data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0b151/0b151b6c14103367545811e5fb2f5c1d30e7e2f3" alt=""
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Obama in Kabul on tour of war zone
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0b151/0b151b6c14103367545811e5fb2f5c1d30e7e2f3" alt=""
Solana: no clear answer from Iran over nuclear proposal
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/138cd/138cdcac5dc7727522d9e3ebcab1e9fbd14abb25" alt=""
GENEVA, July 19, 2008 -- Iran has given no clear answer to a package of incentives for suspending its nuclear program, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said Saturday.
"We didn't get the answer to our questions," Solana said at a press conference after talks with Iran's top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili in the presence of U.S. Undersecretary of State William Burns and senior diplomats from China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany.
"We hope very much we get the answer and we hope it will be done in a couple of weeks," he said.
The package of incentives, presented last month by the five UN Security Council permanent members plus Germany, suggests that Iran get a temporary reprieve from economic and financial sanctions in exchange for freezing its enrichment activities.
Preliminary negotiations over a permanent halt could then begin, although the United States would not join them until after Iran agrees to fully suspend uranium enrichment.
But Solana appraised the one-day meeting as "constructive." He said they talked frankly about everything, including common points as well as differences on the nuclear issue.
He also expressed belief that the issue should be resolved through cooperation instead of confrontation.
Jalili also said the meeting was constructive and it enhanced the understanding of each other's views.
According to the nuclear negotiator, Iran has also presented its own package of proposals on solving the nuclear issue, and that package contains "a number of opportunities that should not be lost."
Jalili said Iran's package and the six powers' package has many common grounds, and the parties at the meeting had agreed to hold further talks on those common grounds.
This is the first time that senior diplomats from all the six world powers join Solana in direct talks with the Iranians on the nuclear issues.
"It showed a shared commitment and sincerity from the participants to solve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomatic negotiations," said Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Liu Jieyi, who represented China at the meeting.
Indian soldiers killed in Kashmir blast
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/724a9/724a981b3541bb50d98d755344d4bc59df3b86ac" alt=""
Cobra Wheeled Light Armoured Vehicle, Turkey
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e23ad/e23ad65ce4026b422264db9894018180edc34d73" alt=""
Unmanned aircraft market to soar
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dd590/dd59084159763c620d758c2fec3e4700b4c25a16" alt=""
Thailand and Cambodia retain political tensions driving temple row
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/86e57/86e572223b6ae5b48c89219c57153f1c3a40120f" alt=""
Etihad places 55 firm aircraft orders with Airbus
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d06dc/d06dc032433759b8401a7b7e6950f78dd7ec365c" alt=""
Beijing opens 3 new subway lines ahead of Olympics
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f26f1/f26f1521a241f2dd41dbc4b42bda4dada55e342c" alt=""
Singapore Trainer Candidates Get in Line
China puts its latest fighter jet on display
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c7638/c76382b4f967f856e1667b4229b1ca602d3cd67c" alt=""
Croatian Navy to Buy Two Finnish Missile Boats
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/aa608/aa608bb02a23cda6bcce27ac19735077c1c13933" alt=""
Why India might overtake China
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0e511/0e511ec8ac7add5a7610abfd3a3b93c138dd2a5a" alt=""
July 19, 2008: It has only been a few years since Asia bulls have been touting the arrival of the Chinese Century, citing that nation's enormous potential.
Now, get ready for predictions of the India Century.
That, in fact, was the title of a recent white paper by the Chicago-based consultancy Keystone-India, founded by a group of top economists from Ernst & Young who believe that India is on track to surpass China in growth. "We believe this is India's moment," declares Keystone Chief Economist William T Wilson.
China has a two decade-long track record of 9.5% average annual growth, exports 10 times as much as India, and dwarfs India as a magnet for foreign investment.
By contrast, India has achieved an annual growth rate of 7% or higher only seven times in the past two decades. And largely because of its unruly politics and stifling bureaucracy, it wasn't long ago that economists bemoaned the "Hindu growth rate," implying the nation is simply culturally incapable of achieving high growth.
Even under Keystone's projections, India wouldn't match China's current hypergrowth rates for at least another 15 years. And even by 2050, China's economy would be bigger measured in US dollars.
But longer term, Keystone contends India will be in a stronger position. It projects that China's average annual growth will peak at 8.8 per cent over the next five years, and then gradually trend downward to under 7 per cent in the 2020s and around 4% by the 2040s.
India's annual growth is projected to rise to around 7.3 per cent by 2010 and stay over 7 per cent until the mid-2030s, and still be in the 6% range until 2050.
Why is Keystone so bullish? Some of the key reasons:
Demographics
The biggest reason India has more long-term growth potential is simply that its population is younger and is growing more quickly than China's. Currently, China has 300 million more people than India.
But because of its very low birth rate, largely due to the one-child policy, China's population is expected to peak at around 1.45 billion by 2030.
India's population is expected to increase by 350 million by 2030, more new people than the US, Western Europe, and China combined. India will have 200 million more people than China by midcentury.
What's more, China's population is aging rapidly. As a result, the number of working-age Chinese is projected to peak in 2020 and start declining steadily thereafter, while India's workforce will keep growing for at least four more decades.
However, India's fertility rate also is declining, meaning future families will have fewer children to support and more to spend on consumption.
Development experts call this combination of a growing workforce and declining fertility a 'demographic dividend,' which helped power explosive economic growth in East Asia's Tiger economies from the 1960s through the early 1990s.
Capital Efficiency
The big driver of China's economic growth has been massive investment, equal to 40% to 45% of gross domestic product a year, an extraordinarily high rate on world standards?and twice the percentage of India's.
In 2004, investment in China was equal to half of its $1.5 trillion in GDP. In that context, China's 9.5% growth rate that year shouldn't be too surprising."It is staggering how much investment was needed to power Chinese growth in recent years," Wilson notes. "Any nation investing half of GDP in fixed-capital income looks a lot like pre-crisis Asia."
India, however, gets much more bang for the rupee. It has achieved 6% average growth with an investment rate half that of China's, around 22% to 23% a year.
Many signs point to big increases in investment in India, Wilson says.
In fact, he estimates investment in India could reach 35% of GDP within a decade, which would enable it to match China's 9% plus growth. One reason is that the savings rate in India rose from 23.5% of GDP in 2001 to 28.1% in 2004.
And because of its growing workforce and the decline in family size, India's savings rate should continue to rise to a projected 37% in 20 years.Since investment is highly correlated to domestic savings, that should translate into higher investment and economic growth.
Meanwhile, the rapidly aging population of China means that its savings rate also is likely to drop in the future, as it has in most other nations with graying workforces.
Second, India thus far has gotten by with minimal foreign investment. Keystone notes that in the past four years alone, China has drawn $200 billion more in foreign investment.
However, India is planning to open up many long-protected sectors that have great allure to foreign investors?and that could draw huge inflows of money.
They include telecom, where Indian demand now is growing even faster than China's, commercial real estate, and department stores. Although some of the reforms have stalled recently due to domestic political opposition, Wilson believes the government will prevail.
"If you look at the institutional changes and the number of industries that have liberalised over the past five years, the pace has been phenomenal,? he says.
Wilson predicts India's real estate sector will draw a huge influx of money from foreign hedge funds, and liberalisation of retail will be 'the real big bang' for the economy.
New Entrepreneurs
Indian industry so far has been led by many of the big business families and conglomerates that dominated when India was still a quasi-socialist, heavily regulated economy.
They generally have done a good job of taking advantage of new opportunities offered by liberalization since the early 1990s. But the more dynamic companies in India are smaller ones that are led by new generations of entrepreneurs who take greater risks or are more connected to the global economy.
These new companies also have more creative managers, argues Debashis Ghosh, another Keystone partner who worked at Ernst & Young.
Keystone focuses on researching mid-sized Indian companies with $10 million to $100 million in annual sales.
"The bigger companies are still led by oldschool types who used to depend on access to government and got huge when there was nobody else in the game.
"Because they had scale, foreigners had to deal with them," says Ghosh.
"Now, though, the top talent from the Indian Institutes of Technology and the Indian Institutes of Management are flowing into the mid-sized sector. That is like getting a management team of all Wharton and Massachusetts Institute of Technology grads."
As a result, he contends that the Indian companies of the future are more dynamic than those of China, where management tends to be weak.
Higher Productivity
India has averaged respectable productivity growth of 2.5% a year over the past two decades. But that can grow sharply, thanks to liberalization of many industries, a literacy rate that has risen from 18% in 1951 to 65% now, and India's rising openness to foreign trade, which has jumped from 15% of GDP in 1991 to 26% now.
Manufacturing Surge China dwarfs India as a manufacturing power, especially for export.
And it will be a long time before India, with its inadequate infrastructure and components supply base, will be a serious export rival. But in recent years, India's domestic manufacturing industry has been growing strongly.
What's more, a number of Indian companies are especially strong in high-end manufacturing, such as auto parts, power generators, and medical equipment, that requires a lot of engineering.
In terms of quality and efficiency, several Indian auto parts companies are on par with the US.
"If you look at engineering work across the board, in industries from pharmaceuticals to telecom, what India is doing is an order of magnitude beyond what China is doing," says Keystone's Ghosh.
Anyone who visits both countries today may find it hard to imagine India overtaking China in economic performance.
But when you look at the fundamental drivers?growth in the workforce, fixed investment, and productivity -- over the long run the prospect looks a lot more plausible.
Artillery Gun Module (AGM) Medium Weight Self Propelled Howitzer, Germany
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/65d2b/65d2b3d82f62b3ee8298b9e029814e94bda8f25c" alt=""
July 19, 2008: Krauss-Maffei Wegmann's Artillery Gun Module (AGM) is an air-transportable, medium-weight, turreted self-propelled howitzer based on the proven technology of the PzH 2000 SP howitzer in service with the German Army. The system is fully autonomous and provides the same performance as the PzH 2000, but with reduced cost, crew levels and weight.
"AGM is an air-transportable, medium-weight, turreted self-propelled howitzer."
The gun module can be fitted on a tracked or wheeled chassis. The intention is to integrate the gun module into available in-service chassis for the customer country and to set up co-production arrangements with the local in-country chassis producer to provide a cost effective and medium weight indirect fire support platform.
The first demonstrator was completed in 2004. The verification phase was finished in early 2007.
The artillery gun module development has been based on the 155mm / L52-calibre gun but the system could also be adapted for a lighter gun such as a 105mm gun or 39-calibre 155mm gun.
The module can be fitted on a heavy 6x6 or 8x8 chassis, a tracked Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) hull or a main battle tank hull. It is necessary to fit hydraulically operated stabilisers and firing spades to wheeled platforms for the vehicle to withstand the recoil. The AGM installed on an MLRS chassis has a combat weight of 27t. Mounted on a 6x6 truck the combat weight is about 22.5t compared to the PzH 2000 combat weight of about 55t.
Under a completely separate programme led by shipbuilders HDW, a naval modular artillery gun, MONARC, is being developed that integrates the gun turret and autoloader from the PzH 2000 into the deck of a naval vessel.
PROOF-OF-PRINCIPLE DEMONSTRATOR
The development programme was started in early 2003. A proof-of-principle demonstrator has been built with a 52-calibre gun mounted on an MLRS tracked chassis. Preliminary verification firing trials of the proof-of-principle demonstrator were successfully carried out at the German Army's live firing range at Meppen in August and September 2004. 79 rounds were fired during the trials. Most were Zone 6 firings using Rheinmettall DM72 charge systems with a 52°C charge temperature.
The proof-of-principle demonstrator was not built with an autoloader and was manually loaded for the trials. The system successfully fired with the turret in the forward and rear positions and up to 45° in azimuth on either side of these positions. The firing tests were completed at all elevations. Some firings, but not at all elevations, were carried out with the turret at 90° to the forward position and using the most powerful Zone 6 charges.
"The AGM can fire against stationary and moving targets at a rate of six to eight rounds a minute."
SECOND DEMONSTRATOR
Assembly of a fully functioning second demonstrator started in the second quarter of 2005. The demonstrator includes a fully automatic loading system which loads the projectiles and the charges. A new six-cylinder engine and transmission is intended to be installed in the next evolutionary step.
GUN MODULE
The system is operated by a crew of two. The AGM uses the main gun components from the PzH 2000 – the barrel and elevating mass, the shell loader and flick rammer. The system also has a separate dedicated auxiliary power unit. The turret is of lightweight aluminium armour construction.
The 12.5t turret carries 30 projectiles and charges. The autoloader is based on a modified PzH 2000 shell loader and an automatic charge loader. The charge loader will automatically compose the selected charges using any Joint Ballistics Memorandum of Understanding (JBMOU) compliant charge module. The autoloader is powered by a 24V electrical supply.
A lifting system is installed at the front of the turret allowing the crew to reload the magazine from outside the vehicle. The ammunition feed has an automatic inductive fuse setting system. The pneumatically operated flick rammer rams the shells into the breech with elevation angle-dependent ramming pressure control.
CHASSIS
The MLRS chassis is modified with stronger torsion bars and extra shock absorbers.
The crew cabin is separated from the firing module. The crew cabin is fitted with a computerised fire control system with the NATO armament ballistic kernel software implemented and linked to the KMW artillery command and control system or to other command and control systems. The system can be loaded and fired manually.
The cabin provides protection against small arms rounds, anti-personnel mines, bomblets and nuclear, biological and chemical warfare attack.
PERFORMANCE
The AGM can fire against stationary and moving targets at a rate of six to eight rounds a minute including Multiple-Round Simultaneous-Impact (MRSI) firing. Using standard rounds the maximum range is 30km; this is increased to more than 40km with base bleed rounds.
"The artillery gun module development has been based on the 155mm / L52-calibre gun."
The into-action and out-of-action times for the AGM are similar to those of the PzH 2000 – approximately 30 seconds. The system receives target data via a radio link either while it is on the move or in a defilade position. The laying and loading data is computed and the firing command is executed. Immediately after firing the last round, the vehicle leaves the firing position in a shoot-and-scoot manoeuvre to avoid counter battery fire.
AIR TRANSPORTABILITY
The howitzer on the MLRS chassis is air transportable on an Airbus A400M transporter aircraft. With the gun in the forward position lowered over the cab the barrel overhangs the vehicle by 2.5m. For air transport, the artillery gun module is 10.42m long, 2.97m wide and 3.06m high.
A Comparison of Primate and Dolphin Intelligence as a Metaphor for the Validity of Comparative Studies of Intelligence
A Comparison of Primate and Dolphin Intelligence as a Metaphor for the Validity of Comparative Studies of Intelligence
Primates and cetacean have been considered by some to be extremely intelligent creatures, second only to humans. Their exalted status in the animal kingdom has lead to their involvement in many experiments which hope to gain a better understanding of the basis of human intelligence. These experiments coupled with analysis of primate and cetaceans brain structure has lead to many theories as to the development of intelligence as a trait. Although these theories seem to be sound, there is some controversy over the degree to which non-human studies can be used to infer about the structure of human intelligence.
By many of the physical methods of comparing intelligence, such as measuring the brain size to body size ratio, cetacean surpass non-human primates and even rival human beings. For example dolphins have a cerebral cortex which is about 40% larger a human being's. Their cortex is also stratified in much the same way as a humans. The frontal lobe of dolphins is also developed to a level comparable to humans. In addition the parietal lobe of dolphins which "makes sense of the senses" is larger than the human parietal and frontal lobes combined. The similarities do not end there, most cetaceans have large and well developed temporal lobes which contain sections equivalent to Broca's and Wernicke's areas in humans .
Another major difference between primate and cetacean brains is that the primate brain favors the motor cortex, while "the cetaceans greatly favor the sensory region (and are not very balanced at all between the two)". In the final measure of brain complexity, neural density dolphins also measure up quite favorable to humans. In certain areas of the brain concerned with "emotional control, objectivity, reality orientation, humor, logically consistent abstract thought and higher creativity" dolphins have an higher ratio of neural density. This seems to be correlated with dolphins ability to maintain a healthy emotional state while in captivity; humans in analogous situations often don't fair as well emotionally.
Despite the complex structures discovered in the brains of dolphins, primates have been the main focus of intelligence research. One of the main reason for the focus on primates is that they seem to be so similar to humans in many ways, the most important being genetically. Besides basic genetic similarities, or perhaps because them, primates have many advanced brain structures some of which are similar to human brain structures. Most primates have and EQ the around 2.34 while humans have an EQ around 7. This may seem like are large difference, but when you consider that very few species have an EQ above 1, the difference is less profound. In addition to similarities in size and structure "primates devote more of their energy resources to their brains than do most other mammals", which is another important measure of intelligence.
Before non-human animals can be seen as intelligent a model must be created which can explain how intelligence would have developed through evolution. These theories must clearly establish how having a larger more sophisticated brain, could increase and organism's chance of survival. Once this question is addressed, then the question of whether the larger brain and the new behaviors it supports represents intelligence can be asked. Two of the hypotheses that deal with these issues are the foraging hypothesis and the social hypothesis.
The foraging model has been established mostly through research with non-human primates. The foraging model proposes that primate brains evolved in order to better allow them to remember the locations of sources of food across a wider range. In addition to the pressure to create better maps as to the location of food, some primates especially frugivores, also had to remember when fruits at various places would be ripe and worth. This created another selection pressure towards more sophisticated brains. A third source of evolutionary pressure on primate brains was that primates had to become more efficient at collecting food over a wider range. In order to accomplish this primates had to develop "complex extractive techniques requiring extensive sensorimotor coordination presumably subject to cortical control". These three selection pressure could have shape the evolution of primate brains individually, or more they all worked together to produce the primates we know today.
To support this hypothesis scientists have examined the differences between frugivore and foliovore monkeys. Frugivores generally have a much larger home ranges than foliovores and their resources are not as constant as foliovores', therefore according to the gather hypothesis frugivores should have a larger EQ. Research has demonstrated a correlation between the size of a home range and the EQ of the species, which would appear to support the gather hypothesis' prediction about furgivores and foliovores. But a more recent study found no relationship between the percentage of fruit in the diet and the EQ of the species. This study did not take into consideration the importance of fruit in the animals diet, so it still possible that the predicted difference may exist.
The second major theory about the evolution of intelligence is the social model. To live in a complex social group an organism must be able to form complex mental maps which represent the social hierarchy of the group. The organism must know where it stands in relation to all other members of its group as well as where other members stand in relations to each other. In order to perform all of the comparisons and remember them, according to the social hypothesis, an organism would need a more complex brain. Besides keeping relationships straight, organisms within a society also form alliance with other member of the group to create a more beneficial situation for themselves. This example of using other members of a groups as tools is another indication of intelligence required to maintain a social group.
The social hypothesis seems to be partially supported by dolphins and chimpanzees. Both dolphins and chimps live in complex societies in which there is constant alliance formation especially during mating season . And these two species also seem to posses brain complexity near that of humans, which would follow from the social theory. The problem with the theory is that the complexity of social systems has not be as well examined in other species, so it is difficult to conclude that complex social structure cannot exist without a complex brain. Another problem with the theory is that orangutans and gorilla's which don't have a complex social groups as chimps or dolphins also have high EQ's and complex brain structures.
Although both of these evolutionary theories seemed sound, there are some basic theoretical questions that may cast some doubt on their validity. One of these is the question of directional causality. It quite possible that the pressures to find food and form social groups did not select for organisms with larger brains, but instead as creature brains developed the were able to utilize more complex gathering strategies and adept and handling social relationships. It also may be that one new ability is a by-product of the system created for other purposes. For example it may be as the selection of organisms who could be remember the location of the food better changed the complexity of brain structures of the species, the species began to develop the ability to map social hierarchies. This in turn allowed for the formation of more complex societies. These new societies could have added selection pressures of their own or served to maintain the traits selected for by the need to find food.
Throughout this paper and much of comparative evolutionary theory, a basic assumption has been made; that the complexity of an animals brain coupled with the presence of certain behaviors if good evidence of an intelligence which can be on some level compared to humans. In fact just the presence of complex brain structures is often used as a clue to look for behavioral indications of intelligence. Despite this common assumption there are many researchers who feel that it is too early to make a statement either way about animal intelligence. This caution is probably best summed up in
Morgan's Cannon of interpretation which states:
In no case may we interpret an action as the outcome of the exercise of a higher psychical faculty, if it can be interpreted as the outcome of the exercise of one which stands lower in the psychological scale.
This statement is extremely relevant to comparative psychology because it calls for great skepticism in attributing intelligence to animals other than humans just because there appears to be no other explanation for an observed behavior or because the proper neurology seems to be present.
Another philosophical argument for caution in comparative studies comes from Scott Rifkin. He believes that not enough is known about human and primate brains to assume that similarities in overt behavior have the same neurological base. The reason behind his trepidation at accepting current evolutionary theories on intelligence is that "there is no a priori reason to expect that brain evolution has proceeded regularly without reorganization of structures or redistribution of functions". He goes on to argue that before we can begin to make comparative statements a better understanding of the functioning of others species brains needs to be achieved.
Perhaps the most thought provoking question raised in comparative psychology is the question of generalized intelligence. It has been difficult in modern psychology to get researchers to agree on a general human intelligence, to extend that intelligence across species may be to great a theoretical leap. This idea is supported by Scott Rifkin who believes that "to assume a continuum of intelligence across today's species is incompatible with an evolutionary perspective, and this preconception must not be allowed to guide studies of brain evolution".
It is an example of human hubris to assume that way in which we display the trait of intelligence is the best and only way to display that trait. This bais may blind us to a better understanding of intelligence as a universal trait. The best way to see intelligence as a universal trait is to view it and evaluate it as a factor within the environment in which it evolved. By using this method, human and non-human intelligence are considered to be inherently different because they evolved to facilitate the survival of an organism with two separate environmental histories. In this light it is impossible to say one is better than the other because it is a question of comparing how well and organism is adapted to its lifestyle not how well it is adaptive on any one scale. For example it is common to say that a dolphin is not as smart as a human because it doesn't use tools, but using this definition of intelligence it would also be valid to say that humans are not as smart as dolphins because they can't examine the internal organs of their other group members using natural ultrasound.
There is also the question of co-evolution of different structures to contend with when considering making cross species comparisons. It is possible that different structures in the brain could have evolved different functions in different species. For example if the skeletal structure of a bat wing and the human hand are compared it might be assumed that they have the same function because they have the a similar structure. This would obviously be a big mistake because evolution has shaped each skeletal structure to serve each species with a unique function. Following from this example, just because a species has an underdeveloped brain structure relative to a human it does not necessarily mean that it is less intelligent. It is quite possible that another structure has developed to serve the purpose that the particular structure serves in humans.
The arguments for caution that have been presented are extremely important to the field of comparative psychology and should not be easily forgotten. But one the basic tenants of the philosophy of science seem to be in support the notion of non-human intelligence. Occam's razor is a scientific principle which states that all things being equal the simplest solutions is often true. When applied to the evidence of non-human intelligence, the questions becomes whether it is simpler to assume that somehow human beings have transcended their biology and have developed a unique intelligence or that animals with similar anatomy to humans have some intelligence. It would seem illogical to assume that the complex structure of a dolphin brain, which in many ways rivals a human's, evolved only for hunting fish and getting mates and the rest is just useless space. The entire debate over the intelligence in non-humans and the usefulness of comparative psychology is a metaphor for the larger brain-behavior debate. In order for brain complexity to be an acceptable measure of intelligence the brain must be accepted as the source of all behavior. And if the brain cannot be accepted as the seat of behavior then there is no use in comparing species because the one connection that all complex organisms have is that the have a similar brain structure; behavior is way to species specific to be studied without the common thread of the brain.
The study of non-human primates and dolphins has lead to many profound questions as to the nature of intelligence. And thought the answers provided to date have been disputed, the questions are not any less worth of being asked. But in order to get beyond the disputes, researchers must be willing to shed there antrocentric view of intelligence and accept that it is an trait which can evolve like any other trait. When this is done it may be finally possible to recognize the remarkable abilities that some many people seem to find in animals as evidence of animal intelligence not lesser human intelligence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)