Team Lakay’s Joshua Pacio and Yoshitaka Naito face off at ONE: Conquest of Heroes open workout today pic.twitter.com/eqwyKlxnIo— INQUIRER Sports (@INQUIRERSports) September 20, 2018“After a loss, an athlete comes back really strong and mentally, I’m way tougher than before,” said Naito. “Even if Joshua improved, I also improved.”The 34-year-old Naito conquered Pacio in 2016, pouncing on a mistake to quell the Filipino fighter’s bid for the title with a rear naked choke in the third round.ADVERTISEMENT View comments Gretchen Barretto’s daughter Dominique graduates magna cum laude from California college Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. After his first career loss, ONE strawweight champion Yoshitaka Naito emerged a different fighter.ADVERTISEMENT Butler made his move—now it’s Wolves’ turn MOST READ Nadine Lustre’s phone stolen in Brazil Lights inside SMX hall flicker as Duterte rants vs Ayala, Pangilinan anew Gov’t to employ 6,000 displaced by Taal Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next Japeth Aguilar embraces role, gets rewarded with Finals MVP plum Allen Durham still determined to help Meralco win 1st PBA title Tim Cone, Ginebra set their sights on elusive All-Filipino crown Carpio hits red carpet treatment for China Coast Guard PLAY LIST 02:14Carpio hits red carpet treatment for China Coast Guard02:56NCRPO pledges to donate P3.5 million to victims of Taal eruption00:56Heavy rain brings some relief in Australia02:37Calm moments allow Taal folks some respite03:23Negosyo sa Tagaytay City, bagsak sa pag-aalboroto ng Bulkang Taal01:13Christian Standhardinger wins PBA Best Player award Lights inside SMX hall flicker as Duterte rants vs Ayala, Pangilinan anew Phivolcs: Slim probability of Taal Volcano caldera eruption The Japanese mixed martial artist dropped a unanimous decision loss to Alex Silva in 2017 and it needed some time to shrug off the bitter feeling of defeat as 12 straight victories.“After losing to Alex, I went through a little bit of a depression,” said Naito through a Japanese interpreter during the open workout at Jakarta Muay Thai on Thursday.” My teammates helped me and I went to see other athletes and I got back my motivation.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSGinebra beats Meralco again to capture PBA Governors’ Cup titleSPORTSJapeth Aguilar wins 1st PBA Finals MVP award for GinebraSPORTSGolden State Warriors sign Lee to multiyear contract, bring back ChrissREAD: More confident Joshua Pacio faces Naito in ONE title rematchIn a rematch just five months after their previous meeting, Naito regained his belt with a grindout split decision over Silva and he is facing Philippine bet Joshua Pacio in a championship bout on Saturday in ONE: Conquest of Heroes with another layer of mental toughness. READ: GALLERY: Pacio, Naito face off ahead of ONE: Conquest of HeroesSince then, both fighters went on to build their resumes with Pacio going to 4-1 in his succeeding fights including a stunning takedown of Pongsiri Mitsatit last July with what he called a “passion lock.”“Joshua got a lot of experience and I did too. He’s definitely a better fighter and it’s going to be a tough fight but I will do my best to win,” Naito said.Naito is aware that striking has been his weakest point, something that Pacio plans to exploit, but he’s ready show what he has been working on the past two years.READ: Pacio guns for ONE strawweight title in Naito rematch “I totally understand that Josh has better striking than me, but I’ve been practicing how to avoid the striking and I’ve also been training on it a lot and I want to show that in the upcoming fight.”Always looking for a quick finish, Naito admitted that it’s going to be easier said than done especially against the Team Lakay fighter.“I always try to finish quickly but it doesn’t always go as I wish. It’s going be a tough fight but it will end in submission.” LATEST STORIES
Dear Editor,Senior officials in a Government are in special positions of authority to influence the mission, administrative priorities, and business decisions of the State. Ministers, in particular, are considered senior officials. These individuals are expected to consider as their primary responsibility their obligations to the nation.Upon taking the oath of office, their private financial business interest becomes secondary. If they cannot adhere to such best practices of good governance, then they should just get out!Therefore, the call from Transparency International Guyana Inc(TIGI), for policies to provide boundaries for those Ministers owning companies that are doing business with the State, has to be seen in that light as a good call.But isn’t this a call too late? The egg-suckers have already gotten accustomed to sucking eggs.To his credit, in late 2014, Dr. Anand Goolsarran, former head of TIGI, also made this call. Since Dr Goolsaran’s call, Mr. Granger promised the nation that he would have provided the framework for good governance upon winning political power. He was very clear in his words on the 2015 campaign trail. Mr. Granger personally promised the nation that he would bring an end to “cronyism at the highest levels that seemed to be draining the nation’s financial resources and blocking human development”.Is Mr. Granger suddenly suffering from amnesia?It is now 2019, and the evidence clearly illustrates that Mr. Granger failed with an “F” GRADE to match his words with action. In simple language, the entire nation was scammed by a BS artist.Who are the politicians today draining the people’s resources into their personal companies by putting their personal interest above those of the people? Just read the newspapers and you will find adequate evidence of at least 29 members of Team Granger, in just three years, who have engaged in all sorts of side hustle: from fuel smuggling to influence buying, to using their positions to win contracts for themselves and close family members without any competition, to securing multi-million-dollar jobs with private oil companies for their spouses and other close family members, and so on. These are all acts of conflict of interest.Today Team Granger offers fickle promises, fatuous platitudes, and long-winded empty statements to throw sand into the eyes of the people as they try to cover up these massive acts of conflict of interest and corruption.But to this call by TIGI, they should know that the time is long gone for statements; the time is now for greater advocacy on the international front, where organisations like the UNODC can be lobbied to help they uproot these massive acts of misappropriation of public funds. After all, it is Transparency International that defines corruption as the “abuse of entrusted power for private gains”.If one were to reflect on the two latest cases, one would ask the legitimate question: Were the profits from VideoMega and Yearwood Construction not shared with sitting senior officials in Team Granger? Are these two officials associated with VideoMega and Yearwood Construction not in a position to influence contracts in favour of these two companies?I rest my case! BETTER MUST COME!Yours faithfully,Sasenarine Singh
160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set! ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) – She was the Robochick. He was Billy-O. According to police, her obsession with him led her to drive 900 miles from Houston to Orlando, bringing with her a trenchcoat and wig, armed with a BB gun and pepper spray, and wearing a diaper to avoid bathroom breaks on the arduous drive. Once in Florida, Lisa “Robochick” Nowak apparently confronted the woman she believed was her rival for the affections of William “Billy-O” Oefelein. And this tawdry love triangle has one more twist – it involves two astronauts. Nowak, 43, a married mother of three who flew on a space shuttle in July, was charged with attempted murder, accused of hatching an extraordinary plot to kidnap Colleen Shipman, who she believed was romantically involved with Oefelein, a space shuttle pilot. Specifically, police said, Nowak confronted Shipman, who was in her car at the Orlando airport, and sprayed something at her, possibly pepper spray. At first the astronaut was charged with attempted kidnapping and other counts. Then prosecutors upped the charge to attempted murder, basing it on the weapons and other items they said police had found with Nowak or in her car: pepper spray, a BB-gun, a new steel mallet, knife and rubber tubing. Nowak was released from jail on $25,500 bail and ordered to wear a monitoring device. Her lawyer, Donald Lykkebak, took issue with the most serious charges. “In the imaginations of the police officers, they extend these facts out into areas where the facts can’t be supported,” Lykkebak said. NASA put Nowak on a 30-day leave and removed her from mission duties. Agency spokesman John Ira Petty at Johnson Space Center in Houston said he was concerned about the people involved and their families. But, he added, “We try not to concern ourselves with our employees’ personal lives.” The details of the relationships of all three were unclear. Nowak and Oefelein, who both live in the Houston area, had trained together as astronauts, but never flew into space together. Shipman, 30, works at Patrick Air Force Base near Kennedy Space Center. Earlier, Nowak was quoted by police as saying she and Oefelein (OH’-fuh-line) had something “more than a working relationship but less than a romantic relationship.” Neither Oefelein nor Shipman could be reached for comment Tuesday, nor could Nowak’s husband be found. But police found a letter in Nowak’s car that “indicated how much Mrs. Nowak loved Mr. Oefelein,” the arrest affidavit said. And Nowak had copies of e-mails between Shipman and Oefelein. Nowak and her husband separated several weeks ago after 19 years of marriage, according to a statement put out by her family. “Personally, Lisa is an extremely caring and dedicated mother to her three children,” the statement said. “Considering both her personal and professional life, these alleged events are completely out of character and have come as a tremendous shock to our family.” Accustomed to wearing astronaut diapers during the space shuttle’s launch and return to Earth, Nowak wore them on the drive to Orlando so she would not have to make bathroom stops, police said. There, according to police, Nowak donned a wig and trench coat, boarded an airport shuttle bus with Shipman and followed her to her car. Then, crying, Nowak sprayed a chemical into the car. Shipman drove to a parking lot booth and sought help. A police affidavit made public Tuesday said Nowak had “stealthily followed the victim while in disguise and possessed multiple deadly weapons.” The affidavit said the circumstances of the case “create a well-founded fear” and gave investigators “probable cause to believe that Mrs. Nowak intended to murder Ms. Shipman.” Lykkebak said that Nowak only wanted to talk to Shipman. Asked about the weapons, he said, “You can sit and speculate all day.” The judge also ordered Nowak to stay away from Shipman and to wear an electronic monitoring device upon returning to her home in Houston. A vague profile began to emerge of Nowak, who graduated from high school in Maryland in 1981 and the U.S. Naval Academy in 1985. She has won various Navy service awards. In a September interview with Ladies’ Home Journal, Nowak said her husband, Richard, “works in Mission Control, so he’s part of the whole space business, too. And supportive also.” On Tuesday, a Houston neighbor, Bryan Lam, told The Associated Press that in November he heard the sounds of dishes being thrown inside the house and the police came. “I’ve seen them arguing before,” he said. Nowak, in a NASA interview last year, before her mission aboard Discovery, as well as in an interview with ABC News, spoke about the strain her career placed on her family. She has twin 5-year-old girls and a son who is 14 or 15. “It’s a sacrifice for our own personal time and our families and the people around us,” she said in the NASA interview. “But I do think it’s worth it because if you don’t explore and take risks and go do all these things, then everything will stay the same.” In an in-flight news conference aboard Discovery last summer, she talked about waiting nearly 10 years for her first space flight. “It’s been a long wait, but it’s worth the wait,” she said. NASA astronauts often have nicknames, at least among their crewmates and Mission Control. Aboard Discovery last July, Nowak and crewmate Stephanie Wilson were known as “the Robochicks” because they operated the shuttle’s robotic arm that checked the spacecraft for damage. A smiling, put-together woman in her NASA photos, Nowak’s police mug shot showed a fatigued, haggard face with scraggly hair. Oefelein, a 41-year-old Navy commander nicknamed “Billy-O” by his comrades, trained with Nowak but never flew with her. He piloted a Discovery mission in December to the space station where astronauts rewired the outpost, installed a new $11 million section and dropped off a new American crew member. Oefelein is unmarried but has two children. He began his aviation career as a teenager, flying floatplanes in Alaska. The Orlando Sentinel reported Shipman is an engineer assigned to the 45th Launch Support Squadron at Patrick air base, and a Federal Aviation Administration pilot directory indicates she is certified as a student pilot. Chief astronaut Steve Lindsey, who flew with Nowak to the space station last July aboard Discovery, and fellow astronaut Chris Ferguson attended Monday’s court hearing. “Our primary concern is her health and well-being and that she get through this,” Lindsey told reporters afterward. Ferguson said he was “perplexed” by Nowak’s alleged actions. NASA spokeswoman Nicole Cloutier-Lemasters said shuttle crews that fly for two-week stints do not go through psychiatric screenings. She said crews assigned to the space station are screened before, during and after missions. NASA will not conduct an investigation, Cloutier-Lemasters said. At least one retired astronaut, Jerry Linenger, said the space agency should review its psychological screening process. With NASA talking about a 2 1/2-year trip to Mars, it would be dangerous for someone to “snap like this” during the mission, he said. “An astronaut is probably the most studied human being by the time you go through your testing, your training,” Linenger said. “I think there’s still a lot of unknowns out there.” AP National Writer Erin McClam reported from New York for this story. AP writers Malcolm Ritter in New York, Seth Borenstein in Washington, Rasha Madkour in Houston, Kelli Kennedy in Miami and Jim Ellis in Cape Canaveral contributed to this report.
The Colombian then turned and smashed a shot that flew over the Caen goalkeeper Brice Samba and in. It was his 18th goal of the season.The principality side are currently third in Ligue 1, nine points behind leaders Paris Saint-Germain, and were knocked out of the Champions League after finishing bottom of their group.That means the domestic cup competitions take on added importance for Monaco, who lost to PSG in the League Cup final last season.PSG, who have won the competition in each of the last four seasons, go to Strasbourg in the last 16 on Wednesday and will be without Neymar after the Brazilian was allowed to return to his home country for personal reasons.0Shares0000(Visited 1 times, 1 visits today) 0Shares0000Monaco’s forward Radamel Falcao celebrates after scoring during the French League Cup round of 16 football match against Caen December 12, 2017 © AFP / VALERY HACHEPARIS, France, Dec 13 – An outrageous strike by Radamel Falcao was the highlight as a much-changed Monaco side eased to a 2-0 win over Caen to reach the quarter-finals of France’s League Cup on Tuesday.Monaco were leading through Guido Carrillo’s first-half effort when Falcao — who had come off the bench — took a touch just inside the Caen half on the edge of the centre circle.
Top nine Premier League free transfers of the decade 2 Premier League Team of the Season so far, including Liverpool and Leicester stars Latest Liverpool FC News smart causal Where Ancelotti ranks with every Premier League boss for trophies won Liverpool forward Roberto Firmino was discharged from a London hospital after receiving good news on the eye injury he sustained during the Reds’ 2-1 win at Tottenham.He was sent for assessment after being forced off the field in the second-half of Liverpool’s victory at Wembley. Every current Premier League club’s best kit from the past decade silverware possible standings England’s most successful clubs of the past decade, according to trophies won Firmino celebrates Liverpool’s second goal Which teams do the best on Boxing Day in the Premier League era? 2 Firmino went down after Vertonghen’s finger hit him in the eye And it was good news for the Brazilian as a hospital examination confirmed an abrasion of the eye but there will be no lasting damage.It is not known whether Firmino will be available for Liverpool’s Champions League match at home to Paris Saint-Germain on Tuesday night, however.Before sustaining the injury, Firmino scored what prove to be the decisive goal of the game as he tapped home a loose ball virtually on the goalline to put Liverpool 2-0 up.His display earned a great deal of praise from these Reds fans on Twitter as Jurgen Klopp’s men continued their perfect start to the 2018/19 season. How the Premier League table could change after the Boxing Day fixtures REVEALED REVEALED Oxlade-Chamberlain suffers another setback as Klopp confirms serious injury huge blow shining RANKED
No 2 – Picture of Matt Carthy, Pearse Doherty and John Sheamais O’Fearraigh with Local Farmers in field covered in sand as a result of floodingTD Pearse Doherty and local election candidate John Sheamais O’Fearraigh have with local farmers to assess the damage by recent storms which caused the Ards Sea embankment to breach and resulted in severe and extensive flooding to farmland in the Ards area.Sinn Féin local election candidate O’Fearraigh said he was alarmed to see the extent of the damage caused by the breach of the embankment, which has caused severe hardship to local farmers.“The breach of the embankment has affected 13 local farmers and has caused the flooding of 130 acres of land with a number of acres of forestry also affected. “Due to the breach in the embankment, which occurred in January and measures approximately 80 feet, the local farmers have had their lands repeatedly flooded when high tides have come in.“I am aware that the Officials from the office of public works have visited this site in January after the breach took place, however it remains unclear if the funding has been made available to fully complete the works necessary or when works will commence.“It is of the utmost importance that work commences on this site as soon as possible – with no defence from high tides and repeated flooding of their land local farmers are not in a position to begin work to restore their land and there are also concerns that farmers could lose out on various entitlements if the works are not commenced in the very near future.”He called on Donegal County Council to prioritise this project, which he said affects the livelihood of a number of local farmers, to immediately clarify details of the plans to repair the breach and to consult with local farmers on the repair works needed. SINN FEIN CALL ON COUNCIL TO REPAIR FLOODED ARDS EMBANKMENT was last modified: March 19th, 2014 by StephenShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Tags:ArdsDonegal County CouncilSinn Fein
While attempting to tell us how fairness evolved for selfish reasons, evolutionists want to push for the “common good.”An editorial in Science Magazine begins with a stern warning:Humanity is at a crossroads. Do we continue trends of preceding decades that lift people out of poverty and extend life spans, but in the process run down the planet’s natural capital? Solutions to this profound problem will require greater cooperation among people. The rise of market fundamentalism and the drive for growth in profits and gross domestic product (GDP) have encouraged behavior that is at odds with pursuit of the common good. Finding ways to develop a sustainable relationship with nature requires not only engagement of scientists and political leaders, but also moral leadership that religious institutions are in a position to offer.The two authors, scientists of Indian descent (one at Cambridge, one at Scripps), have climate change on their mind. In their view, the “common good” consists of mitigating the effects of global warming through international treaties, to which all other groups (scientists, politicians, and religious leaders) must submit. They see “market fundamentalism” (notice the loaded word) as the enemy of the common good. Their article is heavily doused with the “sustainable/unsustainable” concept frequently used to support globalist agendas. To decide if something is sustainable or not, though, relies heavily on complex data and modeling that conservatives and liberals often see very differently. Liberals, for instance, claim that the earth is past “peak oil” so that current utilization rates are “unsustainable” as are the carbon emissions they generate. Conservatives respond that new sources of oil continue to be found and new technologies are making its production cleaner, believing that market forces will take care of alternative energy production if and when they supersede the affordability of hydrocarbons.Science Magazine only presents one side. To Dasgupta and Ramanathan, there is only one common good, and that is leftist globalism. Religion must be co-opted to support their vision of the common good, even if it means reducing life spans and slowing the efforts to lift people out of poverty. It’s not that they don’t care about the poor; they just believe that exploitation of resources at “unsustainable” rates by greedy capitalists is plunging the world into a crisis that will make everyone poor, unless we find “ways to develop a sustainable relationship with nature” which, presumably, gets by without modern technologies and large families:Environmental problems are manifest at scales from the global, such as climate change, to the local, such as declines in availability of fresh water and forest products in villages in the poor world. High fertility rates in the poorest regions exacerbate pressure on local systems and contribute to the persistence of poverty. Unsustainable consumption, population pressure, poverty, and environmental degradation are intricately linked, but this is appreciated neither by development economists nor by national governments who permit GDP growth to trump environmental protection in their policies.Conservatives and libertarians argue that technology offers the best hope for the poor; it’s government coercion and corruption that’s the problem. An acre of wasteland can be transformed into a productive paradise when people have the freedom to use their gifts and talents, because market forces will require that human self-interest be channeled into making products others will want to buy. It doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game, with rich getting richer and poor getting poorer. From Adam Smith to Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, conservative economists have shown how freedom solves the “tragedy of the commons” and generates the most wealth for the most people, whereas coercive governments often hurt the most people while wrecking the very resources liberal theorists want to make “sustainable.” 20th century examples abound (communist Russia, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Tanzania).What’s notable about Science Magazine’s article is its very one-sided presentation of the problem and its solution, without any opportunity for comeback arguments by conservative scholars. Where is the debate? One might think that “science” requires airing of all the evidence, and a balanced presentation on controversial issues. That is not evident here: it’s all one sided, using the language and arguments for global coercion to solve a problem framed by an ideology that arrogates “science” to itself. Notice how Dasgupta and Ramanathan simply dismiss Adam Smith, passing the buck to other references as their authorities:Because the socioecological processes giving rise to this state of affairs aren’t self-correcting (5), there is urgent need for collective action from the community level to the international level. Studies on resource allocation in nonlinear systems have shown that Adam Smith’s famous “invisible hand” cannot, even in theory, be expected to come to the rescue (8, 9). Natural and social scientists have done their part in documenting the irreversible environmental damages (albeit with large uncertainties) that we have inflicted and in spelling out specific mitigation actions (1). The transformational step may well be a massive mobilization of public opinion by the Vatican and other religions for collective action to safeguard the well-being of both humanity and the environment.For their authorities, they reference themselves! They also cite Paul Ehrlich, who has been demonstrably wrong on many of his doomsday predictions. The only other reference is to David A Starrett, a Stanford economist whose 1987 book Foundations in Public Economics doesn’t have any reviews on Amazon.com; his assumption-based theories appear to be of interest only to academics (example), and lack the track record of free-market economists. So why do the authors cite these few as authorities for such audacious claims that market economics cannot work? This is picking and choosing evidence in a very unscientific way. The authors also use buzzwords of globalism: transformational, collective action, international, sustainable, and mobilization. Does this one-sided political-economic advocacy piece belong in a “Science” magazine?Their solution is for governments to take inventory of their assets, and then for internationalists to decide how they are to be allocated (i.e., redistribution of wealth). History shows that has never worked: governments get bigger, corruption increases, and the poor suffer more (see, for instance, Jay Richards‘ 2010 book, Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem). Religious leaders appear in their article only as useful idiots who can use their powers of persuasion to push the global agenda: “The transformational step may well be a massive mobilization of public opinion by the Vatican and other religions for collective action to safeguard the well-being of both humanity and the environment.” They get downright moral about this. Since they believe “there is a need to reorient our attitude toward nature and, thereby, toward ourselves,” they look to the Pope and other religious leaders for the “moral leadership” that can “mobilize people to act” according to their perspective on what is the common good. Clearly, they would not be happy if religious leaders used their moral leadership to mobilize people against the global agenda and toward individual liberties endowed by the Creator, as expressed in America’s Declaration of Independence.Does Evolution Even Have a Common Good?What makes Dasgupta and Ramanathan’s opinion piece seem especially out of place is the context: Science Magazine is also a one-sided outlet for Darwinian evolution. All the talk about a common “good” and “moral leadership” must be derived from evolutionary theory, with no filching from Judeo-Christian presuppositions. Can it be done?A recent attempt was made by evolutionists at Georgia State. In “Research Shows Human Sense Of Fairness Evolved To Favor Long-Term Cooperation,” a press release tells how Dr. Sarah Brosnan and Dr. Franz de Waal have spent the last decade working with primates to discover the secret of fairness evolution. Their work bears direct relevance to the preceding article about global cooperation:“This sense of fairness is the basis of lots of things in human society, from wage discrimination to international politics,” Brosnan said. “What we’re interested in is why humans aren’t happy with what we have, even if it’s good enough, if someone else has more. What we hypothesize is that this matters because evolution is relative. If you are cooperating with someone who takes more of the benefits accrued, they will do better than you, at your expense. Therefore, we began to explore whether responses to inequity were common in other cooperative species.“They found through experiments that a number of species appear upset if another individual gets a bigger reward for the same task, but the “sense of fairness” requires more than that: it requires recognizing unfairness when you get more than the other individual. Without elaboration, the article asserts, “Thus far, this has only been found in humans and their closest relatives, the apes.”More detail on this study is provided by Rachel Kendal, a Senior Lecture at Durham University, in The Conversation. Her conclusion is announced right in the headline: “The human race evolved to be fair for selfish reasons.” As could be expected, the Darwinian explanation for morality is rooted in selfishness: survival of the fittest—only in this case, it’s survival of the fittest population (inclusive fitness), not fittest individual.Kendal first dismisses the fairness our parents taught us. External rules don’t cut it. “In fact, children do not need encouragement to be fair, it is a unique feature of human social life, which emerges in childhood,” she claims. That’s Darwin’s puzzle:Biologists are surprised by this tendency to behave fairly. The theory of evolution by natural selection predicts that individuals should behave in ways to maximise their inclusive fitness. So behaviours are only selected, and hence evolve, if they ensure the survival and reproduction of the actor or kin whom contain copies of the actor’s genes. However, the behaviour displayed by children seems to be at a detriment to themselves, especially when those who benefit from their selfless behaviour are not the children’s kin.Not to worry; evolutionists are clever with imagination. Kendal turns to Brosnan and de Waal’s theory. She repeats their assertion that many species, including dogs, birds and fish, will appear agitated if another gets a bigger reward for an equal task. The flip side, expressing displeasure at getting a larger reward than a neighbor, is rare: “Such inequity aversion, at a cost to oneself, has only been recorded in humans and chimpanzees.” So what’s the Darwinian explanation?Brosnan and de Waal propose that the motivation to seek equal rewards, despite disadvantaging oneself, is to prevent dissatisfaction of the co-operative partner and avoid any negative outcomes that may follow. The main negative outcomes are the likelihood of conflict and loss of future advantageous co-operation with the partner.Also, one’s reputation is tainted, reducing the chances of forming future beneficial partnerships. When we humans “play fair” we are doing so, according to Brosnan and de Waal, not due to a motivation for “equality for its own sake but for the sake of continued cooperation”.Because humans also have large brains, they can ponder the benefits of self-control. Because we have language, we can express our fairness policies in regulations. Nevertheless, it is striking that only chimpanzees and humans show this ability. How did that come about? “Because responsiveness to advantageous inequity is only seen in humans and chimpanzees, Brosnan and de Waal hypothesise that its evolution, since the split from other primates, was the starting point for the eventual development of the advanced sense of fairness displayed by humans.” It’s strange, then, that chimpanzees show so much violence toward one another, if their social evolution favored cooperation (see BBC News, “Murder comes naturally to chimps”).Kendal ends by undermining any intrinsic meaning or value from altruistic actions. It’s all disguised selfishness:The many heroic and selfless actions of individual humans, for example rescuing strangers in mortal danger and money or blood donation, are inspiring and admirable. Yet, however distasteful to contemplate, it is likely that these individuals gain in terms of their reputation and future cooperation from others, known as indirect reciprocity. If extreme prosociality is a “costly signal” indicating ones worth to future mates, it makes sense that highly visible individuals, such as celebrities, may feel the most pressure to act charitably.But is this an explanation or a just-so story? A unique attribute of humans (and perhaps of chimpanzees, depending on how well designed the experiments are in the absence of language) has been “explained away” as a product of inclusive fitness: you are unselfish toward strangers because you might need their cooperation some day, and you strategize that kindness is the best policy for getting dates so that you can pass on your genes. Why isn’t this a law of nature for all animals, then? Why is it not seen in lower primates and in dogs, fish, and birds? Ah, the evolutionist says: it’s because chimps and humans have big brains. Yet other animals have large brains relative to their body sizes. Well, then, it somehow got selected when chimpanzees split from other primates.This is not only unfalsifiable, it’s mystical. None of these evolutionists has identified a mutation or variation that first led Chimpanzee A to take offense at being given a larger reward than its neighbor. If that was a spontaneous mutation due to unguided, physical causes, it would have had to cause Chimp A to be so much fitter that its mutation would spread rapidly through the whole population, without any plan or forethought. Simultaneously, all the other chimps without the mutation would either have to die off, or want to mate with Chimp A because somehow their brains recognized that it was a nice thing for Chimp A to express displeasure at getting a smaller reward. It’s not clear how any of this can fit a blind mutation-selection theory. Can that really explain why people cross the world to help the poor? Are we to believe that is why Medal of Honor winner Michael Murphy exposed himself to enemy fire to save his comrades, because he thought they would cooperate with him later and make him more attractive to the ladies? It sure didn’t help Murphy pass on his genes.Tying This All TogetherReturning to the Science Magazine paper (and assuming that Dasgupta and Ramanathan are evolutionists, which is highly likely if they are respected at Scripps and Cambridge), we must conclude that they are acting selfishly. Their pretended altruism to help the poor and save the world is a mechanical ruse, thrust on them without their control, determined by an evolutionary past that rewarded acts of “fairness” that have nothing to do with the meaning of fairness. In short, their genes are making them talk that way so that they can attract females and pass on their genes. Since the evolutionary explanation is self-refuting, all this talk by Dasgupta, Ramanathan, Kendal, Brosnan and de Waal can be dismissed as nonsense.Do you see why recognition of self-refuting propositions provides a shortcut to sound conclusions? You didn’t need to read all their fluff and worry about whether it made sense. By their own presuppositions, it is all nonsense.* Next time, look for that, and you can save a lot of time. We went into detail as a training exercise so you can learn the principles.Now, go be altruistic in the power of the spirit of God, your Maker, who endowed us with awareness of His righteous character by making us in His image. He also provided the ultimate empirical evidence of unselfish love by taking upon Himself our guilt and punishment on the cross, leaving an empty tomb, so that trusting in His great act of love, we might live forever with Him in great joy (Romans 5). The Bible, thus, provides logical consistency, understanding, and evidence. Given the root meaning of science (knowledge), which view should be considered the more “scientific”?*If the authors want to argue for redistribution of wealth from sensible presuppositions, we will listen to their arguments on stipulation that God’s word is the final authority for all thought, morality, and action. (Visited 32 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
4 December 2013 South African mobile phone networks are seeing call revenues declining for the first time in their histories as the younger generation leads the consumer charge into a “new data economy”, according to a new study from research company World Wide Worx. World Wide Worx’s “Mobility 2014” study, released last week, reveals that the 19-24 age group, representing students and entrants into the workforce, is abandoning calls faster than any other segment. “Only 56% of this group’s cellphone budget is now spent on calls, down from 66% in mid-2012,” the company said in a statement. “Data spend, on the other hand, [on text messaging and internet surfing and downloading] has increased from 17% to 24%.” The study is based on face-to-face at-home interviews conducted in late 2013 with 1 200 South Africans, aged 16 and up, in urban and rural areas across the country. It found a dramatic shift in the trend for the overall market, with call spend dropping from 73% of cellphone budget to 65%, while data spend increased from 12% to 16%. At the beginning of 2010, calls stood at 77% and data at 8%. Spending on text messaging remained steady at 13%, while spending on downloading music tracks, which featured for the first time in 2012, doubled from 1% to 2% of the average mobile phone budget. “Older users continue to spend far more overall, but the powerful shift in spend from voice to data will work its way up the age segments in the coming years,” World Wide Worx MD Arthur Goldstuck said in a statement. “Already, we are seeing a flattening out of the curve of data use from the 25-34 through to the 46-55 age groups. Only above that age does data spend drop off – but not very significantly.”Mobile banking The survey also reveals substantial shifts in the South African mobile banking environment, with the biggest proportional shift coming in the use of banking apps. From only 1% of all banking customers using banking apps in mid-2012, the figure shot up to 9% in late 2013. Cellphone banking also surged, from 28% in mid-2012 to 37% in late 2013. “One in 10 banking customers are now using apps, and that number is still rising fast, which vindicates our strategy of expanding our offerings as the market’s use of these tools evolves,” said Dione Sankar, head of cellphone banking at FNB. “At the same time, looking after the non-smartphone customer through basic cellphone banking has also paid off. We have never experienced such dramatic growth across all mobile channels.”Mobile phone brands According to the survey, Nokia remains the most popular phone brand in South Africa, although its market share has dropped significantly, from 50% to 44%. Blackberry has increased its market share locally from 18% to 23%, despite almost vanishing as a force from Western markets, thanks to its continued aspirational appeal in younger markets. Samsung, meanwhile, has increased its share marginally, from 18% to 19%. “In mid-2012, consumers had indicated they would move away from the brand, with a third of its users saying they would opt for other phones,” World Wide Worx said. “However, the appeal of its Galaxy range of Android devices across all smartphone price segments has resulted in a resurgence for Samsung.” The most popular feature used on phones remains the camera, at 73% of mobile users, with FM radio far behind at 51%, and the music player on the phone catching up to FM at 49%.Tablet usage Tablet usage was measured for the first time in World Wide Worx’s latest study, revealing that approximately 5% of South Africa’s adult cellphone users also have a tablet. The vast majority use it for internet access (77%) and e-mail (57%), with social media and downloading apps in joint third place (43%). Samsung dominates tablet usage by adults, with 52% market share, while Apple iPads hold 23% of the adult market. “Both tablet penetration and market share is set to shift in the coming year,” World Wide Worx said, noting that “a quarter of respondents said they expected to buy a tablet, with 44% of these saying they will buy a Samsung device, and 32% opting for Apple”. SAinfo reporter and World Wide Worx
Whether it was due to economic pressure, energy efficiency incentives, or a combination of both, Americans used more solar, nuclear, biomass, and wind energy in 2008 than they did in 2007, according to energy flow charts produced by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, one of the nation’s key sources of technological research for national security.The flow charts, which were released this week, show 2008 energy usage in the U.S. at 99.2 quadrillion Btu, down 2.26% from 101.5 quadrillion Btu in 2007. Overall, the nation used less coal and petroleum during the same time frame and only slightly increased its natural gas consumption. Geothermal energy use remained the same, LLNL said in a press release.While commercial and residential energy use climbed slightly, it declined by 1.17 quadrillion and 0.9 quadrillion Btu, respectively, in the petroleum-dependent industrial and transportation sectors, which trimmed consumption when oil prices soared last year.Key to improving on these generally positive trends, said A.J. Simon, an LLNL energy systems analyst who develops the energy flow charts using data provided by the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration, will be our efforts to develop devices and strategies that make the most efficient use of the energy we consume. Rejected energy – essentially the amount of energy that is consumed but ultimately wasted – amounted to 57% of the 99.2 quadrillion Btu Americans consumed last year.“I’m really excited about the renewed push for energy efficiency in this country,” Simon said in the LLNL press release, “because once that energy is rejected, it’s no longer useful. But more-efficient power plants, automobiles and even light bulbs really do reject less energy while providing the same energy services.”
What are some other first-time filmmaking clichés to avoid? Let us know in the comments. All film school students are guilty of these seven clichés. Here’s how to avoid them and make your beginner film projects stand out.Top image: Groundhog Day via Columbia PicturesNo judgment here. Everyone has to start somewhere. Whether you’re in film school or just shooting on weekends with some friends, there’s a lot to consider when it comes time to jump into your first project.Do yourself, your professor, and your friends a favor and try to avoid these first-time filmmaking clichés.1. Alarm Clock OpeningsIt’s been done a million times in films big and small, but it’s the single most over-used opener in filmmaking. Let your classmates begin their films with a blaring alarm clock flashing 8:00 while a hand slaps the snooze. It only leads to a montage of your main character rubbing their eyes, brushing teeth, and rushing to get ready to leave in time.How to Avoid: There are other ways to introduce a character and start a scene. If you think about it, seeing a character wake up exactly like everyone in the world does really doesn’t tell you much about them. Consider skipping the intro and jumping into the middle of your next scene. Here’s a good example: 2. Gratuitous Running SequencesIn one of your first film school classes, you’re going to get the assignment to show how to edit a scene. Undoubtedly, you or someone you know will have the idea to create a sequence of a character running through campus because they are late for class. As an exercise, this is perfectly fine, but in a narrative film, it can kill a story in its tracks.How to Avoid: Consider something smaller and possibly more mundane. Match action cutting isn’t only used for big actions, you can build a sequence out of pretty much any aspect of everyday life. Make a sandwich, replace a car tire, wrap a gift, anything that has movement and progression will do.3. Blown-Out Tarantino Trunk ShotsWe all love Quentin Tarantino — he’s a great filmmaker. However, I’m willing to bet he feels a sharp pain in his side every time a film student sets up one of his patented trunk shots and leaves their camera on auto exposure. Yes, it’s fun to pay homage to your favorite director’s signature shots, but going from a dark space to a blown-out bright sky doesn’t quite pack the same impact in your film as it does in Reservoir Dogs.How to Avoid: If you are going to try it, set the exposure and white balance for how it will look outside. You can add lights or reflectors inside the trunk to keep your characters from being silhouetted. Or, if you want to show your characters getting something from a trunk, simply shoot it from outside of the car.4. Predictable Bathroom Mirror RevealsIf anything, the cliché bathroom mirror move teaches some good lessons about framing, blocking, and timing; it can still be effective when done right. Nonetheless, it’s easily the most overused of all horror movie jump scares. Worse yet, when done poorly, it can create a very confusing and fumbled scene.How to Avoid: Because it’s such a classic trope, over the years it’s systematically been turned on its head many times over. If you’re looking to experiment, trying to add a new angle or twist to the sequence can be a playful way to engage your audience.5. Unnecessary Vertigo Effect ShotsAgain, its definitely a technique that’s fun to try out and can be a great exercise in itself. However, used out of context to the story you’re telling, it can be quite disconnecting and odd. When done properly, the push/pull shot creates a perceived warp in space and distance and requires hair-trigger control of a zoom pull and dolly push. It’s rarely used in films for a reason, only called upon to portray built-up, high-stress situations.How to Avoid: From a technical standpoint, the vertigo effect is very difficult and usually requires several people working perfectly in unison. You can however “cheat” it, if you will, with a zoom added in post (here’s a good video explaining how). If you’re just looking to portray an upsetting emotion within a character, other methods like a dutch angle can also be an option.6. Unsightly Cross DissolvesCross dissolves, or crossfades, are a standard video and film transition that can, at times, ease a sharp or harsh cut between two scenes. In film history, it has been used at times to create thematic links between shots. However, most of the time, it creates awkward bleeds between images that can create unsightly mixes and can create unwanted connotations.How to Avoid: If you’re going to use a long cross dissolve, you’re going to need complete control of your shots. Handheld and bumpy shots do not crossfade well, as the lines bounce around and create weird images. If you do shoot on a tripod or secure dolly, the longer the crossfade means the longer you’ll need to hold your shot still at the end. It’s really not always needed either, as there are just as many famous cuts between two shots that don’t crossfade but still create illicit thematic connections.7. Way Too Long CreditsIt’s understandable — you’ve finished your first short film and you’re proud of your accomplishments. The urge to put together an ending sequence that gives you and your friends all the credit you deserve make sense. However, if you’re in a class where several films are going to be shown, or are simply showing it to friends — they will all know who wrote, directed, shot, sound engineered, gaffed, and edited the film.How to Avoid: Keep it short and sweet. Avoid the long crawling credits. You can still attach you and your friends’ names, but try and incorporate something other than just a blank screen and text. A good example of this may be the ending to Wes Anderson’s first short film Bottle Rocket. Find a way to mix the credits in as part of the story you’re trying to tell.