text:
Mixbook is a leading photo publishing company.
*Their photo books are 100% customizable, unlike competitors, allowing you to start with a blank book or an existing template that can be edited to your liking.
*Their powerful scrapbook editing program requires no download.
*Their photo books are free to create and share – you can invite family/friends to work on a project with you and/or share a finished project.
*They offer a large selection of photo book options at competitive pricing.
Below is my very first video product review! As I did the video myself, it's very amateur, but I'm excited to share it! Oh yeah, don't mind me in all my glorious non-makeup self – when there's a quiet moment, I have to jump on it!
I am always looking for new ways to display family photos & share them easily with all our out of town family. That's not even getting started on my non-existent collection of photo albums. As much as I'd like to, I simply don't have time for scrapbooking or even basic photo albums. Thankfully in this digital age, I don't have to worry.
I was excited when I was given the chance to create and review a Mixbook. As I sat down to begin creating my personalized photo book, I quickly realized how great Mixbook is to use. It is 100% customizable with many themes you can choose from to get started; from everyday photo albums to baby scrapbooks to school year books, there is truly something for everyone at Mixbook. And for those creative souls, there's blank book options for your own creations.
I'll say this before I say anymore: with 4 young children, I don't have a lot of time or patience to play around with programs that take forever to figure out and don't work smoothly. That being said, Mixbook has another loyal fan and user in me. I am absolutely in love with this company! I was so impressed with how easy it was to make my photo book! I could literally sit down in the space of an hour or two (in the evening without constant child interruptions – we must be realistic, right? 😉 ) and create a photo book that my whole family will enjoy and cherish for years to come. Now I don't think you could do that with typical scrapbooking, not to mention that there's no mess with mixbook.com! You're speaking this mama's language!
I love the thought of scrapbooking, but I'll face the reality – I'm not very creative. So I chose an existing template – more specifically a baby book template, as I decided to do a photo book of Luke's first 4 months. While I left most pages pretty close to the template, I did change a couple to suit what I wanted and was very pleased with the results. All the tools and set up of Mixbook.com were simple to use and understand. It was very easy to add "stickers" to accessorize a page or resize and rotate a photo to the exact size and angle I wanted. I also loved that Mixbook allows you to simply import photos from flickr, Facebook, Photobucket, Picasa (my preferred choice), and more. I showed the website to my husband, who is software & tech-savvy, and after playing around with it a few minutes himself, he said mixbook.com must have invested quite a bit into their work and he was very impressed with their "interface."
I finished creating my photo book and ordered it. I must admit, I was almost a bit disappointed to finish it – I had so much fun making it! But I was excited to see the finished product. I was very impressed when my photo book arrived a full 10 days earlier than the predicted shipping arrival date.
And as you can see, here is the finished product:
I will say I was a little disappointed with the cover photo – it seemed a bit darker than it showed up online. If I had realized that, I would have photoshopped it and lightened it prior to using it. But it was most likely my error.
The rest of the photo book was absolutely perfect and so adorable. All the pictures came out printed beautifully, and the quality of the book was also impressive.
I loved the back cover too – such a cute touch!
Another feature of Mixbook.com that I loved is that I can create a photo book online and email it to anyone to share for free! Now trust me, these books are so fun, cute, simple to make, and reasonably priced that you will have a hard time just sharing them online, but what a cool option!
Overall, I was extremely impressed with Mixbook.com and I must say that their website/service/and product far exceeded my expectations. I will definitely be using Mixbook again and in fact, plan on making & ordering photo books for my other children's baby pictures very soon. I can also see using Mixbook for Christmas gifts too.
I hope you will check out Mixbook.com today – I'm sure you will be very impressed too.
You can create your own photo books for free at Mixbook.com and have them printed for a fee, depending on what option you choose. The photo book I was provided sells for $11.99. Mixbook.com is offering a 20% discount code to my blog readers, good for one use per customer – Code: TOMOSON20
I received one or more of the products mentioned above for free using Tomoson.com. Regardless, I only recommend products or services I use personally and believe will be good for my readers. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commissions 16 CFR, Part 255 Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising. Tomoson Product review & giveaway Disclosure.


text:
NEW BRUNSWICK — A New Brunswick woman pleaded guilty today to charges of helping an Edison man abandon his 20-month-old daughter at a gas station restroom, and then trying to protect him from police before they charged him with murdering the toddler's mother, Middlesex County Prosecutor Bruce J. Kaplan announced.
Ritu Loi, 26, admitted a count of endangering the welfare of the child, Hannah Belizaire Jackson, and hindering the apprehension of Dwayne Jackson, 26.
Loi pleaded guilty to the charges during a hearing today before Superior Court Judge Bradley Ferencz, who permitted her to remain free on her own recognizance. Under the terms of the plea agreement, Loi faces a probationary term of five years when she is sentenced, and must testify truthfully against Jackson at his trial.
No trial date has been set for Jackson. Loi is scheduled to be sentenced on Jan. 31, 2011.
During questioning by Middlesex County Assistant Prosecutor Sheree Pitchford at a hearing in the Middlesex County Courthouse in New Brunswick, Loi said she was with Jackson when he drove her car to Newark, Del., and left the child in a gas station restroom on Feb. 21.
Loi also told the court she hindered the apprehension of Jackson when she initially told police on Febr. 24 that she did not have any information about the homicide of the toddler's mother, Patricia Belizaire, 25, of North Brunswick.
Loi and Jackson were arrested and charged after an investigation by the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office and the North Brunswick Police Department determined that Jackson killed Ms. Belizaire in North Brunswick on Feb. 21 and drove the victim to Ramapo, N.Y., where the body was set on fire in a park shortly before 5:22 a.m. on Feb. 22.
The cause of death was asphyxiation. The woman was dead before her body was set on fire. Jackson subsequently was charged with murder and hindering his apprehension. He also was charged with kidnapping and endangering the welfare of his 20-month-old daughter.
He is being held at the Middlesex County Adult Correction Center in North Brunswick in lieu of $2.75 million bail. As is the case with all criminal defendants, the charges against Jackson are merely accusations and he is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Connect with NJTODAY.NET
Join NJTODAY.NET's free Email List to receive occasional updates delivered right to your email address!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell made $44.2 million in 2012, according to tax returns the league has submitted.
Goodell earned $35.1 million in salary, bonus and pension compensation.
Based on IRS reporting guidelines, his total 2012 compensation included a $5 million incentive payment and a $4.1 million pension payment from the 2011 lockout year that was paid in 2012.
The league's revenues have approached $10 billion and its TV ratings dominate all other programming.
"Commissioner Goodell's compensation reflects the value of his leadership and the success of the NFL at the highest levels," said Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank, a member of the league's compensation committee.
League general counsel Jeff Pash was second on the list of executives' pay with $7.86 million, and he had $1.23 million in deferred compensation.
Executive Vice President Eric Grubman was at $4.243 million, with another $527,000 deferred.
"The NFL owners determined that the NFL under Goodell is the best-run sports league and has a great future," said Marc Ganis, president of SportsCorp, a Chicago-based consulting firm and a close observer of the league.
"They felt Roger's performance warranted his compensation to at least be comparable to the highest-paid commissioner, which has historically been Bud Selig."
Selig is believed to earn a salary in excess of $20 million.
"The people who decided his performance warranted this compensation are the same people who are paying it, the 32 team owners," Ganis added. "They decided that Goodell's performance was worth a little more than $1 million for each of the teams — a very rational decision based on the extraordinary results Goodell has delivered for them."
The NFL is the biggest sports league in the US with a record $10 billion in revenue in 2013, up from $7 billion when Goodell took over as commissioner in 2006.
This month the league sold broadcast rights to eight Thursday games to CBS. While terms of the agreement were not announced, the Los Angeles Times reported that the deal was worth less than $300 million, citing unidentified people familiar with the agreement.


text:
This text is replaced by the Flash movie.
Founded in 1990
IIBI Services
Courses | Student Login
Lectures & Seminars
Executive Development
NewHorizon Magazine
Information Services
Test Your Knowledge
Islamic Banking
Upcoming Events
> Takaful Islamic Insurance
What is Takaful?
Prohibitions of Gharar, Maysir and Riba
Gambling and Insurance
Basis and Principles of Takaful
Why No to Conventional Insurance
How does Takaful work
Pricing Linked to Interest-rate Benchmark
Retakaful or Reinsurance
Shari'ah Authenticity
Shari'ah Supervisory Board [Religious Board]
Status of Takaful
Shari'ah Rulings
Glossary of Financial Terms
What is Takaful?
All human activities are subject to risk of loss from unforeseen events. To alleviate this burden to individuals, what we now call insurance has existed since at least 215 BC.
This concept has been practiced in various forms for over 1400 years. It originates from the Arabic word
, which means "guaranteeing each other" or "joint guarantee". The concept is in line with the principles of compensation and shared responsibilities among the community.
Takaful originated within the ancient Arab tribes as a pooled liability that obliged those who committed offences against members of a different tribe to pay compensation to the victims or their heirs. This principle later extended to many walks of life, including sea trade, in which participants contributed to a fund to cover anyone in a group who suffered mishaps on sea voyages.
In modern-day conventional insurance, the insurance vendor (the insurance company) sells policies and invests the proceeds for the profit of its shareholders, who are not necessarily policyholders. There is therefore a clear disjunction between policyholders and shareholders. Payouts to policyholders may vary depending on financial performance, but a minimum positive return is always contractually guaranteed.
Takaful is commonly referred to as Islamic insurance; this is due to the apparent similarity between the contract of kafalah (guarantee) and that of insurance.
However, takaful is founded on the cooperative principle and on the principle of separation between the funds and operations of shareholders, thus passing the ownership of the Takaful (Insurance) fund and operations to the policyholders. Muslim jurists conclude that insurance in Islam should be based on principles of mutuality and co-operation, encompassing the elements of shared responsibility, joint indemnity, common interest and solidarity.
In takaful, the policyholders are joint investors with the insurance vendor (the takaful operator), who acts as a mudarib – a manager or an entrepreneurial agent for the policyholders. The policyholders share in the investment pool's profits as well as its losses. A positive return on policies is not legally guaranteed, as any fixed profit guarantee would be akin to receiving interest and offend the prohibition against riba.
For some time conventional insurance was considered to be incompatible with the Shari'ah that prohibit excessive uncertainty in dealings and investment in interest-bearing assets; both are inherent factors in conventional insurance business.
However, takaful complies with the Shari'ah (which outlines the principles of compensation and shared responsibilities among the community) and has been approved by Muslim scholars. There is now general, health and family (life) takaful plans available for the Muslim communities.
Next >
Prohibitions of Gharar, Maysir and Riba
tart of page
IIBI Discussion Forum
Video Presentations
Islamic banking, a value proposition employing the concept of profit and risk sharing …
Takaful, a scheme based on the principle of shared responsibility, mutual cooperation ...
This text is replaced by the Flash movie.
This text is replaced by the Flash movie.
Privacy Policy


text:
via press release:
LOS ANGELES, CA (February 19, 2013) – Bill Bellamy's edgy, uncensored and always unapologetic; Ladies Night Out Comedy Tour premieres Friday, February 22nd at 9:30 PM (ET/PT) on SHOWTIME. On a mission to save relationships one joke at a time, this special brings together some of today's hottest male comics to showcase to the ladies of America. Bellamy has been touring the country for more than two years to sold-out audiences with all–star comedians: Ali Sadiqq, Jay Reid and D'Lai from "Who's Got Jokes?" fame. These dynamic funnymen shed light on every aspect of relationships including, "…your real voice vs. your liquor voice," a "new breed of older women," "two words that scare every man," "unreal expectations," and "security checks," just to name a few.
Using his experiences growing up in Newark, Bellamy started doing stand-up while he was a student at Rutgers University. Bellamy quickly discovered how much he enjoyed making people laugh, and began honing his skills at small comedy clubs around the country and soon was making waves in the New York clubs like The Improv, The Comic Strip, and at The Comedy Store in Los Angeles. Two short years later, Bellamy had earned a spot on "Def Comedy Jam" where he notoriously coined the phrase, "booty call." The now-famous late-night rendez-vous moniker became the name for his first comedy special for SHOWTIME; "Booty Call" was instantly one of the network's top-rated specials. On the heels of the success of that special, in the years following, Bellamy became a staple on MTV as one of the first "VJs" on the network. He hosted several of their programming blocks, including "MTV Jams" and "MTV Beach House."
Landing his own series in 1996, "The Bill Bellamy Show" Bellamy continued to star on the big screen in addition to garnering coveted guest roles in several prominent television series. On film, Bellamy starred in LOVE JONES, HOW TO BE A PLAYER, LOVE STINKS, THE BROTHERS, and ANY GIVEN SUNDAY. At the same time, Bellamy continued to hone his comedy and stand-up skills. He debuted his second comedy special, "Crazy Sexy Dirty," also for SHOWTIME in May 2012 and has recently guest-starred on USA's "White Collar" and appeared on several episodes of Tyler Perry's "Meet The Browns" on TBS. He also guest-starred on ABC's "Castle" and USA's "Royal Pains." Previously, he hosted four seasons of the TV-One comedy competition show "Who's Got Jokes?" and two seasons of NBC's "Last Comic Standing." He also is currently starring in the syndicated television comedy from producer Byron Allen, "Mr. Box Office," alongside Jon Lovitz, Gary Busey, Tim Meadows, and Vivica A. Fox.
Showtime Networks Inc. (SNI), a wholly-owned subsidiary of CBS Corporation, owns and operates the premium television networks SHOWTIME®, THE MOVIE CHANNEL™ and FLIX®, as well as the multiplex channels SHOWTIME 2™, SHOWTIME® SHOWCASE, SHOWTIME EXTREME®, SHOWTIME BEYOND®, SHOWTIME NEXT®, SHOWTIME WOMEN®, SHOWTIME FAMILY ZONE® and THE MOVIE CHANNEL™ XTRA. SNI also offers SHOWTIME HD™, THE MOVIE CHANNEL™ HD, SHOWTIME ON DEMAND®, FLIX ON DEMAND® and THE MOVIE CHANNEL™ ON DEMAND, and the network's authentication service SHOWTIME ANYTIME®. SNI also manages Smithsonian Networks™, a joint venture between SNI and the Smithsonian Institution, which offers Smithsonian Channel™. All SNI feeds provide enhanced sound using Dolby Digital 5.1. SNI markets and distributes sports and entertainment events for exhibition to subscribers on a pay-per-view basis through SHOWTIME PPV®.


text:
New Products!
New Edition just published of Exploring the Little Book of the Seven Thunders! This new one has the subtitle of "Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about The Science of the Cards"
This new edition is perfect-bound like our other main books and has over 40 pages of new and additional information. And because we had this professionally printed, we can sell this book for $34.95, $25 cheaper than we had been selling it. You can be the first to get a copy of this new edition, our most advanced book on the Science of the Cards. Many new articles and more advanced information.
Exploring the Little Book of the Seven Thunders $34.95
New Courses
New! Using the Cards for Personal and Professional Planning
Our newest course, you can learn how to apply your card knowledge to having an ongoing understanding of your life's path, both personal, professional and spiritual.
The Art of Transformational Card Readings
This course is our highest level training available on the Science of the Cards. Learning how to do readings that can transform your client's lives is the highest expression of this sacred knowledge put into action. This course includes a new book by Robert, only available to those taking this course! Performing readings for others is where your knowledge is tested to the highest degree. To be able to perform a transformational reading for a client is even a large step beyond that. This course includes all new material never published. Eleven lessons spanning 33 days!
Robert's New Book
Your Birthday Your Card is Robert's latest book that is available in bookstores. This is a mini-version of Love Cards that has all new interpretations by Robert and fun things like who are you most likely to marry and who will you have the hottest sex with. It also has a lot of celebrities for each Birth Card. This is a great book to give as a present to someone you love. It introduces someone who is completely new to the Science of the Cards in a fun and informative way!
Your Birthday Your Card $14.95


text:
Red lips, black skin and a booty that I can't say no to. Skin Diamond is an American porn star straight from L. A. that knows how to take it up the ass. She spreads her thighs, rubs her pussy and has me lick her honey hole. After having so much fun with her she lets me fill her tight ass with cock.
- amadeus
- : 4min
- : 8 Dec 2013
- Exclusive video


text:
Housetrends Magazine Greater Pittsburgh Edition - May 2011
English | True PDF | 100 Pages | 62 MB
Housetrends Magazine features articles on home building and remodeling, kitchens, baths, gardens and a database of professionals who provide home services. Housetrends is an idea that grew from a single magazine published in Dayton, Ohio into an ever expanding group of magazines in five markets. Launched in 2001, Dayton was quickly followed by Cincinnati, Ohio, Tampa Bay, Florida, Columbus, Ohio, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Each city was chosen for its own unique sense of style and regional personality. Every Housetrends issue displays the vibrancy and creativity of the market's community of residents and home & garden professionals.
Hide Your IP & Protect Your Privacy!
Get Your 15 Day Free Trial Now.
TO MAC USERS: If RAR password doesn't work, use this archive program:
RAR Expander 0.8.5 Beta 4 and extract password protected files without error.
Related Posts


text:
Studying in the Sixth Form is not just about gaining the necessary qualifications but also about shaping the next phase of your life beyond RGS.
Whichever path you wish to follow, our Careers Department offers expert guidance on a wide range of career opportunities, university courses and apprenticeship opportunities.
Intensive support is provided for the UCAS application process. Departmental Symposiums are available to develop your analytical skills and prepare you for Oxbridge and Russell Group university applications and interviews. There is a programme of activities organised in collaboration with Wycombe Abbey School, designed to challenge you to achieve at the highest level.
Contact the RGS


text:
When No. 5 Lennar recently announced it will close later this year on the purchase of No. 8 U.S. Home Corp., the Miller family's Miami-based juggernaut suddenly made this year's ranking nebulous, if not passe.
|The Lennar/U.S. Home brain trust includes (from left) Stuart Miller, Isaac Heimbinder and Robert J. Strudler. "Our resulting size provides valuable operational and financial benefits" says Lennar president/CEO Miller.
We've seen big before, but never this big.
A decade ago, Centex topped the Giant 400 with $2.29 billion in 1990 home building revenue, and the billion-dollar club had seven members. Last year, Pulte was No. 1 with $2.95 billion. (Lennar was closing fast with $2.09 billion.) And 13 builders topped a billion bucks in 1998 revenue. But when No. 5 Lennar recently announced it will close later this year on the purchase of No. 8 U.S. Home Corp., the Miller family's Miami-based juggernaut suddenly made this year's ranking nebulous, if not passe.
Uneasy rests the crown as Pulte ends the 1990s on top with $3.84 billion in 1999 volume, but with the knowledge that Lennar and U.S. Home combined to deliver 21,658 homes for $4.9 billion last year. What will this new behemoth do in 2000?
As we reported last month, the whole housing industry is now abuzz with speculation that the first mega-merger of the new millennium might not be the last. But before another one comes along, Wall Street (and the billion-dollar builders who might be involved) might want to see if anything profitable really comes from the Lennar/U.S. Home deal. So we asked the principals of the two firms what they expect to gain and what signs of new prowess we'll see first.
Lennar president and CEO Stuart Miller says the merger is immediately accretive to earnings and that the management and cultural fits promise a better company, not just a bigger one.
"Our resulting size provides valuable benefits from both operational and financial market perspectives," says Miller. "While we both have a significant presence in Florida, Texas and Arizona, U.S. Home brings a substantial presence in Denver, Minneapolis and the Eastern Seaboard states. Lennar's extensive land holdings in California will accelerate U.S. Home's expansion there, as well as affording Lennar faster absorption of its land bank. Finally, even when we compete in the same market, at the same price point, we have very different product strategies that appeal to different buyers."
This is a reference to Lennar's "everything's included" strategy that minimizes customization, which contrasts to U.S. Home's "have it your way" approach, which allows buyers to change just about anything.
U.S. Home chairman Robert Strudler said when the deal was announced that U.S. Home sought the merger because the firm's proven track record of profitability in the 1990s was unappreciated on Wall Street.
"The value of the U.S. Home franchise to our shareholders is not being maximized, as small-cap stocks are not afforded even their intrinsic worth, much less a premium for proven results. We believe the combination of Lennar and U.S. Home will create a bigger, stronger and faster-paced organization."
It remains to be seen whether much will change because the whole home building sector is undervalued by Wall Street. But if there is new power here, where will it be unleashed first?
"In Denver," says Miller. "We'll bring the Lennar name and product offering into that market very fast to expand the market share U.S. Home has already achieved. We'll move the Lennar franchise into all of the new markets eventually. And on the east coast of Florida, you'll see U.S. Home building on Lennar land."
Miller acknowledges that people will eventually move back and forth from one side of the combined company to the other but discounts that possibility in the near term. "After the dust settles, people start to worry about how this will affect them. We don't anticipate any job losses. To the contrary, we think a lot of new opportunities will open up. Right now, you'll see a lot of business as usual."
Miller also acknowledges that U.S. Home's strong management training was one of the attractions for Lennar. "We'll use their training program throughout the entire company, and Bob Strudler will run it."
In the long run, the ace up Miller's sleeve might be Isaac Heimbinder, the former U.S. Home president, now "executive vice president of e-commerce initiatives" in the combined corporation. Heimbinder has locked himself in a room somewhere to contemplate where big builders fit into the New Economy.
"We've sold people the largest product they ever buy, and in the past we've said, 'We'll see you again in seven years,'" says Heimbinder.
"Now, we are asking what other things we can provide while the homeowner lives in the house. We all have mortgage companies. Lennar has done a good job with a title company. In the near future, there will be opportunities that regulatory changes are bringing. Your magazine has already written about 'the last mile,' the opportunities in phone, cable, electricity and gas service. All of those things are now deregulated, and builders, especially large builders who are community developers, could get involved.
"Then there's the Internet. Since we already have a relationship with the customer through the Internet, where we communicate all through the sales and construction processes, we might want to expand that to provide things they need after they move in, like window treatments, furniture, etc. It may sound grandiose, but there's the potential of creating a customer for life."
Heimbinder obviously has big plans. The housing industry, especially the big public builders on top of the Giant 400, will be watching closely to see if the new Lennar is greater than the sum of its parts.
Also See Movers and Shakers:
Spectrum Skanska Hits Highest Price Point
Regis Homes Ups Ante on Quality
Morrison Leads the Charge to TND
Newmark Has New Model for Growth in Roaring 2000s
Brookfield Has Steely Resolve
Estridge Pioneers "First Mile"
Crossman: Quiet but Profitable
ALH: Private Acquisitor Rising


text:
Purchased a FORA.tv video on another website? Login here with the temporary account credentials included in your receipt.
Purchased a FORA.tv video on another website? Login here with the temporary account credentials included in your receipt.
Kevin Kelly, co-founding editor of Wired, speculates that science will advance faster in the next 50 years than it has in the last 400.
Sign up today to receive our weekly newsletter and special announcements.
Good evening. I'm Stuart Brand from the Long Now Foundation. If I could do the whole hour on Kevin Kelly, it would be an interesting one to do, actually. He's done a few unusual things. He's biked across America, twice. He's walked the Appalachian Trail, most of it. Says it's pretty boring. He spent ten years instead of being in college, which he dropped out in his freshman year, walking all over Southeast Asia and taking photographs, astonishingly all of which survived, that he put out in a book called Asia Grace, which is just photographs, no captions. But there is a link to the web, and you go to the web, and that's where you find out about what's going on in the pictures. That's normal for Kevin. He is always up to something. Connected but strange. A lot of us who've known, watching him, slogging away on this book, What Technology Wants, for years now. Have been waiting to see pieces of it. And that's what we're seeing tonight, specifically looking at the history and future of science. Kevin Kelly. Thank you. It's wonderful to be on the other side of this program. What I want to talk about is something that is very important to us, but we don't talk about very much. Which is science. Science produces the only news, but it's rarely in the news itself. I have had a sort of a long interest in science. I began as a kid, I had a nature museum in my basement when I was in junior high school. Then I got a chemistry set, and I think perhaps I was the most unusual chemistry set in America for a boy because I actually did not make a bomb. I never tried to blow anything up. I actually tried to make nylon once, I was trying to do chromatography, I was actually trying to do cool stuff with chemistry. And from there I went on to high school, I took I think every single science and math class that my high school offered. But as Stuart said a little bit maybe too prominently, I dropped out of college. Found it a little too boring as well. And I went to Asia where I basically awarded myself an advanced degree in Asian Studies. And but all that time I kept thinking, well maybe I missed out on science. Maybe I should have really tried science. And so I actually invited myself to a friend who ran a lab who was a professor at the University of Georgia, and he was doing Microbiology Lab, and I went down to Georgia and I worked in his lab, where we were studying lipids. And I actually made a film with him, and this is-- we made an educational film on digestion, and a note about the white lab coats, scientists do not wear white lab coats, but you're in a film, and the guy who made the film insisted that we wear them. So it turns out that actually I'm a very bad scientist, I'm not-- I don't really have the patience and the dedication that you need to do science. And so while I dropped out, the guy I worked with went onto greater things. He actually was studying lipids and getting proteins across lipids, and then he went onto GenenTech as well, and right now, just last month, the FDA approved his inhaleable insulin. That was his product. And so now he's changing the lives of many people in the world, but I dropped out and I did the next best thing, which is that I married a scientist. So my wife, who's here, Germaine, is a scientist at GenenTech, and she's a biochemist, and while I'm at home typing up little reviews of the next best bottle opener, she's trying to cure cancer. And she also makes a very-- she also makes it very clear that my knowledge of molecular biology and genetics is pretty flip flop and...but I still enjoy hanging around with scientists and talking to them. And so while I was at Athens and researching, one of the things that, the reason why I did not become a scientist became much more interested in what scientists were doing. Rather than trying to study what the lipids were, I became really interested in how scientists themselves were processing information. How did they know what to do? How did they get information themselves? How did they pass it around? I became much more interested in the science process rather than the scientific work. And in fact, I became so interested that I actually wrote up a little article, it was one of the first articles that was published, and it was called Information as Communicable Disease. And not coincidentally, it was published in Stewart Brand's magazine at that time called Collusion Quarterly. And I was really interested in how information is connected, and the connections between scientists and the information that they generate. And this is a citation map from Gene Garfield, which was just trying to make a map of the connections and the references between scientists. And so what happened was, I became really interested in science from a-- once removed. And I'm not a scientist, and I'm not even really a science journalist, really, and I, because I don't even have enough of in depth knowledge about certain fields to be a science journalist and so it was a long time I tried to figure out what is it that I am. And I finally had decided that I am a science groupie. I like hanging around scientists, I like to hear them talk shop, I like to talk about their science, and most importantly, I like to talk about science itself. And that's an interesting discussion, because you can talk to science and the field work and the kind of result science has, but if you want to talk to scientists about science, they're clueless. They look at you with a big blank. They say, if you ask them about, you know scientific method has changed, it's not going to be the same in the future, it doesn't quite register. The fact that we, and the way we do science, will change. And so this is what I want to talk about, is how the scientific method itself has changed over time and how it will change into the future. And I'm really interested in sort of those long-term trends about science. Because I think that is the foundation of our culture, it's the foundation of our society, and we really need to look at that. And I'm interested in it for a couple of different reasons. And so I know everyone here likes to know about the next one hundred years of science, but before we can do that, we have to kind of figure out what science is. Now a lot of people do a lot of lists out there about the best scientific inventions in the last 2000 years. And that's the kind of common way people think about science. And when the list was asked by John Brockman, and the kind of answers he got was very interesting, because he asked some of the most prominent scientists around the world, what were the most important scientific inventions in the last 2000 years, and you get some very interesting questions. So the future of science, as we think about it, is not this. Okay. That's not what the future of science is really about. And I'm going to talk about something else. The kind of example that people will give for the best invention of the past 2000 years will be something like "hay." This was actually Freemon Dyeson's suggestion. Who is working off of Lynn White and others who said, well you know, "Hay." It was domesticated, it made possible the storage of animals over the winter, it was basically a part of the agricultural revolution. And that in its way it furthered the development of our culture more than other things. Another common reply is well, "Penicillin, or antibiotics." These were obviously things that changed the course of history. Paper. Paper was a great invention, right? It allowed printing and then money. And that itself of course transformed our economy. The rudder was another example. It allowed navigation, exploration of the seven seas, it allowed the settlement of Micronesia and Australia, and it was very important in changing the dynamics later on in terms of empires. Or electricity. Of course that changed the world too. But in each one of these cases, this is not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about the different little things that science throws off. I'm trying to talk about something else, something more profound. And in some sense this is like the ideas the brain throws off. If you're trying to really study the brain, you're not just going to look at the words that people use, or the words that people say, or the ideas that the brain has. You want to study the dynamics of the brain itself rather than the words that are thrown off. And so if you try to think about the categorizations-- if you ask yourself, is there a pattern? To all the scientific inventions of the past? The common way that we kind of line them up is to say, well we have some idea of stone age, bronze age, iron, steam, we kind of see them in that way, and again, this is not really I think very helpful in trying to understand science I went back to try to find out the first conceptions of science, when science was first used. And around 1000 and maybe around that era, there were seven sciences, and they were basically types of desk work. They were a type of knowledge, they were things that were done at a desk. The very first example I could find, one of the first examples I could find in the word of science was used often interchangeably with another word, called sapience. Science and Sapience. They both meant knowledge. In fact, it's probably only a quirk of the language that when they named us, they named us Homo Science. Could have just as easily, because at that time, before his time, that was what the word meant. It meant knowledge. And it was not until the 1700s that science came to be seen as a word to indicate a process of how we come to knowledge. And it's that word that has taken on its meaning now that I'm most interested in. So the interesting aspect about what we have when we have a process is that it enables sustainable long-term change. That's what we get from science, over time, is we have change that's sustainable over long terms. And it's not, at first, what we think of as civilization, because the interesting thing about civilization is, is that civilizations come and go. Civilizations disappear. So we have this sense in which a civilization can come up and reign for a while and then they go away. But science is much more of a progressive sensibility. There is something else going on besides just the fact that we have a civilization, in fact I think the progressive nature we have in civilization comes from the science part of it. Otherwise, in the old days before there was no science, there was the appearance of civilizations being more cyclic. I have a map on my chart on my wall in my home office, and this is a map of the civilizations of the last 5000 years, and there's a range, geographically, you kind of get a sense that there's really not a large pattern there. So the aspect of science that I find most interesting that I want to kind of take a few minutes to talk about right now is the way in which science makes connections. And I think it's the connections and relationships between ideas, and between facts, and between knowledge, that actually give science its character and its strength. Now, I think the fact that things are connected is very very important. Because there is, it's sort of politically incorrect to say that Columbus discovered America, or that Oscar von Gringe discovered the gorilla in say 1902, because those were things that obviously other humans knew about. But in fact I think there is a way which is true within science, that those were discoveries. Because what was happening was they were taking some knowledge that was very isolated before, and we were connecting it to all of the things that were known. Those acts brought in some information and it was being tied into and related to everything else that was known. It was no longer isolated. So the information about the gorillas was kept very local, was not tied in, was not referenced, was not checked, was not in any way proved by the rest of the knowledge that the world knew, and that's what science is doing. So what these things create is basically a structure of sustainable changes, and what these connections do is they allow change to happen in a sustainable way. And as I explore this idea of different ways and different connections within science, there's one idea, one necessary connection that I think I have to make clear, one kind of technical idea. And that is this. This is basically a picture of recursion. This is a recursive thing where it can go, right now it has a sense that it's going smaller and smaller, but you can go the other way, you can think of something that's bigger inside something that's getting bigger and bigger. And there are many ways to do recursion. This is another way. This is more interesting because you can't really see the bubble, there's, it kind of flows from one level flows into the other and you're not really sure what's going on. Of course, Escher made this very famous in his lithographs. And of course now we're into the territory of Douglas Hofftetter, who spent an entire book kind of reflecting on the ways in which there's self-reference. This is...which is the classical simple thing, is that eating itself, is it inside the mouth or outside the mouth. And there's other ways you can have self-reference, which is like a fractal where the larger whole references the smaller parts. That they're identical in all different scales. But here's another way even language has a way that's self-reference. This is, "This sentence is false." And so there's a sense in which the sentence points back to itself. And I think that pointing back to itself is very very profound, and it's very profound in science, because what's happening is that in that pointing back to itself, it's referencing an implicit other level that did not exist before. Right, so when the sentence goes back and points to itself, you suddenly, you're taken out of it, and it's moved to another level of meaning. And that's happening in every emergent system that I can really think of, is what really happens is that the circle creates a new level of outside experience or outside level that did not exist before. And we have the same thing happening in computer programming. Recursion is a very common pattern, and it gives a robustness and a power to computer programs, is the fact that they can do this. This is a map of the genetic-- excuse me, the metabolic pathways in a cell, and it's nothing but recursion. As well as most genomes, where they have genes turning on other genes, that turn on other genes. And so you have this sense in which things point back to themselves, and this pointing back creates another level of existence or reference that did not exist before. This is citation, this is science where you have authors citing other authors who are citing other authors, you have this sort of web of citations and interconnection of facts, and that is what science generates. Is it generates paradox, for one thing. These are paradoxical systems because you don't know what's at the bottom, things are kind of turning around to themselves, there's a sense of emergence. A new reference coming out. They're sustainable in the sense that they keep things going, they keep going things around and around, and they're also, it's about changeability. Here is a wonderful sense of, a wonderful instance of recursion which is the US Constitution. Article 5 talks about how you amend the Constitution. So, within itself, there's something that points back to the document itself, and so you have a mechanism for how this is going to change, and that is actually, I think, the power of this document, is that it allows sustainable change over time because it has some rules for how it changes itself. So it's pointing back to itself. That changeability, that pointing back to itself, is, it's a little game, it's kind of sounds fun, it sounds trivial, but in fact, I think it's actually the engine for making this infinite game, because it can keep going. As long as you're going back to it, you can kind of, as long as you're changing the rules that change the change, you can keep the system going forever. So this recursive game can be read in many different ways. You can say, well science is the evolution of evolution itself. How evolution evolves over time. It's exploring the ways to explore. It favors opportunities which create other new opportunities. Or it's how you play the game of playing all games. That's the infinite game. And what's interesting to me is that when you think about the two large systems that play infinite games, there's two of them. One's science and the other is religion. And I'll come back to that later. But I think that that's the background of why I want to go into the history of how science has changed over time. So first I'd like to talk about the origins of science, then I'd like to talk about the future, and then most important to me, I'd like to talk about the meaning of science. So how does science change over time? Well, the first thing is there were observations, facts, and then people began to do this recursive thing. You had a bibliography. You have a document, a book. That basically references other books. And when the first indexes to other books are actually very old. The first collections, very early, have indexes to them. Then you had catalogues, where the actual listed, the book itself is listed in the book of other books. Libraries with an index is another kind of same theme. We're actually, this is the imagination, a virtual rendering of what the library of Alexandria looked like, there were scrolls. So what's happening is we're starting to structure this information more, collaborative encyclopedia. Where you have more than one person, more than one source coming in to write a book, collectively. Kind of like Open Source. Controlled experiment came along and of course Roger Bacon was very instrumental in that, in suggesting the fact that you want to have an experiment that you can change the variable, so here is, in another structuring of the information, laboratories became common when people decided to actually do things in a controlled setting. Again, to structure the information coming out of it. Telescopes, other things that were invented to allow more data to come in, to generate new data in new ways. By having new tools you can see new things, having questions. This was another important advance in the history of science. The society of experts, where again, you collect it, people would try and work on similar kinds of questions and problems and exchange the information between them. So we have a further structuring of that information. Then Boyle was the first to propose that the necessity of having a repeatable experiment in his work with a coal pump, and heating coal. He said you have to be able to repeat the experiment in order to make it valid, so they were adding another level of information and structure. Scholarly journals came out along the way, and they started to pass this information, and put it into documents, and peer review, which started off as letters being passed between each other where they were actually starting to evaluate, to check, and comment on the work of others in a more organized fashion. And then the hyposthesis and projection, which came with Newton trying to suggest, well if this is true then we should expect this. Again, a further structuring of this. So all these kinds of things I want to show in a diagrammatical way, these notions have no real meaning, but we have the facts, we have lots of facts, we start to add a bibliography around them, which takes the same thing, so one of the items is itself referring to others, that's a bibliography, we have a library that does the same thing, we begin to add other facts outside, we start to have new ways of seeing, new inputs, scopes, telescopes, which bring in more information, which is then connected with hypothesis and predictions, which evaluate. We have another one, it's repeatability, we try it again over here. We add a society of experts which are cross-referencing. All these things are to show you that what we have with science is information that's being further and further structured and organized. More into this century, or last century, we have the invention of the falsifiable testability, saying that something really cannot be declared-- you can't really judge something unless there's some way to falsify it. That was Popper. And then the randomized design, which is that one of the ways that you wanted to verify and add depth to the kind of information you're doing is you-- ah, this was Fisher, who said you have to have a, you have to have a, you have to be careful of, and be mindful of, probability and statistics. That this is an important component. In fact, you can actually do things where you take random or statistical approaches to information. And then the control placebo. The idea of, that you would actually have, basically a null set. You would have zero in an experiment, and that would be the control that was a way again of adding structure to it. Computer simulations came along, this was a very big thing, and then the double blind refinement of an experiment, where you actually do the experimenter and the patient also both would be ignorant of-- again, different ways in which this information is being structured. And finally, science itself. Not that late, but this was a representation of a famous book of structure of scientific revolutions, suggesting that science itself was a subject of study, and that looks like this. Okay, here's recursion. Where you're taking the whole mass of things and then you're looking at it itself. Okay. So my conclusion about all this is that science is a way, is a process of changing how we know. It's about knowledge, it's about sapience and it's about knowing, and it's a process for changing how we know things. Okay, so what-- that's really interesting, but I think what most everybody really wants to know is, what's the next thousand years of science, okay? I mean, that's.... So one easy general answer is, well it's this. Okay, it's more structuring of information, more connections between things that we've made and know, more ways of knowing, deeper, more complex things. But what you really want to know is, you know, well, when are we going to have flying cars. Right? Or robots? That talk? Or maybe virtual reality. So let me tell you about what some of my speculations are in the next hundred years of science. So first, I would say, is that science is going to change more in the next 50 years than it has in the past 400 years. As different as the scientific method is now from how it was 400 years ago, and Bacon and Boyle and Newton, it's going to be even more different in the next 50 years, hundred years. Okay? Because we're going to continue to restructure how we know about things. And that process of how we change things. Okay, so the second thing I would say is that it's going to be a bio-century. And that's not just because Germaine's a biologist. It's because biology even this year already is the biggest science that we have. It gets-- there's-- biology gets the most funding, has the most scientists working in it, it has the most results being published, it has the most economic value, it's the most ethically, and it's culturally important, and I think it has the most to learn from. Okay, I think there's actually more information in biology for us to extract out of than there is in physics. Okay. So the difference is that while physics is very deep, it hasn't been changing over 4 billion years. It's exactly the same since it was from the beginning of time to now. Whereas biology has had 4 billion years of investing huge amounts of energy to making very very complex and full of information. It's full of information. It's informationally dense. And so it's a huge treasure trove of things that we don't know. The third thing I would say is that computers are going to lead to a third way of science. And let me take a few minutes to explain what that means. Traditionally there was two ways, two pillars of science, were measurement in a hypothesis, so you take data, and you have ideas about it, and you would, and the two would sort of feed and test each other. And the measurement field, we're going to see more and more data. Okay, right now there's nothing growing faster on this planet than information. Okay? There was a study that Halvarian and Lineman did at Berkeley where they measured the growth of information, the total amount of information in the world, and the information's growing at 66% a year. Okay, that dwarfs, that dwarfs every other thing that we can measure in terms of its growth over a very long term, over decades. IPod sales may go up 200,000 or something, or 200% in a year, but that's just very short term. But over decades, decades, the only thing we can measure in this graph growing that fast is the intangibles of information. Now what's interesting about 66%, which I don't have a good explanation for, is that basically is More's law. So right now information is the fastest growing thing, and so we have data coming off, and if we take the history of data, the different thresholds, is that the first thing that came along was precision. More and more precise ways to measure. Then we had new spectrums, new varieties to measure, then there was the new sources, like cameras and other kinds of tools, and we also have a more duration so we can get data all the time and run these longer and longer. Okay, and so in some sense right now we're filling out the entire globe with sensors. It's getting a body in terms of having ears, sound, and all this data is flowing in and that's what we're headed towards is humongous flow of data. I just threw up a couple of instances of the growth in data, and I call it zillionics, because there's zillions of bits, there's zillions of everything, and dealing with zillions of things is actually difficult. We don't, I mean, it requires kind of a new set of parameters and perspectives to deal with zillions of stuff. And that's what we're talking about. Also, this is getting eclipsed very fast, because I noticed there was one terrabyte. Well I just brought a one terrabyte hard disk two weeks ago and I've already filled it up. It's with videos, digitizing videos from home movies. So terrabytes, you know, we're going very fast. We're headed into another realm with this. The second pillar of classical science with hypothesis: learning. Where you were going to try and make a theory, you were going to try and structure something, not just measure it. And that will always work off, in tandem, with observation. Well, some of the things that are coming along that are in the new science coming down is dealing with matrices of multiple hypotheses. So instead of having a cereal one where you have a hypothesis, you try it out, you go along, is you entertain multiple ones at the same time. And you actually try and navagate through, and so things can be kind of partially true, and partially incorrect. And you kind of go through all of the possibilities at once. Another way to do it, another way, is you actually kind of, what we call common material sweep, is you go through the possibility space. You explore the all possible arrangements. Before computers this was impossible, but now you can kind of do this on a mass scale, and this is an example of Stephen Wolfrums going through CA space and looking at all possible CAs as a way to try and understand what the general behavior of CAs were, rather than going one experiment or one at a time. And we use combinatorial search in lots of things. You're going, you're making huge libraries of possibilities, and chemistries, or chemicals, new ceramics are found that way, rare earths, formocology of large molecules, synthesis, multiple hypothesis, operating all at once. Now the third variety that we haven't had is simulations, that was not until 1946, and this is a big thing. We do huge, again, huge simulations, and what's interesting about the huge simulations is that they generate huge amounts of data. And the bigger and more complex and the realer and more sophisticated they are, the more data that this simulation itself is generating, not the observation. So we have a move now to, where I think, most of the data that we're going to be generating is probably going to be coming from, simulations. And not from observation. That the simulation data will actually dwarf the real data. Not real data, but the observation data. So these three things, these three things. We had two, now we have a tripod of three different kinds of science, and they're feeding off each other in kind of a new way. So this three, where you have simulation, which will in some cases inspire measurement, and other times the measurements will inspire a simulation, or you have a hypothesis, and a simulation, the two of them working against each other, where you have a hypothesis and you try it out in simulation, and simulation forms hypothes... So now there's sort of a triangle of three different ways, three different pillars. And this intersection of the three, I call that deep science. Because it is a different way of doing science. Where what you imagine plays as important point as what you measure. So I can kind of show you how there's three little patterns where maybe in say you take real time measurement, vast amounts of quantity, it can inform, a really deep simulation, which can then go out and inform hypotheses and those three can be working together. You can do the same thing in the health sciences. Again, where you continue this real time measurement of body functions, could process an assimilation of the body itself, which can then go and work with different computer aided theorems about what's happening. And in the environmental science, it's the same thing. You see the same triad of deep science. So this third way of science, which is really being propelled by computers, well maybe you can think of it this way, maybe this is the third way of science, I'm not sure. Where we have hell there. But it's a way in which computers are changing. The fourth way that I think science is going to change in the next hundred years is science will again create new ways of knowing, and an example of that will be Wiki Science. Large scale numbers of people involved in an experiment. I talking to an editor of a science journal recently and they were saying they were expecting the first one thousand author paper to come in this year. Okay, it was at the Hadron Palighter in Europe, one thousand authors. Well, there's nothing-- that's just the beginning of very very large experiments that can be done, and maybe even experiments that aren't finished, they're sort of like Wikipedia where you continually are adding onto it over time, there is no beginning or end, it's like one of those encyclopedia articles done by many many people all at once. Another interesting thing is compiled negative results. Negative results are what happens when you try to experiment and it doesn't work. Normally that information's thrown away. There's no reason why it should be thrown away. There's no reason why it should be thrown away, because the fact is, it's very very important. But who's going to read it all? Well, if you have algorithmic and you have ways in which you can automate the processing of the negative results, it can become very very valuable. And two things have happened, one is I discovered that actually is a journal that's publishing negative results, the important ones, they feel are more important, and secondly, the new journals in the medical field where negative results are often very critical, have decided not to accept papers who did not register and therefore show that they basically, excuse me, let me say that differently, there's clinical trials, and often the negative results will happen very early on, and a pharmacological company has no reason to report them, but now a medical journal will not allow their final results to be published unless they register and let them know the early results. So this is a way to basically enforce the large scale habitual recording and processing of negative results. AI computer proofs, this is Keppler's Conjecture which was around 1590 I think, about how to pack oranges, it was only recently proved with the aid of a, what was proved with the aid of a computer and also the proof of it required a computer. To prove it. So no human really understands this sufficiently to be able to prove it or to verify the proof. And I think we'll see more of that as well. Triple blind emergent trials is the idea that if you take enough data all the time and it's non evasive enough, and you statistically have enough people involved, you can actually go back and extract out your controls. You can actually do it statistically, to say that-- so in this sense, neither the person involved nor the experimenters were aware at the time of the experiment, that the experiment was going on. So distributive experiments, and this is another idea, again, this is Paul Allen's distributed telescope, which is a fast, cheap, and out of control idea, which is that lots of little things hooked together, lots of small experiments hooked together, lots of small pieces of equipment, lots of small sensors together, can in aggregate become very powerful. And in the past these ideas never made sense because the transactional costs were so steep that it really didn't make sense, but now, and again we have example after example proving how these mob crowd hive mind distributed bits can actually total up to be something very very important, and I think the same thing will happen with science. And again, the last thing, is the return of the subjective. This recursive coming around, which says that science is for all time been trying to push out the subjective and remain objective, to distance itself from the subjective experience, but when you get down to the very bottoms of things in the very largest of things, when things get really weird, it's actually necessary to come back to a subjective, and I think that we'll see a return of the subjective in some of the most basic things like quantum effects. That it's almost inescapable not to bring in that recursive root back into the equation. We don't have very good tools of how to do that scientifically, but I think that's what we'll involve. So the fifth and last way I think science will change in the next hundred years is that we'll create a new level of meaning. And what do I mean by that. Only this, that we take this citation map which I showed before, this is a much deeper one showing in the chemical journals all the authors who are referencing other authors, it's their map of influences and how facts are related and tested against each other that is a very recursive net. And this is actually a map of the internet. This is, I'm showing the major trunk lines, and this is I think, Asia is red and North America is blue. It's a pretty current image of the full interconnection and recursive nature of the internet. And I think what's happening is that this is becoming one machine. And I wanted to-- and I really treated this seriously as if it was a machine. If we had all the computers in the world hooked up through the internet, and you actually totaled, summed up, their specs, what would you have? Well, you can read that here. One billion PC chips. One million emails per second. One million IM messages per second. Eight terrabytes. Blah blah blah blah blah. So that's a very interesting computer. I mean, that's a pretty big computer. And actually I did some other things and I figured out, here's, if we were selling this on Amazon, it would be a trillion dollars, one megahertz email...okay, so that's interesting. It's-- and what's interesting about this one computer that we're making is that it's actually approaching the complexity of a brain. So here, this is again, this is other, if you take all the transistors and all the PCs in the whole world connected together, there's a katrillion of them. If you take all the webpages there are, all the ones of the deep webpages, on average they have about fifteen links on each page, there's a trillion links, which you can see as a synapse, as in the brain. There's twenty petahertz of synapse firings. That's the speed at which the thing fires. And there's twenty exabyte of memory. That's a very big machine. That's approaching the complexity of the human brain. It's about a hundred-- it's about two orders off. But the thing about the internet, it's doubling every year and the brain's not doing that. Okay. So I think-- and if you add our own brains at the other end of it, we have a very large machine. And this machine is actually what's doing science now. This new structuring of information and knowledge is the thing that is now doing science. And a lot of people are kind of worried about that, because you've heard Ray Curzwell's suggestion, that this, once this happens, it will just take off and the technology will accelerate into a singularity. I think the singularity is actually an illusion. I think that it doesn't happen from-- I mean, I think that the technology of acceleration is true, is valid, but I think the idea that we're going to go through something that will change and be a discontinuity is not. This is one of my favorite New Yorker cartoons. For those who can't see in the back, it's, the guy's coming in from lunch, after a long lunch, and he's coming in and his very perky secretery is waving a little memo sheet, it says, "Sir, the following paradigm shifts have occurred while you were out." I think that what happens is that we've already been through several of these large scale lifting up of new levels of meaning. This emergent thing where things come back and they come up, but we didn't even notice it. Here's another cartoon. Two guys in a cave, saying, "Hey did anyone notice that we're using language?" We never did that because-- language was a singularity, we went through it without noticing it. Just as we'll go through this one machine, this large corpus of new thing that's doing science. It's an infinite game. You raise up to the new level, the new level connects and restructures in such a way that it is up to another level. So one of the things that I think science does not do, which is a very common idea, is that it seeks after truth. That's what people say. The other day a famous scientist said that's what science, it's always seeking after truth. And actually I don't think that's true. I think there is a true course in mathematics that doesn't change, but there are lots of things that we know about science, or we think we know, that is not true over time. Even the idea that the world is round, well we find out that the world is not really perfectly round, it's off. And then maybe in another dimension it's not round. So even facts like that will change over time. So I don't think it's actually what truth is. That what science is really after. There's an interesting thing about discovery and invention, which is that when you have enough choices, when the field is big enough, when there's enough variables, when the degrees of freedom are sufficient, that the distinction between discovery and invention are nil. That they're basically equivalent. It's the same act. You can kind of see that, here's a picture of some biological forms, and we can say well evolution, or nature, did they invent those or discover those? But we understand that they're equivalent ideas. So we can say in the same way that Edison discovered the light bulb. He didn't really invent it, he discovered it. Or that Benjamin Franklin invented electricity. We could say that Pythagoras invented the Pythagorean theory. Okay. So in the same way, I think the difference between knowing and creating is also equivalent. There is an equivalency in-- knowing is not passive, as I'm suggesting it. It's a constructive thing. We're constructing knowledge, and knowing is a constructive, creative act. And in that way, the process of changing how we know provides us with possibilities. And I think this is actually what science is about. Science is about possibilities. It's about differences, options, choices, freedoms, diversity, that's what science generates in us. If you go back to this handy model of the internet and we see all of these things-- imagine if all of those-- this is a space of possibilities of different organisms. All the species on earth. And this was the possibility space, and of course this is what science is trying to do, is we're trying to explore and reach all of those possibilities. So in some ways, it's infinite ways to play the infinite game. You can go back to the same map of these things, and we can say, imagine if these things were actually the different ways in which you could be a person. Imagine if this was a map of all the possibility space of all the ways that a person can be born, various-- you know, introverts are over here, extroverts are kind of, you know, there's a very complex high dimension way in which the gifts and talents of different people were mapped. And so what I think, what science is in part about is trying to uncover and reach and have us arrive at those places that would provide the knowledge and tools for every person to fulfill their full potential. So I like to imagine what it would be like if Mozart had been born before the piano was invented. What a loss that would be. Or if we imagine Van Gogh having been born before oil paint was invented. The option of oil paints. Or Hitchcock before film. And so I think right now, today, this is my son, I think there are children today who are born whose "thing," whose science, whose technology, does not exist yet. They're going to live and die without us having provided, collectively, the thing for them. And I think that's a great shame, and I think in some way we have a moral obligation to actually go out and discover and seek and make all those possibilities. And that's-- so that people can play this infinite game. While I was searching around for the origins of science, I found a very interesting quote. The very very very first use of the word science I could find in the English language was in 1340. And it was called, "For God of science is Lord." I'm not sure what it means, but it's interesting that it was being there. Because I think I want to come back to the fact that the two entities that generate infinite games are science and religion. And I find it interesting that at the bottom of most religions, and most beliefs in God or the universe, is basically this recursive loop. I mean, you can't get out of it. Beginning of the universe, who made the universe. Well, the universe always was, or God-- who made God? So you have this sense in which it kind of connecting to itself is the origin of everything, there is a paradox at the very base of it. And I think what science does for myself, is science is the way we surprise God. That's what we're here for. That's what science is. It's a way for us to surprise God. Now you may think that's kind of strange, but think about like second life. Now, what's cooler-- is it to have a game where you make everything in there, or to have a game where-- sufficiently deep enough where the players themselves, these entities, not with people there, but the robots, are actually going to surprise you as the creator. I mean, which programmer is superior? It's the program where the creation actually completes the creation. And I think that's part of what we have with this idea, that we're taking all the possibilities, and I think it goes even further than that, imagine that this is a possibility space of all the possible ways to know. Okay. All the possible ways to know. All the possible ways to be smart, all the possible ways to find out things, all the possible ways to think. So I think we'll take all the possible species of intelligence in order for the universe to understand itself. Okay. So the universe cannot understand itself until we have all the possible minds, all the possible ways, to structure knowledge. Another way of saying it, the way I would say it, is that it will take all possible minds in the universe to know the mind of God. And so for that reason, I think science is holy. I think it's a holy act, I think it's a holy work. And I think that the long term future of science is actually a divine trip. Thank you. I welcome questions.


text:
Recent advances in laboratory instrumentation and methodologies (i.e., quantitative real-time RT-PCR and laser capture microdissection) allow reliable molecular and biochemical measurements from small tissue samples. Taking advantage of these sophisticated and sensitive technologies, we have started to make a molecular description of acne inflammation in humans. Molecular and biochemical examination of different types of acne lesions and how effective drugs and device-based treatments (laser or PDT) affect these parameters are being investigated. Acne-like eruption often seen in cancer patients with epidermal growth factor antagonists therapy is also a focus of our research.
Back to Clinical Research
U-M Medical School | U-M Gateway
© Copyright 2014-2017 Regents of the University of Michigan | Disclaimer | Privacy Statement
Developed and maintained by Michigan Multimedia, Medical School Information Services
Contact Michigan Medicine
Michigan Medicine Home
Health Topics A-Z
For Patients & Families
For Health Providers


text:
Configuring employee roles
Some retailers run their store themselves or opt to share their login credentials with their employees. If so, you can move on to the 1 c. Taxes article.
If you'd like to keep your login credentials confidential, start by defining a well-structured set of employee roles in Settings > Employee Roles.
For more information, see our Configuring employee roles article.
Adding employee accounts
Once you've defined your employee roles, you'll want to create new employee accounts in Settings > Employee Setup.
NOTE: The number of employee accounts that you can add depends on your Lightspeed Retail plan.
For more information, see our Adding employee accounts article.
Setting login credentials
Lastly, you will want to set login credentials for your new employee accounts. There are two employee login types: External login and Access PIN login. The External login right can be enabled in the employee roles. As for usernames, passwords and PINs, they are configured in the Sign In section of employee accounts.
|External login
|Access PIN login
For more information, see our Setting login credentials article.
What's next?
If you've only assigned PINs to your employee accounts, you will want to extend the Auto Logout Delay setting in Settings > General Options. This will ensure that the Lightspeed session stays open during your business hours for your employees without External login.If you offer commission to your employees, we suggest assigning PINs and enabling the Require PIN Before Each Sale setting. It is also located in Settings > General Options. This will ensure that all sales are assigned to the correct employee in the Line Employee report.
For more information, see our Configuring your account options article.


text: It's 2016 and we are coming to terms with the fact that we are not great bloggers! We instead invite you to visit us over at Instagram to keep up to date on weddings, shoots, new inventory, our favorite cocktails and restaurants around the city and sometimes our little ones! Come hang with us!


text:
Lauren Alaina breaks the top 10 with her first release
American Idol runner-up Lauren Alaina has hit the Billboard charts on her first time out with her single Like My Mother Does debuting in the number nine spot!
Second place isn't such a bad thing to be when it comes to American Idol contestants. Lauren Alaina already has a hit single on the Billboard charts!
Like My Mother Does, the first single from the 16-year-old American Idol runner-up, has debuted at number nine on the Billboard Digital Albums and Country Albums charts and number 11 on the Digital Songs chart, as well as number 20 on the Hot 100 chart and 49 on the Hot Country Songs chart. This makes Alaina the highest debut for a second-place American Idol finalist in six years!
The teen couldn't be more thrilled.
"This is so awesome!" Alaina said in a statement. "American Idol has changed my life, so I'm excited that the songs I performed on there are doing so well. I can't believe that I have a song out on country radio, much less that so many stations started playing it right away. I can't wait to get out and meet everybody and thank them personally for playing my song."
Lauren Alaina heads back to the studio in Nashville later this week to record her first album. Until then, look for her as a presenter on the CMT Music Awards on Wednesday!
Image courtesy WENN


text:
Add vehicles to compare. You can compare up to 3 vehicles at a time.
The new Chevrolet Colorado, offered in Greeley, is as hardworking as you are. With features including class-leading towing abilities and powerful engine, it provides additional performance to any work day. Standard amenities, with affordable options, present in this truck offer the best combination of quality and value in its class. The new Chevrolet Colorado, available in Greeley, the interior provides all-round peace and quiet so you can relax after a hard day at work. It's built around a muscular frame and a solid suspension, providing durability and reliability while towing heavy loads in and around Greeley. Our inventory conveys all that you need to know about this midsize truck. Visit us to test-drive a new Chevrolet Colorado in Greeley today!
Discover a High-Quality Chevrolet or CADILLAC Model in Greeley at Ghent Chevrolet Cadillac
If you've been on the fence about whether or not to replace your current vehicle with one of ours at Ghent Chevrolet Cadillac, allow our team to break down the options for you. While our new and pre-owned inventories both offer excellently valued models, there are plenty of outstanding choices that make up our certified used selection. With its added certification, not only are you getting a quality car but you're choosing one that is backed by the automaker itself. As a result, you can drive confidently knowing that your Chevrolet, CADILLAC, GMC or Buick model has been meticulously inspected so that it drives with the same vigor as its first day away from our Greeley, CO dealership.
Drivers from Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont, Frederick and beyond will love the added 6-year/100,000-mile powertrain limited warranty that comes included with our available certified pre-owned models. By offering one of the most complete benefit packages for certified vehicles, General Motors makes the process of deciding on a model and moving forward easier than many of its rivals in the automotive industry. Not to mention the available free 3 Months of OnStar® coverage as an extra layer of safety and security whenever you're out in your certified vehicle of choice.
Ready to jump in and see just how one of our exciting certified pre-owned models can add a dose of higher performance, comforts and utility to your lifestyle? Make the trip to see us at 2715 35th Avenue and one of our sales representatives will be happy to get to work with you and find the ideal option today!


text:
22 Job offers Business & Management Consulting in
Finance/process transformation Consultant
As a Finance & Performance SS&O Manager, your role will be to advise your clients' CFO by helping them to transform their finance function.
ERP Strategy Director
As a Business Applications Director, your role will be to advise our clients and help them transform their finance function by using new technologies or integrated applications.
Financial Services Project/Program manager (perm role)
As a Project / Program Manager in Financial Services, you will advise our clients on transforming their business to navigate through their market challenges and meet their strategy.
Business Analyst in the Financial Sector
Every employee can benefit from a professional and expert training facility. Employees can pass official certifications but also follow coaching courses on Soft skills that matter.
Business Analyst Financial sector - you must read this one
Are you willing to take part in the growth of an ambitious human-sized organization that guarantees a beneficial work/life balance? Take a look at this great opportunity!
Business Analyst for a company like no other!
Would you like to be put in driver seat of your career path? Are you seeking to get involved in great projects at prestigious clients without the uncertainty of the next project's location? Finally, are you willing to take part in the growth of an ambitious human-sized organization that guarantees a beneficial work/life balance?


text:
The picture shows the uncontrollable and NOT the controllable Police Maverick. --DT-boy 15:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The above-mentioned 'uncontrollable' helicopter is in fact called the Helicopter rather than the Police Maverick. Maybe there should be a page dedicated to the aircraft of this name (not the disambiguation/link page), as it's in just about every single game - no other vehicles have different pages for each version. Heihachi 73 12:28, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
That helicopter in the GTA V screenshot isn't a police maverick, it's another police helicopter.Gta 357 (talk) 02:24, July 13, 2012 (UTC)Gta 357
Why are people assuming this new helicopter is a Maverick? How can this be allowed but calling the blue convertible a Sentinel not? -- Zulu2065 (talk) 00:42, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
The game isn't even out and people already think the Maverick has completely changed into a different helicopter. Seriously, stop writing this stuff that isn't even confirmed. The police maverick was in the trailer, the helicopter in the screenshots is a different helicopter. Gta 357 (talk) 22:30, September 10, 2012 (UTC)Gta 357
There's GTA V photos in Vice City area, someone mind checking it out?
Echo2436 (talk) 01:33, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
Its doesnt make any sense that Police Maverick dont have visible pilots.