Kendrick Scott, a former Florida State linebacker who played for the Seminoles from 1991-94, created a online petition to rename Bobby Bowden Field at Doak S. Campbell Stadium.Campbell served as president of Florida State University during its transition from an all-female campus and was instrumental in getting the football stadium built, however, his pro-segregationist views are well documented.Scott said in the petition that Campbell’s “non-inclusive views of blacks as a segregationist is divisive, therefore his name should be removed from a stadium that has been home to many black football players helping to build the school and the tradition to what it has become today: a national treasure.”Instead, the stadium should be named after former quarterback Charlie Ward, the school’s first Heisman Trophy winner, Scott suggested.
Yorkshire will defend the English boys’ county championship next week at Rockliffe Hall in County Durham.They’ll be challenged for the title by teams from Lincolnshire, Kent and Cornwall, when the championship takes place from Tuesday to Thursday, 28-30 August.The teams have all come through qualifiers to represent their region at County Finals and Kent will be seeking their first title. Lincolnshire and Cornwall have both won once while Yorkshire will target their ninth victory.The golf promises to be excellent with many fine players in the teams. Among them are Yorkshire’s Ben Schmidt who was runner-up in the McGregor Trophy and went on to win the Lee Westwood Trophy at his home club, Rotherham. Meanwhile, his team-mate Joshua Berry is the French U14 champion.The Kent team includes Jensen Hull who reached the semi-finals of the Boys’ Amateur Championship and Jacob Kelso, who won the 2017 English Boys’ County Champion of Champions title.Cornwall’s George Leigh had the winning individual score at the South West qualifying event for this championship and he was sixth in the McGregor Trophy. Lincolnshire’s very experienced Hugo Kedzlie was third in the Midland boys’ championship.The round robin championship is played over three days. Each match consists of three foursomes and six singles. 23 Aug 2018 Yorkshire to defend Boys’ County Finals The teamsCornwallCameron Gurd, PerranporthGeorge Leigh, TrevoseGeorge Law, PerranporthThomas Stephens, TruroJoe Reynard, TrevoseEwan Warren, St AustellLiam Wilson, Truro KentConnor Bell, Royal BlackheathJensen Hull, Hever CastleJacob Kelso, Kings HillBen Quinney, BearstedOliver Sly, WildernesseCallum Tibbs, Chart HillsGeorge Young, West Malling Tags: Boys, County Championships, Rockliffe Hall LincolnshireMichael Baines, SleafordCallum Bruce, ElshamJake Craddock, Belton ParkThomas Hull, SpaldingHugo Kedzlie, SpaldingOlly Mitchell, Belton ParkJack Remblance, Seacroft Golf Club YorkshireJoshua Berry, DoncasterCharlie Daughtrey, RotherhamMichael Hay, MiddlesbroughJack Leversidge, AbbeydaleCallum Macfie, LindrickJack Maxey, HornseaBen Schmidt, Rotherham
IT’S one of the most popular shore walks in Co Donegal – and now the walk from Moville to Greencastle has been given a facelift…online!Local man Liam Skelly, a well-known amateur photographer, has been updating a Facebook page dedicated to the walk.You can follow his daily updates here: https://www.facebook.com/movilleshorewalk?fref=ts STUNNING NEW MOVILLE SHORE WALK GUIDE LAUNCHED was last modified: April 29th, 2015 by John2Share this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Tags:donegalLiam SkellyMoville shore walktourism
Hundreds of people from Donegal will pull on their running shoes and flashing armbands and hit the streets for a ‘Run in the Dark’ on November 13. The people of Gaoth Dobhair and beyond will be joining in a pop-up edition of the fifth annual run, starting at 8pm from the Amharclann Gaoth Dobhair.Participants are invited to run, walk, wheel or do part of the route. Everyone is welcome to join in however they can, there will be two laps of the estate but participants can do one if they wish. Refreshments and entertainment will be provided afterwards. All proceeds from the West Donegal run will do towards the Mark Pollock Trust and the Donegal-based No Barriers Foundation.The Run in the Dark started as an idea on a notepad and has grown from several hundred people running around Trinity College Dublin (Ireland) in 2011 to a global event of 25,000 people.Last year, the pop-up edition of the global fundraising movement in west Donegal raised over 350 in attendance and €2600 raised in total.This year, there will be official Run in the Dark kits for distribution to first 20 finishers. Suggested donation of 10 euro per adult and 5 per child with no families paying more than 20 euro.The annual affair fuels the Mark Pollock Trust whose mission is to cure paralysis. Pollock suffered a catastrophic spinal cord injury in 2010 when he fell from a second-storey window that left him paralysed.Prior to the accident, Pollock had competed in ultra-endurance races across deserts, mountains, and the polar ice caps and was the first blind person to race to the South Pole.Pollock recently told his story in a joint TED talk with his fiancée Simone George.Every donation, every step, every study brings the Mark Pollock Trust closer to a cure for paralysis and enabling people to walk again. ‘Run in the Dark’ returns to Gaoth Dobhair was last modified: November 11th, 2019 by Shaun KeenanShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)
An interesting phenomenon is going on among science news reporters: accusations that “denialists” are lurking about. We are told that deniers or denialists are refusing to accept scientific evidence and are clinging to belief systems in spite of the facts. That would certainly be a serious charge, but it can also be a mask for a denialist to hide behind. How is a bystander to decide who is the real denier? Controversy has a long tradition in science. As we saw in the 05/21/2010 entry, some science educators believe vigorous argumentation should be encouraged. That means that claims should be denied, and counter-claims should be offered in their stead. Most issues of leading journals have sections where scientists take issue with each other’s positions on recent claims. In last week’s issue of Science (05/21/2010), for example, there were five letters to the editor, signed by 71 scientists – some of them very well known – arguing about the meteor impact hypothesis for the Cretaceous extinctions. Undoubtedly the pro-impact scientists feel their evidence is compelling, but what if they resorted to calling their opponents “denialists” for refusing to agree? Only an emotional divide would result – maybe even a name-calling war. In the same way, the use of loaded words like denier and denialist must be examined in context to see if it is warranted, or is rather a means of propaganda. New Scientist initiated the subject with a special report, “Living in denial.” The caption lumped together various subjects of questionable affinity in an image of warfare: “From climate change to vaccines, evolution to flu, denialists are on the march. Why are so many people refusing to accept what the evidence is telling them?” Right away, readers got a taste of the message New Scientist wanted to convey, and right away, Darwin-loving ex-Christian apostate professional skeptic Michael Shermer was there to preach the opening sermon. In his message for New Scientist, “Living in Denial: When a skeptic isn’t a skeptic,” Shermer was careful to cloak science in non-ideological terms: “What sometimes happens is that people confuse these two types of questions – scientific and ideological.” This is the either-or fallacy, failing to recognize that scientism is itself an ideology. Shermer also set his stage to ensure that he was skeptical of everything except his own skepticism. “Thus, one practical way to distinguish between a sceptic and a denier is the extent to which they are willing to update their positions in response to new information,” Shermer explained. “Sceptics change their minds. Deniers just keep on denying.” Yet when Shermer was given new information by Stephen Meyer in a debate about Signature in the Cell a few months ago, he did not update his beliefs about intelligent design; he just kept on denying it. Next in the series, Deborah MacKenzie continued the theme in New Scientist with her contribution, “Living in denial: Why sensible people reject the truth.” Her entry was a shameless concoction of association (mixing global warming with evolution with fear of vaccination), fear-mongering (evil corporations, death by HIV, suffering children), and glittering generalities “the systematic rejection of a body of science in favour of make-believe.” It was hardly worthy of scholarly analysis. Richard Panzer’s entry in the New Scientist series, “Living in Denial: How Corporations Manufacture Doubt,” is a short but interesting study about corporate disinformation campaigns. It does not bear on origins, so is not of direct concern to this news service. Similarly, Jim Giles’ entry in New Scientist, “Living in Denial: Unleashing a lie,” tells how the Big Lie is hard to stop in the Internet age. As always, let the buyer beware. And don’t forward messages without checking them out. Michael Fitzpatrick’s entry in the New Scientist series was a blast of cool air in the heat: “Living in denial: Questioning science isn’t blasphemy.” Contrary to the others, Fitzpatrick encouraged dissent and criticized labeling people as “deniers.” He said, “The epithet ‘denier’ is increasingly used to bash anyone who dares to question orthodoxy. Among other things, deniers are accused of subordinating science to ideology.” It’s a form of ad hominem attack, he argued: “How ironic. The concept of denialism is itself inflexible, ideological and intrinsically anti-scientific. It is used to close down legitimate debate by insinuating moral deficiency in those expressing dissident views,” he continued. It serves not to refute your opponent so much as to question his motives. Fitzpatrick did not claim that pseudoscience is not a problem, but insists that name-calling is not the solution. “Such attempts to combat pseudoscience by branding it a secular form of blasphemy are illiberal and intolerant,” he said. “They are also ineffective, tending not only to reinforce cynicism about science but also to promote a distrust for scientific and medical authority that provides a rallying point for pseudoscience.” New Scientist gave Michael Shermer the last word. In “Living in denial: The Truth is our only weapon,” Shermer implied that truth exists. So if deniers of truth exist, how should we respond to them? At least he still believes in the open marketplace of ideas: “My answer is this: let them be heard. Examine their evidence. Consider their interpretation. If they have anything of substance to say, then the truth will out.” Shermer associated Holocaust deniers with evolution deniers: “Holocaust denial has always been on the fringe, but other forms – notably creationism and climate denial – wield considerable influence and show no signs of going away. In such cases, eternal vigilance is the price we must pay for both freedom and truth,” he said. But at least he was thoughtful enough to consider the possibility he could be wrong, or even if not, that his views could someday become the minority – and would not want his views suppressed by the majority. So Shermer believes in the Golden Rule. He seems to be reaching into his Christian childhood for concepts of truth and fairness, because it is questionable where he would find such concepts in Darwinism. Casey Luskin on Evolution News & Views called this a conflicted message. Speaking of minorities, Roger Harrabin found himself in a bit of a minority recently at a Climate skeptics rally in Chicago. As a reporter for the BBC News, he did his best to present the majority in that venue as a bunch of right-wing fanatics, though he did have to acknowledge that among the group was noted geologist and Apollo astronaut Harrison Schmidt, who believes that the current climate change is part of a natural cycle, and some other notable scientists. New Scientist has had another series called Culture Lab. An entry by Amanda Gefter on May 24 bears on the issue of denialism. Accompanied by a photo of atheist protestors at the Creation Museum in Kentucky, her article, “Tracing the fuzzy boundaries of science,” dealt with the demarcation problem – how does one separate science from pseudoscience? Gefter acknowledges that the problem is harder than it might seem. Speaking of the Dover case, she said “It was obvious that the proponents of ID were trying to push a religious agenda into government-funded schools, violating the separation of church and state,” but “Nonetheless, Judge Jones’s task was not simple. He had to rule on whether or not ID is science, and distinguishing science from pseudoscience is harder than it might seem.” Philosophers have long realized that Karl Popper’s falsification criterion is too simplistic, for instance. Instead, Gefter found solace in Nonsense on Stilts: How to tell science from bunk by Massimi Pigliucci (University of Chicago Press), a “brilliant book, which ought to be required reading for, well, everyone.” How did Pigliucci attempt to solve the demarcation problem? The “construction and testing of hypotheses with systematic observations or experiments” is not enough. A science needs “some kind of explanatory framework,” too. Applying that test to astrology, Gefter explains, shows that there is no explanatory framework for why the constellations, which are mere optical illusions based on our position, could influence our behavior. General relativity, by contrast, not only makes predictions that have been confirmed but explains what gravity is. Next, she attempted to apply Pigliucci’s demarcation criteria to intelligent design:When Judge Jones issued his ruling, he declared that ID is not science because it invokes supernatural causation and because it “employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s”. A contrived dualism is a false dichotomy – if evolution is wrong then ID must be right – and it highlights ID’s lack of explanatory power. ID is nothing more than an attack on evolution; in and of itself it is nothing more than a belief in God. To see what I mean, try this experiment if you ever find yourself talking to a proponent of ID. Say, “OK, for the sake of argument let’s say evolution is wrong and let’s forget about it. Now tell me how intelligent design works.” Having tried this a few times myself, I am confident that you will be met with nothing but an awkward silence.Gefter thus ruled ID as pseudoscience, because it is “rooted in religion”. She and Pigliucci ruled three other things as “almost science– – evolutionary psychology, string theory and SETI, because they are potentially scientific, but not yet grounded in scientific evidence. Gefter ended by taking potshots at the extremes: the postmodernism of Foucault, the outlandish claims of Feyerabend, and the relativists. She positioned herself as a solid progressivist, believing that Bayesian inference and good philosophy of science can nudge us closer and closer to the truth:The idea that science can’t tell us anything about the objective world just because it is a human activity fraught with human flaws and biases is easily refuted the minute that planes fly or atomic bombs explode. Scientists, meanwhile, do us a disservice when they promote scientism – the idea that science can answer every meaningful question we might ask about the world. Between postmodernism and scientism lies a middle way by which objective knowledge of the world can emerge. We ought to think about science as a Bayesian algorithm, Pigliucci argues, echoing the sentiment of many contemporary philosophers of science. Bayesian algorithms calculate probabilities of future events or observations based on prior knowledge. As we gain new knowledge, we feed that back into the equation, “updating our priors” and leading to increasingly accurate predictions. In this way, little by little, science nudges us closer to understanding the way the world really is.Gefter likes philosophy of science – some philosophy of science. She likes logic – some logic. “Philosophers of science were some of Judge Jones’s best resources in the Dover trial and they are some of our best resources as a society dealing with the consequences of science in our everyday lives,” she concluded. “Pigliucci is a perfect example.” For more on Bayesian induction, see “Bayesian Epistemology” at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, particularly section 6, “Potential Problems.”There are many names, issues and fallacies in these articles, too many to discuss in detail, but hopefully you latched onto some of them already. To whet your appetite, let’s return to a rhetorical projection theme we’ve used before (02/01/2007 commentary) that is not that unbelievable historically. The Darwinians are usurpers, who have overtaken the castle of science and driven the rightful owners out. They have taken over walls and monuments they did not build, leaving the founders and builders camped outside. The Darwin Party also took ownership of the army and propaganda machinery. Every time the rightful owners demand entry, the usurpers lob stinkbombs over the walls and laugh. Meanwhile, the Darwin Party propaganda machine keeps the peasants inside persuaded that they are the true owners. They set up a Sacred Tree in the temple shrine dedicated to King Charles, whom they parade regularly in his New Clothes at regular intervals with pomp and bombast. Anyone who steps out of line is quickly expelled and sent outside the walls. To maintain the illusion of scientific fairness, occasional parleys with the enemy are arranged, but these are carefully controlled such that the enemy is never given any real power or opportunity for rebuttal in the Party-controlled media, which carefully filter what the peasants are allowed to hear. But lately, the peasants have been seeing increasing anxiety on the part of their handlers. Whispers are going around that the New Clothes are not what they seem; messages from outside the wall are getting through that maybe they can trust their eyes after all. Simplistic? Perhaps. New Scientist has offered more nuanced material than this, but it is still very one-sided and filtered. Here’s Shermer: “We KNOW that evolution is a fact fact fact and the creationists are a bunch of narrow-minded, bigoted pseudoscientific simpletons who won’t go away no matter how much I wish they would, but for a moment, I’ll grant the slightest, remote possibility that they might have a grain of truth in some of the things they are saying, and if we stomp on them too hard, and they win the masses and turn on us, they might take revenge, which could hurt my retirement, so we’d better play nice and endure them and just try to listen to them and convince them, because the TRUTH is our only weapon.” Isn’t he just charming. Dr. Shermer, you loving little skeptic, you, tell us: where did truth come from? Did it evolve? If truth evolves, is it really the truth? Where did the Golden Rule come from? Did you find it in Origin of Species? If a rule evolves, is it really a rule? If a different rule can take its place tomorrow, was it ever golden? Suppose we do become the majority someday, and decide your kind are a danger to society, and should all be locked up. Explain on what moral grounds you should stop us other than survival of the fittest. Here’s Amanda Gefter, a materialist charismatic (04/11/2009): “Philosophy of science is wonderful – as long as I get to pick the philosophers that allow me to punch a creationist. Finding demarcation criteria between science and pseudoscience is hard – but Pigliucci is such a genius, he made it easy. He’s almost as great a philosopher of science as Judge John E. Jones. I never realized how easy it is. Give me a bag and let me write ‘explanatory framework’ on it, and give me another bag and let me write ‘Empty’ on it, and I get to decide which systems to put in one bag or the other. I don’t like intelligent design’s explanatory filter, so I’m going to put it into the Empty bag. I don’t like having to explain how chance works in Darwinism, so I’m going to dodge that and ask an I.D. person how God works. I don’t like having to explain Darwinist miracles of emergence, so I’m going to tease I.D. people by forcing them to tell how intelligent agents work. Of course, I don’t ask that of SETI people, so we’ll put them in the halfway house and call them ‘almost scientists’. But I digress. Back to our mission: let’s all follow the Yellow Bayes Road and we will someday reach the Wizard of Understanding!” Isn’t she just charming, Pigliucci tales and all. Thank goodness Fitzpatrick was there to bring us back to Kansas (12/05/2008).(Visited 48 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
7 February 2007Twenty-year-old South African Anton Haig moved into the top 100 of the official world golf rankings by winning the prestigious Johnnie Walker Classic at the Blue Canyon Country Club in Phuket at the weekend.His victory saw him join the likes of Ernie Els, Retief Goosen, Greg Norman, Tiger Woods and Nick Faldo as winners of the event. His impressive performance also captured the attention of many of the game’s top players and commentators, including Sky Sports’ respected Ewen Murray.Murray says he puts Haig in the John Daly class for driving distance. That’s quite a statement, but it is the kind of statement that will draw golf fans to take a look at the young South African’s game. After all, powering drives way, way down the fairway is the most eye-catching aspect of golf.European Ryder Cup star Darren Clarke, a regular visitor to South Africa, is equally impressed, if not more so, by Haig. He reckons Haig hits the ball “miles” and has “a great short game”.A future major winnerIn fact, Clarke feels Haig has it all and is a future major winner in the making.He’s not the only Ryder Cup player to laud the rising star. Both Lee Westwood and David Howell expressed the opinion that Haig will become a top-10 ranked player.Haig’s win in Phuket, the most prestigious of the four he has so far claimed in his short career, was as much a victory for his parents as it was for his Haig. While he was growing up his father took a job managing a farm so as to raise the funds to send young Anton to amateur tournaments. That kept dad away from home, but today he surely feels the sacrifice was worth it.Both Haig’s parents were in Thailand to witness him sink the birdie putt that won him the tournament. It also secured him a much sought after European Tour exemption until the end of 2009.Inspired by Els and GoosenIf Westwood and Howell are correct in their assessments that Haig will become a top-10 player, then he will be venturing into an area currently occupied by Ernie Els and Retief Goosen. The 20-year-old says he draws inspiration from the two South African major winners.Speaking after his victory at the Blue Canyon Country Club, he told reporters: “Ernie and Retief have been my heroes. They are awesome players and put a bit of ‘oomph’ for me to get to the top. They have great fighting spirit and never give up.”Growing up, says Haig, he eagerly followed their exploits, taking every opportunity to see them in the flesh when they played in South African events.Prior to the Johnnie Walker Classic, he had the opportunity to play a practice round with Els and Goosen, “What an experience!” he said. “I had never played with them before.”Els and Goosen impressedIt appears both the Big Easy and the Goose are equally impressed with Haig. After the Johnnie Walker Classic, Els predicted a big future for him, remarking on his booming drives, which he said are among the biggest in the game.“He’s very young, 20, and a big guy, even bigger than me. He hits it longer than I do. It’s a matter of getting experience and just playing,” said Els.Goosen, too, praised Haig’s driving ability, reckoning the young man powers the ball 20 to 30 yards further than he does. Goosen went on to remark that golf today is about length, and said once Haig gets that under control, “he’ll be good”. Coming from a man who is known for understating things, that is high praise.Goosen also commented on Haig’s positive, friendly approach to golf, noting that it is good for the game. The irony is that Haig described both Els and Goosen as down to earth. Yes, down to earth and brilliant golfers, much the same as he is.By breaking into the top 100 of the official world golf rankings, Haig became the seventh South African to crack the barrier, behind Els, Goosen, Trevor Immelman, Tim Clark, Rory Sabbatini and Charl Schwartzel. Want to use this article in your publication or on your website?See: Using SAinfo material
A flashy commercial tells you that a new gadget is the fastest that’s ever been created. It boggles the mind, how fast that thing is. And look, the company has boatloads of benchmark data to prove it!It turns out, that data is almost always bullshit. Recent research into the computer processor speed claims of top smartphones shows that most major gadget makers have been gaming standard benchmark tests. In the simplest of terms: they are cheating and the devices are not as fast as they say they are.Research by technology publications Ars Technica and AnandTech have shown that almost all major smartphone manufacturers have ways to make their smartphones look faster than they really are. Samsung, HTC, ASUS, LG, NVIDIA have all employed a technique in their devices that will register the presence of a benchmarking app and then dial up the device to maximum output to trick the test into thinking the device is faster than it would normally be. Of the tests done by AnandTech, only Apple and Google-owned Motorola do not try to game most popular benchmarking apps. Ars Technica reported earlier this week that Samsung’s Galaxy Note 3 was purposely tricking a benchmark app. The way Ars figured out Samsung’s trick was to take a popular benchmark test (called Geekbench 3) and monitor how it activated all four cores of Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 2.3 GHz processor when Geekbench 3 was running.Ars Technica also found that Samsung employed this technique with the processors (both its Exynos processor in overseas phones and the Snapdragon processor in the United States) with the flagship Galaxy S4 smartphone. Ars Technica was able to strip away the code of the Note 3 to find lines of Java in the device’s operating system that told it when to activate all four cores in the presence of benchmarking apps.AnandTech found that just about everybody else performs these types of tricks to make their smartphones and tablets seem faster. Authors Anand Lal Shimpi and Brian Klug note that chipmakers Intel and Qualcomm are likely against such optimization testing tricks and note that the decision to implement these benchmark cheats likely come from the manufacturers.Shimpi wrote:The hilarious part of all of this is we’re still talking about small gains in performance. The impact on our CPU tests is 0 – 5%, and somewhere south of 10% on our GPU benchmarks as far as we can tell. I can’t stress enough that it would be far less painful for the OEMs to just stop this nonsense and instead demand better performance/power efficiency from their silicon vendors. Whether the OEMs choose to change or not however, we’ve seen how this story ends. We’re very much in the mid-1990s PC era in terms of mobile benchmarks.Speeds & Feeds Blur The StorylineThe benchmark antics by smartphone manufacturers accomplishes very little except to make them look petty and fraudulent. As Shimpi notes, most of the speed improvements are minimal and getting caught only gives the companies negative press and consumer reactions. Apple understands this better than most companies. When it sells iPhones, it doesn’t say that it is faster than the competitor. It shows that you can connect with your friends, play great games and take pictures that record the moments of your life. The key for Apple is experience. Hence it is little surprise that Apple doesn’t play the same benchmarking games as HTC, Samsung and LG. It would be a surprise if Apple even considered it. Apple has its tricks to sell phones (Siri, TouchID), but basing its marketing on speeds and feeds is not one of them.Google and Motorola have their own gimmicks (Moto X “assembled” in the USA, “OK Google Now…”) but the smartphone manufacturer and its paternal overlord have also realized that reliability and device experience are more effective ways to sell their new phones. Yet, companies like Samsung and Microsoft (with their new Surface tablets) still don’t get it. It is better to tout the software, the ecosystem, the operating system to engender loyalty to the experience… not lie to consumers about how fast your phone may or may not be. Hardware informs that experience, but shouldn’t be the story. What it Takes to Build a Highly Secure FinTech … Claiming the “fastest” smartphone right now is high up on the list of marketing gimmicks that manufacturers employ. Samsung is generally the king of this type of practice, adding features that are trivial or hardly work that it can place in its commercials to show just how advanced it is. Power plus functionality and a coolness factor? That’s how computers (even pocket-sized smartphone computers) are sold. Speeds, feeds and specs are an important part of the tale for today’s smartphones. It is quite amazing to look at what type of hardware was running in smartphones in 2007 (including the original iPhone) and what is running now. RAM capability and CPU speeds are three to four times more robust than they were six years ago. Smartphones are now powerful, Internet-connected devices that we can take anywhere and through a variety of apps, do almost anything. The key is that users can experience much more with their devices than ever before.Why Apple Wins: It Sells Experience Informed By Hardware, Not Defined By It Tags:#Android#Apple#Google#HTC#LG#Samsung#smartphones The Rise and Rise of Mobile Payment Technology Related Posts Why IoT Apps are Eating Device Interfaces dan rowinski Role of Mobile App Analytics In-App Engagement
Move after move, hour after hour, Carlsen nursed a roughly one-pawn edge.2It’s common in chess to measure a player’s advantage in terms of “material,” or pieces remaining on the board. There’s a rough point system: pawns are worth 1 point, bishops and knights are 3, rooks are 5 and queens are 9. Move after move, hour after hour, Karjakin crafted his fortress. The siege would begin soon.But Carlsen eventually slipped, and the peanut gallery, reveling in laptop-aided hindsight, began to doubt his tactics. On his 45th move, Carlsen (black) faced this board. The French word for chess is échecs. The French term for Tuesday’s game at the World Chess Championship is déjà vu.On Monday, world No. 1 and defending champion Magnus Carlsen of Norway fought his challenger, world No. 9 Sergey Karjakin of Russia, in a sweeping 78-move, seven-hour classic worthy of Terrence Malick — a draw for the ages. On a gloomy Tuesday in lower Manhattan, the players sat down in front of 32 pieces and 64 squares and did it again.The result was a 94-move, six-hour-plus draw that kept the best-of-12 world championship match tied for yet another game. After four games and four consecutive draws, the grandmasters’ tally is now 2-2.1Wins are worth 1 point, draws are worth 1/2 a point for each player, and losses are worth 0 points. Whoever gets to 6.5 points first, wins.Harry Houdini was known to escape after being handcuffed, nailed into a wooden box and dumped into the East River. Sergey Karjakin should now be known for escaping in a suit jacket from a thick glass box just a block away from the East River — a box containing two chairs, a chess set and the brain of Magnus Carlsen.Tuesday’s game saw a familiar opening, one that’s becoming de rigueur in this match: the Ruy Lopez, in which each side plays its king’s pawn, each develops a knight, and white attacks black’s knight with a bishop. It’s been a staple in chess for over half a millennium because it develops pieces quickly and creates tension, and it’s been played in each of the last three championship games. In fact, each of the players’ first five moves in Tuesday’s Game 4 exactly matched their first five moves in Game 2. Nevertheless, Tuesday’s early board developed into a complex tapestry — both strategically and tactically rich — with no clear early advantage to either side. Not a single piece was captured until the 16th move.But soon after that capture, this latest game looked like it had slipped away from the Russian. On his 19th move, Karjakin, playing white, faced this position. He had just snuck his bishop into enemy territory, capturing a black pawn that had been camping on h6. The computer chess engine Stockfish screamed “Escape!” suggesting Karjakin bring the bishop back from whence it came, returning it to safety on c1. But Karjakin (with no access to a computer, of course) chose a more adventurous path. He captured black’s knight on c4 with his other bishop, essentially trading those two pieces, since black’s pawn could then easily capture the bishop. Neither the computers nor the human analysts liked this one bit.That move forced black to double up its pawns on what’s called the c-file, which is chess jargon for the c column on the board. Doubled pawns are usually a no-no, but the move benefited black in other ways. Robert Hess, a grandmaster and chess.com contributor, explained to me that it created a ton of space for Carlsen’s two bishops to operate and it opened up the b-file for either of black’s rooks to swoop down and attack. From then on, Carlsen’s momentum built, and for hours you couldn’t find anyone who wasn’t predicting a Carlsen victory. He looked unbeatable. He slid his pawn down a square, to f4. It didn’t look like much to me at first. But the online assemblage seemed to say “f4” in the same way a Red Sox fan might say “Bucky Dent.” Stockfish preferred sliding the bishop down to e6, pressuring white’s pawn. As Hikaru Nakamura, a top American player, explained on Twitter, that pawn move constipated the board, limiting the pieces’ ability to move (what chess types call “closing the position”). That in turn contributed to Karjakin’s fortress and denied black the dynamic board it needed to secure a victory.Some were blunter in their analyses than others. Even an acquaintance of mine, who was emailing to make plans to have coffee, had something to say. The email ended: “Also, re today: F4??”Over the next 50 moves — an endgame masterclass — bishops jockeyed for position, kings chased each other around the board, and pawns mostly stood frozen in fear. But eventually the siege ended. The fortress held. Another bloodless classic.Monday’s nearly seven-hour game may have taken its toll on both players, perhaps even contributing to the inaccuracies. Somewhere around move 17, Carlsen wandered away from the board and cameras captured him on the couch in his private player’s room, seemingly collecting himself: Mercifully, the players have a day off Wednesday. The match resumes Thursday afternoon, and I’ll be covering the rest of the games here and on Twitter.
The NFL lockout is in full swing, but Ohio State alumnus LaMonte Coleman is working to keep football on the field in Marion, Ohio. Coleman played running back at Division II Slippery Rock University in Slippery Rock, Pa., from 1992–94, but left college to pursue a professional career with the Pittsburgh Steelers and several Arena Football League teams. After retiring from professional football in 2005, Coleman assumed the roles of CEO and general manager of the Continental Indoor Football League’s Marion Blue Racers — but not before he came to OSU to finish his undergraduate education. Coleman credits his managerial career to the bachelor’s degree in sports leadership and sports humanities he received from OSU. “My degree got me into it,” he said. “It gave me the opportunity to understand sports management as a whole, including contract law, exercise science; it all mixes into one.” Rodney Swanigan, coach for the defunct Marion Mayhem of CIFL, tried to talk Coleman into coaching. “I said no,” Coleman said, “but he needed somebody with experience to help develop some of these young athletes.” Shortly after Coleman accepted a position on Swanigan’s staff, the Mayhem folded. Coleman’s chance to put his degree to work, and continue a tradition of football in Marion, proved valuable. “I got to see how the business was run,” he said. “I started thinking about ownership, and the rest is history.” Coleman then created a company called Run 42 Sports Group. He owns the Blue Racers and the Columbus Bills, a flag football team. Former Bowling Green quarterback Josh Harris came out of retirement to play for the Blue Racers. Harris, who spent time in the NFL, Canadian Football League and Arena Football League, said Coleman is pointing the team in the right direction. “We have a great group of guys that we are playing with and a great group of administrators,” Harris said. “(LaMonte) is a smart guy. He is a visionary.” First-year coach Ryan Terry, who played college football at Miami (Ohio), agreed with Harris. “It’s been a blast,” Terry said. “(LaMonte) has shown great guidance. I have learned a lot of things as far as business savvy.” The Blue Racers are 8-1 with one game remaining in the regular season, and soon will prepare for the playoffs, which begin Monday. Coleman said he is confident he has the right people in place and that the Blue Racers should stay in Marion for a while. “We are all using our experiences to be leaders in our separate positions,” he said. “It is definitely a treat for me.”
Then-senior forward Danica Deckard passes the ball during a game against Penn State Oct. 19, 2012, at Buckeye Varsity Field. OSU lost, 3-0.Credit: Courtesy of FacebookAfter back-to-back losses to top-10 squads, the Ohio State field hockey team will continue play away from home when it travels to Oxford to take on Miami (Ohio).Coming off a weekend of play in which the team held opponents to one goal each in both matches, the Buckeyes are ready to battle again Wednesday.Coach Anne Wilkinson said Miami will be coming after them hard on the field.“We, being Ohio State, have a lot of pressure put on us. Miami is going to be coming at us strong with everything they have, so we really need to win this in-state game,” she said.Wilkinson said time in practice has been split between working on defense and offense equally.“We worked a lot on our defense and covering the ball and then we would switch and work with the offense,” Wilkinson said. “We just need to focus on meshing the two together and make sure the defense doesn’t forget what we worked on when we switch to offense.”Senior midfield and co-captain Nora Murer pointed out some of the areas the team has been struggling with, including their inability to capitalize on penalty corners.“We practiced before and after practice on our corners which I would say is still a weak spot of ours,” Murer said.Senior midfield and co-captain Arielle Cowie said she is coming into the game expecting a win, and wants to see the team live up to its potential.“I am looking forward to winning,” Cowie said. “Last weekend we played so well together. We didn’t finish our chances but those two games just showed the potential that we have and I think coming out tomorrow we are going into that game and we know this is our game.”The main focus is on being a team that works together for the full 70 minutes, Cowie said.“We are just going to focus on really playing together and that’s all we need to do because individually, we have it but we just need to put it together and score on our chances,” Cowie said.Murer said if the Buckeyes continue to play the way they did this past weekend, the team will have no trouble securing the win against Miami.“We just need to really play on the same level from the weekend and we will be good for (Wednesday’s) game,” Murer said.The game is scheduled to begin Wednesday at 5:30 p.m. The Buckeyes are then set to travel to face Kent State Sept. 24 at 4 p.m.