Trackers suffer disappointing loss at the hands of Peace River last week

first_imgFORT ST. JOHN, B.C. – The Northeast BC/Yukon Trackers welcomed the Bouchier Division-leading Peace River Royals to town last Friday.The first period saw both teams score no goals in a pretty even 20 minutes of play. The Royals scored two goals to take a 2-0 lead in the opening five minutes of the middle frame, which they held into the second intermission. In the third, Peace River added another to make it 3-0 before Connor Kindrat broke Peace River’s shutout bid with 4:25 remaining. Noah Lang and Cody Bueckert picked up the helpers on Kindrat’s goal. The visitors added an empty-net tally late and skated away with a 4-1 win.Unfortunately, the Royals added an empty-net tally and skated away with a 4-1 win. With the loss, the Trackers are now six points behind the first place Royals.- Advertisement -Head coach Gerard Decaire said, “We played a game that had so many ups and downs and allowed them to go up 3-0 before we found the back of the net. You can’t do that against a really good team in your own division. That was a four-point swing right there as we sit even tied for second with Fort McMurray and even further back of Peace River.”Next up for the Trackers is a trip to Grande Prairie for a tilt with the Drilling Storm on Friday. Puck Drops at 7:30 p.m.last_img read more

NOMA Still Isn’t Working

first_imgScience journals and websites continue to act as if religion is a subcategory of the science department.  If Stephen Jay Gould thought that NOMA was a good idea to keep peace between science and religion (see 11/05/2006), nobody paid any attention.  Scientism has taken over the world. Here’s how it happened.  Churches in the 19th century made a devil’s bargain: “You scientists can have all the natural stuff; we just want to focus on the salvation of souls.”  Sounds so attractive a deal.  After all, what did D. L. Moody and Charles Spurgeon know about boring stuff like pig embryos, fossils and geological strata?  “You can have it.We don’t want it; we don’t need it.”  And so the church gave away Nature to “Science”. Yeah, you’re just a phenotype, performing all the genes inside / Living things only seem designed, ’cause you can’t see how they’ve been revised / And the feedback lies in evolution’s brutal gaze / Either you have babies who have babies or get booed off stage. Was this attack against design criticized?  Not in the least.  Brinkman was allowed to preach a salvation message and hortatory sermon to the journal’s readers: “Converting people to looking at how evolution works and accepting it as a reality is an intellectual battle that is worth fighting.” Rap against ID:  Nature raved about Baba Brinkman, “a Canadian rap artist whose award-winning show The Rap Guide to Evolution wowed UK crowds at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival during Charles Darwin’s bicentenary year.”  The interviewer provided a sample of his materialistic, Spencerian-Malthusian-Dawkinsian lyrics: Next thing you know, the conspirators Huxley, Tyndall, Haeckel and others were redefining Nature.  Nature is all that exists.  Nature is all that is Real.  Since Science now owned Nature, Science owned everything that is Real.  By implication, churches dealt with things that are Unreal.  Anybody living in an unreal world must be mentally ill.  Religious people, therefore, became the patients of psychological scientists, who treated them like lab rats. Happiness science:  Another scientific article on happiness appeared on Medical Xpress June 14 (cf. 05/19/2011, bullet 1).  But do people need science to confirm that “Money can’t buy happiness”, like some New Zealand psychologists produced in “findings” published in a psychology journal?  To whom should a reader look for happiness: a psychological study, or Matthew 6:33?  What if the psychologists had found that money could buy happiness?  Would that make it right?   Can science answer such questions? Theology therefore reclaims Science from those mentally ill materialist scientists who deny Reality.  Science is once again the property of the Creator.  We learned our lesson.  Never again will we cede our rightful territory to the conspiratorial bigots whose pilfering of Christian concepts led to intellectual atrocities like those listed above.  From now on, you will practice science within the will of your Creator, and for His glory alone, like Newton and Kepler did.  We will suffer non-Christians limited operation on scientific questions, provided they are observable, testable, and repeatable, and have as their goal the improvement of human life or good stewardship of the Earth (see Francis Bacon).  Any time one of you tries to steal our assumptions or moral categories to deny your Creator, though, we are going to expose your irrationality and embarrass you publicly.  This is for your own good.  It is a form of tough love for sinners who trade in self-refuting fantasies, the outcome of which leads to evil and chaos.  Now, let’s get back to the beginning of wisdom and clean up this mess.(Visited 13 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 It is abundantly clear that scientists and academic experts view no subject, no issue, no controversy as out of bounds.  It is also abundantly clear that science journals and news sites feel no obligation to ever include the opinions of religious experts or conservatives.  They have become echo chambers for godless liberals who pretend their critics do not even exist, except maybe as lab rats or targets for mockery. One can only shudder at the thought of a “marriage pantheon.”  The Roman pantheon was a shrine to pagan gods.  Science has its pagan gods, too: moral relativism, materialism, and evolution.  What kind of marriage(s) will come out of that toxic brew?  Historic marriage was instituted by our Creator.  The denial of the Creator puts Man, with his Science, in charge.  And now that the “gay rights” special-interest groups have co-opted so-called “scientific” experts with their presumptive authority, don’t even try to imagine what permutations of 1 + n entities will be enshrined in the “marriage pantheon.” Gay marriage advocacy:  In a shocking display of NOMA violation, Science Daily advocated abandoning Father’s Day and Mother’s Day and replacing them with “Co-Parent’s Day.”  Why?  Because “a second parent doesn’t have to be a dad. It can be a same-sex partner, a grandparent or another caregiver.”  Even though most of the article affirmed the value of fathers, clearly the program featured in the article, advocated by Philip Cowan, a UC Berkeley psychologist , is in line with the “gay agenda” of redefining marriage and family. Once again, psychologists were presented as experts with “findings” deemed scientific, therefore more worthy of reporting than the views of Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, or other institutions who specialize in family issues.  The science sites always give the edge to academics and psychologists because they are assumed to be scientists.center_img Church blame:  Medical Xpress accused churches of ignoring mental illness in their congregations.  “Mental illness of a family member destroys the family’s connection with the religious community, a new study by Baylor University psychologists has found, leading many affected families to leave the church and their faith behind.”  The article begs the question whether mental illness even exists, or whether conditions could be divided into sin problems and physical problems. Many churches have active counseling programs for those suffering depression, stress, guilt, despair and other ailments.  They already cooperate with medical institutions that specialize in mental symptoms caused by physical conditions, but deny that “mental illness” is some kind of sterile category that can explain behavior apart from spiritual factors, considering the mish-mash of theories in psychological “science” and the wayward history of psychology (cf. 04/21/2011, 02/17/2010, 10/15/2009) .  Would a psychologist ever diagnose any behavior as caused by sin?  Who is to decide? Moral motives:  One would think religious counselors would be in the business of determining the motives of sinners and saints, but psychologists made it their business.  According to Medical Xpress, “People are more likely to condemn the bad behaviour of others when they sense someone else may be watching, research by a PhD student in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Sydney shows.”  This conclusion was published in the journal Evolutionary Psychology. Whether or not the psychologists’ conclusions coincide at any point with those of a preacher, priest or rabbi, it is clear from the article that the “scientific” study by psychologists intruded into non-scientific domains.  “The relevance of these findings is broad including shedding light on both politics and religion,” the article said.  One of the psychologists made it clear who’s in charge: “”The research is also part of Explaining Religion, a three-year, multinational project looking at religious practice and the kinds of behavior, involving moral judgement, that religion often claims to control.”  While claiming that “The findings do not prove belief in the existence of a judgmental god plays a role in cooperation,” the clear message is that psychologists need no such god for their theories.  They can explain human behavior simply in terms of behaviors and mental processes “While there was a significant decline across the high school years, it’s possible that teens were simply busy doing other things, perhaps a part-time job, taking part in extra-curricular activities or simply socializing with peers,” he [Andrew J. Fuligni, a UCLA professor of psychiatry] said. “Plus, kids are beginning to make their own decisions, and where attendance at religious services and activities is driven by parents earlier in childhood, parents may be allowing their teens to make their own decisions about participation as they progress through high school.” This lesson from history is disturbing and far-reaching, but there is a solution.  Let’s go back and redefine Nature again.  Actually, since the term is so ambiguous it is virtually meaningless, let’s define all of reality as Supernatural (we can play their word game, too).  There’s even observational support for it: lifting your arm is a supernatural act, could it not be argued?  Mind over matter–wow!  Spooky action at a distance in the fundamental particles, fine-tuning in the universe, arguments in the conceptual realm–don’t you see?  The supernatural is everywhere!  Everything is supernatural.  (What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.) Teen religion:  In “Teens Maintain Their Religion,” Medical Xpress went beyond just stating poll results.  It interpreted them as “not surprising,” and actually pretty normal that teens abandon the religious practices they were taught: Beyond gay marriage:  If same-sex marriage continues its sweep, now that New York’s legislature adopted it by the narrowest of margins, what’s to stop other definitions of family?  Indeed, PhysOrg asked, “Can U.S. Law Handle Polygamy?”  The very question suggests it might.  The press release from Washington University in St. Louis gave honor to “Adrienne Davis, JD, an expert on gender relations and the William M. Van Cleve Professor of law” to give her “expert” opinion at the PhysOrg pulpit. To Davis, whether you agree polygamy is right or wrong is beside the point.  She “approaches polygamy as a problem of bargaining, cooperation and strategic behavior.”  She acknowledged that “Proponents and detractors of polygamy use same-sex marriage to support their arguments,” but was only concerned whether U.S. laws can handle plural marriages.  She even excused it by comparing it to families that have undergone multiple divorces, a form of “serial polygamy, or polygamy on the installment plan” (see Analogy).  It was not her moral concern whether two wrongs make a right.  But aren’t children harmed by polygamy?  The article threw in some doubt: “it is unclear that polygamy generates more problems for children than the standard alternatives.”  And aren’t women abused by it?  Science and law can work it out: “She proposes some default rules that might accommodate polygamy, while ensuring against some of its historic and ongoing abuses.” There was not a tinge of moral outrage in this article at the idea of polygamy, long detested by most Americans and civilizations.  Science has arrived to tell us what is moral.  “Is it better to channel legal energy into continuing to root out, repress, and punish polygamy, or into admitting it into the marriage pantheon?” Davis ended this “scientific” article loaded with moral terms like better, best, rules, and fairness. “The answer may hinge on whether polygamy could be effectively regulated.”  Next question: who regulates the regulators? Atheist pulpit:  New Scientist, an ostensibly scientific media site, gave a very friendly interview to atheist evangelist Robin Ince.  Reporter Roger Highfield appeared to enjoy it: “The UK’s funniest rationalist celebrates the world seen through godless eyes”  [italics in original].  Ince characterized his views as rational while denigrating his opponents as otherwise.  An avowed humanist and Carl Sagan disciple, he spoke of “looking at the universe rationally and avoid coping mechanisms like mysticism or religion”. With a sweep of the hand Ince wrote off scholars who disagree with him, mocking, “I think it is a pity to live your life in ignorance and embrace that ignorance  – for instance with ideas like intelligent design.”  Observers of Medical Xpress (a branch of PhysOrg) over the years know that it is practically inconceivable to imagine the site granting a comeback argument to any leader in the intelligent design community, such as William Dembski, Jonathan Wells or Stephen Meyer, all of whom have multiple PhDs.  Ince was given a chance to choose his hero between Einstein and Darwin.  “I love the Englishness of Darwin, the sweetness of his character. He was a man without arrogance who overturned our view of how all living things came to be as they are,” he said.  There were no references to Gerald Bergman’s new book The Dark Side of Darwin, obviously.  (Bergman also has multiple PhDs.)last_img read more

Explosion rocks World Cup viewing venue in Nigeria, 13 killed

first_imgAt least 13 people including young children were killed when a bomb tore through a venue in northeast Nigeria where fans had gathered to watch a World Cup soccer match, witnesses said.Some people at the scene told Reuters an attacker dropped a device in front of the venue on Tuesday night in the town of Damaturu and ran off, while others said it was the work of a suicide bomber.No one claimed responsibility for the blast, but Damaturu and the surrounding Yobe state are at the heart of a five-year-old insurgency by Islamist group Boko Haram.The group was blamed for a an attack on another venue screening soccer matches in the northeastern state of Adamawa that killed at least 14 people and wounded 12.A Reuters reporter at Damaturu’s General Sani Abacha Specialist Hospital counted 13 people dead – including small children – and at least 20 wounded.The Nigerian government has advised people to avoid gathering in public to watch the World Cup, concerned about potential attacks.Many fans in soccer-mad Africa rely on informal venues – often open-sided structures with televisions set up in shops and side streets – to watch live coverage of the sport.Boko Haram – whose name roughly translates as “Western education is sinful” – has declared war on all signs of what it sees as corrupting Western influence.The group has killed thousands in its push to carve out an Islamic state in religiously-mixed Nigeria.last_img read more

ENTERTAINMENT ONE CONFIRMS ALIBABA PARTNERSHIP ON PEPPA PIG MOVIE FOR CHINA

first_img Facebook Entertainment One and China’s Alibaba Pictures have confirmed plans to co-produce an animated feature movie based on the Peppa Pig preschool children’s character. That is despite Peppa Pig having been considered an anti-social influence in China and removed from some websites in China.The production was given clearance by China’s censors in the past month. The completed film is scheduled for release Feb. 5, 2019, during Chinese New Year celebrations for the Year of the pig. Advertisement Twitter Login/Register With: LEAVE A REPLY Cancel replyLog in to leave a comment Advertisementlast_img

Lessons from Housing Privatization Can Be Applied to New Installation Initiatives

first_imgThe Army’s successful housing privatization initiative can be used as a model to guide future reforms of DOD’s real estate portfolio, two former high-ranking Army officials say in a recent commentary in the Wall Street Journal.“The program’s success shows how partnerships between business and the military can often achieve better outcomes than the military can achieve on its own. This is especially so when applied to the vast infrastructure that consumes more than $200 billion of today’s defense budget,” say Sandy Apgar, who served as assistant secretary of the Army for installations and environment from 1998-2001, and Jack Keane, who served as the Army’s vice chief of staff from 1999-2003.Apgar and Keane suggest that other assets, such as offices, warehousing and maintenance, could be monetized and their performance improved.“If the Defense Department were authorized to follow the best practices of American business and shed 10 percent to 20 percent of its infrastructure-related costs, it could save $20 billion to $40 billion a year,” they state.They cite five principles of defense reform that the next administration should follow in launching new initiatives:integrate public needs with private means and methods;plan from the inside out — military-business partnerships start with the soldier and the family, not the budget or the building;act strategically, trading short-term gains for long-term benefits;cross institutional, functional and geographic boundaries — bypassing DOD’s vertical silos and risk-averse culture can eliminate overhead and produce outcome-based systems; andfocus more on best-value outcomes than least-cost activities.“Partnerships have shown that the Pentagon’s conventional contracting methods can be more costly in the long run while risking mediocre results,” Apgar and Keane say. Dan Cohen AUTHORlast_img read more

Samsung Seeks Smartphone Revamp to Arrest Profit Slide

first_imgOctober 30, 2014 This hands-on workshop will give you the tools to authentically connect with an increasingly skeptical online audience. Enroll Now for Free 3 min read Free Workshop | August 28: Get Better Engagement and Build Trust With Customers Now Samsung Electronics Co Ltd on Thursday said it would revamp its smartphone line-up to take on competitors in the rapidly growing mid-to-low range segment, after third-quarter earnings set it on course for its worst year since 2011.The global smartphone leader’s market share declined in annual terms for the third straight quarter in July-September, lagging Apple Inc in the premium market and overtaken by rivals like Lenovo Group Ltd and Xiaomi Inc at the bottom end, research firm Strategy Analytics said.Executives said the South Korean giant would overhaul its lower-tier line-up to boost price competitiveness and use higher-quality components to set its devices apart, after it announced its worst third-quarter profit in more than three years.”The mid-to-low end market is growing rapidly, and we plan to respond actively in order to capitalise on that growth,” Samsung Senior Vice President Kim Hyun-joon said during a conference call with analysts.Samsung said its third-quarter operating profit fell by an annual 60.1 percent to 4.1 trillion won ($3.9 billion), matching its guidance issued earlier this month.While the company expects profits to pick up in the fourth quarter on strong demand for televisions and memory chips, analysts still expect Samsung to record its worst annual operating profit in three years.Profit for the mobile division fell 73.9 percent to 1.75 trillion won in the third quarter, its worst performance since the second quarter of 2011.Samsung spent most of the quarter without launching a new flagship device, and continued to struggle in the mid-to-low tier markets against cheaper and value-packed offerings like Xiaomi’s Redmi 1S.Robert Yi, Samsung’s head of investor relations, said the firm would launch new mid-tier models in the fourth quarter, although he didn’t specify what features they would have.Samsung expects average selling prices for handsets will rise in the fourth quarter due to an increase in premium smartphone sales, namely of the Galaxy Note 4, and as demand picks up in the holiday shopping season.Analysts say Samsung will likely have to sacrifice margins to protect its market share. Cheaper phones are expected to drive global smartphone market growth in coming years, meaning a general trend of lower average selling prices.Samsung’s chips division was a bright spot, recording a 2.26 trillion operating profit for the July-September quarter to mark the highest earnings since the third quarter of 2010.(1 US dollar = 1,053.5000 Korean won)(Reporting by Se Young Lee; Editing by Stephen Coates) This story originally appeared on Reuterslast_img read more