Previous Article Next Article Related posts:No related photos. Comments are closed. Exult has signed a further two deals to provide HR services, boosting itspresence in the outsourcing market.The provider, which last month signed a £370m five-year contract to take onBP Amoco’s administrative HR functions, will handle personnel services for carparts firm Tenneco Automotive and packing company Pactiv. The combined cost ofthe deals is $20m (£12.5m).The US-based organisations have 24,000 and 17,000 employees respectively anda combined turnover of $5.4bn (£3.4bn).Under the three-year deal with Pactiv, Exult will take over the company’sclient service centre. It will use the site to provide HR services to BP Amoco and future clients.Exult is building two service centres in the UK in the wake of the BP Amocodeal, its first major HR outsourcing contract.David Cook, Europe, Middle East and Africa leader of PricewaterhouseCoopersHR outsourcing division, said interest in HR services had grown significantlyin the past two months.But he said the HR industry does not yet understand how outsourcing HR willwork.”They think of IT outsourcing, where companies drop in and take overthe entire function. HR is not like that,” he said. £12.5m double deal gives Exult outsourcing edgeOn 25 Jan 2000 in Personnel Today
Pecan pie is a popular American dish, often served at Thanksgiving. Pecan trees grew wild in North America before they were cultivated. Now, the USA produces 90% of the pecan nuts grown throughout the world.Although they resemble walnuts, pecans don’t have the bitter aftertaste. There are many recipes for Pecan Pie. American recipes usually use corn syrup, which is hard to find in the UK, so you can use golden syrup instead. The basic recipe can be flavoured with chocolate, using both cocoa and chocolate pieces in the mixture or maple syrup instead of some of the golden syrup.As the pie is set with eggs, it is important not to cook the filling at too high a temperature. Take it out of the oven while the centre still has a very slight wobble; it will continue to set as it cools down.This recipe has chunks of white chocolate added to the nuts. The filling may separate a little, but this is normal. If preferred use either plain or milk chocolate or a mixture of all three.Pecan and White Chocolate PieServes 8IngredientsFor the pastryPlain flour200gPinch of saltButter120gSugar5gWater2-3 tbspFor the fillingPecan nuts200gWhite chocolate, cut into pieces100gEggs3Soft brown sugar120gGolden syrup100gUnsalted butter, melted40gVanilla extract5gPlain flour20gMethod1. Make the pastry and line a 25cm/10 inch flan ring. Chill while making the filling.2. Chop just over half the pecan nuts and mix with the chocolate.3. Whisk the eggs until well broken-up. Add the sugar, syrup, melted butter and vanilla extract and beat until well-mixed. Sift the flour and add to the mixture, making sure there are no lumps.4. Scatter the chocolate and chopped pecans into the flan case, pour over the egg mixture and arrange the reserved nuts on the top.5. Bake on a baking sheet for 10 minutes at 200C, before lowering the temperature to 170C. Then bake for 3040 minutes or until the centre is only just set.
ARCADIA, Calif. (March 12, 2016)–Halo Farms’ front-running Danzing Candy cruised to an impressive two length win under Mike Smith in Saturday’s Grade II, $400,000 San Felipe Stakes at Santa Anita. Trained by Clifford Sise, the lightly raced Kentucky-bred colt by Twirling Candy got 1 1/16 miles in 1:43.04 and picked up 50 Kentucky Derby qualifying points, assuring him of a berth in the Run for the Roses on May 7.“He warmed up great, he was on his toes,” said Smith. “Our game plan was to put him on the lead unless he didn’t jump out of there well. We didn’t want to experiment…I left there very aggressive and he didn’t get away with anything (slow fractions). If you go 22 on this track today, you’re smokin’. And for him to hold off the caliber of horses he held off, was very impressive.”Bred by Ted Aroney’s Halo Farms and owned by Halo Farms and Jim and Diane Bashor, Danzing Candy paid $13.00, $5.20 and $3.40. A maiden special weight winner two starts back on Dec. 26, Danzing Candy was a 5 ¾ length allowance winner here on Feb. 4 and thus picked up his third win from four starts. With the winner’s share of $240,000, he increased his earnings to $308,650.“I expected him to be on the lead,” said Sise. “We didn’t want to experiment in this race. Mike just said, ‘I’ll let him come out the first few jumps and if he’s there, he’s there. If somebody sends, he’ll sit second.“He (broke) much better today. He’s good now. We’ll stay for the Santa Anita Derby (Grade I, $1 million at 1 1/8 miles April 9). He’s three for three on this track. Why would we change now? I don’t see any reason to, but you never know. You’ve got to leave that up to the owners.”Ridden by Gary Stevens, favored Mor Spirit appeared to get a bit rank around the Club House turn, but settled readily down the backside when next to last going past the half mile pole. With a cue from Stevens, he picked it up between horses around the far turn, rallied well, while within himself for second money and galloped out on terms with the winner past the wire.Off at 8-5 in a field of six Derby hopefuls, Mor Spirit paid $3.40 and $2.20.“I’m very happy, because he was way too keen in the early part of the race, he was really fresh…” said Stevens. “He was super sharp. As I was coming into the lane, I knew I wasn’t going to catch the winner, but I knew we had to get some (Kentucky Derby) points. I like where we’re sitting for the Santa Anita Derby. I lost a battle today, but I like our position. Bob (Baffert) was happy, so I’m happy…He’ll settle a little better for me in the Santa Anita Derby.Exaggerator, who is trained by Keith Desormeaux and ridden by his brother, Kent, was content to lag early and picked it up in eye-catching fashion heading into the far turn as he skimmed the rail, but he flattened out late, finishing three quarters of length behind Mor Spirit.The second wagering choice at 2-1, Exaggerator paid $2.40 to show.With the winner getting 50 Kentucky Derby qualifying points, the second, third and fourth place finishers earned 20, 10 and five points respectively.Danzing Candy set fractions of 22.96, 46.11, 1:11.04 and 1:36.38 over a main track that although was listed as fast, had been dulled by heavy afternoon rains on Friday. 1-2-3 FINISHERS HEADED TO GRADE I, $1 MILLION SANTA ANITA DERBY ON APRIL 9
Football fans across the country should welcome Oakland’s lawsuit challenging the monopolistic practices of the NFL and its 32 teams.It won’t keep the Raiders in the East Bay, but frankly they’ve outstayed their welcome. However, if the city prevails, other cities would have stronger negotiating power to hold onto their teams.And Oakland might recover money to help pay off about $80 million of debt the Raiders are leaving behind for taxpayers. The money was used for publicly funded …
If morality evolves, then why do some scientists cast judgment?Science reporters occasionally make the case for moral relativism: the idea that moral judgments can vary from culture to culture, depending on what the people in a culture were taught is right or wrong. Live Science, for instance, teaches that “Right or Wrong: How You Judge Others Depends on Your Culture.” But in other articles, they will promote abortion rights, gay rights and other moral questions in an absolutist manner (e.g., 3/13/16).In another case, PNAS published results of surveys about whether people take reason into account when they make moral judgments. “It is widely considered a universal feature of human moral psychology that reasons for actions are taken into account in most moral judgments,” the summary begins. “However, most evidence for this moral intent hypothesis comes from large-scale industrialized societies.” So who’s right? Aren’t hunter-gatherers closer to the pristine evolved state of Homo sapiens? Isn’t industrialized society a recent anomaly? If they believe that, it undercuts their reason for writing this paper, since natural selection considered our ancestors fully fit without “reasons for actions” for millions of years, according to consensus theory.Modern secular science is in a hopeless dilemma. Evolutionary scientists and their reporters teach that morality evolved, but want to speak with authority about right and wrong. Some recent examples:“Oregon’s new birth control law increases access, but more still to be done” (Science Daily). The headline makes a moral judgment on a divisive issue that is currently pitting the Obama Administration against the Little Sisters of the Poor (and other religious institutions) in an important case facing a deeply divided Supreme Court. Yet the academics behind the article say, “This law is a step forward for contraceptive access.”“‘Abortion Pill’ Gets New Label: 5 Things to Know About Mifepristone” (Live Science). Try as she does to present a straightforward, factual explanation of the infamous abortion pill, Rachael Rettner delivers a list of “5 things to know” that omits the very most important aspect: whether the pill causes a murder of an unborn human baby. Some of the facts and terms are useful to know, but one cannot be neutral on a moral issue this important that is dividing the country and the world. She ends by focusing only on the potential risks and side effects for the mother, totally omitting reference to the other human being inside of her. You can’t find the words baby, unborn, or even fetus in the article.“Breeding humans: Utopias from the early modern period” (Science Daily). The opening sentences show moral relativism: “The idea to improve humans and to optimise procreation emerged long before genetic engineering. As far back as the 18th century, concepts did exist that appear unthinkable from the modern perspective.” But if it wasn’t unthinkable for them, was it morally right?Sometimes Big Science can’t handle the moral hot potatoes. There was the notorious “evolution of rape” controversy a few years ago (7/18/03). More recently, scientists published in PNAS a defense of polygyny (plural marriage) in some contexts as healthy for children, or at least not harmful. That was too much for a couple of sociologists who responded in PNAS with criticism of the claim, not so much on grounds that polygyny is “immoral” as to argue that the conclusions were not supported by the data. “Additional evidence could be collected,” Rieger and Wagner say, “about cowives and inheritance conflicts and longitudinal nutritional and educational outcomes for children of polygynous families to gauge whether polygyny is really harmful for children in the long run.” Gauging harm is a moral question.To that, the original authors stuck to their guns. In PNAS, they defended their opinion on purely pragmatic grounds (e.g., “our demonstration that (male-headed) polygynous households are relatively food secure and wealthy compared with monogamous households.” But is their final rationale neutral? “In studying ‘harmful cultural practices’ it is vital that we apply equivalent standards of evidence independent of whether results meet or contradict conventional expectation.”But if it’s merely a question of conventions, those are relative. It’s clearly conventional to the families in Tanzania. How does one measure what is harmful? If it is harmful to children but not their polygamous father, why don’t his values trump those of his children?Let’s apply the scientists’ relativistic morality back on themselves. Is it just a convention to study other human tribes and report on them in journals? What would they say if ISIS bombed their labs? Would that just be an Islamic cultural convention? We can continue this line of thinking on the earlier stories. Would it have been Rachael Rettner’s mother’s “convention” to take the abortion pill, preventing Rachael’s embryonic self from being born? Is our process of reasoning about one another’s intentions to make moral judgments an illusion from our evolutionary past? That destroys both reason and morality, robbing them of any foundation. If a society breeds humans, will those humans have free will if they disagree with the morality of breeding humans?Moral relativism has a way of biting the ones who promote it.Everybody has a worldview, even the person who says he has no worldview. Everyone espouses a philosophy, even those who say philosophy is dumb or worthless. Nobody can escape making moral judgments and believing his or her judgments are justified, even the one who says morality is relative. To see why this must be true, ask each of these scientists if they feel their own writings and research are justifiable. If they say no or balk, they become purveyors of nonsense.The only escape from the self-refuting trap of moral relativism is to believe in moral absolutes. And the only One who can give us moral absolutes is a timeless, omniscient, holy Creator. Then, the project of moral judgments consists of comparing one’s assertions to the standard. Unless morality is immutable, it is not moral. The same goes for truth. (Visited 159 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0