Сегодня компания Kia – второй по размерам южнокорейский автопроизводитель после Hyundai. Основана эта компания была в 1944 году как производитель стальных труб и в частности велосипедных рам. А вот автомобильная история Kia началась несколько позже и в целом довольно занимательно. Итак, первый Kia.
When all hope is lost, sometimes all you need is a sign. On November 12, thousands of people marched through Los Angeles to protest the election of Donald Trump, according to the LA Times. Since the march, pictures of 3-year-old Kaio Pinho boasting a big message have been popping up on social media: Meanwhile, across America... pic.twitter.com/4NCdZKkSZh— George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) November 13, 2016 "If he builds a wall, I’ll grow up and tear it DOWN"Protest against Donald Trump, Los Angeles, November 12, 2016. pic.twitter.com/8Ix4qA61DA— Nouph. (@Noufabalkhail) November 14, 2016 “I was drawn to this little boy because he was marching amongst mostly adults, but looked equally determined,” Abigail Gorden, the photographer who stopped to snap a picture of Kaio, told The Huffington Post. “He seemed anxious but strong, which I feel you can see by the expression on his face.” Kaio’s mother, Brisa Pinho, a Brazilian-American with dual citizenship made the sign. “I thought it was a good idea to create a bold sign as if it was my son saying it,” Pinho told The Huffington Post. “The wall I speak of in the sign is figurative. [It’s] a wall of hate, racism, and xenophobia that if built in the years ahead, will be teared Down by my son and his generation.” Though Kaio is only 3, Pinho felt it would be safe to take her son, who likes crowds and music, to the protest she described as “extremely peaceful.” Plus she felt that it was an experience her son should have. “I think it’s important for children to learn from an early age to stand up for what’s right, for others who can’t stand up for themselves and to know that they have the power to make their voices heard.” Preach. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Как утверждает сама Kia Motors, название «Kia» происходит от китайско-корейских слов «ки» («выйти») и «а» (что расшифровывается как «Азия»), он примерно переводится как «вышедшая из Азии» или «выросла в Азии».Некоторые источники склонны считать основанную в 1944 году KIA (в те годы она называлась Kyungsung Precision Industry) первым в истории южнокорейским производителем автомобилей. В принципе, это верно, если судить с точки зрения даты основания. Вот только длительное время компания занималась исключительно велосипедами да мотороллерами, позже мотоколясками и трехколесными транспортными средствами, вроде тех, что выпускала японская Daihatsu. Первое четырехколесное транспортное средство, которое уже можно было назвать автомобилем, появилось лишь в начале 70-х годов. Первые же легковые автомобили появились несколько позже (да и те были построены по лицензии других производителей). В 1951 была переименована в KIA Industries а уже в 90-е годы KIA Motors.Первые грузовики были выпущены в 1962 году, и только к середине 70-х компания наладила полномасштабное производство легковых машин. Киа производила небольшие партии модели Brisa до 1981 года, но очередной военный переворот вынудил Киа полностью сосредоточиться на легких грузовиках.В 1998 году компания погрузилась в финансовый кризис, вызванный резким сокращением продаж. Результатом этого стала потеря самостоятельности: Kia Motors была приобретена корейской автомобилестроительной компанией Hyundai Motor. В 1999 году была создана группа Hyundai Kia Automotive Group
As members of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and on behalf of the 93 companies included in this letter, we recognize that regardless of faith, we can all appreciate the call to climate action contained in Pope Francis' encyclical, "On Care for Our Common Home." It is a universal message -- one that speaks to the challenges climate change is having on society and the environment and the role of individuals, civil society and institutions to address them. For years, the body of science behind climate change has grown clearer and more focused. The planet is warming with severe consequences that threaten business growth and a healthy economy. We believe that we have reached a tipping point on climate change and that there is an unstoppable shift to a global economy that is significantly less harmful to the environment. As the world transitions to this new economy, it will be important to provide economic progress and a higher quality of life for all people in all regions of the world. The private sector will play a key role in this transition and can help build prosperity and secure a better world for what will soon be nine billion people. Increasingly, business leaders are working collaboratively with competitors and with nongovernmental organizations to set goals to significantly reduce natural-resource use, invest in clean energy, improve global health and feed more people. A common thread that cuts across all of these efforts is finding new and innovative ways to use technology to achieve these social and environmental commitments. No company is perfect. But, all companies are made up of people who want to leave a higher quality of life and a better world for generations to come. As leaders of these companies, we are committed to using our innovation, scale and entrepreneurial spirit to seek ways to address both the environmental and societal challenges created by climate change. Ahead of the Paris climate negotiations this December, we will help do our part to facilitate the transition to a low-carbon economy. WBCSD Signatories: Arcadis AzkoNobel Brisa Auto Estradas CH2M CLP Hong Kong Ltd Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited DuPont EDP -- Energias de Portugal Fibria International Flavors & Fragrances Kellogg Company Monsanto Nestle SA Novozymes NRG P&G Poyry Oyj Plc Siemens SONAE Titan Cement Company Unilever To view the remainder of the signatories, please click here. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
VALENCIA, Venezuela (Reuters) - When Venezuelan troops and police launched an early-morning raid on the slum neighborhood of Brisas del Hipodromo last month, they detained hundreds of men without presenting arrest warrants and used heavy machinery to destroy hundreds of homes.
Turkey stocks were lower after the close on Thursday, as losses in the Telecoms, Sports and Basic Metals sectors led shares lower. At the close in Istanbul, the BIST 100 fell 0.86%. The best performers of the session on the BIST 100 were Brisa (IS:BRISA), which rose 6.12% or 0.48 points to trade at 8.32 at the close. Meanwhile, Aksa Enerji (IS:AKSEN) added 4.53% or 0.130 points to end at 3.000 and Netas Telekomunikasyon AS (IS:NETAS) was up 4.35% or 0.38 points to 9.12 in late trade. The worst performers of the session were Galatasaray Sportif (IS:GSRAY), which fell 3.95% or 1.05 points to trade at 25.50 at the close. Ihlas Holding (IS:IHLAS) declined 3.57% or 0.010 points to end at 0.270 and Aselsan (IS:ASELS) was down 3.02% or 0.45 points to 14.45. Falling stocks outnumbered advancing ones on the Istanbul Stock Exchange by 247 to 156 and 12 ended unchanged. Gold for August delivery was up 0.08% or 0.90 to $1187.40 a troy ounce. Elsewhere in commodities trading, Crude oil for delivery in July fell 0.97% or 0.56 to hit $56.95 a barrel, while the July Brent oil contract rose 0.04% or 0.03 to trade at $62.09 a barrel. USD/TRY was up 0.83% to 2.6641, while EUR/TRY rose 0.88% to 2.9071. The US Dollar Index was up 0.12% at 97.46.
The much ballyhooed legal challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan, brought by coal companies and conservative state attorneys-general, ran out of steam Thursday in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington. Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Thomas Griffith, and Brett Kavanaugh, a decidedly conservative panel, heard an hour and a half of oral arguments in a packed courtroom. Here are three takeaways from the arguments: 1. No final action, no jurisdiction The court showed little sympathy for the challengers' unprecedented proposition that they can sue EPA over the Clean Power Plan proposal, to stop the rulemaking in its tracks before the agency makes its final decision. Judges Griffith and Kavanaugh hit this point exceptionally hard, each saying that allowing premature challenges would lead the court into a "morass." Griffith asked repeatedly for any precedent allowing lawsuits over proposals, and any principle to govern when to intervene. The challengers conceded there is no precedent and could offer no principle. West Virginia's lawyer said, "There's always a first time..." As Justice Department counsel explained, it's basic administrative law that one cannot challenge a proposed rule, before an agency has taken a final action that creates any obligations, before the agency explains its final legal, policy, and factual conclusions after considering and responding to public comments. This creates a full administrative record for courts to review, and there is none now. Challengers will have their day in court after EPA issues the final Clean Power Plan standards. The challengers claimed that this case deserves an exception because it turns on a legal interpretation and will have big real world consequences. The states, they claimed, already have to expend resources to prepare. But Judge Kavanaugh said this situation is "not that extraordinary." He noted that many other cases turn on legal interpretations and have big consequences. Judge Griffith asked for any case where merely "bracing for the costs" of a proposed regulation conferred standing to sue, and the challengers had nothing to offer. In short, there's no sign the court will take up the invitation to jump in before EPA has a chance to finish the Clean Power Plan. 2. A glimpse into the merits, no more Lawyers for the coal companies and challenging states contended they had found a legal flaw so clear that the court should stretch the normal rules to decide it early. They claim the statute unambiguously prohibits EPA from regulating power plant emissions of carbon dioxide under the Clean Power Plan because the agency has already regulated power plant emissions of mercury under another provision. Though the challengers contend this prohibition is black and white, it is anything but clear. Congress adopted section 111(d) in 1970 to assure that there would be "no gaps" in the Clean Air Act's coverage of dangerous air pollutants. Existing sources' emissions of pollutants that cause smog (ozone) and soot (fine particles) are curbed under one provision (section 110). Existing sources' emissions of especially toxic pollutants, such as mercury, are controlled under a second provision (section 112). And existing sources' emissions of any other dangerous pollutants, including carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping pollutants, are regulated under a third provision (section 111(d)). Indeed, in a 2011 case called American Electric Power v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court specifically ruled that section 111(d) of the Act empowers EPA to curb power plants' carbon dioxide emissions. In fact, power company lawyers in that case pressed that very argument upon the Supreme Court. That was then, this is now, it seems. In a theory dreamed up only after the American Electric Power decision, the coal industry and its supporting states argue that Congress abandoned the "no gaps" approach in 1990 Clean Air Act amendments and put EPA to a Sophie's choice: You can protect people from power plants' mercury emissions, or from their carbon dioxide emissions, but not both. Power plants, they claim, must be protected from "double regulation." This is total invention. Power plants emit a host of dangerous pollutants, and these emissions are regulated under at least a half dozen parts of the Clean Air Act. There's no basis for the theory that Congress thought power plants deserved protection against "double regulation," and no basis for thinking that Congress intended to force EPA to choose between curbing mercury pollution and curbing carbon pollution. The briefs filed by EPA, by supporting states led by New York, by NRDC and other environmental groups, and by Calpine Corporation, a major power producer, all show that section 111(d) is there to curb dangerous pollutants that are not curbed under section 112. There are no gaps in the statutory scheme that let some dangerous pollutants off scot-free. When EPA completes the rule, the court will apply the familiar principles of Chevron USA v. NRDC, to determine if EPA has reasonably interpreted the law. That's the Supreme Court case holding that Congress gave agencies the first opportunity to interpret the laws they are charged to implement. Under Chevron, when a statute is ambiguous, courts must defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation. There's a special twist here because the 1990 amendments included two provisions modifying the same sentence in section 111(d) - each change giving that sentence a different ending. In the final rule, EPA will undoubtedly give its views on what each amendment means, and how the two interact. The court will then have to decide if EPA's interpretation is reasonable. Judge Griffith noted that Chevron deference applies not only when a single statutory provision is ambiguous, but also when two statutory provisions conflict. That's the view of a majority of Supreme Court justices in a case called Scialabba v. Cuellar de Orsorio. The court dipped its toes into these legal interpretation questions, but little more. The judges seemed to accept the Justice Department's argument that EPA must be allowed to complete the rulemaking and definitively explain its final decision, including its interpretation of the interplay between sections 111(d) and 112. Questions of statutory interpretation will definitely come before the court once EPA issues its final standards. But there's no sign that this panel of judges will take them up now. 3. No interest in far-fetched constitutional theories These cases have drawn the most public and political attention because of the involvement of Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe - hired by coal giant Peabody Energy but speaking Thursday for all the challengers. He has launched far-fetched constitutional theories, including claims that the Clean Power Plan violates the Fifth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution and usurps Congress's lawmaking powers. Perhaps a little cautious in front of actual judges, Tribe avoided some of the inflammatory language ("burning the Constitution") that he has deployed in congressional testimony and in the Wall Street Journal. But he did not really skimp, arguing that the Clean Power Plan "commandeers" states into being mere "puppets" for the EPA. This is a total distortion of "cooperative federalism," which has been at the heart of the Clean Air Act for 45 years, and which the Supreme Court has repeatedly approved. As it has dozens of times since 1970, EPA will set national standards to limit power plants' carbon pollution. Each state will then have the first opportunity to write plans to apply those standards to the power plants in that state. Contrary to Professor Tribe, EPA cannot force the state to write a plan. But if the state declines, then EPA is charged with writing and enforcing a federal plan directly limiting those power plants' pollution. In this instance, EPA regulates the power plants directly (just as it does already for acid rain and toxic pollutants) - it does not force the state to do anything. That EPA will regulate the power plants directly is the federal guarantee that makes the Clean Air Act work. But EPA cannot "commandeer" the states into regulating against their will. Tribe argued that the threat of a "secret unknown plan" will force the states to knuckle under. In real life, as I've shown here, most states are actively engaged because both power companies and political leaders prefer to have the states in the lead making the choices involved in writing implementation plans, rather than leaving it to EPA. In any case, EPA has announced that it will propose the contents of federal plans this summer, eliminating the scenario of mystery and dark threats that Professor Tribe imagines. States and other stakeholders will have a full opportunity to comment on the proposed federal plan regulations. When the elements of the federal plan are finalized, they'll serve both as a model to help states design their own plans and as a clear guidance on how EPA will curb power plants' emissions directly if a state chooses not to act. For all the attention Professor Tribe has gotten these past few weeks, there's no sign that he made any dent in the court's thinking. * * * In 2012 the appeals court summarily dismissed another premature challenge to EPA's proposed standards for carbon emissions for new power plants, in a case called Las Brisas Energy Center v. EPA. The two-paragraph ruling stated simply: "The challenged proposed rule is not final agency action subject to judicial review." That seems to be where this panel is headed too. Its opinion could be similarly short and sweet. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
WASHINGTON -- Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano argued on Thursday that deferred action for young undocumented immigrants, which began one year ago, isn't permanent and isn't an excuse for inaction on immigration reform. "[Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] is not a long term solution to the broader challenges presented by our nation's outdated immigration system," she said in a statement posted on the DHS site. "I am hopeful that the House of Representatives will follow the leadership shown by a strong bipartisan majority of their Senate colleagues and work to fix our broken immigration system," she added. "In the meantime, however, DACA will continue to serve as an important means by which young people brought here as children can remain in, and contribute to, this great country." Napolitano and President Barack Obama announced in June 2012 that undocumented young people who came to the U.S. as children would be allowed to stay temporarily if they met certain criteria, such as going to school or serving in the military. It was meant to be a reprieve for so-called Dreamers who would have been helped by the Dream Act, which failed in the Senate in 2010 and left those young people to be deported even if they had long-standing ties to the U.S. and arrived as children. As of the end of June, 400,562 people had been accepted into the deferred action program of the more than 557,00 who had applied -- a 72 percent acceptance rate with many applications still pending. But the reprieve only lasts for two years at a time, and it doesn't provide a path to citizenship or even a green card. While Republican House members work on a Dream Act-style bill to legalize undocumented young people, tentatively named the KIDS Act, Democrats are pushing for a path to citizenship for the wider undocumented population. Dreamers are doing the same, including by calling for a broader deferred action policy that would halt the deportation of older undocumented immigrants as well. Some said on the anniversary of the program that they appreciate the help for themselves, but they want the same for their parents. "If the president granted me DACA then why can't he do the same for the rest of my family? What makes us different?" Dreamer Brisa Cruz said in a statement marking the anniversary of the program. "I benefited from DACA at the moment when my family and I were detained by [Immigration and Customs Enforcement], I'm 16 years old and live with the fear of one of these days coming home to an empty house because ICE came again and took my parents," said Jose Urias, another Dreamer. "I believe my parents should have the same relief as I do while Congress debates immigration reform."