West London Sport has teamed up with Thomas Cook Sport, official travel partner of Chelsea FC, to offer Blues fans the chance to win a pair of tickets to their next Premier League home game against Bolton Wanderers on Saturday 25 February.André Villas-Boas will be hoping for all three points against the Trotters…and you could be at Stamford Bridge to watch all the action LIVE!We have five pairs of tickets to give away and to be in with a chance of winning, simply answer the following question:Which recent Chelsea signing previously played for Bolton?a. John Terryb. Gary Cahillc. Ashley ColeE-mail the correct answer to email@example.comWinners will be randomly selected. The competition closes at 5pm on Monday, 13 February.Thomas Cook Sport is the UK’s leading sports tour operator and official travel partner of Chelsea FC, offering match breaks to Chelsea fans for the 2011/2012 season from £109 per person. This season, choose the winning tactic and book your 2011/12 match break by visiting www.thomascooksport.com or call the sales team on 0844 800 9900.You can also follow us on Twitter @thomascooksport and find us on Facebook at facebook.com/ThomasCookSportUK to keep up-to-date with all the latest competitions, special offers and news.Terms & Conditions1. The prize consists of two tickets (Chelsea end) to the game against Bolton Wanderers on Saturday 25 February 2012, for five winners. Kick-off is at 15.00.2. The package does not include travel to or from the ground or any hospitality at the ground.3. Fans are reminded that tickets are in the Chelsea end and seats are amongst home supporters. Please be aware that any vocal or visual support for the opposition will result in ejection from the stadium without compensation.4. Entrants are reminded that tickets are issued subject to Chelsea FC Regulations and the Conditions of Entry relevant to those tickets.5. Competition open to all UK residents with the exception of employees of Thomas Cook Sport Ltd, Chelsea FC or Hatch Communications, their immediate families, agents or anyone else associated with the administration.6. No cash alternative will be offered.7. The competition closes on 13 February.8. In the event of unforeseen circumstances, the promoter reserves the right to offer an alternative prize of equal or greater value.9. The promoter’s decision is final and no correspondence will be entered into.10. All entrants must be willing to participate in publicity should they be a winner.11. We reserve the right at any time to cancel, modify or supersede the competition if, in our sole discretion, the competition is not capable of being conducted as specified in the competition rules.12. The promoter of this competition is either Thomas Cook Retail Limited, trading as Thomas Cook Sport or Airtrack (for UK departures), or Capitol Holdings Ltd, trading as Thomas Cook Sport (Ireland), for travel arrangements departing from the Republic of Ireland. Thomas Cook Retail Ltd registered office is The Thomas Cook Business Park, Coningsby Road, Peterborough PE3 8SB, and the company registration number is 00102630 England. Capitol Holdings Ltd registered office is 10B Beckett Way, Parkwest Business Park, Dublin 12, and company registration number is 163008. To discover more about Thomas Cook Sport, log on to www.thomascooksport.com
1. Dreber, Rand, Fudenberg, and Nowak, “Winners don’t punish,” Nature 452, 348-351 (20 March 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature06723.2. Manfred Milinski and Bettina Rockenbach, “Human behaviour: Punisher pays,” Nature 452, 297-298 (20 March 2008) | doi:10.1038/452297a.3. Dunn, Aknin and Norton, “Spending Money on Others Promotes Happiness,” Science, 21 March 2008: Vol. 319. no. 5870, pp. 1687-1688, DOI: 10.1126/science.1150952.Evolutionary theory is without form and void, but lacking an intelligent spirit to hover over its dark waters, it will never emerge into a garden of scientific understanding. When they try to find Darwin’s tree in their mindless void, they fail; when they don’t, they do just as well and, like the proverbial broken clock, are occasionally right. Being right by chance is no reason to follow their advice. We don’t need Science to tell us how to behave. We don’t need their mythical edens in the savannah to explain our dark side. Their explanations leave puzzles, conundrums, and emptiness. While policies that promote prosocial spending (e.g., tax breaks for charitable donations) make sense, who believes for a minute that a government or oligarchy of scientists will change people’s hearts? Science encroaches here on foreign territory. There is an institution with a much better track record on helping people avoid costly punishment and enjoy the happiness of giving: a church that teaches the operating manual of the Manufacturer without adding or taking away from it. Why does the USA have the best success rate in the pursuit of happiness? Because its founders believed that humans were not just evolved animals. They held them as truths that people are endowed by their Creator with life and liberty and self-determination. In light of the two papers above, it seems obvious now. You might almost say it is self-evident.(Visited 29 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 Can psychology kick the Darwin habit? For years it has been conventional to express all human actions in Darwinian terms. We struggle with city life, for instance, because we evolved to hunt prey in the savannah – not the Georgia kind, but the African plains where we first climbed down from the trees to walk upright. War, altruism, music, language, culture, and many other human behavioral traits both good and bad (including murder and rape) have been explained as adaptations due to group selection, individual selection, or both. Two papers this week, however, break this trend. One struggles to find an evolutionary explanation and fails. The other has no need of the Darwin hypothesis.Punishing Darwin with faint praise: “Winners don’t punish” is the title of an unusual paper in Nature.1 An interdisciplinary team from Harvard and Stockholm School of Economics, composed of specialists in evolutionary dynamics, economics, mathematics and systems biology studied the phenomenon of “costly punishment,” looking for its evolutionary origin. Costly punishment means “paying a costly punishment to incur a cost” – e.g., revenge. How is this human behavior to be explained? The team could not find adequate explanations in group selection or individual selection. It seems maladaptive in all cases. Kin selection, direct and indirect reciprocity, and all the other Darwinian buzz-phrases seemed inadequate. They ran game experiments giving subjects opportunities to cooperate, defect, or impose punishment on others (something like Survivor?). The control group was denied the option of costly punishment. What happened?Here we show that the option of costly punishment increases the amount of cooperation but not the average payoff of the group. Furthermore, there is a strong negative correlation between total payoff and use of costly punishment. Those people who gain the highest total payoff tend not to use costly punishment: winners don’t punish. This suggests that costly punishment behaviour is maladaptive in cooperation games and might have evolved for other reasons.That last line shows they left the door open for some unknown evolutionary explanation, but they could only suggest options. Maybe it gives a way for an individual to enforce submission or rise to dominance. Even so, their conclusion sounded distinctly un-Darwinian:People engage in conflicts and know that conflicts can carry costs. Costly punishment serves to escalate conflicts, not to moderate them. Costly punishment might force people to submit, but not to cooperate. It could be that costly punishment is beneficial in these other games, but the use of costly punishment in games of cooperation seems to be maladaptive. We have shown that in the framework of direct reciprocity, winners do not use costly punishment, whereas losers punish and perish.In the same issue of Nature,2 two German reviewers almost seemed forlorn that no evolutionary explanation was found. Milinski and Rockenbach said, “The tendency of humans to punish perceived free-loaders, even at a cost to themselves, is an evolutionary puzzle: punishers perish, and those who benefit the most are those who have never punished at all.” Costly punishment can enforce cooperation, they said, but “it can’t have evolved for inducing cooperation.” The reason? Punishment is “fundamentally counterproductive, because it pays off neither for the punisher nor for the group.” It is intuitively obvious that natural selection would not retain a counterproductive or maladaptive trait. Ethical questions aside about their methodology and conclusions, the significant aspect of this paper is that they could not find a Darwinian explanation for the trait. The team and the reviewers – six evolutionary specialists – had to leave this conundrum unanswered: “costly punishment remains one of the most thorny puzzles in human social dilemmas. Dreber and colleagues’ results make it plain that we are still a long way from understanding the dark side of human sociality.”Give, and you shall receive: The next day, a paper in Science did not even attempt to find Darwin in the data.3 Three researchers from University of British Columbia and Harvard reported, “Spending Money on Others Promotes Happiness.” (We need scientific papers to explain the obvious sometimes.) They did experiments cross-sectionally and longitudinally on subjects. They even checked anonymous giving: “participants who were randomly assigned to spend money on others experienced greater happiness than those assigned to spend money on themselves.” They didn’t exactly quote Jesus, “it is more blessed to give than to receive,” but they did rhetorically pose Mom and Dad’s truism, “Money can’t buy happiness” as a question expecting a negative answer:Can money buy happiness? A large body of cross-sectional survey research has demonstrated that income has a reliable, but surprisingly weak, effect on happiness within nations, particularly once basic needs are met. Indeed, although real incomes have surged dramatically in recent decades, happiness levels have remained largely flat within developed countries across time. One of the most intriguing explanations for this counterintuitive finding is that people often pour their increased wealth into pursuits that provide little in the way of lasting happiness, such as purchasing costly consumer goods. An emerging challenge, then, is to identify whether and how disposable income might be used to increase happiness. Ironically, the potential for money to increase happiness may be subverted by the kinds of choices that thinking about money promotes; the mere thought of having money makes people less likely to help acquaintances, to donate to charity, or to choose to spend time with others, precisely the kinds of behaviors that are strongly associated with happiness. At the same time, although thinking about money may drive people away from prosocial behavior, money can also provide a powerful vehicle for accomplishing such prosocial goals. We suggest that using money in this fashion—investing income in others rather than oneself—may have measurable benefits for one’s own happiness.Again, it’s not that they quoted the Bible, “the love of money is the root of all evil,” but that this paper lacked any reference to evolutionary theory. Incidentally, how does a scientist devise a happy-meter? They didn’t. They asked the survey respondents to rate their happiness under various situations, such as after receiving a windfall profit-sharing bonus, and they categorized and did mathematical analysis on the results. They found it alarming that so few invest money in prosocial spending when happiness seems clearly to be an outcome. By the end of the paper, their advice sounded almost moral:Given that people appear to overlook the benefits of prosocial spending, policy interventions that promote prosocial spending—encouraging people to invest income in others rather than in themselves—may be worthwhile in the service of translating increased national wealth into increased national happiness.The paper was summarized in a Science Now article. Elsa Youngstedt remarked about the counter-intuitive result that shows giving the lottery might be more fun than getting it. “Overturning classic economic wisdom,” she said, “new research shows that it’s not how much you have that matters, it’s how you spend it. People who donate their dollars to charities or splurge on gifts for others are more content than those who squander all the dough on themselves.” Her write-up also said nothing about evolution, nor did the report by Brendan Borrell on Nature News.
NORTHFIELD, VT — Brenden Mark Ross, of Wilmington, was named to the Dean’s List for the Fall 2018 semester at Norwich University.Full-time undergraduate students, who earned a semester grade point average of at least 3.0 and had no failures in the previous Fall or Spring semester are awarded Dean’s List honors.About Norwich UniversityNorwich University is a diversified academic institution that educates traditional-age students and adults in a Corps of Cadets and as civilians. Norwich offers a broad selection of traditional and distance-learning programs culminating in Baccalaureate and Graduate Degrees.Norwich University was founded in 1819 by Captain Alden Partridge of the U.S. Army and is the oldest private military college in the United States of America. Norwich is one of the nation’s six senior military colleges and the birthplace of the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC).(NOTE: The above announcement is from Norwich University.)Like Wilmington Apple on Facebook. Follow Wilmington Apple on Twitter. Follow Wilmington Apple on Instagram. Subscribe to Wilmington Apple’s daily email newsletter HERE. Got a comment, question, photo, press release, or news tip? Email firstname.lastname@example.org.Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:Like Loading… RelatedWilmington’s Halliday Named To Dean’s List At Norwich UniversityIn “Education”STUDENT SPOTLIGHT: 3 Wilmington Students Named To Dean’s List At Regis CollegeIn “Education”STUDENT SPOTLIGHT: 5 Wilmington Students Named To Dean’s List At University Of MaineIn “Education”
By Sean Yoes, AFRO Baltimore Editor, email@example.comMegan Rochon, an actress and producer is all too familiar with one of Baltimore’s essential rules; if you didn’t graduate from high school here there are certain customary “restrictions” placed on claims of Baltimore citizenship. Although she didn’t graduate from a Baltimore high school, she is fully invested in the city.“I’m born in Baltimore, my family is from West Baltimore, I live in Baltimore,” said Rochon who is also a graduate of Morgan State University. Baltimore is also the backdrop for Rochon’s new play “The Show,” which opens at the Motorhouse next month (Feb. 10).Actress, producer and director Megan Rochon’s new play “The Show” opens in February. (Courtesy Photo)“It’s a feel good musical…centered around a festival, The Show (modeled along the lines of AFRAM) that occurs once a year…Where Black artists have been coming since the 1960’s,” said Rochon. “It’s about a girl who is having relationship issues and decides to go to The Show to cheer herself up and release stress.” Rochon plays the lead role of Lekeisha Jones, whose character is comforted by her mother and grandmother in her time of distress in the wake of a broken relationship, before she makes her way to The Show. “She goes and while she’s there she runs into her boyfriend,” added Rochon who wrote, directed and is executive producer of The Show. In addition to being entertaining, the multi-talented performer hopes her new play and her professional example will inspire others in Baltimore who are pursuing a career in the dramatic arts.“I wanted to showcase the talent here,” Rochon said. “People have such a negative and distasteful look on the city. But, there’s so much talent in the city…fashion, hip hop and theatre.”Ultimately, Rochon is determined to be an integral part of Baltimore’s burgeoning cultural scene and to make it more viable for herself and others. “I’m a star; I’m an actress. I don’t want to just do community theatre and small TV stuff, I want to eat as an actress…I want to be able to eat and take care of my family with the acting,” Rochon said.“I’m at a place where I don’t feel like I have to leave Baltimore. All you need is the right people to see the potential that is here,” she added. “I want to be a part of the renaissance period of Baltimore.”
Explore further Mysterious planetsAlthough superionic ice doesn’t exist under normal conditions on Earth, the high pressures and temperatures where it is thought to exist are very similar to the predicted conditions in the interiors of Uranus and Neptune. “Uranus and Neptune are called ice giants because their interiors consist primarily of water, along with ammonia and methane,” Wilson said. “Since the pressure and temperature conditions of the predicted new phase just happen to line up with the pressure and temperature conditions of the interiors of these planets, our new fcc superionic phase may very well be the single most prevalent component of these planets.”The researchers predict that understanding superionic ice—particularly the stable fcc phase—will offer insight into these ice giants.”Uranus and Neptune remain very poorly understood at this stage, and their interiors are deeply mysterious,” Wilson said. “The observations we have are very limited—every other planet in the solar system we’ve visited multiple times, but Uranus and Neptune we’ve just done brief flybys with Voyager 2. What we do know is that they have bizarre non-axisymmetric non-dipolar magnetic fields, totally unlike any other planet in our solar system. We also know that they’re extremely similar in mass, density and composition, yet somehow fundamentally different, because Neptune has a significant internal heat source and Uranus hardly emits any heat at all.”It’s possible that the predicted bcc-to-fcc phase transition may explain the planets’ unusual magnetic fields, although more research is needed in this area.”Our results imply that Uranus’s and Neptune’s interiors are a bit denser and have an electrical conductivity that is slightly reduced compared to previous models,” Militzer added.Understanding Uranus and Neptune’s interiors could have implications far beyond our solar system, as well.”One thing we’re learning from the Kepler mission is that Uranus-like or Neptune-like exoplanets are extremely common,” Wilson said. “They appear to be more common than Jupiter-like gas giants. So understanding our local ice giants is important, because they’re an archetypal example for a huge class of planets out there in the universe.” Future experimentsIn the future, the researchers plan to investigate the possible existence of a third superionic phase, as well as attempt to detect the predicted transition between the bcc and fcc phases. “Shock wave experiments combined with X-ray diffraction techniques will enable one to detect the predicted bcc-to-fcc transition,” Militzer said. “Shock waves allow one to reach megabar pressure and heat the sample to thousands of Kelvin at the same time. X-ray diffraction measurements allow one to determine whether the oxygen atoms reside on bcc or fcc positions. This leads to an obvious change in the X-ray diffraction pattern. Shock waves and X-ray diffraction have rarely been combined so far, but Dr. Jon Eggert at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is in the process of preparing such experiments.” Citation: New phase of water could dominate the interiors of Uranus and Neptune (2013, April 25) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2013-04-phase-dominate-interiors-uranus-neptune.html Copyright 2013 Phys.org All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or part without the express written permission of Phys.org. Pounding particles to create Neptune’s water in the lab Journal information: Physical Review Letters More information: Hugh F. Wilson, et al. “Superionic to Superionic Phase Change in Water: Consequences for the Interiors of Uranus and Neptune.” PRL 110, 151102 (2013). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.151102 (Phys.org) —While everyone is familiar with water in the liquid, ice, and gas phases, water can also exist in many other phases over a vast range of temperature and pressure conditions. One lesser known phase of water is the superionic phase, which is considered an “ice” but exists somewhere between a solid and a liquid: while the oxygen atoms occupy fixed lattice positions as in a solid, the hydrogen atoms migrate through the lattice as in a fluid. Until now, scientists have thought that there was only one phase of superionic ice, but scientists in a new study have discovered a second phase that is more stable than the original. The new phase of superionic ice could make up a large component of the interiors of giant icy planets such as Uranus and Neptune. Phase diagram of water showing the fully fluid, solid, and superionic regimes. The superionic regime is shaded to show the transition from bcc (red) to fcc (yellow) phase stability as pressure increases. Credit: Hugh F. Wilson, et al. ©2013 American Physical Society Structure of superionic ice in (left) the bcc phase and (right) the newly discovered and more stable fcc phase. Credit: Hugh F. Wilson, et al. ©2013 American Physical Society The scientists, Hugh F. Wilson (now at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation [CSIRO] in Australia), Michael L. Wong, and Burkhard Militzer at the University of California, Berkeley, have published a paper on the new phase of superionic ice in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters. Exotic waterAs the scientists explain, water has an unusually rich phase diagram, with 15 crystalline phases observed in laboratory experiments and eight additional phases predicted theoretically. “Superionic water is a fairly exotic sort of substance,” Wilson told Phys.org. “The phases of water we’re familiar with all consist of water molecules in various arrangements, but superionic water is a non-molecular form of ice, where hydrogen atoms are shared between oxygens. It’s somewhere between a solid and a liquid—the hydrogen atoms move around freely like in a liquid, while the oxygens stay rigidly fixed in place. It would probably flow more like a liquid, though, since the planes of oxygen atoms can slide quite freely against one another, lubricated by the hydrogens.”The original phase of superionic ice, called the body centered cubic (bcc) phase, was first predicted with ab initio computer simulations in 1999 by Carlo Cavazzoni, et al. Scientists predict that the bcc phase exists at pressures in excess of 0.5 Mbar (500,000 times greater than atmospheric pressure) and temperatures of a few thousand Kelvin. The bcc phase derives its name from the fact that the oxygen atoms occupy body centered cubic lattice sites. Hints of the bcc phase’s instability have been previously observed, but the new study shows for the first time that the bcc phase is less stable than the new phase where the oxygen atoms occupy sites on a face centered cubic (fcc) lattice. The scientists predict that the fcc phase exists at pressures in excess of 1.0 Mbar, even higher than the pressure for the bcc phase. The scientists’ ab initio molecular dynamics simulations also show that the fcc phase has a higher density and lower hydrogen mobility than the bcc phase. That is, the hydrogen atoms in the fcc structure move less frequently to nearby voids between the oxygen atoms, while in the bcc structure, they migrate more freely between different sites. This difference affects the water’s thermal and electrical conductivity. In addition, the simulations show that a phase transition between the bcc and fcc phases may exist at pressures of 1.0 ± 0.5 Mbar. 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.