text:
Suppose a stranger comes up to you. He introduces himself. Let's call him Smith. And he says that he has a very important story that he wants to tell you. There is a particular claim in that story that he thinks is very important for you to believe. But before he tells you the story, he tells you some details about how he came to know about it. As it turns out, the events in question didn't happen to him. He didn't see them. In fact, he hasn't actually met or spoken to the people immediately involved in the story. The events in question actually took place a long time ago and then there were an unknown number of people between the actual events and the people who told him the story. But he's quite sure that they are trustworthy. They were all honest, and well-intentioned. And he has heard that they were all passionate believers who were utterly sincere when they relayed the story.
As he thinks about it, Smith realizes that there are some other important details. "Now that I think about it," he says, "the real events in this story actually happened hundreds of years ago. And there were some people who then retold the story for many decades before it was written down. But we don't actually have the original documents where it was written down either. What we have are some copies of copies of copies of those original documents, where the original documents were based on retellings of retellings of retellings of the original story. I'm not sure really how many people there were in all of these intermediate steps between the actual events and you. I'm sure that they were all trustworthy, however. And they were all completely convinced about the authenticity of the story." It occurs to you that from what he is saying, all of the people involved in the transmission of the story were zealous believers, so that if there had been some other relevant details or contrary evidence, it doesn't seem likely that it would have survived unaltered.
So you ponder all of these layers of questions and unknowns as Smith prepares to actually divulge his important story. It concerns another man, call him Jones. Smith tells you a lot of things about Jones. But the most important part and the central claim of the story is that at one point Jones was abducted by aliens and disappeared off of the face of the earth.
Now you are in this situation. You have been told a story by someone who appears to be honest, sincere, and who believes in its truth without question. But he admits that there have been many people, many hands, and many years between the event in question and you. And the central claim that he wishes you to accept as true is that someone was abducted by aliens and never came back.
What's the reasonable position to take with regard to Jones' alien abduction? I think there's no question that any reasonable person would reject it. I don't even think most reasonable people would suspend judgment about it or be agnostic. Suspending judgment is typically the rational response when there seem to be equally compelling bodies of evidence for and against a claim. Surely your evidence in support of the conclusion that Jones was abducted by aliens is not equal in force to your evidence that no such thing happened. Smith seems like a trustworthy guy, but there are just too many unknowns, too many questions about the transmission of the story. And the story itself involves a claim that is simply outrageous and utterly unlike anything you have ever seen or heard. If a close friend who you know and trust came to you and tried to convince you that she had been abducted by aliens, you would be very skeptical. Even without the information transmission problems in the Jones story, the claim is one you would reject unless it met the highest burden of evidence. Furthermore, you don't need to know what really did happen, or where or how the story might have been altered in order to be justified in disbelieving the story. The questions you have and the problems in the story by themselves are enough to justify rejecting it even without an alternative explanation. Given the obscurity of the event, it seems unlikely that anyone could ever really know what happened, if there was anything that happened at all.
The analogy here, obviously, is your epistemic position with regard to the resurrection of Jesus. The complaint will be that the story here is not analogous to the case of Jesus at all. There were hundreds of people who witnessed the miracles of Jesus. There are thousands of documents we have corroborating the events described in the New Testament. The people relaying the story were not some unknown strangers. The original witnesses were people of unquestionable integrity with no ulterior motives. Millions of people all over the world believe in the Jesus story. And so on.
In fact, we don't have hundreds of eye witness accounts of Jesus' resurrection. We have 3 or 4 accounts that were written down decades after the fact that report hundreds of witnesses. Mark, and John seem to have separate accounts, and Matthew and Luke were cribbed from Mark and a source known as Q. We don't even have the original Gospel accounts. We have some copies of copies of copies of them from the 200 years or so after the originals were written down. There are lots of other fragments of documents from much later in Christian history. And there were many early Christian documents that were banned, excluded, or destroyed because they did not agree with the settled on canonical version of the story. We don't know how many people there were between the actual events and the authors of the Gospel accounts. We know very little about the authors of the Gospels except that they were not eye-witnesses and that they were writing down a story that had come to them by word of mouth. What we know about the character or the motives of the people involved in the alleged events is part of the information that we are getting in the story itself. So those claims about their integrity or their lack of ulterior motives cannot be used to support the authenticity of the story that claims they have integrity. There is no question that there are millions of people who believe the Jesus story. But the fact that so many other people believe itself cannot be used alone to justify believing. If all of those people believe, then they either believe reasonably or unreasonably. If they believe reasonably, then they must have sufficiently justifying grounds for that belief. If they believe on the basis of a mistake, then more people believing because they believe just amplifies the mistake. If those people believe reasonably, then presumably it is because the story of Jesus' resurrection itself is sufficiently supported by the evidence. Our source of information about the resurrection of Jesus is the New Testament. If we are going to consider the New Testament seriously as evidence, then we are now faced with all the layers of difficulty and complication in Smith's story about Jones.
You have some choices here. The only options really worth considering are either rejecting both the Jones abduction story and the Jesus resurrection story, or rejecting the Jones story while accepting the Jesus story. The former is the most reasonable. But I assume that many believers will acknowledge that the alien abduction story is preposterous, but Jesus' resurrection is different. The only way to argue for that sort of division, I think, is to argue that there is some important difference between the two cases that makes one silly but the other reasonable. We've considered some of those possible disanalogies, but none of them are adequate to overcome the alien abduction defeater to the Jesus story.
Suppose there are some other differences that the believer will present. If there are, for example, differences X, Y, and Z between the story as the believer sees it. Then lets test those differences for reasonableness this way. Let's alter the Jones alien abduction story by applying the X, Y, and Z differences and see if the result is that it becomes reasonable to believe. That is, if there are disanalogies between the two cases, then what changes do we need to make to Smith's alien abduction story about Jones to make it analogous? What changes do we need to make to the abduction story to make it reasonable to believe?
I think that one of two things will happen when we do that. Either it will become painfully obvious that the believer is guilty of engineering an ad hoc justification in favor of the Jesus story, or it will become clear that the sorts of additions that need to be made to Smith's story in order to make it reasonable are not true of the Jesus case. What will become clear is that the believer's ideological and emotional commitment to the Jesus story has led them to adopt a double standard of justification that is incoherent.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Abducted by Aliens
31 comments:
- Teleprompter said...
Very thought-provoking. I wonder if we're going to have a valid discussion of this, or whether we'll be diverted by someone who's completely ignorant of all facets of the particular topic we're discussing yet again?
If people actually tried to respond to the content of your posts.... - February 12, 2009 at 11:44 PM
- Matt S said...
I like this post. Very clear.
On the other hand, I would be happy if all believers just started an honest, holistic search for "god", like some buddhist kind of thing, instead of doing what they do now...
(/tangent) - February 13, 2009 at 6:44 AM
- M. Tully said...
Great post. I think you hit the very real point when you wrote, "In fact, we don't have hundreds of eye witness accounts of Jesus' resurrection. We have 3 or 4 accounts that were written down decades after the fact that report hundreds of witnesses. Mark, and John seem to have separate accounts, and Matthew and Luke were cribbed from Mark and a source known as Q."
What I would like to hear from theists is why I should adopt the epistemology that accepts the above as evidence for an occurrence but denies the following:
"'Grieve not, Quirites! I have myself beheld Romulus ascending to the sky. He bade me tell you that he has become a god and is called Quirinus and also bade me admonish you by all means to choose someone as king without delay, and to continue to live under this form of government.' At this announcement all believed and were relieved of their disquietude."
I really want to know. What is the rationale for believing one and rejecting the other? - February 13, 2009 at 9:38 PM
All the early Christians had to do in order to live, was to deny Christ. That's all.
They wouldn't do it. They couldn't do it. - February 14, 2009 at 9:53 PM
- M. Tully said...
I am not sure of your point. Is it that because people believed so much in an idea that they were willing die rather than recant, that the idea must be true?
Going along with that line of thinking, Hindus, Buddhists, and Native Americans have also died rather than renounce their religious beliefs.
Must they all be true, then?
Or were you trying to make a different point that I missed? - February 15, 2009 at 8:00 AM
All the Koreshites had to do in order to live, was to deny Koresh.
Next. - February 15, 2009 at 12:02 PM
- Matt McCormick said...
The notion that some claim is true because there were some people who were so wrapped up in it they were willing to die for it, is just a non-starter. First, we don't really know how committed the disciples and followers of Jesus were to the doctrine. We just have a few fragments of text written decades later about the events based on retellings of retellings of retellings of them. Second, if someone is so consumed by some idea or doctrine that they will die for it is a better indicator of how suspicious it is and how irrational their attachment to it is. That tells me that they've lost all capacity to make rational decisions about it. I'd be much more impressed to see some level of skepticism and caution from them.
MM - February 15, 2009 at 2:17 PM
My point is this.
When Jesus was alive, they (His followers denied Him, deserted Him)
After He was crucified, buried, amd returned to them (after they saw Him)...
these SAME people who were so afraid of losing their lives...now were willing to die for Him.
I haven't chosen to die for Him. But I know that He is real because he has given me new life. He has climed me as His own in baptism and He has given me the faith to believe...othewise, I would never believe in Him of my own will.
I know that many here do not believe. That's ok. I can't, nor do I want to force anyone to believe.
But there may come a time, when you hear from the doctor that you have cancer, or when you are going through a divorce, or when you are gasping for your last breaths on your death bed...there may come a time when yuo will call out for Him. And He will be there for you. He will be there for you. - February 16, 2009 at 8:53 AM
- one billion daleks said...
Hello there Matt!
Just a few general comments, having browsed your blog ...
The i-Magi-Nation enjoys your Atheist blog, it is a most entertaining and stimulating read! Though for myself, I must admit I haven't yet figured out why you spend so much time on blogging, when your worldview seems to by-and-large be modelled on the Dawkins notion that we only exist to propagate our genetic code, then die. I can't see how on earth blogging aids to this end, except in some obtuse and highly diffused manner perhaps.
I wonder too, why Richard Dawkins doesn't simply live according to his worldview, and focus on maximising his input into the gene pool, instead of unneccessarily exposing his genetic endowment to potentially hostile opponents, thus enhancing the likelihood of having his genes prematurely annihilated!
Oh well, perhaps he is some sort of faulty mutation ...
Come to think of it, all multicellular organisms are really faulty mutations, because the most efficient way of propagating and mutating genes has always been the unicellular approach.
Still, determining what is 'faulty' is subjective, and requires an evaluative mechanism, which Nature doesn't possess does it ;)
Anyway, your R2D2 project seems to be progressing very well! daleks use R2D2s for all sorts of things - see picture here.
OK then,
All The Best! :) - February 16, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Come to think of it, all multicellular organisms are really faulty mutations, because the most efficient way of propagating and mutating genes has always been the unicellular approach.
Still, determining what is 'faulty' is subjective, and requires an evaluative mechanism, which Nature doesn't possess does it ;)
Thank you for sharing your scientific ignorance with the world. - February 17, 2009 at 7:01 AM
- one billion daleks said...
Yes Reginald, quite. Apparently you don't realise that such cheap 'point-scoring' diversionary one-liners that attack the person rather than their point-of-view, actually say more about your intellectual capacity, than mine (see, I can do 'em too! ;)
Still, your attempt at intellectual thuggery is most timely, as it pre-empts any inclination on my part to bother participating further. Still, I'm quite content to just be entertained from the sidelines!
So Thank Q! for revealing straightaway, both the quality of demeanour, and the tone of discussion that could be expected here.
Anyway, I will shortly be publishing a critique of Atheism, demonstrating that it is just the latest subjective dogma that attempts to legitimise itself with the cloak of objective science. In a nutshell, Atheism is all about bluff - y'see ...?
So feel free to drop by to further abuse, amuse, and bemuse the i-Magi-Nation - anytime!
All The Best! - February 17, 2009 at 2:08 PM
- Matt S said...
"Anyway, I will shortly be publishing a critique of Atheism, demonstrating that it is just the latest subjective dogma that attempts to legitimise itself with the cloak of objective science. In a nutshell, Atheism is all about bluff - y'see ...?"
Daleks, I was an atheist before I got really into studying the theory of evolution. There's historical resaons for denying jesus and the christian god, plus philosophical reasons for denying all the other gods. We just happen to be into science and perhaps there's a confirmation bias, but I know of studies showing that religious worship is somehow beneficial. The question is though, are those worship activities something that can be done in a secular context, like meditation, or is god really just releasing extra serotonin into baptist preachers' nervous systems? - February 18, 2009 at 5:54 AM
Come to think of it, all multicellular organisms are really faulty mutations, because the most efficient way of propagating and mutating genes has always been the unicellular approach.
Still, determining what is 'faulty' is subjective, and requires an evaluative mechanism, which Nature doesn't possess does it ;)
Yes Reginald, quite. Apparently you don't realise that such cheap 'point-scoring' diversionary one-liners that attack the person rather than their point-of-view, actually say more about your intellectual capacity, than mine (see, I can do 'em too! ;)
Still, your attempt at intellectual thuggery...
I was hoping your errors were obvious enough that I wouldn't have to provide a lengthy elaboration; that if you stopped for a moment's contemplation you might even be able to see the weakness of your own argument. But as they say, life is unfair. So then:
Multicellular vs. unicellular: One obvious mistake in your statement is the assumption that there is only one best way to survive and propagate. Not so. There are many ways to survive in the world. You can be faster, you can have better offensive weaponry (fangs, claws), better defensive weaponry (armor), you can burrow or climb or swim to places your predators cannot, you can use camouflage to hide, you can be poisonous to eat, and advertise this, you can find a food source no one else can reach or utilise, you can wait out conditions no one else can survive, you can put more effort into raising your offspring through the difficulty of being small and vulnerable, etc. If one niche is already occupied, you may be better off finding a new and different one than competing head-to-head with those who have already been refining their game for some time.
As for an evaluative mechanism, Nature most certainly does possess one: Natural Selection. The ones who survive and propagate are the ones whose genes are better represented in ensuing generations. This is so obvious that some have called it a truism, thinking that this is criticism. The idea is very simple, but very profound. The means by which an organism survives and propagates can be any of those mentioned above, or anything else. Survival is not a game with set rules.
In any one example, traits which affect survival may be identified, and in some cases measured with precision, and this has been done repeatedly by various scientists. - February 18, 2009 at 7:14 AM
Anyway, I will shortly be publishing a critique of Atheism, demonstrating that it is just the latest subjective dogma that attempts to legitimise itself with the cloak of objective science. In a nutshell, Atheism is all about bluff - y'see ...?
I expect to see the same quality of argumentation which you have already displayed on the topic of science. Y'see? - February 18, 2009 at 7:16 AM
Other ways to survive, which I didn't think of earlier:
Parasitize off some other organism which is successful. Form a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship with a different organism. Cooperate with others of your kind in a social unit. - February 18, 2009 at 9:21 AM
The origins of multicellularity - John Tyler Bonner, Integrative Biology 1:1 pp 27-36, 7 Jan 1999
Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity - MARTIN E. Boraas, DIANNE B. Seale and JOSEPH E. Boxhorn, Evolutionary Ecology 12:2 pp 153-164, Feb 1998, doi 10.1023/A:1006527528063
An Ecological Theory for the Sudden Origin of Multicellular Life in the Late Precambrian - Steven M. Stanlye, PNAS May 1, 1973 vol. 70 no. 5 1486-1489
Developmental expression of transcription factor genes in a demosponge: insights into the origin of metazoan multicellularity - Claire Larroux, et.al. Evolution & Development 8:2, pp 150-173, 23 Feb 2006.
On the origins and early evolution of multicellularity - A.G. Desnitski, BioSysstems 29, pp 129-132 (1993).
A twelve-step program for evolving multicellularity and a division of labor - David L. Kirk, BioEssays 27:3, pp 299-310, 15 Feb 2005
and on and on. - February 18, 2009 at 11:12 AM
- one billion daleks said...
Thank Q! for your replies.
Now, I don't want to 'hijack' Mr.McCormack's blog as it would be discourteous, so I will respond just the once and leave it at that.
But daleks enjoy a stimulating chat, and discussion can of course be continued in the future on the dalek blogs, if so desired.
So beyond this post, I will limit myself here to just notifying in due course when the dalek critique of Atheism is published.
OK then, onto the points raised!
Matt S ... I should perhaps clarify that daleks are not advocates for any 'religious' viewpoint.
It can be useful to bear in mind, that what is today referred to as 'Religion' was originally a sincere attempt at comprehending the nature of subjective experience, nothing more. Back then, it wasn't 'Religion' at all, it was simply mankind contemplating his place in the scheme of things.
And in that respect, Religion is a precursor to Science, and as such not intrinsically antagonistic. For in it's heyday, Religion was as sincere an endeavour as Science is today. Science has superceded Religion by being a superior explanatory device, that's all.
So from that perspective, the fact that Atheists persistently 'beat up' on Theists has become something of a ritual for them, an act of repeatedly rejecting a paradigm that was long ago proven untenable.
But for daleks, this has become somewhat tiresome!
Though to be fair, Atheists do provide a valuable service, being as it were a vigilant 'front-line' attacking any backsliding into simplistic and demonstrably false religious rationales.
So sure, Atheism is a significant advance on religious rationales, but because it invests so much effort into rejecting it's precursor, it is perhaps blind to it's own shortcomings as an explanatory device. In other words, as a set of concepts, Atheism is so obsessed with looking over it's shoulder distancing itself from what it has left behind, that it seems to have little capacity to critique where it is now.
The forthcoming dalek dissertation challenges Atheism in that light.
Reginald ... if you check back on my original comment, you'll find I said the most efficient way of propagating and mutating genes has always been the unicellular approach. But you are making a case for all sorts of best ways to survive and propagate (and a fine case you have made too, and also refreshing to see that you can come up with more than one-line quips! ;) :)
But there is a vast difference between what I am talking about: "the most efficient way of propagating and mutating genes", and what you are talking about: "best ways to survive and propagate".
So um, I think we may be at cross-purposes!
To elaborate just a little ... what is "best" is highly subjective, and your post ably demonstrates that. "Best-ness" cannot be meaningfully measured outside of whatever specific context it pertains to.
But what is "most efficient" is less subjective, given that efficiency can be measured. And efficiency can also be comparitively measured across different contexts.
Also, unicellular organisms have no impulse to "survive" as such, just mechanisms for evaluating environmental parameters. So for a single-celled entity, the "best way to survive and propagate" as you put it, is a non-issue, they just propagate.
OK then,
All The Best! - February 18, 2009 at 5:55 PM
- one billion daleks said...
Whoops! sorry, I cut'n'paste from the wrong draft, so here the missing section, as an addendum for my post above ...
There are all sorts of "best" ways to acquire money, best being subjectively dependent on what is perceived as least hazardous to a particular expression of genetic code:
Create a profitable business.
Acquire a well-paid job.
Marry someone who is rich.
The most "efficient" way though, is to rob a bank. Sure, it's more brutish and hazardous than the "best" ways, but potentially far far more effective too!
Likewise, when it comes to propagating and mutating genetic code (which is the entire extent of my comment above that you have taken issue with), the unicellular strategy is far far more efficient than the multicellular strategy.
So your statement about my "assumption that there is only one best way to survive and propagate", is in itself an assumption on your part that what I meant by "efficient" was "best". And that I was talking about "survival", which um, I didn't mention at all.
Your post addresses "best ways to survive and propagate", and provides ample illustrative examples to that end. But as such, it is not about the "most efficient ways of propagating and mutating genes" at all.
Quite understandable, but nevertheless a misperception, thus as I say, we appear to be at cross-purposes!
Still, them's the perils of internet discourse for you eh!
All The Best! - February 18, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Likewise, when it comes to propagating and mutating genetic code (which is the entire extent of my comment above that you have taken issue with), the unicellular strategy is far far more efficient than the multicellular strategy.
Now you're suffering from the same lack of detail of which you accuse others. What good does it do to propagate if the progeny do not survive? That is not "efficient." And as for mutating genetic code, once again you need to define "efficient," more mutations is not necessarily better. There may be a different and optimal rate of mutation for each situation. - February 19, 2009 at 7:00 AM
- one billion daleks said...
"What good does it do to propagate if the progeny do not survive?"
Reginald ... you seem to be adopting a rather anthropomorphic position on behalf of reproductive mechanisms there. I mean, are you suggesting that unicellular organisms might be somehow concerned by what is "good" for their genes ...?
I can't help feeling that this line of discussion has um, run out of steam. But Thank Q! Reginald for the interesting chat!
All The Best! - February 19, 2009 at 3:51 PM
I like how the good ole professor here thinks religious people are rational and therefore wrong...isnt that some kind of ad hominem? People can be wrong and still be rational...very bad point sir
- February 20, 2009 at 8:27 AM
- Teleprompter said...
Believers may or may not have rational reasons; but if you read the article, you'd realize why believing some things and not believing other things *is* irrational; namely, that religious believers have a different standard for assessing religion than they do other things in life.
It's irrational because it's such a blatant double standard.
Then once consistency and objectivity are more valued by believers, people should be able to decide on the merits if they should believe something or not. - February 20, 2009 at 2:18 PM
I dont see how believers have a double standard if they do not assent to beliefs by which you or others think are inconsistent with theirs. thats just name calling and not addressing the reasons why these alledged "irrational" believers" have a false view of the world.
- February 20, 2009 at 9:42 PM
- Teleprompter said...
Okay, let me explain further:
The Qur'an makes some claims about the supernatural. The Bible also makes claims about the supernatural.
Why do you believe one book's claims but not the other's?
Simple question.
If you honestly evaluate both, and conclude the one or the other is more reliable, fine. But I sense that you may not have applied the same standard to both books.
You dismiss the Qur'an, but you accept the Bible? Why?
What is your standard?
How do you sort out which claims are believable and which claims are not believable? How you tried to do this at all? - February 21, 2009 at 9:32 AM
ok tele how about I give you the truth value "I" for an answer. thus you have incorrectly assigned a postion to me and other theist as having a double standard. I presume the atheist professor here suffers from logical analysis as well since most of his post draw false dichotomies of relgious peoples beliefs.
but, hypotheically if i believed the koran to be false and the bible to be true, how exactly does that give my position a double standard? The koran is a man altered copy of the bible...what about this explanation gives me a double standard? - February 21, 2009 at 12:05 PM
- Teleprompter said...
Why would you believe that the Qur'an is man-altered but the Bible isn't? That is the question. - February 22, 2009 at 10:49 AM
- Steven Carr said...
'All the early Christians had to do in order to live, was to deny Christ. That's all.'
Galatians 6:12
Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ.
Paul, who was there, says that people were persecuted on the issue of circumcision.
He also says church leaders compromised their beliefs to avoid persecution for the cross (NB not resurrection) of Christ.
Naturally, as the centuries wore on, these people became more and more brave.
By the end of the second century AD, John was being plunged alive into boiling oil , and being unharmed.
Although at the time of writing of Matthew 28:17, it had to be explained that some of them were 'doubters'.
And while Paul and Acts makes no mention of any preaching of almost all these 11 disciples,almost as though they had packed it all in, by the 21st century, these people are now so brave that they would rather be killed than deny Christ.
Probably in another 500 years time, the disciples will have marched on Rome to demonstrate outside Caesar's house their devotion to Christ. - February 26, 2009 at 7:11 AM
- 逆円助 said...
- July 4, 2009 at 5:37 AM
- 精神年齢 said...
- July 6, 2009 at 6:49 AM
最近仕事ばかりで毎日退屈してます。そろそろ恋人欲しいです☆もう夏だし海とか行きたいな♪ firstname.lastname@example.com 連絡待ってるよ☆
- July 17, 2009 at 8:01 AM
- 家出 said...
- July 19, 2009 at 4:24 AM


text:
Service Data Objects (SDOs) enable PHP applications to work with data from different sources (like a database query, an XML file, and a spreadsheet) using a single interface.
Each different kind of data source requires a Data Access Service (DAS) to provide access to the data in the data source. In your PHP application, you use a DAS to create an SDO instance that represents some data in the data source. You can then set and get values in the SDO instance using the standard SDO interface. Finally, you use a DAS to write the modified data back to a data source, typically the same one.
See the list of Data Access Services for details on those currently available. In addition to the provided DASs, SDO also provides interfaces to enable others to be implemented (see the section on SDO Data Access Services Interface for more details).
This extension is derived from concepts taken from the » Service Data Objects specification. It includes a version of the » Apache Tuscany SDO for C++ project.
A Service Data Object instance is made up of a tree of data objects. The tree is defined by containment relationships between the data objects. For example, a Company data object might consist of a number of Department data objects and therefore the Company would have a containment relationship to the Departments.
An SDO may also have non-containment references between data objects in the tree. For example, one Employee data object might reference another Employee to identify a career mentor.
As well as data objects referencing each other, they can also have primitive properties. For example, the Company data object might have a property called "name" of type string, for holding the name of the company (for example, "Acme").
Each of these properties of a data object - containment relationships, non-containment references, or primitive properties - may be many-valued or single-valued. In the above examples, Departments is many-valued and the Company name is single-valued.
In PHP, each SDO data object is represented as a PHP object. The properties of the data object can be accessed using either object syntax or associative array syntax. We'll see some examples of this later.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Here are the contenders for the category of Best Year Round Seasonal Cricut Cartridge of 2010:
1) Martha Stewart Seasonal Cake Art: This full size cartridge has a whopping FOUR fonts, layered word art, cute two layered images and some of those famous Martha borders! Remember these cake cartridges all work all the machines and make beautiful cards. They are not just for cakes!
2) Celebrate with Flourish Lite Cartridge: This is one of my all time favorite cartridges! It has beautiful multi-layered word art and flourishy images for all the holidays. Available only at Walmart and cricut.com.
Subscribe to Obsessed with Scrapbooking to learn more about ways to use the Cricut in your scrapbooking!


text:
WASHINGTON - The nation's vexation over the morality and legality of President Obama's drone war has produced a salutary but hopelessly confused debate. Three categories of questions are being asked. They must be separated to be clearly understood.
1. By what right does the president order the killing by drone of enemies abroad? What criteria justify assassination?
Answer: (a) imminent threat, under the doctrine of self-defense, and (b) affiliation with al-Qaeda, under the laws of war.
Imminent threat is obvious. If we know a freelance jihadist cell in Yemen is actively plotting an attack, we don't have to wait until after the fact. Elementary self-defense justifies attacking first.
Al-Qaeda is a different matter. We are in a mutual state of war. Osama bin Laden issued his fatwa declaring war on the United States in 1996; we reciprocated three days after 9/11 with Congress' Authorization for Use of Military Force - against al-Qaeda and those who harbor and abet it.
Regarding al-Qaeda, therefore, imminence is not required. Its members are legitimate targets, day or night, awake or asleep. Nothing new here. In World War II, we bombed German and Japanese barracks without hesitation.
Unfortunately, Obama's Justice Department memos justifying the drone attacks are hopelessly muddled. They imply that the sole justification for drone attack is imminent threat - and whereas al-Qaeda is plotting all the time, an al-Qaeda honcho sleeping in his bed is therefore a legitimate target.
Nonsense. Slippery nonsense. It gives the impression of an administration making up criteria to fit the president's kill list. No need to confuse categories. A sleeping Anwar al-Awlaki could lawfully be snuffed not because of imminence but because he was self-declared al-Qaeda and thus an enemy combatant as defined by congressional resolution and the laws of war.
2. But Awlaki was no ordinary enemy. He was a U.S. citizen. By what right does the president order the killing by drone of an American? Where's the due process?
Answer: Once you take up arms against the United States, you become an enemy combatant, thereby forfeiting the privileges of citizenship and the protections of the Constitution, including due process. You retain only the protection of the laws of war - no more and no less than those of your foreign comrades-in-arms.
Lincoln steadfastly refused to recognize the Confederacy as a separate nation. The soldiers that his Union Army confronted at Antietam were American citizens (in rebellion) - killed without due process. Nor did the Americans storming German bunkers at Normandy inquire before firing if there were any German-Americans among them - to be excused for gentler treatment while the other Germans were mowed down.
3. Who has the authority to decide life and death targeting?
In war, the ultimate authority is always the commander in chief and those in the lawful chain of command to whom he has delegated such authority.
This looks troubling. Obama sitting alone in the Oval Office deciding what individuals to kill. But how is that different from Lyndon Johnson sitting in his office choosing bombing targets in North Vietnam?
Moreover, we firebombed entire cities in World War II. Who chose? Commanders under the ultimate authority of the president. No judicial review, no outside legislative committee, no secret court, no authority above the president.
OK, you say. But today's war is entirely different: no front line, no end in sight.
So what? It's the jihadists who decided to make the world a battlefield and to wage war in perpetuity. Until they abandon the field, what choice do we have but to carry the fight to them?
We have our principles and precedents for lawful warmaking, and a growing body of case law for the more vexing complexities of the present war - for example, the treatment of suspected terrorists apprehended on U.S. soil. The courts having granted them varying degrees of habeas corpus protection, it is obvious that termination by drone is forbidden - unless Congress and the courts decide otherwise, which, short of a Taliban invasion from New Brunswick, is inconceivable.
Now, for those who believe that the war on terror is not war but law enforcement, (a) I concede that they will find the foregoing analysis to be useless and (b) I assert that they are living on a different and distant planet.
For us earthlings, on the other hand, the case for Obama's drone war is clear. Pity that his Justice Department couldn't make it.


text:
Back In Stock Beetle Parts Beetles Bits on eBay BMW Parts BMW Repairs Car Parts Cars Manufacturers Mini Repairs New Products Out of Stock Private Number Plates Single Items XF Repairs XF Service Generator Spares Generators Pressure Washers Auto Care Building and DIY Air Compressors Air Tools and Fixings Allen Key, Torx and Hex Sets Axes Axle Stands Battery Chargers Bench Grinders and Accessories Blades for Power Tools Bolt Cutters Boxed Consumables Bricklayers Tools Buliders Tools Cable Ties Car Accessories Carpenters Tools Chain Breaker and Riveting Tools Chisels and Punches Circlip Pliers Sets Circular Saw Tct Cutting Blades Clamps Contcrete Breakers Corded Tools Core Drill Bits and Accessories Cutting and Grinding Discs for Power Tools Drill Accessories Drill Bits, Wood, Metal and Masonary Electricians Tools Engineering Measuring Tools Extension and Wobble Bars Extension Lead and Plugs 240v and 100v Farming Machinery Fencing and Screening Files and Finishing Tools Folding Trolleys Garage Equipment Garden and Farm Machinery Generator Sets Gloves for Gardening, Building and DIY Grease Guns Hammers, Sledges, Lump, Claw Health and Safety Heaters Hobbyist Tools Hoists and Block and Tackles Hole Cutting Kits Home Decorating Hooks Picks and Scrapers Invertors DC to AC Jerry and Petrol Cans Jump Packs and Jump Leads Ladders and Steps Lubrication and Greasing Tools Measuring Equipment Miscellaneous Tools Multi-Purpose Tools Multimeters and Testers Must Haves for the Garage Painting and Decorating Parts Washer Petrol/diesel Powered Tools Pick-up Tools Pipe Benders Pliers and Side Cutters Pliers, Side Cutters and Vice Gr Plumbers Tools Polishing Set Power Tools Power Tools Accessories Presses and Heavy Machinery Pressure Washers Pry Bars and Tyre Levers Pumps and Extractors Ramps Ratchet and Tie Down Straps Ratchets Standard and Specialist Replacement Blades Rivet Guns Rope Router Bits Sack Trucks Sanding Discs, Pads and Paper Sash Clamps Saws Scrapers Screwdrivers Screws for Wood and Metal Security Security Padlocks and Hasps Sharpening Tools Slide Hammers Socket and Ratchet Sets Soldering Tools and Equipment Spanner Sets Spray Guns Electric and Air Stamps Staplers and Staples Stilsons and Pipe Wrenches Stud And Screw Extractors Suction Pads, Cups and Pullers Tap and Die Sets Tarpaulins Tool and Storage Boxes Toolboxes Torque Wrenchs Torx, Spline and Allen Key Sets Vices, Engineering and Woodwork Water Pumps Welding Equipment Wheel and Tyre Tools Wheels and Castors Winches and Pullers Windshield Repair Tools Wiring Terminals Wood Drill Bits and Blades Wood Working Tools Work Wear Workbenches Workshop Lighting and Inspection Tools Wrecking Bars Camping, Caravans Christmas Clearance Electronics End of Line Gardening Giftware Health and Beauty Household Leisure Mobile Accessories Pest Control Pets Corner Post and Packing Smokers Delights Toys Travel and Holiday Water Dispensers
Tell someone you know about this product.
Use keywords to find the product you are looking for.Advanced Search
Contact UsDropship WebsitesFrequently Asked QuestionsJobs at DropshiponlineLegal & Privacy NoticeTerms and ConditionsPostage & CouriersWhat is Dropshipping?Warranty & ReturnsWholesale DropshipWholesale
Be Safe, Be Seen.
This waistcoat is the perfect solution for walking the dog at night, cycling, when the car breaks down etc.
made from 100% fluro yellow polyester with high visibility reflective strips around the waist and over the shoulders.
0 items
UK PoundEuroAustralian DollarYen
Notify me of updates to Tool-Tech High Visibility Safety Vest Waistcoat Medium 14580


text:
Can Ye Feel So Now?
Some in the Church believe they can't answer Alma's question with a resounding yes. They do not "feel so now."
President Monson, we love, honor, and sustain you! This historically significant announcement with respect to missionary service is inspiring. I can remember the excitement in 1960 when the age for young men serving was reduced from 20 years of age to 19. I arrived in the British Mission as a newly called 20-year-old. The first 19-year-old in our mission was Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, an incredible addition. He was a few months shy of being 20. Then over the course of a year, many more 19-year-olds arrived. They were obedient and faithful missionaries, and the work progressed. I am confident that an even greater harvest will be achieved now as righteous, committed missionaries fulfill the Savior's commandment to preach His gospel.
In my view, those of you in the rising generation are better prepared than any previous generation. Your knowledge of the scriptures is particularly impressive. However, the challenges your generation faces as you prepare for service are similar to those faced by all members of the Church. We are all aware the culture in most of the world is not conducive to righteousness or spiritual commitment. Throughout history, Church leaders have warned the people and taught repentance. In the Book of Mormon, Alma the Younger was so concerned about unrighteousness and lack of commitment that he resigned as chief judge, the leader of the people of Nephi, and concentrated all his efforts on his prophetic calling.1
In one of the most profound verses in all of scripture, Alma proclaims, "If ye have experienced a change of heart, and if ye have felt to sing the song of redeeming love, I would ask, can ye feel so now?"2
Local leaders across the world report that when viewed as a whole, Church members, especially our youth, have never been stronger. But they almost always raise two concerns: first, the challenge of increased unrighteousness in the world and, second, the apathy and lack of commitment of some members. They seek counsel about how to help members to follow the Savior and achieve a deep and lasting conversion.
This question, "Can ye feel so now?" rings across the centuries. With all that we have received in this dispensation—including the Restoration of the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the outpouring of spiritual gifts, and the indisputable blessings of heaven—Alma's challenge has never been more important.
Soon after Ezra Taft Benson was called as an Apostle in 1943, President George Albert Smith3 counseled, "Your mission … is to … warn the people … in as kind a way as possible that repentance will be the only panacea for the ills of this world."4 When this statement was made, we were in the midst of the conflagration of World War II.
Today moral deterioration has escalated. One prominent writer recently said, "Everyone knows the culture is poisonous, and nobody expects that to change."5 The constant portrayal of violence and immorality in music, entertainment, art, and other media in our day-to-day culture is unprecedented. This was dramatically described by a highly respected Baptist theologian when he stated, "The spiritual immune system of an entire civilization has been wounded."6
It is not surprising that some in the Church believe they can't answer Alma's question with a resounding yes. They do not "feel so now." They feel they are in a spiritual drought. Others are angry, hurt, or disillusioned. If these descriptions apply to you,7 it is important to evaluate why you cannot "feel so now."
Many who are in a spiritual drought and lack commitment have not necessarily been involved in major sins or transgressions, but they have made unwise choices. Some are casual in their observance of sacred covenants. Others spend most of their time giving first-class devotion to lesser causes. Some allow intense cultural or political views to weaken their allegiance to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Some have immersed themselves in Internet materials that magnify, exaggerate, and, in some cases, invent shortcomings of early Church leaders. Then they draw incorrect conclusions that can affect testimony. Any who have made these choices can repent and be spiritually renewed.
Immersion in the scriptures is essential for spiritual nourishment.8 The word of God inspires commitment and acts as a healing balm for hurt feelings, anger, or disillusionment.9 When our commitment is diminished for any reason, part of the solution is repentance.10 Commitment and repentance are closely intertwined.
C. S. Lewis, the striving, pragmatic Christian writer, poignantly framed the issue. He asserted that Christianity tells people to repent and promises them forgiveness; but until people know and feel they need forgiveness, Christianity does not speak to them. He stated, "When you know you are sick, you will listen to the doctor."11
The Prophet Joseph pointed out that before your baptism, you could be on neutral ground between good and evil. But "when you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left the neutral ground, and you never can [go] back." His counsel was that we must never forsake the Master.12
Alma emphasizes that through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, "the arms of mercy are extended" to those who repent.13 He then asks penetrating and ultimate questions, such as: Are we prepared to meet God? Are we keeping ourselves blameless? We should all contemplate these questions. Alma's own experience in failing to follow his faithful father and then coming to a dramatic understanding of how much he needed forgiveness and what it meant to sing the song of redeeming love is powerful and compelling.
While anything that lessens commitment is of consequence, two relevant challenges are both prevalent and significant. The first is unkindness, violence, and domestic abuse. The second is sexual immorality and impure thoughts. These often precede and are at the root of the choice to be less committed.
How we treat those closest to us is of fundamental importance. Violence, abuse, lack of civility, and disrespect in the home are not acceptable—not acceptable for adults and not acceptable for the rising generation. My father was not active in the Church but was a remarkably good example, especially in his treatment of my mother. He used to say, "God will hold men responsible for every tear they cause their wives to shed." This same concept is emphasized in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." It reads, "[Those] who abuse spouse or offspring … will one day stand accountable before God."14 Regardless of the culture in which we are raised, and whether our parents did or did not abuse us, we must not physically, emotionally, or verbally abuse anyone else.15
The need for civility in society has never been more important. The foundation of kindness and civility begins in our homes. It is not surprising that our public discourse has declined in equal measure with the breakdown of the family. The family is the foundation for love and for maintaining spirituality. The family promotes an atmosphere where religious observance can flourish. There is indeed "beauty all around when there's love at home."16
Sexual immorality and impure thoughts violate the standard established by the Savior.17 We were warned at the beginning of this dispensation that sexual immorality would be perhaps the greatest challenge.18 Such conduct will, without repentance, cause a spiritual drought and loss of commitment. Movies, TV, and the Internet often convey degrading messages and images. President Dieter F. Uchtdorf and I were recently in an Amazon jungle village and observed satellite dishes even on some of the small, simply built huts. We rejoiced at the wonderful information available in this remote area. We also recognized there is virtually no place on earth that cannot be impacted by salacious, immoral, and titillating images. This is one reason why pornography has become such a plague in our day.
I recently had an insightful conversation with a 15-year-old Aaronic Priesthood holder. He helped me understand how easy it is in this Internet age for young people to almost inadvertently be exposed to impure and even pornographic images. He pointed out that for most principles the Church teaches, there is at least some recognition in society at large that violating these principles can have devastating effects on health and well-being. He mentioned cigarette smoking, drug use, and alcohol consumption by young people. But he noted that there is no corresponding outcry or even a significant warning from society at large about pornography or immorality.
My dear brothers and sisters, this young man's analysis is correct. What is the answer? For years, prophets and apostles have taught the importance of religious observance in the home.19
Parents, the days are long past when regular, active participation in Church meetings and programs, though essential, can fulfill your sacred responsibility to teach your children to live moral, righteous lives and walk uprightly before the Lord. With President Monson's announcement this morning, it is essential that this be faithfully accomplished in homes which are places of refuge where kindness, forgiveness, truth, and righteousness prevail. Parents must have the courage to filter or monitor Internet access, television, movies, and music. Parents must have the courage to say no, defend truth, and bear powerful testimony. Your children need to know that you have faith in the Savior, love your Heavenly Father, and sustain the leaders of the Church. Spiritual maturity must flourish in our homes. My hope is that no one will leave this conference without understanding that the moral issues of our day must be addressed in the family. Bishops and priesthood and auxiliary leaders need to support families and make sure that spiritual principles are taught. Home and visiting teachers can assist, especially with children of single parents.
The young man I mentioned earnestly asked if the Apostles knew how early in life teaching and protecting against pornography and impure thoughts should start. With emphasis, he stated that in some areas even before youth graduate from Primary is not too early.
Youth who have been exposed to immoral images at a very early age are terrified that they may have already disqualified themselves for missionary service and sacred covenants. As a result, their faith can be severely impaired. I want to assure you young people, as Alma taught, that through repentance you can qualify for all the blessings of heaven.20 That is what the Savior's Atonement is all about. Please talk with your parents or a trusted adviser, and counsel with your bishop.
When it comes to morality, some adults believe that adherence to a single, overriding humanitarian project or principle nullifies the need to comply with the Savior's teachings. They say to themselves that sexual misconduct is "a small thing … [if I am] a kind and charitable person."21 Such thinking is a gross self-deception. Some young people inform me that in our current culture it is not "cool" to try too hard in many areas, including living strictly in accordance with righteous principles.22 Please do not fall into this trap.
At baptism we promise to take upon us "the name of [Jesus] Christ, having [the] determination to serve him to the end."23 Such a covenant requires courageous effort, commitment, and integrity if we are to continue to sing the song of redeeming love and stay truly converted.
A historic example of commitment to be strong and immovable for all ages was portrayed by a British Olympian who competed in the 1924 Olympics in Paris, France.
Eric Liddell was the son of a Scottish missionary to China and a devoutly religious man. He infuriated the British leadership of the Olympics by refusing, even under enormous pressure, to run in a preliminary 100-meter race held on Sunday. Ultimately he was victorious in the 400-meter race. Liddell's example of refusing to run on Sunday was particularly inspiring.
Depictions and memorials in his honor have referred to the inspirational words from Isaiah, "But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint."24
Liddell's admirable conduct was very influential in our youngest son's decision to not participate in Sunday sports and, more importantly, to separate himself from unrighteous and worldly conduct. He used the quote from Isaiah for his yearbook contribution. Eric Liddell left a powerful example of determination and commitment to principle.
As our youth follow President Monson's counsel by preparing to serve missions, and as we all live the principles the Savior taught and prepare to meet God,25 we win a much more important race.26 We will have the Holy Ghost as our guide for spiritual direction. For any whose lives are not in order, remember, it is never too late to make the Savior's Atonement the foundation of our faith and lives.27
In the words of Isaiah, "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."28
My sincere prayer is that each of us will take any necessary action to feel the Spirit now so we can sing the song of redeeming love with all our hearts. I testify of the power of the Savior's Atonement, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.


text:
Professional Mattress Disposal in Alliance, NE
Mattress disposal services in Alliance, NE are exactly what you need when it comes to getting rid of the old mattress in your home. No matter what size mattress you have, it is very important that you hire professionals for the disposal work, because doing it yourself will take quite a bit of time and effort. If you would rather save yourself a lot of hard work, you will definitely want to start looking into our Alliance mattress disposal services right away.
One of the best things about Alliance mattress disposal services is that you will be able to get rid of your mattress quickly and without having to do any work yourself. Our professionals will show up at your home at a time of your choosing so you won't be inconvenienced in the slightest. Our Alliance mattress disposal professionals have large vehicles that can fit mattresses of any size, so transportation will not be an issue. When you call up one of our professionals, they can give you a free, accurate estimate for the amount that you will pay based on the size of the mattress. Mattress disposal services in Alliance, NE are usually both inexpensive and incredibly helpful for anyone with a mattress they need to get rid of.
AVC Costs For Mattress Disposal Companies
($51) ($184) ($349)What zipcode do you need Mattress Disposal Companies in?
Start Here, It's Free
What type of service you would like?


text:
What to Know Before You Hang a Flat Screen TV
If you've ever been to Graceland, you've undoubtedly seen the TV room with its three televisions built into the wall. Back in the 60s you had to be the King of Rock n' Roll to have such a groovy setup. Now you can buy everything you need to do this while shopping for groceries at the local discount warehouse. Not only that, your wall-hung TV can do something Elvis' never could: It can move. Hanging a flat screen TV really is no biggie, but before you get lost in dreams of kicking back on your overstuffed sectional to catch some Bonanza reruns, read these important considerations to make sure you get the installation right.
Mounting Hardware
The big "hanger" that actually mounts your set to the wall is a TV mounting bracket. These can range from $50 to upwards of $250, but you absolutely have to have one. Don't try to hang your TV with anything else. There are three basic types of TV mounting brackets:
- Flush-mount tends to be the slimmest and can get your TV within 1/2 inch or so of the wall. However, it doesn't allow for any movement.
- Tilting brackets let you tilt the TV down a limited amount; they don't tilt upward from 90 degrees. This is an ok option if you watch from both seated and standing positions (or from another room) and don't need side-to-side movement.
- Full-motion brackets tilt down as well as rotate from side to side—some up to 90 degrees. They also pull out from the wall, which is required for side rotation.
When choosing a bracket, make sure it's compatible with your TV and meets its weight requirements. Features you'll pay extra for include:
- mobility (titling angles and rotation capability)
- depth of mount (how far the bracket sticks out from the wall)
- continuous adjustment (some tilt models have just a few preset positions; others are infinitely adjustable within the tilt range)
- and, of course, general quality.
Some full-motion brackets have bodies that recess into the wall cavity. The bracket arms collapse into the body so the TV can be pushed nearly flush to the wall. Make sure any bracket has some voids within its framework for running cables straight back from the TV into the wall, or for adding a wall receptacle or connection box.
TV Location
LCD screens have gotten a lot better over the years regarding viewing angle, but they still look best when viewed straight on. That means your viewing position should dictate where the TV goes. (If the best spot isn't good Feng Shui, you'll have to take that up with your spiritual advisor) Most people prefer to watch TV at eye level so that the middle or upper third of the screen is level with your eyeballs when you're in your favorite chair. A set that's too low can feel like a back-row seat at a multiplex theater, while having it too high is like watching TV at an airport.
The right mounting bracket makes the all-important placement question a lot easier to answer. And there's one more thing about location: You have to mount the bracket into two wall studs, or at least one stud and heavy-duty hollow-wall anchors (like toggle bolts), which is recommended for small TVs only. Use a stud finder or a nail and hammer to find and mark the studs before settling on a final mounting location.
Cables and Connectivity
I wouldn't dare attempt to advise anyone on the latest equipment for TV connectivity and controls. There are plenty of better sources for that, such as cnet.com, a good sales staffer at an electronics store, or an electrician. But no matter what you use for hookups, you'll have to run some cables. At the very least, the TV will need a power cord and a connecting cable from an A/V receiver or an HDMI switcher. Huh?
Don't worry; you'll sort that out at the electronics store. For now, all you need to know is that a receiver or switcher allows you to plug multiple devices (DVR, cable/satellite box, audio equipment, gaming console, etc.) into one "box," then run a single HDMI cable (which carries both picture and sound) to the TV. This makes it easier to install the TV and hide the cables, and it solves the common problem of having more devices than inputs for them on the TV.
When wall-mounting a flat screen, you simply have to hide the cables; plastic cords running down the wall is bad tech Shui. The cleanest installation is to run the cables into a special receptacle box installed within the footprint of the TV's mounting bracket. The cables snake down the wall cavity and come out at another receptacle located behind the furniture housing your other A/V equipment.
Alternatively, you can install a regular electrical receptacle behind the TV and run just the A/V or HDMI cable down the wall. It's against the building code in most areas to run a TV's power cord inside a wall. The other option is to hide the cables inside a cable raceway, an enclosed plastic track that mounts to the wall surface. This installation is easy, and you can paint the track to match your wall color. If you don't own your home, a raceway is the way to go.
Viewer Knows Best
Flat screen TVs allow for installation options that Graceland's remodelers never could have dreamed of, but just because you can mount your TV almost anywhere doesn't mean you should. Keep in mind that a TV is for watching, not for fitting into a decorating scheme. Take the time to test-drive different viewing positions to make sure the placement provides a good, comfortable view as well as versatility for multiple viewing situations. Mounting a TV requires at least three people—two to hold the TV against the wall and one to watch, literally.
Photo credit: Seattle electrician Stephen Klineburger mounts a flat screen TV. Photo by Wonderlane/Flickr Creative Commons
Phil Schmidt writes for Networx.com.
Updated January 17, 2018.
Looking for a Pro? Call us(866) 441-6648


text:
Who hosted a little soirée (pronounced "SWAR-ee") on Thursday evening:
It's not just the excellent coffee, food, and beer that make Café Domestique a great place to visit. Nor is it the extensive collection of laminated passes, which some say is the largest in North America:
Nor is it the Canadian cycling memorabilia:
Nor even the abundance vintage bike porn:
No, what really sets Café Domestique apart is that there's a portrait of Mario Cipollini in the ladies' room:
By the way, on the other side of that wall is Cipo himself wielding a hand drill, and any moment one of those eyes is going to start following you mysteriously, like one of those paintings in "Scooby Doo."
Best of all, when you return to the restroom nine months later, you'll be able to use the changing table:
And as your child who bears an uncanny resemblance to a certain flamboyant Italian sprinter continues to grow, he or she will even be able to enjoy a snack at the 650c childrens' table, or draw on the big blackboard in the backyard while you drink coffee or beer:
If you've never been to Café Domestique I highly recommend a visit, and if I lived in Hamilton (or, more specifically, Dundas) I'd glom onto their Internet every day to write this blog and let my seventeen children run wild all over the establishment.
Anyway, after the mountain bike ride I packed up my essentials:
And headed to McMaster for the talk:
Always just a few
Soon, people assembled in a hall that would have been perfect for a sermon on the Almighty Lobster's Greatness:
However, this being a university, we stuck to more worldly topics, which mostly involved professor Egan asking me intelligent questions to which I responded with stupid answers. Then a helment debate threatened to emerge, at which point people began pelting me with poutine, and we finally adjourned over to Bryan Prince Bookseller:
Ostensibly I was there to sign books, but the real draw turned out to be the Microsoft marketing team in the background, who are busy giving away free pita. (I refused, since I don't take "blood pita." There's no such thing as a free lunch.)
And finally, on my way out of town, I had a run-in with a Canadian salmon:
A sincere thank you to Michael Egan, Café Domestique, Bryan Prince Bookseller, and all who took the time to stop by.
Lastly, speaking of helments, this past weekend the New York Times published this:


text:
Confidence in the U.S. job market has rebounded to roughly a normal level from its record low after the Great Recession, a trend that could help boost the economy.
Americans increasingly feel they could find a new job if necessary, according to the results of the 2012 General Social Survey, a long-standing poll of public opinion. And fear of being laid off dropped last year from its 2010 peak to roughly its average for the 35 years the question has been asked.
The percentage of Americans who said it would be somewhat or very easy to find a job if they lost theirs rose to 54 percent last year from 46 percent in 2010. The 2010 figure was the lowest since 1983, when the United States was also emerging from a deep recession. On average in the survey's history, about 58 percent of respondents have said it would be very or somewhat easy to find a job.
As layoffs have declined, fewer Americans fear losing their job. Last year, 11 percent of adults thought it was somewhat or very likely that they'd lose theirs. That was down from a record-high 16 percent in 2010. And it matches the 11 percent average the survey has found since it began asking the question.
Americans may be feeling even more secure now than when the survey was taken last year. The number of layoffs fell in January to the lowest level in the 12 years the government has tracked the data. Fewer people are seeking unemployment benefits.
And employers have stepped up hiring, though the job gains slowed in March. Employers added nearly 2.2 million jobs in 2012, an average of about 180,000 a month. That's enough to slowly lower the unemployment rate.
Even though the rate remains high at 7.6 percent, greater confidence among those who have a job could encourage more consumer spending and boost economic growth.
"If you're not afraid of being laid off, you're going to spend more of your money," said Drew Matus, an economist at UBS.
The General Social Survey has been conducted roughly every two years since 1972. The survey is a project of the independent research organization NORC at the University of Chicago, with primary funding from the National Science Foundation.
From mid-March through September last year, 1,975 adults were asked about their financial situation and their feelings about the job market. The survey's margin of error was plus or minus 2.2 percentage points. The results were only recently made available.
The survey found that confidence in the economy varied by education. Those with college degrees felt more job security than those with less education. And since the recession ended in June 2009, Americans with a college education have reported greater improvement in confidence than have those with high school degrees or less.
Only 6 percent of college-educated Americans said in 2012 that it was somewhat or very likely that they'd lose their job. That was down from 10 percent in 2010.
Those with high school degrees were also more confident in 2012: Twelve percent of this group feared losing their job, down from 19 percent two years earlier.
But Americans with less than a high school degree reported little change: 26 percent felt it was somewhat or very likely they would be laid off in 2012, about on par with the 29 percent who felt so in 2010.
On whether it would be somewhat or very easy to find another job, 59 percent of those with college degrees said so, up from 52 percent in 2010. Among high school graduates, that figure rose to 53 percent last year from 43 percent in 2010.
Those without a high school degree still lack confidence: Only 40 percent said it would be somewhat or very easy to find new work, essentially unchanged from the 41 percent who said so in 2010.
Among the survey's other findings:
— Fewer Americans say their financial situation has worsened in the past few years, though the proportion remains high. A record 37 percent of Americans in 2010 said their finances had deteriorated. In 2012, that figure fell to 30 percent, still the second-highest on record.
— More Americans define themselves as in the "lower class" than at any time since 1972. A record 8 percent classified themselves as lower class in 2012, the same as in 2010. That compares with the record low of 4 percent in 1985.
— The proportion of Americans who expect their children to be somewhat or much worse off financially than they are was 20 percent in 2012, compared with 18 percent in 2010. The figure is slightly below the record level of 22 percent in 1996.
Follow Chris Rugaber on Twitter at httpss://Twitter.com/ChrisRugaber
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright 2013 Capitol Hill Blue


text:
Cole Hamels vs. Matt Cain.
COMMENTS: The NLCS moves to San Francisco for a trio of games, which should give SoSG regulars even more of a chance to tap into their ample resources of hate-filled vitriol. With every crowd shot of a Giants fan sipping his chardonnay with his pinky sticking out and his sweater tied over his shoulders, channeling that anger and hate into dreams of Giants suffering should be easy to do. So follow the words of Yoda--and CHANNEL THAT HATE AS STRONG AS YOU CAN. (At least, I believe that's the sentiment that the Jedi master was trying to convey. My recollection of Dagobah is a little murky, however.)
Like Yoda himself, let's hope the Phillies use this Cain for a lot of walks this afternoon. (10 years in purgatory for that one, I know.)


text:
By visiting the website QtCentre.org, viewing, accessing or otherwise using any of the services or information created, collected, compiled or submitted to QtCentre.org, you agree to be bound by the following Terms and Conditions of Service. If you do not want to be bound by our Terms your only option is not to visit, view or otherwise use the services of QtCentre.org. You understand, agree and acknowledge that these Terms constitute a legally binding agreement between you and Qt Centre Foundation and that your use of QtCentre.org shall indicate your conclusive acceptance of this agreement.
When you submit content to QtCentre.org you simultaneously grant Qt Centre Foundation an irrevocable, worldwide, royalty free license to publish, display, modify, distribute and syndicate your content worldwide. You confirm and warrant that you have the required authority to grant the above license to QtCentre.org.
Unless stated otherwise by the author all code published on this site is public domain and can be used by anyone for anything without any affiliation to the original author.
You understand and agree that your use of QtCentre.org is entirely at your own risk and that our services are provided "As Is" and "As Available". Qt Centre Foundation does not make any express or implied warranties, endorsements or representations whatsoever as to the operation of the QtCentre.org website, information, content, materials, or products. This shall include, but not be limited to, implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement, and warranties that access to or use of the service will be uninterrupted or error-free or that defects in the service will be corrected.
You understand and agree that Qt Centre Foundation and any of its subsidiaries or affiliates (including registered members of the site) shall in no event be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, or exemplary damages. This shall include, but not be limited to damages for loss of profits, business interruption, business reputation or goodwill, loss of programs or information or other intangible loss arising out of the use of or the inability to use the service, or information, or any permanent or temporary cessation of such service or access to information, or the deletion or corruption of any content or information, or the failure to store any content or information. The above limitation shall apply whether or not Qt Centre Foundation has been advised of or should have been aware of the possibility of such damages. In jurisdictions where the exclusion or limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages is not allowed the liability of Qt Centre Foundation is limited to the greatest extent permitted by law.
QtCentre.org may include hyperlinks to third-party content, advertising or websites. You acknowledge and agree that Qt Centre Foundation is not responsible for and does not endorse any advertising, products or resource available from such resources or websites.
Qt Centre Foundation reserves the right to modify these Terms from time to time at our sole discretion and without any notice. Changes to our Terms become effective on the date they are posted and your continued use of QtCentre.org after any changes to Terms will signify your agreement to be bound by them.
All things not covered by this document are subject to regulations of the Code of Law of Republic of Poland, regulations of European Union and statute of Qt Centre Foundation.
You expressly understand and agree to submit to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the country, state, province or territory determined solely by Qt Centre Foundation to resolve any legal matter arising from this agreement or related to your use of QtCentre.org. If the court of law having jurisdiction, rules that any provision of the agreement is invalid, then that provision will be removed from the Terms and the remaining Terms will continue to be valid.


text:
The International Activity badge (#00144) was a 3-inch diameter patch which was worn as a TEMPORARY EMBLEM on the right pocket of the Scout or Scouter. It was awarded to recognize participation in unit, council, and world scouting international activities. It was NOT worn in place of or alongside the World Crest emblem. There was also a 5-inch jacket patch (#00145) available.
Each local Council had the authority to determine requirements for the patch. There was no time restriction for earning the patch.
Below are some examples of the criteria which had been established for this patch:
One local Councils' requirements were as follows:
- The unit leader, or his designee, determines eligibility.
- From among the 3 categories, a registered youth or adult must earn 100 points.
- Category I (40 points each)
- Earn the interpreter Strip
- Earn the Citizenship in the World Merit Badge
- Conduct an international project such as UNICEF, United Nations Day, etc.
- Participate in a BSA event with a World Brotherhood theme such as Expo, Day Camp, Summer Camp or Camporee.
- Visit a Cub Scout group or a Boy Scout group in another country.
- Host a Scout or Scouter from another country.
- Category II (20 points each)
- Participate in Jamboree-On-The-Air, or similar Scouting program.
- Participate in an international theme program at a troop or pack meeting.
- Visit an international organization, embassy or World Bank and learn more about what they do.
- Visit an international civic club and learn about their international activities.
- Assist at an IVIS (International Visitors Information Service) booth at a train or bus station or at an airport.
- Participate in the Cub Scouting or Boy Scouts Pen Pal Program.
- Collect international Scout badges, pins or Scouts on Stamps and display at a troop, pack, or other Scout meeting.
- Participate in a collection for Scouting¹s World Friendship Fund.
- Earn the Cub Scout or Boy Scout World Conservation Award.
- Category III (60 points each)
- Attend/participate in a World Jamboree in another country or a BSA sponsored Scouting Tour in another country.
- Cub Scouts only: be able to converse in a foreign language.
Here is what another Council required:
The International Activity Patch is awarded to youth and adult members who participate in International activities. The Council International Committee has defined this as:
- Participate in a minimum of seven days of international events. This may be cumulative; participation does not have to be at one single event. (mainly for older scouts who travel internationally or host international Scouting visitors)
- Participate in three, separate International Scouting events of at least one day's duration. (For Cubs, events like JOTA, JOTI, and Den supervised e-mail or snail mail pen-pal projects with non-USA units to qualify.)
And here's a third:
In order to wear the International Activity emblem, a pack, den, post, crew, patrol, troop or individual must meet one of the following requirements:
- Participate as a member of your unit or a contingent unit in an activity outside of the United States. This must have a minimum duration of three days and two nights.
- Participate as a member of your unit or individually host a group or individual scout from another country during their visit to the United States. This must have a minimum duration of one day and night.
- Participate in a camporee or scheduled event in which scouts of other nations are involved. This must have a minimum of three days and two nights.
- Serve as a counselor in the European Camp Staff program.
For information on the requirements for the International Spirit Award, which replaced this patch, Click here.


text:
KONI® Street Shocks
Posted by vw0297
- (1993 - 1998 Volkswagen Jetta)
Been about two weeks since I installed these koni's on my 95 jetta. I had tokico blues on previously, and the koni's are way smoother. No bottoming, unlike the blues. Love these shocks, can't wait to get a set for the rear.
KONI® Street Shocks
Posted by dolby356
- (1997 - 1999 Acura CL 2.2)
Great Value. These shocks will smooth out my ride, and won't kill my wallet.
KONI® Sport Shocks
Posted by Hobby78
- (1995 - 1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse)
My son was very happy with his new shocks. Thank you TunersDepot!!
KONI® Heavy Track Shocks
Posted by brian_Z
- (1985 - 2004 GMC Safari)
Take 3 weeks to arrive my door. But the shocks were great and Tunersdepot keep me inform of my order status. I'm still a happy customer.
KONI® Sport Shocks
Posted by palu669_w
- (1996 - 1998 Volkswagen Golf)
Just got these Koni shock install today and they fit well with improve body roll. Great!!


text:
Tens of thousands of people marched to the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial and down the National Mall on Saturday, commemorating the 50th anniversary of King's famous speech and pledging that his dream includes equality for gays, Latinos, the poor and the disabled.
The event was an homage to a generation of activists that endured fire hoses, police abuse and indignities to demand equality for African Americans. But there was a strong theme of unfinished business.
"This is not the time for nostalgic commemoration," said Martin Luther King III, the oldest son of the slain civil rights leader. "Nor is this the time for self-congratulatory celebration. The task is not done. The journey is not complete. We can and we must do more."
Eric Holder, the nation's first black attorney general, said he would not be in office, nor would Barack Obama be president, without those who marched.
"They marched in spite of animosity, oppression and brutality because they believed in the greatness of what this nation could become and despaired of the founding promises not kept," Holder said.
Holder mentioned gays and Latinos, women and the disabled as those who had yet to fully realize the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream. Others in the crowd advocated organized labor, voting rights, revamping immigration policies and access to local post offices.
Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., the only surviving speaker from the 1963 March on Washington, railed against a recent Supreme Court decision that effectively erased a key anti-discrimination provision of the Voting Rights Act. Lewis was a leader of a 1965 march, where police beat and gassed marchers who demanded access to voting booths.
"I gave a little blood on that bridge in Selma, Ala., for the right to vote," he said. "I am not going to stand by and let the Supreme Court take the right to vote away from us. You cannot stand by. You cannot sit down. You've got to stand up. Speak up, speak out and get in the way."
Organizers expected about 100,000 people to participate in the event, the precursor to the actual anniversary of the Aug. 28, 1963, march that drew some 250,000 to the National Mall and ushered in the idea of massive, nonviolent demonstrations.
Marchers began arriving early Saturday, many staking out their spots as the sun rose in a clear sky over the Capitol. By midday, tens of thousands had gathered on the National Mall.
Lynda Chambers, 58, gave up a day's pay to attend because her retail job does not provide paid vacation. Even as a 7-year-old at the time of the original march, she felt alienated and deprived of her rights. Remembering those feelings, she said, she was compelled to make the trip Saturday.
"I wanted to have some sort of connection to what I have always known, as far as being a black person," she said.
Longtime activist Al Sharpton, now a MSNBC host, implored young black men to respect women and reminded them that two of the leading figures in the civil rights movement of the 1960s were women.
"Rosa Parks wasn't no ho," he said. "And Fannie Lou Hamer wasn't no bitch."
Speakers frequently mentioned persistent high unemployment among blacks, which is about twice that of white Americans, and the acquittal of George Zimmerman for the shooting death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin in Florida. Along the Mall, Martin's picture was nearly as ubiquitous as King's.
Nancy Norman, of Seattle, said she was disappointed more people who look like her had not attended. She is white. But the 58-year-old she said she was glad to hear climate change discussed alongside voting rights.
"I'm the kind of person who thinks all of those things are interconnected. Climate change is at the top of my list," said Norman. "I don't think it's one we can set aside for any other discussion."
Those in attendance arrived in a post-9/11 Washington that was very different from the one civil rights leaders visited in 1963.
Then, people crowded the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and could get close to King to hear his "I Have a Dream" speech. Saturday's speakers also were on the memorial's steps, but metal barriers kept people away from the reflecting pool and only a small group of attendees was allowed near the memorial Saturday.
There was a media area and VIP seating. Everyone else had been pushed back and watched and listened to the speeches on big-screen televisions. Police were stationed atop the Lincoln Memorial. After the speeches, marchers walked from there, past the King Memorial, then down the National Mall to the Washington Monument, a distance of just over a mile.
On the day of the anniversary, President Barack Obama will speak from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. He will be joined by former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Churches and groups have been asked to ring bells at 3 p.m. Wednesday, marking the exact time King spoke.
Joseph Lowery, who founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference along with King, urged the crowd to continue working for King's ideals.
"We've come to Washington to commemorate," the 92-year-old civil rights leader said, "and we're going home to agitate."
Follow Suzanne Gamboa at https://www.twitter.com/APsgamboa
Copyright © 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2013 Capitol Hill Blue


text:
Imagine enough water to fill a couple of Great Lakes, but spread under some of the driest parts of eight Western states. That was the High Plains Aquifer 60 years ago.
But now, Nate Pike, whose been riding the dry rolling ranch lands south of Dodge City, Kan., for most of his 80 years, can't even go fishing at his favorite spring called St. Jacob's Well.
"And that thing had a lot of water in it. It never went down, never changed," he says. "But as you can see now, I can't believe I can't see the water from up here."
Pike blames it on new pumping and irrigation systems. These tools made it easy for farmers to extract billions of gallons from it, and use it to grow lucrative crops on the arid land. An agricultural gold rush of sorts followed, transforming the regional economy, but also drying up wells.
An irrigation well near Copeland, Kan., run by Jesse Garetson, pumps 1,000 gallons per minute, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. There are about 39,000 other irrigation wells in Kansas. If you want a visual for that much water, picture Niagara Falls.
In 2011, Kansas wells sucked out enough water to keep Niagara Falls thundering full force for three weeks.
That calibrated deluge has sprouted a vibrant economy on this arid land. In drought years, like this one, farmers could barely grow anything here. Now, with irrigation, Garetson says, they can grow just about everything.
"We've raised potatoes," he says, "we've had peaches, cotton, corn, milo, wheat, soybeans."
All the corn grown out here supplies ethanol plants and feeds dairy cows, pigs and cattle. The livestock support a big meatpacking industry — all thanks to this one resource.
The water is "more precious than gold," Garetson says.
And, like gold, this water is not renewable. Most of that torrent farmers are pumping out sat trapped under the prairie for millions of years.
"Yeah, we're mining it, because once you hit a gold vein in a mine and you get all the gold that's in that vein, you're through with that mine," Garetson says.
Parts of this water mine are not playing out evenly, Garetson says. But in some spots, the water table has plunged more than 100 feet. Wells are running dry, and tensions are rising. Garetson is suing to protect his water rights.
"It does nothing but create neighbor problems," he says. "We, producers, perceive as long as there's water, we're pumping; it's a free-for-all."
And neighbors know it. Anthony Stevenson, who farms near Ulysses, Kan., knows his neighbors pump his water, and he pumps their water. " 'Cause they're hooked in the same reservoir," he says. "If he don't pump it, I will."
But Stevenson waters more judiciously these days. His irrigation system is efficient, delivering water to the base of his lush, 8-foot-tall plants. And this year, Stevenson planted only half his field in corn. His well produces just half the water it once did, and the lingering drought isn't helping.
"We can't out-pump a drought," Stevenson says. "We can't out-pump Mother Nature. Our wells aren't big enough."
Stevenson is gradually farming more like people did in Kansas before irrigation: Growing more wheat, less corn and letting dry fields sit fallow a full year between plantings to collect moisture. But his income is taking a serious hit.
The aquifer's decline hasn't gone unnoticed. Wayne Bossert runs one of the state's four groundwater management districts. Kansas stopped new development on parts of the aquifer 30 years ago, he says.
"So we prevented it from getting any worse a long time ago," Bossert says.
In 2012, Kansas began enforcing very stiff penalties for overpumping. That drew death threats against state water officials. Still, most farmers now want to manage the decline of the aquifer, Bossert says. They can't ignore it.
"When that supply gets interrupted, or they start pumping air, or they start realizing that, 'Hey, that may not be there for very much longer' — that's the paradigm shift," he says, "and that's what changes their attitudes and their willingness to sit down and talk."
Bossert convened a group of farmers who came up with their own conservation plan. They've agreed to cut usage by 20 percent during the next five years, or face stiff sanctions. He expects to see the same approach elsewhere in western Kansas, because lots of farmers here want to give one more generation a shot at the good life they've had: irrigating with water drawn from the High Plains Aquifer.
Copyright 2013 KCUR 89.3