Umbro has unveiled the new home and away kits for the Jamaica Football Federation National Teams, with a campaign inspired by the unique culture and energy of the Caribbean nation. The new JFF/Umbro home and away kits will be worn by the JFF this week – the away design will make its debut in today’s friendly fixture against Ecuador in New York, while the home will feature as Jamaica begin their CONCACAF Nations League campaign versus the Cayman Islands at the National Stadium on Sunday. The new home jersey is in Jamaica’s traditional vibrant gold colour, with a striking black, green and gold taping design on the sleeves inspired by the Umbro double diamond logo and the country’s iconic flag. On the body of the shirt there is a subtle embossed graphic inspired by the palm trees that line the Jamaican coastline. Black shorts with the colourful taping trim and yellow socks complete the home look. The away shirt is sure to start some lively conversations amongst football fans, with an eye-catching design inspired in equal parts by current trends for strong graphics and the vibrant culture of Jamaica. A black jersey with green collar and sleeve trims, it features a vivid, colourful graphic on the mainbody that draws from the colours of the Jamaican nation, the energy of the island’s culture and Umbro’s timeless diamond logo. The Reggae Boyz nickname features on the back neck in yellow, while a tonal black version of the home kit’s taping design runs down the sleeves of the shirt and also features on the accompanying yellow shorts. Black socks complete the away strip. Both home and away kits are crafted from lightweight performance materials designed for movement and breathability. Both designs will be worn throughout Jamaica’s involvement in the CONCACAF Nations League tournament, with the ultimate aim of qualification for the 2022 World Cup. The new Jamaican 2018/19 Kits go on sale on September 7, 2018 and replicas may be ordered at that time online at www.JFF.Live
Originally posted on Acacia HR Solutions blog. I’ve been using this tag line of “small business who think big” for just under a year now. I took some time last year to really understand my target audience and focus my work and thought that best defines the clients I want to work with. It seems to be resonating because when potential clients reach out, they often mention how they really like that line and thought it fit them well.And then they ask me what it means.Funny, isn’t it, how something can speak to us, but then we wonder if it means the same to us as it was intended? Over lunch last week a new acquaintance asked what I did. I gave her the tagline and she, quite enthusiastically (which I don’t think was feigned), said she really liked that….and then asked me what it meant.I told her and realized that maybe it would be worth sharing with you. I’ve explained it on the website, but never through the blog, where most of you meet me. So here’s the story.When this business first began, I hadn’t really defined my target market. I always tell people who ask how I got started to never, ever, start a business like I did. I had no idea what I was doing, did not do any of the conventional things that people tell you to do (like, you know, have an actual plan) and somehow stumbled and fumbled into a growing business.In the beginning, I would take almost any project. I knew I wanted to focus on small businesses, but that’s about all I knew; and very early on, most small businesses only wanted me to write a handbook or be someone they could call to talk through a termination. All of those things are necessary, but not indicative of businesses who think big. With these clients I would deliver on the service they asked for and then talk to them about other things. For the client who only wanted a handbook, I would ask them what message they wanted the handbook to send. What policies did we absolutely need and what could we leave out. For the business that wanted an employee termination hotline, I would ask them to think about leadership training or better onboarding so that we could maybe come to the place of termination a little less often. And often I would be met with the same response.“Sabrina, that’s all great, but that’s big business stuff. We are too small to worry about that right now or put any of that in place. It will just change when we grow anyway.”I would get so frustrated thinking about what they could do. I would try to explain that setting those things up now would be easier than doing it when they were big.About two years in, I received a call from a potential client for onboarding help. He had 14 employees, but had just received his second round of funding and would be adding nearly 40 more in the coming year. He wanted to get all of the “HR stuff” setup, but most importantly really wanted to talk about onboarding. He felt that he needed to start these 40 employees off right and wanted to establish a process for future growth.I was in love. In a total, business sense of course.I decided right then and there that these would be the clients I chose to work with going forward. Not that I wouldn’t write a handbook or be on call for term issues, I still do those things, but I do them with businesses who also care about setting up what have been traditionally held as big business issues, even though they are still small.Things like onboarding.Culture.Leadership Development.Employee Development.Branding.Workforce strategy.I know it’s hard to think about some of this stuff when you are just trying to get a business off the ground, but I firmly believe it’s even harder when that business is grown and some of these things have created themselves – and not in the manner the leader would have intended.Or worse, you find out way too late that your business is behind the competition and cannot compete for talent because some of these human capital strategy areas weren’t addressed.So a business who thinks big is a business who realizes, regardless of employee population, they can still think about and focus on advanced human capital concepts. They think about how they want the business to look in five, ten or twenty years when the population size may be double, triple or more and decide what they want things to look like then, and put practices in place now to make sure they do.They are businesses who realize that regardless of whether they have one employee or 2,000, they are the spirit of the business, the thing that keeps customers coming back for more. They realize it and let that drive their strategy from day one.Thinking big as a small business means not limiting your actions to the size you are now, but the size you can be.And those are the small businesses I most want to work with.
Tags:#Analysis#web ProgrammableWeb currently measures popularity by number of views. This is a bit unfortunate,particularly because there is no way to sort mashups by rating. As a result, the most popularmashup – Virtual Places – isone that doesnot have a high rating. It looks interesting and claims to be sophisticated, but it didnot load for me.The second most popular mashup was called Wii Seeker.As the name implies, it helps people find nearby locations that have a NintendoWii. It must have been reallypopular at some point, but now it looks fairly primitive. The next mashup that caught my attentionwas the one in fourth place called Weather Bonk.This one had a high user rating and was actually very interesting, as it pulled togetherlive weather, historical information, forecasts and web cameras.Using Delexa for mashup popularityNext we briefly leave ProgrammableWeb and head over to Delexa,a mashup site that uses del.icio.us and Alexa APIs to show the most popular sites by category.The top mashup tagged by del.icio.us users was Housing Maps, aclassic mashupthat combines Google Maps and Craigslist to help people find housing. The figure below shows the distribution of tags for mashups. This is calculated by analyzingthe tags across all the mashups posted onto ProgrammableWeb. Mapping is overwhelminglythe most popular category,spanning 43% of all mashups. This is not surprising because it all started withthe Google Maps API – and people are still very excited about putting information on a map. Photos, Search andShopping tags are roughly equal – with 10% each. A Web Developer’s New Best Friend is the AI Wai… Is this what mashups will be – a playground for enthusiasts? I believe that the answer is ‘yes’.Even though services like Yahoo! Pipes, Teqlo and Dapper are working to simplify the process ofcreating mashups, it will likely remain a fairly technical exercise done by enthusiasts. However,it is also likely that we will see companies and products taking ideas from many mashupsand creating applications with the combined functionality. For example, taking ideas fromthe bestmashups (like Cloudalicious) and creating a set of tools for bloggers and marketers would bevery useful. So mashups will, I think, become the labs of the web – where rapid prototypingis done by enthusiasts, which gives rise to more integrated offerings by web companies.Please let us know what your favorite mashup is and give us your take on wheremashupsare heading. Top Reasons to Go With Managed WordPress Hosting There are few surprises in this information. Google Maps is by far the most popular API,with 50% of mashups using it. Flickr and Amazon are next with 11% and 8% respectively.Also, it’s notable that 5% of mashups are using YouTube – which probably corresponds to the recent rise ofvideo aggregators like Vidmeter. Finally, 4% and total of 74 mashupsuse the del.icio.us API. One API that caught my eye was Cloudalicious,which shows the distribution of tags for a particular URL over time. This can be insightful in terms ofunderstanding how people’s perception about your site is changing (or not).Check out the del.icio.us tag cloud trend forRead/WriteWeb: ConclusionWhat can we derive from this analysis? It appears that mashups are certainly cool,but they are not burgeoning. The growth has been steady, but not really explosive. This begsthe question: why? There are several reasons, the primary one being that most current mashups arecreated for fun and not for business. Enthusiasts with some spare time on their hands arebuilding these during their evenings and weekends, without having monetization in mind. The secondreason is that APIs, as with any software libraries, have a learning curve. CertainlyInternet companiesare trying to expose their services in the simplest possible way, but not everything can be made simple. Related Posts Web 2.0 has brought usa flock of APIs and the wonderful new concept of a Web mashup. Thanks toapps like Google Maps,del.icio.us and Flickr, we have started to think a lot about remixing the web. In the figure belowis a classic example of a mashup – a Twitter Map.This mashup uses Twitter and Google Maps APIs to create a new application, which literally putsTwitterusers on the map. Mashup popularity alex iskold 1 Why Tech Companies Need Simpler Terms of Servic… 8 Best WordPress Hosting Solutions on the Market The second most popular mashup according to Delexa was GeoGreeting,which is more entertaining than useful. This mashup showed geographical locations with buildingsthat resembled the shape of the letter that you typed. The third most popular mashup accordingto Delexa was Weather Bonk, the same one that caught my eye on ProgrammableWeb.Analyzing APIs: GoogleMaps used in 50% of mashups Back now on ProgrammableWeb and the chart on the right demonstratesthe growth of APIs. As with mashups, the actual growth is not that impressive – but it is steady.As of now, there are close to 400 registered APIs. The way that Programmable Webmeasures API popularity seems to be more objective and reliable than is the casewith mashups. The popularity equals the numberof mashups that use the API and the chart below shows the distribution of the most popularAPIs: When two services like this are put together, it is likely that somethinginteresting will emerge. However, not all possible combinations of services are actuallyuseful. To bring order to the often chaotic world of Mashups, John Musser createda site called ProgrammableWeb that tracks mashups and APIs.John’s site forms the basis of much of this post. So let’s head over there tofind out what the big trends are in mashups and APIs today…High Level API Trends: Google leads the packThe API section of ProgrammableWeb shows popular APIs. It also has an interesting scorecard thatcompares API offerings from web giants like Google and Microsoft. A quick look at the scorecard reveals that Yahoo! and Google lead the pack in terms of number of APIs – 22 and 20 respectively.Amazon, Microsoft and AOL have roughly half of that and eBay has 4. But in terms of usage, Googleis far ahead of the pack – 1114 Mashups use a Google API. It is also interesting to note thateven though Microsoft has 3 times the APIs of eBay, they both have the same number of Mashupsusing their APIs.Also check out the mashup matrix,which gives insights as to how APIs cluster with each other. Eachdot in the matrix implies that two APIs are part of the same mashup. One way tointerpret the matrix is that a cluster of dots indicates logical belongings ofAPIs, or a natural fit with each other. Analyzing Mashups: Mapping continues to dominate The Mashup dashboardon ProgrammableWeb contains a lot ofinteresting statistics about Mashups. On the right, we see the numbers for the past six months.We conclude that mashups have been growing steadily, but not spectacularly. This is notsurprising, because creating mashups requires time and more importantly technical know-how.
Scott Pruitt is administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. New rule could force EPA to ignore major human health studies Research looking at everything from links between air pollution and disease to the impact a pesticide has on children’s brains could be banned from consideration by environmental regulators under a new policy proposed yesterday by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).At an event at EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C., that was closed to the press, agency head Scott Pruitt touted the new policy as a way to increase transparency and enable the public to double-check research underpinning environmental regulations. The rule would require the agency to use only studies in which the underlying data are available for public scrutiny when formulating new “significant” regulations, which typically are regulations estimated to impose costs of $100 million or more.Specifically, the proposed rule says that EPA is seeking transparency for “the dose response data and models that underlie what we are calling ‘pivotal regulatory science.’” The agency does not define pivotal regulatory science, but says it could include studies that “are critical to the calculation of a final regulatory standard or level, or to the quantified costs, benefits, risks, and other impacts on which a final regulation is based.”Sign up for our daily newsletterGet more great content like this delivered right to you!Country *AfghanistanAland IslandsAlbaniaAlgeriaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBolivia, Plurinational State ofBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, The Democratic Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCote D’IvoireCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and Mcdonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic ofIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKorea, Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMacedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorwayOmanPakistanPalestinianPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalQatarReunionRomaniaRussian FederationRWANDASaint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint Maarten (Dutch part)SlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofVietnamVirgin Islands, BritishWallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweI also wish to receive emails from AAAS/Science and Science advertisers, including information on products, services and special offers which may include but are not limited to news, careers information & upcoming events.Required fields are included by an asterisk(*) By Warren CornwallApr. 25, 2018 , 6:15 PM Gage Skidmore/Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0) “The era of secret science at EPA is coming to an end,” Pruitt said, speaking to an audience that included conservative lawmakers and advocates who have questioned the science underpinning climate and health regulations. “Americans deserve to assess the legitimacy of the science underpinning EPA decisions that may impact their lives.”But a number of leading epidemiologists studying the effects of pollution say the new regulations could pose a problem for existing and new studies aimed at teasing out connections between pollution and large populations. “I think this rule is a thinly veiled attempt to undermine the science that’s available for the EPA to use in its decision-making,” says Peter Thorne, a toxicologist at The University of Iowa in Iowa City, and chairman of EPA’s science advisory board until late 2017, when his membership wasn’t renewed by Pruitt.The new proposal would effectively block the use of key scientific studies and “help big polluters avoid regulations that protect human health,” warned the American Thoracic Society, a New York City–based medical association representing physicians and scientists involved in respiratory disease.Other critics say EPA has failed to adequately calculate the costs of complying with its proposal, or clearly articulate its legal authority to issue the new rule, potentially opening the agency to a legal challenge.Privacy concernsThe problem, critics say, is that human epidemiological studies often rely on gathering reams of sensitive information from thousands of individuals, such as their medical history and personal habits, along with exactly where they live and work. Those details are usually guarded by confidentiality agreements that bar researchers from sharing data that would allow an individual to be identified.Existing studies could be bound by confidentiality agreements that make it impossible to give EPA the data it wants, Thorne says. And future researchers could have more trouble recruiting participants if they fear their information would be made public. “If those [confidentiality] documents say we will be required to release your private information to the U.S. government or to the public, [people] would be wise not to participate,” he says.In its proposed rule, EPA says it wants to make data publicly available “in a manner that honors legal and ethical obligations to reduce the risks of unauthorized disclosure and reidentification” of anonymous study subjects. The agency says sensitive data could be shielded by a variety of measures, including storing them at special federal data centers and restricting who has access to them. And it suggests that the transparency requirement could, in certain circumstances, be waived if not practical to implement. It does not provide an estimate of the cost of complying with the rule.In a press release the agency claimed the proposed provisions are consistent with data access requirements of major scientific journals include Nature, Science, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Science, along with many other journals, has recently adopted measures to encourage data sharing and increase transparency, Science Editor-in-Chief Jeremy Berg said in a prepared statement. Those measure can include requiring authors of published papers to deposit underlying data in a publicly available database. But he noted there are “exceptional circumstances, where data cannot be shared openly with all,” including cases where papers are based on data sets that include personal information. Journals will still publish those papers, but will tell researchers wishing to reanalyze or replicate the studies to negotiate directly with the authors to obtain the sensitive data.In general, researchers who share their data usually first strip information such as name, date of birth, or place of residence that would enable people to trace it back to an individual, says Joel Kaufman, an epidemiologist at the University of Washington in Seattle who is studying air pollution and heart disease. He’s now preparing a “limited” data set for the roughly 7000 participants in his study, so that other researchers can work with it. “That’s the right thing to do,” Kaufman says. “But I fear that that’s not enough for what the proponents of this regulation are trying to do, which is to get data that we know we can’t provide.”On the industry side, an American Chemistry Council (ACC) spokesperson says the Washington, D.C.–based trade group is looking at the new EPA rule, but has few detailed comments at this point. “Our industry is committed to working with EPA to help ensure the final rule increases transparency and public confidence in the agency’s regulations while protecting personal privacy, confidential business information, proprietary interest and intellectual property rights,” spokesperson Jon Corley said in a prepared statement. In the past, ACC has supported similar efforts to bar EPA from using nonpublic data in certain kinds of rulemakings, while noting that the agency often uses confidential or proprietary data provided by industry in doing its work.For example, industries fund extensive research into the health effects of chemicals, often through private laboratories that rely on animal testing. In internal EPA emails released by the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the agency’s deputy administrator in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Nancy Beck, wrote that for a majority of industry studies, confidential business information “can be waived and the data can be made available.” (Beck was formerly a top official at the chemistry council.) But the EPA proposal also suggests such industry information could be exempted from the transparency rule.Long historyThe new EPA proposal is the latest in a long-running campaign to let the public and regulated industries sift through the raw data of epidemiologists whose work could affect pollution regulations.In the 1990s, members of Congress pressed for legislation requiring scientists to disclose their raw scientific data, partly in response to a Harvard University study finding a correlation between more air pollution and lower life expectancy. Several times in recent years, the House of Representatives passed a bill requiring public disclosure of data from any new studies used by EPA to write regulations, but the proposal never made it out of Congress. The champion of that bill, Representative LamarSmith (R–TX), flanked Pruitt at Tuesday’s unveiling of the new proposal, smiling.EPA will now accept public comments on the proposal for 30 days, then is expected to issue a final rule.Environmental groups and others have already said they expect to challenge the rule in court. Potential lines of attack, attorneys say, include claims that EPA has not met the letter of federal law in evaluating the rule’s costs and benefits, or explained which federal law has provided it with the authority to issue the new requirements.Correction, 4/26/2018, 12:00 p.m.: The lawmaker standing next to EPA Adminstrator Scott Pruitt was misidentified. It was Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX), not Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN).