text:
We have created this statement to demonstrate our firm commitment to your privacy. We do not collect personally identifying information about you when you visit our site, unless you choose to provide such information to us. Providing such information is strictly voluntary. This policy is your guide to how we will handle information we learn about you from your visit to our Web site.
Throughout our Web pages, we provide links to other servers which may contain information of interest to our readers. We take no responsibility for, and exercise no control over, the organizations, views, or accuracy of the information contained on other servers. Some links in this site may redirect you to web pages with the Longwood University web site. The privacy policies for Longwood University apply to those web pages. The link to that privacy statement is Longwood University Internet Privacy Statement.
If you would like to publish information that you find on our Web site, please send your request to email@example.com. Where text or images are posted on our site with the permission of the original copyright holder, a copyright statement appears at the bottom of the page. Information about using our logo and images is available in Media Resources.
This Web site is designed to be accessible to visitors with disabilities, and to comply with federal guidelines concerning accessibility. We welcome your comments. If you have suggestions on how to make the site more accessible, please contact us at email@example.com.
We collect and store only the following information about you: the name of the domain from which you access the Internet (for example, aol.com, if you are connecting from an America Online account, or princeton.edu if you are connecting from Princeton University's domain), the date and time you access our site, and the Internet address of the Web site from which you linked to our site.
We use the information we collect to measure the number of visitors to the different sections of our site, and to help us make our site more useful to visitors.
This site registration form requires you to provide your first, middle, maiden and last name, e-mail address, city, state, country, user ID, password, and reminder phrase. You may also choose to provide optional details. You may update any of this information at any time be accessing your Personal Profile Page.
Your Personal Profile features information you may whidh to share with others site members on your PRofile Page. Only people who are registered members of this site can view other members' Profile Page. The only information that is automatically displayed on your Profile Page is your first, middle, maiden, and last name, class year, City and State. Additional information fields from your Personal Profile information will appear only if you have opted to provide those items and have also selected to have those fields in your Profile Page View. All member information on the Web site is securely stored and is not sold to any third parties.
Information that you supply on the Personal Profile Page will automatically update your information in the alumni database.
If you complete the Profile update form and share your personally identifying information, this information will be used only to provide you with more targeted content. We may use your contact information to send further information about our organization or to contact you when necessary. You may always opt-out of receiving future mailings; see the "Opt Out" section below.
You also may decide to send us personally identifying information, for example, in an electronic mail message containing a question or comment, or by filling out a Web form that provides us this information. We use personally identifying information from email primarily to respond to your requests. We may forward your email to other employees who are better able to answer you questions. We may also use your email to contact you in the future about our programs that may be of interest.
We want to be very clear: We will not obtain personally identifying information about you when you visit our site, unless you choose to provide such information to us. Providing such information is strictly voluntary. Except as might be required by law, we do not share any information we receive with any outside parties.
If you sign up for one of our email lists, we will only send you the kinds of information you have requested. We won't share your name or email address with any outside parties.
Our site provides users the opportunity to opt-out of receiving communications from us through a special online form. You may choose to receive only specific communications or none at all. You may also update your contact information previously provided to us through another online form. You can not remove yourself from our database, but you can prevent unwanted communication.
If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, or your dealings with this Web site, you can contact us at:
© Copyright 2024 Longwood University


text:
Moving with Children
Moving can be a challenge for anyone, even for your children. Some children might be frightened by the prospect of moving, but, with your care, guidance and positivity, the process of moving with your children will be enjoyable for them. No matter what age your children are, clear communication is needed between you and your child, as well as being receptive to their feelings, moods and actions.
Children can be emotionally fragile, so a great deal of patience and care will be needed to address their needs. There's nothing wrong with including your children, if feasible, in the home buying process – they might enjoy the idea of moving more. If they like a certain bedroom or the backyard, remember to take that into account when purchasing a new home.
For children, moving can be a reluctant experience, but getting your child involved and having clear communication with them can help smooth over any uneasy feelings and frustration.
How to cope with child uneasiness
Once the decision to move is finalized, make sure you communicate this immediately to your children. This will soften the transition by allowing for the necessary time the child requires to prepare for the move. By doing this, your child feels well informed and trusting of you. But also remember, children – especially teens – are ingrained in their social circles, so if they are old enough, allow them spend as much time as they can with their friends.
If your child is a toddler or a young elementary school student, the idea of moving might be confusing for them, so this is where parents must take more time and effort to ease the transition for their child. Explain to them carefully what moving means, and maybe use toys or a cheerful story to comfort the child rather than alarming them. The Internet is a great tool to use to show your child images of the new area. If not too far away, physically take your child to your new home and neighbourhood so they fully understand their new surroundings.
As well, take your child, whether they are young or a teen, to their new school and community centre to meet a teacher or a local sports coach. If older, take your child to the local mall, library and movie theatre so they know what social spots are good to go to.
What you can do
The best thing you can do is to be completely open with your child; this is a large transition for them and you need to be as caring and understanding as you can. Moving is extremely stressful for parents when the load of the work is on their shoulders. You will be stressed and will show it, but make sure you don't expose this to your children – it will just make them stressed and upset. Be positive, enthusiastic and spend time with your child, this may relieve some of your stress too.
Be open to the questions and concerns of your child and take time to discuss it with them. While the easy thing to do would be quickly saying, "Everything will be fine," and going on your way, you must devote time to comfort your kid. This will not only help them with the transition but may also strengthen the relationship between you and your child.
It's perfectly normal for an older child or a teen to rebel and be angered by the move. They are in a social system that works for them and they don't want to start from scratch. Moving somewhere new, especially when switching to a new school, can be awkward and difficult for your teen. Instead of arguing with them, open up to their feelings. You may have to endure some yelling and crying from your teen, but keep your patience and composure together.
And don't forget to have your child involved in the moving process, especially with packing and the decision-making process. Reward them with ice-cream, a toy or even a bonus allowance when they help out, this will make them feel better.
Making an easier transition for your child is crucial for their comfort and emotional stability. After all, it's your job as a parent to keep your children happy. With some effort and patience, your child will eventually enjoy the new house, and in no time they will be referring to their new surroundings as "home".

subset: commoncrawl


text:
You may need this permit if you intend to keep bees on your premises. This permit will not be granted if the bees are likely to cause a nuisance to the area.
Conditions and restrictions will vary depending on the Council area you are in. For example, you may not require this permit if:
Please be aware that you will need a separate approval to keep bees on Crown Land.
A licence defines the need to obtain recognition / certification and registration to undertake a certain business activity.
To be eligible to keep bees, you must be registered as a beekeeper under state legislation. You must also comply with any conditions set by the Council for the granting of this permit. These conditions may include:
As specified
Fees Details for this service in table format.
Please consult the Contact Officer for information on fees to be submitted.
Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1911 Western Australia
Health Local Laws 1997 (Opens in new window)
City of Melville
Contact Email, Phone and Address Details for this service in simple two column table format, header then data.
Beekeeping (Opens in new window)


text:
Home » Shows » Madhubala
© 2023 Viacom 18 Media Private Limited, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
We have recently updated our Privacy Terms and Cookie Policy. We also use cookies to collect information about how you interact with our website. We also use this information to share with our third parties to enhance your browsing experience and provide advertisements. By interacting with this site you agree to the use of cookies. you can learn more about cookies or change your cookie preferences by clicking on browser settings. If you continue to use our site, you agree to the updated Policies.
Which is your favorite show on colors rishtey?
click the button below to vote!


text:
This is a demo store. Any orders placed through this store will not be honored or fulfilled.
Recently added item(s) ×
You have no items in your shopping cart.
Please enter the following information to create your account.
* Required Fields
Checking "Remember Me" will let you access your shopping cart on this computer when you are logged out
« Back


text:
Dog food reviews
Member List
Dry Dog Foods
6 Star Premium Dry Food
Previous Product
Next Product
Champion Pet Foods Orijen Adult
Date of last review
Sun July 12, 2009
Recommended By
Average Price
Average Rating
100% of reviewers
None indicated
None indicated
Feeding guideline:
A 50lb dog should be fed about 2-3 cups
ORIJEN ADULT DOG has a Metabolizable Energy (ME) of 3900 kcal/kg or 450 kcal/250ml cup
Fresh boneless chicken, chicken meal, turkey meal, russet potato, fresh pacific salmon (a natural source of DHA and EPA), herring meal, sweet potato, peas, fresh lake whitefish, fresh northern walleye, chicken fat (naturally preserved with vitamin E and citric acid), chicken liver, salmon meal, fresh turkey, fresh whole eggs, fresh deboned herring, sun-cured alfalfa, salmon oil, chicory root, dehydrated organic kelp, pumpkin, carrots, spinach, turnip greens, apples, cranberries, saskatoon berries, black currants, choline chloride, psyllium, licorice root, angelica root, fenugreek, marigold flowers, sweet fennel, peppermint leaf, chamomile flowers, dandelion, summer savory, rosemary, sea salt, vitamin supplements (vitamin A, vitamin D3, vitamin E, niacin, vitamin C, thiamine mononitrate, riboflavin, vitamin B5, vitamin B6, folic acid, biotin, vitamin B12), mineral supplements (zinc proteinate, iron proteinate, manganese proteinate, copper proteinate, selenium), dried Lactobacillus acidophilus, dried Enterococcus faecium fermentation product.
Crude Protein (min.) 40.0%
Crude Fat (min.) 16.0%
Crude Fiber (max.) 2.5%
Moisture (max.) 10.0%
Calcium (min.) 1.5%
Calcium (max.) 1.7%
Phosphorus (min.) 1.2%
Phosphorus (max.) 1.4%
Omega-6 (min.) 3.0%
Omega-3 (min.) 1.1%
Carbohydrate (max.) 20.0%
Glucosamine (min.) 1200 mg/kg
Chondroitin (min.) 900 mg/kg
Microorganisms (min.) 120M cfu/kg
Chicory root 700 mg/kg
Licorice root 500 mg/kg
Angelica root 350 mg/kg
Fenugreek 350 mg/kg
Marigold flowers 350 mg/kg
Sweet Fennel 350 mg/kg
Peppermint leaf 300 mg/kg
Chamomile flowers 300 mg/kg
Dandelion root 150 mg/kg
Summer savory 150 mg/kg
Vitamin A 15 kIU/kg
Vitamin D3 2000 kIU/kg
Vitamin E 200 IU/kg
Vitamin B12 0.22 mg/kg
Thiamine 50 mg/kg
Riboflavin 40 mg/kg
Niacin 200 mg/kg
Pan. Acid 32 mg/kg
Pyridoxine 26 mg/kg
Biotin 0.83 mg/kg
Folic Acid 3 mg/kg
Choline 2700 mg/kg
Ascorbic Acid 55 mg/kg
Beta carotene 0.40 mg/kg
Taurine 0.3 mg/kg
T. Lysine 2.7%
T. Threonine 1.65%
T. Methionine 0.87%
T. Isoleucine 1.60%
T. Leucine 2.9%
T. Valine 1.9%
T. Arginine 2.9%
T. Phen. 1.6%
T. Histidine 0.85%
T. Cystine 0.5%
Sodium 0.4%
Chloride 0.6%
Potassium 0.65%
Magnesium 0.10%
Sulphur 0.4%
Manganese 27 mg/kg
Cobalt 0.47 mg/kg
Iodine 3.5 mg/kg
Selenium 0.35 mg/kg
Iron 300 mg/kg
Zinc 204 mg/kg
Copper 21 mg/kg
Nutritional Statement
ORIJEN ADULT DOG is formulated to meet nutritional levels established by the AAFCO Dog Food Nutrient Profiles for ALL LIFE STAGES.
Post a Reply
Registered: October 2005
Posts: 3953
Review Date:
Sun July 12, 2009
Would you recommend the product?
| Price you paid?:
Not Indicated
| Rating:
Four of the first five ingredients are named meat products, high overall meat content, grain-free, good quality ingredients throughout
The first three ingredients of this food are all named meat products, two of which are in meal form. There are further meat ingredients fifth, sixth, ninth, tenth, twelth, thirteenth and fourteenth (10 in total) on the ingredient list. We can thus have a high level of confidence in the meat content of this food, which the manufacturer states to be 70% of the total.
This is an entirely grainless dog food. The major carbohydrate source is potatoes, which are also a good source of B vitamins and other minerals. There is a good range of fruits/vegetables in the food, whole eggs and a good range of probiotics.
This food is outstanding in that it contains no grains whatsoever. Grains are not a natural part of a canine diet and it is pleasing to see dog foods on the market that exclude grains completely from the diet. This is a far more natural food concept and combined with a complete lack of any low quality or controversial ingredients is the reason this food is placed in a class above the more conventional form dry dog foods.
The only caution we would make on this food is that the high protein content may make it suitable for adult dogs only, particularly in the case of large breeds.
The manufacturer has provided the following statement in regards to the use of Ethoxyquin (a chemical preservative often found in fish ingredients): "All ingredients are purchased ethoxyquin free and we maintain written quality protocols and supplier agreements to this effect. All ORIJEN fish meals are preserved exclusively with NATUR-OX (a blend of rosemary and mixed tocopherals), and our fresh fish are truly FRESH -arriving without any preservatives what-so-ever."
Note: This updated review is occassioned by minor ingredient changes by the manufacturer, arising from the confusion of some consumers over "zea mays" which the manufacuter had stated to be corn silk but that some individuals assumed to be corn grain.
Powered by:
Copyright 2006 All Enthusiast, Inc.
Trusted Gourmet
Terms of use
Privacy policy
Copyright © 2005 - 2009 DogFoodAnalysis.com.
All Rights Reserved.
Mesure d'audience ROI statistique webanalytics par


text:
Sunlight Assessments Blackfriars London
Advice from the leading Rights of Light, Daylight & Sunlight Experts. Cost Effective Strategic Advice Sunlight Assessments Blackfriars London.
A lot of property in England and Wales is secured by the 'option to light'. In any case, what precisely is an option to light, and what move would you be able to make in the event that it is being encroached upon?
What Is The 'Option To Light'?
It is commonly acknowledged that about a large portion of a room ought to be lit by normal light. In relative terms, this is a similar measure of light surrendered by one flame to one foot away.Sunlight Assessments Blackfriars London This standard is known as an 'option to light', and is secured in England and Wales under precedent-based law, unfriendly belonging, and by the 1832 Prescription Act.
In any case, in contrast to one side to opportunity from clamor, the option to light should be gained.Sunlight Assessments Blackfriars London This can be accomplished through enlistment or conceded by deed. Moreover, if a window or an opening has had 20 years or a greater amount of unhampered sunlight, it consequently gets the option to light.
Development Disputes And The Right To Light. On the off chance that a property is secured by the option to light, at that point advancements in the encompassing region are dependent upon specific limitations.Sunlight Assessments Blackfriars London This is in such a case that another structure decreases the measure of common light coming in through a window or opening to an unsuitable level, at that point it will be esteemed as a 'hindrance'.
There are various potential impediments that may influence a neighbor's entitlement to light, the most well-known of which are:-
* A shed or carport
* A divider
* House expansions
* Housing or business advancements
Should another advancement be found to deter the measure of regular light sifting through a window, at that point the influenced party can make legitimate move.
What Action Can You Take?
On the off chance that you figure another improvement will confine the degree of light you get, at that point you are superbly qualified for contradict it. Regardless of whether arranging consent had just been allowed by the nearby power, an advancement may in any case be forestalled.
Contingent on the idea of the issue, a fruitful offer against another advancement could have various results.Sunlight Assessments Blackfriars London For instance, there might be the chance of remuneration or potentially a request for the structure to be diminished. On the other hand, the courts may issue and order to forestall the fabricate completely, or even to have the contested development destroyed. Be that as it may, these injunctive procedures can be costly, and normally just occur in extraordinary cases.
In the event that you are worried about your entitlement to light, you should initially address a specialist to talk about your choices. A contracted surveyor will have the option to evaluate how a lot of your common light will be influenced, even while the improvement being referred to is still at the arranging stages.
Besides, you should look for legitimate exhortation. A specialist who has practical experience in development debates will have the option to disclose your privileges to you, just as help to settle the question, conceivably without going to court.
In the event that you have any inquiries with respect on your right side to light, you should contact a specialist who has practical experience in development law to talk about whether you might want to make legitimate move.Sunlight Assessments Blackfriars London On the off chance that your privileges are being infringed, at that point you might be granted pay, or have the arrangement modified in support of you.


text:
About Rationally Speaking
Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.
Friday, October 26, 2012
From the naturalism workshop, part I
by Massimo Pigliucci
Well, here we are, in Stockbridge, MA, in the middle of the Berkshires, sitting at a table that features of good number of very sharp minds, and yours truly. This gathering is the brainchild of cosmologist Sean Carroll, entitled "Moving Naturalism forward," its point being to see what a bunch of biologists, physicists, philosophers and assorted others think about life, the universe and everything. And we have three days to do it. Participants included: Sean Carroll, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, Terrence Deacon, Simon DeDeo, Dan Dennett, Owen Flanagan, Rebecca Goldstein, Janna Levin, David Poeppel, Alex Rosenberg, Don Ross, Steven Weinberg, and myself.
Note to the gentle reader: although Sean has put together an agenda of broad topics to be discussed, this post and the ones following it will inevitably have the feel of a stream of consciousness. But one that will be interesting nonetheless, I hope!
During the roundtable introductions, Dawkins (as well as the rest of us) was asked what he would be willing to change his mind about; he said he couldn't conceive of a sensible alternative to naturalism. Rosenberg, interestingly, brought up the (hypothetical) example of finding God's signature in a DNA molecule (just like Craig Venter has actually done). Dawkins admitted that that would do it, though immediately raised the more likely possibility that that would be a practical joke played by a superhuman — but not supernatural — intelligence. Coyne then commented that there is no sensible distinction between superhuman and supernatural, in a nod to Clarke's third law.
There appeared to be some interesting differences within the group. For instance, Rosenberg clearly has no problem with a straightforward functionalist computational theory of the mind; DeDeo accepts it, but feels uncomfortable about it; and Deacon outright rejects it, without embracing any kind of mystical woo. Steven Weinberg asked the question of whether — if a strong version of artificial intelligence is possible — it follows that we should be nice to computers.
The first actual session was about the nature of reality, with an introduction by Alex Rosenberg. His position is self-professedly scientistic, reductionist and nihilist, as presented in his The Atheist's Guide to Reality. (Rationally Speaking published a critical review of that book, penned by Michael Ruse.) Alex thinks that complex phenomena — including of course consciousness, free will, etc. — are not just compatible with, but determined by and reducible to, the fundamental level of physics. (Except, of course, that there appears not to be any such thing as the fundamental level, at least not in terms of micro-things and micro-bangings.)
The first response came from Don Ross (co-author with James Ladyman of Every Thing Must Go), who correctly pointed out that Rosenberg's position is essentially a statement of metaphysical faith, given that fundamental physics cannot, in fact, derive the phenomena and explanations of interest to the special sciences (defined here as everything that is not fundamental physics).
Weinberg made the interesting point that when we ask whether X is "real" (where X may be protons or free will) the answer may be yes, with the qualification of what one means by the term "real." Protons, in other words (and contra both Rosenberg and Coyne), are as real as free will for Weinberg, but that qualifier means different things when applied to protons than it does when applied to free will.
In response to Weinberg's example that, say, the American Constitution "exists" not just as a piece of paper made of particles, Rosenberg did admit that the major problem for his philosophical views is the ontological status of abstract concepts, especially mathematical ones as they relate to the physical description of the world (like Schrödinger's equation, for instance).
Dennett asked Rosenberg if he is concerned about the political consequences of his push for reductionism and nihilism. Rosenberg, to his credit, agreed that he has been very worried about this. But of course from a philosophical and epistemological standpoint nothing hinges on the political consequences of a given view, if such a view is indeed correct.
Following somewhat of a side track, Dennett, Dawkins and Coyne had a discussion about the use of the word "design" when applied to both biological adaptations and human-made objects. Contra Dawkins and Coyne, Dennett defends the use of the term design in biology, because biologists ask the question "what is this [structure, behavior] for?" thus honestly reintroducing talk of function and purpose in science. A broader point made by Dennett, which I'm sure will become relevant to further discussions, is that the appearance on earth of beings capable of reflecting on things makes for a huge break from everything else in the biosphere, a break that ought to be taken seriously when we talk about purpose and related concepts.
Owen Flanagan, talking to Rosenberg, saw no reason to "go eliminativist" on the basic furniture of the universe, which includes a lot more than just fermions qua fermions (see also bosons): it also includes consciousness, thoughts, libraries, and so on. And he also pointed out that, again, Rosenberg's ontology potentially gets into serious trouble if we decide that things like mathematical objects are real in an interesting sense of the term (because they are not made of fermions). Flanagan pointed out that what we were doing in that room had to do with the meaning of the words being exchanged, not just with the movement of air molecules and the propagation of sounds, and that it is next to impossible to talk about meaning without teleology (not, he was immediately careful to add, in the Cartesian sense of the term).
Again interestingly, even surprisingly, Rosenberg agreed that meaning poses a huge problem for a scientistic account of the world, for a variety of reasons brought up by a number of philosophers, including Dennett and John Searle (the latter arguing along very different lines from the former, of course). He was worried that this will give comfort to anti-naturalists, but I pointed out that not being able to give a scientific (as distinct from a scientistic) account of something — now or ever (after all, there are presumably epistemic limits to human reason and knowledge) does not give much logical comfort to the super-naturalist, who would simply be arguing from ignorance.
Poeppel asked Rosenberg what he thinks explanations are, I assumed in the context of the obvious fact that fundamental physics does not actually explain the subject matters of the special sciences. Rosenberg's answer was that explanations are a way to ally "epistemic hitches" that human beings have. At which point Dennett accused Rosenberg of being an essentialist philosopher (a la Parmenides), making a distinction between explanations in the everyday sense of the word and real explanations, such as those provided by science. But, argued Dennett, this is a very old fashioned way of doing philosophy, and it treats science in a more fundamentalist (not Dennett's term) way than (most) scientists themselves do.
The afternoon session was devoted to evolution, complexity and emergence, with Terrence Deacon giving the introductory remarks. He began by raising the question of how do we figure out what does and does not fit in naturalism. His naturalistic ontology is clearly broader than Rosenberg's, including, for instance, teleology (in the same sense as espoused earlier in the day by Dennett). Deacon rejects what Dennett calls "greedy" reductionism, because there are complex systems, relations, and other things that don't sit well with extreme forms of reductionism. Relatedly, he suggested (and I agreed) that we need to get rid of talk of both "top-down" and indeed "bottom-up" causality, because it constrains us to think about the world in ways that are not useful. (Of course, top-down causality is precisely the thing rejected by greedy reductionists, while the idea that causality only goes bottom-up is the thing rejected by anti-reductionists.)
Ross concurred, and proposed that another good thing to do would be to stop talking about "levels" of organizations of reality and instead think about the scale of things (the concept of "scale" can be made non-arbitrary by referring to measurable degrees of complexity and/or to scales of energy). Not surprisingly, Weinberg insisted on the word levels, because he wants to say that every higher level does reduce to the bottom lowest one.
Deacon is interested in emergence because of the issue of the origin of life understood (metaphorically speaking) as a "phase transition" of sorts, which is in turn related to the question of how (biological) information "deals with" the constraints imposed by the second law of thermodynamics. In other words: the interesting question here is how did a certain class of information-rich complex systems manage to locally avoid the second law-mandated constant increase in entropy. (Note: Deacon was most definitely not endorsing a form of vitalism according to which life defies — globally — the second principle of thermodynamics. So this discussion is relevant because it sets out a different way of thinking about what it means for complex systems to be compatible with but not entirely determined by the fundamental laws of physics.)
All of the above, said Deacon, is tied up in what we mean by information, and he suggested that the well known Shannon formulation of information — as interesting as it is — is not sufficient to deal with the teleologically-oriented type of information that characterizes living organisms in general, and of course consciously purposeful human beings in particular.
Dennett seemed to have quite a bit of sympathy with Deacon's ideas, though he focused on pre- or proto-Darwinian processes as a way to generate those information-rich, cumulative, second principle (locally) defying systems that we refer to as biological.
Rosenberg, as usual, didn't seem to "be bothered by" the fact that we don't have a good reductionist account of the origin of life. Methinks Rosenberg should be bothered a bit more by things for which reductionism doesn't have an account and where emergentism seems to be doing better.
At this point I asked Weinberg (who has actually read my blog series on emergence on his way to the workshop!) why he thinks that the behavior of complex systems is "entailed" by the fundamental laws. He conceded two important points, the second one of which is crucial: first, he readily agreed that of course nobody can (and likely will ever be able to) actually reduce, say, biology to physics (or even condensed matter physics to sub-nuclear physics); so, epistemic reduction isn't the game at all. Second, he said that nobody really knows if ultimate (i.e., ontological) reduction is possible in principle, which was precisely my point; his only argument in favor of greedy reductionism seems to be a (weak) historical induction: physicists have so far been successful in reducing, so there is no reason to think they won't be able to keep doing it. Even without invoking Hume's problem of induction, there is actually very good historical evidence that physicists have been able to do so only within very restricted domains of application. It was gratifying that someone as smart and knowledgeable in physics as Weinberg couldn't back up his reductionism with anything more than this. However, Levin agreed with Weinberg, insisting on the a priori logical necessity of reduction, given the successes of fundamental physics.
Weinberg also agreed that there are features of, say, phase transitions that are independent of the microphysical constituents of a given system; as well as that accounts of phase transitions in terms of lower level principles are only approximate. But he really thinks that the whole research program of fundamental physics would go down the drain if we accepted a robust sense of emergence. Well, maybe it would (though I don't think so), but do we have any better reason to accept greedy reductionism than fundamental physicists' amor proprio? (Or, as Coyne commented, the fact that if we start talking about emergence then the religionists are going to jump the gun for ideological purposes? My response to Jerry was: who cares?)
Don Ross argued that fundamental physics just is the discipline that studies patterns and constraints on what happens that apply everywhere at all times. The special sciences, on the contrary, study patterns and constraints that are more spatially or temporally limited. This can be done without any talk of bottom-up causality, which seems to make the extreme reductionist program simply unnecessary.
Flanagan brought up the existence of principles in the special sciences, like natural selection in biology, or operant conditioning in psychology. He then asked whether the people present imagine that it will ever be possible to derive those principles from fundamental physics. Carroll replied — acknowledging Weinberg's earlier admission — that no, that will likely not be possible in practice, but in principle... But, again, that seems to me to amount to a metaphysical promissory note that will never be cashed.
Dennett: so, suppose we discover intelligent extraterrestrial life that is based on a very different chemistry from ours. Do we then expect them to have the same or entirely different economics? If lower levels entail (logically) higher phenomena, the answer should be in the negative. And yet, one can easily imagine that similar high-level constraints would act on the alien economy, thereby yielding a convergently similar economy "emerging" from a very different biochemical substrate. The same example, I pointed out, applies to the principle of natural selection. Goldstein and DeDeo engaged in an interesting side discussion on what exactly logical entailment, well, entails, as far as this debate is concerned.
Interesting point by Deacon: emergence is inherently diachronic, i.e., emergent properties are behaviors that did not appear up to a certain time in the history of the universe. This goes nicely with his contention that talk of causality (top-down or bottom-up) is unhelpful. In answer to a question from Rosenberg, Deacon also pointed out that this historical emergence may not have been determined by things that happened before, if the universe is not deterministic but contingent (as there are good reasons to believe).
Simon DeDeo took the floor talking about renormalization theory, which we have already encountered as a major way of thinking about the emergence of phase transitions. Renormalization is a general technique that can be used to move from any group/level to any other, not just in going from fundamental to solid state physics. This means that it could potentially be applied to connecting, say, biology with psychology, if all the involved processes involved finite steps. However, and interestingly, when systems are characterized by effectively infinite steps, mathematicians have shown that this type of group theory is subject to fundamental undecidability (because of the appearance of mathematical singularities). Seems to me that this is precisely the sort of thing we need to operationalize otherwise vague concepts like emergence.
Another implication of what DeDeo was saying is that one could, in practice, reduce thermodynamics (macro-model) to statistical mechanics (micro-model), say. But there is no way to establish (it's "undecidable") whether there isn't another micro-model that is equally compatible with the macro-model, which means that there would be no principled way to establish which micro-model affords the correct reduction. This implies that even synchronic (as opposed to diachronic) reduction is problematic, and that Rosenberg's refrain, "the physical facts fix all the facts" is not correct. (As a side note, Dennett, Rosenberg and I agreed that DeDeo's presentation is a way of formalizing the Duhem-Quine thesis in epistemology.)
It occurred to me at this point in the discussion that when reductionists like Weinberg say that higher level phenomena are reducible to lower level laws "plus boundary conditions" (e.g., you derive thermodynamics from statistical mechanics plus additional information about, say, the relationship between temperatures and pressures), they are really sneaking in emergence without acknowledging it. The so-called boundary conditions capture something about the process of emergence, so that it shouldn't be surprising that the higher level phenomena are describable by a lower level "plus" scenario. After all, nobody here is thinking of emergence as a mystical spooky property.
And then the discussion veered into evolution, and particularly the relationship between the second law of thermodynamics and adaptation by natural selection. Rosenberg's claim was that the former requires the latter, but both Dennett and I pointed out that that's a misleading way of putting it: the second law is required for certain complex systems to evolve (in our type of universe, given its laws of physics). But the mere existence of the second law doesn't necessitate adaptation. Lots of other boundary conditions (again!) are necessary for that to be the case. And it is this tension between fundamental physics requiring (in the strong sense of logical entailment) vs merely being necessary (but not sufficient) for and compatible with certain complex phenomena that captures the major division between the two camps in which participants to the workshop are divided (of course, understanding that there is some porosity between the two camps themselves).
Tomorrow: morality, free will, and consciousness!
41 comments:
- AnonymousOctober 27, 2012 1:35 AM
Isn't the flip side of reduction, emergence? If you're reducing you're moving from some level or domain B and realizing it in the operation of some other level, or domain A. Level B emerges on the basis of the operation of level A. Level B supervenes on level A. There are laws, entities or principles specific to each level. What is specific to level B emerges from A. Rosenberg and others claim that evolution involves some kind of level B supervenience where level B has no laws, entities or principles that are distinct from those of level A. That kind of supervenience doesn't seem to exist in reality. We all should recognize that by their very nature reduction and emgergence are opposite sides of the same coin. You can not have one without the other.
-Tanner Phillips @philosophyofsci philosophyofsci,
> We all should recognize that by their very nature reduction and emgergence are opposite sides of the same coin. You can not have one without the other. <
I disagree. First, supervenience is actually accepted by reductionist, but does not help much the emergentists. See my commentary on Humphreys' paper on this topic here:
Second, that is precisely what is diving people here in two (maybe three, with some people being at least partially agnostic) camps: everyone agrees that you either have fundamental reductionism or you have emergence, not both.
> did anyone hug without asking permission? <
Nope, at least not that I saw... As for personalities, one of the nice things at these gatherings is that you get to have dinner or drinks with people you fundamentally (sometimes vehemently) disagree with, and that helps in the human relations department..."...as Coyne commented, the fact that if we start talking about emergence then the religionists are going to jump the gun for ideological purposes..."
Typical Jerry: emergence must be off-limits as a topic lest his enemies gain a foot-hold.
One of the many things I do not like about him. He has such an aversion to religion that he uses dirty tactics and refuses to fight fair in debate.
His manner is very unbecoming for a scientist, even if he were to be correct about the particular point under discussion.- AnonymousOctober 27, 2012 10:02 AM
There is are some fundamental flaws in this meeting:
- Not having brain scientists mean, effectively, everyone was off topic.
- Behavior is the critical dependent variable and mainly this was verbal behavior.
- Accepting usage of any -"isms" already throws the conversations into one of ideologies. In fact, there is no such thing as reductionism -- there is just data of specific studies.
For example, if we accept the research/data on no free will and that behavior is driven in 150 ms, then the discussions are fruitless, and epiphenomenal.
The science says everyone is just verbally signalling in a social setting to maintain homeostasis in their brain processes. That's all.
Thus, the only statements that have an empirical basis of psychiatric and brain-based - to some degree.
Why would philosophers ever be invited and not brain researchers!? All philosophers add it tactics so using words/verbal behavior - marketing.RepliesfMRI has completely revolutionized the understanding of the "mind." I find research on mental states in action much more fascinating than splitting hairs over 'isms' but theologians are philosophers and they're the ones who get to represent the believers' sides in debates so we have to acknowledge philosophy as part of the arsenal being used against us.
Delete- AnonymousOctober 28, 2012 6:09 PM
Never let your opponent define you. By accepting philosophical-theological-ideological framing of what should be only discussions of data and research -- the evidence-based position loses and false ideas take up all the time.
Brain research is the farthest thing from "fascinating" it is the fundamental knowledge of them all since brain processes define animal behavior > human behavior > verbal behavior > all knowledge.
Letting philosophy frame the discussion is as false as letting any other magical thinking and ideology. Ultimately, philosophy is just magical thinking:"words matter" - they don't. Neither does consciousness.
"Deacon also pointed out that this historical emergence may not have been determined by things that happened before, if the universe is not deterministic but contingent (as there are good reasons to believe)."
Hope you'll clarify this, or point me to an earlier discussion. Emergent phenomena, not being spooky, have causal antecedents and a current instantiation base that conforms to physical laws. Given the conditions in play, is it not determined that an irreducible phenomenon emerges from those conditions?
Great stream of consciousness, btw, thanks!- AnonymousOctober 27, 2012 1:34 PM
surprised that there was seemingly no discussion of algorithmic compressibility with respect to reductionism/emergence. If one accepts that the universe is essentially computational and that structures have emerged from fundamental physics over time, then bottom-up dependency of these structures is a truism. The real question is whether there exist more algorithmically compressible predictive explanations for various higher level phenomena than just having to essentially re-run the entire simulation. And more pointedly, given a trade-off between compressibility and predictive fidelity, the question is how good can we get along that trade-off frontier for specific phenomena.
ReplyDeleteRepliesLearninglayer, that's a big "If." It's an "if" that I've rejected since I first heard Dennett propose the similar idea nearly 20 years ago that evolution was algorithmic. There's simply no evidence for it.
Delete- AnonymousOctober 27, 2012 6:47 PM
regardless of whether you strictly buy the "if," I'm simply suggesting that which we cannot explain with a much more compressible description than the phenomenon itself is what we tend to today call "emergent." We used to give it labels such as supernatural, etc.
We do have some useful algorithmic descriptions of evolution (Price equation, etc.). What we don't have are good, compressible descriptions of how evolution emerges from more fundamental properties of the universe. Until/unless we do, it will remain in the realm of the emergent. So, you're saying "emergent" is some sort of philosophical equivalent of a "god of the gaps"?
And, re Price's equation and whether evolution is algorithmic or not, I still stand by the criticism of Gould (and others).- AnonymousNovember 04, 2012 9:19 PM
See my further thoughts in Workshop Part II comments. I am simply not keen on concepts that rely on a series of observer-dependent qualities, and so am looking for ways to put the concept of emergence on firmer footing such that informed observers can agree as to whether a particular phenomenon should be labeled "emergent" or not, given a common state of information. Or even better, to be able to agree to what *degree* it is emergent. Batterman's approach is already a step in this direction--algorithmic complexity-based approaches seem to me to offer the opportunity to generalize and extend.
- AnonymousOctober 27, 2012 3:54 PM
What no data?
If you start with natural language and western philosophical concepts, words and ideas you just end up with a bunch of opinions and personal feelings - as much as words accurately convey internal states. you start in a evidence hole and dig the hole deeper.
Philosophy is a dead language. This is very, very interesting. Just one question, re:
if the universe is not deterministic but contingent (as there are good reasons to believe).
I don't understand why contingency and determination are considered mutually exclusive. For example, the evolution of hominids is clearly contingent on the prior evolution of mammals, but that does not stand in a contradiction with the claim (whether it is true or not) that the evolution of hominids was predetermined billions of years ago, with the evolution of mammals one of the intermediate steps in that deterministic chain of events.RepliesAlex,
contingency means that things could have gone otherwise, which is precluded in a deterministic universe. As far as I know, the only way to get true contingency from the laws of physics is through quantum mechanical indeterminacy.Thanks, and as far as I can see this is simply a language issue, me not being a native speaker and all. The only meaning of contingent that I was aware of is "dependent on", but apparently it can also mean "uncertain", which I did not know until today but which appears to be the one that is used in philosophy. I find it a bit unfortunate, really, that the same word can have meanings that are so very different, but well, that is for Anglo-Saxons to decide...
As is true with any experiment, the conclusions reached are often colored by a preconception of what the experiment was to confirm. This is subjectivism, which is inherent in any study, since the 'data' is only one component, and subject to interpretation.
From the Libet paper,
"Next, the team repeated Libet's experiment, but this time if, while waiting to act spontaneously, the volunteers heard a click they had to act immediately. The researchers predicted that the fastest response to the click would be seen in those in whom the accumulation of neural noise had neared the threshold – something that would show up in their EEG as a readiness potential.
This is exactly what the team found. In those with slower responses to the click, the readiness potential was absent in the EEG recordings."
Consider the possibility that with fast responses to a stimuli, there may be a choice of action, either a programmed response [the handling of a fast ground ball to a shortstop, or a quick driver's response to someone jutting in front of his moving vehicle], or one of deliberation, however brief. The first occurs in milliseconds [150-250], the second somewhat longer.
A 'readiness potential [RP]' is always there, IMO, based on accumulated experience, but can be overridden by a deliberative response, or by a combination of the two. My assessment is that the brain does in fact make decisions, but in most cases only colors perceptions based on prior data [experience], and may act unilaterally in cases of necessitated urgency.
An example: If a child dashes into ones vehicle path, the braking function is virtually automatic. But as the pedal is slammed, 'conscious intervention [CI]' steps in to possibly (1) terminate the action, or (2) to [in this case] adjust the pedal pressure, due to a quick assessment of speed, road conditions, and distance to subject, for optimal stopping distance.
In the case of the short stop, the conditioned response may be routine [programmed], but be mediated by the ball taking an unusual hop, in which case the fielder may take a sliding dive, a non-standard, conscious, and in effect a mediated response to his usual one.
In short, although the study has implications regarding programmed, or RP type responses, conscious thought by other means may be an operative as well. Both further studies, along with truly objective and unbiased assessments of the data are plainly on the table for consideration.
One final note. I have no a priori notions or desires that free will or a form of duality be true; just rational thought regarding the various data.RepliesAnother interpretation of the same data is that the brain is representing the state of the anatomy in awareness by cycles of impulses that build to representations, building to decisions and then more to actions.
Obvious descisions and actions do not arise instantaneously, they arise gradually from subtle preparation that can be short circuited by a subject just by looking at an imperceptible subtle tendency (even a habit) build on a scan and changing their mind.
It's just a recognition of building to perceptual awareness, which has no consequences for free will, merely for self-awareness due to building and subsiding impulses.- AnonymousOctober 29, 2012 10:04 AM
There probably is nothing like "rational thought." What seems to happen is talk/verbal behavior that follows local norms and conventions. Of course, it is a continuous looping feedback process.
Delete I see Kevin, maybe appears rational because clever goblins got the loop started in the first place.
I'd like to propose an explanation of Weinberg's use of the word "entails". The behaviour of a system at a lower level entails a higher level phenomenon if the higher level phenomenon could in principle be seen in a simulation of the lower level entities.
For example, it's not unusual to refer to the behaviour of a flock of birds as emergent. But I believe it's the case that the behaviour of a flock of birds can be simulated (roughly) by simulating the behaviour of individual birds and how they react to what they see other birds doing. In that sense, the behaviour of the flock is determined by the behaviour of the individual birds, i.e. the latter "entails" the former.
A similar point could be made about the behaviour of economies, which in principle could be simulated at the level of individual people.
Massimo, would you call these cases of emergence? If not, would I be right in thinking that you are referring to phenomena that couldn't be seen in a simulation of lower level entities?
Personally, I don't know enough about physics to assess examples from physics, such as phase transitions. And I'm willing to entertain the possibility that things are different at the lowest levels of description. (I'm sympathetic to the view that there may be no ultimate level of description of nature, and no ultimate entities.) But at higher levels I see no useful role for the concept of emergence.Replies- AnonymousOctober 28, 2012 6:13 PM
Here is a simple example of the fallacy of "emergence" as a different order of experience.
Ant nervous systems are very simple pretty much on-off behavior drivers. Taken together they form very complicated societies -- from lots of very simple behaviors.
Pretty simple. The problem is there is no definition of emergence, its just an opportunity to talk about your favorite area of study and call it emergent in any company, good for academics to muse over, but a red herring.
Everything evolves by aggregation of hydrogen & helium (or their constituents) after the big bang, right through to aggregation as a human being. Tracking the potential of H & He to do that is the aim of science generally, and it by changing properties as the constituent particles & fields arrange in different ways. That's evolution, understandable in retrospect.
Emergence is nothing. It's just saying that as constituents aggregate they become complicated beyond an understanding of their 'constiuents' separately. That's evolution, understandable in retrospect, nothing more. Any system is a 'whole' that can be tracked historically to see how it was created from constituents.
We need more endeavor in tracking and explaining and less in useless red herrings that try to flip concepts to no purpose. The plot gets thick quick after the big bang: who could say that the properties of hydrogen could change crucially into deuterium just by aggregating a neutron with a proton and yet, they have that...potential.
> The problem is there is no definition of emergence <
The problem is that you haven't read what I just wrote in the past few days. I gave you a very articulated definition of emergence (from Humphreys) and a solid mathematical description of emergent phenomena (from Batterman). What else do you want?
> That's evolution, understandable in retrospect, nothing more <
I'm an evolutionary biologist, and I can tell you that that's just wishful thinking, nothing more.
> There probably is nothing like "rational thought." <
Seriously? So math and logic, just to pick two examples, aren't examples of rational thinking? Wow.RepliesIf it's not understandable in retrospect, its not going to be predictable either, so you are outside science there. Emergence is just ignorance of retrospect as the tool to explain, in preference for amazement that things change when they aggregate.
Delete- AnonymousOctober 29, 2012 2:11 PM
The fact appears to be that what we call rational thought is just locally, normed talk (chit chat) and is entirely epiphenomenal and may be deceptive about actual brain processes controlling behavior.
A rule of nature is that "Information is expensive" and so called "thought" which is really just social verbal behavior/self reports is very cheap and easy to collect. Thus, it has little information value.
Consciousness and weighing of options etc. is not needed to say do math. That appears to happen largely unconsciously in in milliseconds.
But the sales pitch of "rational thought" is a very clever and effective sales promise/tactic. But like most sales promises likely a simple lie. I responded to the posts purporting to define what is merely the complicated aggregations of constituents as 'emergence'. There is no definition of emergence. It assumes some kind of intactness obeying some kind of teleology when in fact its all driven from below, as retrospect shows.
> If it's not understandable in retrospect, its not going to be predictable either, so you are outside science there. <
You have a strange conception of science, and you clearly don't bother to read what I write. I said that what you think can be read retrospectively via evolution is wishful thinking, partly because it is too complex, partly because you need emergent properties to achieve that understanding. No magic involved.
> Emergence is just ignorance of retrospect as the tool to explain, in preference for amazement that things change when they aggregate. <
You keep ignoring the actual argument, preferring rhetorical flourish. Suit yourself.
> The fact appears to be that what we call rational thought is just locally, normed talk (chit chat) and is entirely epiphenomenal and may be deceptive about actual brain processes controlling behavior. <
And I suppose this includes what you just wrote? You see how nonsensical that sort of thinking becomes if pushed to the extreme? It's one think to note that human beings can rationalize and confabulate, but if one goes so far as to say that there is no rational thought at all, then one is being both irrational and self-defeating.Replies- AnonymousOctober 29, 2012 4:03 PM
Yes, writing is just post hoc verbal behavior that is social signaling based on local norms and carries little information value.
Information value is based on predicting the future. Math and data predict the future not natural language. In addition, it appears that writing/language is way after the fact of it's creation/triggering. No one has the time or energy to think about every word or action.
Again, if any of the so-called exceptional human qualities were useful we would find them in other species and they would have evolved far earlier.
Naive realism and local natural language usage and reification is self-defeating. kevin,
> if any of the so-called exceptional human qualities were useful we would find them in other species and they would have evolved far earlier. <
As an evolutionary biologist I guarantee you that the above sentence is sheer nonsense.
> The brain is just another organ of the body. duh <
If I read another "duh" from you my "post hoc verbal behavior that is social signaling" will signal to my fingers to type "reject" from your next comment. Fair warning.And I said if you can't even read retrospectively, what have you got? Nix. It's difficult enough to read restrospect well enough to predict from it, but you are dropping retrospect in the bin.
Delete- AnonymousOctober 29, 2012 6:35 PM
Ah, so the evo bio among us proposes that there are human behavioral abilities that are discontinuous with the hundreds of millions of years of evolution!
Pray tell what are these exceptional human behaviors and where did they originate genetically and ecologically?
Ah, so censorship, not because the ideas contradict your beliefs but because of "style." The same argument all repressive ideologies make "rudeness." Turns out "free thinkers" are only so inside the confines of their pet ideas. Where does your use of the term "bullshit" stand in your style requirement. Highly hypocritical -- but predictable.
You have no control of your reactive defensive/fear- based behavior -- best not to pretend otherwise. lol You fear new and different ideas but pretend it is social norms/politeness. Not true. Dare you to post this.
We don't give in to online bullies - duh. lol
Fascinating discussion. It's a shame Harris didn't show! I predict you'd have extracted a lot of surprising concessions from him, suitably extricated from the dialectic with postmodernists and supernaturalists.
'Explanatory level' does seem to be a rather confused idea, conflating the very general idea of explanatory hierarchy (where some facts asymmetrically account for others; the existence of electrons helps us understand why broccoli exists, but not the other way around), of the restricted body of referents (and conceptualizations thereof) of a scientific discipline's theories, of size, etc. But we should be careful not to leave anything out when we cannibalize all the useful component ideas; there is also a hierarchy of precisification, where terms tend to have vaguer truth-conditions the further they get from physics. The mereological and developmental boundaries of a heart made of atoms include all the intrinsic vagueness of atoms, and then some.
You criticize the in-principle reducibility of all phenomena to physics as "a metaphysical promissory note that will never be cashed". But there are many reasonable positions in this neighborhood that we don't consider crazy; it is reasonable to suppose that all non-avian dinosaurs were made of atoms, even though we can't actually check each individual's composition to confirm this. The denial of strong emergence should not be treated as a dogma or scientific sine-qua-non; it should be treated as a tentative null hypothesis, and as a challenge to find a disconfirming case. Universal generalizations are much harder to prove than to disprove, which inclines me to place more of the burden of proof on the anti-reductionists, who have a vastly easier case to make if correct.
You report that Dennett argued that "If lower levels entail (logically) higher phenomena," we would not expect beings with different biochemical properties to converge upon the same large-scale behaviors. That's got it backwards; it's only if the higher phenomena (e.g., economics) entail the lower level (e.g., chemistry) that we should automatically doubt high-level convergence. Likewise, in to your criticism of Rosenberg's "the physical facts fix all the facts," you say that the multiple realizability of a macro-model by micro-models may make inferring the right micro-model impossible in some cases. But this only problematizes higher levels' ability to fix physics, not physics' ability to fix more general, complex, large-scale, or imprecise facts.
Finally, you suggest that the existence of boundary conditions entails a kind of emergence. Does this mean you reject Deacon's claim: "emergence is inherently diachronic, i.e., emergent properties are behaviors that did not appear up to a certain time in the history of the universe." ?


text:
Application Error
One or more errors were detected while the program attempted to complete your request. Depending on the nature of the error, you may need the assistance of the system administrator. A description of the problem is provided below:
Sorry, unable to find item id "5857" in the auction database.
Trace Info 1: showitem.pl: main::ProcessViewFunction: line 313


text:
NFL Apple Airpods Pro Engraved case cover made with premium silicone and precision molded for a perfect fit. Our industry leading 2.75m thick construction protects your AirPods against bumps and drops. We designed it to be the most convenient and secure cover to carry your AirPods eliminating tiny dust and particles that might harm your case. Combine this high quality cover with your favorite team logo and you have the perfect way to show your affinity!
AirPods and Charging Case NOT included
Licensed product of Game Time
Designs Subject to Change


text:
SerbiaThe life expectancy at birth in Serbia is 75.02 while in Liberia it is 58.21.
This entry contains the average number of years to be lived by a group of people born in the same year, if mortality at each age remains constant in the future. The entry includes total population as well as the male and female components. Life expectancy at birth is also a measure of overall quality of life in a country and summarizes the mortality at all ages. It can also be thought of as indicating the potential return on investment in human capital and is necessary for the calculation of various actuarial measures.
CIA World Factbook
The per capita consumption of electricity in Liberia is 76kWh while in Serbia it is 3,889kWh
This entry consists of total electricity generated annually plus imports and minus exports, expressed in kilowatt-hours. The discrepancy between the amount of electricity generated and/or imported and the amount consumed and/or exported is accounted for as loss in transmission and distribution.
CIA World Factbook
The GDP per capita in Serbia is $11,100 while in Liberia it is $700
This entry shows GDP on a purchasing power parity basis divided by population as of 1 July for the same year. A nation's GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates is the sum value of all goods and services produced in the country valued at prices prevailing in the United States. This is the measure most economists prefer when looking at per-capita welfare and when comparing living conditions or use of resources across countries. The measure is difficult to compute, as a US dollar value has to be assigned to all goods and services in the country regardless of whether these goods and services have a direct equivalent in the United States (for example, the value of an ox-cart or non-US military equipment); as a result, PPP estimates for some countries are based on a small and sometimes different set of goods and services. In addition, many countries do not formally participate in the World Bank's PPP project that calculates these measures, so the resulting GDP estimates for these countries may lack precision. For many developing countries, PPP-based GDP measures are multiples of the official exchange rate (OER) measure. The differences between the OER- and PPP-denominated GDP values for most of the wealthy industrialized countries are generally much smaller.
CIA World Factbook
Liberia consumes 0.0378 gallons of oil per day per capita while Serbia consumes 0.4242
This entry is the total oil consumed in gallons per day (gal/day) divided by the population. The discrepancy between the amount of oil produced and/or imported and the amount consumed and/or exported is due to the omission of stock changes, refinery gains, and other complicating factors.
CIA World Factbook
Serbia has an unemployment rate of 19.70% while Liberia has 85.00%
This entry contains the percent of the labor force that is without jobs.
CIA World Factbook
Per capita public and private health expenditures combined in Serbia are $561.10 USD while Liberia spends $65.50 USD
This entry contains the per capita public and private health expenditure at purchase power parity using US Dollars. This figure combines government, personal, and employer spending on health care
World Health Organization
The number of deaths of infants under one year old in a given year per 1,000 live births in Serbia is 6.16 while in Liberia it is 69.19.
This entry gives the number of deaths of infants under one year old in a given year per 1,000 live births in the same year; included is the total death rate, and deaths by sex, male and female. This rate is often used as an indicator of the level of health in a country.
CIA World Factbook
140 in every 100,000 people are currently imprisoned in Serbia compared to 43 in Liberia
This entry contains the number of people in penal institutions, including pre-trial detainees. Comparability is hampered by differences in local practice, including whether psychiatrically ill offenders are under the authority of the prison administration. People held in a form of custody not under the authority of a prison administration are not included in this figure.
International Centre for Prison Studies
1.50 in every 100,000 people are murdered annually in Serbia compared to 3.30 in Liberia
This entry contains the number of victims of an unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person. Data is originally sourced from either criminal justice or public health systems.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
The percentage of adults living with HIV/AIDS in Serbia is 0.10% while in Liberia it is 0.90%. 100 people in Serbia and 1,700 people in Liberia die from AIDS each year.
This entry gives an estimate of the percentage of adults (aged 15-49) living with HIV/AIDS. The adult prevalence rate is calculated by dividing the estimated number of adults living with HIV/AIDS at yearend by the total adult population at yearend.
CIA World Factbook
The annual number of births per 1,000 people in Serbia is 9.13 while in Liberia it is 35.07.
This entry gives the average annual number of births during a year per 1,000 persons in the population at midyear; also known as crude birth rate. The birth rate is usually the dominant factor in determining the rate of population growth. It depends on both the level of fertility and the age structure of the population.
CIA World Factbook
With its 7,209,764 people, Serbia is the 100th largest country in the world by population. It is the 117th largest country in the world by area with 77,474 square kilometers.
The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes was formed in 1918; its name was changed to Yugoslavia in 1929. Communist Partisans resisted the Axis occupation and division of Yugoslavia from 1941 to 1945 and fought nationalist opponents and collaborators as well. The military and political movement headed by Josip Broz "TITO" (Partisans) took full control of Yugoslavia when their domestic rivals and the occupiers were defeated in 1945. Although communists, TITO and his successors (Tito died in 1980) managed to steer their own path between the Warsaw Pact nations and the West for the next four and a half decades. In 1989, Slobodan MILOSEVIC became president of the Republic of Serbia and his ultranationalist calls for Serbian domination led to the violent breakup of Yugoslavia along ethnic lines. In 1991, Croatia, Slovenia, and Macedonia declared independence, followed by Bosnia in 1992. The remaining republics of Serbia and Montenegro declared a new Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) in April 1992 and under MILOSEVIC's leadership, Serbia led various military campaigns to unite ethnic Serbs in neighboring republics into a "Greater Serbia." These actions were ultimately unsuccessful and, after international intervention, led to the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords in 1995. MILOSEVIC retained control over Serbia and eventually became president of the FRY in 1997. In 1998, an ethnic Albanian insurgency in the formerly autonomous Serbian province of Kosovo provoked a Serbian counterinsurgency campaign that resulted in massacres and massive expulsions of ethnic Albanians living in Kosovo. The MILOSEVIC government's rejection of a proposed international settlement led to NATO's bombing of Serbia in the spring of 1999. Serbian military and police forces withdrew from Kosovo in June 1999, and the UN Security Council authorized an interim UN administration and a NATO-led security force in Kosovo. FRY elections in late 2000 led to the ouster of MILOSEVIC and the installation of democratic government. In 2003, the FRY became the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, a loose federation of the two republics. Widespread violence predominantly targeting ethnic Serbs in Kosovo in March 2004 let to more intense calls to address Kosovo's status, and the UN began facilitating status talks in 2006. In June 2006, Montenegro seceded from the federation and declared itself an independent nation. Serbia subsequently gave notice that it was the successor state to the union of Serbia and Montenegro. In February 2008, after nearly two years of inconclusive negotiations, Kosovo declared itself independent of Serbia - an action Serbia refuses to recognize. At Serbia's request, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in October 2008 sought an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on whether Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence was in accordance with international law. In a ruling considered unfavorable to Serbia, the ICJ issued an advisory opinion in July 2010 stating that international law did not prohibit declarations of independence. In late 2010, Serbia agreed to an EU-drafted UNGA Resolution acknowledging the ICJ's decision and calling for a new round of talks between Serbia and Kosovo, this time on practical issues rather than Kosovo's status. The EU-moderated Belgrade-Pristina dialogue began in March 2011 and was raised to the level of prime ministers in October 2012. Serbia and Kosovo signed the first agreement of principles governing the normalization of relations between the two countries in April 2013 and are in the process of implementing its provisions.
Check out the recommended reading list below for great sources of information on Serbia


text:
Internet lotteries are did in the past collect your email residence address. There is huge amount types of which are not regulated by the government association will be specified for such points. Not only that, but many times there aren't real lottery. You can know them if you receive a voice message saying the won a lottery a person can didn't even enter in the first placed.
Learning the way to win Online lottery is also quite hard but never loose your hope. You confident, play and gain at the finish of the game. You can have better jackpot luck paying out a nominal fee price of thousand us.
pengeluaran hk have another advantage; you need not just play your local and state lotteries. You can play the lottery in another state, like Texas, California, or The sunshine state. You could also take your chance by playing the lottery in another country to obtain your hand on those winnings.
The first thing that I would personally suggest would be the fact you look up as much information as you can about exactly lottery pool is, the can be run, the challenges of belonging to a lottery pool and also the positives of of a lottery pool. Require to to assure that you gain as much knowledge as possible about lottery pools a person decide to make extinguish decision in regards to whether convincing to choose to join one or not.
You can search from lottery's most winning numbers but really are a few other in order to succeed to find the right combination of winning count. There are lottery systems that can teach you set together a sequence of numbers may give you' much better chance of winning the lottery. There isn't any way in order to choose numbers november 23 every jackpot feature. A good Online lottery system can demonstrate how to numbers may greatly delay your chances of winning the jackpot as well as a you frolic.
Make a list of all the things identify to purchase with your winnings. Now rate them on a scale of 1 to eight. Know what you're going to buy first exactly what comes eventual.
We have brought you some a look at this lottery pool which enables you produce an educated choice means positivity . are to be able to make a conclusion as as to if you demand join this pool or even otherwise.


text:
Advertising with us can place you in front of thousands of visitors a day. Learn more!
Shares of a credit union may be issued in the name of a minor or in trust, subject to conditions prescribed by the bylaws. When shares are issued in trust, the name of the beneficiary shall be disclosed to the credit union.
All content © 2023 by Touch N' Go/Bright Solutions, Inc.
Note to HTML Version:
This version of the Alaska Statutes is current through December, 2022. The Alaska Statutes were automatically converted to HTML from a plain text format. Every effort has been made to ensure their accuracy, but this can not be guaranteed. If it is critical that the precise terms of the Alaska Statutes be known, it is recommended that more formal sources be consulted. For statutes adopted after the effective date of these statutes, see, Alaska State Legislature If any errors are found, please e-mail Touch N' Go systems at E-mail. We hope you find this information useful.


text: Car problem(s) with the 2004 HONDA ELEMENT. This database includes information received by NHTSA from consumers either directly or as recorded by the Vehicle Safety Hotline. This information may be used by NHTSA during the investigation process. You may file your own complaint by calling the NHTSA Monday-Friday 8am to 8pm at (888) 327-4236, TTY: (800) 424-9153. You can also file your complaint online.


text:
Sign In
Employers: Post a Job
Sign In
Employers: Post a Job
For Job Seekers
Search Jobs
Employment Resources
Career Events
Job Search
Resume Writing
Cover Letters
Job Interviews
Career Issues
Job Descriptions
Job Search Tools
Getting Started
Upload Your Resume
Receive Job Notifications
Jobs Briefcase
Jobs Applied To
For Employers
Local Recruiting
Diversity Outreach
Branding & Social Media
Applicant Tracking System
Diversity Recruiting
OFCCP Compliance
Resources Library
Join Our Team
Not Authorized
You are currently not authorized to access this section.
Please contact your Administrator to change your authorization settings.
All Types
Podcast Episodes
All Categories
Job Search
Resume Writing
Cover Letters
Job Interviews
Career Issues
All Contributors
Abdusselimov, Maxim
Abella, Amanda
Ackerman, Danielle
Adams, Lisa
Adams, Wendy
Adams, Alice
Adams, Dawn
Adams, Jennifer
Adams, Emilie
Adamson, Georgia
Adler, Lou
Adler, Oscar
Adler, Kristin
Adler, Rachel
Agrawal, AJ
Akana, Walter
Alba, Jason
Albano, Tom
Aldrich, Brad
Alexander, Philip
Alfandre, Cathy
Allan, Lance
Allegretto, Sylvia
Allen, Errol
Allen, Dalyn
Amato, Jessica
Andersen, Erika
Anderson, Carol
Anderson, Brian
Anderson, Brad
Anderson, Bradley
Anderson, Nick
Andrus, Khristie
Angone, Paul
Anicich, Eric
Applebaum, Raven
Asghar, Rob
Aspros, Douglas
Atkinson, Jenna
Atkinson, Chris
Attridge, Todd
Atz, John C.
Azzarello, Patty
Bachhuber, Thomas
Baggerly-Hinojosa, Barbara
Bagrin, Andrew
Bagshaw, Tony
Baird, Rick
Baker, Sabrina
Baker, Ron
Balconi, Liz
Baldoni, John
Bamberger, Michael
Barnes, Christopher
Barnes, Tyler
Barrett, Ted
Barrett-Poindexter, Jacqui
Barro, Dr. Arlene
Barrowman, Carole
Bartch, Eric
Bartell, Karen
Batansky, Jason
Bates, Christina
Bates, Suzanne
Bates, Christopher
Batiste, Linda C.
Bauer, Stephen
Bayr, Claudia
Beal, Mike
Becker-Phelps, Leslie
Beckman, Mary Ann
Begovich, Butch
Behymer, Cheryl L.
Belosic, Jim
Benavides, Gladis
Bennett, Gail
Berchtold, Bob
Bergelson, Mike
Berkelaar, Brenda
Berns, Annalisa
Bertram, Connie
Biddle, Dan
Biddle, Corry Joe
Bidwell, Matthew
Bielefeldt, Eric
Birnir, Adda
Bisbing, Kenzi
Blitzer, Roy J.
Block, Randy
Block, Joe
Blomgren, George
Boas, Bernadette
Bolter, Douglas
Bonk, Mike
Boomer, Gary
Borenstein, Gal
Borhani, Dr. Hossein
Borland, Jim
Bornheimer, Kathy
Boue, George
Bousquet, Courtney
Bowman, Amanda
Boyd, Charlene
Boyer, Cheryl
Boyer, Lorrie
Bradberry, Travis
Bradford, Mary Elizabeth
Braziel, Lisa
Breitbarth, Wayne
Brenner, Guy
Briggs, Kevin
Broeker, Judith
Brookman, Krista
Brouillette, Denise
Brown, Marshall
Brown, Yvonne
Brown, Debbie
Brown III, C.J.
Brown-Volkman, Deborah
Brusman, Dr. Maynard
Bryan, Tony
Bryant, Craig
Bryson, John
Budson, Victoria
Bugni, Dawn
Bulger, Brian
Bundalo, Kathy
Burik, Katherine
Burka, Jane
Burns, Dana
Burns, Karen
Burrs, Dr. Linda
Burrus, Daniel
Butler, Leigha
Butts, Eric
Byrne, John
Byrnes, Mike
Bywater, Liz
Cage, Jeremy
Cain, Sandra
Caldwell, Mathew
Canaday, Sara
Cancialosi, Chris
Capland, Wendy
Caprino, Kathy
Cardy, Alison Elissa
Carlon, Brook
Carlson, James
Carollo, Bill
Carrera, Phyllis
Carrico, Dan
Carson, Mel
Carter, Mandy
Carter, Matt
Carter, Kristen
Castro, Brittney
Catlin, Karen
Cattie, Howard
Cavaiola, Alan
Cerutti, Mario
Cevallos, Julie
Chamberlain Kritikos, Katie
Chamberlin, Gary A.
Chandrashekhar, Shekhar
Chapman, Jack
Charney, Renee
Chaviano, Danielle
Chen, Robert
Cheng, Jocelyn
Cherradi, Soul
Chesney, Cady
Chesnutt, Brandon
Cheung, Ka Wai
Chionchio, Amy
Chomicka, Debra
Chorley, Clara
Chow, Stefanie
Christensen, Red (Richard)
Christiansen, Lilith
Chung, Thomas
Church, Brian
Ciccarelli, David
Citron, Joel
Clark, Terri Tierney
Clark, Rick
Clark, Michiko
Clark, Shelby
Clarke, Niffer
Clason, Patricia
Claus, Santa
Clements, Lynn
Climer, Amy
Coate, Andrew J.
Coates, Dan
Cochran, Trey
Cody, Steve
Coffman-Thiede, Keri
Cohen, Gary
Cohen, Betty
Cohen, Sharon
Cohen, Julie
Cohen, David
Cohn, Carolyn
Cohn, Michael
Cohn, Ariana
Colan, Lee J.
Colley, Beth
Collins, Alan
Collinson, Lauren
Combs, Susan
Conley, Randy
Connour, Jenna
Conrad, Chuck
Cooper, Michael O. (Coop)
Cornelius, George
Corso, Andria
Corso, Diana
Corwin, Suzanne Donnelly
Cosker, Glynn
Cottringer, William
Couden, Carmen
Couper, David
Cox, Rosemary
Crandall, Mike
Crant, John
Crawford, Hallie
Crawford Hentz, Maureen
Crawford-Marks, Raphael
Crews, Taylor
Cross, Jay
Crotty, Cara
Cruz, Chris
Csordas, Andrea
Cullen, Maureen
Cummings, Jean
Curry, Robert
Cutter, Chris
Czarnik, Mimi
Dagliano, Norine
Dann, William
Davidian, Marie
Davids, Mary V.
Davidson, Susan
Davies, Jeff
Davis, Ted
Davis, Terri
Davis, Jan
Davis-Laack, Paula
Daw, Meredith
de Haan, Romke
Decker, Ben
Deckers, Erik
DeHaven, Dara L.
Delaney, Beth
Delaporte, Ed
DeMarco-Wettlaufer, Blair
Demers, Dan
Denham, Thomas J.
Dennis, Pamela
DeNucci, Patti
Desmond-Lugo, Eva
Dettman, Scott
DeVito, Joe
Devlin, John Gennaro
Dexter-Wilson, Elizabeth
Dickerson, Doug
Dickey, Kiosha H.
Dickson, Christine
Dillon, Nicholas
Dingee, Kelly
Dinsmore, Scott
Ditta, Anne-Marie
Dobogai, Linda
Donlin, Kevin
Donnelly, Bob
Doolen, Forrest
Dorow, Brian
Dotson, Liz
Dowd-Higgins, Caroline
Doyle, Bill
Drake, Ben
Drechsel, Robert
Drexler, Barry
Driver, Janine
Dubensky, Joyce
Duckworth, Johonna
Duesterhoft, Martha
Dugan, Amie
Dumas, Michelle
Duncan, Peggy
Duncan, Michelle
Dunn, Alexander R.P.
Dunn, Kris
Dwane, Anne
Dye, David
Earnhardt, John
Earon, Ernest
Eblin, Scott
Economy, Peter
Edwards, Sherri
Edwards, Croft
Eggert-Dziedzic, Staci
Ehrendreich, Gregory
Eisaguirre, Lynne
Eischen, Cliff
Eisenberg, Kim
Elliot, Bruce
Elliot-Yeary, Sherri
Elton, Chester
Enelow, Wendy
Eng, Cathy
Engelmeier, Shirley
Ennis, Jzyk
Enochs, Randy
Erickson, Patricia
Erin, Adrienne
Eubanks, Ben
Evans, Marshawn
Evans, Henry
Ewalt, Gretchen
Falls, Rachelle
Falls, Nancy
Faraj, Jabril
Farber, Steve
Favreau, Annie
Feest, Joe
Feldman, Debra
Fell, Rachel
Fenner, Mark
Fenske, Thomas
Fenwick, Delaney
Ferguson, Jonathon
Ferns, Deb
Fertik, Michael
Fettner, Marilyn
Fickenscher, Kevin
Fienberg, Rick
Fifer, Steve
Figueroa, Cherisse
Filippini, Dustin
Fisher, Anne
Fisher Roffer, Robin
Fitzgerald, Ashley
Flores, Maria
Ford, John
Foss, Jenny
Foss, Kristine
Foster, Corrin
Fox, John
Frahm, Josh
Frame, Patricia
Francis, Nicole
Francois, Cathy
Frank, Laura
Frank, Arthur
Frazier, Bernie
Fredericks, Jim
Freedman, Elizabeth
Freiberger, Paul
Freitag, Carey
Friedman, Lynn
Fuentes, Montserrat
Gamble, Erica
Gardner, Debra Milstein
Gardner, Ross
Gardner, Tim
Garger, Laura R.
Garner, Jason
Garrett, Laura
Garver, Louise
Garvin, Kalindi
Gerbyshak, Phil
Gerdsen, Jamie
Geroux, Sandy
Gerson, Raymond
Giamanco, Barbara
Giammatteo, Jim
Giang, Vivian
Giarratani, Shafeeqa
Gibson, Rowan
Gielan, Michelle
Gilfeather, Beth
Gillis, Rick
Gilmore, Lisa
Ginsberg, Barry
Giordano, Joe
Glantz, Jen
Glassford, Samantha
Gobel, Jamie
Goldsmith, Dr. Barton
Goldsmith, Marshall
Goleman, Daniel
Goltz, Jenny
Goodwin, Tai
Gorkin, Mark
Gormandy White, Mary
Gorski, Lisa
Gouge, Jody
Grable, Robyn
Graham, Charlie
Grant, Alexis
Green, Tim
Greenberg, Melanie
Greenberg, Jon
Greenwood, Ramon
Gregston, Meredith
Grimes, Bob
Grochowski, Michael
Grubel, Marcia
Gunelius, Susan
Guralski, Amanda
Guth, Amy
Haden, Jeff
Hadley, John West
Hahn-Griffiths, Stephen
Haimann, Cliff
Halmi, Kerrie
Hamilton, Rebecca
Hand, Karen
Handlin, Liz
Hanel, Marcus
Hanley, Ryan
Hannon, Kerry
Hansen, Randall
Hansmann, Amy
Hansson, David Heinemeier
Hapka, Joe
Hardtke, David
Harpe, Lisa
Harr, Marla
Harris, Angela
Harshman, Stacy
Harvey, Beverly
Hassler, Christine
Hastings, Rachael
Hauck, Rick
Havasi, Catherine
Hayes, Clark
Hebert, Paul
Heitmann, Alvin
Helm, Paul
Henrickson, Hilary
Hernandez, Elizabeth
Herrick, Scot
Herzog, Barbara
Hicks, Kim
Hiefield, Martha
Hill, Mary Alice
Himelstein, Cord
Hird Dutcher, Jeri
Hoffman, Valerie
Holbrook Hernandez, Jessica
Holloway, Sara
Holmes, Melanie
Hooker, Adrianne L.
Horn, Lynda
Hornor, Tara
Horsager, David
Horton, Dan
Horvath, Elizabeth
Horvitz, Alissa
Houghtaling, Joey
Houran, James
Howery, Satauna
Howland, Samantha
Hueneman, Sandra
Humpton, Barbara
Hunn, Andrew
Hunt, Catherine
Hurd, Holly
Irwin, Carla
Ivy, Robert
Jabusch, Anne
Jackson, Jane
Jacobs, Laura
Jacobsohn, Jason
Jacoby, Jason
Jacoby, Margaret
Jay, Joelle
Jenkin, Ted
Jenkins, Eva
Jensen, Bill
Jensen, Jessica
Johnson, Jonathan
Johnson, Kristen N.
Johnson, Tory
Johnson, Kristin
Jones, Tim
Jones, Rich
Jones, Beverly
Julius, Judy
Kahnweiler, Jennifer
Kaiser, Lisa
Kalter, John
Kanchier, Carole
Kaplan, Elle
Kaplowitz, Gary
Karmazin, Craig
Karrow, Cindy
Karsh, Brad
Kasanoff, Bruce
Katz, Karen P.
Kaye, Eric
Kearns, Ellen C.
Kelley, Thea
Kelley, Tim
Kelly, Stacy
Kelly, T. Scott
Kemp, John
Kemple, Matt
Kennedy, Erik
Kerpen, Dave
Kerrigan, Michelle
Kessel, Steve
Kestner-Ricketts, Laura
Keys, Suzanne
Khare, Shweta
King, Dan
Kipp, Tom
Kirchner, Lori
Kishor, Kundan
Klass, Terri
Klawon, Corinna
Kleiman, Mel
Klein, Don
Kniffin, Kevin
Knight, Jeanne
Knox, Hamish
Kobara, John E.
Koch, Peggy
Kochan, Michelle
Kogon, Kory
Koplovitz, Kay
Korschun, Daniel
Kowalski, Katie
Kozel, Ellen
Krasna, Heather
Krenzke, Kaye
Kronfeld, Madeline
Kruse, Kathi
Kuang, Dan
Kurow, Dale
Kurtz, Jill
Kwiecien, Nicholas
La Gioia, Pamela
Labovich, Laura
Land, Jerry
Landry, Mi'Shon
Lane, Stacey
LaPrairie, Mary
LaRose, Yvonne
Laswell, Tracy
Lauby, Sharlyn
Lawton, Ben
Le-Tse, Nina
Leader-Chivee, Lauren
Leathers, Rowe
Lee, Kathleen
Lee, David
Leibman, Pete
Leininger, Betty Regina
Lemerond, William
Lennon, Dawn
Lentini, John
Leonetti, John
Leproust, Emily
Letwat, Sheryl
Levenson, Adam
Levin, Mara
Levine, Emily
Levit, Alexandra
Lewis, Jessica
Lewis, Lynette
Lewis, Janet
Lewis, Randy
Lindbloom, Katie
Lindenberger, Judy
Lindholm, Chris
Lipman, Victor
Lister, Kate
Locke, Abby
Loewenstein, Jeffrey
Lofy, Heidi
Lomax, Stefanie
Lombardo, Grace
Lomenick, Brad
Long, John E.
Lotito, Michael J.
Lousberg, Debbie
Lowe, Bonnie
Lucas-DeBerry, Cheryl
Lucco, Joseph
Lustenberger, Don
Lynch Simpson, Cheryl
MacDougall, Preston
MacGillis, Jim
MacKeigan, Anne
Mackey, James
Maday, Matthew
Madlom, James
Maertz, Corey
Magnus, Eddy
Maguire, Steve
Mahara, Azure
Maher, Pat
Maher, Bob
Makell, Chris
Mancheski, Jeremy
Marchitello, Mandy
Marcus, Sander
Marcus, Bonnie
Mariotti, Steve
Markman, Art
Marquand, Abby
Marquit, Miranda
Marris, Andy
Marsh, Ken
Marsh, Lisa
Martin, Rick
Martin, Jeanette S.
Martinage, Daniel
Mason, Kevin
Masters, Andy
Matheson, Victor
Matthews, Debra Ann
Mattson, Dave
Matuson, Roberta
Maxfield, David
McBain, Laura
McCrorey, Dee
McDermott, Tom
McDonald, Patrick
McGhee, Shun
McGuffin, Nina
McIntosh, Laurie
McKeever, Robert
McKissen, Dustin
McNally, Caitlin
Mech, Craig
Meeker, Dr. John
Melnick, Sharon
Melnik, Jan
Menassa, Alex
Mendez-Achee, Julia
Meninger, Kim
Menon, Deepa S.
Mercer, Naomi
Metcalf, Mark
Meyers, Stephanie
Michalski, Keith
Miller, Andrew
Miller, John G.
Miller, Heather
Miller, Emily
Miller, Marc
Miller, Stacey
Mills, Anthony
Mills, Meredith
Mills, Scott
Mitchell, Barbara
Mitchell, Carol Vallone
Mittelstaedt, Chris
Mohiuddin, Kim
Mohr, Tara
Moisiades, Ariadne
Molitor, Lynn
Montgomery, Dorothy
Moon, Janine
Moore, Ken
Moore, Leigh
Morgan, Jacob
Morgan, Charles
Morin, Amy
Morris, Amanda
Morton, Lisa Brown
Moyer, Caitlin
Mueckenheim, Jackie
Mueller, Carl
Mueller-Hanson, Rose
Muenter, Susan A.
Muma, Tim
Mundell, Heather
Murphy, James
Murphy, Ben
Muys, Brian
Myers, Ford R.
Naci, Kim
Namie, Gary
Nason, Leigh
Natalizio, Mike
Near, Christopher J.
Negreanu, Daniel
Neimeyer, Greg
Nelson, Judith
Nelson, Jenny
Nelson, Heather
Nemko, Marty
Newfield, Peter
Newman, Perry
Newport, Cal
Nichols, Jennifer
Nilsen, Mackenzie
Nilson, Todd
Nimke, Anne
Nir, JD
Norem, Julie
Nourse, Kevin
Novak, JoAnne
Nusbaum, Matt
O'Brien, Hugh Aodh
O'Donnell, J.T.
O'Shea, Kidd
O'Sullivan, Caitrin
Obniski, Monica
Offord, Scott
Ollenburg, Jessica
Olsen, Zach
Olson, Randall
Omernick, Courtney
Osterndorf, Bill
Pagel, Debbie
Palfy, Christy
Paretti, Jr., James A.
Parfitt, Kris
Parker, Alvah
Parks, James
Pasek, Jeffrey
Pati, Michael
Patrick, Chris
Patterson, Joanna
Patton, Jr., James (Jay) A.
Pechaitis, Scott
Pellet, Lizz
Percival, Jeff
Perkins, Judi
Perkins, Nikotris
Perry, Mike
Peterson, Jacquelyn
Petrilli, Lisa
Pheiff, Connie
Piasecki, Bruce
Piatt, John
Piering, Peder
Pimentel, Dr. Richard K.
Plantrich, Kris
Ploor, Pamela
Plunkett, James J.
Poage, Glyn
Pogson, Kenneth
Pollak, Lindsey
Porter, Jason
Poskey, Mike
Powell, Jessica
Prager, Leslie B.
Prescott, Nadia
Pugh, Oliver
Pugh, Melvin
Pullen, John Patrick
Puppe, Mark
Pyles, Susan
Ramos, Marife
Randa Hasson, Lauren
Rangel, Lisa
Ranieri, Anna
Rapp, Kathy
Rasico, Andy
Ratcliff, Stephen
Rea, Mitch
Rebel, Tom
Redelman, Gavin
Reguero, Pedro
Reid, Marney
Rhoad, Todd
Riggio, Ron
Ritcherson, Roderick
Robinson, Andy
Roffman, Josh
Rogenmoser, Dave
Rogers, Roselle
Rolie, Linda K.
Ronnenburg, Beth
Rose, Jeff
Rose, Teena
Rosenberg, Merrick
Rosenberg, Ilene
Ross, Ruth
Roth, Bob
Roth, Shari
Rothchild, Forest
Rovello, Carol
Rowbottom, Betsy
Ruark, Ben
Rubin, Danny
Runnheim Olson, Joan
Russell, Dr. Joyce E. A.
Russell, Nan S.
Ruyle, Kim
Ryan, Robin
Ryan, Rebecca
Saba, Katie
Sackett, Tim
Sady, Kayo
Safani, Barbara
Sajkowski, Cassie
Salem, Marc
Sanchez, Cynthia
Saunds, Ozzie
Saur, Karl
Savino, Carl
Schafer, Trudy
Schlinger, Robin
Schmidt, Debra J.
Schneiderman, Kimberly
Schroeder, Patricia
Schueller, Ann
Schuyler, Marilynn L.
Schwartz, Jeanne
Scivicque, Chrissy
Scotland, Lawrence
Segaric, Annemarie
Seibert, Alexis
Seidman, Bettina
Seiler, Jason
Seiter, Courtney
Seitter, Keith
Selk, Jason
Sesno, Frank
Shahrokh, Fereidoon
Shalom, Debbie
Shamber, Cassie
Shapiro, Ruth
Sheats, Brett
Sheehy, Jennifer
Sherwood Sevinsky, Mary
Shihab, Penelope
Shong-Bergman, Ellen
Sicari, Diana
Silvert, Daniel
Simko, Jessica
Sinclair, Margery
Singh, Jas
Sitar, Dana
Sjodin, Terri
Slater, Katie
Slater, Ben
Smith, Sandra M.
Smith, Meghan
Smith, Shane
Smith, Jodi R. R.
Smith-Proulx, Laura
Smythe, Jennifer
Sokolosky, Valerie
Soschin, Dan
Sostrin, Jesse
Speed, Angela
Speer, Melissa
Spiegel, Amber
Spraggins, Crystal
Squier Kraft, Dr. Heidi
Stahlmann, Jack
Stanley, Jay
Stapleton, Jerry
Starr, James
Stasiw, Jessica
Stauffacher, Jason
Stefaniak, Mike
Stoffer, Janet
Stone, Jim
Stoner, Rick
Storrs, Cynthia
Stratis, Mark
Stribling, Kesi
Sullivan, Dr. John
Sullivan, John
Sumner, Curt
Sundheim, Ken
Sutton, Garrett
Sutton-Gee, Ryan
Swain, Terri
Swanson, Ron
Swart, Gary
Sykes, Ed
Szarka, Les
Tabaka, Marla
Tannahill-Moran, Dorothy
Taub, Rob
Teach, Andy
Teets, Cody
Templin, Courtney
Terry, Marjie
Terwelp, Wendy J.
Thakkar, Nimish
Thomas, Stephanie
Thomas, Mindy
Thompson, James
Thompson, Jody
Tiwari, Manoj
Tobin, Timothy J.
Toensing, Amy
Touey, John
Tozer, Keith
Traditi, Frank
Turner, Joe
Tussler, Sherrie
Ungaro, Bonnie
Urschel, Harry
Vainrub, Claudine
Vanderkam, Laura
Vargas, Rosa Elizabeth
Vaughn, Cynthia
Vernon, Alexia
Vetter, Moira
Vincent, Mary Jeanne
Visconti, Ron
Vitale, Karen
Volpe, Mike
von Schrader, Sarah
Voss, Tom
Vyborny, Brigette
Vygodner, Marina
Wachtel, Michelle
Wade, Vannessa
Waldman, Joshua
Waldman, Amy
Walker, Meredith
Wallace, Eric
Wallace, Angela
Walraven, Julie
Wanie, Samantha
Ward, Melani
Warnecke, Brian
Watson, Amy
Webber, Jim
Weber, Julie
Weible, Corinne
Weidel, Larry
Weidenmiller, Joanna Riley
Weiner, Wendi
Weinschenk, Susan
Weinstein, Alex
Weis, Shirley
Wellesley, Beth
Wentler, Heather
Westen, Lance
Wheatman, Debra
Whetzel, Melanie
Whitbourne, Susan
White, Warren
White, Mary G.
Whitehead, Michele
Whitmore, Jacqueline
Wichert, Nick
Wilding, Melody
Willard, Mindy
Williams, Joeff
Williams, Greg
Williams, Dr. Wendell
Williams, Dean
Willis, Sheila
Wilson, Keli
Winters, Chad
Wisniewski, Mary Beth
Wittliff, Dan
Wolf, Christine
Wolske, Jon
Wooden, Randy
Woods, Lisa
Woodward, Michele
Woolard, Chris
Wozniak, Amy
Wu, Brianna
Wulf, Barbara
Young, Tiffany
Young, Judy
Younies, Ahmed
Younts, Diana
Zawikowsi, Bryan J.
Zeigler, Sandra
Zeinert, Debi
Zomick, Brad
Zupke, Torry
Search Results
You're on page
Technically Speaking
Deadly Sins of Social Media Marketing
Cheri Simonet
Tim Muma
- September 26, 2016
The strategies for marketing continue to evolve thanks to technology and culture. The prevalence of social media in today's society has upped the ante for businesses, but many are still trying to figure out the best tact when utilizing this forum. Cheri Simonet, digital marketing manager and principal owner of d. Mark Consulting, tells Tim Muma about the deadly sins of social media marketing. She breaks down the flaws of so...
Technically Speaking
Getting Customers to Share on Social Media
Kelsey Johnson
Tim Muma
- September 11, 2016
Sharing all sorts of information on social media has become the norm, and it's important for companies to create strategies to ensure their content is also being passed along. Kelsey Johnson, marketing coordinator for Fractl, talks to Tim Muma about the variety of factors to consider when marketing via social media. Kelsey explains how and why people choose to share content, and how organizations can use this information to...
Technically Speaking
Company Big Data, Security and Informational Safety
Charles Morgan
Tim Muma
- September 9, 2016
It's no secret that with all the information and technological advances in our society, that individuals and businesses alike are constantly in danger of having their private data stolen. Acxiom founder Charles Morgan, current CEO of PrivacyStar and author of "Matters of Life and Data," brings his unmatched experiences in the world of tech to discuss the concerns of data, security and safety in the information age. Charles...
Technically Speaking
PlanGrid: Making Construction Digital
Ryan Sutton-Gee
Tim Muma
- September 8, 2016
Though the construction industry lives in the physical world, paper plans and blueprints were a costly aspect to its old school ways. Ryan Sutton-Gee, COO and co-founder of PlanGrid, talks about the creation and development of PlanGrid as a benefit to the construction field. He explains to Tim Muma how PlanGrid took advantage of new technology to save companies time, money and frustration while helping a traditional discipl...
Technically Speaking
Leveraging Social Media to the Fullest
Stefanie Lomax
Tim Muma
- September 2, 2016
Whether you're looking for a job, trying to prove your expertise or searching for the best candidates to join your company, social media outlets have become invaluable. Anyone can use these mediums, but to leverage them effectively it's important you understand the best strategies to follow. Stefanie Lomax, director of human resources at Rolyn, gives Tim Muma the key components to keep in mind when utilizing social media. S...
Job Search
Job Search
Technically Speaking
Utilizing Technology in Education
Jim Rovira
Tim Muma
- August 30, 2016
Various uses of technology can be invaluable when it comes to educational success and improved learning. At the same time, people need to be cautious in seeing all forms of technology as an easy fix to how people are taught. Jim Rovira, associate professor of English at Tiffin University, explains to Tim Muma how important it is to ensure students are matched with the appropriate use of technology. Whether it's taking onlin...
Job Search
Job Search
Technically Speaking
The ACLU View on Police Use of Body Cameras
Jay Stanley
Tim Muma
- August 12, 2016
On the surface, putting cameras on police officers stands to help all parties in terms of accountability and safety; however, it's more complicated than it sounds. Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), discusses the numerous concerns that exist with running cameras, storing video, and constant monitoring of people while they work. Tim Muma asks him about the rights of the officers...
Career Issues
Career Issues
Technically Speaking
Instacart and the On-Demand Community
Mathew Caldwell
Tim Muma
- August 11, 2016
The speed and convenience of technology has created a growing on-demand community, where you can get things when it you want them. Instacart looks to make that available when it comes to grocery shopping, and still allow you to buy from your favorite local stores. Matthew Caldwell, head of talent at Instacart, talks to Tim Muma about the goals of Instacart in the on-demand world. Matthew also describes how the company's cul...
Technically Speaking
Twist Bioscience: Faster Synthetic DNA and the Impact Across Industries
Emily Leproust
Tim Muma
- August 9, 2016
It's no secret the immense value technological advances have brought to a variety of industries. Twist Bioscience is at the forefront of creating synthetic DNA more quickly, making it readily available to companies across countless fields - including food and medicine. Dr. Emily Leproust, founder and CEO of Twist Bioscience, gives Tim Muma all the details on how her company fills voids and makes organizations more viable to...
Technically Speaking
Luminoso: Computers Listening, Interpreting Human Language
Catherine Havasi
Tim Muma
- July 20, 2015
The interactions between humans and technology will continue to increase, particularly as companies try to target the wants and needs of each individual. Dr. Catherine Havasi, CEO of Luminoso, describes how her organization is working to give computers the ability to not only understand words, but break down concepts and emotions coming from human language. She explains to Tim Muma the value of this technology and the way t...
You're on page
About Us
Join Our Team
Find a Job
Search Jobs
Advanced Search
Post a Job
Local Recruiting
OFCCP Solutions
Request a Demo
Employment Resources
Career Events
Job Search Tools
Contact Us
Send an Email
Contact Us
Send an Email
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Stay Connected
Sign up for The OFCCP Digest
Sign Up
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright © 1994-2024 The Infosoft Group LLC
All rights reserved