Tag Archive 龙凤上海shlf1419

Labourer further remanded for shooting wash bay operator

admin no comments

first_imgReportedly identified as the shooter in an incident that occurred at a wash bay at Broad and Lombard Streets, Charlestown, Georgetown, 23-year-old Jermaine Josiah of Lot 127CC, Eccles Housing Scheme, East Bank Demerara was on Friday further remanded to prison when his case was recalled before a Georgetown magistrate.Josiah was previously arraigned for gun possession, armed robbery, and discharging a loaded firearm at Leroy Robinson with intent to cause actually bodily harm. On his first appearance, he was not required to plead to the charge of discharging a loaded firearm, which occurred on June 10, 2018 at Broad and Lombard Streets, Georgetown.He has also been accused of robbing Robinson of $25,000 and one mobile phone;The wash bay where the robbery occurredwhile the third charge stated that, on the said day, while in the vicinity of Evans Street, Charlestown, Josiah had an illegal .38 revolver in his possession. He has pleaded not guilty to those charges.In court on Friday, Police Prosecutor Sanj Singh asked that the defendant be further remanded, citing that a dangerous weapon had been used in commission of the act.As such, the accused was further remanded to prison, and will make his next court appearance on August 31.It was reported that Robinson was at his wash bay, in the company of his reputed wife, when a man entered the premises and relieved him of his cellular phone and the cash. Josiah was reportedly armed and kept guard.It was reported that although Robinson had offered no resistance, the armed suspect shot the victim once to his left knee before escaping.The Police were alerted, and prompt action by a rank on motorcycle patrol resulted in the apprehension of the armed suspect a short distance from the scene.The victim was taken to the Georgetown Public Hospital, where he was treated and subsequently discharged.last_img read more

QPR v Preston: five key battles

admin no comments

first_imgQPR hope to return to winning ways on Saturday when they host pointless Preston at Loftus Road. Here’s the five match-ups we believe might be crucial in determining the outcome.Jake Bidwell v Ben PringleBidwell was not at his best in the defeat at Barnsley in midweek, struggling up against Ryan Kent. However, he will hope to fare better in his battle with former Fulham man Pringle, who has started all three of Preston’s Championship matches.Yeni N’Gbakoto v Liam GrimshawThe recent signing from Metz is still adapting to English football but is likely to start on Rangers’ left-hand side again. He will be up against Liam Grimshaw, who has come in for some flak for his displays at right-back in the early games, deputising for the long-term absentee Calum Woods.James Perch v Callum RobinsonWith Grant Hall serving a ban, Nedum Onuoha is required to shift across to centre-half, meaning a recall for Perch. He will need to be on his toes against the speedy Robinson, whose goal as a substitute in last weekend’s game against Fulham earned him a recall on Tuesday.Steven Caulker v Jermaine BeckfordBorn just eight miles apart, in Feltham and Ealing respectively, these two West Londoners will relish an aerial tussle. Caulker was disappointing in the loss at Oakwell, while former Wealdstone marksman Beckford will hope to improve on his three previous appearances against Rangers, when he has failed to find the net.Sebastian Polter v Tom Clarke and Bailey WrightAt the other end of the pitch, Polter – with two goals in his first three league games – will have a significant height advantage over both Preston centre-backs. His link up play with Tjaronn Chery will again be important.Click here for our QPR v Preston quizSee also:Hall sent off as QPR are beatenBarnsley v QPR player ratingsQPR should beat Preston – and Fulham’s odds are cut after good startMcManaman ‘too expensive’ for QPR – HasselbainkPreview: QPR looking to get back on track against PrestonQPR wait for news on Gladwin injuryFollow West London Sport on TwitterFind us on Facebooklast_img read more

Language Is Not a Simple Genetic Matter

admin no comments

first_imgIt sounds so simple.  The title on an article in PhysOrg announced, in Kipling Just-So Story Format, “How gorilla gestures point to evolution of human language.”  Because gorillas have an extensive repertoire of over 100 gestures, human conversation was only a matter of evolutionary time.  Is this mere storytelling, or do such explanations have scientific validity?  Can the changes necessary for human language be found in the genes?    The FOXP2 gene is often singled out as crucial to the evolution of human language, because mutations in that gene lead to speech defects in humans.  The recently published Neanderthal genome (see National Geographic News) showed that Neanderthals had the same FOXP2 gene we have.  “This gene is involved in linguistic development, suggesting that Neanderthals could talk,” the article said.  No one has shown, however, that FOXP2 is a necessary or sufficient cause for the origin of language – such an inference is hopelessly simplistic (see 05/26/2004, 02/21/2008).  For example, a defective power supply in a radio that renders it inoperable does not explain the communication heard when it works.  Is there more than genetics involved in the origin of our language capacity?  How could we know?Cultural selection and synergy    In an essay in Nature,1 E�rs Szathm�ry and Szabolcs Sz�mad� argued that “Language evolved as part of a uniquely human group of traits, the interdependence of which calls for an integrated approach to the study of brain function.”  It’s more than the ability to recognize words.  Your dog can do that.  They said, “more than any other attribute, language was probably key to the development of the set of traits that makes humans unique.”  These two authors proposed that social factors were much more important than genes in the development of language.  “Cultural evolution has shown us that one word can be worth a thousand genes,” they said.  But how can that explain language in a Darwinian paradigm?  It almost sounds Lamarckian – the discredited hypothesis of inheritance of acquired characteristics.  Here’s how they tied it in to Darwinism:That the genes involved in a cognitive trait affect other traits, and have effects that interact with each other, is business as usual for complex behaviour.  But the result is likely to be a network of interacting effects, in which evolution in one trait builds on an attribute already modified as a by-product of selection acting on another.  The nature of the gene networks underpinning complex behaviour suggests that several genes will have been selected for because they enhanced proficiency in a range of tasks – whether in social, linguistic or tool-use domains.Language emerged, they said, at the same time humans were learning to fish and hunt big game and make stone tools.  It was a by-product of the co-option of existing genes for vocalization being selected for new uses, they suggested.  This all happened at a time when major evolutionary changes were occurring simultaneously:The probable emergence of modern language in the context of these other capacities points to the evolution of a uniquely human set of traits.  We’ve barely begun to probe the architecture of this ‘suite’, but there is little to suggest that each capacity evolved one by one, or that they could be lost independently without harming at least some other traits in the set.But is this explanation helpful for elucidating what actually happened, or does it shield itself from falsification in the noise of complexity?  Creationists would say God designed all these traits to work together.  These evolutionists did appeal to evidence, but then only for the interdependence of the traits, not their origin: “Evidence supporting the close-knit evolution of traits comes, for example, from experiments showing that people who struggle with grammar also have difficulties drawing hierarchical structures, such as a layered arrangement of matches.”  They also said that tool-making and language appear related.  But such linkages do not necessarily point to evolution as the only explanation.    Szathm�ry and Sz�mad� used their hypothesis to weave a seamless story of the transition from genetic evolution to cultural evolution:The evidence strongly suggests that language evolved into its modern form embedded in a group of synergistic traits.  However, language almost certainly holds special status over the other traits in the set.  More than any other attribute, language is likely to have played a key role in driving genetic and cultural human evolution.    Language enables us to pass on cultural information more efficiently than can any other species.  It’s taken about 40 million years, for example, for five agricultural systems to appear in fungus-growing ants.  Human agriculture diversified on a massive scale in just a few thousand years.  Language makes it easier for people to live in large groups and helps drive cumulative cultural evolution – the build-up of complex belief systems, and the establishment of laws and theories over several generations.  It has allowed us to construct a highly altered social and physical world, which has in turn shaped our evolution.  Cultural evolution has shown us that one word can be worth a thousand genes.  Language was the key evolutionary innovation because it built on important cognitive prerequisites and opened the door to so much else.It appears they just said that their own reasoning evolved from cultural evolution which evolved from genetic evolution.  Can those gaps be bridged so easily?  Can one shift the hot potato of explanation between genes and culture as required to keep the story going?Exaptation: Dissing Darwin    Robert Berwick raised questions about this in a commentary in PNAS,2 “What genes can’t learn about language.”  He opened with this very issue: “Human language has long been viewed as a product of both genes and individual external experience or culture, but the key puzzle has always been to assess the relative contribution of each.”  He asked whimsically if language evolution is more like hemline fashions (culture) or the fingers on one’s hand (genetics).  There must be an interplay of both, because we know every child is born ready to learn a language, but those who learn Hindi cannot understand those who speak Mandarin.    Berwick’s solution leaned toward cultural evolution.  The reason is that genetic evolution is too slow to keep up with the rapid changes known to occur in human language.  One finding he cited “runs counter to one popular view that these properties of human language were explicitly selected for,… instead pointing to human language as largely adventitious, an exaptation, with many, perhaps most, details driven by culture.”  (An exaptation means a trait not acquired by natural selection – presumably through a trait that predisposed a creature toward an adaptation).  The upside is that it means the set of genes devoted to language can be greatly reduced.  “There is no need, and more critically no informational space, for the genome to blueprint some intricate set of highly-modular, interrelated components for language, just as the genome does not spell out the precise neuron-to-neuron wiring of the developing brain.”  The downside is that classical Darwinian natural selection had little to do with it.    Berwick recognized the controversy this position is likely to raise: “such a result may prove surprising to Darwinian enthusiasts who see the hand of natural selection everywhere,” he admitted, but he had an even “more startling” ramification to unleash: a convergence between the views of two groups often at variance with one another: cultural evolutionists and theoretical linguists.  Recent models by subsets of these camps can make do with a “minimal human genome for language.”  Is this an evolutionary coup?String Theory and Semantics    One thing remains: explaining the “hallmark of human language,” recursive concatenation.  This is our unique ability to combine words into new entities that can be treated as a single object, then combined again over and over.  This ability, which provides us “an infinity of possible meaningful signs integrated with the human conceptual system,” is lacking in animals.  With it, though, we have “the algebraic closure of a recursive operator over our dictionary.”  We have “infinite use of finite means.”  How could genes or culture explain this capability?  Berwick merely states that it does: “the claim that human language is an exaptation rather than a selected-for adaptation becomes not only much more likely but very nearly inescapable.”  Believe it or not.    Actually, the coup is not over yet.  Berwick ended with two caveats about “What models can’t tell us about language evolution.”  The cultural-evolution model would expect all aspects of human language to rise and fall like hemlines, but “Indeed, as far back as we can discern, human languages have always been just as complicated and fixed along certain dimensions.”  There’s a difference, for example, between a sound and its value.  There is no necessary connection between what our genes allow us to pronounce and what we mean by the sound.  Exaptation merely assumes what it needs to prove: the “promiscuous recursion harnessed to our conceptual dictionary” that makes language so endlessly expressive.Why Confirm What We Already Know?    The second caveat is even more alarming.  Berwick said we can never know how language evolved:Second, there remain inherent restrictions on our ability to ferret out biological adaptation generally and see into the past, more so than is sometimes generally acknowledged, simply because of limits on what we can measure given the signal-to-noise ratio of evolution by natural selection, and similarly constraining what computer simulations like the one in this issue of PNAS can ever tell us.  Since the pioneering study in ref. 11 we know that cultural evolution can sweep through populations as quickly as viral infections.  By comparison, evolution by natural selection is orders of magnitude slower and weaker, its effects on gene frequencies easily swamped by the migration of even a few individuals per generation.  Practically, this means that although we know without a doubt that adaptive selection has been involved in the shaping of certain traits, language being one of them, the data to establish this fact conclusively remains methodologically out of reach simply because it is infeasible to collect the requisite experimental evidence.  To take a far more secure case than language, although we have long known that human blood group differences confer certain reproductive evolutionary advantages, geneticists have estimated we would require the complete age-specific birth and death rate tables for on the order of 50,000 individuals to confirm what must certainly be true.  Given the great costs coupled with the relatively small benefits of confirming what we already know, the pragmatic nature of science wins out and there is simply little enthusiasm in carrying forward the exercise.By portraying language evolution as something “we already know,” Berwick has insulated it from the need for empirical evidence.  Indeed, he generalized this to all cases of evolutionary adaptation, not just language.  If the signal-to-noise ratio of natural selection is so low as to be undetectable, is evolution a science, or a belief?  Notice the phrase “story line” in his ending paragraph:Consequently, it is probably safe to say that neither this nor any other confirmation of adaptive advantage for one or another particular evolutionary story line about human language, no matter how compelling or how internally consistent its computer simulation logic, will be immediately forthcoming.  To be sure, computer simulations can still establish boundary conditions on evolvability via the Balwin�Simpson effect or set directions for further inquiry, and Chater et al. succeed admirably.  Nonetheless, we should remain ever alert that there are always restrictions on restrictions, that neither this study nor others like it can tell us how human language actually evolved.1.  E�rs Szathm�ry and Szabolcs Sz�mad�, “Being Human: Language: a social history of words,” Nature 456, 40-41 (6 November 2008) | doi:10.1038/456040a.2.  Robert C. Berwick, “What genes can’t learn about language,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, February 10, 2009, 106:6, pp 1685-1686, doi:10.1073/pnas.0812871106.Those last two block quotes are worth reading carefully.  For Darwin skeptics, the evidence could hardly be more clear: evolution is a belief imposed on the evidence, not a belief derived from the evidence.  Since there is no way they could possibly test their belief, evolutionists begin with the assumption of evolution and work everything into their chosen paradigm: fragmentary evidence, elusive hints of signal in a noise (like the FOXP2 gene, inferences from which are as likely to deceive as enlighten), and copious amounts of imagination and storytelling.  Since “we already know” by collective agreement that Darwin reigns and creationism is out, what need have we of proof?, they think.  They have tossed verification out the window.  Like communist dictators behind a wall, they have awarded themselves offices for life and comfy quarters for speculating endlessly without fear of contradiction.  Evidence, like the peasantry, becomes subservient to the State.  Damaging evidence has been filtered out by the State-run press.  The regime is self-promoting, self-serving, and self-perpetuating.Time for a revolution.(Visited 17 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

Ho, Weber star at Open Water Champs

admin no comments

first_imgIn the women’s 14-and-over open water event, KwaZulu-Natal’s Michelle Weber finished first in an excellent time of 2:10:33.87. The Championships, which took place over Saturday and Sunday, were held in near perfect conditions at the Elgin Grabouw Country Club, on the banks of the Eikenhof Dam, which is set in the beautiful Elgin apple-growing valley outside Grabouw in the Western Cape province. In the women’s races, Michelle Weber also made it a clean sweep as she powered to victory in both the 10km and 5km open water events. Her provincial teammates Clarice Le Roux, and Sasha-Lee Nordegen fought it out to the finish, with Le Roux (2:11:01.59) coming in second and Nordegen (2:11:05.45) third. In the women’s 14-and-over 5km open water event, Weber, the World Youth champion over the distance, took the honours in (1:01:04.59). Kyna Pereira (1:01:09.77) claimed second place and Carmen Le Roux finished third (1:01:14.76.) 5 March 2013 10km titleThe 22-year-old Ho, from KwaZulu-Natal, claimed the men’s 14-and-over 10km open water title in a time of 1:56:00.44. Would you like to use this article in your publication or on your website? See: Using SAinfo material Midmar Mile champion Chad Ho continued his local domination of distance swimming when he claimed top honours at the 2013 Swimming South Africa National Open Water Championships on the weekend. He comfortably beat his KZN team mate Troyden Prinsloo (1:58:13.24) into second, with and Western Cape swimmer Danie Marais (1:58:21.98) settling for third in a repeat of the order they finished in in the aQuelle Midmar Mile. SAinfo reporter Sterling performancesOn Sunday, Ho and Weber continued their sterling performances in their respective 5km open water races despite stiff competition from the rest of the field. Ho (59:43:29.14) just pipped Marais (59:45:01 10) to the podium with Abdul-Malick Railoun (1:01:00.34) of Northern Tigers Swimming clinching third a few seconds behind the front two.last_img read more

Flood waters recede in NE, 6 lakh people affected

admin no comments

last_img

40th Anniversary Celebrations of ZNS TV

admin no comments

first_imgPhoto captions:Photo #1:  Board of Directors & General Manager – From left: Director, Oswald Munnings; Executive Chairman, Michael Smith; Director, Elaine Gomez; General Manager, Kayleaser Deveaux-Isaacs; and Deputy Chairman, Patric Walkes.Photo #2: BCB Executives – From left: Charles Russell, AGM/TV Administration; Beverly Curry, DGM/News (Acting); Darren Meadows, DGM/Operations & Northern Service (Acting); Eugene Higgs, Financial Consultant; Kayleaser Deveaux-Isaacs, General Manager (Acting); Keith Gomez, AGM/Engineering; Sandra Duncombe-Knowles, DGM/Human Resources & Training (Acting); Stanley Pinder, DGM/Radio, Plant & Maintenance; and Sean Adderley, AGM/Sales & Business Development.Photo #3: Check Presentation — Michael Smith, Executive Chairman, left, and Rev. Dr. Vaughn Cash, Sr. Pastor, Evangelistic Temple.Photo #4: 40th Anniversary of Television — ZNS Board, Executives & Staff, past and present at Evangelistic Temple Church Service Celebrating 40 years of Television Broadcasting in The Bahamas on October 15, 2017.Release: BIS Facebook Twitter Google+LinkedInPinterestWhatsApp Facebook Twitter Google+LinkedInPinterestWhatsApp#Bahamas, October 18, 2017 – Nassau  – The Broadcasting Corporation of The Bahamas launched the 40th Anniversary of ZNS Television on Sunday, October 15, 2017 with a church service at Evangelistic Temple on Collins Avenue.The Corporation celebrates the important milestone with the theme, ‘Celebrating 40 Years of Uniting The Bahamas,’ and with a swirl of events and activities this week, including:Luncheon at headquarters, which took place immediately after the church service on Sunday; Proclamation by Prime Minister, Dr. the Hon. Hubert Minnis in Newspaper Supplement on Monday; Breakfast for Staff, present and former, Tuesday; Long Service Awards presentation ceremony at Government House on Wednesday; Celebrations at the Northern Service which includes Luncheon for staff, present and former on Thursday; Customer Appreciation Day & Open House on Friday; and Sail Away to Harbour Island on Saturday.Photos by Kevin Williams capture the ZNS Team on Sunday.center_img Related Items:last_img read more

Instagram influencer data taken offline after exposure

admin no comments

last_img

State finance ministers seek simplicity in GST at meeting

admin no comments

last_img

Refresh your skin with roses

admin no comments

first_imgRoses have a lot of uses apart from its de-stressing fragrance. From being an ace hydrator to being a healer, experts have rated the rose and its petals high for their uses. Hydration: Rose mixed with water helps hydrate, re-energise and moisturise the skin giving it a fresh look. It helps control excess oil and also maintains the skin’s pH balance. Containing a complex array of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants, rose essential oil has excellent emollient properties for moisturising dry skin. Also Read – Add new books to your shelfRosewater and lemon juice skin tonic: This tonic helps in clearing pimples and acne. Wash your face with water, followed by application of the tonic. Leave it on for 15 minutes before washing it with warm water. This is suitable for either combination skin or oily skin.Rosewater and almonds face pack: This is considered to be an ideal pack for dry skin. A paste can be prepared by using almonds, honey and rosewater together. This face-pack can be used for skin whitening. Also Read – Over 2 hours screen time daily will make your kids impulsiveFor regular use, dip the cotton ball in rosewater and clean the face. It acts as a natural toner and removes the dust and dirt settled onto the skin. This process can be repeated in the morning and night time. Rosewater can also be used in bath water. It helps in inducing a skin glow. The gentle aroma of rose removes the stress and refreshes the body.Eye care: Rosewater can alleviate the discomfort and relieve the stress after application. Rosewater brings shine and makes the eyes healthy. The anti-septic and anti-bacterial properties save the eyes from pollution, dust, redness and harm caused by chemicals in make-up products that one may be accustomed to using. It can also help in preventing dark circles when mixed with milk. Hair care: If used with shampoo on a regular basis, rosewater promotes moisturisation and conditioning of hair follicles.Rosewater and jojoba oil blended together can be applied on the hair for 10 minutes before washing, as it effectively helps in repairing damaged hair caused by curling irons or blow driers.To get rid of frizzy hair, rosewater and aloe vera can be blended together in equal proportions. Apply it over your scalp properly. Leave it on for 30 minutes and then wash off.Skin disease treatment: Rose has antibacterial, antifungal and antiviral properties, making it ideal to topically treat a host of ailments, including abrasions, burns and skin conditions. It has also been used to ease sore throats, fever and cough.The anti-inflammatory properties help treat redness and inflammation. Rose oil can also help refine skin texture, controlling skin diseases such as psoriasis and atopic dermatitis.De-stress: Inhaling the aroma of roses is said to be a powerful mood enhancer. It lowers the concentration of the stress hormone in the body, and helps in getting rid from feelings of anxiety, thereby promoting emotional well-being and relaxation.Local botox: Roses also help aging skin, keeping fine lines and wrinkles at bay. Use Rosehip seed oil (which is derived from small fruits found behind the rose flower) which contains high levels of Vitamin C and is rich in oils and proteins.last_img read more

1058 applicants shortlisted for a oneway trip to Mars

admin no comments

last_img

Recent Comments