Merkel challenger under fire for saying chancellor underpaid

BERLIN (Reuters) - Chancellor candidate Peer Steinbrueck was widely criticized on Sunday, even by his own center-left Social Democrats (SPD), for saying German leaders were underpaid.

Steinbrueck has struggled to gain ground against Chancellor Angela Merkel ahead of next September's election, in part due to lingering criticism over him earning 1.25 million euros ($1.65 million) as an after-dinner speaker in the past three years.

The remarks from the former finance minister about what he called the inadequate compensation for the chancellor drew speedy rebukes across the country's political spectrum, including from the last SPD chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.

"A German chancellor does not earn enough based on the performance that is required of her or him compared with the jobs of others who have far less responsibility and far more pay," Steinbrueck, 65, was quoted on Sunday by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung newspaper saying.

"Nearly every savings bank director in North Rhine-Westphalia earns more than the chancellor does," Steinbrueck said of his home state.

Merkel's pay is set to rise by 930 euros per month to 17,106 euros in 2013 along with pay rises for her ministers and members of parliament, increases that have been criticized by some for sending the wrong signal in an era of austerity.

"Some of the debates kicked up by the 'guardians of public virtue' are grotesque and are harmful for anyone considering getting involved in politics," Steinbrueck said.

ELECTION

The SPD trails Merkel's conservatives by 10 points in opinion polls, but, with its Greens allies, it does have a chance of winning power in September because of the prolonged weakness of Merkel's Free Democrat (FDP) coalition partners.

Steinbrueck, whose blunt talk makes him popular among some voters despite him never winning a major election and him being defeated as state premier in North Rhine-Westphalia in 2005, said there were times in his career when he was not as well off and admitted he was now a "wealthy Social Democrat".

Schroeder, chancellor from 1998 to 2005, has endorsed Steinbrueck to lead his party against Merkel but distanced himself from Steinbrueck's views on pay.

"In my view politicians in Germany are adequately compensated," Schroeder told Bild am Sonntag newspaper. "I was certainly always able to live off the pay. And anyone who doesn't feel it's enough pay can always look for another job."

Other SPD leaders indirectly criticized Steinbrueck. Dieter Wiefelspuetz, a top SPD member of parliament, said politicians were misguided if they compared their wages to private industry.

"To serve as chancellor is a fascinating job and the pay is definitely not shabby," he said.

Steinbrueck was once seen as the center-left's best hope of winning back the chancellorship. He was popular as the no-nonsense finance minister and the SPD hoped he would siphon centrist voters away from the conservatives.

But the controversy over his earning 1.25 million euros for 89 speeches will not go away and his campaign has been marred by setbacks and awkward comments.

Analysts say he is also struggling to win over female voters, many of whom are put off by his combative style.

"Merkel is popular due to a 'woman's bonus' that she gets," Steinbrueck told the paper.

(Editing by Alison Williams)

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/merkel-challenger-under-fire-saying-chancellor-underpaid-091825202--sector.html

Perry Hall High School bill cosby us open bill nye Hurricane Isaac 2012 Snooki Baby terrell owens

Energy Part II: EROEI | Peak Oil News and Message Boards

In the first part of this two part series we discussed how the sheer amount of energy coupled by its cheap cost enabled society to increase the amount of work that could be produced at a much reduced cost. It was this cheap energy subsidy that made the process of arbitrage between human labour and fossil powered capital very profitable as the price difference between hiring labour ?energy? and capital ?energy? was so vast.

This huge energy subsidy not only provided great wealth to the ruling classes who owned the factories and other capital infrastructure it also enabled the workers to become more materially wealthy as the cost of producing items was reduced drastically. This happened because all work requires energy to transform a basic resource into a commodity that is of economic value. If the energy cost is reduced and the supply of energy is greatly increased then the amount of work that can be achieved by a society will greatly expand and thus the items produced well sell at lower price due to the principles of supply of demand. What is important when discussing these matters of energy availability and will become increasingly important going forward is the concept of net energy. To understand this concept it would be wise to understand the laws of thermodynamics, more precisely the first law of thermodynamics. This law was originally described as:

?In all cases in which work is produced by the agency of heat, a quantity of heat is consumed which is proportional to the work done; and conversely, by the expenditure of an equal quantity of work an equal quantity of heat is produced.? ? Rudolf Clausius, 1850^[1]

For the mathematically inclined the following formula captures the law of conservation as any heat input will equal the work done. ? dU = dQ ? dW[2] where U =Internal energy of system, Q = Heat input, ?W = work done

To many this statement may seem a little unwieldy and rather abstract but it basically describes the concept that energy cannot be created or destroyed and all energy transactions are merely conversions of one form of energy source to another. This idea is an important one to grasp since we can never actually generate energy; we merely extract it from existing sources.

This statement may seem rather obvious but since terms such as energy production and energy generation are so widespread it is easy to forget this fact. If we were to take such statements as energy production on a literal level they would be a clear violation of the first law of thermodynamics. Perhaps it can be argued this is just an argument over semantics and most people will know you cannot actually create energy but let us not underestimate the power of language and how it can shape conversations and narratives; over time people will believe such statements at face value as true even if they are patently false. This is especially relevant today when we hear so much talk about the US becoming not only energy independence but also becoming the top energy producer in the world.

But I digress, the main thing to take home is no form of energy extraction, be it from coal, nuclear fission (fusion for the optimists) and wind or solar actually generates energy. It just utilises existing energy sources. In the above examples energy is extracted either through nuclear fission/fusion reactions, potential chemical energy in coal/oil/gas or wind and solar energy. Another concept that will come from this basic idea and one that perhaps even more relevant is that it takes energy to get energy. This concept while important is something that rarely (if ever) gets discussed in the mainstream media. Much of the talk about oil, coal or gas ?production? only refers to the amount of total energy that can be obtained from burning or utilising a given resource. This amount is merely the gross energy obtained from the ground. If we wish to determine the amount of useful energy available for greater society however we need to subtract the amount of energy used to obtain the resource in the first place. This is because it is only this energy that gets to be used by society for other economy activities. Thus for us to work out net energy we subtract the gross energy by the energy needed to extract the resource as described in the formula.

Gross energy = Total amount of energy obtained from energy source.*

Net energy = Gross energy ? Energy required to obtain energy source.

* = Energy maybe expressed in other ways such as barrels of oil or million short tons of coal.

As a note net energy should not be confused with the similar but different term EROEI (Energy Return On Energy Invested) which describes the potential energy return from an energy source. The terms maybe used interchangeably by other commentators in the blogosphere but it would be a mistake to think they are the same thing. The way to calculate EROEI is quite different as demonstrated below:

EROEI =Gross energy / Energy required to obtain energy source.

or

EROEI = (Net energy/ Energy required to obtain energy source.) + 1

NOTE: Net energy is the energy available to society and thus something greater society would be interested in whereas EROEI is more of a potential concern for the person who wishes to see a return on their investment.

Since it is only net energy that gets used by the greater economy it is this value that we should be interested in knowing about rather than the gross amount. For example it is quite possible for our total gross energy to increase while our total net energy is actually in decline. If this were to happen we could easily see a scenario where we are getting materially poorer even though our total energy output is increasing. This process of increasing gross energy but declining net energy comes about due to the principle of low hanging fruit. That is the easiest and most favourable economic sources of energy ? which yield the highest net energy ? are extracted first and as those resources are depleted we move onto progressively worse and worse sources. It is this fact that the decline in net energy will be much steeper than gross energy decline.

This trend of declining net energy has likely already past as the newest sources of energy, a lot of which is touted as the energy source that will give the US energy independence actually yield poor amounts of new net energy. This is despite the fact this new energy sources (shale oil/gas) increase the amount of gross energy expended by the economy quite substantially. As a result from an economic standpoint these new sources of energy will deliver less economic benefit to society than would otherwise be believed as the extra net energy available will be more limited. It this reason why we should exercise caution when listening to claims that these sources of energy can offer a panacea to our economic troubles. In fact when hearing such claims it is useful to know the energy returns on energy for various sources as while this is not net energy which is ultimately the most important metric to gauge the EROEI can still provide an insight on how useful these sources will be:

As the graph clearly demonstrates; early sources of energy yielded a very high return of energy on energy invested. These high returns came about because early sources of energy such as shallow coal mines did not need much capital investment to extract the resource furthermore once these resources were obtained they would yield high quality energy such as light sweet oil or in the case of coal high quality anthracite. It is this reason in fact why net energy or EROEI has largely been ignored as historically gross energy for all intents and purposes equalled net energy.

In recent years however this has not been the case and the difference between gross and net energy is sufficiently large to warrant greater attention. Moreover another troubling fact to take note is that once EROEI reaches about 10:1 or lower the graph goes into steep decline. This steep decline means the available net energy that can be used by society will begin dropping at an alarming rate if current trends of extracting lower quality energy sources continue. If we take a recent major discovery of shale oil we discover the EROEI for this resource is 5.^[3] In net energy terms this represents 20% of the total gross energy being used to extract the energy source. So from this information we can say that if all existing resources of energy were replaced by sources that were to yield returns equivalent to shale oil then our total net energy available to society would decline by 20%. This assumes there are no efficiency gains in how we utilised this energy and total gross energy remained constant. If that is the case then this would effectively mean we are 20% poorer as less energy would be available for economic transactions.

Off course what is more likely to happen is the EROEI and thus net energy will decline even faster than suggested in the previous paragraph as worse and worse sources of energy come online to replace existing high EROEI resources. As a result we are likely to see a steep decline in net energy available to society and we can say with some certainty that this decline in net energy will be faster than the rate of efficiency gains which has been around 1.7-3.0% per annum since the 1970s.^{[4] [5]}

What is more due to the rebound effect (see this article for more info) it is likely that any efficiency gains made will need to exceed declines in available net energy by a few percentage points each year if we want sustain economic growth (which is a requirement for the financial system to remain stable). This all seems unlikely particularly if we consider that energy efficiency and conservation strategies will see diminishing rates of return as it becomes harder to increase energy efficiency after each progressing year. After all no economic activity can ever achieve 100% efficiency. Speaking of 100% efficiency this leads on nicely to the second law of thermodynamics which states:

?That the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium ? the state of maximum entropy.?

Like the first law, this sentence describing the second law can seem a little unwieldy. In fact it is best to breakup this statement into two sentences as the quotation above addresses two very relevant points the first of which is displayed below:

?No process is possible in which the sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and its complete conversion into work.? ? William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, 1851^[6]

In other words no energy transaction can ever be 100% efficient meaning some energy will always be lost when converting energy into some form of work. This point while blatantly obvious is often overlooked in the contexts of economics and broader society. It is this reason why there will always be a limit to amount of economic growth that can be realised as the planet has a finite number of resources and there are limits to the amount of efficiency that can be achieved. Another major consequence that does derive from the second law of thermodynamics comes from this statement:

?Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.? ? Rudolf Clausius, 1850^[7]

While at first glance, the concept of heat transfers may seem a little out there this statement does pertain to one important idea. That is over time all bodies and structures go from a process of order to disorder. For those that are really curious about this process and wish to learn more about the exact mechanics of this process please look up entropy. If this idea still seems a bit out there consider the fact that all structures, be it capital or labour, degrade over time and require maintenance to allow proper functioning. This maintenance always requires energy and thus some resources will always be needed to maintain current capital or labour.

?

?

The entropy of a system can be calculated by applying the following formula: dS = dQ / T[6] where S = entropy, Q = Heat input, T = Temperature of system. If we use the formula from the first law of thermodynamics and rearrange the formula shown above this statement can be derived: dU + dW = TdS ?*4 basic thermodynamic relationships develop out of this math ? Internal Energy dU=TdS-PdV+??dN Enthalpy (Heat) dH=TdS+Vdp+??dN Hemholtz Free Energy dF=-TdS-pdV+??dN Gibbs Free Energy dG=-TdS+Vdp+??dN ? If you do a little basic algebra, you get dG=dH-TdS This equation gives the Free Energy available in a system as a function of the Heat Content, the Temperature and the Entropy in the system. Only reactions with positive dG can go forward without Heat Input. *from RE

In the case of labour humans need food to stay alive and remain functioning while capital requires some energy inputs to prevent it from degrading and evening breaking down over time. What is more the greater the complexity of a structure the more energy will be required for maintenance. This is because a more complex structure has a greater degree of order and since things naturally go from a state of order to disorder then more energy will be needed to prevent overcome this natural process.

This is another weakness with applying the logic that technology will save the day as increasing the complexity of technology not only increases the existing maintenance cost due to the second laws of thermodynamics; the cost of producing such items increases as more energy per unit weight are needed in the manufacture of the product. To demonstrate this example a car requires something in the region of 12-25 barrels of oil to build a car depending on the weight of the car but a computer ? on a weight by weight basis ? requires 10 times the amount of energy to manufacture.^[9] A similar cost will be borne in maintaining these two pieces of capital. While in theory there can be energy savings on a production basis as less energy will be consumed despite the increased weight for weight costs (we do not need 1000kg+ worth of computers after all) what will increase significantly are maintenance costs of more complex infrastructure. To give a better idea of this concept at work consider healthcare. As the capital becomes increasingly complex capital then the maintenance costs will rise for the reasons described above.

To summarise this article and the one before it; when we wish to engage in a discussion on energy we need to be aware of range of things. First we need to understand the sheer amount of energy fossil fuels provide. It is truly immense and is a miracle resource and there needs to be a greater appreciation just how much energy they can deliver. From this we can truly grasp the scale of the task an energy transition (if it is even possible) will be. It is seems unlikely to me any combination of renewable or nuclear energy can fill the gap left by fossil fuels. That is not to say renewables cannot make life easier, they do have their uses but we would be setting our expectations too high if we expect them to maintain our current industrial lifestyles.

The other important points that need to be considered is the point we should be interested in not only the quantity of energy delivered but also the quality of energy. At the end of the day it is net energy or EROEI we are really interested in as it is this energy that gets used for greater society. Finally we need to be aware that due to the increasingly complexity of society our maintenance costs will rise due to the second law of thermodynamics so these costs need to be accounted for.

Doomstead Diner

Source: http://peakoil.com/generalideas/energy-part-ii-eroei/

rosie o donnell soda bread recipe vanderbilt evan mathis staff sgt. robert bales jason russell norfolk state

US defeats South Africa

The United States claimed a 2-1 victory over South Africa at the Hopman Cup mixed team competition on Sunday.

Venus Williams rallied to defeat Chanelle Scheepers 4-6, 6-2, 6-3, before Kevin Anderson leveled for South Africa with a 7-6 (0), 7-6 (5) win over John Isner.

The U.S. clinched the match with a 6-3, 6-2 win in mixed doubles.

Later Sunday, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga saved three set points before overcoming Fernando Verdasco 7-5, 6-3 to give France a 1-0 lead over Spain. Anabel Medina Garrigues next faces Mathilde Johansson, with mixed doubles to follow.

Williams took time to settle against an opponent who rallied well and hit the ball deep. But after conceding her serve at love to leave Scheepers serving for the first set, the American looked increasingly comfortable and aggressive.

After taking the second set when her opponent double-faulted, she then swept to a 4-0 lead in the third on her way to closing out the match.

Isner held the only break point of the first set for a 4-2 lead but missed his return. In the second set, Isner fought off three break points at 3-2 and another at 4-3, but again fell short in the tiebreaker.

Williams was playing for the first time since winning the Luxembourg event in mid-October and was satisfied with her performance.

"I was just trying to find some rhythm out there," Williams said. "She's obviously a really good player having maintained a top 40, top 50 ranking the last couple of years. She played a match yesterday too so had an extra advantage. It felt good out there.

"I'm not expecting to be perfect now but I'm thinking that my game will get better every match. I think the (mixed) doubles will help as well to hone everything. More than anything I was just so excited to be out there playing and I'm ready to go for it."

Despite health problems that have limited her schedule, Williams is looking forward to the challenges and opportunities that the new season presents.

"Last year was so awesome for me, getting to the Olympics. I was extremely happy with last year and I moved up quite a few spots," she said. "This year is just about building on it and putting myself into position to play deep into the draws."

Source: http://www.iafrica.com/articles/834516.html

miami heat bulls california earthquake california earthquake tyson chandler tyson chandler stephen hill

CSN: Pats blank Dolphins, earn first-round bye

December 30, 2012, 7:18 pm

FOXBORO -- Bill Belichick had laid it our clearly on Friday.

"There's nothing that we can do to help ourselves unless we beat Miami," the Patriots coach said when addressing the myriad of postseason possibilities they faced heading into Sunday. "There's nothing we can do to help our situation unless we win. So we have to win for anything [positive] to happen . . . "

How right he was. They won . . . and, on a frigid late afternoon/early evening at Gillette Stadium, positive things happened.

They got the break they needed at 1 o'clock, when the Colts knocked off the Texans. They proceeded to help themselves with a stifling 28-0 shutout of the Dolphins -- their first shutout since a 59-0 win over the Titans in late October 2009 -- that enabled them to leapfrog Houston into the second overall seed, which carries with it a first-round bye, in the AFC playoffs.

The Patriots and Texans both finished with 12-4 records, but New England won the tie-breaker thanks to its head-to-head victory over Houston three weeks ago.

"It's great," said safety Steve Gregory, whose first-half interception jump-started the Pats' beatdown of the Dolphins. "Any time you can get a bye [in the] first round of the playoffs, it's a good thing."

The Pats didn't get any 4 o'clock help from the Chiefs, as Denver blasted Kansas City and clinched the overall No. 1 seed. So -- unlike their last two trips to the AFC Championship Game -- they'll have to go on the road if form holds and the Pats and Broncos win their semifinal-round matchups.

"Whatever it is, it is," said Belichick. "[Wherever] we have to play [in the postseason], we'll play."

But the case can be made that the bye -- which gives them a week to rest their ailing troops (no fewer than 21 players were on last week's injury list) -- is just as important as the seeding.

"[It's] good to get that rest, get some guys healthy," said Gregory. "I know some guys are banged up, so it's good for us."

The Pats took care of it early.

Gregory's interception on Miami's second possession gave the Patriots the ball on the Dolphin 28, and Tom Brady got them home in two plays: A 19-yard pass to Rob Gronkowski, playing his first game since suffering a broken arm against Indianapolis on Nov. 18, and a 9-yard scoring toss to Wes Welker.

That made it 7-0, and may as well have been 70-0 the way the Pats' defense was handling the Dolphin offense. The Pats held Miami to 45 total yards in the first quarter (New England had 172), and only 106 yards in the first half. (New England had 279. The final Patriot advantage was 443-256.). They limited the Dolphins to 24:22 possession time, and had a season-high seven quarterback sacks.

Miami's only threat came in the third quarter, but then the defense made another big play: Dont'e Hightower recovered a botched handoff by quarterback Ryan Tannehill on the Patriots' 1-yard line.

"That's always awesome, when you walk away with a goose egg on the scoreboard," said defensive captain Vince Wilfork. "That's very, very satisfying."

By that time the score was 21-0 thanks to a pair of second-quarter touchdowns by Stevan Ridley. The first, from one yard out, capped a 13-play, 92-yard drive; the second, from two yards away, finished off a 14-play, 69-yard march.

The Patriots added their final touchdown in the fourth quarter when, after the defense had stopped Miami on fourth down and gave the offense the ball at the Dolphin 47, Brady hit Gronkowski with a 23-yard touchdown pass.

So now -- after the week off -- the second season begins. And the Pats' aim is to rise to the challenge as well as they did Sunday evening.

"We've got to start playing our best [football from here on in], and tonight was a good night to start it," said Wilfork.

"I think everyone knows once you go into the playoffs, teams step it up a notch, so we?re going to have to do our part and try to step it up and match [them]," said Devin McCourty.

"If we keep improving and getting better, we?ll be able to get there."

Tags: New England Patriots, Miami Dolphins, patriots1230

Source: http://www.csnne.com/football-new-england-patriots/patriots-talk/Patriots-clinch-first-round-bye-with-28-?blockID=818559&feedID=10950

bks new dark knight rises trailer khloe and lamar oklahoma city thunder rajon rondo sunoco titanic ii

Starbucks expands cup campaign aimed at U.S. fiscal deal

(Reuters) - Starbucks Corp is expanding its campaign of using messages written on coffee cups to inspire U.S. lawmakers to reach a deal and avoid going over the "fiscal cliff" of automatic tax hikes and government spending cuts.

As President Barack Obama and congressional leaders were in a final effort to reach a budget agreement before year's end, Starbucks this week began urging workers in its roughly 120 Washington, D.C.-area shops to write the words "come together" on customers' cups.

A spokesman for the world's largest coffee chain said the company would expand the effort to all U.S. stores, continuing through next week.

"Stores from across the country have been asking if they could join in and we have been saying absolutely yes," Starbucks spokesman Jim Olson said in an email late Friday.

"Based on this unprecedented response, we are inviting all of our partners at U.S. stores to start signing their customers' cups with Come Together through next Friday," Olson said.

Starbucks' cup campaign aims to send a message to sharply divided politicians and serve as a rallying cry for the public in the days leading up to the January 1 deadline to avert harsh across-the-board government spending reductions and tax increases that could send the U.S. economy back into recession.

"We believe the (Washington) DC effort caught on so swiftly because they Come Together message is such a simple and respectful gesture that expresses the optimism that is core to our country's heritage and to Starbucks mission," Olson said.

"This is an important moment for Starbucks to use its scale for good and give Come Together an even louder voice - as we move from signing tens of thousands of cups in DC to tens of millions of cups across the U.S. over the course of next week."

(Reporting by Julie Ingwersen; Editing by Vicki Allen)

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/starbucks-expands-cup-campaign-aimed-u-fiscal-deal-164328478--finance.html

agoraphobia andrew lloyd webber obscura grok cirque du freak eric cantor eric cantor

Road trip on tap for NASA's Mars rover in new year

FILE - This Dec. 12, 2012 file image provided by NASA shows the Mars rover Curiosity at a pit stop, a shallow depression called "Yellowknife Bay." It took the image on the 125th Martian day, or sol, of the mission (Dec. 12, 2012), just after finishing that sol's drive. The Sol 125 drive entered Yellowknife Bay and covered about 86 feet (26.1 meters). The descent into the basin crossed a step about 2 feet (half a meter) high, visible in the upper half of this image. Curiosity will now head for Mount Sharp in mid-February after it drills into its first rock. (AP Photo/NASA/JPL-Caltech, File)

FILE - This Dec. 12, 2012 file image provided by NASA shows the Mars rover Curiosity at a pit stop, a shallow depression called "Yellowknife Bay." It took the image on the 125th Martian day, or sol, of the mission (Dec. 12, 2012), just after finishing that sol's drive. The Sol 125 drive entered Yellowknife Bay and covered about 86 feet (26.1 meters). The descent into the basin crossed a step about 2 feet (half a meter) high, visible in the upper half of this image. Curiosity will now head for Mount Sharp in mid-February after it drills into its first rock. (AP Photo/NASA/JPL-Caltech, File)

FILE - This file image provided by NASA shows the base of Mount Sharp on Mars. The Curiosity rover is set to drive toward the mountain in mid-February after drilling into a rock. The image was taken by Curiosity's 100-millimeter Mast Camera on Aug. 23, 2012. Scientists enhanced the color in one version to show the Martian scene under the lighting conditions we have on Earth, which helps in analyzing the terrain. (AP Photo/NASA/JPL-Caltech/MSSS, File)

FILE - This file image provided by NASA shows a color self-portrait of the Mars rover Curiosity. It is set to drive toward a Martian mountain in mid-February after drilling into a rock. On the 84th and 85th Martian days of the NASA Mars rover Curiosity's mission on Mars (Oct. 31 and Nov. 1, 2012), NASA's Curiosity rover used the Mars Hand Lens Imager (MAHLI) to capture dozens of high-resolution images to be combined into self-portrait images of the rover. (AP Photo/NASA/JPL-Caltech/MSSS, File)

PASADENA, Calif. (AP) ? Since captivating the world with its acrobatic landing, the Mars rover Curiosity has fallen into a rhythm: Drive, snap pictures, zap at boulders, scoop up dirt. Repeat.

Topping its to-do list in the new year: Set off toward a Martian mountain ? a trek that will take up a good chunk of the year.

The original itinerary called for starting the drive before the Times Square ball drop, but Curiosity lingered longer than planned at a pit stop, delaying the trip.

Curiosity will now head for Mount Sharp in mid-February after it drills into its first rock.

"We'll probably be ready to hit the pedal to the metal and give the keys back to the rover drivers," mission chief scientist John Grotzinger said in a recent interview at his office on the sprawling NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory campus 15 miles east of downtown Los Angeles.

The road trip comes amid great expectations. After all, it's the reason the $2.5 billion mission targeted Gale Crater near the Martian equator. Soaring from the center of the ancient crater is a 3-mile-high peak with intriguing layers of rocks.

Curiosity's job is to figure out whether the landing site ever had the right environmental conditions to support microbes. Scientists already know water flowed in the past thanks to the rover's discovery of an old streambed. Besides water, life as we know it also needs energy, the sun.

What's missing are the chemical building blocks of life: complex carbon-based molecules. If they're preserved on Mars, scientists figure the best place to hunt for them is at the base of Mount Sharp where images from space reveal hints of interesting geology.

It's a six-month journey if Curiosity drives nonstop. But since scientists will want to command the six-wheel rover to rest and examine rocky outcrops along the way, it'll turn into a nine-month odyssey.

Before Curiosity can tackle a mountain, there's unfinished business to tend to. After spending the holiday taking measurements of the Martian atmosphere, Curiosity gears up for the first task of the new year: Finding the perfect rock to bore into.

The exercise ? from picking a rock to drilling to deciphering its chemical makeup ? is expected to last more than a month.

"We have promised everybody that we're going to go slowly," said Grotzinger, a geologist at the California Institute of Technology.

Curiosity's low-key adventures thus far are in contrast to the drama-filled touchdown that entranced the world in August. Since the car-size rover was too heavy to land using a parachute and airbags, engineers invented a daring new way that involved lowering it to the surface by cables. The risky arrival proved so successful and popular that NASA is planning an encore in 2020.

Curiosity joined another NASA rover, Opportunity, which has been exploring the Martian southern hemisphere since 2004. Opportunity's twin, Spirit, stopped communicating in 2010.

After nailing the landing, Curiosity fell into a routine. The first month was dominated by health checkups ? a tedious but essential prerequisite before driving. A chemistry laboratory on wheels, it's the most high-tech spacecraft to land on another planet so extra care was taken to ensure its tools, including its rock-zapping laser and robotic arm, worked.

Once it got the green light, it trundled to a waypoint that's home to three unique types of terrain to perform science experiments. Every time Curiosity roves, it leaves Morse code tracks in the soil, providing a visual signal between drives. The message spells out JPL, short for Jet Propulsion Lab, which built the rover.

So far, its odometer has logged less than a mile. Despite the slow going, scientists have been smitten with the postcards it beamed home, including a stylish self-portrait and tantalizing glimpses of Mount Sharp.

Huge expectations weigh on the mission with NASA balancing the need to feed the public's appetite while pursuing discoveries at its own pace. Last month, the space agency quashed Internet speculation that Curiosity had detected complex carbon compounds in a pinch of Martian soil by issuing a statement ahead of a science meeting where the team was due to present the latest findings.

American University space policy professor Howard McCurdy said Curiosity is currently in a transition, caught between the viral landing and the scientific payoff expected at Mount Sharp.

"It is interesting, but slow," he said in an email. "I expect public interest will rise as the rover gets closer to its destination."

Curiosity's prime mission lasts two years, but NASA expects the plutonium-powered rover to live far longer. A priority for its human handlers is to learn to operate it more efficiently so that it becomes second nature. Before heading to Mount Sharp, engineers plan a software update to Curiosity's computers to fix remaining bugs.

"We'll need to be pretty careful," project manager Richard Cook said of the upcoming drive. "We may find terrain that we're not comfortable driving in and we'll have to spend time driving around stuff."

___

Follow Alicia Chang at http://twitter.com/SciWriAlicia

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2012-12-29-Mars%20Curiosity/id-b6ca6fc0cb924506b9ffe1ba1093c348

the vow review luol deng culkin wooly mammoth no child left behind no child left behind neurofibromatosis

New Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz: Climate Change Is the "Most Urgent Challenge of Our Generation" (Little green footballs)

Share With Friends: | | Politics - Top Stories News, RSS and RSS Feed via Feedzilla.

Source: http://news.feedzilla.com/en_us/stories/politics/top-stories/273479333?client_source=feed&format=rss

facebook buys instagram kevin systrom fibonacci sequence maryland lottery grand jury ozzie guillen fidel castro darvish