The team at Specsavers Letterkenny love to give every customer a friendly welcome and expert services – whether it’s for a sight test, eye health or hearcare appointments.We recently visited the store on Port Road Letterkenny to find out all the tests and treatments they offer. With a team of over 40 staff, there is no shortage of specialists who provide top customer care: Specsavers Letterkenny offers eye tests, contact lens services, 3D scanning technology and audiology.In the Hearing Centre, audiologists use the latest technology for hearing tests and ear wax removal and offer affordable prices on the most advanced hearing aids on the market.And you can see for yourself in the video above what happens in the pre-check, optometry and audiology rooms, the framing department and behind the scenes in the lab and office.Specsavers Letterkenny at 64 Port Road is open seven days a week. Book your appointment now by calling 074 916 7040 or book online at www.specsavers.ie Watch: See why the Specsavers team are experts in eyes and ears! was last modified: December 3rd, 2019 by Rachel McLaughlinShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Tags:audiologyeye testsoptometryspecsavers Letterkenny
This recipe for Boeuf Bourguignon is adapted from Julia Child’s “Mastering the Art of French Cooking.”3 lbs beef chuck roast, cut into large pieces1 large yellow onion, peeled and finely chopped2 carrots, peeled and finely chopped Several strips of bacon, sautéed2 cloves mashed garlic1 bottle good red wine, preferably burgundy1 tablespoon tomato paste1 bay leaf 1 pound button mushrooms, quartered and sautéed in butter2 tablespoons butter1/3 cup flour1. Dry the …
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
By Alexandra Dodd27 February 2015Quick quick. Tick tock. The time has come. It is 8:25 pm. Wine must be gulped and put aside at the door as we file in to the hall and take our seats in rows of old metal-framed, fold-down chairs with wooden armrests. The dress rehearsal for the South African debut of William Kentridge’s immersive multimedia chamber opera, Refuse the Hour, is about to begin.The faded Edwardian grandeur of Cape Town’s City Hall forms an ideal backdrop for the Constructivist stage set with its archival hues and didactic slogans: “argument against authority”; “give us back our sun”; “talking against thinking”. The giant pipes of the old organ rise up over an assembly of musical contraptions, bicycle wheels and megaphones, mechanised drums and other mysterious paraphernalia. We have entered the laboratory of the mad professor in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and we are about to witness an unorthodox experiment.It begins with drumbeats from above – a theatrical flourish, the primal heartbeat, relentless knocking on an unopened door. It begins with a story inside a story; an eight- year-old boy is travelling on a train with his father. His father tells him a tale. It is the myth of Perseus and it has a cruel ending. It is unjust, but inevitable, irreversible. It sets in motion a lifetime of fevered questioning – interrogations concerning the nature of being in time and the inescapable pressure that time exerts on the living. The boy is William – the man we know as Kentridge. And so begins 80 minutes of ecstatic journeying inside the frenetic mind of a creative titan.Sonic and visual languageThe project grew out of a series of ongoing conversations with Peter Galison, a Harvard professor in the history of science and physics, and wrestles with the idea of time moving in a single direction. For physics it can go both ways. The production explores these ideas about the reversal, compression and repetition of time in sonic and visual language.The auditory aspect is a revelation – transporting the archival bent in Kentridge’s oeuvre into the realm of the futuristic. The ether is abuzz with strange sonic glitches and blips, as echoes are compressed, words reversed, emitted sounds sucked back in on themselves. We are caught somewhere between frequencies on an old transistor radio, picking up the spatial feedback of the universal archive.Of course, the stars and cosmos have always been there in Kentridge’s work, but now an electrifying outward-bound sense of the Russian space station accompanies his backward gaze at the failed utopian thrust of the Constructivists. There is this sense of moving both back and forward – no risk of nostalgia.Each scene introduces a new thought, a fresh philosophical proposition, and each deserves its own chapter. One such goosebump-inducing moment is the dialectical duet between opera singer and member of the Soweto Gospel choir Ann Masina and sonic glitch artist Joanna Dudley, who is from the Berlin contemporary modernist music scene. There is nothing to prepare one for this strange, alluring dialogue about the birth and death of sound and other things.Gifted shapeshifterRefuse the Hour is a deeply collaborative, multi-vocal production with many layers, many actions and images colliding on the stage at once. It includes dance, performed and choreographed by gifted shapeshifter Dada Masilo, an original score by Philip Miller (who takes to the stage in one hauntingly tender scene, blowing into a plaintive melodica or mouth organ), video by wizard cutter Catherine Meyburgh, mechanical sculptures made in collaboration with Sabine Theunissen, vocal performance and narration.If you returned to see it several times, each time you’d emerge having resonated with different aspects of the performances, previously unseen shards of the action. Its themes are timeless and also, somehow, pressingly of this moment, triggering a panoply of associations.Some of the connections it called to mind were Achille Mbembe’s meditations on the postcolony as an “interlocking of . multiple durees made up of discontinuities, reversals, inertias and swings that overlay one another”; photographer Cedric Nunn’s current exhibition, Unsettled: One Hundred Years War of Resistance by Xhosa Against Boer and British; the time catastrophe, tidal-wave scene in the film, Interstellar (2014); the brilliant androgynous vision of linked lives across time in the filmic adaptation (2012) of David Mitchell’s novel, Cloud Atlas (2004) – but, most presciently, the paradoxically generative idea of the all-consuming force of the black hole which is also at the centre of The Theory of Everything, the Stephen Hawking biopic for which Eddie Redmayne has just taken home an Oscar.From cropped Soviet haircuts to screenprinted aprons, overalls, workerist denim dresses, Cape minstrel fezzes, and the bold black-and-white lines of Xhosa dress design, the costumes by Greta Goris are a swoon-worthy evocation of this mesmerising postcolonial account of time.‘Perceptive by feeling’Refuse the Hour has aptly been described as “an aesthetic and philosophical stage dream”. The word “aesthetic” was appropriated into German in the 18th century and adopted into English in the early 19th, from the Greek aisthētikos, which means “perceptive by feeling”. But the term has had a contested history in Western philosophy, coming, ironically, to be applied to the disinterested, distanced, rational act of good judgment about art and the beauties of nature. Phansi to that!Refuse the Hour is a profoundly “aesthetic” production in the original sense of the word in that it gives audiences an immediate, pulsing physical sense of what it feels like to perceive – to know by feeling, to understand through and by the senses. It hijacks the term back from its aloof Kantian deployment and gives it back its social, economic and political potency – its potential for human awakening. Every idea, no matter how complex, is explained, transmitted, made real through the beating, flickering, thumping and soaring effects of sound and light. It is a work made by bodies to be felt and understood in the body – both in the intimacy of our own bodies and in the charged political spaces between them.This review originally appeared on the Design Indaba website. It is republished here with kind permission.Refuse the Hour is a theatrical accompaniment to a five-channel video installation, The Refusal of Time (made in collaboration with Philip Miller, Catherine Meyburgh and Peter Galison), presented by the Goodman Gallery at the Iziko National Gallery in Cape Town from February to June 2015.
Related Posts How to Write a Welcome Email to New Employees? 7 Types of Video that will Make a Massive Impac… It sounds like this would be very useful for those using MongoDB with Lift. An admittedly small, but growing, number of developers.The write-up for Fully-Loaded is shorter: “A highly opinionated image loader and cache optimized for UITableView scrolling performance.”It’s become common practice for Web companies to release development tools as open source projects. For example, Facebook open-sourced Cassandara, Twitter open-sourced FlockDB and Yahoo has released Pig for Hadoop. Foursquare’s tools may seem minor in comparison, but it’s part of an ongoing trend. Tags:#hack#Tools Why You Love Online Quizzes klint finley Growing Phone Scams: 5 Tips To Avoid Today Foursquare released the code for two applications on GitHub: Rogue, a MongoDB query domain-specific language written in Scala, and Full-Loaded, “a caching image loader for iOS.”Foursquare co-founder Naveen Selvadurai announced the projects on Twitter today. More source code from Foursquare can be found here.According to the write-up in Github:Rogue is a type-safe internal Scala DSL for constructing and executing find and modify commands against MongoDB in the Lift web framework. It is fully expressive with respect to the basic options provided by MongoDB’s native query language, but in a type-safe manner, building on the record types specified in your Lift models.