Butler s Restaurant at The Essex Resort & Spa has earned distinction from two of the world s most prestigious organizations. Wine Spectator presented Butler s with a 2009 Best of Award of Excellence, and Fodor s Travel, the foremost name in travel publishing, recognized Butler s as a 2009 Fodor s Choice selection.2009 Wine Spectator Best of Award of ExcellenceLong an Award of Excellence recipient from Wine Spectator, Butler s in 2009 was honored to receive the added distinction of the Best of Award of Excellence for its outstanding wine selection. Butler s is one of only 650 restaurants in the United States and the only one in northern Vermont to receive the award.The award honors recipients for, according to Wine Spectator, having wine lists that exhibit either vintage depth or superior breadth across select regions.The wine list at Butler’s includes incredible depth with over 600 selections of wines from 12 different countries. Specialties include California Cabernet Sauvignon, Oregon Pinot Noirs, French Burgundy, and selections from the Rhone, southern France, and Italy.2009 Fodor s Choice AwardButler s Restaurant has also been recognized by Fodor s Travel, the foremost name in travel publishing, as a 2009 Fodor s Choice selection. According to Fodor s, This distinction represents a remarkable achievement and recognizes Butler s as a leader in its field for service, quality, and value in the 2009 year.Since 1988, Fodor s Travel has been awarding the Fodor s Choice distinction to only the very best hotels, restaurants and attractions around the world. Every year, Fodor s writers experience, examine, and evaluate thousands of hotels, restaurants and attractions in their travels across the globe. While every business included in a Fodor s guide is deemed worth a traveler s time, only fifteen percent of those selections are awarded the very highest Fodor s Choice designation by Fodor s editors.For information and reservations, dial 1.800.727.4295 or visit: www.VtCulinaryResort.com(link is external)About The Essex Resort& Spa (formerly The Inn at Essex )Nestled on 18 acres between the Green Mountains and Lake Champlain, The Essex Resort & Spa is a 120-room resort and spa featuring world-class cuisine in Butler s, our formal dining room, as well as the Tavern. We also provide cooking classes, tennis, golf, hot air ballooning, and are Vermont s only Orvis°-endorsed fly fishing lodge.
Batesville, In. — The St. Louis Catholic School 4th through 8th graders recently participated in a school spelling bee. The finalists were (two from each grade) were Bridget Lohmueller, Amaia Fullenkamp, Isabel Raab, Ben Miller, Sadie Wachsmann, Hannah Wells, Megan Batta, Megan Raab, Mary Hunter, Charlie Schebler, Ellie Cornett, Sophie Hirt and Amelia Austin.Eighth grader, Ellie Cornett will travel to Cincinnati to compete in the district bee after Christmas.Teachers, Mrs. Baxter, Mrs. Emsweller, and Mrs. Lents were the judges.
Eric He | Daily TrojanOn Monday, USC announced a new naming rights deal for the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum with United Airlines, signing over the name of the historic sporting venue in exchange for $69 million. At base level, this is a simple argument. The deal is an easy way to make cash, and we all know USC loves cash. But look at the optics. Look at what we’re going to be calling the Coliseum — this hallowed landmark, the home of two Olympic Games (and soon to be a third in 2028) from now on: the United Airlines Memorial Coliseum. Yuck. First off, they literally replaced “Los Angeles” with “United Airlines.” That just sounds pathetic, and honestly, nobody will ever say the words, “What a great game we saw at the United Airlines Memorial Coliseum last night!” I wouldn’t say those words even if United paid me a royalty every time I uttered their company’s name. Second, of all the airlines out there, it is United, a company best-known for always coming through with that clutch, three-hour flight delay and for dragging screaming passengers off of planes. Lord help us if they ever overbook games at the Coliseum. In all seriousness, this decision boiled down to USC putting profits over tradition, sacrificing history to make a few bucks. Immediate reactions on social media were, as expected, not so popular. But University president C. L. Max Nikias felt proud enough to post not one, not two, but three pictures on his Instagram account from Monday’s groundbreaking ceremony of a $270 million renovation project at the Coliseum, where he also announced the naming rights deal. “L.A. Coliseum was one of the few classy stadiums with no corporate name left,” one commenter responded. “Too bad.” That is true. We’re used to referring to stadiums by their corporate names by now — STAPLES Center, Petco Park, Levi’s Stadium. That’s why these companies break the bank to have their names in big letters: It is an advertising tool that is almost guaranteed to gain attention. But there is something to be said about keeping a stadium’s traditional name. Usually, these are historical sporting venues that a casual fan might know: Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, Yankee Stadium in New York, Fenway Park in Boston, Wrigley Field in Chicago, Lambeau Field in Green Bay, the Rose Bowl in Pasadena. Before the San Francisco 49ers moved to Levi’s Stadium, they played for decades at Candlestick Park, a stadium located on Candlestick Point, known for its windy, bone-chilling and terrible conditions, but also for hosting the 49ers dynasty of the 1980s that featured multiple Super Bowl runs, as well as the infamous 1989 World Series between the San Francisco Giants and Oakland A’s that was interrupted by the Loma Prieta Earthquake. Its name endeared itself so deeply with San Francisco residents that after two highly criticized naming rights deals, residents voted for a proposition to restrict the team’s ability to sell its naming rights. “It was a dump,” former 49ers wide receiver Dwight Clark once said of Candlestick Park, “but it was our dump.” Compared to other, newer college football stadiums, the Coliseum might, too, be considered “a dump.” The seats are old and rusty, the concourse looks corroded and — speaking for a friend here — the press box needs an upgrade (read: air conditioning!). So, this $270 million makeover is necessary. “If we’re not changing and moving forward, then we’re stagnant and other schools will pass us up and we won’t be relevant in terms of our facilities,” Athletic Director Lynn Swann said. “There’s a need for change every step of the way.” Swann also added that United’s partnership was key to funding the renovations, which adds to the conundrum. At a school like USC, where boosters and alumni almost always stand behind tradition and legacy, is selling the name of the historic Coliseum worth it to maintain and renovate that piece of tradition? Sadly, in this day and age, where everything must be modern, sleek and state-of-the-art, the answer is yes. Despite the fact that “Los Angeles” is literally being removed from the name, the fact that the sponsor is my least favorite airline and the fact that no one will ever call the stadium by its new official name, this deal is a necessary evil for USC to undergo. Just remember, though, that the Coliseum should, and will, always remain just that — the Coliseum. It is forever and ever “our dump.” It belongs to us, not to an airline company. Eric He is a junior majoring in print and digital journalism. His column, “Grinding Gears,” runs Thursdays.
“I think it’s going to be a very tough game,” he said. “Manchester City is one of the best teams in Europe, not only in England. Tomorrow we want to start the game very aggressive, trying to dominate.”And he said the stadium could be a factor that works in his side’s favour.“Of course we hope and wish that… (it) is going to be amazing and going to be tough for our opponent and can help us to perform in the way we want,” he added.But City boss Pep Guardiola played down the stadium factor, saying it would have little impact on his players.“The stadium is what it is and of course in the Champions League all the games away, the supporters support the team more than ever,” he said.“It’s the second time that Spurs play at home so we know exactly what we are going to face.“It’s in our hands how we have to handle it so if we want to make a step forwards as a club, as a team, we have to know how to handle these situations. If we don’t it’s because we are not prepared still to go through.” London, United Kingdom | AFP | Tottenham are hoping for a lift from their new stadium as they prepare for the daunting task of facing quadruple-chasing Manchester City in the Champions League quarter-finals on Tuesday.Spurs won last week in their first match at their new home, beating Crystal Palace 2-0 to move back into third in the Premier League after a disappointing run of results.City midfielder Kevin De Bruyne claims Tottenham’s new ground will not be a significant factor in the first leg of the tie but South Korean forward Son Heung-min said the atmosphere could help his team, who had been based at Wembley since the start of the 2017/18 season.“Of course,” he told reporters at the pre-match press conference. “We take these plus points for us because maybe the City players don’t realise, they always play at home. We’ve been nearly two years away from our home stadium.“What we’ve done in the last two years was very positive and I think we missed home a lot and maybe we can show them tomorrow night what is the difference between Wembley and our new stadium.”Son, who scored the first league goal in the new stadium, said the opening match there was a special occasion.“It was just massive, I couldn’t believe it. I had an unbelievable night. I scored, we won, three points, clean sheet, everything,” he said.“It was very positive. I think it’s also very important to take this positive energy for tomorrow. When you think positive, positive things happen.”Tottenham boss Mauricio Pochettino said the game against the defending Premier League champions, who are aiming for a clean sweep of trophies, would be one of the most important of his coaching career but vowed to attack. Share on: WhatsApp FILE PHOTO: Tottenham new stadium.
The Western Hockey League announced its 2016 Awards, and guess who’s on the list — Nelson’s Dryden Hunt.Hunt, who last month signed an entry-level contract with Florida Panthers of the National Hockey League, was announced as the WHL Eastern Conference Four Memorial Broncos Player of the Year.Western Conference winner is Joe Hickets of the Victoria Royals.The 20-year-old forward has experienced a dream season with the Moose Jaw Warriors, finishing second in WHL scoring with 116 points — four behind Adam Brooks of the Regina Pats. Hunt, who was also selected top the WHL First All Star team, scored 58 goals this season, tops in the entire WHL. Hunt also had five hat tricks.The 6-foot, 200 pound left-winger was also named player-of-the-month for January and recently player-of-the-week in February.Hunt’s teammates, netminder Zachary Sawchenko was selected Eastern Conference Top Goaltender and Noah Gregor Rookie of the year.The Nelson Minor Hockey grad also walked away with four team awards. Hunt ended a 21-year drought for Warrior 50 goal scorers, and was the first Warrior in ten years to go over 100 points in a season, with that he captured the RBC Top Scorer Award.Hunt shared Player of the Year honours with Moose Jaw team captain Brayden Point while capturing the YARA Fans Choice award and team’s 3-Star Award.The Moose Jaw Warriors won its final regular season game, downing the Swift Current Broncos 3-1 to finish their 2015-2016 season in third place in the East Division.Moose Jaw now faces Prince Albert Raiders in the first round of the playoffs beginning Friday in Prince Albert.Game two is Saturday, March 26th in Prince Albert before the series shifts to Moose Jaw for Game’s three and four on Monday, March 28th and Tuesday, March 29th.Story originated at The Nelson Daily
Will Paul Pogba actually leave Juventus this summer? 1 Manchester United are considering whether to reignite their interest in former midfielder Paul Pogba.The French international has been linked with moves to Manchester City and United over the past 12 months but Real Madrid have now emerged as favourites to lure him away from Juventus.Negotiations between Real and Juve are ongoing, with the Italian giants reportedly demanding a world record fee of £95m for the 23-year-old talent.However, according to AS, Real are reluctant to pay more for Pogba than they did for Gareth Bale and Cristiano Ronaldo, which may open the door for Jose Mourinho and United.Mourinho wanted to sign Pogba during his time in charge of Chelsea and would love nothing more than beating his old club Real to the Frenchman’s signature.United are set to spend big this summer as Mourinho looks to revamp his squad and could be willing to match Juve’s valuation of Pobga.
To Darwin, the origin of flowering plants was an “abominable mystery.” Recently, some entries on Science magazine’s blog Origins have claimed the mystery has been solved, at least partially, and a full solution is near at hand. Here is a great test case for evolution. Angiosperms comprise a huge, diverse population of organisms. There should be an ample fossil record, and many genes to decipher. Let’s see if the optimistic claims are rooted in evidence. Beginning to make sense: Elizabeth Pennisi wrote for the April 2 blog entry that recent discoveries are “beginning to make sense” of the fossil record of plants, and evolutionists are finding out “how, and when, flowers got started—and from which ancestor.” The blog entry is a summary of her lengthier essay in Science.1 In the short version, Pennisi concluded with a taste of doubt: “Questions still remain, particularly about the nature and identity of the angiosperm ancestor itself,” she said. But hope reigns eternal after 150 years: “modern botanists are hopeful that the abominable mystery is well on its way to being solved.”Good news, bad news: In the lengthier article,1 Pennisi began with a praise for the fantastic angiosperm family that so colors our world. Almost 9 in 10 plants are angiosperms. They do a world of good:In 1879, Charles Darwin penned a letter to British botanist Joseph Dalton Hooker, lamenting an “abominable mystery” that threw a wrench into his theory of evolution: How did flowering plants diversify and spread so rapidly across the globe? From rice paddies to orange groves, alpine meadows to formal gardens, prairies to oak-hickory forests, the 300,000 species of angiosperms alive today shape most terrestrial landscapes and much of human life and culture. Their blooms color and scent our world; their fruits, roots, and seeds feed us; and their biomass provides clothing, building materials, and fuel.Then came the hard news:And yet this takeover, which took place about 100 million years ago, apparently happened in a blink of geological time, just a few tens of millions of years. The father of evolution couldn’t quite fathom it. Darwin had an “abhorrence that evolution could be both rapid and potentially even saltational,” writes William Friedman in the January American Journal of Botany, which is devoted to this “abominable mystery.” Throughout his life, Darwin pestered botanists for their thoughts on the matter, but they couldn’t give him much help. Now, 130 years later, evolutionary biologists are still pestering botanists for clues about what has made this plant group so successful, as well as when, where, and how flowers got started–and from which ancestor….How can Pennisi bounce back to optimism after that? She did. She claims new analytical tools, more fossils, and genomic data are converging on the answer, providing “insights that Darwin could never have imagined,” diluting the abominality quotient of his mystery. After this buildup of hope, though, better prepare for another letdown. But one of Darwin’s mysteries remains: the nature and identity of the angiosperm ancestor itself. When flowering plants show up in the fossil record, they appear with a bang, with no obvious series of intermediates, as Darwin noted. Researchers still don’t know which seed- and pollen-bearing organs eventually evolved into the comparable flower parts. “We’re a bit mystified,” says botanist Michael Donoghue of Yale University. “It doesn’t appear that we can locate a close relative of the flowering plants.”It seems the major abominations remain: no ancestor, and no intermediates. How can Pennisi call this progress? She investigated some candidate ancestors: magnolias, Amborella trichopoda, water lilies, and Archaefructus (05/03/2002, 02/21/2003). Each of these, however, had the basic flower-and-seed equipment down. The only differences were in petals, sepals, and subjective judgments about morphology, such as one species said to have “a primitive look about it.” And, woe for Archaefructus, it turned out to be too young to be grandpa. For all the candidates, “These fossils often spark debate because specimens tend to be imperfectly preserved and leave room for interpretation,” she said. But new techniques with synchrotron radiation are at least bringing the ambiguity into better focus. The rest of the article presented more problems. No one has found the oldest flowers. No one can connect the gymnosperms (including conifers) with the angiosperms. Even when they try, “These groups’ perceived relevance to flower evolution and their relationships to angiosperms have ping-ponged between camps, depending on how the evolutionary trees were constructed.” Theories have waxed and waned in credibility. An evolutionary botanist admitted, “figuring out what’s homologous is quite a difficult thing.” A popular “anthophyte hypothesis” from the mid-1980s is dead. Prepare for more letdown:And if the molecular work is correct, then the field doesn’t know in which direction to turn, because in most analyses the genetic data don’t place any living plant close to angiosperms. The angiosperms group together, the living gymnosperms group together, and there’s nothing in between. “The nonangiosperm ancestor just isn’t there,” says paleobotanist William Crepet of Cornell. “I’m starting to worry that we will never know, that it transformed without intermediates.”Since that is tantamount to believing a miracle occurred, Pennisi didn’t want to linger on that comment. Her next paragraph turned a corner with a triumphant-sounding subheading, “Seeds of Success.” More bad news, though, was right behind it. “The exact timing of the angiosperms’ explosion and expansion is under debate, as is the cause,” she continued. The news has only gotten worse. Recent molecular clock studies push the angiosperm ancestor even farther back in time. “There appears to be a gap in the fossil record,” said one researcher. An astute observation, indeed. Bang: they appear, and bang: they diversify. Better call daddy again: “Darwin suspected that coevolution with insect pollinators helped drive diversification, though such a causal relationship is not settled.” So far Pennisi has not presented one solid foundation for optimism. Genes didn’t help. Fossils didn’t help. Homology didn’t help. The molecular clock didn’t help. Why not just assume evolution? That would get the uncooperative data out of the way. Maybe plants were just really darn good at inventing things, the evolutionists might say. Angiosperms evolved because they evolved flexibility that could exploit new ecological niches. This “set them up for long-term evolutionary success,” Pennisi explained. She quoted Peter Crane (U of Chicago), who said, “My own view is that in the past, we have looked for one feature,”says Crane. Now, “we are realizing that this huge diversity is probably the result of one innovation piled on top of another innovation.” Assume evolution. Then evolution just happens. The rest of the article offered nothing more of substance. A few more suggestions were offered as tentative, heuristic possibilities. Evolutionists have found that the genetic toolkit is conserved [i.e., unevolved] all the way back. Maybe there were differences in how genes were employed. Avocados, for instance, appear sloppy at differentiating between petals and carpels. Is this a sign of a less-evolved plant structure? “This sloppiness may have made development flexible enough to undergo many small changes in expression patterns and functions that helped yield the great diversity in floral forms,” she said, as if running an idea up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes. This was the lengthiest article on angiosperm evolution this month, but it consisted of pessimism sandwiched between optimistic hope. After 29 paragraphs of despair, the only thing left was faith, hope, and love for Darwin. In his letter to Hooker, Darwin wrote that he would like “to see this whole problem solved.” A decade ago, Crepet thought Darwin would have gotten his wish by now. That hasn’t happened, but [William] Crepet [Cornell] is optimistic that he and his colleagues are on the right track, as analyses of various kinds of data become more sophisticated. “We are less likely to go around in circles in the next 10 years,” he says. “I believe a solution to the problem is within reach…. The mystery is solvable.”Pennisi update: A week later, Pennisi wrote a blog entry in Origins announcing that land plant genes have been found in green algae. This pre-announced the Micromonas genome story reported here 04/13/2009. Any support here for angiosperm evolution? No; “No bigger than a bacterium, these minuscule marine eukaryotes have surprisingly sophisticated genomes,” she said. Problem: this early, “primitive” algae contains genes only found previously in leafy plants. Those supposedly evolved hundreds of millions of years later:Overall, the Micromonas genome is about 21 million bases long, with 10,000 genes, 2000 more than its much more streamlined relative, Ostreococcus, which has already been sequenced, twice. About 20% of the genes found in Micromonas but not in Ostreococcus are genes generally thought to have evolved only in land plants, not earlier, her team reports. For example, the team finds that Micromonas has a gene called YABBY, which is missing from other green algae and even moss, and is thought to be related to the development of leafy plants. Given that leaves don’t exist in these algae, she thinks YABBY must have played another role early in green eukaryotic evolution.Make like a leaf: The April 15 entry by David Dilcher in the Origins blog took another angle. Many of the plant fossils thought to have living counterparts may actually be extinct species. Improved microscopic techniques are leading some paleontologists to discount the similarity of fossil plants to extant species, even though the macroscopic similarities are striking. It’s not clear how this helps the story of angiosperm evolution, but Dilcher repeated the Darwin-Hooker story to set the stage. Darwin’s oft-quoted “abominable mystery” phrase “represents Darwin’s frustration with the paleobotanical record of his time.” How are things now? “With the study of detailed leaf venation and leaf epidermal cell characters, it is clear that many of the earliest flowering plants represent extinct species, extinct genera, extinct families, and perhaps even extinct orders,” he said, referring to a paper of his from 1974. “This paradigm change has caused a revolution in the study of fossil flowering plants which only in the past 40 years has begun to present a realistic record of extinct flowering plants.” Realism is always nice to have in science. Presumably it went missing till the 1970s. But does the new wave of realism shed light on the abominable mystery of flowering plants? Dilcher offered a paradigm shift that might give Darwin something to smile about (for a change):The success of early paleobotanists depended upon making such matches. It has taken a philosophical shift in angiosperm paleobotany in order for researchers today to strive to understand relationships between fossil and living plants, based upon detailed characters, rather than feeling the need to find a living genus to which they can name a fossil. Using character analyses, we now have an emerging new fossil record of flowering plants with many extinct taxa that would have delighted Darwin. This new record is one he could have understood because it demonstrates the evolution of flowering plants, a major group of organisms on Earth. We do not yet know all the details, but there is no longer any “abominable mystery” to the origin of flowering plants.Let’s attempt to restate this argument. Look-alike plants from the past may have gone extinct. Now we have new look-alike plants. All of them, old and new, have the whole angiosperm package and appear virtually indistinguishable to the untrained eye. Dilcher didn’t mention any ancestors, or any transitional forms. It seems Darwin’s delight at this suggestion would be short-lived.Let’s back up to an earlier epoch and see if evolution does better there. The first land plants are thought to have colonized land in the mid-Ordovician, but trilete spores, characteristic of vascular plants, appear in the late Silurian. In today’s issue of Science,2 Steemans et al announced their discovery of trilete spores from the late Ordovician. This “suggests that vascular plants originated and diversified earlier than previously hypothesized, in Gondwana, before migrating elsewhere and secondarily diversifying.” Placing complex structures earlier in the fossil record does little to help evolutionary theory, because it compresses the time for innovation. Notably, they did not discuss how their find helps evolutionary theory. They hardly discussed evolutionary theory at all. (Compare a similar story with fossil fish from 03/26/2009.)1. Elisabeth Pennisi, “On the Origin of Flowering Plants,” Science, 3 April 2009: Vol. 324. no. 5923, pp. 28-31, DOI: 10.1126/science.324.5923.28.2. Steemans et al, “Origin and Radiation of the Earliest Vascular Land Plants,” Science, 17 April 2009: Vol. 324. no. 5925, p. 353, DOI: 10.1126/science.1169659.Not every reader will want all this tedious detail, but it’s important for showing how the Darwinist tricksters ply their propaganda. Lack of data has been shielded behind hope: hope in hopeful monsters, like gymnosperm seeds that sprout flowers, and bryophyte spores that sprout vascular systems. The story is full of miracles (“innovation piled on top of another innovation”) ad infinitum, as if by magic. They rub their Darwin genie and wish for ancestors and transitional forms that never appear. They curse the abominable mysteries under their breath, smiling to the media they are really close to solving them. The only abominable mystery is evolutionary faith. The only hope-full monsters are the Darwinians.(Visited 55 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Why Tech Companies Need Simpler Terms of Servic… Top Reasons to Go With Managed WordPress Hosting Not much has changed, unfortunately. Most remarkable, perhaps, is the growing number of single sign-on (SSO) solutions that address the first issue for application providers and the second issue for users. New application providers can now outsource this functionality to a third-party SSO provider. Some of the biggest application providers became ID providers themselves to allow their users to log on to third-party applications with the same ID, and this has gained traction beyond these few providers. This has led us to an era of identity wars between the big providers.Many ID providers, such as Google, Yahoo!, MySpace, and Facebook, have added the OpenID SSO to their own proprietary mechanisms over time. Because of the open nature of OpenID, many third-party providers have found it easy to integrate with the bigger providers, giving them more traction because users are able to access their services so easily using their OpenID credentials. Now, these ID providers can offer read-only access to fragments of profile data that users can look up or copy to third-party applications. Like SSO and OpenID, this began with proprietary solutions, but now exchange formats and protocols are emerging whose open language allows applications to easily exchange and synchronize data. These include:API access authorization protocol OAuth,Social graph exchange format FOAF (“friend of a friend”),Updates exchange format activity streams,Address book exchange format Portable Contacts. Tags:#web In the future, ID providers will loosen their connection to social applications and start taking over management of users’ social attributes. Users will be able to log in to applications using credentials hosted by their ID providers of choice and grant permissions to these applications to read or even sync selected fragments of their profile data. The borders of these walled gardens will thus blur, and the social Web will become more of a weave than a patchwork quilt.The Web of Identities The Web of data is a distributed web of interconnected sets of semantically annotated data. A connection is achieved as a result of data pointing to data contained in another set through a URI, just as websites point to each other with URIs. This way, machines can crawl the sets to read the data. ID providers will most likely refer to their users via URIs in the future as well. A social connection will consist of one user’s URI pointing to another user’s URI or ID provider. If permitted by users, a machine may very well accomplish its tasks by jumping through the Web of identities from user to user, the way it does through the Web of data.Why is this needed? The Web of identities is actually a super-social graph that spans multiple ID providers. If we come across walled gardens, this infrastructure would be needed for all of the social-related search functions we perform. The following examples are thus far provided only (if at all) within individual applications:“What is the best book read by friends in my circle?”This query might retrieve book purchases and book-related status updates that your friends have made accessible through their privacy settings and then rank the books in a set.“Notify me if a close friend visits Berlin.”This permanent task repeatedly looks up your friends’ geo-locations. You may also have granted your close friends access to this data, too. This task could even be combined with the Web of data to look up the meaning and location of Berlin.“Sync my address book.”This permanent task continually synchronizes my friends’ addresses and numbers with my personal address book.Now it’s your turn. In what ways do you think the social Web and Web of identities are evolving?(Diagrams by alexkorth) Related Posts In a previous article, we discussed the Web of data, which is about inter-linking open data sets and, thus, turning them into machine-accessible structured data. In this post, we’ll draw a picture of how the emerging social Web could serve as a Web of identities, which is essentially a people-data version of the Web of data.W3C’s The LOD approach is very good for static and encyclopedic knowledge, but what about accessing our personal data? Technically, modeling our identity, profile data, social graph, groups, activity stream, assets, and other kinds of personal data is straightforward. But empowering machines to access this data could present challenges to the LOD approach, because it comes with all sorts of constraints and peculiarities, such as privacy and data volatility. People want control over who has access to their data or parts of their data and want to be able to block access for any reason. And issues such as rapidly changing and outdated data remain unaddressed.This is where the social Web can help.The Emerging Social Web A Web Developer’s New Best Friend is the AI Wai… There was a time when we had to create a new digital identity for each social application we wanted to use. A social application provides features based on social attributes. Every application provider implemented its own proprietary ID management to authorize users to log on and implemented its own proprietary user profile system to manage information about its users. Application providers were judged by the size of their user and content base and so erected endless walled gardens to protect their properties.The most significant issues people had were:Low conversion rate for user registration,Users had to register for many accounts,Users had to re-enter and synchronize profile data,Privacy, data ownership, and inability to export. alexander korth 8 Best WordPress Hosting Solutions on the Market
Filming in tight hallways is tricky — even for pros like the Coen brothers. Here’s their low-budget solution to a common filmmaking problem.Top image via Janus FilmsWatching the live commentary included with the Criterion Collection release of Blood Simple was an eye-opening experience. Hearing Joel and Ethan Coen share some of the same frustrations I’ve encountered firsthand was truly sweet relief. Despite these frustrations, the Coens were able to make micro-budget movie magic, capturing some high-quality shots in less-than-optimal conditions. Let’s look at one example a little closer.The ShotOne shot that gave the Coen brothers a little trouble takes place in an exceptionally tight and dimly lit location.Abby, the main character portrayed by Frances McDormand, is walking down a hallway in her house at night. As you can see above, the outside light leaking in through the windows splashes across the wall.The biggest obstacle to pulling this scene off proved to be the location itself. DP Barry Sonnenfeld couldn’t operate the camera rig in the close quarters of the hallway without casting unwanted shadows. The size of the house didn’t just limit camera movement — it prevented the execution of moves (like this very tracking shot) that the filmmakers felt were vital to the atmosphere of the film.So, How Did They Film It?Discovering that the house was the problem, the Coens came up with an elegant solution — they countered the limitations of the house by removing themselves from the house.The camera operator set up outside the house and utilized a long lens to film through the window, tracking backwards as McDormand walked. They nailed the shot and discovered a timely, affordable fix to a difficult situation. This kind of DIY attitude is exactly what makes filmmaking so exciting. Find a problem. Fix a problem by thinking outside the box — or, in this case, the house.Do yourself a favor and check out the Blood Simple commentary. It’s packed with filmmaking secrets and tips. For more Coen brothers action, visit this post that explains how they faked a nighttime driving scene from the comfort of their garage.What was the last DIY solution you found on set? Share your experiences in the comments below!