|
In your future kitchen you may have a 3D printer, sitting next to your plateful of bugs and test-tube meat, of course.
That’s the vision of Anjan Contractor (okay, maybe just the first part). His company, Systems & Materials Research Corporation, just received a grant to further develop 3D-printed food. At Quartz, Christopher Mims reports that NASA gave the company a $125,000 grant to develop a prototype of a 3D printer that can make a pizza, layer-by-layer. If successful, Contractor believes that this will lead to a future in which more food is printed:
He sees a day when every kitchen has a 3D printer, and the earth’s 12 billion people feed themselves customized, nutritionally-appropriate meals synthesized one layer at a time, from cartridges of powder and oils they buy at the corner grocery store. Contractor’s vision would mean the end of food waste, because the powder his system will use is shelf-stable for up to 30 years, so that each cartridge, whether it contains sugars, complex carbohydrates, protein or some other basic building block, would be fully exhausted before being returned to the store.
Honestly, a pizza (or any food for that matter) 3D printed from 30-year old powder doesn’t sound all that appetizing. So what exactly is the point developing this technology when pizzas are fairly easy to come by? To make food is more accessible as food prices rise and the global population grows.
“I think, and many economists think, that current food systems can’t supply 12 billion people sufficiently,” Contractor told Quartz. “So we eventually have to change our perception of what we see as food.”
The audacious plan to end hunger with 3-D printed food [Quartz]
Photo: Flickr/Pink Sherbet Photography
This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html
|
|
Section: Articles -
File Under: Business |
|
No matter the potential of a product, why do some entrepreneurs fail, and others succeed?
Fast Company documents the tale of Salemi Industries, a startup that believed it had a sure bet on a money-making product. Something needed? Check. Something saleable worldwide? Yes. In the days of mobile phones and public areas, entrepreneur Anthony Ferranti created “The Cell Zone,” a plastic pod which could be opened to become the equivalent of a phone booth to give mobile users privacy.
In the early stages, restaurant owners showed interest in the product — but in the end, Salemi Industries sold less than 300 and lost $650,000. Space and a price tag of $3500 proved the deciding factors which sunk the product.
But what could Ferranti have done differently before sinking his savings into a failed product?
Sell them first.
The Harvard Business Review recently surveyed 120 entrepreneurs worldwide to ask them what their biggest mistake in business was — and over half said that not selling quickly enough proved to be the just that. As one entrepreneur commented, “Don’t make anything until you sell it. Get people really interested in buying it before you invest too much time and effort.”
It’s not all about the fancy company name or pitch. Take a step back and look at the product — getting people interested in what you have to sell and conducting the proper market research are the only ways you are going to be successful in the long term.
According to Booz & Company, 96 percent of all innovations fail to deliver results for investing parties — so perhaps more entrepreneurs should take the traditional route and simply attempt to sell their wares.
Read More: Fast Company
Image credit: Flickr
This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html
|
|
Section: Articles -
File Under: Business |
|
How do you create the best workplace on earth?
Photo credit: US Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook
Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones ponder that question in the latest issue of Harvard Business Review, summing up their discussions with hundreds of executives.
But are Goffee and Jones in search of a utopia that doesn’t exist, or can’t exist because it would contradict itself?
When it comes to examples of workplace utopia, what comes to mind for many people is Google. The perks (free food, volleyball), the free-thinking, self-directed, yet intense, university campus-like atmosphere of the Googleplex is even featured in a soon-to-be-released film called The Internship. But Google isn’t all fun, games and learning — it is an extremely, fiercely competitive place.
Many public or non-profit organizations, such as universities or governmental research facilities — Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute or NASA come to mind — may also be among the best places to work on earth for many. But even these types of organizations can be highly structured, stifling or even limited in terms of opportunities.
And for commercial businesses, it’s questionable how open and free things can be, since there needs to be a constant discipline in the drive for profitability. And for many corporate leaders, it’s counter-intuitive to let employees go off and be free-thinkers on company time. Google, which is extremely profitable, may be living proof that this is even possible to pull off.
In their HBR article, Goffee and Jones cite examples of companies that built open, creative workplaces into their corporate culture, and have seen great success. They point out that the ideal workplace has six common characteristics (and few companies have all six achieved):
- Individual differences are nurtured
- The flow of Information is unleashed; not suppressed or spun
- The company adds value to employees, rather than merely extracting it from them
- The organization stands for something meaningful
- The work itself is intrinsically rewarding
- There are no stupid rules
Goffee and Jones don’t come right out and say it, but woven into their narrative is an important force that fits both commercial and non-profit organizations: unleashing and encouraging the entrepreneurial spirit. One doesn’t have to be launching a startup with his or her life savings to be an entrepreneur. An entrepreneur can spring out of the ranks of even the most bureaucratic organization. This individual is one who sees a better way to solve a problem or fill a need, and marshals the resources to make it happen.
What’s the best workplace on earth? One that is structured (or unstructured) to encourage and appropriately rewards entrepreneurial thinking may be a good start. And, by extension, when entrepreneurs are successful, a workplace they help create on their own — because they are creating their own reality.
This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html
|
|
Section: Articles -
File Under: Business |
|
The Netherlands is augmenting its world class system of dikes and sea gates with technology that mimics natural systems and their ability to hold back the sea.
If all goes according to plan, a crescent-shaped mound of sand along their south-central coast will eventually disappear — rearranged by ocean currents into a buffer that will protect the coastline for the next two decades. Yale Environment 360 reports.
Until now, this coastline needed sand replenishment every five years, which required expensive dredging that damaged marine ecosystems.
With the Sand Engine — a big reservoir of sediment currently 21 million cubic meters in volume — the goal is to fortify and re-nourish eroding beaches as ocean currents gradually redistribute the dredged material.
When the sand is fully spread out, it will protect 12.4 miles of shoreline from the current rate of sea-level rise. And if the amount of water increases, “we’ll just add more,” says the technology’s creator, Marcel Stive at Delft University of Technology.
It’s the signature project of Building with Nature, a consortium of industries, researchers, and public agencies looking to harness natural systems for hydraulic engineering. It was completed in 2011 with $67 million.
 Dutch researchers are also working on new dike material: flexible cement to attach energy-absorbing stones, geotextiles that prevent internal erosion, super-strong grass to dampen wave action, and even ‘bio grout’ (calcium excreted by bacteria when fed a particular diet).
Managing water is a big business in The Netherlands, bringing in $10 billion in a year. The country is considering a $1.34 billion package of flood-protection upgrades, including sand dunes and ‘hybrid dikes’ with vegetation on the seaward side.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, Philadelphia is leading the way with ‘natural infrastructure’ investments of more than $1.67 billion over the next 25 years to retrofit its stormwater management system, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.
[Via Yale Environment 360, Fast Company]
Images: Rijkswaterstaat / Joop van Houdt, Zandmotor via Flickr
This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html
|
|
Section: Articles -
File Under: Business |
|
A player without aptitude may never be able to best a 'natural,' according to the findings of new research into learning
The old adage that “practice makes perfect” hasn’t held up to scientific scrutiny. Some people are really just naturals who have the capacity to make the leap from good to great.
Researchers from Michigan State University examined 14 different studies on chess players and musicians to determine exactly how much rigorous preparation benefits performance. They found that it only accounted for a third of the differences in skills levels among subjects; innate ability, age, and intelligence have a more profound impact. The study results were published last week in the journal Intelligence.
“The evidence is quite clear that some people do reach an elite level of performance without copious practice, while other people fail to do so despite copious practice,” Michigan State psychology professor Zach Hambrick said in a press release.
Other studies hace arrived at different conclusions. Dr. David Shanks of University College, London, England is one researcher who believes that deliberate practice - not innate talent - determines proficiency. However, Shanks notes that experience doesn’t automatically translate into skills - training to meet specific goals does.
The Michigan State research team concluded that individuals have their own aptitudes and could benefit from being steered in the direction that’s best suited for them. Simply put, not everyone is equally skilled at every task. We’re all individuals, each with our own talents.
“If people are given an accurate assessment of their abilities and the likelihood of achieving certain goals given those abilities they may gravitate toward domains in which they have a realistic chance of becoming an expert through deliberate practice,” Hambrick explained. That must be where practice comes in handy.
(image credit: wisc.edu)
This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html
|
|
Section: Articles -
File Under: Business |
|
 The manufacturing process has been refined over decades to produce 2,000 cans per minute for pennies each. And for decades, Boston Beer Co. founder Jim Koch has snubbed aluminum cans — costing the brewer millions of dollars in potential revenue from airlines and sports arenas. Now, two years and over $1 million later, the Sam Can is coming. Boston Globe reports.
To launch the initiative, Koch contracted with IDEO, designers of the original Apple mouse, and assembled a team for project codename Bunker Hill.
In summer 2011, they traveled to Ball’s factory near Denver to study the canning process — the thickness of aluminum, molecular properties, how beer pours from a can, and what impacts the flow. They hung out with well-lubricated football fans in Foxborough to understand why drinkers prefer beer in cans — they account for roughly 57 percent of the US retail market… interviewed taste experts around the world and examined thousands of plastic coffee cup lids to understand the range of drink delivery options.
Their big discovery: the conventional 12-ounce beverage can doesn’t allow enough air into your mouth as you drink. Turns out, much of what we believe we taste is actually smell.
Over several months, IDEO created eight prototypes to enhance air flow. Ball also shared some innovations, and when all the designs were tested, all the participants in a blind taste test preferred a design featuring a curve below a wider lid. Koch agreed. (See some of the designs in this video.)
 The design was tweaked six times over several months. Beer specialist Roy Desrochers was hired to conduct professional tasting panels and gave his final evaluation in February:
The hourglass curve and wider lid deposits the beer further in the mouth so a drinker doesn’t have to tilt his head back…
The bigger lid forces people to open their mouths wider, allowing more air to pass through and go up into the nasal passages. This increased exposure to the smells brings out the flavors of the beer — the hops, the grains, the fruitiness — earlier in the drinking experience… And the outward-turned lip pours the beer directly on the palate, maximizing the sweetness from the malt.
With that, new canning equipment was ordered, and Sam Cans — with a wider lid, an opening slightly further from the edge, an extended lip, and an hourglass ridge — should roll out this summer.
[Samuel Adams Blog Via Boston Globe]
Images: Samuel Adams
Related on SmartPlanet:
This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html
|
|
Section: Articles -
File Under: Business |
|
Bitcoin is growing up. The virtual currency that caught the public's attention last month when its value zoomed briefly past US$200 kicked off its first Silicon Valley conference Friday evening and shows no sign of losing momentum.
The event is small by Silicon Valley standards, with about 1,000 attendees expected and 19 exhibitors, but it's bustling with startups launching new exchanges, software developers looking to strengthen the Bitcoin network, and venture capitalists seeking places to invest.
There's now $45 million a day being traded on the Bitcoin network, or $16 billion a year, according Peter Vessenes, chairman of the Bitcoin Foundation, who talked at the start of the event in San Jose, California.
The volume of activity is accelerating, he said. There have been 18 million transactions in the four years since bitcoins were introduced, and the figure is expected to reach 20 million next month.
With the increased activity has come greater value. Bitcoins were trading at about $125 Friday on the Mt. Gox exchange, down from their surge last month but still 24 times higher than at this time last year, when a bitcoin was worth $5.08.
This will be a big year for competition, Vessenes said, and "whippersnapper" companies will emerge to unseat early leaders. "Someone's going to get rich this year on Bitcoin," he predicted.
But there's also work to be done for the virtual currency to succeed. The Bitcoin Foundation, which has just two full-time staff, will hire a Washington lawyer this year to engage with politicians and try to hammer out a regulatory environment in which the virtual currency can thrive.
The foundation will also hire two technologists, and establish international chapters to work with local regulators and help Bitcoin expand overseas, he said.
Bitcoin is a currency that can be bought and sold much like any other, but it's managed and traded on a peer-to-peer computer network. Proponents say it allows frictionless payments anywhere in the world, and transaction fees are lower than those charged by companies such as Visa and MasterCard.
It's also popular because it exists outside the authority of the traditional banking institutions, and like open source software, there's a side to Bitcoin that's political. When one of the speakers asked Friday if there were any libertarians in the audience, he was met with a rousing cheer.
Some "star power" was provided by Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, the brothers best known for claiming to have given Mark Zuckerberg the idea for Facebook, and who are now investing in Bitcoin companies.
Taking the stage after Vessenes, they gave a brief history of Bitcoin, starting from January 2009 when the first transaction was made. They too talked of the need for Bitcoin to mature. Almost half the exchanges that sprang up in the past few years failed, taking the Bitcoins under with them, said Cameron Winklevoss.
"We need to create products that have better hit rates than that," he said.
Bitcoin also needs to become easier to use. It's simpler to explain the value proposition of Bitcoin than it is to show someone how to actually use it, Cameron Winklevoss said. "That should be the other way around."
But the brothers are clearly believers in the virtual currency. They started their talk loftily, with a quote from Mahatma Gandhi: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." They believe that will be the trajectory for Bitcoin, too.
The surge in Bitcoin's value in March and April wasn't a bubble or a sign of mania, they said, it was just "rapid adoption". And while the price of Bitcoins can fluctuate sharply -- something skeptics point to as a big drawback -- "the trend is upwards," Cameron Winklevoss said.
"We've bet on the horse and not the donkey here," he said.
There's a proud geek culture at the event, and Friday's activities wrapped up with a group outing to the theater across the street, to watch "Star Trek Into Darkness."
Bitcoin 2013 continues Saturday and Sunday with talks about the evolution of the technology platform, regulations, security and other topics.
Subscribe to the Business Brief Newsletter
|
|
Section: Articles -
File Under: Business |
|
Airline passengers in North America are slowly resigning to airline baggage fees as just another reality when you take to the sky.
The 2013 North American Airline Satisfaction Study, a survey of more than 11,800 passengers put out by J.D. Power & Associates, found that while customers still don’t like baggage fees, the impact it has on their overall satisfaction with airlines is dropping. That can be seen in the narrowing of the gap in overall satisfaction between those who checked bags and those who didn’t. In the study, overall airline satisfaction is measured on a 1,000 point scale. In 2013, the difference in satisfaction between bag checkers and non-bag checkers was only 63 points, down from 85 points in 2012, and 100 points in 2011.
More people also see baggage fees as “reasonable.” Thirty-seven percent called the fees reasonable in 2013, up from 28 percent last year and 18 percent in 2011.
“Charging for bags still has a pronounced negative impact on passenger satisfaction, but with each year, passengers are increasingly more accepting of carriers unbundling baggage and other fees,” said Ramez Faza, senior manager of the travel practice at J.D. Power & Associates.
Overall customer satisfaction levels are now on par with what they were before airlines began charging for bags. And that’s a good thing for airlines since last year they brought in $6 billion in baggage fees and change-in-reservation fees, the most since the fees became common in the industry about five years ago. And, as AP points out, it’s also the difference maker in airline profitability.
Photo: Flickr/hoyasmeg
This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html
|
|
Section: Articles -
File Under: Business |
|
|
|
Finance
