This week, get to know big mountain ski explorer Chris Davenport.Dav is no joke: two-time World Champion, the first to tackle each of Colorado’s 54 14,000-foot peaks in under a year’s time, and Mt. Everest guide, he has created a life of pure adventure – even as a family man with a wife and three young sons! I bet Davenport could teach the rest of us a real thing or two about time management. But for now, Chris has bigger and better things to show the world. Thanks to Red Bull Media House, the new web series “Faces of Dav” will follow Chris Davenport across the world from peak to peak, tracking this mountain legend to discover “his equation for success.”The first episode, aptly and succinctly titled “The Adventurer,” takes to the summits of Bella Coola, British Columbia, where Chris traveled with friend and fellow skier Doug Coombs in 2007 for the filming of the movie Steep. Just as the two were wrapping up the trip, however, Coombs died in an accident on the mountain. In this episode, Chris heads back to the tragic scene to both honor his friend and recreate a piece of his past.If Davenport inspires you (which we know he will), keep an eye out for the rest of “Faces of Dav” through Red Bull Media House. The next episode airs on October 23rd, with plenty more to follow. Get psyched for winter with Chris Davenport, and wake up your own inner adventurer!
The recently announced U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Work Plan includes $19 million in funding for the Freeport Harbor Channel Improvement Project (FHCIP). Port Freeport, Texas, is one of two seaports nationwide to receive a “new start” designation for commencement of construction.The estimated total cost of the project is $295 million, of which the federal government share is $165 million and Port Freeport as the local sponsor will contribute the remaining $130 million to be funded by the 2018 voter-approved bond package.This vitally important project will deepen the Freeport Harbor Channel to depths ranging from 51 to 56 feet.“The inclusion of the FHCIP in the 2020 Work Plan is a significant milestone in the construction of the channel deepening and widening,” said Phyllis Saathoff, Port Executive Director/CEO.“A deeper channel and navigation improvements will allow the Freeport Harbor Channel to support the growing energy exports and need for more efficient transits using deeper draft vessels achieving greater economies of scale for our port and channel partners.” The channel deepening project has been a strategic initiative for Port Freeport for many years, with the feasibility study being initiated in 2003 and receiving congressional authorization in 2014.
“A concerned citizen called the IACAT(Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking) 1343 action line to relay theinformation. Reports like these are really valuable to the council as they helpus immediately identify the victims and conduct rescue operations,” Barizosaid. The women alleged a certain “Alfred”facilitated the processing of their travel documents and their work visas wouldbe handed to them upon their arrival in Beirut. Meanwhile, Immigration commissionerJaime Morente reiterated his appeal to the public to report possible cases ofhuman trafficking. “Upon arriving in Hong Kong they weresupposed to board their connecting flight to Beirut and end up working there ashousehold service workers (HSWs) without the appropriate overseas workpermits,” Barizo said, adding the trafficking attempt was foiled after theywere tipped by informants about the illegal activity. ILOILO City – Immigration officialsintercepted six suspected human trafficking victims who attempted to leave thecountry for Lebanon at the Iloilo International Airport (IIA). The women were turned over to theIACAT in Western Visayas for assistance and further investigation.(With a report from PNA/PN) “The IACAT 1343 action line is a veryvaluable tool in preventing human trafficking. We urge our fellow Filipinos tocall and report so the council may investigate and rescue these poor victimswho are duped by traffickers and illegal recruiters,” he said. Ma. Lourdes Mariano, head supervisorof the Bureau of Immigration-IIA, said they immediately verified theinformation, and interviewed the victims. “They all admitted that they weretraveling to Lebanon to work as HSWs without the necessary documents,” sheadded. Immigration officials recently intercepted six suspected human trafficking victims who attempted to leave the country for Lebanon at the Iloilo International Airport in Cabatuan town. MARCOS CARATAO JR. Travel Control and Enforcement Unit(TCEU) head Ma. Timotea Barizo said the women, who were illegally recruited towork as domestic helpers were stopped at the departure area of the airportearlier this month, as they were about to board a flight to Hong Kong.
Donegal house hunters are being invited to apply for an upcoming property series.The RTE series will feature Irish Instagram sensation Maggie Molloy of @cheapirishhouse, who is taking her property hunting skills to the next level by helping singles/couples/families who may be struggling to get on the property ladder.Maggie bought her own house, which has 9 outbuildings and an acre of land, for an incredible €80k euros. Her mortgage is less than €300 euros a month. That’s just €10 a day! People just couldn’t believe her story so Maggie started her Instagram account @cheapirishhouses less than a year ago to help others find similar property bargains. Today she has nearly 30k followers and counting. Fascinating hidden gems in Donegal are often featured among her finds. In the upcoming series, by Cameo Productions, Maggie will use her house hunting skills to help buyers own their very own piece of the Irish countryside. Maggie is looking for buyers with an open mind who are not afraid of a bit of work. In return she will reveal the kind of properties people would never have thought were within their reach. Properties oozing with charm, in picturesque locations, with plenty of outdoor space. All at jaw dropping prices. Bargain house hunters can apply for the programme here: https://submit.link/MFV9t House-hunting on a budget in Donegal? This new TV series wants you was last modified: November 24th, 2019 by Rachel McLaughlinShare 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)
Click HERE if you’re having trouble viewing the gallery on your mobile device.WATCH: Raiders quarterback Derek Carr on their loss to the Rams.OAKLAND — No, it wasn’t a true West Coast offense. It wasn’t a modern spread scheme either. What Jon Gruden debuted Monday night was something a bit different — a wonderful marriage between the two systems, created over the last nine years in a Tampa strip mall.Let’s call it the Spread Coast offense.And after nine months — or nine years, …
Is it appropriate for scientists to speculate on the evolution of murder? Nature had no problem with it. They allowed Dan Jones, a freelance writer in Brighton, UK, to publish a lengthy article on how murder and warfare evolved. No other explanations for these scourges were mentioned except to dismiss them. Nature has apparently incorporated political science, ethics, theology and criminology as subdomains of evolutionary biology. “What can evolution say about why humans kill?” the article begins, ending not only with the evolution of murder and war, but claims that evolution has even provided humans with a moral sense to mitigate them. Dan Jones began by setting up an opposing voice to knock down:“It is scientifically incorrect to say that we have inherited a tendency to make war from our animal ancestors … that war or any other violent behaviour is genetically programmed into our human nature … [and] that humans have a ‘violent brain’.” These are the ringing words of the ‘Seville Statement on Violence’, fashioned by 20 leading natural and social scientists in 1986 as part of the United Nations International Year of Peace, and later adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). It was written to counter the pessimistic view that violence and war are inevitable features of human life. The decades since have not been kind to these cherished beliefs. A growing number of psychologists, neuroscientists and anthropologists have accumulated evidence that understanding many aspects of antisocial behaviour, including violence and murder, requires the study of brains, genes and evolution, as well as the societies those factors have wrought.Jones’s opening shows that 21 years ago, scientists – even those who accepted evolution from animal ancestors – considered it inappropriate to discuss the evolution of war. By arguing against “these cherished beliefs” that were written to counter a pessimistic view, is Jones now promoting pessimism? Not necessarily. He came up with a quasi-optimistic update to the old Darwinian idea that violence is programmed into humans from their evolutionary past. It reads like a kind of bad-news, good-news joke: yes, we are programmed for violence, but we are not as bad as chimpanzees. The implication is that since humans emerged from the apes, evolution appears to have modified its trajectory. Now, humans have evolved to cooperate. In this view, the proverbial angels and devils that sit on our shoulders have also evolved.At the same time, though, historians, archaeologists and criminologists have started to argue that in most places life was more violent – and more likely to end in murder – in the past than it is today. The time span of this apparent decline in violence has been too short for appeals to natural selection to be convincing. If humans have evolved to kill, then it seems that they have also evolved to live without killing, given the right circumstances.Jones described how Martin Daly and Margo Wilson of McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, published a book Homicide with this thesis just two years after the Seville Statement. It was the rise of “evolutionary psychology.” They contradicted the Seville Statement by arguing that humans are programmed with violent proclivities, but then let Darwinism off the hook somewhat by claiming that “killing was, by and large, not something that evolution had selected for.” What evolution was selecting for was higher status and reproductive success. Killing and death were just by-products of these goals. Jones presented this as today’s majority view among evolutionary psychologists before delving into alternative views – all based on evolution. Some feel natural selection did select for murder, because in some contexts the benefits outweigh the costs: “Homicide can be such a beneficial solution to adaptive problems in certain, specific contexts that it would be surprising if selection had not fashioned mechanisms to produce lethal aggression,” said David Buss [U of Texas] and Joshua Duntley [Richard Stockton College], authors of a controversial “homicide adaptation theory.” The body of Jones’s article explored various attempts to explain, within evolutionary thinking, why men are more prone to commit murder than women, or how the prefrontal cortex might be organized to promote or preclude violent outbursts. Adrian Raine and Lori LaCasse of USC, for instance, proposed that “Put crudely, murderers don’t have the prefrontal resources to regulate that unbridled emotional output.” Does this make murder an artifact of neural arrangements? Jones elaborated, “Just as evolution has shaped men’s bodies to be, on average, larger than women’s, it has also distributed the resources needed to regulate emotion and aggression unevenly between the sexes.” The discussion proceeded to an even more bizarre concept: the evolution of morality. Evolution has apparently produced neurons that get bent out of shape when moral codes are violated:In an intriguing turn, Raine and his USC colleague Yaling Yang have recently pointed to a link between homicidal behaviour and the capacity to follow moral guidelines. Over the past six years, brain-imaging studies aimed at understanding moral judgements have illustrated the crucial role of the emotional feeling that comes with violating moral codes. Parts of the prefrontal cortex and amygdala that are abnormal in violent individuals and murderers are activated when making moral judgements. Raine and Yang have proposed that these systems serve as the engine that translates moral feelings into behavioural inhibition – an engine that has blown a gasket in the antisocial, violent and murderous.Jones did not define morality, but clearly the moral codes he described are not really moral codes (in the sense of universal standards of right and wrong); they could only be societal norms that passed the natural selection filter, at least for the time being. Normally, moral codes, whatever they are, produce inhibitions in individuals, he said. This is a strictly behavioral definition devoid of meaning. Clearly, rationality or human nature in the classical sense could not be involved. An engine that can blow a gasket is merely a machine. At this point Jones made a shocking statement: in evolutionary terms, war is a good thing:Men are not just more likely to kill other people than women are, they are also more likely to do so in groups – and for some researchers it is in these realms that killing offers real evolutionary value. The murder of one person by another may be almost accidental, an unlooked for by-product of aggression. The murder of members of one group by those of another could be an adaptive behaviour that evolution has encouraged.For support, Jones described chimpanzee studies that show the apes engaging in ruthless warfare and carnage. He then compared the monkey antics with human violence, but backpedaled slightly to avoid describing a straight-line connection: “Moving from studies of chimpanzee coalitional violence and comparisons with small-scale tribal conflicts to understanding modern warfare is, however, far from straightforward.” Chimpanzees fight more within groups than between them, he claimed. One researcher cited said that chimps display 200 times more violent behavior than humans. Another was quoted explaining how humans learned that in-group cooperation was a good strategy. Either way, it’s still all just evolution: “altruism and war co-evolve, promoting conflict between groups and greater harmony within them.” For reasons he did not defend, he merely suggested that evolution selects soldiers over hoodlums:In cultures and societies with a recent history of warfare, children tend to be socialized to tolerate pain and to react aggressively, which prepares them for the possibility of becoming a soldier (arguably something that evolution would favour) or a potentially deadly brawler (probably something it wouldn’t).But could a blind process tell the difference? He did not argue his probabilities. Jones mitigated his pessimistic evolutionary determinism with assertions of the existence of free will:None of this means that a tendency to kill is set in stone; if anything, it shows that humans have evolved to be much less of a risk to each other within groups than they would be if they were as bellicose as chimps. And there is evidence that this risk is reducing further in studies of death rates from both inter-group homicide and intra-group warfare, both of which seem to have plummeted over the millennia.Has Jones not counted up the death tolls from the World Wars? As if to forestall the accusation, he quoted Steven Pinker: “if the wars of the twentieth century had killed the same proportion of the population that die in the wars of a typical tribal society, there would have been two billion deaths, not 100 million.” How either of them could know such a thing was not explained. Instead, statistics were garnered to illustrate historical trends downward in death tolls from wars. The implication is that humans are evolving toward a culture of comity and amity. But isn’t a few centuries “too short a time for evolution to have shaped human nature much”? And couldn’t the falling mortality be due to improvements in policing and medical care? Aren’t people using rationality to decide that war is counterproductive? It was time to rescue Darwin again:A part of the answer that is consistent with an evolutionary approach is a long-term reduction in inequalities of life circumstances and prospects – the inequalities that Daly and Watson see as driving the conflict that leads to killing as a by-product. “In places such as Sweden where every cabbie drives a Mercedes,” says Daly, “people don’t bother to kill so often.” Better provisioning of life’s necessities has also powered the decline, agrees Duntley. When contested resources are made more plentiful, he says, conflict over resources decreases and homicide rates drop.But for all its optimism, this idea sounds deterministic as well. Humans are just pawns of evolutionary and environmental pressures, he argued. When resources are plentiful, they don’t fight. Yet exceptions to this principle abound. There is no shortage of cases where criminals have attacked wantonly (e.g., Willy Horton) or nations fought ruthlessly (e.g., Napoleon), when resources were plentiful. Jones did not deal with the exceptions. What about the morality in all this? Ah, that evolved, too. Dan Jones ended,The evidence suggests that humans may indeed have what the Seville Statement called a ‘violent brain’, in as much as evolution may favour those who go to war. But evolution has also furnished us with a moral sense. The complexities of the relationship between morals and violence may prove a fruitful field for future research, in as much as they can be disentangled from the social and historical factors that clearly hold great sway over the ultimate levels of violence. Evolution is not destiny; but understanding it could help maintain the hard-to-discern progress of peace.Nature decorated this article with photos of a boxer punching out his opponent, and a Napoleon-like figure on horseback leading his finely-dressed army into battle. No longer are these to be seen as images of rational beings who make choices based on morals and reasons. If Dan Jones and the evolutionists he quotes are right, they are pawns of evolutionary forces that play out on a game board of evolutionary-derived neurological propensities for aggression on one side and cooperation on the other. Presumably the evolutionary psychologist’s own rationality is exempt from the game.1. Dan Jones, “Human behaviour: Killer instincts,” Nature 451, 512-515 (2008) | doi:10.1038/451512a; also published at [email protected] the risk of sounding redundant, the views in this paper are dumb and evil. Dumb, because they are self-refuting and nothing but presupposition-driven conjectures. Evil, because the fruit of such thinking puts no limits on selfish aggression. If moral absolutes and rationality do not exist – if we are the evolutionary pawns of amoral forces – who is to abide by any claims of a “moral sense”? Morality becomes anything one says it is. Don’t fall for the made-up disclaimer that natural selection has lately favored cooperation. Give a dictator this doctrine and he will define his own morality to include genocide. If he were to succeed, his success would guarantee it was moral, because the only ones left to pass on their genes would be those he allowed to survive. To the Darwin Party priestly class, the rest of humanity are their pets and lab rats. They speak flowery words of peace and morality, but they are conquerors at heart. They say they just want to “understand” human nature, but they envision themselves as disembodied rationalities above the game that traps the rest of us. They would presume to create the environmental conditions under which humans would be precluded from acting out their evolutionary propensities for violence, and could be manipulated for useful purposes – useful, that is, for their own utopian visions. Once again, Dan Jones and the other Yodas he quoted presume to sit in some ethereal oligarchy looking down on an evolved world from an intellectual platform of privilege with no pillars. The arrogant plunderers arrogate to themselves the intellectual resources of the rest of the university. Like modern-day Gnostics possessing higher wisdom unavailable to us boxers and soldiers, they would sit in exalted privilege above the rabble, doling out Mercedes to the cabbies to keep them compliant. (Incorrigible non-cooperators like Christians, philosophers and theologians can be put in zoos, prisons, or otherwise disposed of so as not to jeopardize the regime.) What do you do with people who believe things that are dumb and evil? For one thing, you don’t put them in positions of power, and you don’t give them control of the classroom. Their arguments cannot withstand a moment’s reflection. Using their own assumptions, the propositions in this article reduce to glorified chimpanzee screams as their proponents jump up and down on each other’s soulless chests. They can’t help themselves. Evolution made them this way. Their arguments, therefore, carry no intellectual weight, and are self-refuting. Remember, distinguished scholars, what happens to self-refuting propositions? They are necessarily false. They are not true, they cannot be true, and no amount of research or discovery or reflection will ever make them true. They’re D.O.A., dead, finished. Consider that the most distinguished scientific journal in the world just gave pride of place to a self-refuting article! The situation is desperate. The evil dumb are threatening war against Mansoul. For its own survival, civilization must expose through rational means that the Darwinists are their own suicidal maniacs. By murdering mind and morality, they have demonstrated that they cannot win the game of survival of the intellectually and morally fittest.(Visited 36 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
This article was originally published Monday August 20,2012 on the Military Families Learning Network blog. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. If you are interested in learning a bit more about “Assessing the reliability of online information”, join Kristen Mastel and Stephen Judd for a free eXtension webinar on Tuesday August 21, 2012, at 2 PM EDT. The webinar will also be conducted on the DoD/DCO Adobe network on Wednesday August 22, 2012, at 2PM EDT to facilitate participation by military family service professionals.When the information we sought was contained in books and journals that had authors, editors, proofreaders, and fact-checkers, we had a sense of comfort that the material was reliable. (I admit that this is an arguable point.) However, with online publishing, we are left wondering who the author is, where the information came from, and if it’s true.Assessing the reliability of online information is a critical skill for each of us to develop and hone. Using or citing inaccurate online information can be embarrassing, expensive, and perhaps dangerous. Consider someone trying to fix an appliance, based on information they got from a random webpage – if the instructions aren’t right, the result could be further damage to the appliance, injury, etc.C.R.A.A.P.The Meriam Library at California State University, Chico, developed the C.R.A.A.P. test to give users a set of questions to ask when assessing information sources and their accuracy. CRAAP is an acronym that stands for currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, and purpose. By applying the questions in these categories to the source in question, a user can decide for themselves whether a source is reliable or not.Some example questions are:Is the information current?Who is the author or publisher? What are their qualifications?Is the information supported by evidence?Can you verify the information from another source?What is the purpose of the information? to inform? teach? sell? entertain? persuade?In his excellent book, Net Smart: How to thrive online (2012, MIT Press), Howard Rheingold uses the term crap detection to discuss how to decide if online information you find is true. Rheingold says, “Don’t refuse to believe, refuse to start out believing. Continue to pursue your investigation after you find an answer. Chase the story rather than just accepting the first evidence you encounter.” In other words, be skeptical.Rheingold links to a blog post (In the context of web context: How to check out any Web page) by Scott Rosenberg, co-founder of salon.com, that offers some practical tips for beginning to assess web pages. Understanding who operates a site, how long it’s existed, whether the content is unique or not, and who links to it are all important components of figuring out how reliable the site is.How confident?You may not need to ask these questions every time you visit a new website. Instead, how much time and effort you choose to spend digging into the reliability of the information will be dependent on your purpose.What you plan to do with the information should guide how rigorously you need to verify its accuracy. If you’re just curious about something and won’t be making decisions based on the information you find, then you might be more casual about verifying its accuracy. However, if you plan to stake time, money, reputation, health, etc. on the information, then you should take the time to assess the information’s validity.Role for online networksGiven the vast amount of information accessible to us, having a filter or guide can be valuable. Online networks can serve this purpose, if we intentionally cultivate our networks to include people who are knowledgeable in areas that we aren’t, that share diverse interests, and whose judgement we trust. Curation is a term now applied to the intentional act of collecting and sharing information and links in an online environment. Using our online networks to connect with curators, is one way to apply an initial test to information. Taking Howard Rheingold as an example; if you are interested in this subject, you might use Rheingold’s curated links on crap detection which he maintains on scoop.it as a jumping off point. I trust that he has done, at least, an initial vetting of these sources, so I’m more comfortable with their reliability.Search engines, such as Google and Bing, sometimes include information in search results that indicate if others in your networks have “liked” or “+1’ed” a page. This implicit endorsement by your connections may influence how reliable you believe a site is. Of course, you need to take into account the person, their expertise, and the ambiguity of what it means to “like” or “+1” a page.Ultimately, it’s up to youIt’s your reputation, time, money, health, or well-being that’s at stake when you make decisions or publish based on information you discover online. How carefully you vet that information and its source is up to you.Author: Stephen Judd (+Stephen Judd, @sjudd)
Categories: Good Morning San Diego, Local San Diego News FacebookTwitter The Veterinary Specialty Hospital pet food drive is underway 00:00 00:00 spaceplay / pause qunload | stop ffullscreenshift + ←→slower / faster ↑↓volume mmute ←→seek . seek to previous 12… 6 seek to 10%, 20% … 60% XColor SettingsAaAaAaAaTextBackgroundOpacity SettingsTextOpaqueSemi-TransparentBackgroundSemi-TransparentOpaqueTransparentFont SettingsSize||TypeSerif MonospaceSerifSans Serif MonospaceSans SerifCasualCursiveSmallCapsResetSave SettingsSAN DIEGO (KUSI) – The Veterinary Specialty Animal Hospital is holding their annual pet food drive. Caren Folbre and Pet Patrol’s Sandie Lampe joined us Saturday morning with more:The Veterinary Specialty Hospital’s Pet Food Drive runs through Jan. 4th. To donate, visit www.vshsd.com or call (858) 875-7500. KUSI Newsroom, December 15, 2018 Posted: December 15, 2018 KUSI Newsroom