Khalil Mack on the Raiders: ‘Those my brothers over there’

first_imgSANTA CLARA — Khalil Mack turned the corner after his shower, stopped, and observed the swarm of cameras already crowding his locker.The man of the hour played his first game in the Bay Area on Sunday, albeit not against the Raiders, since Oakland traded him to the Bears on Sept. 1.Mack is a defensive player of the year candidate and his Bears (11-4) are NFC North champions. He couldn’t be happier with his new team. But that doesn’t mean he holds anything against his old one, or even the …last_img

European and American Politicians Attack Creationism

first_imgActions of political bodies on both sides of the Atlantic have revived questions about the roles of science, politics and religion in public discourse and policy.    The Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly voted 48 to 25 to accept a resolution denouncing creationism and intelligent design, according to European Observer and Reuters.  The non-binding resolution strongly warned member states against perceived creationist attempts to “infiltrate” schools.  The strongly worded resolution warned that creationism could be a danger not only to science, but to human rights.  Some of the outrage was prompted by a Turkish Islamic group under the name Harun Yahya that had sent creationist materials to many schools throughout Europe (06/22/2007, 11/27/2006).  Last year also, a UK group called Truth in Science had distributed “information packs” with materials promoting intelligent design (see 01/11/2007 bullet 6, 12/08/2006 bullet 2, 10/27/2006, bullet 4, and 10/04/2006, bullet 11). A spokesperson for the vote said the purpose was not to fight any belief, but “to warn against the attempt to pass off a belief — creationism — as a science and to teach the theses of this belief in science classes.”  She dubbed intelligent design, which tries to avoid religious questions, as “neo-creationism.”  See the responses to this resolution by Albert Mohler and by Denyse O’Leary.    In America, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton sounded off about the issue of evolution.  After a speech about her science policy, she responded to questions from the New York Times in a phone interview.  Knowing that some Republican candidates had endorsed intelligent design, Clinton said the following, according to Patrick Healy and Cornelia Dean:“I believe in evolution, and I am shocked at some of the things that people in public life have been saying,” Mrs. Clinton said in the interview.  “I believe that our founders had faith in reason and they also had faith in God, and one of our gifts from God is the ability to reason.”    “I am grateful that I have the ability to look at dinosaur bones and draw my own conclusions,” she added, saying, too, that antibiotic-resistant bacteria is evidence that “evolution is going on as we speak.”Clinton characterized the Bush science policy as conducting a “war on science” and vowed to support research on embryonic stem cells and global warming.  She also previously said, “We have to be steered by values and morals.”Thank you, Hillary Clinton, for shooting materialism in the foot, and evolutionism with it.  If the ability to reason is a gift from God, then it did not evolve.  It means that truth, values and morals also did not evolve.  Materialism, therefore is dead.  Now the issue becomes using our God-given reason.  Come now, and let us reason together.    Ms. Clinton, have you ever studied philosophy of science?  Are you aware of the difficulties involved in using empirical observations as evidence for a theory?  Do you really think that antibiotic resistance in bacteria constitutes evidence that presidential candidates evolved from bacteria? (see response by Dr. Kevin Anderson in TrueOrigin).  Are you aware of the role of presuppositions in science?  Do you realize that creationists see the very same dinosaur bones you are looking at, and draw their own, very different, conclusions?  On what basis are you defending your right to say the evidence supports evolution instead of creation?  On what basis are you saying that creationists do not have the right to use their reason to come to their conclusions?  If creationists also use their God-given reason to examine the evidence and draw conclusions, on what basis do you call your conclusions scientific and their conclusions unscientific?  What is science?  Is it merely what those in power say it is?  You must be consistent, Ms. Clinton.  You already said reason is God-given.  This means it did not evolve.  You either have to agree with the creationists, then, or else display to the watching world that your reasoning powers are deficient or are driven by political ideology.    As for the Council of Europe, these people are a lost cause.  They are the same ones that give honors to the likes of Yasser Arafat while engaging in policies that will bring down Western civilization.  Europe is heading for a perfect storm, in which its citizens cannot and will not give up their creature comforts, and are too selfish to have children and raise families, so they import cheap labor from Islamic nations who will be more than happy to tip the population dynamics toward the East.  Muslim immigrants will be keen to “infiltrate” the political and social institutions till, through threats of terror and sheer force of numbers, they will make the “Council” of Europe an arm of Sharia Law.  Having already seen the terror their new neighbors can inflict, the dying Europeans are quick to denounce the one democracy in the middle east (Israel), but are scared spitless about offending Muslims.  So they gag with their cottonmouths against “creationists” who offend the priests of their idol, Charles Darwin.  It’s hard to respect anything these irresponsible heirs of Churchill have to say about anything while their heads are still attached to their necks.  They need medical care, not reason, because their feet are bleeding from self-inflicted bullet holes.    We’ve already unpacked some of the lies and distortions in their resolution (see 06/22/2007).  Here they are again, creating arbitrary demarcation criteria that no philosopher of science would defend, making bogeymen out of the heirs of Francis Bacon while welcoming anti-Western elements into their failing democracies.  So much for worrying about human rights.  It’s not the Islam of Harun Yahya they fear (they are laying out the welcome mat for that); it’s the evidence that Charlie might be a false god they cannot allow indoctrinated student eyes to see.  None of the creationist groups they worry are “infiltrating” schools were doing anything more than donating free material for consideration.  Presumably, any teacher can simply deposit the material in the circular file, and teach their usual curriculum with complete freedom.  That is not infiltration.  We all receive materials in the mail every day that we have to sort through using our God-given reason, to decide what things merit attention and what should be tossed.  That’s freedom of choice.  Infiltration is what the Darwinists pulled off (read the quote at the top right of last month’s page).    The Council of Europe totalitarians claim they are not against any “beliefs.”  OK, so let the Turks, the Hindus, the Mormons, and Truth in Science have their day in science court.  Since Darwinism has already been falsified (e.g., 10/19/2004, 12/30/2004, and 10/26/2005 among many examples in these pages), it’s time to evaluate alternatives.  Each group can restrict its theology to their church, temple or mosque, but should have the same right to employ their science, using their God-given reason, to evaluate the observations and draw conclusions.  If Darwin’s theory had been so strong, it would certainly have succeeded in the open marketplace of ideas without the heavily armored shielding its defenders have erected around it.  Now that it’s debunked, Europe had better choose which alternative is more preferable: dialogue with those who want to improve their heads vs dialog with those who want to remove their heads.  If the latter continue to make gains, a reasoned defense may not be enough; Europeans may need the physical defense of Western creationist science that can put out terrorist fires and provide medical aid (see 10/02/2007).    A little use of God-given reason in the head by Clinton and the Council of Europe would save their necks, let alone their bleeding feet.(Visited 11 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

9 Common Filmmaking Mistakes to Avoid

first_img2. Working With Dirty Lenses or SensorsThis shouldn’t be on the list. It should be common practice. Nonetheless, it still pops up a little too often. Camera lenses are made of glass. Glass gets dirty. You have to regularly clean glass to remove dirt and blemishes unless you want your shots to look dirty. Here are some resources on how get your glass to a spotless state.A Guide to Cleaning Lenses and Camera Sensors7 Pro Lens Cleaning Tools Under $7How to (Not) Clean Your Camera3. Shooting Out of Focus ShotsOnce mastered, focus can be a great tool in your cinematic toolbox for directing the audience’s attention and telling your story. However, when you’re first starting out, if you can’t control it, focus (or more specifically, a lack of focus) can absolutely ruin your shots. Watch the video above on how to set focus and check out some of the following articles for a little more in-depth information.3 Hacks for Shooting Without a Focus Puller The Best Follow Focus Options for Under $200What Are Focus Charts and Why Do You Need One?4. White Balance Being OffIf you don’t understand white balance, you should definitely learn. If you don’t understand how to learn, you should definitely at least use auto-white balance.There’s no excuse for shooting daylight footage white balanced for tungsten or vice versa. Here are some tips and tricks for working with white balance in post.Quick Tip: How to White Balance in Premiere ProWhite Balance Footage in Final Cut Pro XDaVinci Resolve Tip: Use Color Keys to Fix White Balance5. (Unintentionally) Breaking the 180-Degree RuleLet’s be honest. The 180-degree rule is more of a suggestion than a rule. Of course, not having an understanding of what it is and why it works is the first step to creating confusing scenes and compositions which serve no direct purpose. If you can acknowledge your mastery of the rule first, you’re well within your rights to break it — as long as it’s done intentionally.Film Studies: 180-Degree RuleQuick Tips: Understanding The 180 Degree RuleFilmmaking Tutorial: 180 Degree Rule and Other Shot Sequence Tips6. Under or Over Lighting Shots With Poor Set-UpsWhen working in professional videography, lighting is usually the part of production which separates the amateurs from the seasoned pros. Taking the time to understand and properly set up lighting for a scene can be a huge part of telling a story and adding depth to a shot. Here are some helpful resources to consider.5 Practical Cinematic Lighting TutorialsLighting 101: A Quick Guide for Lighting Film7 Steps for Lighting a Scene7. Overusing or Improperly Using Warp StabilizerWarp Stabilizer is an effect in Adobe’s Premiere Pro (as well as After Effects). In itself, it is a powerful tool which can be used to stabilize shaky footage here or there — though it’s not always perfect and can’t work miracles on hopelessly unstable footage. It’s all too common to see it applied improperly and create waves in footage which can ruin a project. Here are some tips for how to properly use or avoid using it.A Comprehensive Guide to Making the Most of Adobe’s Warp StabilizerRemove Warp From Warp Stabilizer Using After Effects4 Tips for Warp Stabilizer in Premiere Pro8. Not Taking the Time to Balance and Smooth Out AudioAudio is simply too important to be last on the editing to-do list and first on the chopping block. Bad, inconsistent audio can ruin a video from the get-go, so it’s important to treat it, well, like it’s important. Here are some tips and tricks for balancing and smoothing out audio transitions.How to Crossfade Audio Tracks in Premiere Pro and FCPXHow to Set Audio Levels for VideoAudio Tips and Tricks: Removing Echo and Reverb9. Incorrectly Formatting and/or ExportingWhether you’re exporting for YouTube or television, you need to be intentional with your export and formatting settings. Many editing programs include helpful presets that are often ignored if you don’t know where to look. Here are some helpful resources.Everything You Need to Know About Exporting VideoHow to Properly Export Video for YouTubeQuick Tip: Exporting Multiple Timelines in Adobe Premiere Pro Essential Gear for Product VideosHow to Extend Your DSLR batteryBackpacking Gear: Solar Charging for DSLR Camera Batteries What were some of you earliest filmmaking mistakes and video goofs? Share your war stories in the comments below!center_img The early paths of most filmmakers and videographers are littered with easy-to-avoid gaffes. Here are nine of the most common filmmaking mistakes and some easy ways to avoid them.Top image via PremiumBeat (How many mistakes do you see?)Filmmaking, at its heart, is a form of expression. It encourages freedom, experimentation, and innovation. There are an endless number of ways to set a shot, edit a scene, and tell a story. That being said, when you’re just starting out, there are several concepts, ideas, tips, and tricks which can help you make more thoughtful decisions in your filmmaking process.Let’s look at nine filmmaking mistakes which you may want to explore to better understand the art and your voice as a filmmaker.1. Forgetting Equipment or Arriving with Uncharged BatteriesImage via ShutterstockAgain, things like this should be common knowledge (regardless of your profession), but it still persists. Working as a professional videographer means taking the time to organize and properly prepare your gear and equipment well before you walk out of the door. Keeping your gear organized with a systematic workflow for charging batteries, dumping/wiping cards, and keeping everything cataloged is paramount for any serious video professional.last_img read more

World Cup Advancement Scenarios For Groups E And F

As the eight World Cup teams in Groups E and F take the field Wednesday in Brazil, some things are not in much doubt. Argentina has clinched advancement in Group F. France has not technically clinched advancement in Group E, but its goal differential is so strong that it has advanced for all intents and purposes.Switzerland and Ecuador have a lot on the line, however. So does Nigeria, which is favored to advance but could fail to do so if it loses to Argentina and Iran beats Bosnia and Herzegovina. There’s even a possibility that FIFA could have to draw lots to determine whether Nigeria or Iran moves on. Let’s focus on Nigeria’s Group F first, which will kick off its final games Wednesday at noon Eastern time:Most scenarios in Group F are simple. Argentina will advance in first place if it beats or draws Nigeria, or as the second-place team behind Nigeria if it loses to it.Nigeria is an 88 percent favorite to advance in some capacity, according to the FiveThirtyEight forecast. The only way it could fail to do so is the case I mentioned: if it loses to Argentina while Iran beats Bosnia. That scenario could get messy.Say that Iran beats Bosnia 2-1 while Nigeria loses to Argentina by the same 2-1 scoreline. Both teams will have one win, one draw and one loss. Both will have two goals scored and two goals allowed. FIFA’s next tiebreaker is head-to-head results, but Nigeria and Iran drew their match. That means FIFA would be out of tiebreakers and forced to draw lots to determine who advances.Mind you, this situation is unlikely. Iran is probably a weaker team than Bosnia and has only a 21 percent chance of beating the World Cup newcomer. Also, anything but the same scoreline in the two Group F matches would give FIFA some other way to resolve the tie. For example, if Iran won 2-0 and Nigeria lost 1-0, Iran would have the better goal differential and would advance. If Iran won 1-0 and Nigeria lost 2-1, the teams would be tied on goal differential but Nigeria would advance on the basis of goals scored. The chance that FIFA will have to draw lots is only 0.6 percent, according to our match predictor.An even bigger longshot than that scenario is if France failed to advance from Group E. Let’s look at the situation there:The FiveThirtyEight forecast lists each team’s advancement probability to the first decimal point and describes France’s chances at 100.0 percent; if we added a decimal place, they’d be 99.98 percent instead. The only way this extraordinarily unlikely scenario could come into play is as follows: France loses to Ecuador. Switzerland beats Honduras. Then France, Switzerland and Ecuador are tied atop Group E with six points each.This scenario is not all that unlikely: There’s a 10 percent chance that both Switzerland and Ecuador will win their matches. But France would also have to finish last among the three teams in the goal-differential tiebreaker. There’s almost no chance that will happen; France’s goal differential is +6 so far, while Ecuador’s is even and Switzerland’s is -2.But Switzerland and Ecuador’s advancement prospects are more complicated. Switzerland is guaranteed to advance if:It beats Honduras and Ecuador draws or loses.It draws Honduras and Ecuador loses.Ecuador is guaranteed to advance if:It beats France and Switzerland draws or loses.It draws France and Switzerland loses.Both matches in Group E are draws.Other cases, like the one where Ecuador and Switzerland both win, will go down to a tiebreaker.There’s even an outside chance (about 2 percent) for a three-way tie, in which Honduras could advance. That would require both Honduras and France to win — in which case Honduras, Ecuador and Switzerland would be tied for second with three points each. Honduras would then need to win on the tiebreaker. That would probably require them to beat Switzerland by at least two goals while Ecuador takes a multi-goal loss to France.CORRECTION (June 25, 9:39 a.m.): An earlier version of this post incorrectly described the scenario of Iran beating Bosnia 2-1 and Nigeria losing to Argentina by the same 2-1 scoreline. read more

Pellegrini Nasri must prove his fitness for West Ham deal

first_imgWest Ham boss Manuel Pellegrini insists they remain interested in signing Samir Nasri if he can prove his fitnessThe former Arsenal and Manchester City midfielder is currently training at West Ham in a bid to be awarded a contract.Reports suggest that a six-month deal with a weekly wage of £80,000-per-week is up for grabs at the London Stadium.But Pellegrini is adamant that Nasri will have to work hard for it till the end of the year to convince them he is worth every penny.The Frenchman hasn’t played a competitive match in 18 months after FIFA banned him in 2016 for breaching World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) rules.Jose Mourinho is sold on Lampard succeeding at Chelsea Tomás Pavel Ibarra Meda – September 14, 2019 Jose Mourinho wanted to give his two cents on Frank Lampard’s odds as the new Chelsea FC manager, he thinks he will succeed.There really…But Nasri will be free to play football again in January and has already undergone a medical with West Ham earlier this month.“We will see,” said Pellegrini on Sky Sports, when asked if he expects Nasri to join West Ham.“Samir Nasri is working with us after a long ban. We are giving him a hand to return to football.“I hope that from now until the end of the year he will be fit and if that is the case we will try to keep him here at West Ham.”Meanwhile, Hammers defender Pablo Zabaleta has backed the signing of his former City teammate.last_img read more