text:
Q: C# equivalent to Java's FloatBuffer/ShortBuffer? I am wondering, is there an equivalent in C# to the following code?
ShortBuffer sb = BufferUtils.createShortBuffer(Cubie.indexData.length);
sb.put(Cubie.indexData).flip();

Gl.BufferData(BufferTarget.ElementArrayBuffer, sb, BufferUsageHint.StaticDraw);
Gl.BindBuffer(BufferTarget.ElementArrayBuffer, 0);

A: First of all this might be a little bump, but answering in case someone else comes around here or that OP may still need something like this.
I wrapped an array into a buffer class and tried to match ShortBuffer. Of course this is not a complete implementation of it, so there might still be some stuff missing or stuff that'd have to be implemented.
I made it generic in case you might want to have different type of buffers and not just short.
Here is the Buffer<T> class.
    /// <summary>
    /// A generic buffer.
    /// </summary>
    /// <typeparam name="T"></typeparam>
    public class Buffer<T>
    {
        /// <summary>
        /// The internal buffer.
        /// </summary>
        protected T[] _array;

        /// <summary>
        /// Creates a new generic buffer.
        /// </summary>
        /// <param name="array">The array.</param>
        public Buffer(T[] array)
        {
            _array = new T[array.Length];
            Array.Copy(array, 0, _array, 0, _array.Length);
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Creates a new generic buffer.
        /// </summary>
        /// <param name="capacity">The capacity.</param>
        public Buffer(int capacity)
        {
            _array = new T[capacity];
            // 0 filling for value-types
            for (int i = 0; i < _array.Length; i++)
                _array[i] = default(T);
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Gets the first value of the buffer.
        /// </summary>
        public T First
        {
            get { return _array[0]; }
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Gets the last value of the buffer.
        /// </summary>
        public T Last
        {
            get { return _array[_array.Length - 1]; }
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Gets the length of the buffer.
        /// </summary>
        public int Length
        {
            get { return _array.Length; }
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Gets values in the form of an array from a specific index.
        /// </summary>
        /// <param name="index">The index.</param>
        /// <param name="length">The length.</param>
        /// <returns>Returns the values in the form of an array.</returns>
        public T[] Get(int index, int length)
        {
            var array = new T[length];
            Array.Copy(_array, index, array, 0, length);
            return array;
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Gets a copy of the internal array.
        /// </summary>
        /// <returns>Returns the copied array.</returns>
        public T[] Get()
        {
            var array = new T[_array.Length];
            Array.Copy(_array, 0, array, 0, array.Length);
            return array;
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Gets a value by an index.
        /// </summary>
        /// <param name="index">The index.</param>
        /// <returns>Returns the value.</returns>
        public T GetValue(int index)
        {
            return _array[index];
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Puts a value into the beginning of the buffer.
        /// Note: Put does not replace the first value.
        /// </summary>
        /// <param name="value">The value.</param>
        public void Put(T value)
        {
            var array = new T[_array.Length + 1];
            Array.Copy(_array, 0, array, 1, _array.Length);
            array[0] = value;

            _array = array;
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Puts a value into a specific index of the buffer.
        /// Note: Put does not replace the value at the specific index.
        /// </summary>
        /// <param name="value">The value.</param>
        /// <param name="index">The index.</param>
        public void Put(T value, int index)
        {
            if (index == 0)
            {
                Put(value);
            }
            else if (index == _array.Length - 1)
            {
                Append(value);
            }
            else
            {
                var array = new T[_array.Length + 1];
                array[index] = value;

                Array.Copy(_array, 0, array, 0, index);
                Array.Copy(_array, index, array, index + 1, _array.Length - index);

                _array = array;
            }
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Inserts a value at a specific index of the buffer.
        /// Note: Insert replaces the current value at the index.
        /// </summary>
        /// <param name="value">The value.</param>
        /// <param name="index">The index.</param>
        public void Insert(T value, int index)
        {
            _array[index] = value;
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Appends a value to the buffer.
        /// </summary>
        /// <param name="value">The value to append.</param>
        public void Append(T value)
        {
            var array = new T[_array.Length + 1];
            Array.Copy(_array, 0, array, 0, _array.Length);
            array[array.Length - 1] = value;

            _array = array;
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Puts an array into the beginning of the buffer.
        /// Note: Put does not replace the first values of the buffer.
        /// </summary>
        /// <param name="value">The value.</param>
        public void Put(T[] value)
        {
            var array = new T[_array.Length + value.Length];
            Array.Copy(value, 0, array, 0, value.Length);
            Array.Copy(_array, 0, array, value.Length, _array.Length);

            _array = array;
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Puts an array into a specific index of the buffer.
        /// Note: Put does not replace the array at the specific index.
        /// </summary>
        /// <param name="value">The value.</param>
        /// <param name="index">The index.</param>
        public void Put(T[] value, int index)
        {
            if (index == 0)
            {
                Put(value);
            }
            else if (index == _array.Length - 1)
            {
                Append(value);
            }
            else
            {
                var array = new T[_array.Length + value.Length];

                Array.Copy(value, 0, array, index, value.Length);
                Array.Copy(_array, 0, array, 0, index);
                Array.Copy(_array, index, array, index + value.Length, _array.Length - index);

                _array = array;
            }
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Appends an array to the buffer.
        /// </summary>
        /// <param name="value">The value.</param>
        public void Append(T[] value)
        {
            var array = new T[_array.Length + value.Length];
            Array.Copy(_array, 0, array, 0, _array.Length);
            Array.Copy(value, 0, array, _array.Length, value.Length);

            _array = array;
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Puts a buffer into the beginning of the buffer.
        /// Note: Put does not replace the first values of the buffer.
        /// </summary>
        /// <param name="value">The value.</param>
        public void Put(Buffer<T> value)
        {
            Put(value._array);
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Puts a buffer into a specific index of the buffer.
        /// Note: Put does not replace the buffer at the specific index.
        /// </summary>
        /// <param name="value">The value.</param>
        /// <param name="index">The index.</param>
        public void Put(Buffer<T> value, int index)
        {
            Put(value._array, index);
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Appends a buffer to the buffer.
        /// </summary>
        /// <param name="value">The value.</param>
        public void Append(Buffer<T> value)
        {
            Append(value._array);
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Gets the bytes of the buffer.
        /// </summary>
        /// <returns>Returns a newly created byte array of the buffer.</returns>
        public byte[] GetBytes()
        {
            var buffer = new byte[_array.Length * Marshal.SizeOf(typeof(T))];
            Buffer.BlockCopy(_array, 0, buffer, 0, buffer.Length);
            return buffer;
        }
    }

Here is an example implementation on how to implement ShortBuffer
    /// <summary>
    /// A 16 bit integer buffer.
    /// </summary>
    public class Int16Buffer : Buffer<short>
    {
        /// <summary>
        /// Creates a new instance of Int16Buffer.
        /// </summary>
        /// <param name="array">The array to build a buffer upon.</param>
        public Int16Buffer(short[] array)
            : base(array) { }

        /// <summary>
        /// Creates a new instance of Int16Buffer.
        /// </summary>
        /// <param name="capacity">The start capacity of the buffer.</param>
        public Int16Buffer(int capacity)
            : base(capacity) { }
    }

Of couse you can also just do
// Creates a buffer of 10 short elements ...
var shortBuffer = new Buffer<short>(10);

At last here is some example usage.
var buffer1 = new Int16Buffer(new short[] { 1, 2, 4, 5 });
buffer1.Put(0);
buffer1.Put(3, 3);
buffer1.Append(6);

var buffer2 = new Int16Buffer(new short[] { 1, 2, 4, 5 });
buffer2.Put(0);
buffer2.Put(3, 3);
buffer2.Append(6);

buffer1.Put(buffer2);

var buffer3 = new Int16Buffer(new short[] { 1, 2, 4, 5 });
buffer3.Put(0);
buffer3.Put(3, 3);
buffer3.Append(6);

buffer1.Put(buffer3, 7);

foreach (var b in buffer1.Get())
{
    Console.WriteLine(b);
}

You can get output here:
ShortBuffer Example


A new medical marijuana guideline developed by Edmonton researchers warns physicians that the risks may outweigh the benefits for the vast majority of patients.
The guideline, published Thursday in the Canadian Family Physician journal, suggests the benefits of medical cannabis may be overstated, and research on its medicinal properties is sorely lacking.
Canadian doctors should think twice before prescribing the drug, said Mike Allan, who led the research team.
"For most things we shouldn't be recommending it, because we don't have enough research to say if the benefits of the therapy outweigh the risks of the therapy," said Allan, director of evidence-based medicine at the University of Alberta.
The guideline was based on a review of clinical trials involving medical cannabis.
The document will be distributed to 30,000 physicians across Canada, and is intended as a new protocol for doctors to use when deciding whether or not to prescribe marijuana.
Thousands of Canadians are already prescribed medical marijuana, and that number is expected to rise after marijuana is legalized this summer.
Family doctors face increasing pressure from patients asking for medicinal pot. But the study authors suggest there is little data for physicians to rely on before making that decision.
Guideline authors found that, in most cases, the number of randomized studies involving medical cannabis was extremely small.
In the rare instances where research did exist, the studies were narrow in scope or poorly executed, said Allan.
He said mental health problems such as anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are the number two reason medical marijuana is prescribed, but research doesn't support its use for those patients.
"In many areas, the research was actually absent or so limited that you really couldn't make a call," said Allan.
"For example, there are no studies for the treatment of depression."
The guideline paper said there was also only one study on anxiety and it was unscientific. In that trial, half of the 24 patients involved received a single dose of cannabis derivative and scored their anxiety doing a simulated presentation.
Louis Morin said he has been using medical marijuana for seven years to treat his idiopathic polyneuropathy. The condition is killing his nerve endings, causing burning pain in his extremities.
"The pain level goes up to a 10, but normally it's about an eight. Medical marijuana will bring it down easily to a four," said Morin.
The 64-year-old from St. Albert, Alta., was diagnosed with the condition 20 years ago. He said the first line of treatment with opioids such as morphine harmed his quality of life, so he eventually turned to medical marijuana.
"I won't go near opioids now," said Morin.
The guideline concludes there is adequate evidence for the use of medical cannabinoids to treat a handful of specific medical conditions, including nerve pain, palliative cancer pain, muscle tightness associated with multiple sclerosis or spinal cord injury, and nausea from chemotherapy.
Even in those specific cases, the benefits were found to be generally minor, said Allan.
"From the medical community we would argue (that) until we have research, we should hold back on prescribing," Allan said. "Particularly in any areas except the people who have failed all other kinds of therapies."
"Given the inconsistent nature of medical marijuana dosing and possible risks of smoking, we also recommend that pharmaceutical cannabinoids be tried first before smoked medical marijuana."
While the researchers found limited evidence supporting the use of medical cannabinoids, the side-effects were common and consistent. Common side effects included sedation, dizziness and confusion.
Allan acknowledged the guideline may prove controversial, since the debate over medical marijuana is divisive.
"This guideline may be unsatisfactory for some, particularly those with polarized views regarding medical cannabinoids," Allan said.
"Better research is definitely needed — randomized control trials that follow a large number of patients for longer periods of time. If we had that, it could change how we approach this issue and help guide our recommendations."
The research was overseen by a committee of 10 medical professionals, including doctors, pharmacists, nurses and patients, and was peer-reviewed by 40 others.
Medical colleges have released some general guidelines for primary-care providers and have cautioned physicians against prescribing marijuana.
A trio of advisories prepared by the Alberta College of Family Physicians in 2017 summarized the scientific literature, or lack thereof, that dealt with medicinal marijuana.
Documents released by the colleges of physicians and surgeons in both British Columbia and Alberta cite the absence of reliable evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of cannabis as medication.


text:
Dissolving the Fermi Paradox
The Universe Today wrote an article about a paper by me, Toby and Eric about the Fermi Paradox. The preprint can be found on Arxiv (see also our supplements: 1,2,3 and 4). Here is a quick popular overview/FAQ.
The Fermi question is not a paradox: it just looks like one if one is overconfident in how well we know the Drake equation parameters.
Our distribution model shows that there is a large probability of little-to-no alien life, even if we use the optimistic estimates of the existing literature (and even more if we use more defensible estimates).
The Fermi observation makes the most uncertain priors move strongly, reinforcing the rare life guess and an early great filter.
Getting even a little bit more information can update our belief state a lot!
So, do you claim we are alone in the universe?
What is the paper about?
Dissolving the Fermi paradox: there is not much tension
The Great Filter: lack of obvious aliens is not strong evidence for our doom
Isn't this armchair astrobiology?
Probability?
Correlations?
You can't resample guesses from the literature!
But doesn't resampling from admittedly overconfident literature constitute "garbage in, garbage out"?
What did the literature resampling show?
What are our assumed uncertainties?
Doesn't creationists argue stuff like this?
How much can we rule out aliens?
So what? What is the use of this?
Ah, but I already knew this!
No. We claim we could be alone, and the probability is non-negligible given what we know… even if we are very optimistic about alien intelligence.
The Fermi Paradox – or rather the Fermi Question – is "where are the aliens?" The universe is immense and old and intelligent life ought to be able to spread or signal over vast distances, so if it has some modest probability we ought to see some signs of intelligence. Yet we do not. What is going on? The reason it is called a paradox is that is there is a tension between one plausible theory ([lots of sites]x[some probability]=[aliens]) and an observation ([no aliens]).
We argue that people have been accidentally misled to feel there is a problem by being overconfident about the probability.
The problem lies in how we estimate probabilities from a product of uncertain parameters (as the Drake equation above). The typical way people informally do this with the equation is to admit that some guesses are very uncertain, give a "representative value" and end up with some estimated number of alien civilisations in the galaxy – which is admitted to be uncertain, yet there is a single number.
Obviously, some authors have argued for very low probabilities, typically concluding that there is just one civilisation per galaxy ("the school"). This may actually still be too much, since that means we should expect signs of activity from nearly any galaxy. Others give slightly higher guesstimates and end up with many civilisations, typically as many as one expects civilisations to last ("the school"). But the proper thing to do is to give a range of estimates, based on how uncertain we actually are, and get an output that shows the implied probability distribution of the number of alien civilisations.
If one combines either published estimates or ranges compatible with current scientific uncertainty we get a distribution that makes observing an empty sky unsurprising – yet is also compatible with us not being alone.
The reason is that even if one takes a pretty optimistic view (the published estimates are after all biased towards SETI optimism since the sceptics do not write as many papers on the topic) it is impossible to rule out a very sparsely inhabited universe, yet the mean value may be a pretty full galaxy. And current scientific uncertainties of the rates of life and intelligence emergence are more than enough to create a long tail of uncertainty that puts a fair credence on extremely low probability – probabilities much smaller than what one normally likes to state in papers. We get a model where there is 30% chance we are alone in the visible universe, 53% chance in the Milky Way… and yet the mean number is 27 million and the median about 1! (see figure below)
This is a statement about knowledge and priors, not a measurement: armchair astrobiology.
(A) A probability density function for N, the number of civilisations in the Milky Way, generated by Monte Carlo simulation based on the authors' best estimates of our current uncertainty for each parameter. (B) The corresponding cumulative density function. (C) A cumulative density function for the distance to the nearest detectable civilisation.
After this result, we look at the Great Filter. We have reason to think at least one term in the Drake equation is small – either one of the early ones indicating how much life or intelligence emerges, or one of the last one that indicate how long technological civilisations survive. The small term is "the Filter". If the Filter is early, that means we are rare or unique but have a potentially unbounded future. If it is a late term, in our future, we are doomed – just like all the other civilisations whose remains would litter the universe. This is worrying. Nick Bostrom argued that we should hope we do not find any alien life.
Our paper gets a somewhat surprising result: when updating our uncertainties in the light of no visible aliens, it reduces our estimate of the rate of life and intelligence emergence (the early filters) much more than the longevity factor (the future filter).
The reason is that if we exclude the cases where our galaxy is crammed with alien civilisations – something like the Star Wars galaxy where every planet has its own aliens – then that leads to an update of the parameters of the Drake equation. All of them become smaller, since we will have a more empty universe. But the early filter ones – life and intelligence emergence – change much more downwards than the expected lifespan of civilisations since they are much more uncertain (at least 100 orders of magnitude!) than the merely uncertain future lifespan (just 7 orders of magnitude!).
So this is good news: the stars are not foretelling our doom!
Note that a past great filter does not imply our safety.
The conclusion can be changed if we reduce the uncertainty of the past terms to less than 7 orders of magnitude, or the involved probability distributions have weird shapes. (The mathematical proof is in supplement IV, which applies to uniform and normal distributions. It is possible to add tails and other features that breaks this effect – yet believing such distributions of uncertainty requires believing rather strange things. )
Yes. We are after all from the philosophy department.
The point of the paper is how to handle uncertainties, especially when you multiply them together or combine them in different ways. It is also about how to take lack of knowledge into account. Our point is that we need to make knowledge claims explicit – if you claim you know a parameter to have the value 0.1 you better show a confidence interval or an argument about why it must have exactly that value (and in the latter case, better take your own fallibility into account). Combining overconfident knowledge claims can produce biased results since they do not include the full uncertainty range: multiplying point estimates together produces a very different result than when looking at the full distribution.
All of this is epistemology and statistics rather than astrobiology or SETI proper. But SETI makes a great example since it is a field where people have been learning more and more about (some) of the factors.
The same approach as we used in this paper can be used in other fields. For example, when estimating risk chains in systems (like the risk of a pathogen escaping a biosafety lab) taking uncertainties in knowledge will sometimes produce important heavy tails that are irreducible even when you think the likely risk is acceptable. This is one reason risk estimates tend to be overconfident.
What kind of distributions are we talking about here? Surely we cannot speak of the probability of alien intelligence given the lack of data?
There is a classic debate in probability between frequentists, claiming probability is the frequency of events that we converge to when an experiment is repeated indefinitely often, and Bayesians, claiming probability represents states of knowledge that get updated when we get evidence. We are pretty Bayesian.
The distributions we are talking about are distributions of "credences": how much you believe certain things. We start out with a prior credence based on current uncertainty, and then discuss how this gets updated if new evidence arrives. While the original prior beliefs may come from shaky guesses they have to be updated rigorously according to evidence, and typically this washes out the guesswork pretty quickly when there is actual data. However, even before getting data we can analyse how conclusions must look if different kinds of information arrives and updates our uncertainty; see supplement II for a bunch of scenarios like "what if we find alien ruins?", "what if we find a dark biosphere on Earth?" or "what if we actually see aliens at some distance?"
Our use of the Drake equation assumes the terms are independent of each other. This of course is a result of how Drake sliced things into naturally independent factors. But there could be correlations between them. Häggström and Verendel showed that in worlds where the priors are strongly correlated updates about the Great Filter can get non-intuitive.
We deal with this in supplement II, and see also this blog post. Basically, it doesn't look like correlations are likely showstoppers.
Sure can. As long as we agree that this is not so much a statement about what is actually true out there, but rather the range of opinions among people who have studied the question a bit. If people give answers to a question in the range from ten to a hundred, that tells you something about their beliefs, at least.
What the resampling does is break up the possibly unconscious correlation between answers ("the school" and "the school" come to mind). We use the ranges of answers as a crude approximation to what people of good will think are reasonable numbers.
You may say "yeah, but nobody is really an expert on these things anyway". We think that is wrong. People have improved their estimates as new data arrives, there are reasons for the estimates and sometimes vigorous debate about them. We warmly recommend Vakoch, D. A., Dowd, M. F., & Drake, F. (2015). The Drake Equation. The Drake Equation, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2015 for a historical overview. But at the same time these estimates are wildly uncertain, and this is what we really care about. Good experts qualify the certainty of their predictions.
Were we trying to get the true uncertainties (or even more hubristically, the true values) this would not work: we have after all good reasons to suspect these ranges are both biased and overconfidently narrow. But our point is not that the literature is right, but that even if one were to use the overly narrow and likely overly optimistic estimates as estimates of actual uncertainty the broad distribution will lead to our conclusions. Using the literature is the most conservative case.
Note that we do not base our later estimates on the literature estimate but our own estimates of scientific uncertainty. If they are GIGO it is at least our own garbage, not recycled garbage. (This reading mistake seems to have been made on Starts With a Bang).
An overview can be found in Supplement III. The most important point is just that even estimates of super-uncertain things like the probability of life lies in a surprisingly narrow range of values, far more narrow than is scientifically defensible. For example, has five estimates ranging from to , and all the rest are in the range to 1. is even worse, with one microscopic and nearly all the rest between one in a thousand to one.
(A) The uncertainty in the research community represented via a synthetic probability density function over N — the expected number of detectable civilisations in our galaxy. The curve is generated by random sampling from the literature estimates of each parameter. Direct literature estimates of the number of detectable civilisations are marked with red rings. (B) The corresponding
synthetic cumulative density function. (C) A cumulative density function for the distance to the nearest detectable civilisation, estimated via a mixture model of the nearest neighbour functions.
It also shows that estimates that are likely biased towards optimism (because of publication bias) can be used to get a credence distribution that dissolves the paradox once they are interpreted as ranges. See the above figure, were we get about 30% chance of being alone in the Milky Way and 8% chance of being alone in the visible universe… but a mean corresponding to 27 million civilisations in the galaxy and a median of about a hundred.
There are interesting patterns in the data. When plotting the expected number of civilisations in the Milky Way based on estimates from different eras the number goes down with time: the community has clearly gradually become more pessimistic. There are some very pessimistic estimates, but even removing them doesn't change the overall structure.
A key point in the paper is trying to quantify our uncertainties somewhat rigorously. Here is a quick overview of where I think we are, with the values we used in our synthetic model:
: the star formation rate in the Milky Way per year is fairly well constrained. The actual current uncertainty is likely less than 1 order of magnitude (it can vary over 5 orders of magnitude in other galaxies). In our synthetic model we put this parameter as log-uniform from 1 to 100.
: the fraction of systems with planets is increasingly clear ≈1. We used log-uniform from 0.1 to 1.
: number of Earth-like in systems with planets.
This ranges from rare earth arguments ( ) to >1. We used log-uniform from 0.1 to 1 since recent arguments have shifted away from rare Earths, but we checked that adding it did not change the conclusions much.
: Fraction of Earthlike planets with life.
This is very uncertain; see below for our arguments that the uncertainty ranges over perhaps 100 orders of magnitude.
There is an absolute lower limit due to ergodic repetition: – in an infinite universe there will eventually be randomly generated copies of Earth and even the entire galaxy (at huge distances from each other). Observer selection effects make using the earliness of life on Earth problematic.
We used a log-normal rate of abiogenesis that was transformed to a fraction distribution.
: Fraction of lifebearing planets with intelligence/complex life.
One could argue there has been 5 billion species so far and only 1 intelligent, so we know . But one could argue that we should count assemblages of 10 million species, which gives a fraction 1/500 per assemblage. Observer selection effects may be distorting this kind of argument.
We could have used a log-normal rate of complex life emergence that was transformed to a fraction distribution or a broad log-linear distribution. Since this would have made many graphs hard to interpret we used log-uniform from 0.001 to 1, not because we think this likely but just as a simple illustration (the effect of the full uncertainty is shown in Supplement II).
: Fraction of time when it is communicating.
Very uncertain; humanity is 0.000615 so far. We used log-uniform from 0.01 to 1.
: Average lifespan of a civilisation.
Fairly uncertain; years (upper limit because of the Drake equation applicability: it assumes the galaxy is in a steady state, and if civilisations are long-lived enough they will still be accumulating since the universe is too young.)
We used log-uniform from 100 to 10,000,000,000.
Note that this is to some degree a caricature of current knowledge, rather than an attempt to represent it perfectly. Fortunately our argument and conclusions are pretty insensitive to the details – it is the vast ranges of uncertainty that are doing the heavy lifting.
Why do we think the fraction of planets with life parameters could have a huge range?
First, instead of thinking in terms of the fraction of planets having life, consider a rate of life formation in suitable environments: what is the induced probability distribution? The emergence is a physical/chemical transition of some kind of primordial soup, and transition events occur in this medium at some rate per unit volume: where is the available volume and is the available time. High rates would imply that almost all suitable planets originate life, while low rates would imply that almost no suitable planets originate life.
The uncertainty regarding the length of time when it is possible is at least 3 orders of magnitude ( years).
The uncertainty regarding volumes spans 20+ orders of magnitude – from entire oceans to brine pockets on ice floes.
Uncertainty regarding transition rates can span 100+ orders of magnitude! The reason is that this might involve combinatoric flukes (you need to get a fairly longish sequence of parts into the right sequence to get the right kind of replicator), or that it is like the protein folding problem where Levinthal's paradox shows that it takes literally astronomical time to get entire oceans of copies of a protein to randomly find the correctly folded position (actual biological proteins "cheat" by being evolved to fold neatly and fast). Even chemical reaction rates span 100 orders of magnitude. On the other hand, spontaneous generation could conceivably be common and fast! So we should conclude that has an uncertainty range of at least 100 orders of magnitude.
Actual abiogenesis will involve several steps. Some are easy, like generating simple organic compounds (plentiful in asteroids, comets and Miller-Urey experiment). Some are likely tough. People often overlook that even how to get proteins and nucleic acids in a watery environment is somewhat of a mystery since these chains tend to hydrolyze; the standard explanation is to look for environments that have a wet-dry cycle allowing complexity to grow. But this means is much smaller than an ocean.
That we have tremendous uncertainty about abiogenesis does not mean we do not know anything. We know a lot. But at present we have no good scientific reasons to believe we know the rate of life formation per liter-second. That will hopefully change.
There is a fair number of examples of creationists arguing that the origin of life must be super-unlikely and hence we must believe in their particular god.
The problem(s) with this kind of argument is that it presupposes that there is only one planet, and somehow we got a one-in-a-zillion chance on that one. That is pretty unlikely. But the reality is that there is a zillion planets, so even if there is a one-in-a-zillion chance for each of them we should expect to see life somewhere… especially since being a living observer is a precondition for "seeing life"! Observer selection effects really matter.
We are also not arguing that life has to be super-unlikely. In the paper our distribution of life emergence rate actually makes it nearly universal 50% of the time – it includes the possibility that life will spontaneously emerge in any primordial soup puddle left alone for a few minutes. This is a possibility I doubt anybody believes in, but it could be that would-be new life is emerging right under our noses all the time, only to be outcompeted by the advanced life that already exists.
Creationists make a strong claim that they know ; this is not really supported by what we know. But is totally within possibility.
Even if you have life, it might not be particularly good at evolving. The reasoning is that it needs to have a genetic encoding system that is both rigid enough to function efficiently and fluid enough to allow evolutionary exploration.
All life on Earth shares almost exactly the same genetic systems, showing that only rare and minor changes have occurred in cell divisions. That is tremendously stable as a system. Nonetheless, it is fairly commonly believed that other genetic systems preceded the modern form. The transition to the modern form required major changes (think of upgrading an old computer from DOS to Windows… or worse, from CP/M to DOS!). It would be unsurprising if the rate was < 1 per cell divisions given the stability of our current genetic system – but of course, the previous system might have been super-easy to upgrade.
Modern genetics required >1/5 of the age of the universe to evolve intelligence. A genetic system like the one that preceded ours might both be stable over a google cell divisions and evolve more slowly by a factor of 10, and run out the clock. Hence some genetic systems may be incapable of ever evolving intelligence.
This related to a point made by Brandon Carter much earlier, where he pointed out that the timescales of getting life, evolving intelligence and how long biospheres last are independent and could be tremendously different – that life emerged early on Earth may have been a fluke due to the extreme difficulty of also getting intelligence within this narrow interval (on all the more likely worlds there are no observers to notice). If there are more difficult transitions, you get an even stronger observer selection effect.
Evolution goes down branches without looking ahead, and we can imagine that it could have an easier time finding inflexible coding systems ("B life") unlike our own nice one ("A life"). If the rate of discovering B-life is and the rate of discovering capable A-life is , then the fraction of A-life in the universe is just – and rates can differ many orders of magnitude, producing a life-rich but evolution/intelligence-poor universe. Multiple step models add integer exponents to rates: these the multiply order of magnitude differences.
So we have good reasons to think there could be a hundred orders of magnitude uncertainty on the intelligence parameter, even without trying to say something about evolution of nervous systems.
Humanity has not scanned that many stars, so obviously we have checked even a tiny part of the galaxy – and could have missed them even if we looked at the right spot. Still, we can model how this weak data updates our beliefs (see Supplement II).
The strongest argument against aliens is the Tipler-Hart argument that settling the Milky Way, even when you are expanding at low speed, will only take a fraction of its age. And once a civilisation is everywhere it is hard to have it go extinct everywhere – it will tend to persist even if local pieces crash. Since we do not seem to be in a galaxy paved over by an alien supercivilisation we have a very strong argument to assume a low rate of intelligence emergence. Yes, even if if 99% of civilisations stay home or we could be in an alien zoo, you still get a massive update against a really settled galaxy. In our model the probability of less than one civilisation per galaxy went from 52% to 99.6% if one include the basic settlement argument.
The G-hat survey of galaxies, looking for signs of K3 civilisations, did not find any. Again, maybe we missed something or most civilisations don't want to re-engineer galaxies, but if we assume about half of them want to and have 1% chance of succeeding we get an update from 52% chance of less than one civilisation per galaxy to 66%.
Using models of us looking at about 1,000 stars or that we do not think there is any civilisation within 18 pc gives a milder update, from 52% to 53 and 57% respectively. These just rule out super-densely inhabited scenarios.
People like to invent explanations for the Fermi paradox that all would have huge implications for humanity if they were true – maybe we are in a cosmic zoo, maybe there are interstellar killing machines out there, maybe singularity is inevitable, maybe we are the first civilisation ever, maybe intelligence is a passing stage, maybe the aliens are sleeping… But if you are serious about thinking about the future of humanity you want to be rigorous about this. This paper shows that current uncertainties actually force us to be very humble about these possible explanations – we can't draw strong conclusions from the empty sky yet.
But uncertainty can be reduced! We can learn more, and that will change our knowledge.
From a SETI perspective, this doesn't say that SETI is unimportant or doomed to failure, but rather that if we ever see even the slightest hint of intelligence out there many parameters will move strongly. Including the all-important .
From an astrobiology perspective, we hope we have pointed at some annoyingly uncertain factors and that this paper can get more people to work on reducing the uncertainty. Most astrobiologists we have talked with are aware of the uncertainty but do not see the weird knock-on-effects from it. Especially figuring out how we got our fairly good coding system and what the competing options are seems very promising.
Even if we are not sure we can also update our plans in the light of this. For example, in my tech report about settling the universe fast I pointed out that if one is uncertain about how much competition there might be for the universe one can use one's probability estimates to decide on the range to aim for.
Uncertainty matters
Perhaps the most useful insight is that uncertainty matters and we should learn to embrace it carefully rather than assume that apparently specific numbers are better.
Perhaps never in the history of science has an equation been devised yielding values differing by eight orders of magnitude. . . . each scientist seems to bring his own prejudices and assumptions to the problem.
– History of Astronomy: An Encyclopedia, ed. by John Lankford, s.v. "SETI," by Steven J. Dick, p. 458.
When Dick complained about the wide range of results from the Drake equation he likely felt it was too uncertain to give any useful result. But 8 orders of magnitude differences is in this case just a sign of downplaying our uncertainty and overestimating our knowledge! Things gets much better when we look at what we know and don't know, figuring out the implications from both.
Jill Tarter said the Drake equation was "a wonderful way to organize our ignorance", which we think is closer to the truth than demanding a single number as an answer.
We have encountered claims that "nobody" really is naive about using the Drake equation. Or at least not any "real" SETI and astrobiology people. Strangely enough people never seem to make this common knowledge visible, and a fair number of papers make very confident statements about "minimum" values for life probabilities that we think are far, far above the actual scientific support.
Sometimes we need to point out the obvious explicitly.
[Edit 2018-06-30: added the GIGO section]
June 23, 2018 July 8, 2018 admin
Bayes theoremFermi paradoxfermi questionknowledgeSETIstatistics
← Arguing against killer robot janissaries
What kinds of grand futures are there? →
7 thoughts on "Dissolving the Fermi Paradox"
Pingback: Der trügerische Mittelwert: Warum es plausibel ist, dass wir alleine im Universum sind – Alpha Cephei
Adam Simpson says:
2 questions. 1) Can I have your permission to "reprint" your pieces for Mage: the Ascension on a new Web site? You will recieve full credit. The Anders Mage Page has been offline for a while.
2) Would you be open to a podcast interview on your involvement in the 1990's with Mage: the Ascension?
Johan Lundstrom says:
Given the input factors you use, what chances would we have had to get life and civilized life respectively here on Earth, starting with a newly created lifeless planet?
If these chances are minuscule, is this a problem since we do, in fact, know that it turned out this way? Would it make sense to say "yes, we did get civilized life on Earth, but it was actually SUPER UNLIKELY" given our current state of knowledge?
I probably should add an explicit section on observer selection effects to the FAQ since this comes up a lot.
Basically, no matter what the probability of the processes that brings us into being is, we will of course exist since we are observing it. Even if it is very unlikely. And currently we do not have a strong reason to think it was super-likely nor super-unlikely.
If the universe is finite and has N planets, then the theory starts to look weird first when the probability per planet is less than 1/N – but at present we have no bound on the size of the universe so assuming it to be infinite is not unreasonable, and that allows any low probability. Max Tegmark has an argument that it tends to repeat on a scale of about 10^10^115, which is a decent approximation of infinite.
I was rather thinking something like this: let's imagine we look at the universe from the outside, and we look at the pre-biotic Earth. What odds would your numbers assign to life and intelligent life respectively?
If especially the odds for civilized life were SUPER poor (I don't even know what we're talking about here – one in a million, one in a billion, worse?), this could be consistent with us just lucking out, but it's also something that must make sense against the conditions on Earth. Claiming super poor odds of civilized life here doesn't strike me as obviously reasonable (it could make sense, but it's not obvious).
Let's say we re-ran the Earth with slightly altered random noise a billion times. Do we really have grounds to think that civilized life would be incredibly, incredibly rare (as opposed to, say, merely rare)?
Also, just a fun question I don't have the math to sort out myself: what's the median number of *extinct* cases of civilized alien life in the Milky Way and the observable universe respectively given your dataset and method?
Ed Everest says:
In your paper's Conclusion you say "… When we update this prior in light of the Fermi observation, we find a substantial probability that we are alone in our galaxy,and perhaps even in our observable universe(53%–99.6% and 39%–85% respectively). 'Where are they?' — probably extremely far away, and quite possibly beyond the cosmological horizon and forever unreachable." Missing is any reference to the probability you found of us not being alone in our galaxy or the observable universe, and your estimates of the probability intelligent life is common elsewhere. I only find minimal reference to it in the rest of the paper either (at least in non-mathematical English). I think dissolving the paradox is a relatively minor issue in comparison to your findings of probabilities both for us being alone and for us not being alone, using your more sophisticated methodology 🙂

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


This is a placeholder page for Sherri Agnew, which means this person is not currently on this site. We do suggest using the tools below to find Sherri Agnew.
You are visiting the placeholder page for Sherri Agnew. This page is here because someone used our placeholder utility to look for Sherri Agnew. We created this page automatically in hopes Sherri Agnew would find it. If you are not Sherri Agnew, but are an alumni of Murphy High School Mobile, AL, register on this site for free now.


text:
Tag: Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend
Another compilation of Marilyn's music is out now on vinyl. Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend is released by Bellevue Entertainment, and features 15 classic tracks. (The cover photo -with added sparkle – was taken by Bob Beerman in 1953.)
1. Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend
2. A Fine Romance
5. Some Like It Hot
6. I`m Gonna File My Claim
7. Two Little Girls From Little Rock
8. I Wanna Be Loved By You
9. Heat Wave
10. River Of No Return
11. One Silver Dollar
12. Do It Again
13. After You Get What You Want, You Don't Want It
14. I'm Through With Love
15. Kiss
Thanks to A Passion for Marilyn
Marilyn Inspires Bulgari's Diamond Wonder
Bulgari has launched the 'Diamond Wonder' necklace and earrings inspired by Marilyn's 'Diamonds Are a Girl's Friend' number from Gentlemen Prefer Blondes as part of their Cinemagia high jewellery collection, Annie Darling reports for Hong Kong Tatler.
Remembering Marni Nixon in 'Yours Retro'
Hollywood's voiceover artists are featured in the May issue of Yours Retro, including Marni Nixon who helped Marilyn hit the high notes on 'Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend,' in the soprano introduction and again near the end. For the most part, though, the voice you'll hear on that classic track from Gentlemen Prefer Blondes is Marilyn's.
Thanks to Fraser Penney
Marilyn's 'Diamonds' Inspires NZCA Lines
A pink-suited Michael Lovett, aka 'indietronica' act NZCA Lines, becomes the latest pop star to channel Marilyn's 'Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend' in the bizarre video for his latest single, 'Pure Luxury', Billboard reports.
"Lovett, who co-directed the video alongside Alina Rancier, notes that they drew both from American Psycho and a gender-reversed Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (starring Marilyn Monroe) and specifically points to the line in the song 'smile while we're holding back tears' as one of the underlying themes.
'I think that embodies the approach we took: a superficial beauty hiding a grotesque underbelly,' Lovett tells Billboard. 'I always pictured this song as a go-go freakout, like those 1960s musical TV shows with dancers and a colorful stage set.'
Marilyn Brings 'Spirit of Delight' to the Screen
Writing for Australia's Financial Review, John McDonald is the latest critic to recommend Marilyn's classic comedies to cheer us up in these difficult times. (He previously reviewed the touring exhibition, Marilyn: Celebrating an American Icon, in 2016.)
"'Rarely, rarely, comest thou, Spirit of Delight,' wrote Shelley, who would have made an excellent film critic. But when it comes you know it. One of the most purely delightful moments in the history of the cinema, is Marilyn Monroe singing 'Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend' in Howard Hawks's Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. It's a scene that never loses its edge. It's tempting to say that any film in which Monroe stars, notably Some Like it Hot and The Seven Year Itch, are good bets for a night in front of the box."
Behind Margot Robbie's Marilyn Homage in 'Birds of Prey'
David Crow digs deep into the 'Diamonds' homage in Birds of Prey, the new Harley Quinn movie produced by and starring Margot Robbie, over at Den of Geek.
"Robbie's Marilyn Monroe homage has been at the center of Warner Brothers' Birds of Prey marketing, from trailers to official clips. After all, what else says this ain't your typical superhero movie than a '50s inspired musical number? And while it's only a brief sequence in the finished film, it's also one of the movie's best moments. Tied up at the nightclub owned by Roman Sionis, the villainous Black Mask (Ewan McGregor), Harley has been captured simply because he believes she's more vulnerable after her breakup with the Joker…
But Harley is neither silly or in need of protection. She quickly realizes that Black Mask is after a MacGuffin of great importance—a diamond, in fact—and Harley will be just the gal to retrieve it for him. Because Harley is resourceful, Harley is smart… and Harley is also a wee bit nuts. Hence when Sionis smacks her in the face, Harley vanishes into a musical fantasy where she gets to go into full Marilyn mode, vamping in pink attire and bejeweled accessories while singing 'Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend.' McGregor even shows up in the fantasy to dance along before shooting up the scene much too quickly.
But this is more than just an homage to a Marilyn Monroe scene or the abject cynicism of her song …. In the original movie, the song is a third act statement of intent by Monroe's character, Lorelei Lee … Breaking into Hollywood because of her beauty and sudden success as a pin-up model during World War II, Monroe eventually signed multiple contracts with Fox before she became the defining image of a 20th century blonde bombshell and movie star sex symbol.
She didn't necessarily want to be that—or certainly only that. Having a contentious relationship with studio head Daryl F. Zanuck, who disliked Monroe and her desire to be more than the dumb blonde gold digger in musical comedies, she was suspended in 1954 for refusing to do The Girl in Pink Tights. She eventually made up with Fox, but she also started her own production company, Marilyn Monroe Productions …
During this era, Monroe also struggled in her private life, including her marriage to Joe DiMaggio, the world famous baseball player …. Again the press took a disdainful sniff at the movie star who let the strong man get away—just as they sneered when she then married intellectual playwright Arthur Miller.
… The story of Monroe's fight for credibility, both in association with 20th Century Fox or with Joe DiMaggio, and away from these men, is the kind of real world struggle Birds of Prey strives to reflect, even in its gonzo funhouse mirror … everyone, including other women, define Harley by her relationships to men, and view her to be, as one man says early in the film, 'a dumb slut.' These insults are hurled even though she has a PhD and, as she displays throughout the film, a rather quick witted intellect in which she can psychoanalyze her friends and foes alike.
Through it all, she struggled for legitimacy and respect as an actress when executives were content to just see her singing 'Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend': a male fantasy in which a beautiful woman purports the only thing she wants in this world are the presents powerful men can bestow on her.
In her lifetime, Monroe was likewise defined by the men in her life and what they could give her …
Nevertheless, playing that game gave Monroe the tools to eventually make movies she was proud of, like Bus Stop, and to form her own production company—which was a crack in Fox's power over her and another crack in the slowly crumbling Hollywood studio system…
That is exactly what Margot Robbie did after she realized the potential of the Harley Quinn character. Perfectly cast as the jester moll, Robbie's Harley was the sole redeeming quality of Suicide Squad (2016), even as director David Ayer's camera seemed to most value her for all the lingering shots of her skintight (or nonexistent) clothing. Nonetheless, Suicide Squad gave Robbie a lot more clout as a producer …
Robbie herself revealed last year that she actually loathes when journalists, usually men, describe her as a bombshell. 'I hate that word,' Robbie told Vogue in June. 'I hate it — so much. I feel like a brat saying that because there are worse things, but I'm not a bombshell.'
One might suspect that in her time, Monroe thought similarly as Fox kept trying to cast her in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes type roles … But using the tools Monroe pioneered, Robbie is able to take preconceptions audiences might have for her, or for Harley Quinn after Suicide Squad, and blow them away."
Harley Quinn's Marilyn Moment
As Birds of Prey (and the Fabulous Emancipation of Harley Quinn) hits big screens worldwide, Insider's Kirsten Acuna gives some insight into leading lady Margot Robbie's Marilyn moment (to the tune of Normani and Megan Thee Stallion's 'Diamonds'.)
"During the film, Harley is seen dressed as Marilyn Monroe's character from 1953's Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. The big change here is that Quinn has an updated version of the gown with pants instead.
Costume designer Erin Benach told Insider they almost did a completely different outfit for Quinn here.
'It wasn't even really on the page or decided amongst us that it would be the same Marilyn outfit,' said Benach. 'There were talks of it being something totally different and new, like way more Harley.'
The idea to transform the iconic look and update it came to Benach while in a research library.
'I remember the moment where I just went, "Oh my God, the best idea is just to take the exact Marilyn outfit and put her in pants. Turn it into pants,"' said Benach. 'It was just a light bulb moment. It hit and I told [director] Cathy [Yan] and Cathy was like, "Brilliant. Done. Do it."'
Marilyn Inspires Opera Gloves Trend
In Marilyn's day, opera gloves were an essential part of any glamour girl's wardrobe. And now they're making a comeback, at least on the red carpet. Reporting for Vogue, Alice Newbold notes that "opera gloves owe a lot to Tinseltown. Marilyn Monroe took a pair of shocking pink satin gloves (layered with weighty diamond bracelets) into mainstream media in 1953 with the release of Gentlemen Prefer Blondes."
But Marilyn also wore opera gloves in The Fireball (1950) and The Seven Year Itch (1955), in a photo shoot with Gene Lester, and at numerous glitzy events. In 2002, David H. Shayt wrote an article on the subject for the Smithsonian magazine, after a pair of Marilyn's gloves was anonymously donated to the National Museum of American History.
"'Decades before stars would not make a public move without the services of platoons of stylists and designers, Marilyn was a truly great stylist,' writes Meredith Etherington-Smith, director of Christie's International, the London-based auction house, in The Personal Property of Marilyn Monroe. The gloves, she notes, constituted an important element of the Monroe look. 'She had many pairs of immaculate beige kid[skin] evening gloves, and she always wore dramatic and beautifully made rhinestone earrings which cascaded in flashing rivers of light…. All this was carefully contrived to increase the effect of her uniquely luminous quality.'
The pair ceded to the NMAH Entertainment Collection are evocative emblems of Monroe's carefully orchestrated image. Exquisitely stitched in soft white kidskin, the elbow-length gloves bear a faintly detectable blue stain, most likely ink, lightly smudged on the outside of a cuff.
This tantalizing imperfection bespeaks a lost history. Whence the stain? Did Monroe perhaps sign an autograph for an adoring fan wearing these gloves? Scribble observations on a program note? Jot down her phone number for an admirer, even a future husband?
Joe DiMaggio? Arthur Miller?
While the story of the intriguing smudge is consigned to oblivion, there is little doubt the gloves possess symbolic significance as well. They function, says costume historian Shelly Foote of the Smithsonian's Division of Social History, as a talisman of a vanished era: 'Marilyn Monroe and Jackie Kennedy were among the last prominent glove wearers. In the '50s, high school girls at proms or debutante balls would not be caught dead without gloves on. But after the mid-1960s, they would not be caught dead wearing them.'"
Normani Brings 'Diamonds' to Harley Quinn
Rappers Megan Thee Stallion & Normani collaborate on 'Diamonds', taken from the soundtrack to Birds of Prey, the new Harley Quinn movie due out in February. We have already seen Margot Robbie recreate Marilyn's signature number from Gentlemen Prefer Blondes in the upcoming film's trailer.
Normani goes one step further in her video, though, reworking lyrics from the original song, 'Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend', with a hip-hop twist, and vamping it up in pink. As Brooke Marine reports for W, this is the first time the song has been sampled – and we even hear Marilyn cooing 'Tiffany … Cartier …' at the fade-out.
Marilyn and the Fox Blondes
Marilyn with Betty Grable in 1953
Film historian Jeanine Basinger is not a great fan of Marilyn – in her 2008 book, The Star Machine, she made the puzzling claim that Monroe was unpopular with filmgoers, though the statistics tell another story. Marilyn also rates a mention in Basinger's latest book, The Movie Musical, in the context of Twentieth Century Fox's long line of blonde musical stars.
Marilyn shoots the 'Heat Wave' number for There's No Business Like Show Business (1954)
"A discussion of Fox blondes, from [Alice] Faye to Monroe, defines the Fox musical factory system, but it has to begin with a blonde who started the trend but is seldom included in the pack. She's a very little blonde: Shirley Temple. All the famous musical Fox blondes overlapped in film … [June] Haver appeared with Monroe in Love Nest (1951) and [Betty] Grable, the most famous musical star of them all, gave a boost to Monroe in How to Marry a Millionaire (1953.) The Fox blondes were powerhouses: Temple, Faye, Grable, and Monroe were all top-ten box office draws … Faye is closer in looks to Marilyn Monroe – the big, wide-set eyes, the lush mouth, and the vulnerable look combined with a zaftig body. [Grable was smaller, leaner and zippier – she gave off the energetic zeitgeist of the war years.)
Marilyn Monroe was neither a great singer or a great dancer, but she was good enough. Everyone accepted her breathy vocals as part of who she was, and her dancing was made into far more than it was by the great choreographer Jack Cole. Cole gave her hand gestures, hip movements, and head turns that had rhythm and attracted an audience's eye …
Monroe was something of a challenge for Twentieth Century Fox. The studio apparently didn't originally see her as a musical star … Monroe made only two pure musicals for Fox, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953) and There's No Business Like Show Business (1954.) She also sang in Niagara (1953), River Of No Return (1954), Some Like It Hot (1959), and Let's Make Love (1960), usually with some dancing connection …
Monroe as a musical star in a typical Fox musical was not the Monroe who is usually defined as vulnerable, with a sad and wistful quality, a soul yearning for understanding while suffering the cruelties of an uncaring world … In both Gentlemen Prefer Blondes and There's No Business Like Show Business, Monroe was self-confident, playing a woman who knew how to use men if she had to in order to achieve her career goals. Monroe has one enduring solo (with a chorus of men): her immortal 'Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend' …
The best movie by which to evaluate Monroe as a musical performer is There's No Business Like Show Business. She's surrounded by top-drawer names who've each spent a lifetime in the game … Monroe doesn't have the musical chops of a single one of these players. She is, however, Marilyn Monroe. What she's got doesn't necessarily need musical chops, and she's not a terrible singer/dancer, just not a highly skilled one … Cole's choreography is constructed to show off Monroe's body and to use the audience's established sense of her as a sex object, but without being offensive about it …
'After You Get What You Want' has a bold lyric that feigns innocence … [Monroe] looks nude, and she's in the best shape of her life … She's beautiful and young and lush, all pure sex, and yet despite all this, there's a strange air of innocence about her. That was the thing Monroe had that made her famous. It wasn't just sexiness, though she had that in abundance …
Monroe's second song is a full-out production number with elaborate costumes and a chorus of dancers – a Cuban thing with costumes, bongo drums, and palm trees. There's a full choreography for the ensemble, and it's too much for Monroe … Monroe handles 'Heat Wave', but she didn't need all the clutter around her.
'Lazy' is a PhD thesis. It's played as a rehearsal for a number to be done by Monroe, [Donald] O'Connor, and [Mitzi] Gaynor. Monroe is dressed in tight capri pants, a low-cut V-neck top, and a brightly coloured cummerbund. She lolls on a chaise longue, singing the song in a languid style. While she sings, draping herself around the sofa … the other two dance around her … The less she does, just showing off her body, the more they do, showing off their superb dancing. It's a musical contrast: sex vs. talent. And it's devilishly clever from a business point of view …
Marilyn Monroe ended the Fox blonde cycle. She became too big for its limiting label, and the time for the concept was over, as the studio moved towards its death. She was never defined by her musical performances, and her career didn't impact musical history much, but it did impact the career of the woman originally put under contract to become the next Fox blonde: the talented Sheree North, who is practically unknown today …"


The Uvalde Ivory 13" Bent Rail women's boot is a classic with a twist. Featuring an ivory leather upper, this boot stands out with a winged stitch pattern and is paired with a tan foot. Its square toe, low heel, and J-Flex Flexible Comfort System insoles allow for a relaxed and comfortable fit whether this boot is out on the town or in the saddle. Nothing says cowgirl like a pair of Justin boots!


text:
Paraleucopis is a genus of flies in the family Chamaemyiidae.

Species
P. boydensis Steyskal, 1972
P. corvina Malloch, 1913
P. mexicana Steyskal, 1981

References

Chamaemyiidae
Lauxanioidea genera

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


For a light supper and an unforgettable taste of the season, try this stunning Artichoke Galette that pairs baby artichokes with peppery radishes.
Combine 1 cup water and juice in a bowl. Cut artichoke tops off; trim stems. Quarter artichokes; place in bowl. Combine 2 cups water and wine in a saucepan. Place peppercorns in center of cheesecloth; tie ends. Add sachet to pan; bring to a simmer. Drain artichokes; add to pot. Simmer 5 minutes; drain. Discard sachet. Heat a small skillet over medium-high heat. Coat pan with cooking spray. Add shallots; sauté 5 minutes. Combine shallots, artichokes, and radishes.
Roll dough out to a 15-inch circle; rub with garlic. Place dough on a baking sheet. Sprinkle with nuts and cheese, leaving a 2-inch border. Top with artichoke mixture, thyme, pepper, and salt. Fold edges of dough over to partially cover. Bake at 400° for 30 minutes or until browned.
lot's of work for something that's just so so. I would buy frozen artichokes from Trader Joe's and then make the recipe. Maybe I wouldn't do it agian even with frozen artichokes....o well.


text:
Laguna Lodge
Tortuguero 3
Beautiful Rain Forest Lodge
Hotel Laguna Lodge Tortuguero is a beautiful rainforest lodge in Costa Rica's Tortuguero, home to the world-renowned Tortuguero National Park. Tortuguero is found in Costa Rica's northern Caribbean region. It is a wild and lush area consisting of canals, jungle, and abundant exotic wildlife. Also, it is a primary nesting site for the endangered giant green sea turtle. It is of critical ecological importance to the Western Caribbean. Laguna Lodge Tortuguero lies in a unique, isolated area between the Caribbean Sea and the Tortuguero Lagoon. It is an excellent place from which to explore the rich, maze of canals and the quaint Tortuguero town.
Hotel Laguna Lodge Tortuguero
Laguna Lodge Tortuguero has cabin-style rooms with wide front porches. There you can relax in a rocking chair as you absorb the beauty and tranquility of the lush rainforest around you. Each rustic cabin has a private bathroom and a ceiling fan for added comfort on hot summer nights. The lodge is completely immersed in its wild, natural surroundings and yet has modern facilities and conveniences. You can enjoy nature in comfort and style. When you arrive by boat, you are greeted with a welcome cocktail. Also, a cool towel and warm, welcoming smiles from the friendly staff.
Dine in Style at Laguna Lodge
You will find Laguna Lodge's restaurant on the picturesque Tortuguero lagoon, with breathtaking views of the jungle and canals; you will have lots of chances to see wildlife while enjoying delicious, gourmet fare. The vast buffet meals feature fresh local meats, seafood, fruits, and vegetables. A 24-hour coffee and tea service with cookies is available at the restaurant. It provides a great spot to relax and watch the locals ride by in their boats. Throughout the resort and in the bar and restaurants you will see artisan crafted furniture and decor incorporating local wood gathered from the beach and reconstructed to become part of the hotel.
A two or three-day visit is recommended to get the most out of your visit to this stunning area. This rugged Caribbean beach has strong waves and dark sand as well as stunning views. There are many activities available including visits to the Tortuguero National Park canals. The village of Tortuguero, and the Turtle Museum of the Caribbean Conservation Corporation. Guided night walks to watch green sea turtles as they come by the hundreds to lay their eggs on the local beaches are available from July to September. Fishing trips, kayaking tours, canoeing, and river safaris are also great ways to explore the enchanting wilderness of Tortuguero!
Laguna Lodge - Get Info
Riverside Bar
Laguna Lodge Location
Mawamba Lodge
Tortuguero. Favorite. Nature Pool, Jacuzzi, Restaurant, Bar / Lounge, Shop, Walking / Hiking Trails. Internet access / Wi Fi, Safe Box, Hair Dryer. Laundry Service.
Evergreen Lodge
Tortuguero. Favorite. Spa, Pool, Restaurant. . .
Pachira Lodge
Tortuguero. Nature Spa, Pool, Restaurant. . .
Looking for a Vacation?
Looking for a Costa Rica vacation and not sure where to go? Check out Costa Rica's Caribbean coastline by booking a stay at the Costa Rica's Laguna Lodge in Tortuguero! Located in the Northeastern part of the country, Tortuguero not only protects one of the largest rainforests in Central America where you can find sixteen endangered species, it also provides you with one of the best opportunities to see giant sea turtles during their nesting season. From exploring the secret waterways or hiking through the green rainforests, Tortuguero offers a perfect array of activities fit for the whole family!
Laguna Lodge, Tortuguero
What makes Laguna Lodge awesome?
With eighty luxurious cabins for your choosing, Laguna Lodge offers a variety of amenities fit to meet your comfort. While trying to preserve and to maintain the natural surroundings, every Laguna Lodge cabin is equipped with its own bathroom utilities and ceiling fan to help with those hot summer nights. Each cabin also has a porch to lounge and to watch the bustling jungle life unfold in front of you. But that's not all; here is a list of some of the things that make Laguna Lodge a must-visit destination that many people choose to include in their Costa Rica Vacation Packages! Check them out and let your adventure begin!
Transportation to Laguna Lodge:
There are several options when choosing your form of transportation to Laguna Lodge, the easiest being the regional Tortuguero Airport which provides flights to and from Costa Rica's capital city San José. Other options include taking a bus, rental car, or taxi, all of which can take you to the location where you can catch the boat taxi or ferry to Tortuguero itself.
Natural Mixture of Nature:
In the middle of beautiful, lush emerald rainforests Laguna Lodge offers the opportunity to see tons of wildlife such as monkeys, sloths, birds, turtles, etc. not to mention the exotic plant life that surrounds you everywhere you look. Without a doubt, your visit at Laguna Lodge will make you feel one with nature!
Land of the Turtles:
With direct beach access for its guests, Laguna Lodge provides the perfect opportunity to get a chance to see sea turtles during their nesting season which usually ranges between June through October. These majestic creatures can weigh up to 300 lbs. and can lay up to 100 eggs! Don't miss the opportunity to go on a night tour and to see first-hand how the giant sea turtles nest their eggs and then return to the deep blue sea!
Dine All Day:
Laguna Lodge has its very own hotel restaurant as well as three bars exclusively for its hotel customers. Explore a wide array of fresh fruits and vegetables, and delicious local dishes, while devouring the buffet-style meals prepared daily. Enjoy a drink from one of the hotel bars, while relaxing and soaking up some sun rays by the pool. The restaurant also provides tea, coffee, and cookies for its guest to snack on 24 hours a day.
Tours for Fun:
Looking to explore the area more? Laguna Lodge has plenty of tours and activities available for its visitors, for example boating through the canals of the Tortuguero National Park, exploring the Tortuguero village and engaging with locals, exploring the Turtle Museum, and many more adventures at your own leisure. Whether it is on foot or boat, Tortuguero has something to offer all types of travelers.
http://www.lagunatortuguero.com/ +(506) 2253-1100
Home » Hotels in Tortuguero » Laguna Lodge


Blog 101 – What Are Affiliate Links?
At long last, here is my post explaining affiliate links! The FTC recently changed some of the rules of disclosure for bloggers. What it means for readers is they are seeing terms like affiliate links and sponsored posts on the blogs they read more often. When I shared a link on Facebook and disclosed that it was an affiliate link, it dawned on me that other people may have no clue what I mean. So I asked. And, yep, most non-bloggers had no clue.
As bloggers, we are now required to inform our readers in each post, in an unavoidable way, before they reach any link that we may profit from. In other words, if we are getting paid, we have to tell you. It doesn't matter how much we earn, we just have to tell you. Keep reading to see what I mean by "it doesn't matter how much we earn".
So What Are Affiliate Links?
Two things I want to note right away: 1) no one but the website you buy from sees any of your personal information and 2) this does not cost you anything extra.
I will give you an example. When you click on an Amazon link (like on book list posts) on my blog, you will see be using my affiliate link. When you hover over one of those links, you will see "tag=behthebeawitl-20" at the very end of the link. That is my tracking ID. When you click through that link, Amazon puts a cookie in your browser that stays there for a few days (unless you delete your cookies) and gives me a commission for anything you may purchase.
Here is where I tell you the gobs of profit I am making off these links. I earn anywhere from 4-10.05%. Amazon's affiliate system is tiered so the more sales you send, the higher your commission percentage. So if you buy a $2 dollar ebook through my link and are the only one to do so that month, I will earn 8 cents. You can see how this get rich quick scheme is really working for me now, right?
Are all affiliate links the same? No. Every website has it's own affiliate program and they are all set up differently. Some cookies are set to count orders for only the original click and some count for days, weeks, or months. The commission rate is different with each program. There are affiliate programs that pay a set dollar or cents amount per click or sale; some pay only 3%; while others may pay 50%.
If they only pay pennies, why bother with them? It's a numbers thing. If I only have a sale or two each month, it will take me a very long time to reach the payout level. For example, I joined Amazon's affiliate program in 2008 and am just now reaching their $10 payout threshold. Not exactly a good ROI for my time. The thing is, with blog posts, these links are there until I delete them so as my traffic grows, so do my clicks/sales.
Why do affiliate links exist? Because it is a win-win situation. Websites only have so much advertising money to work with. With an affiliate program, they get more advertising that they don't have to pay for until AFTER they actually sell something or otherwise benefit. It gets their name, logo, and website in front of more eyes, more often, and is more effective when coming from a personal recommendation.
Please note I am not saying that every affiliate link is a personal endorsement. I pass along resources that I have not personally used as a service to those who may be looking for those resources. For example, we have not read every one of the books on the composer study list, but I know that many homeschool families do composer study and might appreciate my taking the time to put the list together.
It is a win-win situation for bloggers like me who want to bring in "extra" money to support their family's goals, but don't want to leave their children or homes to do so. There are bloggers out there who make a full-time income from their blogs, BUT they are putting in full-time hours to do it. In the beginning, it can be more than full-time hours. The benefit most see is the flexibility to be home with their family and set their own hours.
So you blog for money? Well, yes and no. I blog because I enjoy it. I enjoy sharing my journey, encouraging others in their journey, and I LIKE social media. Except Pinterest, I LOVE Pinterest. 😉 It takes time to write good blog posts. It takes time to review products and share them with you. It takes time to pull together resources (yeah, this takes a LOT of time). It takes money to blog, too. While my costs are fairly minimal, they still exist.
This is why I use affiliate links: it is a way to financially support this blog (and my family's goals) without costing my readers anything extra.
So the next time you see a disclosure from a blogger using affiliate links, you'll now know what they are and why they use them.
Do you have any other blog-related questions?
Leave them here in the comments or contact me via email.
Thanks so much for this post. I'm new to the blogging world and am seeing these terms everywhere! So, let's say someone wanted to add these links to their blog to make a few cents if they can. How does one go about that? Do you have to contact the company?
Depends on the company. For Amazon, you simply apply through the link at the bottom of their page. You can find a lot of affiliate programs this way, just look for a link on their site. I have even googled a company plus the word affiliate program to find some (I found Citrus Lane this way). Amazon is a good place to start (there are a few states that are not eligible for their affiliate program).
Vicki, thank you so much for this post! I recently started a blog for fun, and I'd like to gather as much information as possible about ways to support it!
I am glad you found it to be useful!
You explained all of this so well!! I haven't had any luck with Amazon so I'm trying Skim Links instead.
Hi! Thanks for such a great explanation of affiliate links. This was very helpful for someone just entering the blogging world!


text:
Compendium of Procedure
Parliamentary Framework
Parliamentary Privilege
Parliamentary Cycle
Typical Sitting Day
Debate and Voting
Financial Procedures
Private Members' Business
Parliamentary Publications
Search Compendium
Stages in the Legislative Process
Introduction and First Reading of a Bill
Second Reading and Referral of a Bill to a Committee
Referral of a Bill to a Committee Before Second Reading
Committee Stage of a Bill
Report Stage of a Bill
Third Reading and Adoption of a Bill
Senate Consideration
Royal Assent and Coming into Force of a Bill
More information-Legislative Process
Law-making is one of the most significant tasks of Parliament. It is therefore not surprising that the legislative process takes up a major portion of Parliament's time. The parliamentary stages described here are the culmination of a much longer process that starts with the proposal, formulation and drafting of a bill.
In the Parliament of Canada, as in all legislative assemblies based on the British model, there is a clearly defined method for enacting legislation. A bill must go through a number of specific stages in the House of Commons and the Senate before it becomes law:
notice of motion for leave to introduce a bill and to place it on the Order Paper ;
preparation of a bill by a committee (where applicable);
introduction and first reading;
referral to a committee before second reading (where applicable);
second reading and referral to a committee;
consideration in committee;
report stage;
third reading (and passage);
consideration and passage by the Senate;
passage of Senate amendments by the Commons (where applicable);
Royal Assent, and
coming into force.
All bills must go through the same stages of the legislative process, but they do not necessarily follow the same route. Three possible avenues now exist for the adoption of legislation:
After appropriate notice, a Minister or a Member may introduce a bill, which will be given first reading immediately. The bill is then debated generally at the second reading stage and sent to a committee for clause-by-clause study.
A Minister may move that a bill be referred to a committee for study before second reading.
A Minister or a Member may propose a motion that a committee be instructed to prepare a bill. A bill will be presented by the committee and carried through the second reading stage without debate or amendment.
Regardless of the avenue that the sponsor decides to take, the bill will then have to pass through report stage, be read a third time, and be sent to the Senate for passage before receiving Royal Assent.
The process is complex, but a bill can become law only once the same text has been approved by both Houses of Parliament and has received Royal Assent.
Detailed Articles
Types of Bills
Structure of Bills
Drafting of Bills
Private Members' Bills
Private Bills
The introduction of any public bill requires 48 hours' written notice. A Member or a Minister who intends to introduce a bill in the House of Commons must first give notice to the Clerk of the House before 6:00 p.m. (2:00 p.m. on Friday). The title of the bill to be introduced is then placed on the Notice Paper for the next sitting of the House.
The day after it appears on the Notice Paper , the title of the bill will appear in the Order Paper for introduction in the House. The title will remain on the Order Paper until the day on which the Member or Minister decides to introduce the bill.
Once notice is given for the introduction of a bill, no further notice is required for motions to consider the bill at the other stages (with the exception of motions to amend at the report stage and motions to deal with Senate amendments). There are separate requirements that apply to the notice for private bills.
There are special rules dealing with the introduction of bills that involve the expenditure of public funds and bills that are based on ways and means motions.
Order Paper and Notice Paper [Parliamentary Publications]
Business of Ways and Means [Financial Procedures]
Royal Recommendation for a Bill [Financial Procedures]
The first real stage in the legislative process is the introduction and first reading of the bill in the House of Commons. Once the notice period has passed, the Member or Minister seeks leave to introduce his or her bill when the item "Introduction of Government Bills" or "Introduction of Private Members' Bills" is called during Routine Proceedings.
A Member normally provides a brief summary of the bill he or she is introducing. A Minister rarely provides any explanation when requesting leave to introduce a bill but is permitted to and may do so later, under "Statements by Ministers", during Routine Proceedings.
Preparation of a Bill by a Committee
The second reading stage of the legislative process gives Members an opportunity to debate the general scope of the bill. Unless a bill has been referred to a committee prior to second reading, debate at this stage must focus on the principle of the bill and, accordingly, the text of the bill may not be amended before being read a second time and referred to committee.
The motion for second reading may be amended. Three types of amendments are permitted:
a three months' or six months' hoist, which seeks to postpone consideration of the bill;
a reasoned amendment, which requests that the House not give second reading to a bill for a specific reason; or
a motion to refer the subject matter of the bill to a committee.
Hoist Amendments to Bills
Reasoned Amendments to Bills
Referral of the Subject Matter of a Bill to Committee
Referral of a Bill to Committee Before Second Reading
A Minister may move that a government bill be referred to a committee before second reading. Doing so allows members of a committee to examine the principle of a bill before it is approved by the House of Commons and to propose amendments to alter its scope. This procedure can also apply to bills based on ways and means motions.
After the committee reports the bill to the House, the next stage is essentially a combination of the report stage and second reading. Members may propose amendments, after giving written notice two sitting days before the bill is debated in the Chamber.
Once agreed to at report stage and read a second time, the bill is slated for third reading.
Detailed Article
Most bills are referred to the standing committee the mandate of which most closely corresponds to the bill's subject matter. However, the House may choose to refer a bill to a legislative committee, a distinct type of committee created solely to undertake the consideration of legislation.
A legislative committee is appointed by the House on an ad hoc basis to deal with a particular bill and ceases to exist once it presents its report to the House. This type of committee may also be created to prepare and bring in a bill.
The role of the committee is to review the text of the bill and to approve or modify it. It is at this stage that witnesses may be invited to appear before the committee to present their views and answer members' questions.
Once the witnesses have been heard, the committee proceeds to clause-by-clause study of the bill. It is at this point that members may propose amendments to the bill. Each clause is considered separately. Once all the parts of the bill have been considered and adopted with or without amendment, the committee votes on the bill as a whole.
Once the bill is adopted, the Chair asks the committee for leave to report the bill to the House. Committees must report to the House on all bills referred to them. If numerous amendments have been adopted, the committee may order that the bill be reprinted for the use of the Members at report stage.
Clause-by-Clause Consideration of a Bill
Rules of Admissibility for Amendments to Bills at Committee and Report Stages
Following consideration in committee, there is an opportunity for further study of the bill in the House during what is known as report stage. Members, particularly those who were not members of the committee, may, at this stage, propose motions to amend the text of the bill. Written notice is required and debate focuses on the amendments and not on the bill as a whole.
Generally, the same rules relating to the admissibility of amendments proposed at committee stage apply to those at report stage. However, in order to prevent report stage from merely becoming a repetition of committee stage, the Speaker is authorized to select and group amendments for debate. The Speaker also determines whether each motion should be voted on separately or as part of a group. This ruling is made at the beginning of the report stage debate.
The Speaker will not normally select any amendment that was considered or that could have been considered in committee or amendments that were ruled inadmissible in committee.
When deliberations at report stage are concluded, a motion is put forward to approve the bill (with any amendments). The question is put immediately, without amendment or debate. The wording of the motion will vary depending on whether or not the original bill was amended, and on the stage at which the amendments were made.
There is no debate at report stage unless amendments are proposed. If the bill as reported by committee is adopted at report stage with no amendments, it may go immediately to third reading for adoption. A bill that has been reported by a Committee of the Whole, with or without amendment, must be put to a vote immediately at report stage and may proceed to third reading the same day.
Report Stage Rulings
Committees of the Whole [Committees]
Third reading is the final stage a bill must pass in the House of Commons. It is at this point that Members must decide whether the bill should be adopted.
Debate at this stage of the legislative process focuses on the final form of the bill. The amendments that are admissible at this stage are similar to those at second reading stage. Amendments for a three- or six-month hoist as well as reasoned amendments are permitted. An amendment to recommit the bill to a committee with instructions to reconsider certain clauses is also acceptable.
Third reading and passage of a bill are moved in the same motion. Once the motion for third reading has been adopted, the Clerk of the House certifies that the bill has passed. The bill is then sent to the Senate with a message requesting that it consider the bill.
Recommital of a Bill to Committee at Third Reading
The Senate follows a legislative process that is very similar to the one in the House of Commons.
In cases where the Senate adopts a Commons bill without amendment, a message is sent to the House of Commons to inform it that the bill has been passed, and Royal Assent is normally granted shortly thereafter.
Since most government bills originate in the House of Commons, the Government sometimes requests that the Senate consider a bill as quickly as possible. The Rules of the Senate of Canada provide for a procedure known as pre-study whereby the subject matter of a bill that has been introduced in the House of Commons but has not yet been sent to the Senate is sent to a Senate standing committee. In this way, the Senate can consider the bill and form its opinion even before it receives the bill from the House of Commons. When the bill is received, the Senate is then in a position to adopt or amend it within a very short time frame.
The Senate often makes amendments to bills, some of which involve corrections to drafting errors or improvements to administrative aspects. The House normally accepts such amendments.
If the House does not agree with the Senate amendments, it adopts a motion stating the reasons for its disagreement, which it communicates in a message to the Senate. If the Senate wishes the amendments to stand nonetheless, it sends a message back to the House, which then accepts or rejects the proposed changes. If an agreement cannot be reached by exchanging messages, the House that has possession of the bill may ask that a conference be held, although this practice has fallen into disuse.
House Consideration of Senate Amendments to Bills
Conferences Between the Commons and the Senate Regarding Amendments to Bills
The ceremony of Royal Assent is one of the oldest of all parliamentary proceedings and brings all three elements of Parliament together (the Crown, the Senate and the House of Commons). Royal Assent is the stage that a bill must complete before officially becoming an Act of Parliament. A bill will not be given Royal Assent unless it has gone through all of the stages of the legislative process and has been passed by both Houses in identical form.
Royal Assent may be granted in one of two ways—through a written procedure and through the traditional ceremony, during which Members of the House of Commons join their Senate colleagues in the Senate Chamber.
The written procedure involves the Clerk of the Parliaments (the Clerk of the Senate), or his or her deputy, meeting with the Governor General, or his or her deputy, to present the bills with a letter indicating that they have been passed by both Houses and requesting that the bills be assented to.
An Act that has been given Royal Assent in written form is considered assented to on the day on which the two Houses of Parliament have been notified of the declaration. The Royal Assent Act preserves the traditional ceremony by requiring that it be used at least twice in each calendar year, including for the first bill in each session that authorizes government spending.
The traditional procedure for Royal Assent involves a formal ceremony that takes place in the Senate Chamber. When the House is sitting, it suspends its proceedings in order that its Members may proceed to the Senate Chamber, where the Governor General or his or her deputy grants Royal Assent.
Once a bill has been granted Royal Assent, it becomes law and comes into force either on that date or at a date provided for within the Act or specified by an order of the Governor in Council.
Royal Assent to a Bill
Coming into Force of Legislation
House of Commons Procedure and Practice , Third Edition, 2017
Chapter 16, The Legislative Process
Chapter 21, Private Members' Business
Chapter 23, Private Bills Practice
Standing Orders of the House of Commons
Chapter VI, Process of Debate
Chapter VIII, Motions
Chapter IX, Public Bills
Chapter XI, Private Members' Business
Chapter XIII, Committees
Chapter XV, Private Bills
Amending Bills at Committee and Report Stages , House of Commons


Pilot Judgment clients are proud to share their success stories from our work together. Our case studies highlight the value of our engagements, and showcase the scope of our training solutions.
… has changed their lives, their businesses, and even their corporate culture.


Your favorite trinkets and jewelry will be well protected by a guardian dragon in this captivating trinket box. Whatever you store in this intricately detailed tomb, it will be guarded by a resting dragon on top with depictions of the Grim Reaper on each of the sides, surrounded by climbing vines, all in a stunning pewter look finish. This daring decoration combines elements of Medieval and Gothic Décor to create a truly fascinating stash box. It makes the perfect gift for dragon lovers and Grim Reaper collectors alike.
Dimensions: 5 7/8" x 4 1/8" x 6" high. Weight: 2.5 lbs. Storage Compartment: 4 1/4" x 2 5/8" x 2 1/4" deep.


Bochum has reinvented itself: the flourishing 19th century metropolis of mining and steelmaking has been transformed in recent decades into a modern, vibrant business and service location with a high recreational value. Today, the economic profile of the city on the Ruhr is characterised by IT and IT security, healthcare and production with a focus on engineering and automotive.
Over 364,000 people live in Bochum, the heart of the central Ruhr region. Of these, approximately 6,000 women and men are employed in the fields of science, research and administration. With around 60,000 students, Bochum is the second largest university location in NRW. Bochum is in the top ten for Germany as a whole.
Two universities and four universities of applied sciences, the Folkwang University of the Arts and numerous scientific institutes and centres of technology form the impressive academic landscape of Bochum, underscoring the transition of the city to a modern knowledge-based society.
In the shadow of the Jahrhunderthalle Bochum, the Innenstadt West - western city centre - site with its direct proximity to Bochum city centre is one of the most important locations with the greatest potential in the Ruhr region.
Here a 35 ha former industrial site is being redeveloped with a future-oriented approach. An attractive combination of business, trade, culture and leisure is the goal of the project.
The new GHotel on Alleestraße is also intended to benefit from the Jahrhunderthalle venue.
Design: DUDOQ Real Estate GmbH - Architectenzaak.


The CIPD have released a report highlighting the difficulties faced by employers in recruitment of EU workers since the Brexit referendum.
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development ("CIPD") have released a report highlighting the difficulties faced by employers in recruitment of EU workers since the Brexit referendum. Following a survey of 2,000 employers, it was revealed that the number of applicants per vacancy had dropped at every skill level. EU born workers in the UK had increased by 7,000 during 2017 and 2018 first quarters, compared to 148,000 during the same period in 2016/2017. The main areas to suffer from the supply shock include construction, transportation and IT.
The Government has published a number of statutory instruments, to include "The EEA Passport Rights (Amendment, etc., and Transitional Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018" which will be laid before Parliament in the autumn. The statutory instrument proposes a repeal of Section 31(1)(b) and (c) and Schedules 3 and 4 of the UK's Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the provision which legitimizes the use of financial services passports. There is also provision for the establishment of a "temporary permissions regime" as announced by the Government on 20 December 2017.
A group of UK expats living within the EU has launched a legal challenge against the 2016 Brexit referendum in light of the Electoral Commission's ruling on the Leave campaign spending. Legal proceedings, in the form of judicial review, allege that the referendum was not a lawful, fair or free vote. The Government intends to defend the proceedings on the basis that a previous similar challenge has been dismissed and, in any event, the action has been brought out of time. The expats' legal team includes Patrick Green QC and Jessica Simor QC who were both involved in the Article 50 litigation. A hearing date is awaited.
This week has seen the UK Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, commencing a three day visit of Europe to promote the UK's White Paper on Brexit. Mr. Hunt is due to meet with the Foreign Ministers for Denmark, Latvia and the Netherlands. However, ahead of his visit Mr. Hunt issued a warning to the EU Commission that a change in their approach to the negotiations is required.
Mr. Edgars Rinkevics, Foreign Minister for Latvia has announced, prior to his meeting with Jeremy Hunt this week, that there is a "very considerable risk" the UK could "crash out of the bloc without a withdrawal agreement". He further commented "I think it is only now the British public and British Government understand how complex, how difficult this kind of Brexit is, and that it is very difficult to build the future relationship".
The negotiation talks between the EU and UK will reconvene on Thursday 16 August 2018 although neither Dominic Raab nor Michel Barnier are expected to be in attendance. The Irish border and the future relationship are to be discussed.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has confirmed that there has been a drop in funds allocated to UK Universities from the EU's Horizon 2020 research programme. It is reported that there has been a drop from 25.47% in February 2017 to 24.22% by the end of May. Since February 2017 British researchers had lost 136 million euros according to Universities UK. A Professor of European Health Policy at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said "I've heard British researchers being asked to step aside from European research consortiums and excluded from funding applications". This comes at a time when the UK Government has guaranteed to underwrite all payments to the EU's Horizon 2020 grant recipients until the end of the programme in 2020.