Watch the Porsche Taycan sprint to 124 mph 26 times in a

first_imgGetting to test the upcoming Porsche Taycan EV ahead of anyone else is pretty awesome. But what could make it even cooler? Being given the chance to beat the ever-loving heck out of the thing… for science.Jonny Smith of The Fully Charged Show on YouTube was recently given the chance to test the Porsche Taycan’s launch-control repeatability. For the test, Smith smashed the accelerator and sent Porsche’s first all-electric car to 124 miles per hour more than two dozen times. Despite the abuse, the time difference between the fastest and slowest runs was only 0.8 seconds.Porsche owes the Taycan’s repeat-launch-control ability to a few factors. The automaker points to the two permanent-magnet electric motors at each axle, which have a unique kind of assembly that allows more copper in each stator, improving output while simultaneously providing for more efficient cooling. Porsche also noted the thermal management system, which was built specifically for the Taycan to ensure this kind of repeatability. Enlarge ImageThat’s a lot o’ hustle. Porsche It goes without saying that Smith inevitably compares the Taycan’s capabilities to that of Ludicrous Mode in Tesla’s most powerful electrics. While the US automaker’s cars offer up warnings about repeated use of its brutal acceleration setting, the Taycan offers no such thing. It’s not nearly as quick as Tesla’s cars, but the repetition makes up for it.Since the car has yet to make its debut, which is set to change in a matter of weeks, Smith wasn’t able to show us anything about the car’s interior. The camera angles are all tight, hiding the dashboard, while a windshield-mounted camera shows Smith sitting on a seat that’s clearly been deliberately covered to hide its details. We’ll have to wait a little longer to see the whole thing, but it’s good to know that it can perform as a Porsche should. Share your voice Tesla Model 3 Review: Performance trim Now playing: Watch this: 2020 BMW M340i review: A dash of M makes everything better Electric Cars Luxury cars Performance Cars More From Roadshow Porsche 2019 Nissan Leaf Plus review: A better EV, but maybe not the best 42 Photos Porsche Taycan on ice in Sweden Porsche Ice drifting in Porsche’s all-electric Taycan Comments Tags 5:27 2last_img read more

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

CVC summons WalMart India head in alleged bribery case

first_imgThe Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has summoned the India head of US-based multinational retail giant Wal-Mart Stores Inc in the wake of allegations that the company had paid massive amounts as bribe in India to obtain regulatory permits for some of its operations.The CVC probe will involve examination of the retailer’s documents and for the first time, the investigation agency is acting on its own based on a media report.”Some observations have been made that Wal-Mart gave some amount to government officials here. It is our duty to look into it,” PTI quoted Vigilance Commissioner TM Bhasin as sayingHe said “the Commission has taken suo motu cognisance of it and summoned country head of Wal-Mart here.””We have asked them to submit details to us by November 15,” Bhasin said.It is also for the first time that the CVC has initiated a probe against a private firm.Wal-Mart is suspected to have paid “thousands of small payments” to junior-level officials in India in order to pass its goods through customs or get real estate approvals, the Wall Street Journal had reported last month.”The vast majority of the suspicious payments were less than $200, and some were as low as $5, the people said, but when added together they totalled millions of dollars,” the report said.Wal-Mart decided to put aside its plans to foray into the Indian market in 2013 by discontinuing its joint venture with Bharti Enterprises Ltd. After that, the company opted to go alone in India.”Wal-Mart was also involved in lobbying before the US Congress in this regard,” the report said, citing Congressional disclosure reports of the past few years.last_img read more

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Disclosure of property jewelry and overseas account holdings not allowed in PMGKY

first_imgThe Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) on Wednesday clarified that assets in overseas accounts, jewelry, stocks and immovable property cannot be declared through the government’s new tax amnesty scheme. Black money purge: Demonetisation not a cure, says AssochamUnder the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY), the CBDT said, only undisclosed income deposited in any bank or post office account can be declared by paying 50 percent of the amount in taxes and surcharges. Also, a quarter of the total sum should be parked in a non-interest bearing deposit for four years. In 2016, the government had announced its first Income Disclosure Scheme (IDS), which closed on September 30, 2016, for holders of unaccounted wealth held in cash as well as other forms such as immovable property and jewelry. Under the new income disclosure plan, a person can avail the scheme for any assessment year commencing on or before April 1, 2017. Further, deposits made in the bank account prior to the financial year 2016-17 can also be declared under the scheme.The tax department noted that a declaration under the PMGKY Scheme can be filed for deposits made in an account maintained with a specified entity by any mode such as cash, cheque, RTGS, NEFT or any electronic transfer system. The cash seized by the department and deposited in the public deposit account may be allowed to be adjusted for making payment of tax, surcharge and penalty under the scheme on the request of the person from whom the cash is seized. “However, the said amount shall not be allowed to be adjusted for making deposits under the scheme.” On the issue of a person against whom a search/survey operation has been initiated, such a person is “eligible to file the declaration under the scheme,” the CBDT said. However, no credit for advance tax paid, TDS or TCS shall be allowed under the PMGKY.last_img read more

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

After Outcry Judge Delays Sanctions In Immigration Case

first_imgLexey Swall/TexasTribuneTomas Martinez, with GLAHR, a grass roots organization from Atlanta, chants to excite the crowd in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Monday, April 18, 2016. Hundreds gathered in front of the U.S. Supreme Court to show their support for President Obama’s immigration executive action as the Court hears oral arguments on the deferred action initiatives, DAPA and expanded DACA.The Texas-based judge that last year put a hold on President Obama’s executive order on immigration decided on Tuesday to also suspend a controversial punishment he had recently issued to the administration’s attorneys.U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen asserted in May that the federal government’s attorneys intentionally misled his court during last year’s proceedings over the Obama administration’s order on immigration, known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents.As punishment, Hanen ordered the government’s attorneys to attend ethics classes in the 26 states that filed suit while directing the Department of Justice to turn over the names and confidential information of about 50,000 undocumented immigrants he said benefited from the administration’s plan prematurely.On Tuesday, however, Hanen put his own order on hold and instead scheduled a status conference on the issue for August. The decision came after critics blasted Hanen’s order as a potential breach of privacy for the tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants.“Judge Hanen was very thoughtful in the way he approached the idea that the 50,000 [deferred action] recipients are really innocent bystanders in this,” said Nina Perales, the vice president of litigation at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF.Perales’ group represents three South Texas mothers who intervened in the immigration case, which has been put on hold since Hanen stopped it in February 2015. His decision was upheld twice by the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and the case was argued in April before the U.S. Supreme Court, which is expected to issue a decision later this month.Perales said the case related to Hanen’s May order could hinge on what the high court decides on the immigration case.“We’ll be checking in (in August) on whether or not there was a Supreme Court decision, which way it goes, what remains of the case and what to do about the sanctions issue,” she said.Perales added that despite Tuesday’s ruling, Hanen doesn’t appear eager to dismiss the matter altogether.“It’s clear he is still very upset about what he sees as misconduct,” she said. MALDEF has also asked the 5th Circuit to stop the order outright, a request the group said it would continue to pursue.Hanen’s decision comes after the National Immigration Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants’ Rights Project and the ACLU of Texas filed a separate request to the 5th Circuit to order Hanen to halt his sanctions.Edgar Saldivar , the senior staff attorney at ACLU of Texas, said his group is in a holding pattern following Tuesday’s decision, but added Hanen’s stay is a victory for immigrants and their supporters.“From my standpoint, and the ACLU standpoint, this is a victory for a group of young immigrants who decided to fight back to protect their privacy rights,” he said.This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at Sharelast_img read more

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

WATCH LIVE President Trump Announces His Decision On Paris Climate Agreement

first_img Share President Trump is expected to announce this afternoon whether the U.S. will be withdrawing from the Paris accord — the historic global agreement, reached in 2015, to set targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and limiting the rise in average global temperatures.Trump is revealing his decision in the Rose Garden at the White House.During his campaign, Trump vowed to “cancel” U.S. participation in the deal. World leaders and business figures have urged him to reconsider.Barack Obama used his authority as president to join the Paris accord without a vote in Congress. That means Trump can also remove the U.S. from the accord without a vote. But it will take a while: Under the terms of the agreement, he wouldn’t actually be able to withdraw until November 2020.Leaving the underlying treaty — the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change — would be faster and could be completed within a year. But that treaty was U.S. Senate-ratified. Presidents have unilaterally exited Senate-ratified treaties before, but it’s rare and controversial.Urged to stay, urged to leaveA wide chorus of voices are calling for Trump to recommit to the Paris agreement: Other world leaders and hundreds of scientists, of course, but also CEOs of major energy companies and other big U.S. corporations. Even many of Trump’s own advisers support the deal, according to The New York Times.But the accord has a number of detractors. More than 20 Republican senators have called for Trump to leave the deal. Influential Trump advisers, reportedly Steve Bannon and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, also urged him to withdraw.And then, of course, there’s the argument advanced by candidate Trump. On the campaign trail, he criticized the agreement that the U.S. formally signed onto last year. He has said the deal is “unfair” to the U.S., objecting in particular to the requirement that wealthy nations help developing countries build renewable energy sources.Trump has also signaled, more broadly, that fighting climate change is not a priority for his administration. He has denied the existence of climate change in the past and appointed as the head of the EPA a man who doesn’t accept the overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming by releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And he’s already overturned several Obama-era efforts to reduce emissions. A hard-fought diplomatic agreementThe Paris accord was reached in 2015 after lengthy negotiations. The deal relies on voluntary cuts in emissions by all the member nations — nearly 200 of them.The agreement also, significantly, sets a global target: to keep the rise in the average temperature no higher than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. And it calls for some $100 billion a year in funding, from developed countries toward developing countries, to support green energy sources.But the accord fell short of what some parties had hoped for. Island nations — which face an existential threat from rising sea waters — had pushed hard for a target of 1.5 degrees Celsius. (Why not even lower? Well, as of 2015, the global average temperature had already risen by 1 degree Celsius, and even with robust efforts to cut emissions, some further increase is essentially inevitable.)And the agreement relies on voluntary cuts in emissions, which is seen by some criticsas a major weakness.Still, the fact that the world managed to agree on a target was celebrated as a diplomatic achievement, one multiple world leaders have emphasized as crucial to support. After the recent G-7 meetings, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and vocally supported her commitment to action on climate change.Modi said failing to act on climate change would be “a morally criminal act.” Merkel had previously vowed to “convince the doubters” among world leaders that “protecting the climate matters to all of us.”The doubters are in the minority. Only two countries — Syria and Nicaragua — have completely rejected the deal.Several dozen countries have signed but not fully approved — including Iran, Turkey and, most significantly, Russia, which is a major emitter of greenhouse gases. But three-quarters of the countries on earth have fully committed to the accord.A pact in name, or in deed?It’s important to note that the Paris accord is only as strong as each nation’s actual reduction in emissions. That means leaving the agreement isn’t the only way to weaken it: Trump could keep the U.S. as a signatory, but continue to slash the programs that would actually make it possible to reach the target for emissions.The opposite is also true: U.S. greenhouse gas emissions could continue to go down, at least in the short term, even if Trump withdraws from the accord.As NPR’s Christopher Joyce recently reported, emissions in the U.S. have declined by about 12 percent since 2005.“The U.S. has successfully bent its greenhouse gas emissions curve,” Kate Larsen, of the economics research team Rhodium Group, told Christopher. “And we are going to continue to reduce emissions over the next 10 years, likely regardless of Trump policy.”But while the Paris accord isn’t synonymous with U.S. emissions cuts, that doesn’t mean Trump’s decision on the accord is meaningless.Economist Marc Hafstead, who’s with Resources for the Future, told Christopher that exiting the deal “could potentially have political ramifications — to the extent that our pulling out of the agreement is going to cause other countries to do less.”It would also threaten the $100 billion a year pledged to help developing countries achieve emissions cuts, as Bloomberg has reported.Meanwhile, many analysts see a U.S. departure from the deal as paving the way for China to take the lead on climate change.It’s not just a question of intangible moral leadership, or even of the potential profits from green energy that would be on the table. The Atlantic reported last year that a U.S. departure would likely result in less-transparent mechanisms for actually enforcing the Paris accord — because Chinese “faulty and unreliable energy statistics” could play a prominent role.By staying in the deal, the U.S. would keep a spot at the negotiating table — and potential influence over how the agreement is enforced. A vote to remain also would mark a beginning — not an end — of questions about how the Trump administration will affect global climate change efforts.last_img read more

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,