text:
jump down
Jeremy's Notes
The Reverie of a Techie
What is this thing?
You've stumbled across a blog that chronicles the interests of its author. You'll find technology how-tos, demonstrations, recommendations, and reviews. Stand by!
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and other social networks.
JeremysNotes.com is for informational and entertainment purposes only. The content authors are not financial professionals. Seek out a professional for financial advice.
JeremysNotes.com sometimes publishes affiliate endorsements and advertisements, which means that if you click on a link and buy something, the authors might receive a percentage of the sale, at no extra cost to you. Our promise is that our content only reflects and promotes products that we believe in.
Read our privacy policy and how we use cookies
terms.txt · Last modified: 2021/01/09 15:47 (external edit)
About this Blog - Contact - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - CC License


text:
1124 Hellertown Road, Bethlehem, PA 18015
View All Lifted Trucks
Section 179 Tax Benefit
Show Services
Show 2021 Models
2021 Chevy Silverado 1500
2021 Chevy Spark
2021 Chevy Suburban
2021 Chevy Tahoe
2021 Chevy Trax
Three Step Referral Program
Why You Finish First At Raceway Chevrolet of Bethlehem
Show Careers
Raceway Chevy's Tires for Life
Raceway Chevy's Lifetime Powertrain Warranty
2021 Models
Raceway Chevrolet of Bethlehem
You Are Here: Home » Pennsylvania Chevy Dealers
Pennsylvania Chevy Dealers
When you peruse the list of Pennsylvania Chevy dealers, you may be wondering who to turn to for your next vehicle. Although you have options when it comes to where you buy your next car, few dealerships can provide you with an experience quite like Raceway Chevrolet. If you're looking for unparalleled service, an extraordinary inventory, and professionals who have your best interests in mind, Raceway Chevrolet is your go-to destination to find your next car, truck, SUV, minivan, and more.
No matter if you're searching for a brand new tough Chevy truck or a used sedan to help you get around town easily, no other dealership offers the type of service that we do, and we just can't wait to show it to you. We specialize in the Chevrolet brand because we appreciate the level of pride, prestige, and dedication the Chevrolet name emanates. If you're looking for the most affordable, reliable, trustworthy, and innovative vehicles available, you won't be disappointed in a Chevy. Uncover what makes Chevrolet so special, from its humble beginnings in the heart of Motor City to its spectacular contributions to the future of car design.
A Natural Born Leader
Few brands can say that they helped shape the automotive industry from its inception, making it the way it is today and further evolving it as the years go on, but Chevy can do just that. Chevy is a leader in the automotive space from its humble origins to creating some of the most efficient EVs on the road today, but this type of success didn't happen overnight. No, it took years of hard work, dedication, and the belief that Chevy was among the greatest brands of all time. And when the tides began to turn, and drivers needed more, Chevy delivered and continues to do so, every single time. From its first offering to the world to its exciting advancements in the industry, Chevy has been a constant source of innovation and a trusted brand that many turn to today.
Chevrolet first drove onto the scene with its Series C Classic Six, a well-built, carefully designed motor car with a mission to revolutionize the industry, making it easier for people to travel in comfort and style. Louis Chevrolet and William "Billy" Durant, the original masterminds behind the brand, set the bar high with this model, offering up a 4.9L six-cylinder engine, providing it with 40 horsepower which was quite impressive for the era. This type of newly harnessed power, combined with its poise and elegance, allowed Chevrolet to surpass expectations and make a name for itself in the industry among so many hopefuls. As the years went by, the Chevrolet brand unveiled newer and more capable models, and despite being high priced, they still appealed to the masses. Still, the brainpower behind the Chevy name knew that they needed to stay ahead of the competition.
The Chevrolet brand began to pivot, releasing a new line of more affordable vehicles aimed to appease the masses and bring convenient travel to many more families. Its unmatched value and introduction of the four-cylinder engine, which proved to be a sturdy option, helped propel the brand to further success. This ability to evolve and create new offerings is the driving force behind this legendary brand, helping them remain a pillar in the industry for over a century. As the needs of drivers began to change, the models that Chevy released began to change too. From sports cars to trusted SUVs, rugged trucks, and commercial solutions, Chevy has always understood that in order to be ahead of the pack, you need to put in the work and give the people what they want.
What drivers want nowadays is drastically different from 100 years ago. If you notice the types of vehicles on the road today, you'll find that eco-friendly options are trending, and Chevy is right alongside these trends, once again giving the people what they want. In the winter of 1996, Chevy announced the release of its first electric vehicle. Although it was ahead of its time, the Chevy EV1 made its way onto select lots across America, and as the years passed, Chevy continued to perfect this model until it was able to offer even more to its buyers. The brand later unleashed the vibrant Volt into the world, followed closely by the Bolt EV and the Bolt EUV, designed to offer maximum efficiency, power, and performance utilizing the latest technology available in the industry.
With these electric offerings, Chevrolet joins the ranks of the elite, being able to provide an alternative to gas-powered vehicles that can help protect our environment and increase efficiency during our travels. It is because of Chevy's continuous motivation and dedication that the emergence of these fine EVs have come to be, and with such a bright future ahead, there's no telling what Chevrolet is going to come up with next.
The Raceway Chevrolet Experience
There's a reason why more buyers flock to our dealership than many of the other Pennsylvania Chevy dealers, and it lies in how we treat our customers and what we offer when it comes to inventory, pricing, and more. We view all of our customers as family, and when you're in our family, you're treated with the utmost respect, whether you're looking at a brand new electric vehicle or a pre-owned truck or SUV. We start by taking note of your needs, helping to match you with the perfect vehicle if you're unsure of what you're looking for, or guiding you to the car you've always wanted to test drive, giving you the time you need to make the right decision. Once you find exactly what you need, our finance team helps you figure out the best way to make payments, offering you top value for your trade (if applicable). We also offer new and used vehicle specials, Chevy lease deals, and much more to help bring your next car into financial reach.
You won't need to worry about maintaining your vehicle when you buy from Raceway Chevrolet. Our trained service technicians are ready to step in to ensure that your vehicle is running properly and you're getting the most miles out of it as possible. Whether you're in need of regular routine maintenance or repairs, our professionals are well-versed and experienced in working with many different makes and models so that you have the peace of mind you need out on the road. When you visit our service department, you'll get first-class treatment with free WiFi, complimentary refreshments, a children's play area, business workstations, and more, and with convenient scheduling options, coming in to see us is easy. From the moment you walk through our front doors to the moment you drive away in your new car, you can expect a better experience with us.
Finish First at Raceway Chevrolet
The Chevrolet name didn't get to where it is today without putting in the work, and like this trusted brand, Raceway Chevrolet keeps this same ideology in mind. Be willing to work hard, offer a great product, and don't stop evolving. The keys to success lie in dedication and motivation. As the years go on and we see even more innovative models being designed by Chevy, our team knows that in order to achieve greatness, hard work is a necessity.
When you're searching for a dependable, stylish, and safe vehicle, Chevrolet is one of the best options in the industry. If you're seeking more advancements in efficiency and technology, Chevrolet can deliver. From its simple beginnings to its century of experience, marked by grit and determination, Chevrolet remains a force in the automotive industry. If you're ready to raise the bar with your ride, it's time to trust in a Chevy from Raceway Chevrolet. Visit us today to get started.
Copyright © 2022 - Raceway Chevrolet of Bethlehem
1124 Hellertown Road
Raceway Chevrolet of Bethlehem	40.59925, -75.34094.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


I've plateaued on bench press what should i do?
I have been working out for more than 2 years now. While i used to see grwoth but i think i have certainly hit a plateau when it comes to bench press.
Each week add back 2.5KG to 5 KG to your lift until you have reached and exceeded you sticking point.
Take a week off, either entirely or of any work on the musscle group in question.
Drop your weight about 20% from where you were stuck.
You need to modify your workout as the saturration comes after following one type of workout for longer time duration. You need to add supersets,dropsets and giantsets in your workout.


Documentary: General George Patton Jr, 2d Lie... Tamechactee: Arrow Soul by Joseph M. Landing, Jr.
Bridget Knouse was born in York, Pennsylvania. She has always had a passion for children and for writing. After college she spent some time helping children with emotional and behavioral challenges. Later, she became an elementary school teacher and moved to Raleigh, North Carolina where she currently resides with her husband and two sons. She feels blessed everyday to be a mom and thinks that it is, by far, the best job in the world! In addition to caring for their two boys, Bridget and her husband are also devoted foster parents…they recently had a little girl join their family! Bridget and her husband hope to make a difference in the lives of less fortunate children. They believe that every child should know what it means to be a part of a stable, supportive, and loving family! The Gift is Bridget's first published book. She enjoys writing about her personal experiences; therefore, Bridget hopes to have more books published in the future.
Cady Driver is a watercolor artist, illustrator, and portrait artist. She has dedicated her work with this book to her three children…Chloe, Jacob, and Tirzah Rose. The Gift is her second children's book. She has also illustrated I Love You, Be Careful by Judy Snider and Joan Dickow. Cady resides in Raleigh, NC with her husband and home schools her children.


text:
Parque Nacional Porto Charming, ou Tarkhanhut NP' (, ) abrange um sector costeiro da Península de Tarkhankut (ela próprio parte da península da Crimeia) no Mar Negro. O parque protege e exibe a paisagem das estepes à medida que desce ao litoral em um ambiente semi-árido e com acentuados penhascos e formações rochosas. O parque fica no distrito administrativo de Chornomorske Raion.

Parques nacionais da Rússia
Porto Charming

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Colors For Small Living Room Walls Photos concepts are attempting to provide you an answer to rearrange or improve your home. it is extremely a decent solution for those that have tiny size of home. Let say youve got atiny low kitchen and you want to boost it to form it more leisurely. You dont ought to worry as a result of there ar many tricks to try and do.
You dont got to install big kitchen sink. rather than doing that, youll be able to opt for a multifunction sink like tip out kitchen sink. This sink works well to wash your dishes as well as keeping the things to clean the dishes tidy and straightforward to require.
Is there any relationship between your little room and therefore the size of the cutting board Yes, By using a giant cutting board, you can get more room. for example, youll be able to put the cutting board near the sink. this simple trick offers you a bit area to stay your ingredients or room utensils easy to reach.
Because space could be a drawback, it suggests that you have got to make more room. Pocket organizer is the way to add more space and youll be able to begin to put important little room utensils there. youll hang the pocket organizer on the clique door. its an excellent Colors For Small Living Room Walls Photos plan for small kitchen, isnt it?
Basically, it is the same with pocket organizer within which youre making extra space. just put an over the sink cupboard and place specific room utensils like knife, detergent, and napkin. Those square measure important room utensils which usually use close to the sink. simply check that that you simply ar tiny over the sink cupboard therefore it doesnt need additional area and you can move it anytime and anyplace you wish. The key of Colors For Small Living Room Walls Photos ideas for small room is using the tiny space effectively.
Paint Ideas For Small Living Room Paint Ideas Living Room Within Small Living Room Paint Colors .
Color For Small Room Gorgeous Small Living Room Paint Colors Simple Design Great For Rooms Color .
Paint Colors For Walls Two Colour Combination Living Room Wall Inside Color Ideas Residence Best White .
Best Color To Paint Living Room Walls Color Palette Living Room Wall Paint Color Ideas Grey .
Living Room Wall Painting Ideas Living Room Paint Color Ideas Small Living Room Wall Color Ideas .


text:
Home News UCF Dreamers Hold Forum On DACA Ahead Of Thursday Rally
UCF Dreamers Hold Forum On DACA Ahead Of Thursday Rally
Cristóbal Reyes
Bernabe Soriano (left), Karen Caudillo (center) and Fernán Lauro (right) paneled the forum. They are three of more than 150 UCF students affected by the Trump administration's move to end DACA. (Photo by: Cristóbal Reyes)
Undocumented students at the University of Central Florida held a forum Wednesday afternoon to inform students on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, the Obama-era program that provided protection from deportation to individuals meeting certain requirements.
The forum, hosted by Dreamers at UCF, was paneled by students Bernabe Soriano, Karen Caudillo, and Fernán Lauro—all of whom are DACA beneficiaries. Kevin Ortiz, the president of the organization who also benefited from the program, moderated the event.
Following the White House's announcement that DACA will be rescinded beginning March 6, beneficiaries—also known as Dreamers—and their supporters scrambled to lobby Congress to pass a bill that would allow undocumented immigrants who arrived as children to stay in the US.
Caudillo, a 21-year old political science student who arrived from Mexico at four years old, quickly became a nationally-recognized face following the announcement. She attended Florida schools after her family settled in Naples, receiving an Associate's degree at Miami-Dade College before enrolling at UCF.
"It was convenient to have DACA and have a normal experience and do all the things I'm doing in college," Caudillo said.
The other panelists had similar experiences as Caudillo. Soriano, for instance, was also born in Mexico and emigrated at the age of seven when his family arrived in Los Angeles and eventually settled in Okeechobee. From there, he attended schools but at first had a hard time communicating with classmates.
"It wasn't like I said, 'oh, let me make some friends,'" Soriano, a 20-year old sophomore, said. "I had to communicate, sometimes with my hands, to get to class and where I needed to be."
At UCF, he is the treasurer of Dreamers at UCF and the Latin American Student Association. His involvement, he said, will hopefully "leave a legacy so when people hear my name they know what I did."
Lauro, 19, was the only non-Mexican panelist. Born in Mendoza, Argentina, he arrived in the US after finishing the first grade. His parents had told him that they were going on a family vacation.
"To this day, we're still on that vacation," Lauro, a film student, said.
But Ortiz, the 26-year old president of Dreamers at UCF who studies finance, made clear that "DACA students have many narratives" and noted that there are students from countries beyond Latin America who benefit from the program.
While the panelists consider UCF to be a safe space for them, Ortiz is cautious since he said "we don't yet have an official letter of support" from UCF President John Hitt.
Hitt has voiced support for DACA in the past. Soon after Trump's election last November, Hitt was a signatory to a statement calling on Trump to preserve the program. On Sept. 5, following the administration's decision to end the program, he released a statement pledging to "do everything in our power to support students while following the law."
Soriano, the sophomore, works at UCF as a resident assistant. He said that he was reassured that he can continue to work "until my DACA expires." Until then, he said, he wants to continue to build his legacy and advocate for people like him.
"We as Dreamers, as a group, we want to be a powerful voice," he said.
Dreamers at UCF, along with the College Democrats at UCF and other student and community organization, will be staging a rally in favor of DACA Thursday at noon on the Student Union patio stage.


text:
PPP Loan Forgiveness Denied – An Overview of the PPP Loan Review Decision and Appeal Process
PPP Loan Forgiveness Denied – An Overvie…
Nearly six months after the creation of the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"), many borrowers are ready to submit their PPP loan forgiveness applications or have already submitted them.
Although lenders and borrowers still face uncertainty regarding PPP rules, the general process of obtaining PPP loan forgiveness is known. With each passing week, we can expect lenders to process more PPP loan forgiveness applications and more Small Business Administration ("SBA") decisions will be rendered.
This article addresses the available options for a borrower if the SBA makes an adverse loan review decision. But first, it is important to remind ourselves of the general framework for how the PPP loan forgiveness process works and when an SBA loan review may occur. A borrower that received a PPP loan can apply for loan forgiveness through the lender that issued the PPP loan. To apply for forgiveness, a borrower must complete and submit a loan forgiveness application (SBA Form 3508, SBA Form 3508EZ, or a lender equivalent) to the lender no later than ten months after the last day of the borrower's covered period. Loan forgiveness is primarily based on the borrower's use of the PPP loan for eligible payroll and non-payroll costs during the borrower's eight-week or 24-week covered period, subject to certain reductions for decreasing employee salaries or wages or decreasing the borrower's average number of full-time equivalent employees as compared to a prior period. Upon receiving a loan forgiveness application, the lender has 60 days to issue a decision to the SBA. During those 60 days, the lender must (i) confirm receipt of the borrower's certifications, (ii) confirm receipt of documentation verifying payroll and non-payroll costs, (iii) confirm the borrower's calculations, and (iv) confirm that the borrower correctly applied the rule that at least 60% of the loan forgiveness amount requested is attributable to eligible payroll costs. It is the borrower's responsibility to provide accurate calculations, but lenders are expected to perform a good-faith review. If the lender identifies calculation errors or a material lack of substantiating documentation, the lender should work with the borrower to correct any issues. Once the lender makes a loan forgiveness decision, it issues the decision to the SBA.
After several months of documenting the use of a PPP loan and following continuously-updated SBA guidance, completing a loan forgiveness application should feel like an accomplishment for any borrower. Yet, after the lender issues its loan forgiveness decision to the SBA, the SBA has 90 days to remit the appropriate forgiveness amount to the lender, subject to any SBA review of the borrower's PPP loan. We wrote an earlier article about SBA's mandatory loan review of all PPP loans in excess of $2 million (including affiliate loans). However, the SBA may undertake a review at any time of a PPP loan of any size. While we expect additional guidance in this area, our current interpretation is that any PPP loan borrower may be subject to an SBA review of the borrower's eligibility, use of the PPP loan, and loan forgiveness at any time, in SBA's sole discretion. In fact, the SBA requires that a borrower maintain its PPP loan documentation for up to six years after the date the loan is forgiven or repaid in full. Every borrower—especially borrowers that received PPP loans in excess of $2 million—should have a general understanding of what an SBA loan review is and how to appeal an adverse decision.
The Right To Appeal an SBA Loan Review
To understand the opportunity to appeal an SBA loan review, a borrower should know the potential parties involved in a loan forgiveness decision. Those parties are (i) the lender; (ii) the SBA; and (iii) the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals ("OHA"). The lender receives the borrower's loan forgiveness application, decides the amount of loan forgiveness, and issues its decision to the SBA. The SBA remits the loan forgiveness amount requested by the lender and/or reviews the loan. The SBA can review a loan during the 90 days it has to remit the forgiveness amount, upon request by a borrower that has been denied loan forgiveness in full by the lender, or at any time the SBA decides to undertake a review. OHA will accept a timely filed appeal by a borrower of an SBA loan review (defined below).
An SBA loan review is an official written decision issued by the SBA that finds a borrower (1) was ineligible for a PPP loan; (2) was ineligible for the PPP loan amount received or used the PPP loan for unauthorized uses; (3) is ineligible for loan forgiveness in the amount determined by the lender (except for the deduction of any Economic Injury Disaster Loan advance); or (4) is ineligible for loan forgiveness in full when the lender has decided that loan forgiveness should be fully denied. This definition is critically important because only SBA loan review decisions may be appealed to OHA. A decision that does not stem from an "SBA loan review" cannot be appealed to OHA. For example, if the lender denies loan forgiveness in full, the borrower has 30 days to request that the SBA review the lender's decision. The SBA can deny this request. If the SBA accepts the request and confirms the lender's decision, then the borrower has a right to pursue an OHA appeal. If the lender approves loan forgiveness in part and denies loan forgiveness in part, and the SBA remits the partial loan forgiveness amount, there is no appeal option for the borrower. Rather, the borrower must begin making payments on the balance of the unforgiven PPP loan amount.
How to Appeal an SBA Loan Review Decision
If a borrower faces an adverse SBA loan review decision, it must respond quickly. In order to appeal the SBA loan review decision to OHA, a borrower must file a petition with OHA within 30 calendar days after receiving the final decision or being notified by the lender of the final decision. The petition must include, among other requirements, a full and specific statement as to why the SBA loan review decision is alleged to be erroneous, together with all factual information and legal arguments supporting the allegations. The petition must also include signed copies of payroll tax filings actually reported to the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") and wage reporting and unemployment insurance tax filings actually reported to the relevant state, if not provided with the PPP loan forgiveness application. In effect, the SBA allows a borrower to have more than ten months to submit a loan forgiveness application but only 30 days to file an appeal of an SBA loan review decision. Importantly, an appeal by a borrower does not extend the deferral period of the PPP loan. In addition, only the borrower—and not individual owners of the borrower—has standing to appeal. Again, the basis for an appeal of an SBA loan review decision will not necessarily be loan forgiveness calculations, but rather an eligibility, certifications, or authorized use issues.
After OHA receives a timely appeal, it will assign the matter to either an Administrative Law Judge or Administrative Judge. From there, the SBA will file the administrative record with OHA and serve it on the borrower. OHA will issue a decision within 45 calendar days after the close of the record. The standard of review is whether the SBA loan review decision was based on clear error of fact or law. OHA may affirm, reverse, or remand the SBA loan review decision. There are additional appeal options available to a borrower after OHA has made its decision.
Although not every borrower will be subject to an adverse SBA loan review decision, some borrowers inevitably will. Given the time constraints and administrative procedure of an appeal, it is imperative that borrowers begin to understand the appeal process before receiving notice of an SBA loan review decision.
© 2023 Ward and Smith, P.A. For further information regarding the issues described above, please contact William S. Durr.
Written By William S. Durr
PPP FORGIVENESS MAXIMIZER™
We want you to maximize your loan forgiveness under the Paycheck Protection Program. And we have developed a tool to help.
Business | PPP Loan Forgiveness
Closely Held Companies
PPP Loan Proceeds: Forgive, Pay and Forget it, or Not?
COVID-19 Update: Reopening Your Business, House Bill 118, and Executive Order 163
Employer's Recordkeeping Requirements For Leave Requests Under the FFCRA


text:
Q: Git: Add new filename but not content In my working tree I renamed a file/folder and modified its content.
How do I add (and commit) only the rename but not the new content?

A: Here is a similar question asked over on StackOverflow.
It goes really in-depth on the way Git tracks the name changes, file creations, and deletions.   The quick and dirty answer you're looking for is below.
To  quote from the top answer there:

What we do now is, first, manually put the file back under its old name, then use git mv to switch again to the new name:
$ mv new-name.txt old-name.txt
$ git mv old-name.txt new-name.txt

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Drones Eye View
Drone's Eye View
If you do the math, farmers don't make much money," says Drew Wilkerson, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering at York College. He says a typical acre can yield maybe 200 bushels of corn on the very best of days, but often it is far less. In today's market, a bushel of corn fetches about $3.70.
"That's $740 an acre, but if you subtract out the cost of seed, herbicide, pesticide, and fertilizer and a typical 100-acre farm is lucky to clear $30,000 a year," Wilkerson explains. "Many farmers have to have part-time jobs just to stay in business."
It may seem odd that a mechanical engineering professor would know so much about agriculture, but Wilkerson has a unique perspective on the subject — literally. He has designed a senior-year capstone course for York engineering students where they build, program, and operate cutting-edge drones equipped with specialized cameras to help farmers become more efficient. He says they have had tremendous support from the local community — in particular Dave Shepp, Ryan Heindel, and Bill Whale of the York Area RC Club.
Wilkerson and his students photograph York County's farms and analyze the light reflecting off the plants below. From this rich data, using sophisticated computer applications, they can assess how well the plants are doing, where fertilizer is most needed, and whether insects are taking a toll. The farmers can then use that data to optimize their chemical use, spraying expensive — and environmentally consequential — fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides only where they are most needed.
"We are trying to reduce the amount of the chemicals while keeping the yields high, but there's a lot to learn for the kids, too," Wilkerson says.
The drone is designed, built, and operated by students. Guided from the ground, it soars high above the neat rows of crops, zipping back and forth in a tight lawnmower-like pattern across the fields. Each pass is closely controlled by GPS.
The drone is fitted with a specialized camera that has no fewer than five distinct lenses, each capturing different types of light being reflected from the crops below.
Wilkerson runs down the litany of light with the fervor of a true engineer — it does near-infrared, red-edge, red, blue and green, and invisible light, he says.
"The camera alone is $3,500," Wilkerson notes. "That's a lot for a small group like ours, but it makes for a fun senior course that touches on lots of areas of engineering."
Once the photography is captured and downloaded, the images are stitched together photographically, the way Google creates bird's-eye views of the world from multiple satellite images. The result is a mosaic — an entire farm drawn in bright primary colors. While those images are not necessarily beautiful to the untrained eye, in the hands of experts they mean the world. Hidden in the light are untold secrets that can help farmers optimize their investments. This is known in technical terms as multispectral analysis.
"All this knowledge from the light reflected off of the plants. It's pretty incredible," Wilkerson says. "You can photograph a 100-acre farm in about 15 minutes."
Wilkerson also notes saving money is one of many benefits of this technology. There are environmental upsides, too. Fertilizers like nitrogen and phosphorous can leech into the water supply and cause harmful algae blooms that wreak havoc on aquatic ecosystems by sucking oxygen out of the water and creating so-called "dead zones" where no creature can survive.
The typical corn farm receives two doses of nitrogen per season, once as seeds are sown in the ground and again when the corn is about two feet tall. Less spraying means lower costs for the farmer, but also less nitrogen in the water supply.
While multispectral analysis may pay dividends in the wallet and on the waterfront, it helps in other more subtle ways, too. For instance, Wilkerson adds, agricultural experts and entomologists have become alarmed in recent years by the decline of bee populations. Bees are critical to agriculture for distributing pollen and aiding plant reproduction. That decline has been correlated with the use of certain insecticides, known as neonicotinoids, that are often sprayed liberally on fields. Helping to reduce the amount of neonicotinoids used or by increasing the precision of the spraying could have beneficial effects for bee populations.
Kaleidoscope Eyes
One of the indicators of nitrogen is a light index called NDVI — short for normalized difference vegetation index. In technical terms, NDVI is a ratio of near-infrared light and what is known as red-edge light. While the technical details can be challenging for non-engineers, the results are obvious to anyone with just a glance at one of Wilkerson's multispectral images.
"All that reflectivity gives us a weird-looking plot," Wilkerson says. "But, when you look at it, where you see green, that means there's nitrogen and that's good news. No need to spray there. If it's red that means a deficiency and you want to spray in those spots."
While it seems remarkable that all this insight can be drawn out of the light, what follows next is even more remarkable. Wilkerson can download his spectral analyses, complete with GPS waypoints of spray and no-spray areas that are spatially accurate to 10 centimeters. This data all fits on a thumb drive which he then plugs into a GPS-controlled smart tractor and computers do the rest. Carefully guided by GPS, the tractor is able to precisely control the application of chemicals.
"The tractor knows when to spray and how much to spray and it reduces the amount that the farmer has to put on the crop. This saves them real money," Wilkerson says.
Wilkerson got his start as a military research scientist where he worked for the U.S. Army for more than 33 years before joining the faculty at York College two years ago. He earned his Ph.D. at Johns Hopkins in 1990 and is an expert in robotics and unmanned systems. For the last 15 years of his military career, he focused on robotics and drones.
When he first started at York, Wilkerson joined a drone flying club, as much as a hobby as anything else, he says, but then he saw a video of a team of researchers using a
drone to analyze the canopies of the tall Sequoia forests out west. He saw a niche.
"I pitched it to the school and that's how we got the capstone class. It's been a lot of fun," Wilkerson says.
A Team of Teams
The capstone team of seniors is actually a collection of four smaller teams that each takes on certain engineering responsibilities. There is plenty of work to go around and need for almost every sort of engineering talent out there, mechanical, chemical, aeronautical, computer science and so forth.
First, there is a team dedicated exclusively to learning to fly the drone. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires drone pilots to have a license.
"We call it flight ops," he says. "The goal is to earn what is known as 'Part 107' FAA license."
This is no easy task. There is a security clearance as well as subject matter exam. Last semester, just one of Wilkerson's students passed the exam. This semester he thinks two, possibly three, others might earn their wings.
"And they have to study a lot. The sectional charts. They have to know weather. They have to know lots about drone maintenance, too," he says.
Another team is known as "the farming group." These team members are charged with learning everything they can about the business of farming, so that the knowledge imparted by multispectral analysis can be put to good use.
In short, the farming group has to learn about growing corn and soy bean, including what pests attack corn and what nutrients corn needs, as well as how pH of the soil affects yield. It is a multidisciplinary team. Wilkerson says he will probably have one mechanical engineer on the farming team and several computer science majors.
"They really have their work cut out for them. They need to know all the different tests that can be done using multispectral imaging to assess those characteristics of a field of crops," he says.
The third group is an airframe team that designs and builds the drone. And, when Wilkerson says "design," he means it. The drone must be able to stay aloft for an hour, enough to photograph up to 500 acres at a time. While this parameter is far larger than most farms in York County, it is still much smaller than the biggest plots, which can be 2,500 acres or more.
"They can't just go buy some drone off the shelf. They've got to create it. We're using a flying wing design and they need to know why that design is so efficient and good for these purposes," he says.
Last but not least, there is the autonomous control group that programs the autopilot that guides the drone as it makes its finely tuned flight patterns in the sky. They are responsible for recovering the airplane if there's a problem, as well. No minor duty when the drone and its expensive camera hang in the balance.
At the conclusion of the yearlong capstone course, the students make a group report and presentation of their findings before earning their diplomas and heading off to their next engineering adventures. This year's presentation marked the culmination of the first year of Wilkerson's capstone course. It was a year of tremendous learning opportunities and personal growth for the students and himself, Wilkerson says.
"It was a great first year, but there's a lot still to work on," he says. "I'm looking forward to next year already."


text:
CANCELLATION DIVISION
CANCELLATION No 12 097 C (INVALIDITY)
Renault S.A.S., 13/15, quai Alphonse le Gallo, 92100 Boulogne-Billancourt, France (applicant) represented by Casalonga Alicante S.L., Avenida Maissonave, 41-6C, Alicante, Spain (professional representative).
Al Aswar Auto Spare Parts Trading Co. (L.L.C), 102 Al Ansari Building. Port Saeed Road Deira, Dubai, United Arab Emirates (EUTM proprietor), represented by Isern Patentes y Marcas, S.L., Avenida Diagonal, 463 bis, 2° piso., Barcelona, Spain (professional representative)
On 03/10/2016, the Cancellation Division takes the following
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is partially upheld.
2. European Union trade mark No 12 877 106 is declared invalid for some of the contested goods, namely:
Class 12: Vehicles; apparatus for locomotion by land.
3. The European Union trade mark remains registered for all the remaining goods, namely:
Class 12: Apparatus for locomotion by air or water.
4. Each party bears its own costs.
The applicant filed an application for a declaration of invalidity against all the goods of European Union trade mark No 12 877 106. The application is based on French trade mark registration No 1 551 948. The applicant invoked Article 53(1)(a) EUTMR in connection with Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.
SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES' ARGUMENTS
The applicant argues that the conflicting signs are visually and aurally highly similar, the earlier mark being entirely contained in the challenged EUTM. The coinciding element is the most striking part of the contested mark. The differing element "AUTOMOTIVE" is descriptive in connection with vehicles and the addition of a figurative element is not sufficient to eliminate the risk of confusion between the marks involved. Moreover, the goods covered by the contested mark in Class 12 are either identical or similar to the goods covered by the earlier mark. According to the applicant the earlier mark is intrinsically distinctive, in addition to which it also enjoys an enhanced distinctive character in France by virtue of the use that has been made of it. Therefore, there is a likelihood of confusion and the contested mark has to be deleted in respect of all the goods in class 12.
The EUTM proprietor did not submit any observations in reply.
LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION — ARTICLE 53(1)(a) EUTMR IN CONNECTION WITH ARTICLE 8(1)(b) EUTMR
The goods on which the application is based are the following:
Class 12: Motor vehicles; vehicles for locomotion by land, their spare parts or replacement parts not included in other classes.
Class 12: Vehicles; apparatus for locomotion by land, air or water.
The contested vehicles and apparatus for locomotion by land include, as a broader category, the applicant's motor vehicles. It is impossible for the Cancellation Division to filter these goods from the abovementioned category. Since the Cancellation Division cannot dissect ex officio the broad category of the EUTM proprietor's goods, they are considered identical to the applicant's goods.
The contested apparatus for locomotion by air or water covers goods such as aircraft and ships. At the same time, the applicant only enjoys protection for land locomotion vehicles and motor vehicles, which are "road vehicles powered by an internal combustion engine" [https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/motor_vehicle]
While the contested goods are also apparatus used for transport, they are goods made by very distinct industries focusing on the specific circumstances and characteristics in the air or on the water, requiring fundamentally different locomotion solutions when compared to the requirements related to the construction and design of vehicles used on land. The goods have a different nature, purpose and method of use. They are not expected to be obtainable through the same distribution channels, nor to be manufactured by the same companies. They are not in competition or complementary. This reasoning also applies when comparing these contested goods to land vehicle parts: the substantial distinction between the distribution channels and targeted consumers precludes any similarity. Therefore, the contested apparatus for locomotion by air or water are dissimilar.
In the present case, the identical goods, vehicles and land locomotion apparatus are mainly directed at the public at large. Nevertheless, since the goods at hand can be fairly expensive, the average consumer often seeks professional assistance or advice when choosing or buying such goods. In addition, in the vehicles market brand- loyalty is a factor which strongly influences purchasing decisions. The degree of attention of the relevant public would therefore be high.
Contested trade mark
The relevant territory is France.
The global appreciation of the visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the marks in question must be based on the overall impression, bearing in mind their distinctive and dominant components (11/11/1997, C‑251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 23).
While the earlier mark is a word mark, "MASTER", the contested mark is a figurative mark consisting of the verbal element "MasterMs", written in standard, upper and lower case white italic font, placed on a black oval with two swirling lines. Below this element the word "AUTOMOTIVE" is placed in somewhat smaller black capital letters.
In the contested sign, the element MasterMs, placed on the oval shape, is visually more eye-catching given its size and central position and overshadows the "AUTOMOTIVE" component.
The term "master" present in both signs will be perceived by the relevant French public as an academic qualification. A part of the relevant public will also perceive it as the equivalent of maître, meaning a man who has people working for him, (especially servants or slaves), or someone who is highly skilled. In the context of the vehicles at hand, this term might allude to the skill and expertise used for the construction of the goods at hand. However, since part of the public would not even perceive this meaning and for the other part the word "master" will sound foreign and its meaning merely allusive, the distinctiveness of this term is normal.
At the same time, the term "AUTOMOTIVE" in the contested mark will be perceived by the relevant public as a word referring to the automotive sector, "automobile" in French. Given that the goods at hand are vehicles, this term will be seen to make a reference to the kind of goods. Although the word somewhat differs from the French equivalent, on account of which it cannot be considered entirely descriptive, it will have a less than average distinctive character.
Visually, the signs coincide in "Master".
The signs differ in the element "AUTOMOTIVE", although it has limited distinctive character, and it is also overshadowed by the coinciding element "Master".
The signs also differ as far as the element "Ms" is concerned, although due account should be given to the fact that consumers generally tend to focus on the first element of a sign when being confronted with a trade mark. This is justified by the fact that the public reads from left to right, which makes the part placed at the left of the sign (the initial part) the one that first catches the attention of the reader.
Lastly, the signs differ in the contested sign's particular stylization, i.e. the oval and the color of the fonts. In this context it should be noted that the verbal component of the sign usually has a stronger impact on the consumer than the figurative component. (14/07/2005, T‑312/03, Selenium-Ace, EU:T:2005:289, § 37; decisions of 19/12/2011, R 233/2011‑4 Best Tone (fig.) / BETSTONE (fig.), § 24; 13/12/2011, R 53/2011‑5, Jumbo(fig.) / DEVICE OF AN ELEPHANT (fig.), § 59).
Given that the coincidence between the signs concerns the entire earlier mark, the signs are visually highly similar.
Aurally, the pronunciation of the signs coincides in the sound of the letters of "MASTER" present identically in both signs. The pronunciation differs in the sound of the letters "MS" and "AUTOMOTIVE", although the above considerations regarding the distinctive character of this latter element should be borne in mind.
Given that the coincidence between the signs concerns the entire earlier mark, the signs are aurally highly similar.
Conceptually, the signs will coincide in the concept of "master". Even if the contested sign contains, in "AUTOMOTIVE", an additional concept, it is of limited distinctiveness.
Thus the signs are conceptually highly similar.
According to the applicant, the earlier mark has been extensively used and enjoys an enhanced scope of protection. However, for reasons of procedural economy, the evidence filed by the applicant to prove this claim does not have to be assessed in the present case (see below in 'Global assessment').
Consequently, the assessment of the distinctiveness of the earlier mark will rest on its distinctiveness per se. In the present case, the earlier trade mark as a whole has no clear meaning for any of the goods from the perspective of the public in the relevant territory. Therefore, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark must be seen as normal.
Likelihood of confusion covers situations where the consumer directly confuses the trade marks themselves, or where the consumer makes a connection between the conflicting signs and assumes that the goods covered are from the same or economically linked undertakings.
Moreover, account is taken of the fact that average consumers rarely have the chance to make a direct comparison between different marks, but must trust in their imperfect recollection of them (22/06/1999, C‑342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik, EU:C:1999:323, § 26).
This will apply also to highly attentive, even brand- loyal consumers if they are confronted, on identical goods, with a sign that includes the earlier sign in its entirety. This striking coincidence is placed in the beginning of the contested sign, while the contested sign's differing elements will have less of an impact on consumers given their limited distinctiveness or purely figurative nature.
It constitutes frequent practice nowadays for companies to make small variations of their trade marks, for example by altering their typeface or colour, or adding terms or elements to them, in order to name new lines of products, or to create a modernised version of the mark.
In the present case, given the identity of the goods and the fact that the earlier mark is entirely contained in the contested sign, it is likely that consumers will perceive the contested sign as a variation of the earlier mark, such as a modernised version or a mark used to designate new lines of products.
Considering all the above, the Cancellation Division finds that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public and, therefore, the application is partly well founded on the basis of the applicant's French trade mark registration.
Pursuant to the above, the contested trade mark must be declared invalid for the goods found to be identical to those of the earlier trade mark.
The rest of the contested goods are dissimilar. As similarity of goods and services is a necessary condition for the application of Article 8(1) EUTMR, the application based on this article and directed at these goods cannot be successful.
This finding would still be valid even if the earlier trade mark were to be considered as enjoying a high degree of distinctiveness. Given that the dissimilarity of the goods cannot be overcome by the highly distinctive character of the earlier trade mark, the evidence submitted by the applicant in this respect does not alter the outcome reached above.
According to Article 85(1) EUTMR, the losing party in cancellation proceedings must bear the fees and costs incurred by the other party. According to Article 85(2) EUTMR, where each party succeeds on some heads and fails on others, or if reasons of equity so dictate, the Cancellation Division will decide a different apportionment of costs.
Since the cancellation is successful only for part of the contested goods, both parties have succeeded on some heads and failed on others. Consequently, each party has to bear its own costs.
The Cancellation Division
Marianna KONDAS


text:
California state senators Richard Pan and Josh Newman fake a "racism hoax" to demolish health freedom bill
Tuesday, May 01, 2018 by: Jayson Veley
Tags: badhealth, badmedicine, badscience, California, evil, fake news, freedom, government, health freedom, hoax, left cult, Liberty, PANDA, racism, richard pan, Tyranny
(Natural News) A scientifically supported, commonsense civil rights bill that would have allowed individuals and families to self-quarantine in their homes in the event of a pandemic without being forced to be treated with vaccines or antibiotics was struck down by two California Democratic senators on the basis that the legislation had racist undertones, VacTruth.com reports.
The bill was authored by Greg Glaser, JD, of the Pandemic Response Project and officially named the Peaceful and Natural Dignity Act (PANDA) back in the year 2013. Glaser explained that his bill "PANDA" was a reference to the word "pandemic," and, interestingly enough, said that he chose this particular acronym because, "The panda is a beautiful symbol of both peace and nature, especially given the legal protection pandas enjoy." Furthermore, "PANDAS" is a well-known acronym for "Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorder Associated with Streptococcus."
But all of this was completely irrelevant to senators Josh Newman and Richard Pan, who decided to play the race card in order to exterminate the bill even though race had absolutely nothing to do with it.
"Where did the acronym PANDA come from?" asked Senator Newman. "The panda animal would seem to have very little to do with vaccinations, but it does tend to have a racial or ethnic tinge to it; it also includes the first three letters of my colleague's name, and I could see where one might take offense." Of course, by his colleague, Senator Newman was referring to Senator Richard Pan.
It goes without saying that the idea that racism played a role in the proposal of the Peaceful and Natural Dignity Act is nonsensical. This was a civil rights bill that simply would have allowed individuals and families to remain in their natural state in the event of a pandemic, free from vaccines, antibiotics, and other medical treatments that they might be opposed to. America is about individual liberty, and if we don't even allow our people to live naturally in their homes in the event of a large-scale crisis, then how could we possibly continue to refer to our country as "the land of the free?" (Related: 69 U.S. healthcare workers have been fired for refusing to get the flu vaccination.)
The Peaceful and Natural Dignity Act was about liberty, not racism, and these two senators from California know it.
Yet this is a tactic that the liberals use time and time again to get what they want – if you are working to advance something that they fundamentally disagree with, or if you are trying to dismantle their left-wing agenda, then race is almost always brought into the equation in one way or another.
In December of 2016, the Washington Times reported on a new documentary put out by the fake news organization CNN, which alleged that Republican opposition to the big government policies Barack Obama spent his entire presidency trying to implement was rooted in racial animus.
At the outset of the documentary, which is titled "The Legacy of Barack Obama," CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria begins by asking the question, "Did race play a role in the brick wall of Republican resistance to Barack Obama?" Throughout the rest of the documentary, many prominent liberal pundits and commentators are seen wholeheartedly agreeing with the assertion that Republican's opposition to the 44th president was rooted in racism. (Related: A lunatic liberal college professor claims that meritocracy is a principle rooted in racism.)
In the past, liberals have also brought racism into the conversation regarding Obamacare, immigration, and even climate change. Whether it's tearing down a piece of legislation that they don't like (such as the Peaceful and Natural Dignity Act) or advancing their own far-left agenda, the leftists have learned that crying "racism" is an effective tool to get what they want, even if racism has nothing to do with it.
Read more truth about the lies of Leftists at LeftCult.com.
VacTruth.com
WashingtonTimes.com
Previous :Mark of the Beast now active in India as government requires biometric scanning for food purchases and government benefits
Next : YouTube is not safe for your children: The video platform "data mines" information from its young users
More news on badhealth
Dr. Fauci's dark, controlling vision (and his ties to globalists and the CCP) are a threat to America
Coronavirus pandemic linked to increase in "anger and confrontation" among family and friends
South Sudan confirms new outbreak of vaccine-related polio
FDA trying to establish new drug-like approval system for dietary supplements that could eliminate tens of thousands of them
EWG analysis reveals 800,000 residents in Kentucky are exposed to TOXIC "forever chemicals" in their drinking water
Trump administration releases plan to allow Medicare to cover cost of coronavirus vaccination
United Airlines preparing to segregate passengers who do not submit to rapid covid-19 testing
Living in a microwave: How dangerous is it to live near a cell site?
https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-05-01-california-state-senators-richard-pan-and-josh-newman-fake-a-racism-hoax-to-demolish-health-freedom-bill.html
California state senators Richard Pan and Josh Newman fake a "racism hoax" to demolish health freedom bill


text:
<!DOCTYPE html>

        <meta charset="UTF-8" />
        <meta name="robots" content="index, follow, all" />
        <title>Thelia\Controller\Admin\HomeController | </title>
                    <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../../../stylesheet.css">

Classes

Namespaces

Interfaces

Traits

Index

Class

Thelia\Controller\Admin\HomeController

    class
    HomeController        extends BaseAdminController

Constants

                TEMPLATE_404

                RESOURCE_CODE

Methods

                    adminLogAppend(string $resource, string $action, string $message)

Helper to append a message to the admin log.

                from BaseAdminController

                    Response

                    processTemplateAction(string $template)

This method process the rendering of view called from an admin page

                from BaseAdminController

                    defaultAction()

                    Response

                    getLatestTheliaVersion()

Get the latest available Thelia version from the Thelia web site.

                    loadStatsAjaxAction()

Details

in BaseAdminController at line 51

                    public
    adminLogAppend(string $resource, string $action, string $message)

Helper to append a message to the admin log.

Parameters

                string
                $resource

                string
                $action

                string
                $message

in BaseAdminController at line 62

                    public            Response
    processTemplateAction(string $template)

This method process the rendering of view called from an admin page

Parameters

                string
                $template
                the template name

Return Value

            Response
            the response which contains the rendered view

at line 25

                    public
    defaultAction()

at line 40

                    public            Response
    getLatestTheliaVersion()

Get the latest available Thelia version from the Thelia web site.

Return Value

            Response
            the response

at line 71

                    public
    loadStatsAjaxAction()

        Generated by Sami, the API Documentation Generator.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
1963 Bob James Trio – Bold Conceptions
Bob James, Quincy Jones
Bold Conceptions is the debut album by Bob James. The album was recorded between August 13–15, 1962. The cover features a drawing of Bob James at the piano.
1 A Moment's Notice (Ernie Wilkins) 03:09
2 Nardis (Miles Davis) 05:31
3 The Night We Called It A Day (Matt Dennis; Tom Adair) 03:10
4 Trilogy (Bob James) 06:42
5 Quest (Bob James) 04:10
6 My Love From "Candide" (Leonard Bernstein) 05:14
7 Fly Me To The Moon (In Other Words) (Bart Howard) 04:43
8 Birk's Works (Dizzy Gillespie) 04:36
9 Softly As In A Morning Sunrise (Oscar Hammerstein II; Sigmund Romberg) 03:39
10 Ghost Riders In The Sky (Stanley Davis Jones) 03:29
Bass Ron Brooks
Drums Robert Pozar
Piano Bob James
Engineer – Bernie Clapper
Phonographic Copyright (p) PolyGram Records, Inc.
Copyright (c) PolyGram Records, Inc.
Term: Bob James
1978 Ronnie Foster – Love Satellite 1993 Terence Trent D'Arby – Do You Love Me Like You Say? (UK:#14)


text:
Neil deGrasse Tyson's Scientism
Hey. It's Science.
The other day on Twitter, I saw somebody quote approvingly these words by Neil deGrasse Tyson:
The good thing about Science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.
This received many favorites, re-tweets, and various (coarse) approbations. Evidently, this phrase produces a visceral glow in its fans, or perhaps the feeling of belonging to a group advanced beyond the benighted masses who, wallowing in their ignorance, dare to doubt Science.
Only here's the thing. The phrase doesn't mean anything. It's emptier than our federal coffers. If you doubt this, try substituting other words for science:
The good thing about Philosophy is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.
The good thing about History is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.
The good thing about Economics is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.
The good thing about Art is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.
Each of these propositions are just as true as Tyson's original; which is to say, each is as meaningless or as confused.
Has every theory promulgated by Science, which is to say, by individual or groups of scientists, been true? Obviously not. Therefore Science isn't always true, and you'd best believe that. Has every theory put forth in Philosophy, History, etc. been true? Certainly not. Though some have. Is every painting or novel or poem been valuable? No. But some are. And so on.
"Oh, but Science is self-correcting. That's why it's true."
Is it? If so, it is an admission that it has things to correct; which is to say, Science knows it is often in error, and therefore what it puts forth should not always be believed in toto because what it says might very well be false and in need of correction.
And then Philosophy, History, etc. are self-correcting, too, and we know this in the same way we know Science is self-correcting. That is, we have seen in these fields errors identified, new evidence augmenting the old, new (or rediscovered) theories supplanting old ones, and so forth, just as happens in Science.
Example? In History, take the absurd fiction that Giordano Bruno was murdered by the Church for holding forbidden Scientific views, which Tyson presented as truth (in cartoon form) on his Cosmos show. This tale has been (yet again) corrected, this time by our friend Mike Flynn (see Reply to Objection 6; and more in depth here) and also by our friend Thomas McDonald. Will Tyson recant?
"What I really meant was Science was truer than any of those other things."
But truth is truth: epistemically, no truth can be higher than another; all truths share the same logical status. Ontologically, truths can be ranked, such as in a moral or ethical sense (it's true you should not murder your neighbor, it's truer you should not nuke a city for the fun of it). Sorting truth in that way thus admits Science is not the highest truth, because matters of ethics and morality belong to Philosophy, which is itself fed by History, Economics, and Art. Science can only say what is, Philosophy can say what you ought to do.
Damon Linker at The Week has noticed Tyson's scientism, too:
[Tyson says] undergraduates should actively avoid studying philosophy at all. Because, apparently, asking too many questions "can really mess you up."
…He proudly proclaims his irritation with "asking deep questions" that lead to a "pointless delay in your progress" in tackling "this whole big world of unknowns out there." When a scientist encounters someone inclined to think philosophically, his response should be to say, "I'm moving on, I'm leaving you behind, and you can't even cross the street because you're distracted by deep questions you've asked of yourself. I don't have time for that."
You need philosophy to lead an examined life, even in the presence of Science. It is easiest, and surely safest, to imbibe casually your morality from the culture, especially from what you see in social media. And majority rules is always the answer, isn't it? Science can't answer that question, so it really isn't worth asking, let alone answering. Why are we here? What is the meaning of life? What is best in life? All have the same answer. Science!
Could Tyson's next career be the replacement to the Scientific Ethicist.
Update To save me retyping it here, see the comment I made to George Wolfe about the so-called truth of the Scientific method. Welcome Hacker News folks. I hope you can agree that proving Tyson's comment has little or no meaning is not an "attack" on Science. It is an attack on scientism, which is very different.
See also the comments from kikito, who offers a valid rebuttal on Linker's story. Given his correction, I have modified my own uncharitable aspersion about Tyson at the end of the original piece (I suggested Tyson would agree with the penultimate paragraph).
Ask A Scientific Ethicist: Estranged Mother, Thieving Boss, & More
Well? What Do You Think? Or, New & Improved!
I once had an extended email exchange with Neil on the matter of the Museum of Natural History's flawed and alarmist display on the matter of global warming. I learned enough to grasp that here is yet another empty suit.
George O'Har says:
Tyson is pretty light in the shoes. I'm not going to say he doesn't know what he's talking about, but even in physics, there are heavyweights, and there are lightweights (just like the molecules they study). I am also reminded of Richard Lindzen's comment about climate scientists all more or less being second-rated minds. Not every physicist is a Niels Bohr or E. Fermi.
What Tyson said here about science is close to obscene in its stupidity. I haven't watched the show, I refuse to watch the show. Even in its original form, with Carl Sagan, it let go with some real howlers. And Sagan could be a fool. But Tyson is worse: a true clown. Men who think like him can be regularly seen on Game of Thrones.
Really! You can't nuke a city for the fun of it?
Why do I always have visions of an "enlightened" group of people such as those now in North Korea following their supreme leader and wailing upon his death every time I hear from one of the arrogant clowns that people now consider scientists? Oh, wait, because it really, really looks like that? Who would have thought people could, in less than 100 years, go from independent, strong individuals to mindless idiots following sound bites on Twitter? I never realized we could devolve so quickly.
Interestingly, if we did actually follow science, abortion would be murder, vaccines would be mandatory and not overridden by religion, GMOs would not be banned, the words "safe sex" would land you in jail for outright deception, there would be no marriage (let alone gay marriage), and people might actually check the math on some of the theories currently being floated around out there (just to make sure they understand it, of course, not to question it), etc. Tyson doesn't want us to follow science, just follow what he says.
Daniel Joachim says:
The good thing about Scientism is that it's false whether or not you believe in it.
The problem with the Deep Questions is that you won't get an answer during your stay in college. Reason being, people have been studying them for 2500 years, and there still isn't an answer that satisfies most people most of the time.
And given that U.S. students are piling up dept whily studying, you are better of graduating as fast as possible. If you are still interested in the Deep Questions, study them when there is no financial penalty studying them.
Terry Oldberg says:
Science does not provide us with truths. It does provide us with information.
There may be an exception to your take on Tyson's proposition:
The good thing about William M. Briggs' (Statistician to the Stars) blog is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.
Tyson's error is to think Science is Reality rather than a limited model of it.
katzxy says:
Growing up on the west side, the Planetarium was one of favorite places.
I returned about 2 years ago, and was disappointed. The astronomy was gone. What was left was pandering to the audience telling us that we are advanced from primitive times and have conquered ignorance and superstition.
It would have been nice if the show had contributed, even in a small way, to the conquest of ignorance. I guess paying something like $25 to see the show earned us all a gold star.
Paul Murphy says:
"The good thing about Science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Science is a methodolgy, not a set of results. Had he said "The good thing about Science is that the observations its results are based on are true within the limits of both the measurement itself and measurement proceess whether you believe them or not" he'd have bewen closer to right.
Nick B. Steves says:
The astronomy was gone. What was left was pandering to the audience telling us that we are advanced from primitive times and have conquered ignorance and superstition.
That, in an elegant nutshell, sums the whole of modern education from K thru EdD: Congratulation disguised as edification. For 25 bucks you think they could have given all of the attendees a trophy, don't ya think?
Hans Erren says:
But religion is only true for believers.
Science is the search for truth…not quite there.
Science is the search for truth through a systematic application of observation, experimentation and collection of evidence.
Joseph Moore says:
I will spring to Tyson's defense in one and only one sense: modern college students, if they study philosophy at all, are likely to study Hegel, Marx, Freud and their evil deconstructionist spawn, not the Aristotelian and Thomistic physics and metaphysics that are, in fact, indispensable for the study of science. Instead, the confused mish-mash they almost certainly will receive will, like so much of modern education, inoculate them for life against any possible infection with real knowledge.
Thus, we almost always read, especially among the well educated, that philosophy is just a big game with no claims on truth, that there are no valid philosophical conclusion one is honor-bound to acknowledge, it's just a big waste of time – and they're right, based on what they have been taught. And, unless one is particularly fortunate or diligent, one may never have that 'aha!' moment where it becomes clear that, for science to mean anything at all, Aristotle's method and metaphysics must be true – and all that other crap must be false.
Adam Margulies says:
Some scholarly references on the trial and execution of Bruno:
Gatti, Hilary (2002). Giordano Bruno and Renaissance Science: Broken
Lives and Organizational Power. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University
Press. pp. 18-19. Retrieved 21 March 2014. "For Bruno was claiming for
the philosopher a principle of free thought and inquiry which implied
an entirely new concept of authority: that of the individual intellect
in its serious and continuing pursuit of an autonomous inquiry… It is
impossible to understand the issue involved and to evaluate justly the
stand made by Bruno with his life without appreciating the question of
free thought and liberty of expression. His insistence on placing this
issue at the center of both his work and of his defense is why Bruno
remains so much a figure of the modern world. If there is, as many have
argued, an intrinsic link between science and liberty of inquiry, then
Bruno was among those who guaranteed the future of the newly emerging
sciences, as well as claiming in wider terms a general principle of free
thought and expression."
Montano, Aniello (24 November 2007). Antonio Gargano, ed. Le
deposizioni davanti al tribunale dell'Inquisizione. Napoli: La Citt`a del
Sole. p. 71. "In Rome, Bruno was imprisoned for seven years and subjected
to a difficult trial that analyzed, minutely, all his philosophical
ideas. Bruno, who in Venice had been willing to recant some theses,
become increasingly resolute and declared on 21 December 1599 that he
'did not wish to repent of having too little to repent, and in fact
did not know what to repent.' Declared an unrepentant heretic and
excommunicated, he was burned alive in the Campo dei Fiori in Rome on 17
February 1600. On the stake, along with Bruno, burned the hopes of many,
including philosophers and scientists of good faith like Galileo, who
thought they could reconcile religious faith and scientific research,
while belonging to an ecclesiastical organization declaring itself to
be the custodian of absolute truth and maintaining a cultural militancy
requiring continual commitment and suspicion."
Birx, James (11 November 1997). "Giordano Bruno". Mobile Alabama
Harbinger. Retrieved 28 April 2014. "To me, Bruno is the supreme martyr
for both free thought and critical inquiry… Bruno's critical writings,
which pointed out the hypocrisy and bigotry within the Church, along
with his tempestuous personality and undisciplined behavior, easily
made him a victim of the religious and philosophical intolerance of
the 16th century. Bruno was excommunicated by the Catholic, Lutheran
and Calvinist Churches for his heretical beliefs. The Catholic hierarchy
found him guilty of infidelity and many errors, as well as serious crimes
of heresy… Bruno was burned to death at the stake for his pantheistic
stance and cosmic perspective."
X says:
You make a a new term, "Scientism". Then, you assign it to Tyson. Then, you attack the term scientism. You point is false and easily debatable. I'll let the freshman analyze your argument. As for me, I know you are easily very wrong.
George Wolfe says:
I think you guys are being fussy. Yes, no scientific model is ever really proven, just not yet shown to be wrong. Yes, Tyson was being sloppy. But he was trying, it seems to me, to make the point that an evidence and experimentally validated process, subjected to continual and open re-validation, works progressively closer to the "truth", with occasional do overs due to paradigm shifts, regardless of individual scientists religious or philosophical belief systems. That's a lot to say. I take Tyson's comment to be sort of a saying: "a stick in time saves nine, "a penny saved is a penny earned", etc. Saying are memorable.
Or something like that. That's an unpalatable version of
I meant "stitch," not "stick." I don't know what a stick in time saves.
Well if it's "false and easily debatable", then please to show us where. If you can.
But that point about evidence and whatnot applies to the other fields, too, as I showed. There is nothing special about Science in that regard, though it is a popular thing to claim. Philosophy differs in that experiments aren't run; neither in History are they. In Science they are, and, of course, and which nobody denies, it produces some nice results. But not always. So "Science" cannot always be true.
It's method also cannot be true: no method can be true. It can be more or less useful, and Science is surely useful and even necessary. But then so are Philosophy, History, and so forth useful and necessary. You cannot even get to Science without Philosophy. If you think not, then try talking about Science without using any math. So Tyson was on that meaning, too.
No: I think he was just trying catch phrases that sounded cute and required no thought.
Finally, what about all those points Linker made?
Bob Kurland says:
"X" for the unknown, hey? Well, as a physicist I'd say that Briggs' notion on the limits of science and the falsity of scientism are closer to the truth than Tyson, who is not a practicing scientist–papers submitted? Papers reviewed? Grants obtained? (other than from the global warming teat?)
And for Hans E–Your comment can not be proven. If the one true religion is true, when will you find out?
kikito says:
The original "Science is truth" quote was originally framed in contrast with religion (which requires you to believe in it to be "true"). In that context, it makes total sense. The quote however has a "nice ring" to it, so people leave the context out.
Damon Linker's article spends its first paragraph calling Tyson "historically inept" based on an article which is wrong – Cosmos did mention that Giordano Bruno was not a scientist. I don't know why people keep repeating otherwise. It's said clearly and directly in the show.
The rest of the article is a diatribe based in a 1-minute section of a podcast.
"A major in Philosophy can really mess you up" is clearly said jokingly (it's told to one of the podcast's shows, in reference to his studies).
The rest is not a criticism to "Philosophy in general". The literal words are: It's "The philosopher believes that he's asking deep questions about nature, and to the scientist, it's 'what are you doing? why are you concerned with the meaning of meaning?'".
It was a response to a comment by the show's host, who we can safely assume is on "Philosophy's side" (that's what he studied, after all), which mentions that "some people like to think too much" about "the meaning of the meaning of the meaning".
We all know those guys. That's not all philosophers, only a very particular subset. Neil was just acknowledging that those individuals do exist, and how they look to him, as a scientist, when they try to "deeply think" about nature.
Yet Damon's article doesn't mention any of this at all – it takes one phrase from one famous person out of context, uses one badly-researched reference to give a semblance of credibility, and then it runs wild.
I can only conclude that the whole article is a link-bait, pure and simple.
I just hope you are not trying to do the same, and this one is an honest mistake.
*than Tyson…read than Tyson's….sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
kikito,
Even and especially if Tyson's quote was framed in contrast to religion, it is still just as confused and false. Do read the links to the Bruno story, given above. The reason people keep mentioning it is fully articulated, especially in the McDonald link.
I accept your revisions to Linker's story. However, the deep, which is to say foundational, questions about nature cannot come from Science but must come from Philosophy. That meaning of the universe, or even why there is a universe, is something Science can never answer. For that, and for much else, metaphysics is needed.
"Scientism" is by no means a term that Mr. Briggs has invented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
Boy, this is a popular topic.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/neil-degrasse-tyson-scientism-televangelist/#post-comments
Phorien says:
The logically flawed arguments presented throughout your post in complacent misrepresentation for clickbait is scarcely worth the trouble of responding to, however if an analysis of your wanton arguments influences even a single young person who happens upon this post towards a path of more critical thinking, it is worth it.
Substituting various humanities studies for Science in a straw-man effort to destructure Tyson's statement is akin to saying:
A banana is yellow
An apple is yellow
An apple is not yellow so a banana is not yellow!
Let's try this again:
The good thing about Gravity is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.
The good thing about Math is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.
The good thing about The Second Law of Thermodynamics is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.
Phorien—or were you "X" before?
Every time somebody says they can refute something easily, and then don't do so, we are justified in thinking they cannot.
Gravity is not Science, but part of Science, so that example is flawed—and even meaningless unless everybody has the same exact idea of what you mean by it. A theory of gravity or its ontological existence? People dispute the former but not the latter. However, Tyson did not say Gravity is true. He said Science was. Math is better. But even here bad proofs occasionally slip by. And so on.
But, as I point out repeatedly, and is anyway very well known, every theory put forth in the name of Science is not true. Therefore, as I showed, Tyson's statement does not work.
Brandon Gates says:
Briggs: "Well if it's 'false and easily debatable', then please to show us where. If you can."
It is easily debatable, but as far as I can tell from what I have seen, rarely understood, and even more rarely accepted. Scientists and Theists alike frequently use the exact same construction. To wit:
"The good thing about Science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." — Neil deGrasse
"You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don't believe and who don't seek the faith. I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God's mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience. Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience." — Pope Francis
I may have read it somewhere, but one thing I constantly tell myself is: "Until I admit that I know nothing, I will never learn anything."
Proof is, and always must be, left as an exercise for the one who seeks it.
Phorien, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not true in the sense that 2+2=4 is true. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, like all physical laws is true to the extent that it is verified by measurements, and is part of a general science construct (Imre Lakatos' web of hypotheses and verification). I suggest you might be enlightened by reading Fr. Stanley Jaki's collection of essays, "The Limits of a Limitless Science".
Phorien (or is it "X"?) and of course the Second Law of Thermodynamics is true only under a limited set of circumstances, depending on whether one uses the inequality or the equality form.
The trouble with people who pontificate about science, like Tyson, is that they know very little of the history or philosophy or the practical usage of science.
One more general comment… The trouble with people like Tyson (and some of the commentators to this post) who pontificate about science is that they know very little about (1) the history of science, (2) the philosophy of science, (3) the practical workings of science–they haven't published, reviewed, or played the grantmanship game. With respect to the last, how many working scientists would not bend his principles for a $500,000 grant, I wonder (and call to mind the famous anecdote about Bernard Shaw's offer of $2 to Ellen Terry to sleep with him for the night…you know the punch line!).
William, re scientific "truth," I guess I was sloppy too. I don't know how to name the kind of knowledge produced by science. It's not truth, of course. You've shown that a model of some kind behaves in such a way that it corresponds to the behavior of some thing/stuff/system according to measurements you are capable of measuring. What can you say about what you've learned besides the obvious? Oddly, a recent link in ycombinator to an article in Aeon Magazine called "The logic of Buddhist philosophy" (http://bit.ly/1nXMnPt)seems relevant. Speaking as a (zen) Buddhist I approve of this article.
It's hard to know what conclusions to make regarding Tyson's comments about philosophy. It's disappointing, and wrong, and even stupid, but the bigger problem is that makes him a poor and misleading spokesman for Science. That's not the way we (spoken as an ex-scientist) think.
I don't agree with the comment that the good thing about Art / Economics/ History / Philosophy is that they are right whether or not you believe in it. Those assertions miss the valid component of Tyson's assertion. Art is not about "right" – it's "not even wrong" to talk about it in this way. Same is true about philosophy, but at least there it's possible to agree than a particular argument is logical. Historical explanations can be made on the basis of correct facts as opposed to incorrect facts, but all historians can do is make a plausible argument. Might be right – who knows? We don't even know why current events happen. The world is a complex system – we can barely model the weather, much less the world. Finally, anyone who knows even a little about economics knows that it mostly doesn't even try to be right. Economists develop "normative" models that they believe must be how economics works.
Science produces knowledge which is, once it's settled, *is* true whether you believe it or not. People are not rehashing conclusions about the idea of an atom as being composed of protons and neutrons surrounded by electrons.
I hope this last paragraph doesn't seem harsh.
One further comment about history. People can be wrong about historical facts, but that's not History, in my opinion. The History part of history is the weaving the facts of history into a explanation about the subsequent unfolding of events, based on the intangible aspects of the historical time and place, like culture, law, the influence of leaders, economics, etc. It's impossible to establish that one particular explanation is "right."
cohenite says:
Someone should ask Dyson about the placebo effect.
Olav says:
"Art is not about 'right' – it's 'not even wrong' to talk about it in this way. Same is true about philosophy, but at least there it's possible to agree than a particular argument is logical."
I'm not going to comment on art, since I know little about it. But I have studied philosophy for quite a number of years, and I don't know where you get the idea that philosophical ideas cannot be right or wrong. That's certainly not how most philosophers see it. Here is one philosophical question that has been studied a lot over the past 50 years: what is the correct theory of meaning? Presumably there is a right or wrong answer to this question, regardless of whether anyone knows the answer (there is *some* explanation for how people manage to understand one another!). Moreover, philosophers have arguably made a lot of progress on the question — there are several very sophisticated models of the semantics of natural languages (e.g. Montague Semantics).
Another thing some philosophers have devoted a lot of time on in the past several decades is exploring what norms there may be for rational behavior by modeling rational agents as having probability distributions that they update over time (e.g. in a Bayesian way). No doubt these models are incomplete and incorrect idealizations, but this research has arguably furthered philosophers' understanding of rational and evidential norms. Philosophers are "closer to the truth" on these issues now compared to, say, 40 years ago.
Interesting site change. The henpecked star on the top doesn't look too happy.
DAV/All,
Wait for tomorrow to comment, please. Thanks!
Jim Zuccaro says:
I think that there is a slight, unintended, irony in this post. Figurative irony. It is this:
The oldest version of that joke that I know of is the story George Gamov told about Niels Bohr. Bohr, the story goes, had a horse shoe over the door of his country cottage in Tisvilde. When he was asked how he, a scientist, could believe in superstition, he said; "I certainly don't believe in this superstition. But, you know, they say that it brings good even if you don't believe in it."
[ above ] "…. it brings good luck, even if you don't believe in it."
sorry, dumb omission
I get the message "Error establishing a database connection" when I click the Comments link or the post title in the new layout. Except on this post, for some odd reason. More pre-release testing should have been done.
Joseph Hertzlinger says:
I'm more annoyed by authoritarian philosophers than scientists.
Joseph: Authoritarian philosophers pretty much hold the #1 place for annoying! Very good link—especially that last line!
Mike Ozanne says:
ell what I think Mr Tyson meant is that there are aspects of nature which we have come to understand through the process of the scientific method. Well enough to in fact to have "physical laws" written about them, sufficiently repeatable and well known to allow us to construct bridges and ships and aircraft etc. And that these aspects will function in a predictable way irrespective of an individuals opinion about those aspects of nature. No amount of personal conviction regarding the ability to levitate, or Wile. E. Coyote arm flapping will prevent a person stepping out of a 10 storey window on Earth accelerating at 9.8 ms-1 on a vector towards the centre of the planet.
Of course it might have been simpler if he had said so…
Now in addition to it's "physical laws" science also has its theories and hypotheses which are less well developed. As those working in the requisite fields have yet to agree the details of the most valid and useful of these, then at this point the statement "Science is true whether you believe it or not" would be a bit more contentious.
In addition the word "believe" is somewhat loaded. I happen to "believe" in evolution. By which I mean that I accept it as the most plausible explanation of speciation. Doesn't mean that I'm blind to a certain vagueness of detail, or the issues related to experimental verification of a process with such long timescales. Or the contradictions between different interpretations of how it works. Nor indeed the irksome existence of "Evolutionary Psychologists" , other than to note that no "Intelligent Designer" would ever have included them. I'm not so sure for example that a devout Catholic who believes the Host becomes the actual flesh of Jesus is making such a conditional statement.
Always loved my physics tutors summary of the laws of thermodynamics.
You are playing
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't quit the game.
I'm sorry, but this post is ridiculous and exactly why scientists (like me) seem to be turning away from philosophy. I did an MA in philosophy and loved it. I thought every child in the UK should be taught it, alongside maths and English. But these days, it strikes me as an exercise in nitpicking. I'm coming to the view that philosophy is becoming more and more irrelevant (albeit asymptotically, because I think all humans in pursuit of discovery need some philosophy!).
I imagine everyone knows what Tyson meant. I imagine we also all know that a longer and more precise sentence wouldn't be as catchy as a short one. Come down from your ivory towers and find out how the rest of the world should communicate complex concepts to the public! Sometimes short sentences that capture the meaning of a longer one is best!
That is, I think we would all agree that the best way to communicate science to the general public is through the use of short, memorable sentences rather than paragraphs of text.
…rather than paragraphs of text with lots of footnotes and caveats!
Andreas Agas says:
Interesting to find you here 😉 . I think your comment about "History" has far greater application than just "History" and stands as the keystone to this entire discussion. You wrote above,
"The History part of history is the weaving the facts of history into a explanation about the subsequent unfolding of events,…"
I'll make the case that all intellectual progress, whether in the Arts, Liberal Arts, Science, Politics, Philosophy, or any combination of these follows and can only follow from something close to your idea.
It all rests on "explanation". David Deutsch makes this case in a brilliant book (by my estimation), "The Beginning of Infinity". The NY Times wrote:
"…Deutsch argues that explanations have a fundamental place in the universe—and that improving them is the basic regulating principle of all successful human endeavor…"
Empirical observation does nothing without being bracketed by conjecture and explanation. No fundamental difference exists between any human endeavor.
Humans have all sorts of explanations. Some good, some bad. No one really wants a bad explanation.
Deutsch makes the case that good explanations are hard to vary. The myth of Persephone provided an explanation of the seasons, but it only explained things if one didn't know about a southern hemisphere. One could add a southern hemisphere sister to Persephone to the myth and thereby account of different seasons in different parts of the world, but this stands as a kind of after the fact curve fitting, which does nothing to add to the power of an explanation or to creating a predictive model.
When we developed a good explanation, that the earth orbited the sun and the earth rotated on an axis tilted off of perpendicular to the plane of its orbit, we have a very good explanation of variation of seasons and temperature. An explanation, hard to vary, with true predictive power.
Deutsch makes a powerful case that this applies to all of human progress. Religions typically supply explanations easily varied. One god, two gods, lots of gods. A profit here a messiah there. One can continually vary many of the parts of religious explanation. This said, religion and philosophy may have done much to influence real advances in things like political philosophy. Deutsch makes the case that Rome had no good way to replace Julius Caesar, so Brutus et al fell upon violence. We do a bit better now. We have developed explanations of the organization of human society that serve as models for less disruptive transitions of power. Certainly not perfect, we need yet better explanations, but we have some progress.
Deutsch also makes the case that we will always face problems, but the power of conjecture and explanation provide the essential means of solving them. The "Infinity" in his title refers to his conjecture that they provide an infinite capacity for people (intelligences, human or not) to solve problems and progress in every field of endeavor.
You of course realize that your series of comments are completely self-refuting, yes?
Benjamin Cain says:
I think Tyson can be cut some slack on the Cosmos show, because he's going up against religious fundamentalism and anti-intellectualism in the US, so he can simplify matters or exaggerate the powers of science to attract people to a more skeptical way of thinking.
Still, I agree that he throws the baby out with the bath water when it comes to his view of philosophy. I wrote an article on my blog you might be interested in, called "Neil deGrasse Tyson's Scientism and the Scapegoating of Philosophy."
http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2014/05/neil-degrasse-tysons-scientism-and.html
humanimalien says:
Perhaps the scientific method approaches object truth, whereas the religious method approaches subjective truth.
max hodges says:
If you understand the nature of unanswerable questions you don't have to waste your life in fruitless reasoning loops.
"When we reflect on anything for long enough, we're likely to end up with what we sometimes call basic questions — ones we can see no way at all to answer. For we have no perfect way to answer even this question: How can one tell when a question has been properly answered?
What caused the universe, and why? How can you tell which beliefs are true? What is the purpose of life? How can you tell what is good?
These questions seem different on the surface, but all of them share one quality that makes them impossible to answer: all of them are circular! You can never find a final cause, since you must always ask one question more: What caused that cause? You can never find any ultimate goal, since you're always obliged to ask, Then what purpose does that serve? Whenever you find out why something is good — or is true — you still have to ask what makes that reason good and true. No matter what you discover, at every step, these kinds of questions will always remain, because you have to challenge every answer with, Why should I accept that answer? Such circularities can only waste our time by forcing us to repeat, over and over and over again, What good is Good? and, What god made God?
When children keep on asking, Why? we adults learn to deal with this by simply saying, Just because! This may seem obstinate, but it's also a form of self-control. What stops adults from dwelling on such questions endlessly? The answer is that every culture finds special ways to deal with these questions. One way is to brand them with shame and taboo; another way is to cloak them in awe or mystery; both methods make those questions undiscussable. Consensus is the simplest way — as with those social styles and trends wherein we each accept as true whatever all the others do. I think I once heard W. H. Auden say, We are all here on earth to help others. What I can't figure out is what the others are here for.
All human cultures evolve institutions of law, religion, and philosophy, and these institutions both adopt specific answers to circular questions and establish authority-schemes to indoctrinate people with those beliefs. One might complain that such establishments substitute dogma for reason and truth. But in exchange, they spare whole populations from wasting time in fruitless reason loops. Minds can lead more productive lives when working on problems that can be solved.
But when thinking keeps returning to its source, it doesn't always mean something's wrong. For circular thinking can lead to growth when it results, at each return, in deeper and more powerful ideas. Then, because we can communicate, such systems of ideas may even find the means to cross the boundaries of selfish selves — and thus take root in other minds. This way, a language, science, or philosophy can transcend the limitation of each single mind's mortality. Now, we cannot know that any individual is destined for some paradise. Yet certain religions are oddly right; they manage to achieve their goal of offering an afterlife — if only to their own strange souls.
Marvin Minsky Society of Mind
Cloudbuster on Last Word On The Election (For Now) — With Bonus Podcast!


text:
Серва́нт ( — «маленька шафа», від servir — «служити») — один з видів шафи для посуду. Призначений для зберігання продуктів харчування, посуду, текстильних виробів та спиртних напоїв. Зараз під сервантом розуміють посудну шафу зі скляними дверцятами-вітриною — на відміну від буфета (креденця), спорядженого нішею і стільницею.

У XVII столітті шафи-серванти набули того вигляду, до якого звикли сучасні люди. В Україні у 20-у столітті подібні шафи були чи не в кожній сім'ї, єдиною відмінністю була вартість виробу.

Примітки

Шафи
Меблі


He's Real & He's Awesome!
Jimmy's insticts were right! Today there are over 50 Jimmy The Greek quick service restaurants across Canada.
"The success of our operations is a simple recipe: possess a burning desire to offer delicious high quality fresh food, provide fast friendly service and do it with a touch of Greek hospitality."
Please contact the location closest to you for more information.
Adults & youth (ages 13 and older) need an average of 2,000 calories per day, and children (ages 4 to 12) need an average of 1,500 calories per day. However, individual needs vary.
Selection and prices may vary. Prices subject to change without notice.
See it on YouTube Now!


The Latin America, Middle East and Africa Forensic Technology Market would witness market growth of 16.3% CAGR during the forecast period (2018 – 2024). Forensic technology has grown into a major tool in the court of law. It is used with an objective to investigate crime. Increasing crime rates and growing need to solve finesse crimes using advanced technologies are the factors that would drive the growth of the global forensic technologies market. Additionally, government initiatives in the form of funding to support forensic research would further add to the growth of the market. However, questionable accuracy of the results through the use of these technologies would limit the market growth.
Based on service type, the market is segmented into Chemical Analysis, Fingerprint Analysis, DNA Profiling, Firearm Analysis and Other Service. Based on Product, the market is segmented into Biometric Devices, Digital Forensic, DNA Testing, Ballistic Forensic and Other Products. The report also covers geographical segmentation of Forensic Technology market. Based on countries, the market is segmented into Brazil, Argentina, UAE, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Nigeria, and Rest of LAMEA.
The market research report covers the analysis of key stake holders of the market. Key companies profiled in the report includes Eurofins Scientific, LGC Forensics, SPEX Forensics, Neogen Corporation, NMS Labs, 3M Company, Thermo Fisher Scientific, GE Healthcare, Ultra electronics forensic technology and Agilent Technologies.