Lonestar Cell MTN Denies Tapping Customers’ Lines

first_imgThe management of Lonestar Cell MTN has termed as unfounded, reports that it is being influenced to tap the lines of prominent politicians in the country.In a release issued Monday, Lonestar Cell MTN clarified that it does not have the requisite technology to tap the lines of its subscribers, as to do this is not only illegal, but an unacceptable business practice. Lonestar also added that its operation is being fully monitored, as other service providers are, by the Liberia Telecommunications Authority (LTA) and will not circumvent the laws or employ illegal activities against its earned reputation. The Company warned that it will not hesitate to take necessary legal recourse against individuals and institutions that are bent on making unjustifiable accusations aimed at tarnishing its credibility and image.Meanwhile, Lonestar Cell MTN reminds the public of its role as a corporate entity committed to providing excellent telecommunications services. The release quotes the Lonestar Cell MTN CEO, Babatunde Osho as saying “let us hasten to remind the public, as corporate entity, we are far removed from politics. Our primary concern is to do business and help make the lives of Liberians brighter through the provision of world-class services. The commitment to transform the telecommunications experience of our customers is what matters to us most.” Lonestar Cell MTN is a subsidiary of MTN South Africa which operates in 21 countries in the Middle East, Africa and Europe. Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)last_img read more

Read More

Spain have weight of history but Russia have Arshavin

first_imgEuro 2008 Dan Roebuck Sport betting Share on Twitter Share on Twitter Share via Email Share on Pinterest Share on WhatsApp First published on Wed 25 Jun 2008 19.01 EDT Spain have weight of history but Russia have Arshavin Dan Roebuck on betting Topics Euro 2008 Wed 25 Jun 2008 19.01 EDT Share on Messenger Britain’s bookmakers will have their fingers crossed that Spain are knocked out of Euro 2008 by Russia tonight. After a disastrous start which saw the industry pay out more than £5m when 75% of the better-backed teams won their group matches, the layers have fought back with few bettors backing the draw in 90 minutes and most knockout ties entering extra-time.Before tonight’s second semi-final, however, Luis Aragonés’s team are responsible for the majority of liabilities for almost all bookmakers. “The worst result for us by far would be victory for Spain,” said William Hill’s spokesman, Graham Sharpe, whose firm has taken a £50,000 bet at 11-2 on the Group D winners. Spain and Russia, of course, contested the opening match in Group D, with Spain winning 4-1 (Blue Square and 888sport are biggest price about a repeat of that scoreline at 66-1). No one predicts it will be that easy for Spain tonight, although on the last three occasions when one team has beaten another in a group game at a major tournament and the pair have met again in the knockout stages the outcome has been the same. It appears the main reason Spain are a bigger price to beat Russia tonight than they were a fortnight ago – 11-10 (Sky Bet) as opposed to 8-11 in the group game – is because of the form of Andrei Arshavin. The Zenit St Petersburg playmaker is only 4-1 with Sky Bet to be named as Uefa’s player of the tournament even though he was suspended for the first two games. Ladbrokes offers only 6-4 Arshavin will be playing in the Premier League next season although Paddy Power makes Barcelona, at 5-2, his most likely next employers, with Arsenal 7-2.There is no doubt Arshavin’s presence in the starting XI has made a big difference to Guus Hiddink’s team but the question is whether he can help land odds of 14-5 (general) about Russia defeating Spain without extra-time or penalties; the draw in 90 minutes trades at 5-2 with Boylesports. Bettors can back either side to win on spot-kicks at 10-1 (general), while Spain are 11-1 (Bet365 and Ladbrokes) to win in extra-time with Russia 14-1 (Blue Square and 888sport).Both teams deserved their quarter-final wins over Italy and Holland respectively, although the Russians’ extra-time defeat of the Dutch, who were by then tournament favourites, was arguably the more impressive result. With that win in mind, Russia are worth taking a chance backing on VC Bet’s Asian handicap market. Russia are priced at 11-10 and are given a handicap mark of +0.25. Should Russia win, your bet wins while, if the match is all square at 90 minutes, half your stake is settled at 11-10 and the other half refunded. Only if Russia lose, will you fail to secure a profit.Russia defended naively in their first match with Spain but Hiddink is unlikely to let that happen again, even though the defender Denis Kolodin is suspended. The gushing praise for Arshavin has meant the form of the three-goal striker Roman Pavlyuchenko has, perhaps, been overlooked and at 15-2 (Boylesports and Sportingbet) he is a fair price to score the opener. Arshavin is a 9-1 shot (Bet365 and Paddy Power) while Coral is taking a chance by going top price with both David Villa and Fernando Torres at 6-1.The spread betting firms have noticed that both tonight’s semi-finalists are the top two in the “corners won” table, with Russia amassing 38 and Spain 24. However, quotes of 10.75-11.25 for total corners from both IG Sport and Sporting Index look too high. The two produced only 10 in their group fixture and, with extra-time not counting in this market, a sell is advised. Share on Facebook Share via Email Share on LinkedIn Share on Facebook Dan Roebuck on betting Shares00 Reuse this contentlast_img read more

Read More

New paper asserting that sexism in science is over stirs the pot

first_img Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Emailcenter_img There is no sexism in U.S. academic science, argue researchers well versed on the controversial topic in a new paper and an op-ed yesterday in The New York Times. That’s a bunch of BS, say bloggers and others who follow the issue.The paper, by psychologists Stephen Ceci and Wendy Williams of Cornell University and economists Donna Ginther of the University of Kansas and Shulamit Kahn of Boston University, says the chronic underrepresentation of women in math-intensive fields is not due to discrimination, but rather their own employment preferences. The women working in those fields, they add, “have equivalent access to tenure-track academic jobs … persist and are remunerated at comparable rates.” In their op-ed, Williams and Ceci seem to be trying to end the long-running debate. “Our country desperately needs more talented people in these fields. … But the unwelcoming image of the sexist academy isn’t helping,” they write.Not surprisingly, many find that argument seriously flawed. Science bloggers Emily Willingham and PZ Myers, for example, say it is ludicrous to blame women for choosing to avoid environments in which they are not welcome. They also say that some of the data in the paper about pay, publications, and other metrics of success fail to support the argument of a level playing field in academia. “Academic science is sexist: We do have a problem here,” Willingham asserts.last_img read more

Read More