text:
Nov 23, 2006
NXT trike
John Brost, one of the members of the MDP, recently posted to LUGNET a nice looking (and even nicer working) trike based around the NXT, and using the largest wheels ever produced by LEGO. It drives by remote control, and he has a video of it up on YouTube as well. Take a look:
NXT trike on NXTlog
I'm wondering if with putting the NXT back that far, and with the torque it can obviously put out, if it could do a wheelie. Perhaps with two small outrigger wheels to allow a rearward balance point. But it looks really good to my eye.
Brian Davis
4 comments:
Very nice & Original!
Does anyone know the wheels' part number on Bricklink? I think i could find them useful =)
- Nov 23, 2006, 6:08:00 AM
- Brian Davis said...
Unfortunately, you're not the first person to want them. It's Bricklink ID 22969c01, but they only came out in a couple of sets, and it looks like there's only a half dozen or so at the moment:
Brian Davis
(who has 4 from the 4x4 Technic off-roader... and is *not* selling them)
- Nov 23, 2006, 6:51:00 AM
- Christopher R. Smith (Littlehorn) said...
I'm not splitting hairs...But to clear things a bit...
Those are the "Largest Rubber Wheels" ever produced by LEGO... The Largest Wheels ever produced by LEGO usable in LEGO creations are the 4481 Star Wars Hailfire Droid's Hoop Wheels. These Hoop Wheels are also the largest Gear ever produced by LEGO.
Now, "unusable"... the largest wheels ever produced by LEGO are actually those found on the now recalled 3905 Super Truck DUPLO. Though DUPLO elements could be added to the studs on top of the cab and in the truck bed to create some huge models. My son has 2 of the trucks and with his ton of DUPLO has created some very large things with the trucks in the past.
Christopher (The Elemental)
- Nov 23, 2006, 9:54:00 AM
- Daniel Wittenaar said...
This is So COOL done.. I like how simple but ellegant the design is..
The tires are from the powerpuller or 8466 offroader
- Nov 23, 2006, 4:55:00 PM


text:
Our Amazing Writers
Celebrations.com wouldn't be what it is without the creative genius of our writers! These moms, bloggers, and writers may love different aspects of celebrating, but they're all passionate about turning the ordinary into the extraordinary. Check out the writers sharing their latest and greatest party ideas and tips, recipes, cocktails, DIY projects and inspirations with us and all of you!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
$10 Ground Shipping or
Free on Orders Over $200
Questions, Advice, Orders:
Toll Free Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:00pm EST
Exclusive Email OffersHOME PAGE
Exclusive Email Offers
[ Home >> Our Greatest Deals >> Closeouts and Specials! >> Irons >> Callaway X2 Hot Irons - 6-PW Steel Shafts ]
The Callaway X2 Hot iron builds on the success of the original X Hot and raises the bar with a cleaner look, added forgiveness and innovative technology. The X2 Hot head design features deep Central Undercut technology and a Stabilizing Arch which improves stability and the amount of face flex and rebound creating exceptional sound and feel while increasing ball speeds across the face. In addition, improved perimeter weighting and a larger sweet spot allows this iron to launch higher, travel farther and stop quicker. Simply put, Callaway has made its longest iron more forgiving and increased ball speeds resulting even more distance.
Callaway X2 Hot Irons Features:
Callaway X2 Hot Irons Specifications:
Availability: Usually ships the next business day
$100.01 - $199.99
$300.00 - $650.00
$125.00 - $299.00
For more information, go to our
Shipping page
Can't find exactly what you're looking for? We'll
find it for you!
As an Authorized Dealer all Products We Carry Are Guaranteed Authentic In New Factory Sealed Condition - All Are Covered Under Original Manufacturers'
Warranty*All Woods And Hybrids Come With Matching Headcovers
If there is any way we can improve your shopping experience, please
contact us and let us know.
Powered by


text:
Events Calendar
March 2013
Provost's Series on Instructional Excellence-Instructional Excellence Support
Want to redesign a course? Frustrated with grading? Confused about IDEA course evaluations? Join us for an overview of the resources available to support instructional excellence and faculty development at Utah State University. We will introduce, demonstrate, and discuss a variety of resources now available at the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost, the Center for Innovative Design and Instruction, and the Office of Analysis, Assessment, and Accreditation websites. Panel members include: Janis Boettinger, Vice Provost and Interim Director, STE2M Center; John Louviere, Director, Center for Innovative Design and Instruction (formerly, FACT Center) and Michael Torrens, Director, Office of Analysis, Assessment and Accreditation.


text:
If you were worried Saturday Night Live was going to go easy on Romney, fear not.
Watch SNL Spoof Mitt Romney's 47 Percent Video
"No one is recording this, correct?"
"No one is recording this, correct?"
If you were worried Saturday Night Live was going to go easy on Romney, fear not.
How the Back to the Future Cast and Crew Knew Eric Stoltz Would Be Fired
Does Amy Schumer Have a Blind Spot Around Race?
True Detective Recap: Death Crow
Why Amy Schumer Reacted To Criticism of Her Race Jokes Like a Standup—And Why That's A Dead End
A Brief History of Seinfeld's Girlfriends, Told by the Women Themselves
Iggy Azalea on Blaming Britney for Song Flop: 'I Don't Have to Suck the Woman's Asshole 24/7, Do I?'
NBC Ends Relationship With Donald Trump, Probably Couldn't Scream 'You're Fired' Loud Enough
All 169 Seinfeld Episodes, Ranked From Worst to Best
Amazon's Catastrophe Is the Romantic Comedy of the Year
Toys Reveal New Info About Star Wars: The Force Awakens' Baddies
"It's God's work."Yup, the Chris Farley Doc Looks Like It'll Be Moving As Heck
Featuring Bob Saget's tears, as well as a slew of others'.Theater Review: Shows for Days, and the Making of Douglas Carter Beane
The little playwright laughed.Paul Feig Wants You to See the New Version of the Ghostbusters Uniforms
Go ahead, take a peek: The jumpsuits look nice. Real nice.Photos: Sasheer Zamata Returns to the UCB Theatre for an Evening
For the 17th Del Close Marathon.Why Amy Schumer Reacted To Criticism of Her Race Jokes Like a Standup—And Why That's A Dead End
Schumer's response fits a now-familiar pattern.Sense8 Recap: Empathy Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry
Was this season admirable folly or ballsy success?Magic Mike XXL Is a Lot Less Naked Than You Were Expecting, But You Might Not Mind
You'll have to wait an hour for Channing Tatum to take his shirt off.Shia LaBeouf Appears to Have Plagiarized His 'Freestyle' Rap
The Anomolies are pissed.Chris Pratt's Great Jason Statham Impression Couldn't Save This Cut Saturday Night Live Sketch
Pratt can pull off bald.
It's Britney('s fault), bitch.NBC Ends Relationship With Donald Trump, Probably Couldn't Scream 'You're Fired' Loud Enough
Finally.Tatiana Maslany Sadly Won't Get That Emmy Nom for This Music Video, But Damn, Is She Good
Son Lux's "You Don't Know Me."E.L. James Encounters Twitter Users' Singular Taste for Trolling
Naughty!The Trailer for Gaspar Noé's Love Left Out the Cum Shots But Includes Just About Everything Else
Warning: NSFW.Tomorrow You'll Be Able to Stream Dr. Dre's The Chronic for the First Time — Thank Apple Music
Who saw this coming?Marvel Says the New Spider-Man Will Be a 'John Hughes Movie,' So We Imagined Just What That Would Look Like
Pretty in Red and Blue.Zadie Smith Is Writing a Sci-fi Script With Claire Denis
Mixed-race space aliens?Nurse Jackie Refused to Soften Jackie Till the Bitter End
She's a drug addict who stays a drug addict. Huh.What You Missed at the 2015 BET Awards
Diddy falling onstage, Rihanna throwing cash at a BET exec, Jussie Smollett's message about LGBT rights, and more.
The new switch happens on July 10.Vulture Remix: Watch Magic Mike XXL As a '70s X-Rated Flick
The first episode in our new "Vulture Remix" series!Toys Reveal New Info About Star Wars: The Force Awakens' Baddies
Meet the First Order.True Detective's Title Designer on Bringing the Soul of the Show to Its Opening Moments
"I think it's actually a time for people to sit back and relax."Big Sean's Martin Parody Is One of the Year's Best Music Videos
With cameos from Martin Lawrence himself and Bruh Man!The Stoner Canon: 101 Trippy Movies, Albums, Books, TV Shows, and More
The definitive keys to unlocking the high headspace.Ranking the Swank Modernist Homes of L.A. Villains
Villains live pretty well!Why Did the Esalen Institute Figure So Prominently in Both Mad Men and True Detective?
What is it about Esalen that could be so essential to stories so divergent?The Making of the Modern Stoner
How pop culture got from Cheech and Chong to Broad City.Ballers Recap: Me and the Boys
In the second episode of Ballers, we saw how men turn petulant once another man steps over the line.


text:
Our menu is designed to please kids, but keeps an eye towards healthy eating. For ages 12 and under. All children's menu items are $8.
Grafton Cheddar Grilled Cheese
Served with our hand cut fries and steamed veggies.
Pasta with butter
Grafton Cheddar Mac & Cheese
Tavern Beef Burger
Served with lettuce, tomato, hand cut fries and house pickles.
Breaded Chicken Tenders
Served with our hand cut fries and steamed veggies.
If you have any food allergies, aversions or follow a special diet, please contact the chef at 802-843-2231 or via email to discuss your needs prior to your arrival.
Dinner Menu | Breakfast Menu | Phelps Barn | Flatbread Fridays


text:
- Pabitra Mukhopadhyay
- Kolkata , West Bengal
- India
This conversation is closed.
Truths and Facts. Does Science prove anything?
There is a great deal of interest of us in examining claims of 'truths' and 'facts'. In such examination there is a noticeable stress on scientifically proven facts which can be taken as fundamentally true. This is possibly because mathematics is the language of Science and we make mistake thinking mathematical proofs to be reflecting the essence of scientifically proven facts.
Does science necessarily prove anything? The way mathematics proves a proposition?
It is surprising that such a basic debate cannot be laid to rest and a conclusion arrived at even after 1934 book by Karl Popper: The Logic of Scientific Discovery.
Alan Moghissi, Matthew Amin and Connor McNulty of Institute for Regulatory Science, Alexandria, Va wrote to the editor of Science (the magazine) disagreeing with Peter Gleick and 250 members of the (US) National Academy of Sciences writing to the editor of Science : All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything.
Is there an absolutely proven scientific fact?
May 26 2013: Depends on what you understand with proven.
As inductive reasoning is stating something being likely or not given certain assumptions.
As such: science is a way to formulate your assumptions, observe, and infer from your assumptions what is likely.
If you assume there is a reality and it is knowable through observation that is at least partly reliable, you can actually infer quite a lot of things.
A lot of these findings are well documented and easy to verify.
I cannot think that there are better ways to reason, especially if you want to understand reality as good as possible.
Nothing can prove something definitely (including this statement)... so accept it and go with the amount of certainty that can be given (trough the methods of your choice, but I recommend the rational scientific way).
Jun 5 2013: This post showed up as the highest rated post, so I decided to reply to it, hoping it would be read and answered by the most thoughtful of answers or thoughtfully not answered, possibly even thumbs up'd.
Quick answer to the question, does Science prove anything?
Long answer to the question, does Science prove anything?
First let me break down the question, "Does science prove anything?"
I am taking science to mean something along the lines of this::
The activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural...
And prove to mean: to demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument:
Anything: All things that exist.
The laws of induction and deduction are used to measure perceptual data and see if anything exists, even, let alone proof of anything.
Basically our brain, uses its rational faculty to integrate percepts, input from the five senses or sensory input, into concepts and things.
If we are honest about these concepts, we will see that anything we can think of, is true, because it is based on perceptual data from the real world. And since reality is objective, based on again, percepts being integrated into conceptual data, ie anything proved are the only things that can be measured. It is obvious to see that anything is something science proved. If you can't measure it, it doesn't exist.
I would not like to argue memorized answers or ones with the context dropped, if you are trying to argue by attacking me stating that reality is subjective, please state something, using your "wildest" imagination, that cannot be proven, but please stay within the given parameters of "anything". If you can do that, then your argument is worth posting at least.
Jun 7 2013: Tone,
I quite get what you are saying. The difference you and I make are only one assumption:
"we can assume reality as a fact"
If you assume the above, and the next (which I follow): "our sensory imput is sufficiently reliable (for percieving reality)", then I think you are completely right.
The reason why I don't assume your assumption, (but for most practical reasons I do assume it), is that - in principle - you can even doubt that there is a reality (as we can't claim we know it completely and how it operates). This means that you need to assign at least a minimum amount of uncertainty (small, but non-zero).
So I think we are quite on the same line
Evan Bonney
May 18 2013: It seems that as more knowledge is gained regarding the natural world, the more questions regarding the natural world we have. If anything is observable it is that the world as we know it is constantly changing and nothing is ever static. WE see this with the expanding universe but we also see this in our personal lives. Each day that passes consists of new opportunities and experiences that change who we are and how we psychologically navigate our environment.
- +4
In terms of science, quantum theory supposes that all things, even reality itself is based in probability and natural processes such as gravity have the slight probability of completely changing. One day we may wake up and be gravitated towards the ground but according to quantum theory, one day we may wake up to find that gravity no longer exists. Everything thus becomes probability and it is only our human desire for concrete understandings and ordering our world that we perceive things as undisputed fact.
The paradigm of education is the more we learn, the less we know which, in the case of science, is quite evident.
May 20 2013: Evan.... "...In terms of science, quantum theory supposes that all things, even reality itself is based in probability and natural processes such as gravity have the slight probability of completely changing. One day we may wake up and be gravitated towards the ground but according to quantum theory, one day we may wake up to find that gravity no longer exists..."
While it's true that probability is used to analyze conditions in quantum physics, I don't believe the probabilities you suggest are really a main stream notion.
You appear intelligent and young. I would like you to consider this in your lifetime (mine is almost over).
If in the beginning there was nothing....... would there not always be nothing, having nothing to alter this situation with?
Is it possible that because we behold a reality with our awareness that something would naturally have to always exist in order to get around the idea that nothingness is not a real possibility? In simpler words -there never was a beginning that could be derived from nothingness, as we understand it to be.
Evan Bonney
May 21 2013: Hi John,
- +2
Thanks for this.
I honestly think it depends on which school of thought one subscribes to. Materialism and pragmatism certainly suggest so. I personally am not knowledgeable enough to form an argument for one way or the other.
I would suggest though that there is substantial evidence for the big bang theory although we don't necessarily understand it's cause. The Western notion of causality though comes from Ancient Greek philosophy, so perhaps liberating ourselves from that will allow us to think that something can indeed be derived from nothingness.
May 21 2013: Western, Northern, Eastern, Southern and all points in between. Our DNA indicates we are all the same. Notions can be introduced into human thought but ultimately, it can be broken down into something familiar to us all.
Just keep it in mind. :)
Later.Jun 4 2013: I'm a physicist with a PhD and working at a large federal research institute. I'm a "hobby philosopher", too.
And I think that it is an absolutely scientifically proven fact since about two thousand years
that we cannot know a single thing for sure. Unless we define things, like in Mathematics: that works fine.
"I think, therefore I am" is nothing else but a (circular but still useful) definition of thinking and being. Science can only deduce consequences from presuppositions, science cannot prove that a presupposition is true and that the used logic is applicable to the real world.
Science is striving to provide simple rules to explain our observations. And based on that rules we can make predictions. And that allows us to develop new things. The laws of physics allow us to build a rocket to go to the moon and they help us to design new computers called "smartphones". But that doesn't mean that any of them have any truth in them: they are just useful. In 1000 years people will may laugh about our primitive understanding of the universe. But even then, they will not know any truth either. It is impossible to know any truth.
But anyway it makes sense to believe in some of the laws of physics, just to avoid bumping into walls or falling from trees. Everyone is free to choose his own believes. You just should adjust your believes to your observations.
I'll close with a joke that will explain it plain and very simple:
A scientist has a visitor and shows him around. He shows him a large table with dozens of little black boxes: "each of these boxes is hosting an artificial intelligence. They are living in a virtual world and I study their interactions, their believes and their culture." The visitor asks: "This is very exciting! But what is with the one black box on the workbench over there?" "Oh that one is defective. I had to remove it from the experiment. It has the firm believe that it is nothing but a black box on the desk of a scientist."
Jun 4 2013: Thank you. I expected to listen from people who are doing science professionally. Do you think professional scientists are much less dogmatic about infallibility of science compared to scientific minded lay people?
Jun 4 2013: Yes, I think so.
Scientist do believe in the methodology of science, but not in the laws of physics.
As soon as you take the laws of physics for granted, science is over.
Because the whole purpose of science - as it has been nicely written down by Karl Popper - is to falsify the current theories of science.
The physicists are not trying to prove the standard model of particle physics with the LHC at CERN, they are trying to find evidence that it is wrong! Once we find something that cannot be explained by the standard model, then we can find a better theory.
I do actually think that the public believe that science and technology can solve all our problems is very dangerous. Because many of today's problems are actually caused by a rapid development of technology. Science is rather harmless, but the fast proliferation of new technologies in a big scale is always dangerous. Because the consequences are difficult if not impossible to predict. Who would have thought 100 years ago that burning coal and oil could do any global harm? Or 40 years ago that chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) as used in refrigerators could do any harm to anything? Once a new technology has been proliferated world-wide, then it is often not so easy to get rid of it again.Jun 5 2013: Hi again, Pabitra.
Just wondering about terminology - how would you define scientist and researcher? How would you define scientifically minded lay people?
In my opinion a combination of all of the above plus innovation in technology can in fact (or in truth...) influence this terminology and the definitions.
For example - we can say that Leonardo da Vinci can be defined as a scientifically minded lay person, not only an artist, if we think about his drawings of flying machines and such. Maybe he can also be viewed as an artist with a feel for innovative engineering ahead of his own century. A scientist and a researcher may look at his propositions and discard them or... improve them and make them work.
I agree with Andreas - new technologies based and scientific discoveries, without enough well-founded, scientific, global and socioal predictive analysis of the long-term consequences, can be dangerous. On the other hand, some of the science and technology can solve our problems, but not without a proper analysis of the consequences of large-scale use of the above.
Simulation of the consequences, a digital one, is a good idea, one of the tools for making good predictions without actually doing any harm or testing anything on the natural environment as testing itself might also do harm in the long run that can be difficult to see at first.
Jun 5 2013: Hi Anna, good to see you here.
I would define a (professional) scientist as one who does science as full time and remunerative job. A researcher, in this case, is an umbrella term for having projects related to science where a scientist most often collaborate with other scientists, labs etc. (but can work solo in certain cases) with a specific goal. A scientist can be a researcher but not necessarily a researcher has to be a scientist - other fields of study can have researchers too.
A scientific minded lay person, IMO, is one who has studied some science in schools or appreciates the scientific methods of inquiry, has values mostly based on physical realism but is not connected to science directly as a profession. I think a vast majority of people are in this category.
There are however few exceptional people who defy this kind of classification on account of their sheer genius or talent. Some of them are inventors and visionaries. Leonardo da Vinci was among such people. I think Nicola Tesla and Ramanujam were of such kind too.
I agree with both Andreas and you about long term predictive analysis of the consequences of a new technology. But if the technology has an immediate appeal, most often it's long term effect is ignored. Mobile phone technology is one such, I think. Moreover, in a highly complex system (here society) it is very difficult to model an intervention simply because no body is certian about the number of parameters involved.
In my line of work, I routinely do both physical and mathematical modelling of an engineering intervention in a river in order to predict the outcome. Huge sums of money depend on such predictions, in fact. But crossing over my heart I cannot say such predictions are very accurate always.Jun 6 2013: Language allows you to define words to your liking.
But to me a scientist is _not_ someone who is well educated in the discoveries of science, but someone who applies the scientific method. And that is - simplified - just the following:
1 - you make an observation
2 - you find a "model", an explanation for your observation
3 - you use your model to make predictions
4 - you test your predictions with experiments
5 - you make observations in your experiment
6 - you continue with step 2.
Many people think, that only years of study can make you a scientist. But that is dead wrong. Every child can be a scientist and Leonardo da Vinci was certainly one.
But many people, you call them "scientific minded lay person", I would call them people educated in the results of science, they don't understand the basic principle of science:
If you believe in your model being the truth, then you stop testing your model. And that means you stopped being a scientist.
I need to clarify my position on long term predictive analysis: yes, today the market pressure often prevents thorough testing of new products. A drug comes too early on the market and people die. But that is not my worry. I am thoroughly convinced that it is impossible for mankind to predict the future outcome of new technology reliably enough to be on the save side. Every change in our living environment could lead to our extinction. Of course the world is changing rapidly every day and we have been successfully adapting all the time. But that does not mean that we will be able to adapt tomorrow.
Actually I think that mankind is much more endangered today than it had been 500 years ago. We are heavily relying on modern technology already, mankind wouldn't be able to survive without it. Therefore I would not suggest to drop it :-) But we should be much slower in changing our technologies, and much more humble in our expectations of prosperity and progress. Don't expect science to rescue you once earth is screwed up ;-)Jun 5 2013: The anomaly box discovered the so-called "truth"...and the truth, as you say, is impossible to know :)
Jun 6 2013: The "Truth" is often defined as "actual state of a matter" or "conformity with reality".
But there is evidence that even the actual state of matter depends on the observation:
quantum theory explains to us, that matter does not behave like we would expect it to behave. The observation itself has an effect on the state of matter and that unobserved states do behave as if they are a mixture of all possible states. Once you've studied quantum physics you should read Hans-Peter Dürr, one of the few physicists who actually do care what the physics models could mean.
Reality isn't as simple as it appears to be and there may is no truth:
no state of a matter independent of the observer, no reality independent of the observation.
Of course this would have no effect on our daily life: there is no "free will" either in the sense that a person could make any decision independent of its environment, but we need to postulate it to be able to hold the person responsible for his/her actions.
But even if there is a "truth": humans would never be able to identify it as such.
We can believe in it. Or not.
PS: I don't think that any other entity, like an anomaly box, could identify it either ;-)
But that is just my personal believe :-)
Jun 6 2013: Thanks Andreas and Pabitra,
According to the disambiguated explanations provided, I must be a scientist of some uncategorised sort. What a shocking revelation :)
And a couple of weeks ago I drew a solution that might save airplane users from exposure to radiation. Leonardo would be proud of me. I lost the picture though, but remember the idea, would probably be unpopular among budget airlines, so I'll keep my head down :)
None of the text in the comment above is my fault as there is no free will. It can be defined as "actual state of the matter" (truth) but not "conformity with reality" - no conformity above, I should probably conform and go and do the dishes instead of drawing improvements to airplanes. But that's just a personal belief of other boxes on the desk.
Best wishes :)Jun 3 2013: nothing proves anything.
like religious belief, science is just one path open to you for making sense of the world. people are free (if they're lucky) to choose which version they prefer because all of them are absolutely right and none of them are.
problems only arise when people insist on other people seeing things the same way they themselves do. this never works and is unnecessary for a person to believe in something.
Louis Lafair
May 28 2013: "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure about anything."
- +2
- Richard Feynman
Science can prove theories wrong by showing that they don't agree with experiment.
However, science can never definitively prove anything right - it's always possible to come along and show that a theory is wrong, that an experiment doesn't agree.
May 29 2013: This is a very good point. The job of a scientist is not to prove but to disprove. Science is evolution of ideas - "survival of the fittest", so to speak.
May 29 2013: everyone should go base on there own perspective on things, science to me is far more understanding than the whole world. first of all when people of this earth experiment externally but i experiment internally, do you want to know the equation for the universe?May 29 2013: the equation for the universe is ( i = 1i ) ( infinite becomes one, therefore one becomes infinite)
this is the same equation but in your understanding
(infinite = 1 infinitely)May 24 2013: This debate has completed almost half of its allotted time. I think there is a substantial majority towards the idea that science does NOT after all prove anything with absolute certainty.
I think it may be necessary here to clarify that this debate does not seek to under value science, it's achievements and its contribution to human society. At best, it may seek to place science at a practical and functional basis and remove some dogma that it may gather in the process.
It is useless to project technology and its success as any point of argument in this debate, it will be like projecting missionary schools, nursing/care giving, art and architecture as points of argument in favor of faith based religion's relevance in life.
Let us focus on the key question : Does science prove anything as absolute truth? Or is it the real goal of science?
May 24 2013: First - we are limited to humanity standards of knowledge
Second - researchers and theorists and writers, in a collective community of academics, make the standards
Third - we cannot know absolutes without first objectives. Objectivity comes from the second clause.
Fourth - an absolute truth, is true within itself, therefore there must be various ways to find that truth
Fifth - science should be regarded no differently as any other field of study, therefore SCIENCE is not unitary in any conceptualization - especially since we have HARD and SOFT sciences.
Fifth additional - just like math, art, history, social studies, etc. There are MANY ways to practice and view these fields of study, to believe that one field is better at answering questions than the next misses the mark on first and second clause.
The real goal of "science" (I am so tired of overstating this word for argument sakes) is no different than any other field of study - we all want to KNOW, and do so in our unique methods, this does not make any method better than others but different. This whole debate comes underway with the scientist who believe that physicist and biology are the perfect sciences to build off of... Well those thinkers are holding us back collectively. People like the neo-atheist who CLEARLY are biased with their beliefs in their writings, but are still championed because of peer approval, which allows the review to pass.
So much is not understood for "what is science?" as far as the philosophy of science... All these conversations seem to miss a lot of marks when it comes to community and consensus. Even those things are corrupted by ideas of human nature and the REAL FACT of how corrupt politics are... and who funds developments and research?!?!!? Department of Defense? Military? National budgets? These are just as important to note as what is the output of the research and development. How and why they were developed and researched... in light of what?!?! Profit? Maybe
Comment deleted
May 25 2013: Science is "organized knowledge" who's knowledge? GODS knowledge, we have the power over it by understanding it. without the "understanding" we would not have power over it. GOD gave us the understanding in birth for a reason. so we may be at play. think of the universe full of LEGO"S that are smaller than one another and bigger For GOD has gave his children the understanding of them to be at play so his children may put these LEGO"S together to discover and claim. For mankind does not create only discover and claim, "But i speak Thy TRUTH, unless it is written nothing can be created, so be it thy discovery who may claim" AmenJun 2 2013: Nicholas, I think what you say is almost totally wrong and beside the question Pabitra is asking. (but maybe it's semantics)
1) I don't agree that there is such a thing as "human standards of knowledge". there are limits to human understanding. Knowledge already has claims pertaining the outer reality and is not bound by humans.
2) It does not matter who makes which standards unless you think authority is a valid argument for acceptance. If you happen to make standards that are better, it might be proven and might become accepted by a broader range of people.
3) what are "first objectives"? I think you mean that certainty can only come form certain things? While this appears to be true intuitively, you might want to check Shannon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Mathematical_Theory_of_Communication (I don't know, as I don't get the meaning of what you are trying to say)
4) I think that what you claim here is not necessary true. It might. I can assume that a particle is measure-able in more than one way (Higgs bosons are inferred through a whole variety of observations, as are neutrino's, and those are about the hardest to measure)
5) I completely reject that there is a difference between all sciences other than the measurement tools and the validity and reliability of those tools. Furthermore, a field of study, in order to be proper, needs to be scientific. Unless you refer to study of a book, an art or a law in "as-is" method: just acquiring the literal information that is given.
5b) I still claim that science is the best way, and the best documented way to approximate certainty or knowledge about this universe we live in. It is verifiable and transparent (if not, it can be challenged as not sufficiently documented or proven claim) , as any other method is not (otherwise, it would be incorporated as a scientific tool).
It is clearly way better than revelation, intuition, learning something written or agreed by authority by heat.
Jun 2 2013: As usual I'd just like to say the I agree with you Christophe, for all the reasons listen above.Jun 2 2013: My arguments are in the attempt to be truly objective, which requires making humans part of the equation, not apart.
1. How can that statement be true if we do not have another species of humanoids in which to compare our research and development to? We have standards to knowledge bound to each culture of science that must be followed in order to progress. These standards are made by tradition of men (mostly) and therefore are our limitations in respected fields of study. Knowledge doesn't exist without first a human or series of humans looking for that knowledge, and although it may exist before we discover it, it still must go through human filters of already knowledge to be categorized and built upon... A process in which knowledge never stands without a human being. A human has standards, whether social or instinctual, we cannot go beyond that level of understanding (of ourselves in relation to the universe) and believe we can be practical with such knowledge.
2. Authority is a valid argument - expertise should be respected, but by no means the only source of knowledge
3. "We cannot know absolutes without first objective [truths]" - my bad // But, the link you shared is part of cognitive science in respects to A.I and brain-mapping! Which in a recent paper I read (I'll have to find it) the argument for A.I research was to figure advance theories for computers to communicate, not just one with itself, but many with others. The premise was based off of the fact humans solve problems better in groups than by themselves (looking at a website like twitter with hashtags). So,for computers to talk: first step creating a language for us to share, goals or project to work on, attempt to complete until done.
3.a. I do not see objectivity and absolutes as being the same concept, like most do. Objectivity is limited to humanity, as it requires consensuses, communities, and/or consistencies in order to be true. Absolutes are true within themselves.Jun 2 2013: 4. Excellent counter-example Chris! But wasn't the Higgs Boson always just theorized to be true until recently? Before that historic day, the Boson existed in phy sicformulas which NEEDED this symbol for development. So the objective truth we believed was just an assumed particle, is then justified by advanced machinery and visuals to be seen as more and become more so objectively true. We came to the truth in more ways than one, but what is the absolute nature of this particle, is still under scrutiny - there is little to be done with objective knowledge as of now, for we only know part of the absolute truth.
5. So you reject there are differences while there are differences in method of research? Indeed, all sciences want to do the same thing, but how they do so is not universal, it can't be. Even historians of literature or geologist have to abide by similar codes that a physicist does for academic sakes (peer review), but this in no ways suggest their methods are similar in anyway. The difference between SOFT and HARD science exist for good reason - social and brain sciences are still figuring out what terminology/conceptuals to identify the problems with, while math and bio-sciences have figured out terminology/conceptuals for decades and are now able to worry more about the expansion of theory on hard numbers and facts. By these ideas of soft and hard science alone, makes for the methods to be vastly different. Two sides of the same coin, yes, but different attitudes.
5b. I clearly do not want to dismiss science as important, but I am attempting to put that truth into a different perspective. The overstatement of the word "science" goes too far, too commonly, today. Without realizing that "science" is dependent on 3.a. and the idea of community being more influential than truth. Kuhn should beat Popper in the final say, always. If science is to be the best, than science should still be understand no differently than any other field of study!
May 24 2013: Fair point! my comments have veered away a bit.
- +2
Does science prove anything as absolute truth? Close as your gonna get without being religious.
Is it the real goal of science? ... The goal is the answer to whatever question the scientist poses. Whether its food security or medicine, the two don't necessarily have to be linked in some greater whole that is 'the struggle to find absolute truth'. Its just practical.
May 24 2013: Wow, the amount of times someone that doesn't understand what science is has said to me
- +2
"science is just theories anyway' or 'science is never 100% so nothing science finds is true' or 'science is just another way of thinking about things'
Science is a PROCESS, you have an idea, conduct an experiment in a LOGICAL way, get a result then publish so other people can repeat the experiment and scrutinise you.
So far it is the ONLY decent process humanity has discovered for investigating the world around us and producing reliable, useful information. There is a reason the technology in hospitals or modern computers isn't made by reading horoscopes or the bible. Would you deny it to be TRUE that both these devices save lives in some way or another?
Comment deleted
May 24 2013: The origin of the word science is quite irrelevant, the meaning of words can change over time, this discussion is about what science is now.
- +1
Spot on! science is the main process used for advancing technology. Its more of a general statement I made using specific examples but what Im saying is that I'm tired of hearing people so easily 'poo poo' a methodology that gives the world so much!
I can quite confidently say that science/technology has saved more lives than say horoscopes, as I can think of a million ways in which science does on a daily basis, a million more than for horoscopes, ask your self the same question, how many can you think of for each?
Of course I cannot say that is absolute 100% fact as with anything but if everyone had to note that at the end of every statement, they would waste a lot of time!
May 26 2013: Science is "organized knowledge" who's knowledge? GODS knowledge, we have the power over it by understanding it. without the "understanding" we would not have power over it. GOD gave us the understanding in birth for a reason. so we may be at play. think of the universe full of LEGO"S that are smaller than one another and bigger For GOD has gave his children the understanding of them to be at play so his children may put these LEGO"S together to discover and claim. For mankind does not create only discover and claim, "But i speak Thy TRUTH, unless it is written nothing can be created, so be it thy discovery who may claim" AmenMay 24 2013: @MR T: I think it is highly probable that Peter Gleick understands what science is. You can google his background. It is also highly probable that Karl Popper understood what science is. I did not start this debate on the reactions of common folks. Why do you think these experts are so doubtful about the absolute knowledge of science?
May 24 2013: Its my belief that its not possible to have absolute knowledge about anything at any time, science of course is no different. The essence of that is that we are fundamentally human and limited in our capabilities.
- 0
Say you have an experiment and the result of which has a 99.99% certainty. You can say what you have found is likely to be fact, this is useful as now you can use it to make decisions. Whether it is absolute truth or not is irrelevant, if you know something has 99.99% certainty of being correct then it is pretty useful.
In my opinion the only big limit of the scientific process is that it cant tell you what questions you should be asking in the first place.
Lastly who is saying the results of science are absolute anyway?
May 24 2013: You are talking about uncertainty on account of observational limitations. I think science has revealed uncertainty at a more fundamental level - where things are uncertain even if there is infinite precision of observation.
If things are that uncertain fundamentally, the ideas like 'correct' and 'pretty useful' become subjective. I mean it can be pretty useful to believe that there is a supernatural God who is looking after our actions - useful because that can help to maintain a moral order.
I have referred a link in my OP. I think it gives a fair enough idea about who is saying results of science are absolute.
Derek Odum
May 22 2013: Yea.
- +2
Science Proved a lot.
I could go On stating alot of things that science proved but i won't
Just know that Science Proves a whole lot of things.
Comment deleted
May 25 2013: Science is "organized knowledge" who's knowledge? GODS knowledge, we have the power over it by understanding it. without the "understanding" we would not have power over it. GOD gave us the understanding in birth for a reason. so we may be at play. think of the universe full of LEGO"S that are smaller than one another and bigger For GOD has gave his children the understanding of them to be at play so his children may put these LEGO"S together to discover and claim. For mankind does not create only discover and claim, "But i speak Thy TRUTH, unless it is written nothing can be created, so be it thy discovery who may claim" AmenMay 19 2013: Science is the proposal of truths that can be explained experimentally. We can place a living human in an airless container and see that a lack of oxygen, for a certain duration of time, will cause the human to cease to live.
Because such experiments with humans are unlawful, animals, having similar metabolic functions to humans beings, are used and the conclusion is always the same. The animals die.
The scientific process can prove some conjunctures, that are completely incontestable, without the use of mathematics: if you drop a solid object having substantial mass, in the earth's gravity field, in an environment devoid of air, it will fall to the bottom of the container. This is a indisputable fact of the scientific process.
"Science is both a body of knowledge and a process. In school, science may sometimes seem like a collection of isolated and static facts listed in a textbook, but that's only a small part of the story. Just as importantly, science is also a process of discovery that allows us to link isolated facts into coherent and comprehensive understandings of the naturalworld."~ttp://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/whatisscience_01
"Often math is seen as dealing with entities that have parallels in the natural world but don't themselves exist in that world. Unlike, say, ants or atoms, the number two is not generally viewed as a physical entity, but as a powerful abstraction that can be used to describe physical entities. On the other hand, one could also argue that mathematical abstractions arise directly from the natural world — that the fact that two ants plus two ants yields a set of four ants is simply a description of how objects exist in the natural world." ~ http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/mathematics
"When one wants to drive a nail into a piece of wood, it is better to use a hammer instead of pliers, even though it is possible to accomplish the same task with either tool." ~ John Ray
May 20 2013: While science is a logical derivation to name a rational process of cause and effect that all phenomena is acknowledged to follow, had of necessity to depend on numerical logic to be precise. Primarily, while religion too professed to understand and define the same manifestation process, its emphasis on a preordained logic, led the scientific researcher to counter it with an accurate proof, which mathematics was supposed to do. But the rub was the mathematical process itself. In order to solve complex problems, a shortcut was introduced that led to an approximation at instantaneous levels, which took away the rationality of numerical logic. It is a fact that experimental discoveries achieved extraordinary insight into natures ways but converting the same into profound theoretical principle met its nemesis in uncertainty and inaccuracy that could be resolved only through statistics , a name for averaging out inaccuracy. Intellectual clarity based on absolute objectivity could have saved the day, but the mad rush to fame and name has left the acme of a scientific theory of theories bereft and orphaned. Its not too late for Sankhya has what science today deserted and it can bring in a paradigm shift to gain the Shangrilla that humanity deserves so badly.
May 20 2013: "While science is a logical derivation..."~ G.
I disagree. As I demonstrated previously, Scientific conclusions can be reached with little or no math whatsoever.
"Primarily, while religion too professed to understand and define the same manifestation process..."~ G.
The "Reverend" Dr Robert Stirling -a Scottish "clergyman"- invented the Stirling engine. His knowledge of heat entropy and mathematics was reverently limited. He was able to understand the processes involved in creating the engine that used temperature differentials as it's source of power. It was his only contribution the the scientific process. He used simple trial and error (and some say prayer), based on an inkling of thought about how the process worked.
" In order to solve complex problems, a shortcut was introduced that led to an approximation at instantaneous levels, which took away the rationality of numerical logic."~ G.
Einstein solved complex problems by reducing them to simple algebraic equations.
The function 1/x implies a condition whereby as x becomes increasingly large, 1/x approaches the value zero, but can never be zero. How can statistics resolve our axiomatic inclination that 1/x will eventually reach zero, yet, by mathematical rules is not allowed to? How is it possible, with mathematics to average out the inaccuracies that prevent 1/x from reaching the value of zero? Is math itself flawed?
"Intellectual clarity based on absolute objectivity could have saved the day, but the mad rush to fame and name has left the acme of a scientific theory of theories bereft and orphaned." ~ G.
I beg to differ. We have landed on the moon and other planets. Something is working correctly. A unified field theory is still possible in the future.
Sankhya is a tool, nothing more. It has no God-like elements nor is it a path to pure understanding.
Just ask Pythagoras and his buddies.
John Moonstroller.
May 21 2013: Exactly what I feared, Faith and belief creeping in, surely throws out absolute objectivity with all its derivatives or tools . The principle of self similarity contains geometries of every kind from which the most elegant PHO state (which Physics has yet to find) was derived thousands of years before western man started organised articulation. Amen
Fritzie -
May 21 2013: I think you misstated something a bit here that you might want to correct. You write simultaneously of x becoming increasingly large and of x reaching, or not reaching, the value zero. These two conditions must be inconsistent. I believe you meant that as x becomes increasingly large, 1/x approaches zero.
- +1
The idea that Einstein was not good with math is, you will find, a myth.
Morgan Knapp
May 15 2013: What scientific facts?
- +2
There is not a single thing i learned in school in the 80's that is now correct.
I mean everything. Bio, Geo, Phys, History. And Astronomy is the worst.
I am studying asteroid mining, and can tell you, there is not a single fact, physical sample,or mathematical model that supports disc accreation theory. That reverberates all the way thru cosmology.
Most science now, except some bio, is ALL math now. That isn't reality, it is an easily falsifiable fantasy.
We can't even find the missing electrostatic energy form, here on earth, or as dark energy.
Following the quantum zoo escape isn't leading us anywhere.
The general public is starting to realize, that all new sci discoveries, are shoehorned into a few influential professors worldviews. That is more of Confucianism than science.
May 16 2013: Absolutely correct question.The reason is clear for as of now human knowledge is based on an unidirectional rationality that's called a left brained syndrome . Holistic thinking needs the right bran to collect and sum up while the unbridled left brain gallops away into infinity. Fundamental need today is find a fundamental intellectual platform to know that facts start from there. Surprisingly the Vedic intellectuals found that platform as the axiomatic base from which to source all human scientific derivations following the principle of self similarity and scale in-variance that was not tolerant of human intervention with irrational and adhoc substitutions. Calculus the god of scientific mathematics, starts on a blunder. Two simultaneous parameters that compulsorily has a zero time interval gives an asinine answer that is beyond this Universe.
Your accretion theory will work if you use Sankhya Unified theory based on axioms and operated by self-similar and scale invariant principles. Accretion or solidification in space operates on a simple parameter. Space is not empty nor is it passive. Its a cauldron of dynamic activity called the perpetual harmonic oscillatory state (PHO) and new to Physics. (Cern was blundering to find it) Accretion takes place at harmonic resonance and in a three dimensional continuum space is. As a quick one if you divide the reciprocal of so called Newtons gravity constant by 22400 or the so called molar volume value, you will get the square of the interval that binds matter in space. As that interval reduces the binding / density increases. If you want to know the whole caboodle, visit http://www.kapillavastu.com/index.html and read the abstract and the PHO state PDF files . You will know that gravity is just the PHO state in transmigration when the resonance is broken in the sea of stuff that makes up space.
Jim Ryan
May 16 2013: Science claims speed of light theory in a vacuum on earth or as close to a vacuum as possible. As you point out and science itself points out, through its earth to moon and back, test of light, light does not hold together in space.
- 0
It seems science loves teaching stupidity. Gravitational lensing and gravity itself cannot be defended. Ted denies me a reply button, because I challenge teds desires for mediocrity.
Ted also issues many challenges, but they refuse to take challenges. Very hypocritical.
May 17 2013: and science knows well about the variations of light in space. so well actually that we can now measure a few millimeters change in star light years away, even through the shimmering of our atmosphere. that is accuracy to a billionth of a degree, and you say science is stupid?
Jim Ryan
May 17 2013: I see no reply button to your statement or to Ben Jarvis. Why not!
- 0
Also,--Less than 5 minutes ago: When I first posted to Ted, the --edit/delete button appeared, but after awhile, I would see the reply button on those posts and I was able to reply to my own posts. Now that several people have replied, I see. Maybe it was a glitch I experienced. Once I see how something works, when it changes, I try to move with the change. When it changed and I got no response, also what seemed no way to reply to others and more, while being heavily censored, I challenge, to find out.
Get over myself? I'm just trying to find someone that can talk on my level. By you innuendo, you seem self assured, would you care to defend science, with the full help of the net against me--with respect to gravitational lensing or light theory or gravity?
Tell ya what, find the smartest scientist in those areas and I will at the least, challenge them, but more likely stump them.
Take my challenges and find out.
Max Gutapfel
May 14 2013: If we want to ask if Science can prove anything we should talk about what a proof actually is.
- +2
Lets talk about truth first.
Truth results from a thought construct of definitions, before i can argue wether something is true or not ill have to define terms or circumstances under which an observation is true. As such truth results from a number of rules which we as humans defined inorder to be able to communicate information.
If i define light of the wavelength of 680nm as being blue. And i then measure light of said wavelength and say this light is blue its perfectly true (even though light of this wavelength was previously (before i defined it as being blue) defined as being infrared) as such there can only be truth within a set of prepositions and truth is not an absolute its in itself a concept created by us which roots so deep in our beliefes that we came to expect some kind of cosmic truth (or lets call it natural truth).
What we defined as being a proof (let me citate wiki): "A proof is sufficient evidence or an argument for the truth of a proposition."
If measure the wavelength the data which results from measuring is my proof however it needs to fullfill the requirements of what we defined as true.
In the mathematical sense we defined the set of rules as such there can be a definite proof. In natural science however
nature steps in and here it gets ugly. We dont know the rules of nature infact we only know the results and they are always true.
For example we observe an apple falling off a tree this happening is in some sense the expression of truth (sorry to get a bit philosophical) as the apple wouldnt fall off the tree if the rules of nature didnt allow for it.
As a consequence we cant observe the "not truth" of nature as such there is no "not truth" so whats the use of the concept of truth when talking about nature anyways? -none id say.
May 14 2013: Truth as facts is identical with the state of reality or real happenings. Jump off a cliff and analyse that event. If the derivation of that process by man's intellectual abilities is exact EVERY time it becomes a proof. If the derivation of that process is axiomatic (the way cause and effect works in proportional terms) then it is correct for it is not dependent on man inserting data to complete it. Human thinking has evolved through experience and hence is not axiomatic. Take the concept of velocity so called velocity of light. Its an aberation. In a substantial field of something there can be no velocity like a car travreling on a road. Its transmigration of pressure from an interactive state that is not balanced. Hence the oscillatory rate of that pressure transmigration in the case of light is an AXIOMATIC value . NO ONE CAN CHANGE IT . See http://www.kapillavastu.com/index.html and explore the most accurate and factual theory ever created by a man named Kapilla 33000 years back as Sankhya. He left nothing to be discovered by so called modern manMay 14 2013: Interesting explanation.
An important task of epistemology, closely related to defining and explaining truth, is to develop criteria of truth which allow us to reliably and consistently distinguish true from false claims. By your explanation, I am wondering if it will be false to say a light of 681 nm wavelength as blue.
It gets very confusing because empiricists will define truth one way while existentialists will define it another way. Some say truth corresponds with reality while some say it doesn't.
From what you describe as truth and proof, it appears science is not a fit candidate to base a belief system on.
What is your take on that?
May 14 2013: Great analysis. Pabitra. Language is not a dependable medium to convey facts in reality. its fuzzy, inexact, illogical structure and context ridden. Number counts AS a RATIO are real, verifiable, precise, not time bound and extrapolation is logical and so axiomatic, which means it facilitates agreement without facetious arguments etc. Even animals are aware of numerical values for a dog will search for the sixth pup that does not return while 5 have. Truth in the sense of Universal accountability is one of balance . Unbalance changes the factual situation every instant whereas a balanced state maintains the same value over a period of time so it is accounted for . If it persists for all times it becomes a fact. Humans or all living entities do not have the continuity of existence to confirm facts as a part of their experience. Hence the only dependable parameter that has validiity by human consent are axioms for they cannot be disproved. Therefor deriving every cause and effect cycle of change in nature based on axioms gives it permanent acceptability. It becomes divine in human emotional terms. Science is a logic that pursues the cause and effect cycle in reality to its end. But Physics is unable because of a mathematical lacuna . Its the hierarchy disease in calculus. Two events occurring at the same instant has a zero time interval and any ratio based on that gives infinity. But that is not TRUE at all in reality. On the surface of the Earth ALL events are simultaneous at a particular moment in reality. The current mathematics cannot trace the cause and effect cycle of all the humans at that instant. But the law of self similarity in a connected medium (space) can do so. This is done as the swabhava or self similar principle. Blue is human classification (error ridden) but in nature it is 3/8th ratio of an interactive cycle.
May 15 2013: If by science we are attempting to understand the nature of reality and if science is partially succeeding in finding and formalizing it - there is one tacit assumption in that. Reality is one of a kind - it is invariant. If we take it that truth corresponds to reality, we are then talking about 'the' truth, not merely truths. This is one experiential paradox because reality is clearly relative.
The axiomatic number counts of Samkhya, which you propose to be giving an axiomatic verifiability of absolute precision is impressive but not free from the paradox I see. In fact the more precise it gets the more it runs the risk of failing to be a true description of reality. I think that is true for any axiomatic system of study including mathematics.
I may be wrong, but nature does not seem to exist in any precision to me. It does not conform with the perfect and it appears that nature allows possibilities of right, wrong and any superposed states between the two whenever we define one aspect of it.
A decimal number system is one of many imaginable and it is not the simplest even. Why binary system, for example, cannot be argued in a similar fashion.
I know of Samkhya just not in sufficient details so my questions may sound shallow :)Jun 9 2013: Science is the best tool people have in regards to obtaining answers about the universe.
It's not perfect, but it is our most reliable source of information.Jun 7 2013: All so-called "revealed wisdom" should be treated with utmost skepticism. I am reminded of the great quote by Thomas Paine: "Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication-- after that it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it can not be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to ME, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."
To actually believe the ramblings of notoriously barbaric, self-anointed prophets requires the utmost credulity! When reading stories of chariots of fire, resurrections and flights to heaven on the back of winged horses, we must ask, "Which is more likely? That the event actually happened, or the individual telling of it was mistaken?" Given that none of us have witnessed these and so many other "wonders," we must reasonably conclude that they never occurred. As Carl Sagan put it, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Jun 9 2013: Allah does not reveal to every human being. He provides guidance through His Prophets who are also humans like us. This has been happening since Adam was born. We can't force Allah to change his ways of doing things. He is all-wise, All-knowing. Secondly, barbaric, self-appointed prophets? I think we should be fair. No Prophet has ever been babaric. They were blessing for humanity. They taught us all good things in life. They fought back against some of us who were barbaric for the humanity. Thirdly, no one was self appointed Prophet. All were appointed by Allah as his representatives to guide the humanity. The followers of existing Prophet knew who was the next Prophet coming. The Christians knew the next Prophet was Muhammad. No self appointed Prophet can survive for long. Fourthly, it is not right to say "not seen, not existing at all". Did you see your grand-grand parents? They existed after all. We do need guidance. Our intellect can take us to some distance through rational thinking, but to be sure moving on the right path, only Divine Guidance provides that 100 % surety. Al-Quran begins where Science ends. Let us combine the two.Jun 4 2013: yes it does. no it doesn't.
Jun 7 2013: Schrödinger's cat's type of comment :)
Cheers.Jun 4 2013: Science proves everything. First comes the theory. Then comes the Science. Then comes the Engineering. Then comes the Apple iPad. If you object to science, get a horse and drive a wagon to work. Give up cell phones and go back to key telegraph. If you object to science stop watching TV. Science made TV possible.
If you don't like science or believe that Science contains both proof and the possibility for a better tomorrow -- fine! Go to Ohio and live with the Amish. They are wonderful people, but they live with 19th century technology.
Jun 4 2013: I agree that science can prove certain things, but I think you are coming out too strong right here. First, some comments that you made could be offensive to certain people. Second, science cannot prove everything.
Can science prove God's existence? Well, you might say yes, because you sound like a person that just loves science(no offense) but we cannot prove God's existence by using science. There are three ways of knowing in our lives. First one is physical example, second one is using our mind to reason, third one is using our heart. God is known by using our heart.
I am not even religious and I agree with certain things of certain religions.
Also, there are a lot of things in this world that science cannot prove, or cannot prove with the level of science that we possess right now. The most prominent example might be, "Can science prove why we were created?". I do not think science will be able to do that. (Just my opinion)
To claim that science proves everything, that is something really strong to say. I hope you are willing to reconsider your comment after reading my reply.
Thanks, I did not write this reply to offend you.
Jun 4 2013: No offense taken. I'm just sharing an opinion. And I hope that I have given you no offense.
Jun 4 2013: No offense taken. Just wanted to point out some stuff! It is important that we share opinions.
Mat Petersen
Jun 3 2013: "Is there an absolutely proven scientific fact?"
- +1
Yes, the fact that you exist. If you didn't then you wouldn't be here to question it.
Jun 3 2013: Aww, there is nothing scientific in my existence. Or is there? :)
Jun 3 2013: The fact that you exist if an absolutely proven fact that you have just proved to yourself by asking the question. - read up on some Rene Descartes :)
Jun 3 2013: However, it is not scientifically proven. Taking it literally, you cannot prove something scientifically - using the scientific method.Jun 4 2013: Nothing else but science, only science and all of science if you define science as the application of axiomatic logic where self similarity as the operational mode exists. It means that it is untouched by human imagination let loose.Jun 2 2013: There are laws of nature that exist which scientist agree on, like evolution and the inability to create/destroy "matter," but these laws are ancient to philosophy. Heraclitus "all is water" anybody? All is change... change doesn't equate to evolution some how? Also the idea is Asian... Very much so involved with their understanding of Chi and Chakras, and overall holistic philosophies.
The Hindu Gods of destruction, creation AND preservation... the idea of checks and balances on a celestial scale... not as fluent here with the theology but I recall someone discussing concepts of 'matter' as more than just physical but ideas also; ideas are material too and follow the same laws as "matter."
My point in bringing up various philosophies and beliefs is simple - to believe THIS IS THE BEST, gives little impression that one should look else where for thoughts. To really assume "science" is the know-all and ends-all entity of man, is primitive to me. It shows how we ENJOY repeating history. Demonstrates how much ego truly is a problem. But most of all it proves we need to be more collective now than ever before, and to do so is to drop these preconceived notions that one process can trump the rest. By looking at all the processes available, one may truly know which is the best for themselves and perhaps even society.


text:
Very cool picture Sister J!
Mad, I always loved the buildings. Granny's cottage is my favorite. Never bought any because shipping them over added so much to the cost.
Chilli, Jose always makes me smile!
I don't know if I ever explained mine. It's cropped from a picture of Tracy Ullman on an advertisement for her U.S. show State of the Union. She always made me laugh (haven't seen her in anything in ages), she's British, and I just thought the picture was cute.


text:
Top Searches:
Horoscopes |
Salaries |
Washam |
July 22, 2013
Links: Australian Glass and the Pacific Northwest at Museum of Glass
Wsu Master Gardeners of Pierce County at Master Gardener of Pierce County
The Shape of Things by Neil Labute at Dukesbay Theater
All events for today »
Submit an event | All events
Jerry Shaw and Rachel Holloman are two strangers thrown together by a mysterious phone call from a woman they have never met. Threatening their lives and family, she pushes Jerry and Rachel into a series of increasingly dangerous situations--using the technology of everyday life to track and control their every move. As the situation escalates, these two ordinary people become the country's most wanted fugitives, who must work together to discover what is really happening--and more importantly, why.
Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action and violence, and for language.
Visit the official site
Cast: Billy Bob Thornton, Shia LaBeouf, Rosario Dawson, Ethan Embry, Michelle Monaghan
Produced by: Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci
Directed by: D.J. Caruso
Written by: Steven Spielberg, Hillary Seitz, Travis Adam Wright, Daniel McDermott, John Glenn
Running time: 1hr 58min
Opens: Sep 26, 2008 Nationwide


text:
Welcome to The GradCafe
Hello! Welcome to The GradCafe Forums.You're welcome to look around the forums and view posts. However, like most online communities you must register before you can create your own posts. This is a simple, free process that requires minimal information. Benefits of membership:
|Guest Message © 2015 DevFuse
quadsbabyMember Since 26 May 2009
Offline Last Active Mar 15 2011 08:39 PM


text:
Majoring in music business and minoring in audio/video/cinema production at Anderson University, junior Hailey Earp has a passion for worship ministry and the lives that can be touched through song. "I am very interested in both the production aspect of worship, as well as the music," said Earp.
Surrounded by music since a young age, Earp began singing in her church and fell in love with worship. Through connections she made at church, she was encouraged to pursue a career in music, and her passion has grown even more since she set foot on AU's campus three years ago. "There are so many cool things that are going on in the music industry, and I want to be a part of it," said Earp.
It was not until junior high when Earp's music career reached the next level. While her father, a member of the United States Armed Forces, was away on a long tour in Iraq, Earp decided she would learn to play guitar as a surprise for him when he returned. "Even when my dad returned, I couldn't put the guitar down," said Earp.
This year, Earp competed in Hoosier Idol, a singing competition structured similarly to the popular television show American Idol. While Earp did not win the competition, her participation brought exposure to her talent and allowed her to network with the judges.
Reagan Grubbs, worship arts pastor at The Bridge Community Church in Anderson, Ind., encouraged Earp to audition for Hoosier Idol in order to gain presence in the local music scene. "I have known Hailey for about two years," said Grubbs. "I have worked with many artists over the years, and I rarely meet people that 'have it.' I believe that Hailey does, and I cannot wait to see what she accomplishes in the future."
Andrew Camp, a 2010 AU graduate, knows Earp through watching her perform in many different arenas. "Hailey was one of the clear frontrunners after the first week of preliminaries during Hoosier Idol," said Camp. "She is very dedicated to her music, and when you watch her perform you understand her passion."
Hoosier Idol is not all Earp has participated in to help advance her career and further her knowledge of the music industry. Through attending and leading worship at The Bridge, Earp has made connections that have the potential to help advance her career. "I have created a very important connection with the singing group Cook & Belle," said Earp. "It is very important to network in the music industry, and Cook & Belle are a great group of people to have on my side."
Although Earp is constantly busy with school, work, and pursuing her passion in music, she always takes the time to remind herself what it is about music that she truly loves. "This past summer I worked in New York City leading youth groups around the city while they were doing missions work," said Earp. "There were times, after a long day and a debrief, I would lead a worship session for them."
Earp's true joy lies in uniting people together in worship. In the future, Earp hopes to continue in that vocation through working in churches as a worship pastor. "I have such a passion for music, and I want to involve it in my life in any way I can," said Earp. From playing in subways to playing in churches, Earp's love for music and the affect it can have on people is what drives her to continue on her musical path.
— Hannah Schumacher is a senior from Bluffton, Ohio, majoring in communications arts and writing. Schumacher is an associate with Fifth Street Communications®, writing on behalf of the Anderson University Office of University Communications.
Anderson University is a private Christian university of 2,600 undergraduate and graduate students in central Indiana. Anderson University continues to be recognized as one of America's top colleges by U.S. News and World Report, The Princeton Review, and Forbes. Established in 1917 by the Church of God, Anderson University offers more than 65 undergraduate majors and graduate programs in business, music, nursing, and theology.


text:
The model D022 flag drip emitter with 2 GPH is a spiral flow pattern drip emitter that can be twisted to open and clean. The flag drip emitter flow rate will depend on the incoming inlet pressure to the emitter with the nominal flow rated suggested is at a pressure of 15 PSI. The flag drip emitter work well in small systems with short runs, and on flat terrain. We recommend installing a 15, 19 or 25 PSI pressure regulator on systems using this drip emitter.
|+ 1
|$0.17 ea.
|+ 101
|$0.16 ea.
|+ 501
|$0.14 ea.
The model D021 with 1 GPH, model D022 with 2 GPH and model D023 with 4 GPH are spiral flow online drip emitters. The flag drip emitters have a screw type water flow pattern that provides a consistent flow rate over a pressure range of 15 PSI. The flag drip emitters have a two-piece construction with a "J" locking mechanism that can be twisted and pulled apart for easy cleaning. The flag drip emitters, available in 1, 2, and 4 GPH, have a 1/4" self-taping barb inlet for easy installation. The 1/4" barb inlet can be easily attached into the poly tubing or 1/4" micro-tubing. The barb outlet side of the drip emitter can be extended to a plant area using 1/8" or 1/4" micro tubing. Each flag online drip emitter will discharge its rated flow rate at a constant pressure of around 15 PSI. The higher the pressure, the more flow the drip emitter will release, and at lower pressure, less flow will be released. We recommend installing a filter with 155-mesh and a 15 to 25 PSI pressure regulator at the beginning of the line when using these drip emitters.
Drip irrigation is the slow application of water directly to the plants' root zone in a predetermined pattern. By preserving an optimum moisture level in the soil at all times, drip irrigation results in less water lost to the sun and the wind and less water wasted on non-growth areas. The resulting proper balance of water and air leads to very efficient irrigation.
One of the most important features of a drip irrigation system is the creation of a totally new and more favorable root zone environment within the planting. Drip irrigation sustains this environment by using low flow rates to maintain constant soil moisture levels. This encourages better growth and disease resistance by reducing plant stress.
When using drip emitters it is important to select the correct flow rate in order to achieve the right soaked pattern shape. In sandy soil, water tends to drain quickly (gravitational force) with little lateral movement, so applying a higher flow rate over a given time period will produce a wider pattern. Using point source irrigation with .5 GPH drip emitters for one hour will provide a smaller soaked area then using 1 GPH for the same time, due to the soil characteristics.
To water a diverse selection of plant sizes such as trees, shrubs, bulbs and perennials, the option below can be utilized:
· Suggested number of drippers per plant:
o Vines with spacing of 6'- 8' use 1 GPH per vine or 2, .5 GPH drip emitters spaced on each side of the vine with 8" to 12" between the drip emitters.
o Plants in close spacing: use a 1-GPH dripper every 10" to 12".
o Small plants up to 2 feet high spaced a few feet apart: use one 1-GPH dripper per plant.
o Plants 2' to 3' high: use 2 1-GPH drippers per plant spaced 12" apart.
o Plants 3' to 5' high: use 3 to 4 1-GPH drippers per plant, spaced 12" apart or loop the drip hose around the plant and insert the drippers every 12".
o Plant 5' to 7' high: use 4 to 6 1-GPH drippers per plant, spaced 12" apart or loop the drip hose around the plant with the drippers spaced 12" apart.
How much time to water: Turn the water on for 45 minutes to 1 hour every two to three days, depending on the drip emitter flow rate, your location and the soil type. After a week or two check the soil and the health of the plants, and adjust the irrigation time as needed. If you have an irrigation controller and you need to add more time, adjust the time on the controller or program the controller with additional start-times.
Note: Katif dripper models D043, D044 and D045 require the use of a punch with a 4mm tip.


text: Home eMed eMed : Article 671 results found Filter Options Items/Page --select -- 10 25 50 1234567891011Next Type Articles Audio Blog Book File Links Videos Title Author Date O'Brien: Finding Startup Success as a Physician-Inventor Far From Healthcare Hotspots 2/19/2013 Blog Resource Summary: Dr. Todd O'Brien has additional challenges beyond those encountered by most startup life science CEOs. The 48-year-old podiatrist still sees patients even while developing his latest innovation: an electronic tuning fork for measuring diabetes-related nerve damage in people's feet. He's also building his company in Orono, Maine - far from any major healthcare hub. Read More Medivo: Finding the Right Investors and Customers is Key to Business Success 2/12/2013 Blog Resource Summary: Three years ago, Jason Bhan, MD, a family practitioner, went into business with a cousin—Sundeep Bhan, a serial entrepreneur—and a friend, Destry Sulkes, also an MD. The three healthcare entrepreneurs founded Medivo, which developed tools to track symptoms, explain lab results, and provide personalized health information. Read More DioGenix: CEO Offers Tips on Pursuing the Right Product and Investors 2/19/2013 Blog Resource Summary: DioGenix, in Gaithersburg, Md., was founded in 2009 after CEO Larry Tiffany and his senior management team saw a clear clinical need: monitoring disease progression of multiple sclerosis (MS). Tiffany has an extensive background in biotech, as an IP attorney, and as a senior executive at small and mid-size biotech companies. Before DioGenix, he was senior vice president and general manager of genomics for another genomics research company, Gene Logic. Read More How to Use Book Smarts to Build a Digital Health Startup 2/13/2013 Blog Resource Summary: One way for life science and digital health entrepreneurs to innovate: turn landmark literature into accessible, web-based programs. That's what Omada Health, a San Francisco startup, has done for diabetes prevention. In a session on the future of intervention at the FutureMed conference at Singularity University in the Silicon Valley last week, the company's co-founder and CEO Sean Duffy explained the effort. Read More A Health Data Revolution? For Entrepreneurs It Has Just Begun. 2/16/2013 Blog Resource Summary: At the FutureMed conference at Singularity University in the Silicon Valley this month, innovators from throughout the health field gathered for sessions on the future of medicine. A session on data-driven health provided insights into fascinating healthcare innovations centered on the use of health data. And it offered ideas for entrepreneurs looking to join the data revolution. Read More One Thing Life Science Entrepreneurs Can't Have? Fetishes 2/15/2013 Blog Resource Summary: There's no silver bullet for becoming a successful life science entrepreneur. But at a session on entrepreneurship and innovation at the FutureMed conference at Singularity University in the Silicon Valley last week, three panelists shared their tips on achieving entrepreneurial success. Read More Weekly Wisdom from Kauffman: Old(er) = Entrepreneur 2/14/2013 Blog Resource Summary: The archetypal entrepreneur is a strapping 20-something. But we shouldn't count out Baby Boomers as the next innovators. Dane Stangler, senior analyst at the Kauffman Foundation, uncovered these facts in some recent Kauffman Foundation research: Read More TVAX: Cancer Researcher-turned-startup Founder Takes DIY Approach 2/19/2013 Blog Resource Summary: It's a cancer immunologist's dream to discover a safe and effective way to coax the body's own immune system into waging war against invading cancer cells. Building a startup company around that finding, though, is definitely not every scientist's forte. For Gary W. Wood, making the leap from laboratory to C-suite seemed like the next logical step. Read More 4 Lessons from CEOs of medical device startups in Europe 9/4/2013 Blog Resource Summary: Read More 9 strategies for entrepreneurs working with angel investors 9/11/2013 Blog Resource Summary: Read More 1234567891011Next


text:
Home improvements and repairs can pose many difficult problems and potentially lead to complaints for consumers. We regulate all trades and occupations associated with the installation, repair, alteration, design or modification of electrical, plumbing, liquefied petroleum gas, mechanical systems, building construction industry and engineered construction as mandated in Chapter 489 of the Florida State Statutes and Chapter 9 of the Broward County Code of Ordinances. We issue Certificates of Competency to over 12,000 tradespeople who contract with individuals for construction projects throughout Broward County.
The purpose of contractor licensing regulations is to protect the life, health, safety, property and public welfare of Broward County residents. These regulations promote a marketplace where construction activities are performed by qualified and licensed contractors according to current laws and Florida Building Codes. The ordinance provides for a uniform central process for examination, certification and regulation of all individuals or business organizations who engage in these trades.
Broward County Code of Ordinances: Chapter 9: ContractorsBroward County Consumer Protection CodeConsumer Complaint FormsConsumer Financial Protection BureauFederal Motor Carrier Safety AdministrationFederal Trade CommissionFlorida Department of Business & Professional Regulation (DBPR)Florida Division of Consumer Services


text:
Yeah well, after shopping around for a while I found that a Playhouse of any decent size was $1200 for a striped down, 4'x 6' box. Then there was the Log Cabin one that I thought was really cool but it was $3700, marked down from $4200 because it was a floor model!
Then came my inspiration, my Neighbors put in a Stockade fence this spring and were resting the panels against their garage until they used them. I walked outside, glanced over and thought... Dang, those look like the side to a log cabin! And so my planning began.
DISCLAIMER: This structure will be as durable as you make it. If you do a crappy job and it falls down on your kids head it's not my fault.
My Son has been using this playhouse almost every day, even when it's raining. When I pick him up from daycare all he wants to do is go into his playhouse, He has even eaten his dinner in there more than once. On several occasions I have had to carry him inside screaming in order to put him to bed.
Build note:
1. My Son for some reason has been leaving the front door open and he runs into the playhouse and bounces off the back wall. As a precaution I decieded to pre-drill and screw the slats on the back wall to the stringers. He didn't knock any slats off but I figured just in case.
2. My dog has been digging on the side of the playhouse and sniffing through the floor of the playhouse. I looked under and didn't see any animals I would suggest that you apply some metal mesh around the foundation prior to putting on the walls.
3 Year Update
I noticed that it's been 3 years since I created this playhouse so I decided to take a picture of it in it's current state. It's had a lot of snow on the roof over these 3 years and a lot of abuse from my now 6 year old Son and my 2 year old daughter. Picture 2 shows it's current state taken exactly 3 years from the original. I think I need to stain the floor again, but the rest held up well.
The sunflowers were built from that same Neighbors old metal fence posts and the cut offs from the wall panels. The center is actually a piece of plywood covered with left over roofing material.
Also, search craigslist for fence panels. Many people near me give them away when they redo a fence.
Makes me happy to know more kids are having fun.


text:
UFC on FUEL TV 9 adds Brandao-Garza; three other bouts official | News
A featherweight bout between Diego Brandao (15-8 MMA, 2-1 UFC) and Pablo Garza (12-3 MMA, 3-2 UFC) is now official for UFC on FUEL TV 9, and three other recently reported fights are now official for the April card.
Brandao vs. Garza, which MMAnytt.se and kimura.se today reported, is the 12th addition to the card.
UFC on FUEL TV 9 takes place April 6 at Ericsson Globe Arena in Stockholm. The event's main card airs on FUEL TV following prelims on Facebook.
It's not clear where Brandao vs. Garza will land on the fight card.The latest UFC on FUEL TV 9 card now includes:
Alexander Gustafsson vs. Gegard Mousasi
Philip De Fries vs. Matt Mitrione
Mike Easton vs. Brad Pickett
Ryan Couture vs. Ross Pearson
Diego Brandao vs. Pablo Garza
Michael Kuiper vs. Tom Lawlor
Marcus Brimage vs. Conor McGregor
Michael Johnson vs. Reza Madadi
Akira Corassani vs. Robert Peralta
Papy Abedi vs. Besam Yousef
Adlan Amagov vs. Chris Spang
Ben Alloway vs. Ryan LaFlare


text:
Cords are his absolute coziest dress-up dress-down faves. And they look cool everywhere from playing around to party-bound. Relaxed, straight leg cut.
• Pure cotton 11-wale corduroy
• Fly front with hook and bar closure
• Slash pockets, back welt pockets
• Stretch back
• Easy adjustable inner waist
• Prewashed
• Imported
Item # TW39510


text:
Filner says his latest proposal would let frozen funds flow again
As for his latest proposal, Filner said the changes he's seeking amount to roughly 600 words in the 32-page operating agreement. What's important, he said, is the substance of those changes.
Filner wants to allow the tourism district to operate for up to five years, with a city option to terminate the deal with 30 days' notice after the first year. He also called for the salary cap that he said would ensure that public tourism dollars aren't used "to pay exorbitant, gold-plated executive salaries."
"These are reasonable and necessary changes," according to comparative analysis released Sunday by the Mayor's Office. "This is a sound foundation for the mayor and the City Council to proceed in a unified fashion to protect the public interest."
Filner's proposal comes as the City Council is set to consider a resolution Tuesday that would restate the council's approval of the TMD agreement. It also states that "the mayor's obligation to sign said operating agreement is a ministerial duty, that he has no discretion to refuse to sign said operating agreement, and that he has no authority to further negotiate said operating agreement."
Filner dismissed the council's proposed resolution as pointless given that whether he is mandated to sign the contract is currently being litigated.
The mayor has sparred with council President Todd Gloria and City Attorney Jan Goldsmith over several issues since taking office Dec. 3 and the resolution, which originated in the City Attorney's Office and was docketed by Gloria, won't likely do anything to improve relations at City Hall.


text:
Haven Dresser
Designed with a minimum of adornment and a multitude of built-in storage, the pieces in our Haven Collection blend beautifully with both antique and modern furnishings. Best of all, they offer unrivaled – and much welcomed – functionality.
- Expertly crafted of kiln-dried hardwood with fine veneers
- A hand-applied finish in washed white allows the wood's natural beauty to shine through, imparting subtle visual texture
- Dresser features 4 English-dovetailed drawers, dust panels, tip rails and wood-on-wood glides
- Drawers are fitted with modernized bin-pull hardware
- Antique brushed nickel hardware
- Dresser doubles as a changing station with addition of our topper (sold separately)
- Nylon glides on feet
- This item is handcrafted with meticulous care. Given its hand-finished nature and natural variations in the wood grain, each item is unique and no two will be exactly alike.
- Furniture Tip Restraint included
- Wipe with a soft, dry cloth. Avoid direct sunlight and heat to protect the finish.
- Wood swatch is 6" square; free shipping
Haven Dresser
- Overall: 40"W x 18"D x 32"H
- Top Drawer Interior: 15"W x 16"D x 7"H
- Bottom Drawer Interior: 34"W x 16"D x 6½"H
- Weight: 118 lbs.
Haven Dresser
Haven Dresser Topper
Wood Swatch - Washed White


text:
Free shipping and returns on all orders
Offer does not apply to previous purchases. Free standard shipping applies to us.hunterboots.com orders shipped within the 50 United States via ground shipping (3 to 6 business days).
Original Clear Tote
Selected color:
The Original Clear Tote is cleverly constructed out of PVC in this season's go-to colors. It comes with a detachable change wallet sized purse to keep your valuables safe while on the go.
Size & Fit
- Dimensions: 8"W X 14"H X 22"L
- Drop: 9"
Details & Care
- PVC with leather and rubber trim
- Detachable vachetta leather change purse
- Clip closure


text:
The village of Cambutal is located at the most southern tip of Panama's Azuero Peninsula in the province of Los Santos.
How to arrive
- Car: From Panama City, take the Pan-American Highway until Divisa, where you turn off towards Las Tablas, capital of the province of Los Santos. Upon arriving at the main park, in front of the Santa Librada Church, turn left and then right at the second street which will take you to the village of Tonosí. Continue on to the village of Cambutal, where the sea will come into view after crossing a small bridge.
What to bring
- Water bottle
- Sunscreen
- Walking
- Surfing


text:
Student Handbook
Frequently Referenced Topics
4.1.4 Conduct and Appearance
The Seminary recognizes the freedom of each student to develop personal standards under the leadership of the Holy Spirit. However, since people in the community recognize students at the Seminary as Christian leaders, certain exemplary standards of conduct and appearance are to govern the student body (Rom. 14:21–22). Therefore the use of tobacco and any of its electronic substitutes, and the use of alcoholic beverages, except for liturgical, ceremonial, medicinal, or other exceptional instances, are not considered suitable for the Seminary faculty, staff, and students, all of whom are expected to abide by this standard.
The appearance of seminary students while on campus is expected to reflect Christian modesty, maturity, discretion, and respect. Additionally, students are expected, while in classes and chapel, to dress with neatness and cleanliness following the standards as defined by Dallas Theological Seminary.
A fuller definition of this policy may be obtained from Student Services at firstname.lastname@example.com
4.2.2 Chapel Attendance Requirements: Dallas Campus
All Dallas campus daytime students (full-time or part-time) who are enrolled in a degree or certificate program, except DMin and PhD students, are required to attend chapel based on the number of days they attend daytime classes (7:45 a.m.– 4:30 p.m.) Tuesday through Friday. (See Section 4.2.3 "Required Chapel Sessions" below.) The table is based on approximately sixty chapel sessions available each semester. Attendance implies more than "showing up and studying or reading" or "walking in and walking back out." Attendance/participation in the DTS Music Ensembles counts for chapel credit on days of rehearsal.
4.2.3 Required Chapel Sections
|Days per week in class
|Total chapel requirement per semester
|40 chapels
|30 chapels
|20 chapels
|10 chapels
4.2.4 Chapel Attendance Requirement: Non-Dallas Campus Students
All students who are enrolled in Monday-only classes, evening-only classes (starting after 4:30 p.m.), weekend-only classes, online-only classes, or extension students have an online requirement of ten chapels per semester (see Section 4.2.5 of this handbook for acceptable media).
4.2.5 Acceptable Chapel Media
All students enrolled in daytime classes on the Dallas campus will attend chapel services in person and are not permitted to count online chapels toward their attendance requirement. Only students who attend Monday-only classes, eveningonly classes, weekend-only classes, online-only classes, or extension-site classes are permitted to count online chapels toward their requirement. These chapels are posted on the Seminary's website and can be viewed online in a streaming video format or downloaded in podcast format. Either the video format or the audio-only format is acceptable, but in order to count toward the chapel requirement, the chapel message must be from the current semester.
4.2.6 World Evangelization Conference (WEC)
A special week in the spring semester is devoted to world missions. Attendance is required for the spring World Evangelization Conference for at least two full days involving all regular sessions scheduled between 8 a.m. and 12:30 p.m.. on the attended days or at least five individual sessions throughout the week. This is in addition to the regular chapel requirements for the semester.
All students enrolled in Monday-only classes, evening-only classes (starting after 4:30 p.m.), weekend-only classes, online-only classes, or extension-site classes have an online requirement of two WEC sessions. (See 4.2.5 for acceptable media.)


text:
Didn't see this posted here yet, Unless I missed it.
New gaming head Phil Spencer was recently asked about the problem on Twitter, and seemed open to changing the policy once he's settled in. Here's the exchange:
@Th3CoreGamer: "now that you're boss, we can start blaming you for Gold 2 play and apps behind the xbox live gold paywall right? sorry phil"
@XboxP3: "Yep, blame away. I'll get my changes to plans in place soon, but in the meantime pile on."
@Th3CoreGamer: "like this response.. i hope its not for show.. surprise us phil"
@XboxP3: "In today's world show would last about 10 minutes. Not saying everyone will love everything, but we have plans."
Entire article at Forbes here
In Phil we trust. Not that it affects me being in Australia but might help some Americans out.