Thrown on by Ernesto Valverde just before the hour mark as Barcelona trailed Sevilla 2-0, Messi turned the tide in his team’s favour and drove home an 89th-minute equaliser from outside the area.“He didn’t start the game as a precaution,” coach Valverde said.“We think he will be fine for Wednesday but we will see how he feels after tonight’s effort.“Of course, he’s an important player. He makes a difference every time he touches the ball.”The last time Roma faced Barcelona was in the Champions League group stage in November 2015, with the Catalans registering a thumping 6-1 home win over the Italians.Messi made his return from a two-month injury layoff in that game, running the show and scoring twice, as well as setting up Gerard Pique.Luis Suarez, who also struck twice against Roma in that match, was pleased with the team’s attitude against Sevilla.“It’s to Messi’s credit that he keeps on demonstrating (his class),” the Uruguayan forward said. “But the work of the whole team, to keep going and not give up, is what stays with me.”Barcelona looked lost at Sevilla until Messi arrived, especially without Sergio Busquets anchoring the team and controlling the game.The Catalan holding midfielder is back in training after a toe injury and could also start as Barcelona welcome Roma to their Colosseum for the first leg.“Andres Iniesta, our Michelangelo, Leo Messi, our emperor,” Barcelona declared in the video.While veteran playmaker Iniesta’s brush strokes in midfield paint the path, it is only with Messi leading the charge Barcelona can be confident of putting Roma to the sword and taking another step towards a potential treble.Share this:FacebookRedditTwitterPrintPinterestEmailWhatsAppSkypeLinkedInTumblrPocketTelegram “Welcome Romans, 100 000 gladiators await you,” warned Barcelona in a preview video ahead of their Champions League quarterfinal first leg against AS Roma Wednesday evening.One warrior stands head and shoulders above the rest, meaning Lionel Messi is fit again and expected to start against the Italian side after rising from the bench to rescue Barcelona a point in a 2-2 draw with Sevilla on Saturday.Messi missed Argentina’s friendlies during the international break with muscular problems, a 2-0 win over Italy and a humiliating 6-1 thrashing by Spain in Madrid.
The Martha’s Vineyard Regional High School indoor track teams faced their toughest challenge of the season when they took on Eastern Athletic Conference powerhouse Bishop Feehan at Wheaton College in Norton last Wednesday. Aivaras Gedvilas set the MVRHS school record in the indoor mile run, clocking in at 4:37. Nevin Wallis placed first in both the 600 meters and the high jump. Garrett Hagan won the 300 meters with a time of 39.77.The Vineyard boys gave the Shamrocks a run for their money, but lost 52-38.Pearl Vercruysse qualified for the state meet in the 600 meters with a winning time of 1:44. Addie Hayman excelled in three events, placing first in the long jump with an EAC best leap of 15 feet, 10 inches, taking second in the 300 meters, and third in the 55-meter hurdles. Livy Smith returned to action, and finished second in the long jump. Feehan eventually topped the Vineyard girls 62-28.The Vineyarders were back at Wheaton on Jan. 18 to compete against EAC rival Bishop Stang. The boys record stands at 4-2. The girls are 3-3.
12 Oct 2017 Yorkshire close in on senior championship Tags: County Championships, Mens, Senior Yorkshire edged closer to victory in the English Senior men’s County Championship when they battled to a 2-1 lead over Warwickshire after this morning’s foursomes. In the other match, Sussex also lead Gloucestershire 2-1.For much of the morning at Goswick Golf Club, Northumberland, it looked as though Warwickshire would be ahead at the lunchtime break. But Yorkshire’s final pair of Garry Cuthbert and Peter Ward grabbed their point with gritty play over the closing holes.They were 1 down after 15 but managed to win 16 and 17 to get ahead and, after Warwickshire’s birdie attempt slid by on 18, they finished 1up.Andy King and Mark Lawson (pictured) had already won 2/1 for Yorkshire, while Warwickshire’s point was scored by Tony Allen and Martin Fell. They were always in front and although their opponents reduced their lead from four holes to two with a couple of birdies on the back nine, they won 3/1.Yorkshire need to win or halve the match to secure their first victory in this championship and 2.5 points from the singles will see them over the line. However, if they’re beaten, the result will be decided on countback and Sussex are keeping their fingers crossed for this outcome.So their mission today is to win as many games as possible and they were rewarded with two big wins this morning. Martin Galway and Malcolm Cawte wasted no time as they powered to an 8/7 win with an impressive display of par golf.Behind them, Colin Jones and Doug Park raced to the turn and a 4up lead with the help of three birdies. Steady play as they turned for home gave them a comfortable 5/4 win.Gloucestershire’s Michael Jarvis and Vernon Chappell kept their team in touch with a strong finish. They didn’t get ahead in the game until the 14th, but once there they surged forward, winning the 15th with a birdie two and closing out the game with a winning par on 17.Image copyright Leaderboard Photography
Selkirk finally extended their lead with 9:08 remaining in the third when Logan Proulx banged home the rebound from a Kam Crawford point shot on a Saints power-play.Minutes later, Fidgett iced the game with his team’s third goal, taking a pass from defenceman Dylan Smith and deking around Gill for his second point of the night. Alex Sirard picked up the shut out in his BCIHL playoff debut with 13 saves, while Sunny Gill took the loss after allowing three goals on 37 shots. The Saints held a 27-12 edge in shots on goals through two periods and limited the Vikes to just one shot on goal in the third. Selkirk College continued to add to their list of ‘firsts’ accomplished during the 2012-13 B.C. Intercollegiate Hockey League season, as the Saints advanced to the league finals for the first time by beating the University of Victoria by a 4-1 score on Saturday night.The win capped a two-game series sweep of the defending BCIHL champion Vikes at the Castlegar Recreation Complex, as Selkirk had taken Game one by a 3-0 score Friday. With the win, Selkirk will now host Simon Fraser University in a best-of-three series for the BCIHL championship beginning March 15 in either Castlegar or Nelson.The site location depends on the succes of the Castlegar Rebels in the Kootenay International Junior Hockey League series against Beaver Valley.Should the Rebels prevail in the best-o-seven Murdoch Division Final, Selkirk’s playoff series would be move to the NDCC Arena in Nelson.If Beaver Valley wins, the games would be played in Castlegar. The Saints came bursting out of the gates in the first period and built a four-goal lead before intermission.The rally started when Jackson Garrett beat UVic starter Sunny Gill with a wrist shot from the low slot to give Selkirk a 1-0 lead.Team captain Jordan Wood added a pair of power-play goals to triple the lead and Cody Fidgett struck for his second goal of the series with 51 seconds remaining in the frame. That was all the offence the Saints would need as Victoria got on the board on a second period man-advantage but otherwise couldn’t beat Selkirk netminder Alex Sirard. The 21-year old continued his strong play on the heels of a shutout on Friday by turning aside 26 shots and helping his team kill 10 power-play opportunities, including a pair of lengthy two-man advantages. “We had an excellent first period tonight and fought through some penalty troubles the rest of the way to grind out a win,” said Saints head coach Jeff Dubois.”UVic is a hard-working team that never gave up tonight and made us earn the victory. Alex (Sirard) came up with some big saves when he had to and our top offensive guys got the job done.” Wood, Logan Proulx and Kam Crawford combined for six points on the night, though Proulx’s evening was cut short when he was ejected from the game for a hit from behind late in the first period. Friday’s series-opener is set for a 7:30 p.m start time.Saints win! Saints win! Game two Saturday in CastlegarSelkirk College opened their 2013 postseason with a win on Friday night, topping the defending B.C. Intercollegiate Hockey League champions from the University of Victoria by a 3-0 score at the Castlegar Recreation Complex.With the victory the Saints take a 1-0 lead in the best-of-three first round series and will look to eliminate the Vikes and move on the league championships with another win on Saturday night.”We had some trouble finishing plays tonight but overall it was a good start to our playoffs against a very hard-working team,” said Saints head coach Jeff Dubois.”UVic has nine players back from the team that won a league championship last season, so there’s a lot of playoff experience on that bench.””We did a great job limiting their shots and scoring opportunities, and when you play tight defensively it allows some time to get the offence clicking,” Dubois added. Mason Spear opened the scoring for the hosts just under five minutes in to the first period when a centering pass from linemate Cody Fidgett deflected off his skate and past UVic starter Sunny Gill.And that 1-0 margin stayed intact for most of the night, as Gill turned aside numerous Saints scoring opportunities and Selkirk held their visitors to only a handful of shots on goal through two periods. Saturday’s game is set for a 7:30 p.m. faceoff.Should the Vikes win, a third and deciding game would take place on Sunday at 6 p.m. SAINTS NOTES: In the BCIHL’s other first round series, second-ranked SFU took a 1-0 lead over third-seeded Thompson Rivers University with a 6-1 home ice win. Game 2 in the series is set for Saturday night in Kamloops.
No matter the biological discovery, evolutionists are ready with their explanations. The explanations, however, are often riddled with puzzles, surprises, and seemingly arbitrary appeals to chance. Do such explanations really provide more understanding than those of creationists, who explain that living things were designed for a purpose?Shrimp deal: “Many deep-sea species have close relatives living in shallow, relatively warm water, but how shallow-water species were initially able to cope with the huge hydrostatic pressures of the deep ocean is poorly understood,” said a researcher at the University of Southampton. According to PhysOrg, the team studied closely-related shrimp that live in shallow waters and near deep-sea vents – environments with astonishing differences in pressure and temperature. The observations merely demonstrated that these shrimp can live in either environment. Their evolutionary explanation had to invoke an unobserved ancestor: “These physiological capabilities were probably inherited from an ancestral species shared by both shallow-water and related vent species.” The explanation, however, begs the question of how the putative ancestor gained the ability to survive both environments in the first place. And if the living species have that ability, what has been explained? Evolutionary theory appears to be a superfluous appendage to an observation that the shrimp are designed to survive in a wide variety of conditions.Hunt for and gather a story: We have a mystery. “One of the most complex human mysteries involves how and why we became an outlier species in terms of biological success” – particularly, why are human hunter-gatherer cultures so different from those of other primates? PhysOrg again came to the rescue to explain the mystery and deliver understanding, this time from scientists at the University of Arizona “who study hunter-gatherer societies”. The article promised their work is “informing the issue by suggesting that human ancestral social structure may be the root of cumulative culture and cooperation and, ultimately, human uniqueness.” Clearly humans had ancestors, and some of them hunted and gathered – as some cultures do today. At first glance this explanation (actually just a suggestion) seems like a tautology; early humans had a unique ancestral social structure that gave birth to a modern unique social structure. The ASU team, intent on deriving human uniqueness from other primates, studied 32 modern foraging tribes, and found the obvious: they identified “human hunter-gatherer group structure as unique among primates.” But how did they get that way? That’s the evolutionary question. “The increase in human network size over other primates may explain why humans evolved an emphasis on social learning that results in cultural transmission,” Professor Kim Hill offered. “Likewise, the unique composition of human ancestral groups promotes cooperation among large groups of non-kin, something extremely rare in nature.” Humans are unique because they evolved to be unique. Is that what he just said?The hand is quicker than the stone: “Stone Tools Influenced Hand Evolution in Human Ancestors, Anthropologists Say.” That’s a headline on Science Daily that claims research at University of Kent “confirmed Charles Darwin’s speculation that the evolution of unique features in the human hand was influenced by increased tool use in our ancestors.” But did the tools shape the hand, or did the hand shape the tools? Here’s the data: “Research over the last century has certainly confirmed the existence of a suite of features in the bones and musculature of the human hand and wrist associated with specific gripping and manipulatory capabilities that are different from those of other extant great apes.” Then, the explanation: “These features have fuelled suggestions that, at some point since humans split from the last common ancestor of living apes, the human hand evolved away from features adapted for locomotion toward alternative functions.” A creationist reading this is going to reject the assumption that humans split from a common ancestor. What can evolutionists argue as evidence for their view? One of the them at U of Kent put forward the possibility that the human hand “may have been subject to natural selection as a result of using simple cutting tools.” But why would a primate use tools without the equipment to do it? And what about a stone causes a hand to evolve? New Caledonian crows have probably been using tools longer than evolutionists think humans have, but their beaks do not appear to be changing much from those of other birds (see 05/26/2009 and links). Somehow, their “may have” suggestion evolved into a triumph for Darwin:Dr [Stephen] Lycett, Senior Lecturer in Human Evolution at the University’s School of Anthropology and Conservation, explained: ‘140 years ago, writing from his home at Down House in Kent, Darwin proposed that the use of stone tools may have influenced the evolution of human hands. ‘Our research suggests that he was correct. From a very early stage in our evolution, the cultural behaviour of our ancestors was influencing biological evolution in specific ways.’Did the cultural behavior influence the evolution of the hand, or did the hand influence the cultural behavior? Or did both evolve together? In any of these cases, it is not clear that the observations about the uniqueness of the human hand have been explained at all.Progress in size: Researchers at the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center have convinced themselves that “Evolution Drives Many Plants and Animals to Be Bigger, Faster,” reported Science Daily. The challenge, though, is whether they could convince a nonbeliever in evolution with their explanation. “Organisms with bigger bodies or faster growth rates tend to live longer, mate more and produce more offspring, whether they are deer or damselflies, the authors report.” So far, a correlation between size and fecundity is all they’ve served up. Whether lizards, snakes, insects and plants, the organisms in their sample of 100 species (as found in the literature on natural selection) displayed a “very widespread pattern” appearing to support the claim that “larger body size and earlier seasonal timing – such as earlier breeding, blooming or hatching – confer significant survival advantages.” Questions arise immediately from this explanation, though: why doesn’t every animal and plant evolve to get bigger and faster over time? And why were so many extinct species much larger than their modern counterparts? If a prey animal gets bigger, but its predator simultaneously grows bigger and faster, has the prey animal won any survival advantage? (see “Slippage on the treadmill,” 03/17/2003). Another question: why don’t animals converge on a Goldilocks model – a medium size? The authors themselves were puzzled by that. “If organisms are supposedly well-adapted to their particular circumstances, then why is it so seldom the case that the individuals that survive and reproduce the best are the ones that are not too small, nor too big, but just right?” Their initial explanation, therefore, required several auxiliary explanations. “The authors explored three possible explanations,” they said: (1) size is costly, (2) environments fluctuate (think Darwin’s finches), and (3) “A third possibility is that natural selection drives one trait in one direction, while simultaneously driving another, genetically correlated trait in the opposite direction.” Perhaps this could be dubbed the “House divided against itself cannot evolve” theory. The problem with composite explanations, though, is figuring which one is the right one. If your doctor tells you your weight gain is caused by (1) lack of self-control, (2) genes, or (3) cancer, you would demand to know which one matters most. Composite explanations, further, violate Ockham’s Razor (see Ockham, Jan 2010 Scientist of the Month). Unless evolutionists come forward with a primary cause for the effect that can also explain the exceptions, it seems doubtful they’ve explained anything.Your inner tumor: Surely one of the most bizarre explanations offered by evolutionists recently is in the title of a story on New Scientist: “Tumours could be the ancestors of animals.” According to writer Colin Barras, this is “the idea that cancer is our most distant animal ancestor, a ‘living fossil’ from over 600 million years ago.” According Barras, Charles Lineweaver and Paul Davies have put forward the notion that “cancer is not simply linked to the evolution of animals – it was the earliest animals.” As justification, the evolutionists showcased a tumor’s ability to evade the immune system and to generate blood vessels (angiogenesis). Understandably, though, “Reactions to Lineweaver and Davies’s idea vary from cautious enthusiasm to outright scepticism,” one calling it an “imaginative metaphor,” another, “a step too far.” “There is no evidence to believe that the ability to develop blood vessels is an ancient feature of animals,” a critic said. In response, Lineweaver used evolution to justify evolution: “Fully developed angiogenesis had to have evolved from proto-angiogenesis,” he said. “I think it’s clear that some form of proto-angiogenesis was very important for the earliest animals.” How or why “proto-angiogenesis” (whatever that is) would have evolved in some unobserved ancestor incapable of understanding why it would be “very important” some day is left as an exercise in imaginative metaphor.In the heady days of logical positivism (around the 1930s), Carl Hempel attempted to eliminate anecdotal explanations in science and replace them with deductive logic. To him, it was essential for an explanation to refer to natural laws and initial conditions such that the result had to happen. Subsequent philosophers have undermined that vision. Hempel’s “covering law model” leaves out too many favored explanations, and simultaneously legitimizes some quack explanations. His model left biologists with “physics envy,” because clear laws of nature are hard to come by in biology. There are too many variables and complexities to be able to predict or retrodict events in natural history with deductive logic appealing to laws of nature. Nevertheless, it would appear desirable that scientific explanations aspire to more than ad hoc stories, complex explanations requiring multiple auxiliary hypotheses, composite explanations, mere suggestions, or tautologies (such as “things are as they are because they were as they were” – an explanation that works in reverse just as well). If the evolutionary explanation reduces to “stuff happens,” or things evolve because they evolve, then alternatives like intelligent design would seem to have grounds for competing in the marketplace of explanation.The Darwin Storytelling Empire is a corrupt racket. It’s long overdue to expose their pretensions to providing superior scientific explanations. That’s why you read Creation-Evolution Headlines. All the other clueless news media just parrot the myths emanating from the clueless Darwinists, with no critical analysis whatsoever, thinking they have done their job. Their product is as empty as a balloon held aloft by hot fogma. (For definition of fogma, see the 05/14/2007 commentary). What about science in general? In the late 20th century after logical positivism collapsed, philosophers of science were left wondering if scientific explanation was even possible. Some, like van Fraassen, concluded that explanation was not even the business of science. Describing useful patterns in experience in more and more detail was sufficient, he said; leave explanation to others, because it gets into metaphysics. But where does that leave the presumed epistemic superiority of science over the humanities, philosophy, or even theology? Why should science get an elevated status in the academy and popular culture if it cannot explain why the world is the way it is? The key insight that undermines the Darwin explanatory program is that explanation requires presuppositions in the conceptual realm: the need for knowledge, truth, ethics, honesty, logic, universality and consistency. None of those things can be derived from evolutionary naturalism. When you hear an evolutionist assuming any of these things, you know he or she is cheating. Theology provides the only grounds for reasoning toward true truth about a real reality. When enough people employ the two-pronged attack on Darwinism (exposing their vacuous explanations and their pilfering of theological presuppositions), there may be hope of toppling the corrupt Darwin Storytelling regime (12/22/2003 commentary).(Visited 12 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Tags:#business growth#company scaling#Entrepreneur#growth#scaling up#small business#tech#tech tools Serverless Backups: Viable Data Protection for … How to Make the Most of Your Software Developer… Brad is the editor overseeing contributed content at ReadWrite.com. He previously worked as an editor at PayPal and Crunchbase. You can reach him at brad at readwrite.com. What Nobody Teaches You About Getting Your Star… Related Posts Scaling requires both humans and technology to be successful.Planning to scale your business without focusing on technology’s role? Good luck. Without the right tech, you may as well replace your CRM with stone tablets.Growth never happens by accident, even if you’re already in a great position. You may have a product your customers love, a big market ready to accept you, and a staff up to the challenge. However, none of that matters if you can’t deliver the same results when your customer base explodes.Maybe you’re not as ready to scale as you think. What happens if the surge in demand for your product fizzles out? What happens if your vendors can’t keep up or you don’t have the financial stability to push through tough times? If you scale too quickly or too slowly, your dreams of market dominance may never come to fruition.The smartest companies scale marketing automation by creating long-term plans and carefully implementing the right tools to achieve them. You can’t hire more humans to work through every problem — not if you expect to make a profit, anyhow. Scaling a business means leveraging tech to do more with less.If you are truly ready to scale and want to learn how, follow these tips to pick the tech tools that are right for you:1. Re-evaluate your user friendliness.Don’t abandon the needs of the niche that got you started. Do, however, lean on technology to make your offering more appealing to a larger group of people, expanding your customer base. It doesn’t matter whether you provide housecleaning services, sell bookcases, or teach tech CEOs to do yoga. In every industry, the companies that provide the most user-friendly products or services win the most business.You can focus on the power of your solution all you want, but it won’t matter if no one can figure out how to turn on your product or locate your brick-and-mortar location to use your services. Take a lesson from Pariveda Solutions and the Houston Food Bank. Using the power of Amazon Web Services, Pariveda created an app that helps families in need find nearby food banks quickly and easily. This tech investment helped the Houston Food Bank expand its reach — aka scale — without hiring an army of outreach specialists.Never assume your product or service offers a good user experience just because your existing audience likes it. Perform usability testing to discover potential issues and correct them before you make heavy investments in expansion. Something that may seem intuitive to you may be alien to the users you plan to target.2. Kick-start employee onboarding.Employee onboarding takes a long time. The longer employees spend in training, the more they cost the business. That may not hurt much when you have a team of five, but scale your company to 30, and suddenly, you have an onboarding and training cost crisis on your hands.Use technology to streamline your new hire onboarding process. Your existing team members are highly valuable, which means they don’t need to waste their days helping rookies fill out forms. Invest in tools that help employees add themselves to email lists and learn the ropes of self-serve benefits systems. Talmundo, for example, digitizes all of your onboarding paperwork and provides a roadmap of the onboarding process, while the all-in-one software platform Zenefits allows new hires to self-onboard — doing everything from accepting offer letters to completing tax and benefits enrollment forms — before they even walk through your door.Tools like these allow newbies to figure out the easy stuff on their own and spend more time learning role-specific tasks. What’s more, the latest HR tech comes packaged with shiny AI capabilities. Smarter tools not only help businesses train new workers quickly, but they can also help you recruit employees who will catch on faster. Select the tools that make sense for your company’s size, industry, and goals to slash training time and give your growing team a running start.3. Jump into the marketing fast lane.Adding your emails to a scheduling tool doesn’t qualify as marketing automation. To scale successfully, invest in marketing tools that help you track, analyze, and execute better campaigns.Rival IQ, for instance, analyzes social media accounts within your industry to show you how you stack up against the competition. If other brands are gaining followers because of their awesome videos, this tool lets you know. Meanwhile, SEMRush’s Keyword Magic tool helps you make the most of your all-important content whether you want to evaluate the effectiveness of your current SEO strategies or delve into new territory.These are just two of the hundreds of useful martech products currently available. Lead scoring, email marketing, social media management, analytics — if it’s a marketing function, someone out there has the tech to make it easier. Use those resources to help your company grow at the speed you want in the direction you choose.Still think you’re ready to scale on your own? Technology these days can handle almost any task that humans can. Leave the easy stuff to the robots so you and your team can spend your valuable time on the strategy and tactics that will help you achieve your scaling goals. Reasons to Outsource General Counsel Services f… Brad AndersonEditor In Chief at ReadWrite
China furious as Trump signs bills in support of Hong Kong Pagasa: Kammuri now a typhoon, may enter PAR by weekend Lacson: SEA Games fund put in foundation like ‘Napoles case’ Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next “It was disappointing that he [Fajardo] got into foul trouble, we both got into foul trouble,” said Rhodes. “We just got to look and see what we did wrong.”Rhodes, though, downplayed any ill feelings that he may have towards the TNT players saying the physical play is all part of “playoff basketball.” Returning Belo fends off worries about injured knee Another vape smoker nabbed in Lucena MOST READ LATEST STORIES LOOK: Jane De Leon meets fellow ‘Darna’ Marian Rivera Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. View comments “It really hurts man, it really hurts,” said Rhodes. “This loss is probably our worst loss this year, definitely man. It really hurts, this one really hurts.”Rhodes, though, wasn’t the only Beerman to leave Game 4 prematurely.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSSEA Games: Biñan football stadium stands out in preparedness, completionSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSMalditas save PH from shutoutReigning league MVP June Mar Fajardo got sent to the bench at with 2:02 left after absorbing his sixth foul.TNT’s hulking import Joshua Smith got the best of Fajardo, who had 13 points and nine boards, when the two collided in midair, resulting to the Cebuano’s last allowable foul. What ‘missteps’? Pagasa: Kammuri now a typhoon, may enter PAR by weekend Photo by Tristan Tamayo/INQUIRER.netSan Miguel import Charles Rhodes couldn’t hide his disappointment after losing Game 4 of the PBA Commissioner’s Cup Finals to TNT, 107-92, in a game that he didn’t get to finish.Rhodes, who wound up with 22 points and eight rebounds, left the playing court with 1:08 remaining after he received a second technical for flooring KaTropa guard Ryan Reyes.ADVERTISEMENT Cayetano to unmask people behind ‘smear campaign’ vs him, SEA Games Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss PLAY LIST 02:49Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City01:07Trump talks impeachment while meeting NCAA athletes02:49World-class track facilities installed at NCC for SEA Games
About the authorCarlos VolcanoShare the loveHave your say Agent sets return date for Juventus captain Chielliniby Carlos Volcano8 days agoSend to a friendShare the loveJuventus captain Giorgio Chiellini hopes to be playing again in the New Year.The 35-year-old defender was ruled out for at least six months by a torn anterior cruciate ligament at the end of August.“His recovery is progressing positively and the man has this magnetic positivity,” Davide Lippi told TMW Radio.“It’s incredible. He works so hard every day and when I call him up, he’s the one who reassures me. He is making giant leaps forward.“I don’t know the precise date of his comeback, but it will certainly be in the New Year. It might be the end of January, February or March, but he will certainly be there for the final part of the season.”
APTN National News“Assignment” is a legal term referring to “signing over” money to another person. Chief Justice Brenner’s ruling reflected a section of the Indian Residential Schools settlement agreement which sought to protect compensation recipients from being taken advantage of.Jon Faulds said that runs contrary to normal procedure, where lawyers are allowed to pay monies owed to third parties by their clients if they receive an assignment.“The lender lends the money to the claimant, the claimant signs a portion of their ultimate recovery back to the lender as security for the loan, the lender sends a copy of that assignment to the lawyer through whose hands the money is going to be passing and the lawyer is bound by that assignment. That is the normal course,” he said. “What we have here is something unusual because the settlement agreement has made this specific provision that such assignments are not to be allowed in order to protect the claimants and to ensure that they get the full amount that’s coming to them. It’s a bit of an unusual situation for lawyers to have to say to someone who’s served them with an assignment that ‘sorry, that doesn’t work.’”Faulds emphasized that loans are not necessarily a problem, but assignments certainly are.“The lender is perfectly at liberty to pursue all its other rights to collect the loan that it’s made, assuming the loan is otherwise a proper loan,” he said. “They are just not allowed to scoop it out of the lawyer’s hands before it reaches the clients. That’s the issue that we’re concerned with here. What the settlement agreement says is that no assignment of any money payable under the settlement agreement is valid and what the Financial Administration Act also says is more or less the same, that monies payable by the government of Canada cannot be assigned.”
FORT ST. JOHN, B.C. – A delegate from Geoscience BC will be the next guest speaker at the Fort St. John and District Chamber of Commerce luncheon on Tuesday.Geoscience BC is an independent non-profit organization that studies earth science in B.C., collaborating with First Nations, local communities, governments, academia and the resource sector. The organization has conducted a number of studies in Northern B.C. over the last few years, including aerial surveys of mineral deposits, groundwater, as well a natural gas atlas.The next Chamber luncheon will take place at the Pomeroy Hotel on March 20th from 11:45 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Tickets for the lunch are $35 for Chamber members and $40 for potential members. To register, visit https://www.eventbrite.com/e/march-20-chamber-luncheon-with-geoscience-bc-tickets-43553431486