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
Additional comments from the Editor:Dr. Bergman has two books in print on the persecution of creationists and Darwin skeptics, and a third is coming soon. In the Introduction to the second volume, Silencing the Darwin Skeptics: The War Against Theists (Leafcutter Press, 2016), Kevin Wirth points out the arrogance of many Darwin defenders (pp xv-xvii). After quoting Richard Dawkins, who had blasted the eminent physicist Freeman Dyson for being insufficiently intolerant of religious people, Wirth comments:Dawkins parrots a familiar refrain: no one who comes from a different field of science is qualified to offer an opinion worth contemplating. Militant Darwinists have no patience with those who disagree with them. It aggravates them to no end to have to listen to what they consider to be foolish prattle. They want dissidents to be silenced and removed from the conversation – and they want it to happen yesterday. And they are often not content to just distance themselves from dissidents, but instead often go after them with the intent to do harm. Dr. Bergman’s work makes this painfully obvious.We encourage our readers to see the evidence for themselves in Dr Bergman’s alarming books: Slaughter of the Dissidents (Vol. I, 2008), Silencing the Darwin Skeptics (Vol II, 2016), and Censorship of Darwin Skeptics (Vol III, due out this year, which will contain my JPL experience). We see the same insufferable arrogance and intolerance in Laura Geggel’s article (see David Klinghoffer’s response in Evolution News & Science Today). During the Inquisition, authorities dressed heretics in dunce caps before burning them at the stake. The comparison is apt. —David Coppedge(Visited 843 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 by Dr Jerry BergmanIn a recent article at Live Science, Laura Geggel asks, “Why Are Atheists Generally Smarter Than Religious People?” She claims that “For more than a millennium, scholars have noticed a curious correlation: Atheists tend to be more intelligent than religious people.”[i] How they could know this, since IQ tests and other means of measuring intelligence were only developed at the start of the last century, was not answered. Another problem is many kinds of intelligence exist, such as doing well on paper and pencil tests, or on performance tests, for example. Also, there exist intelligence in other areas, such as music IQ, math IQ, abstract conceptualization IQ, verbal IQ, personality IQ, even emotional IQ,[ii] and, according to some authors, 120 different kinds of IQs.Geggel continues, “researchers of a new study have an idea: Religion is an instinct and those who can rise above instincts are more intelligent than those who rely on them.” This conclusion vastly oversimplifies reality. As a professor, I have worked with, and have known, a large number of very intelligent people. In my experience, when it comes to the origins issue, creation vs. evolution, this generalization is certainly not true. Emotions and irrationality commonly surface fairly soon in these conversations, making rational discourse difficult, if not impossible.The article points to a meta-analysis of 63 studies that supposedly found religious people tend to be less intelligent than nonreligious people.[iii] According to this study, “the association was stronger among college students and the general public than for those younger than college age”.This association likely has a lot to do with education indoctrination. More intelligent people are more likely to go to college and, as a result, they are frequently exposed to anti-Christian, or at least anti-theism ideas as well as pro-Darwinism beliefs. The reason has been documented by Stanford Educated Attorney Greg Lukianoff, who is President of an organization fighting censorship in colleges called FIRE. In short, he found that campus intolerance of free speech and censorship is primarily directed at Christians. He adds that a chilling discovery was that Christian groups are disproportionately more likely to be threatened on campus, adding: “If you told me twelve years ago that I, a liberal atheist, would devote a sizeable portion of my career to defending Christian groups, I might have been surprised. But almost from my first day at FIRE, I was shocked to realize how badly Christian groups are often treated.”[iv] He then reviewed some of his experiences, noting in the last few yearsdozens of colleges across the country threatened or derecognized Christian groups because of their refusal to say that they would not “discriminate” on the basis of belief. These colleges included, to name a few, Arizona State University, Brown University, California State University, Cornell University, Harvard University, Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State University, Princeton University, Purdue University, Rutgers University, Texas A&M University, Tufts University, the University of Arizona, the University of Florida, the University of Georgia, the University of Mary Washington, the University of New Mexico, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Washington University.[v]One major contributing factor to this intolerance—as reported by a 2007 study from the Institute for Jewish and Community Research—is that, of all groups, “faculty hold the most unfavorable feelings toward evangelicals.” The study added that only one group elicited high negative feelings among faculty, namely evangelical Christians:faculty hold the most unfavorable feelings toward evangelicalsOnly 30% ranked their feelings toward evangelical Christians as warm/favorable, with only 11% feeling very warm/favorable, the lowest ranking among every other religious group, and 53% said that they have cool/unfavorable feelings toward evangelical Christians. Faculty feelings about evangelicals are significantly cooler than any other religious group, leading Mormons as the least liked religious group by 20%. These negative feelings are noted across academic disciplines and demographic factors.[vi] Another study found that an amazing 71 percent of all faculty believe that Americawould be better off if Christian Fundamentalists kept their religious beliefs out of politics … [only] Twenty-four percent disagreed and 5% were not sure. The public agreed, but at far lower percentages than faculty—54% agreed, 39% disagreed, and 7% were unsure. … About 92% of liberals agreed that fundamentalist Christians should keep their religious beliefs out of politics, as did 66% of moderates, and 23% of conservatives.[vii]One reason for the censorship is many people feel, as Professor Karl Giberson wrote, that “Young Earth creationism is a threat to American survival.”[viii] This and similar articles amount to hate literature and have produced the perception that the censorship is fully justified. Ironically, Giberson teaches at Stonehill College, a private, non-profit, co-educational, Roman Catholic Liberal Arts college located in Easton, Massachusetts founded in 1948. Lukianoff found from his work defending free speech that on college and university “campuses today, students are punished for everything from mild satire, to writing politically incorrect short stories, to having the “wrong” opinion on virtually every hot button issue, and, increasingly, simply for criticizing the college administration.” Here are some examples. One student waspunished for publicly reading a book; a professor labeled a deadly threat to campus for posting a pop-culture quote on his door; students required to lobby the government for political causes they disagreed with in order to graduate; a student government that passed a “Sedition Act” empowering them to bring legal action against students who criticized them; and students across the country being forced to limit their “free speech activities” to tiny, isolated corners of campus creepily dubbed “free speech zones.”[ix]We should be asking whether America would be better off if atheists kept their own anti-religious beliefs out of politics. The study also found that, whereas amajority of faculty believe ethnic or religious minority students at their institution are reluctant to express their views, seven percent of faculty very often “perceive that ethnic or religious minority students at [their] institution are reluctant to express their views because they might be contrary to those held by faculty,” another 14% said fairly often, and 38% said occasionally—a total of 59%. Only 30% said never or almost never, and 12% did not know.[x]The researchers in the study quoted above assumed that nonreligious people were more rational and thus better able to reason that there was no God, but instead “found evidence that intelligence is positively associated with certain kinds of bias.” This bias blind spot occurs when people cannot detect bias, or flaws, in their own thinking. Ironically, “a larger bias blind spot was associated with higher cognitive ability,”[xi] This conclusion agrees with my review of academia and the intolerance against evangelical Christians, and may be one reason why studies indicate theists score lower on tests compared to those with more advanced education, especially in the sciences.[i] Laura Geggel, Senior Writer | June 5, 2017 study published May 16 in the journal Evolutionary Psychological Science under the title “Why is Intelligence Negatively Associated with Religiousness?” Springer International Publishing. http://www.livescience.com/59361-why-are-atheists-generally-more-intelligent.html.[ii] Sally Bennett. 2017. Emotional Intelligence. Geneva Publishing[iii] Miron Zukerman, Jordan Silberman and Judith Hall. 2013.The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 17(4) 325–354[iv] Greg Lukianoff, 2012. Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of the American Debate. New York: Encounter Books, p. 163.[v] Lukianoff, 2012, p.169.[vi] Lukianoff, 2012, p. 12.[vii] Gary A. Tobin, Ph.D. and Aryeh K. Weinberg, 2007. Volume 2: Religious Beliefs Behavior of College Faculty Institute for Jewish & Community Research p. 10.[viii] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karl-giberson-phd/young-earth-creationism-threat-to-american-survival_b_2192491.html.[ix] Lukianoff, 2013 pp. 4-5.[x] Gary A. Tobin, Ph.D. Aryeh K. Weinberg 2007. Volume 2: Religious Beliefs Behavior of College Faculty Institute for Jewish & Community Research, p. 11.[xi] West, Richard F.; Meserve, Russell J.; Stanovich, Keith E. 2012. Cognitive sophistication does not attenuate the bias blind spot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3): 506-519. September.Dr Jerry Bergman is the author of 40 books and monographs, and is also a science professor and public speaker. He is a frequent contributor to Creation-Evolution Headlines. See his Author Profile and previous articles here.
Balancing windows in interior locations can be extremely difficult. Here’s how to get the right exposure by adding or reducing light.Shooting indoors? Capturing windows (and what’s beyond) can add depth to your scene, but the difference in interior and exterior exposure levels can also ruin a shot entirely. Here’s what you need to know.Nothing sells the realism of a daytime interior more than being able to see out of a window. This is a challenge as far as cinematography goes because it’s extremely rare that the interior’s exposure levels match exterior ones.Once you expose for the typical interior, the outside will be “hot” or overexposed. This is something many cinematographers try to avoid because blown-out highlights are one of the key differences between film and digital — and they immediately kill the cinematic look.The easiest way to achieve this is to wait until the right time of day when the sun is either rising or setting. The downside of this is that this level will only last for several minutes, and if you want to shoot for longer than that, you will need to find a different solution.Another way of bridging the gap between exposure is to increase the levels inside until they match those outside. This requires bigger, more-powerful lights, which increases production costs. But the larger downside is that it causes your talent to squint and affects performance. It’s even worse if you’re shooting an interview, unless you want your subject to look pained and uncomfortable.Neutral Density to the RescueA third, and perhaps the most widely used solution, is to add neutral density to the windows. This comes in 48- or 60-inch wide rolls, and is available in .3, .6, and .9 strengths, which represent 1, 2, and 3 stops of light loss.You can hang these outside the window on a C-stand, or if it’s windy, you can apply them directly to the window with water or adhesive. This takes time, but nothing else will allow you to match exposure inside and outside as easily.The rolls aren’t cheap — at around $100 for 25″ — but you can also buy a DIY alternative from a hardware store. The downside is that they’re not as color neutral and may tint the light coming from the window.Make the Outside DisappearIf you want a window in your shot, but don’t want to see what’s outside, you can swap the neutral ND for some diffusion, like grid cloth or Soft Frost. This will cause the window to blow out completely, creating a nice even light from outside.Depending on the window’s position relative to the sun, the diffusion may or may not help illuminate your scene. If this is something you want to take advantage of, you can add your own source of illumination, like a daylight-balanced HMI or LED fresnel. This will also allow maintain the same effect inside the location after the sun has gone down.Illuminated diffusion on the outside of the windows is a beautiful effect, and you can see it in many scenes when the filmmakers are trying to keep the focus on what’s happening inside the room, rather than on the character’s connection to the world outside. Lincoln used this technique in the majority of its locations, as did the recent Greig Fraser-lensed Vice.By adding or reducing light from windows, you’ll have more control over your daytime interior scenes, and you’ll be able to deliver an ambience that will better serve your story.Interested in the tracks we used to create this video?“Oceanfront” by Vincent Tone“Positive Day On” by Make MusicLooking for more video tutorials on filmmaking and video production? Check these out.Learn to Create Your Own 8-Bit Art in Adobe After EffectsSimple Tips on How You Can Capture Better Slow-Motion VideoHow to Alter the Color of Your Video Using Lumetri CurvesVideo Tutorial: How to Use Premiere’s New Freeform ViewHow to Create the Double Exposure Effect in Four Manageable Steps
Embattled Commonwealth Games OC chief Suresh Kalmadi is likely to appear before CBI on Wednesday for questioning in connection with the agency’s probe into alleged financial irregularities in the conduct of the mega sporting event.Official sources said that Kalmadi has been asked to come to the CBI office for questioning and he has informed the investigating agency he would make his appearance on Wednesday.The chief of the Games’ Organising Committee is likely to be quizzed on a number of issues regarding the Games including alleged bungling in Queen’s Baton Relay.CBI officials had yesterday visited the Games OC office here and questioned some officials. Besides they had seized certain documents related to QBR and other contracts with various firms.The sources said Kalmadi will also be asked questioned about certain contracts given to foreign firms for carrying out overlays work for the games in October last.The CBI had late last month contacted Kalmadi over phone asking him to appear before it for questioning but the OC chief had said he will be available only after January three.Kalmadi had earlier in the day said he has not yet heard from the CBI about possible date of his questioning.”I am yet to hear from the CBI. As and when I am informed, I will be available. I am extending full cooperation to all investigating agencies,” Kalmadi told PTI.The sleuths have grilled Kalmadi’s three key aides in connection with the scam. Sources said Manoj Bhori, political advisor to OC head, P K Srivastava and A K Sinha, both assistants to Kalmadi, were also called in for interrogation.advertisementThe CBI had earlier conducted raids at the residences of Kalmadi, OC Secretary General Lalit Bhanot, R K Sacheti, who is Joint Director General of the OC, and Sangeeta Welingkar, member of the Games Image and Look Group.The agency has so far filed three FIRs in connection with the alleged financial irregularities.While one case is related to a Rs 107-crore deal struck with a Swiss score keeping firm, the CBI had registered two other FIRs in connection with the contract given to AM Films for the Baton Relay ceremonies by the OC in London.The CBI has decided to approach the Sports Ministry to seek removal of Kalmadi and Bhanot from their posts citing failure of certain junior OC officials to cooperate with it which, it claimed, was hampering the probe.With PTI inputs
Low-scoring and edge of the seat exciting matches don’t mix. But Saturday’s ODI at the New Wanderers Stadium in Johannesburg not only mixed but gelled rather well with India winning the match by one run. SCOREWith this win India have squared the five-match ODI series 1-1.Man-of-the-Match Munaf Patel. APAnd the result wouldn’t have been so had India bowlers not come good at death against host South Africa.India batsmen after scoring a meagre 190 had left a lot to be done by the bowlers and still they performed.India’s Munaf Patel took the cake finishing with figures of 8-0-29-4. Undoubtedly, the wickets of openers Hashim Amla and Graeme Smith earned him the Man-of-the-Match award.The wickets though widely spaced brought about the desired result. Amla fell early but Smith’s wicket came towards the end. In a way it was Smith’s wicket that proved to be the turning point of the match.Munaf knew that early wickets can make the difference in an ODI and he struck really early. He scalped Hashim Amla on 4 with a ball that came in from the off to take the edge of his bat and settle in skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni’s gloves behind the stumps. The hosts were 7/1 at this juncture.Still, a target of 191 was an easy call for South Africa batsmen. And Colin Ingram and Graeme Smith wanted to make sure that it stayed easy. The two batted on to numb the Indian bowling attack and kept the Protea scoreboard ticking.advertisementThe duo had put on 59 runs for the second wicket before Harbhajan Singh claimed Ingram on 25 with the umpire adjudging him LBW even as the South Africa score was 66/2.Unfortunately for the hosts AB de Villiers, who wasn’t looking confident, fell to Ashish Nehra on eight.Later, Rohit Sharma accounted for J.P. Duminy on 13 as the South Africa score was 120/4.But, Smith was still at the crease and had found his lost form. Finally, Munaf Patel sent him back on 77 with an inside edge from his bat crashing into his stumps.At death, Zaheer Khan claimed David Miller and Johan Botha to bring India within striking distance of a victory.And then Dale Steyn’s run out and Morne Morkel’s wicket added to the excitement, but again it was Munaf who performed the final act when the hosts were just two runs away from a win with just one wicket in hand.A short ball saw tail-ender Wayne Parnell go for a big hit but Yuvraj Singh caught him at point and that was the end of South Africa batting. They could only manage 189 on board.Lonwabo Tsotsobe. APEarlier Lonwabo Tsotsobe, who had claimed four wickets in the first ODI in Durban, came up with another four-wicket haul to reduce India to 190 all out.He scalped opener Murali Vijay, Yuvraj Singh, Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Suresh Raina to nip in bud any designs that the visiting batsmen had of scoring at a brisk pace.After scalping opener Murali Vijay early, Tsotsobe came back to send Yuvraj Singh packing on 53, breaking the 83-run fourth wicket partnership between him and skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni.Yuvraj went for a big hit but failed to cross the boundary and Dale Steyn lapped it up in the deep as India score read 150/4.That wicket started the slide as batsmen kept paying the crease quick visits.Suresh Raina, who picked up from where Yuvraj Singh had left too fell after staying in the middle for a few minutes. He had put 11 on board before Tsotsobe claimed his third wicket of the day. India score then was a poor 169/5 in 41.1 overs.Soon, he struck again to send skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni back on 38. India now were 172/6 with the tail popping up. And the tail managed to put just 18 runs before heading back to the pavilion.Earlier, Sachin Tendulkar and Virat Kohli too could not stay in the middle for long.Tendulkar fell in the 19th over when the India total was 67/3. Off spinner Johan Botha foxed Tendulkar with a turner as the batting maestro failed to read his delivery that turned in sharply from the off stump line. He fell for 24 with an edge from his bat striking against the stumps.Virat Kohli, who had scored a resolute half-century in the first ODI in Durban, was run out by David Miller in Morne Morkel’s over. He fell on 22.India skipper M.S. Dhoni had won the toss and elected to bat.The two teams now meet at Newlands in Cape Town on Tuesday.advertisement
zoomM/T Paul A. Desgagnés – last trials before departure. Image Courtesy: CNW Group/Groupe Desgagnés Canadian shipping company Desgagnés has accepted delivery of M/T Paul A. Desgagnés, a new-generation product tanker.The newbuilding was delivered to its owner on October 31, 2018, following the completion of its construction in Turkey.Paul A. Desgagnés is the third in a series of four product carriers ordered by the company at the Besiktas shipyard located in Yalova near Istanbul, Turkey.“The addition of the Paul A. Desgagnés to the Desgagnés fleet — as for the addition of the Damia Desgagnés and the Mia Desgagnés — is the result of multiple innovations and tremendous work; as her predecessors, she is the source of great pride,” Louis-Marie Beaulieu, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Desgagnés, said.The Paul A. Desgagnés is a dual-fuel/LNG oil/product and chemical tanker that can be powered by any of three types of fuel, namely heavy fuel oil, marine diesel oil or liquefied natural gas (LNG).The Paul A. Desgagnés is double-hulled and holds a Polar 7 ice class confirming its capacity to navigate in ice-laden waters. With a deadweight of 15,000 tons at 7.8 meters draft, its cargo tanks can hold up to 17,505 cbm at 98% capacity.As informed, the new vessel represents an investment exceeding CAD 50 million, of which almost CAD 9 million are solely dedicated to the dual-fuel/LNG motorization.The newbuilding leaves Turkey on November 22 and is expected in Canada in the first half of December this year.Related:Desgagnés Christens World’s First Dual-Fuel Polar-Class Chemical Oil TankerDesgagnés Takes Delivery of World’s First Dual-Fuel Asphalt Carrier