TORONTO – Bill Morneau says he understands the uncertainty surrounding NAFTA might be causing some companies to hesitate in making investment decisions.The federal finance minister made the comments today when asked about the Bank of Canada’s warning this week that elevated uncertainty over the future of the North American Free Trade Agreement would drive down investment in Canada.Central bank governor Stephen Poloz says companies are becoming increasingly concerned about the unknowns of the ongoing NAFTA talks.Poloz says the uncertainty means firms may decide to redirect their investments south of the border — especially after the U.S. announced major, business-friendly tax reforms.He estimates the trade-policy uncertainty will lower investment by about two per cent by the end of 2019.Speaking in Toronto, Morneau says the concerns reinforce the argument NAFTA has been a big positive for the economy — and that the deal’s benefits are well understood by investors.“Any level of perspective change is something that causes people some pause,” Morneau said following a meeting with Mexican counterpart Jose Antonio Gonzalez Anaya.Negotiators from Canada, Mexico and the U.S. are scheduled to meet next week in Montreal for the sixth round of negotiations.Despite its concerns about NAFTA uncertainty, the Bank of Canada raised its trend-setting interest rate Wednesday for the third time since July following months of healthier-than-expected economic data.Morneau said the rate increase was a reflection of the economy’s strong run.
REDWOOD CITY, Calif. — A large shareholder at Yelp says it’s lost patience with the review site and wants to see the company board reshuffled.In a letter released publicly Monday, SQN Investors said that it wants Yelp Inc. to add some new directors to its board, including shareholder representatives.SQN says it owns more than 4 per cent of Yelp’s shares. It says it believes “the board has failed to hold itself and management accountable for the company’s strategic and operational missteps, repeated missed earnings, lost opportunities and poor corporate governance.”Yelp says it’s committed to keeping an open dialogue with SQN. The company maintained that it’s committed to acting in the best interest of its shareholders, customers and workers.Its shares have fallen almost 10 per cent over the past year.The Associated Press
MONTREAL — Grocery chain Metro Inc. will allow customers to use reusable containers and zipper bags to purchase fresh products in stores across Quebec.The grocery and drug store company says in a statement today it wants to reduce the amount of single-use packaging it sells.Metro Inc. senior vice-president Marc Giroux says the plan is a simple one and allows for customers to bring clean resealable containers and bags from home without compromising product safety or quality.Beginning April 22, customers across the province will be able to use their own packaging at the deli, meat, fish, seafood, pastry and ready-to-eat meal counters.The practice is already being tested in stores in three Quebec cities: Drummondville, L’Ancienne-Lorette and Saint-Eustache.The company says it has set objectives to reduce its environmental impact and is finalizing a packaging and printed materials policy to be introduced this year.Companies in this story: (TSX:MRU)The Canadian Press
22 December 2008Eighty-five Pakistani troops arrived in Darfur during the past two days to bolster the strength of the joint United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force, known as UNAMID, deployed earlier this year to try to end the violence and suffering in the war-ravaged Sudanese region. Another 176 members of the Pakistani Engineering Company are due later this week, bringing the total number of the Company’s members dispatched in Darfur to 335, UN spokesperson Michele Montas told reporters.They will work primarily to finish UNAMID’s “super camp” in El Geneina, West Darfur, expand other camps in Darfur, and build infrastructure and facilities for the peacekeepers, she stated.Two groups of the Ethiopian Logistics Unit also arrived in Darfur over the weekend to help military components with supply, transport, maintenance and force protection. Ethiopia has one Infantry Battalion in Darfur and is expected to deploy another in 2009.Last year, the Security Council authorized the peacekeeping force of about 26,000 uniformed personnel. But only some 10,000 have been deployed, and senior UN officials have repeatedly called on countries to supply the remaining troops and equipment needed. An estimated 300,000 people have been killed and another 2.7 million have been displaced from their homes in Darfur since rebels began fighting Government forces and allied militiamen, known as the Janjaweed, in 2003.
The body of Fabián Ramírez López, 42, was found in the coastal city of Mazatlán on 11 October after an anonymous telephone call to La Magia 97.1, the radio station where he worked. He had last been seen two days earlier on his way to the station.“It is essential for democracy and rule of law that journalists and media workers should be able to continue exercising the basic human right of freedom of expression without fearing for their lives,” said Koïchiro Matsuura, Director-General of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).According to the International Press Institute, a non-governmental organization, six journalists have been killed in Mexico so far this year, making the country one of the most dangerous in the world for media professionals. 21 October 2009The head of the United Nations agency tasked with upholding press freedom today condemned the killing of a radio presenter in Mexico, stressing that the murder affects the whole of Mexican society.
19 September 2010Developments in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Middle East were among the topics discussed today in a meeting between Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. During the talks, Mr. Ban commended Iran for its constructive role in counter-narcotics enforcement activities. He also thanked the country for hosting a large number of refugees, encouraging it to continue supporting their welfare. The Secretary-General expressed hope that Iran will constructively engage in negotiations with the so-called E3+3 – comprising the United Kingdom, the United States, China, France, Germany and Russia – for a mutually acceptable agreement in conformity with relevant Security Council resolutions. During the meeting, Mr. Ban also underscored the importance of respecting fundamental civil and political rights. He also met today with Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki, and two men discussed a range of issues, including Sudan and Somalia. The Secretary-General encouraged Kenya’s Government to continue implementing essential reforms to build a more peaceful and prosperous nation. During his talks with Greek Prime Minister George Papandreous, he encouraged the European nation to continue to help sustain the momentum on the peace process in Cyprus. Mr. Ban discussed the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Hmong returnees, among other issues, with President Choummaly Sayasone of Laos. The MDGs, along with next year’s elections, were also a topic of discussion during the Secretary-General’s meeting with Foreign Minister Jean-Marie Ehouzou of Benin. In his meeting with Kazakhstan’s Foreign Minister Kanat Saudabayev, the Secretary-General thanked the official for his country’s support for the work of the UN Regional Centre for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia (UNRCCA).The Centre was launched at the end of 2007 with the aim of helping the five governments in the region to increase their capacities to peacefully prevent dialogue, facilitate dialogue and respond to cross-border threats and challenges such as terrorism, drug trafficking and environmental degradation. In his meeting with, Prime Minister Sheikh Nasser Mohammed Al-Ahmed Al-Sabah of Kuwait, Mr. Ban acknowledged the important role played by the countryin supporting the work of the UN and the international community in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Middle East and Pakistan.For his part, General Assembly President Joseph Deiss met with the heads of the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the UN Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) and the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).He also held talks with Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Metodiev Borisov.
The High Commission also said that a food embargo and curfew had also been imposed following the assassination of a youth leader in the area.“Kashmir is still reeling from the violence as skirmish between angry protesters and huge contingents of Indian army go unabated. The peaceful assembly was attended by people from all walks of life. The participants urged the Secretary General of the United Nations to encourage, facilitate and support efforts leading to a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir issue in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolutions to ensure resolution of this longstanding unresolved issue,” the Pakistan High Commission said. The Pakistan High Commission said that since 8th July, 2016, Indian forces have killed more than 50 innocent Kashmiris, injured over 3500 and imposed a ban on print and electronic media. The Pakistani community in Sri Lanka staged a protest today opposite the United Nations office in Colombo against alleged abuses in the Indian occupied Kashmir.The Pakistan High Commission in Colombo said that the Kashmir Study Forum in Sri Lanka along with the Pakistani and Sri Lankan community organized the peaceful demonstration to highlight the recent upsurge in extrajudicial killings and human rights violations in the Indian occupied Kashmir by the Indian forces. A memorandum with signatures urging the UN to play its role to resolve the oldest unresolved dispute on the UN agenda since 1947 was also handed over to the UN office. (Colombo Gazette) The participants of the protest expressed their grave concerns about the ongoing killings of civilians by Indian security forces in the towns and villages of Kashmir.
Hizbollah “fired rockets in large numbers from various locations,” the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) said in a news release issued from the Lebanese city of Naqoura. The mission added that the IDF conducted “intensive air strikes and shelling” throughout the mission’s area of operations.There have also been ground exchanges between the two sides in at least 10 locations near the border, from the Mediterranean coast to near the frontier with Syria.UNIFIL stated that Hizbollah fired rockets this morning from close to the UN post in Tibnin, and the IDF responded by carrying out air strikes in the area. A rocket originating from an unknown source landed near a UN post in Hinniyah, and there were two other incidents of Israeli firing – and one other of Hizbollah firing – close to UN positions yesterday, the mission said.There were no injuries or damage to UNIFIL staff or property following these incidents, but the mission “strongly protested all these incidents to the Lebanese and Israeli authorities respectively.”UNIFIL has also been involved in attempts to deliver water and other relief supplies to internally displaced Lebanese, as well as to provide medical assistance and shelter to civilians injured or left homeless in the town of Hula.UNIFIL said it is also working with the Lebanese authorities to try to reopen the road between Tyre and Beirut by installing a provisional bridge – to replace those destroyed by Israeli air strikes – to allow humanitarian convoys to make the journey.According to a statement released yesterday by the UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Lebanon David Shearer, since the conflict erupted on 12 July, about 960 Lebanese, mostly civilians, have been killed. Almost 3,400 others have been injured and more than 915,000 people – or about one quarter of Lebanon’s population – have been forced to leave their homes. In Israel, 95 people have been killed, including 38 civilians, with many more injured.
In a statement, the International Commission of Inquiry on Syria said it wished to clarify that is has not reached any final findings on the use of chemical weapons and “as a result, the Commission is not in a position to further comment on the allegations at this time.”The Commission, which was created in August 2011, comprises Mr. Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, Karen AbuZayd, Carla del Ponte and Vitit Muntarbhorn. It has been mandated by the Geneva-based Human Rights Council to investigate and record all violations of international human rights law during the conflict in Syria.Mr. Pinheiro, Chairperson of the Commission, reminded all parties to the conflict that “the use of chemical weapons is prohibited in all circumstances under customary international humanitarian law.” The Commission is scheduled to issue its findings to the Council on 3 June.Meanwhile, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon renewed his appeal last week for unfettered access to Syria for a separate United Nations team focused specifically on probing the alleged use of chemical weapons during the conflict.That fact-finding team, headed by Swedish scientist Åke Sellström, was launched in late March following a formal request from the Syrian Government. However, it has been on stand-by for a month, pending authorized access from Syrian authorities. Mr. Sellström, according to the Secretary-General’s Spokesman, continues consultations with all the parties, including all concerned Governments, to pursue his investigation. More than 70,000 people, mostly civilians, have been killed, and some 3 million displaced since the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad began in March 2011.
“At a time when there was greatest need for sympathy and solidarity, I was appalled by the immediate and shameful efforts of some political and religious leaders to manipulate and politicise the events in Orlando to fuel fear, intolerance and hatred,” said Adama Dieng, Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide.“I was particularly sickened to hear religious leaders commend the killings of members of the LGBT community,” he added, referring to statements by some religious leaders, including one who labelled the victims as “disgusting perverts and paedophiles” and calling on governments worldwide “to execute LGBT people.”Mr. Dieng also criticized calls by some politicians to cite radical Islam as the cause of the attack in Orlando, to ban Muslims from the United States and to label all Muslims as “terrorists.”“Religious and sexual minorities are subjected to discrimination, human rights violations and violence worldwide, including in peaceful and democratic societies,” Mr. Dieng stated. “It is simply unacceptable that influential leaders, including political and religious leaders, spread the kind of dangerous homophobic and islamophobic messages that we have seen in public discourse and the media this week.”He reminded political and religious leaders that any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence is prohibited under international human rights law as well as by the legislations of many countries.
-102.22.9Two53.15.2Two -153rd✓04-0.21 0to1The lead+8.4 EST. CHANGE IN WIN PROB. IF YOU GET …EST. CHANGE IN WIN PROB. IF YOU GET … 2to3Puts you up a field goal+6.5 MARGINQUARTERBETTER TO GO FOR 2?CORRECT DECISIONSCLEARLY INCORRECT DECISIONSAVG. WIN PROB IMPACT OF MISTAKES -84th✓027-0.90 -64th✓02-0.33 SITUATIONWHAT COACHES DID -130.41.1Two26.55.0One -53rd✓15-0.71 -92.93.3Same65.23.3One 16to17Puts you up three scores+0.2 4to5A generic point+2.9 MARGIN AFTER TD+1+2 (VS. +1)BETTER OPTIONMARGIN AFTER TD+1+2 (VS. +1)BETTER OPTION 13to14Puts you up two touchdowns+1.0 14to15Puts you up two TDs with a 2-point conversion+0.5 8to9Puts you up two scores+2.9 -45.06.5Two111.10.4One Win probability changes apply to the listed situations when there are 10 minutes remaining in the game. I won’t subject you to my guesses, but the model matched up fairly well. The most counterintuitive one to me is that the difference between being up 7 and being up 8 (3.3 percentage points) is virtually the same as the difference between being up 8 and being up 9 (2.9 percentage points). Thus the “two score” threshold doesn’t seem to be as important as I would have thought, even that late in the game.Note that as the leading team’s advantage increases, the marginal value of each point tends to get smaller — this illustrates why teams that are ahead by a lot should tend to go for 1 (because extending your lead gets less and less valuable the bigger it is) and teams that are behind by a lot should tend to go for 2 (because cutting your deficit gets more and more valuable the smaller it is).Those changes to a team’s win probability are all that’s needed to construct a rudimentary “Go or No” chart (for 10 minutes left). What matters is whether a point is more or less valuable than its neighbors. So for a team up 5 points, the question is whether the next advantage (“5 to 6: Puts you up two field goals” in the table above) is more or less valuable than the one after that, (“6 to 7: Puts you up a touchdown”). Make that comparison for each point margin from -15 to +14, and voila: -83.35.2Two73.32.9Same 11to12Puts you up more than a touchdown and a field goal+1.1 12to13Puts you up a touchdown and two field goals+0.4 -44th✓019-1.92 +114th52-0.28 -150.51.0Two08.41.8One -133rd✓02-0.31 “I can’t help but ask, one day many years later, when you find your previous awareness, cognition and choices are all wrong, will you keep going along the wrong path or reject yourself?” — Gu Li, a 9-dan Go champion, after losing to AlphaGo, Google’s nigh-unbeatable deep learning AI.With 5:16 left in the third quarter of their wild-card playoff game in January, the New York Giants scored a touchdown to pull within 2 points of the Green Bay Packers. Despite having the opportunity to tie the game with a 2-point conversion, the Giants proceeded to kick an extra point. Yet, rather than criticize the decision for materially damaging the Giants’ chances of advancing in the playoffs, commentator Troy Aikman praised the move, explaining that “the chart would say go for 2 and try to tie it up,” but “there’s a lot of time left in this game.”1Here’s the full quote: “We didn’t get a chance to talk about it, but Ben McAdoo, he kicks the extra point. You know, the chart would say go for 2 and try to tie it up. But I agree with the decision not to and kick the extra point. There’s a lot of time left in this game. It seems if you don’t make that, then you’re constantly chasing that 1 point. I think it was a good decision by him, just taking the extra point, and keeping it a 1-point game.”Despite the revolution taking place in basketball, despite Theo Epstein ending the two greatest curses in sports, despite AlphaGo going 60-0 against top human players, despite all evidence to the contrary, football stubbornly clings to the notion that experience always trumps analysis. Although NFL coaches have a level of expertise about the game of football that most of us will never approach, it’s hard to give them the benefit of the doubt when they’ve collectively demonstrated an inability to master basic tactical decisions — like when you should go for 2 points when your team is down 2 points (spoiler: pretty much always).Which is not to say their resistance to change is entirely unfounded. I see the value in being cautious about adopting new strategies and generally think the burden should be on the purveyors of new techniques and tactics not only to find rigorous, workable proposals, but also to explain them compellingly — for coaches, players, decision-makers and the sports-viewing public.In that spirit, let’s try to figure out when you should go for 2. For real.Finding the right questionLet’s say you’re skeptical about WPA and EPA and OSHA and RADAR and WAROZ and other collections of capital letters that tell you what to do. I get that — I can be skeptical myself.2For example, I’ve argued that fourth-down models should give kickers more credit for being awesome (at least one popular model made some tweaks after that). So before we stick a model on it, let’s try to reason our way through the question.The math would be more complicated if the NFL hadn’t moved the extra point back to the 15-yard line. But now going for 1 and going for 2 yield more or less the same number of points, on average, once you factor in how likely each is to succeed. If you go for 1 point, you’ll likely succeed around 95 percent of the time3Kickers have hit 94 percent under the new rule so far but appear to be running slightly below expectation for kicks from that location, even before factoring in the likelihood that they’ll get better.; if you go for 2 points, you’ll cash in roughly half as often,4Pinning down an exact number on this is surprisingly tricky. Teams have converted 48 percent over the past two years, consistent with their longer-run averages. But a “true” league average may be slightly higher because teams that attempt 2-point conversions tend to be slightly worse teams on average than the league as a whole (because teams tend to go for 2 more when they’re behind). In other words, the assumptions for this analysis are mildly friendly to the status quo. with twice the prize. But the fact that these have equal expected values (~0.95 points) doesn’t mean a coach should be indifferent between the two — and it certainly doesn’t mean he should take the “low risk” option by default (as coaches still seem wont to do). It means the decision ultimately turns on one simple question:Which would improve our chances of winning more, the first point or the second point?The beauty is that you don’t even need to figure out an exact value for each option — you only need to know which is more valuable. If the second point would improve your chances of winning more than the first one, then “risking” the first point to go for 2 improves your chances of winning overall.Since scoring in the NFL comes mostly in chunks of 3 and 7, different point margins have different, non-uniform implications for winning chances. For example, the other team is generally far more likely to score 3 more points (from a field goal) than it is 2 more points (from a safety), so being up 3 points is significantly better than being up 2. Being up 2 points, though, is only slightly better than being up 1 (since you’d lose the lead on a field goal either way). The good news is that the relative importance of each point is fairly intuitive.Each potential lead has different implications and benefits, like putting the leading team up a field goal or a touchdown. The marginal value of a point is just the difference between neighboring scenarios (like the value of being up 3 points instead of 2). Let’s imagine that there are 10 minutes left in a game. Think about each scenario and what it gives you, and you can probably estimate the marginal value of points pretty well. I tried this myself: First, I came up with a basic list of benefits that each additional point of a lead gets you. Then I guessed the relative importance of each (for a game with 10 minutes left). Then I checked my guesses against the marginal value for each point, as suggested by ESPN’s expected win percentage model: -141.00.4One11.86.5Two -21.88.4Two131.00.5One -111.32.2Two42.93.1Same 9to10Puts you up by a touchdown and a field goal+2.2 GOING FROM A LEAD OF… GIVES YOU THE TACTICAL BENEFIT OF… AND A WIN PROBABILITY CHANGE OF +124th✓72-0.24 -83rd✓013-0.79 6to7Puts you up a touchdown+5.2 -52.95.0Two101.31.1Same -75.23.1One82.92.2One Win probability changes apply to the listed situations when there are 10 minutes remaining in the game. For any particular point margin, if the two options have a similar shade, that means there’s not much difference between them.5Note that the value estimates reverse-mirror each other on either side of -1: Being up by 4 with a chance to go up by 5 or 6, for example, covers basically the same turf as being down by 6 with a chance to go down by 5 or 4 (so -6 and +4 are the same comparison), intuitively. The model is capable of picking up the very, very slight differences that result from the opposing team getting the next possession, but none of those affect any of the “calls” here. When we start applying the model to more scenarios, however, we’ll calculate exact values for each margin on its own. But if one is shaded significantly darker, it means that that point has significantly more value, and you should probably pick the corresponding strategy.We’re going to go a lot further with this, but even this first cut of analysis reveals a couple of important cases where the conventional wisdom is wrong. In particular:If you’re down 8 points after scoring a touchdown (with 10 minutes left), you should go for 2, because the difference between being down 7 points (if you make the extra point) and being down 6 points (if you convert the 2) is greater than the difference between being down 7 points and being down 8 points (if you miss the 2-point conversion). Note that this is backed up by the numbers but should also be apparent intuitively.6This is a more generalized version of the well-known case of being down 8 with only time for one more score.If you’re down 4 points after scoring a touchdown (with 10 minutes left), you should go for 2, because being down 2 points instead of 3 helps you more than being down 4 points instead of 3 hurts you. This one is a bit more counterintuitive, but if you think ahead, the second point means a future field goal could win the game (and if you don’t convert, you just have to adjust to go for winning touchdowns instead of tying field goals).Failing to go for 2 in these situations turns out to be two of the most common, costly and clear-cut mistakes that even the best coaches make virtually every time.Finding all the answersNow, that’s just a snapshot of what coaches should do with 10 minutes to go in the fourth quarter. The particular values of different point spreads shift quite a bit depending on how much time remains. When there isn’t much time remaining, being up 1 point instead of 0 is way, way more valuable than being up 2 points instead of 17As you get even closer to the end of the game, very specific tactical considerations — like whether you’re likely to have zero or one or two more possessions — start to dominate as well.; but very early in the game, when there are likely many scores to come, even that difference is fairly small. Which is to say, earlier in the game, points are significantly more fungible.So coming up with a complete guide to 2-point conversions merely involves repeating the process above, but for every possible combination of point spread and time remaining. For this, we’re going to let ESPN/Brian Burke’s expected wins model do the heavy lifting.8Note: You don’t have to be in love with this model for it to suffice for these purposes. Predicting how often teams with a certain-sized lead will win from various points of the game is what it’s best at. Moreover, since all of this is based on league averages and no coach likes to think of his team as average, we need to compute all the scenarios for different types of teams, based on how good (or bad) they are at 2-point conversions. (Scenarios within scenarios!)Bleep-bloop-bleep — that was easy. Now let’s combine all of that into one chart: 3to4Puts you up more than a field goal+5.0 The most common and significant mistakes by far are failing to go for 2 when down 4, 8 or 11 late in the game: Of 81 such clear-cut decisions, coaches got it right a combined zero times. They also kicked the extra point down 2 in the third quarter five times, when they clearly shouldn’t have, and once in the fourth(!) for good measure.There is no excuse for professional coaches to make such simple mistakes. If you’re a coach, you should be doing this analysis yourself — or doing it better. If you’re still kicking extra points 14 times more often than going for 2, you’re not doing your job. If you’re in the sports media and you haven’t mastered this material, and won’t hold coaches accountable for not doing their jobs, then you’re not doing your job either.CORRECTION (Feb. 4, 10:11 p.m.): An earlier version of this article contained a table that inaccurately listed “one” as the better option when up 7 points after a touchdown. Since the difference between going for 1 and going for 2 in that scenario was less than 0.5 percent, it should have said “same.”VIDEO: The Patriots better worry about Julio Jones -113rd✓06-0.51 In the chart above, orange means go for 2, purple means kick the extra point.9A couple of notes: Quarters are shaded using both their average result and their standard deviation, although there are some cases (like the fourth-quarter section of the +8 box) in which there can be significant changes within a quarter, so make sure to check the lines and ranges and not just the rectangles! The small gap in each mini-chart just before the end of the first half exists for technical reasons having to do with how the model handles the discontinuity at halftime. Each vertical line within each mini-chart represents a range from a terrible 2-point conversion team (40 percent conversion rate) at the bottom to an amazing one (55 percent) at the top. That range is pretty wide and should cover most knowable matchup advantages, like facing a particularly good defense, having injured players, it being windy, your team being an underdog, etc. (We’ll disregard how these excuses seem to lead every coach to make the same decisions every time.)But enough about how to read the chart — here are some of the main things that popped out at me:When a team is down 2, it should go for 2 — pretty much any time, but especially in the third quarter and beyond.As previously noted, being down 8 and being down 4 in the fourth quarter are clear “go” situations. Yet no coach has gone for 2 in either of these spots in the past two years. The NFL’s extra point rule change practically begged coaches to go for 2 more often, and not one has tried to pluck even a single one of the lowest hanging fruit.Cases like going for 2 when up 5 or 8 early (aiming to go up 7 or 10) show small but fairly clear advantages. They may not be super costly, but mistakes are mistakes.When down 9 points late-ish, there’s a case that you should go for 2, because being down 8, you would have to go for 2 to draw even eventually anyway, and it’s better to know whether you converted your attempt earlier so you can make tactical adjustments. Although this logic seems sound, the data doesn’t suggest the effect is very significant (if it exists at all).One special case: when a team scores a touchdown late to narrow the score to 1 point and then a coach has to decide whether to go for an extra point and the tie or 2 points and the win. Amazingly, this is the one situation in which coaches have broken with orthodoxy and gone for 2 occasionally — even though the chart suggests that it often isn’t justified.Whether to “go for the win” or not in this situation is intrinsically a pretty even decision — the difference between being up 1 and tied is the same as the difference between being down 1 and tied — and depends largely on how good your 2-point conversion unit is (note the tall lines in the -1 box). But toward the end of the game, remaining time becomes an extremely important factor. In particular, when your opponent is likely to get another possession and your team is not, going for 2 becomes something a coach probably shouldn’t do. This is because if the other team goes down 1, it may end up driving for a game-winning field goal with nothing to lose. Because the opponent is likely to take a lot of risks, go for it on fourth down, etc., those drives have a disproportionately high success rate. In this case, playing for the tie to get into overtime becomes the far better strategy.Passing judgmentOut of 1,897 post-touchdown decisions10Excluding cases in which the ball wasn’t spotted on the 15-yard line for an extra point or on the 2-yard line for a conversion attempt. in the last two years (including the playoffs), coaches should have attempted to go for 2 approximately 690 times, of which they only did 107.11Based on league-average 2-point conversion ability. Overall, coaches made 607 “mistakes” (either by kicking when they should have gone for 2 or vice versa), although the vast majority weren’t very costly one way or the other. They made 127 decisions that were “clear-cut” mistakes — meaning that they’d be mistakes for virtually any team, regardless of whether it was terrible (40 percent) or excellent (55 percent) at conversions. And 124 of those were failing to go for 2 when the situation clearly warranted it. Here are the “clear-cut” decisions that coaches got wrong most often, along with the average amount those mistakes cost their team: -173rd✓12-0.22 The most common 2-point decision mistakes, 2015 and 2016 10to11Puts you up by a TD with a 2-point conversion and a FG+1.3 -154th✓09-0.16 -18.48.4Same140.50.7Same +13rd✓42-0.93 -23rd✓45-1.02 15to16Puts you up two TDs with two 2-point conversions+0.7 5to6Puts you up two field goals+3.1 -63.12.9Same92.21.3One -36.51.8One120.41.0Two Among scenarios in which the correct decision applies to virtually any team, regardless of conversion ability, and coaches made the wrong decision at least twice (minimum -0.1 impact). -114th✓016-0.38 1to2A generic point+1.8 -121.11.3Same35.02.9One 7to8Puts you up a TD with a 2-point conversion+3.3 How to decide when to go for 2
PICKWIN PROB.PICKWIN PROB.RESULTREADERS’ NET PTS The playoffs may never come after a bad startYears until teams made it to playoffs after starting season with 0-8 record, 2001-14 PHI90PHI90SF 10, PHI 33-1.4– ATL60ATL64ATL 25, NYJ 20+0.7– 2013Jacksonville4-12— CIN70CIN71IND 23, CIN 24-1.2– San Francisco0-81516.1 The scoring system is nonlinear, so readers’ average points don’t necessarily match the number of points that would be given to the average reader prediction. Detroit3-42721.9 N.Y. Jets3-51920.1 2008Detroit0-163 FiveThirtyEight vs. The ReadersHalloween weekend gave some real frights to the readers in our NFL prediction game, in which we invite you to outsmart our Elo algorithm. The biggest came in the Buffalo Bills’ 34-14 win over the Oakland Raiders, where the readers were more hopeful that Derek Carr and company had turned a corner. Buffalo held serve at home and registered a net 12.8-point loss for our readers. The Miami Dolphins had their biggest nightmare of the season on Thursday, when their league-worst offense was shut out for the second time this season, this time against the Baltimore Ravens. That loss wasn’t pretty for the readers, either — they netted a 4.4-point loss.Week 8 wasn’t all gloom and doom for the readers, though. They enjoyed a 5.1-point net win in the Carolina Panthers’ 17-3 victory on the road over the struggling Tampa Bay Buccaneers. And Dallas also came to the readers’ rescue, handing them 3.4 net points with its 33-19 win over Washington. Thanks for playing this week — be sure you make your Week 9 picks nice and early. 2008Cincinnati4-11-11 Elo’s dumbest (and smartest) picks of Week 8Average difference between points won by readers and by Elo in Week 8 matchups in FiveThirtyEight’s NFL prediction game Source: ESPN PIT52PIT57PIT 20, DET 15+2.1– 2010Buffalo4-12— KC78KC76DEN 19, KC 29-3.6– OUR PREDICTION (ELO)READERS’ PREDICTION We’re at the unofficial halfway point of the season, and with the possible exception of the Philadelphia Eagles, no team’s season has been without turbulence. The defense of the reigning Super Bowl champion New England Patriots has been dreadful at times. Eli Manning and the New York Giants had a decent chance of making the playoffs in preseason, but they have proven to be terrible. Even teams that are currently cruising, like the Steelers and Saints, have had to survive rough patches. But one thing has been consistent in this strange season: The San Francisco 49ers and the Cleveland Browns have been utterly hopeless.This is nothing new. The Browns and 49ers rank No. 1 and No. 2 for fewest wins since Week 1 of 2015. And while the 49ers received some positive news Tuesday when they acquired quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo from the Patriots for a second-round draft pick, the Browns reportedly failed to notify the NFL about a trade for Bengals backup QB A.J. McCarron before the trade deadline. (So at least the Niners are better than the Browns when it comes to filing logistical paperwork.) Regardless, both teams are on course to finish last in their respective divisions for the third straight year.If they keep up their incompetence, the Browns and Niners will be rewarded with the opportunity to select the best college players in next year’s draft. The NFL’s draft system is designed to prevent teams from being too bad for too long, but this duo has defied that system in recent years — and may continue to do so. WINS N.Y. Giants1-62320.4 NO79NO75CHI 12, NO 20-4.0– WSH52DAL54DAL 33, WSH 19+3.4– Chicago3-51421.8 Cleveland0-81119.0 TB55%CAR52%CAR 17, TB 3+5.1– Source: ESPN Stats & Information Group Indianapolis2-62716.0 2001Detroit2-1410 2014Oakland3-132 Oakland3-52220.6 SEASONTEAMFINAL RECORDYRS. TO PLAYOFFS BAL53BAL51MIA 0, BAL 40-4.4– SEA73SEA65HOU 38, SEA 41-8.2– The future is bleak for the Browns and 49ersFewest wins projected in the NFL over the next three seasons 2013Tampa Bay4-12— TEAM2017 RECORDPAST THREE SEASONSNEXT THREE SEASONS MIN84MIN86MIN 33, CLE 16-1.2– Arizona3-43119.9 Of the 10 teams that have started a season 0-8 from 2001 to 2014, half of them made the playoffs within the next three seasons. Some of these turnarounds shouldn’t be surprising, especially in the case of the 2011 Indianapolis Colts, who lost Peyton Manning to a neck injury prior to the start of the season. They selected Andrew Luck with the No. 1 pick in the 2012 draft and made the playoffs for the next three years. Likewise, the infamous 0-16 Detroit Lions parlayed their ineptitude in 2008 into Matthew Stafford and made the playoffs within three seasons.But then when you look at the other five teams that started 0-8 — which each averaged 4.7 wins a season for the three years after their 0-8 start — the future suddenly becomes gloomier.To test what the future holds for these two, we ran a regression to try to predict the total number of wins of all 30 teams over the next three seasons, based on statistics from the current season. We used some standard metrics: offensive and defensive expected points added and a concoction of each player’s age and number of snaps played. What our model spat out was interesting but not shocking: Cleveland and San Fran are projected to be two of the worst teams for the next three years. Perhaps the addition of Garoppolo will help the Niners outpace our projections slightly, and perhaps the Browns will finally develop that franchise quarterback, be it possible draft picks like Josh Rosen or Sam Darnold or Mason Rudolph or even current rookie starter DeShone Kizer. (Just kidding, it’s not DeShone Kizer.) But for both teams, our projections see no clear light at the end of the tunnel. NE84NE81LAC 13, NE 21-3.6– 2011Indianapolis2-141 2007St. Louis3-13— Miami4-32419.1 2007Miami1-151 BUF66BUF53OAK 14, BUF 34-12.8–
UPDATE (Sept. 25, 12:10 p.m.): Swiss authorities announced Friday that they were opening a criminal investigation into the activities of Sepp Blatter, the head of FIFA. In June, when the FIFA corruption scandal broke, some of FiveThirtyEight’s editors and writers wildly speculated about building a new organization to right the wrongs of the old. Here’s an edited transcript of the Slack conversation we held. CORRECTION (June 3, 10 a.m.): An earlier version of this post referred incorrectly to a United Nations statistical measure. It is the Gender Inequality Index, not the Gender Equality Index. By FiveThirtyEight Carl Bialik (FiveThirtyEight’s lead writer for news): Sepp Blatter is stepping down as FIFA president. For the first time in 17 years, the global governing body of soccer will get new leadership. Domenico Scala, the chairman of FIFA’s audit committee, promised to work toward reforms. Blatter himself called for a “profound restructuring.”These are heady times for FIFA reformers. Many reformers in the past have proposed incremental changes like Scala’s, including term limits, robust anticorruption measures, transparency on executive pay and independent integrity checks. Lots of these suggestions probably are sensible and could improve governance, and they could have a better shot in the post-Blatter era.But let’s dream big, like the 24 teams contesting the FIFA Women’s World Cup starting this week. How would you change FIFA? Or if you could start it from scratch, what would it look like? I wrote last week about how one-country, one-vote lends itself to pork-barrel projects and corruption. What system would work better?Chadwick Matlin (senior editor): This, to me, feels like a governance/political science question as much as a sports one. What’s the best way for an organization to represent its people? And is it any different when it’s a diverse collection of nations instead of, say, one nation?Carl Bialik: Good question, Chad. It’s easier to say something is askew when Brazil, China and the U.S. have the same voting power as the Cayman Islands, the Seychelles and San Marino, than it is to figure out how best to apportion voting power.Neil Paine (senior sportswriter): Last week, Nate Silver wrote about what FIFA representation might look like if it was weighted more toward the nations more valuable to FIFA’s viewing audience. That’s one model of how to parcel out influence; I wonder what an alternative would be that doesn’t simultaneously fall into the same traps as the system in place under Blatter.Nate Silver (editor in chief): Even if you didn’t use an audience weighted toward the economic size of a country — and I can imagine all sorts of problems with doing that — you could at least use the unweighted audience numbers. Basically, how many soccer fans are there in each country? China ought to have way more voting power than Curacao.Chadwick Matlin: But more than Brazil?Carl Bialik: I’d also want to represent soccer players, because FIFA helps set rules and the tone for the global game. It might be time for FIFA to do another Big Count of its global players. Is there a way to also account for the untapped potential of countries to increase their interest in soccer? I worry that if we go by the sport’s current status worldwide we lock that in. The best part of Blatter’s reputation is what he did to grow the game worldwide, though I’m not sure that’s deserved.David Firestone (managing editor): Any global organization will have to deal with the same kinds of alliances, jealousies and resentments that a body like the U.N. does. The U.N. is hardly a great model for effectiveness, but since the stakes are much lower, a bicameral system like the Security Council/General Assembly probably still makes sense, giving extra weight to the big soccer powers. There would have to be far more transparency and outside monitoring than there is now, however.Allison McCann (visual journalist and former center midfielder for the Boston Breakers): But how do you award voting power to countries with two very different tiers of men’s and women’s programs? I’m thinking somewhere like Argentina, whose men’s teams finished second in the World Cup, but whose women’s team is not even at this year’s World Cup.Chadwick Matlin: Should women’s soccer and men’s soccer be represented by the same body? Has that been good for women’s soccer?Nate Silver: I’m fine with the notion that we aren’t counting past soccer success in allocating governing resources within FIFA. So, sure, China gets more power than Brazil — 1.4 billion people will do that for you. China has been one of the big failure stories under Blatter, really. The men’s team hasn’t improved at all, and the women’s team has regressed. And Allison, if we were using any women’s soccer-related indicators, it would heavily favor Europe, the Americas, Japan, etc. Unsurprisingly perhaps, countries that have better records for women’s rights and human rights in general have better women’s soccer teams.Allison McCann: Yeah, I was interested in that too, Nate. We looked briefly at the U.N. Gender Inequality Index to see how this held up; the biggest outlier was Brazil. More: Apple Podcasts | ESPN App | RSS | Embed Embed Code Our sports podcast Hot Takedown discusses Blatter’s resignation and the women’s World Cup. Subscribe on iTunes. Carl Bialik: Better records for rights sounds like a pretty good criterion for deciding who gets to run things!David Firestone: And also transparency. Countries and soccer programs that don’t have a good record of opening their books and decision-making to the public should have a harder time getting into the central body of FIFA, whatever it turns out to be.Carl Bialik: Transparency is a real theme in past reform efforts — for instance, releasing compensation information. I wonder if those efforts stick once people who wanted Blatter out have stopped paying attention to what comes next. Blatter was a master at calling for reforms and transparency, commissioning outside studies and then watering them down or not releasing them.David Firestone: Good point, Carl. They never took the need for reform seriously in the past, but a knock on the door by the FBI seems to have changed things quickly. At a minimum, it seems like Blatter’s replacement should insist on outside directors and outside inspector-generals to ensure that transparency is real from now on. Instituting strict term limits for directors would eliminate the entrenched bureaucrats and ensure that a variety of countries get a chance at governing.Neil Paine: A lot of this also gets into the mission of FIFA as a whole. What should its purpose be beyond simply governing the sport itself — or is that inextricably political in nature because it’s an international organization?Carl Bialik: Someone needs to run the World Cups, right? If not FIFA, who? And with the kind of money involved, seems like politics is inevitable.Nate Silver: Well, we see how complicated this can get. Personally, I have a huge problem with the World Cup having been awarded to Qatar for its record on gay rights and women’s rights alone. (Along with like 12 other reasons.) But: should Western values prevail? Are they more “universal” than other values, by virtue of being more tolerant? I’m not arguing for relativism here — I love me my liberal, Western values — but I’m saying it gets complicated real fast.Neil Paine: The cynical devil’s advocate might ask whether the World Cup should exist at all in its current form, given the non-positive presence it’s been known to have on local economies. But that in and of itself is an argument that only countries with existing infrastructure should host World Cups, which tends to heavily favor developed (and Western) nations, which is also problematic.Chadwick Matlin: I think this Slackchat is setting a FiveThirtyEight record for the number of question marks being used — this stuff is extraordinarily complicated. Maybe the question isn’t, “How should FIFA be restructured to stop corruption?” It’s “Can FIFA be restructured to stop corruption?”Nate Silver: But here’s the thing. Whether or not the wealthier, high-population countries have de jure power within FIFA, they have a lot of de facto power. A lot of leverage. As we wrote last week, the OECD countries, plus Brazil and Argentina, could render the World Cup totally unprofitable and unwatchable if they staged an opposing tournament. And the smaller countries would probably want to sign on to the OECD World Cup if given the choice.Carl Bialik: Yeah, I think Nate’s piece answers the question of whether FIFA can be restructured — or started over from scratch. (Maybe this time with an English-based acronym, not a French one.) At the cost of adding another question mark to the record total: Nate, do you think your breakaway soccer organization would be better for the game? I guess it couldn’t be much more corrupt, so there’s that.Nate Silver: In a perfect world, I suppose, they’d leave FIFA, but everyone would rejoin them again under some new umbrella organization after four or eight years. To some extent, that puts us back at square one. You still need to figure out the rules of the new federation. But at least you’d rid FIFA of some of its corruption in the near-to-medium term.David Firestone: But at some point the smaller countries are going to have to accept that global soccer is about the game, not about economic development. It’s been depressing to see how many developing countries have seen these games as a step toward enrichment, which FIFA has eagerly fed.Nate Silver: It’s not at all clear that FIFA has helped those countries at all economically. Or in football, for that matter. I’ll have some more numbers on this in an article later, but Africa didn’t improve at all under Blatter’s tenure. Asia maybe got a bit worse, especially the larger Asian countries like China.David Firestone: You mean because the cash for smaller countries has been siphoned off by top officials?Nate Silver: It’s a little outside of my knowledge base to know how that money is being spent. But in theory, it’s supposed to help them develop their national soccer programs, and we haven’t seen much evidence of improvement on the pitch.Allison McCann: I’m with Nate. I think FIFA’s too ruined for restructuring or reorganizing — time to blow it up and start over.Oliver Roeder (senior writer): Yes, burn it to the ground. FIFA doesn’t really “govern the sport,” right? It doesn’t make the rules — that’s done by the International Football Association Board. UEFA runs the Champions League. The Premier League is its own self-governing corporation. FIFA exists for one thing: the World Cup. It has to pick the place and figure out how to draw team names out of pots. Those are important things to figure out, yes, but don’t seem like rocket science. Why not stick it in the U.N., as has been suggested, or in the Swiss government — they’re impartial, right? The discussion of bicameralism and proportional representation and so on seems of second-order concern. What it needs is oversight, not internal structural fine-tuning.Allison McCann: Step one: The new FIFA is run by a woman. I nominate the great Pia Sundhage from a neutral country like Sweden with strong interests in both the men’s and women’s programs. That’s all I have for a start, hah!Nate Silver: It looks like FIFA’s executive committee had, what, only two or three women?Carl Bialik: I think one full member. And she was the first when she was elected in 2013! I like Ollie’s point — maybe the sport doesn’t need a single governing body. In fact, maybe it really doesn’t have one. We’d still have to figure out how to divvy up the spoils from World Cups, but as Nate and David point out, that isn’t being divvied up so well now. The weaker countries aren’t getting that much better, and lots of the money appears to have ended up enriching soccer officials rather than expanding the game.Nate Silver: Here’s one reform that could help the up-and-coming countries: more teams in the World Cup finals. Forty instead of 32.Carl Bialik: Prince Ali, the runner-up to Blatter in last week’s election, called for 36. Forty sounds even better.When I was preparing for this chat — hey, we don’t just mouth off, really! — I asked Deborah Unger, a former journalist who works in media relations for Transparency International, to weigh in. TI had studied FIFA reform before. She reasonably replied, “I think this will take more than a few minutes. … I don’t think we have time to design a new FIFA this evening. Is your deadline really now?” It’s a reasonable question. I don’t think we’ll settle things with this chat, but on the other hand, if World Cup governance is going to dramatically improve, it should probably happen soon, when everyone is paying attention.Nate Silver: I’m not leaving the office until we’ve solved soccer’s global governance problems. In the meantime, can we agree about what toppings to get on this pizza?
Meanwhile, passengers travelling from England’s main airports escaped delays and cancellations on Monday morning after a blanket of fog over southern and central parts of the country began to lift.There were fears that flights might be badly hit after the Met Office issued a severe weather warning for fog for a large swathe of land stretching from the South Coast to the Vale of York and East Anglia. But forecasters said the fog had eased overnight to a lighter mist in some areas and would continue to break up throughout the day.Both Heathrow and Gatwick Airports warned passengers on their websites of delays and cancellations overnight, but by Monday morning Gatwick said “reasonable” visibility meant there was no impact on flights, while Heathrow was a little misty with just a few knock-on effects from delays at the weekend. Want to know what’s happening this coming week? It’s all go, with #fog, frost, rain, wind and yes, some #sunshine too…here are the details pic.twitter.com/L2DeoVaaKv— Met Office (@metoffice) December 18, 2016 Mr Page said: “There is quite a lot of fog in the southern counties of England, in East Anglia and the Midlands.”The weather warning is valid until 10 o’clock this morning. The majority of the fog will be clear by then but it may linger in places maybe until midday, and will be patchy.”It will lift and break up through the day but some places may hold on to the fog until this afternoon.”There will also be a little bit of rain this morning, pushing its way up from the Continent, along with another band coming from the North West, squeezing into the middle of the UK and helping to break and lift the fog.” “50-70mph wind gusts are possible on Friday and Christmas Eve, highest in the North-West, with gusts a bit lower in the South-East.”And Brian Gaze, a forecaster for the Weather Outlook, said: “Midweek sees a transition to possibly stormy conditions. Heavy rain, strong winds and snow could cause travel disruption just before Christmas.” Want the best of The Telegraph direct to your email and WhatsApp? Sign up to our free twice-daily Front Page newsletter and new audio briefings. A British Airways Airbus A380 is shrouded in fog as it comes into land at Heathrow Airport on SundayCredit:JUSTIN TALLIS/AFP A Met Office spokesman said: “There are some signals that it could turn wet and windy through the Christmas period. We can see some strong winds and wet weather. There’s the potential to name it, but we haven’t reached that stage yet.” MeteoGroup forecaster Julian Mayes said: “A named storm is quite likely. Christmas looks very unsettled. The Government has readied 1,200 soldiers for flood duties during the winter storm season as it tries to avoid criticism from earlier years that it has been unprepared for catastrophic flooding.Three battalions of troops have for the first time been formally placed on alert to help the Environment Agency put up barriers and operate pumps.Soldiers from the 5th Bn The Rifles and King’s Royal Hussars as well as logistics specialists and engineers have had four weeks of training to erect nearly 30 miles of new flood barriers. Soldiers from 2 Battalion The Duke of Lancasters Regiment help in the rescue of members of the public as they are evacuated from York city centre last DecemberCredit:Ian Forsyth/Getty Images A Heathrow spokesman said: “Our advice to passengers is to check with airlines before coming to the airport. We will be reviewing the fog warning in the next few hours.”Met Office forecaster Chris Page said visibility at both airports was above 1,000m (3,281ft) – below which is regarded as foggy – and that it was overcast and cloudy in both areas.But he warned that drivers on the M4 could experience dense fog patches, as visibility at weather stations near the motorway was down to between 200m and 300m (220-330 yards). Show more Britain faces being battered by high winds and heavy rain over the Christmas period, forecasters have warned.The Met Office said there were signs that winds and wet weather predicted to sweep in from the Atlantic at the weekend could be strong enough to become the second named storm of the season.Forecasters are tracking the weather system a month after Storm Angus brought 80mph winds, heavy rain and flooding. Barbara is next on the list of storm names allocated by the Met Office.
Peru Copper has signed an agreement with Peru’s ministry of energy and mines and Proinversion to fund the construction of a water treatment plant to treat acid drainage water from the Kingsmill tunnel. The tunnel was constructed in the mid-1930s by Cerro de Pasco Corp specifically to drain mine workings and it crosses beneath mining concessions in the Morococha mining district, where it collects acid water.The water collected by the tunnel is highly acidic with a pH of approximately 4.4 and contains a number of different metals, all of which are believed to be over permissible health limits. The tunnel currently discharges water into the Yauli River at a rate of 1,200 litres/s. The Yauli then empties into the Mantaro River, which is a source of irrigation for an important agricultural district, the Mantaro Valley.Peru Copper has placed $15 million in an escrow account to fund the design, construction and start-up of the treatment plant. The ministry of energy and mines, Proinversion and Peru Copper will form a joint committee to oversee the bidding process, construction and operation of the plant.Charles Preble, President and CEO of Peru Copper, said “We are extremely pleased to be able to accelerate the construction of a water treatment plant to treat water from the Kingsmill tunnel. Although we have not yet exercised our option to acquire concessions in the Morococha areas, we believe that starting the water treatment now to eliminate a major source of pollution is the right thing to do. Further, we view our Toromocho copper project as a partnership among the company, the Peruvian government and the Junin region and the water treatment plant will benefit all three.”Peru Copper is involved in the acquisition and exploration of potentially mineable deposits of copper in Peru. On 11 June 2003, Peru Copper entered into the Toromocho option agreement with Empresa Minera del Centro del Peru S.A., a Peruvian state-owned mining company, whereby Empresa Minera granted Peru Copper the option to acquire its interest in the mining concessions and related assets of the Toromocho project.www.perucopper.com
Les vikings seraient allés plus au sud du Nouveau MondeL’Anse-aux-Meadows n’était pas le bout du monde pour les Vikings! Selon des analyses de morceaux de jaspe retrouvés sur place, ils se seraient rendus 200 kilomètres plus au sud dans la baie de Notre-Dame. Or c’est là que se trouve la plus grande densité de sites archéologiques amérindiens de tout Terre-Neuve… La soif d’aventure et d’exploration des vikings n’avait pas de limites. Si le site canadien de l’Anse-aux-Meadows, sur la pointe nord de l’ile de Terre-Neuve, est déjà bien connu pour abriter les restes d’un campement de nordiques, il vient de livrer un nouvel élément de poids. Selon une étude présentée en avril au colloque annuel de la Société Américaine d’archéologie, deux fragments de jaspe retrouvés sur le fameux site proviennent en fait de la baie de Notre-Dame, alors très peuplée.”Cette zone de la baie de Notre-Dame est un très bon candidat pour un premier contact entre les habitants du Nouveau et de l’Ancien Monde, explique Kevin Smith du musée d’anthropologie Haffenreffer à LiveScience. C’est quelque chose de plutôt excitant !”200 kilomètres au sudLes vikings se servaient du jaspe pour provoquer des étincelles et allumer des feux. Lorsque les pierres devenaient trop usées, ils les jetaient. C’est l’analyse de deux de ces déchets qui a permis de faire le lien avec la baie de Notre-Dame. Celle-ci se trouve 200 kilomètres au sud de l’Anse-aux-Meadows.”Du point de vue archéologique, cette partie de Notre-Dame contient la plus forte densité de peuplement de tout Terre-Neuve, poursuit Kevin Smith. A cette époque les indigènes étaient les ancêtres des actuels Beothuk.”Outre la possibilité de faire des échanges, la région a dû particulièrement taper dans l’œil des vikings à cause de la forte présence de bois, de gibiers et de poissons. “Pour ceux qui viennent des iles sans arbre de l’Atlantique Nord, ce serait une zone particulièrement intéressante, continue Smith. Il y a beaucoup d’arbres, beaucoup d’opportunité pour les abattre. Le climat est aussi meilleur et il y a une grande diversité de ressources disponibles.”Des graines de courgePour l’instant les contours des interactions entre les Vikings et les Natifs Américains sont toujours très flous. Les textes des sagas islandaises mentionnent des conflits mais ce sont des sources qui ont été écrites parfois plusieurs siècles après les évènements qu’elles décrivent. D’autres éléments montreraient que les Vikings ne se sont pas arrêtés à l’Anse-aux-Meadows.Ainsi la présence de graines d’une courge nommée doubeurre fait penser qu’ils seraient allés au moins jusqu’au golfe du Saint-Laurent. Il est néanmoins possible que ce soient les indigènes qui les aient apportées durant les 10 à 25 années d’occupation viking. Le 9 juin 2013 à 23:12 • Maxime Lambert
Videos Articles Now Playing Up Next Why WWE’s The Miz Won’t Stop Talking About His Newborn Daughter Twitter WhatsApp How To Win A Trip To Meet The Miz And Becky Lynch Comments are closed. Madison Square Garden Pays Tribute to Roman Reigns Google+ 1 COMMENT January 8, 2018 at 1:17 pm WWE Draft confirmed to be taking place as a two-night event starting on October 11 Now Playing Up Next Boy, RAW has taken a downturn when “The return of Miz” is touted as the highlight. Personally I am not looking forward to the Rumble or Wrestlemania because of Miz’s involvement. Now Playing Up Next Facebook CM Punk & AJ Lee Join Horror Movie Now Playing Up Next Now Playing Up Next Al79 Pinterest Wrestleview Weekly: Predictions for tonight’s Clash of Champions event in Charlotte Jason Namako RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR WWE RAW Ratings: Viewership sees a 15% drop against the return of Monday Night Football Maryse Vince McMahon Sends Supportive Message To Roman Reigns The Miz Videos Articles WWE RAW is live tonight from Memphis, Tennessee.Advertised for tonight’s show is the return of The Miz and Enzo Amore defends the WWE Cruiserweight Championship against Cedric Alexander.WWE Universal Champion Brock Lesnar has also been advertised to appear locally.Wrestleview.com will have live coverage of RAW tonight at 8:00 p.m. ET (7:00 CT).Recommended videosPowered by AnyClipWhy WWE’s The Miz Won’t Stop Talking About His Newborn DaughterVideo Player is loading.Play VideoPauseUnmuteDuration 0:49/Current Time 0:00Loaded: 0.42%0:00Remaining Time -0:49 FullscreenUp NextThis is a modal window.Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.TextColorWhiteBlackRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyOpaqueSemi-TransparentBackgroundColorBlackWhiteRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyOpaqueSemi-TransparentTransparentWindowColorBlackWhiteRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyTransparentSemi-TransparentOpaqueFont Size50%75%100%125%150%175%200%300%400%Text Edge StyleNoneRaisedDepressedUniformDropshadowFont FamilyProportional Sans-SerifMonospace Sans-SerifProportional SerifMonospace SerifCasualScriptSmall CapsReset restore all settings to the default valuesDoneClose Modal DialogEnd of dialog window.Replay the list
Iceland’s all-time leading scorer Eidur Gudjohnsen, says they look forward to showing they deserve to be at World Cup they are the smallest nation ever to qualify.Having a population of just 335,000, Iceland are the smallest nation ever to qualify for the tournament.They could face a tough game on their World Cup debut against Argentina on Saturday but Gudjohnsen is confident Iceland will not let themselves down.“We’re in a very good place at the moment,” said the ex-Chelsea forward according to BBC.Michael Owen lashes out against Fabio Capello in his book Tomás Pavel Ibarra Meda – September 5, 2019 Turns out that Michael Owen has been holding grudges against everybody in football, this time he lashed out against Fabio Capello.It’s safe to say that…“It’s a historic moment. Since Euro 2016 it’s been one success after another,” added Gudjohnsen.“I don’t think people can start talking about luck any more. We’re looking forward to hopefully showing the world again we fully deserve to be there.”Iceland were a revelation at Euro 2016, emerging unbeaten from their group before beating England to reach the quarter-finals in France. Heimir Hallgrimsson’s side qualified for Russia after finishing top of a group including Croatia, Ukraine and Turkey.Iceland came 22nd in Fifa’s world rankings and will face Nigeria in Volgograd on 22 June before taking on Croatia in Rostov-on-Don on 26 June.
WASHINGTON — Almost as soon as George Zimmerman was pronounced “not guilty” in a Florida courtroom, the cry went up.The U.S. government must get “justice for Trayvon,” insisted protesters angry about the fatal shooting of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin. The call will resound again later this month through events marking the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington.Attorney General Eric Holder, the first black man to lead the nation’s law enforcement, says the Justice Department is investigating.Why would the feds consider stepping into a state murder case?The federal government has claimed its power of protecting civil rights against violence as far back as the Reconstruction era. Empowered by constitutional amendments and early civil rights laws passed after the Civil War, the government sought to protect newly freed blacks and their voting rights, mostly from the Ku Klux Klan.But then court decisions, the end of Reconstruction and the rise of Jim Crow laws essentially “defanged” the federal government of its power to police civil rights when state and local governments would not, said Darrell Miller, a Duke University law professor.It wasn’t until the 1960s civil rights movement — exemplified by the historic Aug. 28, 1963, march — that new laws began strengthening the federal role.Now, the Justice Department is expected to pursue civil rights prosecutions. But in many cases that inflame racial passions, federal prosecutors don’t find the evidence needed to support civil rights charges.A look at some cases through history:THE CIVIL RIGHTS ERAAs the burgeoning civil rights movement gathered force in the 1960s, demonstrators were brutalized and killed, sometimes at the hands of law officers. Many slayings remain unsolved. But in some cases where local authorities failed to go after the attackers or all-white juries refused to convict, the federal government moved in with civil rights charges.
Clark County Budget Director Bob Stevens on Tuesday told commissioners the two-year budget before them provided “flexibility to react to changing circumstances.”The commissioners agreed, approving the budget unanimously. In doing so, they also agreed not to raise property taxes by the state-allowed 1 percent. Described as “austere,” the budget dedicates $896 million to all county funds. Of that, $296 million will go to the general fund, for which the commissioners have spending discretion. The proposed budget also includes reserves sufficient to operate for 52 days.The two-year budget represents an immediate reduction to county expenditures of roughly 6.5 percent over the current biennial budget, approved in 2012. The reason for the sizable reduction is because of a $10 million wrongful imprisonment settlement the county entered into with Alan Northrop and Larry Davis in 2014. Without that, the reduction would be closer to 3.5 percent, Stevens said.“We are only going to spend in decision packages the money we bring in,” Stevens told commissioners Tuesday.That was a major goal for commissioners Tom Mielke and David Madore, both Republicans, who have for the past two years emphasized cutting fees for residents and business owners. Republican Commissioner Jeanne Stewart, at her first hearing as a commissioner, voted for the budget, saying it controlled costs.Since the 2008 recession, the county has worked to shed costs. At its highest point, Stevens said, the county’s overall budget was around $1 billion.The lion’s share of the biennial budget — slightly more than a half of what’s budgeted — will go to criminal justice and the public works department.