HuffPost is part of <span class="info hover" data-tooltip="Our owned and operated sites and apps, including our Yahoo offerings, HuffPost, Autoblog, Engadget, TechCrunch and AOL.These brands provide content, commerce and mail services to hundreds of millions of users.">Verizon Media</span>. We and <a href="/v2/partners?sessionId=3_cc-session_534fbb99-61a7-4893-b3c0-df4cd50b6084" rel="nofollow">our partners</a> will store and/or access information on your device through the use of cookies and similar technologies, to display personalised ads and content, for ad and content measurement, audience insights and product development.
<h3>Your personal data that may be used</h3>
<ul class="content-list"><li class="list-item">Information about your device and internet connection, including your IP address</li>
<li class="list-item">Browsing and search activity while using Verizon Media websites and apps</li>
<li class="list-item"> <span class="info hover" data-tooltip="Geolocation data that describes with reasonable specificity the actual physical location of an individual or device, such as GPS location.">Precise location</span>
Find out more about how we use your information in our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy.
To enable Verizon Media and our partners to process your personal data select '<strong>I agree</strong>', or select '<strong>Manage settings</strong>' for more information and to manage your choices. You can change your choices at any time by visiting <a href="/redirect?to=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.verizonmedia.com%2Fpolicies%2Fus%2Fen%2Fverizonmedia%2Fprivacy%2Fdashboard%2Findex.html&brandDomain=&brandId=huffpo&tos=eu&step=&sessionId=3_cc-session_534fbb99-61a7-4893-b3c0-df4cd50b6084&userType=NON_REG" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer">Your Privacy Controls</a>.
Pope Francis on Wednesday appointed Professor José Nelson Onuchic as a new member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Vatican’s international scientific academy, established by Pope Pius XI in 1936.
Prof. José Nelson Onuchic was born on January 17, 1958, in São Paulo (Brazil), where he graduated in Electrical Engineering in 1980, in Physics in 1981 and in Applied Physics in 1982.
He completed his PhD in Chemistry at the California Institute of Technology (USA) in 1987. After a brief period of post-doctoral study in Santa Barbara, California, he taught at the University of São Paulo (Brazil) from 1987 to 1990, the year in which he returned to the United States, where he taught at the University of San Diego (California) until 2011. He then moved to Rice University in Houston, Texas, to teach Physics and Astronomy, Chemistry and Biosciences. Here he is co-director of the Centre for Theoretical Biological Physics.
He has received several awards for his studies, including the Beckman Young Investigator Award in 1992; he became a fellow of the American Physical Society in 1995 and was elected a member of the US National Academy of Sciences in 2006, and of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences in 2009.
His current research interests centre on theoretical and computational methods on the borderline between physics and biology, with their effects on human biology and genomics.
The Academy
The work of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences comprises six major areas: Fundamental Science, Science and technology of global problems, Science for the problems of the developing world, Scientific policy, Bioethics and Epistemology.
Pope Francis on Wednesday named Fr William D.Byrne as the new Bishop of Springfield, Massachusetts in the United States. Until now he has been parish priest of Our Lady of Mercy Parish in Potomac, Maryland.
He succeeds Archbishop Mitchell T. Rozanski who was appointed as the new Metropolitan Archbishop of Saint Louis by the Pope in June 2020.
Curriculum vitae of Fr. William D.Byrne
Bishop-elect Byrne was born on September 26, 1964 in Washington, D.C., and ordained to the priesthood on June 25, 1994 for the Archdiocese of Washington. Father Byrne attended Georgetown Preparatory School in Rockville, Maryland and received a bachelor’s degree in English from College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts. He studied at the Pontifical North American College in Rome and received a Bachelor’s in Sacred Theology (STB) in 1992 and a Licentiate in Sacred Theology (STL) in 1994, both from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome.
After ordination, Father Byrne was assigned to the Church of the Little Flower in Bethesda, Maryland as parochial vicar where he served until 1995 when he was assigned as parochial vicar at the Shrine of Saint Jude in Rockville, Maryland. From 1999 until 2007, he served as the chaplain for the University of Maryland’s Catholic Student Center in College Park, Maryland. He was named pastor of St. Peter’s parish in Washington, D.C. in 2007 where he served until 2015. From 2009 until 2015, while serving as pastor of St. Peter’s, Father Byrne was also Secretary for Pastoral Ministry and Social Concerns for the Archdiocese of Washington. In 2015, Father Byrne was named pastor of Our Lady of Mercy parish in Potomac, Maryland where he currently serves.
Bishop-elect Byrne’s ministry also includes service on the Archdiocese of Washington’s Vocations Team (1998), Formation Board (2002-present), Priest Council (2003-2006), Priest Personnel Board (2006-2009), and Archdiocesan Administrative Board (2009-2015), as well as membership on the board of directors of St. Ann’s Infant and Maternity Home, Catholic Youth Organization, and Redemptoris Mater Seminary, as well as the advisory board of the Lay Leadership Institute.
The Diocese of Springfield is comprised of 2,822 square miles in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and has a total population of 828,667 of which 199,289 are Catholic.
Joanna Flynn describes an experience in a Rowan class when her Christian values were in conflict with a given assignment. Her response to this moral conflict surprised even herself. – Photo via pixabay.com
I am a very literal person. I believe there is a fierce dichotomy between dark and light, that morality is not a scale. There is right, and there is wrong, and there is no space in between.
But life isn’t actually like that. At all.
As humans, we exist in this in-between, in this continuum. As a follower of Christ, I believe in certain truths established by the Bible, and that they exist for us to live the most fulfilling lives we can. But there are a lot of things not explicitly written down. There are a lot of things that we as individuals get to decide, lines that we get to draw for ourselves, where we have to stand and say, “No, I do not believe this is good or beneficial, and I will not participate.”
This happened to me in a class during my time at Rowan. I was bummed, because I was really looking forward to this class — one of my favorite professors was teaching it, I had many friends and everyone was engaged and conversational. It was great.
Until one specific paper was assigned. I looked at the requirements and my heart sank. I couldn’t do it. The paper was asking me to justify something that I morally believed was wrong. My line had been drawn, and now I had to stand upon it.
That was the tricky part.
I had a choice to make, and it was one of the hardest ones I have ever made. I had to wrestle with thoughts like “You’re just not strong enough to handle college-level content” and “You’re a quitter.” Oh, and let’s not forget the one that hissed, “You’re just scared and weak and worthless.” Intrusive thoughts love to kick us while we’re down, don’t they?
When I was younger, I used to imagine a moment when I would have to stand up for my beliefs. I pictured a heroic monologue about my life, about my faith and about why everyone around me was wrong and needed to listen to me. In these moments, I also pictured myself in a ball gown, pleading desperately with my peers to change their ways. In addition to being literal, I also have a flair for the dramatic.
But when I was actually in a situation where I had to make a choice, somehow standing on my desk and shouting at my classmates and professor about how wrong they were didn’t feel quite right. I realized that I actually cared about these people. I saw them as I saw myself: individuals — each with a unique story, strong convictions and intrinsic value. I asked myself how I would feel if someone decided to shove their values in my face, tell me everything I believed was wrong and storm off with their fist in the air.
I would have some choice words for that person.
And none of those words would speak to love, or kindness or respect — which are the feelings I want to leave with any and every individual I talk to. So I discarded that idea. I told myself I could sit in class and be quiet. But the truth is, I couldn’t have sat in class and been quiet. I had options: I could have talked to my professor or asked for a different assignment. But in this situation, I knew what the best thing for me would be, and it wasn’t compromising what I believed for a grade. It also wasn’t being a judge for those around me and telling them that what they were doing was wrong.
So I dropped the class.
That probably seems really anti-climactic, but that’s what I did. Now, I’m not encouraging anyone reading this to drop a class anytime they disagree with something — not at all. If that were the case, I’d have dropped all my classes, all my friends and most of my family too. Disagreeing is part of life.
But so is standing up for what you believe in. It just happened to look much different than I expected, and it neverlooks the same every time. It’s not always the dramatic monologue of “This is why I’m right and you’re wrong.” It’s not always gathering in protests, though it can be. It’s not always dropping a class.
Sometimes, it is quietly deciding within yourself that something is not good or beneficial for you, and removing yourself from the situation. Sometimes it is realizing that your line has been drawn, and not participating in whatever is going on around you. And sometimes it is indeed speaking up, being loud and making a scene.
But no matter what it is sometimes, it should alwaysbe out of love, in kindness and with respect.
For comments/questions about this story, email [email protected] or tweet @TheWhitOnline.
DALLAS, Oct. 14, 2020 /PRNewswire/ — Jacobs (NYSE:NYSE:J) was selected to lead an international consortium whose cutting-edge research could lead to extensions in the operational lifespan of nuclear power plants around the world.
The INCEFA-SCALE program (INcreasing safety in nuclear power plants by Covering gaps in Environmental Fatigue Assessment) aims to reduce uncertainties about how critical components will perform when subjected to the harsh conditions inside operational nuclear power reactors.
Although components and materials are extensively tested in laboratories, there are sometimes gaps in understanding the correlation between these tests and actual performance. This can lead to fatigue assessment parameters being set more conservatively than necessary.
The research will fill in those gaps by means of extensive data mining in international fatigue databases and detailed examination of test specimens to improve mechanistic understanding. Greater certainty about component performance will avoid unnecessary closures of nuclear power plants when they are still economically viable and safe to operate.
“By successfully leading this research, Jacobs has demonstrated its capability to knit together an international consortium and to bring together the very best, complementary capabilities,” said Jacobs Critical Mission Solutions International Senior Vice President Clive White. “The European Union has sanctioned this follow-on project while the predecessor project is still live, which testifies to the success of the consortium and the relevance of the study topic to nuclear plant safety and lifetime assessments.”
Operator of the U.K.’s largest independent nuclear laboratory complex in Birchwood Park, Warrington, Jacobs will contribute to multiaxial, thermo-mechanical and complex waveform testing to provide greater insight into the stresses and strains placed on components. This work will complement component scale tests being carried out in the U.S. by the Electric Power Research Institute, in collaboration with INCEFA-SCALE.
The European Union is providing most of the funding for the five-year, $8.1 million INCEFA-SCALE program, which is a continuation of the previous INCEFA-PLUS program, where Jacobs have led a 16-member European consortium since 2013.
At Jacobs, we’re challenging today to reinvent tomorrow by solving the world’s most critical problems for thriving cities, resilient environments, mission-critical outcomes, operational advancement, scientific discovery and cutting-edge manufacturing, turning abstract ideas into realities that transform the world for good. With $13 billion in revenue and a talent force of more than 55,000, Jacobs provides a full spectrum of professional services including consulting, technical, scientific and project delivery for the government and private sector. Visit jacobs.com and connect with Jacobs on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn and Twitter.
Certain statements contained in this press release constitute forward-looking statements as such term is defined in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and such statements are intended to be covered by the safe harbor provided by the same. Statements made in this release that are not based on historical fact are forward-looking statements. We base these forward-looking statements on management’s current estimates and expectations as well as currently available competitive, financial and economic data. Forward-looking statements, however, are inherently uncertain. There are a variety of factors that could cause business results to differ materially from our forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the related reaction of governments on global and regional market conditions and the company’s business. For a description of some additional factors that may occur that could cause actual results to differ from our forward-looking statements, see our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 27, 2019, and in particular the discussions contained under Item 1 – Business; Item 1A – Risk Factors; Item 3 – Legal Proceedings; and Item 7 – Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, and our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 26, 2020, and in particular the discussions contained under Part I, Item 2 – Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations; Part II, Item 1 – Legal Proceedings; and Part II, Item 1A – Risk Factors, as well as the company’s other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company is not under any duty to update any of the forward-looking statements after the date of this press release to conform to actual results, except as required by applicable law.
For press/media inquiries: Kerrie Sparks 214.583.8433
An online meeting provided the six Cardinal advisors that make up the so-called C6 (Council of Cardinals) the occasion to meet together with Pope Francis after an eight-month suspension of meetings caused by the coronavirus pandemic.
A Vatican Press Office statement said Pope Francis engaged in the virtual meeting on Tuesday afternoon from his office in the Casa Santa Marta to discuss some aspects of the text of the new Apostolic Constitution on the Roman Curia.
Once approved, that text will replace the Constitution Pastor Bonus promulgated by Pope Saint John Paul II.
“During the summer months,” the statement explained, “the Council had the opportunity to work via internet on the text of the new Apostolic Constitution whose updated draft was presented to the Holy Father. According to the usual practice, the competent Dicasteries are now proceeding with the reading of the draft.”
Planning next steps
In particular, the statement noted, the meeting was convened “to summarize the work done and to study how to support the implementation of the new Constitution, once it has been promulgated.”
It also said that during the meeting Pope Francis highlighted the fact that “the reform is already underway, even under some administrative and economic aspects.”
Participating in the meeting were Cardinals Óscar A. Rodríguez Maradiaga, Reinhard Marx, Sean Patrick O’Malley, Oswald Gracias, as well as Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Cardinal Giuseppe Bertello, the Secretary of the Council, Bishop Marcello Semeraro and the Adjunct Secretary, Bishop Marco Mellino.
The next meeting, the statement concluded, “is set for the month of December and will take place via internet, due to the health emergency, and according to the already established plan.”
Strasbourg – A report published today by the Council of Europe identifies a number of shortcomings in the protection of privacy and personal data in some of the legal and technical measures adopted by governments to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic among the 55 African, Latin-American and European countries which have joined the data protection “Convention 108”.
The report “Digital solutions to fight COVID-19” provides an analysis of the impact on the rights to privacy and data protection of the legislative framework and policies adopted by governments as well as an in-depth and technical review of digital contact tracing applications and monitoring tools.
It calls on governments to ensure transparency of digital solutions in order to ensure respect of the rights to privacy and data protection. It also regrets that in spite of numerous calls for coordination and interoperability of digital solutions to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries have individually implemented widely diverging systems, thereby limiting the efficiency of the measures taken.
Whilst aiming to assess how the measures adopted comply with the data protection convention, the report also contains recommendations on how to ensure the efficiency and resilience of the data protection framework.
In most countries, governments adopted emergency measures that gave governments extensive powers, usually only for a limited period of time.
The report identifies shortcomings in a number of countries concerning compliance with the principles of “Convention 108” with regard to issues such as the requirement for a legal basis of the measures adopted, their proportionality and aspects such as their justification by public interest and the consent of the data subject for data processing.
A particularly challenging aspect is the limitation of the purposes for data processing – the report points out that in some countries the boundaries between healthcare and police enforcement purposes have been sometimes blurred. The report also points to data protection risks related to the security, storage and sharing of data, which has led to the withdrawal of certain measures in some countries.
When examining compliance with the principle of privacy by design, the report notes that out of 55 Parties to “Convention 108”, 26 jurisdictions have chosen a de-centralised approach for proximity and contact tracing apps whilst 14 have chosen a centralised approach. 5 countries have decided not to use apps at all.
The report contains the findings of a survey among the states Parties to “Convention 108” on the use of digital solutions to control the dissemination of the virus. Out of the 47 respondents participating in the survey, 36 use apps for contact tracing or proximity alerts (77%), 20 for self-diagnosis (43%), 11 for quarantine enforcement (23%) and 8 for mapping travel patterns (17%). Only two countries used apps for crowd control and another two for immunity passports.
Finally, the report welcomes that 20 countries participating in the survey have published the apps source codes, a measure that can contribute to building the trust of users and to make the apps effective. To further strengthen this trust, the reports recommends involving civil society and the general public in the development of digital solutions and transparency measures.
***
The Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, also known as “Convention 108”, is the only legally binding instrument on the protection of privacy and data protection open to any country in the world. Adopted in 1981, the treaty was updated in 2018 by an amending protocol, not yet in force, ensuring that its data protection principles are still adapted to today´s tools and practices, and strengthening its follow up mechanism. So far, 55 countries have ratified “Convention 108” and many others have used it as a model for new data protection legislation throughout the world. Eight countries have already ratified the updated “Convention 108+” and another 34 have signed it but not yet ratified it.
Europe’s highest court has concluded that member states have the right to ban pesticides even if they are permitted at the EU level, provided they officially inform the European Commission.
The ruling, issued on Thursday (8 October), was taken after the French government made the decision to prohibit the use of certain neonicotinoid pesticides authorised by the EU executive.
Neonicotinoids are a class of pesticides which are chemically similar to nicotine and target insects. They have come under fire in recent years for contributing to the decline of bees through disrupting their sense of orientation, memory and mode of reproduction.
Following the decision, the French crop protection association, the Union des industries de la protection des plantes (UIPP), brought an action before the French highest administrative court, the Council of State.
The pesticide industry’s lobby sought the annulment of the government act on the basis that it was incompatible with the EU regulation which harmonises the authorisation of active substances and plant protection products (PPPs) in the 27 member states.
Subsequently, France’s Council of State asked the Luxembourg-based European Court of Justice (ECJ) for its interpretation on the matter in a preliminary ruling.
Through this legal proceeding, national courts and tribunals in disputes which have been brought before them may refer questions to the EU Court about the interpretation of EU law or the validity of an EU act.
However, the ECJ ruled in France’s favour, concluding that member states may “take unilateral protective measures if they have previously raised concerns about an active substance with the Commission and the Commission does not adopt protective measures”.
As ECJ does not decide the dispute itself, it is now for the national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision.
The ECJ ruling will set a precedent upon which other national courts or tribunals will base decisions when a similar issue is raised.
Following the ruling, the decision of the Council of State will take place in the following months.
The decision was welcomed by campaign groups, who see this as confirmation that member states are not restricted by EU authorisation processes.
“Member states often publicly hide behind the European Commission and claim only the EU level can ban a pesticide,” Martin Dermine, health and environment policy officer at the Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN), told EURACTIV, adding that the governments often fear the “systematic lawsuits from the agrochemicals industry”.
“This ruling confirms that they can legally be more protective for their citizens and environment,” he said.
He added that he was hopeful that this ruling would lead to more national bans.
EURACTIV reached out to UIPP for comment, but the organisation declined to comment at this current time, saying they preferred to comment once the verdict was finalised.
The ruling comes on the back of French lawmakers approving a draft bill on 6 October allowing sugar beet growers to use banned neonicotinoid pesticides in a bid to help the sector, which is reeling from the effects of pests this year.
