text:
It's exactly 100 years since the 'Miracle Year' when one of the Greatest minds of the Earth 'Albert Einstien' published five of his theories.
Its all Einsteins fault.
6 a.m. Your satellite-enabled alarm clock goes off.
Blame Albert Einstein for rousting you out of bed. Your clock sounds precisely at 6 a.m. because its one of those fancy digital models that is synchronized with the governments atomic clocks and calibrated every second through the Global Positioning Satellite array circling the Earth. If they could not correct for the effects of relativity, Einsteins most famous discovery, GPS signals would accumulate so many errors that their data would be meaningless.
6:15 a.m. You nick yourself shaving and drip toothpaste on your shirt.
Blame Einstein for the mess. His creation of a formula to measure the size of molecules dissolved in liquids made it possible for scientists among many other, more important, leaps to create or improve thousands of consumer products, including better shaving creams and toothpastes.
6:30 a.m. You click on the television to check the weather and traffic. Its raining, and the traffic cameras show that the cars are already backed up for miles on the interstate. Its going to be a rough commute.
Blame Einstein for your bad mood. His declaration of the photoelectric effect made possible the eventual invention of television cameras. And the remotes that control them. Also, digital cameras wouldnt work.
Youve been up for just a half-hour, and already your day is being controlled by Albert Einstein.
How do you explain it? asked John Rigden, a physicist at Washington University in St. Louis and author of Einstein 1905. After all, when Time magazine named Einstein its Person of the Century, it chose him over all of the other people that made their indelible mark on the 20th century, all of the practical people [Bill] Gates, you could go on and on.
The flash of inspiration
Most likely, we think of Einstein first as the man who paved the way to development of the atomic bomb. This is not the right way to look at him.
Michel Janssen, a science and technology historian at the University of Minnesota, points out that Einstein had virtually nothing to do with developing the bomb, which grew out of the work of more up-to-date physicists in the 1930s. Einstein, in fact, was refused security clearance to have any role in the Manhattan Project, said Janssen, who was trained as a physicist and edited the volumes of Einsteins collected papers on relativity.
However, many of Einsteins other theories, which began pouring out in a burst of incandescent creativity 100 years ago, turned physics and our understanding of the natural world on their heads, giving scientists the tools to mold almost every observable aspect of life as we live it in 2005.
Einsteins work gave us much more than eventual perfection of television, remote controls and digital cameras. His postulation of the photon (a particle of light) and the photoelectric effect which was described in his first great paper of 1905 and won him the Nobel Prize in 1921 gave us scores of everyday applications.
Einsteins identifying of photons underlay the development of many of the advanced electronic inventions of the 20th century. It was the statement of the quantum effect, without which we would not have cellular telephones or smoke detectors or burglar alarms or those doors that automatically open at the supermarket or on the elevator.
Indeed, you can argue that the entire field of computers and semiconductors owes its existence to Einsteins paper of March 17, 1905. Thats why its pointless to speculate about what he might have accomplished had he been born 75 or 80 years later and therefore been able to use computers. Without his having done the work he did when he did it, we might not have computers today, or at least not in the form we recognize.
Albert who?
Moreover, its possible that in todays scientific world, Einstein would have trouble getting his ideas heard. Science today is an institutionalized pursuit, regimented by a hierarchy of credentials. What are your degrees? What university or research institute are you affiliated with? How much peer-reviewed research have you published? How much grant money can you command?
While Einsteins work at the patent office in Bern, Switzerland, gave him wide opportunity to conduct sophisticated experiments on advanced submissions, he was, in his great year of 1905, still a 26-year-old government worker.
Recognizing something profound
Would Einstein be able, in 2005, to become recognized as he did in 1905? Rigden asked. Thats a really open question.
Its not clear to me that he would be able to do that. If intelligent people really gave his manuscripts a careful read, they would have recognized something profound. He might be published, but boy, its not clear. He was fortunate to have lived when he did.
Robert Schulmann, who co-edited Einsteins collected papers and is former director of the Einstein Papers Project, is more hopeful that his voice would have broken through.
The journal that published his 1905 papers, Annalen der Physik, was the leading physics journal of the day. Among the editors who reviewed his submissions were Nobel laureate Wilhelm Roentgen, who discovered X-rays, and Max Planck, another Nobel winner, who came as close to matching Einstein in sheer brain power as anyone else ever did. If such esteemed editors found merit in the theories of the government clerk then, Schulmann said, it is likely that they would do so today.
But even Schulmann said it would be an iffy proposition. Much of Einsteins work was multidisciplinary and abstract, while physics today is focused and empirical.
The possibility of coming out of almost nowhere, for a number of reasons, wouldnt work today because of the highly philosophical character of his work. The questions he asked himself ... deal with space and time, which are philosophical concepts, said Schulmann, who is at work on a biography of Einstein.
Janssen said there was something special about the age that Einstein was working where he was, in a way, the right man at the right time at the right place. Between 1900 and 1925, you saw this tremendous overhaul of physics, and it is hard to imagine that today were going to see an overhaul on that scale.
You cant take a step without smacking into Einstein
The paper on the photoelectric effect was just one of several that Einstein issued in 1905 that fundamentally altered how physicists look at the world. From the other papers came an almost equally wide range of modern applications:
Compact disc and DVD players use lasers, which Einstein first theorized in 1917 in advancing his work on the photoelectric and photovoltaic effects. We have lasers in every supermarket checkout lane, Rigden said.
Medical revolutions like the PET scan rest on positrons, described by science journalist Robert Matthews as antimatter electrons, whose existence was implied by special relativity and quantum theory. (Science fiction revolutions, too: Antimatter, in reaction with matter, is what makes the Enterprise jump into warp speed in the Star Trek universe.)
Carbon dating. We can take a stab at measuring how old fossils are thanks to Einstein (E=mc2 shows that mass and energy are interconnected; by measuring the degradation of nuclei in atoms of organic materials, the theory goes, we can measure how long theyve been degrading).
And all those everyday consumer products, which owe their existence, in no small part, to manufacturing methods that wouldnt work without Einsteins enunciation of the atomic theory of matter. In essence, he proved that atoms exist.
Before Einsteins paper of May 1905, many reputable scientists didnt believe in atoms, Rigden said. May 1905 put the last nail in the coffin [of atomism naysayers]. No longer could the reality of atoms be denied.
The nucleus wasnt even discovered until 1909, so Einsteins prescience was off the charts.
Most important, perhaps, was Einsteins restoration of the belief in the power of reason and intellect. He gave science back its confidence.
Before the First World War, there was still a lot of faith in rationality. The First World War smashed this faith in reason pretty irreparably, Schulmann said. And here you had a man detached from all of the events of the First World War, basically, who with a pencil and paper was able to explain the logical and rational way that the world and the universe worked.
Rigden suggested that the first contribution that Einstein made that dramatically affects our lives was that he did it with the power of his mind.
Einstein wasnt blessed with experimental data it was mostly abstract ideas, he said. That is a distinctive aspect of homo sapiens: We have a big brain. ...
He is a standard because of what he did. And how he did it.


text:
1. Re: Migration from jBPM 3.2 to jBPM 5Maurice de Chateau Jul 25, 2011 4:08 AM (in response to Ratnavel Sundaramurthi)1 of 1 people found this helpful
Hi Ratnavel,
One of the options you have there is to use the tooling that's specifically meant for this job: https://github.com/eschabell/jbpmmigration.
But I must admit right away: this is work in progress, and if you're looking to migrate very soon it probably isn't sufficient yet. We're working hard to get it there, but we only have so much spare time...
Eric and I are very much interested in your use case, of course, since we're trying to make this tooling as useful as possible. So if you have any questions, scenarios you need support for, or anything else regarding the migration, don't hesitate to contact us!
Best regards,
2. Re: Migration from jBPM 3.2 to jBPM 5Ratnavel Sundaramurthi Jul 25, 2011 4:29 AM (in response to Maurice de Chateau)
Hi Maurice,
Thanks for your pointer.
More information on my case,
1. We currently use jBPM 3.2
2. We currently design a jpdl with eclipse plugin and create a par file
3. Upon deploying the par file we'll have our processes inserted to jbpm_process_definition table
4. We have our implementaion revolving around that.
We are interested in.
1. Upgrading it to jbpm5
2. We are looking out for options to either migrating the existing data or a way to use the data.
I'm more than happy to share more information on my project and spend some time on this if needed to shape up this for the community.
3. Re: Migration from jBPM 3.2 to jBPM 5Eric D. Schabell Jul 25, 2011 4:48 AM (in response to Ratnavel Sundaramurthi)
Hi Ratnavel,
Some details on the tooling can be found in the project wiki, but your jBPM3.2 is the targeted initial conversion.
I am currently putting up a page in the wiki to show the overview of what needs to be done and what has been completed, that should make this easier to follow.
Also take note of the various articles listed there, they are full of tips on what you need to watch out for to get your processes in order.
We are only focused on the migration of process definitions right now. Data migration is a whole different story.
Finally, if you have process definitions and want to submit them to us, I am more that willing to add them to the test suite which gives you a converted process based on our tooling. I changes the process details to protect their origins and have a vast set (over 80 tests) based on real life process submitted by various sources (see the project).
You are more than welcome to join the project, just see the github repo, fork / pull-requests are the modus operandi and post issues you have for us in there.
Regards, erics
4. Re: Migration from jBPM 3.2 to jBPM 5Bernd Ruecker Jul 25, 2011 9:05 AM (in response to Ratnavel Sundaramurthi)
Hi Ratnavel.
Actually you shouldn't start such a migration lightly. We already have customers doing some migration from jBPM 3.x to other Process Engines. But since basically everything has changed (database layout, API, process definition, with jBPM 5 even some core concepts) it really some change.
Currently we made best experience with a step by step approach (see e.g. http://www.bpm-guide.de/2010/12/24/using-bpmn-2-0-models-with-jbpm-3-a-migration-path-and-more/): Extract the process definition to BPMN and maybe keep the jBPM 3 by a transformation (see e.g. http://fox.camunda.com/doc/#jbpm3Bpmn). Abstract the Process Engine (with a layer like http://fox.camunda.com/doc/#peal). Afterwords exchanging the engine is more a architecture/framework thing and you can migrate process by process. There I think migrating instance data should be avoided if somehow possible, it is really complex :-)
5. Re: Migration from jBPM 3.2 to jBPM 5Tihomir Surdilovic Jul 25, 2011 3:16 PM (in response to Bernd Ruecker)
Hi Ratnavel, definitely check out http://kverlaen.blogspot.com/2011/01/migrating-to-jbpm5.html and get involved as Eric and Maurice said. You can also ping the core devs in IRC (see http://www.jboss.org/drools/irc and also add the #jbpm channel).
6. Re: Migration from jBPM 3.2 to jBPM 5Tihomir Surdilovic Jul 25, 2011 3:21 PM (in response to Bernd Ruecker)
Hi Bernd, nice advertising
Not sure going from engine A to engine B where A == B is truly considered an upgrade to anyone.
7. Re: Migration from jBPM 3.2 to jBPM 5Bernd Ruecker Jul 26, 2011 1:54 AM (in response to Tihomir Surdilovic)
Maybe I did not make myself clear, I would propose to do the migration step by step. The first step indeed doesn't change the engine but prepares everything to change it in the next step. But if all your tests still run after the first step, you know you didn't break anything and have BPMN 2.0 models and a abstraction layer ready to make migrations easier. We just made very good experiences with this in big environments. Didn't say it is th only way.
And for the advertisment: Hy, it is open souce too and I was long time jBPM 3 commiter, so don't blame me for liking this engine ;-)
8. Re: Migration from jBPM 3.2 to jBPM 5Eric D. Schabell Jul 26, 2011 3:42 AM (in response to Tihomir Surdilovic)
Tihormir: +1 ;-)
9. Re: Migration from jBPM 3.2 to jBPM 5Eric D. Schabell Jul 26, 2011 3:43 AM (in response to Bernd Ruecker)
Sounds like a good way to sell lots of your services? ;-)
10. Re: Migration from jBPM 3.2 to jBPM 5Ananth Sreepathi Jul 29, 2011 1:47 PM (in response to Ratnavel Sundaramurthi)
We are also looking for similar migration from 3.x to 5.x. Looking at lot of discussions and pages that are published for migration, i see there was lot of efforts been put in getting this migration easy and it is WIP. It looks like we need to wait for some more time if we have to use the current tools in production environment.
Few open questions i still have is
- We have the current customers on JBPM 3, If we migrate to JBPM 5, as per my understanding they still can run the old process instance using the jbpm3 api's, if they start creating a new workflow using JBPM5 then we need to call the new api's for execution purpose. Or is there any abstract class that does this automatically based on the ProcessDefinition/Process id that is passed or should we do this internally in the programs of JBPM.
- Will it be possible for us to do the data migration from jbpm3 to jbpm4 by comparing the database structure so that we will have only one version of workflows that we need to deal with or will it be a waste of time to invest based on the amount of change you had introduced in jbpm4/5.
Any help is appreciated.
11. Re: Migration from jBPM 3.2 to jBPM 5Bernd Ruecker Jul 31, 2011 6:54 AM (in response to Ananth Sreepathi)
Hi Anath.
Q quick anser, but it seems I am not really welcome in this thread (even if I don't get why, I just told what we did in the projects at customers and pointed out to some sources of open source components. Where is the big advertisment again??).
Abstracting the API is possible but not that easy. We did a small POC with the open source abstraction layer we wrote (http://fox.camunda.com/doc/#peal, http://fox.camunda.com/doc/fox-peal/). But you have to write an own binding, which is a bit of work. Biggest problem I think is operations, since they have to care about instances in different engines, which make the already not easy situation much more complex.
Instance migration on the DB level as you describe I think is too complex, because databse structure changed a lot from jbpm 3 to 4 and even more from 4 to 5. I wouldn't doubt you get that easily working, but would be very interessted if you did :-)
12. Re: Migration from jBPM 3.2 to jBPM 5Maurice de Chateau Aug 1, 2011 3:37 AM (in response to Bernd Ruecker)
Can't speak for everyone, of course, but I think you've definitely contributed considerably for jBPM3 and surely know your way around. So don't feel un-welcome in any discussion about it!
Nevertheless, I think you can't blame people for not liking the fact that you more or less 'left' the JBoss/jBPM community in favour of Activiti
Good to know you guys at Camunda keep an eye open this way though; helps us to stay on top of our game!
13. Re: Migration from jBPM 3.2 to jBPM 5Maurice de Chateau Aug 1, 2011 4:04 AM (in response to Ananth Sreepathi)
1. No, the jBPM5 API is not compatible with the jBPM3 (or 4) API. Running jBPM3 processes requires the jBPM3 runtime, and I don't think any migration stratgey for this (like the common base class you propose) is foreseen by anyone - at this point.
As Bernd points out, migrating running process instances is going to be even harder than migrating process definitions. This is already the case when upgrading between minor versions (e.g. 3.2.2 -> 3.2.3), so between major versions (let alone a complete overhaul such as jBPM5) will be pretty impressive!
2. Migrating data will also be hard, partly due to the aforementioned API changes. But when you try something like that, be sure to separate you business data from the process execution data. That way, you should be able to make any transition as smooth as possible.
Like Bernd says: we're very interested about all migrations - successful or not. We're very much committed to making the transition from jBPM3 (the current productized version) to jBPM5 (the next version that will be part of the SOA-P) possible.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Event Homepage
Donate an Item
Auction Sponsors
Donate Now
View All Items
Adult Classes (42)
Art and Design (36)
Bars and Restaurants (41)
Fashion and Home (64)
Food and Drink (45)
Health and Beauty (30)
Hotels & Airbnb (5)
Jewelry (10)
Kids and Family (50)
Kids Classes (31)
Music and Books (22)
Sports and Fitness (48)
Teacher Experiences (33)
Tickets and Events (13)
Travel and Experiences (16)
Version 3.5
Sign In
Contact Us
Sign In
Email Address or Bidder ID
Sign In
Not a member?
Register Now
Forgot your password?
Reset It
Copyright 2020 by 501 Auctions LLC. All rights reserved.


text:
Providence Health & Services' Telehealth group is seeking a full-time, board-certified or board-eligible Psychiatrist to provide consultative patient care as part of the Telepsychiatry Call Panel. This is a work-from-home position hired out of Everett, Washington, but the physician will have the ability to work from any state with all necessary equipment and technology provided. This is an excellent opportunity to join an extraordinary, collegial and supportive team.
Where You'll Work
Telehealth is a unique program that connects people with the care they need no matter where they are. Sophisticated, state-of-the-art technology allows our providers to consult, diagnose and treat patients in real time. Location is no longer a limiting factor. Providence Health & Services together with its affiliates, Swedish Health Services and Kadlec, offer more than 40 Telehealth services ranging from Primary Care to Critical Care. Telehealth: Right Care. Right Time. Wherever You Are.
Where You'll Live
Seattle is the Pacific Northwest's largest urban center, with a metro population of 3.25 million, and is home to world-class arts and entertainment, a robust economy and an outstanding school system. The city hugs Puget Sound and offers magnificent mountain views to the north, east and south. Home to the world's biggest tech giants, Seattle offers some of the highest minimum wages in the country, along with a notable music and arts scene, outdoor lifestyle and amazing coffee.
Who You'll Work For
Providence Health & Services (PH&S) offers a comprehensive range of health and social services at more than 20 hospitals, 400 clinics and hundreds of locally driven programs across four western states: Alaska, Montana, Oregon and Washington. With multiple Magnet and Pathway to Excellence designations, PH&S is committed to its 100-year mission of serving the poor and vulnerable by providing compassionate care to all who need its services.
Job ID Number: 11511
Facility Name: Telehealth
Location Name: Seattle, WA
Brand Name: Providence Health & Services
Provider Profession: Physician/Surgeon
Medical Specialty: Psychiatry
Job Setting: Telemedicine
Type of Role: Clinical
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Phone Number: (425) 525-5848
Schedule: Full Time
CP: Yes
CB: Yes
NP: No
PA: No
HC: No
IS: No
YM: Yes
Let's get in touch
If you have questions about this specific job or others, I'm all ears. Send me a note and we'll be one step closer to the right opportunity.
Kris Collins
Provider Recruiter
(425) 525-5848
Contact Me


text:
Thursday, February 9th, 2012
Anyone know the scoop on Mr. Fire and Brimstone here? Freedom of speech debate aside, you have to give him credit for the sign…
Anyone know the scoop on Mr. Fire and Brimstone here? Freedom of speech debate aside, you have to give him credit for the sign…
The Israeli/Palestinian conflict once again became a heated issue on campus when the possibility of a divestment bill nearly reached the ASSU Undergraduate Senate last week. As that happened, people started writing about Israel, Palestine, and the idea of divestment: (in chronological order–take a deep breath, here goes): op-ed here, op-ed here, op-ed here, an overview here (recommended), a news article here, an op-ed here, an op-ed here, a news article here, an op-ed here, and an op-ed here, and this. On top of all this, people actually utilized the comments section of some of these articles–most notably Linda Hess's piece (op-ed the third)–and went on to add to the dialogue a mix of comments ranging from interesting to hateful to hilarious.
After reading all of the above and talking in-depth with members of the ASSU and students who support (strongly) both sides of the issue, one thing is extraordinarily clear: whatever your view on divestment is, or on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, it is absolutely clear that this is not a topic in which the ASSU should have any involvement.
Luckily, and to my cynical-self's surprise, the leaders of the primary pro-divestment group (Campaign Restore Hope) and anti-divestment group (Invest for Peace)* have come together and agreed that the ASSU should not be the arena for the divestment debate. I have no idea how this occurred, but I cannot commend the leaders in this discussion enough: this is a victory for any hope at actual progress and helps diminish the likelihood of the campus devolving further into an unproductive flame war with heavily negative consequences for many students on campus.
What this last concept–negative consequences of this debate–brings to light is that much of the divestment discussion is intimately linked with free speech. But free speech, like Israeli/Palestinian politics, is a much more nuanced issue than most people want to acknowledge.
The Unofficial Stanford Blog is proudly powered by
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
copyright © 2020 the unofficial stanford blog


text:
- This event has passed.
Women's Bible Study
January 23, 2019 @ 9:30 am - 11:30 am
|Recurring Event (See all)
An event every week that begins at 9:30 am on Wednesday, repeating indefinitely
All ladies are invited to study the Word and pray together in the Fellowship Hall on Wednesday mornings. All are welcome and encouraged to bring a friend!


text:
Suikoden IV Part 4
The latest Suikoden IV recap by Sam is now posted. In this recap, find out whether Sam's Ritapon addiction is enough to make up for the overwhelming number of profile people she is forced to deal with. Plus, a scary cat village!
Also, Sam and I now have the first Phoenix Wright game on our iPads, which means no more wrestling with digital cameras in order to get mediocre screenshots. We've spent the last week redoing all the screenshots for the existing Phoenix Wright recaps, and Sam has added captions to the formerly captionless Part 4. Yes, this means that we were forced to replay all those cases. Just to add an extra punch in the nuts, I had to play through the first day of Case 3 twice because I forgot to take screenshots the first time. That case is the bane of my existence. Fuck the Steel Samurai.
Last but not least, I originally screwed up when uploading the screenshots for the latest Xenosaga recap, but they should all be working now.


text:
What's the best definition of God that you guys can come up with or find?
I came up with this one:
"God: a literary device (used mostly in fantasy) to bypass the laws of physics and nature in order to speed up the writing process."
Modern Example: Eru from "The Silmarillion" by JRR Tolkien.
The traditional example you all know.
Views: 936
I asked you how something would come into existence without a cause -> you have not answered my question, only fluffed up some rhetoric. You've referenced a definition as enforcing necessity without supplying that definition. You've left out the option of infinitely recursive causes.
You've claimed 'all evidence' points back to this invisible boogieman of yours, and I've asked you for that evidence, even a shred, and you have provided nothing. Is there any evidence?
I've asked you for a definition of transcendental truth and you've overlooked that as well.
And yes, 'multiplicity of gods' -> why would 10, 1000, or even an infinite number of invisible boogiemen be anymore ridiculous than one?
You've also proselytized, and I'll ask you to stop that since it is against the discussion guidelines.
Ward...you are correct. that is a possibility. Yet, you too are making an exclusive claim so you fit right in with the religions. You are trying to answer 4 questions any worldview or philosophy has to answer: 1. origin 2. morality 3. meaning 4. destiny. And you are spouting a worldview.
Now lets talk about evidence...
Evidence is not proof. Evidence is like a gun, it can be used againist anyone.
Courts require no proof, only evidence.
I am sorry you cannot understand the meaning of what I said.
Nothing comes into existence without a cause. the 3 are the only options. By reasoning through it, you would have acquired the answer. but...Even if a crime was committed in a courtroom, the lawyer still would have to offer up evidence. Proof is observable.
When you ask someone for proof they can ride a bike, what needs to happen? The bike rider has to be observed. Proof.
Back to evidence. The same evidence is argued in court by different lawyers as to what the evidence means. Evidence points to meaning. So when you say there is no evidence of a God, you err. The evidence is clearly visible and invisible. When you go to explain how this universe or world came into existence, you point to evidence that you think (not know) explains.
ok, now that evidence and proof are parsed....
infinitely recursive causes is c. Recursion has to have something already existing.
As far as evidence...the problem isn't the sufficiency of evidence but rather the suppression of it. To give truth to him who loves it now is to give that man more reasons to misinterpret it.
All truth is transcendent. For example. You wrote the reply I am replying to. Correct? That is true. Now when will that not be true? Once you have done it, it is true. Even if you undo what you have done. You cannot rewind time. So every truth is transcendent.
The truth sets you free for those that believe in Jesus. Is that proselytizing or simple stating a belief. You would have to know my intent to know if I am, wouldn't you? Intent comes before content, rt? Then who can know the mind of a man except that man say?
maybe the truth is changing your heart and you feel the pull of conversion happening...but I can change no ones mind..only present what I think the truth is...as you claim to do.
Infinite recursion would be the case for an eternal super cosmos. You have yet to provide that definition for which I asked. You've also ignored my request for an explanation of how something could exist without a cause.
Now you've given a long winded trail of rhetoric on evidence without actually offering a single shred of evidence. Considering you have claimed that 'all evidence' points back to your invisible boogieman, it shouldn't be difficult for you to just provide a single example, one little snippet. It would seem that there isn't a single shred of evidence for your bugaboo, and thus your definition seems to refer to a non-existent thing.
By your definition of transcendent truth, it would seem you are the bearer thereof? Is this a correct evaluation? Are YOU claiming to be a deity?
You have yet to respond to my question as to why ten, a thousand, or even infinite invisible boogiemen would be less plausible than your claim of a single invisible boogieman.
Yes, proselytizing. When you wander off into biblical quotations that are not pertinent to the discussion at hand, you do so for no other purpose than to insert your cult scripture into the forum. You've suggested that the words attributed to the mythological Jesus figure are an exclusive claim on the truth without providing evidence. That is nothing more than preaching and it is not welcome here. Keep it relevant and back up your claims.
What have I claimed to be the truth in our exchanges? I've pointed out that you are being evasive about providing evidence, and I can cite this very exchange as evidence of that. I'm not the one making unsupportable claims here.
Now, you've claimed that a god would be, amongst other things, a thing to which all evidence would point. I must evaluate that the god which you have defined does not exist since it seems that not one bit of evidence I have ever encountered has pointed in that direction, let alone every single bit of evidence I have ever seen. Would you like to change your definition?
Quotes from Maurice Whitehurst on Saturday addressed to me – most are from his 3rd post in this thread (unless otherwise indicated). Although only this portion really applies to what I wrote:
"Ward...you are correct. that is a possibility."
The rest of his 3rd post seems more like he's replying to Heather Spoonheim's post – immediately after mine. But since it was addressed to me I'll take a shot at it especially since this next quote was the next sentence in the same paragraph as the above quote.
"Yet, you too are making an exclusive claim so you fit right in with the religions."
Not true – I stated what a conclusion of mine was. I made no claim, exclusive or otherwise. Second reason your statement is not true is that the observation regarding a malevolent god was not a proposal for the creation of a religion. If I ever choose to sink that low, I won't be so foolish as to do it on an atheist site.
"You are trying to answer 4 questions any worldview or philosophy has to answer: 1. origin 2. morality 3. meaning 4. destiny. And you are spouting a worldview."
Not true, by saying I am an atheist I am saying I reject all religious worldviews. Since I'm not the one pushing the worldview (you are), I wasn't trying to answer a set of questions. You also incorrectly equate a worldview with a philosophy. While they could be the same, they are not always so. You also got the number of elements wrong. While Wiki is not perfect, I'm going to trust it over someone who is as incorrect as you have shown yourself to be.
From Wikipedia:
A worldview should comprise these six elements:
1. An explanation of the world
2. A futurology, answering the question "Where are we heading?"
3. Values, answers to ethical questions: "What should we do?"
4. A praxeology, or methodology, or theory of action: "How should we attain our goals?"
5. An epistemology, or theory of knowledge: "What is true and false?"
6. An etiology. A constructed world-view should contain an account of its own "building blocks," its origins and construction.
"Evidence is not proof. Evidence is like a gun, it can be used against anyone." AND
"Back to evidence. The same evidence is argued in court by different lawyers as to what the evidence means."
Again, not true. It can only be used against anyone if you are willing to manipulate and distort the evidence.
"I am sorry you cannot understand the meaning of what I said."
I understood your first post in this thread on Saturday – religiosity you believe to be true. Your second post was a bit muddled and somewhat incoherent which is why I only addressed part of it. If you wish to restate that post so it is more clearly stated, please do so.
"Nothing comes into existence without a cause. the 3 are the only options. By reasoning through it, you would have acquired the answer. "
Yet, you gave as your first definition of god:
"1. The only being in existence that need no cause to exist." 1st Saturday post
So you contradict yourself.
"<a> that which is caused into existence by an external entity." 2nd Saturday post
You make a huge presumption here embodied in one word: "entity". You would need to prove the external cause was an entity.
"Evidence points to meaning. So when you say there is no evidence of a God, you err. The evidence is clearly visible and invisible. When you go to explain how this universe or world came into existence, you point to evidence that you think (not know) explains."
I have yet to explain how the universe came into existence since this thread was about defining god. Saying I'm wrong about there not being any evidence for god doesn't make it so. So you need to provide some – the supposedly clearly visible kind.
"All truth is transcendent. For example. You wrote the reply I am replying to. Correct? That is true. Now when will that not be true? Once you have done it, it is true. Even if you undo what you have done. You cannot rewind time. So every truth is transcendent."
Responding to the underlined portion (underline mine): Right now it's not true. It is clear from your muddled reply you are replying to both Heather and myself. So, you are correct AND incorrect. Thus, true AND false. So your premise fails and every truth is thus NOT transcendent.
Seems like Maurice here doesn't really know what the word evidence means. Not to mention the words ethics and honesty. I'm sorry, but I cannot think of any other explanation for his behaviour in the past few pages of this thread.
All evidence actually points that there is absolutely no need for divine creators, and in all probability, they don't exist. Evidence is not proof indeed, but it is an important part of proof. The other part of proof is logic. Not belief, not authority, not scripture, but logic and logic alone.
By ignoring the part about logic, it is possible to make rhetorically dishonest (and indeed absolutely false) propositions such as "evidence is like a gun, it can be used against anyone", and "courts need no proof, only evidence".
As far as evidence, ethics and honesty go, I'm also eager to see what actual "evidence" points to some deity, and indeed, which deity it is that the "evidence" points to.
Does the evidence point to Zeus? Or to the Flying Spaghetti Monster perhaps? Or maybe Lord Inglip? It is amazing how arrogant christians (and other jesusists) can be, claiming and constantly acting as if the word "god" only means their own particular deity.
I am not sure what he means about anything. He seems to be talking Powerpoint-English, half of it might make sense as to what he's trying to convey, when accompanied by scribbled circles, lines, arrows and stuff. I hope he's not doing it deliberately to obscure the lack of actual content.
Unfortunately, from my personal experience - not with him, mind you, but with most theists who act similarly - he most probably is doing it on purpose. For one reason or another. Yes, one reason might be to obscure the lack of actual content, but there might be other reasons as well.
"god" Cop out to those who can not deal with reality..
Cop out for those who are can not want to take responsibility for their own situation in life.
Cop out for those who are complacent in their lives and do not feel that personal advancement is necessary.
Cop out for those who commit evils in the world so that they can claim forgiveness and rationalize their stance.
I could go on but this could go on for a very long time..
Hey M.B.
Well, that's precisely the problem, isn't it? You can't define "god". Here's a proof:
Adherents have a predictable pattern of appealing to cognitive modes of fantasy. This creates fundamental logical problems in their arguments which the deconverter can readily exploit. We can frame this formally as a problem having to do with what is called the "necessary and sufficient" clause of empirical reality. To wit, a thing is necessary and sufficient provided:
1.) A set of values for independent variables are operationally observed to have been necessary and sufficient for an hypothesized value of a dependent variable to obtain AND
2.) All independent and dependent variables are sufficiently well defined.
Something is sufficiently well defined iff there can be found some causal link in which it can be entrained consisting of at least one antecedent and one descendent such that the effect of the causes entrained can be, in principle, reliably predicted in advance. That is, the causal train must be, in principle, algorithmic and deterministic.
An excellent hands-on example of the Second Axiom regards the so-called First Causes argument used by apologists of various faiths. Popular and oft-accepted without any critical thought whatsoever, even some of the most educated members of society repeat this fallacy ad nausea. Let us dispatch it by contradiction to illustrate:
First please allow me to introduce some basic logical terminology to describe what one might call the No Evil Genius' Proof:
"Something" (think an event) is possible in a system Q (think universe) "in principle" if Q admits of "Something" that is sufficiently well defined relative to Q.
The word "admit" here is taken to mean "allows"; in the sense that the "laws" governing all behaviors in Q "allows" an event to occur. Those laws are simply the essence of what Q is; it is what defines Q as Q.
"Sufficiently well defined" relative to Q here means the set of properties (to include possibly laws) in Q minimally sufficient to causally entrain an arbitrary event, call it k1, occurring in Q into the causal history of Q. The causal history of Q is the set of events that did, are and will (think all conjugations of "to be") occur in Q "since" its creation. Think of it like a proton. a proton in free space has what is called a Hilbert Space that describes all its possible states (degrees of freedom). All those allowed states are allowed because of the properties of the spatial system in which it is defined; that is, Q. So, a particle can have mass, for example. That is "allowed" because that is how Q (the universe) works.
Now, we can formalize our statement supra to a first-order approximation of where we're going with this:
Let an event k1 be sufficiently well defined relative to a spatial system Q. An event k1 is possible in a spatial system Q in principle if Q admits of k1.
Now, consider two spatial systems R and S. Let an event k1 be sufficiently well defined relative to R.
In order for causality between R and S to exist, a special condition must be met. Let an arbitrary event k2 ∈ S.
Let the subset of all properties A ∈ R necessary and sufficient to define k1 relative to R be denoted, r, and the subset of all properties B ∈ S necessary and sufficient to define k2 relative to S, denoted s.
Now, the required condition is trivial,
r ∈ S, R and s ∈ S, R ∵ s ≡ r.
must hold.
But this is just the same as if r ∈ R and s ∈ R where R is the natural world exposed to empiricism and s contains all the properties necessary and sufficient to define a cause that is super natural. But that means that s can be fully predicted and understood using empiricism alone, which is not allowed under the presumptive definition of a god. Q.E.D.
This is just how easy it is to disprove "gods". Unfortunately, few understand it. Therefore, other approaches should be put before the adherent. This proof is provided primarily for the deconverter to better understand both the problem and opportunity outlined by the Second Axiom of Deconversion.
Due to the somewhat obtuse manner in which a formal topic such as the above can be introduced, and appreciating how important it is for adherents to understand all Axioms if at all possible, we will attempt to expand on what this implies in a real world scenario.
Recall the key lemma:
Something is sufficiently well defined iff there can be found some causal link in which it can be entrained consisting of at least one antecedent and one descendent such that the effect of the causes entrained can be, in principle, reliably predicted in advance. That is, the causal train must be algorithmic and deterministic.
Let's be blunter. Whenever a condition 'exists' such that it is not sufficiently well defined we are, in effect saying it in the equivalent way as well:
Whenever a condition 'exists' such that it cannot be sufficiently well defined in order to entrain any such event ("condition") in a causal linkage such that it can be algorithmically and deterministically predicted in advance, the "condition" referenced is logically meaningless and irrational, relative to any observer kn whose existence is necessarily and sufficiently defined in nature (as opposed to super nature).
Yea, but why?
Whenever a condition 'exists' such that it lacks the definition required in order to entrain any such event ("condition") in a causal linkage such that it can be algorithmically and deterministically predicted in advance, the "condition" constitutes an infinite effects scenario whereby the "condition", as we attempt to entrain it, can produce any effect and we have no way of knowing which one is the correct one. It is the very concept of "definition" itself that allows us to narrow the infinite list down to something finite and, if sufficient, to a single cause.
The reader may care to note now, as this concept begins to sink in, how philosophical arguments all have the quality of over generalizing in such a manner as to deny logically valid application to the real, tangible, physical universe. And this is why all the philosophical arguments (or the vast majority) are nonsense. In our case we held strictly to nature and required, as we must, that whatever we claim can be causally entrained in nature, even if only in principle.
- kk
I loved the post that mentioned folklore. That sparks a whole bunch of thoughts on this subject for me. So, here's my take:
God: A word created by man and intended to represent and give meaning to human abstractions of unexplainable concepts, and is usually typified in the form of a supreme being of some sort. This being, or deity, is considered to have powers far beyond that of mere mortals. Many "believers" give hope that they can have a personal relationship with this deity and gain influence over uncontrollable events in their lives through things like prayer and sacrifice. Socially, this can become a form of religion. Belief is kept alive through stories of folklore, teachings, testimonials, and are often passed on and symbolized as "truthful" fact.


text:
The Wrecked Ship of Fools, April 1 2009
Editorial by Zahir Ebrahim, Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
"When your country is reduced to a ravaged wreck and derelict floating aimlessly on the ocean of adventures run by bankers, the United States is now a ship of fools run by derivatives bankers, this is what you gonna get." — Webster Tarpley (watch pt1 pt2 pt3 pt4 pt5 pt6 pt7 )
The calculated Machiavellian de-industrialization of America, starting with the first Zbigniew Brzezinski Trilateralists' Administration (Jimmy Carter being the front-man), to the present Zbigniew Brzezinski Trilateralists' Administration (Barack Obama being the new 'Messianic' front-man), is one devilish continuum towards the pre-planned "Thermodynamic Collapse" [ibid.] of America into a third world country where suddenly nothing will work any more! The pernicious treachery was craftily executed in the intervening epoch by all American Presidents, both Republican and Democrats [1], each of whom dutifully implemented the final-phases of the globalists' agenda seeded as domestic and foreign policy prescriptions by the CFR and many a bankster-funded think-tank along the Potomac and Hudson. The prescription of respectively off-shoring America's industrial base, and perpetuating "America's own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer". [2] Thus together, they have finally succeed in making "an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece [to] accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault"! [3]
And the blood-sucking bankster 'Trilaterals over America' [4] couldn't be happier en-route to their orchestration of one-world government [5] which is now palpably out into the open.
Only the indoctrinated idiots and fools, dupes and patsies, ideological shills and paid mercenaries, will continue to deny that the triumvirate crises of global financial collapse, global war on terror, and global-warming are not the globalist oligarchs' deliberately manufactured terrorism upon the peoples of the world, including the people of the United States! The mercenaries and shills will all accept its reality only after irreversible fait accompli has been seeded and harvested – but not while anything can be done to effectively reverse the course. The first ones to change their positions ex post facto, will be the much lauded but manufactured dissent-space chiefs – on both the 'left' and the 'right' – as well as imperial scholars and historians, all of whom today loquaciously parrot the "doctrinal motivation and intellectual commitment" in its various "patriotic" strands [6] to manufacture both consent and dissent [7].
The population reduction agenda of NSSM-200 [8] looms large as among the first debasing criminal acts to be undertaken in the 'one-world' government for the culling of humanity based on eugenics and 'useless-eaters'. The mantra for it is already in motion [9]. It is the first time in the history of civilization that the knowledge, the tools, the deployment, and the pretexts, have all finally become available in today's scientific modernity to rigorously and very effectively orchestrate population reduction, thus making up for all the lost years of bemoaning its ineffectiveness by David Rockefeller [10], Prince Philip [11], Robert McNamara [12], and Bertrand Russell [13].
Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, is especially noteworthy of mention here for his stated passion to be personally involved in the elimination of the species. He is cited as one of the leading figures worldwide who "have taken courageous stands on the population issue and its connection to the environmental problems", and therefore, his misanthropic zeal, as that of omnipotent globalist bankster David Rockefeller, ought not be taken lightly: "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation." [op. cit.]
So, while the gullible fools – degreed, credentialed, certified, and otherwise – merely live on "happy-happy in hope and voluntary servitude" [14] self-obsessed in their own petty lives believing "god is running the world" [15], or believing that the "Islamofascists are out to get us" [16] and therefore 'United We Stand' against them, or accept the mantra that "it's the fault of free-market capitalism gone awry" [17] which needs draconian new global governance structures [18], the omnipotent devil's apprentice, variously disguised as a peanut farmer, a B-grade actor, a pathetic profligate, a D-grade pilot, a C-grade fool, and an A-grade reincarnated 'Messiah', rapidly orchestrates its black-magic for constructing faits accomplis in deceptively small baby-steps. Such is the charm and the lure of the luxuriously suited devil:
'The real value of Tragedy and Hope … [is the] bold and boastful admission by Dr. Quigley that there actually exists a relatively small but powerful group which has succeeded in acquiring a choke-hold on the affairs of practically the entire human race. Of course we should be quick to recognize that no small group could wield such gigantic power unless millions of people in all walks of life were "in on the take" and were willing to knuckle down to the iron-clad regimentation of the ruthless bosses behind the scenes. As we shall see, the network has succeeded in building its power structure by using tremendous quantities of money (together with the vast influence it buys) to manipulate, intimidate, or corrupt millions of men and women and their institutions on a world-wide basis.' [19]
The Re-confirmation of 'Change' Fiction [20] for the present reincarnation of the devil's super-apprentice, is laid out in Alex Jones' recently released film "The Obama Deception" [21].
Cui bono from one-world government? The 'chosen people' who have orchestrated it all for the spectating foolish goy!
Just as 'Islamofascism' is about the rotten fabricated 'radical Islamists' out to destroy modern civilization, and our rulers vengefully and unrelentingly wage a lifetime of barbaric 'war on terror' upon them, the very naturally occurring Judeofascist Zionofascist cabal of banksters, and all whom they willingly corrupt worldwide, are out to destroy most of mankind and all nation-states except one, and the world's foolish plebeians merely watch enthralled with headlights in their eyes. Whereas, even a dumb herd of buffaloes might wage a commensurate 'war on terror' upon their hectoring hegemons in self-defense [22], a wrecked ship of fools can only be navigated in one direction – straight down!
[1] Zahir Ebrahim, Not-Voting is a 'YES' vote to Reject a Corrupt System which thrives on the facade of Elections and Democracy!, October 22, 2008, http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/10/not-voting-is-yes-vote-to-reject-system.html
[2] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1996, pg 215, http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119973.pdf
[3] Richard N. Gardner, The Hard Road To World Order, Foreign Affairs, CFR, April 1974, http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/191627/1974-CFR-R-N-Gardner-Hard-Road-to-World-Order-OCR-by-MatRoX
[4] Antony Sutton, Trilaterals over America, Tab Books 1995, http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119694.pdf
[5] Zahir Ebrahim, Response to Financial Times Gideon Rachman's 'And now for a world government', December 11, 2008, http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/12/responseto-ft-gideon-rachman-worldgov.html
[6] Zbigniew Brzezinski, op. cit., pg 212.
[7] Zahir Ebrahim, Weapons of Mass Deception – The Master Social Science, June 01, 2008, http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/06/wmd-master-social-science.html
[8] Zahir Ebrahim, The Enduring Capitalist Conspiracy For World Government, Sept. 25, 2008, http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/09/capitalist-conspiracy-world-government.html
[9] Steven Duke, Earth population 'exceeds limits', March 31, 2009, Editor, One Planet, BBC World Service, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7974995.stm
[10] David Rockefeller's video transcription by Zahir Ebrahim, '[POP] David Rockefeller speaks about population control, United Nations Ambassador's Dinner', in Project Humanbeingsfirst's 'Monetary Reform Bibliography', http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/10/monetary-reform-bibliography.html
[11] Prince Philip quoted by Scott Thompson in 'The Ehrlichs: Two Genocidal Maniacs Whom Al Gore Loves', July 9, 1999 issue of Executive Intelligence Review, http://http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1999/2627ehrlichs_html.html
[12] Robert McNamara, speech to International bankers as Head of the World Bank, October 2, 1970 (also cited by Antony Sutton in 'Trilaterals over America', pg. 79). Cited by Zahir Ebrahim, December 15, 2008, in the letter 'Population control, US bio-weapons research, McNamara, Rockefeller, and AIDS', http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/12/pop-control-mcnamara–rockefeller–aids.html
[13] Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, Unwin 1952, http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=IZ3miaHwjdUC&printsec=frontcover
[14] Zahir Ebrahim, Happy-Happy in Hope and Voluntary Servitude, September 10, 2008, http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/09/happy-happy-in-hope-voluntary-servitude.html
[15] Zahir Ebrahim, Why Not Be An Ostrich?, February 13, 2009, http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-not-be-anostrich-feb132009.html
[16] Zahir Ebrahim, 'War on Terror' is not about 'Islamofascism' – Please get with the real agenda you people!, March 21, 2009, http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/03/war-on-terror-not-about-islamofascism.html
[17] Zahir Ebrahim, Monetary Reform Bibliography: A self-study guide for uncovering the agendas behind the economics gibberish, see Introduction, http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/10/monetary-reform-bibliography.html
[18] Paul Joseph Watson, World Bank President Admits Agenda For Global Government, April 1, 2009, Prison Planet, http://http://www.prisonplanet.com/world-bank-president-admits-agenda-for-global-government.html
[19] W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Capitalist, 1970, Buccaneer Books Inc., NY, pg. 6.
[20] Zahir Ebrahim, Mr. Obama – The Post Modern Coup, November 27, 2008, Addendum: Disturbing Confirmation of the Post Modern Coup is Emerging, January 30, 2009, http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/11/mr-obama-thepostmoderncoup-heather.html
[21] The Obama Deception, film by Alex Jones, released March 2009, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw
[22] Battle at Kruger, filmed at a watering hole in South Africa's Kruger National Park while on safari, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM
Source URL http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/04/wrecked-ship-of-fools-apr12009.html
PDF URL http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/wrecked-ship-of-fools-apr12009.pdf
04/01/2009 13:56:12 1643
The Wrecked Ship of Fools, April 1 2009 by Zahir Ebrahim, Project Humanbeingsfirst.org


text:
I need to enable SSL in IIS server. I have generated a keystore using java keytool and have exported the certificate from it. When I tried to use this certificate in IIS server, it says the private key is missing. Is there a way to export a private key from keystore? Or is there any way I can generate a certificate which can be used in IIS server?
Thanks in advance...