Body in shallow graveZaila SugrimThe husband of 37-year-old Zaila Sugrim, whose body was discovered on Tuesday in a shallow grave at Crane, West Coast Demerara (WCD), has confessed that he shot his wife to the head and then set her body on fire before burying it.In his confession to Police on Tuesday, the businessman detailed how he killed his estranged wife. Sugrim’s body was found on a property near her husband’s home after she was reported missing on Saturday last.On Tuesday, Police swooped down on the businessman after they received information that he picked up his estranged wife at Vreed-en-Hoop, West Coast Demerara, and that was the last time she was seen alive. Investigators made a major breakthrough after an examination of the man’s car revealed blood in the trunk.Speaking with Guyana Times, Sugrim’s borther, Ahmad Haniff, said his sister was burnt beyond recognition. Sugrim went missing on Saturday after she left her brother’s Golden Grove, East Bank Demerara (EBD) home to be picked up by her estranged husband at the Vreed-en-Hoop Stelling.The mother of five was reportedly visiting her estranged husband’s home to celebrate one of their children’s birthday. However that was the last time she was seen alive.Relatives told this newspaper that Sugrim suffered 15 years of abuse at the hands of her husband and was forced to stay away from her relatives.In 2018, Sugrim had finally mustered up the courage to leave her husband, the owner of a gas station, which is located in front of the house where they lived and a stone throw away from where her body was found.Relatives said Sugrim’s decision to leave her husband was made following a severe beating, which left her hospitalised. After contacting her family after years of no communication, Sugrim took the suspect to court where he was charged for unlawfully and maliciously causing her bodily harm.However, after informing the court that he was the sole breadwinner for his family, he was released on bail was ordered to not go within 100 feet of the now dead woman.On Thursday last, Sugrim’s brother said his sister had visited the suspect’s home where she spent time with her children. That visitation was without incident and as such, Haniff noted that his sister informed him that she was going over again on Saturday.However, the family became worried when several calls placed to Sugrim’s phone on Saturday evening went unanswered.As such, on Sunday morning, a report was made at the Diamond Police Station. After relatives made additional reports on Monday at the said Police Station, a group of ranks swooped down on the suspect’s home.After much interrogation, the suspect finally broke down and confessed that he indeed killed his estranged wife and led Police to where he buried her body.
LAS VEGAS — The A’s aren’t necessarily in the market for a shortstop, but an opportunity may have just presented itself.Hampered by injuries over the past few years, Troy Tulowitzki was released by the Toronto Blue Jays Tuesday afternoon, presenting the possibility of a homecoming with the A’s. Tulowitzki, 34, grew up in the South Bay a diehard A’s fan. After a standout career at Fremont High in Sunnyvale and Long Beach State, he quickly established himself as one of the premier shortstops …
(Visited 323 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 What could be more noble than striving for peace and avoiding conflict? Well, now the Darwinians say that peacemaking evolved by natural selection, too.Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” To scientific materialists, there are no heavens, and Jesus was just a teacher at a certain time and place. And yet something within us knows that peace is better than conflict. How do they explain it with their only tool, Darwinian evolution?In “The Evolution of Conflict Resolution” (Phys.org), evolutionists at Northeastern University admit that animals don’t resolve conflicts the way humans do. But since animals evolved (in their thinking) to develop territoriality, battle and hierarchy, human peacemaking must have evolved differently. But it evolved nonetheless. Having come up with a model of “host-guest behavior,” the Darwinians explain human peacemaking:“This is especially interesting in the context of human biological behavior because in the animal kingdom, territoriality or ownership norms are ubiquitous.”And so, how and why did the host-guest norm evolve into the more socially accepted conflict resolution in human beings, and how might that affect the future? The research suggests that this is due to the dynamic nature of the social network which allows actors to choose their interaction partners. This entails that insofar ownership and territoriality are probably widespread due to the intrinsic importance of holding resources or the value of owning a territory rather than as a convention for avoiding conflict. Riedl and his fellow researchers are hard at work to unveil additional details about the evolutionary dynamics of when or where certain conventions may arise.In recent days, we are witnessing major peacemaking efforts around the world. Jared Kushner spoke today in Jerusalem about peacemaking efforts between Israel and the Palestinians (YouTube), surrounded by eminent leaders who applauded these values. President Trump is working to avoid nuclear conflict by meeting next month with the North Korean communist dictator. To the Darwinists, these are simply biological networks that have reached a temporary equilibrium. Peacemaking efforts are mere conventions that work out for a time, but are dynamic measures of what organisms prefer under evolving circumstances. Ultimately, they have no meaning or content. They are just natural manifestations of the Stuff Happens Law (natural selection).Of course, Darwinians of yesteryear thought that conflict was the means of evolutionary progress. Survival of the fittest required the strong to dominate the weak. We all know where that led. In today’s kinder, gentler Darwinism, cooperation is valued. This shows that evolutionary theory itself evolves. Either way, human behaviors have no ultimate meaning. Neither does reasoning about evolutionary theory. If today’s cooperative Darwinism evolves into something vastly different, such as deeper conflict or extinction, so be it.To any Darwinians reading this who object to our characterization of natural selection as the “Stuff Happens Law,” listen to population geneticist Andrew Jones on ID the Future 25 April 2018. He affirms that many of today’s Darwinians discount the role of natural selection, favoring genetic drift instead. And what is genetic drift? Random chance! Stuff happens.
SharePrint RelatedGeocaching Etiquette 201: Finding and LoggingJune 14, 2019In “Community”Geocaching Etiquette 201: Cache OwnershipJune 25, 2019In “Community”Five Project-GC features you may not know aboutNovember 13, 2018In “News” Today we’re happy to announce the end of the moratorium on challenge cache submissions. Effective immediately, new challenge caches may be submitted in accordance with the updated guidelines.Challenge caches encourage people to set and achieve fun goals. There’s no doubt that they’re a beloved part of the game for many geocachers. However, challenge caches represent a major exception to a basic guideline: For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the cache and signing the log are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional. Geocaching HQ has long exempted challenge caches from this guideline because they can bring so many positives to the game.With that exception comes an expectation that the negatives won’t outweigh the positives. Unfortunately, a number of negative factors led to the moratorium going into effect last year, including:Subjectivity often results in a difficult review process. Reviewers are volunteers who give their time to support the geocaching community. With most cache submissions, it’s usually pretty clear to reviewers whether a geocache is publishable. But challenge caches are different. Many reviewers cite the sometimes contentious process of reviewing challenge caches as the least fun thing about reviewing. Since each reviewer examines hundreds or thousands of cache submissions each year, we (HQ and the community) owe it to them to make the process as enjoyable as possible!High percentage of appeals to Geocaching HQ. Cache owners can appeal a reviewer’s decision to HQ if a cache submission is deemed unpublishable. We found that more than 50 percent of appeals related to challenge caches prior to the moratorium. That’s despite the fact that less than one percent of cache submissions were challenge caches. It was another sign that the challenge cache system wasn’t working.Logging requirements are often misunderstood. Some challenge caches are very simple for cachers to understand. However, more and more we found people were submitting challenges with very long lists of logging requirements. In some cases, a single challenge cache listing totaled multiple pages when printed. Appeals for such caches often resulted in the kind of back and forth that can make the process very difficult.These were among some of the known drawbacks to challenge caches. A big goal of the moratorium was to gain an even deeper understanding about what the community and volunteer reviewers liked and didn’t like about challenges. We also wanted to hear your suggestions for how to improve challenge caches. Hundreds of geocachers took part in our User Insights Forum. Nearly 20,000 of you also completed our survey on challenge caches. With all of that data in hand, we set about building a framework that we hope will allow challenges to continue and thrive.What’s Changing?Challenge checkers. Perhaps the biggest change is that all future challenge caches must include a web-based challenge checker. We began looking at this idea after it was suggested by many community members during the User Insights Forum. We then found that a high percentage of survey respondents favored the idea. Checkers will make it much easier for caches to know whether they qualify for a challenge.Since Project-GC is already very experienced in hosting challenge checkers, it made perfect sense to work with them to officially integrate checkers into new challenge caches. Read more about challenge checkers in our Help Center. (We want to thank Magnus and his colleagues at Project-GC for their partnership in this process!)Guideline changes. We’ve updated both the format and some content in the Challenge Cache Guidelines. Here are some of the more important updates:CO is required to have qualified for the challenge. This change was heavily supported in the community survey. In the past, some COs submitted crazy challenges for which even they could not hope to qualify.Time-limited challenges are not permitted. For example, “Find 500 caches in a month” or “Find 10 different icons in a day.” The aim here is at least two-fold. First, these challenges encouraged people to hurry to find caches in a short time period. That’s something a majority of survey respondents said they didn’t like about challenge caches. And it’s not something we wish to encourage. Second, we’ve seen a lot of people creating Events and/or CITOs only to add an icon to the area for “Busy Day” challenges. That’s not at all the spirit for which those activities are intended.Streak challenges limited to 365 days. Ask an experienced cacher, “What did you like most about your caching streak?” and the common answer is, “The day it ended!” Finding caches every day for a long period often makes caching feel like a chore. But we didn’t want to restrict them completely, so we’re setting a maximum streak length for challenges. No challenges based on Waymarking, Benchmarking or Trackable logs, or specifying Lab Cache finds. The community survey results showed low approval ratings for challenges involving these things. While many geocachers do enjoy Waymarking and Benchmarking, these activities aren’t geocaching. Challenges involving trackables can lead to mass logging and other behaviors that aren’t ideal for TBs. We are not permitting Lab Cache challenges because Lab Caches are temporary, are generally only available to those who attend Mega- or Giga-Events, are not associated with Found It logs, and are not completely integrated into Geocaching.com stats. However, since they are included in user profile stats for Total Finds, Longest Streak, and Finds for Each Day of the Year grid, we are making an exception to permit Lab Caches to be used as qualifiers for challenges related only to those metrics.Challenges cannot be based on these listing elements: cache titles, cache owner names, GC Codes, or listing text. This would include such challenges as “Find a cache for every letter of the alphabet” or “Find caches with the Periodic Table symbol in the GC code.” They generally reward database management, rather than geocaching achievement. More importantly, they often lead people to place caches whose titles start with a certain letter or contain a specific word, only to help people qualify for challenges. What’s Not Changing (for now)The idea of a challenge cache icon or attribute earned significant support from the community. We agree there are a lot of good reasons to implement one. However, we want to confirm that the new framework will reduce the problems which led to the moratorium. It wouldn’t make sense to engineer a new icon or attribute only to lose it if challenge caches don’t work out. We’re going to give it a year or so, and then re-evaluate the situation. If we find that things are going well, then we will strongly consider adding a new icon or attribute for challenge caches.What’s Next?We love how challenge caches encourage people to set fun goals and expand their caching horizons. There’s no question we want these caches to thrive for years to come. We have high hopes that this new framework for challenge caches will reduce some of the pre-moratorium difficulties for reviewers and the community. But challenge cache owners are integral to the success of this framework. It’s important that they work within these guidelines in order to reduce the burden that reviewers felt prior to the moratorium. If after a period of evaluation we find that a lot of the pre-moratorium issues are still causing problems, then we’ll know that this new framework isn’t the answer. We don’t have a backup plan. The only remaining option would be to not permit challenge caches as they currently exist.But we’re hopeful the community won’t let it come to that. Through your participation in our User Insights Forum and survey, geocachers and community volunteer reviewers have eagerly participated in a comprehensive process that has resulted in what we believe is solid framework. We’re happy to know that challenge caches will continue to inspire people around the world to achieve exciting geocaching goals!Read more:Challenge Cache GuidelinesLearn about Challenge CheckersChallenge Cache SubjectivityShare with your Friends:More