Tags : 上海洋妞交流群

first_imgHaessly scores twice, earns all-tournament statusBy Paul LeckerSports ReporterURBANA, Illinois — The Marshfield girls soccer team opened its 2017 season by going 1-2 at the Urbana (Illinois) Invitational on Friday and Saturday.Marshfield beat St. Edward’s (Illinois) of Elgin 3-1 on Friday and then lost to Geneseo (Illinois) 2-0 and Springfield Sacred Heart Griffin (Illinois) 5-0 on Saturday.Maddie Haessly scored a pair of goals and assisted on Nicole Simon’s goal in the season-opening win over St. Edward’s. Haessly was named to the All-Tournament Team.Sophie Koehn and Simon assisted on Haessly’s goals.Wendy Rodriguez had 14 saves, and Andrea Carolfi had eight saves in goal for the Tigers as they split time in the net.“We played some quality teams again and did well overall,” Marshfield coach Steve Lindner said. “We gained tremendous experience and saw some things we can take — as coaches — back to improve on the season. Some players were put into different positions, and we saw where their strengths are and where we as coaches need to place players for the optimal success.”Marshfield plays a nonconference game at Green Bay Southwest on Tuesday, opens its Wisconsin Valley Conference schedule at Stevens Point on Thursday, and will play its home-opener on Friday against Hortonville.(Hub City Times Sports Reporter Paul Lecker is also the publisher of MarshfieldAreaSports.com.)last_img read more

first_img25 October 2012Mobile communications company Vodacom was named Highest Scoring Green Star Project 2008-12 by the Green Building Council of South Africa (GBCSA) on Wednesday for its Vodafone Site Solution Innovation Centre in Midrand, Johannesburg.The building was awarded six stars for its water, energy and emissions efficiency by the GBCSA in October 2011, making it the greenest building in the country.The six star rating is also referred to as “world class” by the GBCSA.“We are very proud of this award because it is a testimony of our commitment to growing our business in a sustainable way,” Vodacom’s chief officer of corporate affairs, Maya Makanjee, said in a statement.“We all have a responsibility towards ensuring the sustainability of our communities, country and planet. The innovation centre, and what it aims to achieve, is a critical component of that philosophy.”The innovation centre also won an award for innovations in renewables at the Mail and Guardian’s Greening the Future Awards earlier this year.Material excavated from the original site was used in the construction of the centre, and it generates double the energy required to run the building’s operations through solar energy, with excess power being diverted to the Vodacom campus.“A solar absorption chiller provides radiant cooling or warming through water pumped through a thermally activated slab,” the company said.“The chiller also provides cooled air to the office space, so no water-based heat rejection systems are used.”According to Vodacom, it is enclosed in glass to allow the use of natural daylight and rainwater captured from the roof is used for the irrigation of the gardens and the toilets.A full-time team of engineers also works at the centre to investigate methods to reduce the company’s carbon emissions and implement more cost efficiencies.“The project addresses sustainability in all respects which seeks to truly minimise the impact of the building on the environment,” said GBCSA’s chief executive officer, Brian Wilkinson.The company has also implemented a more efficient hybrid generator known as a “power cube” and a slim-line solar “film” as an alternative to solar panels in base stations in urban areas with limited space.It has further plans to reduce carbon emissions by 5% a year until 2014.“The innovation centre is one example of our commitment to sustainability. The scale of challenges on our environment demands ambitious action and we are responding with a continued focus on innovation to cut our carbon emissions across our business,” Makanjee said.SAinfo reporterlast_img read more

first_imgRelated Posts Tags:#Semantic Web#Social Web#web The Dos and Don’ts of Brand Awareness Videos Facebook is Becoming Less Personal and More Pro… corvida 1 Today SezWho a universal profile, content discovery, and a sophisticated reputation engine provider, has announced its acquisition of Tejit, a provider of semantic intelligence solutions. The acquisition enables SezWho to provide more precise contextual reputation scores for contributors based on topics of conversation. ReadWriteWeb gives you an in-depth look into SezWho’s latest acquisition and how SezWho measures up to the competition.Sezwho, Tejit, and SemanticsTejit CEO Indus Khaitan began developing Tejit in 2007 as a personal project when he became frustrated reading duplicate content from the 1000+ blogs he had bookmarked. Since then, Tejit has expanded its analysis capabilities across millions of blogs. Tejit’s semantic-analysis engine uses Natural Language Processing (NLP) and semantic matching technology to identify topics, sentiments and entities present in web content. A Flawed TraditionAccording to SezWho CEO, Jitendra Gupta,The traditional method of content discovery based on the similarity of content is not adequate for connecting conversation across social sites in a meaningful way. A new level of context-sensitive, semantic discovery is required to reflect all the layers of users’ participation across the social web, and to track their contributions in a way that is universally relevant both within and across communities.There’s no doubt that the traditional rating system for comments has its flaws. In a post titled “Disqus Clout: Fail!“, Phil Glockner of Scribkin points out one of the biggest flaws of comment rating systems using Disqus as an example. In the comments section, Louis Gray sums up the problem nicely:I would expect it rewards those who comment most frequently, and wouldn’t be so much a subjective view.More Than Just A Rating SystemInstead of replacing your comment system, SezWho aims to augment the conversations. Keeping the aforementioned flaw in mind, SezWho considers two important factors that: distributed conversations and the people behind them. SezWho provides a meta network information around participants and context. The context has information from various platforms to allow data and content to reside within the community. The service captures valuable information about the history and expertise of individual contributors. Community ratings are only a portion of the cumulative rankings for an overall score.SezWho provided us with a comparison chart to better demonstrate the differences between what SezWho offers versus competitors Disqus and Intense Debate, which we’ve previously reviewed. Guide to Performing Bulk Email Verification Adding Noise or Resolving Issues?With all that SezWho adds, it can be argued that some of it will amount to more noise for users. While, we’ve previously used SezWho here on ReadWriteWeb to enhance our community, some of our writers are using the less complicated Disqus platform on their personal blogs. We wonder if the amount of blog coverage has also affected SezWho’s userbase compared to Disqus, which has seen tremendous coverage since its launch. With SezWho, other important issues are being tackled beyond their enhanced reputation system such as keeping track of conversations over a plethora of platforms and enabling a more sophisticated way to discover relevant content. SezWho aims to enhance communities rather than replace them,but can they filter the noise that’s add everyday? A Comprehensive Guide to a Content Auditlast_img read more

first_img8 Best WordPress Hosting Solutions on the Market SendGrid, a popular e-mail sending service, revamped its pricing plans today. Facing competition from services like Amazon SES and the forthcoming Message Bus, SendGrid is bringing its pricing more in-line with Amazon.com’s.Each of these services is designed to enable companies to send large numbers of e-mail, such as account confirmations and password resets, without being snared by spam filters.FREE: A full-featured free trial that includes, 200 email credits/day, advanced deliverability features, advanced reporting and analytics, access to all API’s, premium support, and the newsletter application.Lite Plan: 10 cents per thousand emails pay-as-you-go plan, with no volume limits. Includes basic deliverability features, access to the SMTP API, Web API, SMTP Relay, basic reporting and analytics, and premium support.Bronze Plan: $9.95/month with 40,000 email credits/month. Includes all of the features from the Lite Plan, plus Advanced Reporting and Analytics.Silver Plan: $79.95/month with 100,000 email credits/month. Includes all of the features from the Bronze Plan plus Advanced Deliverability features, additional API’s (Parse API, Event API, OEM API), Sub-user Capabilities, and the Newsletter application.Gold Plan: $199.95/month with 300,000 email credits/month, with the full feature set of the Silver Plan.Platinum Plan: $399.95/month with 700,000 email credits/month, with the full feature set of the Silver Plan.SendGrid’s old pricing model started at about $.80 – $1 per 1,000 e-mails. Amazon SES charges $.10 per 1,000, and EC2 customers get 2,000 free e-mails per day. For more pricing comparisons, see our previous coverage.Disclosure: SendGrid is a ReadWriteWeb sponsor.Photo by Alex Perkins Top Reasons to Go With Managed WordPress Hosting Related Posts A Web Developer’s New Best Friend is the AI Wai…center_img klint finley Tags:#cloud#Cloud Providers Why Tech Companies Need Simpler Terms of Servic…last_img read more

first_imgIt would currently be “irresponsible” to use new DNA editing tools to alter the genomes of human embryos, eggs, or sperm in order to produce a baby, the organizing committee of an international summit on the issue concluded today in a statement.But the group did not rule out such embryo editing later, if safety questions are resolved and society develops a consensus on ethical and legal issues. And the group said basic, preclinical research involving human embryos, sperm, and eggs should continue. It did not endorse any kind of ban or moratorium on such research.The statement—which differs little from similar previous statements from prominent groups—came after 3 days of intense discussion among scientists, government officials, science policy experts, philosophers, and others in Washington, D.C. The unusual gathering, sponsored by U.S., U.K., and Chinese scientific societies, explored the promise and perils of new methods to alter human DNA, focusing considerable debate on the prospect for altering the genomes of eggs, sperm, or embryos. This so-called germline engineering is seen by many as crossing a line, because it bestows permanent genetic changes on a new individual and any offspring they may have. Yet there are circumstances in which such DNA editing could prevent the transmission of genetic diseases, so some advocate it shouldn’t be banned, as it is in many countries.Sign up for our daily newsletterGet more great content like this delivered right to you!Country *AfghanistanAland IslandsAlbaniaAlgeriaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBolivia, Plurinational State ofBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, The Democratic Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCote D’IvoireCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and Mcdonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic ofIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKorea, Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMacedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorwayOmanPakistanPalestinianPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalQatarReunionRomaniaRussian FederationRWANDASaint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint Maarten (Dutch part)SlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofVietnamVirgin Islands, BritishWallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweI also wish to receive emails from AAAS/Science and Science advertisers, including information on products, services and special offers which may include but are not limited to news, careers information & upcoming events.Required fields are included by an asterisk(*)Here is the complete statement from the organizing committee, which was led by David Baltimore of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena:On Human Gene Editing: International Summit StatementScientific advances in molecular biology over the past 50 years have produced remarkable progress in medicine. Some of these advances have also raised important ethical and societal issues – for example, about the use of recombinant DNA technologies or embryonic stem cells. The scientific community has consistently recognized its responsibility to identify and confront these issues. In these cases, engagement by a range of stakeholders has led to solutions that have made it possible to obtain major benefits for human health while appropriately addressing societal issues.Fundamental research into the ways by which bacteria defend themselves against viruses has recently led to the development of powerful new techniques that make it possible to perform gene editing – that is, precisely altering genetic sequences – in living cells, including those of humans, at much higher accuracy and efficiency than ever before possible. These techniques are already in broad use in biomedical research. They may also enable wide-ranging clinical applications in medicine. At the same time, the prospect of human genome editing raises many important scientific, ethical, and societal questions.After three days of thoughtful discussion of these issues, the members of the Organizing Committee for the International Summit on Human Gene Editing have reached the following conclusions:1. Basic and Preclinical Research. Intensive basic and preclinical research is clearly needed and should proceed, subject to appropriate legal and ethical rules and oversight, on (i) technologies for editing genetic sequences in human cells, (ii) the potential benefits and risks of proposed clinical uses, and (iii) understanding the biology of human embryos and germline cells.  If, in the process of research, early human embryos or germline cells undergo gene editing, the modified cells should not be used to establish a pregnancy.2. Clinical Use: Somatic. Many promising and valuable clinical applications of gene editing are directed at altering genetic sequences only in somatic cells – that is, cells whose genomes are not transmitted to the next generation. Examples that have been proposed include editing genes for sickle-cell anemia in blood cells or for improving the ability of immune cells to target cancer. There is a need to understand the risks, such as inaccurate editing, and the potential benefits of each proposed genetic modification.  Because proposed clinical uses are intended to affect only the individual who receives them, they can be appropriately and rigorously evaluated within existing and evolving regulatory frameworks for gene therapy, and regulators can weigh risks and potential benefits in approving clinical trials and therapies.3. Clinical Use: Germline. Gene editing might also be used, in principle, to make genetic alterations in gametes or embryos, which will be carried by all of the cells of a resulting child and will be passed on to subsequent generations as part of the human gene pool. Examples that have been proposed range from avoidance of severe inherited diseases to ‘enhancement’ of human capabilities. Such modifications of human genomes might include the introduction of naturally occurring variants or totally novel genetic changes thought to be beneficial.Germline editing poses many important issues, including: (i) the risks of inaccurate editing (such as off-target mutations) and incomplete editing of the cells of early-stage embryos (mosaicism); (ii) the difficulty of predicting harmful effects that genetic changes may have under the wide range of circumstances experienced by the human population, including interactions with other genetic variants and with the environment; (iii) the obligation to consider implications for both the individual and the future generations who will carry the genetic alterations; (iv) the fact that, once introduced into the human population, genetic alterations would be difficult to remove and would not remain within any single community or country; (v) the possibility that permanent genetic ‘enhancements’ to subsets of the population could exacerbate social inequities or be used coercively; and (vi) the moral and ethical considerations in purposefully altering human evolution using this technology.It would be irresponsible to proceed with any clinical use of germline editing unless and until (i) the relevant safety and efficacy issues have been resolved, based on appropriate understanding and balancing of risks, potential benefits, and alternatives, and (ii) there is broad societal consensus about the appropriateness of the proposed application. Moreover, any clinical use should proceed only under appropriate regulatory oversight. At present, these criteria have not been met for any proposed clinical use: the safety issues have not yet been adequately explored; the cases of most compelling benefit are limited; and many nations have legislative or regulatory bans on germline modification. However, as scientific knowledge advances and societal views evolve, the clinical use of germline editing should be revisited on a regular basis.4. Need for an Ongoing Forum. While each nation ultimately has the authority to regulate activities under its jurisdiction, the human genome is shared among all nations. The international community should strive to establish norms concerning acceptable uses of human germline editing and to harmonize regulations, in order to discourage unacceptable activities while advancing human health and welfare.We therefore call upon the national academies that co-hosted the summit – the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and U.S. National Academy of Medicine; the Royal Society; and the Chinese Academy of Sciences – to take the lead in creating an ongoing international forum to discuss potential clinical uses of gene editing; help inform decisions by national policymakers and others; formulate recommendations and guidelines; and promote coordination among nations.The forum should be inclusive among nations and engage a wide range of perspectives and expertise – including from biomedical scientists, social scientists, ethicists, health care providers, patients and their families, people with disabilities, policymakers, regulators, research funders, faith leaders, public interest advocates, industry representatives, and members of the general public.Some of ScienceInsider’s past coverage (most recent stories first):Gene drive workshop shows technology’s promise, or peril, remains far offGene-editing method revives hopes for transplanting pig organs into peopleUK researcher applies for permission to edit embryo genomesResearch on gene editing in embryos is justified, group saysJournal responds to controversy over embryo gene-editing paperChinese paper on embryo engineering splits scientific communityDon’t edit embryos, researchers warn US researchers call for greater oversight of powerful genetic technologylast_img read more