Bob Jungels frustré à l’arrivée de la 17e étape du Giro à Anterselva

first_img Partager «Je crois chaque jour en moi, parce que je suis le dernier qui va abandonner et qui se laisse aller. Je suis à un point maintenant où je ne sais pas vraiment quoi faire. Si ce n’était pas pour l’équipe, pour le staff, je voudrais probablement quitter le Giro», poursuivait-il en étayant son propos de cette simple constatation : «Oui, nous étions 18 coureurs dans l’échappée et je finis 18e…»Certes, mais au moins aura-t-il eu le grand mérite d’essayer. Et des jours meilleurs viendront fatalement, après ce Giro difficile.C’est le Français Nans Peters (AG2R La Mondiale) qui l’a emporté mercredi, la deuxième victoire d’un coureur français depuis le départ. L’Équatorien Richard Carapaz (Movistar) conserve le maillot rose de leader à quatre jours de l’arrivée.Denis Bastien à Anterselva Le champion national n’a pas ménagé sa peine dans cette 17e étape, mercredi, mais quand ça ne veut pas…Même si ses parents étaient présents pour le réconforter, devant le pullman de son équipe, Deceuninck-Quick Step, Bob Jungels n’avait pas le cœur à sourire. Il s’était démené comme un beau diable toute la journée. En formant cette échappée de 18 coureurs. Il avait été lâché à deux reprises dans les portions dures d’un parcours toboggan. Mais à chaque fois, il avait recollé les morceaux. Mieux, il menait plus qu’à son tour. Comme toujours, lorsqu’il est en tête d’une course, Bob Jungels ne fait pas les choses à moitié.Mais la montée finale vers Anterselva et son magnifique stade de biathlon, fut de trop. «Je ne peux pas dire beaucoup sur ce qui s’est passé. Je sais seulement que c’était une journée de m…. J’ai tout risqué pour rentrer dans cette échappée et cela m’avait déjà coûté beaucoup de force. Mais j’ai remarqué que mes jambes n’étaient pas bonnes. En général, mes jambes ne sont pas au top dans ce Giro. Je ne comprends vraiment pas ce qui se passe, c’est frustrant », déclarait-il.last_img read more

A Tale of Two Mavericks

first_imgBenoit MandelbrotGot fractals?  If so, you got them after 1982, because that’s when Benoit Mandelbrot invented the word.  The achievement of this great mathematician illustrates that entire new landscapes of knowledge can emerge in the minds of independent thinkers.  If you thought science had everything figured out by the 1980s, look at what Heinz-Otto Peitgen said about Mandelbrot in Science:2  “He fundamentally and irrevocably changed our view of the world and left us a tool that will continue to unveil nature’s most peculiar commonalities that might otherwise be left aside as insignificant.”That tribute itself is highly significant.  How did the world get along without fractal geometry before 1982?  The “Mandelbrot set” is now common knowledge for many; it is the basis of incredibly beautiful and intricate patterns that, due to the principles of “self-similarity” and iteration can be explored to infinity (see example on YouTube, some 3-D art constructed with the Mandelbrot set; search for many, many, more).  But it’s not just art that has been revolutionized by Mandelbrot’s fractals.  Peitgen said, “his footprints are left in the theory of finance, linguistics, biology, medicine, chemistry, physics, earth science, cosmology, computer science, astronomy, many of the engineering disciplines, and of course, mathematics.”  It is phenomenal that such a pervasive principle could emerge in our time.To reach that achievement, Mandelbrot had to go against the flow.  All the other mathematicians were telling him that geometry was old hat, stuff for school children; algebraic and abstract representations were the modern ways to do mathematics.  His teachers tried to force him into that mold.  But Mandelbrot was not satisfied with the consensus; he trusted his eyes, and he knew that nature was not like that.  “Fortunately, Mandelbrot’s advocacy for geometry was without compromise,” so he struck out on his own:Some describe Mandelbrot as one who chose the role of a maverick in the mainstream sciences.  Quite to the contrary, his uncompromising devotion to analyze and understand the “rough” reality of nature isolated him from the mainstream.  In his view, the common “smooth” representations of natural processes were entirely inappropriate and far from the essence of nature: “Clouds are not spheres and mountains are not cones.”  Alone, he shaped a program of geometry based on fractals, a term he coined to refer to mathematical shapes with irregular contours, just as seen in nature.Peitgen emphasized again and again that lesson of this man’s life was the courage to work outside the mainstream.  “The Mandelbrot set provides perhaps the most striking example of a mathematical object whose properties would remain undiscovered without the guiding power of the human eye used by an able mathematician.”  This part of the tribute should be taken soberly by all scientists, especially those who feel obligated to make a good showing among their colleagues:Now that Mandelbrot’s work can be considered to belong to mainstream mathematics and the sciences, it is important to remember that there was once strong resistance and skepticism.  I have often asked myself where Mandelbrot found the source of his strength, determination, and endurance in those decades when he was practically isolated in his own mathematical world.  He used to claim that his geometrical view and associated gifts guided him and that he did not feel isolated at all.  I would add that his pristine character as someone who sought the truth in life and nature led him as well.  Moreover, I remember Beno�t as a universal scientist and very conscious citizen of the world, knowledgeable and sharp in all branches of the sciences and beyond: the arts, politics, and history.  It will take further generations to grasp the full significance and impact of his insight far beyond the borders of mathematics.Perhaps Mandelbrot learned some of these lessons from his childhood.  Having to escape Nazism in Warsaw, Poland, in 1936, “He chose to remain forever suspicious toward any form of establishment and mainstream.”Update 11/17/2010: Ralph Gomory wrote about the father of fractals in Nature,2 adding that Mandelbrot narrowly escaped deportation and death during the Nazi occupation.  He coined the term fractal in 1975, Gomory clarified, prior to the publication of his epochal book The Fractal Geometry of Nature in 1982.  Gomory agreed with the assessment that the great mathematician worked outside the mainstream: “Mandelbrot’s remarkable conclusions often directly contradicted the accepted view,’ he said; “Inevitably, this slowed their acceptance, but he always persisted with an intellectual courage that I greatly admired.”  He didn’t receive worldwide acclaim till after he was 60 years old: “In 1974 he became an IBM Fellow, IBM’s highest technical distinction, but outside recognition came more slowly….. Finally in 1985 [age 61] he received the Barnard Medal, awarded by the US National Academy of Sciences, and after that came a flood of recognition, honorary degrees, elections to prestigious academies, prizes and the Legion of Honour.”1.  Robert Kirshner, “John Huchra (1948-2010),” Nature 468, p. 174, 11 November 2010), doi:10.1038/468174a.2.  Heinz-Otto Peitgen, “Benoit B. Mandelbrot (1924-2010),” Science, 12 November 2010: Vol. 330. no. 6006, p. 926, DOI: 10.1126/science.1199471.The best way to learn the virtues of good science is to study the lives of its best practitioners.  That’s why we keep an extensive set of online biographies at this site (see Table of Contents).  While Mandelbrot and Huchra do not fit into the intelligent design or creation category, their lives illustrate several virtues that all scientists should emulate:Respect for what nature is, not for what the consensus believes it should be.Valuing empiricism over theory.Willingness to follow the evidence where it leads.Honesty.Humility.A well-rounded education.Altruism.Independent thinking.Hard work.Courage to stand alone.Huchra and Mandelbrot were not complete mavericks, of course, since they both were well connected and were honored within their lifetimes.  Mandelbrot drew on insights from two earlier French mathematicians.  Huchra did not question big bang cosmology, but challenged some of its assumptions, preferring to believe his eyes more than theory.  But at crucial points in their work, they did have to decide whether to fall in line with the consensus or follow their own path.  Notice that Mandelbrot was not trying to be a maverick.  He did not have a martyr complex or anything like it.  The consensus isolated him, to their shame and disgrace.If there were more biologists with these virtues, there would be fewer Darwinists.  Notice that the list of virtues does not evolve, and was not produced by a blind, impersonal process.  You can’t be a consistent evolutionist and believe in virtue as a real quality, referencing eternal values.  Moreover, few in the evolution camp exhibit all of these virtues.  The easiest thing in the world for them is to remain bosom buddies with the creationist-haters and ID-attackers, not to think independently and critically evaluate evolutionary theory.The bounty on mavericks in biology is high.  Outlaws in Darwin’s corrupt township are expelled with irrational hatred.  Even materialist evolutionists who try to question Darwin’s mechanism, as the eminent Darwinist atheist Stephen Jay Gould and the Altenberg 16 (12/28/2009) found out, face the wrath of the funDOmentalists (see 11/10/2010 commentary for definition; also Gould’s term “Darwinian fundamentalism” in 05/31/2004).  Michael Rampino should fear for his career (11/11/2010).Steven Shapin reminded us that science is “produced by people with bodies, situated in time, space, culture, and society, and struggling for credibility and authority” (11/02/2010).  The cultural climates in astronomy and mathematics may be a little more tolerant of mavericks than in biological circles, but consider: in any endeavor, if you want to be remembered for your life and achievements, dare to be a Daniel; dare to stand alone.(Visited 38 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 In science, consensus has a lot of power.  It takes courage to stand alone against the majority.  Scientists should remember that sometimes the loner has turned out to be right.  Two men who recently died are now being honored for their willingness to have stood up to the majority and advanced views that were unpopular at the time.  Though not involved in the creation-evolution controversy, they illustrate that courage to follow the evidence still has value in science, whether or not the academic crowd follows along immediately.John HuchraNature just published an obituary about John Huchra, astronomer, who “mapped the structure of the universe.”1  A champion of observational astronomy, Huchra spent countless hours at the eyepiece of large telescopes, amassing a record in observing time and measuring redshifts of tens of thousands of galaxies.  His findings flew in the face of theoreticians.  “Huchra and his colleagues were not cowed by senior observers who advocated much lower values for the Hubble constant – or by theorists who believed that the Universe must be decelerating, which would make the age discrepancy even worse,” Robert Kirshner wrote in the tribute.  “They just reported what they found.”In addition, working with Margaret Geller at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Huchra also proposed a radically different texture for the universe: “a foamy structure of voids, sheets and walls” – an “extraordinary picture” that came about through a “confluence of insightful planning, new detector technology, creative analysis techniques and an ample dose of hard work at the telescope, much of which was supplied by Huchra.”  Born into a poor family, he maintained his values of hard work and humility learned early in life.  “Nobody worked harder at his craft, gave more of himself to his colleagues and students, and was less puffed-up by his considerable achievements than John,” Kirshner said.  “He was happiest in the observatory, with the controls of the telescope in his hands.”last_img read more

Yield-X offers investors currency options

first_img16 September 2008Investors on the Yield-X will now be able to invest in currency options, a new investment avenue that complements the existing currency futures, which the JSE believes is sure to increase both trading volumes and liquidity in the local currency market.The first contract will initially be based on the rand-dollar, with other contracts to be requested from the relevant market markers. Like currency futures, currency options allow investors and speculators to benefit from the movement of the rand against other currencies, but differ in that they come with a “built-in insurance policy”.In other words, currency options are contracts that grant the investor the right but not the obligation to buy or sell currency at a set rate at a set time.“In layman’s terms what this means is that currency options allow the investor the choice not to exercise the contract if the exchange rate is not in his or her favour,” JSE trading GM Warren Geers said in a statement this week.According to the JSE, it is working together with Super Derivatives, a global derivatives solutions provider, to determine the currency options closing prices that will be used on a daily basis.Best means of hedgingDue to their flexibility, currency options are considered one of the best ways for companies, the agricultural community and individuals to hedge against adverse movements in the exchange rates.Currency futures are used by investors who are very confident that the currency will move in a certain direction while options are ideal for those who need to purchase foreign currency but are uncertain of the movements of the currency.“Of course, like an insurance policy, the investor will pay more of a premium for this peace of mind,” Geers said.Geers added that the JSE was confident that currency options would attract a different investor to that of currency futures, and is expecting a greater show of interest from institutional investors and the agricultural sector.“The currency futures market has done exceptionally well – it recently broke through the R18-billion mark,” Geers said. “The introduction of currency options as well as the new sliding scale fee system model we have recently introduced should further boost this market.”SAinfo reporter Would you like to use this article in your publicationor on your website?See: Using SAinfo materiallast_img read more

2011 Predictions: Curt Hopkins

first_imgA Web Developer’s New Best Friend is the AI Wai… Why Tech Companies Need Simpler Terms of Servic… Related Posts curt hopkins Tags:#predictions#web center_img Top Reasons to Go With Managed WordPress Hosting Editor’s note: Every December the ReadWriteWeb team looks into the murky depths of the coming year and tries to predict the future. How did we do last year? Well, Facebook didn’t go public, Google Wave didn’t make a comeback, and Spotify didn’t make it to the U.S. But our forecasts for Google Chrome, cloud computing, Facebook and something we called the “iTablet” were spot on. What’s in store for 2011? All this week we’ll be posting our predictions. Let us know your prognostications in the comments.1: Filtering, harassment, arrest and torture of bloggers and other users of social media will increase exponentially. There has been a geometric increase in the last several years, but I believe this coming years will see every traditional tyranny fully embracing the Chinese model: technical, legal, social oppression online. Most democracies will more closely travel the trail earlier blazed by Australia, sacrificing civil rights to a make-believe safety. The U.S., followed by many European democracies, have been traumatized first by terrorist attacks, and now by Wikileaks, into clamping down, and are edging, however hesitantly by comparison, toward the Chinese model.2: Access to both public and private collections, of documents, manuscripts and art, will increase. But compared to museums and libraries, universities will continue to drag their feet. ReadWriteWeb’s 2011 Predictions:2011 Staff Predictions2011 Predictions: Klint Finley2011 Predictions: Curt Hopkins2011 Predictions: Sarah Perez2011 Predictions: Mike Melanson3: Non-profit projects like Worldreader will increase in number and penetration based on the above increase in access. 4: Breakthroughs in the qualitative nature of computing – metamaterials, quantum computing, etc. – will spark a new generation of computers whose end-result will be a definition of “computer” as different from what we have now, as what we have now is from the abacus. 5: Rampaging kill-bots will range across the landscape, snapping people in half with their merciless metal claws and spitting them on their liquid-metal handi-hands. They will be bested only when a rule-breaking space captain and a lovable rogue partner to destroy their logic circuits with the Epimenides paradox. 8 Best WordPress Hosting Solutions on the Marketlast_img read more

Commercial ‘artiste’ Sachin Tendulkar Gets Tax Break

first_imgSachin Tendulkar was levied an income tax of Rs 2,08,59,707 on an income of Rs 5,92,31,211 he earned from ESPN Star Sports, Pepsico and Visa in foreign currency during 2001-02 and 2004-05.Sachin Tendulkar, super God of cricket, has formally declared that he is an actor and not a cricketer. The,Sachin Tendulkar was levied an income tax of Rs 2,08,59,707 on an income of Rs 5,92,31,211 he earned from ESPN Star Sports, Pepsico and Visa in foreign currency during 2001-02 and 2004-05.Sachin Tendulkar, super God of cricket, has formally declared that he is an actor and not a cricketer. The excuse: he models for TV advertisements. In order to save tax of around Rs 2 crore on income derived from doing TV commercials, Tendulkar told the Income Tax tribunal that acting, not cricket, is his profession. The tribunal accepted that he is an artist on the grounds that “he has to use his own skills, imagination and creativity in the commercials”.Tendulkar was levied an income tax of Rs 2,08,59,707 on the income of Rs 5,92,31,211 that he earned from ESPN Star Sports, PepsiCo and Visa in foreign currency during 2001-02 and 2004-05. He had challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeal (CIT-A), to pay up. In an order on May 20, the tribunal ruled that Tendulkar could claim deduction in tax on his income from modelling as he is an artist.Tendulkar had claimed deduction of tax under Section 80RR of the Income Tax Act. The section states that a person can claim tax deduction if he is a playwright, artist, musician, actor or sportsman and the income for which deduction is claimed is derived by him in the exercise of his profession.When the assessing officer asked Tendulkar to explain the nature of his profession, the master blaster submitted that “he is a popular model who acts in various commercials for endorsing products of various companies”. He further stated that the income derived by him from ‘acting’ had been reflected as income from “business and profession” whereas income from playing cricket was reflected as “income from other sources” since he is a non-professional cricketer. Tendulkar explained that the claimed deduction in tax was from the exercise of his profession as an ‘actor’.advertisementThe assessing officer rejected Tendulkar’s claim and looked up the dictionary for the meaning of the term ‘professional’. “It could be correct to say that playing cricket is the source of his livelihood and is therefore his profession,” the officer observed, adding that “if Sachin is not a cricketer, then who is a cricketer?” He noted that Tendulkar had received remuneration for providing a wide variety of services to these companies. The various activities mentioned in the agreement with these companies had nothing to do with his claim of being an actor. Therefore, the officer said, his claim was not justified. Tendulkar has an agreement with these companies for the use of the name, photo, original voice, clothing, footwear, playing product spokesman, personal and media appearances.”It is true that while appearing in ad films Tendulkar would have to dress in a certain way and would have to follow the script suggested by the director. However, that does not make him an actor. In all the advertisements in which he appears, what is highlighted is his personality as a cricketer. It is important to note that the company that wants Tendulkar to endorse its brand uses him because he is Sachin Tendulkar, the cricketing legend,” the officer noted.After his claim was rejected, Tendulkar submitted that he should be considered an ‘artist’ for the purpose of Section 80RR. He submitted that the meaning of ‘artist’ be read along with the several clauses of the endorsement agreements. However, the CIT-A did not buy this argument. He ruled: “Tendulkar is primarily involved in playing cricket and irrespective of whether he is a professional or not, it cannot be disputed that his profession is playing cricket. Tendulkar is not being paid for his activities as an actor or his performance as an artist. The nature and quality of his acting or performance as an artist would never have resulted in the contracts and payments made out to him.”Tendulkar appealed against this ruling to the tribunal. An earlier ruling by the tribunal allowing tax deduction to actor Amitabh Bachchan helped his case. In 2004, the tribunal had ruled that the income derived by Bachchan as a host of TV show Kaun Banega Crorepati (KBC) was liable for deduction of tax under Section 80RR because he used his skills as an artist in the show.Asha Vijayaraghavan, judicial member of the tribunal, and R.K. Panda, accountant member, ruled: “While appearing in advertisements and commercials Tendulkar has to face the lights and camera. As a model he brings to his work a degree of imagination, creativity and skill to arrange elements in a manner that would affect human senses and emotions and to have an aesthetic value. No doubt, being a successful cricketer has added to his brand value as a model. But the fact remains that he has to use his own skills, imagination and creativity. Every sportsman does not possess that degree of talent or skill or creativity to face the lights and camera. The income received by him from modeling and appearing in TV commercials and similar activities can be termed as income derived from the profession of an artist.”advertisementTendulkar had also claimed deduction of Rs 57,969 towards staff welfare expenses that included expenses incurred on tea and snacks provided to his staff, Rs 50,000 each on account of entertainment expenses and telephone expenses and Rs 1,42,824 on account of car expenses. However, the tribunal dismissed these claims saying that the use of telephone, car and food was for him and his family.This is one act where the man who holds almost all the batting records in cricket has outdone himself.last_img read more