Huddersfield’s goals, scored by Aaron Mooy and Laurent Depoitre, were a direct result of disastrous mistakes by United’s Juan Mata and Victor Lindelof.“In the first half I was waiting for it,” said Mourinho, whose side replied through substitute Marcus Rashford.“It was Mata and Victor, but it could have been another because the attitude was really poor.“When I lose matches, I like to lose because the opponent was better, had more quality. When you lose because of attitude, that is really bad.“I heard Ander Herrera in an interview saying the attitude and desire was poor. Oh my God.“When a player says that and a player feels that, I think they should then all go to the press conference and explain why, because I cannot explain that.”Mourinho’s team had only conceded two league goals, in a 2-2 draw at Stoke City in early September, before Saturday’s visit to the John Smith’s Stadium.But the United manager was more concerned by the fact it was the first time in his 15 months in charge that he had detected such a poor attitude.“I don’t even remember a friendly match where our attitude was so poor,” he said.“Of course it concerns me, yes, because if it happened today, why can’t it happen tomorrow?“It was a surprise, but it is reality. It was a surprise, yes, but it happened. For me it is quite easy and simple to say the team that deserved to win won.“They played like I like. They played with everything they have, like I like and like it has to be. They played with everything: aggression, desire, motivation, sacrifice.“They played with everything and we didn’t. So the team that deserved to win won. Simple.”– ‘Little Huddersfield Town’ –Huddersfield Town’s Aaron Mooy (2nd L) celebrates with teammates after scoring the opening goal of their match against Manchester United at the John Smith’s stadium in Huddersfield, northern England on October 21, 2017United visit Swansea City in the League Cup on Wednesday before hosting Tottenham Hotspur and visiting Chelsea in their next two Premier League games.Having seen their 12-game unbeaten run come to an end, Mourinho said he did not know how his team would react.“I don’t like to anticipate the reactions because I don’t know how to say in this moment,” he said.“We come here to play a Premier League match, to play for three points.“I feel really disappointed and if I was a Manchester United supporter — not a manager, but a traditional supporter — I would be really disappointed.“Because I think you can play and lose a football match because the opponent had more quality than you, but you cannot lose because the opponent had a better attitude than you.”Huddersfield manager David Wagner, who lifted the club back into the top flight for the first time in nearly half a century, ranked the victory among his “top three” days in charge.“I live in Huddersfield, so I know a little bit — maybe not 100 percent — how huge this result is,” said the bespectacled German.“For the town, for the Huddersfield Town supporters, for the chairman, for the board, for everybody who supports the football club.“I’m totally aware that this is a very special moment and a huge result.“Little Huddersfield Town, in the Premier League for the first time, in the top flight for the first time in 45 years, has now beaten Man United.“I’m aware of it, happy and proud about it, but like always, we will stay humble.”0Shares0000(Visited 1 times, 1 visits today) 0Shares0000Manchester United’s coach Jose MourinhoHUDDERSFIELD, United Kingdom, Oct 21 – Jose Mourinho launched a withering verbal attack on his Manchester United players following their surprise Premier League defeat at Huddersfield Town and confessed he was shocked by their lacklustre performance.United were beaten for the first time this season, while promoted Huddersfield’s 2-1 win marked their first top-flight victory over their illustrious visitors since 1952.
A tinkerer usually implies a human being with a brain. A man in his garage, for instance, might look around for spare parts to arrange into some new contraption. What would he think if he were told that his own brain was made that way? That’s what evolutionists commonly teach: our bodies and our brains were organized not by design or plan, but by nature’s tinkerer: a blind, aimless physical process that somehow cobbled parts together to allow us to think, and tinker, and even design master plans. A good example of this tendency in the popular press was published in Science Daily and PhysOrg. They reported on the “Genes to Cognition Programme” at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, a group attempting to discern connections between genes and brains (see original press release). The team concluded that brain size alone was not the deciding factor in human cognition. More complex synapses – the junctions between neurons – had to evolve first. Surprisingly, some of these complex junctions appear in yeast and other organisms we think don’t think. Some of these junctions humans use in learning and memory. The first arrival was the most impressive: “The number and complexity of proteins in the synapse first exploded when multicellular animals emerged, some billion years ago.” That’s even before the Cambrian explosion, when all life was single-celled. Another explosion occurred at the arrival of vertebrates, they said. This all suggested to the researchers a vision of the human brain as an example of tinkering. The view was best expressed by team member Richard Emes, lecturer in Bioinformatics at Keele University. He said, “It is amazing how a process of Darwinian evolution by tinkering and improvement has generated, from a collection of sensory proteins in yeast, the complex synapse of mammals associated with learning and cognition.” The project head, Seth Grant, used his tinkered brain to think that this is bringing human cognition closer to understanding its origins. “This work leads to a new and simple model for understanding the origins and diversity of brains and behaviour in all species,” he said. “We are one step closer to understanding the logic behind the complexity of human brains.” He did not specify how many steps have been traversed, how many lie ahead, or what direction to go, assuming he himself is tinkering with ideas that emerged from a product of tinkering. Can such a product have any assurance its cobbled neurons are capable of understanding anything? The tinkering metaphor was echoed in another context by Meredith Small at Live Science. She was trying to explain why men have breasts and nipples. Her explanation combined immiscible concepts: that we were produced by an aimless process, yet are somehow capable of thinking rationally about that process:In fact, men’s breasts are a good lesson in the higgledy-piggledy way that evolution works. Natural selection chooses for and against body parts, but there is no master plan that aims for the perfect creature. Men have boobs, women get facial hair, and we all stand in front of the mirror asking, “Why?” Each person is, in fact, a Rube Goldberg sort of organism pieced together by biology and made up of good parts, bad parts and parts that are inconsequential.She also claimed that we all start out as women in the embryo, but males only become male after testosterone kicks in about the sixth week of development. She called femaleness the default or “fallback” position of the human form. How she could know any of this was an unasked – and unanswered – question. Ironically, philosopher and astronomer John Herschel ridiculed Darwinian theory as the “law of higgledy-piggledy” after reading The Origin of Species. He was not speaking of how natural selection works. He was speaking of the concept of natural selection itself. Proposing a “law of nature” that depends on higgledy-piggledy ways is a higgledy-piggledy scientific idea, he meant; a law that acts haphazardly is no law at all.Some day these evolutionary explanations are going to sound so stupid, students will shake their heads in disbelief that smart people could have believed such things. Let’s hasten the day. Did it occur to Ms. Small that Rube Goldberg designed his comical devices by intelligent design, not by chance? As kludgy as they looked, they were quite effective. How much more effective are her eyes, hands and brain? It seems highly inconsiderate for her to employ them with finesse and then call them hodgepodges of bad parts. These scientists have convinced themselves that there is no master plan. Nothing in reality was designed. Everything is the result of happenstance. Parts emerge from the void. New neurons appear in unthinking cells, without any foreknowledge that some day scientists will employ them to think rationally. From the growing garage of various parts that emerged from the void, Tinker Bell, the goddess of evolution, sets to work, cobbling brains and breasts and everything else, and presto – here we are. How on earth can Meredith Small and her friends have any standards of rationality to know this is true? How can she have any standard of ethics to call parts good or bad? How can a cognitive “I” emerge from this mess to ask “Why?” or any other question, and believe itself capable of finding an answer, let alone comprehending it? If this mythology gives some comfort to the evolutionist, well, it’s a free country. We would like to just tug on their garment and say, ahem; by thinking, you are refuting your story. Yes indeed: stand in front of the mirror and ask, “Why?” Why do Meredith Small and Richard Emes and Seth Grant believe they are in touch with reality? Why do they claim an ontology that grounds an epistemology? Think, and think that your thinking matters, and you are now dealing in concepts. Concepts are not physical. Thought is not reducible to neurons, proteins and genes. Thought can employ material objects; it can even tinker with them and be influenced by them. But the moment you employ concepts, you cannot look in the mirror and see the image of Tinker Bell. You see the image of God. Whether you see or understand His Master Plan is debatable. But by thinking, you acknowledge that one exists. (Visited 71 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest Lake Erie anglers should experience another year of diverse fishing opportunities in 2016, according to Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR).Lake Erie walleye and yellow perch fisheries are managed through an interagency quota system that involves Ontario, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York and Ohio. Each jurisdiction regulates its catches to comply with quotas and minimize the risk of over-fishing these species. Quotas for the upcoming fishing season are determined through consensus agreement by these jurisdictions through the Lake Erie Committee of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, which were just recently announced for 2016.As a result of the 2016 quota allocation, the walleye daily bag limit is four, and the yellow perch daily bag limit is 30 per angler in Ohio waters of Lake Erie until April 30. The daily bag limit will be six walleye from May 1 through Feb. 28, 2017. From March 1, 2017 through April 30, 2017, the daily walleye bag limit will be four. A 15-inch minimum size limit is in effect during the entire season for walleye. The yellow perch daily bag limit will be 30 from May 1 through April 30, 2017, with no minimum size limit. Lake Erie anglers can find walleye and yellow perch bag limit information at ODNR offices, in special publications at bait and tackle shops and at wildohio.gov.Walleye Ohio walleye anglers will catch fish mostly from the 2014 and 2013 hatches, with some fish from the 2012, 2011, 2010 and 2009 year classes. Additional fish from 2007 and 2003 will also be harvested by anglers. Walleye from the average 2014 hatch will range from 15-18 inches, while walleye from the 2013 hatch will be between 16-20 inches. Fish from the 2003 and 2007 hatches are likely to carry most of the Central Basin fisheries, and a good number of these walleye will be over the 26-inch range. Large walleye from strong hatch in 2003 will continue to provide “Fish Ohio” opportunities (greater than 28 inches), with this year class nearing the size that may give Ohio a new state record walleye. Additionally, in 2016, anglers should see a number of smaller (less than 15 inches) fish from the excellent 2015 hatch. Anglers are reminded of the 15-inch minimum size limit and encouraged to release these fish with as little handling as possible so they can contribute to the fisheries in future years.Yellow Perch Expect good perch fishing in 2016, with improving numbers of fish in the Western Basin and the largest fish in the eastern areas of the Central Basin. Perch anglers should encounter fish ranging from 7 to 13 inches from the 2014 through 2008 hatches this year, with major contributions from the 2014, 2011 and 2008 year classes. Fish from the average-to-better hatches in 2007 will contribute fish in the 10-plus inch range. “In 2015, yellow perch fisheries flourished in the eastern portions of Ohio’s Lake Erie, and we expect this trend to continue into 2016,” said Tyson.Black Bass Smallmouth bass fishing in 2016 is expected to be fair but improving. Smallmouth bass catch rates decreased in 2015, when compared to 2014, but are still the highest observed since the mid-1990s. Smallmouth bass should be an excellent size (14 to 22 inches and weighing up to six pounds). The best fishing for smallmouth bass will continue to be in areas with good bottom structure, which is the available habitat across much of the entire Ohio nearshore and islands. Continuing the trend from previous years, largemouth bass fishing should be excellent in 2016. This emerging fishery is producing high catch rates and some large fish in nearshore areas and harbors across Ohio’s Lake Erie. All black bass (smallmouth and largemouth) must be immediately released from May 1 through June 24. Beginning June 25, the daily bag limit for bass will be five, with a 14-inch minimum length limit.Steelhead Steelhead anglers should enjoy another year of great fishing in 2016 in Ohio’s Lake Erie open waters and in tributaries. Peak summer steelhead action on Lake Erie can be found offshore from June through August between Vermilion and Conneaut, with catches measuring 17 to 29 inches. Most Lake Erie anglers troll for steelhead in deep waters using spoons with divers or downriggers until fish move close to shore in the fall. The daily bag limit remains at five fish per angler from May 16 through Aug. 31, and two fish per angler between Sept. 1 and May 15, 2017. A 12-inch minimum size limit is in effect throughout the year.White Bass White bass continue to provide excellent seasonal fishing opportunities in the Maumee and Sandusky rivers and in the open lake. The 2016 catch will be dominated by fish from the 2012 and 2010 year classes. A few fish from the 2007 hatch could be as large as 16 inches. Anglers should focus on major Western Basin tributaries during May and June and nearshore areas of the open lake during the summer. There is no white bass daily bag limit or size limit.Other Species Bays, harbors and main lake shorelines offer excellent fishing for panfish, as well as occasional northern pike and muskellunge in vegetated areas.Anglers are reminded that fishing conditions on Lake Erie can change hourly, and adjustments are often necessary to improve success. Anglers should take into account factors such as water temperature, cloud cover, water clarity, boat traffic, wave action, structure, currents and the amount of baitfish in the area. Anglers are also reminded to carefully monitor Lake Erie weather and to seek safe harbor before storms approach.