text:
NEXT | The Queue: cool guys do their best to not look at the explosion
WoWNov 5, 2018 2:00 pm CT
Single faction World of Warcraft feels closer than ever after BlizzCon interview
By Matthew Rossi
@MatthewWRossi
This BlizzCon, our delightful Dan O'Halloran and malefic Mitch "Mitch" Mitchell sat down with Blizzard's Alex Afrasiabi (World of Warcraft's Senior Creative Director) and Patrick Dawson (Technical Director) and chatted about World of Warcraft. It's a fine interview and worth reading in its entirety. But one particular part of the interview leapt out, grabbed me by the eyeballs and shook my face for several seconds, screaming pay attention to this part in a loud, thunderous voice.
Since Afrasiabi brought up the Saurfang vs. Sylvanas option, Mitch pressed him about the idea of splitting the Horde into separate factions for each camp. While the idea would be "thematically cool and appropriate for this scenario," Afrasiabi explained that creating a third faction would really mean splitting up friendships and guilds since factions cannot adventure together. His preference would be the other way: that the Alliance and Horde could group together "one of these days."
"That is the bigger meta lesson of Azeroth," he concluded, "that these battles that we fought, even when we are separated, are for the same damn purpose. For our home."
I have been covering World of Warcraft since 2007. I have been playing it since 2004. I cannot remember ever reading anything like this from anyone on the WoW dev team, much less someone as senior as Alex Afrasiabi. To be clear, this isn't someone speaking off the cuff who works in quest design, this is the game's Senior Creative Director, talking to two reporters in an interview at BlizzCon, knowing full well what he says is going to be reported.
Come together?
Up until this point I had dismissed every single time someone suggested that the end game for Battle for Azeroth was the end of the Alliance/Horde split. It seemed absurd to me. Yes, there have been repeated statements that this was the expansion that would finally deal with the Alliance/Horde conflict in a way that expansions like Cataclysm and Mists of Pandaria failed to do, but I had no idea what that meant, exactly — and I certainly didn't think anyone at Blizzard was thinking about ending what they've described as the heart of the game.
But let's not go crazy reading what we have up there.
Afrasiabi didn't say There will be no separate factions after Battle for Azeroth nor did he say Everyone is going to be in a single faction. He said merely that he would prefer, if he had to choose, to not have a third faction divide players. That he doesn't want to break up established guilds or force people to not be able to group up who currently can. I think that's a wise decision, but it's a far cry from we're going to all be able to group up together after Battle for Azeroth. What he said is significant — it's the furthest I've ever seen anyone at Blizzard go towards the idea of possible cross-faction play — but it's not them revealing the new Hordlliance purple lion banner.
Seriously, though, imagine a purple banner with a big lion wearing a Horde symbol on its head as the new Hordlliance banner. Come on. You know it would be awesome.
Can the gap be bridged?
The significance of this statement isn't just in the novelty of it, nor is it purely the fact that Alex Afrasiabi is in such a pivotal position to help decide the future for World of Warcraft, although both are true. Nor is it in the fact that this statement happened at a BlizzCon that, by necessity, had no actual news to share on the next WoW expansion — we got plenty of looks at what patch 8.1, 8.1.5 and 8.2 have in store and we know there will be at least an 8.2.5 and likely an 8.3 going forward. But we don't really know what's after 8.2.5, and so, Afrasiabi's statement takes on a whole new importance because it is one of the few things we know is being thought about for the future of the game.
There are various ways it could happen, of course. The easiest would simply be to allow Real ID/Battletag friends to group up cross faction and not really have much story to explain it. It's just something you can do — your Orc Warrior has an Alliance Paladin friend because Dave, your buddy from work, swapped battletags with you and you can group up for dungeons and raids. It wouldn't address the conflict in terms of lore, but it would let people group up more widely and not have to let faction choice keep you from playing with friends.
But it feels like a wasted opportunity for the expansion that's supposed to deal with the Horde and Alliance conflict once and for all. We saw Lost Honor over this BlizzCon weekend, a cinematic that showed Anduin Wrynn reaching out across faction lines to Varok Saurfang in an attempt to find a way to stop Sylvanas without sacrificing everything that makes each faction what it is, and it would be nice to see that reflected in game. Saurfang once led an army consisting of Alliance and Horde soldiers against an Old God and his minions, and it would be somewhat fitting if, by patch 8.3, he was doing so again.
Waiting forever for this
I never thought I would even consider, after seeing Teldrassil burn and watching Undercity devoured by the plague, that we could have this concept — that we could ever have even the smallest concession to cross-faction play, much less the tantalizing possibility of an Azeroth where the Alliance and Horde actually managed to come together. Even if it was just baby steps — a detente, a negotiated peace, a few concessions to each other would feel almost like a miracle at this point. But it's one that I can actually entertain now.
Again, no one has promised anything of the kind. No one has said we're going to be able to join up with our Horde friends in the next expansion, much less promised that we're going to see a detente between the Horde and Alliance that could actually lead to the erasure of faction lines. But this is the closest we've ever gotten to someone at Blizzard saying I would like to see people able to group together regardless of faction and it feels like a huge statement to me.
Filed Under: Alex Afrasiabi, Alliance, Anduin Wrynn, Cross Faction, Faction, Factions, Horde, Saurfang, Single-Faction, Varok Saurfang
Battle for Azeroth is better than WoW Classic in…
How would you make a major faction change work in…
Can a game continue to thrive after its creators…
Play the most adorable game of StarCraft ever with…
How a level squish could work in World of Warcraft


In this section we'll describe different ways of installing Kuzzle.
To create a new Kuzzle stack on Amazon, you need a valid AWS account.
In this guide, you'll learn where to find our AWS Marketplace AMI and how to use it. It's a good way to test Kuzzle in a cloud environment. In addition, we recommend that you use our Kuzzle Admin Console, the easiest way to play with Kuzzle.
Kuzzle (latest) with MQTT protocol support.
Go to the marketplace and type kuzzle in the search form.
Choose your Amazon EC2 instance type (the minimal requirement is a t2-medium).
Recover the public IP or the hostname provided by AWS before you proceed.
You should see information about your Kuzzle Server.
If not, wait a few minutes and retry the request.
Open the Kuzzle Admin Console and fill the form with the address of your Kuzzle instance. There is a default admin user with ec2-user as username. Associated password is your unique instance ID. You can get it from the EC2 AWS Console, it looks like this: i-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
In this section we will perform a manual installation of Kuzzle on a Linux distribution. We choose Linux because all Kuzzle components work natively on it.
By default, Kuzzle expects all the components to be running on localhost but you can change this behavior.
We will run Kuzzle using pm2, a process management tool used to monitor Node.js applications.
The last three prerequisites can be fulfilled on Debian-based systems by installing packages : build-essential, gdb and python.
Now install Kuzzle packages using NPM. Make sure you have installed a C++11 compatible compiler or the packages will not build properly, causing problems during the installation process or when running.
Kuzzle uses Elasticsearch and Redis as a persistent and key-value store, respectively. If you are running these components on the same machine as your Kuzzle installation then no additional configuration is needed. If; however, you are running them on another host, you will need to create or update the .kuzzlerc file in your installation folder.
Please refer to the configuration section for more details.
Now that Kuzzle is up and running you can install the Kuzzle Admin Console.
gyp ERR! command "/usr/bin/node" "/usr/lib/node_modules/npm/node_modules/node-gyp/bin/node-gyp.js" "rebuild"
If you see the following message and your Elasticsearch installation uses a security layer, configure the Elasticsearch client options in the .kuzzlerc file. For more information click here.
If you see the following message when running pm2 logs, then make sure that your pm2.conf.yml file was created correctly.
follow our guide to learn how to implement basic authentication.
follow our guide to learn how to implement manage users and setup fine-grained access control.


text:
Explainer: Why is there always fuel scarcity in Nigeria?
Fuel scarcities are sadly not rare in one of Africa's largest oil producing states
Nigeria has a problem. The country is Africa's largest producer of oil and one of the world's largest exporters. Yet it imports most of its fuel, and a lot of the time faces fuel scarcity.
In the last few years, Nigeria has produced just under two million barrels a day, yet has only been able to process less than one hundred thousand barrels a day.
Why? Our refineries are not functioning.
Oil refineries should be used to transform Nigeria's crude oil into useful petroleum products, and with a combined capacity of 450,000, Nigeria's refineries could meet its fuel needs—in theory. Instead, like many other things, we import fuel when we can produce it, and this results in scarcity when imports don't meet up to demand.
The numbers are sketchy, but previously NNPC imported about half of Nigeria's fuel, with the rest supplied by fuel marketers and importers like MOMAN (Major Oil Marketers Association of Nigeria).
In the past, scarcities arose when these marketers either refused to import fuel or hoarded the product in response to government failure to make subsidy payments.
Today, marketers do not import fuel at all, and for once, they are not at fault.
Uneconomic landing cost
Fuel marketers are not importing fuel because it is too expensive for them to do so. The landing cost of fuel (how much it costs them to import) is significantly higher than the pump price of fuel (the price they are forced to sell it).
Fuel prices are pegged at ₦145, but it costs at least ₦170 to import it into the country. The government fixed a price of ₦145 using a global crude oil price assumption of $45 and an exchange rate of ₦285/$1. Today, crude oil prices are around $75, and the exchange rate is at least ₦305/$1. With these parameters, it would cost anyone at least ₦170 to bring fuel into Nigeria. Moreover, once the fuel gets to the depot, it costs nearly ₦20 for it to get to filling stations as a result of fixed margins like bridging margin and transporters' allowance.
Considering this, fuel importers have chosen to sit on the sidelines and left the burden of importing to NNPC, whose wealth allows it to sell fuel at a loss to Nigerians. You remember those stories of the NNPC having a ₦2 billion daily subsidy in 2018? That was the estimated loss (under-recovery) of it importing fuel for ₦170 and selling it at ₦145. No wonder the corporation is leaking money.
In a nutshell, because the price of fuel is fixed, NNPC is the only one importing fuel into Nigeria.
Waiting on NNPC is a problem.
The problem is that NNPC does not have the resources or facilities to meet the fuel demand for the whole country. It has neither the storage facilities nor the distribution networks needed to ensure a steady flow of fuel in the country. Most of our fuel comes in through the Apapa port and needs to be trucked around the country.
This is why Nigeria experienced fuel scarcity in December 2017—the NNPC was unprepared to handle the extra demand during the festive season and had to quickly correct this by ramping up its imports.
But it is not all on NNPC.
Over time, it has become very profitable to smuggle fuel to neighbouring countries who have much higher fuel prices. Neighbours in Niger, Ghana and Benin Republic have relatively higher fuel prices when compared to Nigeria. Smugglers take advantage of this to divert loaded fuel tankers to service stations at this border towns to benefit from the high prices. Fuel meant to ease scarcity is passed on to other countries instead.
So, Nigeria suffers from fuel scarcities because the price of fuel is fixed below the clearing market price, meaning that NNPC is the only importer and a lot of fuel is smuggled out. But the price of fuel is fixed because Nigeria has to import fuel, and Nigeria imports fuels because the refineries are not working.
Africa's richest man, Aliko Dangote, has started work on a refinery in Lagos. The potential production, from gasoline to even airport fuel, could substantially support the economy and help the country. But the refinery is scheduled to be at near full capacity in 2020, and these are responsibilities that fall more to the government, than a single private investor.
The junior Petroleum Minister Kachikwu has shifted his position from promising new refineries, promising to resign if Nigeria is still importing fuel in 2019, and now pledging government support for Dangote's refinery. But as with all policy and governance in an election year, implementation ahead of the 2018 Christmas break is uncertain.
So the solution seems easy and evidently clear. In the long-term, fix the refineries. In the short-term, adjust the retail price of fuel so that it makes sense for marketers to import. Any other mechanism and we leave ourselves open to more scarcity.
Follow this Journalist on Twitter @AishaSalaudeen. Subscribe to read more articles here.
Aisha Salaudeen

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Well maybe not – after all, I have a lot invested (financially, if not emotionally) in Apple and Nokia!
Wait, do Microsoft and Palm even still matter?
This will be a world of OS X, Symbian, Windows Mobile, and BlackBerry vs. Android – the old vs. the new, the past vs. the future, the closed vs. the open, the proprietary vs. the free, the desktop vs. the cloud.
It's a great development for T-Mobile and Sprint, and a wake-up call for the other carriers and the music/film industry. And was HTC giving Microsoft the proverbial finger?
As much as 2007 was definitely a milestone year in mobile technology, 2008 will be very interesting.


You love your neighbors (we hope), but sometimes need a little privacy. Or maybe you live on a busy road and want your yard to feel more secluded. Or perhaps you need to keep that new dog of yours from running away. Whatever the specifics, if you want security and seclusion, a privacy fence is the answer.
A privacy fence offers you true privacy. The pickets either meet edge-to-edge or overlap so you can't see between them. Typically, privacy fences stand at least six feet tall. The most popular privacy style is a traditional dog ear fence, but there are plenty of other options. We offer a wide variety of Outdoor Essentials® privacy preassembled fence panel styles in multiple species.
Want more information? We're here to help.
Contact us here, and we'll get right back to you!


Los Angeles, CA, December 06, 2018 --(PR.com)-- Mend, the #1 self care app for heartbreak and beyond, has been featured in Apple's "Best of 2018" on the App Store. Mend can be found in the "Trends of the Year: Self-Care" section of "Best of 2018," alongside meditation heavyweights Headspace and Calm.
Self care continues to be a growing trend, and Mend remains at the forefront of self care for heartbreak. The app allows users to view breakups as a catalyst for change and transformation. Through daily audio trainings, community support, and breakup stories, Mend users are able to process their breakup in a more productive and healthy manner.
The news comes on the heels of the inaugural The Mend 30, where the company honored 30 researchers, influencers, disruptors, storytellers, and icons who are working to open the hearts and minds of society in the love and relationships space. The inaugural The Mend 30 event was hosted by Elle Huerta, CEO and founder of Mend, and Karamo Brown, the culture expert in the Emmy Award-winning Netflix series "Queer Eye," producer, psychotherapist, and activist.
If you would like to cover Mend's recent feature on the Apple App Store's "Best of 2018," or would like to request an interview with Mend's founder Elle Huerta, please contact Kat Torres at kat@letsmend.com.
Mend is the #1 self care app for breakups and beyond. You can think of our app like a "personal trainer for heartbreak" (New York Times) - but we're also not satisfied with simply opening the doors to a wealth of resources and letting people fend for themselves. We work to mend broken hearts by overcoming it with you, at your side, and on your terms, every step of the way.
"Not too long ago, I was going through a breakup and looking online for help. I found a lot of empty advice ("It takes time" "Just get over it."), but nothing that resonated with me or made me feel better. So I set out to build a community for people who were going through heartbreak: letsmend.com.
"This content site and community grew into our app, Mend, which launched in 2017. Mend is like a best friend in your pocket during heartbreak, there to check on you, give you advice and comfort you. The only difference is that we never get sick of hearing you talk about your breakup and our advice is created by experts.
"We believe that every end is a new beginning. And we're so honored to support you on your journey."


text:
(-) Remove People filter People
Experiments (5) Apply Experiments filter
Sergio Cereceda Stone (1942- )
Sergio Cereceda Stone was born 16 April 1942 in the coastal city of Valparaiso, Chile. Stone's mother Luz was a housewife and caretaker for Sergio and his younger brother Lionel; his father Sergio served among the country's twenty appellate court judges. In the early 1950s Stone's father relocated the family to Santiago to further his law career.
Subject: People, Ethics, Reproduction
Pope Innocent XI (1611-1689)
Pope Innocent XI, born Benedetto Odescalchi, made considerable contributions to the Roman Catholic approach to embryology by condemning several propositions on liberal moral theology in 1679, including two related to abortion and ensoulment. His rejection of these principles strengthened the Church's stance against abortion and for the idea of "hominization," meaning the presence of human qualities before birth.
Subject: People, Religion, Reproduction
Matthew Stanley Meselson (1930– )
Matthew Stanley Meselson conducted DNA and RNA research in the US during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. He also influenced US policy regarding the use of chemical and biological weapons. Meselson and his colleague Franklin Stahl demonstrated that DNA replication is semi-conservative. Semi-conservative replication means that every newly replicated DNA double helix, which consists of two individual DNA strands wound together, contains one strand that was conserved from a parent double helix and that served as a template for the other strand.
Pearl Mao Tang (1922– )
A licensed obstetrician and gynecologist, Pearl Tang worked to improve the health of women and children in Maricopa County, Arizona, during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Her work with the Maricopa County Health Department ranged from immunizations to preventing cervical cancer. Tang obtained federal grants and community support to establish various child and maternal health clinics throughout Maricopa County as chief of the Maricopa County Bureau of Maternal and Child Health.
Subject: People, Outreach
Walter Schiller (1887–1960)
Walter Schiller studied the causes of diseases in the US and Austria in the early twentieth century and in 1928, invented the Schiller test, or a way to diagnose early cervical cancer in women. Cervical cancer is the uncontrollable division of cells in the cervix, or lower part of the uterus. While living in Austria until his emigration to escape the Nazis in 1937, Schiller concluded that there was a form of cervical cancer, later named carcinoma in situ, that physicians could detect earlier than when tumors start to appear.
Mother Teresa (1910-1997)
Mother Teresa, a Roman Catholic nun known for her charitable work and attention to the poor, was born 26 August 1910. The youngest child of Albanian parents Nikola and Drane Bojaxhiu, she was christened Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu and spent her early life in the place of her birth, present-day Skopje, in the Republic of Macedonia. In addition to her unwavering devotion to serve the sick and the poor, Mother Teresa firmly defended traditional Catholic teachings on more controversial issues, such as contraception and abortion.
José Pedro Balmaceda (1948- )
José Pedro Balmaceda was born 22 August 1948 in Santiago, Chile. His mother Juanita owned a women's boutique in the city and his father José was a successful owner of several timber mills. He grew up with five sisters who remained in Santiago all their lives. Balmaceda attended the college preparatory school San Ignatius where he met Sergio Stone, his future partner at the Center for Reproductive Health fertility clinic in the University of California Irvine Medical Center.
Charles Knowlton (1800–1850)
Charles Knowlton was a physician and author who advocated for increased access to information about reproduction in the nineteenth century in the US. Throughout his early medical education, Knowlton was particularly interested in anatomy and on several instances robbed graves for bodies to dissect. In 1832, Knowlton authored The Fruits of Philosophy, a pamphlet that contained detailed descriptions of the reproductive organs and information on conception and methods to control reproduction.
Wilhelm Ludvig Johannsen (1857-1927)
Wilhelm Ludvig Johannsen studied plants and helped found the field of genetics, contributing methods and concepts to the study of heredity around the turn of the twentieth century in Denmark. His experiments on heredity and variation in plants influenced the methods and techniques of geneticists, and his distinction between the genotype of an organism-its hereditary disposition-and its phenotype-its observable characteristics-remains at the core of contemporary biology. Johannsen criticized biological explanations that relied on concepts such as vitalism and teleology.
Francesco Redi (1626-1698)
Francesco Redi, son of Florentine physician Cecilia de' Ghinci and Gregorio Redi, was born in Arezzo, Italy, on 18 February 1626. He studied philosophy and medicine at the University of Pisa, graduating on 1 May 1647. A year later, Redi moved to Florence and registered at the Collegio Medico. There he served at the Medici Court as both the head physician and superintendent of the ducal pharmacy and foundry. Redi was also a member of the Accademia del Cimento, which flourished from 1657-1667. It was during this decade that Redi produced his most important works.
Beatrice Mintz (1922–2022)
Beatrice Mintz is a brilliant researcher who has developed techniques essential for many aspects of research on mouse development. She produced the first successful mouse chimeras and meticulously characterized their traits. She has worked with various cancers and produced viable mice from the cells of a teratoma. Mintz participated in the development of transgenic mice by the incorporation of foreign DNA into a mouse genome.
Clifford Grobstein (1916-1998)
Clifford Grobstein was a traditional, influential, and highly innovative biologist of the mid-twentieth century, gifted with many character facets and pragmatic talents. His early adulthood passion of linking classical embryology with developmental anatomy and medicine was joined by his later pursuit of combining research ethics and science education with public policy.
John von Neumann (1903-1957)
John von Neumann was a Hungarian mathematician who made important contributions to mathematics, physics, computer science, and the area of artificial life. He was born in Budapest, Hungary, on 28 December 1903. His mother was Margit von Neumann and his father was Max von Neumann. His work on artificial life focused on the problem of the self-reproduction of machines. Von Neumann initially discussed self-reproducing machines in his Hixon Symposium paper "The General and Logical Theory of Automata" published in 1948.
Boris Ephrussi (1901-1979)
Boris Ephrussi studied fruit flies, yeast, and mouse genetics and development while working in France and the US during the twentieth century. In yeast, Ephrussi studied how mutations in the cytoplasm persisted across generations. In mice he studied the genetics of hybrids and the development of cancer. Working with George Wells Beadle on the causes of different eye colors in fruit flies, Ephrussi's research helped establish the one-gene-one-enzyme hypothesis. Ephrussi helped create new embryological techniques and contributed the theories of genetics and development.
James William Kitching collected and studied fossils of dinosaurs and early humans in the twentieth century. He worked at the Bernard Price Institute for Paleontological Research in South Africa. During the fifty-three years he worked at the institute, Kitching spent eighteen of those in the field uncovering fossils. Kitching recovered fossils of early human ancestors, later called Australopithecines, as well as fossils of dinosaurs and ancient mammals. When he died in 2003, the Bernard Price Institute housed one of the largest fossil collections in the southern hemisphere.
Roy Chapman Andrews (1884-1960)
Roy Chapman Andrews traveled the world studying fossils, from mammals to dinosaurs, during the first half of the twentieth century. Andrews worked and collected fossil specimens for the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York City, New York. Throughout his career, Andrews collected bones of many animal species, including a previously unknown species of a horned, herbivorous dinosaur, later named Proceratops andrewsi in his honor. Andrews published widely read narratives about his travels and field experiences, such as On the Trail of Ancient Man and Across Mongolian Plains.
John Langdon Down (1828–1896)
John Langdon Down studied medicine in England in the nineteenth century and was one of the first people to develop a complete description of the disorder that would later be known as Trisomy 21, or Down Syndrome. Down Syndrome is a condition caused by the presence of an extra chromosome, which may cause a person to be born with certain impaired learning abilities and physical features such as a short neck, flattened face, and almond-shaped eyes.
Diana W. Bianchi
Diana W. Bianchi studied the medical treatment of premature and newborn infants in the US during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Bianchi helped develop non-invasive prenatal genetic tests that use cell-free fetal DNA found within maternal blood to diagnose genetic abnormalities of the fetus during pregnancy. The test provides a means to test fetuses for chromosomal and genetic abnormalities.
Rosalind Elsie Franklin (1920-1958)
Rosalind Elsie Franklin worked with X-ray crystallography at King's College London, UK, and she helped determine the helical structure of DNA in the early 1950s. Franklin's research helped establish molecular genetics, a field that investigates how heredity works on the molecular level. The discovery of the structure of DNA also made future research possible into the molecular basis of embryonic development, genetic disorders, and gene manipulation.
David Starr Jordan (1851-1931)
David Starr Jordan studied fish and promoted eugenics in the US during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In his work, he embraced Charles Darwin s theory of evolution and described the importance of embryology in tracing phylogenic relationships. In 1891, he became the president of Stanford University in Stanford, California. Jordan condemned war and promoted conservationist causes for the California wilderness, and he advocated for the eugenic sterilization of thousands of Americans.
Gail Roberta Martin (1944– )
In the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, Gail Roberta Martin specialized in biochemistry and embryology, more specifically cellular communication and the development of organs. In 1981, she named any cell taken from inside a human embryo at the blastocyst stage an "embryonic stem cell". During development, an embryo goes through the blastocyst stage just before it implants in the uterus. Embryonic stem cells are useful for experiments because they are self-renewing and able to develop into almost any cell type in the body.
Thomas Raphael Verny (1936– )
During the twentieth century, Thomas Raphael Verny studied the way that environment affects a developing fetus's character and psychological development. Verny studied the concept of memory before birth and covered both the prenatal and perinatal periods, meaning the time the fetus is in the womb and the weeks immediately before or after birth, respectively. During those times, Verny claimed that patterns of maternal attitudes and experiences, such as affection and stress-related emotions, impact the development of the child.
Julia Barlow Platt (1857-1935)
Julia Barlow Platt studied neural crests in animal embryos and became involved in politics in the US during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. She researched how body and head segments formed in chicks (Gallus gallus) and spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias). Platt observed that in the mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus), the coordinated migration of neural crest cells in the embryo produced parts of the nervous system, bones, and connective tissues in the head.
William Withey Gull (1816-1890)
William Withey Gull studied paraplegia, anorexia, and hormones as a physician in England during the nineteenth century. In addition to caring for patients, he described the role of the posterior column of the spinal cord in paraplegia, and he was among the first to describe the conditions of anorexia and of hypochondria. He also researched the effects of thyroid hormone deficiencies in women who had malfunctioning thyroid glands.


text:
PATAGONIA DUMPS JACKSON HOLE SKI RESORT AFTER FAR-RIGHT FUNDRAISER ~ WyoFile
Patagonia clothing is displayed at the Jackson Hole Resort Store on the Jackson Town Square on Aug. 16, 2021, along with swag from the resort and valley. Patagonia will no longer sell to the Jackson Hole Mountain Resort after a resort owner co-hosted a conservative political fundraiser. (Angus M. Thuermer, Jr./WyoFile)
Patagonia, the iconic sportswear company that's built a worldwide reputation on outdoor athleticism and environmental activism, will no longer supply Jackson Hole Mountain Resort with its products after a resort owner hosted a fundraiser for the right-wing House Freedom Caucus.
Patagonia confirmed Tuesday that it would no longer sell to the resort, its largest single customer in the Jackson Hole area. The resort company operates retail stores in Teton Village at the base of the ski area, as well as Hoback Sports and the Jackson Hole Resort Store in nearby Jackson.
https://narrations.ad-auris.com/widget/wyofile/patagonia-dumps-jackson-hole-ski-resort-after-far-right-fundraiser
The move came after Jay Kemmerer, one of the resort's owners, co-hosted a fundraiser Aug. 5, 2021, at a posh Jackson hotel for the House Freedom Caucus. U.S. Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), former Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) headlined the event. Admission to the event cost a minimum of $2,000 per couple.
The three have parroted the former president's false claims of election fraud and been panned by conservation groups for their environmental records. Patagonia and the caucus also diverge on social priorities like voting rights and advocacy for minorities and disadvantaged groups, according to widely reported public positions.
Protesters hold signs near a House Freedom Caucus fundraiser hosted in part by Jackson Hole Mountain Resort owner Jay Kemmerer. The fundraiser featured former Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) and U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). (Angus M. Thuermer, Jr./WyoFile)
Patagonia's decision centered on "our really strong commitment to using both our business and our brand to advocate for our strong priorities," said Corley Kenna, head of communications and policy at Patagonia. "When there's a misalignment on that, then we take action.
The resort president said Jackson Hole is committed to environmental action.
"JHMR retail will continue to offer world-class brands across our retail locations with the aim to provide the best service and product assortment for our guests," president Mary Kate Buckley said in a statement. "We have been a leader in the ski industry in adopting initiatives to reduce our energy consumption, recycle the consumables used by our employees and guests, and treat the spectacular natural habitat which surrounds us with vision and care.
"We are proud to be the largest mountain resort operating on 100% wind today," the statement reads. "We will remain focused on operating a world-class mountain resort and protecting the health and safety of our guests and employees."
Kemmerer's fundraiser drew a gaggle of protesters, some of whom suggested that skiers and others should no longer support the world-class ski area by buying ski passes or otherwise engaging in business with it, according to reporting by the Jackson Hole News&Guide. One protester, Jorge Colon, said he was willing to cancel the season ski pass he bought to access the expansive ski area, which is internationally known for long runs and radical terrain.
"It's just a shame that it's gotten to this point," Colon, an active septuagenarian who has worked various jobs at the ski area over the decades, told WyoFile. "I know they supply a lot of people with work, but to be backing up that group…is pretty embarrassing."
Profits vs. priorities
Resort management has struggled to separate itself and its operations from Kemmerer's political views. Members of the corporation's board published an opinion piece in the local paper touting the company's own environmental priorities and its commitment to the community and guests and the welcoming of a diversity of views.
Patagonia's Kenna acknowledged a "long and strong relationship" with the "workers and the management team at Jackson Hole Mountain Resort, if not Kemmerer himself.
Protester Jorge Colon said he is willing to cancel his season ski pass at Jackson Hole Mountain Resort after an owner, Jay Kemmerer, hosted a fundraiser for the House Freedom Caucus. (Angus M. Thuermer, Jr./WyoFile)
"It's very fair to say that Jackson Hole is a really important community for us," she said. "We have several [sports] ambassadors that live there. Plenty of my colleagues enjoy going there and appreciate all that the area has to offer," including the natural environment.
Kenna would not disclose how much business Patagonia does with the ski and resort company.
"It is our largest customer in an area — that's really critical," she said. "That tells you something about the importance of this relationship. We don't take ending it lightly."
An open invitation promoting an Aug. 5, 2020, fundraiser for the House Freedom Caucus.
The House Freedom Caucus formed in 2015, and both Jordan and Meadows led it at one time. The caucus and the three fundraising conservatives hold views that are at loggerheads with Patagonia's ethics.
Jordan and former U.S. Rep. Meadows received 3% and 2% scores respectively for their votes on conservation issues from the League of Conservation Voters. The House stripped Greene of her committee assignments in February for "spreading dangerous and bigoted misinformation," according to a characterization by The New York Times.
"It's a shame that those people are doing what they're doing," Colon said of Kemmerer, "especially when we know as much as we know today. You can't get away with that shit in Teton County," he said of the fundraiser.
Patagonia has undertaken other boycotts, but is willing to reconsider its withdrawal from the mountain resort, Kenna said. If owners recommit to priorities "especially protecting the planet," Patagonia would "consider sitting down and talking through that," she said.
"This is very much about staying true to our strong feeling and our responsibility as a benefit corporationto stand up for and advance our priorities, our policies to protect our planet and our communities," Kenna said.
Patagonia pulls products from Jackson Hole Mountain Resort following co-owner's right-wing fundraiser ~ Jackson Hole news
The outdoor clothing and gear company Patagonia has decided to quit supplying Jackson Hole Mountain Resort with its products, fallout from resort co-owner Jay Kemmerer's support of the House Freedom Fund. The resort, which is Patagonia's largest single customer in Jackson Hole, has retail stores in Teton Village and the town of Jackson.BRADLY J. BONER/Jackson Hole Daily
Patagonia, the iconic sportswear company that has built a worldwide reputation on outdoor athleticism and environmental activism, will no longer supply Jackson Hole Mountain Resort with its products after a resort owner hosted a fundraiser for the right-wing House Freedom Fund.
Patagonia confirmed Tuesday that it would no longer sell to the resort, its largest single customer in the Jackson Hole area. The resort company operates retail stores in Teton Village at the base of the ski area, as well as Hoback Sports and the Jackson Hole Resort Store in Jackson.
The move came after Jay Kemmerer, one of the resort's owners, co-hosted a fundraiser Aug. 5 at a posh Jackson hotel for the House Freedom Fund. U.S. Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga.; former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows; and U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, headlined the event. Admission cost a minimum of $2,000 per couple.
The three have parroted former President Donald Trump's false claims of election fraud and been panned by conservation groups for their environmental records.
Patagonia and the fund also diverge on social priorities such as voting rights and advocacy for minorities and disadvantaged groups, according to widely reported public positions.
"We are proud to be the largest mountain resort operating on 100% wind today," the statement continues. "We will remain focused on operating a world-class mountain resort and protecting the health and safety of our guests and employees."
The Kemmerer fundraiser drew a gaggle of protesters, some of whom suggested that skiers and others should no longer support the world-class ski area by buying ski passes or otherwise engaging in business with it, according to reporting by the Jackson Hole Daily and Jackson Hole News&Guide. One protester, Jorge Colon, said he was willing to cancel the season ski pass he bought to access the expansive ski area, which is internationally known for long runs and radical terrain.
"It's just a shame that it's gotten to this point," Colon, an active septuagenarian who has worked various jobs at the ski area over the decades, told WyoFile. "I know they supply a lot of people with work, but to be backing up that group … is pretty embarrassing."
Resort management has struggled to separate itself and its operations from Kemmerer's political views. Members of the corporation's board published an opinion piece in Wednesday's News&Guide touting the company's own environmental priorities and its commitment to the community and guests, and to welcoming a diversity of views.
"It's a shame that those people are doing what they're doing," Colon said of Kemmerer, "especially when we know as much as we know today. You can't get away with that s–t in Teton County," he said of the fundraiser.
Patagonia has undertaken other boycotts, but is willing to reconsider its withdrawal from the mountain resort, Kenna said. If owners recommit to priorities, "especially protecting the planet," Patagonia would "consider sitting down and talking through that."
"This is very much about staying true to our strong feeling and our responsibility as a benefit corporation to stand up for and advance our priorities, our policies to protect our planet and our communities," Kenna said.
Previous postCOURT BLOCKS A VAST ALASKAN DRILLING PROJECT, CITING CLIMATE DANGERS ~ NYT
Next postfrom Mike Friedman this morning
One thought on "PATAGONIA DUMPS JACKSON HOLE SKI RESORT AFTER FAR-RIGHT FUNDRAISER ~ WyoFile"


text:
Q: limitations of xml unit I'm trying to compare 2 XML files, which are similar (for testing I just changed the element order with a randomize-tool ) with XMLUnit.
Are there any limitations of the max number of elements or the max complexity of elements and child elements?
As long as my XML file is not too long and the elements are pretty straightforward everything works fine.
But as soon as there are too complex elements (up to five subelements) similar returns false and I get diffs which don't exist.
My first impression is, that the same result happens if I get too much simple elements. But that's nor for sure right now.
Does anybody know something about default limitations of XML Unit and is there a possibility to adjust them for my experiences?
Perhaps I should mention, that I have to ignore certain Element within the complex elements. I'm not sure if that matters. It doesn't in the less complex elements.
package newXMLComperator;

import java.io.BufferedReader;
import java.io.BufferedWriter;
import java.io.File;
import java.io.FileNotFoundException;
import java.io.FileReader;
import java.io.FileWriter;
import java.io.IOException;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import org.custommonkey.xmlunit.DetailedDiff;
import org.custommonkey.xmlunit.Diff;
import org.custommonkey.xmlunit.Difference;
import org.custommonkey.xmlunit.XMLUnit;
import    org.custommonkey.xmlunit.examples.RecursiveElementNameAndTextQualifier;

public class Arbeiter {

private File quelle, vergleich;

public Arbeiter(File quelle, File vergleich) {
    this.quelle=quelle;
    this.vergleich=vergleich;
}

public void vergleichen()
{
    long tbevore = System.currentTimeMillis();
    XMLUnit.setIgnoreAttributeOrder(Boolean.TRUE);
    XMLUnit.setIgnoreWhitespace(Boolean.TRUE);
    String f1 = lesen(quelle);
    String f2 = lesen(vergleich);

    try {
        Diff diff = new Diff(f1, f2);
        diff.overrideElementQualifier(new RecursiveElementNameAndTextQualifier());
        diff.overrideDifferenceListener(new IgnoreNamedElementsDifferenceListener(findSVSW_ID(quelle)));
        DetailedDiff dd = new DetailedDiff(diff);
        boolean result = dd.similar();

        StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
        if (result ==true)
        {
            sb.append("Die Dateien sind inhaltsgleich");
        }
        else
        {
            sb.append("Die Dateien unterscheiden sich \n \n");
            List<Difference>list = dd.getAllDifferences();
            for (Difference aktuell : list)
            {
                if (!aktuell.isRecoverable())
                {
                    sb.append("Der Ausdruck "+aktuell.getControlNodeDetail().getValue()+" wurde gesucht \n");
                    sb.append("Der Ausdruck "+aktuell.getTestNodeDetail().getValue()+" wurde gefunden \n");
                    sb.append("Xpath: "+aktuell.getTestNodeDetail().getXpathLocation()+"\n \n");

                }
            }
        }
        long tafter = System.currentTimeMillis();
        String dauer = Long.toString((tafter-tbevore)/1000);
        sb.append("Die Bearbeitung dauerte " +dauer+" Sekunden \n");
        speichern(sb.toString());

    }
    catch (Exception e)
    {
        e.printStackTrace();
    }

}

private String lesen(File datei)
{
    String result ="";
    try {
        BufferedReader leser = new BufferedReader(new FileReader(datei));
        StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
        String gelesen = leser.readLine();
        while (gelesen!=null)
        {
            sb.append(gelesen);
            gelesen=leser.readLine();
        }
        result=sb.toString();
        leser.close();
    } catch (FileNotFoundException e) {
        // TODO Auto-generated catch block
        e.printStackTrace();
    } catch (IOException e) {
        // TODO Auto-generated catch block
        e.printStackTrace();
    }

    return result;
}

private List<String> findSVSW_ID(File datei)
{
    List<String>liste = new ArrayList<String>();
    liste.add("AUFTRAGSCHLUESSEL");
    liste.add("LIEFERUNGSCHLUESSEL");
    try {
        BufferedReader leser = new BufferedReader(new FileReader(datei));
        String gelesen = leser.readLine();
        while (gelesen!=null)
        {
            if (gelesen.contains("SVSW_ID"))
            {
                String [] teile = gelesen.split(">");
                String temp = teile[0].replaceAll("<", "");
                if (!liste.contains(temp))
                {
                    String t2=temp.replaceAll(" ", "");
                    liste.add(t2);
                }

            }
            gelesen=leser.readLine();
        }

    } catch (FileNotFoundException e) {
        // TODO Auto-generated catch block
        e.printStackTrace();
    } catch (IOException e) {
        // TODO Auto-generated catch block
        e.printStackTrace();
    }

    return liste;
}

private void speichern(String text)
{
    File datei = new File(quelle.getParent()+"/ausgabe.txt");
    try {
        BufferedWriter schreiber = new BufferedWriter(new FileWriter(datei));
        schreiber.write(text);
        schreiber.flush();
        schreiber.close();
    } catch (IOException e) {
        // TODO Auto-generated catch block
        e.printStackTrace();
    }
}

}
Thanks for help

A: The only real limitation is memory. XMLUnit uses DOM under the covers and big document can require a lot of memory. But if you run out of memory the result is an exception, not spurious differences.
Also depending on your ElementQualifier comparison could become pretty slow as potentially all child-elements of a test node get compared to all child-elements of a control node. This is much more sensitive to the number of children of a single node - maybe the width of the tree - than the number of levels - the height of the tree.
It is hard to say what kind of "not existing" differences you see. Usually what happens is that XMLUnit isn't comparing the elements that you think it should because the ElementQualifier is wrong.
Please note you are using XMLUnit 1.x while the current version is 2.2.1 - 2.x has a rather different API but shares the above size/speed limitations with 1.x.

A: Thanks for the quick support. I will give it a further try.
After reading 3.4.4. of
http://xmlunit.sourceforge.net/userguide/html/ar01s03.html I think, that the RecursiveElementNameAndTextQuaifier is the correct one, because the order of my child nodes differs between test and control node.
Is my understanding correct, that only the RecursiveElementNameAndTextQuaifier can accomplish my requirements without subjection to the number of levels in my child nodes?
The memory usage seems to be ok. While applying the .similar() method the java VM uses round about 3 GB. That shouldn't be a problem at all.
Thanks again

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Ascena swings to surprise Q1 profit
Robin Driver
today Dec 11, 2019
Mahwah, New Jersey-based Ascena Retail Group, Inc. reported net income of $32 million, or $0.16 per diluted share, for the first quarter ended November 2, 2019 on Monday, as its cost reduction initiatives made up for declining sales.
Ascena's brand portfolio includes the likes of Dressbarn,, Ann Taylor and Lane Bryant - Instagram: @dressbarn
The specialized womenswear retail group's bottom line was a significant improvement from the net loss of $24 million, or $0.12 per diluted share, reported by the company in the prior-year period.
This progress was achieved despite a decrease of 3.1% in Ascena's net sales in the first quarter, when they totaled $1.30 billion, down from $1.34 billion in the same period in the previous year.
Comparable sales slipped 2% in the company's premium fashion segment, which includes the Ann Taylor and Loft brands, and 6% in the kids fashion segment, home to the Justice banner.
In the plus size segment, comps rose 1%, as a 5% decrease at Catherines was offset by a 2% increase at Lane Bryant.
Dressbarn, the only brand remaining in Ascena's value segment since the company's sale of the Maurices label earlier his year, saw a 10% rise.
Disregarding this rise at Dressbarn, whose wind-down Ascena expects to complete in December, company-wide comparable sales fell 2%.
Nonetheless, the company managed to reduce its selling, general, and administrative expenses by 9% to $397 million, or 30.6% of sales, during the quarter, compared to $436 million, or 32.6% of sales, in the year-ago period.
"While we are encouraged by the progress we are making, we know there is more work to be done," said Ascena CEO Gary Muto in a release. "We are moving our brands in the right direction by capitalizing on their distinct market leadership positions while maintaining our focus on optimizing our capital structure. The steps we are taking now set us up to provide consistent profitable performance and enhance shareholder value over the longer term."
Following the announcement of the company's better than expected results, shares in Ascena shot up 35% in premarket trading on Tuesday.
Ascena swings to quarterly loss as sales stumble
Ascena promotes Dan Lamadrid to executive VP, chief financial officer
Scotch & Soda launches menswear rental service
Ascena sales stall as value segment winds down
Ascena to shut down Dressbarn
Loft launches size-inclusive rental service
Ascena announces CEO transition
Narrowing margins hamper progress at Ascena
Texworld USA to focus on sustainability at upcoming winter 2019 show
Lingerie Française to host French Lingerie Loft in New York
Loft Aruba La Bella Mafia
Spring-Summer 2017 Oranjestad
Highstreet Loft
Fall-Winter 2015 Shanghai


text:
Tag Archives: generation theory
"That party could find itself out of power for a generation."
What this election means will become more clear over time. The demographic data during the campaigns was interesting, indicating a voting public that was in flux with shifting patterns. It will be interesting to look at the data about who did (and did not) vote and how they voted.
The long term consequences might mean parties that no longer resemble anything from the past. The two parties might essentially switch places. Democrats could become the new big biz party, if the Clinton cronies maintain power. Meanwhile, Republicans might become the new working class party with strong union member support and an economic populist agenda.
Another possibility is that we might see the eventual death of one of the main parties. At the moment, Republicans could be in the more dangerous position. They have the numbers and power in Washington DC to do almost anything they want. They better pick their battles wisely and ensure they gain victories worth winning. They have one shot to show themselves to be a party of reform. If they fail, they could be facing a dire situation far beyond merely losing the mid-term elections.
In a book published in 1997, William Strauss and Neil Howe made a prediction. I read that book not long after that and so the prediction has been on my mind for a while. They wrote that whichever party was in power when the crisis hit "could find itself out of power for a generation." They saw the beginning of the Fourth Turning as happening sometime early in this century and then in the years following would come the crisis, but this involves predictions of large historical cycles that could be off by a decade or so. Here is the full quote (The Fourth Turning, p. 312):
"Come the Fourth Turning, America will need both personal sacrifice and public authority. The saeculum will favor whichever party moves more quickly and persuasively toward a paradigm that accommodates both. Both parties should lend seasonality to their thinking: Democrats a concept of civic duty that limits the harvest, Republicans a concept of civic authority that limits the scattering. If they do not, the opportunity will arise for a third party to fill the void – after which one or both of today's two dominant parties could go the way of the Whigs.
"History warns that when a Crisis catalyzes, a previously dominant political party (or regime) can find itself directly blamed for perceived "mistakes" that led to the national emergency. Whoever holds power when the Fourth Turning arrives could join the unlucky roster of the circa 1470 Lancastrians, circa 1570 Catholics, circa 1680 Stuarts, circa 1770 Tories, circa 1860 Democrats, and circa 1929 Republicans. That party could find itself out of power for a generation. Key persons associated with it could find themselves defamed, stigmatized, harassed, economically ruined, personally punished—or worse."
Barack Obama's presidency didn't seem to fit this prediction, despite some fearing it would. He has retained his favorable ratings and nothing horrible went wrong during his administration. It's just that he turned out to be an ordinary professional politician, but still he succeeded in creating healthcare (insurance) 'reform' and under his watch the US military took out Osama bin Laden who was America's most hated enemy. Even the earlier Bush presidency is still remembered without too much negativity, as it was a time of growing patriotic fervor, even with it having ended on the sour note of the Great Recession.
Donald Trump, however, is an entirely different kind of creature. He will either take Republicans in a new direction or he will take them over a cliff. Upwards and onwards or down and out. It's hard to see a third option of maintaining stasis. The problems that might come barreling down on the Trump administration could be more than can be handled, even if the Republicans had a worthy vision to offer and workable plans to implement.
Democrats are lucky for power having slipped from their grasp. Now that Clinton lost the election, her sins will slowly but surely disappear from public awareness. She might as well be a non-entity at this point. Anything that happens in the immediate future won't be blamed on Democrats. They have been sent to wander in the political desert. Upon their return, they can act as prophets from the wilderness, pretending they were never a part of what caused all the problems in the first place.
Voters have short memories. It doesn't matter who is to blame. What wins elections is who gets blamed. I almost feel sorry for Republicans in their victory. They have some tough years ahead of them. It could very well turn out to be a no-win situation, no matter what they try to do.
Even some on the political right have had these exact same concerns, based on the same prediction of Strauss and Howe. Back in March over at Red State, Ausonius wrote about "this ominous warning for Republicans, who think Trump is the answer for 2016". The author continues:
"Since 1992, we have endured three Baby-Boomer presidents, a mediocrity, a passable one, and one complete disaster. We currently have two more Baby-Boomer candidates near 70 years of age, whose characters are less than savory, and whose ideas are stale, ridiculous, or formulas for destruction. It is quite possible that a Trump or H.R. Clinton presidency will not address the crisis, but will instead contribute to it by a combination of egotism, incompetence, and ideological blindness. […]
"Republicans could become 21st-century versions of their 1929 ancestors, if they select candidates – and not only for the presidency – incapable of dealing with the chaos around us. Our politicians, and certainly the president, must have a character derived from virtues: the charming, smooth-talking, tell-'em-what-they-wanna-hear techniques of the sociopathic salesman are dominant because a large minority (I hope it is not a majority) of the electorate is thinking on the 12-year old level used by television, the only level it can use."
The Most Significant U.S. Political Development In Over 30 Years
by Neil Howe, Hedgeye
Neil Howe Warns The 'Professional Class' Is Still In Denial Of The Fourth Turning
by Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge
Has The Fourth Turning Brought Us Trump?
by Scott Beeken, Bee Line
From Generational Theory Forum:
Presidential election, 2016
Neil Howe: It's going to get worse; more financial crises coming
Neil Howe: 'Civil War Is More Likely Than People Think'
It Ain't Over, Folks
Grey Champions and the Election of 2016
Has the regeneracy arrived?
A Realignment Theory
Will a nationalist/cosmopolitan divide be the political axis of the coming saeculum?
Political Polarity To Reverse On Gun Control, States' Rights?
November 12, 2016 Benjamin David Steele	Donald Trump, Fourth Turning, generation, generation theory, generations, GOP, Neil Howe, Republican party, republicans, William Strauss	3 Comments
Generation of Clowns in the Fourth Turning
Here are a few videos that I thought worth posting… along with some of my own commentary.
We need to have more public debate about generations. Demographics are destiny. We have lived through a time ruled by Boomers and part of the shift we're experiencing is that of the younger generations gaining power.
By the way, not all or even most Boomers were hippies. The fundamentalist backlash and the culture wars were also products of Boomers. Bush is the perfect example of a Boomer.
I've heard that some Washington politicians were aware of the Fourth Turning theory back in the 90s when the book first came out. What if some of these politicians decided to use the theory for the purposes of social engineering. The author said that Obama hasn't been very successful in using the crises to create change, but maybe that isn't the agenda in Washington. There are definitely those who'd like to avoid change and re-establish the status quo.
I'd point out one factor not considered. The clowns (Glenn Beck, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert) are all GenXers. If you're familiar with the generation theory expoused by Strauss and Howe, you wouldn't be surprised that GenXers play the role of clowns. GenXers serve two purposes: 1) to push the system over the edge into the Fourth Turning; and 2) to act as leaders to the young generations as we shift into a new era. Whether or not they play their role well is a whole other issue.
Their viewers don't get their news from Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert. Their viewers are mostly young and mostly liberal, both demographics getting more news from alternative sources than any other demographics. On the other hand, older conservatives are more likely to trust mainstream media which is why they are so uninformed compared to young liberals. The difference might be that viewers of satire realize the entire mainstream media is comedy.
January 20, 2011 Benjamin David Steele	clowns, Fourth Turning, generation theory, Generation X, generations, GenXers, Glenn Beck, Jon Stewart, Neil Howe, Stephen Colbert, William Strauss	4 Comments
Failure of Conservative Morality in Politics
I've been reading about American society from a few different directions. I have just read some books about political history (such as the writings of Richard Hofstadter), but most recently I've focused on the the generational theory of Strauss and Howe (I've perused several of their books) and the moral frames model written about by George Lakoff in his book Moral Politics.
Last night at work, I was reading Lakoff's book and found it quite fascinating. His main premise is that conservatives use the Strict Father family model to frame their political views and liberals use the Nurturant Parent family model to frame their political views. It makes a lot of sense to me, but that isn't what got me thinking.
Lakoff was using Reagan and Bush sr as an example of how conservative morality plays out in politics. Conservatives use the rhetoric of small government, but obviously there are many exceptions to this rule and many moral principles they hold higher than the ideal of small government. Basically, when a conservative speaks of big government they're referring to social programs that benefit the people who conservatives don't believe are deserving. It's not about saving taxpayers' money but about doing the right thing. Those who do right should be rewarded and those who do wrong should be punished.
So, in terms of Reagan and Bush sr, who was rewarded and who was punished? By giving tax cuts to the rich and increasing the size of the military, what was the moral purpose that conservatives were trying to achieve? Increasing the military seems more obvious on the surface. The evil, Godless commies needed to be punished and it was the righteous duty of God-fearing Americans to punish them. So, what did the rich do to deserve tax cuts? Well, the basic idea is that we live in a meritocracy and so the rich have earned their wealth through hard work and ingenuity. It's wrong to take away from the rich what they've earned fair and square. The corollary of this is that the poor deserve to be poor and so it's perfectly fine that the tax cuts don't benefit the poor (including the working class poor). As the Bible says (Matthew 25:29), "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath."
Still, Lakoff takes this one step further and it's the best explanation that I've ever come across. He argues that Reagan and Bush sr (along with their advisors) weren't stupid. They fully realized they were increasing the size of government and creating a massive deficit as had never been seen in all of US history. This wasn't an accident. It was quite intentional. If social programs benefit the undeserving, this becomes a moral problem that must be solved no matter what the cost. If the country becomes immoral at the core, then all is lost and nothing else matters. By creating an enormous deficit, this forced Congress to tighten its belt and cut funding to all social programs. And that is exactly what happened. It's so clever it's evil.
This brings me to something else I read in of the books written by Strauss and Howe (I don't remember which one). They pointed out that the GI generation was the most politically powerful generation in all of US history. The GI generation had more than three decades of GI presidents and two of those were Reagan and Bush sr.
The GI generation came to see itself as the Greatest Generation. They fought hard and worked hard. For most of their life, they saw American wealth and power ever increasing. They believed two things about this situation. First, they took personal credit for all of it and so they thought they were deserving of being rewarded for that they had done. Second, they assumed that this trajectory of increase would continue for a very long time. They were wrong on both accounts. There were complex reasons for America's rise to wealth and power, but the main reason was that Europe was decimated by WWII. Without much competition, America's exports dominated the global economy. This situation wouldn't last for very long since the European countries were able to rebuild.
When Reagan and Bush sr were presidents, the GI generation was at the height of its power. They were golden and they were mostly free to use their power as they so desired. Since they thought they had earned it, they redicrected America's wealth towards their own generation. The tax cuts to the rich were disproportionately directed to the GI generation since their generation was (and is) the wealthiest generation in US history. They also redirected money to their generation by funding expensive social programs for the elderly. So, where did this money come from? As I pointed out, social programs for the undeserving (i.e., the poor) were cut. A related example was Reagan's kicking the mentally ill out of the psychiatric hospitals (and created a large population of mentally disturbed homeless people who then needed to be rounded up and put in prison).
Even more interesting is the fact that social programs directed at youth (from welfare to school funding) were all cut. This had two impacts. First, starting with young Boomers and ending with Generation X, the quality of public education decreased and SAT scores decreased. Second, Generation X became the most poverty prone generation in a century. While the GI generation remained wealthy, GenXers grew up to discover that their employment opportunities were as bad as was experienced by the whole country during the Bust Years of the Great Depression.
What must be understood is that GIs such as Reagan and Bush sr did all of this out of their sense of morality. They were simply doing what they thought was right. They were rewarding those who they thought deserved it and they were punishing those they thought deserved it. In doing so, the made America into a deficit-driven militarized empire which they saw as forcing America into its role of being the greatest nation in the world. The heavy costs of this were worth it in their minds.
The problem is that they couldn't see the long term consequences. I don't think they realized that creating such a deficit would increase out of control and end up crippling our entire country. They didn't foresee how deregulation of markets would eventually lessen the power of the American economy. They saw the world through the lense of their own generation and didn't realize how differently it would look to later generations.
They thought that benefitting the rich was the right thing to do since they believed the rich deserved the wealth they earned. It's easy to argue against this in pointing out that it takes everyone in a society and not just those at the top to make an economy successful, but there is an even more important factor they didn't understand. Many GIs became wealthy during a time when there were high taxes on the rich. How is that possible? How did the GIs become so wealthy despite being heavily taxed? This cuts to the heart of the misunderstanding that motivated Reagan and Bush sr.
There are many arguments about who deserves what, but there is a more essential issue about who can use wealth to the greatest benefit of society as a whole. To conservatives, those who become rich deserve their wealth because they theoretically will put their extra wealth towards wise investment in the economy. Sadly, it doesn't work out this way. Innovation happens from the bottom up. Reagan and Bush sr implemented policies that increased the wealth gap which concentrated the wealth at the top. I forget the source, but I was watching an interview recently where the person was referring to data about wealth. That person pointed out that wealthy people don't invest their wealth wisely. Beyond a certain level of wealth, extra money loses any practical worth. What the super rich tend to do with their extra money is gamble it in risky investments because it doesn't really matter to them if they lose it. What they generally don't do with it is invest it in further innovation. That is what happened recently with our economy. There were too many people making risky gambles and not enough people investing in industries that produce concrete products. Our economy has become dependent on the banking business and America has lost its innovative edge.
The conservative moral vision of Reagan and Bush sr has backfired.
Lakoff puts all of this into a larger context of the metaphorical frames used by conservatives and liberals. Reagan and Bush sr as GIs were seeing the world according to the experience of their generational cohort. And as conservatives they were seeing the world according to the Strict Father moral frame. It was because of their being GI conservatives that they implemented those particular policies. Like most of us, they couldn't see outside of their reality tunnel. But the consequences of their narrow vision have been immense. Bush jr, although of the Boomer generation, was simply the ultimate endpoint of this particular worldview. Under Bush jr (aka The Decider), the military was strengthened and regulation was paralyzed (with eventual consequences as we now see with the BP oil spill), the deserving were rewarded and the undeserving were punished. Bush jr certainly was trying to return America to the conservative moral vision of a righteous country, but it's become obvious that this vision has failed. The costs are just too high: undermined Constitutional rights, massive deficit, crippled economy, struggling small businesses, ever increasing wealth gap, shrinking middle class, environmental disasters, etc.
An opening has developed in the status quo of recent decades. People are hungering for a new vision. Many hoped that Obama could bring that new vision, but many have been or become doubtful. Lakoff sees the liberal vision as being in a difficult position. For various reasons, conservatives have been very successful in framing most of the political discourse in recent history. Liberals have an opportunity right now. It's just not clear if liberals are presently capable of organizing their own moral vision and communicating it well. Even though conservatives have indisputably failed in their attempt, it isn't yet determined if liberals will likewise fail during this time of change. What is for certain is that many cultural narratives are being formulated right now. The narrative that gains the most traction will most likely be dominant in politics for the next several decades… or so that is the prediction of Strauss and Howe. I guess we'll find out.
May 31, 2010 Benjamin David Steele	conservative, generation, generation theory, George Lakoff, GI generation, GIs, metaphor, Moral Politics, morality, Neil Howe, politics, Republican, Strict Father, William Strauss	Leave a comment


text:
Fallout: New Vegas DLC Announcement And Patch Coming Soon
Written by Brother None on	April 12th, 2011
With rumors swirling about recently, New Vegas senior producer Jason Bergman provides an update noting that indeed the next DLC will be announced soon. Prior to its release, we will have a new patch.
On behalf of all of the hard-working teams at Bethesda and Obsidian, I'd like to give you an update what we've been working on these past few months.
Well, here's what happened: our next DLC release (announcement coming very soon, we promise) has been complete while we worked on getting a patch ready for you all. We didn't want to just release more DLC before we had a patch that would improve the overall New Vegas experience.
The good news, is that we do have such a patch and it's been handed off to the necessary platform owners. It should be released in the next couple of weeks on 360, PS3 and PC (can't be more specific than that, I'm afraid, although PC will almost certainly get it first).
So what's in that patch? First and foremost, optimizations and stability improvements. While there are bug fixes, our core focus was on improving stability and performance. We worked directly with first party platform owners to identify issues, and we have fixed a great deal of the crashes and lockups that people were experiencing. In addition, we scoured the forums and this patch includes weapon balance tweaks and other requested fixes.
We know we're not done yet. There's still more work to do, and we'll be monitoring the forums very carefully following the release of this patch, looking for more issues. We do have another update planned further down the line.
So I'd like to apologize for the radio silence. Hopefully you'll be pleased with the enormous amount of work we've put into this update over the last few months, and will enjoy the rest of our DLC releases. We have some pretty cool stuff coming soon. Stay tuned!
Jason Bergman
Senior Producer, FNV
Related Games: Fallout: New Vegas, Fallout: New Vegas - Honest Hearts