The successful Milford teamMilford and Four Masters served up a fine display of football in the ladies Under 16 B final.While it was end to end stuff all the way through Milford edged it with their accuracy in front of goals proving key to a great victory.It was Milford who began the game the stronger almost immediately putting 1-01 on the scoreboard with the first score, a point, coming from full forward Shauna Mc Bride who troubled the Four Masters defence all day with her speediness. The goal came from Leanne Boyce who really led the Milford attack. This was her first of three goals for the day, a dominant force at centre forward.Four Masters responded well putting pressure on the Milford defence. This paid off with a point from Sophie Doherty followed by a penalty for Four Masters to level the game. Even though goalkeeper Rachel Roarty got her hands to it there was no stopping it with such power that Emer McGrory had hit it.Milford gained control of the game for the next five minutes with Leanne Boyce scoring two more goals.Four Masters had their turn to shine with a super goal from Niamh Byrne. She excellently gathered a high ball in to turn and solo before slotting a brilliant effort home. Unfortunately for Four Masters this was their last score of the first half. A well hit goal from Bronagh Barrett and a pointed free from Shauna Mc Bride left the half time score 4-02 to 2-01 in favour of Milford.Milford continued their good form at the start of the second half with points from Niamh Gallagher and Shauna McBride. Another goal from Leanne Boyce gave them a firm lead ten minutes into the second half.Points for Four Masters came from Catherine Earley and Rebecca Pearson as the Donegal town girls battled on. A point from Leah Duggan kept the scoring for Milford ticking over. Another penalty for Four Masters in injury time was converted well by Catherine Earley.The final whistle blew to the immense excitement of the Milford girls and the supporters who had travelled to the game.While the second half lacked many scores there was still plenty of excitement. Four Masters had a lot of the play with Eva Diver at wing back and Grace Nolan at wing forward linking up well. Midfield for both teams worked well with Kate Smith and Ciara Doogan for Four Masters and Niamh McHugh and Aoife Donnelly for Milford working their socks off. Massive credit must go to the all of the Milford defence for working endlessly to contain the Four Masters forwards with Myia Nyhan at full back and Katie McAteer at centre back leading the way clearing the danger on many occasions.Milford Captain Aoife Donnelly received the cup from County Chairman Hugh Devenney. She thanked the referee, the Four Masters team, and her own coaches.This game was another good promotion for Ladies Gaelic. Thanks to the Red Hugh’s club for facilitating the game and particularly for the tea at half time.GAA NEWS – MILFORD LADIES OVERCOME FOUR MASTERS IN CLOSE UNDER 16B FINAL was last modified: June 1st, 2013 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:finalfour mastersLadies Under 16BMilford
John Terry’s header shortly after the half-hour mark meant Chelsea were on level terms at the interval in Philadelphia.They were trailing to Chris Wondolowski’s 20th-minute goal when Terry netted from Frank Lampard’s corner.The All Stars line-up includes former England captain David Beckham and ex-Arsenal star Thierry Henry.And Henry was involved in the opener, latching on to Landon Donavan’s pass and crossing for Wondolowski to slot past keeper Hilario.Chelsea enjoyed a decent spell of pressure following the equaliser, although Henry came close to putting his team back in front when he side-footed over after being found by Beckham.Follow West London Sport on TwitterFind us on Facebook
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
by Dr Jerry BergmanA cover story in the May, 2017 issue of Scientific American announces, “The Discovery of 3.3 Million-year-old Stone Tools Overturns Long Standing Views on Human Evolution.” The article reviews the finding of “ancient stone tools from Kenya [that] shatter the classic story of when and how humans became innovators” (p. 28). The find, touted as the “oldest stone tools in the world,” was near the city of Lomekwi in northwestern Kenya. Stone tools are viewed as critical for human evolution because they are “the defining characteristics of the Homo genus and the key to our evolutionary success” (p. 30).When the account is evaluated further, it is not nearly as solid as the headlines imply.The author, Kate Wong, examined the research findings of Sonia Harmand, an archaeologist at Stony Brook University, and her husband Jason Lewis, a paleontologist at Stony Brook. Harmand and their team of 15 workers were searching for evidence of stone tools made by humans. After weeks of looking, and straining tons of dirt, they finally found some brownish-gray stone fragments about the size of a human finger. The fragments were not only claimed to be the oldest human made tools ever found, but they also “challenged a cherished theory of human evolution” which taught that tool making did not occur until millions of years later (p. 30).When the account is evaluated further, it is not nearly as solid as the headlines imply. The only evidence of their being made by humans is they look like small chips of stone made by knapping, the act of striking one rock against another. The few rocks found after sifting through tons of dirt, at best, are not stone tools, but only stone chips produced by making stone tools! Furthermore, the stones themselves could not be dated, but some maps of the area dated the sediment at 2.7 million years old (p. 33) and the team is now in the process of attempting to unearth “more evidence that the tools are as old as they appear” (p. 30). The undated stones could well have been deposited by humans 50 or even 4,000 years ago, or could have been produced by natural processes. The formation of ice in the cracks in rocks can produce similar chips. The concern is not how old the stones are, but when the chips were formed. They could have been formed some months ago, or a few thousand years ago. My guess is a few years ago, but unless we have some eyewitness to testify when they were formed, it will be difficult to determine the date. They appear to be young because the normal extreme heating and cooling of the desert where they were found would surely have softened the stone fragments’ sharp corners, as would animal life inhabiting the ground a few feet below the surface where they were unearthed.One reason why finds like this are said to require re-writing of the textbooks is because so many of the conclusions based on these finds are largely speculation based on very tenuous evidence. As Mark Twain once wrote, the fossil record of evolution is based on a few bone fragments and several pounds of plaster of Paris, plus lots of imagination. A few of many examples of where new finds forced rewriting the textbooks include: National Geographic: “Almost Human: A New Ancestor Shakes Up our Family Tree (October 2016, cover) National Geographic: “The First Pioneer? A New Find Shakes the Human Family Tree” (August 2002, cover)New Scientist: “New Human Species May Rewrite History (January 2, 2016 cover) Newsweek: “The Evolution Revolution: New Science of the Brain and DNA is Rewriting the Story of Human Origins” (from the cover dated March 19, 2007). Maybe they should have rewritten the textbooks without Darwin glasses on so the evidence can be evaluated objectively based purely on the data.(Visited 616 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Placing an emphasis on lighting is one of the most effective ways to keep your production value high. The 4 lights on this list will allow you to not only light your film beautifully, but do it on a minuscule budget.Nearly every indie filmmaker will rent or buy a standard lighting kit for their productions (such as an Arri or Lowell kit). While these types of lighting kits are reliable and versatile, inexpensive consumer lights may also have a place in your production. Unlike traditional lighting kits, practical lights (that can be bought at places like Home Depot or Ikea) are often sold at a fraction of the cost of film lights, since they don’t have the same functionality built in. While the lack of functionality can seem like a big downside, you can often use the quirkiness of these lights to your advantage…and ultimately give your film a distinct look.It’s not just filmmakers on a budget that are known to make use of practical lights either. Many well established filmmakers (like David Fincher for example) are known for utilizing household lights or work lamps in order to achieve a desired effect. So if you’re looking to save a few bucks on your next production, or just want to try something new and different – these lights are for you:1. China BallsImage from Pasadena Daily PhotoNearly every lighting store or home furnishing store (such as Ikea) will sell these china balls, and generally they go for under $20. They emit a beautiful soft light that can be used as a key, fill, or even a background light and are extremely adaptable. For daytime use, you can switch to daylight balanced bulbs easily, which makes them such versatile and valuable tools much like the work lights above.They can be mounted on a light stand, used on a boom pole (for run and gun/walking scenes), or rigged up just about anywhere you can imagine. Many film lighting manufacturers now make more expensive “pro” versions of these lights that have a stronger ball (the cheap ones are made of paper), so if you want to use a light like this on multiple shoots, you might want to consider a more heavy duty version.2. Work LightsThese common construction lights can be bought at just about any hardware store for about $30, and considering the amount of power that they can generate they offer some of the best bang for the buck out there. You can buy these lights with tungsten or daylight balanced bulbs which makes them extremely versatile, and their strong output makes them fantastic options for demanding lighting situations such as night exteriors. These lights have been used in countless feature films (even large scale productions such as Fight Club), and are a must have for DPs on a budget.3. Energizer LED Folding Area LanternThese little light panels are a relatively new product and available at nearly any Target, Wal Mart, or supply store. They are often used for camping as a means to light up a completely dark area at night, and as such they well suited for use on a film set. The light quality and fall off from these little panels can be brilliant, and I generally find them to give a similar aesthetic to shooting with regular LED panels or at times even flourescent Kinos. I would suggest using these as a soft key or a fill light, as they do a great job of illuminating skin tones in a natural way.4. Clamp Flood LightsThese good old fashioned flood lights have been used for decades by filmmakers and photographers on a budget. They can be bought for as little as $9 (without the bulb) at your local hardware store, and much like the construction lights on this list, they offer a great solution for inexpensive high power output. You can use a single lamp as a high key (or add diffusion to it if you prefer), or combine multiple lamps to illuminate an entire room. There is a reason why these have been used for so many years, and it’s not just because they are cheap!Final Thoughts: Use What You NeedWhen approaching the lighting setup for any given project, you never want to take a one size all fits approach. Always carefully consider what the stylistic and creative needs are of your project, and of course what your vision is for the overall aesthetic. From there, you can start to build your kit in a way that is unique and specific to your project.Know of any other cheap practical lights? Share in the comments below.
Essential Reading! Get my 3rd book: Eat Their Lunch “The first ever playbook for B2B salespeople on how to win clients and customers who are already being serviced by your competition.” Buy Now We tend to think of selling as something one does, as a profession, a set of actions. We believe that anyone motivated to learn to sell can do so, and put our faith in sales processes and methodologies to produce a repeatable result. Now, because selling has fully matured into being other-oriented, we believe the buyer’s process or journey is essential to serving the prospective client, should one hope to succeed. What we don’t spend enough time worrying about is whom we provide to the buyer to execute these processes, methodologies, and buyer’s journeys. If you want to make selling a lot easier, become someone people want to buy from.CharacterMy first book, The Only Sales Guide You’ll Ever Need, was a book about how to succeed in sales. It is every bit as much a success manual as it is a sales guide. The first half of the book is titled Mindset, and it includes nine chapters about how you develop the character traits necessary to become someone people want to buy from, with sales-related examples to bring the ideas to life. The character traits you need to develop include self-discipline, optimism, caring, competitiveness, resourcefulness, persistence, initiative, communication, and accountability.Learn Anthony’s core strategies & tactics for sales success at any level with The Only Sales Guide You’ll Ever NeedWithout self-discipline, your ability to keep the commitments you make to yourself, you aren’t going to keep the promises you make to others. Your prospective clients can sense whether or not you are buttoned-up. You also project your attitude, which is why optimism is critical. Perceptive people can intuit much about you in a single meeting, including your other-orientation and how much they believe you will be accountable for the outcomes you sell them.Integrity means that you are honest and moral. It also suggests that you are whole and not divided, or something like incongruent. It very much matters who shows up to sit across from your dream client. If you want to make selling easier, develop the character traits that other people find attractive.Value Creation in ProcessIn any human endeavor, the results one produces will be found somewhere along a continuum, something you will recognize as a bell curve. Poor performers, when measured on some outcome, are located at the left end of the curve, and the best performers are found on the extreme right, with most people somewhere in the middle sixty-percent. As it pertains to sales, one measurement worth considering is how valuable your prospective clients find you and their interactions with you.When you think about selling as our job, it’s easy to forget that the whole endeavor is about creating a preference to buy from you and your company (video), a company that provided you to represent them. The experience you provide is what creates–or doesn’t create–that preference. There are countless ways to lessen the experience and subtract from value, including things like being self-oriented or showing up unprepared, things you might quickly remedy if one wanted to improve. But as necessary as it is to be other-oriented and prepared, there are more significant crimes of which one might be accused.In The Lost Art of Closing: Winning the 10 Commitments That Drive Sales, you will find a nonlinear methodology for taking a consultative approach to selling. As crucial as this framework is, the heart of the idea is that you, the professional salesperson, should help your dream clients agree to the commitments and conversations necessary to making real change and the better results that can only follow the change.No more pushy sales tactics. The Lost Art of Closing shows you how to proactively lead your customer and close your sales. Knowing what conversations are necessary and the commitments required to support them provide your contacts with greater certainty. You sell your solution every day, and your client infrequently changes partners. Your guidance creates a preference. Your knowledge of how to decide to change and produce better results makes you someone worth buying from.Value Creation in AdviceYou need only two things to be a trusted advisor, the first being trust, and the other being advice. If you cannot offer meaningful advice, then trust by itself isn’t going to be enough for you to be someone your contacts can select as a partner.In Eat Their Lunch: Winning Customers Away from Your Competition, you will find a simple framework for judging the value you create for your clients and prospects. The lowest level, Level 1, would mean that the extent of the value you create for your client is limited to your product or service. The highest level of value, Level 4, indicates that you provide strategic advice and the equally strategic outcomes your dream client needs.Win customers away from your competition. Check out Eat Their LunchAn approach that starts by pitching your company and your product or solution, you are subtracting from value and eliminating a preference. A strategy that addresses the obstacles to better results by providing context, followed by advice on how to achieve strategic outcomes (the real motivation to change), makes you someone worth knowing and someone worth adding to their team.The level of your advice is a variable to your being someone who attracts clients.Subject Matter ExpertiseShould you desire to attract your dream clients to working with you instead of a competitor, you will need to become a subject matter expert. Most of the people you compete against for a client’s business are not interested or willing to become an expert in the results and outcomes they produce. They aren’t going to read books or journals, and they’re not going to exert themselves in understanding their industry and the intersection of their business and their client’s business.Your client isn’t an expert in your industry. There is no amount of internet research that can replace the knowledge one acquires from experience working in an industry, especially when their role requires them to help people produce better outcomes. You are either someone who has the knowledge and expertise to cover the gaps in their dream client’s knowledge, in which case, you can cover their gaps, or you know little more than they do.Proving you can fill the gaps in your client’s knowledge and understanding makes you someone worth buying from.Start NowIf you want to become someone people want to buy from, recognize that success is individual and start by possessing the traits that your clients find attractive. Then learn how to be a consultative salesperson, and create more value than your competitors by becoming an expert in the outcomes you sell.Becoming a person that people want to buy from is difficult, but once you have done so, selling is a lot easier.