Crew monitoring Siphon Creek fire from helicopter

first_imgFORT ST. JOHN, B.C. — A four-person crew is watching the Siphon Creek fire from a helicopter, as it’s still unsafe for ground crews to fight the fire, says the BC Wildfire Service.Fire Information Officer Emily Epp says fire activity heightened on Sunday, and it has started moving eastward.“As this point in time, we’re still unable to put crews on the ground, due to safety concerns with the behaviour the fire is exhibiting,” she said.- Advertisement -The BC Wildfire Service estimates this fire is 4,000 hectares in size and a cause is still under investigation. As crews haven’t been able to safely fight it yet, the fire isn’t contained at all as of Monday morning.The Peace River Regional District has issued an Evacuation Alert for homes near the fire, which includes all civic addresses on Siphon Creek road, Osborn road, 268 Road, Doig road to the Osborn River, Buekert avenue, McTavish trail, and PDR Osborn ACC and Osborn Dump road.Here is the detailed area that the Evacuation Alert covers.Advertisement Courtesy of PRRDCourtesy of PRRDlast_img read more

Oxford University Study Go Ahead Give Kids More Screen Time

first_imgLet us know what you like about Geek by taking our survey. You’re not a bad parent for letting kids watch hours of television and play endless mobile games, according to Oxford University.A new study, conducted by researchers from the Oxford Internet Institute and Cardiff University, suggests existing rules for managing children’s digital media time may be misguided.Case in point: The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) propose limiting screen time to two hours a day for young children. But the research team don’t agree.Over the course of a month (and some 20,000 telephone interviews with parents), analysts assessed the relationship between kids’ technology use and wellbeing. That includes caregiver attachment, impact on emotional resilience, curiosity, and positive effect.The results, as reported by the University of Oxford, suggest that restricting toddlers’ digital device use is “not necessarily beneficial.”Participants aged two to five, whose technology consumption conforms to AAP’s directive, showed slightly higher levels of resilience, according to the study. But, that was balanced by lower levels of positive affect.This research follows the Oxford team’s recent paper disputing digital device guidelines for teens, and proposing that a moderate amount of screen time—the so-called “Goldilocks” period—might actually boost teenage prosperity.Similarly, some screen usage above the recommended limits may be good for tots.“Taken together, our findings suggest that there is little or no support for the theory that digital screen use, on its own, is bad for young children’s psychological wellbeing,” lead author Andrew Pryzbylski, of the Oxford Internet Institute, said in a statement.“If anything, our findings suggest the broader family context—how parents set rules about digital screen time, and if they’re actively engaged in exploring the digital world together—are more important than the raw screen time,” he added.The whole situation feels a bit hypocritical: After all, adults are glued to their smartphones, tablets, and laptops. So why should we expect children to be any different?“Given that we cannot put the digital genie back in the bottle, it is incumbent on researchers to conduct rigorous, up-to-date research that identifies mechanisms by and the extent to which screen-time exposure might affect children,” co-author Netta Weinstein, a senior lecturer in psychology at Cardiff University, said.Future research, Pryzbylski suggested, should focus on how turning digital devices into a social tool can affect—for better or worse—children’s psychological wellbeing, curiosity, and bonds.Read more in the Oxford University paper, published this month in the journal Child Development. Stay on targetcenter_img J.D. Salinger Works Finally Released as E-BooksIt May Soon Be Illegal For NYC Bosses to Contact Employees Out of Hours last_img read more

Arizona Cardinals Larry Fitzgerald 11 before a

first_imgArizona Cardinals’ Larry Fitzgerald (11) before an NFL wild card playoff football game against the Carolina Panthers in Charlotte, N.C., Saturday, Jan. 3, 2015. The Panthers won 27-16. (AP Photo/Bob Leverone) After five straight 1,000-yard seasons, Fitzgerald has not had more than 1,000 receiving yards in a season in any season since signing his new contract extension.Last season, the 6-foot-3, 218-pound wide receiver had 63 catches for 784 receiving yards, both are which were the lowest totals since his rookie season in 2004. His two touchdown catches were a career-low.Fitzgerald, 31, is the Cardinals’ all-time leader in receptions with 909 catches for 12,151 yards and 89 touchdowns in 11 seasons.Fitzgerald is joined on the list by a NFC West opponent in St. Louis Rams tight end Jared Cook. Other notables on the list are Cleveland Browns quarterback Josh McCown, Philadelphia Eagles running back DeMarco Murray and Chicago Bears linebacker Jared Allen. Grace expects Greinke trade to have emotional impact There is very little doubt that Arizona Cardinals wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald is one of the most decorated players in franchise history.But is he overpaid?Grantland.com writer Bill Barnwell included Fitzgerald on the “NFL’s All-Bad Contracts Team,” saying that his 2011 contract extension may have more harm to the franchise than good.Contract Flaw: Ever Fallen in Love With a Player You Shouldn’t Have?That’s really not fair. The Cardinals should have been in love with Fitzgerald, because he was an incredible receiver for a long time. The problem is that former Cardinals general manager Rod Graves gave Fitzgerald a mammoth eight-year contract extension that any receiver would have struggled to justify, with a cap hit of $20.5 million in 2012. It didn’t help that Fitzgerald’s numbers took a dramatic downturn that year, as a combination of poor quarterbacks and slowing wheels has kept Fitzgerald under 60 yards per game during each of the past three seasons.New general manager Steve Keim was forced to restructure Fitzgerald’s deal last season to clear out cap space, and with an untenable $23.6 million hit looming for his deal in 2015, the Cardinals ripped up Fitzgerald’s deal again to keep him on the roster. That new contract is hardly a bargain: Fitzgerald’s cap numbers ($10.9 million in 2015 and $15.9 million in 2016) will leave him among the league’s four highest-paid receivers over the next two years. The punishment for the deal really arrives in 2017, though. Fitzgerald’s deal automatically voids after the 2016 season, and the Cardinals will be left with a $9.7 million dead-money charge on their cap for a player who won’t be on their roster. In terms of cap hit, Ndamukong Suh will actually cost more to not play for Detroit ($9.7 million) this season than he will to play for Miami ($6.1 million). That is likely to be the case with Fitzgerald in 2017.Fitzgerald agreed to a seven-year, $113 million contract with $27 million guaranteed following the 2011 season. He has since restructured his deal this offseason to a two-year, $22 million deal that is fully guaranteed. The 5: Takeaways from the Coyotes’ introduction of Alex Meruelo Top Stories Comments   Share   Former Cardinals kicker Phil Dawson retires Derrick Hall satisfied with D-backs’ buying and sellinglast_img read more