Ride OnEnjoy the crisp winter morning with a ride to the hilly climes of Saputara. The three-day ride includes a stop-over at Surat, rappelling and rock climbing at Saputara and views from sunset points. Meeting at 4 a.m. at IIM RoadWhen November 3Price Starts at Rs 2,300 For reservations call,Ride OnEnjoy the crisp winter morning with a ride to the hilly climes of Saputara. The three-day ride includes a stop-over at Surat, rappelling and rock climbing at Saputara and views from sunset points. Meeting at 4 a.m. at IIM RoadWhen November 3Price Starts at Rs 2,300 For reservations call 9727967465
Photo Attribution: USATSIThere has been much written about Dez Bryant John Foots (as Dean Blevins calls him which, by the way, is never getting topped as a nickname) — most of it on Twitter which I’m still not totally sure counts as actual writing, but at the very least much pontificating and riffing.The Dez suspension thing still burns me up more so because it’s a microcosm of the NCAA’s ridiculousness than about Dez actually getting suspended.The problem with comparing the two situations — Dez getting nine games worth of suspension in 2009 and Foots getting 0.5 in 2013 — is that the actual reason each was suspended is actually different.Let’s take a look…Why Dez got suspendedIf there’s one thing we’ve learned about the NCAA it’s that they don’t necessarily care what you do as long as you tell the truth about it. Somehow, they hold the morality of truth-telling above all other things (perhaps to shroud the undercurrent of hypocrisy teeming through their organization).And that bit, not telling the truth, is why Dez was suspended. Here’s an excerpt from a New York Times article in 2009:Bryant was ruled ineligible for violating N.C.A.A. bylaw 10.1 (d), which prohibits “knowingly furnishing the N.C.A.A. or the individual’s institution false or misleading information concerning the individual’s involvement in or knowledge of matters relevant to a possible violation of an N.C.A.A. regulation.”Basically, he lied about meeting with Deion.It’s not clear whether or not the meeting with Deion would have ever been classified as a violation (this article says OSU offered to classify it as such in its reinstatement papers for Dez) because it’s not clear whether or not it was ever proven that he received “preferential treatment” for getting an agent via the Deion meeting. It was certainly threatened but when the NCAA found out he lied, that violation trumped all others.The whole thing was a big mess.Why Foots got suspendedJohnny got suspended for violating this NCAA bylaw:[A student-athlete cannot accept] any remuneration for or permit the use of his or her name or picture to advertise, recommend or promote directly the sale or use of a commercial product or service of any kind.So essentially he was providing people with his autograph so they could sell it but, of course, didn’t in any way receive any compensation for it (right).In Foots’ six-hour meeting last week he was apparently honest enough (read: the NCAA had no other evidence) that they said “yep, he’s not lying, slap him on the wrist, when’s that Bama game?!”Well they didn’t say that last part — or I don’t think they did anyway.So at first glance, yes, it looks as if Foots got off with a much lighter sentence but they were actually being punished for two different things. Foots would never lie about what he did (of course) and Dez did.And as we discussed above, the NCAA holds telling the truth above all of its other potential 13,003 violations.So yeah, doesn’t mean I’m not still mad about the Dez suspension.If you’re looking for the comments section, it has moved to our forum, The Chamber. You can go there to comment and holler about these articles, specifically in these threads. You can register for a free account right here and will need one to comment.If you’re wondering why we decided to do this, we wrote about that here. Thank you and cheers!
El Niño, is of course, a non-seasonal change of weather patterns in different parts of the world—all connected to a change in upper sea level temperatures along the equator. Warm water from below is pushed up, causing sea temperatures near the surface to be abnormally high as it moves towards the Americas. The result is generally more rainfall on the western coasts of North and South America as trade winds carry the moisture to land and droughts in other places such as Australia and Indonesia. By deploying an array of floating temperature sensors throughout the pertinent part of the ocean, scientists have been able to predict with a high degree of accuracy when an El Niño will occur—for up to six months. In this new effort, the researchers claim that using only atmospheric air temperature readings above the Pacific and the Equator, they are able to predict an El Niño up to a year in advance.The new technique is based on data and analysis of patterns that link air temperatures over the ocean at the equator with temperatures over the rest of the Pacific Ocean. Their analysis showed that when the two temperature readings are closely linked, the odds of an El Niño go up—enough to allow for relative percentages to be calculated. Their data shows, they say, that that for the year coming up, 2014-2015, there is a 75 percent chance of an El Niño occurring.Other researchers thus far aren’t as confident of the team’s results—they suggest that the limited amount of data the researchers had available to them means their predictions are premature. Others contend that it’s just not possible to predict such a complicated weather event using such a simplistic approach. For this coming year, it may not matter, as most other climatologist using conventional methods are also predicting this will be an El Niño year as well. (Phys.org) —An international team of researchers has ignited a controversy over their claim to be able to predict El Niño up to a year in advance. In their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team claims their method, which relies solely on atmospheric temperature readings, accurately predicted the last two El Niño years. Journal information: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Explore further Citation: Researchers suggest controversial approach to forecasting El Nino (2014, February 11) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-02-controversial-approach-el-nino.html More information: Very early warning of next El Niño, Josef Ludescher, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1323058111AbstractThe most important driver of climate variability is the El Niño Southern Oscillation, which can trigger disasters in various parts of the globe. Despite its importance, conventional forecasting is still limited to 6 mo ahead. Recently, we developed an approach based on network analysis, which allows projection of an El Niño event about 1 y ahead. Here we show that our method correctly predicted the absence of El Niño events in 2012 and 2013 and now announce that our approach indicated (in September 2013 already) the return of El Niño in late 2014 with a 3-in-4 likelihood. We also discuss the relevance of the next El Niño to the question of global warming and the present hiatus in the global mean surface temperature. © 2014 Phys.org The 1997 El Nino seen by TOPEX/Poseidon. Credit: NASA Weak El Nino possible by mid-2014, WMO says 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.