text:
Prenatal diagnosis of Sanfilippo syndrome
John J. Hopwood
Hopwood Centre For Neurobiology
The focus of this communication is to comment on the relative importance of enzymatic and molecular genetics, potential false results and future options for prenatal diagnosis of Sanfilippo syndrome (mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS) types IIIA, IIIB, IIIC and IIID). During the provision of an international service over the past 25 years, our department has identified 7 affected out of 49 MPS III prenatal assessments. During this period, the technology used by us and others (Thompson et al., 1993; Kleijer et al., 1996) in these diagnoses has undergone considerable development in evolution. Our policy to maintain a close relationship between the provision of a diagnostic service and research to achieve an overall goal of early diagnosis and effective therapy, have progressed both activities.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.1094
Published - 1 Feb 2005
Mucopolysaccharidosis type III
Sanfilippo syndrome
10.1002/pd.1094
Hopwood, J. J. (2005). Prenatal diagnosis of Sanfilippo syndrome. Prenatal Diagnosis, 25(2), 148-150. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.1094
Hopwood, John J. / Prenatal diagnosis of Sanfilippo syndrome. In: Prenatal Diagnosis. 2005 ; Vol. 25, No. 2. pp. 148-150.
@article{d83f93dbd30947afacc835d4c3bf64c1,
title = "Prenatal diagnosis of Sanfilippo syndrome",
abstract = "The focus of this communication is to comment on the relative importance of enzymatic and molecular genetics, potential false results and future options for prenatal diagnosis of Sanfilippo syndrome (mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS) types IIIA, IIIB, IIIC and IIID). During the provision of an international service over the past 25 years, our department has identified 7 affected out of 49 MPS III prenatal assessments. During this period, the technology used by us and others (Thompson et al., 1993; Kleijer et al., 1996) in these diagnoses has undergone considerable development in evolution. Our policy to maintain a close relationship between the provision of a diagnostic service and research to achieve an overall goal of early diagnosis and effective therapy, have progressed both activities.",
keywords = "Mucopolysaccharidosis type III, Prenatal diagnosis, Sanfilippo syndrome",
author = "Hopwood, {John J.}",
doi = "10.1002/pd.1094",
journal = "Prenatal Diagnosis",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
Hopwood, JJ 2005, 'Prenatal diagnosis of Sanfilippo syndrome', Prenatal Diagnosis, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 148-150. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.1094
Prenatal diagnosis of Sanfilippo syndrome. / Hopwood, John J.
In: Prenatal Diagnosis, Vol. 25, No. 2, 01.02.2005, p. 148-150.
T1 - Prenatal diagnosis of Sanfilippo syndrome
AU - Hopwood, John J.
N2 - The focus of this communication is to comment on the relative importance of enzymatic and molecular genetics, potential false results and future options for prenatal diagnosis of Sanfilippo syndrome (mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS) types IIIA, IIIB, IIIC and IIID). During the provision of an international service over the past 25 years, our department has identified 7 affected out of 49 MPS III prenatal assessments. During this period, the technology used by us and others (Thompson et al., 1993; Kleijer et al., 1996) in these diagnoses has undergone considerable development in evolution. Our policy to maintain a close relationship between the provision of a diagnostic service and research to achieve an overall goal of early diagnosis and effective therapy, have progressed both activities.
AB - The focus of this communication is to comment on the relative importance of enzymatic and molecular genetics, potential false results and future options for prenatal diagnosis of Sanfilippo syndrome (mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS) types IIIA, IIIB, IIIC and IIID). During the provision of an international service over the past 25 years, our department has identified 7 affected out of 49 MPS III prenatal assessments. During this period, the technology used by us and others (Thompson et al., 1993; Kleijer et al., 1996) in these diagnoses has undergone considerable development in evolution. Our policy to maintain a close relationship between the provision of a diagnostic service and research to achieve an overall goal of early diagnosis and effective therapy, have progressed both activities.
KW - Mucopolysaccharidosis type III
KW - Prenatal diagnosis
KW - Sanfilippo syndrome
U2 - 10.1002/pd.1094
DO - 10.1002/pd.1094
JO - Prenatal Diagnosis
JF - Prenatal Diagnosis
Hopwood JJ. Prenatal diagnosis of Sanfilippo syndrome. Prenatal Diagnosis. 2005 Feb 1;25(2):148-150. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.1094


text:
Atheism, Social Justice, and Dictionaries
October 24, 2014 Luxander Pondactivism, atheism, dictionary atheism, feminism, humanism, misogyny, oppression, religion, sexism, social justice27 Comments
Over the years, the atheist movement has split asunder over the issue of whether social justice activism has a place within the atheist movement. Recently, a post on The Daily Banter caused a stir of conversation about it the likes of which I haven't seen since Atheism+ started happening. (Though this one was markedly less impressive.)
The piece, written by Michael Luciano and entitled "Atheists Don't Owe Your Social Justice Agenda a Damn Thing," basically argues that social justice is something you do with your liberal hat on and not your atheist hat. He points out that all the word "atheist" means is that you don't believe in gods and not necessarily that you support "liberal politics."
It seems apparent to me, first of all, that atheism is a social justice issue. Heina points out in their post "Top Five Arguments the Atheist Agenda Doesn't Have the Right to Use" that many things the atheist movement tries to fight for are social issues. A lot of atheist activism focuses on equal representation in and by the government and normalizing atheism, the goals of which are to eliminate the ways atheists are harmed as a minority. Seems pretty social justicey to moi. Continue reading "Atheism, Social Justice, and Dictionaries" →
I'll be at Women in Secularism 3. Will you?
March 19, 2014 Zinnia Jonesactivism, atheism, events, feminism, secularism6 Comments
Women in Secularism 3 is coming up fast, running from May 16-18 in Alexandria, VA. Among the speakers are Ophelia Benson, Barbara Ehrenreich, Melody Hensley, Susan Jacoby, and many other spectacular secularists you won't want to miss. Also, I'll be appearing on the following panels on Friday, May 16:
Online Activism
Moderator: Lindsay Beyerstein, Panel: Soraya Chemaly, Amy Davis Roth, Zinnia Jones, Miri Mogilevsky
Intersectionality and Humanism
Moderator: Soraya Chemaly, Panel: Miri Mogilevsky, Heina Dadabhoy, Zinnia Jones, Debbie Goddard
This is going to be really awesome and you should totally be there. Register early for discounted rates!
Siding with hate: Michael L. Brown
September 13, 2011 Zinnia Jonesactivism, Christian behavior, homophobia, LGBT, Michael L. Brown10 Comments
In February of 2008, 15-year-old Lawrence King was killed at E.O. Green Junior High School by his classmate Brandon McInerney. He was shot in the back of the head at point-blank range in the middle of a computer lab full of students, and then shot again as he lay on the ground. Lawrence had often been bullied by other boys for being openly gay, and Brandon had been teasing him for weeks. Lawrence responded by flirting with him. Brandon invited his friends to gang up and attack Lawrence, but none of them took an interest, so Brandon announced that he was going to get a gun and shoot him.
Several months after the shooting, Brandon told a psychologist that he was driven to kill Lawrence because he was insulted by his advances and because he wore makeup and high heels at school. On the day of the shooting, Brandon claimed to have had second thoughts about it, until he overheard Lawrence claiming to have changed his name to Leticia. The psychologist testified that this caused Brandon to enter a "dissociative state" for the duration of the killing. A mistrial was recently declared after jurors couldn't agree on whether to charge Brandon with first-degree murder or voluntary manslaughter.
In a case like this that so exemplifies the defense strategy of blaming gay victims, even children, for provoking their own death, it's no surprise that those who bristle at the very idea of gay youth would be desperately searching for a way to twist this to their own ends. And Christian commentator Michael L. Brown has seized this opportunity in the most vulgar way imaginable.
In a column on the American Family Association's news site, Brown tries to blame just about everyone except for the murderer. Instead, he blames the school because they didn't stop Lawrence from wearing makeup, which would have been a violation of California's anti-discrimination laws. He blames gay people for opposing "any form of counseling that does not affirm homosexuality", as if that would have been even remotely helpful here. He blames gay-straight alliances for allowing students to identify as gay "without their parent's knowledge". I didn't know anyone needed their parents' permission to have a sexual orientation. I'm pretty sure that's not how this works.
But most of all, he blames gay rights groups for supporting gay students and encouraging them to be themselves in an environment that's potentially dangerous to them. According to Brown, they should be telling these students to live in secrecy for their own protection during the entire time they're in school. You know, it takes some real effort to miss the point so badly. Is this how we address bullying and harassment in schools now? By making the victims responsible for concealing themselves, and letting fear and violence prevail unchallenged?
If this wasn't about the harassment of minorities, no one would even entertain such an insulting idea. If schools were plagued by anti-Christian violence, would we see Michael L. Brown blaming Christians themselves for working to make schools safe for Christian students and encouraging them to stand up for their rights? Would Christians be at fault for allowing students to wear crosses at school and identify as openly Christian? Would he tell these students they should just keep it a secret for the duration of their youth?
And yet gay rights groups are now expected to be complicit in the silencing, erasure, and closeting of gay students, for no reason other than to placate those who despise them. They're supposed to fall back and appease these threats instead of fighting for a learning environment that's safe for every student. No one could possibly believe this is an effective, responsible, ethical or humane way to address any kind of bullying.
Unless, of course, you don't think the harassment of gay students is something to fight against. Unless you think the goal of reducing bullying is somehow compatible with having counselors tell students that their gay classmates are sexually disordered deviants who are acting contrary to God himself. Unless you think that not committing violence against gay people is simply too much to ask of everyone else, and their victims should be expected to pay the price. Unless you lack any genuine concern for students who just want to go to school without being in danger every day. Unless you're a miserable, hopeless wretch with a Bible for a heart!
Anyone who thinks this is a viable solution must not realize that this has been tried before. Gay people have had to stay closeted for centuries simply for their own safety, and this did absolutely nothing to eliminate the hatred that put them in danger. That wasn't good for anyone. But when being gay didn't have to be a secret anymore, that started changing. People who personally know someone who's gay are much more likely to have positive attitudes, and schools that support their gay students and specifically prohibit anti-gay bullying are safer as a result.
We don't need secrecy to be safe, and no child should have to live with the terrible bargain of fear that forces them into hiding. Yet that is what Brown demands of them when he asks that we do nothing. There is a better way, and it's not hard to see that the problem lies with the bullies rather than their victims. So why not start acting like it? When students are being harassed, attacked and even killed for being gay, the last thing we need is more of the same. And if your first thought after the murder of a gay student is that they shouldn't have been so gay, what the hell is wrong with you?
Questions for Dr. Jillian T. Weiss
June 28, 2011 Zinnia Jonesactivism, LGBT, transgender3 Comments
At The Bilerico Project, Dr. Jillian T. Weiss writes about a man who has been seen at various airports while wearing women's clothing (picture at the link). Citing his particularly revealing manner of dress, she expresses concern that such attire could be covered under protections for gender expression that she's been working to promote, and hopes that it would not:
No amount of "gender expression rights" talk is going to pretty this one up. I do not support this man's right to fly clad only in female underwear.
However, her specific objections to his activity bring up a number of provocative issues that merit further exploration. First of all, must this even be an issue of gender? Certainly many would see it as such, and in the comments, Weiss claims that his clothing would not be a problem if he were female:
The thing is […] that it would not be inappropriate for a young woman to wear that attire.
I find this improbable. On a woman, the same clothing would likely be considered just as inappropriate – suggestive, improper for the setting of air travel and excessively revealing. In his case, it also emphasizes the outline of his genitals. Note that this is only incidentally the result of his male anatomy, and not inherently due to cross-dressing and wearing women's underwear; Speedos for men have a similar structure and would pose the same problem. It's unlikely that this would be seen as any more appropriate, given the setting. So what's the real issue here? Tastefulness aside, it's his incomplete performance of femininity – wearing clothes associated with women while remaining visibly male. Is that, itself, reason enough to object to this? That someone is neglecting to adhere to a consistently masculine or feminine presentation? Weiss hints at this when elaborating on her standards:
I respect the right of everyone to dress how they wish, but only up to a point. Why draw a line, you ask? Am I not engaging in dressing behavior, as a transsexual, that was once not only considered improper but illegal?
Yes, I am. But that doesn't mean there are no boundaries whatsoever. True, the boundaries are artificial, socially created constructs. But I live in a real world, not a theoretical one. I dress like a 50-year old female academic (in law, not fashion or the arts), and, frankly, I look like one.
There may indeed be boundaries, but where are they drawn? Defending your own choice of dressing counter to your assigned birth sex by citing your consistently and traditionally feminine appearance, as well as your transsexual status, suggests that while this should be considered acceptable, anything beyond that may not be. Where does this leave bigender, genderqueer and other people who may present as both masculine and feminine, and whose gender identity may not cluster near male or female or even fall on that spectrum at all? Assuming the passenger in question is a cisgender man, suppose he presented as fully female in traditional and conservative attire – would that still be a problem? Is cross-dressing out of bounds? What about drag queens and other such performances?
It seems unreasonable to say that dressing against one's birth sex is something to be restricted to people who are actually transsexual. What cause is there for designating any variance outside of that to be an unacceptable expression of gender? If it's a question of gender-congruent appearance, this could even encompass trans people who, for whatever reason, are often read incorrectly and not seen as their target gender. Though I doubt this is what Weiss intended, her reasons for objecting in this instance have unfortunate implications:
When older gentlemen demand the right to fly while dressed only in female undergarments, it undermines the argument that gender identity and expression are serious issues deserving of protection, because the demand stretches the concepts involved beyond all recognition. […]
It is heartbreaking to me to think of all those people who have worked so hard simply to have the plain dignity and respect that every human being should receive, to see this man playing dress up on airplanes "just for fun." This isn't subverting gender norms, it's strengthening them because it makes gender variance ridiculous.
Molding oneself and one's movement to avoid public ridicule is a dangerous game. The same pattern appears elsewhere: masculine gay men will sometimes demean femmes as an image problem and a shameful liability, and LGB people will blame trans people for holding back the progress of gay rights. Does this mean that such groups should be disowned by everyone else because they scare people away and hold back the movement? If we're to steer clear of whatever gender variance that people may find ridiculous, this will include far more than one oddball airline passenger. Even modestly dressed and gender-conforming trans people like Dr. Weiss may not be any more palatable to the wider public, simply due to the fact that they're transsexual. That's hardly a reason to cast them out for being politically inconvenient – but that's the price you pay when you restrict your movement to include only that which the majority approves of.
This accomplishes nothing. Those who are unable or unwilling to recognize that this man is distinct from trans people are ignorant enough that they likely wouldn't see trans people as any different in nature – while you may try to placate them with your normalcy, they'll still regard you as anything but normal. But those who support gender identity and gender expression protections will likely understand that his behavior has nothing to do with the genuine identities of transsexual, transgender and gender-variant people. Pandering to common bigotry is a hopeless endeavor that only serves to diminish your own base of support.
As if to prove her point by example, Weiss goes so far as to suggest that this is cause enough to disavow gender expression protections:
Is this what ENDA is going to mean — that he can come dressed to work like this? Is this what we're asking employers to support? I am not fighting for that. I do not find it fabulous, and I do not find it amusing.
I'm not advocating arrests of crossdressers, and I uphold anyone's right to dress however they want in private. But I'm not defending this one. Is this what all my work on including statutory protections for "gender expression" comes down to? This makes me rethink that. Very seriously.
I tend to be suspicious of people whose support of minority rights is conditional rather than principled. It brings to mind the person who thinks their racism is justified by bad experiences with people of color, the person who would support marriage equality if they weren't so disgusted by pride parades – someone who sees their own personal discomfort as a reason to deny someone else their equal recognition as a person. And it raises the question of just how firm their support really was to begin with. Do they truly stand for people's rights, when someone exercising them in a manner they disapprove of is all it takes for them to change their minds?
Objecting to gender expression protections which would protect expressions of gender that you disagree with seems to be missing the point entirely. If such an attitude were universal, the emerging consensus would ensnare far more people than Dr. Weiss would likely be comfortable with – and it certainly would not be kind to trans people in the current social climate. If these laws only protected gender expression that everyone found acceptable, why would we even need them? She may be uncomfortable with this, but I'm far more uncomfortable with the alternative.
Announcing the Rational Day of Dialogue
March 24, 2011 Zinnia Jonesactivism, Focus on the Family, LGBT, religion5 Comments
The Day of Silence has been one of the most successful grassroots protests for gay equality in the past decade – so it's no surprise that it's also succeeded in drawing the ire of conservative Christians. Yes, apparently something so simple as students being silent to stand in solidarity with their gay classmates requires a response from the religious right. They've tried pulling their kids out of school on the Day of Silence, or at least claimed they were going to. They've tried setting up a so-called "Day of Truth" for their kids to tell people that being gay is a sin – which they decided to cancel because dozens of gay kids were killing themselves. You'd think that after this, they might give it up and stop trying to refute an anti-bullying campaign. But, like a bad case of ignorance, it just keeps coming back.
This year, Focus on the Family has rebranded it as the "Day of Dialogue". A dialogue about what, you might ask? Well, it's about "supporting those who want to express their faith-based viewpoints about homosexuality". Because when people are standing up against anti-gay bullying, we can't let that pass without an opposing viewpoint!
But if a dialogue is what they're after, maybe that's just what we need. When religion is being used to tell gay students that who they are is wrong, we should have a dialogue about that. If they're going to talk about "what the Bible really says", let's talk about what the Bible really is. If they want to talk about how God made us, let's talk about how we made God. If they want to have a Day of Dialogue, I say we make it a Rational Day of Dialogue. Because if they're going to tell us that who we are is sinful, and expect us to take it on faith, that deserves a real answer.
Anti-gay proselytizing isn't something that should go unchallenged in schools. Students should know the truth behind these religious claims: they're not as unquestionable as they might seem. On April 18th, let's have a real dialogue – a rational dialogue.
Find out more at Rational Day of Dialogue.
Status quo bias, charity, and the trolley problem
December 8, 2010 Zinnia Jonesactivism, ethics, homophobia, religion, Salvation Army11 Comments
The excuses for supporting the Salvation Army, rather than one of the many non-discriminatory charities out there, are becoming progressively more flimsy. But even after I've addressed a number of objections to a boycott of the Salvation Army, there are still a few arguments that are very persistent. And while some of them may not actually need to be refuted, I do hope to at least disfigure them beyond recognition.
Some people have cited the Salvation Army's near-ubiquity in providing social services, the relative accessibility of donating to them, and really just the sheer scale of their operation. But none of these constitute a reason why the Salvation Army should be considered more preferable than other charities. Even if the Salvation Army is responsible for the largest portion of charitable activities, it doesn't mean you get more bang for the buck, so to speak, from giving to them. Your money isn't necessarily doing more good for the dollar when it goes to the Salvation Army instead of another charity.
Besides, it's not like charities are competing in some kind of first-past-the-post election, where whichever one provides a plurality of all charity services should receive all of the funding that would have gone to other charities. They may be the largest, but that doesn't mean we have to support them, and it doesn't mean the rest should be ignored. They're only the largest because we support them, and if we stop supporting them, eventually they may not be the largest anymore.
And even if a certain charity places people practically everywhere to collect donations, that's still not a very good reason to give to them instead of another group. Really, would you give your money to just any people who go to the trouble of putting a collection plate in front of you? Convenience alone is hardly the most relevant factor in choosing which charity you should support. And the entire purpose of drawing attention to the Salvation Army's anti-gay beliefs is to reach people who want to make an informed decision about where their money is going and what it's being used for.
Others claimed that the Salvation Army wouldn't be prepared for a significant drop in donations, and that a major reallocation of funding from the Salvation Army to other charities would incur a great deal of administrative overhead that would ultimately take away from the actual charity services that they provide. But it seems obvious that an organization the size of the Salvation Army already has to be prepared to absorb shortfalls in funding that can result from a declining economy or just periodic fluctuations. This is the kind of thing they'd have to deal with regardless of whether we boycott them. Likewise, it's not as though other charities would be completely unprepared for more donations than usual. If anything, they would almost certainly welcome this. They're not going to be totally clueless about what to do with it all. Do you think they'll have no choice but to spend it on Ferraris for everyone?
Perhaps the most enduring argument against a boycott is the claim that poor and homeless people would freeze to death or suffer some similar fate, and that we're responsible for this if we choose not to give to the Salvation Army. People really love to tell me this, over and over. It's easier to understand this argument if we split it up into two separate parts. First, there's the attempt to persuade us with a vivid example of people dying in the streets for lack of food and shelter if we don't support the Salvation Army. The second part, which is usually left unsaid, is the implication that we should consider this a compelling reason to keep giving to the Salvation Army. It's important to distinguish between these two points, because I can fully acknowledge that depriving them of our money could actually mean that more homeless people will die this winter. I just don't see why I should care. And I'll explain why.
While the problem of poverty and homelessness is definitely something that needs to be addressed, this just isn't a good argument for why we should give to the Salvation Army and not other charities. It relies on the kind of dramatic emotional appeal that could be made in favor of practically any cause. If this is supposed to be a valid reason to support the Salvation Army, someone else could just as easily say, "If you don't support this charity, children in Africa are going to starve to death, slowly." Would we then be compelled to give to that charity instead? The argument being made here is identical. Of course, someone else could then respond with another striking example of families going hungry if we don't give to the Salvation Army, and then we'd once again have to donate to them.
So, would this ever-escalating exchange of emotional appeals force us to keep bouncing back and forth between giving to one charity, or another, or another? That seems kind of absurd, and it's easy to realize that this isn't a sound basis for deciding which charities we should support. And once we understand that this isn't so persuasive after all, it's plain to see why this argument doesn't work for the Salvation Army either. So when someone tells me, "Homeless people are going to freeze to death and it's your fault!", I can feel completely confident in saying, "So?" I have nothing against the homeless, of course – just like I don't have anything against the myriad other causes that I haven't donated to. But in this case, the Salvation Army simply isn't special.
What's interesting is that even once I've pointed this out, people are still reluctant to choose not to give to the Salvation Army. Even when they've been doing essentially the same thing all along by choosing not to give to other charities, they still insist that we should support the Salvation Army only. Somehow, supporting the Salvation Army at the expense of other charities is good, but supporting other charities at the expense of the Salvation Army is bad. But there's really no reason why the Salvation Army should be considered exceptional here, any more so than any other charities. Many of them do just as much good, usually with equal or greater efficiency.
It seems that for some people, their perspective here isn't derived from the actual outcome of giving to one charity and not another – which is roughly equivalent – but rather based on another factor entirely. I suspect that there may be some, to use the technical term, "weird stuff" going on in their heads. Obviously, feeding a starving child in India is in no way inferior or less valid than feeding a starving child in America. People are people, and people are equal. There's no particular reason to prefer giving to the Salvation Army versus another charity, so there's nothing wrong with choosing a group that doesn't endorse openly homophobic religious views. So why do people still insist on supporting the Salvation Army, even to the point of claiming that anyone who gives to another charity is basically killing the homeless?
I'm inclined to think that they consider donating to the Salvation Army to be a sort of default state, almost like something that's been chosen for them ahead of time, and they don't seem to act like they have as much responsibility for that. But once we make the decision to give to another charity instead, it's like we might as well have unleashed a pack of rabid wolves on families in poverty. What's up with that? It seems like there's something about actually thinking about this, and then making an intentional choice, that makes people more uncomfortable with the results of this, and causes them to feel more personally and directly responsible for the ultimate outcome. Even if that outcome is effectively identical.
This is actually a well-studied phenomenon in the field of ethics. There's a certain thought experiment known as the trolley problem which helps illuminate the differing attitudes toward making choices like this. For example, just hypothetically, would you prefer for one person to die, or five people to die? Most people would say that one person dying is preferable.
Now suppose that a train is speeding out of control, and there are five people on the track directly ahead of it who can't get out of the way. However, there's another track with only one person who can't get out of the way. You have the opportunity to pull a switch that will divert the train onto the other track, killing one person but saving the other five. Should you pull the switch? In this situation, not as many people are willing to choose for one person to die rather than five, when they're the one who's actually pulling the switch.
For another scenario, suppose you're standing on a bridge above an oncoming train that's about to run into five people. There's also a very large man next to you, large enough that if you push him off the bridge, his body will stop the train and save the other five people. Should you push him off the bridge? In this case, even more people refuse to do it, regardless of the fact that it would have the same result: one person dies instead of five.
Overall, the trolley problem isn't really about figuring out what the right choice is, so much as it's meant to demonstrate the interesting variations in people's decisions under different circumstances. It seems that people aren't as concerned about the actual results of their actions as they are with their perceived degree of personal involvement: from making an abstract choice, to pulling an actual switch to kill a person, to actively pushing someone in front of a train. Even when the outcome of taking action would be objectively better, many people still don't want to have anything to do with this.
And something similar seems to be going on here. For some people, continuing to give to the Salvation Army like they always have is viewed as the equivalent of just not touching the switch. They see it as something that was already going to happen, and they don't want to make an active choice to change this. But when we do consciously decide not to donate to the Salvation Army, they see us as becoming more personally involved, like throwing someone in front of an oncoming train. And that's when they tell us that we're effectively leaving homeless people out in the cold because we chose another charity instead. All of a sudden, we somehow become morally culpable in a way that they seem to think they aren't.
What they've failed to realize is that they're already just as involved as we are. They flipped that switch when they decided to let children around the world die for lack of food or clean water or medical care, so they could give to the Salvation Army instead. Yet this doesn't seem to bother them. So how can they expect us to be persuaded by the same argument that they themselves don't find convincing? They've made practically the same choice already. Why is it okay for them, but not for us?
Again, the Salvation Army is not special. There's no reason to think that they're the best charity out there or the only good option, and as I've explained, there are actually plenty of reasons not to give to them. And we don't have to feel bad about supporting other charities instead. Someone's probably going to die no matter what. But someone is going to be cared for, too. So don't be afraid. Pull the switch.
The Salvation Army and "the most good"
November 28, 2010 Zinnia Jonesactivism, ethics, homophobia, religion, Salvation Army11 Comments
In the brief time since I proposed a boycott of the Salvation Army for their anti-gay policies, I've received quite a wide variety of responses. It's clear that there are a lot of people who weren't aware of this, and many of them have decided not to give to the Salvation Army for this reason. And that's exactly what I was hoping for – and I hope even more people will learn about this, too. At the same time, there are a significant number of people who defended the Salvation Army, and for one reason or another, don't see this as a sufficient cause to boycott them.
In particular, it was striking to see how many people are willing to ignore their policy of official homophobia, and don't consider this a dealbreaker in terms of giving them money. And I have to wonder if people would be so forgiving of an openly racist or anti-semitic organization. If they knew that a certain group had an official position stating that the white race is inherently superior, or Jews are just "imperfect Christians", would they still go right ahead and keep supporting them? Would that not make them stop and think that maybe they shouldn't involve themselves with such a group? It's interesting that they're apparently much more tolerant of discrimination against gay people – like this just doesn't matter to them. It really does seem to be one of the last acceptable prejudices.
Of course, some people have tried to turn this around and claim that we must be discriminating against the Salvation Army, and that not supporting them because of their anti-gay beliefs is somehow a kind of bigotry all its own. It's rather amusing that anyone would even attempt such a ridiculous argument. It's quite obvious that standing against bigotry, and taking action to discourage it, is not itself bigotry at all. Indeed, this stands in direct opposition to bigotry. It's kind of like saying that if you oppose racism, you must be "bigoted against racists". (Or racist against bigots.) The real bigotry at work here is the passive bigotry of those who would allow such discriminatory attitudes to proliferate unchecked, without ever lifting a finger to stop them. Arguably, choosing to let bigotry proceed without interference can mean being complicit in it yourself. But actively opposing it is most certainly not just another kind of bigotry.
Other people have attempted to minimize this issue by saying that the Salvation Army doesn't have a problem with gay people, only with the act of gay sex. But I don't see how that's supposed to be any better. There's still no legitimate reason to be against gay sex, just like there's no reason to object to being gay in and of itself, either. Besides, who do they think is having all the gay sex, anyway? Even if this is what they believe, it doesn't make their anti-gay policies any more acceptable. Really, is it supposed to be a good thing that they expect people to never have a loving, intimate relationship with another person, for no good reason at all? I don't see how. A position like that is still just as deserving of a boycott.
Meanwhile, some people have accused us of depriving the poor and the homeless of food and shelter by not giving to the Salvation Army. Obviously, this is not our intention whatsoever. If people do withhold their support from the Salvation Army, I certainly hope they'll give to another charity instead. We don't want to undermine services for those in need. But we also don't want to fund a group like the Salvation Army. And if not giving to the Salvation Army means we're letting the poor go hungry, you could just as well say that supporting the Salvation Army means letting children in Haiti die of cholera.
I would have to ask why people aren't willing to hold the Salvation Army itself accountable for attaching completely irrelevant homophobic policies to an otherwise very helpful operation. Where is their responsibility for driving people away from a worthwhile cause with needless bigotry? It's rather unreasonable to demand that people support your openly anti-gay organization under the implied threat that you'll have to throw poor people out on the street. That's just repulsive, and it really amounts to a kind of blackmail. In boycotting them, we're simply refusing to take the bait. So yes, we do want to make an impact on the Salvation Army itself. By making our support for them contingent upon whether they withdraw their anti-gay policies, they now have an incentive to do so. If we gave them our money regardless of what their policies were, they would never have any reason to change. And that's kind of the point of a boycott.
Others have said that the Salvation Army are the only ones providing vital services in some areas, and so there is no option but to support them. But clearly, there is another option, and this is really a self-reinforcing argument whose validity relies upon its own application. Of course there won't be any other groups providing these services, if everyone always donates to the Salvation Army. That's never going to change if you keep giving them your money – nobody else could ever get off the ground! If this is the reason you have to keep giving to the Salvation Army, it's only a reason because you keep giving to the Salvation Army.
Most significantly, nearly all of the objections to a boycott shared one common thread: that regardless of their anti-gay policies, the Salvation Army does a lot of good. The implication seems to be that this makes their homophobia more acceptable – as if that somehow makes up for it. It's surprising how many people think that this is what charity is about.
Certainly we're all familiar with the concept of penance, even in a secular context: when we've done something wrong, we try to make up for it. But what happens if you reverse this? Can you do something good in advance, so as to earn a certain amount of "moral currency" you can spend to permit yourself to do something bad? Not really. The entire point of making up for something bad is that you recognize that you were wrong to do it, you try to make things right, and hopefully you'll avoid doing that again. But there is no recognition of this wrongdoing, or intention of avoiding it in the future, when you continually use your good deeds to grant yourself a perpetual license to do harm. This seems rather inconsistent with the purpose of a charity.
Even the Salvation Army's own motto is: "Doing the most good." And that's a goal I would completely agree with. But many people, perhaps even the Salvation Army themselves, apparently have a concept of what "doing good" means that is completely at odds with this. Quite simply, they don't seem to actually care about doing the most good – emphasis on the "most". Instead, they're only concerned with maintaining a moral surplus of sorts, and staying out of the red. As long as they do enough good to break even and stay in the black, then they can squander as much of that goodwill as they want on doing bad things.
But this is obviously self-defeating. Why go to the trouble of doing so much good if you're just going to detract from it by doing harm? That's not "doing the most good" – it's only "doing mostly good". You aren't maximizing the good you do, you're just staying out of debt. That's not what a charity is for. If they truly want to do the most good, then they can do more good by doing less harm. And really, if this is supposed to be an excuse, then just how much does it excuse? How much harm would you allow them to do before you would no longer support them? And, once they've reached that point, how much more good would they have to do before you would support them again? This is certainly worth considering when your idea of morality is nothing but a balanced budget.
Once again, I'd like to thank everyone who watched the video and decided to join the cause. I hope you'll share it with people so more of them will know about this, and we might just make a difference here.
(crossposted from YouTube)
The Salvation Army and "the most good"
I bet I can find at least one good reason for what I do
September 19, 2010 Zinnia Jonesactivism, atheism, religion, YouTube3 Comments
Hi, Aaron. As you've probably come to expect of me, I'm just going to jump right into analyzing some of the things you said.
Your central point appears to be that my videos make no difference – that they fail to influence people's religious views, and are thus a waste of time. You seem to place all potential viewers into two distinct categories: either they already agree with me, making my videos superfluous, or they don't agree and are completely beyond the reach of any kind of persuasion, firmly and inextricably entrenched in their views.
This probably isn't the case. Not all of the people who don't share my views are forever inaccessible and totally unable to be convinced otherwise. Some are, but they certainly don't comprise the entirety of everyone who disagrees with me. There are actually plenty of people whose belief systems, while different from my own, are capable of changing when challenged in one way or another. They are potentially "vulnerable" to that – they have not all placed themselves off-limits to argument.
One case of someone who may be open to persuasion would be a person who perceives that there may be something not quite right about their religion, and harbors some primordial doubts about it, but lives in an environment where their culture and even their own life has been thoroughly infused with religion, to the extent that actively rejecting and leaving their faith is unthinkable. These influences may deter them from further pursuing any doubts they may have, and they'll instead simply "go with the flow" as their family, friends and culture expect of them, remaining observant of their religion. They may not even be aware that outright nonbelief is possible, let alone capable of offering a more richly developed and satisfying outlook on life than their current faith. Exposing such people to the atheistic worldview can open doors for them that they might not have even realized were there.
Another example would be the people who simply don't think very much about the religion they follow. If it's something they've always been a part of, they might not have contemplated the possibility that there are other religious views available, or that they could be wrong. Some people really have just never considered these things, instead operating on "autopilot" for a large part of their lives without critically examining their own beliefs. In this case, there could definitely be certain arguments that might make them think about their religion in ways they never have before. It's quite possible that such people can have various different "threads" hanging from the sweater of their beliefs which, when pulled, kickstart the process of unraveling the entire thing. Some people really do have weak spots in their belief systems that can be targeted by specific arguments.
In essence, there is still a movable middle here of people who, while religious, can be persuaded to change their views. Religion is not always a fully-enclosed, impenetrable and unfailingly self-reinforcing system for everyone who believes in it. For instance, I've received numerous responses from Christians and other nonspecific believers who acknowledge that I have good points, even if they don't fully share my views. There are also many atheists who were previously religious, but eventually settled on atheism because something happened that helped to change their beliefs.
You said that, if someone is capable of becoming an atheist, they can "get there on their own" without our assistance, and that they can only "see it and realize it for themselves". But not everyone truly is capable of reaching these conclusions on their own. It isn't an inevitability; simply being capable of arriving at a position of atheism does not mean that one necessarily will. Individuals are not fully complete, independent and self-reliant fonts of rationality unto themselves. By sharing our ideas, we fill in the gaps in each other's abilities, the different areas that were missed and left blank by our varying faculties. Outside perspectives are valuable because they present ideas that people may not have realized or discovered by themselves – or it may have taken them a much longer and circuitous route to get there. So, while you maintain that "if someone's smart enough to connect the dots, they're going to do it with or without your help", we can still accelerate this process by smoothing the path ahead of them. Even if they are smart enough to connect the dots – and I certainly hope they are – they could nevertheless benefit from having the dots clearly pointed out, in the form of pre-digested and easily accessible arguments. They aren't equally obvious to everyone, even among potential atheists.
You are right to point out how important it is to reach people as early as possible and provide them with the intellectual tools to recognize, resist and reject religious belief systems. Prevention should certainly be a significant component of atheistic outreach. But religion, once acquired, is clearly not an incurable condition. These people are not forever lost, and it's just as important that we try and reach them as it is for us to keep religious belief from taking hold in the first place. Not all of them can be written off, because there is a real possibility that some of them could change their views – given the proper approach. It would be foolish to ignore all of them as hopeless when many may not be.
So, am I really making no difference here? Is it true that "no number of YouTube videos will win people over"? I don't think so. The format in particular lends itself to easy, widespread dissemination of ideas and arguments. YouTube is an immensely popular platform, and there are many people who prefer to simply watch videos as a "passive receiver", rather than having to actively read something which requires greater effort on their part. Perhaps unfortunately, video can be more popular than the written word, and it appeals to a very different kind of audience. I consider it worthwhile to present my views to them, because I think it's possible that they could find it helpful, and it could ultimately effect some kind of positive change in their beliefs. Posting videos also makes it simple for viewers to share them with their own networks of acquaintances, and expose more and more people to these ideas. In this way, it can take on a life of its own, and grow into something more than I could accomplish alone.
Are there "better battles to fight" than this? Quite possibly – I certainly wouldn't doubt it. But religion is still a very important one. Working to reduce the prevalence of religious belief and observance holds the promise of, in turn, reducing the problems it causes, and that is not a minor issue. If this can realistically be achieved, it's worth fighting for, and I hold that my efforts can be effective in influencing people's beliefs here. While it's obvious that the unreachable people are unreachable, not all people are. And the ones who can be reached, should be.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Are you in search of real tantrik in Tarapith? Do you need tantrik solution of your all problems within 60 Seconds? Yes !!! Consult me right away. I am real tantrik in Tarapith to solve your all problems instantly. So what are you waiting for when solution is one phone. #NoFEE #Call #WhatsApp.


R is a favorite of a subset of developers, and with good reason: It was recently named one of the twenty fastest-growing programming languages on GitHub, and is listed as a top-paying skill in Dice's 2015 Tech Salary Survey.
Check out the latest R jobs.
One of the big reasons behind that spike in popularity is R's library of statistical tools, popular among many who work with Big Data. "Employers are usually looking for someone to conduct an analysis, interpret the results and communicate the findings to others through reports or presentations," said Dr. Hadley Wickham, chief scientist at RStudio and an adjunct assistant professor of statistics at Rice University.
Wickham shared several interview questions that effectively probe a candidate's experience with R's software environment.
What are the basic data types of R and how are they related?
Why You Should Say It: While the first answer is technically correct, it doesn't define the relationship between the data types, which is critical to data analysis. The second answer not only demonstrates a basic understanding of how to use R, but how R works.
How does R handle missing values? And what do you do when you encounter one?
Why You Should Say It: An inexperienced person may not have the patience or expertise to deal with missing values, while a real pro will see the value in the reconciliation process. Plus, a pro understands that correcting the underlying problem today will provide benefits down the road.
When R provides several packages that seem like they might solve a specific problem, how do you decide which one to use?
Why You Should Say It: The CRAN package repository houses over 6,000 packages, so a developer or data scientist really needs some sort of defined process and criteria to select the right one. It's best to develop a complete list of needs and issues before you start searching because, ideally, the downloaded package should solve several problems.
How do you communicate the results of a data analysis?
Why You Should Say It: Even if you think you may only do an analysis one time, reproducible research makes it easy to redo the experiment, insert new data or apply the model to a different problem. Creating a template is a real time-saver, and keeping the data and graphs updated will encourage business leaders to trust your methodology and the conclusions of your analysis.


text:
A Review by Joe R. Lansdale; MICHAEL KURLAND – The Infernal Device.
Posted by Steve under Reviews
A Review by JOE R. LANSDALE:
MICHAEL KURLAND – The Infernal Device. Signet J8492, paperback original; 1st printing, January 1979. [Finalist for an Edgar and nominated for an American Book Award.]
Professor Moriarty saved us all!
At least that's Michael Kurland's report in The Infernal Device, a new departure from the Holmes and Holmes influenced stories. The Infernal Device deals with the truth behind that diabolical mastermind, the so-called Napoleon of Crime, Professor James Moriarty.
It seems that the Russians — even then — were menacing not only The Empire, but all of the free world, with their nefarious schemes and dastardly deeds. This particular case in which Holmes is involved, peripherally at least, is no exception.
But even before Holmes is involved in the case, the government of England has sought the aid of none other than the greatest mastermind of them all, James Moriarty. Of course, Moriarty is so clever, that although it is well known that he is the mastermind behind considerable wrong doing, there is no proof.
But this, or so sees the Empire, is the edge. A master criminal against a master criminal. Moriarty against that Russian fiend, Trepoff.
And terror of terrors, Trepoff is such a fiend, it takes the (gulp) unbelievable to stop him. The uniting of the greatest minds in Europe. The teaming of none other than Moriarty and Sherlock Holmes.
Ain't that a corker.
Frankly, I for one, don't believe a word of it. Moriarty is not a nice guy. Not even for money. Shame, shame, shame on Kurland for telling these lies.
But it is an interesting, if a bit over long, book, and worth the 1.95 paperback price.
� From The MYSTERY FANcier, Vol. 3, No. 3, May/June 1979.
Editorial Comment: Following my review of Michael Kurland's The Empress of India (2006), a later Holmes and Moriarty adventure, I added a complete mystery-oriented bibliography for him here.
One Response to "A Review by Joe R. Lansdale; MICHAEL KURLAND – The Infernal Device."
Kurland did a bit better when he continued the Randall Garrett Lord Darcy series. At least he didn't team Lord Darcy with Moriarity.
Friday, Oct 30th, 2009 at 3:42 pm


text:
MNC's Corporate Social Responsibility in Rural India : THE HIDDEN AGENDA
Home India
by WSJ
in India, source
Will future growth in India be shaped by rural India ? More important, will rural India that is so wise politically, be able to save itself from falling into the new FDI in retail trap ? A little over two years ago, Wall Street Journal -India Knowledge@Wharton pointed out in a special report how MNC businesses in India needed to show head office that their rural strategies are doing well from a business perspective. How rural India accepted some initiatives but stressed its own needs may provide important indicators of what lies ahead for the country in the FDI context. For example, MNCs learnt that the benefits of a first-mover advantage are tough to hang on to as rural Indian consumers' tastes change rapidly, with questionable brand loyalty. Read on.
A "symbiotic relationship" is how Sanjeev Chadha, chairman and CEO of PepsiCo India, described the work that the food and beverage multinational undertakes with thousands of farmers across India. "We help them with progressive farming techniques and they are of huge benefit to us in securing a reliable supply chain," he said. Some observers would call what Pepsi is doing corporate social responsibility (CSR); others more cynically might say it's simply another example of multinational corporations (MNCs) trying to figure out how to make inroads in India's challenging, but potentially lucrative rural market.
Whatever the words used by executives like Chadha for such initiatives, it is impossible to discuss multinational strategies in rural India without mentioning CSR. In its various forms, it is a critical part of their rural growth plans, often out of sheer necessity. Filling the gaps left by government, MNCs have built roads in rural India that help them deliver their goods, provided education and health care for communities whose workforces they rely upon, and implemented environmental programmes to protect precious natural resources needed to keep supply chains running smoothly.
"In some cases, I am sure CSR activities are mostly rhetoric," said Harbir Singh, Wharton management professor and co-author of a new book titled, The India Way: How India's Top Business Leaders Are Revolutionizing Management. "But CSR is more legitimate in India than in the U.S., where infrastructure has been built and government is seen as addressing societal development agendas."
Yet now there was a shift in how MNCs look at their entire rural India investments beyond CSR. With growth drying up in developed markets and their center of gravity shifting to emerging markets, MNC businesses in India were under pressure to prove that their rural strategies weren't just about doing well from a CSR perspective. They also needed to show head office that these strategies were doing well from a business perspective. In short, the strategies had to start delivering top- and bottom-line results.
After years of false starts, missed opportunities and flawed strategies, a number of MNCs' India businesses began getting close. Others already were there and ramping up their rural investments. None can take that fine balance between doing good and doing business for granted, as Nokia, Coca-Cola and Max New York Life — among the companies profiled in this special report — showed. And it's for that reason that at PepsiCo India, "our rural agenda has been driven by purpose and now is moving into performance," said Chadha.
Spending Power
For many MNCs, there was a lot more riding on their rural India performance than there once was as India's growth story spread to the heartland. At the time of this report, two-thirds of the country's one billion consumers lived in rural India, where almost half of the national income is generated. A report by Technopak Consultants and the Confederation of Indian Industries, a trade body, estimated that the country's rural consumer market generated US$425 billion of revenue, up from US$266 billion the previous year.
The big reason for the growth was that India's rural consumers were steadily gaining more spending power. The number of rural households earning less than US$760 a year was down from 65 per cent to 24 per cent since 1993, while those with an income of US$1,525 had more than doubled from 22 per cent to 46 per cent. Combine these factors with improved roads and other infrastructure in rural India to help products reach their markets, and it was easy to see rural India's attraction.
With growth drying up in developed markets and their center of gravity shifting to emerging markets, MNC businesses in India were under pressure to prove that their rural strategies weren't just about doing well from a CSR perspective. They also needed to show head office that these strategies were doing well from a business perspective. In short, the strategies had to start delivering top- and bottom-line results
"We are finally beginning to see that rural India has cash and is able to spend at the same time," said Vijay Govindarajan, professor of international business at Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, who is also the chief innovation consultant for General Electric. "This is a remarkable combination for companies."
But any company coming to India for the first time that thought it will be easy to take advantage of that combination was mistaken. Rural India is hugely complex, not least because of its diverse pace of development. As a study from IMRB International, a research company in Mumbai, noted, some markets are big but not as affluent as other markets (Uttar, Bihar Pradesh) while some are affluent but not very large (Himachal Pradesh, Goa). Experts also said that strategies need to take into account the vast number of languages and cultural differences across India's hinterland, while keeping strategies highly flexible and adaptable.
It could mean developing products and services tailored specifically to the rural market. When LG entered India in the mid-1990s, numerous brands were vying for shelf space with hardly anything to distinguish them from competitors. The South Korean company developed two color television sets for the rural market, Sampoorna (which means "complete" in Hindi) and Cine Plus. At US$65 and US$107 respectively, the sets were priced slightly higher than the black-and-white televisions that other manufacturers were selling in rural markets and that had become obsolete in urban homes. LG was also the first to offer gaming with its cut-price TVs and menus in English and Hindi. Now LG has refrigerators, washing machines and microwave ovens targeted at price-sensitive consumers sold from hundreds of retail and distributor outlets across the hinterland, with rural markets contributing 40 per cent of its revenue at the time this was written.
Much also depended on the sector and products sold. In fast-moving consumer goods, for e
Super Affiliate: Wie Ich In Einem Jahr 436,797 $ Verdiente
xample, MNC products captured a sizable portion of rural consumer spending in a number of areas, with year-on-year increases in rural spending in 2009 on MNC shampoos (70 per cent), washing powder (60 per cent) and toothpaste (112 per cent), say researchers at IMRB. What's more, they said, the average spending on these products is growing faster in rural than in urban markets.
In the course of ramping up the performance of their rural strategies, MNCs were applying the lessons already learned. One of those lessons was that the benefits of a first-mover advantage were tough to hang on to as rural Indian consumers' tastes change rapidly, with questionable brand loyalty.
That applied even to a groundbreaker like Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (HUL), the country's largest consumer-products company owned by Anglo-Dutch Unilever. It made waves in the hinterland in 2001 when its Shakti Project enlisted self-help groups to develop a network of women — largely from very low-income households — into entrepreneurs, selling baskets of HUL products door to door. Today, 42,000 women earn a living by selling HUL products in more than 100,000 villages in 15 states. "India's rural narrative has been defined by HUL," notes Pradeep Lokhande, founder of Rural Relations, a Pune-based consumer-relationship management organisation.
In the meantime, HUL had embraced other novel distribution strategies, such as selling products like its Sunsilk and Clinic shampoos in small, inexpensive packets for low-income Indians in the hinterland with little spare cash. Thanks to those efforts, the company had one of the most extensive distribution networks in the country, with 6.3 million retail outlets, including one million that it services directly. Rural India account at that time for nearly half of HUL's revenue.
But HUL's lead regularly came under threat. For example, rival MNC Procter & Gamble launched Tide Naturals, which was a 30 per cent cheaper version of its Tide detergent targeted at rural consumers — a global first for the Cincinnati-based MNC. The launch was part of the parent company's "purpose-inspired growth strategy" to "touch and improve more consumers' lives in more parts of the world." Within weeks of its launch, Tide Naturals shook up India's US$8 billion detergent market by clinching a 0.6 per cent share of the market, according to AC Nielsen.
HUL's response was to turn to a local court to contest P&G's use of the word "naturals" to promote its new product. With neither side backing down, the case continues. While other MNCs weren't necessarily going to be airing their competitive grievances in court, they could expect fast, nimble competitors to take them by surprise and grab market share if they didn't stay close to their customers — which is no small feat in a country like India, which has 642,000 villages, some with populations as low as 500.
'Uncharted Water'
Nowhere was that more evident than in mobile telephony. Mobile phone penetration in India jumped from 1.4 units per 100 people in 1995 to 51 units at the time this was written. In the 12 months to September 2009, the number of mobile subscribers increased 55 per cent to 142 million, according to the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of India.
Taking a lead in that growth was Nokia, the US$55 billion Finnish mobile handset maker, which was one of the companies profiled in this special report. As part of a global emerging market focus since 2006, rural India now accounted for 40 per cent of Nokia India's US$5 billion annual revenue. But it was a crowded business to be in. Along with Samsung, LG, Sony Ericsson and Motorola, there were a number of handset makers not only from China selling cut-price handsets, but also from India's home-grown companies that are chipping away at Nokia's market share lead with hand sets that are cheaper, more practical or both.
Now Nokia, like other handset makers, branched out and forged alliances with various partners to offer mobile banking and other services along with its handsets. "It's uncharted water" — as Gerald Faulhaber, a business and public policy professor at Wharton, put it — one in which customers are pushing the companies and taking them out of the comfort zone."
Doing so successfully requires one thing: "listen to people," stated Karishma Kiri, a Seattle-based strategy and product management consultant at The K2 Group, who was a director of Microsoft's Unlimited Potential initiative which provides computers, software and IT training in emerging markets. "A lot of companies tend not to listen to [what] rural consumers say they need."
That's not as clear-cut as MNCs might think. The jury was still out at the time of writing on the mobile services launched by news agency Reuters and other service providers to deliver agriculture information to farmers' mobile phone. According to Rural Relations' Lokhande, the demand wasn't strong. "There's a perception mismatch between the farmers and the service provider," he noted. While the companies assertrd that the service is useful, affordable and personalised, many farmers figured they could get daily rates from their state agriculture marketing boards for two cents, or half the price.
In rural areas, finding the magic price points that didn't eat into margins yet boosted volume is an ongoing battle, with a lot hinging on distribution. "We have to build, and are building much deeper 'go-to-market' systems in rural India. They have to be extremely cost-efficient, much more so than they are in the urban areas," said PepsiCo's Chadha.
The US$43.2 billion MNC had been in India for more than 20 years and claimed to have overtaken Nestle as the top food and beverage company in the country. Overall, India had indeed been treating the company well, even during the downturn. India revenue at its drinks business grew 40 per cent, while volume jumped 32 per cent, well outpacing most other countries in PepsiCo's portfolio.
But it was not resting easy. In 2009, it invested US$200 million — the most ever in any single year — as part of a US$500 million plan to expand its distribution infrastructure, while increasing R&D and adding four new plants to the 45 it already had in the country.
To make those investments pay off, rural India — which accounted for 20 per cent of PepsiCo India's business — was taking center stage. "Over the next 10 years, I see rural India forming 40 per cent to 50 per cent of our national business, and in the future, growth will be powered by the rural areas," said Chadha.
Is that a long time to wait? "If any company wants [quick] financial results from the rural initiative, it is seriously mistaken," said Tuck's Govindarajan. "You have to look at the next decade and not the next quarter."
K2 Group's Kiri agrees. "The rural incubation work of multinationals is part of their business," she said. "But they need to be less focused on [year-on-year] success and spend more energy on building innovative solutions and business models for this segment. It's a long haul."
Source : Wall Street Journal -India Knowledge@Wharton


text:
Ex-Tulsa player Holloway dies after cancer fight
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - From the size of Wilson Holloway's smile, it was sometimes difficult to ascertain that he was fighting for his life.
Almost three years ago, Holloway received a diagnosis of Hodgkin's lymphoma, but he didn't let it keep him from playing college football at Tulsa and, those who knew him say, it didn't affect his positive outlook on life. They chose to remember that smile on Thursday, the day after he died in Oklahoma City at age 22.
"He definitely faced some adversity, but yet he always lived life the way that he chose, which was to be upbeat, be positive," said University of Central Oklahoma football coach Tracy Holland, who was Holloway's prep coach at Oklahoma Christian School in Edmond. "He was a fierce and loyal friend."
After an honor-filled high school career, Holloway, a 6-foot-6, 275-pound offensive tackle from Edmond, signed with Tulsa in 2007. He redshirted that fall and was running during Tulsa's off-season workouts the following February when he noticed he was struggling and short of breath.
"It was supposed to be hard, but I was struggling more than I should have been," he said in January 2009, when he was presented with the Courage Award from the Football Writers Association of America and the Orange Bowl.
Herb Hand, then Tulsa's co-offensive coordinator, suggested that Holloway seek medical attention, and on March 13, Holloway learned he had a softball-sized tumor in his chest.
Holloway continued working out with the Golden Hurricane, even as he endured chemotherapy treatments. By August, he was declared cancer-free and played in six games before the cancer returned that October. Another round of chemotherapy caused Holloway to lose his hair, and his fellow linemen and quarterback David Johnson shaved their heads in solidarity.
Pittsburgh coach Todd Graham, who coached Holloway at Tulsa, called him "one of the special ones who will always stay with me. What an example he was to his teammates. Here was this guy facing cancer and he whipped it twice. His spirit never dropped."
At his 2009 award ceremony, Holloway said it was that attitude that helped him persevere.
"I'm so optimistic and so upbeat, I never really let it get me down," Holloway said at the time. "My whole mentality on it is if I let it get to me, then it's winning.
Holloway remained a member of Tulsa's football team throughout his battle with cancer. He was listed in the 2009 and 2010 media guides, although he didn't play in either season. The university held a moment of silence for Holloway on Wednesday night before a home basketball game against East Carolina.
"In his four years at the University of Tulsa, Wilson's smile was contagious to those who ever met him," Tulsa athletic director Bubba Cunningham said. "He fought the disease with a tireless and enthusiastic spirit. We'll never forget Wilson's own words - 'I don't take things for granted any more. There are days I wish I could go out and do the drills everyone hates to do.' Wilson Holloway has touched all of our hearts with his passion for living."
Hand, now the offensive line coach at Vanderbilt, posted on Twitter that Holloway was "the toughest fighter I have ever known ... Your impact on Earth is immeasurable."
Los Angeles Clippers rookie All-Star Blake Griffin, who went to high school with Holloway, took the news of his friend's death hard, sobbing with his head in hands after receiving a phone call in the locker room after Wednesday night's win over the Minnesota Timberwolves.
Holloway's funeral is scheduled for Monday afternoon at Memorial Road Church of Christ in Oklahoma City. "He was so upbeat and loved life so much," Holland said. "All of his friends will have all kinds of funny stories and great stories to tell about him."


Bodybuilding routines are definitely the best way to train if you want to lose weight fast! In this article we will cover how to structure your workout routines so you get the best possible results.
Building muscle is a slow, deliberate process that the human body resists as much as possible. Our body, from an evolutionary perspective, has been designed to store fat quickly and build muscle slowly, so in effect, we are fighting the forces of nature when we try to build muscle and burn fat.
We will examine the principles that are most effective in helping you stimulate the maximum amount of muscle mass from the bodybuilding routines. By following these simple, yet effective principles you are sure to dramatically accelerate the results you are currently getting from your workout routines and will be able to stimulate more muscle growth and therefore burn off body fat faster.
Progressive overload means increasing the workload being placed on the muscles with each successive workout. It may be achieved by increasing the intensity, duration or frequency of your bodybuilding routines and it is central to building muscle and burning fat.
The easiest way to progressively overload the muscles is to increase the weight and/ or reps each workout. Increasing the duration (length of the workout) or the frequency (number of sessions per week) may also overload the body, however, there is a greater likelihood of over-training when either of these two approaches are used compared to simply increasing the intensity of training.
It is still possible to make gains by training longer or more frequently, but for many people their progress will be slower if they choose either of these approaches. It is similar to driving a powerful car on a wet road and planting your foot on the accelerator. It causes the car's wheels to spin resulting in you not getting very far despite the large expenditure of energy (fuel) and possibly crashing!
One of the most important factors in building muscle is intensity. Intensity is the term used to describe how hard you train relative to how hard you could train. The higher the level of intensity in your bodybuilding routines, the greater the likelihood that you will stimulate muscle growth (hypertrophy). Muscle growth is an adaptation to stress.
The stress in this case is forcing the muscle to work to its maximum capacity or beyond by lifting weights. By progressively forcing the muscle to work at or beyond its capacity each workout in your bodybuilding routines (at a high level of intensity), you ensure continual muscle stimulus. Keep in mind of course that the goal of many people is to not actually increase their muscle size but to simply stimulate the muscles so the body is forced to maintain their muscle mass as they burn fat and lose weight.
High-intensity training means that you perform as many repetitions as possible with a certain weight and continue the set to a point of momentary muscular failure, which means you cannot lift the weight for another repetition no matter how hard you try.
High-intensity training in your bodybuilding routines may also involve training beyond failure by using advanced techniques of overload (ATOs). These may include: supersets, drop sets, forced reps, pre-exhaust, pyramiding, etc.
If you work to failure (or beyond failure) on your sets in your bodybuilding routines there is no need to perform a large volume of exercise because the intensity is high enough to stimulate muscle growth. Accordingly, 1 or 2 sets are the maximum number of 'work sets' required on an exercise (not including warm-up sets). Performing more sets than the minimum required to stimulate growth in your bodybuilding routines may lead to over-training by making greater inroads into your body's recovery ability.
The term 'volume' relates to the amount of exercise being performed in your bodybuilding routines or how long the workout takes. To stimulate maximum muscle growth as well as avoid over-training, perform no more than 10-15 work sets per workout and between 2-5 exercises per body part in your bodybuilding routines.
Larger, more complex body parts, like back, will require a greater number of exercises so they can be hit from a variety of angles and so the maximum number of fibres may be stimulated. Smaller or less complex body parts, like biceps, require fewer exercises.
This means you won't spend more than about 40 minutes weight training if you are training on your own or 70 minutes if you are training with a partner. This also makes the training more efficient. A great philosophy to adopt is: 'Get in the gym, train hard and get out!' Doing so ensures stimulation of the targeted muscle group(s) as well as maximum muscle recovery.
Not only do muscles need adequate recovery between training sessions but so does the nervous system as well. Many well-intentioned but uninformed bodybuilders train single body parts every day for 6 days in a row. Their reasoning behind this approach is that each body part only gets trained once a week so it has plenty of time to recover. However, what they fail to realise is that the nervous system (which provides the innervation for muscles to contract) is being worked every day and is not getting time to rest. Whilst some people may be able to train in this way, most people are likely to over-train in a short period of time.
Each muscle group only needs to be trained once a week to obtain maximum muscle growth, including abdominals.
As the saying goes, 'If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.' Planning requires thought, preparation and organisation well in advance of the bodybuilding workouts. One of the main reasons many people involved in weight training fail to achieve their desired goals is simply a lack of planning.
If you walk into the gym without knowing what body parts you are going to train in that session, what exercises you are going to perform, how many sets you are going to do or what weight you are going to use on each exercise, it is highly likely your training isn't anywhere near as effective as it could be.
Very few people who attend gyms regularly document their workout routines. It is thought to be a practice only for beginners. Whilst it is possible to get results without documenting your bodybuilding workout, if you want to get the best possible results, it is undoubtedly one of the best habits to incorporate into your training.
Having your bodybuilding routines written down can provide you with valuable information regarding your progress. It can show you where you have come from and in what direction you are heading. It is a great tool for providing feedback as well as for planning future workouts.
For example, if you have documented the last few weeks of training, you can see whether your strength levels have increased or not. If they have, then you should maintain the lifestyle habits (intense training, adequate nutrition, correct supplementation, minimal stress, etc.) that have helped you make the gains. If not, then it is time for 'target-correction'- re-assess your lifestyle and see where improvements can be made to get you back on track.
When documenting your muscle building workouts, include the following information: order of exercises, number of sets performed, weight used on each set, number of reps performed each set and any ATOs used.
You may also want to include how well you have been sticking to your nutritional plan, how you have been feeling prior to each training session (energy and muscle soreness) and how long each workout has been taking. Each of these pieces of information can provide you with valuable feedback.
No matter whether you are a beginner performing a whole-body routine or a seasoned veteran using an advanced split routine, you should always train the large muscle groups first and then progress to the small muscle groups.
The reason for this is quite simple: the small muscles are synergists (assisting muscles) when you perform compound (multi-joint) exercises for the large muscles. If the small muscles are fatigued when you perform exercises for the large muscles they will fail first before the large muscles get trained properly.
For example, if you train your triceps before you train your chest, when you perform an exercise like the bench press, your triceps will fail first before you chest gets thoroughly worked.
The only exception to this rule is when training abdominals and lower back. Since these muscles are 'stabilisers' when performing many exercises they are best to be trained last; even though they aren't the smallest muscle groups. You can imagine the potential risk if you trained abdominals and lower back before performing heavy squats!
If you had to choose whether to train exclusively with free weights or machines in your bodybuilding routines, free weights would win easily. However, a combination of both in favour of free weights is best for getting the best possible results from your bodybuilding workouts.
In saying this, it is definitely best for beginners to emphasise more machine exercise in their workout routines and gradually progress to more free-weight exercises as their strength, balance and co-ordination improve.
Since more balance and co-ordination are required when performing free weight exercises, more muscle fibres are recruited in the agonist(s) (prime mover), the synergist(s) and the stabiliser(s), resulting in potentially more growth. Consider the difference in DOMS (delayed-onset muscle soreness) between doing flat dumbbell presses and a machine bench press.
However, some machine exercises can stimulate fibres in parts of a muscle's range of motion that can't be hit with free weights. Try working the hamstring through their full range of motion whilst using only free weights!
Compound exercises (exercises that require movement to occur at more than one joint) should be heavily emphasised in your muscle building workouts. These exercises tend to be the most intense if they are done correctly and therefore may stimulate maximum muscle growth.
Even though they don't stimulate as much muscle growth as compound exercises, isolation exercises should still be performed because they can work muscles through certain parts of a range of motion that are very difficult, if not impossible, to access with compound exercises.
Most people perform many sets per exercise and many exercises per body part in their bodybuilding routines. It is a very common practice.
I suggest only performing two work sets per exercise (after your warm up sets) with the first set being your heaviest set. Always train to failure or past failure if possible on your work sets and perform between 3-5 exercises per body part to ensure the targeted muscle is hit from a variety of angles. This will maximise the number of fibres being stimulated.
As far as rep ranges are concerned, it is important to understand how different rep ranges affect the muscles. Low reps (1-5) with heavy weights primarily affect the nervous system. This is why powerlifters train in the lower rep ranges; they are trying to increase their 'neural drive' (the number of nerves firing into a muscle simultaneously).
Of course, if you have more nerves firing into a muscle at the same time you are going to get more muscle fibres contracting at the same time, resulting in a more forceful muscle contraction.
At the other end of the rep range scale, high reps (20+), results in the muscle being flushed with blood. The adaptation that the body makes to this type of stress is known as 'vascularisation' and results in an increase in the number of capillaries surrounding each muscle fibre. This is ideal for endurance athletes who require nutrients to get to the working muscles as efficiently as possible. There is some hypertrophy resulting from this adaptation as well.
The most popular rep range for bodybuilding routines is 6-20 reps per set. This range is known as 'glycogen retention'. Since stored muscle glycogen is used as the primary fuel source during this rep range, a depletion of these stores results in the body adapting to the stress by storing greater levels of glycogen in the muscles.
Overall, I suggest following the 80/20 rule when it comes to rep ranges. 80% of the time, work in the rep range of 6-20 and 20% of the time, work in the other two rep ranges. This means in one macrocycle (one month of training), you will use the standard rep range for three weeks and then for one week you will use the other rep ranges, perhaps with your first set being the heavy set and the second set being the light set.
If you would like some samples workout routines, please get a copy of The New Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding . It will provide you with all the information you need in order to get the best results possible in your bodybuilding routines.


One of the most enjoyable projects for our team at Grand Tours Project is to design and run tours for a group of friends and/or family members. We all know that there is something very special about EXPERIENCING things with our loved-ones. And a bike tour in a beautiful location is one of the best experiences we can imagine (although we admit we are a bit biased!).
Road-biking is for everyone ... and especially now that electric road bikes have become so advanced. So you can include any of your family and friends on a bike tour, provided you have chosen your expert designers well, so they we can create a tour that is perfect for you and your group.
Do you wish to celebrate a special birthday ... 30, 40, 50 or 60 years? Or maybe your wedding anniversary? Or possibly just a celebration of life with your loved-ones?
We have hosted numerous private and tailor-made tours this year, and to inspire your ideas, we have highlighted a few of them below.
Earlier in the year we were asked by one of our American guests to create a tour for his family and friends, centred around the UCI World Championships in Innsbruck, Austria and the Dolomites in northern Italy, for late September. We created a special jersey and bib-short kit for the team, to allow them to proudly show off their Californian heritage and loyalty. They were able to watch the action and excitement of the top pros in the world as they raced around the roads of Innsbruck, enjoy some of the most beautiful scenery in gorgeous autumn weather in one of our favourite cycling destinations, and savour great food and wine at hand-picked luxury hotels. What a way to celebrate great friendships!
Our 4-day Switzerland Iconic Passes tour is public, but it's a popular one to turn private. This year, we hosted two of our American guests on a romantic private trip, climbing some of the great passes in the Alps - the infamous Grosse Scheidegg, Grimsel, Nufenen, and Gotthard. Celebrating a wedding anniversary with a well-organised private bike tour surely is one to remember for the rest of your lives.
Some great Australian friends wanted to do a private group ride from Switzerland to France and finish off with a climb of Mont Ventoux .. actually, they decided to ride up Ventoux 3x in the one day, a good solid 4,400m in altitude gain. But this was after a magnificent tailor-made tour all the way from central Switzerland to Bourg St Maurice in France, climbing the best mountain passes, and staying at some luxury hotels in Andermatt, Gstaad, and Annecy. And they enjoyed all this using our fleet of Bianchi Infinito CV bikes as part of the package. They were joined by some of their non-riding partners and even one beautiful 9-month old baby!
The Alpes Vaudoises are a stunning mountain region right next to Lake Geneva. And this was the destination for an international group of friends - mostly women - who wanted to enjoy the dramatic mountain passes, the serene lake, the pretty vineyards, and the quaint villages. Coming from different places in the world, and meeting up together at the one location, they experienced a great cycling tour together ... what a wonderful way to celebrate a reunion for family and friends.
And finally, we loved hosting a group of Chinese friends who wished to cycle the very best of Switzerland, early in the season - from the high mountain passes, to the peaceful lakes. They were passionate about the scenery and roads, as you can see with their smiles.
Whatever your ideas may be our expert route designers are waiting to inject their passion into your tailor-made tour to make your dream trip come reality.
We are experts in designing the best routes, organising all logistics, selecting beautiful hotels and delicious restaurants, and developing activities for the non-riders in your group.
Going private couldn't be easier. Just give us your thoughts on what you want, and we'll do the rest. To create your dream cycling holiday contact us here.


text:
package net.sf.taverna.wsdl.soap;

import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.Map;

import net.sf.taverna.wsdl.parser.TypeDescriptor;

import org.apache.axis.message.SOAPBodyElement;
import org.apache.axis.utils.XMLUtils;
import org.w3c.dom.Element;

/**
 * Responsible for parsing the SOAP response from calling a Literal based
 * service.
 *
 * @author sowen
 *
 */
@SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public class SOAPResponseLiteralParser implements SOAPResponseParser {

	List<TypeDescriptor>outputDescriptors;

	public SOAPResponseLiteralParser(List<TypeDescriptor> outputDescriptors) {
		this.outputDescriptors = outputDescriptors;
	}

	/**
	 * Expects a list containing a single SOAPBodyElement, the contents of which
	 * are transferred directly to the output, converted to a String, and placed
	 * into the outputMaP which is returned
	 *
	 * @return Map of the outputs
	 */
	public Map parse(List response) throws Exception {
		Map result = new HashMap();

		if (response.size()>0) {
			SOAPBodyElement rpcElement = (SOAPBodyElement) response.get(0);

			Element dom = rpcElement.getAsDOM();

			String outputName = getOutputName();
			String xml = XMLUtils.ElementToString(dom);

			result.put(outputName, xml);
		}

		return result;
	}

	protected String getOutputName() {
		String result = "";
		for (TypeDescriptor descriptor : outputDescriptors) {
			String name=descriptor.getName();
			if (!name.equals("attachmentList")) {
				result = name;
				break;
			}
		}
		return result;
	}
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub