FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrint分享Bloomberg:China’s pledge to be carbon neutral by 2060 includes all greenhouses gases, not just carbon dioxide, according to one of the country’s top climate researchers.He Jiankun, who chairs the academic committee at the Institute of Climate Change and Sustainable Development at Tsinghua University, made the clarification at a conference on Monday outlining China’s road map to reaching its goal.When President Xi Jinping told the United Nations about China’s new target last month, he didn’t specify if China would target just carbon dioxide — the most prevalent greenhouse gas — or others that also contribute to global warming such as methane, ozone and nitrous oxide. He also didn’t detail how China planned to achieve the target, though the government is expected to lay out some of those measures in its upcoming five-year plan for 2021 to 2025.In line with the target, China should announce more ambitious contributions to the Paris climate accord including reducing its carbon intensity by more than 65% from 2005 levels and aiming for a higher share of non-fossil fuel energy sources by 2030, He said.However, researchers at the conference laid out scenarios that showed even that plan wouldn’t put China on the path to keeping global warming within 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels, so China would have to scale up targets even more after 2030.More: China Aims to Cut All Greenhouses Gases by 2060, Researcher Says China intends to cut all greenhouse gas emissions by 2060
The bout is due to get underway at around 5.15 this afternoon
There are three Los Angeles Unified School District high schools whose parents and staffs are voting today on whether their campuses should fall under the control of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s office. And there are three big reasons why they should vote yes. The first is the promise of greatly needed reforms. LAUSD traditionally governs from the top down and usually fails, while under the mayor’s plan decision-making power would go down to the school level with teachers, administrators and parents getting the authority – and the accountability. Villaraigosa’s education office also plans to break massive campuses into smaller, more personal learning communities, to bring in new technology and to make schools cleaner, healthier and safer places to learn. AD Quality Auto 360p 720p 1080p Top articles1/5READ MOREWhicker: Clemson demonstrates that it’s tough to knock out the champThe second reason stakeholders at Roosevelt, Santee and Jordan high schools should vote yes is, quite frankly, money. Villaraigosa’s political future is directly tied to how well these schools perform under his leadership. To that end, he has raised $50 million for their use, with more to come. Any school that joins the mayor’s program will be due for a steady infusion of cash that could meet a variety of severe needs. Money isn’t everything in education, but among under-served schools lacking in the basics, it can make a big difference. But the third, and most important, reason these voters should vote yes is because the alternative – more of the same – is unthinkable. The LAUSD has had decades to turn these schools around. It hasn’t. What’s more, it’s written them off, consigning them to failure, and showing little interest and even less creativity or courage about what needs to be done to save a troubled campus. Any parents or school staffers who vote no today will be turning down the uncertainty that comes with change for the certainty of failure. And that hardly seems like a worthwhile trade-off. There are no guarantees that the reforms Villaraigosa proposes will work, but it is certain that the current system doesn’t. The communities voting today, which have some of the worst schools in a district that has many of the lowest performing schools in the state and nation, have nothing to lose by trying something different. And they have everything to gain. They stand to gain real independence from a suffocating bureaucracy. They stand to gain a new paradigm in education, with true local control, and education that is child-centered. They stand to gain the unleashing of innovative forces that the LAUSD has squelched for decades. Most of all, they stand to get schools they can be proud of, and educations that prepare their children for a lifetime. As Villaraigosa has put it, “If you think the status quo is working, then the partnership’s not for you. But I think our schools can do better.” And that should be reason alone to vote yes.160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set!
When the Raiders play their last game at the Oakland Coliseum on Sunday, there will be lots of nostalgia.Decades of winning football, although at times that’s hard to remember. Three Super Bowl victories. The memories of Jim Otto, George Blanda, Gene Upshaw, Fred Biletnikoff, Ray Guy, Art Shell, Daryle Lamonica, Willie Brown and Ken Stabler. For those in the Bay Area who grew up on Raiders football, the team brought memories that have lasted a lifetime.But it’s been like a bad marriage. We …
Why IoT Apps are Eating Device Interfaces What it Takes to Build a Highly Secure FinTech … mike melanson Role of Mobile App Analytics In-App Engagement Related Posts Tags:#Apple#mobile#news#web The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is said to be “leading the charge” in trying to get content on tablet devices, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, including, of course, Apple’s iPad, which is set to hit the market sometime next month. The ABC currently uses Flash, a software infamously not supported by the iPad, to stream video on its website.Just last Tuesday, Adobe and Wired Magazine announced a partnership, debuting a rather slick print-to-digital adaptation of the magazine. According to the report by the Herald, a senior executive at Adobe received an email from the ABC seeking a similar deal.Update: We mistakenly reported this as ABC, the American Broadcasting Company, not the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The Herald quotes Abigail Thomas, head of strategic development at the ABC, as saying, the iPad will be more appropriate for entertainment than the iPhone.”It’s going to be an entertainment device. Whereas the iPhone is where you might get quick bites of news … with this [the iPad] you can imagine people sitting back on the sofa and enjoying something longer,” she said.While the iPad has received plenty in the way of criticism, including many seeing the lack of Flash as a huge detractor, it looks like some big names are working to get past this and get their content on the iPad. According the the Herald, a number of other companies, including the New York Times, Vanity Fair, GQ and Sports Illustrated, have also been working to bring their content to tablet devices, a number of which have been released at this week’s Mobile World Congress.Thanks to iPadInsider.com for the tip and lead image. The Rise and Rise of Mobile Payment Technology
Brazil, the World Cup host and the clear favorite (in our view), will start off the tournament Thursday with a match against Croatia. Soon after, 30 other countries will take to the pitch with varying prospects of achieving their World Cup dreams. See the FiveThirtyEight World Cup predictions for more on that.But first: a brief tour of World Cup history. We wanted to answer a few basic questions: How often do favorites win? How often do host nations win? Is the spread of soccer talent throughout the world becoming more top-heavy or more even?The 20 charts below provide some answers. They rank each team that entered the World Cup based on its Elo ratings before the tournament.These Elo ratings, which were adopted from a system developed for chess, have relatively little meaning in an absolute sense. We could say, for example, that Italy has an Elo rating of 1879 — but it’s not clear what you’d do with that.The Elo system is set up such that the average team has a rating of 1500. There are more than 200 countries that field national soccer teams, however, so being average (as Cape Verde or Trinidad and Tobago are, according to Elo) won’t normally get a team into the World Cup field, much less win it the trophy.So instead we’ve compared each team’s rating with that of the 32nd-best team in the world, according to Elo (whether or not team No. 32 qualified for the World Cup), at the time the World Cup began.1We only collected Elo ratings data on the teams that qualified for the World Cup. Sometimes, the team ranked No. 32 in the world was not among them. Therefore, we extrapolated the rating for the No. 32 team by looking at others ranked close to that threshold — for example, by taking the average of the Nos. 30 and 34 teams’ Elo ratings if both teams qualified. The 32nd-best team has gotten quite a bit better over the years, having gone from an Elo rating of 1540 in 1930, to one of 1707 this year. (The 32nd-best team in the world is currently Costa Rica, according to Elo.) Of course, the field has also expanded — from 13 teams in 1930 to 32 in World Cups played since 1998.The charts include one other important adjustment: We’ve given a 100-point bonus, in accordance with the Elo system’s recommended value, to the host nation.2This adjustment may be too conservative, especially for the earlier years of the competition.The 1930 World Cup, the first on our tour, was one where the home-nation adjustment makes a difference. Held in Uruguay, it was composed mostly of teams from the Americas; few European nations were willing to make the journey. Argentina and Uruguay were the two best teams in the field by some margin, with Argentina just slightly ahead in the Elo ratings. But Uruguay’s home-nation status was enough to make it the favorite. The two met in the finals in Montevideo, with Uruguay winning 4-2. More surprising: The United States and Yugoslavia won their groups and advanced to the semifinal, ahead of the higher-rated Brazil and Paraguay.Italy played host to the 1934 World Cup. Several South American teams, including Uruguay, declined to participate, as did the countries of the United Kingdom. Overall, however, the field was deeper and had more parity than four years earlier. Italy, Argentina and Austria would essentially have been co-favorites before the tournament began, with Italy slightly ahead on the basis of the home-country effect. Indeed, Italy won.Italy was also the favorite in the 1938 World Cup, which was played in France under the cloud of creeping European fascism. Italy was a clear favorite because Argentina, No. 2 in the Elo ratings at the time and disappointed that Europe had hosted two World Cups in a row, refused to participate. Italy won, keeping the streak alive for Elo favorites.But when the World Cup returned in 1950 after a 12-year hiatus because of World War II and its aftermath, there was a surprise in store. Brazil hosted the tournament and, with its home-country boost, would have been the slight favorite per Elo. But it was a deep field — with England participating for the first time, and strong entrants from Italy, Sweden and several other countries (although Argentina again declined to enter). Uruguay, just the ninth-best team in the field, according to Elo, prevailed in a famous upset.We’ll accelerate our pace a bit now that we’ve gotten the hang of this. The 1954 World Cup, held in Switzerland, featured another famous upset in the final, with West Germany defeating heavily favored Hungary in the so-called Miracle of Bern.The 1958 World Cup featured a deep and competitive field. Hungary or Argentina would probably have been the favorite, but Brazil and England were not far behind them. Brazil won for the first time.This touched off Brazil’s golden era, helmed by its star Pelé. The team entered the 1962 World Cup in Chile as the favorite, and it won — marking the last time a team has won two consecutive World Cups.By 1966, Brazil’s Elo rating had slipped closer to the rest of the world. Among a deep group of contenders, England would have been the Elo favorite because of its host-nation status. And just this once, England won.The 1970 World Cup, held in Mexico, featured one of the deepest fields ever. England was nominally the favorite again, according to Elo, but five other countries were within 100 points of it — including the eventual winner, Brazil.The 1974 World Cup, by contrast, had a relatively clear favorite. West Germany and Brazil were the best teams in the world by some margin, but West Germany, led by Franz Beckenbauer and having built momentum by winning the 1972 European Championships, played host to the tournament and won.The 1978 World Cup, held in and won by Argentina, is one of the least fondly remembered. Argentina was ruled by a military junta, which had come to power in 1976 after the overthrow of Isabel Perón. That World Cup has also long been associated with accusations of match-fixing. Was Argentina’s home-country advantage, for whatever reason, larger than usual? It’s hard to say; Argentina was a good team on its football merits, and the customary 100-point home-country boost would have put it in a group of front-runners that included West Germany, the Netherlands and Brazil.Spain hosted the World Cup in 1982; West Germany and Brazil would have been the favorites, according to Elo. Instead, it was Italy — just the 12th-best team in the field — that won.The 1986 World Cup initiated an era of relative parity. It would have been hard to pick a favorite: 14 teams, including the host, Mexico, were stacked within 140 Elo points of one another, and they weren’t that far ahead of some of the also-rans. Argentina won, not uncontroversially, on Diego Maradona’s “Hand of God” goal.The 1990 World Cup also featured a fairly flat distribution of talent, although the host, Italy, would have been the nominal favorite on the basis of the home-country advantage. West Germany won instead after a low-scoring and poorly played World Cup.The World Cup returned to the Americas in 1994, when it was held in the United States. This was perhaps the first time that the host nation had no real chance of winning; the U.S. was rated as just the 18th-best team, despite its home-country boost. Much like the 1986 tournament, there was a large group of good-but-not-great teams atop the field. The Brazilian team, led by Romário and Bebeto, won in Pasadena, California, after Roberto Baggio’s penalty kick sailed over the crossbar.The 1998 World Cup featured co-favorites, according to Elo: France and Brazil were tied in Elo entering the tournament (after giving France its 100-point home-country bonus). Those two teams met in the final, and France won 3-0.The 2002 World Cup, co-hosted by Japan and South Korea, was one of the oddest tournaments. France was the best team entering the tournament, according to Elo, but it went winless in the group stage. The final featured some customary names — Brazil and Germany, with Brazil winning — but neither the Brazilian or German teams were especially strong by the Elo ratings. Turkey took third place despite being just the 23rd-best team in the field.The 2006 World Cup also featured a great deal of parity, with at least 10 plausible winners, including the host, Germany. It was Italy who prevailed over France on penalties in a final remembered for Zinedine Zidane’s headbutt.The past two World Cups, however, have seen a reversal in the trend of greater equality among footballing nations. Brazil and Spain entered the 2010 World Cup in South Africa as the front-runners, with Brazil just two points ahead of Spain in Elo entering the tournament. In the final, Spain defeated the Netherlands, ranked third in the world per Elo.That brings us back, finally, to this year’s tournament. Here are the Elo ratings, and then a few closing observations.Brazil is the best team in the world, according to Elo, as it is in our Soccer Power Index. There have been several other times when a home country was close enough to the top in Elo that it would have been the favorite after accounting for its home-country bonus. However, this is the first time the No. 1-ranked Elo team also played host.That gives Brazil a significant edge on the rest of the field. In fact, the 506-point gap between Brazil (accounting for its home-country bonus) and the 32nd-best team in the world (Costa Rica) is the largest ever in the World Cup. The 127-point gap between Brazil and the second-best team, Spain, is the second-largest after Italy in 1938.That’s not to say Spain, Argentina and Germany are poor teams. Spain’s Elo rating — 379 points ahead of the No. 32 team — would have made it the favorite in any World Cup played from 1986 through 2010. Argentina and Germany are strong enough that they would have been the favorites in a number of recent World Cups as well. Any of them would be a worthy champion, but they’ll have to get by Brazil.
Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday announced a sweeping proposal aimed at better protecting people from human trafficking as well as tackling sexual misconduct allegations at the Texas Capitol and throughout state government.Abbott’s “Preventing Crime, Protecting Texans, Punishing Criminals” plan includes allocating $22 million to the Department of Public Safety for the creation of regional squads to investigate human trafficking cases and for training local law enforcement. He also wants to target the state’s backlog of sexual assault evidence kits, calling for lawmakers to allocate an additional $14 million in the next two-year budget to clear the backlog.“You have my commitment that I will continue to work to heal victims, to help prevent these despicable crimes and to punish the criminals who commit them,” said Abbott in a news release. Abbott also waded into ongoing efforts to address a pervasive culture of sexual misconduct at the Texas Capitol. His plan includes a recommendation to designate the Texas Rangers as an entity that could collect reports of sexual assault and other “sexual offenses” by legislators, statewide elected officials and other Capitol employees. Laura Buckman for The Texas TribuneTexas Gov. Greg Abbott Share For years, sexual harassment claims in the Texas House and Senate have been handled by officials with little incentive or authority to enforce them, particularly in cases of harassment by lawmakers. In recent months, lawmakers and experts have called for a more impartial body to be able to deal with such complaints.Under Abbott’s proposal, the Public Integrity Unit of the Texas Rangers would carry out criminal investigations related to those allegations. Other proposals in the governor’s plan include using GPS monitoring for repeat sex offenders and perpetrators of family or domestic violence and creating a “do-not-hire” registry for school employees placed on probation or convicted of improper relationships with students. He also wants to make it illegal for a sex offender to be in the same car as a minor who is not a family member. Last year, The Texas Tribune’s Sold Out series examined how state policies — including a severely underfunded child welfare system — failed to help child sex-trafficking victims. And in November, the Tribune reported on on how sexual harassment policies at the Texas Capitol offered little protection to victims facing degrading comments, groping and unwanted sexual advances, prompting immediate calls by state leaders to better address the issue. Abbott’s plan Tuesday mentioned both reports.