text:
July 31, 2009
Remove "On Behalf Of" from Messages Sent Using Gmail
A small inconvenience is that Google needs to include your primary email address in the headers and some mail clients inform users that the message is sent "on behalf of" a different address. Outlook is the biggest offender, especially for business messages sent from a a Gmail address "on behalf of" a custom domain.
Some suggested that Gmail should stop including the primary email address in the headers, but that's a major faux pas, since Gmail needs to authenticate the messages sent using its SMTP servers. "The reason we include your address in the headers at all is to help prevent your mail from being flagged as spam by your recipients' email services. For those who want the technical details, we use the 'Sender' field to be consistent with DomainKeys, a commonly used email authentication mechanism. If we didn't do this, your messages may get sent to your recipients' spam folders, which would be worse than the annoyance the current implementation is causing," explains Google.
The solution for this problem is not very elegant, but Google implemented it: you'll need to send the messages using the email provider's SMTP servers. Go to Gmail's settings page, select the Accounts tab, click on "edit info" next to the account you want to edit and then click on "Save changes". For some reason, this doesn't work for Gmail addresses and Google doesn't make the changes behind the scenes.
"We recognize that your other address might not have a server that you can use to send outbound messages — for example, if you use a forwarding alias rather than an actual mailbox, or if your other email provider doesn't support authenticated SMTP, or restricts access to specific IP ranges. For this reason, we've kept the original method as well," mentions Gmail's blog. The original method sends the messages using Gmail's SMTP servers.
93 comments:
- AnonymousJuly 31, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Please note that in Gmail Premier they removed the Sender header without need for an external SMTP server.ReplyDelete
This is a great, now if they deliver mail delegation as announced a few days ago, I'm ready to migrate from Lotus Domino!
it seems like it doesn't work for gmail addresses though (email@example.com on behalf of email@example.com)... no smtp option is given for gmail, and the 'on behalf...' still appears for me.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJuly 31, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Ionut, you have missed to report the deal of the century Yahoo - MicrosoftReplyDelete
- AnonymousJuly 31, 2009 at 8:40 PM
Too bad it doesn't work with other Gmail adresses! Seems like Google doesn't want you to have multiple Gmail adresses and is blocking the SMTP option :(ReplyDelete
The SMTP option doesn't make any sense for Gmail accounts because the messages are sent using the same SMTP server. Probably Google didn't bother to solve the problem for Gmail accounts because most of the complaints involved non-Gmail accounts (custom domains).ReplyDelete
I haven't and I doubt it's the deal of the century.
- AnonymousAugust 1, 2009 at 2:02 AM
Yeah ok, the SMTP option doesn't technically make much sense for other Gmail accounts, but it would have worked to get rid of the "on behalf of" since Gmail has a SMTP server, but Google actively disabled it, that's my problem. The whole reason for the SMTP option is to get rid of the "on behalf of", and now this is fixed EXCEPT for Google's own Gmail addresses. Of course a more elegant option would be possible for Gmail addresses, but Google doesn't offer one and the simple, work-around option they offer for every other Email addresses they have disabled for their own Gmail addresses!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousAugust 1, 2009 at 2:10 AM
I tried to add my Yahoo SMTP details and it did not work. By the way I have a yahoo rpo account (historical reasons).ReplyDelete
@Louis Tan, er I think your wrong. gmail SMTP is smtp.gmail.com. I'm now sending emails from all me Google Apps domains properly. Just remember your user name is the fully qualified address. e.g. bob@my_domain.eg not just bob.ReplyDelete
That is fantastic, I have allways wanted to get rid of that, now I finaly can.ReplyDelete
Thanks! :)
- AnonymousAugust 3, 2009 at 5:04 PM
that it's not working with my work email (outlook) and I can't figure out how to make it work.ReplyDelete
Yeah, it's a shame they overlooked their own Gmail accounts. I use multiple Gmail accounts together and they still show 'on behalf of'. Maybe they'll take care of this soon. Seems like an easy enough fix.ReplyDelete
I think it SUCKS that you can't do it with gmail addresses. It defeats the whole purpose of having 1 mailbox for multiple addresses. I still have to log on and off my multiple addresses when I want to send an email. I know someone over at good had to have seen this by now WTF!! FIX IT!!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousAugust 7, 2009 at 4:20 AM
Note that it will not work for SMTP servers that do not support TLS nor SSL. If you uncheck the use of SSL Gmail will fall back to TLS. TLS can not be disabled, resulting in an error if your server does not support TLS either.ReplyDelete
I really, really wish they'd take care of this for Gmail addresses. It's enough to make me want to create accounts using other providers, just so I can manage them through a central Gmail account without all the "on behalf" stuff. Very frustrating.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousAugust 9, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Allow this option for multiple gmail accounts!ReplyDelete
My biggest gripes with Gmail:ReplyDelete
1.) No option to change display to have a preview pane and group by day like in Outlook.
2.) Not being able to send from another Gmail account without the "On Behalf of".
Sort these and my digital life is complete.
- AnonymousAugust 15, 2009 at 1:08 AM
Those of us still looking for an SMTP server to use with this new feature, check this out:ReplyDelete
These SMTP settings allow only 3 standard port numbers (25, 465, 587).ReplyDelete
My hosting provider uses a non-standard port (25025) so it doesn't work.
fantastic - thanks :o)ReplyDelete
- AnonymousAugust 26, 2009 at 8:54 AM
MAKE IT WORK FOR MULTIPLE GMAIL ADDRESSES...PLSSSSSSSSSSSSE!!!ReplyDelete
THANK YOU FOR THIS POST!!! This was fantastic to know. It's bugged me for a while now.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousSeptember 14, 2009 at 9:42 AM
I am not seeing this option to two paid domains I have.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousOctober 30, 2009 at 4:43 AM
When is Google going to make the SMTP option (or any other fix) available for multiple Google accounts? How can you LET THEM KNOW they have to fix this??? (or maybe -probably- they know but don't want to fix it? why?)ReplyDelete
Google should note that if your password for your SMTP server changes, you may not be able to send mail through that server--and you will never receive an error message that indicates this. A bunch of colleagues missed mail as a result. My university requires we change our email passwords about once a year--a good idea, but don't forget to check your SMTP settings.ReplyDelete
This is starting to look like a petition: Support for multiple gMail accounts. Pls, yesterday. Ta...!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousDecember 1, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Couldn't agree more. I have a two gmail accounts that I use for shopping, and they all forward to my main, central Google Apps e-mail account. If I get lots of SPAM, I can easily close my shopping gmail account and use another. This protects my main account from SPAM. What about e-mail replies? The last thing I want is to disclose is my main Google Apps e-mail address which would happen by sending a reply e-mail from my main Google Apps account, with 'on behalf of' added to the e-mail, disclosing my main e-mail to possible SPAM.ReplyDelete
IT is nearly 2010 - This can't be that hard to resolve - We need a solution!
- AnonymousJanuary 27, 2010 at 6:06 AM
"I have a two gmail accounts that I use for shopping, and they all forward to my main...ReplyDelete
IT is nearly 2010 - This can't be that hard to resolve - We need a solution! "
- AnonymousJanuary 29, 2010 at 9:16 AM
MULTIPLE GMAIL ACCOUNTS still use "on behalf of"... its Jan 29, 2010. OMG.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousFebruary 1, 2010 at 4:12 PM
Very frustrating. Been bugging me for years. Submitted a couple comments via their support pages.ReplyDelete
agreed with everyone else........this needs to be fixed for multiple gmail addressesReplyDelete
- AnonymousFebruary 11, 2010 at 7:31 AM
"Your other email provider is responding too slowly. Please try again later or contact the administrator of your other domain for further information"...This is what appears on my screen once I follow the instructions you laid out for me on this help page...any ideas??ReplyDelete
Another Petition to allow multiple gmail accounts to send mail w/o the on behalf! I thought it would work since google gives free POP3 access but it doesn't, totally sucks as my main personal account isn't the nicest email address but I want to send emails work from it, occasionally, then it gets the on behalf ofReplyDelete
Anyone know where and how we can directly bug them about this? its kind of a big deal
I use multiple accounts on Yahoo and don't have this problem. I would love to move over to Google/Gmail but this is a complete show stopper. Until it is fixed or there is a workable way around it then it is going to discourage people from consolidating on Gmail.ReplyDelete
Apparently tthe can fix it on the paid for Google Apps, why not impliment this on the free accounts too.
BTW, it also appears when using Lotus Notes and not just Outlook.
Google! Get with it. I need this fixed for gmail accounts also!ReplyDelete
Why doesn't this work with multiple gmail accounts? failReplyDelete
- AnonymousApril 30, 2010 at 10:55 AM
Come on Google! I have 3 domains and I don't want my customers to see this On Behalf Of crap. Fix it!!!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMay 14, 2010 at 1:55 PM
Let's see this thing get resolved. Why is this taking so long to fix?!?!?!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJune 6, 2010 at 6:03 PM
Just did a dumb thing...ReplyDelete
Created a test account firstname.lastname@example.com on gmail
and asked to send mail fron it using an external SMTP server.
Then configured that sever as being gmail...
The header of the mail I received in outlook does of course still mention my original gmail account as "return-path" plus a bunch of spam related "wrong stmtp" etc but the email itlsef when read normally with outlook doesn't display the annoying "on behalf of xyz"...
So you won't be able to "really" fake somebody else's email address, but I guess that'll solve 99% people's problems...
- AnonymousJune 17, 2010 at 4:23 AM
It's just annoying that this is still not resolved. For what do they offer this service if it is not properly implemeted.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJuly 2, 2010 at 12:11 PM
+1 for removing the 'on behalf of' for Gmail accounts. Some spam systems consider it grounds for junking an email.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJuly 22, 2010 at 8:01 AM
Say I'm smart and I have several gmail accounts (work, personal, blog, ebay, etc) and I have them all forward to a single gmail account, how do I remove "on behalf of" when I'm using gmail? I don't have a separate SMTP server, if I put a gmail email address in it doesn't give me that option, it offers to send me a verification email instead.ReplyDelete
Please google fix this problem.
- AnonymousJuly 22, 2010 at 8:39 AM
We use gmail for our small business and this has become a problem. We do have our own domain but any domain name, even if it's legitimate, is more likely to be flagged as SPAM than an @gmail account, especially if the emails are being sent to other gmail accounts (most our customers have @gmail emails).ReplyDelete
Right now we have a gmail account we use for the company and each of us setup forwarding and "reply as" to our personal gmail accounts. Unfortunately it still says "on behalf of" in the email titles, and one of the young ladies here was being harassed by a customer when he used her personal email address to find her facebook and myspace profiles. The problem was resolved and we no longer do business with that individual but still this "on behalf of" nonsense created an uncomfortable situation.
We're now seriously considering google apps but risk our emails being flagged and $50 per person per year is not cheap for a fledgling business. I only hope Google decides to follow their "Don't Be Evil" motto and remove "on behalf of" from forwarded email addresses.
- AnonymousJuly 27, 2010 at 11:27 PM
I just want to use the port 2525, is that so hard to do? i wouldn't want to use any port redirector or something.. whatever..ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJuly 28, 2010 at 7:49 AM
Another hoping for a real "remove on behalf of" solution for users using multiple Google accounts.ReplyDelete
Google's reluctance to address this issue has me switching back to Firefox so I can use it's Gmail Manager addon. The addon has a right-click feature to reply using a specific account.
This eliminates the "on behalf of" issue.
Gmail Team, please fix this soon.
problem is spf checks sender address domain against originating server and dns ip afaik. this is to prevent spoofing. so the only way to get around this would be to use the actual smtp owned by the domain. it does suck though - i don't necessarily want clients to know my private gmail address.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousAugust 31, 2010 at 4:49 PM
sorry folks, i don't think there's any other way - google has to do it because of SPF (spam) guidelines, otherwise they risk being blocked by spam filters.ReplyDelete
hehe.. find a way to get ride of this "on behalf of"ReplyDelete
It's very easy..
you don't even need another smtp accout for that.
do the following.
1. do the same that describt on the top of the blog (see above)
2. on smtp server add : smtp.gmail.com
on username : "your gmail account"
on password : "your gmail password"
then check secure connection (SSL)
and that's it ! this way you can use gmail from the gmail website without having "on behalf of"
David...you are truly the man!ReplyDelete
Works perfectly!
It's incredible that after all this time it's still not possible to use another gmail account...ReplyDelete
- AnonymousOctober 8, 2010 at 1:30 AM
...truly a big disappointment.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousOctober 14, 2010 at 7:15 AM
Props David, you is the shiznit.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousOctober 24, 2010 at 11:01 AM
With the method above my emails still go into the junk folder when sent to someone with entourage/outlook.ReplyDelete
I have a email@example.com
David, You are a legend! Using gmails own SMTP server to send it....WHY OH WHY didnt i think of this years ago!! :DReplyDelete
I found work-around! :-) You can send the original email from Google Apps and use your Gmail email address in BLIND COPY. If you have your apps email as alternative account in your Gmail - the email will be stored in "Sent items". Ecco! IT LOOKS EXACTLY SAME AS OTHER EMAILS SENT FROM CONSOLIDATED GMAIL ACCOUNT. !!!!ReplyDelete
Cool! Many thanks for the tip!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousDecember 18, 2010 at 6:08 PM
Gmail, not solving the "on behalf" when sending from another gmail, makes a piece of crap.ReplyDelete
David's solution works great, but remember to update the password details each time you change your Google Account password. If you don't you'll start seeing errors like ' 535 SMTP AUTH' each time you try to send an emailReplyDelete
- AnonymousJanuary 1, 2011 at 8:04 AM
Gays, it obvious?!!!ReplyDelete
Google does not want to "fix it", simply because it is "actively" made this way. When the email is entered it is checked, and if it is a gmail address you do not get the usual page (you get something special for gmail). Google hand "chosen" to do it this way.
I think it is mean "we will give you a power over everybody ELSE, but not ourselves".
Its time to look for less evilness than google/gmail. Shame on you google, you started better.
- AnonymousJanuary 2, 2011 at 9:19 AM
What is "David's solution" !!! It is not clear and I never really understood his "1. do the same that described on the top of the blog (see above)" ... there are lots of stuff above ... what did he mean ? Can anybody, please, give easy baby steps?ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJanuary 16, 2011 at 9:59 PM
Anon, here's your baby steps:ReplyDelete
1. Log into your gmail account
2. click "settings" at the top-right of the screen
3. click on the "accounts" tab
4. find the email account you'd like to remove the "on behalf of" message from.
5. click on "edit info" beside this account name (note, this account cannot be another gmail account.)
6. click "next step" to get you to the screen where Dave's instructions start
7. Follow Dave's instructions. (I will paste them here to keep all the info together)
7.1 on smtp server add : smtp.gmail.com
7.2 on username : "your gmail account"
7.3 on password : "your gmail password"
7.4 then check secure connection (SSL)
It seems others have found this solution helpful. Thanks, Dave, for the info.
Unfortunately, those of us with multiple gmail accounts don't get the option of editing the smtp info. We're still stuck with the "sent on behalf of" message.
Google, when/if will you fix this?
- AnonymousFebruary 3, 2011 at 2:15 AM
great - thanx guys!!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMarch 28, 2011 at 1:27 AM
Hey Anon, thanks for the steps, but I still don't get it!ReplyDelete
If these steps were not for "gmail from another gmail" then what are they for?!
- AnonymousMarch 28, 2011 at 1:45 AM
What is "David's solution" !!! It is not clear !!! And what is it for if not to remove the ****ing "on behalf of" when using ANOTHER Gmail account?ReplyDelete
- AnonymousApril 22, 2011 at 3:36 PM
IM A FAN! Just did David's trick and it worked!!!!!!!!!! YAYAYAYAYAYAYAY!ReplyDelete
David (September 10, 2010 3:48 AM )ReplyDelete
you're my Hero!!!
- AnonymousMay 21, 2011 at 10:01 PM
What on earth is going on? Does "David's Solution" work? And if it does, does it remove the "on behalf of" ... where there is such a contradiction, that it works for some, and not for others (it didn't work for me)?!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMay 30, 2011 at 5:08 AM
Didn't work for me either - I want to send emails out through Outlook - Outlook is set up for the outgoing smtp.gmail.com.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJune 13, 2011 at 11:17 AM
I tried the workaround. Cool. The prob is that you need a non-gmail address to label the new account even though you set up the details with smtp.gmail etc because they apparently send the verification code and link to that address.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJuly 5, 2011 at 6:14 AM
Please let remove "on behalf of"!!!ReplyDelete
I don't want to disclose what other mail addresses I own!
- AnonymousJuly 19, 2011 at 2:19 PM
Dave's solution works with google apps custom domain + nicknames. ie. firstname.lastname@example.com + email@example.com + firstname.lastname@example.com
One big fuckup is that you have no record of any mail sent using this solution. ie. Nothing gets put in Sent Mail or any other location!!!
Vrgulnik's solution of putting email@example.com in the BCC field works, but what an absolute ball ache!!!
If they ever get this sorted I'll signup for a Google Apps Business Acount. Until then it's just not a serious solution.
- AnonymousJuly 19, 2011 at 2:30 PM
Works for me using Google Apps + Outlook 2010. I first set it up correctly in Gmail's options. Outlook's account settings should be E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com + User: email@example.com
- AnonymousOctober 10, 2011 at 1:45 AM
Existe alguma forma de recuperar os e-mails que eu enviei para outra conta.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousOctober 16, 2011 at 4:12 PM
You can also pay USD 23.00 per year for a Travel SMTP account (http://www.travelsmtp.com/en/) and then this From header On behalf of is left out completely (it's what I do), problem solved.ReplyDelete
If you want to know how to do this in google apps go to http://blog.matthewbarram.com/how-to-get-rid-on-behalf-of-in-google-appsReplyDelete
- AnonymousOctober 25, 2011 at 2:45 PM
"Dave's Solution" - WIN!! :DReplyDelete
Thanks Dave!
- AnonymousNovember 11, 2011 at 7:46 AM
Dave = legendReplyDelete
- AnonymousJanuary 11, 2012 at 4:29 PM
Dave's the man! Thought I was not going to get round this until I found this post. ExcellentReplyDelete
fyi got this working using Google Apps Free with my own domain. I used smtp.gmail.com, NOT smtp.mydomain.comReplyDelete
- AnonymousFebruary 14, 2012 at 10:46 AM
Google for christ sake, correct this... Everybody is complaining! :|ReplyDelete
David's suggestion worked perfectly, good work chief!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMarch 14, 2012 at 9:17 AM
It's official David is a genius.ReplyDelete
To get it to work (once I realized I needed to be logged into gmail web interface not just logged into google) I had to use TLS not SSL.
- AnonymousApril 17, 2012 at 9:08 AM
yes it works fine on gmail, but anyone knows how to do it with outlook? Sending maile from outlook using gmail smtp still shows "on behalf of..." ????ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMay 1, 2012 at 10:43 PM
I think Dave's solution still falls short in totally masking the original email account sender. It does remove the "via XXX sender" but I think viewing the "full header" still shows the gmail account the message is sent from (in the return-path) - at least this is true when the full message is viewed in Yahoo! This means emails to Gmail also have it encoded into the message whether it is immediately available or not.ReplyDelete
It is a good surface solution, but for those of us wanting to mask the sending account, it doesn't work.
Can you tell me if it is finally possible to hide the email address to which you have delegated you email ?ReplyDelete
Also, what if I use MULTIPLE LOGIN instead of delegating my Email ?
Best way to resolve that issue is to contact your ISP. Have them go out to the server and edit the "Exim Configuration Manager" and UNCHECK "Set SMTP Sender: headers".ReplyDelete
David's fix only seems to be valid for POP. If you use IMAP you don't have the option to choose your SMTP server.ReplyDelete
POP/IMAP are for downloading email, SMTP is for sending email.ReplyDelete
Google needs to at least warn people about the "on behalf of" when they send the email! On top of that, the sent emails show up as sent from original account in my gmail but when I check the receiver's email, it included the "on behalf of" and the sending email.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousMay 27, 2016 at 10:38 PM
This is fantastic way to loose weight and enjoyment. Visit: Email On Behalf OfReplyDelete


text:
Macadamia**_ is a genus of four species of trees indigenous to Australia and constituting part of the plant family Proteaceae.[1][2] They are native to north eastern New South Wales and central and south eastern Queensland. The tree is commercially important for its fruit, the macadamia nut /ˌmækəˈdeɪmiə/ (or simply "macadamia"). Other names include Queensland nut, bush nut, maroochi nut, bauple nut, and Hawaii nut.[3] In Australian Aboriginal languages, the fruit is known by names such as bauple, gyndl, jindilli,[3] and boombera. Previously, more species with disjunct distributions were named as members of this genus Macadamia.[2] Genetics and morphological studies more recently published in 2008 show they have separated from the genus Macadamia, correlating less closely than thought from earlier morphological studies.[2] The species previously named in the Macadamia genus may still be referred to overall by the descriptive, non-scientific name of macadamia; their disjunct distributions and current scientific names are:
- New Caledonia endemic genus Virotia in 1975 having only the type species, then by 2008 all six endemic species
- North eastern Queensland, Australian endemic genus and species Catalepidia heyana in 1995
- North eastern Queensland and Cape York Peninsula, Australia, three endemic species of Lasjia in 2008; in Australia still informally described as northern macadamias
- Sulawesi (Indonesia) two endemic species of Lasjia in 2008, based on the 1952 name M. hildebrandii and the 1995 name M. erecta
Macadamia is an evergreen genus that grows 2–12 m (7–40 ft) tall. The leaves are arranged in whorls of three to six, lanceolate to obovate or elliptic in shape, 6–30 cm (2–10 in) long and 3–13 cm (1–5 in) broad, with an entire or spiny-serrated margin. The flowers are produced in a long, slender, simple raceme 5–30 cm (2–10 in) long, the individual flowers 10–15 mm (0.4–0.6 in) long, white to pink or purple, with four tepals. The fruit is a very hard, woody, globose follicle with a pointed apex, containing one or two seeds.
The German-Australian botanist Ferdinand von Mueller gave the genus the name Macadamia in 1857 in honour of the Scottish-Australian chemist, medical teacher, and politician John Macadam.[4]

subset: commoncrawl


text: Private Duty Nursing is available for nurses who care for patients in their homes. Whether you do 4, 8, 12 hour shifts in a patient's home via an agency or if you self-contract, there are unique challenges. The unspoken rules of the household, dealing with dysfunctional families, and the environment of the home are all aspects of this job that must be dealt with by the private duty nurse.Specialties Private Duty


text:
Services on Demand
Related links
- Cited by Google
- Similars in Google
South African Journal of Science
On-line version ISSN 1996-7489
Print version ISSN 0038-2353
S. Afr. j. sci. vol.104 n.1-2 Pretoria Jan./Feb. 2008
How not to do research
Peter E. Hodgson
Corpus Christi College, Oxford OX1 4JF, U.K. E-mail: email@example.com
Scientific research is often portrayed as a rather mechanical routine consisting of amassing facts and inducing theories to account for them. The reality is quite different, and we really do not understand how it is done. If we cannot say how to do research, the next best thing is to say how not to do it. It would certainly be presumptuous of me to pretend that I know how to do research.
Everyone who wants to undertake research is faced with the problem of how to get started. To overcome this, beginners are assigned a supervisor, who suggests a problem to tackle and how it might be tackled. This is fine for a start, but research is original work, and one cannot do original work just by doing what the supervisor tells you to do. Sooner or later you have to break free and be original, and the wise supervisor will do what he can to help. It is not easy to teach people how to be original.
If you are doing experimental work, there are numerous measurements that you could make. Which of them will give us new knowledge of nature? Existing theories may be a guide, but how do we know which is the best to use? We may have heard about the 'scientific method' and look for books telling us about it. There we read that the scientist first of all discovers facts, and then by a process called induction makes an hypothesis to try to account for them. From this hypothesis it is possible to deduce an infinite number of facts, including those we have already discovered. If these deduced facts do not agree with the observed facts, we modify the hypothesis or perhaps try another. If they do agree, the hypothesis is provisionally confirmed. We then look at some of the other facts deduced from the hypothesis and measure them. If they do not agree, we modify our hypothesis. If they do, we continue as before. It is always the mark of a good hypothesis that it agrees not only with the original facts used to construct it, but also predicts some new facts that are also confirmed.
At the same time, other scientists are studying different but related phenomena, and constructing hypotheses to account for the facts that they have discovered. Then by a higher type of induction a new hypothesis is found, from which both the previous hypotheses can be deduced. In this way successful hypotheses eventually become theories that really tell us something about how the world works. According to this account of the scientific method, there is a direct logical path from the observations and measurements to the theories.
This description of scientific research has some truth in it, but it is obviously not the whole story. If research were just a specified series of operations, it could just as well be carried out by a robot. Why then are some people so much better at it than others? Why do we find that groups of scientists like those led by Sommerfeld in Munich, Rutherford in Cambridge, Bohr in Copenhagen and Fermi in Rome were so outstandingly successful, whereas thousands of others achieved practically nothing?
It is just not true that there is a logical path from the observations and measurements to the theories. They are quite different, and to get from one to the other requires a leap of the imagination. By calling it induction, it is given a spurious appearance of being logical. Bacon thought that all one had to do was to amass facts until somehow the explanation would appear. But how does this happen? Sometimes we have no idea, other times we may think we know about what lies behind the appearances, so we are able to make a hypothesis about the nature and working of the world. We try it out in the way just described. It is a mysterious process; some people can do it and some cannot.
A great difficulty is that of deciding what to observe and measure. Most facts are useless for scientific purposes; how do we know which will be useful? We may say that if we are interested in a particular phenomenon, such as light, for example, we start by measuring everything we can about light. This again is easier said than done. We may not know even the existence of some aspect of light and so we cannot even begin to measure it. Research is pushing into the unknown and so, by definition, there are no maps to guide us. We may stumble on something new, but how do we know whether it is trivial or important?
Another way of doing science was due to Descartes. He was a great mathematician and emphasized that the world can be described mathematically. His method was to start with clear ideas that are self-evident and deduce everything from those ideas. He developed a theory of motion from such principles but never tested it to see if it was true. As it happened, his clear ideas were false, and so his conclusions about motion were all wrong.
The empiricism of Bacon and the rationalism of Descartes were thus both inadequate as accounts of the scientific method. Eventually, they were unified by Newton to give the essentials of the method that we all use today.
You might also ask yourself why you are never taught anything about the scientific method when you start to do research. At first sight this seems rather strange. If you propose to drive a car, you are carefully instructed for some months and then have to take a test. Why is there no similar preparation for the much more difficult task of doing scientific research? The reason is that it is not possible to learn just by reading instructions. In this respect it is just like learning how to drive a car; the only way is by doing it with the help of an instructor. Similarly, the only way to learn how to do research is to start doing it, under the guidance of someone who already knows.
Part of the trouble is that most of the accounts of the 'scientific method' are written by philosophers who have never been in a messy laboratory and tried for months to get a recalcitrant piece of apparatus to work. Have they ever struggled to find an explanation for some curious set of data that can be expressed mathematically? As Duhem once remarked, when infuriated by some philosophers who pontificated glibly about the scientific method: 'If you want to say something about science, first spend ten or fifteen years trying to find out about the natural world without any thought of philosophical applications'. So before you read a book about scientific method, ask how many papers the author has published in Physical Review or some similar journal. Rutherford had nothing but scorn for philosophers. He once remarked to the philosopher Samuel Alexander: 'When you come to think of it, Alexander, all that you have said and all that you have written during the last thirty yearswhat does it amount to? Hot air! Hot air!' This was not quite fair, and his disdain for philosophy was to cost him dearly later on.
The difficulty of understanding research is that it is impossible to do it just by reading articles in journals reporting the results of research. Anyone with actual experience of research knows that it is a chaotic medley of false starts, ideas that turn out to be wrong, apparatus that never works, calculations that become impossibly complicated ... We blunder from one failure to the next but maybe sometimes light appears, fades and then becomes stronger until we realize that we have found out something new about the world. We sort out our ideas and gradually see that there is a path leading easily to our discovery. Then we write up the paper describing that smooth path, making it seem so easy and logical. We write it up as we would have liked it to happen, not how it actually happened, and we may even ourselves forget the tangled path we actually travelled. No editor would want to publish a truthful account of what actually happened; it would be far too long and no one would want to read it. The same may be said even more strongly for all the attempts at research that never achieved anything and were soon forgotten. Most of us have stacks of unpublishable would-be papers.
The accounts of science in textbooks are even further from what actually happened. Not only are the details omitted, but history is often re-written so as to lead the student as easily as possible to an understanding of the basic principles. The diagrams of the experimental apparatus are simplified and the reasoning re-written as a clear logical path from experiments to the final theory.
This has pedagogical advantages but is profoundly misleading as an account of how we actually reach a new truth. What actually happens is that many indications gradually accumulate, but each of them is inconclusive on its own. An example is provided by the gradual way scientists became convinced that matter is composed of atoms. The idea started with the ancient Greeks but they could not prove it to be true. It made sense of the regular structure of crystals, and the discovery by chemists that substances combine in definite proportions. At the end of the nineteenth century, the reality of atoms was still disputed by continental physicists. It was only gradually, mainly through the advances in nuclear physics, that the reality of atoms was universally accepted. Certainty is therefore seldom attained by a short logical path; instead it comes as the combination of many different results that can all be explained in the same way.
This way of attaining truth is not only characteristic of science; it applies also to the decisions of everyday life. It also helps us to understand why one person believes something and another does not. Belief depends on holding together in one's mind all the separate pointers, and without them belief is not possible.
An essential feature of scientific research is that theories must agree with experiment. Descartes put forward a theory of the motions of the planets, saying that they are carried round by vortices in the aether, but he did not formulate his idea mathematically or compare it with actual measurements. Newton had the idea that the same force that keeps the planets in their orbits causes apples to fall on earth. He did not leave it at that: he calculated the forces needed and found that they disagreed by about 20%, so he abandoned the idea. Later on, he heard about a new determination of the radius of the earth, a number that came into his calculation. He used this instead of the previous value and the results agreed, within the uncertainties of measurement. He then checked the idea against other measurements and they all agreed. Newton was doing physics; Descartes was not.
This union of fact and theory lies at the heart of physics. This has been emphasized by William Herschel:
If we would hope to make any progress in an investigation of this delicate nature, we ought to avoid two opposite extremes, of which I can hardly say which is the most dangerous. If we indulge in fanciful imagination and build worlds of our own, we must not wonder at our going wide of the paths of truth and nature; but these will vanish like the Cartesian vortices, that soon gave way when better theories were offered. On the other hand, if we add observation to observation, without attempting to draw to only certain conclusions, but also conjectural views from them, we offend against the very end for which only observations ought to be made.1
The same point has been made by Ramón y Cajal: 'The hypothesis and the objective datum are linked together by a close aetiological relationship. To observe without thinking is as dangerous as to think without observing.'2
According to the 'scientific method', a theory is rejected if a measurement is made that contradicts it. This is not what happens in real research. For example, some early measurements on electrons gave results that were inconsistent with Einstein's theory but agreed with another theory. Einstein was unmoved by this: his theory was so beautiful that it must be true and the other so ugly that it could not be true. Eventually, a flaw was found in the experimental data and Einstein was vindicated. Similarly, he was not overly excited when Eddington verified his theory of gravitation, remarking that he knew that his theory was correct. While we say that a theory is not accepted until it agrees with experiment, it is equally true to say that an experiment is not accepted until it agrees with a theory. Perhaps it would be better to say that we know that we have attained at least some limited truth when there is a symbiotic resonance between experiment and theory.
An example of this is provided by the reception of the results of attempts to measure the velocity of the earth through the aether. The attempt by Michelson and Morley failed, and this was regarded as a great disappointment by some of the best physicists of the time. They believed in the existence of the aether and thought that there must be something wrong with the experimental data. Then Einstein's theory of relativity explained the result, and many other results as well, so that it became generally accepted. Years later, the very experienced physicist Dayton Miller repeated the Michelson-Morley experiment and obtained a small but definite effect. Once again, this result was not believed because it disagreed with a theory, but this time it was a different theory!
Scientific research is not a mechanical routine; it is more like a craft that can only be learned by being apprenticed to a master. Crease and Mann, when they were writing their book on science,3 thought that it would be instructive to repeat Rutherford's famous experiment that showed the existence of the nucleus. So they asked Samuel Devons, who specialized in repeating historic experiments with the materials available to the pioneers, to show them how to do it. He simply laughed at their request, and told then that, though it was simple in principle, it was virtually impossible for two reasons. First of all, Rutherford used a radioactive source so strong that it would now be forbidden by the safety regulations. More subtly, he said that it was like asking a violin-maker to show them how to make a Stradivarius. Research is not just a matter of following instructions, it requires a mastery of numerous details of technique impossible to specify:
Craft is a knowledge you have in your fingertips, little tricks you learn from doing things, and they don't work and you do them again. You have little setbacks and you think, how can I overcome them? And then you find a way. When you're pushing your equipment to the limits it's very easy to get spurious results; you've got to push what you know to the limit. If you don't, someone else is going to do it first.3
There were other groups trying to do the same thing as Rutherford at the same time, but they failed and no one ever hears of them. Rutherford could do it, and managed to pass his knowledge to many of his colleagues.
Millikan was one of many scientists trying to measure the charge on the electron. Other scientists got a range of values, and some even thought that it was a continuous variable. Millikan emphasized in his paper that all his measurements were made on single electrons and gave the same value, within the limits of experimental uncertainties. Examining his notebooks, it was found that he marked some examples: 'Beauty - publish', while others giving different results were discarded with the remark: 'Not an oil drop'. This was initially thought to be rather sharp practice, but properly understood it shows his genius as an experimentalist. The discordant results were indeed probably due to some other cause, such as dust.
Another remarkable experimentalist was J.J. Thomson. He was very clumsy and so his assistants had to keep him well away from his apparatus. He would make a brief sketch of what he wanted, and his assistants would set to work and make it.
When all was ready, he was allowed to switch it on. Usually it did not work, like most experimental apparatus. Then J.J. would sit and think about it and tell the assistants what needed to be done. He was removed until the work was finished and then the apparatus would usually work. He even managed to get the apparatus of other scientists working in the same way. He was a master of the experimental craft.
How did they manage to do such things? The answer to this question lies at the heart of the problem of how to do research. Somehow these scientists were able to see through the various experimental data to the underlying reality. For them, the measurements, the pointer readings are windows to the real. Knowing the reality, they were able to find new roads to show new aspects and with greater clarity. Indeed it often seemed that they did the experiments just to convince other people what they already knew themselves. Someone once suggested to Rutherford that alpha-particles are just mental constructs to unify our sense impressions and they do not really exist. Rutherford nearly exploded at this and burst out: 'Not exist! Not exist! I can SEE the little beggars in front of me!' And so of course he could.
Scientists inevitably describe their results in words, and then it is very easy for philosophers and others who have no direct experience of research to interpret the words in ways that are immediately repudiated by the scientists. Unlike the scientists, they do not see the reality behind the words. All scientists face this problem as students, when they start by reading textbooks and listening to lectures. Gradually they may come to see the reality, and this is strengthened if they do some research themselves. They succeed in different degrees, and some never learn to see. Nobody knows why.
It is difficult to describe this almost uncanny ability possessed by some scientists. Polanyi,4 a scientist who thought deeply about science, described it by the phrase 'we know more than we can tell'. He also called it tacit knowledge. It is in some respects quite familiar, but the explanation is hidden in the subconscious. We all know how to ride a bicycle and to swim, but we could not describe it in such a way that someone listening could immediately ride and swim. We can all recall how we learned: we tried and failed, and suddenly we found we could do it. It is just the same as when we try to solve a mathematical problem. Another example given by Polanyi is the recognition of the face of a friend.5 We can do this instantly, and yet we cannot describe that face so that someone else can recognize it with the same certainty.
In some respects this ability to see through the appearances to the real is like the ability of a radiographer to look at an X-ray photograph and see what it means for the body of the patient. Another example is that of the bubble-chamber physicist who is able to interpret the photograph of a jumble of tracks as the interactions of particular elementary particles. However, these skills can be learned, whereas we do not know how the scientist is able to acquire the ability to see through appearances to the reality beneath.
The ability to do research often depends on being able to separate the fruitful ideas from a vast mass of rubbish. Rutherford continually received reports of research from all over the world. Most of them he discarded, but when he saw something significant, he followed it up in every way possible.
Many scientists with heroic patience have devoted their lives to long series of measurements, and often the results are extremely useful. Thus Tycho Brahe spent about thirty years measuring the motions of the planets, and this provided the essential data for Kepler's epic breakthrough. Kepler spent about twenty years trying to determine the orbit of Mars, which, like everyone else, following Aristotle, he believed was a circle. He could fit it approximately but not to the accuracy of Brahe's measurements. He could have fudged it, but took the bold step of trying an ellipse. This fitted perfectly, within the accuracy of the measurements, and thus broke the stranglehold of Aristotle that had for so long prevented the development of physics. It is interesting to note that the accuracy of Brahe's measurements was just right for this discovery: if they had been less accurate, it would not have been possible to distinguish an ellipse from a circle, but if they had been more accurate an ellipse would not have fitted because of the perturbations due to the other planets. If Kepler had not done this work, it would probably never have been done, and who can say how modern physics would have arisen.
When engaged on routine measurements, it is essential to keep one's eyes open for the unexpected. This difficulty is that discrepant results happen quite often, and if one followed them all up there would be no time for anything else. Once again, this depends on the ability of the scientist. There are many examples of missed discoveries. The French astronomer Lalande measured the positions of thousands of stars. On 8 May 1795, he measured the position of a star and, when he checked it two days later, he found a different result. Some errors are bound to occur when one is making so many measurements, so he crossed out one of them. If he had followed this up, he would have realized that he had found a new planet, which was discovered in 1846 and called Neptune. Frederick Jervis-Smith was studying discharges of electricity through gases and noticed that photographic plates near the Crookes tube became fogged, so he told his assistant to store them further away. If he had followed up this observation, he would have discovered X-rays long before Roentgen. Hughes found that signals from a spark transmitter could be detected 500 yards away using a microphone, and claimed that they were electric waves in the air. This was dismissed by some eminent scientists, so he did not publish it until 1899. He had discovered radio waves seven years before Hertz. As Heraclitus remarked, 'if you do not expect the unexpected, you will not find truth'.
It is very difficult to know when to publish a new result. To be the first is essential, yet it is also important to be right. The line between glory and disgrace is a narrow one.
When making experiments or calculations to high precision, many small corrections have to be made. It is instructive to plot the measured values of the fundamental constants such as the charge on the electron or the velocity of light as a function of time. Quite often these show not only a steady convergence to more accurate values, but sudden jumps to new values outside the quoted experimental uncertainties of the previous determinations. The experimenters wanted their value to be consistent with previous work, but of course more accurate. As a result, they stopped making corrections when this was so. Eventually, some even more accurate measurements converged to a rather different value. These jumps occur when a scientist has the courage to publish a different result, and this is confirmed by subsequent measurements. Two examples of this phenomenon, one for the velocity of light and the other for the parameter that measures the violation of charge conjugation and parity in interactions of elementary particles, are given by Jeng.6 This is called the bandwagon effect.
Jeng also gives several other examples of the effects of observer bias in physics research. Frequently what people see is strongly affected by what they expect to see, based on previous studies. Thus the early observations of the planet Saturn followed Galileo's sketches showing a large moon on either side, even though their telescopes were well able to show the rings. In his studies of optics, Newton used a prism that could easily show spectral lines, but he never reported them. It is strange that there are no European records of the supernova of 1054, although it was visible in daylight for several weeks and was observed in Japan and China. It is suggested that Europeans failed to see it because Aristotle said that there are no changes in the celestial realm. A remarkable example of seeing phenomena that are not there is provided by reports of N-rays in the early 1900s. About 300 papers on N-rays were published in France before it was finally concluded that they do not exist.
One of my research colleagues was scanning sensitive photographic emulsion using a high-power microscope and looking for events corresponding to the collision between a cosmic-ray particle and a nucleus in the emulsion. He noticed that there was quite often another event in the vicinity of the first. This was exciting because, if true, it implied that a particle with a high interaction cross-section was emitted from the first event and caused the second. No such particle was known, so had he discovered a new uncharged particle hitherto unknown to science?
To investigate this possibility, he examined many examples of pairs of events, and compared the number observed with that expected if the events were randomly spread over the emulsion. He did this as a function of the distance between the events, and this confirmed his earlier impression that there were far more closely associated events at small distances than would be expected by chance.
There seemed to be no explanation of this effect, and no means of investigating it further. At this point someone suggested that perhaps the emulsion in the vicinity of an event was searched more carefully than other parts of the emulsion. During normal searching, one moves the microscope continually across the emulsion, and only stops when one finds an event. When the microscope is stationary, it is more likely that one will see another event nearby. This was confirmed by careful re-examination, and so the effect was shown to be entirely spurious.
There are many examples of experimental measurements which give results that appear to be in excellent agreement with the theoretical predictions but which fail to be confirmed by more careful examination of the data. Thus Nichols and Hull measured the pressure due to light and found a value agreeing with Maxwell's theory to within 1%. A careful re-examination of their data produced a value 10% away from that calculated. Newton calculated the speed of sound in air and found a value agreeing with experiment to 0.1%. However, he assumed that the air is compressed isothermally instead of adiabatically, as is the case, and so should have found a value 15% too low. He managed to obtain the correct result by making a number of questionable corrections.
A similar problem is often encountered by a theoretician. In the course of his calculations he has to make a number of corrections to the principal result. For example, he may be calculating the orbit of a planet, so he begins by considering just the two-body system of the Sun and the planet. Then he has to make a series of corrections to take account of the presence of the other planets, the asteroids and so on. When does he stop? In this case the answer is relatively clear: when he finds that the effects of the smaller bodies are smaller than the accuracy he wishes to achieve. Many other cases are not so easy. I recall a distinguished physicist giving a lecture in which very many small correction terms were carefully calculated. After the lecture, someone asked him how he knew when to stop and received the reply: 'That's easy. I stop when the answer agrees with experiment!'
Theoreticians are often right, but not always, especially when they say that something cannot be done. They said that cyclotrons would not work above about 10 MeV because of relativistic effects; the experimentalists thereupon built the synchrocyclotron that went up to several hundred MeV. Pauli told Stueckelberg that his ideas about a massive particle to mediate the nuclear force were wrong, so he did not publish them. Afterwards, Yukawa independently got the same idea and published his theory of the pion. Later he reflected that the answer almost jumps at you, 'but my brain did not work so quickly. I had to take a wrong path first, before I could arrive at my destination. Those who explore the unknown world are like travellers without a map: the map is a result of the exploration. The position of their destination is not known to them, and the direct path that leads to it is not yet made.'
Bohr, saturated by the absurd Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, told Rutherford that he was wasting his time trying to find the structure of the nucleus, as it was just a structureless soup. Rutherford lacked the philosophical knowledge to refute him and gave up the search. Bohr similarly told Yamanouchi that his ideas on the nuclear shell model were wrong for the same reason; he did not publish and the credit went to Meyer and Jensen. Pauli criticized de Broglie's deterministic theory of quantum phenomena so severely that he abandoned it. This allowed the Copenhagen interpretation to be accepted, to the lasting confusion of physicists. Later on, Bell showed how Pauli's criticism could be answered.
One very fruitful way of carrying out theoretical research is to find some idea that everyone believes to be true, and then to show that it is wrong. Kepler did this for Aristotle's belief that the planets move in circles. Lee and Yang did this for the belief that parity is conserved. Another method is to find some beautiful equations and then see what phenomena they describe. Dirac did this most successfully. Einstein thought how God must have made the world. Such advice to would-be scientists is theoretically excellent, but in practice useless for ordinary mortals.
So, now we have discussed how not to do research, what we really want to know is how to do research. We have seen some of the things that must be avoided, and who we can trust to tell us. But how to see through appearances to reality cannot be taught. Some manage to achieve it, but even they cannot tell us how they did it. So the answer to our question how to do research is simply this: nobody knows.
I gratefully acknowledge the hospitality of the Department of Physics of Stellenbosch University and the continuing support of the Oppenheimer Foundation.
1. Hoskin M. (1959). William Herschel: Pioneer of Sidereal Astronomy. Sheed and Ward, London. [ Links ]
2. y Cajal R. (1989). Recollections of My Life. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. [ Links ]
3. Crease R.P. and Mann C.C. (1986). The Second Creation. Macmillan, New York. [ Links ]
4. Polanyi M. (1958). Personal Knowledge. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. [ Links ]
5. Polanyi M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. [ Links ]
6. Jeng M. (2006). A selected history of expectation bias in physics. Am. J. Phys. 74: 578. [ Links ]


text:
On Sale
Inspired by Pompeii, this rich color has a strong neoclassical heritage and is perfect for sophisticated painted furniture. Chalk Paint® is a unique decorative paint developed by Annie Sloan in 30 decorative and historical colours made specifically for painting furniture, painting floors, and for giving walls a completely matt, velvety finish. Chalk Paint® sticks to just about any surface... wood, concrete, metal, matt plastic, earthenware and much more, inside and outside the home. It dries fast too so you can add second or third coats quickly, and start enjoying your revitalised walls, floors and furniture sooner. Gorgeous results have never been so simple and straightforward. The colours are a digital representation of the paints. Do not rely on them when ordering. Please ask for a hand painted colour card.


text:
This week we bring you the most gloriously illustrated one in our continuing feature on lesser known saints.
For this installment we present:
Saint Theresa the Tatted
Patron Saint of Body Art
Saint Theresa lived in Kosovo in the early 1990s. In her pre-war life she was an assistant tattoo artist living with her boyfriend. Once hostility broke out in the mid-nineties she sought refuge by joining a monastery. Her unorthodox appearance at first made her an outcast among the sisters, but in time it became their salvation and helped bring her to sainthood.
When food became scarce in the region she was able to smuggle extra rations in small satchels attached to her various body piercings. None of the other sisters asked here where her piercings were or how she was able to carry such weight with them, they were simply grateful she was there.
As the violence escalated it became clear the sisters would have to leave the area. Among the chaos of war they quickly became lost in the Balkan mountains. Theresa, while meditating, noticed a tattoo of a map had formed on her upper thigh. Seeing a miracle before their eyes the sisters stared at the map on her inner thigh until they could follow it to salvation.
Once they had safely arrived in Greece Theresa used her tattoos to help teach underpriveliged children to read.
Today she is the Patron Saint of body art, piercing, and bikers.
You can pay homage to Saint Theresa, or any of the forgotten saints, picking up some ink with the Saint Misbehavin' guide, lovingly created by NobleWorks.


text:
Frances E. Julseth
STOUGHTON- Frances E. Julseth, age 91, entered her heavenly home on Monday, January 28, 2013 at Skaalen Home after surviving many strokes. She was born in the family home on October 11, 1921 the daughter of Charles and Mary (Hunt) Johnson. Frances graduated from Stoughton H.S. in 1939. She was a contented homemaker and wife of Howard Julseth. She trusted Christ as her Savior as a teen and since 1970 has been a member of Stoughton Baptist Church. Frances was a charter member and longtime secretary for Small Animal Advocates. She was a member of Stoughton Hospital Auxiliary and Stoughton Historical Society. Flowers, her many cats over the years and friends gave her much pleasure.
She is survived by her daughter and son-in-law, Kathleen and George Thode; two grandsons, Michael (Sarah) and Timothy (Michelle) Thode; four great-grandchildren, Christina, Theresa, Andrew and Anthony. Frances was preceded in death by her parents; her husband; many aunts, uncles and cousins.
Friends and relatives are invited to a luncheon reception at 12 noon on Saturday, February 2, 2013 in the Skaalen Friendship Room, 400 N. Morris Street.
Funeral services will be held at 2:00 PM on Saturday, February 2, 2013 at Skaalen Home Chapel, with Rev. Mark Weiss officiating. Burial will follow in Riverside Cemetery.
Visitation will be held from 4:30 PM until 6:30 PM on Friday, February 1, 2013 at Cress Funeral Home, 206 W. Prospect Ave., Stoughton and from 1:00 until the time of services on Saturday at Skaalen.
Memorials may be made to the Small Animal Advocates, Stoughton Baptist Church Building Fund or to the Skaalen Activity Fund.
We thank you Lord for the many involved in mother's life.
Cress Funeral Service
206 W. Prospect Street
Stoughton, WI 53589
(608) 873-9244


text:
But it is worse than that. Actually, it surprises me little that the 'woman of Canaan' would complain of a daughter 'grievously vexed with a devil' (St Matt. 15:23). Ps. 96:5 says 'all the gods of the nations'—or Gentiles, like the Phoenicians—'are mere idols': but according to both the Greek and Latin translations of the Old Testament, 'all the gods of the nations are demons' (Ps. 96:5 LXX). Next week's Gospel mentions 'Beelzebub', or 'Lord of Flies', the demonic god of the Philistine city of Ekron, who is referred to there as 'the chief of devils' (St Luke 11:14-28).
The latter passage reminds us that Ps. 96:5 is true par excellence of the Phoenicians of Tyre and Sidon, whose deities are variously known as Baal or Moloch, and who were known to sacrifice their children in the fiery mouths of their great bronze idols. Such sacrifices are mentioned in Lev. 18:21, and there are terrifying, vivid descriptions of them in a scholium to Plato's Republic as well as in Plutarch.
Thus, it seems a fitting punishment for people known in the Mediterranean world for sacrificing children to demons for their children to be 'badly demonized', according to a literal translation of the woman's words. Surely the burners of human beings to demonic gods fall under St Paul's condemnation when he writes in today's Epistle, 'He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God' (I Thess. 4:8). Confronted with the same Moloch-worshipping Phoenicians in their colony of Carthage, G.K. Chesterton tells us the Romans saw 'faces of sneering men; and hated the hateful soul of Carthage'. [2]
But, as St Augustine happily observes in The City of God, '[M]en, though erring, incredulous, and averse from the worship and service of the gods, are nevertheless beyond doubt better than the demons whom they themselves have evoked' (De civ. Dei 8.24). [3] This is wonderfully demonstrated by the woman in today's Gospel. She recognised her error, repented, and came to Christ in humble supplication, and this humility is the dominant note of today's lesson. It begins with a simple plea for mercy, like the prayer of the Publican, 'O God, be merciful to me a sinner' (Lk 18:13). Then, we see the recognition that the Messiah of the Hebrews is the true 'Baal', or 'Lord', when the woman says 'O Lord'.
St Gregory Palamas, the Archbishop of Thessalonica in the 14th c., preached a beautiful homily on today's Gospel in the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia in Thessalonica (not the big famous Hagia Sophia, but a smaller one). [4] I will be quoting frequently from St Gregory through the rest of this homily. Commenting on the Canaanite woman's address to Christ, St Gregory points out that 'no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost' (I Cor. 12:3). Thus, in his words, 'In fact the Canaanite woman did not merely come out from those heathen coasts, but sprang up from the valleys like a sacred lily, exhaling with her words the fragrance of the divine Spirit from her mouth.' [5]
So, we have already a model of enormous self-abasement, but our Lord 'wanted her faith and virtue to be demonstrated even more clearly'. First, He 'answered her not a word' (15:23), then, when the disciples pleaded with Him to send her away, He said, 'I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel' (15:24).
Now, we might think that the humble response to such a rebuff would be to accept it and withdraw—but this would be pride, not humility. When she needs help, the humble woman begs for it. Thus, woman of Canaan worships Christ, that is, she falls down before Him in prostration, and supplicates Him in even simpler words: 'Lord, help me' (15:25).
How does Christ respond to this self-abasement? We are astonished to find that He responds with an insult: 'It is not meet to take the children's bread [that is, the salvation belonging to Israel], and to cast it to dogs [the Phoenician Baal-worshippers]' (15:26). But while we may be shocked by Christ calling a woman a 'dog', however fitting a moral description of her people it may be, He who knows all things knew her heart, saw her humility, and wanted to test her to reveal her amazing virtue before all for centuries to come.
For how does she respond? She is not insulted. According to St Gregory, '[W]hen she was treated with contempt and heard herself called not just an irrational animal, but a dirty and fierce one, whose voice was a dog's bark rather than human speech worth listening to, she agreed and joined in ridiculing herself, but did not cease to entreat Christ.' [6]
The Fathers teach us that when we are insulted, we absolutely must NOT respond with insults, but, they say, it is even better not to become angry, and best of all to admit the truth in the insult. One Father of the Egyptian desert, Abba Isaiah, says insults are good for us because they teach us humility, and that one who 'bears insults is like a tree that is watered every day' (Isaiah 1). [7] Another Desert Father, Abba Xanthius, points out a dog is better than we, 'for he has love & he does not judge' (Xanthius 3). [8]
So the Canaanite woman follows this highest path: 'Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table' (15:27). St Gregory writes:
Let us learn from this teacher with how much patience, humility and contrition we must persevere in our prayers. Even if we are unworthy, and even if we are sent away because we are soiled with sins, let us learn not to turn back, but to keep humbly asking from our soul. We shall receive our requests from God. [9]
And if none who is defiled can enter that place, then allow me to live by its enclosure, residing in its shade. Since Paradise resembles that table, let me, through Your grace, eat of the 'crumbs' of its fruit which fall outside, so that I too may join those dogs who had their fill from the crumbs of their masters' tables. (Hymns on Paradise 7.26) [11]
I reckon that just as pride is the greatest of the passions, since it was able to cast various beings down from Heaven, so also is humility the greatest of all the virtues. For it has the power to raise a man up from those dark abysses, even if he is a sinner like the Devil. This is why the Lord called the poor in spirit, that is, the humble, blessed above all others (Matt. 5:3). [12]
And when He has finished with everyone, then He will say unto us, too, 'You, too, come forth!' He will say. 'Come forth, my drunk ones, my weak ones, my shameless ones!' And we will all come forth, without being ashamed, and stand there. And He will say, 'Swine you are! Of the image of the beast and of his seal' but come, you, too!' And the wise and the reasonable will say unto Him, 'Lord, why do you receive such as these?' And He will say, 'I receive them, my wise and reasonable ones, forasmuch as not one of them considered himself worthy of this thing . . .' And He will stretch out His arms to us, and we will fall at His feet . . . and weep . . . and understand everything! Then we will understand everything! . . . and everyone will understand . . . […] Lord, Thy kingdom come! [13]
Let us humble ourselves of our own free will, brethren, that we may demonstrate our faith in Christ and also be exalted by Him. Or rather, may we acknowledge our innate lowliness, and the fact that the misleading thoughts which sometimes arise within us are from the demons. Then let us cry out to Christ like the Canaanite woman, fall down before Him and persevere in humble prayer, and we shall obtain the grace which is given to the humbleminded, and speedily ascend to divine heights. [14]


text:
Russia closes deal on $550 million worth of warplanes for Syria
Russia has remained a staunch supporter of Syria's President Assad, blocking UN efforts to impose an international arms embargo.
| Moscow
Russia has closed a contract to sell half-a-billion dollars worth of warplanes to Syria, just the latest sign that Moscow intends to carry on business-as-usual with the embattled regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
According to the Moscow business daily Kommersant, the $550 million contract to purchase 36 Yak-130 Mitten combat trainers was signed in December, even as the 11-month-old uprising against four decades of rule by the Assad family was gathering steam and turning very bloody. According to United Nations estimates, more than 5,400 people have died since March, when the uprising began.
Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov last week dismissed any questions about Russian arms sales to Syria by saying "we don't consider it necessary to explain ourselves or justify ourselves, because we are not violating any international agreements or any [UN] Security Council resolutions."
The European Union approved an arms embargo on Syria last year. The UN Security Council has sought to do the same, but has been blocked by Russia, which has veto power.
Experts say Russia has felt badly burned by Western-sponsored sanctions against selected Middle East regimes, which have cost Moscow some of its most lucrative customers, even as the US continues to negotiate huge arms sales to its own regional clients -- including recent deals worth $60 billion to Saudi Arabia and $3.5 billion to the United Arab Emirates.
According to the Moscow-based Center for Analysis of World Arms Trade (CAWAT), Russia lost as much as $4.5 billion in broken weapons deals with Muammar Qaddafi's Libya and another $13 billion as a result of UN Security Council-approved sanctions that forced Moscow to cancel all its major arms contracts with Iran.
Russia is thought to have up to $5 billion in potential arms exports to Syria in the pipeline, including sales of warships, submarines, modern T-90 tanks, MiG-29 fighters, and Iskander-E tactical missiles.
"We have already made many shameful concessions to the West. Under pressure we refused to fulfill contracts we had duly signed and thus found ourselves in a humiliating situation," says Viktor Baranets, a former Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, who is now a columnist with the Moscow daily Komsomolskaya Pravda.
"Russia's image was at stake, but we displayed weak will in the cases of Libya and Iran," he says. "Now we see the same script unfolding in Syria. The chain reaction of these so-called Arab spring revolutions will go on, they will manage to suppress Iran, and the world will turn its head into the direction indicated by the leader, the USA."
Kommersant cited a source close to the state arms export agency, Rosoboronexport, as saying production of the Yak-130s will begin at a Siberian factory as soon as a Syrian deposit on the deal is received.
The Yak-130 is Russia's most modern fighter/trainer, and experts say it can easily be converted to a combat role.
"Yak-130s are basically flying school desks, and 36 of these planes will hardly change the strategic situation in the region," says Igor Korotchenko, director of CAWAT. "But they are means to prepare pilots to fly modern planes, and so the Yak-130 serves as a preparation link which could lead to further sales of Russian light fighter bombers, such as the MiG-29 and possibly the MiG-35."
The political significance of the deal is that "Moscow has apparently put its stakes on the capacity of Syrian regime to settle its internal problems and stay in power," says Mr. Korotchenko. "After all, who would sign contracts with a regime they didn't think was going to last?"


text:
What to Do at Grand Teton
Top Experiences
For a memorable trip more ambitious than the popular hikes and ranger programs, look into additional tour activities offered by licensed operators. Learn kayaking basics and embark on a sea kayaking tour or relax on a rafting trip with O.A.R.S.
Both Flagg Ranch Resort and Grand Teton Lodge Company offer guided horseback rides along various scenic trails by woodlands, ponds, willows, and more. Riders must be at least eight years old, but Grand Teton Lodge Co. also offers pony rides for younger kids and wagon rides to a picturesque breakfast spot for all.
Wintertime offers an exciting alternative for exploring Grand Teton. There are ranger-led snowshoe tours, a variety of skiing options, and snowmobiling. Operators who lead activities in the park often provide snow gear, food, and spa treatments after a strenuous day in the snow. Other options, such as sleigh rides and dog sledding, are available. Contact www.nps.gov/grte/planyourvisit/winter.htm for more information.
Scenic Drives
Right off U.S.191, Teton Park Road begins at Moose and traces the Teton Range base to Jackson Lake Junction. The 20-mile road provides a great overview, traversing a good length of the park and passing several bodies of water. To get closer to the breathtaking peaks, take a detour after 8.5 miles at Jenny Lake Road. After merging back onto Teton Park Road, enjoy the scenery for another nine miles, then climb 800 feet on Signal Mountain Summit Road for spectacular views of the Teton Range, Jackson Hole Valley, and Jackson Lake. The rest of the drive skirts Jackson Lake before hitting the scenic John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Parkway.
Best Hikes
Easy: Those who want to start off taking it slow can ease into a day of hiking with Lunch Tree Hill, a half-mile round-trip trail that can be completed in half an hour. This trail by Jackson Lake Lodge is lined with interpretive signs that will help you find your way along a route that climbs a total of 80 feet. The overlook at the top of the hill offers a great view of the Teton Range's grand peaks, as well as the willow thickets, grassy meadows, and the creeks and beaver ponds of Willow Flats.
Moderate: For more of a challenge, go to Jenny Lake, off Cascade Canyon, and hike the popular five-mile round-trip Hidden Falls trail. Climb 550 feet in about three hours, taking in the sapphire waters while skirting Jenny Lake's south shore. Keep your eyes out for furry marmots as you climb to the top of the trail, then soak in the glorious 200-foot-high waterfall.
Strenuous: For experienced hikers, the 12.4-mile round-trip Holly Lake trail by String Lake is an eight-hour trek that climbs 2,625 feet and winds through the wildflower-strewn paths of Paintbrush Canyon trail, before arriving at the sparkling waters of an alpine lake.
Combine the Paintbrush Canyon trail with the Cascade Canyons for a hike on the 19.2-mile round-trip Paintbrush-Cascade Loop. This longer hike along the Paintbrush Divide will take about 14 hours. The hike is very strenuous. With 4,840 feet of total climbing, this journey takes you to great heights.
Home to the largest bird in North America, the trumpeter swan, Grand Teton National Park also hosts the smallest bird on the continent, the calliope hummingbird, which weighs less than one tenth of an ounce. In addition to supporting a range of bird species, the park's many habitats feature over 60 species of mammals, from majestic elk to predatory wolves to small pikas. If you're near the water, there's a chance that a river otter might be splashing around.
Photo Ops
For photographers, there are several popular spots to view wildlife (at a safe distance). You'll find fish, pelicans, muskrats, and other mammals at Oxbow Bend, one mile east of Jackson Lake Junction. To catch sight of quick-footed elk and pronghorn antelope, visit Timbered Island near Jenny Lake. Cascade Canyon, west of Jenny Lake, is home to smaller creatures, like pikas, yellow-bellied marmots, pine martens, and ground squirrels.
- Nat Geo Expeditions
Excursions Outside the Park
Yellowstone National Park, America's first national park, is located just north of Grand Teton park. After gazing at the peaks, valleys, and lakes of Grand Teton, shift gears in Yellowstone with up-close views of geysers and hot springs.
Archaeology lovers won't want to miss a visit to Fossil Butte National Monument. A little more than 150 miles south of Grand Teton, this 8,198-acre park features sub-tropical fossils found in cold sagebrush desert. Check out more than 80 fossils on view at the visitors center, make fossil rubbings, and watch fossil preparation demonstrations.
For a more lively adventure, visit the National Elk Refuge in winter for a horse-drawn sleigh ride alongside thousands of elk. Elk and bison hunting is also offered in the fall as a part of herd-size management. If you're in town the Saturday before Memorial Day Weekend, the Jackson District Boy Scouts auction off dozens of elk antlers from the National Elk Refuge and donate 80 percent of the proceeds to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Stop by the city's Town Square to bid.
For hands-on learning, drive about ten miles south of Grand Teton to the Center for the Arts for dance classes and a variety of conferences. In addition to art exhibits, the center hosts a wide range of live events, from acrobats to ballet shows to music performances.


text:
Stock Number
- Keyes BE WISE Special $11,983
Be Wise, See Keyes for the Best Buys Since 1946.
26/38 City/Highway MPG *Autocheck 1 owner*, *Clean Autocheck Vehicle History Report*, Inspected by Certified Technicians, Fresh oil change, Fully detailed, Clean Local Trade In, 6-Way Manual Driver Seat Adjuster, Air Conditioning, Alloy wheels, CD player, Front Bucket Seats, Power windows, Preferred Equipment Group 1SD, Rear window defroster, Remote keyless entry, Steering wheel mounted audio controls. Recent Arrival! Blue Ray Metallic 2015 Chevrolet Cruze 1LT 1LT 4D Sedan FWD 6-Speed Automatic Electronic with Overdrive ECOTEC 1.4L I4 SMPI DOHC Turbocharged VVT
Odometer is 10401 miles below market average! Awards:
* 2015 KBB.com 10 Best UberX Candidates * 2015 KBB.com 10 Best Used Compact Cars Under $10,000
* If you need small-car pricing and fuel-efficiency but you don't want to give up big-car comfort, check out the 5-passenger Chevrolet Cruze for 2015. Although it's categorized as a compact sedan, the Cruze's interior volume actually qualifies it as a midsize model. Source: KBB.com
* Two satisfying high-efficiency engine choices; secure handling; handsome interior design; big trunk. Source: Edmunds
* The Cruze gives you great fuel economy and a reasonable price, with a very stylish look to go with it. It has a strong stance and angled lines, with a split front grille, and headlights that wrap around from the front and end in a point above the fenders. On the inside the cabin is modern, roomy and comfortable. It doesn't feel like the compacts you might be used to and is refreshingly fun to drive. There are 6 different trims available for the Cruze, including the: LS, 1LT, Eco, 2LT, LTZ, and the Turbo Diesel. Standard for all are features such as Bluetooth calling and Touch Controls on the Steering Wheel. The Base Model LS comes with a 1.8L engine that gets 25MPG City and 36MPG hwy with the standard 6-speed manual, or 22MPG City and 35MPG hwy when you opt for the automatic. All models higher than the LS, but below the Diesel come with a peppy 1.4L Turbocharged Engine. The 1LT and 2LT give you your choice of a 6-speed manual with overdrive or an automatic. The Eco comes standard with a special 6-speed manual with triple overdrive, or an optional automatic. Fuel economy varies for these trims based on which you opt for, but the best performer hands down is the Eco with the Manual Transmission that gets an EPA estimated 28MPG City and 42MPG hwy. The top of the line model is the Diesel with a 2.0L engine that has 151hp and gets an EPA estimated 27MPG City and an amazing 46MPG hwy. Standard safety features on all models include Anti-lock brakes, Stabilitrak, Traction Control, and 10 Airbags. Upgrade to the LTZ trim and you get the added visibility of a Rear View Camera. With available Chevrolet MyLink all your apps are located on the 7-inch touchscreen and the available 4G LTE turns the Cruze into a mobile Wi-Fi hotspot. Source: The Manufacturer Summary.


text:
Mid Life Love: At Last by Whitney Gracia Williams
If you ask me if Jonathan Statham makes me happy, I'll say 'Absolutely. He's the man of my dreams and I can't wait to marry him.' If you ask me why my ex-husband Ryan is currently one inch away from me—staring into my eyes and pressing his hand against my cheek, I'll say, 'I have no f*ing idea…'
Claire Gracen finally has the life she's always wanted: A career she loves, a man who's willing to do any and everything for her, and friends that show her the true meaning of the word 'friendship.'
As she and Jonathan prepare to make the ultimate commitment to one another and plan the wedding of her dreams, she quickly realizes that the hurtful past she left behind in Pittsburgh is a lot closer than she thought.
Sexy, unpredictable, and as charmingly clever as 'Mid Life Love,' 'At Last' will captivate you from the first page and never let you go.
**This is a companion novel to Mid Life Love**
A self-diagnosed candy addict, travel junkie, and hypochondriac, Whitney Gracia Williams LOVES to write about characters that make you laugh, cry, and want to (in the case of Selena Ross) reach through your Kindle and slap them.
She is the "imaginary bestselling" author of the Jilted Bride Series, Mid Life Love, Wasted Love, and Captain of My Soul.
She also loves getting emails from her readers, so if you want to tell her how much you loved (or hated) her stories e-mail her - > email@example.com
Purchase Mid Life Love (book 1)
Connect with Whitney Gracia Williams
Website | Facebook | Twitter | Goodreads | Pinterest
The release date for Mid Life Love: At Last is September 10, 2013, be sure to check it out.
Connect with About That Story
Twitter | Facebook | Follow with Bloglovin | Follow by Email


text:
EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. --New York Giants coach Ben McAdoo wants his team to "keep our focus on the ballgame" and said he spoke to Odell Beckham Jr. about his latest sideline antics.
Even when Beckham is scoring touchdowns and dominating opponents -- as he did Sunday during a victory over the Baltimore Ravens--the star receiver's off-field actions continue to attract widespread attention.
Beckham drew a 15-yard penalty with 1:24 remaining for taking off his helmet in celebration after his go-ahead 66-yard touchdown catch, a penalty that was assessed on the ensuing kickoff. He then dropped down on one knee and mimicked a marriage proposal to a kicking net on the sideline -- the same net he punched in frustration earlier this season.
"He came up to me right after [the penalty]," McAdoo said. "We had a discussion about it. We can't have it. He knows that. He went out and wanted to fire up the kickoff coverage team and the defense. He knows we can't have it."
Beckham, who has a long history of penalties and fines, knows he got away with one on Sunday. The Ravens drove down to the Giants' 24-yard line in the final seconds but ran out of time.
"I'm very thankful that the penalty on that didn't cost us in the end," Beckham said Sunday.
QuarterbackEli Manningsaid the win helped to mitigate the effect of Beckham's behavior.
"He made plays, and so it's one of those deals where you can get real sick of it if he's not going out there and making plays," Manning told WFAN in New York, "but when he goes out and has a couple huge catches and 200 yards and a game-winning touchdown, you know, you still want him to be smarter, but you accept it a little easier."
The "marriage proposal" marked the third time in four weeks that Beckham had an encounter with the kicking net. He slammed his helmet against the net during a sideline tirade in Week 3 against the Washington Redskins, and the net snapped back into his face, creating a humorous highlight that was played on loop throughout that week.
After scoring his first touchdown of the season last week late in a loss to the Green Bay Packers, Beckham made amends with the kicking net, hugging it in an attempt at reconciliation.
One week later, the joking celebration continued, as Beckham went down on his knee and feigned offering the net an engagement ring. McAdoo did not seem entertained.
"We need to keep our focus on the ballgame," he said.
Beckham had a career-high 222 yards receiving and two touchdowns in the 27-23 victory Sunday, with 211 of those yards coming in the second half of a game the Giants desperately needed. He also hurt his hip, missed part of a first-half series and needed treatment on Monday.


text:
Dancehall artiste, Shatta Wale has said he will not sit aloof and wait for a Pastor to visit a shrine to kill him just because he wants to prove a point that he has the power to make and unmake.
According to him, if the Pastor who predicted his death thinks he is a man of God, he should meet him so he proves to him that he is also anointed by the Holy Ghost and that the Pastor is a thief and not a man of God.
Shatta Wale who made this call in a Facebook Live stream video made a clarion call on the President of Ghana to draw his attention to the fact that his life has been threatened by a Pastor.
He said "Mr. President I'm being threatened, my life is at stake and I can't wait for a Pastor to go to a shrine to come and prove a point.
I want to prove a point about who God is. You see this Pastor, if you have power come and look for me otherwise I will come and show you power mightier than your church, mightier than your car, mightier than your house, mightier than your entire family and generation.
Pastor you stepped on a wrong tail. I won't even call you a Pastor, I will call you a thief and a murderer. You people killed Ebony".
He used the opportunity to call on Religious leaders to rise up against all fake Pastors and Prophets in the country.
Shatta Wale called on Ghana Police to investigate the Pastor in the coming days or he will strike with members of his empire to burn down the Pastor's Church because he feels his life is been threatened.


text:
Civic Contributions: Taxes Paid by Immigrants in the Washington, DC, Metro Area
This report provides an estimate of the taxes paid by immigrants in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, a relatively affluent region that encompasses the District of Columbia and portions of Maryland and Virginia. It compares the tax payments of immigrant households—households headed by naturalized citizens, legal immigrants, and unauthorized immigrants—with the contributions of native households between 1999 and 2000. The report also examines the demographics, household composition, income, and geographic dispersal of immigrant tax payers across the region.
The report calculates that immigrant households in the Washington, DC area paid nearly $10 billion in taxes in 1999-2000. The report finds that households headed by unauthorized immigrants have much lower average incomes and tax payments than native households, and also pay a substantially lower share of their income in taxes. Authors estimate that only 55 percent of unauthorized individuals pay income or payroll taxes. On the other hand, households headed by legal status holders pay taxes at nearly the same rate as native households. Households headed by green card holders have slightly lower average incomes and tax contributions, while households headed by naturalized citizens have slightly higher average incomes than native households and paid roughly the same amount in taxes. Furthermore, the report shows that increases in immigrant households' income and tax contributions correspond to gains in educational attainment and English proficiency. These findings suggest that over time, as immigrants become better integrated, their tax contributions will reach parity with natives.


text:
With voting open on Facebook's proposed privacy policy changes, more than 110,000 users have weighed in -- and so far, the vote is heavily in favor of not making the change at all.
Facebook historically had a rule that any of proposed policy changes that attracted 7,000 "substantive" comments would be put to a vote. That will no longer be the case.
Facebook recently announced that it is moving to amend how it pushes through changes to its privacy policy. Noting a lack of quality comments on past votes, the social network no longer wants to allow users to vote on proposed changes.
According to its standing rules, however, users still have a chance to vote on giving away their right to vote.
As of 3:30 p.m. ET Tuesday, 9,670 people had voted in support the move while 101,686 voted to stick with the old rules and retain their say on future changes.
Voting is scheduled to end on Dec. 10 at 3 p.m. ET.
However, the vote may not be binding.
According to Facebook's standing rules, if more than 30% of all active registered users vote, the results will be binding. If the voting turnout is less than 30%, the vote will be nothing more than advisory.
Since Facebook has more than 1 billion active users, more than 300 million people will need to vote.
Dan Olds, an analyst with The Gabriel Consulting Group, said he doubts the vote will be anything more than pointless.
"I would be very surprised if they see anywhere near the 30% voting rate they need in order for this election to count," he added. "Given Facebook's 1 billion or so users, the folks who want to force Facebook to back down on their privacy policy changes would need 300 million users to weigh in. I think the voting exercise will turn out to probably spell the end of voting on Facebook policies."
Olds also doesn't think that the policy change would rattle most users. "I think the overwhelmingly vast majority of Facebook users don't think about privacy and don't have any idea that there are any changes in the works," he said.
However, there have been some high-level concerns about the proposal.
The Data Protection Commissioner in Ireland, where Facebook's European Union headquarters is located, quickly contacted the social network for a clarification of its position. And the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Center for Digital Democracy teamed up to ask Facebook to withdraw the proposed changes, noting that users have a right to participate in Facebook's governance.
Sharon Gaudin covers the Internet and Web 2.0, emerging technologies, and desktop and laptop chips for Computerworld. Follow Sharon on Twitter at @sgaudin, on Google+ or subscribe to Sharon's RSS feed. Her email address is firstname.lastname@example.com.
See more by Sharon Gaudin on Computerworld.com.
Read more about social media in Computerworld's Social Media Topic Center.


text:
SAN FRANCISCO (TheBlaze/AP) -- Same-sex couples dressed in jeans, shorts, white dresses, and the occasional military uniform filled San Francisco City Hall on Saturday as clerks resumed issuing marriage licenses one day after a federal appeals court removed the last obstacle to making gay marriage legal again in California.
Cynthia Wides, right, and Elizabeth Carey exchange wedding vows at City Hall in San Francisco, Saturday, June 29, 2013. Dozens of gay couples have lined up outside City Hall as clerks have resumed issuing same-sex marriage licenses one day after a federal appeals court cleared the way for the state of California to immediately lift a 4-year freeze. (Credit: AP)
But lawyers for the sponsors of California's same-sex marriage ban have filed an emergency motion asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule the federal appeals court.
Attorneys with the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom said they submitted the petition on Saturday to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who handles motions dealing with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Senior Counsel Austin Nimocks says a three-judge 9th Circuit panel acted prematurely and unfairly when it lifted the hold on same-sex marriages it had put in place while a challenge to the ban made its way through the courts.
Nimocks says the Supreme Court's consideration of the case is not done yet because his clients still have 22 days to ask the justices to reconsider their decision holding that Proposition 8's backers did not have legal authority to defend the ban.
Although a few clerk's offices around the state stayed open late on Friday, San Francisco was the only jurisdiction to hold weekend hours so same-sex couples could take advantage of their newly restored right, Clerk Karen Hong said.
A sign posted on the door of the office where a long line of couples waited to fill out applications listed the price for a license, a ceremony or both above the words "Equality(equals)Priceless."
"We really wanted to make this happen," Hong said, adding that her whole staff and a group of volunteers came into work without having to be asked. "It's spontaneous, which is great in its own way."
Peter Madril, left, and Monte Young embrace after getting married at City Hall in San Francisco, Saturday, June 29, 2013. Dozens of gay couples exchanged vows as clerks resumed issuing same-sex marriage licenses. (Credit: AP)
The timing could not have been better for California National Guard Capt. Michael Potoczniak, 38, and his partner of 10 years, Todd Saunders, 47, of El Cerrito.
Potoczniak, who joined the Guard after the military's ban on openly gay service was repealed almost two years ago, is scheduled to fly out Sunday night for a month of basic training in Texas.
"I woke up this morning, shook him awake and said, 'Let's go,'" said Potoczniak, who chose to get married in his Army uniform. "It's something that people need to see because everyone is so used to uniforms at military weddings."
Army Capt. Michael Potoczniak, at left, and Todd Saunders, right, of El Cerrito, Calif., exchange rings at City Hall in San Francisco, Saturday, June 29, 2013. (Credit: AP)
The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for gay marriage to return to the nation's most populous state by ruling 5-4 on Wednesday that the sponsors of California's voter-approved ban on same-sex unions lacked authority to defend the measure in court.
Also Wednesday, the Supreme Court overturned the federal law that prevented the government from awarding federal benefits to same sex couples, a decision with extra significance for military couples such as Saunders and Potoczniak.
"It scared me, honestly, before this all happened, that something could happen to me," Potoczniak said. "Things like my body, who would take care of him, even just getting the health insurance...It gives me a lot more peace of mind to know that the Army is taking care of us."
Also waiting to wed Saturday were Scott Kehoe, 34, and his fiancee, Aurelien Bricker, 24. After finding out on Facebook that the city was issuing same-sex marriage licenses Friday, the San Francisco couple rushed out to Tiffany's to buy wedding rings.
"We were afraid of further legal challenges in the state," Kehoe said.
Bricker is a French citizen living in the United States on a student visa, and the couple has contemplated moving to France once he completes his studies next year.
Now that the Defense of Marriage Act has been struck down and California's gay marriage ban lifted, Kehoe can sponsor his husband for U.S. citizenship or permanent residency.
Hong said 81 same-sex couples wed in San Francisco on Friday just hours after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a brief order saying it has dissolved a stay it imposed on gay marriages while a lawsuit challenging the ban, known as Proposition 8, worked its way through the courts.
Within hours of the appeals court's action Friday, the two lead plaintiffs who in 2009 sued to overturn Proposition 8, Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier of Berkeley, became the first couple to marry in San Francisco in a hastily arranged ceremony.
Same-sex couple Kris Perry (L) and Sandy Stier (R) speak to media following their wedding at San Francisco's City Hall in California on Friday, June 28, 2013. (Credit: AFP/Getty Images)
The city, home to both a federal trial court that struck down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional and the 9th Circuit, has been the epicenter of the state's gay marriage movement since then-Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered his administration in February 2004 to issue licenses to gay couples in defiance of state law.
A little more than four years later, the California Supreme Court, which is also based in San Francisco, struck down the state's one-man, one-woman marriage laws.
City Hall was the scene of many more marriages in the 4 1/2 months before a coalition of religious conservative groups successfully campaigned for the November 2008 passage of Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriages.
Standing amid the beaming couples on Saturday, John Lewis and Stuart Gaffney of the advocacy group Marriage Equality USA looked like proud fathers. The men have been together 26 years, got married in February 2004, had their union invalidated six months later and then became one of the 18,000 couples estimated to have tied the knot in California before Proposition 8 was enacted.
"I don't think getting a license means as much to anyone who hasn't worked so long for it and fought so hard for it," Gaffney said. "It's been a very long engagement."
Here's a report from ABC News: