text:
Kinematograf (prvotvorno na francuskome jeziku Kinétoscope de projection) je uređaj za projekciju filmova kojega su izumili Braća Lumière. Bio je ujedno filmska kamera, stroj za kopiranje i projektor.

Slično kao i kod Edisonovog kinetoskopa, koristili su 35-mm-film te perforaciju. Premijera Cinématographa za biranu publiku bila je održana 22. ožujka 1895. godine, a za građanstvo 28. prosinca 1895.

Filmska umjetnost

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Ruislip Residents' Association Working for the people of Ruislip for the last Century
About the RRA
The Area We Cover
Road Steward Vacancies
About Ruislip
Conservation Concerns
Further Education Institutions
High Speed Rail (HS2)
Local Politicians
Police Points
RAF Northolt
Pay Your Subs
You are here: Home › HS2 › HS2 Update from Nick Hurd MP
HS2 Update from Nick Hurd MP
By Graham Bartram on 16th September 2017 in HS2
Nick Hurd MP, the member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, has issued an update on HS2:
"As you may know, we have been working for some time to finalise a legal agreement with HS2 on the commitments needed to mitigate the impact of HS2 during the construction and operating phase.
I am pleased that we now have an agreement which you can access through this link, both in summary and long form. The main features of the agreement are:
The provision of funding up to £26.5m to the council to enable it to relocate Hillingdon Outdoor Activities Centre [HOAC] to Denham Quarry or to another suitable site to be agreed with HS2 Ltd, or to provide an alternative form of outdoor facilities.
The imposition of controls in respect of HGV traffic movements on Hillingdon roads.
The provision of a local amenity fund to the council.
Reconfiguration and reinstatement of Ruislip and Uxbridge golf courses.
The Agreement also sets out mitigation measures relating to matters such as air quality, public rights of way, the Ickenham grid supply point and angling on Hillingdon lakes.
I am clear about three things:-
This agreement is a significant improvement on where we started. For example, the proposed peak HGV movements are less than half the first proposal.
This agreement would not have been possible without the commitment made by residents of Ickenham, West Ruislip, and Harefield to petition the House of Commons Select Committee. I know that the evidence presented by us was instrumental in persuading that Committee of the need for significant further mitigation if an extended further tunnel was not possible.
This agreement is a compromise and is not the end story. There remains a lot of detail to nail down and many things to discuss with the contractor who will actually deliver the project.
Further to point 3) I am pressing for a meeting between residents and the appointed contractor to take this conversation to the next stage of detail on how we achieve this mitigation and indeed whether we can go further, for example on traffic movements, in the interests of both HS2 and the Community.
As always, I would welcome your comments. I know that many of you are still on the page of 'Scrap HS2', and while I respect that my working assumption is that it will go ahead, and therefore we need to keep working on this agreement to give ourselves the best possible protection."*
About Graham Bartram
View all posts by Graham Bartram →
Ruislip Central Horticultural Society
Uxbridge College Students Honoured By Claire Lomas MBE
Lady Bankes Junior School's Years 3 and 4 Christmas Assembly
Tree Planting at Lady Bankes Junior School
Conservation Planning Update for December 2019
Harvil road closure in January – postponed
Winston Churchill Hall Tea Dance
Ruislip Central Horticultural Society Spring Show
For almost 100 years, the Ruislip Residents' Association has sought to protect and represent the interests of local residents. No issue is too big or too small, whether raised by a group or an individual. It also advises members on how they may progress their concerns independently if they prefer.
Patricia Wardle
Honorary Secretary
Ruislip Residents' Association
231 Rye House
Middlesex HA4 8JN
Historically, Ruislip is in the hundred of Elthorne, in the county of Middlesex, but for modern administrative purposes it is part of the London Borough of Hillingdon. Answers to many questions about services in and around Ruislip can be found on Hillingdon's website:
Areas surrounding Ruislip are covered by other Residents' Associations, so here are links to them:
Eastcote Residents' Association
Ickenham Residents' Association
Northwood Residents' Association
South Ruislip Residents' Association
© 2018 Ruislip Residents' Association
Designed by WFD
This website uses cookies to function and improve your experience, but not for advertising. If you continue to use this site we'll assume you're OK with this.Accept Read More

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Pârșcoveni este satul de reședință al comunei cu același nume din județul Olt, Oltenia, România.

Pârșcoveni, Pârșcoveni


text:
Saturday, July 17, 2010 ... / /
Many faces of emergence
The notion of emergence remains one of the intellectual symbols of the ultimate snobs. People who claim to believe in emergence think that they are very cool, progressive, open-minded, and creative thinkers who promote supermodern scientific methods that were unknown to the old, dull scientists.
In reality, emergence has been the bread and butter of science for centuries, long before the term was explicitly used.
Whenever scientists succeeded in reducing a more complex phenomenon, CP, into some more microscopic laws, ML, they showed how reductionism works in practice. The main difference between reductionism and the emergent philosophy is that the reductionists consider ML important whenever it is used to derive CP while emergentism views such a derivation as a reason to spit on ML because the derivations and the understanding is not what they are really after.
Even more striking is the advertised high degree of creativity and imaginativeness of the worshipers of emergence because they're actually some of the most narrow-minded, naive, and unimaginative people on the planet. This point will be the main topic of this essay.
Two myths about the universal character of emergence
When the emergentists say that a complex phenomenon, CP, is emergent, they almost universally make the following two related assumptions:
A configuration of the complex object must correspond to a very large number of possible arrangements of the microscopic building blocks: emergent objects must automatically carry a high entropy (or useless classical microscopic information).
The underlying information has to be encoded in some underlying "bits" or their base-N counterparts and these units of information are carried by some discrete entities that can be localized in ordinary space and time (think of a spin network).
It is not hard to see why these misconceptions are so widespread among the emergentists. It's because these people keep two basic "toy models" of emergence in mind:
Thermodynamic limit of statistical physics.
Emergence of complex objects on a computer where the information is encoded in bits.
Indeed, various material properties may arise from a large conglomerate of atoms. There are many ways how the atoms may be arranged. The statistical (and physical) properties of such arrangements allow us to calculate the properties of the material. And indeed, typical materials carry a high entropy because the atoms may be arranged in many ways.
And indeed, the computers may store the information about many things that may resemble the real world in binary digits or bits.
However, the idea that the complex phenomena always respect the "lessons" of the two examples above whenever they emerge from more microscopic, fundamental laws is utterly ludicrous. In fact, it's much more likely that they violate both of these principles. Nature knows many more recipes how to construct interesting complex physics out of some more elementary laws.
Counterexamples to the myths
Although I will eventually focus on quantum gravity, let me emphasize that these two "templates" of emergence are violated in more ordinary, non-gravitational physics as well. Let us mention two trivial examples:
Superconductors or other materials at low enough temperatures exhibit many interesting emergent phenomena but their entropy can be extremely low.
Hydrogen atoms or other atoms can be found at various discrete energy levels - which can be used to store the information - but the number of such levels is not finite and the individual possible levels are not equally likely. The internal state of an atom is not equivalent to a bit or a few bits by any stretch of imagination. Also, the internal structure of the atom is not described by discrete diagrams but by sophisticated continuous wave functions that solve certain differential equations.
Concerning the first point, I would like to add that it is "morally true" that complex phenomena arise from some collective behavior of a large number of elementary building blocks. However, mainly because of quantum mechanics, it is simply not true that the composite object always has to have "many microstates" that describe a particular situation.
In particular, the third law of thermodynamics (in its quantum refinement) guarantees that all conventional objects - including complex materials - converge to zero entropy when the absolute temperature is sent to zero kelvins. They simply want to drop to the ground state, the lowest energy level, because there is not enough "thermal chaos" for them to try the ineffective, higher-energy states.
In classical physics, it would also be possible for a crystal to pick a zero-entropy state at a low temperature if you constructed it out of atoms whose potential energies have minima at a finite relative distance.
However, in quantum mechanics, such a situation is much more generic because the quantum task of energy minimization almost always tends to lead to some "preferred wave functions" that represent the optimum balance between various forces. The size of the Hydrogen atoms may be estimated from the minimization of the total (kinetic plus potential) energy.
The kinetic energy increases with the momentum while the potential energy increases with the size of the atom. However, both (average squared) momentum and the radius can't be zero because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle that requires that the product of their uncertainties can't drop below Planck's constant. So the atom picks a "compromise" value of the radius. The argument above may be used to estimate the Bohr radius; however, a more detailed and accurate calculation of the size of the atom and its properties exists in quantum mechanics.
While the wave function is nonzero for almost any position of the electron - and it is therefore a combination of "many classical configurations", the precise ratios (and relative phases) of the amplitudes at all points are actually determined for every energy level and every pair of points in space. The resulting wave function (e.g. of the Hydrogen ground state) therefore behaves as a single preferred state in the Hilbert space. Its entropy is zero.
When there is a very large number of microstates that correspond to a macroscopic physical object, it doesn't mean that the object has lots of fascinating emergent properties etc.
Instead, what it means is that the object is hot. And excessively hot objects such as plasma are often not too interesting; they're not good starting points for complicated processes such as life. Later, I will discuss black holes where a very high entropy is associated with a low temperature (that requires a negative heat capacity) but for normal objects, the number of microstates essentially measures "temperature" rather than "intellectual depth". ;-)
The myth of a computerized Nature
Concerning the second point - the "computer template" of emergence - I have discussed the misconception about discrete physics many times on this blog. Most people find it easy to imagine how the information can be stored in bits. What they find difficult is any other way to store the information.
But Nature never stores all the information in bits at the fundamental level. Whenever the information seems to be composed out of bits, we are always talking about some man-made "computers" that are designed so that some bits can be localized, all other values then 0/1 are "almost prohibited" by some additional engineering, and only the values 0/1 are influencing other important processes in the "computer" by design (although there's clearly and universally a lot of other physical information in the system).
At a fundamental enough level, Nature respects some laws that are derived from some fundamental principles and some kind of locality either in spacetime or on the world sheet or another auxiliary space. Locality is always one of the essential constraints that are paramount for us and Nature to choose some specific laws from many potential candidates. But locality doesn't mean that all the elementary objects have to be point-like. And it surely doesn't imply that they only produce "discrete" shapes in spacetime. In fact, smooth functions (e.g. wave functions) that measure various correlations are omnipresent.
So the information is always carried by some continuous wave functions or wave functionals defined at some spaces - either the real space or more abstract ones. The energy levels may be quantized, the Hilbert space may be re-organized to the energy eigenstate basis, and the systems may therefore carry a finite amount of information, especially if you require that the energy has to be lower than a certain upper bound (because you find a finite number of states for which this condition is met).
However, the relevant Hilbert space, even when it is made finite-dimensional, can never be naturally written as a tensor product of many copies of a two-state "qubit" Hilbert space or any base-N generalization of such a space. The ways how Nature encodes the information are much more diverse than "K bits or qubits" and the richness of the "codes" how the information can be stored and is stored in Nature is Her amazing achievement rather than a defect!
Just to remind you, Nature stores information into features of states in the Hilbert space (it was thought to be the phase space before quantum mechanics was discovered). The basis of energy eigenstates is arguably the most important and universal method to organize the Hilbert space.
To understand how the information is actually stored in the real world, you have to learn the correct theories how Nature operates, including their Hamiltonians (or other dynamical laws). You will learn conformal and non-conformal, topological or non-topological, four-dimensional and D-dimensional, commutative or non-commutative, theories that are based on point-like or brane-like fundamental objects and may contain many things such as gauge fields, bosons, fermions, Yang-Mills or diffeomorphism symmetries, different topologies of spacetime, and many other things.
You must carefully isolate which theories may correctly describe Nature - by comparing them with the increasingly detailed empirical evidence - and you must understand the Hilbert spaces of these relevant theories to have a reasonable idea how Nature actually stores the information. The ingenious physicists can "guess" completely new kinds of laws that were not realized as possibilities in the past - but these new laws must still pass the empirical tests before they become parts of the physics toolkit.
Alternatively, you may also start with a belief that the information in Nature has to be stored in the very same way as it is on the iPhone. And you may try to force Nature to respect this belief of yours. But once you do so, without any care about the empirical evidence that your theory is dynamically wrong and produces wrong predictions, you are becoming a crackpot. Stupid journalists may still hype your ideas but that doesn't make you less of a crackpot.
Gravity doesn't exist for Erik Verlinde
I am getting to the topic of quantum gravity. Erik Verlinde has preposterously argued that gravity is an entropic force. Many people - but probably not Erik himself - imagine the underlying information as a sequence of bits and they are consequently victims of the second myth ("Nature must be a binary computer").
However, Erik Verlinde shares the first myth with all these people - which include a vast majority of the laymen as well as a vast majority of the workers on loop quantum gravity, spin foams, causal dynamical triangulations, and many other similar approaches to quantum gravity.
All of them believe in the myth that the vacuum - or e.g. a pair of heavy, mutually attracting objects - has to correspond to a large number of microstates because the vacuum - or the force between the two heavy objects - is "emergent".
That's nothing else than the first misconception that I have identified above. While gravity and spacetime are emergent entities, at least in some sense - as string theory and especially pictures such as AdS/CFT, Matrix Theory, and dualities between theories in different spacetimes show - it doesn't follow that they're emerging as a thermodynamic limit of many microstates.
Moshe Rozali was able to formulate this point pretty concisely:
Hi David [Berenstein],
for my taste the best semantics is that gravity is an emergent phenomenon, in that it is a long distance approximation to something more detailed (rather than being a complete story).
I think pretty much everyone agrees that gravity is emergent in that sense, but the story involving thermodynamics is much more fishy (hard to come up with a version of such claims that is not obviously wrong).
So I think it is important to emphasize the difference between the two: the emergence of approximate structures in some limit is more general than, and should not be confused with, the coarse-graining associated with the transition from statistical mechanics to thermodynamics.
Exactly. Emergence often produces phenomena that approximately follow certain laws. But it doesn't follow that all emergent theories must describe every emergent object or phenomenon as an object with a high entropy or a process that produces a high entropy.
In particular, it can be easily shown that Erik Verlinde's assumption that the entropy of two heavy neutron stars depends on their distance is simply wrong. As I explained in Why gravity can't be entropic and elsewhere, such an assumption would lead to two serious problems:
irreversibility
violation of the equivalence principle in observations of individual quantum particles
Both of these predictions of Erik Verlinde's picture can be quickly ruled out. Imagine two neutron stars whose size (and relative distance) is comparable to the black hole radius corresponding to their mass. They orbit one another.
Irreversibility of entropy changes
In Verlinde's picture, they are equipped with an entropy that depends on their distance i.e. the gravitational potential; it's the very point of Verlinde's proposition that the entropy depends on the separation and the gravitational potentials. Moreover, Verlinde explicitly argues that if the distance is changed by 20%, the entropy of the pair of the neutron stars will change by a substantial portion of the black hole entropy corresponding to the same mass. That's how the counting goes.
This is, of course, totally unacceptable because the black hole entropy is just huge. The black hole entropy is the largest entropy that a localized or bound object of a given mass can have. The entropy of a black hole of a solar mass would be close to 10^{60} (times Boltzmann's constant). If such a huge entropy is produced because of a modified distance between the Sun and another object, be sure that this increase of entropy can't be undone.
That would be too serious a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
Erik Verlinde and his fans produce a lot of fog about this simple point. They say that the orbiting of neutron stars along ellipses is isoentropic, and therefore reversible, in Verlinde's setup. It can be easily seen from Verlinde's formulae that it is not the case. It's the very point of his picture that the entropy strongly depends on the gravitational potential energy but not the kinetic energy of the stars. So if you change the potential energy to the kinetic one, the entropy increases and you won't be able to revert the increase.
Moreover, much more generally, isoentropic or strictly adiabatic processes simply don't exist in Nature. These two concepts are always just idealizations and they can only be approximately satisfied by infinitely slow phenomena in which all objects remain in perfect equilibrium - at a constant temperature across the whole physical system at all times. This requirement obviously can't be satisfied if you have complicated fast stars and other objects rotating around each other.
Equivalently, if an entropic force is able to "push" objects around by finite speeds and finite acceleration, the entropy differences between the initial and final states have to be finite as well and a finite amount of entropy will be produced along the way, too. In Verlinde's picture, the produced entropy will actually be huge, comparable to the black hole entropy.
Verlinde has never really explained what he means by the temperature - he obviously has to "redefine" the concept of temperature if it is given by the gravitational acceleration between the Sun and the Earth in Planck units ;-). But whatever he does, it's clear that he can't guarantee that such a temperature will be constant across the space for all, even fast, gravitational processes. That would be an unacceptable violation of locality and other things.
Moreover, it can be seen that this uniformity of temperature surely contradicts his own formulae. It's also true that one can't "redefine" temperature. Temperature is what can be measured by thermometers and it can be shown that it is linked to the energy per one degree of freedom, roughly speaking. You can't give it a totally different meaning just because you want your formulae to work. Unless you are a crackpot, don't mess up with these basic rules of thermodynamics and statistical physics.
Equivalence principle and interference
Another established principle that Verlinde's - and similar - "emergent" pictures of gravity, based on the thermodynamic limit, contradict is the equivalence principle. In a freely falling elevator, you may perform any (sufficiently local, so that tidal forces can't be seen) experiment. And you won't be able to decide whether you're in a freely falling elevator or outside all gravitational fields.
This principle implies that all ordinary objects fall at the same acceleration in the Earth's gravitational field - or any other gravitational field, for that matter.
But the principle actually holds not only for ordinary objects but for many other things, including interference patterns. You may try to organize a double-slit experiment in a freely falling elevator. The result will be that the interference pattern will also fall with the same acceleration and you won't be able to distinguish physics in a gravitational field from physics outside the field - but simply accelerated in the right direction.
More than 35 years ago, these experiments were actually done in the context of neutron interferometry and the equivalence principle worked perfectly. The neutrons interfering with themselves still create an interference pattern but its location is modified exactly in the same way as if you assume that the whole wave functions are "freely falling" in the gravitational field as well. One can also explain this shift of the interference pattern by gravity's contribution to the phases of the wave functions.
In this way, the experimenters have actually been able to measure not only the Earth's gravitational field but even its gradient, the tidal forces! Interferometry is a damn accurate method.
It follows that even individual neutrons, with all of their quantum and probabilistic behavior, see exactly the right gravitational field that they should see. The interference pattern is influenced by gravity; but it is not destroyed by gravity which is what would happen if you were assuming that the neutron actually interacts with many more degrees of freedom that are responsible for the distance-dependent entropy. Those degrees of freedom would constantly "measure" the neutron and destroyed the interference pattern.
Gravity simply can't be "entropic" in this sense. It can't depend on having a large number of degrees of freedom. It properly acts on individual particles as well.
Equivalently, you can say that the survival of the interference pattern requires the Hilbert space of the neutron to be a tensor product of the Hilbert space of wave functions on a space and a Hilbert space of the neutron's internal states. The latter may be trivial e.g. one-dimensional and only the former - the usual "waves in space" - are actually responsible for the interfering behavior. However, Erik Verlinde's picture assumes that the number of "internal states" of the neutron actually depends on the position (on its altitude), so the tensor-product structure of the Hilbert space is broken and the interference becomes impossible.
Erik Verlinde's model is just another crackpot model of gravity. It revives LeSage's gravity, a defunct 17th century model of gravity based on ultra-mundane corpuscles.
These particles were envisioned to fly everywhere in space but the massive objects would create shadows in the sea of these particles. The shadows would induce an excess of the corpuscles hitting you from the side where the number of massive gravitational sources is smaller. That would attract you in the direction of the massive sources. One can actually reconstruct the 1/r^2 formula for the attractive force.
However, LeSage's theory can be shown to be wrong, e.g. because the corpuscles are slowing all objects down. They induce a friction because the motion in the gas of the ultra-mundane corpuscles is very similar to swimming in the water. There's no way to make the friction acceptably small.
The friction is nothing else than a source of irreversibility. Actually, LeSage's force is an entropic force because it tries to increase the entropy by reducing the non-uniformity of the density of the ultra-mundane corpuscles - by reducing the shadows in between massive objects.
That's actually a way to see that LeSage's theory is not just similar to Verlinde's gravity; it's a special example of Verlinde's gravity. Actually, it is a generalization of a special example because the entropy carried by the corpuscles was adjustable. By making the corpuscles' speed very high (you actually needed speeds that were vastly higher than the speed of light), you could hope to reduce the entropy change and reduce the "friction" (i.e. the problematic irreversibility).
In Verlinde's gravity, the total entropy linked to the gravitational potential is fixed - and comparable to the black-hole entropy (for two neutron stars with parameters comparable to that of the black holes). It is so huge and fixed that it is impossible to pretend that the irreversibility could be made small.
Of course, many crackpot theories like that will probably be proposed, named, and hyped in the future because the human stupidity is probably unlimited. But those who want to understand something important about the real world should notice that "emergence" - which is the only property of gravity that Verlinde has correctly identified (but he was very far from being the first one) - doesn't mean that there must be many distinct microstates that may produce new physics in a thermodynamic limit.
Actually, the only way how simple enough objects in the context of gravity may produce entropy that has something to do with gravity is the production of event horizons. Black holes carry a huge entropy that is proportional to the area of their event horizons. But if there are no horizons, there is no entropy. In particular, two very cold neutron stars that orbit each other simply don't carry any macroscopic entropy whatsoever - surely not one that would be linked to their gravitational attraction.
If this observation would lead you to conclude that gravity is a fundamental rather than emergent force, then indeed, gravity is a fundamental rather than emergent force. The actual gravity has many "emergent" features (for example, in perturbative string theory, gravity emerges from the exchange of a particular vibrating virtual closed string mode) but the very force is certainly not emerging from high-entropy configurations.
It's time for sensible people to stop presenting narrow-mindedness and complete lack of imagination and knowledge of Nature's clever tricks as "originality" or "creativity" or something hot that should be supported by the society if not the scientific community itself. Verlinde's picture is not creative, imaginative, or original in any way. It's just stupid and everyone who joined it has joined it either because he loves to jump on bandwagons or because his IQ is just hopelessly low (or both).
The genuinely creative people who will contribute to our understanding of quantum gravity and the real world in the future will have to crack much more diverse and much more new mechanisms how phenomena may emerge - and their explanations will have to agree with the known phenomena and the known Nature's tricks and principles. Attempts to deny that Nature has certain properties, attempts to deny that there are other tricks She has to use, and attempts to populistically promote naive viewpoints that even the average laymen could understand are not signs of creativity but proofs of its absence.
Other texts on similar topics: philosophy of science, science and society
reader Jiri said...
Mr. Motl -
there is an apparent typo in the paragraph beginning "Whenever scientists succeeded": you illustrate "The main difference between reductionism and the emergent philosophy" by never saying what emergentists say but stating what reductionists think twice. Please correct.
-- Jiri
Jul 19, 2010, 2:06:00 AM ...
I am not a string theorist; but Einstein's general relativity shows gravity to be only an apparent force, just like a centrifugal force. Two questions: Do you postulate centrifugalons? How do photons interact with gravitons?
reader Lumo said...
Dear Jiří,
thanks for the typo you found. The second "reductionists" should simply have been "emergentists".
Concerning your first question, general relativity is based on the equivalence principle - the equivalence of acceleration and gravity.
This equivalence also means that "centrifugalons" are the same particles as gravitons. If you're observing the world from a rotating reference frame where apparent (centrifugal) forces exist, you may also describe physics as physics in a flat space modified by a condensate of "centrifugalons" e.g. gravitons.
They just modify the flat spacetime geometry to the correct one that also produces the centrifugal force. Locally, these fields and particles are really indistinguishable from gravitons.
Concerning your second question, photons interact with gravitons much like all other particles that carry energy interact with gravitons. In particular, photons' paths are affected by the gravitational field - that's why you can see an effect (bending of light) during solar eclipses.
Photons also carry energy which is a source of the gravitational field. So they modify the gravity field around them as well. It boils down to F_{alpha beta} F_{gamma delta} g^{alpha gamma} g^{beta delta}. That's the usual f-mu-nu-f-mu-nu Lagrangian for the electromagnetic field. But I wrote it in such a way that the upper metric components remained explicit: the term is an interaction between the electromagnetic (A_mu) field and the gravitational field (the metric).
At the quantum level, you may want to write "g_{mu nu}" as "eta_{mu nu} + h_{mu nu}", the flat space plus a perturbation. The h-field creates and annihilates the graviton. So the term generates a quartic interaction vertex between 2 photons and 2 gravitons. They surely do interact much like other pairs of particles. But there are also other vertices that you can find if you look at the Lagrangian carefully.
You must also realize that the gravitational field around the massless photons is kind of "more trivial" because in a very boosted reference frame, the energy of photons becomes nearly zero, so the field should vanish. A careful analysis of the mixture of the gravitational waves in the geometry around a photon is needed - the initial conditions etc. matter.
Suzy at last?
Central Pilsen installs three modern fountains
Our Climate: the ultimate AGW Apple app for iPhone...
Newton Medal talk by Witten
AGW makes Mexicans dreaming about wealth
Combined D0+CDF Higgs results: on Monday
John Baez became a full-time savior of the Earth
ICHEP: Sarkozy will try to find God particle on Mo...
Seed and Pepsi vs their radical activist bloggers
SUSY and hierarchy problem
SUSY and dark matter
Stephen Schneider: 1945-2010
Is EU preparing jails for climate realists?
CERN: ILC to be built in 2012-2019
Sexmission
BP: oil spill finally stopped
Pachauri orders IPCC members to shut their mouth
David Gross gives fine answers to 24 questions
Checking a quadrillion of heterotic Pati-Salam mod...
String theorist wins $570,960
Václav Klaus: Freedom under attack
Global sea ice anomaly is positive
Detailed rumor: gluon+b goes to b+Higgs: MSSM with...
What a light Higgs would mean for particle physics...
Margaret Thatcher produced LHC and invented Intern...
Secret images: a contest
Rumor: 3-sigma light Higgs at D0 or CDF
Carroll: inflation is impossible
String universality: there's no U(1)^496 theory
Palestinian kids: When we die as martyrs
Why there is no GraviGUT symmetry
La Niña conditions getting started
In defense of Milankovitch by Gerard Roe
Rasmus Benestad: negative feedbacks are almost imp...
How likely it is for 2010 to be warmer than 1998
Armageddon was just a computer glitch
Happy Independence Day to Jefferson's fellow subje...
Nixon was told: sea level would rise by 10 feet in...
Edward Witten and an inconvenient truth
Why now problem: why it's not a problem
Hans Bethe: 104th birthday
PSU officially joins Michael Mann's scam
Václav Klaus: Europe will keep on declining
Google and 5D gravity may beat China and Penrose
Vondra and Palin: Obama's foreign policy is enemy-...
John Cook's blog: photosynthesis is deniers' propa...
UAH: warmest June on the satellite record


text:
Re: Sims mobile update doesnt allow me to touch anywhere but an unlocked distric
by SimGuruMaaike
Sims mobile update doesnt allow me to touch anywhere but an unlocked district
Ironclaw06
Platform:Android Phone
List the specific devices you play with (e.g. iPhone 6s Plus, Samsung Galaxy S7) Huawei Mate 9
Steps: How can we find the bug ourselves? Today, I opened The Sims Mobile and completed an update. When it finished it brought me into the game to my Sim's house, and one of my sims popped up and said that there is a new restaurant in the market square, and didn't allow me to tap anywhere but to navigate to the market square. I am very close to level 15 where I can unlock a new district. At this point, I had allready spent my last district unlock on the "Downtown" district. The game wont allow me to do anything once I am on the "unlock market square" screen.
What do you expect to see? Im not able to continue with the game and my limeted time quests. I hope I'm not the only one with this problem so that it can quickly be solved. I've worked so hard on my quests and can't complete them. Please help. Thank you.
Please select your region Other
Additional feedback Very dissapointing that i can't complete my quests intime, but I have to say, I really have been enjoying the game sofar. Thank you!
Very dissapointing that i can't complete my quests intime, but I have to say, I really have been enjoying the game sofar. Thank you!
SimGuruMaaike
EA Live QV Team
Just to confirm, back when you were around level 4, you were not prompted to unlock the market square? Do you remember how long ago you started the game?


text:
Analysis: What Paul Volcker Got Right About Global Finance What Paul Volcker Got Right About Global F...
What Paul Volcker Got Right About Global Finance
The late Federal Reserve chief was most renowned for fighting inflation, but he also understood—before almost anyone else did—that Wall Street was out of control.
By Michael Hirsh
| December 9, 2019, 3:03 PM
Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Paul Volcker speaks at a Volcker Alliance event in Washington on Dec. 5, 2016. Alex Wong/Getty Images
Though he's mainly renowned for defeating the raging inflation of the 1970s and early '80s, Paul Volcker leaves another important legacy: From his earliest years as chairman of the Federal Reserve to his last days as a gray eminence of finance, Volcker, who died Sunday at age 92, resisted the excessive deregulation of global financial markets.
And though he fought the good fight—and ultimately proved largely correct in his skepticism—Volcker had somewhat less success reining in Wall Street's worst excesses than he had against inflation.
Volcker began warning of the dangers of too much financial deregulation during the Reagan administration, even though it was U.S. President Ronald Reagan—a champion of small government—who nominated him for another term as chairman in 1983. (Volcker was first appointed by President Jimmy Carter in 1979.) He understood that financial markets behave differently than markets in goods and services, that they are far more prone to panics and manias, and they are vulnerable to catastrophic failure in a way that ordinary markets are not, thus imperiling the entire economy. It was a theme that played out over three decades of his career—ultimately in the on-again, off-again relationship Volcker had with President Barack Obama, who alternately ignored him and embraced him as his administration temporized over how deeply to restructure Wall Street in the aftermath of the Great Recession.
Volcker was unusual in his resistance to the deregulation of Wall Street, especially during an era in which the laissez-faire approach of his successor at the Fed, Alan Greenspan, dominated. But during the crucial years when the libertarian Greenspan was overseeing the virtual destruction of financial regulation, Volcker didn't always object publicly—a stance that he later told friends he deeply regretted. "He was absolutely apoplectic about what was taking place in deregulation under Greenspan. Yet he was conflicted about attacking another Fed chairman who succeeded him, and he kept mute. Later in life he told me it was the biggest mistake he ever made," said Robert Johnson, a longtime friend and an economist who is the executive director of the Institute for New Economic Thinking, a progressive think tank. "Paul is characterized as the person who crushed wages, like he was a warrior for the elite. But he had a philosophical sense of integrity; he was a public servant who believed in systemic balance."
As Federal Reserve chairman, the 6-foot-7, cigar-chomping Volcker was revered for speaking truth to power. Indeed, at the height of his efforts to crush inflation by jacking up interest rates in the Carter and Reagan years, he refused to bend to the White House and even declined to pay the president a visit, thinking it would compromise his independence. Volcker proved so stubborn that then-Treasury Secretary Donald Regan didn't want him reappointed in 1983, but Wall Street, at the time, insisted: The big firms loved the low-inflation environment Volcker had created.
Yet Volcker eventually became the scourge of Wall Street too. His misgivings about financial deregulation were evident as early as February 1987, shortly before Volcker's tenure ended and Greenspan's began, when the big Wall Street banks made the latest in a series of bids to chip away at the Depression-era Glass-Steagall law, which separated commercial and investment banking. At a hearing room in Washington, in one of his last acts as chairman, Volcker listened skeptically as Thomas Theobald, then the vice chairman of Citicorp, argued that "the world has changed a hell of a lot" since the Great Depression and the financial crash that led to it. Theobald declared that there were new "outside checks" on corporate misconduct thanks to "a very effective" Securities and Exchange Commission, knowledgeable investors, and "very sophisticated" rating agencies. Volcker responded with gruff sarcasm. They made it sound so "innocuous," so "sensible," that "we don't have to worry a bit," Volcker said, according to an account of the meeting in the Wall Street Journal. "But I guess I worry a little bit." Volcker declared then that without Glass-Steagall, lenders might begin recklessly lowering loan standards and begin marketing bad loans to an unsuspecting public.
This was 20 years before the historic crisis precipitated by fraudulent subprime mortgage-backed securities that were sold globally by giant Wall Street banks, aided and abetted by U.S. ratings agencies that deliberately falsified their assessments of those securities.
No one listened. In that episode, Volcker was outvoted three to two by his board, which included two Reagan free-market appointees, on new rules that allowed Citicorp, J.P. Morgan, and Bankers Trust to move into some underwriting. It was the beginning of the process by which Glass-Steagall became effectively moot by the time it was formally repealed in 1999. Two decades later, some of Volcker's worst fears came true, when it became clear that even the CEOs of these now-huge (and too big to fail) Wall Street banks no longer understood what their traders were doing as they marketed incomprehensibly complex—and unsound—loan-backed securities around the world.
After the financial crash, Volcker finally became publicly outspoken, to the point where he began questioning almost everything new that Wall Street had created in recent decades. Beyond the ATM machine, Volcker asked at a conference in Britain in 2009, what have new banking products really added to the economy? Exhibit one was derivatives, which had turned Wall Street into a trillion-dollar casino. "Wake up, gentlemen!" Volcker told his fellow regulators. "I wish that somebody would give me some shred of neutral evidence about the relationship between financial innovation recently and the growth of the economy, just one shred of information. I am getting a bit wound up here."
Ultimately Volcker managed to get Barack Obama wound up as well—though it took him awhile.
In an interview with me in 2010, Volcker spoke of feeling somewhat betrayed by Obama at first, even though he'd been one of the president's earliest political supporters. "I hadn't been a Democrat for 20 years" by the time the 2008 election rolled around, Volcker recalled. But he said he was so deeply distressed by what had happened in the fiscally and geopolitically reckless George W. Bush years that he came out for Obama, who "impressed me greatly as an agent for needed change." Way back in January 2008, a time when Hillary Clinton was still considered the odds-on favorite for the Democratic presidential nominee against the insurgent Obama, Volcker wrote an endorsement statement for the Illinois Democrat, which he thought "was reasonably eloquent."
To his dismay, Volcker was largely ignored by the Obama team at first. Though he was installed as head of the new president's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, Volcker found his access limited by National Economic Council Director Larry Summers, and he was snubbed by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who initially resisted some of the tougher Dodd-Frank rules intended to reduce risk and provide far more oversight of Wall Street. But presidential aides said Obama grew more and more outraged by Wall Street's brazenness in going back to business as usual in the year after the crisis. "As we have come out of the crisis and seen major financial institutions make significant profits on their proprietary trading and using the [federal] safety net to do that," one Treasury official told me back then, "it persuaded the president it was worth looking into" Volcker's ideas. Finally in January 2010, after scarcely mentioning him and (rarely talking to him) for a year, Obama called a news conference at which Volcker was notably placed right behind him, with Geithner and Summers well off to the side, out of camera range. Obama said he now had something to add to what his Treasury secretary and chief economic advisor had prescribed for fixing the financial system. "We're calling it the Volcker rule after the tall guy behind me," Obama said.
It was the first mention of what became a keystone of Dodd-Frank reform. Nearly a year before the president's announcement, Volcker had proposed keeping major commercial banks that enjoy federal-deposit guarantees away from big-time speculative or proprietary trading—acting like a hedge fund, in effect, with taxpayer-backed money. "I would like to draw a line there and say that's the heavily regulated part of the market," he told me. "They shouldn't be doing risky capital market stuff. They should not be large proprietary traders. They should not operate their own hedge funds or equity funds."
Today, however, the big Wall Street banks are engaged in a long-term campaign to undermine and hollow out the Volcker rule—an effort that Volcker himself was fighting almost until the day he died. In October, five U.S. regulatory agencies approved a revised rule, set to go into effect Jan. 1, that weakens strictures against banks conducting speculative trading with government-insured deposits. Though Wall Street commercial banks are still nominally barred from engaging in proprietary trading or investing in or sponsoring hedge funds or private equity funds, they have managed to shrink the amounts and types of assets affected by the rule, in a reform supported by President Donald Trump's administration. The only dissent on the Fed board came from Lael Brainard, a former member of the Obama economic team, who warned the revision "weakens the core protections against speculative trading within the banking federal safety net."
Another dissenter was Volcker, who in one of his final acts of rebellion against Wall Street wrote of his worries in a letter to Fed Chairman Jerome Powell in August.
"The new rule amplifies risk in the financial system, increases moral hazard and erodes protections against conflicts of interest that were so glaringly on display during the last crisis," Volcker said.
Michael Greenberger, a former senior regulator at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission who was a key advisor on the Dodd-Frank legislation, said that while the Volcker Rule is being "de facto repealed through thousands of pages of debilitating regulatory 'implementation,'" Volcker's legacy lives on.
"He cast a long and enduring shadow that will continue to instruct market reformers and their elected allies on a path forward to protect the U.S. and world economy from reckless speculation," Greenberger said. "The question is: Will the American electorate follow that lead?"
Michael Hirsh is a senior correspondent and deputy news editor at Foreign Policy. Twitter: @michaelphirsh
Tags: Federal Reserve, financial reform, obituaries
Epiphanies from Paul Volcker
The legendary central banker speaks with FP about family values, what went wrong with big finance, and why baseball is to blame.
In Box |
Ben Pauker


text:
Sat, May 18, 2013 page3
Taipei-Manila Row: Ma describes incident as a 'cold-blooded murder'
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) yesterday described the killing of a Taiwanese fisherman by Philippine Coast Guard personnel last week as "cold-blood murder" and said the government would continue negotiations with the Philippine government to resolve the incident.
Amid the ongoing dispute between Taiwan and the Philippines, Ma has on several occasions condemned the Philippines for the incident on May 9, involving a Taiwanese fishing boat operating in the two countries' overlapping exclusive economic zones, in which Taiwanese fisherman Hung Shih-cheng (洪石成) was shot and killed.
Meeting with academics who participated in an International Law Association conference in the Presidential Office, Ma rejected the Philippine government's comments that the attack was "unintended" and that it was handling the incident in a decent manner.
He said the act of killing cannot be justified under international law, and repeated his calls for the Philippines to take responsibility as a signatory nation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
"The Philippine government vessel used automatic weapons to strafe an unarmed fishing boat. It was no longer executing official duty. It was cold-blooded murder," he said.
As the two nations' exclusive economic zones overlap, Taiwanese fishing boats have often been boarded and inspected by Philippine vessels in these waters, and several Taiwanese fishermen have been killed, most recently in 2006.
"As a decent and respectable member of the international community, which the Philippines believes itself to be, it should abide by the rules of international law," Ma said.
He cited Article 73 of the UN convention and said a coastal state can employ measures including boarding, inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings in its exclusive economic zones to exercise its sovereignty. However, opening fire and killing individuals onboard an unarmed fishing boat is unacceptable, Ma said.
He said the two sides were now involved in negotiations on the incident, and said his administration would work to resolve the diplomatic dispute via international law.
"We will continue to negotiate with the Philippines and hope to solve the issue in a peaceful and rational way. We will try to avoid damaging our relations with the Philippines. However, international justice and the principle of not resolving problems through force have to be upheld," he said.


Audubon Zoo, Aquarium, and Insectarium (pick any 2) should be enough to fill a day for kids those ages. I'd park downtown in Canal Place, which is a stone's throw from the Aquarium and Insectarium. Take the St. Charles Streetcar to Audubon Park and either walk it or take the free shuttle bus to the Zoo.
Is that a good place to park if you want to tour the french quarter and eat at Cafe Demonde and see a cemetery too?
Another option is a Gray Line city tour that offers a cemetery stop.
The tour originates in the Quarter and there is plenty of parking right beside it. They are also within walking distance of Cafe DuMonde and the French Market but if you don't want to walk the whole way you can ride the streetcar since it runs right beside the Gray Line office. Gray Line used to offer a 10% AAA discount, but I don't know if they do that now or not.
I would do the bus tour. NO can be a lot of walking, and this will save you some steps!
Cafe Du Monde is neat, but all they have is coffee and pastries, so it's not really a meal. DO NOT wear black clothing that day because will end up covered in powdered sugar and you won't be able to get it off!
ChristieP is absolutely correct - I always tell New Orleans "virgins" that you know you're close to Cafe DuMonde if everybody coming towards you is wiping powdered sugar off their clothing.
tracib, yes, Canal Place is just a few blocks away from Cafe Du Monde.
Road trip in California! What about this itinerary?


New York Comic-Con kicks off today at the Javitz Center and runs through Sunday, October 16th.
While the event is noticeably lacking in Star Trek celebrity guests (as compared to previous years), Roddenberry Productions has a few events scheduled for Saturday. The Roddenberry events include an autograph session with Eugene "Rod" Roddenberry, a pizza party and a Trek Nation panel.
Hosted by the SCIENCE Channel, Rod Roddenberry will discuss his long-awaited documentary, Trek Nation, on Saturday from 1:15 PM to 2:15 PM in room 1A03.
Along with the panel discussion, Roddenberry will present world premier footage of the film.
Earlier that day, Roddenberry will be signing autographs at table 6 in the main autograph area from 10:30 AM to 11:30 AM.
A "Pizza Party Panel" is scheduled for 6:30 PM until 7:30 PM, where Rod Roddenberry will be joined by Trevor Roth and Tory Mell for pizza and discussion of various Roddenberry projects.
For fans of the Roddenberry graphic novel, Days Missing, creator Trevor Roth will be signing autographs on Saturday from 10 AM until 11:30 AM at the Archaia booth #1546.
Other Star Trek guests include Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Voyager and Star Trek: Enterprise writer Brannon Braga. Braga will be on hand to discuss his new show, Terra Nova. Writer of the TNG episode, "The Inner Light," Morgan Gendel will be signing autographs at booth #N266 throughout the weekend.
Additional, non-Trek, guests include Mark Hamill, Eliza Dushku, Felicia Day, Kevin Smith, Seth Green, Stephen Lang, Jim Lee, Tom Morello, Kevin Sorbo and more.
For a full guest list, ticket information and schedule of events, visit New York Comic Con.
Watch the official trailer for Trek Nation, embedded below.


Unparalleled charm in the heart of East London.
The Dickens Inn is an original warehouse building near Tower Bridge, Tower of London and the Shard. As an original warehouse building, it's thought to have housed tea or to have been owned by a local brewery. It certainly existed at the turn of the 18th century and may well have been born in the 1700's.
The Dickens Inn is a picturesque restyled and reconstructed 18th century pub and event venue nestled in St Katherine Docks. It boasts three floors of flexible hire spaces, with an experienced events team and range of bespoke food, drink and entertainment packages tailored to your occasion.
This historic venue is fully licensed for ceremonies, plus offers a private bar, dining room, dance floor space and music license until midnight. With ample outside space on the terrace and flower-bedecked balcony, and unrivalled views over the dock towards Tower Bridge and the Shard, The Dickens Inn ensures a stunning setting for the most memorable of occasions.
Thank you so much for planning and executing the most amazing wedding day we could have wished for. We would love to go back and do it all over again - it truly was the best day ever. Agata and her team were fantastic and every detail was better than we imagined. The Dickens Inn will always mean a lot to us as it was where we first met and the perfect place to say 'I Do'. Thank you so much for everything you did in the run up and on the day itself, we will be forever grateful for creating such a wonderful experience.
We had a fantastic day at the Dickens for our wedding breakfast and evening reception, having got married in Bermondsey earlier in the afternoon (our guests loved walking over Tower Bridge to get to the Dickens Inn!). The setting is beautiful and the room looked wonderful. We were really pleased with how the whole day went. There were no hiccups and actually the whole process right from first contact was fairly seamless thanks to Agata and the team. The food was delicious and great value, as you would expect from a brilliant restaurant. Everybody loved the whole day and we would highly recommend The Dickens.
We had a wonderful wedding at The Dickens Inn. The setting is absolutely perfect and many of our guests commented on what a great venue it was. It was great to be able to have the marriage ceremony and the reception all in one place, with enough space for a Ceilidh band and dancing! The amazing location by Tower Bridge was a bonus and we got some brilliant photos there. The Dickens Inn were very helpful and flexible, allowing us to set up the day before the wedding, since the room wasn't in use.
We had our wedding reception at The Dickens Inn and we absolutely loved it. It's been the best choice we made as we were torn between two venues. The Dickens Inn is an amazing place located in the most incredible area. St Katharine's Dock is beautiful and the surroundings were perfect for to take some lovely photos. The room that we hired was very rustic and spacious, overlooking The Tower Bridge. It looked very pretty even before we decorated it. The fairy lights in there were very nice but we brought more and turned the place into a fairy-tale-like setting. The food was delicious and the serving was impeccable. After the meal the room was cleared up and turned into a dance floor. We opted for a ceilidh and it was super fun. All staff were very welcoming and so nice and helpful to us. From the booking process until the last arrangements after the wedding everything went very smoothly. It just couldn't have been less stress free. We are so so pleased we found The Dickens Inn and we would go back there anytime as it's one of the best places in London.


text:
November 13, 2014 Seth Prince Uncategorized
One lesson from a public-records breakthrough
Wanted to share a glimpse of what I told our students today on the heels of their successful public records battle. The process of how these things unfold is always a learning opportunity, with ways it could be improved on next time, but the takeaway in the end — increased public transparency — is a win for all.
It was a particularly poignant case in my eyes, because near the end of my time in Portland The Oregonian fought and lost an appeal of the University of Oregon's interpretation of FERPA. I'm glad to see other journalists continue to challenge the law's application in a way that may ultimately lead to clarification on how it can and cannot be used.
Overall, I continue to be impressed with your capacity to rise to the challenge when a big moment presents itself. The past 24 hours or so was one such time. Your journalism in that span accomplished something significant — it's rare that the president overrules his legal counsel, after all — and something that will be one of your legacies here after you all have graduated. You did it quickly online. You did it powerfully in print. You did it contextually throughout. Congratulations.
Now, here's your challenge: How do you make these best days of your collective journalism more frequent? How do you not just seize the big opportunities. But all opportunities. Think of it this way: The best players in sports are not the ones who deliver only when they are on the biggest stage. No, they deliver day in, day out, with a steadiness and reliability that makes them stand apart.
It's one thing to be great here and there. But what you want is to be great always. To build a culture that makes that the standard you hold one another to consistently. That's what you're capable of as journalists — it's there, clearly; we as pro staff can see it growing, and we want to help you make it as strong and vibrant as it can be. And that's what this campus deserves from its newsroom.
Published by Seth Prince
View all posts by Seth Prince
South Oval's changing gardens as a GIF
On cultural change and being 'creatively realistic'


text:
Crying in the Rain
For other songs, see Crying in the Rain (Culture Beat song) and Crying in the Rain (Whitesnake song).
"Crying in the Rain"
Single by The Everly Brothers
"I'm Not Angry"
7" vinyl
Warner Bros.
Carole King
Howard Greenfield
The Everly Brothers singles chronology
"Muskrat"
(1961) "Crying in the Rain"
(1962) "That's Old Fashioned"
"Crying in the Rain" is a song written by Howard Greenfield and Carole King and originally recorded by The Everly Brothers. The single peaked at #6 on the U.S. pop charts in 1962.[1]
The song was the only collaboration between successful songwriters Greenfield (lyrics) and King (music), both of whom worked for Aldon Music at the time of the song's composition. On a whim, two Aldon songwriting partnerships decided to switch partners for a day – Gerry Goffin (who normally worked with King) partnered with Greenfield's frequent writing partner, Jack Keller, leaving King and Greenfield to pair up for the day. Despite the commercial success of their collaboration, King and Greenfield never wrote another song together.[2]
✪ The Everly Brothers - Crying In The Rain
✪ "Crying In The Rain" By: The Everly Brothers (Lyrics)
✪ a-ha - Crying in the Rain (Official Video)
✪ Everly Brothers - Crying In The Rain
✪ Crying in the Rain
1 Track listing
2 Chart performance
3 Tammy Wynette version
3.1 Track listings
3.2 Charts
4 a-ha version
4.1 Music video
4.2 Chart performance
4.3 Formats and track listing
4.3.1 7": Warner Bros. / W 9547 United Kingdom
4.3.2 12": Warner Bros. / W 9547 T United Kingdom
4.3.3 CD: Warner Bros. / W 9547CD United Kingdom
4.5 Certifications
5 Other cover versions
6 Other songs with the same title
1. "Crying in the Rain" Howard Greenfield and Carole King 1:59
2. "I'm Not Angry" 'Jimmy Howard' (pseudonym of The Everly Brothers) 1:58
Chart (1962-66)
Belgium (Ultratop 50 Wallonia)[3] 10
Netherlands (Single Top 100)[4] 9
Norway (VG-lista)[5] 8
UK Singles (Official Charts Company)[6] 6
US Billboard Hot 100[7] 6
Tammy Wynette version
Single by Tammy Wynette
from the album You Brought Me Back
"Bring My Baby Back to Me"
August 1981 (1981-08)
Moman's Recording Studio
Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S.
Chips Moman
Tammy Wynette singles chronology
"Cowboys Don't Shoot Straight Like They Used To"
(1981) "Another Chance"
In 1981, "Crying in the Rain" was notably covered by American country artist Tammy Wynette. It became a major hit after being released as a single that year.
Wynette's version was produced by Chips Moman at the Moman Recording Studio in Las Vegas, Nevada. The recording session also included nine additional tracks that would appear on Wynette's 1981 studio album.[8]
The song was released as a single in July 1981. It reached number 18 on the Billboard Hot Country Singles chart that same year. "Crying in the Rain" became Wynette's third single to reach the country songs top 20 in the 1980s decade. The song was issued on Wynette's 1981 studio album entitled You Brought Me Back.[9] Additionally, "Crying in the Rain" peaked at number 11 on the RPM Country Tracks chart in Canada around the same time. It was her highest-charting solo song on the RPM survey since 1979.[10]
7" vinyl single[11]
"Crying in the Rain" – 3:12
"Bring My Baby Back to Me" – 3:25
US Hot Country Singles (Billboard)[9] 18
CAN Country Singles (RPM)[10] 11
a-ha version
Single by a-ha
from the album East of the Sun, West of the Moon
"(Seemingly) Non-stop July"
New wave
pop rock
4:25 (Album Version)
Songwriter(s)
Christopher Neil
A-ha singles chronology
"There's Never a Forever Thing"
(1990) "I Call Your Name"
In 1989, the Norwegian pop band a-ha covered the song. It was the first single taken from their 1990 East of the Sun, West of the Moon album. Following its success, a-ha became closer to the Everly Brothers, who had originally recorded the song. The band members were presented a set of guitars by the Everly Brothers that a-ha continues to use.[12]
This is one of the few commercially available songs that a-ha have covered, the only others being "Velvet", first released by Savoy, and "Dragonfly", first released by Magne Furuholmen.[citation needed]
The video was directed by Steve Barron. The theme of the video is a robbery gone wrong. It is actually the second version of this video. The first version did not feature any of the scenes of Morten Harket singing alone. The video was filmed entirely with a specific technique of mobile cameras, and it was filmed in Big Timber, Montana.
"Crying in the Rain" was a-ha's last single to go top 40 on a Billboard chart in the U.S. to date, peaking at #26 on the Billboard Adult Contemporary chart during the week ending April 6, 1991.[13] It was more popular internationally, topping the charts in the band's native Norway,[14] and peaking at #13 in the UK Singles Chart,[15] where the band had found previous success as well. It was the 32nd most successful song of the year 2010 in Romanian Top 100, although it peaked outside the top 20.[16]
Formats and track listing
7": Warner Bros. / W 9547 United Kingdom
"Crying in the Rain" (Album Version) – 4:25
"(Seemingly) Nonstop July" – 2:55
12": Warner Bros. / W 9547 T United Kingdom
"Cry Wolf" (Album Version) – 4:05
CD: Warner Bros. / W 9547CD United Kingdom
Argentinian Singles Chart 1
Australian Singles Chart[17] 131
Austrian Singles Chart[18] 17
Belgian Singles Chart 8
Canadian RPM Top Singles[19] 34
Danish Singles Chart[20] 10
Dutch GfK chart[21] 10
Dutch Top 40[22] 11
French Singles Chart[23] 11
German Singles Chart[24] 6
Irish Singles Chart[25] 8
Italian Singles Chart[26] 14
Norwegian Singles Chart[14] 1
Polish Singles Chart 2
Swiss Singles Chart[27] 21
UK Singles Chart[15] 13
US Billboard Adult Contemporary[13] 26
Yugoslavian Singles Chart 8
Year-End Charts: #35 GER, #53 ITA
Sales certified
France[28] Silver 1990 200,000
Other cover versions
"Crying in the Rain" was covered by many other artists. In 1972, Penny DeHaven in duet with Del Reeves released a Country version on a single only (Billboard country chart #54).[29] In 1989 it was covered by Blessings in Disguise, a band composed of Dave Hill and Noddy Holder of British hard rock band, Slade. The song was released as a single, backed with the Dave Hill written track, "Wild Nites".
The song was also covered by Crystal Gayle on her 1981 album Hollywood, Tennessee and by the British duo Peter and Gordon. Singer Art Garfunkel, of Simon and Garfunkel fame, covered the song in his album Up 'til Now (1993) in a duet with James Taylor. It was released in 2010 on Micky Dolenz King For a Day album.
The song was also covered by the Eurovision Song Contest winner Johnny Logan. German band Gregorian covered the song on their album Masters of Chant Chapter VI.
The song was covered by Marty Kristian of the New Seekers in 1973 "Crying In The Rain"/"A Woman Grows" (Polydor 2058 394)
Nick Lowe and Dave Edmunds released a version of the song on their 1980 EP, Nick Lowe & Dave Edmunds Sing The Everly Brothers.[30]
Carole King covered the song she co-wrote on her 1983 album Speeding Time and in a rare live performance with the group The Wallflowers in a televised performance.[citation needed]
Danzig covered the song on the 2015 album Skeletons.
Other songs with the same title
Whitesnake recorded a song by the same name. It was written by David Coverdale and released in 1982 on the album Saints & Sinners. In 1987, it was re-recorded for Whitesnake's self titled album.
Culture Beat recorded a different song with the same title, it peaked at #29 in the UK Singles Chart.[31]
^ "allmusic ((( The Everly Brothers > Charts & Awards > Billboard Singles )))". Retrieved April 29, 2009.
^ Emerson, Ken (2005) Always Magic In The Air: The Bomp and Brilliance of the Brill Building Era, Viking, New York, ISBN 0-670-03456-8, p. 111.
^ "Ultratop.be – The Everly Brothers – Crying in the Rain" (in French). Ultratop 50.
^ "Dutchcharts.nl – The Everly Brothers – Crying in the Rain" (in Dutch). Single Top 100.
^ "Norwegiancharts.com – The Everly Brothers – Crying in the Rain". VG-lista.
^ "The Everly Brothers: Artist Chart History". Official Charts Company.
^ "The Everly Brothers Chart History (Hot 100)". Billboard.
^ "Tammy Wynette -- You Brought Me Back (1981, Vinyl)". Discogs. Retrieved 24 December 2019.
^ a b Whitburn, Joel (2004). The Billboard Book Of Top 40 Country Hits: 1944-2006, Second edition. Record Research.
^ a b "Search results for "Tammy Wynette" under Country Singles". RPM. Retrieved 8 December 2019.
^ "Tammy Wynette -- "Crying in the Rain" (1981, Vinyl)". Discogs. Retrieved 24 December 2019.
^ "Phil Everly dies | a-ha live". a-ha-live.com. Retrieved 2019-08-21.
^ a b "Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks - A-ha - Crying In The Rain - Chart Listing For The Week Of apr 06 1991". Retrieved April 29, 2009.
^ a b "norwegiancharts.com - A-ha - Crying In The Rain". Retrieved April 29, 2009.
^ a b "The Official Charts Company - A-ha - Crying In The Rain". Retrieved April 29, 2009.
^ "Topul celor mai difuzate piese în România în 2010". România Liberă (in Romanian). Archived from the original on 3 January 2011. Retrieved 21 January 2011.
^ "Response from ARIA re: chart inquiry, received May 29, 2015". imgur.com. Retrieved September 18, 2015.
^ "A-ha - Crying In The Rain - austriancharts.at (in German)". Retrieved April 29, 2009.
^ "RPM Volume 53 No. 17, March 30, 1991 - RPM". Archived from the original on July 1, 2009. Retrieved April 29, 2009.
^ Danish Singles Chart 26 October 1990
^ "dutchcharts.nl - A-ha - Crying In The Rain (in Dutch)". Retrieved April 29, 2009.
^ "Nederlandse Top 40, week 45, 1990 (in Dutch)". Retrieved April 29, 2009.
^ "lescharts.com - A-ha - Crying In The Rain (in French)". Retrieved April 29, 2009.
^ "German Singles Chart". Charts-Surfer. Archived from the original on December 16, 2008. Retrieved June 7, 2008.
^ "irishcharts.ie search results". Archived from the original on January 26, 2010. Retrieved April 29, 2009.
^ "HPI - Settimana del 17/11/90 (in Italian)". Retrieved April 29, 2009.
^ "A-ha - Crying In The Rain - hitparade.ch (in German)". Retrieved April 29, 2009.
^ French certifications [1][permanent dead link] (Retrieved September 14, 2008)
^ Oermann, Robert K. (February 25, 2014). "[Updated] Lifenotes: Penny DeHaven Passes". MusicRow. Retrieved February 25, 2014.
^ "Nick Lowe and Dave Edmunds, Nick Lowe & Dave Edmunds Sing The Everly Brothers". Retrieved December 3, 2016.
^ "The Official Charts Company - Culture Beat - Crying In The Rain". Retrieved April 29, 2009.
allmusic review of The Everly Brothers version
Listen to "Crying in the Rain"
Lyrics of this song at MetroLyrics
The Everly Brothers
Songs Our Daddy Taught Us
It's Everly Time
A Date with the Everly Brothers
Both Sides of an Evening
Instant Party!
Christmas with the Everly Brothers and the Boystown Choir
The Everly Brothers Sing Great Country Hits
Gone Gone Gone
Rock'n Soul
Beat & Soul
In Our Image
Two Yanks in England
The Hit Sound of the Everly Brothers
The Everly Brothers Sing
Stories We Could Tell
Pass the Chicken & Listen
EB 84
Born Yesterday
Some Hearts
Everly Brothers Show
Reunion Concert - Live At The Royal Albert Hall
The Everly Brothers' Best
Greatest Hits Vol. III
The New Album
All They Had to Do Was Dream
Heartaches and Harmonies
Stories We Could Tell:The RCA Years
Too Good to Be True
Give Me a Future
"Bye Bye Love"
"Wake Up Little Susie"
"This Little Girl of Mine"
"Should We Tell Him"
"All I Have to Do Is Dream"
"Bird Dog"
"Devoted to You"
"Problems"
"Take a Message to Mary"
"Poor Jenny"
"(Till) I Kissed You"
"Let It Be Me"
"Cathy's Clown"
"When Will I Be Loved"
"So Sad (To Watch Good Love Go Bad)"
"Like Strangers"
"Be-Bop-A-Lula"
"Lucille"
"Walk Right Back"
"Ebony Eyes"
"Temptation"
"Don't Blame Me"
"Crying in the Rain"
"That's Old Fashioned (That's the Way Love Should Be)"
"Don't Ask Me to Be Friends"
"Love Her"
"Ain't That Lovin' You, Baby"
"That'll Be the Day"
"The Price of Love"
"Love Is Strange"
"(You Got) The Power of Love"
"Somebody Help Me"
"Bowling Green"
"Love of the Common People"
"Carolina in My Mind"
"Not Fade Away"
"The Air That I Breathe" (Phil Everly solo)
"Brother Jukebox" (Don Everly solo)
"Dare to Dream Again" (Phil Everly solo)
"On the Wings of a Nightingale"
"Don't Worry Baby"
"Ballad of a Teenage Queen"
List of songs
Gibson Everly Brothers Flattop
Venetia Stevenson
Edan Everly
James Best
Tammy Wynette singles
Albums discography
Singles discography
"Apartment No. 9"
"Your Good Girl's Gonna Go Bad"
"My Elusive Dreams" (with David Houston
"I Don't Wanna Play House"
"Take Me to Your World"
"It's All Over" (with David Houston)
"D-I-V-O-R-C-E"
"Stand by Your Man"
"Singing My Song"
"The Ways to Love a Man"
"I'll See Him Through"
"He Loves Me All the Way"
"Run, Woman, Run"
"The Wonders You Perform"
"We Sure Can Love Each Other"
"Good Lovin' (Makes It Right)"
"Bedtime Story"
"Take Me" (with George Jones)
"Reach Out Your Hand (And Touch Somebody)"
"My Man (Understands)"
"'Til I Get It Right"
"The Ceremony" (with George Jones)
"Kids Say the Darndest Things"
"Another Lonely Song"
"We're Gonna Hold On" (with George Jones)
"(We're Not) The Jet Set" (with George Jones)
"We Loved It Away" (with George Jones)
"Woman to Woman"
"(You Make Me Want to Be a) Mother"
"I Still Believe in Fairy Tales"
"'Til I Can Make It on My Own"
"Golden Ring" (with George Jones)
"You and Me"
"Near You" (with George Jones)
"(Let's Get Together) One Last Time"
"One of a Kind"
"Southern California" (with George Jones)
"Womanhood"
"They Call It Makin' Love"
"No One Else in the World"
"He Was There (When I Needed You)"
"Starting Over"
"Two Story House" (with George Jones)
"A Pair of Old Sneakers" (with George Jones)
"Another Chance"
"You Still Get to Me in My Dreams"
"A Good Night's Love"
"Sometimes When We Touch" (with Mark Gray)
"Your Love"
"Talkin' to Myself Again"
"Justified and Ancient (Stand by the JAMS)" (The KLF featuring Tammy Wynette)
"Silver Threads and Golden Needles" (with Loretta Lynn and Dolly Parton)
"Every Breath You Take" (with Sting)
Magne Furuholmen
Morten Harket
Paul Waaktaar-Savoy
Hunting High and Low
Scoundrel Days
Stay on These Roads
East of the Sun, West of the Moon
Memorial Beach
Minor Earth Major Sky
Foot of the Mountain
Cast in Steel
Headlines and Deadlines: The Hits of A-ha
The Definitive Singles Collection 1984–2004
Time and Again: The Ultimate A-ha
A-ha Live at Vallhall – Homecoming Grimstad Benefit Concert
How Can I Sleep with Your Voice in My Head
Ending on a High Note: The Final Concert
MTV Unplugged – Summer Solstice
45 R.P.M. Club
Twelve Inch Club
Scoundrel Club
Road Club
Minor Earth Major Box
"Take On Me"
"Love Is Reason"
"The Sun Always Shines on T.V."
"Train of Thought"
"Hunting High and Low"
"I've Been Losing You"
"Cry Wolf"
"Manhattan Skyline"
"The Living Daylights"
"Stay on These Roads"
"The Blood That Moves the Body"
"Touchy!"
"You Are the One"
"I Call Your Name"
"Early Morning"
"Move to Memphis"
"Dark Is the Night"
"Angel in the Snow"
"Lie Down in Darkness"
"Shapes That Go Together"
"Summer Moved On"
"Minor Earth Major Sky"
"Velvet"
"The Sun Never Shone That Day"
"I Wish I Cared"
"Forever Not Yours"
"Lifelines"
"Did Anyone Approach You?"
"Celice"
"Birthright"
"Analogue (All I Want)"
"Cosy Prisons"
"Foot of the Mountain"
"Nothing Is Keeping You Here"
"Shadowside"
"Butterfly, Butterfly (The Last Hurrah)"
Ending on a High Note Tour