Amazingly you can already make a saving on the new Apple AirPods

first_imgWe didn’t expect to see a discount on the RRP this soon after release, so snap these up before the £10 voucher disappears.For more amazing offers, follow us @TrustedDealsUKWe may earn a commission if you click a deal and buy an item. That’s why we want to make sure you’re well-informed and happy with your purchase, so that you’ll continue to rely on us for your buying advice needs. Sign up for the Mobile NewsletterSign Up Please keep me up to date with special offers and news from Goodtoknow and other brands operated by TI Media Limited via email. You can unsubscribe at any time. The new Apple Airpods have barely been out long but, courtesy of Amazon, you can already make a tidy saving on them.Both new models of the Apple AirPods are currently available with £10 off – yes, that even includes the model including the wireless charging case. We didn’t expect to see a discount this soon after release, so snap these up before the automatic voucher disappears. Apple AirPods dealApple AirPods with Charging Case (Latest Model)Grab the 2019 Apple AirPods with a surprising £10 discount (applied automatically at checkout).Amazon|Save £10|Now £149View DealNow £149|Save £10|AmazonApple AirPods with Wireless Charging Case (Latest Model)Alternatively, pick up the model including a handy wireless charging case with the same £10 saving.Amazon|Save £10|Now £189View DealNow £189|Save £10|Amazon Deals This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.center_img We’d also like to send you special offers and news just by email from other carefully selected companies we think you might like. Your personal details will not be shared with those companies – we send the emails and you can unsubscribe at any time. Please tick here if you are happy to receive these messages.By submitting your information, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy. The Apple AirPods, much like the iPod and iPhone, have become instantly recognisable. Have a look around on your commute and you’re bound to see someone wearing them. They were almost impossible to get hold of after Christmas.The new AirPods model are more of a refinement than a complete reinvention, but ‘if it ain’t broke’ as they say. Inside is a newer H1 chip, offering better reliability and support for ‘Hey Siri’ voice commands. There’s also a new status light that shows you the remaining battery life in the charging case.On the topic of the charging case, you can also opt for the slightly pricier model that includes a wireless charging case. This uses the same Qi wireless charging seen in the latest iPhones, meaning you can just pop it on a compatible wireless charger to top up the charge. No more faffing around with Lightning cables.We gave the new Apple AirPods an impressive 4/5 review and continued to be impressed at just how convenient AirPods are if you’re an iOS or Mac user: “Connectivity remains one of the key selling points of the AirPods; it’s still absolutely rock-solid. Your iPhone or iPad will automatically detect the AirPods when you pop open the case for the first time, joining your iCloud account and being available on all your Apple devices when you’re connected.”Our review concluded: “If you’re coming to AirPods for the first time, and you’re deep inside Apple’s ever-growing ecosystem then there isn’t a better pair of wireless earphones out there – if they fit and stay in your ears, that is. The connection and setup is flawless and the battery life excellent.Even if you’re an Android user then the AirPods remain a good buy, even if you do miss out on that easy pairing and Siri functionality.” Apple AirPods dealApple AirPods with Charging Case (Latest Model)Grab the 2019 Apple AirPods with a surprising £10 discount (applied automatically at checkout).Amazon|Save £10|Now £149View DealNow £149|Save £10|AmazonApple AirPods with Wireless Charging Case (Latest Model)Alternatively, pick up the model including a handy wireless charging case with the same £10 saving.Amazon|Save £10|Now £189View DealNow £189|Save £10|Amazon Show More Unlike other sites, we thoroughly review everything we recommend, using industry standard tests to evaluate products. We’ll always tell you what we find. We may get a commission if you buy via our price links.Tell us what you think – email the Editorlast_img read more

Waymo selling its custombuilt LIDAR sensor to robotics security customers outside of

first_imgIn addition to operating a Lyft/Uber competitor, commercial trucks, and possibly licensing self-driving tech to carmakers, Waymo has another way to monetize its decade-long work on autonomous vehicles (AV). The Alphabet division will begin selling LIDAR sensors to robotic, security, and other companies that don’t directly compete with it. more…The post Waymo selling its custom-built LIDAR sensor to robotics, security customers ‘outside’ of AV appeared first on Electrek. Source: Charge Forwardlast_img

Curtiss Announces Pricing For New Electric Zeus

first_img Author Liberty Access TechnologiesPosted on April 10, 2019Categories Electric Vehicle News If this all sounds sexy to you, including the German-engineering price point, you’ll be glad to know that Curtiss is now taking online reservations for the Zeus with the promise of a delivery in early 2020 in exchange for a $6,000 deposit. If you end up buying one, you should tell us, we’ll definitely want to talk with you! Source: Electric Vehicle News Curtiss Motorcycles Fully-Electric Zeus Prototype – In Depth Reservations are now open!A little less than a year ago, Curtiss Motorcycles surfaced out of the blue armed with the prototype of a new electric motorcycle, the first to show its face under the new brand. The Zeus, presented at the 2018 Quail Motorcycle Gathering, looked good on paper, but a production timeline had yet to be announced. We now know when Curtiss is expecting the first Zeus to roll out of production and we have a price!More E-Bikes In November 2018, Curtiss Motorcycles took the floor at EICMA with two variations of the Zeus: the Café Racer is based on the original prototype and is a modern take on the features take make a bike a proper café racer, including the flat saddle and the clip ons. The Bobber on the other hand introduces a futuristic image of the 50s style with swooping lines and the typical tail-less silhouette that ends on a spring-mounted saddle. Both electric models are now announced with a purchase price of $60,000.While Curtiss doesn’t reveal any details regarding the battery and electric motor that power the Zeus, it however proudly boasts its estimated 280-mile range, a number that could become the highest on the market if it remains unchanged once the bike goes into production. Power is rated at 190 hp and 145 lb-ft of torque for 475lb—not exactly a lightweight. The modular chassis is made of machined aluminum with a carbon fiber fuselage. Support is provided at the front by an adjustable girder while at the back, and an aluminum cantilever sinwgarm with a monoshock at the back. Both models are equipped with 17-inch wheels fitted with Pirelli Diablo Rosso rubbers while stopping power is provided by a set of Beringer front and back discs and calipers. Curtiss Teases Zeus Electric Motorcycle In Video Reminding Us To “Do It” Curtiss Zeus Concept Becomes A Bobber And A Cafe Racerlast_img read more

MercedesBenz unveils special EQC Edition 1886 electric SUV

first_imghttps://youtu.be/a80dwn_R-mcThe post Mercedes-Benz unveils special EQC Edition 1886 electric SUV appeared first on Electrek. At the New York Auto show today, Mercedes-Benz unveiled the EQC Edition 1886, a special early edition of the electric SUV that will hit the market later this year. more…Subscribe to Electrek on YouTube for exclusive videos and subscribe the podcast. Source: Charge Forwardlast_img

Tesla Sentry mode catches another act of vandalism on camera

first_imgA few months after launching, Tesla Sentry mode is already proven to be quite useful and not only to prevent break-ins, but it now catches a bunch of different incidents on video.In the latest example, Sentry mode filmed two men keying a Model 3. more…Subscribe to Electrek on YouTube for exclusive videos and subscribe to the podcast.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqMH4mh99DcThe post Tesla Sentry mode catches another act of vandalism on camera appeared first on Electrek. Source: Charge Forwardlast_img

Big debate should there be transfer windows for football managers

first_img Twitter Blackburn got special dispensation for Paul Ince to manage them, so is it any wonder that without the qualifications he has failed?Does a coaching bagde make a good manager? Could I if i was so inclined work towards my coaching badges, would this therefore make me a better manager than Ince or Southgate or do their years in the game actually count for nothing? Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Facebook First published on Tue 16 Dec 2008 19.13 EST stealthbanana thinks that we’ll see more and more of the contracts like kinnear’s so clubs can see if the manager will do well enough to “deserve” a proper contract.another reason a window wdnt work is imagine if a few games into the season its obvious a huge mistake has been made – sammy lee for example – then the club has to stick until jan cos theyre not allowed a new manager and they end up bottom with 3 points for 4 months or something.who wins then?the managers, when fired, receive a nice big pay packet so f**k them!as usual the ppl up top get away with their mistakes – appointing sheet managers – and still manage to keep their cash.capitalism in action folks. Twitter 17 Dec 2008 13:31 0 1 Facebook Share on Facebook Share Twitter 17 Dec 2008 20:51 2 Soccer Since you’re here… Reply 0 1 Threads collapsed Share on Twitter Report Share on WhatsApp Twitter sleepwalker comments (28)Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion. All newest Report | Pick Facebook Share Reply Report Reply expanded Support The Guardian Report Facebook Share Share 0 1 View more comments | Pick Share on Twitter Would be interesting to see it used for one season and see how it goes. If it was in effect this season, would Spurs be out of the relegation zone, perhaps, Newcastle would be mid-table and dreaming of Europe, Portsmouth might be looking forward to spring in Europe still. The joy of Harry Redknapp’s sudden appointment wouldn’t occur anymore, as it would be speculated about for weeks therefore becoming inevitably dull news when it would finally happen. Teams facing relegation would have to really contemplate whether the current manager is the one to keep them up, or risk a change. Nonetheless a thought-provoking idea. 17 Dec 2008 21:20 Share on Twitter kayakking Share on Facebook NickStyles Reply Facebook unthreaded Metatone Facebook manasota”…they should not be allowed to replace him with a manager already in work at another club.”They can’t unless that manager and his club agree to release him. If they do then it’s their own fault – they are not required to accept an offer for their manager.If there was a transfer window then managers would have to be allowed to negotiate with others in the last 6 months of their reign – like players are allowed to. That would be a conflict of interests. Let’s say in January Martin O Neill is offered the Arsenal job starting in August. His current club are in 4th place and his future club in 5th. Would Martin pick the reserves to allow his new club to leap frog them and steal a Champions League place that he would take charge of? Could Villa take a 6 month risk on a manger who will be leaving? 0 1 Report Report Share on Facebook Reply Facebook Facebook 100 17 Dec 2008 15:41 Facebook Reply Share As long as there’s no formal obstacle preventing a Premiership manager from managing every single Premiership club during a single season, the Premier League will be a joke. Reply Share on Messenger Share on Twitter There is an obvious yes and no argument here.Yes, a club should be able to sack a failing manager.But no, they should not be allowed to replace him with a manager already in work at anotherclub. Disrupting your own season is fine – but disrupting someone else’s as a result is completely unfair.Thus Spurs could sack Ramos, but not take Redknapp from Portsmouth. Clubs acting in such a way, would be able to pick from the always large pool of ‘resting’ managers, either as permanent replacements, or as interims like Newcastle with Kinnear. An added advantage of the latter is you get to look at a new manager witout commitment and another compensation payout. So managers like Redknapp would have to wait for the end of the season before jumping ship – which is fair on their current club. The only exception is where a club is happy for its manager to leave anyway. Share on Twitter Twitter Twitter miroljub pierrelemer 17 Dec 2008 15:09 17 Dec 2008 18:01 17 Dec 2008 20:49 Share on Facebook Twitter Share on Facebook Share Share on Twitter The two viewpoints both make valid arguments but I would call in question several things in Nick Illingsworth’s section. Firstly Spurs had known for months that Berbatov wanted to move to Manchester United and had more than adequate time to find a replacement. Although it can be argued that in the case of a player of Berbatov’s quality it is very difficult to find a true replacement I still think that it was more the fault of the Spurs board and sporting director David Comolli that they failed to replace him. Secondly in the example of Nigel Pearson what was his reward for keeping Southampton up? To be replaced over the summer. Lastly although this may seem a bit harsh but I think it is true Southampton are pretty far from being a well run club. 0 1 Report Twitter Share on Pinterest 0 1 Facebook Report Reply Twitter Report Just a quick thought….I don’t think there should be a manager transfer window. If a club employs somebody who has the appropriate QUALIFICATIONS to manage in the premier league then it is not a risk. I certainly wouldn’t employ a manager to manage a premier league club (if I was a chairman of one) if he didn’t have the qualifications to manager a premier league team. This whole Blackburn should be an example to not take these risks. Anyhow, bye. Facebook | Pick Twitter Share on Facebook Reply Report Blackburn got special dispensation for Paul Ince to manage them, so is it any wonder that without the qualifications he has failed?I’m not sure that’s really the point (I think Roy Keane had all the qualifications going, and he “failed,” too).Blackburn got special dispensation to select Ince when any number of qualified managers were available, so part of the deal should have been that they be forced to stick with him for at least a season.It might make clubs think more carefully in future about going for a big-name former player with no managerial experience, in some kind of attention-seeking act. Share on LinkedIn | Pick Share on Facebook I dunno but ….If I was Sam AlIardyce i’d be gutted to find myself at Blackburn.After a long and (given the size of the club) very successfull tenure at Bolton he’d played all his cards right and was able to leave from a position of real strength taking himself onwards and upwards to a bigger, wealthier club with greater potential. What a shame he picked Newcastle, a club run by total idiots. A year on he finds himself at Blackburn and what progress has his hard work and consistent success (Bolton as a steady top ten club) granted him? Pretty much bugger all. Blackburn is, at best, a sideways move from Bolton. Gutted.I’m not a particular admirer of “Big” Sam but I do like to think that promising English managers will have some chance to better themselves and progress to bigger clubs – it’s the only way we’ll ever get an Englishman in charge at a “Big 4” club, which quite possibly means the only way we’ll get to see an Englishman managing in the Champions League (no, FC Twente don’t count) which is almost certainly the only way an Englishman can properly qualify himself for the national team job.I think Newcastle were mad to get rid of him, he wasn’t even doing that badly and they’d of comfortably outstripped the “success” they’ve enjoyed under Keegan and Kinnear if they’d of just given him a chance. The chairman should of had the balls to stand up to his supporters, telling them to excercise a little patience and let the manager build a team. Unfortunately the club was mismanaged to an almost comical degree and Allardyce fell foul of a crowd who honestly thought bringing back Keegan was a good idea!?!It’s a minor tragedy and although Allardyce himself can inspire mixed emotions i’m inclined to feel pretty sorry for him on this one. If he’d of had a little more luck, slightly better timing or a chairman less ludicrously incompetent he might now find himself at a club with the fan base and finances to join Villa et all on the heels of the big 4. As it is he’s back in the basement with an increasingly impecunious Blackburn and no better of than if he’d of just stayed at Bolton, I think the success he created at Bolton deserves better and it’s a shame he wasn’t really given the chance. Share on Twitter Reply 0 1 Velkyal Share on Twitter namportnawak Share on Facebook Facebook Reply Facebook 17 Dec 2008 21:06 Twitter 17 Dec 2008 19:06 Facebook Share Report Share on Facebook 17 Dec 2008 16:46 0 1 [Sorry to post twice in succession, but since we can’t edit posts…]I realise Ince had managerial experience, by the way – I’m thinking of the likes of Shearer in my point above, and Zola, who had little actual experience before landing the West Ham job. recommendations Twitter Facebook themarcusgarby Report Big Debate? More like ‘Silly Question’.How about “should clubs, players and coaching staff honour their contracts”? Reason (optional) Report | Pick Report Share on Facebook 18 Dec 2008 0:40 17 Dec 2008 16:41 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Facebook Share Reply Interista Twitter Share on Facebook 17 Dec 2008 18:09 Report Transfer windows would mean dead men walking. Managers effectively replaced, but kept in the job until the window arrives Reply Share Report Tue 16 Dec 2008 19.13 EST 50 Twitter | Pick Big debate: should there be transfer windows for football managers? cable1973 Report Shares00 Share on Twitter Share on Twitter Share on Facebook collapsed 17 Dec 2008 22:50 YesKevin McCarraChief football correspondent of the GuardianOver the past two generations we have developed a conviction that the manager is the key figure at a club or a country. Think of the awe in which we now hold Fabio Capello. At its most absurd level, we behave as if a footballer who has scored a wonderful winner is the mere proxy of the person with the expensive coat in the technical area. By and large, though, we are correct to see these people as essential to the well-being of clubs and their fans.It is almost beyond the imagination to picture anyone other than Sir Alex Ferguson dictating team policy at Old Trafford. Speaking of football grounds, the Emirates would never have come into existence if Arsène Wenger had not transformed Arsenal into a entirely new club that still, somehow, honours its heritage. These individuals are feted and well paid, as they should be.Given the status we grant them it is nonsensical that they can hop off the pedestal whenever the spirit moves them. If they carry out their duties properly they are likely to be more influential than all but the very greatest talents in their squad, so why should they have a freedom of movement denied the most humdrum footballer?They are typically under a contract of employment, but that does not ensure they will remain. In practice, they can resign and leave before too long. There is no guarantee that they will not relocate a short distance and start work for a rival. When clubs are expending so much money, they do not deserve to be put at such a risk.If their impact is at least the equal of a player’s, then they, too, should only depart in the same transfer windows. It is contemptuous towards fans to sell them season tickets without any assurance that a potentially great leader will not stay in place for a significant stretch. It is a kind of thinking that belongs to the days when the manager was a mere flunky for the board.With the status that is now enjoyed must come responsibilities. Trust is placed in them, large wages are expended on them and, very often, vast transfer budgets are under their control. Continuity is the minimum to be demanded in return. A pedant might complain about restraint of trade, but the integrity of football itself is tarnished when a departing manager tacitly mocks the loyalty of supporters who could never change sides.Some freedoms are essential morally and legally, of course, and it would be perverse not to grant managers their wish in a transfer window of sorts, although it would be helpful if there was only one such period in each campaign. Managers, for their part, could then argue forcibly that no sackings should be allowed until the season is over.NoNick IllingsworthChairman of the Saints Trust and a shareholder in SouthamptonA football club, like any other business, should be free to take action if something is going wrong, especially as the financial implications of relegation can be huge. Under Paul Ince, Blackburn Rovers found themselves firmly in the relegation zone: would it have been fair on the directors to keep him in a job until a managerial transfer window?Unfortunately, managers lose the dressing room all the time. If you’ve had a disastrous start to the season and the players have lost faith by September it’s very hard to justify keeping a manager on for another few months. At a well-run football club you’ve got to deal with problems as they arise, you can’t just leave them and hope things will get better. Similarly, if players like, trust and respect a manager but know he has agreed to join another team, how will that affect them?If a manager does agree to join another club before the transfer window, there are other permutations to think about. For example, if I was manager of Southampton and I knew I was going to be working for Liverpool by the time January came round, I’d have one eye on planning who I’d be spending my £60m on in the new year.A transfer window for managers could also leave clubs incredibly short-handed. For example, when Dimitar Berbatov decided to leave Tottenham for Manchester United in the summer, Spurs had very little time to sign a replacement. This wasn’t a complete disaster as they had other players to fall back on. The same isn’t the case with managers. If a club is unable to get a new manager before the window closes then who takes charge of the team? Even if you do get a replacement in time, they’re not always satisfactory. At Southampton, when George Burley left to take up the reins for the Scotland team we put in a temporary management duo of John Gorman and Jason Dodd. After three weeks it became quite clear they weren’t up to the job and we were able to bring in Nigel Pearson, who eventually saved us from relegation to League One.Managers also tend to take their staff with them when they leave a club. Are the coaches and the physios and other vital parts of a club’s set-up covered by a managerial transfer window?There’s an argument that clubs are becoming more and more unstable with the constant churn of managers, but surely it’s more unstable for a club to have a manager who is not up to the job. And bear in mind, just because a manager is sacked by a club, it doesn’t mean he won’t be a success elsewhere. Gordon Strachan went from being sacked at Coventry to being an incredibly popular manager at Southampton and Celtic. | Pick Share on Facebook | Pick Facebook | Pick Share on Twitter Reply Reply Reply Interista WuvWoo Share BrazilBranch Share on Facebook Loading comments… Trouble loading? Reuse this content,View all comments > oldest 0 1 I don’t see why not when it comes to managers already under contract with other clubs. If you need to change manager in the meantime, then find one out of work, perhaps only until the window opens. You can do this with players so why not managers? Share on Facebook Report Share Share via Email Facebook stealthbanana Topics Share on Facebook Surely a better idea would be to insist on the minimum qualifications being stricly upheld? Blackburn got special dispensation for Paul Ince to manage them, so is it any wonder that without the qualifications he has failed? The precarious nature of most clubs is a more pressing issue however, changing managers is not about an inability to take a team to “the next level” but rather to ensure that the club makes enough money by staying in the PL – until the gap between the PL and the Championship is closed then we will see more and more clubs chopping and changing managers. 0 1 DaveFC Share Twitter Twitter Share Facebook azphil Kevin McCarra and Nick Illingsworth | Pick 17 Dec 2008 20:27 | Pick | Pick Share Reply dothestrand Share on Twitter DiMatteo Facebook Share on Twitter NickStyles”Clubs… could simply bring in someone new and appoint them to another position, leaving the current manager nominally in charge but making none of the decisions.”This is technically what happens in some cases. If the manager refuses to accept the boot he may be placed on “gardening leave”. This means they have been relieved of their role but as a contract cannot be terminated without mutual consent they remain an employee of the club who is being paid a full wage to do nothing.Big Sam is currently enjoying the easy life at the expense of Newcastle, Roberto Mancini is the 2nd highest paid manager in Italy even though he doesn’t do any work as he remains an employee of Inter while Jose does his job and Sven was being paid by the English FA long after he was relieved of duties as England manager. In these instances the manger cannot do any other similar work as it would break the contract they are under, so when they take another job it terminates the previous one – hence why many are in no rush to get back in to management.Even when the manager does accept the sack they usually do so with a nice compensation package that is a figure somewhere between what they’d get signing on down the DSS and the amount of wages they will miss out from the remainder of their contract. It tends to lean closer to the latter. 18 Dec 2008 2:56 0 1 Share … we have a small favour to ask. The Guardian will engage with the most critical issues of our time – from the escalating climate catastrophe to widespread inequality to the influence of big tech on our lives. At a time when factual information is a necessity, we believe that each of us, around the world, deserves access to accurate reporting with integrity at its heart.More people are reading and supporting The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism than ever before. And unlike many news organisations, we have chosen an approach that allows us to keep our journalism accessible to all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford. But we need your ongoing support to keep working as we do.Our editorial independence means we set our own agenda and voice our own opinions. Guardian journalism is free from commercial and political bias and not influenced by billionaire owners or shareholders. This means we can give a voice to those less heard, explore where others turn away, and rigorously challenge those in power.We need your support to keep delivering quality journalism, to maintain our openness and to protect our precious independence. Every reader contribution, big or small, is so valuable. Support The Guardian from as little as $1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank you. Share I think the article misses the point of the transfer window entirely. It’s not there to stop clubs getting rid of players when they play badly; it’s there to stop clubs buying up the best players in the world 2 weeks before a Champions League final. That situation never happened but there was a few examples of teams doing well late into the season then buying good players from clubs with nothing left to play for.It was brought in to stop unfair pilfering of players and maintain fair play.No club gets to March with a chance of winning trophies and think it’s a good time to get rid of their manager for a more glamorous one. Clubs only sack managers when things are going that bad. Managers have their own protection – financially at least – in their contracts.I don’t think forcing clubs to keep managers would ever work. A bad player can be benched or sent to the reserves but a bad manager cannot.Blackburn probably shouldn’t have given Ince the job until he had a bit more experience but Ince himself should also have been a little wiser and not taken it. Once he took the job it seems silly to only give him 6 months though but I’m sure he’ll be well compensated, what damage it’s done to his reputation though is another thing entirely. Share via Email | Pick Share Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter The discussion seems to omit that we effectively now have two main windows for managerial appointments. The off-season and December.The enforcement of player transfer windows means that the Board has to pull the trigger in December, or a new manager will not have any chance to change the playing staff. If not then, there’s usually few candidates around until the off season.There will always be the odd team who make a change in desperation in October or February, trying to stave off relegation, but not that many, so I’m not sure a window would make a lot of difference. And those that do usually have a pretty good case for doing so.Of course, what I’ve written points up that any managerial transfer window would need to be ahead of the player window, but again that doesn’t seem to come up in the discussion. Report I agree Stealth.On the above.This arguement is irrelevant as it will never happen anyway, the clubs have too much to lose. 17 Dec 2008 20:32 0 1 Twitter Share on Facebook namportnawak Reply Share Facebook 0 1 | Pick Facebook Interista Sportblog 0 1 | Pick | Pick Share Facebook Twitter Report 17 Dec 2008 19:05 Share Reply stealthbanana Soccer Share on Twitter manasota It would be difficult to enforce this idea I feel. Clubs unhappy with their manager could simply bring in someone new and appoint them to another position, leaving the current manager nominally in charge but making none of the decisions. Email (optional) 0 1 0 1 MrMondypops Share on Twitter | Pick Report Twitter Share on Facebook Reply mirosurely you dont disagree? I could have sworn this suggestion had your name all over it?! that wonderful “fish” humour of yours and all…… :)GU must be out of ideas…. Reply Reply Facebook Order by oldest Report Report | Pick Share on Twitter Facebook 17 Dec 2008 11:37 Sign in or create your Guardian account to recommend a comment As some one blogged yesterday, it makes sense to have a managerial transfer window because clubs would think long and hard about appointing a manager. I still think Paul Ince didn’t have enough time….but there you go.On the flipside, if you are unhappy with a player you can drop him and the then sell him in the transfer window……that is not possible with the manager…Also players can also be sacked (mutual termination, etc.) whenwe are nowhere near the transfer window…..it is not unheard of. Both sides make valid points but clubs don’t usually transfer their managers to other clubs….they sack them…..if the job they have set out to do isn’t completed then they should be sacked….but i doubt clubs have 20 game objectives….they have end of the season objectives….don’t they? Share on Facebook Share Share on Facebook Twitter Share on Twitter | Pick 0 1 17 Dec 2008 16:45 curiouslypersistent Share on Twitter 1 THE BIG DEBATE – Should the media decide which managers get fired and which keep their jobs? 0 1 Share Show 25 0 1 | Pick Report Share on Facebook Report Share Sportblog 0 1 | Pick This is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. 17 Dec 2008 23:44 Share on Facebook Share Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Share 25 0 1 Share on Twitter curiouslypersistent. Spot on.The clubs would simply put the manager on “Garden Leave” and ship in the new guy under he guise of first team coach and away we go.A board of directors who failed to fire an under performing manager in this day and age would be derelict in their duty to the club. The financial consequences of relegation are to dire to run that risk. Also many clubs are public quoted companies and directors have legal obligations to their shareholders. Failure to act would make them liable to legal remedies. 2 0 1 Share on Twitter 0 1 | Pick Reply | Pick | Pick 0 1 Share on Facebook 0 1 Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Twitter 17 Dec 2008 19:57 Comments 28 Close report comment form 17 Dec 2008 19:05 Reply 17 Dec 2008 14:18 1 Twitter Sorry there was an error. Please try again later. If the problem persists, please contact Userhelp Share on Twitter Please select Personal abuse Off topic Legal issue Trolling Hate speech Offensive/Threatening language Copyright Spam Other Report Reply 17 Dec 2008 19:22 Share on Twitter Share on Twitterlast_img read more

UK steps forward to tackle global antimicrobial resistance

first_imgMay 26 2018With 10 million people a year projected to die from antibiotic-resistant infections by 2050, it’s important that all partners, including the pharmaceutical industry, step up and work together to tackle this issue.Increasingly, governments at a national and international level, in partnership with NGOs and industry, are focused on how we can partner on a sustained, coordinated response to the global health threat posed by AMR.The global pharmaceutical industry is at the forefront of leading action to address antimicrobial resistance and the UK has historically been a leading advocate for greater collaboration and greater focus on finding solutions.This week sees yet further welcome attention by the government to put the UK ahead in its commitment to tackling the issue and marks the anticipated next step in our global fight against AMR.On Tuesday, the government announced £30 million worth of funding to fight global AMR, to be delivered through 4 new projects as part of the Global AMR Innovation Fund (GAMRIF).Professor Dame Sally Davies, England’s Chief Medical Officer, said that the GAMRIF investments would aim to “protect the world’s most vulnerable and tackle AMR where the burden of infection is greatest.” She reiterated the government’s commitment to a collaborative approach to the issue saying she’s “pleased that the UK will be working in partnership with a range of leading organizations to deliver vital research activities.”Then, on Wednesday, the Department for Health and Social Care confirmed that AMR would feature on its new single department plan and form an essential part of the government’s domestic efforts to address the rise of, and find solutions for, antimicrobial resistance.Today, the Health & Social Care Committee has launched an inquiry into AMR and will be seeking evidence on the progress of the Government to date in responding to the challenge of AMR.Related StoriesFinger-prick blood test could help prevent unnecessary antibiotic prescribing for patients with COPDAntibiotic combination effective against drug-resistant PseudomonasOlympus Europe and Cytosurge join hands to accelerate drug development, single cell researchThe Committee will be asking what results have been delivered by the UK AMR 2013-2018 strategy and asking for evidence to help inform the key actions and priorities for the Government’s next AMR strategy, due to be published at the end of this year.The impact of these announcements mustn’t be underestimated. The pharmaceutical industry has always argued that AMR is a complex, global public health issue, and that no single solution that will solve.We’re playing our part: in recent years, industry has increased investment in research into infectious diseases. There are currently 40 antimicrobials in late stage development and five vaccines in clinical development aimed at bacteria classified as urgent threats by the US Centre for Disease Control.But, we know there is an urgent need to scale up this research and create an environment that encourages and supports antibiotic development. It needs the right mechanisms in place for both funding development and reimbursement for availability (rather than routine use).Infectious diseases need to be treated, and when antibiotics are used appropriately, infections are effectively treated. Our members are working hard to support the appropriate use campaigns, and stewardship plans to ensure that we safeguard our existing supply of antibiotics and use the right antibiotic at the right time to prevent resistance developing.There’s more we need to do, but the announcements this week signal the UK Government’s commitment to taking AMR seriously. As an industry, #WeWontRest until the complex challenge of antimicrobial resistance is solved. Source:http://abpi.org.uk/last_img read more

Russias Science Reform Czar on US Sanctions List

As part of the U.S. government’s attempt to inflict a cost on Russia for annexing the Crimean Peninsula of Ukraine, the Treasury Department yesterday slapped sanctions on 16 Russian government officials, freezing their assets and making it a crime for U.S. citizens to engage in financial transactions with them. The official overseeing Russian President Vladimir Putin’s efforts to reform Russian science made the list.Andrei Fursenko served as Russia’s science minister from 2004 to 2012, during which time he advocated reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) and what he called in an interview with Science in 2010 a “greater integration between research and education.” The reform drive got under way in earnest last year—long after Fursenko left the ministry. It has included merging RAS with Russia’s medical and agricultural academies and creating a new agency to oversee the combined academies and their assets. Russian science watchers credit Fursenko, now an aide to Putin, as the key figure behind the reforms. He’s the “principal architect,” says one.Fursenko’s connection to Putin goes back to the early 1990s, when the two St. Petersburg natives acquired dachas on Komsomol’skoye Lake that later became part of a gated community of luxury summer homes. Jokes about the “lake cooperative” have been circulating for years, says one Russian analyst. Another member of the “cooperative” who landed on the sanctions list is Yuri Kovalchuk. Known as Putin’s “personal banker,” Kovalchuk, like Fursenko, trained as a physicist. They worked together at the Ioffe Physical Technical Institute in St. Petersburg, and both left the institute in 1991. Kovalchuk is now the chairman of the board and the biggest shareholder of Rossiya Bank—the only entity named to the Treasury’s sanctions list yesterday. Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Email Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country read more

Trumps EPA has blocked agency grantees from serving on science advisory panels

first_img Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee provides technical guidance specifically related to air pollution standards, such as questions about the potential health effects of different pollution levels.  The Scientific Advisory Board, a panel of approximately 45 scientists, examines key scientific issues related to EPA regulations, and produces reports telling EPA what the current state of the science is. In recent years, that has included review of agency assessments of toxic chemicals, fracking’s effects on drinking water, and the use of models to measure the costs and benefits of air pollution regulations. Trump’s EPA has blocked agency grantees from serving on science advisory panels. Here is what it means The new head of the scientific counselors panel is Paul Gilman, an executive at Covanta, a New Jersey company that handles waste, including incinerating waste to produce energy. He worked at EPA during former President George W. Bush’s administration as the agency’s science adviser.  It was previously led by Deborah Swackhamer, a professor at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis who studies toxic chemicals in the environment. The Board of Scientific Counselors, with an executive committee of about 20 people, works more intimately with agency scientists, advising the agency’s Office of Research and Development on its research programs. “Pruitt’s actions today are the height of hypocrisy. He is trying to gaslight Americans into believing that industry-funded scientists can offer EPA impartial advice, while those with EPA research grants are biased.” —Steven Hamburg, chief scientist of Environmental Defense Fund in Washington, D.C., and a former EPA Science Advisory Board member “I think this has a potential consequence of removing the best and the brightest from the deliberations on the nation’s most pressing environmental science and public health issues.” —Tom Burke, epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, and former EPA science adviser and past member of EPA Science Advisory Board​ “The move to remove scientists with EPA funding is, simply put, scientific censorship. He [Pruitt] is applying this directive in the name of ethics, when in fact he is only applying it to independent academic scientists and not to industry, who may in fact have a much greater conflict of interest. Current EPA ethics practices do not allow a scientist to comment or advise on a subject they are funded on, so he this directive is totally unnecessary and clearly political, not ethical. By doing this, he is ensuring a board that will back up his very selective use of science that is used to support his policies—he does not want and is eliminating independent science advice.” – Deborah Swackhamer, former chair of EPA Science Advisory Board and chair of the EPA Board of Scientific Counselors until replaced by new Pruitt appointee. Professor at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis and expert in toxic chemical exposure Email What exactly did Pruitt do?Pruitt announced a new policy, effective immediately, restricting who is eligible to serve on agency advisory panels. It bans scientists from sitting on the committees while they are receiving EPA grant funding. Pruitt said the new policy was designed to prevent a conflict of interest. “When we have members of those committees that received tens of millions of dollars in grants at the same time that they are advising this agency on rulemaking, that is not good,” Pruitt said. By Warren CornwallOct. 31, 2017 , 6:04 PM He has not raised similar concerns about potential conflicts of interest for scientists who work for regulated industries or state and local governments subject to EPA regulation. A majority of the scientists on the EPA committees have traditionally hailed from academia, with a handful from private industry, environmental groups, and state and local governments.What do the committees do?Pruitt’s actions today specifically addressed three major committees: Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Gage Skidmore/Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0) Why does this matter?Regulated industries have been pushing for years to boost their presence on these advisory boards. The U.S. House of Representatives earlier this year passed a Republican-backed bill that mirrors much of what Pruitt did today. One of its main sponsors was Representative Lamar Smith (R–TX), chairperson of the House science committee and a frequent critic of the science behind environmental regulations, particularly climate change. That bill won the support of industry-backed groups including the American Chemistry Council in Washington, D.C. But similar measures have failed to gain traction in the Senate, and have never become law. So, in essence, Pruitt took administrative action to accomplish what Republicans in Congress could not.Smith appeared with Pruitt today and praised the new policy, saying it will enable “honest government, sound scientific opinions, and a more responsive EPA.”Environmental groups, meanwhile, have warned that restricting grant-funded researchers will weaken the scientific rigor of the panels and tilt the balance toward people representing the groups that have a financial stake in less-restrictive regulations.Who’s being kicked off the panels?EPA didn’t provide a list of current board members who are disqualified. But people recently dismissed from the main advisory board before completing their terms include scientists from the University of Washington in Seattle; Harvard University; Stanford University in Palo Alto, California; the University of Southern California in Los Angeles; and Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts.How many people might the new rule affect?The agency is one of the primary sources of environmental science funding in the country. Much of that research is done by the agency itself, through the Office of Research and Development. It also gives external grants, including approximately $50 million a year through its Science to Achieve Results program. The new policy would ban current recipients of those grants, many of them university researchers. In 2016, the agency listed grants with 36 principal investigators to scientists at eight universities. In his remarks today, Pruitt said committee members included people receiving a total of about $77 million in EPA funding over the past 3 years.Who will be on the panels instead?Though the agency didn’t release a full list today, Pruitt introduced the new heads of the three main committees. Scientists receiving grants from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington, D.C., many of them leading university researchers, are being purged from the agency’s advisory boards. The move, announced today by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, bars scientists from serving on these boards if they are now receiving money through an agency grant. It marks a major change in who can serve on the committees, which help steer EPA research and regulations by providing input on scientific questions.Pruitt’s move comes after he signaled earlier this month that he would take this step, and acted earlier this year to end the service of numerous researchers on several EPA advisory bodies. (Read more here and here.)ScienceInsider breaks down today’s announcement, why it matters, and how people are reacting. Michael Honeycutt, lead toxicologist for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in Austin, takes over as chairperson of the Science Advisory Board. Honeycutt has challenged EPA moves to tighten standards for ozone pollution. He replaces Peter Thorne, head of the University of Iowa’s Department of Occupational and Environmental Health in Iowa City. On the clean air committee, it’s Tony Cox, expert in risk analysis whose private consulting firm in Colorado lists industry clients in the oil and chemical industries.He replaces Ana Diez Roux, an epidemiologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  “Allowing scientists funded by the very industries the agency is tasked with regulating to participate on independent science review panels, while prohibiting leading scientists simply because they have received funding through EPA grants, is the height of hypocrisy.” —Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D–TX), ranking minority member on the House science committee Scott Pruitt is administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. “The changes announced today will help ensure EPA’s scientific review panels are well balanced with perspectives from qualified scientists of diverse backgrounds and board members are free of any disqualifying conflicts of interest.” —American Chemistry Council, Washington, D.C. How are people reacting to the news? Correction, 11/7/2017, 9:00 a.m.: The article incorrectly named the new and former chairs of the clean air advisory committee and the counselors board. The names have been corrected.last_img read more

US Supreme Court ruling in frog case highlights debate over definition of

first_img U.S. Department of Agriculture/Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 2.0) By Ellen M. Gilmer, E&E NewsNov. 28, 2018 , 3:55 PM Originally published by E&E NewsThe dusky gopher frog’s long legal journey isn’t over yet.The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday remanded a closely watched dispute over the federal government’s power to designate certain critical habitat for the rare southern amphibian. Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) U.S. Supreme Court ruling in frog case highlights debate over definition of ‘habitat’ Read more… The endangered dusky frog is at the center of a high-profile legal dispute. Email Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will now weigh loaded questions over the meaning of “habitat” and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) analysis underpinning the agency’s approach to protecting land for the warty frog.The unanimous decision is a narrow victory for private landowners, including timber giant Weyerhaeuser Co., which opposed FWS’s inclusion of their Louisiana property as critical habitat for the species, one of the 100 most endangered in the world.The ruling wipes out a 5th Circuit decision that upheld the habitat designation. While the land protections will remain in place for now, the landowners have an opportunity to make their case to the appeals court that their land doesn’t count as “habitat” for the frog and therefore cannot be included.”The nation’s hardworking property owners can rest easier tonight knowing government-sponsored land grabs just became a lot more difficult,” said attorney Mark Miller of the Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento, California, who represented some of the landowners, in a statement.Government officials declined to comment on the ruling, but environmentalists who intervened on FWS’s side stressed that the Supreme Court did not actually answer many of the key legal questions in the case.”Considering how narrow it was, if we were going to lose, this is a good way to lose,” says Collette Adkins a senior attorney Center for Biological Diversity who is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. “It’s technically a loss, but it’s so narrow that it’s a punt.”At issue in the case is FWS’s 2012 decision to include more than 1500 acres of private land in Louisiana in its designation of critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog. FWS and consulting scientists identified the property as having the type of ephemeral ponds perfect for the animal’s recovery.The frog used to live across the South, but its numbers have collapsed through the years, and most individuals now cluster around a single pond in Mississippi.What is habitat?A major contention in the case is whether the Louisiana property counts as “habitat” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).The law allows land protections in unoccupied areas of habitat, but the landowners argue that the 1500 acres don’t qualify because they’re simply not habitat: The frog could not survive there right now. The land would need modifications to serve as a suitable home.”This property is not just not optimal. It’s not habitat,” said Mayer Brown attorney Timothy Bishop, representing Weyerhaeuser, during oral arguments in October (Greenwire, 1 October).Chief Justice John Roberts wrote today that the ESA does not provide a “baseline definition” of habitat. The opinion directs the 5th Circuit to consider the issue.The ruling was unanimous. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who wasn’t seated in time for 1 October arguments, did not participate. Many court watchers speculated that the eight justices would issue a narrow decision to avoid a 4-4 split on broader ideological issues.Adkins said environmentalists are hopeful the 5th Circuit, which upheld FWS’s designation before, will side with the government again.But, she noted, the appeals court is known for being conservative, and the Supreme Court’s ruling reopens issues that could result in unfavorable precedent for endangered species advocates.EconomicsToday’s ruling delivered a more decisive victory to landowners on a secondary issue: whether FWS’s economic analysis for a critical habitat designation is subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court ruled that it is.Weyerhaeuser and the other landowners had argued that they should be able to challenge the agency’s cost-benefit analysis supporting its refusal to exclude the 1500 Louisiana acres from its designation.Government lawyers countered that the ESA leaves that decision to the agency’s discretion and does not provide a standard for judicial review.But the Supreme Court found that such decisions can be reviewed by a court to determine whether they were arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion.Landowner Edward Poitevent hailed the ruling this morning as a major victory for private property advocates.”It’s astounding to find out the highest court in the land has not only your back, but the backs of all American landowners,” he said in a statement.The case now goes to the 5th Circuit for further proceedings.Reprinted from Greenwire with permission from E&E News. Copyright 2018. E&E provides essential news for energy and environment professionals at www.eenews.net Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Countrylast_img read more

Felicity Huffman Faces Just Months In Prison

first_img More By NewsOne Staff Felicity Huffman has plead guilty for being part of the largest college admissions scandal in history. Her punishment? More than likely, a $20,000 fine, which is pennies to her, and a four-month prison sentence. White privilege in full effected especially when you consider the case of Tanya McDowell.See Also: Lifetime Blames R Kelly For Gun Threats That Stopped Premiere Of Docuseries About Women Accusing The SingerAccording to TMZ, “Felicity Huffman just acknowledged her guilty plea agreement with prosecutors and an assistant U.S. attorney said in court that the government will ask for a four-month prison sentence as well as a $20,000 fine. The prosecution made a note that they went light on Felicity, as they could’ve gone after money laundering charges.” Black People Who Got More Time Than Paul Manafort For Doing Less A$AP Rocky Being In A Swedish Prison Will Not Stop Her From Going To The Country That Showed Her ‘So Much Love’ Kwame Kilpatrick, Crystal Mason, Ray Nagin That said, we doubt Huffman will serve even a day in jail.SEE ALSO:All The Ways Cops Are Still Trying To Cover Up LaQuan McDonald’s ExecutionOutrageous! Figurines Of White Cherub Crushing Head Of Black Angel Removed From Dollar StoreMeet Jogger Joe, The Man Who Took Racist Cue From BBQ Becky In Tossing Homeless Man’s Clothescenter_img Meghan McCain Whines That She Can’t Attack llhan Omar Because Trump Is Too Racist Must be nice to have the government  go “light” on you, which wasn’t the case for McDowell.Tanya McDowell was homeless Black Connecticut mother who was charged with felony larceny in 2011 after she was caught lying about her home address so that her 6-year-old could attend an elementary school in a good district. She was slapped with a 12-year sentence and was indebted to the state for $6,200. She ended up serving five years.When McDowell was released in March of 2017, she told The Hour, “I would still do it all over again because I haven’t been let down. My son exceeded all of my expectations.” While living with his grandmother while she was in jail, her son Andrew attended Thomas Hooker Elementary School in Bridgeport, had perfect attendance and made the honor roll.“I’m not only doing it for Andrew,” McDowell explained. “I’m doing it for any other parent, any other child out there that has the potential to exceed and excel at a certain level and is just being deprived, period.”On the other hand, Huffman, actresses Lori Loughlin and several others were solely about greed. The elaborate college admissions scheme played out through a series of bribes, photoshopped photos, fraudulent test scores and more as a way to admit unqualified students through athletic scholarships for sports the “recruits” would rarely if ever play on the collegiate level. This incident has invited heavy scrutiny on colleges’ admissions practices that stack the odds against countless applicants who have been denied deserved spots at schools of their choice. Understandably, Black and brown students have been particularly outraged. Students of color have historically been accused of not earning their seat at the table because of race-based affirmative action policies. Their merits have been called into question while, as it turns out, the wealthy elite were benefitting from what has been called a broken college admissions system. College Admission Scandal , Felicity Huffman , Lori Loughlin Gov. Cuomo Slams Mayor Bill De Blasio For The Eric Garner Case But He Also Failed The Familylast_img read more

Bipartisan bill would create forum for discussing how to counter US academic

first_img Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe The cases have led to fears of racial profiling, as well as complaints from university administrators that government rules regarding foreign ties can be vague and confusing. The best way to eliminate the uncertainty, science advocates say, is through ongoing conversations about how universities should monitor the research activities of faculty members, what types of research may require extra safeguards, and even whether some foreign interactions should be proscribed.“The U.S. research enterprise is one of our nation’s greatest assets, which is exactly why foreign governments and individuals seek to attack and unduly influence it,” says Peter McPherson, head of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities in Washington, D.C. “As schools work to better safeguard their research, this bill would help direct needed coordination between federal science and security offices and universities.”The threat is real, says the bill’s lead sponsor, Representative Mikie Sherrill (D–NJ). “There are serious and legitimate concerns about academic espionage at our universities,” says Sherrill, a former federal prosecutor and Navy helicopter pilot who was elected to Congress in November 2018. “That’s why we’re proposing a unified approach to protect research without creating overlapping or contradictory federal requirements.” Representative Jim Langevin (D–RI), a chief co-sponsor of the bill, says it “will give schools the tools to defend themselves while also protecting the important academic and cultural contributions that international students bring to our country.”Speedy passage soughtSherrill and Langevin lead subcommittees of the House science committee and the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), respectively, which have jurisdiction over the topic. (Sherrill is also a HASC member.) Their legislation has received the backing of the chair of the science committee, Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D–TX) and its top Republican, Representative Frank Lucas (R–OK), as well as Langevin’s counterpart on the military panel, Representative Ellen Stefanik (R–NY), and freshman Representative Anthony Gonzalez (R–OH) of the science committee. The scope and composition of that team should help the bill’s chances of moving through the House.Supporters are hoping that attaching the bill’s provisions to the annual policy guidance from Congress to the Department of Defense (DOD) will further improve its chances. Known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), it is one of the few pieces of legislation that traditionally makes it into law every year.HASC is expected to take up the NDAA on 12 June. If SASTA is folded into the massive reauthorization measure, seeking ways to reconcile science and national security will automatically become part of negotiations with the Senate over whatever version of the NDAA is approved by that body. On 23 May, the Senate Armed Services Committee completed its work on a bill that did not contain any such language.The idea for a NASEM roundtable is modeled after a long-running academies forum that brings together research leaders from industry, universities, and the government. The new bill authorizes three agencies—the National Science Foundation, DOD, and the Department of Energy—to spend $5 million over the next 5 years to support the roundtable’s activities, which would include periodic reports on ways to mitigate and manage the risk of foreign collaborations.“The National Academies has a long history of advising the federal government on striking the right balance between fostering international collaboration on science and technology while protecting U.S. economic and national security,” says National Academy of Sciences President Marcia McNutt. “We are ready to provide a neutral forum for stakeholders to examine the issues and continue this critical dialogue.”NASEM has already taken a step in that direction. On 10 May it hosted a 3-hour meeting where senior administrators from major federal research agencies and national laboratories aired their concerns and their desire for better coordination of government policies to protect the U.S. research enterprise. The meeting was convened by Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan, and participants included Kelvin Droegemeier, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).Divvying up the workloadThe issue was already on Droegemeier’s radar. On 6 May, he announced the creation of a new “joint committee” on academic engagement within the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), which coordinates federal research activities. Its membership draws from two standing committees, one on science and one on science and technology (S&T) enterprise; “protecting American research assets” is one of its four focuses.However, each of these standing NSTC committees already has its own portfolio. The science committee oversees research initiatives spanning the natural, food, and agricultural sciences, whereas the panel on the S&T enterprise was created in 2018 to carry out a White House directive to improve research efficiency.The new joint NSTC committee is also tackling three other issues that have long plagued the research community. One is the excessive regulation of federally funded research. The second is scientific misconduct and other questionable research practices. The third is a hostile work environment, including sexual harassment and barriers to the entry and retention of women and minorities. Since joining OSTP in January, Droegemeier has repeatedly listed those four topics as priorities for his office and promised to make progress on each one.Federal lawmakers believe the issue of foreign ties is sufficiently important to warrant its own group within NSTC. They are also concerned that the topic will get lost among the welter of issues Droegemeier wants the joint committee to ponder.SASTA’s sponsors “are supportive of efforts at OSTP to take on the issue of protecting American research assets,” Sherrill says. “This bill reflects how Congress thinks those efforts should be organized to address it.” Representative Mikie Sherrill (D–NJ) on Capitol Hill earlier this month Those who complain that the U.S. government prefers to talk about the nation’s problems rather than solve them may think creating two forums to discuss science and national security is not a very constructive idea. But academic leaders say more dialogue is urgently needed on one issue now bedeviling the U.S. research community: how to best protect the country against its economic and military competitors without choking off international scientific collaborations and the free flow of people and ideas.Responding to that concern, a bipartisan group of legislators in the U.S. House of Representatives today introduced a bill designed to promote talk that will spur action. The Securing American Science and Technology Act (SASTA) of 2019 would create a roundtable at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) in Washington, D.C., for stakeholders to discuss the tensions between science and security, as well as an interagency working group within the White House that would tackle the same issue. Backers hope the forums will help identify practical steps universities and research funders can take to protect valuable intellectual property without stifling global cooperation.The SASTA proposal comes as universities and researchers, particularly scientists of Asian origin working in the United States, have become increasingly alarmed by recent government actions aimed at preventing foreign governments, especially China, from unfairly reaping the fruits of federal research investments. Recently, those efforts have led two U.S. universities to oust at least five biomedical researchers who they allege failed to properly disclose ties to Chinese institutions or committed other violations. All are Asian. Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*)center_img Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call By Jeffrey MervisMay. 30, 2019 , 5:35 PM Email Bipartisan bill would create forum for discussing how to counter U.S. academic espionagelast_img read more

Are dinosaur fossils minerals The Montana Supreme Court will decide high stakes

first_img ©BHIGR 2013 Email Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country They are worth millions, and paleontologists say a federal appeals court ruling would have “fundamental and extraordinary impacts upon the conduct of science concerning the history of life on Earth.”The case hinges on a seemingly straightforward question: Are fossils considered “minerals” under Montana state law?In Montana, rights to a property’s mineral estate are often severed from its surface rights. Historically, fossils have been considered part of the surface estate.That all seemed to change last November when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the owners of the mineral rights of a ranch where the fossils were found.The ruling sent shock waves through the paleontology world, threatening to upend the way fossil hunters have operated for decades.It would make searching for fossils extremely complicated, said David Polly, a former president of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, based in Bethesda, Maryland, because paleontologists would need to navigate both surface ownership—to get to the dig location—and mineral ownership of a parcel. Often, mineral rights are hard to find and frequently change hands between large corporations.More alarmingly, he said, it could raise questions about the ownership of fossils currently in museums.”In principle, it could have opened those to post hoc challenges,” Polly said. “If those started disappearing from collections, it would be a disaster.”Polly’s group, as well as several museums across the country, got involved after that 9th Circuit ruling. They enlisted Gary Guzy, the former White House Council on Environmental Quality and Environmental Protection Agency general counsel.Now, they’ve convinced the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit to pump the brakes. It has referred the case to the Montana Supreme Court, where it will be taken up later this year.Guzy, who now works for the firm Covington & Burling LLP in Washington, D.C., said his clients quickly realized the scope of the 9th Circuit decision.”What seemed apparent was that what had been depicted all along as a private party contractual and almost property dispute really had significant implications for the paleontological profession,” he said, “and the range of institutions that are involved in promoting the knowledge of the history of life on Earth.””Greatest paleontological find of this century”Spanning parts of Montana, the Dakotas and Wyoming, the Hell Creek Formation is one of the world’s most studied areas for clues into life some 66 million years ago.Within the formation is a tract of land in Garfield County, Montana, that was previously owned by George Severson.Around 1983, Mary Ann and Lige Murray leased the land from Severson and worked it as ranchers. Over the following years, Severson transferred parts of the land to the Murrays and his two sons—Jerry and Bo Severson.In 2005, the Severson sons agreed to sell the surface rights to the Murrays while retaining much of the mineral rights.The value of those rights quickly escalated.Shortly after the sale, the Murrays and an amateur fossil hunter, Clayton Phipps, found on their property a mother lode of fossils—a “spike cluster,” as it is known in paleontology.In 2006, they discovered complete fossils of two dinosaurs that appear to have been fighting when they died.The Murrays quickly named the fossils the “Dueling Dinosaurs,” and the scientific importance of the fossils is hard to overstate, said paleontologist Peter Larson, president of the Black Hills Institute of Geological Research in Hill City, South Dakota.”The Dueling Dinosaurs are probably the greatest paleontological find of this century,” said Larson, who has seen the fossils and spoken with the Murrays.Larson explained why such a find is so rare. The dinosaurs appear to have been fighting on a sandbar in the middle of a river. Something happened — probably an earthquake — that liquefied the sand underneath them, sucking them down and preserving their skeletons.”It is a pristine record of an interaction between a prey animal and predator,” he said, adding that they were the most pristine complete dinosaurs ever found in the area.The following year, a triceratops foot was found, then, in 2011, a triceratops skull.Then came perhaps the pièce de résistance. In 2013, a complete T. rex was discovered on the property. The “Murray T. rex” is considered one of only a dozen ever found in such condition.A “bizarre” rulingWhen the Seversons got word of the finds, they quickly sought to declare ownership of the fossils, including the T. rex, which the Murrays were trying to sell to a Dutch museum for several million dollars.The Murrays filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that the fossils were theirs because they owned the surface rights to the land.A district court sided with the Murrays, leading the Seversons to appeal to the 9th Circuit.There, in a colorful opinion, the court sided with the Seversons.”Once upon a time, in a place now known as Montana, dinosaurs roamed the land,” wrote Eduardo Robreno, a senior Pennsylvania district judge who was on the panel by designation.”On a fateful day, some 66 million years ago, two such creatures, a 22-foot-long theropod and a 28-foot-long ceratopsian, engaged in mortal combat. While history has not recorded the circumstances surrounding this encounter, the remnants of these Cretaceous species, interlocked in combat, became entombed under a pile of sandstone. That was then … this is now.”The 2-1 ruling sided with the Seversons, saying they “have the better of the arguments” (E&E News PM, Nov. 6, 2018).Lawyers for the Murrays declined to comment and said their clients are not speaking to the media. The Seversons’ attorneys said their clients are traveling and could not be reached.The ruling spurred considerable hand-wringing in the paleontological community, Larson of the Black Hills Institute said, calling the 9th Circuit decision a “really bizarre ruling.”Quickly, some of the most important players in the field weighed in, including the 2,200-member Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago and the Museum of the Rockies.They, along with a Montana property rights group, backed the Murrays in court documents when they asked the court to reconsider the case — or send it to the Montana Supreme Court.”The panel’s decision imposes extraordinary uncertainty upon scientists and the public,” they wrote, and it may “destabilize title to countless important fossils in academic, museum, and private collections around the world … potentially subjecting those fossils to ownership challenges by holders of Montana mineral deeds.”The 9th Circuit took the unusual step of granting the rehearing, vacating their earlier decision and then punting the question to the Montana Supreme Court — a good sign for the Murrays.”Given the frequency of divided ownership of Montana surface and mineral estates, and that Montana possesses vast deposits of valuable vertebrate fossil specimens, the issue is substantial and of broad application,” the court wrote.”Therefore, after considering these factors, and in the spirit of comity and federalism, we exercise our discretion to certify this question to the Montana Supreme Court.”Other aspects of the dispute also appear to be breaking the Murrays’ way.In April, Montana enacted a law that states “fossils are not minerals and that fossils belong to the surface estate.”The law, however, does not apply to existing disputes, though the “Dueling Dinos” case is likely the only existing matter of its kind.”One can always make assumptions, and courts can do whatever they want,” Larson said. “But it seems like our side is in a good position.”Reprinted from Greenwire with permission from E&E News. Copyright 2019. E&E provides essential news for energy and environment professionals at www.eenews.netRelated stories:Not Sold! ‘Dueling Dinos’ Flop at Auction (November 2013)Selling America’s Fossil Record (January 2014) Are dinosaur fossils ‘minerals’? The Montana Supreme Court will decide high stakes case The remains of two “dueling dinosaurs” have sparked an ownership dispute that could set legal precedent. By Jeremy P. Jacobs, E&E NewsJul. 10, 2019 , 11:10 AM Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Originally published by E&E NewsPristine dinosaur fossils discovered in Montana have sparked a property rights dispute that has hit paleontologists like an asteroid.The lawsuit, now at the Montana Supreme Court, concerns who owns some of the greatest fossil finds in the last century, including two dinosaurs preserved while locked in combat and a rare complete Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton. Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Read more…last_img read more

Highest energy light ever seen traced to Crab nebula

first_img And that they did. From February 2014 to May 2017, the array caught 24 gamma rays ranging from 100 TeV to 450 TeV coming from the Crab nebula, the team of 90 researchers from two dozen institutions reports in a paper accepted at Physical Review Letters. The strikes shatter the previous record holder: 75-TeV gamma rays observed by the High Energy Gamma Ray Astronomy experiment located on La Palma, one of Spain’s Canary Islands.Modeling had predicted the existence of such high energy gamma rays, so although the finding isn’t a surprise, it still provides valuable confirmation for assumptions thinly supported by observations, says Felix Aharonian, an astrophysicist at the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.The models point to a process called inverse Compton scattering, in which the pulsar’s magnetic field whips up electrons to energies far higher than achieved in particle accelerators on Earth. The electrons then smash into the ambient photons that pervade the universe as a part of the cosmic microwave background and send them speeding through the galaxy. The photons “receive a huge amount of energy in that kick,” Lewis says. The results show “the Crab nebula is the most powerful natural electron accelerator known so far in our galaxy,” Huang says.Lewis adds that the observed energies of gamma ray photons have been steadily going up thanks to improved detectors. He believes supermassive black holes that sit at the centers of galaxies might prove to be another source of high energy gamma rays.More evidence may be on the way with the opening of new observatories. The multinational Cherenkov Telescope Array may be completed by 2025, and the Large High Altitude Air Shower Observatory, a partially completed facility also on the Tibetan Plateau, started observations in April and should be up to full speed next year.For the moment, however, the Tibet ASgamma experiment is leading the hunt for “PeVatrons”—astrophysical sources capable of accelerating gamma ray photons and cosmic rays up to one petaelectronvolt, or 1000 TeV. “We expect to identify a lot of PeVatrons,” Huang says. Signals from other 100-TeV sources besides the Crab nebula may already be hidden in the Tibet ASgamma experiment data, a possibility Takita says is “currently under analysis.” The Crab nebula, the remnant of a 1000-year-old supernova, is emitting the most energetic light ever detected. Hundreds of detectors at the Tibet ASgamma array were used to capture particle showers from gamma rays striking Earth. NASA/ESA/J. DePasquale (STScI) A collaboration of Chinese and Japanese astrophysicists has reported the highest energy photons ever seen: gamma rays with energies up to 450 trillion electron volts (TeV).The particles of light were traced back to the Crab nebula, the remnant of a stellar explosion observed by Chinese astronomers nearly 1000 years ago, and the powerful pulsar, a dense neutron star, that now sits at the nebula’s heart. “We know the environment of a pulsar is extreme,” says Geraint Lewis, an astrophysicist at the University of Sydney in Australia who was not involved in the research. The question raised by the finding “is just how extreme,” he says. He says the results will help constrain ideas about how the photons are boosted to such extraordinary energies.The Tibet ASgamma experiment spotted the photons using an array of nearly 600 scintillation detectors, sensors that turn particle strikes into electronic signals. The detectors are spread out across 66,000 square meters in a valley 4300 meters above sea level on the Tibetan Plateau in China. When gamma rays strike Earth’s atmosphere they create air showers—spreading cascades of electrons and other subatomic particles. As these particles hit the detectors, the timing and energy of the strikes are recorded—enabling astronomers to reconstruct the energy and trajectory of the original gamma ray. Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Email The problem is distinguishing gamma rays from cosmic rays, charged particles that can also reach these colossal energies and create similar air showers. Fortunately, the air showers sparked by cosmic rays contain a higher proportion of muons, short-lived cousins of the electrons, than the showers from gamma rays. The muons can be detected in underground water chambers and used to distinguish between gamma ray and cosmic ray events. Gamma rays are prized because they travel through the cosmos in straight lines, and thus point back to their sources. Cosmic rays, in contrast, get pulled into corkscrew trajectories by magnetic fields, making their origins obscure.To improve muon detection, the Tibet ASGamma team buried water tank detectors several meters below ground at 64 locations around the site in Yangbajing, a town northwest of Lhasa on the Tibetan Plateau, giving the array “the world’s highest sensitivity to gamma rays in the 100-TeV region,” says Masato Takita, an experimental physicist for the project at the University of Tokyo’s Institute for Cosmic Ray Research in Kashiwa, Japan. With the enhanced capabilities, “I believed we could find results that no one ever found before,” adds Huang Jing, an astrophysicist at the Chinese Academy of Science’s Institute of High Energy Physics in Beijing. Highest energy light ever seen traced to Crab nebula By Dennis NormileJul. 8, 2019 , 11:40 AM Institute of High Energy Physics/Chinese Academy of Sciences last_img read more

Discovered Journal Details Daring Escape by American Revolutionary War Prisoner

first_imgThe American Revolutionary War was one of the most pivotal chapters in the histories of the great nations of the world. In declaring their independence from the British crown, the United States had effectively declared war on the most powerful country on Earth. One of the more interesting chapters of this war was the occupation of New York by the British between 1776 and 1783.History.com reports that many young sailors set out as privateers to harass the British Royal Navy during the war, with many of them eventually being captured and interned in British prison ships.The American Revolutionary WarOne such sailor was the young Christopher Hawkins whose recently recovered journal details his daring escape from the HMS Jersey prison ship.Christopher Hawkins was only 13 when he signed up as a privateer aboard the brig Mariamne. Hoping to find his fortune, he eventually met with intense tribulation. American Heritage reports that the Mariamne was five days out of Newport when she was taken by two British frigates.HMS Jersey Prison Ship, 1782.The crew of the Mariamne was taken aboard the HMS Jersey. Sickness and starvation were rampant, and death was very common among the inmates. Between six and eleven men died every day, mostly from diseases like dysentery or smallpox. The dead were carried up from below-deck every morning to be brought ashore and buried in shallow mass graves.Getting enough food was a constant struggle. Hawkins’s journal describes one occasion when a prisoner had pilfered food from another group of prisoners. The offending prisoner was strapped to a water cask and allowed to be flogged by the other prisoners whose food he had stolen. The offender apparently fainted repeatedly during the flogging and died within days from his wounds.Heywood “Woody” Davis (from left) with his family presented the family’s Revolutionary War journal to historian Philip Mead at the Museum of the American Revolution in Philadelphia. Photo by Museum of the American RevolutionWith the stench of death all around him, Hawkins knew he had to do something fast or face the same untimely end as his fellow shipmates. Escape was a difficult venture since it would be extremely difficult to plan without other inmates knowing about it in advance of the attempt. The ship was also stationed in New York Harbor, surrounded for miles by British forces and loyalist Americans.Although the prospect was daunting, escape was far from impossible. There were only about forty armed men on board at any given time, managing almost fourteen hundred prisoners. It wasn’t unheard of for a careless guard to get knocked out and allow twenty to thirty men to escape from the ship.Hawkins’s journal details his escape from the hell of the HMS Jersey. Hawkins says that he stole an axe from the ship’s cook, which he used to break through a barred porthole during a thunderstorm.Interior of the old Jersey prison ship in the Revolutionary War.In order to camouflage the sound of his axe against the bars, Hawkins timed his blows to be in sync with the thunderclaps. The cracking of the storm allowed him to break through the porthole without the sounds alerting the guards.After escaping the hold of the ship, Hawkins had to swim for over two and a half hours. The surrounding countryside was mostly populated by loyalist Tories and it would be difficult for an escaped prisoner to find support from them.Hawkins hid in barns for a couple of nights then decided to try stealing some potatoes from a field to stave off starvation. While attempting the theft, Hawkins was discovered by a young woman, who screamed and ran, forcing Hawkins to return to the woods in the opposite direction and arm himself with anything he could find.Juvenile Adventures of Christopher Hawkins Sen. Photo by Museum of the American RevolutionAlthough fearful that the Tory hounds would be set on his trail, he proceeded unmolested and once again found a barn in which he slept upon a pile of flax.The next day, Hawkins approached some young workers in a field, appealing to them for food and clothing. They introduced him to their mother who tearfully heard Hawkins’s story. She was kind enough to offer Hawkins some clothing and directions to a canoe which he could row across the small bay towards Sag Harbor.Although Hawkins was apprehended once more in Oyster Bay, he escaped his captors before they could return him to the HMS Jersey. He eventually reached his home in Providence, Rhode Island. He later settled in Newport, New York, in 1791.Read another story from us: Man Finds Rare 100-Year-Old Negatives – Uses Photoshop to “Develop” ThemHawkins wrote his memoir in 1834 at 70 years of age. The memoir was published in 1864 as the Juvenile Adventures of Christopher Hawkins. The original journal itself was eventually discovered in an old linen closet by Hawkins’s descendants who donated the find to the Museum of the American Revolution.last_img read more

Legal battle intensifies in Linton incitement case

first_imgShareTweetSharePinOpposition leader Linton and Salisbury MP John leaving the courthouse during one of the court sessionsThe legal battle between Trinidadian Senior Counsel, Israel Khan who is leading the prosecution’s case and Gildon Richards who is presenting the case for the defense, is intensifying in the matter of alleged incitement by opposition leader Lennox Linton.On June 18, 2019, the defense cross examined Nadette Langford who told the court that on February 7 at about 7:10am she went to work as usual to her office on 38 Cork Street which houses the Disaster Vulnerability Response Project (DVRP) and left at 4.25pm. The following day, February 8, she returned at 7:25am and observed a hole in the office of the Co-ordinator.“I didn’t at that time know what caused the hole. I went to the office and observed shattered glasses and about five stones. I didn’t see that when I left at 4:25pm on February 7. However, I can’t tell the court if the glass was broken on the 7th or 8th of February,” she said.Laurel Abraham Corbette recalled visiting her building which was then located on 22 Cork Street, on February 7, at about 5pm. “All windows and equipments were functioning. I did not return on that day…I returned on February 8 at about 8:30am and made observations; front part of building had lots of stones and windows shattered,” she said.When asked if she knew how the stones got there she said, “I do not know how the stones got there and don’t know who put them there.”It was at this point that lead counsel for the prosecution, Israel Khan SC rose and objected to certain questions raised by the defense.Khan told the court that the prosecution’s case is that the defendant (Linton) caused people to “vandalize, riot and arson in people’s place by his comments.”“Your Honour, this case has the genesis of politics and you cannot suppress it,” he said.This caused a heated argument between the lawyers and Magistrate Asquith Riviere admonished them to “leave the politics out of the case.”Defense attorney Richards told the court that the case was built on hearsay and should not be allowed and asked that statements made by Corbette be struck out.In the cross banter over the bar table Khan SC told the court that the events which happened was an attempt to overthrow the government of Dominica.“It is a political case and you will hear it over and over. This is a serious case…if you want to change the government, do it by the ballots. A man tried to overthrow a government in Dominica a few years ago and was jailed for 12 years,” the lead prosecution counsel stated.He also told the court that Linton had a right to express his views as enshrined in the Dominica constitution as he did.“So why are you prosecuting him then?” the magistrate asked.“I am not presiding over a political trial. This is an allegation of an alleged criminal offense. I am not interested in the political agenda and won’t be drawn into that. I am a sworn officer of the court and won’t be drawn into political debate,” Riviere stated.After lengthy arguments, the magistrate decided to allow both sides to file written submissions after which he will make his ruling. It was then that Richards urged the court to grant a long adjournment since Linton, as opposition leader, he pointed out, has lots of overseas engagements given the fact that elections are near.The court then gave the prosecution until July 2, 2019 to file and serve its submissions on the defense. The defense has until July 30, 2019 to respond, file and serve on the prosecution and the prosecution, until August 13, 2019 to file and serve its rebuttal.The parties are to return to court on October 15, 2019 when the magistrate is expected to rule on the admissibility of statements made by Laurel Abraham Corbettte which were challenged by counsel for the defense, Gildon Richards.The court has adjourned sine die the cases against former prime minister Edison James and former UWP senator Thompson Fontaine. However, the bench warrant issued for Fontaine’s arrest remains in effect.Prosecutor Khan SClast_img read more

7yrold boy drowns in Mumbai drain 3rd such death in a week

first_img Karnataka trust vote today: Speaker’s call on resignations, says SC, but gives rebel MLAs a shield Related News Mumbai building collapse: As dust settles, cloud of fear hovers over neighbours, ask where do we go? Singh had claimed the civic body did nothing about the open gutter despite constant reminders from local residents. On Saturday, a 12-year-old boy died after falling into a water-filled pit, dug for the construction of the CoastalRoad, near Worli.The boy, Bablu Kumar Paswan, had fallen in the pit near the Worli Sea Link on Friday, the police said. Advertising By PTI |Mumbai | Published: July 15, 2019 9:50:41 pm Cabinet asks finance panel to consider securing funds for defence The boy, Amit Munnalal Jaiswal, fell in the drain at the Rajiv Gandhi Colony in Dharavi, a sprawling slum colony in the heart of the city, an official said.The incident took place when Amit and his brother were playing near the drain, he said.After being alerted about the incident, the police rushed to the spot and pulled out the boy from the open drainage. He was rushed to Sion hospital, where he was declared brought dead, the official said. Advertisingcenter_img The crumbling city After Masood Azhar blacklisting, more isolation for Pakistan Mumbai boy drowns, Mumbai boy drowns in Mumbai, Mumbai drowning, Minor boy drowns, Mumbai news, Indian Express news  The boy, Amit Munnalal Jaiswal, fell in the drain at the Rajiv Gandhi Colony in Dharavi, a sprawling slum colony in the heart of the city, an official said. (Representational)A seven-year-old boy died after falling into an open drain in Dharavi slum Monday, the third case of drowning of a minor in a week here, police said. Best Of Express Mumbai Dongri building collapse: Last body recovered after 21 hours, toll 13 This is the third such death in a week in the metropolis.Divyansh, an 18-month-old boy, fell into an open gutter in suburban Goregaon on Wednesday night.BMC officials had called off the search 48 hours later after checkingover 10kilometres of the drain line in vain. On Monday, Dindoshi police filed a criminal case under section 304 A (causing death due to negligence) of the IPC against the officers and staff involved in supervision work of the drainage on the basis of a complaint filed by the child’s father Suraj Singh.Singh, talking to reporters during the operation, had accused the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and other forces of negligence during the search. Post Comment(s)last_img read more