A high-level Indian delegation visited HD Hyundai Heavy Industries (HD HHI)’ shipyard in Ulsan, South Korea, on Dec. 3, marking a significant step in fostering bilateral cooperation in shipbuilding. The delegation, coined the “Indian Shipbuilding Delegation,” comprised key figures including R. Lakshmanan, Joint Secretary of India’s Ministry of Ports, Shipping, and Waterways; Shri Madhu Nair, Chairman and Managing Director of Cochin Shipyard; and Binesh Kumar Tyagi, Chairman and Managing Director of the Shipping Corporation of India (SCI). They were guided by Cho Min-su, Vice President and Head of the shipbuilding business division at the shipbuilding company. Their visit was the first of its kind in nearly a decade, following Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 2015 trip to South Korea. During the visit, the delegation toured HD HHI’s expansive docks and land yards, which have the capacity to construct up to 50 large-scale vessels annually. They also received a detailed briefing on the shipyard’s advanced technologies, including its eco-friendly shipbuilding processes. A delegation representative reportedly emphasized the urgent need for India to acquire a diverse fleet of vessels on a large scale to address its growing maritime demands. Central to the visit was the objective of acquiring 1,000 new commercial vessels, including containerships, liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers, ultra-large crude carriers (ULCCs), and car carriers. To further these ambitions, the delegation also visited Hanwha Ocean and Samsung Heavy Industries (SHI), completing a comprehensive tour of South Korea’s “Big Three” shipyards. India has set ambitious goals to advance its shipbuilding industry, which currently represents less than 1% of the global market. The country has unveiled a strategic roadmap targeting a global top-10 rank in shipbuilding by 2030, with aspirations to enter the top five by 2047. India’s efforts to bolster its maritime capabilities align with South Korea’s position as a global leader in shipbuilding. South Korea’s shipyards are recognized for their cutting-edge technology and robust infrastructure, making them key partners in India’s shipbuilding aspirations. The Modi administration’s strategy mirrors a similar initiative by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump last month, which emphasized South Korea’s leadership in ship and warship construction and called for closer collaboration. India’s reliance on maritime trade highlights the urgency of strengthening its domestic shipbuilding sector. With 95% of its trade volume transported by sea, India spends approximately 110 trillion won ($75.4 billion) annually leasing foreign-owned ships. This figure is expected to rise sharply to 500 trillion won ($342.53 billion) by 2047 as trade volumes grow. Despite having 28 domestic shipyards, most are limited to producing small and medium-sized vessels, such as ferries, and lack the capacity to construct large-scale commercial ships. The U.S. is grappling with a critical challenge in naval power, a key factor in its ongoing maritime dominance rivalry with China in the South China Sea and beyond. The decline of its domestic shipbuilding infrastructure has led to repair times stretching to several months for essential assets like submarines. The U.S. naval Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul (MRO) market alone is estimated to be worth approximately 20 trillion won ($13.7 billion) annually. South Korea, having endured a prolonged industry downturn in the 2010s, has reemerged as a global powerhouse in shipbuilding. Since its inception in the 1970s, South Korea’s shipbuilding industry has experienced rapid growth, surpassing Japanese and European competitors by the late 1990s. While China now leads in production volume, South Korea remains dominant in high-value markets, particularly LNG carriers and eco-friendly dual-fuel technologies. Strategic hubs like Busan, Ulsan, and Geoje have fostered a robust industrial ecosystem, allowing the country to maintain its technological edge. Despite challenges from China’s aggressive pricing and Japan’s restructuring efforts, South Korea’s focus on specialized, high-value ship types has solidified its competitive advantage. South Korea’s shipbuilding expertise spans a wide range of sectors, including vessels for transporting energy resources, containerships, and naval ships. Its LNG carriers, regarded as the gold standard in the industry, have gained prominence amid heightened energy security concerns following the Russia-Ukraine war. Source: The Chosun DailyRICHMOND, Ky. (AP) — Matt Morrissey threw a 67-yard touchdown pass to Marcus Calwise Jr. that ended the scoring midway through the fourth quarter and Eastern Kentucky beat North Alabama 21-15 on Saturday for its fifth straight win. TJ Smith drove North Alabama to the EKU 45-yard line before he threw an interception to Mike Smith Jr. to end the game.
Post Tornado, Rogers County, Okla., Considers Tech Projects
SMU has plenty to play for when it closes the regular season against California on Saturday afternoon in Dallas. The Mustangs (10-1, 7-0 Atlantic Coast Conference), who checked in at No. 9 in the latest College Football Playoff rankings on Tuesday, would like to send their seniors off the right way. They would also like to complete a perfect regular season before appearing in the ACC title game in their first year in the conference. Most importantly, they want to continue to strengthen their playoff case. "You've got the College Football Playoff, so every game matters. That's what's so cool about it now. The regular season is important," SMU coach Rhett Lashlee said. "We'd like to finish well in everything we do, particularly on Saturday, to finish off the regular season, continue our momentum into the following week. Hopefully, continue to show the committee and others that we're worthy of continuing to play this year." The Mustangs are a worthy playoff team to date. Kevin Jennings has established himself as one of the top quarterbacks in the country, throwing for 2,521 yards with 17 touchdowns and seven interceptions. He also has rushed for 315 yards and four TDs. Brashard Smith has been another standout, rushing for 1,089 yards and 13 TDs. Defensively, the Mustangs rank tied for 14th in the country with 20 takeaways. "Obviously they've had a phenomenal season," Cal coach Justin Wilcox said of SMU. "As soon as you turn the tape on, it doesn't take very long to see why their record is what it is. They're very, very good really in every phase of the game - extremely explosive and quick and fast. They've got a dominant D-line. We've got a lot of challenges in front of us and our guys are excited for that." Cal (6-5, 2-5) is coming off an emotional win, defeating rival Stanford 24-21 on Saturday to secure a bowl berth. The Golden Bears will appear in consecutive bowls for the first time since 2018-19 and are now looking to clinch their first winning season since 2019. SMU is not overlooking Cal, as all five of the Golden Bears' losses have come by one score. "You'd be hard-pressed to find a better 6-5 team in America," Lashlee said. "I think you can conservatively say they very, very easily could be 9-2." Cal is led by quarterback Fernando Mendoza, who has thrown for 3,004 yards with 16 touchdowns and six interceptions. Tight end Jack Endries leads the team with 555 yards receiving, while wide receiver Nyziah Hunter has caught a team-leading five touchdowns. Defensively, Cal has the ACC's top scoring defense (20.7 points per game) and is tied with Clemson for the ACC's best turnover margin (plus-13). Defensive back Nohl Williams is the star of the group -- he leads the country with seven interceptions. Even though oddsmakers are heavily favoring SMU, Cal is going into the game with a simple mindset. "Our task at hand is to make the best bowl game right now," Mendoza said. "And the way to do that is to go into Dallas, give it our best and ruin SMU's season." Saturday will mark the first conference meeting between these ACC newcomers, and just the second meeting between the programs all time. SMU won a 13-6 game back in 1957. --Field Level Media
Louisville scores 52 second-half points to race past No. 14 Indiana 89-61 in the Battle 4 AtlantisIs this London's best kept cultural secret? A royal palace turned parking lot is reinventing itself — againAdam Schiff Sworn in as California’s Newest U.S. Senator to Fill Late Feinstein’s Seat
Saudi Arabia's plans to host the men's World Cup 2034 will be harmful for the climate, experts say
20 unaccounted for ballots in close Minnesota House race were likely thrown away, county attorney saysSMU has plenty to play for when it closes the regular season against California on Saturday afternoon in Dallas. The Mustangs (10-1, 7-0 Atlantic Coast Conference), who checked in at No. 9 in the latest College Football Playoff rankings on Tuesday, would like to send their seniors off the right way. They would also like to complete a perfect regular season before appearing in the ACC title game in their first year in the conference. Most importantly, they want to continue to strengthen their playoff case. "You've got the College Football Playoff, so every game matters. That's what's so cool about it now. The regular season is important," SMU coach Rhett Lashlee said. "We'd like to finish well in everything we do, particularly on Saturday, to finish off the regular season, continue our momentum into the following week. Hopefully, continue to show the committee and others that we're worthy of continuing to play this year." The Mustangs are a worthy playoff team to date. Kevin Jennings has established himself as one of the top quarterbacks in the country, throwing for 2,521 yards with 17 touchdowns and seven interceptions. He also has rushed for 315 yards and four TDs. Brashard Smith has been another standout, rushing for 1,089 yards and 13 TDs. Defensively, the Mustangs rank tied for 14th in the country with 20 takeaways. "Obviously they've had a phenomenal season," Cal coach Justin Wilcox said of SMU. "As soon as you turn the tape on, it doesn't take very long to see why their record is what it is. They're very, very good really in every phase of the game - extremely explosive and quick and fast. They've got a dominant D-line. We've got a lot of challenges in front of us and our guys are excited for that." Cal (6-5, 2-5) is coming off an emotional win, defeating rival Stanford 24-21 on Saturday to secure a bowl berth. The Golden Bears will appear in consecutive bowls for the first time since 2018-19 and are now looking to clinch their first winning season since 2019. SMU is not overlooking Cal, as all five of the Golden Bears' losses have come by one score. "You'd be hard-pressed to find a better 6-5 team in America," Lashlee said. "I think you can conservatively say they very, very easily could be 9-2." Cal is led by quarterback Fernando Mendoza, who has thrown for 3,004 yards with 16 touchdowns and six interceptions. Tight end Jack Endries leads the team with 555 yards receiving, while wide receiver Nyziah Hunter has caught a team-leading five touchdowns. Defensively, Cal has the ACC's top scoring defense (20.7 points per game) and is tied with Clemson for the ACC's best turnover margin (plus-13). Defensive back Nohl Williams is the star of the group -- he leads the country with seven interceptions. Even though oddsmakers are heavily favoring SMU, Cal is going into the game with a simple mindset. "Our task at hand is to make the best bowl game right now," Mendoza said. "And the way to do that is to go into Dallas, give it our best and ruin SMU's season." Saturday will mark the first conference meeting between these ACC newcomers, and just the second meeting between the programs all time. SMU won a 13-6 game back in 1957. --Field Level Media
WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump has promised to as soon as he gets into office to make good on campaign promises aiming and redefining what it means to be American. But any efforts to halt the policy would face steep legal hurdles. Birthright citizenship means anyone born in the United States automatically becomes an American citizen. It’s been in place for decades and applies to children born to someone in the country illegally or in the U.S. on a tourist or student visa who plans to return to their home country. It’s not the practice of every country, and Trump and his supporters have argued that the system is being abused and that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen. But others say this is a right enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, it would be extremely difficult to overturn and even if it’s possible, it’s a bad idea. Here’s a look at birthright citizenship, what Trump has said about it and the prospects for ending it: During an interview Sunday on Trump said he “absolutely” planned to halt birthright citizenship once in office. “We’re going to end that because it’s ridiculous,” he said. Trump and other opponents of birthright citizenship have argued that it creates an incentive for people to come to the U.S. illegally or take part in pregnant women enter the U.S. specifically to give birth so their children can have citizenship before returning to their home countries. “Simply crossing the border and having a child should not entitle anyone to citizenship,” said Eric Ruark, director of research for NumbersUSA, which argues for reducing immigration. The organization supports changes that would require at least one parent to be a permanent legal resident or a U.S. citizen for their children to automatically get citizenship. Others have argued that ending birthright citizenship would profoundly damage the country. “One of our big benefits is that people born here are citizens, are not an illegal underclass. There’s better assimilation and integration of immigrants and their children because of birthright citizenship,” said Alex Nowrasteh, vice president for economic and social policy studies at the pro-immigration Cato Institute. In 2019, the Migration Policy Institute estimated that 5.5 million children under age 18 lived with at least one parent in the country illegally in 2019, representing 7% of the U.S. child population. The vast majority of those children were U.S. citizens. The nonpartisan think tank said during Trump’s campaign for president in 2015 that the number of people in the country illegally would “balloon” if birthright citizenship were repealed, creating “a self-perpetuating class that would be excluded from social membership for generations.” In the aftermath of the Civil War, Congress ratified the 14th Amendment in July 1868. That amendment assured citizenship for all, including Black people. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” the 14th Amendment says. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” But the 14th Amendment didn’t always translate to everyone being afforded birthright citizenship. For example, it wasn’t until 1924 that Congress finally granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S. A key case in the history of birthright citizenship came in 1898, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was a U.S. citizen because he was born in the states. The federal government had tried to deny him reentry into the county after a trip abroad on grounds he wasn’t a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act. But some have argued that the 1898 case clearly applied to children born of parents who are both legal immigrants to America but that it’s less clear whether it applies to children born to parents without legal status or, for example, who come for a short-term like a tourist visa. “That is the leading case on this. In fact, it’s the only case on this,” said Andrew Arthur, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports immigration restrictions. “It’s a lot more of an open legal question than most people think.” Some proponents of immigration restrictions have argued the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment allows the U.S. to deny citizenship to babies born to those in the country illegally. Trump himself used that language in his 2023 announcement that he would aim to end birthright citizenship if reelected. Trump wasn’t clear in his Sunday interview how he aims to end birthright citizenship. Asked how he could get around the 14th Amendment with an executive action, Trump said: “Well, we’re going to have to get it changed. We’ll maybe have to go back to the people. But we have to end it.” Pressed further on whether he’d use an executive order, Trump said “if we can, through executive action.” He gave a lot more details in a . In it, he said he would issue an executive order the first day of his presidency, making it clear that federal agencies “require that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident for their future children to become automatic U.S. citizens.” Trump wrote that the executive order would make clear that children of people in the U.S. illegally “should not be issued passports, Social Security numbers, or be eligible for certain taxpayer funded welfare benefits.” This would almost certainly end up in litigation. Nowrasteh from the Cato Institute said the law is clear that birthright citizenship can’t be ended by executive order but that Trump may be inclined to take a shot anyway through the courts. “I don’t take his statements very seriously. He has been saying things like this for almost a decade,” Nowrasteh said. “He didn’t do anything to further this agenda when he was president before. The law and judges are near uniformly opposed to his legal theory that the children of illegal immigrants born in the United States are not citizens.” Trump could steer Congress to pass a law to end birthright citizenship but would still face a legal challenge that it violates the Constitution.( MENAFN - Robotics & automation News) Opinion: Will autonomous cars ever gain regulatory approval to operate freely on public roads? The news that General Motors has decided to fold cruise into its overall business should send shock waves through the industry. If Cruise can't do it, with all its money and giant parent's backing, who can? Cruise is a relatively new startup which had huge optimism around it because several billion dollars were invested into it and a lot of people still believe autonomous cars are the future of global road traffic. But after burning through $10 billion and only generating $500 million in revenue, Cruise seems to have lost its parent company's confidence and has now been absorbed into the historic automotive giant, with its technology being repackaged into GM production cars as, essentially, an advanced driver assistance system called“Super Cruise”. The imminent disappearance of a specialist autonomous car developer of such a size raises the question of whether the nascent autonomous car sector has any hope at all to become a sizeable market. Or whether a combination of regulatory hurdles, public apprehension and technological limitations will turn everything into the proverbial white elephant, with tens of billions invested and little to nothing in return. Autonomous vehicles represent a technological leap that had promised – and still promises – to revolutionise transportation. Its proponents are always keen to promote the potential to reduce accidents, improve traffic efficiency, and lower emissions. Despite unconvincing evidence for such claims, these vehicles are often heralded as the future of mobility. Yet, despite years of development and billions of dollars in investments, their widespread adoption remains uncertain – unless you're watching sci-fi films, in which case they are everywhere. The critical question is: Are autonomous cars safe enough to convince regulators and governments to allow them to operate freely on public roads? This article explores the safety, regulatory, and economic dimensions of this question, using examples from test programs around the globe and examining what the future holds for the industry. Over the past decade, autonomous vehicle technology has advanced significantly. Companies like Waymo, Tesla, and Baidu have made strides in areas such as lidar, AI-powered navigation, and vehicle-to-vehicle communication. For instance, Waymo has conducted extensive trials in Phoenix, Arizona, where its driverless taxis operate under controlled conditions. Similarly, Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) system, while controversial, has amassed vast amounts of real-world driving data. Despite these advancements, challenges persist. Autonomous systems often struggle with so-called“edge cases” – rare but critical scenarios like erratic pedestrian behaviour or ambiguous road markings. Additionally, sensor reliability in adverse weather conditions, such as heavy rain or snow, remains a major hurdle. These limitations underline the gap between the promise of autonomous vehicles and their readiness for unrestricted use on public roads. Taken together, these technological limitations mean that fully autonomous vehicles on regular public roads are not going to happen in the foreseeable future. In 10-15 years maybe, possibly, but not anytime before that. But that's just our view. Regulators worldwide are cautious about allowing autonomous vehicles to operate freely. Safety is the foremost concern: any failure in an autonomous vehicle system could have catastrophic consequences. Governments and regulatory bodies demand near-zero failure rates, a standard that current technology emphatically has not met. Examples of regulatory roadblocks abound. In California, stringent testing requirements have slowed the implementation of autonomous vehicles, even for companies with significant technological prowess. In Europe, regulators have adopted a similarly cautious approach, emphasising strict compliance with safety standards and liability frameworks. Public perception also plays a significant role; incidents like the fatal Uber self-driving car crash in 2018 have prompted scepticism and heightened scrutiny. And with good reason. The fact is that, in completely new and unforeseen situations, an autonomous car cannot use its own judgment because it hasn't got any; and the data it has been trained on won't help because it doesn't contain any information about this new and novel situation because it may never have happened before or even have been imagined before. So, bridging the gap between current capabilities and regulatory expectations is a formidable task. Autonomous systems must achieve a level of reliability that matches or exceeds human drivers while addressing the unpredictability of human behaviour. Unfair though it may be, autonomous driving technology has got to surpass human drivers in many ways for it to convince the public. While advances in AI and machine learning show promise, they may never fully eliminate the edge cases that confound autonomous vehicles systems. Ethical dilemmas also complicate the path forward. Decision-making algorithms face scenarios akin to the classic trolley problem: should the car prioritise the safety of its passengers or pedestrians? Resolving these questions in a manner acceptable to regulators, insurers, and the public is crucial for autonomous vehicles to gain approval. And that is very unlikely in the near-term future. Yes, many autonomous vehicles are being operated on large, industrial sites or transport hubs where there are no pedestrians and far few obstacles, but the chaos of some public roads in the world would basically overload the circuits of a typical autonomous car – it just would not be able to cope. General Motors' decision to close Cruise highlights the immense challenges facing the industry. Despite years of development and significant investment, Cruise's progress was insufficient to justify continued funding. This move raises broader questions about the viability of autonomous vehicle companies. Other players in the field are adopting varied strategies. Waymo, for example, has pivoted toward partnerships with logistics and ride-hailing companies to create practical, revenue-generating applications for its technology. Meanwhile, Tesla continues to position its FSD system as a consumer-oriented product, albeit with significant controversy surrounding its safety claims. These differing approaches reflect the uncertainty and high stakes of the autonomous vehicle market. If autonomous vehicles were to gain regulatory approval, the market potential is immense. Estimates from McKinsey suggest that the global autonomous vehicles market could reach $1.6 trillion annually by 2030, encompassing ride-hailing, freight, and last-mile delivery. However, this growth depends on overcoming regulatory and technological hurdles, as well as public acceptance, none of which – as has been said repeatedly in this article but needs to be emphasised – has been done. Geographical differences also shape the market's outlook. Some analysts say that urban centres, with their dense populations and structured environments, are“more likely” to adopt autonomous vehicles than rural areas. They might point to countries like China, which have shown a willingness to rapidly implement emerging technologies, but we would argue that such an example is not appropriate. In fact, the opposite is more likely – there are fewer obstacles and complications on rural roads, desert roads and so on, so it stands to reason that autonomous cars will be better suited to such environments. Still, China might currently be leading the way, but that's because Chinese regulators are apparently not as strict in some ways as their counterparts in Europe and America. China still probably considers itself an emerging economy and may take risks that mature economies would not take in order to enable an apparently promising sector like autonomous vehicles to grow. That is a problem for many reasons, not least of which is that a less regulated environment may lead to faster refinement of the technology through trial and error – no matter how dangerous to humans that refinement process is. China, being the largest car market in the world, could incorporate autonomous cars into its public road system earlier than the West, which means that European and American car companies that are still developing autonomous cars should be able to get the returns on their investments over there. And then, maybe, eventually, sell in Europe and in America and the rest of the world. Regulatory caution in the US and Europe may slow progress in their respective regions, but that doesn't mean that they can't enter the market at a later stage. When Japanese watchmakers started producing cheap quartz watches in the 1960s and '70s, they nearly killed off the entire Swiss watchmaking industry. But the technological shift had to take place. Switzerland was essentially stuck in past, with unions and regulators preventing the modernisation of the watchmaking sector. But when quartz watches outsold mechanical watches for the first time in 1970, the Swiss watchmakers realised they had to change. Switzerland reorganised itself to adapt and is still the fourth-largest watchmaking nation in the world today . Similarly, when Japanese carmakers produced cheap, reliable cars that put European and American cars to shame because of their constant breaking down and so on – let's be honest – it forced Western carmakers to improve the product and that, in turn, led to maintaining a very large worldwide market share. At least half the car brands in any top 10 global list will be American or European car companies. The dream of autonomous vehicles operating freely on public roads remains elusive. In fact, for now, it could be argued that it's nothing but a pipe dream. Technological challenges, regulatory hurdles, and public scepticism form significant barriers that will take years, if not decades, to overcome. While we do believe that autonomous cars and vehicles will eventually outnumber human-driven cars on the road, that eventuality is more than a decade away – we'd say several decades but we don't want to depress everyone too much. Companies developing autonomous cars face tough decisions about whether to continue investing in this space or pivot to other opportunities, like GM has decided. While the market potential is vast, making money in it requires substantial breakthroughs in both technology and policy. As the industry navigates these complexities, one question looms large: Will autonomous vehicles ever be safe enough to earn the approval of the regulators and the trust of the public? Until that question is answered, the road to widespread adoption will remain a long and rocky one. MENAFN13122024005532012229ID1108992067 Legal Disclaimer: MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.