CLICK HERE if you are having a problem viewing the photos on a mobile deviceMESA, Ariz. — The A’s have played a grand total of four games (five if you include a rainout) and things have already changed since our last roster prediction.This season’s roster seems to be a bit easier to predict than last year’s, but there are still a couple of ongoing competitions at certain spots.The return of Brett Anderson along with arrivals of Nick Hundley and Robbie Grossman make things a little more …
Neo-creationists: the Intelligent Design (ID) people as well as the active old creationists, are still to be despised and expelled, thinks an evolutionist. That doesn’t mean, though, that they aren’t making some good points. The evolutionist is Gordy Slack, a science writer from Oakland, California, who previously wrote a book about the Dover trial. Writing for The Scientist, he admitted that they’ve gotten some things right. Here are some lessons he has learned by hanging around them:Origin of life: “First, I have to agree with the ID crowd that there are some very big (and frankly exciting) questions that should keep evolutionists humble,” like the origin of life. He admitted that scientists are “in the dark” about this question. He rejected, though, the idea that biologists can ignore it and start after life began:Still, I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution. It is no less relevant than the Big Bang is to physics or cosmology. Evolution should be able to explain, in theory at least, all the way back to the very first organism that could replicate itself through biological or chemical processes. And to understand that organism fully, we would simply have to know what came before it. And right now we are nowhere close. I believe a material explanation will be found, but that confidence comes from my faith that science is up to the task of explaining, in purely material or naturalistic terms, the whole history of life. My faith is well founded, but it is still faith.Complexity of the cell: Another valid point made by neo-creationists is that life is far more complex than Darwin could have imagined. Slack again expressed faith that natural explanations will be found, “But scientists still have much to learn about the process of evolution if they are to fully explain the phenomenon.” He even allowed for major surprises – like finding “compelling evidence for a designer,” though he doubted that would happen. Inner knowledge: Another observation that Slack has trouble computing into his materialism is the fact that so many people find creation obvious. “Millions of people believe they directly experience the reality of a Creator every day, and to them it seems like nonsense to insist that He does not exist,” he noted. “Unless they are lying, God’s existence is to them an observable fact.” He admitted that he can’t deny his own “psychological empiricism.” No amount of persuasion by cognitive neuroscientists, for instance, that neurotransmitters give him the illusion of free will could make him doubt that he really loves his children. Material explanations may look good on paper, but “I have too much respect for my own experience.” He did not elaborate on whether reason itself could be reducible to physics and chemistry.Blind faith: The most striking point of agreement he saved for last. Are evolutionists the unbiased, white-lab-coat objective empiricists seeking knowledge and finding evolution to be the clearest explanation? No; many are blind followers, just like the ID people claim. He has empirical evidence for this.A few years ago I covered a conference of the American Atheists in Las Vegas. I met dozens of people there who were dead sure that evolutionary theory was correct though they didn’t know a thing about adaptive radiation, genetic drift, or even plain old natural selection. They came to their Darwinism via a commitment to naturalism and atheism not through the study of science. They’re still correct when they say evolution happens. But I’m afraid they’re wrong to call themselves skeptics unencumbered by ideology. Many of them are best described as zealots.Not that he is against zeal, but Slack says “its coincidence with a theory proves nothing about that theory’s explanatory power.”Demarcation: On an unlisted point in his conclusion, Slack conceded that “Looking for evidence of design in the natural world isn’t itself unscientific” – it would even be “big and fascinating news.” He thinks, however, that a designer would be necessarily “supernatural” (assuming he knows how to define “natural”).1Liberal-minded modern as he is, Slack upholds the freedom of outsiders to “pursue their very eccentric and outlying theory.” After an article full of modest agreement, it was surprising to hear Slack describing neo-creationists as people who would dismiss evolution as “hogwash” while holding to an “improbable hypothesis” (see online book). He praised evolution as the “cornerstone of modern biology.” Maybe that is why The Scientist allowed him to publish it.1. Intellectual historian Charles Alan Kors (U of Pennsylvania) has said, “there are few terms more equivocal, more ambiguous, that have more multiple meanings, than the term ‘nature.’” For each sphere of phenomena a philosopher would wish to circumscribe with this slippery word, clever interlocutors could find appeals to phenomena outside the sphere. These, by definition, would also be supernatural – meaning, above, or beyond “nature,” whatever it is. If nature is defined as that which is open to sense perception, for instance, are black holes and unobservable entities like strings, quarks or dark matter extra-natural? If nature encompasses only particles and forces, what of reason or the laws of logic?It was unusual of the dogmatic Darwiniacs to allow one of theirs to say something deferential about their most despised enemies. We appreciate the gesture, but it’s not enough. We demand complete and unconditional surrender. They have no ground to stand on empirically, philosophically or ethically. False humility and crocodile tears are a ruse (as in Michael Ruse). The Darwiniacs took scientific institutions through deceit and manipulation, so until and unless they relinquish power, they are still at the top of the Most Wanted Ideologues. A key part of the neo-creationist strategy must be a protracted siege. No longer will we allow them to raid theistic presuppositions under cover of darkness. Since they cannot grow their own self-consistent presuppositions within their worldview castle, they will eventually starve or demand our help, which we will only grant provided they acquiesce all power and confess their sins. Don’t expect that anytime soon. It will be a long siege. Freedom, scientific integrity, honesty and self-consistent rationality are worth waiting for.(Visited 11 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Science journals and reporters—even those outside the US—position themselves to defeat Trump and elect Clinton to promote their leftist causes.If there was ever any doubt that institutional “Big Science” was an arm of the Democrat party, take a look at the evidence in these news stories. While individual scientists may certainly have their own opinions, their leaders and the organs of institutional science propaganda don’t even pretend to be politically neutral any more. The gloves are off; they want to defeat Trump. They want to elect Clinton.Donald Trump’s appeal should be a call to arms (Nature). Daniel Sarewitz is usually a thoughtful analyst, but in his column he refers to Donald Trump as an example of “blustering, xenophobic demogogues” that citizens should “undercut” for a “well-functioning democracy”. While Sarewitz makes a good point about historical debates after World War II between Vannevar Bush and Harley Kilgore about the role of science in a democracy, he doesn’t hide his bias. He considers “his [Trump’s] nomination as the Republican presidential candidate should be cause for serious reflection about what is going wrong in America.” Note: Nature is a British publication. Is it their business to get involved in US politics?What Donald Trump has said about science – and why he’s wrong (New Scientist). Another British rag joins the Democrats, scouring Trump’s Twitter tweets for signs he is anti-science. The article posts a video of Clinton saying over and over in a loop, “I believe in science.” The gleam in her eye suggests she is pandering to the Science lobby, but New Scientist doesn’t care. They want her to win.Adaptation to climate risks: Political affiliation matters (PhysOrg and Science Daily). It’s no secret that Democrats believe everything the climate alarmists say about global warming, while some Republicans differ with the scientific consensus. This article reports on “a new study” from Utrecht University in Amsterdam (another foreign academic interest group) that shows Democrat homeowners in New York City are more likely to buy flood insurance than Republican homeowners. Hear the subtext? There’s no question that the academics believe floods are likely due to human-caused climate change, and the wiser Democrats are preparing for it.The Issue: Democrats Support Leftist CausesWhy does Big Science and Big Media align itself with the Democrats? A look at various issues explains why. Name an issue with ethics or policy implications, and you will find Democrats and Big Science institutions locking arms in common cause.Fetal tissue. Listeners to the Family Research Council’s conservative Washington Watch program know about the House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives, headed by representative Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, who has appeared on the program several times. The Panel has been following up on the Planned Parenthood scandal revealed by last year’s undercover videos of top P.P. officials bragging about the sale of baby body parts (one of them joked about wanting “a Lamborghini” from the profits). Nature couldn’t care less about the scandal and the laws P.P. has broken. They printed a letter worrying about how this “witch-hunt endangers infants and researchers and must end.” It’s a little weird to think that the Panel endangers infants; how can dismembered unborn children be endangered any worse than by the institution that killed them? The US political parties could hardly be more starkly divided. The Democrats ratified the most pro-abortion platform in their history at their convention, not only denying all rights to the unborn, but advocating repeal of the Hyde Amendment that for decades has prohibited taxpayer funding for abortion (even though Planned Parenthood receives millions in fungible money each year). The Republican Party, by contrast, passed the most conservative platform in its history. It’s obvious who the Editors of Nature are rooting for.Abortion law. Speaking of abortion, Tom Davies in a piece on Medical Xpress rationalizes it. There’s no need for all these laws trying to limit abortion, he writes, because abortion is already on the decline. In the process, Davies takes shots at Mike Pence (now the Republican Vice Presidential candidate) and shows photos of ACLU activists and angry pro-abortion demonstrators. The bias is palpable, but this is supposed to be a medical news site. In another Medical Xpress article, the writer weeps for patients at Catholic hospitals who might have to “fend for themselves in seeking an abortion.” Yet forcing any person or institution to violate their conscience or religious convictions when they feel abortion is murder is a huge issue today. Where is the concern of the author for those pressured to violate their conscience or lose their religious liberty? Pretending that women are too stupid to know where to find an abortion, if they insist, is sexist.Abortion racism. Try to imagine, if you will, any Democrat reacting in horror at the naked racism of the abortion industry revealed in this Breitbart News story, “Scientists’ Failure to Report Abortions as ‘Cause of Death’ Masks Massive Racial Disparities.” Far more blacks and Hispanics are aborted than whites, statistics in the article show, yet abortion is not listed as the cause of death. In Dinesh D’Souza’s new documentary Hillary’s America currently playing in theaters (see trailer), he quotes Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger (a blatant eugenicist yet hero to Hillary Clinton) saying that the purpose of abortion was to weed out unfit minorities, specifically blacks. D’Souza documents how the Democrats supported slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws and segregation all the way till the 1960s when President Lyndon Johnson found it politically expedient to position his party as the defender of Civil Rights. Watch this black historian finger the real culprits in this clip from the film.Chimeras: from Nature: “‘it’s amazing that this is going on,’” a developmental biologist from Rockefeller says, “because there are many related questions and ethical issues that should be debated publicly.” Popular Mechanics knows this, too: “Not surprisingly, ethical concerns abound.” So why is the Obama administration lifting restrictions on creating animal-human chimeras? The Big Media spin doctoring team is ready with answers. Live Science justifies why human-animal chimeras may be coming, giving only excuses for it, no criticisms. In a separate piece, Live Science confuses the question by equivocating with “3 human chimeras that already exist.” It changes the discussion from deliberate embryonic tampering to things like bone-marrow transplants or natural anomalies with twins. Those involve parts from other humans. They have nothing to do with human-animal chimeras.Transgender sports. Why on earth would Big Science and their enablers in Big Science Media support the currently trendy push for transgender rights? What does that have to do with science? The only push for it is coming from the Democrats, like President Obama, whose executive mandate to include gender identity in Civil Rights laws will be made permanent by the Supreme Court if Clinton wins (Breitbart News). With reckless partisanship on the eve of the Olympic Games, New Scientist posted an entry titled, “Transgender Olympians in Rio don’t have an unfair advantage.” The author waves the flag of science, claiming that “The evidence shows that transgender women won’t outcompete other female athletes.” But they’re not females! They have male body parts and male muscle mass, with all the advantages that led to gender-separated contests in the first place (e.g., gymnastics, weightlifting, swimming). They just identify with females. In Democrat Party rules of political correctness, one is not allowed to question anyone’s self-identification under threat of being called a bigot (watch this video for a glimpse into the extremes of PC indoctrination at a US university). But to Republicans, sex differences are intuitively obvious and empirically binary. Except for a tiny fraction with genetic abnormalities, the evidence is right in the groin and in the chromosomes. Every parent knows the physical and emotional distinctions between girls and boys. Science Daily bumped into the lamppost of reality in its report on a London study, “Infants prefer toys typed to their gender.” This was undoubtedly a surprise to any of the researchers who might believe (like US Democrats) that gender is merely a cultural construct that should be a matter of personal preference, changeable at will. Conservative Breitbart News pointed to a statement by the American College of Pediatricians that says it is unscientific to allege that a human can be born into the wrong body. The statement staunchly recommends against the transgender political culture being pushed by the Democrat party and Obama administration:The treatment of GD in childhood with hormones effectively amounts to mass experimentation on, and sterilization of, youth who are cognitively incapable of providing informed consent. There is a serious ethical problem with allowing irreversible, life-changing procedures to be performed on minors who are too young to give valid consent themselves; adolescents cannot understand the magnitude of such decisions.Ethics alone demands an end to the use of pubertal suppression with GnRH agonists, cross-sex hormones, and sex reassignment surgeries in children and adolescents. The College recommends an immediate cessation of these interventions, as well as an end to promoting gender ideology via school curricula and legislative policies. Healthcare, school curricula and legislation must remain anchored to physical reality. Scientific research should focus upon better understanding the psychological underpinnings of this disorder, optimal family and individual therapies, as well as delineating the differences among children who resolve with watchful waiting versus those who resolve with therapy and those who persist despite therapy.Nudging. Republicans believe in self-determination; Democrats more often favor government regulation and coercion. In general, Republicans and many Libertarians would say, “Just give me the facts, and I’ll decide.” Democrats want behaviors that scientists consider unhealthful to be banned, from smoking to diet sodas to gun ownership. Sometimes instead of outright banning, they will support “nudging” with psychological propaganda to change the behavior of others (not their own, of course). A case in point is a Medical Xpress item titled, “Freedom-based considerations for withdrawing, withholding options: The example of tobacco control and nudging policies.” In the article, a Princeton academic considers how to make citizens think they have freedom, when they are really being manipulated. Andreas Schmidt appears aware of the bad optics, but justifies it with a touch of elitism:Some argue that nudging infringes upon people’s freedom and autonomy. Others say that nudging always happens, so why not nudge people toward better decisions. Of Schmidt’s considerations, only status freedom may offer an objection to nudging policies, but if nudging policies are transparent and democratic, this will mitigate the potential for status abuses.Who decides what constitutes “transparent and democratic”? The nudgers obviously have a goal in mind, and a policy to implement it. To envision the probable outcome, all you need to do is ask what happens if the nudgee (the citizen) decides to go against the nudger (the government regulator). A perceptive commenter wrote this:Tell me, how does government create a “nudging policy” without first taking money via force from citizens, to actually create and implement the policy? Isn’t taking people’s money from them via force (thru a majority vote of course) an infringement on their freedom to keep the fruits of their labor?Endangered species. A common propaganda tactic is to demonize the opposition. National Geographic, in an unvarnished hit piece against Republicans, discussed “Why These Rare Species Are Targeted by the GOP.” The article is a clear attack on the Republican party platform. Reporter Brian Clark Howard portrays Republicans as mean-spirited people who don’t care about endangered species. “In the end, perhaps the GOP’s mention of these species in their platform has more to do with wider cultural wars than wildlife science,” he says, positioning Republicans once again as anti-science.Big Science has lost its way. It is not the role of a scientist to engage in partisan politics. For whatever reason, the leaders in Big Science (journal editors, mainstream media heads, and lobbyists for scientific societies) have gone whole hog for the Democrat Party. Why? It’s a case of conflict of interest. They think that Democrats like Obama and Clinton funnel more more money to them. In this they are sadly mistaken, as the bitter fruits of socialism appear in Venezuela, leaving scientists struggling (Nature). Big Science’s best hope for a prosperous research environment would be to have a thriving economy—the result of free markets and the rule of law that protects private property (Prager University). Those are Republican values (Prager U). If they were really objective scientists, they would look at the pitifully slow economic recovery over the last 8 years under a Democrat administration, and turn right. They would consider whether the other party might offer true hope and change. A prosperous America would, once again, bring in higher tax revenues that would enable higher funding for science. A bankrupt country cannot afford such luxuries.Exercises: Watch the Prager University videos on economics to the point where you can articulate the principles of free markets to others. Then watch D’Souza’s documentaries Obama’s America and Hillary’s America. Be part of a grass-roots effort to educate people out of their indoctrination. The aim of this exercise is to bring balance back into political discourse, because it is wildly imbalanced now, as shown by these examples (if you can find a clear pro-Republican article in Big Science or Big Media, please send it to us). Like Darwin said, “a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” It’s OK to share disagreements on any of the issues above—but only after the deprogramming is complete.Above all, let’s stop pretending that Big Science is objective when it comes to political, economic and worldview matters. Their hands are dirty in political advocacy, almost always for the Democrat, leftist, socialist, globalist, elitist side of any issue. Their writings have value when they are discussing observable, repeatable, testable facts about natural phenomena. Even then, you have to watch the Materials and Methods, and see if the conclusions logically follow from the data. You have to rinse off the Darwinist spin. Use our Baloney Detector and Darwin Dictionary for help when necessary. A scientist ceases to be a scientist when he leaves off the ideals of science, to understand the cause-and-effect structure of the world according to testable hypotheses. That takes rigor, integrity, and humility. “Vote for Clinton!” is not a scientifically rigorous statement. (Visited 24 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Scientists need a hug sometimes, too.You can do a simple act to help an environmental scientist: offer him or her a shoulder to cry on. In Science Magazine, Timothy A. C. Gordon, Andrew N. Radford, Stephen D. Simpson implored readers, “Grieving environmental scientists need support.” They’re depressed. Why? Humans are not doing enough to save the planet from climate change. Not even Darwin can help them.Rates of environmental destruction are greater today than at any previous point in human history. This loss of valued species, ecosystems, and landscapes triggers strong grief responses in people with an emotional attachment to nature. However, environmental scientists are presented with few opportunities to address this grief professionally.Environmental scientists tend to respond to degradation of the natural world by ignoring, suppressing, or denying the resulting painful emotions while at work. The risks that this entails are profound. Emotional trauma can substantially compromise self-awareness, imagination, and the ability to think coherently. As Charles Darwin put it, one “who remains passive when overwhelmed with grief loses [the] best chance of recovering elasticity of mind.”Yes; the loss of ability to think coherently is becoming painfully evident. If they were consistent materialists and Darwinists (which is practically a job requirement in science these days), they would think logically, and figure that Darwin’s theory just says Stuff Happens, so tough luck. Planets come and go; life rises and goes extinct; that’s just the way of things. Nothing is good or bad. It just is.Many of these same scientists cheered on Greta Thunberg, the Swedish student who cried before the United Nations that her generation was perishing because of lack of action on climate change. An article on The Scientist announces, “Hundreds of Scientists Declare Support for Extinction Rebellion.” Perhaps activism can provide some relief from depression. Ashley Yeager describes the “Extinction Rebellion” as “a declaration supporting civil disobedience protests that urge government action on climate change.”Grossman and the others who drafted the declaration support the Extinction Rebellion, a non-violent environmental pressure group that formed in the UK about a year ago to protest government inaction on the ecological crises caused by climate change. The group, which sparked similar groups in dozens of countries around the world, has had more than 1,400 protesters arrested in London in the last week alone, and police ousted activists from Trafalgar Square on Monday (October 14), the Associated Press reports.“We can’t allow the role of scientists to be to just write papers and publish them in obscure journals and hope somehow that somebody out there will pay attention,” Julia Steinberger, an ecological economist at the University of Leeds and a lead author of the sixth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, tells Reuters.“We need to be rethinking the role of the scientist and engage with how social change happens at a massive and urgent scale,” she says. “We can’t allow science as usual.” And yet what do those papers in obscure journals say? For years, we have seen papers that are surprised by new evidence that contradicts the consensus view that humans are causing global warming. Other papers bring up surprising new considerations that were not entered into the models. And how definitive can science be about such complex subjects as long-term climate trends?Adelie penguins (R. Harrington)Climate scientists have a bad habit of scaring people with disasters they cannot prove will happen. Just this week, Phys.org printed a story, “Unless warming is slowed, emperor penguins will be marching towards extinction.” The article begins with a photo of a compassionate scientist, Stephanie Jenouvrier from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, cuddling a big, fat, adorable penguin chick. Who could not love these tuxedo-dressed birds that were the stars of the 2005 documentary, “March of the Penguins”? But is the scare justified? Further reading shows that nobody will know if climate change will cause harm to the emperor penguins until long after Stephanie is dead.Under the 1.5 degree scenario, the study found that only 5 percent of sea ice would be lost by 2100, causing a 19 percent drop in the number of penguin colonies. If the planet warms by 2 degrees, however, those numbers increase dramatically: the loss of sea ice nearly triples, and more than a third of existing colonies disappear.The scare tactic is just a “scenario.” Stephanie may be worried about nothing. She couldn’t possibly know for 80 more years. Hugging a penguin chick (or a dog) is probably good therapy for imagined depression, nonetheless.Phys.org published an article about the uncertainty of science today. University of Chicago academics looked into “pro-science” vs “anti-science” debates and concluded that such terms mislead the public about the messy nature of science.Recent attacks on “grievance” studies have occasioned renewed attention to the politics of knowledge in the academy. In a wide-ranging survey, Mark Horowitz, William Yaworsky and Kenneth Kickham revisit some of anthropology’s most sensitive controversies. Taking the field’s temperature since the sweltry “science wars” of the nineties, Horowitz and colleagues probe whether anthropology is still a house divided on questions of truth, justice and the American Anthropological Association.In particular, their study showed that you can predict an anthropologist’s position on science from his or her political views. Mark Horowitz and team looked back to classic anthropology studies that turned out to be flawed.In the latest issue of Current Anthropology, Horowitz and colleagues discover rich patterns in the data. Disciplinary subfield, gender and, notably, political orientation are all significant predictors of anthropologists’ views. That is, knowing an anthropologist’s politics tells a lot about where they stand on such matters.Does that apply to other branches of science that deal with equally subjective and complex subjects? If so, it would be wise to determine your local environmental scientist’s voting record before giving him or her a shoulder to cry on.It is clear that even scientists, as human beings created in the image of God, but fallen into sin, still have a soul and a conscience. If they were truly Darwinists, they would be glad the world is getting destroyed. They would be celebrating the victory of the Stuff Happens Law.Deep in their consciences, though, they remember a world that its Maker declared to be “very good.” Their hearts stir at the remnants of the Good Earth. What they really need is not a hug, but repentance and faith in the Creator’s plan of salvation. They will learn that the world is going to get much worse before it gets better. There is hope: but it is not up to us. Our mentality should be, “Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.”Is the earth a product of design or chance? Photo by David Coppedge (Visited 336 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
8 Best WordPress Hosting Solutions on the Market Related Posts A Web Developer’s New Best Friend is the AI Wai… Tags:#news#web Microsoft CEO Steve Balmer will unveil multiple new models of tablet computers aimed to challenge the iPad at the Consumer Electronics Show next month in Las Vegas, according to detailed reporting tonight by Nick Bilton at the New York Times.Unnamed sources familiar with the tablets told Bilton that they will run the Windows 7 Operating System, include a slide-out physical keyboard, apps written in HTML5 and distributed app distribution, without a curated app store model. Analysts have called this an essential move for months, but this isn’t quite the type of tablet that some expected.Bilton reports that Microsoft has partnered with Samsung, Dell and other companies to produce tablets that will be announced at CES. Balmer said publicly in July that a new Windows tablet would be available “very soon.”Market analysts Forrester said last Spring that a Windows 7 Tablet was essential, “Microsoft needs a partner to produce a successful Windows tablet that competes with the Apple iPad. At stake is nothing less than the future of the operating system (OS): For Microsoft to remain relevant to consumers, it needs to adapt its operating system to new form factors beyond the traditional PC.”The same Forrester report argued against the “no app store” model that Bilton reports Microsoft has chosen. A Windows 7 tablet can only compete if Microsoft embraces Curated Computing by providing a simple, streamlined, guided experience for consumers, drawing on the design strengths of other Microsoft products like the Zune HD and the Kin. A Microsoft tablet that synchs with the Xbox 360 — with all the implied benefits, including the Natal [now called Kinect] interface — would be a killer hub for the digital home, enabling back-and-forth streaming of videos and games that one-ups the capabilities of the iPad and makes Microsoft relevant for the next decade.It’s a Big MarketIt’s hardly a surprise that Microsoft is making a big push in the tablet space. Next month will mark the 10 year anniversary of Microsoft’s tablet PC products, which experienced far, far less success than Apple’s iPad. The iPad quickly became the fastest-adopted consumer electronics product in history and remade the entire category. In terms of absolute sales, Microsoft’s Kinect now challenges the iPad for the top consumer electronics device crown, as the company predicted pre-launch that it would.Can Microsoft challenge the iPad on its own turf? If it can combine productivity and fun with a responsive interface and an active apps ecosystem, it might put up a good fight. That’s a tall order to fill, though. The company’s willingness to work with multiple hardware vendors already sets it apart from the tightly controlled supply chain that produces the very polished iPad.That strategy has worked, clearly, in the world of PCs – but when the game changer in tablets shines brightest in hardware quality and aesthetics, farming out the hardware seems a riskier strategy. Why Tech Companies Need Simpler Terms of Servic… Top Reasons to Go With Managed WordPress Hosting marshall kirkpatrick
Panelo: Duterte ‘angry’ with SEA Games hosting hassles DA eyes importing ‘galunggong’ anew Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. View comments Mike Ayonayon finished with 15 points, but it was unheralded forward Johnard Clarito who delivered down the stretch as the Knights grabbed a 2-1 lead in the best-of-five series.Clarito finished with 12 points, including a crucial putback with a minute left. The extra possessions that he gifted his team proved key with 12 of his 18 rebounds coming off the offensive glass.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSPalace wants Cayetano’s PHISGOC Foundation probed over corruption chargesSPORTSSingapore latest to raise issue on SEA Games food, logistics LATEST STORIES PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games PLAY LIST 02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City01:07Trump talks impeachment while meeting NCAA athletes02:49World-class track facilities installed at NCC for SEA Games02:11Trump awards medals to Jon Voight, Alison Krauss Hontiveros presses for security audit of national power grid Cayetano: Senate, Drilon to be blamed for SEA Games mess A night that started with plenty of uncertainty ended in triumph for the San Juan Knights, who are now just one win away from the MPBL Datu Cup National title.The Knights survived the absence of head coach Randy Alcantara and the strong start from the Davao Occidental Tigers for a 67-62 win in Game 3 on Tuesday night at Filoil Flying V Centre.ADVERTISEMENT SEA Games hosting troubles anger Duterte Ethel Booba twits Mocha over 2 toilets in one cubicle at SEA Games venue Coup attempts versus Vargas belied Private companies step in to help SEA Games hosting MOST READ Philippine Arena Interchange inaugurated
Jamaicans are being urged to begin preparations for the dry period, by increasing water storage and conservation measures. The advice, from the Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management (ODPEM), comes against the forecast for below normal rainfall for the next three months. The dry spell usually begins in January and Director General of ODPEM, Ronald Jackson, said the public should make preparations now before an actual drought. “Typically, every January, we are faced with the beginning of a dry spell in our country, which is usually what we call the primary dry period. We are asking the public that even before the Met Office (Meteorological Service) declares a drought that they begin to practise certain mitigation measures and also preparedness measures, well in advance of such a declaration, because we are trying to promote a culture of prevention and readiness,” he said during an interview with JIS News. Mr. Jackson said mitigation methods include water conservation, rainwater harvesting and proper storage of water. “This will certainly assist us going through the proposed dry period,” he added. He said that the dry period is expected to last until the month of May leading into June.
Login/Register With: Advertisement Advertisement “We are very pleased that Sandi Richter Cooper has accepted this opportunity to lead Creative BC’s production services,” said Prem Gill, Chief Executive Officer, Creative BC. “As BC Film Commissioner, Sandi’s relationships, knowledge and hands-on experience in BC’s motion picture industry, from physical production to virtual reality, will support the needs of our domestic and international producers alike.”Past roles include her most recent position as Executive Producer, launching a Canadian subsidiary for virtual reality startup VRCinematic, which now provides demo VR content at the Telus Innovation Lab. Previous to this, she was Partner and Executive Talent Manager at Strategic Transitions Inc., consulting to founders and C-level executives from the major networks, studios, agencies and media tech companies on matters related to their professional careers and deal flow.Previously, Sandi has also spent time as: Executive Producer at Canwest Global’s commercial production house, Apple Box Productions; Executive Producer at Blue Zone, a convergence company that won a first-in-its-category Gemini award for CTVnews.com; Executive Producer at major-league sports marketing firm Channel 1 Media Solutions; an Independent Producer developing a slate of film projects for her own company, Sapphire Entertainment.In bringing a strong on-the-ground presence to BC’s film industry, Sandi will work closely with Creative BC’s current and Acting Film Commissioner, Robert Wong, whose priorities as Vice President will remain focused on the delivery of Creative BC’s development funding programs, tax credit administration, international collaborations and marketing initiatives.About Creative BC Creative BC is an independent society created and supported by the Province of BC to sustain and help grow BC’s creative sector (film and television, digital and interactive media, music, and magazine and book publishing industries). The society delivers a wide range of programs and services to expand BC’s creative economy. These include the administration of the provincial government’s tax credit programs for film and television; development funding and export marketing support; and motion picture production services to attract inward investment and market BC as a destination for domestic and international production. The society acts as an industry catalyst and ambassador to help BC’s creative sector reach its economic and creative potential both at home and globally.Stay up to date with initiatives from Creative BC.Twitter: @creativebcs Facebook: /creativebcsInstagram: @creativebcs Website: www.creativebc.com Advertisement VANCOUVER B.C. (March 29, 2017) – Today, Creative BC is pleased to announce the appointment of Sandi Richter Cooper as the next BC Film Commissioner and Director of Production Services. Reporting to Prem Gill, Chief Executive Officer, she will lead Creative BC’s production services team in the delivery of provincial film commission services, from locations marketing and physical production resource support, to industry and community relations services. Sandi will join the organization on May 1, 2017.Through this role, Creative BC will continue to support ongoing collaboration between the many industry and government stakeholders who contribute to British Columbia’s successful motion picture industry. These include eight regional film commissions, industry and labour organizations, and government at all levels – from provincial ministries and agencies to the 33 municipal film offices (12 outside Metro Vancouver) and the Province’s Los Angeles-based BC film marketing and trade office.With a hands-on career as an executive producer, strategic consultant and independent producer, Sandi’s broad knowledge and relationship base will be an asset and a complement to Creative BC’s current expert in-house team. She brings over 25 years of industry knowledge from across the creative industries and has spent the majority of her professional career between Vancouver and Los Angeles. Her leadership roles in production have spanned film, television, and commercials, as well as next-generation media technology, from mobile apps to virtual reality. Facebook LEAVE A REPLY Cancel replyLog in to leave a comment Twitter