“Hell yeah, of course I would,” Durant told ESPN after the Warriors had chewed up and spit out the Cavaliers in Cleveland on Wednesday night.Durant has a sentimental attachment to Seattle. It’s where … There is no “KD” in “team.”Not yet, anyway.The Warriors’ Kevin Durant has mused about owning and/or operating an NBA franchise. This week he applied some specificity to his dream.Asked if he had an interest in being the guy who returns an NBA team to Seattle, he did not equivocate.
No problemo, says H. Clark Barrett (UCLA), getting a mind from mindless matter. In a review of a book by developmental psychologist Gary Marcus published in Science June 11,1 Barrett was reassured by Marcus’ book that evolutionary theory working within natural law is up to the task: “The strengths of The Birth of the Mind lie in its sophisticated exposition of how genes guide development and its convincing argument that we need not hold out hope for some magical, as yet undiscovered, process to account for the brain’s complexity. Plain old natural processes, about which we know much already, will do.” But how can a brain, composed of billions of neurons and quadrillions of connections, arise from a genome with only tens of thousands of genes? “Experts have made much of the claim that 30,000 genes aren’t nearly enough to specify the vast number of connections in the brain (the ‘gene shortage’),” he notes. The answer is in the book:With clarity and precision, Marcus, a developmental psychologist at New York University, lays to rest the rumors of a gene shortage and also rebuts the argument that minds are too complex to have been designed over evolutionary time by the process of natural selection. He shows instead that minds are built over the course of individual development by genetically regulated processes that have been molded by natural selection to build brains that are functionally organized in ways that promoted human survival and reproduction in the evolutionary past.We need to rise above the simplistic view of genes as static libraries of blueprints, he urges. Instead, we should view genes as “active ‘agents’ that interact in precisely orchestrated ways to build organisms” —The author shows us how this view allows us to understand the fantastically complex, yet fantastically well-coordinated, generation of the mind. In cognitive science, it has long been customary to think of the brain as a computer. Marcus shows that the developmental system that builds the brain can also be thought of as an algorithmic system, one that operates through frequent interactions with its internal and external environments. He likens the genome to a compressed file, and the cellular machinery with which it interacts to a decompressor. However, this developmental system is full of ingenious devices not typically found in silicon-based computers, including gradients and switches that allow its operations to be context-sensitive, feedback loops, and self-generated “test patterns” that allow the system to tune itself. … As Marcus makes clear, although we are vastly more complex than desktop computers and therefore have potentially many more ways of breaking, the fact that our developmental process is relatively far less prone to crashing while booting up from the zygote has everything to do with natural selection for specific developmental outcomes.In addition, the modularity of the brain’s functions helps address the puzzle of the gene deficit. “For example, an animal with 60 legs would not necessarily need 10 times as many genes as a six-legged animal, and although human arms and legs differ considerably, we do not require an entirely distinct set of genes for each type of limb,” he explains. Further, gene duplication can provide novelty on which natural selection can act. Barrett praises Marcus for overcoming “simple-minded debates about the role of genes and evolution in shaping the human mind,” but he does find one weakness in The Birth of the Mind: “If there is a drawback to the book, it is that the author doesn’t show us exactly how a tiny number of genes builds such a complex brain, only that they can. But he is hardly to blame for this, given that we have a long way to go before we have a complete understanding of brain development.” That last sentiment is reinforced in a press release from USC that says, “It’s amazing that after a hundred years of modern neuroscience research, we still don’t know the basic information processing functions of a neuron.”1H. Clark Barrett, “Human Cognition: Dispelling Rumors of a Gene Shortage,” Science Vol 304, Issue 5677, 1601-1602, 11 June 2004 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1098610].Let’s get this straight. Barrett just admitted that Marcus “doesn’t show us exactly how a tiny number of genes builds such a complex brain, only that they can” – i.e., Marcus bluffed his way around a problem by making a bald, unsupported claim. Barrett lets him off the hook for this by saying we have a long way to go before anyone understands brain development. But in the very next sentence, he praises Marcus for making a “sophisticated exposition” of the case that “plain old natural processes” are sufficient to “account for the brain’s complexity.” I.e., nature built a brain, how we don’t know, but my friend Marcus said so. Can evolutionists solve their problems by appealing to “compressed files” and modular genetic algorithms? No; they make them worse. In the history of computers, modular programming was a quantum leap in intelligent design over the older “spaghetti code.” File compression was a quantum leap in intelligent design over uncompressed code. Any junior high kid can write a text file on a computer, but if she can write software that can compress or decompress it, she’s a prodigy. One module may suffice to build 60 legs on a centipede, but more is going on, because those legs don’t all grow at the same spot. Something tells these legs where to form, and coordinates their movements. The point is, it displays even more intelligent design to use modular programming and compression, to say nothing of “ingenious devices” like “gradients and switches that allow its operations to be context-sensitive, feedback loops, and self-generated ‘test patterns’ that allow the system to tune itself.” The layers of complexity in the brain have only increased with ongoing discoveries. These complexities cannot be dismissed by hand-waving appeals to natural selection. Why Science would print a simplistic explanation from an anthropologist who accuses others of engaging in simple-minded debates is another issue. The analogies to computers are irrelevant to evolution. Computers were built by intelligent design, and the intelligence came from minds that beg the question of their origin. Barrett and Marcus cannot appeal to intelligent design in computers to establish a naturalistic origin of a much more “fantastically complex, yet fantastically well-coordinated” mind. They leave us only with a glittering generality, a just-so story, in essence claiming that natural selection acting on developmental processes solely directed at evolving survivable reproducing organisms just happened to produce, serendipitously, entities able to create and execute Rachmaninoff piano concertos and build spacecraft and navigate them to Saturn. For us to believe that, they are going to have to provide better reasons than mere bluffing.(Visited 32 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Dark matter and dark energy: do they exist? Cosmologists and physicists are spending large amounts of money building huge and expensive detectors to find them, but so far have found nothing. This raises profound questions about the limits of science, the interaction of observation with theory, the presuppositions behind scientific models, and the sociology of the scientific community. The universe, clearly, owes no obligation to scientific models; it is what it is. If scientists were to pursue a false path in their search for understanding, how long could they be wrong? For a thousand years? Two articles in Nature explored the search for dark stuff. Jenny Hogan wrote about the search for dark matter,1 and Geoff Brumfiel wrote about the search for dark energy.2 In short, the dark matter search seems more promising than the dark energy search. “Jenny Hogan reports that attempts to identify the mysterious dark matter are on the verge of success,” The heading before the two articles reads. “In the second, Geoff Brumfiel asks why dark energy, hailed as a breakthrough when discovered a decade ago, is proving more frustrating than ever to the scientists who study it.” Yet even Hogan’s dark-matter article contains some disturbing revelations. After describing large tanks of xenon and argon deep in European and American tunnels that hope to feel the bumps of passing dark matter particles, and the race to be the first scientist to detect them, she admitted, “Despite the enthusiasm, there is still a chance that nature will refuse to cooperate, and the experiments will chase ever better limits but never detect a particle.” Some of the feverish activity behind the search has the feel of a snipe hunt or ghostbusters escapade. No one knows what dark matter is, but they know what it’s not. It’s not part of the ’standard model’ of physics that weaves together everything that is known about ordinary matter and its interactions. The standard model has been hugely successful, but it also has some problems, and in trying to fix these, theorists have predicted hordes of new fundamental particles. At first, these hypothetical particles were viewed as unwelcome additions, but now some of them are leading candidates for dark matter. “These days a theory without a dark-matter candidate is not considered an interesting one,” says [Leszek] Roszkowski [CERN]. “The existence of the dark-matter problem is perhaps the most convincing evidence for physics beyond the standard model.”Could it be that the community of physicists has jumped on a fast-moving bandwagon going nowhere? They give names to theoretical entities: neutralinos, gravitinos, axions, and other things with exotic names, which might not even exist. The scientists talk about weakly-interacting massive particles, or WIMPs, and tell us that 10 billion of them pass through every square meter of the Earth every second – yet no instrument, no matter how sensitive, has ever detected one. Even the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, going into operation next year, will not be able to detect their presence with certainty: “Because such evidence is indirect, finding a WIMP signature at the LHC would not confirm it to be dark matter,” Hogan acknowledged. Why, then, do theoretical physicists and cosmologists believe they exist? Part of the reason comes from observations dating from the 1930s that galaxy clusters seem too loosely bound gravitationally to keep from flying apart over billions of years. The belief also stems from physical theories about the nature of gravity and fundamental particles. Having elegant models and expensive instrumentation, however, cannot legitimize a belief that fails observational confirmation. But even if observations find a ghostly particle, don’t expect that there is only one kind of ghost. Hogan ended with this escape clause for the theorists:Dark matter might prove to be a richer problem than anyone is expecting. [Max] Tegmark [MIT] hopes for this outcome. “This could be a wonderful surprise. It’s very arrogant of us humans to say that just because we can’t see it, there’s only one kind of dark matter.”Critics might see this as job security for people with vivid imaginations. And that was the good news. Searchers for dark energy have even bigger problems. Geoff Brumfiel’s article contains a strange mix of observation and theory. It is commonly reported that the universe is flying apart faster than cosmologists expected from the normal expansion of the universe – but that presupposes acceptance of inflationary big-bang cosmology. Inflation was invented to solve the flatness problem. Our universe is finely balanced between its density and expansion rate. Explaining this degree of fine tuning naturally has been a challenge for cosmologists for decades. Inflation seemed to solve it by positing a rapid, exponential expansion in the early stages of the big bang. Brumfiel wrote, “the expansion provided a way out of a theoretical impasse. Observations of the Big Bang’s afterglow made by various groups, including Bennett’s, indicated that the Universe’s gravity had flattened it out.” As happens so often in science, a solution breeds new problems. There didn’t seem to be enough matter to have this effect on space-time. Enter dark energy: “it turned out that the amount of energy needed to drive the acceleration was pretty close to that needed to solve the flatness problem by means of its gravity,” he wrote. This created initial excitement in 1998 when evidence for an accelerating universe was announced. Dark energy, he said, seemed “poised to provide great insight into the origin and future of the cosmos.” Those hopes have been replaced by bigger problems:But a decade further on, researchers seem to have swapped one theoretical conundrum for a bigger one. Follow-up measurements have revealed little about the nature of dark energy, and theories to explain it have failed to gain traction. And although astronomers are trudging forwards with a battery of new measurements, there is little guarantee that any will solve the problem – and thus no clear consensus on how much effort to put into them. “The issue is: how much information do we get from these future observations?” asks Avi Loeb, an astrophysicist at Harvard University.The fine-tuning of the expansion has caused some, like Leonard Susskind (Stanford), to propose a nearly infinite “multiverse” in which our universe’s vacuum energy is just right to allow for stars and planets and life (see 12/18/2005, 01/04/2006, 08/11/2006). While others dislike the anthropic implications of this view, nothing better has been proposed that does not create more problems than it purports to solve:This sort of anthropic argument irks many scientists. Critics say such reasoning is almost impossible to verify and doesn’t provide any deeper insight into the cosmos. “Anthropics and randomness don’t explain anything,” says Paul Steinhardt, a theorist at Princeton University in New Jersey. “I’m disappointed with what most theorists are willing to accept.” The trouble is that no other approaches are proving any more fruitful. Some suggest that the problem lies with Einstein’s idea of gravity, which they then seek to modify in a way that fits in with dark energy. “It would be very fortunate if the dark energy were a modification of gravity,” says Georgi Dvali of New York University, “because it would address fundamental questions of physics.“ But others see little mileage in such changes. Leaving aside the cosmos, “it’s not so easy to get those theories to be consistent with our Solar System”, says [Michael] Turner [U of Chicago]….. In general, the theoretical side of the debate is not a pretty thing. “We’ve tried a whole bunch of things and nothing has sprung forward,” says Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.So how far can a cosmologist go before admitting defeat? As far as he wants. Secular cosmologists never want to give up and just say that “things are as they are because they were as they were,” as Thomas Gold once joked. The search for ultimate answers is part of the game. So the observationalists will continue to build huge detectors, trying to sharpen measurements that might nail down the ‘equation of state’ of the universe to finer degrees of precision, while the theoreticians, arguing that observations can only describe but not explain, will continue to theorize exotic particles. When the particle zoo gets too cumbersome again, a new, more fundamental theory will be erected with smaller, more abstruse building blocks. No matter how frustrating or hopeless, no matter how far off course, the show must go on: this is the game of secular science. Being right is no fun. Exasperation is the angst that propels the game onward, right or wrong. Here is how Brumfiel ended his article:For now, many in the field are left with a sense of unease: the tantalizing clue they thought they had discovered has turned into an exasperating mystery. And with no clear explanation of something that could be up to three-quarters of everything out there, it’s hard not to feel like you’re missing a big part of the picture, Susskind says. “We could be wrong about cosmology for the next thousand years. Deeply wrong.”1Jenny Hogan, “Unseen Universe: Welcome to the dark side,” Nature 448, 240-245 (19 July 2007) | doi:10.1038/448240.2Geoff Brumfiel, “Unseen Universe: A constant problem,” Nature 448, 245-248 (19 July 2007) | doi:10.1038/448245a.They can’t even figure out our nearest star (the sun) and they want to tell us about the ultimate origins and fate of the universe – and even of multiple universes that would be beyond observation even if they existed. What unconscionable arrogance. You know what the whole problem is? These people refuse, by choice (not because of the evidence), to acknowledge God in their thinking. Searching for answers is a noble undertaking, but if you throw away the key before you start, no one should feel sorry for you when you get lost. The secular cosmology community will not acknowledge the Creator despite being dragged kicking and screaming to the anthropic principle (08/11/2006, 05/11/2006). They are determined to work out solutions to the universe by themselves, without recourse to the key to the problem. They have made this choice a priori, before even looking through a telescope or at the output of a particle accelerator. Materialism is so engrained, it has become an addiction. The pain of withdrawal now is unthinkable. A thousand years of being deeply wrong is preferable to kicking the habit. This is your tax dollars at work: keeping an elite community hooked on a fruitless addiction. You can almost hear the irate comeback: “Well, what would you do? Dismantle all this equipment and just say God did it?” Of course not. First of all, though, it should be clear that open-ended searches for ghosts is not good scientific practice, nor is spending a thousand years being deeply wrong. Hopefully we can also agree that the public cannot be expected to pay for any and all quixotic pursuits scientists dream up. The LHC and other megascience projects employ many thousands of people, and require many bright, highly-trained PhDs to design and operate. This alone, however, is not a justification. One could just as well imagine building parallel-universe detectors – or fairy detectors. Would job security for thousands justify such expenditures? How about a megaproject to dig a big hole, then fill it in again? We must think rightly about the uses of technology and the expected payback to the people who pay for it. There has to be some relationship between the investment and the expectation of success. There is value in pure research. A Murphyism states, “When you are investigating the unknown, you do not know what you will find.” Perhaps some useful fact will come out of dark-matter detectors that will improve our lives. If the goal is only to keep scientists busy, though, or to rationalize a materialistic philosophy, then the proponents should engage their hobbies on their own time and dime. So what do we do with the LHC and the dark-matter detectors, the WMAPs and other such projects? We change the presuppositions. We start with the presupposition that there is a Creator who has revealed Himself in His creation. This is the presupposition that motivated the great founders of science. Our efforts, then, are directed once again at “thinking God’s thoughts after Him” to understand how He ordered the world and the universe and life. And, as Francis Bacon admonished, we gear our efforts for the betterment of mankind. These two goals can justify large expenditures on elaborate projects. This is a far cry from today’s elitist mindset that misuses science to eliminate all thoughts of God and thinks the public should give scientists anything they want just because they are curious about the latest unverifiable, materialist fad.How ironic that the secularists should end up in quixotic pursuits after imaginary entities. Their refusal to admit in their thinking a Holy Ghost who hovered over the surface of the waters at Creation did not free them from the need for ghosts. They had to invent their own so that they could search endlessly for them. What else can a soul do to alleviate the pain of denying its own existence?(Visited 23 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
South African author Lauren Beukes is helping to promote a culture of reading in South Africa. The proceeds from her latest charity art show are going to the children’s literary organisation, Book Dash. Pages from her book, Broken Monsters, were turned into creative designs and sold for R1 500 each. Pages of Lauren Beukes’ book Broken Monsters were turned into pieces of art to raise money for a children’s literary organisation, Book Dash. (Image: Supplied) Priya PitamberSouth African science fiction and fantasy writer Lauren Beukes has strong opinions about reading. “It should be available to everyone,” she wrote on her website.And Beukes is trying to do just that with her latest charity art show. Entitled Broken Monsters Charity Art Show, “proceeds will go to a kids literary non-governmental organisation, Book Dash with over a hundred stellar South African artists creating an original work on a page ripped out of my novel, Broken Monsters“.Beukes has partnered with curator Jacki Lang on the project, as well as chicken restaurant chain Nandos. Each unique art creation was sold for R1 500, only one per person, and the money will enable Book Dash to print books for children across South Africa, in the country’s major languages.“Reading is also about understanding the world and who we are in it,” she continued. “Stories allow us to live other lives, to spend time in someone else’s head, to feel empathy.”She recently gave a Tedx talk about stories being powerful, how they allow people to be more than they are, “allowing us to imagine other people and other lives”.With the charity show, she said a story was able to make a difference in reality, because every art work sold meant Book Dash could print 150 books for children who needed them. “It’s a story being turned into art being turned back into stories (and art) in the form of kid’s picture books,” Beukes mused.My @etchedvector @laurenbeukes @Book Dash fundraiser with #nandos pic.twitter.com/KXZw9rkmHA— Angel Kamp (@AngelKamp) November 14, 2015Group effortBeukes described Lang as an old friend, someone who always put together interesting art shows.Speaking of the collaboration on the Broken Monsters Charity Art Show, Beukes said: “She’d just returned from London and I wanted to go bigger and more ambitious with The Shining Girls Art Show because I’d had such success with a novel and I wanted to share the spotlight and use it to do some good in the world.”Book Dash did such good work because it created what she called “beautiful original South African picture books with amazing local artists and writers in several different languages that they distribute free through local literacy organisations and also free on their website for anyone to print out”, Beukes said.“They really care about the power of story to open doors in our heads and in the worlds and their dream is for every child to own 100 books of their own by the time they’re five years old.” Beukes said it tied in beautifully with the theme of her book. Find out more about Book Dash:As for Nando’s, Lang approached the chicken restaurant chain because it had already shown commitment to local art. “They are known for dipping their wings in playful and unusual marketing,” Beukes said. Artists created unique pieces of art for the Broken Monsters Charity Art Show. (Image: Supplied) Each piece of art was sold for R1 500 and all proceeds went to charity. (Image: Supplied)Not the firstBeukes has used her books previously for good causes.“The stuffed toy Moxy monsters raised R15 000 for a women’s project in Montagu, the Zoo City Art Bares raised R18 000 for the Suitcase Project in Hillbrow,” she explained.“We auctioned off a sloth scarf for Khulisa, which works with offenders and ex-offenders and we levelled up when I brought ace curator Jacki Lang on board and The Shining Girls Charity Art Show raised R100 000 for Rape Crisis.Broken MonstersWhen her novel Broken Monsters was published in 2014, there was talk about creating an art show for a children’s literary organisation. “But I was on a hectic international tour schedule, so the timing just didn’t work out,” Beukes recalled. “But we picked up on it this year.”She explained Broken Monsters was chosen because “it’s my novel and my passion project”.From Cape Town to JoburgThe first exhibition was held in Cape Town on 12 November; Beukes described it as “so great”. “I was blown away with the art – and the sheer range of styles and mediums and interpretations,” she said.Blown away by the talent and generosity of the artists who created original work to raise money for @Book Dash pic.twitter.com/LL238c0EJN— Lauren Beukes (@laurenbeukes) November 13, 2015The queue, she said, went around the block and the show raised over R200 000, double the amount raised during The Shining Girls show.Lang shared a similar sentiment. “I was so overwhelmed with the beautiful and generous responses from our artists,” she said. “They gave so much of their time, input, creativity and resources and each and every artwork was unique.”Lang said it was a magic recipe: artwork came from many sought-after artists and emerging talent; it was created specifically for the event; and it was for a great cause. “I am so grateful to everyone that came and everyone that took part.”Their collaboration shows in Joburg for the first time on 26 November and they have high hopes for it. “The work is all new work – in most cases our artists donated two pieces – one for Cape Town and one for Joburg – so it’s going to be a whole new show,” Lang said.The culture of reading“Reading statistics report that only 14% of the South African population are active book readers, and a mere 5% of parents read to their children and over half of South African households (51%) do not have a single leisure reading book,” said Rejoice Mabudafhasi, the deputy minister of arts and culture at the launch of National Book Week in September.“Hence we deemed it fit that we continue to strengthen our partnership with the South African Book Development Council as we instil a culture of reading, with a strong focus on promoting indigenous languages, local authors as well as library awareness and access,” Mabudafhasi said.It was through reading that South Africans would continue to ensure that their diversity and unique heritage united them as a nation. “Reading will take us on a journey to discover who are we as a people and embrace our diversity.”
FEU Auditorium’s 70th year celebrated with FEU Theater Guild’s ‘The Dreamweavers’ NEW YORK, NY – JULY 13: Floyd Mayweather Jr. looks on as money rains down on Conor McGregor during the Floyd Mayweather Jr. v Conor McGregor World Press Tour event at Barclays Center on July 13, 2017 in the Brooklyn borough of New York City. Mike Stobe/Getty Images/AFPNEW YORK — Conor McGregor and Floyd Mayweather Jr. will earn perhaps nine-figure paydays while fight fans will be charged $100 to watch on TV in high def and can’t get into the arena for anything less than a $500 face-value ticket —if they’re lucky.But in New York, where a “Hamilton” seat can cost you a rent check, there’s still a deal to be found — even in the fight game.ADVERTISEMENT LATEST STORIES Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss PLAY LIST 02:49Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City01:07Trump talks impeachment while meeting NCAA athletes02:49World-class track facilities installed at NCC for SEA Games McFaul, a McGregor fan, said he’ll watch the fight with friends to split the $99.95 bill for the high-definition pay-per-view.“You’re bringing the best of two worlds together,” he said. “But I think the press conference is going to be better than the fight itself.”READ: Expletives, excitement as Mayweather, McGregor face-off Tickets were free and a limited number were still available at the box office about 5 hours before showtime. But security turned fans away 30 minutes later and told them there were no more available. The dejected fans would have to probably watch the insults and vulgarities exchanged online.Or they could turn to the web: eBay had press conference tickets available for $50 for the Brooklyn tour stop and were going for about $80 for the final one in London.ADVERTISEMENT Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. MOST READ Hotel says PH coach apologized for ‘kikiam for breakfast’ claim NCAA: Teodoro heats up as JRU nabs first win “I don’t think these guys necessarily hated each other before we started this thing,” White said. “But by the time we leave London, they might not necessarily like each other very much.”Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next “That’s just dirty, selling press conference tickets,” UFC President Dana White said. “You can’t sell tickets to a press conference.”READ: Mayweather to quit for good after McGregor bout The tour ends Friday with its fourth stop in London — who knows, that may be more rounds than the actual fight, which many experts believe will be lopsided for the undefeated Mayweather.“Mike Tyson back in the day knocked out people in the first round,” McFaul said. “I want to see the spectacle.”Yes, the hype could go down as a more entertaining time than the 154-pound fight Aug. 26 in Las Vegas. The fighters can entertain as much as anything on Broadway.READ: LOOK: McGregor wears suit with ‘F you’ pinstripes to MayweatherMcGregor wore a white Gucci mink coat and raised a steel chair high over his head during a press conference at Madison Square Garden in November to promote his last UFC fight. And Mayweather has been living up to his “Pretty Boy” and “Money” nicknames as both fighters try to hype the fight.McGregor encouraged the crowd to shout expletives at Mayweather and his family before launching into a nearly 10-minute profanity-laced tirade during a stop Wednesday in Toronto. Mayweather mocked McGregor for being less wealthy and answering to UFC chief Dana White. And some fans accused McGregor of being racially insensitive when he yelled, “Dance for me, boy! Dance for me, son!” during an exchange.’READ: Before Mayweather-McGregor … Ali v Inoki Mutual respect between the fighters has suffered a resounding KO. Trump strips away truth with hunky topless photo tweet Church, environmentalists ask DENR to revoke ECC of Quezon province coal plant National Coffee Research Development and Extension Center brews the 2nd National Coffee Education Congress Lacson: SEA Games fund put in foundation like ‘Napoles case’ Ethel Booba on hotel’s clarification that ‘kikiam’ is ‘chicken sausage’: ‘Kung di pa pansinin, baka isipin nila ok lang’ SPORTSWin or don’t eat: the Philippines’ poverty-driven, world-beating pool starsFans lined outside the home of the Brooklyn Nets hours before they were allowed inside the arena. They flocked in TMT gear or draped themselves Irish flags as they waited for the pair to start trading insults weeks before they exchange blows.NEW YORK, NY – JULY 13: Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Conor McGregor face-off during the Floyd Mayweather Jr. v Conor McGregor World Press Tour event at Barclays Center on July 13, 2017 in the Brooklyn borough of New York City. Mike Stobe/Getty Images/AFPJon McFaul, 28 of South Jersey, ordered his ticket online not long after they were made available to the public. McFaul and his friends showed up at noon for their shot at being among the first through the doors. El Nido residents told to vacate beach homes The fight angling to become the richest in sports history is offering fans a bargain-basement price for this weeklong smack-talking circus: Free. It’s the cleanest four-letter word uttered by the Irish UFC star McGregor and the undefeated boxer Mayweather during a foul-mouthed promotional tour that stopped Thursday at the Barclays Center.READ: Mayweather, McGregor take trash-talk tour to New York FEATURED STORIESSPORTSSEA Games: Biñan football stadium stands out in preparedness, completionSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hosting View comments
Mumbai: Union Home Minister and BJP president Amit Shah will attend the concluding rally of Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis’ ‘Mahajanadesh Yatra’ in Solapur on September 1, a party leader said on Wednesday. Fadnavis is currently in the second phase of his mass outreach initiative, launched ahead of the state Assembly polls due in September-October. His yatra will conclude in Solapur district on Sunday. “Union Home Minister Amit Shah has confirmed that he will be attending the valedictory rally of the second phase of the Mahajanadesh Yatra,” said a BJP leader in-charge of the campaign. Also Read – Uddhav bats for ‘Sena CM’ “The rally is planned in Solapur on September 1. Shah will attend the rally and also hold a meeting with the state BJP leaders,” he added. On Monday, addressing a rally as part of his yatra in Ahmednagar, Fadnavis said the BJP-led NDA will continue to remain in power for another 25 years as people have understood “arrogance of power” of the Congress and the NCP. He earlier said his ‘Mahajanadesh Yatra (mega mandate march) is aimed at giving an account to people of the state what the BJP-led government did in last five years. Fadnavis started his mass contact programme from Amravati district in Vidarbha region on August 1. He, however, suspended it on August 6 in view of rains wrecking havoc in many parts of the state, even as the opposition charged him then with giving priority to his campaign. The chief minister later resumed his yatra from August 21.