A young Glenties woman has embarked on an exciting bid to be crowned Miss Ireland 2019.Naomi Molloy, 23, is representing Kildare in the pageant as she has lived in Celbridge for the past year.Being a ‘Miss Kildare’ from Donegal means Naomi has two counties to champion in the national competition. “So far my Miss Ireland experience has been incredible, the support from both Co Donegal and Co Kildare have been fantastic. Both counties have so much community spirit and support for everything that goes on in their areas!” Naomi said.Miss Donegal Holly Mc Crea and Miss Kildare Naomi MolloyNaomi is a graduate of Food Science and Business who now works in Sales at O’Brien Fine Foods. She is using her newfound platform as a Miss Ireland finalist to share an important message:“I entered Miss Ireland to use it as platform to have my voice heard, to increase awareness of mental health in Ireland, and reduce the stubborn stigma that comes with it. I firstly will be targeting family, friends, the workplace and also the younger generation,” Naomi said.Miss Kildare 2019 Naomi MolloyNaomi is also fundraising for children’s charity Variety Ireland this year, which is the partner cause of Miss Ireland 2019. She will be hosting an afternoon tea and raffle in Naas later this month as part of the ‘Beauty with a Purpose’ campaign. The Miss Ireland final takes place on the 14th September in Dublin’s Helix Theatre. Donegal will be well-represented by Miss Donegal Holly Mc Crea, Miss Letterkenny Anna Gallagher and Miss Kildare Naomi Molloy.Glenties woman flying the flag for two counties in Miss Ireland pageant was last modified: August 11th, 2019 by Rachel McLaughlinShare 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) Tags:MISS IRELANDmiss kildarenaomi molloy
The government has been criticised for their decision to walk away from talks with trade unions on pensions for Community Employment Supervisors. He was speaking after the campaign of community supervisors in Donegal conveyed their dismay at the decision – branding the government actions as “unacceptable”.Senator MacLochlainn said: “It is now 11 years since the Labour Court made a recommendation that an agreed pension scheme for CE Supervisors should be put in place by the State. “That means 11 years of CE Supervisors retiring from their job without the occupational pension recommended by the labour relations machinery of the State.“I welcomed Minister Doherty coming to the table with Minister Donohue to engage with representatives of CE Supervisors. It was believed that these talks would continue until an agreement was reached, once and for all.“Instead, we now have a situation where both Ministers have walked away from the talks process and reneged on their commitment to bring forward their proposals to resolve the matter.“This is unacceptable and I am calling on Minister Doherty to keep her word and to engage in good faith with representatives of CE Supervisors. The Labour Court recommendation from 2008 must be implemented now.” Govt slammed for “unacceptable” actions towards pension talks was last modified: November 13th, 2019 by Shaun KeenanShare 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)
Click here if you’re unable to view the gallery on your mobile device.SAN FRANCISCO — The Giants finally made a splash this offseason, and while the impact on the field could take some time, the results outside their waterfront ballpark will be immediate.Redwood Shores-based Oracle Corp. has purchased the naming rights to the team stadium, for between $200 million and $350 million, according to news reports Wednesday.The Giants are expected to officially announce the name change from AT&T …
To a middle school student, science is a clear category; it’s a subject you take, along with history, language, or P.E. You have a science teacher; you read a science textbook. You learn about the scientific method. In the real world, though, categories are not always so clearly delineated. In fact, the leading science journal, Nature, seems to be asking some fundamental questions about the methods and materials of its very reason for being. This week, Nature presented a debate between two cancer researchers on whether scientific research should proceed “hypothesis first” or “data first.” The controversy has arisen, in part, by the technology available. Large-scale genomic surveys are now possible, and funds are being focused away from traditional methods toward obtaining vast databases of genetic information. Robert Weinberg is alarmed at the trend; he argued that mere data collection without understanding is pointless and that the funding shifts are discouraging small research projects from which major insights have been traditionally been made.1 Todd Golub argued that patterns in complex phenomena become apparent only when there is sufficient data available.2 It takes a lot of data to separate signal from noise; therefore data collection is essential before new hypotheses can be generated. The interesting thing about these articles is not who won the debate, but that a question so basic about the scientific method needs to be asked nearly 400 years after Francis Bacon. To what extent is the question a consequence of the sheer volume of data that can be accumulated and stored? The scientific method was devised when data was written with a quill on parchment. Peer review is another focal point of dispute. Last week, Nature applauded a British research council that is cracking down on the practice of flooding review agencies with grant applications.3 Because the odds of winning a grant are low, “low success rates lead researchers to submit more applications in the hope of securing at least some funding, overburdening peer reviewers,” the editors explained. “The system ends up rewarding safe, short-term research proposals that meet everyone’s approval, at the cost of the innovative suggestions it should be supporting.” The council now says that if you don’t secure funding, you are limited to one application the following year. They feel the council’s new “‘blacklisting’ rule is a radical, unpopular but courageous effort to address a crisis in the peer-review system.” But will the cure be worse than the disease?The consequences of the revised policy are uncertain. Thanks to other peer-review changes, applications have already been cut by about a third since last year, and success rates are up. But the new policy’s threat of exclusion may further discourage adventurous funding bids. The EPSRC also runs the risk of alienating its community, making it harder to find peer reviewers – who are in increasingly scarce supply.The rule has already generated inequities and complaints. Nature still thinks it was a good move that requires fine-tuning. No one is sure at this point what will happen. Could luck play a role in who gets in the game? “Other scientists have worried that an application is marked ‘unsuccessful’ if it falls below the halfway point on a list of proposals ranked by panels of peer reviewers � a criterion that not only seems arbitrary, but also risks taking out good researchers who are simply unlucky.” Imagine if the loser in this process had been a young new Isaac Newton. The editors left it open if the council’s “gutsy gamble” will work, and noted that other councils are watching what happens. Letters to the editor are often interesting to read. Three biologists from three widely respected scientific institutions wrote Nature last week in a huff, challenging the editors’ definition of science. As a follow-up to the Human Genome Project, now 10 years old, Nature’s editors had written that it is “Time for the epigenome” project.4 The three scientists were “astonished” at that editorial,5 claiming that it seemed to “disregard principles of gene regulation and of evolutionary and developmental biology that have been established during the past 50 years.” Their complaint was not just about disagreements on traditional practices, but about Nature’s acceptance of the idea that the epigenome has a “scientific basis” at all. Undoubtedly the editors would take umbrage at challenges to their ability to judge what constitutes science. The internet age is shifting the dynamics of scientific practice. However comfortable the world was with the peer-reviewed publishing paradigm, times have changed. Instant internet access is democratizing science in many ways. Nature has read the tea leaves and is adjusting. In a dramatic move, Nature’s editors are opening up their once-impregnable editorial fortress and letting the peasants in. “Nature’s new online commenting facility opens up the entire magazine for discussion,” the Editorial announced this week.6 They have some concerns about signal to noise; comments will be vetted and monitored to weed out libel, obscenity or unjustified accusations – but not trivia. They will review their approach after a few months. Nevertheless, the popularity of internet blogs has not been lost on Nature and they are seeing the value of interesting and lively dialogue. It appears from the comments to this editorial that many think it’s a great idea. Perhaps the best way to evaluate good science is with some form of measurement. Alas, another paper in Nature pointed out serious failings in that regard. In an Opinion piece last week,7 Julia Lane proposed, “Let’s make science metrics more scientific.” She wasn’t discussing better ohmmeters or ammeters – the subtitle explained, “To capture the essence of good science, stakeholders must combine forces to create an open, sound and consistent system for measuring all the activities that make up academic productivity, says Julia Lane” She described the problem in stark reality:Measuring and assessing academic performance is now a fact of scientific life. Decisions ranging from tenure to the ranking and funding of universities depend on metrics. Yet current systems of measurement are inadequate. Widely used metrics, from the newly-fashionable Hirsch index to the 50-year-old citation index, are of limited use. Their well-known flaws include favouring older researchers, capturing few aspects of scientists’ jobs and lumping together verified and discredited science. Many funding agencies use these metrics to evaluate institutional performance, compounding the problems. Existing metrics do not capture the full range of activities that support and transmit scientific ideas, which can be as varied as mentoring, blogging or creating industrial prototypes. The dangers of poor metrics are well known – and science should learn lessons from the experiences of other fields, such as business. The management literature is rich in sad examples of rewards tied to ill-conceived measures, resulting in perverse outcomes. When the Heinz food company rewarded employees for divisional earnings increases, for instance, managers played the system by manipulating the timing of shipments and pre-payments. Similarly, narrow or biased measures of scientific achievement can lead to narrow and biased science.Whether Lane’s suggestions will solve these is another question. The fact that she opened them up for discussion in Nature should be enough to raise eyebrows among those who think of science as an unbiased enterprise. Lane’s paper did more to elaborate on the problems than to solve them. Moreover, her solutions sound like an internet-age Web 3.0 pipe dream:How can we best bring all this theory and practice together? An international data platform supported by funding agencies could include a virtual ‘collaboratory’, in which ideas and potential solutions can be posited and discussed. This would bring social scientists together with working natural scientists to develop metrics and test their validity through wikis, blogs and discussion groups, thus building a community of practice. Such a discussion should be open to all ideas and theories and not restricted to traditional bibliometric approaches.Something “should” be done, she ended: “Some fifty years after the first quantitative attempts at citation indexing, it should be feasible to create more reliable, more transparent and more flexible metrics of scientific performance.” She claimed “The foundations have been laid” but it’s evident that little is being done yet. That means all the problems she listed are today’s risks and realities. Someday, over the rainbow, “Far-sighted action can ensure that metrics goes beyond identifying ‘star’ researchers, nations or ideas, to capturing the essence of what it means to be a good scientist.” It’s clear that science is evolving, as it always has. But what is it evolving from, and what is it evolving toward? If science itself is not stable, has it ever been – or will it ever be – a reliable method of gaining understanding?8 1. Robert Weinberg, “Point: Hypotheses first,” Nature 464, 678 (1 April 2010) | doi:10.1038/464678a; Published online 31 March 2010.2. Todd Golub, “Counterpoint: Data first,” Nature 464, 679 (1 April 2010) | doi:10.1038/464679a; Published online 31 March 2010.3. Editorial, “Tough love,” Nature 464, 465 (25 March 2010) | doi:10.1038/464465a; Published online 24 March 2010.4. Editorial, “Time for the epigenome,” Nature 463, 587 (4 February 2010) | doi:10.1038/463587a; Published online 3 February 2010.5. Ptashne, Hobert and Davidson, “Questions over the scientific basis of epigenome project,” Nature 464, 487 (25 March 2010) | doi:10.1038/464487c.6. Editorial, “Content rules,” Nature 464, 466 (25 March 2010) | doi:10.1038/464466a; Published online 24 March 2010.7. Julia Lane, “Let’s make science metrics more scientific,” Nature 464, 488-489 (25 March 2010) | doi:10.1038/464488a; Published online 24 March 2010.8. “Understanding” is not the same thing as explanation, prediction, and control. Scientific theories can provide those things and still be wrong or lacking in understanding of reality. See the 3/17/2010 commentary.Science is mediated through fallible human beings. It is not “out there” in the world, to be retrieved in some unbiased way. Human beings have to figure out not only what nature is showing us – they have to figure out what nature is, and what science is. At every step there are decisions to be made by creatures who don’t know everything and who weren’t there at the beginning. We must divest our minds of the notion that science is an unbiased method that obtains incontrovertible truth. That is certainly not the case to an evolutionist. If blind processes produced human beings, we have no necessary or certain access to external reality. Some philosophers have tried to defend “evolutionary epistemology” – a notion that if evolution had not put us in touch with reality, we would not have survived. That’s a self-referential fallacy that assumes reality is real and that evolution is capable of addressing philosophical questions. Science is supposed to be a systematic attempt to discern and understand the natural world, but all attempts to define science in ways that keep the good stuff in and the bad stuff out have failed. Take any definition of science and you will find examples: is science methodologically rigorous? So is astrology. Is science restricted to repeatable observation? Better not talk about dark energy or black holes. Does it make predictions? Some sportscasters score better than the 5% confidence level considered statistically significant in scientific experiments. Is it the consensus of the learned? Astrology, alchemy and Ptolemaic astronomy had long and established credentials. Is it restricted to explanations based on natural law? So much for chaos theory, probability and any explanation invoking contingency, like evolution. Is it restricted to natural explanations for natural phenomena? Read creationist journals and you will find much of this, yet the scientific establishment routinely excludes their views. Consistent philosophers of science have had to agree that by any normal definition, creation science is scientific – or else you wind up excluding other approaches the establishment doesn’t want to give up. No two philosophers of science agree completely on what science is, let alone what scientists should be doing. Philosophers differ wildly on the nature of scientific discovery, the nature of scientific evidence, and the nature and propriety of scientific explanation. The whole field is riddled with deep and unresolved questions. If you resort to an operational definition, it becomes circular: What is science? Science is what scientists do. What do scientists do? Science. In practice, “science” is often defined as whatever those in power take it to mean. As shown by the letter to Nature above, they sometimes can’t agree among themselves. The practice of science has changed considerably over the centuries. In the early 18th century, interested amateurs like James Joule worked independently and discussed their findings at local scientific societies that were little more than clubs. Today there is rapid, instantaneous conversation via the internet – some good, some bad, some ugly. Science has become a human social phenomenon wielding immense political and economic power. Many individual scientists do their work honestly; they really want to figure out the truth about some phenomenon, find a cure, bring clarity to a question about nature, organize our accumulating data in a useful way. At every level, though, human frailty is an intrinsic factor. Consider these very practical issues that each require decisions based on fallible human opinions:Who gets funding.How one increases the odds of getting funding.How much funding is needed (meat over gravy).How much one has to go along to get along.What school one goes to, and how it affects prestige.How one’s work is perceived by one’s peers.The availability of peer reviewers.Whether the peer reviewers are unbiased or potential rivals.How many peer reviewers are enough.Whether a glass ceiling exists for women researchers.Whether the good-old-boys club keeps out young or female entrants.Whether a consensus represents confidence or inertia.To what extent a consensus muscles out the mavericks.Whether a maverick has a view worth hearing (who decides?)The effect of tenure or the lack of it on objectivity.Whether corporate funding biases the findings.Whether government funding biases the findings.Whether individual hubris biases the findings (think Mesmer).The influence of one or more strong personalities in a field (think Freud).Whether quantity of research activity correlates with significance.Whether number of published papers correlates with understanding.Whether volume of writing on a subject correlates with its value.The extent to which references reinforce dogma (see 03/17/2006).How long it takes for new knowledge, or falsified theories, to become generally known (01/15/2010).Whether public comments provide signal or noise.Whether an expensive project provides value.How a project’s perceived value is to be measured.How the quality of scientific activity or results is to be measured.At what point a project outlives its usefulness.Whether the issue being investigated is a scientific question.These and other issues raise an interesting thought: is a kid doing a science project she loves, or a citizen scientist pursuing a question out of his own interest and curiosity, closer to the pure scientific ideal? But if so, how would they ever afford to build a Large Hadron Collider? The expense of large scientific research programs has created a monstrosity of institutions, political processes and issues about what it is science is trying to do and why. It might be compared to how San Francisco became a boom town to support the gold miners. A lot of ancillary activity emerged (including crime and saloons) whose relevance to the activity of mining was questionable. Nevertheless, we’re stuck with Big Science. Whether more openness to public visibility via the internet will keep it honest (or make it honest) remains to be seen.Exercise: Add to our list of non-epistemic factors that must be considered in evaluating the nature and results of science.(Visited 22 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Guide to Performing Bulk Email Verification The Dos and Don’ts of Brand Awareness Videos Related Posts sarah perez Facebook is Becoming Less Personal and More Pro… Tags:#Facebook#security#web A Comprehensive Guide to a Content Audit Yesterday we reported on a problem that was affecting several Facebook page owners – due to a loophole in Facebook’s process for handling DMCA takedown requests, anyone with an ax to grind and a fake email address could take down any Facebook page by filling out an online form with false information, claiming copyright infringement.Facebook doesn’t verify the identity of those filing the claim, and more importantly, it doesn’t verify the claim is from a legitimate email address. After a handful of high-profile sites became the victim of this problem, Facebook has stepped in to resolve the problem. Well, sort of. The social networking company says it has restored four pages, but it has not made any changes to its system as of yet.What Was Happening?With Facebook’s faulty system, which we detailed here, anyone could get a Facebook page taken down just by filling out an online form with fake information. Because Facebook did not verify the email address of the person doing the reporting, several page owners found themselves without any way to resolve the dispute. In some cases, the fake email addresses the scammer had entered ended up belonging to an uninvolved third-party, who, fortunately for the site owner (Taimur Asad of RedmondPie), was kind enough to contact Facebook on the owner’s behalf to have the claim removed. Others, like Hamard Dar, who owns a site called Rewriting Technology, were not as lucky. His page was down for over a month. He was only able to restore it by performing an investigation on his own to determine who submitted the complaint and then threaten them with criminal charges.Facebook’s ResponseIn light of the controversy, Facebook has now responded to these complaints, saying that it has “investigated a number of recent intellectual property cases and have restored four pages as a result.”Yes, just four.The spokesperson also added:Abuse of DMCA and other intellectual property notice procedures is a challenge for every major Internet service and we take it seriously. We have invested significant resources into creating a dedicated team that uses specialized tools, systems and technology to review and properly handle intellectual property notices. This system evaluates a number of factors when deciding how to respond and, in many cases, we require the reporter to provide additional information before we can take action. As a result of these efforts, the vast majority of intellectual property notices that we receive are handled without incident. Of course, no system is perfect and we are always striving to improve our practices. As such, we will be considering the results of our investigation into this matter as we continue to refine our systems and procedures. How Many Others are Out There?Unfortunately, this response is not good enough for others who are still dealing with the effects of Facebook’s failed system.According to Hassan Ali, who runs apniisp.com, a popular entertainment website based in Pakistan, his Facebook page with over 44,000 fans was disabled on March 3, 2011, and the email address belonging to the supposedly infringed upon party is not even working – all the emails just bounce back.This goes to one of the main issues with Facebook’s system – it doesn’t even verify the email address works. In addition, Facebook’s support in this area doesn’t help the affected parties – form letters from what appear to be bots called “Reggie” and “Marissa” are the only “people” who will respond to emails asking for help. And they always say the same thing: Facebook won’t get involved, work it out yourself and get a lawyer.But in Ali’s case, Facebook isn’t even listening to his legal counsel, he says. In an excerpt from Facebook’s email, the company writes,“If you believe that this claim has been made under false pretenses, we recommend that you contact a lawyer or your local law enforcement agency and discuss this issue with them.”But when Ali’s lawyer contacted Facebook on his behalf, Facebook replied:“We can only correspond with an admin of the removed content.”Ali says he has been struggling with this issue for 50 days and doesn’t know what do to anymore.Restoring Pages is a Band-Aid, Not a SolutionWhile the four site owners affected were glad to see their pages return, the brand reputation they suffered is, in some cases, irreversible. In one instance, a new, fake Facebook page had appeared, offering the newly migrated fans “free iPads,” in what was clearly an online scam.When asked what Facebook was doing in the future to address this issue, as simply restoring the pages of those bloggers notable enough to have caused a ruckus doesn’t fix the real problem, Facebook told one of the site owners that the issue would be discussed and Facebook will “consider refinements to our system.”Consider?How hard is it to implement email validation? What’s to consider? At the very least, the form should verify the email address works before removing pages based on faulty claims. At best, Facebook should make it more challenging for these claims to exist in the first place. A good first step? Stop allowing disposable webmail addresses in the “email” portion of the field.We expect that this isn’t the last we’ll hear of changes to the DMCA takedown system over at Facebook. In the meantime, can someone besides “Marissa” or “Reggie” please look into Ali’s case?
Rohit Sharma scored an unbeaten 68 as India overcame a shaky start to notch up an easy four-wicket win over the West Indies in the first One-Day International of the five-match series at the Queen’s Park Oval here Monday. Score | PhotosIndia had won the T20 match against West Indies on Saturday.Chasing a modest 215-run target, Rohit anchored the Indian innings and together with captain Suresh Raina (43) raised 80 runs for the fifth wicket to guide India home in 44.5 overs after the visitors lost their first three wickets for just 61 runs.Rohit’s unbeaten knock came off 75 balls during which he struck three fours and a six while Raina scored his 43 from 50 deliveries with the help of four boundaries.At the top, opener Shikhar Dhawan (51 off 76) notched up his maiden half-century and guided the chase initially to help India’s cause.Leg-spinner Anthony Martin (2/39) was the best bowler in action for the home team while pacer Ravi Rampaul also snarred two wickets but gave away 58 runs in the process.Earlier, Ramnaresh Sarwan and Marlon Samuels scored hard-earned half centuries as West Indies struggled to score a modest 214 for nine.Opting to bat, West Indies witnessed a wobbly start to their innings as they lost their first three wickets scoring just 59 runs in 18.2 overs.But Sarwan and Samuels then paired up to resurrect the innings with a 82-run fourth-wicket partnership that came of 118 balls.While Sarwan’s 56 came off 94 balls and was studded with only five boundaries, Samuels took 75 deliveries to score his 55. He hit three fours and two sixes.advertisementThe stand between Sarwan and Samuels was the only silver lining in the West Indies innings as the hosts scored 73 runs in the last 12 overs losing as many as six wickets.Down the order, Dwayne Bravo tried his bit to up the scoring rate with a 20-ball 22 while opener Kirk Edwards (21 off 45) was the next best scorer for the Caribbean side.For India, off-spinner Harbhajan Singh relished at the low and slow Queen’s Park Oval pitch with figures of three wickets for 32, while Praveen Kumar (2/37), Munaf Patel (2/47) and captain Suresh Raina (2/23) shared six wickets among them.Coming onto bat, the Indians found it difficult to bat with fluency on a sluggish Queeen’s Park Oval wicket and against the niggardly line of West Indian bowlers, especially leg-spinning duo of Martin and Devendra Bishoo, who conceded only 76 runs from their 20 overs and picked up three wickets between them.West Indies skipper Darren Sammy was an excellent foil to his spinners and it was only the depth of India’s middle order which gave them a 1-0 lead in the five-match series.Openers Parthiv Patel (13) and Dhawan (51) had smoothly moved to 29 runs by the sixth over when a smart throw from Dwayne Bravo at mid-on found the former short of his crease at the batsman’s end.Virat Kohli (2) aimed a lordly drive at an away going delivery from Ravi Rampaul and nicked a straight forward catch to Carlton Baugh behind the stumps as India slumped to 34 for two.Badrinath then under-edged a cut off Bishoo into the gloves of Baugh to leave India in testy waters at 61 for three.Dhawan and Rohit then soldiered on to bring up the hundred of the innings, which also was the moment to celebrate the former’s maiden ODI fifty.Dhawan appeared to have got carried away by the occasion as he slogged-swept Martin from outside the off-stump to hole out to Lendl Simmons at deep midwicket.Dhawan played a useful hand of 51 off 76 balls with three fours and a six.Rohit and Raina then played like seasoned campaigners and first layed the foundation of their stand and then slipped into top gear to gallop towards the target.Rohit reached his half century with a gorgeous backfoot drive off Martin into the covers in the 39th over and ensured he stayed till the end to take India past the finishing line in the 45th over.Raina, on the other hand, thrived under pressure and batted with authority to make 43 from 50 balls.The West Indies fought gamely but they didn’t have enough runs on the board to stretch the visitors.Earlier, the West Indian batsmen failed to rotate strike for most part of their innings and could score only 70 runs from the 20 overs of frontline Indian spinners — Harbhajan Singh and Amit Mishra.Even the part-time bowlers, Yusuf Pathan, Raina and Virat Kohli conceded only 54 runs from the fifth bowler’s quota to strangulate the West Indian innings.Despite some early play-and-miss and a dropped chance in the slips, the hosts found themselves tottering at 28 for two by the eighth over after electing to bat.advertisementOpener Lendl Simmons was on naught when he was reprieved by Rohit Sharma off Munaf in the first slip, but despite the life he scored only six runs before an over-hit was caught by Harbhajan off Praveen at mid-off. .Young prodigy Darren Bravo departed in the very next over when he drove at a moving delivery without much foot movement and this time the thick edge was well-accepted by Rohit in the lone slip.West Indies then began the long haul of recovery as painfully slow Kirk Edwards (21) and Sarwan dropped anchor for the next 11-odd overs.But Edwards departed next as he pulled too early at a slow delivery from Harbhajan and a leading edge went high up in the air for Virat Kohli to accept in the slips.It made the score 59 for three in the 19th over but there was no break in the tempo as Sarwan and Samuels buckled themselves up for the long, hard and boring grind.The crowd was thrilled when Samuels made the most of a free-hit against Kohli and hoisted him over widish long on for six and then Sarwan steered and flicked Munaf for two consecutive fours to move past his half century.However, the stands fell silent when Sarwan edged an innocuous Munaf delivery down the leg side to Parthiv Patel behind the stumps.Samuels too reached his half century in stirring fashion with a powerfully hit six down the ground off Amit Mishra but after doing all the hard work he suffered a soft dismissal when a Raina delivery dislodged his stumps after hitting the inside of his pads.Samuels departed in the 42nd over with the West Indies scoreboard reading 177 for five.Harbhajan finished his final spell with two critical wickets of Dwayne Bravo, who was stumped by Parthiv and Carton Baugh (16) lbw while attempting a sweep.Raina then showed up West Indies batter’s complete ineptness against spin when he picked up two late wickets to leave the hosts gasping for breath.- With PTI inputs
A video grab taken from AFP TV footage shows WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange as he is driven by British Police to Westminster Magistrates Court in London on 11 April 2019. Photo: AFPWikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s seven-year hideout in Ecuador’s London embassy dramatically ended Thursday when British police dragged him out and arrested him on a US extradition request.Footage from the Russian video news agency Ruptly showed Assange — his worn face framed by a bushy white beard and shock of silver hair — being hustled out of the building by burly men in suits and pulled into a waiting police van.The scene unfolded outside the plush central London building that has been Assange’s refuge from the authorities since 2012.”No one is above the law,” British prime minister Theresa May said to cheers in parliament.The drama came after Ecuador — under pro-US president Lenin Moreno, increasingly frustrated with Assange’s stay — pulled its asylum and cancelled his citizenship after earlier curbing his internet and mobile phone access.British police said Assange had been initially arrested for breaching his bail conditions in 2012 and then “further arrested on behalf of the United States”, where he is wanted to face hacking charges.His London lawyer Jennifer Robinson said Assange would be “contesting and fighting” his extradition.Robinson said Assange had also told her to pass a message to his supporters that his repeated warnings about the risk of US extradition had been proved right.”He said: ‘I told you so’,” Robinson told reporters and supporters, including fashion designer Vivienne Westwood, outside Westminster Magistrates Court.’I’m not leaving’The pony-tailed 47-year-old Australian gave a thumbs-up sign to the press gallery in court and opened up a copy of Gore Vidal’s book “History of the National Security State” about the US military-industrial complex before his hearing began.Judge Michael Snow pronounced Assange guilty of breaching his bail conditions by sheltering in the embassy and remanded him in custody to face sentencing at an unspecified later date.He faces up to a year in a British prison and will have his separate extradition case heard on 2 May.Assange yelled “this is unlawful” and “I am not leaving” during the arrest, the court was told.Police struggled to handcuff him but eventually lifted him out exactly an hour after entering the embassy.Assange had long suspected that he was secretly wanted by Washington for his decision to publish a trove of classified Pentagon documents detailing alleged US war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.US authorities had steadfastly refused to confirm reports that they had issued a sealed indictment against Assange — until Thursday.The US Justice Department said Assange was being charged with a computer hacking conspiracy relating to his work with former US intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning in March 2010.”If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison,” a Justice Department statement said.US president Donald Trump brushed aside the issue when questioned by reporters at the White House.”I know nothing about WikiLeaks, it’s not my thing.”Guarantee against death penaltyAssange will now be at the heart of a legal and diplomatic tug of war pitting him and his legions of supporters — including Russian authorities — against the US justice system.His links to Russia continued through the years holed up in the Ecuadoran embassy.WikiLeaks also published damaging emails stolen from Hillary Clinton and her Democratic Party’s computer servers during her failed 2016 US presidential race against Donald Trump.US intelligence agencies believe the hack was conducted by Russia’s military intelligence agency. Assange says he never knew the source of the politically-compromising material when he released it on WikiLeaks.Assange’s supporters fear that his extradition will be followed by more serious US charges such as treason — a crime that carries the death penalty in wartime.Moreno insisted that he had “asked Great Britain for the guarantee that Mr Assange will not be extradited to any country in which he could suffer torture or face the death penalty”.’Dangerous precedent’Assange’s case has opened up a bigger debate about security and free speech.His supporters view him as a fearless exposer of injustices such as torture and alleged war crimes committed by US forces and then covered up.Assange’s critics accuse him of cosying up to authoritarian leaders such as Russian president Vladimir Putin and putting US lives at risk.The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said “any prosecution by the United States of Mr Assange for Wikileaks’ publishing operations would be unprecedented and unconstitutional”.The Reporters Without Borders free speech group said Assange’s arrest “could set a dangerous precedent for journalists, whistleblowers, and other journalistic sources that the US may wish to pursue in the future”.Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova accused Britain of “strangling freedom” and fugitive US whistleblower Edward Snowden — himself hiding in Moscow since 2013 — said the arrest was a “dark moment”.Former Ecuadoran president Rafael Correa claimed it was an act of “personal vengeance” on the part of his successor Moreno.In Quito Thursday, Ecuador’s interior minister Maria Paula Romo revealed to journalists that authorities had identified a WikiLeaks collaborator close to Assange as being involved in a plot with two Russian hackers to destabilise Moreno’s government.Ecuador also recently filed a formal complaint to the UN special rapporteur on the right to privacy accusing WikiLeaks of spreading private information linked to Moreno.
Recently, the other old hand in this new biochemistry, Craig Venter, asked Church during an interview if everything would still be copacetic—in other words, if mirror drugs and enzymes would really perform the exact same way in the mirror world. While drug companies may be salivating after Church’s short-latency positive answer, there is some intriguing evidence that more subtle symmetry-breaking electron spin effects could be at play. In one such conception, electrons originally in heterogenous spin states are released from an enzyme (like NADH synthase) and are subsequently filtered and polarized as they pass through chiral α-helix structures to the site of amino acid synthesis at the other end. This effectively produces “spin up” electrons that, if you can excuse the jargon, participate in the reductive reaction between α-oxo acid and ammonia with only L-amino acids forming according to the Pauli exclusion principle. In any event, to look in the mirror on the wall and see a biology that does not behave exactly like ours would seem to require some significant new parity breakdown in physics, to say the least.Now, olfaction is probably the space where these deuterium switches and chiral switches most informatively converge to elucidate how receptors might operate. In fact, the authors explicitly highlight the fact that their histamine receptor model may have something to say about olfactory receptors. Importantly, both of these receptor classes belong to the so-called GPCR (G-protein coupled receptor) family that vertebrates use to detect odorants; half of our own 800 GPCRs are provisioned almost exclusively to olfaction.The author’s main comments, here, center on the aromatic groups of molecules, features that are typically associated with delocalized electrons. For example, the imidazole ring of histidine (histamine’s the amino acid precursor) is aromatic at all pH values; four of its pi electrons form two double bonds and two from a nitrogen lone pair. The authors propose that a major fallout of deuteration is that the aromatic moiety shrinks the effective C–D distance relative to its C–H value. Aromatic C–H bonds act as proton donors and form weak hydrogen bonds with water molecules and proton acceptors at the receptor binding site. In other words, that deuterated odorants would be a little different from nondeuterated odorants—something that has actually been appreciated for some time. These comments are pointed straight at recent experiments by Luca Turin, who has advanced the theory of molecular vibration sensing in olfaction in which the nose performs an analysis akin to your favorite benchtop device. Depending on the interpretation, that instrument might be part mass spectrometer, part IR spectrometer, and part scanning tunneling microscope. In particular, they question the conclusion of Luca’s group that flies conditioned with progressively deuterated acetophenone could readily distinguished between the deuterated and nondeuterated varieties.In response, Luca quickly noted a few problems. For one, he fairly observes, ‘then how come the flies transfer learning from one deuterated compound to another, and from C-D stretch to C≡N ? By their lights, there should only be a difference in affinity. Why is there a commonality in smell character?’Perhaps more pointedly, he notes that there are no aromatic CH groups in his deturerated musk experiments, only aliphatic groups—something the authors wisely avoid citing. Furthermore, the authors don’t mention other work that shows very good correlations between vibrational spectra and agonist activity in histamine receptors.In a recent popular article, Luca has made a beginning toward a theory that puts the odor character back into the molecule. While not necessarily drugs, odors can be considered a special class of molecules with a much restricted receptor requirement. Due to inherent limitations in detecting volatiles, olfactory receptors can only expect to see molecules reflecting some trade-off in general stickiness and solubility—a compromise that makes specificity the frequent casualty. Luca proposed that GPCRs and their activators may be thought of as more like electronic components than the mechanical devices of the shape-based receptor paradigm. He suggests that cells could offer them in three styles—vibration (V), tunneling (T), and redox (R):Type V receptors tunnel electrons across a gap that corresponds to an energy jump by binding a molecule that possesses one or more vibrations at the correct energy. Type T have the same circuit topology, but without an energy jump. The receptor is turned on when a molecule binds to it and includes a feature, such as a positive charge, that lowers the barrier to electron tunneling. Finally, type r receptors only have the output half of the circuit where the ligand brings in the electron, and then undergoes an oxidation step when bound. Notably, GPCRs are frequently considered to be a predominantly Eukaryotic innovation. There is certainly evidence for GPCR precursors among the domains and motifs of proteins in lower life forms. However, bacteria generally go for more direct-acting receptors with efficient built-in ion channels as opposed to the laggy and protracted toggling of separate downstream ion channels actuated by messy G-protein cascades. For example, both bacteriorhodopsin and our rhodopsin belong to the ‘seven transmembrane domain’ family of proteins, but while rhodopsin is a GPCR, the ancient light-powered bacterial ion pump is probably not.Why is this the case? If the primary job of sensory neurons is simply to encode incoming information into spikes, then what could be better than speedy ligand gated ion channels? One hint is the observation that if mitochondria generated or otherwise quickly fell out of the advent of eukaryotism, and GPCRs were an integral part of that transition, then the expected intracellular effect from GPCRs might be direct control of the locally resident mitochondria. As possible counterpoint, here, one might point to those rare birds, the infinitesimal fairy flies that inexplicably jettison away much of their own neuronal nuclei and mitochondria and basically run on fumes till they expire. Such creatures might still sense and smell, but how well do they really do it? Explore further Citation: Using the ‘deuterium switch’ to understand how receptors work (2016, June 7) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-06-deuterium-receptors.html The authors measured changes in the binding affinities of histamine receptor ligands after they replaced the normal buffer solution with D20 (deuterium oxide). In contrast to other kinds of studies in which the ligands themselves had deuterium permanently bound to carbon atoms, a heavy water solution would deuterate the ligand at exchangeable N-H and O-H protons. This trick directly targets the hydrogen bonds that presumably control ligand-receptor interactions and associated ligand-water interactions.There is no shortage of ways in which an extra neutron perturbs the life of a molecule. A two-fold mass gain decreases bond length and increases bond strength. This ultimately changes a number of physical and chemical properties, including molar volume, polarity, electron donation, Van der Waal’s forces, dipolar moment, and lipophilicity. For example, deuterated caffeine is known to elute faster in the lab on a gas chromatograph mass spectrometer. One might even imagine trying to capture nature’s most elusive superbuzz by drinking it. Depending on which of caffeine’s methyl groups were originally deuterated, the cytochrome 450 enzymes that kick off its transformation in your liver (ultimately to formaldehyde) would likely balk at the enzymatically more resistant C-D bonds. This will delay the formation of some metabolites, creating a relative preponderance of others.To put this so-called ‘deuterium switch’ into the perspective of a larger business model, consider another devilish operation known in the pharmaceutical world as a ‘chiral switch.’ While often performed in much the same spirit as the deuterium shuffle, the creation of mirrorland molecules is arguably an even more significant, qualitative, and less predictable transformation. A recent radical report documents the creation of a ‘reverse’ DNA polymerase, presumably constructed from mirror image ‘D’ (or right-handed) amino acids. This polymerase has the ability to write mirror image DNA that winds to the left (as opposed to threading like a familiar right-handed screw).The beauty of this emerging “looking-glass” world is that the southpaw polymerase has some unexpected talents—for one, it also writes RNA. Furthermore, researchers like George Church are already on their way to building mirror ribosomes that could be fed this mirror-RNA. Therapeutic mirror RNAs and proteins would have an unparalleled diplomatic immunity in the cell, rendering drugs made from them virtually untouchable by straight enzymes, in many respects upgrading the old Windows 32 cellular OS to 64-bits. Recept concepts. Credit: Luca Turin Plausibility of the vibrational theory of smell More information: Mojca Kržan et al. The Quantum Nature of Drug-Receptor Interactions: Deuteration Changes Binding Affinities for Histamine Receptor Ligands, PLOS ONE (2016). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154002 (Phys.org)—The market value for deuterated drugs has recently been estimated at over a billion dollars. Such drugs are simply molecules in which one or more hydrogen atoms are replaced with deuterium. While these kinds of manipulations are known to work wonders as far as breathing new life into aging patents, the overall therapeutic value of this medical manna can be contentious. A recent paper published in PLoS ONE seeks to explain the ‘quantum nature of drug-receptor interactions’ under deuteration using a combined experimental and computational approach. Although a tall order, a more comprehensive and predictive theory of receptor interactions is sorely needed. Perhaps a theory in which the molecular character of drug effects are written less into the receptor and more into the drug itself. © 2016 Phys.org Journal information: PLoS ONE This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.