The 10 most watched games all had a verified average TV audience of more than 260 million viewers. The second-highest rating was 327.5 million for Croatia’s semifinal win over England in extra time.FIFA’s research suggests most viewers also watched for longer than they did four years earlier.The number of people watching at least 30 consecutive minutes of any game in their home was almost 2.5 billion — up more than 27 percent from the same measure in 2014.South Americans were the most avid viewers despite watching fewer hours overall of a tournament where Brazil exited in the quarterfinals, and Argentina in the round of 16.FIFA said 96.6 percent of South America’s population saw at least one minute of any game. However, their 5.52 billion hours of total viewing fell 26.9 percent from the 2014 tournament where host Brazil placed fourth.ADVERTISEMENT Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. MOST READ FILE – In this Sunday, July 15, 2018 file photo, people watch a giant screen during the World Cup final between France and Croatia, on the Champ de Mars next to the Eiffel Tower in Paris. FIFA says more than 3.5 billion people viewed some of the 2018 World Cup, with 1.12 billion watching at least one minute of France beating Croatia 4-2 in the final. A FIFA-commissioned review of World Cup viewing says Friday, Dec. 21 the final’s television audience was 516.6 million by the traditional measure of “global average in-home audience.” (AP Photo/Bob Edme, file)GENEVA — More than 3.5 billion people viewed some of the 2018 World Cup action, with 1.12 billion watching at least one minute of France beating Croatia 4-2 in the final, according to FIFA.A FIFA-commissioned review of World Cup viewing published Friday said the television audience for the final was 516.6 million by the traditional measure of “global average in-home audience.” More watched on digital devices and out-of-home screenings in public spaces, bars and restaurants.ADVERTISEMENT Chooks-to-Go 3×3 league set to kick off with 12 city-based teams Japeth Aguilar embraces role, gets rewarded with Finals MVP plum No.13 lucky for Orlando Bloom In Europe —which provided all four semifinalists in Russia — the 2018 World Cup reached 86 percent of people watching an average of 14.6 hours.“In contrast only 38.4 percent of the Asian population were reached by World Cup coverage, reflecting relatively lower interest in the Indian subcontinent,” FIFA said.Still, almost 30 percent more viewing hours were measured in Asia, where games in Russia were played in time zones more convenient than in 2014.Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next Nadine Lustre’s phone stolen in Brazil Scientists to harness the sun to break down plastic PLAY LIST 01:29Scientists to harness the sun to break down plastic01:56Boris Johnson ‘humbled’ after majority win, says Parliament ‘must change’02:46Fighting jihadism in the Sahel: Life inside the military camps02:14Carpio hits red carpet treatment for China Coast Guard02:56NCRPO pledges to donate P3.5 million to victims of Taal eruption00:56Heavy rain brings some relief in Australia02:37Calm moments allow Taal folks some respite03:23Negosyo sa Tagaytay City, bagsak sa pag-aalboroto ng Bulkang Taal01:13Christian Standhardinger wins PBA Best Player award Gretchen Barretto’s daughter Dominique graduates magna cum laude from California college Ginebra beats Meralco again to capture PBA Governors’ Cup title After winning title, time for LA Tenorio to give back to Batangas folk Lights inside SMX hall flicker as Duterte rants vs Ayala, Pangilinan anew Changing viewing habits — and no South American team in the final — help explain a drop from the 545-million average TV audience for the Germany-Argentina final in 2014.In comparison, the 2016 European Championship final attracted a 284.4 million average audience for Portugal beating host France. The most-watched Super Bowl in the United States was 114.4 million when the New England Patriots beat the Seattle Seahawks in 2015.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSGinebra beats Meralco again to capture PBA Governors’ Cup titleSPORTSJapeth Aguilar wins 1st PBA Finals MVP award for GinebraSPORTSGolden State Warriors sign Lee to multiyear contract, bring back ChrissFIFA said the global TV audience for the 64-match tournament in Russia averaged 191 million per game — up from 187 million for the 2014 edition in Brazil.“Each game was a global televisual event in its own right,” soccer’s governing body said, citing research by Publicis Media Sport & Entertainment. ‘Mia’: Rom-com with a cause a career-boosting showcase for Coleen Garcia Lights inside SMX hall flicker as Duterte rants vs Ayala, Pangilinan anew LATEST STORIES View comments
Ramsey has been with Arsenal for the past decade, winning three FA Cups with the north London club, and was crowned their Player of the Season for 2017/18.Liverpool and Manchester United are reportedly eyeng the 27-year-old’s situation and Wilshere, who played alongside the Welshman before moving on to West Ham in the summer, cannot understand why Unai Emery is seemingly so willing to his former teammate go.He told the Islington Gazette: “He’s grown up to be a great player with Arsenal. They could do with someone like him. We know what he can do for the club.“For me he’s a future Arsenal captain. I know he loves the club.“It’s difficult for me to comment on because I’m not there but I do know he’s a great player – if it was me I know I would want to keep him around.Paul Merson blasts ‘typical Arsenal’ over Aaron Ramsey contract fiasco in exclusive talkSPORT interview“He’s a great guy to have around. He’s been at the club so long and knows it inside out. If you look at what he’s done for the club too.“We went into the first team in the same year. He came from Cardiff and I came from the youth team. We automatically clicked because we were both young and new to that sort of environment.”Should Ramsey indeed go on a free, Wilshere reckons he will have his pick of top clubs.He added: “I think you’ve got to look at the situation and ask: ‘How many top teams in the Premier League and elsewhere could he get in?’“And you’d have to say them all – and that speaks volumes about the type of player he is.” Jack Wilshere has expressed his surprise at Arsenal’s decision to let Aaron Ramsey leave the club.The Gunners have withdrawn their offer of a new contract to the midfielder, meaning he will be available on a free transfer at the end of the season. 1 Aaron Ramsey and Jack Wilshere enjoyed a close relationship at Arsenal
The Warriors have played 21 games, a little more than a quarter of the way through the 2018-2019 NBA season, and they sit in first place in the Western Conference standings, as was expected.But the way the Warriors have arrived at this point has been anything but expected.Here’s what we learned about the Dubs through the first quarter of the season.1. Absence makes the heart grow fonder — and makes the Warriors a pedestrian teamGolden State Warriors’ Stephen Curry (30) gestures after a …
The May 19 issue of Nature1 printed seven letters responding to its editorial about the intelligent design movement (see 04/27/2005 entry). They were all critical of ID. Not one even tolerated Nature’s suggestion that scientists try to help students integrate their faith with science. Apparently, last month’s editorial was not sufficiently vicious against ID, says Rob Crowther on Evolution News. Crowther knows that at least one letter favorable to ID was not printed: the one by Stephen Meyer, interviewed in the April 27 article, who wrote in to correct some misconceptions (see it at Discovery Institute).1Correspondence, Nature 435, 275 (19 May 2005) | doi: 10.1038/435275a.OK, since some readers are intimidated when Big Science raises its collective voice against anything, let’s examine this correspondence. First, we don’t know how many readers wrote responses, and of those, how many were pro vs. con. Since Nature was born as a pro-Darwin mouthpiece (see 03/04/2004 commentary), it is not surprising the editors would continue the propaganda campaign of associating Charlie with science and anything else with foolishness. Second, scientists are fallible. The majority has been wrong before, often strenuously, sometimes for long periods of time. Third, scientists can be woefully ignorant of issues outside their specialties; in fact, one of the writers (Roy, below) admits it. This means that a molecular biologist or geneticist may know a lot about a particular molecule or gene but very little about intelligent design theory and the history and philosophy of science except what his liberal Democrat ivory-tower colleagues in academia tell him or her (see 12/02/2004 entry). They may be oblivious to the fact that their work rests on the shoulders of centuries of creationists and believers in design (see online book). What onlookers must do is get past the hot air, bluffing and bandwagon tactics of these selectively-printed letters and evaluate the strength of the arguments. See if you are impressed with what any of these self-styled Darwin champions have to say:Jerry Coyne (U of Chicago) uses the word science or scientist 17 times in 3 paragraphs, but really means materialism. Substituting in the correct word makes his whole point fall apart, i.e., “scientists” have no duty to help “religious” people come to terms with “science” – recast as: materialists have no duty to help non-materialists come to terms with materialism. By perpetuating the either-or fallacy of science vs. religion, Coyne contributes nothing to the discussion. Remember how Coyne flip-flopped in the 07/05/2002 entry?David Leaf (Western Washington U): this letter is all about politics and strategy for fighting ID. He thinks high schoolers are too dumb to understand the controversy, because they are “just learning the basics of science” (read: materialism). He recommends waiting to allow students to think until they have been thoroughly indoctrinated by their junior or senior year of college. (In the film Icons of Evolution, a high school student takes offense at the suggestion they can’t handle the controversy. He points out that evolution is taught to kindergartners. “If we can’t handle it, we shouldn’t be in high school,” he quips.)Chris Miller (Brandeis U): no merit in this letter, either; he just perpetuates the dysteleology argument with a presumably witty remark about Tinkerbell in the kitchen, “Evolution is a short-order cook, not a watchmaker.” Read the 05/18/2005 entry again, and the 03/11/2005 commentary.Douglas Yu (East Anglia U): perpetuates the non-overlapping magisteria science vs. religion stereotype, making the odd claim that “ID actively undermines the basis of Christianity.” Presumably Darwinistic materialism does not. He defines all of Christianity in terms of the advice to doubting Thomas, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Talk about a quote out of context (see half truth). Jesus often urged his disciples to follow the evidence, not engage in blind faith (and especially not human tradition). Thomas should have followed all the overwhelming prior evidence he had rather than demanding more physical proof. Jesus meant that future disciples would not have the benefit of his bodily presence. It does not follow that they had no evidence or should have believed out of ignorance.Rustum Roy (Penn State) equates ID with the ignorance of different cultures or belief systems, and advocates a relax and stay-the-course strategy. “Ham-fisted efforts will simply alienate much larger numbers of people from the rest of science,” he says, so just treat ID like you would those who are ignorant or illiterate. Even for scientists, “amazing ignorance” of things outside their specialties does little harm, he argues. Maybe if they ignore ID it will go away. What if it doesn’t? Again, no effort to understand or answer the case for ID was offered.Michael Lynch (Indiana U) pounds the nail about ID being equivalent to intellectual laziness: i.e., just giving up and saying “the Designer made it that way.” That didn’t seem to be an obstacle for James Joule (see Joule’s own words) and many other great scientists (see also von Braun’s own words); on the contrary, their fascination with God’s design was their motivation to do good science. Lynch also tries to distance evolution from dependence only on natural selection – interesting admission that Charlie’s famous mechanism is not omnipotent, but then what naturalistic mechanism can produce a wing or an eye? (see 05/15/2005 attempt). Lastly, he repeats the faulty analogy that evolution is not just a theory, but a fact like respiration or digestion. Surprisingly, Lynch touts evolution as the most quantitative field in biology, and suggests that teaching evolution will help students gain the mathematical skills necessary to compete in our technical world. Is this a record for non-sequitur density per paragraph?Dan Graur (U of Houston) embarrassed himself with a senseless rant, equating ID with “flat-Earthers, tea-leaf readers, astrologers, geocentrists and phlogiston theorists” who, like ID (he thinks), “cannot publish their studies in respectable journals.” This guy is clueless; the egg is on Nature’s face for printing it, unless their intention was to make ID look good by contrast. Jonathan Wells on Discovery Institute shouldn’t have had to give it the dignity of a response.So thank you, Nature, for giving us a sample of your best and brightest Darwin defenders taking on intelligent design. If this collection of ridicule, straw man arguments, loaded words, false dichotomies, big lies, equivocation and pure ignorance of the issues is the best the Darwin Party can offer, then all ID must do is stand back and watch evolutionism implode. Just don’t let them try to delay the inevitable by letting their illogic and ignorance go unchallenged.Suggested reading: The Design Revolution by William Dembski. This 2-PhD mathematician/philosopher answers typical objections to intelligent design, including all those of the above challengers.(Visited 10 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
A geologist rejects the idea that an ancient lake spilled and carved Grand Canyon, but maybe he misrepresents the theory. Besides, how can geologists “hindcast” an unobserved event without philosophical assumptions?“Grand Canyon Carved by Flood? Geologist Says No,” reads a headline on Live Science, but the URL is stronger: “Megaflood debunked as Grand Canyon cause.” Debunked is a strong word. It implies permanently laid to rest, or falsified, by a concurrence of geologists. In the article by reporter Becky Oskin, however, it appears that the debunking is just the opinion of one geologist, Bill Dickinson, an emeritus professor of geology at the University of Arizona in Tucson, who could provide no better explanation.Tracing the history of the Grand Canyon is controversial. The deep gorge exposes a billion years of Earth history in its candy-colored cliffs, but geologists can’t agree when it formed, or exactly how.A long-standing hypothesis by both creationist and secular geologists places a vast lake, called Hopi Lake, to the southeast of the current canyon, proposing that a dam breach carved at least much of the canyon rapidly and catastrophically. The Painted Desert and other remnants called the Bidahochi Formation would be remnants of the old lake bottom.Dickinson doesn’t believe the dam breach is a valid story, so he said “my main purpose is to dismantle it.” He argues that the lake would have been too shallow, and that the waters could not have climbed over the Kaibab Upwarp. This argument, though, overlooks the proponents’ scenario that the upwarp and the dam breach were tied together. Dickinson and others mentioned in the article additionally argue that there’s no way the lake could have existed for 10-20 million years. Creation geologists, however, do not need the millions of years, while secular geologists have no agreement on the sequence of events in the region, begging the question that the lake required the time.It would seem hard for Dickinson to triumph over a competing theory when he is admittedly baffled by the origin of the canyon:Knocking down Hopi Lake leaves a major puzzle: What was the course of the Colorado River before the Grand Canyon deepened? Some geologists think the early Colorado River flowed south into the lake….“One of the hardest things to hindcast is to know how big a river you’re looking for in Grand Canyon country,” he said. “What was the river like up in Utah? I hope that if people would just abandon the Hope Lake spillover game, their thoughts would lead them on to worrying about Utah.”Although Dickinson presented a proposal that the ancestral river flowed northwest across northern Arizona, his idea hardly accounts for many features of the canyon, including its crossing the Kaibab plateau. Oskin implied that no other geologist is likely to come up with a better idea any time soon: “Part of the challenge of solving the Grand Canyon’s history is that so much has changed in the ensuing millions of years: climate was different then, the topography has changed dramatically, and tectonic forces continue to reshape the plateau.”It seems hardly appropriate for Oskin to say the megaflood theory has been “debunked” when all the other theories have just as many or worse problems. Oskin misrepresented the megaflood theory by assuming the millions of years as part of the story. It’s the millions of years that are a large part of the problem with competing theories. This was no debunking; it was rather a story of a man on a mission to discredit competition so he could present his own fallible hindcast. (Visited 114 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
By Molly C. HerndonThe Military Families Learning Network’s personal finance FAQ Coordinator, Dr. Barbara O’Neill, and Dr. Jing Xiao’s recent article “Financial Behaviors Before and After the Financial Crisis: Evidence from an Online Survey” was recently published and shared by AFCPE. In this article, they analyze the results of the Financial Fitness Quiz to measure change among participant’s behavior regarding financial actions and decisions.The study focused on behavior before and after the recent global financial crisis. Their review included the finding that more than half of working adults experienced a reduction in pay or hours. These negative impacts were exacerbated by an increase in the rate of foreclosures, job loss, and general slow economic growth. The Financial Fitness Quiz sought to determine if this “new normal” (p.33) created more positive financial behaviors, such as increasing savings and reducing debt.Before analyzing the results of their quiz, O’Neill and Xiao conducted a review of the literature. A Pew Research Center study between January 2008 and June 2010 found 62% of Americans had reduced their spending since December 2007 and 48% reported being in worse financial shape than before the recession (p.34). As an indicator of the times, the 2009 Financial Capability Study conducted by the FINRA Investor Education Foundation found nearly half of respondents reported a difficulty paying bills and the majority of respondents did not have savings set aside for predictable life events (p.34). In fact, half of the respondents said their savings would only allow them to meet financial obligations for one month if they were to lose their job (p.34).Their analysis contained results from the Fourth Annual Savings Assessment, sponsored by America Saves and the American Savings Education Council in 2011. This study found the number of households taking action to increase their savings rose from 55% in 2010 to 57% in 2011, and those saving for retirement rose from 49% to 54%. The study also found households with savings plans were also more likely to spend less than their income (p.34).O’Neill and Xiao utilized the Transtheoretical Model of Change which outlines five steps of change, as a framework for the analysis of the quiz results. The authors sought evidence that the financial crisis of the late 2000s served as a “consciousness-raising” event that sparked positive change in many households (p.36). As a result of this heightened awareness, households began learning more about financial topics and taking action to protect their own financial well-being.Data from the Financial Fitness Quiz were analyzed. The Financial Fitness Quiz is an online assessment that used a 6-year data set of 10,661 respondents, beginning in January 2005, before the economic downturn, and December 31, 2010, when unemployment was at 9.8%. The quiz is made up of 20 items to which respondents were asked to select a number from a 5-point Likert-type scale that best described their frequency of performance of these financial actions (p.36).ResultsThe five items that were performed with greater frequency:Having a checking account which with to pay billsHaving enough money to pay mortgage/rent and other household expensesHaving adequate insurance to cover big unexpected expensesKeeping organized financial recordsAvoiding impulse purchasesThe five items that scored the lowest for frequency of performance:Having a written budgetKnowing one’s federal marginal tax bracketHaving a least three months expenses set aside for emergenciesHaving written financial goals with a date and a dollar costHaving a current willAdditionally, the total quiz scores were slightly higher in the post-crisis sample than the pre-crisis sample, indicating an overall increase in the preferred financial management practices. Even so, both quiz scores averaged less than 70%. However, the findings did suggest that budgeting, spending and savings behaviors were executed more frequently after the financial crisis (p.42).While it is clear the financial crisis served as a “wake up call” for many to increase savings and increase the frequency of other positive financial behaviors, but according to survey results, it did not serve as an impetus for change for all survey respondents. Or, more hopefully, there will be long-term impacts among these respondents. It would be interesting to see, if, in a few more years, more positive financial behavior changes emerge among this population.The Financial Fitness Quiz can be taken by any individual wishing to asses their financial literacy. The grade received may serve as a benchmark for individuals wishing to track their improving results over time to see if their increase of knowledge and change in behavior has had a positive impact on their score when taken again at a later date.To read O’Neill and Xiao’s article in full, please visit: http://afcpe.org/assets/pdf/v23_j3.pdfReference:O’Neill, B. & Xiao, J.J. (2012). Financial Behaviors Before and After the Financial Crisis: Evidence from an Online Survey. Association for Financial Counseling and Planning Education, 23(1), 33-46.The financial crisis – How has it changed behavior? by Molly C. Herndon is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.Based on a work at /.
Congress legislators who were expelled by the party for cross-voting in favour of the BJP candidate in the Rajya Sabha polls are set to join the BJP. Except Shankersinh Vaghela, other legislators including Mr. Vaghela’s son Mahendrasinh will join the party.All seven legislators had a meeting with BJP President Amit Shah on Wednesday to discuss their entry into the saffron fold. “We had a meeting with Amitbhai and we told him that we all will join the party,” Mr. Mahendrasinh Vaghela told media persons in Gandhinagar on Thursday.Meanwhile, Mr. Shankersinh Vaghela slammed the Congress and said a large number of leaders had left the party because they were ignored by the high command.Mr. Vaghela ruled out that he would join the BJP but stressed that other leaders including his son would switch over to the ruling party very soon.