Despite putting on a fearless, entertaining and commanding first-half performance which should have seen his Jamaican team outscore Costa Rica en-route to a comfortable win, Reggae Boyz’ head coach Winfried Schafer labels the 1-1 result in Friday night’s CONCACAF Semi-final Round Group Two World Cup Qualifier a good one and believes his charges will win the return tie tomorrow. Jamaica’s Je-Vaughn Watson scored a bullet header in the 16th minute, while a number of close chances for the home team went beckoning inside the almost full to capacity National Stadium. The Jamaicans also had the lion’s share of possession in the first-half and were more direct, but just couldn’t get the ball into the net more than once in Friday night’s game. Analysing his team’s performance during Friday’s post-match press conference, Schafer called his team’s play in the opening period exemplary. “We played with our all, that’s what we worked at in training and in the second-half the players got a little bit tired. The left side had a small problem, but we showed teamwork because we are one of the best teams in the CONCACAF and the end is OK, 1-1 is OK,” said the coach. Schafer admitted that his charges were short with that elusive second goal, but showed guts. “We were not complacent and (Rodolph) Austin is not here, but I am very happy about the performance of our team, it was fantastic and our team gave 100 per cent for the country and the people and I am very happy about that and how the team goes out against Costa Rica,” he underlined. The coach also defended his substitutions, stating that Lee Williamson, who was very good in the first-half, was taken out because he was tired, adding that forward Darren Mattocks might have been introduced a little too late. “Again, our team today played in this match was very good. We intend to beat Costa Rica at home,” he reiterated. “The plan is to recover the players, the players sleep good and we make our recovery. After that we go to Costa Rica,” he added, noting that captain Austin should be OK to play in Costa Rica.
“The gene is dead… long live the gene,” announced subtitles to an article in Science News this week.1 Geneticists have come to a striking conclusion over the last few years: genes are not the most important things in DNA, if they even exist as a concept. The “central dogma” of genetics, since Watson and Crick determined the structure of DNA, is that genetic information flows one-way – from the gene to the protein. In the textbooks, a gene was supposed to be a finite stretch of DNA that, when read by the translation process, produced a messenger RNA, which recruited transfer RNAs to assemble the amino acids for one protein. As Patrick Barry described in his article “Genome 2.0,”1 the situation in real cells is much messier. “Mountains of new data are challenging old views,” his subtitle announced, including the “modern orthodoxy” that only genes are important.Researchers slowly realized, however, that genes occupy only about 1.5 percent of the genome. The other 98.5 percent, dubbed “junk DNA,“ was regarded as useless scraps left over from billions of years of random genetic mutations. As geneticists’ knowledge progressed, this basic picture remained largely unquestioned…. Closer examination of the full human genome is now causing scientists to return to some questions they thought they had settled. For one, they’re revisiting the very notion of what a gene is.Some of the findings in the genomic era include:The human genome has far fewer genes than expected.Some lower animals have as many genes as humans (e.g., 05/01/2007).Most of the human genome does not code for genes.The code for proteins can be split between distant parts of the genome – even on different chromosomes.2The non-coding DNA, once considered evolutionary junk (06/15/2007), is actually heavily involved in gene regulation (04/24/2007).Genetic information processing acts more like a network than a static library of genes.RNA transcripts vastly outnumber gene transcripts: some 74 to 93% of the genome.RNA is much more than a messenger in the cell. Numerous small and micro RNA transcripts are heavily involved in “fine tuning” the production of protein.Gene regulation appears more important than the genes themselves.Scientists “are finding disease-associated mutations in regions of the genome formerly regarded as junk.”Some genes overlap with codes for micro-RNAs or regulatory elements.Genes can be read in multiple ways that can yield far more than one protein (alternative splicing; see 05/20/2007)).Messenger-RNA transcripts undergo significant modification and regulation in the nucleus.The translation process can even yield transcripts from the opposing strand.3It remains indisputable that DNA codes for proteins via messenger RNA, and that proteins perform the major structural and functional operations of the cell. But as Hui Ge of the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts said, “What we thought was important before was really just the tip of the iceberg.” Barry used a homey analogy to illustrate how gene regulation can be more important than genes themselves:Consider the difference between a one-bedroom bungalow and an ornate, three-story McMansion. Both are made from roughly the same materials—lumber, drywall, wiring, plumbing—and are put together with the same tools—hammers, saws, nails, and screws. What makes the mansion more complex is the way that its construction is orchestrated by rules that specify when and where each tool and material must be used. In cells, regulation controls when and where proteins spring into action. If the traditional genome is a set of blueprints for an organism, RNA regulatory networks are the assembly instructions. In fact, some scientists think that these additional layers of complexity in genome regulation could be the answer to a long-standing puzzle……that puzzle being the unexpected low number of genes in the human genome. It might explain the physical differences between humans and roundworms, which both have similar numbers of protein-coding genes. Barry’s article provides a good summary of numerous papers that have been casting serious doubt on the Central Dogma, and even the concept of a gene itself:More fundamentally, it muddies scientists’ conception of just what constitutes a gene. In the established definition, a gene is a discrete region of DNA that produces a single, identifiable protein in a cell. But the functioning of a protein often depends on a host of RNAs that control its activity. If a stretch of DNA known to be a protein-coding gene also produces regulatory RNAs essential for several other genes, is it somehow a part of all those other genes as well?Some scientists are advocating changing our focus from genes to “functional RNA transcripts.” But that seems to just relocate the problem. If DNA is a passive code, what codes for its activity? If gene regulation by a network of transcripts is now more important than genes, what regulates the regulators? Come back for Genome 3.0.Update 09/24/2007: Colin Nickerson wrote an article for the Boston News that captures the drama of these discoveries:The science of life is undergoing changes so jolting that even its top researchers are feeling something akin to shell-shock. Just four years after scientists finished mapping the human genome – the full sequence of 3 billion DNA “letters” folded within every cell – they find themselves confronted by a biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined…. ….the picture now emerging is more complicated, one in which illness, health, and evolutionary change appear to be the work of almost fantastical coordination between genes and swaths of DNA previously written off as junk.Nickerson quotes Isodore Rigoutsos, geneticist, saying “The picture that’s emerging is so immensely more complicated than anyone imagined, it’s almost depressing.”1Patrick Barry, “Genome 2.0,” Science News, Week of Sept. 8, 2007; Vol. 172, No. 10 , p. 154.2“The ENCODE project revealed that about 90 percent of protein-coding genes possessed previously unknown coding fragments that were located far from the main gene, sometimes on other chromosomes.”3“According to the ENCODE project results, up to 72 percent of known genes have transcripts on the facing DNA strand as well as the main strand.”Many previous entries have dealt with these subjects (e.g., 06/15/2007, 12/29/2006 bullet 2, 11/09/2006, 07/06/2006). This is a classic case of a paradigm change in science occurring before our eyes. Even what we mean by an intuitively-obvious word like gene is being questioned: is there such a thing? Does it have physical reality, or is it a mental picture humans have imposed on a much more subtle reality? The new buzzword is network, but is that an accurate characterization? Networking is concerned more with the interactions of entities than with the entities themselves; this means that the rules of the game are more important than the nodes of the network. How could that fit within a materialistic world view? Whatever comes in the days ahead, it appears that there is far more information processing occurring in the cell than even Watson and Crick imagined – and that was startling and elegant enough. Barry states that the raw genetic information transcribed in DNA now appears to be 62 times what genes alone would produce. The fundamental operational unit of life may, therefore, be nonphysical: information, not molecules. These are exciting times for science – troubling times for Darwinists. Don’t expect them to have any remorse over leading mankind into a “modern orthodoxy” that was mistaken.(Visited 72 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
20 August 2015The number of co.za web domain names had surpassed the one million mark, the ZA Central Registry (ZACR) announced on Twitter yesterday.ZACR manages the .co.za, .web.za, .org.za, .net.za domains as well as the recently launched city top level domains (cTLDs) of .capetown, .joburg and .durban.The organisation said there were now more than 1 000 050 active .co.za domains. However, it has taken more than 20 years for .co.za to hit the one million mark.According to a list of the early registrations on the Internet.org.za website, the .co.za domain zone was created on 4 June 1992; the first website to be added was bksinc.co.za later that month on 25 June.The second website to be added to the .co.za domain zone was paradigm.co.za. The ZACR began managing the .co.za domain in 1995.The registry has also been in a bid to manage the impending .africa domain. But the allocation of this name by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) has been held back following a complaint by DotConnectAfrica Trust that its competing application for the domain name was not treated fairly.Source: News24Wire
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest By Matt ReeseAfter an almost ideal growing season for some and not so much for others, we were not sure quite what to expect on the 2018 I-75/I-71 Ohio Crop Tour in mid-August.There were certainly some examples that showed up in fields on the 2018 I-75/I-71 Ohio Crop Tour displaying evidence of some challenging conditions, but for the most part what we found was a crop that might just meet what USDA has suggested, a record Ohio corn and soybean crop. The 2018 Ohio Crop Tour was sponsored by AgroLiquid.In January, prior to the final yield report that has been delayed by the government shutdown, the U.S. Department of Agriculture was predicting an average yield in Ohio of 190 bushels. In August, the number we came up with for our tour average was 186.7 bushels. At the time, we thought that yield may be on the high side because there was a fair portion of the crop that had a long way to go yet in mid-August and there were still plenty of chances left in the season for yield reductions. As it turned out, though, the average of the yield calculations turned out to be fairly close. The growing season ended very strong, likely improving yield beyond what we saw in August, at least in some fields. The nearly ideal weather maximized the potential for the fields we look at in many cases.In the West, the I-75 group had an average corn yield of 180.3 bushels on Day 1 and 191.8 bushels on Day 2. The Eastern leg of the Ohio Crop Tour averaged 188.07 bushels on Day 1 and 182.3 bushels on Day 2. The formula used in estimating corn yields is accurate plus or minus 30 bushels for the areas of the fields sampled.So, the overall average was really pretty close, but how did we do on individual fields? We followed up with some of the farmers to find out the actual field averages of the corn fields we sampled and estimated back in August. Here are the results. 2018 Ohio Crop Tour corn yield follow-up Allen Estimated 212 Actual 214Clark Estimated 175 Actual 218Crawford Estimated 203 Actual 252Darke Estimated 218 Actual 258Defiance Estimated 165 Actual 197Fairfield Estimated 222 Actual 226Fayette Estimated 155 Actual 195Fulton Estimated 168 Actual 166Hancock Estimated 210 Actual 225Hardin Estimated 192 Actual 250Holmes Estimated 177 Actual 202Huron Estimated 191 Actual 195Licking Estimated 209 Actual 223Madison Estimated 171 Actual 174Miami Estimated 174 Actual 219Morrow Estimated 167 Actual 197Pickaway Estimated 192 Actual 225Preble Estimated 180 Actual 243Putnam Estimated 191 Actual 226Ross Estimated 201 Actual 195Richland Estimated 200 Actual 211Union Estimated 187 Actual 183Warren Estimated 224 Actual 228Williams Estimated 218 Actual 216Wood Estimated 121 Actual 211Van Wert Estimated 193 Actual 229 In addition to our yield checks, for the first time ever we collected tissue samples from each field to conduct tissue testing and gain a bit more insight into what was happening in the fields. Jamie Bultemeier, agronomist and corporate sales director for A&L Great Lakes Laboratories, dug into the results.“The challenges of tissue testing hit us, but there is a positive message behind the data. I broke the data down by north/south and east west and some patterns began to emerge in corn. I went one step further and identified those counties that were hit by the dry heat in June and July and more appeared. Often when looking at tissue data we assume that nutrients are the limiting factor to yield, but that is not the case most of the time,” he said. “One often overlooked aspect of tissue sampling is the understanding of what is limiting yield. If the true limitation to yield is nutrient or impacts nutrient availability, there will be supportive evidence in a tissue test. In this case tissue test data will correlate to yield. If the yield-limiting factor does not impact nutrient availability, tissue data will not correlate to yield. Often managers assume yield is impacted by nutrient uptake, but this is not always the case. This often leads to criticism of tissue testing.”When Bultemeier scrutinized the data, he found different trends in different areas of Ohio.“Comparing results from northwest Ohio, a stronger correlation between yield and potassium level began to appear. When I separated those very northwestern counties that were hit by near drought conditions, there was a rather strong correlation between potassium levels and yield. Higher yields are associated with higher potassium levels in corn leaves,” he said. “While the population style research at hand here is a bit limited by the lower sample set, the correlation suggests there may be an impact. This also makes agronomic sense — potassium is key in maintaining water relations within plants during times of water stress. The lower tissue test levels could be caused either by low soil potassium levels, by lack of soil water to facilitate the diffusion of potassium into the corn roots, or a combination of the two.”Southern Ohio had more rainfall and it showed in the tissue tests.“In the southwest where rainfall was more plentiful, there is a weak correlation between nitrogen levels and yield suggesting that nitrogen levels in the corn plant may have impacted corn yields in southwest Ohio. The question then becomes: did the plant have reduced availability limiting uptake, or did environmental conditions lead to reduced remobilization of nitrogen from the lower stalk to the ear leaf?” Bultemeier said. “I think the data from the Crop Tour exemplifies the challenges with interpretations of tissue test results. Crop physiology response to weather conditions and general field condition often explains tissue results, however you need field observations to figure those relationships out. The tissue sample tests from the Crop Tour were really tying to the weather events last year.”Bultemeier said there is still plenty to learn from and about the role of tissue testing in crop production.“A tissue test is a great option for looking at nutrient management as a report card if we are doing a good job at accessing those nutrients. It can be a challenge to interpret that data if we don’t have a good understanding of the system around that data and what led up to that snapshot in time. Many folks pull tissues and assume that yield and growth is limited by a nutrient issue, but that is not always the case. If we have a physical limitation or a genetic limitation, that tissue test may come back just fine and not give us a real insight,” he said. “The trend we are seeing right now is monitoring it over the season. They pull samples on a routine basis so they can see where they are at and what nutrients may be needed through foliar applications. They apply the product and see what the response is. Did the plant respond or not and was that product a good application or not? You may have to do that two or three times to get a good answer, but if there is something dropping through the season they can be ready to do an application to address it. Right now we are sort of in that learning phase in agriculture, but it is amazing what you can learn when you monitor this on a more critical level. It can be mind-boggling and it is key to have really good notes and to have an agronomist who is familiar with crop physiology with you. Sometimes it can raise more questions than answers and that is when you have to start digging deeper.”Bultemeier’s tissue sampling results from each corn and soybean field sampled on the 2018 Ohio Crop Tour are available at: ocj.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Crop-Tour-Test-Results-2018.pdf.
“The door knocked and I started getting excited,” Moss said of Hall of Fame President David Baker alerting him he has been elected. “All the emotions caught the best of me because it’s been a long journey and it ends in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Tears of joy.”Moss burst on the scene as a rookie in Minnesota in 1998 when he caught a league-leading 17 TD catches and helped lead the Vikings to the NFC title game. His combination of speed and athleticism made him the game’s most dangerous big-play threat and led to the phrase “You got Mossed” for embarrassed defensive backs.He led the NFL in TD catches five times, including his record 23 for New England in 2007, and earned four All-Pro selections. He finished his career with 982 catches for 15,292 yards and ranks second all-time with 156 TD receptions.Owens, who didn’t attend the announcement, entered the league as a third-round pick by San Francisco in 1996 but developed into a star known for some memorable playoff appearances, including his winning 25-yard TD catch to beat Green Bay in 1999; his 177 yards in a comeback win against the Giants in 2003; and his nine catches for 122 yards in the 2004 Super Bowl against New England just seven weeks after breaking his leg.Owens ranks second to Jerry Rice with 15,934 yards receiving and is third on the all-time touchdowns receiving list with 153.ADVERTISEMENT Trending Articles PLAY LIST 00:50Trending Articles02:49World-class track facilities installed at NCC for SEA Games00:50Trending Articles01:29Police teams find crossbows, bows in HK university01:35Panelo suggests discounted SEA Games tickets for students02:49Robredo: 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 City But the biggest stars of the class are the two linebackers that made it on their first tries, and the pair of lightning-rod receiver who sometimes caused as many problems for their own teams as for the opposition. Moss also made it on his first try, while Owens needed to wait for his third year on the ballot to get enough support.“I’ve been going a long time. And now I can finally rest,” Lewis said. “I want to go fishing with a cigar now and just sit back. I don’t want to work out every day now.”FEATURED STORIESSPORTSWATCH: Drones light up sky in final leg of SEA Games torch runSPORTSLillard, Anthony lead Blazers over ThunderSPORTSMalditas save PH from shutoutMoss and Owens each played for five teams in their careers as they often wore out their welcome with their inability to get along with teammates and coaches at times.But at their best, there were few players ever able to strike fear in defenses as much as Moss and Owens, who were both all-decade selections for the 2000s. MOST READ AFP official booed out of forum Read Next Cornerback Ty Law also made it to the final 10 in his second time on the ballot. Defensive backs John Lynch and Everson Walls, receiver Isaac Bruce and running back Edgerrin James were the other candidates eliminated in the first cuts.“I’m glad I didn’t have to vote for this class,” Urlacher said. “It’s a great class.” NEXT BLOCK ASIA 2.0 introduces GURUS AWARDS to recognize and reward industry influencers LATEST STORIES Patriots’ Brady wins 3rd MVP ahead of Super Bowl vs Eagles Globe Business launches leading cloud-enabled and hardware-agnostic conferencing platform in PH Lewis is widely considered one of the greatest middle linebackers, winning two AP Defensive Player of the Year awards and earning eight All-Pro selections. He anchored a dominant defense for the 2000 Baltimore Ravens in a season that ended with him winning Super Bowl MVP, then retired as a champion after Baltimore closed his last season with a title win over San Francisco in February 2013.“Growing up as a child, I know what that looked like, Mike Singletary, Dick Butkus,” Lewis said. “Who dreams of being in that category, sitting with those guys?”Lewis joined tackle Jonathan Ogden as the only Ravens voted into the Hall of Fame as both of the team’s first-round picks in its initial season of 1996 received the high honor.Lewis’ career was also marked by legal problems off the field. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of obstruction of justice after initially being charged with murder in connection with two killings following a Super Bowl party in Atlanta in January 2000. Lewis was also fined $250,000 by the NFL.Urlacher wasn’t far behind Lewis with his play on the field and is the latest in a line of great Chicago middle linebackers to make the Hall, joining Butkus, Singletary and Bill George. He was the Defensive Player of the Year of 2005 and joined Lewis on the 2000s all-decade team.Dawkins spent most of his 16-year career in Philadelphia, earning five first-team All-Pro selections for his versatility that included 37 career interceptions and 26 career sacks. He became the first player in NFL history with a sack, interception, fumble recovery and touchdown catch in the same game against Houston in 2002.Kramer got passed over 10 times previously as a finalist before finally getting enough votes as a senior to become the 14th member of the Vince Lombardi Packers to make the Hall. Kramer helped anchor the Green Bay line for 11 seasons, winning six NFL titles and making the block that cleared the way for Bart Starr’s TD sneak in the “Ice Bowl” for the 1967 NFL championship.Brazile was a finalist for the first time after a 10-year career for the Houston Oilers that included five straight All-Pro selections.Beathard, also not on hand Saturday, helped build four Super Bowl champions in Miami and Washington and made seven trips to the title game during more than three decades as a personnel executive with a sharp eye for talent.Five offensive linemen were among the 15 finalists, with tackle Joe Jacoby getting eliminated in voting that reduced the candidates to 10, and tackle Tony Boselli, guards Alan Faneca and Steve Hutchinson, and center Kevin Mawae getting cut in the next round of voting. Typhoon Kammuri accelerates, gains strength en route to PH 2 ‘newbie’ drug pushers fall in Lucena sting View comments Brace for potentially devastating typhoon approaching PH – NDRRMC John Lloyd Cruz a dashing guest at Vhong Navarro’s wedding Slow and steady hope for near-extinct Bangladesh tortoises Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. FILE – In this Aug. 17, 2012, file photo, Baltimore Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis reacts as he is introduced before an NFL preseason football game against the Detroit Lions in Baltimore. Lewis was elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame on Saturday, Feb. 3, 2018. (AP Photo/Nick Wass, File)MINNEAPOLIS — Ray Lewis and Brian Urlacher terrorized opposing offenses from the middle of the field. Randy Moss and Terrell Owens did the same to defenses on the outside.The two hard-hitting linebackers and two big-play receivers highlighted an eight-person class voted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame on Saturday. Safety Brian Dawkins also received at least 80 percent support from the 47 Hall of Fame voters, along with contributor Bobby Beathard and senior nominees Jerry Kramer and Robert Brazile.ADVERTISEMENT