careful selection. Shared e-scooters were first allowed onto streets on July 27–but only 200 of them. After a trial period, that number will double, but all of them will be provided by the Berlin-based company Tier, which collects their entire fleet each night, and puts it out again in the morning–a measure that ensures the scooters are not left randomly parked in thoroughfares or heaped on sidewalks. "We had a lot of problems with share bikes before," says traffic planner Andreas Pott, "We learned from that."

Bike-friendly Amsterdam has taken a different tack. The Dutch city has over 400 miles of cycle paths and bike lanes, but with nearly half the population traveling by bicycle each day, some of those pathways have become dangerously crowded. Even before the advent of e-scooters, a 2016 report from the Institute for Road Safety Research found that bottlenecks along the busiest paths were already increasing the number of crashes. In an attempt to ease the pressure, the Dutch government recently forced mopeds, previously allowed in bike paths, into the road with cars. E-scooters, however, fall under earlier legislation, originally drafted for Segways, that requires motorized vehicles to come equipped with air tires and double brakes, before they can be certified for public use in bike lanes. Thus far, no manufacturer has met the requirements.

Even if they do, it's not clear the Dutch will take to them. "I don't think Amsterdam is very interested in changing the current situation," says Maud de Vries, cofounder and managing director of BYCS, an Amsterdam-based organization that promotes cycling. "There's not enough space for bikes as it is. And with their speed difference, the accidents, and the environmental impact, a lot of people just don't see the advantages of them."

Closer scrutiny has called into question some of the e-scooter's self-branding as a green transportation solution. For one thing, they don't last very long. Because of their lightweight design and the heavy usage to which they are subjected, Bird and Lime scooters in Louisville and Indianapolis last a mere 28 days on average, with only a handful making it past the two-month mark. Even the hardiest claims — CEO Romain, for example, says Dott's scooters average just one year — pale in comparison to the average bike's life cycle.

If their disposability casts doubt on e-scooters' environmental credentials, so too does their carbon footprint. A life-cycle impact study (which includes an assessment not only of carbon emitted while the device is in use, but also that released by manufacturing, transporting, and charging the vehicles and their batteries), conducted by scientists at North Carolina State University and published earlier this month in the journal Environmental Research Letters found that although e-scooters had less than half the total emissions of cars (202 grams of carbon dioxide per mile traveled for the former vs. 414 grams for the latter), their output was still dramatically higher than that of bicycles,whose life-cycle emissions only average 8 grams per mile.

And while e-scooters do indeed offer an attractive alternative to automobiles (34% of riders surveyed said they would have made the trip by car had the devices not been available), the same study, conducted in Raleigh, North Carolina, shows that with an even higher percentage–49%–would have walked or biked. Those proportions roughly coincide with findings from Portland, Oregon's bureau of transportation, which, in its own 2018 study, concluded that 45% of e-scooter rides would have been been made on foot or by bike.

"Of course, moving people away from cars is a positive thing," says Mindegaard. "But we have no hard evidence that e-scooters are doing that. We don't have numbers yet on where the customers are coming from, but we know that tourists use them a lot, and young people. So it seems like [e-scooter riders] are probably coming from people who would have walked or biked than from people in cars."

Technically, e-scooters are currently illegal in Denmark, because national law requires any object placed in public space for commercial purposes to be licensed and no company has received a permit yet. But Lime, Voi, Tier and many others "moved into the streets before we got them through the permit process," says Mindegaard, "It all happened so fast, and they grew so quickly that we didn't see it coming." The city of Copenhagen is currently conducting a pilot program that will grant permits for 200 e-scooters stationed in the historic city center, and another 3000 in the outlying neighborhoods. But in the meantime, many companies are blithely operating anyway because the legal requirements for enforcing the ban are complicated enough that police, who, according to Mindegaard, cite limited resources, don't ticket them.

They do, however, go after drunk e-scooter riders. After a report came out noting that since January, over 100 people had sustained injuries from e-scooters severe enough to send them to the region's hospitals, Copenhagen police began ticketing users found riding under the influence. But safety remains a concern, as does the broader impact on health. In the greater Copenhagen area, where the number of sick days is reduced by one for every 745 miles cycled, there is concern among cycling advocacy groups like the Danish Cycling Federation that switching to passive e-scooters will result in more obesity and related diseases.

All of those concerns–health, safety, the imposition on public infrastructure—are on activist Yael Bassan's mind every day when she moves the e-scooters that inevitably crowd the area around her shop–and posts images to social media of herself doing it. But as the owner of Copenhagen Bikes, she has an added worry: economic survival. Located in the picturesque neighborhood of Nyhavn, one of the city's most popular tourist destinations, her bike rental business is losing what she estimates to be 5-10% a year to e-scooters, a decline that began last year. "Every scooter that takes one of my customers is 100 kroners I don't get," she says. "If there are 30 of those a day, that's 3000 kroner a day, 30,000 a month, a quarter million in half a year."

There are roughly 300 bike shops in Copenhagen, and most of them also supply rentals; anecdotal information from a few owners confirms that they too are seeing revenues fall. But what is especially galling, Bassan says, is to lose money to companies so actively flouting the law. "I applied to get permission to put my bikes in the square in front of my shop, and was told it wasn't possible," she says. "If I put my bikes there, I'll get a fine. But every day, there are 20 or more scooters parked there, trying to take my customers, and no one does anything. That's why I started getting angry."

Since she started posting videos and photos of herself moving the scooters on Twitter, she's gotten a lot of support from other Copenhageners tired, she says, of having to dodge the devices on sidewalks and in bike lanes. "Disruption is supposed to be such a positive thing these days. People are afraid to be annoyed at disruption because it makes you sound old or old-fashioned. But we need to ask, do we want this disruption? Is it good for us?"

At the Danish Cycling Federation, director Klaus Bondam is wondering the same thing. Although he himself feels comfortable sharing lane space with e-scooters ("We go about the same speed," he says with a smile), he knows that isn't the case for seniors or parents with small children. He worries that those groups will simply stop cycling, just as he worries about the impact on Copenhagen life if public space succumbs to private businesses. "We've built a really good bicycle culture in Denmark," he says. "Ruining that would be a terrible thing."

Civil rights activist Rosa Parks is being honored with her own Barbie doll.

The toy company Mattel unveiled the new doll for Women's Equality Day on August 26 as part of a range dedicated to celebrating inspiring women.

Parks became known as "the mother of the civil rights movement" after she refused to give up her bus seat to a white man in Alabama. Her arrest in 1955 started the Montgomery Bus Boycott which led to the desegregation of the transport system.

The Rosa Parks doll is part of the Inspiring Women Series, dolls based on historical figures that come with educational information about the contributions each woman made to society, as well as authentic clothing, according to CNN.

The series also includes a doll honoring Sally Ride, the first American woman in space.

Mattel unveiled the Inspiring Women Series to mark International Women's Day last year, with 17 new dolls representing real women to serve as role models that included Olympic snowboarding champion Chloe Kim, artist and activist Frida Kahlo and Wonder Woman filmmaker Patty Jenkins.

"Girls have always been able to play out different roles and careers with Barbie and we are thrilled to shine a light on real life role models to remind them that they can be anything," Lisa McKnight, Senior Vice President And General Manager of Barbie, said in a statement.

The company's decision was based on a global survey of mothers, in which 86% said they were worried about the kind of role models their daughters were exposed to.

Some have criticized the new dolls for maintaining the unrealistic proportions and features of the original Barbie.

In 2016, Mattel released three new types of Barbie: curvy, petite and tall. The company was praised for opening up to diverse body types, following the introduction of new skin tones and hair textures the previous year. The first Barbie to wear a hijab was introduced in 2017.

Earlier this year, Mattel introduced a wheelchair Barbie and one with a prosthetic leg.

(MOSCOW) — A Russian aircraft leasing company says it has filed a lawsuit against Boeing over an order of 35 Boeing 737 Max jets, but that it's open to a settlement.

Avia Capital Services told the state-owned Tass news agency Tuesday that it has brought the lawsuit against Boeing in the United States, accusing it of failing to disclose the information about the jets' "defects."

Nearly 400 Max jets that were being flown by airlines around the world have been grounded since March, shortly after the second of two crashes that together killed 346 people.

Avia told Tass that Boeing had pushed back the delivery date from October to March next year. It said it is willing to sit down for talks with Boeing and settle out of court.

(Bloomberg) — Allegiant Airlines, a discounter known for squeezing budget-conscious passengers into seats, is trying to entice customers to pay for a new amenity: extra legroom.

The unit of Allegiant Travel Co. removed a row of seats on three of its Airbus SE A320 jets to offer 30 spots with six inches of extra space. The challenge is to persuade travelers to spring for the additional room.

"It's been good, but hasn't been great," Chief Executive Officer Maury Gallagher said Monday in an interview at the International Aviation Forecast Summit in Las Vegas. "Do you go put it in your entire fleet? We're not there yet."

Allegiant isn't giving up. In fact, it's converting a fourth aircraft now, echoing a push at other carriers to persuade some coach passengers to pay more for amenities even as others pay less for stripped-down basic economy.

Spirit Airlines Inc., another deep discounter, offers the "Big Front Seat" with extra space and leg room. Allegiant sells its "Extra" package as a bundle, with priority boarding, designated overhead bin space and a free drink, as well as the additional legroom.

'Big Investment'

Allegiant, which makes most of its money from optional fees and services, tested the amenities over the summer on 85% of its departures out of Los Angeles. The offering will be shifted to its base in Grand Rapids, Michigan, this fall and through the winter, Gallagher said.

The CEO said he was surprised the product didn't sell better, but he's willing to give it more time. The airline wants to make sure revenue from the expanded room makes up for the six seats taken out.

"It's a big investment to go change out the whole fleet," he said.

But he also voiced a note of caution in remarks to conference attendees, including representatives of airports and airport developers. In some cases, customers just don't want to pay more, he said.

Passengers "don't give a damn about your airports and they don't give a damn about the inside of my airplane."

(Bloomberg) — Johnson & Johnson shares rose as much as 5% after an Oklahoma judge ordered the company to pay far less than some investors expected in the first trial by a state seeking compensation for the public-health crisis spawned by opioid painkillers.

Oklahoma Judge Thad Balkman ruled Monday that J&J created a temporary public nuisance by duping doctors into overprescribing its opioid-based medications, and ordered the company to pay $572 million to the state. Oklahoma had sought as much as $17.5 billion. J&J said it would appeal the ruling.

The ruling was seen as an important benchmark for pharmaceutical executives facing thousands of similar lawsuits across the U.S. from cities, counties and states. While several companies have reached settlements in a few cases, some analysts predict opioid makers and distributors may have to pay a total of $100 billion to resolve their liability for the crisis.

J&J and others, including Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and McKesson Corp., face their next courtroom test two months from now when the first federal cases targeting their marketing of opioid painkillers are set for trial in Cleveland.s

As of August 26, 2019 at 10:50PM, 1 BTC equals 10369.4199 USD.

Register PIVOT to get BTC Bonus：PIVOT is a community for cryptocurrency investors. 
via free bitcoin

As of August 25, 2019 at 10:50PM, 1 BTC equals 10237.6104 USD.

Register PIVOT to get BTC Bonus：PIVOT is a community for cryptocurrency investors. 
via free bitcoin

Until he resigned as the head of the online home goods retailer Overstock on Thursday, Patrick Byrne may have been one of the most unusual CEOs in the United States. A libertarian proponent of blockchain who built the company almost from scratch, he gained a reputation as a conspiracy theorist and for strange behavior — including referring to a foe as a "Sith Lord."

Over the past few weeks, however, Byrne's public conduct became even more bizarre. He said on CNN that he had been instructed by the FBI to conduct a relationship with Maria Butina, a convicted Russian agent, and issued a statement through Overstock in which he referred to "men in black" and to "political espionage against Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump." Overstock's shares fell 40% after the Byrne's revelations but began to climb again after he announced his resignation.

With Byrne stepping down, Overstock has called upon another longtime Overstock employee to be the CEO, at least for the interim — Jonathan Johnson, a member of the company's board of directors who previously ran for governor of Utah.

Johnson spoke with TIME about where Overstock stands now — and whether it can move on without Byrne.

Patrick Byrne seems to have been this visionary who built Overstock into the company it is today. How do you think Overstock can go on without that dynamic person at the helm?

Anytime you lose a founder/CEO who's been with you for two decades, I think you can expect some impact. One of the things that makes me feel comfortable with Patrick going is he wouldn't have left if he hadn't thought we had the right team in place. This was his choice to leave, and he thought it was the right time because it was the team we have.

Now as far as being a visionary, no question, Patrick is a visionary. But I think our team, first, shares his vision and, second, has frankly been the source of many of his ideas.

Do you think it will be possible to separate the perception of Overstock from the figure of Mr. Byrne? Will it be hard to show that Overstock is not this person?

I don't think that will be a problem. I think, for most people — for most of our customers certainly — Overstock is a website and store where they find great home goods at great prices. And a company that's easy to deal with quick delivery and easy returns. That's not tied to one person, that's tied to the execution of the entire company.

Byrne didn't leave under ordinary circumstances. He released a letter that I think a lot of people would see as strange and confusing, and he's been connected to a woman associated with the Russian government. Overstock's stocks have also slipped recently. Do you think that's going to create the perception that Overstock is volatile?

The first thing that I will say about his departure — this was Patrick's decision. Only his decision. Factors that went into it were included. He worked for 20 years as a founder-CEO. That's an exhausting role, and Patrick has talked many times with the board about when he would go. So was what was going on with his role with the government a factor? I think so. I think everyone has to admit that. But I don't think it was the precipitating factor. He had a good team in place, he'd been there a long time, and it was time to go.

People know who Patrick Byrne is. He's candid, he's frank, and he's unconventional. That's been a hallmark of Patrick and of Overstock since 1999. I think the fact that he's gone may change people's perception of Overstock from a shareholder perspective but not from a shopping perspective. We're no different than we were last week. We're a company focused on home decor with great products and great prices, great service.

About his shareholder letter saying goodbye — Patrick has been anything but ordinary for 20 years. He's been extraordinary. He's written many shareholder letters like that over the years. I think our shareholders know who Patrick is. That wasn't a surprise to them.

How does this effect us going forward? We have different leadership. I think our shareholders will like our leadership. I talked to our shareholders yesterday; I think they're excited about the focus the company will have on sustainable, profitable growth. I don't see what Patrick did as anything that will surprise our shareholders. I think they know that will be the last shareholder letter from Patrick, because he's no longer with the company in any formal fashion.

What is your plan for the coming weeks? How do you plan to show Overstock is the same stable company and will go on without him?

Patrick and I have been working together for 17 years. I was the president of Overstock and its retail — when it only had a retail business — for five years. I've been the president of its blockchain-focused business managing ventures for the last three years. From an employee and workforce standpoint, I think people see a lot of continuity already. We've met as a company, I've met with the different departments. I've talked to each of the executives. They know that our vision is not changing. They know that our focus isn't changing. And much of what is credited to Patrick, has been put in place by the current team anyway. As far as focus of the company, that's not going to change.

We'll be holding a shareholder call Monday morning at 8:30. I hope shareholders understand that same thing — Patrick set the course for this ship. There may be a different hand on the pillar, at the helm, but the course won't change. The only change is to get a little bit more wind in the sales. I think a lot of what the executive team and what their colleagues are doing will get just that.

From a customer perspective, people won't see any difference. The website will look the same, the service will still be great. The product will still be beautiful. Every CEO is part of the brand, but at Overstock the brand has always been bigger than any one individual.

Are you concerned that there could be some kind of backlash amongst customers? We're in this period where there's more consumer activism— where people feel that they need to make political statements with their dollars — and it's so easy just to switch to a different website.

When the first story about this broke on July 26, and when another story broke on the 12th of August, the company put out a press release, I had the analytics team look at the traffic, look at the website traffic, look at the product conversion and look at the sales. Really, really consistent with where it had been in the past — there doesn't appear to have been any such negative impact.

I know there are consumer activists who will create a hashtag and do what they do, but I think most people — when they're coming to buy sofas and duvets — are looking for great prices and good services. That's what we've got.

There's less friction in changing stores in internet shopping than there is walking across a mall or driving to a store across town. There's no question about that. That hasn't been an issue, I don't think that will be an issue, because at the end of the day I think most people are looking for service, product and price. And that's always been great at Overstock, and that's not going to change because of what's been said or who's in charge.

Are there plans to make you the permanent head of Overstock?

My title is interim, but I hope the answer is I'm here to stay. I think the board [and I'm on that board] is acting prudently, and making sure that I'm the right person, and if I'm not— I'm sure they'll look to find the right person. While the title is interim, I'm acting as if it is longterm.

[This interview has been edited for length and clarity]

As of August 24, 2019 at 10:50PM, 1 BTC equals 9998.3301 USD.

Register PIVOT to get BTC Bonus：PIVOT is a community for cryptocurrency investors. 
via free bitcoin

The CEO of online home goods seller Overstock resigned Thursday, following comments alleging that the FBI had directed him to pursue an intimate relationship with the convicted Russian agent Maria Butina as an informant.

Patrick Byrne, 57, had on Aug. 12 issued a bizarre statement through Overstock criticizing the FBI, referring to a "deep state," "men in black," and "political espionage conducted against Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump," after he said he consulted with billionaire Warren Buffet.

A rambling, incendiary interview on CNN Thursday night in which he made numerous unsubstantiated claims has only raised further questions.

The FBI has refused to comment on Byrne's claims.

Overstock shares fell by some 40% in the wake of Byrne's disclosures, and ten days later he resigned. "While I believe that I did what was necessary for the good of the country," he wrote in his resignation letter Thursday, "for the good of the firm, I am in the sad position of having to sever ties with Overstock."

In a statement, Overstock said: "The company thanks Dr. Byrne for his vision and leadership over the past 20 years as he took Overstock from a fax-based liquidator to one of the most influential technology companies of our time. The board and leadership will continue to build on Dr. Byrne's legacy while executing on our strategy with clear focus."

Here's what to know about Byrne's allegations about Butina, the "deep state," and the Mueller investigation.

Who is Patrick Byrne?

Byrne was an early investor in internet commerce, buying Overstock in 1999 and developing it into a multi-million-dollar business, despite the growth of competitors like Amazon.

But he has also cultivated a career as a provocateur. Alongside business, Byrne runs a conspiracy-tinged website, DeepCapture.com, on which he has alleged a variety of claims, including that a so-called "Sith Lord" in Wall Street (a reference to a Star Wars villain) was leading a conspiracy against his company. Byrne and the site were found liable for defamation in 2016 related to separate allegations made on the site against a Canadian man, Altaf Nazerali, and ordered to pay nearly $1 million dollars.

Recently Byrne has become an advocate of blockchain and Bitcoin, spending millions on projects related to the cryptocurrency. Shares of Overstock rose sharply in line with Bitcoin in late 2017 and early 2018, before collapsing with the cryptocurrency.

A message to Overstock seeking additional comment was not immediately answered.

What has he said about Maria Butina and the FBI?

Byrne's comments on the issue have been rambling, and at times incoherent and vague.

After his resignation, Byrne issued further incendiary comments, claiming in an interview with CNN that former FBI director James Comey knew "100%" about him being instructed to conduct a relationship with Butina, and that "the [FBI] was hijacked from the top." Comey, in a statement to CNN, called Byrne's claims "ridiculous." "The FBI doesn't work that way," Comey added.

Byrne has said Butina approached him and offered to introduce him to Russian officials and oligarchs, and that she asked to be put in touch with members of the Clinton, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio presidential campaigns in 2016.

Butina, 30, pleaded guilty in December 2018 to acting as an unregistered foreign agent of the Russian state. Prosecutors alleged she attempted to meet members of presidential campaigns in the runup to the 2016 election, and had worked alongside the National Rifle Association (NRA) to support Second Amendment causes. Byrne said that he and Butina first began a sexual relationship in 2015 after meeting at a libertarian conference, and shortly afterward he began cooperating with the FBI.

David Koch towered over most rooms, both physically and politically. He liked it that way.

At 6 feet, 5 inches tall, the professional contrarian and ideological warrior had little interest in blending in. Even as Democrats made him and his deep political giving a symbol of the corrupting influence of money on politics, he remained defiant and doubled-down. Koch could not be kowtowed into a crouch.

David Koch's death was announced Friday. No cause was given, although his brother Charles noted in a statement that David had previously fought prostate cancer. He was 79.

In his youth, he resisted his wealthy family's headquarters in Wichita, Kansas, and instead set up his own wing of the business in New York City. While his brother Charles Koch read economics at home in the heartland, David Koch entertained models at his Manhattan penthouse and became one of New York's most generous patrons. As the 1970s came to their sputtering end, Koch stepped into politics for the only campaign of his life, buying his way onto the Libertarian Party's ticket as its vice presidential nominee, attracting almost a million votes nationwide in a race that saw Ronald Reagan win the presidency.

When Bill Koch challenged sibling Charles' spending on libertarian causes and staged a failed boardroom coup, David and Charles began a bitter and years-long battle against two other siblings to wrest control of the vast Koch Industries out of their hands. And as the nascent Tea Party movement started stirring in the late 2000s, it was David Koch who saw the potential to use his family's already formidable network of deep-pocketed allies to tap into the nation's frustrations through groups like Americans for Prosperity. In doing so, Koch became perhaps the most prominent and vilified symbol of the billionaires who have turned 21st century politics into a playground of the privileged.

Few individuals have enjoyed more of an influence of American politics than Koch, even though he never held public office in his life. He was a hard-edged ideologue who took once-fringe ideas of his father's John Birch Society to the mainstream by dint of his checkbook and cold-eyed disdain of what he saw as limits to freedom. His critics say he and his family's network of donors and groups coarsened politics during Barack Obama's presidency to the point that rabble-rouser Donald Trump was able to win the Republican Party's nomination in 2016, despite the fact both David and Charles both found Trump personally and politically abhorrent. Koch's defenders note that he risked his reputation and privacy to become one of the most pilloried figures of an era to advance the causes he held dear.

Like all giants in a society, his legacy is unwieldy and full of contradictions that defy a simple reading. As a 42% stakeholder in the second largest privately held company in the country, Koch was said to have a net worth of around $50 billion, making him the 11th-richest person on the planet, according to Forbes' billionaire index. But unlike others in his ranks, Koch had one of the freest wallets for charities of his choosing: his lifetime philanthropic giving topped $1 billion to causes such as the Smithsonian, Lincoln Center and cancer research. He patronized groups that preached civility even as he nudged his political arm to portray Obama as an existential threat to American capitalism. Such complications only made Koch that much more of an enigma, a role he hardly minded.

David Hamilton Koch was born in 1940, the son of a tough industrialist father who pitted his sons against each other to toughen them up. Their caretaker on the family ranch knew Koch's temper so well that he kept leather boxing gloves at the ready for David and his twin brother, Bill, to settle disputes. Educated in chemical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a standout basketball star there, he would settle in New York and set up his own division, Koch Engineering, securing four patents. Whereas his brother, Charles, would be the strategic face of the company as its chairman and CEO, David would stay in New York as a man-about-town and the parent company's executive vice president.

Koch was as, at his best, an affable elite who preferred dinners at his Manhattan homes, telling what today would be called "dad jokes"––even though he didn't marry until he was age 56. He enjoyed the ballet and art, so much so that the New York City Ballet's home and the plaza in front of New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art both carry his name. A devoted free-market evangelist, he nonetheless kept tabs on his money; he wanted detailed reports on spending, demanded receipts and didn't always pick up the dinner check. He also found government regulations overly restrictive and counter-productive, whether he was deriding environmental rules or bans of prostitution. He called them, during his 1980 run for vice president, "victimless-crime laws."

But he also could be a reliable contrarian and bitter enemy. It was during that 1980 campaign that he showed a true disdain for the status quo because he could. He took advantage of a Federal Election Commission loophole that allowed candidates themselves to donate unlimited cash to campaigns and causes. When he pledged hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Libertarian Party's ticket, he earned himself a spot on it, despite some activists' questions about whether Koch was the best fit. He didn't run to win. He ran to evangelize libertarian ideology.

At that very moment, David was still working diligently as Charles' lieutenant, fending off a family clash over the business. Bill, David's twin, had been raising concerns about Charles' management, and he had his reasons. Koch Industries clashed with government officials at the Department of Labor, Department of Energy, the Internal Revenue Service, the Justice Department and the Bureau of Land Management. Criminal investigations were ongoing and some family members found Charles' "market-based management" to be too clinical and autocratic. David sided with his brother, who was growing the company at remarkable rates. Years of infighting followed. Eventually, Bill and the fourth brother, Frederick, were excommunicated from the family business, sent away with $1.1 billion. They sued, but in 1998, a jury found they had not, in fact, been swindled. Three years later, David, Bill and Charles reconciled — and signed a private settlement, the terms of which are still secret.

David Koch never lost his political zeal, though. In Washington, he saw the profligate spending under President George W. Bush just as bad as over-regulation under President Bill Clinton, whose administration in the fall of 2000 unleashed a 97-count indictment of Koch Industries and its employees for environmental violations. (The company pleaded guilty to one count and paid a $20 million fine.) Koch thought Bush's war in Iraq as misguided, but kept his counsel private lest he surrender his own privacy. He thought the deficit spending would lead to ruin.

But when Obama won the White House, David and Charles sprang to action. Over the years, they had amassed a network of libertarian donors who would also write checks to think tanks and universities that were working on Koch-aligned priorities. What if they could use that research, tap into the nascent Tea Party and build an army of grassroots activists to stop Obama?

They tested their theory. It worked. Obama's fellow Democrats lost 63 seats in the House, Republicans' best showing there since 1938. It cost the Koch network its privacy and millions, but it was worth it, David Koch felt, because he now had a check on Obama, and maybe a way out of his health care law. The partnership with the Tea Party-style activists wasn't a neat fit ideologically, but it was part of a bigger pursuit that allowed Koch to have a greater sway in politics than he ever previously enjoyed. When someone from a Koch-aligned group called, lawmakers listened.

Koch loyalists then went about laying the groundwork for 2012. They went all-in on nominee Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor and fellow capitalist evangelist. Romney, of course, lost. Koch strategists to this day have deep regrets about that choice and still can cite what they see as strategic errors from the campaign. Their total outlay for all activities, including social causes for the 2012 cycle? A cool $400 million.

David and Charles Koch in 2015 started down the pathway of picking a favorite for 2016. They told reporters they had prepared a total budget of $899 million to spend on politics and policy for the two-year election cycle but ultimately held fire after several contenders made the pilgrimage to meet with the brothers and their partners. When Trump won the nomination, it was official: they'd be working on state and local races, as well as killing projects like mass transit, which they argue is "a boondoggle." Trump was not an ideological fit by any stretch and his style rubbed even the showiest of the Koch the wrong way. Trump, for his part, taunted them from afar.

At the same time, there was a sense inside the Koch orbit that pure, partisan politics was sliding from atop the list, despite a $400 million budget for the November 2018 elections. The Koch orbit worked against the White House on its hardline immigration plans and its ban on Muslims, and with it on tax cuts and a rewrite of the criminal justice laws. They anticipated early that 2018 would be brutal for Republicans.

David Koch stepped away from the company and from the political wing in 2018, Charles Koch announced in a memo to employees. David Koch had skipped recent political summits and a retirement had been in the offing. A non-specific health issue was to blame. All the while, politics continued to fade from the first items on the agendas distributed at donor summits.

The company David Koch leaves behind has more than 100,000 employees working in 60 countries, with revenues north of $100 billion. Perhaps more than that, though, is his network of likeminded patrons and its outsized potential to shape political forces. At its height, the Koch network had an almost billion-dollar footprint in the conservative movement, on par with the formal Republican Party. It's not an exaggeration to say that Koch remade a large part of the GOP, even if its current leader is not of his style. But that's the thing about revolutions: once begun, they're tough to control.