Connect with us


Share Now will no longer be available in Canada starting February 29 – MobileSyrup



Carsharing company Share Now, which was formally Car2Go, has decided to exit the North American market. Share Now’s departure will become effective as of February 29th, 2020.

“The decision to close North America was made based on two extremely complicated realities. The first being the volatile state of the global mobility landscape, and the second being the rising infrastructure complexities facing North American transportation today – such as a rapidly evolving competitive mobility landscape, the lack of necessary infrastructure to support new technology (including electric vehicle car share) and rising operating costs,” according to the company’s press release. 

Share Now will also be leaving London, Brussels and Florence and will remain operating only in 18 other European cities. Share Now’s Canadian cities included Calgary, Montreal and Vancouver.

Share Now was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Stuttgart Germany.

Source: Share Now 

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link


Presidential debates: Memorable moments mingle truth and myth –



U.S. President Donald Trump and Democratic challenger Joe Biden square off for the first of three scheduled debates Tuesday, an event sure to produce a number of sound bite moments.

In the 2016 debates with Hillary Clinton, Trump inspired memes with his “no puppet” denial of Russian influence, and his contention that “somebody sitting on their bed who weighs 400 pounds” could have been behind cyberattacks targeting Democrats has often been quoted.

Presidential debates, while often entertaining, are more importantly an opportunity for voters to get energized and learn about issues. But as far back as 1976, early in the history of televised presidential debates, an NBC News-Boston Globe poll indicated that just three per cent of those surveyed said the debates changed their vote.

Debates occur too late in the campaign to usually make a huge dent in the final election result, argues political science professor James Stimson. 

“There is no case where we can trace a substantial shift to the debates,” writes Stimson in Tides of Consent: How Public Opinion Shapes American Politics. He contends that conventions are usually more consequential when it comes to moving polls than debates, based on looking at nearly 40 years of polling data.

First debates have proven a particularly poor election bellwether. The candidate deemed the winner of the first debate in Gallup surveys has gone on to win the presidency just four out of 12 times.

Which is not to say that debates don’t matter, just that their impact is hard to isolate. Television news coverage often grafts memorable debate moments onto retrospective packages of elections past, whether there was a real connection to the result or not. Here’s a closer look at some of those moments:

Lazy narrative

Moderator Howard K. Smith sits between Sen. John Kennedy, left, and then Vice-President Richard Nixon during the first televised presidential debate in Chicago on Sept. 26, 1960. (AP)

Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy looked tanned and youthful during the first televised presidential debates in 1960, while then Vice-President Richard Nixon, who ill-advisedly applied a product called Lazy Shave to cover up his five o’clock shadow, looked wan and sweaty.

It’s a great story, but according to political science professors Christopher Wlezien and Robert Erikson, Kennedy’s polling average at the beginning of the first debate was commensurate with the support he got in the election.

WATCH | Kennedy shines, Nixon flops in first televised debate: 

In the first televised U.S. presidential debate, RIchard Nixon and John F. Kennedy square off. 1:00

There’s also a repeated narrative that Nixon was the preferred choice of radio listeners of the debate. Joseph Campbell in Getting It Wrong: Ten of the Greatest Misreported Stories in American Journalism and academics such as David Vancil and Sue Pendell in 1987 detailed how much of that narrative was fuelled by anecdotal reports.

In the one known market research survey of self-identified radio listeners, it was not clear that the smallish sample was representative in terms of factors like geography or religious beliefs. Picking Lyndon Johnson from Texas as his running mate was probably more consequential for Kennedy.

For his part, Nixon chose not to debate Hubert Humphrey (1968) and George McGovern (1972). Whether he was scarred by the 1960 experience or saw debating as a no-win scenario given his lead in the polls is open to speculation.

Gaffe didn’t drive Ford down

U.S. President Gerald Ford and wife Betty celebrate after securing the Republican nomination in Kansas City on Aug. 19, 1976. (Karl Schumache/Gerald Ford Library/Reuters)

The defining TV moment from 1976 occurred when then President Gerald Ford insisted in the second debate on Oct. 6 that “there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.”

A serious gaffe to journalists and policy wonks, but there’s no evidence in debate surveys that voters paid it much mind. Americans were dealing with a recession, high inflation, rising gas prices and some of the worst-ever U.S. crime rates — the fate of Poland and Hungary in the shadow of a world nuclear power probably didn’t loom large.

WATCH | Ford’s fumble on Soviet question: 

[embedded content]

Furthermore, the Gallup poll of Sept. 30 showed Jimmy Carter enjoying an 11-point advantage in the polls, and by Oct. 12, six days after the Ford gaffe, it was just two points. The state of the race didn’t change drastically after a third debate.

Ford had trailed in one poll by 33 points in the summer, but Carter would then commit a few missteps and verbal miscues of his own on the campaign trail.

Ford lost the election by just 57 electoral college votes and two percentage points. His debate slip overshadowed the fact that he was within shouting distance of an incredible comeback.

One and done

Then President Jimmy Carter and Republican challenger Ronald Reagan shake hands in Cleveland before the only presidential debate of 1980. Reagan’s calm, relaxed demeanor during the debate was seen as key to his victory. (Bettmann Archive)

Legislative changes in the 1970s helped ensure regular presidential debates going forward, but negotiations between the principals were fraught in 1980. There was only one Carter-Ronald Reagan debate, held just a week before the election.

During the debate, the candidates differed in their responses to questions about the handling of the ongoing Iran hostage crisis. Carter also sought to paint the Republican’s positions as superficial and inconsistent, but his persistent needling at one point led a smiling Reagan to shrug, “there you go again.”

WATCH | Reagan’s relaxed one-liner:

A key moment from the 1980 U.S. presidential debate between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. 0:53

The one-liner came to crystallize the former actor’s optimism and ease on camera.

Reagan then wrapped up his night by asking Americans: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

That conclusion was favoured 45-33 over Carter’s in one poll, with the Harris Poll showing that of the respondents who saw a clear debate winner, it was Reagan 44-26.

With little time left for Carter to bounce back before election day, the debate has been widely viewed by academics as impactful in widening what had been until then a close race. The drift toward Reagan continued, leading to a nine-percentage point and 440-electoral college vote win.

While Reagan projected strength in the debate, the issue of U.S. hostages in Iran was more nuanced than is commonly portrayed. As detailed in Rick Perlstein’s book Reaganland, the 17 per cent in exit polls who thought the hostages were the top issue reported voting for Carter by a 2-to-1 margin.

Did crime pay?

Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis speaks during the first presidential debate with opponent George H.W. Bush in Winston-Salem, N.C., on Sept. 25, 1988. Dukakis likely faced an insurmountable deficit by the time he was forced to answer a controversial question in the third debate that October. (Bob Jordan/The Associated Press)

Moderator Bernard Shaw didn’t waste time with softballs in the second and final 1988 debate, asking Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis off the top: “Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favour an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?”

Dukakis, the governor of Massachusetts, answered in a manner consistent with his longstanding position that capital punishment was not a deterrent while highlighting his state’s declining rates of violent crime. But his answer was seen by reporters as clinical and dispassionate.

WATCH | Dukakis’ dispassionate answer: 

[embedded content]

Dukakis later told frequent debate moderator Jim Lehrer that the issue had come up, “about a thousand times” in his political career. “Unfortunately, I answered it as if I’d been asked it a thousand times,” he said in Lehrer’s 2011 book Tension City.

In the retelling of that election, Dukakis’s answer along with a foreboding George H.W. Bush campaign ad about a Massachusetts prisoner who committed a violent sexual assault while on furlough have often loomed large.

But Bush was already up several points in the polls heading into the debates after trailing Dukakis early in the summer.

WATCH | George H.W. Bush’s attack ad: 

[embedded content]

Meanwhile, the ad was not widely seen and was amplified by news coverage largely after Bush took his polling lead, writes George Washington University professor John Sides.

In election exit polls, Bush was the overwhelming choice of voters on all economic questions. The capital punishment answer didn’t do Dukakis any favours, but he was likely dealing with an insurmountable deficit.

Sighs of the times

George W. Bush, left, and Al Gore, get animated during the third debate in 2000, a town hall in St. Louis. The assessment of Gore’s performance in the first debate may have been affected by subsequent media coverage. (Jeff Mitchell/Reuters)

The liberal use of a split screen effect in the first presidential debate of 2000 meant viewers got a full complement of Al Gore’s sighs and eye rolls as he grew exasperated with George W. Bush’s answers.

“We had to try to laugh about it. But really, it hurt us,” said Gore adviser Tad Devine in a 2016 New York Times oral history of the debate entitled Debacle.

A funny thing about that, though. Two polls in the hours after the debate had Gore winning above and beyond the margin of error, with a third poll essentially even. Despite this, it’s become accepted conventional wisdom among pundits that the performance hurt Gore. 

Political scientists D. Sunshine Hillygus and Simon Jackman posited that political realities can be mediated, whether through television pundits or, now, on social media.

“… debate watchers believed Gore won the first and third debate, but the individuals not watching the debates increasingly believed that Bush won those debates — perhaps in response to media interpretations of Gore’s smirks and sighs,” the academics said.

In any event, ascribing Gore’s Supreme Court-contested election loss to the first debate, or even the debates overall, is a tricky business, given that he won the popular vote by 500,000.

Romney puts Obama on the ropes

Then President Barack Obama, left, and Republican nominee Mitt Romney share a moment at the end of the first presidential debate in Denver, Colo., on Oct. 4, 2012, but the incumbent wasn’t laughing at the campaign polls that followed. (Jim Bourg/Reuters)

The first 2012 presidential debate proved the most impactful despite lacking a signature moment on the order of Mitt Romney’s inartful, meme-inspiring “binders full of women” in the second debate, or when Barack Obama mocked Romney in the third debate for earlier declaring Russia was the “No. 1 geopolitical foe” of the U.S.

Obama had held a lead in nearly ever poll since June, but White House adviser David Axelrod didn’t feel secure.

“We were always worried about the first debate because it historically is a killing field for presidents,” Axelrod wrote in 2015’s Believer: My Forty Years in Politics, citing a common reluctance of busy presidents to take time out for debate prep.

WATCH | Obama feels the heat in first debate: 

Barack Obama faces added pressure in his rematch with Mitt Romney after the U.S. president’s first debate performance dispirited Democrats and sparked a surge in support for the former Massachusetts governor 5:26

Obama indeed came out flat after the first debate in the eyes of pundits, his team and viewers. Polls had Romney clearly winning.

“It wasn’t one of those classic debate gaffes: Richard Nixon mopping his sweaty brow; Michael Dukakis’s robotic response,” but it was clearly noticeable, wrote CNN’s Maeve Reston, capturing the consensus view.

Election polls soon swung dramatically in Romney’s favour, but Obama bounced back in the next two debates, where he was seen as more comfortable.

“Of course, the [first] debate did not change the outcome. … But it really did matter in that it changed the dynamics of the rest of the contest,” wrote Stimson. “Had Obama not improved in the second and third debates, defeat would have been a likely outcome.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


Nova Scotia goes 5 days without new case of COVID-19 –



Nova Scotia reported no new cases of COVID-19 for a fifth straight day Sunday.

The province has one known active case.

One person remains in hospital in intensive care, according to a release from the Department of Health and Wellness.

The latest case was announced Tuesday and involves an essential worker from the western zone who travelled outside of the country.

The Nova Scotia Health Authority completed 878 Nova Scotia tests on Saturday.

The province has recorded 92,348 negative test results, 1,087 positive COVID-19 cases and 65 deaths since March. 

The latest numbers from around the Atlantic bubble are:


Anyone with one of the following symptoms of COVID-19 should visit the 811 website to see if they should call 811 for further assessment:

  • Fever.
  • Cough or worsening of a previous cough.

Anyone with two or more of the following symptoms is also asked to visit the 811 website:

  • Sore throat.
  • Headache.
  • Shortness of breath.
  • Runny nose.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


US Reportedly Curbs Exports From Chinese Chipmaker SMIC For ‘Unacceptable Risks’ – Sputnik International



Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp

Previously, reports suggested the US Department of Defense was considering adding Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC) to an Entity List along with Huawei, ZTE and more than 70 Chinese tech firms, barred from doing business with US firms without a licence, as part of the ongoing trade war between Washington and Beijing.

The United States Department of Commerce has reportedly sanctioned China’s biggest chipmaker, Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC), curbing exports from the company, according to a letter cited by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on Saturday.

According to the Commerce Department’s dispatch to the Shanghai-based firm, the WSJ reports, US companies will now need a licence to export certain products to China’s largest chipmaker, because of the “unacceptable risk” that SMIC products could be used for military purposes.

An SMIC spokeswoman cited by the WSJ said in an emailed statement that the firm had not yet received an official notice of the sanctions and was looking into the situation.

The chipmaker reiterated that it has no relationship with the Chinese armed forces and does not manufacture goods for any military end-users or uses.

There has not been any official comment on the report from the US Commerce Department.

Escalated US Attack

Earlier reports in September suggested the Trump administration was considering adding the firm to a government Entity List along with Huawei, ZTE and more than 70 Chinese tech firms which are barred from conducting business with US firms.

Adding SMIC to the Commerce Department’s so-called entity list would in effect target exports from a broader set of companies.

“The military end-use rules only apply to a subset of listed US origin items. The Entity List rules apply to all US origin and some foreign-origin items,” said Kevin Wolf, an export control lawyer at Akin Gump and senior Commerce Department official in the Obama administration, as cited by Bloomberg.

Around 50 per cent of SMIC’s equipment originates from the US, with the company having a market value of more than $29 billion, according to Bloomberg data, with US chipmakers Qualcomm Inc. and Broadcom Inc. among SMIC’s customers.

“Should the US export ban on SMIC materialise, it will signal an escalated attack by the US on China’s semiconductor industry and more Chinese companies will likely be included,” analyst Edison Lee of the American multinational independent investment bank and financial services company Jefferies said.

‘Blatant Bullying’

In the wake of the above-mentioned reports, the Chinese semiconductor company reiterated that it strictly abides by the laws and regulations of relevant nations while having maintained cooperative relations with global chipmaking equipment suppliers for years.

“Any assumptions of the company’s ties with the Chinese military are untrue statements and false accusations. The Company is in complete shock and perplexity at the news. Nevertheless, SMIC is open to sincere and transparent communication with the US Government agencies in hope of resolving potential misunderstandings,” SMIC said in a statement on its website.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian slammed Washington over “blatant bullying.”

“What it has done is violated international trade rules, undermined global industrial supply and value chains and will inevitably hurt US national interests and its own image,” Zhao told a news briefing in Beijing.

China’s Tech Giants in the Crosshairs

The US Department of Commerce added dozens of internationally based Huawei affiliates to its Entity list in August 2020, restricting their ability to do business with American firms. The decision expanded on rules issued in May subjecting companies to enhanced licensing requirements if they sold third-party computer chips or chip designs to Huawei that rely on US software or manufacturing equipment.

Back in 2019 the department essentially banned US companies from selling parts and components to 68 Huawei affiliates, allowing, however, for temporary waivers that enabled limited transactions to ease the transition for American suppliers.

Those waivers expired in August 2020, with a fresh order subjecting an additional 38 Huawei affiliates around the world to similar restrictions.

Fresh measures on the part of Washington could block Huawei from gaining access to chipsets, in yet another stinging blow to the Shenzhen-based tech giant.

REUTERS / Dado Ruvic
A smartphone with the Huawei and 5G network logo is seen on a PC motherboard in this illustration picture taken January 29, 2020

Earlier this month China had launched plans to boost the mainland chipmaker and others, seeking to distance itself from US technologies.

Sanctions targeting the Chinese partially state-owned publicly-listed semiconductor foundry company, SMIC, would come as yet another step in the escalating tensions between the US and China, that have been exchanging invective on issues ranging from trade, their respective governments’ handling of the coronavirus pandemic, and perceived threats to intellectual property and national security.

The Trump administration began its onslaught by blacklisting Huawei Technologies Co., preventing the giant Chinese telecommunications provider from buying components from American suppliers and pressuring allies to follow suit.

REUTERS / Florence Lo/Illustration
China and U.S. flags are seen near a TikTok logo in this illustration picture taken July 16, 2020. REUTERS/Florence Lo/Illustration

Subsequently, President Donald Trump threatened to ban the video app TikTok from China’s ByteDance Ltd. if the service weren’t sold to American owners, sparking indignation among Chinese executives and government officials, who have repeatedly dismissed all allegations of spying and presenting a security threat.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading