CLICK HERE if you are having a problem viewing the photos on a mobile deviceOAKLAND — Warriors coach Steve Kerr didn’t necessarily agree with Klay Thompson about the lack of crowd noise inside Oracle Arena during a stunning defeat to the Phoenix Suns.But, yeah, he gets it.“I think I understood what he was talking about, but it’s all tied together,” Kerr said Monday at the team’s practice facility. “When you play well, when you play with great energy and a great pace and spirit, fans are …
South African foreign minister NkosazanaDlamini-Zuma and US secretary of stateHillary Clinton.(Image: US Department of State) The two politicians brief the media aftertheir meeting.(Image: US Department of State) The US Department of State in Washington.(Image: Wikimedia)Janine ErasmusSouth African foreign minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma has held her first official talks with recently-appointed US secretary of state Hillary Clinton. The minister met with her US counterpart on 19 March 2009 at the State Department in Washington.This is the first official meeting between the two since the change in US administration in January 2009, although Dlamini-Zuma remarked that they knew each other from other engagements.The previous day Dlamini-Zuma led the South African delegation in a United Nations Security Council debate that centred on African Union peace operations conducted under a mandate from the Security Council. The minister was accompanied by foreign affairs deputy director-general George Nene, and Baso Sanqu, South Africa’s representative at the United Nations.The foreign minister then travelled from New York to Washington for her high-level meeting with Clinton.Dlamini-Zuma and Clinton were scheduled to discuss political developments concerning Africa and the US, according to the South African department of foreign affairs. They were also to review current bilateral political, economic and trade relations, as well as issues of multilateral concern. The global economic crisis was also on the agenda, said departmental spokesman Ronnie Mamoepa.The two countries wish to strengthen and consolidate existing strategic bilateral relations politically and economically, especially since the advent of the new administration.Strong bilateral relationsSouth Africa and the US established formal relations in 1789 when the US opened a consulate in Cape Town. While relations became strained during the apartheid years, with the US implementing wide-ranging sanctions against South Africa, the situation returned to normal after South Africa’s historic first democratic elections in 1994.Since then the overall bilateral relationship with the US has remained strong. Over the last decade business, civilian and governmental links have expanded. Today the US is one of the single largest foreign investors in the South African economy, and South Africa is also one of the US’s leading trading partners on the continent in both import and export terms. After the UK, the US is the second-largest source of tourists to South Africa.The two countries have a common agenda in a number of areas, including the promotion of human rights as well as international trade, the prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the elimination of the illegal narcotics trade.A warm welcomeClinton welcomed the minister warmly. “It’s a special treat to welcome not only the foreign minister, but someone who I’ve had the privilege of meeting before, and looking forward now to work together in our new capacity. We have so many important issues to discuss with South Africa. And the opportunity for us to have a comprehensive relationship that touches on all of these important matters is very exciting to me, Madame Minister.”Dlamini-Zuma was equally gracious in her response. “It is a pleasure for South Africa to be able to meet the secretary of state in a new capacity,” she said, adding that she was delighted to have the opportunity to investigate ways in which South Africa-US bilateral relations could be strengthened, as well as probe co-operation in many other areas of mutual interest.Do you have queries or comments about this article? Contact Janine Erasmus at firstname.lastname@example.org.Related articlesObamamania sweeps AfricaSA hot destination for US touristsUseful linksUS Department of StateDepartment of Foreign AffairsUnited NationsSouth African embassy in Washington
Who will win enough games to compete for this?The NFL Draft is dominating today’s news cycle but it’s always a good time to make some College Football Playoff predictions. About five months away from the 2016 season, some of ESPN’s College GameDay crew has done just that. ESPN play-by-play announcer Chris Fowler tweeted out the teams himself, Jesse Palmer, Desmond Howard, Joey Galloway and Kaylee Hartung are picking to make the College Football Playoff. Clemson was the only unanimous selection between the five college football personalities, while seven other teams – Oklahoma, Baylor, Alabama, LSU, Stanford, Tennessee and Houston – were picked by at least one of them. fired up panel @JessePalmerABC @DesmondHoward @Joey_Galloway @KayleeHartung making bold CFB predictions at our sponsor summit tonight! 1/2— Chris Fowler (@cbfowler) April 28, 20162/2 our panel’s consensus CFB playoff pick: @ClemsonFB w/ OU, BAY, ALA, LSU, TENN, STAN, HOU also mentioned by at least one of them.— Chris Fowler (@cbfowler) April 28, 2016Some pretty popular choices, but it’s surprising to see no Big Ten teams on their list. Both Michigan and Ohio State are thought to be preseason top 10 teams and it’s tough to imagine a one-loss Big Ten champion getting left out.Who are you picking?
Chennai: The AIADMK in Tamil Nadu Monday kick-started its candidate selection process for the April 18 Lok Sabha elections in the state, with the interview of ticket aspirants of ten constituencies. The ruling party also invited applications from aspiring candidates for the by-polls to 18 Assembly segments, which will be held along with the parliamentary polls. Elections to 39 Lok Sabha seats in TN and the lone Puducherry segment will be held on April 18, the second of the seven phases of polling across the country for a total of 543 seats. On Monday, the AIADMK Parliamentary Board, whose members include party Coordinator and state Deputy CM O Panneerselvam and Joint Coordinator and Tamil Nadu CM K Palaniswami, interviewed the aspiring candidates for 10 constituencies including Salem, Nilgiris and Coimbatore, a party release said. The AIADMK is heading the NDA in TN, whose constituents are the BJP, PMK, DMDK, Puthiya Tamizhagam and PNK.
Former Buffalo Bills wide receiver Andre Reed was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame on Saturday, joining his longtime teammates Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas and Bruce Smith in Canton. As a key contributor to the Bills’ four Super Bowl berths in the 1990s,1The lasting memory of Reed’s career for many NFL fans may be his performance in this game — eight catches, 136 yards and three touchdowns — when he helped Buffalo mount the biggest comeback in NFL history. Reed is a qualified candidate for the game’s greatest individual honor. But while he was good, he wasn’t nearly as good as several other receivers the Hall has ignored. It’s not Reed’s fault — it’s the Hall’s. Canton hasn’t figured out how to best judge the careers of modern wide receivers.Even in a sport where an individual player’s statistics are contaminated by the strengths and weaknesses of his teammates, his coaches and countless other considerations, wide receiver performance is a particularly tough nut to crack. Raw numbers rarely offer enough to help us properly distinguish between pass-catchers, especially across eras, and statisticians haven’t always agreed on how best to correct biases in the data.Take Reed’s career as an example. It’s a glossy one — at the time he retired, he ranked third all time in catches, fourth in receiving yards and sixth in touchdown receptions. But it’s also one that was entangled with the great ensemble of offensive talent, and one that was a beneficiary of the dawn of the NFL’s passing explosion. Moreover, some advanced stats show that Reed’s on-field influence wasn’t what it appeared to be — the evidence is surprisingly mixed with regard to his actual effect on team passing efficiency.In recent years, the Hall of Fame’s selection committee has reacted to its wide-receiver dilemma either by ignoring the position or by disregarding advanced stats when the committee does deign to induct those who played it. (Until Reed and Cris Carter were tapped in the last two elections, the Hall had only taken seven receivers since 2000, a number that included the controversial selection of Lynn Swann.) But Reed and Carter’s inductions signal that the WR logjam has become too much to ignore — and the tide of qualified receivers is only going to keep surging.2Marvin Harrison, Randy Moss and Torry Holt are either on the ballot or coming soon. It’s time to re-evaluate how we judge Reed and his contemporaries statistically.Wide receivers are products of their eras. When the NFL opened up the passing game in 1978, enacting new rules to make pass-blocking easier and to eliminate downfield defensive contact with receivers, league-wide passing output spiked almost instantly. As a consequence, the numbers that once automatically signified greatness quickly became devalued. For example, using a simple ratio of league passing yards per game in one season compared to another,3If the average passing yards per game in 2013 was 1.4 times as many as in 1960, I would multiply a 1960 player’s stats by 1.4 to “convert” to the equivalent in 2013. Reed’s 1,312-yard campaign in 1989 would have been the equivalent of a mere 883 yards a dozen years prior. What was, at the time, the 22nd-highest single-season yardage total ever becomes the 324th.To appreciate a receiver’s true(r) talent isn’t just about adjusting to his era, though, it’s also about adjusting to his team. The degree to which a receiver’s team throws the ball relative to the league norm has an effect on his stats. It’s a point that sounds laughably obvious, but somehow isn’t often considered when judging pass-catchers: Teams that run more plays through the air give their receivers more opportunities to put up eye-popping numbers.For Reed, this wasn’t a major factor; his Buffalo Bills and Washington Redskins threw about 3.5 percent less often than other teams in the league over the course of his career, which would only be enough to take 35 yards away from a 1,000-yard season. But it does matter for someone like Calvin Johnson, whose Detroit Lions have chucked the ball downfield 12 percent more often than average in a league that already generates 10 percent more aerial yards per game than the historical norm. How we treat this adjustment can make a huge difference in how a receiver is perceived statistically.I tried to solve this issue last August by developing a metric called True Receiving Yards (TRY) with Chase Stuart of FootballPerspective.com. (You can download the raw career TRY data, along with some other metrics I introduce later in this piece, on GitHub.) TRY attempts to boil down a receiver’s production4Including catches, raw yardage and touchdowns. into a single (yardage-like) number that adjusts for differences in schedule lengths, league-wide passing environments and team passing volumes.We initially scaled a player’s TRY in lockstep with the frequency with which his team passed relative to the league average. That downgraded Johnson’s 2012 production by 23 percent, because, despite him breaking the all-time single-season record for receiving yards that year, Detroit also broke the all-time record for pass attempts in a season.But it wasn’t as simple as that. Teams that pass heavily tend to do so for a reason. Namely, because they have a skilled quarterback and/or receivers. And so when Chase and I looked into it further, it became apparent that a 5 percent increase in team passing frequency didn’t necessarily lead to a 5 percent increase in individual receiving output. Instead, we found that it was more like a 2.5 percent increase — for any given increase in team passing volume, a player only saw half that increase in production.Our difficulty in pinning down the real effect of something so simple underscores just how ambiguous receiving stats can be. Complicating matters, receivers — unlike players at just about any other position — are competing with their own teammates for touches during a game, in real time. That makes them more like basketball players, and we know that a guy like Carmelo Anthony, who uses a lot of his team’s possessions, appears to exert an influence that goes beyond his personal stats. Having a receiver who commands extra attention seems like an obvious benefit to a team — but it’s difficult to prove that’s true.Not that it’s stopped statisticians from trying. The most commonly cited advanced receiving statistics are generated by Football Outsiders, whose Defense-adjusted Value Over Average (DVOA) metric tracks a team’s passing success on plays where a given player was targeted by the quarterback as the intended receiver. Measuring performance on a per-opportunity basis is rooted in the traditions of baseball’s sabermetrics, where discrete events can easily be identified as opportunities for specific players. But football is much more fluid than baseball, so we run into a curious phenomenon: By getting an opportunity — even an unsuccessful one — a receiver could be demonstrating a positive in-game influence, if not simply by stretching the defense and opening up opportunities for teammates.Some of this phenomenon also is rooted in Bayes’ theorem. Since coaches and quarterbacks both have strong incentives to funnel targets to their most talented receivers, the very act of being targeted for a pass is evidence of a player’s quality as an offensive threat. Because of this, looking at per-target metrics like catch rate and DVOA may miss the bigger picture of a player’s full on-field value. Those metrics aren’t taking into account how a receiver is shaping the game even when he’s not directly involved in a successful play.And then there’s the matter of adjusting for the quality of a receiver’s teammates, and quantifying how much his conventional numbers truly lead to better team outcomes. A year ago, I took a very rudimentary step in that direction by computing With Or Without You (WOWY) scores for historical receivers. Essentially, WOWY measures whether all of the quarterbacks who played with a given receiver were more efficient5According to Adjusted Net Yards Per Attempt (ANY/A) versus the league average. over their collective careers6After adjusting for aging effects. with him or without him. This is, in some ways, a more pertinent question to ask about a receiver — forget individual yardage, is he associated with a more efficient passing offense? But that question isn’t perfect either: It requires using an entire team’s passing-efficiency data, which can be noisy from season to season.Regardless, most of the usual suspects come out looking good by WOWY. For instance, Randy Moss, whose statistical sway over his quarterbacks was legendary, boasts a +1.1 WOWY,7Meaning the average True Receiving Yard gained in Moss’s career came on a pass from a QB whose ANY/A was 1.1 higher with Moss than without him. which ranks second only to Rod Smith’s8Whose influence on John Elway’s numbers was also very notable. among players with 10,000 career True Receiving Yards. And Tim Brown (the long-time Oakland Raiders receiver whom the committee did not select despite better individual receiving statistics than Reed) also ranks among the top WOWY receivers ever at +0.7.Reed’s WOWY, however, comes out tied for second-worst among players with 10,000 lifetime TRY. Despite his impressive raw (and adjusted) receiving numbers, he wasn’t associated with better play from his quarterbacks when they were throwing to him. How much of this merits a serious indictment of Reed as a player isn’t completely clear, but the Hall of Fame isn’t even having that discussion using new metrics.(Brown’s resume, on the other hand, was more impressive by every standard that doesn’t involve the postseason. And while 71 percent of Reed’s career yardage came on passes from Hall of Famer Jim Kelly, Brown put up his superior numbers with an aging Rich Gannon, Jeff Hostetler, Jeff George, Jay Schroeder and Vince Evans at quarterback.)Certainly the challenge of interpreting receiving data, especially across different eras of the game’s history, presents a daunting task to those seeking to fairly analyze Hall of Fame candidates. But the solution to the Hall’s wide receiver logjam isn’t to ignore the data entirely. It’s to dream up inventive ways of answering the pertinent questions about a player’s qualifications. Advanced analytics attempt to answer fundamental questions about a player’s actual on-field influence. Last I checked, that’s what’s supposed to put a player in the Hall of Fame.
The prime of a boxing career is ephemeral, the sport’s history littered with the legacies of those who stayed too long. The 2015 study “Hand Speed Measurements in Boxing” found that peak performance is often achieved between the ages of 20 and 30. Alvarez is 28 years old, at the zenith of his career. Golovkin is 36, closing in on the sunset of his. “A boxer who fights after 35 is pushing on the gas pedal, accelerating toward an early demise,” wrote Ferdie Pacheco of The New York Times. And yet, Golovkin has been so ruthlessly efficient in the ring that before last year’s Alvarez matchup, he hadn’t so much as seen the final round of a fight in more than eight years, preserving the bloom of his career to such a degree that most sportsbooks give him a 59 percent to 63 percent implied probability of winning on Saturday, consistent with last year’s odds. Those odds support a 36-year-old’s ability to crush his opponent, coming off the longest layoff of his career, in 36 minutes or less. Golovkin’s skill set has been among the best in the sport for years, but he was unable to land lucrative fights because, simply, no one wanted to fight him. Alvarez seemingly does, but he’d be wise not to turn the upcoming nine-figure payday into the blow-for-blow melee his opponent seeks. Almost exactly one year after they fought to a controversial draw — prompting a near-aneurysm from ESPN’s Teddy Atlas — Saul “Canelo” Alvarez and Gennady Gennadyevich Golovkin will meet once again in Las Vegas at T-Mobile Arena in a middleweight world title rematch. Alvarez-Golovkin has been the best pure bout that contemporary boxing has produced in essentially three years, so it’s perhaps no surprise that a slab of contaminated meat couldn’t delay its second installment for more than six months.Boxing’s ecosystem subsists on manufactured hatred and braggadocio. Both are far more evident this time around, the mutual respect of their first fight a distant memory. The animosity has risen steadily between the two world champions raised thousands of miles apart: Alvarez grew up hawking ice cream on the streets of Juanacatlan, Mexico, while Golovkin was forced at a young age to fight grown men in Karaganda, Kazakhstan.Alvarez (49-1-2, 34 knockouts) and Golovkin (38-0-1, 34 knockouts) are two of the finest active fighters, universally considered to be among the sport’s top pound–for–pound talents. Here are three keys to their fight:Will Golovkin’s jabs take their toll?A jab is a fighter’s appetizer, a small taste before the main course of hooks, crosses and uppercuts. Certain studies have found the punch capable of packing more velocity than a cross, but typically it’s a weapon deployed to accrue points, find a boxer’s range and conserve energy — not end a fight. How then to strategize against an opponent whose hors d’oeuvres crack like howitzers?Golovkin carries what may be the most lethal jab in the middleweight division. He uncorks it at a high volume to dictate the pace of a fight and to coerce his opponents into vulnerable positions as they try to earn back points. “I don’t think anybody in the past I’ve trained has had such a good jab,” said Abel Sanchez, Golovkin’s trainer, who has coached 18 world champions.Over his past five fights other than the Alvarez bout, Golovkin connected on 39.7 percent of his jabs to his opponents’ 20.3 percent, landing an average of 12.7 jabs per round, according to CompuBox data. He threw 128 more jabs than Alvarez did the last time the two met, landing 53 more and boasting a superior connection percentage. Alvarez landed more jabs than Golovkin did in just one round (the sixth) and was out-landed 42 to 12 over the final four rounds.Alvarez’s jab has earned the endorsement of Floyd Mayweather Jr., but Alvarez doesn’t often use it more than his opponents do. He has out-jabbed three of his past five challengers other than Golovkin — with a trouncing of hapless Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. largely skewing the data. Miguel Cotto in 2015 more than doubled Alvarez’s total jabs landed. When Mayweather dolled out the lone loss of Alvarez’s professional career, he more than tripled the Mexican’s jab-landed total.Blows wear on a fighter over time. As Golovkin once put it: “Who wants to get hit in the face?” It’s paramount for Alvarez to avoid the unrelenting power that has made it difficult for Golovkin to keep sparring partners. Alvarez cannot afford to let Golovkin impose the rhythm of the fight by way of his jab.Can Alvarez find any space?If Muhammad Ali turned the ring into a stage worth exploring, Golovkin turns it into a treadmill, relentlessly closing in on his opponent as if drawn by a magnet. Golovkin bouts typically resemble bullfights, with the Kazakh fighter charging his opposition with abandon. “I don’t like dancing,” he said upon vaporizing Marco Antonio Rubio in the second round in 2014. “I like fighting.”The surgical precision of his footwork is deliberate, an inverse of the speed-driven, complicated maneuverings of fighters like Sugar Ray Leonard and Ali. Golovkin cuts off the ring — using lateral footwork to force his opponents into close quarters or trap them against the ropes — because it isolates his prey and allows him to apply unyielding pressure in a forced slugfest. Hall of Fame trainer Freddie Roach has said Golovkin may have the best footwork in boxing.Not unlike the fictional Ivan Drago, Golovkin has aluminum-bat strength and a rhino-like neck (he’s capable of completing sets of chin pushups). He has never been knocked down in his professional career. Golovkin seems to want to prove the integrity of his jaw by lunging at his opponent, suffocating his space. In the ninth round of last year’s bout, Alvarez unloaded an overhand right that landed flush. Golovkin let it slide across his cheek like a washcloth and continued to move forward, stalking his opponent as if nothing had happened at all. Watch the video, and you can see fear in the eyes of Alvarez in that moment.Stylistically, Alvarez agitated some in the boxing community — most notably Golovkin’s team — during last year’s clash by snaking around the ring, idling along the ropes and largely eschewing the knock-down drag-out brawl Golovkin sought. For Alvarez, a roving, defensive-minded counterpuncher, this was the optimal blueprint. Those who aim to out-punch Golovkin nearly always end up on the canvas.The game plan was mostly effective in their first fight: Golovkin landed 32 percent of his power punches, a drop-off of 14 percentage points from his previous 13 fights. Alvarez was certainly out-hit, but he kept Golovkin to 18.2 shots landed per round — well below his average of 26.2.It didn’t go unnoticed by Sanchez, who told ESPN that he has since asked Jordan Brand — one of Golovkin’s sponsors — to “make some shoes so that we can go a bit faster and are able to catch [Alvarez].”“It’s one thing to be coming forward like a donkey,” Alvarez countered. “It’s another thing to be moving.”Despite the verbal barbs, Alvarez should stay on the outside and pick his moments to earn points when possible, even if it comes at the expense of entertainment for the fans. Alvarez has ample power behind his punches, but he’d be wise not to play into a strategy that would clearly favor the man who has earned 89 percent of victories by knockout.Who gets the late-round advantage?The prevailing opinion of last year’s fight is that Alvarez didn’t earn a draw. He especially didn’t help his case down the stretch.In the opening four rounds, Golovkin out-landed Alvarez by 2.5 punches per round but was out-landed when it came to power punches: Alvarez averaged seven per round, while Golovkin averaged six. But over the final five rounds, Golovkin landed an average of six more total punches per round than Alvarez did (21.6 to 15.6) and generated a higher connection percentage (34.5 percent to 32.4 percent).If we break the bout down into thirds, Alvarez averaged a higher connection percentage than Golovkin in the first through fourth rounds (36.5 percent to 30.8 percent) and the fifth through eighth rounds (31.1 percent to 27.3 percent), but fell behind Golovkin in the ninth through 12th rounds (33.3 percent to 35.1 percent).Controlling the waning rounds is easier said than done, of course. Golovkin’s punches register like those of a heavyweight, with a higher severity than typical of fighters from lower weight classes. Vanquished opponents have compared facing Golovkin to “being hit by a train.” To be sure, after your central nervous system has suffered 24 minutes of battery, elevating your performance over the final 12 minutes is an arduous task. But when the decision is in question, those memories are freshest in the minds of the judging panel, so a strong finish carries considerable weight.
For technology publishers that are looking for extra video for their Web sites, IDG says it has the answer. Its IDG TechNetwork recently launched a syndicated video network that enables other publishers to integrate IDG-produced video content and video pre-roll ads onto their sites.According to IDG TechNetwork CEO Peter Longo, many of the business’ network sites have “a strong interest in bringing professional video to their sites, but don’t have the technical platform or access to the right content. By tapping into IDG’s library of video content, we can bring our partner sites engaging video, increase the monetization of their sites and provide a new, high impact way for our advertisers to engage with our tech audiences.”IDG creates video content through a number of brands, including the IDG News Service, which distributes roughly 15 videos weekly. Citing eMarketer numbers, IDG says total online video ad spending this year is expected to increase by more than 48 percent, up from a 39 percent jump in 2009.
Facebook News Rolling Stone’s Top 21st Century Song List Is In beyonc%C3%A9-adele-make-rolling-stones-top-21st-century-songs-list Twitter Beyoncé, Adele Make Rolling Stone’s Top 21st Century Songs List Email Missy Elliott, M.I.A., Lorde, Kelly Clarkson, and Britney Spears also have entries on the first list celebrating the songs of the century Renée FabianGRAMMYs Jun 29, 2018 – 5:04 pm Rolling Stone loves publishing lists and we are here for it. There’s the “100 Greatest Songwriters,” “The 50 Greatest Concerts of the Last 50 Years” and now, behold: “The 100 Greatest Songs of the Century — So Far.”We’re only 18 years into the 21st century, so it may seem like an odd time to curate a list commemorating a century’s worth of songs, since we still have decades to go before we reach the turn of the next century. Yet given the sheer volume of music already released, it seems rather prudent to get to work now.To curate the list, Rolling Stone let artists, producers, critics, and industry experts weigh in on their top picks before culling the information into one inclusive list. The result captures a wide range of genres and a diverse group of artists. But we’ll cut to the chase. Here’s the short version so you don’t have to scroll.Topping the list — so far — is “Crazy In Love” by the incomparable Beyoncé, featuring Jay-Z. Currently in the midst of a joint tour as the Carters, their ranking at the top of the list should not surprise anyone who’s seen them live. The single also earned two wins at the 46th GRAMMY Awards for Best Rap/Sung Collaboration and Best R&B Song.Rounding out the Top 5 are M.I.A.’s GRAMMY-nominated “Paper Planes” at No. 2, the White Stripes’ GRAMMY-winning “Seven Nation Army” at No. 3, Outkast’s GRAMMY-winning “Hey Ya!” at No. 4, and Jay-Z’s GRAMMY-winning “99 Problems” at No. 5. Having fun? I am. Let’s keep going. Yeah Yeah Yeahs notch No. 6 with “Maps,” Kanye West with Pusha T takes No. 7 with “Runaway,” Adele lands at No. 8 with “Rolling In The Deep,” Lorde locks in No. 9 with “Royals,” and the Strokes’ “Last Night” wraps up the Top 10.Other artists featured on the list span Missy Elliott and Kendrick Lamar to Kelly Clarkson and Britney Spears as well as Haim, Cardi B, the Flaming Lips, Grimes, Sia, Lana Del Rey, Daddy Yankee, and Kylie Minogue. If you’ve been counting along, exactly 76 additional songs round out the list. (I dare you to check the math on that, though artists such as Beyoncé rightly have multiple entries on the list, so you may get me on a technicality.)So did your favorite song make the list? What do you think is in store for the next 18.49 years?Catching Up On Music News Powered By The Recording Academy Just Got Easier. Have A Google Home Device? “Talk To GRAMMYs”Read more
The Peoples’ Linguistic Survey of India (PLSI) here Thursday released five volumes on various Indian languages documenting their history, landmark events, folklore and songs.PLSI is a nationwide survey aimed at working out alternate ways of development of the various Indian languages and maintaining organic links between scholarship and the social context. It has planned release of 50 volumes on the Indian languages and divided them into state and national series. Also Read – ‘Playing Jojo was emotionally exhausting’The volumes released are: The Being of Bhasha: General Introduction to the People’s Linguistic Survey of India; The Languages of Assam, Assamese version; The Languages of Maharashtra, Marathi version; The Languages of Uttarakhand, Hindi version; and The Indian Sign Languages – the only volume released from the national series.Vadodara-based Bhasha Research Centre conducted the survey. The PLSI team, comprising over 3,000 activists and scholars, covered 780 languages spread across all states and union territories. Also Read – Leslie doing new comedy special with Netflix’Languages came much before the script came. So these volumes trace the origin of the language, map their history and connect them to the roots they belong to. We are on the verge of losing languages and it is important to preserve them orally,’ PLSI chairman Ganesh Devy said.He was speaking at the inaugural ceremony of a three-day event titled, ‘Mapping Indian Art, Culture and Languages’. Lalit Kala Akademi is hosting the series of events.K.K. Chakravarty, chairman, Lalit Kala Akademi said, ‘We are trying to connect performing arts to the people through these events.”We are bringing out the volumes as they come to us,’ Ketaki Bose, associate publisher, Orient Blackswan, said.