Tag: 后海湾休闲会所

first_imgBy Francis Pelenah Various communities around the country have signed up to the recently launched reinforced vaccine study being conducted by (PREVAIL-V) the Partnership for Research on Ebola Virus in Liberia.The study, also known as PREVAC, is the first under a sub-regional consortium of Ebola affected Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea.Thousands of people died in the three countries and thousands more who were afflicted survived, thus prompting researchers to investigate a possible Ebola preventive vaccine.At the weekend, residents of Unification Town and New Kru Town, at separate community engagement meetings, welcomed the study and gave their commitment to encourage more public participation in it.Morris Bonbodee of Unification Town Community told the gathering that he is convinced the study is in the best interest of Liberia and should be supported by all Liberians.His comments were echoed by Mrs. Josephine Davies, who said the information given by PREVAIL and one of its partners, Liberia Crusaders for Peace team, has to some extent dispelled some of their fears of Ebola survivors.According to the Medical Affairs Scientist at PREVAIL, Jestina Doe Anderson, the objective of the study is to know if previous vaccines tested in the region are safe and effective in children. She said the new study will determine the duration of the vaccine’s effectiveness.Unlike previous Ebola prevention vaccine trials done at the Redemption Hospital, children will take part in the PREVAC study. However, pregnant women, sick people, breastfeeding mothers and previous participants of the vaccine study will not participate in the PREVAC study.Madam Anderson was also speaking during the community engagement in Unification Town in support of the Ebola Natural History Study by the joint US-Liberia clinical research partnership. which is taking place at the Redemption Hospital in New Kru Town.The story was the same in New Kru Town on Saturday April 22 as stakeholders from all parts of the Municipal Borough turned out to show their support for the vaccine project.Most of the speakers at the program pledged to volunteer for the project and also encourage others to join as study participants.Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)last_img read more

first_imgArmed with a license for just-so storytelling, evolutionists can explain anything – even opposites.Call it research. Call it a ‘study’. Call it expert opinion. It’s still just storytelling.Science is supposed to be about evidence and repeatable, testable demonstration. But when it comes to evolutionary explanations, scientists and reporters shed all restraint and put on their Rudyard Kipling costumes, weaving fanciful tales as if talking down to children. The children are not allowed to ask questions. What the expert says is just so.Watch Laura Geggel engage the art in Live Science, in her story, “Tale of 2 Tails: Why Do Sharks and Whales Swim So Differently?” (emphasis on Tale). The theme is, if something exists, evolution did it. Her ‘expert’ is Kenneth Lacovara, an evolutionary paleontologist.Whales move their tails up and down because they evolved from mammals about 50 million years ago, said Kenneth Lacovara, a professor of paleontology and geology and the dean of the School of Earth & Environment at Rowan University in Glassboro, New Jersey.“When quadrupedal [four-legged] mammals run, their spine flexes up and down,” Lacovara told Live Science. Whales retained this anatomy, which allows them to gallop underwater, so to speak, Lacovara said.The oldest known relation in the modern whale lineage is Pakicetus attocki, a four-legged, wolf-size mammal that likely had webbed feet. [Once upon a time,] P. attocki lived on the edges of a shallow ocean and chowed down on fish about 50 million years ago, Live Science previously reported.As evolution progressed, the lineage that led to whales became more, for lack of a better term, whale-like. For instance, the 35-million-year-old Basilosaurus lived in the water and measured about 60 feet (18 meters) long, as long as a bowling lane. However, the animal still had tiny, dog-size hind limbs, a remnant of its quadrupedal past, according to PastTime.org.“[The limbs] were on their way to becoming vestigial appendages,” Lacovara said. But, even as these vestigial limbs disappeared, whales were “retaining that same musculature that they got from their quadrupedal ancestors,” he said.On the other hand, because sharks are fish, they move their tales [sic] back and forth. Even when fish first ventured onto land, they still moved in a side-to-side motion. For example, the 375-million-year-old Tiktaalik roseae, the first fish thought to venture out of the water, likely moved in a side-to-side motion, Lacovara said.Undoubtedly, if fish were seen to move their tails up and down, and whales did the reverse, the same tale could be told with equal ease by the Darwinian storytellers. That’s because natural selection equates to the Stuff Happens Law. If an animal keeps moving its tail one way, that’s evolution. If it decides to move its tail another way, that’s evolution, too.In his book Darwin’s House of Cards, journalist Tom Bethell, having interviewed leading evolutionists, argues that Darwinism is a cultural product of the ‘myth of progress’ that predominated in 19th-century Europe. We see a vestigial relic of that in Geggel’s phrase, “as evolution progressed.” But there is nothing about neo-Darwinism that requires progress. Extinction, in fact, is much more common. Evolution is so flexible, it moves forward, backward, up, down, and sideways (12/19/07). That’s because it has no guidance, no goal, no purpose. Pakicetus was not trying to become a whale.In another recent book, Zombie Science, Jonathan Wells critically examines this new ‘icon of evolution’, the tale of the whale. He dismantles every aspect of the just-so story Geggel and Lacovara just told, showing that the fossils do not line up in a sequence, that the discoverer lied about them (inferring parts that were not found), and that the ‘vestigial’ aspect is false—the reduced limbs are functional.So why didn’t Geggel, like a good science reporter, do her homework and ask Wells’s opinion about the observational facts of the story? After all, Wells has two PhDs, one in science (embryology), and he just researched and wrote about whale evolution, supplying numerous references. The reason: when it comes to matters of evolution, Live Science is not about science, but religion. Darwin skeptics are heretics. Only proponents of the religion are allowed to speak. As Richard Lewontin famously admitted in 1997,Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.And yet, cannot that criticism of God be turned around? Can’t it be said that anyone who believes in the Stuff Happens Law could believe in anything? Isn’t Darwinism the omnipotent deity that upsets the regularities of nature, allowing natural miracles to happen?As evolution progressed, the lineage that led to whales became more, for lack of a better term, whale-like.Because Jonathan Wells is an unrepentant heretic from the church of Darwin, his reputation as a scientist has been mercilessly trashed by the keepers of the faith (when it is not ignored). And so, despite his calm and factual manner, Wells jokingly advises readers of Zombie Science to make brown paper book covers for it, so that they will not be seen carrying it around.More StorytellingJon Tennant is another trained just-so storyteller for the Darwin Party. In PLoS Blogs, reproduced by Phys.org, he picks up the story of how land animals learned to eat underwater. Talking down to the children, he encourages them to close their eyes and imagine:But did you know that all marine mammals descended from common land-dwelling ancestors? It might be difficult to see that by looking at modern species alone, but that’s where the fossil record comes in handy. An accurate picture of their evolution is crucial for helping us to understand the structure of increasingly threatened aquatic ecosystems.By looking in detail at the fossilised ancestors of marine mammals in order to understand their ecology, we can see that terrestrial mammals returned to the seas millions of years ago – this makes them secondarily aquatic. A major part of this involved the morphological and behavioural adaptations required to become specialised oceanic feeders. Anyone who’s ever tried to eat underwater will know exactly what we mean.Evolutionary pressure is so pervasive, in fact, Tennant claims that “whales, dolphins and seals follow the same evolutionary patterns.” Too bad that birds didn’t learn their Darwin lessons. Cormorants and pelicans carry their underwater food to the shore to eat. Other birds gulp it down in the air while flying. The lesson is: evolution pushes you to learn to eat underwater, except when it doesn’t. Birds had far more time to learn their lessons than whales did. But Tennant selectively applies evolutionary principles to keep the story going:This implies two things, evolutionarily. Firstly, that an ability to feed underwater is constrained in terms of the process of adaptation – you need to follow a specialised set of rules in order to survive. The same sort of pattern can be seen in birds, pterosaurs, and bats – all distinct lineages that independently learned how to fly. Secondly, as marine mammals also occupy a range of different feeding styles, from filter feeders to hypercarnivores, this process of adaptation seems to ultimately open up a wide diversity of possibilities for feeding behaviours.If adaptation were a process, it would work consistently. We can see, however, that if birds had learned to eat underwater, and if marine mammals had learned to beach themselves to eat on land, that would be just fine for Darwinians. Whatever happens, they could call it ‘adaptation’ and glorify the ‘process’ that made it evolutionarily successful. Tennant ends,This is important, as it shows us how using the fossil record opens up the process of evolution, as opposed just to looking at a product of it by focusing exclusively on modern animals.Lesson: Don’t try and understand evolution without looking at the fossil record.In Darwin’s fantasy storyland, whales could adapt to fly, just like Disney portrayed them in Fantasia 2000. It would be interesting to see what story a Darwin novitiate would come up with if shown that episode as a ‘documentary’ by serious colleagues and given the assignment to write an essay about how it evolved._____We would agree with Tennant’s last sentence, in the sense that looking at the fossil record does help one understand evolution. It helps one understand that evolution is false.(Visited 628 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

first_img Perfect to wear out to a party. Cute, small horns ideal for hen party. I’m wearing this with a red tutu and red gloves (which i bought from anne summers last year) as my devil costume. It has arrived and looks really nice. I have tried it on and it seems to fit nicely and stay put too. I am very happy with it and it was very cheap. There are a few on here which are more expensive and this one is lovely; it has sequins on the horns and a little red fluff around them. The band is durable enough to withstand the party i am going to, i think. I am very happy with this as part of my costume and would purchase again next year if this were to take a battering on the night ;-). Arrived the next day- so cute. Ready for the halloween party in october- but wanted to make sure i had the finishing touches to my outfit. Looked really good and was also good quality. Perfect addition to my halloween costume – sequins add a. Perfect addition to my halloween costume – sequins add a pretty/glamorous touch, and i bought a devil tail and fork with sequins to match. Very happy, highly recommend :). Fit adults for hen night fine and were comfortable. Arrived at time specified, were well packed and are as per descriptions. Fit adults for hen night fine and were comfortable. Excellent product, exactly as described, prompt delivery. These were amazing, i’ve worn a lot of devil horns on alice bands before and they’ve either been too loose, too tight, or too itchy. This though is perfect, fits like a dream, feels soft, and looks greatthese are the devil horns to buy if you want to look, and feel great while wearing them at whatever occasion. They are sturdy enough to last for a long time too i would think. Fantastic accessory for a recent hen-do and comfortable to wear. Didn’t pinch my head but stayed put all night. And attention from the boys – great bonus. Go’s with my friends out fit brilliantly. Quick delivery and fabulous for a night out, surprisingly good quality as well and better value than off the high street. Good but not stuffed, arrived early which was great. Perfect for Halloween.Hen-party Must-HavePerfect addition to my halloween costume – sequins add a Fit adults for hen night fine and were comfortableFun pair of red sequin Devils horns on head band, Alice band , Great Hen nights, fancy dress.Red Sequined Devil Horns With Fur Trim On AlicebandGreat For Party’s / Hen Nights / HalloweenOne Sizelast_img read more

first_imgRelated Posts klint finley A Web Developer’s New Best Friend is the AI Wai… Top Reasons to Go With Managed WordPress Hosting Like any other social network, the value of an enterprise social network is tied to the number of active users. In general, the more users the more value – more knowledge shared, more questions answered and more connections made. In this case, does the per-user pricing model of many enterprise social software tools make sense? Enterprise microblogging provider Socialcast doesn’t think so, and today the company announced a new pricing plan to deal with that fact.“Our most successful deployments are those that are enterprise-wide and boasting the largest, most comprehensive internal networks,” Socialcast CEO Tim Young writes. “As more people join the network, greater value is created – with every new member that joins comes another potential answer, knowledge source, and idea.”Socialcast will now offer an enterprise-wide license that will let organizations pay a single annual fee for the product without worrying about how many users are being added. In contrast, Yammer charges $5 per user per month and Salesforce.com Chatter costs $15 per user per month. Socialcast hasn’t disclosed the cost of an enterprise-wide license, and we’re not sure how it will compare with volume licensing agreements with other vendors.The company will include its Reach extension, which we covered last year. Reach enables customers to embed Socialcast in existing browser-based enterprise applications.Will flat pricing encourage companies to roll-out social features to more employees? It’s too early to say, but it seems like a step in the right direction. I suspect social roll-outs may be hindered by the idea that some employees don’t “need” to be on the enterprise microblog. But the decision to leave some employees behind probably isn’t improved by those per-user license fees. A big factor in whether this will be successful is how the cost compares to per-user licensing.Socialcast was founded in 2005. It’s funded by Menlo Ventures and True Ventures. Socialcast has solid traction in large enterprises. CEO Tim Young says 15 of the Fortune 100 are customers.In addition to Yammer and Chatter, Socialcast competes with a plethora of enterprise social software vendors, including Blogtronix, Qontext, Socialtext, StatusNet and TIBCO tibbr.center_img Why Tech Companies Need Simpler Terms of Servic… Tags:#cloud#Trends 8 Best WordPress Hosting Solutions on the Marketlast_img read more

first_imgOn its way out the door, the Obama Administration greenlit 10 sites across the United States that will become “proving grounds” for autonomous cars, including one in Michigan and two in California.The Department of Transport (DoT) announced its picks one day before Obama left office, one of the hundreds of pieces of legislation passed in the last days of the administration.See Also: Google’s Waymo self-driving cars kept offline to avoid hackersWillow Run, an old B-24 bomber plant in Michigan, will be the flagship proving ground. The American Center for Mobility is converting the 311-acre site to test autonomous cars from Ford, General Motors, and Hyundai.The state of Michigan is bankrolling the effort, to the tune of $80 million, in the hope of bringing automotive jobs back to Detroit. It expects the site to pay for itself after a while, through federal grants and possible payments to test vehicles.Michigan has already pushed through meaningful legislation to legalize self-driving cars in the state, and some auto and tech firms have moved their autonomous operations into Detroit.What will Trump do?A decommissioned Naval base in Concord, California, will also be redeveloped for autonomous vehicle tests. Other sites in Arizona and Washington were chosen, but the DoT have not said how much will be spent to convert the sites for autonomous testing.“The designated proving grounds will collectively form a community of practice around safe testing and deployment,” said ex-U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx in a statement. “This group will openly share best practices for the safe conduct of testing.”The Trump Administration has not said anything about the onset of autonomous cars, but considering his commitment to bringing jobs back to U.S. citizens, the administration could most likely be against any further development of autonomous technology. That could be an issue for the auto and tech firms that have spent millions preparing for the self-driving revolution. Break the Mold with Real-World Logistics AI and… For Self-Driving Systems, Infrastructure and In… Related Posts Tags:#automotive#Autonomous car#California#cars#GoMentum#Internet of Things#IoT#Obama#Self-Driving#Silicon Valley#Willow Run center_img David Curry IT Trends of the Future That Are Worth Paying A… 5 Ways IoT can Help to Reduce Automatic Vehicle…last_img read more

Recent Comments