Greatest knockouts of the Baddest Man on the Planet


Mike Tyson returns to the ring this weekend at age 54 to take on Roy Jones Jnr at the Staples Centre in Los Angeles.

At his peak, Iron Mike simply destroyed opponents, cutting a swath through the heavyweight ranks in the late 1980s and again – after serving time in prison – in the late 1990s with his power and fury.

A short right, a formidable right hook, a devastating left hook … Tyson had it all.

Here’s 10 of his best knockout punches.

Watch Mike Tyson vs Roy Jones Jnr only on Main Event, available on Foxtel and Kayo on Sunday 29 November at 1pm AEDT. ORDER NOW >

10. KO4 Don Halpin (May 23, 1985. Albany, New York.)

While not among his most famous knockouts, this finish gets a mention because it came in only Tyson’s third professional fight, and while still only 18. Also gave us a glimpse of the mayhem to come when, with Halpin already floored, a young Tyson then cracks him on the canvas with yet another uppercut. Wonderfully, the commentator described said punch simply as “questionable”.

9. KO1, Peter McNeeley, (August 19th, 1995)

After his time in prison and four years out of the ring, it was only fair to question whether Tyson would be a lesser fighter once he returned. McNeeley was a solid fighter, but he was also a sacrificial lamb and Tyson ripped him apart in 89 seconds of thunderous blows that ended with McNeeley staggering across the ring and his trainer flying beyond the ropes in an effort to save his charge from more punishment. Technically, it’s in the books as a disqualification, but after four years in jail it was exactly what Tyson needed to show he was still one of the most dangerous men boxing has ever known.

8. KO1 Clifford Etienne (Feb. 22, 2003, Memphis, Tennessee)

The last knockout of Tyson’s career. It took the former champion just 99 seconds to wipe out “The Black Rhino” in what proved to be the last showing of the fearsome power and speed that once dominated the boxing world. Tyson showed little of his old precision but plenty of fury as Etienne walked directly onto a short right that sent his eyes rolling into the back of his head.

7. KO5 Francois Botha (Jan. 16, 1999, Las Vegas)

One right hand, as they say in the classics, is all it takes. And so it was in this one. Sure, Tyson struggled so badly through the opening four rounds of this one it seemed, well, the magic was gone. Then, thwack. Back for the first time in 19 months after serving his suspension for biting the ear of Evander Holyfield, Tyson delivered in cracking right hand late in the fifth to drop Botha, win the fight and conjure of wonderful blast of violence from his past.

6. KO1 Alan Garner (June 5, 2009. Las Vegas)

OK, so isn’t exactly on any of his official boxing records, but given Mike Tyson is fighting this weekend aged, 54, we’re also going to take a little licence with his ‘Greatest Knockouts’ list. Certainly there is no doubting the devastating right that floored actor Zach Galifianakis’s character in The Hangover movie remains an undeniable fan favourite. Better, the scene breathed new life into the fighter’s Baddest Man on the Planet aura. Oh, yeah, the heavyweight king was also deep into a cocaine bender when said punch was thrown. Classic Mike.

5. KO1 Henry Tillman (June 16, 1990, Las Vegas)

Some of these knockouts made the list because of their significance to Tyson’s career. Others made the cut because of the calibre of fighter Tyson managed to bring down. And some, like this one-round massacre of Henry Tillman, are just awesome. Tyson and Tillman had a bit of history – Tillman beat Tyson as an amateur twice, both by decision – and given Tyson was coming off the first loss of his career he didn’t need any extra motivation. After 2:47 of the first round, Tyson’s right hand found the mark and one hammer blow was all it took as Tillman went down like he was shot.

4. KO4 Larry Holmes (Jan. 22, 1988, Atlantic City, New Jersey)

Holmes might have been coming off a two-year layoff after losing two decisions to Michael Spinks, but he was still one of the most decorated heavyweights of his era and throughout his sterling career he’d never been knocked out. Like most of Tyson’s finest moments, one punch was all it took – a short, right hook in the fourth round sent Holmes flying. The former champion beat the count, but the writing was on the wall and a flurry from Tyson sent him down again before another right hook turned out the lights.

3. KO1 Marvis Frazier (July 26, 1986, Glens Falls, New York)

Fastest KO of Iron Mike’s career. In just 30 seconds, Tyson not only destroyed the son of former heavyweight world champion Joe Frazier, or took his undefeated run to 25 fights, but took a big step towards confirming that growing reputation as a genuine killer.

2. TKO2 Trevor Berbick (Nov. 22, 1986, Las Vegas)

It was the night Mike Tyson became the youngest heavyweight champion in history. Aged only 20, the young heavyweight came good on the predictions of his late trainer, and guardian, Cus D’Amato, when he demolished his rival with a devastating left hook. Three times, Berbick tried to find his feet. Three times, he failed. By the finish, tumbling into the ring ropes as the bout was waved off.

1. KO1 Michael Spinks (June 27, 1988, Atlantic City, New Jersey)

Mike Tyson needed just 91 seconds to confirm himself the Baddest Man of the Planet. Apart from being the most important win of Iron Mike’s career, it was also the moment which, undoubtedly, defined the Iron Mike mystique. Sure, Tyson already had three belts – but Spinks also arrived for what was then the richest fight in history undefeated in 31 fights, while also having claimed both light heavyweight titles and the IBF heavyweight strap. Didn’t matter. Within less time than it took to announce the dignitaries ringside, he was so gone he would never fight again.



Source link

State of Origin 2020: Josh Addo-Carr, Corey Allan hit, Phil Gus Gould, fastest man on the planet, Queensland defeats NSW


Josh Addo-Carr might not be the fastest man on the planet.

And by the letter of the law Corey Allan’s professional foul on the Blues winger in the 77th minute of NSW’s 20-14 defeat in the Origin decider might not have been a penalty try.

But even the most one-eyed Maroons supporter has to admit Queensland dodged a bullet when Allan took out the Melbourne Storm flyer 15m from the try line.

Replays showed Addo-Carr was clearly in front of Cameron Munster, Valentine Holmes and Harry Grant in the race for the ball, which appeared to bounce nicely, making a clean gather by the NSW man highly likely.

Upcoming Matches

One man in no doubt was Channel 9’s Phil Gould, who called the moment like a broken record stuck on loop.





Source link

Climate change: Can sending fewer emails really save the planet?


By David Molloy
Technology reporter

Related Topics

  • Climate change

image copyrightGetty Images

Are you the type of person who always says thank-you? Well, if it’s by email, you should stop, according to UK officials looking at ways to save the environment.

The Financial Times reports that we may all soon be encouraged to send one fewer email a day, cutting out “useless” one-line messages – such as “thanks”.

Doing so “would save a lot of carbon”, one official involved in next year’s COP26 climate summit in Glasgow said.

But would it really make a huge difference?

Why do emails produce carbon at all?

Most people tend to think of the internet as a cloud that exists outside their computing hardware. But the reality is when you send an email – or anything else – it goes along a chain of energy-burning electronics.

Your wi-fi router sends the signal along wires to the local exchange – the green box on the street corner – and from there to a telecoms company, and from there to huge data centres operated by the tech giants. Each of those runs on electricity, and it all adds up.

But a single email’s effect on such massive infrastructure is tiny.

  • Is game streaming bad for the environment?

  • Is your Netflix habit bad for the environment?

Are my emails a big environmental problem?

The Financial Times report says the officials promoting this idea referred to a press release from renewable electricity firm Ovo Energy from one year ago.

It claimed that if every British person sent one fewer thank-you email a day, it would save 16,433 tonnes of carbon a year, equivalent to tens of thousands of flights to Europe.

The problem, however, is that even if the sums involved roughly worked out, it would still be a splash in the pond.

The UK’s annual greenhouse gas emissions were 435.2 million tonnes in 2019 – so the amount in question here is about 0.0037% of the national picture. And that’s if every single British person reduced their email output.

UK annual greenhouse gas emissions. Projected millions of tonnes of CO2e.  2019 projections are provisional.

Mike Berners-Lee, a respected professor on the topic whose research was used in the Ovo Energy work, told the Financial Times it was based on “back-of-the-envelope” maths from 2010 – and while useful to start conversations, there were bigger questions.

On top of that, the estimate of how much carbon an email generates “takes into account absolutely everything involved”, according to Chris Preist, professor of sustainability and computer systems at the University of Bristol.

It tries to include the energy used by servers, your home wi-fi, your laptop – even a very small share of the carbon emitted to construct the data centre buildings.

“The reality is that a lot of the system will still have impact, whether or not the email is sent,” Prof Preist explains.

“Your laptop will still be on, your wi-fi will still be on, your home internet connection will still be on, the wider network will still use roughly the same amount of energy even with a reduction in volume.

“There will be a small saving in the data centre hosting the email, particularly if it allows them to use a few less servers. But the carbon saved will be far far less than 1g per email.”

What can make a difference?

Rather than worrying about relatively low-impact emails, some researchers suggest we should turn our attention to services such as game and video-streaming and cloud storage which have a much larger effect.

But the topic is immensely complicated, and there is a debate about how estimates should be calculated – and who should be responsible for it.

media captionDirty streaming: The internet’s big secret

Big tech firms such as Google, for example, are already proudly carbon-neutral: they pay subsidies for environmental projects to offset the carbon they burn providing your emails – and other services like YouTube.

“What really makes a difference is buying less kit, and keeping it for longer,” Prof Preist explains. “But even this is small fry compared with your travel, heating your home, and what you eat.”

He said consumers should focus their “eco-guilt” on things that make a difference – and not sweat the small stuff.

“That is the job of the companies providing the services, who should be designing their systems to deliver services in as energy and resource efficient way as possible.”

His advice on email etiquette and thank-you messages?

“Send an email if you feel that the other person will value it, and don’t if they won’t,” he said.

“The biggest ‘waste’ both from an environmental and personal point of view will be the use of time by both of you.”

Related Topics



Source link

REVIEW: Planet Fungi, a delightful trip into unknown worlds


NORTHERN Rivers residents Stephen Axford and Catherine Marciniak travelled to the wettest place on Earth to make a one-hour documentary about fungi, and the result is an extraordinary, engaging and educational film.

Filmed in 2018 and 2019, Planet Fungi – North East India chronicles Axford and Marciniak’s travel through the Indian state of Meghalaya, near Bangladesh.

They travelled invited by an Indian NGO, interested in recording the edible and poisonous mushrooms available in that area.

The benefits, we are explained, are many: commerce, medicine, avoiding unnecessary deaths and advancement of scientific knowledge.

 

 

The soul of the film is there, it’s a trip to unknown words: this exotic place in India and the world of fungi.

And although Axford is not a scientist or a mycologist (mushroom expert) he always gets local and international scientific support, which means his trips normally end up with a few new species identified.

(We only know about 200,00 species of fungi, and experts thing there are millions to be discovered).

But the true blessings of this film are the people in it.

First, it’s the Indian people that surround the Australians.

The religious, social, cultural and human aspects that surround mushrooms in India are, to say the least, delightful.

India is always complex, colourful and tasty, and just like its mushrooms, its people are unforgettable.

 

Northern Rivers filmmaker Steven Axford.

 

But then there is Axford and Marciniak.

Stephen Axford has been, for years, a fantastic photographer. Retired from IT, his passion was a technical one: great images of an unknown part of our ecology: fungi.

But in Planet Fungi, Axford becomes a presenter, and a fantastic one. He is amenable, emphatic, his interactions with people are genuine and his commentary, clear and succinct.

Marciniak, on the other hand, proves again to be a consummate documentarist.

This format fits her camera and editing skills like a glove.

 

Mycena viscidocrudenta decomposing a leaf.

Mycena viscidocrudenta decomposing a leaf.

 

Her structure is simple but effective. Simple animations make complex ideas available to young and old, and the editing, camera work and production are fantastic.

Planet Fungi could sit next to professional documentaries with ten times its budget and it would not be put to shame. If anything, it would be the most interesting one.

The local couple of filmmakers have achieved a remarkable film that is engaging, educational and terribly entertaining.

We are looking forward to the next one.

The film is available to watch now from planetfungi.movie/ or search for it in Amazon, YouTube, Google Play or iTunes.

Xylaria sp, with yellow tips sporing.

Xylaria sp, with yellow tips sporing.





Source link

Venus Is a ‘Russian Planet,’ Roscosmos Chief Says


Venus is a “Russian planet,” the head of Russia’s state space agency said Tuesday following new research that suggests there could be life on the second planet from the sun. 

The research, published in the journal Nature Astronomy on Monday, details British and American scientists’ discovery of phosphine gas in Venus’ clouds and puts forward possible theories for its origin, including that of extraterrestrial life.

Speaking at the 2020 HeliRussia exhibition, Roscosmos chief Dmitry Rogozin said prior research by Russian scientists indicated that the planet is inhospitable to life.

“Our country was the first and only one to successfully land on Venus,” Rogozin said. “The [Russian] spacecraft gathered information about the planet — it is like hell over there.” 

Roscosmos also announced plans Tuesday to launch an independent Russian expedition to Venus “without involving wide international cooperation.” The expedition will take place in addition to the previously planned Venera-D mission, which is being carried out in cooperation with the United States.

Following the study’s publication Monday, the Breakthrough Initiatives program funded by Russian billionaire Yuri Milner announced that it will fund a study “into the possibility of primitive life” in Venus’ clouds led by Sara Seager from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.



Source link

Newly Found Planet Could Host Primitive Life, Study Suggest


Primitive life might exist on a large, rocky planet that is relatively nearby Earth, according to a team of scientists who presented their work at an astronomy conference last week.

The team says that the planet – known as Barnard b or GJ 699 b – might have microbes or other simple life in its environment as long as there is a lot of thermal activity within the planet itself. This would theoretically provide enough energy for life to survive.

It’s an exciting find given that the planet is only six light-years away from Earth, making it one of closest worlds outside of our solar system. There is another potentially habitable planet at Proxima Centauri roughly four light-years away from us, which is also coming under scrutiny. (A light-year is the distance light travels in year, or 5.88 trillion miles (9.5 trillion km).

The planet orbits Barnard’s star, a red dwarf star that is slightly smaller and cooler than our sun. Like many stars of its type, Barnard’s star puts out a lot of X-ray and ultraviolet radiation that could hurt any nascent life on the planet. However, the planet lies a little outside of the worst of the radiation, providing hope that life could indeed survive as long as it is hardy.

The planet is probably a super-Earth, roughly three times the mass of our own planet. Scientists suspect super-Earths like this one have a large, hot iron core with higher geothermal energy compared with Earth. This geothermal energy could heat the planet’s environment using vents or plumes, similar to what happens in ocean environments on Earth – even in cold areas like Antarctica.

In their presentation, the researchers jokingly compared the planet to Hoth – the icy planet made famous in one of the “Star Wars” movies, when Luke Skywalker’s steed (a fictional lizard species called a Tauntaun) dies and he must stay warm by burrowing into its intestines.

But the challenge for the team is proving life may exist on the newly discovered planet, which was first announced in November in a Nature publication. There’s no telescope powerful enough yet to look at the planet’s atmosphere for biologically friendly molecules, such as oxygen or methane. That would require – at the least – the launch of NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope, which is set to go to space no earlier than 2021. Or it may require an even more powerful telescope in the future.

“Directly imaging the planet would be able to tell us its precise brightness, and we could gather more information about temperature and properties such as albedo [reflectivity],” said Villanova Unviersity astrophysicist Scott Engle to Seeker; he participated in the research along with fellow Villanova astrophysicist Edward Guinan. Guinan provided a copy of their presentation to Seeker.

Albedo is helpful in part because it can tell astronomers if the surface is made of highly reflective materials, such as ice, or less reflective materials, such as rock. Since life as we know it prefers water, a planet with water or water ice on its surface would have a stronger argument for habitability.

The study of life on other worlds is still in its infancy and few spacecraft have looked for life directly. NASA is working on a mission called Europa Clipper that could look for habitable conditions at Jupiter’s icy moon, Europa. Europa has a liquid ocean under its ice because the tidal energy from strong Jupiter keeps the ocean from freezing over. 

“Getting more data on Europa would be very impactful,” Engle said. “Currently we are left with theories and a few Earth-based examples of subsurface oceans such as Lake Vostok in Antarctica. Studies at icy moons, the Holy Grail of which would be something like the Europa Clipper, would finally advance us beyond the boundaries of terrestrial examples like Lake Vostok … which would be huge.”

While the astronomers wait for these datasets to become available, they still have other ways of gathering information; they will examine the star’s wobble to see if they can learn any more properties about the planet, and to search for any planetary companions. The team will monitor the variations in the star’s light to pin down the star’s rotation, and also to look for sunspots – just like on the sun.

They also are looking at alternative techniques to take images of the planet. They have a couple of early ideas already. Perhaps they will use a set of telescopes on the Earth working together as an interferometer, or use extremely sensitive adaptive optics that could help the telescope deform its mirror to counteract atmospheric turbulence that blurs out the sky.

The researchers presented their work at a Jan. 10 press conference held at the 233rd meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Seattle.



Source link

6 of the Most Iconic (and Amazing) Bridges on the Planet




Source link

Twitter asks ‘who wants to be transported OFF THIS PLANET’… gets over 10k comments totally not about NASA’s Mars mission — RT USA News



An attempt by Twitter to promote Thursday’s mission to Mars liftoff from Florida didn’t exactly go as planned, as people either showed they had no idea about the upcoming event or were only interested in trolling.

“Who wants to be transported off this planet?” the official Twitter account published on Wednesday. While the background of their avatar, featuring the famous bird, has been changed to resemble the surface of Mars and their profile banner now shows an image of a NASA rocket launching in space, the generic tweet went over most people’s heads.

It likely didn’t help that in a year filled with a pandemic that has no end in sight, an economic shutdown, record unemployment, rioting, bitter political arguments headed into a contentious presidential election, offering to transport people off this planet seems more a statement about the state of the world than a promotion of a space mission.

Twitter even went out of their way to remind people what the tweet was actually about by directly responding to some and putting images of their avatars in space suits.

“Yes please planet where no one cares about what you look like, what designer brands you do or don’t wear or have just blissful peace and good music!!!!, and a seaside with wine and crisps! too much to ask?” one user responded. 

“Not sure about the seaside, but Mars checks most of those boxes,” Twitter replied. 

The Mars name-drops happened multiple times with many still not seeming to get the hint.

Other tweets were what you find on Twitter on a typical day — Donald Trump bashing, mask virtue signaling, binary political disagreements, etc.

Considering mainstream media coverage surrounding the launch pales in comparison to the attention given to bickering between politicians and offensive tweets, it should come as no surprise how few actually know the event is even taking place. 

NASA’s rover Perseverance will be launched this Thursday and follow orbiters released by China and the United Arab Emirates, both sent out last week. The joint mission is being run by both NASA and the European Space Agency. 

It will take seven months for Perseverance to reach Mars where it will look for evidence of microscopic life. Any samples collected will be returned to Earth by 2031. 

Like this story? Share it with a friend!





Source link

Dimethyl sulphide (DMS) is the little gas raising big questions for our planet


Dimethyl sulphide (DMS) is a mysterious little gas that could have big impacts on our planet.

Produced by sea-dwelling species, it is what you actually smell when it smells like the sea — unfortunately for researchers, it smells like rotten eggs in high concentrations.

DMS is perhaps better known outside the biological/climatological world as a generally undesirable by-product of beer production.

It certainly is not to be confused with DMs (ask a tech-savvy friend).

The basic theory is that DMS released by oceanic organisms rises into the atmosphere where it can become a cloud condensation nucleus, a fragment upon which water vapor can collate to form clouds.

More puffy white clouds raise the globe’s albedo (reflectiveness), bouncing more of the Sun’s energy back out into space thereby helping cool the planet.

This relationship, however, is not quite so simple.

What is in the picture
The basic principle is that DMS rises into the atmosphere and helps clouds to form.(ABC Weather: Kate Doyle)

The dreaded climate question

What is going to happen, though, as the world warms and we keep pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?

The romantic philosophy was that as the oceans warmed, they would produce more DMS and therefore help cool the planet.

These conclusions were brought into question in 2011 when atmospheric experts Patricia Quinn and Timothy Bates published a paper in Nature that refuted the theory.

Since then there has been a range of conflicting results.

Increased temps = increased DMS = increased albedo = lower atmospheric temperatures.
The traditional theory was that as the oceans warm, they release more DMS and help cool the planet.(ABC Weather: Kate Doyle)

Katharina Six studies the interconnections between marine biology and climate at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. Her work suggests future increases in ocean acidification are likely to decrease DMS production, amplifying global warming rather than reducing it.

However, work by Michael Steinke, biologist at the University of Essex, has indicated that increasing ocean acidification can be counteracted by warming ocean temperatures.

“Although the CO2 itself will reduce the amount of DMS production, once you add the temperature back into that scenario, it’s actually no different to what we have today,” he said.

To muddy the waters further, other studies have found rises in ocean acidity increase DMS production, while others conclude DMS responses differ depending on the location.

Increased CO2 = decreased DMS = decreased albedo = higher atmospheric temperatures.
But some studies show increasing ocean acidity will reduce DMS production and lead to further warming.(ABC Weather: Kate Doyle)

How all this plays out as increased temperatures and CO2 levels influence species survival, quantity and geographical spread is a tricky question to which there are no definitive answers — yet.

“I’m not sure if one can give a conclusive answer to your question yet. Part of the marine-sulphur cycle is still not unravelled,” Dr Six said.

“If we have trouble to understand the status quo, you might imagine that the prediction of future trends comes with high uncertainty.”

How clouds warm and cool Earth, and how well that is captured in climate models, is a whole other kettle of fish.

It’s not all about DMS

How DMS works over global scales may be difficult to pin down, but things don’t get clearer when you start looking closer.

At smaller scales, it is still not easy to determine how much DMS is produced and what impacts it has.

Sonya Fiddes, a PhD student at the University of Melbourne, has modelled how DMS influences the atmosphere, with a focus on the Great Barrier Reef.

According to Ms Fiddes, in regions like reef there are many other sources of cloud condensation nuclei on which the water vapour can condense.

Drawing of dust, agriculture, anthropogenic aerosols, forests, sea spray, DMS and other sea aerosols
DMS is one of many sources of cloud condensation nuclei in coastal regions.(ABC Weather: Kate Doyle)

Sea salts, other biogenic aerosols, dust coming off the land as well as anthropogenic aerosols (such as emissions from vehicles and coal-fired power stations) can all act as cloud condensation nuclei on the Queensland coast.

“All of those sources have been found to be quite important, and perhaps even more important than the source of DMS from the reef in terms of aerosol,” Ms Fiddes said.

While you may think it’s the more the merrier when it comes to clouds, sadly, having more cloud condensation nuclei does not necessarily result in more rain.

In a situation where there are not enough cloud condensation nuclei, adding more would help the water droplets form and encourage rain — but there can be too much of a good thing.

too few = no clumping of H20 = no rain, too many = lots of little clumps none heavy enough to make it rain, just right = rain
When it comes to cloud condensation nuclei, conditions need to be just right to make it rain.(ABC Weather: Kate Doyle)

According to Ms Fiddes, Queensland’s coast is already a fairly aerosol-rich atmosphere.

“Putting more aerosol into that environment means you’ve got more surface area for water to condense onto,” she said.

For it to rain, the particles water condenses onto have to grow into droplets big enough for them to fall out of the sky.

More aerosols can result in the water vapour spreading out across many small droplets but none of them big enough to rain, Ms Fiddes said.

“So by putting more aerosol into the atmosphere, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to rain more. It can actually have the opposite effect.”

The dimethyl sulphide molecule is made up of two methyl groups bonded to a sulphur.
For anyone struggling to half-remember their chemical naming conventions, a chemistry teacher was consulted in the formation of this graphic.(ABC Weather: Kate Doyle)



Source link