THE FIFTH annual Run in the Dark was held in Gweedore at the weekend.€1,350 was raised – taking the total to €16,350 over the five years.Organisers have paid tribute to the people of Gweedore and the surrounding areas for turning out in such numbers. The Run in the Dark for the Mark Pollock Trust raises money for spinal cord injury research.Anita and David from the No Barriers Foundation introduced organisers to the robotic eksoskeleton.Thanks has been paid to sponsors Siopa Mhicí, Cois Farraige Bakers, Maple Store and Donegal Hygiene.Music in the Amharclann was provided by Lara and Kelly and a huge thanks goes out to everyone involved for making the event a huge success. Picture special: Fifth ‘Run in the Dark’ proves a huge hit in Gweedore was last modified: November 19th, 2019 by Chris McNultyShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)
SANTA CLARA – Season Five at Levi’s Stadium closes Sunday for the 49ers, and, per annual routine, no playoff berth awaits them.So, the spoiler role it is.After beating playoff contenders Denver and Seattle the previous two Sundays at home, the 49ers (4-10) now host NFC North-champion Chicago Bears (10-4).CHICAGO, IL – DECEMBER 03: Trent Taylor #81 of the San Francisco 49ers completes the pass for a first down in the third quarter against the Chicago Bears at Soldier Field on December 3, 2017 …
V & V. That’s shorthand in project design for “validation and verification.” Does the scientific method provide V & V? We are all taught to think that peer review, publication and replication help science to be self-checking, so as to avoid error. Some recent articles show that ain’t necessarily so. It may sound good in theory, but in practice, the ideal doesn’t always match the real.Publish and perish: In Nature (480, 22 December 2011, pp. 449-450, doi:10.1038/480449a) Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky reminded readers of the world’s premiere science journal that in science publishing, “The paper is not sacred.” Peer review needs to continue long after a paper appears in print, they argued. Their concern was prompted by a 15-fold increase in the number of retractions over the last decade. During the same time period, papers increased by 50%. This is not necessarily bad, Marcus and Oransky continue, because it indicates corrections are being made. But what about bad papers that don’t get retracted? They pointed out disturbing cases where peer review was poorly checked by journal editors, sometimes with “massive” numbers of errors in a paper, under the excuse that peer review is supposed to be secretive. Often readers are given no explanation for a retraction other than, “This paper has been withdrawn by the authors.” Notice how extensive the problem is in their words:Editors have many reasons to pay more attention to retraction and correction notices. For one, scientists often cite papers after they’ve been retracted, and a clear, unambiguous note explaining why the findings are no longer valid might help to reduce that. But, more importantly, a vaguely worded note that includes further claims from researchers whose work has been seriously questioned, in turn raises questions about the integrity of the journal itself, and about the overall scientific record.Marcus and Oransky pointed to new online methods that might reduce the number of mistakes making their way into the corpus of “scientific knowledge”—even the radical idea that the new methods may reduce the publication of scientific papers in journals. But their article raises other serious questions. Since World War II we have been led to believe that peer review provided the V & V science needed. How do we know that new, untested methods will do better? To what extent are mistakes entering the corpus because of peer pressure instead of peer review – the demands of universities to measure a scientist’s performance by how much he or she publishes? How can scientists keep up with the growing volume of publications? They raised additional questions:There are other hurdles. How should scientists treat papers that are hardly read, so are never evaluated post-publication? Does a lack of comment mean that the findings and conclusions are extremely robust, or that no one has cared enough to check? Including readership metrics alongside comments should help here.The authors could only hope that additional scrutiny and new methods will “make the scientific record more self-correcting.” That implies that the self-correcting nature of science we have been trusting is not doing a very good job.Replicate and perish: In theory, scientific errors are caught because other scientists try to replicate the experiment. This may have worked for high-profile claims like cold fusion, but how would someone replicate a discovery of the Higgs boson without a second Large Hadron Collider? Earlier this month, Science Magazine printed a special series on replication. In the introductory article, “Again and Again, and Again,” (Science, 2 December 2011: Vol. 334 no. 6060 p. 1225, doi: 10.1126/science.334.6060.1225 ), Jasny, Chin, Chong and Vignieri began, “Replication—The confirmation of results and conclusions from one study obtained independently in another—is considered the scientific gold standard.” That’s the theory. In practice, they found enough dross in the crucible to be worried: “New tools and technologies, massive amounts of data, long-term studies, interdisciplinary approaches, and the complexity of the questions being asked are complicating replication efforts, as are increased pressures on scientists to advance their research.” The series of articles that followed showed why replication is often unreachable in the real world. How do you get a rare animal, say an ivory-billed woodpecker (or a Loch Ness monster, for that matter), to appear on cue, so that an observation can be replicated? Unique experiences in the field challenge the gold standard: “although laboratory research allows for the specification of experimental conditions, the conclusions may not apply to the real world,” they said. Consider, also, the difficulty of replicating medical tests, which might involve thousands of patients in longitudinal studies lasting years. Other questions the authors did not mention could be asked. To what extent does a shared paradigm, or shared beliefs, decrease the motivation to attempt replicating a popular result? Remember the recent decade-long fraud by superstar Diederich Stapel (11/16/2001, 11/05/2011). More significantly, if science cannot live up to its own ideals of peer review and replication, what right does it have to claim epistemic superiority over other departments in the academy?Reduce and perish: How big does a sample have to be to arrive at a sound conclusion? That’s what Medical Xpress asked in an article, “The perils of bite-size science.” Two psychologists are worried about a trend toward shorter papers and smaller samples (a principle applicable to any scientific field, not just psychology). Yes, people may enjoy reading shorter papers—but now there are more of them, and publishers have to do more work, contrary to their hope that word limits would simplify things. Worse, since small sample sizes can lead to false positives and wrong conclusions, “two short papers do not equal twice the scientific value of a longer one,” the researchers argued. “Indeed, they might add up to less.”Yet the psychologists’ implicit contention that longer, more detailed papers are more reliable may not be true. In fact, they pointed to other factors that can undermine the credibility of any paper, short or long. Consider these three steps to misinformation: (1) “surprising, ‘novel’ results are exactly what editors find exciting and newsworthy and what even the best journals seek to publish”; (2) “The mainstream media pick up the ‘hot’ stories”; (3) “And the wrong results proliferate.” The trend toward bite-size science is leading scientists away from the healthy skepticism on which science depends, the authors believe.Form a consensus and perish: Scientists like to be objective, not subjective. But Andrew Curtis (U. of Edinburgh) argues that science cannot rid itself of subjectivity. In his essay “The Science of Subjectivity” published in the journal Geology (open access, Geology v. 40 no. 1 p. 95-96, doi: 10.1130/focus012012.1), he reminded geologists that subjectivity is built into the scientific method:While the evidence-based approach of science is lauded for introducing objectivity to processes of investigation, the role of subjectivity in science is less often highlighted in scientific literature. Nevertheless, the scientific method comprises at least two components: forming hypotheses, and collecting data to substantiate or refute each hypothesis (Descartes’ 1637 discourse [Olscamp, 1965]). A hypothesis is a conjecture of a new theory that derives from, but by definition is unproven by, known laws, rules, or existing observations. Hypotheses are always made by one individual or by a limited group of scientists, and are therefore subjective—based on the prior experience and processes of reason employed by those individuals, rather than solely on objective external process. Such subjectivity and concomitant uncertainty lead to competing theories that are subsequently pared down as some are proved to be incompatible with new observations.Curtis presented a fairly positivist view that science will guide itself from the subjective to the objective. Subjectivity can even be good for science. “Allowing subjectivity is a positive aspect of the scientific method: it allows for leaps of faith which occasionally lead to spell-binding proposals that prove to be valid,” for instance. (He did not provide statistics of valid vs. nutty spell-binding proposals). But he cautioned readers to realize that even quasi-objective methods, like the popular Bayesian analysis, have built-in subjective aspects.A study of how geologists arrived at a consensus pointed to the influence of group dynamics. One study showed that geologists were influenced to change their previously-solid opinions as a result of interacting with colleagues. A particular geologist changed his mind twice because of what the group did. Curtis pointed to several studies that illustrated similar kinds of group dynamics at work. What is the upshot?The above studies significantly influence the way one should interpret consensus-driven results. Consensus positions clearly may only represent the group opinion at one instant in time, and may not represent the true range of uncertainty about the issue at hand (e.g., Fig. 1C). This is disturbing because consensus is often used in the geosciences.As an example, he pointed to climate change: “IPCC conclusions are all consensus driven—positions agreed between groups of scientists.” While consensus formation may soften the bias of the overconfident, “the group consensus approach may also introduce dynamic biases … which are more difficult to detect without tracking the dynamics of opinion. ” What this means is that the herd mentality operates even in scientific meetings. It takes courage to be a lone ranger, but the maverick might be right.Better late than never? Sigmund Freud is a fallen superstar, once exalted within the triumvirate of modern movers along with Marx and Darwin. He has even been compared to Copernicus. His theory of psychoanalysis spawned a whole industry of couch-side therapists, using Freud’s new vocabulary that lent scientific credibility to his ideas. Guess what: psychoanalysis never existed. That’s what New Scientist reported, based on new revelations that have come to light in The Freud Files:The Freud Archives, a collection of letters and papers, were deposited at the US Library of Congress by Freud’s daughter, Anna, to put them out of reach of unofficial biographers. This move also locked away Freud’s patients’ versions of their own problems.But now, as primary material is made public, parts of the archive are declassified and his letters re-edited without censorship, the legend is “fraying from all sides”.Freud was a legend in his time, and apparently a legend in his own mind. This should sound alarm bells. How could a large portion of academia be duped for so long? What legends are we following today that will be exposed as tomorrow’s frauds?Science for dummies: In a strange paper that sounds like a script for Revenge of the Nincompoops, Peter Fiske invited the scientific community to “Unleash Your Inner Dummy.” That’s right; in Nature itself (Nature 480, 7 December 2011, p. 281, doi:10.1038/nj7376-281a), he argued that “There is something to be said for letting go of the mantle of expert.” Intelligence, intellect, and prestige are valued in academia, but nincompoops have all the fun:Ironically, always playing the expert can be limiting, in terms of both contributions to science and career options. Sometimes, playing the dummy can be liberating and help to reveal opportunities that would otherwise have been overlooked. Dummies ask questions that experts assume were answered long ago. Dummies explore subject areas in which they lack knowledge. Dummies listen more and talk less.The mantle of expertise, in other words, can be a choke rag. Loosen up, he says, and ask the dumb questions. It’s OK to kick a sleeping dogma:Becoming a dummy frees you from dogma. Developing expertise can often mean ingesting unquestioned assumptions and accepted facts. Such received beliefs can lead to unchallenged group decision-making and prevent a community from recognizing a path-breaking discovery — especially when it comes from someone outside the discipline.What a radical concept. Could it be that the next great idea will come from a dummy, someone not tied to the paradigm? It’s happened. Moreover, Fiske argues, “Embracing your inner dummy is also a powerful tool for communicating science.” Scientists in the role of expert talk down to the public and think all they need is facts, when maybe it would be good for them to humble themselves and “seek to understand the audience’s cultural and ethical perspectives.” Let’s hear it for thinking outside the box.This journey into the engine room of science has been brought to you by the dummies at Creation-Evolution Headlines, who are too stupid to realize that evolution is a fact, because the scientific consensus says so. But oh, do we have more fun. Come out, come out, ye Darwin Dogmatists, and see the beauty of the cultural and ethical perspectives. Loosen your tie that binds you to the consensus. Ask the dumb questions. Do some peer review on peer review. Check to see if peer pressure is undermining the pier on which the amusement park of science sits. Exercise your autonomy: doubt a publication, question a Project Scientist, vote against the crowd. Trust not in a flawed human enterprise. Freud has fallen. Marx has fallen. Darwin is next. Turn in your false gods for a true One. Recognize that while logical thinking, clarity and accuracy are noble traits, they are not the exclusive property of scientists – a word invented in 1832 by William Whewell for natural philosophers, ostensibly to energize their group dynamics, but has resulted in an elitist class of self-proclaimed experts who know more and more about less and less until they know absolutely everything about nothing that really matters. You matter more than matter. It’s all about soul – the soul of science, which is faith in a unified, sensible, created order that points to its Source. Become a dummy in the world’s eyes, that you may begin to become truly wise (I Corinthians 2). (Visited 26 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
13 February 2009 Twenty-five countries surveyed provided little or no budget information. These included Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nicaragua, the Kyrgyz Republic, China, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia. “The worst performers tend to be low-income countries that often depend heavily on revenues from foreign aid or oil and gas exports, and that have weak democratic institutions or are governed by autocratic regimes,” Idasa said. A low score on the Open Budget Index suggested that decisions about public spending were made behind closed doors, which excluded meaningful participation by citizens, Wildeman said, adding that governments that restricted access to budget information could be hiding unpopular, wasteful and corrupt spending. Only the United Kingdom gained a higher score, with 88 points, while France also scored 87. “Providing the public with comprehensive and timely information on the government’s budget and financial activities empowers people and allows them to judge how their government is managing public funds,” Wildeman said in Pretoria this week. “It also creates opportunities for citizens to participate in decision-making, which can strengthen oversight and improve policy choices.” South Africa has been placed second only to the UK on the Open Budget Index, an international measure of public spending transparency. The survey is directed by the International Budget Partnership, based in Washington DC, and is conducted by independent civil society organisations in the participating countries. The Institute for Democracy in SA (Idasa) is the index’s partner in South Africa. Access to information The least transparent countries were mostly located in the Middle East and North Africa, with an average score of 24, and in sub-Saharan Africa, with an average score of 25. Source: BuaNews According to Idasa, the index is a comprehensive survey of 85 countries that evaluates whether governments give the public access to sufficient, reliable budget information and opportunities to participate in the budget process and hold their governments accountable. Only five countries of the 85 surveyed – France, New Zealand, South Africa, the UK and the US – make extensive information publicly available, as required by generally accepted good public financial management practices. The International Budget Partnership described the state of budget transparency around the world as “deplorable”, with the average score for the survey being 39 out of 100 – an indication that, on average, countries surveyed provided minimal information on their central government’s budget and financial activities. Good financial management Idasa economic governance programme head Russell Wildeman explained that transparency in budget decision-making meant that citizens had access to information about how much revenue was being collected and how it was allocated to different types of spending. South Africa scored 87 out of a possible 100 points on the Open Budget Index, which is based on responses to a set of survey questions and assess eight key budget documents that international good practice requires all governments to publish.
The renowned palaeobiologist is regularly published in science journals, has written two academic books and is also a children’s book author.(Image: UCT Faculty of Science)MEDIA CONTACTS • Katherine WilsonCommunication, Development & Marketing Manager, UCT Faculty of Science+27(0)21 650 2574RELATED ARTICLES•A fun approach to science teaching• Early African fossils found • Remarkable South African women hailed • Footsteps into the past Aneshree NaidooUniversity of Cape Town’s Head of the Department of Biological Sciences, palaeobiologist Professor Anusuya Chinsamy-Turan, received the World Academy of Science (TWAS) sub-Saharan Africa regional prize for the Public Understanding and Popularisation of Science.Chinusamy-Turan was one of five researchers who won the TWAS award: she shared honours with scientists from Argentina, Bangladesh, the Philippines, and Egypt at a ceremony at the African Academy of Science (AAS) international scientist gathering in Nairobi in November. The AAS hosts the TWAS regional office for sub-Saharan Africa.Speaking at the event, AAS executive director Professor Berhanu Abegaz said the award was “proof that the region could produce world-class scientists in all fields of science and served as an inspiration to young African scientists”.In an interview with mediaclubsouthafrica.com, Chinusamy-Turan said she opted to study science as she’d always had an interest in maths and science at school. She says: “I went to university and registered in the faculty of science because I wanted to be a science teacher. In fact, after my honours degree in science, I actually did do a postgraduate diploma in teaching, but I think by then I also found that I really enjoyed science. So instead of going to teach at a school, I ended up registering for a master’s in science. The rest, as they say, is history!”Chinsamy-Turan is a UCT Fellow, a TWAS fellow, and a fellow of the Royal Society of South Africa. She is president of the Association of South African Women in Science and Engineering, and in 2005, was honoured as the Department of Science and Technology’s Distinguished Woman in Science.Women in science and engineeringAccording to its website, the “Association of South African Women in Science and Engineering is a dynamic association for all those who support the idea of strengthening the role of women in science and engineering in South Africa”.The organisation aims to:· Raise the profile of women scientists and engineers;· Highlight and address problems faced specifically by women in these fields;· Lobby for the advancement of women in science and engineering; and· Provide leadership and role models for young people wishing to enter the fields of science and engineering.Chinusamy-Turan has also served as an advisory board chair on Scifest Africa, Africa’s largest science festival, and is on the Cape Town Science Centre’s advisory board. She has also served as a director for the Iziko Museum’s Natural History Collections.She believes South Africa can produce more scientists if their research was made more accessible to the public and the scientific work being done was given more media coverage.“I honestly believe that scientists need more visibility among the public. I feel that learners often don’t think of science as a career because they don’t really know what scientists do. I therefore think that it is very important for scientists to communicate their research to the wider public and for the electronic and print media to showcase the good science that is being done in our country (and the world).”The palaeobiologist is regularly published in science journals, has written two academic books and is also a children’s book author. Her non-fiction book, Famous Dinosaurs of Africa, is about dinosaurs that roamed the continent millions of years ago. She also regularly gives talks to raise awareness on science.On who inspires her, Chinusamy-Turan says:” My parents. They always motivated me to do what I wanted to and to follow my dreams – even if it meant doing something like palaeontology – which they didn’t have a clue about!” She says she admires scientists such as Marie Curie (groundbreaking radioactivity researcher), and famous South African palaeoanthropologist,Phillip Tobias. She adds: “After my PhD I worked with palaeontologist, Peter Dodson, at the University of Pennsylvania, and I loved his passion and drive for science and research. Soon after my PhD, I was also most fortunate to meet Zofia Kielan-Jaworowska, a polish palaeontologist who made a huge impression on me.”Chinusamy-Turan has undergraduate and postgraduate degrees from the University of the Witwatersrand, a higher diploma in education from the University of Kwa-Zulu Natal (then Durban Westville), and has completed two years in post doctorate studies at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, in the United States. In 2012 she shared her research on the “extraction of biological information from fossil bones” at the TWAS General Meeting in Tianjin, China.UCT alumniThe University of Cape Town has been placed third overall in a Times Higher Education ranking of universities in BRICS countries and other emerging economies cementing its position as a leading research institution on the African continent and among BRICS nations.The oldest university in South Africa, UCT was founded in 1829, and boasts world-renowned heart surgeon, Professor Christiaan Barnard, and three Nobel laureates: Sir Aaron Klug, Professor Alan MacLeod Cormack and acclaimed author JM Coetzee among its alumni.
Commonwealth Games organising committee (OC) chairman Suresh Kalmadi on Thursday reiterated that he is ready to face any inquiry including a judicial probe in the alleged financial irregularities in the preparation of the ensuing October 3-14 Delhi mega-event.”I am ready to face any inquiry including a judicial probe,” Kalmadi told reporters, while denying any wrong doing on his part as OC Chairman.Kalmadi said the OC was concerned only with the allocation of Rs 16OO crore towards cost of the Games and not with the funds of Rs 40,000 provided for the infrastructure.”Kalmadi has no powers and all decisions are taken unanimously”, he said.Suresh Kalmadi with CWG mascot Shera.He said although he was monitoring, “infrastructure is not my business and I have not given any tender”.The CVC report comments pertained to construction part of the Games and the OC, he said.A 15-member committee including recent addition of an Under Secretary, Finance, was involved in the decision making process for the conduct of the Games, he added.Asked as to why many equipment was bought from abroad for the Games, he said it was done to ensure world class standards of everything that is used for CWG.To a question, he said although Sharad Pawar was keen on offering funds to CWG, BCCI could not do so because of “tax problems”.When his attention was drawn to Maharashtra finance minister Sunil Tatkare’s recent statement that the state government would go in for fresh audit of the 2008 Commonwealth Youth Games (CYG) held in Pune if it did not get full details of the government funds spent the event, Kalmadi said “I am open to any audit. We have submitted all details”.advertisementKalmadi welcomed the Queen’s baton relay in the city on Thursday handing it to Pune Mayor Mohansigh Rajpal for onward journey after it arrived here from Satara.
Prime Minister, the Most Hon. Andrew Holness, is encouraging citizens to work more closely with the security forces to safeguard their communities against criminals.The Prime Minister said a “strong message” must be sent by citizens that they will not provide safe havens in their communities for persons intent on breaking the law.He was delivering the keynote address at the National Housing Trust’s (NHT) ground-breaking ceremony for the 63-unit Industry Cove Manor housing development in Green Island, Hanover, on Thursday (August 16).Mr. Holness noted that there is credible data showing numerous cases of direct links between the perpetrators of crime, particularly murders, and their victims, adding that “it is not strangers killing strangers.”“Oftentimes it is close friends and family members. We cannot give succour and protection to the criminals who are in our midst. It is only going to destroy your communities,” he emphasised.Mr. Holness voiced concern that the parish of Hanover, which he noted has long been one of the north coast’s shining beacons, is now beset by increased criminal activity.Consequently, he said he has been having “very serious dialogue” with the Minister of National Security and Commissioner of Police regarding strategies being formulated to urgently address the situation.“I have visited several families here who have been the victims. This beautiful parish should not be contributing to the murder rate and it is the duty of the citizens to put a stop to it,” Mr. Holness underscored.Industry Cove Manor, which will comprise 23 detached two-bedroom and 40 two- bedroom townhouse units, is being developed on 4.94 hectares (12.31 acres) of land. The Prime Minister said a “strong message” must be sent by citizens that they will not provide safe havens in their communities for persons intent on breaking the law. He was delivering the keynote address at the National Housing Trust’s (NHT) ground-breaking ceremony for the 63-unit Industry Cove Manor housing development in Green Island, Hanover, on Thursday (August 16). Prime Minister, the Most Hon. Andrew Holness, is encouraging citizens to work more closely with the security forces to safeguard their communities against criminals. Story Highlights
Britain’s Prince William is to become a full-time student of agricultural management for 10 weeks as he forges a life after the military, the royal family announced on Monday.William will learn about the issues facing rural communities and the farming industry in Britain during the course, which begins next week at the prestigious Cambridge University.The course will help the 31-year-old prince in his future role running the Duchy of Cornwall, a portfolio of land, property and investments he will inherit when his father, Prince Charles, becomes king. A royal spokesman said William was “very much looking forward to it”.William, who is second in line to the throne, gave up his operational career with the Royal Air Force in September after completing a three-year stint as a search and rescue helicopter pilot.He will follow a course run by the Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership (CPSL), an institution within Cambridge University’s School of Technology. His father is the School’s patron.The Duke will have 18 to 20 hours of lectures, seminars and meetings a week.He is expected to live in Cambridge part of the time during his studies, but will still carry out royal engagements over the coming months.The royal spokesman said the “programme of seminars, lectures and meetings will draw on the strengths of academics across the university.”The course will end in mid-March, before Williams heads to Australia and New Zealand with his wife Kate for a visit in April. The couple’s son, Prince George, is expected to join them.
Rabat – The House of Representatives ended on Wednesday the autumn session of the 2013-2014 legislative year.At the closing plenary session, speaker of the House of Representatives Karim Ghellab said the session was marked by two major events. The first was the opening of the session by King Mohammed VI and the speech by the Sovereign to the members of both Houses of Parliament.“This speech was the main reference for our parliamentary action, especially since it was a roadmap for the implementation of the constitutional provisions and strengthening cooperation between legislative and executive powers in respect of the separation of powers,” said Ghellab. The second landmark relates to the commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the creation of Parliament, an event that was marked by the royal message to the members of both houses of parliament and in which new horizons have been defined for the promotion of parliamentary practice and capitalizing on the successful experiences in the field, said Ghellab.
David Ortiz received a qualifying offer from the Boston Red Sox on Friday for $13. 3 million before Friday’s the 5 p.m. ET deadline set by MLB.The team and Ortiz are negotiating a two-year deal that is “very close” to being completed according to sources, but the exact amount of the contract is still being negotiated.“David is someone who we feel strongly about bringing back, and we’re trying to figure out a way to do that and we hope that happens,” Red Sox general manager Ben Cherington said earlier this week.Ortiz will become a free agent by midnight Friday if they can’t come to an agreement, which will allow him to talk to other teams. The qualifying offer is less than the $14.48 million he earned in 2012, but has until Nov. 9 to accept the offer. The Red Sox strategically gave the designated hitter the qualifying to ensure if he signs with another team they can receive draft picks as compensation.One of the teams that has expressed interest in Ortiz is the Texas Rangers. They envision Ortiz as a left-handed hitter who could replace Josh Hamilton, who is a free agent and received a qualifying offer from the Rangers. The Rangers feel Ortiz could the clubhouse more of an edge.Ortiz will turn 37 on Nov. 18, missed the last 71 of 72 games due to a right Achilles strain he suffered on July 16. The eight-time All-Star finished the season with a 23 home runs, 60 RBIs, and a .318 batting average in 90 games.In 2003, Ortiz joined the Red Sox and was a central figure in helping the club win the 2004 and 2007 World Series. One-year deals are noting new to Ortiz, who has been in one each of the past two seasons. The Red Sox exercised his $12.5 million option for 2011, and Ortiz accepted arbitration in 2012, settling on a $14.575 million salary.Ortiz has made his desire to stay in Boston public and is fond of team’s new manager, John Farrell.“Something will get done,” Ortiz told the Boston Globe about signing a new deal with the team. “I feel good about it.”