Children who don’t go to School to Support their Families

first_imgTwo 10 year old boys selling straws, a product that hardly sells due to the fact that Liberians perfer drinking directly from a bottle. – “we do not go to school”As cruel as it may sound to force a child to go into the streets of Liberia to look for money, what is more disturbing is the idea that these same children do not go to school before or after they are done.The Liberian government has put on hundreds of street awareness campaigns and the like to make sure that all children go to school, but these warnings have fallen on deaf ears.This embarrassing situation of children on the streets chasing after people to buy their products, something their parents could never be bold enough to do, has to stop.Online reports show that a high percentage of children who go out every day to sell become more and more emotionally challenged. Some are seen abused and even robbed of their goods; and in some instances, their innocence.Our reporter has begun a project that will allow these parents to see the effects their children have on society when they are seen selling, rather than in school. Through pictures and vox pops like on this page, maybe these children will not have to feel the embarrassment being in the streets all day alone. Their parents can join in, too.Parents, let this be a lesson that society is watching those who cause children that are not even old enough to be burdened with the cost of living, to labor all day on the streets of Liberia.These girls stop to talk about the amount of water they have already sold. Not caring that they “did not go to school today,” they say whats more important is selling all their water and buying more to keep selling.Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)last_img read more

Basener and Sanford Defend Paper Critiquing Fisher’s Theorem

first_imgBill Basener and John Sanford recently critiqued Fisher’s Theorem, a long-trusted model for neo-Darwinism. Two evolutionary geneticists responded. Here is Part I their counter-response.Defending the validity and significance of the new theorem “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection With Mutations, Part I: Fisher’s Impact– Bill Basener and John SanfordJoe Felsenstein and Michael Lynch (JF and ML) wrote a blog post, “Does Basener and Sanford’s model of mutation vs selection show that deleterious mutations are unstoppable?”  Their post is thoughtful and we are glad to continue the dialogue. This is the first part of a response to their post, focusing on the impact of R. A. Fisher’s work.  Our paper can be found at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00285-017-1190-xFirst, a short background on our paper:The primary thesis of our paper is that Fisher was wrong, in a fundamental way, in his belief that his theorem (“The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection”), implied the certainty of ongoing fitness increase. His claim was that mutations continually provide variance, and selection turns the variance into fitness increase.  Central to his logic was that collectively; mutations have a net zero effect on fitness.  While Fisher assumed mutations are collectively fitness-neutral, it is now known that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious. So mutations can potentially push fitness down – even in the presence of selection.Additionally, we provided a new mathematical model for the process of mutation and selection over time, which comes in an infinite population version and a finite population version.  The infinite population version uses a classical differential equations mutation/selection framework, with multiple reproducing subpopulations and mutations occurring between subpopulations, but incorporating a probabilistic distribution for mutation effects.  The finite version is obtained by adding the constraint that any subpopulation with less than one organism is assumed to have no members.Our model is backed by a literature review in Section 2 of our paper (covering 9 pages with 71 citations), with Section 2.2 discussing previous infinite populations models and Section 2.3 focusing on finite ones.  Our  model is new in that it includes an arbitrary distribution of mutational effects, and we do not assume mutations are 50/50 beneficial /deleterious (as did Fisher), and we did not assume that all mutations have the same fixed effect (as with Lynch’s finite population models).Part I: Ronald A. Fisher’s Impact – First, let’s discuss Fisher and the critique by Felsenstein and Lynch of our work on Fisher’s Theorem, and its historical importance:In their critique, JF and ML do not dispute our logic regarding Fisher’s Theorem, but provide their perspective that Fisher’s contribution to population genetics and evolutionary theory was very limited. They say,“One of us (JF) has argued at The Skeptical Zone that they have misread the literature on population genetics. The theory of mutation and natural selection developed during the 1920s, was relatively fully developed before Fisher’s 1930 book. Fisher’s FTNS has been difficult to understand, and subsequent work has not depended on it. But that still leaves us with the issue of whether the B and S simulations show some startling behavior…”We respectfully disagree with their perspective that Fisher’s book and Theorem had only a minor impact. The book they refer to is “Genetical Theory of Natural Selection” (GTNS), which is where he published his FTNS Theorem.  To begin with, Google Scholar lists that Fisher’s book, GTNS, has been cited 20,254 times – this is not insignificant.Below are some quotes from standard sources and leaders in the field that are consistent with our view that Fisher’s work, that his book GTNS contributed significantly to establishing the field of Population Genetics and his theorem FTNS was central to establishing Neo-Darwinian Theory.From the book Philosophy of Biology, (Section on Fisher written by Robert A. Skipper, Jr., 2007, p.44):“The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection is a point of departure in contemporaneous evolutionary thought, responsible in part for the origination of theoretical population genetics and what is commonly called the “modern synthetic theory of evolution.”this continues,“To be sure, Fisher’s work in statistics was revolutionary at the field’s conceptual foundation.  Moreover, Fisher’s work in genetics, highlighted mainly by his 1930 The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, would, with good company in Haldane and Wright, revolutionize biology.”In his textbook Population Genetics, M. Hamilton writes:“Fisher’s 1930 book The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection established a rigorous mathematical framework that coupled Mendelian inheritance and Darwin’s quantitative model of natural selection.” (p. 204)And then calls Fisher’s book,“the first comprehensive treatment of natural selection that came out of the modern synthesis” (p. 206)In the book The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution, author Eugene V. Koonin (who has authored over 600 articles, is Senior Investigator at NIH, and editor-in-Chief of the journal Biology Direct) writes:“The foundations for the critically important synthesis of Darwinism and genetics were set in the late 1920s and early 1930s by the trio of outstanding theoretical geneticists: Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright, and J. B. S. Haldane. They applied rigorous mathematics and statistics to develop an idealized description of the evolution of biological populations. The great statistician Fisher apparently was the first to see that, far from damning Darwinism, genetics provided a natural, solid foundation for Darwinian evolution. Fisher summarized his conclusions in the seminal 1930 book The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (Fisher, 1930), a tome second perhaps only to Darwin’s Origin in its importance for evolutionary biology.5 This was the beginning of a spectacular revival of Darwinism that later became known as Modern Synthesis (a term mostly used in the United States) or neo-Darwinism (in the British and European traditions).”In the book The Mathematics of Darwin’s Legacy, P. Schuster writes,“Ronald Fisher, the great scholar of population genetics, presented the first mathematical unification of Darwin’s theory of natural selection and Mendel’s laws of inheritance [25].”In the abstract to the paper Fisher’s fundamental theorem of natural selection in Trends in Ecology and Evolution (Frank and Slatkin 1992):“Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem of natural selection is one of the most widely cited theories in evolutionary biology.”In his textbook, Theoretical Evolutionary Genetics, Joe Felsenstein writes,“Population genetics theory had its major developments in the 1920s-1940s (at the hands of Fisher, Wright, and Haldane)” (p. xvii)The Wikipedia article on Fisher describes his contribution:“In genetics, his work used mathematics to combine Mendelian genetics and natural selection; this contributed to the revival of Darwinism in the early 20th century revision of the theory of evolution known as the modern synthesis.”In 1930, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection was first published by Clarendon Press and is dedicated to Leonard Darwin. A core work of the neo-Darwinian modern evolutionary synthesis,[29] it helped define population genetics, which Fisher founded alongside Sewall Wright and J. B. S. Haldane”.The paper What was Fisher’s fundamental theorem of natural selection and what was it for? In Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences (Plutynski, 2006) is probably the best thoroughly researched single source on Fisher’s theorem says:“Fisher (1918, 1922) proposed a new way of picturing populations of organisms…. Starting with this novel conception, Fisher, Haldane, and Wright developed models of the genetics of populations.”And then,“Moreover, this analogy allowed Fisher to vindicate Darwin’s theory of natural selection, not by empirical demonstration, but by a mathematical argument to the effect that evolution was not only possible, but also necessary” p.75.The quotes above from Plutynski give some good perspective on Fisher’s different contributions.  His 1918,1922 papers were foundational to population genetics.  His 1930 GTNS book was an additional significant contribution to population genetics, and his FTNS was seen as vindicating Darwin’s theory, giving what was perceived as a rigorous argument that (Darwinian) evolution is necessary, given Mendelian genetics.  The Plutynski paper is an insightful read, describing Fisher’s goals as follows:“Fisher’s book, and the theorem in particular, is best understood as a continuation of his attempt to breach the divide between biometricians and Mendelians concerning the nature of heredity and the effectiveness of Darwinian selection. His motivation in almost all his work was to explain how it was possible to resolve this conflict, and to vindicate Darwinian selection as both a plausible and necessary cause of evolutionary change.”Alan Grafen provides the following quote from William Hamilton describing Fisher’s Genetical Theory of Natural Selection:“This is a book which, as a student, I weighed as of equal importance to the entire rest of my undergraduate BA course and, through the time I spent on it, I think it notched down my degree. Most chapters took me weeks, some months; … And little modified by molecular genetics, Fisher’s logic and ideas still underpin most of the ever broadening paths by which Darwinism continues its invasion of human thought. For a book that I rate only second in importance in evolution theory to Darwin’s ‘‘Origin’’ (this as joined with its supplement, ‘‘of Man’’), and also rate as undoubtedly one of the greatest books of the present century, the appearance of a variorum version is a major event. … By the time of my ultimate graduation, will I have understood all that is true in this book and will I get a First? I doubt it. In some ways some of us have overtaken Fisher; in many, however, this brilliant, daring man is still far in front.’” (Hamilton; dust-jacket of Fisher, 1930b).Richard Dawkins ranks Fisher the greatest biologist since Darwin:“Who is the greatest biologist since Darwin? That’s far less obvious, and no doubt many good candidates will be put forward. My own nominee would be Ronald Fisher. Not only was he the most original and constructive of the architects of the neo-Darwinian synthesis. Fisher also was the father of modern statistics and experimental design. He therefore could be said to have provided researchers in biology and medicine with their most important research tools, as well as with the modern version of biology’s central theorem.”These quotes from a variety of sources support the tenet stated in the first sentences of our paper:“R. A. Fisher was one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century. He is considered to be the singular founder of modern statistics and simultaneously the principle founder of population genetics (followed by Haldane and Wright). Fisher was the first to establish the conceptual link between natural selection and Mendelian genetics. This paved the way for what is now called neo-Darwinian theory.” – Basener and Sanford, 2017Central to our paper is that Fisher’s theorem, which Dawkins calls “biology’s central theorem” does not imply what Fisher thought it did (and by extension what many others thought it did).  To clarify Fisher’s error, we distinguish between Fisher’s actual theorem (what he actually proved), and “Fisher’s Corollary”, which was unproven, and was really just an informal thought experiment based on his assumption that mutations have zero net effect on fitness. This corollary has clearly been falsified, which is essential to the popular concept that mutations simply supply genetic variance and natural selection converts this variance into ongoing increased fitness.While Fisher’s Theorem is mathematically correct, his Corollary is false.  The simple logical fallacy is that Fisher stated that mutations could effectively be treated as not impacting fitness, while it is now known that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious, providing a downward pressure on fitness.  Our model and our correction of Fisher’s theorem (The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations), take into account the tension between the upward force of selection with the downward force of mutations.Our correction challenges a tradition central tenet of Neo-Darwinism.  It is often viewed that the upward force of selection acts without consideration of the downward force of mutations.  See, for example, the quote from Gould still taken as :“The core of this synthetic theory restates the two most characteristic assertions of Darwin himself: first, that evolution is a two-stage process (random variation as raw material, natural selection as a directing force); secondly, that evolutionary change is generally slow, steady, gradual, and continuous. . . Orthodox neo-Darwinians extrapolate these even and continuous changes to the most profound structural transitions in life.” (Gould 1980)We agree (apparently) with JF and ML that Fisher’s theorem has serious flaws.  The theorem was not clearly written, and is mathematically correct but with very limited application.  One of the most respected papers on Fisher’s FTNS was written by G. Price in 1972, which we quote in our paper as follows:“Also, he [Fisher] spoke of the “rigour” of his derivation of the theorem and of “the ease of its interpretation”. But others have variously described his derivation as “recondite” (Crow and Kimura 1970), “very difficult” (Turner 1970), or “entirely obscure” (Kempthorne 1957). And no one has ever found any other way to derive the result that Fisher seems to state. Hence, many authors (not reviewed here) have maintained that the theorem holds only under very special conditions, while only a few (e.g.. Edwards 1967) have thought that Fisher may have been correct—if only we could understand what he meant! …here that this latter view is correct. Fisher’s theorem does indeed hold with the generality that he claimed for it. The mystery and the controversy result from incomprehensibility rather than error.”At issue is that even though the flaws in Fisher’s theorem have been knowable for a long time, it has still been used as strong support for Neo-Darwinian Theory.  In the quote from Gould above, mutations add raw material of variation, and selection turns variation into increase in fitness (evolutionary progress); selection is assumed to act as an upward force without considering the downward force of mutations.  This is strongly linked to Fisher’s Corollary.  Despite the known flaws with Fisher’s work (known at least within the population genetics community), there is still a common perception that selection acts on mutations to maximize fitness as Fisher described.  As stated in the abstract of a recent 2016 paper Natural Selection and the maximization of fitness, on expansions of Fisher’s FTNS and Darwinism, by J Birch of the University of Cambridge:“The notion that natural selection is a process of fitness maximization gets a bad press in population genetics, yet in other areas of biology the view that organisms behave as if attempting to maximize their fitness remains widespread. “Conclusions:R. A. Fisher was one of the three founders of population genetics, and is considered by many to be the first and primary founder. His Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection contributed significantly to a “revival of Darwinism” (see Koonin quote above and Wikipedia).  His theorem has been considered by many a significant and rigorous support for the Neo-Darwinian Theory (see quotes above).Our paper shows that Fisher’s corollary is clearly false, and that he misunderstood the implications of his own theorem. He incorrectly believed that his theorem was a mathematical proof that showed that natural selection plus mutation will necessarily and always increase fitness. He also believed his theorem was on a par with a natural law (such as entropic dissipation and the second law of thermodynamics).  Because Fisher did not understand the actual fitness distribution of new mutations, his belief in the application of his “fundamental theorem of natural selection” was fundamentally and profoundly wrong – having little correspondence to biological reality. Therefore, we have reformulated Fisher’s model and have corrected his errors, thereby have established a new theorem that better describes biological reality, and allows for the specification of those key variables that will determine whether fitness will increase or decrease.—To be continued.Note: This response has also been posted on The Skeptical Zone, where Felsenstein and Lynch initially posted their critique.Update 3/20/18: Joe Felsenstein has issued a response to two of three points at The Skeptical Zone.(Visited 534 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

French train SA cops for Confed Cup

first_img22 May 2009The French Gendarmerie and French National Police have partnered with the South African Police Service (SAPS) to train local officers in crowd control ahead of the 2009 Fifa Confederations Cup.Twelve French police officials are presently in the country to assist with training at five SAPS training centres, and will remain in South Africa until after the Confederations Cup.The French Police will use the experience they gained in ensuring safety and security during large scale events such as the 1998 Fifa World Cup.Simulated exercisesSAPS operations and tactical training head Senior Superintendent Faizel Ally said the French team had been of great assistance during the simulated exercises at the Royal Bafokeng Stadium this week.He said their assistance has being invaluable, as the SAPS had now adopted the French methodology in crowd control.French police commissioner Philippe Justo said they had been working hard with the SAPS to prepare for the Confederations Cup.“We have being sharing ideas on how to handle unruly crowds in the environment of the stadium,” Justo said. “We had successfully handled this type of situation with the tactics that we used in the Fifa World Cup that we hosted before in France.”He added that he was confident that the training they had conducted would contribute to the hosting of a successful tournament.Source: BuaNewslast_img read more

Braun Energy Cells To Replace CTS2 For Braun Gas Stylers – We bought these for a friend to go travelling with

first_imgProducts explained was the item speedily sent , a very pleased shopper.Superb company at a very good value.Excellent, rare post at a pretty reasonable value. Superb, exceptional post at a extremely good price tag, correctly packed, incredibly quick global supply. Very advisable supplier.Here are the specifications for the Braun Energy Cells To Replace CTS2 For Braun Gas Stylers:2 pack of liquid energy cells from enRgy replaces the previous CTS2 cartridge, and is guaranteed to fit your Braun gas styler.2 x 12.5ml/7gPleased but don’t look to very last very long.Just the very same as the originals but as they don’t. Exactly the exact same as the originals but as they will not look to do them any more bought these. Some companies however provide them (ought to be previous stock) at an exhorbitant price tag but these are just a portion of what they charge.Reviews from purchasers :Exactly the same as the originals but as they don’t Excellent, rare article at a very fair priceGreat value good serviceWe bought these for a friend to go travelling with Braun energy cellsGas for Braun hair cerlerPretty pleased to be ready to get thanks.These alternative energy cells are as great if not far better then the unique they last as extensive and reach the same heat swiftly.We acquired these for a friend to go travelling with. We acquired these for a buddy to go travelling with, she has not explained to us of any challenges so they have to have been okagain the postage was on time.last_img read more

Bee.tv Recommendation Engine for TV and Film

first_imgcurt hopkins Tags:#Recommendation Engines#web “Bee.tv employs a proprietary algorithm that includes contextual and semantic analysis, collaborative filtering, and thematic push to deliver personalized TV, movie and video content recommendations.” I signed up for the beta and was interested to see if my weird taste in TV and movies would track at all. I like Blazing Saddles, Chuck, The Beekeeper, Erich Rohmer, Rick Steves, Cracked.com and A Blog About History, so heaven only knows what they’d make of that. You chime in on eight movies from Superbad to Casablanca. I wound up with The Bourne Supremacy (sure), Observe and Report (eh, probably not) and All Through the Night (never heard of it). It didn’t blow my mind but it wasn’t crazily out of the park either. Presumably, as I use the service, and rate more offerings, the engine will hone in on my weirdness and before you know it, voila! Kentucky Fried Movie and Cities in the Mist. Recommendations are broken into TV, Web, Mobile and iPad. A recommendation filtering mechanism can monitor your preferences. YouTube and most online video viewing sites have recommendation algorithms, but Bee.tv is a stand-alone site, with an emphasis on the recommendation process. The site provides you with a place to purchase each of its recommendations that are for sale, but unlike Hulu, say, it does not seem to be a platform for free programming. Bee.tv’s partners include Apple, YouTube, Tribune Media, Amazon, broadcast and cable networks and various online content creators. Top Reasons to Go With Managed WordPress Hosting 8 Best WordPress Hosting Solutions on the Market Related Posts A Web Developer’s New Best Friend is the AI Wai… Why Tech Companies Need Simpler Terms of Servic… From shopping to music, the overload of information on the Web has been shaped and ordered by recommendation engines. There are even tools like the browser extension GetGlue that purport to sail the entire recommendations ocean. But one very important aspect of the online experience has been overshadowed: video. Milan- and Tel Aviv-based Bee.tv, currently in beta, has introduced a proprietary, cross-platform recommendation service to personalize television, film and video viewing. Bee.tv aspires to do for video what Pandora or Last.fm do for audio.last_img read more

Good fight: Durham, Meralco come up short anew but with their head held high

first_imgBrownlee proud of Ginebra’s response after test of character in crunch time “Last year, we lost in Game 6. This year, we pushed it to Game 7,” said Durham, putting spotlight on how close Meralco was on claiming its first title in franchise history.READ: Ginebra escapes Meralco in Game 7, completes title repeat FEATURED STORIESSPORTSWATCH: Drones light up sky in final leg of SEA Games torch runSPORTSSEA Games: Philippines picks up 1st win in men’s water poloSPORTSMalditas save PH from shutoutDurham put up another valiant effort in the final game of the season, unleashing 26 points, 24 rebounds, and nine assists as the Bolts fought back from as much as 20 points down before fizzling out in the end.But the two-time Best Import was man enough to admit that just like last time, Ginebra was the better team. Allen Durham. Photo by Tristan Tamayo/ INQUIRER.netBOCAUE — Eventually, something’s got to give.That was how Allen Durham described  Meralco’s 101-96 Game 7 defeat to Ginebra as the Bolts finished as bridesmaids anew for the second straight PBA Governors’ Cup Finals.ADVERTISEMENT MOST READ Stronger peso trims PH debt value to P7.9 trillion Kin of Misamis Oriental hero cop to get death benefits, award — PNP Japan ex-PM Nakasone who boosted ties with US dies at 101 Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. “It was a hard fought game. We started a little too late with the spots. But you know, they’re a great team. They kept their foot on the gas, so we got to figure out a way to come out with more intensity at the start so we don’t get down,” he said.There’s no reason for Durham and the rest of the Bolts to not to keep their head high knowing that the future could only be bright.READ: Meralco import Durham fined P30k for Game 5 comments “Eventually, when Ranidel de Ocampo comes back and some of the other pieces that they added — Garvo (Lanete) and the young guys, they’re definitely heading into the right direction,” he said. “The guys really don’t have nothing to hang their head about. We fought good. We lost to a good team. We don’t have to be ashamed or anything like that and we gotta keep working.”As for Durham, he’s just hoping to get one more shot and earn another return ticket next season, wishing that third time will definitely be the charm for Meralco.ADVERTISEMENT Kammuri turning to super typhoon less likely but possible — Pagasa View comments Brace for potentially devastating typhoon approaching PH – NDRRMC Typhoon Kammuri accelerates, gains strength en route to PH QC cops nab robbery gang leader, cohort CPP denies ‘Ka Diego’ arrest caused ‘mass panic’ among S. Tagalog NPA Trending Articles PLAY LIST 00:50Trending Articles00:50Trending Articles01:00Chief Justice Peralta on upcoming UAAP game: UP has no match against UST01:37Protesters burn down Iran consulate in Najaf01:47Panelo casts doubts on Robredo’s drug war ‘discoveries’01:29Police teams find crossbows, bows in HK university01:35Panelo suggests discounted SEA Games tickets for students02:49Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games Read Next LATEST STORIES “Hopefully, I can come back next year as we go at it again. It was a hard fought series. It’s tough and it hurts, but we got to figure out a way to get over this hump. I really wanna win with this group of guys. They work so hard, we work so hard and we’re gonna keep going at it,” he said.last_img read more

India vies for Cricket World Cup, but chances next to nothing

first_imgSAME OLD STORY: Sourav Ganguly after losing the Mumbai ODI to EnglandWhat are India’s chances of winning the World Cup? In hockey later this month, not bad at all. In cricket, exactly a year from now – less than zero.Too much time in the sun, you think? Typical hysterical Indian,SAME OLD STORY: Sourav Ganguly after losing the Mumbai ODI to EnglandWhat are India’s chances of winning the World Cup? In hockey later this month, not bad at all. In cricket, exactly a year from now – less than zero.Too much time in the sun, you think? Typical hysterical Indian reaction to the one-day series against England? Most of all, far too early to panic?In fact, not a moment too soon. What England left behind, other than mass depression, were Nasser Hussain’s words, “Put the Indians under pressure and they tend to crack.” Hussain, a curious mix of bottle and whine in India, said it over and over again. Over and over again, the Indians obliged. Leading the one-day series’ 2-1, they let England draw level and leave puffed with “moral” victory.There was deathly silence in the Indian dressing room at Mumbai, when for the third time in a month the Indians cracked while chasing a total more than 250. For a side that is known by the stardust of its batting, India’s performances from 2000 onwards, including nine straight losses in series finals, is like a ticking package: it could merely be a clock marking time or a bomb that rips into Indian hopes at the World Cup in South Africa 2003.Click here to EnlargeSays Indian team coach John Wright: “We have to understand what sort of team will win the cup-a quality fielding team with batting up to No. 8, a high-class batter who can bowl or keep wickets and specialist bowlers who can keep it tight in the slog overs.”Oh dear.advertisementOther teams have identified those personnel, their results from 2000 onwards indicate progress. England lost 13 straight games before beating Zimbabwe 5-0 and coming back from behind against India. New Zealand have beaten Australia three times in their last four games.Among the second-rung teams considered roughly on a par, only the West Indies and the recently rejuvenated Kiwis trail behind India in terms of win percentages. The national side remains a 50-50 team, and one-off sides don’t usually win a World Cup.Twenty-one-over 60 per cent-of 34 Indian defeats from 2000 onwards have come chasing totals. Against England a bunch of young batsmen who were put in front of the headlights of pressure, froze.Captain Sourav Ganguly defended his “inexperienced” batsmen but the brat pack is clearly not ready to seize a situation by the scruff as a matter of habit. Strangely each of them had begun looking like they could.Yuvraj Singh as early as the summer of 2000, Hemang Badani against the Australians and now Dinesh Mongia versus England have all won one-dayers on their own, but cannot produce regular sequels.On the other hand, these cricketers are worth at least a dozen runs in the field each, a skill not to be discounted. But for a team which considers batting as its strength, this is a gaping crack and it must be filled in by the World Cup.Click here to EnlargeWright, who even called chasing the “nemesis” of the Indian team against England, breaks the dilemma down into its working parts, “What we need is some glue: batsmen in the middle who can rotate the strike at about 80 per cent, keep a cool head when it’s time to collect.”After the hunters at the top – Tendulkar, Ganguly, Sehwag – do their job, it’s the gatherers who lose their way. “To be honest, no team likes /to chase,” says Robin Singh, one of the best middle-order finishers and fielders to play for India. “But the first thing is you have to make sure you play safe cricket and run hard, know what you can and cannot do.”It is where England managed to fight back in the one-day series, with an unglamorous and as “inexperienced” a line-up that just put its head down and ran more. In fact, Hussain’s men had a poorer net run rate than India, scored fewer runs in the series and hit lesser boundaries.The reason they won tight games: fewer “dot” balls (those off which runs are not scored), more singles, more twos, almost double the number of threes. Even the three hunters at the top were guilty of fuzzy logic when the field spread and their boundaries got fewer.There is a case for even moving one of the three-Tendulkar, even-to the middle, to guide the greenhorns and lead the charge home. Former India batsman Dilip Sardesai says, “They need some experience in the middle order.”Singh thinks a reason for the regular panic could be because none of the newcomers bats so low for their state teams. “It’s not an easy spot. When you are thrust in there, you come across situations you’ve never faced before. If you bat there regularly at six, you can think clearly in the crunch,” he says.advertisementWHO’S THE MAN? (From left) Mohammed Kaif, Hemang Badani and Dinesh Mongia failed to finish well against EnglandIt is about finding the bits-and-pieces man who is more than the sum of his bits and pieces. “We don’t have a single quality allrounder. I think we’ve left things too late,” says former India wicket-keeper Kiran More. Usually, people do not like to be proved wrong. But in the case of Indian cricket and the anticipated bleakness of its tomorrows, no one would like to be proved right either.Between now and the World Cup, India are scheduled to play at least 23 one-day internationals. Each of those 23 games could be a rung up a ladder or lurch down a blind alley. It depends entirely on those involved-officials, selectors, captain, coach and individual players.They have not all pulled in the same direction; the latest example being the selectors’ decision to drop Harbhajan Singh even before the series against England was won.If selections made from now fulfil whims rather than filling slots, the team is doubly doomed. It is time for those given chances to choose between the timid safety of the fringes, which they opted for against England, or the white heat of the centrestage.After the Mumbai game, Wright put out Indian cricket’s “situation vacant” notice, “What we need is a player to put up his hand and say, ‘Pick me. I’ll get you the runs. I’m the man.'” By the time 2003 comes around, one of “the Boys” will have to be that man.last_img read more

Aurora Expeditions Unveils Expedition Cruise Vessel Design

first_imgAustralian cruise company Aurora Expeditions has revealed the design of its first purpose-built expedition vessel for the polar regions.Designed in cooperation with the US-based shipbuilders SunStone Ships, the ice class 1A ship will be built to the latest polar code specifications, according to the company.The new vessel, which will feature a length of 104.4 meters and a width of 8.2 meters, will be able to reach a speed of up to 15 knots.With the 7,400-ton vessel designed for expedition cruising, Aurora Expeditions said it plans to continue to provide the small-ship experience.“With the development of our purpose-built expedition ship, we stay true to our small-ship philosophy where the focus is on the experience and engagement with the environment…In the polar regions, we will have the ability to reduce passenger numbers so we can continue to visit existing landings sites as well as explore new areas where strict regulations enforce no more than 100 people ashore at any one time,” Robert Halfpenny, Managing Director of Aurora Expeditions, commented.“The vessel is the first to use the patented X-BOW technology which has the ability to pierce waves with much greater stability,” Halfpenny added.While a traditional bow vessel rises on the waves and then drops violently onto the surface of the water, Ulstein’s X-BOW vessel is less subject to the vertical motions induced by the waves, continues on course more smoothly, while maintaining its speed. Due to the fact that the ship uses less fuel to get through the waves, it also helps to save energy versus a conventional bow designed vessel, Aurora Expeditions explained.The yet-to-be-named ship is expected to be delivered in time for Aurora Expeditions’ 2019/2020 Antarctic season.Image Courtesy: Aurora Expeditionslast_img read more

The US Is Downright Mediocre At The World Baseball Classic

Puerto Rico1380.67 Chinese Taipei39-3.26 American fans like to think of the U.S. as the home of baseball; they even tried to mythologize it into the game’s place of origin at one point. And, yes, the majority of the game’s best players are from America. But in the World Baseball Classic, arguably the highest-profile event in international baseball, the U.S. is merely ordinary: It’s 10-10 over the tournament’s history, despite playing a relatively weak slate of opponents over the years. What gives?The WBC has always held more appeal for international players and fans, whose national teams take it far more seriously than the U.S. team does. The U.S. seldom sends its best players to the event, for better (it reduces the risk of key injuries in games that are essentially treated as exhibitions) and worse (it deprives the game of its best players playing on a worldwide stage). That means we won’t be seeing the likes of Bryce Harper and Clayton Kershaw in this year’s Classic, much less living legend Mike Trout.As a result, the U.S. has gotten mediocre results on the field, far from what might be expected out of a country that still considers itself baseball’s standard-bearer. To get a schedule-adjusted ranking of how countries have performed at the four World Baseball Classics,1Including 2017’s games, as of March 8. I calculated Sports-Reference’s Simple Rating System (SRS) for every WBC game since the event began in 2006.2A few more details: I gave more weight to games that took place in later rounds (first-round games had a weight of 1, second-round games a weight of 2, WBC semifinals a weight of 4 and WBC finals a weight of 8.) I also used a home-field advantage term of +0.16 runs per game, matching what it is in MLB since 2006. Among the 13 teams that have played double-digit WBC games, the U.S. ranks just seventh — far behind No. 1 Japan, who has dominated the tournament more than any other country. Mexico69-2.05 Japan — not the U.S. — dominates the World Baseball Classic Japan1973.40 Venezuela107-0.22 Italy47-1.49 United States1010-0.41 COUNTRYWINSLOSSESWEIGHTED SRS Cuba1480.67 Australia19-3.73 Dominican Republic1441.49 Netherlands910-1.20 Teams are ranked according to the Simple Rating System (SRS) for all WBC games since 2006, with extra weight applied to games in later rounds.Source: Wikipedia South Korea1471.79 China28-6.12 National pastime or not, America’s unexceptionalism probably won’t improve until the U.S. starts treating the WBC less like an exhibition event, and more like the international showcase other countries already think it is. Share on Facebook read more

Raul Jimenez Wolves can beat anyone

first_imgWolves striker Raul Jimenez believes their 3-1 win at Tottenham on Saturday proves they can go head-to-head with anyone and come out victoriousNuno Espírito Santo’s side claimed a surprise victory over an in-form Spurs at Wembley, despite going a goal down early on from a Harry Kane strike.But Willy Boly’s header put Wolves back on level terms with Jimenez then stepping up to hand the visitors the lead with an 83rd-minute goal.Portuguese winger Helder Costa then sealed all three points for Wolves with a third goal just four minutes later.Following their 2-1 win against Chelsea on December 5 along with draws against the likes of Manchester City and Arsenal, Jimenez is convinced Wolves can beat anyone.Harry Maguire, Manchester UnitedLiverpool legend Nicol slams Harry Maguire’s Man United form Andrew Smyth – September 14, 2019 Steve Nicol believes Harry Maguire has made some “horrendous mistakes” recently, and has failed to find his best form since joining Manchester United.“I think we played very well in the second half, but I don’t know why we have to be down in the score to come back,” The Mexican told the club website.“We did it against Chelsea, now we did it again. This feeling is amazing.“We knew at half-time that we have a great team, and that we can score some goals to win the game. We thought about that and what we had to do on the pitch.“We never quit, we know that we are a great team, and if we are focused we can do everything, we can win against whoever.”Wolves are now seventh in the Premier League with Crystal Palace awaiting them next on January 2 at home.last_img read more