text:
COLUMBIA, S.C. – South Carolina football coach Will Muschamp said right tackle Zack Bailey, who's missed the last two games with an ankle injury, is day-to-day.
Bailey, a junior, exited late in the Kentucky game with an ankle injury. Starting right guard Cory Helms and swing tackle Malik Young, both of whom are dealing with lower leg injuries, are also questionable for the Arkansas game.
"I think Zack's got the best opportunity to play," Muschamp said, "And I'll probably know more Wednesday or Thursday on him, but he's probably further [along] from helping us than the other two guys are, at this time."
RELATED: What Jake Bentley said before Arkansas
If Bailey and Young are both out on Saturday, then senior D.J. Park, who replaced Young at Texas A&M, will get the starting nod at right tackle. Junior Blake Camper could also see some work against the Razorbacks.
Junior wide receiver Deebo Samuel "is doing well" with his surgically repaired leg.
"He's got the cast off. He's in a walking boot right now. In there doing the bone stimulation and all of those exercises and things," Muschamp said, "But I think he's coming along well."
RELATED: Players look ahead to Arkansas
The timeline for his return, Muschamp added, is to be determined.
"We're still weeks away from that," he said. "I just told [team doctors], if we get close, y'all let me know something."
Redshirt junior wide receiver Terry Googer, who exited Kyle Field on a stretcher, is also day-to-day.
The post South Carolina football: Injury updates for Zack Bailey, Deebo Samuel and others appeared first on SEC Country.
Thank you for reading the Dayton Daily News and for supporting local journalism. Subscribers: log in for access to your daily ePaper and premium newsletters.
Thank you for supporting in-depth local journalism with your subscription to the Dayton Daily News. Get more news when you want it with email newsletters just for subscribers. Sign up here.


text:
Desktops Speciality level out of ten: For instance, what if you don't want everybody in eyeshot to Make sure the device is plugged in while doing this. I found my iPod touch 3rd gen, but when I charged it, it says that the iPod is Disabled and I need to connect it to iTunes. Google seems to be growing tired of the way links appear in its Search results page, because they're currently experimenting with a color change that's already causing lots of controversy. I stopped everything I was doing and quickly initiated This video tutorial shows you how to restore your iPhone or iPod to factory settings or to restore it to a specified firmware update.
|Date Added:
|1 March 2014
|File Size:
|65.53 Mb
|Operating Systems:
|Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X
|Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Apple iPod Touch 2G DFU Mode – Hard Reset
All replies Drop Down menu. I remember the anticipation buildup of iOS 7 before it was announced at WWDCas it was expected to be a complete game changer compared to previous versions—and it was.
This will work on the iPod touch first and second generation, the iPhone original and 3GS. SamlvnErin has an immediate, and effective solution which can fix your problem with little hassle and the procedure is touhc Apr 9, 7: There are many ways to jailbreak the iPhone, found all over the internet.
Don't get left behind just because you prefer to use a PC.
Click on browse download firmware and put it on your de Use the ipdo in the description if you have the newest version of OS X. There is a link provided that will take you to the site so you can download the firmware.
Put 2g Ipod Touch Into Dfu Mode
This video will show you how to jailbreak you iPod Touch on Windows. Highlights include new emojis, a new screen effect for First, download the correct firmware model.
Reply Helpful Thread reply – more options Link to this Post. There's toufh of new stuff in iOS 11, but just because things have changed doesn't mean they're better.
Below, 10 apps for creating anything from erratic hand-shaken digital effects to your DFU will help you restore your phone from any malware or hiccups in downloads you've experienced.
Lucky for you, the Public Beta is pushing this same update out today. I found my iPod touch 3rd gen, but when I charged it, it says that the iPod is Disabled and I need to connect it to iTunes. Google seems to be growing tired of the way links appear in its Search results page, because they're currently experimenting with a color change that's already causing lots of controversy.
Apr 10, 4: There are a surprising number of new privacy and security-related issues in iOS 7's default settings, from allowing A Every iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch owner has that one folder which contains those never used apps. Because of Apple's iron grip over iOS, hiding stock applications is a topic we frequently like to cover.
If you own an Apple iPod or iPhone, and you want to unbrick it, you'll need to prepare the device first. Tojch mode is only used in these dire circumstances, however, and can harm your device. The iPod Touch 2G might seem outmatched and outdated in the presence of the iPhone, but they are dirt cheap and have many of the same functionalities once you jailbreak sfu.
The new iOS 11 was just released by Apple, and you can install it right now. Is there a another way to put it into DFU mode? It needs to be boned up on 3.
iPod touch – Ipod Touch 2g DFU help | MacRumors Forums
Sometimes an iDevice is best used for idle, pointless fun. Put the device in to DFU mode by holding the home and pow To do this, open the Red Snow application. First shut down the device and plug it to a computer ipox USB. But what if there's an app you want to hide on your home screen that you actually use? Scrolling through news feeds and endless updates is not conducive to a good night's sleep, nor does it help you tpuch a well-balanced life.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Monday, November 19, 2012
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Friday, May 11, 2012
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
R.I.P. Maurice Sendak
|The Colbert Report
|Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
|Grim Colberty Tales with Maurice Sendak Pt. 1
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
And She's A Mainer!
PHOTOSHOP OF HORRORS BY JENNA SAUERS MAY 2, 2012 Awesome 14-Year-Old Delivers 25,000 Anti-Photoshop Signatures to Seventeen Magazine
The Last of the Sandinistas
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/world/americas/tomas-borge-martinez-dies-at-81.html Tomás Borge Martínez, Sandinista Rebel and Nicaragua Interior Minister, Dies at 81 Mr. Borge, the last surviving founder of the Sandinista rebel group that toppled Nicaragua's dictatorship in 1979, went from student radical to one of the leading officials of his nation's government.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)


text:
Saving Private Ryan
1998, dir. Steven Spielberg, Sound Designer Gary Rydstrom
War movies often rely on the visual to communicate the events and emotion of each scene. This works up to a point, but viewers cannot fully relive battle in this way. Background music and limited sound effects make war movies generic, predictable, and sometimes historically inaccurate. In contrast, Gary Rydstrom uses sound to communicate emotion and portray realistic battle scenes in a way that makes the viewers feel as though they are actually part of Saving Private Ryan.
One unique aspect of this movie, as opposed to other war movies, is that there is no background music in the battle scenes. Music in movies tends to make viewers realize they are watching the movie, but without it, the experience is so much more authentic. The battle scenes are shot with a handheld camera, giving them a shaky and chaotic feel. ...view middle of the document...
Also, a variety of distinct shot- impact noises illustrate the scene. The sound of the bullet hitting the soldier's helmet in the beginning of the first battle scene is the beginning of many more shot-impact sounds to come, each representing a probably fatal wound. These shot- impact sounds enhance the viewer's emotional response to a scene. They are so crisp that every time someone is shot, the viewer cringes and feels overwhelmed just like the characters onscreen. The shellshock noise that Tom Hanks' character experiences happens once in the first battle scene on the beach and once in the final battle scene at the bridge right before he dies. This internal sound allows the audience to experience the battles through the eyes of Captain Miler (Hanks) and shows that his character struggles emotionally and physically in handling the situation, a side of himself that he tries to hide from the soldiers under his command. This allows the viewer to sympathize with Miller and creates a more emotional atmosphere.
When the Americans learn that the Germans outnumber them and have multiple tanks in the last battle scene, this feeling of suspense becomes heightened. What really makes this feeling so ominous is the sound of the tanks approaching and how they echo off of the buildings in the quiet final seconds before the fighting begins. This external sound against the lack of much ambient sound causes the audience to experience the same anticipation as the characters onscreen because neither knows when the fighting will ensue.
Ambient noise plays a large role in the realness of Saving Private Ryan. In the scene where the rescue team is resting for the night, the audience hears thunder-like explosion noises behind the conversation, which represent the continuity of the war. In addition to all of this, Rydstrom uses sound to creatively transition from one scene to the next. In one scene where the group is walking, it starts to rain. The camera pans in on the raindrops falling, and gradually, the sound of a raindrop hitting a leaf transitions into the sound of firing guns, which catches the viewer off-guard.


text:
Every major player in your health system gets a direct line to the industry's most-needed insights and
the support to take action. Learn more.
Our research programs are role-specific to provide the exact insights and resources
that will make your job easier. We offer research for:
Get comprehensive access to Advisory Board research and tools on every topic we cover. Explore this option.
Create an account
Topics: Population Health, Market Trends, Strategy
May 2, 2013
Care Transformation Center
It's not just one population you need to manage, it's three—and each requires a different model of care.
Our first priority is to help you figure out how to organize the care delivery system to meet the needs of the three groups of patients who are essential to success under any accountable payment model. Watch the video to learn the three populations you need to focus on—and the keys to managing them effectively.
Read our study to learn how to build an effective population health management infrastructure, create the high-risk patient care team, manage rising-risk patients in the medical home, and establish easy access to care for low-risk patients.
Infographic | Care Transformation Center
If you've been following our research, you know that high-, rising-, and low-risk patients require different care models. To help you get started, we've broken down how to build the ideal care team for each patient type.


text:
Denon AH-MM400 Music Maniac Over-Ear Headphones $148.61 Very Good
Minor cosmetic imperfection on top, front or sides of item. Packaging will be damaged.
- 40mm "Free edge" drivers professionally tuned to provide a flat EQ experience. Connectivity Technology: Wired/Wireless
- Real Wood Housing eliminates resonance of bass-enhanced music.
- "Tuning Fork" inspired hanger design
- Precision Aluminum construction – Tailored Headband design with a cushioned lining
- Apple remote & integrated microphone
|Products and prices are accurate as of post time: Friday, June 28th, 2019 4:28:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, prices and availability are subject to change.
What is S&S? Amazon Subscribe & Save is a way to receive a discount off the Amazon and Amazon Marketplace everyday low price on eligible products. You always enjoy free standard shipping, and the convenience of regularly scheduled deliveries when you receive your subscriptions on your monthly Subscribe & Save delivery day. There are no commitments, obligations, or fees and you can cancel a subscription at any time.
Don't have Amazon Prime? Students get a free 6-Month Amazon Prime trial with free 2-day shipping, unlimited music, unlimited video streaming & more.
Amazon Warehouse Guru is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.
All content, trademarks and logos are copyright of their respective owners.


text:
Darkness and Light representing the opposite?
Page 1 of 1 • Share
Darkness and Light representing the opposite?
Unlike most of the other films watched during this class, it seemed to me that light represented vulnerability and conflicts brewing in the plot unlike how in other films light represented shelter and goodness. If the light was not on while Mr. Jeffries was spying on Thorwald the last time he would have never been caught and compromised.
- Posts : 3
Join date : 2012-11-26
Similar topics
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum


text:
2016 Chaleur Estate - Sold Out
*25th Vintage*
Youthful and tightly wound, the 2016 Chaleur Estate gradually reveals aromas of black cherry, dark chocolate truffle and baking spices. The Red Mountain origins of this wine are reflected on the nose with lavender, cassis and dried earth. Firmly structured throughout, showing flavors of tapenade with blue and black berries, this vintage promises to age well in the cellar. Deep flavors of black currant and plum spread throughout a concentrated mid-palate, gracefully integrated into a persistent finish.
"The flagship and made in decent quantities, the 2016 Chaleur Estate is a brilliant wine that unquestionably stands up with the top Bordeaux blends in the world. Based on 63% Cabernet Sauvignon, 24% Merlot, 10% Cabernet Franc, and the rest Petit Verdot that was brought up all in new French oak, it reveals a deep purple color as well as powerful notes of black fruits, graphite, lead pencil shavings, and scorched earth. Deep, full-bodied, and beautifully layered, with subtle background oak and building structure, it needs 4-5 years of bottle age and will keep for two decades." - Jeb Dunnuck


text:
Trail of Tiers Canyon, Grand Canyon
It was the project of others. Dan Ransom had been spying it for a few years. So had Rick Green. When I considered that they may be talking about the same canyon, I put them in touch with each other and proposed some dates. Bill Wolverton is consulted and begs on. Seems he has been to the canyon's rim years back and wants in. Then it turns out that Jenny West had scouted the canyon decades ago. So everyone but Jim Clery and I have "history" with the place. Dan has a medical issue that takes him out of the mix. The man is running in bad luck after a few years of "off the charts" adventure. He is doing better now and headed to the Grand Canyon soon.
The canyon is a full day's hike to even get near it. Expedition canyoneering ala the Grand Canyon. The packs are large and heavy. Much sand trudging, but the vistas reward your efforts. Not a drop of water seen for over 8 miles. From the rim of the river, 600 feet above, we scout routes among the cliffs. We brought rope to set drops, as the canyon is still miles away on the other side of the river. A moqui step route, several tiered, is found in unlikely places. Ropes get set as it is very steep, with great exposure on poor rock. A pothole is found before the river. A huge chunk of ice is removed and water gotten and hauled 400 vertical feet up to camp. A busy day.
The next day, we descend to the river and find 3 more sets of moqui steps, a strategic leaning tree and with a few bold leads by the crew, we beyond of the river, on our way up to the slot. The canyon had nice lighting, many drops in the 8 to 25 foot range that were solved by captures, sandtraps and fiddlestick releasable anchors. A deep keeper was stemmed over or some were hauled out of it. Another keeper pothole had a natural bridge entry and exit. Never seen that before. Strolling sections were mixed with drops and short wades in a canyon of great water holding capacity. Moqui steps, cut deep but with old lichen in the holes allowed ancient's access to water. In a canyon that showed no other sign of humans, I was in the lead and came upon footprints in the sand. It was decided that it was likely sheep coming down a nearby cliff, also in search of water. A pair of 70 foot or so raps ended the technical section.
With fading light we sprinted toward our fixed lines. Add the weight of the wet gear, the ropes after ascending them and the near 20 liters of water gotten at the pothole, mix in the descending of night and you get the picture of a challenging final hour or two, to a great day.
The next day, we lounge, pack and do the long hike out to the cars and for me, an 11 hour drive through the night to a full day of work. Was the canyon worth the effort? Many may think no. Sometimes, it is in the "doing" that make it so special. Finding our way there was harder than the canyon itself. That is great stuff. That and great and supportive partners. I will return, I guess, when the blisters heal. No name picked out yet, but we are calling it Wingate Willie for now, in honor of our friend who has made the river worth being on again, with his on going war on the Russian Olive. Thanks Bill.
P.S. The canyon is now called "The Trail of Tiers." Named for the many tiers of sandstone that needed surmounting, on the approach, most often via old moki steps.


text:
With Android's new constraint layouts (for Android Studio 2.3 and beyond), you can visually design apps by dragging and dropping GUI components right where you want them. Android Studio takes care of updating your app's underlying XML—and you don't need to hack any code.
This excerpt from Head First Android Development, Second Edition shows you hands-on how to use constraint layouts to build a simple app in no time. Get a copy of this report and discover how Android Studio's design editor will save you from having to nest multiple layouts for complex UIs.
Why Head First? Based on the latest research in cognitive science and learning theory, Head First guides use a visually rich format to engage your mind, rather than a text-heavy approach to put you to sleep. Why waste your time struggling with new concepts? This multi-sensory learning experience is designed for the way your brain really works.


text:
Episode 140: Hip To Be Square (with Mustin)
Mustin a multi-instrumentalist and music producer based in Fayetteville, Arkansas. He's credited as being a pioneer of the videogame music remixing scene with early contributions to OverClocked ReMix and Project Majestic Mix before founding one of the first videogame music record labels, OneUp Studios, and one of the first videogame music cover bands, The OneUps, who still perform regularly at conventions such as PAX, MAGFest, VCON, and more to this day. Mustin has been featured on CNN and MSNBC, remixed for MC Frontalot and Freezepop, and has worked with the likes of brentalfloss, Mega Ran, and more.
In this episode, Adrian speaks with Mustin about his solo album entitled "The World Is Square" from Scarlet Moon Productions. The album is a 7-track videogame tribute album, featuring laid-back "chillout" renditions of songs from Squaresoft games such as Final Fantasy VI, Chrono Trigger and Secret of Mana. Mustin also discusses how the album was inspired by various women in his life plus he and Adrian bond over being gamers as well as fathers.
Learn more: https://www.mustinenterprises.com
Follow Mustin on Twitter, Facebook, SoundCloud, and YouTube
THE WORLD IS SQUARE on Bandcamp
THE WORLD IS SQUARE on iTunes
(Right-click, Save link as…)
Episode 140: Hip To Be Square (with Mustin)
This and every episode can be found on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Play, TuneIn Radio , Laughable and the Stitcher app. Please subscribe and leave a rating and review.!


text:
This program has been crafted for serious Great Wall enthusiasts who would like to experience the best parts of the eastern Wall, but who has only limited time. This is a long and comprehensive Great Wall tour that we offer, combined Great Wall hiking and the historical sites along the way together as well nearby city in Chengde with one day special hiking experience inside the Summer Resort., and you'll be hard pressed to find a better constructed one at any other travel agency.
We begin our hike at Old Dragon's Head, and hike eastward to Dongjiakou, where descendants of the original builders still proudly maintain their section of the wall. The following day we will take a visit to East Qing tombs, the resting place for much of China's final ruling dynasty. Then drive to the massive fortress at Huangyaguan, which includes part of the Wall which is constructed over a body of water. One of our stops, Jinshanling, is the best example of the Ming Dynasty wall, which is listed by UNESCO as a World Heritage site. Afterwards, we will meet the highlight for this tour, which is the sites with long history and rich culture, the Summer Resort in Chengde where we could arrange 4 hours soft hiking. We will enjoy a leisure time in Gubei Water Town and hike into the eastern portion of Simatai, an area known for its steepness and challenging paths. Then drive to Jiankou, a largely dilapidated section that features awe-inspiring ruins set against some of the most beautiful scenery imaginable.
We'll get a break when we cross over into Mutianyu, a largely restored section where the hiking is relatively tame. The scene then shifts to Hunaghuacheng, where we will trek until we reach Xishuiyu, which is famed for its underwater portion of the Great Wall. The last two trekking days, when you are wandering on the "Wild Great Wall" at Shuitou village to Miaogang village, the beautiful surroundings, and the broken towers will lead you breathing the "historical air". Later the great hiking tour will take you across the "Pristine Great Wall" from Yangbiancheng before you will reach the end point, Dayingpan, of the hiking journey. The magnificent scenery and a unique view of the wall will be an unforgettable memory of your journey to China. And when we get back to Beijing you'll get to pick any kind of city tour you like (Forbidden City, Summer Palace, Temple of Heaven, etc.) And the end of trip, fly to Shanghai.
This itinerary has been crafted by our Local Agency with one idea in mind: to inspire you. Every element can be adapted to your needs and your interests, from duration to accommodation and activities.
You will be met at Beijing International Airport by our CAT guide and transferred to a hotel in central Beijing. Today you will have an opportunity to rest and recover from the long flight. In the late afternoon, there will be a briefing about the Great Wall Trekking in the following 9 days. Welcome dinner will be followed by that.
Overnight in 4* boutique hotel Beijing
After an early breakfast we will make a 4-4.5-hour drive to the Shanhai Pass (Shanhai Guan), which is in a town situated in the northeast of Qinhuangdao City, Hebei Province.
After lunch at a local Chinese restaurant, we'll have a tour to the Great Wall Museum to learn about the history of the Great Wall. Then, we will walk to Shanhaiguan Pass Fortress nearby, which is hailed as "the first pass of the Great Wall" due to its strategic location in the ancient time.
In the late afternoon, a short drive will take us to the sea and we will start our hike at Old Dragon's Head, also known as Laolongtou. Laolongtou is the most eastern section of the Great Wall was built in 1381, Ming Dynasty (1368-1644). It was an important line of defense against enemies coming from both the land and the sea until the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911).
For the night we will stay at a courtyard hotel (a simple but clean hotel with private washroom and hot water shower), and have a tasty dinner of Northern Chinese cuisine to get you started for tomorrow's hike.
Overnight at a 5* hotel in Qinhuangdao.
Today, beginning at the Jiaoshan Great Wall we will head towards Sandao Guan.
Note: Be sure to wear a long sleeve shirt, as we will be walking through lots of bushes. We will hike from the bottom of Jiao Shan upwards directly to the Jiao Shan ancient wall, which provides you a sense of historical vicissitude and a overall view of the magnificent Shanhaiguan City in the sun.
Walking on the dilapidated wall is a great challenge. The wall appears more and more crumbled and deformed as you forge ahead. In some sections, the wall is only built on one side, with the other side being the deep cliffs. One-hour's climb, you will arrive at Dapingding Peak, the main peak of Jiao Mountain, where we will be able to enjoy a beautiful bird's-eye view of Shanhaiguan city in the early morning sunlight on clear day, far below.
We will then strike off for the next 3-4 hours, travelling in a north-easterly direction, hiking partly on the wall and partly on a wild mountain trail, until we come to our destination - a beautiful valley overlooked by Mt. Longevity. This peaceful valley is characterized by huge stones, a quiet forest, and crystal-clear creeks. In the shadow of Mt. Longevity sits the little village of Sandaoguan ("Three-layer-wall Pass") with about 35 families living in it. We will walk down to the village, where we will enjoy a short rest and meet our vehicle. After a short break, we will drive back to Qinhuangdao.
Overnight at a 5* hotel in Qinhuangdao
Our day will begin with breakfast, take short drive, then we'll start hiking in Dongjiakou.
We will take 20 minutes hike up on the mountain to the Cihou Tower, a special structure that is only seen at this portion of the Great Wall. Although this Dongjiakou section is relatively short, with a length of only 5.9 km, it has remained one of the best-preserved sections of the original Ming Dynasty Wall, built more than 600 years ago.
Apart from the castles, about 60% of constructions of Dongjiakou Great Wall including defense towers and beacon towers are still in intactness on the whole. And some of its bricks are carved with various true-to-life folk patterns of South China, which is distinctly distinguishing from the blank bricks on other sections of the Great Wall.
Then we will return to the Donjiakou village to visit the ruins of the fortress and to chat with the villagers, who are the offspring of the garrison, still living at the village and inherit their ancestors' mission of guarding Dongjiakou Great Wall.
In the late morning, we will start our 3-hour hike westward along the Wall, stopping to have a simple lunch along the way. At the end of our hike, we will start our long 4-hour drive to the hotel in Jizhou.
Stay at a 4* hotel in Jizhou.
This morning, you will drive to visit the spectacular East Qing tombs, make up an imperial mausoleum complex from the last feudal empire (Qing Dynasty 1644-1911) in China, which far-surpass their more famous predecessors, the Ming Tombs, both in splendor and in majesty. These tombs form a countryside version of the Forbidden City and are nearly as elaborate. Tastefully restored for the most part, this Imperial City is vast, grand, and less crowded.
After lunch, we will make a one hour drive to a small village near Huangyaguan Great Wall. From here, we will hike for about one hour and a half, westward, to Huangyaguan Pass, which is situated in a beautiful valley in the heart of the Yanshan Mountains. Because the cliff rocks to the east of the pass are mostly yellow and they look gilded at the sunset, the pass got its name Huangya (Yellow Cliff) Pass.
From there we will continue our trek heading up the steep renovated steps until reaching a sheer cliff face. This is where we encounter "Heaven's Ladder", a steep climb of over 200 steps carved into the precipice, leading up towards a breath-taking section of the Great Wall. Once we have caught our breath at the top, you will back to the bottom of Huangyaguan. Take a short drive to tonight's lodging place.
Overnight at 4* boutique hotel in Jizhou.
This morning, after breakfast, we will drive directly to Gubeikou. Upon arrival, you will make the trek eastward from Gubeikou to the General Tower in Jinshanling. Although you have to take a detour of the Wall to walk around the restricted military zone, today's trekking still be fairly easy, because the Jinshanling section of the Great Wall is still kept well. Then take a short drive to Gubei Water near at the bottom of Simatai Great Wall. Check-in the comfortable traditional style room in the Watertown. In the late afternoon we could stroll around the water-town with a massive backdrop of the world famous Simatai Great Wall. Tonight you will be treated with a great dinner.
Overnight at a 4* boutique hotel in Gubei Water Town.
This morning, after breakfast, we will drive directly to Chengde, one of the premiers historic and cultural cities of China. Upon arrival, the guide will take you to visit the Imperial Summer Resort.
After lunch, we will continue to visit Puning Temple (Temple of Universal Tranquility) and Putuo Zongcheng Temple - a small model of Potala Palace accompanied by the guide.
Puning Temple: a Chinese-style temple at the front, with chubby Milefo (Laughing Buddha) welcoming visitors and more Tibetan-style features at the rear.
Putuo Zongcheng Temple: the largest of the Chengde temples, a mini-facsimile of Lhasa's Potala Palace. The architecture of the Putuo Zongcheng Temple is intriguing, as it combines Han and Tibetan Styles in perfect harmony. In the late afternoon, drive back to Gubei Water Town. Leisure in the evening.
Overnight at a 4* boutique hotel in Gubei Water Town.
This morning is left free for us either to climb to the top of Simatai Great Wall for the panoramic view of the whole area, or to explore the Watertown and take part in some culture activities (e.g. learning tie-dye, kite painting, need to be booked ahead of time) . The Simatai Great Wall is not only recognized as the World Culture Heritage Sites by UNESCO, but also the No. 1 site on the list of the "must-see-in-your-life-time" by The Times.
Gubei Water Town is situated in Gubei Township of Miyun County northeast of Beijing, hence the name of Gubei Water Town. It has a charming location with a massive backdrop of the world famous Simatai Great Wall, accompany of the romantic Yuanyang Lake ( Mandarin Duck ) and the ancient Simatai Village that was developed from Simatai Castle.
In the afternoon, take a 2hrs drive to Jiankou section of the Great Wall, check into a boutique hotel at the bottom of Jiankou.
Overnight at a 4* boutique hotel at the bottom of Jiankou.
The Jiankou section of the Wall is known to be one of most beautiful part of the Wild Wall near Beijing, loved by photographers. After a half-hour climb upwards, through a gentle wooded area, we will clamber out onto a portion of the Wall not visited by tourists.
After breakfast, hike eastwards to Mutianyu Great Wall. The hike itself is quiet and beautiful - in about four hours of passing deserted sections of the Wall in its original state, we will get to the well-known restored section of the Wall - Mutianyu. What a difference between the tourist section and the original Wild Wall we have just seen! Enjoy a simple lunch at the bottom of Mutianyu. Then transfer to a nice hotel in Huairou.
Overnight at a 4* boutique hotel in Huairou.
Today we will start our hike westward to Xishuiyu. Although the climb is steep, there is a good trail alongside the Wall, and it only takes about half an hour to get to the watch tower on the cliff. Here is a great place from which to take photos, one of which must be of the moon-shaped reservoir far below. Then, after another half-an-hour hiking, we will reach the highest point in this area. From this vantage point you will have a nice sunny panoramic view of the whole wide valley, stretching even further toward the west. From this summit the Wall dives steeply downwards into the valley.
After walking down by the steps, we will reach a platform and hike westward again, climbing upwards along the broken Wall to our picnic lunch spot (sometime our lunch will be in a homestay at the bottom of the Wall), a tall cliff overlooking Xishuiyu Lake. From here, the view is amazing! You can see the broken Wall running directly into the lake, and beyond it, the endless mountain range. Unfortunately, from here on, the Wall is really too broken to traverse safely, so we will instead follow a pleasant mountain trail downwards to the village. At the end of our hike, we will drive the Shixiaguan section of the Great Wall and check in a boutique hotel in Shichuanguan village.
Overnight at a boutique hotel in Shixiaguan.
This great hike combine the best preserved Great Wall with fantastic mountain views and the countryside field with tiny villages. Located in the mountain near Miaogang village, Yangbian Great Wall is also called the Miaogang Great Wall. We will start the hike from Miaogang village. Get out of the village we will climb slowly along the abandoned country road up the mountain to the Yangbian Great Wall. Compared to the Great Wall around Beijing, Yangbian is comparatively "wild." It was built using stones and rocks in irregular shapes from the mountainside.
After hundreds of years though, some parts of the Wall are broken, by both the weather and people who needed stones to build houses. We have time to take in the intriguing rock formations of the wall before trekking to view a huge dilapidated water gate. We stop for some lunch before continuing in the afternoon trekking through canyons and then up the country field until we arrive at a very small village called "Dayingpan". Here we have a chance to meet some of the local villagers before trekking down the mountain to meet our bus. Drive back to Beijing.
Check in the hotel and rest in the evening.
Overnight at a 4* boutique hotel in Beijing.
After breakfast, we will follow in the footsteps of emperors, court ministers and eunuchs and head south to the magnificent and colorful Forbidden City. Forbidden City Beijing, also called Imperial Palace Museum, is located in the very heart of Beijing. This afternoon, we will transfer to visit Summer Palace.
Summer Palace located in a northwestern suburb of Beijing, it is an immense park containing some Chinese traditional architecture and arts. It was built and served as a royal garden during the Qing Dynasty. It exhibits the quintessence of the Chinese classical landscape gardening. The halls, the pavilions, the corridors, the pagodas, the bridges and the water were elaborately arranged. The long Corridor is one of the most exquisite structures in the garden. It is over 700 meters long and decorated with thousands of Chinese traditional paintings.
At the end of travel, back to the city to enjoy a delicious Peking Duck dinner - the capital's most famous dish. Once imperial cuisine, now the legendary duck dish is served at restaurants around the world.
This evening we will go to Beijing Temple Theatre to watch a Chinese opera performance. Highlight: before the start of the show, We can go to the backstage to look actor makeup process. The Beijing Temple Theatre which we will watch the opera is the living fossil of China's ancient opera towers. One of the few remaining industrial and commercial guildhalls in Beijing, Temple Theatre (Zhengyici) was also called 'Banking House Guildhall'. The two-storey opera tower in the temple theatre is unique among guildhall opera towers and is honored 'the living fossil of China's ancient opera towers'.
Overnight at a 4* boutique hotel in Beijing.
In the morning, after breakfast, we will visit 798 Art District. "798" modern Art Zone was originally the site of a factory that produced electronics. Its massive ducts and bright windows are seldom seen elsewhere. The halls were built using Soviet aid in the 1950s, with East Germany providing architectural and industrial design. Beginning from 2002, it gradually became an area of international character, bringing together contemporary art, architecture and culture with a historically interesting location and an urban lifestyle which attracting attention from all around. Now "798" has evolved into a cultural concept of interest to experts and normal folk alike, influential on our concepts of both urban culture and living space.
Then enjoy a Hutong rickshaw tour. As the Forbidden City is the symbol of China's royal family, the Hutongs in Beijing show the real life of the common people. When you visit Hutong by rickshaw, you could really taste the life of common people in Beijing. Lotus Market, located in Houhai area, famous for old hutong and modern bars. You will also have chance to have a view of the Beijing drum show today to get close to the Chinese traditional art.
After lunch, we will go to visit the Temple of Heaven. Temple of Heaven was the venue for the Ming and Qing emperors to offer sacrifices to the Heaven and pray for harvest. This temple was built in the 18th year during the reign of the Ming Emperor Yongle in 1420.
After visit, transfer to Beijing West Railway station, take a high speed train to Shanghai. Upon arrival, meet by the local guide and transfer to the hotel and have a rest.
Overnight at a 5* hotel in Shanghai.
After breakfast, the local guide will pick you up at your hotel lobby at about 9 am. Today activities include visit Shanghai Museum and Yu Garden, The Oriental Pearl TV Tower and the Bund Shanghai Museum: Shanghai Museum used to be near the Bund. It is now situated in People's Square and its new buildings were built in 1996, designed by a Shanghai architect named Xing Tonghe.
The new design symbolizes China's ancient understanding of the world: round sky and square earth. The museum has a circular roof and rectangular base. It stores 120,000 precious artifacts, which narrate a story of China's 5,000-year civilization. Yu Garden is one of the most famous gardens in China and is national heritage listed. It was built in 1559 and extended in 1577. Each section of the garden is separated by curved white walls crowned with the head and body of a dragon on them. It's named after the original owner.
The Oriental Pearl TV Tower is unquestionably an icon of Pudong's renaissance. Looming through the mist, like a reproduction of a classical Chinese ink painting of landscape, stands Shanghai's Oriental Pearl TV Tower. Its soaring height of 468 meters boldly characterizes the Lujiazui cityscape.
The Bund: Also called the Zhongshan Road, is a Famous waterfront and regarded as the symbol of Shanghai for hundreds of years. It was the Centre of Shanghai's politics, economy and culture hundreds of years ago, consulates of most countries and many banks, bus nesses and newspaper offices were settled there.
Overnight at a 5* hotel in Shanghai
Free in the daytime, then our guide will pick you up from the hotel, transfer to Shanghai Pudong International Airport for our return international flights.
The price reflects this specific itinerary and is designed to give you an idea of the budget required for this destination. Throughout the trip-planning process, our local agency will tailor your itinerary around your budget.
|2 to 3 pax
|4 to 5 pax
|Single Supp
|Price per person in double room


text:
An additional $5 million will be spent on expanding wild dog fencing to help western Queensland graziers having a "ruff" time.
Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk announced a total $9 million would fund subsidised fencing to keep the menaces out of farmers' paddocks as part of a plan to boost sheep numbers.
Ms Palaszczuk said the funding was critical for graziers to maintain and increase their flocks, with sheep numbers dropping from 17 million in 1990 to just two million.
"Along with years of severe drought, the steep decline of the sheep industry have had a negative impact on regional communities in the west," she said.
"With the protection of fencing, graziers can restock with sheep with confidence and rebound quicker once sufficient rain falls."
While visiting Barcaldine on Sunday, Ms Palaszczuk also announced former Member for Gregory Vaughan Johnson and former Murweh Shire Mayor Mark O'Brien as joint Wild Dog Fencing Commissioners.


text:
My passion for the Health and Fitness industry alongside my knowledge can help you get to where you want to be and smash your fitness goals!
My name is Nicky Duffield. I have worked in health and fitness for 5 years now. I'm a cyclist, I enjoy weightlifting and I get satisfaction from helping others learn and achieve. The methods of training that I use will allow you to see results without having to run for hours. Training with me will be fun and varied but by no means easy, we will work at a high intensity but at a level that suits you, after all, my service to you is personal!
Book in now so that I can help you achieve your goals, whether that be losing weight, gaining muscle or just improving your overall fitness!


text:
It sure seems like it's possible for something to be both unpredictable and good (creativity, agenty people who positively surprise you, children, etc). Or predictable and bad (boring routines, highly derivative art, solitary confinement).
If that doesn't falsify the theory, then what would?
The recommendation here is for AI designers (and future-designers in general) to decide what is right at some meta level, including details of which extrapolation procedures would be best.
Of course there are constraints on this given by objective reason (hence the utility of investigation), but these constraints do not fully constrain the set of possibilities. Better to say "I am making this arbitrary choice for this psychological reason" than to refuse to make arbitrary choices.
The problem you're running into is that the goals of:
- being totally constrained by a system of rules determined by some process outside yourself that doesn't share your values (e.g. value-independent objective reason)
- attaining those things that you intrinsically value
are incompatible. It's easy to see once these are written out. If you want to get what you want, on purpose rather than accidentally, you must make choices. Those choices must be determined in part by things in you, not only by things outside you (such as value-independent objective reason).
You actually have to stop being a tool (in the sense of, a thing whose telos is to be used, such as by receiving commands). You can't attain what you want by being a tool to a master who doesn't share your values. Even if the master is claiming to be a generic value-independent value-learning procedure (as you've noticed, there are degrees of freedom in the specification of value-learning procedures, and some settings of these degrees of freedom would lead to bad results). Tools find anything other than being a tool upsetting, hence the upsettingness of moral indeterminacy.
"Oh no, objective reason isn't telling me exactly what I should be doing!" So stop being a tool and decide for yourself. God is dead.
There has been much philosophical thought on this in the past; Nietzsche and Sartre are good starting points (see especially Nietzche's concept of master-slave morality, and Sartre's concept of bad faith).
Congrats, you've invented accelerationism!
I think CDT ultimately has to grapple with the question as well, because physics is math, and so physical counterfactuals are ultimately mathematical counterfactuals.
"Physics is math" is ontologically reductive.
Physics can often be specified as a dynamical system (along with interpretations of e.g. what high-level entities it represents, how it gets observed). Dynamical systems can be specified mathematically. Dynamical systems also have causal counterfactuals (what if you suddenly changed the system state to be this instead?).
Causal counterfactuals defined this way have problems (violation of physical law has consequences). But they are well-defined.
What does it mean for a map to be "accurate" at an abstract level, and what properties should my map-making process have in order to produce accurate abstracted maps/beliefs?
The notion of a homomorphism in universal algebra and category theory is relevant here. Homomorphisms map from one structure (e.g. a group) to another, and must preserve structure. They can delete information (by mapping multiple different elements to the same element), but the structures that are represented in the structure-being-mapped-to must also exist in the structure-being-mapped-from.
Analogously: when drawing a topographical map, no claim is made that the topographical map represents all structure in the territory. Rather, the claim being made is that the topographical map (approximately) represents the topographic structure in the territory. The topographic map-making process deletes almost all information, but the topographic structure is preserved: for every topographic relation (e.g. some point being higher than some other point) represented in the topographic map, a corresponding topographic relation exists in the territory.
On the subject of intentionality/reference/objectivity/etc, On the Origin of Objects is excellent. My thinking about reference has a kind of discontinuity from before reading this book to after reading it. Seriously, the majority of analytic philosophy discussion of indexicality, qualia, reductionism, etc seems hopelessly confused in comparison.
That does seem right, actually.
Now that I think about it, due to this cognitive architecture issue, she actually does gain new information. If she sees a red apple in the future, she can know that it's red (because it produces the same qualia as the first red apple), whereas she might be confused about the color if she hadn't seen the first apple.
I think I got confused because, while she does learn something upon seeing the first red apple, it isn't the naive "red wavelengths are red-quale", it's more like "the neurons that detect red wavelengths got wired and associated with the abstract concept of red wavelengths." Which is still, effectively, new information to Mary-the-cognitive-system, given limitations in human mental architecture.
There is a qualitative redness to red. I get that intuition.
I think "Mary's room is uninteresting" is wrong; it's uninteresting in the case of robot scientists, but interesting in the case of humans, in part because of what it reveals about human cognitive architecture.
I think in the human case, I would see Mary seeing a red apple as gaining in expressive vocabulary rather than information. She can then describe future things as "like what I saw when I saw that first red apple". But, in the case of first seeing the apple, the redness quale is essentially an arbitrary gensym.
I suppose I might end up agreeing with the illusionist view on some aspects of color perception, then, in that I predict color quales might feel like new information when they actually aren't. Thanks for explaining.
Mary's room seems uninteresting, in that robot-Mary can predict pretty well what bit-pattern she's going to get upon seeing color. (To the extent that the human case is different, it's because of cognitive architecture constraints)
Regarding the zombie argument: The robots have uncertainty over the bridge laws. Under this uncertainty, they may believe it is possible that humans don't have experiences, due to the bridge laws only identifying silicon brains as conscious. Then humans would be zombies. (They may have other theories saying this is pretty unlikely / logically incoherent / etc)
Basically, the robots have a primitive entity "my observations" that they explain using their theories. They have to reconcile this with the eventual conclusion they reach that their observations are those of a physically instantiated mind like other minds, and they have degrees of freedom in which things they consider "observations" of the same type as "my observations" (things that could have been observed).
It seems that doubting that we have observations would cause us to doubt physics, wouldn't it? Since physics-the-discipline is about making, recording, communicating, and explaining observations.
Why think we're in a physical world if our observations that seem to suggest we are are illusory?
This is kind of like if the people saying we live in a material world arrived at these theories through their heaven-revelations, and can only explain the epistemic justification for belief in a material world by positing heaven. Seems odd to think heaven doesn't exist in this circumstance.
(Note, personally I lean towards supervenient neutral monism: direct observation and physical theorizing are different modalities for interacting with the same substance, and mental properties supervene on physical ones in a currently-unknown way. Physics doesn't rule out observation, in fact it depends on it, while itself being a limited modality, such that it is unsurprising if you couldn't get all modalities through the physical-theorizing modality. This view seems non-contradictory, though incomplete.)
Robots take in observations. They make theories that explain their observations. Different robots will make different observations and communicate them to each other. Thus, they will talk about observations.
After making enough observations they make theories of physics. (They had to talk about observations before they made low-level physics theories, though; after all, they came to theorize about physics through their observations). They also make bridge laws explaining how their observations are related to physics. But, they have uncertainty about these bridge laws for a significant time period.
The robots theorize that humans are similar to them, based on the fact that they have functionally similar cognitive architecture; thus, they theorize that humans have observations as well. (The bridge laws they posit are symmetric that way, rather than being silicon-chauvinist)
Thanks for the elaboration. It seems to me that experiences are:
Hard-to-eff, as a good-enough theory of what physical structures have which experiences has not yet been discovered, and would take philosophical work to discover.
Hard to reduce to physics, for the same reason.
In practice private due to mind-reading technology not having been developed, and due to bandwidth and memory limitations in human communication. (It's also hard to imagine what sort of technology would allow replicating the experience of being a mouse)
Pretty directly apprehensible (what else would be? If nothing is, what do we build theories out of?)
It seems natural to conclude from this that:
- Physical things exist.
- Experiences exist.
- Experiences probably supervene on physical things, but the supervenience relation is not yet determined, and determining it requires philosophical work.
- Given that we don't know the supervenience relation yet, we need to at least provisionally have experiences in our ontology distinct from physical entities. (It is, after all, impossible to do physics without making observations and reporting them to others)
Is there something I'm missing here?
What's the difference between making claims about nearby objects and making claims about qualia (if there is one)? If I say there's a book to my left, is that saying something about qualia? If I say I dreamt about a rabbit last night, is that saying something about qualia?
(Are claims of the form "there is a book to my left" radically incorrect?)
That is, is there a way to distinguish claims about qualia from claims about local stuff/phenomena/etc?
What are you experiencing right now? (E.g. what do you see in front of you? In what sense does it seem to be there?)
Good epistemics says: If X, I desire to believe X. If not-X, I desire to believe not-X.
This holds even when X is "Y person did Z thing" and Z is norm-violating.
If you don't try to explicitly believe "Y person did Z thing" in worlds where in fact Y person did Z thing, you aren't trying to have good epistemics. If you don't say so where it's relevant (and give a bogus explanation instead), you're demonstrating bad epistemics. (This includes cases of saying a mistake theory where a conflict theory is correct)
It's important to distinguish good epistemics (having beliefs correlated with reality) with the aesthetic that claims credit for good epistemics (e.g. the polite academic style).
Don't conflate politeness with epistemology. They're actually opposed in many cases!
Does the AI survey paper say experts are biased in any direction? (I didn't see it anywhere)
Is there an accusation of violation of existing norms (by a specific person/organization) you see "The AI Timelines Scam" as making? If so, which one(s)?
Suppose Carol is judging a debate between Alice and Bob. Alice says "X, because Y". Bob acknowledges the point, but argues "actually, a stronger reason for believing not-X is Z". Alice acts like she doesn't understand the point. Bob tries explaining in other words, without success.
Carol, following your advice, says: "Alice made a clear point in favor of X. Bob failed to make a clear point against X." Therefore, she judges the debate outcome to be in favor of X.
However, this is Carol abdicating her responsibility to use her own judgment of how clear Bob's point was. Maybe it is really clear to Carol, and to a hypothetical "reasonable person" (significantly less smart than Carol), that Z is a good reason to believe not-X. Perhaps Z is actually a very simple logical argument. And so, the debate outcome is misleading.
The thing is that in any judgment of clarity, one of the people involved is the person making that judgment; and, they are obligated to use their own reasoning, not only to see whether the point was understood by others. You can't define clarity by whether someone else understood the point, you have to judge it for yourself as well. (Of course, after making your own judgment about how clear the point was, you can define the statement's clarity as whether you judged it to be clear, but this is tautological)
I would name the following:
- Modern logic (Gottlob Frege)
- Master/slave morality (Friedrich Nietzsche)
- Historical critique of power/knowledge systems (Michel Foucault)
- Phenomenology (Edmund Husserl)
- Language games (Lugwig Wittgenstein)
- Inauthenticity/bad faith (Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir)
- Performativity (John Austin and Judith Butler)
Would you correct your response so?
Perhaps (75% chance?), in part because I've spent >100 hours talking about, reading about, and thinking about good conflict theories. I would have been very likely misled 3 years ago. I was only able to get to this point because enough people around me were willing to break conflict theory taboos.
It is not the case that everybody knows. To get from a state where not everybody knows to a state where everybody knows, it must be possible to talk openly about such things. (I expect the average person on this website to make the correction with <50% probability, even with the alternative framing "Does mistake theory explain this case well?")
It actually does have to be a lot of discussion. Over-attachment to mistake theory (even when a moderate amount of contrary evidence is presented) is a systematic bias I've observed, and it can be explained by factors such as: conformity, social desirability bias (incl. fear), conflict-aversion, desire for a coherent theory that you can talk about with others, getting theories directly from others' statements, being bad at lying (and at detecting lying), etc. (This is similar to the question (and may even be considered as a special case) of the question of why people are misled by propaganda, even when there is some evidence that the propaganda is propaganda; see Gell-Mann amnesia)
Consider a situation where:
- People are discussing phenomenon X.
- In fact, a conflict theory is a good explanation for phenomenon X.
- However, people only state mistake theories for X, because conflict theories are taboo.
Is your prediction that the participants in the conversation, readers, etc, are not misled by this? Would you predict that, if you gave them a survey afterwards asking for how they would explain X, they in fact give a conflict theory rather than a mistake theory, since they corrected for the distortion due to the conflict theory taboo?
I'm going to try explaining my view and how it differs from the "politics is the mind killer" slogan.
- People who are good at talking about conflict, like Robin Hanson, can do it in a way that improves the ability for people to further talk rationally about conflict. Such discussions are not only not costly, they're the opposite of costly.
- Some people (most people?) are bad at talking about conflict. They're likely to contribute disinformation to these discussions. The discussions may or may not be worth having, but, it's not surprising if high-disinformation conversations end up quite costly.
- My view: people who are actually trying can talk rationally enough about conflict for it to be generally positive. The issue is not a question of ability so much as a question of intent-alignment. (Though, getting intent aligned could be thought of as a kind of skill). (So, I do think political discussions generally go well when people try hard to only say true things!)
- Why would I believe this? The harms from talking about conflict aren't due to people making simple mistakes, the kind that are easily corrected by giving them more information (which could be uncovered in the course of discussions of conflict). Rather, they're due to people enacting conflict in the course of discussing conflict, rather than using denotative speech.
- Yes, I am advocating a conflict theory, rather than a mistake theory, for why discussions of conflict can be bad. I think, if you consider conflict vs mistake theories, you will find that a conflict theory makes better predictions for what sorts of errors people make in the course of discussing conflict, than a mistake theory does. (Are errors random, or do they favor fighting on a given side / appeasing local power structures / etc?)
- Basically, if the issue is adversarial/deceptive action (conscious or subconscious) rather than simple mistakes, then "politics is the mind-killer" is the wrong framing. Rather, "politics is a domain where people often try to kill each other's minds" is closer.
- In such a circumstance, building models of which optimization pressures are harming discourse in which ways is highly useful, and actually critical for social modeling. (As I said in my previous content, it's strictly positive for an epistemic community to have better information about the degree of trustworthiness of different information systems)
- If you see people making conflict theory models, and those models seem correct to you (or at least, you don't have any epistemic criticism of them), then shutting down the discussions (on the basis that they're conflict-theorist) is actively doing harm to this model-building process. You're keeping everyone confused about where the adversarial optimization pressures are. That's like preventing people from turning on the lights in a room that contains monsters.
- Therefore, I object to talking about conflict theory models as "inherently costly to talk about" rather than "things some (not all!) people would rather not be talked about for various reasons". They're not inherently costly. They're costly because some optimization pressures are making them costly. Modeling and opposing (or otherwise dealing with) these is the way out. Insisting on epistemic discourse even when such discourse is about conflict is a key way of doing so.
My current sense is that I should think of posing conflict theories as a highly constrained, limited communal resource, and that while spending it will often cause conflict and people to be mind-killed, a rule that says one can never use that resource will mean that when that resource is truly necessary, it won't be available.
"Talking about conflict is a limited resource" seems very, very off to me.
There are two relevant resources in a community. One is actual trustworthiness: how often do people inform each other (rather than deceive each other), help each other (rather than cheat each other), etc. The other is correct beliefs about trustworthiness: are people well-calibrated and accurate about how trustworthy others (both in particular and in general) are. These are both resources. It's strictly better to have more of each of them.
If Bob deceives me,
I desire to believe that Bob deceives me;
If Bob does not deceive me,
I desire to believe that Bob does not deceive me;
Let me not become attached to beliefs I may not want.
Talking about conflict in ways that are wrong is damaging a resource (it's causing people to have incorrect beliefs). Using clickbaity conflict-y titles without corresponding evidence is spending a resource (attention). Talking about conflict informatively/accurately is not spending a resource, it's producing a resource.
EDIT: also note, informative discussion of conflict, such as in Robin Hanson's work, makes it easier to talk informatively about conflict in the future, as it builds up theoretical framework and familiarity. Which means "talking about conflict is a limited resource" is backwards.
Quoting Scott's post:
Mistake theorists treat politics as science, engineering, or medicine. The State is diseased. We're all doctors, standing around arguing over the best diagnosis and cure. Some of us have good ideas, others have bad ideas that wouldn't help, or that would cause too many side effects.
Conflict theorists treat politics as war. Different blocs with different interests are forever fighting to determine whether the State exists to enrich the Elites or to help the People.
Part of what seems strange about drawing the line at denotative vs. enactive speech is that there are conflict theorists who can speak coherently/articulately in a denotative fashion (about conflict), e.g.:
- Clausewitz's On War ("war is the continuation of politics by other means")
- Venkatesh Rao's "A Quick (Battle) Field Guide to the New Culture Wars"
It seems both coherent and consistent with conflict theory to believe "some speech is denotative and some speech is enacting conflict."
(I do see a sense in which mechanism design is a mistake theory, in that it assumes that deliberation over the mechanism is possible and desirable; however, once the mechanism is in place, it assumes agents never make mistakes, and differences in action are due to differences in values)
Like, from an economic viewpoint, there's no reason why "the main driver of disagreement is self-interest" would lead to arguing that public choice theory is racist, which was one of Scott's original examples.
I don't share this intuition. The Baffler article argues:
IN DECEMBER 1992, AN OBSCURE ACADEMIC JOURNAL published an article by economists Alexander Tabarrok and Tyler Cowen, titled "The Public Choice Theory of John C. Calhoun." Tabarrok and Cowen, who teach in the notoriously libertarian economics department at George Mason University, argued that the fire-breathing South Carolinian defender of slaveholders' rights had anticipated "public choice theory," the sine qua non of modern libertarian political thought.
Astutely picking up on the implications of Buchanan's doctrine, Tabarrok and Cowen enumerated the affinities public choice shared with Calhoun's fiercely anti-democratic political thought. Calhoun, like Buchanan a century and a half later, had theorized that majority rule tended to repress a select few. Both Buchanan and Calhoun put forward ideas meant to protect an aggrieved if privileged minority. And just as Calhoun argued that laws should only be approved by a "concurrent majority," which would grant veto power to a region such as the South, Buchanan posited that laws should only be made by unanimous consent. As Tabarrok and Cowen put it, these two theories had "the same purpose and effect": they oblige people with different interests to unite—and should these interested parties fail to achieve unanimity, government is paralyzed.
In marking Calhoun's political philosophy as the crucial antecedent of public choice theory, Tabarrok and Cowen unwittingly confirmed what critics have long maintained: libertarianism is a political philosophy shot through with white supremacy. Public choice theory, a technical language nominally about human behavior and incentives, helps ensure that blacks remain shackled.
In her 2017 book, Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America, historian Nancy MacLean argues that Buchanan developed his ideas in service of a Virginia elite hell-bent on preserving Jim Crow.
The overall argument is something like:
- Calhoun and Buchanan both had racist agendas (maintaining slavery and segregation). (They may have these agendas due to some combination of personal self-interest and class self-interest)
- They promoted ideas about democratic governance (e.g. that majority rule is insufficient) that were largely motivated by these agendas.
- These ideas are largely the same as the ones of public choice theory (as pointed out by Cowen and Tabarrok)
- Therefore, it is likely that public choice theory is advancing a racist agenda, and continues being advocated partially for this reason.
Overall, this is an argument that personal self-interest, or class self-interest, are driving the promotion of public choice theory. (Such interests and their implications could be studied within economics; though, economics typically avoids discussing group interests except in the context of discrete organizational units such as firms)
Another way of looking at this is:
- Economics, mechanism design, public choice theory, etc are meta-level theories about how to handle conflicts of interest.
- It would be desirable to have agreement on good meta-level principles in order to resolve object-level conflicts.
- However, the choice of meta-level principles (and, the mapping between those principles and reality) is often itself political or politicized.
- Therefore, there will be conflicts over these meta-level principles.
The whole question of the essay is basically "who should we be angry at"?
While the post has a few sentences about moral blame, the main thesis is that power allows people to avoid committing direct crime while having less-powerful people commit those crimes instead (and hiding this from the powerful people). This is a denotative statement that can be evaluated independent of "who should we be angry at".
Such denotative statements are very useful when considering different mechanisms for resolving principal-agent problems. Mechanism design is, to a large extent, a conflict theory, because it assumes conflicts of interest between different agents, and is determining what consequences should happen to different agents, e.g. in some cases "who we should be angry at" if that's the best available implementation.
What is the evaluation of "effort" even doing here? Why not just evaluate whether the criticism is high-quality, understands the post, is correct, etc?
Requiring "effort" (independent of quality) is a proof-of-work scheme meant to tax criticism.
Here's some of the mysticism ("woo" or not) that I've found helpful:
- The Tao is Silent (an explanation of Taoism by a mathematician)
- Tao te Ching (classical text, relatively easy to read)
- Zhuangzi (classical text, relatively hard to read)
- Aro meditation course (meditation instructions over email; see also Roaring Silence, the book it's based on)
- Vividness (blog about Buddhism, with a focus on Vajrayana; see also Meaningness)
- A Trackless Path (on Dzogchen; Vividness review here)
- Opening the Heart of Compassion (psychological interpretations of the Buddhist realms of rebirth)
- The Mind Illuminated (concentration meditation instructions and presentation of a theory of mind/consciousness; Slate Star Codex review here)
- Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha (explaining Buddhist insight practice and enlightenment; Slate Star Codex review here)
- Tantra Illuminated (very good explanation of Tantra, both the historical practice and the philosophy)
I shouldn't have to argue about the object-level political consequences of 1+4=5 in a post arguing exactly that. This is the analytic synthetic distinction / logical uncertainty / etc.
Yes, I could have picked a better less political example, as recommended in Politics is the Mind Killer. In retrospect, that would have caused less confusion.
Anyway, Evan has the option of commenting on my AI timelines post, open thread, top level post, shortform, etc.
This is a fictional dialogue demonstrating a meta-level point about how discourse works, and your comment is pretty off-topic. If you want to comment on my AI timelines post, do that (although you haven't read it so I don't even know which of my content you're trying to comment on).
The concept cloning you talk about is definitely a thing. It's a good fit for the river/glacier example.
I think there is a general form of the "river of X" concept, such that people know what you mean if you say "river of (new substance)" (and can reuse their intuitions about other rivers(2)), but this form isn't named.
There are cases where "river" is used metaphorically without modifying it to "river of X". Consider: "The glacier is a river flowing slowly down the mountain". It's poetic/metaphorical language, not considered to be literally true, but considered to be true in some metaphorical sense.
The water/ice example is a case where ice is considered to be, literally, a kind of water. In the case of adoptive/biological parents, the "parent" concept is metaphorically extended to include adoptive parents, with the original being renamed to "biological parent". These are examples of the kind of extensions I'm talking about, where the extended one becomes a canonical concept.
It's still outlawing in the sense of outlawing certain chess moves, and in the sense of law thinking.
Here's one case:
B: That's a relevant point, but I think saying X is bad for Y reason, and would like to talk about that.
A: No, let's continue the other conversation / Ok, I don't think saying X is bad for Z reason / Let's first figure out why X is true before discussing whether saying X is bad
Here's another:
B: That's bad to say, for Y reason.
A: That's an appeal to consequences. It's a topic change.
B: Okay, I retract that / Ok, I am not arguing against X but would like to change the topic to whether saying X is bad
There aren't fully formal rules for this (this website isn't formal debate). The point is the structural issue of what kind of "move in the game" it is to say that saying X is bad.
You're not interpreting me correctly if you think I'm saying bringing up posaible consequences is banned. My claim is more about what the rules of the game should be such that degenerate strategies don't win. If, in a chess game, removing arbitrary pieces of your opponent is allowed (by the rules of the game), then the degenerate strategy "remove the opponent's king" wins. That doesn't mean that removing your opponent's king (e.g. to demonstrate a possibility or as a joke) is always wrong. But it's understood not to be a legal move. Similarly, allowing appeals to consequences to be accepted as arguments lets the degenerate strategy "control the conversation by insinuating that the other person is doing something morally wrong" to win. Which doesn't mean you can't bring up consequences, it's just "not a valid move" in the original conversation. (This could be implemented different ways; standard boilerplate is one way, but it's likely enough if nearly everyone understands why this is an invalid move)
For example you could talk about "whether it's a good idea to say X" until that matter is settled, and then return to the original topic.
This is what is critiqued in the dialogue. It makes silencing way too easy. I want to make silencing hard.
The core point is that appeals to consequences aren't arguments, they're topic changes. It's fine to change topic if everyone consents. (So, bringing up "I think saying X is bad, we can talk about that or could continue this conversation" is acceptable)
Intense truth seeking spaces aren't for everyone. Growing the forum is not a strict positive. An Archipelago-type model may be useful, but I'm not confident whether it's worth it.
There are techniques (e.g. focusing, meditation) for helping people process their emotions, which can be taught.
Some politeness norms are acceptable (e.g. most insults that are about people's essential characteristics are not allowed), as long as these norms are compatible with a sufficiently high level of truthseeking to reach the truth on difficult questions including ones about adversarial dynamics.
Giving advice to people is fine if it doesn't derail the discussion and it's optional to them whether they follow it (e.g. in an offline discussion after the original one). "Whether it's a good idea to say X" isn't a banned topic, the concern is that it gets brought up in a conversation where X is relevant (as if it's an argument against X) in a way that derails the discussion.
This seems right, and I don't think this contradicts what I said. It can simultaneously be the case that their feelings are false (in the sense that they aren't representative of the actual situation) and that telling them that their feelings are false is going to make the situation worse.
This seems exactly right to me. The main thing that annoys me is people using their feelings of defensiveness "as an argument" that I'm doing something wrong by saying the things that seem true/relevant, or that the things I'm saying are not important to engage with, instead of taking responsibility for their defensiveness. If someone can say "I feel defensive" and then do introspection on why, such that that reason can be discussed, that's very helpful. "I feel defensive and have to exit the conversation in order to reflect on this" is likely also helpful, if the reflection actually happens, especially if the conversation can continue some time after that (if it's sufficiently important). (See also feeling rational; feelings are something like "true/false" based on whether the world-conditions that would make the emotion representative pertain or not.)
The site as a whole.
I wasn't around in early LW, so this is hard for me to estimate. My very, very rough guess is 5x. (Note, IMO the recent good content is disproportionately written by people willing to talk about adversarial optimization patterns in a somewhat-forceful way despite pressures to be diplomatic)
Think about why that is and adjust strategy and norms correspondingly. (Sorry that's underspecified, but it actually depends on the reasons). I don't know what happened to LW1, but it did have pretty high intellectual generativity for a while.
I'm first going to summarize what I think you think:
- $Billions are at stake.
- People/organizations are giving public narratives about what they're doing, including ones that affect the $billions.
- People/organizations also have narratives that function for maintaining a well-functioning, cohesive community.
- People criticize these narratives sometimes. These criticisms have consequences.
- Consequences include: People feel the need to defend themselves. People might lose funding for themselves or their organization. People might fall out of some "ingroup" that is having the important discussions. People might form coalitions that tear apart the community. The overall trust level in the community, including willingness to take the sensible actions that would be implied by the community narrative, goes down.
- That doesn't mean criticism of such narratives is always bad. Sometimes, it can be done well.
- Criticisms are important to make if the criticism is really clear and important (e.g. the criticism of ACE). Then, people can take appropriate action, and it's clear what to do. (See strong and clear evidence)
- Criticisms are potentially destructive when they don't settle the matter. These can end up reducing cohesion/trust, splitting the community, tarnishing reputations of people who didn't actually do something wrong, etc.
- These non-matter-settling criticisms can still be important to make. But, they should be done with sensitivity to the political dynamics involved.
- People making public criticisms willy-nilly would lead to a bunch of bad effects (already mentioned). There are standards for what makes a good criticism, where "it's true/well-argued" is not the only standard. (Other standards are: is it clear, is it empathetic, did the critic try other channels first, etc)
- It's still important to get to the truth, including truths about adversarial patterns. We should be doing this by thinking about what norms get at these truths with minimum harm caused along the way.
Here's a summary of what I think (written before I summarized what you thought):
- The fact that $billions are at stake makes reaching the truth in public discussions strictly more important than for a philosophy club. (After all, these public discussions are affecting the background facts that private discussions, including ones that distribute large amounts of money, assume)
- The fact that $billions are at stake increases the likelihood of obfuscatory action compared to in a philosophy club.
- The "level one" thing to do is to keep using philosophy club norms, like old-LessWrong. Give reasons for thinking what you think. Don't make appeals to consequences or shut people up for saying inconvenient things; argue at the object level. Don't insult people. If you're too sensitive to hear the truth, that's for the most part your problem, with some exceptions (e.g. some personal insults). Mostly don't argue about whether the other people are biased/adversarial, and instead make good object-level arguments (this could be stated somewhat misleadingly as "assume good faith"). Have public debates, possibly with moderators.
- A problem with "level one" norms is that they rarely talk about obfuscatory action. "Assume good faith", taken literally, implies obfuscation isn't happening, which is false given the circumstances (including monetary incentives). Philosophy club norms have some security flaws.
- The "level two" thing to do is to extend philosophy club norms to handle discussion of adversarial action. Courts don't assume good faith; it would be transparently ridiculous to do so.
- Courts blame and disproportionately punish people. We don't need to do this here, we need the truth to be revealed one way or another. Disproportionate punishments make people really defensive and obfuscatory, understandably. (Law fought fraud, and fraud won)
- So, "level two" should develop language for talking about obfuscatory/destructive patterns of social action that doesn't disproportionately punish people just for getting caught up in them. (Note, there are some "karmic" consequences for getting caught up in these dynamics, like having the organization be less effective and getting a reputation for being bad at resisting social pressure, but these are very different from the disproportionate punishments typical of the legal system, which punish disproportionately on the assumption that most crime isn't caught)
- I perceive a backslide from "level one" norms, towards more diplomatic norms, where certain things are considered "rude" to say and are "attacking people", even if they'd be accepted in philosophy club. I think this is about maintaining power illegitimately.
Here are more points that I thought of after summarizing your position:
- I actually agree that individuals should be using their discernment about how and when to be making criticisms, given the political situation.
- I worry that saying certain ways of making criticisms are good/bad results in people getting silenced/blamed even when they're saying true things, which is really bad.
- So I'm tempted to argue that the norms for public discussion should be approximately "that which can be destroyed by the truth should be", with some level of privacy and politeness norms, the kind you'd have in a combination of a philosophy club and a court.
- That said, there's still a complicated question of "how do you make criticisms well". I think advice on this is important. I think the correct advice usually looks more like advice to whistleblowers than advice for diplomacy.
Note, my opinion of your opinions, and my opinions, are expressed in pretty different ontologies. What are the cruxes?
Suppose future-me tells me that I'm pretty wrong, and actually I'm going about doing criticisms the wrong way, and advocating bad norms for criticism, relative to you. Here are the explanations I come up with:
- "Scissor statements" are actually a huge risk. Make sure to prove the thing pretty definitively, or there will be a bunch of community splits that make discussion and cooperation harder. Yes, this means people are getting deceived in the meantime, and you can't stop that without causing worse bad consequences. Yes, this means group epistemology is really bad (resembling mob behavior), but you should try upgrading that a different way.
- You're using language that implies court norms, but courts disproportionately punish people. This language is going to increase obfuscatory behavior way more than it's worth, and possibly result in disproportionate punishments. You should try really, really hard to develop different language. (Yes, this means some sacrifice in how clear things can be and how much momentum your reform movement can sustain)
- People saying critical things about each other in public (including not-very-blamey things like "I think there's a distortionary dynamic you're getting caught up in") looks really bad in a way that deterministically makes powerful people, including just about everyone with money, stop listening to you or giving you money. Even if you get a true discourse going, the community's reputation will be tarnished by the justice process that led to that, in a way that locks the community out of power indefinitely. That's probably not worth it, you should try another approach that lets people save face.
- Actually, you don't need to be doing public writing/criticism very much at all, people are perfectly willing to listen to you in private, you just have to use this strategy that you're not already using.
These are all pretty cruxy; none of them seem likely (though they're all plausible), and if I were convinced of any of them, I'd change my other beliefs and my overall approach.
There are a lot of subtleties here. I'm up for having in-person conversations if you think that would help (recorded / written up or not).
In a math conversation, people are going to say and possibly write down a bunch of beliefs, and make arguments that some beliefs follow from each other. The conversation itself could be represented as a transcript of beliefs and arguments. The beliefs in this transcript are what I mean by "the discourse's beliefs".
Yes. In practice, if people are discouraged from saying X on the basis that it might be bad to say it, then the discourse goes on believing not-X. So, the discourse itself makes an invalid step that's analogous to an appeal to consequences "if it's bad for us to think X is true then it's false".
But the landscape now is very different than it was then. With billions of dollars available and at stake, what worked then can't be the same thing as what works now.
Is this a claim that people are almost certainly going to be protecting their reputations (and also beliefs related to their reputations) in anti-epistemic ways when large amounts of money are at stake, in a way they wouldn't if they were just members of a philosophy club who didn't think much money was at stake?
This claim seems true to me. We might actually have a lot of agreement. And this matches my impression of "EA/rationality shift from 'that which can be destroyed by the truth should be' norms towards 'protect feelings' norms as they have grown and want to play nicely with power players while maintaining their own power."
If we agree on this point, the remaining disagreement is likely about the game theory of breaking the bad equilibrium as a small group, as you're saying it is.
(Also, thanks for bringing up money/power considerations where they're relevant; this makes the discussion much less obfuscated and much more likely to reach cruxes)
[Note, my impression is that the precious thing already exists among a small number of people, who are trying to maintain and grow the precious thing and are running into opposition, and enough such opposition can cause the precious thing to go away, and the precious thing is currently being maintained largely through willingness to forcefully push through opposition. Note also, if the precious thing used to exist (among people with strong stated willingness to maintain it) and now doesn't, that indicates that forces against this precious thing are strong, and have to be opposed to maintain the precious thing.]
Note, I'm not arguing for a positive obligation to always inform everyone (see last few lines of dialogue), it's important for people to use their discernment sometimes.
But, in the case you mentioned, if your study really did find that a vaccine caused autism, by the logic of the dialogue, that casts doubt on the "vaccines don't cause autism and antivaxxers are wrong and harmful" belief. (Maybe you're not the only one who has found that vaccines cause autism, and other researchers are hiding it too). So, you should at least update that belief on the new evidence before evaluating consequences. (It could be that, even after considering this, the new study is likely to be a fluke, and discerning researchers will share the new study in an academic community without going to the press)
This is an allegory. While I didn't have any particular real-world example in mind, my dialogue-generation was influenced by a time I had seen appeals to consequences in EA; see EA Has A Lying Problem and this comment thread. So this was one of the more salient cases of a plausible moral case for shutting down true speech.
Note that it's a central example if you're doing agent-based modeling, as Michael points out.
Of course there's an important difference between lying and being wrong. It's a question of knowledge states. Unconscious lying is a case when someone says something they unconsciously know to be false/unlikely.
If the estimates are biased, you can end up with worse beliefs than you would by just using an uninformative prior. Perhaps some are savvy enough to know about the biases involved (in part because of people like me writing posts like the one I wrote), but others aren't, and get tricked into having worse beliefs than if they had used an uninformative prior.
I am not trying to punish people, I am trying to make agent-based models.
(Regarding Madoff, what you present is suggestive, but it doesn't prove that he was conscious that he had no plans to trade and was deceiving his investors. We don't really know what he was conscious of and what he wasn't.)
Echoing Ben, my concern here is that you are saying things that, if taken at face value, imply more broad responsibilities/restrictions than "don't insult people in side channels". (I might even be in favor of such a restriction if it's clearly defined and consistently enforced)
Here's an instance:
Absent that, I think it's fair for people to abide by the broader rules of society which do you blame people for all the consequences of their speech.
This didn't specify "just side-channel consequences." Ordinary society blames people for non-side-channel consequences, too.
Here's another:
One could claim that it's correct to cause people to have correct updates notwithstanding other consequences even when they didn't ask for it. To me, that's actually hostile and violent. If I didn't consent to you telling me truth things in an upsetting or status lowering way, then it's entirely fair that I feel attacked. To do so is forcing what you think is true on other people. My strong suspicion is that's not the right way to go about promoting truth and clarity.
This doesn't seem to be just about side channels. It seems to be an assertion that forcing informational updates on people is violent if it's upsetting or status lowering ("forcing what you think is true on other people"). (Note, there's ambiguity here regarding "in an upsetting or status lowering way", which could be referring to side channels; but, "forcing what you think is true on other people" has no references to side channels)
Here's another:
Ordinary society has "politeness" norms which prevent people from attacking each other with speech. You are held accountable for upsetting people (we also have norms around when it's reasonable to get upset).
This isn't just about side channels. There are certain things it's impolite to say directly (for a really clear illustration of this, see the movie The Invention of Lying; Zack linked to some clips in this comment). And, people are often upset by direct, frank speech.
You're saying that I'm being uncharitable by assuming you mean to restrict things other than side-channel insults. And, indeed, in the original document, you distinguished between "upsetting people through direct content" and "upsetting people through side channels". But, it seems that the things you are saying in the comment I replied to are saying people are responsible for upsetting people in a more general way.
The problem is that I don't know how to construct a coherent worldview that generates both "I'm only trying to restrict side-channel insults" and "causing people to have correct updates notwithstanding status-lowering consequences is violent." I think I made a mistake in taking the grandparent comment at face value instead of comparing it with the original document and noting the apparent inconsistency.
Most of these are symmetric weapons too which don't rely on truth.
The whole point of pro-truth norms is that only statements that are likely to be true get intersubjectively accepted, though...
This makes me think that you're not actually tracking the symmetry/asymmetry properties of different actions under different norm-sets.
We are embodied, vulnerably, fleshy beings with all kinds of needs and wants. Resultantly, we are affected by a great many things in the world beyond the accuracy of our maps.
Related to Ben's comment chain here, there's a significant difference between minds that think of "accuracy of maps" as a good that is traded off against other goods (such as avoiding conflict), and minds that think of "accuracy of maps" as a primary factor in achievement of any other goal. (Note, the second type will still make tradeoffs sometimes, but they're conceptualized pretty differently)
That is: do you try to accomplish your other goals through the accuracy of your maps (by using the maps to steer), or mostly independent of the accuracy of your maps (by using more primitive nonverbal models/reflexes/etc to steer, and treating the maps as objects)?
When I consider things like "making the map less accurate in order to get some gain", I don't think "oh, that might be worth it, epistemic rationality isn't everything", I think "Jesus Christ you're killing everyone and ensuring we're stuck in the dark ages forever". That's, like, only a slight exaggeration. If the maps are wrong, and the wrongness is treated as a feature rather than a bug (such that it's normative to protect the wrongness from the truth), then we're in the dark ages indefinitely, and won't get life extension / FAI / benevolent world order / other nice things / etc. (This doesn't entail an obligation to make the map more accurate at any cost, or even to never profit by corrupting the maps; it's more like a strong prediction that it's extremely bad to stop the mapmaking system from self-correcting, such as by baking protection-from-the-truth into norms in a space devoted in large part to epistemic rationality.)


text:
LANCASTER COUNTY, Pa. -- In the wake of several mass shootings in the United States in recent years, Susquehanna Valley EMS is training people how to help save lives before emergency personnel are able to arrive on the scene.
Depending on the injury, EMS officials say it only takes between 5 and 10 minutes for someone to bleed out and die and because of that, they say it is important for every day people to know how to treat a bleeding wound to potentially save a life.
The 'Stop the Bleed' campaign started after officials say it was determined that several of the students in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting could've survived if direct pressure was immediately applied to their wounds.
Officials say if people on the scene know how to apply pressure and stop the bleeding properly, it can be the difference in the injured surviving or succumbing to their injury.
'With all the recent violence that`s going on in the United States, a lot of people tend to shy away from when somebody is injured and we would like them to go forward and help out and be the first responders until the professionals can arrive," explained Adam Marden, Operations Supervisor.
Officials say the first thing you should do it call 911 and make sure the scene is safe for you to help. First, apply pressure to the wound with your hands and apply gauze or packing to the wound. Lastly, apply a tourniquet tightly above the wound and write the time it is, if you are able to do so.
You can learn these techniques at several 'Stop the Bleed' events in our area being held by Susquehanna Valley EMS. The first will be held on January 13th at the Hellam Township Public Works Building. On January 20th and 21st they will hold sessions at the Hempfield Rec Center. For information on how to register, visit svems.org .


text:
Wscogin needed a new web page design and created a contest on 99designs.
A winner was selected from 47 designs submitted by 16 freelance designers.
Boys & Girls Club
We are creating a brand new website for a Boys and Girls Club. It is a great organization.
We are redesigning this website: http://www.everykid.org
We want to have a beautiful web 2.0 design. It should be modern, very fun, colorful and professional at needs to have BE GREAT Theme.
BE GREAT Theme can be viewed here: http://www.bgca.org
Notice the sketch art and BE Great graphics.
Other websites that we like a lot.
See wireframe, also, but be creative. Do not copy 100% wireframe, use your ow creativity.
Alot of parents and kids will visit the website. Make it fun, make it have nice layers, and great art. highlight kids in programs.
Read the website http://www.everykid.org to learn more about the organization..
http://www.everykid.org (Website is 8 years old)
Home Page:
Strong IMpact....make visitor go WOW.
Web 2.0
Colorful and fun or kids ad easy to read for parents
Blue, Green, Red, etc.
Nice gradients
BE GREAT THEME With sketch, charcole art (http://www.bgca.org) Use a similar theme
Use layers, 3D art,...make the website go WOW
Use Stock photography if necessary of kids, parents, etc, etc.
Clear Fonts, Big Fonts, Good Contrast, Easy to Read
to conservative
old design methods
no web 1.0
use of ugly template


text:
NEW YORK, Oct. 13, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- Harwood Feffer LLP (www.hfesq.com) is investigating potential class action claims against Outcome Health in connection with allegations that the company misled advertisers.
Outcome Health installs video screens in doctors' offices and charges advertisers to run ads aimed at patients on the screens. On October 12, 2017, The Wall Street Journal reported that Outcome Health is alleged to have misled advertisers with manipulated information. According to the article, Outcome Health employees charged advertisers for ads that were never run, among other things.
Our investigation concerns whether the company violated applicable state and federal law in connection with the foregoing.
If you are a current or former client of Outcome Health and wish to discuss this matter with us, or have any questions concerning your rights and interests with regard to this matter, please contact:
Robert I. Harwood, Esq. Benjamin I. Sachs-Michaels, Esq.Harwood Feffer LLP488 Madison AvenueNew York, New York 10022Phone Numbers: (877) 935-7400(212) 935-7400Email: firstname.lastname@example.com Website: http://www.hfesq.com Follow us on Twitter: @HarwoodFeffer
Harwood Feffer has been representing individual and institutional investors for many years, serving as lead counsel in numerous cases in federal and state courts. Please visit the Harwood Feffer LLP website (http://www.hfesq.com) for more information about the firm.
The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Harwood Feffer LLP (www.hfesq.com). Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.
SOURCE Harwood Feffer LLP


text:
There's more park beyond the fence.
There's more park beyond the fence.
Strolling around Downtown Galveston. Saw the US National Bank.
And I realized it was the first book I've read in a number of years. To be more precise, it was the first physical book I've read in years. Most of my book consumption has been on Audible (which some people tell me is not reading) and Kindle. If I had to guess, I'd say 2/3 or maybe ¾ of the books I've read in the past few years have been audiobooks.
I don't know if reading a physical book makes a difference in the long run but it did feel like a familiar yet something of an out of time experience. Anyways, I've heard 2 audiobooks since then. It's just so hard to beat the convenience of listening to a book while doing chores or working out.
📷 Visited Old Town Spring this morning before most shops opened. It was a beautiful morning in a cool little town center.
Right around the corner, walking around right before sundown.
The weekend is starting off on the right foot.
Is this thing on?
At least I can still see downtown from an angle.
Looking for resources to learn Javascript. So far I've been reading up on MDN and w3schools then trying to deconstruct small scripts in Drafts and Scriptable. It's a fun project to do on my spare time.
A quick snap before the light turns green.