US, Mexico and Canada to host 2026 WCup

first_img0Shares0000A North American bid won against Morocco to earn the right to host the 2026 World Cup© AFP/File Patrik STOLLARZMOSCOW, Russia, June 13 – The United States, Mexico and Canada won the right to host the 2026 World Cup after easily beating Morocco in a vote by FIFA member nations on Wednesday.The North American bid received 134 of the 203 votes, while Morocco polled 65 in the ballot at a FIFA Congress held in Moscow on the eve of the 2018 World Cup. Football’s showpiece event will return to the North American continent for the first time since 1994 when the United States hosted the tournament.Delegates had been faced with a clear choice — the joint North American bid boasts modern, established stadiums and well-developed transport links underpinned by Mexican football fervour.Morocco, on the other hand, promised a “European” World Cup in Africa, playing on the north African nation’s proximity to Europe.But compared to North America, Morocco’s bid existed largely on paper — many stadiums and roads would have had to have been built and critics questioned how it would have coped with the 2026 tournament, which will be expanded to 48 teams.FIFA inspectors classified the north African nation’s stadiums, accommodation and transport as “high risk”, awarding it just 2.7 out of five in an evaluation report, with concerns raised over several critical aspects.They warned “the amount of new infrastructure required for the Morocco 2026 bid to become reality cannot be overstated”.The report made the US-Canada-Mexico bid the clear favourite after rating it four out of five, and Morocco was not able to bridge the gap.0Shares0000(Visited 1 times, 1 visits today)last_img read more

Science Can Be Wrong for Decades, Centuries

first_img The reason for sex:  Were you taught in school that the purpose of sexual reproduction is to promote genetic diversity?  Incorrect, says Henry Heng, Ph.D., associate professor at Wayne State University, according to an article in Science Daily.  It’s for maintaining the genome and a species’ identity.  With colleague Root Gorelick, Heng argued in the journal Evolution that previous scientists were dead wrong—for over a century.  “For nearly 130 years, traditional perceptions hold that asexual reproduction generates clone-like offspring and sexual reproduction leads to more diverse offspring,“ the article said, quoting Heng responding, “In reality, however, the relationship is quite the opposite.” Plate tectonics:  How long has plate tectonics been around?  Since the 1960s at least.  Now, PhysOrg is announcing, “New force driving Earth’s tectonic plates discovered.”  California scientists are proposing that a moving mantle plume drove the Indian plate into the Himalayas.  It is doubtful this new model, though, will resolve “long-standing debates about how powerful geological forces shape the planet.” Racked up about antlers:  How long have hunters prized the racks on their deer?  “Emerging from the heads of most cud-chewing mammals, headgear inspire an almost mystical and certainly majestic aura,” an article on PhysOrg began.  “But, scientists say, we know shockingly little about them.”  Consider the variety of headgear on mammals: longhorn cattle, giraffes, bighorn sheep, moose, reindeer, caribou, pronghorns, mountain goats.  The accessibility of these mammals to science would lead one to think they are well understood, but the article includes videos of Edgar Byrd Davis admitting, “This is one of those things where you’d think we’d know more, but we don’t.”  Newt for precedent:  For 250 years, scientists believed there was a limit to how many times an amphibian could regenerate tissues, such as limbs and eyes.  This week, PhysOrg posted a press release with the headline, “Overturning 250 years of scientific theory: Age, repeated injury do not affect newt regeneration.”  Sure enough, “Scientists have been wrong for 250 years about a fundamental aspect of tissue regeneration, according to a University of Dayton biologist who says his recent discovery is good news for humans.”  Dr. Panagiotis Tsonis decided to test the old belief with experiments.  He found that even after 18 times, a newt’s regenerated eye lens was just as good as the first.   “His findings overturn long-accepted theories proposed by regeneration scientists that age and repeated amputation negatively affect regeneration.”  New Scientist also wrote about this scientific upset. Nuclear winter:  In 1983, Carl Sagan and other scientists proclaimed, with the authority of science, that a nuclear war would cast the planet into decades of darkness and cold.  Sagan scared government officials with the prospect of “the extinction of Homo sapiens”.  This week, Russell Seitz in a letter to Nature claimed, “Nuclear winter was and is debatable.”  He quoted skeptical scientists at the time who “regarded this apocalyptic prediction as an exercise in mythology.”  One from MIT said, “Nuclear winter is the worst example of the misrepresentation of science to the public in my memory.”  The skeptics, though, were outshouted by a media sympathetic to Sagan.  Dramatic visualizations on TV of the last humans freezing to death in the dark clinched the story. Pi throwing contest:  What could be more sacred in science than pi, that famous constant we memorized as 3.1416?  Believe it or not, some mathematians want to toss it.  They want two pi, claiming that a new constant named tau, equal to 6.28, would be more useful.  Read about it on PhysOrg, “Math wars: Debate sparks anti-pi day.”  It is true that 2 pi shows up in many equations.  Pi day (March 14) would be replaced by Tau Day (June 28) if US mathematicians Bob Palais and Michael Hartl get their way.  A critic feels this is not a question of error,  just preference: “It’s not a question of right or wrong, but a matter of opinion,” said Patrick Speissegger from McMaster University in Canada. “Philosophically speaking, changing the constant from pi to tau makes no difference.”  The dispute does show, however, that some concepts we assume are out there in the world may actually be in our heads. Health myths:  Arguably, scientists are not to blame for old wives’ tales, unless they promoted them.  Medical Xpress announced, “New book by Indiana University physicians slays health myths we all thought were true.”  Scientists can’t make a clean escape, though.  “The authors admit that even they believed some myths prior to investigating the science, or lack of science, behind them.”  Myths debunked by pediatricians Aaron Carroll  and Rachel Vreeman include: (1) that vitamin C mitigates cold symptoms (advocated by Nobel laureate Linus Pauling), (2) that stretching before running is a good idea, (3) that hydrogen peroxide is a good disinfectant for wounds, (4) that air dryers clean your hands better than paper towels, (5) that eggs are bad for your heart because of high cholesterol, (6) that uncovering a wound at night helps it heal, and others.  (The tale that chicken soup helps you feel better when you have a cold, though, escaped the debunking tests, showing that myths can have a scientific basis).  Readers may want to investigate which myths had been promoted by scientists in the name of science.  Debunking a debunker:  This episode might be called Morton’s Revenge.  The late Stephen Jay Gould, in his 1981 book The Mismeasure of Man, made a big deal out of alleged data fudging by 19th century physician Samuel Morton, claiming that his cranial measurements were unconsciously biased to support Victorian values.  In a Nature editorial last month, the editors discussed a new re-evaluation of both scientists’ claims that gives the edge to the debunked rather than the debunker.  While they may agree with Gould’s politically-correct conclusions, the editors could not endorse his methods.  “At a minimum, Gould’s staunch opposition to racism, and desire to make an example of Morton, may have biased his interpretation of Morton’s data, opening Gould to charges of hypocrisy.”  Let the debunker beware.  The editors shook their heads; “it is remarkable that it has taken more than 30 years for a research group to check Gould’s claims thoroughly.” Many today still remember the catchy phrase nuclear winter and assume it has a scientific basis, but Seitz says, “This potential climate disaster, popularized in Science in 1983, rested on the output of a one-dimensional model that was later shown to overestimate the smoke a nuclear holocaust might engender.  More refined estimates, combined with advanced three-dimensional models… have dramatically reduced the extent and severity of the projected cooling”  – so much so, that the worst-case scenario has fallen “to numbers so unseasonably small as to call the very term ‘nuclear winter’ into question.”  This doesn’t mean, of course, that a nuclear bomb wouldn’t ruin your whole day, but it might do in Homo sapiens with fire, not ice. The history of science shows some wrong theories being accepted by leading scholars for long periods of time.  Ptolemaic astronomy, unquestioned for over 1200 years, is a prime example.  Not all examples are old, though.  In modern times as well, scientists are finding that theories unquestioned for decades, even centuries, were wrong.  That being so, what confidence can we have that today’s scientific beliefs will stand the test of time for the next decade or century?  A recent spate of science articles shows some long-held theories being questioned – others being tossed overboard. Many questions about these fastest-growing bones come to mind: their nature, their development, their evolutionary origins.  It isn’t for lack of trying.  “Among assumptions only recently overturned was the idea that pronghorn antelope were related to antler-wearing deer or horned cattle, goats and sheep,”  the article pointed out.  Davis took science’s claims to knowledge further into left field, saying, “Scientists get a lot of press coverage for dark matter or the Higgs boson because they are among deep mysteries that we are still unlocking. A lot of people assume that most of biology is understood, yet something as fundamental as the age-old question ‘how did the cow get its horns?’ is still not well understood.” Scientists are only human.  They cannot know everything.  Writing a scientific paper requires a literature search; it is tempting to cite a previous paper as authoritative.  After all, who has the time to independently check every detail?  This is one way that wrong ideas can be perpetuated by the scientific community.  Wrong ideas are especially dangerous when they match the political, philosophical or cultural prejudices of those involved (e.g., Freud, 10/15/2009).  As shown here, it may take centuries for someone to check out an idea and find it false.  What could be next? See also 03/17/2006, “Can Scientific Journals Perpetuate False Ideas?” and 01/09/2006, “Peer Review: Can You Trust a Scientific Journal?” and 06/23/2011, “Wrong Again: Planetologists Embarrassed.” Speaking of citing prior works uncritically and perpetuating wrong ideas, our research in these papers has frequently shown evolutionists citing Darwin’s Origin as reference #1 in their papers.  Don’t respect science because it is published in a peer-reviewed journal; respect evidence.  Don’t respect scientists merely because they are scientists; respect evidence.  Don’t follow paradigms; follow evidence.  And don’t follow your perceptions of what constitutes evidence.  Follow evidence that is evidence indeed.(Visited 21 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

3 Predictions for Corporate Innovation in 2019

first_imgFollow the Puck AI is Not the Holy Grail of Sales, at Least Not… Renee Johnson Never have enterprise firms had such a short shelf life. Innosight’s 2018 Corporate Longevity Forecast found that, if the current churn rate holds, fully half of S&P 500 companies will be replaced in the coming decade. Could half of the S&P 500 companies be replaced in the coming 10 years?While 80 percent of executives surveyed by Innosight said they “strongly” or “somewhat” agree that they need to transform, 55 percent of those same executives said they expect their competition to come from existing industry players rather than new competitors.Corporate leaders may be right on the first point, but they’re likely wrong on the second. One of the most significant threats to corporations is disruption from agile startups with a culture of experimentation and risk-taking. For example, Petsmart was forced to make the largest e-commerce acquisition to date in late 2017 when it was blindsided not by industry peer Petco, but by Chewy.com. Similarly, the entire ground transportation industry was turned upside down by ride-sharing companies Uber and Lyft, which have captured more than 70 percent of the U.S. business traveler market, according to a report by Certify.Petsmart and dozens of other enterprises learned the truth of corporate innovation the hard way: Companies that don’t look to the future will soon become part of the past.What’s Coming in Corporate InnovationThe news isn’t all bad for enterprise leaders, though. Three trends show corporate innovation is alive and well in 2019:Corporations will look beyond traditional R&D and toward partnerships.Over the past three decades, return on R&D spending has declined by two-thirds. As corporations see diminishing returns on internally focused innovation, they’re increasingly looking to external partners for innovation. Fortunately, one-on-one startup-corporate partnerships are no longer their only option. Although they take more effort, accelerators and semi-internal incubators are two emerging solutions. Mastercard’s Start Path program accepted 11 new startups last year, for instance, most of which were directly relevant to Mastercard’s own financial services. Others, like Google parent company Alphabet, are spinning off startups built by internal team members.The quickest, newest way to get an external perspective, however, is through corporate innovation consultants like Cie Digital. Chief operating officer Alvin Fong argues that it’s Cie’s experience with companies of multiple sizes spanning across different industries that sets it apart. “Startups and corporations come at innovation from two totally different perspectives,” explains Fong. “The best solution is often to find a partner who’s seen the subject from both sides of the fence.”Artificial intelligence will be a primary source of innovation.Although barely one-third of enterprises have adopted AI to date, according to Gartner’s 2019 CIO Survey, that’s changing rapidly. The research giant also found that the number of companies implementing one or more AI technologies has grown by 270 percent in the past four years. Chris Howard, distinguished research vice president at Gartner, suggested in a press release that corporate innovation around AI can’t wait for the right talent. “In order to stay ahead, CIOs need to be creative,” Howard explained. “If there is no AI talent available, another possibility is to invest in training programs for employees with backgrounds in statistics and data management.” What subfields of AI are the best bets for corporate innovation? Machine learning pilot programs doubled last year compared to the prior one, Deloitte data showed, and are expected to increase again by 2020. Particularly in the healthcare industry, natural language processing is a hotspot, growing to nearly $8 billion by 2022 from $667 million in 2016.Improving the customer experience will be a top priority. Even as brands invest more in technologies like AI, consumers are clamoring for more human customer experiences. A PwC report released last March showed that 75 percent of consumers want more social interaction in the future, while 64 percent think companies have lost touch with the human side of CX. What’s more, consumers say they’re willing to open their wallets for a better CX. “CMOs take note: Our research revealed that 65 percent of U.S. consumers find a positive brand experience to be more influential than great advertising,” David Clarke, PwC principle and experience consulting leader, said in a press release. “Our findings quantify the potential ROI on experience investments, upwards of 16%.”While AI has a role to play in all types of corporate innovation, many of the best CX changes brands can make are low-tech. Respondents to the PwC survey said fast and efficient service, knowledgeable and helpful employees, and convenience is their top three CX priorities. For today’s companies, corporate innovation is literally a life-or-death choice. This past decade is proof that their scale, history, and expertise aren’t enough to keep smaller peers from surpassing them. Without an eye on the customer experience, investments in AI technologies, and the right partnerships, 2019 might be a brutal year. What it Takes to Build a Highly Secure FinTech … Related Posts Why IoT Apps are Eating Device Interfaces Tags:#agile corporations#AI#artificial intelligence#corporate innovation#Partnerships I’m a freelance writer and mother living in the Bay Area. I write about parenting, tech, gadgets, and am absolutely thrilled that my work allows me to be there raising my children. last_img read more

The stench of unfulfilled promises in ‘model’ Phulpur

first_img“This is our own little Prayagraj,” laughs Pramila Pal. Her sarcastic allusion to the Sangam, the confluence of the Ganga, Yamuna and the mythical Saraswati, is aimed at the huge pool of mud and slush formed at her door because of drain water running from different directions. “We face a lot of problems in moving about. But it becomes most embarrassing when we have visitors,” says Ms. Pal, who belongs to an OBC (Other Backward Class) community. She lives in Jaitwardih, a village roughly three kilometres from the banks of the Ganga in the Phaphamau region of Allahabad. While residents remember the village as always being bereft of civic amenities and basic infrastructure, their grouse is that there have been no real improvements despite its adoption as as a ‘model village’ after the Narendra Modi government came to power in 2014. Uttar Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Keshav Prasad Maurya, who adopted the village, was the local MP till last year and the upcoming bypoll on March 11 is to elect his successor.Barring a few patches, most of the roads and gullies in the village are kuccha, uneven and in a decrepit state, marked by overflowing drains. Lone developmentThe lone development that has taken place in the village since it was adopted was the installation of toilets, says Magru Yadav, a resident. Sachin Yadav, a property dealer, complains that Mr. Maurya never paid heed to the civic issues nor delivered on constructing the promised pathways. Locals also say that while the power supply is satisfactory, water supply in the village is irregular. A few blocks away, in the Jatav locality, Kanchan Bharatiya says the village “urgently needs a colony to come up as most of its residents were still living in mud houses.” Another issue facing the village is that of security. The solar lights in the local Sulabh complex were recently stolen.Mahavir Yadav, the pradhan, says the poor roads and the absence of a good drainage system are the bane of the village. He, however, says that a water tank, one Sulabh toilet complex and 92 electric panels have come up in the village after Mr. Maurya adopted it.Mr. Keshav Prasad Maurya was not available for comment.last_img read more

Aguilar, Ginebra escape Star despite costly foul and poor FT shooting

first_imgAlso, had the Kings lost the game, they would have likely blamed it to their horrible 12-of-30 free throw shooting.“Because of our missed free throws we kept them in the game. We just have to make our free throws and lessen our turnovers,” Aguilar said.Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next Robredo should’ve resigned as drug czar after lack of trust issue – Panelo NATO’s aging eye in the sky to get a last overhaul Cardona makes PBA return with GlobalPort: ‘I feel like a rookie again’ 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 “What I was trying for is to go over him. But he stopped, pulled back, and went for a pump-fake. He was able to foul bait me,” recalled the athletic forward.With Ginebra leading by three, 95-92, Aguilar fouled Hill, who was attempting a three-point shot with 0.6 tenths of a second left. FEATURED STORIESSPORTSSEA Games: Biñan football stadium stands out in preparedness, completionSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSBoxers Pacquiao, Petecio torchbearers for SEA Games openingHill cooly made his free throws to send the game into overtime.Fortunately for Aguilar, he was able to atone for his mistake with a follow-up dunk in OT that sealed Ginebra’s sixth straight win. Celebrity chef Gary Rhodes dies at 59 with wife by his side Japeth Aguilar. Tristan Tamayo/INQUIRER.netJapeth Aguilar could only heave that sigh of relief after Barangay Ginebra eked out a heart-stopping win over Star Sunday night.And he had every reason to feel relieved after almost costing the Gin Kings the game with a careless foul on Malcolm Hill at the last-second of regulation.ADVERTISEMENT Hotel says PH coach apologized for ‘kikiam for breakfast’ claimcenter_img “I’m proud of my teammates. As the match escalated, we picked each other up and helped each other. It was really a test of character for us,” he said after finishing with 12 points, nine rebounds, and two assists in 30 minutes of play.“We really got tested in this game. They really came out with ferocity. They played with fire and intensity.”Ginebra coach Tim Cone explained that there’s no reason for him to dwell on Aguilar’s play with the game still on the line.“It just happened. We were trying to switch out and we had Japeth out there specifically because he has the ability to switch out on smaller guys. So his instinct on a pump-fake is to jump for the shot, and he just went to his instincts,” Cone said.“Obviously, it wasn’t a good instinct and it wasn’t the right thing to do, but he just went to his instincts, and in those situations, you just gotta try to stay disciplined,” he added. “But it’s the last play of the game. There’s 15,000 people in the stadium and they’re screaming, and it’s Manila Clasico, so you just gotta move on from it. It’s not that big of a deal, but you just gotta move on.”ADVERTISEMENT LATEST STORIES Lacson: SEA Games fund put in foundation like ‘Napoles case’ Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. Ethel Booba on hotel’s clarification that ‘kikiam’ is ‘chicken sausage’: ‘Kung di pa pansinin, baka isipin nila ok lang’ Trump signs bills in support of Hong Kong protesters Celebrity chef Gary Rhodes dies at 59 with wife by his side View commentslast_img read more