At Sluts Prostitutes, we have the hottest sluts and prostitutes in Curran that are looking for quick hookups with no commitments, come meet them for Free.
Find local sluts and prostitutes from Michigan Sluts including Curran and nearby cities, Fairview (10.86 miles), Comins (11.47 miles), Barton City (11.63 miles), Glennie (13.99 miles), Mio (15.60 miles), Hubbard Lake (15.71 miles), South Branch (16.15 miles), Spruce (17.20 miles), Long Lake (19.72 miles), Herron (21.15 miles), Lincoln (21.53 miles), Luzerne (21.61 miles), Lachine (21.76 miles), Ossineke (21.98 miles), Mikado (22.08 miles), Atlanta (23.65 miles), Hillman (23.85 miles), Lewiston (24.28 miles), Hale (24.30 miles), Lupton (24.49 miles), Harrisville (24.66 miles), Black River (24.73 miles), Rose City (26.23 miles), Greenbush (27.95 miles), National City (29.91 miles), Alpena (30.01 miles), Oscoda (30.47 miles), Johannesburg (33.37 miles), East Tawas (34.63 miles), Whittemore (34.65 miles).
Register for free and meet local prostitutes in Curran or browse Michigan Sluts for more cities.
There are many registered profiles from Curran. Including surrounding areas of Fairview, Comins, Barton City, Glennie, Mio, Hubbard Lake, South Branch, Spruce, Long Lake, Herron, Lincoln, Luzerne, Lachine, Ossineke, Mikado, Atlanta, Hillman, Lewiston, Hale, Lupton, Harrisville, Black River, Rose City, Greenbush, National City, Alpena, Oscoda, Johannesburg, East Tawas, Whittemore, there are many members and growing every day.


text:
Heartbleed Prompts Fiscal Lifeline For Open Source
April 25, 2014 16:24 by Paul Roberts
One of the most powerful (and substantive) realizations to come out of the news about the 'Heartbleed' OpenSSL vulnerability was that open source projects need help and attention from the tech community that relies on their fruits.
The Core Infrastructure Initiative will direct private funds to the maintenance of critical, open source projects.
I've written about this before – noting Apple's reluctance to put some of its considerable cash hoard towards supporting open source projects it relies on (like the Apache Software Foundation), as have others.
[Read Security Ledger's coverage of the Heartbleed vulnerability here.]
Now that idea appears to have taken root. On Thursday, the Linux Foundation announced the creation of the Core Infrastructure Initiative, a multi-million dollar project to fund open source projects that are in the critical path for core computing functions.
The CII group has some substantial backing. Google, Cisco, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, IBM, Intel, Samsung, Fujitsu and VMWare all signed on to the CII Steering Committee. (Surprising (or not): Apple was not one of the firms supporting the CII.)
The group was "inspired by the Heartbleed OpenSSL crisis," The Linux Foundation said in a statement, and will use funds contributed by members to "identify and fund open source projects in need." Investments will be administered by the Linux Foundation and directed by a steering group composed of backers of the project and "key open source developers and other industry stakeholders," the Foundation said.
Among the activities that will be funded are fellowships for key developers to work full-time on an open source project, security audits of open source projects, computing and test infrastructure, as well as travel, face-to-face meeting coordination and other support.
Tags: application security, critical infrastructure, data privacy, Google, hacking, hacks, Linux, Microsoft, Mobile Threats, vulnerabilities
Jessica Dodson
These are some HUGE names and, I would imagine, a ton of money backing this project. But money usually means red tape and politics. Could a coalition like this really work and make significant changes? Or is it just going to muddy the waters even more?

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Create your own each meal by selection from a larger range of proteins, carbs and vegetables.
Freshly prepped balance meals made for you. Click for more details below.
"Love them.! Had two today, chicken, sweet potato and beans. Chicken chickpea and kale definitely best prep food i've had.!! Thank you.


text:
Virginia Republican gubernatorial nominee Glenn Youngkin speaks during his election night party at a hotel in Chantilly, Virginia, U.S., November 3, 2021.
REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
Big Republican win, shock Dem loss in Virginia
GOP wins Virginia gubernatorial race. In a stunning upset, Republican Glenn Youngkin won Virginia's highly-anticipated governor's race. Youngkin beat Democrat former Gov. Terry McAuliffe by two points, a wider-than-expected margin. The result — in a purple state that President Joe Biden bagged by a comfortable 10 percent a year ago — is very bad news for Democrats ahead of the 2022 midterms. Biden didn't get the boost he was hoping for to turn the tide on his poor approval rating and his domestic political agenda, stalled by deep divisions within the party over two landmark infrastructure and social spending bills. What's more, McAuliffe underperformed with suburban voters and independents — crucial to Biden's 2020 victory and whom Democrats must woo to keep control of Congress a year from now. Republicans now gain momentum because winning back suburbanites and independents who hate Donald Trump improves their (already good) odds for the midterms. More broadly, the outcome in Virginia also shows the GOP a new electoral college pathway to win the presidential race in 2024... as long as Trump himself isn't on the ballot.
virginia governor election virginia JOE BIDEN us politics
Campaign signs for Democrat Terry McAuliffe and Republican Glenn Youngkin stand together on the last day of early voting in the Virginia gubernatorial election in Fairfax, Virginia, U.S., October 30, 2021
REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
What We're Watching: Virginia gov election a test for Biden
A nail-biter in Virginia. The campaign for the 2022 US midterm elections officially kicks off Tuesday, when Virginia votes to elect a new governor in a race widely seen as a temperature check on Joe Biden's popularity after 10 months. Democrats hope that former Gov. Terry McAuliffe wins back his old job so that the purple state does not slide into Republican hands ahead of presidential elections in 2024. But GOP challenger Glenn Youngkin, a millionaire businessman supported by Donald Trump, has caught up in the polls once led comfortably by McAuliffe in a campaign marked by education culture wars. Now both are in a dead heat, and the result will likely be very close. A Youngkin victory would be a big boost for Republicans, who'll gain momentum going into the midterms next year, where the Dems face long odds of keeping control of both houses of Congress. What's more, it would add pressure on Biden to mediate between the moderate and progressive wings of his party to pass a social spending bill, the hallmark of his policy agenda. With his own approval rate plummeting, the president needs a big win that Democrats can sell to voters a year from now.
virginia virginia governor election JOE BIDEN
Virginia's Governor Race Tests Democrats Ahead of 2022 Midterms | US Politics In :60 | GZERO Media
Virginia's governor race tests Democrats ahead of 2022 midterms
virginia governor election
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, shares insights on US politics:
Why should all eyes be on the Virginia suburbs?
I'm here in the Washington, D.C. suburb of Arlington, Virginia, where the state will be having a gubernatorial election on November 2nd. The Virginia governor election is held in the year after the US presidential election typically, and is generally seen as a bellwether for how popular the incumbent president of the United States is. In 2009, the Republican candidate won by a commanding 16 points despite the fact that Virginia has been trending more and more Democratic in recent years due to the population growth here in the suburbs, which tend to be more blue than rural areas of the state.
The race is close, which is a little bit surprising because last year, Virginia went [Democratic] by for 10 points. So the competitiveness of the Republican candidate is being seen as a sign of weakness of Joe Biden, potentially correlated with his slide in approval ratings and also an indication that maybe some of the strength of a Democratic Party is related to backlash against Donald Trump who's not on the ballot this time around.
The Democrats are running a former governor and an insider's insider, who was the former head of the Democratic National Committee. The Republicans are running a private equity executive who looks a lot like a reborn version of Mitt Romney, the former presidential candidate for the Republicans, which is surprising in a party that's been trending more and more in Donald Trump's favor.
A win or a narrow loss for the Republican would be seen would affirm a narrative of backlash against Joe Biden and his policies, would affirm that his low approval rating could potentially be a weight on Democrats in next year's midterm elections and show that voters are getting frustrated both by COVID, high energy prices, and potentially school board issues, issues of education, which has been a major issue in this election. If the Democrat wins comfortably, then all that narrative will be largely deflated. Democrats can prove that they can continue to win in Democratic areas by running against Donald Trump, and it will help Joe Biden going into the midterm elections.
Is Donald Trump returning to social media? - GZERO Media ›
Will the US debt ceiling debate cause a government shutdown ... ›
Can Biden recover from his Afghanistan debacle? - GZERO Media ›
Will Biden's spending bring inflation back from the dead? - GZERO ... ›
Leaders at COP26 pledge to end deforestation by 2030; US election day bets - GZERO Media ›
Democrats hope to use Jan 6 Trump focus to gain edge in midterms - GZERO Media ›
jon lieber us politics us political divide us elections democratic party republican party 2022 midterm elections donald trump joe biden virginia virginia governor election
Virginia Dems in Trouble: US Politics in 60 Seconds
Both the governor and lieutenant governor face calls to resign.
It's US Politics in 60 Seconds with Ben White!
And go deeper on topics like cybersecurity and artificial intelligence at Microsoft on The Issues.
Possible impeachment could further upend Virginia politics ›
Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax could face articles of impeachment ... ›
Virginia delegate plans to introduce articles of impeachment against ... ›
Justin Fairfax Puts Virginia Democrats in Bind on Impeachment ... ›
virginia impeachment trump shutdown jeff bezos national enquirer 2020 election


text:
Q: How to set border edges in HorizontalBarChartView I need help creating this style BarChart, only the rounded end edges.
Here is an example:

I'm using the library "ios-charts" but it does not have this feature. Please let me know how to do this - rounded end edges and horizontal bar chart with negative values.

A: It's not that that hard to draw bars that like that yourself. Perhaps fork that library and improve it and make a push request. Here's some simple code that draws a red bar pointing to the right.
import UIKit

@IBDesignable
class RoundedBarView: UIView {

override func drawRect(rect: CGRect) {
    let color = UIColor.redColor()
    let barRect = CGRectMake(0.0,0.0,self.bounds.width, self.bounds.height)
    var rectanglePath = UIBezierPath(roundedRect: barRect, byRoundingCorners: UIRectCorner.TopRight | UIRectCorner.BottomRight, cornerRadii: CGSizeMake(barRect.height/2.0, barRect.height/2.0))
    rectanglePath.closePath()
    color.setFill()
    rectanglePath.fill()
}

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


I've often got draft blog posts sat half written in the depths of my hidden blog. This one was entitled Do You Walk a Mile? The answer is no. In the spirit of new year I planned to make sure me and my very littles got outside and walked at least a mile a day. On my own that's only 15 minutes but with a toddler that's a good hour.
I'd pondered and struggled with finishing the post because I was pledging to do this daily. Looking at our first fortnight though we've managed 11 days out of 18. I can't legitimately put out a post going, "yay look at me for doing this" because it's a lie!
I do want to get outside more this year but maybe I should wait for the nicer warmer weather!! I really wanted to post a bit of a blog today though. With my impending #abc123challenge I want to get in the habit of a Saturday post because this is something I want to do. So I've scrapped the mile post in an ode to being kind to myself.
– the Robot had finally shifted his cold or bug or whatever the mess he kept being in. He is eating again and generally being nice to hang out with.
– CABS is sleeping! So am I! The growth spurts are a killer as she has been clingy and up loads in the night. She is in a content phase so I'm getting a bit of rest.
– I'm still loving Instagram. I am getting a lot from doing mini challenges. Lots of little real interaction with people is amazing.
– I got a great response from the #abc123challenge and need to follow through with some other connections to keep the momentum going. Not long till it starts on the 5th Feb!
– My Mum came to visit. She often visits but I sense a happy shift coming which is only going to bring good.
– It had to come down though because his favourite thing is, "Mummy will you run with me?" he loves to run around the living room. This means tidying all the toys away for space and we can easily clock up a miles worth of steps doing this!
– Early morning cuddles. Both kids still asleep meant Dave and I just had a few minutes to ourselves, literally. The Robot woke very soon after but was content to be bought in and cuddled too. It was a nice way to wake up.
There is no real thought gone into writing this post up today and I struggled with a title. Knowing I wanted to post it on Sarurday and wanting it to be positive meant Saturday Shine is what I came up with. Let's hope the sun is shining! Why Be? Be what you want it to be, an element of my #ABC123Challenge that I'll be starting soon and I need to decide what to include in it.
Happy bits is one thing but I'd like something else… If you could write a round up post from the week what would you include?


text:
Q: Why is the supplied parameter considered by SSRS to be unsupplied? I am trying to run a report I created and got it to the point where the parameters I created for the report display when the report is run as they should, but when I select "View Report" I eventually get this err msg:

As you can see, though, the control (dropdown list) for the Unit parameter is being generated (and it is being populated) and I selected a value (the exact value is obfuscated in the screamshot above). Yet, after some churning, that err msg appears.
How can that be? After all, the Unit parameter WAS supplied, ISTM.
It's not a problem with the server configuration or so, because I get the same exact fingerwag when trying to run it locally from the report's Preview tab:

HOWEVER, if I execute the Stored Procedure from the report's Data tab, by selecting the Dataset that I've set up for the Stored Procedure and supplying the same three values as above (just as I do from SSRS and from the Preview tab), all goes well - there is no err msg and lots of data is returned.
Why is the entered value for "Unit" passed through fine in the latter case, but not the other two?
UPDATE
Here are all the references to "Unit" in the report's .rdl (XML) file:
<ReportParameters>
    <ReportParameter Name="BegDate">
      <DataType>DateTime</DataType>
      <AllowBlank>true</AllowBlank>
      <Prompt>Begin Date</Prompt>
    </ReportParameter>
    <ReportParameter Name="EndDate">
      <DataType>DateTime</DataType>
      <AllowBlank>true</AllowBlank>
      <Prompt>End Date</Prompt>
    </ReportParameter>
    <ReportParameter Name="Unit">
      <DataType>String</DataType>
      <AllowBlank>true</AllowBlank>
      <Prompt>Unit</Prompt>
      <ValidValues>
        <DataSetReference>
          <DataSetName>UnitsQuery</DataSetName>
          <ValueField>Unit</ValueField>
          <LabelField>Unit</LabelField>
        </DataSetReference>
      </ValidValues>
    </ReportParameter>
</ReportParameters>

So "Unit" is among the ReportParameters, and that's why I see it along with the two Date params.
But why is it the only field in the Stored Procedure's dataset:
<DataSet Name="PriceVarianceSP">
  <Fields>
    <Field Name="Unit">
      <DataField>Unit</DataField>
      <rd:TypeName>System.String</rd:TypeName>
    </Field>
  </Fields>
  <Query>
    <DataSourceName>PlatypusData</DataSourceName>
    <CommandType>StoredProcedure</CommandType>
    <CommandText>priceAndUsageVariance</CommandText>
  </Query>
</DataSet>

Shouldn't it have either all three fields, or none of them? Why would one of them be given "special" consideration?
<DataSet Name="UnitsQuery">
  <Fields>
    <Field Name="Unit">
      <DataField>Unit</DataField>
    </Field>
  </Fields>
  <Query>
    <DataSourceName>PlatypusData</DataSourceName>
    <CommandText>select distinct Unit from duckbills order by unit</CommandText>
    <rd:UseGenericDesigner>true</rd:UseGenericDesigner>
  </Query>
</DataSet>

But the problem seems to be that it's missing from somewhere, not that it's somewhere it doesn't belong, or...???
Should "Unit" be removed from one dataset ("PriceVarianceSP") or another ("UnitsQuery")?
The only references to the two date params, BegDate and EndDate, are in the ReportParameters section.
As some may want/need to see it to grok this, and since the *.rdl file is not too large or complex (yet?), here it is in its entirety:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<Report xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sqlserver/reporting/2005/01/reportdefinition"xmlns:rd="http://schemas.microsoft.com/SQLServer/reporting/reportdesigner">
  <DataSources>
    <DataSource Name="PlatypusData">
      <rd:DataSourceID>875e488f-a3fc-4066-befb-5b85a938f58d</rd:DataSourceID>
      <DataSourceReference>PlatypusData</DataSourceReference>
    </DataSource>
  </DataSources>
  <InteractiveHeight>11in</InteractiveHeight>
  <ReportParameters>
    <ReportParameter Name="BegDate">
      <DataType>DateTime</DataType>
      <AllowBlank>true</AllowBlank>
      <Prompt>Begin Date</Prompt>
    </ReportParameter>
    <ReportParameter Name="EndDate">
      <DataType>DateTime</DataType>
      <AllowBlank>true</AllowBlank>
      <Prompt>End Date</Prompt>
    </ReportParameter>
    <ReportParameter Name="Unit">
      <DataType>String</DataType>
      <AllowBlank>true</AllowBlank>
      <Prompt>Unit</Prompt>
      <ValidValues>
        <DataSetReference>
          <DataSetName>UnitsQuery</DataSetName>
          <ValueField>Unit</ValueField>
          <LabelField>Unit</LabelField>
        </DataSetReference>
      </ValidValues>
    </ReportParameter>
  </ReportParameters>
  <rd:DrawGrid>true</rd:DrawGrid>
  <InteractiveWidth>8.5in</InteractiveWidth>
  <rd:SnapToGrid>true</rd:SnapToGrid>
  <RightMargin>1in</RightMargin>
  <LeftMargin>1in</LeftMargin>
  <BottomMargin>1in</BottomMargin>
  <rd:ReportID>badCompany7a923-1452-4e00-9cc3-1f437ad70ef6</rd:ReportID>
  <DataSets>
    <DataSet Name="PriceVarianceSP">
      <Fields>
        <Field Name="Unit">
          <DataField>Unit</DataField>
          <rd:TypeName>System.String</rd:TypeName>
        </Field>
      </Fields>
      <Query>
        <DataSourceName>PlatypusData</DataSourceName>
        <CommandType>StoredProcedure</CommandType>
        <CommandText>priceAndUsageVariance</CommandText>
      </Query>
    </DataSet>
    <DataSet Name="UnitsQuery">
      <Fields>
        <Field Name="Unit">
          <DataField>Unit</DataField>
        </Field>
      </Fields>
      <Query>
        <DataSourceName>PlatypusData</DataSourceName>
        <CommandText>select distinct Unit from duckbills order by unit</CommandText>
        <rd:UseGenericDesigner>true</rd:UseGenericDesigner>
      </Query>
    </DataSet>
  </DataSets>
  <Width>33in</Width>
  <Body>
    <ReportItems>
      <Textbox Name="textbox1">
        <rd:DefaultName>textbox1</rd:DefaultName>
        <Style>
          <Color>SteelBlue</Color>
          <FontFamily>Tahoma</FontFamily>
          <FontSize>20pt</FontSize>
          <FontWeight>700</FontWeight>
          <PaddingLeft>2pt</PaddingLeft>
          <PaddingRight>2pt</PaddingRight>
          <PaddingTop>2pt</PaddingTop>
          <PaddingBottom>2pt</PaddingBottom>
        </Style>
        <CanGrow>true</CanGrow>
        <Height>0.36in</Height>
        <Value>PriceAndUsageVarianceReport</Value>
      </Textbox>
    </ReportItems>
    <Height>2.29in</Height>
  </Body>
  <Language>en-US</Language>
  <TopMargin>1in</TopMargin>
</Report>

Does anything jump/stand/stick out about this that could be causing this problem?
UPDATE 2
If I remove the first dataset Fields section ("PriceVarianceSP"), there's no difference.
If I remove both of the dataset Fields sections (also the one in "UnitsQuery"), I get:
The report parameter 'Unit' uses the field 'Unit' in a dataset reference, but the dataset 'UnitsQuery' does not contain that field. (rsInvalidDataSetReferenceField)
UPDATE 3
To be clear about what is/not happening in the designer, I can go the report's data tab and select the Run ("!") button and see this:

When I supply the parameters, I get data:

However, if I go to the Preview tab of the designer, which supplies the correct controls to provide the parameters, and I enter the same params and then mash the "View Report" button, I get the err msg as shown above in the first image.
Why would the Preview tab (and the report in SSRS) not see that the Unit parameter has been provided, whereas the Data tab does?

A: The answer to this can be found here.
Basically, you need to configure the Dataset Parameters within the BIDS project.


text:
MY ACCOUNT SIGN IN SIGN OUT --> SUBSCRIBE SUBSCRIBE
Photography Videos The Goods Press Room
The 100 Most Influential People Next Generation Leaders Person of the Year Top of the World
THE PRESIDENCY: Trees
Monday, Oct. 16, 1939
Del.i.cious
Follow @TIME
The President last week tended such matters of State & Crisis as required his attention (see p. 24), then went by well-guarded special train to Hyde Park to attend to his trees.
Squire Roosevelt began to reforest his mother's lands as long ago as 1915, when he was Assistant Secretary of the Navy. To him, forestry is not a hobby but a practical adventure in precision farming. On his 800 acres and on Sara Delano Roosevelt's 277 acres (which he will inherit), Mr. Roosevelt now has 600 acres in scientifically laid out "plantations" of Norway spruce, white cedar, yellow, white and red pine, Douglas fir, black walnut, eitc., etc., plus such exotic importations as European, Japanese and Dahurian larch. Back from the Hudson are virgin stands of oak, elm, chestnut, maple. But his especial care is for the rocky hills, worn-out fields, swamplands which he has converted to planned woodland.
His timber teacher is 200-pound Professor Nelson Courtlandt Brown of the New York State College of Forestry at Syracuse University. When Mr. Roosevelt decided, in 1929, to raise his reforestation to a professional level, he invited Professor Brown to Hyde Park for a weekend. In a decade, under Nelson Brown's enthusiastic tutelage, Farmer Roosevelt has planted 240,100 trees. Says Mr. Brown: "The State only supplies him with trees for which he pays, same as it does and will do for any private citizen."
For all the baronial beauty of Hyde Park, thrifty Mr. Roosevelt wrings the last penny's worth from what he spends on his farm. Roosevelt apples are sold through the New York & New England Apple Institute — Roosevelt crates are numbered 999. Roosevelt trees are sold for crossties, telephone poles, lumber. Last year Mr. Roosevelt marketed 1,000 Christmas trees, hoped to sell many more this year at 50¢ apiece, well above what others expect to average. Drought last summer blighted these plans, killing 26,000 of 30,000 recently planted spruce seedlings and 4,000 older trees. Last week he soberly surveyed the damage, prepared to send off next year's plans to Professor Brown for checking and approval.
> The President announced regretfully that official business kept him from the funeral of his great and valued friend, George William Cardinal Mundelein (see p. 83).
> The President permitted one of his secretaries to announce to specially summoned newsmen that the President would have nothing whatsoever to say about Hitler's "outstretched arm" (see p. 34). "Make what you want to out of that," purred Acting White House Secretary Bill Hassett, giving Adolf Hitler the chill. Interpretation: The 32nd President of the U. S. has lost none of his yearning to play a really majestic role in world affairs, may yet do so when & if peace seems possible on terms acceptable to law-abiding folks.
> Five out of ten of the President's Cabinet advised him not to publish the German warning about the Iroquois (see p. 52). At least one of his most trusted Cabineteers was inclined to believe the German Grand Admiral's horror-story.
> On Cordell Hull's 68th birthday, the President had the Secretary of State in for lunch, topped off by a cake (one candle).
Shop TIME


Maintain production services through measuring and monitoring availability, latency and overall system health.
Spend at least 50% of your time on development efforts that improve reliability, monitoring, performance and velocity.
Not be afraid to contribute changes back to the Software engineering team to improve the systems.
Managing the delivery pipeline into production.
Our infrastructure is a hybrid with dedicated leased servers and AWS services. We are currently considering options for the next level of our platform.
We have contributed to the open source community building a configuration management tool for Kong as well as Puppet modules.
We employ a number of tools to monitor our systems.
This is not a job for a someone new to software development or operations. It takes years of experience to be able to quickly troubleshoot operational problems while thinking of the bigger picture in the areas and tools we can build to improve our metrics.
You should be the type of person that wants to automate the job you do today to give you a more interesting job tomorrow.
Write to us and tell us why this is the role for you.


text:
But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?
Economics, private law, Shameless Self-Promotion 110 Comments
I stumbled across this on YouTube. Walter Block says that this essay was one of the best intros to free-market anarchism he's read (or something like that). And hey–he's read a lot!
Anyway, the State is lucky I don't have this guy's voice:
110 Responses to "But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?"
scineram says:
Indeed, all market anarchist viewers will see that this is a great exposition on the subject.
Yosef says:
Bob, in the article you write (I had to go to the text to argue, this man's voice is too compelling), you write "Now that we've focused the issue, I think there are strong reasons to suppose that civil war would be much less likely in a region dominated by private defense and judicial agencies, rather than by a monopoly State", and you previously cite the civil wars of Colombia, Iraq, and Somalia as examples of government unable to maintain control. But, isn't civil war ipso facto evidence of a government which does not have a monopoly of violence/power?
Joseph Fetz says:
I would imagine that the two (or more) sides of a civil war do have regional monopolies, and are fighting to gain control of the regions that they each consequently do not control.
Fetz, my point is that civil war is itself proof that the government did not have a monopoly of violence within the borders of the state. Your saying that another group has a power within a region of the state is exactly my point. A civil war means two (or more) groups have the ability to engage in violence (on a given scale). A monopoly of violence means only one group ( say, the government) can engage in violence. Therefore civil war cannot occur in a state where the government has a monopoly on violence.
What I was saying is that whoever the parties to the civil war are, they are the defacto monopoly government of the regions that they control. Obviously, during a civil war who controls what region and when will change drastically over time. However, this does not eliminate the monopoly power that the parties to war have over their respective regions at any given time.
But, yeah. I understand what you mean, it is logically impossible for a monopoly region to be engaged in civil war, because that means there is no monopoly. I guess that I can agree.
Bharat says:
I'm not saying this applies to all cases, but certainly in the case of the United States Civil War, the one State (the US) split into two: the Confederation and the Union. Then these two States fought over territory, each "defending" its claim on the southern territory. That's how I see it at least. Or is a State no longer a State just because someone or a group of people state they have a claim over it.
Gene Callahan says:
Well, there is often a lot of territorial overlap, but yes: when a state fails, competing factions fight to re-establish a new state. Instead of, say, peaceful defense agencies spontaneously springing up.
The alternative to the modern state (right now, anyway) is civil war, not Bob's vision (nice though that vision is).
Bob, by the way, do you have the text of this talk? Nothing personal, but I basically never listen to anyone's web lectures. I either want to lay down on the couch and watch a DVD of a lecture, when I'm in passive mode, or be active on the web, where I can jump from task to task, skim, write when something hits me, etc. Web lectures just don't do it for me.
Robert Fellner says:
http://mises.org/daily/1855
This contradicts empirical history.
"I think there are strong reasons to suppose that civil war would be much less likely in a region dominated by private defense and judicial agencies"
Yes, if we already posit a stable ancap system, then by hypothesis, it will be stable. The real question is, "Could we ever *get* to a world dominated by such entities?"
Matt G says:
You're using the word "stable" in two different ways. We did get to a world dominated by stable states, yet civil wars still occur on a routine basis.
skylien says:
For my point the question is this:
At the moment if I want to choose where I get the services of law and defense from such an "agency" which now is called government I need to travel to a different country obviously. I have to change location. What if I for example just didn't need to travel but just say cancel my contract which at the moment is called citizenship with say France and contract with Spain a new one?
Now I and the land I own (if I own any) is guarded by Spain. It is possible now that Spain and France are peaceful, why not in this fictional case as well? Why should the army of France suddenly attack Spain just because they lost one "customer" with his possessions and his land to Spain?
Your real concern seem to be power vacuum, and I just don't see any power vacuum in that scenario, do you?
It is very unlikely that France would attack Spain just because of you. The French police would merely come around to your house and demand you pay tax anyhow, regardless of whatever contract you might have with Spain. You could call the Spanish police for help and they would probably shrug and say, "thanks for the money fool" or whatever that happens to be in Spanish.
The French police would thus demonstrate that they offer a superior product for your needs and transfer the contract on your behalf. That's how it is with protection, if you really don't need it, then you really don't need to bother about paying for it either.
At the moment it is no problem to cancel my citizenship with France and take all my possessions (car, money etc) to Spain. France will not object nor attack me or Spain for that.
Now I assumed in my hypothetical scenario it was taken just one step further. I also am allowed (by contract or by law from France and Spain) to "take" the land I own with me. If you think this way about it, it actually doesn't sound that strange. At the end land is just a different kind of property.. So if cultural values would change in that respect, and this practice was common, there is no reason to think war was more likely than it is now. Of course I implied a cultural change in general acceptance regarding this point.
What in effect I have described is secession. It doesn't sound so bad put this way, does it? And of course if this was realized we had anarcho capitalism. It's only one step away.
The real question is, "Could we ever *get* to a world dominated by such entities?"
Empirically, territories have had private defense agencies in the past.
Theoretically, humans can learn and act to create private defense agencies.
Well there's the Hatfields and the McCoys to start.
Since Ken B. emerged under a world dominated by nation-States, I have yet another argument in favor of anarchy.
You made a typo Bob. Lemme fix:
"Since only one Ken B. emerged under a world dominated by nation-States, I have yet another argument in favor of anarchy."
Yes, for a long time people thought that Smallpox was just something you had to live with, nothing anyone could do about it, etc.
Now we don't worry about it — because technology moved forward. Potentially a future technology will also restructure society, maybe the Internet already is doing that. If nothing else, the Internet gives people an alternative to the mindless TV news that has been dominated by statists for 100 years.
My personal guess is that we will never git rid of government, but with good communications we can organize people to demand better transparency and accountability. When enough people insist on small government, they will get it. Problem is, right now most people actually enjoy their big government.
Silas Barta says:
Did you know that there can be multiple equilibria, and that which domain of attraction you stay in can depend on where you start (or are moved to)?
Did you know that this doesn't require assuming that leaving a particular equilibrium is impossible?
Did you know that you are therefore mischaracterizing the strength of the assumptions Bob's argument makes?
Silas, Gene thinks he's on top of a big hill, looking down at us wallowing in the mud. He doesn't realize that his is a very unstable equilibrium.
You making a general statement about game theory Silas or claiming a specific proven result about ancaps? Because there are games where your basins happen, but do we actually know this is one?
[I think it's important to be fair when debating Callahan, so that one side is.]
Yosef but now you're arguing from definitions. I could say, "There is no crime in an an-cap world." Then you say, "But what would stop me from shooting my neighbor in the head? You're saying it's impossible?!" I reply, "Ah, but in that case, you'd be initiating aggression. So it wouldn't be a free market, and I'm talking about a free-market world."
(Gene, chill, I know sometimes an-caps do argue like this.)
When a modern nation-State falls into civil war, it shows that modern nation-States–in addition to their other flaws–can't guarantee domestic tranquility, which is the trump card of people like Gene lately. So Gene et al. can't simply say, "An an-cap region would turn into civil war." He needs to say, "An an-cap region would be more likely to turn into civil war than the same group of people who originally find themselves under a State."
I took Gene's objection to be more like how do you know it will remain stable? Starting off stable isn't enough. Consider imposing communism on a rich country; will it always be so rich?
More about long term evolutionary stability of the proposed equilibrium in other words.
Bob, I am arguing from definition only so far as pointing out that you yourself in the quote from the article refer to a monopoly state. And that bring a definition with it. I agree in an an-cap world, there is no civil war. Just as there is no civil war in a state with monopoly of violence. Your argument that an an-cap world is better than a world with state monopoly of violence used civil war to make the case, and is therefore wrong. On the civil war front, an an-cap world is better than a world in which the state has an abundance of power, but not a monopoly. But a monopoly state is also better than a state with just an abundance.
Btw, I do think an an-cap world is better than a monopoly state (I am not, to use the term in your article, an apologist for the State), but that argument comes from things other than civil war.
I can only repeat Yosef that I "get" what you are saying here, and I find it unhelpful in this debate. Look, suppose I said, "I don't think it's a good idea to hold a wolverine in the wild." You say, "Why not?" I say, "Because it will scratch the crap out of you!" You say, "Ah, but in that case, you'd no longer be holding it. You just contradicted your own argument."
Bob, from the text of your article, it seems the debate is about the relative merit of an-cap world versus monopoly states, with regard to civil war.
Let me try it your way. Suppose you said "Eating chocolate is better than eating dirt." I say say "Why?" And you answer "Because chocolate is brown". So I say "Ah, but dirt is also brown. So chocolate can't be better because of that."
Low likelihood of civil war is a property shared by an-cap and monopoly state, so how can it be used to argue for one over another?
You're not really saying much here. The argument is whether a monopoly state is better at preventing a civil war. Saying that once a civil war breaks out then it is no longer a monopoly state doesn't address whether monopoly states are better at preventing civil wars.
If we are going to argue this way then I can say that an ancap society can't devolve into a state because if it became a state then it would no longer be an ancap society.
Yosef wrote:
Yosef, within the quote above, you are flipping back and forth between the two claims. "Low likelihood of civil war" means we are starting right now in either a State or an-cap society, and we are wondering which starting position makes civil war at time T+x more likely. That is a sensible claim, and the one I am addressing in the article. One of my claims there was that pointing to civil wars that occurred when starting out with a State is hardly a strike against anarcho-capitalism. I also gave theoretical reasons for thinking that an-cap would be less likely than State to lead to civil war at time T+x.
But in your dirt analogy, you're not arguing that way. Instead you are talking about something that is definitionally impossible.
This is right. But then you don't walk into the objection raised, in various guises, by Gene, me, Daniel Kuehn (and inferentially Paul Krugman)? How do you get there?
I thought you were being mean for a second but then I went back and saw it was actually an analogy about dirt.
Bob, I think my use of "low probability" was a mistake since in my mind I was thinking about it as zero, but wanted to write it a different way, to try to get it across.
I agree with you! Your article presents an argument as to why a more an cap society would lead to less civil war than a state. But in your article you refers specifically to monopoly state. My point is moving from a state to a monopoly state would also reduce the chances of civil war.
There are two ideals: An cap world, with zero probability of civil war. And monopoly state, with zero probability of civil war. A state has a positive probability of civil war. Moving toward an cap would reduce the probability. So would moving toward a monopoly state.
Baharat, I would never think Bob is being mean in that way, because my analogies tend to be far from great. But let me try again!
Bob would say "I know how to end the civil war in Syria" I would ask "How?" And he would answer "Just allow all Syrians to be free, and associate as they want." So I would answer "I can also end the civil war in Syria. Give Assad overwhelming power to crush the rebels."
Actually Yosef, I have perhaps an even better reply to you: You just "proved" that murder is impossible under a State. After all, the State claims that it has the monopoly on who gets to be killed, and yet there goes a guy killing his ex-wife. So the State's monopoly has been challenged. Ergo, it's not really a State. Therefore, murder is impossible under a State. Anarchy can't say the same, so a State wins.
Bob. I said in an earlier comment that I was talking about " the ability to engage in violence (on a given scale)". Not violence on any level defies the monopoly.
Also, you seem to be using the terms "State" and "monopoly State" interchangeably. I would not argue that if murder, or civil war happened that it was not a State. I would argue that if civil war occurred it was not a monopoly State. I don't think the two terms are the same.
Dyspeptic says:
The "warlord issue" seems to me a bit of a red herring. So far as I can tell, the only historical difference between warlords and democratic officials is that one is self appointed and the other is appointed by a largely ignorant, foolish and docile group known as voters (who are usually not a majority of the population). Interestingly, during wartime democracies often dispense with the trappings of the democratic process and are ruled by elected warlords with dictatorial powers, ie. Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. Has an unelected warlord ever had more power than FDR had during WWII?
To me they are all warlords. The only difference is that politicians make dubious claims of legitimacy based on their ability to fool credulous voters and military conscripts/volunteers into doing their nefarious bidding. In a sense the traditional strongman warlord is more honest and forthright because they don't rely on the mystical democracy flim flam to bamboozle people into violent conflict with complete strangers. In essence my position is that once you remove from the state it's undeserved supernatural moral authority it's no different than a warlord or a criminal gang. At least with the latter we are not subject to insufferable pretensions of moral superiority.
According to the doctrine of demonstrated preference arachnocapitalists vastly prefer pretensions of moral superiority to Ali Barkan, Maarouf, Abu Issa.
Hmmm. It seems to me Bob you are assuming there is some underlying state or soemthing to define and enforce property rights. nd that these are crystal clear. Take this for example:
Once private judges had ruled against a particular rogue agency, the private banks could freeze its assets (up to the amount of fines levied by the arbitrators).
What stops the banks from doing that before the private judge rules? What if another private judge rules or the agancy, based on a differing interpretation of the relevant property rights?
Or a similar case here, with the notion of legitimacy
Remember, these would be admittedly criminal organizations; unlike the city government of New York, there would be no ideological support for these gangs.
But there are counter examples. The New Model Army under Cromwell most assuredly DID see itself as legitimate. As did the confederacy. And once you do waway with the state how can you appeal to the legitimacy of a city government as you implicitly do here?
Ken B. wrote:
Hmmm. It seems to me Bob you are assuming there is some underlying state or soemthing to define and enforce property rights. nd that these are crystal clear.
Yes Ken B., if we assume that the rule of law requires the existence of an underlying state, then we can quickly prove that anarchy leads to lawlessness. But, that's kind of what the debate is over.
You've missed my point Bob. I am saying that *your* argument, the one you give in that paper, seems to assume that you need an underlying arbiter whose writ runs. And that's the point of my question about the private banks. What is to stop the private bank from acting absent that private judge, or who will resolve conflicts over the very definition of property rights.
I got your point, Ken B. You are assuming that if someone is able to make "authoritative" judgments on matters of law, that he must be the de facto government or a part of it.
You are assuming away the existence of anarcho-capitalism.
Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong, but you're not demonstrating anything. You are assuming my system is impossible, then "concluding" that my system is impossible.
I can't argue this out with you here. Look at my recent lecture on Private Law if you want to see how I'd respond, in particular the analogies with natural languages or physics.
I will look.
I am seeing an assumption in your proposal. Your arguments seem to me stronger when they are cast as being for privatizing the enforcement of previously agreed laws. If all the agencies are bound by a shared legal framework and vary in the vigor and cost of their enforcement I can see your arguments having force. You seem to assume that binding.
There actually is in European history something of a partial precedent. For much of the middle ages in some jurisdictions clerics were under ecclesiastical law, not civil law. Englands is a case in point. And for much of the feudal era the royal writ did not run everywhere in England (Lancashire in particular) and cities had charters making them special.
Now Bob can say they didn't play by his rules, but absent an enforcer how does he know anyone will?
I found the discussion of the transaction cost problem at 9:48 a little odd.
I don't understand how my side can always be accused of assuming benevolence on the part of government when you then go ahead say what you said starting at 9:48.
Yes, assuming an ancap world full of ancaps it probably would be hard for warlords to emerge.
But such a world doesn't exist. In a non-ancap world full of non-ancaps, liberal, democratic, limited states seem to be able to do decently well at solving the warlord problem. Of course I can't assume all societies are liberal, democratic, liberal states. They aren't and I don't assume that. But I can say that we have historically produced liberal, democratic, limited states that do well despite even worse states being out there (and the number of democracies is growing). This is more than you can say. You have to assume the existence of something that has never existed to get a set of institutions (private arbiters, banks, and electric companies that all have ancap values preventing the rise of criminal organization) to get even close to the stability and the peace that I can point to simply as a matter of history with real people and real differences of opinion.
To me, the empirical approach to this question is not to just point to Somalia. I agree with you – Somalia ain't ancap. The empirical approach to this question is to point out that there are no ancap societies. That's pretty damning evidence that there is not a strong case for the success of anarcho-capitalism.
Maybe someday, but at this point there is really on solution but to assume a can opener.
You don't have to assume can openers with democracy. Real people with a variety of opinions make democracies, and even the imperfect ones have done OK and not just done OK but seem to improve over time.
DK, for what it's worth, I think you've raised the only decent objection in this discussion so far. That doesn't mean that Gene et al. are wrong, it just means I think they are repeating objections that I specifically tried to deal with, and they aren't explaining why my response is wrong.
Anyway I'll try to answer you soon. Busy right now. I'm serious, if I never answer you and you still care, please remind me.
Oh: Do you care if I quote from your two comments here "under the big lights," or would you want to revise them?
Or, if you want to make one consolidated objection, I'll quote just that in a stand-alone post and give you my answer.
Have at – the second was meant to focus the first, not replace it.
Beefcake the Mighty says:
What's the frequency, Bob?
Nice. I actually have a post scheduled for tomorrow morning on pacifism that you might be interested in too. Not exactly the same issue, but of course related.
Dan (DD5) says:
"The empirical approach to this question is to point out that there are no ancap societies. That's pretty damning evidence that there is not a strong case for the success of anarcho-capitalism."
This is nothing but a logical fallacy – Appeal to Tradition or Appeal to History. When are you going to understand that when you commit logical fallacies in your assertions, that you are also not doing any science either? I guess never!
If this is an "appeal to tradition" or "appeal to history", how is any empiricism possible on any question.
You do understand that I am arguing a positive point, not a normative one – right?
Anarcho-capitalism as a system sounds lovely. Tradition doesn't tarnish the loveliness of it.
But empirical evidence does help us to understand its prospects.
It's not a proof, of course. Empirical evidence never offers a proof. But it's relevant to consider.
Well today's your lucky day DK!
Mises and other Austrian philosophers have shown that empiricism, however valid it is for the natural sciences, cannot work for human action.
Empiricism can answer questions concerning non-teleological, causal phenomena. But for human action, which is influenced by learning and knowledge, which is ipso facto a priori unpredictable (or else we could just use allegedly discoverable formulas that can predict our own future path of knowledge accumulation, and become omniscient demi-Gods in the present).
Appealing to history is a fallacy when it comes to human action. For example, you can point to my past, and notice that every day last year, I ate a ham sandwich for lunch. If I said to you "Today I am going to have turkey on rye instead", would it be justified to say "There is no history of you eating turkey on rye. That is pretty damning evidence against the possibility of you eating turkey on rye."
In the social sciences, empiricism can only ever tell us a unique past that is composed of what humans knew at the time, what their preferences were, and their chosen actions.
It cannot tell us what is and is not possible, or what we will do in the future. For over a thousand years people believed in flat Earth. If you asked any of them at the time what are the chances of people landing on the moon, if they thought like you did, they would have said "It cannot happen, because it has never happened."
Maybe someday communism will work!
Daniel Kuehn gave Major Freedom a rusty trombone. Hence the tension in their exchange here.
Dan(DD5) says:
You don't even have any empirical evidence. Historical data is not synonymous with "evidence". In the fields of the natural sciences, scientific data is collected by conducting controlled experiments. What controlled experiments are you referring to exactly when you assert that you have "evidence"? Second, mere empirical data can never refute a logical deductive theory. That's why what you are doing is a fallacy. Even if you are right about your historical data, there are other possible explanations to why there were no ancap societies in the past, just like there an infinite amount of new ideas that haven't been implemented yet, but may be implemented tomorrow or next week or in 50 years.
" In the fields of the natural sciences, scientific data is collected by conducting controlled experiments. "
Not true at all.
Although there are economic experiments.
"Second, mere empirical data can never refute a logical deductive theory. "
Sure it can. You're skipping several requirements for deduction to be thusly privileged.
Here's another way to put my previous comment:
You seem to admit that a pre-existing warlord would be trouble for your solution. You present great reasons why in an ancap society a warlord couldn't emerge, but presumably a pre-existing one causes problems. That's the message I got.
Well warlords do exist as a fact, so you can't just assume them away.
How do liberal democracies do? Pre-existing warlords aren't a problem for us because we have tanks and battleships.
That's not perfect, of course.
But so far, in the world of facts and not assumed can-openers, we seem to be winning the argument.
Private security institutions can have tanks and battleships. I mean, don't private corporations with government contracts build them now? If they're truly needed in a free society, then there would be a demand for them.
To drive the point home further – we might ask ourselves what we can infer from the lack of ancap societies in practice.
Two things really, but I think only one gets mentioned so I want to stress that we can infer two things.
The first (this one gets pointed out a lot): Ancap societies probably don't emerge easily. Since simply assuming an ancap society doesn't do anyone any good, this is bad news for you guys.
The second inference: maybe they do emerge, we just haven't seen one emerge recently (Somalia is not ancap). But maybe it does happen. If that's the case then it's clear they don't last. Perhaps they just fizzle out. Perhaps they turn into other things peacefully. Or perhaps warlords beat the snot out of them.
The second inference is important too, but I don't hear it as much. When we observe a stock at a particular time, we need to remember that the inflow and the outflow both matter.
Democracy doesn't "emerge easily" either. But after some initial trial and error, it typically stablizes into a gradual degradation trend.
Does this mean that in a monarchist world, late 18th century say, a pro-monarchist would be entitled to say to a pro-democrat "It's bad news for you guys, just look at what happened in France!"
History is one thing, but you can't let it determine what is possible. That would be implying humans cannot learn and change their ways.
It depends on what you mean by "emerge easily". It's certainly not painless or sure. I never claimed that. But there are a lot of democracies around. Its emergence in the modern world has been easy relative to a lot of alternatives. It happens as a historical fact on many occasions. That can't be said for an ancap society.
As for the rest of your post – you need to reread my comments. I said that it doesn't mean it's never going to be true. It just means we have no empirical basis for it (and I haven't been particularly impressed with the theoretical bases offered so far either).
It depends on what you by "depend."
Just kidding. I mean really, how often do you say a phrase, then after, presume the term is heretofore not clearly defined? Anyhoo…
You say democracy emerged relatively easily compared to a lot of alternatives. Well, it also emerged relatively difficult compared to a lot of alternatives.
Ancap societies have actually emerged relatively easy in many instances. There have been difficult situations for sure, but certainly they emerged more easily than democracy, which is typically preceded by a relatively more violent revolution.
Finally, we do in fact have an empirical basis for anarchist societies. You may want to look into the research of David Friedman, who devoted a large part of his work to the subject.
As for the theoretical case, well, I have been VERY impressed by it. For one thing, it lacks a blueprint top down plan, which is exactly what a free society would look like. And for another, the principles involved are just an extension of what most "sane" people already believe (no theft, no violence, no non-owners dictating rules of property to owners, etc), to include not only "civilians", but "statesmen" as well.
I am not impressed by any of the theoretical explanations for democracy. They are all based on might makes right, dressed up in more amicable terminologies, typically centering around non-existent "social contracts" and whatnot, which for some reason always end up containing different rights for different people (tax collectors versus those who cannot collect taxes, law creators and enforcers versus non-creators and non-enforcers of law, eminent domain enforcers versus those who cannot seize property, and so on).
Quite frankly, I think advocating for democracy requires a small, but positive amount, of sociopathology and other antisocial personality disorder tendencies.
To be totally OK with one group of people, through "representatives", initiating force against another group of people who are outnumbered by the first, is a sign that one does not have as much empathy towards their fellow human beings, as do, say, anarcho-capitalists who do not want to initiate force against anyone, even those in the minority.
I've never seen him make a comment in which he doesn't do that.
Blackadder says:
Both Gene and Dan are willing to grant that if an an-cap society somehow did come into being, it would be stable and wouldn't descend into civil war, etc. They just think that it's implausible such a society could ever develop in the first place.
I'm not inclined to be so accommodating. Even if you were able to establish an an-cap society somewhere, it would get taken over by gangsters or warlords within a generation or two.
Bob says that in an an-cap state this is unlikely, because would-be warlords can't rely on taxes and conscripts but have to pay market value for troops and ammo. Traditionally, though, the way armies have paid their troops is by giving them some of the plunder. George Bush may not have had to pay for bombs out of his own pocket, but he also didn't get to keep the profits from any captured Iraqi oil wells. And of course, once the process gets going, would be warlords can rely on taxes and conscripts, whereas an-cap defense agencies can't.
Well, I think I'd say "could be stable" rather than "would be stable".
The argument improves considerably after you assume a can opener. I am still not entirely convinced it's a good argument. But my mutually beneficial exchange instincts start to flex their muscles a little and I can start to see a case for it.
Because let's be clear about the nature of the can opener we are assuming: it is not JUST institutional. We are assuming things about human nature too.
Et tu, Blackadder? I think you should only comment on Sundays from now on.
OK, I'm juiced up cuz Bob said I'm contributing good arguments.
Here's my suspicion for the best chance of peaceful coexistence: a world government. A federated, constitutional, liberal, planetary democracy.
The EU an the US seem to show that this is:
(1.) a natural end-state to predict
(2.) a stable end-state – we had a Civil War of course but that was really the result of an extended constitutional conflict. It seems hard to argue that we will be prone to civil wars in the future. The EU was slower to develop its constitution so they are likely to avoid constitutional wars (which is really what the civil war was – a constitutional war).
(3.) Self-correction and improvement over time. Women's rights. Civil Rights. Gay rights. Liberalism in these sorts of societies evolves and expands.
(4.) Peace. Maybe you think we are aggressors. But we are less aggressors than we were. Our aggression is receding. Think of Western expansion. We don't do that now. We war differently.
I think if there isn't a disaster associated with climate change we will eventually be war-free (which of course is not to say that we will be free of incidental violence). That will happen when we have a liberal, constitutional, federal world government. That will also focus energies on much more important efforts that will advance the species along other dimensions.
We may have constitutional wars as that government is established, and they could be very bad.
By "advance the species along other dimensions" I am primarily thinking of populating the galaxy, actual or practical immortality, and collective consciousness.
I'm not qualified to say how far off that is, but I'm guessing it will only really advance after we have a world government. I bet we could settle the solar system without one, but we probably need one to push farther.
And of course collective consciousness is a game changer and could totally throw a monkey wrench into this sequencing.
Immortality, in contrast, would make the sequencing irrelevant.
And alien contact could speed any one of these up considerably (mutually beneficial exchange again), or stop everything in its tracks (annihilation).
"Here's my suspicion for the best chance of peaceful coexistence: a world government."
"Self-correction and improvement over time. Women's rights. Civil Rights. Gay rights." These are all issues in which government created the injustice, and then actively resisted the societal changes seeking to undo them. Government is a lagging indicator. This isn't just a history lesson. This is present today in gay rights.
"Peace. Maybe you think we are aggressors"
Maybe YOU THINK! It is a very debatable opinion, so much evidence bakc and forth on whether Iraq attacked us first, or Iran, or Syria, or Libya, or Afghanistan, or Egypt, or Pakistan. There's just such a great amount of evidence on both sides, that the best I can muster is saying "maybe you think we are aggressors."
RPM is just such a good person to continually and perpetually engage and give the benefit of the doubt to people who appear to live in a different reality than the one I perceive.
"Our aggression is receding."
Your model seems heavily biased towards declared wars and woefully inadequate in factoring in other forms of aggression such as the Drug War, inhumane prison conditions, a prison population greater than any ever seen before in the history of the world, the aggression against civil liberties and the climate of fear that creates.
Just because a civil war with an official tally of casualties isn't presented, does not mean other forms of aggression do not exist. Your model is abhorrently offensive.
Abhorrently offensive?
My apologies. I was going for no more than casually offensive.
I really don't know what to say to most of this. You clearly have some other abstract sparring partner in mind for most of these. You'd have a hard time putting a lot of this in my mouth successfully.
If you want to argue with someone that thinks that "other forms of aggression" do not exist, that apologizes for the drug war or inhumane prison conditions, that doesn't think we act as aggressors in the world, etc., then go find someone with those views. I do not hold those views.
If you want to argue with someone who thinks that the trend is toward peace and that aggression is receding, despite the myriad problems with the policies of the U.S. and E.U. – someone who isn't an apologist for those policies and can note progress without whitewashing failure to progress – if you want to argue with someone like that, then come talk to me.
Hahaha but which version of you would I find?!
I've never seen someone boast over how their total failure to use language to communicate ideas effectively, and a dedicated commitment to being as self-contradictory as possible.
One has to wonder if anything you write has any meaning, when your response to criticism is always to reply as if what you wrote isn't "actually what I said or mean!"
Again, RPM is a saint.
Not everyone does as shitty a job at reading comprehension as your response above. A ton of people have shown absolutely no tendency to misunderstand me.
And notice I'm not just vaguely unclear. When the usual suspects misread me it always happens to be in a way that makes me out to be making some horrible or indefensible claim. The misinterpretation is never random, in other words.
That tells me that it ain't me – it's you.
"A ton of people have shown absolutely no tendency to misunderstand me."
Your delusion knows no bounds. There have been entire threads with 100s of comments in a never-ending back and forth.
I can't believe I've actually replied to you more than once, this is embarrassing.
I second this, and assert the same thing. Posters here have taken my conditionals apart for pity's sake. I say "A implies B" and they say "Ken B says A". Happens here a lot more often then econlog or TBQ. I'm not expressing an opin ion on the current spat you guys are ahving, but in general DK is right about this.
RF quoting DK:
No, this is a pretty clear phenomenon. Take a look at Pinker for details, but even in terms of wars it's been known for a while that the 20th Century was *less* violent than most of the past, especially the tribal past from what we can By your own criteria the Old South, of apparently sainted memory on FA, was astounding violent.
Assuming that the trend is toward peace, why do you ascribe this to a particular form of government? What if the causal relationship is the other way around?
It seems more likely to me that as humanity trends toward peace and prosperity, it demands and evolves less distasteful governments. If the direction of this evolution seems to be in that of personal liberty, ancap is a reasonable hypothetical end-state.
That's possible. We may be evolving more peaceful tendencies and democracy comes out of that.
But people seem to be very similar the world over, and social outcomes seem most highly correlated with institutions.
Plus people with a lot of different backgrounds seem to be able to come to a liberal democracy like the U.S. and do fine.
So I think the case is strong that it's the institutions that are shaping things. but perhaps something else could be going on.
OH FFS, have you heard of this program called the news? It would tell you how the EU is disintegrating.
As a point of fact, it is the Eurozone that is disintegrating. Granted, this is having an impact on the overall EU, but is not the EU itself that is having problems. The points that Daniel brought up in favor of the EU have nothing to do with a single currency.
Holy crap Daniel, did you just call for One World Government? I'm not even criticizing you, I'm just making sure I read that correctly.
I guess that's where we differ. I read that and thought nothing of it. I assumed he was in favor of that.
That's weird you need to ask for clarification, Bob. DK is known for his direct and easily understood points, Strange you would ask for clarification on a comment as straight forward as:
It's almost as if you have spent years going back and forth with him and have become so accustomed to his antics that even the most straight forward of comments need to be double checked before proceeding forward as if what he wrote is what he will later claim that he actually said or meant.
Well… depends on what you mean by "call for".
I think it's going to emerge naturally, and I think that's a very good thing. You will not find me on the street corner demanding a world constitutional convention. I do not think that would end well if it happened today.
Ah, the old Hegelian/Marxian "Aufhebung" of history rears its ugly head once again. This time DK claims to be privy to the course of human history through Mind. One world government is allegedly historically inevitable, but at the same time, should not be forced prematurely before a particular stage in human development.
We can't force it before Mind (using DK as a prophet) is aware of enough social history to move on to the next stage. The conscious choosing of world government can only take place after a particular "stage" in human historical development. These stages are also known by DK, which is why he says it is a bad idea at the present time.
DK has Hegelian megalomania on the brain.
Didn't Mises refute this Historicism nonsense already? How in the world is early 19th century gobbledygook making an appearance as if it were novel? Someone, anyone, help a guy out.
You are one strange guy.
Having some expectations about the future doesn't amount to Hegel, sir.
Whatever you mud you can fling at people is good enough for your purposes, I guess.
Strange? Well, perhaps, but then who isn't? To be honest, I feel kind of relieved when you say I am strange. Anyway…
Oh, and please don't misunderstand me. I didn't mean having mere "expectations" amounts to Hegel. It's the way you say what you said (plus your other comments).
I like that you struggle to understand what the phrase "call for" means, and then offer an explanation that consists of the following:
"I think it is a very good thing, but I won't stand on a street corner demanding it."
And that is an example of a deliberate attempt at clarification on your part…..
Robert Fellner, I think you might be being a bit too harsh with the Lizard NWO acolyte here. To say, "Are you calling for One World Government?" sounds like I'm asking, "Are you actively promoting it?" I understood what Daniel meant when he replied that he (a) predicts it is coming and (b) welcomes this change, but that (c) he is not personally trying to make it happen.
However, I actually just meant (b) when I asked, so the distinction wasn't necessary.
So to be clear: I too think we are getting One World Government. After all, I believe in the Bible and that's how I read the last book. But, it's going to suck.
Yep, I'm in agreement that one world government is coming, and probably in my lifetime. Unfortunately, a lot of people are going to die in the process, as is true in any process of forming of a state. Different statists fight for power until one state rules, the only thing that is different is the size of the rules region.
But remember what Palpatine says to Anakin: "…and then we will have peace." At this time, Gene will say: "I refute you thus, Rothbard!"
Blah. My finger aren't working very well. Hopefully you can find the point in that garbled mess.
In response to Bob:
I cannot help but to think of a ship when I ponder the question of world government.
A ship has many compartments, all that can be sealed by closing the watertight doors to each compartment. The purpose of this is so that if problems occur in once area, it won't bring down the entire ship.
Well, I kind of think of it the same way with one world government. If there are problems, they will be projected around the entire globe. There is no way to compartmentalize or limit the problems.
With multiple states, you at least have that compartmentalization, and if you experience problems in one state, then you can at least move to a safer more preferable state.
This is why I never understood the push against stateless societies. The statists are so greedy that they can't even give up one state. Also, it isn't like they're losing anything from their perspective. I mean, if the anarchy thing doesn't work, then you just end up with a state, which is what the statists want.
"We left a desert and called it peace."
Ya, I totally get that. My point is for a guy who is quite sensitive about people misunderstanding him you'd think a deliberate attempt at clarification might, you know, say exactly what you just did.
As opposed to re-iterating his desire for it, and only able to definitely list "standing at a street corner demanding it" as what he won't do to help it come about.
I mean some poor fool might (even after all this!) be unsure if, for instance, he would support/advocate for policies that are likely to increase the possibility of 1 world government!
I think I'm just going to focus on the oddly high amount of satisfaction gleaned from the "lizard NWO acolyte" comment and be on my way…
I also think everyone should get some three digit number tattooed on their forehead (we'll work out which one). And we might have to rustle up Gog and Magog to beat up on Israel.
"everyone should get some three digit number tattooed on their forehead (we'll work out which one). "
Which forehead??
I suppose it depends on what qualifies as world government. On one level you could say we already have a world government. You use international institutions like the UN, IMF, WTO, etc., which can make and enforce law at least to a very limited extent.
But if the idea is a world version of the United States or the European Union, then no, I don't see that happening (nor, looking at what's happening with the EU, do I think it would be desirable). The natural instinct to divide up into teams is just too strong.
Murphy:
"Low likelihood of civil war" means we are starting right now in either a State or an-cap society, and we are wondering which starting position makes civil war at time T+x more likely. That is [the question] addressing in the article.
OK Bob, let me see if I can summarize your argument.
"Theorem: If an ancap society develops it will not only be stable but robustly stable."
Lemme clarify. In an ancap society players would have the choice to co-operate or cheat. You contend that in general they will need to co-operate. This is the basis of your claim ancaps can exist: that only strategies with very high rates of co-operation can invade an ancap, that only good co-operators can be an evolutionarily stable strategy. Fair so far?
You are arguing here that not only that but such ancaps will be more resistant to powerful players or coalitions who decise to defect than will stable democracies. "Robustly stable". Fair so far?
Amongst the arguments against you one is that there are no ancaps observed. But robust stability should help an ancap survive. Ancaps should be like blackholes, they should last. This suggests that either 1) ancaps are not more stable in this way or 2) ancaps just cannot form. Fair so far?
What does that mean "no ancaps observed"? I am an ancap. I am observable.
Are you saying no democratic societies in a world of monarchies would be an argument against democracy being possible?
But have you reproduced MF? That is the real criterion for the stability of your system.
That's your second mention of perdition today Bob.
re: "But have you reproduced MF? "
What a horrifying thought.
Yeah, I've got to agree with that.
Yawn.
I wonder what Bartleby thinks.
I had to look that one up, and if anyone else doesn't understand, all I can say is: don't look it up!
Referring to what?
Do Markets Cater to Our Worst Impulses?


text:
US Open Picks 09/04: Rafa Rampages On
Here's our picks for Wednesday's US Open action
Graham Ruthven
Tue, September 3, 4:42 PM
The 2019 US Open has moved into its final stages. Everyone who has made it this far harbours dreams of going all the way and with that pressure comes a number of compelling match-ups. Rafael Nadal will be in action, with Bianca Andreescu looking to continue her sensational run. Here are four tips for Wednesday at Flushing Meadows.
Bianca Andreescu v Elise Mertens
US Open women's singles quarter final, Wednesday September 3
It always felt likely that a youngster would emerge from the pack to make a real mark at this year's US Open and over the past week or so it has become apparent that Bianca Andreescu is that player. The Canadian dropped her first set of the tournament in the last round against Taylor Townsend, but has looked the part in her first ever appearance at Flushing Meadows.
Elise Mertens is looking to reach the semi finals of a Grand Slam for just the second time in her career and has made it this far without dropping a single set. The 23-year-old would appear to be the experienced head in this match-up, but Andreescu has real momentum behind her having also won in Montreal before arriving in New York.
1u - Back Bianca Andreescu To Win @ -187
Diego Schwartzman v Rafael Nadal
US Open men's singles quarter final, Wednesday September 3
The exit of Novak Djokovic has cleared the path for Rafael Nadal to add a 19th Grand Slam title to his collection, with the world number two now the clear favourite to go all the way at Flushing Meadows. Indeed, Nadal has been in exceptional form at this year's US Open, swatting aside Marin Cilic in the round of 16 with minimum fuss.
Diego Schwartzman showed trademark intensity to get past Sascha Zverev in the last round, but the Argentine has never beaten Nadal in seven previous meetings and in three Grand Slam meetings. However, the 27-year-old did manage to take a set off the Spaniard at both the Australian Open and Roland Garros. There may be some hope for him.
0.75u - Back Rafael Nadal 3-1 @ +300
Belinda Bencic v Donna Vekic
This could prove to be the most compelling quarter final match-up on the women's side of the draw. Belinda Bencic has been in excellent form at this year's US Open, seeing off world number one and defending champion Naomi Osaka in straight sets in the last round. However, Donna Vekic beat Bencic at Roland Garros earlier this year.
Indeed, the Croatian has enjoyed a good hard court season, reaching the final of the St Petersburg Open and the semi finals of both Brisbane and Acapulco before arriving at Flushing Meadows. This is a difficult match to call. It could go either way and so it's reasonable to expect that this could go the distance.
1u - Back Three Sets @ +145
Matteo Berrettini v Gael Monfils
Gael Monfils has been men's tennis' great entertainer for a long time, but the Frenchman has matched this with results at Flushing Meadows this year. Monfils made short work of Pablo Andujar in the round of 16 and a showdown with Nadal awaits in the US Open semi finals if he can get past Matteo Berrettini.
Berrettini is a surprise name in the final eight of the final Grand Slam of the year. The Italian saw off Andrey Rublev in straight sets in the round of 16 and has risen to the fore over the course of the tournament. Monfils has experience on his side, but the Frenchman can be somewhat unpredictable at times. Berrettini might actually be more consistent.
1u - Back Gael Monfils To Win First Set And Win @ +103
03/09/2019 US Open Picks 09/04: Rafa Rampages On


The API model has been used a great amount recently in applications. This has come about because applications can't just rely on their own data anymore, for a project to fully see its potential, it must be able to have third-party applications, intermingle with other applications, and have its data easily accessilbe by developers.
Think of how Facebook provides an API to grab its data (as long as you are authenticated of course). Facebook also allows third-party applications and other services to access its data. This is all done through an API.
Now when we talk about building our own APIs, there's always going to be the topic of how to secure our own API. We've talked a bit on token based authentication, and built our own RESTful Node.js API.
Today we'll be looking at a standard (JSON Web Tokens) and how to create them.
What are JSON Web Tokens?
JSON Web Tokens (JWT), pronounced "jot", are a standard since the information they carry is transmitted via JSON. We can read more about the draft, but that explanation isn't the most pretty to look at.
JWTs are self-contained: They will carry all the information necessary within itself. This means that a JWT will be able to transmit basic information about itself, a payload (usually user information), and a signature.
JWTs can be passed around easily: Since JWTs are self-contained, they are perfectly used inside an HTTP header when authenticating an API. You can also pass it through the URL.
What does a JWT look like?
A JWT is easy to identify. It is three strings separated by .
Let's break down the 3 parts and see what each contains.
Now once this is base64encode, we have the first part of our JSON web token!
The payload will carry the bulk of our JWT, also called the JWT Claims. This is where we will put the information that we want to transmit and other information about our token.
There are multiple claims that we can provide. This includes registered claim names, public claim names, and private claim names.
exp: This will probably be the registered claim most often used. This will define the expiration in NumericDate value. The expiration MUST be after the current date/time.
jti: Unique identifier for the JWT. Can be used to prevent the JWT from being replayed. This is helpful for a one time use token.
These are the claims that we create ourselves like user name, information, and other important information.
A producer and consumer may agree to use claim names that are private. These are subject to collision, so use them with caution.
Our example payload has two registered claims (iss, and exp) and two public claims (name, admin).
That will be the second part of our JSON Web Token.
The secret is the signature held by the server. This is the way that our server will be able to verify existing tokens and sign new ones.
This gives us the final part of our JWT.
Auth0 has created a great site to go through and test out how JWTs are made. You can see as you change the content on the fly, you are able to see the JWT get updated immediately. Auth0 provides great tools and they also maintain the jsonwebtoken Node package to handle creating and verifying JWTs in Node.
The JSON Web Token standard can be used across multiple languages and is quickly and easily interchangeable.
You can use the token in a URL, POST parameter, or an HTTP header. The versatility of the JSON Web Token let's us authenticate an API quickly and easily by passing information through the token.
For a full code example on how to authenticate a Node API using JWTs, check out our book: MEAN Machine.


will kongregate accept java applets?
Yes, Kongregate offers full support for them. I already know one Java developer on Kongregate, and I want to expand this community.
I made a research on the applets on Kongregate - everything is really easy to attach and works well.
Bump. Does anyone have idea how to do this connection?
I'll do a bit of expireminting when I get to an actual computulator tomorrow.
Sadly this does not work anymore. Any other ideas?
There are various controls that work with three different applets, and they all appear to still be functional.
The second example is the applet for Sivi at the following URL (and it will "break" as soon as I update the jar).
The tricky thing, I think, is specifying the location of the class with the "init" method correctly. You have to spell out the packages. And of course the jar file has to be spelled correctly as well. This template is very fussy about syntax.
The nice thing about the "bot blocker" example is that it shows a bit of interaction with the start and stop buttons. By giving the app and "id" you can reference methods in it. It was also cracked by Notch and hacked by DzzD in short order.
Kongregate forces you to use HTML iframe. I have managed to write basic LWJGL working applet, it seems that from this moment everything will be much easier.
I will try to write and publish Kongregate API for Java soon, I consider that my problem is solved.
Yes, it no longer works. There are lots of JSObject tutorials, but all of them are useless, so I am looking for another solution.
Edit: I found something like DOMService, but there are no tutorials or even understandable description. May this class be useful? If yes - how can I use it?
you could use phillfrei's code to pull the applet for which function needs to be called and to deliver the result.
also you said you could connect with JS in js files. could you please put up a file with your example and sources?
I wanted to make simple game using Kongregate API, but I changed my mind and will host my "main" game Star Mayor directly.
Philfrei, can you show BotBlocker code?
By the way, I am using LWJGL Applet Loader to load my LWJGL applet, so I have another problem - as "code" attribute I must use "org.lwjgl.util.applet.AppletLoader". Is it still possible to use methods from Java somehow?
Try creating a function as a variable and pass it to your applet and see what kind of object the applet gets passed.
Could you please put up code for this?
Was there a specific question about BotBlocker?
The html/js function calls into BotBlocker invoke public java methods that have void returns. But there's no reason you can't call a method with a return value, as far as I know.
The button and text field in the app itself are Swing components, are part of the app, not the html or js.
I currently have problem with LWJGL applet loader, as I can't use your code directly, philfrei. I must find a way to go through applet loader and call methods from my applet.
Everything returns 3.141592653589793 into output.
EDIT: I finally found a solution! Everything works now.
I know it sounds like you're going another way with this, but I don't think this is true. This example on Oracle's site works for me with a Java 7 plugin.
I already found a solution. In few days I will create and submit Java API for Kongregate and instructions how to submit Java2d/LWJGL game to Kongregate. Maybe someone will use it to submit his own game to Kongregate.
I definitely plan to submit one. Also, how did you do it?
Check "Kongregate API for Java" topic. I written instructions how to submit LWJGL game, but after little modifications you can send Java2d game, too.
IIRC the Netscape JSObject is no longer supported in Firefox, but the DOM interface model doesn't work with Plugin-1, which means it doesn't work with Mac's with the Apple Java Plugin. Now that Oracle are providing Java for Macs, it might be worth looking at the DOM Interface again.
Thanks. Now we just have to wait until the first Java game will appear on Kongregate.
Wow, good information, thanks. Just plain HTML 5 looks better every day!


text:
Home amazing A Bar, a Bull and a Movie
A Bar, a Bull and a Movie
Actor John Travolta and Debra Winger smile on set of the Paramount Pictures movie 'Urban Cowboy' circa 1980. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)
Movies and sometimes songs can start a craze that sweeps the nation and last for years. This is no different from June 6, 1980 when the mechanical bull riding was brought into the spotlight. The movie Urban Cowboy starring John Travolta and Debra Winger featuring a mechanical bull brought in $53.3 million from theaters nationwide.
The storyline, in case you don't remember, is about a country boy with big city dreams, Bud Davis who is played by John Travolta, and moves to Pasadena, Texas. When a mechanical bull-riding contest is announced at a local bar called Gilley's, Bud decides to sign up. Gilley's is an actual bar named after the co-owner and country singer, Mickey Gilley.
Spoiler alert if you're one in a million that has not seen the movie yet. As the movie goes, Bud was able to hang on for the full time, eight seconds, and leave with the winnings, a whopping $5,000 prize. Needless to say, his manliness also captured the heart of Sissy, played by Debra Winger.
This movie may have made the bull riding simulator, the mechanical bull popular in bars across the country in the 1980s, however, they'd been around for a long time. The idea of training on a mechanical bull first before jumping in the ring strapped to a live one which can weigh an average of 2,000 pounds or more and quickly put your life in danger, was first built to train young or novice riders. It helped these beginners with aspirations of becoming professional bull riders for rodeo competitions, learn and perfect their skills without running the risk of injury when dealing with the unpredictable nature of a real-life bull.
With its roots in Texas, a professional bull riding group formed and named themselves, The Rodeo Cowboy Association which was created in 1936 and years later in 1975, became known as the PRCA, the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association.
Sherwood Cryer invented a mechanical bull to be used in the movie, but before Urban Cowboy made the mechanical bull famous especially in bars nationally, it actually was already being used as a form of recreation at Bertrand Island Amusement Park in New Jersey as early as the 1930s, called "Ride 'Em Cowboy".
But it took the movie, Urban Cowboy, for bars to run with this idea. It was now an added attraction to visit their particular bar and where people would happily hand over the money to try it. There were even special scheduled events and prizes. It made visiting a bar more interactive besides the drinks and live music and dancing, you could now participate, test and show off your bull riding skills.
They had variable speeds and times on the switch box which started the bull bucking and spinning and could go faster and faster as the seconds counted on. Either you were lucky enough to stay on till the buzzer sounded or fell off within seconds, often bruising the egos of many. When the bars had them installed, of course, to avoid injuries of the sometimes-drunken cowboy-to-be, they were surrounded with padded sides and flooring that would provide the individual with a soft landing.
Men try them and so do women. I suppose the men, so they can show off their masculine pride and toughness not only for their peers but also for the women watching them. Women will try them too, usually to test their strength and persistence as well as to show men, like Debra Winger did, that, hey women can do what men do too. A lot of the times, it's to say, "hey I rode a mechanical bull and lasted the full time without falling off."
Urban Cowboy: Mechanical Bull at Woodbury Cowboy Jack's from John Travolta Movie
Even though today there are still many bars across the country, from New York to Ohio to Wisconsin to, of course, Texas, that have the mechanical bull riding attraction, many people would now say "Wow, a mechanical bull, that is so '80s!" Women may do it to show off their femininity or strength for the guys watching or if it's a country boy turned city man or a man with the strong desire to become the next Urban Cowboy, there's just something about riding the mechanical bull that creates an aura of the Wild West and with it competitive excitement similar to a real rodeo, that can puff up a person's pride, if only for a little while. Long live the cowboy and cowgirl!
A Bar, a Bull and a Movie Reviewed by free heip on January 28, 2019 Rating: 5


This past week, all students participated in a wonderful assembly about Indigenous People's Day, presented by Paul Cheoketen Wagner. Thank you to the PTA for helping to fund this assembly.
This coming week we are excited to host the Counsel General of Japan. He will visit McDonald International on November 8. Additionally, we are excited about two upcoming assemblies over the next two weeks. On November 13, all students will receive a lesson on Being Safe Online and Digital Citizenship, led by Kelly Crouch from the Seattle Police Department. Then, on November 15, Zakir Hussain will perform Indian drumming. Zakir Hussain is known in India and worldwide for his virtuosity in the fields of world music and percussion as a tabla player, percussionist, and composer.
As many of you already know, last Friday we had a curious kindergarten student pull the fire alarm. The staff and the students did a terrific job evacuating the building in an orderly fashion. In addition, the majority of parents did a great job of keeping their non-McDonald International students away from the building and off the playground equipment when asked to do so by faculty members. However, it was brought to my attention by some parents that an area of growth would be for all parents to follow this protocol. As one parent stated, "In a real emergency, the young children on the structures could have had a detrimental impact, which of course none of us would want to occur." Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Please join me in wishing a fond farewell to Ms. Nancy, our beloved elementary secretary. Nancy will be retiring December 15. We are super sad to see her leave but excited for her as she embarks on the next chapter of her life.
Additionally, please join me in wishing a fond farewell to James McClinton, our evening custodian. James was recently promoted to a new position at Eagle Staff Elementary School. His last day at McDonald International is this Tuesday.
Have you heard of Artsonia? It's an awesome online tool that Ms. Amanda uses to archive student work and build a safe, private, school-wide art gallery. With Artsonia, you can view and comment on your child's artwork online, in addition to seeing all the awesome art projects going on at McDonald. You can even buy merchandise featuring your child's art (these make great gifts!). A second round of Artsonia permission slips are going home this week, so be sure to look out for those permission slips and follow the link to get signed up so you can start seeing your child's art in our online gallery. If you have more questions about Artsonia, feel free to email Ms. Amanda, asrengli@seattleschools.org. If you already use Artsonia, you don't need to sign up again, unless you have a student that is new to McDonald this year.
For the 2018-2019 school year, I am pleased to share that we will be taking in four Kindergarten classes; two Spanish Immersion classes and two Japanese Immersion classes. Please be sure to spread the word.
Attention parents who have students who ride the bus to and from school: We were recently alerted that the bus drivers might go on strike sometime over the next couple of weeks. The district has asked schools to ask parents to think about a Plan B for your child, if the bus is not available. If you have any questions regarding this, please reach out to the SPS department of transportation.
Lastly, I wanted to let everyone know that my maternity leave will begin on November 13. While I will deeply miss the students, staff, and families, I am looking forward to spending time with my little babies. My plan is to return to work around Spring Break. Kathy Jolly, interim Principal, will begin November 13. Please be sure to say hello to her and to show her what a great community we have at McDonald International.
I hope everyone has a great weekend and as always, please do not hesitate to reach out to me, Kathy Jolly in my absence, or your child's classroom teachers.


text:
Tagged Under Tara Q. Thomas
If you wish to search our tasting notes instead, please go here.
Sonoma Fires (News & Features)
The Kincade Fire, which began near Geyserville on Wednesday night, October 23, had consumed 66,000 acres of land in northern Sonoma and was only 5 percent contained as of Monday morning. Due to sustained hurricane-force winds, the mandatory evacuation zone has spread from the county's eastern border in the Mayacamas Mountains...Read Full Story
Modern Greek Cooking (Book Review)
If haute French cuisine never existed, it's hard to imagine that we'd ever have come to take the country's wine as seriously as we do today. It's in this spirit that Pano Karatassos has come...Read Full Story
Paul Symington Honored (News & Features)
{image_1}Symington, born in Oporto in 1953, joined his family's Port business in 1979, managing a portfolio that includes Port brands Graham's, Dow, Cockburn's, Warre's and the still-wine house Quinta do Vesuvio. While working his way up to chairman and joint managing director of his family's...Read Full Story
Wines for Orthodox Easter (News & Features)
{image_1}I'd just worked for three months straight, six days a week, dawn 'til well after dark, as the chef at a small restaurant in Athens, and the owners closed the restaurant for a three-day weekend. In Greece, Easter is the most important holiday of the year and...Read Full Story
BYO Communion Wine (News & Features)
{image_1}I met a young woman who works for the Church. She had recently been ordained an Episcopal priest, having worked her way up through the diocesan ranks. Part of her training came as a visiting preacher, taking her sermons to churches in a wide radius of her home....Read Full Story
A Bordeaux Craze at Raoul's in New York City, Where Andrew Newlin Mans the List (Interviews)
Alan Beasey at the Purple Pig in Chicago on Greek Wines and By-the-Glass Advantages (Interviews)
Neal McCarthy of Miller Union on Playing Favorites and Knowing the Classics (Interviews)
Jordan Mackay and Rajat Parr win André Simon Food & Drink Book Award (News & Features)
A big shout-out to W&S contributor Jordan Mackay and sommelier-winemaker Rajat Parr for taking top honors in the André Simon Food & Drink Book Awards 2018. ...Read Full Story
From Assyrtiko to Xinomavro with Greek Wine Maven Kamal Kouiri of Molyvos (Interviews)
Page 1 of 25 pages 1 2 3 > Last ›