text:
Hate speech--again
Two pieces bring the question of hate speech back before us. In the latest NY Review of Books and under the title Should Hate Speech be Outlawed?, Justice John Paul Stevens reviews Jeremy Waldrons The Harm in Hate Speech. While Waldron admits that it is very unlikely that laws banning hate speech will ever pass constitutional muster in America, he does believe that we have overprotected speech that not only causes significant harm to the dignity of minority groups but also, more importantly, diminishes the public good of inclusiveness that is an essential attribute of our society.Waldrons general description of the kind of speech under discussion is expansive:
The use of words which are deliberately abusive and/or insulting and/or threatening and/or demeaning directed at members of vulnerable minorities, calculated to stir up hatred against it.
The Justice faults him for not addressing the differences in the statutes in several countries where certain kinds of hate speech are outlawed. At the end of the essay, Stevens confesses that he has not been persuaded that it would be wise to outlaw the entire category of hate speech that Waldron describes, and it would appear that it will remain true that Americans are freer to think what we will and say what we think than any other people.The only point which gives me pause is when the Justice seems to imply that the exchanges once common between rival ethnic groups might classify as hate speech, and cites (quite unnecessarily) an ethnic joke against Poles. I myself found the Festrunk Brothers of Steve Martin and Dan Aykroyd offensive, even demeaning of my ethnic background, but I would never characterize it as hate speech.Peter Berger, the brilliant social theorist who brought European perspectives of the Geisteswissenschaften to sociology in the U.S. (a counter-balance to the positivism of the How many freckle-faced left-handed Catholics go to Mass every week tradition), has a weekly blog here. In one of his essays he refers to a case before a district court in Texas in which the judge ruled that an imprecatory prayer uttered against a man who opposes religious activities in the U.S. military could not be considered to have caused harm and fell within the boundaries of freedom of speech. Berger comments:
There are a few things to be noted about this episode. As far as I can tell, Judge Hoffmans ruling follows an established tradition in American law: Speech, no matter how offensive or hurtful, is protected under the first amendmentunless it directly threatens or harms the targeted individuals. A classical case for this legal doctrine was the 1977 incident in Skokie, Illinois, where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a group that called itself the National Socialist Party of America had the right to parade with full Nazi regalia through the streets of this largely Jewish suburb of Chicagodespite the fact that one in six inhabitants was a Holocaust survivor. The same doctrine was invoked when the Supreme Court ruled that a Protestant fundamentalist group had the right to demonstrate at military funerals with the message that God was punishing America for its sinsdespite the fact that this action inflicted great hurt to the grieving families. I wonder whether this doctrine will come unglued, as the new concept of hate speech makes its way through the courts: Could not an atheist claim that a ceremonial curse constitutes hate speech? There is also the delicious irony in the fact that, if Weinstein had stipulated that a curse in the name of God could have real effects in the empirical world, he might not have won in a Texas court in 2012, but he would surely have won in a Salem, Massachusetts court in 1692though thereby implicitly denying his atheist worldview. (Of course both defendant and plaintiff might have been hanged eventually, the former for witchcraft, the latter for atheism.) Needless to say, he would also have won for many centuries in any court in so-called Christendom.
About the Author
Rev. Joseph A. Komonchak, professor emeritus of the School of Theology and Religious Studies at the Catholic University of America, is a retired priest of the Archdiocese of New York.
28 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
Speech, like water, will seek and reach its own level, regardless. It's better to keep hate speech in the open so that it can be refuted or at least kept in public view. At this moment, I have in mind the good work of the Southern Poverty Law Center that keeps track of hate groups and educates the public and law enforcement about such organizations. See, for example, http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-iss....
Link is to "The Year in Hate and Extremism 2011", the current issue of SPLC's INTELLIGENCE REPORT. There's something to be said for sunshine.
I'm of two minds about all this. As a strict defender of freedom of speech I lean one way, as an observer of what hate speech can do to kids I lean the other. And it does have discernible consequences sometimes.I wonder if it would be possible to outlaw hate speech against minors, e.g., the sort directed against gay kids. The problem would be to identify both the intention of the speaker and the effect on the hearer. I fear that adults simply have to bear with hate speech. But kids are another matter. They are so psychologically so vulnerable and incapable of defending themselves.
Just a few observations.1. There are and ought to be limits on what bad conduct is treated as criminal. 2. There can and ought to be some societal sanctions against some bad but not criminal conduct. These sanctions can be applied by by actions of members of institutions of civil society, e,g., religious communities, political parties, businesses, schools, etc. These sanctions ought to take the form of clearly expressed repudiation of the content of the offensive conduct.Waldren is quite right, I believe, in drawing attention to the communal damage that hate speech does. Even if Justice Stevens is right that legal sanctions against hate speech are not warranted, societal sanctions still are called for.Regrettably, there is a widespread view in the U. S. to the effect that if some conduct is not illegal, then it is socially acceptable. There is nothing "intolerant" about denouncing bad but not illegal conduct. Practical wisdom is required, though, to know how to sanction it.
" -- societal sanctions still are called for."Witness recent cancellations of sponsorship of the Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, ad toiletem, programs.
Bernard --I agree that it would be better if the needed changes could be effected by non-governmental groups criticizing the bad guys. But how can a social group meaningfully condemn the behavior of others when the group holds that all ethics is subjective or relative to culture? Once again philosophy rears its ugly head.
"I wonder if it would be possible to outlaw hate speech against minors, e.g., the sort directed against gay kids," writes Ann Olivier.Speaking as a total non-lawyer, I don't see why this should be impossible (and a very good idea, what's more). After all, we protect children in all sorts of other ways, don't we? Child labor laws, restrictions on tobacco and alcohol (and pornography -- I think?) sales, car seat laws for toddlers, and so forth.The widespread confusion (that Bernard Dauenhauer points to) between the legal and the socially acceptable is, unfortunately, a major problem, and perhaps grows out of a certain view among certain members of the legal profession that, with the gradual extinction of religious and other traditional codes of conduct, it is up the lawyers to teach us the difference between right and wrong. We as Americans are quick to denounce corruption (political, economic, etc.) in other countries. In God's Own Country we legalize it, and thus pronounce it no longer corrupt (e.g., the Citizens United decision). Perhaps the Supreme Court will some day remove protections for children on the ground that they are violations of liberty.
It seems to me that sooner or later this libertarian Court is going to have to realize that by definition there is no law without substantial restrictions on liberty and without substantial demands made on action. Law demands, and law commands. It doesn't just say, "Yes, you may . . . "
Ann's question is a very good one: "But how can a social group meaningfully condemn the behavior of others when the group holds that all ethics is subjective or relative to culture?" It's the good question whether liberal social philosophy can account for and legitimize its own principles and, therefore and necessarily, many of its most cherished conclusions without regular recourse to petitio principii.
JAK --It seems to me that one problem with both parties is their lack of good theory. In the 1950's Russell Kirk, the moralist-political theorist, gave voice to a conservative theory with some depth, and a bit later William F. Buckley popularized KIrk's ideas so clearly and entertainingly that many ordinary citizens seem to have been permanently impressed. But those people are getting old, an unfortunately for conservatives, the flaws in the Kirk-Buckley economic thinking are becoming clearer by the day, so their conservative philosophy needs very serious revision.The Democrats, however, haven't had any combination of thinkers of even that caliber, at least not in my lifetime. FDR's social/political/economic values were very solid, but he wasn't a writer and so hasn't influence later generations with his books.So I think the Democrats are especially in need of a moralist=political philosopher who can ground a Democratic political theory on human nature (what else can it be grounded on?) and then invent the sort of political plan or vision for maintaining the common good we desperately need. (It's the notion of the common good that the conservatives so often short-change!)Of course, defining "conservative" and "liberal" is to some extent arbitrary. Shall we call the conservatives those who hold liberty and personal rights to be fundamental? I'm inclined that way. Are liberals those who hold that the common good and *equal rights* have to be the most basic grounds of a political system? Again, I'm inclined that way. At least divided up that way they would roughly balance each other. But neither party seems to have any deep appreciation of the role of *obligations* in a commonweal. And trying to determine just what those obligations are would no doubt inspire some heated as well as some vicious argumentation. Americans, conservative and liberal, don't like obligations. We're all libertarians in that respect. How to overcome the relativism and subjectivism of contemporary American ethics? I think there is already a stirring, if not a movement, underway in academe to find a way. More and more ethicians are seeing that utilitarianism, relativism and subjectivism just can't ground a rational ethics. Natural law teory has been earning some respect, and maybe this is a beginning. I strongly suspect that if the best of the Thomist natural law theorists (e.g., MacIntyre and Finnis) are going make any contributions to the movement they'll have to sometimes get down and dirty into such questions as abortion and euthanasia. No more just indulging in lofty theorizing about the metaphysical descriptions of human nature and about the ultimate foundations law. And, sadly, I fear that MacIntyre is just too old to move in that direction. Edward Feser might help, but I haven't read any of his (very conservative) political philosophy, and I don't know how creative he could be == or has been.
I do think that part of this problem is bound in American culture with its strong emphasis on individualism and libertarianism. This libertarian character (e.g live free or die) is both a strength and a weakness of US political culture.I can offer some simple anecdotal examples.When the pc's and internet became popularized, public libraries moved quickly to offer the service to the public. Here, in my city, content blocks were placed on anybody accessing pornographic material. Certain material was censored if it was pornographic in nature. If there was a doubt as to the legitimacy of the site, the customer could see the librarian. This was never really challenged as far as I know.I read in the US, where library's wanted to do similarly and there was a huge outcry against censorship.In Japan, following the tsunami, there was no looting. In the US, during Hurricane Katrina and other disasters there was.I agree with Bernard that there still can be societal sanctions that can be effective but this requires cohesive, mature communities and it is difficult to have cohesive communities while at the same time asserting the right of the individual.
What follows is far from a sufficient answer to the issues raised by Ann, Fr. Komonchak, and George D. I think that I have something useful tl say, but in the context of a blog comment, I can only gesture in the direction I'd pursue/ First, There's a difference between Christian ethics and philosophical ethics. Christian ethics necessarily includes the explicit obligation to worship God. Whether such an obligation is part of philosophical ethics is obviously a matter of controversy. Here I only want to talk in philosophical terms.Second, I take it that philosophical ethics concerns human action, including speech as a kind of action.Third, I take it that the issue raised by Waldren and Stephens has to do with action in a pluralistic society. By definition, a pluralistic society is one in which the fundamental bases from which norms governing public action are assessed are multiple and often not easily harmonized with one another. Fourth, with Aristotle, I take it that any discipline dealing with human action (see Aristotle's two Ethics, Politics, and Rhetoric) is one that cannot claim to have the degree of clarity and certitude that is available in what is called Aristotle's First philosophy. Accordingly, it makes sense to recognize that each subject matter has its own degree of clarity and certitude and that ethics has less of these than does logic or metaphysics. Fifth, also with Aristotle, I take it that moral virtue "lies in the mean" between excess and deficiency and that this mean is not absolute but rather is "relative to us."Two quick points: First, Aristotle's position is by no means dismissible as "relativistic." Moral judgments may be contestable, but it's not a matter f "subjectivism or "anything goes-ism." Second, Fr. Komonchak is right that some version of liberal social thought may be doomed to question begging. But there are many versions of what's lumped together as "liberal social thought." Walzer is not Rawls and neither of them is Nozick. and there's more.My earlier comment has at its base the ehtical thought of Paul Ricoeur. See his "Oneself as Another" as well as his subsequent collections called "The Just" and "Reflections on Justice." His position is not unproblematic in a number of respects, but I'm prepared to defend its general thrust. It draws on both Aristotle and Kant and gives due emphasis to practical wisdom. The points that I made in my earlier comment on this thread rest on my reading of his work. Immodestly, for a fuller discussion, let me mention my book "Paul Ricoeur: the Promise and Peril of Politics."I'd love to continue this discussion in a way that is appropriate for blogging, but I'm not quite sure what else I might usefully say at this point.Let me repeat. I do think that the points that Ann and Fr. Kopmonchak and George D are worth pursuing and am willing to do so if they, or someone else, wishes to do so.
Bernard --Where would you start such a discussion? With which problems?
Bernard Dauenhauer: OK, I see you've armed yourself with a supply of arrows. I have no doubt the arrows in your hand are good arrows.However, the point of departure in this thread was hate speech. But in your message @05/19/2012 - 8:06 pm, you do not mention hate speech. So armed with your fine arrows, how do you now propose to address the issue of hate speech?
"...moral virtue lies in the mean..."With all due respect to Aristotle, in this case he was mistaken, for we can know through Faith and reason that from The Beginning, God created every human individual, from the moment they were brought into being at conception, equal in Dignity, while being complementary as male and female. Moral virtue lies in respect for the inherent Dignity of the human person, because, from the beginning, we have been created in God's Image, to live in a communion of Love, while being called to The Communion of Perfect Love, The Blessed Trinity, simultaneously.""Our hearts are restless until they rest in you." - St.Augustine (HT-Father Joseph)
Ann and Thomas Farrell, here's something by way of a response to you. It's neither novel nor sufficient, but perhaps it will be of some use.First, I take it that there is at least some prima facie obligation for every competent citizen to be concerned with the quality of the public discourse in our political society. What it would take for a specific person to discharge this obligation would, of course, vary depending on his or her particular circumstances, but all would be bound to favor and encourage one another to do their parts to maintain an appropriate sort of civility in this public discourse.Second, two general considerations: (a) All detraction, as well as calumny, defamation, and libel, are offenses against this obligation. That is, some speech, even if what is said is true, can be detraction or defamation. For example, if I speak scornfully about a person precisely because of some physical or psychological handicap he or she has or precisely because of his or her ethnicity or sexual orientation, even if what I say is factually accurate, I am guilty of detraction or defamation.(b) Some bad speech rises to the level of hate speech. Drawing "bright red lines" to determine which bad speech is hate speech nay not be feasible. There may be borderline cases that are, in practice, indeterminable. But not all cases are borderline cases. How to classify a particular point on a color spectrum may not be certain, but we do know that yellow is not red.(c) I claim that hate speech deserves societal censure. Sometimes the proper censure will be a matter of shaming the offender. Whatever the censure or sanction it should be both proportional to the offense and oriented toward deterrence. Furthermore, it also should be geared to rehabilitate the offender. A rough "model" for this kind of sanction is that of sound international diplomacy designed to bring an offending state back into conformity to its international obligations.Dealing with bad public speech, including hate speech, is always going to be a "work in progress." Here are a couple of prosaic "rules of thumb." 1. Pay attention to the dimensions of the problem. Don't exaggerate it or try to find a definitive "cure" for it. There is no such cure. 2. Be proactive in cultivating civility. Prevention is better than repair. 3. In dealing with bad speech always be concerned with fairness as well as with effectiveness.Having bored all of you with this stuff that everybody already knows, let me add just one thing I'd like to be part of.I'd like to be part of an ongoing proactive ecumenical effort, lay led but with vocal and consistent clerical support, to promote respectful speech in the public domain among all citizens regardless of the nature or depth of their disagreements about public policy, candidates for public office, etc.
Hate speech can be particularly loathsome. Those who have been subjected to it, particularly at young and impressionable ages, know the depth of the nastiness that is experienced.It is not an academic question to the victims, not be a long shot.
Bernard --Thanks. That opens up a number of the tangle of issues.Let me just ask this one question: must we be civil to someone we have strong reason to despise, even hate? I suppose the problem is with the meaning of "civil", which generally implies non-accusatory speech, I think. Maybe we need a thread on "civility" alone.Then there's the question of whether or not it is always wrong to hate someone, where "hate" simply means ... Hey, what does "hate" mean? I get as far as "an extremely intense feeling of rejection or ill will", but that doesn't sound exactly right to me either. We probably need a thread on that too.
A tangent. I was slightly taken aback by the sentence: he does believe that we have overprotected speech that not only causes significant harm to the dignity of minority groups but also ...", because I do not think that dignity can be harmed by other people's words or actions.
Ann, I don't think that we ever have good reason to despise or hate anyone. Every person, precisely as a person, deserves fundamental respect and concern from each of us. All this is entailed, I think, by the Biblical command "Thou shall not kill" and the Golden Rule. But there is nothing "uncivil" or contemptuous in criticizing conduct or speech that disregards these requirements of respect and concern. For example, should I say or do something that displays contempt not for what Phil has said or done but for Phil as a person, then there is nothing "uncivil" for either Phil or someone else to say to me something like the following: "Bernard, what you have said about Phil is morally wrong. You owe him an apology and a commitment not to demean him again. If you fail to take these steps, then I (we) will do what we can to right the wrong that Phil you have inflicted on Phil. If necessary, I (we) will publicly mention you by name and rebuke you for what you have done. But in any event, whenever you repent of what you have done to Phil, I (we) will be happy to have your company once again."Such an approach to the problem, especially if announced in advanced, can be an effective deterrent to people tempted to speak hatefully. It also has the merit of showing the path to rehabilitation.
"Such an approach to the problem, especially if announced in advanced, can be an effective deterrent to people tempted to speak hatefully."My, you DO live in a dream world, don't you? I can just see the neo-Nazi skinheads and Fred Phelps falling to their knees and professing babbling shame and repentence.
Jimmy Mac, there are philosophers and others who hold that some wrongdoing is unforgivable. There are others who hold that forgiveness ought to be made conditional upon the fulfillment of some stringent and very burdensome conditions. I disagree and have argued in print against these views. Needless to say, I have not convinced them that I am right.But let me ask you what you would want to be done to people who engage in hate speech?
Bernard --I don't think that hatred always implies a desire to kill, though like any word it's ambiguous. The moral problem to me is whether or not hatred (an intense anger?) is ever morally *appropriate*. I'm thinking of the Jews at Auschwitz who saw their children killed, or black Southerners who saw their people lynched. Surely people are not morally liable for such natural feelings, and if they are not liable, then we can't say that allowing hatred to persist in ourselves is always morally wrong. And if that is so, how can hate speech be always wrong?What is it that's so wrong about hate speech -- the hate? the meaning of the speech? the effect of the hatred and meaning on other people? some combination of all those factors?
Ann, Neither do I think that "hatred always implies a desire to kill." I was referring to the 5th commandment's prohibitions, which include such things as maiming, contempt, hatred, etc.I take hatred to be a vice, the correlative opposite of love. As such, it is a deliberately adopted attitude, an attitude that one may take in opposition to one's emotions, even very strong emotions. I do readily admit that some people may be so overwhelmed by revulsion engendered by others' wrongdoings that they are unable to forgive or get beyond their readily understandable feelings of animosity. To that extent, these feelings impede the exercise of freedom and so these people are not culpable for their animosity. But if, hatred is, as I hold, a freely adopted attitude, then it is always morally wrong to hate another person.
Bernard --When I think of the use of "hate" I think of two dogs I knew who were said to hate each other. Their feelings were ferocious that one day when they got into the same yard they tried to kill each other. It was horrible. It took two big men to separate them. That is emotional hate, and I think it's the core meaning, but that might be because I have such a vivid image of those dogs fighting.I agree there is such a thing as "hatred" that is chosen. Iago and Satan in "Paradise lost' are prime examples. In my experience that's rare, but I'm not a gay teen-ager. Insofar as it's more than a feeling and a matter of thinking and choice then, yes, it can properly be prohibited by law. But I don't think you can prohibit feelings that are not acted on. Feelings are automatic, they're not a matter of choice, at least not at first appearance. They can often be willed away, but if Freud is right (and he often is about feelings) they don't really go away, they're only repressed unless they can be dealt with in therapy.I agree with you that feelings can impede our own freedom. When intense enough they make choice impossible. It's this fact, I think, that those of "libertarian" bent often don't appreciate. Having what you want when you want it won't give you no satisfaction, no, no, no, no.
My last post needs some revision -- too much freedom can limit our satisfaction, though it doesn't always limit our choices, at least not at the moment. Wrong choices can limit future choices and future satisfaction -- e.g. when a druggie wrecks his brain, his future choices can be drastically reduced.I think this was a huge problem for the boomers. Freedom can limit future freedom, satisfaction can make later satisfaction impossible. Limits are the enemy but they're necessary. Quite a paradox there. Even feelings which are supposed to lead to satisfaction end up being destructive of our own happiness or others'.
I agree that there has been an inflation (or rather a deflation) in the applicability of the word "hatred" for speech that a person or group finds offensive. (In this respect, it's somewhat similar to the use of the word "homophobia". A nephew kept using the adjective "awesome" to describe quite ordinary good things he encountered. I asked him, "Matthew, what word will you use if something truly awesome comes along?")I mentioned in my original post that Justice Stevens seemed to regard ethnic jokes as "hate speech," which surprised me. In the latest Atlantic, James Harkin's essay describes some of the pitch black humor that many Syrians are using these days as a way of coping with their dreadful experiences. But he has also this paragraph: "Genuine affection for ethnic or religious others, the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek once told me, comes when you're confident enough to swap insults and obscenities. It was only when the situation in the Balkans turned sour, he pointed out, that the ethnic jokes began to dry up."That was my experience, too. The exchange of ethnic insults in our multi-ethnic grade school and high school was a friendly one, and there was always this rejoinder: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." The kind of "snaps" humor expressed among African Americans could never be used by whites, just as they may use--and use affectionately--among themselves words that would be the unpardonable sin on the lips of others.
Here's a review by John Paul Stevens of a book on outlawing hate speech.http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jun/07/should-hate-speech-...


text:
Geochronology facilities - Applications
See all Geoscience Australia Data and Applications
(1 products total)
Geoscience Australia's Geochron Delivery System
|Geoscience Australia's Geochron Delivery system is the retrieval system for geochronological data stored by Geoscience Australia. The system will be continually updated as the volume, variety and quality of available geochronological data increase. The initial (September 2011) release contains only ion microprobe (SHRIMP) data, comprising data from about 560 samples, chiefly derived from Geoscience Australia's previous Geochronology OZCHRON. Migration of further OZCHRON data, and upload of more recent data (including analyses obtained in collaboration with the States and the Northern Territory under the National Geoscience Agreement) is ongoing and continuous.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I was watching Futurama and in a recent episode, the professor creates a duplication machine.
The machine basically took something and then made 2 copies at 60% the size.
Somehow Bender got caught in the machine and he started duplicating infinitely.
The problem is, Bender needed excess matter to create these duplicates.
The professor then reveals this equation which would explain why it was a threat to the universe as the ammount of matter needed to create the excess bending units would never converge to 0 thus, eventually, needing the entire mass of the universe to keep the series going:
This was already asked on SciFi.SE, but I'm still confused as to what this equation is actually saying. And how it is divergent.
Or if it is even accurate in it's concept.


text:
How do I configure Ctrl-Left and Ctrl-Right as previous/next word shortcuts for bash (currently alt-b and alt-f)?
The correct answer depends on which terminal you are using.
For Gnome Terminal or recent versions of xterm, put this in ~/.inputrc:
For PuTTY, put this in your ~/.inputrc:
For rxvt, put this in your ~/.inputrc:
You can probably get away with putting all of those together in ~/.inputrc.
In all cases, you also need to put this in your ~/.bashrc (or ~/.zshrc):
If that doesn't work, or you have a different terminal, go to your terminal and type Ctrl+V Ctrl+->. Then use that instead of
Note that you need to write the keyboard escape sequences using the inputrc syntax, e.g.
If you're using ZSH, you need to take a different method, because, quoting the relevant parts from ArchLinux's ZSH guide:
After reading that guide, I figured I need a modren source of ZSH to get the general idea of how to do this from, and so I found this oh-my-zsh file which describes the behaviour I wanted, I copied the relevant parts I wanted into my ~/.zshrc:


text:
Let $\mathcal{A}(1)$ denote the subalgebra of the $\mathrm{mod}\ 2$ Steenrod algebra generated by $\mathrm{Sq}^1$ and $\mathrm{Sq}^2$. The cohomology with $\mathbf{F}_2$ coefficients of the semidihedral group $$SD_{16} = \langle g, h \mid g^8 = h^2 = 1, hgh = g^3\rangle$$ of order $16$ is isomorphic to $\mathrm{Ext}^\ast_{\mathcal{A}(1)}(\mathbf{F}_2, \mathbf{F}_2)$. Is there a topological explanation for this isomorphism?
Not a 'topological' explanation, but A(1) is the 8 dimensional member of the family of semi-dihedral algebras, whose members of dimension $2^n$ for $n > 3$ are the mod 2 group rings of the semidihedral group of that order. Their cohomology ring is insensitive to the differences; that difference is reflected in the order of the higher Bockstein from H^3 to H^4.
Crawley-Boevey completely analyzed the structure of the modules over these algebras in
Crawley-Boevey, W. W. Functorial filtrations. III. Semidihedral algebras. J. London Math. Soc. (2) 40 (1989), no. 1, 31–39.
where he applies his results from Functorial Filtrations I and II to determine all the representations of "semidihedral algebras" $A_m = k\langle a,b | a^3 = b^2 = 0, a^2 = (ba)^mb\rangle$ (CAVEAT: when $k$ is a field with more than 2 elements).
There is one of these of $k$-dimension $4n-1$ for each $n \geq 2$. The 7 dimensional one is $A(1)$ modulo its socle ($a=Sq^2$ and $b=Sq^1$), and the $2^n-1$ dimensional one is the group ring of the semidihedral group modulo its socle for larger $n$.
Quotient by the socle is sensible here, since $A(1)$ and group rings are Frobenius, so that free modules are injective, hence split off. Modules with no free summand are all pulled back from the quotient by the socle.
There is a more recent (and I believe simpler) account of the representation theory as well, but I am embarrassed to admit that I cannot remember the author.
Since Crawley-Boevey's work actually classifies the modules over $A(1) \otimes GF_4$, I have always thought it would be entertaining to do the Galois descent to $A(1)$.


text:
On my server I have a quiz which you need to take before you can go to most of the areas, build etc... However, sometimes people try to cheat by going with friends into there. I want some kind of gate/mechanism which only allows one player to pass through and insert some kind of delay or so after this. Is this possible? For the delay I know how to make it, I only need to know if you can build something where only one person can pass through, not multiple at once.
I think the answer from MBraedley is correct: the best way to handle this scenario (allowing access to a single player at a time) would be to use Command Blocks to teleport one player into and out of your quiz area. You can program a Command Block to teleport the nearest player to a set of coordinates like so:
I don't know what would happen if two players somehow managed to be the exact same distance from the command block (i.e. does just one get teleported, or do they both get teleported since there is a tie for the "closest"). This additional argument may be necessary to limit it to only one player:
The next step is to create a circuit whereby clicking an "entry" button will teleport one player into the quiz area, deactivating this button so that it cannot teleport anyone else in until the player exits the quiz area by clicking a second "exit" button, teleporting them out. Here's one such example circuit I just threw together in my survival game:
The blue blocks are buttons that feed their signals into AND gates (green blocks). The outputs of the AND gates will activate Command Blocks (shown here as redstone lamps at the bottom of the image) and will also feed into the input of a T flip-flop circuit (red blocks). The output of the toggle circuit runs behind the red blocks and feeds into an input of each of the AND gates.
When the toggle circuit is in the "off" state (no output, as shown in the image) then the signal from the right button is disabled and the right redstone lamp (i.e. Command Block) cannot be activated. Activating the left button will cause the left redstone lamp to activate and immediately flip the toggle to the "on" state. This will subsequently disable the signal from the left button and reenable the signal from the right button.
This circuit should give you the ability to allow one player at a time to teleport into your quiz area via a button press. Once they reach the end they can then press another button to teleport out and reactivate the entry button for the next player. I'd also suggest enclosing the circuitry and your quiz area in bedrock, so your average player can't mess with any of it.
You might want to consider using command blocks to teleport players from a spawn area to the quiz area, and then again to the player area. The reason I'm suggesting teleporting the players into the quiz area is that you only want one player there at a time in order to ensure that the player that finishes the quiz is the player that's teleported to the playing area. There are a few ways to check if a player is still in the quiz area and hasn't, for instance, logged out.
As for how to actually implement this, I have no idea. Obviously, you'll need to have at least op powers so you can spawn the command blocks. Beyond that, I can't give many details.
Iron doors with a button will make them impossible to open until the player passes the quiz and steps on a pressure plate, which will then allow the doors to open again.


text:
Our California Lisbon Lemon extra virgin olive oil is made by crushing fresh, tree-ripened citrus fruit together with the olives at the time of pressing. This method captures the full essence of the citrus oil and color of the fruit, and imparts a richness of flavor to the oil which holds up even under light cooking. Citrus oils make wonderful vinaigrettes when paired with our White Balsamic Vinegar.
Please note that our Lisbon Lemon oil, like all of our oils, is not filtered, and so is sometimes cloudy, especially in the beginning of the year. All oils will eventally settle out and become clear. If your oil is cloudy there is nothing wrong with it, it is a natural, un-tinkered with product. Filtering robs oils of texture and flavor, and we prefer a natural product. Try it you'll like it!
Harvest Date: January 2016
photo credit: Erin Scott


text:
Welcome to a magical land full of promise, "bluffs, sinkholes and other 'death traps.'" Whether you know it as Middle Earth or New Zealand, it is a very dangerous place to be if you are a four-legged friend.
Four separate wranglers are slamming the production company behind The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, saying a farm used to house the animals during filming was too dangerous: resulting in 27 deaths. A spokesman for the film's director Peter Jackson confirmed the animals' deaths to The Daily Mail, adding that some animals died from natural causes. Others certainly did not:
- Rainbow, a miniature horse, was euthanized when he broke his back after falling off a bank.
- Claire, a full-sized real horse, died after falling over a bluff.
- Another horse, Zeppelin's, death records say it died of natural causes. But Johnny Smythe, a wrangler on the set and amateur animal-death-conspiracy-theorist, believes a new feed caused digestive issues which killed the horse.
Another horse, the aptly-named Doofus, nearly died when it got its leg cut in a fence, which really seems like it's more the horse's fault than anything else.
The American Humane Association keeps track of the welfare of animals used in films, though it only monitors film sets, and not the "death trap"-filled farms on which they live. An AHA spokesman told The Daily Mail the incidents highlighted an error in the organization's oversight process. A statement which is unlikely to comfort Rainbow's grieving widow just trying to make it by as a single mother of three foals, re-entering the workforce as a single miniature horse of a certain age.
PETA, always looking to make anything about itself, plans to stage protests at the movie's premieres in New Zealand, the U.S. and the UK.
[Via The Daily Mail // Image via AP]


text:
Fact Sheets
Fact Sheets
Press Releases
Public Statements
Recent News
Arab World
Council of Ministers
Foreign Aid
Foreign Relations
Saudi US Relations
Prior Years
Saudi Arabia In Focus
no King Abdullah chairs Cabinet session King Abdullah chairs Cabinet session at Al-Yamamah Palace
King Abdullah chairs Cabinet session
February 1, 2010
The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz chaired the Cabinet session at Al-Yamamah Palace in Riyadh today. At the outset, he recalled his latest contacts with foreign officials, including a message he received last week from Kuwaiti Emir Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah.
The Cabinet commended the outcomes of last week's London Conferences on Afghanistan and Yemen. The ministers reiterated the Kingdom's commitment to maintaining long-term aid and assistance to Afghanistan. Furthermore, they reaffirmed that Saudi Arabia will continue to support the Yemeni government and urged the international community to do the same.
On domestic issues, the Cabinet reviewed the economic, cultural and scientific activities that took place inside the Kingdom over the past few days. It praised the outcome of the International Exhibition for Higher Education which was attended by more than 300 representatives of foreign universities. The Cabinet also welcomed the many memoranda of cooperation concluded between Saudi and foreign universities during the proceedings.
After reviewing its weekly agenda, the Cabinet approved the Kingdom's accession to the Convention on Nuclear Safety, adopted in Vienna June 17, 1994; authorized the Saudi Arabian Olympic Committee to conclude a memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Olympic Committee; authorized the Minister of Islamic Affairs, Endowments, Call and Guidance to sign a draft memorandum of understanding for cooperation in the field of Islamic affairs and endowments with the Ministry of Justice and Islamic Affairs of Bahrain; approved a memorandum of understanding for scientific and educational cooperation between the Saudi Ministry of Higher Education and Spain's Ministry of Sciences and Innovation, signed in Madrid on April 1, 2009; approved a number of measures regarding the Two Holy Mosques Express Train; and approved the formation of specialized scientific councils in the Cabinet's Experts Commission.
The Cabinet appointed Muhanna Al-Muhanna as Director General of the Central Department of Statistics and Information (15th rank) at the Central Department of Statistics and Information and Fawaz Al-Shaalan as Minister Plenipotentiary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
« Return
print this page
send this page
Copyright © 2016 Information Office of the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington, DC |
Site Map


text:
Grading Utah schools: Top 50 lowest scoring elementary/middle/jr. high schools
Grade: D
Overall points/Overall possible: 330/600
Growth ELA all students/Possible: 28/50
Growth math all students/Possible: 16/50
Growth science all students/possible: 27/50
Growth ELA below proficient/Possible: 26/50
Growth math below proficient:/Possible: 19/50
Growth science below proficient/Possible: 26/50
English Language Arts proficient/Possible: 79/100
Math proficient/Possible: 54/100
Science proficient/Possible: 55/100
- Oldest first
- Newest first
- Most recommended
Does intimidating, and embarrassing a school improve anything?
Gazing at our economic woes, it's obvious standardized testing, and scoring, has done nothing to improve the educational level of our society.
- 9:09 a.m. Sept. 7, 2013
- Like (4)
- Top comment
The Deseret News certainly does enjoy creating lists and rankings of everything. Perhaps they could make a list ranking our legislators by how much they serve the interests of the people versus the interests of out of state lobby groups. Now that would be useful information.
- 9:14 a.m. Sept. 14, 2013
- Like (3)
- Report abuse
One single letter grade for, at a typical jr. high, 900 students, 50 teachers, and thousands of success stories? Really? This is accurate and representational? This ploy by the school voucher crowd, the legislators who voted for it, and the Deseret News--all in the same sordid bag--is just plain shameful--an example of bullying to the extreme.
- 9:14 a.m. Sept. 14, 2013
- Like (3)
- Report abuse
Apparently some people live in a world where everyone is above average, and
wishing things were better makes it so.
The first step towards improving education outcomes is to identify weak areas. Thankfully, the Utah Legislature had the wisdom and courage to demand that it be done, despite the protests from the teachers unions.
One might argue with the details of the scoring or the methodology, or the criteria, but honest observers wold all agree that the schools at the top of the list are probably doing a much better job for most of their students than those at the bottom.
Let's see what can be done to improve the educational outcomes for as many students as possible. Of course, in many cases that means overcoming cultural attitudes that do not value education and language problems aggravated by illegal immigration. We must also acknowledge that the focus of certain schools may result in low rankings, but still produce desirable outcomes for targeted groups of students.
- 10:22 a.m. Sept. 14, 2013
- Like
- Report abuse
I have a doctorate in Physics and unless a miracle happens, I will be out of funding in the middle of next spring. This article has made me excited about next year. I will be offering my services to the Spanish Fork high schools - for free. I can help in physics, mathematics and chemistry. How many people are there who no longer work and have a scientific background? Let's help the kids and the teachers by offering our services. It will make a major impact and will keep the retired people "of the streets and out of trouble," as one of my professors always said when we complained about the loads of homework.
- 11:37 a.m. Sept. 14, 2013
- Like
- Report abuse
As the old saying goes, "Those who can, teach. Those who can't, pass laws about teaching." Now, they even give out school grades based on extremely flawed criteria.
- 3:16 p.m. Sept. 14, 2013
- Like
- Report abuse
@ Kings Court
Those who look at the facts ignore old sayings.
The Legislature did not give out school grade, the schools were measured by objective criteria to see how they compared.
And, I believe the old saying was actual "Those who can, DO! Those who cannot, teach."
I hope that our physics Ph.D. above is successful in volunteering his services, and it may be a great help to the students. However, I fear that the education bureaucracy establishment will decide that he cannot possibly teach kids anything at all because he lacks the magic qualifications earned by sitting in "education" classes. Maybe if we had fewer "professional educators" and more actual experts with experience in the real world our schools would earn higher grades, and more importantly the kids would be better prepared for a successful career.
- 10:26 p.m. Sept. 14, 2013
- Like
- Report abuse
I have to applaud ipr for volunteering to help teach our children some real skills they could us in real life. I've thought about volunteering to teach vocational computer development classes when I retire. Don't know if they'd take me up on it. My favorite teacher in High School was a guy who had no training as a teacher but was a retired architect (teaching Vocational Drafting at Hillcrest High School). He didn't mess around, just taught us how to get a real job.
- 10:56 p.m. Sept. 14, 2013
- Like
- Report abuse
"The first step towards improving education outcomes is to identify weak
areas. Thankfully, the Utah Legislature had the wisdom and courage to demand
that it be done, despite the protests from the teachers unions."
How is passing a system written by the biggest pro-voucher group in the state a step in the right direction? Why are schools recognized nationally for their academic excellence being failed by this grading system which bases everything on whether or not students take one test? How is failing a school because a few students out of thousands fail to take a test a step in the right direction?
I want to know DN Subscriber.
And why wasn't the advice of a single educator sought out for this bill? If you were sick, wouldn't you seek out a doctor? So in education, why aren't educators sought out?
If this grading system is so great, then why are the architects of this law already running to their voucher lobbyist to revise it?
- 10:03 a.m. Sept. 17, 2013
- Like (1)
- Report abuse
This is unacceptable. Yes, standardized testing contains some flaws. Nevertheless, even with those flaws, to have scores as low as evidenced by these and the other bottom 14% of elementary/middle/jr.high schools shows a critical situation with a substantial number of schools. Keep in mind, we're talking about ENTIRE schools here, not just select children. This is a crisis, especially in those schools that are public.
- 1:56 p.m. Sept. 18, 2013
- Like (1)
- Report abuse
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
— About comments
- In our opinion: Planned Parenthood should...
- LDS missionaries save apartment complex from...
- Planned Parenthood 'CTR' campaign draws ire
- Big 12 watch: BYU praised for 'excited'...
- Two Utah schools under federal investigation...
- Doug Robinson: It's still Hill's time at BYU
- Morning links: BYU's Emery called one of the...
- LDS Church moves volunteers from Turkey to...
- Planned Parenthood 'CTR' campaign draws... 63
- Sarah Silverman: Bernie-or-bust Dems... 49
- New rule sparks debate over teacher... 48
- Is Bernie Sanders an atheist? 44
- Trump says Russia should find Clinton's... 42
- Clinton wins historic nomination,... 37
- Obama boosts Clinton: Carry her like... 34
- After turmoil, Sanders, Michelle Obama,... 31


text:
Women's Under Armour Escape ColdGear III 1/4 Zip Shirt
Buy Online & Pick Up In-Store
Colder temperatures and blustery winds don't have to keep you indoors. Take on whatever Mother Nature throws at you with the Under Armour Escape ColdGear III � Zip Women's Shirt. Made of brushed fleece that locks in your core temperature and blocks out the cold, this cozy shirt is the perfect accessory for all of your favorite outdoor activities.
Featuring a soft, moisture-wicking interior, this shirt will ensure that you stay dry even when you start to work up a sweat. A chest pocket with MP3 bonded oval and cord loop ensures that your music device stays put, while flatlock seams ensure that you don't suffer from painful irritation and chafing.
Brave the winter chill in this cozy, yet stylish, Under Armour shirt.


text:
FOLLANSBEE - In addition to hundreds of pounds of fresh fruits and vegetables enjoyed by area residents, a strong sense of community service and camaraderie have grown from a local garden planted by members of the Brooke-Hancock-Ohio-Marshall Retired and Senior Volunteer Program.
Angela Kocher, the program's executive director, said about 50 pounds of green beans, 80 pounds of zucchini, 100 cucumbers, 10 bushels of tomatoes and 20 watermelons and many other fruits and vegetables from the garden have been distributed through the Brooke County Senior Center to seniors and other residents at Dalesio Manor Apartments and other local seniors.
"As fast as we laid it out, it went," said Kocher.
Article Photos
GREEN THUMBS — Among the many taking part in a community garden organized by the Brooke-Hancock-Ohio-Marshall Retired and Senior Volunteer Program are, front, from left, Julia Stankevich, Guy Pinacchio and Carol Scurti; and back, Bill Kocher, Roger Shriner, Bruce Russell, Jim Brooks, Dick Rees and Angela Kocher, RSVP executive director. - Warren Scott
The 40-by-90-foot garden was planted in early June at an open lot by the Virginia Avenue home of Paul and Carol Scurti.
Kocher expressed thanks to the Scurtis, who allowed them to use their lot, and to the Brooke County Committee on Aging which aided with the purchase of topsoil. Ianetti's Garden Center waived the delivery fee for the topsoil, and McMasters Trucking provided a truck used to dump fill dirt. Quality Farm and Fleet supplied fertilizer.
She added many RSVP members chipped in with equipment and materials. They included Bob Gaskins, who provided the fill dirt and a tractor; Tom McBride, who supplied a tiller; and Dick Rees, who provided metal posts used to support the tomato plants.
Kocher said many of the volunteers brought plants for the garden.
She said about 15 RSVP members worked at the garden on a daily basis, sometimes aided by children in the After-School Adventures Program sponsored by RSVP and put in hundreds of hours during the summer.
Kocher said the group had to remove a lot of rocks before the lot was suited for planting, and it welcomes donations of topsoil for next year's garden.
She said RSVP member Eddie Wilkerson played a key role in the garden's success by sharing his knowledge of gardening.
"Eddie is a natural teacher. He's great at instructing and assisting in the garden and would like to have more volunteers participate in 2013," Kocher said.
"He is a true agriculturist. He knows all about planting," agreed fellow volunteer Dick Rees.
Kocher also thanked local businesses and residents who donated money to offset the cost to water the garden.
Kocher had asked Follansbee Council about waiving the cost for the water but it's illegal for the city to do that.
Council agreed instead to lease the property from the Scurtis for a small cost, since the city won't bill itself for the water, which originates from a source separate from the Scurti home.
Kocher expressed thanks to council for its help and to Mayor David Velegol Jr., who also made a monetary contribution before that arrangement was reached.
She said she first heard about volunteer groups working community gardens while attending a conference in Washington, D.C.
Kocher added a community garden also has been planted in the McMechen-Benwood area by RSVP members in Marshall County, and Carl Martino, one of the Scurti's neighbors, has offered to loan his lot so the garden can be expanded next year.
Anyone interested in helping or participating in RSVP should call (304) 527-3410.


text:
Click the title of any of the items below to learn more.
With version 5.7, Twitterrific for iOS is now free to download and use. Advanced features available via in-app purchase.
Twitterrific 5.5.2 adds support for editing user profiles, improved performance & more.
Twitterrific 5.5 for iOS 7 sports an updated user interface, background tweet fetching, improved performance & more.
Twitterrific 5.2.3 for iOS brings new Today view for browsing your latest RT's, Favs & followers, refreshes the UI & more
Twitterrific 5.2.2 for iOS brings Readability bookmarking, Droplr image uploading, tweet read states & more.
Turn your desktop into a winter wonderland with this iOS 7-inspired seasonal wallpaper.
Adorn your desktop with the changing colors of the fall season with this wallpaper.
She's scary beyond all reason! The conniving Yzma from Disney's "The Emperor's New Groove."
Remind yourself of the dangers of scaring with this wallpaper based on Disney's "Monsters Inc."
It's not tough to tell who's under the sheet in this wallpaper featuring Pig-Pen from the Peanuts gang.
No. But we have a version for the iPhone.
Save the picture to either your iPhoto library (Mac) or your My Pictures folder (PC), sync via iTunes and set the wallpaper.
The Iconfactory search engine is a great tool to help you find whatever you are looking for. We have associated keywords with all of the content available on the site. These keywords span icon sets, desktop pictures, iPulse Jackets, software products, support items, design services projects and even news page postings.
In order to make it easy for you to find what you are looking for, we have built some features into our search engine that allow you to customize your search:


text:
SanDisk Cruzer Blade 16GB USB 2.0 USB Flash Drive for $7.99 + free shipping
Free shipping or pick up in store. For some reason store signage is often missing the "G" in "GB", though I'm pretty sure these are holding more than just 16bytes.
5 Comments add a comment
In for one!
Side note: If you need this in time for X-mas and you have Amazon Prime it's only $8.99 there. As for me though.. I can wait :)
And Staples may even make it in time, I actually didn't check.
These are part of the weekly ad and are available in the store, if you need it for the holidays.
have this drive... don't expect amazing speed from this
staples usually delivers withinn48-72 hours for me.
I have a few of these drives, they're reliable and priced right. Plus november rewards were just issued, so they're free
i got one of these years ago - compared to EVERY OTHER USB DRIVE of any kind I've ever owned, these are the slowest.
the case started cracking after about six months of use, too. It's just not built to be inserted and removed from a USB port that often.


text:
Iron Heights Collection by Landmark Lighting
Whether it's a chandelier or sconce, the Iron Heights Collection by Landmark offers a number of classic lamps for the home. With an oiled bronze finish and cream fabric shade, these elegant fixtures will easily beautify any room. Use a halogen bulb to illuminate bedrooms or living rooms. Enhance any home with one of these impressive lamps.
There are no products matching the selection.


text:
Posted on Sunday, March 7th, 2010 by Peter Sciretta
More Images in this Gallery:
Comment Now!
The Dreamer, the Historian, and the Kid: Ranking the Films of Steven Spielberg
Could Marvel Replace Robert Downey Jr. With a Black Female Iron Man?
The Best of Comic-Con: The Coolest and Most Important Moments in Hall H History
15 Things We're Looking Forward to at Comic-Con 2016
David Goyer Says His Darth Vader VR Project Will Make You Cry
Why Marvel Succeeds Where Other Blockbuster Franchises Have Failed
Star Wars: The Force Awakens & Spin-Offs
The Avengers: Age of Ultron
Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice
Jurassic World
Mad Max Fury Road
Captain America: Civil War
Avatar 2
The Hateful Eight
Guardians of the Galaxy 2
Copyright © 2005-2015 /Film. Privacy Policy. Web design by Pro Blog Design. Logo Concept by: Illumination Ink
All names, trademarks and images are copyright their respective owners. Affiliate links used when available.


text:
Every day I get a notification on my Inc2 that there are app updates available in the market. Is there a way to change the frequency of these update checks? I see no reason to be prompted to update my apps on a daily basis and this is a little annoying. I would like to be able to only have it check for updates weekly.
You can turn off automatic update checking by pressing menu and than settings in the play store. You can then manually go to my apps to update them. This will not greatly increase the work you have to do, because even if there is a notification once a week it would still require you to confirm the updates. There is no option however to change the frequency of the automatic updates.
If you go into Settings and check "Auto-update apps" it will download and install the updates without prompting you. If you're worried about data usage, also check "Update over Wi-FI only". I've had my phone set this way for a while now, as I too got tired of constantly having updates to accept.
As Dylan Yaga pointed out, if an apps update changes its permissions, you will still be prompted to update it manually, although this doesn't occur very often.


text:
A brand new mosque is scheduled to open today in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, a.k.a. Mohammad's Promised Land. The Muslim community went through three years of shit to get this mosque built. Some highlights of Tennessee's welcoming Southern manners:
- The Lt. Governor of Tennessee questioned their right to exist: "you cross the line when they try to start bringing Sharia Law here to the state of Tennessee."
- There was a wee bit of arson.
- The mosque was forced to prove its right to exist in court.
- Tennessee congressional candidates continue to argue over who is "more opposed to Sharia law."
- "A bullying manner of doing business is the way of Islam," says a lawyer helping hate-filled local simpletons sue the mosque. "He said he expects litigation to go on for years."
[WSJ. Photo: AP]


text:
Monoprice Mini DisplayPort / Thunderbolt to VGA Adapter for $10.07 + shipping
This popular adapter from Monoprice has a Mini DisplayPort (mDP) / Thunderbolt connector on one end and VGA on the other. Making it perfect for connecting to the output of your MacBook®, MacBook Pro®, MacBook Air®, or any other device with an mDP / Thunderbolt output to your VGA equipped display.
2 Comments add a comment
I own one and it does exactly what it's supposed to. Gets the signal from my mac mini to our projector. Quality seems good too, not like it will break in a couple years.
We've had one of these on my wife's HP laptop for about 18 months now. Rugged, glitch-free. Just works.


text:
Let $pcf(a)$ denote the set of regular cardinals such that $J_{\leq \lambda} - J_{<\lambda} \neq \emptyset$ and let $maxpcf(a)$ denote the maximum of $pcf(a)$. The $J_{\leq \lambda}$ are the usual ideals built up inductively in which you throw in all set on which you can have a scale mod $J_{<\lambda}$
There is a fact I want to prove: Let $a$ be a set of regular cardinals such that $a < min(a)$. Then there exists a family $\Im \subseteq \prod a$ with |$\Im$|=$maxpcf(a)$ such that $\forall g\in \prod a$ $\exists f\in \Im$ with $g < f$ (pointwisely). we say that such a family dominates.
I know the proof which uses generators of the $J_{<\lambda}$ ideals, however, since proving that such generators exists is another thing itself, I would like to be able to prove the fact without using generators. I know there is a proof using Hull and Substructures arguments but it is the first time I am using these objects.
Can someone help me please finish the proof? Here is the beginning:
We do an induction on $maxpcf(a)$. When we have $b\subseteq a$ with $maxpcf(b) < maxpcf(a)$ assume for the induction that there exists a family $\Im_b \subseteq \prod b$ with $g< f$.
Let $\delta$ be strictly bigger than $maxpcf(a)$. We need to constuct a continuous chain of elementary substructures $M_{\alpha}$ of $V_\delta$, for $\alpha < |a|^+$, such that |$M_\alpha$|$\leq maxpcf(a)$ and $\forall \alpha<|a|^+, <{M_\beta :\beta < \alpha}> \in M_{\alpha+1}$. If \alpha is a limit then we just take unions: $M_{\alpha+1}= \bigcup_{\beta < \alpha+1} M_\beta$.
If $M_\alpha \bigcap \prod a$ is dominating, we are done. If not then $\exists g_\alpha \in \prod a$ such that $\neg g_\alpha < f, \forall f \in M_\alpha \bigcap \prod a$. One can assume that for $\alpha'<\alpha$ then $g_\alpha' < g_\alpha$ everywhere. This entails that $g_\alpha \in M_{\alpha+1}$.
Now I am stuck here, I want to arrive at a contradiction using my induction hypothesis.


text:
To the editor:
I am disturbed by the opinions of those people who supported the local school levies. I understand the fact that they are displeased with the outcome of the vote, but I don't understand why they do not understand how the vote went the way that it did. Allow me to explain and perhaps offer a solution.
The reason that levies and bond issues have failed in this area is because of a dismal economy and no well-paying jobs. The property owners who must carry the entire load of the increased tax don't want those taxes to increase. Some people make the argument, "Well, someone paid for you to go to school," and those people would be correct. Problem is, those people (steelworkers, power plant employees and the contractors that remodeled their homes) made much more money when compared to most people around here when adjusted for inflation. Remember, the steel mills aren't exactly booming anymore and we have one less power plant than we did 20 years ago. Basically, those who must pay the bill either cannot spare the extra dough or are tired of paying for someone else's kids.
Now, if you want a school levy to pass, how about paying for it by way of a local sales tax? Instead of everyone and their mother being able to vote their hand into the wallet of a property owner, allow everyone to support their school. Want a new school? Shop in your district. Allow for people to put their money where their mouth is.
Ryan Garman


text:
I picked up one of these handy dandy ABT tools . They work perfectly for making lots of those tasty stuffed bacon wrapped jalapenos! It is also a multi task gadget as it is perfect for coring tomatoes and fruits!
A couple of super yummy recipes to use this new fav gadget:
7-1/2″ long,
Stainless steel and nylon,
Dishwasher safe
Made in China
– Small end for tomato and strawberry stems,
– Long end to remove seeds from peppers and more
$ 4.99 MSRP (US price)


text:
I will be walking up Snowdon in Wales, 1085m, this February and am looking for advice on what jacket and trousers to get. Weather supposedly is windy, may be snow-covered and probably wet. Should I go for waterproof jacket and trousers or general quick-dry clothing will be suitable?
The essential items are a jacket and boots. You need a decent waterproof and windproof jacket with a good hood. The jacket must be properly waterproof (eg GoreTex or similar) and not just water resistant. You should also have a decent pair of waterproof boots. If you're taking one of the popular routes and staying on paths/tracks then lightweight summer boots will be OK - so long as they are waterproof. If you are wearing new leather boots you might want to break them it a little first (less important for fabric/synthetic boots).
You don't need waterproof trousers, although they may make a wet day more comfortable/bearable. Lightweight trousers are best as they don't get too heavy and stiff when wet. For day climbs I wear Craghopper Kiwi trousers - they dry out from wet in 15 minutes.
If you encounter much snow/ice and are not experienced and equipped (ice axe + crampons) you should seriously consider turning back unless you have a trusted experienced leader who tells you its OK.
Other top tips;
Enjoy your walk!
If you are expecting snowy and wet weather then I would suggest following the concept of "layering", with a base layer of merino wool, and a hard shell jacket and pants (Gore Tex or similar) as the outer layer. If it is raining or snowing quick dry clothes have a hard time drying as the air is already very humid. Quick dry clothes are not typically very warm once they get wet, where as the wool will keep you warm even if it gets wet and is unable to dry (plus wool won't stink after wearing it for days). If its going to be snow covered, then be sure to get good boots and socks, and if the snow is deep consider getting gaiters to keep the snow from entering the tops of your boots.
Mountain Equipment Co-op has a great website for planning what type of clothing/gear you need depending on the activity. Outdoor Clothing Information
They also have trip checklists to ensure you haven't forgotten anything, they are based for hiking around Canada, but I'm sure they will still be helpful. The Skyline Checklist would be the most similar to your destination. Various Hiking Checklists
If I was going, I would bring something like what I brought for an overnight walk from Braemar to Aviemore in the Cairngorms at the start of February some years ago.
So apart from gloves, hat/scarf or balaclava - base layer top and bottom, hard shell jacket and pants, gaiters, a 100wt fleece and a 200wt fleece (giving 3 options for warmth) and for a day trip either hiking trousers or thin fleece trousers, the latter if you tend to get cold easily.
For a day trip I would add a thin water resistant nylon windshirt (100-200g) - one of those outside a fleece works well unless you have rain or wet snow. The much better breathability helps keeping you dry if it is windy but not wet, especially if your legs need to work a bit harder in snow.


text:
Registration required: http://shinyamurase.eventbrite.com/#Professor Murase, a professor of law at Jochi (Sophia) University Faculty of Law, has also been a visiting professor at Columbia Law School; a judge on the Administrative Tribunal of the Asian Development Bank; and currently serves as a member of the UN International Law Commission.Japan's approach has long been the passive reception of established international law norms. Today, many believe Japan should play a more active role in international law making. In this timely lecture, Professor Murase sets out an agenda for Japan in new international lawmaking, including in the areas of disaster relief, protection of the atmosphere, and with respect to the changing security environment of Japan. As to the latter topic, Professor Murase will address Article 9 of the Constitution and the territorial problems in the East China Sea.A reception will follow.Sponsored by the Center for Japanese Legal Studies and the Consulate General of Japan in New YorkContact: Paulette Roberts, firstname.lastname@example.com
© Copyright 2016, The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York.
For questions or comments, please contact the web administrators.
435 West 116 Street, New York, NY 10027 — 212-854-2640


text:
Will sneak experience increase more quickly if 2 people can discover me instead of just one? If so, how much more quickly? And again, if so, is there a limit, for example, will having 20 people be able to discover me increase it even more quickly than 2 people?
Not really answer to your question, but still:
So the more people are in the area you are practicing sneaking-the more chances you have to really practice it.
Your answer is no, the amount of people looking for you has no effect on speed of learning.
However the fastest way to level up sneak is by doing sneak attacks:
Video tutorial here:
Don't forget to trek out to the thief stone outside of Riverwood first and get that on you. 20% increase to the speed of 'stealth skills' http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Standing_Stone


text:
Many sauces and pastries call for beaten yolks. You need to beat yolks well, till they are thick again and are lemon-colored, so using mixer is a must. But if you need only one or two egg yolks, regular mixers are too big for the task. What I'm currently using is a battery-driven micro mixer, and it is not powerful enough and eats up batteries fast. Can anybody suggest a good solution to the problem?
Using a mixer is not "a must". You should be able to whisk 1-2 egg yolks together quite easily which a whisk and some elbow grease. How do you think we beat egg yolks for the centuries prior to electricity?
I don't even bother with a whisk for something that small. (the only wisk I have is medium sized balloon whisk, I don't have any small ones).
I find a fork and a small bowl work well for up to about 3-4 eggs. I tip the bowl towards hand with the fork so I can get a better angle on it, and it keeps the eggs from spreading out too much across the bowl.
I think a great option for beating small amounts, if you don't just use a whisk, is a hand-cranked egg beater. They're cheap and easy to use. I have one I got from my Mom many years ago, and it works great. If you get one, don't let batter or egg or whatever dry on it--wash (or at least rinse) as soon as you're done using it. They're hard to get dried-on stuff off of because the spaces are small.
I'd use my immersion blender, which gets plugged in.
have you tried tilting your blender? i had the same problem for awhile and tilting the blender so the blades could reach the eggs did the trick. just be sure to have a firm, two hand hold; one on the base of the blender and one on the glass. then just tilt the top towards you.
This is what I use currently - a drill on a high speed using the micro mixer attachement. I think Dremel Stylus on low would work as well, but I don't have that one.
When I make waffles for 4 people, I use 4 yolks and my immersion blender gets the traction needed, but for two yolks I need a narrow glass and this.


text:
How can I prove that every maximal ideal of $B= \mathbb{Z} [(1+\sqrt{5})/2] $ is a principal?
I know if I show that B has division with remainder, that means it is a Euclidean domain. It follows that B is PID, and then every maximal ideal is principal ideal in PID.
However, I haven't been able to show that $B$ has division with remainder.


text:
GENESEO, N.Y. - The Geneseo Wind Ensemble, Jazz Combo and Monday Night Jazz Ensemble will perform a joint concert Dec. 10 at 8 p.m. in the college's Wadsworth Auditorium. The concert is free and open to the public.
The Wind Ensemble, conducted by James Walker, distinguished service professor of music, will feature several marches in different guises, music that is march-like yet very different in style.
"Marches have always appealed to everyone and we have several different kinds on Friday's program, even a three-legged march," said Walker. "It's a fascinating study in how composers deal with march-like elements in music."
The Monday Night Jazz Ensemble will feature two new compositions by its director, David Gibson, who is a trombonist, composer and arranger.
For more information on the concert, call 585-245-5824.
Media Contact:
David Irwin
Media Relations Manager
(585) 245-5516


text:
Starving hackers
From Noisebridge
The nature of creative work means it doesn't always pan out financially, so every now and then even the best of us can have a cash flow problem. This is pretty serious in San Francisco due to its high cost of living. We want you to come to Noisebridge, but we also want you to have a place to call your own and to be able to get to and from there safely. Many of the following items are linked to from San Francisco Homeless Resource, which is a fantastic resource for anyone who finds themselves in a tough situation in our great city.
- The bike kitchen is close enough that you can walk to it, and by volunteering your time you can earn enough credit to build your own bike from their spare parts. Some Noisebridge members have bikes from the bike kitchen and although they took some elbow grease, they work great.
- The Bay Bridge bike bridge is a cheap way to get across the Bay Bridge. It only runs during commute hours, but it's $1 cash each way, much less than any other option.
- Food not bombs provides food nearby on occasion.
- San Francisco Personal Assisted Employment Services (PAES)
- Noisebridge Jobs mailing list
- SF CAAP General Assistance
- Dr. Jesus coordinates computer loans and donations through a generous hardware grant to Noisebridge.
- San Francisco Public Library, Mission Branch is nearby and has computers available to use.


text:
No, the Pentagon won't court-martial service members for sharing their faith.
Over the past few days, several limbs of conservative media have been vibrating with the fear that the Department of Defense was about to hatch a dark plot to persecute military personnel -- including chaplains -- for "sharing their faith." Some critics found those claims unpersuasive. But yesterday, news outlets began reporting a new Pentagon statement allegedly banning "proselytizing," under threat of court martial. And those who predicted the military was about to bar Christians from obeying Jesus' command to "preach the gospel" declared that they were right all along. Today, however, in response to my queries about the earlier statement, the Department of Defense has clarified that there is no ban on faith-sharing in the military.
Early last month, conservatives began circulating the meme that the Pentagon had begun classifying Catholics and evangelicals as "extremists." That claim was made on the basis of one PowerPoint slide that appeared during a U.S. Army Reserve presentation, given by an outside contractor. When the Army removed the slide from its website, rather than take that as a sign of embarrassment, some believed it confirmed their suspicions about burgeoning anti-Christianity in the military.
This dovetailed nicely with reports this week that an "anti-Christian activist" had been hired by the Pentagon to help them shape policy on religious tolerance. The "Jewish activist" in question? Mikey Weinstein, who runs the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which lobbies to protect members of the armed forces from aggressive, potentially unconstitutional proselytizing. Weinstein, it turns out, is given to outrageous overstatement and sloppy thinking on the questions his foundation purports to engage. To wit: "Today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation's armed forces." Of course, that didn't go over very well. Seeing red, some spread the falsehood that Weinstein was an "official consultant," suggesting he was being paid by the Pentagon to share his impressive insights on the Christian mind. Never mind that the original source for this story mentioned nothing of the sort. This guy called Christians monsters. The Pentagon invited him to a meeting. Bad things are coming. (Following these specious reports, Weinstein naturally received a slew of ugly e-mails, and one from an Army sergeant who promised to "have my troops pray for you" -- Q.E.D.)
No surprise, then, that these same conservatives were convinced that yesterday's reports of a new Pentagon statement "banning proselytizing" really meant that good Christian servicemen and -women would no longer be able to share their faith with others. But look at yesterday's Pentagon statement:
The Department of Defense places a high value on the rights of members of the Military Services to observe the tenets of their respective religions and respects (and supports by its policy) the rights of others to their own religious beliefs, including the right to hold no beliefs. The Department does not endorse any one religion or religious organization, and provides free access of religion for all members of the military services.Court martials and non-judicial punishment are decided on case-by-case basis and it would be inappropriate to speculate on the outcome in future. However, religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense.
Leaving aside the fact that courts martial are always a possibility for any member of the military who breaks its rules -- not a special punishment for "proselytizing" -- the statement does not define "proselytizing." That's why I contacted the Department of Defense today. And here's the important part of the statement they sent in reply:
The U.S. Department of Defense has never and will never single out a particular religious group for persecution or prosecution. The Department makes reasonable accommodations for all religions and celebrates the religious diversity of our service members.
Service members can share their faith (evangelize), but must not force unwanted, intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith or no faith to one's beliefs (proselytization).
If a service member harasses another member on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, or disability, then the commander takes action based on the gravity of the occurrence. Likewise, when religious harassment complaints are reported, commanders take action based on the gravity of the occurrence on a case by case basis.[Emphasis mine.]
Sure, you can quibble with those definitions of "evangelize" and "proselytize," but no, members of the armed forces will not be court-martialled for sharing their faith with one another. How such an outlandish claim spread throughout the conservative media so quickly, and even leaked into the mainstream press, may hold lessons for those of us who practice journalism professionally -- and those who like to dabble in it.
About the Author
11 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
There was a long cover story in Harper's back in 2009 that profiled Mikey Weinstein and touched on issues surrounding proselytizing in the military: "Jesus Killed Mohammed," by Jeff Sharlet. I recall finding it a bit of a mixed bag when I read it at the time, but it does have good background on these ongoing controversies that people like Sally Quinn and the fearful right-wing bloggers are just now noticing. Here's a relevant bit:
In the military, Mikey told me one night in Albuquerque, many constitutional rights that we as civilians enjoy are severely abridged in order to serve a higher goal: provide good order and discipline in order to protect the whole panoply of constitutional rights for the rest of us. One of those rights is free speech: a soldier in uniform cant endorse a political candidate, advertise a product, or proselytize. That rule is for the good of the publicno one wants men with guns telling them whom to vote forand for the military itself. An officer can tell a soldier what to do, but not what to believe; conscience is its own order.
P.S. Robert Hockett has a very good follow-up post at Mirror of Justice.
If people wanted to know what military laws and regulations say regarding proselytizing in the military, there are much better sources than the conservative blogs. For example, I would recommend people read a 2007 article from the Air Force Law:http://www.afjag.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-081009-008.pdf If one does, one will realize that the military regulations prohibiting coercive proselytizing are not "new" but have been in place for decades, although they were updated under President Bush because of problems found with coercive proselytizing at the U.S. Air Force Academy by independent observers like the Yale Divinity School. As Grant has already noted, this ban on unwanted or coercive proselytizing does not cover voluntary peer-to-peer conversations about religion. To better understand how the military actually regulates proselytizing, please read this passage from the article from pp. 35-36 [citations omitted]:"Unwanted proselytizing of another military member, even when it occurs among peers, can create delicate issues when it continues after the listener has expressed the desire not to hear any more invitations to adopt the speakers religion. As a general principle, of course, the Free Speech Clause does not require a speaker to cease speaking a message just because others do not like hearing it. A military member complaining to the chain of command about another members off-duty proselytizing might be advised to avoid, if possible, spending off-duty time with the proselytizer.When the listener realistically cannot avoid the proselytizer, however, the situation is different. Examples include if the two are assigned as roommates or must work closely together or if the proselytizer is stalking the listener. Because of the repeated, unwanted nature of the proselytizing and the listeners inability to avoid it, the proselytizing can affect the listeners morale and ability to do his job and thus interfere with mission accomplishment and unit effectiveness. If it does, the religious speech becomes unprotected, and superiors should act to stop these adverse effects. Typically this would begin with counseling the proselytizer, emphasizing the religious speechs effect on military efficiency due to its repeated, unwanted nature rather than the content of the speech. Some religious speech by military members could also be limited under the Free Speech Clause not because of its content but because it violates some valid content-neutral law or order. For example, a regulation prohibiting the routine use of slogans and quotes on official e-mails would also prohibit religious quotations. Similarly, a lawful order to maintain 'radio silence' during a mission would also prohibit religious speech. These limitations are certainly permissible, despite their incidental impact on religious speech, because they are not aimed at any particular message and directly further important military interests. Finally, the Joint Ethics Regulations provision on 'misuse of position' prohibits governmental employees, including military members, from using their official position for 'endorsement of any . . . enterprise' or 'in a manner that could reasonably be construed to imply that . . . the Government sanctions or endorses [their] personal activities.' This content-neutral regulation limits religious speech in a way similar to the Establishment Clauses limitation on religious speech. It should be noted that the military's exisiting regulations against unwanted or coercive proselytizing both by servicemens and by chaplains have been upheld as constitutional by the courts. This is made clear by the 2007 law review article linked to above. Footnote 286 on p. 39-40 of the 2007 article discusses how the Second Circuit in Katcoff v. Marsh held that the military regulations prohibiting servicemen and chaplains from engaging in uninvited proselytizing or evangelizing are constitutional. It states:"Although the constitutionality of the chaplaincy has not reached the Supreme Court, a Court of Appeals has upheld the chaplaincy, including its meeting of spiritual needs of military members, against an Establishment Clause challenge. Katcoff v. Marsh, 755 F.2d 223 (2d Cir. 1984). When chaplains engage in religious speech with people who have sought them for that purpose, they are meeting the spiritual needs of military members, as permitted by Katcoff. But chaplains uninvited proselytizing religious speech to military members poses a different practical and legal issue. On one hand, persuading others to adopt their beliefs is central to some major religious. See, e.g., Matthew 28:19 (quoting Jesus exhortation to 'go and make disciples of all nations') (New International Version). Chaplains of such religions likely would feel a strong calling to proselytize. On the other hand, the militarys permitting its chaplains to proselytize memberswithout the members explicit or implicit invitationwould likely violate the Establishment Clause. The court in Katcoff noted that '[n]o chaplain is authorized to proselytize soldiers or their families,' id. at 228, and that '[t]he primary function of the military chaplain is to engage in activities designed to meet the religious needs of a pluralistic military community, including military personnel and their dependents,' id. at 226. A chaplaincy that meets the religious need of military personnel, who may be deployed in remote locations away from their own churches, is permitted (and arguably mandated) by the Free Exercise Clause and does not violate the Establishment Clause. See id. at 232. Similarly, chaplains who provide spiritual insight to those who have sought it are also meeting the religious needs of military members. But chaplains who, without invitation, actively proselytize are not meeting the Free Exercise needs of military members. They are essentially creating new religious needs by promoting religion. Thus, attempts by chaplains in their capacity as governmental representatives to persuade military members to adopt a particular religion likely violate the Establishment Clause under Katcoffs rationale. Sometimes chaplains distinguish between evangelizing (attempting to convert people who have no religious affiliation) and proselytizing (attempting to convert people who already have religious beliefs), permitting the former but not the latter. See Laurie Goodstein, Air Force Rule on Chaplains Was Revoked, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 12, 2005, at A16. This is a distinction without First Amendment significance. Under Katcoffs rationale, both activities by chaplains would be impermissible when applied to personnel not seeking to be converted. The Air Forces interim religious guidelines state that chaplains 'should respect the rights of others to their own religious beliefs, including the right to hold no beliefs' and 'must be as sensitive to those who do not welcome offerings of faith, as they are generous in sharing their faith with those who do.' Air Force Interim Guidelines, supra note 26, 3D(2).As already noted by Grant, any violation of military regulations can subject a service member to court martial but usually there are a wide range of corrective actions that can be taken before the military even considers court martialling someone for a violation of its regulations.
Weinstein wrote WITH GOD ON OUR SIDE: ONE MAN'S WAR AGAINST AN EVANGELICAL COUP IN OUR NATION'S MILITARY. His focus was on the USAF Academy where, if I remember, there were complaints of chaplains being permitted/encouraged to proselytize. The academy, of course, is adjacent to Colorado Springs, a hotbed of conservative-minded Christian belief and expression.
Hi Grant -- I did an essay, a few years ago, on "proselytism" (and the importance of distinguishing it from abusive and dignity-denying forms of advocacy), which tried to connect the JPII's writings on evangelization with some themes in the First Amendment (e.g., the special place given to the act of changing minds -- one's own and others'). It was called "Chaning Minds: Proselytism, Religious Freedom, and the First Amendment" (available here, if anyone's interested: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=715542). Best, Rick
Grant, I am an Army veteran; I also majored in sociology at university. All of the very recent conversations going on seem to miss an important point about the rank structured U.S. military. Where in all the blather does anyone make a reference to, for example, the discussion of religion between two E3s, or an E5 and an E4, or an O1 and an E5 . . . it appears the ether is full of commentators who have no conception of what an O1 or an E5 is. Why are such people pretending they know about the military, about command influence, about the extended and isolated extended military total institution as referenced in Richard G. Hutcheson's 1997/98 Revised edition of The Churches and the Chaplaincy, which was published by the U.S. GPO????????????????? Maybe the E5 would be able to ascertain whether or not the O1 was attempting to evangelize or proselytize, but people not in that situation pretending they know the rules is simply absurd. My advice: if you are not a military veteran, state precisely that before commencing your pontification.
I just published a book on Military Chaplains and Religious Diversity, drawing on interviews with active duty chaplains and on Richard G. Hutcheson's revised The Churches and the Chaplaincy that JJ references in his comment. From my own experience with chaplains from almost two dozen different faith groups, I find this alarm about court martials for proselytizing in the military overstates. Proselytizing can adversely affect good order and discipline, morale, cohesion and retention. There are also legitimate Establishment concerns: Mormon, Jewish and Catholic taxpayers should not have to fund efforts to convert their relatives to Evangelical Protestantism, for example. On the other hand, proselytization can be considered part of the Evangelicals' free exercise of religion (and freedom of speech), so it's not an easy knot to entangle. The problem, in my grounded opinion, arises when chaplains are more concerned with asserting their own religious rights than with protecting those of others. The Royal Air Force chaplains' motto "To Serve, Not to be Served" captures that sentiment, too. But here's the thing: chaplains know and understand these issues and generally (with exceptions) restrain themselves from proselytizing. I think even the much-vilified Evangelicals more often than not realize that rank introduces an inescapable element of coercion that has no place in their own theology, or at least grudgingly accept some limitations as the price of an otherwise rewarding ministry. This is not to say that there aren't real issues and excesses; just that these don't necessarily represent the day to day realities of chaplains' work. Obviously, proselytization by other officers or the enlisted (I've talked to Catholic chaplains who have been asked "Chaplain, are you saved?" by overzealous enlisted) is a somewhat dofferent matter, given then different scrutiny and levels of theological education. It saddens me that the discussion around this issue so quickly becomes totalizing and hysterical (on both sides: Mikey Weinstein is as incendiary in his rhetoric as those he opposes) when the reality on the ground is far more complex and usually a lot calmer. There are open, good-faith, pragmatic ways to resolve differences of and about religion in the military, yet these never get headlines. Sigh.
(Your book is so expensive. Looks good, though.)
Although chaplains hold commissions, they are not part of line authority as I recall (I'm a 4-yr active duty veteran). Chaplains conduct religious worship, offer educational programs, and are available to all service members --- regardless of creed --- for counseling of one kind or other. Mr. Weinstein is anything but "incendiary in his rhetoric". His concerns are very real.
Some more recent background is at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/air-force-academy-religion-pros....
Joe Jaglowicz: It's possible to be incendiary about a real concern. If you've ever heard or met Weinstein in person, you won't miss his flair for the dramatic or his uncompromising streak. The audience I saw him in (Army War College in 2011) generally agreed that he was onto a real issue, but was divided on whether his personality overshadowed the contents of his presentation. This based on conversations over cookies and juice after his presentation, for what that's worth.
Kim, the following is from Wikipedia, Sub. Dominionism: "The existence of a dominionist movement is challenged, particularly by those in the Christian Right, who generally avoid the label and see the characterizations as misleadingly implying that mainstream conservative Christians subscribe to Dominion Theology". Unfortunately, a definition of "mainstream conservative Christians" is not provided . . . Neither is it really provided in Wikipedia, Subj: Evangelicalism.


text:
we often have questions in forums about high dynamic range situations, how to solve the problem and which workflow do we use. Is HDRI possible in busy places? People moving around? Some users say no.
I shot -3 to +3 EV with a bracketing set of 7 pics in RAW and JPEG.
The result you see was taken in Jpeg to DxO to remove CA, noise, dust spots, I had a lot of them, and convert to 16bit tiff.
Imported to PTGuiPro, HDRI set to "exposure fusion only", mask out ghosts at the end of the "tunnel",
set the nadir shots right, and this is the result. I know I have to level vertical horizontal. I will do this in a detailed workflow later.
For me personally, remember the discussion about the HDRI artificial look of the lisboa castle of Vincen et.al, in a lot of cases PTGui PRO exposure fusion only does a great job. Of course you can say there is a difference to what I have seen at the moment I took the shots referring to the white walls and their corners on top. My eye saw the corners of course. But how far to we have to go to? Could Anselm Adams come out with a result like this?
No polarize filter is used. I could manage reflections in glasses because the lights inside the shops was on. This solves a lot. Once the light were shut down, a moment later, I could see myself and the equipment in a lot of glasses around me.
A quiz to you: where is the spot which I should change or leave it alone cause you see a part of me/equipment?
Use Shift, CTRL on mac to zoom in and out.
I feel free for comments.
So long,