text:
Is evolution progressive?
Dale Russell, evolution, progress, Stephen Jay Gould
Paleontologist Dale Russell believed that had dinosaurs not gone extinct, they would have evolved into big brained bipeds very similar to us
In a trivial sense, almost everyone agrees that evolution is progressive in some ways. The average life form on Earth today is far bigger, more complex, more intelligent and more beautiful than the average life form 3.5 billion years ago, when life began.
However this does not prove that evolution favors more complex organisms because they're superior, which is what is truly meant by evolutionary progress. It could just be that it takes time for complex life to evolve, and since life started with minimal complexity, it had nowhere to go but up.
Stephen Jay Gould uses the analogy of a drunkard's walk. Gould's anology is explained by Robert Wright:
A drunk is heading down a sidewalk that runs east-west. Skirting the sidewalk's south side is a brick wall, and on the north side is a curb and a street. Will the drunk eventually veer off the curb, into the street? Probably. Does this mean he has a "northerly directional tendency"? No. He's just as likely to veer south as north. But when he veers south the wall bounces him back to the north. He is taking "a random walk" that just seems to have a directional tendency.
If you get enough drunks and give them enough time, one of them may eventually get all the way to the other side of the street. That's us: the lucky species that, through millions of years of random motion, happened to get to the far north, the land of great complexity. But we didn't get there because north is an inherently valuable place to be. If it weren't for the brick wall—that is, the fact that no species can have less than zero complexity—there would be just as many drunks south of the sidewalk as north of it, and the randomness of all their paths would be obvious. Gould writes, "The vaunted progress of life is really random motion away from simple beginnings, not directed impetus toward inherently advantageous complexity."
The problem with this metaphor is how far North does the drunk need to get before the wall no longer explains his progression? If you found 100 drunks that were all 100 miles North of the wall and came back a month later and found those same drunks were now on average 200 miles North, then obviously something other than the wall is moving them North because once you get 100 miles North, the odds of randomly stumbling 100 miles South are like the odds of flipping a coin and getting 100 consecutive heads.
So Gould's argument can plausibly explain why single cellular organisms evolved into multi-cellular organisms, but it can't seem to explain why organisms that are already 100 miles North of the wall also show increasing complexity.
Paleontologist Dale Russell (1989) found that the encephalization quotient (ratio of brain weight to expected brain weight for body size) of mammals more than tripped in 65 million years of evolution. It seems extremely unlikely that this tripling can be explained by Gould's "no where to go but North" metaphor because brain size can certainly decrease in size, and even vanish all together.
On the other hand, there might be a survivor bias in Russell's dataset in that the descendants of those mammals that decreased their brain size are no longer considered mammals, leaving only bigger brained mammals in the sample.
What is needed is a study that compares the brain size of extinct animals with the brain size of their living descendants. If most of the latter are bigger brained than most of the former, then Gould's metaphor is debunked, and evolution really is progressive.
48 thoughts on "Is evolution progressive?"
The Philosopher said:
What do people think about mutton chop facial hair. Its popular with some old men, usually upper class landed aristocrat types in the uk. It looks a bit funny. For some reason i think moustaches male someone seem reliable. I must have watched a show when i was youbg that had a mustached good guy i guess. Worst facial hair is the kind of wizard beard. It looks terrible.
I also think blacks cant really pull off beards. I mean some can. East asians always seem to have for thin beards if they grow them. So they usually go the goatee route.
barbering should be illegal. said:
i hope you're joking.
any facial hair other than no facial hair or the full osama/wizard beard is UN-Cynical and therefore bad taste and gay.
i imagine that in the old days when there were no razor blades or scissors men didn't have a choice.
but keeping some and removing the rest is ARTIFICIAL and therefore UN-Cynical.
all or nothing.
it is odd that human hair keeps growing forever. there's no advantage in that. there's only one dog breed with hair like that, the poodle.
if not groomed the poodle develops dreads.
What school does zizek fall into? Hes sounda postmodernist Its hard to tell. He slurs his speech a lot. I think he has some sort of dead facial muscle as to why he speaksssh like thissh.
LOADED said:
You sound like you're on speed.
You sound like an ILLEGAL immigrant.
RaceRealist said:
How does this refute Gould's argument? If you'd have actually read the book, you'd see it doesn't.
Dale Russell is refuted:
I would argue, as does Feduccia (44), that the mammalian/avian levels of activity claimed by Bakker for dinosaurs should be correlated with a great increase in motor and sensory control and this should be reflected in increased brain size. Such an increase is not indicated by most dinosaur endocasts. (Hopson, 1977: 443)
If mammals had arisen late and helped to drive dinosaurs to their doom, then we could legitimately propose a scenario of expected progress. But dinosaurs remained dominant and probably became extinct only as a quirky result of the most unpredictable of all events—a mass dying triggered by extraterrestrial impact. If dinosaurs had not died in this event, they would probably still dominate the large-bodied vertebrates, as they had for so long with such conspicuous success, and mammals would still be small creatures in the interstices of their world. This situation prevailed for one hundred million years, why not sixty million more? Since dinosaurs were not moving towards markedly larger brains, and since such a prospect may lay outside the capability of reptilian design (Jerison, 1973; Hopson, 1977), we must assume that consciousness would not have evolved on our planet if a cosmic catastrophe had not claimed the dinosaurs as victims. In an entirely literal sense, we owe our existence, as large reasoning mammals, to our lucky stars. (Gould, 1989: 318)
Why didn't Rushton discuss any of Gould's arguments at the end is his book? Surely he was aware of them. Hmm…
Give it up PP.
pumpkinperson said:
Nothing you quoted debunks Russell's claim that mammal encephalization tripled in the last 65 million years.
What I quoted debunks Russell's thought experiment.
See Deacon for the refutation on brain size.
Russell simply noted the trend line of increasing dinosaur encephalization and extrapolated to today. Nothing you quoted invalidates his conjecture, other than possibly the idea that reptilian body plans can't support huge brains. However it's likely the big brained descendants of dinosaurs would be non-reptiles, indeed they already are: crows evolved from dinosaurs and already as smart as apes, if not smarter.
Provide a direct quote explicitly refuting the tripling of mammal encephalization since 65 million years ago.
Um yea, Hopson does.
Read Deacon 1990, one of the first points in his paper on brain size.
Provide the direct quote or shut up
Name redacted by pp, 2019-06-20 said:
[redacted by pp, June 20, 2019]
as time goes on variance increases as…
given a life form of a certain complexity at a certain time and place it may be beneficial to this organism to become more complex or to become less complex.
a random walk with a wall will have a greater spread the longer the walk…duh.
imagine a "galton board" with a wall.
the more pegs the greater the spread.
jordan peterson = smartest man in canada = SAD! said:
each peg or nail corresponds to the evolutionary "decision" to become more or less complex.
if it's 50/50 evolution is NOT progressive.
BUT the complexity of the most complex organism at any given time increases with time.
if evolution is "regressive", it "prefers" simplification, can the complexity of the most complex organism still increase forever?
caffeine withdrawals said:
"If you found 100 drunks that were all 100 miles North of the wall and came back a month later and found those same drunks were now on average 200 miles North, then obviously something other than the wall is moving them"
If this process were random, after a month you'd expect to see as many drunks 200 miles away as back at the starting point. So in the case of evolution there'd be as many species that regressed from a fixed point back to the beginning in a given amount of time as species that advanced the same distance.
Are there any instances of complex multi-cell organisms reverting to more basic forms in the fossil record?
There might be some but I suspect it's extremely rare.
Not progressive doesn't necessarily mean not random.
I can't see how evolution is solely progressive. This could be a one off, but the T-Rex evolved into a chicken. The terror bird evolved (one of) into the red legged seriema, it's a 3 inch bird which can't do shit really. Evolution isn's always about getting more advanced, it's more to do with what a particular organism needs to survive, and have the most fitness.
Gould's point in Full House was that organisms nearer to the right wall of complexity can become less complex.
Yeah, the passage sorta implies that, too. I was speaking generally.
The Law of Diminishing returns applies to many things in life. I'd assume evolution would be no different.
Anthony said:
Most creatures that end up on isolated islands end up smaller and often lose capabilities over time.
Weren't some of the biggest creatures on this planet alive during the Mesozoic era? I would argue that getting smaller is the evolution, you need less food, and everything works more efficiently.
I would think that Evolution kind follows a law of diminishing returns, there's going to be an upper limit to everything, and there's nowhere to go but down. So I think it's too early to determine whether evolution is purely progressive.
Pumpkin, I have a question. I heard somewhere that if there are a billion or so kids from the same parent, you get someone with the exact same DNA as another. Wouldn't that be the case with life itself? Once you get to a certain point, you create copies?
Well our genome has "only" about 3 billion base-pairs so if the population were sufficiently large, everyone would have a clone.
Wouldn't that be counter to progressive then? Because at the end of the day, it's not really progressing, it's just following a diminishing returns cycle.
Richard Harper said:
Avian brains, and by backward extrapolation dinosaur brains, never evolved the sort of radial glial developmental neuronal cells for developing layered brains the way mammals did. (They travel out from the neural tube past the previous layers to the next layer being grown. A difficult process that often goes wrong, even now. Not easy to evolve. Presumably did in mammals to help integrate sensory information as being mostly nocturnal.) The very few large brained dinosaurs are rarities that like dolphins for mammals have large brains that don't seem to do much more than much smaller brains. (The cost of growing large brains for dolphins is relatively small as their diet is rich in the substances for it. I suspect the expense of running the dolphin brain metabolically is about the same as for a dog's brain, given that seems to be about their intelligence level.) Dinosaurs for the most part have tiny, tiny brains, mostly used up in processing simple motor function. The point is that evolution leads to dominant patterns that because success breeds success, more creatures to more opportunities for evolution to fine tune those pre-existing patterns (dinosaurs), they become hard to displace in the absence of something like a massive extinction event. So in a sense evolution is locally progressive but globally it can dead end. (In the mathematics of evolution these are talked about as hills of local maxima.) Corvids and parrots are probably at the limit. My favorite example along these lines is the absence of placental mammals as having evolved in Australia, suggesting placentalism evolved (took fire from a mutation) only ~once~ after Australia splits off from the larger land mass it was a part of. Placental mammals are ~much~ smarter than the non-placentals. (Skip long discussion including bits about David Haig's speculations of the effect placentalism as platform for parental genomic imprinting.. ) (New paragraph.) But the main point in the blog post seems to be around the idea of the inevitability of the evolution of intelligence. It is an argument that fits into the old debates around teleological reasoning, an old theological approach to using prophecies of the end times to reason out what must be happening now in order to lead up to those prophecies being fulfilled. It seems common for people to start with the anthro-centric intuition that general intelligence is so obviously advantageous it must be inevitable, and then reason backward as to why that must be so. I belabor this point because I think it's why so many people seem blind as to what for me seems an obvious answer to the Fermi Paradox. Evolution of placental mammalian general intelligence to the levels of humans is nearly impossible. (New paragraph.) By the way, I read some of his earlier works, but his 2005 book is supposed to be really good. — Brain Evolution by Georg F. Striedter.
Australia had only a fraction of earth's biodiversity when it split off so evolution will be slower there
"then obviously something other than the wall is moving them North"
If it's so "obvious" that "something else is moving them", what is it that's "moving them"? Have you read McShea's work or not?
If it's so "obvious" that "something else is moving them", what is it that's "moving them"?
Natural selection TOWARDS greater intelligence, not simply natural selection AWAY from zero complexity, as Gould proposed.
"Natural selection" isn't a mechanism.
I didn't even use the word mechanism. Stop trying to confuse the issue with your semantic obsessions
It doesn't matter if you didn't.
this is just because evolution is continuous.
that is, organisms cannot vault in complexity.
that is, in order for a certain level of complexity to be achieved within a million years, or whatever geologic time unit,, a certain level must have already been reached.
the number of species needn't increase.
the spread/range of the galton board is greater for 100 species (balls) and 100 nails than for 100 species and 50 nails.
time is itself a WALL for complexity.
has peepee approved my comments? i'll have to check. said:
Hippopotamusdrome said:
But then they had mass immigration of stegasauruses from Gondwana that lowered the average intelligence and they didn't oppose it because they didn't want to be racist. Slogans like "two brains are better than one" appeared. Opposition was denounced as Laurasiasupremacism.
It was widely believed that this was orchestrated in secret by the Matheronodons.
More correct title would be:
"Is evolution a eugenicist racist Nazi"
illuminaticatblog said:
brains detect motion shapes and colors
brains detect what other brains will do.
greater social intelligence means a drastic increase in self-organization.
self-organization means cooperation to change the environment towards one's advantage.
colors shapes and motions become tools in the organisms mental space.
mental experimentation takes place
self-awareness emerges
Thinking Mouse said:
Santo is going to find this one hilarious.
The fascist strongman can't even do manly push-ups. Look at him "go" hahaha
meo deos pic.twitter.com/4NBtF6pQ6q
— Ivone Pita (@ivonepita) June 19, 2019
Name said:
I just read how Google's A. I confused guacamole with a cat. Maybe google should enable its NNs to detect ' specific" outlines of stuff too. Use similarities detection to hone in to the cat/guacamole category and use differences detection to identify if it's a cat or guacamole. And differences can be detected by 'specific' stuff like specific outline of the things it wants to recognise.
Also motion detection. A lot of NNs still are primarily to detect static images if I am not mistaken. If NNs can be reworked or motion detection ANs could be added to the NNs, it will help a lot in identifying differences. Even in videos . Also it will help a lot for self driving technology too.
Those were not scare quotes. I am habituated to use british english. I used them for emphasis/to highlight those points.
akarlin said:
Russell's paper was one of the more mindblowing ones out there.
Very much so. I would be very surprised if that's not the case. I see a general trend of animals becoming more neotenous looking over time, suggesting more efficient brains are increasingly compensating for fangs and claws.
That would fit Rushton's theory in that recently emerged Mongoloids are more neotenous than Caucasoids who are more neotenous than early emerging Negroids.
Allan said:
People still buy in to evolution? So do you believe we share a common ancestor with the banana? Lol.
Coral Nation said:
How tall are you, PP? I am interested in the correlation between height and intelligence.
pumpkinhead said:
That correlation comes about via a poor proxy for head size which is a less than perfect proxy for brain size which itself has at best a moderate correlation with intelligence. In other words, don't waste your time going down that rabbit hole. If you are interested in inferring intelligence via physiological factors I would go directly to brain size if I where you and even then I would be extremely cautious.
The default circuit in the brain, myelination, brain structure/organization and mitochondrial DNA likely collectively play a far more important role when it comes to intelligence than brain size.
What you should be asking PP is what his cranial capacity is, his simple/complex reaction time, the size of his forehead, and how intelligent/energetic his mother is.
I think there is a general progression over large time scales but the shorter the time frame the greater the variance meaning that one is bound to run into regressive pockets of time, perhaps even for all species. However progressive is not the word that comes to mind when I think of evolution…more like adaptation. Due to the fact that life is uni-modal(ie only applies to the living, meaning that there is no anti-life that exists somewhere) this means that there is a threshold at which life ceases to exist and no longer gets tallied in the evolutionary "game"(similar to your game where no one goes to zero). This therefore results in the "illusion" that evolution is progressive seeing as a reduction in survivability results in the culling of that species or particular blood line and it no longer "counts". The laws of probability therefore dictate that given enough time life will keep progressing and every now and then reach a new high(prob less than 5% of the time) before it gets back to the regular grind or variance.
Therefore barring any cataclysmic event life in general basically has the game rigged in its favor such that "the only way is up". So in that sense I would definitely agree with Gould. Where it gets a little trickier is when evolution instils in us either the instinct or the cognitive ability to give evolution an extra progressive push. This tends to accelerate "progress" but this is only a matter of chance seeing as any instinct that would lead to regression or annihilation would eventually drop out of the gene pool in short order. Therefore, I would say that evolution is like a cog wheel with a backstop and as such progress is inevitable even though the processes that lead to it are random. In other words even the recent genetic predisposition(instinct, cognitive ability or whatever you want to call it) in advanced beings to accelerate evolution in a "progressive" direction is itself a random event that is now ensured continuity via the evolutionary backstop(barring any extinction level event).
So generally evolution is all about adaptation more than anything else. In my view progress is a byproduct due to the way the system operates. In theory given enough knowledge humanity should be in a position to accelerate evolution exponentially(not unlike the principle of the doubling of computing power, or Moore's law). What I find fascinating is that life essentially runs counter to perhaps the most primal modality of the Universe that of increasing entropy. In essence life violates the second law of thermodynamics. Is this then the ultimate end of the universe, decrease in entropy through us?
pumpkinhead,
yes, any progress in evolution would have to be adaptability, but I use the word progress because evolution is often conceived as a ladder of progress and because more adaptable life forms are objectively superior (when it comes to survival) and subjectively superior (when judged by everyday people).
The problem is many scientists would dismiss the idea that organisms get more adaptable over evolutionary time, instead arguing that they merely become more adapted to specific environments. So instead of seeing evolution marching towards more and more adaptability, they see only a series of adaptive trade-offs (i.e. land animals were more adapted to land than their marine ancestors, but they are less adapted to the sea).
And even those who admit that life gets progressively more adaptable over time would perhaps just invoke Gould's nowhere to go but up rule, thus dismissing any progress as random.
But I think there's more to it than than. I think nature selects not just for local adaptations that are domain specific, but general adaptations like intelligence that work everywhere. I think brain size tripled in 4 million years of evolution, not because brain size had nowhere to go but up, but because bigger brains were adaptive in almost every environment and I think most organisms on earth are more adaptable than their ancestors 4 million years ago.
"yes, any progress in evolution would have to be adaptability, but I use the word progress because evolution is often conceived as a ladder of progress and because more adaptable life forms are objectively superior (when it comes to survival) and subjectively superior (when judged by everyday people)"
Yes, we are very much on the same page with regard to this. My only contention is that IMO that progress is far more subjective than people think and what's more progress is not an in-built part of evolution, it is merely a by product of evolution given current circumstances. One, I suspect, could in theory devise ideal conditions for what a lot of people would subjectively and perhaps objectively consider regressive qualities to thrive but it just so turns out that those qualities are exactly what is required for that environment. Point being that in aggregate I agree that overall progress is inevitable but this has almost everything to do with the evolutionary "backstop"(just coined that term, not sure if it is at all used) or Gould's bouncy wall, and very little to do with any semblance of progress being an in-built aspect of evolution.
Progress requires sentience in order for it to be envisioned(instead of regress, for example). I highly doubt that evolution had progress in mind from the get go. It has only emerged as sentient beings started becoming aware of their survival instincts and place in the world. So perhaps evolution has a more fundamental progressive bent through us but this is very recent on an evolutionary scale while that is not at all how we got here. In short the only reason evolution appears to be progressive is due to death and cellular degradation, without these facts of life evolution would probably randomly go in any and all directions.
Right, it is all about survival and to put it simply, bigger is almost always better, particularly when it comes to the brain. It therefore stands to reason that brain size will increase across the board for almost all species as it should increase the chances for survival.
I guess one can boil this argument down to a philosophical discussion of how one defines progress and what is it that makes progress a positive or desired outcome thereby giving it it's current meaning as it is understood by most people. I think it is inescapable that progress is simply a matter of improved survivability, but what we may consider progress in our corner of the universe might be considered regressive in another corner of the universe. In other words progress is not a universal standard, it depends on the circumstances and our subjective judgement.
Yes, we are very much on the same page with regard to this. My only contention is that IMO that progress is far more subjective than people think and what's more progress is not an in-built part of evolution, it is merely a by product of evolution given current circumstances.
I agree that evolution does not necessitate progress, and indeed we have examples of regressive evolution like Homo erectus (brain size 980 cc) evolving into Homo_floresiensis (320 cc). Even the brain size of our own species shrunk dramatically after the ice age, though I suspect that was just temporary malnutrition, not evolution. However I suspect regressive evolution is the exception, not the rule, not just on Earth, but on most planets where life has evolved, though I obviously can't prove that.
Point being that in aggregate I agree that overall progress is inevitable but this has almost everything to do with the evolutionary "backstop"(just coined that term, not sure if it is at all used) or Gould's bouncy wall, and very little to do with any semblance of progress being an in-built aspect of evolution.
I disagree that Gould's bouncy wall explains almost all evolutionary progress because that hypothesis would predict that among species that are sufficiently distant from the wall to have room for regression, regression should occur 50% of the time. Do you think that if we looked at the 100 most encephalized species living 1 million years ago, at least 50% of their extant descendants would be less encephalized? I don't think so, but no such study has ever been done so I could be wrong. Other have compared the complexity of ancestors vs descendants and found no statistically significant trend, but complexity is vaguely defined.
Progress requires sentience in order for it to be envisioned(instead of regress, for example). I highly doubt that evolution had progress in mind from the get go.
I agree 100%. And indeed one of the dangers of arguing that evolution is progressive is you get mistaken for a religious person arguing for intelligent design. I don't in any way believe evolution has a purpose or a goal, however I suspect that billions of years of blind mindless trial and error is an incredibly potent self-correcting process, and might gradually lead to something very close to perfection (i.e. the human mind)
I think if we could take species from 1 million years ago and have them compete with their extant descendants in an environment equally distant from both (say 0.5 million years ago) the descendants would out-compete the ancestors in most cases. Of course such an experiment is impossible, but it's one objective way of thinking about progress.


In March 2017 I held a presentation about how SEO and Growth Hacking play nicely together in Germany. It's built around the story of Pinterest' growth and features best practices from valley darlings like Airbnb and others.
The video is in German, but if there's enough interest, I'll translate the subtitles so you can understand it ;-).


text:
premium products - exclusive distribution opportunities
As an export partner your product will feature in our high-end glossy magazine, which will be promoted directly to influential Asian buyers. As a partner your products will also be championed through official launch programs in Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Shanghai.
The 80-100 page magazine will feature a four-page professional spread, showcasing your product alongside your story.
Click to the right and download the 'demonstrator'.
feature distributor
Troika GTM's got skin in the game too. We're totally happy to lead by example. Fruccio first came into the world as a bouncing new 'baby' in 1993. The brand was proudly created by Michael and Ali Hanlon with love and care, then nurtured to become the most successful soy-based, dairy free ice cream in the Australian market. From Mandurah in the West to Manly in the East and from Port Lincoln in the South to Darwin in the north, Fruccio grew into a great success story and was available in major supermarkets, ice cream shops and gourmet stores across the country. As time went by and Michael and Ali decided to have some other babies as well. In the end, they managed three fantastic Western Australians and they took a lot of time and attention to look after. Michael and Ali moved on from Fruccio and to the dismay of fans across the country, the brand eventually slipped off the shelves and was no longer made.
Newsflash: After 20 years, it's finally time to bring Fruccio back for all the fans who have missed their regular deliciously guilt-free indulgence. We hope to make a whole new nation of fans and promise that we won't go away again. Connect with us on Facebook and be part of the journey as we re-introduce the much-loved favourites and a whole new innovative and exciting range of Fruccio flavours to the world.
For Asian importers here is your chance to be part of something awesome. It's not everyday a product with a proven pedigree as good as this knocks on your door. Talk to Michael or James at Troika GTM now and you could be first in to secure this awesome product range for Asia. My addiction, that's easy, it was Maple and Walnut.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
HELPLINE NUMBER: (443) 330-5341
Our Mission & Programs
Accomplishments/Financials
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Resources Page
Could My Child Have Autism?
Autism By Age
Birth – 5
21 – Older
PFA Tips/Articles
Adults With Autism
Maryland Services
Treatments / Therapies
Therapies & Treatments
PFA Recorded Webinars
PFA Zoomcast Interviews with Rob Long
Find Providers & Services
Lib's Grill Virtual Wine Dinner
The 2021 Pathfinders for Autism Golf Tournament
Register for PFA Events
View On-line Calendar
Month January February March April May June July August September October November December Year 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Events in December 2021
Sensory Sensitive Sundays at Chuck E. Cheese
Map Chuck E. Cheese
Chuck E. Cheese is proud to support families who have children with autism and other special needs. We offer a sensory-friendly experience on the first Sunday of every month at participating locations, opening our stores two hours before their normal opening time. Our Sensory Sensory events include a trained and caring staff that work to ensure each guest has a fun-filled visit. We realize that the Chuck E. experience can be very stimulating for any child, so our mission is to create an event that allows ALL kids to be a kid.
Contact Name : --
Contact Email : --
6637 Gov Ritchie & I-695
Fun/Recreation
contact us today to get involved
Pathfinders For Autism
235 Schilling Circle, Suite 103
Hunt Valley, MD 21031
Proud Sponsor of PFA Resource Center


When tackling a new policy area, it's sometimes difficult to know where to start. We have created a checklist to help you analyze policies in your state, work with partners to build momentum, and seek legislative change.
The National Council of State Legislatures (NCSL) conducted an overview of State Driver's License and Auto Insurance Legislation for Youth in Foster Care for SPARC. This overview covers current legislation, recently passed bills, and policies in place currently.
Use the downloadable infographics below to raise awareness in your communities on what having a driver's license means for foster youth.


text:
Q: Transmitting a huge amount of data from a Web server to the client I'm starting a new project that will render a complex graph using HTML5 canvas.
Currently, we have a Windows Forms implementation and we want to migrate it to the Web. So, the layout, the drawing objects and all drawing metadata are generated in C#. We only need to implement the drawing, and we will use HTML5 canvas.
The server side will be ASP MVC. It will calculate the drawing model, and will send it to the client. Then the client will use the canvas to represent the data.
The problem is that the drawing model sometimes could be huge. Maybe 10Mb-50Mb of metadata. What is the best way to send all drawing data from the server to the client?
Use the model to an script in the page that creates the drawing objects in JavaScript
This would be the standard way. I will generate a model with the drawing objects in C# and then I will convert those objects to JavaScript.

*

*PROS: Easy to implement

*CONS: The page will be heavy.

Returning a JsonResult from controller that return the drawing data
I could get it using jQuery, for example. This option failed because I reached the maxJsonLength property. I know that it can be changed in the web.config but it doen't seem to be a good idea. 3.

*

*PROS: Easy to implement, could use ajax to load drawing objects from the server and report progress to the user.

*CONS: Doesn't seem to be a good idea changing the maxJsonLength property in the Web.config.

Generating a temp script file with the drawing data in server and including it in the client page
The server will generate the drawing data in a JS script file. Then the server will include this page as a JavaScript in the client page, so the drawing data will be loaded in the client. This load could be done using ajax also.

*

*PROS: Is like download a file, if it's very big it will not be a problem.

*CONS: More difficult to implement. Need to manage temp files and we need to know when the file has been transmitted and then delete it.

Other alternative
Any other options will be welcome, since I'm not an expert in HTML programming.

A: I think somewhat different approach I will take. I will use servicestack, here I am assuming that you have your business tire separated. Now, instead of canvas I ll go with backbone js or angular js. There are quite a few other frameworks for UI generation. Now, using require js like library I push only that details that are needed for UI generation or push HTML with UI that is needed for UI. So, here speed will be more and page will be light weight. Once minified Javascript come to client it will not load but used only to calculate and render html portion on page. And single page application will be as fast as desktop. Almost that much. I hope this is useful to you. I have added links if you need more details please let me know.

A: Put the heavy part (script and data on a sub-page) in an iframe on a lightweight page so that the heavy stuff can be loaded asynchronously. This has the ease-of-implementation benefits of the first script-on-page option, while gaining the pros (and none of the temp file management cons) of the third load-as-separate-script-file option.
While the iframe is loading, you can display a loading image so that the user knows what's going on.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
The Roy Faires Collection - Interview with Bill Murray (1988)
Roy Faires asks actor Bill Murray about the pressure of carrying a film
Life after Ghostbusters (1984) and Murray's interest in directing
What makes something funny?
In this unedited interview for Austin's KVUE-TV, Roy Faires sits down with actor and comedian Bill Murray to talk about his latest film, Scrooged (1988). Murray discusses his faith in the film and his interest in directing. He also describes his approach to comedy. Faires worked as a special project director and entertainment critic/reporter at KVUE-TV, Austin's ABC affiliate, from 1976-1989.
Murray, Bill


What Are The Advantages Of Promoting?
There are various reasons because of which a company carries out a promotion campaign for its product or service. Promotion of any thing can give a lot of advantages to the company.
The first advantage of promoting a product or service is to make the customers aware of that specific item. Secondly, promotion leads to increase in the sales volume of the company. In fact the final goal for promoting any item, for a company is to increase the sales volume. Thirdly, promotion can also increase the customers' base for the company.
Promotion also develops a good image of the company in the minds of the customers. In this way it helps in the proper positioning of the company. Promotion also develops a business and it is very important for the long term success of the company as well. There are various other benefits of promotion of products and services but I have mentioned the important aims of it.
Explain Sales Promotion. What Are The Objectives Of Sales Promotion And Promotions Planning?
What Are The Benefits Of Government-promoted Deregulation?
What Are The Duties Of Promoters?
What Is The Promotion Strategy Of Nike? Promotion Not Marketing.
What Are The Factors Promoting Muslim League?
What Are The Advantages And Disadvantages Of Promotional Mix?
What Are The Liabilities Of Promoters?
What are the promoters of the game Dragon's Call?
what are the benefits of promoting a business?
Does Advertising Affect Human Life?
Is Advertising Beneficial Or Harmful?
What Was The Strategy Of The German Company Henkel In Accomplishing Its Marketing And Advertising Goals?


Owen Gleiberman wrote a fantastic piece on why he thinks David Fincher is the best working filmmaker.
It's a great read and he pinpoints why I'm hoping against hope that The Social Network takes it. Now, I don't think it will, but I'm pretty sure we're in for the single most exciting night since '01. There are evenings full of surprises that you don't expect. Who thought '03 would bring forth Brody/Harwood/Polanski? Or that '06 would give us Crash? And then there are evenings where you know it's going to be a horse race like in '07? But these are largely one or two categories in question, and they're big ones. There are literally ten categories where I am not sure, and behind it all is a great, fascinating King's Speech vs. Social Network horse race that may very well be a corker until the end.
I want The Social Network to pick up just enough wins so that A) we are not given a King's Speech sweep, and B) I honestly don't know for a while what's going to happen. I want The Social Network to win for Best Original Score and Best Sound Mixing. Just so I'm nice and teased for a while before Tom Hooper wins it.
So, that's my wish. Next to having the GODDAMN CLIPS BACK, I am hoping against hope for a very exciting evening.
Get well soon, Filmfan. At least you still have us for company.
Mister Tee wrote: If there is a major deviation from the template, though, I hope it's not Steinfeld over Leo -- partly because of the category fraud Steinfeld is practicing (or having practiced for her), but more because it'll only lead to endless blogger prattle about how Leo had the award cold and blew it with those stupid ads. It won't be a surprise; it'll just be more confirmation in the blogger universe that they make the earth turn. How about a surprise that's actually -- you know -- unexpected? And that has nothing to do with what someone wrote three days ago?
I'd love for the big surprise in that category to be Jacki Weaver. I just watched Animal Kingdom last night and I thought Weaver's surprisingly chilling performance as Janine "Smurf" Cody was just delectable. The film has some pacing issues, but I found it well photographed with a great ensemble. And Weaver's performance is just the sort of unexpected treat you want to be recognized by the Academy.
And talk about a shocker. She hasn't been on anyone's radar.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
I don't have any real final thoughts, other than: Happy Oscar night to everybody! No matter what happens tonight, I hope we all enjoy ourselves.
Also, not that this has anything to do with tomorrow night's outcome, but if The Social Network and David Fincher do end up losing, I'm thinking that it might actually help Fincher's Oscar chances for his remake of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo next year. And before you say, "Oh, they'll never give it THAT movie!" think about this. Highly respected director that's generally perceived to be overdue who is going back to his roots as a filmmaker with a remake of a popular foreign language film after a brief stint at doing "prestige pictures" and coming off two consecutive Best Picture and Best Director losses for his last two films, one which earned him a Golden Globe for Best Director? Sounds an awful lot like a Best Picture/Director winner from the past decade doesn't it?
I'm still "officially" predicting The King's Speech to win Best Picture, but I've got this nagging feeling that The Social Network might still pull it out in the end. I don't know why... it's just a feeling. I've never really been completely 100% sure about the outcome of the Best Picture race, even when The King's Speech was winning all the guild awards. It just kind of feels like its not as strong as it was a few weeks ago after it took the PGA, DGA and SAG awards. In the past few weeks, The Social Network has won a couple of guilds (WGA and ACE), the BAFTA for Best Director (an award I thought would go to Tom Hooper for sure), and even the Best Picture/Director prize from the London Film Critics Association (not that this has any real bearing on the Oscar race... it just kind of adds to the overall critics haul, and it's from the London critics, which is an award that logically should have been a slam-dunk for The King's Speech).
And let us not forget The Social Network's overall dominance of the critics awards, where it stands as the most critically honored film in history... yes, it is even more honored than Schindler's List and Brokeback Mountain, and if it lost, it would be the first film ever to lose the Oscar while winning Best Picture AND Best Director from New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, Broadcast, National Society, and the Golden Globes. There is also one other film to win Best Picture after having only won the WGA and ACE: Braveheart. It should also be noted that Apollo 13 won the DGA, PGA, and SAG Ensemble as well (just like The King's Speech) so if TKS were to lose, it wouldn't exactly be without historical precedent.
Of course, these statistics don't really mean anything. There are some differences between the two races. For instance, Braveheart was the most nominated film in 1995, Apollo 13 was seriously weakened after missing out on a Best Director nomination for Ron Howard, and neither of the two films were exactly "critical darlings" at the end of the year. It's just that when you look at the final weeks leading up to the Oscars, these two races are eerily similar and I'm pretty sure that The Social Network is in a much better position than Braveheart was, even with the lead in nominations and Ron Howard out of the picture. If The King's Speech were to lose Art Direction, Costume Design, and Best Original Score (I'd say that Costume Design is the only sure thing out of these three categories) -- and if The Social Network wins Director, Screenplay, Editing, and Original Score (not to mention the possibility of it perhaps even winning Cinematography or Sound Mixing) -- going into the final category, Mr. Weinstein should be very, very afraid because there will be a huge probability that an upset is in order.
I'd love to be with all of those predicting the King's/Fincher split -- and I'd happily lose every pool going by being wrong here -- but I just can't see the overwhelming reason to drop-kick the Directors' Guild after its many years of success. However, as Magilla says in another thread, there's no sense treating any of this as fait accompli. Despite the grinding predictability of recent years, there's always the chance this is the year voters get a wild hair and surprise us. Sure hoping.
If there is a major deviation from the template, though, I hope it's not Steinfeld over Leo -- partly because of the category fraud Steinfeld is practicing (or having practiced for her), but more because it'll only lead to endless blogger prattle about how Leo had the award cold and blew it with those stupid ads. It won't be a surprise; it'll just be more confirmation in the blogger universe that they make the earth turn. How about a surprise that's actually -- you know -- unexpected? And that has nothing to do with what someone wrote three days ago?
Hope everybody finds something to make them happy topmorrow evening -- unless, of course, you're rooting against my favorites. Talk to you all on the other side.


text:
Early Bird Review: Doctor Strange (2016)
After eight years and over a dozen movies, the unstoppable box-office juggernaut that is the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) seems like it could successfully sell the public on any concept, no matter how undeniably bizarre. This is the same studio that made us weep over the death of a tree that said three words. At this point, I think I can argue that the MCU has a higher film-to-film consistent quality of excellence than Pixar, the other most trusted brand in cinema (Pixar's creative/emotional highs are certainly higher but they've had their share of misses). Marvel has earned the benefit of the doubt. The common complaint is that their movies feel too formulaic and insubstantial. I would definitely argue against the latter and the former needs no real defense. Marvel has built an empire on a system that works because it delivers crowd-pleasing and character-oriented blockbusters that are packed with payoffs for fans and newcomers. The alternative, chiefly the dour bombast of the fledgling DC film universe, isn't much more appealing, but then again I have been labeled a "Marvel shill" by those infuriated from my inconceivable pan of the very conceivably terrible Suicide Squad, so take my word with some skepticism. For any other brand, Doctor Strange could be too weird. With the MCU, it's another comforting sign they really know what they're doing.
Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) is a brilliant New York neurosurgeon who loses full control over his hands after a horrible car accident. He travels to Nepal to seek out holistic remedies to aid his recovery and instead finds the Ancient One (Tilda Swinton), a powerful mystic. She takes a liking to Strange and invites him into their temple to train as a pupil of powerful sorcerers (Chiwetel Ejiofor, Benedict Wong). Former sorcerer, Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelsen), has gone rogue and believes the only way to survive the oncoming cosmic giant Dormammu is to join him. Doctor Strange must summon all the skills of multiple dimensions in order to save the day.
Doctor Strange is at its core an origin tale and one that feels somewhat familiar at least for its first half. It's likely not an accident that Stephen Strange bears more than a passing resemblance to Marvel's other egotistical, arrogant charmer, Mr. Tony Stark. He's a man who has to be humbled and learn the error of his ways and his outsized hubris, which makes for an effective character arc to structure an introductory movie around. It also makes fine work of Cumberbatch's otherworldly sense of haughty superiority (I can't wait to watch future Strange and Stark banter). The first half is essentially Training Montage: The Movie. Strange learns about the ancient mystic arts and, more importantly, super powers. The movie doesn't follow Thor's lead and argue that magic is another form of science. It declares magic as its own thing. Strange learns how to open portals, how to shift reality, how to astral project, and even how to stop time. Each new power is given proper attention and the learning curve adjusts as needed, allowing an audience to process the various rules and dramatic stakes. It's a structurally smart assembly of mini-goals to keep an audience secure in what otherwise could be overwhelming for its New Age mumbo jumbo.
After the origin heavy lifting is taken care of that's when Doctor Strange becomes everything I could hope for; namely, a highly imaginative action movie with a breakneck pace and a boundless sense of imagination. This movie feels kinetically alive and unpredictable in ways that few Marvel movies even approach. Once Strange and Kaecilius meet at the halfway mark it becomes a gallop to the finish line with one highly entertaining action set piece after another, and even better they are wildly different. We don't have battles about running and firing weapons or just punching bad guys extra hard; instead, it's reality itself that bends to the will of the fighters.
Characters walk on walls, shift the state of architecture, create teleportation portals to hop in and out of, shift the entire gravity of the world to force people away from said portals, and turn New York City into a kaleidoscopic playground. There's an extended chase scene that literally feels like a series of M. C. Escher paintings come to starling life. The sequence is eye-popping in the best way and, shocking enough, it's not even the climax of the movie. There are so many fun possibilities for crazy action sequences. There are other sequences that stand out, such as an out-of-body fight between two warring astral projection foes. The real climax of the movie is something I've never seen before, a battle that takes place as time resets. The smoldering ruins of a cataclysm are put together brick-by-brick and characters dodge the debris as it rapidly reforms. It's visually thrilling to watch but it's also a clever sequence because there are continuous opportunities for danger and in many ways that your brain cannot naturally suspect, like when a wall reforms and traps someone within. Whatever you're feeling on the general MCU and its blockbuster formula calibrations, Doctor Strange is a great leap into something different, momentously exhilarating, and inventive.
Director Scott Derrickson (Sinister) was an intriguing choice considering his background in supernatural horror, but, as should be obvious, the MCU overlords score again with their foresight and risk-taking. Derrickson's visual influences hew much closer to Christopher Nolan and the Wachowski Siblings than the greatest hits of the MCU, and that's exactly what this world needed to stand out on its own. I cannot overstate just how enjoyable the last hour of the movie can be, though this isn't meant as a backhanded slight against that first half. The action-packed hour only works because of the setup from before and laying a careful foundation for the characters, their dynamics, and the rules of this trippy universe that bends conventional physics. All the careful world-building and training montages set up the sprint through a fireworks factory of fun, and I had a smile plastered to my face the whole time, eagerly anticipating the next detour into crazy.
I'm even going to impart you, dear reader, with some advice I haven't given since 2013: if possible, see this movie in 3D. The hypnotic visuals and elusively shifting reality demand to be seen with the added help of the third dimension. The movie will still obviously work in a non-3D format but why deny yourself the full impact of these incredible visual experiences? New York City contorting is worth the extra few bucks alone.
The acting is another highlight for such an enjoyable movie. Cumberbatch (The Imitation Game) easily makes for a terrific lead actor, someone who can bring a sense of gravitas or dry sarcasm when called upon. His sense of comedy is underrated and this Sorcerer Supreme gets his fair share of punctuating the weird and wild with a perfectly delivered joke. A bit with a sentient cape allows for great physical comedy. His American accent is also much improved from earlier far spottier efforts in 2013's August: Osage County and 2015's Black Mass, which featured perhaps the worst "Baustun" accent in recent memory. Cumberbatch is the charming smartass, the know-it-all who realizes how much he still has yet to learn, and his final showdown with the Big Bad Evil sheds large-scale disaster for something much more personal (no giant portal in the sky or faceless army of monsters/aliens, hooray!). His character arc of learning that it's not about himself culminates in a brilliantly conceived sequence that satisfies.
The other standout is Swinton (Snowpiercer) who once again melds with her character, who happens to be a mysterious Celtic mystic who may not even be human. The early half is instantly elevated when Swinton is on screen. She presents a matter-of-fact sense of the preposterous that is downright serene. It's also a role that is more than just a requisite mentor as The Ancient One has some secrets that will be revealed. I was also genuinely pleased with how much screen time Mikkelsen (TV's Hannibal, Rogue One) gets for his villain, who has a wicked deadpan. I pity Rachel McAdams (Spotlight) who plays the underwritten love interest role we've seen similar to Natalie Portman prior performances. She at least gets a few good scenes before being forgotten.
With each additional entry into the ever-expanding Marvel Cinematic Universe, the fan in me gets to reexamine and realign the pecking order of quality. In my own subjective rankings I would say that Doctor Strange is just below the top tier of the MCU (Guardians of the Galaxy, Civil War, Iron Man) and on par with Winter Soldier. This is a highly enjoyable and highly imaginative action movie teeming with eye-popping visuals. Many of the visual set pieces are stunning and demand to be witnessed on the largest screen possible. The movie never loses its sense of fun and wonder while still respecting the dramatic stakes of the cataclysmic events, and when it goes big it makes it matter. I have no previous attachment to this character and Doctor Strange was just about everything I wanted the film to be and then some. It's another sign that Marvel can take any property and find the formula to make it a satisfying smash. I enjoyed Doctor Strange enough that I want to see it again, and this time even bigger to better soak up the strange.
Nate's Grade: A-
This review originally ran on Nate's own review site Nathanzoebl. Check it out for hundreds of excellent reviews!
Benedict CumberbatchBenedict WongChiwetel EjioforDoctor StrangeMads MikkelsenNate ZoeblRachel McAdamsScott DerricksonTilda Swinton
We Got Lists: 5 Big Questions About Westworld
Lost in Translation 185: The Peanuts Movie
Nate Zoebl is an avid film lover since he was yea-high to whatever people are yea-high to. He's written film reviews since he was 17 years old and is a proud member of the Central Ohio Film Critics Association (COFCA). He is an active screenwriter, educator, filmmaker with the award-winning group Edwin J. Hill, one-time playwright ("Our Town... Attacked by Zombies"), lover of bad movies thanks to a childhood fed by the likes of MST3K, perhaps the world's foremost scholar on the movies of Dr. Uwe Boll, and sometimes collection of coherent molecules.
The Watcher (2016) by Jessica Sowards


American Roads: US auto trails and old federal highways.
The American Roads web site features information and resources related to finding and traveling America's scenic and historic old highways. Travel down the Lincoln Highway, the National Old Trails Road, or the Old Spanish Trail. Find old, forgotten alignments of US 60 or 80. Get off the freeways and see the real America!
For the latest news on what we're doing, check out the news and events page. There are lots of photos on the new photo galleries page, including the new virtual road trips. Check out the new pages on the Dixie Overland Highway and the Lee Highway auto trails.


text:
Change or Die
December 1, 2011 December 1, 2011 swebman
Many years ago I had the privilege of meeting Seth Godin. We were discussing a business transaction that unfortunately did not happen because the management team of a very conservative company could not get over the name of Seth's company – Yoyodyne.
Yoyodyne was Seth's first company. It was acquired by Yahoo in 1998. Seth has become an industry rock star over the last 10+ years. He has written thirteen books that have been translated into more than thirty languages. Every one has been a bestseller. He writes about the post-industrial revolution, the way ideas spread, marketing, quitting, leadership and most of all, changing everything.
American Way Magazine calls him, "America's Greatest Marketer," and his blog is perhaps the most popular in the world written by a single individual.
I am currently reading one of Seth's recent books, Graceful. It is a book of short concepts/ideas/thoughts that are so right on that I wanted to share one with you. Seth, I hope that you don't mind.
In one of the short chapters, Seth speaks about how many of us grew up in the "factory" age. No, not just manufacturing, but companies the same things that they created for years; only today they do it better, faster and cheaper. We are talking about accounting firms, banks, insurance companies and the like. What Seth says, is that these companies are about predictable scalability, scarcity and compliance.
He goes on to say that factories demand compliant workforces to succeed. Well if you are working for a company that is all about compliance, obedience and doing just as you were told, you will not succeed. These businesses are having trouble achieving their growth targets (sound familiar), constantly placing blame on existing management and employees (sound familiar) and not providing the latitude to bust out of the box and do something different (Now I know that sounds familiar).
Right now the world is exploding with new approaches, new forms of interaction and new business models, embracing the rapidly changing world and empowering their employees to make a difference. Their growth comes from change, insight, exploration and risk taking.
Employees, where do you work? Where would you rather work?
Business owners, are you forcing compliance? Are your providing your employees with the ability to fuel your business growth or stifling them to the point where they will not do anything without asking for permission.
You decide! Thanks Seth for the thoughts and wisdom.
Posted in Business, Convergence, Life, Small Business, WorkTagged Business, change, Employment, factories, Leadership, Management, seth godin, Small business
Previous postToday is Your Day
Next postThe Media and You
Six reasons to apply to Fast Company's Best Workplaces for Innovators January 21, 2021
Our third annual list includes new categories, including Innovation Leader of the Year. Fast Company's third annual Best Workplaces for Innovators list promises to be more comprehensive than ever, offering a number of new categories. Here are six reasons why you should apply.Read Full Story
Jay Woodruff
Ava DuVernay and Array will make exclusive audio series for Spotify January 21, 2021
On the heels of its partnership with The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Spotify adds the 'When They See Us' director to its podcast playlist. Spotify continues to expand its roster of A-list podcast partners through a multi-year deal with filmmaker Ava DuVernay.Read Full Story
KC Ifeanyi
3 Lesser-known Biotech Stocks That Are Surging January 21, 2021
Biotechnology was one of the most popular sectors in 2020.
Namrata Sen Chanda
Papalote Museo del Niño, about to close forever? January 21, 2021
The Children's Museum is considering closing forever due to lack of financial resources. We tell you how you can help this museum remain.
The Challenges and Security Risks of Smart Home Devices January 21, 2021
As technology continues to simplify everyday living, there remain pros and cons.
Aimee Tariq
Elon Musk Is Bringing Satellite Internet to Latin America January 21, 2021
The Starlink project has already received authorization to start operating in Argentina.
Alto Nivel
Free Webinar | Feb. 10: Buy-Side Essentials for M & A Transactions January 21, 2021
Join us in an insightful discussion about the important details that buyers should know as they begin their acquisition process.
Facebook's Oversight Board to Decide on Trump Ban January 21, 2021
Facebook has to decide whether to give the ex-president his bullhorn back. It won't make that call itself.
Steven Levy
Gaze in wonder at this astonishingly high-res scan of an iconic painting January 21, 2021
Photo by VCG Wilson / Corbis via Getty Images For the past hour, I've been avoiding work by browsing this amazingly high-resolution scan of Johannes Vermeer's iconic Girl with a Pearl Earring. With a total resolution of 93,205 x 108,565, PetaPixel notes the scan is believed to be the first 10 billion pixel panorama ever created, allowing you to zoom in close […]
Jon Porter
Facebook's Trump ban will be reviewed by its new Oversight Board January 21, 2021
Illustration by Alex Castro / The Verge Facebook vice president Nick Clegg says the company is referring its decision to indefinitely suspend former President Trump from its platform to its newly-established oversight board for a complete review. The president's Facebook account was suspended indefinitely on January 7th after he incited his followers to atta […]
Kim Lyons
House leader calls for FBI investigation into Parler January 21, 2021
Photo by STEFANI REYNOLDS/POOL/AFP via Getty Images On Thursday, the House Oversight Committee called for an FBI investigation into Parler's involvement in the deadly attack on the Capitol this month. In a letter sent to FBI Director Christopher Wray, House Oversight Chair Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) called for the bureau to "conduct a robust examination of the r […]
Makena Kelly
Ava DuVernay is the newest celebrity to sign a Spotify-exclusive podcasting deal January 21, 2021
Photo by Rich Polk/Getty Images for ESSENCE Spotify is continuing its pursuit of podcasting talent. Today, the company announced that it's partnering with filmmaker Ava DuVernay and her Array media collective to launch exclusive scripted and unscripted audio programming. Those shows will come out of Spotify's Gimlet team, and Spotify didn't offer any preview […]


text:
/// <summary>
/// Constructor
/// </summary>
KBodyReader::KBodyReader(IKinectSensor *kSensor) :
m_pCoordinateMapper(NULL),
m_pBodyReadStatus(false),
m_nPreviousFrameTime(0),
_m_pbodyUpdateMutex(NULL)
{
	// Allocate new mutex, necessary for synchronizing multiple readers
	_m_pbodyUpdateMutex = new std::timed_mutex;

	// Clear body data
	for (int i = 0; i < _countof(m_ppBodies); ++i)
	{
		m_ppBodies[i] = nullptr;
	}
}

/// <summary>
/// Destructor
/// </summary>
KBodyReader::~KBodyReader() {

	for (int i = 0; i < _countof(m_ppBodies); ++i)
	{
		SafeRelease(m_ppBodies[i]);
	}

	// Finalize lock
	if ( _m_pbodyUpdateMutex )
		delete _m_pbodyUpdateMutex;
}

/// <summary>
/// Notify class about a frame that arrived
/// </summary>
/// <param name="bFrame">Incoming frame</param>
void  KBodyReader::notify(IBodyFrame *bFrame, INT64 frameTime) {
	HRESULT hr;

	// Lock mutex when running this method
	std::unique_lock<std::timed_mutex> lockB(*_m_pbodyUpdateMutex, std::defer_lock);
	if (!lockB.try_lock_for(std::chrono::seconds(1)))
		return;

	// ___ Entering sensitive area
	m_tlatestFrameTime = frameTime;
	hr = bFrame->GetAndRefreshBodyData(_countof(m_ppBodies), m_ppBodies);
	if (SUCCEEDED(hr))
		m_pBodyReadStatus = true;
	else
		m_pBodyReadStatus = false;
	// ___ Leaving sensitive area

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Axis Corporate, a consultancy specialising in banking transformation, announces it has been admitted to Hellios's Financial Services Qualification System (FSQS) and will join its supplier community.
FSQS banks and major financial institutions compliance assurance information regarding potential partners to support their procurement process. This demonstrates Axis Corporate's commitment to transparency and best practice as it seeks to grow its footprint within financial services.
Hellios is a leading supplier information and risk management company. It has particular expertise in developing and operating supplier pre-qualification, qualification and accreditation services across a range of industries.
FSQS is currently used by 18 major banks building societies and insurance companies: Lloyds Banking Group, Metro Bank, Santander, TSB, Shawbrook Bank, Aldermore Bank, Clydesdale Bank, LV=, Arbuthnot Latham, Nationwide Building Society, Weatherbys Bank, the Bank of England, Bank of Ireland, Tokio Marine Kiln Virgin Money Royal Sun Alliance, Rugby and Hinckley Building Society and BNP Paribas as well as new market entrants.
Benefits to the industry to improved overall standard, quality and performance of suppliers to the industry. Validated information -saves time and costs. Demonstrates internationally the efficacy of UK suppliers and supply chain. More efficient and cost-effective process across buying organisations.


We don't have a word for the opposite of loneliness, but if we did, I could say that's what I want in life. It's not quite love and it's not quite community; it's just this feeling that there are people, an abundance of people, who are in this together. Who are on your team. When the check is paid and you stay at the table. When it's four a.m. and no one goes to bed. That night with the guitar. That night we can't remember. That time we did, we went, we saw, we laughed, we felt.
Copyright© 大人世代の人生再起動 All Rights Reserved.


text:
Summary for 1349 13th AVE / Parcel ID 7660100100 / Inv #
Style: Queen Anne - Shingle Neighborhood: Beacon Hill
Built in 1901, the building was owned by R Kelby, who added a garage in March of 1919. Frederick P. and Janet M. Taylor resided in the building from 1901 through 1938. Mr. Taylor ran F. P. Taylor & Company, a wholesale produce company at 918 Western Avenue. In 1900, the Taylor's lived at 1322 13th Avenue South. By 1937, Mr. Taylor was a watchman at American Mail Line. By 1941, Henry S. Luke owned the building. In 1947, building owner, J. O. Lewis, enclosed the rear porch. Justin O. Lewis ran a boarding house out of the building through 1953. Robert and Sylvia Tenneson purchased the building in 1951 for $11,000. Mr. and Mrs. Tenneson resided in the building from 1955 through 1957. From 1959 through 1970, Joanna Janio lived in the building. Beacon Hill is a long north-south tending ridge located southeast of downtown Seattle and stands 350 feet at its highest point. The hill's steep topography deterred substantial Euro-American settlement through the early 1880s. Then, development of the area was stimulated by the introduction of streetcar lines in the 1890s, its proximity to Seattle's main industrial area to the west, and the regrading of the hill's north end in the early 1900s. Originally acquired by the City in 1898, Jefferson Park was integrated into Seattle's Olmsted system of parks, and the Olmsted Brothers prepared a plan for the park in 1912. The first public golf course west of the Mississippi opened at Jefferson Park in 1915. Jefferson Park has exerted a profound positive influence on the development of the Beacon Hill neighborhood. Because of its proximity to the International District, Japanese and Chinese families moved to Beacon Hill starting in the 1920s. World War I and II stimulated a surge in housing development associated with wartime industry. The construction of Interstate 5 in the 1960s and Interstate 90 in the 1980s sliced through the neighborhoods and contributed to Beacon Hill's relative isolation. Today, Beacon Hill is an ethnically diverse working class community, which has a mixed Asian, Chicano, African American, and Caucasian population.
Built in 1901, this elegant, Shingle and Queen Anne style-influenced, American Foursquare style, single-family dwelling stands on a prominent rectangular corner lot at the intersection of South Atlantic Street and Thirteenth Avenue South. The building is oriented to Thirteenth Avenue South on a flat site elevated 3' above street level. This 1215 square foot, two-and-a-half story house with a partial basement features a rectangular plan, measuring approximately 27' by 46', with a 27' by 8' full facade front porch. A brick foundation supports the wood frame, shingle-clad superstructure. Asphalt composition roofing covers the varied gable roof lines. Decorative shingles highlight the gable ends. The shingles wrap around with window openings forming a curved surface. Two notable upper story dormers were removed after 1937. A prominent fascia wraps the building below the slightly projecting eaves. Wood sash 1:1 windows provide day lighting with tilt sash gable end windows. Prominent two story bay windows extend along the south and east facades. Simple contemporary columns replaced the original clusters of slender columns supporting the front porch balcony. A contemporary railing extends along the balcony. Two direct flights of stairs lead from the street to the front door. A prominent partially exterior brick chimney services the building.
Detail for 1349 13th AVE / Parcel ID 7660100100 / Inv #
Cladding(s): Shingle, Shingle - Combed Foundation(s): Brick
Roof Type(s): Gable, Hip Roof Material(s): Asphalt/Composition
Building Type: Domestic - Single Family Plan: Irregular
Structural System: Balloon Frame/Platform Frame No. of Stories: two & ½
Changes to Plan: Slight
Changes to Windows: Moderate
Changes to Original Cladding: Moderate
Photo collection for 1349 13th AVE / Parcel ID 7660100100 / Inv #
Photo taken Sep 18, 2003


Hand Dyed Silk Habatoi Ribbon.
3 pack of 3 yds. each color.
2 1/4 inches wide. Raw Edge.
Bias joining may occur in the yardage.
The Black Walnut used to dye this ribbon was harvested from a beloved tree on our property. Infused with nature, these ribbons shimmer in the sunlight and lend a romantic feel to wedding bouquets. No two ribbons are alike, each one carrying it's own one of a kind characteristics from the plant material. It is my intention to bring one closer to nature through my process of using plants from my woodland habitat.
Plant dyes are "living color" that can be shifted with drastic changes in PH or chemicals. We recommend that if washing is required that you wash separately by hand in cool water and use a PH neutral soap like 7th Generation. Slight bleeding should be expected but like a comfortable pair of jeans, this natural dyed ribbon will gently fade with time and love but never lose it's natural beauty.
Ribbons are limited to stock on hand.


text:
Gottfried Leonhardt (* 24. Mai 1919 in Johanngeorgenstadt; † 8. Januar 2018 in Leipzig) war ein deutscher Grafiker und Illustrator.

Leben und Wirken

Gottfried Leonhardt besuchte die Volksschule und absolvierte anschließend eine Lehre an einer Handelsschule. Nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg besuchte er von 1950 bis 1952 die Mal- und Zeichenschule Zwickau (MuZ) und studierte von 1954 bis 1958 an der Fachschule für Angewandte Kunst Berlin.

Ab 1960 war er als Zeitschriften- und Buchgestalter im Fachbuchverlag Leipzig tätig. In dieser Zeit absolvierte er ab 1963 ein Externstudium in der Fachrichtung Typografie an der Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst Leipzig, das er 1967 mit einem Diplom abschloss. Von 1975 bis 1990 war er Künstlerischer Leiter im Deutschen Verlag für Grundstoffindustrie Leipzig. Die von Gottfried Leonhardt illustrierten und gestalteten Bücher wurden auf Ausstellungen wie der Internationalen Buchkunst-Ausstellung, Schönste Bücher aus aller Welt, Schönste Bücher der DDR und der Kunstausstellung der DDR gezeigt. Die von ihm illustrierten Kinderbücher Familie Star und Opa Paul und Drachensteigen erschienen in mehreren Sprachen.

In seinem Ruhestand schuf er vor allem Grafiken, die sich durch seine persönlichen Erfahrungen einerseits mit dem Leiden Christi und andererseits mit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg beschäftigen. Die Werke wurden in Kirchen wie der Friedenskirche und der Gnadenkirche in Leipzig sowie in mehreren Kasernen gezeigt. 2016 zeigte die Lehmhaus-Galerie in Zwenkau mit 40 Aquarellen, Grafiken und Collagen von Gottfried Leonhardt einen Querschnitt seines Schaffens.

Gottfried Leonhardt starb im Januar 2018 im Alter von 98 Jahren in Leipzig.

Werke

Bücher
 Familie Star und Opa Paul. Text Fred Reinke. Postreiter, Halle 1978.Polnische Ausgabe: Nasz dziadek i szpaki. Postreiter, Halle 1979.Spanische Ausgabe: La familia estornino y el abuelito Pablo. Editorial Gente Nueva, Havanna 1980.Rumänische Ausgabe: Familia Graur si mos Paul. Editura Ion Creangă, Bukarest 1983.
 Drachensteigen. Text Peter Tille. Postreiter, Halle 1979.Polnische Ausgabe: Latawce. Postreiter, Halle 1981.

Buchgestaltung
 Lothar Prengel: Farbfilm in der Kamera. Gestaltung Gottfried Leonhardt. Fotokinoverlag, Leipzig 1975.
 Horst Ihde: Von der Plantage zum schwarzen Ghetto. Geschichte und Kultur der Afroamerikaner in den USA. Einband und Schutzumschlag Gottfried Leonhardt. Urania, Leipzig 1975.
 Friedrich Schlette: Kelten zwischen Alesia und Pergamon. Eine Kulturgeschichte der Kelten. Schutzumschlag und Einband Gottfried Leonhardt. Urania, Leipzig, Jena, Berlin 1976.
 N. N. Tscheboksarow, I. A. Tscheboksarowa: Völker, Rassen, Kulturen. Schutzumschlag Gottfried Leonhardt. Urania, Leipzig 1979.
 Heinz Glade: Aus Altmark, Börde und Harzvorland. Illustrator Gottfried Leonhardt. Brockhaus, Leipzig 1979.
 Harry Beccard: In Visegrad und anderswo. Unterwegs im ungarischen Donauknie. Schutzumschlag und Einband Gottfried Leonhardt. Brockhaus, Leipzig 1981.
 Heiner Vollstädt, Rolf Baumgärtel: Edelsteine. Gesamtgestaltung Gottfried Leonhardt. Deutscher Verlag für Grundstoffindustrie, Leipzig 1982.
 Taschenkatechismus. Luthers Kleiner Katechismus, Barmer theologische Erklärung, Gebete, Sprüche, Bücher der Bibel, Lieder, Kirchenjahr, Zeittafel. Gesamtgestaltung Gottfried Leonhardt. Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, Berlin 1983.
 Karl Hans Pollmer: Die Jahre der Schindler zu Schneeberg. Geschichte und Geschichten aus der Zeit der Reformation und des Dreißigjährigen Krieges. Überzug und Textzeichnungen Gottfried Leonhardt. Evangelische Verlags-Anstalt, Berlin 1987, ISBN 3-374-00125-4.
 Peter Drescher: Der Wunschbriefkasten. Umschlag und Illustrationen Gottfried Leonhardt. Evangelische Verlags-Anstalt, Berlin 1989, ISBN 3-374-00810-0.

Weblinks

 , 6. Februar 2007
 , OVZ-Online, 4. Oktober 2012

Einzelnachweise

Grafiker (Deutschland)
Illustrator (Deutschland)
Buchgestalter
Bildender Künstler (DDR)
DDR-Bürger
Deutscher
Geboren 1919
Gestorben 2018
Mann

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia