first_imgBy Dialogo September 16, 2009 Me parece que si bien es cierto el problema es una herencia del pasado,No se han tomado las medidas adecuadas; 1o. Los nombramientos en Seguridad publica han sido de dedo, comenzando con Sr. Ministro y el director de la PNC,Quienes no tienen ninguna cualidad para el combate a la delincuencia, a pesar que formaron parte de la Ex-Guerrilla, asi el director de la PNC, su cualidad haber sido jefe de columna de la Ex-guerrilla, de esa forma el Presidente Funes y su gobierno no podran combatir a las bandas criminales,llamadas Maras y Narcotrafico. Finalmente quieren involucrar a la Fuerza Armada lo cual sera un tiro de gracia para esta Institucion la cual estan haciendo desaparecer por via presupuesto, sino veamos los ultimos anuncios para el año 2010, tendran 30 millones menos, en cambio a la policia le aumentan. La solucion esta en hacer una reestructuracion de la politica de seguridad publica, la cual integre a los actores nacionales, en el combate a la delincuencia. The president of El Salvador, Mauricio Funes, considered insecurity to be the “greatest threat” affecting his country and the rest of Central America. “We should view insecurity as the greatest threat of El Salvador, and unfortunately, of all our Central American region as well,” Funes affirmed in a speech commemorating the 188th anniversary of El Salvador’s independence from the Spanish crown. He noted that the “Central American fatherland has been transformed into a route and a destination for drug trafficking and organized crime,” which, he said, “has become one of the great dangers for democratic society.” “And we should admit that on this terrain the policies implemented and actions taken to fight these plagues have been a series of failures. As a result, we know that this struggle is not won in isolation,” Funes indicated, after depositing a floral offering at the Monument to the Fathers of the Country in Liberty Park, in the center of San Salvador. In this context, he proposed developing within El Salvador’s borders “strict and strong policies articulated with the other countries in the region,” although he warned that insecurity is “too complex a subject to try to treat it with simple prescriptions.” Official figures indicate that between ten and twelve murders are reported daily in El Salvador, the most recent cases being those of a public-transportation driver and his assistant, who died on Monday in the locality of Ilopango, and four corpses found in a vehicle in San Salvador. For Funes, this process, “which began some years ago,” has “been growing and and growing and has taken over the communities, the cantons, the streets of the whole country.” “It’s not only a quantifiable phenomenon that comes and goes; the drama of insecurity, with its daily tragic manifestations and its impact on our lives, is an existential factor,” he lamented. He attributed this complex of problems to the “permanence of structural situations” like poverty, social exclusion, emigration, inequality, and lack of opportunities, as well as to the “great crisis of values” and the “aftereffects, still not analyzed and overcome, of the civil war that consumed so many lives in this country.” Funes met at the end of August with representatives of business, the academy, the Catholic Church, and the diplomatic corps, among others, to invite them to accompany his administration’s fight against crime. During the meeting, he indicated that his administration is not “standing with its arms folded” in the face of this plague, according to a statement issued by the President’s Office. The National Civil Police (PNC) revealed that 384 homicides were reported in May. The number dropped to 362 cases in June and again to 346 cases in July, and 278 deaths were reported through 26 August, according to the official statement. Figures from the Attorney General’s Office indicate that 2,265 complaints of extortion were filed through 6 August, a 55-percent increase compared to the same period in 2008. The majority of crimes are attributed to members of the “Mara-18” and “Mara Salvatrucha” gangs, which originated in the United States and spread to El Salvador in the late 1980s as a result of deportations of Salvadorans in contact with the gangs.last_img read more

first_imgShare Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest By Emily UnglesbeeDTN Staff ReporterMONHEIM, Germany (DTN) — At Bayer’s annual Future of Farming Dialogue underway in Germany, company executives are touting their new pricing model, outcome-based pricing, as the potential pricing paradigm of the future.The model involves Bayer setting an expected yield outcome for a product or seed, based on a farm’s data and history stored on the company’s digital ag platform, FieldView, as well as the company’s own research on their products. If a farmer’s final yield falls below that expected value, the company will rebate a certain portion of the original price of the product. If the yield instead surpasses the initial set value, the farmer shares a pre-agreed portion of that additional income with the company.Many farmers have posed questions and expressed concerns regarding aspects of the model on social media this week. So DTN sat down in Germany with Sam Eathington, chief science officer of The Climate Corporation, a subsidiary of Bayer, to address these questions.Here is the resulting Q&A, lightly edited for clarity.Q: What is the status of Bayer’s outcome-based pricing model in the U.S. today?A: Bayer launched the pilot in 2019 to provide farmers the opportunity to make data-based decisions to optimize their resources, inputs and yield potential while managing risk on their farms. It’s a pilot project and we’re learning ourselves if we can create a model where there is more risk protection and opportunity to share more upside. How would that work? How would it be structured?Q: Will this become a mandatory pricing structure for all Bayer customers in the future?A: The simple way to answer that is we’re not forcing a farmer to do anything. They clearly have choice in how they want to buy inputs and who they want to buy them from. It’s not a mandate. I think there will be a whole distributional response among farmers out there, that — depending on their financial situation, how they like to buy their inputs, who they want to work with — you can imagine a full range of responses there.We tested a number of different financial models in this pilot this year about how much downside protection the farmer wanted versus how must upside sharing they wanted to do. The farmers could run lots of different scenarios across the farm and choose where they wanted to go. There were caps on some of the models [on the upside], where you can say we’ll share at a certain percentage, and if you go beyond that, we’re not sharing. There were others where we continued to share. So there was a broad range of how the upside and the risk protection varied across the models. A very large percentage of the farmers went to one type of model. It was cool to see how that happened. That’s part of what we’re learning — what is the right balance? Because the downside risk in a bad year can be pretty detrimental to you, so do have to understand what’s the cash flow, what are the bank notes that they have to manage.Q: How will this change how Bayer uses farmers’ data?A: Our data privacy policy is the grower owns their data and they determine who they share it with, whether it’s a seed rep or maybe a fertilizer rep. [What we ask] is if you share it with us, we’re going to use it to build new models that can be used for all the farming community. We’re very transparent about that.With the outcome-based pricing, we did have to do an additional policy with those [participating] farmers, because our current data use policy says we won’t use the data for pricing. That’s one of the things we absolutely call out in Climate FieldView. But now with outcome-based pricing, we need to use the data for pricing. In the pilot this year, we actually went to each and every farmer involved and had a new data privacy policy with them that explicitly said we are going to use this data to figure out pricing, because it’s outcome-based pricing. And in that case, we had over 90% of the farmers we talked to agree to go ahead and participate in the pilot. It’s still their choice. In no way are we mandating that they have to do this.Q: How does the company ensure that the high yields created on a farmer’s field are attributable to the product or seed in question, and how does the company verify those yields?A: There a couple ways in the program to do that. Let’s take fungicide for example; we had a pilot on that this year. In that case, we would say, hey, we think this field would benefit from a fungicide application and we think you’ll get this amount of yield protection if you spray this fungicide. So in those pilots, the protocol was an unsprayed strip in the field. We tried to work with the farmers to say how big it should be, where you should put it in the field — you don’t want it on the edge next to the trees or something like that. You want it in a fair place for both the farmer and the technology. That was all tracked in FieldView. And in that case, you’re just measuring the difference. What is the spray check versus the unsprayed check? And if achieved expectations, then that’s great and if it was below that, then we would rebate them in that program.When you get into some of the more complex ones, like doing a pure outcome-based pricing, then you have to start thinking about how is the combine calibrated, and we worked on that protocol with the farmers. We’re going to still do a true-up with weigh tickets, you know every farmer has to do their APH (actual production history) reporting anyway. So there’s still some checks in the system to make sure it’s really being correct and fair to everybody who is participating. There may be some gaming of the system and that’s part of what we have to learn. But there is new technology like this auto-calibration that a lot of equipment companies are coming with in their combines. Those are really good and it takes that extra complexity out of the farmer’s process. The machine is constantly calibrating itself. I can see technology like that coming along with these sort of programs.Q: How does this model avoid rewarding Bayer for individual farming practices (beyond the company’s seed and products) that might increase or influence yield, such as tiling, crop rotation or tillage practices?A: Think about it this way. Let’s use the tile example. Say a farmer put tile in this field 10 years ago and by putting tile in, they drained the field and it yields better there. So what you would see is their average yield should be increasing and will be at a higher rate over time. Now let’s say we come along and want to do outcome-based pricing. We use their base yield level as the baseline, and we’re saying our technology would give you incremental yield. So if your base is already 200 bpa, and now I think my seed adviser will give you an extra 5 bushels, it’s 205 bpa we’re talking about. I don’t go back to the yield you were getting 10 years ago before you got tiling, say 180 bpa, and try to capture the [difference between] 180 and 200 bpa that you get from tiling. We’re not doing that.The only watch-out then that the program has to account for is if a farmer makes a change in the middle of the process. For example, the history on this field for the last 3 to 4 years of data, there was no tile in the field, but then this fall, they went ahead and put tile in field. Those are the fields we have to actually account for differently because we’re not trying to capture [your investment in tile]. We’re not trying to do that at all. We’re basically saying our technology is bringing you this incremental yield, and that’s what we’re talking about sharing and protecting on the downside. As long as their practice has been consistent the last three or four years, we’re not capturing that potential value.Q: Can growers who participate use competitor products on their fields or are they locked into Bayer-specific products?A: This year’s pilot was mostly on seed and we know more about our seed right now than we do our competitors’. We were using, for example this year, DeKalb corn seed, but if you wanted to use a competitor’s fungicide or herbicide in the program, we didn’t care. We were just doing seed at this point. I think down the road — and we’re not there right now — but as we’re get more and more information, I think you’re going to see a world where there are scenarios about products that give customers more choice and they probably just come with different pricing and risk/reward scenarios. Because we’re going to know more about our products than our competitors’ products, and we might not be willing to guarantee as much [yield] with a competitor’s product. We haven’t figured any of that out. That’s part of the learning process we’re in right now.Q: Will Bayer ever mandate other farming practices beyond seed, chemicals, or other inputs in outcome-based pricing agreements?A: I would say we would never mandate — that’s a pretty harsh word. We would probably give you the best recommendations and then figure out a way financially that it is still your choice, but it’s a financial choice. For example, if we think no-till makes this hybrid yield more and is better, but you say there’s no way I want to do no-till, then we just factor that into our [yield] predictions. Farmers are always going to have choice in the system.Emily Unglesbee can be reached at [email protected] her on Twitter @Emily_Unglesbee(PS/CZ)© Copyright 2019 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.last_img read more

first_imgAbout the authorCarlos VolcanoShare the loveHave your say Barcelona midfielder Busquets relieved with Slavia Prague winby Carlos Volcano2 days agoSend to a friendShare the loveBarcelona midfielder Sergio Busquets admitted relief after their Champions League win over Slavia Prague.Busquets admitted they were made to suffer in the Czech capital. “It’s an important victory,” Busquets said after the win. “We knew we had back-to-back games coming up against them (in Europe) and winning away is always important. It’s really complicated and even group. These three points give us an advantage at the top and we hope to be able to take advantage of that at home in the next game. “(The final minutes) were difficult. We knew they would take risks, put lots of players forward and if we didn’t press it was going to be tough. We had chances but we also suffered quite a bit. They had the game lost and were throwing bodies forward. We had the numbers on the break but we suffered until the end.” On the missed chances, he said: “Sometimes the ball doesn’t want to go in. Our second goal wasn’t the best but it still counts. We have to keep on going.” And on Lionel Messi, who scored the opener, Busquets added: “He’s had a tough start to the season because of injuries. He’s fundamental to the way we play and a lot goes through him. He’s getting his rhythm back but it won’t take him long because he’s the best in the world.” last_img read more

first_imgAPTN National NewsIn Alberta, a Cree man says Edmonton police are not telling the full truth about the Tasering death of another man in police custody.The man says he witnessed the attack and he wants the dead man’s family to know the truth.APTN National News reporter Keith Laboucan brings us more on this story.last_img

first_imgAPTN National NewsMore people are speaking out about the uncomfortable connections between religion and food banks.On Tuesday, APTN had the story of a Winnipeg man, who’s been turned away from a food bank, after raising concerns about their so-called “volunteer life program” that contains lifestyle expectations that volunteers are expected to follow.APTN’s Dennis Ward now reports others are coming forward to say they’ve also felt religion was forced upon them when all they really wanted was food for their family.last_img

In the wake of American Pharoah’s stunning wire-to-wire Triple Crown-clinching victory at the Belmont Stakes on Saturday, I compared him to Secretariat, finding that — despite having one of the finest Triple Crown campaigns ever — American Pharoah still likely would have finished the Belmont well behind his great-great-great-grandfather. Some readers seem to think this was a cheap shot at the slump-busting champion, although you’d think being called second-best to a mutant horse sent from the future would be considered high praise.Secretariat’s 2:24 Belmont time is safe; no other horse has run under 2:26 (even that is about 10 lengths behind Secretariat). Oh, and he still owns the Kentucky Derby and Preakness Stakes records by two to three lengths each. It has been over four decades, and great horses still can’t come close.But what do we make of this? How is it that even the best horse this era has to offer — with a stride so smooth that it borders on poetic — would still finish 13 lengths behind Big Red?Clearly, it’s that Secretariat is overrated.OK, exhale. I’m not trolling you. I’m just being extremely nitty about the marginal shades of “really, really great.” By “overrated,” I certainly don’t mean to imply that Secretariat isn’t the best 3-year-old American racehorse in history — he is. Or that his Belmont run wasn’t one of the most dazzling moments in sports history (I practically sleep with this footage of it under my pillow). I mean simply that one of the key selling points of his unfathomable greatness is slightly undermined by its broader context. Specifically, that his records — did I mention it has been over 40 years? — have lasted so long in part because the quality of thoroughbred racing has plateaued and perhaps even weakened.To illustrate, I’ve charted all the winning times for Triple Crown races at Pimlico, Churchill Downs and Belmont Park (excluding races that were held at alternative venues) over 9.5, 10 or 12 furlongs (the current distances of the Preakness, Derby and Belmont, respectively).1These distances have been paired with these races since 1926. Each race changed its distance at various points before that (for example, the Derby was 12 furlongs from 1875 to 1895). I’ve marked the trend for the winning times for each distance as of Secretariat’s Triple Crown in 1973 (dashed line) and record progression for each distance (solid line). Winning times for all three distances improved fairly steadily through 1973 but have been trending slightly slower since then:It’s as if God saw the perfect race and thought, “OK, I’m done with horses.”Again, for purposes of parsing different shades of awesome, note that in 1973, for all the drama, Secretariat’s records were pretty garden-variety awesome. That is, they weren’t really far off from where we’d expect the progression of records to have led. Indeed, the gap between his record times and the linear (pre-plateau) trend for winning times was reasonably narrow.Which is to say, Secretariat was no Bob Beamon. Beamon’s 1968 long jump in Mexico City beat the previous long jump record by 0.55 meters — which still accounts for 41 percent of the improvement seen in that event’s entire recorded history (and Beamon’s record still stood for only 22 years). Secretariat’s records have stood for this long not because they were so absurd at the time that we have yet to catch up, but because we stopped catching up.For watchers of human sports, this can be hard to interpret. We’re used to top human athletes getting better and better. This is somewhat concealed in competitive and team sports in which opponents’ skill levels offset each other (making millions of bar arguments over the “Greatest of All Time” more interesting). But evidence of athletic progress is laid bare in virtually any discipline that has objective measures, like speed. Here’s a similar chart for men’s 100-meter to 800-meter race winning times at the Olympics:Only Michael Johnson’s 400-meter Olympic record has been around since before the 2008 Beijing Olympics. The single longest standing world record in any IAAF track-and-field event dates back only to 1983. For some athletic disciplines, the constant improvement over time has been so consistent as to be almost creepy.As to why horse racing hasn’t improved the way human racing has, this old FiveThirtyEight article has a good roundup of speculation — including small population size and lack of genetic diversity. The elite genes in the racing gene pool may be drifting overseas, and, in general, thoroughbred racing’s center of gravity may be shifting.All of that serves as a reminder that although we often celebrate horses as athletes, the sport of horse racing isn’t really comparable to human athletics. If it were, a superhorse as super as American Pharoah would be rewriting the record books. read more

Source: Joe Montana1979-945,3919,50413,106 YARDS ABOVE… Jim Kelly1986-964,7792,8156,295 Dan Marino1983-998,35812,04919,029 Brett Favre1991-1010,1695,81613,971 Tony Romo2006-154,3315,3048,414 Warren Moon1984-006,8232,9478,062 Steve Young1985-994,1499,89011,175 Manning (2nd half)2006-155,0478,18412,456 Peyton Manning1998-159,38016,56024,101 Troy Aikman1989-004,7153,2927,035 Dan Fouts1973-875,6047,33511,280 Manning (odd years)1999-154,1757,64811,002 QUARTERBACKYEARSPASS ATT.AVERAGE QBBACKUP QB Aaron Rodgers2005-154,0477,7919,775 John Elway1983-987,2504,9309,793 Ben Roethlisberger2004-155,4235,9219,426 Carson Palmer2004-155,4433,4968,053 Ken Anderson1971-864,4757,0879,162 Roger Staubach1969-792,9586,2847,187 Manning (even years)1998-145,2058,91313,098 Philip Rivers2004-155,3395,1749,217 Drew Brees2001-158,0859,57216,151 After a month of speculation that began almost immediately after the clock expired in his Denver Broncos’ Super Bowl victory over the Carolina Panthers, Peyton Manning has finally made it official: He’s retiring from football after 17 NFL seasons.You don’t need fancy stats to tell you that Manning is one of the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history, if not the greatest. (Granted, we’ve used statistics to describe Manning’s impact a number of times over the years.) But they do help us put his accomplishments in perspective. Much like Jerry Rice, consensus G.O.A.T. among wide receivers, there are two (!) Hall of Fame careers lurking inside Manning’s résumé, according to a variant of Chase Stuart’s all-time QB ranking algorithm:1Setting each passer’s adjusted yards against the replacement level of a backup QB, the same baseline used by Football Outsiders in their Yards Above Replacement metric. Manning (1st half)1998-054,3338,37611,645 Terry Bradshaw1970-833,9012,1124,465 Peyton Manning’s had two Hall of Fame careers Tom Brady2000-157,79212,32718,245 Whether you break Manning’s career into two parts chronologically or based on even- and odd-numbered seasons, each half is of essentially the same quality as a Hall of Fame QB — like, say, Dan Fouts or Steve Young — by itself. Manning had more opportunities to throw the ball than just about anyone, ever, so he’s had an advantage in piling up value over replacement compared with quarterbacks of previous eras. But he also helped shape the NFL into the pass-heavy game it’s become, serving as the ultimate archetype of a modern field general.The end of Manning’s career was ugly — both statistically and in terms of off-field allegations — even if he did cap it off with a Super Bowl title. But in terms of his on-field performance, few QBs could match even half of what Manning accomplished over his storied career. read more

first_imgManchester City winger Leroy Sane has no doubts over Fernandinho’s importance to them following their 2-1 win over LiverpoolThe Brazilian midfielder played his second game since returning from a two-week layoff and put in another outstanding performance as City closed the gap at the top of the Premier League to four points.Fernandinho’s absence coincided with City’s back-to-back defeats to Crystal Palace and Leicester City last month with pundit Paul Merson believing the 33-year-old is key to their title hopes.Sane, who scored the match-winner at the Etihad Stadium to inflict a first league defeat to Liverpool, held out special praise for Fernandinho.Jose Mourinho is sold on Lampard succeeding at Chelsea Tomás Pavel Ibarra Meda – September 14, 2019 Jose Mourinho wanted to give his two cents on Frank Lampard’s odds as the new Chelsea FC manager, he thinks he will succeed.There really…“Everyone knows Fernandinho is important for us,” Sane told CityTV.“He has to defend the ball, win the ball, pass the ball!“He had an amazing game and I’m so pleased he is back for us.”Pep Guardiola’s side will next face Rotherham on Sunday in the FA Cup before taking on Burton in the first leg of their Carabao Cup semi-final clash next week.last_img read more

first_img Categories: Good Morning San Diego, Local San Diego News Tags: Decision 2018 FacebookTwitter Lauren Phinney Lauren Phinney, Updated: 2:55 PM 00:00 00:00 spaceplay / pause qunload | stop ffullscreenshift + ←→slower / faster ↑↓volume mmute ←→seek  . seek to previous 12… 6 seek to 10%, 20% … 60% XColor SettingsAaAaAaAaTextBackgroundOpacity SettingsTextOpaqueSemi-TransparentBackgroundSemi-TransparentOpaqueTransparentFont SettingsSize||TypeSerif MonospaceSerifSans Serif MonospaceSans SerifCasualCursiveSmallCapsResetSave SettingsDemocrat and former Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher is running for termed-out Supervisor Ron Roberts seat in District 4. Lauren Phinney spoke to Fletcher in studio about his campaign.Fletcher dropped out of politics a few years ago after a couple of angst-filled losses while taking flack for switching political parties. Most recently he was working for Qualcomm and teaching a class at UCSD. The urge to serve returned along with a long-term opportunity to end the GOP’s monopoly at the County level.To learn more about Nathan Fletcher, visit: center_img June 4, 2018 Nathan Fletcher running for District 4 Posted: June 4, 2018last_img read more