With applications for Ireland’s Best Young Entrepreneur now open, young entrepreneurs in Donegal aged between 18 and 35 have been urged to make sure that they apply for this year’s competition.Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise and Innovation, Frances Fitzgerald T.D. and Minister of State for Business, Pat Breen T.D. were both present at the nationwide launch of the contest earlier this week, but for Donegal entrepreneurs the focus will begin with the local competition and there’s €50,000 to be won in the county across three separate categories.Local winners in the Best Start-Up and Best Established Business categories will receive investments of up to €15,000 each and the two runners-up will each receive up to €5,000. The Best Business Idea winner at county level will receive an investment of up to €7,000 and the runner-up will receive up to €3,000 of investment. These winners at county level will progress to Regional Finals early next year and will be hoping to reach the national IBYE finals in March 2018.Last year Portnoo-based businesswoman Gillian Doyle was the toast of the business world in Donegal when she progressed from winning the Donegal final to scoop the Regional Award for Best Business Idea at the regional finals in Sligo.And she was full of praise for the competition, urging young entrepreneurs to apply and take advantage of the help it can give them to ensure they can grow their business.“I’m not talking about grants or financial assistance, it is the support, the advice, the learning and mentoring. It was nothing short of phenomenal. The Local Enterprise Office was so supportive and so helpful.” Initial applicants are short-listed to local finalists who receive intensive Business Bootcamp training ahead of the Donegal final.Head of Enterprise in Donegal, Michael Tunney, said that the feedback from applicants year after year has been that the Business Bootcamps have been of tremendous assistance.“It is a nice incentive for applicants to try and capture the investment prizes, but even if they don’t, taking part in the Business Bootcamps will help them fine tune their business plans, learn new enterprise skills and avail of the highest quality one to one mentoring and business coaching,” he said.He added: “Since the IBYE competition started, businesses coming through the competition in Donegal have performed at a consistently high level. The contest is a springboard for young entrepreneurs who want to start or expand their business. We are very pleased with the spirit of entrepreneurship in the county among our young people and I urge them to make sure they get their applications in for this year’s competition.”Applications can be made online by Friday 29 September at www.ibye.ie but anyone seeking more information before submitting their application can call Donegal Local Enterprise Office: 07491 60735 or e.mail [email protected] Will Ireland’s best young entrepreneur be from Donegal? was last modified: July 19th, 2017 by StephenShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)
Science has no boast if not objective. It is objectivity that supposedly sets science apart from all other modes of inquiry: following a “scientific method” that guarantees objective truth about the natural world. Results are reported in peer-reviewed journals that weed out mistaken ideas. After publication, other scientists can replicate any published results, making science a self-correcting process that refines its objectivity over time. Most insiders and philosophers know that the picture is highly flawed, but the vision persists that science is objective. Recent articles raise awareness of some of the problems with the portrayal of scientific objectivity. Fiery Feyerabend: Paul Feyerabend was a fiery philosopher of science who fiercely attacked the concept of scientific objectivity. He died in 1994, but a new anthology of his writings has come out, The Tyranny of Science, Oberheim E, editor (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2011). Two reviews were published in PLoS Biology earlier this month (Ian Kidd, Axel Meyer). Although both reviewers think his reputation for the “worst enemy of science” is overblown, there is no question Feyerabend warned of treating science as an objective process. He worried that it could be a threat to democracy – an elitist society unanswerable to the people. Meyer quoted him saying, “The separation of state and church must be complemented by the separation of state and science, that most recent, most aggressive, and most dogmatic religious institution.” Many regard his views as extreme, but Feyerabend did raise a number of issues that are still taken seriously. Kidd, commenting on the 1990s debates about objectivity vs constructivism (the idea that science “constructs” reality rather than “discovering” it), remarked that “There is some truth to such charges” as Feyerabend raised. Consensus bashing: In Nature earlier this month (published online 5 October 2011 | Nature 478, 7 (2011) | doi:10.1038/478007a), a headline read, “The voice of science: let’s agree to disagree.” Subtitle: “Consensus reports are the bedrock of science-based policy-making. But disagreement and arguments are more useful, says Daniel Sarewitz.” That represents severe erosion of the bedrock. His first line: “When scientists wish to speak with one voice, they typically do so in a most unscientific way: the consensus report.” Sharing recent examples of the politics that stifle minority opinions, Sarewitz advised more debate and less consensus. For example, “much of what is most interesting about a subject gets left out of the final report.” Take-home paragraph: The very idea that science best expresses its authority through consensus statements is at odds with a vibrant scientific enterprise. Consensus is for textbooks; real science depends for its progress on continual challenges to the current state of always-imperfect knowledge. Science would provide better value to politics if it articulated the broadest set of plausible interpretations, options and perspectives, imagined by the best experts, rather than forcing convergence to an allegedly unified voice. Conflict of interest: The field of bioengineering is a good place to look for demons undercutting objectivity. The lure of fame or money clouds the objectivity of some researchers, while products of bioengineering – including human cloning – overlap with ethics, philosophy, and theology in big ways. In a Nature book review about Jonathan Moreno’s new book The Body Politic: The Battle Over Science in America (Bellevue Literary Press, 2011), reviewer Kevin Finneran used the eye-catching headline, “Bioethics: Brave new politics” (Nature 478, 13 October 2011, pp. 184–185, doi:10.1038/478184a). Emphasizing the fact that today’s science cannot remove itself from society, Finneran said, “The age of bioscience has become the age of biopolitics.” Apparently Moreno wrote his book with a political bias of his own: “Moreno devotes much of the book to a critique of what he sees as a neoconservative hostility to science, and explains how science can be a key ingredient of a progressive political agenda.” That doesn’t sound objective; in fact, Finneran felt that “Moreno’s analysis focuses too heavily on the neoconservatives,” while he himself showed he had some heart for conservative concerns: “The challenge is to maintain this human side of science when the research, to many people, seems to be a threat to what is essentially human.” Smear review: Many have questioned the value of peer review in recent years (a relatively recent convention in science, dating largely from after World War II). Virginia Gewen, writing in Nature this month (478, 13 October 2011, pp. 275–277, doi:10.1038/nj7368-275a) joked a little about the naivete of rookie reviewers. In “Rookie review,” she revealed a bit of the good-old-boys’ club mentality among seasoned reviewers. Rookies (who incidentally never receive much training on how to review a paper) think they are supposed to tell the truth: one Nature editor explained why she sought out rookies as reviewers: “they are politically naive enough to tell the truth,” implying that is the exception to the rule for more seasoned reviewers. Yet even with that saintly attribute, rookies tend to give inconsistent grades, or overestimate their objectivity. Gewen also touched on the issues of disclosure of bias, conflict of interest and politics that cloud the objectivity of peer review in general. Anthropology: Can science answer big questions like “What is man’s place in nature?” Sites like New Scientist don’t hesitate to ask. What, though, gives a scientist more power of place to discuss such things than a theologian or philosopher? All have access to the same basic scientific facts. Botanist Sandra Knapp gave her opinions on this key question with hat tips to Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin. Proceeding on to the opinions of Melanie Challenger, author of On Extinctions, Knapp discussed other questions far beyond the data of any scientific method: are humans natural? What is naturalness? Knapp concluded that Challenger’s book “doesn’t offer answers to any of the complex questions it raises, but it will make you pause to consider your own relationship with the natural world that surrounds you.” If science can only ask questions, and not provide answers, then it would seem to be one among many valid modes of inquiry. Aesthetics: Can art free itself from anthropo-centrism? What would a universal art look like? It might be pretty bland. Imagine a Bach concerto with a quarter of its notes mutated back to randomness by the law of entropy. Think of a painting with nothing but a uniform shade of tan. Those are some of the things Jonathan Keats (no relation, as far as we know, to the English romantic poet John Keats) tried to visualize by taking the Copernican principle to the extreme in his new San Francisco exhibit, “The First Copernican Art Manifesto.” Keats didn’t even intend his art for humans. Science Magazine entertained the radical idea (“Random Samples,” 21 October 2011: Vol. 334 no. 6054 pp. 295-297, DOI:0.1126/science.334.6054.295-a), but didn’t explain how the Bach composition arose in the first place without intelligent design, or how astronomers determined the average color of starlight was tan without intention and purpose. Indeed, the color of the universe is highly localized to stars and galaxies. A question of definitions also arises. If there is no intelligent viewer, is there art? What you are not told: Dr. Jennifer Rohn, an insider in the world of academic research, writes a blog called LabLit. Guest blogger Matthew Hall, in the October 21 entry, revealed “The untold story: what doesn’t make the cut in scientific papers.” Hall argues that reproducibility is rare in science. Few read a paper’s protocol and try to reproduce the experiment. Besides, most research papers are so boring! “Given that protocols aren’t as useful as one is taught in History and Philosophy of Science courses, why can’t they be more personal?” He recommends writing scientific papers like stories. Perhaps many already do. How would anybody know without trying to reproduce the experiment? Analyze the analyzers: An article on Medical Xpress claims that a new field is emerging: the Psychology of Science. The bumper states: You’ve heard of the history of science, the philosophy of science, maybe even the sociology of science. But how about the psychology of science? In a new article in Current Directions in Psychological Science, a journal published by the Association for Psychological Science, San Jose State University psychologist Gregory J. Feist argues that a field has been quietly taking shape over the past decade, and it holds great promise for both psychology and science. While an interesting trend, it raises the question of the objectivity of the psychologist. Who will analyze the analyzer, and so on ad infinitum? We hope these short forays into questioning the objectivity of science provide some snack food for thought. There are much richer meals in books and lectures. Don’t be a dupe and merely assume that someone who calls himself or herself a scientist has a corner on objectivity. Scientists can be very adept at math, jargon and specialized fields of inquiry, but at the conclusion of any paper, every citizen has a responsibility to weigh evidence, evaluate reasoning, and consider influences that led to the conclusion.(Visited 64 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
The new season of the Play Your Part Television Series celebrates South Africans who continue to move the country forward. It started on 26 August on SABC.The Play Your Part TV series starts on SABC 2 on 26 August 2017. It celebrates South Africans who are doing their bit for the country. (Image: Musa Sibisi)Brand South Africa partnered with the SABC to air a 26-part Play Your Part Television Series celebrating South Africans who have played their part in the progress the country has made and continues to make, and encouraging all other South Africans to each play their part.Presented by Kabelo Mabalane, the series has been launched at the SABC on 23 August 2017 and aired at 18h00 on Saturday 26 August 2017.Click here to watch some behind-the-scenes footage.Would you like to use this article in your publication or on your website? See Using Brand South Africa material.
18 July 2013Cities should become sites of innovation for addressing challenges such as youth unemployment, spatial and income inequalities and economic exclusion, says National Planning Minister Trevor Manuel.Speaking at the Metropolis Annual Meeting in Sandton, Johannesburg on Wednesday, Manuel said city leaders, researchers and policymakers should create opportunities for experimentation with different models of delivering services, developing and maintaining infrastructure and creating jobs.Cities ‘must become inclusive’Unless leaders act swiftly, the patience of citizens who lived on the periphery would run out, he cautioned.“We need to urgently devise and implement credible plans to intervene and make our cities inclusive, and bring the majority of citizens of our cities into the mainstream,” Manuel said.“We need to equip our people with skills and education to take advantage of opportunities offered by the economies of the cities. We need to plan, design, and manage cities for people.”The four-day meeting, which started on Tuesday, has drawn mayors, officials and leaders from over 85 cities around the world to Johannesburg to discuss key issues around enhancing development and improving the lives of citizens within a long-term urban development context.While cities were designed for imagined affluent populations, the reality is that too many people wake up each day to shattered dreams of improvements in lifestyle, Manuel said, prompting the need to re-assess urban policies.Re-assessing urban policiesManuel said cities needed land use management systems that allowed for mixed uses so that poor people came to feel they had a right to the city; that captured appreciation of land value for the benefit of the public; and that promoted sustainable use of land.Manuel also proposed a review of the country’s building norms and standards to ensure that they were appropriate for the level of people’s incomes, as well as for efficient accommodation and movement of dense concentrations of people.“Rules that regulate building height, plot sizes and building material should reflect affordability levels while providing scope for improvement in the future and taking into account environmental considerations. Using any other criteria will perpetuate inequality and make informality permanent,” he told the meeting.The minister, who heads up South Africa’s National Planning Commission, also proposed the need for urban development policies that allowed cities to play an effective coordination role to stimulate their own social and economic dynamism.Effective coordination was necessary to maximise the value of the investment that individuals made in housing, that firms made in commercial property, and that the state made in social infrastructure and other public goods.South Africa also needed financial institutions that met the needs of the different populations of the country’s cities, he said.“We need both primary and secondary mortgage markets that target currently underserved segments of the population. Whilst we appreciate the difficulty of developing criteria for affordability, we must do so to avoid the complete bifurcation into either formal high-end mortgages or state provision.”Source: SAnews.gov.za
Badminton ace and hot favourite Saina Nehwal will take on Scotland’s Susan Egelstaff in women’s singles semifinals match on Tuesday at the Delhi Commonwealth Games.Top sees Saina cruised into the semifinals after two impressive wins on Monday. She defeated Caroline Black from North Ireland 21-0, 21-2; after which she thrashed Anna Rice of Canada.Saina will take on Egelstaff aiming to book a spot for herself in the CWG badminton finals. The women’s singles semifinals will take place at Siri Fort Sports Complex at 5 pm on Tuesday.
10 months agoBayern Munich chief Salhamidzic casts fresh doubt on future of Chelsea, Spurs target Hummels
Bayern Munich chief Salhamidzic casts fresh doubt on future of Chelsea, Spurs target Hummelsby Paul Vegas10 months agoSend to a friendShare the loveBayern Munich sports chief Hasan Salhamidzic has cast doubt on the future of Mats Hummels.The Germany defender has been linked with Chelsea and Tottenham in the last 24 hours.And Salihamidzic was less than definitive when asked if Hummels was happy at the club.He also stopped short of saying that the ex-Dortmund defender would be staying in January.When asked about Hummels on Wednesday night, Salhamidzic said: “He wanted to talk to me and to Kalle [Karl-Heinz Rummenigge]. I told him my point and he’s got his.”But I think we’ve come to a common denominator. I’m not going to disclose the details of the conversation.” TagsTransfersAbout the authorPaul VegasShare the loveHave your say
Crystal Palace invite prospective purchasersby Ian Ferris21 days agoSend to a friendShare the loveCrystal Palace have been put up for sale as part of a deal that would value the Premier League club at UK£210 million (US$258 million),according to City AM, reports, www.sportspromedia.com/.The business newspaper claims to have seen a document intended for prospective buyers offering to facilitate the purchase of at least 75 per cent and up to 90 per cent of the club for either a single buyer or consortium.The document, which was apparently drawn up by Zenith Global Capital Partners rather than Palace themselves, reportedly says the club would be sold-debt free and have a projected valuation of UK£525 million (US$645 million) by year three and UK£700 million (US$860 million) by year five.It has been widely reported this year that Palace’s American owners, Joshua Harris and David Blitzer, are looking to sell their stake in the club just three years after investing in the team.However, City AM’s report added that Steve Parish, Palace’s long-serving chairman and minority owner, is open to remaining at the club but would be willing to dilute his 18 per cent stake. TagsPremiership NewsAbout the authorIan FerrisShare the loveHave your say
LSU 7-21524100%<1% ▲ 21<1% RankingProbability of … Michigan 8-212181714%9% ▲ 211% Ohio State 10-032445%62% ▲ 2118% Notre Dame 9-1478—a26% ▲ 216% Same old, same old. The college football playoff committee had it easy this week. After a week of games where all their top teams won, they didn’t have to shake things up in their rankings much. The top five remain the same: Clemson, Alabama, Ohio State, Notre Dame and Iowa. After suffering crushing losses last week, Baylor and Stanford fell back in the rankings. Meanwhile, the Sooner state made headway: Oklahoma State and Oklahoma rose up to the No. 6 and No. 7 spots, respectively. But while the Big 12 looks ascendant, they both can’t stay there long: they play each other Thanksgiving weekend.The FiveThirtyEight model has bad news for Notre Dame fans: last week it was Baylor that was projected to elbow out the Irish by season’s end; this week it’s Oklahoma. The model continues to think an undefeated or one-loss Big 12 champion will most likely surpass Notre Dame. Our model simulations — which predict where the committee will land in its final rankings on Dec. 6 — are shown in the following table: College Football Playoff (CFP) rankings as of Nov. 17. Oklahoma might eventually edge out Notre Dame, but they have two awfully tough games remaining: against TCU this Saturday and on the road versus Oklahoma State. While the Sooners are our favorite for the fourth slot, the model still only gives them a 45 percent chance of making it in.Lurking at the edges are a slew of hopefuls: Oklahoma State and Iowa, though each doesn’t have a loss, stand but a 25 percent and 22 percent chance to make it; one-loss stalwarts Florida, Baylor, and Michigan State — along with two-loss Stanford — all have above a 10 percent shot.For those of you who want more nitty-gritty about our projections, check out our original methodology manifesto, as well as last week’s methodology update. Oklahoma St. 10-0641335%25% ▲ 215% Northwestern 8-22029610%<1% ▲ 21<1% Oregon 7-32310284%<1% ▲ 21<1% Florida 9-1881435%23% ▲ 214% Michigan St. 9-1962211%12% ▲ 211% Iowa 10-05132928%22% ▲ 212% Alabama 9-121361%63% ▲ 2119% TCU 9-1181265%5% ▲ 212% Wisconsin 8-22520241%<1% ▲ 21<1% Utah 8-213262312%1% ▲ 21<1% Baylor 8-11022214%16% ▲ 216% Houston 10-019143739%1% ▲ 21<1% Mississippi 7-3222894%<1% ▲ 21<1% Florida State 8-21419160%<1% ▲ 21<1% Navy 8-116164422%<1% ▲ 21<1% Stanford 8-211111144%11% ▲ 212% Oklahoma 9-175146%45% ▲ 2118% USC 7-32417734%1% ▲ 21<1% North Carolina 9-11791536%9% ▲ 211% Memphis 8-22136430%<1% ▲ 21<1% Clemson 10-013562%68% ▲ 2115% TeamCFPEloFPIConf. TitlePlayoffNat. Title
When it hasn’t been the offense looking shaky this season for the No. 1 Ohio State Buckeyes, it has been the defense. Despite allowing 253 rushing yards to Maryland on Saturday, OSU still came away with a 49-28 win to improve to 6-0 overall and 2-0 in Big Ten play.Still, OSU coach Urban Meyer was more than happy with his team’s effort.“It was a good win,” Meyer said. “As a matter of fact, it was a great win. We’re going to enjoy that one and get back to work next week.”The afternoon did not get off to a great start for the Buckeyes, as a quick three-and-out on offense gave Maryland (2-4, 0-2) the ball at its own 18-yard line. After a pair of third-down conversions, Maryland redshirt junior Perry Hills found freshman wide receiver D.J. Moore wide open after a play-action fake for 52 yards and an early 7-0 lead.On the ensuing possession for OSU, redshirt junior quarterback Cardale Jones drove the ball 50 yards to Maryland’s 25-yard line. From there, redshirt sophomore J.T. Barrett came in — something Meyer alluded to considering earlier in the week.“J.T. is just a very good player,” Meyer said after the game. “We’ve been having some red zone issues … he provided an obvious spark for us in there.”Barrett brought the Buckeyes the rest of the way in six plays, capping the drive with a three-yard run up the middle to tie the game at 7-7.Meyer stuck with the same strategy on OSU’s next drive, putting Barrett in the game after Jones and redshirt senior H-back Braxton Miller combined to get the ball to the 5-yard line.“J.T.’s one of our team leaders, and he always has a great attitude, so it’s just good to see him go out there, compete and have a good game,” junior running back Ezekiel Elliott said. “I’m happy for him, and it’s good to see him get some playing time now.”OSU stuck to the ground in the short-yardage situation, as two runs Elliott and a carry by Barrett led to Elliott punching in his ninth touchdown of the year from two yards away to make the score 14-7 early in the second quarter.After a three-and-out from each team, OSU extended its lead to 21-7 with the help of Miller.Miller, who had not scored since he had two touchdowns in OSU’s opening game at Virginia Tech, grabbed consecutive passes of 33 and 19 yards, with the latter resulting in a touchdown from Jones.The score was the 87th one that Miller either caught, ran or threw for in his collegiate career, extending his OSU record.“It was great to see him smiling,” redshirt junior receiver Michael Thomas said. “He scored that touchdown and he made that great catch over the middle. He’s been able to showcase his ability in front of everyone, and that’s all he wants to do.”After a missed kick by redshirt senior Jack Willoughby, the game seemed primed to enter the half with a 21-7 score. However, Hills changed that presumption.After a false start moved the Terrapins to their own 22-yard line, Hills scrambled up the middle and got in open field for 75 yards. He kept the ball again on the next play, falling into the end zone to make it 21-14.“We had a bad taste in our mouth going to the locker room, but we were motivated to not let anything come of it, not give anything up,” redshirt freshman defensive end Sam Hubbard said.Jones finished the half 15-of-20 for 195 yards and a touchdown, while his counterpart Hills was just 2-of-11 for 62 yards, but ran nine times for 97 yards. Both of Hills’ completions came on the opening drive. Barrett was 1-of-1 for 20 yards in the first half, and gained seven yards and a score in four carries.Miller and Thomas combined for 11 of OSU’s 16 first-half completions for 174 yards.The passing game reopened for the Terrapins to open the second half, as Hills used three completions to help move the ball 69 yards. The drive was capped by another touchdown run by Hills from four yards out to tie the game.“That’s probably the most difficult thing, keeping a person like that in the pocket,” redshirt sophomore defensive end Tyquan Lewis said about Hills.Maryland coach Randy Edsall opted not to name a starting quarterback until the first snap, something Lewis said made defensive adjustments more difficult.With the announced crowd of 107,869 getting uneasy in the tie game, the OSU offense kicked into gear midway through the third quarter, as Jones found redshirt sophomore H-back Jalin Marshall for a 48-yard score on OSU’s first play following a punt.Jones waited in the pocket and found Marshall uncovered in the middle of the field for the Middletown, Ohio, native’s second touchdown grab of the year.After a defensive stop, the OSU offense kept its foot on the gas pedal, moving 66 yards in nine plays, capped off by Barrett’s second touchdown run of the day from a yard out to make it 35-21.At Indiana, the Buckeyes did not score a touchdown in three red zone trips. That turned around on Saturday, as they got into the end zone on all six trips — five led by Barrett and one by Jones.With the game safely in hand, the Buckeyes began padding their lead late in the fourth quarter. Barrett started the drive for the first time and called five consecutive runs, the last of which was a 16-yard touchdown run by Elliott.Jones started OSU’s next drive following an interception by redshirt junior safety Tyvis Powell, but was pulled after one play in which he found Thomas for 12 yards. Barrett came back in with OSU in the red zone, and quickly scrambled 18 yards for his third rushing touchdown of the game to make it 49-21.“I think the red-zone package they put in for J.T. was perfect, and I think they complemented each other perfectly,” Elliott said. “They both were able to get into a rhythm, and it worked out pretty well for us.”Elliott’s touchdown put him over 100 yards rushing for the 11th consecutive game. He finished with 106 yards on 21 carries and two scores.A late rushing touchdown made the final score more pleasant for the Terrapins, but OSU still walked away with the 21-point victory.“That was easily our best game,” Elliott said. “We played a complete offense, moved the ball around, everyone made plays and we have good momentum going into next week.”Hills completed just 10 of 27 passes but picked up 170 yards on the ground — the most an opposing player has had against OSU this season by 72 yards.Jones finished the game 21-of-28 for 291 yards, setting a new career high in passing yards in the process.“I think he was great,” Meyer said of Jones. “He played his best game since last year.”Barrett only threw two passes, completing both for 26 yards, but ran for 62 yards and three scores on 12 carries.OSU is next set to remain in Columbus to host Penn State on Oct. 17. Kickoff is scheduled for 8 p.m. OSU redshirt senior H-back Braxton Miller (1) high-fives fans before a games against Maryland on Oct. 10 at Ohio Stadium. OSU won 49-28. Credit: Samantha Hollingshead / Photo Editor