"I have tried numerous traditional therapies over the years but EFT is completely different. I left my appointments feeling lighter and more confident. Karen's warm and professional approach had me feeling energized for hours after each session. We tapped (literally) into feelings and emotional responses I didn't even realize effected me so much. I cannot thank Karen enough. Tapping really works!"
EFT (Emotional Freedom Technique) is a type of Meridian Tapping that combines ancient Chinese acupressure and modern psychology, with undeniable results.
"You are wonderful! I felt an immediate lightening of the horrid pain I was in this morning. it would have been complete agony to have gone in my earlier state. Thank you!"
What do experts say about EFT Tapping?
Overwhelming scientific evidence has led more and more medical doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, personal development experts and others to support the self-healing power of EFT Tapping.
"I was blown away at how much lighter I felt after our session! You helped me realize that the guilt that I was carrying was actually heavy and causing my knee pain. And now it's gone!
EFT Tapping is a set of techniques which utilize the body's energy meridian points. These meridian points are stimulated by tapping with your fingertips — literally tapping into your body's own energy and healing power.
"I came to you , recommended by a friend (she knew my STRESS level). My wonderful brilliant mother was in the severe stage of dementia and Alzheimer's, and I had it in my head that I could HELP and FIX that.
"I feel SO much better. It's such a RELIEF.


text:
THINKlab is working with the School of Health on a new high-tech project called OptiMuscle, which will help treat patients with dysfunctional breathing.
The University of Salford'sa THINKlab has received a prestigious Epic MegaGrant from Epic Games to develop their innovative UE4-powered 4D simulation product for rail track renewal programmes.
As part of the COP26 programme of events, the Director of THINKlab, Professor Terrence Fernando, talks about some of the current projects which support Monday 8 November and the theme: Adaptation, Loss and Damage.
THINKlab support RSPB and Arnside and Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty to build resilient habitats and deliver a nature-based solution for a local community at risk of flooding
The THINKlab is working with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and the Arnside and Silverdale AONB on the Warton Mires Partnership project to help provide a nature-based solution, build resilience for a local community and reverse the fortunes of declining wildlife.
Q&A with THINKlab drone visualisation developers
The THINKlab has developed a new digital drone visualisation platform which has the potential for changing the way users can respond to disasters more effectively and for supporting post disaster reconstruction efforts. The digital drone visualisation platform will mean that stakeholders are able to interpret data more quickly which will strengthen their decision-making and increase
Smarter, faster intelligence thanks to THINKlab's Drone visualisation platform
The University of Salford's THINKlab has developed a new digital drone visualisation platform which has the potential for changing the way users are able to respond to disasters more effectively and for supporting post disaster reconstruction efforts. The innovative platform will mean that stakeholders are able to interpret data more quickly to establish an accurate
THINKlab develop 'Virtual Chernobyl' to mark 34th anniversary
THINKlab are excited to be working with University of Salford partners to develop the second phase of the Virtual Chernobyl virtual reality digital programme.
The University of Salford's THINKlab donate their MOBILISE digital platform for disaster risk reduction activities in Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Pakistan
After intensive research and development work over the last two years, the THINKlab team is now ready to release their first interactive digital platform to disaster management centres in Colombo, Sri Lanka; Sarawak State, Malaysia; and Peshawar, Pakistan.
The Festival of Research
The THINKlab: Addressing industry challenges through research, data and digital solutions. We're inviting you to learn more about how we're creating digital solutions and advancing technology in Collaborative Engineering, Digital Cities and Virtual Training Environments. Through partnerships, collaboration and one-off projects, join us to understand more about the research and commercial team and their work
THINKlab show the value of VR collaboration at GameLab 2018
THINKlab's enterprise team are excited to be exhibiting at this year's GameLab event, which is part of the annual Manchester Science Festival, 2018. Taking place at MediaCityUK on Saturday 20 – Sunday 21 October, GameLab is a playground for ideas and brings together developers and industry to showcase new research, products and thought-provoking activities. Exhibiting

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Celebrate 30 years of 'Singles' with Cameron Crowe & Kyra Sedgwick on the debut of 'Soundtracking the '90s'
Travel back to 1992, shortly after Seattle's underground music scene blew up, and Nirvana's Nevermind ended Michael Jackson's reign atop the Billboard Charts. A time in which women donned floral dresses and Doc Martens while bearded, long-haired men wore cheap and loose striped sweaters. The grunge era is in full swing. And, perhaps, the best way to actually experience 1992 is by watching Cameron Crowe's cult classic from the same year, Singles.
This September 18, the ensemble comedy turns 30. In honour of the anniversary, SiriusXM's Lithium (Ch. 34) will broadcast an exclusive special about the legacy of the movie during the premiere of an all-new series, Soundtracking the '90s. Hosted by Kat Corbett, the episode will feature Singles' double-platinum-selling soundtrack, plus commentary from Crowe and actress Kyra Sedgwick (who played Linda Powell). Tune in to the premiere on Friday, September 9th, at 12 pm ET and during the rebroadcast times below. After its debut, the entire episode will also be available on the SXM App.
In addition to Sedgwick, Singles featured notable appearances from Matt Dillon, Bridget Fonda, Campbell Scott, and Eric Stoltz. Some of the biggest names in grunge also made cameos, including Eddie Vedder, Chris Cornell and more.
About Soundtracking the '90s
Soundtracking the '90s is a new series on Lithium dedicated to the music and making of iconic films of the 1990s. In each episode, listen as host Kat Corbett takes you behind the scenes with directors, actors and more.
Broadcast Schedule (all times ET)
Friday, September 9th at 12 pm and 7 pm
Saturday, September 10th at 3 pm and 11 pm
Sunday, September 11th at 9 am and 9 pm
Monday, September 12th at 8 am and 6 pm
Tuesday, September 13th at 11 am and 8 pm
Wednesday, September 14th at 2 pm
Conan O'Brien takes over The Beatles Channel and Lithium as Guest DJ
Hear the world premiere of Oasis' new Knebworth 1996 live album + an exclusive interview with Noel Gallagher
Celebrate the 30th anniversary of Nirvana's classic "Nevermind"


text:
Honda Riding Assist-e
Self-balancing electric concept coming to Tokyo
By Visordown
Mon, 2 Oct 2017
FEW concept bikes make the sort of mainstream splash that Honda achieved earlier this year with its Riding Assist Concept. It wasn't jaw-droppingly powerful or stunningly beautiful, just an NC750-based idea for a future commuter machine.
So why the interest from the non-motorcycle press? Because it had an almost magical self-balancing ability. Without gyroscopes or stabilisers, Honda just used a computer controlled system to make tiny steering adjustments, rather like a trials rider would. An adjustable headstock increased the bike's rake, amplifying the side-to-side movement from these steering tweaks, making it easier to keep the bike's centre of gravity directly above its contact patch.
Honda's clever move of launching the Riding Assist at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas, rather than a motorcycle event, added to its mainstream impact.
Honda and Hitachi tie-up on electric plans
BMW reveals self-balancing bike
Now, though, the firm is going to reveal a second Riding Assist concept, the Riding Assist-e. Again it's using a mainstream event – the Tokyo Motor Show – rather than a pure motorcycle show as its platform.
The difference between the Riding Assist and the Riding Assist-e is a lower-case 'e' – and that, we all know, means it's electric. Gone is the NC750 parallel twin of the original, and in its place come an electric motor and a large battery.
The battery is mounted low down, keeping the centre of gravity low, while the motor is above it. There's a shaft drive system incorporated into a single-sided swingarm to transmit the power, but the frame still looks much like the NC750's in its general layout.
There's no concept-bike-clever front suspension design, not even any upside down forks or radial brake calipers. Apart from the slightly futuristic styling and, of course, the self-steering system, there's nothing to the bike that looks too far from showroom-ready. Could Honda be dropping a hint that there's an NC750-class electric mode in the pipeline?
Honda to produce EV-CUB in two years
Honda 'adopts' Mugen's electric TT bike
self balancing motorcycle
self balancing motorbike
self balancing bike
honda electric bike
honda electric motorcycle
Mugen back to the TT


text:
The location: The Reef Hotel.
A. The Reef Hotel.
A. Near the water, in Miami.
A. In Episode 2 (of Season 4), "Remains To Be Seen ":
Dexter and his police co-workers are called out to a crime scene at a waterside hotel. The so-called "Vacation Murderers" (a pair of robbers who kill their tourist victims first, and then take their valuables) have struck again, leaving a man dead on the floor of his hotel room. He was shot in the back of the head as he entered his room, and his wallet & other valuables were taken.
While there, the female reporter whom Quinn is sleeping with shows up, pushes her way past the police barriers, and tries to get the story details from Quinn, drawing the unwanted attention of LaGuerta.
But Quinn's problems at the hotel don't stop there. While gathering the victim's last belongings
from the hotel safe, Quinn comes across a large amount of cash and can't resist sticking half of the money into his pocket.
Unfortunately for him, Dexter sees him do it. And Quinn knows it. Dexter assures him that he doesn't care if he's a "dirty cop", angering Quinn and making him worry that Dexter might use the info against him.
Meanwhile, Dexter discovers blood on a cactus needle just outside the hotel room, which he believes may well contain the DNA of the "Vacation Murderer". (Later, he links the blood to Johnny Rose and his girlfriend Nikki, which leads to a shoot-out at their apartment.).
A. A waterside hotel. Just not in Miami.
A. This is the Marina Del Rey Hotel, at 13534 Bali Way, in Marina del Rey, CA.
It's the same hotel where they earlier filmed the infamous "room full of blood" scene, back in the show's first season. And it's the same place they used for Lundy's Hotel in this 4th season.
But while they used the front of the hotel for the Lundy scenes, they used the back (west) side of the hotel for most of these shots.
When we first see Dexter walking to the scene, he is walking south along the narrow road that runs along the west side of the hotel, between the back of the hotel and the marina's main channel.
They used another part of the same hotel (the round, southeast end) for the pharmacy scene.
It's about a mile west of Zoey Kruger's home.
They shot the scenes of Trinity stalking his second victim at a shopping/dining area not far from the hotel.
And in previous seasons, they've shot a lot in Marina Del Rey, including Dexter & Rita's wedding, Miguel Prado's hotel, the boating store, Lila's diner, and the Narcotic Anonymous meeting.
I shot the photos below in November 2009. The camera is looking north/northeast up the road behind the hotel.
Here is an aerial photo of the hotel. And here is a map link.
A. I knew immediately that it was Marina Del Rey. I've been there often, and those three round condo towers in the background are always a dead giveaway. The only chore was to determine exactly where in the marina. By pinning down several landmarks seen in the background, it was just a matter of triangulating the location, which pointed straight to the back of the Marina Del Rey hotel.
Later, of course, I went there in person to make sure, and to shoot the photos you see above..


text:
Performing and Creative Arts
Department of Performing and Creative Arts
The Art Program
Assistant Professor Miguel A. Aragón, Studio Art Program Coordinator
Miguel.Aragon@csi.cuny.edu
The Art Program is designed with a flexibility that accommodates students interested in focusing on studio art, photography, or art history. The Department's outstanding faculty of art historians and artists is committed to preparing students wishing to embark on diverse career paths including: professional artists, critics, scholars, and educators. We aim to equip all our students with the skills to excel in the professional art world in all its manifestations. We strive to offer the rigorous training and compassionate mentorship that will enable students to leave CSI as culturally literate adults, imbued with the sense of imagination, wonderment, exploration, and deep engagement that is at the heart of all artistic endeavors.
The Art Program provides at its core the creation of a nurturing environment where the students of the College of Staten Island/City University of New York (CUNY) can learn the profound value of the arts in the contemporary world. We offer a major and minor in Art, and a minor in Art History with classes that range from creative, personal practice to art historical and critical analysis. Students wishing to major in Art may opt for a Bachelor of Art (BA) or a Bachelor of Fine Arts (BFA): Studio Art Concentration degree.
The Studio Art curriculum encourages students to objectively critique, articulate content and vision in the visual arts. Through ongoing studio discourse, Studio Art majors and minors build an awareness of the conceptual underpinnings of their visual art practice in relation to the contemporary world and to historical precedent. Students develop skills and establish proficiency in a range of media, providing the foundation to concentrate in one discipline: drawing, printmaking, painting or sculpture. For students seeking a graduate degree in Studio Art, our faculty mentor students through ongoing advisement, independent study, and portfolio preparation.
Art Program Catalog Information
For students interested in the Bachelor of Fine Arts Degree in Art: Studio Art Concentration
Full Time Faculty
Miguel A. Aragón Miguel.Aragon@csi.cuny.edu
Beth Livensperger Beth.Livensperger@csi.cuny.edu
Marianne Weil Marianne.Weil@csi.cuny.edu
Performing Arts and Studio Facilities
Letter to Prospective BFA Students


text:
Ethics Bob Asks: "Did Torture Lead Us To Bin Laden"? My Answer: "So What If It Did? It Was Still Wrong."
December 22, 2012 December 22, 2012 / Jack Marshall
It's all for the best.
The last time my friend "Ethics Bob" Stone blogged about ethics, it was way back in August, and he was writing about some guy named "Romney." Now he's back on the job, thank goodness, with a comeback post titled "Zero Dark Thirty: Did torture lead us to Osama bin Laden?". And he's ticking me off.
"Zero Dark Thirty" is Hollywood's treatment of the search, apprehension and execution of Osama Bin Laden. The film suggest that methods of torture were employed by the CIA to uncover crucial intelligence that led to the terrorist mastermind's demise. Torture opponents, including some U.S. Senators, are alarmed by this, and disputing the film's account. (Imagine that: a movie that misrepresents history!) Meanwhile, conservatives, neocons, Bush administration bitter-enders, talk radio hosts and admirers of Dr. Fu Manchu and James Bond villains are citing the film as confirmation that they were right all along: torture is a wonderful thing.
I am puzzled that Bob got in the middle of this debate as an ethicist. "It worked!" and "It came out all right in the end!" are not valid ethical arguments or justifications. The first is an embrace of a pure "the ends justify the means" rationale, a favorite tool of Auric Goldfinger and Dr. No. The other is consequentialism. When ethicists and principled opponents of torture allow the issue to be adjudicated on this basis, they are surrendering their principles at the outset. "Torture doesn't work" is a pragmatic argument, not an ethical one. If the societal consensus regarding torture is going to be determined by how much we can benefit by returning to the rack and wheel, then ethical considerations have already been jettisoned.
This argument surfaced here back in 2010, when Bush alums pointed to evidence that information derived from waterboarding had prevented a terrorist attack on Heathrow Airport in London. I wrote:
"Let us assume, just to simplify things, that everything is as President Bush represents. Waterboarding was, by some legitimate analysis, legal. The information saved American lives and prevented terrorist attacks. Do these facts mean that the use of torture—and waterboarding is torture, whether one defines it as such or not—by the United States of America was justified, defensible, and ethical? No. I don't think so. I believe that for the United States of America to approve and engage in the use of torture is by definition betrayal of the nation's core values, and thus threatens its existence as the nation our Founders envisioned as completely as a foreign occupation."
"It works" is not a valid or sufficient reason to justify a national policy of torture, and I love you Bob, but agreeing to debate torture on that basis inevitably leads there. What the United States, because of its unique mission and values, must be willing to navigate is a far more delicate course.
From an Ethics Scoreboard post in 2006:
"…the United States is not supposed to be like other nations. It was uniquely founded on an ideal of innate human rights and aspirations, and there is no question that the language of the Declaration of Independence cannot be reconciled with the use of torture on human beings. The great experiment that is the United States of America, thanks to Mr. Jefferson, painted itself into an ethical corner at its inception. If it must use tactics to survive that violate the very reasons for its existence, then the nation's ideals are more illusory than real. But if it doesn't survive at all because of its refusal to do what is necessary to survive, then the experiment is a failure….The United States has faced this dilemma many times, in different forms. Every time it has chosen to go to war, and been willing to be responsible for the deaths of civilians in foreign lands, it has served notice that individual human rights will not be spared at the cost of the country itself. We were willing, after all, to use the atom bomb…twice. When critics assail the U.S. now using the principle of Absolutism, they are ignoring both history and their own value systems. Absolutes always have exceptions.
Nonetheless, the nation's official stance against torture is an important one, because it states a genuine commitment to the ideal of human dignity in accordance with the country's core values. This is why the gratuitous abuse of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib was so unforgivable; the ideal was betrayed wantonly and for the basest reasons: disrespect, vengeance, cruelty, and ignorance. But no one should pretend that our commitment to that ideal has ever included a willingness to perish rather than violate it. The ideal of rejecting torture is also important; torture is inhuman, horrible, despicable. The ideal must be stated as an absolute; we aim for it, so that we are not tempted to give it up too easily. But we will give it up temporarily if necessary, and for better or worse, all of us, in our hearts, know that we will."
When we really have no choice, when it truly is a matter of giving up everything or violating a core principle, then yes, the unthinkable has to be considered. Then there is an ethical conflict, and ethical analysis can be employed. Then we know, if we resort to torture when all ethical means have failed and total destruction looms, the unethical can momentarily become the best of unacceptable courses. However, a violation of national ideals and principles, such as torture, must never be casually placed on a scale to be outweighed by mere advantages and benefits of the moment. Even considering torture on the basis of "Does it work? Can it work? Did it work?" corrupts us.
"Did torture lead us to Osama bin Laden?" There is only one ethical answer to that question: It doesn't matter. Torture is evil, and the United States of America should not engage in it willingly whether it works or not. The United States of American cannot be the United States of America and embrace evil as policy.
Around the World, Character, Government & Politics, Law & Law Enforcement, Popular Culture, Religion and Philosophy, U.S. Society, War and the Military
"Ethics Bob", "the ends justify the means", absolutism, American ideals, Bush Administration, core values, cruelty, desperation, ethics, Ethics Scoreboard, exceptions, human rights, justice, President George W. Bush, survival, terrorism, terrorists, The Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, torture, Utilitarianism, waterboarding, Zero Dark Thirty
← Bad Neighbor, Uncivil Citizen and Christmas Jerk, But Sarah Childs Knows Her Rights!
Sen. Inouye And The Duty To Leave →
36 thoughts on "Ethics Bob Asks: "Did Torture Lead Us To Bin Laden"? My Answer: "So What If It Did? It Was Still Wrong.""
Well, I'm confused, as so often about ethics in practice. First, I don't think it "works," or that it "worked" with UBL. Second, if I'm wrong, and there is such a thing as the ticking bomb scenario, I think it can be justified–only in this very rare case– as far the lesser of two evils–still evil, but the lesser. I think slippery slope arguments deny our ability to make judgments.
First, it shouldn't matter ethically whether you think it worked or not, Bob. Second, as I wrote, the ticking bomb scenario is a unique situation in which an unethical choice is the only one….yes, the lesser of two evils. But we didn't have to torture to get Bin Laden, and if we hadn't gotten him, our civilization wouldn't have ended. We invite the slippery slope by including a non-ticking bomb in the equation.
It does matter, for two reasons: first, if torture isn't effective there's NO possible ethical reasoning to justify it. Second, if it did help to find UBL, it will encourage the torture advocates in the future (and, ugh, I suppose the present).
Colin Bowman
Bid Laden is her something of a cipher which needs to be unpacked. America has used its power to complexly define Bin Laden negatively. Beyond that American-specific propaganda project (truth is the first victim of war) facts on the global ground are way more refined and complex than that propagandistic American portrayal. What we have is the cultural tradition coexistent with America itself, that it will hunt down and kill/destroy all who oppose it in any significant way. The American way of the gun; the great simplifier.
To debate whether it was ethical that America took recourse to torture in coming to where it killed Bin Laden, sets a remit that conly only satisfy America domestically. Beyond the confines of the American community, confining any consideration of such recourse to torture alone, is simply unacceptable.
This American construction is at it is simply to pander to an American cultural illusion that it is an exceptionallu ethical society. The problem is torture. If we no longer take recourse to torture, then we ensure our ethical salvation. We'll still kill who we will because we can: but we wont torture anyone in so doing; and that way America will hold fast to its ethical roots and character.
Your comment jumps the shark in ways Fonzie never dreamed. Bin Laden killed 3000 American citizens in a cowardly, sneak attack, without provocation, justification or ratioanal cause. Hunting down such an individual doesn't require any of the tortured rationale you propose—it is a matter of principle and survival. No nation can survive that does not retaliate as a matter of policy for such an attack.
This statement—"The problem is torture. If we no longer take recourse to torture, then we ensure our ethical salvation. We'll still kill who we will because we can: but we wont torture anyone in so doing; and that way America will hold fast to its ethical roots and character—is particularly crap. I did not write that avoiding torture guaranteed anything—there are a million ways to fall short of ethical conduct. I siaid, clearly and correctly, that engaging in torture was one way to abandon the ethical foundations of the nation and culture. You can't discredit an argument by pretending it is a different argument entirely.
Jack, your first paragraph reveals the extent of presumption, and it ideological in nature and directed at a foe, which is on account before ethical consideration takes places. That presumption falls into the category of ethnocentric pragmatism. There's then nothing out of the ordinary about ethnocentric pragatism: but either that pragmatism is not ethics; or an ethics constrained by such pragmatism is a questionable beast. The more ethics is predicated on the survival of something, the more it is compromised by that contingency. The United States of America is a huge something, so the degree of contingent compromise of ethical reasoning reflects that scale. Not all of those within the American community would accept the portrayal of it you offer. A great many outwith that community would reject your portrayal out of hand. The foe you symbolise as Bin Laden, certainly would offer a countering portrayal. On all these counts your ethical reflection and reasoning cannot approach universality, and is instead something whose meaning is found, pretty exclusively, within (part of) the American community. This is not ethics, but rather American culture and ideology: and it none the worse for that; but its not ethics in any classical or academic sense.
Regards your second paragraph. My suggestion reflects my sense of the effect likely to be had across framing the question of torture as has taken place since the release of this film. The judgement that torture is dysfunctional in a current global circumstance can be accepted; so on that basis we do what we can, at whatever is our local level, to prevent what sees torture done in our global world. We then differ on whether cleaving to ethics or questioning power is the way to combat torture at the local level on which we can act.
Some of the things you mention in you taking an ethical approach, I and others would also object to; but in doing what we each do, we employ differing constructions. For me the primary issue is how we use language, to hide from realities, and hide what we are actually doing. Such language usage is involved in our media, our religions, our politics, our culture generally.
Our presumption that we are good and ethical, is ultimately a self-serving and comforting illusion, I believe. I think I understand its functionality on a psychological and socialpsychological plane; and I'm not antithetical to that function, except when the effect of the illusion begins to overpower people's capacity to grapple with fundamentals.
The American cultural presumption that The United States of America is exceptional and exceptionally ethical, is integral to a current American crisis; a crisis that may signal some denouemont in the decline of a nation and society.
1. Ugh. My stomach isn't strong enough for your nonsense. I could not care less whether many in the US would disagree with me; many also can't distinguish ethics from a merry-go-round. That Bin Laden would disagree with me is as obvious as it is irrelevant.
2. "The American cultural presumption that The United States of America is exceptional and exceptionally ethical, is integral to a current American crisis; a crisis that may signal some denouemont in the decline of a nation and society." Good luck with that. The U.S. is founded on uniquely ethical ideals and principles, which have served it, and by extension, the world, very well on balance. Living up to these ideals is difficult, but this nation has consistently aspired to do so, often failing, more out of failure to correctly analyze how to conform to the ethical ideals rather out of a willful effort to betray them. The current American crisis, neither the most threatening or the worst crisis it has faced, has nothing to do with American exceptionalism and everything to do with a bad stretch of weak leadership. We'll be just fine, Colin. Sorry to disappoint you.
There seems to be a solipsistic aspect to your activity of ethics. Others are wrong right left and centre. Others disagree with you right left and centre; and you don't care. Again I'm struggling to see just what ethics can be and do within such parameters; parameters of disregard for the others who make up the world to which you want your ethics to apply.
Ethics is an ongoing inquiry into what is right and wrong. As such, it is subject to differing theories of how one gets the answer. I have mine; I respect any contrary or differing opinion reached through legitimate analytical means. That doesn't mean I can't conclude that my approach is better, and their conclusions are wrong. There are right answers in ethics. I recognize that you belong to the school that holds that everything is right and no one is wrong, and that is,in fact, the death of ethics, not the pursuit of it.
The vast, vast majority of human beings make their decisions about right and wrong based on nothing close to ethical analysis, by simply consulting moral codes, by trying to avoid consequences, or by applying thought fallacies and rationalizations. No, I don't care what they thing, except in the sense that the unethical conduct that results makes life more difficult for everybody. Ethics is not a popularity contest or an exercise in majority rule.
I think we are getting somewhere Jack. It may be that I do not find ethics useful. I'm exploring that possibility in talking to you. You are the openly ethical guy, so examining what it is that you are doing in what you call ethics, provides me opportunity to reflect on what ethics is and does.
I don't subscribe to the school that everyone is right and no one is wrong. I'm not convinced that right and wrong is what I most orientate to, personally. What I am concerned with is finding out who the other person is, and what this other person is doing. What I'm then most concerned about is what happens between people, where people see themselves as right and the other wrong; it does seem to me as if that dynamic is embedded in nearly all human events. So I am interested in the detail of what allows a person to see themselves as right, and the detail of what allows them to see others as wrong: but I'm not convinced that human beings are too capable of having a sense of what is right that can hold universally. I think we then have to grapple with that actuality. As things stand, it looks to me as if striving to be ethical, might be a good exercise and discipline, in the sense that doing yoga might ring these two bells; but I'm not convinced by your notion of an imperfect structural ethicalty, a way of collective living that is ethical if imperfectly so, where the United States of America embodies that structure.
"The American way of the gun; the great simplifier."
Idiotic Comment of the Century.
Check out a cool little thing the rest of us like to call History.
The American way of Diplomacy is more accurate. Our national culture, when brought to war, is the thorough belief that the war ought to prosecuted to complete finality. This belief that only in complete victory you can have peace is what has driven American's aggressive martial spirit.
However, there is often a long painful process that drags begrudging Americans into a war to begin with, because prior to our aggressive martial spirit, we have a belief that we like Peace more. There have been a handful of our conflicts that Americans have readily mobilized for, such as the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War. Most other of our conflicts have been preceded by a long train of abuses before America either finally accepted the necessity of war or a major abuse occurred. Such as World War I, the USA absorbed 2 years of belligerent acts that any one alone would have constituted a right to go to war. Or World War II, several years absorbing abuse until finally the audacious act of 7 December awoke the sleeping giant. Even the American 'Civil' War could be argued to take several decades to build up to hostilities, when had the war been allowed to occur when it ought to have (some would say the early 1820s) we may have had far fewer headaches in its aftermath. Even our own Revolution was preceded by a decade of evils that Americans were more disposed to suffer, while those evils were sufferable.
As for war being prosecuted to complete finality, our national culture, indeed most of Western Civilization psychologically burned itself out in that culmination of European History, as we have not prosecuted a single conflict to complete victory since then.
I would accept that what you say is one American ideological view of The United States of America. Others would disagree with you on every detail with which you portray your vision of that United States. That's what history does: namely offer narrative which leads to how the present is to be seen; and differing groupings harbour different histories. This again comes down to who is inside and who is outside a given community.
Well, my 'ideological' view of the USA is based on solid analysis of fact. The language you are using in this 'discussion' goes only one direction — the democratization of fact….which is not fact at all. Just whatever is trendy to believe at the time.
Unfortunately scholarship doesn't work that way. You ought to know that, working at a school.
Bob says. "I believe that for the United States of America to approve and engage in the use of torture is by definition betrayal of the nation's core values, and thus threatens its existence as the nation our Founders envisioned as completely as a foreign occupation."
The question arises as to what status of reality we award these ideas of "core values" and Founder's vision. The reference to foreign occupation is interesting also.
The United States of America, like every other project of European colonisation, involved the colonisers in becoming foreign occupiers, if we look at the initial circumstance from an indigenous point of view. We then have a culture emerging which portrays and values everything from the point of view of the coloniser.
At some point in time, a bloodly civil war was fought, and the constitutional architecture of The United States of America was drawn from the thinking of the victors. The sense that a victorious North "occupied" a defeated South, has not been expunged from the culture of the United States of America.
The historical resume could go on. Consistently through that resume, the willingness of the United States of America to resort to whatever force at its means was necessary to satisfy its societal interest, is manifest. This outcome stemmed and stems from the founding consitution, and expresses core values concerning those and that beyond The United States of America. It would be a challenging exercise to derive core values from the actuality of all this. What can also be derived is the clear truth that a complex pragmatism drove events and outcomes far more fundamentally and powerfully than anything that we could consider ethically specified.
It's probably wisest to consider that Bob is referring to an illusion; an illusion that only ever functioned as a cultural and ideological and socialpsychological resource. An illusion which was always sustained within a pragmatism expressing realities differing greatly from the illusion. What Bob fears might happen, is probably an actuality that has always obtained.
Regards cleaving to a nominally ethical position, say of not countenancing torture; that risks tolerating the pragmatism that does not qualify as torture. The existential problem is power and its ethnocentric application. Torture can and should be objected to, but not so as to see primary objection and opposition to the exercise of power deflected.
Yes, well, peddle the Howard Zinn worldview someplace else. The nation has always made mistakes, examined its motives, learned from its errors, and returned to basic principles. That the nation has not always been true to its principles and ideals is not an argument for abandoning them, denying they exist, or decrying the national mission statement as a fraud.
"It would be a challenging exercise to derive core values from the actuality of all this." No, it wouldn't. The nation has displayed altruism, sacrifice and subordination of its own interests to the greater interest of mankind many, many times.
I'm not familiar with the Howard Zinn worldview.
I acknowledge that taking recourse to torture is one of the unacceptable things which The United States of America has indulged in, along with most other collective's that have the power to so take recourse, and so as to preserve their respective self-interests in times of perceived survival and thrival crises.
Where we seem to disagree is about the American claim to exceptionalism. The United States of America fails to be true to its espoused ideals and principles on a continuous basis, and on a scale reflecting the power it exercises. The national mission statement is a promissory note: not a fraud; but something whith a floating value across everything which America does.
America should not take recourse to torture: but ethics is not the only frame of reference on that issue; and ethics is only one resource for any correction. The fundamental factor is what drives America to take recourse to torture. Ethical parsing of all this is significant; but so is an empirical surveying of what drives America to take recourse to torture.
You say: "The nation has displayed altruism, sacrifice and subordination of its own interests to the greater interest of mankind many, many times." That is an argument which can be offered. Ultimately any such argument is likely to be an expression of ideology. Others would offer other arguments, about what America does, about what the motivation for what America does is, about what the effects and consequences of what America does are. These counter arguments would tend to be ideological.
If and as the erstwhile argument about the unacceptability of torture is advanced, we encounter the forms of life whose continued existence ultimately grounds that recourse to torture. America currently takes recourse to torture, for pragmatic reasons; and an American polity and culture sees that recourse endorsed. America currently is, as always, engaged in a life-or-death struggle to sustain what global dominance it has. American culture provides itself with the veil of perceived exceptionalism and ethicality, as has pretty much every powerful human society; but the hermetic and perspectives of that veil only cover a small part of what America is and does.
What would be more effective, what might grapple with fundamentals, would be ethics considered in a global frame of reference. There we encounter all the complexities of what America and others have dubbed "the war on terror", and much else of course. What can be considered ethical reasoning and decision within the frame of reference of the American community, does not qualify as ethical reasoning and decision when the applied frame of reference goes putatively global. Which is why the crucial factor in all this is community; and where we struggle to come to anything which can go universal across a global community.
America's recourse to torture is wrong, but ethical reflection within an American frame of reference is not going to correct that: this is how it seems for some outside the American community. Those inside the American community who believe that America has an ethical foundation and dimension, which is significiant in relation to American pragmatism, will disagree with that extra-American position.
It is possible to argue against torture on a prgmatic basis. Torture is dysfunctional because it is inconsistent with optimal realisation of human potential; working rather to the advantage of those who are skilfull in garnering power. Ethics has significance, but only alongside all else in which human being and occurring subsist.
"Ethics has significance, but only alongside all else in which human being and occurring subsist." This is my favorite line of pompous gibberish in years. Thanks for that. I am not opening a debate on American exceptionalism. To anyone without an axe to grind, the nation's singular accomplishments in industry, science, technology, art, entertainment, human rights, literature, foreign assistance, war and peace make the word "exceptional" a fair and obvious descriptor. You can dispute this if you like. You are wrong.
I recommend the works of Zinn to you highly and without reservations. You will love them. You're welcome.
Jack, hopefully you recognise the intellectual and scholastic difficulty introduced by your gambit of dismissing the views of others with no more than rhetorical flourishes. Again you presume something of enormous scale about America, and then refuse to discuss that presumption; those who disagree with you are just wrong. What exactly does ethics become within such parameters?
That's not the case at all. This isn't an ideological blog, nor is it a forum to be hijacked by those with ideological agendas. I am quite familiar with the mind- and word-games of those who have a construct, and work to squeeze every issue, fact and occurrence into a conforming hole within it. It is life by confirmation bias, and mine is too short to waste time arguing with such people. Ethics is non-ideological.
The conclusion that the United States, based on its founding documents, was established to embody and advance virtuous ideals is a fact, not a presumption, and someone has to be spinning hard to claim that over the course of its history, the leaders and the public of the nation haven't been dedicated to meeting those ideals, often falling short. The burden of proof is on anyone who asserts otherwise, and they are welcome to make that argument…someplace else. I'm not interested in it, and it is not germane here.
Jack, your two paragraphs offer contradictory notions. In the first ethics is declared to be non-ideological; and that a fascinating aspiration. The second offers an ideological vision of The United States of America; the declaration as to indisputable facticity notwithstanding, it simply being rhetoric. What you are then saying is that you're not interested in reflecting upon and discussing where nominal ethics may remain attached to ideology. Where the question then becomes, what does ethics become within such a parameter.
Nonsense. The two statements were unconnected. Ethics is not ideological, though ethical analysis is inevitably warped by ideological biases, hopefully as little as possible. My characterization of the U.S. is factual and historical. I know plenty of people disagree. They are wrong, that's all. I'm rather sure of it.
You do realize, I hope, that you frequently communicate in a parody of academic, pseudo-intellectual clap-trap. This is of no use to anyone, though I'm sure it is amusing to those who communicate similarly. I don't enjoy it; I've never enjoyed it, though there was a period in my life when I was pretty good at the tricks of the trade. I have low tolerance for it now: it reminds me of arguing with anarchists and nihilists in the Sixties. It doesn't enlighten, it doesn't persuade, and it alienates and bores 95% of the public, who are the ones who need to be interested in ethical analysis and get better at it. This is why the entire field of ethics has had a negligible influence on modern life, while virtually all public policy problems that should be discussed in ethical terms are instead decided on emotion, snap judgments and rationalization. I'm really not interested in debating philosophy, linguistics, or the sources of anti-American sentiments abroad, at least not here. I'm not interested in watching you try to show how smart you think you are. either. If you were next door, I'd love to hit a bar with you and debate all night, my treat, but that's not what Ethics Alarms is for, and you're monopolizing my time.
Colin, I appreciate the measured, polite and inquiring style of your discourse, I really do. But it's off point, your orientation is philosophically hostile to the mission of the site, and your persistence borders on trolling, at least on this thread.
The fundamental issue here, is community. The culture of the United States of America has its population considering what it does in terms of good and necessity and justification; so reflecting on itself and what it does ethically. Beyond the boundaries of that community of the United States of America, ethics are not apparent in what these United States is and does. Ethicality is the ideology of the United States of America, at least in significant part; but the actuality and function of ideology, while making the United States of America distinctive in detail, are in general terms what they have been for every other community throughout human history. Ethics is a post-reflexive activity, and not thereby redundant; but the reflexive impulses to survive and thrive and dominate play out before ethics begins.
Torture exists on a spectrum. Is it torture, of individuals and localities, to have ecenomic lifeblood drained across changing technology and changing investment patterns. Is it torture, as arguably in Iraq, to invade in a manner which subjects one or more generations to instability and degradation of life prospect. Is it torture to convey to the world, that as long as The United States of America (or Rome or Germany) has the military power and means, it will smash anyone and anything that opposes it in significant ways. Is it torture for The United States of America (and all other investing machines) to sustain a global financial system where the interests of indigenous populations around the world are sacrificed. Is it torture to have populations around the world suffer deprivation to bail out a banking system that often appears to work as does the mafia.
Torture is not ethical, yes. But we humans engage in a spectrum of torturing to sustain the ways of collective life which advantage some of us. Lets not get fixated on particular points of that spectrum.
"Is it torture, of individuals and localities, to have ecenomic lifeblood drained across changing technology and changing investment patterns. Is it torture, as arguably in Iraq, to invade in a manner which subjects one or more generations to instability and degradation of life prospect. Is it torture to convey to the world, that as long as The United States of America (or Rome or Germany) has the military power and means, it will smash anyone and anything that opposes it in significant ways. Is it torture for The United States of America (and all other investing machines) to sustain a global financial system where the interests of indigenous populations around the world are sacrificed. Is it torture to have populations around the world suffer deprivation to bail out a banking system that often appears to work as does the mafia."
No, no, no, no, no and no. None of these are "torture", and using them this way simply makes the poor argument that we've tolerated that, so we should tolerate this. This is a collection of rationalizations—"There there worse things" (although there aren't) and "Look over there!" prime among them. You're muddying water that isn't that muddy.
Jack, where did I suggest that anything should be "tolerated"? You are egocentrically writing in strawman handles for your own priorities.
It's more that the ethical discussions in the United States of America, which properly seen are ideological arguments rather than ethical discussion that can get to fundamentals, depend upon cultural parameters which do no obtain for those looking at the United States of America from the outside.
Human beings have a very circumscribed capacity to be ethical. Communities then dress themselves up in illusory cultural ideas about themselves. As Bob says, when considering what is taking place across the survive and thrive pragmatism he points to, "then the nation's ideals are more illusory than real". Most of what passes for ethical reflection and discussion and argument, is then going to be socialpsychological process process which plays out across what is ultimately illusory; what is more real being what takes across and through such process.
This has not too much proved a problem for The United States of America when acting out foreign policies of various types. But it has become a crisis domestically; perhaps the kind of crisis which ends tearing great powers apart from the inside. A crisis because it has culturally become unable to grapple with the real fundamentals underlying ethicality. Rather its population currently appears polarised across two dominant politically expressed and mutually exclusive hermetics. From the outside, just how America can reintegrate and progress from this point, is unclear. The United States of America, regards cultural and ethical and intellectual compass, appears to be trapped in something of a moment of dysfunction.
What The United States of America then does abroad, that is to those considered to be outside its community, on all sorts of planes, has never been guided by ethics, but rather by all sorts of pragmatic considerations, to which every empowered community has always been subject.
Every empowered community, to survive and thrive and dominate, does dreadful things abroad. Its then not a matter of "tolerating" these things, but rather remaining attentive to and mindful of these things. Ethical reflection which is not grounded in such attentiveness and mindfullness, is always at risk of becoming an exercise of culture and socialpsychology; something a community does within the illusions it provides itself.
(Your comment was to me, not Bob. The quote is mine.)
Frankly, I object to your whole approach. The issue isn't the justification for invading Iraq, or any of the other complex episodes that in hindsight we may, or may not, regard as breaches of America's ideals and goals. The issue is torture, and there is nothing ideological about it, The sense of arguments like yours is, "How dare we get our panties in a bunch over torture, when we perpetrated the Trail of Tears? None of the places such an argument can go are productive: "Since we have violated our principles before, let's follow precedent!" "The US doesn't really have ideals, it just pretends to!" "We can't consider torture unless we consider every other issue, which means, in practical terms, we can't consider torture."
There are several ethical problems at root of most of the episodes you mention. If you are the most powerful kid on the block, do you let bullies beat up the other kids, or step in? If you believe that your system is the best chance for the world to achieve peace and harmony, do you try to impose it? Do you agree to work with regimes that violate your core values? All fascinating issues, that are not about torture: the abuse of national and personal power to inflict pain and suffering in order to bend others to their will.
This kind of statement, with which your comments are rife, are just annoying: "Every empowered community, to survive and thrive and dominate, does dreadful things abroad. Its then not a matter of "tolerating" these things, but rather remaining attentive to and mindful of these things." This is intellectual humming. Every body does it, followed by…what? Being mindful and attentive are states of mind on the way to action: after being "mindful", what do you do? There's nothing ethical about being mindful, unless it leads to ethical conduct.
Wdo what do I do across being mindful of what I refer to? I invest in sustained critique of all manifestations of the social and the societal; and I apply that critique to the support of children on the autistic spectrum. I believe that all that needs to be adjusted in the macro social and macro societal, plays out and can be researched in how the social and the societal plays out in autistic occurrence. That may not cover all the required bases, and I may do what I there do becase I'm not capable of doing anything more; but its there that I do what I can to be the change that I reflexively want to see in the world.
ByTheFarmstead
That the US has failed these ideals in the past, can't really be a question. there are plenty of examples in too many places and times. That doesn't mean we should not examine recent failures or give them a pass just because of fear. The cause for the fear changes over generations, but poor decisions are made that later generations will point at and say that are just wrong. What seems a necessary exception for yesterday's internment camps, doesn't once that fear passes.
Those ideals core to the Founders' documents, even if they had trouble too, can be called enlightened self-interest, golden rule, or tit for tat game theory, but if we make exceptions and approve of its use, then that approves it being used against us too. The self evident truths were not about us alone, but for all. After all, we stole, er borrowed them from Europe; they didn't claim those rights were just for Europe.
Torture takes everyone to the lowest common denominator of animal survival and bullying to a violent extreme. Ideals of equality, liberty, fairness and ethics are hoping to improve interpersonal to inter-governmental interactions above feral; that we can grow up as a species.
zoebrain
Taking the "ticking bomb" scenario – and torture alas does work sometimes in getting time-critical information…
Torturers should be subject to condign punishment.
If the only way to stop a nuke going off, killing millions, was for me to torture someone, I'd do it.
I'd then insist that I be executed. Only by such drastic punishment can we be certain that we are acting in the least unethical manner possible. If it's not worth dying for, doing it is more wrong than not doing it.
Terrific and thought-provoking response. As soon as I can take the time, it's a Comment of the Day.
That would seem to offer an ethicality based on personal integrity and personal responsibility taking.
So you would be willing to do something that in itself might seem unethical, and do that in order to avoid what you viewed as a greater evil. And you would secure your own death as the condition of remaining ethical.
Do you accept that this places you in the same ethical position as the terrorist or suicide bomber: where that bomber or terrorist does something which is ethically indefensible in itself; but that bomber or terrorist does that something in order to stave of a greater evil (as they see it).
I see that Jack might reject this comparison, if and as he simply writes of the suicide-bomber or terrorist as beyond the pale of consideration, ethical or otherwise.
Regards Bob's concern about how ethics can be acted out in the real world, and accepting that you are unlikely to have to deal with the scenario you offer, can you list some of the more down to earth situations in which you would be prepared to be a torturer, and clarify whether you would ensure your own execution in such down to earth instances
Totally get your reasoning, if it really saved millions of people from certain death. But I don't think this particular torture session saved anyone. Bin Laden wasn't captured before 9/11 to prevent the attacks… Does revenge justify torture?
"Absolutes always have exceptions."
Umm…is the author of this statement absolutely certain of this? Because if he is, then he has a problem: If, as the author claims, "absolutes always have exceptions", then that means that there are exceptions to the absolute statement that says "absolutes always have exceptions", which logically implies that that there must be at least some absolutes for which there are no exceptions. If indeed, there are some absolutes for which no exceptions exist, wouldn't torture be one of them?
Any more "umms" and "oh really?'s", jerk, and you're banned, get it? You're a guest here; this topic is my specialty and my living, and I am not going to tolerate snottiness from someone who has earned no credility here. The blog's commenter earn the right to be wise-asses. You haven't.
As to your point, yes, I am quite aware of the conundrum yu refer to: Kurt Godel, who identified the Incompleteness Theorem, had a lot of fun with it. I don't have a problem, you do, because all absolutes fail at one time or another. It is, in fact, the exception that proves the rule. Intransigent absolutists go to grief as soon as they escape the security of theory and have to deal with reality. I know this includes the majority of philosophers. I don't care. The statement is true.
"When we really have no choice, when it truly is a matter of giving up everything or violating a core principle, then yes, the unthinkable has to be considered."
Oh, really, and why is that? If you are willing to consider the unthinkable when faced with giving up everything, does that mean you would consider surrendering to the enemy? As long as you are considering unthinkable things, would you consider surrender to be better or worse than the use of torture?
The fact that people are willing to die rather than compromise their principles means that you always have a choice. That choice may cost you your life, but isn't that better than living in moral cowardice? Plenty of our soldiers (not to mention the founding fathers) down through the centuries would seem to agree. To say that one has no choice is really just an excuse for cowardice. This is not to say that I haven't been guilty of this myself in the past, but at least I'm not making excuses to justify my moral failure.
Look, a Massada survivor!
For one thing, there is nothing unethical about considering anything.
Leave a Reply to Jack Marshall Cancel reply


text:
Cloth $30.00 ISBN: 9780226350554 Will Publish June 2021
An e-book edition will be published.
Rights, Permissions & Translations
Licensing from a Book
On War and Writing
Samuel Hynes
Reading the World
Mary Franklin-Brown
Mutants and Mystics
Jeffrey J. Kripal
The Making of Romantic Love
William M. Reddy
Pulp Empire
The Secret History of Comic Book Imperialism
Paul S. Hirsch
344 pages | 44 color plates, 6 halftones | 6 x 9 | © 2021
E-book $30.00 ISBN: 9780226350691 Will Publish June 2021
In the 1940s and '50s, comic books were some of the most popular—and most unfiltered—entertainment in the United States. Publishers sold hundreds of millions of copies a year of violent, racist, and luridly sexual comics to Americans of all ages, until a 1954 Senate investigation led to a censorship code that nearly destroyed the industry. But this was far from the first time the US government actively involved itself with comics—it was simply the most dramatic manifestation of a long, strange relationship between high-level policy makers and a medium that even artists and writers often dismissed as a creative sewer. In Pulp Empire, Paul S. Hirsch uncovers the gripping untold story of how the US government both attacked and appropriated comic books to help wage World War II and the Cold War, promote official—and clandestine—foreign policy, and deflect global critiques of American racism.
As Hirsch details, during World War II—and the concurrent golden age of comic books—government agencies worked directly with comic book publishers to stoke hatred for the Axis powers while simultaneously attempting to dispel racial tensions at home. Later, as the Cold War defense industry ballooned—and as comic book sales reached historic heights—the government again turned to the medium, this time trying to win hearts and minds in the decolonizing world through cartoon propaganda.
Hirsch's groundbreaking research weaves together a wealth of previously classified material, including secret wartime records, official legislative documents, and caches of personal papers. His book explores the uneasy contradiction of how comics were both vital expressions of American freedom and unsettling glimpses into the national id—scourged and repressed on the one hand and deployed as official propaganda on the other. Pulp Empire is a riveting illumination of underexplored chapters in the histories of comic books, foreign policy, and race.
Introduction: Making an American Monster
1 This Is Our Enemy
2 The Wild Spree of the Laughing Sadist
3 Donald Duck's Atom Bomb
4 The Devil's Ally
5 American Civilization Means Airstrips and Comic Strips
6 The Free World Speaks
7 Thor Battles the Vietcong
Conclusion: The Ghosts among Us
Daniel Immerwahr, author of How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States
"I'll be frank: I love this book. Hirsch's writing is crisp and exciting and it's a joy to see the history of comic books and the Cold War United States told from such a fresh angle. This fun, sharp book is one I'll be thinking about for a while."
Martin J. Sherwin, Pulitzer Prize–winning coauthor of American Prometheus and author of Gambling with Armageddon
"Every so often, a single book changes our understanding of an entire topic. Hirsch's brilliant, artfully written Pulp Empire does that for mid-twentieth-century American studies. The billions of comic books that rolled off American presses and circumnavigated the globe in the 1940s and '50s reveal significant unexplored aspects of American society, politics, and foreign policy. While Hirsch's spectacular research introduces American historians to a new field of study, his elegant writing invites a broad audience to read this unique and beautifully produced book."
Jared Gardner, author of Projections: Comics and the History of Twenty-First-Century Storytelling
"It has been a long time since I read a history of comic books that genuinely brought significant new issues and sources to the table. Pulp Empire is such a book—smart, lively, and well-written. Hirsch positions the early decades of the American comic book in a global context and illuminates the anxieties this powerful new form of popular culture inspired not only in parents and cultural critics but also in government officials and world leaders."
History: American History
Library Science and Publishing: Publishing
Political Science: Diplomacy, Foreign Policy, and International Relations
Sociology: Criminology, Delinquency, Social Control
Chicago Blog: Literature
Events in Literature
New Books Email Notification
Sign up to be notified of new books in the category Literature. Sign Up


text:
Q: How to use invokeAll() to let all thread pool do their task?     ExecutorService pool=Executors.newFixedThreadPool(7);
        List<Future<Hotel>> future=new ArrayList<Future<Hotel>>();
        List<Callable<Hotel>> callList = new ArrayList<Callable<Hotel>>();

        for(int i=0;i<=diff;i++){

            String str="2013-"+(liDates.get(i).get(Calendar.MONTH)+1)+"-"+liDates.get(i).get(Calendar.DATE);

            callList.add(new HotelCheapestFare(str));

        }
     future=pool.invokeAll(callList);
for(int i=0;i<=future.size();i++){

        System.out.println("name is:"+future.get(i).get().getName());
    }

Now I want pool to invokeAll all the task before getting to the for loop but when I run this program for loop gets executed before that invokeAll and throws this exception:
java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException: java.lang.NullPointerException at
java.util.concurrent.FutureTask$Sync.innerGet(Unknown Source) at
java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.get(Unknown Source) at
com.mmt.freedom.cheapestfare.TestHotel.main(TestHotel.java:65)

Caused by: java.lang.NullPointerException at
com.mmt.freedom.cheapestfare.HotelCheapestFare.getHotelCheapestFare(HotelCheapestFare.java:166)
at com.mmt.freedom.cheapestfare.HotelCheapestFare.call(HotelCheapestFare.java:219)
at com.mmt.freedom.cheapestfare.HotelCheapestFare.call(HotelCheapestFare.java:1)
at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask$Sync.innerRun(Unknown Source) at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.run(Unknown Source)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(Unknown Source) atjava.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(Unknown Source)
at java.lang.Thread.run

A: The way an ExecutorService works is that when you call invokeAll it waits for all tasks to complete:

Executes the given tasks, returning a list of Futures holding their
  status and results when all complete. Future.isDone() is true for each
  element of the returned list. Note that a completed task could have
  terminated either normally or by throwing an exception. The results of
  this method are undefined if the given collection is modified while
  this operation is in progress.1(emphasis added)

What that means is that your tasks are all done but some may have thrown an exception. This exception is part of the Future - calling get causes the exception to be rethrown wrapped in an ExecutionException.
From you stacktrack
java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException: java.lang.NullPointerException at
java.util.concurrent.FutureTask$Sync.innerGet(Unknown Source) at
java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.get(Unknown Source) at
                                ^^^ <-- from get

You can see that this is indeed the case. One of your tasks has failed with an NPE. The ExecutorService caught the exception and is telling you about it by throwing an ExecutionException when you call Future.get.
Now, if you want to take tasks as they complete you need an ExecutorCompletionService. This acts as a BlockingQueue that will allow you to poll for tasks as and when they finish.
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
    final ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
    final ExecutorCompletionService<String> completionService = new ExecutorCompletionService<>(executorService);
    executorService.submit(new Runnable() {
        @Override
        public void run() {
            for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i) {
                try {
                    final Future<String> myValue = completionService.take();
                    //do stuff with the Future
                    final String result = myValue.get();
                    System.out.println(result);
                } catch (InterruptedException ex) {
                    return;
                } catch (ExecutionException ex) {
                    System.err.println("TASK FAILED");
                }
            }
        }
    });
    for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i) {
        completionService.submit(new Callable<String>() {
            @Override
            public String call() throws Exception {
                if (Math.random() > 0.5) {
                    throw new RuntimeException("FAILED");
                }
                return "SUCCESS";
            }
        });
    }
    executorService.shutdown();
}

In this example I have one task that calls take on the ExecutorCompletionService which gets the Futures as they become available and then I submit tasks to the ExecutorCompletionService.
This will allow you to get the failed task as soon as it fails rather than having to wait for all the tasks to either fail of succeed together.
The only complication is that it is difficult to tell the polling thread that all the tasks are done as everything is now asynchronous. In this instance I have used the knowledge that 100 tasks will be submitted so that it only need to poll 100 times. A more general way would be to collect the Futures from the submit method as well and then loop over them to see if everything is completed.

A: Future.get() throws below exceptions.
CancellationException - if the computation was cancelled
ExecutionException - if the computation threw an exception
InterruptedException - if the current thread was interrupted while waiting
Catch all these exceptions when you call get() method.
I have simulated divide by zero exception for some Callable tasks but exception in one Callable does not affect other Callable tasks submitted to ExecutorService if you catch above three exceptions as shown in example code.
Example code snippet:
import java.util.concurrent.*;
import java.util.*;

public class InvokeAllUsage{
    public InvokeAllUsage(){
        System.out.println("creating service");
        ExecutorService service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);

        List<MyCallable> futureList = new ArrayList<MyCallable>();
        for ( int i=0; i<10; i++){
            MyCallable myCallable = new MyCallable((long)i+1);
            futureList.add(myCallable);
        }
        System.out.println("Start");
        try{
            List<Future<Long>> futures = service.invokeAll(futureList);
            for(Future<Long> future : futures){
                try{
                    System.out.println("future.isDone = " + future.isDone());
                    System.out.println("future: call ="+future.get());
                }
                catch (CancellationException ce) {
                    ce.printStackTrace();
                } catch (ExecutionException ee) {
                    ee.printStackTrace();
                } catch (InterruptedException ie) {
                    Thread.currentThread().interrupt(); // ignore/reset
                }
            }
        }catch(Exception err){
            err.printStackTrace();
        }
        System.out.println("Completed");
        service.shutdown();
    }
    public static void main(String args[]){
        InvokeAllUsage demo = new InvokeAllUsage();
    }
    class MyCallable implements Callable<Long>{
        Long id = 0L;
        public MyCallable(Long val){
            this.id = val;
        }
        public Long call(){

            if ( id % 5 == 0){
                id = id / 0;
            }
            return id;
        }
    }
}

output:
creating service
Start
future.isDone = true
future: call =1
future.isDone = true
future: call =2
future.isDone = true
future: call =3
future.isDone = true
future: call =4
future.isDone = true
java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException: java.lang.ArithmeticException: / by zero
        at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.report(FutureTask.java:122)
        at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.get(FutureTask.java:188)
        at InvokeAllUsage.<init>(InvokeAllUsage.java:20)
        at InvokeAllUsage.main(InvokeAllUsage.java:37)
Caused by: java.lang.ArithmeticException: / by zero
        at InvokeAllUsage$MyCallable.call(InvokeAllUsage.java:47)
        at InvokeAllUsage$MyCallable.call(InvokeAllUsage.java:39)
        at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.run(FutureTask.java:262)
        at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1145)
        at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:615)
        at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:744)
future.isDone = true
future: call =6
future.isDone = true
future: call =7
future.isDone = true
future: call =8
future.isDone = true
future: call =9
future.isDone = true
java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException: java.lang.ArithmeticException: / by zero
        at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.report(FutureTask.java:122)
        at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.get(FutureTask.java:188)
        at InvokeAllUsage.<init>(InvokeAllUsage.java:20)
        at InvokeAllUsage.main(InvokeAllUsage.java:37)
Caused by: java.lang.ArithmeticException: / by zero
        at InvokeAllUsage$MyCallable.call(InvokeAllUsage.java:47)
        at InvokeAllUsage$MyCallable.call(InvokeAllUsage.java:39)
        at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.run(FutureTask.java:262)
        at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1145)
        at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:615)
        at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:744)
Completed

A: invokeAll is a blocking method. It means – JVM won't proceed to next line until all the threads are completed.  So I think there is something wrong with your thread future result.
System.out.println("name is:"+future.get(i).get().getName());

from this line I think there are some futures have no result and can be null, So you should check your code, if there are some Futures null,If so, get a if before this line executed.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Punch Bowl & Ladle We offer the full range of products and services needed to make your party or event a success.
G32 Gas Oven Lpg gas powered commercial turbo-fan oven. Gas bottle included.
Must for any party or Event BLACK ICE BIN WILL SUIT ANY FUNCTION. 150 L -RENTAL FEE: $22.00 240L - RENTAL FEE: $40.
Crystal d'Arques Tumbler Classic European styling from France Height: 96mm Diameter: 78mm Volume: 300ml Price: $1.3 Crystal d'Arques Red Wine Classic European styling from France Height: 188mm Diameter: 87mm Volume: 260ml Price: $1.
Large motor wattage makes your job easilier RENTAL FEE: $30.
Mikasa Wine Decanter Code: WDM Description: Modern design with thumb base & an angled cut edge for easy pouring. Details:Height: 320mm Diameter: 145mm Volume: 1.


The Global Water Partnership's (GWP) Sponsoring Partners have selected Mr. Howard Bamsey, former Executive Director of the Green Climate Fund (GCF), as the new Chair of GWP. The appointment is effective immediately.
Mr. Bamsey, a citizen of Australia, has been a prominent leader in public service and diplomacy in the environmental field, particularly climate change. Mr. Bamsey's diplomatic career included time as Ambassador to the UN (Geneva); Chief Executive, Australian Greenhouse Office; Deputy Secretary, Department of Climate Change; and Special Envoy on Climate Change. Later, he was Director General of the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI) and then Executive Director of the Green Climate Fund (GCF).
Mr. Bamsey, a graduate of the University of Queensland, is Adjunct Professor at the University of Sydney and the Australian National University, and an Honorary Professor at the Australian National University.
"Mr. Bamsey's leadership style, as characterized by his deep strategic thinking, advocacy skills, belief in teamwork, and his extensive international network, will help GWP sail through a rapidly changing water world towards achievement of the SDGs. He will be able to build a bridge with those beyond the water sector – who need to take water into consideration as they make planning and investment decisions," said Kenzo Hiroki, Chair of GWP's Nomination Committee, which unanimously recommended Bamsey for approval by the Sponsoring Partners.
Mr. Bamsey co-chaired the United Nations 'Dialogue on Long-term Cooperative Action on Climate Change' from 2006 to 2007 and served as Australia's Special Envoy on Climate Change and Deputy Secretary at the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency from 2008 to 2010.


Great photo here of Sleight of Hand founder, Trey Busch (L), and production winemaker, Keith Johnson (R).
Tasting with Trey Busch is a blast. I recently caught up with him at his SoDo tasting room, located adjacent to Rotie Cellars and we ran through his gorgeous new lineup of Washington wines. Trey founded Sleight of Hand in 2007 along with two other partners, Jerry and Sandy Solomon. The winery focuses on both estate and non-estate fruit and has slowly been increasing production since the winery's inception. Trey is a downright awesome, down to earth guy that has attained great success in a relatively short amount of time. Jerry and Trey choose when to pick the wines, while Trey oversees the winemaking. Their production winemaker whom I interviewed in the spring, Keith Johnson, does an excellent job working hand and hand with Trey.
Some new releases to watch for includes their absolutely awesome new Riesling, the 2014 Sleight of Hand 'The Magician' (WWB, 91) which shows a vibrant mineral streak that is not typical from this vintage. This is truly one of the best Riesling wines from Washington that I have sampled in the past year. An absolutely awesome value is their 2014 Sleight of Hand 'The Conjurer' Red Wine (WWB, 92) which shows intense dark fruit character from this hot vintage. Finally, one of their cult wines is the 2014 Sleight of Hand 'The Psychedelic' Syrah (WWB, 94) which shows incredible Walla Walla Rocks terroir and lithe minerality. Learn more about this great winery at http://www.sofhcellars.com Here are the fantastic new release from Sleight of Hand.


text:
Alex Henery
Alex Henery was born on 18 August, 1987 in Omaha, Nebraska, United States, is an American football placekicker. Discover Alex Henery's Biography, Age, Height, Physical Stats, Dating/Affairs, Family and career updates. Learn How rich is He in this year and how He spends money? Also learn how He earned most of networth at the age of 33 years old?
Born 18 August 1987
Birthday 18 August
Birthplace Omaha, Nebraska, United States
We recommend you to check the complete list of Famous People born on 18 August. He is a member of famous Player with the age 34 years old group.
Alex Henery Height, Weight & Measurements
At 34 years old, Alex Henery height is 185 cm .
Who Is Alex Henery's Wife?
His wife is Johna Henery (m. 2011)
Wife Johna Henery (m. 2011)
Alex Henery Net Worth
His net worth has been growing significantly in 2020-2021. So, how much is Alex Henery worth at the age of 34 years old? Alex Henery's income source is mostly from being a successful Player. He is from United States. We have estimated Alex Henery's net worth, money, salary, income, and assets.
Alex Henery Social Network
Facebook Alex Henery Facebook
Wikipedia Alex Henery Wikipedia
On August 30, 2014, Henery lost the starting placekicker position to Cody Parkey and was released by the Eagles.
On September 22, 2014, the Detroit Lions signed Henery to replace struggling rookie Nate Freese. On October 6, a day after missing three field goals in the Lions' week five loss to the Buffalo Bills, including a potential game-winner late in the final minute, he was released by the team.
Henery contributed to Omaha Burke High School having a 7–5 finish and earning a trip to the state semifinals. He earned first-team all-state honors as a junior, averaging 41.7 yards per punt. He also played soccer and led Burke to a 14–3 record and the state playoffs. He received a scholarship offer to play soccer for Creighton University.
The Philadelphia Eagles chose Henery in the fourth round of the 2011 NFL Draft with the 120th overall pick. He began the 2011 season as the Eagles' starting placekicker, and set a new NFL record for field goal accuracy by a rookie kicker. In Week 16, he kicked a career-best 51-yard field goal in a 20−7 win over the Dallas Cowboys at Cowboys Stadium.
Henery is the son of Guy (computer business) and Mary Henery (a medical technologist at Creighton University). He has an older brother named Eric and a younger sister named Andrea. In 2011, he married his longtime girlfriend Johna. He has a son named Landen.
Henery attended the University of Nebraska, and played for the Nebraska Cornhuskers football team from 2007 to 2010. For most of his college career, he served as the punter and placekicker for the Cornhuskers, and received all-conference honors at both positions. He was a second-team All-Big 12 selection at placekicker in 2009 and 2010, and was previously an honorable mention selection in 2008; at punter, he was a second-team All-Big 12 selection in 2010, and received honorable mention honors in 2009. On November 28, 2008, he set a Nebraska team record when he kicked a 57-yard field goal in a 40–31 victory over the Colorado Buffaloes. During his four seasons as a Cornhusker, he set an NCAA career record by completing 89.5 percent of his attempted field goals. His total accuracy on combined field goals and extra points also set a new NCAA record of 96.7 percent. He is the all-time leading scorer in Nebraska history with 397 points.
Henery was born in Omaha, Nebraska. He attended Omaha Burke High School and was one of the top walk-ons in Nebraska's 2006 class. He earned Omaha World-Herald first-team All-Nebraska and first-team Lincoln Journal Star Super-State honors as a punter. Henery averaged 41.4 yards per punt as a senior, and also connected on 6-of-10 field goals and 37-of-38 extra-point tries.
Alex Henery (born August 17, 1987) is a former American football kicker. He played college football for the Nebraska Cornhuskers, and set an NCAA record for field goal accuracy with an 89.5% success rate. He was drafted by the Philadelphia Eagles in the fourth round of the 2011 NFL Draft.
Alex Henery fans also viewed:


text:
Q: Bootstrap 4.1 JS components - not working Bootstrap 4.1 Components that require javascript do not appear to be working when using the quick start template.
For example:
- tooltip
- popover
Here is a plunk with the code.
It is using the quickstart template from bootstrap.com ( BS 4.1 )
https://next.plnkr.co/edit/uoW5CalhBbvJ4v3h4aN5?p=preview&preview

A: As stated in the docs...

Popovers (and Tooltips) are opt-in for performance reasons, so you
  must initialize them yourself.

 $('[data-toggle="popover"]').popover();
 $('[data-toggle="tooltip"]').tooltip();

https://www.codeply.com/go/J025HzRcTx


COLOMBO, August 1, 2014 (AFP) – Sri Lanka extended an "unqualified apology" to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi Friday over an article and uncomplimentary illustration of the leader and a regional Tamil politician published on a government website. The Sri Lankan defence ministry said it had taken down the offending caricature of Modi and the chief minister of the south Indian state of Tamil Nadu, Jayalalithaa Jayaram, following complaints to Colombo.
It also removed an accompanying article entitled: "How meaningful are Jayalalithaa's love letters to Narendra Modi?".
The article and illustration implied that Modi was being easily controlled by Jayalalithaa.
The Tamil minister has been increasing pressure on New Delhi to demand an international probe into allegations that Sri Lankan troops, largely Sinhalese, killed at least 40,000 ethnic Tamil civilians in the final stages of the civil war in 2009. "We extend an unqualified apology to the Hon Prime Minister of India and Hon Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu," the defence ministry website www.defence.lk said.
It added that the article had been published "without appropriate authorisation".


text:
Q: Desktop broken: no launcher and no windows Today my laptop (Lenovo thinkpad t530) stopped booting at 'checking battery state' or a similar message. Loging-in to the regular console (alt-ctrl-f1) was possible, and I figured maybe it is some messed up driver thing.
So I reinstalled the nvidia-current drivers (apt-get install -reinstall).
This fixed the problem, however now after login in I see my desktop, but no launcher!
Furthermore if I start an application (ctrl-alt-t does work) I cannot move the application around (i.e. there is no real window, just the application itself) nor can I use atl-tab to switch applications.
Basicly I cannot work anymore because it is impossible to switch applications!
I tried a million things (unity-reset.py script, installing nvidia-experimental drivers, reinstalling the unity package), but nothing seems to fix this.
EDIT:
Ok, so I have sort of a solution now:
I uninstalled all Nvidia drivers (I remembered these cause problems in the past).
However this brought back the problem that the GUI won't boot beyond the test message  'checking battery state'. Choosing in the boot menu to boot an older kernel (3.5.0-19-generic instead of 3.5.0-21-generic) solved that problem.
So there are really two questions left though:

*

*Why won't my system boot up properly all of a sudden (without picking an older kernel)?

*Why does the GUI not work properly with the nvidia drivers (AFAIK my laptop has an Nvidia Optimus Graphics NVS 5400M videocard).

A: I sort of had the exact problem with Unity after I installed nVidia drivers in 12.10.
I installed nVidia driver, rebooted and had a very low resolution and no Unity.
A friend of mine (an Ubuntu expert!) fixed it for me. He uninstalled the nvidia drivers. (I guess this would help) the he installed Nouveau and everything was fine.
I hope it helps :-)


Saint Matthew Lutheran Church exists to invite people to meet Jesus, form friendships and serve others by the power of the Spirit.
We are a community of faith where people can come just as they are and be transformed into fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ.
Saint Matthew is a congregation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and a member of the Willow Creek Association.
Walnut Creek Friends Church where we are a Quaker Church and are a part of the Evangelical Friends Church Southwest.


Prime Minister Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson contends Iceland's currency is not just good; it's the best.
Stundin reports that in an interview on radio station Bylgjan, the PM was told that many have complained about the high interest rates in Iceland, which are often blamed on the króna. Sigmundur Davíð was having none of it.
"Then I would point out, as many have pointed out, that we actually have the strongest and most stable currency in the world, which is the indexed króna," he said.
He then compared the Canadian dollar, unfavourably, to the Icelandic króna, saying that if one were to take out a loan in krónur or dollars, the dollar would be more unstable.
While it is true that the króna has been relatively stable in recent years, this is only since capital controls were put in place. According to data from Iceland's Central Bank, the króna has fluctuated greatly between 1995 and 2010. In fact, only Brazil, South Africa and Turkey have currencies that have shown greater levels of fluctuation than the Icelandic króna.
Most interesting, at least regarding the Prime Minister's praise of the indexed króna, is that one of his campaign promises in the 2013 election season was to do away with indexing.


By law, the obligor is required to provide information needed to process the case and manage the order.
- -Pay your child support directly to Ohio Child Support Payment Central (OCSPC) or through CSEA. Do NOT make payments directly to the Obligee, as CSEA is unable to give credit for direct payments. By law, direct payments to the obligee are considered a gift.
- - Inform CSEA of any of the following reasons why an order should terminate, including but not limited to: Emancipation of the child, death of any party (child, obligor or oblige), permanent disability of the obligor, incarceration of any party, child on order placed in the custody of Ohio Department of Youth Services (ODYS) or Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), or the child becomes eligible for dependent benefits through the Obligor's Social Security or Veteran's disability or retirement benefits.
- - Provide CSEA with supporting documents to complete the emancipation process and end of modify the support order. This can include a copy of a high school diploma or a school withdrawal letter when the child reaches age 18; proof of enlistment in the military; proof of the child's marriage, court orders for a change in legal custody or adoption of the Child.
- - Enroll the child in a health insurance plan if you are ordered by the Court or by CSEA.
- - Provide CSEA with all copies of court/administrative orders which may affect your support order, including but not limited to changes in custody or support order amount.
- - Keep any and all records pertaining to your support order, including payments made. Additional copies of your court orders may cost money to obtain.
- - Provide documents requested by the CSEA by the stated deadline in the notice you receive.
- - Contact the CSEA to report any problems or issues arising on your support case (Example arrears are paid in full, spousal support obligation to end). Most issues can be handled by phone. An appointment is required to see your Investigator.
Become educated about your support order.
You are ultimately accountable for your order.
Know your rights and responsibilities and exercise them.


Brenan Greene is a Web Designer, SEO Expert and Photographer in El Dorado Hills, CA. Web Design, SEO and Photography have long been a passion of Brenan's since 2005. Brenan Greene started in internet marketing (SEO/SEM/PPC) when he was 18 years old in 2005. Since the birth of this amazing lifestyle, Brenan has created thousands of website, marketing campaigns, print design and much more. As a graphic designer, photographer and marketer, Brenan leads the local market in all of these areas.


We are glad you stopped by. Whether you are new to Wichita or looking for a place to worship and grow in your faith, we invite you to take a look around. Wherever you are on your journey, we will meet you there and nurture you in your growth. Below you will find a few places to get started.
In order to allow each of us to encounter the presence of God in our lives, Aldersgate offers different ways to worship. You will find a traditional type of worship at 8 & 11 a.m., and a blended style of worship (a blend of traditional and contemporary) at 9:30 a.m.
If you are looking for a church home or have given up on the church for any reason, give Aldersgate a visit. It is an exciting, growing congregation that maintains close vital relationships.
A look at our core beliefs and our vision as a church.
Well, it's pretty simple. First, come worship with us, take a class, talk with some of the people and see what you think. Then join us at a New Member and Guest Orientation class. We have one the first Sunday of every month.
Am I ready to join? How do I join? What's expected? Get these answers and more by continuing to our Exploring Membership page.


text:
Q: FireFox / JQuery / Dom : Not returning 'rowIndex I am writing a JavaScript function to highlight the row and column of a clicked cell.  This function must take into account cells in previous rows that use rowspan to protrude down into the selected row - because this causes the cell indexes to differ from the "apparent" index.  I.E. every cell in the second column of a table does not necessarily have cellIndex==1.
To compensate, I have written the following function that calculates the "offset" for each affected cell.
function OffsetCells($tbody) {
// if already indexed, we don't need to re-do it
if (!$tbody.data('isOffset').value) {
    // set offset for all cells to zero
    $tbody.find('td').data('offset', { value: 0 });
    // it's not already indexed, so get the cells that span multiple rows
    // capitalization of 'rowSpan' is important for IE
    var $rowSpanners = $tbody.find('td[rowSpan!=1]');
    $rowSpanners.each(function() {
        var $rowSpanningCell = $(this);
        // we need to select all the cells to the 'apparent' right of this cell,
        // so we need this cell's apparent position
        // multiplying by one is easier than parseInt() to ensure conversion
        $rowSpanningCell.data('apparentIndex', { value: this.cellIndex * 1 +     $rowSpanningCell.data('offset').value });
        // we also need to know what row this cell is in
/*???*/     $rowSpanningCell.data('rowIndex', { value: $rowSpanningCell.parent('tr').get(0).rowIndex });
        // down to business:
        $tbody.parent('table')  // get the whole table
        .find('tr')            // get all the rows in the table
        .slice($rowSpanningCell.data('rowIndex').value + 1, $rowSpanningCell.data('rowIndex').value + this.rowSpan) // narrow selection to the applicable rows
        .find('td')             // get the cells in the chosen rows
        .filter(function(index) {  // get the cells to the apparent right of this one.
            return index + $(this).data('offset').value >= $rowSpanningCell.data('apparentIndex').value;
        }).each(function() {
            $(this).data('offset', { value: $(this).data('offset').value + 1 });
        });
    });
    $tbody.data('isOffset', { value: true });
}
}

This code works wonderfully in IE, but fails silently at the /*???*/ line.  I have narrowed it down to the $rowSpanningCell.parent('tr').get(0).rowIndex part.  I have tried everything I can think of, and still cannot get it to return the rowIndex value.  When I change the code to alert($rowSpanningCell.parent('tr').get(0).nodeName) I get the expected <TR>, so I know I my selection is right.  Every other value for every OTHER property for the row seems to return fine - but rowIndex just stops the code cold.

A: You can try
$rowSpanningCell.parent('tr').prevAll().length
which will give you the index