text:
53 Support the Radical Idea of a Public Library!
I went to my local branch of the Omaha Public Library again the other day and it got me thinking about what a wonderful thing it is to have such things available. Consider it: the knowledge of the world is available for, essentially, nothing. Yes, I know that my taxes do pay for it, but I have to pay those in any event. Not only that, but I can have access to assistance from people specifically trained to help me find the information for which I think I want or need. It struck me that this is a somewhat radical idea, which is essential to democracy.
As one who has spent most of his life working in academia, I am, of course, used to the idea of libraries being available for me to consult and I have used them with some frequency in the course of my work. But, academic libraries are, primarily, intended to help support research and learning for those on the faculty and their students. I am aware of the fact that many academic libraries do also include sections of popular literature (both fiction and not), periodicals (academic and not), etc., but their purpose is to serve a fairly specific cliental and they are, generally, not open to the public at large, although some do allow the general public reading (not "checkout") access. What struck me is that there is a difference between having access to an academic library and having access to a public one. I think this distinction is important and deserves to be celebrated.
According to Wikipedia:
"A public library is a library that is accessible by the general public and is generally funded from public sources, such as taxes. It is operated by librarians and library paraprofessionals, who are also civil servants.
"There are five fundamental characteristics shared by public libraries. The first is that they are generally supported by taxes (usually local, though any level of government can and may contribute); they are governed by a board to serve the public interest; they are open to all, and every community member can access the collection; they are entirely voluntary in that no one is ever forced to use the services provided; and they provide basic services without charge.
"Public libraries exist in many countries across the world and are often considered an essential part of having an educated and literate population. Public libraries are distinct from research libraries, school libraries, and other special libraries in that their mandate is to serve the general public's information needs rather than the needs of a particular school, institution, or research population. Public libraries also provide free services such as preschool story times to encourage early literacy, quiet study and work areas for students and professionals, or book clubs to encourage appreciation of literature in adults. Public libraries typically allow users to borrow books and other materials, i.e., take off the premises temporarily; they also have non-circulating reference collections and provide computer and Internet access to patrons."
I think this description is important and should probably encourage all of us to think about it every so often, especially in a political climate which suggests that government needs to be reduced in size and cost so such "frills" should be eliminated.
Personally, while I have no desire to pay higher taxes, I think reducing/eliminating public libraries is a dangerous idea, which needs to be very carefully examined. So, let's take a look at some of the provisions of this description and consider their implications.
First, of course, it says that public libraries are open to all, operate in the public interest, and provide basic services without charge. That's important. A good library board will not waste our tax monies, but will strive to serve the general public by provide the best possible services at the lowest reasonable cost to the general public. There was a time (not that long ago) when people had to pay to "belong" to a library, which meant that one had to "be a member" even to be able to enter it, let alone actually use the materials it contained.
I think the most important consideration for public libraries, however, is that they are, generally, "…considered an essential part of having an educated and literate population." Nowadays, too many people suggest that they are no longer needed because "everybody can get what they need online." That's not really true! Yes, there is a VAST amount of information available online, or on television. However, as I know all too well, it can be very difficult to determine the sources (or validity) of much of this information. After all, just because somebody posted something on the Internet does not make it true, anymore than some politician (or anyone else) saying something makes it true. We've seen far to many examples of this sort of thing in the last few weeks. "Well, somebody said it, so I retweeted it." (And, of course, it just happened to make my opponent look bad).
I suppose what makes support for public libraries (or public schools, for that matter) subject to almost constant attack by some politicians (and, therefore, somewhat radical) is that it would appear that these politicians really don't want "…an educated and literate population." It should be obvious that it is far easier to convince poorly educated people to not waste time trying to figure out facts, they should just "vote with their gut." After all, it worked quite well for Hitler, who was constantly pointing scapegoat fingers at "those people" (Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, communists, etc.) and suggesting that the only thing preventing Germany from being great was the malicious actions of "those people."
The facts are, however, that we need an educated population to prevent these sorts of demagogues from rising to significant power and the Internet is NOT the final solution. After all, not everyone even has good access to the Internet. It simply isn't available for everyone since computers and other equipment cost money and the infrastructure to support access simply isn't readily available everywhere, even if you can obtain the equipment. While many libraries do provide some access, there are usually limits on time and ease of use. And libraries have to pay for access, just as individuals do, so cutting their funding can have an effect on public access.
Of course, public libraries can (and many do) also provide services such as story times for preschoolers, quiet areas for people to conduct research, places for public meetings, etc. And, average people actually DO engage in research on topics of interest to them! Libraries also often sponsor (or at least house) book clubs and the like. They also provide locations where such things as tax forms and other public documents can be housed so that people can have access to the actual documents which establish what their government is doing and why they say they are doing it. Of course, some politicians don't really want that sort of thing to be readily available, as it might give too much power to the "wrong" sort of people, in spite of their calls for "transparency." Many libraries also provide copying and/or fax services (at least for a, usually small, fee), which can also be interpreted as somewhat dangerous, because an informed population is more likely to ask the sort of questions which can't be answered in a 25 second sound bite intended to get a politician elected. Hence, public libraries provide an important place of access for "… an educated and literate population." It's no wonder that some politicians want to reduce their possible influence.
That suggests that some of these politicians may not really favor the idea of an "educated" population. The other day, I heard a public figure (not a politician) talking about the idea of "a free college education for all" as a good idea, but only (if I heard him correctly) if that the "education" involved was, essentially, guaranteed to get the student a job. This individual suggested (rather strongly) that we didn't need "humanities" majors because that sort of thing doesn't lead to a "real" job. That got me thinking more about this because libraries are all about an educated population, not just "job training."
Now it wasn't that long ago that many "experts" (that is, people who actually have the background and training to have some credibility in discussing such things) were suggesting that there was little point in trying to teach people only to satisfy existing job requirements because most young people would have multiple careers during their working life, not just multiple positions.
To me (having done some research to determine that these "experts" actually seem to know something about this topic and, hence have some expertise in this area), that suggests that, while some sort of specialization (a major) may be a good idea, the real value of education should be to teach people how to find things out (do research, find out what seems to be the truth, obtain and evaluate information), understand complex issues (process that information, make connections, see relationships between various bits of information, think), and then communicate what they have discovered to others (speak, write, etc. with a reasonable degree of clarity and precision).
I would suggest that if one can do these three things to a reasonable level of competence, her/his ability to find gainful employment is greatly enhanced. I know that a few years ago I saw figures suggesting that many of the largest, most important companies were more enthusiastic about hiring and grooming "humanities" majors, who knew something about these things, for top level positions than they were to do the same with business school graduates who seemed to have more difficulty in "thinking outside the box."
I believe that it is still true (I know this was the case a few years ago) that medical and law schools actively seek enrollees who had NOT majored in "Pre-Med" or "Pre-Law." They wanted their applicants to have taken the needed courses, but they wanted them to have a "well-rounded" education as well, so they encouraged some sort of other major.
It seems to me that we have an interesting, but real, conflict here. Some politicians want to cut taxes (a popular idea), in order to gain voter support. But to do that, they want to eliminate such "frills" as libraries because we don't "need" them. On the other hand, libraries seem to be one of the few things that protect us from the hate and fear mongers who want to use their positions in government to tell us how we "should" live (while claiming that they want "smaller government."
At the same time, these elected "servants" want to turn all education into "job training" which can be completely locally controlled (despite increasing evidence of a more and more mobile population which suggests a greater need for a more national outlook). They also seem to think that education can be "measured" by standardized tests so that we can reduce it to simple graphs and spreadsheets, because numbers are always valid, as opposed to just easy to manipulate to suggest whatever they want them to show. Education seems to me to be a good deal more than just a score on a multiple-choice test, but this isn't the time to go into that.
It may be a radical notion to some, but it seems to me that we may be in the process of turning our children's future (and our democracy) over to the hands of those who want to use overly-simplistic numbers to evaluate both their teachers and them. That is appalling to me.
I think that supporting public libraries can be of important assistance in helping to strengthen our resistance to this sort of stupidity, to say nothing of the fact that we can actually find good, enjoyable books to read for, essentially, no cost.
52 English Teachers May Be the Worst Thing That Ever Happened to Shakespeare!
Okay. I admit it. The mere title of this posting is going to make some people mad. Of course, since I rarely get any sort of response to the postings I write, if I can get someone angry enough to respond, I'd at least know that someone actually read it. That really is one of the reasons for this blog (if that's what it is?) to not only express my ideas, but to encourage others to think about some of the things which puzzle, provoke, entertain or annoy me. It's also a fact that I believe that the title may be true. Anyway, so what do I mean by this title….
When I was an undergraduate at Indiana University, I took an English Lit. course entitled (as I remember it) "Major Plays of Shakespeare." Since I'd always enjoyed the Shakespeare plays and it seemed reasonable that I might be involved in presenting one sometime, the course seemed likely to be of some value. However, on the first day of class, the professor (whose name I have [purposely, I think] forgotten) said that he didn't enjoy seeing Shakespeare on the stage because you can get so much more out of them when you read them. I got through the class with a reasonable grade because I had to and I'd almost forgotten about that incident until a couple of years ago when I ran across Ralph Alan Cohen's book, Shakesfear and How to Cure it. Now, since Dr. Cohen is the co-founder of the American Shakespeare Center in Virginia, and the title intrigued me, I got a copy and read it. I found it quite interesting and would suggest it as worthwhile reading, even if I don't agree with everything in it.
Part of what got me thinking about this is the fact the Western is about to do a production of a play entitled Macbeth is the New Black. This is, as I understand it, an adaptation of the Scottish play set in a girl's reformatory. Okay, I confess that I'm not particularly excited by this idea, but at least it's not pretending to be Shakespeare's play, like several movies I can think of, as well as a couple of productions which I've seen fairly recently and which have been so altered as to barely resemble the original work.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm NOT opposed to "modern dress" versions of the plays when there seems to be a reason for it and it clarifies the ideas of the play in some fashion. I really enjoyed Josh Whedon's movie of Much Ado, which was certainly transformed in time and place, but I thought worked beautifully. What bugs me is the notion, which I've heard expressed, that the plays have to be modernized in order to be comprehensible and it would probably be better to use the "Shakespeare in Modern Language" versions which have become widely available (and made their author/translators a good deal of money). Of course, these are TRANSLATIONS into "modern" English, which guarantees that they are also interpretations based on what someone has decided that Shakespeare really meant. I think that's a dangerous notion as Shakespeare loved puns and frequently chose to use words with multiple meaning. The word, "nothing" in the title of Much Ado About Nothing can be said to have four different meanings, all of which could be relevant to the play, but I'll bet this isn't made clear in the "Shakespeare for Dumb Folks" versions. I think that this variety and subtlety of word choice is part of what makes the plays interesting and material for an endless number of legitimate productions.
Anyway, to get back to Cohen's book. Chapter Two of that book is entitled "The Shakespeare Teacher's Seven Deadly Perceptions." In it, he discusses what he considers to be the basic attitudinal mistakes made by many of those who teach Shakespeare. These are listed as:
Shakespeare's works are long poems.
Shakespeare's works are philosophical tracts.
Shakespeare's works are primarily narratives.
Shakespeare's works have definitive interpretations.
Shakespeare's works are "high culture" for serious adults.
Shakespeare's works are written in a difficult language.
Shakespeare's works are primarily historical artifacts.
Okay, I have read Cohen's book (a good while ago) and I did get it out to make sure that I was quoting him correctly, but I've put it away, so I'm not going to make this all "scholarly" and quote Cohen, or other sources, etc. All I'm going to say is that I find each of these statements to be both untrue and pretty foolish (I probably should say "stupid," but I'm trying to be polite). On the other hand, I probably should make some effort to explain, briefly, why I find them to be idiotic.
1.) Of course, Shakespeare's works were considered "poetry." ALL literature had been considered "poetry" since Aristotle (possibly earlier) and that wasn't going to change for the convenience of modern English teachers. The fact is, however, that while Shakespeare did write some specifically "poetic" works (the Sonnets, etc.), many of his works were plays which contain a varying amount of prose along with the lines which were written in blank verse (poetry), as was the convention of the time throughout most of the Western World.
2.) Shakespeare's works do contain some expressions of philosophy, but I would be hard pressed to find an especially coherent and consistent philosophical approach throughout the entire body. It's pretty hard to create characters and have them perform actions (which is what characters do in plays) without treading on philosophical matters. And, of course, England was, at the time, legally a Church of England-based monarchy and it was illegal to support ideas which contradicted the teachings of that church or were deemed offensive to the monarchy. That means that the plays were censored to make them conform with accepted ideas. But any expression of "winners and losers," "good vs. bad," "right vs. wrong" is a philosophical statement and the plays do have some of that, as it's hard to imagine a good plot without some of this. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that that was the fundamental intent, or they wouldn't have been written as plays. "Sugar-coated pills" may work, but these seem like rather poor attempts to accomplish this sort of goal.
3.) Since Shakespeare's plays tell stories, they often contain narrative elements. Some even have a choral figure to fill in the gaps in the action which aren't presented on the stage. However, purely narrative fiction did exist at the time Shakespeare was writing and it would have been much simpler for him to have utilized this form, if that had been his intention.
4.) As to the idea of "definitive interpretations," the entire notion seems absurd. I have in my possession eight different video versions of Hamlet, each one with a different cast/director and each one different in innumerable ways. Yet, all are Hamlet! All seem to be honest attempts to portray the situations, actions and characters of Shakespeare's play honestly. I've seen this play performed several times, as well. Again, each production was different. I confess to being something of a Hamlet nut. I'm very fond of the play. I've found things to like (and not like) in every version I've encountered, because if there is a "definitive interpretation" for me it's my own and probably was different last year and will be still different next year. These works are works of theatrical literature (ART). If you can convince me of a definitive interpretation of a piece by Bach, Mozart or Beethoven (let alone Picasso, or da Vinci), then I might buy into the idea that this makes some sense, but I find it hard to believe that this is going to happen.
5.) The idea that Shakespeare is "high culture" is the product of the Romantic movement of the early Nineteenth Century when it became fashionable to ignore what had been the accepted rules of art since the Renaissance. In his day, Ben Jonson, who was much more an advocate (and follower) of the standard rules, was considered a far better playwright. After all, while Shakespeare's play were popular, he didn't (generally) follow the rules so. While his theatre company did become the King's Men (sponsored by the King, himself) after James I became King, but Jonson was selected to write the court masques and is considered the first Poet Laureate in England. Shakespeare was more comparable to Neil Simon of today, a good popular playwright, but not a creator of great art. In fact, Shakespeare's works were generally regarded as a bit crude, as far as great art, but which pleased the popular (mostly uneducated) audience so that those of his plays which were produced (they weren't all produced) were generally modified to fit the "proper" mold of art. It was those versions which held the stage until nearly the Twentieth century.
Only when the Romantic rejection of the traditional models were accepted did Shakespeare gain the reputation of being a "genius" and the notion of his works being great art become common. His poetry was considered sufficiently "artsy," but his plays were thought to be too full of murder, vengeance, and just plain dirty humor, to be considered "high art." Of course, after the ideas of the Romantics got accepted, too many English teachers either ignored the bawdry, or weren't aware of it's existence as many editors didn't (still don't) gloss the "dirty" stuff. It was the Romantics who made Shakespeare's works "art," by changing the accepted standards of what comprised art, which led to this notion of them being "high culture." Now that's fine with me, but it should be understood that they were not considered great art until long after the plays were written and a fair number of the plays are still less than "high art."
6.) Shakespeare's language does seem difficult, at least at times. Good glossary notes can help. Still, I do remember that Cohen maintains that the vast majority of the words Shakespeare uses (90+%, as I remember it) are still available to us and still mean pretty much what they meant when he used them. I don't know if that's true, but it does seem reasonable. I confess that I was raised on the King James Bible (1604-1611) written in the same language as that Shakespeare uses because it was the language of people who could read English at the time, so I may have an advantage on people who weren't, but not much of one, as I'm not a Biblical scholar. Of course, being a theatre person, I would argue that the language should be more of a problem (if problem it is) for the actors than the audience. Good actors can make an audience understand what's going on in spite of their not understanding the words (or at least all of them). If they couldn't, pantomime would be impossible. But the fact is that even actors shouldn't have to work a lot harder on Shakespeare's characters than they do on those of any other playwright who creates good, complex characters. And the character creates the words at least as much as the other way around. If you understand the character, you can express the ideas behind the words which that character uses which are the ones the playwright chose to put on the page for that character to speak. If you can express the characters' ideas, you can make the audience understand what's going on or you are not an actor, but just a "word-speaker."
7.) If Shakespeare's plays were, primarily, just historical artifacts, why would people still be attracted to seeing them? Some of his plays rank quite highly on the lists of most frequently produced plays of all time and more appear on such lists. Obviously, a lot of people seem to find these plays interesting and important enough to attend them. That suggests that a fair number of people seem to think that there is still something of value in these plays. Yes, they do have some historical importance, but that wouldn't seem to explain their popularity. Apparently, a lot of people still get something of value from the experiences they have with Shakespeare's plays, both on the page and, better still, on the stage. In other words, they aren't just "historical artifacts." They are, in fact, simply good plays which can do what good plays do (get us to think and react) the way plays have been doing it for 2500 years.
Note that I have been speaking about the plays. That's important, too, I think. These plays were no more written with the intent of primarily being read to one's self than any other play. They were written to be heard and performed by a playwright who was also an actor. I have no problem with those who enjoy examining the literary nuance of every word, but they are NOT reading the play, they are studying the words. They are looking at a twig on the branch of a tree in the hope that it might help them to understand a forest. Perhaps it can. I would never discourage an actor from studying everything she/he could find about his/her character. But, in the long run, there's more there than one can ever portray on a stage and putting it on the stage IS WHY BILL WROTE THE PLAY! Historically, most actors didn't worry the way we do today about interpretation and motivation and the like. They just did the play. Often the blocking amounted to just keeping out of the other actors' way and letting them play their role as they thought fit (at least if they were the "stars." I like our modern way better, but that doesn't mean that I believe in "definitive" anything.
The real point here is that we theatre people have to get Shakespeare's works (certainly the plays) out of the exclusive hands of people who only see them as works as literature, not as scripts for performance, which they were most certainly written to be. Yes, there are things we in the theatre can learn from the scholarly techniques of literary analysis, etc., but these techniques need to be used to inform productions, not as an end in themselves.
Classes on acting Shakespeare need to work on understanding the words themselves just as much (maybe more) than understanding the scansion of the line. And this doesn't mean just looking up the lines in someone else's translation. If we don't understand ALL of the possible meanings, we can't make intelligent choices as actors or directors. We analyze the character's words, actions, motivations, etc. for characters in modern plays, why shouldn't we do it for the Shakespeare?
This means that we need to reclaim Shakespeare as a theatre person, not just an author of literature. I don't think one can truly understand these plays without an understanding of how they work in performance, as they were intended. That's the province of those of us in the theatre, not literary scholars. Only by reclaiming them as works of the theatre, can Shakespeare's works (at least the plays) be properly understood. Then we can eliminate at least some of these "Seven Deadly Perceptions" and start to understand the real value of Shakespeare.
I think that is why Shakespeare's works are worth producing. They provide ample opportunities for different ideas which can still be worth examining even 400 years after they were written. Will we ever get them completely right? Has ANYONE ever gotten them completely right? Probably not. After all, theatre is about pursuing perfection while knowing that it will never be achieved. But we do it anyway, because it's worth all the agony for those occasional moments of ecstasy when we think we got close. At least it's been that way for me…. That seems all too unlikely when the works are controlled by English teachers who are trained to just think of them as literature.


text:
'''
Convolution
'''

from __future__ import print_function

import numpy as np
import cProfile
import random
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

def eps(s, t_membran):
    return np.exp(-s / t_membran)

def small_spiketrain():
    # 1000 timesteps
    # With 10 random spikes
    s = np.array([0]*1000)
    for i in range(10):
        index = random.randint(0, 1000)
        s[index] = 1
    return s

def big_spiketrain():
    # 1.000.000 timesteps Spiketrain
    # With 50.000 random spikes
    s = np.array([0]*1000000)
    for i in range(50000):
        index = random.randint(0, 1000000)
        s[index] = 1
    return s

if __name__ == "__main__":

    import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

    t_current = 0.3
    t_membran = 20

    # Epsilon Function as a vector
    x = np.linspace(0, 200, 200)
    epsilon_vector = eps(x, t_membran)

    # Spiketrain
    s = big_spiketrain()

    # Convolute
    s = (np.convolve(s, epsilon_vector, 'same'))
    cProfile.run('np.convolve(s, epsilon_vector, "same")')

    plt.plot(s, label='Convoluted Spiketrain')
    plt.plot(x, epsilon_vector, label='epsilon vector')
    plt.legend()
    plt.show()

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
101number.com
Contacts and Business Numbers
Aaron Carpenter Profile| Contact Details (Phone number, Email, Instagram, Twitter)
Written by on in famous
Who is Aaron Carpenter?
AARON CARPENTER is an American Instagram Star as well as Social Media pHenomenon who is widely known for his eponymous Instagram account. He has posted his photos and videos to the account. His account is also authenticated and verified. He started his career in social media platform as a member of the group Magcon Boys. He is also best known as a singer and released his debut song "She Know What She Doin" in May 2016. Moreover, he was born on October 5, 1998, in Shreveport, LA. His zodiac sign is Libra. He grew up with his sister named Candice and his older brother Dustyn was also popular on VineHe was also very popular on the Vine app which is now shut down.
Aaron Carpenter Contact Information?
He has been luring the audience' hearts and making them go crazy with his engaging videos. Here, we have provided all the ways to contact him. So, his fans can interact with him and also share their views with him.
Various Ways To Contact Aaron Carpenter
INSTAGRAM: @aaroncarpenter
His fans can interact with him via his Instagram account and this is the best ways to contact him. He has updated his latest photos as well as videos. You can like his pictures and you can also leave your comments.
FACEBOOK: @Aar0nCarpenter
He has a page on Facebook where he has updated his latest information stuff. You can write on his Facebook Timeline and also you can comment on his post. If you want to follow him then visit the above link.
TWITTER: @aaroncarpenter
He is also active on Twitter where he has updated his latest information stuff. This hip-hop star created his Twitter account in January 2013. His fans can contact him by using the above link and they can tweet him @aaroncarpenter.
YOUTUBE: @Channel
He has got fame as a YouTuber and he runs his self-titled YouTube channel. He always uploads his videos his channel. If you want to share your views with him then you can leave your comments in his recently posted video.
WEBSITE: @aaroncarpentermusic.com
We couldn't find his phone number.
Other Famous Celebs:
Luhhsetty
Mia Jeal
Comment below your views about him.
Carlson Young Contact Details (Phone number, Instagram, Twitter)
Spencer Elmer Contact Details (Phone number, Instagram, Twitter)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl