But complacency set in, and Girona took full advantage as Cristhian Stuani scored a penalty and Portu nodded in at the back post, leaving the European champions scrapping even for a point before Sergio Ramos was sent off in the 90th minute.They failed even to muster that, with defeat here a major act of self-harm for what was beginning to look like a serious resurgence in La Liga’s title race.Barcelona had beaten Real Valladolid by a single goal on Saturday but their stodgy display continued a period of uncertainty for the Catalans, while Madrid arrived here on the back of seven wins and a draw at the Camp Nou.Barca still have to go to the Bernabeu later this month but that Clasico will be a lot less nervy now. Their cushion has been extended to nine points over Real, with Atletico jumping back above them into second, seven points off the top.“It’s a shame,” Real coach Santiago Solari said. “We drop points and our rivals won. It is a pity because we were on a great run.” Is the league over? “Not at all,” he said.The frustration for Solari will be that his team had this game in the palm of their hands, in control against a Girona side that celebrated at the end as if they had secured survival.Their first league victory since November pushes them four points clear of the bottom three.Solari will also take some of the blame after he fielded a rotated line-up following the Champions League win over Ajax in midweek.Gareth Bale and Vinicius Junior both started on the bench, while Luka Modric was suspended. Marcelo came in at left back and was again unconvincing for Girona’s second.Madrid barely broke sweat in the first half, in control but playing within themselves as long spells of possession were only occasionally turned into a clear-cut chance.The best move was marked by two scoops, the first by Toni Kroos, who lifted the ball over Pere Pons and squared for Lucas Vazquez, who repeated the trick, dinking it between two defenders, only for his finish to be saved by Bono.It was no surprise in the 25th minute when Casemiro nodded in Kroos’ cross after Bono elected to punch rather than catch the initial ball in.– Comfortable to complacent –Eusebio brought on both Aleix Garcia and Anthony Lozano at half-time, and the impact was almost instant, as Garcia blazed over a rebound after Lozano’s header.Madrid slipped from comfortable to complacent and shortly after the hour they were punished. Stuani’s header spilled out to Douglas Luiz, whose finish was blocked by the hand of Ramos.Ramos’ yellow card might have been red, the defender perhaps only spared by two white shirts behind him. Stuani made no mistake with the penalty.Girona almost scored again, Portu’s shot rattling the outside of the post, and then they did. Casemiro missed a tackle in midfield and Lozano’s shot was parried to Portu. Marcelo dangled a leg but failed to stop the header creeping inside the post.Vinicius and Bale both came on but Vinicius three times missed the target from good positions, while Bale was whistled at one point after losing possession.Sergio Ramos was sent off for a record 20th time in La Liga © AFP / GABRIEL BOUYSCasemiro wanted a penalty when he felt Pedro Alcala’s hand on his shoulder and moments later Ramos was sent off, drawing a second yellow card catching Alcala in the face with an attempted volley.Even Courtois was allowed up for a late corner and he got his head on it too but the ball flashed wide. The surprised applause quickly turned to groans at full-time.0Shares0000(Visited 1 times, 1 visits today) 0Shares0000Real Madrid suffered a damaging defeat by Girona after hauling themselves back into the title race © AFP / GABRIEL BOUYSMADRID, Spain, Feb 17 – Real Madrid threw away their lead and perhaps their hopes of catching Barcelona as Girona came from behind to pull off a shock 2-1 victory at the Santiago Bernabeu on Sunday.Girona had not won in 13 matches and looked on course for a seventh straight defeat when Casemiro headed a dominant Madrid ahead in the first half.
(Visited 89 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 Sounds good in theory: scientists check each other with peer review, and knowledge advances. In reality, scientists are only human.Schools often present a rosy picture of science as the most reliable generator of knowledge. It uses a special scientific method, something like a secret sauce nobody else has. It employs mathematical proofs. Peer review confers additional reliability. Science marches on. Nevertheless, we have to ask some probing questions about the word “science” before it gets reified as something entirely new and different from any previous or contemporary method of inquiry. For instance, how did ancient Egyptians build the pyramids without modern science, or Mayans create accurate calendars, or Incas build Macchu Picchu, without peer review, p-values and the “scientific method”? To what extent does “science” differ from other fields in the academy, such as history, economics or even music? What subjects belong or don’t belong under the big tent we call “science”? How much of scientific activity involves plain old common sense and logic? What social, economic and cultural influences perturb the idealistic aspirations of science? As the articles below reveal, science cannot pretend to be any more reliable than the people who practice it.A litany of problems with p-values (Statistical Thinking blog). Frank Harrell is a biostatistician at Vanderbilt University. In this blog entry from Feb. 5, he lists numerous problems with a highly-trusted mathematical method for measuring “significance” of a given factor as a cause of some effect. His work-in-progress has nine reasons so far to distrust p-values. “In my opinion,” he begins, “null hypothesis testing and p-values have done significant harm to science.” How many tens of thousands of research papers are in jeopardy of irrelevance if Harrell is correct? (See Statistics in the Baloney Detector.)Certainty in complex scientific research an unachievable goal (University of Toronto). Donald Trump’s election and the Patriot’s win of the Superbowl are two recent examples of expert predictions gone awry. A new study published by the Royal Society “suggests that research in some of the more complex scientific disciplines, such as medicine or particle physics, often doesn’t eliminate uncertainties to the extent we might expect.” There’s always a “long tail of uncertainty” and a human tendency to underestimate the effect of small errors, especially as Big Data grows. Is this a problem just for soft sciences? No; “Physics studies did not fare significantly better than the medical and other research observed.”Publishing: Journals, do your own formatting (letter to Nature). It’s easy to presume that only the best-tested and more significant research makes its way into the top journals. John P. Moore, in his letter, points out reasons why the best science might actually get excluded from journals for entirely non-scientific reasons. The arcane rules of formatting submissions, which vary from journal to journal, can lead to rejections of papers that otherwise have significant value. A historian could probably find an eyebrow-raising list of important work rejected by experts.Gates Foundation research can’t be published in top journals (Richard van Noorden in Nature). Ideally, anyone who follows the best practices of the “scientific method” should have an equal chance of getting findings published. Here’s a stunning case where entirely different factors preclude that ideal. “One of the world’s most influential global health charities says that the research it funds cannot currently be published in several leading journals, because the journals do not comply with its open-access policy.” Those journals include Nature, Science, The New England Journal of Medicine and PNAS. Update 2/14/17: Nature News says that an agreement has been reached for the AAAS to publish Gates Foundation research. It appears that the Gates Foundation is pushing journals to adopt open-access policies.The Promise and Limitations of Using Analogies to Improve Decision-Relevant Understanding of Climate Change (PLoS One). Does this paper’s title set off alarm bells? Rather than examining the geological and atmospheric evidence for climate change in an unbiased way, these two authors published a paper in a science journal on how to nudge people with storytelling toward the consensus view.Heavyweight funders back central site for life-sciences preprints (Nature). Those who grew up with the comfortable aura of peer-reviewed journals may be shocked at what is going on. Scientists are flocking to “pre-print servers” that allow them to post their work before peer review. Physicists have enjoyed this alt-science phenomonen for ten years now at arXiv, a Cornell service that allows researchers to post their work in front of the public and all their peers, effectively bypassing the secretive filter of peer review. Biologists, chemists, paleontologists and other scientists are now getting on their own bandwagons with specialized pre-print sites for their fields. While some of the best papers do proceed to journal publication, many do not. Yet this new practice, while promising better transparency and fairness, is fraught with its own problems. How will the reliability of research be assessed in this new ‘wild west’ of open publication? Will it be by the number of ‘likes’ a paper gets, as on Facebook? Can rankings be manipulated by hackers? Who pays for the servers, which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to run, and what control do the funding sources wield over the content? Will the sheer volume of submissions overwhelm any attempts to gauge reliability? How reliable will any new software tools be for mining the data? Will search engines be as likely to turn up bogus findings as legitimate ones, and who decides? How will retractions and corrections be managed? What happens to publications that relied on references that were later retracted? If nothing else, this social development in science facilitated by the rise of the internet and cloud storage shows that scientific practices of any given age are not fixed in stone.Higher education: The making of US academia (Nature). Of interest to historians of science, this book review describes the social and cultural developments behind what the public considers academia today, including science. Rogers Hollingsworth, reviewer of The Rise of the Research University: A Sourcebook, shows how much of what we consider normal scientific practice today emerged after World War II. He also shows that American scientific research differs from German practice, yet both are “unpredictable” and “unstable.” He says, “US universities seem to be in existential flux, questioning their size, function, structure, nature, philosophical bases and monumental student fees.” That raises additional questions: what potential great scientists couldn’t afford the fees? How many mediocre rich kids became influential scientists because they could afford the fees? Is the student at one university with a particular philosophical base equivalent to the student at a university with a different philosophical base? Who decides if a science grad from Liberty University is less qualified than a science grad from George Mason? When the foundations are in flux, the products are also in flux.Science is a misleading word. What was considered standard practice for scientific publication fifty years ago, when students perused the Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature and scanned lofty tomes in the library stacks, is very different in the Google-search age. So which method was right? Is the work of prior decades and centuries to be discredited as ‘unscientific’ by contemporary standards? Or are contemporary standards in violation of acceptable norms? What becomes of the Nobel Prize if the rules change? If the rules and equipment of baseball evolve, did Babe Ruth really win ‘baseball’?There is nothing sacrosanct about peer review. There is nothing distinctively ‘scientific’ about it. Many great works of science were self-published, and scholars in other fields often have their work subjected to the scrutiny of their peers. C. S. Lewis questioned whether ‘modern science’ even exists. “There are only particular sciences,” he said, “all in a stage of rapid change, and sometimes inconsistent with one another.”The very word ‘science’ conceals as much as it illuminates. The root of the word ‘science’ is ‘knowledge’. Would it make any sense for a student to say, “I’m off to my Knowledge class in the Knowledge Building,” as if this signified anything substantially different from history, math, language or PE class? There is no knowledge without honesty. There is no knowledge without integrity. There is no knowledge without logic. Knowledge itself is useless without wisdom. You don’t acquire any of those things by a scientific method, by peer review, or by journal publishing.Obviously, all trust for science implodes without integrity. If you think integrity could be measured by some scientific method, think again. You would have to trust the integrity of the one doing the checking and so on up the line, ad infinitum (see Infinite Regress in the Baloney Detector). Every human investigation, from that of a child to that of a top research scientist, requires honesty—a moral quality that cannot evolve.Some consider the distinguishing thing about science is its subject matter: the ‘natural world.’ But here, too, you get into vexed issues of what is meant by ‘natural’— another word with half a dozen meanings. Big Science has arrogated to itself the investigation of matters far afield from magnetism, cells and chemicals. Journals routinely publish on politics or ethics. Evolutionary scientists in particular are guilty of this; they treat natural selection like The Blob that swallows up everything in its path, including philosophy and religion. Today’s scientists, inflated with self-importance, present themselves as experts on everything. They demand authority, expect politicians to bow to them, and demand that taxpayers offer sacrifices at their temples. It’s time to put them in their place. We’ll listen to them as long as they have something of value to say, but we reserve the right to scrutinize their logic, honesty, and evidence.
Essential Reading! Get my 3rd book: Eat Their Lunch “The first ever playbook for B2B salespeople on how to win clients and customers who are already being serviced by your competition.” Buy Now This is a painfully awful blog post to write. But it is, in fact, the most horrific example of the high cost of transactional behavior I have ever seen.On July 17th, Malaysian Airline flight MH17 was flying over war torn Ukraine. The plane was 300 meters over the restricted zone of 32,000 feet and still within reach of surface to air missiles. Two cargo planes had been shot down by missiles in this area earlier in the week, and British, European, and US commercial flights had been warned to avoid the area months earlier, beginning in April. Malaysian Airlines had also been warned.But these warnings were advisory warnings, there was nothing compulsory or binding that would have prevented any plane from choosing this flight path should they have wanted to take it, as long as they were above 32,000 feet.Why take the chance and fly over an area where two planes were just shot down? The answer, it seems, was that the route MH17 was the most direct flight path to Malaysia, making it the cheapest–and therefore the most profitable–route available.Before you decide this is an egregious crime, let’s hear from an expert: “Norman Shanks, professor of aviation security at Britain’s Coventry University. ‘They chose the most direct and economic flight route possible, which keeps their fuel costs down and is something we expect as customers. They were no different from any other international airline.’ Link From that same article, there is this: ‘Tony Tyler, director general of commercial air industry trade organization IATA, said: ‘No airline will risk the safety of their passengers, crew and aircraft for the sake of fuel savings. Airlines depend on governments and air traffic control authorities to advise which air space is available for flight, and they plan within those limits.’But do we expect our airlines to keep fuel costs down if it exposes us to greater risk? Would you expect that the fuel costs would be considered at all, given these circumstances? Would you expect that the airline would need to be compelled by government and air traffic control in order to avoid putting their passengers at risk? No passenger was given an opportunity to make an informed decision as to whether or not they were willing to bear the risk of flying over airspace in which a cargo plane and a fighter jet were destroyed in the same week that MH17 was shot down.I doubt that the people that run the airline are bad people. Neither are the people in air traffic control. I have no idea about the financial condition of the airline, or any challenges they might be dealing with after one of their planes mysteriously vanished a few months ago. I don’t know who determined that they would take this route. But I do know that this is transactional behavior in its worst and most heinous form. The proof is the fact that 298 people were killed. They lost their lives, and their families lost them forever.Profit doesn’t come before people. There is nothing transactional about your relationship with transportation providers of any kind, and there is nothing more important than your safety. There are some areas where the outcomes of transacting can come at too high a price.
Essential Reading! Get my 2nd book: The Lost Art of Closing “In The Lost Art of Closing, Anthony proves that the final commitment can actually be one of the easiest parts of the sales process—if you’ve set it up properly with other commitments that have to happen long before the close. The key is to lead customers through a series of necessary steps designed to prevent a purchase stall.” Buy Now Five years ago, I found myself in a large hotel conference room somewhere in Florida. It had to be up North, because I remember it not being very warm, even for January. There were 1,000 salespeople in attendance, all of them there for an entire week. I estimated the price tag for this event to be something close to $4,000,000. While I was sitting there, I was struck by the realization that only the smallest percentage of salespeople ever attend a sales kickoff meeting, least of all one with big name speakers.I went out to Hover.com, the site where I buy domain names, and I bought virtualsaleskickoff.com. Later that week, I had a call with Jeb Blount, Mike Weinberg, and Mark Hunter and pitched them the idea of a virtual sales kickoff meeting. I suggested that we do something for the salespeople and sales organizations that don’t have a sales kickoff. How cool it would be to give them access to the sales speakers and ideas that big companies have access to because of their size and their ability to shell out tons of cash!The first year, we had no real time to spread the word, and we ended up with 2,000 people. The second year, that number doubled to just over 4,000 people. I can’t recall what the number was the third year, but in 2018, we had something close to 8,800 people register, and many more watched the replay.On March 14th at 11AM ET, I will be hosting the 2019 Virtual Sales Kickoff with my good friends, Mike Weinberg, Mark Hunter, and Jeb Blount. This year’s VSKO is titled: Rain Makers vs. Rain Barrels (REGISTER HERE), because we all believe—and witness—the power of outbound sales, targeting your dream clients, proactively calling the people and companies you can help, and creating opportunities to make a difference for them.The reason my friends and I do this is because we want to make a difference. We want to make sure that the salespeople and companies that want to improve their sales have access to the strategies and ideas they need to succeed.REGISTER HERE
“Nung nag-start ako maglaro ng basketball, ice tubig lang nakikipagpatayan ako. Ngayon pa kaya na mas malaki. Pero nag-usap nga kami ni Paul, hindi yung bonus eh. Yung pride pinaglalaban,” said Magnolia forward Marc Pingris, referring to his teammate Paul Lee.(When I started playing basketball, I go all out just to get free ice water after every game what more now that we’re playing for something much bigger. But Paul and I talked and it’s not about the bonus. It’s pride.)Photo by Tristan Tamayo/INQUIRER.netREAD: Leo Austria, SMB wary of ‘more experienced’ Hotshots ahead of PBA finals“Walang bigayan to. Siyempre gusto namin manalo. Nandito kami para manalo at makakuha ng championship. Hindi naman habang buhay maglalaro ng basketball. Chance namin manalo ng championship and hindi na babalik yung moment na ‘to eh. Iba na naman next year,” said San Miguel center June Mar Fajardo.(No team is giving the other anything. We want to win and we’re here to win the championship. We’re not going to play basketball forever and we have a chance now to win a championship. This moment isn’t going to happen again, it’s going to be different next year.)ADVERTISEMENT MOST READ DA eyes importing ‘galunggong’ anew Duterte wants probe of SEA Games mess Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. Cayetano: Senate, Drilon to be blamed for SEA Games mess SEA Games hosting troubles anger Duterte Hontiveros presses for security audit of national power grid Philippine Arena Interchange inaugurated LATEST STORIES Both teams expect a highly-physical series.“Regarding sa bigayan, magbibigayan sila pagdating ng laro, nagbibigayan ng siko, nagtitirahan,” SMB head coach Leo Austria said with a chuckle.(The only giving that’s going to happen in the finals is the players trading elbows during the games.)Game 1 of a best-of-seven tips off Wednesday, 7 p.m., at Araneta Coliseum with the Beermen eyeing a historic fifth straight Philippine Cup crown.The Hotshots, on the other hand, want payback after losing to the Beermen in last year’s finals in five games.Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next The two sides assured neither will give an inch in the best-of-seven series.“That will never be a problem. They each have contracts of their own and bonus,” said Magnolia team governor Rene Pardo during the 2019 Philippine Cup press conference.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSPalace wants Cayetano’s PHISGOC Foundation probed over corruption chargesSPORTSSingapore latest to raise issue on SEA Games food, logisticsREAD: Tim Cone wishes Magnolia luck vs powerhouse San Miguel: ‘If anyone can, you can’But more than the grand financial incentive to capturing the championship, it’s winning over everything. Private companies step in to help SEA Games hosting Panelo: Duterte ‘angry’ with SEA Games hosting hassles Philippines sets new gold medal record in Arafura Games Trending Articles PLAY LIST 00:50Trending Articles01:28’Walang bigayan’: Expect all-out war between sister teams Magnolia, San Miguel01:30’Excited’ Terrence Romeo out to cherish first PBA finals appearance02:42PH 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 Games02:11Trump awards medals to Jon Voight, Alison Krauss MANILA, Philippines—Players, coaches and officials of sister teams San Miguel Beer and Magnolia dismissed any notion that they will just give way to one another in their PBA Philippine Cup Finals rematch.ADVERTISEMENT View comments