Concern over erection of huge telecoms mast in Bundoran

first_imgThe erection of a towering telecoms mast on the outskirts of Bundoran has upset locals.The 5G antenna was erected close to the graveyard.Locals claim the mast was erected without any public consultation and they are claiming the mast could have various health implications for locals. The mast is due to go live in June.A petition for the removal of the mast has been signed by more than 150 people already.The petition against the mast has appealed to locals to have their say.A spokesperson said “Because there is not gold standard research on whether 5G definitely does or does not negatively impact human health the local community and our children are the guinea pigs in an experiment we have no way of determining the outcome of. “If you would like to see the antenna removed before it goes live in June 2019 please sign and share this petition. Let’s send a strong mandate to the candidates in the upcoming election on what is important to the people of Bundoran.”The petition against the mast can be viewed at https://www.change.org/p/donegal-county-council-the-removal-of-the-5g-antenna-from-beside-the-graveyard-bundoran?recruiter=113247420&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share_email_responsive&utm_term=petition_show&recruited_by_id=fb6ba713-7735-45ec-81c7-e024d3e22744Concern over erection of huge telecoms mast in Bundoran was last modified: May 7th, 2019 by Staff WriterShare 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:bundorandonegalfearshealthmastlast_img read more

Darwinians Gloat Over Political Power

first_imgWith media behind them, they can spout their talking points without controversy, while weak politicians only appease their critics.If David Johnson is right, politicians put up with conservative efforts to put up anti-evolution bills only to appease their religious constituents. Johnson, a postdoc at Rice University, looked into the outcomes of  “anti-evolution curricular challenges” in various states. According to PhysOrg, only 25% of bills under consideration passed out of committee, and only two states–Louisiana and Tennessee—succeeded in getting laws passed.Johnson added that while increased conservative Protestant adherence does lead to increased anti-evolution attitudes and activity among creation science interest groups, these outcomes are statistically unrelated to consideration of anti-evolution bills in state legislatures. This led him and his co-authors to theorize that the low rate of success in turning anti-evolution education bills into laws suggests that legislators may continue to push these reforms not because they expect success, but to mollify religious constituents.Johnson’s own biases are clear from his statement:“There is no scientific debate about the fundamentals of evolution,” he said. “And the best social scientific research shows that religious and nonreligious individuals are, overall, quite similar in their orientation to science. There are better ways to represent the values of religious communities: These bills create a misleading impression of conflict between science and religion and threaten the quality of education in public schools.“Sound familiar? Those are some of the same arguments made by Bill Nye when he debated Ken Ham. No debate exists, he said, and creation threatens education.This is why you never let totalitarians gain control of anything. They offer you “one man, one vote, one time.” When the Darwinazis gain control of scientific societies, legislatures and school boards, they lock the doors behind them. Of course there is no scientific debate in their wholly-dominated institutions; you have to be a Darwinazi wearing a D-Merit Badge to get in. Who was for teaching both sides? The despised creationists!Here’s how to understand Johnson’s statement, “There is no scientific debate about the fundamentals of evolution.” What are the fundamentals of evolution? Mutation and natural selection. Mutation is chance, a word equivalent to “stuff happens.” Natural selection is chance, a phrase equivalent to “stuff happens” – because neither the environment nor “selection pressures” (whatever they are) have any direction, purpose, or plan. Let SH stand for “stuff happens.” According to the math for chance, SH + SH does not equal 2SH, it equals SH. Johnson’s statement reduces to this: “There is no scientific debate that stuff happens.” Of course that is true; nobody disagrees that stuff happens. But is that science? Is that a logical explanation for wings, eyes and brains? Is that what schools should teach? Of course not. His statement is a clear example of a meaningless talking point. If Johnson were concerned with the quality of science education, he would advocate ditching Darwin (see 10/03/15) and seeking true causes for phenomena that look designed.What about the “misleading impression of conflict between science and religion” he spoke of? It wasn’t Christians, Protestants, or interest groups that created the impression: it was Darwinazis like Andrew White and John Draper who started that meme. The Christian founders of science viewed their work as seeking the mind of God; no conflict at all. Posing “science” vs “religion” is a false dichotomy. To creationists, the conflict is between good science (intelligent design) and bad science (Darwin’s Stuff Happens Law that builds minds out of hydrogen). And it’s a conflict between good religion (trust in a Designer intelligent enough and powerful enough to bring the world into being) and bad religion (big-bang-to-man theory, with no causation, no purpose, and no meaning). By all means, don’t fall into the trap of framing the debate like they do as ‘science vs religion.’ If you do, you’ve lost before you started. Read this about “science” from Evolution News & Views.With these points in mind, you are ready to evaluate whether creation threatens the quality of education in public schools. Should children learn about adequate causes and effects, or throw up their hands like Darwin and say “stuff happens”? Should they learn about observable, repeatable, testable facts, or learn how to tell just-so stories? Should they learn logic, or imbibe self-refuting ideologies? That’s how you should frame the debate.Some “anti-evolution” groups like the Discovery Institute do not advocate teaching intelligent design at all, let alone creation science. They would be content to get schools to teach Darwinian evolution honestly, not the uncritical whitewashed version with the flawed icons used to illustrate it. They agree with Darwin: “A fair result can only be obtained by fully stating the facts and arguments on both sides of each question” (see Academic Freedom Day). Amen! (Too bad Darwin failed to do that in The Origin, a fact he admitted in the preface.) Hold this Darwin quote in the face of the Darwinazis and tell them to obey it. Tell them science is not about consensus. Tell them they are closed-minded bigots for refusing to consider challenges to their atheistic religion.Johnson is able to label Darwin skeptics as “interest groups” because his interest group has power. For the same reason conspiracies never prosper (because if they prosper, none dare call them conspiracies), interest groups never prosper, because when they do, they cease being called interest groups. They become The Consensus. “All scientists agree” that “there is no scientific debate” about the fundamentals of Stuff Happens. You have to get outside the fogma to see through this rhetorical trick.Darwinazi John Tyndall, one of Charlie’s X-club co-conspirators, said this to the British Association in 1874:“The impregnable position of science may be described in a few words. We claim, and we shall wrest from theology, the entire field of cosmological theory. All schemes and systems which thus infringe upon the domain of science must, in so far as they do this, submit to its control, and relinquish all thought of controlling it.”  [See James Clerk Maxwell’s poetic response to Tyndall’s insufferable chutzpah in our 8/10/2005 commentary.]That’s not science. That’s not education. It’s totalitarianism. It’s scientism pretending to be helping the children, but determined to rule the world. Don’t be fooled. The Darwinazis have had power for a long time, but that’s no reason to become a DODO like them, pushing DOPE. It took a long time to end slavery, too. Keep the heat on, and if your representatives put on the appeasement facade but won’t challenge the Darwinazis, vote the rascals out.(Visited 14 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

South Africa’s Public Protector

first_imgThe Public Protector was set up in terms of South Africa’s Constitution to investigate complaints against government agencies or officials.The Public Protector is subject only to the Constitution and the law and is independent of government and any political party. Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane is South Africa’s fourth Public Protector since October 2016. (Image: Public Protector, Facebook)Here’s a comprehensive guide to how the process works, who and what the Public Protector can investigate, and how to lay a complaint.The Public Protector receives and investigates complaints from the public against government agencies or officials, and has the power to recommend corrective action and to issue reports.The Public Protector’s services are free and available to all and, if you lay a complaint, your name will so far as possible be kept confidential.The Public Protector is appointed by the President, on the recommendation of the National Assembly, in terms of the Constitution, for a non-renewable period of seven years.Website: http://www.pprotect.org/The Public Protector is subject only to the Constitution and the law and is independent of government and any political party. No person or organ of state may interfere with the functioning of the Public Protector’s office.How does the Public Protector work?Anyone can complain to the Public Protector, who will then investigate the complaint. Think of the Public Protector as a referee who can look at all sides of a problem. If the Public Protector finds that your complaint is justified, he/she will do whatever possible to find a solution to the problem, which includes recommending changes to the system.The Public Protector can also report the matter to Parliament, which will debate the matter and see to it that the recommendations are followed.Investigations are mostly done informally, but the Public Protector can summons people to give evidence under oath or affirmation when this becomes necessary.Complainants should not fear being victimized for “blowing the whistle” on corrupt or improper practices.All information that comes to Public Protector – including the identity of complainants and their sources of information – is treated as confidential.Who can the Public Protector investigate?The Public Protector is independent of government or political parties and can investigate:Government at any level. This includes central and provincial government, state departments and local authorities.Any person performing a public function. This includes anyone performing any official duty which affects South Africans, for example a state employee such as a policeman or an electoral officer.Corporations or companies where the state is involved, for example Eskom and Telkom.Statutory councils, for example the Human Sciences Research Council or the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research.What can the Public Protector investigate?The Public Protector is tasked with investigating improper prejudice suffered by the complainant or another person, for example as a result of:Abuse of power.Unfair, capricious, discourteous or other improper conduct.Undue delay.The violation of a human right.Any other decision taken, or situation brought about, by the authorities.Maladministration.Dishonesty or improper dealings with respect to public money.Improper enrichment.Receipt of improper advantage.What won’t the Public Protector investigate?Complaints outside of the Public Protector’s mandate include:Judgments by judges and magistrates, including sentences imposed by them.Private acts by individuals.Private companies.Doctors or lawyers who are not working for the state.However, the staff of the Public Protector can help by telling you where to complain or what to do in such cases.In certain cases the Public Protector may refer you to a court of law where going to court is the best way to deal with the problem. Since the Public Protector does not act as anyone’s legal representative, you will be referred to a lawyer if the matter must go to court.How do I lay a complaint?Should your complaint be about prejudice, you should try to solve the problem yourself before complaining to the Public Protector, for example by:Speaking to the official(s) involved; or, if that does not helpWriting to the person in charge of the official(s), for example the head of the department, or the chief executive director, or the town clerk.You could also consider approaching your Member of the National or Provincial Parliament. Only then, if you are still unable to solve the problem, should you make a submission to the Public Protector. You can do this by:Toll free line: 0800 11 20 40Customer service line: (012) 366-7142Email: customerservice@pprotect.orgFilling in an online formThe following information should be contained in your submission:The nature of your complaint.The background to your complaint.Reasons why you feel your complaint should be investigated by the Public Protector.Steps you have taken to solve the problem yourself (if applicable). You should mention names of the officials you have been dealing with, on what dates, and what was said. Copies of any correspondence between you and the officials should be attached to your letter.A telephone number where you can be contacted, if you have one.In some instances the Public Protector may require a statement under oath before investigating.If you are unsure whether your problem is something the Public Protector will investigate, or if you cannot write, you can phone the Public Protector’s office on 0800 11 20 40 (toll free), or visit http://www.pprotect.org/ for other numbers. There are trained professional staff members who will listen to your complaint, big or small, and conduct investigations.In some cases the staff can help people to find quick solutions to their problems. The staff can also tell you where to complain if the Public Protector cannot help you.You could also visit the office for an interview or a consultation, if you prefer. It is better to write first and ask for an interview in the letter.Who is South Africa’s Public Protector?Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane became South Africa’s fourth Public Protector in October 2016. She was appointed by President Jacob Zuma, after being recommended by a special parliamentary committee.Mkhwebane is an advocate of the high court and a specialist in refugee and immigration law. She has held positions in the Department of Home Affairs and the South African embassy in the Republic of China. She previously also worked in the Office of the Public Protector as a senior investigator and an acting provincial director for Gauteng. Mkhwebane was also a senior researcher at the South African Human Rights Commission.Mkhwebane replaced Advocate Thulisile Madonsela, who completed her term in October 2016. Madonsela replaced Advocate Lawrence Mushwana, who completed his seven-year term as Public Protector on 16 October 2009. South Africa’s first Public Protector, Advocate Selby Baqwa, served from 1995 to 2002.Updated October 2016Would you like to use this article in your publication or on your website? See Using Brand South Africa material.last_img read more

Are Smartwatches For Real Or A Head Fake?

first_imgThe road to wearable watches has been long and bumpy, leading some to wonder whether this technology will ever be deployed.The Financial Times is reporting that Apple is “aggressively” hiring team members to work on the so-called iWatch.The company has begun hiring “aggressively” for the project in recent weeks, say people familiar with Apple’s plans for the wearable device, a move that shows it has stepped up development but which raises questions over the ability of its own engineers to develop wearable technology.Meanwhile, The Verge is reporting that Microsoft’s existing smartwatch team is being re-organized into the Microsoft Surface team.Sources familiar with Microsoft’s Surface plans have revealed to The Verge that the company is now prototyping devices directly under the Surface team as the firm moves its wrist-worn device closer to reality.This move is part of Microsoft’s larger reorganization, but it underlines the seriousness with which Microsoft is giving the prospect of a smartwatch project.Clearly, the two tech companies haven’t consulted with our esteemed leader, who has his own objections to the notion of wearable computers on wrists. But beyond the market drivers for wearable computers, the constant buildup and positioning does lead us to wonder if a true smartwatch is even possible.The surge towards wearable computing devices is capturing a lot of attention among the major tech companies, as no one seems to want to be the one to get caught without a decent wearable device. To date, Apple, Microsoft and Samsung seem to be taking the path towards watches, while Google experiments with the Glass device.See also Arm Race: Samsung To Build A Smartwatch TooWhat remains to be seen is whether any of these devices will actually get built. Sometimes the whole “arm race” to launch a smart wrist device has the feel of the end of another arms race, when U.S. President Ronald Reagan proposed the Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983.SDI, derisively known as “Star Wars,” would be strongly criticized in the Western media, but taken seriously by the Soviet Union as a viable challenge to the centerpiece Mutual Assured Destruction strategy of the Cold War. The USSR would spend billions to try to counter such a project which would supposedly contribute to the military overspending that would lead to the collapse of the USSR.History is unclear whether Reagan was simply bluffing the Soviets, but there is a strong case that he was. Similarly, there is a strong sense of history repeating itself when we see leaked plans for smart watches from companies like Apple. Is the iWatch really on its way, or is this all one big plan to distract other companies from making better progress in the tablet and smartphone sectors?Image courtesy of Shutterstock. Tags:#Apple#Google#Microsoft#Samsung#smartwatch Related Posts Why IoT Apps are Eating Device Interfaces brian proffittcenter_img What it Takes to Build a Highly Secure FinTech … Role of Mobile App Analytics In-App Engagement The Rise and Rise of Mobile Payment Technologylast_img read more

Five SIMI men sent behind bars for life

first_imgFive activists of the banned Students’ Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) were sentenced to life imprisonment by a special National Investigation Agency court here on Thursday for possession of explosives.Special judge Girish Dixit acquitted five others. Of the 12 accused in the case, Khalid Ahmed and Abdul Mazid were killed in a police encounter in October 2016, prosecutor Yogesh Tiwari said. The special court awarded life imprisonment to Abdul Aziz, Javed, Abdul Wahid, Jubar and Mohammad Adil. The court also imposed a fine of ₹8,000 on each of them.ATS raidMadhya Pradesh Police’s Anti Terrorism Squad had arrested three SIMI activists with a cache of explosives during a raid in Mahidpur area in Ujjain district on January 1, 2013. Nine others were arrested subsequently. Eight hundred gelatin sticks, 540 detonators, a ‘gelatin bomb’, a pipe bomb and 11 other types of bombs were recovered from the accused.last_img read more

Videos: Louisville Owned SportsCenter’s Top 10 Plays After Dominating Syracuse

first_imgDonovan Mitchell throws down dunk against Syracuse..Twitter/@theACCDNMidway through the second half of Wednesday night’s 72-58 home win over Syracuse, the Louisville Cardinals were doing whatever they wanted on offense. The dominant display was heavily featured on SportsCenter this morning, where the Cardinals had three of the Top 10 plays of the day.First up, at No. 7, this beautiful behind-the-back assist by Chinanu Onuaku.Nanu droppin’ dimes. pic.twitter.com/7MFnoY0qRb— LouisvilleSportsLive (@LvilleSprtsLive) February 18, 2016Next, at No. 4, another Onuaku assist—this time to Jaylen Johnson for a powerful alley-oop.It’s like Louisville found a “if you make the other team cry they have to let you play in the tournament” loophole pic.twitter.com/m4kMWmXva4— Mike Rutherford (@CardChronicle) February 18, 2016And finally, Louisville took home the top play, with this ferocious alley-oop from Damion Lee to Donovan Mitchell.If you look close enough, you can see a smile on Donovan Mitchell’s face as he slams this one home for @GoCards!https://t.co/xlTSYEXZ08— ACC Digital Network (@theACCDN) February 18, 2016That one was just mean. Mitchell liked it so much, he made it the header photo for his Twitter profile. donovan mitchell twitterIt’s been a rough few weeks for the Cardinals. Last night’s big win had to be pretty cathartic.last_img read more