Tom Brady most dominant player in AFC championship history Japeth Aguilar wins 1st PBA Finals MVP award for Ginebra “Now let’s see in a couple of days if they can make the schedules available,” said the Phisgoc source.The same insider said the 15,000-seater MOA Arena has several bookings on the same week that basketball will be played in the SEA Games, which will run from Nov. 30 to Dec. 11.Earlier, Samahang Basketbol ng Pilipinas president Al Panlilio offered a promising compromise: Let Filoil host the other games but put the Gilas matches in a bigger venue.The Phisgoc insider said Philippine Arena in Bocaue, Bulacan, “is on standby.” But officials think the 55,000-seat venue might be “too big” for the competitions.“We are talking of the SEA Games hosting which only happens every 10 years or more,” said the Phisgoc official.ADVERTISEMENT A day after a ruckus was raised over the decision to move the event from Mall of Asia Arena to Filoil Flying V Centre, a top official of the Philippine Southeast Asian Games organizing committee (Phisgoc) said on Friday it has reopened negotiations with SM for the retail giant to host the basketball event.SM owns Mall of Asia and the source said top officials of the mall contacted Phisgoc after it was announced that basketball would be moved the Filoil arena in San Juan, which can only hold 5,500 people.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSGolden State Warriors sign Lee to multiyear contract, bring back ChrissSPORTSCoronation night?SPORTSThirdy Ravena gets offers from Asia, Australian ball clubsREAD: SEA Games venues for basketball, volleyball in Manila get a downgradeBasketball, which will field the popular Gilas Pilipinas squad that could feature stars of the PBA, is expected to be one of the blockbuster events in the SEA Games. The last time the country hosted the SEA Games in 2005, the Philippines did not get to field a basketball team because it was suspended by the Fiba. Eugenie Bouchard’s bid for Australian Open spot ends in qualifying Gretchen Barretto’s daughter Dominique graduates magna cum laude from California college Ginebra beats Meralco again to capture PBA Governors’ Cup title LATEST STORIES Trending Articles PLAY LIST 00:30Trending Articles02:11SEA GAMES 2019: PH’s Nesthy Petecio boxing featherweight final (HIGHLIGHTS)08:07Athletes treated to a spectacle as SEA Games 2019 officially ends06:27SEA Games 2019: No surprises as Gilas Pilipinas cruises to basketball gold05:02SEA Games 2019: Philippines clinches historic gold in women’s basketball05:21Drama in karate: Tsukii ‘very sad’ over coach’s bullying, cold shoulder03:24PH’s James Palicte boxing light welterweight final (HIGHLIGHTS) Nadine Lustre’s phone stolen in Brazil MOST READ The Philippines has won 17 of the 19 previous stagings and has held the championship for the past 12 SEA Games. The last SEA Games basketball game played in the country was in 1991 at Smart Araneta Coliseum. View comments Ginebra beats Meralco again to capture PBA Governors’ Cup title MANILA, Philippines–So maybe it wasn’t a good idea to downgrade the venue for men’s basketball in the Southeast Asian Games after all.ADVERTISEMENT Will you be the first P16 Billion Powerball jackpot winner from the Philippines? Rogue cops marked as Gamboa’s targets in his appointment as PNP chief Milos Raonic ends lucky loser’s run at Indian Wells Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. Read Next
Promoted postThe Radisson Blu Hotel, Letterkenny is the ultimate choice when choosing a venue for your event.Located in the heart of Letterkenny, the hotel is easily accessible from Derry, Ramelton & Lifford roads. Using years of experience the hotel has designed a range of inclusive packages designed to suit all budgets and tastes. Each package containing menus designed especially by the Executive Chef using the very best locally sourced fine foods and ingredients. The 4* hotel exclusively hosts only one function per day from birthdays to anniversaries, and offers an excellent choice of packages. Dinner Dance packages start as little as €20 per person for a 4 course meal, inclusive of table arrangements, personalised menus, projector, screen, podium, microphone & PA system – Perfect for club or charity Dinner Dances or private functions. Excellent accommodation offers are available for attendees if you do decide to make a night of it!Click here https://www.donegaldaily.com/2015/03/26/win-e2000-for-your-sports-clubcharity-with-radisson-blu-letterkenny/ to see more about booking an event & our fantastic €2,000 prize giveaway!Being a popular Wedding Venue, the Radisson Blu Letterkenny offers Wedding packages from €45 per person. This price includes a delectable 5 course banquet, an arrival drinks reception for all of your guests, evening buffet, complimentary guest bedrooms and much, much more. Have 150 guests or over? The all Inclusive Gweebarra package is for you! The package includes Champagne Reception for the Bride and Groom, tea/coffee/punch and homemade cookies for all of your wedding guests, five course banquet including wine, evening buffet, four guest bedrooms for overnight stay, and bridal suite for the Bride and Groom for the night of your wedding reception. BUT, it doesn’t stop there as the amazing package also includes your Wedding Cake, Flowers & Photographer along with a host of special extras for only €9,999 for 150 people & €47.50 for additional numbers.Enjoy an intimate setting for those perfect wedding photos in the hotels ‘Secret Garden’ which the wedding party will have exclusive use of for the special day.The Secret Garden at the Radisson Blu Letterkenny.The experienced banqueting team will work with you from beginning to end with precision and style to ensure an exceptional level of service. To view the spectacular Carnegie Suite and Secret Garden for your event at the Radisson Blu Hotel or for more information, contact our Events Co-ordinator on 074 919 4604 or email [email protected] WITH PRIME EVENT DATES STILL AVAILABLE FOR 2015, NOW IS THE TIME TO SEE THE RADISSON BLU, LETTERKENNY! was last modified: April 17th, 2015 by StephenShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Tags:donegalfunctionshotelletterkennyRadisson Bluweddings
An important survey of the origin-of-life (OOL) field has been published in Scientific American. Robert Shapiro, a senior prize-winning chemist, cancer researcher, emeritus professor and author of books in the field, debunks the Miller experiment, the RNA World and other popular experiments as unrealistic dead ends. Describing the wishful thinking of some researchers, he said, “In a form of molecular vitalism, some scientists have presumed that nature has an innate tendency to produce life’s building blocks preferentially, rather than the hordes of other molecules that can also be derived from the rules of organic chemistry.”Shapiro had been explaining that millions of organic molecules can form that are not RNA nucleotides. These are not only useless to life, they get in the way and clog up the beneficial reactions. He went on to describe how extrapolation from the Miller Experiment produced an unearned sense of euphoria among researchers: “By extrapolation of these results, some writers have presumed that all of life’s building could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites and other extraterrestrial bodies. This is not the case,” he warned in a section entitled, “The Soup Kettle Is Empty.” He said that no experiment has produced amino acids with more than three carbons (life uses some with six), and no Miller-type experiment has ever produced nucleotides or nucleosides, essential for DNA and RNA.…the spontaneous appearance of chains of RNA on the early earth “would have been a near miracle.”Shapiro described in some detail the difficult steps that organic chemists employ to synthesize the building blocks of RNA, using conditions highly unrealistic on the primitive earth. “The point was the demonstration that humans could produce, however inefficiently, substances found in nature,” he said. “Unfortunately, neither chemists nor laboratories were present on the early Earth to produce RNA.” Here, for instance, is how scientists had to work to create cytosine, one of the DNA bases:I will cite one example of prebiotic synthesis, published in 1995 by Nature and featured in the New York Times. The RNA base cytosine was prepared in high yield by heating two purified chemicals in a sealed glass tube at 100 degrees Celsius for about a day. One of the reagents, cyanoacetaldehyde, is a reactive substance capable of combining with a number of common chemicals that may have been present on the early Earth. These competitors were excluded. An extremely high concentration was needed to coax the other participant, urea, to react at a sufficient rate for the reaction to succeed. The product, cytosine, can self-destruct by simple reaction with water. When the urea concentration was lowered, or the reaction allowed to continue too long, any cytosine that was produced was subsequently destroyed. This destructive reaction had been discovered in my laboratory, as part of my continuing research on environmental damage to DNA. Our own cells deal with it by maintaining a suite of enzymes that specialize in DNA repair.There seems to be a stark difference between the Real World and the imaginary RNA World. Despite this disconnect, Shapiro describes some of the hype the RNA World scenario generated when Gilbert first suggested it in 1986. “The hypothesis that life began with RNA was presented as a likely reality, rather than a speculation, in journals, textbooks and the media,” he said. He also described the intellectual hoops researchers have envisioned to get the scenario to work: freezing oceans, drying lagoons, dry deserts and other unlikely environments in specific sequences to keep the molecules from destroying themselves. This amounts to attributing wish-fulfillment and goal-directed behavior to inanimate objects, as Shapiro makes clear with this colorful analogy:The analogy that comes to mind is that of a golfer, who having played a golf ball through an 18-hole course, then assumed that the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence. He had demonstrated the possibility of the event; it was only necessary to presume that some combination of natural forces (earthquakes, winds, tornadoes and floods, for example) could produce the same result, given enough time. No physical law need be broken for spontaneous RNA formation to happen, but the chances against it are so immense, that the suggestion implies that the non-living world had an innate desire to generate RNA. The majority of origin-of-life scientists who still support the RNA-first theory either accept this concept (implicitly, if not explicitly) or feel that the immensely unfavorable odds were simply overcome by good luck.Realistically, unfavorable molecules are just as likely to form. These would act like terminators for any hopeful molecules, he says. Shapiro uses another analogy. He pictures a gorilla pounding on a huge keyboard containing not only the English alphabet, but every letter of every language and all the symbol sets in a typical computer. “The chances for the spontaneous assembly of a replicator in the pool I described above can be compared to those of the gorilla composing, in English, a coherent recipe for the preparation of chili con carne.” That’s why Gerald Joyce, Mr. RNA-World himself, and Leslie Orgel, a veteran OOL researcher with Stanley Miller, concluded that the spontaneous appearance of chains of RNA on the early earth “would have been a near miracle.”The majority of origin-of-life scientists who still support the RNA-first theory either accept this concept (implicitly, if not explicitly) or feel that the immensely unfavorable odds were simply overcome by good luck.Boy, and all this bad news is only halfway through the article. Does he have any good news? Not yet; we must first agree with a ground rule stated by Nobel laureate Christian de Duve, who called for “a rejection of improbabilities so incommensurably high that they can only be called miracles, phenomena that fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry.” That rules out starting with complex molecules like DNA, RNA, and proteins (see online book).From that principle, Shapiro advocated a return to scenarios with environmental cycles involving simple molecules. These thermodynamic or “metabolism first” scenarios are only popular among about a third of OOL researchers at this time. Notable subscribers include Harold Morowitz, Gunter Wachtershauser, Christian de Duve, Freeman Dyson and Shapiro himself. Their hypotheses, too, have certain requirements that must be met: an energy source, boundaries, ways to couple the energy to the organization, and a chemical network or cycle able to grow and reproduce. (The problems of genetics and heredity are shuffled into the future in these theories.) How are they doing? “Over the years, many theoretical papers have advanced particular metabolism first schemes, but relatively little experimental work has been presented in support of them,” Shapiro admits. “In those cases where experiments have been published, they have usually served to demonstrate the plausibility of individual steps in a proposed cycle.” In addition, “An understanding of the initial steps leading to life would not reveal the specific events that led to the familiar DNA-RNA-protein-based organisms of today.” Nor would plausible prebiotic cycles prove that’s what happened on the early earth. Success in the metabolism-first experiments would only contribute to hope that prebiotic cycles are plausible in principle, not that they actually happened.Nevertheless, Shapiro himself needed to return to the miracles he earlier rejected. “Some chance event or circumstance may have led to the connection of nucleotides to form RNA,” he speculates. Where did the nucleotides come from? Didn’t he say their formation was impossibly unlikely? How did they escape rapid destruction by water? Those concerns aside, maybe nucleotides initially served some other purpose and got co-opted, by chance, in the developing network of life. Showing that such thoughts represent little more than a pipe dream, though, he admits: “Many further steps in evolution would be needed to ‘invent’ the elaborate mechanisms for replication and specific protein synthesis that we observe in life today.”Time for Shapiro’s grand finale. For an article predominantly discouraging and critical, his final paragraph is surprisingly upbeat. Recounting that the highly-implausible big-molecule scenarios imply a lonely universe, he offers hope with the small-molecule alternative. Quoting Stuart Kauffman, “If this is all true, life is vastly more probable than we have supposed. Not only are we at home in the universe, but we are far more likely to share it with unknown companions.”Update Letters to the editor appeared in Science1 the next day, debating the two leading theories of OOL. The signers included most of the big names: Stanley Miller, Jeffrey Bada, Robert Hazen and others debating Gunter Wachtershauser and Claudia Huber. After sifting through the technical jargon, the reader is left with the strong impression that both camps have essentially falsified each other. On the primordial soup side, the signers picked apart details in a paper by the metabolism-first side. Concentrations of reagants and conditions specified were called “implausible” and “exceedingly improbable.”Wachtershauser and Huber countered that the “prebiotic soup theory” requires a “protracted, mechanistically obscure self-organization in a cold, primitive ocean,” which they claim is more improbable than the volcanic environment of their own “pioneer organism” theory (metabolism-first). It’s foolish to expect prebiotic soup products to survive in the ocean, of all places, “wherein after some thousand or million years, and under all manner of diverse influences, the magic of self-organization is believed to have somehow generated an unspecified first form of life.” That’s some nasty jabbing between the two leading camps.1Letters, “Debating Evidence for the Origin of Life on Earth,” Science, 16 February 2007: Vol. 315. no. 5814, pp. 937 – 939, DOI: 10.1126/science.315.5814.937c.Thank you, Robert Shapiro, for unmasking the lies we have been told for nearly a century. The Miller Experiment, the RNA World, and all the hype of countless papers, articles, popular press pieces and TV animations are impossible myths. We appreciate your help revealing why it’s all been hyped bunk. Now finish the job and show that yours is no better.You know you cannot stay with small molecules forever. You have not begun to bridge the canyon between metabolic cycles with small molecules to implausible genetic networks with large molecules (RNA, DNA and proteins). Any way you try to close the gap, you are going to run into the very same criticisms you raised against the RNA-World storytellers. You cannot invoke natural selection without accurate replication (see online book).Funny how these people presume that if they can just get molecules to pull themselves up by their bootstraps to the replicator stage, Charlie and Tinker Bell will take over from there. Before you can say 4 Gya, biochemists emerge!Shapiro’s article is very valuable for exposing the vast difference between the hype over origin of life and its implausibilities – nay, impossibilities – in the chemistry of the real world. His alternative is weak and fraught with the very same difficulties. If a golf ball is not going to finish holes 14-18 on its own without help, it is also not going to finish holes 1-5. If a gorilla is not going to type a recipe in English for chili con carne from thousands of keys on a keyboard, it is not going to type a recipe for hot soup either, even using only 1% of the keys. Furthermore, neither the gorilla nor the golf ball are going to want to proceed further on the evolutionist project. We cannot attribute an “innate desire” to a gorilla, a golf ball, or a sterile planet of chemicals to produce coded languages and molecular machines.Sooner or later, all the machinery, the replicators, the genetic codes and complex entropy-lowering processes are going to have to show up in the accounting. Once Shapiro realizes that his alternative is just as guilty as the ones he criticizes, we may have an ardent new advocate of intelligent design in the ranks. Join the winning side, Dr. Shapiro, before sliding with the losers and liars into the dustbin of intellectual history.(Visited 82 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Selling is difficult. It’s easy to fail. Here are some the way you can fail.Failure to be known: You aren’t going to succeed in sales if you aren’t known. Unless people know you and what you do, you’re not going to create the opportunities you need to succeed.Failure to connect: You still need to be liked. You have to connect with people. If you don’t connect, it’s difficult for people to choose to spend more time with you.Failure to gain trust: Connection isn’t the only relationship component you need to create. You also need to build trust. You can be known and liked but not trusted. Without trust, you’re going nowhere.Failure to create opportunities: Just because your prospective client has agreed to meet with you doesn’t mean you really have an opportunity. You have to create that opportunity be capturing dissatisfaction or helping to create it.Failure to create value: Your job in sales is to create value for your buyer through their buying process. If you don’t create value, if you don’t have big ideas that make a difference, if you waste your prospective client’s time, you won’t create or move an opportunity forward.Failure to gain commitments: Only bored, receptive buyers like professional visitors, the salespeople who spend time in their offices never asking for a commitment, never moving a deal forward. Without the ability to ask for an gain commitments, you can’t succeed in sales. Sales is conversations and commitments.Failure to gain consensus: You may think you are calling on “the” decision-maker. But decisions are mostly made after consensus has been reached. You have to help build that consensus. Without it, the status quo wins and you lose.Failure to present the right solution: You can have the best idea in the world, but if your dream client doesn’t share that vision, it’s wrong. You either sell them what you believe is right or you help them buy what they already want. Buyers buy what they believe to be the right solution.Failure to ask for the business: You have to close. You have to ask for the business. You have to get a signature. This is part of selling, even if you don’t want to be “salesy.” Essential Reading! Get my 2nd book: The Lost Art of Closing “In The Lost Art of Closing, Anthony proves that the final commitment can actually be one of the easiest parts of the sales process—if you’ve set it up properly with other commitments that have to happen long before the close. The key is to lead customers through a series of necessary steps designed to prevent a purchase stall.” Buy Now
Alphabet’s self-driving project is advertising dozens of jobs on its website with a special focus on manufacturing expertise.Thirty-six jobs related to the Google X car project were listed including engineers working on motion control, displays, robotics and sensors as well as managers charged with operations, materials and marketing.Google, which declined to comment, has denied in the past that it had any interest in making cars. Many industry experts believe the tech giant will partner with an established carmaker, supplying the software that will pioneer the fully autonomous vehicle.But the jobs listed provide a window into how much hardware Google may build to contribute to the cars of the future. Developing self-driving cars has been a key priority of traditional carmakers, technology companies like Apple Inc, Uber Technologies Inc and auto suppliers.A manufacturing process engineer job listing says the post is responsible for “designing factory assembly stations, optimizing production floor layout, automating critical manufacturing processes and approving fixture designs used in the assembly of electronic modules for the self-driving car.”A manufacturing supplier quality engineer will create and approve “manufacturing inspection processes, equipment, tools gauges and fixtures for raw material, mechanical components and mechanical assemblies.”A mechanical global supply chain manager, meanwhile, is responsible for manufacturing development execution, among other tasks.In January, president of the Google self-driving car project, John Krafcik, said he wanted to form partnerships with established carmakers and suppliers in 2016 to accelerate work.When he was hired in September, Krafcik’s prior experience at Hyundai and Ford fueled speculation that Google planned to build its own cars.Google posted other jobs outside of manufacturing that provided clues as to the scope of the growing project.A marketing manager position posted nine days ago requires someone to “shape go-to-market strategy and storytelling to win hearts and minds of community members, influencers and governments.”The company is even searching for a head of real estate and workplace services, suggesting that hiring may continue to rise.Google currently tests its prototype cars in its home base of Mountain View, California and Austin, Texas. It announced last week it would expand testing to Kirkland, Washington later in February.(Reporting By Alexandria Sage, David Shepardson and Deborah Todd. Writing by Alexandria Sage. Editing by Stephen R. Trousdale and Cynthia Osterman) Free Webinar | Sept. 9: The Entrepreneur’s Playbook for Going Global This story originally appeared on Reuters February 12, 2016 Register Now » 2 min read Growing a business sometimes requires thinking outside the box.