Bukayo Saka celebrated his new Arsenal deal by inspiring a crucial 2-0 win at Wolves.The 18-year-old, who penned a new long-term contract at the Emirates this week, struck his first Premier League goal to give the Gunners’ European hopes a huge boost. Alexandre Lacazette scored a late second as impressive Arsenal closed the gap on sixth-placed Wolves to three points.Boss Mikel Arteta continued to justify his hard-line stance on any player yet to buy into his beliefs, with Mesut Ozil and Matteo Guendouzi again missing.Adama Traore chipped Wolves’ best chance over as Nuno Espirito Santo’s side’s Champions League hopes took a hit.They are three points behind Manchester United after losing their 100 per cent record since returning from lockdown.They remain in the hunt for a shock top four spot and, while a return to Europe’s top table remains fanciful for Arsenal, they bagged a deserved fourth straight win in all competitions despite a slow start. Emiliano Martinez, who had a 15-game loan spell at Molineux five years ago, was immediately called into action to block Traore’s poked effort in the first few seconds.The forward, partnering Raul Jimenez instead of Diogo Jota, also fired wildly over but there was no real sign of an early breakthrough.Saka initially struggled on the right as the Gunners took time to find a rhythm but Rui Patricio grabbed Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang’s prodded half-volley in the 26th minute as they flickered into life.Wolves lacked the tempo needed to stretch the visitors, with Leander Dendoncker glancing well wide and Jonny dragging across goal.Arsenal, without Nicolas Pepe after his wife went into labour, grew in confidence and Eddie Nketiah went close when he pounced on a kind ricochet and Patricio turned his low drive onto the base of the post. It was a warning Wolves failed to heed and the Gunners struck the opener two minutes before the break.A sweeping move saw Aubameyang find Kieran Tierney on the left and his cross deflected off Matt Doherty for Saka to swivel and beat Patricio from 12 yards.It was the first goal Wolves had conceded in 448 minutes and they started the second half with added urgency, Nuno introducing Jota 10 minutes in.Jota had a shot blocked and Raul Jimenez saw a dubious penalty claim rejected before the pair combined for Traore to waste a glorious chance.RelatedPosts Arsenal, Wolves want Michael Olise EPL: Gunners survive West Ham scare Emirates collaborates with Huawei to bring enhanced mobile App experience to Users The forward’s end product had drastically improved this season but in the 64th minute he fluffed his lines when, having been put clear by Jota, he chipped over with just Martinez to beat.Arsenal maintained their concentration, although posed a limited threat for much of the second half and Nketiah headed a rare chance over with 13 minutes left.But as Wolves began to chase the game, space opened up and Lacazette pounced with five minutes left, collecting Joe Willock’s cross to ghost past Conor Coady and find the corner.Willock almost added a third a minute later but Ruben Neves hacked his scuffed effort off the line.Tags: Alexandre LacazetteBukayo SakaChampions LeagueEmiratesWolverhampton Wanderers
He said: “It’s disappointing when you dominate a football match like that, the ref should have stopped it at half-time. “I thought we tired in the second half but that’s to be expected and two of those back four have trained about four times in eight weeks. We dropped off a little bit too deep and couldn’t keep that pressure on them. “But anyone who has seen that football match knows it shouldn’t have been close.” Rangers hit back after the break through Clint Hill and Charlie Austin, the latter netting with just 12 minutes left. They have taken four points from their last two away games after winning just once on the road this season before Saturday’s 4-1 win at West Brom. The draw, though, left them two points from safety having played a game more and boss Chris Ramsey admitted he was nervous after Austin’s goal. He said: “It’s a long time, it’s heart attack time for managers that. You can see you’re going to win but you know there’s a chance anything can happen, a free-kick, a corner or a bit of magic. “I thought we could (hang on) but a free-kick is a free-kick, at that stage most of their attacking options had been exhausted. “I’m disappointed if I’m being honest. But before the game if someone said we’d get four points from the last two games we probably would have taken that.” Rangers were seeking back-to-back away wins in the top flight for the first time since 1995 but Ramsey targeted home victories to keep them up. They host Chelsea on Sunday before welcoming West Ham and Newcastle to Loftus Road. He said: “I don’t know what we need but we’re probably going to have to win three games. I don’t know what the points total will be but our two home games are going to be very important after Chelsea. “We have got a couple of very difficult ones in Liverpool and Manchester City and then we have the potential cup final against Leicester on the last day of the season. “Most teams would take being in it right to the end and then roll the dice, you don’t want to start being detached because it’s a big mountain to climb.” Meanwhile, claims Carles Gil left Villa Park after not being named in the matchday squad are unfounded. The midfielder was pitchside before the game and watched the match in the players’ box. Press Association The forward’s treble – his first in two years – clinched a pulsating 3-3 draw with their drop rivals as Villa edged further clear of the bottom three. Villa are three points above the Barclays Premier League drop zone and denied QPR the chance to leapfrog them in the table. Boss Tim Sherwood backed Christian Benteke to fire Aston Villa to safety after the striker’s crucial hat-trick saved a point against QPR. Defeat would have left Villa in the relegation zone and behind QPR but Benteke struck a 25-yard free-kick with seven minutes left to save them and complete his treble. The Belgium international has seven goals in seven games under Sherwood and the boss hopes he can maintain his form to keep Villa up. He said: “That’s the plan. “It doesn’t come much better than that. He’s a good player, I have always said it and he’s in a rich vein of form. “It’s fantastic for him to score the goals, it’s just a shame we couldn’t get the three points. “It’s not about what you deserve, it’s about what you get and we got one point. “This could be a vital point come the end of the season in the end, when you go so late into the game and Christian has had to pull that out the bag we’re grateful.” But Sherwood insisted Villa should have won after Benteke’s first-half double, cancelling out Matt Phillips’ opener, gave them a 2-1 lead at the break.
Eric He is a sophomore majoring in print and digital journalism. His column, “Grinding Gears,” runs Wednesdays. In a few months, the best athletes in the world will congregate in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil for the 2016 Summer Olympics — or at least that’s the plan.The Olympics are supposed to be a grand event, celebrating unity in the spirit of competition and bringing tremendous pride to the host country.But for this Olympics in Brazil, it’s been quite the contrary. Mired in everything from the Zika virus to doping and political scandals to unfinished infrastructure, these Olympics are building up to be one of the worst yet. Some are even calling for its cancellation.Quite frankly, that wouldn’t be a bad idea. Zika, of course, is the gravest concern. We’re talking about a sexually transmittable disease with no cure that we are only beginning to understand. Sending tens of thousands of athletes from around the world — not to mention the hundreds of thousands of fans and tourists who will cram into Rio for three weeks and then travel back to their native countries — could turn Zika into a worldwide epidemic.Heck, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention issued a statement in February urging pregnant women and their partners to stay away from the Olympics because of the mosquito-borne illness, citing dangers of fetal infections and brain abnormalities. Risks as severe as those warrant a thorough examination of whether or not these games are worth it.Athletes certainly are weighing the benefits and potential costs. In February, the U.S. Olympic Committee told its athletes that they could skip the Olympics if they were worried about Zika.Women’s soccer team goaltender Hope Solo backed out of the games, though she eventually said she will “begrudgingly” participate.“I strongly believe that no athlete should be put into this position — to decide between your Olympic dreams and your own health,” Solo said to CNBC in May.Irish golfer and four-time major winner Rory McIlroy became the latest Olympian to voice his concerns, telling the BBC on Monday that he and his fiancée would like to start a family one day.This is an impossible predicament. Participating in the Olympics is a dream, an honor. But risking long-term health to take part in the games should not be part of any equation. It is unfair to the athletes who have trained their entire lives for this moment.And the crazy thing is, Zika is just the start of Brazil’s problems, which could take up an entire book. There’s the extremely polluted waterways in Rio, which means swimmers, sailors, rowers and kayakers risk having viruses and bacteria enter their bodies. The Associated Press tested the waterways last year, and the results were alarming, showing that there were 1.7 million times the number of disease-causing viruses than would be considered “highly alarming” in the U.S. and Europe. This is the water they’re asking world-class athletes to swim in.There’s the political crisis that is rocking the country, with President Dilma Rousseff suspended and facing impeachment for misusing federal funds. There’s the fact that Brazil is in the midst of its worst recession in a century, and what the government is doing to ensure this doomed spectacle looks somewhat presentable — evicting poor families from their homes to build infrastructure for the games — will only make it worse.This could have all been avoidable if Brazil wasn’t awarded with the games in the first place. But that’s difficult considering nobody really wants to host the Olympics anymore. The cities that would theoretically be perfect fits — Boston, Munich and Stockholm, to name a few — don’t want to deal with the chaos of reconstructing their city and the burden of organizing a world event. Look up images of old Olympic sites today — Athens, Beijing, Sochi, etc. — and you’ll see decrepit buildings that serve no purpose outside of three weeks of competition. In Greece, the 2004 Olympic Games are largely to blame for the massive debt crises the country is currently in.So, we are left with choices such as Brazil, a country dealing with way too many problems to take on the task of running the world’s biggest event. We are left with Beijing, China, playing host to the 2022 Winter Olympics because literally nobody wanted to host the games. The only other bidding country was Kazakhstan (yes, Kazakhstan), and the games will be completely reliant on artificial snow because it actually doesn’t snow in Beijing.I’m not advocating for the Olympics to be held exclusively in rich countries that can saddle the economic burden, but something needs to be done so that poorer nations such as Brazil can handle a tall task that takes money, time and painstaking organization. Right now, Brazil has none of the above.I’m sure Rio is a wonderful city where the games could have been wonderfully staged. But we’re less than three months away from the world’s biggest event, the point where everything should be set and only final preparations need to be made. Instead, athletes and fans are left wondering if they should risk their own health and the health of their future children in order to attend the Olympics in a country ravaged by corruption, scandals and recession. This may very well be the saddest Olympics in history — if it even gets started.
That gets under at Stade Yves-du-Manoir at 3:15pm. First up, in Pool 5, Ulster go to Ian Madigans Bordeaux-Begles at 1pm.After their derby-day disappointment against Leinster at the Aviva Stadium last week, Munster travel to Racing 92.The game also sees them meet up with former Munster hero and Racing assistant coach Ronan O’Gara.
The 25-year-old wasted no time in the first period as he netted two goals for his 95th and 96th points of the season to stake the Lightning to an early 2-0 lead. Welcome to Nikita Kucherov’s world. We’re having a blast.#TBLvsCBJ | #GoBolts pic.twitter.com/O96EzGm7N7— Tampa Bay Lightning (@TBLightning) February 19, 2019Like it’s nothing. 🔥#TBLvsCBJ | #GoBolts pic.twitter.com/ZhenAnUqXU— Tampa Bay Lightning (@TBLightning) February 19, 2019The Russian continued his impressive night with 29 seconds left in the second period, finding Steven Stamkos on the power play for Tampa Bay’s third goal. In the third period, Kucherov assisted Brayden Point on Point’s 45th and 46th goals for the Lightning to cap off the win.Kucherov leads the NHL with 99 points and is the favorite for the Art Ross trophy, which honors the single-season league leader in points. The three-time All-Star also leads the league with 70 assists, becoming the first Tampa Bay player to reach that tally in a single season.Nikita Kucherov collected three assists and became the first player in @TBLightning franchise history to record 70 helpers in a single season. #NHLStats #TBLvsCBJ pic.twitter.com/DutPK45RNC— NHL Public Relations (@PR_NHL) February 19, 2019Led by Kucherov’s MVP-caliber season, Tampa Bay (45-11-4) wields the best record in the league. Nikita Kucherov cannot be stopped. The Lightning winger was involved in every goal-scoring play for Tampa Bay in Monday’s 5-1 home win over the Columbus Blue Jackets.
Five questions with Adam Teicher, who covers the Kansas City Chiefs for ESPN.com:Q: The Chiefs have the week off. Andy Reid is known for having his teams well prepared after a bye with a 17-3 record in Philadelphia and Kansas City. Can you shed any light on why Reid is so good at this?Teicher: Reid and his staff put the extra time to good use. Their game plans usually look fresh after having some time off. The players look fresh, too. Reid gives the players the entire bye week off from …
If beetles can do it, scientists should be able to: climb the wall, that is. Some researchers at Max Planck Institute have invented an adhesive that sticks to glass like beetle feet. The secret was to manufacture thousands of microscopic pads that adhere to smooth surfaces by van der Waals forces (the attraction of neighboring atoms). “Inspired by the soles of beetles’ feet, and therefore biomimetic, the special surface structure of the material allows it to stick to smooth walls without any adhesives.” The press release tells how bugs and reptiles had it first:It has been known for some time how insects, spiders and geckos have such a remarkable talent for walking on walls and ceilings. Extremely thin hairs literally stick their feet to the wall and the larger the animal, the finer the hairs. Geckos, which are heavy compared to a fly, have been using nanotechnology for this purpose for millions of years …. According to findings made by scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Metals Research in Stuttgart, the shape of the fibres is also significant; for example, spatula-shaped ends on the hairs provide particularly strong adhesion.How might beetle-foot or gecko-foot adhesives be used? Reusable adhesive tape, soles for climbers’ boots (Spider-man?) come to mind. What else?Potential applications range from protective foil for delicate glasses to reusable adhesive fixtures – say goodbye to fridge magnets, here come the microhairs, which will also stick to your mirror, your cupboard and your windows. For example, the new material will soon be found in industrial production processes in the manufacture of glass components. It has already been shown to perform in higher weight categories: the artificial adhesive fibers on the soles of a 120 gram robot helped it to climb a vertical glass wall.It was quite an engineering challenge to design the prototype, and the bugs are still being worked out (if Mr. Beetle Bailey will pardon the expression). Their product, when it comes on the market, will be user-friendly: “It lasts for hundreds of applications, does not leave any visible marks and can be thoroughly cleaned with soap and water.”You can just hear the commercials already. What should they call this stuff? It should beat out any TV ads for kaboom, vacuum cleaner robots and battery-free flashlights. Put on your announcer voice and say, “Sticks to almost anything. Leaves no marks and requires no messy cleanup. Use it in the kitchen, the bathroom, the office. Protect your eyeglasses and priceless photographs. Leave yourself notes on the window. Perfect for the artist or draftsman. Usable anywhere – everywhere. It’s amazing! But wait! Order now, and we’ll throw in this self-cleaning windshield, a $60 value, absolutely free! You get a hundred-foot roll of GeckoTape, a whisker robot for the kids, and the self-cleaning windshield, all for just $39.99. What are you waiting for? Operators are standing by to take your call. Call now! 1-800-THANK-ID.” So geckos have been using nanotechnology for millions of years, they say. Was this by intelligent design? No, it couldn’t have been. It is so vastly superior to human engineering, it must have been made by blind, mindless processes of accidental chance.(Visited 15 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
It is a tragic matter of record that some of recent history’s most brutal racial genocides were justified on Darwinian principles (see CMI articles about the Herero genocide, the Nazi genocide, and the Aborigine genocide). The perpetrators acted on what they believed were inexorable laws of nature, that evolution had equipped some races as superior and others as inferior, little more than animals. Prior to the atrocities were many writings expressing IQ as a function of skull size, human evolution as a continuum of progress from animal evolution, and survival of the fittest as the highest good (see CMI article on Haeckel). Add to that the Malthusian idea that the earth’s resources cannot support all who are born, apply it as Darwin did to survival of the fittest, and the intellectual framework for “might makes right” was laid. Now, of course, evolutionists typically decry the racist ideas of their predecessors. Some now portray evolution as a world of cooperation and harmony. Diversity and inclusion are key words in evolutionary biology and in many a university and corporate office policy statement. But has anything changed in the underlying doctrines that led to earlier abuses? Consider these recent examples:Skull size: A short piece in the “Random Samples” column of Science,1 “What the Skull Tells,” reported dispassionately on work by an evolutionary psychologist at Edinburgh, Ian Deary, to measure the skulls of historic figures considered to have high IQs. “Studies have shown that brain, and therefore skull, sizes have modest but significant correlations with IQ,” the article mentioned nonchalantly.Rapid human evolution: A claim this week by Henry Harpending, evolutionary anthropologist at the University of Utah, that human evolution is accelerating, reverberated throughout the echo chamber of the popular science press (see PhysOrg, National Geographic News, BBC News complete with the iconic human evolution line of progress diagram, Science Daily accompanied by image of a conquering Viking). One aspect of his claim was that “Human races are evolving away from each other.” The National Geographic article quotes him as saying, “We’re evolving away from each other. We’re getting more and more different.” Most of the articles mentioned that Harpending and a co-author got into trouble after a previous study claimed that intelligence evolved more in one group than another. This time, he stressed, the genetic differences between people groups “cannot be used to justify discrimination. Rights in the Constitution aren’t predicated on utter equality. People have rights and should have opportunities whatever their group.” This may be a hard sell, however, since the Constitution assumed that natural rights come from God. In the Declaration of Independence (signed by the same group of authors) they had said it was self-evident that all men are equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. The signers understood that the equality spoken of was not genetic or physical. Equality was based on the spiritual and moral values of equality before God, leading to equal opportunity and equality before the law. Can these rights come from an evolutionary process that is driving human races apart? It was not just creationists finding cause for worry in Harpending’s claims. The article states that the study “generated fears such research will undermine the principle of human equality and justify racism and discrimination. Other critics question the quality of the science and argue culture plays a bigger role than genetics.” These fears came from the scientific community.Moral equivalence: It is common in evolutionary literature to ascribe all moral qualities to blind evolutionary processes. As one example, an article in Science October 26 considered war as the flipside of altruism.2 Holly Arrow wrote that “altruism flourishes only in the company of outgroup hostility (parochialism), with war as both the engine of this coevolutionary process and its legacy.” Though Ms. Arrow clearly favored keeping the “sharp end of altruism” (war) in its sheath, would-be tyrants may not apply the law of Darwinism so peacefully. Within this view, it would seem trivial for a dictator to justify war – as some indeed did – as an altruistic act for the good of the fatherland, consistent with the principles of Darwinism.How long can the memory of Judeo-Christian morality hold out against a steady onslaught of evolutionary claims that people are mere animals, some more evolved than others? If our ancestors were just like gorillas, as a recent article on PhysOrg announced, what is to stop a racist or tyrant from taking on the role of alpha silverback?Breaking News 12/11/2007: The truth comes out about Matthew Murray, the gunman who shot up a mission and church in Colorado last weekend. Apparently he fell under the spell of the same anti-Christian, anarchist rock group KMFDM as did the Finnish murderer last month (11/08/2007). He also copycatted the Columbine killers who had killed in the name of “natural selection” – see story on World Net Daily.1. Random Samples, Science, Volume 318, Number 5855, Issue of 30 November 2007.2. Holly Arrow, “The Sharp End of Altruism,” Science, 26 October 2007: Vol. 318. no. 5850, pp. 581-582, DOI: 10.1126/science.1150316.We repeat: don’t think for a minute that the evils of Darwinian philosophy were exhausted in the extermination camps, gulags and killing fields of the 20th century. Evolutionary ethics are like demons that must be locked in the abyss lest they once again unleash death upon the world. Their ambassadors know the language of diplomacy and talk peace – until they gain enough power to overcome the guardians of the keys.(Visited 9 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Related Posts Top Reasons to Go With Managed WordPress Hosting A Web Developer’s New Best Friend is the AI Wai… Last week, YouTube announced they will begin supporting the upcoming web standard HTML5 which allows videos to be viewed without an Adobe Flash plugin. Those who wanted to play around with the new HTML5-enabled website were directed to a separate experimental site called TestTube. However, noted the YouTube blog post, only Chrome, Safari, and IE users could give the new site a try. Firefox was notably absent from the list. Firefox’s development is directed by the Mozilla Foundation, an organization whose belief in open standards guides their choices about what formats they’ll support on the web. The problem with the new YouTube site is that it uses a video format called H.264, a patented codec that’s not royalty-free. To support a fee-based software like this goes against Mozilla’s core beliefs. But if they choose not to support it, then further down the road, they may soon find themselves losing market share to those that do.Pay to Play: H.264 and its $5 Million per Year FeeAccording to Mozilla’s vice president of engineering, Mike Shaver, this issue is more than a simple choice about picking the right technology for the job. It’s about principles. Supporting the H.264 video codec means paying licensing fees to an organization called MPEG-LA, a group that charges $5,000,000 annually for the codec’s use. But it’s not the cost to their organization that Mozilla is worried about – it’s the cost to the developers, distributors, and anyone who wants to create video content on the web. “If H.264 becomes an accepted part of the standardized web, those fees are a barrier to entry for developers of new browsers,” Shaver writes on his blog. “I want to make sure that there are no toll-booth barriers to entry for someone building a whole new browser, or bringing a browser to a whole new device or OS, or making and using tools for creating standard web content.”In other words, the decision to support or not support the codec isn’t just about technology, it’s about where the web is going and what it should be. And in Mozilla’s eyes, that means free, open, and available to anyone. But Will End Users Care?Unfortunately, Mozilla’s idealism won’t mean much to the end user who may soon discover that YouTube videos don’t work in their preferred browser. And once they learn that switching browsers solves the problem, the years they spent loyal to Firefox will be forgotten in the need to have functional video. Interestingly enough, one of the browsers where the H.264 encoded videos will work is Google Chrome, the up-and-coming browser that’s also the basis for Google’s new web-based operating system, Google Chrome OS, due out later this year. The new browser is already nearing a 5% market share as of December (according to Net Applications) – a notable chunk given Chrome’s lack of support for Mac and Linux-based machines until only last month. Ironically, it’s Google, typically fellow supporters of an open web, that is pushing the H.264 format’s adoption. Their choice to move forward with this codec on YouTube, a Google-owned property, has a major impact on the web as a whole.There’s Still HopeBut even though it looks as if Google’s choice is pushing the web towards this pricey format, Christopher Blizzard, Mozilla’s Open Source Evangelist, reveals there’s still hope. According to an article in The Guardian, Blizzard says that there’s a chance that H.264 will not be Google’s final choice in the matter. There’s good reason to believe that Google is purchasing On2, a technology whose capabilities exceed that of H.264, he says. If that occurs, Google will likely license it royalty-free. Whether or not Google does so remains to be seen, of course, but we hope that Google will remember their motto, “don’t be evil” when the time comes. Until then, Mozilla stands alone at a crossroads, sticking by their principles, supporting the open web…even if that choice one day leads to their downfall. Why Tech Companies Need Simpler Terms of Servic… Tags:#Browsers#Features#NYT#web sarah perez 8 Best WordPress Hosting Solutions on the Market
Get the Free eBook! Want to master cold calling? Download my free eBook! Many would have you believe that cold calling is dead, but the successful have no fear of the phone; they use it to outproduce their competitors. Download Now There is this thing that you do that causes your prospective client to believe you are a commodity. When you do this, even though you believe you are making selling easier (something that should never be your goal), and even though you believe you are creating value for your prospective client, you are not doing either. What you are doing is commoditizing your company and contributing to the commoditization of your industry.What you are doing that creates such a negative result is trying to lower the price your prospective client is paying now.Reducing the price that a person or company pays for something is not the same thing as lowering their costs. These two outcomes are not at all the same. A lower price moves towards reduced outcomes, as outcomes follow the direction of the investment. This is the reduction of value, not an increase. A higher price moves towards greater outcomes, as more money is being invested in producing those outcomes. This is why you see two companies in the same industry with gigantic differences in price and produce a net profit (their real profit after they pay for their costs of goods and their operating costs) that is almost exactly the same.When you suggest that your client can produce the same or better result at a lower price, you are creating the perception that what you sell is a commodity, that there is no differentiation between you and your competitor and that no greater value can be created. You have made this clear by focusing on reducing the price they are paying instead of creating greater value, which would focus on something else, like lowering costs, improving some area of their business, capturing market share, capitalizing on some opportunity, or dozens and dozens of other worthy outcomes.If you believe that it is true that your prospective client should change to your company for a reduction in price, then that same prospect that moves from their current provider to your company is right to change to any other company that can promise to do what you do for less than you are doing it for now. In a lot of markets, there is a race to the bottom, but that isn’t a race you want to win.Even if you are a commodity, it doesn’t pay to sell like one. If you want to make selling easier, you go the other direction and do the work of providing a reason to choose you over your competitors—one that isn’t going to be threatened by a competitor who offers to save your client a few bucks by lowering the amount they are investing.