WPVI(TRENTON, N.J.) — A cellphone video apparently showing a New Jersey Transit Police officer dragging and hitting a semiconscious man outside a train station in Trenton over the weekend has prompted an internal investigation by the agency, officials said.“I can only attest to what I saw and what I saw wasn’t warranted,” the woman who took the video told ABC station WPVI-TV in Philadelphia.The woman, who requested anonymity, said the troubling incident occurred around 10:30 p.m. on Saturday outside the Trenton Transit Center.The woman, of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, said she was waiting for a ride outside the train station when she heard a commotion and then started filming the encounter with a cellphone. She said she first noticed the man sitting against a wall outside the station just before the encounter with the transit officer occurred.“There was no resisting … he wasn’t even speaking,” the woman said of the man who she says appeared to be passed out when the officer showed up.The video captures the officer, whose name has not been released, yelling at the man, who is seen collapsed on the sidewalk outside the entrance doors to the station.“Get up and get out now!” the officer is heard telling the man.When the man didn’t move for about 30 seconds, the officer allegedly grabbed him again by the hood of his sweatshirt and dragged him a few feet toward the curb before throwing him to the ground.The officer is then seen dragging the man a few feet further by his sweatshirt before apparently throwing him face-first onto the pavement and allegedly hitting him in the head, according to the video.Jim Smith, a New Jersey Transit spokesman, said the officer in the video has been identified and placed on administrative suspension, pending the outcome of an investigation.“The matter is currently under investigation with the New Jersey Transit Police Department Internal Affairs,” Smith told ABC News on Monday.It was unclear if the man seen allegedly being roughed up by the officer has been identified.“That’s all part of the investigation,” Smith said.Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.
Charlie Austin was QPR’s hero last night, scoring twice against Aston Villa to take his team off the bottom of the Premier League.The 2-0 victory lifted Rangers’ spirits after a difficult spell and gave them a timely boost ahead of this weekend’s west London derby at Chelsea.Striker Austin took to Twitter to describe the result as “a massive three points”, while vice-chairman Amit Bhatia tweeted: “Got some MAJOR man-love for @chazaustin9 right now. #pureclass.”Got some MAJOR man-love for @chazaustin9 right now. #pureclass— Amit Bhatia (@Amit_Bhatia99) October 27, 2014Rangers midfielder Joey Barton, who missed the game through injury, declared: “Great result and team performance. Made up for @chazaustin9 two great finishes. Fans were immense tonight. #UR’s”The club’s sports psychologist Steve Black, who has worked closely with Austin, tweeted: “Excellent result for the lads tonight ! Good team performance all round & 2 great goals from Charlie Austin. Clean sheet a super bonus.”Sandro, meanwhile, completed 90 minutes for the first time since moving to Loftus Road from Tottenham.“Very good win!! I’m very happy for my first 90min for the Hoops!! Thanks guys for all the support!,” the Brazilian said.Chief executive Philip Beard tweeted: “Another really good performance but this time the performance got the result it deserved.”See also:QPR v Aston Villa player ratingsFollow West London Sport on TwitterFind us on Facebook
“Dawn of the animals: Solving Darwin’s dilemma” is the confident-sounding title of an article about the Cambrian explosion in New Scientist. Their solution, however, did not include finding transitional forms. It revolved around “setting the stage” environmentally for the sudden appearance of complex animals. Reporters Douglas Fox and Michael Le Page began by comforting Darwin. He would not be as forlorn today about the problem for which he said, “I can give no satisfactory answer.” Look at all the new evidence that has turned up since he died:Of course, we have since discovered innumerable fossils from far earlier periods. Rocks as old as 3.8 billion years contain signs of life, and the first recognisable bacteria appear in rocks 3.5 billion years old. Multicellular plants in the form of red and green algae appear around a billion years ago, followed by the first multicellular animals about 575 million years ago, during the Ediacaran….None of this addresses the primary issue of the dilemma, however – the sudden appearance of virtually all the animal body plans at the base of the Cambrian. They realize this, so they quickly shifted gears: “Even so, many perplexing questions remain,” they said. “Why did animals evolve so late in the day? And why did the ancestors of modern animals apparently evolve in a geological blink of an eye during the early Cambrian between about 542 and 520 million years ago?” This brief hand-wringing exercise switched quickly back again to an all-clear sign: “A series of recent discoveries could help explain these long-standing mysteries.” Here’s their synopsis in a nutshell. Sponge embryos found in China push back the appearance of multicellular animals (albeit simple ones) as far back as 580 million years – maybe even 632 million, at the beginning of the Ediacaran era, “suggesting that the animal embryos themselves go back this far.” (We will assume their dates for the time being.) So far, they have only shifted the date of the problem, not the problem itself. An embryo is a complex structure that presupposes many complex multicellular processes already in action. But “Other, more tentative findings push the dawn of animals back even further,” they announced. Don’t wait for nice, clean fossils, though. The findings amount to little more than quantities of 24-isopropylcholestane found in Arabian oil, interpreted by two MIT professors as evidence of a large quantity of sponge material going back as far as 713 million years ago. Still just stretching dates, they next cited some stromatolites in Canada with “patterns as a characteristic of a collagen mesh – something only animals build.” The date: 850 million years ago. Note that this is not actual collagen. It’s just a pattern in some rocks the resembles a collagen mesh. It’s discoverer said that it “looks very primitive.” From there, Fox and Le Page turned to Andy Knoll of Harvard for help. He looked at his molecular clock evidence and also found animal life at least 800 million years ago; “This goes a long way toward reconciling the geologic record with molecular clock estimates,” he said. Surprisingly, even though “he thinks animals probably did evolve early on,” Knoll was not convinced by the oil evidence or stromatolite evidence Fox and Le Page had just cited. “The case for early animals is not yet rock solid,” they said. In lieu of evidence, they decided to speculate on the question of why the evidence is missing. By speculating that the Chinese embryos could represent cysts formed under hard environmental conditions, they wove a war story about bacteria battling the emergent complex life. Bacteria kept the oceans anoxic (free of oxygen), stole nutrients, and produced toxins like hydrogen sulfide that kept the embryos in their shells. Knoll said, “Eukaryotes would have been uninvited guests.” Eukaryotes got their chance when the planet entered a Snowball Earth stage. Ice ages cleared the playing field and, for once, allowed animals to get an upper hand. The reporters quoted a biogeochemist who said, “You have changes in ocean chemistry like an increased availability of molybdenum and zinc, all of which play into making the world more hospitable for eukaryotes and ultimately, metazoans” (multicellular organisms). The evolutionists seem to be thinking, “If you build it, they will come.” Sure enough, “Sponges or something like them would have been the first animals on the scene,” Fox and Le Page speculated, not specifying where they came from. “They lack a nervous system and have no need for circulatory systems. Animals like jellyfish might also have evolved early.” Somehow, central nervous systems showed up at the table, too. But animal life was tough at first. That’s why the missing evidence. They didn’t have hard shells, for one thing. And they were tiny. Until they ate the bacteria and got larger, they couldn’t betray their presence. Slowly, they devoured the rulers of the oceans: the bacteria. “By doing so, they would have introduced selective pressure for organisms to get larger, to avoid being eaten.” Eaten? By what? They didn’t say; perhaps by cannibals. Whatever; this process, driven by selective pressure, introduced oxygen into the ocean depths and changed the world forever. The table was set; the dawn was appearing; the fuse for the explosion was lit: “As the oceans changed, the stage was finally set for the evolution of more sophisticated body forms.” How did setting a stage produce the actors and the play? Instead of answering that question, they digressed briefly into a discussion of whether the changes in ocean oxygenation were a cause or effect of the evolution of complex animals. Once the playwright and director agreed it was the latter, they role-played the script without any actors to call on:For a while the climate bounced between wild extremes: during warm periods complex life thrived and lots of carbon was locked away, leading to deep ice ages. During the ice ages, carbon burial ceased, and the planet warmed again. These swings ended only when burrowing creatures with a gut evolved towards the end of the Ediacaran, [Martin] Brasier [U of Oxford] thinks. By recycling the organic matter falling to the sea floor, they reduced carbon burial and stabilised the climate. “There are no Snowball Earth glaciations after big animals evolve,” he says.The evidence will show up any day now, in other words, because the actors must have been there somehow or other. The playwright and director still have a nagging question about this plot. “But if the evolution of animals really did trigger the ice ages and the oxygenation of the oceans, rather than the other way round, why didn’t animals appear much sooner?” they say. “After all, single-celled eukaryotes were around from 1.5 billion years ago, and possibly much earlier.” Somewhere Darwin’s dilemma got inverted. The audience thought they were going to hear a play about how animals evolved – not a statement that they did evolve. That question aside, what did they conclude about the late appearance of animals? They called on expert Nick Butterfield [U of Cambridge] to explain. “Butterfield thinks the main reason animals evolved relatively late in Earth’s history was the sheer difficulty of evolving the cell adhesion and signalling machinery necessary for cells to work together. Once these basics were in place, though, the pace of evolution began to quicken.” It just took a long time, you see, for Evolution to figure out the technology. The authors leave that problem to Evolution. Evolution guarantees the basics will be “in place” on cue. Fox and Le Page, apparently satisfied with all this role-playing, ended with a synopsis of the play: the war between the bacteria and the newly-evolved complex life, the battle over carbon and oxygen, the sudden ice age, and the new environment: “The surviving animals seized the opportunity to wrest control of the oceans from the bacteria, producing clear waters rich in oxygen in which larger, more complex animals could evolve,” they said, in an air of triumph. The rest is easy: “Thus the stage was set for the Cambrian explosion.” As the curtains close, an announcer steps out for one final word to the audience. “Of course, fossil hunters are going to have to do a lot more digging to confirm these startling new hypotheses.” Brasier sticks his head out of the curtain to add a last word – “I suspect things will turn up, but if they don’t we have to listen to the evidence.”If a perceptive audience were watching this farce, they should be erupting in belly laughs in unison at that last line. That’s hilarious! “I suspect things will turn up, but if they don’t we will have to listen to the evidence.” Well, my dear chap, after 150 years, it’s about time! If you are not convinced by now that the reporters at New Scientist are irrational Darwin Party ideologues pushing their faith against the evidence, read what they said again more carefully. The number of propaganda tricks and logical fallacies they just committed are legion. They started with a bluffing title and opening as if the problem has been solved at last. They used euphemisms to sugar-coat the seriousness of the problem. They used high-handed card-stacking by selecting only the authorities that supported their weird-science myth. And they sidestepped the real issue by talking about oxygen, carbon, and ice instead of how complex animal body plans (with eyes, articulated limbs, nervous systems, digestive systems and much more) could arise by a Darwinian process. They begged the question about how animals evolved by simply assuming that they did! Pull out your Baloney Detector and count how many other violations they were guilty of. It looks like a few of the readers making comments at the end of the article were up to their tricks. Let’s get some clarity about this magical phrase they used, “selective pressure.” They used the power of suggestion to conjure up a mystical guiding hand of Evolution that steered the hopeful cells toward eukaryotic multicellular bliss. Foul! Selective pressures are mindless boundaries, that’s all. They could not care less about what life wants to do (as if animals without sentient brains could want to do anything anyway). Gravity, for example, is a selective pressure. It naturally selects people who do not jump out of windows. It also selects against lizards that fall out of trees. The selective pressure has no desire or power to create wings; it is just a filter against entities that do not have wings. Darwinists use this phrase “selective pressure” to distract the reader from using common sense. They never quite get around to answering the question of how the wings arose. Well, it certainly was not by selective pressure. Natural selection is an unguided, mindless process, remember? It has no foresight. It cannot pressure anyone or anything to go against what the laws of nature demand in the immediate circumstances. No wings, matey? Sorry, you get selected against. After all their huffing and puffing, Fox and Le Page deflated their balloon with that last admission: “I suspect things will turn up, but if they don’t we will have to listen to the evidence.” Ha! They just admitted their story has no evidence. In a sense, they have no innocence, in essence. In no sense does the evidence support evolution. Then we heard them make a promise: to listen to the evidence. Let’s hold them to it when the new film Darwin’s Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record from Illustra Media hits the market this summer (watch the trailer). It will present a lot of evidence. Let’s see if these ideologues will keep their word and listen to the fossil evidence that is screaming at them.(Visited 18 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Sensor Super 35mm CMOS Sensor with Dual Pixel Audio 4 Channel Audio 16 or 24-bit Resolution 4K, 2K, 1080 Battery Canon BP-A30 or BP-A60 Compression XF-AVC Intra, Long GOP and Proxy H.265 Cards 2x CFast, 1x SD Monitoring Rotating 4″ Monitor Output 2x 3D-SDI Output, 2x SLR Inputs Frame Rate Up to 30fps at 4K, Up to 60fps at 2K/HD, Up to 120fps with Cropped 2K Canon’s latest camera brings some much appreciated improvements to the C300.With NAB 2015 just around the corner, it’s safe to say that there will be dozens of noteworthy announcements and releases from all the major camera companies. It’s been rumored that Canon would be releasing a new C300 for some time and now the wait is over.The Canon C300 Mark IIThe Canon C300 Mark II has many added improvements over its predecessor, most notably the ability to record 4K footage internally and 4K RAW footage externally. This will hopefully make the C300 Mark II more competitive in the modern production world.Another jaw-dropping feature added to the C300 is the ability to record footage with up to 15 stops of dynamic range. Yes. You read that right.At 15 stops, the C300 Mark II would have a dynamic range greater than that of a human eye. This has huge implications for those looking to get the most control over their color in post.The camera is available in both Canon EF and PL lens mounts. In line with the Blackmagic URSA, the Canon C300 Mark II’s lens mounts were designed to be interchangeable. However, to change the mounts you must send your camera in to Canon.The new camera will feature 3 card slots: 2 CFast and 1 SD. The SD slot is only capable of recording up to 2K video in 4:2:0, but the CFast card slots can record up to 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 footage at 30fps.The only area that the C300 Mark II doesn’t shine greatly is FPS. As of the time of this writing, the camera can only record up to 120fps at a cropped 2K and only 30fps at 4K. This makes it slower than the Blackmagic URSA and much slower than the Sony FS7.Who knows… maybe Canon will increase the specs in a later firmware update in the future.Canon C300 Mark II Specs Lens Mount EF or PL Color Depth 4:4:4 HD/2K, 4:2:2 4K Dynamic Range Up to 15 Stops Color Black The following video, released by Canon, gives us a quick tour of the new C300 Mark II.There is currently no test footage shot using the C300 Mark II, but if the footage is anything like the specs? It’s going to be amazing.Pricing and AvailabilityThe C300 Mark II in both the EF mount and PL mount is only available for pre-order at the moment for $16,000. The camera is expected to be released in September 2015.Want to learn more about the new Canon C300 Mark II? Check out a few of the following resources:Canon C300 Mark II Now Official with Internal 4K & 15 Stops of Dynamic Range – No Film SchoolThe Canon C300 Mark II: Will it be the New 4K Production Workhorse? – PremiumBeatCanon announces EOS C300 Mark II: 4K Cinema Camera – Cinema 5DDo you think the C300 Mark II specs justify the $16,000 price tag? Sound off in the comments below.