CopyAbout this officeMétodoOfficeFollowProductsWoodStoneConcrete#TagsProjectsBuilt ProjectsSelected ProjectsResidential ArchitectureHousesValle de BravoMexicoPublished on April 12, 2017Cite: “Casa A / Método” [Casa A / Método] 12 Apr 2017. ArchDaily. Accessed 11 Jun 2021.
CopyAbout this officeMétodoOfficeFollowProductsWoodStoneConcrete#TagsProjectsBuilt ProjectsSelected ProjectsResidential ArchitectureHousesValle de BravoMexicoPublished on April 12, 2017Cite: “Casa A / Método” [Casa A / Método] 12 Apr 2017. ArchDaily. Accessed 11 Jun 2021.
WhatsApp Twitter Google+ Google+ Facebook By News Highland – April 27, 2020 Facebook WhatsApp Twitter Derry draw with Pats: Higgins & Thomson Reaction The group that represents garda sergeants and inspectors is backing calls for an all-Ireland approach when policing the coronavirus.The President of the AGSI Cormac Moylan agrees that the loophole in the regulations must be addressed…………Audio Playerhttps://www.highlandradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/08moylan-travel.mp300:0000:0000:00Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume.However, a former Tanaiste and Justice Minister doesn’t believe it’s practical to simply tell people crossing the border from the North to go home.Michael McDowell says it will be difficult to find a solution…………..Audio Playerhttps://www.highlandradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/13mcdowell-travel.mp300:0000:0000:00Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume. FT Report: Derry City 2 St Pats 2 Pinterest Important message for people attending LUH’s INR clinic AudioHomepage BannerNews RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Harps come back to win in Waterford Pinterest AGSI backs calls for All-Ireland approach to Covid-19 policing DL Debate – 24/05/21 News, Sport and Obituaries on Monday May 24th Previous articleTDs demand urgent action to close travel loopholeNext articleHarps players training at home during lockdown News Highland
Former Chairman of the Ghana Football Association, Lepowura M.N.D Jawula and veteran coah, Sam Hemans Arday are cautioning the Black Stars not to consider victory against Lesotho in this weekend’s World Cup qualifier a done deal as they could end up laughing at the wrong side of their mouths.While Lepowura is urging the Stars to be guided by history, Coach Arday says Lesotho will just be happy to upset the Stars apple cart.The Stars are away to the Likuena (Crocodiles) of Lesotho in their last but one game in these qualifiers, but are talks of that match being an easy deal for the Ghanaians with more focus rather on the very last game against Zambia in September.Lepowura Jawula, who led the the Stars to a qualifying match in Lesotho during his tenure, says it will be dangerous for the Stars to consider the Likuena as pushovers.Zambia currently lead the group standings with 10 points, one ahead of the Stars and with Zambia also tipped as favourites in their home match against Sudan on Saturday, a win for the Stars will help mantain the pressure on the Chipolopolos with that one-point for their September clash.“On paper it is predictable that the winner of Group D will be decided by the in the final match between Ghana and Zambia and so most people may be carried away by that. “ Yes it is important to talk about the Zambia game in September, but of what importance will that match be if the Stars slipped against Lesotho and dropped valuable points while the Zambians are able to scale the Sudan hurdle?“ It is therefore important for the Stars to also consider the game in Maseru a difficult, but must-win one to keep the momentum for the Zambia return leg.”Lepowura Jawula cautioned the Stars to be reminded of how Ghana struggled and had to come from behind to draw 3-3 with Lesotho in an Africa Cup of Nations qualifier in Maseru in 2001 to know that tough times lied ahead on Sunday.Though Charles Amoah gave Ghana the lead in that game, Lesotho took a commanding 3-1 lead. The Stars were saved the blushes from a 85th and 90th minute strikes from Nana Arhin-Duah.“Lesotho are dangerous at home and the Stars must not be carried away by their 7-0 win in the first encounter and go into the game as if they can override them again. They may not score as many goals but they are capable of being an impediment.“Lesotho know they have nothing to lose in the outcome of this encounter, but they will be thrilled to scupperbe credited with the fact that they will be the ones to hamper the chances of the Stars with a revenge for the 7-0 beating they received in Kumasi in the opening game. They will even be out to also help the cause of their neighbours, Zambia who currently lead and could do with such a big favour as Ghana dropping valuable points. “Unlike other blocks where no one wants to do the neighbour a favour, alliance is very strong in Southern Africa and that could motivate Lesotho to give Ghana a very tough time on Sunday,” Lepowura Jawula said.Coach Sam Arday, who has also coached the Stars, also gave similar advise and stressed the need for Kwasi Appiah to adopt a strategy that will force the Likuena to open up.“ Having conceded as many as seven goals against Ghana and four against Zambia last week, they will likely play a very defensive game which could frustrate the Stars but Kwasi Appiah must adopt a style that will hold them to their own game at least for the first 15 minutes which will then force them to open up,” Coach Arday advised.
However, Gnarlies Angels stepped up the pace on the Babes early and often in the second half to skate away with the victory.In the second match, the Killjoys also managed to put together a strong second half against rivals Lumber Jackies.Leading 66-49 at recess, the Killjoys scored 97-69 to grab the win — the second in as many games.The Killjoys defeated Dam City Rollers 181-78 during a mid-week encounter at the NDCC Arena.The league is idle until Saturday, July 28 in Castlegar when the Killjoys face the Bad News Betties of Trail in one game while Lumber Jackies meeting Valley Vendettas of Slocan in the late game.On Saturday, July 21, Kootenay Kannibelles host Spokannibals at 6 p.m. in the Castlegar and District Arena.The Kannibelles are fresh from finishing second in the Western Canadian Championships last month in Nelson.The all-star team of players from the West Kootenay League qualified for the National tournament in January of 2013. Defending champion Rossland Gnarlies Angels made a statement Friday night in Nelson that the road to West Kootenay Women’s Roller Derby League title still goes through the Golden City.The Angels outscored Salmo’s Babes of Brutality 102-60 in the second half to dump their league rivals 167-120 at the Crashablanca Friday at the Nelson and District Community Complex Arena.With the win Gnarlies Angels continue to lead the league standings.In the second game of the doubleheader, host Killjoys ousted city rivals Lumber Jackies 163-118.The Babes squad definitely wasn’t playing a full strength, missing star Bobbi “Beretta Lynch” Barbarich from the lineup.Despite the loss, the Babes took the early lead and stayed with the Angels until late in the half when Rossland took a 65-60 lead at halftime.
ALEX SOLIS, KERI BELLE, THIRD: “I had a perfect trip . . . She ran hard, she just didn’t get there.” NOTES: The winning owners are Kenji Morinata of Arcadia or Head of Plains Partners. DAVID MEAH, ASSISTANT TO RICHARD BALTAS, PAULINA’S LOVE, WINNER: “She’s special at this distance and even better when she gets a little time between races like we did here. Seven, eight weeks is a huge thing for her. Four or five weeks, she doesn’t fire like this, but seven, eight weeks and she can fire.“She had a perfect trip. I didn’t expect Flavien (Prat on Moanin) to go out like that (on the lead), but it’s OK. We came home in front and that’s all that matters at the end of the day.” GARY STEVENS, PAULINA’S LOVE, WINNER: “I’ve fallen in love with her. These guys have been so patient with her and have allowed Richard to do what he wants with her. She just keeps developing and getting better and better. She exploded at the eighth pole just like the last time and when I saw 12-1 on the morning line with an 88 Beyer number last time . . . that wasn’t right; she exploded that day.“I rode her with a lot of confidence, like she was the favorite. She minds, she lets me do what I want, whatever the pace scenario is. When she’s done, I’d like to take her home and put her in my backyard.” JOCKEY QUOTES KENT DESORMEAUX, STORMY LUCY, SECOND: “There wasn’t a straw in her path. She gave me a dream ride. She absolutely flew to the wire. The winner was a nose better today, that’s all. They were too good today.” TRAINER QUOTES
It was a challenging race for the 10 riders involved, who faced cold, snowy and slippery conditions. The race even involved some unexpected obstacles, as at one point, riders had to maneuver around a snow plow.The field was narrowed down to four riders following the first gravel, snowy downhill portion, where Kevin Shaw and Pat Ferris proceeded to pull away from the pack. Five kilometres later, it was Shaw who made one final push to win the stage.Pat Ferris placed second in the race at a time of 1:37:17 and Gary Hilderman third at 1:38:49.- Advertisement -It was a special day for Roubaix rookie Dan Webster, who finished fourth Sunday at 1:39:18 and is in the midst of an impressive first Roubaix series.Gord “The Hammer” Harris took first in the one lap event with a time of 56:08, with David Loro narrowly beating Adam Currie for second at 59:35.Following the conclusion of the second race of the Roubaix Cup Series, Kevin Shaw and Pat Ferris are tied for first in the points race with nine. George Gamble, Gary Hilderman and rookie Dan Webster are all tied for second with four points each.Advertisement The quest for the Roubaix Cup will all come down to one final race, which will take place this Sunday, March 25 on the ‘Two Rivers’ circuit. The race will begin at 2 p.m. and will once again start from the Baldonnel School.For more information on the Blizzard Bike Club, visit its official website.
(Visited 146 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 Neither side feels their champion scored a clear victory in the creation debate. Now it’s time to evaluate who had the better facts and logic under fire.Here is a sampling of opinion after the widely-publicized debate Feb. 4 between Ken Ham and Bill Nye.USA Today provided a fairly neutral analysis of the two debaters’ major points, including video excerpts.Supporters of Ken HamKen Ham’s Answers in Genesis views it as a “historic moment for the creation movement.” Over 3 million tuned in, an AIG press release says.Answers in Genesis posted a follow-up video with Ken Ham, looking upbeat, discussing the debate with AIG scientist Georgia Purdom. He provides more clarity about what he said and meant to say.Kent Hovind of Creation Today had a booth behind the debate hall, where he recorded a post-debate show on YouTube. Historian Terry Mortenson (AIG) and astronomer Danny Faulkner joined in, pointing out Ham’s strong points, Nye’s weak points, and specific rebuttals to some of Nye’s scientific claims that Ken Ham lacked time to address.Creation Ministries International‘s review includes a list of scientific rebuttals to some of Bill Nye’s claims.The Discovery Institute called the debate a missed opportunity, and said that the debate avoided intelligent design. Dr. Michael Egnor, however, appreciates Ken Ham’s openness about his assumptions, and discounts the scientific validity of naturalistic assumptions.A writer for Uncommon Descent provided scientific support for some of the geological evidence against long ages.Cross Examined thought Ken Ham put the cart before the horse by arguing Biblical authority to a secular audience instead of disposing of naturalism first.WND gave Ken Ham the edge, pointing out what Nye admitted he didn’t know.Al Mohler analyzed Nye’s reference to the “reasonable man” as not an unbiased rhetorical device.Tony Perkins at Family Research Council turned attention to God’s moral law, saying it isn’t really a question of the incompatibility of creation and science. He urges parents to watch the debate with children, in order to teach them to be “able to respond with confidence and authority” to Nye’s assertions.Supporters of Bill NyeLive Science reported the debate, encouraging people to watch and describing the history of evolution debates. Most surprising was their less-than-flattering description of Bill Nye’s performance as “not a total disaster.”National Geographic‘s headline was, “Bill Nye and Ken Ham Debated Creationism—But Did They Change Anyone’s Mind?”The Daily Beast was very critical of Nye, calling the debate a “disaster for science.”On The Guardian: Liberty Voice, Rebecca Savastio gave a blow-by-blow synopsis and concluded Bill Nye clearly won, because he presented a lot of scientific evidence, but Ham presented mostly belief in the Bible.Jeremy Pritchard (U of Birmingham) wrote a typical anti-creationist rant on The Conversation, referring to the debate. Sample of his attitude:The patterns that weave through the natural world scream of evolution, extinctions, diseases and dead-ends, but also of intriguing solutions and wonderful designs from molecular motors to the efficiency of bird flight. These were not created but thrown together from a rag bag of historical left overs to ensure that the possessor was not perfect, but the best, the fittest, at that time and that place. There is no direction, no progression, no perfection but instead a wonderfully simple process as each generation runs as fast as it can to stay ahead of competition, predators and pathogens. Evolution may be going nowhere but it is better to travel in hope than to arrive.Many anti-creation sites mentioned that they advise against debating creationists. The NCSE has a standing policy against debates, because they feel it only gives a platform for their ideological enemies. Ken Ham and his supporters hope that the publicity will open some minds and get people thinking. One thing was undeniable: a lot of people were tuned in.Many have written in and shared similar sentiments to our mixed feelings about the debate performance. We hope that in the aftermath, with the personality issues fading from memory, the facts will be clarified with details and references, so that it will become clear who really had the better scientific information. What AIG needs to do (and appears to be doing) is to rush its supporting documentation to press as far and wide as possible, to clarify points that were not rhetorically effective, and to expose the factual errors and illogic Nye employed. Ken should also be honest about what he wishes he would have said, and should have said, instead of spinning the debate as a total victory (which it was not). He portrays his performance more positively than it came across to many listeners, even some supportive ones. The debate can still be rescued for good in at least two ways: (1) clarification of any lingering doubts about the science, and (2) use as a training video on how to improve debates against fast-talking Darwinians. In the final analysis, all viewers should keep in mind that, as in a court of law, it’s not the flair of the lawyer that should sway the jury, but his evidence.
Two teams, both committed evolutionists, duked it out in Nature over whether Darwin’s mechanism is adequate to explain the diversity of life.In a rare and unexpected article, two teams were given equal time in Nature (Oct 8, 2014) to debate the question, “Does evolutionary theory need a re-think?” No creationists or intelligent design advocates were allowed to weigh in, of course, but this is a surprising development for a theory often described dogmatically as a fact, for which no further proof is needed.At issue is whether the mutation+selection mechanism is adequate to explain the diversity of life on earth. Does this need a re-think? “Yes, urgently” was the response of Kevin Laland and his team. “No; all is well” is the position taken by Gregory A. Wray, Hopi Hoekstra and their team. After the debate, some lively comments ensued.Affirmative: Many of Laland’s team were members of the “Altenberg 16” who met a few years ago to question the core values of Darwinian theory, suggesting that an overhaul is needed. In this short debate entry, they argued that selection cannot explain adaptation, and that biologists need to get past the “gene-centric” view of evolution. Among alternatives, they put forward arguments for the “niche construction” view, which posits, “organisms co-direct their own evolution by systematically changing environments and thereby biasing selection.” They also argued for more roles for evolution during development.Overall, they call their view the EES or “Extended Evolutionary Synthesis” in contrast to SET (Standard Evolutionary Theory). SET is a hindrance, they say, biasing the way research is conducted. Biologists need to look beyond the old ways of studying evolution:The above insights derive from different fields, but fit together with surprising coherence. They show that variation is not random, that there is more to inheritance than genes, and that there are multiple routes to the fit between organisms and environments. Importantly, they demonstrate that development is a direct cause of why and how adaptation and speciation occur, and of the rates and patterns of evolutionary change….Researchers in fields from physiology and ecology to anthropology are running up against the limiting assumptions of the standard evolutionary framework without realizing that others are doing the same. We believe that a plurality of perspectives in science encourages development of alternative hypotheses, and stimulates empirical work. No longer a protest movement, the EES is now a credible framework inspiring useful work by bringing diverse researchers under one theoretical roof to effect conceptual change in evolutionary biology.Negative: The team that says “No, all is well” with Darwinian theory was surprisingly cordial in their response. Standard neo-Darwinism already allows for selection at multiple levels, they say, so what’s the problem? Neo-Darwinism is a big tent that can embrace the new perspectives of the other side. Why, Charles Darwin himself wrote in his last book (1881: ) that earthworms satisfy Laland et al.’s concerns, “because they exemplify an interesting feedback process: earthworms are adapted to thrive in an environment that they modify through their own activities.”And standard evolutionary theory is no straitjacket; “In the decades since, generations of evolutionary biologists have modified, corrected and extended the framework of the modern synthesis in countless ways,” Wray and Hoekstra assure their opponents. There’s no dogmatism to prevent them from staying within the folds of holy mother Charlie church:So, none of the phenomena championed by Laland and colleagues are neglected in evolutionary biology. Like all ideas, however, they need to prove their value in the marketplace of rigorous theory, empirical results and critical discussion. The prominence that these four phenomena command in the discourse of contemporary evolutionary theory reflects their proven explanatory power, not a lack of attention….What Laland and colleagues term the standard evolutionary theory is a caricature that views the field as static and monolithic. They see today’s evolutionary biologists as unwilling to consider ideas that challenge convention.We see a very different world. We consider ourselves fortunate to live and work in the most exciting, inclusive and progressive period of evolutionary research since the modern synthesis. Far from being stuck in the past, current evolutionary theory is vibrantly creative and rapidly growing in scope. Evolutionary biologists today draw inspiration from fields as diverse as genomics, medicine, ecology, artificial intelligence and robotics. We think Darwin would approve.They do, however, want to hang on to the gene-centric view of selection.Intelligent design did enter the debate briefly. Laland’s team made this revealing comment about the reason Darwinians might be avoiding the appearance of controversy:Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders — such as physiologists or developmental biologists — flood into their field.However, another factor is more important: many conventional evolutionary biologists study the processes that we claim are neglected, but they comprehend them very differently (see ‘No, all is well’). This is no storm in an academic tearoom, it is a struggle for the very soul of the discipline.Follow the money and don’t be afraid of ghosts? Casey Luskin had some choice words about this discussion for Evolution News & Views. He wasn’t alone, though; some other scientists weighed in on the controversy in the Comments. Joan Roughgarden, for instance, used the occasion to repeat her allegations against sexual selection. Then, she gave her observations about the self-satisfied, disrespectful dogmatism of the consensus:The “No, All is Well” group speaks confidently of their field as “vibrantly creative and rapidly growing in scope”. Instead, I see progressive decline in the importance of evolutionary biology. In the 60’s evolution was a dominant discipline, with many of the new-synthesis leaders still alive. Ecology then was nothing, written off by some as “the misidentification of beetles on a field trip.” Today, evolution is an embattled subject whereas ecology along with its stepchild of conservation biology flourish. Why? Because ecologists never assumed the self-satisfied posture the “No” group implies. To regain its former standing, evolutionary biologists must engage respectfully with diverse points of view and open themselves to interdisciplinary perspectives.This debate did not have a peaceful resolution with both sides shaking hands.Well, it’s a start. It’s still DODO, DIDO, DIGO, and GIDO (see Darwin Dictionary), with both sides throwing garbage at each other while outsiders chuckle from the sidelines. Only when they leave Darwin and his garbage out of the equation can progress be made, but that would require both sides to “open themselves to interdisciplinary perspectives,” including intelligent design.What’s most memorable about this article is that it gives the lie to Eugenie Scott’s constant NCSE refrain, “there is no controversy in evolution.” All scientists agree, don’t they? Let’s remember the take-home line from the article, but with a slight modification to the last word: “Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to” [not science, but] the dogmatic, DODO consensus.(Visited 38 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
The Tattoo-a-thon SA for Choc Childhood Cancer Foundation – 30 tattoo artist, 300 tattoos, 24 hours. (Image: Tattoo-a-thon SA) The Tattoo-a-thon hopes to go international, with childhood cancer its main priority.(Images: Choc Chatterbox) MEDIA CONTACTS • Jordon Gray Tattoo-a-thon SA event coordinator +27 74 191 1234 RELATED ARTICLES • Facelift for KZN children’s hospital • SA scientist leads cancer fight • New online university to fight cancer • New eye care unit for KZN children • Reaching out to the terminally illCadine PillayFor many, the thought of getting a tattoo is a scary one. For others, people with tattoos have a bizarre way of expressing themselves and do not have charitable traits. Capetonian Jordan Gray is changing that perception, all in the name of charity. With the help of tattoo artists from around Cape Town, Gray organised the city’s first ever tattoo-a-thon, for the Children’s Haematology Oncology Clinics (CHOC) Childhood Cancer Foundation.The 24-hour charity drive took on 15 June and aimed to raise R100 000 for CHOC’s Tygerberg Lodge – a facility that houses several families of children undergoing treatment for cancer.The fundraiser involved 30 tattoo artists from 10 of the Mother City’s top tattoo studios, who were hard at work in an effort to help remove the stigma surrounding tattoo fanatics. Project coordinator Gray wanted the event to draw as diverse a group of South Africans together as possible. Furthermore, he hoped that all who were present would be eager to assist CHOC by getting tattoos.The start of a journeyThe CHOC SA was established in 1979 with offices across the country that provide all-inclusive support for children suffering from cancer and life-threatening blood disorders. The organisation recognised the far-reaching impact of cancer on families and children undergoing treatment, and in response decided to provide residence for these children for the duration of treatment.Gray became involved with CHOC a few years ago when he adopted a cancer patient named Gishmo by taking over the funding for his treatment. Gishmo’s parents were struggling to meet the financial demands of his brain cancer treatment. The family was housed by CHOC for the duration of Gishmo’s trials with his cancer and treatment, until he lost the battle to the disease shortly after his second birthday. CHOC does not receive funding from the government and relies heavily on donations from corporates, individuals and parents of children with cancer.“Donations and fund raising projects like the Tattoo-a-thon are therefore the lifeblood of the organisation,” says Gray. “The facilities need re-tiling, paint, plumbing, electrical and security services urgently for the recovery process of the children.”The controversial champions of childhood cancerCurrently, Gray is a graduate of Landmark Education – a global educational enterprise – and is close to finishing the Self-Expression and Leadership Programme, through which students learn to make an impact on communities and contribute to the quality of life of others.The idea for a Tattoo-a-thon came to him, along with his connection to CHOC, in the form of a curriculum community project.Gray hopes to achieve respect for tattoo enthusiasts – to whom a stereotype of rebellious and somewhat mischievous is often attached – by highlighting the diversity of the city’s ‘tattoo community’.“I am covered in tattoos,” Gray points out. “And so I want to alleviate the stigma attached to people with tattoos by doing something to show South Africa that people with tattoos are not second rate citizens, but that we are a community that cares.”With fundraising at the core of this project, the event aims to uplift CHOC. There are also plans to make it an annual event that can expand to Johannesburg and thereafter to overseas locations such as London, New York and Miami, with all proceeds strictly devoted to cancer awareness and treatment.Meanwhile, the tattoo studios in Cape Town seek to break a record of 300 tattoos for each studio in an effort to raise as much money as possible. The studios involved in the initiative are Wildfire Tattoos, Sins of Style, Metal Machine, and Mob Inc.Johannesburg tattoo parlour Fallen Heroes has pledged their support to the cause by designing gold ribbon tattoos, dedicated to childhood cancer. Manuela Gray, co-founder and owner of Wildfire Tattoos, said all tattoos are a set size and will only cost R700.Participants can book their tattoo appointment directly with the tattoo studio or go to www.tattooathon.co.za to choose an artist of their choice.