Tag: 上海水磨论坛

  • Everton and Leicester ready to step up interest in Turkey midfielder

    first_img Selcuk Inan 1 Everton and Leicester are ready to step up their interest in Turkey midfielder Selcuk Inan after reports stated that Galatasaray are ready to put their club captain on the transfer list.Inan has come under fire following some poor performances this season and received a red card during Galatasaray’s 2-0 defeat against Anderlecht in the Champions League on Wednesday night.Both Roberto Martinez and Nigel Pearson have been linked with a move for the 29-year-old who has a wealth of experience for both club and country and could be ready for a big money move.Turkish-football.com is reporting that Galatasaray are now ready to cash in on their star midfielder in January which could start a bidding war for his signature.The only stumbling block for both clubs could be his high wages while Inter Milan coach Roberto Mancini is also believed to be a big admirer having worked with him when he was in charge of the Turkish giants.last_img read more

  • Bishop calls for investigation following abuse scandal documentary

    first_imgThe Bishop of Raphoe says he has asked gardaí to investigate allegations of collusion and cover-ups in the diocese which were made in TG4’s Finné documentary this week.The documentary delved into one of Ireland’s worst cases of child sexual abuse which occurred at the hands of the late Fr Eugene Greene and schoolteacher Denis McGinley in Donegal.Bishop Alan McGuckian says that he immediately contacted Gardaí after watching the programme to ask them to investigate allegations made about collusion and cover-up in the Raphoe Diocese, involving members both living and dead. The Bishop said he is planning to meet with Gardaí in the near future and offer them ‘every possible cooperation in any investigation in order to ascertain the truth.’The harrowing Finné documentary exposed details from three decades of abuse carried out by Donegal priest Eugene Greene and the crimes of teacher Denis McGinley of Magheraroarty, who continues to live in the parish.Fr Eugene GreeneBishop McGuckian said the documentary has revisited the pain and tragedy of child sexual abuse committed by clergy and others in the Diocese of Raphoe.He said: “What happened is a source of revulsion and shame for all associated with the Diocese. It reminded me that the betrayal of trust felt, especially by the victims, but also by many others is so serious as to be almost irreparable.” The Bishop also invited victims of abuse who are suffering in silence to come forward.“I have a sense that many people in the Diocese suffer in silence with the burden of what happened to them or to people they love. I know also that many people want nothing to do with the Church or the Diocese. However, if it would be a support to anyone to contact us invite anyone who carries the pain of abuse to come forward and speak either to myself or the Designated Liaison Person. The number for the Designated Liaison Person, Margaret Northage, is: 086 2183011.”Bishop Alan McGuckianAs former Garda Martin Ridge and victims of abuse call for a forensic cold case investigation into Fr Greene, Bishop McGuckian said he will fully co-operate with the authorities.“The Diocese supports and will give full cooperation to any effort to cast as much light as possible on this sad and tragic part of our history as a diocese and county. The form of any investigation will be a matter for the statutory authorities.“However, any information which the Diocese of Raphoe holds in relation to the abuse of children is completely available to the Gardaí and the diocese is ready at all times to cooperate fully with any enquiries.” Bishop calls for investigation following abuse scandal documentary was last modified: November 3rd, 2019 by Staff WriterShare 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:Bishop Alan McGuckiandiocese of raphoeEUGENE GREENEFinnéTG4last_img read more

  • Chimpanzee Genome Published: Is There a Monkey in Your Genes?

    first_imgNature’s cover story September 1 is about the publication of the chimpanzee genome.  Evolutionists are digging through the data for evidence of human common ancestry.  Have they found it?  The results, as usual, are mixed: MSNBC News states the situation concisely: “Genome comparison reveals many similarities – and crucial differences.”  Here is the gist of seven articles and papers about the chimpanzee genome from Nature, with additional references to popular reports:Introduction:  Chris Gunter and Ritu Dhand, “The Chimpanzee Genome,” Nature 437, 47 (1 September 2005) | doi: 10.1038/436047a.“Comparing the genetic code of humans and chimps will allow us to comb through each gene or regulatory region to find single changes that might have made a difference in evolution,” they say, but remind us that the oft-quoted 96%-similar-gene figure between chimps and humans must be seen in context: “At a conservative estimate we share about 88% of our genes with rodents and 60% with chickens.  Applying a more liberal definition of similarity, up to 80% of the sea-squirt’s genes are found in humans in some form.  So it’s no surprise that we are still asking, ‘What makes us human?’”Overview:  Wen-Hsiung Li and Matthew A. Saunders, “The chimpanzee and us,” Nature 437, 50-51 (1 September 2005) | doi: 10.1038/437050a.After summarizing statistical similarities and differences in genes of chimps and humans, this article hastens to remind readers that a clear picture of evolution does not jump out of the mass of data.The question of what genetic changes make us human is far more complex.  Although the two genomes are very similar, there are about 35 million nucleotide differences, 5 million indels and many chromosomal rearrangements to take into account.  Most of these changes will have no significant biological effect, so identification of the genomic differences underlying such characteristics of ‘humanness’ as large cranial capacity, bipedalism and advanced brain development remains a daunting task. (Emphasis added in all quotes.)Chimp Culture:  Andrew Whiten, “The second inheritance system of chimpanzees and humans,” Nature 437, 52-55 (1 September 2005) | doi: 10.1038/nature04023.A primate psychologist in Scotland, Andrew Whiten presents an overview of a study parallel the genome project, the attempt to understand chimpanzee culture and social inheritance.  He highlights a key difference:Ape culture may be particularly complex among non-human animals, yet it clearly falls far short of human culture.  An influential contemporary view is that the key difference lies in the human capacity for cumulative culture, whereby the achievements of successive generations have built on previous developments to create complex structures such as languages and technologies.  Chimpanzees have accumulated many traditions, but each remains sufficiently simple that there is little scope for it to have developed significant complexity compared to its original form.  Hints of cumulation exist, such as the refinement of using prop stones to stabilize stone anvils during nut-cracking, but these remain primitive and fleeting by human standards.  One possible explanation that has been offered for this human-chimpanzee difference lies in the social learning mechanisms available to each species, an issue that new genetic approaches based on the complete chimpanzee genome sequence may help to unravel.Actual studies of chimp social behavior are relatively recent.  Whatever the differences, Whiten seems to never doubt they are matters of degree, not kind.Chimp Psychology:  Marc Hauser, “Our chimpanzee mind,” Nature 437, 60-63 (1 September 2005) | doi: 10.1038/nature03917.Marc Hauser (evolutionary psychologist, Harvard) is quick to justify his “preposterous” title, imagining the rage of Bishop Wilberforce at the suggestion humans have a developed chimpanzee mind.  He means to say that the entire animal kingdom shares mental relatedness:….the bottom line at present is that for each psychological capacity explored, some other animal shares this ability with chimpanzees.  The reason why chimpanzees may be uniquely placed to enlighten human origins is due both to their phylogenetic proximity to humans as well as the extent to which they have accumulated a suite of psychological abilities in the service of solving social and ecological problems that were largely shared with those faced by our hominid hunter-gatherers.Based on observations of chimps, Hauser thinks humans share two things with chimpanzee mental powers: “folk mathematics” and “folk psychology.”  In his conclusion, he says, “At the genetic level, the publication of the chimpanzee genome will lead to increased capacity to pinpoint homologies.  However, we are woefully ignorant about how genes build brains, and how the electrical activity of the brain builds thoughts and emotions”, although the situation is more promising than it was five years ago, “owing to the convergence of three disciplines: comparative genomics, animal psychology and developmental neuropsychology.”  The gap between genomics and psychology is shrinking, he is thinking.Brain Evolution:  Robert Sean Hill and Christopher A. Walsh, “Molecular insights into human brain evolution,” Nature 437, 64-67 (1 September 2005) | doi: 10.1038/nature04103.Noting that the human brain is twice the size of the chimp brain, Hill and Walsh attempt to explain the difference by evolutionary mechanisms.  The addition of whole new genes lacks support, but there appears to be evidence for changes in gene regulation or coding sequence.  Most studies focus on what goes wrong when a gene is mutated.  Anomalies in the FOXP2 gene, for instance, cause language disabilities in humans, and chimps and other animals exhibit sequence differences in that gene.  This, they feel, is evidence for positive selection toward language capability.  They admit, however, that “linkage of studies of gene function in humans with evolutionary analysis is just beginning,” and much work remains to be done.Chimp Genome: The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, “Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome,” Nature 437, 69-87 (1 September 2005) | doi: 10.1038/nature04072.Here is the bulk of the genome report.  They start with Darwin:More than a century ago Darwin and Huxley posited that humans share recent common ancestors with the African great apes.  Modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction and have refined the relationships, showing that the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus or pygmy chimpanzee) are our closest living evolutionary relatives.  Chimpanzees are thus especially suited to teach us about ourselves, both in terms of their similarities and differences with human.  For example, Goodall’s pioneering studies on the common chimpanzee revealed startling behavioural similarities such as tool use and group aggression.  By contrast, other features are obviously specific to humans, including habitual bipedality, a greatly enlarged brain and complex language.  Important similarities and differences have also been noted for the incidence and severity of several major human diseases.The report highlights similarities but also large and surprising differences (summarized in #2, above).  Many of the differences occur in non-gene-coding regions.  Some sequence differences appear too great to have arisen by mutations since the time humans are said to have diverged from chimpanzees, considering that most mutations would be deleterious or, at best, neutral; in fact, it appears that mutation rates would have had to vary widely from gene to gene.  They indicate evidence for “selective sweeps” in the human lineage, in which all humans share mutations that have become “fixed”.  In short, “Our results confirm many earlier observations, but notably challenge some previous claims based on more limited data.”    Their ending discussion asks the same question posed in the introduction, and reminds us that not all differences between species can be explained by genetic sequence differences:The hardest such question is: what makes us human?  The challenge lies in the fact that most evolutionary change is due to neutral drift.  Adaptive changes comprise only a small minority of the total genetic variation between two species.  As a result, the extent of phenotypic variation between organisms is not strictly related to the degree of sequence variation.  For example, gross phenotypic variation between human and chimpanzee is much greater than between the mouse species Mus musculus and Mus spretus, although the sequence difference in the two cases is similar.  On the other hand, dogs show considerable phenotypic variation despite having little overall sequence variation (0.15%).  Genomic comparison markedly narrows the search for the functionally important differences between species, but specific biological insights will be needed to sift the still-large list of candidates to separate adaptive changes from neutral background.Comparison Study:  Ze Cheng et al., “A genome-wide comparison of recent chimpanzee and human segmental duplications,” Nature 437, 88-93 (1 September 2005) | doi: 10.1038/nature04000.A third of apparent segmental duplications in the human genome (defined by more than 94% sequence identity) are not found in the chimp genome.  This team compared the two genomes, and figured that this required a duplication rate of 4 to 5 million bases per million years since humans and chimps parted evolutionary ways.  Most of the changes, surprisingly, deal with chromosome structure.  No clear picture emerges for how or why these differences arose: “It is unknown whether slow rates of deletion, high rates of duplication or gene conversion are largely responsible for the evolutionary maintenance of these duplicates.”  A surprising conclusion is that “when compared to single-base-pair differences, which account for 1.2% genetic difference, base per base, large segmental duplication events have had a greater impact (2.7%) in altering the genomic landscape of these two species.”It’s interesting to notice how the news media differ on the emphasis given to these stories.  Some, like the BBC News focus on parts of the two genomes that are “99% identical,” while minimizing the “few differences.”  Others, like MSNBC, mention “many similarities – and crucial differences” up front.  One EurekAlert entry emphasizes right in the title the “big differences” in segmental duplications.  Another EurekAlert piece gives examples of the “dramatic genome alterations during primate evolution.”  National Geographic, though, shamelessly emphasized the similarities, practically venerating Darwin while putting humans in the chimp cage (08/29/2005) with this quote from a primate scientist at Emory University: “Darwin wasn’t just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes—he didn’t go far enough.  We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament.”  And that, many would say, qualifies for Stupid Evolution Quote of the Week.Data are gems.  The critique that follows is in no way a criticism of the valiant effort to sequence the chimp genome, the human genome, or any other genome.  Like dreams, speculations inhabit the sleep of data darkness.  Data make a good alarm clock to jolt visionaries out of their slumbers and remind them it’s time to go to work.    You can see how the same data can motivate vastly different interpretations, depending on one’s world view.  The evolutionists are grasping at the similarities, while the creationists are emphasizing the differences.  One thing stands out of these reports: the data are so complex and convoluted, anyone can spin the story almost any way they want.  Yes, there are phenomenal similarities, but there are also profound differences.  There are so many differences, in fact, that it stretches credulity to believe that millions upon millions of base pair substitutions and segmental duplications could have occurred in the time assumed by evolutionists that humans and chimps went their separate ways (see Alan Grey’s blog thoughts on this).  Clearly there is no clear discernible evolutionary trail linking the two as evolutionists had hoped.  That being the case, keep in mind several key points before going data mining:Epigenetics:  Genes cannot be telling the whole story.  There’s a lot more going on to make us human than just DNA.  If two mice species that look similar have just as much genetic difference (4%) as humans and chimps, and if dogs, from great danes to chihuahuas, have far less genetic difference (0.15%), then clearly phenotypic difference (outward appearance) is not a linear function of genotypic distance.  Mining just the genome for explanations is an exercise in reductionism.Inconsequential Differences:  Why should genes differ so widely that are only concerned with chromosome structure?  Why should there be so many segmented duplication differences, and “neutral” differences?  Evolutionists wanted to find clear evidence of positive selection leading to upright posture, language and culture.  Although such studies are just beginning, they only have a paltry few to suggest so far, and those are ambiguous.  They admit that the picture looks far more complex than expected.Phenotypic Revolutions:  Humans exhibit several profound anatomical differences shared by no other primate: upright posture, ability to do long-distance running (11/18/2004), naked skin with thermoregulatory function, prolonged maturation, vocal apparatus suited for language, a very large brain relative to body size, and much more.  Could this much interrelated change occur by undirected, accidental mutations over a few “short” millions of years?  Consider just all the bodily adaptations for endurance running mentioned in the highly-informative and interesting 11/18/2004 story.  It would seem that mutations to multiple systems would have had to conspire together for the end result of producing a marathon runner – but where is the evidence for strong positive selection in the DNA?  This underscores the point that genomics cannot provide a full answer.Social Revolutions:  Despite the antics about chimpanzee culture and mind, there is really no comparison with humans.  Take a luxury cruise, enter a national research laboratory, go to the symphony, fly a supersonic jet, run an advanced software program, carry on a discussion about algebra, read a philosophy book – then watch chimps screech and groom and break nuts with a rock.  Impressed?  Can such profound differences be accounted for by segmented duplications, ALU repeats and base substitutions alone?These points challenge the Darwinian story, but creationists have a challenge, too, to explain the similarities. Some evolutionists are convinced this is a crippling blow to creationism, and establishes evolution as the only explanation (despite their own challenges).  Really?  Let’s attempt a creationist explanation of the similarities between the human and chimpanzee genomes, because clearly the vast majority of the DNA is essentially identical.  First off, lest we overplay these similarities, remember that both human and chimp genomes share many commonalities with mice and even with sea squirts, worms and chickens.  The whole living world is built on the same genetic code and basic toolkit.  But why would a Creator make things similar, especially humans, who were supposedly created to be the stewards of the earth?    A good first reply to a “why?” question is to ask: “why not?”  A wise king doesn’t send a complete foreigner as ambassador, but chooses one from among their own.  The Old Testament prophets, too, were men, not angels or aliens in spaceships.  Even the Lord God incarnate was born of a woman, laid in a manger as a human baby.  He grew up to live, eat, sleep, and speak as fully man though, according to Hebrews 1:1-2, he was an exact representation of God’s divine nature.  It is a non-sequitur to assume that humans, in order to serve a special God-given role in the world, must be completely genetically distinct from other living organisms in their embassy.    Human beings, in the image of God, have to inhabit the same biosphere with chimps.  We are creatures as much as they are.  We breathe the same air, require the same bodily functions, eat much of the same food (e.g., bananas), have the same senses and share the same world.  Evolutionists often knock down a straw man by insisting that a divine Creator would have created every species separately and distinct from each other one.  Why so?  If a protozoan needs a peptidyl transferase enzyme, why should the human analog be utterly and completely different, designed de novo from scratch out of other materials?  Why would it not be a good design feature to provide redundancy of basic functions and parts, like subroutines and modules of a complex software suite, mixed and matched for a variety of environments and purposes?  Homology does not prove common ancestry without first assuming it does – a circular argument, as Jonathan Wells demonstrates in his book Icons of Evolution (see “Homology for Dummies,” 05/05/2004).  The nested hierarchy of animal forms, resulting in similarities and differences between groups at all levels, can be employed as an argument for design.  In his thought-provoking book The Biotic Message, Walter ReMine argues that there is enough commonality to falsify polytheism, but enough difference to falsify evolution.    Look at the new data for a moment through Biblical creation glasses.  This is nearly impossible for Darwinists, and for those steeped in Darwinian education, it requires a painful removal of many ingrained assumptions.  In the beginning, God created a perfect world, filled with animals and plants made to reproduce after their kind.  This does not imply fixity of species, because God would have programmed in variability for robustness against perturbations (see 03/14/2005, 01/26/2005 and 09/22/2004 entries).  Nor does it predict a lack of similarity, because everything came from a common designer.  The creation of man by the hand of God from the dust of the ground does not imply utter and complete distinction from chimpanzees – because it’s not the raw materials that made Adam and Eve distinct, but the genetic program – the intelligent design – that organized the material into the human form.  This program evidently shared many if not most of the “subroutines” and modules God previously used in apes, mice and sea squirts.    Then, God breathed into the man’s nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.  This is fodder for theologians, not biologists, but most certainly included the spiritual, social, emotional, moral, lingual and intellectual faculties that so distinguish humans from all other animals: we alone were made in the image of God.  We are, as Wernher von Braun worded it, souls cast in animal bodies.  Our physical, material nature had much in common with the animal world, but the human pair alone walked and talked with God in the original “very good” creation.  But that’s not the whole story.    The world was cursed when man sinned.  The fall is critical to the creation explanation.  Darwin lost his faith in Christianity primarily from two things: (1) Lyell’s persuasion that the earth was millions of years old, too old for Genesis, and (2) the problem of evil.  Natural theology was strong in the early 1800s.  Powerful as its arguments were, it had no answer to the suffering and evil we see in the world around us.  Darwinists gleefully knock down the straw god of the beneficent artificer deity by pointing to evil and suffering, when the Bible presents a God of wrath who judges sin and punishes disobedience – but then offers salvation to the rebels through his own grace.  Only the Biblical picture of creation, fall and redemption gives a logically self-consistent picture of why the world is both beautiful and ugly, both sublime and painful.  (The Darwinians solve the problem by denying the existence of evil – “whatever is, is right” – but our consciences know better.)  There’s still more to the creation explanation.    A world-wide Flood happened.  The antediluvian world, cursed and decaying, endured possibly thousands of years of human violence and genetic decay.  Humans and many other animals could have varied substantially and, while living in the same times and places, experienced the same genetic pressures and changes.  Then, only 8 human representatives and 2 of each animal survived the Deluge aboard the Ark.  This would have resulted in genetic sweeps and bottlenecks and, again, subjected the animals to similar gene-altering pressures.  After the Flood, a vastly different environment opened up to the survivors.  They have undergone additional variation and genomic pressures ever since.  The varieties of finches, hummingbirds, dogs, cats and human “races” did not require millions of years, only thousands.  These changes are (1) conservative, to maintain the species, and (2) horizontal, not adding new genetic information but just shuffling what was already present (more or less melanin, more or less fur, longer or shorter beaks on birds, accentuated markings on insect wings, etc.).  Since dispersal was not uniform, the differences between created kinds (not species, but groups able to vary within limits) led to the biogeographical differences seen today, including those on the Galápagos Islands that so impressed Darwin.    Whether you find this account plausible depends on many presuppositions you trust.  It does have two forensic advantages over the evolution just-so storytelling method, though: (1) sufficient causal agency (intelligence) for the spectacular complexity observed in the genomes (10/27/2004, 06/14/2005), and (2) an eyewitness testimony (by the Creator himself).  In challenging Darwinists, we cannot stress that first point enough (they ignore the second one, but cannot ignore the first).  Evolutionists play marbles with diamonds when playing their storytelling games with genes and DNA.  The human and chimp genomes, and all others, are incredibly, stupendously complex, such that we should humbly stand in awe of these evidences of intelligent design.  Remember the complexity of a nose (06/27/2005), or a tiny roundworm (06/25/2005) or fruit fly? (12/08/2003).  If even Richard Dawkins is stupefied by the wonders around him (09/12/2004), it would seem that building on a foundation of intelligent design at least, if not (better) trusting the Word of the designer, is the best starting point for interpreting any vast library of information.    See Apologetics Press for an initial creationist response to announcements about the chimp genome by Dr. Brad Harrub, co-author of The Truth About Human Origins (2003, 526pp).(Visited 68 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

  • Is Juicero’s failure a warning to future investment in connected products?

    first_imgSmall Business Cybersecurity Threats and How to… Why IoT Apps are Eating Device Interfaces Internet of Things Makes it Easier to Steal You… Related Posts Tags:#Bosch#connected home#featured#hardware#IFA#IFA2017#juicero#Keurig#LG#MWCA17#Samsung#smart home center_img Follow the Puck When you consider the trajectory of connected home innovation, it’s easy to see that the big wins have been more infrastructural elements like connected lighting, utilities, and alarms rather than homewares. Particularly when investors seem compelled to invest in products as ridiculous as Juicero.In short, Juicero sold a $700 juicer with $5 pouches of fruit with a corresponding app. It sounds like the kind of product I like to laugh about on Kickstarter  — and often do —  yet a plethora of big-player investors put money into it, including GV (formerly Google Ventures), Nest co-founder Matt Rogers, First Beverage Group and Campbell’s Soup, to the tune of $118 million.I really started laughing when it was revealed that the juice could be squeezed from pouch without even needing a machine, just a pair of hands. Unsurprisingly, the company announced its closure of sales last week.Really, VCs? Why Juicero?It’s worth pulling the issues apart here. Firstly, VCs see consumer hardware as a compelling. David Krane, a partner at GV told the New York Times that Juicero was “the most complicated business that I’ve ever funded. It’s software. It’s consumer electronics. It’s produce and packaging.” Was he simply seduced by a shiny prototype that promised much but failed to deliver?I think it’s more likely to be the push of the repeat customer subscription-as-a-service model of Juicero. Products like Keurig and Nespresso set a precedence, particular where machines could only use certain brands. Campbells even tried a soup range with Keurig in 2013 but discontinued it in 2016 due to poor sales. Yet the idea must have persisted, a least in investors minds. Perhaps they were hoping to claw onto some of the pre-packaged market space as Amazon/Wholefoods are trying to turn people loyal to fresh door delivered produce?Innovation — not just newcomers but also the old guardThe bigger part of the whole issue is that a lot of innovation in hardware is coming from big, traditional companies and there’s the temptation to find hardware created by smaller companies like iRobot — the maker of Roomba — and Dyson — famous for their vacuum cleaner tech. It’s clear that while white goods, for example, can be accused of being dinosaurs of the tech space, the innovation is there.At last week’s IFA 2017 in Berlin, Samsung unveiled the WW8800M washing machine embedded with technology that cuts washing time by 50% and energy use by 20% without compromising the cleaning performance.They describe it as “IoT-ready” and it’s embedded with an AI-powered laundry assistant that enables consumers to manage a laundry finishing time, automatic recommendations for optimal wash cycles based on the information such as color, fabric type, and degree of soiling and remote monitoring to proactively alert users about potential problems and providing quick troubleshooting support.And then, there’s Bosch’s X-Spect, a handheld scanning device with the ability to identify the fabric composition of clothing and other materials as well as up to four different kinds of stains. According to Bosch’s Dr. Arndt von Bieren, the Head of Advanced Sensor and Food Technologies, the device can also measure the nutritional content of a piece of food:“The core technology is based on two optical scanners. The scanner itself transmits its readings to the cloud, where an algorithm then determines what the scanner is looking at. The data then travels back to the scanner, and from there you can send it to a connected Bosch appliance.”Perhaps the oddest home tech I can across was Pansonic’s robotic fridge. For those who might find a full faced robot too scary, the Panasonic fridge is on wheels. It can map and navigate your home autonomously and responds to voice commands such as “Come to the living room,” or “Go to the kitchen table.” It also retains data about every item in the fridge and makes appropriate beverage suggestions. It’s only a prototype right now, but like the washing machine and stain scanning device, it shows that innovation is alive and well in the hardware offerings of traditional companies, not just new players.Bringing consumer and company closerAny white good or big home appliance is part of a company to consumer relationship that might last ten years or more. It’s not just about a warranty, as connected appliances will be updated, security patched and repaired remotely. Then, of course, there are potential peripheral relationships with food and laundry retailers and cooking equipment companies, as the sheer volume of data that the devices can produce will have a big influence on their development decisions.Big players are leading the way here (for example last year’s launches of smart fridges by LG and Samsung.) Sure, the prices were and are prohibitively high for the majority of us, but innovation has a way of trickling down — Think of how many vacuum robots are on the market now.VCs want to be ready for the next big thing in home hardware and while the Juicero was possibly the worst example, the underpinning motivations were sound in regard to how we buy products, and their subscription supplements, and the changing nature of consumer relationships with both our connected home products and the companies that fill them. Cate Lawrencelast_img read more

  • UK govt joins chorus against Rupert Murdoch

    first_imgThe British government joined in calls for media baron Rupert Murdoch to shelve his ambition of taking full control of British Sky Broadcasting as his newspapers are embroiled in unethical news gathering practices. The decision capped a day in which former Prime Minister Gordon Brown accused Murdoch’s UK newspapers of employing criminals to obtain confidential information about his family. Police officers came under sharp criticism for failing to turn up evidence of some of the most serious spying allegations. In a rare show of cross-party consensus, the David Cameron government signalled its willingness to support the opposition Labour Party’s mission in the House of Commons. In other developments, Murdoch has been asked to appear before the Culture, Media Sports committee of the House of Commons. He will give evidence in the imbroglio that involves the press, politicians and the police. Allegations of hacking, deception and privacy violations are being levelled against two of his British newspapers – The Sun and The Sunday Times. According to British media, Brown was one of thousands whose privacy was breached by News International papers. Journalists from News International repeatedly targeted the former prime minister. They attempted to access his voicemail and bank account details. They didn’t stop at that. In what has come as a complete shock to Britain, his family’s medical records, specifically of his seriously ill son, too were also targeted. Murdoch’s News International on Thursday had announced the closure of Britain’s best-selling Sunday tabloid, News of the World, following a ruckus over its news gathering practices that involved the illegal hacking of phones. The final edition of the 168-year-old tabloid, which put Murdoch on the world stage, came on July 10. He unexpectedly decided to close down the weekly following a public backlash over the tactics used by it to expose the rich, famous and the royal to become Britain’s best-selling weekly newspaper. Meanwhile, London’s Metropolitan Police has been heavily criticised over its response to the scandal. Senior officials of London’s Metropolitan Police regretted that an investigation of the News of the World newspaper in 2006 had not uncovered the extent of the alleged phone hacking. They blamed the News of the World and parent company News International for not cooperating with the investigations. They pleaded that the force was preoccupied with terrorism investigations, saying that resources were stretched. Serving and former senior officers faced hostile questions from a parliamentary committee about allegations that police sold information to journalists and may have been bribed or pressured to prevent investigations.advertisementlast_img read more

  • DAY THREE SUMMARY-FINALS DAY IS OH SO CLOSE

    first_imgAll draws, results, ladders and statistics can also be viewed at the TFA Sporting Pulse website which can be accessed using this link: TFA SPORTING PULSE WEBSITEMens 20’sThe Eagles finished their day by beating the Mets in what was one of the most heated and exciting games of the tournament so far. They will go straight into a semi-final tomorrow against the winner between Suns and Rustlers . Earlier in the day they showed why they are one of the favorites to take out this title, with convincing wins over both Crusaders and Cyclones.The Mets will not be happy with their performance this afternoon. At the 2005 NTL, the Eagles eliminated the favored Mets side in the semi-finals, so they would have been out to beat them this year. Earlier today they had a good win over a deflated ACT.ACT would have to be disappointed after today’s performance. They looked completely different to the team that yesterday held the very talented Sharks team to victory by only two touchdowns.The Suns had a successful day three of competition, with strong wins over the ACT, Hornets and Cyclones. They will be hoping to continue their good form into the finals tomorrow.Rustlers will also be a team to watch tomorrow after they beat Cobras and the Sharks. They will be up against the Suns in the quarter finals tomorrow.Cobras will go straight through to the semis tomorrow and play the winner of the match between Sharks and Mets.Womens 20’s South Queensland Sharks have had their ups and downs during this year’s tournament and the pressure is on for them to perform come semi-finals. They have won the Womens 20’s title for six of the past seven years and tomorrow they will face Southern Suns in their semi-final.In the quarter finals today, Brisbane City Cobras earned their way into a semi-final against the undefeated ACT side who have had great success this tournament.The ACT girls will be hoping to carry their recent success into the final day of competition. Hornets will be disappointed after losing their quarter final to Cobras, they had only one loss during the round games.The Southern Suns girls will be hopeful going into their semi-final against the Sharks tomorrow. They defeated Hornets, 7-2 this morning. Their very own Jessica Absolum is way ahead in the touchdown count, having scored a massive 13 touchdowns so far.Rebels and Barbarians, and Eagles and Crusaders will all play off in Plate semi-finals tomorrow.Mixed OpenThere were a couple of upsets today in this division, with the Cobras defeating the Sharks, 6-3. The Sharks however made a quick recovery defeating Rebels, 13-2 in their final round game this afternoon.The Cobras were obviously confident after their win over the Sharks, they then went on to defeat Barbarians 13-0.The Sydney Scorpions are still in the mix, although they did have a close loss to Sharks, 10-8. They will be up against Cobras in the semi-finals tomorrow.The Suns have had some impressive results throughout the tournament, and today they continued their good form, with a 10-0 win over the Rebels and a 5-0 win over the Cyclones. They will play off in the Plate semi-final tomorrow.The Sydney Mets will go into finals on top of the ladder, after impressive victories over the past few days. They will play the Sharks in a semi-final tomorrow, a replay of the 2005 Grand Final.Womens OpenThe Southern Suns will go into a semi-final match tomorrow against the 2005 Womens Open title holders, the Sydney Mets after a 3-1 win over the Rustlers.The Mets remain undefeated going into their semi-final tomorrow morning.The Barbarians also showed that they are not to be written off just yet. Led by Australian representatives, Bo De La Cruz and Shelley Matcham they will take on South Queensland Sharks for a grand final berth.The Scorpions have improved immensely this tournament and today had a 7-7 draw with the Eagles. They should still remain happy with their performances even after losing to the Cobras earlier today.The ACT Women fought hard today, stealing a win against the Crusaders, 6-5. They will play off against the Cyclones in the Plate semi-final tomorrow.Mens OpenIn front of a packed grand stand, South Queensland Sharks were eventual winners over Queensland Country Rustlers in the quarter finals. They now go up against a confident Sydney Scorpions team tomorrow morning.The Scorpions didn’t have a very good start to their day today. They lost tthe o Suns this morning 5-3 in a top of the pool clash. They restored their confidence this afternoon, with a 13-1 win over the struggling Crusaders.The Brisbane City Cobras definitely made the Southern Suns earn every point in their quarter final. It remained even for most of the game, with Suns eventually winning, 5-4. They will now face an undefeated Sydney Mets team in the semi-finals tomorrow for what promises to be an exciting match.The Rebels will play off against the Cyclones tomorrow in the Mens Plate semi-final and the Hornets will play ACT.Finals day at the 2006 NTL will definitely be one of the closest yet, so be sure to stay tuned for all results and updates.last_img read more

  • VT League Finals

    first_imgThe VT League Men’s and Women’s divisions will play quarter and semi finals earlier in the day, before the grand finals are contested in the afternoon, while the Mixed division will play its semi finals on Friday night before the grand final on Saturday at 2:30pm.The race for the VT League Club Championship is also tight, with not a lot separating a couple of the clubs, with Saturday’s results to determine who takes out the title. In the Men’s division, the Bayside Vipers have gone through the season to date undefeated, with 15 wins from their 15 games. The Melbourne City Lions finished the rounds with 10 wins, as did the Western Dodgers. The Melbourne University Northern Blacks sit in fourth place with six wins, followed by the Casey Tigers and the Eastern Falcons. The quarter finals will see the Western Dodgers take on the Eastern Falcons while the Melbourne University Northern Blacks will play the Casey Tigers. The semi finals at 1.30pm will see the winners of the quarter finals meet the Bayside Vipers and the Melbourne City Lions, with the winners to progress to the final at 4.30pm. In the Women’s division, the Melbourne City Lions will be hopeful of keeping their undefeated record this season alive on Saturday after finishing the season with 15 wins from the 15 games. The Bayside Vipers sit in second place with 10 wins, followed by the Eastern Falcons on nine wins, the Casey Cougars on six wins, the Western Dodgers on four wins while the Melbourne University Northern Blacks sit in sixth place. The Eastern Falcons will meet the Melbourne University Northern Blacks in the quarter finals, while the Casey Cougars and the Western Dodgers will battle it out. The winners will progress through to the semi finals to meet the Melbourne City Lions and Bayside Vipers, at 12.30pm. The two winners from the semi finals will meet in the grand final at 3.30pm. The introduction of Mixed division this season has been accepted very well with over 60 players having been introduced into the Mixed format for the first time.The Mixed division’s semi finals will be played at 7.00pm on Friday, 10 February at Elwood Park. The semi finals will see the Melbourne City Lions take on the Melbourne University Northern Blacks while the Eastern Falcons will play the Bayside Vipers. The grand final of the division will be played at 2:30pm on Saturday. Stay tuned to the VT League website for all of the latest news and results from VT League finals day:  www.vtleague.com.au VT League Finals DayMen’sQuarter finals – 10.30amWestern Dodgers v Eastern FalconsMelbourne University Northern Blacks v Casey TigersSemi finals – 1.30pmBayside Vipers v UndecidedMelbourne City Lions v UndecidedGrand final – 4.30pmWomen’sQuarter finals – 9.30amEastern Falcons v Melbourne University Northern BlacksCasey Cougars v Western DodgersSemi finals – 12.30pmMelbourne City Lions v UndecidedBayside Vipers v UndecidedGrand final – 3.30pmMixedSemi finals – 7.00pm (Friday)Melbourne City Lions v Melbourne University Northern BlacksEastern Falcons v Bayside VipersGrand Final – 2:30pm (Saturday)last_img read more

  • 7 days agoEx-Newcastle boss Benitez: Gerrard wanted Longstaff at Rangers

    first_imgTagsTransfersAbout the authorPaul VegasShare the loveHave your say Ex-Newcastle boss Benitez: Gerrard wanted Longstaff at Rangersby Paul Vegas7 days agoSend to a friendShare the loveFormer Newcastle United boss Rafa Benitez has confirmed Rangers manager Steven Gerrard tried to sign Sean Longstaff.Benitez revealed he has kept in touch with his former Liverpool midfielder, who attempted to sign the talented midfielder.”We have kept in touch. Both of our lives are very busy and it isn’t about giving advice but we have had contact to talk football and to talk about players,” Benitez told The Athletic.”In fact, in the summer of last year, Stevie called me about Sean Longstaff.”Rangers were interested and he asked whether they could sign him on loan, but I told him “no” — he’d be staying at Newcastle United.”Some people have said, ‘Oh, Rafa was lucky because of Longstaff’ but we’d been watching him and we were happy with him, we played him in the first-team, supported him and gave him confidence.”Turning Rangers down is proof of what we thought of Sean.” last_img read more

  • 6 days agoChelsea boss Lampard: What I love about Barkley

    first_imgAbout the authorPaul VegasShare the loveHave your say Chelsea boss Lampard: What I love about Barkleyby Paul Vegas6 days agoSend to a friendShare the loveChelsea boss Frank Lampard is delighted with the form of Ross Barkley.Barkley was a late substitute in England’s defeat in the Czech Republic but he returned to the starting 11 in style in Bulgaria when he scored two goals having set up the opener.”Ross played well,” praises Lampard. “I am loving his arrival into the box, that is what you always want when you are playing with midfielders with attacking qualities, for them to be in the six-yard box, not just to be in and around the area, and it is good for his confidence.”He knows that it is competitive here for a place in midfield. I am delighted to see players going away internationally and doing well, particularly if they have not been playing as much as they would like to here. It gives me a good problem and I am pleased for him.” last_img read more