Features

NEW YORK — It’s difficult to justify paying for a high-priced, top-end smartphone these days — unless, that is, you want to take good pictures.

In this Age of Instagram, a great camera is one of the few reasons to pay $650 or more for the latest smartphone, instead of $200 or $300 for a budget phone that does texting, Facebook and Web surfing just as well.

Samsung’s phone cameras have shown tremendous improvement in just a few years. The new Galaxy S7 and S7 Edge phones take much better pictures than last year’s S6 models. In fact, they’re now basically neck and neck with Apple’s iPhones, meaning that you no longer have to compromise on picture quality if you prefer Android.

I took more than 2,000 still shots and a few videos using 10 smartphones from Samsung, Apple, LG, Huawei and Motorola. To make the comparison clearer, I focused on indoor and night settings, such as museums, bars and New York’s Central Park at night. Even budget phones can take great shots in good light, but only great phones take good shots in poor light.

Better lighting, better focus

I was impressed with the S7’s ability to capture Central Park’s unlighted Bethesda Fountain at night. Shots from most other phones appear pitch black, save for a faint outline of the fountain’s statue and some distant light from building windows.

The S7 was also more likely to get the focus right on its own, without having to choose a focus area first by touching the phone screen. Even with touching, focusing sometimes takes a second or two on other cameras. I don’t get that lag with the S7, meaning fewer missed action shots.

The lens and image sensors on the S7 aren’t large enough to match the capabilities of full-bodied SLR cameras, but the phones borrow some of the focus and light-capturing technologies found on more sophisticated shooters. These technologies combined result in brighter, sharper images in low light.

Upgrading the S6

The S7 also has a wider-angle lens than last year’s S6 models, one that now matches iPhone hardware. It captures more of what’s in front of you. Among other things, people don’t have to squeeze together as tightly for group shots.

Samsung also corrected some design deficiencies in earlier models. The S7’s camera lens no longer protrudes awkwardly, as it did on the S6. Its screen turns into a flash for low-light selfies, just like the latest iPhones. (That means my selfies now look awful because of their subject and not the low light.)

The S7 also takes photos in a standard 4-by-3 rectangle, not the wider 16-by-9 frame of the S6. While overall mega-pixel count is lower on the S7, that’s entirely a consequence of the narrower width, which yields a photo like an S6 shot with its far edges chopped off.

A few quibbles

Many indoor shots come out yellowish, possibly reflecting the yellowish nature of indoor lighting. On the S7, books look as though they’ve yellowed from being out in the sun too long. Egg whites on a burger don’t look so white (though bacon comes out brighter, with more detail). Faces are more orange than usual.

Odd colours can make pictures look better, but they often don’t seem natural.

Comparisons

Of all of the phones I tested, the S7 and iPhone 6S produced the most consistent low-light photos. The S7 shots typically had better focus, while the iPhone pictures looked more natural, with colours typically mirroring how you see things.

The S7 has also cloned Apple’s Live Photos feature, in which the camera captures short video clips as it’s taking still photos. The feature is on by default on the iPhone, but you need to turn it on with the S7. Unlike the iPhone version, Samsung’s Motion Photo has no sound.

The latest Apple and Samsung phones are comparable in many other ways. (I took a first look at the S7 a few weeks ago: http://apne.ws/21hAP8X.) One impressive non-camera feature is the S7’s fast-charging capability. With the included charger, I get a full charge in just 80 minutes, and that’s enough for nine hours of Hulu video streaming on the S7, 10 hours on the S7 Edge.

The camera, though, is where these phones really stand out from the pack.

Meanwhile, Apple on Thursday sent out invitations to a press event at which it is expected to unveil new iPhone and iPad models.

In keeping with its practice, Apple revealed little about the event other than it will take place on March 21 at the company’s campus in the Silicon Valley city of Cupertino in California.

A message on copies of the invitations posted online simply states “Let us loop you in”.

Rumours have been circulating for weeks that Apple is poised to introduce upgraded versions of its small-screen iPhone and of the iPad, with the new tablet perhaps tailored for use by businesses.

A four-inch screen iPhone that looks similar to the iPhone 5S on the outside by boasts improvements under the hood is expected to get the spotlight at the event, along with an iPad with a screen slightly less than 10 inches diagonally.

The iPad may have keyboard and stylus features aimed at making it more attractive for getting work done. Apple has been trying to ignite sales of its tablets, which declined in the final quarter or last year.

Apple has partnered with IBM on iPad applications for use on the job, and Microsoft has tailored versions of its productivity software for the tablet.

The press event later this month is also expected to feature fashionable new bands for Apple Watch.

Apple has not publicly released sales figures for its Apple Watch, but IDC estimated the company sold 11.6 million of the wearable computing devices last year.

That gave the California giant a market share of around 15 per cent, even though its smartwatch sales began in June of last year.

The media event will come a day before Apple faces off with the FBI in federal court in Southern California over whether the company can be compelled to help break into a locked iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino attackers.

Double Down: Game Change 2012
Mark Halperin and John Heilemann
New York: Penguin Press, 2013
Pp. 499

Based on extensive interviews with over 400 persons involved in the events, Mark Halperin of “Time” magazine and John Heilemann of “New York” magazine take the reader behind the scenes of the 2012 US presidential campaign from beginning to end. You are there, so to speak, not only at public events, but at the candidates’ closed-door strategy meetings, mock-debate training sessions, private donor dinners and rare moments of relaxation.

While the main focus is on the presidential contenders, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, the authors also sketch close-up profiles of their advisers, staff, family and funders, as well as pollsters, kingmakers, media figures and other influential politicians. It is a dizzying array; luckily, the authors provide an index. 

This is the sequel to “Game Change” by the same writers, which chronicled Obama’s 2008 election victory. While an incumbent president is usually thought to enjoy the advantage, Obama’s re-election was far from certain. The US economy was still faltering. “The opposition inspired by his presidency was intense and at times rabid, from the populist ire of the Tea Party to the legislative recalcitrance of the congressional wing of the GOP to the wailing and gnashing of the anti-Obama caucus in the business world… The country was split almost cleanly down the middle, and more polarised than ever.” At the same time, “the practical implications of which man won were vast”. (p. 6)

With the stakes being so high, Halperin and Heilemann liken the election campaign to “a big casino” with the major players doubling down, increasing their investment (and risks) in their chosen positions and strategies. 

With so much opposition to Obama, one might think the Republicans would have had minimal problems coalescing on a viable candidate, but a substantial part of the book covers how Romney became their candidate largely by default. It is interesting to revisit the 2012 campaign just as the current presidential race is gearing up. Most of the major players from the earlier campaign are still around, and similar disarray exists in Republican ranks, but this time, Donald Trump has stepped decisively into the vacuum, whereas in 2012 he was a sideshow. 

“Double Down” makes for fascinating reading due to the amount of inside information the authors impart in crisp, erudite language. Paradoxes and irony run rife as friendships and alliances are forged, broken and sometimes re-forged. A case in point is the Obamas and the Clintons, whose relations were conflicted at the beginning of the campaign. By the end, however, things healed, not least due to Bill Clinton putting his oratorical skills wholeheartedly in the service of Obama’s re-election: “Once upon a time, not that long ago, the Obamas and the Clintons had been the Montagues and the Capulets. Now, more and more, it seemed as if the four most popular political figures in the country — Barack and Michelle, Hillary and Bill — were part of the same powerful family.” (p. 473)

 “Double Down” is as entertaining and suspenseful as any novel, even if one knows the outcome in advance. One gets immersed in the intricacies (and crudities) of US politics, but also appalled by the predominance of money, style and advertising techniques in determining the course of the campaign. That these factors play a big role is nothing new, but in 2012 they spiralled out of control, not least due to the 2010 supreme court ruling in the Citizens United case, which allowed unlimited spending in political campaigns by outside groups. According to the authors, “Everyone was grappling with the new financial terrain created by Citizens United.” (p. 110) 

Like in other fields, money impacts on people’s choices, and generates compromise on principles. When the Romney campaign created the first-ever presidential super PAC (Political Action Committee) to fund his campaign, even Obama, who had opposed super PACs, acquiesced to having one established to benefit his campaign. It is also disturbing to read that Obama was considered a poor debater, pedantic and unappealing to voters, because of his tendency to explain his policies in detail backed up by facts and figures. Again and again, money, style and advertising trumped content with dire repercussions not only for addressing racism and poverty in the US, but because of the great impact of US politics on other parts of the world. Trump’s current campaign — showmanship devoid of truth — seems to be the looming alternative. 

Notably, for a region considered so vital, the Middle East is seldom mentioned except when events there intervene in American domestic politics, as with the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi. The same is true for the rest of the world. “Double Down” is exclusively about the US political scene, and one will search in vain for any wisdom about the real links between US domestic and foreign policy.

That pesky kid brother or sister who broke your stuff and got you in trouble all the time may have actually done you a favour. A US study suggests that younger siblings might be really good for your health. 

That’s because by first grade, kids with younger siblings are much less likely to be obese.

Children who didn’t welcome a baby brother or sister into the family before first grade had almost triple the odds of obesity compared with kids who experienced the birth of a sibling when they were around three to four years old, the study found.

The study doesn’t prove that being an only child will cause obesity or show how adding a new baby to family might help older kids maintain a healthy weight. 

But the results suggest that parents may make lifestyle changes after expanding the family that could be good to try even before another baby arrives, said senior study author Dr Julie Lumeng, a paediatrics and public health researcher at the University of Michigan and C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital in Ann Arbor.

“It is possible that when there is a younger sibling in the family, a child might become more active — for example running around more with their toddler sibling,” Lumeng said by e-mail. 

“Maybe families are more likely to take the kids to the park when there is a younger sibling, or maybe the child is less likely to be sedentary, watching TV, when there is a younger sibling to engage them in more active pretend play,” Lumeng added.

Mealtimes might also be different with a second kid in at the table.

Parents of only children can sometimes be controlling or hyper-focused about what their kid eats, which can potentially lead to bad eating habits, some previous research suggests. 

“When parents use restrictive [e.g. keep food from children] or pressure to eat feeding practices [e.g. try to get kids to eat more food], children have an increased risk of being overweight,” said Jerica Berge, a researcher at the University of Minnesota who wasn’t involved in the study. 

“When a new child is introduced, parents may relax their preoccupation with the older child’s eating behaviours, allowing the older child to respond to their own satiety cues and self-regulate their eating,” Berge added by e-mail. “This self-regulation may lead to a healthier weight trajectory for the child with a sibling compared to a child without a sibling.”

For the current study, Lumeng and colleagues followed 697 US children from birth through age 6. 

At age 6, the kids without siblings were more likely to have higher than average weight for their height than their peers who did have a younger brother or sister, researchers report in the journal Paediatrics, March 11. 

Limitations of the study include the lack of objectively measured birth weights and information on events such a divorce, move or job loss in the family — all of which can influence the odds that children might become obese — the authors note.

Other factors that can impact child obesity including parental weight, maternal weight gain or diabetes, breastfeeding, early introduction of solid food, family meals, bedtime routines, TV time and physical activity, noted Dr Sandra Hassink, medical director of the American Academy of Paediatrics Institute for a Healthy Childhood Weight. 

“This is a very interesting study that makes an observation but there is not enough information yet to understand why children without siblings would be heavier,” Hassink, who wasn’t involved in the study, said by e-mail.

SEOUL — A Google-developed computer programme won its best-of-five matchup with a South Korean Go grandmaster on Saturday, taking an unassailable 3-0 lead to score a major victory for a new style of “intuitive” artificial intelligence (AI).

The programme, AlphaGo, took a little over four hours to secure its third consecutive win over Lee Se-dol — one of the ancient game’s greatest modern players with 18 international titles to his name.

Lee, who has topped the world ranking for much of the past decade and had predicted an easy victory when accepting the AlphaGo challenge, now finds himself fighting to avoid a whitewash in the two remaining dead rubbers on Sunday and Tuesday.

“I don’t know what to say, but I think I have to express my apologies first,” a crestfallen Lee told a post-game press conference.

“I apologise for being unable to satisfy a lot of people’s expectations. I kind of felt powerless,” Lee said, acknowledging that he had “misjudged” the computer programme’s abilities.

“Yes, I do have extensive experience in playing the game of Go, but there was never a case where I was under this much pressure... and I was incapable of overcoming it,” he added.

For AlphaGo’s creators, Google DeepMind, victory went way beyond the $1 million prize money, to prove that AI has far more to offer than superhuman number-crunching.

‘Stunned and speechless’

“To be honest, we are a bit stunned and speechless”, said a smiling DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis, who stressed that Lee’s defeat in Seoul should not be seen as a loss for humanity.

“Because the methods we have used to build AlphaGo are general purpose, our hope is that in the long-run we will be able to use these techniques for many other problems,” Hassabis said.

Applications might range from making phones smarter to “helping scientists solve some of the world’s biggest challenges in health care and other areas,” he added.

Previously, the most famous AI victory to date came in 1997 when the IBM-developed supercomputer Deep Blue beat Garry Kasparov, the then-world-class chess champion, in its second attempt.

But a true mastery of Go, which has more possible move configurations than there are atoms in the universe, had long been considered the exclusive province of humans — until now.

AlphaGo’s creators had described Go as the “Mt Everest” of AI, citing the complexity of the game, which requires a degree of creativity and intuition to prevail over an opponent.

AlphaGo first came to prominence with a 5-0 drubbing of European champion Fan Hui last October, but it had been expected to struggle against 33-year-old Lee.

‘Human-like’ approach

Creating “general” or multipurpose, rather than “narrow”, task-specific intelligence, is the ultimate goal in AI — something resembling human reasoning based on a variety of inputs and, crucially, self-learning.

In the case of Go, Google developers realised a more “human-like” approach would win over brute computing power.

The 3,000-year-old Chinese board game involves two players alternately laying black and white stones on a chequerboard-like grid of 19 lines by 19 lines. The winner is the player who manages to seal off more territory.

AlphaGo uses two sets of “deep neural networks” that allow it to crunch data in a more human-like fashion — dumping millions of potential moves that human players would instinctively know were pointless.

It also employs algorithms that allow it to learn and improve from matchplay experience.

Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who was in Seoul to witness AlphaGo’s victory, said watching great Go players was like “watching a thing of beauty”.

“I’m very excited we’ve been able to instil this kind of beauty in a computer,” Brin said.

On this occasion of the Japanese Doll Festival, celebrating the growth of girls and wishing them happiness, dolls wearing the Heian period clothing were put on display at the residence of Japan’s Ambassador to Jordan Shuichi Sakurai.

On the occasion, Naoko Sakurai, the spouse of the ambassador, explained to a small gathering of ladies the meaning of the dolls and celebration, taking the audience centuries back to explain the hierarchy of the pyramidal dolls’ exhibited with the emperor and empress on the top tier, with the rest of the seven tiers occupied by court assistants, musicians, guards and bride’s furniture in miniature.

The host also performed a traditional Japanese tea ceremony and embassy officials demonstrated how Japanese delicacies and sweets are made.

Reflecting on the theme of the day, that celebrates the growth of girls and their happiness, my opinion, as a person who visited Japan several times, is that when girls, “past and future mothers”, are given such a high status, there is no wonder that the outcome is a nation with high technology, stunning architecture, high education, all blended with traditional historical temples, castles, gardens, kimonos and costumes, traditional festivals, Ikebana, tea ceremonies and fine Japanese cuisine.

Encompassing all of that is the very warm Japanese hospitality and highly distinguished demeanour of the Japanese people.

A trip with the Shinkansen “super-express train” bears witness to the natural beauty of Japan, with the sacred Mount Fuji dominating the country.

In Kyoto, for example, the ancient capital of Japan, hosts the imperial palace and most renowned shrines, one of which is “Heian”, which gives its name to the costumes of the Hina dolls festival, one is taken back to the traditional historical Japan with its museums, samurai swords and all amidst so much present modernity.

Living with high-tech is not about speed anymore, as it used to be a few years ago. There are several other aspects that are more important than sheer processing power or even Internet speed for that matter, however vital this last trait may be.

We can go back to the old cars-computers analogy that was very popular in the 1980s and that remains surprisingly valid today. Long gone are the days where speed was the main factor that would let you choose a car. Not only any model can take you well above the speed limits that are into force in most countries and on most roads, but also drivers now look for comfort, convenience, security, features, environment protection and energy saving.

The same change in living style, the same new approach now applies to computers, smartphones and anything in between. 

Even size doesn’t matter much. Whereas some still like or perhaps really need to have 22 or 24-inch monitors on their desk, the vast majority is content with laptop or tablet screens, not to mention the smaller smarpthones. Data storage size is also a problem that belongs to the past. Whether it is on your local machine or somewhere in the cloud, storage is abundant everywhere; and inexpensive. A one-terabyte hard disk is a mere JD70 in Amman and most cloud services give you 15 gigabytes for free, or up to one terabyte for a nominal fee.

In a general manner, convenience and security are what we are mainly looking for today. They have significantly improved over the last five years or so. Unfortunately, things are far from being perfect, despite the undeniable progress.

I have yet to see the perfect e-mail software. From Outlook to Gmail and a few others, they all have weaknesses alongside their strong points. If only they could unite, join forces and put in common all their good features, discarding the not-so-good ones. What a wonderful product it would make!

If you consult your e-mail from various devices and locations you know about the synchronisation headache that is associated with the process. Messages are duplicated, or downloaded again, or they disappear without asking for your permission. Is your mail box set for IMAP or POP3? Do you leave a copy of the messages on the server? If yes for how many days? How good is your anti-spam filter? Etc…

Spam e-mail and various Internet threats are as invading and annoying as ever. In my trade as an IT specialist in Amman, not a month goes by without seeing someone severely hit by a virus of some sort. Recently I saw ransomware cause serious, irreversible damage to a friend’s data.

He admitted he had been careless and had opened and launched an e-mail attachment that was sent to his mailbox by an unknown sender. The ransomware virus encrypted all his files in a way that he couldn’t access or open them anymore. The virus then showed him a text that asked him to go to a specific site, to pay some money online so as to be able to get a code and then decrypt the files. Naturally he didn’t pay the ransom but lost his files nevertheless — for good. He was only able to retrieve a small number of them, form a backup copy set he has done one month before the attack.

Convenience sometimes comes at a price. We all know what a smartphone represents in terms of information, organisation and communication. The object has become virtually priceless in all what it lets us do. This being said, seeing it destroyed, damaged, or worse, stolen, is reason for disaster and nervous breakdown, and it happens every day.

So yes, definitely, it is not speed that we are after, but convenience and security. But we’re not really there yet.

SEOUL — Google’s computer programme AlphaGo defeated its human opponent, South Korean Go champion Lee Sedol, on Wednesday in the face-off of a historic five-game match between human and computer.

AlphaGo’s victory in the ancient Chinese board game is a breakthrough for artificial intelligence, showing the programme developed by Google DeepMind has mastered one of the most creative and complex games ever devised.

Commentators said the match was close, with both AlphaGo and Lee making some mistakes. The result was unpredictable until near the end.

Lee’s loss was a shock to South Koreans and Go fans. The 33-year-old initially was confident of a sweeping victory two weeks ago, but sounded less optimistic a day before the match.

“I was very surprised because I did not think that I would lose the game. A mistake I made at the very beginning lasted until the very last,” said Lee, who has won 18 world championships since becoming a professional Go player at the age of 12.

Lee said AlphaGo’s early strategy was “excellent.” Despite his initial loss, he did not regret accepting the challenge.

“I had a lot of fun playing Go and I’m looking forward to the future games,” he said, calmly smiling.

The loss shook the South Korean Go community. Yoo Chang-hyuk, another South Korean Go master, said it was a big shock.

“It did not play like a human at all,” Kim Sung-ryong, another Go expert, said of the computer’s lack of emotion despite making some potentially fatal mistakes.

Hundreds of thousands of people watched the game live on TV and YouTube. The remaining four matches will end on Tuesday.

Computers conquered chess in 1997 in a match between IBM’s Deep Blue and chess champion Garry Kasparov, leaving Go as “the only game left above chess” Demis Hassabis, Google DeepMind’s CEO, said before the game.

Top human players rely heavily on intuition and feelings to choose among a near-infinite number of board positions in Go, making the game extremely challenging for the artificial intelligence community.

AI experts had forecast it would take another decade for computers to beat professional Go players. That changed when AlphaGo defeated a European Go champion last year, in a closed-door match later published in the journal Nature. Since then, AlphaGo’s performance has steadily improved.

“We are very excited about this historic moment. We are very pleased about how AlphaGo performed,” Hassabis said.

DeepMind team built “reinforcement learning” into AlphaGo, meaning the machine plays against itself and adjusts its own neural networks based on trial-and-error. AlphaGo can also narrow down the search space for the next best move from the near-infinite to something more manageable. It also can anticipate long-term results of each move and predict the winner.

AlphaGo’s win over a human champion shows computers can mimic intuition and tackle more complex tasks, its creators say.

I have often wondered, for no particular reason, that if I ever met my mother again, would she be able to recognise me? Will she know my name if I saw her in heaven, for instance? Would it be the same? As more and more time elapses since her passing away, I find myself plagued by these worries. 

The lyrics of Eric Clapton’s song ‘tears in heaven’ trigger my thoughts, and then it becomes difficult for me to truncate them. Would she hold my hand, will she help me stand? Will she even know that I was her daughter and how very terribly I miss her? Would it really be the same? Our relationship, that is.

The loss of one’s mother is irreparable and irreversible. Both the terms mean one and the same thing but the pain goes deeper than that also. All the spoken and written languages of the world have yet to come up with a word or phrase that can accurately describe this gut wrenching agony. My mom bid her final adieu to me in March, 13 years ago. On paper it is more than a decade, but in fact it seems just like the other day that I was with her. 

For someone who used to regularly trim my hair when I was young, as my mother aged, she trained me to cut her hair. It was a complete role reversal. She liked to sit on her favourite chair in the terrace after breakfast, ask me to spread a newspaper on the ground behind her and hand me the scissors. The first time I took the clippers I thought she was joking. I clicked it experimentally in the air and got my ears boxed immediately. Aimlessly clicking of the scissors was considered inauspicious she explained. 

The amazing thing about my mom was the confidence with which she got her haircut by a rank amateur. Her self-assurance and trust would invariably seep into me and my hands stopped trembling. I would dip her comb in a plastic mug of water, run it through her hair and then in one clean sweep, clip her hair in a straight line. 

Initially, the bits that fell on the floor were pitch black in colour but gradually they turned dark grey and then a lighter shade of grey. She did not live long enough for her hair to turn completely white. The last haircut I gave her was just two weeks before she left for the hospital from where she never returned. Not in her living form anyway. 

Even in the midst of a most devastating cancer treatment that involved the debilitating chemotherapy, she did not lose any of her lustrous hair. No sooner had I arrived to look after her, in a ritual that I was now familiar with, she sat up in bed, pointed at the scissors and encouraged me to style her hair in any way that I wanted to. These final shared moments were pure joy and will stay with me for as long as I live. 

“What will happen after that?” said the voice in my head. 

“After what,” asked our daughter? 

“After meeting Nani in heaven,” I confided. 

“You are not going there anytime soon,” she spoke firmly. 

“Will she know my name?” I questioned. 

“Yes and she will also demand a haircut,” she stated. 

“Really?” I exclaimed. 

“Yup! No more tears in heaven,” she concluded, hugging me.

LOS ANGELES — Disney’s “Zootopia” scored the fourth biggest March opening ever, debuting to $75 million over the weekend,  industry figures showed on Monday.

The animated story about a rabbit who joins the police force ranks as the biggest Disney Animation launch (though not the best Pixar debut), outstripping “Frozen”, the 2012 blockbuster that bowed to $67.4 million. With no major family film opening until “The Jungle Book” lands on April 15, “Zootopia” is well positioned to be the de facto choice for moviegoers with children for the next month.

“There’s an absence of competition,” said Dave Hollis, Disney’s distribution chief. “We are set up to have a big, big run.”

Disney did not release a budget, but most animated films cost in excess of $100 million. “Zootopia” screened in 3,827 locations.

Overseas, where “Zootopia” has been playing for three weeks, the film added another $63.4 million to its haul, pushing its global total to $232.5 million. The film continues a sterling comeback run for Disney Animation, which had reached a creative and commercial nadir in the early aughts with the likes of “Home on the Range” and “Treasure Planet”. Since Pixar’s Ed Catmull and John Lasseter took the reins following Disney’s 2006 acquisition of their company, the animation arm has roared back to life, fielding hits such as “Frozen”, “Tangled”, and “Wreck It Ralph”, and winning Oscars.

“They brought a focus on quality,” said Hollis. “They recognise that quality is the best business plan.”

Beyond the bunnies, Gerard Butler managed to wash out some of the sour taste in his mouth after “Gods of Egypt” flopped spectacularly. “London Has Fallen,” the Scottish actor’s follow-up to “Olympus Has Fallen”, opened solidly to $21.6 million from 3,490 locations for a second place finish. That does, however, trail the first film’s $30 million debut.

Focus Features fielded the picture, which carried a $60 million price tag. It played older, with more than 76 per cent of the audience clocking in over the age of 25, while men made up 60 per cent of ticket buyers.

“We’re really pleased with the opening and we think we’re going to leg out well from here,” said Jim Orr, Focus’ distribution chief. “That older demographic doesn’t necessarily rush out on opening weekend.”

Tina Fey was not as lucky as Butler. The actress’ “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot” stumbled with a $7.4 million launch from 2,374 venues. Paramount backed the $35 million dramedy about a war reporter who gets hooked on the adrenaline rush of covering Afghanistan. War films and political comedies can be tough sells — witness the financial failures of “Charlie Wilson’s War”, “Our Brand is Crisis”, and “Jarhead” — and “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot” appears to be no exception. The studio isn’t ready to wave a white flag yet. Paramount Vice Chairman Rob Moore said that he hoped the audience would build in the coming weeks, as it did for Fey’s recent hit “Sisters”.

“We were hoping for more,” he said. “But Tina’s last movie played to a good multiple and we had a good Saturday, so we have a chance of playing for a little while to a reasonable outcome.”

After four weeks in theatres, “Deadpool” barrelled past the $300 million mark. The comic book movie finished in third place with $16.7 million, pushing its domestic haul to $311.4 million.

“Gods of Egypt” rounded out the top five, picking up $5.2 million. The $140 million action epic has earned a meagre $22.8 million domestically after two weeks — a terrible result for a picture that was intended to usher in a new franchise.

Fresh off its best picture win at last weekend’s Academy Awards, newspaper drama “Spotlight” capitalised on the Oscar love by pulling in $1.8 million. The film has netted $41.6 million during its theatrical run.

In limited release, Broad Green debuted “Knight of Cubs”, Terrence Malick’s lyrical portrait of the spiritual journey of a writer (Christian Bale), in four theatres where it earned $56,688 for a $14,172 per-screen average.

March was once seen as a dumping ground for movies, but the success of spring releases like “The Hunger Games”, “Alice in Wonderland”, “Cinderella”, and now “Zootopia” has shattered that prejudice, analysts say.

“This proves March is now a blockbuster month,” said Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst at ComScore. “You can open a blockbuster any time of the year.”

A car-like SUV, the crossover segment’s origins are difficult to pin down. Whether the crossover originates with the 1970s Lada Niva, Matra-Simca Rancho and AMC Eagle or earlier cars, the Kia Sportage was nevertheless among the earliest modern incarnations of such cars, and first launched in 1993 during Kia’s pre-Hyundai partnership with Ford and Mazda years.

Predating the crossover segment, the Sportage is yet among the most defining such vehicles, with its fourth generation launched globally earlier this year. Launched globally earlier in the year and due to debut in Amman early next week, the new fourth generation Kia Sportage is ambitious with good reason, and reflects the Korean brand’s ever growing confidence. And with improved dynamics, refinement, technology and interior appointment, it now looks at the industry’s most established brands as direct rivals.

Taut and stiff

A tightly penned, fluent and assertive design as a whole, the new Sportage’s front is however a more radical evolution of Kia’s corporate face, featuring higher set headlights stretched far back along scalloped bonnet edges. Meanwhile, Kia’s distinctive “Tiger” nose grille is wider and taller for better engine cooling, and sits below the headlights, flanked by large foglight units.

With smooth surfacing, discretely bulging arches and haunches, and a distinct sense of forward motion created by its longer rear spoiler, swept back bonnet and roof lines, and window outline, the Sportage’s silhouette implies a sense of urgency. The new Sportage is 40mm longer and as wide as its predecessor, and features a longer
wheelbase for improved legroom and stability.

Built to be stiffer vehicle for improved ride, handling, refinement and collision safety, the new Sportage uses a 51 per cent advanced high strength steel content compared to the outgoing mode’s 18 per cent. With particular attention paid to its pillars, sills, wheel arches and roof, the new Sportage’s torsional rigidity increases by 39 per cent, and with a total  host of safety features, achieves a maximum 5-star EuroNCAP crash test rating.

Smooth delivery

Driven in 2.4 GDI guise, the Sportage is fitted with standard four-wheel drive and six-speed automatic gearbox. An efficient direct fuel injection engine with “under-square” dimensions the 2.4 GDI provides adequately responsive low- and mid-range abilities. Refined and well insulated for vibrations the 2.4 GDI also remains smooth and progressive throughout its rev range to redline.

Developing 181BHP at 6000rpm and 175lb/ft torque at 4000rpm, the Sportage’s 2.4 GDI — through somewhat aggressive first and second gear ratios — carries its 1,560kg mass from standstill to 100km/h as quick as it need be at 9.2 seconds. Capable of a 192km/h top speed and with an enlarged 62-litre fuel tank for extended range, the Sportage 2.4 returns 8.5l/100km combined cycle fuel efficiency.

Smooth and quick shifting, the Sportage 2.4 GDI’s six-speed automatic features selectable drive modes for sharpened responses when desired for sportier driving. It is mated to a four-wheel drive system that drives the front wheels in most conditions for efficiency, but can send up to 50 per cent power rearwards when necessary to maintain stability and traction.

Tidy and reassuring

Having made significant advances in terms of design, luxury, technology, packaging and brand equity, Kia now seems focused on finessing its vehicles’ driving dynamic. To that end, former BMW M Division Vice President Albert Biermann was drafted in to oversee high performance car programmes, as well as ride and handling development for garden variety models, as clearly evidenced in the new Sportage.

Riding on fully independent MacPherson strut front and now dual lower-arm multi-link rear suspension, the new Sportage features a raft of modifications for improved ride and handling attributes. Starting with stiffer more isolated bushings with revised mounting points, stiffer wheel bearings and cross member, further forward mounted steering gearbox and revised damper tuning and suspension geometry.

Better refined and more stable as a result, the Sportage, however, also makes dynamic gains. Sharper and more nimble, the Sportage’s better steering feels tighter and more precise on-centre and as it weighs up in corners. Eager into corners and much less susceptible to understeer, the Sportage tucks in tidily and feels agile through tight but quick switch backs.

Refined and comfortable

Well controlling body lean through corners, but without sacrificing ride refinement — even with firmer and grippier 245/45R19 tyres, as tested — the Sportage’s dynamic tuning finds a nice compromise between forging daily comfort and sporty manners when pushed a little harder. Meanwhile, rear grip and highway stability are reassuring, and noise, vibration and harshness isolation refined over imperfect surfaces.

Better appointed, roomier and more comfortable inside, the new Sportage features a clean, logical and ergonomic dash and console layout and uses plenty of soft textures and classy fittings in prominent places. With longer wheelbase, passenger space is improved all-round, including better-than-expected rear seat access and headroom. Ergonomics are good, but the gear lever is set closer than ideal for larger, taller drivers.

Featuring a good driving position with 10-way adjustable driver’s seat with now firmer more supportive centre cushion, rear passengers also get more seat tilt adjustability. Well-kitted, the highlights of the Sportage’s available infotainment, safety and convenience systems include 8-inch touchscreen, reversing camera, wireless phone charging, automatic tailgate opening, blindspot, high beam and lane change warning and assistance systems.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Engine: 2.4-litre, transverse 4 cylinders

Bore x stroke: 88 x 97mm

Compression ratio: 11.3:1

Valve-train: 16-valve, DOHC, variable valve timing, direct injection

Gearbox: 6-speed automatic, four-wheel drive

Gear ratios: 1st 4.212; 2nd 2.637; 3rd 1.8; 4th 1.386; 5th 1.0; 6th 0.772

Reverse/final drive: 3.385/3.195

Power, BHP (PS) [kW]: 181 (184) [135] @6000rpm

Specific power: 76.7BHP/litre

Power-to-weight: 116BHP/tonne

Torque, lb/ft (Nm): 175 (237) @4000rpm

Specific torque: 74.1Nm/litre

Torque-to-weight: 112Nm/tonne

0-100 km/h: 9.2 seconds

Top speed: 192km/h

Fuel economy, urban/extra-urban/combined: 11.8-/6.7-/8.5-litres/100km

CO2 emissions, combined: 199g/km

Fuel capacity: 62 litres

Length: 4480mm

Width: 1855mm

Height: 1645mm

Wheelbase: 2670mm

Track, F/R: 1613/1625mm

Overhang, F/R: 910/900mm

Ground clearance: 172mm

Approach/break-over/departure angles: 17.5°/19.5°/24.6°

Headroom, F/R: 997/993mm

Legroom, F/R: 1129/970mm

Shoulder room, F/R: 1450/1400mm

Cargo capacity, min/max: 491/1480 litres

Aerodynamic drag co-efficient: 0.33

Kerb weight: 1560kg

Suspension: MacPherson struts/multi-link

Steering: Electric assistance, rack & pinion

Turning circle: 10.6 metres

Lock-to-lock: 2.71-turns

Brakes, F/R: Ventilated discs, 305mm/discs, 302mm

Tyres: 245/45R19