Monthly Archives: February 2021

WASHINGTONThe Biden administration plans to allow a sweeping Trump-era rule aimed at combating Chinese technology threats to take effect next month, over objections from U.S. businesses, according to people familiar with the matter.

The rule, initially proposed in November, enables the Commerce Department to ban technology-related business transactions that it determines pose a national security threat, part of an effort to secure U.S. supply chains. Companies in technology, telecommunications, finance and other industries say the rule could stifle innovation and hurt competitiveness, and had expected it to be delayed as the administration undertakes a broad review of U.S. policy on Chinese technology.

Now the administration is planning to go forward with the rule, the people said. Administration officials are concerned that blocking or diluting the rule would send the wrong message about the new administrations approach to China, potentially fueling criticism that it is taking a weaker approach, according to the people.

One person familiar with the matter said administration officials have signaled to the business community that they wont enforce the rule aggressively. That could soften the impact, although business representatives say the rule will still subject firmsespecially smaller onesto significant new compliance costs and uncertainty. Another person familiar with the matter said the administration hasnt said it would hold back in enforcing the rule.

The rule is unworkable for U.S. businesses in its current form and should not be considered for final publication without significant revisions, said the Business Roundtable, a group of CEOs of major companies from Amazon.com Inc. and Citigroup Inc. to Walmart Inc., in a comment filed with the Commerce Department in January. International Business Machines Corp. said the rule as written was massively overbroad and would harm the economy while failing to enhance U.S. national security.

Read the original:

U.S. to Impose Sweeping Rule Aimed at China Technology Threats - The Wall Street Journal

What technology would you invest in if you won the lottery? Many ranchers would put calves first and install calving barn camera monitors.

Data from the latest Drovers Pulse Poll found that 34% of the 150 respondents would choose cameras, 25% would select frost-free waterers, 16% were interested in data management technology, followed by 15% who would buy a gadget such as a drone and 10% would opt for whole herd DNA testing.

Heres a breakdown of responses:

Curious about how a barn camera system could work? Check out this overview from the SDSU Extension.

Its important to prep water systems before cold weather hits. Here are some tips to get your system winterized.

Want a handy checklist for calving season prep? Weve got you covered.

What would you choose? Let us know in the comments below. Want to be part of the in-crowd responding to these polls? Text Drovers to 31313 to sign up.

See the original post here:

What Technology Would Catch Your Eye If You Won the Lottery? - Drovers Magazine

The "Technology Landscape, Trends and Opportunities in the Global Motion Sensor Market" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

This report analyzes technology maturity, degree of disruption, competitive intensity, market potential, and other parameters of various technologies in the motion sensor market.

The technologies in motion sensor market have undergone significant change in recent years, from narrow coverage area to wider coverage area. The rising wave of new technologies, such as infrared and microwave are creating significant potential for advanced motion sensor in home security and automotive applications, and driving the demand for motion sensor technologies.

In motion sensor market, various technologies, such as MEMS gyroscope, MEMS accelerometer, MEMS magnetometer, MEMS combo, infrared, ultrasonic, microwave, dual technology, and tomographic sensors are used for monitoring device movement.

Increasing penetration of motion sensors in smartphone and tablets, growing interactive motion gaming, and increasing safety and security features in the automotive industry are creating new opportunities for various motion sensor technologies.

The study includes technology readiness, competitive intensity, regulatory compliance, disruption potential, trends, forecasts and strategic implications for the global motion sensor technology by application, technology, and region.

Some of the motion sensor companies profiled in this report include STMicroelectronics, Murata Manufacturing, Honeywell International, NXP Semiconductors, Analog Devices, Microchip Technology, TDK InvenSense, Bosch Sensortec, Memsic, and Kionix.

This report answers the following 9 key questions:

What are some of the most promising and high-growth technology opportunities for the motion sensor market?

Which technology will grow at a faster pace and why?

What are the key factors affecting dynamics of different technologies? What are the drivers and challenges of these technologies in motion sensor market?

What are the levels of technology readiness, competitive intensity and regulatory compliance in this technology space?

What are the business risks and threats to these technologies in motion sensor market?

What are the latest developments in motion sensor technologies? Which companies are leading these developments?

Which technologies have potential of disruption in this market?

Who are the major players in this motion sensor market? What strategic initiatives are being implemented by key players for business growth?

What are strategic growth opportunities in this motion sensor technology space?

Key Topics Covered:

Story continues

1. Executive Summary

2. Technology Landscape

2.1. Technology Background and Evolution

2.2. Technology and Application Mapping

2.3. Supply Chain

3. Technology Readiness

3.1. Technology Commercialization and Readiness

3.2. Drivers and Challenges in Motion Sensor Technologies

3.3. Competitive Intensity

3.4. Regulatory Compliance

4. Technology Trends and Forecasts Analysis from 2013-2024

4.1. Motion Sensor Opportunity

4.2. Technology Trends (2013-2018) and Forecasts (2019-2024)

4.2.1. MEMS Gyroscope

4.2.2. MEMS Accelerometer

4.2.3. MEMS Magnetometer

4.2.4. MEMS Combo

4.2.5. Infrared Sensor

4.2.6. Ultrasonic Sensor

4.2.7. Microwave Sensor

4.2.8. Others

4.3. Technology Trends (2013-2018) and Forecasts (2019-2024) by Application Segments

4.3.1. Consumer Electronics by Technology

4.3.2. Automotive by Technology

4.3.3. Aerospace & Defense by Technology

4.3.4. Healthcare by Technology

4.3.5. Industrial Electronics by Technology

4.3.6. Others by Technology

5. Technology Opportunities (2013-2024) by Region

5.1. Motion Sensor Market by Region

5.2. North American Motion Sensor Technology Market

5.2.1. United States Motion Sensor Technology Market

5.2.2. Canadian Motion Sensor Technology Market

5.2.3. Mexican Motion Sensor Technology Market

5.3. European Motion Sensor Technology Market

5.3.1. The United Kingdom Motion Sensor Technology Market

5.3.2. German Automotive Motion Sensor Technology Market

5.3.3. French Automotive Motion Sensor Technology Market

5.4. APAC Motion Sensor Technology Market

5.4.1. Chinese Motion Sensor System Technology Market

5.4.2. Japanese Motion Sensor System Technology Market

5.4.3. Indian Motion Sensor System Technology Market

5.4.4. South Korean Motion Sensor Technology Market

5.5. ROW Motion Sensor Technology Market

6. Latest Developments and Innovations in the Motion Sensor Technologies

7. Companies/Ecosystem

7.1. Product Portfolio Analysis

7.2. Market Share Analysis

7.3. Geographical Reach

8. Strategic Implications

8.1. Implications

8.2. Growth Opportunity Analysis

8.2.1. Growth Opportunities for the Motion Sensor Market by Technology Type

8.2.2. Growth Opportunities for the Motion Sensor Market by Application

8.2.3. Growth Opportunities for the Motion Sensor Market by Region

8.3. Emerging Trends in the Motion Sensor Market

8.4. Disruption Potential

8.5. Strategic Analysis

8.5.1. New Product Development

8.5.2. Capacity Expansion of the Motion Sensor Market

8.5.3. Mergers, Acquisitions, and Joint Ventures in the Motion Sensor Market

9. Company Profiles of Leading Players

9.1. STMicroelectronics

9.2. Murata Manufacturing

9.3. Honeywell International

9.4. NXP Semiconductors

9.5. Analog Devices

9.6. Microchip Technology

9.7. TDK InvenSense

9.8. Bosch Sensortec

9.9. Memsic

9.10. Kionix

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/1q1n3d

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210226005196/en/

Contacts

ResearchAndMarkets.comLaura Wood, Senior Press Managerpress@researchandmarkets.com

For E.S.T Office Hours Call 1-917-300-0470For U.S./CAN Toll Free Call 1-800-526-8630For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900

Go here to see the original:

Technology Landscape, Trends and Opportunities in the Global Motion Sensor Market, 2021 Report - ResearchAndMarkets.com - Yahoo Finance

Dont let anyone tell you that lawyers cant change or that they hate technology. Recent history proves that, despite some foot-dragging, the legal industry has completely reinvented itself thanks to technological advances. Whether youre a tech-skeptic or well-versed in what new tools have to offer, its worth reflecting on how technology has shaped the practice of law we know today and what that history can tell us about where were going.

The legal industry has come a long way in the last 50 years. Once upon a time, dictating letters and briefs onto tapes for secretaries to type out, flipping through the Rolodex before making a call, and poring over law reporter volumes for relevant case law was the norm. Then came word processing software, and with it the ability to cut and paste text and reuse entire sections of argument or research. Attorneys started getting their own computers and connecting them to big clunky printers through local area networks or LANs and in-house email. And, while telephones saw plenty of use, most meetings occurred in-person, necessitating the time and expense of travel. Even then, though, discovery was largely paper-based, with rooms of document review attorneys laboriously sorting and tagging potential evidence.

The next major changes came with the internet, which in turn, birthed social media and eventually the cloud. Portable devices like the BlackBerry, smartphones, and tablets then replaced desktops as vehicles for digital activity. Todays lawyers assemble documents from existing precedents in a fraction of the time it used to take and manage their cases with sophisticated document and practice management software. Files, billing, and time-tracking have all gone digital, as have calendars and contacts. While discovery (now mostly eDiscovery) is still costly, technology-assisted review or TAR has revolutionized the process to the point where its use is now accepted as black-letter law.

The coronavirus pandemic has pushed the legal technology evolution into overdrive, demanding an overnight adoption of video conferencing technology like Zoom and Microsoft Teams, collaboration platforms like Slack, and cloud storage solutions such as Box and Dropbox. Artificial intelligence and legal analytics are no longer pie-in-the-sky possibilities: theyre business necessities.

Its no surprise that lawyers tend to hang back and wait to see how technology works out before jumping on board. The law itself changes slowly: societal norms evolve and cases follow suit, lagging by years to decades as legislatures pass new laws and judges gradually overturn precedents. Weve seen this initial resistance, and the ability to overcome it, over and over in recent legal history.

From email and smartphones to TAR and document management systems, legal history is rife with tools that lawyers once resisted but now take for granted.

From email and smartphones to TAR and document management systems, legal history is rife with tools that lawyers once resisted but now take for granted.

But weve also seen that the right motivation can turn that usual pattern on its head, as occurred in March 2020 when offices closed and law firms instantly adopted an entirely remote workforce. This shift gave an immediate boost to cloud-based technology: just a few years ago, many lawyers still feared the cloud, considering it less secure and more risky than on-premise software and file storage. Now, 79 percent of CEOs support moving their operations into the cloud to maintain operations and promote resiliency, leaving lawyers with no choice but to adapt.

However, some of lawyers tech skepticism is warranted due to requirements that the practice of law imposes on tech implementation. Technology used by lawyers or by companies that dont want to end up in trouble with the law must meet stringent requirements around information governance, compliance, preservation, and eDiscovery. Such technology must integrate seamlessly into existing legal and data workflows if it is to gain widespread acceptance.

But the use of technology is not longer optional, a fact underscored by the American Bar Associations 2012 decision to amend the rule of competence to clarify that lawyers must not only be competent in their knowledge of the law and its practice but also in their understanding and application of technology.

The technological advances of the last 50 years dont represent an endgame, of course. To stay ahead of the changes that are inevitably coming, lawyers need to be forward thinkers. That means not wasting time and energy fighting against technology, but rather looking for best-of-breed tools that integrate well with existing technology stacks. A recent IDC Market Spotlight proved the value of this approach, finding that companies that adopted three or more integrated best-of-breed applications saw a 37 percent increase in productivity, with productivity gains rising to 75 percent for companies that deployed six or more integrated tools.

So whats next for legal tech? For our money, there is untold potential in turning vast swaths of data into readily consumable knowledge. With this capability, the most tech-forward legal minds can not only make sense of the mountains of information that come standard in litigation, internal investigations, and audits, but also harness that information to also generate valuable strategic insights for the wider business.

Go here to read the rest:

Learning from history: How forward-thinking legal professionals approach technology - JD Supra

There is no substitute for customer feedback, and farmland is the ultimate testing ground for agriculture technology startups. The multiple benefits for farmer and company provide a blueprint for the success of AgLaunch, an organization connecting pre-commercial, cutting-edge tech businesses with farmers as beta-testers.

Speaking during a session at the 2020 Online Top Producer Summit*, Margaret Oldham, along with Grant Norwood, Alex Forsbach, and Patrick Henry, provided an overview of the AgLaunch system and the mutual advantages available for participating growers and startups.

Norwood grows 3,000 acres of corn, soybeans, and wheat in northwest Tennessee on 100% no till, with a third of his acreage under irrigation, and has participated in two AgLaunch-associated trials. Forsbach farms 3,000 acres of corn, grain sorghum, soybeans, and wheat, in southwest Tennessee, and has tested five AgLaunch-related products since 2018.

For several seasons, Norwood has tested GroGuru, a strategic irrigation management platform that aims for increased yield and water-use efficiency. The value AgLaunch brings in working with new technologies, Norwood said, gives me very good insight into what is potentially available for my farm, and it helps me to help shape the product in a way to help farmers.

In addition, Norwood also serves on GroGurus Farmer Advisory Board of GroGuru: It works great for both sides, Norwood emphasized. With AgLaunch working with companies like GroGuru, its a big step step forward for improving the product for company and farmer.

Henry, CEO of GroGuru, said direct farmer involvement with growers such as Norwood and Forsbach in developing ag technology is invaluable: I was attracted to the model where farmers get involved early. One of the real challenges is identifying farmer-customers that are willing to test stuff out. The AgLaunch model is ideal for getting hold of commercial farmers.

AgLaunch is a matchmaker in being able to identify those farmers who have a real passion for this and can be helpful to us starting new companies and creating new technologies, Henry continued.

Forsbach has been a beta-tester for GroGuru, in addition to four other startups: Rabbit Tractors utilizing farm robots, Kilimo with water management, Continuum Ag for soil testing and fertilizer recommendations, and TeleSense for grain bin monitoring system.

From the kickoff of practical testing, farmers are involved with each AgLaunch endeavor, described Oldham, who steers Business Development for AgLaunch. Part of the AgLaunch model is to have farmers engaged from the very beginning, so our farmers get engaged and select the teams that have technologies theyre interested in, Oldham emphasized. Then AgLaunch works with those teams to develop their business model, and to develop on-farm trial plans, and help them get to the point where they can truly provide value.

*You can still register for the Online Top Producer Summit, which gives you access to content through March 31. Use the code ONDEMAND to take $25 off your registration fee.

Read more coverage of the Top Producer Summit.

Read the rest here:

Farm-Tested Technology a Win for Grower and Startup - Agweb Powered by Farm Journal

Andrew Bosworth AKA Boz, an advertising expert for Facebook, gives a talk at the Online Marketing Rockstars marketing trade show in Hamburg, Germany, 03 March 2017. Photo: Christian Charisius/dpa | usage worldwide (Photo by Christian Charisius/picture alliance via Getty Images)

Christian Charisius | picture alliance | Getty Images

Facebook's head of hardware on Thursday confirmed a report that the company is "looking at" incorporating facial recognition technology for its upcoming smart glasses devices, but only if people want that feature.

Andrew "Boz" Bosworth confirmed the report in a video posted to his Instagram account Thursday evening during a Q&A session with his followers.

Asked if "Facebook is considering offering facial recognition on its smart glasses products?," Bosworth said, "We're looking at it."

"It's really a debate we need to have with the public," Bosworth added. "If people don't want this technology, we don't have to supply it. The product is going to be fine either way. There are some nice use cases out there, if it's something people are comfortable with."

The comments come after BuzzFeed on Thursday reported that the hardware executive said Facebook was weighing the legal implications of such a technology during an internal company meeting.

Bosworth noted that there are ethical concerns with the numerous ways that face recognition and always-on cameras and microphones could be abused.

"All the ways they can be abused, in particular for marginalized communities by authority structures," Bosworth said. "What are all the ways that we can prevent those? And is it enough?"

During the Instagram Q&A, Bosworth reiterated that Facebook is on track to release its smart glasses product in partnership with Luxottica, the maker of Ray-Ban, at some point in 2021.

"We're working hard with our partner Luxottica making sure the form factor is right, making sure the functionality is good, and it's coming together pretty nicely," he said.

See the original post here:

Facebook is 'looking at' facial recognition technology for upcoming smart glasses, executive confirms - CNBC

On 27 January, 2021, TransPerfect Legal Solutions (TLS) held the second day of the inaugural EU/UK Competition Regulation Virtual Conference. Day one focused on the changing regulatory landscape. Day two turned to the advent of big data and how technology is a vital tool in the arsenal of the modern competition practitioner.

Sasha Toussaint, Director in TLSs London office, was joined by Guillaume Aubron, Counsel at Darrois Villey Maillot Brochier; Greg Bonn, Senior Associate at Latham & Watkins; Bryant Isbell, the Managing Director of Global eDiscovery and Data Advisory at Baker McKenzie and TransPerfects very own Katie Perekslis, Vice President of E-Discovery Project Management.

Whether its for merger control, dawn raids or cartel investigations, competition proceedings require the interrogation of significant amounts of documentation production in short timelines. In the big data era, budgetary concerns as well as compliance itself often turn on the scope of the information available and timelines imposed on its production.

Clients, lawyers and regulators must fight fire with fire.

Across the board, we are seeing both clients and regulators demand the use of technology. For clients, applying technology drives down the cost associated with these proceedings and limits the amount of information required for production. For regulators, it allows them to see key material faster and using fewer resources. Furthermore, there is empiric evidence (in mainstream litigation versus competition work) that technology can be more consistent and accurate than human review.1

In France, legal technology is not used as widely as in the US or UK. However, French lawyers see clear benefits to using technology in merger control and dawn raids. In the latter, technology needs to be deployed early, as the FCA seizes entire mail boxes before extending a fairly short time frame for lawyers to complete a privilege review ahead of their own review. Speed, therefore, is really of the essence. Unlike many other jurisdictions, there are no requirements for internal document production on the filing form itself and that really only comes into play later on in proceedings. However, it is accepted that as data volumes continue to grow, technology will be a necessity to ascertain risk for these matters, regardless of the regulatory burden.

In the UK, the technology-agnostic CMA is increasingly making use of its formal information-gathering powers. Those powers are also being used at varying stages during the process including working to establish evidence for an alternative counterfactual or a theory of harm claim. Parties similarly use technology at the back end regularly to formulate their strategy in response to these growing requests.

The constant across both jurisdictions (and likely others) is the use of technology to speed up the privilege review. Automating the workflow in its entirety is risky, but the technology can significantly accelerate human review.

What is considered responsive plays a large role in the documents produced in these proceedings. These decisions will have an effect on how and what data is collected and shared. Whilst the CMA retains significant control on the determination of responsiveness (described in more detail below), the European Commission takes a more balanced, collaborative approach, often engaging with lawyers and technologists.

TLS has assisted on these negotiations first hand and rather than simply paying lip service, we (together with outside counsel) have materially impacted search and responsiveness parameters. In a recent RFI, we analysed the resulting set of responsive documents based on the Commissions proposed search terms and determined the terms were overly board. When we presented these metrics to the Commission, together with the methodology used, they were amenable to refining the search terms and data pool.

Ultimately, the regulators are amenable to changing the scope of their requests as long as the law firm and vendor work with the regulators to provide transparency and prove their methodology is logical and defensible.

If law firms can continue, as above, to guide regulators with quantitative data and defensible methodology, there will be a shift in the way data is gathered, culled and reviewed. Deploying technology and analytics is beneficial to all parties involved, particularly given its ability to better manage the never-ending increase in data volumes and sources as well as time constraints in competition proceedings.

The CMA, as compared to the DOJ, FTC or the Commission, can and is asking for more extensive information earlier in the process.

As law firms and their clients lean on the benefits of legal technology, so too do the regulators. They are becoming increasingly more engaged in the process, which has procedural and legal implications.

In English proceedings, e-discovery technology has been a common feature for many years but only recently in merger control. The main question focuses less on the if and more the when. The CMA is increasingly looking to gather evidence, which encourages parties to lean on the guidance and the CMA as they gather the information required. This can include internal documents and even emails and instant messaging chats. Similar to train of enquiry investigations, once they have a handle on the data they are able to issue further requests. These can be topic and custodian specific, or wider using search terms. Unsurprisingly, the CMA is actively recruiting legal technology professionals to help analyse the data that comes in to better inform its requests for information.

This is likely to cause significant delays at pre-notification resulting in a knock-on effect for the entire timetable, as was the case in Amazons acquisition of 16% in Deliveroo.

Regulators, particularly the CMA, are throwing their weight around when it comes to the issue of responsiveness. They believe they have the power determine what is and is not responsive through various search strategies. However, this poses an issue around personally identifiable information, documents being produced that fall out of the scope of the investigation and the general feeling that this type of information-gathering request is a regulator-sponsored fishing expedition.

In general, document production in competition proceedings has become more of an iterative process and the CMA expects to be involved. As a lawyer or e-discovery professional, you can anticipate engaging with your e-discovery and forensic counterparts at the CMA every step of the way.

Whether leveraging basic technology like search terms and email threading or more complex technology like TAR 1.0 and Continuous Active Learning (CAL), legal teams and technologists must ensure proper processes are followed.

As technology advances, it is easy to see the benefits of using advanced analytics, TAR 1.0 or TAR 2.0 (Continuous Active Learning) in data-heavy matters. Regulators do not dictate what type of technology is used, but they are leaning on technologists and law firms to understand the what, how and why.

TAR 1.0 (Technology-Assisted Review) was one of the first AI-based workflows. It is an iterative process where technologists develop an initial training set of documents and a subject matter expert reviews that data before stopping review to run the algorithm that will predict the relevance of the remainder of the documents. Additional documents may be added to the training set based on the richness of the data set, and a separate control set that is statistically representative of the data set is then reviewed by the same subject matter expert and used to validate the results, producing metrics such as precision, recall, depth of recall and F1 score very much a start-stop-start-stop process.

CAL is a newer iteration of TAR and prioritises the data in real time based on the coding decisions of reviewers. As with linear review, a lawyer begins tagging documents for responsiveness. The difference is the technology is working in the background, in real time, to pull other documents that are likely similar to the previously tagged responsive documents until the reviewers reach a point of diminishing returns.

In TLSs experience with merger control projects where the goal is compliance to produce a large quantity of relevant documents in a short period, there is a tendency to stick with TAR 1.0 because it is not cost or time effective to put human eyes on as many documents as you would with CAL. The key in this process, however, is to make sure the subject matter expert is available to review the training and control sets to ensure consistent and accurate results because we apply their review decisions for a small population to the larger document set. Unlike in a linear or CAL review, a few miscoded or inconsistently coded documents can have detrimental effects on both the quality of the review and the time it takes to reach stabilisation. Due to that limitation and a need to put human eyes on all relevant documents for fact finding, TAR 2.0 still tends to be the more widely used workflow in general litigations and arbitrations given its accessibility. With either of these workflows, law firms must produce a clear methodology on actions taken, including validation process. Some of these methods include:

In TLSs experience, regulators tend to focus on achieving high recall and are less concerned with low precision (AKA overly producing documents). But precision is very important to clients, as they dont want more data to go to the regulators than necessary, particularly if data is sensitive in nature.

All panellists agree that it is critical to produce very clear, step-by-step methodology before work has begun, both in privilege and responsiveness reviews. If the work is completed but the method is not approved, the law firm will be required to start over, which can be problematic given the tight deadlines associated with competition work.

Transparency is key in assuring the regulators that law firms have met their requirements and provided the documents required to make their decisions. As long as law firms and technologists are being defensible and reasonable about the methods, the regulators will typically approve the use of technology to work with them and with their clients.

What does the future hold?

There is a clear appetite from clients and regulators to adopt the use of legal technology in competition proceedings. Law firms and litigation support providers will continue to spearhead this movement and are constantly looking at new tools and workflows to manage big data in a defensible and efficient manner.

Law firms will leverage analytics and investigations tools where time is of the essence the first to apply for leniency or immunity or to assess risk. Getting a handle on what their clients have early will be key.

In time, the FCA, CMA and Commission may collaborate and follow certain DOJ practices given its experience with larger data sets, deal flow and technology. And it will be in parties best interests to work alongside them to design a process that works for everyone.

Data is inescapable. Clients, lawyers and regulators continue to play an ever-changing game of catch-up to leverage technology. The procedural and legal considerations grow and change as data volumes increase and data sources diversify, and it is imperative to lean on these tools to provide the best outcome for all parties involved.

You canwatch the full recording of this panel here.

1 Pyrrho Investments Ltd v MWB Property Ltd: [1] [2016] EWHC 25. Paragraph 31

Read more:

Leveraging Technology to Manage Big Data in Antitrust - JD Supra

KULR Technology Group Inc () CEO Michael Mo tells Proactive the developer of lithium-ion battery safety and thermal management technologies is partnering with the CSA Group to develop a new battery safety and testing procedure.

Mo says the collaboration with the CSA Group (formerly the Canadian Standards Association) is the most recent of several alliances it has formed, to which it can apply its expertise and help shape the regulatory and industry standards for battery shipments

Add related topics to MyProactive

Create your account: sign up and get ahead on news and events

The Company is a publisher. You understand and agree that no content published on the Site constitutes a recommendation that any particular security, portfolio of securities, transaction, or investment strategy is...

In exchange for publishing services rendered by the Company on behalf of KULR Technology Group, Inc. named herein, including the promotion by the Company of KULR Technology Group, Inc. in any Content on the Site, the...

More:

KULR Technology forms partnership with the CSA Group to develop a new battery safety standards - Proactive Investors USA & Canada

The American Museum of Science and Energy is considered one of the top tourist attractions in Oak Ridge, attracting around 65,000 per year, according to officials.

OAK RIDGE, Tenn. A museum teaching visitors about science and technology in Oak Ridge signed a new agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy to improve their education methods, exhibits and advance the museum's mission.

The American Museum of Science and Energy Foundation announced that it signed the three-year deal with the DOE on Thursday. The foundation will manage the K-25 History Center, fundraising, collections management and develop other partnerships as part of the agreement as well as manage AMSE.

The DOE will stay involved with the AMSE Foundation's public education and outreach efforts, help manage its exhibits and displays and generally help advance the museums' missions.

"This is a huge milestone for AMSE," said Jim Campbell, AMSE Foundation President. "After 73 years of proud service and partnership with the Department of Energy, we are excited to build on our rich history and celebrate a bright future."

Officials said that the museum is a vital part of the Oak Ridge community and that the agreement will help the museums grow.

In the past, the museum's operations were funded by the DOE through subcontracts with corporations and the AMSE Foundation played a supporting role. With the agreement, the foundation will be at the forefront of the museum's mission, according to a release from officials.

The museum is currently closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, on March 1, officials said they will release a new series of programs called "Destination AMSE." It will highlight several virtual resources and online offerings, including an AMSEcast podcast.

Officials said there will also be new additions to come at AMSE and the K-25 History Center when they reopen.

Originally posted here:

AMSE and Dept. of Energy partner to teach history of technology and science in Oak Ridge - WBIR.com