Tag: 南京桑拿

GARDAI APPREHENDED KILLER AFTER HE USED CASH MACHINE

first_imgA GARDA has told a murder trial jury how he apprehended the killer after the accused used a cash machine in Co Donegal.Mother-of-four Jean Teresa Quigley was found dead in her home in Cornshell Fields, Shantallow, Derry on Saturday July 26, 2008. The 30-year-old, who was 10 weeks’ pregnant, had been strangled.Stephen Cahoon of Harvey Street, Derry admits killing his ex-girlfriend but has pleaded not guilty to murder. The father-of-one went missing after her killing but was arrested in Donegal 10 days later, after using a bank machine there. The jury heard from Sergeant Desmond Sheridan of Ballyshannon Garda Station. He explained that in the days after Ms Quigley’s killing, gardaí were aware that Stephen Cahoon was a suspect.He said that on the evening of August 5 that year, he became aware that the accused had used an ATM that day in Donegal Town.He and a colleague searched the hotels, guest houses and bars in the town and eventually saw a man matching the suspect’s description on the street that evening.Sgt Sheridan approached the man, saying: ‘Hello Stephen’.“He appeared shocked,” recalled the sergeant, who said he then took out his garda badge.He said the man gave his name as Paul Moore and address as Strand Road, Galway. He had no identification on him and agreed to accompany the gardaí to the station to verify this.However, he came clean within seconds of getting into the patrol car.“I’m the man you’re looking for,” he said.He was later hospitalised after he told gardaí he had taken a number of paracetamol tablets, while two ties, tied together, were found in his jacket.The trial continues before Mr Justice Barry White and a jury of seven women and five men.GARDAI APPREHENDED KILLER AFTER HE USED CASH MACHINE was last modified: April 20th, 2012 by BrendaShare 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)last_img read more

What Is Really Known About the Genetic Basis of Evolution?

first_imgNow that the genomes of a variety of plants and animals have been published, is there a clear picture of evolution emerging?  Sean Carroll (Howard Hughes Medical Institute) wrote a review in PLoS Biology,1 in which he explored the current thinking about the evolution of anatomy at the genetic level.  The thing to watch for in this article is evidence that evolutionary processes at the genetic level can produce complex, novel structures: innovations such as eyes, new organs, new body plans and the like.  Carroll’s article can be considered a kind of “State of the Evolutionary Theory Address” on this question.  Confident that evolutionists are on the right track, Carroll nonetheless admits that much is puzzling, and that a coherent theory is yet to be discovered.    The picture is much more complicated now than the old neo-Darwinian idea that beneficial mutations in genes would be passed on to offspring, producing net changes over time.  Thirty-five years ago, Susumi Ohno suggested that, instead, gene duplication might be the primary source of beneficial variation.  Four years later, Allan King and Mary-Claire King suggested that changes in gene regulation might be more important than genetic mutations alone in driving the evolution of anatomy.  These ideas were both due to the observation that “the small degree of molecular divergence observed could not account for the anatomical or behavioral differences between chimps and humans.”    Since those early days of comparative genomics, three molecular mechanisms have become candidates for the evolution of anatomy: (1) gene duplication and divergence, (2) regulatory element expansion, and (3) isoform evolution (new exon and splicing sites in genes that create the potential for alternative forms of a protein to be made).  One genetic phenomenon that complicates evolutionary change is pleiotropy: the multiple effects of single variations (see 03/31/2004 and 03/17/2003 entries).  This is the “law of unintended consequences,” so to speak; a mutation that might benefit one tissue could wreak havoc in another and therefore antagonize evolution by being selected against.  The three mechanisms listed above must, therefore, provide compartmentation against the damaging effects of antagonistic pleiotropy for the evolution of anatomy to proceed:The three mechanisms gene duplication, regulatory sequence expansion and diversification, and alternative protein isoform expression accomplish essentially the same general result—they increase the sources of variation and minimize the pleiotropy associated with the evolution of coding sequences.  The global question of the genetic basis of the evolution of form then boils down to the relative contribution of gene duplication, regulatory sequence evolution, and the evolution of coding sequences, over evolutionary time.  I will first examine what is known about the role of regulatory sequences and then discuss the contributions of coding sequences and gene duplication to the evolution of anatomy.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)Having set the stage, Carroll examines the potential for each of these factors for explaining the evolution of anatomy:Regulatory Sequences:  Non-coding regions of DNA can affect the expression of coding regions (genes) during development, sometimes with dramatic effects.  Typical examples are extra or misplaced limbs in fruit flies or changes in pigmentation patterns.  Are changes to regulatory sequences fodder for evolution?  Carroll argues that while mutations in genes have pleiotropic effects, mutations in regulatory sequences do not, and as such, “enable a great diversity of patterns to arise from alterations in regulatory circuits through the evolution of novel combinations of sites for regulatory proteins.”  But can what is observed in pigmentation patterns account for the “more complex traits” like “body organization, appendage formation, and other, more slowly evolving characters”?  Carroll thinks so, but the only examples he provides,2 from a “handful of studies” on this subject, are pigmentation patterns in fruit flies and reductions in pelvic fin armor in stickleback fish (see 06/18/2004 entry).  Nevertheless, these examples are enough for him to draw attention to what he considers a key point:The crucial insight from the evolution of Pitx1, yellow, and Hoxc8 is that regulatory mutations provide a mechanism for change in one trait while preserving the role of pleiotropic genes in other processes.  This is perhaps the most important, most fundamental insight from evolutionary developmental biology.  While functional mutations in a coding region are usually poorly tolerated and eliminated by purifying selection, even complete loss-of-function mutations in regulatory elements are possible because the compartmentation created by the modularity of cis-regulatory elements limits the effects of mutations to individual body parts.He seems to be emphasizing that mutations to non-coding regions have the advantage of permitting “tinkering” without damaging the machinery as a whole.  “Does this mean that coding sequences cannot contribute to morphological evolution?“ he asks, then answers, “Not at all” –Coding Sequences:  Carroll discusses examples of Hox genes in fruit flies that have apparently diversified by duplication and selection into new forms.  Some apparently retain Hox function and some do not; these have taken on other functions, such as new dorsoventral patterning in some lineages of fruit flies.  “These arthropod Hox proteins demonstrate that some of the most conserved proteins can, under certain circumstances, evolve new and different activities.”  Yet, at best, these seem to be examples of genes that have modified existing anatomical parts rather than generated new ones de novo.  Further, they cannot represent the whole evolutionary bag of creative tricks, because “these events are, in the long span of the history of these lineages, rare relative to the extensive diversification of body forms.”  One case in point is that a change in the Ubx protein “has been well preserved throughout the course of more than 300 million years of insect evolution.”  Clearly there must be mechanisms for more rapid evolution.  Again, Carroll is confident: “Are there more common and rapid means of evolving morphological diversity via coding mutations?  Definitely,” he boasts.  OK, like what?  Like mutations in the MC1R gene, that “are associated with scale, fur, or plumage color variation and divergence in a wide range of species,” indicating that “the MC1R gene has evolved under natural and sexual selection.”  But again, this seems to assume that evolution rather than demonstrate it.  Another example about repeat sequences on a gene that differ between dog breeds, while interesting, might not help the evolutionary explanation: “this variation may have accompanying deleterious, pleiotropic effects that, while manageable under domestication, would limit its contribution to evolution under natural selection.”Gene Duplication:  While gene duplication is certainly in the explanatory toolkit for the evolution of anatomy, there is a limitation: “Empirical evidence suggests, however, that while gene duplication has contributed to the evolution of form, the frequency of duplication events is not at all sufficient to account for the continuous diversification of lineages.”  The rate is estimated to be one duplication per gene per 100 million years, far too slow to produce changes at the rate expected by evolutionary theory, yielding “the 300,000 known species of beetles, or 10,000 species of birds” in far less time.  Furthermore, there is such dramatic stasis observed even in genes where past duplication is inferred: “the number and diversity of Hox genes in highly diversified phyla, such as the arthropods and tetrapods, appears to have remained fairly stable for very long periods (perhaps approximately 500 million years).”  Why, also, are some gene families found far back, among the most primitive multicellular organisms?  “Such deep ancestral complexity,” Carroll says, with apparent repudiation of long-assumed evolutionary mechanisms, “is much greater than would be expected under the hypothesis that diversity evolves primarily through the evolution of new genes.”  Why also did the human genome fail to fulfill expectations that it would contain more genes than lower forms of life?  And why do many of our genes have syntenic orthologs in the mouse?  For these reasons, Carroll rejects the idea that gene duplication is the essential part of the story of anatomical evolution.  The story must lie more in the way regulatory mechanisms evolve.All Three in the Mix:  Now that changes in genes and the regulatory sequences that affect them are players, is Carroll prepared to stick his neck out and announce which mechanism is the leader in the evolution of form?  To do so seems to require working up one’s courage:The more subjective issue is whether, from the small sample of case studies mentioned here and in the literature, one can make (and defend) statements about the relative contribution of regulatory and coding sequence evolution to the evolution of anatomy.  We are, after all, in much better position now to do so than King and Wilson were 30 years ago.    While the agnostic, “wait and see” position would appear safer, that would not at all be in keeping with the bold spirit of the pioneers who first wrestled with the question.  Moreover, I argue that a trend is evident, and that that trend should, of course, inform ongoing and future work.  Based upon (i) empirical studies of the evolution of traits and of gene regulation in development, (ii) the rate of gene duplication and the specific histories of important developmental gene families, (iii) the fact that regulatory proteins are the most slowly evolving of all classes of proteins, and (iv) theoretical considerations concerning the pleiotropy of mutations, I argue that there is adequate basis to conclude that the evolution of anatomy occurs primarily through changes in regulatory sequences.Carroll hastens to say this should come as no surprise to most theorists, but he chides the people working in comparative genomics and population genetics who seem to downplay the importance of the regulatory factor.To bring the discussion home, Carroll returns to the differences between chimps and people.  Can changes in gene regulation explain the profound anatomical differences between us, including “brain size, craniofacial morphology, cortical speech and language areas, hand and digit form, dentition, and body skeletal morphology” that must have occurred within the last six million years?  He thinks so, but there are only a few studies that map a gene to a change in a trait.  One, the FOXP2 gene, appears to be related to speech, and has been implicated in the evolution of human language (see 05/26/2004 entry); another relates a muscle gene to chewing.  Carroll thinks these studies miss the point: “My concern here is not whether these specific associations did or did not play a role in human evolution; rather, my concern is the exclusive focus, by choice or by necessity, on the evolution of coding sequences in these and more genome-wide population genetic surveys of chimp-human differences,” he says.  We need to get off our gene-centric chauvinism and focus on the regulatory elements if we are to make progress.  In fact, the FOXP2 study can lead to “dramatically different conclusions one might draw, depending upon the methodologies and assumptions applied.”  He elaborates on the case, showing that it is simplistic to assume a point mutation in one gene is going to lead to a major anatomical change; what about pleiotropy?  (FOXP2, after all, is expressed not only in the brain, but in the lungs, heart and gut.)  What about how this gene is regulated?  We must get past the simplistic explanatory phase, he says, because the puzzle is deeper than expected:Any statements or claims, then, about the genetic changes that “make us human” must be weighed critically in light of the power and limitations of the methodology employed, and the scope of the hypotheses being tested.  While it is understandable that some biologists have reached for the “low-hanging fruit” of coding sequence changes, the task of unraveling the regulatory puzzle is yet to come.In conclusion, Carroll makes the case that considering what we now know, “regulatory sequence evolution should be the primary hypothesis considered.”  That’s going to be difficult, because “it is impossible to distinguish meaningless from functional changes by mere inspection” – i.e., what was formerly considered “junk DNA” (see 07/15/2005 entry), with its repetitions and apparent pseudogenes, is going to be more difficult to interpret than the coding regions.  But the task is clear: “In order to approach the origins of human traits, much greater emphasis has to be placed on comparative studies of gene expression, regulation, and development in apes and other primates.”  Thirty years after King and Wilson predicted the importance of gene regulation, his concluding sentence indicates the work has not yet begun: “This is precisely the requirement forecast by King and Wilson 30 years ago, only now we have the means to meet it.”1Sean Carroll, “Evolution at Two Levels: On Genes and Form,” Public Library of Science: Biology, 3:7, July 2005.  This article is based on the Allan Wilson Memorial Lectures, UC Berkeley, Oct. 2004.2Carroll also mentions how differences in Hox gene expression are “associated with large-scale differences in axial patterning in vertebrates, arthropods, and annelids,” but this assumes evolution rather than demonstrating it.If you thought Charlie had figured this all out 146 years ago, wake up and smell the bitter coffee.  Here we have The Theory of Evolution, that rock-solid foundation for all of law, ethics, philosophy, art, science, education and even religion, so secure that no student in public school should ever be allowed to hear anything else, and now they tell us that everything you thought you knew about it was wrong, and the biologists have to start over.  This can make one mad enough to spit the bitter coffee back into the face of the Darwin Party waiter who handed it to us and said there was nothing else to drink.    The conceptual nakedness of evolutionary theory at the genetic level, where all the action is supposed to take place, cannot be clothed by small stitches of Hox cloth.  This is shameful.  Despite his bravado, did Sean Carroll provide any evidence strong to convince a skeptic that random changes in regulatory genes could produce an Einstein from Bonzo, or a from a flatworm for that matter, in any conceivable universe?  Assuredly not: the most solid items in his discussion were arguments against the evolution of anatomy: (1) pleiotropy, a phenomenon that resists change, (2) ultraconserved elements (see 05/27/2005 entry), which show no evolution for 500 million imaginary years, and (3) his utter silence on how a change to a regulatory element could ever produce a wing, eye, brain or any other complex system.  How can a regulatory element regulate something that is not already there, for crying out loud?  For all the case he makes for regulatory mutations in development providing the most important, fundamental insight into evolutionary mechanisms (evo-devo), other evolutionists disagree (see 06/29/2005 review of Carroll’s book by Jerry Coyne).  These opposite Darwinian perspectives essentially falsify each other on theoretical grounds; then there is the data, which falsifies them both.  If the complex regulatory mechanisms were already present at the beginning, what does that tell you?    Carroll’s specific examples – stickleback fish fins and fruit fly pigment spots – are sad and poultry excuses for real evolutionary change, and I mean poultry, not paltry, because they are mere chicken feed.  Not only that, he pulled the roost out from under those who earlier had clucked the spring egg song over the FOXP2 mutation explaining Shakespeare (see 05/26/2004 entry).  Whether you call it gene duplication, gene regulatory mutation or gene coding mutation, it’s all chance in Old McDarwin’s chicken coop.    This entry was longer than most because of its significance.  Here we listened to a faithful lord in the Darwin Party, giving the Allan Wilson Memorial Lecture at Berkeley, which he would not be in position to do if he didn’t know the score, and all he could say is that everyone has been on the wrong track for 30 years, and we should have turned when Wilson and King said so back there and checked out that other dead end.  Talk about being lost in a cave of their own making, and watching shadows on the wall.  Come to the light.(Visited 32 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

Grazing workshops March 29, April 5 and April 12

first_imgShare Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest Livestock producers looking to improve the forage quality of their pastures, grow healthier forage plants and improve plant persistence should consider rotational grazing, says an agriculture and natural resources expert with the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences at The Ohio State University.Not only does rotational grazing promote timely utilization, it also allows producers to conserve surplus and reduce inputs, said Mark Landefeld, an Ohio State University Extension educator in Monroe County. In addition, it has a positive impact on the environment.“Rotational grazing is really about better management of grazing for livestock producers,” he said. “Rotational grazing reduces the size of the paddock and allows grass to have a rest period and for roots to have a better chance to regrow and replenish the root stocks to improve both the quality and quantity of forages.”To provide more information on grazing management, Landefeld and co-workers are organizing a series of workshops for livestock producers March 29, April 5 and April 12. The workshops will focus on several management issues, all designed to help producers increase production and reduce costs.“Producers who attend the workshop can learn how to reduce soil erosion, improve water quality and the environment, as well as increase their knowledge about forage growth,” he said. “Participants can also learn ways to increase net profit for their farm business.”The workshops will be led by OSU Extension and Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center researchers and educators as well as by agriculture industry representatives, Landefeld said.Workshop locations, times and topics are:March 29, 5:30-9 p.m., at the Barnesville Library Annex, 611 N. Chestnut St. in Barnesville.Topics will include:* Reducing grass tetany and bloat.* U.S. Department Of Agriculture programs at work.* Your grazing management plan.* Financial assistance.* Body condition scoring.April 5, 5:30-9 p.m., at the Monroe County Extension Office, 101 N. Main St. Room 17, in Woodsfield.Topics will include:* System layout and design.* Forages and moisture testing.* Planned calving.April 12, 5:30-9 p.m., at the Eastern Agricultural Research Station, 16870 Township Road 126, in Belle Valley.Topics will include:* Discussion of the Eastern Agricultural Research Station research projects.* Mud management and reseeding.* Veterinarian feed directive.* Renovation of water systems.Registration for all three workshops is $45, which includes dinner, notebook and handouts, or $15, which includes dinner but not materials. The deadline to register for the workshops is at least two days before each session, Landefeld said.For more information and a registration form, contact Landefeld at 740-472-0810 or [email protected] Registration forms and payment can be send to OSU Extension, Monroe County, 101 N. Main St., Room 17, Woodsfield, OH 43793.last_img read more

Why we went low-tech showcasing high-tech smart cities at SXSW

first_imgHow IoT Will Play an Important Role in Traffic … James is a marketing, communications, and PR professional specializing in B2B and B2C software in healthcare, software, and technology.He is an innovative and proactive builder focused on bridging C-level business demands with the creative side of marketing with product and content marketing. Surveillance at the Heart of Smart Cities Last month, our teams at StratIS and BuLogics exhibited at South by Southwest (SXSW) for the first time. We went there with a singular focus: to educate people on the importance of working together towards building smart cities. So often in the tech community, people want to quickly tear down what other’s have built or are trying to build. But it doesn’t have to always be this way.We went extremely low tech to highlight the very high tech topic of smart cities. We created a smart-cities-focused project for our booth that really stood out and had our employees slammed with networking opportunities.If you know SXSW you know that it has grown tremendously noisy over the years with companies from many different industries competing for everyone’s attention.Our marketing team met leading up to the event thinking about how we could ever compete with the amount of noise that is SXSW. We landed on Legos, yes Legos. But not just any legos, we challenged attendees to stop by our booth and help build a smart city out of legos. Once that plan was set we worked hard to get the rest in place. Signage, stealing Legos from some of our children, holding a company-wide Lego night to practice building certain pieces, creating a promo video and figuring out how to ship all these little pieces.StratIS is smart access, energy, and automation for multifamily buildings and campus communities and the smart start for smart cities.Our team is dedicated to putting in the hard and real work for building the infrastructure needed for smart cities around the globe to thrive. For us, that starts with smart access, energy and automation.For SXSW we took on the role of educator. Show us a smart city that has been built by one single solution, government, company or organization. It can simply, not be done. So our booth was a metaphor of sorts.Our new in-house filmmaker created a film to promote the project at our booth.I didn’t head to Austin with the rest of the team, but I could tell right away by monitoring our social media that the campaign was a huge success. People started taking photos of themselves at the show adding a piece to our Lego Smart City. The Mayor of Philadelphia Jim Kenney even stopped by the booth. My coworkers must have been too in awe to snap a photo.The Lego project got people talking, asking questions and involved far more than giving away a $5-$30 piece of swag would ever do for our brand. The Lego Smart City attracted media attention, nonstop booth traffic, CTOs of Fortune 500 companies and SXSW attendees who just stopped to play.The construction of the Lego city changed over the four-day event. Here is what it looked like at the end:It was a great opportunity for our team to meet with city planners from all over the world and to continue the discussion with them about what their smart city needs are back home. Related Posts Tags:#Internet of Things#IoT#lego#Philadelphia#Smart Cities#smart city#SXSW How Connected Communities Can Bolster Your Busi… James Calder For Self-Driving Systems, Infrastructure and In…last_img read more

Lastimosa, Mallari team up as NLEX rises to 4-0

first_imgEthel Booba on hotel’s clarification that ‘kikiam’ is ‘chicken sausage’: ‘Kung di pa pansinin, baka isipin nila ok lang’ Carlo Lastimosa. Photo by Tristan Tamayo/ INQUIRER.netCarlo Lastimosa and Alex Mallari took matters into their own hands as NLEX stayed unscathed through four games in the 2017 PBA Governors’ Cup with a 95-91 win over Phoenix Sunday at Smart Araneta Coliseum.Down 10, 78-68 with 8:58 to play, Lastimosa sparked a 13-2 run to get the Road Warriors back in the game, 81-80, midway in the payoff period, before Mallari put on the finishing touches, none bigger than his trey from the right wing with 9.5 seconds remaining.ADVERTISEMENT Robredo should’ve resigned as drug czar after lack of trust issue – Panelo LATEST STORIES DILG, PNP back suspension of classes during SEA Games “We’re starting to look like a team,” noted NLEX head coach Yeng Guiao, whose squad has now won six straight games dating back to last conference.“We’ve been winning games in the end game, and we’ve been able to hold our own and pull through in the crisis situations. That’s a good sign for a team that’s really just trying to put it together.”FEATURED STORIESSPORTSSEA Games: Biñan football stadium stands out in preparedness, completionSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSWin or don’t eat: the Philippines’ poverty-driven, world-beating pool starsLastimosa dropped 11 of his 14 points in the fourth quarter, while Mallari also got 14 markers, eight coming in the final frame, that went with of five rebounds and three dimes.Aaron Fuller topscored for the Road Warriors with 18 points and had a game-high 24 boards. National Coffee Research Development and Extension Center brews the 2nd National Coffee Education Congress Celebrities get slice of action in Ironman Cebu The scores:NLEX 95 – Fuller 18, Mallari 14, Lastimosa 14, Alas 13, Quinahan 10, Fonacier 5, Monfort 4, Soyud 4, Tiongson 4, Taulava 4, Rios 3, Baracael 2, J. Villanueva 0, Al-Hussaini 0, Ighalo 0.PHOENIX 91 – Phelps 31, Wright 17, Baguio 8, Jazul 8, Dehesa 8, Eriobu 7, Kramer 4, Intal 4, Lanete 4, W. Wilson 0, Alolino 0, Borboran 0.Quarters: 14-15, 39-43, 64-69, 95-91.Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next Trump strips away truth with hunky topless photo tweetcenter_img MOST READ 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 FEU Auditorium’s 70th year celebrated with FEU Theater Guild’s ‘The Dreamweavers’ View comments Lacson: SEA Games fund put in foundation like ‘Napoles case’ Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. Kevin Alas, who has been NLEX’s most consistent local this conference, chimed in 13 markers and four rebounds, while JR Quiñahan had 10 points and five boards in the victory.Despite leading the standings with a 4-0 mark, Guiao said NLEX’s the coming games against powerhouse teams will determine if his team is really for real.“We have four wins, but I don’t know if this is true or we’re just being pretenders. The signs are good, but we’ll see in the next games. The elite teams are coming up, so we’ll see how we’ll fare against them,” he said.Eugene Phelps led Phoenix with 31 points, 18 rebounds, and six assists, while Matthew Wright got 17 markers, five boards, and three dimes.Their efforts, however, couldn’t stop the Fuel Masters from dropping their second straight defeat and sinking to an even 2-2 slate.ADVERTISEMENT Church, environmentalists ask DENR to revoke ECC of Quezon province coal plantlast_img read more

The 16 Most Powerful Fan Bases In College Football

first_imgCFB Fans geographically on a map.CFB Fans Twitter/@bryonhoulgraveTwitter/@bryonhoulgraveAfter the second-ever College Football Playoff was played out this past December-January, we now know who the most powerful college football team is in the country – Alabama. But what would the results be if it came down to fan bases?College football – the most popular amateur sport in our country – has hundreds of fan bases, and many of them are monstrous. There are really only a few dozen, however, that are unwavering in their support, win or lose. We’re here to highlight the top 16.We’ve taken into account program worth, program revenue, television contracts, social media followings, attendance and a number of other factors. Our list features teams from all five major conferences – along with one independent. You can guess which one.Without further ado, the 16 most powerful fan bases in college football.Get Started: No. 16 – Oregon >>>Pages: Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17last_img read more

Jinhui Remains in Loss amid Volatile Markets

first_imgzoom Hong Kong-based shipping company Jinhui Shipping and Transportation Limited narrowed its full-year net loss to USD 189.09 million in 2016 from USD 378.74 million seen in 2015.The loss was mainly attributed to the impairment loss on owned vessels and impairment loss on assets held for sale.Furthermore, revenues for 2016 declined by 31% to USD 59.96 million from USD 86.30 million recorded in 2015.During 2016, Jinhui completed the disposal of eight vessels including two Panamaxes, five Supramaxes and one Handymax vessel.“The disposal of the eight vessels represented an opportunity for the group to readjust its fleet profile and reduce our operational risk exposures in current high-risk volatile markets and … will improve the liquidity position of the group,” Ng Siu Fai, Chairman of Jinhui, commented.In December 2016, Jinhui reached an agreement with four major lenders on loans related to 25 of the company’s vessels. It was agreed that only 50% of the installments due until the end of 2018 will be repaid, while the remaining amount will be repaid within two days after the end of the forbearance period in 2019.The company agreed in February 2017 to sell four Supramax bulkers to four entities controlled by compatriot Minyi (Tianjin) Ship Leasing for an aggregate price of USD 48 million.Earlier this month, Jinhui also sold its last Handysize dry bulk carrier to Inui Global Logistics for USD 15 million.“Although the market improved later in the year, we continue to see uncertainty and market volatility remaining as an operational risk to the group. In order to further reduce operational risk and liquidity risk, we believe it is prudent for the group to readjust the fleet size and lower the overall indebtedness and it is vital to remain financially nimble in today’s tough and ever-changing market environment,” Ng Siu Fai said.“The overall recovery in dry bulk shipping market requires a stronger demand and supply rebalance through slowing fleet growth, layups and scrapping of tonnages,” he added.Excluding the vessels sold and scheduled to be delivered to the new owners, Jinhui operates a fleet of two Post-Panamaxes and twenty-one Supramaxes.last_img read more

MUSIC FANS DESERVE TO KNOW DANNY MICHEL OPENS UP ABOUT THE TERRIFYING

first_imgAdvertisement Twitter Login/Register With: “I’m not alone,” he continues, illustrating how changes in the music industry have hit virtually every working musician in some way. “As a result, bands/musicians are downsizing, recording at home, cutting corners wherever they can […] And with every band in the world back on the road, venues are clogged and ticket prices have tripled. For me it means being away from home and taking on more work than I ever have.”Michel goes on to reference a study that says “24% of musical professionals indicated they were considering leaving the music industry.” He says he believes that number is actually higher than reported. “Over the last few months, I’ve spoken to many brilliant life-long musicians (some you know) who are quietly beginning their exit strategy,” he explains. “I fear musicians are reluctant to admit any of this because so much of this industry is perception.”He concludes by telling fans not to feel sorry for him. Rather, he is warning music lovers of a big shift that might be on the horizon. “Music fans deserve to know how this all works and why artists they love may soon be gone.”By Melody Lau Advertisement LEAVE A REPLY Cancel replyLog in to leave a comment Facebook It’s no secret that being a musician in the age of streaming can be difficult, but very few musicians actually break down just how hard it can be to make a living. That’s why Canadian singer-songwriter Danny Michel took to Facebook this week to give people a “peek behind the curtain” of what’s really going on.In a lengthy post published on Tuesday, which has now been shared by over 2,400 people, Michel opens up about some of the finances and math behind his income. He notes that his album sales have dropped by 95% this year as a result of music streaming services. He also adds that he has never worried about his financial stability till this year. In an act of complete transparency, he uses his song “Purgatory Cove” from his latest album, White & Gold, as an example of how little one track earns now. “This song has been in the TOP 20 charts (CBC Radio 2 & 3) for 10 weeks, climbed to #3. In 2018 that equals $44.99 in sales.” Advertisementlast_img read more