hobkuhsm

Academics’ pay rises as budgets fall

first_imgFurthermore, this increase is not limited to the Russell Group. A Telegraph report claimed that more than 950 university staff, including Vice Chancellors, were paid more than the Prime Minister in 2010 and that last year Liverpool Hope University announced intentions to cut up to 110 jobs whilst increasing Vice-Chancellor Gerald Pillay’s salary by 20.6% to £199,077.With the total cuts to universities for 2012/2013 standing at around 3.4% and the typical teaching academic being paid £42,263 on average, Bauer’s and Chessum’s ‘University High Pay Report: One Alternative to Cuts’ states, “it is worrying that UK universities are now spending 2% more on increasing the wages of their very richest employees”. This claim is supported by the Times Higher Education survey and by university financial statements. Analysis of these statements, conducted by accountancy firm Grant Thornton, shows that whilst total income packages dropped by by 1.21% in 2009-2010, the average spending by universities on salaries in isolation rose by 0.6%. A government-commissioned review of public-sector pay by the Work Foundation discovered that the pay-gap between the highest and lowest paid staff was greatest within the higher education sector.[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%5548%%[/mm-hide-text]Students have expressed concern at these increases when education in the UK is facing stringent cuts this year. According to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), core teaching funding is being reduced from £3.6bn in 2011/2012 to £2.4bn in 2012/2013 (a 34% decrease). And, despite the counteractive action of raising tuition fees, recent statistics show that the number of available courses over the past six years has been reduced by 27% and there will be around 11,000 fewer places for first year undergraduates available at universities next year. Emma Wilson-Black, a second year student at Mansfield College, said, “At a time of cuts and austerity I would consider it deeply wrong and socially divisive to pay Russell Group university VCs massive salaries. I consider lecturers crucial to the education system rather than the few individuals at the top of the system who gain ridiculously inflated salaries.”She continued, “The government is already facing criticism that its ‘education reforms’ will create a two-tier system where poorer students find it even harder to access top universities. This presents a vision of education where elitism dominates.”The Times survey of Vice Chancellors across the UK also revealed that 26% of VC’s went to state schools, 39% to grammars and 20% to private schools (there was no data available on the remaining percentage). However, amongst the chancellors of the Russell-Group, 35% were private-schooled, in contrast with only 7% of privately schooled Vice Chancellors in the Million+ research intensive institutions, (Million+ is a ‘think-tank’ of post-1992 institutions, formerly known as the Campaign for Mainstream Universities.)Somerville student and president of the Oxford Socialist Worker Student Society, Fraser Anderson, agreed with Wilson-Black. He said, “Revelations about the increases in Vice Chancellors’ salaries at a time of unprecedented attacks on higher education are yet another confirmation that we’re not all in it together. This is what Stefan Collini called the ‘world of McKinsey’, where education policy is shaped by people like former BP boss, Lord Browne, and the chief of McKinsey’s Global Education Practice, Sir Michael Barber. In their world it’s huge salaries for top executives – higher fees and cuts to jobs, pay and libraries for the rest of us.”However, not all Vice Chancellors pay packets have experienced an increase. For instance, the London School of Economics reduced their Vice Chancellor’s pay by £67,000 between 2010 and 2011 to £218,000 a year whilst Sheffield reduced their Vice Chancellor’s salary by £17,000 to £294,000 per annum. One student commented, “I think its important to remember that whilst education is facing cuts, the Russell Group contains some of the best universities in the world. Places like Oxbridge still manage to compete globally despite the huge financial advantages that institutions such as the Ivy League can offer students.”He added, “I believe that the money within higher education should be more evenly spread between the VC’s and the average academic staff member if the University wishes to attract a larger proportion of high-calibre teachers. What’s the point in competitively paying for brilliant leadership if we can only afford to pay competively for a moderate workforce?”Oxford University said that the pay for the Vice Chancellor reflected the calibre of the University itself. A spokesperson said, “It is certainly one of the two best universities in the UK and among the handful of best universities in the world.”She added that the influence of Oxford on the UK also accounts for the high salary. She stated, “It makes a major contribution to the economic prosperity of the UK and the UK’s position in the world, as well as to tackling global challenges through its research. Its research output is vast, it has an almost billion-pound-a-year turnover not including the colleges and OUP, and it has great institutional complexity. Its Vice Chancellor’s salary reflects that.” A report released by the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts last month attacked the increasing income of Russell Group academics, of whom Oxford’s Vice Chancellor, Andrew Hamilton, received the highest income in 2011, £424,000. This sum is closely followed by the Vice Chancellor at University of Birmingham’s salary of £419,000 and the Vice Chancellor of University College London, who received £365,000 last year. These accounts show that Russell Group universities have spent an average of around £318,000 on Vice Chancellors’ salaries, benefits and pensions over the last year.The NCAFC report was written by Edward Bauer, a student and Vice-President of Education at Birmingham University, in collaboration with Michael Chessum, member of NUS and organizer for NCAFC; it also expresses concern at the rate at which these incomes are increasing. According to the report, the income of the Vice Chancellors of the University College London and University of Birmingham increased by £27, 345 and £27,000 respectively between 2010 and 2011, whilst the Vice Chancellor of Nottingham followed with an increase of £9,057 over the past year. These figures are supported by each university’s annual finances report.This report also reveals that the rise is not limited to Vice Chancellors, alledging that there has been an increasing amount of universitys’ incomes spent on jobs paid a salary of over £100,000 a year. It claims that the percentage of the Russell Group’s total income that was spent on high paid jobs has increased by over 2%, from 1.832% in 2003/2004 to 3.849% in 2011/2012.Furthermore, this increase is not limited to the Russell Group. A Telegraph report claimed that more than 950 university staff, including Vice Chancellors, were paid more than the Prime Minister in 2010 and that last year Liverpool Hope University announced intentions to cut up to 110 jobs whilst increasing Vice-Chancellor Gerald Pillay’s salary by 20.6% to £199,077.With the total cuts to universities for 2012/2013 standing at around 3.4% and the typical teaching academic being paid £42,263 on average, Bauer’s and Chessum’s ‘University High Pay Report: One Alternative to Cuts’ states, “it is worrying that UK universities are now spending 2% more on increasing the wages of their very richest employees”. This claim is supported by the Times Higher Education survey and by university financial statements. Analysis of these statements, conducted by accountancy firm Grant Thornton, shows that whilst total income packages dropped by by 1.21% in 2009-2010, the average spending by universities on salaries in isolation rose by 0.6%. A government-commissioned review of public-sector pay by the Work Foundation discovered that the pay-gap between the highest and lowest paid staff was greatest within the higher education sector.Students have expressed concern at these increases when education in the UK is facing stringent cuts this year. According to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), core teaching funding is being reduced from £3.6bn in 2011/2012 to £2.4bn in 2012/2013 (a 34% decrease). And, despite the counteractive action of raising tuition fees, recent statistics show that the number of available courses over the past six years has been reduced by 27% and there will be around 11,000 fewer places for first year undergraduates available at universities next year.Emma Wilson-Black, a second year student at Mansfield College, said, “At a time of cuts and austerity I would consider it deeply wrong and socially divisive to pay Russell Group university VCs massive salaries. I consider lecturers crucial to the education system rather than the few individuals at the top of the system who gain ridiculously inflated salaries.”She continued, “The government is already facing criticism that its ‘education reforms’ will create a two-tier system where poorer students find it even harder to access top universities. This presents a vision of education where elitism dominates.”The Times survey of Vice Chancellors across the UK also revealed that 26% of VC’s went to state schools, 39% to grammars and 20% to private schools (there was no data available on the remaining percentage). However, amongst the chancellors of the Russell-Group, 35% were private-schooled, in contrast with only 7% of privately schooled Vice Chancellors in the Million+ research intensive institutions, (Million+ is a ‘think-tank’ of post-1992 institutions, formerly known as the Campaign for Mainstream Universities.)Somerville student and president of the Oxford Socialist Worker Student Society, Fraser Anderson, agreed with Wilson-Black. He said, “Revelations about the increases in Vice Chancellors’ salaries at a time of unprecedented attacks on higher education are yet another confirmation that we’re not all in it together. This is what Stefan Collini called the ‘world of McKinsey’, where education policy is shaped by people like former BP boss, Lord Browne, and the chief of McKinsey’s Global Education Practice, Sir Michael Barber. In their world it’s huge salaries for top executives – higher fees and cuts to jobs, pay and libraries for the rest of us.”However, not all Vice Chancellors pay packets have experienced an increase. For instance, the London School of Economics reduced their Vice Chancellor’s pay by £67,000 between 2010 and 2011 to £218,000 a year whilst Sheffield reduced their Vice Chancellor’s salary by £17,000 to £294,000 per annum. One student commented, “I think its important to remember that whilst education is facing cuts, the Russell Group contains some of the best universities in the world. Places like Oxbridge still manage to compete globally despite the huge financial advantages that institutions such as the Ivy League can offer students.”He added, “I believe that the money within higher education should be more evenly spread between the VC’s and the average academic staff member if the University wishes to attract a larger proportion of high-calibre teachers. What’s the point in competitively paying for brilliant leadership if we can only afford to pay competively for a moderate workforce?”Oxford University said that the pay for the Vice Chancellor reflected the calibre of the University itself. A spokesperson said, “It is certainly one of the two best universities in the UK and among the handful of best universities in the world.”She added that the influence of Oxford on the UK also accounts for the high salary. She stated, “It makes a major contribution to the economic prosperity of the UK and the UK’s position in the world, as well as to tackling global challenges through its research. Its research output is vast, it has an almost billion-pound-a-year turnover not including the colleges and OUP, and it has great institutional complexity. Its Vice Chancellor’s salary reflects that.”A report released by the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts last month attacked the increasing income of Russell Group academics, of whom Oxford’s Vice Chancellor, Andrew Hamilton, received the highest income in 2011, £424,000. This sum is closely followed by the Vice Chancellor at University of Birmingham’s salary of £419,000 and the Vice Chancellor of University College London, who received £365,000 last year.These accounts show that Russell Group universities have spent an average of around £318,000 on Vice Chancellors’ salaries, benefits and pensions over the last year.The NCAFC report was written by Edward Bauer, a student and Vice-President of Education at Birmingham University, in collaboration with Michael Chessum, member of NUS and organizer for NCAFC; it also expresses concern at the rate at which these incomes are increasing.According to the report, the income of the Vice Chancellors of the University College London and University of Birmingham increased by £27, 345 and £27,000 respectively between 2010 and 2011, whilst the Vice Chancellor of Nottingham followed with an increase of £9,057 over the past year. These figures are supported by each university’s annual finances report.This report also reveals that the rise is not limited to Vice Chancellors, alledging that there has been an increasing amount of universitys’ incomes spent on jobs paid a salary of over £100,000 a year. It claims that the percentage of the Russell Group’s total income that was spent on high paid jobs has increased by over 2%, from 1.832% in 2003/2004 to 3.849% in 2011/2012.last_img read more

hobkuhsm

IBEW Local 164 Donates $50,000 to Local Hospitals

first_img1 / 2  IBEW Local 164 members deliver supplies to CarePoint Christ Hospital CEO Marie Duffy  2 / 2  IBEW Local 164 deliver supplies to CarePoint Hoboken CEO Ann Logan ❮ ❯ ×  1 / 2  IBEW Local 164 members deliver supplies to CarePoint Christ Hospital CEO Marie Duffy  2 / 2  IBEW Local 164 deliver supplies to CarePoint Hoboken CEO Ann Logan ❮ ❯ IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) Local 164, donated $50,000 in PPE to seventeen hospitals in Bergen, Hudson, and Essex counties. The donations consisted of KN95 masks, gowns, hand sanitizer, and food.“On behalf of IBEW Local 164 and our 3,000 members, thank you to all of our hospitals for your courage and leadership during these trying times,” said Business Manager Daniel Gumble. “Your experience and expertise saved countless lives and your work brought pride to our community. As this pandemic continues, IBEW Local 164 will continue to support you in any way we can.”center_img “At this time, we have beaten this virus back, but the fight is not over. We are hopeful these supplies will ensure you will be sufficiently stocked up for the second wave we all fear,” said Assistant Business Manager Thomas Sullivan.“We could not be more thankful to IBEW Local 164 for their generous donation of KN95 masks, gowns, hand sanitizer, and food for our staff,” said Deborah Visconi, CEO, Bergen New Bridge Medical Center. “Support and donations from organizations like IBEW Local 164 are helping our frontline heroes provide outstanding care to our community and we are deeply grateful to them.IBEW Local 164 is an electrical union based in Paramus, with more than 3,000 current members who live and work in Bergen, Hudson, and Essex counties.last_img read more

hobkuhsm

Video masterclass: Rose Macarons

first_imgTim Kinnaird of Macarons and More, shows British Baker how to maximise their profits on Valentine’s Day with Rose Macarons.For more information on Macarons and More, visit: www.macaronsandmore.comMusic: Wheels by Jason Shaw (Creative Commons licence)YouTube link: http://youtu.be/vndmhZwgr8ERECIPE: Rose Macarons (makes approx 30 macarons)IngredientsShells200g ground almonds200g caster sugar47g water200g icing sugar145g liquid egg whites10ml pink colouringFillingRose water200g unsalted butter at room temperature200g icing sugarMethod1. Pre-heat oven to 150˚C 2. Mix 75g of the egg white with the almonds, icing sugar and colouring. Mix until smooth and all ingredients incorporated.3. Line a baking sheet with baking parchment or silicon mat. 4. Put the remaining egg whites in a bowl of freestanding mixer. Heat the caster sugar and water in a pan until 115˚C. Start whisking the egg whites on a slow speed.5. When the sugar syrup reaches 118˚C, pour gently onto the whisking egg whites. Increase the speed of the whisking and continue until thick meringue with stiff peaks – but still warm – approx 50˚C6. Fold meringue into the almond and sugar mixture, then beat slightly until it’s the consistency of lava.7. Pipe 3.5cm circles of batter onto baking parchment.8. Place in oven and turn heat off for 4 mins. After 4 mins turn heat back up to 150˚C for 8-9mins9. Remove from oven and leave to cool for 30 mins off the tray.10. Beat the butter and icing sugar together and thin the mix with milk until smooth. Add rose water to taste11. Sandwich two shells together with the buttercream12. Place in the fridge for 24 hours before eating. 13. Bring them back up to room temperature before eating.last_img read more

hobkuhsm

Speech: Chief of the Defence Staff at Air Power Conference – 12 Jul 18

first_imgGreat privilege to have the chance to be with you in this the RAF’s 100th Year and my first conference as Chief of the Defence Staff – I’m 4 weeks in and rapidly building my tri-Service knowledge – and it was very helpful for me on Tuesday in terms of understanding some aircraft recognition and that sensational flypast that we saw.And it’s been quite a week really – the first death of a British citizen on British soil from nerve agent poisoning, dynamic politics at home and internationally, a pivotal NATO summit – and sadly football’s not coming home just yet.These are demanding times that seem to become more demanding every year – and the resources don’t become any easier. Meanwhile, the strategic context is complex and dynamic, and the threats that were identified in our 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review have diversified, proliferated and intensified rather more rapidly than we anticipated. The upshot is a global playing field characterised by constant competition and confrontation, which has increasingly assertive and aggressive states, utilising techniques below the threshold of what we would once have called conventional war, all of which is overlaid by the threat of terrorism from violent extremist organisations – hence we are presented with challenges on multiple fronts.This is felt in every domain, but it is particularly marked in the Air Domain with six Air Expeditionary Wings deployed, involving some 16 missions in some 28 different countries across five continents. And these missions are also remarkably varied, from sustaining a now four-year task of countering violent extremism in the Middle East, requiring great precision and integration; and as we saw in April, the need to take markedly greater risk in response to the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons; and in Europe the 24/7 task of protecting our air space, requiring a high degree of readiness and responsiveness, as well as contributing forces to NATO Air Policing.Resolving this challenge requires us to mobilize to match the threats of today, while in tandem ‘wing-walking’, which I will come back to, to a modernized future with a horizon of say 2030, enabled, in Defence’s case, by a multi-year transformation programme that places Defence on a more sustainable footing, and will enable us to run the ‘business’ better – not least by properly defining Jointery as the integration of the domains to achieve an output that adds up to far more than the sum of the parts.This level of commitment inevitably begs questions about prioritisation, about long-term sustainability and about the importance of striking the right balance between ‘fight tonight’ and ‘fight tomorrow’. Particularly as it’s rarely possible nowadays to retain forces as dedicated contingent capability – we are now far more likely to recommit forces that are already deployed. The problem though is compounded by the nature of the threat.But there are also some difficult questions being posed about the evolving character of warfare in which our state-based competitors have become masters at exploiting the seams between peace and war – what constitutes a weapon in this grey area no longer has to go ‘bang’ – energy, cash, corrupt business practices, cyber attacks, assassination, fake news, propaganda – and good old-fashioned military intimidation – are all examples of the weapons used to gain advantage in this era of ‘constant competition’; and the rules-based international architecture that has assured our stability and prosperity since 1945 is, I would suggest, therefore threatened.To be clear, we face a strategic challenge that requires a strategic response – we will fail if we see this as a series of crises.The deduction we should draw from this – is that there is no longer two clear distinct states of ‘peace’ and ‘war’ – we now have several forms – indeed the character of war and peace is different for each of the contexts in which these ‘weapon systems’ are applied. And the risk we run in not defining this clearly, and acting accordingly, is that rather like a chronic contagious disease, it will creep up on us, and our ability to act will be markedly constrained – and we’ll be the losers of this competition.While not alone in employing these techniques, the arch exponent of this is Russia – probably the most complex and capable state-based threat to our way of life since the end of the Cold War – and recapping on Russia’s approach provides a useful lens through which to view this type of challenge. In so doing we should recognise that they have no single model for conflict. They use a multi model approach – utilising conventional, unconventional and nuclear domains – a hybrid version that might involve little green men, big green tanks and huge green missiles.Their thinking is very flexible – their General Staff is able to change, evolve, learn lessons with agility – for example they know that demography is not on their side – so they are developing capability that needs fewer men. They have developed coherent concepts of equipment and training that are focused on our vulnerabilities – for example, our dependency on technology, space and digital communications; our lack of massed fires; and so on and so forth.They apply a ruthless focus on defeating their opponents – not seizing ground for the sake of it – but making sure that our vital ground and our long assumed freedom to project power as we see fit is denied to us, and this has major implications for the Air domain – I shall return to their missile capability in a moment. Since 2016 we have seen a marked shift to cyber, subversion and coercion as well as sophisticated use of smear campaigns and fake news – for example interference in the US democratic process and the attempted coup in Montenegro.Chris Donnelly at the Institute for Statecraft suggests that they are creating new strategic conditions – their current influence and disinformation campaign is a form of ‘system’ warfare that seeks to de-legitimise the political and social system on which our military strength is based – and undermine our centre of gravity which they rightly assess is our political cohesion.China is also developing its military capabilities, reported recently in the open press that it is expanding its expeditionary capability to, I quote, “manage a crisis, contain a conflict, win a war” – developments include the testing of stealth and anti-stealth technology, and the application of information technology in all aspects of military operations is becoming ever more prominent.Now I’m not in any way suggesting that Russia, or any other of these state-based threats wants to go to war in the traditional definition of the term – rather it is the risk of escalation leading to miscalculation that is the greatest threat, as we don’t have the same level of understanding that we had in the Cold War, and the tried and tested systems and diplomatic instruments are not what they were – confidence building measures, arms reduction negotiations, public monitoring and inspection of each others’ military activity etc. But that said we should be wary of bigging them up too much – remember what we found at the end of the Cold War.This then is the context in which we are conducting the Modernizing Defence Programme.There are two major themes to this: the compelling need to mobilize rapidly to meet the threats I have described, while in parallel modernizing for what the future may bring, with the latter being enabled by a multi-year transformation programme that I referred to earlier, that will lead to the ‘business’ of Defence being managed very differently in ten years-time.Starting with mobilization, this envisages much improved readiness – recognising this is about speed of recognition, speed of decision making and speed of assembly. It’s about resilience and lethality – and the important thing, it’s about demonstrating that we are prepared to fight the war we might have to fight, because that is the best way of deterring that war from happening.The NATO Readiness Initiative seeks to do just this, linked to an exercise rhythm that increases the base load of activity so that the foundation of readiness is much higher. But it’ got to become much more integrated and much more joint by design. At the moment the domains work in stovepipes, we must pull them more closely together. It’s also about forward basing, stockpiles, much improved resilience and getting serious about rapid deployability. It’s about giving real meaning to the SDSR statement that we would be ‘international by design’. And it is tremendous to see in this auditorium today the extent to which our allies and partners are with us. We have a number of bilateral and multilateral relationships as Armed Forces – for example the recent signing of the UK Joint Expeditionary Force Comprehensive Memorandum of Understanding is a significant step in working together to develop genuine interoperability which will be a force multiplier.As a lead framework nation, the UK must enable interoperability by providing technical systems that are extrovert by nature so that our partners have the sockets they can plug into for shared situational awareness, for a common operating picture, and for the coordination of digital joint fires. But deep interoperability is built on long-term relationships, developed by exercising together, testing doctrine and tactics together, and building mutual trust and understanding.International by design is also about delivering more capability in partnership with Allies. We see that in the Land domain with general support engineering with the Bundeswehr in Germany, and the international collaboration with the US Navy and Norway on maritime patrol aircraft – partnerships of this kind deliver economies of scale and generate a higher operational tempo than we could achieve on our own.And as we mobilize we must think creatively – it is not about matching an adversary’s strength with strength, but thinking about how to out-manoeuvre him by threatening his vulnerabilities, by holding what he cares about at risk and by thinking laterally and asymmetrically. This will likely involve prioritizing some new capabilities – such as those that will allow us to manoeuvre in the information domain to create information advantage, enhancing our range of capabilities in cyber, space, electronic warfare and information operations – and to build our own resilience and protect our critical national infrastructure and other vulnerabilities – such as our networks, such as CBRN, and survivability – all working within a cross-Government framework to utilise all of the levers of national power.And we must build our strategic depth – seizing the opportunity that the newly amended Data Protection Act allows, for us to retain effective contact with those ex-Regulars who are statutorily liable for mobilization. And in due course, starting next year, conduct routine mobilization exercises for the Reserve and the Regular Reserve, with Ministerial engagement, as we used to in days gone by.Rarely are there any purely military solutions, so we must maximize Defence’s contribution within the idea of ‘Global Britain’ and in a cross-Whitehall context for best strategic effect. This means thinking of ways to generate more points of presence, making more productive use of those capabilities that are not designed for the higher levels of risk associated with war-fighting scenario. Holding these at a lower ‘war-fighting’ readiness and utilising them on tasks to generate understanding and build relationships, to enable soft power to have effect, building institutions, capacity and resilience in nations that matter to us – as well as countering the agendas of our competitor states … not least in Africa – which will be a source of significant instability by 2030 if nothing is done.In tandem with mobilizing – we must get the right balance between ‘fight tonight’ and ‘fight tomorrow’ – hence the importance of placing the right emphasis on modernization.As Richard Susskind advised in his book ‘The Future of the Professions: How Technology will Transform the work of Human Experts’ – the best way to predict the future is to invent it. The Chief Scientific Adviser, who I think you will hear from later this morning, identified what he calls ‘big bets.’It is reasonable to assume that information technology – sensors, computing, communications, cyber, machine learning, artificial intelligence and autonomy and so on – will continue to evolve apace and that information manoeuvre, which enables information advantage is already a domain in its own right. This will clearly be at the heart of modernisation – and it is absolutely vital that we establish the information architecture to provide the open systems framework for all of our capability.In the underwater battle space, new information technologies will revolutionise detection, tracking and understanding of potential threats – using advanced machine learning methods for acoustic signal processing and increasing the use of autonomous systems for mine control measures and fleet protection.In the land domain, resilient communication networks combined with pervasive, organic and real-time intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance will give unprecedented understanding and situational awareness. Combining this with modern effects – directed energy, electromagnetic attack, delivery of tactical offensive cyber – will substantially contribute to war-fighting mass and deterrent effect.Future air power will also be driven by information advantage and its application in enabling understanding, protection and effect. Situational awareness must increasingly be delivered through fusion of data from multiple sensors on multiple platforms and organic distribution to all of the force – with implications for spectrum management, communication, algorithmic warfare and autonomy.At the same time modern concepts of multi-functional antennas mean that platforms must simultaneously become sensors, communication networks, directed-energy attack vectors and deliverers of cyber effect. The needs of air survivability and our ability to project power by countering anti-area-access denial will drive a further step change in the use of information and physical technology – autonomy, shared information and the mixed role of air platforms and future complex weapon systems.The joint force though must also expand to include all of government in enabling the nation to deter and defeat the full spectrum of threats and actors. The role of information technology here is profound – from bringing together understanding and situational awareness through advanced data fusion, through the use of machine learning and artificial intelligence to recommend courses and consequences of actions, to the delivery of a range of non-traditional deterrent effects.We also know that automation and AI will change the make up of the future force, with it being increasingly made up of different types of people on different types of engagements, shared across similar sectors in the UK, thus ensuring that we can access the skills and talent we need to fight and win in the future. The force structure will need to be as adaptable as possible, whilst maintaining the core of war fighting professionalism.None of this will surprise any of you in this room, we’ve heard this sort of thing before – and you will recognise that the challenge is how we actually make it happen. And it must be different this time – it must be led from the top and it must be properly resourced. Above all we have to establish a culture of innovation – if you like, an open architecture and a Defence portfolio – in which we unlock the ingenuity and talent of every level in Defence. This means creating the headroom for experimentation, providing a laboratory in which we can test ideas and ‘wing walk’ our way towards a modernized future. This audience will understand the metaphor – moving on the wings of an airframe during flight – but keeping one foot on the airframe while you do it. It requires an appetite for risk, and a preparedness to accept some failure.There are good examples of innovation in all the domains – particularly in the RAF’s Rapid Capabilities Office – ‘Team Tempest’ – which is achieving much with the BriteCloud expendable active decoy and the improvements to end-to-end manufacture of advanced flares. We now need to take this I would suggest to a new level.Not least because experimenting in this way would enable a very different relationship with industry – a shared approach to risk and opportunity – with innovation at the heart of procurement. It would encourage external investment, venture capital and a culture that contracted for through life outcomes, rather than setting tightly specified requirements that stifle development.This is a feature of Philip Dunne’s report, that was published this week, in which he talks of modernizing our approach to acquisition, increasing our agility and pace, and adopting a culture more focused on finding the right procurement solutions, and less on defining and avoiding obstacles at the outset. This requires us to develop better understanding of how defence requirements and the market interact and shape each other.Despite the changing character of warfare, the nature of war does not change – it remains a human endeavor, and there will inevitably be some Industrial Age capabilities in our Armed Forces come 2030. So as we mobilize to face the threats of today, and place ever greater emphasis on modernizing – we should remember the wise advice of our most eminent military historian Sir Michael Howard when he observed: “the trick is not to perfectly predict the future, but to be not too far wrong when war breaks out, so that one is well prepared to adapt at speed”.And we must never forget that war is about fighting – so the context for all our effort must be about preparing to fight the war we might have to fight – because as I said earlier, in so doing we will deter that war from ever happening. And this was at the forefront of Lord Trenchard’s vision 100 years ago. As you thing about the Next Generation Air Force I’m going to present you with a deadly serious – and practical task. You have just heard me say, as I have said before, that we face a series of very grave challenges to adapt – so that we can cope with the threats that the future, both near and far term, may throw at our country with little warning.We will not defeat these new threats by rebuilding our old Defence system, buying a few more pieces of equipment, filling some gaps in our recruiting. We need to embrace the radical changes of the modern world and meet these challenges with new, creative thinking; by taking risks; by finding new ways to expand our Forces effectively in time of urgent need; by adapting tools we have to new, unforeseen tasks; by defeating any enemy asymmetrically – not attritionally.The task I am setting all of you, therefore is not to design a new force structure; not to invent new weapons; not to create a new concept of Air Power. No – it is to create, invent, design, introduce, at every level of command, new ways of thinking, new forms of leadership and management that will enable us to embrace new ideas, to integrate and exploit new technologies, transforming our current system into something which is permanently innovative, adaptable, responsive and proactive.I do not want to hear new ready-made answers; I need to hear new ways of finding answers for future, unforeseeable threats, and new ways for us to keep on finding answers. This is much more difficult and painful, I know, because it needs us to change the way we think, act, acquire equipment, exercise command and lead. We are at, I think, a paradigm shift in the character of conflict: we need to change the way we do things fundamentally.This is the essence of modernizing Defence. Fail to change now and our adversaries, slowly but surely, will overcome us, they will erode and finally overturn the democratic, rules based, stable system under which we have all lived comfortably for nigh on three generations. I fear our 70-year long holiday from history may well be over – and we all have a job to do to fix it.last_img read more

hobkuhsm

David Byrne Documentary To Debut At Tribeca Film Festival

first_imgThe selections for this year’s Tribeca Film Festival were just announced, catching the eye of film lovers everywhere. For us music aficionados, one entry certainly stood out: “Contemporary Color.” The documentary covers David Byrne’s unique event that paired color guard teams with popular artists like St. Vincent, Nelly Furtado, Ad-Rock and more.Conceived by Byrne, the unique event took place last summer at NYC’s Barclays Center, and is the prime focus of the new film. Directed by Bill Ross and Turner Ross, you can watch a teaser of the event below:Best of luck Mr. Byrne![H/T NYTimes]last_img read more

hobkuhsm

Electric Forest Announces Artist Lineups For Both Weekends In 2018

first_img[Cover photo via Electric Forest website] Last night, after beginning to leak their lineup through puzzles at a November pop-up show, Electric Forest announced the initial artist lineups for both of their festival weekends next summer, set to take place June 21- June 24 and June 28 – July 1, respectively. This marks the event’s second year in its expanded, two-weekend format.Electric Forest Starts Unveiling 2018 Lineup With Crazy Puzzles At Pop-Up ConcertThe 2018 Electric Forest headliners include two weekends of host band The String Cheese Incident, Bassnectar, GRiZ Live Band, RÜFÜS DU SOL, and Zhu. Galantis will join the bill for weekend one, and Marshmello and Testpilot (Deadmau5‘s live mixed techno project) will be added for weekend two. Other weekend one-only acts include Lil Dicky, Green Velvet, Jauz, Keys N Krates, Washed Out, A Tribe Called Red, Andy Frasco & The U.N., Devin The Dude, Maddy O’Neal, Shook Twins, and a DJ set from Totally Enormous Extinct Dinosaurs. Other Second weekend-only additions include Datsik, Get Real, Rezz, SuperDuperKyle, Fruition, and many more.The rest of the two-weekend acts include Bonobo (Live), Chromeo, Cut Copy, The Glitch Mob, Xavier Rudd, Aqueous, Big Something, Cherub, Desert Dwellers, Cory Henry & The Funk Apostles, Emancipator, Eoto, Karl Denson’s Tiny Universe, Manic Focus, Marvel Years, Muzzy Bearr, Natalie Cressman, Noname, PHO, Sinkane, Sunsquabi, Space Jesus, The Main Squeeze, The Nth Power, The Russ Liquid Test, The Werks, Too Many Zooz, Toubab Krewe, Turkuaz, and a slew of others.Wristbands and Lodging Packages for both weekends will be available to all on December 15, and 2018 Loyalty On Sales begin for returning Forest Family as soon as December 7. For more information on loyalty tickets and more, head here.You can check out the full artist announcement from Electric Forest below. For more information on the 2018 events, head to the Electric Forest website.last_img read more

hobkuhsm

F. Murray Abraham & Stockard Channing Will Join It’s Only a Play

first_img View Comments Stockard Channing It’s Only a Play It’s Only a Play is set on the opening night of Broderick’s character Peter Austin’s new play, as he anxiously awaits to see if his show is a hit. With his career on the line, he shares his big First Night with his best friend, a television star (Lane), his fledgling producer (Mullally), his erratic leading lady (Channing), his wunderkind director, an infamous drama critic, and a wide-eyed coat check attendant on his first night in Manhattan. There’s no business like show business. Star Files Show Closed This production ended its run on June 7, 2015center_img Matthew Broderick Nathan Lane Oscar winner F. Murray Abraham and Tony winner Stockard Channing will return to the Great White Way in a newly revised version of Terrence McNally’s It’s Only a Play, joining the previously announced Tony winners Nathan Lane, Matthew Broderick and Emmy winner Megan Mullally (who revealed her involvement earlier this week). Micah Stock will also appear in the comedy in his Broadway debut. Jack O’Brien will direct the production, which is set to begin performances this fall at the Gerald Schoenfeld Theatre. Opening night is set for October 9. Additional casting will be announced at a later date. Abraham received an Oscar for his performance as Salieri in the film adaptation of Amadeus. He most recently appeared on Broadway in Mauritius; his additional stage credits include Triumph of Love, A Month in the Country, Angels in America and Macbeth. Channing took home a Tony for Joe Egg and has been nominated for her performances in Other Desert Cities, Pal Joey, The Lion in Winter, Four Baboons Adoring the Sun, Six Degrees of Separation and The House of Blue Leaves. Related Showslast_img read more

hobkuhsm

The diamondback moth

first_imgBy Brad HaireUniversity of GeorgiaWould you buy turnip greens riddled with holes nibbled by insects? No, and that’s why Georgia produce farmers battle them. Unfortunately, one of the toughest in the world calls Georgia home.At the very least, the diamondback moth is resilient. At most, it can be unstoppable, said Alton “Stormy” Sparks, a vegetable entomologist with the University of Georgia Cooperative Extension.Given enough time and opportunity, this insect pest can overcome anything. And it feeds exclusively on cabbage, leafy greens and other related crops, which are worth about $53 million each year in Georgia.”It doesn’t take a lot of damage to make leafy greens unmarketable,” Sparks said. “Consumers tolerate little damage to the cabbage, collards, mustard or other leafy greens they buy in grocery stores.”The diamondback moth, or DBM, has a bundle of biological abilities that allow it to overcome insecticides, the main tool used to fight them. In fact, only one other insect in the world, the green peach aphid, can do it as well or better, he said. This aphid is in Georgia but doesn’t cause much trouble.Farmers have thrown dozens of insecticides across many chemical classes at the DBM over the past half-century, Sparks said. It has developed resistance to every one.A DBM doesn’t mutate to resist insecticides, he said. It overcomes them through a process known as resistance selection. Like a person whose genetic makeup may help him fight disease, a DBM in a population may have the one inherited DNA quirk that stops an insecticide from hurting it.Take a cabbage field in south-central Georgia, where most leafy greens are grown. The grower notices too many DBM caterpillars beginning to feed on the field. He sprays the field with the latest, most effective spray to stop them. The spray handles almost all of the DBMs, but a few have an inherited-by-chance DNA quirk to not be hurt by that insecticide that day.Those caterpillars develop, do what they do and make more caterpillars, passing on the quirk. In the heat of summer, a DBM can go from birth to giving birth in just two weeks. So the new, resistant population quickly begins to grow, live and thrive in the field.”I’ve seen entire cabbage fields harrowed up because the diamondback moths got completely out of control,” he said.Growers can go from spraying a few times in a few months to spraying twice a week or more in an effort to stop DBMs. This control can cost millions of dollars each year in Georgia. An average insecticidal spray costs a grower $20 per acre. Georgia grows roughly 21,000 acres of leafy greens per year.To overcome resistance selection, growers rotate several insecticides to try to kill all DBM caterpillars in a field. There are currently only three they can use.Sparks said a host-free period, or a time when no leafy greens are grown in Georgia during the summer, would help. With no food, DBM populations would decrease drastically statewide.But this would be hard to start, with economics playing a major role. Georgia growers have a market advantage and can grow leafy greens almost year-round.DBMs sometimes completely disappear in Georgia, with no obvious reason. Although scientists around the world have studied them for decades, there’s more to be learned.”A lot of my time is spent evaluating chemistries to fight diamondback moths and developing programs to educate growers on best management strategies for them,” Sparks said.He’s testing the effectiveness of new insecticides now that chemical companies want to sell growers to fight DBMs in Georgia. But he knows the moth will likely develop resistance to them, too, eventually.”With proper resistance management,” he said, “we hope to delay the development of resistance as long as possible.”last_img read more

hobkuhsm

Sixth Circuit opens resource center

first_imgSixth Circuit opens resource center Sixth Circuit opens resource center A third Courts Information and Resource Center has been opened by the Sixth Judicial Circuit in the Criminal Justice Center in Clearwater, offering procedural assistance for those who represent themselves in family law cases.All three Sixth Circuit centers offer forms and information on how to handle various pro se filings in family law matters.Legal advice is not offered at any of the three centers, said Cathy Fullerton, manager of circuit’s alternative dispute resolution program. Fullerton said the centers are for use by persons in family cases involving issues such as dissolution of marriage, child support, paternity, visitation and custody.In addition to the newly opened center on 49th Street North in the law library of the Criminal Justice Center, forms and procedural assistance also are available in Room 729 of the 501 Building, adjacent to the South County Courthouse on First Avenue North in St. Petersburg, and in Room 111 of the Historic Old Courthouse on Ft. Harrison Avenue in Clearwater.All three centers have approved forms for family law cases and offer basic procedural information for filing those forms. Although the circuit clerk’s office does not have a civil division at the Criminal Justice Center, it does accept such paperwork for transfer to the appropriate civil office, where it will be filed, Fullerton said.Emphasizing that the centers are not for the purpose of providing legal advice, Fullerton said lists of legal clinics offering services in north and south county are available at all three centers.center_img October 15, 2002 Regular Newslast_img read more

hobkuhsm

IOC, Olympics organisers parley on Executive Project Review

first_img Promoted Content9 Facts You Should Know Before Getting A TattooThe Very Last Bitcoin Will Be Mined Around 2140. Read MoreBirds Enjoy Living In A Gallery Space Created For Them5 Of The World’s Most Unique Theme ParksTop 10 Most Romantic Nations In The WorldWho Is The Most Powerful Woman On Earth?5 Reasons To Wait For The Solo Black Widow Movie9 Fictional Universes We Wouldn’t Want To Live InCouples Who Celebrated Their Union In A Unique, Unforgettable Way7 Ways To Understand Your Girlfriend BetterWhat Happens When You Eat Eggs Every Single Day?Best & Worst Celebrity Endorsed Games Ever Made FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmail分享 Loading… Tokyo Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (Tokyo 2020) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) met on Thursday for an Executive Project Review via teleconference. IOC chief Thomas Bach announcing unprecedented decision to postpone Tokyo Games on Tuesday IOC Coordination Commission Chair John Coates and Olympic Games Executive Director Christophe Dubi joined Tokyo 2020 President MORI Yoshiro and CEO MUTO Toshiro for the meeting. During the productive discussion, Tokyo 2020 and the IOC agreed on the following framework, that will govern preparations for the postponed Games: The process to deliver the Games in 2021 is overseen by a Joint Steering Committee which is led by IOC Coordination Commission Chair John Coates and Tokyo 2020 President MORI Yoshiro. The Committee will include Tokyo 2020 CEO MUTO Toshiro and IOC Olympic Games Executive Director Christophe Dubi. The meetings of the Joint Steering Committee will be held whenever necessary, in order to ensure permanent coordination and efficient decision-making. Supporting this Joint Steering Committee, Tokyo 2020 and the IOC will each have their own respective task forces: the “Here we go” Task Force on the IOC side, and the “New Launch” Task Force on the Tokyo 2020 side. The key elements of the planning for 2021 should replicate the existing Games Delivery Plan for 2020. Particular focus will be placed on the venues and the competition schedule, which were originally agreed by all stakeholders as the best plan for the 2020 edition. On this basis, the Japanese side including Tokyo 2020 will request that each planned venue owner organises the Games according to this schedule on the new dates in 2021. The Japanese side will also seek understanding for these preparations. On the basis of Olympic Agenda 2020, the IOC, the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) and all Olympic and Paralympic Movement stakeholders, in conjunction with Japanese side including the Tokyo 2020 Organising Committee, will explore all opportunities to optimise and streamline the scope and service levels at the Games, and reduce the costs that have been caused by the postponement. The IOC and the Japanese side, including the Tokyo 2020 Organising Committee, will continue to assess and discuss jointly about the respective impacts caused by the postponement. A number of measures addressing the potential impact of COVID-19 will be incorporated into the Games Delivery Plan for the Games in 2021. The details of planning for Tokyo 2020 in 2021 are being examined this month with a view to establishing a new roadmap for the Games by May 2020, in order to then align resources and priorities accordingly. Speaking after the meeting, IOC Coordination Commission Chair John Coates said, “Since the postponement of Tokyo 2020 to 2021 was agreed a few weeks ago, the strong spirit of collaboration between the IOC, the IPC, the Olympic Movement, Tokyo 2020 and the Japanese authorities has already allowed us to bring some clarity and certainty to athletes, fans and stakeholders around the world. The principles outlined today will allow us to continue in this spirit, and to answer the many questions that remain, in as efficient a manner as possible. read also:Tokyo Olympics: Nigerian athletes get lifeline, as Dare hails IOC We believe that the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020 can stand as a beacon of hope to the world during these troubled times, and that the Olympic flame can be the light at the end of the tunnel in which the world finds itself at present. The Joint Steering Committee will give its all to ensure that this is the case.”last_img read more