KSAFA to sell office

first_imgThe Kingston and St Andrew Football Association (KSAFA) is to sell the building that houses its headquarters at 40 Old Hope Road as the organisation embarks on finding a more fitting home.The administration has also already identified two prospective properties that are deemed to be more suitable and is in the process of making an acquisition.The development was revealed by KSAFA President Ambassador Stewart Stephenson at the launch of the 2016 David Hunt Management Seminar at the headquarters of sponsor Mayberry Investments Limited on Oxford Road in Kingston recently.The seminar is set for today at the Melbourne Cricket Club.The existing headquarters was bought by KSAFA in 2011 by the then administration led by President Rudolph Speid. In 2012, the property was said to be valued at $28 million. But according to Ambassador Stephenson, the property does not fit with the kind of image that KSAFA would want to have as a home.”As KSAFA continues to build and provide professional services for our association and our clubs we have had to look at the facilities that we occupy, and I am happy to announce that just yesterday (Wednesday) we signed a contract to sell our premises at 40 Old Hope Road, which was not appropriate in our judgement for building the kind of image and the kind of organisation that we want,” Stephenson said.Ambassador Stephenson said the contract that was signed Wednesday will conclude in four months and the association has already received a deposit on the sale.”We met with our clubs and they voted without objection for the sale of the building on Friday, the 15th of January for us to find a more appropriate location that reflects the needs of KSAFA with adequate parking etc. There is no reason why KSAFA should not look as good as Mayberry or any other corporate enterprise.”last_img read more

Lamarckism Still Shuffles Around

first_imgExamine the following quotation and see if it sounds like what Darwin or Lamarck would say: Somewhere in the murky past, between four and seven million years ago, a hungry common ancestor of today’s primates, including humans, did something novel.  While temporarily standing on its rear feet to reach a piece of fruit, this protohominid spotted another juicy morsel in a nearby shrub and began shuffling toward it instead of dropping on all fours, crawling to the shrub and standing again.    A number of reasons have been proposed for the development of bipedal behavior, or walking on two feet, and now researchers from the University of Washington and Johns Hopkins University have developed a mathematical model that suggests shuffling emerged as a precursor to walking as a way of saving metabolic energy.This is how Science Daily began a story about the evolution of human upright posture.  No attempt was made to tie the behavior to random mutations or to explain how natural selection acted on them.  It sounds like Lamarck’s old hypothesis of the inheritance of acquired characteristics through use and disuse – a discredited idea according to most contemporary Darwinists.  Nor was an explanation offered, if the new stance was so effective, why modern apes still stoop around most of the time on all fours.    Lest Science Daily be accused of misunderstanding evolutionary theory, quotations in the article tie the Lamarckism to the researchers themselves.  Patrick Kramer, an anthropologist at University of Washington, said, “There is nothing that will get you to do something you don’t want to do other than food.  That’s why we bribe animals with food to train them.”  Yet after centuries of bribing animals with food to stand upright, no elephant, horse or ape has acquired upright stance by either Lamarck’s or Darwin’s mechanism.    The researchers studied metabolic efficiency of standing, knuckle-walking and shuffling, but such measurements are about living animals.  They have no necessary connection to the evolutionary theory that made Darwin famous: natural selection acting on random variations.If a creationist were to make this kind of blunder, or tell this kind of just-so story, he or she would be condemned as an ignoramus.  Yet evolutionists get away with violating their own theoretical principles time and again and are only rarely called on the carpet for it (05/31/2004).  Why?  Because in support of their worldview (naturalism), facts don’t matter (see Fairfax’s Law in the Baloney Detector).  All’s fair in love for Darwin and war against creationism.  That’s why Darwin himself slipped back toward Lamarckism in his later years when stubborn facts hampered his ability to market natural selection.    A political cartoon by Mike Shelton illustrates unequal standards.  It applies just as well if relabeled with a Darwinist donkey and a creationist elephant.  Evolutionists will scream and preach about honesty when criticizing a creationist position, but then will lie shamelessly in their own work and call it science.  They will even lie while calling their critics liars, and hypocritically call creationists hypocrites (see Evolution News).    You can almost hear in advance the charges that would come from the pro-Darwin blogs about our pointing out this little inconsistency in their latest just-so story.  Let a creationist be caught in some inconsistency, and the sparks would fly: You creationists are such hypocrites; you Bible-thumping fundamentalists with your narrow religious agenda show that you just don’t understand science.  Let an evolutionist be caught in an inconsistency, and the response will be either (1) ignoring the criticism, or (2) rationalization, like Well, you know what I meant, and we all know that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. (Visited 7 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

More Bad News on Ventilation System Effectiveness

first_img This article is only available to GBA Prime Members When researchers look at the effectiveness of ventilation systems installed in new homes, what do they find? To some extent, the answer depends on what area of the country you’re talking about, but we can safely report that:Let’s look three recent field studies: one in Washington, one in Florida, and one in California.In 2014, six researchers — David Hales, Ken Eklund, Rick Kunkle, Michael Lubliner, Adria Banks, and Charlie Stevens — performed a field study of ventilation systems in 29 homes in the Pacific Northwest. Their report, “A Field Study of Ventilation System Effectiveness in Low Air Leakage Residences,” is available online.The systems were pre-screened. The ventilation researchers only included systems that were able to meet the requirements of the ASHRAE 62.2 standard. So right off the bat, a lot of ventilation systems were excluded, simply because they weren’t properly designed or installed.The 29 homes included a variety of systems, including exhaust-only systems, central-fan-integrated supply ventilation systems, HRV systems, and ERV systems.Here’s a key finding of the study: Most of the occupants of these homes didn’t know how to operate or maintain their ventilation system.The researchers wrote, “The fact that over 90% of the occupants were satisfied with their system performance and indoor air quality even though over half of them did not have enough knowledge to operate or maintain the system is troubling, especially where the lack of knowledge correlates with unresolved operation and maintenance issues found by the WSU [Washington State University] Energy Program field staff. It means that occupant satisfaction is not a good indicator of ventilation system performance. Further, if something was seriously wrong with the system, the home occupant would probably be unable to recognize it or take appropriate action. Problems found on initial audit included controls not set to… Sign up for a free trial and get instant access to this article as well as GBA’s complete library of premium articles and construction details.center_img Start Free Trial Already a member? Log inlast_img read more

Kashmiri students attacked at varsity

first_imgA group of students allegedly thrashed four fellow students from Jammu and Kashmir at a private university at Gangrar in Chittorgarh district of Rajasthan late on Friday, sparking off tension on the campus. One of the injured students, Tahir Majeed, was admitted to Sanwaliyaji Government Hospital in Chittorgarh.The clash occurred at Mewar University, when the two groups had an altercation over gate passes. The Kashmiri students alleged that the students from Bihar insulted them and attacked with knives and iron rods.Bilal Ahmad, Mohammed Ali and Ishfaq Ahmad Qureshi sustained minor injuries. The university’s dean and proctor rushed to the spot and brought the situation under control.The police have registered a First Information Report under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. Four accused were placed under preventive detention under Section 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code.Nasir Khuehami, spokesperson of the J&K Students’ Association, demanded immediate steps for the security of Kashmiri students at the university and medical care of the injured. “Such incidents will increase the sense of insecurity and anxiety among Kashmiri students and their parents and relatives,” he said.The university’s admission coordinator, Amit Kumar, told The Hindu that “nothing serious” had happened, and the issue was sorted out. Over 30 students from Jammu and Kashmir are enrolled at the university, and they had come under attack several times in the past. In 2017, some locals attacked Kashmiri students when they went to town to buy fruits and groceries. Four students were beaten up in 2016 over rumours of their cooking beef.last_img read more