England still on a high despite loss to Belgium, says Three Lions star

first_img 2 Some will say England were boosted by the defeat to Belgium, as it handed them an easier possible route to the final.However, they will first face a tricky clash against Colombia, who reached the quarter-finals at Brazil 2014, on Tuesday.But Trippier says the England team have done their research and will be fully prepared to face the South Americans.“We’ve done a lot of work on them,” the right-back added. Trippier is expected to be back in England team as Southgate reverts to his first-XI for Colombia Kieran Trippier has dismissed claims England lost their World Cup momentum with their 1-0 defeat to Belgium, insisting the team is still on a high after sealing their place in the last-16.The Tottenham star was one of the first XI players rested by Gareth Southgate for Thursday’s clash, which the Belgians won 1-0 to finish at the top of Group G.There have been claims the result, and Southgate’s decision to rotate his squad, could come back to bite England in their preparation for a tough last-16 meeting against Colombia.But Trippier insists ‘nothing has changed’ and the mood in the camp in Russia has not been affected by the defeat.“Everyone is absolutely buzzing about qualifying,” the Spurs defender told talkSPORT’s England correspondent Nigel Adderley.“It’s a massive achievement because it’s not easy to qualify out of the group in a World Cup“The mood is high, nothing has changed and we’re all excited and ready to go.” “When you look at the players they’ve got in the team and the way the qualified in their group as well, they’ve got some quality players and we need to be aware of that.“They’re a very fit team who love to press, so we just need to play the way we’ve been playing, worry about our own game and about how we can hurt them.“Hopefully we can do that on Tuesday night.”Listen to talkSPORT’s interview with Kieran Trippier IN FULL above!talkSPORT are with listeners all day and all night at this year’s 2018 FIFA World Cup™ with over 800 hours of World Cup content and all 64 games live across the talkSPORT network. Colombia recorded two wins in their group, beating Poland 3-0 and Senegal 1-0 2last_img read more

SouthAfrica.info Mobile

first_imgStay connected wherever you are with our new mobile version of SouthAfrica.info.m.southafrica.infoSurfing SouthAfrica.info Mobile is easy: simply go to your phone’s web browser, type in m.southafrica.info, and press “OK” or “Go”.Web-enabling your phoneMost new cellphones are already set up for mobile internet access or WAP (wireless application protocol). If yours is not, you can set it up by following these simple steps (for South African mobile subscribers):VodacomDial *111# from your phone, choose “device setup” and follow the prompts to download the WAP settings to your phone. Alternatively, you can register for Vodacom4me. See Vodacom’s mobile data page. If you still need help, dial Vodacom customer service on 155 from a Vodacom mobile or 082 155 from any other phone.MTNDial *123# from your phone, and select the option to have the WAP settings sent to your cellphone by SMS. When you receive the SMS, all you have to do is select the option to save the settings. See MTN’s WAP FAQ. If you still need help, dial MTN customer service on 173 from your mobile.Cell CSMS SMARTDATA to 084 115 9911 (costs R2) to get set up, or go to Cell C’s mobile internet services page. If you still need help, dial Cell C customer service on 084 140 from your mobile.Virgin MobileOn your handset menu, find the Virgin Mobile menu. It normally appears on the first page of the menu, or under “Applications”. Then choose the option called “Virgin Settings”, and after a few minutes you’ll receive two SMS messages with the settings. Open the messages, select “Save” from the menu, and you’re done. See Virgin Mobile’s data services page. If you still need help, dial Virgin Mobile customer service on 0741 000 123.How much will it cost me?Mobile internet browsing is relatively inexpensive. Remember: you’re not paying for a call, or for the length of time you’re connected. You’re only paying for the data you download. So once you’ve downloaded a web page, you can read it at your leisure – you only start paying again if/when you download another page.last_img read more

How to Improve Energy-Efficiency Programs

first_imgThe need to be objectiveThird, both communities need to be fair and objective when they conduct studies, and not seek to bias the results or report valid results in a biased manner.Study designs that implicitly tilt the playing field in one direction are more rhetoric than useful investigation of what is happening. Examples of tilting the field include studies that look at only costs but not benefits (see here for an example); include extra costs unrelated to energy efficiency (e.g. home repair costs); leave important costs out, such as changes in maintenance; or are based on a simple cost-benefit framework without considering other goals that the programs might have.Likewise, each program is different and one problematic program should not cast doubt on all of the others, particularly dissimilar programs. Conclusions can only be generalized to similar programs. RELATED ARTICLES Is Weatherization Cost-Effective?A Second Look at a Surprising Study on EnergyHard Truths of Home PerformanceIndiana Cancels Energy-Efficiency EffortWeatherization Funding Has Been SlashedWeatherization’s Home-Stretch RecoveryLawmaker Targets DOE’s Weatherization ProgramWeatherization’s Political Fallout Combining skills to create the best research possibleSo how can we better work together? First, rather than each community conducting separate studies, perhaps economists and energy-efficiency practitioners can jointly work together on some studies, as each profession brings useful skills, perspectives and information.Economists tend to be good at research methods and statistics but they don’t always understand the markets they are evaluating. By coupling economists with knowledgeable practitioners, many of these problems can be avoided. Likewise, it would be useful to have the other community review studies before they are published, allowing problems to be identified and corrected before publication. Similarly, the two communities can work together to identify good programs that are worth studying, rather than marginal programs that are not typical.Finally, when results are obtained, it can be useful to look not only at the results but why the results happened. In this way, studies can achieve what perhaps we can all agree is the intended purpose: to understand what works, and to improve what falls short. Getting beyond paradigms to discover the truthSecond, there is a tendency, in both the economics and energy-efficiency communities, to work from established paradigms and work with colleagues who share similar views. When the two communities meet they often talk past each other.There is a need for both sides to better understand where the other side is coming from, and to explore opportunities to find a middle ground. For example, many economists look for rigorous evaluation, preferring what they call the “gold standard”: randomized control trials in which a large group of potential participants is randomly assigned to either a study or control group.But randomized control trials can be very difficult to implement, as the recent recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics has discussed. This is particularly a problem for full-scale programs in which everyone is eligible and random assignment to a control is not possible. On the other hand, the energy-efficiency community in recent years has increased use of “deemed savings estimates,” since these are easier to use and provide certainty for program implementers.Deemed savings estimates are supposed to be based on prior evaluations, but these evaluations are not always as rigorous or frequent as would be ideal. Perhaps the two sides could agree on more frequent “quasi-experimental” studies that carefully select a control group that is not randomized. There is much to learnFirst, we admit that not all energy-efficiency programs are stellar. It’s critical to have good evaluation to help tell what is working well and what needs improving.For example, one of the useful findings from the recent but controversial Fowlie et al. evaluation of the low-income weatherization program in several Michigan communities is that the energy audits in this program were overestimating the energy savings that can be achieved. Fortunately, as my colleague Jennifer Amann recently wrote, other research has found that calibrating audits to actual energy bills can do much to address this problem. This is an example of how identifying a problem can help lead to solutions. Steven Nadel is the executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. This post originally appeared on the ACEEE Blog. In the past year, a growing number of papers from economists have questioned the effectiveness of energy-efficiency programs and policies. We have reviewed many of these studies and blogged about several of them (see here, here, here, and here).In general, we have found that some of these studies have useful lessons, but too often they miss the mark because they miss some key issues in the programs they are evaluating, or they seek to over-generalize their findings to programs very different from the ones they evaluated. But rather than continuing a tit-for-tat debate, I want to go past some of these details and look more broadly at how economists and energy-efficiency practitioners can better avoid these past problems, better understand each other, and better work together.last_img read more

To Truly Stop Aereo, TV Broadcasters Need To Innovate Like Hell

first_img12 Unique Gifts for the Hard-to-Shop-for People… Related Posts Why Aereo ExistsAereo is a pretty attractive service, especially for the cord cutter set. And for those who haven’t yet considered canceling their cable subscription, products like this make it more tempting. It remains to be seen how much overall demand there is for Aereo, but the fact that it exists at all is pretty telling.The legal niceties aside (those will be decided by courts, not blogs), Aereo is doing something innovative that empowers media consumers in a way that wasn’t previously possible. That’s because nobody — least of all broadcasters — made it possible. Now somebody is.  When the Internet rose to prominence, newspapers didn’t have the luxury of suing its brains out. They had to deal with the ways in which their landscape was shifting, which was ultimately better for consumers. Similarly, broadcasts may not turn out to have that luxury with Aereo. Trying to sue them out of existence is not an unexpected response, but it may not succeed. They need a backup plan. Should broadcasters have come up with this idea? It’s nice to talk about how industries should disrupt themselves, but that’s rarely how things actually work. It would have been totally counterintuitive for broadcasters to band together and develop the type of functionality that Aereo is offering. Smart, yes, but not necessarily a sound business decision within the framework in which these people generally think. What Should Broadcasters Do? It’s a fruitless debate anyway. Broadcasters didn’t come up with Aereo. Aereo did. Now the Comcast and News Corps. of the world need to think about what they’ll do in the event that the disruptive little startup prevails in court. Aereo has already filed four patents that cover the precise technology its using, so it’s probably not feasible to recreate its functionality. But what does Aereo do for viewers? It provides cheap, multi-channel, high-definition access to broadcast TV from an array of devices and allows for DVR recording. It lets you do all of this without paying for a cable subscription. To their credit, cable companies are already working on ways to bring live TV to tablet and smartphone owners. Comcast’s TV Everywhere initiative clearly anticipated trends in the way people watch programs that could threaten their core business model, so they moved on it.But while services like TV Everywhere and XFinity Streampix are nice, they’re add-ons to a cable subscriptions, which some people simply don’t want to deal with in the first place. It’s unlikely that Comcast or Verizon is going to come up with a worthwhile Internet TV offering that doesn’t hinge on their existing models — and the sky-high fees that support them. Broadcast networks might not be able to rent out tiny antennae, but they don’t need to, either: They already have much of the infrastructure in place to provide live Internet TV signals and make them available from mobile devices and connected TVs. If they band together and offer enough programming, they could charge a small subscription fee. Think Hulu for live broadcast TV. In fact, yes, just tack this onto Hulu for a couple extra bucks. Bingo. There may be sound business reasons why broadcasters wouldn’t consider doing this. Their relationships with cable providers may not allow it. But that rigid, no-we-mustn’t mentality is exactly what created the void that allowed Aereo to crop up in the first place. It might be time to change that mindset.Lead photo by schmilblick Tags:#Aereo#copyright#Internet TV#mobile#Streaming video Television broadcasters are freaking out. Certain that the courts would see things their way, companies like CBS, Comcast and News Corp. instead found that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Aereo, an Internet TV service they’ve been trying to shut down for a year. With Aereo’s second legal victory under its belt, it might be time for broadcasters to focus on Plan B: to start, y’know, innovating like crazy. So Aereo Is A Go. For NowAt issue is whether or not Aereo violates the broadcasters’ copyrights by retransmitting local, over-the-air channels so its subscribers can access them from smartphones, tablets and an array of smart TVs and streaming set top boxes. When Aereo launched in New York last March, the broadcasters immediately asked a judge to shut it down via preliminary injunction, arguing that indeed, it violates copyright law by generating a legally forbidden “public performance” without paying compensation. In its defense, Aereo has argued that the way it’s retransmitting broadcasts — using tiny, remote antennae rented by its customers — does not constitute a public performance, since its use by individual viewers was inherently private. Aereo won a first round in court last July. Today, in a 2-1 decision, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the earlier ruling. The networks will undoubtedly continue pushing their case, opening the prospect of a full trial and eventually, a possible Supreme Court ruling. Broadcasters, of course, have every right to pursue a legal case against Aereo. This is yet another example of how technology has evolved faster than the law can keep up and how we, as a society, need to figure this stuff out.In the meantime, broadcasters should prepare themselves for the possibility that Aereo will win in court, allowing its expansion to continue. john paul titlow 4 Keys to a Kid-Safe App 9 Books That Make Perfect Gifts for Industry Ex… 5 Outdoor Activities for Beating Office Burnoutlast_img read more