text:
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Congress: We Can't Help the American Public Because The Dog Ate Our Homework
Elizabeth Warren sums things up pretty succinctly:
The banking lobby is as powerful and deeply entrenched as ever, but it was powerful in the 1930s, too. Nonetheless, the New Dealers learned the Great Lesson: Powerful insiders cannot be permitted to write the rules, and prosperity and security depend on a playing field that supports a vibrant middle class. Today, we face a similar set of questions as we faced then. Will the institutions that created the crisis continue calling the shots and writing the rules, or will Washington take the side of families? Have we learned the Great Lesson?To date, of course, the White House and Congress are siding with "the institutions that created the crisis" and not families.
As PhD economist Craig Pirrong makes clear, all of the talk of "reform" and "regulation" coming out of Washington is just for show (without any substance), to appease the populist anger:
Rather than a serious effort to address systemic risk, this [proposal on bank oversight] seems to be populist boob bait, a response to popular outrage against taxpayer banking bailouts, rather than a serious attempt to address TBTF. Not a surprise, and quite understandable, but not a major improvement of incentives.Indeed, a 725-word story from Harper's proves (again) that Congress is trying to fool the American people:
Everyone rational knows that there is an enormous need to seriously reform the derivatives market, but [on October 7th, the House Financial Services] committee, headed by Congressman Barney Frank (D-Wall Street), invited a panel of eight guests who were distinguished by their uniformly pro-industry positions...Yves Smith summed it up well:
In response to complaints from Americans for Financial Reform, which represents hundreds of consumer groups and labor unions, the committee issued an invitation—the night before the hearing was held — to Rob Johnson of the Roosevelt Institute. For the committee, the last minute inclusion of Johnson — a former managing director at Bankers Trust Company and former economist at the Senate Banking Committee and Senate Budget Committee — apparently constituted sufficient balance.
Predictably, witnesses at the hearing trotted out positions urging caution in regard to the matter of reform. Derivatives and other exotic financial devices have reaped the finance industry vast profits, but for Hixson of Cargill the common man and woman would be the real losers if Congress were to act too severely. "We offer customized hedges to help bakeries manage price volatility of their flour so that their retail prices for baked goods can be as stable as possible for consumers and grocery stores," he told the committee's wagging heads. "We offer customized hedges to help a restaurant chain maintain stable prices on their chicken so that the company can offer consistent prices and value for their retail customers when selling chicken sandwiches."
Johnson, who came last, offered the only serious critical viewpoint, saying that the American public had been "quite demoralized by…the bailouts that we experienced last fall." After about five minutes of his testimony, Congresswoman Melissa Bean—another industry-funded committee member who chaired the hearing because Frank was absent—had heard enough. "I'm just going to ask you to wrap up because we're running out of time," she told Johnson.
Johnson gamely continued. "When I hear the testimony today that are largely financial institutions and end users, I believe that I represent a third group that comes to the table, which is the taxpayers, the working people of the United States," he said.
"I do need a final comment," Bean interjected seconds later.
That put an end to Johnson's testimony. "I was just called to this hearing last night, so I will provide detailed comments on your bill and a statement for the record that will finish my comments," he concluded.
About five days later Johnson submitted his full testimony to the committee, to be included on its website along with the statements of the other eight panelists. When it wasn't posted, Johnson asked Lynn Parramore, editor of the Roosevelt Institute's blog, to see what was up. Parramore emailed and spoke to staffers at the Financial Services Committee, and received a number of explanations for why Johnson's testimony had not been posted: first she was told it hadn't been received, then that it had to be submitted as a PDF, then that the committee was having IT problems. "I couldn't decide whether it was incompetence or mischief, but I began to suspect the latter," Parramore told me.
Finally, she was informed that the committee's general counsel would not allow posting of the testimony because Johnson had not submitted it during the hearing. (Of course, since Johnson had been invited at the last minute it was impossible for him to fulfill this pointless requirement.) So you still can't read Johnson's prepared testimony at the committee website, but you can check it out on the Roosevelt Institute's blog.
Meanwhile, Frank's committee has put forth its "reform" bill. "Too tepid, too weak, too late," Johnson says of the legislation. "Very industry influenced. We had a crisis and they are pandering to the perpetrators."
The House Financial Services Committee has refused to publish his testimony, offering "the dog ate my homework" level excuses.
6 comments:
- AnonymousOctober 30, 2009 at 5:25 AM
There is a common fallacy that expresses itself in these sorts of discussions, one that should be repeatedly brought up. This is a good place to air that fallacy again.
Just because a view is centrist, -or popular among the idiot masses- does not mean it holds water, has any viable capture of the truth, or a monopoly or even some verification of the moral course.
In fact, most of these discussions are so far off base, the opposite -should be accepted as the overwhelming norm.
Human competence at anything other than things like laziness, lying, sex and murder is a nearly completely captivating myth, -simply because of a common and vile human conceit.
We are the "cretins" so often referred to -by those who toss out the term in an effort to make their own shit -appear to stink less.
We all know the Congress is currently splayed, spread eagle in bed with the banks. That continuous sucking and slurping sound is exactly what you think it is.
And yes, the word "whores" is appropriate to the vile occasion of this debacle.
But to jump to conclusions and suggest that the "peephole" need their own bailout -to level the playing field- or -to deal with their own continued misery -is simply drilling another, -even larger- hole in the bottom of this rapidly sinking boat.
This may come as a shock to some, and limit a lot of the silly plans being tossed about by others, -but folks-, -all these things cost money.
And, the country is currently being run on borrowed money.
Debt and insolvency are the well understood -if too often ignored- problem.
The problem is NOT that the borrowed money is being given to the wrong people.
The problem is the lack of any appreciation for how to gauge the problem of the total lack of human progress in the immediately preceding century, and then to look behind us even further to see where it was we left off on the path toward some sort of viable civilization.
Plotting a cogent course is rarely accomplished by simply dropping everything and running away from our demons, -or- by picking up our scabbards and pitchforks and running after the scoundrels.
Be smart, like Stalin, and simply invite the scoundrels to a meeting -instead. - AnonymousOctober 30, 2009 at 5:46 AM
Simply: Obama is a weak man and an appeaser. He is not an FDR (or a TR, for that matter) and he will not take bold steps or oppose people of power.
Given that, what do we expect? - AnonymousOctober 30, 2009 at 6:55 AM
It seems clear to me, one of the first things needed to be done, is to shut down the stock markets.
There is no basis for allowing Wall Street to continue on with this massive fraud. Bankrupt companies are being pumped up with government money to look like they are solvent, when they clearly are not.
The potential for and ongoing evidence of widespread corruption is simply far to great to allow the markets to remain open under this set of economic conditions including but not limited to the stimulus factors implemented by a partisan Executive fearful of and actively manipulating and muzzling the free press.
This is nothing like what anyone ever bargained for. - Dave of MarylandOctober 30, 2009 at 8:08 AM
In pandering to big money, the government is ignoring its proper job, to its ultimate peril.
The government's primary purpose is to see that people have something to do. They can be peasants working the fields, they can be wage slaves tending machines, they can be cops with white gloves directing traffic. What people do isn't important, the fact that they're happy (or not) isn't important. The only important thing is that they're busy doing something. That's what counts.
What the government - every government - must avoid are large masses of idle people. It makes no difference if the idle are happy or unhappy, rich or poor. The danger is simply that they're idle, and so are a tempting target for anyone who wants to whip them up & put them to his own use. Such as a charismatic "man on horseback" who uses popular discontent to dispose of the government & put himself in power at the barrel of a gun.
As Thoreau said, "That governs best which governs least". Thoreau gives us the essence of the solution: The more the government has to employ people merely to keep them busy & off the streets (the Soviets, anyone?) the more the government is a collective nuisance to the rest of us. It is therefore clear the primary indicator of a government's success is not the GDP or Wall Street or the amount of money in circulation, but the (honest & true) unemployment rate. Combine this with median income & you have real indicators of national wealth. Not the phony recovery we see now.
The American government was captured by special interests a long time ago. This problem did not start in the '70's or '80's as many suppose. Given the American Revolution was not a popular, broadly based revolt, the problem may go right back to our founding, so many years ago.
So what kind of government functions best? A government of the people sounds like a good idea, but a government that fears its people is a lot better bet. A fearful government is a government that concentrates on its primary job. Which is keeping the masses fat & happy. Any way it can. This seems to have been forgotten. The Civil War was a popular revolt. No one wants to go through that again. - AnonymousOctober 30, 2009 at 8:11 AM
I second Anonymous 5:46. Obama is an appeaser. He is in the grand tradition of Alan Greenspan, who eased us into the current mess.
It's the only kind of politician that survives in our corrupt system, I guess. You get taken out by the Big Money otherwise. Laws and regulations are worthless if they are not enforced. For example, There were laws and regulations already on the books that would have prevented the crisis from happening if the cops had been doing their jobs, and there are laws and regulations in place that would have resolved a great deal of the mess as soon as it began to develop. These laws and regulations simply were not enforced, either under the Bush or Obama administrations.
Karl Denninger at The Market Ticket has been documenting this for years. His latest posts on the subject are damning.
Is The Press Waking Up?
The FDIC Must Be Indicted
→ Thank you for contributing to the conversation by commenting. We try to read all of the comments (but don't always have the time).
→ If you write a long comment, please use paragraph breaks. Otherwise, no one will read it. Many people still won't read it, so shorter is usually better (but it's your choice).
→ The following types of comments will be deleted if we happen to see them:
-- Comments that criticize any class of people as a whole, especially when based on an attribute they don't have control over
-- Comments that explicitly call for violence
→ Because we do not read all of the comments, I am not responsible for any unlawful or distasteful comments.


text:
TI's LaunchPad boards have a history of being both low cost and fully featured. There's a board for each of TI's major processor lines, and all of them support the same "BoosterPack" interface for additional functionality. Today, TI has announced a new LaunchPad based on their new Tiva C ARM processors, which is designed for connectivity.
The Tiva C Series Connected LaunchPad is based on the TM4C129x processor family. These provide an ethernet MAC and PHY on chip, so the only external parts required are magnetics and a jack. This makes the Connected LaunchPad an easy way to hop onto ethernet and build designs that require internet connections.
This development board is focused on the "Internet of Things," which it seems like every silicon manufacturer is focusing on nowadays. However, the real news here is a low cost board with tons of connectivity, including ethernet, two CANs, 8 UARTs, 10 I2Cs, and 4 QSPIs. This is enough IO to allow for two BoosterPack connectors that are fully independent.
For the launch, TI has partnered with Exosite to provide easy access to the LaunchPad from the internet. A pre-loaded demo application will allow you to toggle LEDs, read button states, and measure temperature over the internet using Exosite. Unlike some past LaunchPads, this one is designed for easy breadboarding, with all MCU pins broken out to a breadboard compatible header.
Finally, the price is very right. The board will be release at $19.99 USD. This is less than half the price of other ethernet-ready development boards out there. This makes it an attractive solution for hackers who want to put a device on a wired network, or need a gateway between various devices and a network.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Kibbe is a new book of poems by Susan Azar Porterfield, but it's also a traditional Arabic dish made of ground meat, bulgar, onions and spices. For Porterfield, of DeKalb, the dish recalls memories of her childhood in Chicago.
"My father was Lebanese," she says, "so he missed the food of his homeland. And he would make kibbe and we loved it, we grew up on it."
Porterfield says she always wanted to go to Lebanon, but periodic civil wars prevented that. The country was relatively peaceful after 1990 and, in 2003, Porterfield traveled to Lebanon's capitol, Beirut, on a Fulbright scholarship. She says it was a very different country from the one her father knew.
"For him, Beirut was the Paris of the Middle East," she says. "When I was there, I saw a lot of damage from the war."
Many of Porterfield's poems are snapshots of moments between violence, where the air is filled with tension. She witnessed this firsthand. "People were very cautious about any conflict," she says, "because Lebanon is almost evenly divided between Christian and Muslim, and they want to keep it that way." Porterfield adds, "As you know, in the Middle East things flare up at any moment."
One poem that captures those nervous moments of peace is "Beirut Redux":
Some verandas, like strings of pearls, Still drape the chests of gray, shell-pocked homes. At dusk, blinded windows front the dark strolling up Like a lover you tried to forget. Beirut burns to bury her past, to arise A once-there-was virgin lass, waist airy as grass and whole as the schoolgirls in jeans or hijabs who lean at the university's gate. Meanwhile, in fitful streets, above nightclubs, above rival taxi horns, the muezzin's Allahu akhbar hums, and Starbucks opens careful doors… Turn a bright corner – Diamonds spotless in new storefront glass, And there's another of those old whores. its bombed-out doorway a musky hole, whispering a come-on in the ear.
That uneasy peace was broken in 2006 when the Shi'a paramilitary group, Hezbollah, fired rockets at Israel from southern Lebanon. The Jewish state responded with a ground invasion. The conflict lasted 34 days before the United Nations brokered a ceasefire. The war started after Porterfield returned to the U.S., but it prompted her to write a poem that's included in this collection.
The title work, "Kibbe," was written before she arrived in Beirut. "I actually wrote that before I applied for the Fulbright," Porterfield says, "before I even knew I was going there." In this excerpt from the poem, the author imagines herself cooking Kibbe in her Midwestern kitchen, dreaming of Beirut:
Already I'm wrapped in the alleys, Of Beirut where murmurs drift from kitchens of women who look like me.
Porterfield says she wrote that poem, in part, to claim kinship with the people of Lebanon. "Because I've always felt somehow I was alike," she says, "even though I'm half American."
Kibbe is Porterfield's third collection of poems. She is a professor of English at Rockford College. Her latest book is published by Mayapple Press.


text:
It Challenge Friday at Bo Bunny! This week, Bo Bunny has teamed up with Sketch Inspiration to have a sketch challenge. The design team was given a sketch to use for examples and you will want to check them out at the Bo Bunny blog.
Here is my layout based on the sketch. I am LOVING the Learning Curve Collection from Bo Bunny. It is perfect for any age of child, but I love how it works with my kid's teen pictures. The colors are fabulous and the designs are so versitile!
Here is the sketch that the design team was given to use. Such a fun one!
Be sure to play along in the challenge! You have until November 3 to get you layout done and have a chance to win some Bo Bunny goodies! Don't forget to get the details at the Bo Bunny blog.
Thanks for dropping by!


text:
- For the film of the same name, see Gravity (film)
"Shit is going down."
"Gravity, thou art a heartless bitch."
"She isn't coming down."
Gravity can be described two different ways: as the curvature of space and time, or by a field that causes rulers to change size and clocks to speed up or slow down. Or it may be that particles called gravitons cause...wait. Gravity can be described in three different ways: curving spacetime, clock-and-ruler distorting field, or the effect of particles called gravitons. Or it could be — four different ways — that the universe sucks.
The correct count is currently one of the Great Questions in Physics, and in many weight-loss programs.
Most Powerful Force in the Universe[edit]
Gravity is a natural phenomenon that gives weight to objects.[1] In everyday life, attraction due to gravity is a result of a relatively large bodies, such as the Earth and the Moon. Gravity is also found on Your Mom, as several smurfs live on the enormous beast. Gravitation not only causes attraction to very large boobies, but can distort the surface of planets and other natural satellites, causing tides, earthquakes, and in extreme cases even volcanic eruptions as can be found on Jupiter's closest-orbiting moon, Io. In outer space, gravity between particles of interstellar dust give rise to stars and planets of many shapes, colors, and sizes. The very existence of the Sun and every star in the universe is the consequence of inelastic collisions caused by internal friction of dusty nebulas. As this occurs, flows known as convection (by which fluid flow occurs under the influence of a temperature gradient and gravity) distributes the heat caused by friction. But you're a total butthole, independent of your position relative to a gravitational field.
Gravity not only causes planets and stars to move in predictable orbital paths, but it is the only force known to be capable of forming planets, stars, and galaxies. The gravitational pressure inside the centers of stars can merge many pairs of atoms together to produce the variety of elements on the periodic table, and in doing so can generate temperatures of millions of degrees inside the center of a star, in contrast to the thousands of degrees generated inside the core of planets. By stimulating the interiors of some large very stars, the force of gravity can trigger supernovas which are very powerful explosions capable of destroying nearby planets or even other solar systems with extremely fast and hot solar winds and cosmic rays. Many galaxies parallel this phenomenon at a much larger scale in both distance and time, particularly in active galaxies, such as radio galaxies. All of which is fine, except that you're still a total butthole.
The terms gravitation and gravity are mostly interchangeable in everyday use, but a distinction may be made in scientific usage. "Gravitation" is a general term for the attraction that bodies with mass have to one another, while "gravity" refers specifically to the net force bodies such as the Earth have on objects in its vicinity including the effect of the Earth's rotation.[2][3] Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity, in which gravitation is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime which governs the motion of massive objects. From these observations and some simple mathematics, one may gain a fine understanding of the geometry of spacetime--but all of the particles that constitute your physical existence were, from the time of the big bang onward, headed toward one destiny, and that is to make you a total butthole.
In physics gravity is expressed in mathematical equations as -9.8, also known as the chronological constant. By measuring this quantity repeatedly, physicists focus energy on the chronological constant, which makes it more massive over time through the fundamental equation E = mc^2, implying ^2 = E/mc. Thus the chronological constant is paradoxically not constant in the presence of physics. As additional insight is gained into the physical world, the chronological constant grows larger, causing time to grow larger (in absolute value) with the result that everything seems to occur more slowly.
Gravity only seems strong because it is self-transmitting: unlike the common varieties of electricity (positive, negative, chocolate, and ambivalent) which must be forced into wires against considerable electrical resistance, gravity transmits itself with no resistance whatsoever. In fact experiments have shown that gravity spreads 2.34 X 1015 times as fast as a fart in a crowded room.
It may also be know that the more massive the object the more gravtiy it contains, which explains why it is harder to get ketchup out of the bigger glass ketchup bottles. More importantly it is also why a big screen tv collects more dust than a hoover. Gravity smokes a whole bunch of weed before work.
Gravity can also be explained as matters inate obsession with laying down. This obsession causes all matter to rest upon other matter.
History of Gravitational Research[edit]
The seminal scientific researcher Galileo Galilei became interested in gravity after falling out of the Leaning Tower of Lamborghini while spreading jam on some waffles. He first attempted to determine gravitational acceleration by timing how fast waffles fell but the primitive Rolex watches of his day were too inaccurate. Galileo then tried rolling waffles down inclined planes, but of course waffles don't roll.
Frustrated, he abandoned gravitation and turned his attention to calculating the elongation of Signora Maria Gastapucci. To his surprise, the lovely lady turned out to be perfectly spherical.
Galileo immediately tried rolling Signora Gastapucci down an inclined plane. She rolled much better than any waffle, and after accounting for the braking effect of her blubber Galileo calculated the proper constant for gravitational acceleration to be 1.456. This would be a remarkably accurate result if only we knew what units Galileo was using.
Legend has it that Isaac Newton discovered the square-cube law of gravitation when an apple fell on his head. Of course, this is only a tale. Entries from Newton's diary show that it was Gwen Stefani which fell on his head.
Confined to a neck brace for 13 weeks as a result of the accident, Sir Isaac became an avid skywatcher. He passed the time calculating possible forces which might account for the elliptical orbits of bodies like the Moon, Venus, and Ms. Stefani.
In 1723 his calculations finally bore fruit: the force of gravitational attraction between two bodies is proportional to the square root of the cube of their body fat. (This relationship resurfaces in Einstein's famous "Arse-Flab-Grab" field equation.)
But what really interested Newton was that his gravitational theory indicated he had a chance with Gwen Stefani! In tremendous excitement the reclusive, shy Newton tried to phone Stefani...but of course telephones did not yet exist. He quickly realized his mistake and wrote her a letter instead.
Tragically, it turned out that Gwen Stefani did not exist yet either. His months in a neck brace had been all for nothing. The whole accident had been a waste of time...except for the theory of Newtonian gravitation, a theory which stand today as one of mankind's most successful descriptions of natural attraction between shy physicist nerds and hot babes. he also made sweet love to miss stefani
The theory of gravity first came about while Einstein was on the toilet with a horrible case of ballistic diarrhea (like explosive but shoots farther.)
The equations Newton used to describe gravity agreed with both stellar and upskirt astronomy. However they did not explain how gravity propagated -- how, for instance, the gravitational attraction of the Sun reached Earth and acted upon it to make people lighter.
(Obviously if not for the Sun's gravitational pull counteracting that of the Earth an average person would weigh 700 kilos, or 1543 lbs.)
In another paradox, astronomers noticed that Mercury did not behave exactly as Newtonian gravitation predicted. Sometimes it wobbled about and dodged behind the Sun, and at other times it simply appeared to stop for awhile as if it was reading the newspaper with its feet up on a hassock.
The great astronomer Etienne "Truffles" Trouvelot claimed that these perverse motions occurred because Mercury is liquid at room temperature, and being very near the Sun it had simply wet itself and was embarrassed. Trouvelot went on to note that he too tended to wet himself when he went to sleep in a warm spot.
Needless to say he was laughed out of the Academe Francais, and in a cruel twist of fate lived to a ripe old age in extreme wealth and luxury in an Italian palazzio. Sometimes life is not fair.
But we digress.
Albert "Big Hair" Einstein was working on perpetual-motion machine patents in Switzerland when he began thinking about gravity. One day as he walked along the Goosenzeestrasse he had a startling thought: A falling body does not feel its weight -- until it hits the sidewalk. He thought of testing this by throwing his young nephew Bertie Einstein off the roof of his office building, but to Bertie's great relief Albert was not an experimental physicist.
Instead Bertie was thrown off the roof ten years later by Ernest "The Ripper" Rutherford in an experiment which confirmed Einstein's intuition in every particular. The experiment also earned Rutherford fifteen years hard time in Newcastle Gaol.
But again, we digress.
Einstein's stroke of genius consisted of modeling gravity as the geometric curvature of a five-dimensional manifold of space, time, and ketchup. The geometrical relationship between any two points in space at any time and for any given quantum ketchup probability determines the nature of the gravitational field between the points. Finding, however, that most of his colleagues couldn't understand them, Einstein famously summarized his work with the epithet "The future is down!"
After working out the initial equations describing all this, Einstein needed a vacation. He had grown sick of equations involving ketchup.
So he went on a sailing voyage to Australia. In those days -- 1911 -- the Ozzies used ox-powered pumps to counteract the immense tides caused by Newtonian gravity. Every fortnight these tides flooded lowlying areas of Sydney, and the havock caused by haddock in the hampers and sharks in the sweetshops annoyed Sydneyites no end.
Using only his violin and a chalkboard, Einstein showed how his theory of gravity as spacetime curvature could be used to correct the erroneous ocean tides. His simple, clear explanations returned sharks and haddock to the deeps and kept saltwater out of Ozzie taffy.
However, the Ozzies weren't the only ones impressed by Einstein's physics. After he returned to Switzerland, King Olaf the Immense of Sweden walked up to Einstein in the middle of Unterdiaperstrasse and handed him the Nobel Prize. You could have shined your shoes with the look on Einstein's face, he was that surprised.
Especially after Olaf told him the prize was for his work on photoelectricity, not gravitation.
A Uniformly Congruent Monkey[edit]
Gravity is the earth breathing!!!
Charlie Misner, Archie Wheeler, Kip Thorne[edit]
In the decades since Einstein described gravity as spacetimeketchup curvature some of the greatest physicists of the modern era have expanded on his great work.
Charlie "Big Think" Misner, Archie "Bald Black Holes" Wheeler, and Kip "Timelike Loops" Thorne co-authored an immense and definitive text on gravitation, appropriately titled Gravitation: Why The Universe Sucks.
Perhaps the most stunning revelation in the entire 23,000-page book is that the two three four ways of looking at gravity we mentioned in our turgid but idiotic opening paragraphs are actually completely equivalent! GASP!
Well might we gasp.
But we can explain. This is very technical material, so feel free to follow along with your finger as we write.
First, the idea that the curvature of spacetimeketchup actually is the force we perceive as gravity does not contradict in any way the mathematical statement that the universe sucks. In fact, since the suckage of the universe can be shown to be a product of curvature in Pieman geometry, the two statements
- A. Gravity is spacetimeketchup curvature
- B. The universe sucks because of spacetimeketchup curvature
are mathematically equivalent!
Simply amazing.
Similarly, the statements
- A. Gravity is spacetimeketchup curvature
- C. Gravity is a field which distorts clocks and rulers
also turn out to be mathematically equivalent. (This should be intuitively obvious.)
So it turns out that curvature, sucking, distortion field, and so forth are all equally valid ways of thinking about gravitation...and the universe at large does not give a flying rat's ass how some mostly hairless apes choose to visualize gravitation. Gravity just am what it am, to paraphrase the spinach magnate and amateur astronomer Popeye.
In 1889, Philip d'Amigogaga proposed an alternative theory of gravity that implies a universal solution to Einstein's prairie equations. His theory remains controversial to this day, but some scientists swear by it as it gets them up in the morning.
In a nutshell, the statement he made to the Grenitch Academy of Stodgy Literati was that gravity is not caused by the pull of matter but by the push of empty space. According to his theory, the empty space emits a uniform force on all matter much like water pressure. Said he in conclusion, "Gentlemen, I believe I have conclusively proven that gravity does not suck. It blows."
Modern day quacks, much to the annoyance of credible liars, have used Amigogaga's theory to explain why their spandex clothing makes them so fat: a vacuum pocket is trapped under the stretchy fabric and pushes the fabric out. Most everyone can see that the effects of thinness would neutralise the vacuum bubble however. Fatties
John Dough[edit]
John Dough was the former leader on repealing the law of gravity in the supreme court of America,Until his untimely demise at the hands of a falling piano. His work was latter carried out by his son Doogagle Dough. His prime argument that gravity is a danger to the people, and must be stopped to ensure Spudnick wont land on his statue in Floogle Shmack. Though his son using his fathers death to help prove gravity's danger to people did not portray John Dough's concern for the working man and his gravity damaged sidewalks. This was John Doughs main reason for fighting for the laws repealment because he feared that a mans hard work making something would enivitable be destroyed by a falling object, and he was tired of his pancakes hitting the ceiling fan every time he tried making waffles.
Isaac Brock[edit]
Isaac Brock is the frontman of Modest Mouse and a known genius. After many years of working, he established the rules of gravity that we know today. They are:
- Gravity rides everything.
- Gravity isn't anything at all.
- Early in the morning, Gravity will pull on your sore feet.
- Gravity spills the milk.
- No one really cares for Gravity's plans. Poor Gravity.
- Gravity makes fruit drop as flesh sags.
- Gravity makes everything fall into place.
Physical Description[edit]
Many laws have been broken, but the law of gravity is impossible to disregard. Just the clause which states that college students who have imbibed more than half a keg stand must and will fall and crack their heads at some time during the night has proven itself immutable to generations of drunken college students. Other components of the law of gravity include provisos that pizza must fall with the cheese side down, hair under hats must look ridiculous after several hours, and Tony Danza must die when the clock strikes midnight if he hasn't yet French-kissed Prince.
But in particular, Einstein's description of gravity yields the general field equation:
Undergrads refer to this as the Arse-Flab-Grab equation, and non-maths majors classify it as a tensor equation because the longer they stare at it on an exam the tenser they get.
Basically a relativistic explanation of gravitation asserts that gravitational fields are produced by --
- mass,
- energy,
- pressure,
- the eigenfunction of ketchup, and
- by gravity itself.
It is this last characteristic -- the fact that a gravitational field itself produces a gravitational field -- which accounts for some of Einsteinian gravity's astounding predictions. For example, we may imagine a gravity field so strong that it produces an additional field significant enough to itself produce a further strengthening of the field, and so on -- such that the gravity field becomes large numberly strong!
As physicist Stephen Hawking puts it, "That...that is why I cannot get out of this damned wheelchair."
Although Willie "Sitzbath" de Sitter had shown in 1919 that Einstein's equations predicted infinitely strong gravitational fields most physicists assumed that such things could not exist in nature.
But fifty years later events proved the doubters wrong.
In a humble basement ashram in India a particular Hindu fakir used to demonstrate his mastery of the miraculous by swallowing inedible things like scissors, brass pots, Dell monitors, and small children. However, it passed unnoticed that he never shat these things out. His miraculous Hindu belly just compacted them. Then one day the self-gravity of the gravitational field in his stomach reached the tipping point, he vanished...and the Black Hole of Calcutta was formed.
Since then gravitational researchers have analysed black holes extensively. Their most incredible finding is that black holes have no hair. The second most incredible is that if you talk about black holes to a Frenchman he will giggle and blush.
The opposite of gravity is levity, which is a tendency for mass, energy, or ketchup to bend less of spacetimeketchup as it gets less serious. Levity thus causes spacetimeketchup to curve in a negative direction, while gravity causes the curvature to be positive. This is illustrated at right. Einstein was the first to seriously explore levity and its relationship to relativity. In 1923 he wrote a now-famous paper on the subject, Auf Dem Electrodynamics von Witzen. Obviously he considered it a ridiculous theory which would lead to many hilarious situations and conclusions.
But rather than being recognized by the rest of the physics community as a joke, as Einstein intended, several grad students sustaining themselves on beer and peanut butter sandwiches took the theory, added to it, and it soon worked its way into mainstream physics. Einstein was going to spill the beans about it being a joke, but was convinced by Edward Teller to keep his trap shut.
Teller, Einstein, and Oppenheimer laughed about it for years until astronomical observations indicated that the universe really is negatively curved and therefore levity is stronger than gravity.
Ironically, after all these years it seems that what Einstein considered his "greatest joke" may be the truth!
Measurement Problems[edit]
We should note in closing that it has been quite difficult to measure the precise value of the gravitational constant G. Experiments which suspend huge massive objects like locomotives next to each other and attempt to measure the gravitational attraction between them are stymied by the incredible weakness of the attraction...even between locomotives.
However NASA recently proposed "Gravity Probe JP". This mission will launch John Pinette and 150 metric tons of Chinese food into orbit and measure the attraction between the two. (Recent suggestions that Mr. Pinette is approaching the Schwartzchild limit and may turn into a black hole have caused concern, however.)
Criticism and Alternative Theories[edit]
Recently the theory of gravity has been victim of some heavy criticism from certain groups. Another theory, Intelligent Falling, has been brought up by these groups as an alternative to to the theory of gravity.
In addition, a common theory is that Al Gore invented gravity. This theory has since come to be known as Holocaust Denial.
On 3 January 2007, Gravity was arrested by Merseyside Police after a Liverpudlian fell to his death from an 8th floor window.
Another theory that is gaining support is that gravity does not really exist but instead, our universe just sucks.
Gravity and the Flying Spaghetti Monster[edit]
It has also been suggested that gravity is caused by the noodly appendages of his noodliness, the great Flying Spaghetti Monster. Here is an extract from a revolutionary scientific thesis called the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster:
Take gravity, for example: the force of attraction between massive particles. We know a great deal about the properties of gravity, yet we know nothing about the cause of the force itself. Why are particles attracted to each other? If we review the literature, we find very little dealing with the underlying cause of the attraction. Until we have a proven answer to this question, it seems irresponsible to instruct students in what is, ultimately, just a theory. However, if we must discuss the theory of gravity at all, then it's reasonable that all suggested theories should be given equal time, since none have been proven or disproven. Therefore, I formally submit that the Past Creature is behind this strange and often misunderstood force. What if it is He, the Past Creature that is pushing down on us? There could be many reasons why He would do this. It could be that He doesn't want us floating off earth into space, or maybe just that He enjoys touching us – we may never know.
It isn't universally accepted within the scientific community yet; but, just like evolution, it has been suggested that this should be taught as an alternative theory (that's what it says in the Gospel) Many more remarkable theories are mentioned in that book.
See also[edit]
Forces of the Universe |
Gravity | Electricity | War | Mathematics | Sophia | The Flying Spaghetti Monster | Black Metal |


text:
Michele Replica Watch
Founded in Belgium by Jack Barouh, MICHELE is known for making women s watches that are trendy, yet classy in their appeal. Each MICHELE designer watch can be modified and customized to suit individual tastes. You can assemble a MICHELE watch, change watch heads, and choose strap sizes at your leisure. MICHELE watch straps range from sleek gold and bold leather including alligator and premium calfskin leathers, to playful and colored silicone straps. The exquisite watch heads are diamond encrusted and come in various tones and styles. Explore Neiman Marcus to witness the endless variations of MICHELE watches, including MICHELE watch straps and watch heads that are crafted to make a lasting statement.


text:
The Jack Cole Christmas Cartoon Roundup: A Sprinkle of Playboy and a Dollop of Mirth!
A post made just 2 days prior to December 25th is the ideal place to share a Jack Cole Christmas story. After all, in his hundreds of comic book stories created in a 16-year career, there must be at least a handful of Christmas stories.
Right? I mean, the man was born in December (December 14th).
At least one Xmas story. Santa's gotta be in here, somewhere, right?
To my knowledge, Jack Cole did not create a single Christmas-themed comic book story. Yet, he worked in an industry that delighted in exploiting the holiday for all it was worth, with numerous Christmas-themed stories and covers. What in the world does this say, if anything, about our friend and hero, Jack? Was he a bit of a humbug? Or, as a Methodist, was he reluctant to do much with the holiday out of respect? Perhaps Jack Cole was simply too much of an original to follow the pack and instead developed his own themes and subject matter.
Whatever the reason, Cole and Christmas just don't seem to mix. Take a look at this 1939 one-page Christmas cartoons, the one piece of Christmas-themed comic book work by Jack Cole that I have found:
Funny Pages Volume 3, Issue 10 (Dec 1939) |
As far as I can tell (somebody prove me wrong, please!), Cole doesn't touch on Christmas in his work again until 16 years later, after he's completely left comic books. In the December, 1955 issue of Playboy magazine, we find a Christmas card of sorts, by Jack:
It's one of five, and no doubt, Cole drew it as an assignment. Note that his card is accompanied by four others, all done by different Playboy artists.
Aside from the sprig of mistletoe at the top right corner of his card, and the understated hues of red and green (the colors of Christmas), there doesn't seem to be anything Christmas-y at all in the visual aspect of Cole's piece. This is even less enthusiastic about the holiday than his early 1939 page above. Nonetheless, his art leaps out of the pile of rather wooden art examples, and his concept is extremely clever and sexy. Here's the original art for this piece, a thing of beauty that celebrates the feminine, rather than the holiday:
Art Spiegelman, perhaps the most insightful critic of Cole's we have, has said somewhere that the key to understanding Jack Cole's work is to see that his main theme is impotence. My studies of Cole's work bears this out, and we'll see some examples of that later on in this posting.
However, it's worth noting that the above Playboy Magazine cartoon by Jack Cole is a rare portrait of masculine empowerment, rather than impotence. For this reason, it's always been a personal favorite of mine. A rare moment when Jack Cole stood up for his gifts and his own considerable power as an artist and generative human being.
In the image, the artist paints a slightly Christmas-y tie on the topless beauty. However, the image also looks a bit like the artist has created the stunning model of feminine sexuality with his brush and paints. And, of course, this is exactly what Jack Cole has done. In fact, in the original art scan, you can see his raw brushstrokes and paint daubs on the bottom edge of the board. Nice stuff. Thus, the image (especially the image of the original art) becomes a meta statement about the redemption Cole found in creativity, and perhaps in creating these ultimate images of the Feminine.
I also have in my files a lovely image of original art by Cole that looks as if it was created for a New Year's piece. I don't know if it was ever published. It's a lovely piece, a dazzling light and luscious vision.
In their terrific book, Forms Stretched to Their Limits: Jack Cole and Plastic Man, Art Spiegelman and Chip Kidd publish a very rare, delightful Christmas card drawn by Jack Cole in the mid 1940s for his New Castle, PA family (note the name on the mailbox of the home the singing letter is being delivered to):
Again, there's a fascinating dearth of traditional Xmas art. I'm not sure if this type of approach to a "Christmash" greeting is typical of the time. Perhaps, in the ensuing generations since the 1940s, us Americans have built up the Christmas tropes - Santa, reindeer, a manger, 3 wise men, Frosty the Snowman, and so on. I'm not sure. But even so, there seems to be something a little off about Cole's black-drenched celebration of the season of light.
That's about all the Christmas-themed Jack Cole stuff there seems to be. However, let's not end this post on a note of lack and darkness. In fact, I say let's let Jack Cole do what he did best, and cheer us up with some great cartoons.
I just yesterday discovered on scanner superstar Bchat's blog, M.O.D.M a curious little humor digest from March, 1955 called Mirth.
As you may recall, in the last few months, I've developed a theory that there are a lot of Jack Cole cartoons in 1954-55 publications that we have yet to discover. This was the period where Cole left a 16-year career in comic books and focused on magazine cartoons, which was a sort of parallel lesser career of his up until the mid-50's. Sure enough, this humor digest, scanned and shared by bchat (thanks!) has some Jack Cole in it.
In fact....
It's got TWELVE (!) Jack Cole cartoons in it! I could scarcely believe my eyes when I first paged through the book. This was a lovely gift from the Universe and I thought it would be nice to share these cartoons with everyone, as a sort of holiday offering.
In the inside front cover, we find this delightful captionless cartoon:
This is a super-clever use of negative space, and obviously the editor agreed, giving it the place of honor on the magazine, and choosing it out of the batch of 12 Cole gems he had in front of him. How in the world 12 Jack Cole cartoons were published in one emphemeral, vernacular bon bon is a mystery that will likely never be solved. My guess is that these cartoons of Cole's are mostly rejects from higher markets, and that Cole shoved an accumulation of these rejects into an envelope and mailed it to an editor with a smaller budget who knew a good thing when he saw it and snapped up the dozen gems.
Speaking of cartoons that -- um -- don't speak, here's another captionless cartoon by Jack Cole that I love:
Cole has wandered into the same territory as more gentle, observational cartoonists, such as Charles Schulz (Peanuts), and offers us a fascinating glimpse of what a mature Jack Cole could have done with cartoons, had he not gone the Playboy route.
Note the cartoons are all signed by Jack, in the same style signature he used for his Playboy cartoons. During this time, we find a number of "Jake" cartoons in the same sorts of magazines ("Jake" being Cole's pen name). Such as this beauty, also from bchat's website:
A-Laugh-A-Minnit #8(Toby Press/Minoan, circa 1955, exact date unknown) |
Note that this art looks similar to Cole's virtually unknown Millie and Terry comic strip, but it's also looser and more "arty."
Another interesting aspect to the Jack Cole Mirth cartoons is that they are not "Jake" cartoons. They reach out to other topics and situations, with grounded, more domestic humor instead of a frothy chiffon of sex. Consider this sitcom of a cartoon from the Mirth series:
This is truly inventive, clever, engaging stuff. It is very similar to Cole's Saturday Evening Post cartoon published about a year earlier:
Both cartoons are sequential multiple images, and both are about domestic squabbles involving lights at night. For more analysis of this particular cartoon, see my post here. Jack Cole liked drawing splashes of light and shadow, and we see this in a comic book work a lot:
Here's another cartoon from Cole's Mirth series that seems delightfully different from his men's magazine work; almost a George Price New Yorker style cartoon.
Here are the remaining delightful half-dozen Jack Cole cartoons from Mirth #36 (March, 1955). Thanks, Jack. Enjoy!
Cole's Comics wishes you all a happy holiday and a great 2012! Here's a silly card I drew for the kids and humbly offer.


text:
Our firsthand experience in Southwest Florida allowed us to create a permanent exhibit on south Florida's people and their environments, past and present.
The 6,050-square-foot exhibit, South Florida People & Environments, opened to the public on October 5, 2002.
The main message of the exhibit is one of appreciation for South Florida's diverse heritage and rich environment, as well as awareness of the problems that face us in the future. Given Florida's dramatic growth in population and the increasing threats to its cultural resources and natural habitats — especially those of the coast and interior wetlands — the need for acquainting Florida's residents and visitors with Florida's heritage and environment has never been more timely. A large measure of the knowledge presented in this permanent exhibit was generated by the Museum's long-term interdisciplinary project in Southwest Florida.


text:
CAUTION: SPOILERS INCLUDED – Only one spot remains in the semifinals of The Ultimate Fighter: Team Nogueira vs Team Mir, and it's going to go to either Team Nogueira's John Polakowski or Team Mir's George Roop. So who will emerge in this 155-pound battle?
CAUTION: SPOILERS INCLUDED – Only one spot remains in the semifinals of The Ultimate Fighter: Team Nogueira vs Team Mir, and it's going to go to either Team Nogueira's John Polakowski or Team Mir's George Roop. So who will emerge in this 155-pound battle?
If it hasn't been made clear by now, let's state for the record that Polakowski is a hugger.
"I feel like I've got a little nuclear reactor inside of me," said the Californian, who may very well be the nicest person to ever appear on The Ultimate Fighter. Even Junie Browning says it's impossible not to like him, but on this week's episode, Polakowski does show a little bit of anger when someone takes the marshmallows out of his Lucky Charms cereal box.
On the other side of this week's bout, Roop has some more serious issues to deal with, as he catches his right hand in the Octagon fencing and injures it pretty badly. It swells up immediately, and he can't make a fist, but he decides to battle on for his once in a lifetime shot at a UFC contract.
By fight day, Roop's swelling has gone down, and the Arizona native is ready to fight. Well, not before a pre-fight hug with Polakowski in the center of the Octagon. After that though, the two are anything but friendly, and Roop scores with accurate long-range kicks and a strong takedown that definitely earns him the first round.
In the second, Polakowski roars back, even appearing to hurt a tiring Roop with a right hand. Just when it looks like Polakowski is about to pull away though, Roop scores with a takedown. And though he isn't able to mount a sustained offense on the mat, Roop is awarded the second round and the fight, much to the dismay of many observers, including UFC President Dana White, who says, "This clearly was a fight that should have gone to a third round."
Roop will be the one going to the semis though, and while Polakowski was disappointed, he did manage to celebrate at the house that night. Also celebrating were the rest of the competitors, some of whom were throwing eggs and other items at some of the fighters who were in the pool. One of these other items, a pork chop, hit Browning, and Junie didn't take too kindly to that, almost getting into another incident in the house before cooler heads prevailed.
Now it's time for the semifinal selections, with White and coaches Nogueira and Mir meeting with each of the eight remaining fighters. On the light heavyweight side of things, Ryan Bader and Eliot Marshall both want to fight each other, while Krzysztof Soszynski wants Bader, and Vinny Magalhaes wants Soszynski in their semifinal fights.
The lightweights are a little easier to figure out with Roop and Phillipe Nover both wanting to fight each other, while Browning and Efrain Escudero agree that the ideal fight would be against each other.
Finally, the semifinal matchups are set, and they are as follows:
Light Heavyweights
Eliot Marshall vs Ryan Bader
Vinny Magalhaes vs Krzysztof Soszynski
Phillipe Nover vs George Roop
Junie Browning vs Efrain Escudero
Here's how the teams look:
Krzysztof Soszynski 1-0
Vinny Magalhaes 1-0
Eliot Marshall 1-0
Tom Lawlor – Eliminated in week three by Ryan Bader
Junie Browning 1-0
Shane Nelson – Eliminated in week four by Efrain Escudero
Dave Kaplan – Eliminated in week eight by Phillipe Nover
George Roop 1-0
Ryan Bader 1-0
Shane Primm – Eliminated in week five by Eliot Marshall
Kyle Kingsbury – Eliminated in week nine by Krzysztof Soszynski
Jules Bruchez – Eliminated in week seven by Vinny Magalhaes
Phillipe Nover 1-0
Efrain Escudero 1-0
John Polakowski – Eliminated in week ten by George Roop
Roli Delgado – Eliminated in week six by Junie Browning
For weekly recaps of The Ultimate Fighter, as well as fighter profiles, stay tuned to UFC.com.
UFC Performance Institute
Dana White On The Opening Of UFC PI Mexico


text:
Qantas Entertainment App
We've got your inflight entertainment covered. Stream and watch more than 2,500 hours of movies, TV shows and more on your next domestic flight directly to your personal device. Download the Qantas Entertainment App before you fly to start watching from the moment you board, until landing at your destination.
Find out more


text:
A few weeks ago several of the Carolina Bloggin bloggers, and I held a pre-party for Charleston Fashion Week at O-ku in Charleston. I was so nervous because this was the first blogger event I have ever hosted. It was a really fun party and a great success! O-ku provided some great sushi and chicken skewers. They also created a signature drink for the event, which Teowonna called Carolina Sunshine.. We also had a ton of sponsors like DressBarn, Shop Epitome, Dry Soda, and We Love Colors. Robert Rison from Eclat Designs was the featured designer who showed at our event, and Mayaqoba's had a few models on hand to show her resort wear as well. It was a ton of fun. I want to thank all of the sponsors helping us put on a wonderful event (not all of them are listed here). I also want to thank everyone for coming out. Photos by me! Click below to see some more!
*Last but not least, Khali from Shop Epitome was gracious enough to provide us with our very own coupon code, CSW25, good for 25% off until May 31! Get Shopping!


text:
- Description
- Shipping & Handling
- Frequently Asked Questions
Kindergarten White Honor Hood
The white honor Kindergarten Hood is ideally made to fit your young student easily and comfortably over the Kindergarten graduation gown. Made from great quality shiny finish tricot fabric the white honor hood is beautifully made with neat binding at edging. The front and back V offers stylish hood with a comfortable opening made easy to wear over the head. All the kindergarten hoods are offered at low prices and further discounts when you order in bulk. View our wide selection of Kindergarten cap and gowns and range of kindergarten accessories all available now for a perfect kindergarten graduation ceremony.
Order Processing Timeframe
All Orders for "Stock Products" will ship out within 1-4 Business Days. We offer Rush Processing (1 business day) option which expedite your order handling and overall delivery time. Please contact us as soon possible so we can arrange the shipping. Additional fees may apply.
Shipping Options
- STANDARD – 5 - 8 Business Days
- EXPEDITE – 3 - 4 Business Days
Out of Stock & Delayed Orders
If any item(s) become out of stock after an order is placed, one of our customer service representatives will contact you via telephone or email and inform of available options in an effort to remedy any issues. We will ask whether you would like to proceed with your order or make changes to your order. Product substitutions are available upon request. Out of stock items will typically be placed on Back Order and extended processing times may apply.
Important Information
The Estimated Delivery Date provided at checkout is an estimate only and does not guarantee delivery by a specific date or time. As this is an estimate only GradKids.com cannot refund shipping charges for shipments arriving past the estimated delivery date. We are not responsible for the delivery delay if the customer have chosen the wrong shipping method. We will do our best to make sure you receive your order on time. We advise you to give us a call if you need your order before a specific date and we will try to meet the date.
Domestic & International Shipping
To obtain a shipping rates please add your products to checkout to see shipping rates to your destination. We will ship to some foreign locations. Such locations generally include Canada, Europe, South America, Japan and a few other locations. You can check if your country is available by simulating placing an order on our website. We can also place the order over the phone if you do not find your country. However because such shipments often involve the peculiarities of the various tariffs trade and import/export laws around the globe we may not be able to ship some orders overseas due to the cost of researching the laws for that location. Also if possible it is always easier for us to ship to a US-based shipping address and you will always save on shipping costs if you can arrange for a US-based address to receive the shipment. At this time due to advice from our bank concerning trends in fraud we reserve all rights to deny or proceed with orders shipping internationally. * GradKids IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DUTY VAT TAX OR ANY OTHER FEES ASSOCIATED WITH IMPORTING OUR PRODUCTS. We cannot look up the final cost to you as your home country may (and often does) charge a fee at the destination. We also cannot accept a rejection of that fee after the shipment leaves our factory and we cannot offer a return for a refund. Your home country will demand that GradKids pay the fee before receiving the returned item and GradKids cannot pay that fee. If you order from overseas you must either pay any import fees and duties your home country charges or else abandon the item or receive no refund.
What is the material of your gowns?
Our gowns are all made of 100% polyester. Purely made polyester, like our products, is extremely strong, extremely durable and has excellent properties such as being hydrophobic in nature that leads to quick-drying and stain resistance.
What is the difference between matte and shiny?
The main difference is the finish of the fabric. Our shiny gowns are a knitted fabric that has more of a shiny look to it giving the color of the gowns more brightness. Our matte gowns are a woven fabric which has more of a flat dull finish.
How do I know what gown's color to choose?
Please contact your educational institution, as we currently do not have access to school colors.
What if my school orders with a different company?
We welcome anyone to order with us! Although, we cannot give assurance or be held responsible for our gowns' colours matching another company's gowns. We provide unique shades of gowns are not the same with another vendor's products.
How to select my Graduation gown size?
You need to provide us with each customer's height with shoes on for the gown and weight. You do not need to provide cap size as our standard caps are one size fits all with elastic. Please see the our size chart.
Find the right size for your gown. See the instructions below.
Choose from an array of colours and fabric that we offer.


text:
South Kingstown is a town in Washington County, Rhode Island. The town has 14 villages andis home to roughly 30,600 residents. With over ten miles of beaches, South Kingstown is a popular tourist destination in the summer. South Kingstown is lively yearround being the home to the University of Rhode Island. URI is in the village of Kingston and is home to the Thomas M. Ryan Center that hosts a variety of events from concerts to sports to circuses. Residents have an easy time getting around with the Kingston Train Station. The train station also has the Rhode Island Railroad Museum which is open to the public. With homes for sale that are steps from the beaches, South Kingstown is a perfect place to live for anyone who's ever dreamed of living by the water. Real estate in South Kingstown varies in style and price range from elegant waterfront properties to modest singlefamily ranches.
64 (-9.86% )
South Kingstown is strategically located at the crossroads of major transportation networks, but maintains a good balance between the fast-pace of urban life and the close-knit social fabric of a suburban community.
Single family homes, many with large lots are the norm. There is an excellent school system and the town is renowned for its high levels of community participation. The South Kingstown community has everything needed for a fun day close to the ocean side, including numerous pubs and grilles, Entertainment Cinemas, and The Ryan Center and Boss Ice Arena with its concerts, family events, and sports programs for all seasons.
South Kingstown is comprised of several villages: Green Hill, Indian Lake Shore, Kingston, Matunuck, Middlebridge, Peace Dale, Perryville, Snug Harbor, Tower Hill, Usquepaugh, Wakefield and West Kingston.
We use cookies to improve your user experience. By continuing to visit our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More


text:
I have disturbed and distressed Jerry Coyne, because I have dissed the entire field of evolutionary psychology. I find this very peculiar, because in my field, Jerry Coyne has a reputation for dissing all of evo devo, so it can't possibly be that we're supposed to automatically respect every broad scientific endeavor. There has to be something more to it than just an academic defense of a discipline. And there is, unfortunately. Here's his prelude.
I've been known for a while as a critic of evolutionary psychology, particularly when it first began as "sociobiology" in the Seventies. At that time there was a lot of unsupported speculation being bruited about as "science" (i.e., human males evolved to have "rape modules", a view that I criticized strongly). But over the decades, evolutionary psychology has matured, and I now see it as a valuable way of studying the origins of human behavior. Not that it's all perfect—the "pop" versions, such as those produced by Satoshi Kanazawa, seem pretty dire to me, debasing a field that's striving for scientific rigor. But even Kanazawa has been rejected by serious evolutionary psychologists.
Sadly, some self-professed skeptics have decided to debunk the entire field of evo-psych, and for reasons that I see not as scientific, but as ideological and political. That is, like the opponents of sociobiology thirty years ago, these skeptics object to the discipline because they see it as both motivated by and justifying conservative political views like the marginalization of women. Well, that may be the motivation of some people, but not, I think, of most well-known workers in evo psych, who are merely trying to study the evolutionary roots of human behavior. It pains me that skeptics are so dogmatic, so ideological, in viewing (and rejecting wholesale) a legitimate scientific field.
That second paragraph? Pure ad hominem, unsupported by evidence. I detest evolutionary psychology, not because I dislike the answers it gives, but on purely methodological and empirical grounds: it is a grandiose exercise in leaping to conclusions on inadequate evidence, it is built on premises that simply don't work, and it's a field that seems to do a very poor job of training and policing its practitioners, so that it primarily serves as a dump for bad research that then supplies tabloids with a feast of garbage science that discredits the rest of us. I'd like to see the evolutionary psychologists who propose that there is a high quality core to their discipline spending more effort ripping into their less savory colleagues than on the indignant sniffing at critics of evolutionary psychology. I'd have more respect for the field if there was more principled internal striving.
There is also a tactic I really dislike; I call it the Dignified Retreat. When criticized, evolutionary psychologists love to run away from their discipline and hide in the safer confines of more solidly founded ideas. Here's a perfect example:
…the notion that "the fundamental premises of evo psych are false" seems deeply misguided. After all, those premises boil down to this statement: some behaviors of modern humans reflect their evolutionary history. That is palpably uncontroversial, since many of our behaviors are clearly a product of evolution, including eating, avoiding dangers, and the pursuit of sex. And since our bodies reflect their evolutionary history, often in nonadaptive ways (e.g., wisdom teeth, bad backs, the coat of hair we produce as a transitory feature in fetuses), why not our brains, which are, after all, just bits of morphology whose structure affects our behaviors?
You know what? I agree entirely with that. The brain is a material product of evolution, and behavior is a product of the brain. There are natural causes for everything all the way down. And further, I have great respect for psychology, evolutionary biology, ethology, physiology, anthropology, anatomy, comparative biology — and I consider all of those disciplines to have strong integrative ties to evolutionary biology. Does Coyne really believe that I am critiquing the evolved nature of the human brain? Because otherwise, this is a completely irrelevant statement.
Evolutionary psychology has its own special methodology and logic, and that's what I criticize — not anthropology or evolutionary biology or whatever. Somehow these unique properties get conveniently jettisoned whenever a critic wanders by, only to be re-adopted without reservation within the exercise of the discipline. And that's really annoying.
What I object to in evolutionary psychology is that their stock in trade is to make observations of behavior in a single species, often in a single population, and then to infer an evolutionary history from that data point. You don't get to do that. It's not that the observations are invalid (they're often interesting in their own right), or that it's not possible that human behaviors carry a strong genetic component — it's that you simply can't draw an evolutionary conclusion from the simple existence of a trait in a population. Yet evolutionary psychologists do, all the time.
I had a second objection that Coyne briefly addresses: developmental and neuroplasticity obscure the genetic basis of behaviors.
… "developmental plasticity" does not stand as a dichotomous alternative to "evolved features." Our developmental plasticity is to a large extent the product of evolution: our ability to learn language, our tendency to defer to authorities when we're children, our learned socialization—those are all features almost certainly instilled into our brains by natural selection as a way to promote behavioral flexibility in that most flexible of mammals.
That's a cop-out. Yes, developmental plasticity is an evolved property, but to study it, you study development. Not psychology. It's a different level of the problem.
The reason plasticity is a serious (and far too ignored) issue for evolutionary psychology is that if you're trying to identify a genetic basis for a specific behavior, it represents a huge amount of confounding noise. It's HARD WORK to isolate the genetic core of a behavior (assuming there is one) from the learned properties of the organism.
For instance, I'm really interested in the behaviors of zebrafish, and one of the things I've done is tried to identify different behaviors in different lines of fish — they exist, and it would be really cool to identify alleles involved in the differences. Feeding behaviors, for instance, vary in different lines. One line may carry out what we think are wild-type patterns: they feed by darting to the surface, carrying the food down to the bottom, and gulping it down there. Another may indulge in stupid lab-bred behaviors: wallowing at the surface, chowing down on floating flakes — something that would get them eaten quickly by birds in the wild.
It turns out to be really hard to maintain that behavior in the lab. Raising fry to adults is actually a wonderful exercise in selection (wallowing babies get lots of food, cautious babies get less) and training. We really had to struggle to develop feeding regimens that were neutral to the behavior we wanted to study. That's why plasticity is such an important factor in these kinds of studies — it's really, really, really hard to separate learned behavior from genetically predisposed behavior. It demands a huge amount of rigor and all kinds of controls — the kinds of things you simply cannot do with humans.
Again, this is not to say that one can't do good psychology. What I'm saying is that taking that next huge step of linking behavior to genes to evolution demands data and methods that are not present in our toolbox right now, making most of the claims of evo psych fallacious.
In our presentation at Convergence, Greg Laden mentioned being present at early seminars by Cosmides and Tooby in which they laid out their goals. They drew a big box and in one top corner, they wrote "behavior"; in a lower corner, they put "genes". The idea was that this field would strive to connect the two words together — which I consider a wonderful goal and something I'd like to see, too. Unfortunately, the space between the two words is filled with handwaving right now. I'm much more respectful of science that tries to incrementally bring the two together, but evolutionary psychology prematurely tries to stitch them together with transparent guesswork. That's not science.
Coyne closes with a couple more ad hominems.
One gets two impressions when listening to the skeptics' criticism of evolutionary psychology. First, they haven't read widely in the discipline, and are criticizing either pop-culture versions of the field or a caricature (born of ignorance, possibly willful) of EP. Even I know that EP advocates don't often publish studies that rely solely on undergraduates.
As I mentioned, I'm very interested in the connection between genes and behavior — I've actually read quite a bit in this field. I've also read a fair amount of the evolutionary psychology literature, and the source of my animus is that in comparison to good science on the biological basis of behavior, it suffers abominably. It doesn't even come close to evolutionary biology (my own work is more genetics and brain development, and I'll be the first to tell you that work on lab-bred zebrafish is a piss-poor way to do evolution…so I find it particularly appalling to see human psychology touted as evolutionary).
As for the claim that EP doesn't often publish studies solely on undergraduates — it's worse. Stephanie Zvan looked at recent publications in the journal Evolutionary Psychology.
How many of these studies were done only using college students? More than half. In 33 studies, the population whose preferences were used as a proxy for human universals was a population of college students. Another six studies used a combination of college students and other populations. One of these additional study populations was young, educated Israeli adults. Two were populations from around the university attended by the student populations.
Other university town populations were used on their own, without student populations, but many of the studies that did not use college students could not. Studies of blind dates, cyclists, criminals, pregnant women, sleep deprivation, parents of premature babies, younger children, soccer referees, musicians, and severely disabled people all drew from specialized populations.
More striking than the use of college students, however, was the geographic restriction on the populations used. Out of 60 studies, 51 drew their samples entirely from the U.S., Canada, and Europe. The exceptions were (mostly students) from Japan, Singapore, China, Israel, World Cup countries, St. Kitts, Mexico, historical records from around the world, and an international sample drawn from Amazon's Mechanical Turk. While not all the samples were "Western" (in the odd, non-directional meaning that word has accrued), only those last four–7% of the total–were distinctly non-WEIRD.
Ooops. Really, look over the papers — they're already restricted to one species, and it's an exceptional work that even tries to reach out to different subpopulations. The study of the genetic basis of behavior is an extraordinarily complex problem, and I don't see any adequate efforts being made to constrain the variables; and once you've got a genetic basis, identifying an evolutionary history for that is yet another non-trivial problem.
And then we get the ideology-bashing again.
Second, it's pretty clear that the opposition to evolutionary psychology from these quarters is ideologically rather than scientifically motivated. One gets the feeling that research on gender differences shouldn't be done at all because it's either designed to repress women, motivated by the desire to do that, or has the likely outcome of promoting discrimination. Well, sexist scientists may try to do that, but I haven't seen much of that since the Seventies. And gender differences are fascinating. There's a reason, for instance, why human males are larger and hairier than females, and have more testosterone. Are we supposed to say "You can't work on that—could have bad repercussions!" Sure, scientific results can always be misused, but I don't see that as a reason to put up roadblocks against scientific research. After all, what field is more misused and misquoted than evolutionary biology? I am a frequent recipient of emails from Jews trying to convince me to reject evolution because Darwin ultimately caused the Holocaust.
Please. Have I ever said that we shouldn't study gender or racial differences? No. We know there are going to be differences. The catch is that they have to be studied very, very well, with rigor and careful analysis, because they are socially loaded and because science has a deeply deplorable history of using poor methods to reach bad conclusions that are used as ideological props for the status quo. I'm not putting up roadblocks against scientific research; I would like to put up roadblocks to sloppy, lazy ideological nonsense touted as scientific research. I should think every scientist would want that.
To return to Coyne's prior criticism of evo devo: that's exactly what I appreciated about it. He took a strong stance, demanding hard evidence to support evo devo's claims of the importance of regulatory mutations in evolution. And he was right to do so! If you're going to make claims about genes and evolution, you had better be prepared to show the supporting evidence at all levels of the problem. I'm not sure why he's gotten more soft on the demand for rigor from evolutionary psychology when he was far more demanding on evo devo.
Maybe it was ideology.
And this is just silly.
…the fundamental premise of evolutionary psychology is absolutely sound: our brains, like the rest of our bodies, are the product of evolution and natural selection over the past six million years, and some of our current behaviors reflect that evolution. To deny that is ideologically motivated nonsense. To parse out the evolutionary component of such behaviors is the goal of evolutionary psychology.
That's another Dignified Retreat. Evolutionary Psychology is not synonymous with Evolutionary Biology. I can reject bad science in the form of evolutionary and genetical claims about behavior; it does not imply that I think evolution played no role in our brains.
Coyne has a long section where he solicited responses from Steven Pinker, as well. This is long enough so I'll defer that for a different day, but I did note that there's a lot of this ideological ad hominem in there, too, and some of it is even contradictory!


text:
Why do jersey numbers play such a big role in the minds of athletes who wear them? Where does the attachment come from? A name is one way we identify ourselves in life, but in the sports world a number reflects something unique to each athlete who wears it. As we begin to contemplate what numbers mean, I will reflect on my own personal relationship with my jersey number.
My number story started in high school when I saw an offensive lineman by the name of Tabika Hickson, who played varsity football for the Freeport Red Devils. I was not yet on varsity, but I respected him because he was a talented player and he was also the biggest dude on the team.
Our paths crossed when I played varsity a year later. Tabika wore number 65. I choose what seemed to me to the next best thing and also the available numbers were scarce (younger players didn't get the first pick of the litter). I choose number 60. I liked 60 and played with that number throughout high school.
When I started getting attention from colleges for my performance on the football field and started making my official visits, I was told by many colleges that I would be able to retain number 60. I was so certain I would wear number 60 in college, I asked my father to buy me a necklace with a #60 pendant for my birthday.
Imagine my surprise when 60 was not available at Virginia , the school I finally decided upon. Senior defensive tackle Andrew Hoffman wore that number and again I was forced to select another number. I decided to pick number 66, and no, number 65 was not available for my choosing, either.
Sixty-six was my number throughout my college career. But when I started getting attention from NFL scouts and eventually got selected to the Jets in the first round in 2006, I was certain that I would be finally in the position to retain my number and the history of switching jersey numbers would be a thing of the past.
So I walked into my the new locker and spoke to our equipment manager, Gus Granneman — and he told me that number 66 was unavailable. I was stunned. This time it was in the ownership of starting Left guard Pete Kendall.
Now Pete wasn't known for his pleasant attitude and I, being a rookie, was not really excited about having to ask for my number from a veteran lineman of 10 years. I decided to just do what I was so accustomed to doing by this point and select another number. It was a pleasant surprise to find that the number that I had worn in high school was available. And no, number 65 was still not to be had.
I have been wearing number 60 for all of my NFL career and sometimes I think what if I actually retained my college number 66. What would have happened to me if Alan Faneca, perennial Pro Bowler and Super Bowl champion who wore number 66 and joined the team in my third season, would have asked me to give up my number? I am glad that was something I never had to experience, but it was something that I witnessed.
Jason Taylor, number 99 as the former Miami Dolphins defensive end, was known for his skill and athleticism. In fact, I would not at all be surprised if he is considered for the Hall of Fame at some point. In 2010 Jason left the Dolphins and landed with the New York Jets. However there was a slight dilemma. Bryan Thomas, our veteran linebacker, wore number 99 as well.
I played against Taylor and considered him to be one of the best defensive ends out there. When I was a rookie, my offensive line coach, Tony Wise, a former coach of the Dolphins, had shown me many video clips of Taylor, and he indeed was a talented player. When he eventually came to the Jets, I had a certain image in my mind, so when he wore number 95 during camp I was confused. I couldn't have cared less about the team he was formerly associated with — it was his number that was meaningful. It actually bothered me that he wasn't wearing 99.
Now Bryan Thomas was a first-round pick and had a very successful career, yet did not share the same number of accomplishments and accolades as Jason Taylor. So ultimately, who deserved to wear the number, Jason Taylor or Bryan Thomas? To me it was clear. But is there a fair way to determine this? In the end Jason did receive number 99 but this rule doesn't always hold true.
Last season Ed Reed, number 20, former safety for the Baltimore Ravens, came to the New York Jets. Ed Reed is a nine-time Pro Bowler and Super Bowl champion whose accolades surpassed even those of Jason Taylor. But Kyle Wilson, who was selected in the first round like Bryan Thomas, also played with that number but not as long as Bryan had with 99. So who deserved 20? This time Kyle decided to retain his jersey number, while Reed wore 22 with us. But does that change who Ed was as a player or what he has accomplished? I would say no.
In the end I would argue that a number is but a constructed thought in a person's mind. It has no meaning by itself, but only the value people attribute to it. It can mean different things at different times and even when a situation appears to occur again, its result can be completely opposite. As athletes, we are drawn to the numbers we wear, and are faced with a dilemma when the numbers we have identified ourselves with no longer represent us. But that shouldn't change who we are, unless our number is what ultimately defines us.


text:
It's MORNING EDITION from NPR News. I'm Steve Inskeep.
And I'm Renee Montagne.
One analyst calls last weekend's massacre in Afghanistan an enormous gift to the Taliban. It is the latest of several incidents that amount to lost battles in a political war.
INSKEEP: We're going to talk about the fallout and the future of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan with three experts who bring very different backgrounds to this conversation. Vali Nasr is a former State Department advisor and author of books on the Muslim world.
Welcome to the program, Vali.
VALI NASR: Thank you.
MONTAGNE: And we've also reached retired Army Lieutenant General David Barno, who's now at the Center for a New American Security. And welcome, General Barno.
GENERAL DAVID BARNO: Glad to be here.
INSKEEP: One more voice as well. Rajiv Chandrasekaran is a Washington Post correspondent and author of a forthcoming book about the war in Afghanistan. He's also in our studios.
Welcome to you.
RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN: Good morning.
MONTAGNE: And let me put this to you, Rajiv, to begin these questions. How badly could this particularly awful incident damage the whole U.S. mission?
CHANDRASEKARAN: Well, pretty significantly. You know, the U.S. effort in Afghanistan has been, you know, predicated on this argument, if you will, to the Afghan people that American troops are there to help protect the good people of Afghanistan, to help rebuild their country, to help secure their future. And this just plays into the worst fears of Afghans and plays into the hand of Taliban propagandas. And so it couldn't have been a worse development at a worse time for the United States.
INSKEEP: General Barno, a friend of mine was reminding me yesterday of the notion of the strategic corporal. The idea that any soldier in a war like this can create catastrophic consequences and even affect strategy. In this case, we have a sergeant. But it sounds like that might actually be the case.
BARNO: Well, I think that's true here unfortunately. And those events of Sunday have made a tough mission even tougher for the troops that are serving over there. In this case, you've got a fairly junior enlisted soldier, a staff sergeant supposedly, from a joint base Lewis-McChord here in the U.S. who is alleged to have committed these heinous crimes which are going to have a significant impact on the mission potentially.
INSKEEP: Vali Nasr, what is that impact?
NASR: I think the greatest impact is probably in the political arena. Namely, the Taliban are poised to start reconciliation talks with the United States and the Karzai government. One major impact of this event is that Karzai's going to feel far less room in order to engage in this process. And also...
INSKEEP: President Hamid Karzai was giving some speech about conciliation as this news broke, wasn't he?
NASR: He was. And also the problem is that he will now feel compelled to ask the United States to actually shrink its footprint, to leave and to assume a much more of a distant position from the United States going into these talks.
On the other hand, the Taliban, within the Taliban, there's some disagreement as to whether or not they should engage in the reconciliation. The commanders on the ground are not happy. The base is not necessarily happy with this. First, you had the Quran burning episode. Now you have these killings.
And there's now increasing pressure on the Taliban commanders, how could you be sitting down with the United States, negotiating peace after what they have done. And I think that is where you're going to see probably the most impact between now and May when the administration was hoping to be able to announce program on the reconciliation talks.
MONTAGNE: You know, I'm wondering - and this I'd like to put to General Barno - I'm wondering if there's any mitigation here. I mean, this is an unusual - it's not - doesn't sound like a fog of war incident. It sounds very particularly like a crime has been committed, recognizably a crime. Is there any way in which the U.S. can somehow, you know, make it clear that there will be some sort of punishment? That this won't just pass unpunished.
BARNO: Well, I think that's already happening. I think the reactions of the United States and the Afghans both have been very quick after this incident occurred. We've had Secretary Panetta coming out on a trip to the region, talking about the likelihood that there's going to be, you know, should clearly bring justice to this case. And that, you know, the perpetrator will be prosecuted within the full extent of U.S. law.
But he also had to say that it won't affect the U.S. mission there. So I think that's the prevailing viewpoint on the United States' side right now. Remains to be seen how the Afghan government is going to react to that, as Vali noted.
INSKEEP: Rajiv, you were noticing that the response to this in Afghanistan has been a little bit less than with the Quran burnings, say, in which no one was killed.
CHANDRASEKARAN: Yes. At least in the first few days, the level of protests have been far lower over there than there have been in the immediate wake of that. And it poses an interesting question. Obviously, over at home here in the United States I think people's sense of revulsion at this act, the shooting, has been far greater.
And you're wondering why aren't we seeing that same sort of reaction in the streets of Kabul, for instance. And I think, you know, there're a number of reactions to this on the part of Afghans. But I think on one level they've become desensitized to 30 years of violence. This fits into a narrative for them of continued night raids. Even though this wasn't an authorized mission by any sense of the imagination, I think for many of them, they've become accustomed to news of Afghan civilians dying at the hands of American forces in the middle of the night. And I think what we often don't get back here is that respect for religion and honor, in some cases in a country that's been scarred by 30 years of war actually hits much closer to the heart than unfortunately killings.
INSKEEP: Human life is already cheap, is what you're saying and religion is something that's a little more intense. I think that the question has to be asked though. There have been a number of these incidents, politically damaging incidents in a row. Are people asking seriously if the U.S. presence in Afghanistan has begun to reach a point of diminishing returns?
CHANDRASEKARAN: Well, I think certainly at high levels of the Obama administration there is that very debate taking place, and whether the troop footprint is still too big, and whether the presence there is actually causing more trouble in certain places than it is helping.
But, you know, what this incident, you know, speaks to and a big worry from this, as well as with the Quran burnings, is that what the Obama administration wants to do is move the U.S. to a smaller posture that involves more training and advisory efforts. And, you know, it's just small, little Special Forces and conventional forces bases like this in Panjwai District that they're hoping is a model for more of that assistance. It's training efforts up in Kabul that were suspended in the wake of the Quran burning. And so, this speaks to those real challenges.
MONTAGNE: It might be worth just a moment devoted to explaining what this base was supposed to do. The sergeant was not necessarily part of what a Green Beret contingent. But it was supposed to be reaching out and effectively making friends with the local people.
BARNO: If I could jump in there. As I understand it, it's part of the Village Stability Operations program which is largely run by U.S. Army Special Forces or Green Berets, designed to raise local police forces to help secure communities there against the Taliban. And this sergeant, although not a Green Beret himself, was part of a security detachment, as I understand it that was part of this contingent that was doing this localized police training. This is a kind of a grassroots, bottom-up security force that's somewhat different from the Afghan National Police.
MONTAGNE: But the idea of this is the future or would be the future of the mission - these sorts of...
BARNO: Well, potentially these smaller missions absolutely are. And so, that's one of the more serious concerns as we look at this incident is can we continue to move forward? And I think we can, frankly, but that's going to a subject up for debate there with these smaller Special Forces-oriented mission. I think that is the future of the mission in Afghanistan.
INSKEEP: Vali Nasr, you get the last word here.
NASR: There's also larger issue here. That is that after 10 years of fighting, the United States is trying to wrap this thing up and the entire region is looking at the legacy of this war and how it's going to end. And we're reaching a point where there is bad news after bad news. And ultimately these events like this are going to be epitaph of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, and that's leaving a very bad taste in the region's mouth about this war.
INSKEEP: OK, thanks very much. Vali Nasr who's author of "The Rise of Islamic Capitalism," thanks to you. Rajiv Chandrasekaran is author the forthcoming book "Little America," about the Afghan War, thanks to you. And General David Barno, thank you for joining us, as well. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.


text:
Report: Nokia may sell company headquarters
Nokia doesn't plan on moving
Having just unveiled two new Windows Phone 8 handsets, the Lumia 920 and Lumia 820, in September, there was a hint of optimism in the air for Nokia.
Even CEO Stephen Elop seemed convinced Nokia's fortunes were about to change, and that soon Nokia would have a stake in the market share battle.
It would be tough to turn around any faltering company, let alone one that posted record losses of $1.73 billion (€1.4 billion EU, £1.1 billion UK, $1.7 million AU) during the second quarter of 2012.
That's more than four times what Nokia lost in the same time during fiscal 2011.
It seems the tough times have continued as Credit Suisse downgraded Nokia to "underperforming," and even suggested Nokia may want to sell off some assets.
If new reports are true, that's just what Nokia is planning to do.
Movin' out
A report from Finnish paper Helsingin Sanomat indicates Nokia may want to sell off its headquarters in Epsoo.
Nokia financial director Timo Ihamuotila spoke to the paper about the company's recent financial woes, even going so far as to divulge potential plans.
"We are exploring different options for our property assets. This includes a possible sale of our headquarters," Ihamuotila said.
Of course, just because Nokia sells off their HQ, that doesn't mean they have plans to actually vacate the premises.
Ihamuotila added Nokia has no plans to leave the head office, giving some credence to the idea Nokia may continue renting the space from the potential buyer.
The strategy is quite common in business when a failing company needs a quick influx of cash assets.
Is it enough?
Despite having several irons in the fire for the future, including planned Windows Phone 8 devices, and their ballyhooed Nokia Maps, Nokia may still have a tough time recouping losses.
Microsoft has claimed the HTC Windows Phone 8X as the "flagship device," even though Nokia has already going all-in on Windows Phone 8.
Nokia has continued to lose market share to both Android and iOS devices, both of which have shown continued growth over the same time period.
With so little of the market up for grabs, it will certainly be a tough battle ahead for Nokia if the company hopes to become profitable, and please investors once again.
TechRadar has reached out to Nokia, and will update this story if and when a request for comment is returned.
Via Phys.org
Get daily insight, inspiration and deals in your inbox
Get the hottest deals available in your inbox plus news, reviews, opinion, analysis and more from the TechRadar team.