text:
We know that the Zariski topology is defined on the set of all prime ideals ,is it possible to define a topology on the set of all ideals of a commutative ring? (I hope that the new topology can utilize the Zariski topology)
Obviously, it is possible to define some topology. However, the obvious generalization of the Zariski topology, to take a set to be closed if and only if it is of the form $V(I) = \{J : I \subset J\}$ for some fixed ideal $I$, does not work since this collection of sets is not generally closed under finite unions. Consider the set $A$ of all ideals of $\mathbb{Z}$ containing (2) or (3). If $A$ were of the form $V(n)$ for any $n \in \mathbb{Z}$, then $(n) \in A$; thus, would contain (2) or (3), i.e., n would divide 2 or 3, which is absurd. However, the set of all prime ideals containing (2) or (3) is equal to the set of all prime ideals containing (6).
Nevertheless, using schemes, one can give geometric meaning to the set of all ideals of a ring. Specifically, the ideals of $R$ correspond naturally to the set of closed subschemes of Spec $R$.
It is possible to give the collection of ideals a weaker structure than a topology, such as the structure of a quantale. This is a generalisation of a locale, which is a form of topology without points.
See http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/Quantale.html for a proof about the quantale of ideals.


text:
The truth about cloud services
Wherever you are in the cloud planning, adoption and management process, you can depend on Dell expertise to help you achieve your goals — without introducing new complexity or risk :
- Create a strategy that targets your specific requirements with help from Dell consultants.
- Get the support you need through every phase of the solution lifecycle — regardless of the cloud vendors you already use.
- Explore the best approach to unifying and managing your entire cloud environment with hosted test environments.
- Prepare your IT environment for cloud adoption by modernizing your applications.
- Work with specialists to compare infrastructure services from a wide selection of leading cloud providers.
|Dell Cloud Consulting Service
|Dell Cloud Application Development and
Migration to the Cloud
Work with Dell experts to apply a
|Create applications for various cloud
platforms and migration your existing
applications to the cloud.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
So I have Ubuntu installed on my pc, and I want to upgrade to the new Ubuntu which was just released. When I check for any new updates it doesn't show any upgrades to the new release. How can I fix this? Thanks!
If you're not getting an option to upgrade then your local mirror might be out of date, you can either wait a bit for that to resolve itself, or manually switch to another mirror. You should also make sure your software properties settings are correct.
After that follow the upgrade instructions:
Press Alt + F2 and paste:
Then go to tab "Updates" and at "Notify me about new Ubuntu version" choose "For any version".
(Or if you are at 10.04, go to tab "Updates" and at "Release upgrade" choose "Normal Releases")
Finally open Update Manager and check it again.
In the Update Manager settings, make sure "Notify me of a new Ubuntu version" is not set to "Never."
You can select any of the Normal or LTS releases in the Release update setting. After exit, reload.
You can then start update manager and click check.
One property of Ubuntu is unless you update all the packages to a desired version for the upgrade, option to upgrade will not appear.
so first, kindly apply all the updates of all the packages. Then when you click update, this option of 12.04 should appear.
Thank you.
12.04 is a "Long-term support" version. By default it will only offer upgrades to the next LTS in a few years time.
To force it to offer upgrading to a normal release such as 12.10 you can open Software sources and set Show new distribution releases to Normal releases.
See this answer here: http://askubuntu.com/a/125646/27968
12.01 is less then 12.04. Meaning it's not an update. I assume you mean 12.10. Please update your question if that is the case.
12.04 is a LTS release. By default it only updates to the next LTS release (13.something a long time from now) You can change this by running
Make sure this is what you want to do though. For most casual users, 12.04 is recommended (and is the latest).
protected by Community♦ May 12 '12 at 21:11
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?


text:
Same-Sex Civil Unions?
Now that Pope Francis has been said to have approved of same-sex civil unions during his time in Argentina, we begin to see other cautious voices chiming in. First was the "no, I didn't mean THAT" from Vincezo Paglia, and now Archbishop Piero Marini observes "There are many couples that suffer because their civil rights aren't recognized."Make no mistake: Francis spoke clearly and harshly against same-sex marriage, calling it a destructive attack on Gods plan. Francis also is fervently opposed to gay adoption, which he has said discriminates against children. (In fact, however, no reputable data shows harm to children from being raised in households headed by same-sex couples. Some studies show benefits.) It is not unreasonable to see his apparent openness to civil unions as a compromise stance. In fact, such a stance would seem to be in accord with Catholic doctrine in that civil law is answerable not to Church teaching but to the requisites of the common good, manifested in contemporary societies by recognizing the equal rights of all. Civil law neither prohibits all vices nor does it require the practice of all virtues. (This latter from that radical dude, Thomas Aquinas.) This would be a shift from recent magisterial pronouncements. Pope Benedict spoke against civil recognition of same-sex relationships in 2003, not distinguishing civil unions from civil marriage. If Francis stays the course, it'd mark a sharp change from the views of his predecessor still living just across the way.Echoing Benedict, the USCCB spoke against same-sex civil unions in 2009, calling them
a multifaceted threat to the very fabric of society, striking at the source from which society and culture come and which they are meant to serve. Such recognition affects all people, married and non-married: not only at the fundamental levels of the good of the spouses, the good of children, the intrinsic dignity of every human person, and the common good, but also at the levels of education, cultural imagination and influence, and religious freedom.
Interesting times. Will the USCCB find a way both to accede to Pope Francis' apparent willingness to promote civil unions AND to continue to stand by its stated concern that society will fall into ruin as a result? Or will they act in defiance of the current Pope, (assuming, of course, that Francis doesn't change his tune now that he's changed his name)? Or, as some have observed, has this ship sailed? The time to promote civil unions as an alternative to same-sex marriage may have passed. To many, now, it's civil marriage all the way, with civil unions sounding too much like "separate but equal" to the American Catholic ear. (Indeed, Catholics lead other religious groups in their support of same-sex marriage.)
About the Author
Lisa Fullam is professor of moral theology at the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley. She is the author of The Virtue of Humility: A Thomistic Apologetic (Edwin Mellen Press).
64 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
Lisa - you may well have looked into it more deeply than I have, but my understanding is that Cardinal Bergoglio "supported" same sex civil unions very much as a lesser-of-two-evils in Argentina - the greater of the two evils being same sex marriage (which, I believe, passed despite his opposition). I don't know that American bishops would "accede" to this line of thought, unless there is a specific lesser-of-two-evils choice presented in a particular jurisdiction. My admittedly not very close observation of the trajectory of same sex relationship recognition in the US is that it's rare that both civil union legislation and same sex marriage legislation would be proposed simultaneously.. Ether it happens as it seems to be happening now in Illinois, in which civil unions are legalized as a stepping-stone to full-blown marriage which follows in being legalized a few years later, or, as you note, the ship of civil unions has now sailed, and jurisdictions will make the jump from no recognition at all directly to recognition of same sex marriage.FWIW, I don't think that civil unions need to be positioned as a same sex issue in order for the church to oppose it (or at least to have serious qualms about it). I recall reading that a number of opposite sex couples have opted for it in France. Without introducing the additional complexity of same sex legal recognition, civil unions are problematic. I'd be really surprised if Pope Francis sees civil unions as virtuous. I'd think it more likely that he considers it to be a vice, and as such, he might be inclined to accept your point that civil law needn't prohibit all vices. But I don't know that he'd even go that far in a generic sort of way; as I say, his alleged support in Argentina was only because the alternative was (from his point of view) even worse. Of course, Pope Francis has really surprised me any number of times already, so who knows?
Pope Francis majored in chemistry in college, has a Master's in the subject, and even taught chemistry in a high school. This indicates to me that he has to have a good understanding of the need for evidence when making statements about the natural world -- and that includes gays raising kids. If he truly respects science, then I'm hopeful that his mind is open in the matter of whether or not gays can raise children well. And this would go beyond even Marini's position. (Personally, I don't think there is enough evidence in yet to be sure about it, but so far so good.)It seems to me that some of the bishops of this world have noticed Pope Francis' apparent openness to reasonable change, and some of the bishops are even starting to explore some "heresies". For instance, my own archbishop, Gregory Aymond, last week complimented the argument of some folks who defended the morning-afterpill. He said, that he "received many likes to my Facebook post along with several comments. It was interesting that most of the comments had to do with my statement that Plan B is abortive. There was discussion and an educated argument about whether or not that pill can cause abortions. Im not a doctor and I dont have a degree in science, but through the years Ive been told that the drug levonorgestrel, which uses large doses of birth-control pills to prevent conception or implantation up to 72 hours after sex, can be abortive."Note: he didn't say that the Church teaching was solid dogma. He showed himself open to argument. That's a real step forward, it seems to me. I suspect that other bishops, such as Marini, are also testing the waters now that Francis seems so open.
The CDC has condemned civil unions and anti-discrimination laws to protect gay people. Find me a case where the Church has made an 180-degree turn and explained away an official pronouncement of the CDC, and I will believe there is a chance the Church will support civil unions. Bergolio in 2010:
In the coming weeks, the Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the familyAt stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of Gods law engraved in our hearts.Let us not be naive: this is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy Gods plan. It is not just a bill (a mere instrument) but a move of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.
I really don't imagine one can credibly claim Satan is behind the push for same-sex marriage and then say, "Oh, but civil unions are another thing." And yes, the ship has already sailed. Civil unions as a compromise to ward off same-sex marriage is a an idea whose time has come and gone. Even France, which had one of the most popular and successful arrangement for civil unions passed same-sex marriage today.
@Jim, Oh, absolutely, I agree with you that Bergoglio was almost certainly supporting civil unions as a way to stave off civil marriage. Interesting here is that Ratzinger's CDF and the USCCB don't seem to have left themselves room to argue in such a way. And yes, isn't it interesting that civil unions are seen as competing with marriage in France, (where opposite or same-sex couples could get them.) My understanding is that in France, civil unions were easier to dissolve than marriages, while tax benefits were granted immediately. In 2010, there were 3/4 as many civil unions as marriages in France. Also notable: France's National Assembly (lower house of the legislature) voted in favor of a same-sex marriage bill today. It passed their Senate earlier in the year, and the president already promised to enact same-sex marriage, so will sign it. It'll be interesting to see what happens to the rates of marriage vs. civil unions in light of the new law. France is the 14th, and so far the largest nation to legalize same-sex marriage--3 nations in the last couple weeks (with New Zealand and Uruguay.)
@David, Indeed--that's part of what makes this so interesting. The Pope is credibly said (see the NCR piece) to have supported civil unions, even though he spoke in the harsh language you quote against same-sex marriage. Bergoglio advocated civil unions--what will Francis do? And if Francis sticks with his earlier position, what will the USCCB do? And you scooped me on France--we must have been simul-typing.
I read Ratzinger as opposing recognition of same sex unions in such a way that they would be equivalent to marriage. I do not think Civil Unions do that and neither do Gay Marriage supporters, which is why they seek full gay marriage and not mere Civil Unions.The New Zealand Catholic Bishops back in 2000 publicly supported some form of legal recognition of people living together in intimate unions outside marriage, which includes but is broader then same sex unions (they could just be friendship). I think this is a basic civil right flowing from the dignity of the human person and the Common Good requirement of the state to support the dignity of the person. It is, in that sense, a human right, and not a right premised on homosexuality.I think our opposition to gay Civil Unions is mistaken and has undermined our more important position on marriage.On gay adoption, I have no problem with gay partners being able to adopt their partners children, which seems hard to argue against. Der Speiegel reports Leonardo Boff saying that Cdl Bergoglio approved a same sex adoption a few months ago. While The Church may oppose same sex adoption in general, there is little doubt that in particular cases it may well be justified in the best interests of the child. Pope John Paul I apparently found that gay couples would adopt severely disabled children no one else would adopt.I find recent developments in Catholic understanding of this issue to be most encouraging and an excellent example of doctrinal development through engagement with society, especially with the problems facing homosexuals.The Church cannot move forward in serving Christ by closing in on herself and digging in on ultraconservative positions which are well past their use by date.God Bless
"Itll be interesting to see what happens to the rates of marriage vs. civil unions in light of the new law. France is the 14th, and so far the largest nation to legalize same-sex marriage3 nations in the last couple weeks (with New Zealand and Uruguay.)"Tic, toc.Tic, toc.I'll be glad to read the French Catholic Bishops' statement(s) disavowing their support of or participation in the recent spate of gay bashing in their country and dioceses.But I won't hold my breath.
This is the pattern that occurred in the UK as well. The Catholic Church (and C of E) were against civil partnerships until it became clear that the government was going to legalize civil same-sex marriages. Then suddenly the church was for civil partnerships ..."We would want to emphasise that civil partnerships actually provide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship [and] a lifelong partnership can find their place and protection and legal provision As a Church we are very committed to the notion of equality so that people are treated the same across all the activities of life. The Church holds great store by the value of commitment in relationships and undertakings that people give"[...] [T]hese words were uttered by Archbishop Vincent Nichols last week at a press conference following the English and Welsh bishops conference. Thats the same bishops conference which in 2003 published a document in response to a government consultation on civil partnership a framework for the legal recognition of same-sex couples, in which the bishops stated their unequivocal view that the governments proposals to create civil partnerships for same-sex couples would not promote the common good and that they therefore opposed them. Their reasons, in brief, were that these proposals would in the long term undermine marriage and the family, and that they were not needed to defend fundamental human rights or remedy significant injustices for same-sex couples, as these have either already been substantially addressed or can largely be addressed by the couple entering into contractual arrangements privately. So, what has changed? .... - http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/11/30/archbishop-ni... too think the ship has sailed on civil partnerships and that's as it should be.
Here in France, these past few months there have been many "first times": the first time that I have seen overt politics during Mass and heard it during a homily, first time I've received communion from a priest who was smirking at me (after he gave a homily that was more like heating the room before a demonstration than like a homily - and he knows I don't share those views.) The parish has developed a sense of community that I have not seen before: people have been brought closer together, united by their shrill campaign against gay marriage.I have received many emails to join various protests: because I teach catechism, it is assumed that I am against gay marriage. An exchange with my neighbor in the pew one Sunday right before Mass:"- My husband is over there talking to people in the choir, because there's a lot to organize for the demonstration. Are you going to go?- No, I'm not going to the demonstration.- I understand. You must be busy. - No, it's not that.- It's not?- No. I'm not going because I don't agree with the demonstration.- Oh. (Stepping back to put a little distance between us:) I see."Then the bell rings, we get up for the opening hymn. During the exchange of peace that Mass, on that day coincidentally (?) my neighbor was not at my side when the time came to shake hands.People have come to my catechism class to invite the youth to come with them to demonstrations in Paris. They said they would take them along if they only brought a letter with an authorization from their parents. My well-behaved class remained silent during the harangue, except that when the parent said: "there are limits to what can be allowed. For example, if a grandfather who really likes his grand-daughter decided to marry her, that wouldn't be allowed, would it?", one kid muttered under his breath: "and why not?" (the parent was so wrapped up in her talk that I don't think she heard.)A colleague had a falling out with his in-laws over gay marriage. He said he never realized before how bigoted they were. It's been both uniting and divisive. Interesting times.
In this matter, the Church reminds me a little bit of Mrs. Ferrars in Sense and Sensibility,when she learns that there is someone even less to her liking as a daughter-in-law than the estimable Elinor Dashwood. "It would have been beyond comparison," she said, "the least evil of the two; and she would be glad to compound now for nothing worse."I hope that Church leaders will not pretend now that they are open to civil unions for gay people. That would only make them look cynical as well as foolish. And it will not change the debate or the trajectory of this issue. Second best is no longer a part of it, if it ever really was.
I just despair of catholic leadership after Cardinal Vingt Trois's boetian utterances in Lourdes and his failure to distance himself from the fascist thugs. I am sure that Francis will make a statement on gay issues soon and it will not be an enlightened statement. The Aparecido document of the Latin American bishops talks about people choosing their sexual orientation freely out of selfish individualism. Francis has stated that gay marriage is a machination of the Evil One to deceive the people of God. He thinks Catholics have been too narrowly preoccupied with sex-related issues: I think his antidote to that would be to tell them to shut up and just obey the established doctrine. Cardinals and archbishops currently perceived as blowing their mouth on civil unions will be brought to heel just as under Benedict (it is so easy to do). Claire's account of French Catholics experience a surge of community identity rang a bell with me. It is a horrifying development in the French Church, and it places Catholics in the arms of the extreme right, who must be overjoyed.
I think all secular arrangements (like getting married at the Justice of the Peace) should be called "civil unions", whether it's between same sex or different sex couples. The word "marriage" should be reserved for the religious-sanctioned unions. We take on a much bigger commitment when we enter into a Catholic marriage, for example, than when we go to City Hall. I think we should distinguish between those two kinds of relationships.
Irene - there are suggestions floating about that Catholic clergy (and presumably the clergy of other denominations that object to same sex marriage) be 'de-authorized' by the state to officiate at weddings that result in marriages that are recognized by the state. Were this to happen, a couple who wished to be married with the blessing of the church would have two ceremonies: a civil ceremony on Thursday, followed by a church ceremony on Saturday (presumably leaving Friday free for the rehearsal :-)). I believe this arrangement already is in place in some other countries. Here is a blog post by Matthew Schmitz at First Things that quotes and links to a couple of contrasting views on this idea.http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/11/15/george-weigel-...
Any reasonable person can see the need for civil union laws. People should be taxed fairly, and they should be able to tend their financial affairs without having artificial obstacles placed in their way. I do not want to make gay peoples lives any more difficult than they already are.This does not however, mean that I need to approve of gay marriage, and it does not mean that gay folks should be allowed to adopt children.
It is obvious to anyone that homosexual actions are not normal. It is also obvious to anyone that some folks seem for whatever reason, to have been born with homosexual inclinations. That said, most Americans are tolerant enough and do not wish to press the point; most normal people prefer a life and let live approach. Civil union laws therefore, strike the correct balance.
a couple who wished to be married with the blessing of the church would have two ceremonies: a civil ceremony on Thursday, followed by a church ceremony on Saturday (presumably leaving Friday free for the rehearsal :-)). I believe this arrangement already is in place in some other countries.That's the way it has been in France since the 1790's and I don't see that the Church has had any difficulty with it. It helps to make clear that "civil marriage" (regulated by the state) and "sacramental marriage" (regulated by the Church) are not the same thing - and they each can have their own requirments for who qualifies.The French experience with Civil Unionsinlieu of marriag has been interesting. For 2010, the most recnt igures I could find, the figures were:251,654 Civil Marriages of heterosexual couples196,415 Civil Unions (PACS) of heterosexual couples 9,143 Civil Unions of homosexual couples
Sorry, continuing5,030 Civil Marriages of homosexual couplesThe interesting thing to me is the rising number of heterosexual couples who have chosen Civil Unions rather than Civil Marriage. Now that France is about to make Civil Marriage widely available to homosexual couples, it will be interesting to see what the split between that and Civil Unions will be for them. Figures from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_solidarity_pact
Correction, 251,654 should be 246,624
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-gay-marriage-law-met-wit... #7 is particularly fascinating. Pink is the color of the ANTI-gay protesters?Really ... PINK!!!!Crystal: the church hierarchy, no matter where, has the time-honored ability to switch directions on a ha'penny once they know where their boss is heading.
Irene said: "We take on a much bigger commitment when we enter into a Catholic marriage, for example, than when we go to City Hall."Really! My partner and I have been together almost 41 years .. even without benefit of church or city hall.Our marriage (and it is indeed that) has lasted longer than many, many, MANY Catholic Church witnessed matrimonies. No, we did not raise children, nor have a lot of matrimonial arrangements.What you said borders on hubris.
Jim, had you been able to marry in the church, would you have done it? Since you were prevented from formalizing it on a mere technicality, then maybe your mutual commitment has been blessed by God just at it would be in the church.
Would we have early on? Maybe, depending on the church.Would we now ... in a Catholic Church? Not only no, but hell no. We may be up in years but we are not masochists.
@Jim McCrea: Jim, I'm sorry, I'm not questioning your commitment and your marriage; particularly since for many years you did not have the option of entering into a religious or civil marriage. But, for those of us for whom marriage is an option: there is a big difference between living together, without any binding legal ties; entering into a civil marriage, with easy divorce options; or entering into a sacramental marriage in which divorce is not an option.I'm not talking about people's personal commitments, people in any of those relationships could have a lifelong commitment.I'm talking about the nature of the institution: if I live with my partner, I can pick up stakes a lot more easily than if I am married to him, even if I never intend to exercise that option. I don't think living together and being married are at all the same thing, and just as you get offended that someone would question your marriage, I, too, find it a little offensive for people to lump my formal marriage and the commitments that go with it into the same category as people who want to live together for a few years.
entering into a sacramental marriage in which divorce is not an option.Are you sure? In catechism a youth asked me: "why the Catholic church and the Anglicans were not reconciled since the origin of the difference was Henry VIII wanting a divorce, but nowadays the Catholic church recognizes divorce"? Surprised, I answered that no, the Catholic church does not recognize divorce blah blah blah... but yesterday I woke up with the thought that maybe the kid was right and I was wrong. What if divorce is so well accepted by the faithful (to the point where young teenagers are not even aware of the official teaching!) that the sense of the faithful is really the correct, authentic understanding (to borrow from emeritus pope Benedict's favorite words), and the official teaching is lagging behind?
It struck me funny that the original blog post from Lisa Fullam cites a "Vincenzo Paglia." Is he any relation, I thought, to feminist social critic Camille Paglia???If so, I would love to be sitting at the same table on Thanksgiving to hear those two go at it!
" ... if I live with my partner, I can pick up stakes a lot more easily than if I am married to him, ..."And relationships that last without the confines of law, either church or state, do so because of COMMITTMENT, not obligation.We have had to reassess the level of our committment to each other many times under many circumstances. We have survived these many years BECAUSE we want to because of who we are and what we have grown to be, not because some secular law makes divorce onerous or some church law that says divorce is not an option.Church teaching is opposed to divorce, and yet, when one applies for an annulment, Church law REQUIRES that one first obtain a civil divorce. Oh, that's just a civil requirement, we don't really believe the civil divorce is actually a divorce. Yet when it comes to civil marriage of same-sex couples, it is suddenly the end of civilization: that civil marriage is a dire threat, while civil divorces are a mere technicality. This is a double standard no matter how you slice it.In their 2002 book, Catholic Divorce: The Deception of Annulments, Joseph Martos and Pierre Hegy state:Because the grounds for annulment have become so broad that practically anyone who applies for one can obtain it, many observers now regard annulments as virtual divorces. After all, the same grounds for divorce in a civil court have become grounds for the nonexistence of marriage in an ecclesiastical court. (Page 23) To add to the deceit, many couples who receive annulments do so believing that their marriage was, in fact, sacramentally valid that the marital bond did exist but that, over time, it began to break down. These couples, understandably, choose not to disclose this part of the story to marriage tribunals so that they can qualify for an annulment.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2586453/postsIn other words it is the Catholic game of nudge-nudge, wink-wink.Sorry, but I value that kind of committment much more than imposed sitck-to-it-ivness.I know many couples, my parents included, who stayed together within the confines of matrimony during good and bad times. I'm not demeaning those who do that, but I will not agree to the idea that our marriage is any easier or committed than one blessed by the church, state or any other laws.
s/b: " ... any easier or less committed ..."
I guess I don't get the distinction any more. In reality, the government's only interest is in the legal relationship between the two parties to a marriage...in effect really a civil union. Government's role is to establish the basis for such things as property ownership, inheritance, medical proxies and so forth. It would actually be possible to deal with each of those relationships separately but what a civil marriage does is effectively cut through that need and convey a series of those legal rights and responsibilities. And that is as it should be. Civil marriage, if I may use that term, is only tangentially, if at all, concerned with any other aspects of the relationship between the two people. If we accept that, and we accept that a sacramental marriage is something different, something more profound I would argue, what difference does it make whether we call the legal arrangement a civil union, a marriage or something else entirely? I actually have thought that the Pilgrims' approach of having all marriages as civil ceremonies made the most sense. Those who wish to go further and enter into a sacramental marriage are perfectly free to do so. Churches, Catholic or other, would be free to set their own rules for such marriages in their denominations.
Claire wrote: Are you sure? In catechism a youth asked me: why the Catholic church and the Anglicans were not reconciled since the origin of the difference was Henry VIII wanting a divorce, but nowadays the Catholic church recognizes divorce? Surprised, I answered that no, the Catholic church does not recognize divorce blah blah blah Interesting that the Church recognizes the difference between civil divorce (which dissolves the civil marriage bond) and "religous" divorce that dissolves the scramental marriage bond (not possible)The Catechism says:"2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the [sacramental] marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense."The practical issue is not divorce but remarriage. Since the Church's view is that only the civil bond has been dissolved but the sacramental bond remains, the couple are still sacramentally married and remarriage is adultery - unless it can be determined that the sacramental marriage was not valid to begin with (aka annulment) Henry VIII's problem was that he wanted to divorce and remarry.
"view" = "teaching"
Unless something is issued pretty soon, the silence from the Vatican on France is deafening. Maybe Francis realizes the boat has sailed.
John, I think that your interpretation seems not quite right, seehttp://www.canonlawprofessionals.com/annulmentquestions.html#Q23.Do only Catholics need annulments? Do only Catholic marriages need to be annulled?No and no. [] However, the Church recognizes the marriage of two non-Catholics, or a Catholic who has received a dispensation from form and a non-Catholic, whether they marry in their own church/or non-Christian place of worship, another church or in a civil ceremony (justice of the peace) as long as the ceremony is valid according to civil law. From the perspective of the Catholic Church, therefore, non-Catholics are considered to be validly married persons unless the former spouse has died or the marriage has been declared null by the Catholic Church. Since the Church has the right to determine who may be married in the Catholic Church, it can make a judgment on the validity of the marriage of two non-Catholics if one requests this in order that he or she might be able to marry a Catholic in the Catholic Church.Someone who is divorced is still assumed to be in a valid marriage, even if they are Catholic. It's tolerated as long as they do not give public scandal by having sex with someone other than their ex (i.e. by remarrying). So divorce is "not a moral offense", but neither is it recognized to dissolve the (civil or religious) marriage. The moral issue is remarriage, but the reason why it is a moral issue is that divorce is not recognized.Marriage, whether civil or religious, is assumed to be valid and requires a decree of nullity before remarriage in the Catholic church. (So civil marriage is recognized but not civil divorce.) The only exception is that of a Catholic who married outside the church without doing the proper paperwork with the Catholic church first: then that marriage was invalid in the first place.
More subtleties from EWTN, tying the validity of a non-Catholic marriage to the fact that the parties were baptized:http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur241.htmIf a couple of civilly married, baptized non-Catholics were to become Catholic, then their status would depend on whether their former community recognized the validity of civil marriage or not. If their civil marriage was recognized as valid, then, in the eyes of God and the Church, that marriage would also be sacramental. This is because the Church considers that all valid marriages between baptized persons are automatically sacramental even in those cases where the particular religious community does not number matrimony among the sacraments.If a civilly married couple receive baptism, then the baptism itself transforms their valid civil marriage into a sacramental marriage and this fact is noted on the baptismal register.
In other words a previous marriage, civil or religious in another religious community or religious Catholic, is assumed to be valid and sacramental as long as1) both parties are baptized (even if the baptism happens after the marriage), and2) neither party was Catholic at the time of the marriage (unless there was an official dispensation for the Catholic party.)
So, if the EWTN guy is right, it seems that marriage occupies a special place among the sacraments: its sacramental dimension depends on the rules governing the validity of civil marriage.Baptism is valid outside the Catholic church, but its validity relies on a simple set of conditions determined by the Catholic church (the presence of water and the Trinitarian formula, as I recall.)Marriage is valid outside the Catholic church, but one of the conditions for its validity is whether it is recognized as valid in the community in which it took place, and that, in turn, depends on some set of conditions that varies from place to place, time to time, and community to community. Isn't that weird?
" if the EWTN guy is right"Always an important qualifier :-)
Matrimony is an unusual sacrament in that it is not conferred by a priest or deacon. It is conferred by the couple on each other and only witnessed by a priest or deacon or authorized laypersonIn some cases it can even be conferred by the couple on each other without the presence of any of those people.Can. 1116 1. If a person competent to assist according to the norm of law cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter into a true marriage can contract it validly and licitly before witnesses only:1/ in danger of death;2/ outside the danger of death provided that it is prudently foreseen that the situation will continue for a month.2. In either case, if some other priest or deacon who can be present is available, he must be called and be present at the celebration of the marriage together with the witnesses, without prejudice to the validity of the marriage before witnesses only.
It is interesting to see Irene and Jim McK talking past each other a bit. The tell for me was Irene's comment "I, too, find it a little offensive for people to lump my formal marriage and the commitments that go with it into the same category as people who want to live together for a few years."Is that what you think Jim McK and people like me are about, Irene? If that is your concept of gay marriage, then I certainly understand why you would feel like it is "anti-marriage". But it is a prejudiced conception of gay marriage because it will not acknowledge the utter seriousness of our commitment.Here's the ironic thing: a cultural/political movement that emphasized the permanence and commitment (and seriousness) of marriage would have me firmly in your corner. The primary reason you are losing the battle on gay marriage is not because of the "permanence issue", it is because of rigid insistence on the man/woman natural law formulation that simply cannot accommodate the reality that gays and lesbians exist and have the same fundamental drives for companionship and family that straight men and women do.I really don't think the culture war over gay marriage is fundamentally about permanence or procreation; it is about whether a sexually expressive, monogamous, permanent relationship between two people of the same sex can ever be anything but sinful.
John Hayes,"Matrimony is an unusual sacrament in that it is not conferred by a priest or deacon. It is conferred by the couple on each other..." Exactly and that is a distinction which most people miss and what I mean by a sacramental marriage. The state-sanctioned union, whatever you call it, is about legal rights and responsibilities. The sacramental union is about something more profound. I'm not sure I can define it exactly, but there is a distinction, and the Church actually gets this part right, though they don't seem to understand that they do. I always am reminded of a report I heard on some pop star's 2nd marriage. her first had been to a body guard in Las Vegas and had lasted less than 48 hours. When reporting the new marriage, the reporter commented rather snarkily, "She's on the clock!" Clearly "marriage #1" was not a marriage as Catholics, or really anyone, understands the term,thtough it was legal.
@Jim Hohmann- Actually, I think it is you that is talking past me. I think it is interesting that you interpret my view of sacramental marriage as being a greater commitment than a government-sanctioned marriage as somehow "anti-gay marriage"For the record, I support same-sex civil unions, and I actually support gay sacramental marriage. And nothing I have written says otherwise. What I do think is that a sacramental marriage reflects a more permanent and binding commitment than a civil marriage and that distinction should be recognized. And I think a civil union is in turn, a greater formal commitment than would be a couple living together informally. And I think each of those kinds of relationships should be recognized as distinct from each other. When I freely and publicly bound myself to my husband until death separates us, I did much more than sign on to a right to his pension, and I would like that commitment recognized for what it is. I agree with Jim Dunn's point (and Jim P. touched on it as well); all couples who want a legally recognized relationship, should enter into a government-sanctioned civil union (both same sex and heterosexual). That would promote equality and would protect all of our civil rights.Those of us want to commit to something more than that should also than be free to enter into a more binding sacramental marriage.
I apologize for my misunderstanding and appreciate your taking the time to set me ... errr ... straight :-) Thanks! And your third paragraph speaks precisely for me as well.
@Jim Hohman. I don't always say clearly what I'm trying to say, sorry. And I think someday soon we'll have marriage equality in the US, a good thing for all of us.
The Rhode Island Senate approved a bill to allow same-sex couples to marry. The heavily Roman Catholic state is poised to be the 10th to permit gay marriage. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/24/rhode-island-gay-ma...(News+-+Top+Stories))Tic, tocTic, tocAnd other news from the Catholic world: (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/04/24/178765718/violent-protest...)
"Marriage is valid outside the Catholic church, but one of the conditions for its validity is whether it is recognized as valid in the community in which it took place, and that, in turn, depends on some set of conditions that varies from place to place, time to time, and community to community. Isnt that weird?"That's almost like saying that whether or not a fetus is a human depends on the opinion of woman carrying it.
"...most normal people prefer a live and let live approach."Color me abnormal. We are all our brother's keeper, no?
Yes, it is rather abnormal..."Really! My partner and I have been together almost 41 years .. even without benefit of church or city hall."As to Henry VIII, the Church could easily have let him off the hook. The Church is very divorce friendly, as seen in the Petrine and Pauline privileges, and it is also able to grant annulments without much fuss. I suspect that the strong character of Catherine of Aragon and her powerful connections were the basic reason for Clement VII's obduracy.
"Really! My partner and I have been together almost 41 years .. even without benefit of church or city hall."A sterling example of love and fidelity, which only the most obtuse will fail to admire.
French Catholics have disgraced themselves.
France has become a very sick country, but one that does not know that it is sick, or will not admit it.
I think there's a weird semantics game going on here, and maybe Claire can clarify some of it.As I understand it, civil unions in France are different from civil marriages, which often precede a church wedding. Civil unions are easier to dissolve (by mail in some cases?) and many heterosexuals have opted for civil unions because they can get marital rights, but divorce is a lot easier. This sounds truly like a "separate but equal" mess.However, as far as I know, civil marriage in the U.S. has not worked like that.I believe that any state in the U.S. that allow gay marriage uses the exact same civil formula for both homo- and heterosexual couples. So there is no real difference between civil union/civil marriage here. Church weddings are civilly legal so long as a couple gets a valid marriage license and is married by someone allowed by that state to marry people. But clergy in any religion or denomination can decline to wed couples, homo- or heterosexual, deemed unsuited for for the state of holy matrimony as defined by the denomination. It has been suggested to me that the Church opposes civil marriages for homosexuals because it will bollix up its recognition of civil marriage for heterosexual non-Catholics coming into the Church (if you were a Catholic married in a civil ceremony without permission, you have to get remarried). That strikes me as illogical because the Church does not recognize the marriage of two people of the same sex as a marriage at all.
In California obtaining a certificate of Domestic Partnership is a simple matter of filing a form with the Secretary of State and paying a nominal fee.For Domestic Partnerships to dissolve the state requires a civil divorce the same as for the dissolution of any form of marriage.Go figure."When I freely and publicly bound myself to my husband until death separates us, I did much more than sign on to a right to his pension, and I would like that commitment recognized for what it is."And for those of us who don't even qualify for a right to our partner's pension? We would like OUR commitment recognized for that THAT is.
Jean: yes. Civil unions = PACS are easier to form and to dissolve. They're open to couples of any combination of genders (FF, MF, MM). Civil marriage = marriage is more difficult to form and to dissolve, and was only open to heterosexual couples until this week. Religious wedding = from the viewpoint of the state, some magical sounding formulas said by some minister, but with no legal meaning. Forbidden to people who are not already in a civil marriage.That's for Catholics, protestants, jews. Not for Moslems: the question of Moslem religious weddings came up after the 1905 law, so for them the rules are different, and I am told that they don't have to go to the city hall prior to a religious wedding. Somehow the imam serves not just as a religious figure but also as a representative of the French government when officiating at a Moslem wedding.Note that a civil marriage in France involves three parties: the two spouses and also the state. (It is considered that marriage is good for society and is in the state's interest). It's a 3-way contract, that's why divorce is not just a matter of spouse agreeing to go apart. The state has to agree. It takes, at a minimum, two meetings with a judge, with several months in between to give people a chance to reconcile. The judge sees each spouse separately and interviews them privately to check that there has been no threat from the other spouse pushing them to accept the divorce against their will, or other things that would render a request for divorce invalid. When I got divorced, our lawyer told us what words to say when answering the judge's questions if we wanted to make the procedure as easy and fast as possible. When we got to the tribunal, he asked the other lawyers, as a favor, if we could cut the line and go first, because he was in a hurry and because our case was going to be so straightforward. They graciously accepted. But then, instead of answering questions by repeating the words of the drill, I started answering according to the truth, and the deviation from the script earned us all long interviews while a line of spouses and lawyers formed in the hallway, giving us angry looks on the way out. Our lawyer shrugged and accepted my lack of cooperation without complaining.
"...which only the most obtuse will fail to admire."Color me abnormal AND obtuse. But why does it always seem to be the far left that thinks name calling is a form of argumentation?
This dilemma can be solved by treating all couples aspiring to wed the same way--but not in the way currently proposed.In the United States, couples intending to wed go to the local authority and get a license to marry. This is not a marriage. The local magistrate can perform that service, but more commonly, the ceremony is performed by the couple's clergy in a religious setting. Clergies are authorized by the state to sign the marriage certificate, attesting to the contract, thereby fulfilling the state's requirements.The solution to the dilemma is for states to dispense with licenses, revoke clergy authorizations, and require all couples, gay and straight, who desire to wed to make application for and undertake a civil union witnessed by the local magistrate. In one stroke, this would remove the dispute over marriage from the political arena. If a religious wedding is desired, the couple will have to take it up with their pastor or, in the case of the gay couple, find a clergy who is disposed to perform the ceremony.I first heard of this in 1953 when my friend wanted to marry in what was then French Morocco. They had to have a civil marriage. What they did affter was their choice. They had a religious wedding.
James, I don't quite see what the dilemma is. Why make people get married twice? I don't see anything wrong with extending the state's power to officiate at marriages to clergy. Neither do I see anything wrong with clergy declining, on religious grounds, to marry people. Or with people who prefer not to have a religious service to go to a JP.
It's time to stop deputizing clergy as officials of the state when it comes to weddings. They don't have that authority with respect to any other activity that has a religious component.All the current situation does is give churches unwarranted influence when in comes to resisting marriage equality.Many countries in Europe .. and the church ... have learned to live with all couples having civil marriages that impart secular rights, priviliges, benefits and responsibilities. Any religious ceremony thereafter is up to the couples in question and the religious groups if they choose to solemnize the marriages of those secularly married couples.A religious group refusing to marry a couple for any reason should not have the slightest influence on the obtaining secular benefits that result from a civil marriage.
"It is interesting to see Irene and Jim McK talking past each other a bit. "Jim H - I know Irene untangled the substance of the confusion on this, but I just want to add that I think you may have meant Jim McCrea, rather than Jim McK - as far as I know, they're not the same person (although I admit I've never seen them together :-)).To round out the confusion, I'm Jim P, and in my book, you're now Jim H. And there are still other Jims who pop up to comment from time to time. And in at least one of the NT lists, two of the twelve apostles were James.
I wish dotCommonweal allowed us to post snapshots of ourselves. I still stumble over the names of Jim McK and Jim McCrea, and Mark Proska and Mark Preece, and Anne and Anne and Ann, and Caroline nad Carolyn.
As Jim McC I claim direct descendance from James the Greater.Pictures? No way!!! There is not greater destroyer of the delight of fantasy than the coldness of reality.(although I admit Ive never seen them together :-)). ... nor have I. But if Jim McK will spring for a Ketel One dirty martini up, I'll give it a try.
"(although I admit Ive never seen them together :-)). nor have I. But if Jim McK will spring for a Ketel One dirty martini up, Ill give it a try."I still owe Boudway a drink for some other time the church failed to measure up to my loony standards. If we can all converge somewhere at the same time, I'll stand a round.
The SF Bay Area is lovely this time of year and there are many good watering holes that make a mean martini.And I'll stand for a good seafood dinner.
If you want to see pictures of people on here, you can join the Commonweal Facebook page, where others can see your mug. I'm not on there, but if you've seen those Maxine greeting cards, that's pretty much it.
Thanks, Jean, but I don't know how to navigate Facebook. I joined because it sends news from my friends, but I rarely post myself.


text:
I don't know about schemes and every definition of a Hilbert scheme (quite naturally!) involves schemes. But, the Hilbert scheme of points on a complex surface is known to be smooth (Fogarty). So is there a concrete description of it as a complex manifold? (For instance in the case of n=2 it is a blowup of XxX along the diagonal)
Given a codimension $d$ ideal $I$ in $R = {\mathbb C}[x,y]$, the quotient ring $R/I$ can be thought of as a $d$-dimensional vector space with actions of two commuting operators $x,y$ and a "cyclic" vector $1$ that generates it as an $R$-module.
Consequently, if your surface is the plane you can think of the Hilbert scheme as the space of pairs of commuting matrices on $d$-space, but then take the (open) set in there of pairs $(x,y)$ that admit a cyclic vector, and then divide that variety by the conjugation action of $GL(d)$. To see smoothness, you might first show this open set is smooth, then that the $GL(d)$ action is free and proper.
All this is spelled out in Nakajima's book (which I'm guessing is the one Andrea Ferretti meant to reference), except I think he shows smoothness by analyzing the tangent spaces.
Here is a geometric description in the case of $H_n(\mathbb{C}^2)$. This is meant to be a geometric rewrite of Proposition 2.6 in Mark Haiman's "(t,q)-Catalan numbers and the Hilbert scheme", Discrete Math. 193 (1998), 201-224.
Let $S= (\mathbb{C}^2)^n/S_n$; notice that this is an orbifold. Let $S_0$ be the open dense set where the $n$ points are distinct. For $D$ an $n$-element subset of $\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^2$, let $A_{D}$ be the polynomial $\det( x_i^{a} y_i^{b})$, where $(a, b)$ ranges over the elements of $D$ and $i$ runs from $1$ to $n$. For any $D$ and $D'$, the ratio $A_D/A_{D'}$ is a meromorphic function on $S$, and is well defined on $S_0$.
Map $S_0$ into $S_0 \times \mathbb{CP}^{\infty}$ where the homogenous coordinates on $ \mathbb{CP}^{\infty}$ are the $A_{D}$'s. (Only finitely many of the $A_D$'s are needed, but it would be a little time consuming to say which ones.) The Hilbert scheme is the closure of $S_0$ in $S \times \mathbb{CP}^{\infty}$.
Algebraically, we can describe this as the blow up of $S$ along the ideal generated by all products $A_D A_{D'}$. Haiman points out that the reduction of this ideal is the locus where two of the points collide and speculates that this ideal may be reduced. If his speculation is correct, then we can describe $H_n(\mathbb{C}^2)$ geometrically as the blow up of $(\mathbb{C}^2)^n/S_n$ along the reduced locus where at least two of the points are equal.
Actually, the construction of the Hilbert scheme doesn't have to involve schemes at all. For $\mathbb{C}^2$, it's just the space of ideals of codimension $d$ in $\mathbb{C}[x,y]$. That's enough to say what it is as a topological space as a subspace of all codimension $d$ subspaces.
There is a "concrete" description of the Hilbert scheme of points on surfaces in the book of Nakajima. As far as I remember it doesn't really use the general machinery of Hilbert schemes.


text:
Top Definition
Happy Pony Rainbow Land; a place or message board where no one ever disagrees with anyone else
"If you're that upset that I said you were wrong then go to HPRL where they'll say everything you do is wonderful."
بواسطة Melissa Finn أكتوبر/تشرين الأوّل 24, 2007
Trending Now
Happy Pony Rainbow Land; a derogatory name used by bullies to describe a friendly message board in which nastiness isn't tolerated.
"If you're upset that I bullied you, then go to HPRL where they will answer your question maturely. ."
بواسطة tippiechick نوفمبر/تشرين الثّاني 10, 2011


text:
MARTINS FERRY - The city will be required to take on a large scale project during the next few years.
Jennifer Witte, compliance enforcement supervisor, Ohio EPA, addressed the city council during their past meeting to address mandated repairs to the sewer system in the Martins Ferry area.
She noted that the sewers flow to the Eastern Ohio Regional Water and Sewer District's wastewater treatment plant where residents' sewage is treated. They are required to reduce the number of combined sewer overflows to the Ohio River.
Article Photos
T-L Photo/ ROBERT A. DEFRANK
Council Member Bruce Shrodes questions Jennifer Witte, compliance enforcement supervisor, Ohio EPA, and Nick Hammer, environmental specialist, about costs and aid that will accompany sewer system upgrades mandated by the EPA.
In order for them to comply, all satellite communities including Martins Ferry must identify problems in their collection system and improve the system. She added that the EPA understood the scope of such a project and would work with the city.
"We don't expect you guys to fix this problem in one day or one year. We know that your sewer system is very old and these problems didn't occur overnight. You are not going to resolve these problems overnight," she said, adding that the city may have to begin addressing storm sewers before they can begin to address the issue of sanitary sewers, depending on the evaluation. She added that the sewer system probably dates from the 1930s, 40s and 50s.
However, she said that if the city chooses not to cooperate on a voluntary level then the agency must refer the matter to the Attorney General's office, which would lead to litigation and penalties.
"Our agency doesn't want to do that. We want to do this on a voluntary level. We want to work with you," she said, adding that the agency could direct the city to funding sources.
Council Member Bruce Shrodes inquired about costs and available aid. Witte said the EPA's Division of Environmental and Financial Assistance is able to work with municipalities, but they must have an approved facilities plan before being eligible for their funding. Principal forgiveness funding has been available in prior years. She noted that Twin Cities has received zero to low interest loans for their projects.
In response to further questions, she added that the extent of the upgrades to separate the water would depend on whether there were blatant cross connections between storm and sanitary sewers or if a storm sewer is being used as a sanitary sewer.
Shrodes noted recent demolition efforts and added that new buildings are in compliance. He said prior demolition projects resulted in water running into the storm sewers and overwhelming them.
Witte gave some examples of creative retention structures.
"We need to get a plan to start somewhere, and we need to get started working towards that," she said.
Other council members noted that a pro-active approach could result in a savings of money from anticipating issues rather than having to clean up problems afterward.
"This is something that has to be done," said Riethmiller. "As mayor, I'm 100 percent behind the project. It's going to be a difficult project, but I'm asking council's support."
"It's only a benefit to our residents and our businesses," said Council Member Robert Hunker. "We need to look to the future."
The city will give an annual report to the EPA. The project may be a 10- to 15-year venture. Some issues the city will face include the different types of sewers that have been combined. The steep, separate North End and the interconnections will also pose a challenge.
The agency will approach other communities such as Bellaire and Bridgeport.
Council gave a voice vote of approval to support their request so that the city administration can begin working with Jeff Vaughn, engineer, and surrounding communities to conform to the new mandates.


text:
One of the Treasure Hunt items reads
Chapter 15: Destroy 8 of the Aurum Core's guns
I just finished the boss fight on intensity 6.0 and there were only six guns. I blew them up right away and waited a few minutes, but more didn't appear. I also triggered the second stage of the boss, when it starts flashing red, but none reappeared then either.
How do I destroy eight guns?


text:
HOUSTON (October 4, 2012)—Earnest Gibson III, the president of Riverside General Hospital in Houston, and his son, were among several people in Texas named in federal charges stemming from an alleged a Medicare fraud scheme.
Law enforcement efforts led to charges against 91 people nationwide in alleged false billings totaling $429 million, officials said Thursday in Washington.
In Houston, authorities arrested Gibson III, his son Earnest Gibson IV and five others.
The indictments accused the group of participating in a scheme to pay kickbacks to Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in programs that allowed the hospital to bill Medicare for millions.
In Dallas, two doctors and two registered nurses were charged with participating in more than $103 million in false billings.
At a news conference, Attorney General Eric Holder said the case reveals an alarming trend of criminal attempts to steal billions of taxpayer dollars for personal gain.
Holder called Thursday's action against Medicare fraud one of the largest of its kind.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that that in addition to the newly announced charges, her agency used new authority under the federal health care law to stop future payments to many of the health care providers suspected of fraud.


text:
Horses are beautiful animals. They are
powerful and graceful at the same time. Riding horses is a favorite hobby
or even a lifestyle for many people, and taking care of the horses is fun,
too. Horses will not fit into your house, but if you are lucky enough to
own a horse as a pet, you know how friendly and dedicated the animals are.
A little treat like a carrot or an apple can make you into the horse's best
friend. Horses also enjoy a lot of rubbing and riding, so they are
especially fun if you like the view from the saddle. Even if you can't have
your own horse, you can always enjoy horse coloring pages.
Give us your feedback and comments so we can improve.


text:
Genetic testing now allows personalized treatment. Find out more.
Search for a doctor by name or specialty. Search now.
Our patients have amazing accounts of hope and resilience. Read their stories.
Your gifts help us push the boundaries of cancer treatment. Ways to Give
This organization links medically underserved women to breast health education and screening services.
Limited financial assistance for hormonal and oral chemotherapy, pain and anti-nausea medication, lymphedema supplies, and durable medical equipment (a partnership with the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation).
Patients can access the Linking A.R.M.S.™ program by calling the CancerCare toll-free line at 800-813-4673.
Financial grants for expenses for other than basic living expenses.
Covered expenses would include:
To begin the process for any of their sponsored programs, call 800-813-4673.
A San Diego County funded medical insurance program for adult residents who meet the financial and age criteria (21 to 64 years old).
Call 858-492-4444 or 760-471-9660 (North County).
Annual financial grants up to $150 reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses related to your cancer treatment.
800-215-1098 (San Diego/Hawaii chapter)
800-955-4572 (National)
A state-funded medical insurance program for legal residents of California under 21 years of age and over 65 years of age. Legal residents who have minor dependents living in the home may also apply.
Please contact Moores Cancer Center Patient Service Representative, Leticia Marquez, 858-822-6177, for assistance.
A health insurance program for people age 65 and older. Some people under age 65 with disabilities may also qualify.
Medicare has two parts:
Contact Social Security Administration for info: 800-772-1213
California Major Risk Medical Insurance, a 36-month health plan for Californians who are unable to obtain market insurance or Medicare coverage.
(916) 324-4695
Patient Assistance Program (PAP) provides assistance to patients experiencing financial hardship who have no third-party insurance coverage for their medicines.
Online applications available.
Provides education, legal counseling, issues, job discrimination, and debt crisis matters.
Contact 800-532-5274
To help people with special health needs, SDG&E offers medical baseline allowances that provide additional regulated utility charges at the baseline rate, which can help keep energy costs down.
See the SDG&E website for more information or check with your cancer center social worker.
Official Web Site of the University of California, San Diego.


text:
Minnesota Timberwolves vs Portland Trail BlazersMon, February 4, 2013 - 7:00 PMTarget Center in Minneapolis, MN
We are sorry, the date for this event has already passed. This event took place on 2/4/2013. Click here to view upcoming events for Minnesota Timberwolves.
Still unsure? Check out our user reviews for:
Have a question? Need help? Call us at 800.477.5285


text:
Is it true that i should wear thick clothes such as a hoody while doing cardio to sweat more? Or is it just water weight that gets put back on when you drink? I have heard both.
Sign up
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
It will make you sweat more. Sweating more means you will need to drink more. It doesn't help you lose fat faster, if that is what you're asking.
Currently there is not a lot of research in human studies on the effects of high ambient temperature and increased energy expenditure. As is pointed out in another answer, the artificial inhibition of the cooling mechanisms of the body by wearing either many layers or heat trapping clothing will negatively impact the length and quality of exercise sessions.
There is a study (With the caveat that it was funded by an energy drink company) that shows an unnamed commercially available thermogenic drink (Monster/Rockstar type) does have an effect on lipolysis, attributable to the already known effects of caffeine and EGCG (The active ingredient in green tea). That study can be found here. (Also of interest, near the end of the first paragraph in the discussion is a suggestion that EGCG also alters food digestability).
There are two studies that I found suggesting that high ambient temperatures actually slow down, rather than speed up metabolisms and subsequent energy expenditure. This study using Zucker rats (Lab rats specially bred for obesity research) shows in this graph that metabolism and energy expenditure markedly drop with increases in ambient temperature, for both obese and non obese rats.
This study on male weasels shows a similar curve. There is an associated decrease with both low and high ambient temperatures, with a peak in the "nominal" range, falling off even below the lower temperature curve as the temperature increases. There is also a suggestion found here that in endothermic animals, being unable to dissipate body heat is a limiting factor as well, which is a new theory called Head Dissipation Limit. This theory suggests that energy expenditure is limited by the ability of the subject to dissipate heat.
The HDL hypothesis has somewhat been validated, as there have been studies on the effects of cold on energy expenditure, and as this study shows, cold environments tend to increase lipolysis in humans.
The common misconception that wearing lots of clothing increases weight loss is a correlation error, in that people wear a ton of clothes, sweat a lot, and mistakenly think that the water weight they have lost is equivalent to fat weight lost. This is reinforced by the common practice of boxers, wrestlers and other athletes that need to make weight being shown exercising in many layers.
While there has not been a definitive study on high heat environments and the effects on lipolysis in humans, there is quite a bit of evidence that metabolism and energy expenditure both decrease in response to high heat environments, which is the opposite of what you want when trying to reduce fat.
If pure weight loss is what youre after ( and I mean just kg/pounds, not fat loss), then that extra hoodie could help you.
Amy Nutt makes a great point about heat and weightloss. Sweating helps body get rid of the salts. And as we know, salt, besides making our food taste different, has the side effect of lessening the water throughput of your body. In other words, it keeps the water inside the body, therefore increasing, or certainly not lessening, your bodyweight.
And if we assume, that you are on a good diet, there should be quite a small intake of salt, so there will be initial gains, but not in the long run. It may help you loose those first couple of kg/lbs that people are so ecstatic about, but will not help your weight loss in the long run.
I have seem bodybuilder wearing loads of cloth for their cardio workout just before a competition. They do it to minimize the water body which will in a lean and trained body cause the muscles to appear more defined.
This, however, is not healthy. Your body regulates the temperature by sweat that evaporates from your skin and cools the body down (You can cool down a drink in summer by wrapping it in a wet newspaper and put it in the sun - same effect).
Sweating more will do not do anything because your body will just be carving for more water after your workout. So wear whatever you are comfortable with.
For any given fitness level, you can burn more energy the better you can dump the waste heat into the environment. The amount of energy you can burn on the long run is going to by determined by the heat transfer coefficient.
Your maximum body temperature, the temperature of the environment, the thermal properties of your clothes, and your body area define a maximum sustainable rate at which you can dump heat into the environment (taking also in to account how much sweat can still evaporate from your clothes). The more clothes you are going to wear, the less heat per unit time you'll be able to dump into the environment. The amount of work you can perform will then also drop, so the total amount of energy you can burn per unit time will go down.
Sweating is one of many body responses to higher temperature, and begins when other responses are working to maximum efficiency, such as vasodilation (dilation of capillaries close to skin) and the increase in heart rate, both working to cool the body.
An increase in cellular respiration performed by the body's cells, is needed to fuel these systems, and the hotter the body is the more the body must work to maintain a satisfactory temperature. Obviously there are many more factors to consider when exercising such as water intake and the types of exercise being performed, but if applied appropriately, wearing thick clothes during cardio WILL provide better weight loss results.
Sweating helps detox sodium overload. I've been told by many athletic trainers that when eating too much sodium, which is common for a lot of people, it can not be released out of the body other than through sweat. If you do not go out on a sweaty workout after eating too much sodium, you will become bloated due to the fact that people believe drinking water will help detox away the sodium. water weight is developed due to over levels of sodium. That's why people wear thick clothing. To help with too much sodium intake.
protected by Eric Kaufman Apr 8 '15 at 21:53
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?


text:
Mopar Suspension Upgrades - Corner, Hook, And WhoaWritten by on September 7, 2007 Bring Your Mopar's Handling Into The 21st Century
We had this game plan-strip-test the Nitto 555 drag radials against a pair of bias-ply racing slicks. Then, one thing led to another, we snapped an axleshaft testing the aforementioned tires. While our R/T was up on jackstands awaiting axles, we decided to rebuild the front suspension with a kit we acquired from Just Suspension. Since we were this far into it, we thought, We'll ditch the drum brakes for a set of disc brakes. Why don't we also change to some of the latest suspension components, and do a swap of wheels/tires. Summing together all those upgrades, the Coronet should be able do everything well-accelerate, corner, and stop.
Rubber Is Rubber, Right?
Most drag radials offer a 000 tread wear rating to go along with their shallow tread depth. We became interested in Nitto's 555R Extreme Drag Radial, noticing their 100 tread wear rating and deeper tread depth (same as most passenger car tires). Nitto claims under normal use, their 555R Extreme is good for 15,000 miles. Past experience has shown us to be lucky to get over 1,000 miles from a set of drag radials (with the zero tread wear rating and shallow tread depth). In past testing, using a 12-second E-Body, drag radials were capable of coming within a tenth of racing slicks. We knew that wouldn't be an easy feat to accomplish with our low-11-second B-Body.
We drove the R/T to Englishtown, New Jersey. The six-year-old Coker Classic Redlines we drove there on had worn tread and would soon need rplacements. For the baseline, we bolted on a pair of one-year-old Hoosier slicks (28x9-15). Our best of three passes netted us an 11.20 at 120.34 mph with a consistent 1.60 sixty-foot e.t. Next, we removed the heavy stock front wheels and Redline tires for a set of 26-inch Hoosier front-runners mounted on 15x3-1/2-inch Weld Draglites. The lighter and narrower front skinnies resulted in less rolling resistance, and brought the e.t. down to an 11.11 at a higher 121.17 mph. The 60-foot time remained unchanged at 1.60.
Now it was time to see if the Nitto tires were worth any gains. After mounting the Nitto radials, we drove the car for a few miles and did a few dry hop launches to break em' in. Just for testing, we started out with 22 psi in the tires. After that, we gave the 440 a half-hour rest to cool-down. We've watched our Primedia cohorts have success testing the Nittos by spending an extra 2-4 seconds in the burnout box. So we started out by trying a 6-second burnout. Upon launch, we forgot to slow motion stab the gas pedal. This resulted in the radials spinning excessively, so we lifted and aborted our first run on the Nittos. After getting back to the line, we remembered to take it easy on the throttle pedal and ease it out, but still had tire spin resulting in an 11.50 at 121.18 with a 1.80 sixty-foot time. For the next run we dropped the tire pressure to 18 psi and extended our time in the burnout box to 8 seconds. With improved tire temperature, the car hooked up a little better with a 1.72 sixty-foot time, and the R/T boogied to an 11.22 at 121.33 mph. Now we had our foot timing dialed-in for the best e.t. with the street/strip radials. Out of the hole for our third pass, we saw the scoreboard read a 1.70 sixty-foot time, and we knew we were on a good run that resulted in a better 11.20 at 122.01 mph. With that, we were content with the fact that the Nitto's managed to get us within a tenth of the bias-ply slicks. A tenth is not much of a sacrifice if you are not a hard-core racer, considering the extended tread life they offer.
Ready to pack it up and go home, we decided to make a last run for the day, just for fun. On that last run, we equaled our best sixty-foot time of the day: 1.70, but heard and felt something break at about 100 feet down-track. Suddenly the Dodge was pulling hard to the left. We coasted off the track, and cautiously drove back to the pit area. We jacked-up the rear and discovered the left-rear tire was freewheeling without any resistance from the Detroit-locker-not a good sign. The stock axle had finally screamed uncle.
Getting Shafted
The car was safe to drive, but the '67-styled suspension could benefit from a few aftermarket parts. The call went to Stainless Steel Brake Company (SSBC) for their Force 10 front disc brake kit. Next on the list was Coker Tire for a new set of radial Redlines. Magnumforce received a request for their adjustable tubular control arms, and Firm Feel Inc. (FFI) got the call for their greaseable lower control arm shafts and adjustable strut rods. Summit Racing hooked us up with a pair of 15x7 Weld Draglites, 14x7 Magnum 500s, and .960-inch Mopar Performance torsion bars. Adding to our previously purchased front-end kit, Just Suspension sent us poly bushings for our front sway bar and heavy-duty 1-1/16-inch tie-rod ends with adjusting sleeves. Just Suspension also sent us the American Muscle tools to ease the front suspension buildup.
Once the front end was rebuilt with the new disc brakes, we headed to see our friends up the road at Shore Wheels, where the R/T would receive a mandatory front-end alignment. Naturally the new wheels and tires would be mounted and balanced. we drove our local road-test loop through the Pine Barrens (located in southern New Jersey). Right away we noticed much better road holding, high-speed stability, and stopping ability. After that ride we couldn't wait to go and test all this new stuff!
The radial Redlines mounted on the original 14x5.5 wheels would be used on the front, while out back Redlines were mounted on wider 14x7 wheels. We had to replace the rear tires because the old, beat-up, rear Redlines suffered from flat spots acquired during brake testing.
When we arrived at E-town, it was a typical hot and humid summer day with the temperature in the 90s. On the pit-side parking area, we set up a 200-foot skidpad area, arranging the trashcans instead of safety cones. We began testing with the Coker Classic Radial Redlines (215/75R-14 front, 225/75R-14 rear) mounted on Magnum 500 wheels. In this configuration we were amazed that the lateral road holding was an average .88g clockwise and .88g counter-clockwise. B-Bodies have good road holding potential, and the Coronet has a 51/49 front-to-rear weight ratio due to aluminum engine components and a lightweight battery. Frame connectors have been a part of the package for over 10 years. From only simple bolt-ons, we were amazed how the new and improved suspension components vastly improved our skidpad numbers. Next, we would swap to a wider and lighter set of wheels and tires seeking to improve cornering ability.
Up front, new BFG 235/60R-15 T/A Radials on 15x7 Weld Superlite rims would prove to be competent performers. Mounted on the back again for more torture testing were the same Nittos used from the tire strip test on 15x8 Welds. The wider rolling stock with more tire contact patch netted us an astounding .92g average!
We were surprised to surpass our goal of .85g with Redlines and .88g with wider meats.
Test For Whoa
Before we got into the front suspension and disc brake install, the 11-inch drum brakes received a series of 60-mph stops, both cold and hot. The drums showed us a best 60-to-0 stop of 168 feet (cold), with backup stops (hot) fading to a frightening 230 feet achieved during our third stop test. As the R/T progressively became faster, the drum brakes had limited ability to safely haul us down from the higher trap speeds-especially when hot.
On the day of skidpad testing, we made back-to-back, 11-second, quarter-mile passes without any evidence of brake fade. Out in the Pine Barrens, the 60-to-0 panic stops were knocked down to 152-155 feet (from 168 feet cold, 230 feet hot). Unfortunately, we still experienced rear brake lock-up and scary swerving. Once back home, the adjustable proportioning valve (included in the kit) was installed for safety's sake. After the valve was adjusted to banish lock-up, stopping distance was reduced to a repeatable 140-142 feet without any signs of fade. All brake testing (drum versus disc) was performed on six-year-old Coker tires. Braking distance could have been further decreased if we switched over to the wider tire/lighter wheel combo. Once testing was complete, the flat-spotted tires were replaced with a new set of Coker Radial Redlines for our red R/T.
After testing, we felt too much braking effort was required during stop and go traffic, or when the motor was cold or idling too long. This was due to the big cam (575 lift, 262-degrees duration at .050-inch). For fearless braking at all times, we opted for an electric vacuum pump from SSBC. Vacuum pumps also add an extra safety margin. If the engine stalls, the pump will still pull vacuum to the brake booster.
Expectations were surpassed, and we now feel confident driving our old iron on today's crowded and crazy roads. Hopefully, the development of high-quality components will continue on. We really enjoy driving and seeing old Mopars on the road and hope to for years to come. Hats off to all the manufacturers and suppliers. Who ever thought 20 years ago there would be so many available parts to modernize our vintage vehicles.
More Photos From This Article View Slideshow
The rear (shown) and front QA1 12-way adjustable shocks were set with a 0 setting on the fronts, and 8 on the rears. The front sway bar is always disconnected before any strip testing. The front QA1 R-Series (PN RC1538P) feature 90-10 valving when set at zero, and the rear QA1's (PN TC1539P) are 50/50 type shocks, which become firmer as the dial is turned up.We started with the Hoosier slicks to establish a baseline. The 28x9 Hoosiers were mounted on 15x8 Center Line Auto Drags, while the 275/60R (same width and diameter as the slicks) Nitto 555 Drag Radials sat on 15x8 Weld Draglites. The wheels were equal weight; the street/strip radials were a few pounds heavier apiece. Out on the road, the street radials are safe for wet or dry drivability.Switching from the stock 14x5.5 road wheels (AKA Magnum 500's) with 215/75-14 Coker Classic Radial Redlines to the 15x311/42 Weld Draglites with 26-inch Hoosier Front Runners saved us 58 pounds from the nose of the car. We added 8 gallons of gas to equal out the weight reduction. This swap didn't surprise us when we gained a tenth in e.t.Randy's Ring and Pinion only carries 28-inch (A-Body) and 30-inch (E-Body) axleshafts for the 8-3/4. Randy's sent us a set of cut to length axles. We found a local machine shop to do the deed for us. The new axle is equipped with the nonadjustable-type Green bearings. The Randy's axle is also 15-percent stronger than stock axles.Magnumforce offers their tubular UCA (upper control arms) either with adjustable or bushed mounting points. The adjustable UCA comes with strong Teflon-lined heim joints. The bushed UCA are nonadjustable with pre-installed poly bushings. We chose the adjustable arms, which feature more available camber adjusting for better handling (road racing). The adjustable UCA also allows added positive caster that can aid in straight-line high-speed stability (drag racing). Either tubular UCA comes with the upper ball joint installed. We had ours powdercoated a subtle gray color.Check out how our LCA bushing deteriorated from nearly 40 years and over 100,000 miles of use. Also, notice how the LCA shaft is off center inside the beat-up bushing. This causes the alignment to change with suspension movement while driving. Once the new bushings and shafts are installed (centered), our B-Body will hold its alignment and show improved road holding manners.On top is the original strut rod with rubber bushings. FFI's adjustable strut rod (bottom) was ordered with the firmer and stronger poly bushings. The adjustable strut rods allow you to set more positive caster to also enable better high-speed stability.We sandblasted the LCA before removal of the shaft and bushing. Just Suspension carries the American Muscle line of suspension tools. This tool (bottom left) makes removal of the LCA shaft a cinch. When the shaft is removed, the rubber bushing is cleaned out and the outer shell stays in place. Then the poly bushing and shaft slips in with some grease. The greaseable LCA shaft and poly bushing (top) is a Firm Feel Inc. exclusive product.With the LCA and strut rod in place, the UCA, upper and lower ball joints, spindle, disc brake bracket, and tie rods were all bolted in. Notice the shock and torsion bar are disconnected. Here we are checking for binding while moving the assembly up and down by hand. The LCA, UCA, and strut rods were only tightened to 10 lb-ft before we checked suspension movement. Don't torque the moving suspension parts until the car is at rest.
This shot is after bolting on SSBC's turbo slotted rotors and Force 10 four-piston caliper. The rotors are vented and turbo slotted to help cool the rotors to prevent brake fade. We opted to have the calipers powdercoated, and the rotors received the Xtra Life Plating. We wanted our brake components to maintain that "new look" for years to come.Be sure to follow SSBC's instructions when installing their brake kit. The proportioning valve must be installed after the distribution block. We made a short two-inch line after the distribution block and reused the original line going to the back brakes. Once we adjusted the prop valve to eliminate lock-up, stopping distances were reduced an additional 10-plus feet.Time and money is well spent preparing the suspension and brakes towards the demands of today's traffic. We replaced the stock .920-inch diameter torsion bars with Mopar Performance pieces. Summit Racing had our PN DCC-5249158 T-bars and PN DCC-5249609 lock and seal set in stock and shipped them out on the same day. We elected not to use the 1-inch torsion bars considering ride quality for our street driver.The SSBC kit comes with a front disc/rear drum master cylinder. We purchased new rear wheel cylinders but not brake shoes. Installing new shoes would have skewed our braking distance results. Comparing the difference in performance front disc versus humdrum front brakes was the real importance of this test. Eastwood's Diamond Clear will protect all of our bare metal and cast parts for years.During our baseline brake testing with the drum brakes, we encountered scary rear brake lock-up. In an effort to reduce lock-up, we tried new wheel cylinders with smaller 7/8-inch pistons (stock was 15/16-inch). Most auto parts stores list the 7/8-inch wheel cylinder application for a '77 Dodge D-100 pickup. They are a bolt-on part that fit the '60s and '70s B-Bodies.After completing the buildup, we decided the stock replacement 9/16-inch tie-rod ends and split adjusting sleeves wouldn't hold an alignment with the other "stronger than stock" parts. We again called Just Suspension for their heavy-duty 11/16-inch tie-rod ends and sleeve kit (PN HDTRE1116S).The R/T was brought to our friends at Shore Wheels in Tuckerton, New Jersey, for a front-end alignment. The Shore Wheel guys dialed-in a touch of negative camber (-0.70) and positive caster (+2.5). This will help the Coronet drive and handle better than if we received a stock specification type of alignment.Up front for skidpad testing, we wanted to see how the track width and tire contact patch would affect the lateral-G numbers. Here the 215/75R -14 Coker Redline shows its scuffed sidewall after some laps. From Summit, we ordered the 15x7 Weld's with 3-inch backspacing (4 inch is standard) and 235/60 T/A's to widen the track 3 inches, while the tire contact patch was increased 2 inches. We set the QA1's at 10 clicks.In the rear, we employed the same size (225/75R-14), Coker Redlines mounted on wider 14x7 Magnum 500s. The 14x7 Magnum 500/ radial Redline combo increased track width by 1 inch over the original baseline. The stickier and wider Nitto rear meats (275/60R-15) on the 15x8 Welds were performing double-duty (strip and skidpad testing) and did so quite effectively. The Nitto/weld combo increased track width 3 inches from stock. The rear QA1's were also set at 10 clicks.
With the newly updated and rebuilt suspension system, we went from .75g stock to .88g, a massive improvement. Swapping to the wider wheels and tires (seen here), we improved our lateral road holding capability up to .92g.Due to the big Comp Cams Magnum Street Roller (575 lift, 262 at .050 duration), our R/B motor didn't generate enough vacuum at idle or in stop-and-go traffic to properly actuate the power brakes. We tried a vacuum reserve canister, but would use up the vacuum after three or more steps of the pedal (within 15 seconds). We had enough room in the battery tray area to mount the SSBC vacuum pump (PN 28146). The vacuum pump will maintain safe braking even if the mighty 440 stalls.


text:
Cargnel finally sentenced
?Years later, mother receives two years in death of her child
January 19, 2013
ST. CLAIRSVILLE - After years of legal procedure, a case that involved the death of a 10-year-old child ended this past week with the sentencing of the mother, Carmen Cargnel, 33, 109 Main St....
Yeah ******** the let it drag on to long **********s
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Amazing just, two yrs. for killing someone..Ive seen more time given just for doing drugs.
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Showing 2 of 2 comments
Post a Comment
You must first login before you can comment.


text:
| Al-Enazi, S. , SABIC Technology Centre, Jubail Industrial City, Saudi Arabia; Al-Meshari, A. , SABIC Technology Centre, Jubail, The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; Abdelgalil, A. , SABIC Technology Centre, Jubail, The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
[stainless steel]
Graphitization occurs in carbon steel (CS) reactors in
high-temperature service (> 455°C). As discussed in this
case history, the shell of a methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
reactor became susceptible to elevated-temperature oxidation
that initiated corrosion conditions. In addition,
high-temperature fluctuations fostered stresses that promoted
fatigue of the MTBE reactor shell and, ultimately, caused an
emergency shutdown of the unit.
To continue reading please, log in to hydrocarbonprocessing.com.
Subscribe now for premium access and unlimited access to the site, including archived articles and the process handbooks. Start a free trial to gain access to articles from the current issue of Hydrocarbon Processing.
Subscribe today and gain unlimited and immediate access to the site. Plus, you'll receive the next 12 issues of the magazine in your choice of print or digital format. Start your subscription today.
Start a free trial and gain immediate access to the current issue of the magazine plus additional, select content.
30 Day Trial
Sign-up for the Free Daily HP Enewsletter!
A searchable database of project activity in the global hydrocarbon processing industry
Engineers and designers are highly skilled individuals. Forcing them to enter design changes using tables, forms and spreadsheets is unproductive and uneconomical, and it increases the likelihood of human error—this is the way that most instrumentation software systems currently work. For too long, software vendors have denied engineers and designers the simple practicality of a graphical visual engineering interface with "drag and drop" capability and inbuilt intelligence, ensuring changes are automatically replicated into all the associated data and databases.
Is 2016 the peak for US gasoline demand?
Too soon to tell
July 2016


text:
I am thinking about purchasing a Canon 60D and selling my Rebel XT and wondered if I would need to purchase new lenses? I only have two but as you all know, once you invest it is hard to not take those into consideration when purchasing a new camera.
There are currently two types of Canon lenses: EF and EF-S.
The EF lenses will work on any modern Canon EOS camera (including both the XT and the 60D).
The EF-S lenses will work on some digital Canon EOS cameras, including the Rebel series, XXD series (including the 60D) and the 7D. You can see a full list of supported cameras on wikipedia's EF-S page.
EF-S lenses do not work on the 5D or 1D series of Canon EOS DSLRs, nor do they work on the D30, D60 or 10D which are three of Canon's earliest DSLRs (not to be confused with the 30D or 60D, which both support EF-S lenses!).
So to answer your question directly, yes, any lens that works on your Rebel XT will work on a Canon EOS 60D, since both support the exact same set of lenses (EF and EF-S only).
Just in case the question comes up, Canon FD lenses are NOT interchangeable with the current Canon line. The FD is the previous generation, so...
Also, for a complete list of cameras that support the EF-s mount, see the wikipedia page. Of note is that the 10D is not supported, or similarly old cameras.
In addition to the other good answers - You did not mention what lenses you currently have. Thus, my guess is that these are the (18-55mm) kit lens and the 75-300mm tele. This is a very popular combination with Rebel owners, including me. Once you consider changing your camera body to the next step in the line (xxD), you may also consider that relative to that camera's price, these lenses are relatively cheap, and together cost about $250 (which most of it can be even returned if you sell as used). So, upgrading from a Rebel may be a good time (maybe your last chance) to consider if lens compatibility really is an issue here.
In the particular case of the EOS 60D this is not really an issue, but if you ever considered a full frame body (EOS 5DmkII) or even converting to other brand, than lens compatibility should not hold you from doing this.