I was looking to find out what the english tr*nsl*t**n of bèo an dòchas is? If anyone could help me that would be fantastic.
Thanks very much, could it be 'ever hopeful'? I was told this is what bèo an dòchas means but have nothing else to back it up.
ah of course - oops - thats what comes of spending too much time in the land of beurla! brain first gear and thinking of 'an' meaning 'and' doh!
Vancouver, BC (March 9, 2017) - Foran Mining Corporation (TSX.V: FOM) (“Foran” or the “Company”) today announced that it has granted 1,685,000 incentive stock options (the “Options”) to Directors, Officers, Employees and Consultants of the Company.
The Options are set for a period of five years, expiring on March 9, 2022, and each Option will allow the holder to purchase a common share of Foran at a price of $0.40. The Options are governed by the stock option plan of the Company.
Foran is an exploration and development company focused on copper-zinc in the Hanson Lake Camp of east-central Saskatchewan. The Hanson Lake Camp is located in an area of excellent infrastructure, close to a major mining centre. In late 2014, Foran released a positive Preliminary Economic Assessment for the McIlvenna Bay deposit, Foran’s first deposit in the Hanson Lake Camp.
The FCC and its chairman, Ajit Pai, are taking some intense heat these days—and for good reason. Pai has put forth a proposal to roll back the hugely popular net neutrality framework and return to the halcyon days of letting internet providers do as they please under some misguided faith that the market will police itself.
The FCC has embarked on a public relations campaign to try and sway public opinion on the matter, including a propaganda piece sent to the media that claims to lay out the “myths” and “facts” of net neutrality.
The bias of the document is immediately apparent from the adjectives used to describe net neutrality. The first “fact” states, “The Internet was free and open before the Obama Administration’s 2015 heavy-handed Title II Internet regulations, and it will be free and open after they are repealed.”
Another “fact” in the FCC document claims, “Repealing the Obama Administration’s heavy-handed Internet regulations will promote consumers’ online privacy. Those regulations stripped the Federal Trade Commission of authority to protect Americans’ broadband privacy. The plan to restore Internet freedom, by contrast, will put the federal government’s most experienced privacy cop back on the beat.”
Most of the arguments laid out in the FCC propaganda document rely on the flawed logic that everything was fine for two decades up until 2015, so returning to the rules in place at that time will be fine. That ignores the fact that, even though it was true for years that things worked fine under that framework, ISPs like Comcast and Verizon had begun to rock the boat and start to explore how to extort tolls from content providers, or throttle or block access to specific content, or offer tiered services with internet fastlanes or bundled packages of websites the way cable TV is sold.
Here is an analogy that illustrates that argument. Let’s say you’ve lived in your house for 20 years. One day, the pipe to your kitchen sink springs a leak so you replace it. Putting the broken pipe back is a horrible idea. Arguing that everything was fine for 20 years up until the new pipe was installed is a silly argument, because the preceding decades are irrelevant to the fact that it was broken at the time it was fixed.
The FCC isn’t alone in its anti-net neutrality media campaign. Comcast has also been marketing heavily in favor of repealing net neutrality. Oddly, the Comcast plea seems to center around the idea that destroying net neutrality will be fine, because Comcast totally pinky-swears that it will play nice and put customers first and it won’t do anything to undermine or harm the internet. Comcast—and the current FCC—seem to have forgotten that it was shady behavior by Comcast—throttling traffic and extorting tolls from content providers like Netflix—that sparked the net neutrality debate in the first place.
There was a tweet making the rounds recently that sums things up fairly well. Comcast tweeted, “We do not and will not block, throttle, or discriminate against lawful content. We will continue to make sure that our policies are clear and transparent for consumers, and we will not change our commitment to these principles.”
In response, @loresjoberg tweeted, “We never will, but it’s very important that we be able to. But we won’t. So let us do it. Because we won’t do it. Which is why we’re spending so much money to make sure we can. But we won’t. But let us.”
Precisely. Follow the money and try to understand the motivation. If ISPs like Comcast had continued to behave the way Comcast promises to behave, we never would have had net neutrality in the first place. If ISPs like Comcast are committing to not doing anything shady if net neutrality is repealed, why do they need to repeal it?
I reached out to Comcast in response to an email promoting blogs Comcast executives wrote promising to protect the open internet and asked if they acknowledge in any way that they were already guilty of doing the thing they claim they will never do. I did not receive a response.
There is nothing good for consumers and average users of the internet, or for the nation as a whole in repealing net neutrality. Returning to the way things were means that ISPs can act the way they did before net neutrality—which is why we needed net neutrality to begin with.
If the FCC continues to ignore the demands of the public it is supposed to represent and proceeds with handing the internet over to corporate interests, hopefully companies like Netflix, Google, Facebook and others—or even just smaller, regional startups—will just band together and offer us a net neutrality-friendly alternative and we can just cut ties with the anti-net neutrality ISPs.
Brian Ferneyhough -- born in Coventry in 1943 and recipient of the prestigious Siemens Prize in 2007 -- counts among the great musical challengers of our time. As an unyielding proponent of a steady refinement of musical perception, he doesn't shy away from mind-boggling structural aggregations and extreme technical and artistic demands on his musicians. In doing so he enjoys the support of a handpicked group of virtuosos, who regularly perform his compositions all over the world. One of the most prominent among those is pianist Nicolas Hodges, who, together with his colleague and friend Rolf Hind, presents, for the first time, Ferneyhough's complete works for piano. Between 1965 and 2013, seven works for piano solo or piano duo emerged from the composer's studio, all of them destined to captivate the listener's attention with complex musical adventures.