The sun shone on Stranorlar for the last few days for what proved to be some very exciting filming for the local Mc Menamin family.Following a national search some months ago Dylan, Kate and Emily children of Damien and Daireen, were selected to star in a new TV Series for RTE.A very rigorous audition process took place over a month including multiple auditions such as a half-hour long skype interview with the children who are clients of The Karen Gorman Academy of Speech and Drama & Casting Agency. Indeed Sky the dog was also auditioned in what proved to be a most successful process.Karen said “I knew instantly that the Mc Menamin family were the ideal candidates. They excel in every possible way and achieve incredible results always.“They are the kindest, most modest children with a most admirable work ethic, what a winning combination! This is no surprise to anyone who knows their adoring parents and grandparents.“We were informed that we had the highest number of children shortlisted from any agency nationally. I am so delighted with this.” This was a massive project and Dylan, Kate & Emily excelled from the outset even with 6.30am starts.A crew of 20 professionals travelled to Donegal to film where they were spoiled with kindness and hospitality!Karen added “We are overjoyed that we are the only county beyond Dublin and Galway to be represented in the new TV series. The very kind Katie Herron of the Donegal ladies made a surprise visit to Kate yesterday on the grounds of Mc Cumhaills, Stranorlar. We cannot reveal the exact details yet but the launch will take place during October this year.”Stranorlar family film secret RTE television series was last modified: August 1st, 2019 by StephenShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)
The Donegal Daily Group require a Digital News Reporter.This is a full-time position within Donegal’s biggest media outlet and will be based out of our Letterkenny office.The successful candidate will have relevant experience within the media industry and a background in online news is essential. Previous coverage of courts, council meetings and other relevant ‘markings’ will also be an advantage.They will be required to work flexible hours with a knowledge of sport also an advantage.If you think this is the position for you to further your career in journalism working within a talented and dedicated team of reporters, please send your CV to firstname.lastname@example.org Vacancy: Donegal Daily seeks Digital News Reporter was last modified: November 8th, 2019 by Staff WriterShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Tags:Donegal DailyREPORTERVacancy
Unlucky not to get all 3 points today but we go again! 🔵⚪️ pic.twitter.com/fwAFWbxooN— Mide Shodipo (@MideSho) September 10, 2016Many QPR fans on Twitter were full of praise for Olamide Shodipo following the 1-1 draw against Blackburn.Rangers were below par at Loftus Road, but the performance of 19-year-old winger Shodipo was a definite positive.Shodipo was outstanding against Blackburn deserves to be given more games #QPR— Tony Smith (@Tony56QPR) September 11, 2016Frustrating game today… Thought Perch and Shodipo were the pick of the bunch. All too slow and predictable coming forward though #QPR— S Michail (@smichail89) September 10, 2016Olamide Oluwatimilehin Babatunde Oluwaka Shodipo… Remember the name #QPR 🔵⚪️🔵⚪️— S Michail (@smichail89) September 10, 2016Shodipo had his moments. Not sure about the end product yet but plenty of intent there— Ben Walker (@qprbenjamin163) September 10, 2016First game I’ve actually thought Shodipo has looked decent, still has a lot to work on though— Austin (@austin_harris24) September 10, 2016Positives. Shodipo an exciting prospect on the wings. Little green as expected with age but will only improve with game time. #QPR— Paul Nasr (@SkyPaulNasr) September 10, 2016Shodipo looks more promising every game— Shaunna (@ShaunnaGleeson) September 10, 2016Frustrating draw. FK by Chery was incredible. Shodipo MOTM. Do we finally have a youth player that will stake a place in the first team #qpr— James Evans (@Jimeevans) September 10, 2016Frustrating to only get a point. Shodipo was superb. Just need to play with a higher tempo from the start. #QPR #QPRBLA— Darren Truswell (@DarrenTruswell) September 10, 2016Dreadful performance and result, only positive today was Shodipo who looks decent.— Jack (@JackM_QPR) September 10, 2016Thought Shodipo was outstanding yesterday lively direct and probably the only player in our team with pace #QPR— Russell Maynard (@maynardqpr) September 11, 2016See also:QPR v Blackburn – as it happenedCoyle convinced Blackburn have turned cornerQPR boss explains Polter substitutionChery’s sublime strike not enough for QPRHasselbaink insists QPR deserved moreQPR v Blackburn player ratingsFollow West London Sport on TwitterFind us on Facebook
(Visited 32 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 Evolution is one of the most carelessly-used words in science, as several recent articles show. Not all change is evolution the way Darwin meant it.Roaches check in, and they also check out: Those omnivorous pests have outsmarted engineers again. Even though they like sugar in the wild, they have learned to avoid sugary-tasting poison in roach traps. Sure enough, you can watch the smarter bugs in a video clip on Live Science. Stephanie Pappas headlined the story, “Yikes! Cockroaches Evolved to Avoid Sugary Baits.” The authors of the paper in Science claimed that the German cockroaches “rapidly evolved an adaptive behavioral aversion to glucose.” They spoke of glucose aversion as a “gain of function adaptation” that “emerged” in their study population.The scientists did not state, though, if the glucose-averse roaches represent a new species. Darwinian evolution is not just about changes of adaptive behavior within a species, but the arrival of new species. If the glucose-averse roaches are interfertile with the wild type, no evolution has occurred. In the Live Science article, furthermore, one of the paper’s authors admitted that glucose avoidance could have been an ancient trait that surfaced under the new environmental condition of encountering man-made bait traps. “Some plants produce toxic bittersweet compounds that roaches would have needed to avoid before humans came around.”Even worse, the glucose-avoiding roaches may be less healthy. In Science Daily, that same co-author admitted they grow more slowly in the lab without the environmental stress. “Cockroaches have to adapt to a varied and unreliable food supply, and glucose-aversion places an additional restriction on obtaining adequate nutrition.” In any case, this is certainly not a case supporting Darwinian evolution—universal common ancestry via natural selection.Name it and claim it: Just claiming something evolved does not make it so. Asking why some flowers close at night, Elizabeth Palermo on Live Science credited evolution. Those plants are “highly evolved,” she said. That’s no better than ridiculing another human as being less evolved than you are. Then she admitted, “scientists are not quite sure why some plants, particularly flowers, evolved this way.” You can’t just say that the trait might be a “highly evolved defense mechanism against a plant’s nocturnal predators.” Without an explanation based on mutation and natural selection, this is mere speculation. For all Palermo knows, plants were designed that way.Negative selection: Some developmental processes involve killing of cells that are not needed in the finished adult form. It happens in the developing thymus, for instance; in PLoS Biology, Caitlin Sedgwick wrote, “To prevent autoimmunity, developing T cells undergo a process called negative selection, wherein strongly ‘self-reactive’ T cells are provoked to undergo apoptosis (cellular suicide) before they leave the thymus.” This is not evolution, either, even though she boasted of “Bringing You Negative Selection, Alive and In Color.” The word “selection” might cause one to think this is about Darwinian evolution. It’s not; the only evolution here is the “evolution [i.e., unfolding] of apoptotic events.”Not everything Darwin said is evolution: Charles Darwin wrote about a lot of things, not all of which support his idea of universal common ancestry via unguided natural processes. A story on PhysOrg is a case in point; “research proves Darwin prediction,” the headline reads, but the principle at issue is whether “productivity increases with species diversity.” Creationists would accept a substantial amount of variation within created kinds. Although the researcher mentioned “evolutionary distance,” the distance doesn’t have to be evolutionary. Creationists acknowledge a lot of morphological distance between a zebra and a zebrafish. Even critics of Darwin recognized he was right about some things. Nothing in the data of this story necessarily supports Darwin’s most famous notion, that zebras are descendants of microbes.Guided variation is not evolution: It’s like a pesky urban legend that won’t die: artificial selection is not evolution. It’s intelligent design, even if the engineers use random variation in the process. Another example appeared on Live Science, where Wynn Parry wrote, “Evolution May Help Build Better Robots.” Then he transferred the design from the engineers to the robots themselves, claiming, “In the real world, animals have evolved the ability to get from point A to B by galloping, crawling and jumping. Now, robots in the virtual world have accomplished something similar.”Turtle embryonic development is not evolution: On Science Daily, the word “evolution” was used in connection with observations of turtle development from the embryo. First, the article said that turtles are “not primitive reptiles as previously thought, but are related to the group comprising birds and crocodilians, which also includes extinct dinosaurs.” Whether that relationship illustrates common ancestry or not, the statement argues against a simple-to-complex process. Then the article confused embryonic development with evolution. Here again, though, was a conundrum: “The study also reveals that despite their unique anatomy, turtles follow the basic embryonic pattern during development.” Even if the shell arrives late in the process, when limb development normally occurs, the highly complex process of development can hardly be used to support the notion that “turtle shell evolved by recruiting part of the genetic program used for the limbs.” Evolution is not a recruiter. That’s the personification fallacy. Yet based on this, one of the researchers stated, “The work not only provides insight into how turtles evolved, but also gives hints as to how the vertebrate developmental programs can be changed to produce major evolutionary novelties“—all that after admitting that these “evolutionary monsters” are unique in the animal kingdom.Data points within natural variation of a species are not evolution: The Chinese found another “new hominin” in a cave based on its teeth. But then, the article on PhysOrg admits, “the size of these teeth all falls [sic] into the tooth size variation of Chinese modern humans.” How, then, are these teeth assumed to be from a different ancestral species? As usual, when the data are unconvincing, more research is needed: “Our excavation shows the cave has great potential perspectives,” the researcher said. “Further excavation and laboratory study of cave development, filling sequence, hominin teeth morphology, dating, and environmental change from the Fuyan Cave as well as some adjacent caves will help better understand the human evolution and adaptive behavior in Southwest Hunan, east Guangxi, and north Guangdong.”This is how scientists get away with claims that evolution is essential to biology, and is supported by mountains of evidence. Why, look at all the scientific papers and articles about it! How can Darwin skeptics claim it is unscientific? Well, we can, and we just showed you why. Ask them for evidence supporting universal common ancestry of all life by unguided natural processes, and this is the kind of fluff you get. They accuse their critics of being people of faith, but Darwinians are people of fluff. Point that out to them, and they become people of froth. There’s nothing as pitiable as people of froth supporting their fluff by faith.
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) recently announced this year’s deadline for producer applications for the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) is March 31.March 31 is also the deadline by which initial applications are needed from farmers with expiring 2012-2016 contracts if they want to renew them for another five years. Some 12 million acres already in the program are eligible for renewal this year.“CSP is a continuous sign-up program, and producers can apply to enroll at any time of the year,” said Traci Bruckner, Senior Policy Associate for Agriculture and Conservation at the Center for Rural Affairs. “NRCS applies a cut-off date for applications to be considered during a particular fiscal year. Once the cut-off date is past, producers may continue to apply, but they will not be considered for entry until the spring of the following year. To enroll in 2016, you must file your application by March 31.”The Conservation Stewardship Program is a voluntary stewardship incentives program administered by NRCS. It rewards farmers, ranchers, and foresters for maintaining existing conservation and for adopting additional measures that run beyond the farm or ranch.CSP pays producers for clean water, better soil management, improved habitat, energy efficiency, and other natural resource benefits. Since the program began in 2009, nearly 70 million acres of farm and ranch land have been enrolled in the program.To sign up, farmers and ranchers should visit their NRCS local service center and submit their basic application form by the March 31 deadline. To find a local service center visit: http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs“Once a farmer or rancher’s initial application is accepted by NRCS, they are then scored based on current and planned future conservation activities,” added Bruckner. “If applicants meet acceptable conservation levels, they become eligible to compete in a ranking process that determines who will receive contracts. NRCS works down through the list of eligible applicants until acreage allocated to the particular state for that particular year runs out.”2012 Contracts Up for RenewalMarch 31 is also the deadline for CSP contract holders who enrolled in 2012 to renew. CSP contracts last for five years and can be renewed for an additional five years, extending and building upon their previous conservation efforts and current level of stewardship.Existing CSP contracts enrolled in 2012 will expire later this year if they are not renewed by March 31. Producers should act now to ensure a seamless transition into another five-year contract and avoid any lapse in payments.Approximately 12 million acres and 8,000 contracts are up for renewal this year. To see the number of contracts and acres set to expire in each state: http://goo.gl/y1NZwW. The map below shows the total number of acres that were originally enrolled in 2012, which are set to expire at the end of the year if not renewed before March 31.
The Rise and Rise of Mobile Payment Technology Role of Mobile App Analytics In-App Engagement readwrite Why IoT Apps are Eating Device Interfaces Tags:#Android#Microsoft#microsoft surface#mobile#Nokia#now#smartphones Microsoft and Nokia—now the tightest of friends, following Microsoft’s $7.2 billion bid for the phone maker’s devices and services arm—could well have had it in for each other had things gone otherwise. Nokia, it turns out, already had Android running on its Lumia smartphones as an experiment (says the New York Times), while Microsoft was testing its own smartphone based on its Surface tablet (says the Verge).Alas for the fratricidal possibilities that now we’ll never see. Related Posts What it Takes to Build a Highly Secure FinTech …