Click Here to read posts randomly
Additionally, please feel free to submit ideas, observations or any information of a random nature which maybe of interest to furthering the cause of humanity. Note that your submissions will be seen by the public and open to comments from visitors to BU. Confidential information should be submitted to barbadosunderground@gmail.com.
David
Did you see the report in the Advocate on the statement by the Chairman of the T&T Police Service ( Nizam Mohammed) that there were too many Africans occupying the top posts?
@Sargeant
Read it in the Guardian.
Have you noticed the video clip has been remove?
Now if this statement was made in Barbados…
I haven’t noticed any controversial topics recently, so I thought that I could spice up things a bit…….
http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/1001589–rihanna-s-revenge-murder-video-alarms-watchdogs
http://news.barbadostoday.bb/barticlenew.php?ptitle=Good%20grades&article=6446&pdate=2011-06-03
“Six males scored zero, but all the females scored between one and 100.”
After all the celebrations have ended, can you ask the Minister Of Education the following:
How fair is a system that forces students, who do not have the ability to get even one question right, to take an exam for entrance to a secondary school?
What is the rationale for subjecting such children and their parents to this mental trauma year after year?
Does the Minister agree with the observation that yet again, it would appear that children form the middle to upper economic classes have a higher than average chance of “succeeding” in this exam?
I came across this recent Pentagon presentation and was staggered at the frighteningly “rational” tone when proposing biological conditioning of “religious fundamentalists”.
Zoe et al mind you don’t catch a cold.
Religious fervour today, what tomorrow?
Constitutional rights, Independent thought?
It’s a long weekend and people will be making merry in the streets and between the sheets. Speaking of sheets here is a fascinating case and since BU is home to many legal experts – some with formal training and the majority trained at the “school of hard knocks”- I thought that I’d bring it to their attention to get feedback on an interesting legal argument.
Seems an Australian woman who was travelling on a work assignment decided to get it on with an acquaintance at the motel where she was staying, while they were playing “hide the sausage” the light fixture fell off the ceiling onto her face causing injuries to her mouth and nose.
Now her lawyer is appealing a ruling from the Workmen’s Compensation Board which denied her claim for compensation for the injury. It seems that the claim hinged on the fact that she was travelling on business and “sex is an ordinary lawful incident of life”.
Well you can read the rest….
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1032084–woman-injured-having-sex-on-business-trip-wants-workers-compensation
David,
Have you been following this story…
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fgw-india-activist-20110829,0,3434233.story
Thanks MME!
My navel string was not buried here but I have spent all my adult life here, married a Barbadian, raised his children, our children and now our grandchildren. I have struggled to make a good life but am satisfied with my lot. However I cannot help feeling increasingly uneasy with the number of un-documented white people – mainly women – who have “retired” to Barbados lock stock and barrel .
These women most of whom are living off pensions are allowed to rent houses on contract sometimes for several years although they are given no more than 3 months at the airport. They are forcing the prices of houses upward and often get the house over and above a Bajan family because they can pay the 3 months up front that many Bajans cannot afford.
Many move their homes to Barbados – bring in container loads of furniture and equipment without paying a cent in duty – A Barbadian on the other hand would be charged duty on every piece!!
These are not investors- merely women who can better afford to live here than they can at home in Europe or North America etc. They then proceed to apply for Magna cards, BARP cards, Pricesmart cards etc and reap all the benefits that Bajans should be enjoying after our hard years of working for the betterment of Barbados.
I am not against foreign investment – in fact I welcome it -but surely this is taking advantage. Yes they spend money at the supermarkets and pay rent but surely they should be made to pay for the privilege of living in this wonderful little rock!!
David
Here is an article about domestic violence in St. Vincent (Note the Headline about the worst place in the world for women).
I don’t have any comment I will leave it to those closer to the scene but the words of the Trinidad based psychologist are damning and I quote “In the Caribbean, violence has traditionally been viewed as a “normal part of the relationship dynamic,”
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1084791–video-is-this-caribbean-idyll-the-worst-place-in-the-world-to-be-a-woman
David
I meant to write this sometime ago but got sidetracked with other matters and I didn’t want it be lost among the issues of letters and signatures etc.
A story receiving very little attention is the news that the Iranians have in their custody one of the USAF’s most secret weapons a RQ-170 Spy Plane aka a “Drone”. Not even the closest of US allies have been able to get their hands on one of these machines let alone have access to its technological equipment.
When this story first broke the US said it had lost control of a drone which was on patrol over the Afghan/Iranian border and the US also hinted that it had crashed but there were sophisticated systems on board which would make it self destruct by fire on impact. The Iranians countered that they had the drone which they brought down by seizing control of its systems over its territory. I thought that the Iranians were engaging in some sort of propaganda war and certainly they were bluffing and didn’t have a complete drone, perhaps they had some burned out parts etc. Imagine a few days later the Iranian produced a complete drone looking like it just left the hangar and the US was left with egg on its face.
Then I thought of another US secret flight which was brought down over enemy territory. (Even then although I was knee high to a grasshopper I was interested in International Affairs). In 1960 Frances Gary Powers flying a U2 sophisticated spy plane over Russia was shot down by the Russians. The Russians knew that the US were conducting spying missions over their territory but at that time their planes or missiles couldn’t reach the U2 height of 70,000 feet so the US was surprised when the Russians brought down the plane.
How did the Russians do it? The Russian found out the planes were serviced in Turkey and blackmailed a Turkish technician to sabotage the altimeter so when Powers thought he was flying high, he was actually at a lower altitude. The U2 plane did have the means for the pilot to destroy the plane in the event that something went amiss but Powers parachuted out and was captured by the Soviets. The US stopped the U2 flights over Russia and Nikita Khrushchev (Soviet Leader) used the incident to embarrass the US in his famous shoe banging speech at the UN.
Fast forward to 2011, could the Iranians somehow been able to acquire the means to control the drone or were they acting as surrogates for another country? In the murky world of International espionage anything is possible but now that the Iranians have the drone you can be sure that the Chinese and the Russians will soon their hands on have the technology.
British Intelligence Reports…………….
Mossad ran 9/11 Arab “hijacker” terrorist operation
By Wayne Madsen
British intelligence reported in February 2002 that the Israeli Mossad ran the Arab hijacker cells that were later blamed by the U.S. government’s 9/11 Commission for carrying out the aerial attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. WMR has received details of the British intelligence report which was suppressed by the government of then-Prime Minister Tony Blair.
A Mossad unit consisting of six Egyptian- and Yemeni-born Jews infiltrated “Al Qaeda” cells in Hamburg (the Atta-Mamoun Darkanzali cell), south Florida, and Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates in the months before 9/11. The Mossad not only infiltrated cells but began to run them and give them specific orders that would eventually culminate in their being on board four regularly-scheduled flights originating in Boston, Washington Dulles, and Newark, New Jersey on 9/11.
The Mossad infiltration team comprised six Israelis, comprising two cells of three agents, who all received special training at a Mossad base in the Negev Desert in their future control and handling of the “Al Qaeda” cells. One Mossad cell traveled to Amsterdam where they submitted to the operational control of the Mossad’s Europe Station, which operates from the El Al complex at Schiphol International Airport. The three-man Mossad unit then traveled to Hamburg where it made contact with Mohammed Atta, who believed they were sent by Osama Bin Laden. In fact, they were sent by Ephraim Halevy, the chief of Mossad.
The second three-man Mossad team flew to New York and then to southern Florida where they began to direct the “Al Qaeda” cells operating from Hollywood, Miami, Vero Beach, Delray Beach, and West Palm Beach. Israeli “art students,” already under investigation by the Drug Enforcement Administration for casing the offices and homes of federal law enforcement officers, had been living among and conducting surveillance of the activities, including flight school training, of the future Arab “hijacker” cells, particularly in Hollywood and Vero Beach.
Continued at:
http://www.opinion-maker.org/2011/01/british-intelligence-reports/#
Green Monkey
History is fashioned by the victors. This battle has been lost and there is not very much that can be said and done at this point that could change people’s minds as to what took place. I am sorry, friend
An incredible story:
Farewell Etta
Everyone knows the iconic “At last’ but this is the first Etta James song I ever heard “Tell Mama” which was on the Reddifusion Top 10 back in the 60’s.
I am publishing these comments on behalf of Mr Jeff Layne which suggests deficiencies in the application of the Duckworth/Lewis method to the resolution of rain affected cricket matches and his alternative proposals for bloggers to offer their opinions..
Why a New Method is Needed ?
From the inception, of one-day limited overs cricket. Resetting the target when play was lost has been problematic. Over the years seven methods have been tried. Coincidentally all of them were devised by the three countries; England, Australia and South Africa who formed the International cricket Council (ICC). Since 1999 the Duckworth- Lewis method (D/L) have been the ICC preferred choice. Yet it continues to produce some of the most controversial revised targets and results, therefore the Average Run Rate method (ARR) is still being widely used.
The D/L Method is a mathematical system, based on a premise that both sides have a combination of 50 overs and 10 wickets i.e. 100% of resources, but if play is lost after a match start the side batting last will have the advantage, that advantage has to be neutralized. The Neutraliser is a 50- over innings average score of 225.A table of resource percentages Computer program-CODA is the key to the application and the revision is in accordance to the run-scoring resources of the two sides.”
For instance, ICC 2010 Twenty 20 Championship match, Sri Lanka v Zimbabwe May 3. S L 173-7 full 20 overs, Zim with the minimum 5 overs was set a revised target of 43 official match target. (ARR exclusive) However,. S L 173/ 20 overs=8.65 ARR x Zim 5 overs=43 with all 10 wickets. (CODA show S L used 58.9% Zim had 18.4% 173×18,4/58.9%=54-run target 11 run differential.
ICC 2010 Twenty 20 Championship match, England v West Indies May 3, Eng 190-5 full 20 overs, W I with 6 overs was set a target of 60./6 overs=10 A R R x Eng 20 overs=200 scaled up score/20 overs=10 ARR same as W.I 60-run target. (CODA Eng 58.9% W.I 21.7% score 190×21.7%/58.9%=70). This match prompted Eng, Captain Paul Collingwood who said, “there Has to be a recalibration of the D/L method because it is clearly unfair to the side that bats first. And Frank Duckworth terse response, there will be no such recalibration, Mr, Collingwood is the only Descenter on two occasions in the 74 matches where the D/L were applied”. (However, the new D/L Professional Edition, speaks to the adjustment of the tables recalibration).
Tri-Series, West Indies v Zimbabwe Jan, 21, 2001 Australia. W I 235-5 in 47 overs, Zim with same 47 0vers was set a revised target of 253. Zim target253/47 overs=5.38 ARR x W.I 47 overs= same 253 scaled up score/47 overs=5.38 ARR same as Zim (CODA show W.I used 89.4% Zim had 97.4% Score235x97.4/89.4=256-253=3-run differential in targets which is the root of the controversies.
Average Run Rate method; W.I 47 overs 235-5/47 overs=5 ARR x Zim 47 overs=235+1 with all 10 wickets
.
JEFMAR method; W.I 47 overs 235-5, Zim same 47 overs target 235+ 1 with 5 wickets. W.I utilised 7 batsmen and 5 wickets, Likewise Zim must also utilise 7 batsmen and 5 wickets, The target shall be reached the loss of the 6th wicket.
The above comparison of the three methods show indisputably that The jefmar is the fairest. It was submitted to the ICC as an alternative. However, the response was unbelievable! “As we are in partnership with Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis, I have to send them your method for their views. This is our normal procedure.” Clive Hitchcock, Cricket Operations Manager.
Review of the D/L mathematics tri-series match: when rain stopped play, the first innings concluded and Zimbabwe had done exactly the opposite of what West Indies had done. i.e 47 overs, conceded 235 runs, took 5 wickets and lost its last 3 overs of bowling. So obviously could not have held an advantage.
First innings: W.I batted 47 overs scored 235 runs, lost 5 wickets used 89.4%
ZIM bowled 47 overs conceded 235 runs took 5 wickets used 2.6%
Totals 0 0 0 W.I 86.8%
Second Innings: ZIM batting 47 overs target 253 with 10 wickets had 97.4%
W.I bowling 47 overs target 253 with 10 wickets had 10.8%
Totals 0 0 0 ZIM 86.8%
First innings W.I batted used 86.8% more, second innings ZIM batted used 86.8% = 0 same(this is a wash). Therefore the D/L calculations unwittingly show the target 235+1 but with 5 wickets (match Equity vs Preserved) Rather that ZIM having used 2.6% to bowl 47 overs and W.I 10.6% to bowl its 47. This is farcical nevertheless, score 235× ZIM 97.4% ÷ W.I 89.4% = 256 target, 3-run differential in targets but ZIM target 253÷47 overs =5.38 ARR×W.I 47 overs =253 scaled up score, same as ZIM target ÷ W.I 47 overs = 5.38 ARR same as ZIM.
The D/L system is an ARR method. It neutralizes the runt-rates of the two teams which automatically scales up the first side score to suit the target. Even when the first side have batted its full quota of overs the side batting last has to score at a higher rate in order to win. How can this be fair?
Review Of The Below; (New) D/L Professional Edition
The review of these two matches show that the premise (combination of 50 overs and 10 wickets = 100%) is fundamentally flawed.
1. Overs and wickets cannot be combined, the batting side is utilizing its wickets, whereas the bowling side is utilizing its overs.
2. Once play is lost the side batting last will have fewer overs (New Edition) or the same number (Tri-Series)
3. The system is multifarious (a fair system is rigid), which is the root of the perennial controversies, almost every time it is applied. Since evidently whether the first side have scored smaller 173, 190 or greater 235, 359 than average, revised targets and results will be unrealistic. Because there is no such things as resource-percentages or neutralisers when a match is in progress the D/L is egregious and should be scrapped. That is why a new method is needed.
Bio
Jefmar
The D/L system widely regarded as the fairest way of settling games spoiled by the weather was deemed to b unfair. “After Australia scored a massive 359-2 in its 50 overs, setting India 360 to win World Cup 2003 final. India of 145-3 after 23 overs, were only four runs behind par. Losing no more wickets and scoring 12 runs in the next two overs followed by a terminal down pour would have ended the title to India. We have always been aware that when the first side total is greater than average that revise targets and par scores are unrealistic. Using the Nee Professional D/L Edition, India would have been 20 runs behind par. A match fairer reflection of the state of the game. This, mean the tables had to be adjusted.” Duckworth-Lewis said yesterday on the day ICC accepted the new method, October 2, 2003 (AP).
Australia 359-2 50 overs used 100%, India 157-3 after 25 overs used 57.1%, score 359 × 57.1% ÷100% = 205 as India target. India 205÷25 overs = 8.20 run rate × Australia 50 overs = 410 scaled up score ÷ 50 overs = 8.20 run rate same as India’s 205 target. So India could not have won after batting for only half of the quota. But would have won because whatsoever the D/L computer shows is treated as gospel.
However score 359 average score 225 = 134 runs greater than average, 134×57.1% ÷ 100% = 77 more runs, 134-77=57, 77-57=20 new par score, 134+20 = 154, Ind 205 target + 154 = 359+1 the original 50 over target India were chasing.
Now 205-154=51, 57-51=6 run differential÷57.1% =10+ old average 225=235 as the new average score. Which show that the tables have not been adjusted. (225×57.1% = 128, 235×57.1% = 134, 134-128=6 run differential) see matches since October 1, 2003. For instance: Cricket World Cup 2011 match, Pakistan vs Zimbabwe. Zim 151-7 in 39.4 overs used 79.1%, Pak with 38 overs had 88% and was set a target of 162. Score 151÷79.1% × 88% =168-162=6 run differential in targets.
But Pak target 162÷38 overs= 4.26 run rate × 39.4 overs =168 scaled up score ÷39.4 overs= 4.26 run rate same as Zim 38 over 162 target. Hence the perennial controversies, the system is multifarious. A fair system is rigid. The above confirm that the tables have not been adjusted but remain the same only the average score increased from 225 to 235.
The review shows that the D/L is fundamentally flawed. Once play is lost the side batting last will have fewer overs (new edition) or the same number (tri-series) and the revisions are multifarious (a fair system is rigid) so whether the first side have scored smaller 173/190 or greater 235/359 than average, revised targets and results will be unrealistic since there is no such thing as resource-percentages or neutralizers when a match is in progress.
The D/L is egregious and should be scrapped. That is why a new method is needed. But it would be some other reason. Rather than the D/L is the fairest available method and hence the Icc’s retention. Having seen The Jefmar comparison.
Jeff Layne was born and raise in a small village “Edey’s” in Christ Church, Barbados. Like almost every little bajan boy back in the 1950’s, he was attracted to the game of cricket. He represented his School” St. David’s as an opening batsman and at 15 his village in the Barbados Cricket League (BCL). Cricket is his passion; He follows it like a religion and is a visceral supporter of the West Indies Team.
It was in the wake of an English County One-Day Limited overs match in 1998 when he first saw the Duckworth-Method D/L implemented .and from the outset he realised that it could not be a fair system. Since the side batting last with fewer overs was set a target much higher than the first side score, and hence the Jefmar undertaking.
THE JEFMAR METHOD
The JEFMAR Method mirrors the fundamental principles of cricket.(game of glorious uncertainties). In the one- day limited overs version, when plays is lost while a match is in progress, inevitably, the side batting last will have fewer overs or the same number as the first side. Because of the time constraint adjustments are mandatory to preserve equity. therefore adjustments are made, only when the second side is batting, there is an interruption of play, overs are lost but play is resumed. However, should play be abandoned at any stage after the minimum overs for a completed match is or can be met the side that is ahead shall be the winner or the adjustments shall be made commensurate with the first side score at the same stage. In matches that end with equal scores the winner shall be the side that lost fewer wickets.
Cricketers are human beings. Two sides matching wit and finesse simultaneously. The side that is more resilient on the day/night will prevail in accordance with the law. (Please see examples and comparisons below and on following page.)
Example (1): CWC 2003 Australia vs. Holland. Australia batting first had scored 103-1 in 26 overs when play was interrupted. There was a resumption of play and Australia faced another 10 overs, therefore 14 overs were lost, Australia’s total was 170-2 in 36 overs. Holland with the same 36 overs was set a revised target of 198 with all 10 wickets.
Example (2): CWC 2003 South Africa vs. New Zealand. South Africa scored 306-6 in 50 overs. New Zealand were 182-1 in 31 overs when rain stopped play, on resumption a further 8 overs was possible giving New Zealand a total of 39 overs and a revised target of 225.with all 10 wickets.
Example (3): West Indies vs. New Zealand, Port-of-Spain Trinidad June 12, 2002 New Zealand batting first had scored 212-5 in 44.2 overs when play was interrupted, on resumption West Indies could only face 33 overs, and was set a revised target the same 212 with all 10 wickets.
Comparative Revisions of
The JEFMAR and Duckworth-Lewis Methods
JEFMAR Method Duckworth-Lewis Method
Australia vs. Holland CWC 2003
Australia 170-2 in 36 overs Australia 170-2 in 36 overs 74.3%
Holland’s target 171-2 in 36 overs. Target shall be reach before lost of third wicket. Holland with same 36 overs 85.5% was set a target of 198 with 10 wickets.
JEFMAR Method Duckworth-Lewis Method
South Africa vs. New Zealand CWC 2003
South Africa 306-6 in 50 overs South Africa 306-6 in 50 overs
New Zealand 182-1in 31 overs Play interrupted, Resumption of play, further 8 overs, total 39 overs. The revised target would be, South Africa’s 306 minus the total from the 11 overs lost between the 31st and 42nd overs which is equal to the period lost by New Zealand (see JEFMAR revision table over leaf) South Africa 306-6 in 50 overs 100%.
New Zealand 39 overs 73.5% and revised Target 225 with 10 wickets
West Indies vs. New Zealand
Port-of-Spain Trinidad June 12, 2002
New Zealand 212-5 in 44.2 overs New Zealand 212-5 in 44.2 overs
Play interrupted innings closed West Indies 33 overs, revised target would be New Zealand score at 33 overs. New Zealand 44.2 overs, 81.8%
West Indies 33 overs 81.5%
Revised target same 212 with 10 wickets
JEFMAR Revision Table “example”
South Africa vs. New Zealand CWC 2003
South Africa New Zealand
Explanation Score Wkts. Overs Explanation Target Wkts. Overs
South Africa 306 6 50
New Zealand 307 10 50
South Africa score equal to lost period ~~~ ~~~ 11 Score @ Interruption 182 1 31
Total runs From lost Overs 83* ~~~ ~~~ Required 125 9 19
Revised Score 223 6 39 Overs lost ~~~
~~~ 11
Total from Overs lost 83 ~~~ ~~~
Required 42 6 8
Match revised Target 224 6 39
Target shall be reach before the lost of the 7th wicket.
*This figure merely represents a hypothetical total at the commensurate stage.
Examples: glorious uncertainties of cricket
England vs. India Tri-nation final, Lords August 4, 2002
England scored 325-7, 50 overs. India on 145-5 in 35 overs seemed to be facing certain defeat. But amazingly went on and won, reaching 326-7 in 48.5 overs. Had the match been abandoned at that stage (with India on 145-5), England would have won using the revised Duckworth-Lewis Method; India’s target would have been 211 runs.
England vs. Australia CWC 2003
England scored 204-8 in 50 overs, Australia on 134-8 in 37 overs, would have lost, if the match were abandoned at that stage. The Duckworth-Lewis revised target would have been 171 runs, but Australia went on and scored the required 205-8 in 49.5 overs.
West Indies vs. South Africa Bridgetown, Barbados May 2004
West Indies needed one run from the last over with 3 wickets in hand. South Africa unbelievably took those wickets and won the match. If this match had rain-ended at that stage West Indies would have been the winner by the D/L.
West Indies vs. Sri Lanka Port of Spain, Trinidad April 2008
West Indies needed 10 runs from the last 2 balls with one wicket in hand and got those runs by hitting a 6 and a 4. If this match had rain-ended at that stage West Indies would have lost by the D/L. Let’s suppose these last two examples were rained off at the respective stages. The question to be answered is this: with 99% of these two matches completed. Why is there a need for a computer?