Image source: Getty Images. jonathansmith1 has no position in any of the shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has recommended Lloyds Banking Group. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. “This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997” Jonathan Smith | Wednesday, 19th May, 2021 | More on: LLOY I was right about the Lloyds share price. Here’s my outlook now Our 6 ‘Best Buys Now’ Shares Click here to claim your copy now — and we’ll tell you the name of this Top US Share… free of charge! I would like to receive emails from you about product information and offers from The Fool and its business partners. Each of these emails will provide a link to unsubscribe from future emails. More information about how The Fool collects, stores, and handles personal data is available in its Privacy Statement. Renowned stock-picker Mark Rogers and his analyst team at The Motley Fool UK have named 6 shares that they believe UK investors should consider buying NOW.So if you’re looking for more stock ideas to try and best position your portfolio today, then it might be a good day for you. Because we’re offering a full 33% off your first year of membership to our flagship share-tipping service, backed by our ‘no quibbles’ 30-day subscription fee refund guarantee. Simply click below to discover how you can take advantage of this. I’m sure you’ll agree that’s quite the statement from Motley Fool Co-Founder Tom Gardner.But since our US analyst team first recommended shares in this unique tech stock back in 2016, the value has soared.What’s more, we firmly believe there’s still plenty of upside in its future. In fact, even throughout the current coronavirus crisis, its performance has been beating Wall St expectations.And right now, we’re giving you a chance to discover exactly what has got our analysts all fired up about this niche industry phenomenon, in our FREE special report, A Top US Share From The Motley Fool. Enter Your Email Address Back in March, I wrote a piece where I stated that I thought Lloyds Banking Group (LSE:LLOY) shares could reach 50p. At the time, it was trading about 25% below this level. If we fast-forward to today, the Lloyds share price is currently trading around 48p, so almost at the target level. I will admit that my outlook was for 50p to be hit later this year, and that the move towards this level has come at a quicker pace than I expected. So what does this mean for the bank for the rest of the year?The reasons for the rallyThe movement higher in the Lloyds share price over the past couple of months has been very sharp. This can be put down to a couple of different reasons.5G is here – and shares of this ‘sleeping giant’ could be a great way for you to potentially profit!According to one leading industry firm, the 5G boom could create a global industry worth US$12.3 TRILLION out of thin air…And if you click here we’ll show you something that could be key to unlocking 5G’s full potential…Firstly, first-quarter results built on the full-year results that were released in February. The full-year results were positive, with the icing on the cake being the resumption of a small dividend. Investors were keen to see whether Q1 results would continue this momentum.In my opinion, it did. Underlying profit came in at £2.07bn, up 58% from Q4 2020. It was also considerably higher than Q1 of 2020, although given the pandemic impact I don’t judge it against this figure. Aside from quarterly results, the rising inflation expectations have also been a benefit to the Lloyds share price. Although this has been a negative for companies with heavy debt loads, it’s been a positive for the bank’s business model. Higher inflation should lead to higher interest rates from the Bank of England. This will filter through to the net interest margin that the bank makes. The higher the interest rates, the larger the difference between the rate the bank charges (lends) and pays (deposits).My outlook for the Lloyds share priceI do think the rally in the Lloyds share price close to 50p has been warranted. A 25% move in three months is a lot, and it’s up 64% over one year. So I do think there will come a point when all the good news is priced in to the stock.I don’t think we’re there yet though. For example, I think there is upside potential surrounding the future dividend payout. More information on this is due at the half-year results. If the outlook is for the bank to resume to a higher payout policy into next year, then I think the Lloyds share price could rally.Another reason for my positive outlook is the indirect benefit the bank will get from further easing of lockdown restrictions. It’ll take time for consumer spending and business investment to properly resume. When it does, Lloyds will undoubtedly benefit as it’ll be the facilitator in these transactions.The main risk to my view is that the above events don’t happen as quickly as I expect. Rates could be kept low for years to come, and the recovery in the economy could take longer as well. In this case, the trend higher in the Lloyds share price could stagnate.Overall, I have enough exposure to banking stocks at the moment, but if I didn’t then I would look to buy Lloyds shares. See all posts by Jonathan Smith
Top Stories”Dangerous Accused Must Be Handcuffed”: SC Dismisses Plea Against Extra-Judicial Killings And Handcuffing Of Persons Mehal Jain14 Oct 2020 1:44 AMShare This – xThe Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea raising the concerns regarding extra-judicial killings and handcuffing of prisoners.”Where are you going with this? How can you prevent extra-judicial killing? they shouldn’t happen but how will you stop them?”, asked CJ S. A. Bobde at the outset of Senior Advocate Jitendra Sharma, for the petitioner.”In 2014, Your Lordships had said there should…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea raising the concerns regarding extra-judicial killings and handcuffing of prisoners.”Where are you going with this? How can you prevent extra-judicial killing? they shouldn’t happen but how will you stop them?”, asked CJ S. A. Bobde at the outset of Senior Advocate Jitendra Sharma, for the petitioner.”In 2014, Your Lordships had said there should be inquiry after an extra-judicial killing…when an accused is before the Magistrate for remand, he knows the apprehensions of himself and his advocate, which he must make known to the magistrate. The magistrate must record the same…in 1995, this court said that handcuffing or tying by a rope should not be forced on a prisoner as a general rule, but only by way of exception”, advanced Mr. Sharma, indicating the decision in Citizens For Democracy vs State Of Assam.”But some accused are dangerous! They must be hand-cuffed!”, said the CJ.”Yes, they must be! The accused is the best person to make known such apprehensions! But the magistrate must record this apprehension of the person! The magistrate should ask ‘Do you want to be handcuffed?”, replied the senior advocate.”No, No, No, Which accused would say ‘yes’? If the accused intends to assault the police, he is bound to say ‘no’! He would be a foolish man to say ‘Handcuff me’! People kill the police, people kill the jail warden also!”, remarked the CJ.”Yes. But they must be dealt with in accordance with the law”, argued the counsel.”Sorry, we won’t entertain this”, said the CJ, dismissing the plea Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Story
Indiana’s primary is being held on May 8, 2018. Polls will be open from 6 a.m. – 6 p.m. Here’s a list of the candidates that will be on the primary ballot.Statewide Ballots US SENATOR Joe Donnelly – Democratic (incumbent)REPUBLICAN PRIMARYMike Braun – RepublicanLuke Messer – RepublicanTodd Rokita – RepublicanDISTRICT #8-U S HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY Larry Bucshon – Republican (incumbent)Rachel Covington – RepublicanRichard Moss – RepublicanDEMOCRATIC PRIMARYWilliam Tanoos – DemocraticState Senator, District 47 (Crawford, Orange, Harrison, Perry and Washington Counties, and Eastern Dubois County)Erin Houchin – Republican (incumbent)Nicholas A. (Nick) Siler – DemocraticState Senator, District 48 (Pike, Spencer, and Portions of Dubois, Knox, Gibson, and Warrick counties)Mark Messmer – Republican (incumbent)State Senator, District 49 (Posey County, Portions of Vanderburgh and Gibson Counties)DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY Edie Hardcastle – DemocraticREPUBLICAN PRIMARYJim Tomes – Republican (incumbent)State Representative, District 63 (Portions of Daviess, Dubois, Pike and Martin Counties)REPUBLICAN PRIMARYShane M. Lindauer – Republican (incumbent)DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY Dennis Tedrow – DemocraticJoseph “Joe” Lannan – DemocraticState Representative, District 64 (All Of Gibson County and Portions Of Knox, Pike, Vanderburgh and Posey Counties)REPUBLICAN PRIMARYKen A Beckerman – RepublicanMatt Hostettler – RepublicanBruce W Ungethiem – RepublicanState Representative, District 74 (All Of Perry and Crawford Counties And Portions Of Spencer, Dubois and Orange Counties)REPUBLICAN PRIMARY Stephen R. Bartles – Republican (incumbent)DEMOCRATIC PRIMARYLarry K. Kleeman – DemocraticState Representative, District 76 (Most Of Posey County And A Section Of Vanderburgh County)REPUBLICAN PRIMARYWendy (Mac) McNamara – Republican (incumbent)DEMOCRATIC PRIMARYStephen (Steve) Folz – DemocraticState Representative, District 77 (Portions Of Vanderburgh County)Ryan Hatfield – Democratic (incumbent)State Representative, District 78 (portions of Vanderburgh And Warrick Counties)Holli Sullivan – Republican (incumbent)Vanderburgh County Primary RacesProsecuting AttorneyNicholas G Hermann – RepublicanAuditorBrian A Gerth – RepublicanSheriffDave Wedding – DemocraticCounty AssessorBill Fluty – RepublicanCounty Commissioner, District 2Michael J Duckworth Sr – RepublicanSteve Hammer – RepublicanVernon Stevens – RepublicanCounty Council, District 1David Christmas – RepublicanJames Raben – RepublicanCounty Council, District 2Tom Shetler Jr – RepublicanCounty Council District 3Stephanie Terry – DemocraticCounty Council District 4John Monstrastelle – RepublicanArmstrong Township TrusteeRandy L Kent – RepublicanArmstrong Township Board (choose three)James Memmer – RepublicanDavid W Schmitt – RepublicanCenter Township TrusteeGary Burdsall – RepublicanCenter Township Board (choose three)Tom Gant – RepublicanJ Ervin Stafford Stucki – RepublicanJames F Tolen – RepublicanGerman Township TrusteeTim Schaefer – DemocraticTricia Gerteisen – RepublicanSherri Schlitt – RepublicanGerman Township Board (choose three)Frank T Peterlin – RepublicanBeverly White Rowley – RepublicanKnight Township TrusteeKathryn Martin – DemocraticWm. Billy D Garrett – RepublicanJohnny Kincaid – RepublicanKnight Township Board (choose three)Donald R Boerner – RepublicanNorman L Kniese – RepublicanChristopher Politano – RepublicanDavid Woods – RepublicanPerry Township TrusteeRick Riney – DemocraticPerry Township Board (choose three)James L Eickhoff – DemocraticCharlie Guetling – DemocraticLloyd D Jost – DemocraticTed Miller – DemocraticPigeon Township TrusteeMary E Hart – DemocraticMariama Wilson – DemocraticPigeon Township Board (choose three)Shirley A Baker – DemocraticMary Ann Eickhoff – DemocraticMary Louise Hall – DemocraticRuby McGlown – DemocraticBrittany A Mitchell – DemocraticCallie M Rogers – DemocraticBridgett Tate – DemocraticScott Township TrusteeBob F Harris – RepublicanScott Township Board (choose three)Keith D Kahre – RepublicanSteven Jackson – RepublicanJim McCutchan – RepublicanUnion Township TrusteeJoseph Steinkamp – RepublicanUnion Township Board (choose three)Michael Kolb – RepublicanChris Winiger – RepublicanFacebookTwitterCopy LinkEmail
Share:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window) Photo: PixabayALBANY — Nursing homes in New York must immediately report how they’ve complied with regulations for resident care during the coronavirus, and non-compliant facilities could face hefty fines or lose their licenses, Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Thursday.Cuomo said the state Department of Health and state Attorney General Letitia James’ office would be investigating to see how nursing homes are meeting regulations including alerting all residents and their family members of coronavirus cases and fatalities.The state’s tally of deaths of nursing home residents rose to 2,902 and adult care facilities reported 638 deaths. That was 22 percent of the state death toll.Nursing homes also must separate, isolate or transfer certain residents with COVID-19 and provide personal protective equipment to staff. Cuomo said state health officials will inspect non-compliant facilities, which could have to submit an action plan and potentially face $10,000 fines per violation or lose their license.A dozen nursing homes have reported at least 30 deaths. But such numbers are an undercount, with some nursing homes only reporting presumed or confirmed deaths.
“The 19th Hole” runs every other Wednesday. To comment on this article, email Joey at [email protected] or visit dailytrojan.com. Well, that was exhausting.Five years, one month and six days later, and the final chapter to the Reggie Bush era officially closed Thursday morning with the NCAA once again giving USC the cold shoulder, announcing the school’s appeal of last June’s sanctions had been denied.And it’s about time.For a case dating back to early 2006, when James Blunt songs were actually played on radio stations, it had become all too tiresome to cipher through stories repeatedly littered with the words “infractions,” “sanctions” and “postseason ban.”No doubt, following the five-year ordeal, it’s time for USC to move on, no matter how unprecedented, how unwarranted the NCAA Committee on Infractions’ decision was last year regarding USC (a loss of 30 scholarships over three seasons, a two-year postseason bowl ban).Granted, the outcome was unquestionably unfair, but at this point, nothing is going to change. It’s time to put “Sanctionsgate” in the rearview mirror, time to quit the COI bashing, time to look toward the future.“We’ll deal with what we’re dealt,” junior quarterback Matt Barkley told a group of reporters last week.Atop the wish list for many disgruntled fans is a lawsuit against the NCAA, a way to seek damages, a way to expose the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of the governing body of college athletics.Despite of such a possibility, school officials insist they won’t exercise legal action, not now or at any point in the immediate future.“The university has considered all the alternatives,” Athletic Director Pat Haden said Thursday. “We are not going to do that. We have decided to kind of move on.”Suffice to say, not everyone welcomes such a mindset.“What’s this WE business?” said one fan on the USC message board, Fighton247.com. “[Haden] should say “I” because the Trojan fanbase and I’m sure a large number of the alumni want to keep FIGHTING ON!!!”But a lawsuit is unquestionably farfetched.For starters, there is no technical “NCAA.” The organization is complex and composed of a litany of subcommittees, begging the question as to who you actually sue. The enforcement staff? The ones who initially uncovered the findings. The COI? The appeals committee? (The five-member group that ruled the sanctions were acceptable). Or for good measure, NCAA President Mark Emmert?But all are separate entities (the NCAA president is not responsible for enforcement). In short, putting a lawsuit together is complex.And who is going to file such a lawsuit? The university? The Board of Trustees? The athletic department? The boosters?I’m not a legal expert. I can’t tell you that if USC was able to sue the NCAA what the odds of success would be, or whether it’d be practical at all. It’d surely be unprecedented, unheard of in modern-day college athletics. Think about it: a member institution suing a non-profit organization it is a voluntary member of.And if successful, it’d have the impact to transform the sport 180 degrees. We know that much.Either way, it’s not on the horizon, and maybe that’s OK.Call it appeasement, call it raising the white flag, but it is quite possible that after five years, it’s time to turn the page and begin a new chapter.The initial violations stemming from Bush’s ineligibility date back to 2004 when Barkley and others were in middle school, learning long division and signing up for Pop Warner leagues. And for the next three seasons — potentially even longer — they, along with the entire program, will feel the impact of scholarships restrictions and bowl bans.So why drag it out?Now that the Trojans won’t be able to feature more than 75 scholarship players for the 2012, 2013 or 2014 seasons or partake in a bowl game come December, as losing the appeal guarantees the initial sanctions will no longer be altered, the only thing left the program stands to gain is monetary benefit.And considering the distractions this ordeal has caused and the potential it has to detract from the university’s success in the academic realm, it does pose the question as to whether this is an avenue worthy of pursuit.“I think we need to have a better relationship with the NCAA,” Haden said Thursday.Considering how the dominoes have fallen over the past year, maybe Haden’s right: It’s time to begin anew.
FERNANDO PEREZ, LOST BUS, WINNER: “She ran well last time but even I didn’t know she was going to run this well in here. I got a clean break, I took her to the lead and she was comfortable the whole time and at the end, she was still trying.“Corey (Nakatani, on Finest City) was pushing me. We were bumping a little bit down the stretch, but not much to be honest. He just had to take the shot to see if he could get the disqualification.“I didn’t even see Mike (Smith, on favored Tara’s Tango) at the wire. I was too busy fighting with Corey and trying to beat him. I needed to get that done first.” NOTES: Winning owner Terry Lovingier resides in Long Beach. JOCKEY QUOTES TERRY LOVINGIER, OWNER, LOST BUS, WINNER: “I’m kinda lost for words. I didn’t expect this and not too many others did either; she was 60-1. We claimed her (for $32,000 three starts back on Nov. 19) because she battled quite a few times with My Fiona (stakes-winning filly owned by Lovingier) when they were both 2-year-olds. I don’t claim that often anymore, but I did claim quite a few horses before I started breeding them.” GARY SHERLOCK, LOST BUS, WINNER: “This race was a Grade I when I won it last time (with Intangaroo in 2008). Lost Bus was pretty much going to run before I learned Sunday Rules wouldn’t be entered, but I was running for third, and it turned out better than that.“There wasn’t a lot of speed in the race, and I told Fernando to go to the front.”Asked about her next race: “She’s a Cal-bred, so there are plenty of options.” MIKE SMITH, TARA’S TANGO, THIRD: “I tried to get her out of there quickly today and we did much better (than usual) but we couldn’t quite keep up with that forty-four pace. I was having to really, really pedal to stay head and head with them and that’s a long way to be on her, that hard, the whole time. I couldn’t keep her in a hard drive.“I thought I could let them go, give her a bit of a breather and then go at them again on the outside and it worked, but, I just didn’t get there in time.“You just try and do the right thing and sometimes when it works, you’re the hero. Sometimes though, if you don’t win, you don’t look so good.” TRAINER QUOTES
Science News: The January 31 cover of Science News shouts “Happy Birthday Darwin” against a backdrop of his famous “tree of life” sketch from the Origin. The website contains a 36-page tribute to Darwin. Editor-in-Chief Tom Siegfried led off with an opening editorial entitled, “Modern biology owes unpayable debt to Darwin.” Who is the “greatest practitioner of all time” in sports or the physical sciences? Siegfried says the question is likely to end in a divided vote. That was his lead-in to this announcement:But then there’s biology. The greatest biology of all time? There’s only one answer. Any other vote invalidates the voter as unqualified. It’s Darwin.He doesn’t tell you just what he thinks about Darwin. He tells you what you have to think to be considered “qualified” to have an opinion. Voting for Pasteur, for instance, would not only invalidate your vote; it would disqualify you as a voter. Continuing on with the Dobzhansky mantra (12/19/2008), Siegfried added, “No scientist’s birthday warrants more hullabaloo and hoopla.” On the inside back cover, Siegfried took quotes from Darwin about religion and converted them into an interview. He asked Darwin questions about atheism, religion, design and God, and picked out quotes guaranteed to make natural theology and intelligent design look bad. If Darwin is being voted world’s greatest biologist, why would his theological opinions matter?National Geographic: Another cover story for the Darwin Bicentennial, from National Geographic Magazine (Feb. 2009), teased with the line, “What Darwin Didn’t Know.” Inside, two lengthy articles discussed Darwin’s original ideas and those of the “Modern Darwins” who have extended them. If Darwin didn’t know something, it wasn’t his fault – the sciences of genetics and molecular biology hadn’t been invented yet. Any errors he made were due to his being imprisoned in the 19th century. Quasi-religious adulations continued inside with Matt Ridley’s article, “Modern Darwins” Ridley portrayed today’s Darwinists as precocious children who would make their daddy proud. Darwin’s core idea of mindless, purposeless, unguided natural selection was presented as unquestionable fact:In 1953, Francis Crick, together with a young American named James Watson, would make a discovery that has led inexorably to the triumphant vindication of almost everything Darwin deduced about evolution. To understand the story of evolution—both its narrative and its mechanism—modern Darwins don’t have to guess. They consult genetic scripture.Darwin’s greatest idea was that natural selection is largely responsible for the variety of traits one sees among related species. Now, in the beak of the finch and the fur of the mouse, we can actually see the hand of natural selection at work….Darwin, who assumed that evolution plodded along at a glacially slow rate, observable only in the fossil record, would be equally delighted by another discovery. In those same Galapagos finches, modern Darwins can watch evolution occur in real time.What better evidence for Darwin’s belief in the commonality of all species than to find the same gene doing the same job in birds and fish, continents apart?In The Origin of Species, Darwin tactfully left unspoken how his theory would extend that commonality to include humankind. A decade later he confronted the matter head-on in The Descent of Man. He would be delighted to know that a certain gene, called FOXP2, is critical for the normal development of both speech in people and song in birds.His notion of sexual selection was politely ignored by most Victorian opinion, which was mildly scandalized by the thought of females actively choosing a mate, rather than submitting coyly to the advances of males…. But we now know Darwin was right all along.In one of his flights of fancy, Darwin argued that sexual selection might account for human racial differences…. The jury is still out on that particular idea, but there are hints that Darwin might be at least partly right…. Either way, the explanation leads straight back to Darwin’s two theories—natural and sexual selection.Just as Darwin drew lessons from both fossil armadillos and living rheas and finches, his scientific descendants combine insights from genes with insights from fossils to understand the history of life.Could such a man ever make a mistake? Yes; Ridley said Darwin did not understand inheritance. Mendel’s work had never reached his attention. “The monk’s fate was to die years before the significance of his discovery was appreciated,” Ridley lamented. “But his legacy, like Darwin’s, has never been more alive.” Darwin scores even when in error. The magazine’s celebration began with David Quammen retelling the Darwin adventure tale on the Beagle, followed by a timeline of events and theories by Darwin and the Modern Darwins. Quammen corrected some misconceptions about the “mythic account” of Darwin’s voyage, and the timing of his conversion to evolutionism. But in the end, he praised his book to high heaven: “Almost inarguably, it’s the most significant single scientific book ever published. After 150 years, people still venerate it, people still deplore it, and The Origin of Species continues to exert an extraordinary influence—though, unfortunately, not many people actually read it.”Sacred Cause: A new book by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin’s Sacred Cause, elevates Darwin further by claiming he was an abolitionist like his birthday-mate Abraham Lincoln. The BBC News says that abolition was a driving force behind Darwin’s theory. This idea might seem surprising to readers aware that Darwin announced in The Descent of Man that it was inevitable the fitter races would eventually exterminate the weaker races. After all, wasn’t the subtitle of Darwin’s Origin “The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”? An English gentleman, Darwin was clearly repulsed by the cruelty toward slaves he witnessed. His belief in the common ancestry of all races of mankind stood against the racist views of those who attributed human races to separate origins. In that respect, Darwin’s unification of humanity is like the Biblical view that all men are descendents of Adam, except that Darwin has mankind arising from apes, and the Bible has mankind falling from grace. Desmond and Moore seem to omit, though, whether “survival of the fittest” could promote racial equality. Common ancestry aside, the Haeckels, Brocas and Hitlers to follow certainly ranked the human races by fitness and intelligence – using Darwin’s “law of nature” for support.It should be understood that these adulations sit on top of daily, weekly, yearly expressions of praise and admiration for Charles Darwin in the scientific journals and popular press. Often these expressions are stated in opposition to religious views or scientific arguments for design. A question few of the modern Darwins seem to be asking, though, is how could a scientist possibly design a theory that removes design from the conceptual realm? (See quote at top right of page.)Is it possible for the world to go crazy? If you don’t think so, look at history. Look at what some ancient civilizations thought about the world, the universe, and life. Despite great achievements in architecture and technology, they held beliefs that strike us as absurd – yet in their day, those beliefs were intuitively obvious. Sometimes they were enforced by the state with severe punishment, even the ultimate punishment. Darwin today serves as a kind of prophet of Marduk who brings enlightenment and explains the world. You’re not entitled to have opinions about him. Failure to honor the Marduk of the age, or his prophet, is not only insane, it is a capital crime. One method for detecting absurdity is to find self-refuting arguments. These can never be overturned by more evidence, because they are self-refuting – they are false by definition. Evolutionary theory is full of them. (1) Darwin built a law of nature on chance, which is the contradiction to law. (2) Darwin reasoned that the mind is an evolved artifact of blind accident, undermining the very basis of reason. And (3) Darwin rendered design an illusion, using his intelligence to design this claim this about his own brain. In these and other ways, Darwin tricked the world into thinking he had come up with a stunningly elegant unification of biology in alleged “natural” terms, when those very ideas refute themselves. How could this happen? One reason is that tautologies are always intuitively obvious. To say, “Life evolved because natural selection brought them into existence,” sounds perfectly fine, till you realize the sentence conveys no information. It begs the question it is supposed to answer. Darwin’s adventure tales, his admittedly detailed observations, his Mosaic visage, and his gift of eloquent rhetoric were all dandy things, but they cannot rescue his doctrines from collapse. They are self-refuting. Hullabaloo and hoopla can be fun. Fantasyland has good fireworks, too. But no amount of celebration can save a self-refuting belief system. Can self-refuting doctrines really fool a world of scientists and smart people? It happens. Absurdities have fooled the elite of many a civilization. We’re only human. We don’t know everything. We’re gullible. For certainty, we need a revelation from the One who knows all things. Having an anchor in eternal, immutable things is a prerequisite for consistency. You cannot build a progressive system from the ground up without assuming the very thing you need to prove: that there are absolutes against which one can measure progress. Even if one could pull oneself up by one’s own bootstraps, the effort would be vain without ground to stand on. Darwinism is anchored in the quicksand of contingency. Its aspiration to provide understanding, the opposite of contingency, is doomed. Lacking an absolute, the hullabaloo and hoopla around Darwin is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.(Visited 10 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 The celebrations in honor of Charles Robert Darwin for his 200th birthday (Feb. 12) and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his influential book On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection (Nov. 29th) are well underway. It is hard to think of any other scientist who gets the kind of gushy adulation heaped on this one man. It borders on religious euphoria. Some examples:
Related Posts Tags:#digital music#music#MySpace#social networks nick statt Guide to Performing Bulk Email Verification A Comprehensive Guide to a Content Audit Myspace may have picked a bad day to open up its redesigned site to the public. While the dethroned social networking giant quietly opened its gates Tuesday morning, everybody in the tech world was busy preparing, and then dissecting, Facebook’s announcement of Graph Search.But let’s not bury Myspace just yet. Called the New Myspace, the redesign, which entered beta last July, is not aimed at yanking anyone away from Facebook or Google+. Its goal, under the wing of pop singer/actor/Sean Parker-playing co-owner Justin Timberlake, is to do what Myspace did best in the waning days of the site’s mid-2000s popularity: give musicians, both professional and aspiring, a better way to interact with fans and help fans discover new music.In some ways, though that means Myspace is now competing with music streaming services like Pandora and Spotify, and that’s not going to be easy, even with Timberlake’s music industry clout.Fresh Look, But No Groundbreaking AdvancesAnyone who was interested last September got a look at the new Myspace when Timberlake tweeted a vimeo link to a preview of the redesign. Not much has changed since then.To recap, the site jettisoned the vertical flow used by most other social networks, opting instead for a horizontal stream that naturally lays out status updates, shared songs and photos. All interactions also hinge on Myspace’s version of Facebook’s “Like” and Google’s “+1,” called Connect. Symbolized by a Venn diagram that unites when you decide to subscribe to a musician or find a friend, the Connect option is logical and looks nice, but it’s nothing you haven’t seen before.The true innovation – in the minds of Timberlake and Specific Media, who co-purchased the site from News Corp. in 2011 for $35 million – is the black bar running across the bottom of the site.While it resembles the ‘Now Playing’ bar at the top of iTunes and other streaming sites, Myspace’s implementation is meant to make playing and sharing music a central aspect of the experience. It puts the Home button, your Profile link and your Notification Center right alongside it, with Discover and Search options as well. Discover is the key to exploring Myspace, letting you see what’s trending and listen to custom radio stations and mixes.Myspace’s music discovery service comes together in the interactions between the artist profiles and your own. Essentially, users connect to an artist, get updates from that artist, and can stream shared tracks – or even whole albums – while interacting with other fans, amateur musicians, DJs, producers, etc. To help facilitate this music-based interaction, new Myspace subscribers are asked to put themselves into one of a handful of categories, ranging from musician or venue to fan or promoter.Early experimentation yields some interesting results. For instance, pulling up the Search tab next to the Discover button lets you type in the name of a band, and yields a list of streamable and sharable tracks, band info. Presumably as time goes on, the service will add actual updates from bands that agree to hop back on the Myspace bandwagon.That’s the key, of course. The New Myspace looks and works fine. But the revived social network’s biggest, and most likely insurmountable, obstacle is that it’s a ghost town right now, and it will probably stay that way.What Good Is Myspace In A Facebook/Spotify World?The problem is that it’s simply too late for Myspace to capture any ground from its competitors.Spotify, with its ever-increasing library of available music, Facebook-anchored sharing and playlist making, and tiered accounts for mobile and offline use is not going to lose users to Myspace, despite Justin Timberlake’s enthusiasm.And that brings up another issue. Timberlake’s face plastered on Myspace’s homepage has been getting a lot of flak, and for good reason. Debuting his new single, “Suit & Tie,” on the homepage of the social network he co-owns may be good marketing, but could also be seen as a cheap, self-promotional move.Myspace may have once been the king of social networking, but those days are gone forever. If Timberlake is able to convince fellow musicians to partner with the site, it’s likely to hang around for at least a while, but that’s about it. The Dos and Don’ts of Brand Awareness Videos Facebook is Becoming Less Personal and More Pro…
Watford boss Gracia: Big Ben key to Bournemouth pointby Paul Vegas10 months agoSend to a friendShare the loveWatford boss Javi Gracia praised goalkeeper Ben Foster after their 3-3 draw with Bournemouth.Gracia believes his side should have won the game at the Vitality Stadium, but that ultimately their defending of set pieces cost them dearly.He said: “After scoring two goals I knew we needed to defend well because I was sure Bournemouth would create chances because they always do.“In that moment we conceded two goals from 2 free kicks and it was difficult to accept.“In the second half we tried to have more control, but first of all we have to defend the free kicks better because we conceded two goals from it.“We had the chance to kill the game with more control. We didn’t do it.”Watford came under heavy pressure in the second half and were saved a number of times by Foster, who received great praise from his head coach.Gracia said: “I think Ben Foster was very important in the second half for us.“I call him Big Ben. When I arrived in England, I thought it was in London but now I know it’s in Watford. He’s playing very well and is very important.” About the authorPaul VegasShare the loveHave your say