World's first bird discovered

A group of scientists, including one of Indian origin, has discovered "world’s first bird" that lived 235 million years ago. In the landmark study, published by the Paleontological Association, experts unveiled an extraordinary prehistoric lizard-like "flying" reptile which lived 235 million years ago.

The scientific community believes that birds descended from reptiles 50 million years later making the kuehneosaurs the world’s first "bird".

The long-extinct species, which inhabited the warm late Triassic period from 235 to 200 million years ago, was first discovered in the UK.

According to experts, the kuehneosaurs, which grew up to 2 feet, used extensions of their ribs to form large gliding surfaces on the sides of their body.

Earlier this year, experts from Bristol University built lifesize models of the two types of kuehneosaurs found in the UK - kuehneosuchus and kuehneosaurus. "Surprisingly, we found that kuehneosuchus was aerodynamically very stable.

Jumping from a tree, it could have crossed 9m before landing on the ground," said German palaeobiologist Koen Stein, who led the study.

Loud music effects drinking speed

Customers of bars that play loud music drink more quickly and in fewer gulps, French researchers said on Friday. Their study, published in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research , found that turning up the music spurred drinkers to down a glass of beer about three minutes more quickly.

To gauge the effect of sound levels on drinking, the team spent three Saturday nights visiting two bars, where they observed 40 men aged between 18 and 25 drinking beer.

"We have shown that environmental music played in a bar is associated with an increase in drinking," Nicolas Gueguen, a behavioural sciences researcher at the University of Southern Brittany in France, who led the study, said in a statement.

With the help from the bars’ owners, the team turned the music up and down and then recorded how much and how fast people drank. The men did not know they were being observed.

Louder music spurred more consumption, with the average number of drinks ordered by patrons rising to 3.4 drinks from 2.6 drinks, Gueguen found. The time taken to drink a beer fell to an average 11.45 minutes from 14.51 minutes.

The researchers acknowledged some limitations to their study, for example that the experiment was on a small scale and could not be applied to every bar.

They said it was not clear why louder music appeared to increase alcohol consumption but said it might make conversation more difficult, forcing people to drink more and talk less.

Is infidelity the end of a relationship?

Infidelity, both emotional and physical, can ruin a relationship or at least to some extent damage it. However, there are people who have dealt with cheating partners and have survived and even restored their broken relationships.

Being involved with a man or woman who cheats on you can never be an easy thing to deal with. What makes matters worse is that very often, everyone around you might think they know what is best for you — but only lead you in the wrong direction.
Therefore, it is important for you to be equipped with the right kind of information about affairs, to be able to remove fact from fiction. Read on to know about the most common myths about affairs and clear any misconceived notion you might have:

There is a type
The myth: Most people think that a person who cheats is a ‘type’ and only those people would indulge in infidelity. Therefore, just because someone has a history of cheating they would probably cheat on every man or woman they are with. The reality: Given the right kind of circumstances anyone could be susceptible to cheating. Yes, while with some people it is a pattern, there are those who end up having an affair on an impulse and before they know it they are cheating on their partner. Therefore, do not live under the illusion that only a certain type of person will cheat. To be on the safe side, you and your partner could admit honestly to each other what circumstances could make you slip and then just avoid those situations.

Boredom leads to affairs
The myth: It is a common myth that most affairs are a result of long-term boredom that one of the two lovers might be feeling. The reality: This is not true at all. Boredom has nothing to do with infidelity. If people feel bored they develop a hobby — not cheat on their partners. If both partners decide that they want to give their union another shot, it’s important to figure out what the real factors are that contributed to the affair and whether there’s any hope for changing them.

Affairs ruin marriages
The myth: If a husband or a wife cheats on their respective partner the marriage is over. The reality: There is no denying that if your partner has an affair, it will taint your relationship and might even end it, but that is not always the case. With time and effort, it’s possible to renew communication, trust and intimacy. Many couples not only survive an affair but after they work things out they feel more intimately connected and have a better marriage. This is because once the affair is in the open, if there is any hope left for the relationship , it is important that the couple actually discuss the affair. It might be painful but at least the two parties involved will be able to discuss the problems and then find solutions.

The betrayed partner knows
The myth: The person who is being cheated on at some level always knows that their partner is straying. The reality: In many cases, the betrayed spouse is totally in the dark. It’s also common after an affair is exposed for the betrayed spouse to feel like he or she is facing a new truth. You never can be sure whether your partner will cheat. Usually, it’s not until the affair is out in the open that the betrayed spouse can go back and understand why their partner was probably staying out late or making too many excuses for not being around too often.

Affairs are a result of love
The myth: Another popular but wrong belief about affairs is that the adulterer finds happiness in the person who he or she is having an affair with and they are in the affair because of mutual love. The reality: No matter how blissful they feel, affair pairings rarely get to ‘happily ever after.’ The reason a man or woman would have an affair is rarely because of love but mostly as a reaction to stress in their current relationship. Yes, in some cases they do end up together, but in most cases the affair ends regardless of what happens to the adulterer’s other relationship. An affair remains just that — and seldom turns into a relationship. In that context, the 17th century French author and moralist, François De La Rochefoucauld’s words ring true: The struggle we undergo to remain faithful to one we love is better than infidelity.

Don’t mourn, celebrate 8% growth: FM

Notwithstanding the acute oil crisis and the resultant inflationary pressures, India will record over eight per cent economic growth and prices will moderate by year-end, Finance Minister P Chidambaram said on Friday.

At the same time, he made it clear that the inflation management would get the top priority and reasonable growth the second.

"I still maintain that we will grow at a eight per cent plus... we are managing in a difficult year but I think by the end of this year we would be able to bring about a moderation in inflation as well as return a reasonable growth," Chidambaram said.

Admitting that it has been the most difficult of the five years as Finance Minister in the UPA government, he said India has been hit by the global financial, food and fuel crises and anybody who thought the country would not be affected by the global turbulence would be ‘naïve’.

"If our economy is growing at eight per cent, we should not wear sackcloth and ashes and mourn. We should celebrate. Eight per cent growth will still make us the silver medallist in the World Olympics," he said.

Very few countries and hardly any large nation except China are growing at eight per cent, he said and pointed out that eight per cent growth will still be higher than the average rate of 5.8 per cent achieved during the six years of NDA rule.

"We would still have to balance between inflation and growth giving inflation control the first priority and reasonable growth the second priority until the world economy returns to a more stable and more normal path."

NEWSMAKER - Line drops between Anil Ambani and MTN

A face-off between India’s two richest men, the Ambani siblings, overshadowed Anil Ambani’s negotiations South Africa’s MTN Group to create a global company before his estranged big brother Mukesh.

Anil’s Reliance Communications and MTN called off on Friday their exclusive talks to create a top-10 global telecom firm, saying legal and regulatory issues meant they were unable to conclude a deal.

The talks were clouded by a claim to a right of first refusal on the Indian mobile carrier’s shares by Mukesh, who runs Reliance Industries, India’s largest firm, and who had started dispute proceedings over the issue.

Anil, listed by Forbes magazine as the world’s sixth-richest man, one place behind Mukesh, has clashed with his brother before over business interests.

Now 49, Anil established the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) in 2005 after a public feud with Mukesh saw the vast business empire founded by father Dhirubhai, a school teacher’s son, split between the siblings in a deal brokered by their mother.

Mukesh took control of oil and petrochemicals giant Reliance Industries, India’s most valuable firm, and has since made forays into retail, while ADAG took on financial services, infrastructure, entertainment and power.

Reliance Communications, valued at about $21 billion, has made several overseas acquisitions.

But last year it lost a bid for control of a smaller Indian rival to Vodafone, and in November it was beaten by France Telecom in bidding for Telkom Kenya.

In January, it took just a minute for investors to fully subscribe to Reliance Power’s $3 billion IPO, India’s biggest, testimony to the strength of the Reliance brand.

SHARP CONTRAST

Anil, who has a business degree from Wharton, joined the Reliance group in 1983 as co-chief executive. He is a deeply religious Hindu who often visits temples before the start of new ventures, sometimes accompanied by his mother.

Married to a former Bollywood actress, Anil is articulate and a sharp dresser, with a penchant for designer labels and hi-tech gadgets. He was elected an independent member for a six-year term in Rajya Sabha, and resigned in March 2006.

A vegetarian who does not drink or smoke, he was named an MTV Youth Icon and has been dubbed "Marathon Man" because he participates in the annual Mumbai run and jogs the streets near his plush home in the mornings wearing his trademark headband.

Once a fixture on the Bollywood party circuit, Anil has kept a low profile since the split, focusing on building his business.

By contrast, Mukesh has appeared in the tabloids more often recently, thanks to a luxury jet he is reported to have bought as a birthday gift for his wife with showers and a bar, and a 27-storey home he is building in south Mumbai for a cool $1 billion, with several levels of parking and a helipad.

A chemical engineer by training, he dropped out of an MBA from Stanford University where he was a classmate of Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. He is now a member on its advisory council.

Mukesh, who joined Reliance in 1981, is credited with spearheading the foray of the textile major into petrochemicals, refining and oil and gas exploration and production. He also created Reliance Infocomm, known now as Reliance Communications, the company Anil heads.

Mukesh has a venture with Marks & Spencer for retail, and is awaiting the commissioning of a new 580,000 barrel a day refinery, the world’s biggest, in western Gujarat state.

Bearing a close resemblance to his father, Mukesh in January paid more than $100 million -- the highest sum -- for a cricket franchise in Mumbai that included star batsman Sachin Tendulkar.

Mukesh was spotted in the stands often with his family and friends from the business and entertainment fraternity, cheering the Mumbai Indians team, which finished in the middle of the league.

Where’s the windfall profit for a tax?

A windfall profit tax on oil companies now would be illogical and an unwise economic measure. The rationale for such a tax is suspect and can be challenged in the Courts. Those arguing in favour should look at the experience of other countries that have imposed such a tax , specifically the US, where it did more harm than good to the economy, says Raghuvir Srinivasan.

The nuclear fission in national politics is letting loose generous doses of radiation on a daily basis. One such lethal dose came last week from the Samajwadi Party’s Mr Amar Singh who seems to be a loyal friend indeed for his most important friend in need. In what should rank as one of the most unsubtle episodes of political bargaining ever seen in this country, Mr Singh wants a windfall profit tax imposed on oil companies and a fee to be charged from telecom comp anies using extra spectrum as a quid pro quo for voting with the government in Parliament.

Such talk can be good politics but is it good economics? Do those now propounding a windfall profit tax know what exactly such a tax is and its history?

The answer to both questions is a resounding no. A windfall profit tax on oil companies now would be illogical and an unwise economic measure; those arguing in favour should look at the experience of other countries that have imposed such a tax in the past, specifically the US, where it did more harm than good to their economy.
What is a windfall profit?

According to Wikipedia, the term “windfall profit” was first used in the colonial era. Subjects were prohibited from using lumber that was more than a foot in width except where due to an act of God, such as a storm, trees fell down in their own property. In such a case, they could use the wood or sell it. Needless to say, there were several such instances of acts of God and subjects reaped windfall profits by selling such wood. So, a windfall profit presupposes an act of God. It is profit earned through other than the ordinary course of business. Does this definition fit our oil companies? It appears not.
Unflattering history

The US experimented with a windfall profit tax on oil companies in the 1980s and the experience was anything but worthwhile. President Jimmy Carter imposed such a tax in April 1980 after dismantling price controls on the oil industry. The freeing of controls caused oil prices to rise from $14 to $24 a barrel raising demands from lawmakers for a tax on the windfall earnings of oil companies. Unlike what its name signifies, the windfall profit tax imposed by the Carter administration was actually an excise tax in that it was calculated on the difference between the market price of oil and a base price set by the administration. Higher the market price, higher was the tax burden.

However, the tax failed to serve its purpose and, worse, worked against the interests of the government. It failed to generate the projected revenues, increased the reliance of the US on oil imports and turned tax administration into a nightmare for the Internal Revenue Service.

According to a study by the US Congressional Research Service called The Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax of the 1980s: Implications for Current Energy Policy by Salvatore Lazzari, a specialist in public finance, released in March 2006, the tax generated just $80 billion in revenue between 1980 and 1988 compared to a projection of $383 billion. The net revenue was even lower at $38 billion as the tax could be set off against income tax liability.

Mr Lazzari’s study estimates that the tax reduced domestic oil production from anywhere between 1.2 and 8 per cent and dependence on imported oil grew from 3 to 13 per cent. The tax was finally repealed by the Reagan administration in 1988 as it failed to generate projected revenues, increased dependence on imported oil and turned into an administrative burden for the Internal Revenue Service.

Where’s the windfall profit?

Now, it is doubtful if those calling for a windfall profit tax in India are aware of the unpleasant experience that the US had with the tax. It is even more doubtful if they have studied the financial statements of the domestic oil companies — Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), Indian Oil, Bharat Petroleum and Hindustan Petroleum. If they did, they would not be demanding such a tax now.

The financial statements reveal how these companies are reeling under the burden of subsidy; they show how these once cash-rich companies are now borrowing heavily to finance their working capital and are heading for losses this fiscal. So, where are the “windfall profits” to be taxed?

The only oil company that stands to gain from the rising global crude oil prices is ONGC. But ONGC is already suffering a windfall profit tax though not by name. Just consider this. The company contributed Rs 22,000 crore as its share of the subsidy burden in 2007-08 (through discounts to the downstream refining companies). This reduced its turnover to Rs 59,848 crore in 2007-08, 27 per cent lower than what it ought to have been.

The impact was bigger on the post-tax earnings. ONGC parted with almost half its profits to fill the subsidy hole. Its post-tax earnings at Rs 16,701 crore were lower by Rs 13,241 crore thanks to the subsidy burden. Why was ONGC asked to bear such a large share of the burden? It was because it stood to gain the most from the rise in global oil prices. If this subsidy-sharing is not a form of windfall profit tax, what is it? Remember, ONGC pays a 33 per cent corporate tax in addition to this subsidy.

The downstream refining and marketing companies such as Indian Oil, Bharat Petroleum and Hindustan Petroleum also share about 10 per cent of the subsidy burden of the government. It is really illogical to think of a windfall profit tax on them when they are already reeling from the subsidy burden and heading for losses.

So, if it is not ONGC and the downstream refining companies, who is the windfall profit tax aimed at then? Reliance Industries and Essar Oil are the only other oil companies in the net apart from Cairn India, which is anyway a marginal player in the present scenario. If at all Cairn were to earn a “windfall profit” it would be when its Rajasthan fields go on stream in 2009 while Essar Oil has yet to stabilise and become a profitable refining company.

That leaves us with Reliance Industries whose profits surged by 62 per cent in 2007-08. But, then again, it is debatable if this can be construed as a “windfall profit”. The company runs an efficient refining operation and has been intelligent in its crude oil sourcing. That its refinery can process heavy and sour crude that is priced at a discount to the premium Brent is also a factor in its better profitability. This is more a case of efficiency driving profits rather than an act of God.

So, what is all this talk of a windfall profit tax then? Such a tax is certainly not going to help bring down pump prices of petrol or diesel. What it will do though is cause immense damage to the already faltering oil companies and lead the government into complex litigation. The rationale for such a tax is completely suspect and can be challenged in the Courts. This is territory not traversed by the government before and could lead to needless complications in an election year.

The government would do well not to embroil itself in more trouble than what it already finds itself in.

Ambani spat highlights India's coalition politics

India’s feuding billionaire Ambani brothers, whose businesses make up about 5 percent of the Asian giant’s economic output, have taken political centrestage and underscored how a new government ally is already generating headlines.

The controversy highlights one problem of coalition politics in India, where political commentators say smaller parties with corporate or social interests can have a disproportionate sway.

After communist parties ended support for the government last week in protest against a nuclear deal with the United States, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh won backing of the regional Samajwadi Party (SP) to avoid losing a confidence vote and facing snap elections.

The party has close links to Anil Ambani, the head of Reliance Communications and one of the world’s richest men, who has been in a long dispute with his even richer and elder brother Mukesh, chairman of Reliance Industries.

The dispute led to the split of the Reliance empire in 2005 into two groups controlled by each of the brothers. Together they represent about a fifth of the Sensex share index and operate in sectors from petrochemicals to mobile networks.

So when Mukesh Ambani met the prime minister on Monday, it sparked headlines across India that he was trying to defend his business interests amid fears his brother now enjoyed greater access to the government thanks to his SP links.

The meeting followed SP General Secretary Amar Singh saying his party would push for a windfall tax on private oil refiners, a move that would directly hurt Mukesh’s plans to have the world’s biggest refinery complex in India.

"Corporate Games in PM’s Office" was the headline of the Mail Today on Tuesday.

"A dangerous precedent has been set with the Prime Minister being asked to personally intervene to mediate between the two Ambani brothers," the Communist Party of India (Marxist), which is hugely influential in parliament, said.

"The two largest political parties are weak and smaller parties can gain influence. The tail can wag the dog," Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, an author on coalition politics in India, said.

Reliance Industries and the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group had no comment on any of the reports. A source at the prime minister’s office said the meeting was business, not politics.

"DISGUSTING"

Shares in Reliance Industries lost nearly 6 percent in two days after the SP officially said it would back the government, with investors nervous about the windfall tax.

The Ambani dispute had already turned more bitter when Anil bid to merge Reliance Communications with South Africa’s MTN Group to create a telecoms giant. Mukesh objected, saying his permission was required for sales of family shares.

Then came the tidal change in politics, with Amar Singh and the SP as kingmaker effectively holding the balance of power.

Amar Singh last week told television Mukesh’s approach to the MTN deal was "disgusting" and called on the prime minister to sort out the conflict.

The politician’s stance has raised eyebrows. Any government move against exports of refined oil products, as Amar Singh wants, would hit Mukesh’s Reliance Petroleum, which is about to start test runs for a new export-oriented refinery.

Reliance Industries, which controls Reliance Petroleum, runs India’s biggest refinery at Jamnagar, adjacent to the new plant, and its refining complex will be the biggest in the world.

"It’s all looking like a bit of a farce now," said Harit Shah, an analyst at Angel Broking.

"It is a bit illogical to think that special benefits that were given years ago can suddenly be abolished or that taxes can suddenly be imposed because someone is demanding it."

"But what’s clear is that having the heads of two of the biggest conglomerates fight is a bad reflection of India as a good investment destination or a good place to do business in."

V.K. Sharma, head of research at Anagram Stock Broking, said the market was used to factoring in politics.

"It gives a very shoddy impression about India," he said. "That means politics still plays a role in doing business here."