270000 cbm LNG Carrier in the Making

first_imgNew LNG Carrier to Edge Out Current Record Holders At 270,000 cbm, the new carrier would trump the Samsung Heavy Industries-built Q-Max LNG carriers, which have a stated capacity of 266,000 cbm.The People’s Republic of China is on track to become the world’s largest gas-importing country, and the nation’s recent surge in demand for gas has been central to transforming LNG markets globally, DNV GL said in its 2019 outlook for the LNG market.According to DNV GL’s data, the country imported 37.8 million tons of LNG in 2017 and this has climbed to more than 54 million tons in 2018, an increase of 42 percent. In light of the country’s “protecting blue sky” campaign, it is forecasted that the demand for LNG in China will continue to grow at a high level, and it is expected to exceed 100 million tons by 2030.Shanghai alone imported a record 600 million cbm of LNG in January 2019, requiring six 170k vessels. This is why Hudong-Zhonghua and DNV GL are starting the project to develop an ultra large LNG carrier capable of transporting enough LNG to provide gas for 4.7 million Shanghai homes for a month. This could be done 25-30% more efficiently than with a 170,000 cbm vessel, according to DNV GL. In addition, a single 250k vessel would increase terminal capacity by 50% without expanding the size of the terminal. zoomImage Courtesy: DNV GL Hudong-Zhonghua Shipbuilding, the sole builder of China’s large LNG carriers, has teamed up with Norwegian classification society DNV GL for development of what the company said would be the world’s largest LNG carrier.The state-run shipbuilder said on April 2 that it started a joint development project with DNV GL for a 270,000 cbm LNG carrier.The two sides have also entered into an agreement to class a 15,000 TEU boxship that would be converted to LNG propulsion.While the shipbuilder did not specify, the boxship in question could be the Hapag-Lloyd-operated Sajir. The two sides signed an agreement for the LNG retrofit in late January 2019.Both agreements were signed during the LNG2019 exhibition in Shanghai.last_img read more

Alberta RCMP charge 16 year old with attempted murder in German tourist

first_imgThe Canadian PressA 16-year-old youth has been charged in a southern Alberta highway shooting that left a German tourist with a serious brain injury.RCMP Cpl. Curtis Peters said the teen, who is from the Stoney Nakoda First Nation but can’t be named because of his age, is facing 14 charges, including attempted murder and possession of a prohibited firearm.“Investigators have located and seized the vehicle and the firearm which are both believed to have been involved in this offence,” Peters said Tuesday.Police wouldn’t discuss a possible motive and would only say that they don’t believe there was any conflict prior to the single shot being fired.The 60-year-old tourist was driving in a black Dodge Durango with his family near Morley, Alta., on Aug. 2, when the shooting happened.Police have said the suspect vehicle was passing the Durango when a shot was fired from the passenger window and into the tourist’s SUV.The Durango crashed into the ditch after the shooting near the Goodstoney Rodeo Centre on Stoney Nakoda land. Three family members who were passengers weren’t seriously injured.The driver survived, but police said he has a long road to recovery.The injured man was flown back to Germany where surgeons removed the bullet.“That bullet will be sent here to Canada where it will undergo forensic testing to compare it to the firearm which has been recovered,” Peters said.The German consulate has said the man can’t talk or move his right side as a result of the injury. He has a lot of physiotherapy and rehabilitation ahead of him to regain some quality of life, Peters said.“This has been a life-changing event for him.”Although Peters said there were others in the car with the accused, no other charges are pending and police are not searching for any other suspects.“We believe this was an isolated incident.”The accused was scheduled to appear in provincial court in Cochrane, Alta., on Tuesday.last_img read more

In Cooperstown a Crowded Waiting Room

Jessie Schwartz for The New York Times Baseball writers elected no one to the Hall of Fame on Wednesday, despite what might have been the deepest ballot in years.The failure of the writers to pick Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens was not a surprise given the low vote totals received in the past by Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, other players associated with the use performance-enhancing drugs. But the vote totals for Bonds and Clemens, just 36 and 38 percent, were lower than expected.Craig Biggio, who received 68.2 percent of the vote in his first year of eligibility, will almost certainly make it into the Hall of Fame someday. Still, his profile is quite similar to Robin Yount and Roberto Alomar, two players who did better in their first year on the ballot. (Yount got 77.5 percent of the vote in his first year on the ballot in 1999, while Alomar got 73.7 percent of the vote in 2010 and made it in the next year.)Perhaps the clearest effect of the crowded ballot, however, was realized among candidates who were returning to the ballot from last year. Of the 13 players who carried over from the 2012 ballot, nine received a lower share of the vote, including Lee Smith, Alan Trammell, Fred McGriff, Don Mattingly and Bernie Williams.This is atypical; instead, players usually add votes with each additional year they spend on the ballot. Since 1967, when the Hall of Fame adopted balloting rules similar to the ones it uses now, about two-thirds of holdover players gained ground from their prior year’s vote percentage.It is possible to be a bit more precise about this pattern. Based on an analysis of Hall of Fame voting between 1967 and 2011, I found that the increase in a player’s vote total is typically proportional to his percentage from the previous year. In his second year on the ballot, for example, the typical player’s vote share increases by a multiple of about 1.1.Thus, a player who received 10 percent of the vote in his first year would be expected to receive about 11 percent on his second try, while a player who got 50 percent of the vote would go up to 55 percent.The pace of improvement is typically highest in the first several years that a player spends on the ballot, slowing down once he has been eligible five or six times. (The exception is in a player’s 15 and final year of eligibility, when he may receive a fairly large boost.) But these small percentage gains can add up, something like the way in which interest compounds over time. For example, as shown in the chart below, a player who gets just 30 percent of the vote in his first year on the ballot would be projected to make it in on his 14th year of eligibility if he follows the formula each year.In practice, the growth in a player’s vote share is rarely this smooth — and you should not necessarily expect the pattern to hold for Bonds and Clemens. (Instructively, the vote shares for McGwire and Palmeiro have actually been declining.) Nonetheless, Hall of Fame candidates typically have a tailwind as time passes.This year, however, veterans on the Hall of Fame ballot faced a headwind instead. The next chart compares the actual vote that each player received against that projected by the historical formula. Actual results in 2013 compared to projections based on historical patterns.Twelve of the 13 players underperformed their projection; the exception was Dale Murphy, who got a larger-than-average boost in his final year of eligibility, but still came nowhere close to winning election.Even some players who gained ground did not necessarily help their chances. Jack Morris went from 66.7 percent of the vote to 67.7 percent, below his projection of 69.4 percent. The small difference could be important because next year will be Morris’s final year of eligibility, and he projects to be very close to the 75 percent threshold for election. (Perhaps the player who had the best year, instead, was Tim Raines, whose vote share grew to 52.2 percent from 48.7 percent, and who is now a clear favorite to be elected someday by the writers.)Most other players lost ground outright. Trammell, in his 12th year of eligibility, declined to 33.6 percent from 36.8 percent of the vote. He was an underdog to make it in before, but now he seems to have very little chance. The same also holds for Smith, who lost most of what he gained last year after years of stagnant vote totals.McGriff, as Joe Posnanski writes, seemed to be a plausible candidate to gain ground this year as writers sought out players who were perceived as clean, as opposed to known or suspected of steroid use. Instead, his vote share declined to 20.7 percent from 23.9 percent. Williams had received just under 10 percent of the vote in his first year of eligibility, but his case was not entirely hopeless; players like Bob Lemon and Carl Hubbell were eventually selected by the writers with a similar vote total in their first year.Instead, Williams fell below the 5 percent threshold required for a player to stay on the ballot.The crowded and confusing ballot may be affecting these players in several ways. The most obvious is that the writers are limited to voting for a maximum of 10 players. This year, according to the sample of ballots collected by the Twitter user @leokitty, 24 percent of writers used all 10 of their picks. That compares with 12 percent in 2011, and just 4 percent in 2012.Did the 10-vote limit keep Biggio and Morris out of the Hall of Fame, perhaps along with other players?Actually, it was almost certainly not responsible all by itself. Of the 24 percent of writers who used all 10 ballot slots, 90 percent did name Biggio, meaning 10 percent did not. At best, therefore, if all writers who exhausted their ballots would also have named Biggio if they had unlimited votes, he would have gotten only 10 percent of the 24 percent, adding only 2.4 percentage points to his overall vote total.The logic here is that it’s hard to make a case that Biggio was only the 11th or 12th best player on the ballot. Instead, most of the writers who left him out were probably more like Jon Heyman of CBS Sports. Heyman wrote that he saw Biggio as the eighth best player on the ballot — but he also thought that only six were worthy of inclusion. Most of the writers who left Biggio out, in other words, were those who take a conservative overall approach to how many players they want in the Hall of Fame, and not those who ran out of ballot positions.Morris is a more debatable case. If all writers who maxed out their ballot slots had included him, he would have come very close to 75 percent of the vote. However, Morris is also a highly polarizing candidate. Those writers who included him often thought he was among the very best players on the ballot; on several ballots, in fact, Morris was the only player named. But other writers think he falls fall short of Hall of Fame standards and would not have picked him no matter how many votes they had to spare.Nor, obviously, were Bonds’s and Clemens’s totals affected to any material degree by the 10-player limit. Nobody left Bonds off their ballots because they thought he had only the 11th-best statistical record; they did so because they don’t think steroids users should be in the Hall of Fame. (In fact, most of the writers who maxed out their ballot slots included Bonds and Clemens; the writers who are willing to consider performance-enhancing drug users have much more crowded ballots than those who are not.)Instead, players like McGriff, Trammell, Williams and Edgar Martinez were probably most affected by the 10-player limit. The logic for McGriff, for example, is very close of the opposite of that which might be applied to Biggio. It’s fairly hard to sustain a case that McGriff was one of the best six or seven players on the ballot this year. But you might credibly argue that there is a glut of a dozen or so qualified players, McGriff among them, and you had to leave McGriff out because of the ballot limit.However, the players are not only being affected by those writers who ran out of ballot slots. There were a higher-than-average number of writers this year who listed very few players, or even none at all. Some 10 percent of voters named two or fewer players this year, according to Leokitty’s spreadsheet. That is lower than in 2012, an underwhelming year on the ballot, when 16 percent of voters did so.But it is less than 2009, 2010 or 2011, when between 3 and 8 percent of writers listed so few players. Some writers are deliberately listing very few players as a protest vote, whether against the steroids era or the Hall of Fame balloting process.Between the protest voters on the one hand, and the maxed-out voters on the other, the players are being squeezed at both ends.Finally, some players may be harmed by the psychology of the ballot. If Clemens were not on the ballot, for example, then you could credibly make a case that Curt Schilling was the best pitcher on the ballot (if you don’t think that Morris is). But Schilling’s accomplishments look poor by comparison to Clemens’s, as do those of almost any pitcher — even if you aren’t willing to vote for Clemens because of his steroids use. The same holds for outfielders whose statistics might be compared with Barry Bonds’s.There is even something to be said for the so-called “paradox of choice”: that when presented with too many options, we may be overwhelmed with information and have trouble making any decisions at all.Hall of Fame voting is ultimately designed to be a consensus process. One reason that players tend to gain votes over time is because the writers are looking at what their peers are doing and value the endorsements of their colleagues. Moreover, because they have as many as 15 chances to elect a player, many writers tend toward conservatism initially. There is no way to remove a player from the Hall of Fame once he has been elected, but you can change your mind to include him later. When a writer initially votes “no” on a player, it really means “wait and see” in many cases.But consensus is harder to achieve when members of a group have divergent values and ideologies. Instead of the typical friendly arguments about how a player’s lifetime accomplishments might be weighed against how dominant he was in his best seasons, or how to compare players at different positions, the writers are now spending most of their time arguing about who used steroids and when, and how this should affect Hall of Fame consideration. Many have passionate beliefs about this, whichever side of the argument they take. An increasing number of writers would like to elect a dozen or more players; an increasing number would like to lose the whole “steroids era” to history. Good-natured debates may be replaced by tactical considerations, as voters make guesses about who everyone else might vote for, or where their ballots might be wasted.Next year will place even more pressure on the voters, when Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas and Mike Mussina are added to the list of candidates. Those who apply little discount for steroids use may credibly claim to identify 15 or more qualified candidates, and even those who do not may have to drop one or two names that they otherwise see as worthy. The New York Times will probably not have to publish a blank page again, but no one but Maddux seems sure to make it in.,Jessie Schwartz for The New York Times Baseball writers elected no one to the Hall of Fame on Wednesday, despite what might have been the deepest ballot in years.The failure of the writers to pick Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens was not a surprise given the low vote totals received in the past by Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, other players associated with the use performance-enhancing drugs. But the vote totals for Bonds and Clemens, just 36 and 38 percent, were lower than expected.Craig Biggio, who received 68.2 percent of the vote in his first year of eligibility, will almost certainly make it into the Hall of Fame someday. Still, his profile is quite similar to Robin Yount and Roberto Alomar, two players who did better in their first year on the ballot. (Yount got 77.5 percent of the vote in his first year on the ballot in 1999, while Alomar got 73.7 percent of the vote in 2010 and made it in the next year.)Perhaps the clearest effect of the crowded ballot, however, was realized among candidates who were returning to the ballot from last year. Of the 13 players who carried over from the 2012 ballot, nine received a lower share of the vote, including Lee Smith, Alan Trammell, Fred McGriff, Don Mattingly and Bernie Williams.This is atypical; instead, players usually add votes with each additional year they spend on the ballot. Since 1967, when the Hall of Fame adopted balloting rules similar to the ones it uses now, about two-thirds of holdover players gained ground from their prior year’s vote percentage.It is possible to be a bit more precise about this pattern. Based on an analysis of Hall of Fame voting between 1967 and 2011, I found that the increase in a player’s vote total is typically proportional to his percentage from the previous year. In his second year on the ballot, for example, the typical player’s vote share increases by a multiple of about 1.1.Thus, a player who received 10 percent of the vote in his first year would be expected to receive about 11 percent on his second try, while a player who got 50 percent of the vote would go up to 55 percent.The pace of improvement is typically highest in the first several years that a player spends on the ballot, slowing down once he has been eligible five or six times. (The exception is in a player’s 15 and final year of eligibility, when he may receive a fairly large boost.) But these small percentage gains can add up, something like the way in which interest compounds over time. For example, as shown in the chart below, a player who gets just 30 percent of the vote in his first year on the ballot would be projected to make it in on his 14th year of eligibility if he follows the formula each year.In practice, the growth in a player’s vote share is rarely this smooth — and you should not necessarily expect the pattern to hold for Bonds and Clemens. (Instructively, the vote shares for McGwire and Palmeiro have actually been declining.) Nonetheless, Hall of Fame candidates typically have a tailwind as time passes.This year, however, veterans on the Hall of Fame ballot faced a headwind instead. The next chart compares the actual vote that each player received against that projected by the historical formula. Actual results in 2013 compared to projections based on historical patterns.Twelve of the 13 players underperformed their projection; the exception was Dale Murphy, who got a larger-than-average boost in his final year of eligibility, but still came nowhere close to winning election.Even some players who gained ground did not necessarily help their chances. Jack Morris went from 66.7 percent of the vote to 67.7 percent, below his projection of 69.4 percent. The small difference could be important because next year will be Morris’s final year of eligibility, and he projects to be very close to the 75 percent threshold for election. (Perhaps the player who had the best year, instead, was Tim Raines, whose vote share grew to 52.2 percent from 48.7 percent, and who is now a clear favorite to be elected someday by the writers.)Most other players lost ground outright. Trammell, in his 12th year of eligibility, declined to 33.6 percent from 36.8 percent of the vote. He was an underdog to make it in before, but now he seems to have very little chance. The same also holds for Smith, who lost most of what he gained last year after years of stagnant vote totals.McGriff, as Joe Posnanski writes, seemed to be a plausible candidate to gain ground this year as writers sought out players who were perceived as clean, as opposed to known or suspected of steroid use. Instead, his vote share declined to 20.7 percent from 23.9 percent. Williams had received just under 10 percent of the vote in his first year of eligibility, but his case was not entirely hopeless; players like Bob Lemon and Carl Hubbell were eventually selected by the writers with a similar vote total in their first year.Instead, Williams fell below the 5 percent threshold required for a player to stay on the ballot.The crowded and confusing ballot may be affecting these players in several ways. The most obvious is that the writers are limited to voting for a maximum of 10 players. This year, according to the sample of ballots collected by the Twitter user @leokitty, 24 percent of writers used all 10 of their picks. That compares with 12 percent in 2011, and just 4 percent in 2012.Did the 10-vote limit keep Biggio and Morris out of the Hall of Fame, perhaps along with other players?Actually, it was almost certainly not responsible all by itself. Of the 24 percent of writers who used all 10 ballot slots, 90 percent did name Biggio, meaning 10 percent did not. At best, therefore, if all writers who exhausted their ballots would also have named Biggio if they had unlimited votes, he would have gotten only 10 percent of the 24 percent, adding only 2.4 percentage points to his overall vote total.The logic here is that it’s hard to make a case that Biggio was only the 11th or 12th best player on the ballot. Instead, most of the writers who left him out were probably more like Jon Heyman of CBS Sports. Heyman wrote that he saw Biggio as the eighth best player on the ballot — but he also thought that only six were worthy of inclusion. Most of the writers who left Biggio out, in other words, were those who take a conservative overall approach to how many players they want in the Hall of Fame, and not those who ran out of ballot positions.Morris is a more debatable case. If all writers who maxed out their ballot slots had included him, he would have come very close to 75 percent of the vote. However, Morris is also a highly polarizing candidate. Those writers who included him often thought he was among the very best players on the ballot; on several ballots, in fact, Morris was the only player named. But other writers think he falls fall short of Hall of Fame standards and would not have picked him no matter how many votes they had to spare.Nor, obviously, were Bonds’s and Clemens’s totals affected to any material degree by the 10-player limit. Nobody left Bonds off their ballots because they thought he had only the 11th-best statistical record; they did so because they don’t think steroids users should be in the Hall of Fame. (In fact, most of the writers who maxed out their ballot slots included Bonds and Clemens; the writers who are willing to consider performance-enhancing drug users have much more crowded ballots than those who are not.)Instead, players like McGriff, Trammell, Williams and Edgar Martinez were probably most affected by the 10-player limit. The logic for McGriff, for example, is very close of the opposite of that which might be applied to Biggio. It’s fairly hard to sustain a case that McGriff was one of the best six or seven players on the ballot this year. But you might credibly argue that there is a glut of a dozen or so qualified players, McGriff among them, and you had to leave McGriff out because of the ballot limit.However, the players are not only being affected by those writers who ran out of ballot slots. There were a higher-than-average number of writers this year who listed very few players, or even none at all. Some 10 percent of voters named two or fewer players this year, according to Leokitty’s spreadsheet. That is lower than in 2012, an underwhelming year on the ballot, when 16 percent of voters did so.But it is less than 2009, 2010 or 2011, when between 3 and 8 percent of writers listed so few players. Some writers are deliberately listing very few players as a protest vote, whether against the steroids era or the Hall of Fame balloting process.Between the protest voters on the one hand, and the maxed-out voters on the other, the players are being squeezed at both ends.Finally, some players may be harmed by the psychology of the ballot. If Clemens were not on the ballot, for example, then you could credibly make a case that Curt Schilling was the best pitcher on the ballot (if you don’t think that Morris is). But Schilling’s accomplishments look poor by comparison to Clemens’s, as do those of almost any pitcher — even if you aren’t willing to vote for Clemens because of his steroids use. The same holds for outfielders whose statistics might be compared with Barry Bonds’s.There is even something to be said for the so-called “paradox of choice”: that when presented with too many options, we may be overwhelmed with information and have trouble making any decisions at all.Hall of Fame voting is ultimately designed to be a consensus process. One reason that players tend to gain votes over time is because the writers are looking at what their peers are doing and value the endorsements of their colleagues. Moreover, because they have as many as 15 chances to elect a player, many writers tend toward conservatism initially. There is no way to remove a player from the Hall of Fame once he has been elected, but you can change your mind to include him later. When a writer initially votes “no” on a player, it really means “wait and see” in many cases.But consensus is harder to achieve when members of a group have divergent values and ideologies. Instead of the typical friendly arguments about how a player’s lifetime accomplishments might be weighed against how dominant he was in his best seasons, or how to compare players at different positions, the writers are now spending most of their time arguing about who used steroids and when, and how this should affect Hall of Fame consideration. Many have passionate beliefs about this, whichever side of the argument they take. An increasing number of writers would like to elect a dozen or more players; an increasing number would like to lose the whole “steroids era” to history. Good-natured debates may be replaced by tactical considerations, as voters make guesses about who everyone else might vote for, or where their ballots might be wasted.Next year will place even more pressure on the voters, when Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas and Mike Mussina are added to the list of candidates. Those who apply little discount for steroids use may credibly claim to identify 15 or more qualified candidates, and even those who do not may have to drop one or two names that they otherwise see as worthy. The New York Times will probably not have to publish a blank page again, but no one but Maddux seems sure to make it in. read more

Sloop of 53 illegal Haitian migrants intercepted and detained in Providenciales

first_imgFacebook Twitter Google+LinkedInPinterestWhatsApp Related Items: Facebook Twitter Google+LinkedInPinterestWhatsAppTurks and Caicos, August 8, 2017 – Providenciales – The Ministry of Border Control and Employment advises the public that around 2:30 a.m. today Tuesday 08th August, 2017, an illegal migrant vessel with 53 Haitian nationals was intercepted in the area of West Caicos.The interception of this 35-foot vessel, was due to the collaboration of several agencies, in particular the United States Coast Guard, TCI’s Coastal Radar Station, the Marine Branch of the Royal Turks and Caicos Islands Police and private citizens.    The Marine Branch confirmed the vessel as a sloop with 16 females and 37 males on board.   At approximately 4:11 a.m. the sloop arrived in Providenciales where it was met by Immigration and other Task Force officials.The 53 illegal migrants are currently detained and are being processed for repatriation and entry on the Immigration Stop List.    The last attempt of a sloop to enter the islands illegally was the interception of 99 persons on Monday 31st July, 2017, three persons were charged and the others repatriated.The Honourable Deputy Premier and Minister of Border Control and Employment, wishes again to remind persons of his Government’s commitment to improving the protection of our borders and tighter controls on immigration processes.    Additionally, he stated that illegal migration threatens the lives and livelihood of our people and that persons found to be engaged in the smuggling of humans would be prosecuted under the law.    He advises all persons to observe the immigration laws of the Turks and Caicos Islands as anyone found in breach of same will be dealt with accordingly.The Ministry of Border Control and Employment Services hereby extends its profound gratitude to persons in the community and all agencies who have assisted with this and other operations and initiatives, your contribution and support remains invaluable and critical to our success.Press Release: TCIGlast_img read more

Domestic car sales in December How Maruti Suzuki Hyundai Mahindra Renault Toyota

first_imgMaruti Suzuki India Ltd. (MSIL) has reported 4.4 percent drop in domestic car sales for December, the first full month of demonetisation. Exports grew 47.1 percent, making for overall decline in sales by 1 percent on a year-on-year (YoY) basis. Hyundai posted decline, while Toyota Kirloskar Motor (TKM) sales rose 29 percent. Mahindra has also reported 8 percent fall in sales. Renault posted a robust growth. The MSIL stock  was trading flat at Rs 5,292 on Monday on the BSE while the Sensex was down 0.23 percent, at 9.25 am after a positive opening. Maruti SuzukiMSIL sold 1,06,414 cars in the domestic market last month, in comparison to 111,333 units sold in December 2015, while exports rose to 11,494 units from 7,816 cars in December 2015.The overall sales stood at 1,17,908 units last month as against 1,19,149 cars sold in December 2015.Mid-size (Ciaz) and utility vehicle (Gypsy, Ertiga, S-Cross and Vitara Brezza) segments remained unaffected by demonetisation, registering growth of 30.6 percent and 75.3 percent, respectively.Other segments — mini, compact and super compact — witnessed drop ranging from 8.6 percent to 29.2 percent during the month, YoY. Models in these segments include Alto, WagonR, Swift, Dzire, Baleno and Ritz.Hyundai MotorThe Indian arm of Korean automaker sold 40,057 units last December, 4.3 percent lower than 41,861 cars sold in December 2015.In calendar year 2016, the company sold 6.63 lakh cars (including exports), 2.9 percent more than calendar year 2015.”2016 has been an Year of Excellence for Hyundai in India achieving various milestones – Celebrating 20 years in India, the roll out of 7 Millionth car in November’16, crossing the 5 lakh domestic sales in CY2016 and the fastest 50,000 unit sales in the month of October,” YK Koo, MD & CEO, Hyundai Motor India said, in a statement.Toyota Kirloskar Motor (TKM)The company’s sales were up 29 percent to 14,093 units on the back of robust volume growth for Innova Crysta and the new Fortuner.Mahindra & MahindraThe Mumbai-based company sold 16,698 passenger vehicles last month, down 8 percent from 18,197 units sold in December 2015. On an overall basis, including tractor and heavy vehicle sales, the cumulative number stood at 36,363 units (including exports), a drop of 4 percent from 37,915 units in December 2015. Exports plunged by 33 percent to 2,053 units. Renault IndiaThe French carmaker’s Indian arm sold 11,244 units last month in comparison to 10,292 units in December 2015, a growth of 9.2 percent. For the calendar year 2016, sales grew 146 percent to 132,235 cars as against 53,847units in 2015.”We plan to launch at least one new product every year, over the next 5 years, beginning with some exciting product innovations starting this year. We will continue to build our network this year as well, with strategic measures to make our cars more accessible to customers across the country,” Sumit Sawhney, Country CEO & Managing Director, Renault India Operations, said in a statement.Other carmakers such as Nissan, Ford, Tata Motors and Honda are yet to report their December numbers.The NSE Nifty was down 40 point at 8,145.Analysts had by and large expected auto companies to post weak numbers for December 2016 in view of the impact of demonetisation. Two-wheeler makers were hit the most, according to them.”The real impact of demonetization on auto sales volumes is expected to be felt in December-16. Post our interaction with various dealers, we expect M&M in the PV space, Hero in 2Ws and Ashok Leyland in CVs to be hit the most. MSIL is relatively well placed on account of its waiting period for Baleno and Brezza,” Motilal Oswal Securities had said in a note earlierNomura had predicted a similar trend. “We expect December wholesales to be impacted by a sharp decline in retail sales due to demonetisation, and inventory de-stocking by OEMs to clear off 2016 model year inventory. Our channel checks indicate that rural retails are impacted more (double-digit decline) compared with the urban segment, due to the liquidity crunch.”last_img read more

HTML5 spec editor slams Google gangs DRM bid

first_img More information: lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/p … ml/2012Feb/0274.htmldvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw- … encrypted-media.html YouTube expands support for HTML5 (PhysOrg.com) — A draft proposal by Google, Microsoft and Netflix to introduce mechanisms for copy protection on web videos has generated strong opposition and a response that the proposal is “unethical.” Reaction has been strong against the powerful trio’s bid to see HTML5 carry digital rights management (DRM) tools. Explore further Citation: HTML5 spec editor slams Google & gang’s DRM bid (2012, February 25) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2012-02-html5-spec-editor-slams-google.htmlcenter_img On the opposing side, developers and supporters of open systems argue that the very idea of adding DRM protection to video goes against the spirit of HTML5. “Any technology whose exclusive goal is to stop users from being able to make use of the content they have purchased is, in my opinion, unethical,” said Ian Hickson, HTML specification editor, in an interview with CNET. For Hickson, the Google-Microsoft-Netflix proposal is “just a plug-in platform in disguise.”The plan calls for proprietary plug-ins, called CDMs, or content decryption modules, which is not amenable to the open nature of HTML5, according to opposing arguments.The whole point of HTML5 is to move away from plug-ins; the introduction of such extensions, Hickson argued, would be tantamount to keeping plug-ins around.Specifically, Google, Microsoft and Netflix this week proposed a new web standard, in the form of the Encrypted Media Extensions proposal, and announced it on a W3C mailing list.The draft spells out a framework for bringing forth a system that manages protected content on the web browser. The proposed Encrypted Media Extensions standard would add a new set of API extensions for the HTMLMediaElement. The latter defines specialized properties and JavaScript methods available on HTML audio and video elements. These extensions would introduce DRM capabilities to HTML5-provided video.Whether some form of content protection is even necessary, leave alone ethical, is part of the present debate.Digital rights management permits only authorized video and audio. A solution to unauthorized copying has been seen in browser plug-ins for DRM protection. Hickson said he would rather see copyright law, not proprietary mechanisms, governing the use of video. He said there was no need for technology to protect content; the presence of copyright law was adequate.What next? Since the spec being proposed by the threesome is a draft, tech watchers see no guarantees that what the three propose will become an accepted standard, but at the same time there can be no guarantees that the debate will go south.Pressure to add some kind of DRM to HTML5 video is likely to continue, writes Scott Gilbertson in Webmonkey. “With Hickson very adamantly against it and Mozilla unlikely to support it in its current form, it’s not likely to move beyond the draft stage without some serious revisions.” © 2011 PhysOrg.com This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.last_img read more