Written by Copeland and Doyle and directed by Robert Ross Parker, How to Be a New Yorker teaches audience members everything they need to know about what it takes to be a bona fide citizen of the Big Apple. From the instinct for disdainful glances to the peevish muttering and innate rudeness that distinguish true New Yorkers, the comedy show covers it all. How to Be a New Yorker originally premiered at Sofia’s Downstairs Theater off-Broadway. Petzy studied improv and musical improv at Upright Citizens Brigade and Magnet Theater, where she regularly performs as a member of the teams Vulcan and The Sing Kids. Olivia Petzy will join the cast of How to Be a New Yorker beginning August 8. She steps in for Margaret Copeland, who, following the post-show announcement of her engagement on April 11, will play her final performance in the long-running off-Broadway comedy on August 2. Petzy will star opposite Kevin James Doyle at Planet Hollywood’s Screening Room Theater. Related Shows View Comments How To Be A New Yorker Show Closed This production ended its run on Jan. 3, 2015
413 Brisbane Corso, YerongaAfter living on acreage for 18 years, Michael and Patricia McCarthy made the decision to move closer to the city. The couple purchased 413 Brisbane Corso, Yeronga, in 2007 off Mark Stockwell. The home at 413 Brisbane Corso, Yeronga“From that day on, we felt so welcomed, like we had always been there.”The three-level property sits on 1057sq m of waterfront land and has a in-ground pool, landscaped gardens and pontoon. More from newsParks and wildlife the new lust-haves post coronavirus20 hours agoNoosa’s best beachfront penthouse is about to hit the market20 hours agoInside 413 Brisbane Corso, YerongaOn the main level of the home there is four bedrooms, two bathrooms, a laundry, living room, dining area, kitchen and back deck that looks out onto the swimming pool and river. The master suite occupies the entire third floor and has a walk-in-wardrobe, ensuite and deck. On the lower level, there is a large rumpus room, storage and a two-car garage. Mr McCarthy said the main deck was the heart of the home. The home at 413 Brisbane Corso, Yeronga“There was enough room for the whole family to enjoy all at once, but still have privacy.“It’s a very liveable and welcoming home. “There’s no doubt about that.” The river view from 413 Brisbane Corso, YerongaMr McCarthy said his family had enjoyed the home very much.“We loved that we didn’t have to do much to make it perfect for us,” he said. Views from 413 Brisbane Corso, Yeronga“It’s a big feature of the house that looks out onto the river,” he said.“Whenever we have visitors they just head straight out to the deck.“I like to sit out there and gaze and think.“It’s very soothing.” The home at 413 Brisbane Corso, YerongaMr McCarthy said the couple were concerned the move would be “a bit of an adjustment” after living on acreage, but that it “fit like a glove” within no time.“Within days of moving in, we were invited to a neighbourhood party where we met so many locals and neighbours,” he said.
UKGC launches public awareness campaign on gambling controls, rights and safeguards August 3, 2020 How Yield Sec is removing black market influences July 28, 2020 EPIC and Whysup ‘continue to make real change’ with partnership renewal August 19, 2020 Related Articles Submit At the inaugural SBC Safer Gambling Forum, which took place at the CasinoBeats Summit in September, industry leaders came together to discuss some of the most pressing responsible gambling topics at the minute.During Responsible Gambling Week (RGWeek 2019), which runs until 13 November, SBC will look at some of the topics addressed during the forum, and what measures the industry can take to promote responsible gaming.Graham Weir, Founder and CEO at Safer Gambling Solutions, introduced the panel on ‘identifying and interacting with problem gamblers’ before handing over to moderator Kirsty Caldwell, MD of Bet Smart Consulting.Speaking on the panel was the Director of Corporate Assurance & Regulatory Affairs at Genting UK Jon Duffy, VP Strategic Partnerships at Gamban Stephen Aupy, CEO of GamCare Anna Hemmings and Safer Gambling Manager at Epic Risk Management Mark Potter. Caldwell provided background information on the panel and discussed the industry’s focus on the topic as well as the increasing prominence of the Gambling Commission. She went on to discuss the identification of problem gamblers and engaged the panel members by exploring the standardisation of industry identification methods and operator guidance.Duffy provided an industry insight as he stated: “In an ideal world certainly it would be fantastic if there was one model. Lots of people are doing different things and if there was one model that worked and was the answer to all of the questions then absolutely, fantastic. Standardise it and put it in place. “But, I would say I think there is still a lot of work to do. I don’t think we are anywhere close to getting one answer so for now I wouldnt like to see standardisation. I think it would take away from some of the innovation that we are doing. “In terms of additional guidance from the gambling commission, absolutely, I’d love extra guidance. In fairness to them I don’t think they would know what to guide us on at the present. I think we are probably the best people working with groups such as GamCare to develop our algorithms and continue to innovate and find what works for the best.”Duffy’s link that states standardisation will lead to a reduction in innovation interested Caldwell who then prompted Potter to add his thoughts on identifying problem players: “For me, the increase in technology allows the identification of vulnerability as such, that is on point. I think the problem lies in transferring that into an effective interaction with somebody. “We can spot the signs of vulnerability, but its how to then transfer that and make an effective interaction to build a relationship with a customer to allow them to have the courage to speak about their own various issues and I think it’s something that we do as part of our training. “We do a lot about the identifying of vulnerability as such, but we’ve created a training profile which is a blend of lived experience which allows operators knowledge of what it’s like to be on the other end of the screen in terms of the behavioural aspects. With identification a lot of that is based on financials and just the monitoring of tech where actually the behavioural side of things is actually what affects the customer most and that’s where the vulnerability will lie. “Typically, a lot of training programs that I’ve seen tell people what not to do. So what do is that we’ve created a model that allows the staff member the confidence to speak to the customer and manage their emotions because you can have a scripted speech all ready, but as soon as that doesn’t go in the right way then it becomes pointless – managing the emotions of the customer and yourself if it’s not going the way you want it to is something that is really important for me in terms of building a relationship and managing vulnerability going forward.Hemmings agreed with the points made by the safer gambling manager. She added: “The nature of addiction whether its gambling or anything else is that people aren’t always ready to hear it. Somebody might phone up very angry that you’ve suspended their account and may not be at all in a place where they want to talk about the fact that its become a problem and that’s really common and a difficult challenge for operators. “Staff usually need confidence more than competence to have conversations. I think its about ‘skilling’ people up but I also think its about looking at the whole customer journey and are we normalising safer gambling messaging right from the start, are we encouraging limit setting at the point of opening an account, Is there messaging around safer gambling/time spent/money spent much earlier than the point of a problem developing? “That all paves the way for it to be much more normal to then have a conversation about escalating amounts of gambling so I think it’s also important to look at it right from the start of that customer journey.” Aupy agreed with the principle suggested earlier during the panel regarding the increased usage of technologies and processes in order to identify problem gamblers. With this being said, he provided a tech perspective on the topic, touched on the difficulties operators face due to the differing regulations and agendas faced in separate markets as well as discussing the moral obligations operator’s face when it comes to problem gamblers. He concluded: “I think technology and processes should be pushed harder within the industry. It’s no easy task being an operator when you’ve got to work in multiple markets with different jurisdictions and different agendas from multiple regulators so its no easy task for them to try to stay on top of everything. “At the moment, data seems to be the key word. Admittedly, we’ve only started tethering our own data over the last year and we’re trying to make processes and understand the data and what way we can implement that into interacting with problematic gamblers. But, it would be interesting to see where we are going to take it for the future. “When it comes to affordability, its always going to be a grey area as far as i’m concerned. But, when someone asks to exclude from gambling, the operator should honour that and not try to entice them back in. The same should be acknowledged for when an operator can see for example ten deposits within a three hour period or if someone has a big loss of £20,000 in one night – a freeze needs to be implemented and a conversation needs to take place. “But the conversation shouldn’t be ‘can you afford this, yes, proceed’. If you look at the process we take for credit card companies, they look into your finances and do a proper background check and I think we should start implementing something along those lines with gambling. Yes, it is a form of entertainment but at the same time it can be quite aggressive when looking at problematic play and I think we need to be a bit more stringent in how affordability is handled in this moment in time.” Share Share StumbleUpon
The President of the Ghana Football Association, Kwesi Nyantakyi has hit out at embattled Asante Kotoko boss Dr. K.K. Sarpong for a lack of transparency with regard to player transfers.The club’s International Relations Manager, Kwame Baah Nuako had mentioned in an interview with Accra-based radio station Asempa FM that when the club transferred Ben Acheampong to Petro Atletico, the transfer fee was $150,000 with a co-operation fee of $100,000 between the two clubs.Baah Nuako alleged on the same platform that Nyantakyi had gone to complain to the Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II that Asante Kotoko had under declared the transfer fee for Ben Acheampong.In a no-holes-barred interview with Accra-based Happy FM, Nyantakyi stated that such a co-operation agreement will not be accepted by CAF or FIFA, describing it as a bad agreement.“The co-operation agreement is null and void. For starters, Kotoko has no co-operation agreement with any Angolan club. How can you agree on a transfer for Ben Acheampong and at the same time have a co-operation agreement? It infringes the spirit and rule of competition. There are nine rules of competition. One is competitiveness of the competition. So any two clubs that have an arrangement that would compromise the competitiveness of the competition, such an arrangement will not be accepted by CAF and FIFA. I have served as the chairman of CAF’s ethics committee and so I have come across most of these cases and CAF has rejected such agreements. Petro Atletico and Asante Kotoko are potentially playing in the CAF Champions League so if they are accused of playing a match of convenience because of such an agreement, what would you say?”Nyantakyi also told Happy FM that, as the owner of Wa All Stars, Ben Acheampong was one of four players he transferred to Asante Kotoko, recounting all that took place from the time the transfers were done. “It is true that Wa All Stars sold Acheampong to Kotoko. Kotoko couldn’t finish the payment of his transfer fees. Indeed, Kotoko did not finish payment of fees on Nathaniel Asamoah, Fatau Mohammed and Sabato Mohammed. When Acheampong went to Angola, we at Wa All Stars had not received his full transfer fee. After he joined Petro Atletico, Asante Kotoko soon called and told us that the transfer fee paid by the Angolan club had arrived. They informed us and asked for our bank account, which we gave to them.”Nyantakyi revealed that some money was paid to Wa All Stars without a letter detailing the transfer fee involved and the percentage accruing to Wa All Stars. He also narrated the events that took place after the money was received.“They paid the money, but I expected an accompanying letter stating the amount of money coming in and the accruing percentage to us. That did not happen. What we got was based on $150,000 but we had information that the transfer fee was $250,000. I called Dr. Sarpong without response and when I sent a text I got no reply. I then informed George Afriyie who went to meet Dr. Sarpong in Kumasi. When George came back, he told me that initially, after a tentative agreement to pay the difference, Dr. Sarpong refused to pay the difference. George said when he told Dr. Sarpong that he would be called before the Player Status Committee, he responded that that even if he is asked to pay the money by the Committee, he will take the matter to FIFA.”The GFA President told Happy FM that after this, he asked his club’s CEO, Samuel Oduro Nyarko to write letters to Kotoko asking for details surrounding the transfer fees“I asked my CEO Oduro Nyarko to write to Kotoko asking about how much accrued from the transfer and our percentage. We had no response. So Oduro Nyarko wrote a second letter again without response. So until today we have not been officially informed by Kotoko as to the real figures. The letters were sent via email. We thought we were entitled to 40% of a certain amount.” Nyantakyi went on to say that just before George Afriyie left to meet with Dr. Sarpong in Kumasi, he obtained copies of the transfer and co-operation agreements, copies of which he gave to Afriyie.“When George was about to leave for Kumasi, I gave him copies of two agreements I received from Angola; one was the agreement for a transfer fee of $150000 and the other, which was a co-operation agreement of $100,000 between the two clubs.”Nyantakyi cast doubt on the veracity of the co-operation agreement by revealing that after enquiries he made, he found out that Asante Kotoko had no such agreement with TP Mazembe when Daniel Nii Adjei and Yaw Frimpong were signed by the Congolese club.“I was told that when Asante Kotoko sold two players to TP Mazembe, they had signed a similar agreement with TP Mazembe. After trying in vain to contact Dr Sarpong, I contacted TP Mazembe’s owner, Moise Katumbi who told me that they had not signed any such agreement with Kotoko because of problems experienced in the past. It means that the agreement was a bad one.”Nyantakyi also told Happy FM that the contention of Wa All Stars is that the transfer fee for Ben Acheampong was $250,000 and not $150,000 as declared by Asante Kotoko, noting that it is time for everyone to be fair and transparent when it comes to player transfers. “Our disagreement with Kotoko is that we think the transfer fee is $250,000 not $150,000. Let everyone be fair and transparent when it comes to player transfers. If you recall, the Gbadegbe commission report frowns on such agreements which ultimately amount to revenue concealment. Such agreements must be condemned in no uncertain terms.”The GFA President noted that he had actively supported Asante Kotoko in player recruitment and transfers, making specific references to the likes of Awal Mohammed amongst others; bemoaning the fact that despite all he did for the club, he is being repaid in this manner.“There is no management I have helped more than the current management of Asante Kotoko. After giving them those four players from Wa All Stars, we almost got relegated but by the Grace of God we survived. Also in transferring their three players outside, I recommended the players to their clubs. I am referring to Awal Mohammed. I was invited for a board meeting at Maritzburg United and they told me that they needed a central defender. I recommended Awal and I called Maxwell Konadu and Dr. Sarpong and told them. I recommended Yaw Frimpong and Daniel Nii Adjei to TP Mazembe and they were signed on without trial because Katumbi told me that if I am recommending those players, then he would sign them without trial. Nobody has even thanked me for what I have done and instead this is what I am being subjected to.”
DONEGAL farmers are being fleeced by greedy processors and are being forced to sell cattle at a loss, a local TD has warned.Thomas Pringle has called on Minister Coveney to act in addressing the inequity between farmers and processors.The Independent TD said: “As it stands the relationship between farmer and processor is one where the processors dominate and dictate the price that farmers can achieve for their cattle. “When we have a situation in this country where the entire market is dominated by very few players with one dominant player, there will not be competition in respect of prices for the primary producer. We will continue to see a situation where primary producers will see a loss of up to €300 per head when they sell their stock and small producers will never be able to secure fair prices from dominant processors.“This crisis affects 100,000 farms across the country, with the most recent figures on farm income showing that the average farm income in the beef sector is around €11,000. When you compare that to the average income in the dairy sector of somewhere near €64,000, it highlights the extent of the crisis in the beef sector. Beef farmers are left at the mercy of the processors for their income, who through the marts keep the price at the levels that suit them. I wonder whether an actual ‘market’ is in existence in this country at all.“Additionally, many small abattoirs over the last 15 years or so have been hounded out of business by the enforcement of increasingly stricter standards on them that have left them unable to continue to operate. In one case that I know of personally a small butcher who had an abattoir where he used to slaughter his own cattle was forced to spend over €30,000 as it was at the time to upgrade his facilities.“Within months of reopening, he was visited again and told that he would have to spend an additional €20,000 and at that stage, he decided to give up and close his abattoir as it was not financially viable for him to continue. This has happened to hundreds of small processors around the country and significantly, the effect of this was that it has removed them from the marts bidding against the large processors for cattle. It was a convenient way of getting rid of competition. “The Minister has convened a round table to discuss recent challenges but I wonder why such a ‘softly, softly’ course of action is being taken. The beef sector needs determined action; if the processors do not want a regulator, let them open their books to the Competition Authority to examine and let us see how the market is working,” stated Pringle. DONEGAL BEEF FARMERS FORCED TO SELL AT A LOSS AS PROCESSORS CLEAN-UP – TD was last modified: July 1st, 2014 by John2Share this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Tags:beef farmerscrisisdonegalpriceTDThomas Pringle
Instagram is hiding the number of likes on posts in several countries, including Ireland, in order to “remove pressure” on users.The change means Irish Instagram users won’t be able to see how many likes other people’s photos get – so users can focus on the content they share rather than the likes they get.At the moment, Instagram users see a running total of people who have liked a post. In the trial, users will see a user name “and others” below posts. Instagrammers can still view the number of likes their own posts receive.There is concern social media platforms can contribute to low self-esteem and feelings of inadequacy in young people.The drastic change is compulsory for all account holders in Australia – but it won’t immediately affect people in Britain or the US.“We hope this test will remove the pressure of how many likes a post will receive, so you can focus on sharing the things you love,” Mia Garlick, Facebook Australia and New Zealand director of policy, said in a statement. The goal, she adds, is that users feel less judged and to see “whether this change can help people focus less on likes and more on telling their story”.Instagram hides likes count in ‘to remove pressure’ for users was last modified: July 20th, 2019 by Staff WriterShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)
What was this evolutionist thinking when he proposed that human language evolved out of the lip smacking and buzzing sounds made by monkeys?W. Tecumseh Fitch didn’t get any ridicule at all on Science Daily for proposing that “Monkey Lip Smacks Provide New Insights Into the Evolution of Human Speech.” Nor did he from PhysOrg, which dutifully reprinted the press release from University of Vienna that stated, “Intriguingly, chimpanzees also make communicative sounds with their lips, including both loud lip smacks and lip buzzes (‘raspberries‘).” The monkey on Fitch’s shoulder in the accompanying photo appears to be knocking on his master’s head, wondering, “Anybody home?”Fitch’s theory is not a hoot, the press release assures us. “Scientists have traditionally sought the evolutionary origins of human speech in primate vocalizations, such as monkey coos or chimpanzee hoots,” the article stated without describing whose tradition deserved respect. “But unlike these primate calls, human speech is produced using rapid, controlled movements of the tongue, lips and jaw.” Fitch did his grunt work using cineradiography to analyze the lip-smacking behavior of macaques. He found that the lips move faster than they do when monkeys howl. He did not explain, though, how non-vocal lip movements could be a precursor of language, since monkeys are still smacking and buzzing raspberries without having evolved more advanced oratory, despite having millions of years more time to evolve than their upright primate brethren presumably had. Didn’t they at least evolve envy?In his paper published by Current Biology (31 May 2012, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.04.055) with three colleagues, Fitch recognized his hunch has some missing links:Yet, there are striking differences between the two modes of expression, the most obvious of which is that lip-smacking lacks a vocal component (though a quiet consonant-like bilabial plosive or /p/ sound is produced when the lips smack together). Thus, the capacity to produce vocalizations during rhythmic vocal tract movements seen in speech seems to be a human adaptation. How can lip-smacking be related to speech if there is no vocal component? … Our data only address the evolution of vocal tract movements (the filter component) involved in speech production.It also cannot be tested:Because most traits involved in speech—the vocal production apparatus and the brain—do not fossilize, we are left with only the comparative method for investigating the evolution of speech. By comparing the behavior and biology of extant primates with humans, we can deduce the behavioral capacities of extinct common ancestors.The press release agreed, ending, “the origin of the ‘singing’ component of speech, which requires voluntary control over the larynx, remains mysterious.” Much more mysterious, yet unstated, would be how to evolve Shakespeare from lip-smacking.Update 6/7/2012: Nature reported on Fitch’s hypothesis, giving it no raspberries but a serving of whipped cream.Fitch did not do his job as a scientist. He should have considered all the alternative hypotheses. As usual, he ruled out intelligent design or creation from the get-go, but there are other evolutionary theories he could have tested without abandoning the Cult of the Bearded Buddha that requires all observations to be fit into the Grand Myth.He could have, for instance, tested the Raspberry Theory of Language that proposes language evolved from the other end of the digestive tract, another body part that produces buzzing sounds. Over millions of years, it is just as imaginable that an unguided process would give monkeys voluntary control over the pitch, duration and modulation of emitted signals, independent of the larynx. Another theory is the Hand-Under-the-Armpit Theory of Language. This proposes that meaningful signals (also independently of the larynx) made by pumping the arm over the hand inserted into the armpit evolved into middle-school boys communicating with one another.Perhaps it’s good Fitch didn’t consider these alternatives. We wouldn’t want to find his cineradiography going viral on YouTube.Fitch’s shallow reasoning is evident in that he completely ignored meaning (semantics). Meaning is orthogonal to signal. It’s conceivable that certain ordered lip-smacks or raspberries could be controlled to communicate S.O.S. The meaning of S.O.S., however, has nothing to do with the signalling method. The message could be communicated with flashlights, telegraph, knots on a rope, skywriting, eye blinks or any number of methods. Suggesting that lip smacking led to language is like saying that flashlights created Morse Code.Fitch’s hypothesis is also self-refuting. The language he employed in his paper, if considered seriously, has its roots in unguided processes of lip-smacking and the production of buzzing sounds by his ancestors’ lips. His readers are justified, therefore, by responding in kind.Save this latest evolutionary tale for the day of Darwinism’s spectacular collapse, when intelligent people will hoot and holler at the credulity of Darwinists. They may well communicate their disdain independent of the larynx, by rolling their eyes and circling their index fingers around their ear, unquestionably employing intelligent design to convey the purpose of their bodily signals. (Visited 25 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0