Latest: Southampton 1 QPR 0 – Chelsea man Bertrand strikes for the Saints

first_imgOn-loan Chelsea man Ryan Bertrand scored nine minutes into the second half to give Southampton a deserved lead at St Mary’s.After Rio Ferdinand had given the ball away, Sadio Mane held off Mauricio Isla and cleverly back-heeled the ball into the path of Bertrand, who fired under keeper Rob Green for his first goal since joining the Saints.Rangers were on the back foot from the start and were forced into an early change after Sandro suffered an apparent head injury after eight minutes.The Brazilian midfielder, back after a knee problem, was replaced by Karl Henry following lengthy treatment.Southampton, second in the table and enjoying their best start to a top-flight season since 1988, have been the better side.They almost went ahead in the first half when Dusan Tadic’s shot deflected off Steven Caulker and onto the outside of the post, before Saints forward Graziano Pelle fired into the side netting from near the edge of the six-yard box.Rangers, thrashed 4-0 in their two previous away league games this season, have been largely second best but their passing has been better and they have shown much more willingness to press the opposition.Eduardo Vargas had got through plenty of work for them on the left-hand side in an attempt to track Nathaniel Clyne.Even so, Southampton could be at least three goals up and Morgan Schniederlin missed a great chance for them on 44 minutes, steering his shot wide after being set up by Sadio Mane.Rangers’ best opening came in first-half injury time when Charlie Austin shot wide.But they were under pressure again straight after the interval and Mane’s saw a deflected effort held by Green before the deadlock was eventually broken.And Ronald Koeman’s in-form team would have quickly doubled their lead had Green not denied Tadic from close range. QPR (4-2-3-1): Green; Isla, Caulker, Ferdinand, Traore; Sandro (Henry 11), Fer; Phillips, (Hoilett 58) Kranjcar; Vargas, Austin. Subs: Hill, McCarthy, Onouha, Dunne, Zamora.Follow West London Sport on TwitterFind us on Facebooklast_img read more

Revising Dinosaurs

first_imgReconstructing a lost world from fossils is an inexact science.  The realization that two species of dinosaur were different growth stages of the same species is just one example of the difficulty of drawing conclusions about past ecological conditions.  It raises additional questions about the mental visions we have of the world of dinosaurs.    PhysOrg reported that Torosaurus, sporting a larger frill with holes in it, turns out to be an older stage of growth of the familiar Triceratops.  The article explains that “juvenile dinosaurs weren’t just miniature versions of adults.  They looked very different, and their skulls changed radically as they matured.”  Re-examination of familiar species at different stages of growth have revealed “extreme changes in the skulls of pachycephalosaurs, tyrannosaurs and other dinosaurs that died out about 65 million years ago in North America.”    Speaking of tyrannosaurs, paleontologists still seem unable to decide how fast and fierce our old friend T. rex was.  This month, National Geographic claimed it plodded like an elephant because of a natural speed limit of 180 feet per second in nerve signals.  The picture of T. rex lumbering about looking for dead meat doesn’t make a good movie, but new evidence suggests tyrannosaurs spent some time looking for “Meat that doesn’t fight back.”  New Scientist teased that tyrannosaurs may have been “history’s most fearsome… scavengers?” while Live Science left room for some hunting of fast food between the comfort food.   John Scannella and Jack Horner studied dozens of triceratops specimens in Montana.  “Even in Triceratops that were previously considered to be adults,” they found, “the skull was still undergoing dramatic changes.” Scannella recognized the perils of interpreting an ecological system from bones.  “Paleontologists are at a disadvantage because we can’t go out into the field and observe a living Triceratops grow up from a baby to an adult,” he said.  “We have to put together the story based on fossils.  In order to get the complete story, you need to have a large sample of fossils from many individuals representing different growth stages.”    But what is to be made of “Mojoceratops,” a new specimen from Canada that Nicholas Longrich of Yale named after having a few beers? (see Science Daily and Live Science).  Is it really a new species, or does the fame of finding something new play into the classification?  The article claims it’s a more extravagant version of an existing species named Chasmosaurus.  Longrich admitted, “So far, we really have no good explanation for why there are so many dinosaurs in the area and just how they managed to coexist.”  He also just wanted to have fun with the name.  “You can do good science and still have some fun, too.  So why not?”    Good science and fun are not mutually exclusive, to be sure.  But the public often trusts the depictions of dinosaurs from the experts in their visions of what the ancient world looked like.  Hollywood does, too (more or less).  One hopes that between beers the paleontologists are striving for accuracy.  “Without considering changes in shape throughout ontogeny,” Scannella said, “we overestimate dinosaur diversity and hence produce an unrealistic view of the paleoecology of these animals.”  Horner and Scannella worked with many graduate students and volunteers to try to falsify their hypothesis that Torosaurus was a mature form of Triceratops, but “Every avenue of investigation we took in attempts to falsify the hypothesis only supported the idea further,” Scannella said.  They never found a juvenile Torosaurus; all the skulls were large and few in number compared to Triceratops.    Admirable as their caution was before lumping Torosaurus with Triceratops, they appeared to leap less carefully into other interpretations about Cretaceous ecology.  They even brought global warming into the tale:“A major decline in diversity may have put the dinosaurs in a vulnerable state at the time when the large meteor struck the Earth at the end of the Cretaceous Period,” Scannella said.  “It may have been the combination of the two factors – lower diversity and a major global catastrophe – that resulted in the extinction of all the non-avian dinosaurs.”    If the apparent decline in diversity wasn’t triggered by a meteor – a relatively uncommon event – Scannella said, “It may have been caused by circumstances which are more likely to affect diversity today, perhaps large-scale sea level fluctuations or climate change.”One wonders if Scannella said these things in the “May” season.    An article on Science Daily claimed that ostriches can provide clues about dinosaur movement.  They noticed that ostriches use their forelimb wings aerodynamically to control their speed and direction.  “The results of this new study could mean that some of the largest and fastest-moving dinosaurs, such as the 8m long Gigantoraptor, also used feathered forelimbs for increased stability and manoeuvrability when moving at speed.”  Here, they not only extrapolated a phenomenon fourfold or more into an unseen world, they put feathers onto a creature on which no feathers were found.    If it’s data the dinosaur hunters need, a new treasure trove opened up in Alberta.  Live Science reported the world’s largest dinosaur graveyard – thousands of Centrosaurus skeletons covering 568 acres.  The discoverers believe a herd of the cow-sized dinosaurs got trapped in a local flood: “The likely culprit in this scenario was a catastrophic storm, which could quickly have routinely made the waters flood up as high as 12 to 15 feet (3.6 to 4.6 meters), if experiences with modern floodplains are any guide.”  They believe that scavengers came in after the water lowered and fed on the carcasses.  “The researchers now hope to take lessons they have learned in Alberta to compare it to other parts of the world in an effort to pinpoint signs of past catastrophes elsewhere.”Scannella talked about putting together a story.  We often criticize the storytelling in Darwinism, but not all storytelling is just-so storytelling.  Obviously there was some kind of story with the dinosaurs.  The bones are brute facts; how did they get there?  Creationists will say they are antediluvian creatures who perished in the Flood.  Evolutionists fit them into their story of deep time, evolution, and extinction.  But here is the issue with stories about the unobservable past: like Scannella said, paleontologists are at a disadvantage.  They cannot go out into the field and observe a living Triceratops and watch how it grows.  Nor can they see its total environment, and how it interacted with other dinosaurs and other creatures.  Each plant and animal fossil in the same strata adds to the puzzle, but we cannot know how many other pieces are missing; as Sagan used to say of SETI, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”  Moreover, one cannot watch a rerun of what happened with the origin and extinction of dinosaurs.    This is limitation on Biblical creationists, too; they have a framework in the Flood narrative of Genesis 6-9, but that is a condensed account.  It doesn’t provide details of what was living in the future land of Montana or Alberta and how specifically they perished in what order.  They, too, have to take the puzzle pieces and try to make sense of them within their general picture of the Flood.  There’s lively debate and argument in creationist journals about the details.  It’s a built-in limitation of historical sciences; one cannot observe, repeat, and test one-time occurrences.  Even if you can recreate similar occurrences, or find analogies (like current flood-plains), the scientist can only assess and argue the plausibility of the resulting story.    Every theory about the past is theory-laden.  Even the naming and classification of the dinosaurs is theory-laden.  It took a jolly inebriated human being to name “Mojoceratops” and decide it was a new species.  Deciding what the continent was like when it was buried, and what caused the burial of 568 acres of Centrosaurs, and whether a local flood (or something larger) buried them – none of those answers jump unprocessed out of the data.  This is why skepticism and argument is important in science, especially in the historical sciences.  Creationists admit they have a framework of interpretation (the Bible), but evolutionists pretend they are bias-free.  Creationists routinely look at both sides of the creation-evolution controversy, but evolutionists deny a controversy exists.  Evolutionists argue over some of the details, but they never question their framework: billions of years of evolution.  The potential is real for intellectual inbreeding and stagnation in the evolutionist camp, but they refuse to acknowledge it.  They deny anyone outside their paradigm a seat at the table, so they continue to place uncooperative details into a fixed paradigm (e.g., 04/30/2009).  That’s when storytelling becomes just-so storytelling.  The plot is massaged just so the data fits into the agreed-upon story.    One way to decide which story is better is to have a sentient eyewitness explain what happened.  That’s exactly what creationists claim to have (at least for their general outline): the Biblical record of a global Flood, not just a series of past catastrophes, which evolutionists agree are needed to interpret the evidence.  Evolutionists, ruling eyewitness testimony out of court, are stuck with just-so storytelling.  They think that’s better.    How to evaluate interpretations?  It becomes an issue of credibility.  There are no value-free guidelines of credibility, either.  Occam’s Razor is a guideline but not a law of nature.  Avoiding contradictions, special pleading and ad hoc rescue devices are usually valued.  Making stuff up out of thin air (just-so storytelling) to preserve a belief is frowned upon (or should be).  But stories cannot be judged simply by the number of scientists who believe them, the institutions that support them, and the political or financial power behind them.  Better one truth-teller than a thousand know-nothings.  Is there a God who told the truth about the history of the world and the origin of all life and mankind?  That would constitute sufficient evidence to accept His word (see II Peter 3:3-9, written by an eyewitness of Jesus’ transfiguration and resurrection – and Jesus spoke of the Flood as true history; see Luke 17;26-27).  One can choose which storyteller to believe, but one cannot eliminate storytelling altogether.  A story with an Eyewitness would seem preferable to any reasonable judge or jury, if it were not for modern science’s prior commitment to the philosophy of naturalism.(Visited 14 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

Easyjet’s ‘interesting’ futuristic uniforms for 2016

first_imgEasyJet is unveiling an interesting world first for the aviation industry by incorporating wearable technology – including LED messages with customers’ flight details – into cabin crew and engineers’ uniforms.The airline is set to trial the new look at the beginning of 2016 to mark its 20th anniversary and to improve communication and passenger safety procedures.         Read: EasyJet reviewThe cabin crew’s uniforms will be fitted with LEDs on the shoulders and illuminated hems to provide additional lighting. There will also be LEDs on the jacket lapels, displaying important information like fight numbers and destinations, and the crew will also have access to in-built microphones.The engineers’ uniforms will have LEDs in the jacket hoods to illuminate work areas, as well as an in-built camera which they can use to take a quick picture and send it over to another engineer for advice or assistance.Engineers’ jackets will also be fitted with an air quality sensor and barometer features to help staff monitor their work environment and create a map of air quality in different cities for passengers’ information.EasyJet staff collaborated with fashion tech company, CuteCircuit, to create the uniforms. The company is used to working with big names of which its list includes U2, Katy Perry and Nicole Scherzinger.Tina Milton, Head of Cabin Crew for easyJet, said: “Our crew’s primary concern is for the safety of all passengers so it is really exciting to be working on this pioneering new technology which could transform the capability of our uniforms, helping crew to be more easily identified in an emergency as well as helping them to provide great service to passengers.”Ian Davies, Engineering Director, added: “With features like the LED hood and video streaming and communications capability these designs offer practical solutions for engineers working on the ramp whilst enhancing safety at the same time.”EasyJet’s first flight went from Luton to Glasgow on November 10, 1995.The airline today flies more than 68 millions passengers to 137 airports in 31 countries and operates a whopping 788 routes across Europe.Today, to mark its 20th birthday, an easyJet plane was plastered with more than 100,000 photographs, largely passengers’ holiday snaps.Easyjet in flight product ratinglast_img read more

Farm Science Review’s Hall of Fame winner chosen

first_imgShare Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest A long-time journalist, communicator, and promoter of the annual Farm Science Review, Suzanne Steel, has been inducted into the 30th class of honorees in the FSR Hall of Fame, where 78 others are honored for their contribution to the event.For 23 years, Steel worked in the marketing and communications department of the event’s main sponsor, the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences (CFAES) at The Ohio State University. During that time, Steel promoted FSR through contacts with national, state, and local media.FSR will take place this year from Sept. 17–19 at the Molly Caren Agricultural Center, 135 State Route 38 NE, in London, Ohio. The show offers visitors an opportunity to view the latest in technology and gain insights from CFAES experts about making their operations more profitable.“Marketing is extremely important to a large public event such as FSR, which Suzanne has championed over the years,” said Nick Zachrich, FSR manager.Steel was inducted into the FSR Hall of Fame on Aug. 13.Her connection with FSR started in 1991 when she first reported on the event for The Columbus Dispatch as a business reporter. She continued reporting on FSR through 1995, when she joined the CFAES communications staff.“Steel and her staff wrote news releases, sent media invitations, and worked with reporters to ensure coverage of the Review and help draw visitors,” Zachrich said.National, state, and local media responded over the years, including state and national farm publications, weekly and daily newspapers, regional radio stations, and national agricultural and local television channels. Steel’s team also worked on marketing campaigns for FSR to attract visitors through advertisements, posters, and social media.“Current and former Farm Science Review management appreciate Suzanne’s contributions to promote FSR and highlight it in the media as a signature event of the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences,” Zachrich said.Steel considered FSR an opportunity to shine the light on the many research and outreach successes within the college.“Year after year, I really enjoyed getting to spend time with reporters and helping them connect with some of the college’s experts,” Steel said. “FSR also gave me the opportunity to learn more about the work of our faculty.”Now assistant director of Ohio State University Extension Publishing, Steel will, for the first time, be an exhibitor at FSR, showcasing OSU Extension Publishing in the Firebaugh Building on the grounds of FSR. OSU Extension is the outreach arm of CFAES.A graduate of CFAES with a Bachelor of Science in agricultural economics, Steel received an Oscar in Agriculture writing award, along with awards from the National Association of Agricultural Journalists, the Associated Press, the Society of Professional Journalists, and the Association for Communication Excellence where she served as president from 2017 to 2018.For tickets or more information about FSR, visit read more

Does Your Facebook Profile Make People Think You’re Boring And Ugly?

first_imgcormac foster The Dos and Don’ts of Brand Awareness Videos Even if your resume is perfect, your references are in tip-top and your job skills are up to date, new research suggests employers and others could still find reasons to dislike you.Last month, Seoyeon Hong, a doctoral student at the University of Missouri School of Journalism, released a study about user perception of Facebook profile pictures. The study, originally published in Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, evaluated the influence of user comments and internal “social cues” and found they had a significant impact on perceptions of physical, social and professional attractiveness. Facebook is Becoming Less Personal and More Pro… Related Posts Active Pictures Are Better LikedAccording to the author, “People tend to rely more on other-generated information than self-generated information when forming impressions.” In short, most people want to be told what to think. You can start the ball rolling with “social cues” that give a peek into the outrageously interesting person you are – maybe a picture of yourself with a guitar or a surfboard.Bait the hook, and users will bite. According to the report, the author “found that people with Facebook profile photos that include social cues were perceived as more physically and socially attractive than people with profile photos that were plain headshots.” I do things, therefore you will like me. Bam.Positive Comments Will Make Strangers Like YouBut don’t stop there. There’s safety in numbers, so to get the herd mentality working in your favor, you’ll want to conscript legions of friends into your positive-comment gang. “No matter what the profile owner does to tailor their Facebook page, comments left on their page from other users should be monitored as well. Positive comments are very helpful, but negative remarks can be very damaging, even if they are silly or sarcastic.” So yes on the “OMG Luv the Hair!” but nix the snarky comments from your frat brothers.[ ]Beyond the pruning the obvious offenders (like deleting inflammatory posts from crazy exes), should any of this matter to you? Do you really need to cultivate a comment network and turn every Facebook photo into your own private Yelp?Will It Keep You From Getting The Job?To find out, I showed the report to an human resources director with more than 20 years of recruiting experience – who asked not to be named. Her reaction was fairly dismissive:I think that the recruiter/hiring manager could certainly not help but get an impression from the profile photo (or other photos of the candidate), but I would not expect ‘comments on profile photos’ to be any strong special determining factor. It just seems really hard to generalize, and I don’t doubt those Missouri people were able to get the results they got in a test lab setting, but I wonder about how significant their findings are for the real world.It seems the comments angle might be overblown, and recruiters, at least, ought to be able to resist peer pressure.Be True To YourselfBut what about the internal social cues? Could semi-subliminal messaging really work? Let’s say you do decide to roll the dice and tweak your profile pics, just in case. Here’s a tip from a PR pro: don’t try too hard or you’ll let people down.According to Diane Schreiber, Senior Managing Director at Sparkpr, “In today’s social world, it is best to provide a true perception of you. If you try to PR your profile photo and it doesn’t reflect who you are, its just going to be a disappointment in the end.”So, assuming you actually like rock-climbing – a shot of you at the climbing gym might make you seem athletic. But that picture of you BASE jumping with a beer in your hand? That just makes you look like a tool. A Comprehensive Guide to a Content Audit Tags:#Facebook#web Guide to Performing Bulk Email Verificationlast_img read more

You Know You Can Do Better

first_imgThe result you are producing right now is not the result you are capable of producing. You are capable of more. You are also capable of better. The results you are producing right now are but a fraction of what they could be. If you are reading this, you are the kind of person who knows this to be true.Sometimes you go to work and leave the best part of yourself behind. You show up without the part of you that is passionate, empowered, and inspired. That’s the part of you that does more than punch a time clock and pass time with what amounts to busy work. When you bring the part of you that is on fire, the results you produce are much better. If you were to bring the person who operates at a much higher level, the one with passion, your economic results would be better—and you would serve others at a much higher level.But this isn’t just about your work. It’s about who shows up in every part of your life. The other results you produce are also better when you bring your best self to them. When you are with the people you care most about, are you really with them, or are you off somewhere else? There is nothing that matters more than your relationships, and the results you produce there vary depending on which version of you shows up. Is it the one that is checking the box, still somewhere else? Or it the one that is fully present, giving the most important people in their world the most important gift in the world? That is the gift of their full presence in that moment.In every area of your life, there are variations in the results that you might produce. You can see these differences when you look at the results produced by different people. But you can also see the differences between which version of you that you bring to any endeavor. The outcomes are always going to be better when the person who shows up is the one who pours their soul into what they are doing.You know you can do better.last_img read more

Ed Sheeran Joins Celebrities For Art For Cure

first_imgArt lovers Belinda Gray and Sally Ball, from East Anglia, are organising one of the UK’s best contemporary art and sculpture shows in aid of Breast Cancer Now, the UK’s largest breast cancer charity dedicated to funding research into this devastating disease, and local services.The event, called Art for Cure, will be held in the magnificent house and grounds of Glemham Hall, Suffolk, from Saturday 30th April – Monday 2nd May 2016, 10am-5pm.The exhibition is set to raise more than £100,000 towards the charity’s life-saving research.More than 80 artists and sculptors will be exhibiting, including the renowned Vanessa Gardiner, Henrietta Dubrey, Maggi Hambling, Michael Speller, Carol Peace and Paul Vanstone, as well as superb artists drawn from Suffolk’s great wealth of talent.Each exhibitor has agreed to donate a percentage of their sales to support the cause, which is extremely close to both Art for Cure founders, Belinda and Sally, who have each been treated for breast cancer in the last four years.This year’s event follows in the footsteps of its remarkable success in 2014 when Art for Cure first launched, following Belinda’s breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. Belinda and best friend Sally’s combined love of art saw them team up to raise vital funds towards breast cancer research – recruiting a selection of artists and sculptures the powerful duo held the exhibition at Belinda’s country home and hoped to raise a little more than £10,000. Much to their delight and surprise the event became an overnight success and within the first weekend they had raised a staggering £100,000.During the planning of Art for Cure 2014, Sally detected a lump and was also diagnosed with breast cancer – with the support of her friends and family she underwent treatment and is now in remission and busy with final preparations for Art for Cure 2016. Keen to make this event even bigger than the last, Sally and Belinda have not only recruited the best names in art and sculpting, but in addition have a selection of TV and music’s finest on board. Celebrities including Ed Sheeran, Elizabeth Hurley, Dominic West, Jim Broadbent, Dame Judi Dench, Joanna Lumley, Dame Joan Collins, Andy Murray, Delia Smith, Yotam Ottolenghi and Gaby Roslin to name a few have all taken part in Art for Cure’s Make Your Mark initiative drawing doodles, sketches and masterpieces which will be auctioned off online from Monday 18th April to help bring in more funds, visit: singer songwriter Ed Sheeran said: “I am thrilled to support Art for Cure, a great local charity giving hope and support to breast cancer patients.”Belinda said: “We’re looking forward to welcoming everybody, those who are local and those further afield, to our second Art for Cure exhibition. We hope that together, through the sales of paintings, prints and sculptures, we will raise a phenomenal amount to support this vital cause.“Having experienced breast cancer myself, and seeing my dear friend Sally go through it, I can’t stress how important it is that we help to fund research into this disease and make sure that future generations don’t have to experience what we have.”Sally said: “Art for Cure means an incredible amount to us, it’s not just an exhibition – it’s a show which brings together so much talent from across the country and lets the community be part of it.“Art is a passion for so many, and raising funds to help beat breast cancer is a passion for us, so bringing the two together is the perfect way to help make a real difference.”Kirsty Berrigan, Community Engagement Officer at Breast Cancer Now, said: “We are so glad to see this incredible event back as an even bigger and better exhibition. One in eight women will face breast cancer in their lifetime, and nearly 700,000 people living in the UK today have experienced a diagnosis. Art for Cure will contribute to Breast Cancer Now’s life-saving research and we are so grateful that Belinda and Sally chose to support us for their second Art for Cure instalment. We wish Belinda and Sally and all involved in this wonderful event every success.”Breast Cancer Now is bringing together all those affected by the disease to improve the way breast cancer is prevented, detected and treated in order to stop the disease and move from a time when people fear breast cancer to a generation where everybody lives.Art for Cure is open daily to the public from 10am to 5pm, from Saturday 30th April – Monday 2nd May. Find out more here.last_img read more

Battle over sales taxes on online purchases heads to Supreme Court

first_img KUSI Newsroom, April 16, 2018 KUSI Newsroom Posted: April 16, 2018 00:00 00:00 spaceplay / pause qunload | stop ffullscreenshift + ←→slower / faster ↑↓volume mmute ←→seek  . seek to previous 12… 6 seek to 10%, 20% … 60% XColor SettingsAaAaAaAaTextBackgroundOpacity SettingsTextOpaqueSemi-TransparentBackgroundSemi-TransparentOpaqueTransparentFont SettingsSize||TypeSerif MonospaceSerifSans Serif MonospaceSans SerifCasualCursiveSmallCapsResetSave SettingsThe debate about paying sales tax for online purchases is now headed to the Supreme Court.Big retailers like Amazon and Walmart collect sales tax on all online sales. Many small retailers don’t unless they have a physical presence in the state the buyer lives in. But many of the small retailers sell through large websites like Amazon.That practice stems from a 1992 Supreme Court decision.On Tuesday, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear “South Dakota vs. Wayfair” to determine whether to overturn that 26-year-old ruling.If it’s reversed, that could mean all online retailers have to collect taxes everywhere.KUSI was joined by President and CEO of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, Haney Hong with more. Battle over sales taxes on online purchases heads to Supreme Court Categories: Local San Diego News FacebookTwitterlast_img read more