Proteins Conduct Electricity

first_img(Visited 582 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 A remarkable finding at the single-molecule level shows a protein can conduct a large amount of electricity.A press release from the University of Cardiff describes how researchers isolated a single protein molecule and measured the passage of a current when placed between electrodes.  This could represent a fundamental property of proteins that might explain their function.  Two collaborators at the university said, “The highly conducting nature of this protein was a surprise and the result raises questions about the fundamental nature of electron transfer in proteins.”  Could it be that proteins operate as transistors?The team showed that the protein could carry large currents, equivalent to a human hair carrying one amp. The team also discovered that current flow could be regulated in much the same way as transistors, the tiny devices driving computers and smartphones, work but on a smaller scale: the proteins are only a quarter of the size of current silicon based transistors.The finding represents a leap forward in measurement at the nano scale.  “Prior to this work, measurement of millions, if not billions of proteins was only possible, so losing crucial details of how an individual molecule functions.” The team used scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) to read the electronics of a single molecule of cytochrome b562, a protein just 5 nanometers (billions of a meter) long.While the focus of the press release was on human engineering of this conductance for nanotechnology, the discovery may elucidate how the cell’s protein machines work.  PhysOrg‘s headline was, “Electronics of nature’s nano machines.”  Its summary reads, “A team from the Cardiff University’s Schools of Biosciences and Physics and Astronomy have made a breakthrough in our understanding of proteins – the workhorse molecules of the cell and nature’s very own nano machines.”Details of the research have been published as a series of papers in the journals Nano Letters, ACS Nano, Small and Nanoscale, the press release indicated.While it’s premature to compare proteins to human electrical tools, it is known that electron or proton transfer is essential to some of them, such as photosynthesis, ATP synthase and other machines in the respiratory chain.  What about the motor proteins dynein, kinesin, and myosin?  What about the flagellar motor, mitochondrial machines and DNA transcription and translation machines?  How is ATP energy transduced into proteins’  mechanical actions?  This is a discovery to watch.  If your own cells can be someday described as electronic machines, wouldn’t that be cool?last_img read more

9 months agoJuventus captain Chiellini: We care about Supercoppa

first_imgAbout the authorCarlos VolcanoShare the loveHave your say Juventus captain Chiellini: We care about Supercoppaby Carlos Volcano9 months agoSend to a friendShare the loveJuventus captain Giorgio Chiellini says they’re determined to win the Supercoppa against Juventus tonight.Juve lost on penalties in the December 2016 Supercoppa in Doha.“We have changed a great deal in two years, but it is certainly a trophy we care about and want to win,” said Chiellini in his Press conference.“This appointment arrives mid-season, so it’s different to playing in August, but it remains an important competition and we’ve got to prove ourselves with actions rather than words, because we let a few too many of these trophies slip through our fingers in recent years and that is a shame.“We want to change that trend that has seen us lose the last two Supercoppa finals, and this is the ideal opportunity. It’s going to be a difficult match, but the objective is to start 2019 lifting a trophy above our heads.” last_img read more

PM Welcomes $3-Billion Investment by Seprod

first_img Prime Minister, the Most Hon. Andrew Holness, has welcomed the launch of the Seprod Group’s new $3-billion state-of-the-art grains mill, Jamaica Grain and Cereals Limited, which has created employment for 300 more Jamaicans.“It is an important signal when one of the largest food manufacturers in the Caribbean undertakes such an expansive investment,” Mr. Holness said, at a ceremony to officially open the facility at Seprod, located on Felix Fox Boulevard in Kingston on Thursday (March 15).The Prime Minister said Seprod’s new venture is significant, as it puts the country “on a good footing for (continued) growth,” adding that he is pleased to see that level of investment in downtown Kingston.“What Seprod is doing is taking a calculated risk to ensure its success and is confirming its significant role within the virtuous cycle of business success and national economic growth,” he said.The Prime Minister emphasised that the Government continues to support the private sector by creating a stable and predictable environment where businesses can take the calculated risks required to invest and earn a profit from their investments.“The Government has created an environment where entrepreneurs can take calculated risks (on investment), and we want to see more entrepreneurs, more businesses, whether it is in manufacturing or agriculture (taking more risks), and we are making sure that the environment is one which (facilitates this),” he said.Mr. Holness said he is pleased that the investment, which also represents a milestone in Jamaica’s reindustrialisation, will assist with economic growth through import substitution.He thanked the Seprod Group for continuing to demonstrate confidence in Jamaica, assuring that the Government will continue to play its role in facilitating the private sector in creating growth.The multigrain milling facility, which involves a partnership with Seaboard Corporation, will produce the company’s new Gold Seal Flour brand and corn products.The Seprod Group manufactures and distributes edible oils and fats, dairy and fruit beverages, corn products, flour, sugar, baked snacks and other household consumer products. Story Highlights “It is an important signal when one of the largest food manufacturers in the Caribbean undertakes such an expansive investment,” Mr. Holness said, at a ceremony to officially open the facility at Seprod, located on Felix Fox Boulevard in Kingston on Thursday (March 15). “What Seprod is doing is taking a calculated risk to ensure its success and is confirming its significant role within the virtuous cycle of business success and national economic growth,” he said. Prime Minister, the Most Hon. Andrew Holness, has welcomed the launch of the Seprod Group’s new $3-billion state-of-the-art grains mill, Jamaica Grain and Cereals Limited, which has created employment for 300 more Jamaicans.last_img read more

Tourism Ministry Crafting Destination Assurance Policy and Strategy

first_img The Ministry of Tourism is developing a destination assurance policy and strategy that will ensure that the tourism product remains first class and that the country can maintain its competitive advantage in the global marketplace.“We cannot allow any threat or challenge to interfere with this product [because tourism] is the only sector in Jamaica that has grown consistently for the past 30 years,” said Senior Director for Technical Services in the Ministry, David Dobson.“The idea is that once a visitor books a vacation to Jamaica, they can be confident from the moment of arrival until their departure [of] a comfortable, safe and fulfilling visitor experience,” he pointed out.Mr. Dobson was addressing tourism and health stakeholders at a workshop on the Regional Tourism and Health Programme at the RIU Montego Bay Hotel on Friday (June 15).The Ministry, last year, launched the Destination Assurance Council, which will work to ensure that the quality, standards and integrity of the tourism product are maintained.Among its many functions, the Council will identify the needs of the tourism industry, monitor the progress of the developmental efforts made by key stakeholders in the resort areas, and ensure that operators are licensed.The Regional Tourism Health Programme aims to enhance the health and well-being of visitors and locals, thereby improving the quality, competitiveness, reputation, profitability, and sustainability of Caribbean tourism.Mr. Dobson informed that since the launch of the programme in July 2017, “we have developed this web-based real-time tourism health information monitoring and response system, [and] we have established regional guidelines for harmonised responses to tourism public health threats”.In addition, extensive capacity-building in food safety and environmental sanitation have been executed and public-private partnerships have been initiated.He noted that for these strategies to be successful, the full participation of all sector players will be necessary.“If we are to do this, all tourism entities must be aware of this, and they are all encouraged to conform to the guiding principles pertaining to visitor safety, and that includes food safety,” Mr. Dobson said, adding that the Government is committed to the programme.The Regional Tourism and Health Programme was developed through support from the World Bank and is being executed by the Caribbean Public Health Agency (CARPHA) in collaboration with the Caribbean Tourism Organization (CTO), the Caribbean Hotel and Tourism Association (CHTA) and member countries. Story Highlights The Ministry of Tourism is developing a destination assurance policy and strategy that will ensure that the tourism product remains first class and that the country can maintain its competitive advantage in the global marketplace. “The idea is that once a visitor books a vacation to Jamaica, they can be confident from the moment of arrival until their departure [of] a comfortable, safe and fulfilling visitor experience,” he pointed out. “We cannot allow any threat or challenge to interfere with this product [because tourism] is the only sector in Jamaica that has grown consistently for the past 30 years,” said Senior Director for Technical Services in the Ministry, David Dobson.last_img read more

President Obamas Brackets Apolitical Cautious And Full of Chalk

Every year since his first presidential campaign, Barack Obama has shared his NCAA men’s college basketball tournament bracket with the public, and, for the last five years, predictions for the women’s tournament, too. As he’s chosen teams, many of them from swing states, he’s resisted the urge to play politics with his picks.Obama’s main bracket criterion: the number next to a team’s name. The lower a team’s seed, the more likely he is to overestimate its chances. The president has predicted a far smaller number of round-of-64 upsets than the tournaments have produced, and in the last seven tournaments he’s forecast just one men’s team with a seed below 9 to win more than one game.He also has a soft spot for certain states. The president loves teams from Connecticut, a reliably blue state, and Kentucky, a reliably red one.1Schools from those states get a bump of about 0.7 wins per year in his brackets, compared to the expected performance of their seed numbers. The effect is statistically significant (p<0.05). But that may just be a reflection of Obama’s preference for highly seeded teams: After controlling for seed, no state had a statistically significant effect on the president’s picks. He’s been pretty neutral on states where he’s lived, studied or had family ties, including Illinois, California, Kansas, Massachusetts and New York. (Hawaii hasn’t had a tournament team in the years of Obama’s brackets.)Other public figures have picked brackets, but Obama, a big basketball fan, is unusual in having entered so many of his bracket predictions into the public record2He usually has unveiled them on ESPN broadcasts. — enough to create a sample size bigger than some of the polls used to forecast his election and re-election, and to search for patterns in his picks.To assess Obama’s brackets, I compiled the number of wins he predicted for each tournament team in each season,3There are two groups of exceptions to this list.First, neither ESPN nor the White House was able to supply a copy of Obama’s 2010 women’s bracket, and the link from a Whitehouse.gov blog post about it points to a different ESPN.com bracket. I gathered as much information as I could from press accounts of his Final Four picks that year, plus whatever I could glean from this video clip of his ESPN interview, and excluded from all analyses the 21 women’s teams in the 2010 tournament for which I couldn’t figure out the president’s prediction.Second, I excluded from the analysis any teams that hadn’t yet lost in this year’s tournaments, since we don’t know their final win totals.Here are links to Obama’s 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 men’s brackets, and to his 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 women’s brackets. and compared that number to two benchmarks: How did his picks compare to what might be considered typical picks, and how did they compare to how teams actually performed?The first benchmark was the average number of games that teams with the same seed had won for each tournament, over a period from the first year the tournament expanded to 64 teams41985 for men, 1994 for women. through the year before he picked the bracket.5That calculation was based on data provided by ESPN Stats & Information. I counted only wins from the round of 64 on, since the brackets Obama entered didn’t require entrants to predict play-in games. I assigned each play-in team half its seed’s expected wins, since only half the play-in teams advance to the round of 64.Obama, incidentally, has never picked the play-in winners to win their next game (a questionable strategy), and generally hasn’t picked the outcome of the play-in games, either, though he did write on his 2009 bracket — incorrectly, as it turned out — that Alabama State would beat Morehead State and enter the round of 64 as a No. 16 seed.This measure models the sort of information used by a typical tournament forecaster (or as typical as one in the White House can be): How well have teams of that seed done before?The second benchmark for Obama’s picks was the one used to score brackets for accuracy: how many games the teams won. This is both less and more fair than the first benchmark — less fair because he couldn’t have known how the teams would do when he submitted his picks, and more fair because it credits him for insights beyond the seed numbers.After subtracting either number — expected wins or actual wins — from Obama’s predicted win total for each team, we’re left with two possible measures for his lean toward or away from that team. When Obama picked Louisville to make the final last year as a top seed, the first measure scored that as a big pro-Louisville preference, since the average No. 1 seed from 1985 to 2012 averaged 3.375 wins. But the second measure detected a presidential slant against Louisville, since the Cardinals won the title. Conversely, Obama looks like a Washington, D.C., outsider based on his picks for the capital’s teams: He expected fewer wins for them than their seeds would have suggested. But his picks proved optimistic when the teams underperformed their seeds by a big margin.I now had a set of over 700 teams, each one with two scores indicating whether Obama was hard or easy on each team. I then looked up each team’s home state and ran a series of linear regressions to find whether politics could be driving the president’s picks.My first test: Was Obama backing the states that were most supportive of him, or — for his first bracket — the prior Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry in 2004? Or, instead, was he throwing some love to the states that were most supportive of Republican candidates, hoping to sway their hoops-mad voters into his camp?Neither, best I can tell. For each year, I took the most recent presidential election data6Election data from uselectionatlas.org. Since March precedes November, for Obama’s 2008 tournament picks, the most recent election was 2004; for 2012, it was 2008. and subtracted the percentage of votes going to the Republican from the percentage received by the Democrat, then normalized the results.7For each election year’s data, I subtracted from each state’s figure the average of every state’s figure. This data normalization put all states for each election year on the same playing field: how far they leaned Democratic or Republican relative to the average state in that year. I then ran two regressions against this score, one for each of my scores of Obama’s picks. And I found no relationship whatsoever.The story repeats for other political indicators that might have steered his picks: whether states were swing states,8I defined swing states as those with a gap of less than 5 percentage points in the previous presidential election between the vote shares of the Democratic and Republican candidates. and the probability that a single voter in that state — perhaps a fan of a team Obama could pick for the Final Four — could swing the presidential election.9Based on work by Columbia University statistician Andrew Gelman and FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver, using Silver’s 2008 presidential-election forecasts; Gelman provided me with a table of probabilities by state. For each possible factor, I ran the same pair of linear regressions.10Technically, I ran two pairs of linear regressions for the probability of one voter swinging the election: One using the raw probability, and one the logarithm of the probability, since the probabilities were minuscule and varied by orders of magnitude. And each time I found no clear relationship.11Six out of the eight coefficients were positive, which would suggest Obama was favoring Democratic states or electorally vital states, but none of the results was statistically significant.There was one highly statistically significant relationship: between Obama’s picks and a team’s seed number. For each improvement in seed of one — say, from 5 to 4 — Obama was likely to give the team a bump of about 3 percent of a win relative to its seed’s expected wins, and about 4 percent of a win more than the team actually won.12Seed was highly significant: p<10^-6. After controlling for seed, all the political factors still produced insignificant effects and half their coefficients were negative, suggesting any hint of a lean by Obama was more a product of seed number. And for each regression, p>0.4.Here’s another way of saying that: President Obama backs favorites to win even more than they have historically. And he’s remained consistently risk-averse, ranging from three to six upset picks in the round of 64 in his seven men’s tournament brackets. He’s never picked a team seeded below 13 to win a game, though six have over those years.13It’s probably imprudent to pick too many early upsets by big underdogs since their opponents are favorites not only to win but to go on to advance far in the tournament. But many fans do pick at least one. The millions of entrants to ESPN.com’s bracket challenge this year and last averaged about one pick per three brackets of a 14, 15 or 16 seed to reach the round of 32.Obama predicted wins for 32 teams seeded 10 and below, from the round of 64 on, for the seven men’s tournaments from 2008 to 2014.14 I didn’t count wins by 9 seeds over 8 seeds as upsets since those teams are so closely seeded. Yet 50 percent more teams have won at least one game. He was especially downbeat about the chances of teams seeded 12 or lower, predicting just eight wins for the group. Some 29 teams seeded that low have combined to win 38 games.Obama’s caution intensifies as he moves through the men’s bracket to later rounds. He’s picked just one team seeded 7 or worse to make the Sweet Sixteen in seven years of men’s bracket-picking.15North Carolina State, in 2012. Obama was right. Yet 27 teams with seeds that low made a Sweet Sixteen since 2008 — including two teams, Connecticut and Kentucky, that qualified for the Final Four on Sunday. Conversely, though nine No. 2 seeds have lost before the Sweet Sixteen, Obama has picked every one to make it that far.16He evidently considered choosing Clemson to upset No. 2 Oklahoma in 2009’s round of 32 but crossed out that pick and went with the chalk — correctly, as it turned out. Obama has backed no Elite Eight teams with seeds worse than 5, yet nine such teams have made it that far. And he’s picked no national semifinalist seeded worse than 4, yet seven Final Four teams have fit that category.When Obama has predicted a men’s upset, he has guessed well. By chance alone, you’d expect that 14 of the teams he picked seeded 10 or below to pull off at least one upset of a higher-seeded team would have done so.17That calculation is based on the actual rates of upsets for each seed number, and how many upsets he predicted. Yet 18 got at least one win — including all five of the 12 seeds he backed. Obama is on the verge of displaying a statistically significant forecast skill in the men’s brackets.180.1>P>0.05.In the women’s tournament, where favorites tend to dominate, Obama’s caution has been merited. He’s picked 12 teams seeded 10 or worse to pull off first-round upsets since 2011,19I excluded the incomplete 2010 Obama women’s bracket from this analysis, in case his picks for the omitted teams deviated sharply from his picks that we know. and 13 have. He’s shown no particular ability to identify upset victims, forecasting three correctly compared to an expected total of 2.4.Obama also seems to like certain teams more than others, though with just 12 of his brackets on record, no team has a sample size large enough to draw broader conclusions. His likes, relative to expected and actual performance, include Baylor, Kentucky, Louisville, Marquette, North Carolina, Notre Dame and Ohio State. By contrast, Obama is hard on Arizona, Gonzaga, Oklahoma, San Diego State, Texas and Xavier.20The effect for Baylor, Louisville and North Carolina is statistically significant (p<0.05) for his picks relative to the teams’ seed numbers; he typically gives those teams one more win than their seed suggests. The effect vanishes, though, for those schools when examining how they did relative to Obama’s picks. In other words, their results suggest he was mostly right when picking them to outperform their seed. The effect is also smaller and statistically insignificant after controlling for seeds, since those teams tend to have high seeds. Adding that control reveals that Obama has been hard on Washington State, to a statistically significant degree: Controlling for seed, Obama has under-picked the Cougars by an average of nearly two wins per tournament, relative to their seed. His view on some schools looks different depending on the measure: Obama seems like a Duke-backer based on the Blue Devils’ results, but his picks have been in line with their seed numbers.Separating his preferences for certain schools’ men’s and women’s teams is especially tough because of the sample-size problem. So it’s hard to say whether he likes Cal’s women’s teams but dislikes their male counterparts, or if that’s just a statistical fluke.Asked about the president’s picking strategy, the White House press office referred to his statements to ESPN when unveiling his brackets.21Here are video clips of Obama’s chats with ESPN’s Andy Katz about his 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 brackets. Obama usually talks about specific teams in those broadcasts, rather than a broader strategy. The country’s chief executive has a soft spot for team chiefs, mentioning more coaches than players in recent years. (He has high praise for Michigan State’s Tom Izzo and North Carolina’s Roy Williams; in 2012, he admitted, “I’m just a sucker for the Tar Heels.”) He likes point guards and teams with momentum. Last year, he mentioned his “Big 10 bias.”22Obama does back Big 10 teams beyond their seed to a statistically significant degree, but the effect isn’t significant after controlling for seed, since Big 10 teams usually are highly seeded. Because of all the conference realignment during Obama’s bracket-picking years of 2008 to 2014, I studied only the conference he mentioned liking and counted only Big 10 teams that were in the conference throughout the period. When Obama does mention a player, he is sometimes motivated by where the player comes from rather than where his school is. For example, he said he picked Duke to reach this year’s Elite Eight partly because Blue Devils star Jabari Parker comes from Chicago. And Obama is aware of his tendency to back favorites. He said this year, “I know these are not imaginative picks, but I think they’re the right ones.”It’s hard to argue with the president’s preference for favorites: Picking upsets incorrectly is more damaging than picking upsets correctly is valuable. And lately, it’s working for him. He picked the women’s champion correctly twice in four tries, got one of the surprising men’s Final Four teams right this year — No. 1 seed Florida — and is in the 74th percentile of ESPN’s bracket contest. However, he may regret taking the relatively daring step of backing a No. 4 seed, Michigan State, to win the title. It was his first time picking a men’s or women’s champion that wasn’t a No. 1 seed, and the Spartans’ elimination on Sunday left him without any chance of gaining further points next weekend. In presidential brackets, as in presidential politics, risk-taking sometimes backfires. read more

Going back in time

first_imgDo you have thoughts popping up in your head– Am I happy? Why can’t I feel the happiness from within? Why there is constant pain in my leg or any other part of the body? Why my relationships don’t work? Why am I constantly fighting with my parents? Why am I not able to earn enough money? These are few questions that often come to our mind but we really don’t know the reasons behind them. The reason can be the memories that one is carrying from their past lives. Past life Regression therapy takes a person back to one of his/her past lives while being in a hypnotised state and lets them experience it once again to resolve the problem that he/she facing in the present. It helps us to get into the root cause of the problem to resolve it at physical, mental and emotional level. Past Life Regression Therapy is based on the principles of cause and effect which is commonly known as ‘Karma’ and this is catching up in our country as well through the process of holistic healing. People choose to explore their past lives for many reasons. It can be a source of self discovery and clarity, to find life’s direction and purpose. It may be to understand relationships; an intense attraction or aversion; the origin of fears, guilt and anger. There is insight into health and emotional issues; one may gain an increase in confidence by re-experiencing a happy, successful lifetime. Also Read – ‘Playing Jojo was emotionally exhausting’All hypnosis is self-hypnosis, including past life regression. It is a voluntary state of mind with a very relaxed, focused concentration and a heightened sense of recall. During the hypnosis or past life regression session one is actively aware and always in control. None can ‘program’ you or make you do or say anything that goes against your desires or beliefs. Before a session, one should discuss thoughts and goals with the hypnotist to find areas of exploration for your hypnosis or past life regression session or the session can be left open to one’s inner guidance to bring forth memories and lives pertinent to your current life. As your guide, the hypnotist assists you on this journey so you may discover and re-experience significant events, situations, relationships and skills, both in this life and past lives. Also Read – Leslie doing new comedy special with NetflixMore than half the world’s population believe in reincarnation (past lives) – that we have all lived, died and lived again many times. A great sense of serenity comes from knowing that the deepest parts of ourselves, the soul consciousness, survives physical death and will always exist. Through this process, we are given many opportunities to learn and master the lessons of life on Earth – what many call Karma.Where to go : Dr. Kumar’s Homeopathy & Mental Health ClinicAdd. 585, GF, J. P. Complex, Bank Street, Munirka, New DelhiDr.Rashmi Joshi Psychologist Psychological Aura, Quality Wellness Clinic Delhilast_img read more

Post poll clashes rock Bengal

first_imgKolkata: After 12 persons were killed in widespread violence during the West Bengal Panchayat election a day ago, post poll clashes continue to rock parts of the state on Tuesday. The state administration, however, claimed only six of those deaths were poll-related, State Election Commission (SEC) said.”According to the report received from the state administration, 12 deaths are reported on the polling day on Monday. Among them six are poll-related deaths, while the rest were due to different reasons,” SEC Secretary Nilanjan Shandilya told IANS. Also Read – Heavy rain hits traffic, flightsPost poll violence was reported from parts of Howrah district where bombs were hurled in at least 20 houses during a clash between Trinamool Congress workers and BJP activists. A few vehicles were also vandalised and torched.Sporadic incidents of violence took place in South and North 24 Parganas and Nadia districts late on Monday.The single-phase rural polls in the state on Monday saw large scale violence and clashes between opposing political outfits throughout the day even as more than 60,000 armed personnel and 80,000 civic volunteers were deployed to guard close to 58,000 polling booths. Also Read – Speeding Jaguar crashes into Merc, 2 B’deshi bystanders killedAs the day progressed, reports of clashes, booth capturing, vandalising of ballot boxes and rigging were received from pockets of South and North 24 Parganas, North Dinajpur, Nadia, West Midnapore and Cooch Behar districts.In several places, gun-toting goons attacked policemen on duty at polling premises, leaving at least two police officers severely injured. Several attempts to rig the election process were also reported across the state as miscreants poured water into ballot boxes or set them on fire. Additional Director General of West Bengal Police Anuj Sharma on Monday said Trinamool activist Arif Ali Gazi died in poll-related violence in South 24 Parganas while two other workers of the party died in Nadia. He said two Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) workers died in Nandigram in East Midnapore district and a Jharkhand Disom Party worker died in Kushmundi of South Dinajpur.The opposition parties accused the Trinamool Congress of orchestrating unprecedented terror on the polling day and alleged the SEC and state administration completely failed to conduct a free and fair election.Representatives of CPI-M held a protest demonstration outside the SEC office on Monday evening demanding an answer from the poll panel about the adverse situations across the state.The state’s ruling Trinamool Congress, however, claimed that the people were able to exercise their democratic rights and said the situation was well handled barring a few isolated incidents.It accused the Bharatiya Janata Party of bringing in people from Bangladesh, Assam and Jharkhand with the help of Border Security Force personnel on the polling day to create unrest.Voting for the rural bodies in West Bengal was to be held on May 1, 3 and 5, but as the nomination process started in April, it was rescheduled to May 14 by the SEC following a Calcutta High Court order to extend the nomination deadline and announce a fresh polling date.last_img read more

February 25 2000 At Februarys AllSite Meeting

first_imgFebruary 25, 2000At February’s All-Site Meeting, each resident was asked to tell their vision ofthe future of Arcosanti. Dr.Paolo Soleri who attended the meeting, wanted to see a school of thoughtdeveloped out of his vision of Arcology.Photo by: Doctress Neutopialast_img