first_imgMark Hughes, part of the Manchester United team famously thrashed 4-1 by QPR 20 years ago, has told his players that they too can cause a massive upset at Old Trafford.Dennis Bailey’s hat-trick gave Rangers an unforgettable victory in front of a live television audience and stunned a United side that were chasing the title.R’s boss Hughes remembers that day all too well and insists the current team must believe that history can repeat itself.Top scorer Heidar Helguson is back in the QPR squad for Sunday’s game.“You can’t legislate for it and you never know when those type of results will happen,” Hughes declared ahead of Sunday’s encounter.“I was in the United team that day. It was New Year’s Day and everyone thought we’d been out all night. In fairness we probably would have played better if we had been.“We didn’t see that result coming, but it can happen and this year as with any other year results will pop up that people don’t expect.“I’ve taken Blackburn there and got positive results. It can be done, but we need to catch them on an off-day and play exceptionally well.“Teams can go there and cause an upset and we certainly have enough talent to do that.”And Hughes has pledged that Rangers will look to attack United rather than try to get men behind the ball.“Old Trafford isn’t a place you can go to and be timid,” he said.“You have to front up and say ‘Listen, this is what we’re about and we’re going to come here, give a good account of ourselves and see where it takes us’.”Click here for our Man Utd v QPR quizSee also: Mixed news for QPR ahead of Man Utd clashFollow West London Sport on TwitterFind us on Facebooklast_img read more

first_imgNot even rain could keep A’s Team President Dave Kaval’s excitement levels down when speaking about plans for a new ballpark.Over 400 fans and community members descended upon Jack London Square Thursday afternoon for an open house put together by the A’s just one day after publicly announcing their proposal to build a new waterfront stadium. Though was a gloomy day in the town, the atmosphere was quite lively on the first floor of the building at the site of the A’s team headquarters.Fans …last_img

first_imgCaltech may be the egghead capital of America.  The prestigious university where Einstein and Feynman hung out may be weak in sports and arts, but is unsurpassed in science and engineering.  Caltech graduates are so adept with mathematics and advanced physics, many of them would probably have a hard time at parties telling their relatives and friends what they do for a living.  To avoid making others think they live on an alien planet, ABC/NPR journalist Robert Krulwich has an idea: tell stories.    Krulwich gave the commencement address this past June.  His remarks were just printed in the fall issue of Caltech’s quarterly magazine Engineering and Science (E&S).  The opening caption reads, “Stories matter, and in a nation where belief in alien abductions is on the rise while belief in evolution is on the decline, the best way to defend science is to tell your friends a good story.”  Newton, he explained, was private and secretive to a fault, whereas Galileo knew how to serve up an engaging tale.  Stories are a must when communicating science to party-goers and reporters (though those two groups are not mutually exclusive).    More importantly, he said, the Caltech graduates are not going to be able to win against pseudoscience unless they can outdo it in storytelling.  What pseudoscientists did Krulwich have in mind? Scientists need to tell stories to nonscientists, because science stories—and you know this—have to compete with other stories about how the universe works, and how it came to be.  And some of those other stories—Bible stories, movie stories, myths—can be very beautiful and very compelling.  But to protect science and scientists—and this is not a gentle competition—you’ve got to get in there and tell your version of how things are, and why things came to be.    We all know about creation-science movements in America.  But what you may not know is that such movements are spreading all over the world.From there he launched into details of Adnan Oktar’s lavishly-illustrated Atlas of Creation that has been sent free to schools across Turkey and Europe.  “It’s written in clear and simple language, using fabulous pictures, and the pictures are designed to ‘prove’ that fossils show no evidence of evolution.”  This is definitely bad, Krulwich argued, using Oktar, a Muslim, as his prototypical creationist.    Krulwich appealed to Galileo’s Dialogues Concerning the Two World Systems as an example of effective storytelling.  Then he used some dialogue between nitwits on Friends to illustrate the scientific illiteracy of the general public.  Metaphor to the rescue: “Stories with gripping visuals and good punch lines, stories that make intuitive sense, that make sensual sense—to your eyes, to your ears, to your touch—can convince,” he preached.  “They have power.”    For recent examples befitting modern science’s penchant for abstruse disconnection from reality, he pointed to the well-known Schrödinger’s Cat illustration, and to how a visitor to the Grand Canyon might bring its vastness down to earth with a line from Loren Eiseley, “the magnificent violence hidden in a raindrop.”     Krulwich saved his best example for last.  He referred to Mary Schweitzer’s research on medullary bone in dinosaurs, and how it compared with ostrich bone (see 06/03/2005).  It could be dull scientific stuff until it is dressed in the storyteller’s art:So Mary and her two assistants collected the dead ostrich, which was in the farmer’s backhoe bucket, and drove it back to Raleigh, and what do you know?  The former ostrich had been a pregnant former ostrich, and the bones looked pretty similar.  The next year, Mary published a paper in Science with the dinosaur bone right next to an emu bone, which looks even more like Bob’s. And since then, another T. rex, this one in Argentina, was found to have the same calcium structure—more evidence that when you look deep inside dinosaurs and deep inside birds, what you see is very, very similar.  Which gives us yet another reason to think that the robin in your front yard is an itty, bitty dinosaur.    If your nonscience friend listens to that story, and leans in a little, and hears how scientists work with bones and dead birds in buckets, patiently looking for patterns, you have just placed a sword in her hand.  The next time somebody tells her that scientists are know-it-alls who toss off opinions, that science is an elitist plot, she would think, “welllll, but I did hear this story . . .” and the scientific method gets a little more defense, a little protection.    But better than that, the next time your friend sees a robin, she’ll see, I hope, more than a robin.  She’ll glance at a little bird pecking for worms on the lawn, and she’ll travel 70 million years back to a time and a place that creationists say did not exist, but now, because of your story, your friend has a pregnant tyrannosaurus in her head with the unfortunate name of Bob.  Which makes robins and sparrows and chickadees and crows and all birds just a little more amazing, and a little more delightful to look at.  Which means, you win.  The creationists can’t beat delight.  You have smote them with your story.A published address cannot reveal the audience reactions, but the fact Krulwich was invited, and Caltech published the address in its magazine, would seem to indicate the administration at least approved of his case for storytelling.Robert Krulwich does have a point.  There is a place for metaphor and narrative in science.  We use it often in our commentaries (for a recent example, see the last paragraph of the 10/17/2008 entry, below).  Good teachers, preachers and public speakers know the power of metaphor in rhetoric.  Rhetoric was one of the classical and medieval skills taught to all students.  An academic field known as rhetoric of science emerged after Thomas Kuhn’s 1961 thesis, to explore the ways in which rhetoric aids persuasion within paradigms and by challengers; the book Doubts About Darwin was built on Dr. Thomas Woodward’s PhD thesis that explored the interplay of rhetoric around the emerging Intelligent Design Movement.  Rhetoric of science departments even have their own vocabulary, and plenty of examples in the history of science to draw from.  There are cases to be made that some important scientific paradigms were won or lost by the power of rhetoric.    This is all very interesting and fine.  Scientists ignore rhetoric at their peril.  It’s not persuasion that’s the problem; it’s propaganda.  Here is where Krulwich erred.  We often accuse the Darwinists of engaging not just in storytelling per se, but in “just-so storytelling,” which is made-up stuff.  Scientific explanations, even when aimed at Joe Six-Pack or Joe the Plumber, are supposed to be based in evidence and logic.  Often, Darwinists trade in fables concocted to save their paradigm, even when faced with incriminating evidence.    Krulwich committed several propaganda errors in his address.  First, he divided all humanity into two classes (the either-or fallacy): scientists (e.g., those with honesty, brains and integrity, like Caltech graduates) and the rest of humanity, including scientific dunces like Phoebe on Friends, those who believe in alien abductions, Adnan Oktar, creationists and Bible believers.  He followed this with some fear-mongering about how powerful the bogeymen are: “this is not a gentle competition,” he said, giving the students a sword to conquer them.  After having consigned all non-Caltech-scientists to absurdity, it conveniently allowed him to set up a straw man to push over with very few ergs of energy.  He should read the material of the great creation scientists and best of the ID philosophers.  That’s what we do here: we take on the leading Darwinists in their leading publications.  We challenge their Goliaths.  Why does Krulwich associate creationism with the dimwits on a TV sitcom?  Let him sit down with the PhDs (some from Caltech and MIT and Cambridge) who deny Darwin, and learn a little about his own vulnerability.  Then he gave a vastly oversimplified view of science (the old truth-seeker in the white lab coat using “the scientific method,” whatever that is).  Doesn’t he realize that view went out in the 1950s?    Finally, his sample story about robins being itty-bitty dinosaurs, besides being downright silly, sidestepped the major point of Mary Schweitzer’s work: that finding soft tissue and medullary bone in a dinosaur essentially falsifies the belief they are 65 million years old.  He swallowed the Darwine to the dregs without tasting it first or submitting it to qualitative analysis—the very thing a good scientist is supposed to do.  Consider the flaw, also, in his logic that similarities prove ancestry (see circular reasoning).  If you look deep enough into a man’s DNA and a banana’s DNA, you can find all kinds of similarities.  Darwinists pick and choose the kind of similarities they like, which they call “homologous traits” – or make up terms like “convergent evolution” and “analogous traits” to explain the others – whatever it takes to maintain their belief in Darwin’s metaphorical Tree of Life.  It’s rigged to protect their belief system from falsification.    Overall, Krulwich gets the gong for giving advice built on half-truths.  So while we do not challenge him on the usefulness of being able to communicate scientific ideas effectively using narrative, we hope the graduating seniors of Caltech were discerning enough to smell the baloney in the hot dog.    As for Krulwich’s line, “The creationists can’t beat delight,” this has to be one of the biggest lies of the year.  Creationists, like Louis Louis Pasteur stand amazed at the work of the Creator.  You could not find a happier group – just look at the number of praise songs they have about creation.  Compare this with the vitriol of the Darwinist People of Froth (e.g., 09/26/2005, 06/22/2007) and there is no contest.  Then, Krulwich said, “You have smote them with your story.”  In a way, he’s right.  We’re dumbfounded at the thought of a journalist telling scientists to fib, and with bad grammar at that.    For more on the power of metaphors to mislead as well as inform, see “Metaphors Bewitch You” in the 07/04/2003 entry.(Visited 16 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

first_imgEthiopia launched the country’s firstscience academy in the capital city ofAddis Ababa.(Image: wvumc.wordpress.com)Nosimilo RamelaEthiopia launched its first science academy in the capital city of Addis Ababa on 10 April with the aim of developing scientific research and education in the country.The Ethiopia Academy of Science (EAS) says its objectives are to promote the advancement of basic and applied sciences, enhance innovative technologies, support and recognise excellence in scientific research performed by Ethiopian scientists, and promote contacts among Ethiopian scientists and those throughout the world.Academy president Demissie Habte said the EAS also plans to advise government on both natural and social science issues. “Growing political interest in science in Ethiopia has helped get the academy off the ground. There is a much better appreciation in the government for the role science can play in development,” he said.Habte said scientists first considered the idea for an Ethiopian academy in the early 1960s, but political instability in the country during the 1970s and 1980s saw the plans being put on hold. Researchers at Addis Ababa University, with the support of the UK Royal Society, revived the idea a few years ago.The Royal Society is one of oldest and most respected scientific academies in the world and has been working closely with Ethiopian scientists for the past 18 months in setting up the EAS. It said it is confident the academy has the potential to be a force for positive change and for practising evidence-based policy in Ethiopia.Roman Tewolde of the EAS said the academy will work to promote the country’s science agenda, which includes the use of new farming and industrial technology. “The academy will also give researchers financial and technical support, and publish journals and books for scientists and the public,” he said.Tewolde added that the EAS will be “an independent, merit-based institution committed to assisting the national development agenda, promoting excellence in science and arts, and advancing the nation’s natural and cultural heritage”.Until now “there has not been a national organisation to speak with authority on behalf of all learned bodies in Ethiopia”, he said.Academy structureHabte said the academy will be founded with 50 fellows from both the natural and social sciences. “New fellows will be elected by the members each year, although the small number of senior academics in the country will limit the membership at first.”He added that the academy will support policy-makers by preparing position papers on the challenges facing Ethiopia, such as rapid population growth and water security.Scientists have welcomed the launch of the academy. “This is great for our country – it’s something that will bring a wealth of knowledge to our people [and] this continent as a whole,” said Professor Teketel Yohnnes from Addis Ababa University. “Young people who are keen on a career in science can [now] look forward to experiencing and practising their work in their own country.”last_img read more

first_img11 June 2012The Springboks gave Heynecke Meyer a winning start in his first match as national coach, beating England 22-17 at Kings Park in Durban on Saturday evening.It was a tight contest and the teams were level at half-time, but the Boks lifted their game in the second half to pull away from the tourists, who scored a late consolation try to pull within seven points of the home side.After the game, Meyer admitted that he had delivered a half-time blast to his charges, which clearly had the desired effect, as South Africa dominated the third quarter of the contest to pull clear.“At some stages I really thought we played great rugby,” he said after the test. “We moved the ball around and I was happy with the result, but we butchered one or two tries and you need to finish those in test match rugby.‘Very high standards’“I think that this team has been so great from the start, they have got very high standards, so, although there were some hard words, they knew that they had to step up in the second half.”Assessing England’s performance, Meyer said: “I thought that England were brillant in the way that they put pressure on the nine [scrumhalf], and they pressed very hard in midfield, so we made a few changes to our tactical kicking in the second half, which worked.“I thought the first 20 minutes they pressed very hard and we should have played more tactically, but the plan was always to open up the game in the second half.“I thought England’s tactical kicking was much better than ours in the first half, they put the ball in behind us and moved us around, so we couldn’t get any quick ball or momentum, but once we changed things in the second half, it went much better.”ScrumsThe Springboks’ tight scrums, especially, were impressive as the front row of Beast Mtawarira, Bismarck du Plessis and Jannie du Plessis ruled the roost. Later, replacements Coenie Oosthuizen and Adriaan Strauss ensured the Springboks remained in the ascendancy.All three South African debutants – Marcell Coetzee, Eben Etzebeth and Juandre Kruger – delivered in their first matches in the green and gold.Importantly, the more established players showed strong leadership and contributed significantly to the South African victory, with men such as captain Jean de Villiers, Bryan Habana and Francois Steyn standing out.England competed intensely at the breakdowns in the first half and did a good job of making matters difficult for the Springboks, but once the Boks started protecting their own ball better and challenging the English ball more effectively, they were able to play more of the game on the front foot.Flyhalf Morne Steyn, very unusually for him, had an off day with the boot in windy conditions. Had he kicked to his usual high standards, the game would not have been as close as the final scoreline suggests it was.The matchEarly on, Habana launched a good counter-attack after fielding a kick. The ball was moved wide to Pietersen, but the big wing was forced into touch.A couple of minutes later, England were awarded a penalty after the Boks were blown up for playing the ball on the ground at a ruck. Owen Farrell took a shot at goal and was successful, putting the tourists into a 3-0 lead.In the 12th minute, flank Willem Alberts made a strong break from a ruck after Habana had put good pressure on fullback Mike Brown from a high-up-and-under launched by flyhalf Steyn. When Alberts went to ground, the English slowed the South African ball and referee Steve Walsh awarded a penalty against them.LevelMorne Steyn was on target with his kick at goal and the sides were level at 3-3.England hit the front once more in the 27th minute after winning a penalty at a breakdown and Farrell again hit the target.South Africa stormed back onto the attack and within three minutes were on level terms once more thanks to a Morne Steyn penalty.Just before the break, Steyn had an opportunity to put South Africa in front, but a shot of goal drifted well wide of the right hand upright.Springbok tryThe Springboks upped their intensity in the second half and it paid off after eight minutes when Morne Steyn went over for a try. It began when captain De Villiers made good ground up the left flank. The ball was then brought back to the right where Alberts broke through a tackle before finding Jannie Du Plessis on the charge.The big prop barrelled towards the tryline, but was stopped just five metres short of the whitewash. Etzebeth did well to make some ground from slow ball and then Patrick Lambie, on for Zane Kirchner, was stopped mere centimetres short of the line.Francois Hougaard was then stopped and Beast Mtawarira came within sniffing distance of the line. The ball was moved right again and Morne Steyn, with JP Pietersen outside of him, sold a dummy before going over for the five-pointer. His conversion attempt passed to the left of the posts and South Africa led 11-6.The men in green and gold had a chance to extend their lead when they won a penalty 10 metres out and right in front of the posts, but scrumhalf Hougaard inexplicably took a quick penalty instead of the almost certain three points, which left coach Meyer gesturing unhappily towards the field.Second tryOn the hour mark, Francois Steyn fielded a high-up-and-under from England scrumhalf Ben Youngs midway between the English 22-metre line and the 10-metre line. He neatly off-loaded to Habana, who hit the ball at speed.When he was tackled midway inside the English 22, Ruan Pienaar, on for Hougaard, moved the ball swiftly to the right. De Villiers received it in space, pinned his ears back, cut in slightly and bashed his way over the line for the Springboks’ second try.South Africa led 16-6 after Steyn missed the conversion, but England were soon within seven points when Farrell slotted a third penalty to make it 16-9.Two penalties by Steyn followed in the next 10 minutes, leaving South Africa 22-12 ahead with only two minutes to play.England tryWith time up, England finally crossed the Springboks’ tryline. They made ground into the South African 22 and forced a ruck before passing the ball out wide to Ben Foden, who crashed over in the corner despite a desperate tackle attempt by Francois Steyn.Farrell’s attempt to go five from five in the difficult kicking conditions was wide and the final whistle sounded with South Africa 22-17 winners.It was hard-hitting contest and unfortunately for England’s South African-born centre Brad Barritt, formerly of the Sharks, he was one of two big casualties for England on the day.SurgeryBarritt suffered a lacerated eyeball, which required surgery. He is, however, expected to be fit for the third test. Fullback Mike Brown injured a thumb and will miss the rest of the series.Zane Kirchner’s fitness is questionable after he injured a knee.The Springboks and England next meet on Saturday at Coca-Cola Park in Johannesburg. Before that, the tourists play a midweek match against the SA Barbarians South in Kimberley on Wednesday.Would you like to use this article in your publication or on your website? See: Using SAinfo materiallast_img read more

first_imgShare Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest Domestic ethanol expansion has slowed,  but the U.S. exported $2.1 billion in ethanol in 2014, replacing Brazil as the world’s largest ethanol exporter. The 2015 data is expected to show 850 million gallons of exported ethanol, second only to a record year in 2011 and up from the 835 million gallons exported the previous year.In addition, the Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM) made a very public statement in support of ethanol and maintaining the Renewable Fuels Standard during an Ag Executive Outlook Panel during the opening day of the 2016 National Farm Machinery Show in Louisville. AEM named the RFS one of their top issues for 2016.In addition, this month there were two recent research reports supported by USDA focused on ethanol and other renewable fuels — one published by USDA’s Office of the Chief Economist and another published by the University of Missouri.“U.S. farmers continue to improve their efficiency in the production of corn for ethanol while the impact of ethanol production on corn production has become marginal. Between 1991 and 2010, direct energy use in corn production has dropped by 46% per bushel of corn produced and total energy use per bushel of corn by 35%,” said Tom Vilsack, Agriculture Secretary. “Moreover, between 2005 and 2010, direct energy use fell by 25% and the total energy use by 8.2% per bushel — meaning that between 2005 and 2010, the energy required per bushel of corn produced dropped by about 5%. The bottom line is, today, more energy is being produced from ethanol than is used to produce it, by factors of 2 to 1 nationally and by factors of 4 to 1 in the Midwest. There are many reasons to be optimistic about the future of the bio-economy and the role biofuels and advanced biofuels will play in that future, and I am confident this administration has acted aggressively to expand the groundwork to support that brighter future.”To learn more about the reports referenced by Secretary Vilsack, please visit:http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/2015EnergyBalanceCornEthanol.pdfwww.fapri.missouri.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/FAPRI-Report-01-16.pdf.last_img read more

first_imgShare Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest A new Ohio law affects farmers that plan to use certain utility vehicles this planting season, including Gators, Mules and other utility vehicles with a bed designed to transport cargo. The new law is part of the 2018-2019 transportation budget, formally known as House Bill 26. HB 26, which goes into effect on June 30, 2017, permits vehicles to travel on any public road or right of way — other than a freeway, when travelling from one farm field to another for agricultural purposes.Under HB 26, utility vehicles are now expressly required to display a triangular Slow-Moving Vehicle (SMV) emblem. Previously, it was up to local law enforcement to interpret the law and decide whether a utility vehicle should have a SMV. The new law also clearly allows utility vehicles to travel on public roads between farm fields, whereas the old law required farmers to know whether the county or township allowed utility vehicles on the road. Utility vehicle operators can read more about the old law in our previous blog post on APVs, ATVs, and four-wheelers here.What qualifies as a “utility vehicle?” Farmers should be aware that this law only covers what it defines as “utility vehicles.” This means that the law only applies to vehicles designed with a bed, for transporting material or cargo related to agricultural activities. Not all ATVs and APVs will be included in this definition.The law is good news for farmers who plan to use utility vehicles this season. If farmers plan to use a utility vehicle on the farm, they should know the following before taking the vehicle out:In order to use a utility vehicle on a public road, a driver must be traveling from one farm field to another farm field for agricultural purposes.Utility vehicle drivers must display a SMV on any utility vehicle used on a public road as it travels between farm fields.Ohio Revised Code Section 5589.10 prohibits the placement of earth, mud, manure, or other injurious materials on a public highway. Therefore, farmers should avoid leaving such debris in the roadway or clean up the roadway if a utility vehicle leaves mud behind.More information on HB 26 is here, under Sec. 4511.216 on page 328 of the bill.last_img read more

first_img8 Best WordPress Hosting Solutions on the Market Top Reasons to Go With Managed WordPress Hosting curt hopkins Related Posts Tags:#TWiOT#web center_img Before covering the events that have taken place this week in Egypt, I think it’s important to examine those stories that are in danger of being lost to the public’s consciousness because of the dramatic nature of what’s happening in Tahrir Square. Also, in one case, it’s instructive to talk about one case which came about as a direct result of Egypt. In fact, let’s start there, with Syria. Syria lifts Internet bans. Syria is an enthusiastic banner of social media tools. Facebook and YouTube have been banned in that authoritarian country for four years. But now, that ban has been lifted. This is a result of the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings. Like those countries, Syria has labored under a prolonged tinhorn tyranny; in this case, it has endured two generations of Assad-family rule. Perhaps it’s hoped this relaxation will act as a pressure release. Perhaps it is also hoped that trouble-makers in the Syrian regime will be more easily identified if they are lured out in the virtual open. “It seems like a policy to curry favor with the youth,” Syrian dissident Ammar Abdulhamid told us. The relaxation was accompanied by the announcement of a food subsidy for the needy. Thailand prosecutes another blogger under lèse majesté. The trail for the prosecution of Chiranuch Premchaiporn, the webmaster of the Prachatai website, is ongoing. The charge of lèse majesté is a popular one in Thailand when the government finds anyone it wishes to muzzle. The charge is one of bad mouthing the king and queen, who are very popular in Thailand. It is the Thai equivalent of “insulting the leader” or “insulting religion.” Burma sentences imprisoned blogger to more time. Kaung Myat Hlaing, known by the blogging name of Nat Soe, has been sentenced to an additional ten year sentence on top of the two years he’s already serving. In a secret “trial,” Hlaing was convicted of being part of a poster campaign in support of dissident Aung San Suu Kyi and others. He was deprived of food and water for ten days until he “confessed” to being part of the postering group. China bans “Egypt” as search term. Most of the countries terrified by the people who are rising up in Tunisia and Egypt are Arab ones, like Saudi Arabia. But China is nothing if not forward thinking and accounts of people forcing their governments to account are definitely outre in the Middle Kingdom. So “Egypt” has joined “Tiananmen” and “falun gong” as banned terms on the Chinese Internet. Malaysia announces Internet censorship regime. The Malaysian government is drawing up “guidelines” (read: laws) for online behavior (read: speech). The fact that these rules are in conjunction with the country’s Sedition Act tells you everything you need to know about the motivation behind them. Blogging is popular in Malaysia and several of its more prominent bloggers eventually even ran for office; one of them, Jeff Ooi, becoming a member of the Malaysian parliament, which makes the limitations all the more unfortunate. American university a hot-bed of censorship. No country lives up to its ideals, but when the place where those ideals are most openly trodden on is the country’s university system, you know something’s wrong. The U.S. is big on free speech, enshrining it in the country’s highest law, the Constitution. But over the past decade or more, more and more university systems have outlawed speech that is “offensive.” Offensive speech is the only speech that requires constitutional and legal guarantee of course. The right to say “good morning” or “nice shoes” or “I like sunshine” is not one likely to be abrogated. The University of Massachusetts Amherst has made – I swear I am not making this up – on-campus rallies on “controversial” subjects (vague, much?) subject to a set of regulations that make them difficult if not impossible to stage. That’s right. At this point, it is easier for Egyptians to protest for the end of the Mubarak regime than UM students to protest against the continuation of U.S. presence in Iraq. I would call the administration of the University of Massachusetts a bunch of douchebags but it probably breaks the school’s speech code. This week in Egypt characterized by blogger abductionsSandmonkey abducted, beaten, freed. Well-known Egyptian blogger Sandmonkey was “arrested,” beaten up, then let go. His blog was also hit, “due to problems related to traffic and attacks (many from IPs in Saudi Arabia),” and has been taken offline “temporarily suspended until the problems can be resolved.” That was on the third; a post appeared again on the sixth. Kareem Amer. Kareem was a cause celebre internationally. He served four years in Egyptian prison for criticizing Islam as well as his country’s leadership. Although many Mideast youth defended his right to speak his mind and conscious, he was reviled in the Egyptian press and elsewhere. He was beaten and otherwise ill-treated by his jailers, repeatedly during his time in jail. He went missing around 11:00 p.m. local time on February 6 after leaving Tahrir Square with a friend. Wael Ghonim. The Google middle eastern marketing executive was held blindfolded by Egyptian security forces for 12 days. When he was released, he admitted to being one of the founders of the We are all Khaled Said group, whose Facebook page organized a lot of the protests. His subsequent TV interviews and speeches have rejuvenating a protest movement that showed signs of flagging before Ghonim was released. What do you like about This Week in Online Tyranny? What would you like to see more of? Less of? How can we make it more interesting and more useful to you? Please let us know in the comments.Tahrir photo via Al Jazeera | Assad photo via Wikimedia Commons | Burmese protest photo by Alan Chan | UMass photo via Wikimedia Commons | Kareem photo via Cyberdissidents.org Why Tech Companies Need Simpler Terms of Servic… A Web Developer’s New Best Friend is the AI Wai…last_img read more

first_imgFacebook Twitter Google+LinkedInPinterestWhatsAppProvidenciales, 16 Nov 2015 – Owners of the Tuscany and Venetian resort condos on Grace Bay filed a complaint about the proposed 12-storey development planned for next door to their properties, and today a judgment was handed down giving them victory in the case. Chief Justice Margaret Ramsay Hale agreed with the argument put forth by Tuscany and Venetian and ruled for their legal costs to be covered by respondents in the case and stated in the ruling that there was a breach. Those respondents are: The Governor, the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Planning and the Director of Planning. From the judgment the case was won by the Venetian and the Tuscany owners because there was insufficient public consultation and the applicants challenged the authority of Cabinet or Planning Department to alter the planning ordinance in the way that they did. In her grounds for the ruling, the CJ says while the Director of Planning and the Minister, who is in this case Hon Amanda Misick are given certain authorities, those need to be thoroughly executed by ensuring among other things that people who will be impacted by the proposed zoning changes are informed and given opportunity to make representation before any plan is submitted and approved by the Governor. This proper process, according to Ramsay-Hale, did not happen. When it comes to the consultation on this zoning change to go with taller buildings in Provo, the Chief Justice outlines that the consultation must come at a point when there is an opportunity to influence the proposal and not when the decision has already been made. The town hall meeting held by the PNP Administration was described as a ‘sham’ by attendees as it appeared the plan was already approved before having public input. The case today determined that a notice by the Department of Planning to amend the Development Manual to make the 12 story or 150-ft height legal was rescinded and called ‘void’ and of ‘no effect’ by the Chief Justice in her ruling. Magnetic Media has sought to get reaction to the decision handed down just hours ago; there was no reply up to news production time. Recommended for you Oseta Jolly Primary gets huge donation from two leading resort developments Related Items:12 storey, margaret, shutdown, the venetian, tuscany Opposition says: Govt slow to restore construction industry; 12-storey debacle no surprise RitzCarlton sets up signs for 12-storey on Grace Bay Facebook Twitter Google+LinkedInPinterestWhatsApplast_img read more