Datasets:

skymizer

/

pretraining-v2-41.8B-llama3-token

like 0

Follow

skymizer 11

A new generation of battery-free surveillance devices which can be implanted under the skin and transmit over huge distances via wireless have been developed by scientists. Researchers are working on nano machines that could be injected into the arms of patients and then report back to doctors who are monitoring them from miles away. They would be powered by the motion of a person walking, or even the pulse of a blood vessel, so would never stop working until the person died. The technology could also be used in CCTV cameras attached to small flying craft which use their own motion to power themselves. Such devices could be used by hospitals to locate patients or perhaps check if they are following their treatment plan. But they will also be of interest to the military and the criminal justice system which is constantly on the lookout for new ways to spy on criminals. The advancements were reported in the journal Nano Letters by Zhong Lin Wang of Georgia Tech University in the U.S.?It is entirely possible to drive the devices by scavenging energy from sources in the environment such as gentle airflow, vibration, sonic wave, solar, chemical, and/or thermal energy,? he wrote. The device would consist of a nanogenerator which makes electricity from vibration or motion, a capacitor which stores they energy and a Bluetooth-style transmitter to end the signal. According to Science Daily it would be able to pick up wireless signals at a distance of more than 30ft. Earlier this year, the world?s first viable nanogenerator was unveiled by Zhong and his team. It took six years to develop and in experiments was able to power an LED and LCD display. At the time he said: ?This development represents a milestone toward producing portable electronics that can be powered by body movements without the use of batteries or electrical outlets. ?Our nanogenerators are poised to change lives in the future. Their potential is only limited by one’s imagination.?

The reality of it is that ROM chips were not that cheap in the 1990s. You were looking at roughly $1+ per mbit, give or take-- there's a reason why Neo-Geo carts cost so damn much. This wasn't limited to Nintendo, either. Big Genesis games cost more, the bigger the Neo-Geo ROM, the more it cost. and given that Neo-Geo games were almost all made directly by SNK themselves, you can't really argue that they were trying to "take a cut" from the publisher-- they were the publisher. But when your game had like 90mbit and your ROM costs were so high, yeah, costs went up with the size of the cart. I think people forget just how damned expensive ROM chips were in the 1990s. But let's set it at the lower bound of $1/mbit and do some assumptions: See image here for a very back of the napkin development budget. I haven't factored in distribution or retailer costs separate from marketing. Assume shoestring budgets all around and a very "average" unit sales of 250K. You can play around with some of my assumptions (maybe don't pay for an office, have the game made by a team of jr engineers, etc.) But overall, you MIGHT net $2 on a 16mbit game on the SNES in 1990s prices at $30. Maybe. Probably not, as I'm being awfully generous here. [https://i.imgur.com/ebmtQNG.png](https://imgur.com/a/oN4CKT7) Increase that to 24 mbit and you're at negative $6 per unit sold (all else being equal, which is unlikely as your dev costs probably were higher too). [https://i.imgur.com/uLw1HqL.png](https://imgur.com/a/mz34zGR) I'm not really factoring in packaging, distribution, marketing beyond super cheap print ads, or any bonus chips like FX. At $50 you're MAYBE break even with a shoestring dev budget, but forget having it be a worthwhile venture: [https://i.imgur.com/3EODv8h.png](https://i.imgur.com/3EODv8h.png) Now, on a bigger title you will obviously gain unit sales and some economies of scale on the ROM, but you can't hold all the same assumptions on distro and marketing, either. Keep in mind I'm HORRIBLY oversimplifying this. Like, I'm trying to come up with the simplest example, but basically what it comes down to is that yeah, games were expensive to manufacture back then. Cheaper to develop, at least.

U.S. Supreme Court dooms white primary On this day in 1944, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Smith v. Allwright ruled the so-called "white primary" unconstitutional. The case originated in 1940, when Houston dentist Lonnie E. Smith attempted to vote in the Democratic primary in his Harris County precinct. As an African American, he was denied a ballot under the white primary rules of the time. Smith, with the assistance of attorneys supplied by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (including the future United States Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall), filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in 1942. Smith petitioned for redress for the denial of his rights under the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Seventeenth amendments by the precinct election judge, S. E. Allwright. Following an unfavorable ruling in the district court, Smith's attorneys lodged appeals that ultimately reached the Supreme Court. That court reversed the prior decisions against Smith by a margin of eight to one. The Smith decision did not end all attempts to limit black political participation but did virtually end the white primary in Texas. The number of African Americans registered to vote in Texas increased from 30,000 in 1940 to 100,000 in 1947.

Bowl n° 08, design Rebecca Uth for Ro Collection. The Bowls are produced in a small factory in Portugal, which has a strong pottery tradition. Five different sizes are available. Bowl n°08 is perfect for nuts or other cocktail hour nibbles, or as a dessert bowl. The Bowls are suitable for oven and dishwasher use.

Energy optimization means using the right amount of energy, at the right time. By pinpointing energy consumption, companies can often reduce energy consumption without negatively affecting the process or final product. Soon, two earths will be needed Since 1970, our lifestyle has required more resources than our earth can give us. At this time, Global Footprint Network’s studies show that we need 1.7 earths. When we use too many resources, our planet cannot handle our carbon dioxide emissions, which contributes to global warming. “We help manufacturers with energy optimization. Basically, it is about working in a smarter way.” 2/3 of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions come from energy consumption A major part of global warming is derived from how we live as a society, today. The International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that our energy consumption contributes approximately two thirds of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. 80% of energy consumption is based on fossil fuels Today, energy consumption is primarily based on fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, natural gas and peat. Fossil fuel is the biggest source of carbon dioxide emissions, which contributes to global warming. We have to reduce the use of fossil fuels.

Space is limited. Pre-Registration is required by July 19th.

You make a lot of good points that I can’t disagree with, and good on you for doing your research and having statistics to back up what you believe in. And I’ll go so far as to say you’re right in a lot of situations. But I live in the middle of the woods in Michigan, and have had multiple cats that I’ve raised from young ages that have lead long and happy lives that spend as much time as they want outdoors, even in the dead of winter. My current cat, Freg, spends most of his time basking in the sun on the back porch, but spends every night in bed with me. There’s plenty of things that could hurt my good buddy in the woods, but I trust him to avoid them. I’d keep him inside with me all day if I could, but he literally begs to be let out, even thought he’s litter trained, and doesn’t respond well to a leash and values his alone time in the woods just like I do. The point you make about cats unnaturally endangering species is very fair, but not applicable in places such as mine, where most endangered species are either birds that nest out of reach of cats, deep water fish, or plants that cats have no interest in. But over feeding an animal and letting them exist in nature are entirely different vices, especially since I personally live in a place with a considerable fox population, who have a very similar spectrum of prey as common house cats. What it boils down to is that I can’t in good conscience deny a creature what it naturally wants. He knows he belongs where he is, and I’m honestly just a crutch with a mutual respect for him that he has for me. I give him food when he has a bad day hunting, and we hang out together every morning and night. I just don’t have the heart to deny a good friend of mine what makes him happy.

Juventus coach Maurizio Sarri has been thinking about making a variety of line-up changes for the Bianconeri’s upcoming league game against Lecce this weekend, according to a report from Turin based newspaper Tuttosport via Calciomercato.com. The report details how Sarri would like to rest Portuguese star Cristiano Ronaldo, who has played seven games in the last 24 days between Juventus and the Portuguese national team. The only game the 34-year-old forward has missed this season was the Bianconeri’s victory over Brescia, playing every other available minute for the Turin based club. Therefore, Sarri is thinking about deploying an all-Argentinian attack, with the attacking duo of Paulo Dybala and Gonzalo Higuain starting together up front against Lecce. The five time Ballon d’Or winner has scored five goals and provided one assist for Juventus so far this season, proving instrumental in important games such as the Bianconeri’s league clash against Napoli at the end of August.

Title: Trite Review: A friend recommended this book to me, saying that men too could benefit from reading it.Wrong (in my opinion). I didn't get very far into this book, for the simple reason that there's nothing new here. It's trite and unoriginal; a copy of a copy of a copy of every self-help book you've ever read. Is this product review negative? Yes

What is mRNA? What is mRNA? Messenger RNA is the same as mRNA. What exactly is this mRNA? It is a RNA molecule, which is responsible for encoding chemical outline for protein product. The primary role of mRNA is to transport instructions coming from genes. These instructions are coded and carried forward to other cell parts. The coded instructions have something to do with the production of proteins essential to several functions of a cell. Genes of a cell has three elements. The first element is the promoter, which acts like a switch. The second element is the coding region, which houses the code holding the instructions for particular synthesis of protein. The last element is the termination sequence, which is a particular portion of a gene that indicates the end of a specific code section. To fulfill the function of mRNA, an important enzyme must be present in the nucleus of a cell. This enzyme is known as RNA polymerase, which acts similarly like a catalyst. A catalyst is a kind of substance that smoothes the progress of a particular reaction. On the other hand even at the event of a particular reaction, the catalyst’s characteristics remain unchanged or not even used up itself. RNA polymerase interprets the code sequence from the DNA of genes. After which, the code is translated into an mRNA sequence. The process goes as the RNA polymerase picks up a sign to commence the coding from the promoter. Then, the enzyme links to a DNA molecule segment to start deciphering the code. How does code reading process happen? The enzyme, which is also the RNA polymerase, connects itself to the DNA and unlocks a segment of it. The enzyme commences interpreting one side of the DNA. Then, the enzyme draws in the nucleotides and joins them to the code it has been reading from the other side of the DNA. This process creates a copy of that section of the DNA. This process of creating a replica is called the transcription. Upon reaching the terminator sequence, the transcription that the enzyme has begun comes to an immediate halt. After the process of transcription comes a brand new strand of mRNA. This means that the new mRNA exists as an independent entity. It is an entity considered to carry the code from the key segment of the DNA. The creation of a new mRNA strand will signal the separation of itself and the RNA polymerase from the DNA of a particular gene. The original mRNA will fold over and the remaining two halves of the DNA reconnect. This will result to the closing of DNA containing the original code in one piece. The process will be repeated to other regions of the cells. The assembled mRNA will continue to pass on the code and help the cells with their protein production. The proteins are manufactured by the binding of mRNA and ribosome. Proteins are produced in the ribosomes with the aid of amino acids. The mRNA plays as the backbone of the protein production process by providing the vital code from the DNA of genes.

The most common enemy to a warm home during the winter season is heat loss that is due to the continuous reciprocal movement of air inside the house. The process of infiltration occurs when the cold winter air finds a way to move into the house and push the warm air out of the house. According to many roofing contractors, heat loss occurs in walls, doors, floors, and windows; however, more heat loss happens due to the infiltration of air in the roofing system. The impact this has during winter is translated to increased utility bills. If cold air gets into the house, the furnace must operate more to eliminate the cold air, which translates into higher electricity bills. To prevent this from happening, it is important to prepare the house for winter to minimize the movement of the warm air from the inside the house to the outside environment. Heat Loss Sources One basic method to prevent heat loss is to be aware of all possible sources of air leakage. A major contributor to the escape of warm air is through walls, floors, windows, doors, and ceilings. Some of the possible locations of these leaks could be in thermal bridges, cracks, and joints. By determining the sources, a strategy can be planned to conserve heat during the winter. Enhancing Home Insulation To reduce air movement, focus needs to be made on air infiltration and air leakage. An investment should be made in proper insulation to reduce air movement. - Attic Insulation – Without the proper amount of insulation in the attic, energy cannot be conserved during winter months. Poor attic insulation allows a significant amount of warm air to escape. It must be determined if there is an adequate amount of this material in the attic to ensure that it is still sufficient enough to conserve energy. - Window and Door Replacement – Another source of warm air leakage is through doors and windows. If the windows are very old, they are probably inefficient in conserving energy. The preferable choice is to replace the windows to prevent heat loss and raise their thermal efficiency. If this is not financially possible, thermal drapes can be used to cover the windows. In addition, weather-stripping should be installed to doors during the winter to prevent warm air from escaping and cold air from moving into the house. - Wall Insulation – Forty-five percent of the warm air that escapes from a house occurs through the walls. Wall insulation can decrease heat loss and help save money on utility bills. Solid wall insulation is an efficient method to block the wasting of energy and to help with energy bills. There are two ways to insulate walls, either externally or internally. - Insulation of Vents and Other Areas – Heat loss can also be decreased by insulating vents, electrical outlets and switches, concrete block sill plates in the basement, and recessed lighting in the attic. Warm air also escapes through the fireplace. It is highly recommended that ‘airtight’ fireplace doors be installed to prevent heated air from escaping through the chimney. To prevent heat loss during cold winter months, the focus should be on insulation to prevent air leakage and infiltration. Energy savings, reduced heat loss, and decreased energy consumption during the winter will help a house be more comfortable and save money during these hard times. Since it is vital to concentrate on making a house air tight, it is important to consult a professional roofing expert to examine the energy efficiency of the entire house and enhance those areas where more protection is needed. This will help prevent heat loss during those cold winter months! Are you looking for a roof company Houston to prevent heat loss from your roof? Schulte Roofing handles the great Houston area as well as the Brazos Valley and can help all customers with their roofing problems!

THE London-educated Saif al-Islam Gadaffi, 39, always denied that he played an active role in politics, but he holds the key to the secrets of his father’s despotic regime. His trial could prove deeply embarrassing if he chooses to reveal details of his once-cosy relations with British politicians including Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson, the former business secretary. Mohammed al-Alagi, Libya’s interim justice minister, said recently that Gadaffi will be placed on trial in Libya and faces the death penalty. With little to lose, Gadaffi may decide from his desert prison in Zintan to spill the beans on business deals and political promises made to the regime over the past decade. Blair, who was described by Gadaffi Jr as a close personal friend of the family, may face searching questions if Gadaffi goes ahead and reveals the secrets of their deals including oil contracts and the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber. Gadaffi was his father’s point man on the settlement of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988 which killed 270 people. His detailed knowledge of the negotiations that involved British diplomats and Musa Kusa, his father’s chief of intelligence, could prove explosive. The questions of who knew what, and who did what, have never been answered. The International Criminal Court said its chief prosecutor would go to Libya within a week to discuss his prosecution. Not long ago, Gadaffi denied earlier reports that he had offered to give himself up to the Hague court. “It is all lies. I have never been in touch with them,” he said. David Cameron welcomed his capture. “It is a great achievement for the Libyan people and must now become a victory for international justice too,” he said. Blair, Prince Andrew, Mandelson and the Rothschild banking family are among those who could be cited by Gadaffi in court. They were among Establishment figures who courted him in the belief that Libya would pursue a reformist agenda while lucrative business contracts were on the agenda. Among the secrets he could unlock are the machinations that may have gone on under the former Labour government ahead of the release of Megrahi’s flight from Glasgow to Tripoli when he was freed by the Scottish authorities on “humanitarian” grounds in August 2009. The release happened after Blair’s notorious “deal in the desert” with Muammar Gadaffi paving the way for multi-million-pound oil contracts with Shell and BP. Gadaffi Jr claimed that the former prime minister acted as a consultant to the Libyan Investment Authority, the country’s sovereign wealth fund. Blair vehemently denies this. However, he has visited Libya at least six times since leaving office. Five meetings with Muammar Gadaffi took place in the 14-month period prior to Megrahi’s release. On at least two occasions Blair flew on a private jet paid for by Gadaffi. But he denies influencing the Scottish government’s decision to free the Lockerbie bomber. Just a week before Megrahi’s release, Mandelson discussed his case with Gadaffi Jr while on holiday at a villa in Corfu owned by the Rothschilds. Mandelson later met Waddesdon Manor in Buckinghamshire, the Ropthschild family seat. Gadaffi’s claims were embarrassing for the French; he boasted that he had funded Nicolas Sarkozy’s 2007 presidential campaign.

package org.batfish.representation.arista; import com.google.common.testing.EqualsTester; import org.junit.Test; public class StandardAccessListRemarkLineTest { @Test public void testEquals() { new EqualsTester() .addEqualityGroup( new StandardAccessListRemarkLine(5, "remark"), new StandardAccessListRemarkLine(5, "remark")) .addEqualityGroup(new StandardAccessListRemarkLine(6, "remark")) .addEqualityGroup(new StandardAccessListRemarkLine(6, "remark2")) .testEquals(); } }

Carnot Principle - motivation and examples |Introduction||What is this thing called Thermodynamics??? | Definitions | Thermal Equilibrium and Zeroth Law | Limitations| |First Law||Work, Heat, Energy, and the First Law | Work, Heat, Energy, and the First Law (simplied) | Derivatives | Derivatives Exercise | Reversibility, Enthalpy, and Heat Capacity| |Second Law||Things to Think About | Observations and Second Law of Thermodynamics | Alternative Approach - the Clausis Inequality | Consequences of the Second Law | Consequences of the Second Law (simplified) | Carnot Principle - motivation and examples | Equivalence of Second Law Statements*| |Third Law||Third Law of Thermodynamics | Consequences of Third Law*| |Development of Thermodynamics||The Thermodynamic Network | Network Exercise | Equations of State | Thermochemistry| * Optional Section Carnot Principle - proof To review a Carnot cycle is a theoretical heat engine composed of four steps: - Reversible, isothermal expansion of a gas - Reversible, adiabatic expansion - cooling the gas - Reversible, isothermal compression - Reversible, adiabatic compression, returning the gas to its original state Graphical it looks like: Note that by the second law that the adiabatic steps have constant entropy and hence are shown by vertical lines. For the first step AB the heat is given by the Clausis inequality: $ $ For the adiabatic steps, $ $ For the third step CD, $ $ The total heat removed is: $ $ Since the cycle begins and ends in the same state, ΔU = 0. Then from the first law: Then the efficiency is Which is the result we had before. A Real Cycle In a real cycle the Clausis inequality says that for the adiabatic steps we must Q > 0, since no real system is irreversible. Then the graph looks like: From the diagram you can see that the magnitude of QC'D' is bigger than the magnitude of QCD. But both numbers are negative therefore (for example, -5 < -2) Hence, a real cycle cannot be as efficient as a Carnot cycle operating between the same temperatures. We have then proved the Carnot principle. Example: Heat Engine As an example of using the concept of efficiency to calculate work and heat, consider the following problem: A power plant works at a boiler temperature of 550 K and an exhaust temperature of 400 K. If the efficiency is 75% of the Carnot cycle efficiency, how much heat is needed from fuel and how much is expelled through the exhaust, if the power output is 2.5 MW? - For a cycle problem always start with a diagram, placing given information on the diagram. While, this may not be necessary for simple problems, using it now will help you when you get to more complex problems. - Remember that for any cycle ΔU=0. - Be careful with signs. - In this problem we are given power output instead of work output. Since power is work per unit time, we will simply use power units instead of energy units (that is, Watts instead of Joules). - As is typical, the given output is the net work. Some work is used to drive the pump, usually this is done by directly taking off part of the turbine output. Given: net power output, temperatures of heat sources, efficiency (as percent Carnot efficiency). Find: heat input, heat output. A refrigerator cycle with a COP of 2.7 is used to maintain the food compartment at 3 °C. The compartment continuously receives 1260 kJ/h of heat from the environment. The cost of electricity is 0.165 US$/kWh, and the refrigerator motor runs one-third of the time. Determine (a) the shaft power, in kW, the cycle requires, (b) the cost of the operating unit in dollars per day, (c) what is the rate of heat rejected to the outside, and (d) the maximum COP if the outside temperature is 30 °C. - Shaft power is the power provided by the motor, so-called because it is transferred by a turning a shaft. - Reminder that we always use absolute temperature in thermodynamic calculations. Given: COP, TC, TH, Qin, cost per kWh, refrigerator runs one-third of the time. Find: Wnet, cost per day, Qin, COPCarnot. (a) $ $ (b) $ $ (c) $ $ (d) $ $ Often cycles are combined. These two exercises are examples of this. Hint: Draw a diagram! (Here it really does help) In this exercise we have two heat engines in series. In other words, the heat output from the first cycle is used as the heat input for the second. Two Carnot heat engines operate in series. Engine A receives 2500 kJ of heat at 1000 K. All of the heat tranfser from engine A is used as energy input to engine B. This transfer occurs at 460 K. The heat rejected from engine B is 590 kJ. Find: (a) The amount of heat transferred between the two engines, (b) the total work output, (c) the efficiency of engine B, and (d) the temperature of the rejected heat from engine B. In this exercise the work produced by a heat engine is used to drive a refrigerator. A Carnot heat engine operates between supply and rejection temperatures of 600 and 40 °C. Part of the work output of the heat engine is used to drive a Carnot refrigerator which operates between boundary temperatures of 40 and -20 °C. The heat input to the engine is 2100 kJ and the net work out (engine work minus refrigerator work) is 370 kJ. Determine the heat transfer to the refrigerator at -20 °C and the net heat transfer at 40 °C.

Herpesvirus infection effects cats exclusively and is not seen in dogs. Specifically, the virus attacks and causes clinical disease in the upper respiratory system, the eyes, or both. With the respiratory form, the patient experiences mild to severe congestion, cough, fever, and inappetance. With the occular form, the patient presents with all or some of the following symptoms in one or both eyes: severe tearing; thickening, swelling, and redness of the inner eyelids; redness of the whiltes of the eyes; spasming closed of the eyelids; and corneal ulcers. Herpesvirus is most commonly seen in kittens, cats that have spent time in a shelter, cats that go to the groomery, and cats that spend all or part of the time outdoors. Since herpes is a virus, antibiotics are not effective in eliminating the organism. However, antibiotics are commonly used to control secondary bacterial infections that exacerbate the disease. Systemic antibiotics are given orally to help control secondary bacterial invaders of the trachea and nasal cavity. Topical antibiotic ophthalmic preparations are administered to the eye(s) of cats that are affected with the occular form, serving to limit secondary bacterial growth while protecting and allowiing any corneal ulcers to heal. In rare cases, herpesvirus can affect the patient so severely that hospitalization with fluid therapy and other supportive care is necessary. The most frustrating aspect of herpesvirus is that the organism integrates itself into the host’s DNA, making the patient infected for life, despite having been recovered and cleared of symptoms of disease. This leaves the patient susceptible to future outbreaks in times of stress or other immune system suppressive events. In most cases, as the patient ages and the immune system strengthens, episodes become less severe, become less frequent, and in many cases stop altogether. A small percentage of patients, however, remain chronically afflicted with, or have frequent relapses of clinical disease. In these cases, daily supplementation with the amino acid, Lysine, has shown to often be effective in helping these cats. However, always consult with your vet before doing this, as overdosing can be toxic and even fatal. Roger L. Welton, DVM Founder and Chief Editor, Web-DVM.net President, Maybeck Animal Hospital Article updated 6/3/2014

It gives you another chance to sell yourself. It reminds busy employers and recruiters to look at your application when they may be inundated with CVs. First, check the job listing and see if there are any guidelines the company want you to follow, or if there are any indications on when would be a good time to follow up. Aim to follow up within three to five days. Contact the right person. Research online or call the HR department to find out exactly who is in charge of the recruitment process – this is the person you need to impress. If you’re following up by phone, be prepared to undergo a brief screening interview. Have some good questions and answers prepared. When following up by email, try not to be too dry or formulaic. Be creative and show your personality. If you’re emailing after your first application, talk about the company and how you can be of benefit to them. Research online for any recent company news or press releases and prove your interest. Avoid looking too dry – show your personality. Use LinkedIn. Ask to connect with the recruiter and send them a direct message in lieu of a phone call or email. Don’t overdo it and send multiple follow-ups, this will put employers off. Consider making contact before you send your CV by calling and asking for more information and use your application as the follow-up. They will be expecting it and be more likely to take notice.

Know these essential literary terms? early 15c., "to pledge," from Middle French engagier, from Old French en gage "under pledge," from en "make" + gage "pledge," through Frankish from Proto-Germanic *wadiare "pledge" (see wed). It shows the common evolution of Germanic -w- to French -g-; cf. Guillaume from Wilhelm). Meaning "attract the attention of" is from 1640s; that of "employ" is from 1640s, from notion of "binding as by a pledge." Specific sense of "promise to marry" is 1610s (implied in engaged).

<issue_start><issue_comment>Title: Revisit :hover styles across all components username_0: **- Any :hover styling should be disabled in device (iphone) or any touchable device, it does not feel native. It's an important regression from v3, needs to be fixed before final.!** - :hover is key for a good UI in desktop, revisit how :hover is implemented across all components in desktop (low priority, post 4.0) <issue_comment>username_1: Maybe it would make sense to wrap these styles in a `@media (pointer: fine)` query? These are the stylesheets with hover styles: ``` src/components/searchbar/searchbar.ios.scss src/components/buttons/buttons.ios.scss src/components/chip/chip.scss src/components/button/button.scss src/components/button/button.md.scss src/components/button/button.ios.scss src/components/tab-button/tab-button.scss src/components/segment-button/segment-button.md.scss src/components/segment-button/segment-button.ios.scss ``` <issue_comment>username_0: Maybe! can you verify it works in chrome/safari and for device/desktop?<issue_closed>

I do things my own way and try not to follow what other people do which turns out to be a huge advantage to you. You may have seen me before in adult films, or in some of the magazines I've posed for. My name is Sarah and this is my awesome life. I have lived in Las Vegas for years and know how to have fun here. No matter if you’re on the strip at a big hotel property or partying down in a condo or timeshare a little further out of town, you’ll get the same first class girl and the same fantastic first class service. Don't miss out on an hour or evening of redhead fun.

The Indian Gharial may be Close to Extinction The Indian Gharial, one of only two surviving species of the living fossil family Gavialidae with an ancestry dating back to the Late Cretaceous is close to becoming extinct in the wild. This magnificent and graceful Crocodilian, capable of growing to lengths in excess of 6 metres had been under severe pressure in the early 1970s as the growing Indian population competed with these animals for space and fish. Radical steps were taken to protect the nesting areas of this reptile and to preserve stretches of waterway to provide a pristine haven for these long-snouted crocodiles. Numbers had begun to recover but over the last two years the breeding population has declined to such an extent that the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) reclassified the species last year as “Critically Endangered” acknowledging that this fish-eating crocodile was on the brink of extinction. The Gharial, sometimes called the Gavial is now facing a new threat. A large number of dead Gharials have been found in the Chambal river area of India, a stretch of water designated a Gharial preserve. Despite the land’s preservation status, Gharial numbers have been threatened by illegal fishing, the removal of sand for building sites, destroying nesting areas and poaching. Now a mysterious ailment is causing the death of many of these animals and scientists are unsure as to what the cause might be. Post-mortems carried out on the dead Crocodilians indicate high levels of lead in their bodies, but tests on the fish population (the gharials main food source), do not show high levels of lead in the fish. The Gharials are observed as becoming dull and lifeless with slowed reactions (symptoms of poisoning) and then a few days later their carcases are found bloated and floating in the water. Such has been the mortality that an urgent Indian scheme has been launched to investigate the deaths and to consider ways to protect the remaining Gharials in what was once their only stronghold.

If you want to find a fresh partner, gender hook up sites are a great way to do it. These sites will assist you to meet new people and explore their particular sexuality without having to cope with the responsibilities of a long term relationship. Assuming you have a romantic aspect, you can ignite it through these sites. You can discover a lover without trouble, and you can enough time burden of feeling bad about the way you feel. When you sign up for these sites, you will find a wide range of folks that share the interests. This really is a great way to focus the options and find someone with identical interests as you. When you find a partner through these websites, make sure you study their profile thoroughly, and have to see a picture https://hookupguru.com/adult-dating-sites/adultfriendfinder of these before you have a final encounter. You can even chat to these people before you decide if you need to meet all of them in person. Becoming a member of a attach site is a wonderful way to meet up with other people who are searching for sex. You will discover forums specializing in different fetishes, and you can locate a perfect match through these community forums. You can also make an effort to hook up through private talks, voice information, and video. You can also content your personal advertising on these types of websites to connect with people who might have the same interest. Once you’ve matched with someone, make certain to talk to all of them a little before arranging your final encounter. One of the important things about sex hook up sites is they are completely safe. They will don’t use having sex profiles, and you may communicate with those who have comparable interests to yours. The best thing about these sites is usually that you may easily find somebody with to whom you feel relaxing and happy. You should an easier period meeting somebody on a site than on a regular basis. You should use these sites to fulfill a partner pertaining to sex or maybe a casual hookup. While some sex hook up sites serve married persons, others cater to those who find themselves single and searching for a one-night stand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_with_benefits_relationships This makes them more likely to meet up with a person that is somewhat more compatible with you than with some other person. These sites present an easy-to-use user interface and help you will find a potential spouse in no time. They also associated with process of finding a partner easy. But you have to remember to be clear about what you are looking intended for and avoid virtually any confusion. In order to register on a sexual hook up internet site, you need to have a legitimate email address and a user name. You can also create a account picture and write a brief bio. Reddit is a great destination to meet a lover, plus the free rendition is one of the ideal available. The free edition of the internet site allows you to concept people that suits you, which is a large plus if you are sole and want to receive an unconventional marriage.

They show the strong connection between the speaker and her family. Analysing both word, forge means to shape or make ; while nuture means to care for, protect and upbring. Hence we can say or infer that the two words gives a positive connotation. Due to the these positive connotation, we can infer that a positive relationship should exist between the speaker and those who helped with his the Latina side of his identity, which are his family. Hence, the best option from the alternatives given is that both words, forge and nuture shows strong connection between the speaker and his family. <em>4. Suggest an idea without directly stating it. </em> Authors use figurative language to dress up their writing as it takes an ordinary statement and makes it more creative or complicated. In most cases, authors use figurative language to allude to something without directly stating it. Technically it is true that Frederick Scott Archer introduced the concept of combining artificial and natural light in the studio, but it should be noted that this concept had been used before, just without much fame.

Shanghai is an immensely populated city with a disproportionate amount of theater space. What does exits is not easily accessible for independent local artists, especially those working more ‘experimentally’ with performance. This fact has lead many of these kinds of artists to present their work in alternative spaces, for example: art galleries and museums, public outdoor space and private residences. When the element of a traditional theater is taken out of performance, artists need to adapt their creation process and aesthetic choices. I believe that these restrictions are actually shaping the work of these artists in a profound way. Includes interviews with: Petra Johnson (Germany), Nunu Kong (China), Bruce Ding (China) and features a guerilla performance by SLATE contemporary dance company. DANCERS: Wu Yaqi, Kara Madden, Julie S.

Helicobacter Pylori: Pathogenesis, Signs or symptoms and Incubation Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) are a form of intestinal microorganisms (spiral-shaped gram-negative) that result in the majority of ulcers in the tummy and duodenum. They succeed in very acidic areas and have a way of creating to the severe environment with the stomach. H. pylori are classified because low-potential cancerous carcinogens (cancer-causing substances) by the Community Health Firm. The Life Period (Pathogenesis) involving Helicobacter pylori H. pylori are able to thrive in acid because they generate enzymes (special proteins) this neutralize the acid. This mechanism allows H. pylori bacterias to enter the main stomach and create their technique to the “safe” area – the appropriate mucous paving of the belly wall. In the event the bacterium with the mucous coating of the tummy, the body’s natural protection cannot achieve it. Immune system will reply to an H. pylori virus but will be unable to kill the actual bacteria considering they are hidden in the particular stomach coating. The immune system help keep sending disease fighters for the infection web-site and They would. pylori will feed on the actual nutrients given by the body, allowing for them (the bacteria) to outlive in the digestive system environment. H. pylori destroy the protecting mucous covering of the abs and duodenum, allowing the exact stomach acid to get through to the delicate lining down below. Both the stomach acid and the microorganisms irritate the liner, causing pain in the gastric area (stomach inflammation) and perhaps the main formation associated with an ulcer within a few days with the initial illness. Ironically, it might be the H. pylori micro organism, but the soreness response to the bacteria, a great deal of the ulcer to form. The exact series of steps – often the pathogenic accessories – which will H. pylori go through any time establishing his or her self in the tummy are as follows: - Idolatry – The very H. pylori bacteria has to enter the ab and attach themselves towards lining from the stomach to ascertain an environment that has to grow. - Contaminant production instant H. pylori produce dangerous substances to increase the secretion of standard water and electrolytes in the abs and result in cell dying in the tissues of the stomach lining. This will help the microbes take over the actual stomach natural environment and will cut down the competition with regard to required nutrition. - Cell offensive – The main bacteria will probably enter the tummy lining microscopic cells for proper protection and will then simply kill the cells they are on (their machine cells) so they can move on to take ? conquer more stomach-lining cells. The process will carry on, thus building tissue damage. This specific tissue damage can be the ulcer formation within the stomach. - Loss of microvilli/villi instructions The compounds released to the host mobile during the ‘Cell Invasion’ step cause a improvement in the stomach-lining cells. This change triggers fewer calories from fat getting assimilated by the digestive system. The end result? The body will receive fewer nutrition from the nutrition eaten each and every meal. Ulcers develop when there is a break down while in the mucous layer lining the exact stomach, permitting the gastrointestinal (stomach) acid solution and problems enzymes to attack and also aggravate often the stomach strength. Helicobacter pylori contribute to this kind of breakdown just by living in this unique layer and even increasing the likelihood of it conking out. Stress plus diet may well irritate a great ulcer, smaller cause it all. Symptoms together with incubation precious time of an H. pylori an infection Getting the H. pylori infection is certainly nothing like finding a common chilled in that immediate consequences associated with an infection are rarely seen. In fact , it is possible to travel many years without noticeable indicators. When conditions do manifest, abdominal soreness is the most typical. This awkwardness is usually a uninteresting, gnawing discomfort that occurs and goes for several nights or period. It generally occurs several hours after a meal as well as in the middle of the night (when the abdomen is empty) and is done with the effort by eating, consuming milk or perhaps taking antacid medications. Different symptoms contain: heartburn, increased burping, fat loss, bloating as well as burping, and fewer common indicators include: terrible appetite, queasieness and nausea or vomiting. If you suspect that you have an ulcer along with experience many of the following conditions, a doctor ought to be called without delay. - Razor-sharp, sudden, running stomach pain - Bloody or possibly black eliminate - Bloody throw up or be violently ill that seems like coffee argument The above mentioned symptoms is usually signs of a serious problem, for instance: - Perforation – once the ulcer burrows through the ab or duodenal wall. - Bloody – when ever acid or even ulcer chips a blood vessel. - Obstruction – should the ulcer hindrances the path for food planning to leave the actual stomach. An infection with L. pylori happens worldwide, nevertheless the prevalence varies greatly among nations and concerning population teams within the exact country. All around prevalence about H. pylori infection can be strongly linked to socioeconomic factors. The frequency among middle-aged adults is over 80 percent in many developing countries, as compared together with 20 in order to 50 percent within industrialized nations. Prevalence for infection is actually higher on developing nations around the world than associated with developed nations. In established countries, even if overall prevalance of virus in younger children is < 10%, close to 50 percentage of children dealing with poor aliado economic the weather is infected. Upto 80 per-cent of children less than age of several years are afflicted in acquiring countries. Prevalance of disease in Indian is 22%, 56% and even 87% 0-4, 5-9 and 10-19 years age group respectively. Important dilemma is that, through the entire developed nations, the infection is rare concerning children where in fast developing nations fairly in little ones. It has been viewed that there is basically no statistical big difference of H. pylori infections between man and female kids. Studies with developing areas suggest that, untill the last 100 years, nearly all persons carried H. pylori or simply closely similar bacteria on their stomachs, although with socio global financial development much less children are acquiring H. pylori. Annual number of cases of They would. pylori irritation is 0. 3%-0. 7 percent in produced countries together with 6-14 por 100to in developing nations. Helicobacter pylori infection is common inside the Indian subcontinent. Exposure is situated childhood together with approximately 81% of men and women have been attacked at some time. Sero-surveys indicate a seroprevalence of 22%-57% for children in the age of 5, increasing that will 80%-90% from the age of 30, and left over constant afterwards. There is now facts from epidemiological studies that will H pylori carriers write my paper have a significantly greater risk for the introduction of gastric cancers. Results by three would-be epidemiological studies10-12 estimate of which H pylori carriers have got a 2 . 8- to 6. 0-fold increased possibility of gastric melanoma developing around mean follow-up periods about 6 to 16 yrs when compared with their H pylori-negative counterparts. The overall mean probability was scored to be several. 8. thirteen This possibilities ratio amplified to 8. 7 in people that were diagnosed 15 several years or more immediately after testing impressive for H pylori. L. pylori infection- treatment Ulcers caused by L. pylori usually can be cured with a much more two-week span of antibiotics. Procedure usually includes a combination of drugs, acid suppressors, and digestive system protectors. Stomach acid suppression through the H2 blocker or proton pump inhibitor in conjunction with the antibiotics helps lower ulcer-related symptoms, helps repair gastric mucosal inflammation and may even enhance the performance of the anti-biotics against They would. pylori on the gastric mucosal surface. The usage of only one medicine to treat L. pylori will not be recommended. Here, the most effective treatment is a good two-week practice called triple therapy. It involves taking a pair of antibiotics to be able to kill the main bacteria and also either the acid suppressor or stomach-lining protector preserve the ab lining. Two-week triple treatment reduces ulcer symptoms, weakens the bacteria, and helps prevent ulcer occurance in more as compared to 90 % of affected individuals, but , regrettably, patients might find triple treatment complicated since it involves taking as many as something like 20 pills a full day. The anti-biotics used in three times the therapy might result in mild negative effects such as: a sick stomach, vomiting, diarrhea, dark bar stools, metallic style in the mouth, light headedness, headache, together with yeast infections within women.

Above - the great Mike Nelson braving the elements. Is anyone else tired of the hype pictures from these accounts? Paddle out if its so hyped! ...a disciple of "the bringer of joy" No one is going to disagree with you on Sunday, it was the Saturday hype. Sweet ones, Dorado. AAs someone said elsewhere, "Keone wins Jonas."

Tilapia is the common name for nearly a hundred species of cichlid fish from the tilapiine cichlid tribe. Tilapia are mainly freshwater fish inhabiting shallow streams, ponds, rivers and lakes and less commonly found living in brackish water. Historically, they have been of major importance in artisan fishing in Africa and the Levant and are of increasing importance in aquaculture and aquaponics. Tilapia can become problematic invasive species in new warm-water habitats such as Australia, whether deliberately or accidentally introduced, but generally not in temperate climates due to their inability to survive in cooler waters below about 70 °F. The firm texture and mild flavor of tilapia make it ideal for a variety of cooking methods. Pan-fried, broiled, baked, or braised, tilapia readily absorbs the robust flavor of spicy marinades, creamy sauces, and subtle seasonings. Plus, a 6-ounce fillet only has about 125 calories and about 1 gram of fat. Health Benefits of Tilapia Tilapia have very low levels of mercury, as they are fast-growing, lean and short-lived, with a primarily vegetarian diet, so do not accumulate mercury found in prey. Tilapia are low in saturated fat, calories, carbohydrates and sodium, and are a good protein source. They also contain the micronutrients phosphorus, niacin, selenium, vitamin B12 and potassium. The lower amounts of omega-3 and the higher ratios of omega-6 fats in US-farmed tilapia raised questions about the health benefits of consuming farmed tilapia fish.

Globally, about one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture and food systems. The carbon footprint of food systems includes all the emissions from its growing, processing, transportation and waste. Agriculture is also vulnerable to the effects of climate change and, as the conflict in Ukraine demonstrates, food systems can be exposed to geopolitics. Several technologies are already available that can help decarbonize the complex systems that link producers and consumers. These technologies can also make our food systems much more resilient to global threats. Here are five that we think show tremendous potential. 1. Carbon farms and regenerative agriculture Today, most of the greenhouse gas emissions linked with our food come from producing the food, and are emitted when the soils are plowed. This is important as undisturbed soils store carbon. But with some relatively small changes to management, soils can once again become carbon sinks. For instance, planting legumes and forage crops every few years, rather than just growing commodities like wheat or corn, or seeding a cover crop in the fall, when fields would otherwise be bare, allow organic matter to build up and help the soil to absorb carbon. Not only does this help slow climate change, it also protects soils from erosion. The idea that farmers can simply use more crop types may not seem technologically sophisticated, but it does work. And a new generation of smart farming tools, which includes farming equipment that uses big data and artificial intelligence, will soon help farmers adopt these practices that produce food and trap carbon. Read more: Food is poised to get a lot more expensive, but it doesn't have to These smart farming tools are part of a broader digital agricultural revolution, also known of as precision farming, that will allow farmers to reduce their environmental impact and track how much greenhouse gas their fields are capturing, creating a carbon ledger that documents their efforts. 2. Smart fertilizers Traditionally, it takes a lot of fossil fuels to turn nitrogen from the air into fertilizer. Additionally, it is challenging for farmers to put exactly the right amount of fertilizer in the right place, at the right time, for crops to use it efficiently. Fertilizers are often overapplied, and not used by crops, ending up as pollution, either as as greenhouse gases or water contaminants. But a new generation of fertilizers aims to fix these problems. Smart bio-fertilizers, use micro-organisms that are bred or engineered to live in harmony with crops and capture nutrients from the environment, providing them to the crops without waste. 3. Precision fermentation Humans have used micro-organisms to turn sugars and starches into fermented products such as beer, wine and bread since the dawn of history. But before long, precision fermentation will be used to produce a great many more products. For decades this technology has been used to create most of the world’s insulin and the enzyme rennet used in cheese making. The United States recently allowed animal-free fermented dairy protein — made by inserting milk-producing genes into microbes — to be used in ice cream, which is now available for sale. It is only a matter of time before products from precision fermentation become common place in supermarkets everywhere. In the future, if fermentation micro-organisms are fed waste products (such as leftover “spent grains” from brewing or waste starch from plant-based proteins), farmers could create low-impact, high-value products out of organic material that would otherwise be wasted and decompose into greenhouse gasses. 4. Vertical farming While nothing beats fresh fruit and vegetables, picked ripe and eaten immediately, the sad reality is that most of the fresh produce eaten in Canada, northern United States and northern Europe comes from industrial farms in the southwestern United States or the southern hemisphere. The carbon footprint of this long-distance cold chain is large, and the quality of the produce is not always the best. A new generation of vertical farms aims to change this by using energy-efficient LED lights to produce year-round crops close to home. These controlled-environment agricultural facilities use less water and labour than conventional farms, and produce large quantities of fresh fruits and vegetables on small plots of land. What’s more, these facilities are springing up all over North America and Europe, but especially in Singapore and Japan. While there is still considerable debate as to whether the current generation of vertical farms are better in terms of energy use, they are increasingly poised to use renewable energy to ensure a carbon-neutral fresh produce supply year-round, even in Canada’s North. The manure from livestock facilities is challenging to manage as it can become a source of water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. However, if livestock manure is placed in an anaerobic digester, it’s possible to capture the naturally occurring methane as a green natural gas. Properly planned, biogas digesters can also turn municipal organic waste into renewable energy, thus giving agriculture the opportunity to contribute to a sustainable energy portfolio. This is already happening on farms in Ontario, where a new generation of biogas digesters are helping boost farm incomes and displace fossil fuels. Read more: Here's how food waste can generate clean energy Driving systems change These technologies become far more exciting when they’re linked. For example, biogas collectors attached to livestock farms could be used to create the energy required to run fermentation facilities that produce animal-free dairy products. Similarly, if plant-based proteins, such as those that come from leguminous crops like peas, are produced on farms using regenerative agricultural techniques and processed locally, the leftover starches can be used for precision fermentation. While we are not aware of this process being done at scale, it potential sustainability benefit is huge. The key to unlocking these benefits is to develop agri-food businesses that are circular food systems, so that the waste products from one step become valuable inputs in another. A critical addition to circular food systems will be carbon tracking from field to table, where the benefits are rewarded. Technologies to achieve a carbon-neutral, circular food economy are rapidly approaching maturity. It will likely only be a few years before the five technologies described above become mainstream. Today, the world faces one of the biggest challenges of the century: how to nutritiously feed the world’s growing population, address climate change and not destroy the ecosystems on which we all depend for life. But we are on the brink of having the tools to feed the future and protect the planet.

Population: Common in Golden Gate National Parks. Plant Family: Crassulaceae (Stonecrop). There are 30 genera and 1500 species of succulent herbs and shrubs composing this family. Members of this family usually are perennial and have fleshy leaves. Flowers in this family usually have 5 sepals, 5 petals and either 5 or 10 stamens. Other members of this family include Sedum spathulifolium (Stonecrop) and Sempervivum (Houseleeks). Latin derivation: Genus: Dudleya is named for Wilham Russel Dudley (1849-1911) who was the first professor of botany at Stanford University. Species: farinosa is Latin for mealy or powdery. Description of plant: Leaves are green to red, oval and pointed; they occur basal rosettes as well as forming triangular platforms alternating along stems. Lower leaves are often densely covered with a white, mealy wax. Flowers are pale lemon yellow and characterized by five fused petals forming an upright tube. Flowers occur in tight clusters at top of stem. Blooms from May to September. Small, dark seeds form in dried cups of flowers. Habitat: Live forever occurs in rocky areas and trail cuts. You could find this plant in the Headlands along the coastal trail above Rodeo Beach. Interesting Facts: Plants within this family have a specialized form of metabolizing- Crassulacean Acid Metabolism (CAM), a photosynthetic adaptation to high light, low moisture environments. The stomates (pores) on the leaves of this plant open at night to allow the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the form of an organic acid. The stomates then close during the day when the stored carbon dioxide is used for photosynthesis.

The 6,334m² scheme, which is the practice’s first major office scheme in the City, was originally set to be decided two weeks ago. However the planning committee ran out of time to determine the proposals for Aviva Life & Pensions UK due to the heated and lengthy debate over Steven Holl’s controversial Maggie’s Centre at St Barts - an earlier item on the committee’s agenda. The scheme at 51-54 Fenchurch Street features an all-glass curtain wall system which is broken up by solid, Portland Stone-coloured panels. ‘The façade treatment will be a world first,’ said dRMM director Sadie Morgan. ‘It combines an abstraction of Portland Stone with an all-glass façade, the effect of which will mean the building’s shifted form blends with its surroundings, giving it an exciting presence on this busy street. The building will increase the floorspace on the site by 2,000m². The ‘flexible office space’ has been designed to be either let on a floor-by-floor basis or as a unique, single-occupier headquarters building. Earlier this month Farshid Moussavi Architecture submitted plans a new office block at the nearby 130 Fenchurch Street for the same client (pictured below). This looks to be a building that adds variety to the street, in contrast to Farshid Moussavi's nearby offering - which, if the illustration is anything to go by, would be a dark, overbearing monster. It'll be interesting to see the planners' reaction.

Adult pedestrians can accurately judge the speeds of vehicles traveling toward them at up to 50 mph, say researchers at Royal Holloway College, University of London, England. But for elementary school children, it’s a different matter. Children simply don’t have the perceptual ability to make an accurate judgment. “This is not a matter of children not paying attention, but a problem related to low-level visual detection mechanisms, so even when children are paying very close attention they may fail to detect a fast approaching vehicle,”said John Wann, a professor in the university’s Department of Psychology. Wann led researchers who measured the perceptual acuity of more than 100 elementary school pupils, the university said in a news release describing the study’s results. The judgments of children of primary school age “become unreliable once the approach speed goes above 20mph, if the car is five seconds away,” the university said. “These findings provide strong evidence that children may make risky crossing judgements when vehicles are travelling at 30 or 40 mph,” Wann concluded. He emphasized that “the vehicles that they are more likely to step in front of are the faster vehicles that are more likely to result in a fatality.” Since completing the study, the researchers have begun looking at the potential for using virtual reality systems to make children more aware of their potential errors, the university noted. But the simplest solution, according Wann, lies in traffic regulation. The study, published in the international journal Psychological Science, is part of a larger project sponsored by the Economic and Social Research Council aimed at understanding the perceptual factors than can lead to pedestrian accidents The Environmental Transport Association (ETA), a British organization that raises awareness of transportation’s impact on people and the environment, said, “The fact that children find it difficult to judge the approach speed of vehicles traveling at over 25mph is yet another argument for 20mph limits in the streets where people live, work and play.” The City of London is currently considering whether to impose a 20 mph speed limit in much of its center. Technology to the rescue? In many places, enforcement of a 20 mph speed limit would be difficult. Consequently, ETA Director Andrew Davis argues for installing technology that automatically reduces a vehicle’s speed in certain conditions. “Networks of average speed cameras would do the job, but lamp posts bristling with more cameras are hardly desirable,” Davis wrote in an commentary in March. He noted that more than ten years ago the ETA and likeminded organizations founded the Slower Speeds Initiative, one of whose aims was “to ensure that all road vehicles had variable speed limiters.” Certain classes of road vehicles, like heavy goods vehicles and public services vehicles, have maximum speed limiters but we want limiters extended to all vehicles. … we want the limiter to reflect not just the national maximum speed – currently 70mph – but the maximum speed in any locality. Therefore the speed limiter will ensure the driver could not drive faster than 30mph where that maximum speed applies. A while ago I drove such a vehicle. The accuracy was stunning. I entered London via the M1 at 70mph and once the 50mph limit came into force the car slowed to 50mph. On moving onto local roads the speed reduced to 30mph. If you imagine a dual-carriageway with a parallel access road a couple of metres away I was able to travel along the dual-carriageway at 50mph but as soon as I moved to the access road I was reduced to 30mph. The ETA has long held that all vehicles should have variable speed limiters fitted as standard by law. As with cruise control, the driver could press through the limiter to pass above the speed limit; allowing such a level of driver control would help its earlier acceptance. Every time the vehicle returned to below the speed limit the limiter would become active again. A decline in walking The United Kingdom has seen the number of children walking to school drop over the years, just as it has in the US. In a 2008 news release, ETA said, “The proportion of 7-10 year olds making their way to school independently fell from 19 per cent in 2003 to 15 per cent last year. Only 13 per cent of children are now allowed to cross the road on their own.” ETA blames dangerous vehicular traffic for some of the decline in the number of children walking to school. Said an ETA spokesperson: “The fact that fewer and fewer children are allowed to cross the road or travel to school unaccompanied is a disturbing trend – everything else being equal children who get some exercise on their way to school are healthier and perform better academically than those driven to school.”

Bergamot oil originates from a fruit that has dark purple or red bouquets. This fruit matures a lot throughout the winter months. It comes from a eco-friendly or yellow fruit that is often in contrast to a grapefruit. Chrome fixtures and facets can be handled with club soda, solution of distilled white vinegar and drinking water or all-purpose cleaner at your choice. For really grimy components you can add a couple of drops of Palo Santo Essential Oil and rub with an previous toothbrush. OMusic – I maintain a portable CD player in the closet in my rest room. When I want the full atohome spa encounter, I perform a calming CD. I have two that I like just for this purpose. Bath & Physique Functions Aromatherapy – Hydrotherapy Soothing Music for a Therapeutic Bath. Mild ocean seems combine with gentle instrumentals for a “just chill out” feeling. I especially like monitor #3. I also like Aromatherapy Music for Rest by Musical reflections. There are 6 tracks on this disk and each one is named after different aromatherapy oils. To get brass shining, make a paste of salt and vinegar. Coat the brass merchandise with this paste, then leave it to sit on the steel for about five minutes. Then rub the paste off with a moist cloth and dry completely. You may require several moist cloths for this cleaning job. Catnip is advantageous for younger kids. It stimulates the body, settles the stomach, and soothes the nerves. The mixture of catnip with fennel has long been utilized as a treatment for colic, gas, teething issues, and indigestion in kids. It also helps clean out mucus in the body. Bergamot is a member of the citrus family members, and the oil is extracted by pressing the peel of the fruit. It is a powerful antiseptic and an urge for food stimulant. It must not be used neat on the skin simply because it can cause pigmentation marks. Hope you have now discovered how to make a honey pimples mask. It is simple and affordable. It doesn’t take a lot time. Even though you might not experience overnight results, but the long-phrase advantages are so huge for your pores and skin that you should really attempt it out.

Posted on November 19, 2014 by julien The science of CAVES: environmental science – CO2 Monitoring CO2 in caves CO2 is the most infamous greenhouse gas. The air that we breathe on Earth has concentrations of around 390 parts per million (0,039 %). In caves CO2 is found in higher concentrations because it degasses from infiltrating waters or is produced by decomposing organic compounds. Its slow diffusion makes concentrations in caves reach 10,000 parts per million (1 %) easily. CO2 is an important gas for caves as it is involved in the chemical reactions that govern carbonate rock dissolution and speleothem formation, and it is used as a natural-gas tracer in cave ventilation processes. CO2 levels in the cave’s atmosphere is measured with a handheld detector (ENV-CO2 CO2 sensor) at different locations to understand speleothem formation and ventilation in the Sa Grutta cave system. Once the instrument is turned on it should be left measuring for 1 minute (it will beep after 30 seconds, but it is advisable to wait for another 30 seconds in order for the instrument to stabilise). Readings update every second. Pressing the ‘hold’ button freezes measurements. This allows recording a measurement in the ENV-CO2 table. Temperature and relative humidity are also measured and must be recorded in the same table. Things to keep in mind Handling the CO2 measurement unit. The sensor on the CO2 measurement unit (it looks like an antenna on top) is very delicate and, although protected by a metal frame must be handled with care. Please note that measurements are influenced by human breathing, so the instrument must be placed on the ground at least 2 meters away from any person. CO2 concentrations in caves are mainly influenced by degassing from incoming water (dripwater), and thus change with the seasons. High concentrations are also related to decomposing organic material. The campsite and, in general, the highest points of a cave, show the highest concentrations in CO2, while the lake gallery, with lower organic material and farther away from where dripwater enters the cave (i.e. the roof), typically shows lower values. Prof. Jo De Waele, University of Bologna, CAVES science coordinator Dr. Laura Sanna, Institute for Biometeorology, Sassari, scientist responsible for the CAVES environmental science experiments

Rawan Dirhalleh, Noor Randhawa, Faith Rounsavall, Katherine Gerhardt, Christine Salvador, Leianne Jadelyn Gavino, Ashley Piring, Gabby Cabugao, Anthony Yoon, Kent Palma, Kieran Anima, Harman Kaur, Alexander Pitts, Alexander Sanders, Apolo Lagance, Niket Bansal, Casey Davis, Daniella James, Jenna-Lisa deLara, Ziggy Fukushima, Kayle Tan, Holly Devaul, Victoria Lawson, Emily Delgadillo, Alejandro Ruiz, Yzabel Martinez, Gabriela Lourdes Perez, Jeanette Rodriguez Flores, and Miyonet Snowden Zerba. Along with the individuals aforementioned, we would also like to congratulate the graduating highschool seniors who are recipients of the The Matt Garcia Foundation – Keep the Dream Alive Scholarship: Allison Piring, Samantha Nita, Sasha Newton, Maekaelagil Santos, Bethany Qamer, Mariah Armstrong, Zach Christopher Belandres, Maverick Ganitno, Ashantae Williams, and Aaliyah Moreno Cortez. These recipients have received this support toward their higher education through the Assist-A-Grad Scholarship Foundation, which aims to support graduating high school seniors from the Fairfield-Suisun-Travis communities by connecting them with scholarship donors, such as The Matt Garcia Foundation. This form of recognition and support would not be a possibility without the generous help of our donors. The individuals mentioned have dedicated their time, energy, and true compassion toward the betterment of our community through their volunteer efforts; many of them have volunteered with The Matt Garcia Foundation throughout their entire high school careers. Matt Garcia believed that the city of Fairfield could unite by instilling a sense of responsibility and care for one's community in all of its citizens. It is truly inspiring how this responsibility and care toward our community has been exemplified by these leaders at a young age. These individuals are illustrations of the image which Matt Garcia had for the youth in our community; they model the ambition and integrity that we all must have to not only better our community, but the world we live in. We thank them and congratulate them. Class of 2020, we sincerely hope for your success in achieving the dreams you set upon yourself. You have already made an imprint in your community; we cannot wait to see what you do for our world. Due to the COVID-19 social distancing order, we have cancelled all upcoming events for the month of June, following the guidance from public health officials. Please check the Foundation website once the order has been lifted for any changes in volunteer opportunities. If you are in need of a mask let us know. Visit the website for contact information. Some Inspiring Words... You can support your local small business without spending a cent? Like or love their post – Tag friends who would enjoy their product or services – Share their post – Join their Facebook group and like the page - Tell your friends! but let’s hope it improves.

How Webb Works Follow the path light will take through the telescope: Primary Mirror: Collects light from celestial objects like rainwater on a roof. Secondary Mirror: Light bounces up to the secondary mirror, concentrating the beam. Light then goes through the centre of the primary mirror to the back of the telescope, where the science instruments are located and where the light is split into different components for further study. Sunshield: Deflects the heat of the Sun, Earth and even Webb's electronics from interfering with the science instruments located behind the telescope's primary mirror. Spacecraft Bus: Provides the support functions for the telescope's operations, including: electrical power, attitude control (the telescope's position), communications, command and data handling, the Propulsion Subsystem, and thermal control. - Date modified:

Note: If you are confused on how an Anarchist Congress works, please see King of AceHigh. The Joker Congress looks like the White House, but the color is always changing. It involves a lot of yelling and chair throwing, but has achived more then the US Congress, UK Parlament, and Capatalism put together!

In general, isolation is when someone or something is set apart or separated from other persons or things. In medical contexts, isolation specifically means “the complete separation from others of a person suffering from contagious or infectious disease.” according to the CDC, the practice of isolation entails: … the separation of a person or group of people known or reasonably believed to be infected with a communicable disease and potentially infectious from those who are not infected to prevent spread of the communicable disease. Isolation for public health purposes may be voluntary or compelled by federal, state, or local public health order. The takeaway: isolation happens when a person is infected with a communicable disease, and is separated from people who are healthy. This also helps stop the spread of the disease. Voluntary isolation is sometimes called self-isolation, although everyday people using the latter term may not mean they are actually infected. First recorded around 1825–35, isolation ultimately comes from the same root as insulation: the Latin insulātus, “made into an island,” based on insula, “island.” Isolated is recorded around 1755–65.

Monaco are in the spotlight tonight! We're eagerly awaiting the Team 3 release from the FUTTIES promotion, which will land tomorrow, but we've got enough to keep us entertained until then. Another Dynamic Duo has taken centre stage in Ultimate Team tonight, with the Iberian pairing of Cesc Fabregas and Gelson Martins up for grabs via the SBC market. Fabregas is who we will be focusing on here. Here is everything that you need to know if you want the Monaco veteran turning out for your Ultimate Team side. This FUTTIES Fabregas card went live in FIFA 21's Ultimate Team at 6pm BST on Thursday, August 12th. It will remain available for one week, before the SBC expires at 6pm BST on Thursday, August 19th. EA are asking for two squads in return for the 93-rated Spaniard, who has seen his weak foot and skill moves upgraded to a 4* rating too.

Fats 101: Here’s Everything You Need To Know There is a lot of confusion surrounding fat and whether it is “good” or “bad”. There are some people that say fat makes you fat, while others say fat should make up the majority of your diet. Who is right? Well, the answer is somewhere in between these two extremes. Body size, weight goals, and medical issues can all affect the amount of fat that a person should eat along with the type they need to prioritize. What do we need fat for? However, if we consume more energy in the form of fat than our body needs, it will be deposited in our fat stores. Even though we usually think about fat stores when we want to lose weight, a certain amount of fat is important to keep our body healthy. What fat does for us: - Protects and insulates our organs - Absorbs liposoluble (fat-soluble) vitamins A, D, E, and K - Regulates production of hormones - And much more… What are fatty acids and which ones are healthy? The fats we eat can contain different types of fatty acids, including saturated fatty acids, unsaturated fatty acids, and trans fats. #1 Saturated fatty acids This type of fatty acid can be mainly found in animal products like butter, cream, and cheese, but also in some vegetable fats like palm or coconut oil. Are saturated fats healthy? Saturated fatty acids are also referred to as “unhealthy” fats, however, recent research discovered that saturated fats play a crucial role in maintaining health.(1) Our body has essential fat that is supported by saturated fat intake, and it helps our body thrive. There are layers of fat around organs for protection, fat membranes around cells for regulation, and fats that help with hormone production. Let’s be clear though, you don’t need to start eating sticks of butter for breakfast so that you can increase your saturated fat intake. What are good sources of saturated fat? If you are not following a vegetarian or vegan diet, you are most likely getting enough saturated fat from the animal products you are already eating. These sources include but are not limited to eggs, milk, cheese, butter, ghee, chicken, beef, pork, salmon, etc. For the non-meat eaters out there, there are still plenty of ways to consume healthy saturated fats. Avocados, nuts and seeds, coconut, coconut oil, chia seeds, and dark chocolate all contain saturated fat to support these processes. #2 Unsaturated fatty acids Unsaturated fats can be mainly found in vegetables oils, such as canola, olive, sunflower and peanut, and avocados, nuts, and fatty fish. Are unsaturated fats healthy? Unsaturated fats provide the most benefits. They help protect the brain, decrease injury and inflammation, keep the heart healthy, and more. You can think of these fats as the protectors of your body. They fight to keep your body healthy from negative stress that can be harmful. The omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids A distinction is made between omega-6 fatty acids (contained in sunflower, corn, and soy oil) and omega-3 fatty acids. Omega-3 fatty acids protect the cardiovascular system while preventing heart disease. Moreover, they positively affect our cholesterol levels by raising the so-called “good” cholesterol (HDL) and also play a vital role in brain development. The amount that most people eat has started to lean heavily towards omega-6 consumption and away from omega-3, which can promote chronic inflammation in the body. Most of us are eating around a 17:1 ratio of omega-6s to omega-3s, when it should be more around 5:1. What are some good sources of omega-3? There are a variety of omega-3 fat sources including: fatty fish (salmon, tuna, trout, herring), avocado, oils (flax, fish, olive, avocado), nuts (pecans, cashews, almonds, walnuts), seeds (flax seeds, chia seeds, pumpkin seeds). The great thing about these fats is that they are incredibly easy to incorporate! Try to add a source of fat to each meal in order to recharge throughout the day. This can be 1/4 of an avocado, a spoonful of oil, a sprinkle of nuts or seeds, or swapping in fatty fish as your protein source at meals. Learn more about nuts Besides containing good fats, nuts have other health benefits – check this infographic to compare the health benefits and nutritional content of different nuts! #3 Trans fats This type of fat can be found in heavily processed foods, fried foods, cakes and cookies, margarine, frozen meals, and more. Are trans fats healthy? Artificial trans fats are created by an industrial process in which hydrogen is added to oil to solidify it. A high intake of these foods has been associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality.(2) This is mainly due to the fact that these fats lower good cholesterol, raise bad cholesterol, and promote inflammation. Trans fats can be hidden, but your best bet is to look for grams of trans fat on the nutrition label and look for partially hydrogenated oils in the ingredient section. Instead of fast food french fries, try making fries at home in the oven. A rule of thumb for your fat requirement Fats should account for about 30% of your caloric intake.(3) Different diets, such as the keto diet, can suggest different ratios of fat, carb, and protein intake. In general, an adult needs approximately 60 to 80 grams of fat per day. When eating foods high in fats, it’s pretty easy to reach that amount… Examples for foods rich in fats: - 1 cup of avocado = 22 g of fat - Handful of almonds = 14 g of fat - 3 squares of extra dark chocolate (30 g) = 14 g - 1 tablespoon of oil = 15 g of fat Fats and sports Just like protein and carbs, fats also play a vital role in sports nutrition. Athletes should definitely keep an eye on their fat intake. US-American nutrition researcher, Artemis Simopulos, recommends 2 g omega-3 fatty acids (EPA/DHA) per day.(4) They are found in fatty fish, but also in linseeds (flax seeds) or chia seeds. One big piece of salmon or one tablespoon of linseed oil already cover your daily requirement. Tips for your everyday life It’s advised to use 10 to 15 g (= 2 to 3 teaspoons or 1 tablespoon) of high-quality vegetable or nut oil for cold meals. In general, try to avoid frying to moderate the amount of fat in your food. Which oils to use for high-heat cooking, sautéing… - Sautéing, searing, frying: Avocado oil - High-heat cooking: Light olive oil, grapeseed oil, butter, ghee - Moderate heat roasting: Coconut oil - Cold plates (finishing oil, vinaigrette/dressing…): High quality walnut oil, flaxseed oil, extra virgin olive oil, pumpkin seed oil, grapeseed oil, avocado oil Did you know… …that fat slows down your digestion? If you incorporate some healthy fats into your diet, you’ll stay full longer. Plus, your blood sugar levels will rise more slowly when combining your meals with (healthy) fats. This helps prevent cravings.

A resolution used to settle housekeeping and procedural matters that affect both houses but not having the force of law. A procedure to keep the Senate going during a filibuster; the disputed bill is shelved temporarily. A special type of joint committee appointed to resolve differences in the House and Senate versions of a piece of legislation. A calling of the role in either house of Congress to determine whether the number of members in attendance meets the minimum number required to conduct official business. Legislation that specifies the conditions and order of succession to the presidency and vice presidency when the president leaves office before completion of his term. Office of Management and Budget The organization responsible for preparing the federal budget and for central clearance of legislative proposals from federal agencies. The power of some governors (and the president in a limited way between 1996 and 1998) to veto portions of a bill instead of having to veto the entire bill. A legal system by which states select electors who then vote for the president and vice president. A government in which one party controls the White House and another party controls one or both houses of Congress.

For the past few months, I’ve been digging into the implications of Canada’s recently announced $170 CAD per ton of CO2 carbon price cap, something the country will move toward annually in $10 and $15 increments before reaching it in 2030. One focus has been Alberta’s electrical grid, where the higher carbon price will radically change the economics of natural gas vs renewables. Another is a national look at heat pumps, where it’s clear both that just putting heat pumps in the worst buildings would have a major impact, and that the carbon price makes natural gas and oil heating much less appealing to the people paying the bills. A Canadian NGO reached out to me due to my string of analyses and publications, and suggested I consider the impact on electric vehicle ownership costs. One of the interesting questions that arose was how to forecast the price of gasoline. Naturally, this is an arcane art at the best of times given the variety of challenges, but obviously the carbon price itself is going to be applied to the retail cost of gasoline. Each liter of gasoline when burned emits CO2, after all. As an odd side note, the Canadian government has a difference of opinion with itself about what numbers to use for the grams of CO2 per liter of gasoline, with the carbon pricing using 2.21 kg of CO2 per liter burned in internal combustion cars and NRCan — and many others — providing a figure of 2.3 kg. It’s only a 4% difference, but it does appear to be an unnecessary discount on an otherwise solid policy. That’s not really going to break the bank. In Canada, the average car gets 8.9 liters per 100 km, at least as of 2017, a bit over 26 miles per gallon. That means that the average car will travel a little over 11 kilometers on a liter, so the tax equates to under a cent a kilometer. And, of course, these are Canadian cents. Even in 2030, that’s only about 3.4 cents a kilometer. The intent, obviously, is to put in place a gently increasing price of driving inefficient internal combustion cars so that when Canadian families decide to replace their cars, they’ll consider more efficient cars, including electric ones. However, that’s not all the carbon price will apply to. As this diagram shows, the gasoline that is pumped out of the gas pump is at the end of a long chain of carbon-intensive activities. All of the portions of those activities which occur in Canada will be subject to some variation of carbon pricing as well. As I wrote recently here, analysis shows that Alberta’s oil sands upstream activities and part of midstream activities by themselves produce as much CO2 as the entire commodity market for the gas globally every year. If we want to project the potential rise in the price of gas, in other words, we want to consider the carbon price’s impact on upstream, midstream, and refinery emissions. There’s another aspect to this that we had to consider: not all gasoline in Canada is created from the same sources at the same refineries. There’s a significant difference between eastern and western consumption, and in provincial level treatments of oil and gas emissions. Western Canadian refineries process Alberta’s oil sands crude with its relatively high CO2 emissions per barrel. Eastern Canadian refineries process a lot more lighter oil and imported oil, which has an impact too. There are three categories of gasoline emissions prior to the pump to consider. The first two are heavy and light crude, and the last is whether it is imported or domestic. That’s important because, at least right now, Canada doesn’t have a carbon border adjustment where tariffs are applied to products from countries which don’t price carbon. The implication for gasoline prices is that as the carbon price rises, the upstream and midstream emissions aren’t taxed, so imported oil doesn’t increase in price. It’s being discussed, and you can be sure that Canadian oil and gas companies that sell domestically want it in place. Now we get into the nitty gritty: how much CO2 should we consider for each liter of oil from upstream, midstream and refining? It’s imperfect, as not all crude is turned into the same products with the same emissions, but adequate for the purposes of our analysis. Combustion of gasoline in an internal combustion engine is always the same, so the variance is from upstream, midstream, and refinery emissions. Pembina puts the North America weighted average at 541 kg of CO2e per barrel of oil, and the oil sands average at 709 kg per barrel of crude. A 2018 study, Global carbon intensity of crude oil production, provides a useful filter, as OCI’s numbers don’t separate refinement from use. This aligns with OCI’s numbers and suggests an easy way to deal with the emissions intensity before burning of gasoline, which is to apply the 15% to 40% numbers to the 2.3 kg of emissions from burning the gasoline. While oil sands crude has improved somewhat, I’ll assume it’s in the 35% range given the recency of study, and as the North American weighted average is higher than the bottom, I’ll use a 20% figure for that. This suggests that for oil sands heavy crude, that there are 0.81 kg of emissions prior to the 2.21 kg of emissions that the Canadian carbon price attributes to the retail liter, and 0.46 kg of emissions for light crude. We now have almost all the numbers to figure out what the carbon tax will do to the real price of gasoline as it increases. The last wrinkle is Alberta’s Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Regulation, or TIER. It’s an alternative carbon market for ‘heavy industrial emitters’ in Alberta, which is to say the oil sands. It allows providers who cut emissions to earn credits and emitters who don’t meet the benchmark to buy credits. It’s an approved variance under the federal carbon tax, but it too will be forced to scale rapidly given the $170 carbon price. I’d calculated the impact of the federal carbon price on the cost of a barrel of Alberta’s primary product at $9 USD on top of the $40 USD average they were fetching on the market, or almost 25%. Given TIER, it’s less than that. For our calculations, we’ll assume that the end cost to oil sands crude is 75% of the increasing carbon price. That’s not only the relatively low cost of TIER per barrel, but the money that they have to spend to achieve emissions reductions to maintain social license and not be penalized by TIER. The combination suggests that the discount that oil sands crude gets still puts it slightly above onshore light oil in terms of the impact of the carbon price, but does clearly give us the uplift for both per liter of gasoline that will find its way to consumers. We’re now in a position for the final assessment, which is the real additional impact of the carbon price per liter of oil, both in the base purchase cost where the carbon debt of creating and delivering it sits, and in the burning of it in the car. The lack of the carbon border adjustment becomes clear here, as provinces which don’t use domestic oil are paying only about 10% of the total carbon debt, for refinement and final distribution alone. A few things were interesting to me upon finishing this analysis. The first was that the oil sands were clearly being given a substantial break by Alberta and Canada on their high emissions, something I found unsurprising, but yet still disappointing. I suspect my analysis of the cost implications for them is overstating the actual impacts, and would welcome feedback from people directly familiar with the application of TIER to the oil sands. The second was that offshore oil was being given a much bigger break at present, as upstream and midstream emissions are not carbon taxed due to the lack of carbon border adjustment. All else being equal, this could lead to shifting sources of petroleum for gasoline in Canada to imported in Ontario and eastward. This benefits neither Canada nor the climate, so obviously isn’t a good outcome. The recent meeting between President Biden and Prime Minister Trudeau included clear statements of alignment on climate policy and protection from unfair competition from foreign suppliers in countries with weaker policies, so this is more likely to be addressed in the next two years than not. Third, the variance across provinces is interesting and unlikely to be represented as cleanly in retail prices. Cross-border shoppers for cheaper gas cause adjustments, and neighboring towns with substantially different gas prices is a political headache. More importantly, the federal carbon price doesn’t apply directly to gasoline sold in Quebec, Nova Scotia, the Northwest Territories (not represented in the model), and British Columbia, as these provinces and territories have province-level carbon and pollution pricing systems deemed sufficiently stringent by the federal government. However, just as it is reasonable to expect increasing prices on carbon from oil sands emissions, it is reasonable to expect that these provinces will increase their carbon pricing roughly in step with the federal increments. It will be interesting to see how actual gasoline prices track with this analysis as we approach 2030. Given that 40 to 50 cents CAD is around a third the price of a liter of gasoline today, that is a significant increase and should drive behaviors. But it will also drive consumer awareness of the cost transactionally, while rebates are only quarterly. Politically, this is not necessarily a solved equation. All of this is to say that someone who owns an electric car in 2030 will be saving hundreds of dollars per year. The economics of electrics keep getting better, especially in jurisdictions that are implementing good climate policies.

How does cAMP affect cells? Cyclic AMP (cAMP) is an intracellular second messenger to a wide variety of hormones and neurotransmitters. In T cells, elevated cAMP levels antagonize T cell activation by inhibiting T cell proliferation and by suppressing the production of IL-2 and IFN-γ. How is ATP made into cAMP? In mammalian cells, cAMP is generated from ATP via the action of the transmembrane adenylyl cyclase (tmsAC) and G protein located in the plasma membrane or via the action of soluble adenylyl cyclase (sAC) located in the cytoplasm, in the nucleus, and in the mitochondrial matrix. How are cAMP levels measured? The cAMP-Glo™ Max Assay measures cAMP levels through protein kinase A (PKA), which is activated upon release of its regulatory subunits after binding to cAMP (Figure 1). PKA is a component of the cAMP Detection Solution, and once activated, PKA will use any ATP present to phosphorylate its substrate. Why does apoptosis occur? Apoptosis occurs normally during development and aging and as a homeostatic mechanism to maintain cell populations in tissues. Apoptosis also occurs as a defense mechanism such as in immune reactions or when cells are damaged by disease or noxious agents (Norbury and Hickson, 2001). What happens if cAMP is inhibited? The cAMP pathway is studied through loss of function (inhibition) and gain of function (increase) of cAMP. If cAMP-dependent pathway is not controlled, it can ultimately lead to hyper-proliferation, which may contribute to the development and/or progression of cancer. Why is cyclic AMP important? Cyclic AMP plays an important role in the regulation of metabolism generally. cyclic AMP leads to a net increase in hepatic glucose production by at least three mechanisms: stimulation of phosphorylase activation, suppression of glycogen synthetase activity, and stimulation of gluconeogenesis. What is cAMP in cells? Cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) is a second messenger used for intracellular signal induction. It is synthesized from adenosine triphosphate (ATP) by enzymes (g-proteins) that are attached to metabotropic receptors and become released when the receptor is activated. What induces camping? Adenylate cyclases (AC) produce cAMP from adenosin-tri-phosphate (ATP). High levels of cytosolic cAMP lead to activation of protein kinase A (PKA). PKA stimulation induces the phosphorylation of transcription factors, such as CREB, ICER/CREM, ATF-1, and CBP to drive camp-driven genes. How is cAMP formed? Cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) was the original “second messenger” to be discovered. Its formation is promoted by adenylyl cyclase activation after ligation of G protein–coupled receptors by ligands including hormones, autocoids, prostaglandins, and pharmacologic agents. How is cGMP measured? The method of choice for measuring tissue levels of cGMP is a radioimmunoassay, but it can also be measured using a scintillation proximity assay. Why does cell death occur? Why do cells die? When cells are not needed, such as during certain stages of development. To create a structure in the body, for example, the outer layer of the skin is made of dead cells. To remove excess cells, such as white blood cells after an infection has been cleared. What kills a cell? Cell killing occurs when critical targets within the cell are damaged by radiation. If radiation is absorbed by the DNA itself, the atoms of the DNA can become ionized and damaged. ▪ This is termed the direct effect of radiation. What is cell death called? In multicellular organisms, cells that are no longer needed or are a threat to the organism are destroyed by a tightly regulated cell suicide process known as programmed cell death, or apoptosis. How is cAMP deactivated? cAMP binds to protein kinase A and activates it, allowing PKA to phosphorylate downstream factors to produce a cellular response. cAMP signaling is turned off by enzymes called phosphodiesterases, which break the ring of cAMP and turn it into adenosine monophosphate (AMP). Does cAMP activate PKA? Protein kinase A (PKA) is activated by the binding of cyclic AMP (cAMP), which causes it to undergo a conformational change. The alpha subunit then binds to adenylyl cyclase, which converts ATP into cAMP. cAMP then binds to protein kinase A, which activates it. Do plants use cAMP? cAMP Is a Second Messenger in Plant Tip Growth. cAMP signaling has been a controversial issue in plant cells despite occasional reports of gene homologs for elements of this pathway (24) and responses induced by modulators of AC activity (25, 26). What does cAMP do in the heart? cAMP in heart failure As stated in introduction, cAMP primarily, but not exclusively, controls beating frequency, force of contraction and relaxation, essentially through the β-adrenergic signaling pathway. This pathway is necessary for the beneficial effects of catecholamines on cardiac contractility. What is the role of cAMP in cell signaling? Adenosine 3′,5′-cyclic monophosphate (cAMP) is a nucleotide that acts as a key second messenger in numerous signal transduction pathways. cAMP regulates various cellular functions, including cell growth and differentiation, gene transcription and protein expression. What does cAMP do in neurons? The second messenger cyclic AMP (cAMP) is a major intracellular mediator of many hormones and neurotransmitters and regulates a myriad of cell functions, including synaptic plasticity in neurons. What does being cAMP mean? ostentatious, exaggerated, affected, theatrical; . So as a noun, ‘camp’ behaviour, mannerisms, et cetera. (cf. What does cAMP do to calcium? The cAMP/PKA pathway promotes ryanodine receptor-mediated calcium induced calcium release, whereas cGMP and its downstream effector protein kinase G (PKG) reduces the ryanodine receptor-dependent mobilization of internal calcium stores (Ooashi et al., 2005; Tojima et al., 2009). What does cAMP do to the lungs? cAMP plays a key role in the functions of many airway cells including controlling ciliary beat frequency (critical for mucus clearance) in airway epithelial cells and suppressing the pro-inflammatory activity of various immune and inflammatory cells.

You are here Story telling grid It is a low preparation but high output activity which can be used with teens and adults. - First of all draw a grid on the board and then put one word in each box. You can make your story grid any size you want but the bigger the grid is the more complicated the activity will become. - You can recycle vocabulary that students are currently working on in class in the story grid, but to ensure that students can create a good story you should include a mixture of words, such as people and place names, verbs, nouns, adjectives etc., and it is usually good to throw in words that might give the story a bit more spice, such as crime, love, hate, murder, theft, robbery, broken-hearted, treasure, accident, etc. - Explain to the students that the aim of the activity is to create a story using all the words in the story grid. Students can use any vocabulary or grammar they want to but they have to include all the words in the story grid. - The first time you do this activity you can use the example story grid below and model the story telling part of the activity for the students and then give the students another example story grid from the worksheet to use, or you can easily create your own story grid. - Another variation is to get students to create story grids for each other to use. Next get the students to create their own stories in pairs or small groups and once the students have created their stories, they can retell their story to you, the rest of the class or to other groups. Follow-up activities and variations - At the end of the activity the class could vote on the best stories in different categories, for example the most creative story, the most interesting story, the funniest story, the best told story etc. This activity can also be easily developed into a creative writing activity, either individually as homework or as pair or group writing practice. - Another interesting spin-off is to get students to rewrite their stories as a radio drama. If you have recording facilities the students can perform and record their radio drama to listen to in class. If you do not have recording facilities you can get students to write their story as a short play and try to find them an audience who they can perform to such as another English teacher or another English class. Feedback on language use - I find it is best to give students individual or group feedback on their language use in a storytelling activity after the students have finished telling the story for the first time. - I usually make notes of anything I would like to go over with students while they are telling the story. - I find interrupting students to correct their language use while they are telling the story dampens their creative mood and restricts their language use. - If the students are going to record their story or perform it live, I get them to perform it to me again so I can help them with their language before they record it or perform it to an audience outside of the class.

NEW CANAAN -- Members of the Ridgefield High girls cross country team were sad and distressed but their mood had nothing to do with being dethroned at the Fairfield County Interscholastic Athletic Conference championship meet. in an ambulance as a precaution. Howley, a junior who placed fourth, was right behind Corso when she went down for the second time. "We all trained really hard. It was just really hot out and everyone was trying their best. I think it was the heat. It was really humid," Howley said. The unseasonably warm weather (it was in the mid 70s) combined with the high humidity kept a small army of medical personnel busy. In the neighborhood of 20 boys and girls were treated, and more than a half-dozen were transported to a hospital. Wilton, the last team to win the title before Ridgefield, took back the crown by putting five in the top 16 and scoring 54 points. The Tigers were next with 70 as Howley (4th), Corso (5th), sophomore Jenna McClane (18th), senior Kelly Holmes (21st) and freshman Kori Krichko (22nd) scored. Howley, who ran 14:53, was pleased with her performance. "I felt really good," she said. "I didn't go out too fast. I just tried to stay mentally positive. I tried to stay with the (lead) pack and kick it in the last 800 (meters)." Ridgefield coach Sandy Hoddinott spoke by cell phone to Corso and her mother, Janet, a few hours later while they were at the hospital. He said Corso was OK and that she probably would remain there overnight. "The sense I had was that they were fine but she was with her mother and they both said she was doing very well. They seem to be fine," Hoddinott said. "We'll have to see what they find out. She had a lot of water, maybe too much. As soon as I get out of here I'll go down and see how she's doing," he said. Danbury placed sixth with 140 points. Junior Emily Campbell (20th, 15:58) led the way. Darien's Caroline McDonough , last year's runner-up to Ridgefield graduate Heather Stephens , prevailed with a time of 14:29. Runner-up Meg Ryan , a Fairfield Warde junior, was nine seconds off the winning pace. Team scoring: 1, Wilton 54. 2, Ridgefield 70. 3, Darien 123. 4, Fairfield Warde 124. 5, Trumbull 128. 6, Danbury 140. 7, New Canaan 199. 8, Staples 213. 9, Fairfield Ludlowe 219. 10, Westhill 258. 11, Greenwich 301. 12, St. Joseph 340. 13, Bridgeport Central 416. No score: Harding, Brien McMahon , Norwalk, Bassick, Stamford. (Wilt) 15:42. 12, Mia Benjamin (FL) 15:50. 13, Lexi Hoadley (FW) 15:50. 14, Sara Guth (Wilt) 15:52. 15, Lily Murphy (FL) 15:53. 16, Camille Basurto (Wilt) 15:54. 17, Ashley Cyr (Tr) 15:55. 18, Jenna McClane (Ridge) 15:56. 19, Camille Matonis (Gr) 15:57. 20, Emily Campbell (Danb) 15:58. 21, Kelly Holmes (Ridge) 16:00. 22, Kori Krichko (Ridge) 16:02. 23, Megan Keane (Dar) 16:04. 24, Phoebe Gaston (Wilt) 16:05. 25, Dana Angotta (Danb) 16:05.

version: 1.0.{build} os: Visual Studio 2017 clone_folder: C:\projects\tbb test: off configuration: - Debug - Release branches: only: - master environment: matrix: - CMAKE_PLATFORM: "Visual Studio 15 2017" - CMAKE_PLATFORM: "Visual Studio 15 2017 Win64" install: - cinstall: python build_script: - echo Running cmake... - cd c:\projects\tbb - cmake -G "%CMAKE_PLATFORM%" -DCMAKE_SUPPRESS_REGENERATION=1 -DTBB_CI_BUILD=ON . - set MSBuildLogger="C:\Program Files\AppVeyor\BuildAgent\Appveyor.MSBuildLogger.dll" - cmake --build . --config %Configuration% -- /v:m /logger:%MSBuildLogger% - ctest -C %Configuration% --output-on-failure --timeout 500

Yeah, yta. You're teens and don't need to be in the mindset of work work work. Y'all got plenty of time to get their. Your parents should be buying you the basics and your money is perhaps towards a car you wanted or movies and dinner with friends, saving for college etc. 30$ isnt that much. She was told to spend it on what SHE wanted and she did. You got a job and want to save or buy more basic needs items, cool thats on you. It's not lazy for her not to work at 16, either. Get off that Judgemental Judy train and keep your opinion on her funds to yourself

Posted by tourdemars to Mars Exploration Rovers at January 31, 2014 12:32 PMThe Opportunity rover recently celebrated 10 years on Mars, even though the mission was only planned for three months. Engineers thought the rover would conk out much sooner, in part because they believed its solar panels would quickly become caked with dust and cut off the robot's power supply. Instead, they found that wind storms actually help to clean the panels. Over the years, Opportunity has taken several self-portraits — an overhead view of the rover made by combining several images — that give us a good idea of how much dust has accumulated on the solar panels. Compared to its first year on Mars, the rover is looking really dirty today. TrackBack URL for this entry:

True or False: People over 50 require less sleep than younger adults. If you answered "False," you're right. A common misconception is that older adults need less sleep than younger adults. How are sleep and aging related? The amount of sleep you need does depend on your age. Children and teens, for example, need more sleep than adults. Older adults need about the same amount of sleep as younger adults (seven to nine hours per night). Sleep recommendations for different age groups include: |Age||Recommended Amount of Sleep| 16-18 hours a day 11-12 hours a day At least 10 hours a day 9-10 hours a day |Adults (including the elderly)|| 7-8 hours a day Sleep needs and older adults Regardless of age, sleeping well is essential to physical and emotional well-being. For many adults, a good night’s sleep is especially important because it helps improve concentration and memory. Sleep can allow your body to repair daily cell damage. It even strengthens your immune system. Unfortunately, many older adults often get less sleep than they probably need – or poor sleep altogether. Along with the obvious physical changes associated with aging, certain changes to your sleep patterns are also part of the normal aging process. A lot of older adults have a harder time falling asleep. Then, once they actually do fall asleep, older people tend to sleep less deeply and wake up more often during the night. Poor sleep patterns may be why many seniors often nap during the daytime. Sleep schedules may change with age, too. Many older adults tend to get sleepy earlier in the evening and awaken earlier in the morning. Poor sleep can lead to problems Not sleeping well can result in a number of health problems. Older adults with poor sleep patterns are more likely to feel depressed, and have attention and memory problems. They may also notice excessive daytime sleepiness. Older adults who don’t sleep well are prone to accidents and falls, more illnesses and infections, as well as a significantly reduced overall quality of life. Sometimes, they become dependent on alcohol or medications to get enough sleep. Sleep problems unrelated to age Sleep and aging are not always related. Most people have nights of "tossing and turning" with little sleep. Sometimes – it’s a normal experience. But, if you experience any of these symptoms on a regular basis, talk to your doctor: Many people believe that poor sleep is a "normal" part of aging, but it is not. Many older adults report few or no sleep problems. If you are having trouble sleeping, talk with your doctor or a sleep specialist. There are treatments that can help. Our Blue365® member discount program gives you access to exclusive health and wellness deals. If you're a member, start saving with Blue365 today.Save Money Log in for tools that help you stay healthy and ahead of the game.Health Management Tools

Northern Museums Volunteer Pass Scheme About The deadline to join the scheme for 2019/21 has now passed The Northern Museums Volunteer Pass Scheme is one of the largest schemes in England and is open to all Accredited museums, or those who have received official recognition of working towards Accreditation, in the North West, North East and Yorkshire and Humberside regions. The Museums Volunteer Pass scheme is a mutually beneficial partnership between participating museums and entitles volunteers to free entry and/or other benefits at participating museums across the three regions. can be extended to include one guest accompanying the volunteer pass holder. What's the benefit to your museum? - Gaining Inspiration - Museums said the benefits were: "ideas for future museum development" "compare notes with volunteers from other sites" "Gain inspiration and ideas from other sites" - Rewarding your volunteers. As one museum said - "the passes are a good way of thanking our volunteers and definitely something we can offer them in return for volunteering" - Raises awareness of your museum. As one museum said "[the passes] market what's on offer to future possible visitors" and another "[the pass] helps promote the region as a whole". - Networking and Benchmarking. Museums said the benefits were: "to build understanding and make relationships to other museums. To see and learn from what other organisations are delivering. To be able to bench mark against what we deliver, and what we could deliver." "Being part of a museum community." For information about the scheme please see the related documents below, or contact Gillian Waters gillian.waters@ymt.org.uk.

Founding and Growth of the Organization On 3 October 1969, 16 chiefs united in opposition to the Trudeau government’s “White Paper” by forming the Indian Brotherhood of the Northwest Territories. The White Paper proposed to transfer the responsibility for Indigenous peoples from the federal government to the provinces and territories. Since then, the Indian Brotherhood of the Northwest Territories sought to protect the rights and interests of the Dene people in Canada. The organization evolved in response to long-standing concerns over the written terms found in the federal government’s versions of Treaties 8 and 11 signed with the Dene in 1899–1900 and 1921–22, respectively. While the government maintained that the Dene extinguished (i.e., surrendered) their rights to the land by signing the treaties, the Dene argued that their ancestors never intended to do so (see Indigenous Territory). After conducting research and reaching out to Dene communities in the Northwest Territories, the presiding judge, Justice W.G. Morrow, determined that the Dene did in fact have rights to the land and its resources. However, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the case — known as the Paulette caveat — based on a technicality. Nevertheless, Justice Morrow’s findings about Aboriginal rights remained valid and led the federal government to accept that further negotiations on the Dene interests were necessary. Self-Government and Land Claims In 1976, the Indian Brotherhood of the Northwest Territories released the Dene Declaration and Manifesto. This document called for Dene self-government in the Mackenzie Valley (see Mackenzie River). It was in this area that the proposed Mackenzie Valley Pipeline was to be laid. However, incompatibility between the Dene position and that of the federal government regarding rights and title to the lands and resources of the Mackenzie Valley has made this an ongoing issue. In 1978, the Brotherhood formally changed its name to the Dene Nation as a means of including “all those who have formally declared themselves under the Dene registry.” The organization continued to press for the rights and interests of the Dene people. In 1981, the federal government and the Dene worked to negotiate a comprehensive land claim with respect to non-political aspects of outstanding land issues. The government suspended negotiations after the Dene Assembly passed a resolution in 1990 insisting that Aboriginal and treaty rights be affirmed in the final agreement. A year later, the Canadian Human Rights Commission supported the Dene’s claims to Aboriginal rights and called on the Canadian government to review its policy of extinguishment. Over the course of the following decades, the Dene made some advancement with respect to land claims and self-government. In July 1993, the Sahtu Dene and Métis overwhelmingly approved a comprehensive land claim agreement negotiated with the territorial and federal governments. The Sahtu Dene and Métis received title to 41,437 km2 of land, a financial payment of $75 million, rights to hunt and fish on the territory and a guarantee to consult with the Dene on certain matters such as land use and resources in the settlement area. On 1 September 2016, the Deline Dene (beneficiaries of the Sahtu land claim) achieved the right to self-government. The Deline Go’tine Government became the Northwest Territories’ first Indigenous self-government. The Dene Nation is made up of executive and regional councils that represent the Denesuline (Chipewyan), Tlicho (Dogrib), Deh Gah Got’ine (Slavey), K’ashot’ine (Hareskin) and Dinjii Zhuh (Gwich’in, once called Loucheux). Members gather together every year at the National Assembly, where they discuss political, legal, social and cultural matters affecting the Dene people. The first president of the organization (now known as national chief) was Morris Lafferty of Fort Smith in the Northwest Territories. Subsequently, Mona Jacobs, Roy Daniels, James Wah-Shee, Georges Erasmus, Stephen Kakfwi and Bill Erasmus have held the senior executive position. The Dene Nation has been engaged in programs concerning Dene health, education, community development, legal issues, land and resource development, and communications. The organization continues to work towards self-government and recognition of Indigenous rights and territory in Canada.

It's illegal because the law explicitly states that what they are doing is illegal. From the affidavit linked in the article: &gt;California Civil Code Section 1798.91. l, Subdivision \(b\) makes it unlawful for "any person engaged in publishing or otherwise disseminating a booking photograph through a print or electronic medium to solicit, require, or accept the payment of a fee or other consideration from a subject individual to remove, correct, modify, or to refrain from publishing or otherwise disseminating that booking photograph."

The Boondocks by Aaron McGruder for August 09, 2001 Transcript: Huey: The movies again? But everything's been so bad this summer! Caesar: But we're choosing between "Planet of the Apes" and "Rush Hour 2." We can't lose. Huey: Hmmm...so the choice is between Michael Clarke Duncan as a big black monkey...or Chris Tucker jumping around and acting a fool like a big black - Caesar: Stop it. Micheal Clarke Duncan played an ape??? Never knew this.

Researchers have developed an experimental vaccine that protects monkeys against the Ebola virus. They are now testing this vaccine on human volunteers in the United States. Plans call for additional testing on volunteers in Britain and West Africa. A report on the experimental vaccine was published on Sunday in the journal Nature Medicine. More than 20 researchers were involved in the Ebola study. Researchers from the U.S. National Institutes of Health reported that the vaccine was given to four monkeys. The treatment protected all four animals against Ebola when they were exposed to the virus five weeks later. Reports say other monkeys left unprotected died within six days. The researchers said they gave a second, or “booster,” vaccine to another group of monkeys two months after the first injection. This vaccine was similar to the first. It extended protection for all vaccinated monkeys for up to 10 months. They did not become sick. Eight monkeys were given the first injection but not the second. When these animals were exposed to Ebola 10 months later, half of them died. The vaccine tested by the NIH is similar to one being developed by drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline. It prepares the body’s natural defenses against disease to fight the virus when an infection takes place. The human testing began last week at the NIH near Washington, DC. The tests involve about 20 healthy volunteers. Researchers want to know not just if the vaccine is safe, but if it can cause the human body to react strongly enough to prevent Ebola infection. The volunteers will get only the first injection, not the booster shot. But, in later tests, volunteers will receive both vaccines. The World Health Organization says it will know by November if the vaccine is safe for people. If so, it would be sent quickly to West Africa, going first to healthcare workers. The NIH says as many as four vaccines are being developed. Ten drugs are being tested as possible cures for people already infected with Ebola. President Barack Obama says the U.S. military would help in the fight against Ebola. The disease has killed more than 2,000 people in West Africa. The affected countries include Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea and Nigeria. Mr. Obama spoke Sunday on the NBC television program Meet the Press. He said military equipment will be used to build “isolation centers” -- places where people infected with the virus can be separated from others. He said the U.S. military could also provide security for international health workers. Mr. Obama warned that it will be months before the virus is stopped. But he said if efforts are not made to stop Ebola, it could spread across Africa and around the world. Dr. Anthony Fauci is the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at NIH. He told Bloomberg News that widespread use of a vaccine is still, in his words, “a pretty long way off.” And he warned that “the epidemic is not going to be contained by what we are doing now.” In Sierra Leone, officials have told people to stay at home for three days later this month as part of an effort to stop the spread of Ebola. A government official said last Saturday that people will not be permitted to leave their homes from late September 18 until September 21. The aid group Doctors Without Borders has criticized the quarantine order. It said it may cause people to try to hide their infections. Experts have repeatedly said that quarantines and border closures do not help control Ebola. Instead, they say people suspected of being infected should be immediately treated. The NIH says it knows how to stop the spread of Ebola: find people infected with the virus, keep them away from others, give them medical care and treat others they may have infected. It says people must be taught how to safely bury those who die from the disease. And it says healthcare workers must be trained how to control infections in hospitals. It says following these methods “is how all previous Ebola outbreaks have been stopped.” Dr. Fauci said that if we want to stop the spread of the virus, we must, in his words, “make sure people do what works.” I’m Jonathan Evans VOA’s Christopher Cruise reported this story from Washington and wrote it for Learning English. Some material for the story came from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, VOANews.com, Bloomberg News, the Associated Press and Reuters. George Grow edited this story. Words in the News experiment - n. a test or trial carried out to prove if an idea is true or false, or to discover something test - v. to attempt to learn or prove what something is like or how it will act by studying or doing; n. an attempt to learn or prove what something is like or how it will act by studying or doing; a group of questions or problems used to find out a person’s knowledge extend - v. to stretch out in area or length; to continue for a longer time infected - v. to make sick with something that causes disease Now it’s your turn to use these Words in the News. In the comments section, write a sentence using one of these words and we will provide feedback on your use of vocabulary and grammar.

salt 1 1/2 tsp. I’ve had friends and family “complain” to me over the years that their cookies always turn out flat and they can never figure out why. It wasn’t that at all. nutmeg 1/2 c. butter 1 c. packed brown sugar 3/4 c. granulated sugar I finally discovered that my butter was to soft, so now I wait to get it out until an hour or so before I'm ready to bake. Add sugars and beat until light in color. Weigh your ingredients if you can, you’ll also get better, more accurate results. Makes about 3 dozen cookies. I stuck most of them in the freezer for a picnic we’re going to tomorrow. These are great cookies! Have a Sweet Day...ENJOY,Donna Drury. It was chocolate-chip cookies. Watch Mint Chip Sugar Cookie Video to see how to make them! Anonymous, I gave credit to the exact source from where I got the recipe. 1/2 cup (120 grams) firmly packed light brown sugar. Naturally, I was drawn to the chocolate chip cookies—Blue Chip Chocolate Chip Cookies. Sounds good! (I love that David gives all the amounts in his recipes in cups and grams! Beat the butter and sugars in the bowl of an electric mixer until well combined and smooth. Sometimes I actually alter recipes slightly because we live in a high altitudes, but this time I thought I’d see how it turned out as written. I had problems sometimes that they got really flat. I baked the cookies for 8-9 minutes depending on the cookie sheet. I know the book you cited says it is and I am sure the cookies came out great. I gave the option of walnuts or pecans. Ya gotta love it! Bake for 8-10 minutes or until lightly browned. You can highlight just the recipe and copy and paste it. Scoop the cookie dough into 2-tablespoon-sized balls and put 8 balls of dough on each baking sheets, leaving a couple inches of space between each. Combine flour, baking powder, salt and spices. 10 MINUTE NEVER FAIL MICROWAVE PEANUT BRITTLE, SUGAR COOKIES FOR ROLLING (COOKING SCHOOL), HUNGARIAN TURKEY STUFFING (JOLTOTT PULYKA), APPLE CRUMB PIE (INSPIRED BY GRANDMA K'S). i'll have to remember this recipe! Too bad you don't live in Cincinnati.If you like to discuss, let me know. Also in my comments from back when I first posted these, the owner of Blue Chip responded. Form into 1¼” balls, using rounded tablespoonfuls of dough. Press each cookie flat, dipping into sugar every other time. I have this cookbook but I don't remember if I made these before. ), Blue Chip Chocolate Chip Cookies, by David Lebovitz, The Great Book of Chocolate, from Blue Chip Cookies, 1/2 cup (120 grams) firmly packed light brown sugar, 8 tablespoons (1 stick or 115 grams) unsalted butter, cold, cut into pieces, 1 1/4 cups (175 grams) all purpose flour, 1 1/2 cups (200 grams or 9 ounces) semisweet chocolate chips (I used Ghirardelli 60% cacao chocolate chips—my favorite), 1 cup (130 grams) toasted walnuts or pecans, chopped (I used pecans), Adjust the oven rack to the top third of the oven. I was asked to bring dessert. Like you, I have my old standards that I like! Fruit Cookie Pizza Spread dough evenly on a greased 12 inch pizza pan. Well, here’s your chance to make a great cookie with butter right out of the fridge! Place 2 inches apart on cookie sheets. I’m going to make these for Easter and change the colors to add a pink and blue cookie… We do have an online business we sell and ship, and still have 3 stores, so if you could please include our link of Blue Chip Cookies Direct on your blog, in your article, I will set a coupon code BakingandBoys15, which is 15% off at our online site.Thanks...you look like you are having a great time! 1/2 cup (100 grams) granulated sugar. But if you’re looking for more, any or all information about chocolate, get David’s book, The Great Book of Chocolate. Next from this book, I’m going to make the Chocolate Fitness Cake—with only three ingredients, it’s pretty healthy---cocoa, egg whites and a little bit of sugar, baked like a souffle. David mentioned that this is an authentic recipe written on bakery letterhead from the Blue Chip Cookies bakery that used to be at Ghirardelli Square in San Francisco. I've been baking cookies once a week for years. Those are sure some delicious looking books to gawk at! I think I’ve tried a similar recipe before. She said the David Lebovitz recipe is similar, as most chocolate chip cookies are in a way, but that they use specific brands for things and different ovens than home ovens. In medium mixing bowl, cream butter with electric mixer until fluffy. I just wanted you to know...We use specific brands of sugar and flour, a special mixing process, special ovens etc.. but what makes a Blue Chip a Blue Chip is "secret ingredient packet" that is only available to the franchisees and create Blue Chip Cookie proprietary recipe! --Katrina. 1 teaspoon vanilla extract. Bake for 18 minutes, or until pale golden brown. No matter, these are great cookies.The Pie Baker, I am kind of old school and I know that's a lame answer, but I don't have a print button for my recipes. Mix in the egg, vanilla and baking soda. But the other day I walked past some of my books and stopped to look at the section of books that are all chocolate. Spray flat bottom of measuring cup or drinking glass with cooking spray; dip in sugar. Blue Chip Chocolate Chip Cookies, by David Lebovitz, The Great Book of Chocolate, from Blue Chip Cookies. Of course I agree with you about that favorite chocolate chip cookie recipe, it can't be beat! They've been turning out wonderful. I just made these cookies following your recipe - my husband is American and we live in Australia and he said they taste exactly how Blue Chip Cookies should taste - thanks! Because of its authenticity, I followed the recipe exactly. marshmallow fluff together and spread on cookie dough when dough is cool. Line baking sheets with parchment paper. I try others and while even these Blue Chip cookies are great, we all here still like “my favorite” the best. I think you're right about the butter. I’m only printing the recipe because it’s other places online as well. Grab the Mint Chip Sugar Cookie Recipe! Thanks for stopping by! Stir in the chocolate chips and nuts. One of our favorites is of course,chocolate chip. Beat in eggs. Anyway...wanted to give you the whole story, The Nader's, previous owners, from what I was told shared the general recipe to David's book of flour, sugar etc..but know specifics that would impact franchisees. It's All About The Cookie Blog, Levain Bakery Cookies-NYC--The Best Cookies! The book is slender and thin, but full of everything you’d ever want to know about chocolate and has some great recipes as well. That said, I was pleasantly surprised with how well the Blue Chip Cookies turned out. Spray flat bottom of measuring cup or drinking glass with cooking spray; dip in sugar. I opened up The Great Book of Chocolate, by David Lebovitz. I have my favorite chocolate chip cookie recipe, which will probably always stand as a favorite. cinnamon 1 1/2 tsp. Well, there’s no excuse now! Heat to 300 degrees. Gently stir in blueberries. Not sure if I'll try this recipe or not. Sorry! The cookies look great! Stir in flour mixture, oatmeal and walnuts. I remember a Blue Chip cookie store in Atlanta, and I got one of their CCCs. Even when I get recipes form other internet sources, I never use the print button, I always just copy and paste to my computer. Bake 13-15 minutes at 350 degrees till the cookie is done. Just to provide a little history, In 2005 my husband and I purchased the entire company to included stores, trademarks, registered names, recipes, logo, franchise rights etc.. and although the recipe you have listed is similar on basic ingredients to most chocolate chip cookies, it is not our recipe. Welcome to Baking and Boys.--Katrina, Weekly baking through Baking From My Home to Yours. Which, I think, used to be a cook book, that I had. You can also soak an egg, still in the shell, in hot water for 5 minutes to have a room temperature egg. Well, whatever the case, it works for these. Form into 1¼” balls, using rounded tablespoonfuls of dough. Remove from oven and cool on wire rack. definitely curious about the cold butter aspect of these! Place 2 inches apart on cookie sheets. And not just any cookies – my mom’s homemade blue chocolate-chip cookies, buttery and hot, with the chips still melting.

Between Jews and Muslims. The Story of a European Family (1836 – 2016) This book tells the story of the Oettingers, a Prussian-Jewish family from Posen. Having been recognized as German citizens in 1836, the Oettingers turned from Prussian Jews into German patriots, showing their loyalty to the German Empire by getting their children baptized. However, they once again transformed into committed life reformers, who aimed at filling up everyday life with a new and deeper meaning. It was the women of the family, Emilia Oettinger and her daughters Lisa and Susanna, who followed up the existing Muslim avant-garde, and wanted to be part of a global world culture and become cosmopolitans. War and persecution was an existential caesura for them. However, they survived, immigrated to England after the war and once again got in touch with Muslim circles. For their children, Islam became the main focus of life as well, and they also thought about conversion as means for a final change. The story of the Oettingers does not stand by itself. Around 1900, many German-Jewish families got in touch with Eastern philosophies and religions. There were also Christian families who felt rather drawn to religious alternatives than letting themselves being led from outdated structures of the Church. For some, the life reform movement became the starting point for a wholly new direction of family life. Between the wars, the next generation already experimented with variants of “Eastern Wisdom”, a European interpretation of the East that carved the way for Hindu, Buddhist, Bahai and Muslim missionaries. The book shows the starting points of this religious individualization, which has left marks up until today. 1901, the Indian reformer Mrza Ghulam Ahmad gathers his followers around him, wanting to show what “modern” means to the Ahmadiyya. For him, it is nothing less than the right balance between indigenous and Western knowledge. The turban symbolizes the Indian-Muslim aristocracy and hence the connection to tradition. Here, Persian literature is more important than knowledge of Arabic. A true gentleman deals with the art of Persian Ghazals much more than with the interpretation of Koranic verses. The Fez symbolizes knowledge and enlightenment towards “the West”. It is seen as THE western headgear. It’s owners have studied at English universities and master the “old” as well as the “new” sciences. The Koran, which can be seen in the hands of many of the men in the picture, shows that they are trained to be missionaries. In a couple years, they will be welcomed in Europe as representatives of a new and progressive Islam. In 1928, Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah enrolls at the Berlin University, planning to write his dissertation in physics. The Ahmadiyya society of Lahore has already built a mosque in Berlin and appointed him as Missionary for the growing community. The photo shows his first encounter with the Jewish Oettingers. Susanne Oettinger (on the right) teaches German. Lisa Oettinger (on the left) is a student at an art academy. This encounter will align all their lives in a new direction. In 1930, the mother of Lisa and Susanne, Emilia Oettinger, becomes co-founder of the “Deutsch-Moslemische Gesellschaft e.V.” (German-Muslim Society). Her job is to represent the issues of women. The photo was shot on the day of the foundation. Next to Emilia, there is Hugo Marcus, president of the society, who is philosopher, Jew and homosexual and who has already converted to Islam in 1925. He represents the intellectuals. Next to him, there is S.M. Abdullah, missionary by profession. Behind those three, we can see the four members who are to integrate most important interest groups in the mosque community. Firstly, there is Dr. A. Mansur, a doctor from Egypt, who represents the Non-Ahmadiyya-Muslims in the mosque. Next to him, there is G. Gutzkow, representative of the rather big group of Prussian aristocrats and of former military officers. The Prussian aristocracy forms its own group in the society. They have a military interest in Islam and carry this perspective from the First to the Second World War. Next to Gutzkow, there is M.T. Ahmad, the treasurer. At this time, Ahmad is still student in Medicine at the Berlin University. His headgear shows that he belongs to the owning Indian class. On the right side of the picture, we can see Werner Omar Schubert, who has joint the NSDAP even before 1930. In the society, he will support those who feel drawn to National Socialism. This potpourri of people will decide in the 1930ies to 1940ies on how Islam will develop in Berlin and how it will be perceived by others. In 1933, Lisa Oettinger converts to Islam as the first member of the family. Her mother and sister will only follow this step later on. Her assets show that she was serious about it. Hand-written poems, Sufi poems and a selective of German life reformers, who tried to establish new ways to religion, show that she did not only care about a way to live her life but rather wanted to approach the divine mystery (mysterium tremendum) – as really personal experience. Between Jews and Muslims is based on the assets of the Oettinger family, a commented collection of personal belongings, documents and photographs that is being held in a shrine by the descendants of the family up until today. Its discovery allowed reconstructing the personal decisions of seven generations of a family, which tried to actually give a meaning to phrases like reform, modernity and progress in religious individualization. What appeared was a chapter of European religious history through the eyes of a family.

Q: Changing button text from AlertDialog i am new to developing apps for android and i want to create a simple Conterter app, just for the start. In my view i have a edittext and a Button. If i click the button, it will open a AlertDialog with list of strings. I cant figure out how to manage this: When i click on one item in the AlertView i want to set the text of the button to the selected string and dismiss the AlertDialog. Can somebody please help me ? public class VypocetDlzkyActivity extends Activity { EditText HodnotaDlzka; Button prevodDlzkaZtlacidlo; @Override protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) { super.onCreate(savedInstanceState); setContentView(R.layout.activity_vypocet_dlzky); } public void zmenPrevodZ(View view){ final String[] jednotkyDlzky = {"milimeter", "centimeter", "decimeter", "meter", "kilometer", "svetelny rok"}; AlertDialog.Builder builder = new AlertDialog.Builder(VypocetDlzkyActivity.this); builder.setTitle("Vyberte jednotku"); builder.setItems(jednotkyDlzky,null); new DialogInterface.OnClickListener() { public void onClick(DialogInterface dialog, int item) { String value = jednotkyDlzky[item].toString(); prevodDlzkaZtlacidlo.setText(value); dialog.cancel(); } }; final AlertDialog alert = builder.create(); alert.show(); } A: You need to set the values of these 2 member variables in your onCreate() method, like this: HodnotaDlzka = (EditText)findViewById(R.id.xxxx); prevodDlzkaZtlacidlo = (Button)findViewById(R.id.yyyy); xxxx is the ID you gave the EditText in activity_vypocet_dlzky.xml and yyyy is the ID you gave to the Button. Also, after a button is clicked in the AlertDialog, the dialog is automatically dismissed, so you don't need to call dialog.cancel(). A: Problem is you didnt add any onClick listnerz.On clicking on button you need to call the required method. public class MainActivity extends Activity implements OnClickListener { EditText HodnotaDlzka; Button prevodDlzkaZtlacidlo; @Override protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) { super.onCreate(savedInstanceState); setContentView(R.layout.activity_main); HodnotaDlzka = (EditText) findViewById(R.id.e1); prevodDlzkaZtlacidlo = (Button) findViewById(R.id.b1); prevodDlzkaZtlacidlo.setOnClickListener(this); } @Override public void onClick(View v) { // TODO Auto-generated method stub final String[] jednotkyDlzky = {"milimeter", "centimeter", "decimeter", "meter", "kilometer", "svetelny rok"}; AlertDialog.Builder builder = new AlertDialog.Builder(MainActivity.this); builder.setTitle("Vyberte jednotku"); builder.setItems(jednotkyDlzky,new DialogInterface.OnClickListener() { public void onClick(DialogInterface dialog, int item) { String value = jednotkyDlzky[item].toString(); prevodDlzkaZtlacidlo.setText(value); } }); enter code here final AlertDialog alert = builder.create(); alert.show(); } }

Q: Why did you decide to pursue your current career as a children’s book author after the corps? As a middle school teacher in the Las Vegas Valley, I have noticed a need for our youth to feel celebrated and the lack of representation in contemporary educational literature is disappointing. Through Casmalia Street, a multi-series literary company, we’re able to help bridge the diversity gap in children’s literature and showcase storylines that any child can relate to. Q: Describe your role or a passion project specific to serving the black community. As an avid yogi, I’m currently going through a teacher-training program with the intention to open a yoga studio where I can teach restorative justice to youth through mindfulness. Q: What is the most challenging aspect of your current role? What is the most rewarding? Work-life balance. Being both a teacher and author requires a ton of time and emotional investment. On the other hand, the return on that investment is ongoing, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. It’s energizing to know that just one life is being changed or made better along the way, which seems to always outweigh the challenges. Q: What was the biggest lesson you learned as a Teach For America—Las Vegas Valley corps member that relates to this topic and that you still carry with you? One of the lessons that I learned as a Teach For America—Las Vegas Valley corps member that still holds true is that if you focus on the work, the results will follow. Life will throw a million different distractions at you, and it is so easy to lose focus of the big picture. However, there will always be work to do, and if you are doing work that you find valuable, and fulfilling everything will work itself out. Q: What do you enjoy most about being a teacher in Las Vegas Valley? Teaching is such an important job, and the ultimate reward is being able to impact children each and every day once you step foot into the classroom - it’s priceless. Q: What is the number one thing you want our readers to know about you and your dedication to positively impacting your community? I’m so grateful that I have a chance to positively impact our community by cultivating a lifelong love of reading with our young readers. Through Casmalia Street, my goal is to normalize diverse experiences, while challenging children between the ages of 3 to 7 to dream big and take pride in their cultures and heritage.

My most anticipated album of 2019 EASILYU, and it didn't disappoint. All tracks are phenomenal ( I especially LOVE All The Light We Don't See, those vocals are heavenly), but there are definitely some standouts, Views From The Sun and Coven in particular. I am normally against interlude tracks, but they are used effectively here rather than as 30 second filler tracks for the sole purpose of getting another track on the EP/LP (Fit For A King do this a lot, Alpha Wolf's Fault also comes to mind). I'm sure I'l think of more to say but with all that said for now, does this album give anyone else an intense feeling of longing? A lot of songs on here made me feel borderline depressed because I felt like I was missing someone/something I 'd lost. It feels almost like nostalgia, but not happy nostalgia. The ending vocals of Where We Go When We Die especially hit hard in the feels. I wonder if this was something they were going for. EDIT: Lily And The Moon is also incredible, that chorus is one of the best I’ve heard. The goosebumps won’t leave my skin!

package com.yahoo.dba.perf.myperf.common; import java.net.HttpURLConnection; import java.net.UnknownHostException; import java.util.logging.Level; import java.util.logging.Logger; /** * Add Hipchat integration. So far it is only for alert notification purpose. * We can add command notification in the future. * @author xrao * */ public class HipchatIntegration { private static Logger logger = Logger.getLogger(HipchatIntegration.class.getName()); private String hipchatURL; //must be in the format like https://xxx.hipchat.com/v2/room/{roomnumber}/notification? private String authToken; //we will append authToken to construct the full url private String hostname; private boolean enabled = false; public HipchatIntegration() { } public void init(MyPerfContext ctx){ this.enabled = false; try { this.hostname = java.net.InetAddress.getLocalHost().getHostName(); } catch (UnknownHostException e) { logger.log(Level.WARNING, "Failed to get local host name", e); } this.hipchatURL = ctx.getMyperfConfig().getHipchatUrl(); this.authToken = ctx.getMyperfConfig().getHipchatAuthToken(); if(authToken != null && !authToken.isEmpty() && hipchatURL != null && !hipchatURL.isEmpty())this.enabled = true; if(this.enabled){ //do a test this.enabled = this.sendMessage("MySQL Perf Analzyer Hipchat Integration Initiated on " + this.hostname); if(this.enabled){ logger.info("Hipchat integration is enabed."); } } } public String getHipchatURL() { return hipchatURL; } public void setHipchatURL(String hipchatURL) { this.hipchatURL = hipchatURL; } public String getAuthToken() { return authToken; } public void setAuthToken(String authToken) { this.authToken = authToken; } public boolean isEnabled(){ return this.enabled; } /** * This should be invoked if isEnabled = true * @param mgs */ public boolean sendMessage(String msg) { if(!this.enabled){ logger.info("Hichat is not enabled, ignore."); return false; } java.io.OutputStream out = null; java.io.InputStream in = null; String url = this.hipchatURL+"auth_token="+this.authToken; try { java.net.URL hipchatUrl = new java.net.URL(url); java.net.HttpURLConnection conn = HttpURLConnection.class.cast( hipchatUrl.openConnection()); conn.setDoOutput(true); conn.addRequestProperty("Content-Type", "application/json"); String jsonMsg = this.constructJsonMessage("Source: "+ this.hostname+"\n" + msg); //logger.info("Sending message to hipchat (" + url + "): " + jsonMsg); byte[] jsonByte = jsonMsg.getBytes(); conn.addRequestProperty("Content-Length", String.valueOf(jsonByte.length)); out = conn.getOutputStream(); out.write(jsonByte); out.flush(); int code = conn.getResponseCode(); in = conn.getInputStream(); //logger.info("Recieve response code " + code); if(code >= 200 && code < 400) return true; logger.warning("Failed hipchat integration with URL: " + this.hipchatURL+", code: "+ code+", data: " + jsonMsg); }catch(Throwable th){ logger.log(Level.WARNING, "Failed to send message: " + msg, th); return false; }finally{ if(out != null){ try{out.close();}catch(Exception ex){} } if(in != null){ try{in.close();}catch(Exception ex){} } } return false; } private String constructJsonMessage(String str){ StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder(); sb.append("{\"color\":\"green\",\"message\":\""); sb.append(CommonUtils.escapeJson(str)); sb.append("\",\"notify\":false,\"message_format\":\"text\"}"); return sb.toString(); } }

Learn Chemistry from the best teachers we hand-picked for you. See Chemistry teachers and course rating Experience the 'A-ha!' moment in every topic with entertaining teaching. Introduction to Chemistry The time-saving online video lessons in the Introduction to Chemistry unit provide a basic overview of chemistry and cover topics which, while not unique to Chemistry, are necessary prerequisites to the study of Chemistry. They also discuss Chemistry's approach to common topics like matter, measurements, and mathematics. Topics include: The time-saving online video lessons in the Kinetic Molecular Theory unit explains the three physical states of matter - solids, liquids, and gases - and explain the effects of the differences between these states in chemical interactions. Topics include: The time-saving online video lessons in the Chemical Solutions unit discuss the unique properties of chemical solutions and explains the distinctions between different types of solutions. They also explain the importance of solution concentration. Topics include: Chemical Reaction Rates The time-saving online video lessons in the Chemical Reaction Rates unit explain chemical reactions on a molecular level, how to find the rate of a reaction, which factors affect reaction rates, and how mechanisms are used in multistep reactions. Topics include: Acids and Bases The time-saving online video lessons in the Acids and Bases unit explain the properties of acids and bases and explore reactions between acids and bases on a molecular level. Additional, these videos discuss uses for acids and bases such as buffers and the equilibrium systems. Topics include:

<reponame>Symbo1/wsltools<gh_stars>100-1000 # -*- coding: UTF-8 -*- from .. import Provider as DateTimeProvider class Provider(DateTimeProvider): def day_of_week(self): day = self.date('%w') DAY_NAMES = { "0": "Senin", "1": "Selasa", "2": "Rabu", "3": "Kamis", "4": "Jumat", "5": "Sabtu", "6": "Minggu", } return DAY_NAMES[day] def month_name(self): month = self.month() MONTH_NAMES = { "01": "Januari", "02": "Februari", "03": "Maret", "04": "April", "05": "Mei", "06": "Juni", "07": "Juli", "08": "Agustus", "09": "September", "10": "Oktober", "11": "November", "12": "Desember", } return MONTH_NAMES[month]

Fritz, a 15-week-old schnauzer became a member of the Fraleigh Family of Norwalk, Conn. Fritz, a 15-week-old schnauzer became a member of the Fraleigh Family...of Norwalk, Conn. Graham, a 12-week-old Pomeranian/Chihuahua/Lab mix was adopted by the Hartsman family of Norwalk, Conn. Graham, a 12-week-old Pomeranian/Chihuahua/Lab mix was adopted by the...Hartsman family of Norwalk, Conn. Lewis, a 12-week-old Shar-pei was adopted by the Hossman family of Stamford, Conn. Lewis, a 12-week-old Shar-pei was adopted by the Hossman family of...Stamford, Conn. Pudge, a 16-week-old Chihuahua mix was adopted by the Kerr family of Riverside, Conn. Pudge, a 16-week-old Chihuahua mix was adopted by the Kerr family of...Riverside, Conn. Smudge, a 17-week-old Havanese mix was adopted by the Kim family of Darien, Conn. Smudge, a 17-week-old Havanese mix was adopted by the Kim family of...Darien, Conn. Of the 60 or so pooches that will be in the competition, Norwalk’s Dog Gone Smart adoption program was able to get eight of the puppies into new homes, with several families in Fairfield County. Those eight puppies were part of a group of 16 puppies from Florida Little Dog Rescue, according to Laurie Johnson of the Florida rescue organization. The Puppy Bowl, which will air on the Animal Planet on Sunday at 3 p.m., drafts puppies from rescue groups across the country to play on the big day. This is the first year they will be divided into teams. Among the local dogs are Fritz, a 15-week-old schnauzer adopted by the Fraleigh Family of Norwalk; Graham, a 12-week-old Pomeranian/Chihuahua/Lab mix adopted by the Hartsman family of Norwalk; Lewis, a 12-week-old Shar-pei now living with the Hossman Family of Stamford; Smudge, a 17-week-old Havanese mix adopted by the Kim family of Darien; and Pudge, a 16-week-old Chihuahua mix now with the Kerr family of Riverside. You can see the full lineup here.

A 247-unit senior living facility with 9,900 square feet of commercial space on 3.59 acres near the intersection of Scottsdale and Osborne roads will become a reality. The building height steps away from the west to east, accommodating the required building step-back requirements adjacent to the downtown boundary. The building is broken into two masses with five stories on the west side of the property for assisted living, and six stories on the east for independent living. The two halves will be connected at the ground floor, with an open deck on the second floor. The building will offer ground level and below ground-level parking accessible by a driveway on Osborne Road and a second on 71 Street. The facility will offer 338 parking spaces, while 279 is required by the city. The traffic is expected to be 45% less than what is expected by the zoning. The project will also have a 12,000-square-foot paseo and the sidewalks around the building will have over hangs to provide shade. The city planning commission and development review board both voted unanimously to approve the project. Councilwoman Linda Milhaven moved to accept the project and Councilwoman Tammy Caputi seconded the motion. Mayor David Ortega posed an amendment to have the project set back 32 feet from the curb, but no one seconded the motion. The project’s neighbors are set back 32 feet and 39 feet and Ortega felt the project’s proposed setback of 20 feet would be jarring to pedestrians. “There is a substantial loss of opportunity here by crowding a very important corner,” Ortega said. “This corner, if you look at it, is also where we suspend the banners that say, ‘Welcome to Old Town’ or ‘Rodeo Happening’ and so forth. “So if you’re imagining a tall building or a corner of the building going vertical at that point, we have an interruption and a narrowing for no reason. John Berry, the attorney for the project, pointed out that city ordinance has only required a 20-foot setback since 1985. Berry also pointed out that the restaurants that are considering moving into the building’s ground floor prefer a 20 ft. setback. The building’s neighbors have greater setbacks because they are residential and the idea was to move them back from road noise. He also pointed out the building’s step-backs on the top the floors are greater than what the city requires in order to allow for a view down the street. Councilwoman Linda Milhaven took exception to Ortega’s request. “These projects go through an awful long process,” Milhaven said. “We get P&Z email that’s open to the public that tells us when a case is filed. Applicants call us and show us their project, sometimes even before they file the application. In fact, the mayor said he met with this team six months ago. Caputi echoed that sentiment. Councilwoman Kathy Littlefield said she agreed with the mayor but she was willing to overlook the setback issue because senior living is needed so badly in south Scottsdale. Based on a Councilwoman Solange Whitehead’s questioning, Berry noted the project will use a number of techniques like low-flow toilets and showers instead of baths to reduce water use by 35%.

<reponame>kentcb/pana<gh_stars>0 // Copyright (c) 2020, the Dart project authors. Please see the AUTHORS file // for details. All rights reserved. Use of this source code is governed by a // BSD-style license that can be found in the LICENSE file. import 'package:pana/pana.dart'; import 'package:test/test.dart'; import 'package:test_descriptor/test_descriptor.dart' as d; import 'package:pana/src/package_context.dart'; import 'package:pana/src/report/create_report.dart'; import '../package_descriptor.dart'; void main() { group('Provide documentation', () { test('documentation percent', () { expect(documentationCoverageSection(documented: 1, total: 21).summary, contains('(4.8 %)')); expect(documentationCoverageSection(documented: 0, total: 0).summary, contains('(100.0 %)')); expect(documentationCoverageSection(documented: 5, total: 7).summary, contains('(71.4 %)')); expect(documentationCoverageSection(documented: 7, total: 7).summary, contains('(100.0 %)')); }); test('documentation title', () { expect(documentationCoverageSection(documented: 1, total: 21).summary, contains('### [x] 0/10 points')); expect(documentationCoverageSection(documented: 0, total: 0).summary, contains('### [*] 10/10 points')); expect(documentationCoverageSection(documented: 5, total: 7).summary, contains('### [*] 10/10 points')); expect(documentationCoverageSection(documented: 7, total: 7).summary, contains('### [*] 10/10 points')); }); test('finds example', () async { final descriptor = package('my_package', extraFiles: [ d.dir('example', [ d.file('EXAMPLE.md', ''' # Dev setup Use the following additional dependencies.. # Library use Call this method.. '''), ]), ]); await descriptor.create(); final report = await createReport(PackageContext( toolEnvironment: await ToolEnvironment.create(), packageDir: descriptor.io.path, options: InspectOptions(), )); final section = report.sections.firstWhere((s) => s.title == 'Provide documentation'); expect(section.grantedPoints, 10); expect(section.summary, isNot(contains('No example found.'))); }); test('missing example', () async { final descriptor = package('my_package'); await descriptor.create(); final report = await createReport(PackageContext( toolEnvironment: await ToolEnvironment.create(), packageDir: descriptor.io.path, options: InspectOptions(), )); final section = report.sections.firstWhere((s) => s.title == 'Provide documentation'); expect(section.grantedPoints, 0); expect(section.summary, contains('No example found.')); }); }); }

July 10, 1862 (Thursday) More infamously remembered for its pro-slavery stance, Union General George B. McClellan’s “Harrison Bar Letter” also called for the protection of Southern citizens. Since the rebellion had, in fact, become a war, it should be fought between warriors, leaving the noncombatants unharmed. “It should not be a war upon a population,” wrote McClellan, “but against armed forces and political organizations.” Specifically, private property (including enslaved men and women) and unarmed persons must be protected, political executions must be stopped. The Federal armies must behave themselves: “All private property taken for military use should be paid or receipted for; pillage and waste should be treated as high crimes; all unnecessary trespass sternly prohibited, and offensive demeanor by the military towards citizens promptly rebuked. Military arrests should not be tolerated, except in places where active hostilities exist, and oaths not required by enactments constitutionally made should be neither demanded nor received.”1) Of course not a word of this letter had reached General John Pope, now commanding the Army of Virginia in and around the Shenandoah Valley. While McClellan was hoping to turn the wretched periphery of war away from the citizens, General Pope was hoping to turn the periphery into the focal point. Because this was a war and those who fought it, more or less, honorable gentlemen, decreed Pope, the soldiers officially in the ranks would be treated respectfully under the rules of civilized warfare. The bands of partisans, who dressed in the garb of civilians, but “attack and murder straggling soldiers, molest trains of supplies, destroy railroads, telegraph lines, and bridges, and commit outrages disgraceful to civilized people and revolting to humanity” will receive none of the privileges or immunities that would be offered to soldiers in the field. While this was hardly a new or surprising idea, General Pope was hardly finished. Pope saw no difference between a Rebel guerrilla and an “evil-disposed person” who aided the Rebels by encouraging them. And since there was no way to tell the difference between an “evil-disposed person” and a law abiding citizen, all must pay the price. Pope so ordered “that wherever a railroad, wagon-road, or telegraph, is injured by parties of guerrillas, the citizens living within five miles of the spot shall be turned out in mass to repair the damage.” These same citizens were also ordered to pay for the repairs, as well as the wages of the soldiers who had to be kept from the front to make sure the new laborers did as they were ordered. And Pope was still not finished. “If a soldier or legitimate follower of the army be fired upon from any house,” resolved Pope, “the house shall be razed to the ground and the inhabitants sent prisoners to the headquarters of this army. [...] Any persons detected in such outrages, either during the act or at any time afterward, shall be shot without awaiting civil process.”2 With the escape of Stonewall Jackson’s force to Richmond, all that was left in the Shenandoah Valley were unorganized bands of partisans. Pope had pulled most of his men out of the Valley, leaving a small brigade at Winchester. But the fear that Jackson had put into his men still remained. Long after Jackson departed the Valley, rumors of his presence were thickly drizzled over everything the Federals tried to do. When it became obvious that he had moved to Richmond, they stopped. But now that the Seven Days Battles were over, the rumors were coming back. “Reports are current in Fredericksburg this morning,” wrote General Rufus King, “that the Confederate troops under Stonewall Jackson, are advancing in this direction.”3 Like most rumors about Stonewall Jackson, this one was unfounded. Jackson, along with Longstreet’s Corps of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, had been pulled back to their old positions just outside of Richmond. This did not set well with Jackson, who fully believed that McClellan was beaten. He again sent his envoy, Congressman Alexander Boteler into Richmond to argue in Jackson’s favor for a northward push towards Washington. Rather than talk to Lee about such matters, Jackson wanted Boteler to take this directly to President Davis. At first Boteler balked at the idea of going over General Lee’s head. But Jackson had already talked to Lee about this. He had heard nothing in response and felt that valuable time was being wasted, just like in the confusion after Manassas. Boteler met with Davis, but, thus far, nothing had come of it. He couldn’t very well launch such an offensive when the Confederate Army so badly needed to recuperate. Still, Pope’s growing presence might leave them little choice in the matter.4 - “Harrison’s Bar Letter,” July 7, 1862. As printed in McClellan’s Own Story by George B. McClellan, C.L. Webster, 1887. [↩] - Orders No. 7, July 10, 1862. As found in The Rebellion Record, Vol. 5, p361. [↩] - Official Records, Series 1, Vol. 12, Part 3, p463. [↩] - Stonewall Jackson by James I. Robertson, MacMillan, 1997. [↩]

World production of crops allows use for biofuels Improving crop productivity contributes to lessening our reliance on fossil fuels. Domestic biofuel production has increased substantially in the past few years in response to market demands and public policy. In 2012, the United States produced approximately 14 billion gallons of ethanol (mostly from corn grain) and 1 billion gallons of biodiesel (mostly from soybeans), nearly a 50 percent increase since 2008. Growth in the biofuels sector has created additional demand for feedstock, especially corn and soybean. The American farmer has ramped-up crop production to meet demands for food, fuel, feed and fiber. One management tool that has been implemented by growers is the use of genetically engineered (GE) crops. According to “The realized yield effect of genetically engineered Crops: U.S. maize and soybean,” by Zheng Xu et al., “By 2012, 88 percent of the maize crop and 93 percent of the soybean crop were accounted for by GE varieties.” The genetics inserted into these crops have “emphasized insect resistance, herbicide tolerance and stacked traits that combine these attributes.” This tool is one in a long line of technological advancements that began with selectively cultivating wild plant species to increase their production of the plant parts that we desire, such as seeds, leaves, stalks, roots, etc. One single technology, on its own, can’t be credited for long-term productivity gains. According to Xu, “engineered crops have increased yields for corn, but have not done so for soybeans. However, we must not settle here and rest on our laurels. Xu’s article reports that “continued improvements in agricultural productivity are critical to pursuing the goal of global food security when facing the challenges of a sizable expected global population growth, climate uncertainties, environmental stress and land degradation, and the expansion of land used for nonfood production.” While biofuels derived from grain reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, it seems clear that we will need to manage our resources to further increase yields and meet competing demands. Research and development in crop production is being funded by private industry and public universities. The adoption of these tools is supported by the farm supply chain as well as agencies like Michigan State University Extension. - “The realized yield effect of genetically engineered Crops: U.S. maize and soybean,” Zheng Xu et al., Crop Science

SANDUSKY Fred W. Allen, 87, residing in the Community of Parkvue since 2001, died Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2007, in Parkvue Health Care Center, after a lengthy illness. He was born in Detroit, on Aug. 16, 1920. He was a U.S. Navy veteran, and retired from the Naval Reserves in 1980. He retired from the NASA Plumbrook Station as a reactor mechanic. He is survived by his daughter, Arlene Allen Downing, Monroeville; son-in-law, Dennis Downing Sr, Monroeville; and granddaughter, Charlene Downing. He was preceded in death by his wife, Pauline "Polly" Allen, in 1982; parents, William and Eva (Trombley) Allen; and brother, William. Private family services were held. Memorial contributions may be made to Humane Society of Erie County, 1911 Superior St., Sandusky, OH 44870, or Parkvue Health Care Center Activity Program, 3800 Boardwalk Blvd., Sandusky, OH 44870, for resident's outings. Toft Funeral Home & Crematory, 2001 Columbus Ave., Sandusky, is handling arrangements. Condolences may be made to toftfh.com.

The obvious solution is "don't specify load-time-weaver repeatedly", but this may be confusing or difficult for large projects. For example, in a Spring project where the context is composed of multiple submodules with beans that are imported by using <import resource="..."/> elements, it makes logical sense for the submodule <beans> elements to specify context:load-time-weaver/ because they contain Aspect beans and were designed for load-time weaving. Placing context:load-time-weaver/ statement in the "top-level" context file may not make sense because it may not even be aware that some of its submodules use Aspect-Oriented-Programming. Also, multiple top-level context files may exist (e.g., for testing or for different actual context features using shared code) and this would mean putting the load-time-weaver element in all of them. These error messages are not necessarily harmless. If context:load-time-weaver/ is specified with conflicting options, i.e., the use of the Spring AOP processor vs the full AspectJ weaver, then unexpected behaviour could result. A submodule specifying load-time-weaving without turning on AspectJ and without having an aop.xml file, but loaded near the start of the "master" context file, could prevent submodules that might require the full AspectJ weaver from working correctly merely because they were loaded later in the "master" context file. It seems like things would be a lot easier for users if load-time-weaver instructions could be collapsed into one before java.lang.instrument.Instrumentation.addTransformer() is called. When there are conflicting options specified, the whole context should be aborted. I'm afraid this is not designed for fully merging such definitions at this point. However, the "loadTimeWeaver" beans should at least replace each other within the same application context, with the last definition winning: This seems to work fine for @EnableAspectJWeaving but not for <context:load-time-weaver with AspectJ weaving turned on, since the latter registers an AspectJWeavingEnabler bean with a freshly generated name in that case. I'll switch this to using a well-defined bean name there, like we do for the weaver itself as well as for the bean configurer aspect, providing consistent overriding of previous definitions for a start.

The Matrix of a Linear Map Examples 1 # The Matrix of a Linear Map Examples 1 Recall from The Matrix of a Linear Map page that if $V$ and $W$ are both finite-dimensional vector spaces such that $\mathrm{dim} (V) = n$ and $\mathrm{dim} (W) = m$ and where $B_V = \{ v_1, v_2, ..., v_n \}$ is a basis of $V$ and $B_W = \{ w_1, w_2, ..., w_m \}$ is a basis of $W$, then for $T \in \mathcal L (V, W)$ being such that $T(v_k) = a_{1,k}w_1 + a_{2,k}w_2 + ... + a_{m,k}w_m$ for each $k = 1, 2, ..., n$ then the matrix of $T$ with respect to the bases $B_V$ and $B_W$ is: (1) \begin{align} \quad \mathcal M (T, B_V, B_W) = \begin{bmatrix} a_{1,1} & a_{1,2} & \cdots & a_{1,n} \\ a_{2,1} & a_{2,2} & \cdots & a_{2,n}\\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ a_{m,1} & a_{m,2} & \cdots & a_{m,n} \end{bmatrix} \end{align} We will now look at some examples regarding matrices representing linear maps. ## Example 1 Consider the linear map $T \in \mathcal L (\wp_2 (\mathbb{R}), \mathbb{R}^2)$ defined by $T(p(x)) = \left (2p(1) + 3p'(1), \int_0^1 p(x) \: dx \right )$. Let $B_V \{ 1, x, x^2 \}$ be a basis of $\wp_2 (\mathbb{R})$ and let $B_W = \{(1, 0), (0, 2) \}$ be a basis of $W$. Determine the matrix $\mathcal M (T, B_V, B_W)$. To find the matrix $\mathcal M (T, B_V, B_W)$ we must apply $T$ to vector in the basis of $V$. We will have that: (2) \begin{align} \quad T(1) = \left ( 2(1) + 3(0), \int_0^1 1 \: dx \right ) = \left ( 2, 1 \right ) \end{align} (3) \begin{align} \quad T(x) = \left ( 2(1) + 3(1), \int_0^1 x \: dx \right ) = \left ( 5, \frac{1}{2} \right ) \end{align} (4) \begin{align} \quad T(x^2) = \left ( 2(1) + 3(2), \int_0^1 x^2 \: dx \right ) = \left ( 8, \frac{1}{3} \right ) \end{align} We now need to write these images as linear combinations of the basis vectors in $B_W \{ (1, 0), (0, 2) \}$: (5) \begin{align} \quad T(1) = (2, 1) = 2(1, 0) + \frac{1}{2} (0, 2) \end{align} (6) \begin{align} \quad T(x) = \left ( 5, \frac{1}{2} \right ) = 5(1, 0) + \frac{1}{4} (0, 2) \end{align} (7) \begin{align} \quad T(x^2) = \left ( 8, \frac{1}{3} \right ) = 8(1, 0) + \frac{1}{6} (0, 2) \end{align} The coefficients in the linear combinations above form our matrix. We have that: (8) \begin{align} \quad \mathcal M (T, B_V, B_W) = \begin{bmatrix} 2 & 5 & 8 \\ \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{4} & \frac{1}{6} \end{bmatrix} \end{align} ## Example 2 Let $V$ and $W$ both be finite-dimensional vector spaces and let $T \in \mathcal L (V, W)$. Prove that for any choice of basis $B_V$ of $V$ and any choice of basis $B_W$ of $W$ that the matrix $\mathcal M (T, B_V, B_W)$ has at least $\mathrm{dim} (\mathrm{range} (T))$ nonzero entries. Let $\mathrm{dim} (V) = n$ and let $\mathrm{dim} (W) = m$. Let $B_V = \{ v_1, v_2, ..., v_n \}$ be a basis of $V$ and let $B_W = \{ w_1, w_2, ..., w_m \}$ be a basis of $W$. Also let $T \in \mathcal L (V, W)$. Let's instead assume that $\mathcal M (T, B_V, B_W)$ has at most $\mathrm{dim} (\mathrm{range} (T)) - 1$ nonzero entries. Then there are at most $\mathrm{dim} ( \mathrm{range} (T)) - 1$ nonzero vectors amongst: (9) \begin{align} \quad \{ T(v_1), T(v_2), ..., T(v_n) \} \end{align} Therefore $\mathrm{dim} (\mathrm{span} (T(v_1), T(v_2), ..., T(v_n)) ≤ \mathrm{dim} ( \mathrm{range} (T)) - 1$. However, we have that $\mathrm{range} (T) = \mathrm{span} (T(v_1), T(v_2), ..., T(v_n))$ and so: (10) \begin{align} \quad \mathrm{dim} ( \mathrm{range} (T)) ≤ \mathrm{dim} (\mathrm{range} (T)) - 1 \end{align} This is a contradiction though, so our assumption that $\mathcal M (T, B_V, B_W)$ has at most $\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{range} (T)) - 1$ nonzetro entries is false. Therefore $\mathcal M (T, B_V, B_W)$ has at least $\mathrm{dim} (\mathrm{range} (T))$ nonzero entries.

Home > Hawaii > Honolulu > Roehrig, Nathan P. Roehrig, Nathan P. Nathan hails from the Big Island of Hawai and is a proud graduate of Hilo High School. After receiving his B.A. in Ocean Studies from the University of San Diego, he obtained his law degree from the William S. Richardson School of Law in 2003 where he served as a member of the Law Review. After law school he clerked for the Honorable Michael A. Town at the First Circuit Court, followed by more than five years at the State Office of the Public Defender where he successfully tried felony jury trials. After gaining extensive trial experience as a public defender, Nathan joined Bickerton Dang to pursue what has become a family tradition and passion — representing individual tort victims whose lives have been changed by someone else’s negligence.

--- UID: NF:fltkernel.FltQuerySecurityObject title: FltQuerySecurityObject function (fltkernel.h) description: FltQuerySecurityObject retrieves a copy of an object's security descriptor. old-location: ifsk\fltquerysecurityobject.htm tech.root: ifsk ms.date: 04/16/2018 keywords: ["FltQuerySecurityObject function"] ms.keywords: FltApiRef_p_to_z_6fa8f026-1268-4a97-b1e3-a2773e0a1784.xml, FltQuerySecurityObject, FltQuerySecurityObject function [Installable File System Drivers], fltkernel/FltQuerySecurityObject, ifsk.fltquerysecurityobject req.header: fltkernel.h req.include-header: Fltkernel.h req.target-type: Universal req.target-min-winverclnt: req.target-min-winversvr: req.kmdf-ver: req.umdf-ver: req.ddi-compliance: req.unicode-ansi: req.idl: req.max-support: req.namespace: req.assembly: req.type-library: req.lib: FltMgr.lib req.dll: Fltmgr.sys req.irql: PASSIVE_LEVEL targetos: Windows req.typenames: f1_keywords: - FltQuerySecurityObject - fltkernel/FltQuerySecurityObject topic_type: - APIRef - kbSyntax api_type: - DllExport api_location: - fltmgr.sys api_name: - FltQuerySecurityObject --- # FltQuerySecurityObject function ## -description <b>FltQuerySecurityObject</b> retrieves a copy of an object's security descriptor. ## -parameters ### -param Instance [in] Opaque instance pointer for the caller. This parameter is required and cannot be <b>NULL</b>. ### -param FileObject [in] File object pointer for the object whose security descriptor is being queried. This parameter is required and cannot be <b>NULL</b>. ### -param SecurityInformation [in] <a href="/windows-hardware/drivers/ifs/security-information">SECURITY_INFORMATION</a> value. This parameter is required and must be one of the following: <table> <tr> <th>SecurityInformation Value</th> <th>Meaning</th> </tr> <tr> <td> OWNER_SECURITY_INFORMATION </td> <td> The owner identifier of the object is being queried. Requires <b>READ_CONTROL</b> access. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> GROUP_SECURITY_INFORMATION </td> <td> The primary group identifier of the object is being queried. Requires <b>READ_CONTROL</b> access. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> DACL_SECURITY_INFORMATION </td> <td> The discretionary access control list (DACL) of the object is being queried. Requires <b>READ_CONTROL</b> access. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> SACL_SECURITY_INFORMATION </td> <td> The system ACL (SACL) of the object is being queried. Requires <b>ACCESS_SYSTEM_SECURITY</b> access. </td> </tr> </table> ### -param SecurityDescriptor [in, out] Pointer to a caller-supplied output buffer that receives a copy of the security descriptor for the specified object. The <a href="/windows-hardware/drivers/ddi/ntifs/ns-ntifs-_security_descriptor">SECURITY_DESCRIPTOR</a> structure is returned in self-relative format. This parameter is optional and can be <b>NULL</b>. ### -param Length [in] Size, in bytes, of the <i>SecurityDescriptor</i> buffer. ### -param LengthNeeded [out, optional] Pointer to a caller-allocated variable that receives the number of bytes required to store the copied security descriptor returned in the buffer pointed to by the <i>SecurityDescriptor</i> parameter. This parameter is optional and can be <b>NULL</b>. ## -returns <b>FltQuerySecurityObject</b> returns STATUS_SUCCESS or an appropriate <b>NTSTATUS</b> value such as one of the following: <table> <tr> <th>Return code</th> <th>Description</th> </tr> <tr> <td width="40%"> <dl> <dt><b>STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED</b></dt> </dl> </td> <td width="60%"> The caller did not have the required access. This is an error code. </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="40%"> <dl> <dt><b>STATUS_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL</b></dt> </dl> </td> <td width="60%"> The buffer is too small to contain the security descriptor. None of the security information was copied to the buffer. This is an error code. </td> </tr> </table> ## -remarks A security descriptor can be in absolute or self-relative form. In self-relative form, all members of the structure are located contiguously in memory. In absolute form, the structure contains only pointers to its members. The NTFS file system imposes a 64-KB limit on the size of the security descriptor that is written to disk for a file. (The FAT file system does not support security descriptors for files.) Thus, a 64-KB buffer pointed to by the <i>SecurityDescriptor</i> parameter is guaranteed to be large enough to hold the returned <a href="/windows-hardware/drivers/ddi/ntifs/ns-ntifs-_security_descriptor">SECURITY_DESCRIPTOR</a> structure. The object that the <i>FileObject</i> parameter points to can represent a named data stream. For more information about named data streams, see <a href="/windows-hardware/drivers/ddi/ntifs/ns-ntifs-_file_stream_information">FILE_STREAM_INFORMATION</a>. For more information about security and access control, see the Microsoft Windows SDK documentation. ## -see-also <a href="/windows-hardware/drivers/ddi/ntifs/ns-ntifs-_file_stream_information">FILE_STREAM_INFORMATION</a> <a href="/windows-hardware/drivers/ddi/ntifs/ns-ntifs-_security_descriptor">SECURITY_DESCRIPTOR</a> <a href="/windows-hardware/drivers/ifs/security-information">SECURITY_INFORMATION</a>

You may have more nitrogen carryover on drought-stricken fields than you think. Ron Gelderman, soil testing lab manager and plant science professor at South Dakota State University (SDSU), says soil testing is especially important after a drought year. Crop growth can be so limited during a drought that applied nitrogen and mineralized soil nitrogen is not fully used. This carryover nitrogen is available for next year's crop. SDSU tests show that samples taken from failed crops had an average of 173 lbs/acre of carryover nitrogen in the top 2' of soil. The average from fields that were harvested was 73 lbs/acre of nitrate-nitrogen. Clearly, Gelderman says, crop use was a factor in how much carryover occurred. Gelderman cautions producers not to use averages for their own fields or assume that they don't need fertilizer for next year. For example, even though the average soil test from harvested field samples was 73 lbs nitrate-nitrogen, they ranged from 29-163 lbs of nitrogen. Fields, even on the same farm, vary considerably in carryover nitrogen depending on factors such as rainfall, crop growth, nitrogen fertilizer applied and many other variables. The only proven method to determine carryover nitrogen is with a soil test. These tests can save significant input dollars next spring for producers, Gelderman says.

Legendary filmmaker Albert Maysles departed these digs at the Dakota back in 2005, when he and his wife decided to head for a pair of Harlem brownstones. Maysles was disappointed that the creative class was leaving the storied UWS building, and, indeed, he sold his own apartment for $3,005,000 to your average rich guy. Who now wants to be an average richer guy. He gave the place a serious renovation and has put it back on the market for $7,650,000. Last time around, the co-op board turned down Melanie Griffith and Antonio Banderas. Will they be back for round two?

Lear and Glouchester's Transformation King Lear is one of the most tragic parables ever brought forth in literature, dealing with betrayal, familial deception, madness and violence. In presenting such tragic themes and ideas in his work Shakespeare uses a subplot to mirror the main action which therefore increases the effect of the parable's lessons. In both stories, parents are deceived and betrayed by their own children, one of the most abhorrant crimes in Shakespeare's time. It is this mistreatment by children that lead both Lear and Gloucester to madness and then death. But they are not completely innocent victims who have fallen to their children's ill intentions. Both have made critical and constant errors in judgment that caused their downfall, and they both must realize their errors before their deaths. In the first scene in the first act, we are presented with Lear's misguided dependence on artifice and flattery that catapults the action of the play and leads to both his positive transformation and sadly, his death. Before dividing up his kingdom among his three daughters Lear asks "which of you shall we say doth love us most,/That we our largest bounty may extend" (King Lear I.i.51-52). From the beginning it is obvious that Lear... Join Now to View Premium Content GradeSaver provides access to 905 study guide PDFs and quizzes, 7162 literature essays, 2011 sample college application essays, 296 lesson plans, and ad-free surfing in this premium content, “Members Only” section of the site! Membership includes a 10% discount on all editing orders. Already a member? Log in

Harriet Marie Ochs, 99, of Jefferson City, passed away Saturday, January 16, 2021, at Oak Tree Villas. She was born January 18, 1921, in Leavenworth, Kansas, the daughter of the late Julius Peter and Vesta (Kimball) Ochs. Harriet moved with her family to Topeka, KS at an early age. In 1939, she graduated from Hayden Catholic High School in Topeka. Harriet began her life of service as an administrative assistant at Assumption parish in Topeka. She continued to work there until her retirement. After retirement, she moved to Jefferson City to be with her brother. There she served several years as the bookkeeper for the Catholic Missourian newspaper for the Diocese of Jefferson City. Harriet is survived by many friends. She was preceded in death by her parents and her brother, Julius Ochs. Visitation will be 9:30-10 a.m. Monday, January 18, 2021, at the Cathedral of St. Joseph. Mass of Christian Burial will be celebrated on what would have been her 100th Birthday at 10 a.m. Monday at the Cathedral of St. Joseph with the Rev. Louis Nelen officiating. Entombment will be in Resurrection Catholic Mausoleum. To send flowers to the family in memory of Harriet Marie Ochs, please visit our flower store.

In Saturn's Shadow With giant Saturn hanging in the blackness and sheltering Cassini from the sun's blinding glare, the spacecraft viewed the rings as never before, revealing previously unknown faint rings and even glimpsing its home world. This marvelous panoramic view was created by combining a total of 165 images taken by the Cassini wide-angle camera over nearly three hours on Sept. 15, 2006. The full mosaic consists of three rows of nine wide-angle camera footprints; only a portion of the full mosaic is shown here. Color in the view was created by digitally compositing ultraviolet, infrared and clear filter images and was then adjusted to resemble natural color. The mosaic images were acquired as the spacecraft drifted in the darkness of Saturn's shadow for about 12 hours, allowing a multitude of unique observations of the microscopic particles that compose Saturn's faint rings. Ring structures containing these tiny particles brighten substantially at high phase angles: i.e., viewing angles where the sun is almost directly behind the objects being imaged. The Cassini-Huygens mission is a cooperative project of NASA, the European Space Agency and the Italian Space Agency. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, manages the mission for NASA's Science Mission Directorate, Washington, D.C. The Cassini orbiter and its two onboard cameras were designed, developed and assembled at JPL. The imaging operations center is based at the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colo. For more information about the Cassini-Huygens mission visit http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.cfm. The Cassini imaging team homepage is at http://ciclops.org. Image credit: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute

<filename>rxbus/src/test/java/com/blankj/rxbus/EventBusTest.java package com.blankj.rxbus; import org.greenrobot.eventbus.EventBus; import org.greenrobot.eventbus.Subscribe; import org.greenrobot.eventbus.ThreadMode; import org.junit.After; import org.junit.Before; import org.junit.Test; import java.util.ArrayList; /** * <pre> * author: Blankj * blog : http://blankj.com * time : 2018/08/05 * desc : * </pre> */ public class EventBusTest { @Before public void setUp() { } @After public void tearDown() { EventBus.getDefault().unregister(this); } @Test public void test() { EventBus.getDefault().postSticky("haha"); EventBus.getDefault().postSticky(10086); EventBus.getDefault().register(this); EventBus.getDefault().post("haha"); EventBus.getDefault().post(10086); EventBus.getDefault().unregister(this); System.out.println("-----"); EventBus.getDefault().register(this); EventBus.getDefault().unregister(this); System.out.println("-----"); EventBus.getDefault().register(this); } @Subscribe(threadMode = ThreadMode.MAIN, priority = 1, sticky = true) public void onMessageEvent1(String event) { System.out.println(event + "1"); } @Subscribe(threadMode = ThreadMode.MAIN, priority = 5, sticky = true) public void onMessageEvent5(String event) { System.out.println(event + "5"); } @Subscribe(threadMode = ThreadMode.MAIN, priority = 2, sticky = true) public void onMessageEvent2(String event) { System.out.println(event + "2"); } @Subscribe(threadMode = ThreadMode.MAIN, priority = 3, sticky = true) public void onIntEvent(Integer event) { System.out.println(event); } }

Follow these six tips to get the most out of your upgraded wireless network. Organizations can expect faster, more secure wireless connectivity than ever before with 802.11n gear. Deploying 802.11n wireless is worth the effort, but you have to plan. Consider these helpful six steps for a successful project. Tip 1: Choose the right security for your 802.11n equipment. When configuring access points and routers, you should resist the urge to use older encryption algorithms such as Wired Equivalent Privacy or the Temporal Key Integrity Protocol for the sake of backward compatibility. These settings can dramatically reduce network performance on 802.11n machines. Instead, use a newer algorithm such as Wi-Fi Protected Access 2, which maximizes security without sacrificing reliability or speed. For backward compatibility, leave your old wireless b/g equipment set up to maintain connectivity for clients with older chipsets. Tip 2: For enterprise solutions, use wireless equipment that offers both public and private access. Most organizations have visitors in their conference rooms from time to time who need Internet access. Most IT departments, however, don't want outside machines connecting to the network, nor do visitors necessarily want to be managed by an organization's Internet filter. You can overcome both of these challenges by purchasing an 802.11n router that supports both a private network for connecting the organization's notebooks and a public network for connecting visitors' computers. Tip 3: Use 5 gigahertz equipment for more demanding applications. When upgrading to 802.11n, you can use either the 2.4GHz or 5GHz spectrum. While 2.4GHz is less expensive and compatible with more clients, 5GHz offers better 802.11n performance. Unfortunately, clients operating at 2.4GHz cannot connect to a 5GHz access point. Because of this, you should consider using both 5GHz and 2.4GHz equipment concurrently. That way, users of bandwidth-intensive applications, such as security cameras and video conferencing programs, can connect to the 5GHz network, while everyone else can connect to the 2.4GHz equipment. The cost of an additional access point is nominal, and the payoff is less network congestion and a better experience for your users. Tip 4: Upgrade legacy adapters. Remember that 802.11n wireless is a major upgrade from 802.11g, providing up to six times the bandwidth. If you have workstations that could benefit from this increased speed, consider upgrading these computers immediately instead of holding out for them to be refreshed. While many notebooks still ship with 802.11g chipsets, prices continue to drop on 802.11n adapters, allowing for easy and relatively inexpensive upgrades. Tip 5: Repurpose older equipment where it can do the most good. When upgrading your network-connected devices, remember that not all users will benefit from 802.11n speeds. While servers and workstations often generate a great deal of traffic and can make good use of the faster transfer rates, other equipment, such as printers and time clocks, will be largely unaffected. Audit your network's needs and avoid upgrading where it doesn't make sense. When you do upgrade, you can use your older 802.11b/g equipment to expand your network in lower-traffic situations, provide redundancy or deploy your unused equipment to teleworkers for use at home. Tip 6: Use a gigabit backbone for your 802.11n network. While 100 megabit-per-second backbone networks have typically provided more than enough bandwidth for older wireless protocols, 802.11n wireless supports speeds of up to 300Mbps. Administrators will need to keep this in mind when planning deployment of 802.11n equipment and ensure that only gigabit hardware is deployed. While Internet traffic won't suffer at 100Mbps speeds, local traffic, such as FTP transfers and e-mail, will bottleneck. Don't undermine your investment by overlooking this important detail.

$500 Five Hundred Dollars Bill Series of 1928, 1934 For Sale Showing 1 - 16 of 16 products The $500 Five Hundred Dollar Bills was first issued in 1861 as an interest-bearing note during the Civil War. At the time, the U.S. government needed a quick way to raise funds for the war effort and the $500 denomination, among the highest available, allowed for more efficient borrowing of large sums. Throughout history, several types of currency featured the $500 denomination as large-size paper money, each with its own unique design and features. These notes were notably larger than the modern currency, measuring approximately 7.4218 inches by 3.125 inches. Despite their historical significance, $500 bills from before the 1900s are exceedingly rare collectibles with only a few known to exist. Due to their scarcity and age, surviving examples can command astronomical prices and are typically held in private collections or museums. $500 Dollars Bill Small-Size Paper Money Small-size $500 bills were first debuted by series of in 1928 as part of the redesign of U.S. currency. Two types of $500 bills were issued: Federal Reserve Notes and Gold Certificates. Over the years, there were three different series of small-size Federal Reserve Note $500 bills, including the 1928 series, 1934 series, and 1934A series. $500 Five Hundred dollars bills from series of 1934 The obverse of the small-size $500 bills featured a portrait of William McKinley, the 25th President of the United States. The design also included intricate scrollwork, as well as the denomination and the words "Federal Reserve Note" or "Gold Certificate," depending on the type of currency. In 1969, the government and the Federal Reserve Bank announced that they would discontinue the use of high-denomination notes, including the $500 bill. The decision to discontinue the use of high-denomination notes, including the $500 bill, was primarily due to concerns about their use in illegal activities such as money laundering and tax evasion. Additionally, the Federal Reserve found that these large denominations were not in demand for everyday transactions. Although these notes remained legal tender, they were no longer printed, and any remaining bills were slowly being taken out of circulation. When individuals deposited $500 bills in commercial banks, the banks would then turn the bills over to the Federal Reserve Bank to be destroyed. This process has been ongoing for over five decades, and it is still in effect today. How Much Is The $500 Five Hundred Dollar Bill Worth Today? All of the high denominations are considered rare collectibles after their discontinuation in 1969. Although they are still legal tender and can be redeemed at face value. However, they are commonly held by collectors and dealers who assign a numismatic value that often surpasses their original worth. Some of the factors that can affect the value of the $500 five hundred dollars bill include its condition, rarity, series of the year, and any unique or interesting features such as star note or fancy serial numbers. Notes that are in pristine condition and have not been circulated are generally the most valuable. The condition of the bill is a significant factor in determining its value. Choice Fine condition: In this condition, a $500 bill can fetch anywhere between $800 and $1,200 depending on how circulated the note are Very Fine condition: A $500 bill in very fine condition can sell for $1,200 to $1,600. Extremely Fine condition: In extremely fine condition, a $500 bill can command prices of $1,600 to $2,200 or more. Uncirculated condition: A $500 bill in uncirculated condition, meaning it has never been used or handled, is extremely rare and can be worth a significant amount of money. Depending on the series and rarity, an uncirculated $500 bill can sell for upwards of $4,000 or even more. Series of the Date: The series of 1928 might be scarcer than the series of 1934 and 1934A, making the former more valuable to collectors. The quantity of issue: Refers to the total amount of $500 dollar bills issued for specific districts within the twelve Federal Reserve Bank members. The majority of the $1000 thousand dollars bills were issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and Minneapolis are scarcer and more valuable than others. At Collectibles & Currency, we take great care in sourcing large denomination bills to ensure their authenticity and quality. All of the $500 dollar bill for sale on our site are graded and authenticated by the most trusted third-party grading companies. So you can rest assured that you are getting a genuine and accurately graded note based on its current condition. We go the extra mile in perfecting our photography techniques to ensure that the precise details of each $500 dollar bill are accurately represented in the images you see online. When you make a purchase from us, you can have peace of mind knowing that the bill you receive will match exactly with what you viewed. Are you ready to own a remarkable piece of history? Take a moment to explore our collection of $500 dollar bills for sale at Collectibles & Currency. Whether you're an experienced collector or just beginning your journey, we offer a range of options that might be the perfect addition to your collection.

Traditional surgery using traditional instruments, is performed for curative, cosmetic, ritual, judiciary or for some other social reasons. The need for alleviating pain for these surgical procedures has long been recognized, and pain-killers and hypnotics have been used. Curative surgery is mainly wound surgery and includes suturing and dressing of wounds, incision of abscesses and boils, couching, bone-setting, amputation of limbs, extraction, pointing, paring and separation of teeth, uvulectomy, trepanation, and tatwish (castration). In addition, surgical problems such as inguinal herniae and hydrocoeles are managed conservatively with the application of locally-made trusses. Haemorrhoids and fistulae are cauterized. Ritual surgery includes male and female circumcision. Cosmetic operations include washm (tattooing), shulukh (facial scarring) and perforation of the nose, lips and lobes of the ear. Judicial surgery includes amputation of limbs and sometimes extraction of teeth. Hydrocele was said to be so common among the Koma tribe of southeast Sudan that it was almost a tribal characteristic. It is known by the name kuk [kuka in northern Sudan]. Though very common, yet little in the way of treatment is done by the natives. Theodor Krump, a German missionary, observing the customs of the Sudanese (1700-1702), namely of the Danaqla, wrote that 'on their foreheads, cheeks, thumbs, breasts and calves they tattoo designs with pins.' Krump, Theodor (1660-1724). High and fruitful palm-tree of the Holy Gospel … [German]. Augusburg; 1710. Page 227. Several names of tribal chiefs and sufi shaikhs, for example dabi al-wa'ar, al-khishin, are reminders of these attributes.

NOVA scienceNOW, Teachers' Domain Video length: 2:02 min.Learn more about Teaching Climate Literacy and Energy Awareness» See how this Video supports the Next Generation Science Standards» High School: 7 Disciplinary Core Ideas About Teaching Climate Literacy Other materials addressing 5b Notes From Our Reviewers The CLEAN collection is hand-picked and rigorously reviewed for scientific accuracy and classroom effectiveness. Read what our review team had to say about this resource below or learn more about how CLEAN reviews teaching materials Teaching Tips | Science | Pedagogy | - Video can be coupled with lesson, Future of the Cryosphere to maximize its learning potential. About the Science - Tropical ice cores contain information relating to tropical climate phenomena, including El Niño events and monsoons, which are not recorded in ice from polar regions. - Comments from expert scientist: Addresses basic paleoclimatological concepts. Notes the importance of tropical ice cores. Reviews important paleoclimate proxies, and how proxies are used to estimate past climate characteristics. All together, a very nice resource. Oxygen isotopes are mentioned twice, and both mentions do not clarify that the isotopes can be used only to "estimate" temperature, not "determine" temperature. About the Pedagogy - Activities and related resources provided to help students better understand the science. - Uses a lot of higher-level terminology that may need to be defined. Technical Details/Ease of Use - Use the downloaded version of the video for best resolution; online version is not sufficient for projection. Related URLs These related sites were noted by our reviewers but have not been reviewed by CLEANhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/profile-thompson.html Next Generation Science Standards See how this Video supports: Disciplinary Core Ideas: 7 HS-ESS2.A1:Earth’s systems, being dynamic and interacting, cause feedback effects that can increase or decrease the original changes. HS-ESS2.A3:The geological record shows that changes to global and regional climate can be caused by interactions among changes in the sun’s energy output or Earth’s orbit, tectonic events, ocean circulation, volcanic activity, glaciers, vegetation, and human activities. These changes can occur on a variety of time scales from sudden (e.g., volcanic ash clouds) to intermediate (ice ages) to very long-term tectonic cycles. HS-ESS2.C1:The abundance of liquid water on Earth’s surface and its unique combination of physical and chemical properties are central to the planet’s dynamics. These properties include water’s exceptional capacity to absorb, store, and release large amounts of energy, transmit sunlight, expand upon freezing, dissolve and transport materials, and lower the viscosities and melting points of rocks. HS-ESS2.D1:The foundation for Earth’s global climate systems is the electromagnetic radiation from the sun, as well as its reflection, absorption, storage, and redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and land systems, and this energy’s re-radiation into space. HS-ESS2.D2:Gradual atmospheric changes were due to plants and other organisms that captured carbon dioxide and released oxygen. HS-ESS2.D3:Changes in the atmosphere due to human activity have increased carbon dioxide concentrations and thus affect climate. HS-ESS2.E1:The many dynamic and delicate feedbacks between the biosphere and other Earth systems cause a continual co-evolution of Earth’s surface and the life that exists on it.

Table of Contents : Top Suggestions Decimal Operations Worksheet : Decimal Operations Worksheet Follow the correct order of operations pemdas this math worksheet lays out everything students need to know about the order of operations and the use of parentheses the first half of the worksheet Cannot be written as a fraction and if we use as a decimal worksheet from gcsepod you are given the area of the circles and have to calculate the radius using inverse operations Add subtract multiply and divide decimals to hundredths using concrete models or drawings and strategies based on place value properties of operations and or the relationship between addition. Decimal Operations Worksheet Math in the developmental math program in the department of mathematics at western michigan university is a mastery based course designed to sharpen computational skills involving whole numbers We can perform mathematical operations on binary numbers by representing each bit of the numbers by a circuit which is either on current or off no current just like the abacus with each rod A facet of the program of particular use to small businesses that deal with both metric and imperial systems in their operations enter the inches measurement in a cell if the inches measurement. Decimals Worksheets Free Math Worksheets There Are Many Operations With Decimals Worksheets Throughout The Page It Would Be A Really Good Idea For Students To Have A Strong Knowledge Of Addition Subtraction Multiplication And Division Before Attempting These Questions At The End Of The Page You Will Find Decimal Numbers Used In Order Of Operations Questions Most Popular Decimals Worksheets This Week Decimals Operations Worksheets Lesson Worksheets Decimals Operations Displaying All Worksheets Related To Decimals Operations Worksheets Are Operations With Decimals Review Work All Decimal Operations With Word Problems Decimals Practice Booklet Table Of Contents Fractions Work Order Of Operations With Decimals Exercise Work Addingsubtracting Decimals A Order Of Operations Work Decimals And Fractions Fractions Decimals And Percents Operations With Decimals Review Worksheet Name Period Date Operations With Decimals Review Worksheet Find Each Sum Or Difference The Four Operations Of Decimals Lesson Worksheets The Four Operations Of Decimals Displaying All Worksheets Related To The Four Operations Of Decimals Worksheets Are Decimals Work Operations With Decimals Review Work Operations With Decimals All Decimal Operations With Word Problems Order Of Operations Work Order Of Operations With Work Fractions And Decimals Set 1 Word Problems Decimals Practicepractice Puzzlespuzzles Decimal Operations Seventh Grade Math Worksheets Study Decimal Operations 7th Grade Math Worksheets And Answer Key Study Guides Covers The Following Skills Apply Properties Of Operations As Strategies To Multiply And Divide Rational Numbers Solve Real World And Mathematical Problems Involving The Four Operations With Rational Numbers Homework Common Core State StandardsPrintable Decimal Worksheets Decimal Place Value On These Worksheets You Ll Find Place Value Concepts Applied To Decimals Most Decimals Are To The Nearest Thousandth Comparing And Ordering Decimals Learn To Order And Compare The Value Of Decimal Numbers Rounding Decimals Round Decimals To The Nearest Tenth Hundredth And Or ThousandthFour Operations With Decimals Differentiated Worksheet Questions Are Randomly Generated So Every Worksheet Is Unique Answers Hidden Answers Shown Option At The Top Of The Worksheet The Questions In This Resource Come From My Premium Resource Key Stage 3 Mathematics Test Maker Which Was Featured As A Resource Of The Week Key Stage 3 Mathematics Test Maker Follow Me On Twitter And Pinterest Hatchtag73Decimals Worksheets Math Worksheets 4 Kids Learn To Round Off Decimals With This Collection Of Rounding Significant Figures Worksheets That Encompass An Array Of Skills Like Rounding Up To Five Significant Figures Rounding Significant Figures Involving Arithmetic Operations And More Decimal Into Fraction And Percent Convert Each Decimal Into Either Fraction Or Percent Or Both Money In Decimals Worksheets Printable Worksheets Money In Decimals Showing Top 8 Worksheets In The Category Money In Decimals Some Of The Worksheets Displayed Are Decimals Work Addition And Subtraction Of Decimals Place Value Decimals Fractions And Money Everyday Math Skills Workbooks Series Decimal Addition Decimals Practice Booklet Table Of Contents Use Of Money As A Decimal Representation A Review Decimal Operations Worksheet. The worksheet is an assortment of 4 intriguing pursuits that will enhance your kid's knowledge and abilities. The worksheets are offered in developmentally appropriate versions for kids of different ages. Adding and subtracting integers worksheets in many ranges including a number of choices for parentheses use. You can begin with the uppercase cursives and after that move forward with the lowercase cursives. Handwriting for kids will also be rather simple to develop in such a fashion. If you're an adult and wish to increase your handwriting, it can be accomplished. As a result, in the event that you really wish to enhance handwriting of your kid, hurry to explore the advantages of an intelligent learning tool now! Consider how you wish to compose your private faith statement. Sometimes letters have to be adjusted to fit in a particular space. When a letter does not have any verticals like a capital A or V, the very first diagonal stroke is regarded as the stem. The connected and slanted letters will be quite simple to form once the many shapes re learnt well. Even something as easy as guessing the beginning letter of long words can assist your child improve his phonics abilities. Decimal Operations Worksheet. There isn't anything like a superb story, and nothing like being the person who started a renowned urban legend. Deciding upon the ideal approach route Cursive writing is basically joined-up handwriting. Practice reading by yourself as often as possible. Research urban legends to obtain a concept of what's out there prior to making a new one. You are still not sure the radicals have the proper idea. Naturally, you won't use the majority of your ideas. If you've got an idea for a tool please inform us. That means you can begin right where you are no matter how little you might feel you've got to give. You are also quite suspicious of any revolutionary shift. In earlier times you've stated that the move of independence may be too early. Each lesson in handwriting should start on a fresh new page, so the little one becomes enough room to practice. Every handwriting lesson should begin with the alphabets. Handwriting learning is just one of the most important learning needs of a kid. Learning how to read isn't just challenging, but fun too. The use of grids The use of grids is vital in earning your child learn to Improve handwriting. Also, bear in mind that maybe your very first try at brainstorming may not bring anything relevant, but don't stop trying. Once you are able to work, you might be surprised how much you get done. Take into consideration how you feel about yourself. Getting able to modify the tracking helps fit more letters in a little space or spread out letters if they're too tight. Perhaps you must enlist the aid of another man to encourage or help you keep focused. Decimal Operations Worksheet. Try to remember, you always have to care for your child with amazing care, compassion and affection to be able to help him learn. You may also ask your kid's teacher for extra worksheets. Your son or daughter is not going to just learn a different sort of font but in addition learn how to write elegantly because cursive writing is quite beautiful to check out. As a result, if a kid is already suffering from ADHD his handwriting will definitely be affected. Accordingly, to be able to accomplish this, if children are taught to form different shapes in a suitable fashion, it is going to enable them to compose the letters in a really smooth and easy method. Although it can be cute every time a youngster says he runned on the playground, students want to understand how to use past tense so as to speak and write correctly. Let say, you would like to boost your son's or daughter's handwriting, it is but obvious that you want to give your son or daughter plenty of practice, as they say, practice makes perfect. Without phonics skills, it's almost impossible, especially for kids, to learn how to read new words. Techniques to Handle Attention Issues It is extremely essential that should you discover your kid is inattentive to his learning especially when it has to do with reading and writing issues you must begin working on various ways and to improve it. Use a student's name in every sentence so there's a single sentence for each kid. Because he or she learns at his own rate, there is some variability in the age when a child is ready to learn to read. Teaching your kid to form the alphabets is quite a complicated practice. Tags: #teaching decimals worksheet#operation with decimals riddle worksheet#2 digit multiplying decimals worksheets#beginning decimal worksheets#decimals worksheets grade 4#decimal worksheets printable#multiply decimals worksheet#order of operations worksheets grade 6

I don’t see the point of attacking those who think there is no overlap between religion and science. It’s not as if either the moderates or the religious zealots will be impressed by reality, but the moderates will support science as long as it doesn’t require them to give up on religion on a schedule of someone else’s making. I know it’s only a quote, but mentioning Ken Miller negatively? And of course we’ve got those cranky New Atheists busily publishing their demolitions of the validity of faith. Demolitions of the validity of faith? Gee, that sounds juicy and very important. I’ve read most of the NA bestsellers, but I must have missed those. Any references? If I could find a way to avoid another pot-luck with lukewarm rigatoni and green bean casserole, I would be most appreciative. Most of the time, those who profess there is no overlap will still push religion into scientific territory – most notably on the concept of morality. Morality-creationists are still creationists, thinking that the body is somehow separate from the mind is absurd to the highest degree. This is a topic that I struggle with. Yes, personally I think science and religion are incompatible. But when talking to someone who rejects evolution because of their religious beliefs, I sometimes think it’s more effective to tell them there doesn’t have to be a conflict (note that I do not say “there is no conflict or overlap”). Basically, I assume that if you tell someone with strong religious beliefs that the two are incompatible, they will choose their religion and refuse to even learn about the evidence for evoloution. By telling them they can have both, you might be able to convince them to open their mind a bit. And once they do that, and learn about evolution (and science in general) maybe, just maybe, they will become more rational and skeptical. Deconversion is a long process, and sometimes you have to lead people through it with baby steps. Now, maybe this is all a bit disingenuous (saying religion and science can be compatible when I really don’t think they are), but I think it might be an effective way of educating more people. I’d love to see these statistics. I would especially love to see how these “statisticians” rationalize away the fac tat the religious US produces so much more scientific output than atheistic France. Is this a sincere attempt to keep the peace or simply Pascal’s Wager in action? Religion isn’t a way of understanding the world. Religion is, sometimes, useful for understanding a teeny, tiny subset of the world – human behavior and culture. Almost all of the things religion is occupied are in this tiny little subset of everything science studies. Perhaps a solution would be to emphasize methodological naturalism in the practice and teaching of science. Science and evolution do not equal atheism and philosophical naturalism, otherwise teaching them in an American public school would violate the Establishment Clause. Although it’s typically stated in some variant of “evo-atheists indoctrinating our children,” that’s one of the biggest fears of the creationists. If you want to talk compatibility with science, atheism is a far better fit to the evidence. < Atheists haven't been very forthcoming with this scientific evidence (at least the popular ones haven't). Oh, how so? Why so? Based on what information? Personally, I think the ideas of religion and science are incompatible. God has always been created as an explanation for the unknown, and it’s still used as such (these days he’s the universal creator rather than a conjurer of lightning.) God always was a god of the gaps, and science has been able to fill such gaps. But those statements are not what this is about. There is no point turning this into an “us vs them” situation because we are grossly outnumbered. We need the support of the general community in order to minimise the role of creationism. In a society where people are forced to choose between God and evolution, what chance do we have? Facilis, Coyne is talking about individuals, not societies. Well, religion does offer a different way of understanding the world. It’s just not a very good one. I second heddle’s objection. Using the expression ‘demolition of the validity of faith’ implies there’s something there to be demolished. How do you demolish an absence? What you could say instead is ‘demolitions of the immense structures built by theolo-apologists in order to disguise that absence‘ – it probably helps to visualise it as an institution combining a sleight-of-hand magic school, a tapdancing academy, and a sewerage treatment plant. A God that had to physically interfere with the world he created would pretty lame, yes? Our strength comes from the different approaches scientists are taking to this question. Those who advocate the fluffy non-overlapping magisteria approach soften the faith-headed up for the harder blow of reality that follows from PZ and his 2 to 8 legged minions. These two definitions of religion and science are just plain false. Moreover, it also ignores the fact that religion often comes in conflict with things other than science: like common sense, and morality & ethics. And even if science did not conflict with religion, why ought religion still ought to be given a free reign? Perhaps these lies can be more easily understood the more the public realizes that the Vatican excommunicating all people involved in a raped girl’s abortion is more accurate vision of what religion is all about. Perhaps the problem is that people just think that religion is all about good works, but things like these are hardly ever brought to the public attention. We don’t have to “attack” them, but we should be able to politely disagree. If religious moderates want to support science, good! Science is true for everybody and is openly-accessible to all. But if they’ll only support science if we support their religions views, then it’s not a fair exchange. As PZ said, it grants religion a privileged status it does not deserve. You should not have to pamper anyone to get them to accept the findings of science. Science is strong enough to stand on its own. Religion isn’t. They know it and it scares them. Religion needs science. Science does not need religion. That’s why they are moderates and not zealots. Oh, they might whine and complain, but as with a temperamental child, the worst thing you can do is give in. It only reinforces the behavior. Yes, clearly religion is the important factor there. Ignore the minor details of populations of 61,538,322 vs 303,824,640 and GDPs of 2.56 Trillion and 13.84 Trillion. No that wouldn’t possibly account for it at all. Oh wait. Yeah, it would. Easily. You also seem to be ignoring that about 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences here are atheists. Really you should try to build better strawmen. This reminds me of what Egnor was threatening. Imagine if the (16%???) of atheists in this country turned it into an us-vs-them and the other 84% of the population voted to cut all gov’t funding to evolutionary biology. It would be a disaster. I admit this is purely a guess, but I suspect having a much larger population to draw from and more money to throw at research would be mightily helpful in this regard. Science and Surrealism deal with different things. Science tries to figure out how things work and surrealism teaches about melting clocks, hundred-buttocked men and apples in bowler hats. There doesn’t need to be a conflict…except of course to point out that none of these things exists outside a deranged mind. Any system of thinking that does not provide a mechanism for updating its knowledge base is bullshit and not capable of successfully mastering reality. As a matter of fact, when the religious try and meddle with science they degrade everyone’s chances at reaping the rewards of understanding. Science is all; religion is nothing. Even to mention insane religion in the same sentence as science denigrates science as a comparison or separate entity. Religion should be relegated to what it is; irrational belief in nothing, perpetrated by unsound minds. We get it Heddle, you’re married to your Calvanistic view of the world. You’ll never let god go no matter what the lack of evidence is for deities and magick. You’re no different than my neighbor (an engineer) who believes in a grand global jewish conspiracy, that we never put an astronaut on the moon and LBJ was behind the Kennedy assassination. No amount of reason, empirical evidence or lack of evidence will sway him; and like you, he believes himself to be fully rational and logical. You won’t ever take the training wheels off the bicycle or even see a reason to do so because it’s so much safer. Palm reading and science. NOMA for sure. You are certainly failing to do so. Skimmed it, didn’t find it worth an in-depth reading. Just another older man complaining that the younger generation behaves differently than his did. Facilis – If all the atheists left the US, they’d have to turn off the lights when they did, because no-one left behind would know how to work them. Also, it makes us look like we need the religious for validation. Science tries to figure out how things work and religion teaches about morality and spirituality. Implication: morality isn’t about trying to figure out how things (societies, communities) should work, rather it is something to be taught and accepted and please don’t try to think about it, it’s far too mysterious. No it’s not. Such people (e.g., McLeroy, much of the population of Oklahoma) are not the targets of these Chamberlainesque statements. They are aimed instead at people who are both religious (to some degree) and support science education and “science improvement.” There are a lot of such people, and they can be useful allies in many important battles against the truly ignorant. You can call me Neville. Facilis, you keep showing no reason and logic. Every NSF funded dating of a rock layer adds to the theory of evolution. Every Interior Department funded biological survey adds to the theory of evolution. Every NIH funded biochemical study on genes, DNA, cellular metabolism, disease organisms adds to the theory of evolution. You really need to read Coyne’s book if you wish to post intelligently. Carl Sagan was excellent at this, yet you won’t find a more staunch opponent of religion and that kind of thinking. He focused on selling the wonder and importance of science as opposed to focusing on attacking religion. I agree with the philosophical position against these fluffy compatibility assertions – science and religion are in many cases directly contradictory, and cannot be given equal weight/status with any logical integrity. However, I think this is a pretty strong case for parts of the scientific community choosing their battles. Militant atheism isn’t going to affect the opinions of religious fundamentalists, at least not in the way atheists would want the outcome to go. If anything it gives them an example of Human Evil, Hubris, and Temptation (TM) to beat the books about and say “SEE! This is PRECISELY the kind of fiendish manipulation by the wicked that we’re warned to guard against!” Whereas the illusion that science and religion can (sort of) coexist, I believe, works to slowly raise the tolerance level for logic. It’s a cracked door, if you will. I’ve seen quite a few people who started out direly religious (hurray for growing up in the Bible Belt…); the “coexistence” rationalization made them at least receptive to scientific principles, and later the extension of that growing understanding of science cleared out most or all (depending on the person) of the superstitious mental cobwebs. But the first step was to believe that science was valuable, but didn’t mean they had to give their safety blanket to learn from it. Religion is about obedience to arbitrary rules. So is all morality. I don’t understand this concept that morals can be derived from science. Morality is the post-hoc rationalization of actions undertaken to fulfill immediate subjective priorities (such as social order). Science simply tells us how to achieve them- and really only sometimes. Science is and always will be a system of knowing, nothing more nothing less. Obtaining morality from science strikes me as being akin to worshiping a toolbox. Is a toolbox useful? Yes. Fun? To some people. It’s not going to give you guidance on what to build, though. Reason tells us how to grow apples. Reason also tells us how to grow oranges. Reason does not dictate which I decider to grow in my back yard- my entirely non-logical preference for apples does. The last time I checked, the (uncapitalized version of) science is not threatened by a movement of literature profs insisting that we teach ecology via iambic pentameter. The reason why so many outfits (including the NAS) make ‘nice-nice’ where religion is concerned is that science education is in fact imperiled whenever religion is inserted into the curriculum. Yes, PZ, you are right: atheism is more compatible with the business of doing science. Science, strictly speaking, is a godless enterprise, that will not admit various flavors of human experience as evidence. The subjective, the non-falsifiable, and much of the feats attributed by believers to the supernatural do not count for a hill of beans in science, and that is the way that it should be. But admitting that does not privilege atheism within science, any more than my assertion of theism privileges my views in that forum, or (for that matter) any other. Do you agree? It seems to me, PZ, that if you feel otherwise you are essentially making the same ridiculous argument that Larry Caldwell (via his spouse) recently made (unsuccessfully) against the University of California. I can understand you are reluctant to join tentacles in a ‘Kum Ba Yah’ moment with religion. Well, really, who asked you to? The NAS policy doesn’t require you or me to sign up for any particular understanding of the status of religion with respect to religion. It just says ‘different understandings’ exist. It doesn’t say that these understandings are correct. It’s not giving religion of any sort pride of place within the scientific enterprise, and it’s just one small part of the document. Given that, your scorched-earth rhetoric on this point sounds like a rather peevish attempt to privilege beliefs within science. I think what we need to privilege in science is not your beliefs or mine, but skepticism towards claims lacking evidence. I’ll happily buy the first round on that point, any time, any place. I’d suspect it’s far more of the former, very, very little of the latter. But even the former doesn’t quite cover the whole of the phenomenon. Beyond ‘keeping the peace’, which takes a lot of guises and can get very personal (remember: religion has deep tendrils into most societies: if you’re going to take a hard, direct line on the damage religious thinking does, you may have any number of aunts or uncles or in-laws who might take offense), there’s also a complex psychology around this. Religion has insinuated itself into that role of moral arbiter for a variety of reasons for centuries–there’s a drumbeat out there that it’s the source of morality, that just having faith for faith’s sake is actually a good thing, so on. Otherwise very independent-minded people don’t always spot the issues with those notions, and as it’s a very thick, tangled tapestry of intersecting claims, it does take some effort to take it all apart. And in fairness, beyond this, I think some are just trying to pick their battles, save their strength. Religion is not a small problem, nor really just one problem. You may even get through the essential analysis that the base of what religion is is actually deliberately hostile to reasoned, open inquiry–that anything that spreads itself by deliberately corroding its adherents’ capacity for reason is a nasty piece of work from top to bottom, bloody dangerous to have around in general–and still decide: I, personally, just don’t think I’m going to get anywhere hack at the beast at that fundamental level. It’s too much. So I’ll go after the head of the hydra closest to what I’m actually trying to get done, hope maybe that gets me where I’m going. Did this post have anything to do with “proving” already known facts? People derive a lot of personal comfort and security from their religious beliefs, no matter how wrongly. If you insistently tie belief in science to an absence of that security blanket, logos is going to lose out to pathos and we’re all going to end up screwed. Human beings, on the whole, aren’t rational animals. Insisting that they be completely rational or not rational at all is a losing proposition for rationality. Pontus @20, so, I read the article. I take from it that humanism is yet another ideology, but I guess you were drawing attention to the “new humanism” and the “old humanism” characterisation therein. I’m not a humanist, by the way, except tangentially and incidentally. I’m not talking about evolution. In Fact I was an evolutionist until a couple weeks age (after I saw Expelled and read some stuff from the DI my position with regards to evolution has weakened somewhat). Evolution has nothing to do with the existence of God even if I grant you evolution. Evolution does nothing to address any of the other evidences for God people present. I don’t care what the zealots say, since they have made themselves incapable of learning. I do care about the moderates because if we can show them what science can tell us, they will realize that religious doctrines are designed to intrude on science and fails in those areas. Eventually, they will realize that religion says nothing worth bothering with. It isn’t accurate in scientific realms and it isn’t defensible anywhere else. I respectfully disagree – it absolutely gives guidance on the types of things one can build. If all there are is wood-working implements in the tool box, one will not be successful working with steel, or deities. It does if you need more vitamin C in your diet. I have a little booklet whose cover states: “What god has revealed to man”. When you open it, all the pages are blank. Should I write in your names? It’s always only a matter of time before someone stretches a perfectly good analogy to breaking point. It’s just an example… Sheesh! “skepticism towards claims lacking evidence” Given that religion falls firmly in the category of claims lacking evidence how are those two things not incompatible again? Also keep in mind atheism is a lack of belief. Usually, but not always, accompanied by “skepticism towards claims lacking evidence”. So certainly science seems more compatible with that outlook than religion which, by definition, requires you to abandon said skepticism. So while you are correct that it does and should not privilege atheism it also certainly isn’t compatible with religion. The fact that so many religious folks can do science is simply evidence that people are really good at compartmentalization, dealing with cognitive dissonance, and denial. …hasn’t got the intellect of the average mango. Ha ha, Facilis, you are priceless! Scientific facts and principles are not articles of faith or ideological positions, and until you get that into your head, what you say will sound nonsensical. Noting that Expelled is a really poor source of scientific information, what exactly about evolution do you not accept? 2)Most U.S. scientists are atheists, so your comparison is irrelevant anyway. Ooh, so clever–didja think that one up all by yourself? I doubt anyone has made that funny before! Facilis, if you can be persuaded by Expelled and some dishonest propaganda from the DI, you are incompetent to have an opinion. You need to find a relative who will take over your daily affairs so you don’t destroy yourself. I think naturalism lacks evidence. No naturalist has been able to present evidence of his beliefs to me. Naturalism and science and incompatible. Also keep in mind atheism is a lack of belief. Stanford Philosophical Encyclopaedia says it is “denial of the existence of God”. Ok big problems here. Why don’t you think religious people can be skeptical? The battle is escalating: last year, our host didn’t print the objectionable NAS quote in the font classically reserved for raving loonies. It’s downright ominous: Comic Sans of the End Times! ROFLMAO! At least we can count on you for a good laugh unlike the three losers. Why don’t you think religious people can be skeptical? are you counting yourself as an example, or a counterexample? There are no evidences for god. He probably already was in the choir… Oh wait… maybe he was a victim of propaganda after all. Yes I am skeptical. There are lots of things I am skeptical of , naturalism, Zeus, atheism ,PZ Myers , Barack Obama.. etc. How about actual atheists, facilis? Whoever it is who put together the Stanford Dictionary hasn’t met me; how can it be representative of my views? Who would you ask to define Christianity, facilis – a member of your own sect or a Catholic? A Jehovah’s Witness? A Mormon? A Seventh-Day-Adventist? For once we agree on something, facilis – though that probably wasn’t your intent. Yes, religious people do engage in all those things, and we’re pointing out that to do so is unnecessary when they could just abandon their religious beliefs and be better off. That just gives your more data to make a decision with. The data don’t dictate the decision. I have a question for folks here. I am currently studying both philosophy and biochemistry and I find science and philosophy to be highly complementary in their approaches to understanding the world and depend on each other a great deal. They both take a rational, logical approach to understanding how the world works and what it all means (which makes sense as science was at one time a branch of philosophy). It seems to me that people who claim religion is compatable with science are ignoring the relationship science has with philosophy and are claiming that religion can do the sort of work for science that philosophy generally does (like answering all those pesky ‘why’ and ‘aught’ questions after science answers the ‘how’). Do people here think that the atheist movement would benefit from placing more emphasis explicitly on philosophy and its relationship to science rather than just on science alone? Could this help counter the whole annoying non-overlapping magesterium argument? I don’t think compartmentalization is necessary. Religion is a good way to fail to understand the universe. Sometimes in our lives that is precisely what is called for. Saying that scientists can’t be religious is like saying psychiatrists can’t have mental problems: a preposterous idea. But the point is that people are really good at compartmentalization, dealing with cognitive dissonance, and denial. People. I don’t accept everything either. I am still a kind of skeptic of ID. But after Ben Stein showed what was really going on inside science I can’t hel but be skeptical of the current paradigm. I don’t, no. I consider philosophy to be almost, but not entirely, useless. Seriously facilis, it’s a bad propaganda film, misrepresenting what really happened to make it seem like there’s a conspiracy. Check the facts about what went on, everything about that film reeks of dishonesty. How can they co-exist? They both make claims about objective reality and only one’s claims are backed up by evidence. They contradict eachother, too. It’s silly to say there’s no conflict between two things that flat-out contradict eachother all over the place! Facilis is a deep-cover Poe. Nobody else could make this statement with an apparently straight face. Christ, you’re a tedious waste of an alphabet. What about your post made you think it worth writing – or even thinking? You were an evolutionist the way chlamydia was just a woman’s disease, and you similarly fooled no one. The wank factor of your posts is higher than ever since you failed our first worthless human being challenge, and though I notice you did add “Sad Prick” after your name, it did nothing to add wit, insight, or even adequate English to your micturations. Go and play with the christians; there at least your feeble-mindedness and insincerity would not be so out of place. I don’t accept everything either. But you accept the existence of a personal God who cares about human beings, despite the complete and total lack of evidence for such an entity? How exactly does science teach about morality? It says nothing about how to live your life. Given the violence nature exhibits everywhere, we could justify murder as a morally justified act, no? It’s called the naturalistic fallacy. And religion teaches nothing about morality? How more false a statement can you make? What are the ten commandments? Are those not moral statements? They are certainly arbitrary, but they still teach morality. No, I am not a troll, and no, I am not any form of a creationist. I’m just amazed that such drivel is taken so seriously. cpsmith, yes, I consider that the atheist movement would benefit from placing more emphasis explicitly on philosophy and its relationship to science rather than just on science alone, but no, I don’t consider that help counter the whole annoying NOMA rationalisation. Ideally, I’d like to see philosophy replace religion. To refute my post you would need to present concrete, objective, physical, and repeatable proof for the existence of god. If you can not do that the assertion that religion requires you to abandon skepticism about some things stands. And that is incompatible with science. I’ll wait while you do that. cpsmith; I think you’ve highlighted a very important issue. The fact is that, as much as I wish it were true, there is no ‘natural philosophy’ of morality that is objectively any better than religion. Granted, relying on one MAY BE better than religion, but it may not. And, like religion, it lacks any supernatural power to enable believers to actually be moral. The fact of the matter is that, without the convenient sky-being to dictate what is and is not good, we are left with only supposing what may be good or what we believe is good. Yes this in fact leaves us no worse off than the best religion can do. But natural philosophy can only be consistent if it refutes itself as a universally normative prescription of morality. Alright I think the new atheists would be better at coming up with more sphiticate arguments and better at reasoning if some were to take some course in philosophy and logic. Not to mention that religion touches on epistemology ,metaphysics, ethics , meaning and purpose and many other philosophically important topics. Atheists would do well to put forth some philosophically informed worldview that could provide such things. It would make it much more attractive to theists. Perhaps it is just me but I do not see any conflict between science and Christianity. I know what kind of discoveries could create a conflict in the future, but I do not see any now. a semi-christian bemoaning the loss of the “christianity without god”. oh boo-hoo. I really feel sorry for facilis. You can tell he’s trying hard to be an intellectual, but his complete ignorance of science permiates through every post he makes. He quite simply has no idea how any of it works, it’s really sad. Alright I think the new atheists would be better at coming up with more sphiticate[sic] arguments and better at reasoning if some were to take some course in philosophy and logic. grebmar, one word: ethics. Facilis, Christianity has had zero effect on science in the last hundred or so years, and will have no effect on it in the future. Science ignores god and religion. That is the nature of science. Religion will adapt to science. Period, end of story. PZ, let me begin by saying that I am an atheist as to erase doubt. To say that there is a contradiction or not between religious belief and science is messy. Most modern religious doctrines have at least some element of the miraculous or interventionism by their chosen deity. Obviously we can all agree this is crap and a contradiction between science and faith. But it is not impossible to formulate faith in a way that naturalistic questions have wholly naturalistic answers. It isn’t much of a faith at this point and I would agree that it would be more along the lines of abstract rules that provide an unnecessary layer to morality and there exists no evidence for such a belief. But it wouldn’t contradict science, just some views of rationality. The reason why I personally wouldn’t criticize faith of this kind harshly is because the public debate is about marketing. Look at how vehemently people defend religious belief against the most well defended theory in history, evolution. Regardless of who is right and wrong we as scientists can agree we want people to at least have a grounding in reality and accept at least the truths about the world. To do that we have to apply rhetoric and not aggression. There has to be a slow progression otherwise we can’t win. The Chemist @ # 41: Reason tells us how to grow apples. Reason also tells us how to grow oranges. Reason does not dictate which I decider to grow in my back yard. Reason wants to know if your back yard is in Oregon or Florida, to start with. I sometimes like to force the issue in online conversations — because I’m right, damn it — but in the long run I think the “nonoverlapping magisteria” people serve a valuable purpose. The roles of religion & faith in people’s lives are complex and sometimes incredibly pervasive. And many people simply aren’t equipped emotionally or intellectually to grapple with the complexity of overturning all of those deeply-held ideas — rejecting a religious POV is not as simple as just saying, “oh yeah, those were some stupid ideas influencing how I voted, and maybe I’ll stop giving money to the church”… for many people, it’s about making grandma cry to you on the phone every weekend (because why aren’t you going to church anymore? what about your soul?), and telling Uncle Bob that his 12-step program was part psychology but a heavy, heavy load of bullshit mixed in, and telling your fiancee that you can’t go through with the promises you’d have to say in front of the crowd in a religious marriage. And so on. Remember that most people’s lives are built around family and social connections, NOT around building the most accurate mental model of reality possible. They may have religion intertwined through those structures like an overgrown vine — you can’t just ask them to rip it out, because it would mean dismantling their lives. And for the sake of *what*, from their point of view? Do you have anything of comparable value to offer to balance the destruction of someone’s entire family/social web? “Being right” or “voting smarter” are not strong arguments in that context. I personally do not trot out the “non-overlapping magisteria” line (nor would agree to it in a conversation…), but I’m not the kind of person who needs it. So I do think there is value in having some people out there saying it (alongside the rest of us who are less compromising…) — it enables people to keep going to church (and protects grandma from that nervous breakdown) but still allows exploring a scientific perspective on the world. And if they explore science but go to church and engage with religion’s supposed home turf, like morality (’cause it can at least serve that purpose — morality is discussed), then the science-based worldview can let them analyze what they’re hearing in sermons. And they may decide to have “morality discussion night” instead of taking *their* kids to church. And their kids quite likely won’t have any use for the “nonoverlapping magisteria” crutch. If there’s no conflict between science and religion, then the faithful ought to give up their computers, modern medicine, telephones, eyeglasses, etc — and see how good a job god does of fixing up their problems with objective reality. It’s not science’s fault that religion is full of fail. Does the NAS think that there’s no conflict between science and the doctrine that fairies are involved in disposing of lost teeth? NOMA, etc, is just cowardice. religion doesn’t add anything of value to the morality societies seem to agree upon, it does however often hinder the progress of morality in societies. those 10 commandments you cited? most of it is religious and morality-free (don’t take the lords name in vain etc), and the rest is stolen from the Code of Hammurabi, a secular code of law. on the other hand, it’s religiosity that condemns loving people just because they happen to love the wrong gender, consider raped women criminals and whores, etc. Now, this is why a clever fellow came up with the idea of the ‘Courtier’s Reply’. Perhaps you should go and read a bit about that, facilis. Why do we need sophisticated arguments, facilis? There’s no evidence for god, and none of the arguments used by apologists over the years – chiefly as an attempt to hide the fact there is no evidence for god – is anything more than self-indulgent twaddle. All an atheist needs to know to be content, philosophically, is that no argument for the Christian god cannot be applied to any and all other gods posited by humanity. New Atheists have a very extensive grounding in philosophy and logic. Far more than all of the religionists like you in the world all put together. PZ Myers – Making the hairs on my godless neck stand up since 2006. so why mention it. strategy vs. tactics. which do you think applies when we debate the future of religion itself at this time and place? why is it so many seem to forget the difference? are we not allowed to discuss what, from a rationalist perspective, should be the end goal, in deference to currently applied tactics? It indeed boils down to the tacticians telling the long term strategists to shut up. This is a pretty good book; very clear. How exactly does science teach about morality? Science teaches about morality by teaching us how our behaviour is derived both genetically and socially. Through studies of animal behaviour, human behaviour, wider societal effects, and applying mathematics to the endeavour, science can get a good view of how morality works. No, I am not that clever to make up such a devise to prove you are insane, but have the booklet in front of me, as I have had for many years. Neither you nor your imaginary god deserve any space in any context except in ridicule of the utmost severity. It’s not science’s fault that religion is full of fail. get. lost. twit. It’s not enough that atheism be grounded in science, now Facile(is) demands that atheism be philosophically satisfying. I wonder if it can be done… oh that’s right: Pyrrho, Zeno, Diagoras, & Astippus, David Hume & the British empiricists, the French from Babeuf & Helvetius to Marcuse, Foucault et. al., the Germans from the Young Hegelians through Nietzsche to Habermas. Karl Marx, Bertrand Russell, Rudolf Carnap, Quine, Dennett, Danielson. I’m sure none of these have been “sphiticate” enough in their thinking. Please, atheism is not suffering for lack of philosophical rigor. Science and in particular is confusing to some but the link will make sense of it all. I second the objection also. Nobody can demolish the validity of faith because faith can be whatever it wants. Just think of something and then there you go you have some faith. Whatever you want it to be. It’s kinda hard to demolish something that can be whatever it wants to be. I can’t say as I agree with you in this case, Nerd. I think the fundies delayed quite a bit of good work with the stemcell ban. Maybe facilis does what Andrew Brown did in his article criticising “the New atheists” – complain about the lack of scholarship in philosophy / theology in the movement by ignoring all philosophers and theologians / biblical historians that are part of the movement. Science describes reality. Religion claims to explain reality. The god concept kills inquiry. Why is there anything instead of nothing? Well, god didit, no further questions need be asked. How exactly does science teach about morality? How do I behave to help create a world worth living in? In the ages to come we will learn things that would surprise people living today, atheists and theists alike. But that’s in the ages to come. For now it suffices to say that God has bugger all to do with what we can know, and how we can know it. You’re on your own, kiddo; don’t flush the puppy down the toilet. Rob W @102, good point. Religion is perceived (mostly by adherents) to be a source for ethics, for telos, and for goals – but in reality it is not required for any of these. What? That’s what they should do if there is irreconcilable conflict between science and religion, they admit it, and they choose religion anyway. By providing evidence of the efficacy of altruism as an evolutionary development. Almost as easily as the religionists do, I imagine. Almost. Not all humans murder if presented the opportunity. We know this to be true, because there are humans still around. Not if they are arbitrary, they don’t. Vast volumes in the field of moral philosophy and ethics have been written on this issue. Any dictate from a sky-being would, due to its arbitrary nature, not be morally good or bad. Just arbitrary. You just missed a step, that’s all. As far as natural philosophy is concerned, the Ten Commandments or any other list of dictates is only moral, if at all, by coincidence. Yes, definitely. Gould’s claim that “religion” owns the realm which deals with “morals and meaning” ignores both “ethics” and “philosophy.” Religious morals are but a subset of ethics, and religious meaning is a subset of philosophy. How could NOMA leave out the magisterium of Philosophy? When aspects of a religion seem valuable and make sense to people outside the religion, those elements are obviously appealing to a secular common ground. They’re not unique to religion. When values or morals are unique to a particular sect, that means they can only be defended by reference to a special revelation. That way lies division — not unity, and not harmony. One of the main reasons atheists need to fight this claim that “religion teaches about morality” is because it implies that religion is necessary for morality. To do this in a country where atheists are considered immoral because they “have no basis for deciding right and wrong” is thoughtless. For science organizations to do this is darn near outrageous. It had an effect on funding, but not how the science was done, which appeared to be FFF’s point. I cannot argue that the US is now behind other countries due to the fundies. Science can actually do both of these. And religion teaches nothing about morality? No, religion teaches nothing worthwhile about morality except possibly in the many delusions and cultural rationalisations which we should most carefully avoid. I reckon that we should be pushing rationalism and thinking skills – but not just general philosophy. It’s too wordy, too easily manipulated, too baffling – and too easily mocked. It may be the foundation of the scientific method but it has had little or no impact on our real discoveries and current knowledge. And the likes of Derrida were just intellectual frauds. The philosophical foundations for atheism start back in ancient greece almost 2500 years ago with the likes of Epicurus and Socrates. Then in recent times there’s David Hume, the “deist” movement of the late 18th century, moving onto the likes of Bertrand Russell, and more recently there’s Antony Flew’s work. Even now in the “new atheist” movement there’s people like AC Grayling, Peter Singer and Daniel Dennett just to drop a few names. The philosophy has been put out in depth, but it hardly matters. Science is the biggest killer of gods because theists keep insisting that their respective god does things in the universe. At each step of the way, rational inquiry and scepticism has trumped any religious affirmation. It’s to the point now that any philosophy or religion in order to be coherent has to be consistent with science. Facilis’ original comment was a derail. Does it deserve this much attention? “Science and Art Offer Different Ways of Understanding the World”? That’s important. People don’t care about religion because they think it will help them understand the natural world; they care about it because they find it makes their life more meaningful. To beat a religion down you need to argue that it’s not just bad science but also bad poetry — that it makes the lives of believers more hollow, immoral and/or uninteresting. e.g. not only is heaven not a physical place somewhere out in the Oort cloud, but believing in heaven will make your life worse. “What the fuck” Facilis is pointing out, correctly, is that the per capita scientific overperformance of the religious USA is a factor of 7.89. With only 4.5 percent of the global population, it produced more than one-third of the global scientific output in 1999 according to a UNESCO study entitled “A Global Snapshot of Scientific Trends”. That is 28.7 percent more scientific output PER CAPITA than the most atheistic nation in Europe, which is France. One notes that Albania saw no great scientific leap forward during the 24 years it was an atheist nation. To the extent that atheism is linked with left-wing ideologies, it actually tends to inhibit science, although that has much more to do with economics than the belief models held by the individual scientist. Research tends to suffer when the central planners are in charge of distributing the test tubes and deciding who will study biology and who will work at the pig farm. Religion is simply not a danger to science. If any of you knew anything about history, you’d be aware that the only serious threats to science and technological advancement have been political ideologies that seek societal stasis. In 25 years of effort, these organizations [refering to those science organizations that promoted NOMA in one form or another] don’t seem to have much effect on influencing public opinion about evolution. I think that this may mean that the USA will have to become a lot less religious before acceptance of evolution increases appreciably. NOMA only succeeds with those who want to accept it to begin with. the problems were are having in the US stem from those who in essence, can not even begin to accept NOMA, let alone the idea that their religion is entirely irrelevant at best. Now, I have SEEN NOMA be applied with success during specific battles (the rejection of the creationist agenda in Ohio comes to mind). However, in the end, Coyne is absolutely right. attitudes of acceptance will change only in the face of the reduction of religious influence itself. This should indeed be our long term goal, if the acceptance and furtherance of science itself is also a long term goal. Admit it: you’d never even heard of the Gettier problem until I asked you about it. And when you bother to consult the SEP for a definition of atheism but are completely unfamiliar with any of its entries on logic, truth or knowledge you cause a surge of irony so massive it threatens to bring down the entire Eastern Seaboard. If you knew any philosophy beyond the buzzwords and talking points you absorb from your favorite apologetic sources, you’d be able to offer at least an interesting challenge to naturalism. But your attempts at “logic” start to resemble a blindfolded man staggering across a rake-strewn lawn. To beat a religion down you need to argue that it’s not just bad science but also bad poetry — that it makes the lives of believers more hollow, immoral and/or uninteresting. e.g. not only is heaven not a physical place somewhere out in the Oort cloud, but believing in heaven will make your life worse. that is true, but it is not a discussion for scientists per se, it’s a point that atheists and humanists need to bring to the forefront of attention. science, being what it is, should completely and utterly ignore the “god” question, while defending itself from encroachment by religion on its turf. VD has a correlation != causation failure, as is usual for him, assuming VD = Vox day. Sastra and Josh, I think you’re both assuming your conclusions. The fact is, natural philosophy is only superior to religion in that it recognizes its inability to provide a universal morality. It isn’t in any way superior in actually providing ethics, it is just not worse. Certainly, anyone can point to a particular morality based on natural philosophy and _claim_ that it is a universal morality. But so can the faithful. Yea, that’s gotta be Vox day. I disagree. You only have to show that religion is irrelevant to their morality, and to living a fulfilling life. much easier and just as effective. It’s true that science and religion are two different ways of understanding the universe. Where people go wrong is by suggesting that they both work. EPIC FAIL. not even the soviet union worked that way. If patterns and commonality in morality are found among the religions of the world by cultural anthropologists would they still be arbitrary, or could they demand an explanation. Perhaps there is innate in humans a way they think society should work. Perhaps they are not inate but features that allow religions to succeed and propagate, once again, since they are propagating in humans, they represent something of what we know about human nature. Perhaps the morality rationally deducable from the way intelligent species have to live together to cooperation when making the transition to higher levels of organization. So there may be an argument against arbitrariness in patterns that are seen. There can also be arguments against arbitrariness in attempts by the religions to have internal consistency, where perhaps inconsistent rules are eventually rejected due to incompatibility with higher level theology. I think Christianity has some of this when Jesus explained the rest of the 10 commandments being derivable from the first two and Paul taking it further and declaring freedom from much of the law of the old testament. Much of the appeal of Christianity comes from these simplifying principled reforms. No longer is morality prescriptions laid down in detail for every situation, it becomes derivable with an internal integrity that some find inspiring. Principles are an interesting way of simplifying the task of intelligence when facing new situations. I think in Catholicism, the sense of arbitrariness is enhance by all the ritual, while some of the protestant sects are very good at emphasizing the accessibility and simplicity and love. Of course the protestants have their share of the other as well, and are even returning to the law of the old testament and apologizing for all that Christ and Paul seemed to be reforming. Feel free to do as you wish with it, but I think it needs some “attention”. Are you sure you intended to address this to me? I didn’t offer a conclusion at all; merely a statement of fact. And I wasn’t even talking about natural philosophy being superior to religion. Far from it. I was talking about science and it’s relationship to reality. That you could somehow infer that I was talking about ethics from what I wrote is beyond me. PZ’s notion of deriving morality from reason and science only demonstrates his customary philosophical incompetence. It’s simple, really. Surrounded by apes struggling to make it through the world, take personal responsibility for creating an environment conducive to other apes happiness and well-being. AG, if I understand what you’re going on and on about, you’re saying “morality evolved”, right? Heddle: Don’t feel too bad, as it is not your fault that there is no god. After all, there were no gods until humans came along. Now how do you explain that? I like to offer my comments concisely and to the point. Let’s see your imaginary god. Simple, eh? Not as simple as you though. Even philosophy cannot be as simple as this, and theology is just pure simpleton. As I have said many times here, if I was a supreme being and one of my creations questioned my existence, I’d be down in a flash and kick the crap out of it. That’s the problem with trying to market scientific theories by appealing to their compatibility with faith. It gives support to the idea that faith is a wonderful tool to use — but only if you use it the “right” way. What is the “right” way? The way that makes sense to people without your faith. But since when has a person’s religious beliefs rested on how much they appeal to atheists and nonbelievers? Religious people seek the approval of God. That is the one and only “right” way to do your religion. And that means that anything reasonable and useful which comes out of it is pretty much a measure of chance. It’s a bit like trying to promote the theory of evolution among skeptical astrologers by impressing upon them that there’s a method of reading the stars which has them spelling out “evolution happened.” Even if it works, you’ve built the astrological support for evolution on a pretty weak foundation. Or, perhaps, Sideshow Bob. Hmm. Is that one of them-there sophisticated New Atheist arguments that “demolish of the validity of faith?” I must say, Bertrand Russell would be so proud of the current state of the art. Didn’t Bertrand Rusell write “Why I am not faeces”? Some of us get that (granting the facile premise) the “per capita” would apply to the set of scientists working in the USA, not of that of the population at large, and that the appropriate metric for such a facile comparison should be the ratio of theistic to non-theistic scientists. I know that as a scientist, PZ has primarily argued for the scientific basis of atheism, but I think statements like this are absolutely terrible. Too wordy? Too baffling? Damn right, it may have been responsible for the scientific method, but logic as well, the supposed “rationalism” you suggest we model (what sort of rationalism? Kant’s? Hegel’s? Hume’s? Plato’s?), the critiques often offered here of social conditions, ethical, political & legal theory, theoretical physics, the Enlightenment of Jefferson & Voltaire. In short, it has everything to do with our current discoveries & knowledge. It’s true that “science” is generally capable of providing a convincing case against YECky inerrantists, but any real argument for atheism in toto is ultimately a philosophical (i.e. ontological/metaphysical/ethical) argument. This is why Russell’s “Why I am not a Christian” is so convincing. This is why PZ’s critique of the ethical implications of biblical texts are so persuasive. And what’s with hating on Derrida? Too baffling? I read it 3 times, and still am unsure wtf he means myself. It sounds as though he’s saying there is something “to” religion because of commonality of pattern in different societies in religious ideology? Yes you have said it many times, and yet is has had no effect. On anyone. Imagine that. And such a powerful argument, too. Yes, Josh, I was referencing your comment, and, no, I made no mistake. Don’t get snippy, OK? You get a choice: you can say that science explains HOW the universe works but not WHY the universe works, or you can say that science explains WHY the universe works as it does, but not HOW the universe works as it does. I’m not making an argument for NOMA, I’m saying that unless you make ‘how’ and ‘why’ identical things, science only gets a crack at one of them. If every single position of every single particle throughout the history of the universe were known by science, it would not explain why there is a universe. Now, you could say “that’s not a valid question”, it’s been done before, but I think that’s a cop-out. “Science”, as it were, will be able to replace “religion” in informing morality as soon as it stops claiming it is superior to religion in informing morals. Which is, in essence, what I saw your comment as addressing. Religion is simply not a danger to science. Some religion is indeed a danger to some science. This is empirical. No, that is pure blatant reason crapping in the face of insane religion. There is no validity of faith per se, but there is the validity of crap run amuck at the hands of religion. Although I agree with much of PZ’s statements and the comments here, I must make a point. Pragmatic politics, especially here in Oklahoma and in many other states require that we recognize that 80% or so of citizens are ‘people of faith.’ We can not win against legislative attempts at anti-evolution by attacking religion. Indeed, some of our best activists and lobbyists are people of faith, especially from mainstream denominations and Interfaith Alliances. Support from these ministers is especially helpful in direct lobbying with legislators. Perhaps it is ‘enemies of my enemies are my friends,’ but it has been essential to our success in the last ten years in stopping really bad bills. Those out here on the ground in day to day battles are likely to understand. It is one thing to offer opinions on blogs on what should be and a very different thing to take direct action to influence legislation introduced by far-right Christians. I know that PZ has at times criticized NCSE for a similar stand, but the realities are that we need help from the more liberal religious persons and organizations, if we have ANY chance to succeed. Perhaps this is why NCSE now has a staff member to work with faith-based groups. The Tulsa Interfaith Alliance, for example, has twice made significant donations to Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education (OESE) and successfully led the fight a few years ago to prevent creationist exhibits in the Tulsa Zoo. They and other interfaith groups have issued statements supporting evolution. Perhaps it is significant that Richard Dawkins’ Foundation just donated $5000 to OESE as well; I am sure he knew that we use all of the help we can get from friends of our cause – at least I mentioned to him about our Board of Governors having a few ministers – and why. Support from these religious persons and organizations do not mean that all on the evolution side are themselves people of faith. The persons of faith also see that anti-evolution attempts are ultimately harmful to their own religion. Get involved at the local level and I think most will come to agree with this strategy, at least for the foreseeable future. Unless one has been so involved, comments to the contrary may not mean much, IMHO. Yes morality evolved. Religious morality may not be arbitrary in the sense of being created out of whole cloth, it was constrained by what worked practically, both socially and with the human nature it had to appeal to and propagate within. Apologies for the typos that made the reading difficult. If a religion has “happened” onto certain principles with more universal appeal and resonance, perhaps they should be examined for insight into human nature. You’re making the mistake of assuming faith has any validity to be demolished. It doesn’t. Anyway, as I noted upthread, you don’t believe we can choose to become Christians; why, then, are you bothering to argue with us about why we don’t believe in your god? In your world there are no arguments for religion since the Christian god nominates who believes in him and who doesn’t. How can arguments change that? Your time would be better spent asking your god to convert us as you were converted, rather than defying his will by presuming you can argue for him. Rob W, I like what you said, but there are additional considerations you should take into account. One is that your gentle argument is exactly what repressed the LGBT community for so long. Even today families are torn apart by one member coming out, and grandma even cries on the phone every day for her lost lamb. Some kids are thrown out on their own after breaking the news to their parents. But I don’t think there are many gay people in the U.S. who want it to be that way; they just want everyone to deal with the reality of the situation instead of pretending all the time. It is the same for atheists. Another thing to consider is that many people are not rooted so deeply in the church or in a certain religion, and they can handle the fact that many of our cultural traditions are surreptitiously religious yet still not be religious themselves. You have to think of those people, too. Precisely. As you said, no effect. I can’t believe I had such a golden opportunity for thematic recapitulation and intensification—and I let it slip away. helio is a bad Pharyngula elf. helio must go iron his hands. 1. Science does try to figure out how the human mind works, which includes trying to figure out what part of the human brain involves concepts such as morality and spirituality, and how those concepts might have come to be as part of our evolution. 2. Religion also (almost always*) attempts to “teach” the why, as in how we came to be, generally with some kind of presupposition that humanity occupies a “special” place in the Universe. I’d rather get my morality from reason and real world experience, from science, and religion teaches nothing about morality. Shortages of natural resources, the prospect of global climate change, the challenge of asteroid deflection, the possibility of significant disruption of our electrical grid and GPS/satellite systems starting in 2011 (Sun wakes up), currently confront us as a species. Does science and reason suggest that humans who are mentally and/or physically unfit to contribute to resolving these challenges should be terminated? Would reason suggest this termination be done to minimize expenditure of resources as opposed to some kind of process that focuses on the fears of those to be terminated? So PZ, at the risk of being tagged a troll, I don’t get my morality from science or religion. Reason, yeah and that old-time Golden Rule….the bugs in my house have a lot of “luck” getting outside. * Not sure if Buddhism and Confucianism qualify as religions – no magic sky-daddy. “Universal morality” is one of those vague phrases which can mean several things. If it means trying to establish a common standard of good and evil — right and wrong — which all reasonable people can or would recognize, then I think secular standards built on what we can see and know in this world will be superior to any standards which come from a “special revelation” which is available only to the faithful. nope, we get to have our cake and eat it too. science can address both proximate and ultimate questions, and often does, in fact. The mechanism of star formation addresses how a star came to be, and the big-ban is the ultimate explanation for WHY it came to be. this really isn’t like the heisenberg uncertainty principle, you know. now, if you wish to extend “why” to some issue of MEANING, then the only thing relevant to science is why you wish to impose meaning on it to begin with. otherwise, the question of applying meaning to the existence of anything is, well, meaningless. Now ‘new atheists’ is of course just yer standard BS attempt at a wholesale labelling of positions you happen to oppose as extreme or naive or what have you, and atheism on its own, as noted, is a very general qualifier that takes in a wide umbrella of folk who don’t happen to believe in gods for any number of reasons, but I’d say there is something of a unifying concept behind the actions of the more vocal, activist types that tend to attract that ‘new’ label, nonetheless, and that it’s this additional rule–or rather, a more rigourous and general application of a really very old rule–that presumably even earns them (us) that label. The rule is just this: don’t lie. Like I said, it’s an old one, and no one much ever needed anyone saying some god intoned that idea to figure out it’s a principle you might want to follow. There are reasons enough. Main one is: when people catch you lying to them, they do get pissed off about it. Because usually, they figure, your doing so to them will hurt them in some way. Whether or not they know precisely what harm any lie does them, people generally don’t like being lied to, anyway. And they probably wouldn’t whether or not anyone wrote down that it’s generally wrong. Messing with what you know of the world, it generally poses a danger, and that’s what a lie does, obviously enough. So it’s an old and obvious principle, sure. But the trouble is, many among the current crop of vocal atheists go and take that way too seriously for certain folks’ tastes. See, the vocal atheist types certain laughably transparent thinkers (and I do use that last noun loosely, here) like to call ‘new’ go so far as to say: ‘Don’t lie. And we mean that. So that even means don’t go bullshitting people and telling them you’ve evidence for a god when you don’t, even if you do think maybe you could get yourself a nice, convenient, universal moral code out of that lie by claiming (in lie number two) you got that code from the deity you just claimed you know exists.’ Oh, and some of us would even go so far as to say: hey, look, beyond that, once you tell people you need them to collude in spreading those particular lies, even for that reason, you generally mess up the whole thing anyway. They spot the contradiction, realize, actually, you aren’t saying don’t lie–you’re saying don’t lie unless you’re doing so to prop up your religion. And for folks with a direct economic interest in that (see the priesthood), there’ll be self-serving motivations behind that, too, beyond any claimed useful ones, so it is almost guaranteed to go places you don’t want to let it from the start. And it’s generally incredibly unnecessary, besides, since we can and do arrive at moral guidelines by working them out between us, anyway, and by arguing over how we like to live–funny thing is, that’s how we actually revise our criminal codes, generally, these days. And here’s another funny thing: religion does that working it out thing too, actually, to some degree, despite claiming, of necessity, not to, and this is easily demonstrated. Insofar as, as has been noted elsewhere, the ethics religious types claim their religion promotes tend to shift with time. Slavery’s good… then it’s bad, as one really obvious example. So the laws and principles that matter, you get those anyway: any given society has to work out something of the type just to stabilize itself. And this is where real laws come from, by the way. Not abstract, airy principles handed down from on high. From street protests and vocal opposition and heated arguments in legislatures. From eloquent oration, treaties signed with gritted teeth, deals made to keep things moving. From self-interest. From the simple principle that we like our societies to work, because we know we generally all benefit from that, and we’ll put up with all sorts of crap not directly in our interest to preseve that larger interest. Like I said: all a bit obvious. Hope I didn’t lose anybody in there. Science and reason suggest we accept these humans as they are. It simply grants religion an unquestioned privileged place as an equal to science, when it deserves no such prestige. Somebody is channeling Sam Harris…. It wasn’t the typos that made it hard to read. It was the lack of a point. If the principles have universal appeal and resonance, we have no need of religion to happen upon them. Correlation does not imply causality. So what? Sorry. I didn’t intend that reply to be snippy. I’m sorry that you interpreted it that way. Believe me–you’ll know it if I start getting snippy. But I think you did make a mistake. And it can. Science has multiple functions in trying to help us better understand the universe. One of these is to describe things about nature that we observe (e.g., with laws). Science can simply describe a pattern or trend of observations (or indeed, simply a single observation). Another is to explain these things that we observe (e.g., with theories). Science can devise explanations for why certain patterns of observations exist or how things happen. It is this relationship that I was referring to, because your statement limited science to describing. That simply isn’t accurate. Not only that, but I would also offer that religion does a rather piss poor job of explaining how patterns of observations happen. you didn’t use the word describe once. You’re only talking about explaining here (which isn’t what your original statement said (even if you intended it such)). And you’re using the word “how” as in function or mechanics and “why” as in purpose for existing. I wasn’t talking about purpose for existing at all (largely because of the foolishness of postulating a reason for the universe to exist in science). I was responding to your original point where you made an overly limiting statement about the relationship between “describe” and “explain” in science. Go on then, apart from their influence on say Marx, what possible value has any philosopher’s written thoughts on anything we do? Logic – logic in all its glory was so fantastically influential that Russell and Whitehead wrote the Principia Mathematica entirely in its language, finally proving that 1 + 1 = 2 after 1000 pages; only to see the whole project collapse following a paradox of Russel’s own devising. Historically, I assert, aside from their influence on political movements (and excepting, in particular, mathematics) philosophy is dull, irrelevant, and easily turned to support poor ideas. And Derrida? French wanker. Is there anything he said of any lasting value whatsoever? No. They’re a contract establishing servitude. Why is it that the imaginary god that infests your brain does not also reside in mine? Why can’t this god thing of yours also make an attempt to ossify my neurons in the same manner as yours? How do you utterly explain this? We have the same brains, yet yours is prone to all such manner of insanities whereas mine is free from this rot? Am I missing something or is it that your brain has defied the realm of evolutionary process and has gone berserk from an errant stimulous? Come on, I want to experience your imaginary god in the same manner as you. I have an open mind; get your god to enter and permit my mind to rot as well. I have never understood how some religions can claim leadership in the area of morality. It may be true that some religious leaders are schooled in morals, as in the training the Catholic Church gives its leaders (stop laughing right this minute) most have no claim to training of any sort. The religion I escaped from, The Mormons, are proud that there leaders are simply plain folk that have been recognized by the Lord to dole out platitudes or even worse actual advice. The fact that the guy setting across the table from you runs a car dealership, or is a dentist can’t be allowed to make you feel uncomfortable with the advice. The reason religion survives so well in the US is because it is basically free. All that you have to do is say “Oh yeah, sure I believe in God” Walla you are a Christian. You don’t have to know the Bible much less accept it. You can say “It’s a metaphor” to any passage or doctrine that you find difficult or silly” You don’t need to go to church or send money or even have a denomination. You just claim to believe and no one bothers you. You can claim respectability, and morality. You can do whatever you want and either claim “Gods will” or beg forgiveness and you don’t have to do a thing to prove your “faith”. It is cowardly and dishonest, but a whole lot easier than being an atheist. If Christian churches in America made people actually live by their supposed beliefs, and disavowed anyone who wasn’t a regularly attending member of a denomination there would be a lot more Atheists. If we could get everyone to agree on “what we can see and know”, religion would have never gotten started to begin with. Unless you’re going to stop with The Golden Rule (a dictate which itself breaks down if treated logically) you’re going to have just as many “holy wars” over your ‘secular morality’ as the religionists do over theirs. And RE: ‘God said it’, this also pertains to an earlier comment someone made about refuting the poetry of a religion. HUMAN BRAINS NEED NARRATIVE. Some of us are lucky enough (or cursed, depending) to not need their particular narrative. If you think that means you don’t have a narrative, you are mistaken. Take your secular morality, dress it up with a metaphysical narrative that ‘explains’ what is “really going on” with our existence in the universe, and then you will convince people their religion might be wrong and yours is right. Convincing people that their religion is wrong and so is every and all other religions, that simply doesn’t work, most of the time. Yes, you’re right. It is not only true, but useful, to help religious people understand that their faith beliefs can be compatible with the discoveries of modern science. But, their faith beliefs cannot be derived from the discoveries of modern science — and in the long run, there will still be a conflict. In the short run, conceding the entire area of morals to religion will fuel negative sentiments against the non-religious. I don’t think then that it needs to be an either/or situation — either we promote the idea that science and religion can “work together” pragmatically or we promote the idea that science and religion don’t “work together” philosophically. We can do both. Not the same voices, perhaps. But I think we need at least some people arguing strenuously for an unwelcome honesty — because it is never a good idea to abandon honesty for long. Religious people can be stronger, wiser, and braver than their religions. The same values which impelled them to adopt their supernatural beliefs, can compel them to abandon them. Ryk @184, nice! Switzerland outperforms USA in citations pr. paper. And Denmark is third with only 5.5 millions citizens. woohoo. “morality” is just another words for personal beliefs – which are always individual (to a certain degree) and societal (to another). There is no actual thing such as “morals” that’s worth talking about, because it’s impossible for us to have even the slightest confidence that if we both use the term, we’re talking about the same thing. Indeed. I’ve always felt that it’s more Christianity being intricately linked with sociocultural identity that’s responsible for the high adherence figures in the US. It’s got next to bugger-all to do with believing in it – and certainly it’s very little to do with understanding what believing in it actually means. If they made Christians have to fill out a form or pass a basic knowledge test in order to qualify there’d be a lot more atheists – and fewer Christians responding to survey questions about Sodom and Gomorrah in way that illustrates they think the two were husband and wife. Sir, as a Tehologist, I must object! Only an adequate grasp of Teh allows one to, e.g., distinguish between eternally (or perhaps only temporally) binding commandments transmitted via Tools of Teh vs. the insane ramblings of degenerate power-mad lunatics, to elaborate on the relationship between N-Rays and the cosmological constant, or, most significantly, to function normally relying on the omnipresent spirit of Teh after ones occiput has been devastated by a ball-peen hammer. On the other hand, if someone chooses to believe in a non-intervening God or an underlying Ground of Being, it’s no skin off your nose, is it? In fact, it’s like my touching faith in education for improving people’s behavior in spite of the undeniable fact that people still litter. I don’t think so… That is, I think it would be possible to tie everything to the Golden Rule, if only as situational clarifications and modifications thereof. Really, what sort of “holy wars” are you thinking of? I don’t disagree that narrative is useful, but I’m not sure that it’s an actual need. I might modify it to this, though: Human brains need for ethical systems to be imparted in a way that the human brain can accept and understand. Because human brains differ based on genetic and developmental factors (and quite possibly the latter more than the former), it is (probably) necessary to use multiple methods to impart ethical systems, of which narrative is definitely an important method, but not the only method (I think pragmatic examples may be better at talking to more pragmatic personalities; appeals to emotion to more emotional personalities, et cetera and so forth). Yes, it’s a more complicated formulation, because people are in fact complicated. Church Father Tertullian in the 2nd century, already understood the incompatibility between faith and reason. Quotes by Martin Luther also underscore that sentiment. The reason people today hang on to such silly notions is due to the implications for religion. In a world dominated by epistemic methodological naturalism; once the word is out that embracing faith means accepting what is equivalent to intellectual schizophrenia, you will find it increasingly difficult to peddle faith. yhutchison makes an excellent point about, well – reality. When dealing with the majority, who usually self-identify as “people of faith”, you have to take the honey-over-vinegar approach. First, you use those who are patient with the cognitively dissonant to cozzen the PoF into accepting real science into the classroom, then you teach their offspring to think logically. You don’t tell them ‘Your belief in God is irrational and at odds with the observed universe.’ You lead them gently to that moment of epiphany when they tell you. The less threatening the approach, the easier to convince someone. Face it – most of those who are “religious” are so because they’re dead scared of the unpredictability of the universe. Horrible natural disaster? Must be part of “God’s Plan”. Personal tragedy? “God moves in mysterious ways”. Try to tell them that there’s no great plan, no Cosmic Muffin who cares about what happens to them, no place to go to after dying*, and you have people running off in droves. Ease them gently into the reality of an uncaring universe and you’re far more likely to have them stick around and listen. And possibly absorb. I think that, if such things are to be had at all, any “universal morals” are likely to be very vague, general sorts of things — whether secular or religious. But arguments over secular morals will necessarily lack the dogmatic certainty of moral systems that rest on undemonstrable dogmatic certainties and inbuilt hierarchies of cosmic authority. One is therefore forced to stand on common ground with those one disagrees with, and attempt to persuade them with evidence and argument. Such attempts may eventually fail, but pulling out “God’s Will” as trumps is failure — and it is too tempting to use it. Ding ding ding! You win the prize for “Agreeing most with NOMA without wanting to.” Science is, not incidentally, entirely impotent in even the most trivial questions of “meaning”. You can insist if you wish that all answers to ‘why’ are just artificial constructs, but you cannot do that and then claim special privileges for your own answers. In other words, to claim that religion must be silent on an issue on which science itself is silent is nonsensical, and would rightfully earn accusations of ‘scientism’, whatever that is. Is this perhaps what Gould was trying to say? The fact is that the reason we still have priests is the same reason we have scientists: neither can refute anything the philosophers say, but both wish to very sincerely. If the scientists had been able to satisfy or refute the questions of the philosophers as easily as they did the alchemists, the priests would have disappeared centuries ago. If the priests could have answered the philosophers adequately, there never would have been any scientists. I’ve been around with Larry on this too. While some of the make-nice statements are a bit much, religion is not incompatible with evolution, or with science in general, if it’s a religion that makes no claims with observable consequences. It may be highly unparsimonious, but that’s another matter. And religious belief is incompatible with the scientific method, but thats another matter too; one need not apply the scientific method to everything; and as long as a person makes no attempt to apply religion as “a way of knowing” to biology, why should we care what he does in the rest of his life? This is more or less a version of NOMA, which many theists have (I think properly) interpreted to mean that science and religion are compatible as long as religion stays out of science’s way. And that’s exactly what Ken Miller’s religion does, as I understand it. Jerry Coyne’s point #2 seems to be wrong, by the way. I’ve also noted a correlation between evolutionary biology and atheism, but I haven’t seen any data that show causation. If you have some, I’d be interested. It could indeed be that biological knowledge kills religion, but it also could be that the non-religious are preferentially drawn to evolutionary biology. Or it could be that being smart predisposes one to both. Now if there were a study showing that 1st-year grad students are as religious as the general population, but recent Phds are significantly less religious than non-Phd members of their cohort, I would agree that Jerry has something. But as for me, I came in that way and left that way. In my opinion, evolution doesn’t incline to atheism any more than any other aspect of reality. Perhaps we should not meddle too severely with Heddle’s brain as he might become more befuddled than he is now. He is on the precipice of near-insanity now, and a little more rational severity may cause him to complete his insanity. He will never find his imaginary god, neither will he find his sanity once lost. And his god will not avail him in either case. Hey Facilis the troll, you are really good for a laugh. You call yourself a skeptic? The fact that you refer to yourself as a former “evolutionist” tells me who had no understanding of biology to begin with(when was the last time I heard of a gravity-ist?). You as asking why the US has more scientists than France. Eh, comparing pure number between two countries not exactly equal in size? You said you are also skeptical of Zeus, I just don’t see why not the Judeo-Christian-Islamic gawd. As a religious naturalist, I’m not sure where evolution conflicts with my religion. And such a naturalism is evident in many mainline protestant denominations. Check out the United Church of Canada creed, for instance. It’s also a given in most 19th and 20th century mainline theologians. Of course much of religion is supernaturalist. Some of you may think it’s the only proper religion, more easily to dismiss. But my concern about dismissing it, is that a number of doctrines, religious ideas that hold sway really do things to make sense out of experience. It may be dressed up as supernatural, but even then, presumably it does something in seeing the world. If it was utterly at odds with the world, how would it hold sway in such communities over time? Notice I said utterly. Some of it may be, but let’s not rush to dismiss the experiences of various communities and traditions. In that I’m agreeing with Dennett that we shouldn’t prematurely shut off inquiry over religion. Not saying folks on here should do it. But the idea of some positive traffic of religion and the sciences strikes me as a worthwhile endeavor. By the way, heddle, if you get tired of playing troll with Holbach, perhaps you could address the counterargument to your interpretation of Romans 1:20, here. It seemed to me that you were making extremely emotion-based arguments in that thread. I’m just curious enough to suggest a psychological experiment: Read a few scientific papers to put your brain into a more analytical and empirical mode, and then look at at Romans 1:20 again. Think of Paul not as someone presupposed to be divinely inspired, but as someone who is making an argument to convince people that he is divinely inspired. When you do that, do you still come to the same interpretation as to its meaning? It’s as if “scientific” and “religious” are the extreme ends of a linear scale. An increase in one comes at the expense of the other. Science and religion are only compatible to the extent you are willing to compromise them. Dr. Francisco J. Ayala, former Dominican priest, present day wine-grape grower, art collector, author of 12 books and 650 articles on genetics, and a professor of biological sciences and philosophy at the University of California at Irvine, is known in the science world as the Renaissance man of evolutionary biology. Q. You teach a basic biology class here at the University of California at Irvine. How do you handle students with religious objections to the theory of evolution? With Catholics, I take out the Pope’s address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in October 1996 where he endorses evolutionary teachings. If the students are Christian fundamentalists, I tell them that there are many Protestant theologians who agree with evolution. I say that evolution, in my view, is not only NOT anti-Christian, but the idea of special design, which many fundamentalists adhere to, might be — because it teaches the view of God that is blasphemous. Think about all the backaches, infected wisdom teeth and painful childbirth that exist because we humans evolved incompletely! ”Do you think God is absent-minded?” I ask them. #195, DominEditrix. Right on! I fully agree with your analysis. Insightful remarks, but they will never suade me the reality that relgion has any validity in the rational world. Science is positive, but religion is stagnant not only in intellectual reality, but morally in it’s many horrendous transgressions on humanity that have been mostly perpetrated in the name of an imaginary god. I will never accede to anything worthwhile to religion, nor will I cease to hope for it’s eventual demise at the hand of widespread reason to those still afflicted by this useless pox. My feeling on that is those people are better equipped than they think they are, and the more of them that do it, and the more we talk about it publicly, the easier it will be for others to do it as well. That goes more to psychology than it does to the validity of whether religion can co-exist with science; whether or not people believe it can co-exist makes no difference whatsoever to the reality of the situation. As long as the religious were happy to have more of what they’ve traditionally ascribed to god be shown to be part of the natural process and requiring no supernatural intervention then I think it’d be fine – but I can’t see that happening. Hence the anti-evolution furor in the US – why else would religious groups oppose it, other than because it undermines our intellectual dependence on their god for our existence? What’s also a problem is, if we engage science and religion, determining where the line that science is not allowed to cross is drawn. For example, certain Christian groups say that we shouldn’t use stem cells in research because it isn’t what their god wants. Religion seem to me to provides unneccessary barriers to science – and with no valid way of ascertaining whether god does or doesn’t want something to be within our means makes it difficult to incorporate. Sastra@196: I think you’re under the mistaken impression that God is the only thing people are ever deluded into thinking they’re absolutely certain about. Religion may be an obvious form of Think Fail, but it is by no means the only one. But it won’t tell you how to behave. You have to figure that out by yourself, just like everybody else. The point is that what they think is untrue. They are trying to pass of something blatantly untrue as truth. And the worst part of it is these are scientific organizations promoting such an absurd idea. That’s what science and a skeptical worldview is all about, the truth. To truly care about and foster truth one much attack lies, especially when they are a danger to something important and fact-based like science. I confirmed my resolute opinion of Ayala when he spoke at the Beyond Belief syposium in November of 2006. He is a religionist posing as a scientist, and to me this denigrates his chosen profession, as that profession should be the overriding bulwark against nonsense. I can respect his scientific work, but will not respect him as a person. Oh, I agree: there are secular dogmas. But religion immediately places any argument into an area which needs no rational justification in this world. Over time, dogmas which purport to be reasonable but are at odds with the facts of the matter can eventually be caught, even by believers. But once someone has adopted the idea that “faith” is a valid reason for believing something even in the teeth of worldly evidence, there is no need to correct anything. AJ Milne #172, that was excellent and insightful. *heads over to Molly thread* It really is that simple. As an atheist, I recognize that religions are lying. The compatibility problem would not exist if it weren’t for religious meddling in political processes, often successfully, to give their lies the same clout as science. … religion teaches nothing about morality. Apart from producing millions of examples of how to be grossly immoral in the service of some non-existent god. You’re right, it won’t. But it can show the limitations of your behaviour, and it can show how your behavior can be dictated by circumstances. For instance, you never need to figure out that you have to protect a young child – especially your own. Do you really need to “figure that out by yourself” or do you think that maybe protection of babies is vital for the survival of our species and thus it was programmed into us long before we ever started having thoughts? I agree, but I’d call it brain washing. And, if you use enough Jeso-bleach, it tends to leave an empty space. But it’s one of the few that promotes, often demands, a delusion of absolute certainty. A few people compared religion to poetry and art. There is a crucial difference. People can have their lives enriched by watching “The Tempest” without believing the characters in it really existed and the events in the play really happened. Take that requirement away from religion, and you’re left with poetry or art. You are using a nonsense book to foster a rational argument? *There are some denominations that have endorsed evolution. The United Church of Christ has been developing resources, curriculum for such an end. *I’m a liberal Protestant and a naturalist (God as a way of speaking what works in our world to transform human existence for the better). I won’t claim we represent a significant group of folks but it certainly has had an impact on the mainline protestant church (and in my own seminary education). *The issue I raised with supernatural beliefs was not one of reconciling them with evolution. But providing a context by which they could be inquired into, discussed, part of a public discourse of sorts. Reading through Dennett, I can see how many religious beliefs are odd, fanciful, but I don’t think they could count as a “good trick” if they were utterly at odds with reality. Presumably they have some reference to it (and that could be evaluated to be sure) and if so, do such things indicate something about life in the world when they do? *Holbach. I’m not going to deny when religion goes wrong. But when I’m helping the ladies of my church with the local pie sale, participating in a Jewish service (which I’ve done through a Jewish Christian dialogue course I’m taking), it’s hard to think of your description as capturing the full reality of all religion. How much to let the motivation to protect a young child influence your behavior is what you have to figure out for yourself. It still sounds like you are separating mind from body. The idea that morality is an external entity separated from our body is foolish. In that respect religion cannot dictate morality, at best it can serve as a modifier on drives that are already there. As such, religion having domain on morality means that science and religion are overlapping… just look at those who say that homosexuality is a choice. Exactly. I see the Bible being a guide to morality the same way I see my Dad as a guide to parenting. Usually if I do the opposite I will be doing well. Aside from the painfully obvious things like not murdering, stealing etc. My morality is the exact opposite of the Bible. The Bible says genocide is good, I say it is evil. The Bible says slavery is good, I say it is evil. The Bible says parents should murder their children, I say that is evil. The Bible says human sacrifice is good, I say it is evil. The Bible encourages incest, I think incest is wrong. Etc. Etc. For those who might claim the Bible doesn’t support those things, I suggest they take the time to actually read it. Maybe if they knew what evil they were devoting their lives to they would give it up. When did NAS become an acronym for New Age Silliness? Scientific organisations should be attacking superstition, not promoting it. Dwight. Again, you are entitled to your opinion. But please don’t raise the “they have survived so they can’t be totally wrong” argument. I believe you are more rational than that. Look at Hinduism; it is a belief system totally different from yours. They worship cows. There is no way you can both be right. Yet it has existed longer than Christianity and has hundreds of millions of followers today. Look at Islam; to them the idea that god had a son is an unforgivable heresy. Again, it is a religion that has survived for over a thousand years. Does that mean there’s any truth to it? The vikings worshiped Thor for hundreds of year. You think there is any element of truth to the viking pagan mythology? The reason religions survive is fear(both fear of death and fears in this life needing consolation) and wishful thinking (the euphemism for that is hope). Yes; all superstitions and religious beliefs can be studied in order to give us insights into how the mind works, how societies work, and the kinds of narratives which make the world familiar to us. Religion is part of our human heritage, and of course the supernatural beliefs are only a part of the structure of some very complex systems. One can examine pseudosciences and their adherents the same way — looking for the positive benefits and values which feed them, while recognizing that these benefits are also available in other areas, and with fewer problems with reconciling belief with reality. Are you illiterate? Your stated preference is irrelevant to whether there is a necessary conflict. Moreover, religion obviously does teach about morality (e.g., “Do unto others…”), even if you happen to disagree with it or reject it. For the sake of Morris Junior College, let’s hope you’re a better scientist and teacher than you are a logical thinker, though the two are often connected. If you really deny the existence of spirituality (as opposed to, say, its alleged benefits), you’re obviously either delusional or intentionally ignorant. Moreover, spirituality needn’t even require belief in a god. And, obviously, relevance is typically in the eye if the beholder. Your righteous and overwrought contempt is so palpable in virtually every post that I can’t help but paraphrase Whittaker Chambers reviewing Atlas Shrugged: From almost any page of Pharyngula, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: “To a gas chamber — go!” Fortunately, your status as a third-rate atheist (at best) means nobody has to take you seriously. Reasonable people can simply laugh at your silliness. Here, have a mint. Reasonable people can simply laugh at your silliness. Is Coyne a third rate atheist, too? who is a “1st rate” atheist? Are you suggesting that you are unable to do anything nice without wanting a reward? I do nice things without any mythological motivation what so ever, how do you explain that? PZ gives a lot of his time and effort as do many people that have no connection with mythology. Organized deception practiced by christians is deceitful, it isn’t a virtue. Spirituality beyond a metaphor doesn’t exist. Maybe it’s because religion is just a crust of superstition and mind-control on top of standard-issue human empathy. Way to go, PZ! It must be about 15 years ago when I first heard this “religion and science blah blah blah”. Religion remains a lie and science is not a lie – that is the fundamental difference.” Back then I thought it was a reassuring self-deluding mantra recited by religious people who dabble in the sciences, but since then I’ve seen the religious establishment bleating it as an excuse for their continued existence. One of my favorites is still “the bible is a source of moral teachings”. Hmmm… let’s rape and pillage our neighboring villages – god ordered that in the bible, so it must be GOOD. Even the New Testament of the christian bible only has the most absolutely rudimentary moral rules. If morality depended on the bible or on the gods described in any bible, we’re all screwed. what you forget is that so is religion. that’s why we have philosophy. …wait, no, that’s also in the end nothing but chasing one’s tail. …and that’s just one small aspect of where NOMA breaks down, albeit in a perhaps non-obvious fashion. so, no, you fail to make your point. funny I don’t recall insisting that at all. Instead, what I insisted is that you are confusing ultimate causes with “meaning”. …and you still are, I see. *Holbach. I’m not going to deny when religion goes wrong. […] it’s hard to think of your description as capturing the full reality of all religion. No one is claiming the damage religion causes is the full reality of it. The fact that it has other facets doesn’t override how dangerous it is. I am a scholar in the field of religious studies. I have dedicated my academic life to the study of religion. I respect some things about religion, such as the great art, poetry, and even the beliefs (especially mysticism) which are interesting to study. That doesn’t mean I deny the danger of people actually following/believing religious dogma nor does it prevent me from being disturbed that people do. Maybe because I think of “why” questions as questions from lack of information. Like, how children don’t know anything, but they’re curious. So they ask why…about 10,000 times a day, when they’re a certain age! Why are rocks heavy? Why are bears big? Religion doesn’t answer any of these why questions. “Why did that volcano erupt? A: Because the magma pushed through a fissure in the earth’s surface. B: Because you were a very naughty boy, and it was mad at you; it won’t do it again if you apologize the right way. Science can only give some of the answers to “why” questions. You need religion in order to get the answer to the “why” question you really want to know. One minor correction. Religion does answer those questions, but not in a satisfying way. The answer is always GODDIDIT. That was one thing I was trying to get granted. If I pushed it further it I don’t think I’d find many takers. Which is to say that I think there are are significant resources for moral, social, etc. insight in many religious traditions. Somehow when I read bits from the Talmund, I find things identified about the good in life that are worthwhile, interesting, for example. In that case, I think again we ought to not close off whatever transactions are possible with religions. Sometimes things can be studied to avoid its harmful effects (of which there can be many), sometimes a positive contribution is possible to. I’m not saying that all religious claims, or even the significant ones are true per se. I’m saying that many of those claims take hold of, even if oddly, to something in the world, maybe even disclose something because of that. And to the degree they do, they ought to not be dismissed, without seeing what that might be. and that includes Hinduism. If anything I’m relying on JS Mill here. “Are you suggesting that you are unable to do anything nice without wanting a reward?” Never said that. I’m saying whatever acts to transform the world for the better could be rightfully understood as divine. I think that was also why I raised this question. When I was thinking of the Talmund (and not being Jewish of course) I’m thinking..yes it does teach us something about human experience, the moral life, etc. I’m not saying everything in it does. Nor does everything in the Gospels. I’m saying something is there…it shouldn’t be ruled out a priori. I think you’re right. One shouldn’t be dismissive of the real evils, problems, etc. that have been associated with religion. I think you’d recognize that religion seems to allow for a wide range of responses, has a lot to condemn and commend it. Though the condemnations and the defenses of religion out there often make it into something more impressive (for good or ill) than it could plausible me. it means you have to show that religion, in and of itself, was the only means to “disclose” whatever information you deem significant. otherwise, most likely you could just as easily reached similar conclusions without invoking an organized cliche or random deity. religion has made itself significant, not because of what it has accomplished in an explanatory or predictive sense, but in how it has propagated itself. The instructor demonstrates respect for individuals, regardless of their cultural background, ethnicity, race, gender, religion, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. I assume you’ve heard of tikkun olam, and perhaps you are even referring to it using English terminology. This sort of redefinition of terms reminds me of the various types of Pantheism. The only problem I have with that is that it strikes me as being not particularly coherent. If “making things better for everyone” is good in its own way and for its own sake — that is, for purely secular reasons — is it even necessary to call that by a religious term? Still, as with Pantheism, it might be useful for “weaning” some people off of the angry personal God that so many fundamentalists seem to think takes a cruel and prurient interest in humanity. buzz, category fail. respect for person regardless of religion != respect for religion. Some scientists embrace religion in the sense described by Einstein, which is a world apart from personal faith of Collins and Miller (or most Americans that describe themselves as religious). The latter stand in contrast to Ken Hams and Ray Comforts in their embrace of reason as a constraint on what they are willing to believe. Even so, the religious beliefs of Miller (Roman Catholic) and Collins (evangelical Protestant) are fundamentally different with respect to how they think about God, man and the universe–despite their faiths having a common founder. And then you have the anomalies like Martin Luther KIng (contrast Martin Luther) who were obviously motivated by their religious beliefs in terms of their moral actions. But individuals of this type are unfortunately rare. If they were not, religion would have a lot more credibility than it does. religion would have a lot more credibility than it does. That wasn’t my intention at all. I meant the impulse to protect a young child competes with other impulses in your brain, all influencing your behavior. Having faith is the most subjective thing there is. A primary goal of science is to be an objective gauge of reality. So of course you can’t equate the results of the two schema. Being your friendly neighborhood Jewish Egghead Kid, I hope I can propose that the two can, however, cohabitate within a competent, sane psyche. May we all please agree to treat religion as a matter of taste? Of course good science and social progress should not be constrained by a system of mindless conformity to dogma. I fear collective human intellectual growth being hindered by narrow tradition rather than guided by humanist ethics. I also consider prostletyzing bloody well rude. But if I have an inherited tendency to internalize and validate a deity concept, do you really have to beat me with a stick? Hope not. I don’t think it’s superfluous even if we had a fully natural explanation for a given insight, sensibility or comportment to the world. And that is because, given particular histories, contexts, ways of life, folks look for different things in the world, use different concepts to organize that, bring different questions and responses to the table because of that. A lot of things which has preoccupied western thought never seemed to be much of a concern in Asia (and vice versa). I recognize we’re dealing with broad generalities, but the point being that I think it’s possible that Hinduism has resources in it’s tradition for thinking about life in the world, that while not supernaturally derived, would be worth engaging on some level and they would be different than say with Hellenistic thought, which has it’s own resources to bear too. I think it’s the way (both sides) have defined religion has something against nature, unnatural. In that I think Judaism has a leg up, in being more of a community, a people, not some discrete religious belief system (even if many do have such beliefs). But dispensing with fundamentalism would be a good thing indeed. Something to keep in mind is that philosophy, meaning the original Hellenistic schools, as well as the later addenda from philosophers of different cultures, addressed this sort of thing as well, and of course, philosophical ideas were then later imported into religion. Yet, again, if the ideas are good, they are good regardless of religion; they are good for secular reasons. I have recommended Jennifer Michael Hecht’s Doubt before, and I am doing so again. She also wrote The Happiness Myth (which I am about to start reading), which also covers the personal utility of philosophy as a guide to life. Not just Marx. Tell me how you separate Athenian politics from the debates of the pre-Socratics, or the Early Middle Ages from the neo-Platonists, or the alchemy/science of Bacon (the father of science in some sense) from Aristotle and the theories of species; Enter the modern era without Descartes or Spinoza or Leibniz; pull apart Goethe from Spinoza & Schilling or Wagner from Schopenhauer; try the Enlightenment without Locke or Rousseau or the American Revolution without Reid; Try Mai ’68 without Benjamin or the Frankfurt school. This is an almost cartoonish presentation; give the PM credit for much of what we know about modern axiomatic schemas, modern logic including computer science (you do realize a computer is just a big Boolean box, right?), artificial intelligence theory, certainly the influence on Godel and Turing; the “collapse” you speak of has only given way to modern set theory, essential to group theory and therefore QFT & Y-M theory. Also the Russellian notion of descriptors was the most influential theory regarding denotation until Kripke. I think here we might agree. Alright, Derrida is a hack. But he is a poor philosopher precisely because there is so much good philosophy going on these days: he falls short of the standard set by the Quines, Searles, Foucaults, Nussbaums, Novaks, Rawls, Taylors, Putnams, Wrights, Kripkes & even Zizeks, none of whom could be described as dull, irrelevant, or easily turned. Just because language *can* be abused, doesn’t mean it has to be, and matters of how to do politics, law, ethics, art, even science, are to be decided philosophically- not religiously, not scientifically. How can justify that assessment? I’m sorry but I have to disagree on this one. Even if you think that MLK’s beliefs were complete delusion, how do know that he was “superficially” motivated by these beliefs. And I mean that in some pragmatic sense, not in whether its claims are true or not. I can assure you without any doubt, there is no god idea or mythology involved. I don’t think MLK would say that about himself. I have to admit, though I might be saying this in the wrong forum, but I tend to treat Hellenistic thought as sacred literature (yeah in a good sense of the word). Whenever I teach Ethics, we always cover Aristotle and we invariably cover the Stoics. It’s a goldmine imho for thinking about these concerns. I appreciate the book recommendation and will look into it. Thanks! Dwight, now you’re simply confusing culture with religion. the Jewish culture is a completely different albeit related thing to the Jewish religion. similarly, my family has a Polish Catholic culture (celebrating christian holidays, no meat for christmas, etc), but most of them aren’t Catholics in the religious sense. Fair enough, on that I agree. so you believe in the Noble Lie, then? That’s not religion, that’s literature. We have nothing against the study of literature. Religion is when you believe the literature about gods actually describes real gods that really exist. What kinds of scientists are these and how much can they really appreciate their studies if this is true? I haven’t had a single thing in my academic experience to promote “faith” but I’ve left several classes feeling better about my atheism. eh, this is just a milder version of the “my life is shit, but it has made me REALLY appreciate god’s love even more!!” self-justification. Actually, Dr. King was surprisingly known to be a huge critic of religion, Christianity in particular. He saw the danger of religion and spoke out against those dangers in stronger words than many atheists. Dr. King appeared to understand that he himself was taking good deeds and morals from something inside him, and that he was then linking them to Christianity after he already had them. He makes it very clear in much self-conscious writing that he mostly used religious rhetoric because it worked, not because he saw the Bible as necessarily supporting his views. He, at the least, realized that while he could cite scriptures to support black civil rights others could cite just as many to oppose it. Damn, I wish I had some examples on hand, but it’s 12:30am and I need to get up early for work. If anyone is interested search for “martin luther king religious criticism” or something similar. It shouldn’t be too hard to find. No. Not more that something like the Getting Things Done philosophy. Maybe it helps you, maybe not. Aren’t we all motivated by things that we can’t prove in some logical sense are true? I think folks are easily separating things, literature from the religious communities who produced them, communities from religion, etc. There must be some traffic between religion and these things admired. If so, then a summary judgment of religion has inherently bad (or for some apologists as inherently good) isn’t going to work. Which religion? What is a religion? Science is simply natural philosophy, which is logic applied to the real world. The things that science has discovered to be true are what IS real. If a god really existed, science could probably discover it. Before bed, let me ad some actual evidence to my previous comment, in the words of MLK himself. In a world gone mad with arms buildups, chauvinistic passions, and imperialistic exploitation, the church has either endorsed these activities or remained appallingly silent. During the last two world wars, national churches even functioned as the ready lackeys of the state, sprinkling holy water upon the battleships and joining the mighty armies in singing, “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.” A weary world, pleading desperately for peace, has often found the church morally sanctioning war. – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. King was a liberal protestant and a graduate student of philosophy at Boston. So he’s not the conservative baptist that some wish he was. And like most attentive folks he was aware of how religion could be used for ill. But I never found anything in King which suggested that a.his religious faith, upbringing and context was not significant for him and b.he wrote a lot on how his involvement with the civil rights movement, moved him from mainly conceptual ideas to a more personally felt faith. What makes you think that per capita comparisons by nation is a valid metric? Even if nothing else were wrong with that approach (and it has been pointed out the this is not the case) the fact that it completely ignores all aspects of finance and national GDPs fills it full of fail. The United States accounts for about one quarter of the GDP of the planet, don’t you think it likely that this fact has some impact on the issue? I’m sure he was critical of Christianity–it’s hard to believe that he could even remain in a religious tradition that had justified the slavery of his ancestors. But saying he has just using religious rhetoric as a tool, that seems to cast him in the mode of Hams/Comforts who use religious language as a means to less noble ends. hje, more in the mode of the deistic/atheistic founding fathers who used the god-language to sound inspiring, and because that’s just the way rhetoric worked back then. One of the problems with the christian bible is that it demands belief that a god idea actually exists. If you dismiss that then you aren’t giving a true assessment of the scope of the belief. If the bible were some perfect work as it claims to be, it wouldn’t lead mothers to drown their children, it wouldn’t lead preachers to rape, and it wouldn’t lead god idea devotees to murder. There simply is no validity and no added value to the belief that a god idea is real. Pointing to some good that only religion can do is wrong and dangerous. Societies are capable of doing much better than that. Religion has an even worse aspect though, because it keeps society in an endless loop where we are unable to build societies based on truth and honesty. Religion teaches deception as a way of life. OK, I’ll assent that you are the superior intellect. Does science tell us what is beautiful? Is beauty real? Or imagined? I’m not a 2 magestriums type of guy, but it does strike me that unless we have a broad definition of science, like a wissenschaft, a way of disciplined inquiry (say like the field of aesthetics), then simply saying that the physical and biological sciences tell us all what is real is going to be a bit odd. I think religion is a kind of stand in word for evil. Since King is admirable, he obviously wasn’t religious. And if sacred scripture is inspiring then it must be a philosophy and not religious. It reminds me of my mother who thinks the word liberal is a stand in for evil. Suffice it to say we don’t talk politics much these days. Family peace has it’s own merits. you don’t really want to understand, do you? what part of “superfluous” sounds like “evil” to you? Does science tell us what is beautiful? Sorry for the double comment. scienceblogs is being screwy. Agree. This is reality. Look kids, in the real world, science runs on money. Lots of money. The US R&D budget is roughly 400 billion bucks, public and private. Federal is roughly 180 billion bucks. This explains our world lead in science along with some cultural factors, mostly freedom and an entrepreneurial form of capitalism. The federal budget is from the taxpayers. 76% of those taxpayers are xians, probably 85-90% of those describe themselves as religious. You need the support of the taxpayers or else. No money=no science. One highly successful project I worked on cost $300 million. If you think getting your hands on that amount of money and spending it is easy, I got a city called Kandor in a bottle to sell you. Can one be skeptical about an individual’s mastery of skepticism? Here’s my point. Let’s say you have a significant other that you love. You believe that you love them so much that you would offer your life for them. Say that you are also childless and post-reproductive. Why would you be motivated to die for them? Is it just the oxytocin that motivates you–well that’s probably part of it. But you would likely say it is because you “love” them–whatever that means. You love being around them, they give you pleasure–so chalk that up to the dopaminergic circuits. But we probably think about it other terms, terms that are not true in some verifiable sense and may be a complete fiction. So is this a bad thing? Absolutely, there have been many studies done on what proportions are considered to be beautiful in the human form. But even at that there is still a certain amount of beauty that is taught by the society in which it is presented. There certainly isn’t anything supernatural or unnatural about it. I’m not sure how a social context, a community which produces x is superfluous to x? Unless we somehow want to isolate what we don’t like, in this case religion, from what is likeable. And I’m not sure that is always a legitimate move. Reading comprehension problems seem to be de rigueur tonight. I expressed no concern. . And no feigned concern either. But it’s so consistent I assume it’s part of the act. I’m not saying religion in this case is supernatural. I think it’s quite natural. But I was thinking that if one wanted to describe beauty, it’d be helpful to go to the field of aesthetics, if one wants to know something about culture, maybe anthropology or sociology. The point being is that the natural sciences are not all encompassing when it comes to disciplined inquiry. Not what exactly, but how. It can tell us how the mind works, how we aesthetically enjoy certain sights, sounds and smells. But you don’t need science to tell you what, you don’t need any authority to tell you what. I personally think that is what leads to the high rate of divorce in the United States. People build a fictitious reality of their lover, when the lover fails to live up to it, it causes friction. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with playing fantasy games in relationships but when that is done to avoid reality, it can lead to problems in the future. Just my opinion. If you try to convince the world that science and religion are incompatible, most people will choose religion (and refuse to give up their iPods, since that’s “technology, not science”). If the majority of people in your country are moderates, why try to force them to choose between fundamentalism and militant atheism? I may disagree with the moderate religious types, but they’re a hell of a lot easier to work with than the fundies. So what you think I am stupid? Just keep moving the goal posts until you score? Or are you suggesting that aesthetics, anthropology and sociology are religion? Or have you changed your mind and now agree that belief that a god idea is real is bad? Kel @ 129: You name drop, but did you go to high school with them? For myself, as a high school teacher, I have to be careful what I say, but I try to be even-handed with criticisms, usually phrasing things that would get the students to look at things critically. I tell them all to put everything, even their most cherished beliefs, up for questioning. I do agree that science and superstition are ultimately incompatible, and even though sucking up to religionists to defend science from the fundies is good for the short term, it just perpetuates the superstitious thinking which is the root of the problem. Sometimes you have to go after the roots of the weeds rather than just chop the heads off them. NOMA is useless twaddle. I completely agree. But why do some relationships last a lifetime? Or what about arranged marriages where people who don’t individually choose one another as mates, but still may end up loving one another? The same could be said of non-sexual long term relationships. I absolutely know that biology explains a lot of it, but it’s not how we talk or think about it. And based on my family and acquaintances, religiosity sure isn’t a guarantee of a long term relationship. Quite the contrary. hje @ 291 – if our love, our desires, or drive to die for those we love, are the products of physical processes…so what? We know why we feel certain ways, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t real. Religion and other superstitions give us false reasons for such things, when they even give us reasons – I have yet to hear any reason for love, for instance. We know that something like love exists in the animal kingdom, we have many hypotheses for this. Science can tell us about these things. Religion makes up stories that aren’t real. I can write (horrible) poetry about love and loss, but I don’t need religion to do that. To someone else, I forget who, sorry – religion takes natural human impulses and desires, such as our love of family, and tries to co-opt them for themselves. Do Unto Others has been in non-religious philosophy long before it was incorporated into religions. If you took multiple religions and added together commonalities, I think you’d see that they are all humanistic values which do not need religion – they exist in reality. Damn dog – wants to play and got me distracted so that I lost my train of thought. I hope this is understandable. Gotta go. I think we already covered that. Relationships will be broken, no doubt, by an assertive attitude about the validity of religious beliefs as they pertain to science. Nobody denies that. But not every relationship will be broken and so not all funding will be cut. Yet, you are telling us we should lie to obtain money (power). How is that any different from what religions are doing? My godless friends, you are usually far more lucid in these threads. I am, frankly amazed that so many of you seem to think you can derive morality or values merely from an application of reason. This is, to put it mildly, a faith-based proposition. I believe you have skipped a step. Let us grant that science can inform our decision-making process, leading to a rational ethic as you frame it. This does not explain how we know what ‘a world worth living in’ would look like. It seems to me that science values certain things, but it holds those values as something like axioms. Science may not be a belief system, but it does constitute a value system, and I don’t see how you can derive the axioms of that system from the business of doing science. There seems to be another source of value: culture? biology? a messy interaction between the two, which includes such things as xenophobia, out-breeding and religious ritual? Whatever it is, it is most certainly not science. I would agree with Dwight’s statement: “the natural sciences are not all encompassing when it comes to disciplined inquiry”, but I would go further. I would say that, no matter what the field of inquiry, mere logic and evidence will never satisfy humanity’s quest for meaning. Before I get crucified for pitching woo, consider: E.O. Wilson has justly pointed out that ‘transcendentalism is psychically full and rich’ when compared with arguments based on empirical evidence alone. Keeping in mind that Wilson is not in any way appealing or arguing for the former, and that he reaches his conclusion presumably on the basis of logic, what you’ve got there is something like a poison pill where appeals to reason are concerned. But reason away! hje, I have seen relationships last for a long time when the parties hated each other almost all the time. Relationships can be very complicated but, sometimes, rarely, they are very simple. Compatible and incompatible desires and wants and willingness or desire to give. Yeah, people still talk about the heart doing the thinking even though almost all of us know the heart is a muscle that pumps blood. I wish we wouldn’t, adds to the confusion. Some people actually believe that emotion originates in the heart. Fine by me, PZ. I’m going to continue to be your ally, even if you disown me, because the fight against irrationality is too important for me to get my feelings hurt and flounce off. If for nothing else, at this time and place in history you need our numbers to protect you. And protect your rights and your point of view we will. Because it’s not about you and me; the battle for reason and evidence-based decision making is righteous and a worthy cause in itself. In fact, it is probably the worthiest cause of all; solutions to our planet’s ills lie therein. well, in that case we should have never abolished Colonialism either, considering all the wonderful art, architecture, and literature that came out of it. what an absurd way of thinking! the whole point of progressing as a society is to separate out the bad things from the good things and toss out the bad. and since a religious society is no more conductive to art, beauty, culture, philanthropy, or philosophy than a secular culture, while at the same time being FAR more susceptible to the evils of dogmatism, authoritatianism, and fuzzy, magical thinking, how is there any question at all about tossing it? you’re having a really hard time grasping what religion is, don’t you? the things you keep mentioning? those are called “the Humanities”, or “Liberal Arts”. they’re not religion. A lot of people thought “W” had some magic going on. Obviously not! If you want me to believe there is magic, give a verifiable example, so we can look at it and find it if it is there. E. O. Wilson says he is a deist, I’ve heard him talk about it. His thought was that a deity setup the original universe then went on to other things. I’ve also noticed that he likes to be poetic at times. If his level of religiosity was a maximum for woo belief there wouldn’t be a problem with religion. He also understands the problem with the practice of religion. Science is the study of nature, is there something that you know about that exists outside of the natural universe? If you do I am certain some scientist would like to study it. I don’t think you are quite implying that but it seems you want some fuzzy place in between natural and supernatural. Science as practiced teaches about honesty and truthfulness. That is something christians could use to learn. That doesn’t guarantee anything but, I don’t see where religion is adding anything that is worthy of its cost and the cost of religion is indeed high. Sure they might be unrelated to any need, in fact something with univeral appeal and resonance may actually represent a vulnerability to be guarded or organized against. But if there is something to be learned about human nature from religion, it might be wise to take advantage of the opportunity, rather than hide our heads in the sand. People are afraid of death, people are afraid of the unknown. But if => There, done. Dkosopedia is a mass of contradictions regarding religion. Sometimes their approach is pro-Creationist, and at other times anti-Creationist. Perhaps their confusion is best summed up by their approach to evolution. There is no article on “Evolution” as such, but there is a strange article on “God Democracy and Evolution” which is essentially an advertisement for a book by that title. On the other hand, their article “Teaching Evolution” basically addresses Creationists and tells them that there is no scientific evidence for their stance, and yet the article begins by describing “Teaching Evolution” as an example of “Telling people what to believe,” which is the Creationist position. Analyse that! The overall impression I get is that Dkosopedia goes out of its way not to offend anyone, yet in its attempt to be neutral and offend neither conservative nor liberal, Dkosopedia ends up at best adopting a triangulated position that offends against reason. I also don’t believe in compromising with theists, but some sort of understanding is going to have to happen because we will never be rid of them. I am proud to be free of superstition and would love to live in an atheistic world, but it just won’t happen. Rational people, behave rationally we use sensible family planning, we typically have one or two well raised, well educated children. Many secularists who for whatever reason feel it would be best to not have children, choose not to. Religious people on the other hand often have huge families, and they indoctrinate their young with all of their lunacy and superstition. Yes, not all of these children will be stupid, and atheists rescue a few. Most however will turn out to be raving bible thumpers like their parents and go on to breed their own huge broods of brainwashed children. As long as this continues there will always be hordes of believers. The only way for science to prosper is to allow these people the delusion that their fantasy world is compatible with science. Most don’t know or care what their religion actually says. If some preacher tells them that evolution, geology, and physics are OK, they will go along with it and let their children be educated. Some of these educated children will become atheists, many won’t, but they will still be more rational than they would be if they were never exposed to real science. If letting religious people lie to themselves about their fairy tales will convince them to support education I say let them be as deluded as they want. ‘Evolution is incompatible with faith’? The theists who claim that their beliefs are compatible with science and who are even themselves eminent scientists (Miller, Collins et al) are essentially claiming what I would term “Doctrinal compatibility”, the statement that there is nothing in the findings of science which they find to contradict their faith. And of course they are right.But this Doctrinal Compatibility comes with costs. Firstly, it is only achieved by making one’s faith beliefs so vague, non-soecific and unfalsifiable that they would be compatible with anything and so, as Popper said, to explain nothing at all. Secondly, it ignores the more fundamental “Epistemological incompatibility”. Science is not, at heart, the sum of all its established results. It is a set of criteria ( falsifiability, parsimony, explanatory power, repeatability, consistency with observation etc) for determining what can be legitimately regarded as knowledge. Crucially this means rejecting propositions which fail those criteria as well as accepting those that do. Religious propostions or explanations fail those criteria. So using the SAME criteria and methods which compel acceptance of established scientific theories would also compel the rejection of religious claims. THAT is the real incompatibility. *’Atheist’* France? Have you ever *been* there, you numpty? There are probably more churches per square foot in France than in the US. (It certainly has more, and more beautiful, cathedrals than France.) Go to a ville de la campagne on a Sunday and watch everyone turning up for church. France is only ‘atheist’ in the sense that it has no state religion. Wait – isn’t that the same for the US?? For starters those statistics are widely and freely available on the net, especially the religious belief vs acceptance of evolution one which seems to be reproduced afresh every couple of years. I’m interested as to exactly which members of the population of the US you believe is responsible for scientific research. Do you really thing it’s going on in trailer parks all across the mid-west? Is it the deeply superstitious folks of the Bible Belt who are pushing the boundaries of science? Maybe the Ted Haggard Megachurch Of Quantum Chromodynamics? Or is it all happening in those heathen universities on the godless coasts? What do you reckon the level of religiosity is in the institutions where the actual research is being carried out? I do assume that something of the community which produces X was important in the production of x. That doesn’t mean to enjoy Talmudic literature one must be Jewish, to enjoy fine art in France one must become a believer in monarchy. It does mean that there was some connection in both. In other words, this is not an apologetic for one to join a given religion, only a sense of relating to whatever is worthwhile in such things. Which means rejecting easy dismissals (or endorsements) of religion. You’re going off to eugenics land. I’ll agree with your last conclusion. And it in fact describes what happened with liberalizing trends in Christianity, Judaism, etc. I think there are two issues. One is the role other disciplines outside of the natural sciences play in their respective areas of study, which are not generally studied by the natural sciences. Too is the presumption that there is more to the world than what we know. “Science” has no morals as the word “Mengele” now implies. Atheism has no logical foundation for the birth of any binding moral code. John, religion has genocidal morals. Read your bible. Atheism starts with the golden rule, which many xians seem to have misplaced over the years. John @322, you are making a category error. Science is a methodology for acquiring knowledge about the natural world, not an ideology. Similarly, atheism is a lack of belief in deities, not an ideology. Morals are value judgements. They can be based on knowledge and reason (cf #98). But it’s less illogical than theism… and what’s a “binding” moral code, anyway, if not dogma that you can’t question? A question: do any of the points you have made on this thread regarding the value of religion change at all, if there is, in actuality, no God? In other words, are you simply making an argument for the practical benefits of a certain kind of approach to life which many people find satisfying and inspiring? I have never understood why the faithheads put this compatibility-question in the world. They should understand that people do hold a number of assumptions in their heads, and even very consistent humans manage to check only a few of them for causality. I can see no problem, but also no reason why scientists should pay attention to the fact that there remains some emotion/association to a religious childhood, if it was good, and an urge to not to be forced back if a person´s childhood experience was the hellfire-version. But if religion is about obedience, then it is logical that they play “the winner takes it all” – and it is about time they loose it all. Yes. It does. Science increases our understanding of the natural world, and in doing so significantly enhances our view of what’s “beautiful.” Indeed, I would argue that science actually helps define beauty for those of us who are looking at the world through scientific eyes. An increased understanding of a phenomenon often leads directly to an increased appreciation of it. I think that the better you understand an aspect of nature, the more likely you are to hold it in awe. My father, who isn’t a scientist and who doesn’t know much of anything really about stars, can look at a red giant through my telescope’s eyepiece and think that the crimson hue is beautiful. In fact, this has happened. He doesn’t need to know anything about the star to appreciate the beauty of the color. He just happens to like red. However, I know why the star is red. And I would argue that having this knowledge gives me something about the star (I guess I would call it an enhanced appreciation) that Dad doesn’t have. I might even argue that I think the star is more beautiful than he thinks it is. Science is telling me what beautiful is. Similarly, my mother can look at a bee sitting on a flower and think that it’s beautiful, a miracle of nature, whatever. She likes flowers a lot, although she doesn’t know all that much about them. But yes, she can see the bee/flower scene and think that it’s so beautiful her eyes tear up. She might even, overcome with it’s beauty, question the flower’s “reason for being.” I on the other hand, know a little bit about insect eyes and have some insight into what the bees appear to be seeing when they look at that same flower. I know what the flower’s “reason for being” is (according to current science). Just having the knowledge that the bees can see something about the flower than I can’t makes them so much more awe-inspiring to me than they were before I knew that. I would argue that science is telling me that the flower is beautiful, in a way that my mother, who doesn’t possess the same knowledge I do, is missing. Last summer, I watched a small crab dig a burrow in some beach sand. I noticed that, in the tiny pile of sand grains that it had dutifully built up, there were far more black/dark grains mixed in with the clear/white grains than I had expected to see. Knowing a good bit about sand, and knowing why there are usually far fewer dark grains than light grains on barrier-island beaches (not all beaches are “created equal”), I began to wonder about the source area for the sand on that beach. This of course got me to thinking about just how long those sand grains had been rolling around in the surf on that shore. That got me to thinking about how long, before that, those same grains had been lounging in the bars and floodplains of the rivers that had transported them to the shore. That got me to thinking about how long, before that, those same grains had been sitting in the soils that had eroded them into those rivers. That got me to thinking about how long, before that, those same grains had been trapped in the rocks that had provided material for the soils. And so on. And that got me to thinking about how some of the grains on that beach came from ancient rocks that were deposited in environments that also had crabs living in them (crabs go back quite a ways). And that got me to thinking about how at least some of those same wet grains that I was squishing between my toes had possibly been moved around by a long-dead crab on a long-dead beach, while it was digging out a long-filled-in burrow. I sat there on that sand for a long while, under a spectacular afternoon sky, watching the waves scour the beach as the tide ebbed, and observing the life and death war between the crabs and the birds that try to eat them. I sat there, feeling an immense connection, through deep time, to those other crabs on those other beaches that warred with whatever was trying to eat them. The feeling of simultaneous connection and insignificance was absolutely breathtaking. It was beautiful, and it was based on knowledge. You really wanna try and tell me that science doesn’t tell us what’s beautiful? Whatever. If that’s the case, then I would argue that the word “beautiful” is simply too small and pathetic to properly describe what you can see through scientific eyes. Josh, are you angling for John MacPhee’s job? Wow, thanks Josh. I’ve tried for years to explain why I can feel a deeper appreciation for beautiful things without delusional nonsense attached to it. Actually, I would say that the deeper, underlying problem is that reality is incompatible with religion. It’s imagined, obviously. Was that even a serious question? Neither does religion. We are left to develop our own non-binding moral codes without relying on logic. Josh @ 328 . . . Thank you for that. Thank you very much indeed. Yes I saw how I contradicted myself after I posted and should have sent a correction note. What I should have said is that I would prefer to not have to compromise. Silly mistake on my part. I think science can explain why we humans find certain things to be beautiful (as you so eloquently describe in your post). I don’t think science can define “beauty” as a measurable “thing” (for lack of a better word) that exists independent of human opinion. Exactly. No woo in your pitch, in my opinion. Although I agree with your statement about how humans should be treated, you offer no evidence that science and reason are the primary cause of my belief. Not eugenics at all. I didn’t imply that there was a genetic component to religion. I said specifically it was about upbringing. I did mention “stupid”, however I don’t believe I said it in such a way as indicate I was referring to belief system and gullibility. I apologize for this. Also I did not imply that anything should be done about Christians having large families I was simply showing the possible results of this. If, and I am not citing these as statistics, believers outnumber nonbelievers by five to one. Also that on average a family of non believers produces 2 children on average, and a family of believers produces three children on average. Then the population of believers is going to keep gaining in proportion. Admittedly this isn’t the only factor, believers can learn to give up their fantasies. In order to do this, however, they are going to need basic education. That is why I suggested allowing the ones who wanted to pretend their God is OK with science to do so. I believe that kids who’s education backs up their parents superstitions are unlikely to be skeptical. Children who learn science on the other hand just might. You can’t pray yourself to the moon.(although you can Wish yourself to Mars.) You can’t pray up a vaccine for measles. Science is only a tool for gaining understanding of the way things work. Religion is only a tool for establishing control over others. Both can be used for good or ill, but when one is based on reality and one is based on a non-existent supreme being and his often conflicting and capricious desires, the choice between which to spend your time on should be obvious. @338: This raving loon seems to think the answer is either B or C. Correction to 342: She thinks it is either A or B. Well, there doesn’t need to be a conflict. However, most religions have a problem with saying “hm, I guess we were wrong about that point”. @338, it doesn’t matter who said it. The truth is that nothing makes sense in biology without evolution. Science cannot use god as a conclusion or as an explanation. So the science doesn’t need or use god. What is your problem with that? In #340 I put the word “don’t” in the first paragraph where it just doesn’t belong. I was correcting one error and didn’t delete far enough back. So I made an even worse error. Er… no. Russell discovered his paradox in 1901, Principia Mathematica was written 1910-13. It was the naive set theory of Frege, according to which any property corresponded to a set of entities sharing that property, that the paradox destroyed. PM was part of a largely successful attempt to replace Frege’s naive set theory. If you’re going to dismiss an entire area of human endeavour and you want to be taken seriously, it helps not to make elementary errors about it (see also Erasmus’s recent idiocies). Religion is in no way needed for morals. Science is in no way needed for morals. I was raised in a completely religious-less house hold (note I do not call it atheist or agnostic, not too sure what my parents believe). My Mother and Father, two wonderful people, helped teach me ‘right’ from ‘wrong’. Morals are instinctual – You are born (or most are) with the ability to put yourself into others situation, to understand that by doing good you are not only helping out others, but yourself and those around you. Science can help explain why we have morals, but they don’t teach them. Science (at leased soft, social) helps show us how being ‘moral’ helps the community at large, but once again, isn’t necessary for being moral. Like I said, I’ve never been to church, so I do not understand what one gets out of it. You don’t get your morals from it, and those who feel that that’s the only place they learned to be a good person, must have some sort of social problem. Before using Mengele as an example of why science has no morality, you should take a look at the Bible. If the historical tales mentioned in the Bible are even loosely based on actual events, then the priests of the old testament caused as much genocide, suffering, and rape as the Nazis if not more. The supposed commands from god allowed his people only three choices when at war. 2. Kill everyone except virgin girls who they were free to rape. One could easily believe the Nazis were using the old testament as a playbook. The difference between science and religion is that a scientist is not automatically associated with the misdeeds of other scientists. If Dr. Joe rapes a toddler, it doesn’t make Dr. Frank a child molester. Religion on the other hand does make one guilty by association. If Rev. Tom kills his son for not mowing the lawn, because the Bible commands him to, then Rev. Mike is responsible as well because he also believes in the doctrine that commanded the murder. The same is true if Rev Tom sells his daughter as a slave or murders some gay people. As a devout Philosophy student few things make me rage harder than hearing the “science tells you about life, while religion tells you how to live” or “without religion, there is no meaning or purpose to life or morality” memes. Brilliant. Just deny the entire field of frigging ethics. Let’s just pretend there haven’t been people pondering about how we should live our lives for the past few thousand years and doing so using reason, as opposed to making it all up and forcing people by threat of torture or a fictional eternal netherworld. Science tells us how, Philosophy tells us why, Religion tells us nothing. I suppose I could have done it without using a Nazi reference back, but honestly I just didn’t want to. Ha, well I mean it is a law, so someone had to do it, eh? and you still fail to understand that no-one is claiming religion is not worthy as a subject of study, or that the cultures spawned by it are 100% ugly. but as a living, society-permeating worldview it does more harm than good, and as such a progressive society should attempt to extricate itself from it. when you have a truly secular society, then it doesn’t even matter if you end up with many “spiritual” people, as long as this is an individualist matter rather than a “religion” which does its damage in the safety numbers, and by special pleading. You’re very welcome, Leigh. You too, KI. It certainly can’t right now. I don’t like to try and predict what science will or won’t be able to do in the future, but I’m inclined to agree with you. If my memory serves, you did a piece a while back which included a commentary on how to refute the notion that science cannot test the existence of God. I’ve been unable to find that blog post. Could you perhaps re-post that item, or at least provide a link? I don’t see the relevance of this comment. I don’t recall urging anyone to believe in anything in my previous post, so I don’t understand what prompted this reply, other than the fact that I am a notorious theist. But it’s a deeply-flawed question. Magic involves suspension or violation of the natural order. Science requires that propositions, in order to be testable, not involve suspensions/violations of that order. That is one of the axiomatic values of science, the cardinal rule of how the game of science is to be played. So the question really amounts to a bit of sophistry. What I would say, rather, is this: let’s push science as fas as we can push it, but let’s not get our panties in a bunch if it turns out that there are legitimate phenomena that are not amenable to scientific investigation. Admitting this is not a concession that the supernatural exists, by the way. Wilson describes himself as a ‘provisional deist’. This means he entertains the possibility of a certain type of deity (not necessarily the Christian God) existing. This is not the same thing as holding a proposition to be absolutely true without regard to the evidence. As for me, I am a theist and hold fairly conventional Christian beliefs, but I maintain that I hold many of them provisionally as well and am open to the possibility that I might need to modify or abandon my views. That is probably more common in the pews than a lot of people would admit. Sperry @259: thank you for your good-natured takedown of my no doubt ill-informed assertions. But…although I do agree with that these ancient philosophical voices do influence us and out society to an extent, I disagree that they are of great importance, certainly as “set texts” or something we must know about in detail. Each age tends to frame itself by reference to its philosophers, but history is less kind to regimes and tends to reject philosophical explanations for their actions. Incidentally, you might be interested in one of BBC radio’s true philosophy programmes – Melvyn Bragg’s In Our Time (all episodes available worldwide, I think) – which routinely discusses a philosophical idea (say, the influence of the School of Athens) on history and modern life and thought. This, though fascinating, rarely encourages me to back to the original philosophers. For our purposes some of their ideas are now considered influential, but their overall contribution is close to zero. And as for George Boole, very influential guy – but who reads his original work? We use his results (often credited, in his case) because they are useful – and he was a mathematician which I would particularly exclude from a discussion of the usefulness of philosophy. Have I missed anything? Am I completely wrong? Please elucidate. Is this the single stupidest non-creotard remark I’ve read on Pharyngula? Oh, I’m sure it’s common in the pews — but it’s not the process of faith. If you hold a view provisionally, and are willing and — more importantly — able to modify it given new evidence, then you’re approaching that view as if it’s not sacred. I’m not sure what, if anything, is supposed to persuade a person of faith to hold the rational evidence of the world above the evidence of the divine, so that they may resolve a conflict in favor of the world. It is very nice to have a God which tells His followers “behave like a humanist; I’ll back you up.” But, if you value faith as method, then faith in very different Gods can’t be criticized on the ground that they’re not behaving like humanists. What’s accepted on faith, is sacred. I don’t think you’ve really answered the question. The fact that your family members are capable of appreciating beauty without knowledge of science would suggest a “no” answer. You suggest that you’re better able to appreciate beauty than your non-scientific family members, but this isn’t really an evidence-based assertion, is it? Who’s to establish the relative depths of appreciation for scientists, and those who fit their observations into some other, perhaps creationist, worldview. Not all Christians are biblical literalists. Christ himself rejected legalism, and with it, many Christians believe he rejected the biblical claims that God ordered genocides. Starting with the golden rule would be assuming it, I assume you hope atheism somehow arrives at the golden rule, It has a certain appeal, as long as the “others” are relatively similar to one’s self. The problem is atheism doesn’t have any particular place to “start”. Even if a natural inate “morality” is discovered, there is no particular reason to be bound by it, unless those bounds are genetically inescapable, perhaps much as it is difficult to stop breathing voluntarily for very long. Senses of guilt and shame might be the closest we get to this, but even they seem be felt for culturally diverse reasons, and are hardly universal within societies. Of course, religion didn’t have anyplace to start either, unless one assumes that god’s preferences take precedence over one’s own. Some religions have more than one supernatural being, which begs the question, which beings standards are these beings to be judged by, which beings standards are the “right” right ones, or are their independent standards … based on what? the point is not (and never has been) whether or not religion has a place in this world (of course it doesn’t; it’s silly). the question you should all be asking is “who profits from this argument?” It isn’t me, it isn’t you, i doubt even PZ his holy self makes very much from it. the people that do profit from us all being distracted over the ‘big question’ are the people who always profit; why do you think the media are always so happy to hype it up? whether or not you believe in an invisible god is possibly the most irrelevant question one person can ask another. IT DOESN’T MATTER. I know, I know, it’s really annoying that they campaign for creation to be taught alongside evolution and banning abortion and forcing people onto ‘modesty’ and all the rest of it. but if you blow it up into this big battle you are merely make the irrelevant important. this is never a good idea. and removed all of the specific examples of your thoughts, while completely ignoring my response at #299. You are backing away from knowledge. Is it the knowing that you are afraid of? Are you afraid that knowledge won’t support a way to interject mysterious magic? If you view going backwards as a legitimate goal, I can say without reservation that I disagree with you completely. However, I would be remiss in my duties if I failed to point you to Josh’s beautiful explanation at #328. Thanks Josh! I think it is funny that people, often regardless of faith, view the “golden rule” as a triumph of morality. It is not. It is a nice Idea in general, but it is flawed in several ways. First, just to get the obvious out of the way, it only works if everyone practices it. Otherwise it is just a con game benefiting those who don’t. Second it arrogantly assumes that everyone wants to be treated the same as you do. Christians are fine with being lied to and manipulated, therefore the golden rule tells them to do this to others. Christians want to be educated using fantasy and superstition instead of reason so they do that to others. Christian women believe they should submit meekly to their husbands and be forced to bear children whether they want to or not, hence the pro-life movement. Masochists often like to be beaten with whips and electrocuted on the nipples, which is fine for them, but I hope they don’t think they should do so unto me. I have met guys, Christians in fact, who think it is OK to take advantage of a drunk girl because they would be happy if some girl did it to them. Third it is simpleminded. As a philosophical statement it is pretty obvious. It wouldn’t require a great mind, much less a deity, to come up with. It falls in the same category as “share your toys” or “don’t pull hair.” Even a savage wandering the desert two thousand years ago could have come up with it. It would not be hard to counter the analogy by a number of religions that in fact have modified their claims, at least vis-a-vis the “natural world.” So if a church does not claim that life was designed, or that lightning hits god’s intended targets, has it not indeed done better than the astrologist who makes the same claims regardless of the failed tests? And I believe that scientists would tend to tread lightly on religions that include astrology as, I believe, Hinduism does in some forms. Which doesn’t threaten the analogy, however, since astrology which is “religion” is treated differently. Nevertheless, organizations which attempt to persuade the public regarding science know that the public indeed considers religion to be in a “special category.” If they do believe it, then, practically, it is a social truth. One does not do well to simply ignore social truths. This is not, however, an endorsement of the criticisms made of the scientists who belt out the fact that scientific methods are superior both epistemologically and pragmatically than any religious “methods” have ever been. Harangue (or whatever) if you wish. Just don’t suppose that the NAS lacks good practical reasons to tread lightly around (or on) religion. Yep, Josh for a Molly! Dwight… can’t you wave your hands any faster? There are still occasional glimpses of content in some of your comments! Have you, or anyone you know, actually grown up and realized that there is no magic muffin after they have matured into their 20’s? If the poor kids don’t have an adult that can show them reality is different from the fantasy, then how do you help them think? Why is religion the supposed spring for all things moral? Indeed, why isn’t the Euthyphro Dilemma just required reading whenever this kind of move is made?! Moreover, don’t we have a whole independent academic discipline that studies exactly how we might have ethics independent of religion? Why can’t we be Kantians (he’s not, as some believe, necessarily tied to any kind of religious view)? Utilitarians? Virtue Ethicists of some kind? An Ethics of Care? And stripped of their mere moralizing, what’s left to a religion anyway? Just bizarre metaphysics and, at best, sometime entertaining stories (usually) from the ancient world. Your approach of doing nothing fails. That is what got us to where we are today. The christians have a goal, the “return” of their jeebus. They have a general time; when war and destruction is prevalent. War and destruction gladdens the christian because that means the time is soon. I’m not willing to stand by and let them accomplish their goal. When you do nothing the christian interprets that to mean you are in agreement or at least you won’t stand in its way. It isn’t “blow it up into this big battle”, it is standing in the way of the christian’s intended destructive goal. The christian war on science is only one part of their overall plan, they wouldn’t even be waging it if science wasn’t revealing the falsity of their claims. Be sure to let Augustine know. He was apparently misinformed. Augustine articulated the very view you claim as antithetical to faith around 1600 years ago. Nonsense. Holding a view provisionally simply recognizes that people aren’t infallible. Faith (at least in the Christian context) isn’t intellectual assent to any particular proposition (a common atheist claim). Faith is placed in someone or something — in the Christian context case God as revealed in Jesus Christ. One can hold God as holy (in your term, “sacred”) without claiming that one’s interpretation of God or of what we should think or do is perfect. Lighten up just a little. People believe in things larger than themselves. Pick a reason for acting “right”: a) because it causes one to feel connected to (loved ones, other people, the world, a shared value) or b) because we act as our brain is programmed to, said programming defined by evolution and environmental pressures. We all have minds which create scenario (a), even though, to my knowledge, no neuroscientist can actually explain what a mind is, except as an example of an emergent system. But wouldn’t that faith include assent to the proposition that such a figure as Jesus existed and was uniquely empowered to reveal God? First, let me repair the quote, which was from fallible memory: “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”. If people were educated anymore, everyone would know that it comes from Theodosius Dobzhansky, who was (c) a devout Christian. This was intended as an answer to the idea that evolution is incompatible with religion, and more specifically that a religious person can’t be a real scientist, much less a great one. Now of course it’s also true that none of the great scientists who were religious made any use of their religion in their science. They presumably realized that religion is useless in asking questions about the universe. But if religion per se is incompatible with science, Dobzhansky doesn’t seem to have realized it. Come on, people, fracking Martin Gardner is a Christian. He has freely admitted it has nothing to do with rationality. Hate the sin, not the sinner. While the worlds of science and that of religion are incompatible let the religious delude themselves to the contrary. It is better than their fighting science. In time the rationality of the world of science will erode its dike and flood the delusional plains of religion. So I say invite the religious into the modern world. They may do damage to us all for the time being, but in the long run they have no prayer. You two are making it difficult come the next Molly. Come on, people, fracking Martin Gardner is a Christian. I take back the word. However, any theist is good enough for my purposes. To avoid incompatibility, it isn’t even necessary that God doesn’t meddle in the world, only that he doesn’t meddle in anything relevant to the science you’re looking at. Dobzhansky could be a Christian and an evolutionary biologist as long as God doesn’t mess with genomes. At least not in any way distinguishable from natural processes. Make it easy on yourself. Nominate both of them. I didn’t say that one could not use both reason and faith. I pointed out that they were different methods. I think there is a strong tendency for the religious to blur the distinction between propositions, and what the proposition is about — so that both become sacred. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” In order to have faith in God, once must first have faith that there is a God. I think the equivocation between making the “leap of faith” required to believe there is a God, and making the “leap of faith” to trust that God knows what is best — gives too much power to the believer. Doubting the self, becomes the same as doubting God. They are now both equally infallible. In the Christian context, faith isn’t a method at all. Okay, but that still doesn’t guarantee that I’ll figure things out accurately. So? In order for me to have faith in Obama and his presidency I have to believe that there is an Obama. I think it’s a good thing to reconsider matters based upon additional information. Of course it can. All Christians have more or less or different faith at any given time. Contemplative literature is full of it. Martin Luther King’s writing is particularly poignant in this area. I like the idea of a God who respects us enough to allow to make up our own minds. I even believe it and have faith in that kind of God. I could never claim infallibility. I’m married. What then would persuade you that you have been mistaken: God does not exist, and has never existed? Vox Day totally pwned you guys with statistics. Occam’s chainsaw ftw!!!! Yawn, like it means something from the liar and bullshitter Vox Day. Lies = not true. I would become an atheist if I were to become convinced that we don’t have volitional freedom (that determinism is true). For clarity I should note that I think naturalism requires determinism and that compatibilism is determinism in a nicer suit. Well I’m going to take a wild guess here, and assume you’re thoughts and actions originated in your mind. Now why did you think that? Maybe to your thought processes, it seemed “non-logical” (the word you’re looking for is “illogical”), but of course, there’s this thing called “brain chemistry”. Now wait a minute. Isn’t there some subject that studies chemicals and electrical impulses? Oh yeah: SCIENCE. We may not be able to study why it was you thought “I’m gonna grow apples” now, but potentially in the future we will be able to predict your decision. It’s a wonderful thing this reason thing. And just in case some troll asks why we shouldn’t get our morality from the Bible, just answer this question: “Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?” See the Euthyphro dilemma. How would you discover that — if it happens to be the case that either determinism or compatibilism is accurate? Hmm, I guess we can add statistics to the topics in which facilis is ignorant. I also suspect he hasn’t actually read any of the posts since his last one or he might have realised how well the posters here have pointed out how ignorant both he and his wetdream are. Facilis @385, once again: Here is the first of a number of posts addressing Chapter 14: TIA Tuesday: Occam’s Chainsaw in DD’s patient critique. Not that I’m surprised you ignored it the first time I posted that link. There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Of course facilis is impressed by Vox Day’s use of statistics, because Vox Day made several assumptions and tried to apply causation to correlation. I’m still waiting for facilis to come back and finish the arguments he started in the most recent thread about Richard Dawkins and Oklahoma. Shit, even when this kid is demonstrated to be wrong he won’t ever admit it. He’s the epitome of stubbornness, and when that’s combined with the presupposition that God exists – any argument he’ll resonate to is sure to be full of fail. For fucks sake, he was willing to throw out 150 years of empirical research on a scientific theory because the religious were ‘persecuted’ according to Ben Stein and the Dishonesty Institute. The same way I try to discover anything else — careful reflection, observation and study. What would be an example (or several examples) of something that would make you reassess your beliefs re ‘volitional freedom’ vs. determinism/compatibilism? Hm. It may be an emotion, perhaps. But doesn’t “faith” also imply using that emotion to evaluate doctrinal statements, or compatibility with doctrine — and is therefore a method? Facilis, do you agree with Vox Day’s theology? Going by Deacon Duncan’s review (as pointed to by John Morales above), VD appears to have resolved the problem of evil by changing the claims made about God’s character. VD’s God is not all-knowing, not all-powerful, and not benevolent. Is this in anyway compatible with your conception of God as the ground of all knowledge? But many philosophical naturalists hold that the world is not deterministic; they take a cue from, e.g., quantum mechanics. I mean, if Facilis had a functioning brain, he’d notice that a) “Big Science” (sic) has never persecuted the Intelligent Design movement, b) Intelligent Design proponents have done nothing, nor do they have any intention of doing anything scientific to begin with, c) Hitler’s AntiSemitic motives were plagiarized from Martin Luther’s Of The Jews And Their Lies and The Protocols of The Elders of Zion, and d) Stalin’s motives were purely political, in that he had all those people killed because they were either not Communist enough for his tastes, or were his political rivals and or their family and associates. But, the fact that Facilis brags about looking up to Vox Day, well, that’s like bragging, “I put chewing tobacco in my morning oatmeal!” I mean, who in their right mind looks up to someone like Vox Day, a person who heartily claims that he would gladly become a serial murderer of children if he thought God wanted him to become one? I don’t think facilis likes Vox Day, he just likes the idea that someone is standing up to the Big Bad New Atheists. It didn’t matter that Vox established no causation (going by country – WTF?) it mattered that Vox had the balls to post it. Exactly. Biologists have it much better than philosophers. At least creationists try and criticize Darwin. But more than two millenia of secular ethical theorizing, Aristotle to Kant to Mill, is just outright blanked and ignored. The whole NOMA thing is engaged in this denialism as well. That “reason” business apparently only applies to facts about the natural world. All the extra stuff from how to live to whether or not there’s a man in the sky is matter of belief, you can think what you want. No. That extra stuff is tackled by philosophy and the resounding response from that disciple is this: religion gives us no answers. It’s the oddest solution to the Euthyphro dilemma I’ve ever heard. Though sadly it is more coherent than facilis’ attempt. Quantum mechanics and determinism are perfectly compatible. See Bell’s theorem. According to that, either the principle of locality goes (so we get “spooky action at a distance”) or determinism goes (or both lol!). Wikipedia says there are some theoretical problems with this theorem (according to some physicists) but it seems the majority accept Bell’s theorem to be true. Still, we can always hope that it’s false (certainly the world makes a lot more sense that way), so that something like a hidden variable theory or the Penrose interpretation is correct. I know I do. Exactly. I think there’s good reason to engage religious ideas, traditions apart, whether one would say God exists or not. Never said I believed in magic. Just saying that there is more to the world than what we know. That I take it as a presumption of the sciences? Otherwise why engage in anymore study if that’s the case. I can see how science heightens appreciation of beauty in nature. It doesn’t suggest the natural sciences are exhaustive of all claims, even the question of what beauty is. Nothing in science is exhaustive. even the question of what beauty is. Yeah. I would think that the language I used made it clear that defining beauty was something I was having trouble with. I’m not convinced that religion is going to show us that definition before science does, though. Isn’t what we think of as beauty always changing? For example, look at what is has been considered human beauty over the years (as represented by art and, in today’s society, the media)? But religion, on the other hand, doesn’t change. It cannot; at its core is the concept that it as already correct about everything – unless, of course, your deity of choice decides to start communicating again; as far as I know, though, that isn’t true of any contemporary religion. So how can something static possibly be relied upon to inform or guide us regarding something that is constantly changing? Well there is the God is still speaking campaign of the United Church of Christ. And the LDS still has a president who receives messages from God presumably. But whether a religion is supposed to change or not, they all have and continue to do so. In liberal forms of religion this may be more of an explicit self conscious form, but even in conservative forms, changes happen over time. Reality tends to be stranger than we could ever imagine, so who knows what science will discover? I once thought Libet would change my mind, but I came to believe that the delay he saw is consistent with free will, common experience and Christianity. Volition isn’t so much the ability to “create” a behavior, but rather the ability to to check and override our “natural instincts” and ultimately to alter our instincts. Dwight, but that change, especially in the more conservative cults, tends to happen in spite of rather than because they choose to. I.e. the zeitgeist forces then to change, often dragging them kicking and screaming to a bit nearer the present day, if they want to remain even remotely relevant. In the more organised cults their theologians will then try to rationalise that change with some hand waving and gobbledygook to try and make it appear that their cult hasn’t really changed only our understanding of what they were babbling about all along. E.g. the pope’s seeming acceptance of evolution but trying to keep itself relevance, and in control, by claiming the soul for the church. Which is a concept I could be okay with if there were some means of establishing whether those changes were right or wrong. Just look at the issue of different denominations’ attitudes to homosexuality. Some are fine with it, even going as far as ordaining gay clergy. But others don’t, and condemn those who do – and this has even caused schisms within denominations. How does a person of faith who belongs to a denomination split on this issue supposed to know which side to be on? My issue with the idea of determining the will of the gods is that, if any of them exist and are concerned about what we do, why aren’t they communicating with us?. Considering we’re in far more need of guidance (in my opinion at least) in today’s society than the people of the Old Testament, it strikes me as odd that we aren’t hearing from those who – if you believe the literature – may determine our fates both in this life and for all eternity. I’m pretty sure many people here knew the answer. But we’ve also discussed the existence of religious biologists and the implications for science-religion conflict about a zillion times already, so your little quiz was not effective discussion bait. So a single example is enough? Kurt Wise’s work in paleontology was good enough to satisfy SJ Gould. Even if Wise is skeptical of evolution, he apparently was able to produce scientific results without inserting his beliefs in the problem. Does that mean that YEC is compatible with paleontology? I don’t think it helps much to say that you “would become an atheist if (you) were to become convinced that we don’t have volitional freedom (that determinism is true)” if your belief in ‘volitional determinism’ itself turns out to be pretty much unfalsifiable. There are alternate theories which explain the same data. My original argument was that applying ‘faith’ gave too much power to the believer, in that it puts them into a situation where they either can’t be wrong — or could never find out they were wrong, even if they were. You disagreed, and argued that having faith in something doesn’t mean you can’t correct your mistakes. Assume you’re incorrect about God existing. How do you correct? Specify something. In that case, would you become an atheist volitionally? Oh, goody…Vox Day shows up again to wallow in his own ridiculousness. All heed John Morales @392: If you haven’t seen Deacon Duncan’s massive multi-part takedown of Vox Day’s “The Irrational Atheist” at Evangelical Realism, you need to check it out. I thought my example made that clear. If research discloses that unconscious processes in the brain are the true initiators of acts we think are volitional, I’ll become a determinist and an atheist. I find myself wanting to nod in agreement, even though I suspect you are gently chiding me for upbraiding creationists, who (after all) are accepted on faith. It gives me pause, sure. Is it hypocritical to me to maintain this or that belief on faith, and yet give the creos a hard time for their beliefs? Not really. Because what matters is not that people hold beliefs that I don’t share, but that some of them are all-too-willing to impose their beliefs inappropriately. I don’t bring my faith into the science classroom, neither should anyone else. I can respect the right of persons to hold beliefs that I don’t share, but that doesn’t mean that I have to go along with attempts to privilege those beliefs. I don’t see how you can avoid it. Well, I realized it when I was 13. My son was 14 when he made the leap to atheism. So I’d say it’s very easy to get there from here without adult help. Admittedly, my son has had the example of how I approach the issue; but oddly enough, at this point in my life I’m a devout Christian, so perhaps that example is a little muddled. He does know, however, that I did the unthinkable and actually read the Bible when I was thirteen. I was intolerably bored in church, and my choice of reading materials was slim. Since no cereal box was at hand, and I had got through the hymnal quite smartly in two or three Sundays, that left me with the Bible. And what a horrifying literary journey it was, to be sure. Since this happened to be a Southern Baptist church, I had been told that one must accept the Bible as the literal word of God, cover to cover. And so in the old Testament I saw various genocides, rapes, and interminable geneaologies leading up to vapid accounts of the doings of kings, interlarded with patently ridiculous miracles. Turning to the New Testament, I read several mutually contradictory accounts of the life of Jesus, followed by some blatantly anti-feminist posturing by Paul, and finally fetched up against the sheer lunacy of the Revelation of John. I also found myself on the horns of an ethical dilemma: if Hell exists, and you must “profess Christ” to enter it, what of all the millions of people who have died without ever hearing that name? Surely it couldn’t be fair to stick them all in hell. And for that matter, what kind of malignant deity would consign decent people who happened to be born in India, say, to eternal flames? I finally decided that if God was as described, the only ethical choice is choose hell rather than worship him. But on balance, I knew that it was far more likely people had just made him up in their own likeness. I’m no genius, and while I was somewhat precocious, I imagine any number of kids travel that same road. I do remember wishing desperately that I could believe in life after death when my mother died young. I think it’s a good idea for atheists to be out and proud, because surely there is value in having positive role models in the world. But I knew no adult atheists when I was 13, and that didn’t stop me from announcing that I had become superstition-free. And if you hadn’t stated it, I’d never have guessed from your posts. Thank you, John. I think I may be an odd kind of Christian. I can swear that I’ve always been an odd kind of person, if that helps any. At some point I’ll elaborate, if anyone asks me. I don’t “do” theology arguments much, being of the belief that religion is better if private, and that my actions should speak for me. But there are a surprising number like me. Like atheists, we’re not very well-organized, which means our voice isn’t heard much in the national press. We need a Richard Dawkins-style point man . . . or a PZ Meyers. Alas, I fear that even with that kind of star power we wouldn’t get noticed much. We make nicey-nice, and we’re rather bland — no fire and brimstone. We just can’t bring on the crazy soundbites the way Robertson, Falwell, etc., can. Some people call us Red Letter Christians. We’re not all as liberal as I am, and some are even social conservatives. But I’d say the majority leans left. @#230 Robocop wrote: If you really deny the existence of spirituality (as opposed to, say, its alleged benefits), you’re obviously either delusional or intentionally ignorant. You claim that someone who denies the existence of incorporeal things, nonmaterial things, is delusional? Sounds to me like you have it exactly backwards. I’m genuinely tickled by all meta-arguments of this nature. I am, of course, effectively advocating a point of view. But I’m not attempting to privilege an understanding taken on faith over every other point of view, much less impel its acceptance within science, as some creationists do. It’s just the nature of the scientific enterprise, I think, to resist those kinds of moves. I am an atheist – 100% card carrying. And I think organized religion of whatever brand is essentially a tribal construct; a construct born in more primitive times. I firmly think this construct (hierarchically authoritarian and protectionist oriented) ultimately breeds inter-tribe conflicts of epic proportions, and needless and wasteful less epic power struggles in and outside the tribe. Even its more benign instantiations ultimately, if they become big enough or officially entrenched enough, breed a counterproductive adherence to unsupported dogma of some sort and the status quo and thus stifle beneficial progress for broader society. But again, it is a construct born of the need to organize for conflict, for war, and of a model for governance that follows a “kingly power ruling via fear and intimidation” template. This construct easily exploits human fear of differences (e.g., non-clan members with different traits), and the unknown and the human need to seek explanations of it and protections from it. It couples that with the inner child in most humans that wants to remain wrapped in parental love and protection of some sort. It is a very successful construct (survival of it as construct meaning “success”) because it plays to the primitive nature in us all. Now to my point: people like Ken Miller, and many other modern educated people, have surmounted their primitive warlike natures and yet remains in them an inner child. They themselves are good and they cast the construct of religion in their image (although it core image is more hideous). They see the beauty and comfort in it (because there always is some) and cannot see themselves in the context of other less worthy aspects. Their subconscious says” “hey feed that inner child – no harm – no foul – and it feels good.” They see no harm. Their brand of religion is idealistic. Their god belief warmly benign. I have no problem at all with being comforted myself and will not deny others that. My inner child needs no god or organized religion but I can see why others might still. And there will always be inner children in us.. and we will always want to protect them against those that attack our protection and feeding of them. Although we must join the battle when zealots institutionally threaten freedom and progress, separation should be our goal – not elimination. But there is validity in thinking all forms pose a danger because even benign instantiations support the more malignant ones in some way. I seriously wrestle with my “whatever floats your boat” and “not necessarily gentlemanly to insult others for their feelings” philosophy with my recognition that the construct is and can be very dangerous to mankind and should not be coddled in any way. Dawkins on the lecture circuit has license that we in one-on-one relationships don’t. My tongue has many bites. Would you say that this discovery would basically be the same as confirming mind/brain dependency — that brain activity causes mind? That would mean, I think, that the God hypothesis is being tested in the field of neurology. The problem I have with this is that faith doesn’t have to play by the same rules as reason — and it’s considered superior to reason. If someone makes a “leap of faith” and accepts some sort of supernatural revelation or relationship, this is not supposed to be a minor little addition to an otherwise natural understanding of reality. It is their understanding of reality, and it should inform and motivate their entire life. That’s because it’s NOT about their life anymore. It’s not a private truth, or a matter of personal belief. It’s Truth itself — and everything else is below it. Nothing else counts as much, because, without it, nothing counts. If a person recognizes the fundamental meaning structured into the universe then this wisdom will guide behavior so that it meets its purpose — and the more certain you are of this, the more “humble” you become, for you are bowing to the strength of a Higher Power. I think that coupling of certainty and humility is dangerous. It makes it impossible to draw a line on what is, and is not, appropriate, because drawing such lines according to what the world thinks is trumped by an understanding of that Big Picture that only insiders can know. I would say that both you and Leigh Williams are probably religious humanists. A religious humanist believes that, in the long run, what people believe or don’t believe about God isn’t as important as how they treat each other, and how they live in this world — and God believes that, too. If they ‘lost their faith’ and no longer believed in God, there is little in their life they would change. They would still love the things they love now, still care about the things they care about now, and life would still have meaning for them. Religious humanists hold their faith very lightly, indeed — though it may not appear that way. They may live their entire lives as expressions of God’s love, dedicated to their faith. But when push comes to shove and it gets right down to it, they care more about the love part, than the God part. Technically speaking, God is supposed to come first, and be inseparable from meaning. So God causes your mind, or at least your free will? How does that work? Not all that well, which is why I’ve wandered off. Where are all the interesting creationists? At least some of them apparently didn’t, though the main responder appears to have been a crank of some kind. Having just wandered in, I wouldn’t know this has been done to death. Can you summarize the devastating arguments? No, as Wise’s subsequent career clearly shows. But Dobzhansky and several thousand others do seem to be good examples. You can indeed produce many examples in which religion derailed science, e.g. Teilhard. So clearly not all religion is compatible with science. But empirically, some religion appears to be, else how to explain Dobzhansky and others. Other cases seem ambiguous. Conway Morris and Ayala do excellent scientific work, but you can find instances where their religions arguably have colored their conclusions. What this shows is that there is a complex relationship between religion and science. Depending on both the religion and the science, there may or may not be conflict. I will also note that this phenomenon isn’t limited to religion. There are many beliefs that can conflict with science, and even great scientists aren’t immune to them. From personal experience I know that the Nobelist Roger Sperry believed that life violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and from this he constructed an elaborate theory of meaning. As far as I know, it never affected his actual work. Screw it – I say we start denying access to the fruits of science to those who don’t believe in it. All those people who deny science while reaping the benefits of it! I say we let them live in the world they want to have. Maybe if we force all the religious nuts to be Amish, they’ll understand what’s so great about the power of the mind over the real world. Sastra, you are right: I identify as a Christian humanist. Can’t speak for Scott, though. By whom? Certainly not by me. I do agree that this point of view seems to be held by the majority of people. I also agree that it’s pernicious. Evidence-based reasoning is by far the superior modus operandi. And yes, I do have evidences that support my faith (or I wouldn’t hold it), but they are deeply personal and idiosyncratic to me. It’s always possible that my experiences are purely neurological in origin, or else the product of wishful thinking. Obviously after careful examination I’ve decided against that. But why should you care? It’s not as if my faith . . . and by this I mean my personal faith, not Christianity as a religion . . . impinges in the slightest on your life. But remember, I hold that faith and/or religious beliefs should be purely private. Again, by whose reckoning? I didn’t agree to be bound by these rules of engagement, especially if by “God” you imply Yahweh. How can you possibly know this? In my case, rather the opposite is true: it may appear that I hold my faith lightly, but it informs my life more deeply than you can see. But perhaps by this you mean merely that I don’t seem to be a raving lunatic, therefore I can’t hold a deep and abiding faith; QED. If so, then thank you. I try hard not to be barking mad in public. This brings me to another point. Why should I agree to be held accountable for what other Christians do? I don’t give money to any organized church; my money goes to Planned Parenthood, Habitat for Humanity, the Democratic Party, and various other liberal causes. I’m not a Christian apologist; on the contrary, I’m at least as critical of religion as any of you. I write letters to the editor and engage in online debate, where my position is identical to yours from everything I can see. In my real-world life, I engage other Christians from the liberal point of view, sometimes at considerable personal cost. What else can I reasonably be expected to do to further the cause of rationality? If I were still an atheist, what would I be doing that would be any different from what I do now? In fact, I think I can make the case that I am somewhat MORE effective from my current position within the castle walls, so to speak. Volition in that sense is completely compatible with determinism (or with our decisions depending on random events) – as argued in Dennett’s Freedom Evolves. It’s not clear that any plausible experiment in neuropsychology could oblige anyone to abandon their belief in free will (you are right about Libet), since this is rooted in our everyday experience of our own and others’ behaviour. Nor does belief in this kind of volition have any necessary connection with theism or atheism: you will find examples of all four possible combinations of theism/atheism and belief/disbelief in free-will on this very thread. Whoa, massive spelling FAIL in my last several posts. I’m doing too many drugs. No, seriously, I am. And not the fun stuff, either. Just Ambien at night, Lyrica by day. I can feel myself growing stupider, like poor Cliff Robertson in that movie they made from “Flowers for Algernon”. Sorry, PZ. I KNOW it’s Myers. Or Meiers. Or something other than what I typed upthread that I can’t recall at the moment. But why are you critical of religion? How is the “personal and idiosyncratic” evidence for your beliefs stronger than the personal, idiosyncratic evidence “bad” Christians have for their beliefs? What right do you have to criticize them? Sastra’s characterization of a ‘religious humanist’ intrigues me, but I’m not sure it describes me. I find myself agreeing with much of Leigh’s response, though. The trend to privilege belief over evidence-based reasoning is pernicious, and it arises (as Sastra correctly points out) from that dangerous combination of ‘humility’ and certainty. But it should be clear that I don’t hold a lot of my views with that sort of impenetrable confidence. I would add that the notion that when push comes to shove, someone like me actually favors ‘love’ over ‘God’….meh, I’m not sure I agree with that. We seem to be multiplying abstractions. I suspect when push comes to shove, I tend to favor my own self-interest like everyone else does, but (like most people) I tend to recast that self-interest in other terms. In doing that, I’m guided by a faith in something other than survival mechanisms. As a Christian, I identify that something as God, and I believe that in some sense God is love, as the scriptures claim. I don’t have to choose ‘love’ over ‘God’, because in my world view they are easily conflated. But I have to admit to my godless acquaintances that you could receive a very different impression of God from other parts of Holy Writ, or from the (very bad) behavior of other believers. This is a false assumption, most christians and indeed other god idea followers make. When they discover a fault in themselves they justify it by believing that “everyone else does” too. Scott Hatfield, OM, you should be able to prove to yourself that there are people that will act in the interest of others and not in a self-interested manner as do you. Ah, this is where the humanistic approach comes in — where faith is used only as a supplement to science and reason, cannot go against it, and is kept rigorously away from any area where the existence of object of faith would make a noticeable difference from its nonexistence. This means that one cannot believe in miracles, accept any literal interpretation of scriptures, or insert God as direct explanation for mind, or morals, or anything else that science and philosophy might touch upon more thoroughly. Religious humanists are often perfectly content to allow God to morph into somehow becoming science and philosophy, if need be. Or, maybe, if they do believe in the supernatural, they do so modestly, and with hesitation, fully acknowledging that they might very well be mistaken (and they’ll probably fight like hell against calling it ‘supernatural.’) As a humanist, they don’t think there is anything particularly noble or virtuous in making the leap of faith. That’s one of the significant differences, I think, between religious humanists, and liberal theists. At least, this is how I make a distinction. The liberal theist (like the religious humanist) will admit that atheists often have better arguments against the existence of God, than they have for the existence of God. But the reason, they say, which compels them to make the leap of faith is not reason, but love. Their heart reaches out for God, responds to God, or otherwise recognizes and partakes of the all-important cosmic lovefest which lies at the heart of reality. Unlike the atheist — who either can’t, or won’t. The religious humanist doesn’t play that game. They may agree that God is love, but they don’t agree that faith is love. They do not argue that nonbelievers — those who have no faith — are stifled or crippled or otherwise stunted. And they give enough credit to that which is worthwhile in the world, to make the world sufficient unto itself, whether God exists or not. Atheists just get to be mistaken on a particular point. We don’t get labeled as being those who have missed The Point because we don’t have the right kind of capacity for love. That’s one major reason I prefer humanists to the religious liberal. At least the fundamentalists complain that we’re only atheists “because you don’t want there to be a judgment and a Hell for the sinners!” That’s not the reason, but truth be told I’m fine with being accused of being the kind of person who doesn’t want there to be a Hell. I’m not so fine with being accused of being the kind of person who doesn’t want there to be a Higher Consciousness of Infinite Love — or else I’d make that leap, and believe. I think this point depends on how much you think faith is justified, and how much it justifies. Once we get into supernatural revelations, everyone is playing Calvinball. Even you. “God is not that way — God is this way!” Faith has no rules, and no way to check itself. Trying to argue that God is a humanist is a lost cause. Approach the existence of God as a falsifiable hypothesis, formulate some predictions, develop some tests, and put it up for peer review. Plus, buy PZ a new car. I said I have personal, idiosyncratic reasons for my faith in God. I also said I’m a humanist, and that clearly means my ethical values are derived from my human experiences and from human history, just as yours are. Geez. Reading comprehension, people. I agree with Nick. It doesn’t follow. And further, it’s unlikely to be that simple. Current neuroscience has, in effect, already disclosed that this is the case. What we call “volitional acts” as well as all conscious processes are derived from the collective action of a great many simpler unconscious processes. But when you think about it, free will or no, how could it be otherwise? No conscious process could be simple enough not to depend on simpler, unconscious, processes. Unless you espouse some variety of substance dualism, that is, in which case neuroscience has definitely falsified your beliefs. I wasn’t being particularly clear, there. Assume for the moment, that you are correct — God does exist. But, assume for the moment, that it turns out that you’ve been mistaken about how God is, what it is like, and what it considers to be Good. Oh, God is still the essence of Goodness Itself, and its Nature is identical to The Good — but when you recognize this standard in all its clarity, it seems that you’ve fallen short, and gotten it wrong. Humans do err. God considers one of the highest joys to be taking pleasure in the tortures of the damned, and exulting in the pain and suffering of one’s enemies. It is the very manifestation of His Love — love for vengeance. 1.) I would change my understanding if what is Good, to match God’s. He is the Creator, and the Ultimate standard and source of Goodness. I was wrong: God cannot be. I’m going to work hard to live up to my purpose of glorifying Him, and take a spectator seat at the brink of Hell. 2.) Given that strained and very unlikely scenario (jeezus), I would keep my own understanding of what is Good, and call that God a monster. I’d reject God before I gave up a value so basic to me, and probably prefer to be among the damned. 3.) Excuse me, but this is not answerable. What you describe is not The Nature of the Good, and therefore it is 100% impossible that God could be like that. Yes, there have been people (mostly in the past) who have endorsed that sort of behavior, but I know it’s wrong and evil, and thus ungodly. I cannot accept a logical contradiction, even as a hypothetical — and a God which goes against my god-given moral sense fits the bill. 4.) Some other response, that isn’t agree with God, disagree with God, or refuse to play the game. Answers #2 and #3 would be examples of what I meant by “favoring love over God.” Answer #1 favors God over love. And answer #4 means you’ve got potential for a career in theology. That would be a pretty fair statement, Notagod, except for the fact that you completely misread my intent. When I referenced ‘self-interest’, I wasn’t talking about ‘original sin’ or any other theological conception of human nature. I was referencing the fact that evolutionary theory provides a basis for understanding how individual organisms acting to maximize their fitness can lead to the evolution of kin selection and perhaps, eventually, altruism. In other words, I was specifically referencing a naturalistic account of ethics, not a theological one. So I’m afraid I have to give your post a massive *FAIL*. No, you said you have personal, idiosyncratic evidence for your faith. I imagine the “bad” Christians also have personal, idiosyncratic evidence for their faith. How do you claim the right to criticize other beliefs based on personal, idiosyncratic evidence, without being hypocritical? Is your personal, idiosyncratic evidence stronger than their personal, idiosyncratic evidence? How do you know? Just Ambien at night, Lyrica by day. You’re right. No fun to be had there. I hope this regimen is temporary. Sastra seems to have an unending supply of Tentacle-cluster-worthy material. And it very well could be a failure of reading comprehension on my part. It’s damn cold and snowy here in Denver, and I only have Guinness to keep me company. And I’m not talking about Ben Kenobi or that book of records. Where are all the interesting creationists? Try the “Science of Watchmen” thread – though they are dull and stupid, the responses aren’t. Scott and Leigh – go for it! Is humanitarianism an addiction? Christianity stumbled upon universal brotherhood, the ultimate “in-group” and rewarding feeling of belonging, love and acceptance, albeit under a stern, protective and benevolent father. There is nobody, no out-group to hate, just others to welcome to the brotherhood with eyes glowing with love and peace. Humanists abandon the obviously fictional father figure, but retain the good-feeling all inclusive brotherhood. Is the need to be part of the team, the in-group, the tribe that it is like hunger, and the fulfillment so rewarding that it is as addictive as food? Others, expand the in-group even further to include all animals with faces, or even all of nature. Nature or the earth herself becomes the protective mother figure. Universal brotherhood and oneness with nature seem to have separately been arrived at perhaps even earlier in eastern culture as well. But how important and potent is the feeling of “oneness” that is free of the “negative emotions” of hatred, demonization, dehumanization and mocking? Nationalisms don’t seem to have been weakened by these feelings, neither has neo-atheism. Some people are “turned off” by these negative emotions, does the appeal or distaste for these “negative” emotions have a genetic basis? Is the longing for “one world government” in some, motivated by a desire for “oneness”, or by a desire to subjugate “the others”, the out-groups? If you accept abiogenesis and evolution via natural selection, then you have no reason to not accept determinism. Clearly regular non-living molecules have no free will, and neither do the simplest life forms, then why should we? Sure, it’s philosophically possible for an external God to swoop down/in? (thinking in 4D curved space-time hurts my head… where exactly is this “God”?) and have imbued us with free will a few million years ago, but why think that? It’s also philosophically possible that the Bible doesn’t exist either: if you doubt empiricism even the slightest, then you must doubt ALL empiricism, hence the Bible isn’t real, Jesus never existed, nobody’s ever been to Church, and Roman Emperor Constantine I certainly never saw a cross in the sky. Emphasis mine. What “out-groups” if humanism is “all inclusive”? And you seriously think nationalism hasn’t decreased? Have you heard of a period of time called 1914-1945? And “neo-atheism” (whatever that neologism is supposed to mean) hates, demonizes, dehumanizes and mocks in the same way as nationalism , how exactly? Sure, atheists mock and hate, but no more than any other person, and we certainly don’t demonize or dehumanize, let alone do it “Auschwitz-style”. They aren’t opposed. Free will could still exist in a deterministic universe –indeed, I believe free will does exist, in our deterministic universe. Of course I don’t mean any kind of magical properties of conscious awareness, so it may not satisfy a theist’s definition of the term, but that’s not a concern of mine. Dan Dennett does a much better job explaining this than I can in the early chapters of his Freedom Evolves, but I’d be happy to take a stab at it should anyone care. Apologies, I wasn’t intending the whole post to be assumed to be about humanism, the attractiveness of universal brotherhood was just one commonality I was identifying. non-christian humanism does NOT seem particularly nationalistic except when it comes to health care. I think nationalism has both waxed and wained since 1945, consider the ethnic conflicts as colonialism has collapsed. The “right” of ethnic groups to aspire to national independence (self determination) seems to be generally accepted as justified, even when they likely regimes will be more oppressive than the existing institutions. There appears to be sympathy for a right to oppress one’s own, even when one is oppressing a majority. Consider the extreme respect accorded Saddam’s sovereignty by many even in the western world. India and pakistan and bangledesh, the balkans, the breaking away of the sattelite states from the USSR, various African ethnic conflicts, the Korea’s, Vietnam and Cambodia, Indonesia and Timor, etc. Nationalism is not necessarily on the decline. There may even be an increasing acquience to the UN support of national sovereignty over individual rights. We shouldn’t be dismissive of the rise and virulence of nationalism, just because it doesn’t rise to the level Auschwitz. Dunno. But evolution gives us good reason to believe that our senses are generally reliable and we believe and act as if we have volition essentially 24/7. If determinism is true and our perceptions are ridiculously wrong in thinking that we can choose vanilla over strawberry, then science itself is utterly incoherent, being totally dependent upon observation and perception. As I noted above, I think compatibilism is simply dressed up determinism; and I thought Freedom Evolves was even worse than Elbow Room. Yes, but the other combinations are wrong. You’ve been victimized by the ludic fallacy. Apologies in advance but I won’t likely post again for a while (please keep your disappointment to yourselves). I’m in a hotel two plane flights from where I made my last post and won’t likely get this opportunity again for a while (President Obama is fixin’ to raise my taxes substantially so there’s a lot of work to be done). This thread has had much less vitriol and far more intelligence and insight than the typical Pharyngula thread. Commendations all around. Faith has no rules, and no way to check itself. Wow! Such a simple statement, but so on target. I agree with the first half of your statement that faith has no rules with the exception that someone must have it. Faith has no means to “arrest or control it’s motion.” While not absolute, it seems the individual with faith rarely loses it. This uncontrolled faith is the source of fanaticism, which I think we can all agree is unproductive. Faith has no means “to investigate or verify its correctness.” In attempting to verify their faith, the faithful would have to necessarily doubt in their faith. That is, in order to have faith, the faithful has to have it blindly and unquestioningly. The unrestrained, unquestionable nature of faith is, I think, what leads the faithful to abandon reason. In addition, I think the reasonable person recognizes the destructive power of blind faith and excludes it as a reasonable alternative. Thanks for the thought! I enjoy reading your posts as they are well presented. So your argument against naturalism is based on the validity of empiricism? Don’t you get dizzy chasing your own tail? This seems like nothing more than special pleading to rule out Libet and like research, and a definition of “free will” that most people, including most Christians, wouldn’t recognize (for example, it seems to rule out the possibility of creatively “choosing” to actively glorify God, as opposed to simply avoid being bad). No devastation, just inconclusive results (I don’t think the existence of Theo-D is a devastating argument for the opposition, either). But I don’t think people are trying to claim that a religious person can’t be a scientist (apart from a few cranks), but that religion as a system of beliefs is incompatible with science. Wow. So much good stuff in this thread. In fact, the past week here on Pharyngula has been first-rate. AnthonyK, have I done something to make you think I’m a troll? If so, I apologize; I’m arguing in good faith on several threads, but I have been somewhat addled lately. I’m always open to constructive criticism, so feel free to comment if I’ve done something you feel is out of place. Sastra, I’m intrigued by the distinction you draw between “liberal theists” and “religious humanists”. If I’m understanding you correctly, I think you would describe me as the latter, but it’s not a term I’m familiar with. I usually describe myself as a Christian humanist, but on occasion I’ve used the liberal theist label. But in your thought experiment, #2 is my answer. If that’s what God is, I’ll oppose Him to the gates of hell and beyond. Good heavens, no! We certainly have a means to investigate or verify its correctness in our purely human sense of ethical behavior. Consider this: You have a neighbor with children. When his children break ANY of his rules, however trivial the offense, he locks them in the basement, starves and beats them, and doesn’t let them out until they beg him for forgiveness and promise to obey. Does everyone agree that this neighbor is a sociopath, guilty of gross child abuse? Good, we all see that. Now, consider a God who does the same thing to his children, but with fire and brimstone, and FOREVER. No getting out of the basement, even if you beg. How can any rational person accept in a deity that which she would unhestitatingly condemn as sociopathy in a neighbor? This is the psychopathology of blind faith. Now I could do a whole theology spiel, including Biblical exegesis, to justify my belief that hell is a human invention based on a mistranslation of some key passages. You don’t care about that, and indeed why should you? My point is that faith can, and should, be viewed through the lens of reason. And yes, that does lead to doubt. Doubt, misgivings, and humility are critical components of a mature and considered faith. Otherwise faith is damned dangerous, as I freely admit. The unexamined faith is not worth having (apologies to Gertrude Stein). Oh, I understood what you wrote, I simply disagree that everyone acts in their own best interest to the detriment of others when push comes to shove as you put it. Also, I have seen christians justify their self interested actions by claiming “so, everyone else does it too.” I view that as a failure of the god idea, as christians claim that their god idea is what lifts them up above the lowly heathen knuckle dragger. I didn’t know any atheists in my younger years, didn’t know I was an atheist either, simple didn’t know there were atheists. Just knew that the christian god book was bullshit and those that held it high were picking and choosing the parts to apply to themselves and the parts to apply to others (which conveniently were glorious parts for them and scathing parts for others without any real justification.) I bring this up because the first atheists I met were much more like the christians thought they were and much less like the christians actually were. So hidden within those two paragraphs is possibly one of the reasons for my response at #439. When I referenced ‘self-interest’, I wasn’t talking about ‘original sin’ or any other theological conception of human nature. [me: didn’t think you were, SH (back at ya weiner)] I was referencing the fact that evolutionary theory provides a basis for understanding how individual organisms acting to maximize their fitness can lead to the evolution of kin selection and perhaps, eventually, altruism. In other words, I was specifically referencing a naturalistic account of ethics, not a theological one. Wow, you really pack a lot of expected assumption into “I tend to favor my own self-interest like everyone else does,” But still I’m quite certain not “everyone” implies that, when they express “self-interest”. Leigh, that sounds very much like what the pastor at our church told my mother when she started to doubt her beliefs several years ago. “Everyone has doubts,” she said. “You’re not alone.” The pastor herself had gone through a long period of seeking that took her on a journey through Buddhism and other spiritual disciplines. She returned to Christianity for reasons I can only guess at. Wonderful woman, that pastor. She was transferred to a big city parish, so I haven’t seen her in a couple of years now. I don’t go to church anymore anyway. As for the “lens of reason,” that opens the mind up to all sorts of possibilities. I won’t try to persuade you that if the lens is truly clear, it reveals that much of what we believed is simply untenable. I wonder how much choice we really have in the matter. Some people believe, and always will. Other do not, and never really did. I hope you sleep well tonight. Hugs. Indeed. I think the most challenging part of a spiritual journey lies in the search for that “clear lens”. I myself am at the “clear to partly cloudy, with fog after midnight” stage. I’m off to bed now. Sweet dreams, dear girl, and to all, a good night. We certainly have a means to investigate or verify its correctness in our purely human sense of ethical behavior…How can any rational person accept in a deity that which she would unhestitatingly condemn as sociopathy in a neighbor? 2. If you can use your “human reason and sense of ethical behavior” to condemn belief in hell as a “mistranslation of some key passages,” how can you rely upon anything in your bible, including a putative god? I guess what I’m trying to say is that, by definition, what you are practicing is NOT faith at all. Thanks but I’d just as soon Scott Hatfield, OM respond for himself, as if I receive two “massive *FAIL*s” in a row I would be just totally devastated. I’ve been watching with interest and some giggling as you folks have been reinterpreting the meaning of the christian god idea book. It seems that it is possible that you have inserted and removed much that might improve upon the original immensely, thus, might I suggest that you simply rewrite the damn thing so everyone will be able to read it and understand it at least, generally the same? I mean, what in the name of The FSM was your god idea thinking, when sending the specification? Or perhaps it would be better to start your own religion call it “christian god idea plus and minus” or some such. Seems pretty clear. NOMA. Science deals with truth and knowledge. Religion deals with the opposite. I think we may be arguing about the meaning of “incompatible”. Just what does it mean? My view is that a belief is compatible with science if it’s uncontradicted by the current body of scientific knowledge. Did you have something different in mind? And I would say it’s simpler than that, because to be a good scientist it’s only necessary that your beliefs be compatible with whatever is relevant to your field. Well, of course nothing should be off limits for philosophical criticism. I suspect that Collins’ religion is in fact incompatible with science (though it would be science that’s peripheral to his field). I’m not sure Miller’s religion is incompatible with anything, as it seems carefully designed to be untestable. As I understand it, god tweaks the occasional quantum event, but not to the degree that we can distinguish the distribution from regular quantum events. Now of course what people are really worried about is that science is incompatible not with an undetectable god but with the sort of god they want: one that acts in the world, rewarding virtue and punishing sin, and who has a grand plan that will make everything turn out for the best. It seems to me, however, that it isn’t science they should be worried about, but reality in general. Or rather, the threat from science isn’t physics or evolution or whatever, but the “scientific method”, or the habit of testing hypotheses rigorously against reality. If that’s what you mean by “incompatibility”, I agree (and Will Provine made this point first in my experience) that reality rules out any god worth having. But biology has very little to do with it. Crap, here’s another wall of text from me. Feel free to say tl;dr. Evangelatheist, I conflated two separate issues in #460; I’m sorry I wasn’t more precise. “Faith” is most often used by those of us in the faith community to mean “faith and practices”. When outside that community, it would be clearer if I specified that I’m talking about two things, separate though related: 1) faith that there is a God, and 2) religion, religious practices. It’s the second that I’m primarily discussing in #460. I arrive at that conclusion by applying the reasoning of a humanist and appealing to widespread secular ideas of right and wrong. I use the same kinds of evidence you as an atheist would use to support my argument. It’s on the first point, the very existence of a God, that I assert personal and idiosyncratic evidence. I don’t try to convince you to agree with me; in fact I’d feel silly trying. My little collection of epiphanies and small miracles would probably look pretty trivial to you, however important they seem to me. Not only are some of them tinged with considerable emotion, but I am quite willing to consider the idea that perhaps my flashes of comprehension and communication are generated inside my brain, and all the rest is mere coincidence. I’ve considered it, and I don’t think so. This is what people call the “leap of faith”. No matter what conclusions I’ve drawn about the nature of God and the universe from that leap, what matters is this: Can I make an argument for whatever course of action I suggest (on abortion, universal health care, human rights, etc) that DOES NOT appeal to my idiosyncratic view of God? An argument that is purely secular, that is accessible to all people of reason? And are my actions congruent with the values I claim to espouse through my faith? Synchronicity is such an odd thing. I sit here tonight with my son Boy Twin (14, and an outspoken atheist) and my husband Mr. Science (57 and a devout Christian) watching Stargate SG1: The Ark of Truth, which is a two-hour discussion of this very issue, with the followers of Origen as Christians/Muslims, the Ancients as key representatives of science and rational thought, the Ori as priests/mullahs, the Book of Origen as the Bible/Koran, and Tomin as the true believer who is nonetheless imbued with decency and ethics, who comes to regret his religious fanaticism. Incidentally, I haven’t been following this thread, but are you, on the whole, glad you decided to come talk to the rude atheists? I suspect that as long as your views are….I was going to write sincere, but that is a much abused concept…considered and responsible – and you take responsibility for them – you will not find it too harsh here. AnthonyK, I post occasionally and have for quite some time; I am a dedicated read of Phargyngula. Yes, sometimes I get roughed up a little, but of course it’s worth it. Intellectual rigor is sometimes rude. That’s okay with me. There’s far too little of it in public discourse, in my opinion. BTW, I asked you on another thread if you’re a Brian Regan fan. I don’t think I’m currently reading that thread, but I’m still interested in the answer. Ack. I’m a READER of Pharyngula. Damn gin and Lyrica. Leigh – no, I can’t say I know anthing about Brian Regan. I’ll look out for him. Can’t have been in the UK much. Him, not me, that is! cpsmith: I don’t distinguish science-oriented philosophy and science at the most general. As for the “ought” and in general normative questions, science-oriented philosophy works in three ways to help there: one is that it tells you what the consequences of a decision are and two, it tells you what has worked and hasn’t in the past, and three it encourages stating values explicitly. John Harshman: All that the D. quote shows (at best) is that one can, de facto, be a Christian and a scientist. Nobody is disputing that. The question is whether this is more than double think and cognitive dissonance when comes to the content of each system of ideas: and all religions, especially the literate ones, have elaborate systems of ideas, some explicit, some not. D. might reject some of the official position of his church, or may not – it doesn’t matter. He’s unusual among American comedians because his comedy is family-friendly. We became fans when the twins were younger. I think he’s a riot. So do you believe in love? Are you able to really love anyone or anything if you understand it is simply a pattern of electrical impulses? It strikes me there are some times when we need to put our scientific knowledge aside and just go with the flow of our humanity. I’d rather live my life with love – including a love of science! Actually, some people here have disputed exactly that, or so it seems to me. Not sure I get your point. Can you tell me what in Dobzhansky’s religion was incompatible with evolutionary biology? Why would doublethink be necessary? I can assure you of one thing. Actually, some people here have disputed exactly that [a Christian and a scientist], or so it seems to me. As I make it, the consensus here is that this is not in dispute, but it is considered to be at the cost of compartmentalisation and overcoming cognitive dissonance. The disputation is as to their epistemic compatibility. The argument is all about method. The method of science is based on logic, empiricism, skepticism, falsifiability and parsimony. You take some set of observations of the empirical evidence, and make parsimonious logical deductions that explain those observations. You always keep skepticism in mind, because an observation might have been incomplete or incorrect, or the deduction might have logical flaws, and try to keep falsifiability in mind in making additional observations that might disprove your deductions. Science might be described as an algorithm that tries to asymptotically approach truth by fractally eliminating the provably false. It is practically impossible to achieve total truth, but without the attempt to reach it. The method of religion all too often denies and rejects logic, empiricism, skepticism, falsifiability and parsimony (those that are compatible with them might be better called life philosophies than religions (see #258 above)). Even the best religious scientists seem to make the fallacious arguments of arguing from ignorance, and arguing from emotion. Religious belief tends to reside in the epistemic fractal gaps not covered by actual knowledge. Which brings us back to mental compartments, in which the religious scientists respectively keep their logic, empiricism, skepticism, falsifiability and parsimony (when doing science) — and their rejection of same (as when they might be applied to their religious beliefs). When scientists (who are also Christians) are being scientists, they use the methods of science. When Christians (who are also scientists) are being Christians, they reject (or at best, ignore) the methods of science. Bah, sentence construction fail. It is practically impossible to achieve total truth, but without the attempt to reach it, there is really no other way to come close. Fixed, more or less. Science might be described as an algorithm that tries to asymptotically approach truth by fractally eliminating the provably false. […] Religious belief tends to reside in the epistemic fractal gaps not covered by actual knowledge. Yes – what he said too. Indeed do we really need the word “Religious”. Is is not the case that “Belief tends to reside in the epistemic fractal gaps not covered by actual knowledge.”? Isn’t the main problem that belief often holds on when science has progressed beyond the gaps? Indeed for any individual we will always be ignorant of much of human knowledge, and most of new knowledge. So incompatibility would seem to depend on applying the religious “method”, and failing to apply the scientific method, to inappropriate/appropriate cases. NOMA, properly understood, means that religion keeps out of science’s way and limits itself to untestable hypotheses. Or at least that religious scientists keep their religion out of their science. Sure, revelation and faith aren’t “ways of knowing”, just ways of imagining you know. As long as you don’t imagine you know something that contradicts a testable hypothesis, what’s the harm? Historically, the conflict between science and religion has happened only when religion has made claims that contradict empirical evidence. “God works through evolution”, for example, makes no claims about empirical evidence; it’s merely unparsimonious, since we “had no need of that hypothesis”. John you seem to be a very good example of why christians shouldn’t be allowed to be scientists. Could we start with unparsimonious? Checking a couple of dictionaries, I can’t find “unparsimonious”. I do find parsimonious at The Free Dictionary defined as “Excessively sparing or frugal” so according to you then, “God works through evolution” would be a statement that is not excessively sparing or frugal. In my judgment your statement is highly deceptive if not an outright lie. If you asked your god-idea concerning its workings with regard to “god works through evolution” I would like a transcript of the conversation. If you are implying that you oversee the “works” of your god-idea and thus have first hand experience regarding “god works through evolution” I would like to observe you doing the observing. Either way I would like you to provide a working definition of your god-idea as I would like to reproduce your results. Further, you are making a claim with regard to how evolution works. It could be stated (since you give no evidence) that you imagine that your god-idea works through evolution. So as a complete definition of your god-idea would it be fair to state ‘John Harshman’s god-idea is caused by evolution’, in this case? Unlike christianity john, deception is not allowed in science. If you get caught deceiving those you associate with regarding your evidence and conclusions, your career might well be junked. fixed that for you, JH. But if god tweaks quantum events to “guide” human evolution, for example, does it really matter that the tweaks themselves are undetectable? The end result isn’t; in effect we would have physical evidence of god’s intervention in the human genome, we just don’t know it yet. Let’s say that god used quantum tweaking to effect a small number of mutations he deemed necessary in human ancestors. Did god then add some neutral and mildly deleterious mutations to make sure that we observe the same substitution ratios in the human genome? Or was he careful to keep the number of tweaks under some forever statistically undetectable limit? How is that ultimately different, except in degree, from “God made the fossils to test the faithful”? Settle down. IIRC, John is not a believer – and “shouldn’t be allowed to be scientists”? WTF? Notagod: John you seem to be a very good example of why christians shouldn’t be allowed to be scientists. Notice that Notagod is a fine counterexample to John Morales claim that nobody is arguing that a Christian can’t be a good scientist. Is it too much to expect people to read what I write, and respond to what is said rather than what someone with my imagined group membership might say? “Parsimonious”, in science, refers to hypotheses that don’t appeal to causes beyond those absolutely necessary to explain results. That is, one theory is more parsimonious than another if application of Occam’s Razor would cause us to prefer the first. Perhaps this meaning hasn’t penetrated to online dictionaries, but I assure you it’s quite common in science and in philosophy of science. “Unparsimonious” is of course the opposite of parsimonious. An unparsimonious theory adds causes that aren’t necessary to explain the data. A term of similar meaning, applicable in many such situations, is “overparameterized”. It should be obvious that a theory of a god who creates through evolution, and whose actions are indistinguishable from the results of strictly natural processes, is unparsimonious compared to a theory lacking that god. However, an unparsimonious theory is not necessarily wrong. Occam’s Razor is a fine heuristic, very useful in choosing which theory to prefer. But a theory is not actually ruled out just because it’s unparsimonious. It’s just the way to bet. You would be better off arguing with Ken Miller directly, but I’ll give it a try. Tweaks are undetectable, even in principle, if they aren’t outside the bounds of what natural processes could be expected to do. That is, if humans or something equally unlikely would be expected from untweaked quantum events, there’s no way to detect the tweaks, even through their results. On the other point, given that there are 35 million point mutations separating humans and chimps, there is no need for any fudging of the distribution unless god is performing millions of tweaks. If he only did a few dozen, and if they’re not all clustered within the same thousand-base region, the secret seems pretty safe to me. Unless that lightning is common enough to show up as a detectable pattern, and differs from regular lightning (say, by consistently smiting non-believers in Thor), there seems no way to falsify that hypothesis. An unfalsifiable hypothesis isn’t science, but it isn’t in conflict with science either. The key reason we favor parsimony is utilitarian: if your Model+God is indistinguishable from Model-God, there is no property that can be tested to discriminate between the two models. We need specific differences in order to get a grip on the alternatives. Well, I certainly wasn’t. More or less, I suppose… but that leads to uncomfortable questions about definitions, including what “untestable hypotheses” means. If God is defined as a person, that, in itself, is not an “untestable hypothesis”. We have several billion examples of human persons and their traits. Are there traits, known from humans, claimed about God? Are those traits claimed about God all necessarily untestable? If these supposed traits cannot be tested directly, can they be tested indirectly? Are there traits claimed which would not be untestable if they actually existed? I think NOMA is a way of enforcing compartmentalization and social détente; a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. It might be necessary in a society deeply afraid of and uncomfortable with hard questions about their religion, but on the other hand… I don’t think that genuinely “untestable hypotheses” are actually compatible with personal-God-based religion either. One of the things that causes problems is that different people seem to have different ideas of what “testable hypothesis”. This brings us back to arguing from ignorance. Francis Collins many be a brilliant geneticist, but when he suggests that morality is evidence of God, I don’t think he realizes that the origins, function, and utility of morality have testable hypotheses in psychology, neurology, physiology, population biology, sociology, and game theory. Also, I suppose it’s that some religious people seem to want to warp what words mean in way that seems completely insane to me. I’ll have to bring up David Heddle again as a specific example. Since I don’t know that you know of him: He’s a devout Calvinist and a physicist (who often comes here, often to argue that science and religion are not incompatible; see above for example). I don’t think he’s generally stupid, and I don’t think he’s generally dishonest (he has acknowledged that he knows of no way to test for God), but when his mind is in religious mode, he’s capable of arguing that Romans 1:20 is not internally consistent, not self-contradictory, is not inconsistent with or contradictory to other things that Paul wrote, and is a command to do science. Some weird psychological privileging is going on inside his head, and it genuinely baffles me, and it baffles me that it doesn’t baffle him. It is unparsimonious, and it also is in contradiction to certain testable traits that God might have, if God were a person and had those traits. A God that works through evolution would be a very different person from one that created all things as they are. If God is defined as a person, that, in itself, is not an “untestable hypothesis”…Are there traits claimed which would not be untestable if they actually existed? Certainly. The standard Christian God is clearly falsified by theodicy, for example. But I don’t think that creates a conflict between science and religion, unless you decide that theodicy is within the province of science. Usually, it’s considered philosophy or theology. Now if the scientific method were used in theology, God would become a much less clearly defined entity, as most of his attributes would have to be abandoned. What about biology? Suppose we hypothesize that God has some biologically relevant characteristic, such as an inordinate fondness for beetles. Can this be tested? Perhaps. If we came up with a model for insect diversity, and beetles were significantly more diverse than the model would fit, that might be a test. But such a question awaits a model. Again, this all depends on whether you extend the idea of science to apply to direct investigations of divine attributes. Some gods would clearly be testable, and most gods that people posit wouldn’t survive contact with reality. But is this a conflict with science? I don’t think so, as science is usually thought of. It’s a conflict with applications of scientific methods to theology. In this way, religion is in conflict with logic, reason, and the world. But not with science, per se. I’m pretty sure that it’s also been when empirical evidence has contradicted religious dogma. Agreed. But which traits, and what biologists claim those are traits of God? But even God creating a species out of thin air could be undetectable, if he made the genome similar to other species and the event wasn’t observed. But if there is a secretive trickster god, what reason is there to assume that he’d stop at statistical undetectability? A trickster god that causes more significant changes, but plants false evidence to look as if natural processes caused everything, would be just as unfalsifiable. I’m sorry, but that’s such a pathetically low standard. If I firmly believed that aliens have infiltrated Earth governments using advanced technology that makes them so far undetectable, should I expect to get patted on the head as long as my belief was unfalsifiable and did not effect my ability to do science? The standard Christian God is clearly falsified by theodicy, for example. But I don’t think that creates a conflict between science and religion, unless you decide that theodicy is within the province of science.Usually, it’s considered philosophy or theology. Inasmuch as the standard Christian God is (or tries to be) something that is stated about reality; about nature, it is within the province of science. Consider that the word science means “knowledge”. The scientific method is a systematic way of gathering knowledge and building on previous knowledge. Given that science arose from natural philosophy, I don’t think it’s inconsistent to use those the philosophical tools of science to analyze the concept of God. And note that this has indeed happened, more than once, which is why atheism (and Deism, and negative theology) existed even before natural philosophy evolved into science. Well, the trait of benevolence is often claimed for God… and the usual suspects (Miller, Ayala, Collins) come to mind as claiming that trait. However, I think I would need to read more of Miller/Ayala/Collins works to be more sure of what they’re saying, and presenting the argument more formally. I know that Ayala and Miller have suggested that evolution is a solution to theodicy; I don’t have the faintest idea of how that is actually supposed to work (and indeed, it may be so incoherent that it doesn’t really work at all; it may just be a fig leaf they hold in front of their mental compartmentalization). Would you mind defining “hypothesis”? What properties does something have to possess to qualify as a hypothesis? A hypothesis is anything located beneath a thesis. In my office, for example, a thesaurus is hypothetical. Hope this helps. I’m not trying to defend either the truth or the reasonableness of quantum tweaking. Certainly, carried to its logical extreme, we can arrive at omphalism or even Last Thursdayism. But I don’t think tweaking rises to the level of “trickster god”. And tweakists are maintaining a certain level of parsimony in their unparsimoniousness. However, I’m not suggesting that anyone be patted on the back, or offered a get out of criticism free card. Just that religion doesn’t have to be in conflict with science. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other flaws. I would certainly be interested in knowing what solutions Ayala and Miller have offered for theodicy, whether or not they arise from evolution.

Hagenburg Open or Close At the end of the 14th century, the counts of Schaumburg built the Hagenburg (Hagenburg Castle) in order to safeguard their estate. Gradually a settlement developed around the castle which became the village called Hagenburg. Later the medieval castle was replaced by a palace. In recent years a new village centre has developed with a modern school complex, the kindergarten "Indianerdorf" (Indian village), and a medical centre. Today the village has more than 4,500 inhabitants. Hagenburg Palace Open or Close Hagenburg Palace consists of two buildings, a half-timbered wing from around 1686 and a taller one, which was modernised by Princess Juliane around 1800 with a natural stone facade in Neo-Classical style. It was from here that Count Wilhelm supervised the process of building the fortress island Wilhelmstein in Lake Steinhude. Later rulers mainly used the palace as a summer residence. Since 2005 the palace has belonged to an art auction house. You can see it from the outside. Moor Garden and Erratic Boulders Field Open or Close Behind the palace you can discover a a moor garden following an educational trail which introduces you to the vegetation of upland and low moors. Only a hundred metres away, you might visit the glacial erratics exhibition "Findlingsgarten" presenting 23 erratic boulders that were transported from Scandinavia to the region by glaciers during the Ice Age.

If you get the above error message while opening a Tag2Win project with LongoMatch, this means oyou are using an old version of LongoMatch. Note that we have updated LongoMatch and so we did with application Tag2Win. Since we did the update, if you use and old version of LongoMatch you will get this error as they are not compatible. If you want to open the project, please update to latest version of LongoMatch.

A Pox on your Plants: Summer Leaf Diseases Summer’s heat and humidity are ideal conditions for the development of plant diseases, particularly those that affect leaves. Most are triggered by specific environmental conditions, and have preferred hosts. Many can be prevented or minimized by good cultural practices-good pruning or plant spacing to increase air movement, avoiding getting leaves wet overnight, and proper irrigation and fertilization levels that lead to healthy plants that can fight off diseases. Here are a few summer plant diseases to look out for. If your plants look like a white powder has appeared in blotches on the leaf, you’re probably dealing with powdery mildew. The “powder” will not rub off easily; it is actually a fungal growth on the leaf. It is rarely fatal on an otherwise healthy plant, but can cause plants to be unattractive and affect plant growth. Some plants notorious for developing powdery mildew are squashes and cucumbers, bee balm, roses, peony, crape myrtle, and dogwood. It develops in warm, humid conditions. Powdery mildew can be somewhat controlled by increasing air circulation with pruning and avoiding overcrowding, by practicing good plant sanitation by removing fallen leaves so they can’t overwinter the spores, by not planting susceptible varieties in shady locations, and by minimizing tender succulent growth (don’t over-fertilize, over-water, or over-prune). Powdery mildew is actually caused by many different fungi that affect specific plants or plant families, so the mildew on your zucchini will not affect your roses, but it may affect your cucumbers. Chemical control on ornamental plants is not absolutely necessary* in many cases as the disease is mostly cosmetic; for very susceptible plants prevention with any number of fungicides is effective, but must be repeated at the interval the label indicates for extended control. Since the disease can weaken vegetables enough to impact yield, preventive treatments with organic controls may be necessary. Fortunately, this is a disease that is well prevented by organic measures, including the odd (yet seemingly effective) milk treatment. *EDIT: In the case of Impatiens Downy Mildew, prevention is difficult and control is not possible. It is one of the few downy mildews that is completely devastating to the host plant. If seen, affected plants must be removed, bagged and discarded. Leaf spots are caused by a multitude of fungal and bacterial pathogens (Alternaria, Cercospora, Cylidrosporium, Septoria and many more). They can be a problem in cool, wet weather during early spring or extended rainy periods. Some, like the one that only affects black-eyed Susan and its relatives, will not spread to plants it does not favor. Others are able to affect a wide range of hosts. Prevention is the best control-be sure leaves are dry overnight and there is good air circulation, keep fallen leaves raked to prevent disease spread and overwintering. Preventive sprays containing mancozeb, fixed copper, or chlorothalonil are effective on a broad range of leaf spots and can be used on susceptible plants, but in many cases spotting is not excessive and environmental conditions may become less favorable for disease spread. Many insects, particularly aphids and scale, secrete honeydew, a sugary substance that is an ideal growing medium for sooty mold. It does look exactly like soot: a dry, black coating on leaves. While it does not penetrate the leaf surface or feed on plant tissue, a thick coating can reduce the plant’s ability to photosynthesize. This can result in reduced plant vigor, making it susceptible to additional insect and disease pests. The treatment is to control the insect infestation. It is difficult to remove; fortunately the use of horticultural oils & soaps to control the problem insects can soften the coating of sooty mold, causing it to weather off more quickly. For small areas on shiny-leaved plants, a mild soap solution and a rag can work. Otherwise it can take several season to weather off or be covered by new growth. This leaf issue shows the importance of diagnosing a problem correctly. If you saw this on your Laurels: ...you might think some insect critter was eating your leaves, and reach for an insecticide. In this case though, the culprit is shothole. An important pest of Laurels, shothole is the result of a fungal or bacterial infection, therefore an insecticide would be useless. The initial infection is brown spots that enlarge, then drop out of the leaf leaving a hole. Multiple holes can join together and give a ragged appearance. Once established, regular treatment is usually necessary. Good air circulation and sanitation (picking up and disposing of fallen leaves in the trash, not a dump or compost pile) can help minimize spread, and plants in sunnier areas may be affected less than plants in shadier locations, but preventive treatment with mancozeb or copper containing fungicides is usually required. The disease is active through all warmer months (April-October) with peak activity in May and September. Of course there are many other disease pests that may be encountered in the summer garden. If you have a problem that’s not described here, feel free to bring samples to us here at New Garden for identification and treatment options. For all of them, regular inspection of your plants can minimize damage and make control measures more effective.

In this task, you are given a dialogue from a conversation between an agent and a customer. Your task is to determine the speaker of the dialogue. Answer with "agent" or "customer". Example: Hello. How may I aid you today? Example solution: agent Example explanation: This is a pretty straightforward dialogue, and the speaker wants to help the other. So, the agent is the speaker. Problem: Can you help me booking a flight ticket from PHL to EWR? Solution: customer

Primary research on biocompatibility of poly lactic acid modified bacterial cellulose Objective To investigate the biocompatibility of poly lactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA)modified bacterial cellulose using smooth muscle cells. Methods Different proportions of PLGA modified bacterial cellulose were divided into five groups: the pure PLGA group (the 50P group), bacterial cellulose modified by PLA ∶PGA=50 ∶50 as the 50PB group, bacterial cellulose with poly-lactic acid(PLA) ∶poly-glycolic acid(PGA)=75 ∶25 as the 75PB group and bacterial cellulose with PLA ∶PGA=90 ∶10 as the 90PB group; the pure bacterial cellulose as the control group. The smooth muscle cells were seeded to different kinds of materials and cultured for 7 d. The situation of smooth muscle cells on different materials was observed by electronic migroscope(SEM)and determined by live/dead staining. The cell proliferation on the materials was determined by cell counting kit-8(CCK-8) test. The data of cell survival rate and proliferation rate were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and SNK test. Results The smooth muscle cells in all the groups adhered well to the materials on the 3rd day according to SEM observation. The live/dead staining result showed that smooth muscle cells of all the groups distributed uniformly and grow flourishly(F=1.454, P>0.05). The CCK-8 data indicated that the growth of smooth muscle cells in different groups had no difference on the 3rd day and 5th day(3 d F=1.672, P>0.05; 5 d F=1.19, P>0.05). On the 7th day the cells both in the 50PB group and the control group showed superior proliferation to those in the 90PB group and the 75PB group(F=13.328, P<0.01). Conclusion The biocompatibility of PLGA (PLA ∶PGA=50 ∶50) modified bacterial cellulose is better than other PLGA proportion modified bacterial cellulose, which is potential biomaterial for tissue repair. Key words: Cellulose; Polylactic acid-polyglycolic acid copolymer; Myocytes, smooth muscle; Biocompatible materials

Yaaay no internet, at least I have a large drive of material to use offline. It's ebooks and M4As only for me I suppose. @heyheni well, it's down because for whatever reason it can't connect to their WAN link. I'm on devRant because it seemed appropriate for this situation (mobile data) and I'm relieved because I don't usually have much time to read but with this, I can't do anything but read and learn. are you otherwise satisfied with your connection? and whats's the plan for 5G mobile internet in the uk? Do you think it'll launch this year? And would you switch to 5G as your main internet connection? Have you switched it off and on again? Did you try making a cup of tea then sitting down to look at it and swearing? Have you complained about how they couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery? @heyheni yeah, it's pretty good. Our city is supposed to get 5G coverage sometime next year so maybe assuming that the latency stays comparable. @BadFox and yet you put virgin media in the tags... So ... Irish? @seraphimsystems I'll give you a hint, not from the islands.

North Carolina’s unemployment rate dropped to 4.6% in June, and N.C.State economist Dr. Mike Walden is excited due to several factors unlike in the May report which showed the rate dropping as fewer people were seeking work, thus not in the labor force. “This was a very positive report,” Walden, who recently retired from NCSU as a teacher but still follows the economy closely, said after reviewing the June data. Walden also point out growth in one sector where companies had been having trouble landing workers. “Interestingly, the hospitality/leisure sector – where reports indicate hiring has been difficult – added over 7,000 jobs,” he explained. Gov. Roy Cooper recently vetoed legislation that would have brought an early end to higher unemployment benefits offered due to the pandemic. Some critics have raised concerns that the higher benefits were discouraging people from seeking work. “While the eye-catching headline will be North Carolina’s unemployment rate continued to drop in May – down to 4.8% from April’s 5% – a look at the behind-the-scenes numbers shows several concerns,” Walden said at the time. He cited lack of new jobs, a drop in labor force participation, and other factors. The 4.6% rate compares to 4.6% in May The jobless rate has dropped for nine consecutive months and is nearly half that of June 2020, which stood at 8.8%. The state’s jobless rate also is well below the national unemployment rate of 5.9%. To put the rates in perspective, N.C. unemployment stood at 3.6% before the pandemic struck in March 2020. More than 12,000 workers found jobs in June, raising employment level to 4.7 million. That’s 365,000 more over June 2020. Unemployment fell more than 8,000 to 231,636. That’s 192,329 fewer year-over-year.

Demystifying Dyslexia: Definitions, Diagnosis and Differentiation This workshop is co-presented with Bev Sher. Dyslexia is a term that many are familiar with yet few truly understand. With a prevalence estimated to be between 4 – 8% of students, dyslexia is a language-based learning disability that teachers and specialists need to be able to appreciate as well as accommodate in their classrooms. Difficulties with accurate reading and fluent reading and spelling are negatively impacted upon by difficulties in phonological awareness, verbal memory and processing speed. Research has shown that there are no distinct boundaries in individuals with dyslexia and that it occurs as a continuum (from mild to severe) across a range of intelligences and demographics. Because individuals with dyslexia have been shown to respond well to a range of specific interventions and learning strategies, it is essential for teachers to undertake specific training on how best to modify their instruction and teaching styles to those who are affected within their diverse classroom. This workshop will focus on the following: - Definitions and diagnosis - Discussion of the current research and intervention tools and strategies - Differentiating instruction and curriculum This practical workshop is suitable for primary and secondary educators, support staff and others interested in improving the learning outcomes of students with dyslexia.

If you have ever sat by someone eating chips and wanted to rip the bag out of their hand, you have experienced a lesser form of Misophonia, sound sensitivity, a type of Auditory Processing Disorder. The crinkling of the bags and the sound of the person crunching and chewing is enough to send you out of the room. A new article in the Journal of Current Biology shows just what is happening in the brain of a person with Misophonia, a sensitivity to sounds. I will tell you, “sensitivity to sound” is a major understatement. The study shows that the person’s brain actually goes into a “fight or flight” stress response as indicated by MRI. This happens because negative emotions are linked to the noise that is bothersome. Many times the person has a trigger. One family that had huge success at Leigh Brain & Spine in overcoming the challenges presented by Misophonia provides the perfect example. In this case, the brother’s bodily noises created an extreme stress response for his sister. She was sensitive to other sounds, but not to the degree that her brother’s irritated her. It would send her of the charts, an 11 out of 10 stress response. You can imagine how their family was. Want to know how the benefitted? Check out their Success Story Here. What this would look like in a person’s qEEG Brain Map is an elevated beta brainwave brain pattern, much like anxiety would look like, but to an extreme. Thus, DIY strategies for reducing the symptoms of Misophonia are many of the same strategies for decreasing Stress and Anxiety. Symptoms of Misophonia can be worse for the person when he or she is overall more stressed. Therefore, keeping stress levels down will help the cause. This is the primary strategy to keeping Misophonia at bay. Another case study article relates Misophonia to irregular patterns in the brain within the auditory processing areas that are in charge of neural processing of sound information. Misophonia, fear of sound, has been called the lesser known sibling of Tinnitus, ringing in the ears, along with Hyperacusis, sensitivity to sound in a new study. Scientists have related the three sound sensitivities and have parsed out how the brain is impacting the person’s ability to process sound. Now that you know what causes Misophonia, what can you do to get rid of it? That is the real question. Below are some suggestions for reducing the impact of Misophonia on your life. Strategies for Reducing Misophonia: - Neurofeedback Therapy: Neurofeedback Therapy is effective at changing (read improving) the brain patterns that cause sound sensitivities. When the brain performs auditory processing better, the Misophonia decreases. - Meditation: Has been shown to help balance the brain patterns that cause sound sensitivities, thus helping to reduce them. Many times the person will start by trying to cope better and then will move on to reducing the urges they have. Tips for Coping with Misophonia: - Ear Plugs / Ear buds with music - Noise Cancelling Headphones - Eat away from others / “trigger” person or people - Background noise in home – music, to drown out noises that bother

<filename>packages/create-umi/templates/max/typings.d.ts import '@umijs/max/typings';

We are a new company on the block for 18-39 trips abroad. We need assistance for Instagram, Facebook and LinkedIn. Hey im Sumya I have an instagram account with 6000 followers, I am interested in doing this work. What exactly should I do on Instagram? Hi I am priya graduated student... I am honest with my work I want to be independent and support my family... Thanks... I'm a girl , i'm 30 years old and i have a travel blog on Facebook and ig. I care with graphic (lightroom, Photoshop) and i use method for increase follower .

Today on this Where Are They Now Math Mentoring we speak with Laura Tomas from Palm Beach county in Florida. Laura ‘s been teaching for 28 years and she’s an instructional coach for her school. Laura chats with us today about how she’s applied the suggestions and learning from our conversation back on episode 46 to help her teachers grow as educators. Laura shares how she implemented her plan, what struggles she had, and where she looks to go next as an instructional coach. How to help teachers change their mindset towards growth. Using Lesson study to co-plan and co-teach math lessons. Jon Orr: Today on this, Where Are They Now? Math Mentoring Moment. We speak with Laura Tomas from Palm Beach County in Florida. Laura's been teaching for 28 years and she's an instructional coach for her school. Kyle Pearce: Laura chats with us today about how she's applied the suggestions and learning from our conversation back on episode 46 of the podcast to help her teachers grow as math educators. Laura shares how she's implemented her plan, what struggles she's had along the way, and where she looks to go next as a math instructional coach. Jon Orr: This is another Math Mentoring Moment episode, where we talk with a member of the Math Moment Makers community who is working through struggles and together we brainstorm possible next steps and strategies to overcome them. Let's hit it. Kyle Pearce: With you, the community of Math Moment Makers worldwide who want to build and deliver math lessons that spark curiosity. Jon Orr: Fuel sense making. Kyle Pearce: And ignite teacher moves. John, are you ready to dive into this? Where Are They Now? Math Mentoring Moment episode with our good friend, Laura. Jon Orr: Of course, Kyle. Of course. Now, before we get to our discussion with Laura, we want to let you know that if you're listening to this before September 25th 2020, then you're cutting it close to joining us for our new PD offering on closing gaps with your grades two through 10 students. We've built a nine module course called The Concept Holding Your Students Back. Kyle Pearce: When students struggle during tasks, it's often because of missed key learning opportunities, especially with your students who may have missed some key learning from the last school year due to COVID. In working with our own district and with our own students, we've narrowed down those gaps to struggles that exist in the area of proportional reasoning. Jon Orr: In our new comprehensive PD course, we'll not only unfold the fundamental concepts for teaching proportional reasoning so you can close gaps with your students, we'll also show you and give you the lessons and resources to use in your classroom to make it all happen. Kyle Pearce: If you're interested in learning about registering, be sure to check out makemathmoments.com/proportions. If you're listening after the fall 2020 registration close, which is September 25th 2020. That's my wife, [Shantel's 00:03:14] birthday, you can still head to makemathmoments.com/proportions to join the waiting list in order to get notified for your next opportunity to participate. Jon Orr: That link again is make mathmoments.com/proportions, and now here's our chat with Laura. Kyle Pearce: Hit that pause button. Jon Orr: Yeah. Get back over there and listen to it. It is a good one. Laura, just remind our audience, where are you from? What's your role in education, and what have you been up to since the last time we chatted like a year ago? Laura Tomas: I can't believe it was a year ago and I remember it because it was so hot outside and once again, it's still so hot outside. I am in Palm Beach County, Florida, and the heat index today is going to be 107 degrees. Jon Orr: That's it? Laura Tomas: God. The other day it was 111. I said, come on. Kyle Pearce: Oh boy. Laura Tomas: Yes. I am a math coach at one school and I actually, during the pandemic, I got a new job for this upcoming school year. I'm switching schools. Kyle Pearce: crosstalk. Laura Tomas: I have both dining room and I have half a living room right now and I am purging, organizing, sorting so when I go to my new school maybe I can rent a smaller U-Haul to bring it all there. Kyle Pearce: That's fantastic. I was wondering if you were just going to park it and leave it, but I guess that would be a pretty costly opportunity or option, but there's always those storage containers, but you know what? I bet you, the family is loving having all of that stuff just busting out of your dining room. I find the younger the grade, the more the classroom stuff that you have to bring home. All those teachers out there who are switching schools or had to switch classrooms but they couldn't set them up due to maybe the COVID situation, I'm sure they're at home feeling your pain there. Awesome stuff. We also heard from you, Laura, that you've got something else going on as well. Like when you say that what's been going on, not only do you have a new role, a new job, but you're also working on a little bit of a side project that folks who are listening to this show would probably be interested in it. Tell us more about it. Laura Tomas: Thank you. Did I say thank you for having me on again? I don't think I did. Thanks for having me back. I truly appreciate you guys. Male: No worries. Anytime. Laura Tomas: And always listening to you. Male: Yeah. We love having you. Laura Tomas: And always learning from you. One of my friends, Karina and I, we've been talking about this for about two years. We started our own podcast. It's called Learning Through Math and you can find us on Twitter @LauraAndKarina. We couldn't use @LearningThroughMath because it's just a couple of characters too long, we discovered, but we have learningthroughmath.com now, and we dropped it on Apple podcasts and Spotify and YouTube and our own website. Jon Orr: Awesome. Give us a little snippet of it. Like tell crosstalk about. Kyle Pearce: Yeah. Want to know the theme. What's it all about? What's the deal with it? Laura Tomas: Our mission, because I love to learn is to inspire ourselves and others to keep learning and improving with passion and hugs because you know me, I'm all the big huggers. That's part of our mission statement and it's killing me right now not to hug everybody. Jon Orr: Right. I was definitely... You'd be going in withdrawals. Laura Tomas: I'm. I have been. Jon Orr: Awesome. We'll definitely make sure that we put those links in the show notes so listeners can head over there and check out your podcast after listening to that podcast. That's awesome and congrats, because we know there's lots of work involved in making a podcast and the dedication is there. We talked about that before we hit record here and you're finding out firsthand what's involved in a podcast, and if you ever need a hand, just reach out. We can provide some tips along the way, so congrats on that. Laura Tomas: Thank you. Jon Orr: Congrats on that. Jon Orr: No problem. Last time you were here, Lauren, on the podcast, we chatted about lots of different things. In particular, we chatted about you trying to instill this love of learning in teachers that you were working with and you were thinking like we are teachers. If we have to have this level of learning so that our kids can do it too, we chatted about some tips on helping teachers kind of switch their mindsets. We talked about a few resources and books that has helped Kyle and I, as we've tried to switch teachers that we work with into a different mindset and help them grow. I'm wondering how are things going with you on those ideas and that last conversations. Fill us in on the details since the last year on your progress, and then we'll eventually get into talking about some next steps. Laura Tomas: I read the book, Switch, which was one of the books that you guys had recommended and there were three parts to that. One was direct the rider, the next one is motivate the elephant and the third one is shape the path. Directing the rider really talks to the logical aspects about whatever you want to happen. Motivating the elephant is that emotional aspect and then shaping the path is really making it super easy for somebody to do kind of what you want them to do so that the rider can motivate the elephant and eventually get to that path where you want them to be. This year I focused mostly on shaping that path. I ended up in, I think it was November, rode out what I called "green sheets" and I asked the teachers to write two answers. It was a half a sheet. I put it in everybody's mailbox. I sent out an email and I said, "Just answer these two questions." One was what specific goal do you have for this year to become better at? And then the second one was, how can I specifically help you achieve that goal? Of course, the first round I think I got two back by the first deadline that I set out of 22. Kyle Pearce: Hey, but that's a start. Jon Orr: Teachers make worse students. Laura Tomas: That was, but then I sent out a friendly reminder on the deadline day saying, "Hey, don't forget. I want your green sheets back before you leave today." Monday comes and I give a shout out to the grade that got them all back to me first thinking, "Oof, maybe that'll motivate some other people to want to get theirs in." Then two days later I sent a follow-up email to the people who I didn't get it from and I said, "By the way, I'm putting another green sheet in your box, just in case you misplaced it." And then the next part was that they had to sign up on a Google Doc for a coaching session time with me. Throughout December and January, I want to say that, yay. I met with 12 out of 22 teachers that I had given the green sheet to and replied back to me. We got to have a coaching session one-on-one except two of them wanted to meet together because they said they had the same struggle. I said, no problem and I gave very flexible times where I even said we have to be there at 7:30 in the morning. I said if you want to meet me at 7:00, fine and then our school day ends at three o'clock for the teachers. I said, if you want a 3:00 to 3:30 slot, we can do that. Which of course turned until about 4:15, which worked completely fine with me. I tried to be as flexible I could with my time knowing that they have limited time. Kyle Pearce: That's awesome. What a great way to start getting people thinking about their own practice and what they might be interested in moving forward in and we're wondering like what sort of responses did you get? Did you find that teachers answered both questions or did you find that maybe they lean to answer more one than the other? I'm picturing that second question maybe being a little bit harder, right? When we ask them, how can we actually help them achieve that goal? That's almost like in a way, a bit of the path piece, right? Clearing the path. We're asking them, how can we help them clear the path? I wonder if maybe sometimes people struggle with identifying like what's actually in the way, which kind of lands on our shoulders in that coaching role trying to figure out like, what is in the way on that path. I'm curious, like were there any themes and what sorts of problems of practice where people bringing up? Laura Tomas: It varied from soup to nuts, and I'm going to tell you that everybody came back with a specific way for me to help them. I got them thinking. They all answered both questions, which I was like, yay. That was a fantastic start. When I met with them one-on-one some people said, "I want to know more about this topic." And it might've been a number sense routine or a way to in fuse this thing, whatever that thing was into their classroom, or they wanted me to come and model something for them, or they wanted more information about something. Some people just wanted to meet to vent because they know that I'm a good listener and I'm a vault. Whatever they say to me isn't going to go anywhere and that's what some people needed. I think it was everything. It was very open-ended. I got all different kinds of responses. Some people wanted materials. They said I need such and such. When I met with them, I said, "Okay, where are you going to use this? And what do you need this for?" Or they said something like, "I want to do something about this." And I said, "Well, you need X, Y, and Z." I said, "I'm putting that on the list order." Jon Orr: Right. Nice, and I think this venting is... it's great that people had that outlet. Sometimes teachers we vent a lot, but sometimes we do because we don't feel like there isn't a place to do that. It sounds like allowing them, or giving them that time and space to do that gives them that opportunity for two things. They get to do that but also you get to, or they get to... sorry, you get to help identify the real challenge or the real problem if you listen. Kyle and I tried to do this as often as we can here on the podcast, not saying our people that we talk to are venting, but we try to listen and keep saying like, what else is a struggle that you're having? And this is from the book that we referenced here many times, The Coaching Habit, that idea of just keep prodding at them to say dig deeper, can allow them to show what the real issue is. Where's the real help and it sounds like you've done that very well. I'm wondering like one of your big things before was about mindset and helping those teachers with adopting that mindset. How do you think things were going now about that mindset after your coaching sessions? Laura Tomas: Well, once people found out that I was leaving the school, I got messages like, where, why are you going? What's going on? I told them, "Look, I'm an email or a text away or Google Meet." Because now that's what we do. They know that no matter where I am, I'll still always have their back. I think I inspired people to want to have that love of learning, which was one of my goals. Kyle Pearce: That's fantastic. Do you find that that blue sheet request or activity that you had put out there, has it led to maybe stronger coaching relationships? This might be... it could be across the staff where more people are reaching out in those relationships or strengthening, or maybe it's a handful of teachers that have kind of opened their practice a little bit to this idea and maybe helping them to improve their mindset along the way. I'm curious, like how do you feel that that specifically has impacted your role and your ability to kind of help coach along some of your colleagues? Laura Tomas: I think definitely those 12 people that I got to meet with, the one-on-one or two to one, they definitely got into that mindset space of there's something I want to change about my practice. I figure, "Hey, if I reached just over half, that was really a good percentage." Right? One other thing that I was able to do this year is, the reading coach and myself sat down with the principal before the school year started and said, "These three things are what we want our PLCs to look like." And one thing that we talked about was having knowledge of content, not just the content standards but the actual content itself. When we had PLCs, one thing that I made sure that we did was, when we broke off into subject areas was when I had the math people we would always start with our district's website, which has... My district has an amazing elementary math department. They're super. Part of the website is for teachers and it's called Blender and that's where all the curriculum things sit on. We would go to Blender and open up what they prepared, the critical information PowerPoint and we would literally go step by step by step through that PowerPoint to say, "What is most critical in this unit?" Then we would open up the assessment and say, "Okay, here's what the assessment looks like." And then we would look and explore the other resources that our curriculum people put on the website. Then we could always bring in, okay, here's the manipulatives, here's the drawings, here's the abstract. I got to bring in CRA, the Concrete Representational Abstract almost every single time, which that's what helped build their capacity. Kyle Pearce: Nice. I love that. Just to be clear Blender, is that like a... it's a learning platform I believe, but just to be clear like... so a place that your district puts all of the content and all of the PD, and then it sounds like at the school level, school level coaches like yourself are there to help take some of the messaging for consistency but then also tailor it more to the needs of the staff in the building? Laura Tomas: Absolutely. Kyle Pearce: Fantastic. Fantastic. I'm wishing the only negative of those types of platforms is that oftentimes you need a login. It's just too bad, probably don't have the ability to kind of show off some of the great work that the math team at your district is able to share, but we'll definitely do a Google search and we'll see if we can find anything that's out on public facing. I love that you're bringing in that concrete representational, that abstract, so really this idea of starting concrete and working towards abstraction, fantastic. I'm wondering, can we start chatting a little bit about where do you find yourself at now? Back then you had this, a little bit of a challenge. We chatted about some of the things that we could do. I love that you actually followed through and read the book, Switch. Definitely every time we talk about it with someone, it brings back how much I want to go back and reread this book because it is so helpful and I think like you had said, clearing the path I think is so important. Oftentimes teachers, what I find anyway is when we think about directing the rider, that first part of the book. This rational side, it's like teachers of course want the best for their students. Like the rational sides in line, they're emotional about their students, they're emotion... motivating the elephant, like they want their students to do well. They love them. They want to see them succeed. To me it makes perfect sense that clearing the path is kind of the place that you've sort of nestled yourself, nestled your thinking and trying to think of like, "How can I help educators in my building clear the path so they can do the things that they want to do for their students." Making it as easy as possible. I really love the idea. I think I said blue sheets earlier, but it's a green sheet activity you had. I really love that as a way to kind of start that discussion. I'm wondering, as you're picturing yourself and I know in Florida, you folks go back to school earlier than John and I do. You're starting to think of the school year ahead, what are you thinking about now? What are you currently working on, grappling with, reflecting on, and really trying to work on yourself? It's almost like we're green sheeting you here and asking you about your specific goals so we can try to push you further as well. What's going on in your mind now? Laura Tomas: Assuming that we're going to not have a pandemic soon, I'm going to start at the beginning again with a brand new staff to me. Building relationships is definitely going to be part one. My new principal bought the leadership team the book, Get Better Faster by Paul Bambrick Santoyo and we're doing a book study over it over the summer. I'm diving into that but the other book that I'm definitely going to pick up and read this summer is daring to lead. You guys had talked about that on our previous episode, and I did not get a chance to read it, but since I am one of those vulnerable people that I just put myself out there and see what happens, you had suggested reading that book to talk about the vulnerability aspect. I'm going to pick up Dare to Lead and read that as soon as possible. Jon Orr: Those are good resources. I think that you're going to get a lot out of, especially. I think we recommended daring to lead. I have not read the other book that you referenced, getting better faster, but daring to lead was instrumental in thinking about not necessarily leading a group of teachers like you are going to be or helping a group of teachers, but even just in the classroom just realizing that in order for us to, say, lead appropriately. Lead with example is sometimes the way sometimes you think about it. We have to put ourselves out there. We have to be honest, we have to be ready to accept, ready to be vulnerable so that we can actually lead the people that who are under us or with us, and so that they want to follow us and I think it's so important as leaders that we kind of listen to the messages that Brené Brown talks about in that book. I'm glad that you're going to read that and looking forward to hearing what your thoughts are on that book. What else is on your plate? What else are you struggling with right now that we can aid you or help you out within the next few minutes in this conversation? Laura Tomas: I think just continuing to figure out that million dollar question that I had, how do we get people to want to learn? I think if we just keep leading by example, that's how it's going to happen. I get very passionate, enthusiastic about things. Once people hear, oh my gosh, I listen to this podcast or I read this book and it really helped me because, and give them that logical reasoning, and then share how it worked with kids to give them that emotional aspect and then, "Oh, here it is. I happen to have it with me. Would you like to borrow it?" Jon Orr: inaudible. Laura Tomas: "Hey, you want to discuss it? Let me know when you want to and we'll set up a Google Meet or something." Kyle Pearce: I love too, because you're saying leading by example, of course, I think walking the walk is so important. It kind of ties in nicely to the daring to lead and then a big idea there with vulnerability and being vulnerable. I think that's one of the pieces that's hardest for everyone. It doesn't matter your personality type. It is hard to be vulnerable, especially when you're in a role where as much as people want to say, if you're a coach or you're a consultant, or you're in a role where you're helping others, maybe it's an administrator or even a department chair or a department head, you are in this place where you almost as a human being put this extra weight on your shoulders, like you're supposed to have more answers than the rest of the group. I think that's one of the pieces like I'm hearing in a little bit of that daring to lead book tying back, which is really important, and then also just sort of being there and walking the walk. I'm wondering if we can dig into... I'm curious, like do you ever have the opportunity to dive into classes and actually do some co-teaching? And I know you're saying leading by example. Maybe that looks like you leading a lesson or maybe it's a co-teaching scenario. Like what does that look like when you get the opportunity to actually get in with a teacher and maybe a group of their learners? Laura Tomas: I forgot to tell you, at the beginning of this episode that this school year I was actually not only a coach but a fifth grade math teacher of record, because we have these advanced classes, and I'm putting air quotes around there. We had a group of students in fifth grade and in fourth grade that needed a math home. I said, "I'll take the fifth graders. Somebody else got the fourth graders." I had 14 of my own fifth graders this year every day, which was fantastic because all the stuff that I've been talking about for a few years, I got to put into practice with my fifth graders. There was also a time when I was not in town. I was actually doing math recovery training. One of my coworkers who also taught fifth grade math absorbed my 14 into his room so now we have almost 40. By the way, when he was out, I took his class so it all worked out, and my kids, when they came back from that other class would say, "Wow, they don't do things the way we do things." Or I'd walk into their room and say, "Okay, here's what we're doing." And the kids that I normally didn't see were like, "What is this all about?" I got to actually experience it with 14 fifth graders this year. Jon Orr: I think diving in and getting your... Laura Tomas: Yes. Jon Orr: I guess is the phrase. I don't know, feet dirty. Kyle Pearce: inaudible sure. Laura Tomas: I'm diving in the deep end, I'm not getting my feet wet. Right? Jon Orr: Right. Yeah. I'm blending all those metaphors. It sounds... you probably learned a lot, and I was talking with a friend of mine who was a consultant in our district. He was our consultant for 15, 20 years and then he went back to the classroom. He was scared. He was nervous because he'd been talking about all these different strategies to use with the ninth graders and for years and that was where he specialized to help us, like me become a better teacher and then he had to go back and do it. He was super scared and he got to experience it again and I think he really appreciated getting back to have a touch point with students and put into practice some of the things and seeing where the loopholes were, where we needed to tighten up things when he had to talk to teachers. I think he really appreciated. It sounds like you did too and you learned a lot about some of the things that we've talked about, is some of the things that you've been talking about for years but with teachers. What would you say is probably the... going back to the classroom is, say the biggest lesson you learned in that experience. Laura Tomas: I'd have to say that it confirmed my thought process of how grades are ridiculous. We don't do A, B, C, D, F in elementary school here. We have a standard space report card, but the parents and the kids want to see them have the highest mark on the report card. Yeah. I would say dealing with progress reports and report cards, again, that's something that I appreciate the teachers that take the time to dive into the standards and mark appropriately instead of just saying, "Oh, they're all proficient, or no they're all approaching or whatnot." Jon Orr: Which has to do with like knowing your student and knowing like what they can and can't do and I think sometimes teachers slap a number on things or a mark on things because they think generally, or looking at a test with one piece of assessment or saying like, hey, here's my one test they did over course when they didn't actually factor into all the conversations they had or the observations from working with the students on a regular basis. We tend to think that the test or the quiz is be-all take-all whereas we can use our professional judgment to give them feedback, give them the assessment, which is feedback, right? Like we're writing a number on a piece of paper with comments on a report card sounds so evaluative but if it's not the final report card, then it's still a piece of feedback that we want to try to push our kids learning forward. Yeah. Lots to learn there. Laura Tomas: It's reeducating the parents again, how to take report cards not as... I wish we could just use got it and not yet. That would solve so many problems. Kyle Pearce: Yeah, exactly and it's a... especially from a report card standard or a report card perspective, since there's such a mindset. We're so fixated on like, well, that's the grade and no matter what. A few things are coming to mind here, because now that you're in the classroom and you're doing some of those things, I think in some ways like, first of all, it's great because you're in the classroom. You're walking the walk in your own classroom but then on the other hand, it can also make it a little bit more challenging from like a mentor role, like when you're trying to be in that mentorship role, that coaching type role and you're trying to work with educators and trying to help as a group, kind of all move forward. That can be tough and what popped into our minds just now is episode 30. We had an opportunity to chat about the most... what they called anyway, our two guests called, the most effective PD that you're not doing. It was our friends who joined us, Jedidiah Butler and Gabrielle Mejia who came on the show and they shared their approach to lesson study. The one thing that I really like about it, and the reason I'm dropping it here, not just for you to consider, but also for everyone else who's wondering like, how do I get in there and co-plan and co-teach. Maybe I have like a part time coaching role and I only have one period a day available and all of my colleagues are doing mathematics in other periods of the day. How is it possible that I can do some more meaningful learning. Doing some of this co-teaching whether it's changing your schedules around and actually doing some lesson study, I've found that some of my best learning is when I have an opportunity to sit down with educators and kind of tackle something, especially when it's a topic that I'm not super comfortable with and it comes back to that vulnerability piece. For me, that is such a big eyeopener, I suppose, because it was really easy for me to go and model a lesson, for example, that I was really confident in, but what's not comfortable at all is when we have to do something and do it with other educators, which means having that risk of failing in front of another adult. Like it's hard enough when we try something and we sort of... our lesson flops, John and I always talk about lesson flops, you'll flop in front of the students. Nobody likes that. It's even harder when you're doing it with your colleagues but I find like when you get a good solid lesson flop in with your colleagues, it's like you right there have now totally achieved the vulnerability badge and I think it builds so much trust to kind of help that mindset piece that you were talking about shift forward but then also to build on, essentially those trusting coaching relationships, and then it's almost like the mentee becomes a bit of a mentor at times as well, which I think is really important so that we have that relational trust going on. That's something that kind of comes to mind for me. I'm wondering what are your thoughts as you move forward and you're going to be doing some teaching, and your role, maybe it's not going to look the same as maybe it once did where maybe you were in a full time coaching role or having more time to coach with your colleagues. Like, what does that look like, sound like to you? Laura Tomas: Well, as you were talking about lesson study, I was thinking, I think I've probably done more lesson studies but informally than formal. When I was meeting with the fifth grade math teachers for PLCs, there were three of us. We would get together and especially during the fractions unit that, oof, that was one of our favorite ones because we all came at it at different ways. I'd say, "Okay, but how can we show it visually? How can we show it concretely?" Because the way that the three of us were thinking about it abstractly were actually different from each other. Kind of like we would end up doing number talks, right? And say, "Oh, we all got the same answer. How did you get there?" I was able to bring in the fraction strips or bars or whatnot and say, "Okay, how can we model this physically? And how can we model it visually?" That way I brought them into the CRA. I think I've probably done so many lessons studies without calling it a lesson study. Jon Orr: True. Yeah. I think you're doing a lot to help the teachers that you're working with by bringing them ideas and also kind of coaching them along and taking lessons that you've learned in the classroom and bringing them to those interactions with those teachers. I think in your new role at your new school, you'll keep doing all of that. That's evidently clear from the conversations we're having now. I'm wondering right now, Laura, in the conversations we've had here today but also stretching back to our... one from a year ago. What's the big takeaway that you've had in the conversations but also maybe just a big takeaway you've learned in the last year? Laura Tomas: I think the biggest takeaway is to just keep the door open for friends and family and anybody, the general population, to just keep learning. I've done a lot of parent book clubs and this year I took Hillary and Matthew's book, Adding Parents to the Equation and I started a book club for parents in January. There were three of us the first time, six of us the next time, nine of us the following time, and then the pandemic hit. I think we would have had a little more but the parents were so open and appreciative to learn all the new strategies that we're teaching kids and they got to see it in a new way. I think just keeping my mind open, my heart open, my ears open to have people know they can come to me as a resource and if I don't know, it I'll be the first one to say, "I have no idea, but I will sit right down next to you and figure it out with you." Kyle Pearce: I think that's such a huge takeaway. You had also mentioned going back to the lesson study. Lesson study, sometimes we formalize processes or procedures or structures in education and sometimes by formalizing or over formalizing, it can sometimes get in the way. I really like how you've sort of said, it's like, you've been doing it but maybe haven't been calling it that way. Something else that kind of pops into my mind as well as just this idea of, to continue this work on and focusing on clearing that path, you had mentioned that on those green sheets, a lot of people or some people you had said got together... it was almost like they knew that you were a great person to vent with and I think that's really connected to the work that you're currently working on. Like when someone comes and vents, that means that there is a challenge. There's a problem there, but maybe they're having a hard time articulating it, right? Usually when we're venting, venting about a problem that we sort of wish would just go away. By kind of focusing in on clearing that path and constantly thinking about what we can do to help them, I think you're going to continue doing great work in your school and probably beyond by focusing in on like, what is in the way of each and every educator's path, be it mathematics or be it something else in their teaching day. That's the big takeaway I'm taking from this conversation and it sounds like you've got many more paths that you're setting yourself up to help clear. The best part is, is clearing the path. It really is the educator themselves who are going to clear it. You're just helping them to identify it and you're just helping them a little bit with the planning and the actual job of moving that out of the way. I'm really liking that. I feel really positive for how things have come for you over this past year and hopefully into the future. We appreciate you helping add a few books to our list. We've got one to add to our list. We will include all the books you mentioned, but Get Better Faster is going to be one that I add to my list and we'll also include links to daring to lead as well as Adding Parents to the Equation. We'll have those in there. Laura Tomas: The easiest place would be on Twitter and I'm @iteachthewhy, W-H-Y. Jon Orr: Awesome stuff. We'll throw that in the show notes. Plus we'll put links to your podcast in the show notes. Jon Orr: We're excited to listen to that. If you're listening to this one, get over there and have a listen to Laura over on her podcast. We'll throw that in there, but thanks Laura for joining us here on this episode and we wish all the best in your upcoming school year. Laura Tomas: Thank you. You guys as well and once again, thank you not only for having me on your podcast but for continuing to put out these podcasts. They're so beneficial. Jon Orr: Oh, thanks so much. Kyle Pearce: Thanks so much here, Laura. We wish you all the best and I'm sure we will be staying in touch. We'll talk to you soon and have an awesome rest of your day. Laura Tomas: You too. Kyle Pearce: As always both John and I learned so much from these Math Mentoring Moment episodes and it's great to check in with our friend, Laura, but in order to ensure that we hang on to all of this new learning, we must reflect on what we've learned. An excellent way to ensure this new learning sticks is to reflect and create a plan for yourself to take action on something that stuck with you here today. Jon Orr: A great way to hold yourself accountable is write it down or even better, share with someone, your partner, a colleague, a Math Moment Makers community member, or by commenting on the show notes page, or hey, tag us on Twitter or Facebook or Instagram or all those social media places, or in our free private Facebook group, Math Moment Makers K to 12. Kyle Pearce: And before you go, remember that we have our registration now open for The Concept Holding Your Students Back, Unlocking Key Understandings In Proportional Relationships To Reach Every Student. Our nine module comprehensive PD course will not only unpack the fundamental concepts for teaching proportional reasoning throughout, and this is like actually K through grade 10 so that you can close gaps with your students. We'll also show you and give you the lessons and resources to use in your classroom that can help you make it all happen. Jon Orr: If you're interested in learning more about registering, be sure to check out, makemathmoments.com/proportions. If you're listening after the fall 2020 registration close, you can still head to make mathmoments.com/proportions to join the waiting list in order to get notified of your next opportunity to participate. Kyle Pearce: And if you are interested in joining us for an upcoming Math Mentoring Moment episode, where you can share a big math class struggle, be sure to apply over at makemathmoments.com/mentor. Again, that's makemathmoments.com/mentor. Jon Orr: In order to ensure you don't miss out on new episodes as they come out each Monday morning, be sure to subscribe on your favorite podcast platform. Kyle Pearce: Show notes and links to resources from this episode can be found at makemathmoments.com/episode93. Jon Orr: 93. Kyle Pearce: New Holy smokes. I can't believe. Yes. Seven away from 100. Again, makemathmoments.com/episode93 will get you all of those resources and even transcripts for this episode. Well, until next time, I'm Kyle Pearce. Jon Orr: And a big high five for you.

Given the question: Title: Vital adjuncts to the course Review: The excellent Oxford First Latin Course is not enough for self study without the Teacher's Book series, which offers essential commentary and keys to exercises. Is the review positive or negative? The answer is: Positive

<?php namespace script\model\classier\handler; use Exception; use rapidPHP\modules\common\classier\StrCharacter; use rapidPHP\modules\common\classier\Variable; use script\convert\classier\enum\Optional; use script\model\classier\config\IHandlerConfig; use script\model\classier\config\PHPHandlerConfig; use script\model\classier\helper\CommonHelper; use script\model\classier\model\ColumnModel; use script\model\classier\model\TableModel; use function rapidPHP\B; use function rapidPHP\Cal; class PHPIHandler extends IHandler { /** * 格式化class name * @param string $className * @return string */ private function formatClassName(string $className): string { return ltrim($className, '\\'); } /** * 把数据库字段类型转换成 php强类型 * @param PHPHandlerConfig $config * @param TableModel $table * @param ColumnModel $column * @return mixed|string|null */ private function getCType(PHPHandlerConfig $config, TableModel $table, ColumnModel $column): ?string { $customMapping = (array)$config->getMappingCustom(); $customName = $table->getName() . '.' . $column->getName(); if (isset($customMapping[$customName])) return $customMapping[$customName]; if (version_compare(PHP_VERSION, '7.0.0', '<')) return ''; $types = []; $systemMapping = (array)$config->getMappingSystem(); foreach ($systemMapping as $type => $list) { foreach ($list as $item) { $types[$item] = $type; } } return B()->getData($types, $column->getType()); } /** * 获取 namespace * @param PHPHandlerConfig $config * @return string */ private function getNamespace(PHPHandlerConfig $config): string { $namespace = $config->getNamespace(); if (empty($namespace)) return ''; return "namespace {$namespace};"; } /** * 获取 imports * @param PHPHandlerConfig $config * @return array */ private function getImports(PHPHandlerConfig $config): array { $imports = (array)$config->getImports(); if (empty($imports)) return []; $result = []; foreach ($imports as $import) { $import = '\\' . $this->formatClassName($import); $shortName = preg_replace('/(.*)\\\(\w+)/i', '$2', $import); $result[$shortName] = $import; } return $result; } /** * 获取继承 * @param PHPHandlerConfig $config * @return string */ private function getExtends(PHPHandlerConfig $config): string { $extends = (array)$config->getExtends(); if (empty($extends)) return ''; return 'extends ' . join(',', $extends); } /** * 获取接口 * @param PHPHandlerConfig $config * @return string */ private function getImplements(PHPHandlerConfig $config): string { $implements = (array)$config->getImplements(); if (empty($implements)) return ''; return 'implements ' . join(',', $implements); } /** * 获取Class 注解 * @param PHPHandlerConfig $config * @return string */ private function getClassAnnotation(PHPHandlerConfig $config): string { $annotations = (array)$config->getAnnotationClass(); if (empty($annotations)) return ''; $result = ''; foreach ($annotations as $annotation) { $result .= "#{$annotation};\n"; } return $result; } /** * 格式化imports * @param array $imports * @return string */ private function formatImports(array $imports): string { $result = ''; foreach ($imports as $import) { $import = $this->formatClassName($import); $result .= "use {$import};\n"; } return $result; } /** * handler * @param PHPHandlerConfig $config * @param TableModel $table * @param $columns * @return string * @throws Exception */ public function onHandler(IHandlerConfig $config, TableModel $table, $columns): string { if (!($config instanceof PHPHandlerConfig)) { throw new Exception('config error'); } $namespace = $this->getNamespace($config); $imports = $this->getImports($config); $extends = $this->getExtends($config); $implements = $this->getImplements($config); $classAnnotation = $this->getClassAnnotation($config); $UTableName = StrCharacter::getInstance()->toFirstUppercase($table->getName(), '_'); $templateClass = $config->getTemplateClass(); $templateProperty = $config->getTemplateProperty(); if ($config->isSetter()) $templateProperty .= $config->getTemplateSetter(); if ($config->isGetter()) $templateProperty .= $config->getTemplateGetter(); if ($config->isValida()) $templateProperty .= $config->getTemplateValida(); $properties = ''; /** @var ColumnModel $column */ foreach ($columns as $column) { $CType = $this->getCType($config, $table, $column); $UName = StrCharacter::getInstance()->toFirstUppercase($column->getName(), '_'); if ($CType && !Variable::isSetType($CType) && $CType != Variable::MIXED && !in_array($CType, $imports)) { $CType = '\\' . $this->formatClassName($CType); $CShortName = preg_replace('/(.*)\\\(\w+)/i', '$2', $CType); if (!$imports[$CShortName]) { $imports[$CShortName] = $CType; $CType = $CShortName; } } $isOptional = false; $config->getOptional() ->then(Optional::Auto, function () use (&$isOptional, $column) { $isOptional = $column->isIsNullable(); }) ->then(Optional::All, function () use (&$isOptional) { $isOptional = true; }) ->then(Optional::Never, function () use (&$isOptional) { $isOptional = false; }) ->fetch(); $RType = empty($CType) ? '' : ': ' . ($isOptional ? '?' : '') . $CType; $SType = empty($CType) ? '' : ($isOptional ? '?' : '') . $CType . ' '; $DRType = empty($CType) ? 'mixed' : $CType . ($isOptional ? '|null' : ''); $DSType = empty($CType) ? '' : $CType . ($isOptional ? '|null' : '') . ' '; $properties .= CommonHelper::parseVariable($templateProperty, [ 'comment' => $column->getComment(), 'length' => $column->getLength(), 'type' => $column->getType(), 'name' => $column->getName(), 'modifiers' => $config->getPropertyModifiers(), 'UName' => $UName, 'RType' => $RType, 'SType' => $SType, 'DRType' => $DRType, 'DSType' => $DSType, ]); } return CommonHelper::parseVariable($templateClass, [ 'date' => Cal()->getDate(), 'namespace' => $namespace, 'imports' => $this->formatImports($imports), 'tableComment' => $table->getComment(), 'tableName' => $table->getName(), 'classAnnotation' => $classAnnotation, 'className' => CommonHelper::parseVariable($config->getClassName(), ['UTableName' => $UTableName]), 'extends' => $extends, 'implements' => $implements, 'properties' => $properties, ]); } }

Lucky for us, replicating her tousled looked doesn’t require a full glam squad, or even heat! When it comes to beachy waves, Ashley Benson has it down. But the Health cover star doesn't just roll out of bed that way: “I envy the people who have the best hair,” she says. “I’m like, 'What!?' No, I have to work on it.” Lucky for us, replicating her tousled looked doesn’t require a full glam squad, or even heat! Here’s how she does it. Step 1: Wash your hair. Ashley uses Dove Regenerative Nourishment Shampoo ($5, target.com) and Conditioner ($5, target.com). Step 2: After you get out of the shower, brush your hair, then braid two pigtails and secure them with small scrunchies (to avoid creating dents at the ends). Step 4: If your hair tends to get frizzy, you can rub a few drops of rose essential oil down the braids to help keep it smooth. Step 5: Wait 30 minutes to two hours before you undo the braids. (They should still be completely wet.) Then let your hair air dry. Step 6: To make those effortless-looking waves last between washes, apply some dry shampoo, like Dove Refresh Plus Care Dry Shampoo ($5, target.com).

We Survived: Fourteen Stories of the Hidden and the Hunted in Nazi Germany, by Eric H.B oehm is a compelling and frank read depicting the deplorable acts thrust upon the Jewish people during World War II. All of the fourteen stories are overwhelming, and are a critical and insightful look into survival and what one will do in order to thwart all attempts to be imprisoned in concentration camps or killed at the hands of the Nazis. The book depicts the darkness of the days and the living conditions the Jews faced in order to survive. It portrays the lives of those who opposed the Nazis and how they faced their own dilemmas and demise within a country environment of horrific and atrocious proportions. The ugliness and images within the pages conveys the magnitude and reality of the events that occurred, written soon after liberation, when memory was fresh. The stories evoke an extremely horrific look at the events the individuals found themselves up against. Yet, they are also a humane and poignant perspective of humanity. We Survived is a book that offers hope and inspiration during the most darkest of times. In my opinion, We Survived: Fourteen Stories of the Hidden and the Hunted in Nazi Germany, by Eric H. Boehm is a book of historical importance that documents the evil forced upon, the persecution of, and the fear of those whose stories are told. I highly recommend We Survived to everyone.

I loved that season finale. So many Sam/Dean feels. Like, ALL the feels. After I'd given up on being a Sam/Dean girl, the season eight finale and season nine pulled me back into it for quite a while. Apart from Swan Song, this was my favorite finale because it didn't end with Sam and Dean separated or dead or thrown into hell or purgatory. Also, the scenes with the angels falling was beautiful. My guess is that we're going to see more videos in the next few days, to remind us of some of the show's highlights.

I bought it for my house and it’s working well for me.