text:
"When you speak a word against Westboro Baptist Church, you have spoken a word against the Lord Jesus Christ"
His Grace is accustomed to speaking out against those who presume to appropriate the infallible authority of God to their personal religio-political or institutional ecclesio-theological causes. But on pain of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, a number of words must be spoken against the Westboro Baptist Church (aka the 'God Hates Fags Church') and their vile video (removed by YouTube) which propagates the message that 'God Sent the Shooter' to murder 20 young children and six teachers in cold blood because of Connecticut's acceptance of same-sex marriage.
Apparently God has judged the sin of the United States of America, and chose to send retribution in the form of child-killing. Westboro Baptist Church is particularly concerned with sexual licentiousness and the growing acceptance of gay rights. They therefore intend to picket the funerals of these dead children, knowing that the pulpit will reach tens of millions.
This is abhorrent. Jesus promulgated a double-love commandment (Mk12:28-34) which served to demonstrate that the Jewish religious authorities stood condemned by the norms that they themselves professed. Love is the greatest commandment in the Torah, both of God (Deut 6:4f) and of neighbour (Lev 19:18). But the Torah was eclipsed by the coming of Jesus, and Christian discipleship is articulated in terms not only of love, but of taking up the cross and following the Son of God.
For sure, the Lord disciplines those he loves (Prov 3:12), but the confession of hope provokes a love which leads to a life of good deeds (Heb 10:23-25). The Christian life is to be one of patient endurance and suffering obedience: the church in Ephesus is scolded for lack of love (Rev 2:4f), and the exhortation is to repent and return to good works.
Jesus didn't picket Lazarus's funeral and shout abuse at the mourners about the idolatry of Israel or the sins of Adam: he wept. Westboro Baptist Church is not recognisably Christian, for there is no love, compassion, grace or forgiveness in their arid faith. The focus is perpetually on judgment, justice, punishment and revenge. It is the gospel of hate. They do not feed the poor, heal the sick or bind the broken hearted: they pour scorn over their plight, informing them, like Job's comforters, that they've brought it all on themselves.
In Connecticut Jesus is still weeping, suffering the little children who have come to him rather sooner than any might have wished. Here below are the remarks of President Obama at the Sandy Hook interfaith prayer vigil. Read it, and compare it with Westboro's approach, and ask yourself where on the preaching spectrum and mode of communication Jesus might stand:
Thank you. Thank you, Governor. To all the families, first responders, to the community of Newtown, clergy, guests – Scripture tells us: "…do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away…inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands."
We gather here in memory of twenty beautiful children and six remarkable adults. They lost their lives in a school that could have been any school; in a quiet town full of good and decent people that could be any town in America.
Here in Newtown, I come to offer the love and prayers of a nation. I am very mindful that mere words cannot match the depths of your sorrow, nor can they heal your wounded hearts. I can only hope it helps for you to know that you're not alone in your grief; that our world too has been torn apart; that all across this land of ours, we have wept with you, we've pulled our children tight. And you must know that whatever measure of comfort we can provide, we will provide; whatever portion of sadness that we can share with you to ease this heavy load, we will gladly bear it. Newtown – you are not alone.
As these difficult days have unfolded, you've also inspired us with stories of strength and resolve and sacrifice. We know that when danger arrived in the halls of Sandy Hook Elementary, the school's staff did not flinch, they did not hesitate. Dawn Hochsprung and Mary Sherlach, Vicki Soto, Lauren Rousseau, Rachel Davino and Anne Marie Murphy – they responded as we all hope we might respond in such terrifying circumstances – with courage and with love, giving their lives to protect the children in their care.
We know that there were other teachers who barricaded themselves inside classrooms, and kept steady through it all, and reassured their students by saying "wait for the good guys, they're coming"; "show me your smile."
And we know that good guys came. The first responders who raced to the scene, helping to guide those in harm's way to safety, and comfort those in need, holding at bay their own shock and trauma because they had a job to do, and others needed them more.
And then there were the scenes of the schoolchildren, helping one another, holding each other, dutifully following instructions in the way that young children sometimes do; one child even trying to encourage a grown-up by saying, "I know karate. So it's okay. I'll lead the way out."
As a community, you've inspired us, Newtown. In the face of indescribable violence, in the face of unconscionable evil, you've looked out for each other, and you've cared for one another, and you've loved one another.This is how Newtown will be remembered. And with time, and God's grace, that love will see you through.
But we, as a nation, we are left with some hard questions. Someone once described the joy and anxiety of parenthood as the equivalent of having your heart outside of your body all the time, walking around. With their very first cry, this most precious, vital part of ourselves – our child – is suddenly exposed to the world, to possible mishap or malice. And every parent knows there is nothing we will not do to shield our children from harm. And yet, we also know that with that child's very first step, and each step after that, they are separating from us; that we won't – that we can't always be there for them. They'll suffer sickness and setbacks and broken hearts and disappointments. And we learn that our most important job is to give them what they need to become self-reliant and capable and resilient, ready to face the world without fear.
And we know we can't do this by ourselves. It comes as a shock at a certain point where you realize, no matter how much you love these kids, you can't do it by yourself. That this job of keeping our children safe, and teaching them well, is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbors, the help of a community, and the help of a nation. And in that way, we come to realize that we bear a responsibility for every child because we're counting on everybody else to help look after ours; that we're all parents; that they're all our children.
This is our first task – caring for our children. It's our first job. If we don't get that right, we don't get anything right. That's how, as a society, we will be judged.
And by that measure, can we truly say, as a nation, that we are meeting our obligations? Can we honestly say that we're doing enough to keep our children – all of them – safe from harm? Can we claim, as a nation, that we're all together there, letting them know that they are loved, and teaching them to love in return? Can we say that we're truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose?
I've been reflecting on this the last few days, and if we're honest with ourselves, the answer is no. We're not doing enough. And we will have to change.
Since I've been President, this is the fourth time we have come together to comfort a grieving community torn apart by a mass shooting. The fourth time we've hugged survivors. The fourth time we've consoled the families of victims. And in between, there have been an endless series of deadly shootings across the country, almost daily reports of victims, many of them children, in small towns and big cities all across America – victims whose – much of the time, their only fault was being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
We can't tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change. We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law – no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.
But that can't be an excuse for inaction. Surely, we can do better than this. If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief that has visited Tucson, and Aurora, and Oak Creek, and Newtown, and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that – then surely we have an obligation to try.
In the coming weeks, I will use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens – from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators – in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this. Because what choice do we have? We can't accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?
All the world's religions – so many of them represented here today – start with a simple question: Why are we here? What gives our life meaning? What gives our acts purpose? We know our time on this Earth is fleeting. We know that we will each have our share of pleasure and pain; that even after we chase after some earthly goal, whether it's wealth or power or fame, or just simple comfort, we will, in some fashion, fall short of what we had hoped. We know that no matter how good our intentions, we will all stumble sometimes, in some way. We will make mistakes, we will experience hardships. And even when we're trying to do the right thing, we know that much of our time will be spent groping through the darkness, so often unable to discern God's heavenly plans.
There's only one thing we can be sure of, and that is the love that we have – for our children, for our families, for each other. The warmth of a small child's embrace – that is true. The memories we have of them, the joy that they bring, the wonder we see through their eyes, that fierce and boundless love we feel for them, a love that takes us out of ourselves, and binds us to something larger – we know that's what matters. We know we're always doing right when we're taking care of them, when we're teaching them well, when we're showing acts of kindness. We don't go wrong when we do that.
That's what we can be sure of. And that's what you, the people of Newtown, have reminded us. That's how you've inspired us. You remind us what matters. And that's what should drive us forward in everything we do, for as long as God sees fit to keep us on this Earth.
"Let the little children come to me," Jesus said, "and do not hinder them – for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."
Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.
God has called them all home. For those of us who remain, let us find the strength to carry on, and make our country worthy of their memory.
May God bless and keep those we've lost in His heavenly place. May He grace those we still have with His holy comfort. And may He bless and watch over this community, and the United States of America.


text:
While here in the Quartzsite area Man and I, along with MOC friends Coleen and Ray and Mina and Bob decided to take a day trip to Lake Havasu City Arizona to see "the London Bridge". I had heard comments about how "small" it was but, when I got there, I didn't really feel it was that small. I mean, there were 3 lanes of traffic on the bridge, and it seemed sorta long when we drove over it.
So, of course, when I got ready to chat about the bridge and share my photos, I just had to do some research first. (Facts gathered from Wikipedia.)
The London Bridge that now "resides" in Lake Havasu City, was designed by engineer John Rennie. The bridge was built by Rennie's son (of the same name). Work began in 1824 and the foundation stone was laid, in the southern cofferdam, on 15 June 1825.
Rennie's bridge had a length of 928 feet and a width of 49 feet. The graphic below is a stereopticon card photo from early 1890s, uploaded by Isis at en.wikipedia, found at Wikipedia.
Now, the Lake Havasu City London Bridge facts, from Wikipedia: After it was purchased by Robert P. McCulloch "the bridge facing stones were carefully disassembled and each piece was numbered. After the bridge was dismantled it was transported to Merrivale Quarry where 15 to 20 cm was sliced off many of the original stones. These were shipped to the bridge's present location and re-assembly began in 1968. The original stone was used to clad a concrete structure. The reconstruction took slightly over three years and was completed in late 1971." Lake Havasu City's bridge is 930 feet, long. It is 3 American traffic lanes wide.
A traffic lane in the USA is 11 to 12 foot wide, on the average, the bridge is 3 lanes wide, so it is approximately 36 feet of driving lanes. Plus there are sidewalks on both sides of the bridge. I have searched a lot of web pages and cannot seem to find the total current width of the Lake Havasu City London Bridge.
Comparing numbers, the bridge was 928 feet long in London, and is 2 feet longer in Lake Havasu City. The bride was 49 feet wide in London and appears to be about the same width, maybe even a little less wide.
Considering when the bridge was built, in the early to mid 1800's, I don't think the London Bridge of Lake Havasu City is all that small.
Here is Big Butt crossing the London Bridge:
A panoramic photo shows most of the 930 foot span:
A view under the bridge, beautiful Arizona mountains in the background. (Sorry, I don't know the name of the mountain.)
If you look at the 1890 image of the London Bridge, you will see light fixtures similar to this one:
We enjoyed our short visit to the London Bridge of Lake Havasu. Had a leisurely lunch under the bridge, several of us could not resist and had "fish and chips". The rest of us broke tradition and had salads and sandwiches.
The weather was delightful, had a great visit and fun meal with our friends, got to drive over the London Bridge, and I was pleasantly surprised, it was not small (at least not to me). This all made for a really nice day and more memories of THE Trip.
* Perhaps the best part of this day trip was the drive up and back, and, ya, I have photos, coming soon.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Contact details
Welcome to Franzini's at the very heart of everything that is happening in the historic town of Trim in County Meath, Ireland. The restaurant is beautifully situated on the banks of the majestic River Boyne and just beside the historic Trim Castle.
Read more
Want to know more? Ask a question in our Community, they're the people who know Ireland best.
For more information on travel, accommodation and attractions have a look at our brochures and maps.
If you're a visitor from the island of Ireland you may want to visit one of these sites… Otherwise proceed to Ireland.com
Ireland.com uses cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies from Ireland.com.


text:
The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir 156
An impassioned debate has been raging, particularly since about the summer of 2004, about the merits of Wikipedia and the future of free online encyclopedias. This discussion has not benefitted by much detailed, accurate consideration of the origins of Wikipedia and of its parent project, Nupedia. But it seems to me that those origins are very important -- crucial, even -- to forming a proper judgment of the current state and best future direction of free encyclopedias.
Wikipedia as it stands is a fantastic project; it has produced enormous amounts of content, thousands of excellent articles, and now, after just four years, is getting high-profile, international recognition as a new way of obtaining at least a rough and ready idea about very many topics. Its surprising success may be attributed, briefly, to its free, open, and collaborative nature.
This has been my attitude toward Wikipedia practically since its founding. But a few months ago I wrote an article critical of certain aspects of the Wikipedia project, 'Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism', which occasioned much debate. I have also been quoted, as co-founder of Wikipedia, in many recent news articles about the project, making various other critical remarks. I am afraid I am getting an undeserved reputation as someone who is opposed to everything Wikipedia stands for. This is completely incorrect. In fact, I am one of Wikipedia's strongest supporters. I am partly responsible for bringing it into the world (as I will explain), and I still love it and want only the best for it. But if a better job can be done, a better job should be done. Wikipedia has shown fantastic potential, and it is open content--and so if the project has problems (or features) which will keep it from being the maximally authoritative, broad, and deep reference that I believe could exist, I firmly believe that the world has the right to, and should, improve upon it.
Wikipedia's predecessor, which I was also employed to organize, was Nupedia. Nupedia was to be a highly reliable, peer-reviewed resource that fully appreciated and employed the efforts of subject area experts, as well as the general public. When the more free-wheeling Wikipedia took off, Nupedia was left to wither. It might appear to have died of its own weight and complexity. But, as I will explain, it could have been redesigned and adapted--it could have, as it were, "learned from its mistakes" and from Wikipedia's successes. Thousands of people who had signed up and who wanted to contribute to the Nupedia system were left disappointed. I believe this was unfortunate and unnecessary; I always wanted Nupedia and Wikipedia working together to be not only the world's largest but also the world's most reliable encyclopedia. I hope that this memoir will help to justify this stance. Hopefully, too, I will manage to persuade some people that collaboration between an expert project and a public project is the correct approach to the overall project of creating open content encyclopedias.
I am not writing to request that Nupedia be resuscitated now, as nice as that would be. But I would like to tell the story of Nupedia and the first couple years of Wikipedia, as I remember it. A more complete history of the projects, as opposed to a memoir, must await a careful study of the Nupedia and Wikipedia archives--if early archives of them still exist (I have no idea if they do)--or else these entries from the "Wayback Machine." Interviews with many of those heavily involved in the projects would also help a great deal, so long as interviews were done of people on different side of the disputes that helped to shape the project.
By the way, the "overall project of creating open content encyclopedias" is something of which I have been writing since at least 2001. For example, in July of 2001, while still working on both Wikipedia and Nupedia, I wrote, "if some other open source project proves to be more competitive, then it should and will take the lead in creating a body of free encyclopedic knowledge." Since Wikipedia is open content and hence may be reproduced and improved upon by anyone, I have always been cognizant that it might not end up being the only or best version. My personal devotion has always been to the ideal project as I have envisioned it, not necessarily to particular incarnations of Nupedia or Wikipedia; and I think this attitude is fully consistent with the (very positive) spirit of open source collaboration generally.
This being said, let me also emphasize strongly that, throughout this discussion, I am not suggesting that Wikipedia needs to be replaced with something better. I do, however, think that it needs to be supplemented by a broader, more ambitious, and more inclusive vision of the overall project.
Some recent press reports
The following memoir seems all the more important to publish now because the early history of Nupedia and Wikipedia has been mischaracterized in the press recently. If there were only a few inaccuracies, which made no difference, I would be happy to leave well enough alone. But some of the mischaracterizations I've seen do make a difference, because they give the public the impression that Nupedia failed because it was run by snobbish experts whose standards were too high. As the following should make clear, that is not quite correct. One might also gather from some reports that the idea for Wikipedia sprang fully grown from Jimmy Wales' head. Jimmy, of course, deserves enormous credit for investing in and guiding Wikipedia. But a more refined idea of how Wikipedia originated and evolved is crucial to have, if one wants to appreciate fully why it works now, and why it has the policies that it does have.
For example, in the Nov. 1, 2004 issue of Newsweek, in "It's Like a Blog, But It's a Wiki," reporter Brad Stone writes:
This capsule history is, of course, very brief and so should be expected not to have every relevant detail. But some of the claims made here are not just vague, they are actually misleading, and so several clarifications are in order (all of this is elaborated below):[Jimmy] Wales first tried to rewrite the rules of the reference-book business five years ago with a free online encyclopedia called Nupedia. Anyone could submit articles, but they were vetted in a seven-step review process. After investing thousands of his own dollars and publishing only 24 articles, Wales reconsidered. He scrapped the review process and began using a popular kind of online Web site called a "wiki," which allows its readers to change the content.
- The article makes it sound as if Jimmy were the only person making the relevant decisions. That is incorrect; the Nupedia system (indeed, seven steps) was established via negotiation with Nupedia's volunteer Advisory Board, mostly Ph.D. volunteers, who served as editors and peer reviewers. I articulated our decisions in Nupedia's "Editorial Policy Guidelines." Jimmy started and broadly authorized it all, but as to the details, he really had little to do with them.
- Nupedia's Advisory Board might be surprised to learn that Jimmy (alone!) "scrapped the review process." Jimmy was certainly disappointed with the process (as were many people), and he did not actively support it after 2001 or so. But in fairness to the people actually working on Nupedia, the fact is that work on Nupedia gradually petered out in 2001-2. I in particular was stretched thin--in 2001, I was both chief organizer of Wikipedia and editor-in-chief of Nupedia--and my own slowing work on Nupedia was obvious to all active Nupedia contributors. It might be better to say that Nupedia withered due to neglect--which was largely due to a lack of sufficient funds for paid organizers--which was as much due to the bursting of the Internet bubble as anything else.
- Also, to the best of my knowledge, the "thousands of his own dollars" invested in these projects were, if I am not very mistaken, the dollars of Bomis.com, which is jointly owned by three partners, Jimmy, Tim Shell, and Michael Davis. (The money for Wikipedia now comes from donations.) But again, Jimmy was the prime motivating force within Bomis.
- Moreover, Nupedia had fewer than 24 articles when Wikipedia launched, being not quite a year old at that time. The idea of adapting wiki technology to the task of building an encyclopedia was mine, and my main job in 2001 was managing and developing the community and the rules according to which Wikipedia was run. Jimmy's role, at first, was one of broad vision and oversight; this was the management style he preferred, at least as long as I was involved. But, again, credit goes to Jimmy alone for getting Bomis to invest in the project, and for providing broad oversight of the fantastic and world-changing project of an open content, collaboratively-built encyclopedia. Credit also of course goes to him for overseeing its development after I left, and guiding it to the success that it is today.
A March 2005 Wired Magazine article by Daniel Pink also got a number of things wrong, despite being, in other respects, an excellent article:
This too needs clarifications:With Sanger as editor in chief, Nupedia essentially replicated the One Best way model. He assembled a roster of academics to write articles. (Participants even had to fax in their degrees as proof of their expertise.) And he established a seven-stage process of editing, fact-checking, and peer review. "After 18 months and more than $250,000," Wales said, "we had 12 articles."
Then an employee told Wales about Wiki software. On January 15, 2001, they launched a Wiki-fied version and within a month, they had 200 articles. In a year, they had 18,000. ... Sanger left the project in 2002. "In the Nupedia mode, there was room for an editor in chief," Wales says. "The Wiki model is too distributed for that."
- The "roster of academics" (the aforementioned Nupedia Advisory Board) was not limited to academics; they were experts in their fields, in any case. Moreover, they were editors and peer reviewers; the general public was able to propose and write articles on subjects about which they had some knowledge. (Consult the old assignment policy if you are interested.)
- It is incorrect to say that participants had to fax their degrees as proof of their expertise; we did verify bona fides by matching the names and e-mail addresses of editors and reviewers with a web page--often, but not always, an academic web page. Indeed there was one (but only one) case that I recall in which I asked someone, who had no web page or any other easy way to prove who he was, to fax a degree. Verifying bona fides seemed like a good idea especially when initially building what was to be an academically-respectable project.
- Again, I did not establish the editorial process alone; I had considerable assistance (for which I am still grateful) from Nupedia's excellent Advisory Board.
- And as I wrote on July 25, 2001 for Kuro5hin, "Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias," Nupedia had "just over 20" articles--not 12--after 18 months. We always suspected that we would wind up scrapping our first attempts to design an editorial system, and that we would learn a great deal from those first attempts; and that's essentially what happened. But Nupedia could have evolved, and would have, had we continued working on it.
- The second paragraph begins, "Then an employee told Wales about Wiki software." I don't know how Jimmy first learned about wikis, but as I will explain below, I proposed to him and to the Nupedia community at large that we start a wiki-based encyclopedia.
- The context of the line "Sanger left the project in 2002"--particularly with Jimmy quoted as saying, "In the Nupedia mode there was room for an editor in chief"--makes it sound as if I were let go specifically because I was working only on Nupedia and that I was no longer needed for that. In fact, I was working on Wikipedia far more at the time than Nupedia, and the reason for my departure from both projects was that Bomis was, like virtually all dot-coms, losing money. They could not afford to pay me; I was told that I was the last of several newer Bomis employees to be laid off on account of the tech recession. But Wikipedia indeed was able to continue on without me, and I agreed even at the time that Wikipedia could survive without me, and that it had become essentially "unmanageable" (as I put it--the following memoir should make it clear what I meant by that).
I'm going to begin this memoir with several paragraphs about Nupedia, because the origin of Wikipedia cannot be explained except in that context. Moreover, the Nupedia project itself was very worthwhile, and I think it might have been able to survive, as I will explain. Finally, some errors regarding Nupedia have been passed around (a few examples are above), which are little better than unfounded rumors. It is unfortunate that the thousands of hours of excellent volunteer work done on Nupedia should be thus disrespected or grossly misunderstood. I personally will always be grateful to those initial contributors who believed in the project and our management, worked hard for a completely unproven idea, and laid the groundwork for the growing institution of open content projects.
In 1999, Jimmy Wales wanted to start a free, collaborative encyclopedia. I knew him from several mailing lists back in the mid-90s, and in fact we had already met in person a couple of times. In January 2000, I e-mailed Jimmy and several other Internet acquaintances to get feedback on an idea for what was to be, essentially, a blog. (It was to be a successor to "Sanger and Shannon's Review of Y2K News Reports," a Y2K news summary that I first wrote and then edited.) To my great surprise, Jimmy replied to my e-mail describing his idea of a free encyclopedia, and asking if I might be interested in leading the project. He was specifically interested in finding a philosopher to lead the project, he said. He made it a condition of my employment that I would finish my Ph.D. quickly (whereupon I would get a raise)--which I did, in June 2000. I am still grateful for the extra incentive. I thought he would be a great boss, and indeed he was.
To be clear, the idea of an open source, collaborative encyclopedia, open to contribution by ordinary people, was entirely JimmyÃââs, not mine, and the funding was entirely by Bomis. I was merely a grateful employee; I thought I was very lucky to have a job like that land in my lap. Of course, other people had had the idea; but it was Jimmy's fantastic foresight actually to invest in it. For this the world owes him a considerable debt. The actual development of this encyclopedia was the task he gave me to work on.
So I arrived in San Diego in early February, 2000, to get to work. One of the first things I asked Jimmy is how free a rein I had in designing the project. What were my constraints, and in what areas was I free to exercise my own creativity? He replied, as I clearly recall, that most of the decisions should be mine; and in most respects, as a manager, Jimmy was indeed very hands-off. Nevertheless, I always did consult with him about important decisions, and moreover, I wanted his advice. Now, Jimmy was quite clear that he wanted the project to be in principle open to everyone to develop, just as open source software is (to an extent). Beyond this, however, I believe I was given a pretty free rein. So I spent the first month or so thinking very broadly about different possibilities. I wrote quite a bit (that writing is now all lost--that will teach me not to back up my hard drives) and discussed quite a bit with both Jimmy and one of the other Bomis partners, Tim Shell.
I maintained from the start that something really could not be a credible encyclopedia without oversight by experts. I reasoned that, if the project is open to all, it would require both management by experts and an unusually rigorous process. I now think I was right about the former requirement, but wrong about the latter, which was redundant; I think that the subsequent development of Wikipedia has borne out this assessment. But I fully realize that all of this is a matter of debate. Some will claim that the experience of Wikipedia refuted my original judgment that expert oversight is necessary for a very credible encyclopedia; but I disagree with them. More on this below.
Also, I am fairly sure that one of the first policies that Jimmy and I agreed upon was a "nonbias" or neutrality policy. I know I was extremely insistent upon it from the beginning, because neutrality has been a hobby-horse of mine for a very long time, and one of my guiding principles in writing "Sanger's Review." Neutrality, we agreed, required that articles should not represent any one point of view on controversial subjects, but instead fairly represent all sides. We also agreed in rejecting an alternative that (for a time) Tim and some early Nupedians plugged for: the development, for each encyclopedia topic, of a series of different articles, each written from a different point of view.
I believed, moreover, that a strongly collaborative and open project could not survive if its contributors were not "personally invested" in the project, and that this required some input and management by its users. So I think it was very early on that I decided that Nupedia should have an Advisory Board--editors, and peer reviewers, who would together agree to project policy--and that the public should have a say in the formulation of policy.
An early incarnation of NupediaÃââs Advisory Board was in place by summer of 2000 or so. It was made up of the project's highly-qualified editors and reviewers, mostly Ph.D. professors but also a good many other highly-experienced professionals. Eventually the Advisory Board agreed to an extremely rigorous seven-step system. A lot of the details of the Nupedia policy and processes were, I think, proposed by me, but then tweaked and elaborated by others, and the policy was not published as project policy until we had a quorum of editors and peer reviewers who could fully discuss and approve of a policy statement. But I do not think that we discussed the proposal well enough, and further initial discussion could have made a difference, because, as it turned out, a clear mistake of mine and others was to assume that such a complicated system would be navigated patiently by many volunteers, even if they had clear-enough instructions. That is a mistake I doubt anyone designing volunteer content creation systems will make again; I certainly would not make it again.
I spent a huge amount of time recruiting people for Nupedia, e-mailing new arrivals, posting to mailing lists, giving interviews, etc. I had had some experience publicizing Internet projects when I worked on several philosophy discussion groups as a grad student in the 1990s (I had perpetrated an "Association for Systematic Philosophy" as well as a "Tutorial Manifesto"), and I knew that getting many willing and active participants was difficult but important. I even had an administrative assistant for six months in 2000 and 2001, Liz Campeau, whose sole job was to recruit people to work on Nupedia and then Wikipedia. I think a large part of the reason Wikipedia got off the ground so quickly and so well is that it was started by Nupedians, who were then a very large base of people who wanted to work on an encyclopedia, and who had many definite ideas about how it should be done. Maybe 2,000 Nupedia members were subscribed to the general announcement list in January of 2001, when Wikipedia launched--I forget how many but an old project news page indicates that 2,000 is about right.
We operated the system initially using e-mail and mailing lists, while planning and finalizing process details. That lasted from spring through fall 2000. I think our first article ("atonality" by Christoph Hust), that made it entirely through the system, was published in June or July of 2000. To move the system to a completely web-based one, there was, of course, a great deal of design and programming to do. So in fall of 2000 I worked a lot with a specifically-hired programmer (Toan Vo) and the Bomis sysadmin (Jason Richey) to transfer the system from a clunky mailing list system to the web. But by the time the web-based system was ready--I think December of 2000, just a month before Wikipedia got started--it had become obvious to Jimmy and me that the seven-step editorial process would move too slowly, even when managed on the web. But Magnus Manske later, in 2001, made some very nice additions to the Nupedia system.
Some institutional traditions begin easily but die hard. So, in 2001, it was only after many months and uncomfortable comparison of Nupedia with the thriving, younger Wikipedia, that Nupedia's Advisory Board was willing to consider a simpler system seriously. That was because Nupedia editors and peer reviewers had a very strong commitment to rigor and reliability, as did I. Moreover, as Wikipedia became increasingly successful in 2001, Jimmy asked me to spend more and more time on it, which I did; Nupedia suffered from neglect. But by the summer of 2001, I was able to propose, get accepted (with very lukewarm support), and install something we called the Nupedia Chalkboard, a wiki which was to be closely managed by Nupedia's staff. It was to be both a simpler way to develop encyclopedia articles for Nupedia, and a way to import articles from Wikipedia. No doubt due to lingering disdain for the wiki idea--which at the time was still very much unproven--the Chalkboard went largely unused. The general public simply used Wikipedia if they wanted to write articles in a wiki format, while perhaps most Nupedia editors and peer reviewers were not persuaded that the Chalkboard was necessary or useful.
By early winter, 2001, Nupedia had published approved versions of only about 25 articles, although there were many more (I vaguely recall over 150 drafts) at various stages in process. I was finally able to persuade the Advisory Board to move the system to a much simpler two-step process, virtually identical to that used to run many academic journals: articles would be submitted to an editor; the editor would, if the article seemed good enough, forward it to a reviewer for acceptance or rejection; if accepted, the article would be posted. We also were thinking of various ways of allowing public comment on or moderated editing of posted articles. I believe this new, simpler system would have produced thousands of articles for Nupedia very quickly. The general public on Nupedia was certainly interested and motivated, and I think it was finally becoming generally accepted by the Advisory Board that the complexity of the system was the main reason that they were not starting articles and getting them through the system.
But, unfortunately, Nupedia's new system was never adopted when it should have been--the winter of 2001-2--because at the same time, Wikipedia was demanding as much attention as I could give it, and I had little time to implement the new Nupedia system. I am quite sure we could have started the new Nupedia system in early 2002, if we had made the time. But Bomis lost the ability to pay me and, newly unemployed, I did not have the time to lead Nupedia as a volunteer. I did not entirely lose hope on Nupedia, however, as I will explain below.
The origins of Wikipedia
In the fall of 2000, Jimmy and I were very well agreed that Nupedia's slow productivity was probably going to be an ongoing problem and that there needed to be a way, moreover, in which ordinary, uncredentialed people could participate more easily. Uncredentialed people could (and did) participate in Nupedia, particularly as writers and copyeditors, but it was pretty painful for most of them to get articles through the elaborate system. So there seemed to be a huge fund of talent, motivated to work on an encyclopedia but not motivated enough to work on Nupedia, going to waste.
It was my job to solve these problems. I wrote multiple detailed proposals for a simpler, more open editing system--two or three, at least--and I ran them by Jimmy, and I think his reply to all of them was that it would require too much programming and he couldn't afford to pay more high-priced programmers (they were very high-priced at the time, you will recall, and we already had Toan and Jason working quite a bit on Nupedia's new web-based system). Now, of course, I fully realize that we could have found a way to enlist volunteers to develop the system. Jimmy and I both probably knew that at the time; I'm not sure why we didn't pursue it.
So it was while I was thinking hard about how to create a more open system, that would require minimal programming to set up, that I had dinner with an old Internet friend of mine, Ben Kovitz. Ben had moved to town for a new job and we were out at a Pacific Beach Mexican restaurant on January 2, 2001, talking about jobs, techie stuff, and philosophy, no doubt. (Ben, Jimmy, and I were all active on those philosophy mailing lists in the mid-90s and we all knew each other.) So Ben explained the idea of Ward Cunningham's WikiWikiWeb to me. Instantly I was considering whether wiki would work as a more open and simple editorial system for a free, collaborative encyclopedia, and it seemed exactly right. And the more I thought about it, without even having seen a wiki, the more it seemed obviously right. So I'm sure it was that very evening or the following morning that I wrote a proposal--unfortunately, lost now--in which I said that this might solve the problem and that we ought to try it. After he had nixed my several earlier proposals, and given that setting up a wiki would be very simple and require hiring no programmer, Jimmy could scarcely refuse. I vaguely recall that he liked the idea but was initially skeptical--properly so, as I was, despite my excitement.
Wiki advocates often used to point out (and I'm sure some still do) that Wikipedia is nonstandard as a wiki. This is partly because we began just with the very basic wiki concept and not so much of the culture. Wiki culture is very distinctive. I cannot hope to explain even the highlights briefly, so I will not try; I will simply give a few notions. Wiki pages can be started and edited by anyone, but, in "Thread Mode" (as in "the thread of this discussion") the dialogue can become complex. In that case, or when consensus is reached, or when positions have hardened, it is considered a good idea to "refactor" pages (a term borrowed from programming), i.e., to rewrite them, but honestly, taking into account the highlights of the dialogue. Then the dialogue might be represented as in "Document Mode." Opinions are very welcome on a typical wiki. There are many other collective habits that make up typical wiki culture; these are only a few.
But I denied the necessity of organizing Wikipedia according to these precise principles. To be sure, a few other participants wanted Wikipedia to adopt wiki culture wholesale, so that it would be "just another wiki," and they had some small influence over the direction of the project; but speaking for myself, I viewed wiki software as simply a tool, a way to organize people who want to collaborate. I saw no necessity whatsoever of partaking in all aspects of the idiosyncratic culture that happened to be associated with the advent of this very generally-applicable tool, since we were engaged in a very specific sort of project, with very specific requirements. This caused some consternation among some wiki advocates, who appeared to think that Wikipedia should, or inevitably would, become just another wiki, somehow necessarily partaking of typical wiki culture. Ward Cunningham's prediction, when Jimmy asked him whether wiki software "could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia," was: "Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki." As I said in reply: "Wikipedia has a totally different culture from this wiki, because it's pretty singlemindedly aimed at creating an encyclopedia. It's already rather useful as an encyclopedia, and we expect it will only get better."
Typical wiki culture aside, wiki software does encourage, but does not strictly require, extreme openness and de-centralization: openness, since (as the software is typically designed) page changes are logged and publicly viewable, and (again, only typically) pages may be further changed by anyone; de-centralization, because in order for work to be done, there is no need for a person or body to assign work, but rather, work can proceed as and when people want to do it. Wiki software also discourages (or at least does not facilitate) the exercise of authority, since work proceeds at will on any page, and on any large, active wiki it would be too much work for any single overseer or limited group of overseers to keep up. These all became features of Wikipedia.
My initial idea was that the wiki would be set up as part of Nupedia; it was to be a way for the public to develop a stream of content that could be fed into the Nupedia process. I think I got some of the basic pages written--how wikis work, what our general plan was, and so forth--over the next few days. I wrote a general proposal for the Nupedia community, and the Nupedia wiki went live January 10. The first encyclopedia articles for what was to become Wikipedia were written then. It turned out, however, that a clear majority of the Nupedia Advisory Board wanted to have nothing to do with a wiki. Again, their commitment was to rigor and reliability, a concern I shared with them and continue to have. Still, perhaps some of those people are kicking themselves now. They (some of them) evidently thought that a wiki could not resemble an encyclopedia at all, that it would be too informal and unstructured, as the original WikiWikiWeb was (and is), to be associated with Nupedia. They of course were perfectly reasonable to doubt that it would turn into the fantastic source of content that it did. Who could reasonably guess that it would work? But it did work, and now the world knows better.
Wikipedia's first few months
So we decided to relaunch the wiki under its own domain name. I came up with the name "Wikipedia," a silly name for what was at first a very silly project, and the newly independent project was launched at Wikipedia.com on January 15, 2001. It was a ".com" at first because, at the time, we were contemplating selling ads to pay for me, programmers, and servers. It was easy to deprecate ".com" in favor of ".org" in 2002, after Jimmy was able to assure users that Wikipedia would never (at least I think he said, or clearly implied, "never") run ads to support the project.
I took it to be one of my main jobs to promote Wikipedia, and this resulted in a steady influx of new participants. I wrote on the Wikipedia announcement page January 24, "Wikipedia has definitely taken [on] a life of its own; new people are arriving every day and the project seems to be getting only more popular. Long live Wikipedia!" By the end of January we reportedly and approximately had 600 articles; there were 1300 in March, 2300 in April, and 3900 in May. Not only was the project growing steadily, the rate of growth was increasing.
Wikipedia started with a handful of people, many from Nupedia. The influence of Nupedians was, I think, pretty important early on; I think, especially, of the tireless Magnus Manske (who worked on the software for both projects), our resident stickler Ruth Ifcher, and the very smart poker-playing programmer Lee Daniel Crocker--to name a few. All of these people, and several other Nupedia borrowings, had a good understanding of the requirements of good encyclopedia articles, and they were good writers and very smart. The direction that Wikipedia ought to go in was pretty obvious to myself and them, in terms of what sort of content we wanted. But what we did not have worked out in advance was how the community should be organized, and (not surprisingly) that turned out to be the thorniest problem. But the facts that the project started with these good people, and that we were able to adopt, explain, and promote good habits and policies to newer people, partly accounts for why the project was able to develop a robust, functional community and eventually to succeed. As to project leadership or management, we began with me, Jimmy, and Tim Shell; but Tim stopped participating so much after the first few months.
But the many rank-and-file users did the heavy lifting, and if there had not been a reasonable consensus among them about what the project should look like, it just wouldn't have happened. In any collaborative project, it is the contributors who are responsible for the outcome. Those early adopters should feel proud of themselves, because they were absolutely instrumental in shaping a thing of beauty and usefulness.
I recall saying casually, but repeatedly, in the project's first nine months or so, that experts and specialists should be given some particular respect when writing in their areas of expertise. They should be deferred to, I thought, unless there were some clear evidence of bias. (I recall an interesting discussion with a Polish scientist, Piotr Wozniak, about this issue when we came to a small disagreement about the "sleep" article.) So, in those first months, deference to expertise was a policy that at least I usually insisted upon, but not strongly or clearly enough. It was nearly a year after the project began that I finally articulated this view reasonably clearly as a policy to consider. Perhaps this was because, indeed, most users did make a practice of deferring to experts up to that time. "This is just common sense," as I wrote, "but sometimes common sense needs to be spelled out!" What I now think is that that point of common sense needed to be spelled out quite a bit sooner and more forcefully, because in the long run, it was not adopted as official project policy, as it could have been.
Some questions have been raised about the origin of Wikipedia policies. The tale is interesting and instructive, and one of the main themes of this memoir. We began with no (or few) policies in particular and said that the community would determine--through a sort of vague consensus, based on its experience working together--what the policies would be. The very first entry on a "rules to consider" page was the "Ignore All Rules" rule (to wit: "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business"). This is a "rule" that, current Wikipedians might be surprised to learn, I personally proposed. The reason was that I thought we needed experience with how wikis should work, and even more importantly at that point we needed participants more than we needed rules. As the project grew and the requirements of its success became increasingly obvious, I became ambivalent about this particular "rule" and then rejected it altogether. As one participant later commented, "this rule is the essence of Wikipedia." That was certainly never my view; I always thought of the rule as being a temporary and humorous injunction to participants to add content rather than be distracted by (then) relatively inconsequential issues about how exactly articles should be formatted, etc. In a similar spirit, I proposed that contributors be bold in updating pages (the current version is much expanded, as it should be).
I also, for similar reasons, specifically disavowed any title; I was organizing the project but I did not want to present myself as editor-in-chief. I wanted people to feel comfortable adding information without having to consult anything like an editor. Participation was more important, I felt. (Others referred to me, later, as Wikipedia's editor.)
As we set it up, Wikipedia did have some minimal wiki cultural features: it was wide open, extremely decentralized, and (provisionally anyway) featured very little attempt to exercise authority. Insofar as I was able to organize it at all, I guided the project through force of personality and what "moral authority" I had as co-founder of the project. Jimmy and I agreed early on that, at least in the beginning, we should not eject anyone from the project except perhaps in the most extreme cases. Our first forcible expulsion (which Jimmy performed) did not occur for many months, despite the presence of difficult characters from nearly the beginning of the project. Again, we were learning: we wished to tolerate all sorts of contributors in order to be well-situated to adopt the wisest policies. But--and in hindsight this should have seemed perfectly predictable--this provisional "hands off" management policy had the effect of creating a difficult-to-change tradition, the tradition of making the project extremely tolerant of disruptive (uncooperative, "trolling") behavior. And as it turned out, particularly with the large waves of new contributors from the summer and fall of 2001, the project became very resistant to any changes in this policy. I suspect that the cultures of online communities generally are established pretty quickly and then very resistant to change, because they are self-selecting; that was certainly the case with Wikipedia, anyway.
So I could only attempt to shame any troublemakers into compliance; without recourse to any genuine punitive action, that was the most I could do. In about the first eight months of the project, this was usually sufficient for me to do my job. After that, however, my job got increasingly difficult, as I will explain.
So Wikipedia began as a good-natured anarchy, a sort of Rousseauian state of digital nature. I always took Wikipedia's anarchy to be provisional and purely for purposes of determining what the best rules, and the nature of its authority, should be. What I, and other Wikipedians, failed to realize is that our initial anarchy would be taken by the next wave of contributors as the very essence of the project--how Wikipedia was "meant" to be--even though Wikipedia could have become anything we the contributors chose to make it.
This point bears some emphasis: Wikipedia became what it is today because, having been seeded with great people with a fairly clear idea of what they wanted to achieve, we proceeded to make a series of free decisions that determined the policy of the project and culture of its supporting community. Wikipedia's system is neither the only way to run a wiki, nor the only way to run an open content encyclopedia. Its particular conjunction of policies is in no way natural, "organic," or necessary. It is instead artificial, a result of a series of free choices, and we could have chosen differently in many cases; and choosing differently on some issues might have led to a project better than the one that exists today.
Though it began as an anarchy, there were quite a few policies that were settled upon, more or less, within the first six months or so. This required some struggle, especially on my part, particularly because, since the project was a wiki, some participants thought that there should be no rules at all. (Enforceable rules were regarded as "anti-wiki," which was supposed to be a bad thing.) But it was made clear from the beginning that we intended Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia, and so we were able to plug for at least those rules that would help define and sustain the project as an encyclopedia.
For instance, throughout the early months, people added various content that seemed less than encyclopedic in various ways. Many people seemed to confuse encyclopedia articles with dictionary entries, and eventually I wrote a page called "Wikipedia is not a dictionary." (I am surprised to discover that this page still exists as of this writing, with a good deal of its original content.) As people found new ways not to write encyclopedia articles, I started "What Wikipedia is not": I and others would note on an article's discussion page that some certain content did not belong in an encyclopedia, and then underscored the point by adding an entry to the "What Wikipedia is not" page. To take another example, Wikipedia was not to be a place for publishing original research. In fact, this is a policy that had been settled upon and even enforced in Nupedia days; enforcing it actually led to the departure of Nupedia's erstwhile Classics editor sometime in 2001.
Many of our first controversies were over these restrictions. At the time, I had enough influence within the community to get these policies generally accepted. And if we had not decided on these restrictions, Wikipedia might well have ended up, like many wikis, as nothing in particular. But since we insisted that it was an encyclopedia, even though it was just a blank wiki and a group of people to begin with, it became an encyclopedia. There is something very profound about that. I also like to think that we helped to show the world the potential that wikis have.
Another policy that was instituted early on was the nonbias or neutrality policy. This was borrowed from the Nupedia project and made a Rule to Consider--in a very early version, the policy was put this way:
Avoid bias: Since this is an encyclopedia, after a fashion, it would be best if you represented your controversial views either (1) not at all, (2) on *Debate, *Talk, or *Discussion pages linked from the bottom of the page that you're tempted to grace, or (3) represented in a fact-stating fashion, i.e., which attributes a particular opinion to a particular person or group, rather than asserting the opinion as fact. (3) is strongly preferred.
Jimmy then started a specialized policy page he called "Neutral Point of View" (here is the current version). I confess I don't much like this name as a name for the policy, because it implies that to write neutrally, or without bias, is actually to express a point of view, and, as the definite article is used, a single point of view at that. "Neutrality", "neutral", and "neutrally" are better to use for the noun, adjective, and adverb. But the acronym "NPOV" came to be used for all three, by Wikipedians wanting to seem hip, and then the unfortunate "POV" came to be used when the perfectly good English word "biased" would do.
In addition to these, I recall suggesting a number of other rules--no doubt most matters of historical fact, along these lines, can be verified in archives. I believe I am responsible for the original formulations of a lot of the article naming conventions, as well as the conventions of bolding the title of the article, starting articles with full sentences, making article titles uncapitalized, and much else. I think these policies were just a matter of common sense for anyone who understood what a good encyclopedia should be like. And of course I was not the only person proposing conventions. Moreover, actual project policy, or community habits, succeeded in being established only by being followed and supported by a majority of participants. It was then, we said, that there was a "rough consensus" in favor of the policy. And consensus, we said, is required for a policy actually to be considered project policy. For our purposes, a "consensus" appeared to consist of (1) widespread common practice, (2) many vocal defenders, and (3) virtually no detractors.
But that way of settling upon policy proposals--viz., by alleged consensus--did not scale, in my opinion. After about nine months or so, there were so many contributors, and especially brand new contributors, that nothing like a consensus could be reached, for the simple reason that condition (3) above was never achievable: there would after that always be somebody who insisted on expressing disagreement. There was, then, a non-scaling policy adoption procedure, and a crying need to continue to adopt sensible policies. This led to some pretty serious problems in the community, which I will relate below. But first, something more positive.
It's a cliff-hanger; you'll have to wait until tomorrow to read about what made Wikipedia start to work.


text:
The Slants went to court after being denied trademark registration for a name they chose as an act of "reappropriation" — adopting a term used by others to disparage Asian Americans and wearing it as a badge of pride.
After losing in a lower court, the band won at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which ruled 9-3 last year that "the First Amendment protects even hurtful speech." The Obama administration then appealed to the Supreme Court.
During oral argument in January, several justices said provocative names are chosen by individuals and organizations to express their views or as advertising. Denying trademark registration, they said, was a form of viewpoint discrimination.The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal trademarks can be registered in most cases even if they are considered derogatory.
The decision was a victory for an Asian American dance rock band dubbed The Slants -- and, in all likelihood, for the Washington Redskins, whose trademarks were cancelled in 2014 following complaints from Native Americans.
While defending the First Amendment's freedom of speech protection, the justices did not remove all discretion from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. But they raised the bar for trademark denials so that names deemed to be offensive but not hateful can survive.
The nation's capital has been captivated for years with the battle over the Redskins' name, but the high court had left the football team's case pending at a federal appeals court in order to hear the challenge brought by band leader Simon Tam and his Portland, Oregon-based foursome.
But some justices also wondered whether the government should retain wiggle room, particularly since even without being registered, groups such as The Slants can advertise and sign contracts.
The Supreme Court has upheld negative speech in recent years, even when it involved distasteful protests at military funerals or disgusting "animal crush" videos. But last year, it allowed Texas to ban specialty license plates featuring the Confederate flag because it was considered a form of government speech.
The Slants won support during their court fight from both liberal and conservative groups, ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.


text:
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Treasury prices turned up in midday trading Thursday following reports of rocket attacks on Tel Aviv, Israel, from the Gaza strip. While it's unclear where the missiles landed, the escalation of attacks from both sides and "rumors of such have moved bonds higher and stocks lower," said Andrew Brenner, head of international fixed income at National Alliance Securities. Yields on 10-year notes TMUBMUSD10Y, -0.06% which move inversely to prices, turned down 2 basis points to 1.58%.
Treasurys turn up on reports Tel Aviv hit
Quote References
+0.00 -0.06%


text: CDD> News> New Hubway Station at 6th and Binney New Hubway Station at 6th and Binney 8/13/2013 Biogen Idec Welcomes a New Hubway Station at 6th and Binney Biogen Idec is thrilled to welcome a new Hubway Station to its Cambridge campus, located in the heart of Kendall Square. The Company believes the bicycle sharing system not only supports commuters in a healthy and sustainable manner, but also provides a convenient alternative for employees who wish to travel throughout the city during the day. With a station located right on campus, employees can grab a bike in the middle of the day to run a quick errand, attend an appointment, or just take a healthy break. Employees have anxiously awaited the station's arrival and are eager to take advantage of Hubway! For More Information For more information on Hubway, visit www.thehubway.com. For more information on the bike share program in the City of Cambridge, contact Cara Seiderman at email@example.com or 617/347-5629.


text:
Researchers set one test group playing first-person shooters Unreal Tournament 2004 and Call of Duty 2, and the other The Sims 2. After 50 hours over 9 weeks, FPS players were found to have a 43% improvement in their contrast sensitivity--the ability to spot slight differences in shades of grey--while Sims 2 players saw none.
"If you are driving at dusk with light fog it could make the difference between seeing the car in front of you or not seeing it," explained study leader Daphne Bevelier. After six months of gaming, a 58% improvement was seen over non-gamers.
Improving contrast sensitivity--a crucial factor in how well we see--was thought to take glasses or surgery. Previous research by Bevelier into video games' ocular benefits discovered they can improve our ability to see objects accurately in a cluttered space.


text:
I have some human epithelial cancer cell lines that tend to clump after trypsinization. The clumps are usually made up of 4-8 cells and this makes the counting difficult and determining how many cells to seed even more confusing. To trypsinize my cells, I wash my cells once with 1X PBS, add trypsin then place at 37 for 5-10 minutes. The cells start to release in clumps without tapping. I add complete media to mix and break up the cells as much as possible. During cell counting, a majority of these cells are in clumps in the hemocytometer.
Should I try to count all the cells in the clump as individual cells or treat the clump as one cell? I.e. clump of 4 cells as one cell or clump of 4 cells as 4 cells? When I seed the cells, the clump will settle as one cell which is why I thought maybe counting the clump of 4 cells as one cell.
Are some cells just prone to clumping? I have a couple a few lines that do this and the rest do not.
Any method or technique to overcome clumping? Reagent to use, needle and syringe break up clumps, different method of trypsinization? Please help!


text:
By Brendan Conway
Fidelity Investments said this week's it's closing Fidelity Small Cap Value (FCPVX) to new investors effective March 1.
The $3.5 billion fund rose 8% in January versus the Morningstar small value category's 6.3%. Its five-year return is 10.4%. The company cited inflows in a release announcing the decision.
Another factor that Morningstar cites: The closure of lead manager Chuck Myers' other fund, Fidelity Small Cap Discovery (FSCRX). "It's encouraging that Fidelity has decided to close the fund at this point rather than expecting the addition of [co-manager Derek] Janssen alone to stave off asset bloat," Morningstar' analysts opine.


text: /* -*- Mode: C++; tab-width: 2; indent-tabs-mode: nil; c-basic-offset: 2 -*- */ /* vim:expandtab:shiftwidth=2:tabstop=2: */ /* ***** BEGIN LICENSE BLOCK ***** * Version: MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1 * * The contents of this file are subject to the Mozilla Public License Version * 1.1 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at * http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/ * * Software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" basis, * WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License * for the specific language governing rights and limitations under the * License. * * The Original Code is mozilla.org code. * * The Initial Developer of the Original Code is * Mozilla Foundation. * Portions created by the Initial Developer are Copyright (C) 2007 * the Initial Developer. All Rights Reserved. * * Contributor(s): * Alexander Surkov <firstname.lastname@example.com> (original author) * * Alternatively, the contents of this file may be used under the terms of * either the GNU General Public License Version 2 or later (the "GPL"), or * the GNU Lesser General Public License Version 2.1 or later (the "LGPL"), * in which case the provisions of the GPL or the LGPL are applicable instead * of those above. If you wish to allow use of your version of this file only * under the terms of either the GPL or the LGPL, and not to allow others to * use your version of this file under the terms of the MPL, indicate your * decision by deleting the provisions above and replace them with the notice * and other provisions required by the GPL or the LGPL. If you do not delete * the provisions above, a recipient may use your version of this file under * the terms of any one of the MPL, the GPL or the LGPL. * * ***** END LICENSE BLOCK ***** */ #ifndef _ACCESSIBLE_COMPONENt_H #define _ACCESSIBLE_COMPONENT_H #include "nsISupports.h" #include "AccessibleComponent.h" class CAccessibleComponent: public nsISupports, public IAccessibleComponent { public: // IUnknown STDMETHODIMP QueryInterface(REFIID, void**); // IAccessibleComponent virtual /* [propget] */ HRESULT STDMETHODCALLTYPE get_locationInParent( /* [out] */ long *x, /* [retval][out] */ long *y); virtual /* [propget] */ HRESULT STDMETHODCALLTYPE get_foreground( /* [retval][out] */ IA2Color *foreground); virtual /* [propget] */ HRESULT STDMETHODCALLTYPE get_background( /* [retval][out] */ IA2Color *background); protected: /** * Return ARGB value for CSS property like 'color' or 'background-color'. */ HRESULT GetARGBValueFromCSSProperty(const nsAString& aPropName, IA2Color *aColorValue); }; #endif


text:
The Eau Claire Regis Ramblers are off to a 2-3 start overall but last Saturday they showed the teams potential with a 44-41 win over the then previously unbeaten Colfax.
The team has suffered the side effects of not having some of the players that were on the state runner-up football team early on but they are starting to hit their stride now.
"It's two different sports," says senior Chris Pica-Anderson. "One you get breaks every 6 seconds, basketball is more of a stop and go. So it was a hard transition and I think that we missed 9 practices, so that really hurt us."
"Coming off of a successful football, I think can help us once we get into the basketball mode again," adds senior, Nick Stanke. "I think that success will eventually help us once we get later into the season and deeper into the playoffs.
"I think when teams beat us we had some lapses and so I think as the year goes on for us to be one of the teams to be reckoned with, we have to play a lot better team defense," says coach Bill Uelmen.
The lady Ramblers are are off to a 3-1 start this season, coming off a win over Cadott on Tuesday. They are 2-0 in Cloverbelt play. Expectations are very high for this years team after back to back state tournament appearances. The senior leaders are taking it upon themselves to help mentor the younger players, and want to make another trip to Madison this season.
"We have four upperclassman that came in and basically became leaders overnight," says coach Cody Rumpel. "The loss at state last year kind of left a little bit of a bad taste in all of our mouths. the people that we do have coming back from that team are looking forward to try and make another run this season."
"Ive learned that we have to be senior leaders, on the floor, especially with this new group of freshman on our team," says senior Rachel Liming. "So we have to take control and teach them how to play."
"They all came in ready to learn and they were excited, adds senior Courtney Tuura. "They knew what was at stake and they knew the legacy we had the past couple of years."


text:
GRAETTINGER A Mass of Christian Burial will be held at 2 p.m. Wednesday, Aug. 22, 2012, at the Immaculate Conception Catholic Church in Graettinger for Evelyn V. Petersen, 85, of Estherville. Inurnment will be in St. Jacob's Cemetery, Graettinger.
She died Friday, Aug. 17, 2012, at Rosewood Manor in Estherville.
Evelyn Veronica Petersen was born Jan. 27, 1927, in Graettinger, the daughter of James and Alice (Bradley) Mahan. She attended country school near Graettinger and Graettinger High School. On May 26, 1947, Evelyn was united in marriage to Dennis Petersen at Immaculate Conception Catholic Church in Graettinger. Evelyn raised her children, and later, she enjoyed working at Vande Caf and Lyon's Bakery in Estherville. She also enjoyed being a daycare provider for many years.
Article Photos
Evelyn V. Petersen
Evelyn enjoyed sewing and crocheting. She made over 50 afghans, and many were donated to area fundraising events. Evelyn baked a unique banana bread ring that was a welcomed gift for any occasion. She treasured her family and spending time with all of her grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
Grateful for having shared Evelyn's life is her family: sons, Dan Petersen (Kathy) of Dickens and Jerry Peterson of Wallingford; daughters, Eileen Ingvall (Randy) of Spirit Lake, Pam Domek (Jim) of Estherville, Lucy Matthiesen (Mike) of Lake Park, Donna Sanderson (Jack) of Wallingford and Billie Jo Petersen (Dan Lindell) of Estherville; four sisters, Berniece Weber (Gerald) of Graettinger, Alice Jo Gibson of Gillett Grove, Lois Weber (Richard) of Graettinger and Dorothy Cooper (Dean) of Twin Falls, Idaho; three brothers: Jim Mahan of Kansas City, Mo., Don Mahan (Susan) of Graettinger and Leo Mahan (Karen) of Sergeant Bluff; 13 grandchildren and 19 great-grandchildren. Her second family was her daycare children.
Evelyn was preceded in death by her parents; husband, Dennis; an infant son; two sisters: Rosella Loder and Francis Munden; four grandchildren: Lacey Petersen, James and Jennifer Domek and Rachael Petersen and her daughter-in-law, Denise Petersen.
Joyce-Alesch Funeral Home in Graettinger is in charge of the arrangements. Online condolences may be sent to www.joycefuneralhomes.com.


text:
One of my all time favorite TV series is Connections, created by science historian James Burke. In each show, he delved into the history of science, invention, and culture to present connections between seemingly unrelated people, places, and objects. Though not quite in the same vein as Burke's connections, in the archives, we regularly come across connections among our collections. Now relationships between collections of family papers may seem obvious since Philadelphia was once a small town where marriages brought together a relatively small group of families. But we also commonly find connections in our collections between and among organizations, families, individuals, and subjects. For example, our collection of records from the Indian Rights Association (#1523) links directly to our collection of papers from Herbert Welsh (#702), who served extensively with the association. Among Welsh's collection is information on the Armenian massacres of 1894-1896. Further research on this topic would lead one to our collection of records form the Citizens' Permanent Relief Committee (#1421), which provided aid to people involved in various disasters between 1878 and 1900, including the Armenian massacres.
An interesting connection turned up in a collection I recently finished processing, HSP's cartoons and caricatures collection (#3133). This artificial collection, which was adopted a few months ago by HSP's Young Friends, contains a wonderful assortment of mostly published political cartoons and ephemera from the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries. This collection is by no means comprehensive, but despite some gaps, they cover numerous topics from the American colonies' new found freedom after the Revolutionary War to the political and social strife during the Civil War to the New Deal era under President Franklin Roosevelt. Most of the cartoons deal with national issues, but some items relate specifically to Pennsylvania politics and social problems.
During processing, one envelope of items from 1866 caught my attention. The names associated with them, Geary and Clymer, rang immediate bells since we have papers from the Geary family (#2062) and collections related to the Clymer family (#138 and #1696).
After a bit of internet searching, I discovered that these cards and ads are from the 1866 Pennsylvania governor's race between John W. Geary (R) and Hiester Clymer (D); and one of the main points of contention during this campaign was race relations.
Geary, who born in Pennsylvania, wore many hats before 1866. He was a colonel in the Mexican War, first mayor of San Francisco, California, territorial governor of Kansas, and a major general in the Union Army at the end of the Civil War. In 1866, he was nominated by the Republican Party for Pennsylvania governor, and he ran on a platform that included black rights, support of the 15th Amendment, and railroad reform. He was successfully elected as governor, though pursuing both these issues later compromised his popularity. Geary went onto to campaign for president in 1872, but lost the Republican nomination to Ulysses S. Grant.
Geary's gubernatorial opponent in 1866 was Hiester Clymer, a career politician and lawyer from Berks County, Pennsylvania. Clymer ran on a white supremacy platform, and he apparently received a large number of votes for a Democratic candidate, though he still lost to Geary.
But back to the matter of connections. After stumbling across these items, I checked our collections database for further information. Our collection of Geary family papers contains a sizable number of records from and scrapbooks on John W. Geary, many of which date from 1866 on. As for Clymer, while we have only a few letters from in him our autograph collections and the James Buchanan papers, we do have a collection of papers from his grandfather, Daniel Cunyngham Clymer, who served in the army during the Revolutionary War and later worked as a lawyer in Berks County.
And now maybe you're wondering about other famous Berks County natives, or who might have served with Daniel Clymer during the Revolution, or how Geary's policies affected the railroads? Well, we might just have the records that contain those answers, as well as further connections that are just waiting to be discovered.


text:
The Memphis-based parent company of the largest bank based in Tennessee swung to a third quarter loss, with a $200 million addition to its mortgage repurchase reserve contributing to a loss for the quarter of $107.5 million.
First Horizon National Corp., the parent of First Tennessee Bank, reported $25.8 million in net income during the same period in 2012. Referring to the red ink for the just-ended quarter, company chairman and CEO Bryan Jordan conveyed a frustration at times that comes with the company's progress in winding down its national mortgage business.
But he also said he's proud of what the First Horizon team has accomplished in continuing to build up the company's business, which in the third quarter included First Tennessee grabbing the No. 1 market share ranking in Tennessee. That's according to the most recent customer deposit data from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Also during the quarter, the bank's revenues were up 2 percent from the second quarter, and the bank's pursuit of "profitable, high-quality loans" led to gains in both consumer and commercial lending.
On the capital markets side, FTN Financial – a division of First Tennessee – continued to underscore its importance to the company as a whole, with fixed income average daily revenue of $850,000. For the third quarter, First Horizon reported revenue of $309.3 million, down from $337 million one year earlier but up from the second quarter's $302.6 million in revenue.
"Our bankers are generating very good momentum growing our business and improving credit quality," Jordan said, adding that the bank also continues performing well in capital markets despite an uncertain interest rate environment. "As we approach our 150th anniversary in March, we're focused on positioning our business for the next 150 years."
First Horizon's headcount in the third quarter was down almost 4 percent compared to a year earlier – from 4,507 employees to 4,338, though it added a few since the second quarter, when the headcount stood at 4,296.
Deposits were up over the two third-quarter periods from $16.22 billion to $16.28 billion. The company has bought back $262.7 million in shares as part of a $300 million share repurchase program launched in the fourth quarter of 2011, and First Horizon paid a $0.05 per-common-share quarterly dividend Oct. 1 and a preferred quarterly dividend of $1.6 million Oct. 10.
First Horizon also said it reached an agreement in principle this week with Fannie Mae to resolve certain representation and warranty repurchase obligations for the First Tennessee book of business. The terms of that agreement are subject to final approval by Fannie Mae's board of directors and by the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Wunderlich Securities Inc. downgraded First Horizon shares a few weeks ago to "hold" from "buy," following a visit with company management. Wunderlich's outlook on the company's shares is "incrementally more cautious," explained Wunderlich bank analyst Kevin Reynolds, because of "a persistently difficult environment with near-term headwinds impacting both (First Horizon's) spread-based banking business as well as its fixed-income sales operation."
"In order for First Horizon shares to move meaningfully higher, one of two things has to happen," Reynolds told The Daily News. "Either short-term rates have to rise, or the company has to sell itself, neither of which appears likely over the next 24 months. To me, this quarter is not about that $200 million (addition to the repurchase reserve). It's about the trends on the other side. In order for this stock to work on its own, they have to approach the profitability targets they keep talking about."


text:
Shinya Kimura, Motorcycle Mechanic
Here's a nice little video profile of acclaimed custom bike builder Shinya Kimura . Directed by Danielle Levitt , it shows Shinya ... Read more >>
Here's a nice little video profile of acclaimed custom bike builder Shinya Kimura . Directed by Danielle Levitt , it shows Shinya ... Read more >>
"I swear I've never tried hard to make it look like art," claims custom bike builder Shinya Kimura . Yet, that's exactly what he ends ... Read more >>
Our friend Patrick Daly snapped these photos of the latest iteration of Shinya Kimura 's Bonnville racer on the salt flats last week. ... Read more >>
While Grant was shooting Shinya Kimura's shop for an upcoming feature, I attempted to interview the Japanese motorcycle artist. Doing ... Read more >>
We're excited to be exclusively unveiling Shinya Kimura's latest artwork, this custom MV Agusta 750 S America. Before taking us for a ... Read more >>
It wasn't a surprise when, halfway through a ride in Azusa Canyon, Shinya Kimura asked for the keys to the Aprilia RSV4 . When we ... Read more >>
Riding across the country on a 1915 Indian as part of the Motorcycle Cannonball , a modern satellite navigation system wouldn't just ... Read more >>
Photos: Zap Teshima for Devon WorksTwo months after its creation, the Shinya Kimura Edge has finally gotten the photos it deserves. ... Read more >>
Here's a brief glimpse into the world of custom bike maker Shinya Kimura. The video lets the artist tell a little of his own history ... Read more >>
Beginning with a Ducati 999R, Shinya Kimura stripped off the stock plastic and replaced it with hand-beaten and riveted metal ... Read more >>
While we've always admired the work of Shinya Kimura, his bikes have never been the kind we'd want to ride, just to look at. This ... Read more >>


text:
Percy Harvin returned the opening kickoff 105 yards for a touchdown, and Marcus Sherels scored on a punt return early in the third Sunday, as the Minnesota Vikings beat the Lions in Detroit for their first NFC North win since 2010.
Minnesota (3-1), in first place in the NFC North, snapped an 11-game losing streak in the division.
The Lions (1-3) are the first team since at least 1940 to give up a kickoff and a punt return for TDs in consecutive games, according to STATS LLC. They gave up scores on a kickoff and punt in last week's 44-41 loss in overtime at Tennessee.
Rams 19, Seahawks 13: Rookie Greg Zuerlein kicked four field goals, including a 58-yarder and a club record 60-yarder, and the Rams also used a fake field goal to score their only TD of the game in St. Louis.
Marshawn Lynch led the Seahawks (2-2) with 118 yards and a TD on 20 carries. Russell Wilson threw three interceptions.
Falcons 30, Panthers 28: Matt Bryant's third field goal was a 40-yarder with 5 seconds remaining to cap in improbable rally in the final minute in Atlanta.
Matt Ryan threw three TD passes for the Falcons (4-0), who are off to their best start since 2004, when they reached the NFC championship game.
Texans 38, Titans 14: Danieal Manning and Kareem Jackson returned interceptions for touchdowns, and Matt Schaub threw two TD passes in Houston.
Arian Foster had a touchdown run for the Texans (4-0), who are off to the best start in club history.
Cardinals 24, Dolphins 21, OT: Jay Feely kicked a 46-yard field goal 6:31 into overtime to keep Arizona unbeaten with a win at home.
The Cardinals (4-0) forced OT when Kevin Kolb threw a 15-yard TD pass on fourth down to Andre Roberts with 22 seconds left in regulation.


text:
The game--expected on PC, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Wii and PSP come October 5--"will continue to build upon the outstanding success of the NBA 2K series with continued improvements to the graphics, gameplay, signature styles and game modes seen in previous iterations," the company said in today's announcement.
Alongside the cover, Jordan will appear in-game. "I'm looking forward to getting back out onto the court, virtually," he said. "Let's hope they get my dunk from the foul line right."


text:
During a brief period in 2003, I was tempted to make fun of the USA's search for mythical weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which I likened to a quest for the Grail [display]. I didn't carry on with this website for long, because I soon discovered that things weren't in any way funny. Back in those days, everybody laughed a lot at the comical declarations of the Iraqi spokesman Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf.
You can find several amusing samples of al-Sahhaf's outpourings on YouTube. As for the man himself, it's said that he's currently leading a happy family existence in the United Arab Emirates. Maybe, observing the situation in Iraq, al-Sahhaf is having the last laugh.
In my sarcastic website, I imagined a certain Aristobulus Flavius, Scribe of the Oval Office, latter-day image of Josephus Flavius, author of The Jewish War. The real man in question was Ari Fleischer, who resigned in 2003 after getting horribly mixed up in the Scooter Libby affair... which I've often mentioned briefly in the past:
— article of February 3, 2007: All my trials, Lord [display]
— article of March 7, 2007: Goat stories [display]
— article of July 9, 2007: Woman who has paid the price [display]
— article of August 14, 2007: Brain removal [display]
All of that is past history. Today, we learn that a dyed-in-the-wool Bushman, also a former presidential spokesman, has just turned traitor. The mere title of the memoirs published by Scott McClellan sets the tone: What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception.
Obviously, we've reached the stage where it's no longer wise for a head of state such as Saddam or Bush to employ a spokesman. Would this mean that chiefs should henceforth speak personally for and by themselves, unaided? That could well be a greater calamity.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Posted by William Skyvington at 4:14 PM
Labels: world politics
2 comments:
- AnonymousJune 1, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Dont forget Alistair Campbell - Blairs mouthpiece who sexed up the Iraq dossier - he told us "We don't do God " - now Blair has turnrd RC and it he admits - he did God in a big way.ReplyDelete
Yes, when it's time for History (with a capital H) to set up a Hall of Infamy concerning Iraq, Alastair Campbell's reports on the alleged existence of WMD [weapons of mass destruction] should certainly earn him a place of dishonor. The two Americans and the Iraqi mentioned in my blog article were basically mere spokesmen, whereas Campbell was an active political partner of his chief, Tony Blair.ReplyDelete
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
University of Akron senior, Rachel Tecca has been named to the Capital One Academic All-America® first team by the College Sports Information Directors of America (CoSIDA)
Tecca is UA's first women's basketball player ever to receive first team honors, after being named to the second team a year ago.
"I am very proud of Rachel for earning this prestigious award," said Akron head coachJodi Kest. "She has worked extremely hard both on and off the basketball court for the last five years to get to where she is today. I am honored and humbled to have coached such a well-rounded student-athlete."
Tecca maintains a 3.89 graduate GPA, as she is on track to complete her MBA this spring. The fifth-year senior received a bachelor's degree in marketing management from Akron in December of 2012.
On the court, Tecca has changed the face of the Akron women's basketball program. This season, she became the school's all-time leading scorer and rebounder, consistently ranking in the nation's top-10 in points per game. Tecca is the second player in Mid-American Conference history to surpass 2,000 points and 1,000 rebounds in a career, and is one of just five active players in Division I to reach the milestone.


text:
More Backstage Talk About Retirement for Christian, What Role WWE May Hire Him For
– As noted, Christian suffered a minor concussion on Monday's RAW in the Fatal 4 Way with Sheamus, Dolph Ziggler and Alberto Del Rio. This is Christian's second concussion within a one year period.
Even before this second concussion, there had been a lot of talk about his active in-ring career coming to an end. Talk started months ago that when Christian's current contract expires he would probably retire because he was 40, had been getting injured and creative had no real plans for him.
Those stories of him retiring surfaced again this week with the idea that Christian would make a great NXT trainer.
Spoiler on The Wyatt Family, Hot Renee Young Photos, More…
Source: Wrestling Observer Newsletter