Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
By Guest Nicole
WASHINGTON (AP) Â— El subdirector del FBI Andrew McCabe, quien fuera un blanco frecuente de crÃticas por parte del presidente Donald Trump, renunciÃ³ abruptamente el lunes antes de su jubilaciÃ³n ya cercana.
McCabe, veterano de 22 aÃ±os en el FBI, fue criticado pÃºblicamente repetidas veces el aÃ±o pasado por Trump, quien lo ha acusado de parcialidad por las conexiones polÃticas de su esposa y por una investigaciÃ³n del FBI de la cual no surgiÃ³ ningÃºn cargo penal contra Hillary Clinton.
McCabe, que desempeÃ±Ã³ varios puestos de liderazgo y estuvo muy involucrado en investigaciones de crÃmenes importantes _incluido el atentado en el MaratÃ³n de Boston de 2013_, cumplirÃa en cuestiÃ³n de semanas los requisitos para jubilarse. El personal del FBI se enterÃ³ el lunes que McCabe dejaba el segundo cargo mÃ¡s importante de la agencia de forma inmediata, segÃºn personas familiarizadas con la situaciÃ³n que pidieron permanecer anÃ³nimas debido a que no podÃan hablar pÃºblicamente sobre una decisiÃ³n interna relativa al personal.
El tercer funcionario en rango del FBI, David Bowdich, fue nombrado subdirector interino.
Se tiene previsto que McCabe se retire con todos los beneficios de la jubilaciÃ³n.
Su salida se da en el marco de los cambios implementados por el director del FBI Christopher Wray en su equipo de liderazgo. Otros dos funcionarios importantes fueron remplazados la semana pasada. Tales cambios no son inusuales cuando un nuevo director toma las riendas de la agencia, pero son notorios debido a la presiÃ³n de Trump sobre Wray para que despidiera a los funcionarios que eran cercanos al ex director James Comey.
En un mensaje el lunes a los empleados de la agencia, Wray les dijo que McCabe se retirarÃ¡ el 18 de marzo y rechazÃ³ que la medida se deba a presiÃ³n polÃtica.
Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. Â
Lawmaker To Remove $26 Million Dollars From Evergreen College After Racist Students Takeover Campus
Workers have been evacuated at Hanford: a former nuclear weapons production site in Washington state...By TheWorldNewsOrg
By Guest Nicole
President Barack Obama holds a robotic arm being controlled by the mind of the man in the wheel chair at right as he makes a stop at the exhibition hall of the White House Frontiers Conference on Thursday, Oct. 13, 2016, in Pittsburgh. (Michael Henninger/Pittsburgh Post-Gazette via AP) (Associated Press)
WASHINGTON — A paralyzed man shared a handshake with President Barack Obama on Thursday by using a mind-controlled robotic arm that, in a first for medical research, is helping to restore his sense of touch.
Obama fist-bumped Nathan Copeland’s robotic hand, and tiny chips implanted in Copeland’s brain let him use his thoughts to move the Star Trek-looking metal arm attached to his wheelchair — and also let him feel subtle pressure in his own fingers when the artificial ones were touched.
He had “pretty impressive precision,” Obama said. “When I’m moving the hand, it is also sending signals to Nathan so he is feeling me touching or moving his arm.”
The president congratulated the University of Pittsburgh researchers who are developing the technology, saying, “what a story.”
The research is part of a quest to make artificial limbs that can feel. On Thursday, the Pittsburgh team reported important early findings: When they blindfolded Copeland, he could correctly identify which robotic finger they touched 84 percent of the time.
“The majority of them, it felt like a pressure or a tingling” in his own corresponding finger, said Copeland, 30, of Dunbar, Pennsylvania, who was left paralyzed after a car accident. When a researcher touched two fingers at the same time, “I just laughed and I said, ‘Are you trying to be tricky or something?”
Preparing to show the president how the cutting-edge research worked, Copeland said he was “circling between excited and nervous every half-hour.”
Harnessing brain waves to power prosthetics is a hot field, with a goal of giving the disabled more independence and improving artificial limbs for amputees as well. Headlines in recent years have reported experiments that let paralyzed people move a robotic arm to touch a loved one or take a drink simply by imagining the motion. Their thoughts activate brain implants that relay electrical signals needed to command movement. The signals are transmitted through a computer to the robotic limb.
What’s new is recreating sensation using this brain-controlled technology. After all, proper motion depends on more than muscle movement. Reach for something and that sense of touch helps you naturally grasp with just enough force to hang on while not either dropping something or crushing it.
“It’s not only that emotional connection we get,” said Robert Gaunt, a Pittsburgh assistant professor of rehabilitation who led the new study. “People have an incredibly difficult time interacting with objects, picking objects up, manipulating them, doing fairly basic things with the hand if they don’t have a very basic sense of touch.”
Step one is placing sensors in prosthetics. The next hurdle is how to allow feedback to and from those sensors. For amputees, some scientists are attempting to wire nerves left in the remaining part of the person’s natural limb directly to the robotic arm.
That’s not possible if a spinal cord injury has interrupted the messages that normally flash between the hand and the brain. But previous monkey research had suggested brain implants could bridge that gap. So surgeons at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center implanted electrodes in the part of Copeland’s brain that controls what his hands feel.
Electrically stimulating those cells worked even though the car wreck that left Copeland mostly paralyzed happened over a decade ago, Gaunt noted.
“This shows you can get natural sensation” through the brain implant, added Pittsburgh neurobiologist Andrew Schwartz.
Thursday’s report in Science Translational Medicine details the first six months of experiments after Copeland received the brain implants in March 2015. The ongoing research is becoming more sophisticated, as he picks up objects while the electrodes stimulate different amounts of force, Copeland said in a phone interview.
While the work is in just one patient, it’s a step toward creating touch capability, said Richard Andersen, a neuroscientist at the California Institute of Technology whose team also studies mind-controlled prosthetics and is about to begin a similar experiment.
“It still needs to be determined if this tactile feedback will improve performance” in using the robotic arm, Andersen cautioned.
Copeland doesn’t get to take the robotic arm home but is proud of helping to advance the science.
“Technically when it’s over, I will have netted nothing except having done some cool stuff with some cool people,” Copeland said. “It’s cheesy, but Luke Skywalker loses his hand and then basically the next day he’s got a robot one and it’s working fine. We have to get to that point, and to do that, someone has to start it.”
By Guest Nicole
AN UNHOLY row has broken out after the Protestant owner of a Christian bookshop refused to sell a bible to a woman - because she is CATHOLIC.
Muriel Swan, 61, was told she should “get the Pope to open a few bookshops for her” after she was turned away from The Mustard Seed Christian Bookshop.
She went to the shop to look for a gift for her eight-year-old grandson Cameron for his first Holy Communion.
But she was left cross when, she claims, staff told her they didn't stock Catholic literature and goods - despite advertising themselves as a Christian bookshop.
Mrs Swan blasted the owner of shop in Gedling, Nottingham, for being "anti-Catholic".
The gran-of-six, a carer from Redhill, Nottingham, said: "We asked the lady in the shop if she had anything for first communion and the reaction we received left us reeling.
"In this day and age I was left speechless when she said the shop was anti-Catholic.
"She went almost into a rage, my grandson and daughter in law were upset by this, it was truly awful.
"I bought two bibles previously from there but when I mentioned buying one for Holy Communion she said we don't stock Catholic items.
"But a bible is a bible surely.
"That's not what really upset me though. It was the fact she said the words 'we are anti-Catholic.'
"It is like saying she is anti-Christ. It was verging on racism.
"I said 'well you do Confirmation gifts' and she said 'they are Church of England not Catholic.'
"I couldn't believe my ears, we just left the shop empty-handed and feeling dumbfounded.
"I've since found out although they are a Protestant shop but they also stock Jewish things too.
"I have come up against discrimination before but all the time I have lived in England this is the first time anti-Catholicism has reared its ugly head.
"There were other people in the shop and that made it worse.
"We just wanted to buy a special Bible."
The Mustard Seed, which has been running for more than 30 years, describes itself as "Nottingham's only Christian bookshop".
Defiant owner Chris Stala defended her store and said Muriel should "get the Pope to open a few bookshops for her".
She added: "We are Protestant, not Catholic.
"The bottom line is that if you want Catholic things go to a Catholic shop.
"The complaint is ridiculous and its just logical you won't get Catholic things here.
"If you want Catholic goods you go to a Catholic store.
"We are not anti-Catholic anyway. I am a Christian and she is too but we are part of different sects.
"You would not get Jehovah's Witnesses coming here either.
"We don't advertise as a Protestant shop but people who come here just know.
"She should get the Pope to open a few bookshops for her because he has plenty of money."
The Equality and Human Rights Commission refused to comment on the case as it is a private matter and said it was up to the shop what they sell.
Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
Does the book of mormon compliment the Bible, or contradict it?
The Bible says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1). However, the Book of Mormon reads: “And behold, he shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem” (Alma 7:10). The writer of the Book of Mormon simply did not have his facts straight. The common Mormon explanation for this is that since Jerusalem was so close to Bethlehem, it could be said he was born there. However, in the Bible,
prophets of God did not make it a practice of just being “close” in their predictions. God would not have made such a mistake.
The Bible relates that at the crucifixion there were three hours of darkness (Luke 23:44). However, the Book of Mormon states there was darkness “for the space of three days” (Helaman 14:20,27). Of course, this is a big difference. Which one is true? Can God be responsible for conflicting statements such as these?
The Book of Mormon relates that at the tower of Babel the Jaredites had their separate language (Esther 1:34-35). The Bible, however, plainly states that “the whole earth was of one language” (Genesis 11:1). Apparently, the writer of the Book of Mormon mistakenly thought there were many different languages and that God confounded them while sparing the language of the Jaredites. The
fact is, there was only one language and God confounded the people by creating different languages.
3 Nephi 11:8-10 claims that after Jesus ascended to heaven, He appeared in America to the Lamanites and Nephites in A.D. 34. However, this clearly contradicts the Bible. Of the ascension of Christ to heaven God said, “Sit thou on my right hand until I make thy foes thy footstools” (Acts 2:34-35).
How long was He to be in heaven at God’s right hand? “For he must reign, until he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” (1 Corinthians 15:25-26). Furthermore, in referring to the ascension, the Bible speaks of Christ as He “whom the heavens must receive until the restitution of all things” (Acts 3:21). Christ did not come to America—because He has been in heaven since His ascension.
In the Bible, the name “Jesus” was announced first by an angel (to Mary; Luke 1:31). This was in 1 B.C. However, Alma 19:29, dated in the Book of Mormon at 90 B.C., has a woman speaking to the Lord and calling him “Jesus.” Which account is accurate?
The Bible teaches that the church was established on the Day of Pentecost following the resurrection of Christ (Acts 2), which would have been approximately A.D. 33. However, Mosiah 18:17, dated at 145 B.C., has the church already in existence. This represents quite a discrepancy, to say the least. Obviously, both cannot be correct. [NOTE: This same reference from Mosiah also mentions “baptism” as the means of being added to the church. However, according to the Bible the baptism taught by Christ did not begin until New Testament times (Matthew 28: 19).]
The Bible clearly reveals that the disciples of Christ “were called Christians first in Antioch” (Acts 11:26). This was approximately A.D. 40. However, Alma 46:13,15, dated at 73 B.C., has people already wearing the name “Christian”—which represents a difference of over 100 years. Which account are people to believe?
The Book of Mormon teaches that “Melchizedek...did reign under his father” (Alma 13:18). Yet the Bible reveals that Melchizedek was a priest under no one. His priesthood typified the priesthood of Christ, and therefore was unique. In contrast to the Book of Mormon, the Bible states that Melchizedek
was “without father, without mother, without descent”—emphasizing that he did not inherit his priesthood (Hebrews 7:3). The writer of the Book of Mormon did not know his Bible very well.
Ether 3:8-9 speaks of God having “flesh and blood.” Yet the Bible states clearly that God is a “spirit,” and thus does not possess a material body (John 4:24). In Doctrine and Covenants, another allegedly inspired writing of the Mormon church, Joseph Smith wrote: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (section 130:22). The Bible and the Book of Mormon both
cannot be correct on this point.
Mosiah 2:3 states: “And they also took of the firstlings of their flocks, that they might offer sacrifice and burnt offerings, according to the law of Moses.” This represents a blatant contradiction with the Bible, because the firstlings of the flocks were to be reserved for the Lord and given to the priests. They were never used for sacrifice (see Exodus 13:2,12; 22:29-30; Numbers 3:13; 18:15-18; 2 Samuel
3 Nephi 18:28-29 speaks of those who are “unworthy” to partake of the communion, and suggests that such people should be forbidden to partake. This is an obvious reference to Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 (in fact, the Book of Mormon has a footnote to that effect). The application made here, however, shows that the writer of the Book of Mormon did not understand what Paul was saying, and as a result ended up with a serious misinterpretation. Paul was not discussing man’s personal worthiness, or lack thereof. Rather, he was discussing the manner in which the communion was being partaken. The context makes this clear. The word “unworthily” is an adverb of manner, and points to the way or manner in which a thing is done. The church at Corinth was abusing the
communion in the manner they were observing it by turning it into a common meal. The American Standard Version evokes the correct idea by employing the phrase, “in an unworthy manner.” By misinterpreting the word “unworthy,” the writer unknowingly demonstrated that his work was manmade.
It makes sense that if the translator of the Book of Mormon was guided by God, the volume would not contain such conspicuous contradictions with the Bible. Modern Mormon leaders claim that in the translation process, all mistakes were corrected as they were detected. This implies, then, that God somehow
must have failed to detect these mistakes—a position that impugns the nature and integrity of God.
By Guest Kurt
Derided by critics as everything from unconstitutional to sacrilegious, a proposal to designate the Holy Bible as the state’s official book has nevertheless been approved by lawmakers. Sponsors argue the bill seeks to honor the historical significance of the Bible in Tennessee’s history rather than serving as a government endorsement of religion. But opponents say the measure trivializes the Bible by placing it alongside other Tennessee symbols like the smallmouth bass, the state sport fish; the cave salamander, the state amphibian; and the honeybee, the state agricultural insect. The State Senate approved the bill, 19 to 8, on Monday night, sending it to Gov. Bill Haslam, a Republican, who opposes it but has not said whether he will veto it. The bill’s sponsor, Senator Steve Southerland, a Republican and ordained minister, said a legal organization had offered to defend pro bono any lawsuits challenging it. “So I ask you, what do we have to lose?” he said.
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Bible Could Become An Official State Symbol, As Tennessee Approves Bill
Bill to make Bible official state book goes to Tenn. governor
Head Start / Early Head Start / ECEAP / Childcare
No Cost to eligible families
EOCF - Give Your Child A Great Start.pdf