text:
Recently I hosted a series called Towards Belief. This was an interesting experience for a whole lot of reasons, but the thing I really liked about it was that people were engaging with big issues. Forget everything else. If I was to summarise my reason for being involved, that would be it. The world we live in is a world of fast paced world, full of distractions (I'm as guilty of this as anyone- I'm often, not consistently but often one of those 1 in 5 people who checks their phone every 10 minutes).
But there we were every Tuesday night at my church talking about BIG issues. Big issues of Faith, God, The Bible, Science and everything else.
One Tuesday night, someone raised the issue of modern medicine and how it interacts with Christian faith. They told a personal story about a prominent church leader they knew. This leader had an unsuccessful course of chemotherapy, after which he started getting prayed for and his condition has since improved. This raised the question of whether it is unfaithful to automatically go to the doctor first and to the prayer healing team second. You might be thinking: Why not just pray anyway- whether in the car on the way to the doctors, beforehand or both? This is really a secondary question and the details on this aren't actually that important. The bigger thrust behind the question - and other surrounding discussion in our group- was best illustrated by that particular question and that particular story, but the bigger thrust was wondering whether we've lost faith in God and let ourselves lose touch with God because of our modern technologies, medicines and amenities.
We sometimes think that if we pray for something and it happens, then God was at work. But if we go to a doctor and the doctor prescribes some medicine and something happens, then the doctor and "medicine" was at work (and by implication God wasn't at work in that situation).
But this all neglects the simple and profound truth that God is God over everything.
The God of Christian faith is a God who both sustains and transcends the entire universe. He is also everywhere- with you as you read this. He's in Los Angeles. He's here with me as I type this out. If he does exist, then he is the God of everything. He's the God of the Bible and he's simultaneously God over the book of nature. He is the God who raised Jesus from the dead almost 2,000 years ago, from the Roman cross to the throne. And he's also the God who gave us science and modern medicine. There can't be any real contradictions in what is true, because all truth is God's truth.
You might respond to this by asking: What about all the people who deny God and justify their denial using science and modern medicine? It is true that many people look at our advancing knowledge and no longer see a need for God. But why, as Christians, should we hold ourselves captive to this faulty false dichotomy and facilitate its continued prominence? According to the Christian view, that view is merely a false understanding of God leading to a denial of his very existence. God isn't getting any smaller.
(Written Oct 2013)
A World of Interesting Ideas
Sunday, April 27, 2014
God Isn't Getting Smaller
Posted by T at 10:53 PM No comments:
Notes on apologetic approaches and thought life
What is Christian Apologetics?
Christian Apologetics, in a broad sense, simply means defending Christianity. Thus, all Christians are or should be apologists. But in the literature on scholarly Apologetics, the definition is narrower. There are two broad schools of thought- presuppositionalism and evidentalism/Classical apologetics. A few notes on these schools of thought are below.
I don't personally like the term "Apologetics" as it means different things to different people, and to some it portrays Christianity in a negative light.
Thought Life and Character
I try to be a thinker. That is, I try to think reflectively, rationally and intelligently about all matters of life. When discussing ideas with others, I try to be thoughtful in my approach there as well. Some of my biggest "heroes" in life (for want of a better word) are Christians scholars who I see as humble, reflective, intelligent, whose ideas I think are reasonable and who communicate thoughtfully as well. Good examples: C. Stephen Evans and John Dickson.
Intellectual brilliance is a great thing, but it is not enough- thinking needs to be self reflective. We should be humble in our views, and charitable towards others.
These things could all be teased out through thousands of words.
Notes on Approaches to Apologetics
General thoughts:
- Note problems with all approaches.
- Note good insights to take from each approach.
- Mixed bag of first order thinking, negative apologetics and evidences.
- First order(Note: I refer to first order in the sense of underlying, big picture, overarching considerations of a foundational nature to do with frameworks) Arguments still provide "evidence" in a broad sense, so you could say that presuppositionalism is still evidentialism at heart, at least to some degree. Secondly, and similarly, Presuppositionalists wouldn't believe in Christianity unless they had Evidence, in a broader still sense of the term. (Footnote to this; Douglas Wilson claims that assumptions of Christianity are always implicit within evidence arguments etc. So a true presuppositionalist would claim that presuppositionalism is foundational to evidentalism, similar to how I am claiming here that evidence, broadly construed, is necessary foundation for all beliefs, presuppositionalism included).
- Note: Epistemological issues are at the forefront here. C Stephen Evans is the Gold standard.
Presuppositionalist apologetics:
Based theologically on Calvinism.
- Neutrality is an entirely false notion. It doesn't exist. No one is truly neutral.
- Negative apologetics is vital. It's easier to disprove something or argue against something than it is to erect a case for something to the exclusion of all others. Not only that, but psychology tells us that some people simply refuse evidence which is more evidence itself for point below- the will gets in the way? Example see the amount of atheists who think Jesus didn't exist and that all stories about him are totally mythical (eg: R Price in the book 5 Views on The Historical Jesus). You can convince yourself of anything if you really want to. So both due to psychology and as a strategy, apologetics must strike out other worldviews, not simply build a case for our own.
- Presuppositions and preconditions. Point out the assumptions upon which the other view rests. This could be seen as a vital cog of negative apologetics. But it's also a universal notion of it's own. To reject one belief, another belief must be held.
- The importance of first order thinking. Looking at the Big picture. Before looking at the detail contained in evidentialist arguments, consider questions like: How are we even here? What conditions must exist for us to be here, doing this debate. Universe- law and order, science. People- Rational Thoughts.
- Rationality and persuasiveness is complex. At the very least, person relative. Critical rationalism is more at home within a presuppositionalist framework.
- Presupposing something is inevitable but presupposing the entire Bible is a bridge too far. Begs the question. Assumes what it's trying to prove. Some question begging may be inevitable, perhaps (interesting philosophical question to consider) but the entire Bible and/or Christian worldview is a lot to assume!
- Doesn't go far enough. The Resurrection isn't contained within the apologetic. Ironically this is what they are trying to avoid.
- Presuppositionalism claims to provide certainty and that other approaches fail because they only aim for probability. But Certainty is impossible, just like proper neutrality is impossible (especially on the big questions and on existential questions). Although the impossibility of certainty is easier to prove than the impossibility of neutrality. At least with neutrality, people can just claim to be neutral and that leaves a stalemate (even if psychology and/or philosophical argumentation shows that people always have assumptions they come from, and so to truly get neutrality one must dig through a gazillion layers of muck). Whereas with certainty, one can easily come up with a possible objection to almost any argument.
Evidentialism AND Classical apologetics:
- Positive case. Negative leaves us in nowhere land.
- The problem of shifting evidence. Philosophical arguments against this I am very fond of. Similar to Evans. Eg: Wide Accessibility problem. If the best justifications for belief are only available to a select few who are educated enough to understand the best evidence based arguments, what does this say about God? ie: Fine tuning argument didn't exist in it's most persuasive form 100 years ago because fine tuning had not been found. Neither did Kalam Argument. if God is timeless, he will provide various forms. This fits in with the insight that a personal God would provide personal evidence (Moser). Craig wouldn't disagree (1st chap RF, Holy Spirit is warrant on it's own etc) however the evidentialist approach still places too much emphasis on evidence in it's implicit support for simply believing what the current evidence says. It doesn't account for the nature of God very well.
- Much of reverse of "Good" of presupp belongs here. Eg: Neutrality is impossible. Eg: Craig Parton's claim that 98% time devote to positive evidence is ridiculous. Because the will/psychology ensures some remain unpersuaded. And it's easy to find objections to anything. Defense is the best attack sometimes, and too much emphasis on evidence FOR Christianity neglects this point.
Doug Wilson Interview- an example of someone who doesn't stick wholly to one approach:
- Lewis's Apologetic Approach- Mix of Evidentialism and Presuppositionalism?
- Explanation of presuppositional vs evidentialism- Demolition Derby vs leading someone to something unfamiliar. Presuppose Bible and show Impossibility of contrary. But there is room for evidences.
(Written August 2013?)
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Media and Faith
People often make claims of media bias. The ABC, it is often said, is left wing, Fox News is right wing. The Herald Sun is right wing, The Age is lefty. And so on. But what of religious faith? Is the media inherently anti religious, as some claim? Or is atheism a dirty word? This topic was broached on last week's episode of Q and A.
Upon reflection, I recalled that there were two recent examples of actors speaking about religious issues in the public sphere. I found it interesting that in the Sydney Morning Herald (Fairfax Press), there was a sharp contrast in the way the comments were reported. Chris O'Dowd's vitriolic ignorance was given a platform by being reported without comment ("Religion is ruining the world") whilst Matthew McConaughey's expression of faith in his Oscars Speech was used as a springboard for an argument against God and for religious belief to be treated with ridicule.
Upon reflection, I recalled that there were two recent examples of actors speaking about religious issues in the public sphere. I found it interesting that in the Sydney Morning Herald (Fairfax Press), there was a sharp contrast in the way the comments were reported. Chris O'Dowd's vitriolic ignorance was given a platform by being reported without comment ("Religion is ruining the world") whilst Matthew McConaughey's expression of faith in his Oscars Speech was used as a springboard for an argument against God and for religious belief to be treated with ridicule.
Posted by T at 10:46 PM No comments:
Labels: Faith in the public square, Media
Saturday, January 18, 2014
Some notes on "No Argument for God" by John Wilkinson
I'm halfway through this.
This book is written in a warm, conversational tone and it covers some important topics for Christians to think about. However, Wilkinson makes some serious errors in thinking, and those errors would be quite damaging to the Christian church if more people took some of the things he says on board. (Although I won't go into that side of things here, I'll merely discuss his ideas).
Wilkinson writes about the limits of reason, and how reason and the senses on their own create a flat world, devoid of any clarity about ideas of meaning and purpose. Meaning and purpose cannot be empirically proven. He uses this discussion as a springboard to talk about the third dimension, ie: revelation.
However I'm not convinced that things are as simple as Wilkinson makes out. Why does "reason" have to only involve the "senses"? On the contrary, reasoning about something is simply thinking about something. We can reason about things that go beyond the mere senses, and in fact there are entire disciplines of philosophy that do just that. Wilkinson himself is offering us "reasons" of sorts to accept Christian revelation in this book, but one assumes he doesn't think his own "reasoning" falls prey to his own critiques of reason? Perhaps the discussion would've been clearer if Wilkinson had referred to the hard sciences here instead. But of course, he wouldn't do that because he'd be unable to make the same critique of the limits of the entire concept of "reason" without referring to it as reason. It'd be much more obvious to any reader that his discussion needs to get broader if he did that. I agree with much of what he has to say about the limits of science, but science and reason are not coterminous. This is not mere semantics.
So after critiquing reason, Wilkinson moves onto revelation. He believes we need the third dimension of revelation to give us meaning and purpose which can't be attained from the two dimensional world of "reason" alone. Revelation gives us the "why" of life whereas "reason" gives us the "how" of life. (And again, perhaps Wilkinson should have said science, which would have been more accurate). But Wilkinson commits a familiar error here. He introduces a very crucial topic but doesn't adequately define it. He merely says that "Revelation" is the disclosure of a person and that it answers the why questions.
This quote disappointed me:
"When someone reveals something, he or she draws back the curtain on it's purpose. Someone explains why the object is there. The problem with revelation is that there is no proof; we have to accept the person's word". (p56).
The Christian message is the message of God becoming flesh. Jesus walked among us. The central Christian claim is that of the resurrection. As the Apostle Paul wrote, without it our faith would well and truly be in vain. The Resurrection was, historically, the beginning of Christianity. It is the cornerstone of Christianity and, further than that, it is therefore the KEY to Christian revelation itself. It was an event that took place in history. It was God's son literally interacting with the senses of the people who witnessed it.
This is why as a fellow Christian, reading the quote about "Revelation" above was deeply troubling. There is an obvious, serious, concerning problem with Wilkinson's thesis: It simply does not make sense of the Christian message. Wilkinson is a Christian pastor, but he is wheeling out grand statements about abstract ideas like "revelation" that do not make sense of the Christian teaching itself! Christian revelation is not SIMPLY revealing the "why" of life, and "drawing back the curtain" on the purpose of the universe. Christian revelation is not an ethereal philosophy of life or a list of moral teachings. The key event informing Christian revelation is an event that happened in place and time. Now, the resurrection cannot be "proven" 100% one way or the other. But it can be investigated by the tools of history. It is not something that is completely sheltered from "reasoning" one way or the other as Wilkinson would so clearly and evidently like it to be.
Part way through the book, after Wilkinson's threads start coming together in major arguments about reason and revelation as I've (fairly, hopefully) stated above, something dawned on me that hadn't hit me earlier. Ironically, Wilkinson is actually doing the opposite of what he wants to achieve with this book. Wilkinson thinks we are at risk of "robbing Christianity of it's distinctive flavor" (p35). We're trying to make it friendlier by robbing it of difficulties. We want to be able to tell people "it fits entirely in your brain!"(p35). But ironically, it is Wilkinson who is trying to fit God into a box. According to Wilkinson, "Christianity does not conform to human logic" (p24). Wilkinson recounts his own faith story, in which he prayed to God "I choose to believe in you, even though I have no reason to". (p20). But surely he must realize that this is not everyone's experience? There are many Christians who have, in fact, come to faith through or partly through reason and arguments. C.S. Lewis was an Oxford Professor in his 30's when he became a Christian, and he ended up as possibly the most widely read Christian author of the 20th century. Mortimer J Adler was one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century, and he became a Christian in his 80's.
Stories like these (and countless others) should teach us that God is BIGGER than we think. God can use experiences like Wilkinson's to reach people, but he can also use reason, science and arguments to reach people as well. Wilkinson is trying to fit faith into the "absurd" box, whilst telling us how much he despises those who try to fit faith into the "logic" box. God doesn't fit into Wilkinson's box anymore than he fits into anyone else's. The truth is that everyone's experience of God is different to other people's, and that is perfectly OK.
Christianity doesn't confirm entirely to human logic at all points. Wilkinson is right about that. But that's largely because God is an infinite God and we are finite beings. How could small, rationally limited people like us fully understand and explain an infinite being? If there is an infinite God, it wouldn't make sense for us to be able to "fully grasp" him/it. On the contrary, you'd have to ask yourself whether anyone who thinks they know it all about this God is in fact kidding themselves. Wilkinson would agree with that much as well.
We see like we're seeing through glass dimly. Dimly indeed. But that doesn't mean Christianity is, on the whole, "contrary to reason" or that there are "no reasons" to believe!
Posted by T at 6:40 PM No comments:
Labels: apologetics, Book Review, Books, epistemology, John Wilkinson, No Argument for God, Religious Epistemology, revelation
Monday, October 14, 2013
The T World, The iworld and the R World
A fascinating discussion by Professor Dale Kuehne on "where the world is heading". Very abstract and theoretical in it's descriptions of the world, and no doubt some will object at his generalisations. But there's something valuable if you're willing to look underneath.
Posted by T at 10:10 PM No comments:
Labels: culture wars, moral values, Society and Culture
Sunday, September 22, 2013
A Reflection on Suffering
At the moment I'm hosting a series at our church called Towards Belief. Last Tuesday we commenced the series by watching the episode on suffering.
A member of the discussion group I'm facilitating shared a thought with the group. His thought ran along these lines:
We are all joined together by 6 degrees of separation. Therefore, there are a multitude of connections I have with other people that I don't even know, through the various degrees of separation. People can often be influenced or even transformed by things that they see and hear. Given this, how could I confidently say that there's no point to my suffering? We can't say things are definitively pointless when we don't know what influence it may have.
I found this to be profound.
To be sure, this is more a response to the intellectual questions around suffering than it is a comfort to those who are questioning or experiencing suffering first hand. If someone is experiencing pain, in most cases it'd be highly inappropriate and insensitive to say to them "Well you never know who might hear about your story or who might be influenced in some small way by what you're going through!".
But nonetheless, this is a valuable comment in terms of thinking about this. I recently read a book called Connected, where the authors detailed how our behaviours influence those around us and how we are influenced by others in ways that we don't even realise. This influence can be quite strong to the third degree. In other words, we influence friends of friends of friends in a variety of ways. Thousands of people we don't even know. Now of course, the authors were studying things like the transmission of stds, political attitudes and things like that. It might be a lot harder, if not impossible, to scientifically study the effect that our personal pain might have on others compared to studying other more concrete things. Nonetheless, I think the fact that we do impact people through various degrees of separation does lend support to this idea that we simply can't know what impact we have on others.
Posted by T at 6:10 PM No comments:
Labels: Arguments against the existence of God, Evil, Pain, Personal Experiences, Personal Insights, philosophy of religion, Suffering, The Problem of Evil
Sunday, August 18, 2013
The Burden of Proof: Everyday Usage
The Burden of Proof is a concept which has caused much controversy! It has many meanings. Here are some brief thoughts on it's everyday usage.
Everyday Usage
For most of us, I'd guess that when we hear "Burden of Proof", we'd think of our legal system and the concepts that apply in criminal law. As I understand it, in that area there's two main guiding principles. Firstly, one is "Innocent until proven guilty" and secondly, they must be proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".
This raises all kinds of issues. Here are two: Firstly, the presumption of innocence (the first principle) means that the evidence for guilt must be shown and tested. Without being able to prove guilt, the defendant remains innocent. Being charged doesn't mean that the person being charged is guilty unless they can prove their innocence. No! It means the prosecutors must find enough evidence and then show they are guilty. Secondly, not only must evidence be found but that evidence must get to a certain level. It's effectively about proof, not probability. Some amount of evidence could perhaps show probability, but that wouldn't be enough. Sometimes it might seem very probable that the defendant is guilty, based on the evidence we do have, but unless the evidence is strong enough to put any possible reasonable doubts to bed they must remain innocent under the law.
A Current Example
A recent example (albeit, not in criminal law) might be the Essendon Bombers supplements case. This is an ongoing investigation and no players have yet been issued with any infraction notices. It has been speculated in both major Melbourne newspapers that part of the reason why players have not been charged is because Essendon's record keeping and governance was so poor. This line of thought is suggesting that ASADA just couldn't prove which players took what because of a lack of paperwork and lack of knowledge from the players about what they were taking. Nonetheless, it is possible that ASADA investigators consider it probable that Essendon players took illegal substances but that they simply don't have enough evidence.
The Big Picture Application/Analysis
As a side note and a thought experiment, consider this: If that were the case and it seems probable that the players were guilty but that the evidence wasn't strong enough to convict any individual Essendon player, would it be reasonable for them (or us, if we had the evidence too) to believe that the Essendon players took illegal substances (putting aside the issue that them personally believing it has nothing to do with whether they charge them)? In other words, looking at the big picture: If we have some evidence but we are lacking other evidence, it is reasonable to hold a belief based on an interpretation of probability about where the current evidence points? If so, how much evidence do you need? Does it depend on what kind of situation or example you're considering? These are interesting things to consider.
Everyday Usage
For most of us, I'd guess that when we hear "Burden of Proof", we'd think of our legal system and the concepts that apply in criminal law. As I understand it, in that area there's two main guiding principles. Firstly, one is "Innocent until proven guilty" and secondly, they must be proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".
This raises all kinds of issues. Here are two: Firstly, the presumption of innocence (the first principle) means that the evidence for guilt must be shown and tested. Without being able to prove guilt, the defendant remains innocent. Being charged doesn't mean that the person being charged is guilty unless they can prove their innocence. No! It means the prosecutors must find enough evidence and then show they are guilty. Secondly, not only must evidence be found but that evidence must get to a certain level. It's effectively about proof, not probability. Some amount of evidence could perhaps show probability, but that wouldn't be enough. Sometimes it might seem very probable that the defendant is guilty, based on the evidence we do have, but unless the evidence is strong enough to put any possible reasonable doubts to bed they must remain innocent under the law.
A Current Example
A recent example (albeit, not in criminal law) might be the Essendon Bombers supplements case. This is an ongoing investigation and no players have yet been issued with any infraction notices. It has been speculated in both major Melbourne newspapers that part of the reason why players have not been charged is because Essendon's record keeping and governance was so poor. This line of thought is suggesting that ASADA just couldn't prove which players took what because of a lack of paperwork and lack of knowledge from the players about what they were taking. Nonetheless, it is possible that ASADA investigators consider it probable that Essendon players took illegal substances but that they simply don't have enough evidence.
The Big Picture Application/Analysis
As a side note and a thought experiment, consider this: If that were the case and it seems probable that the players were guilty but that the evidence wasn't strong enough to convict any individual Essendon player, would it be reasonable for them (or us, if we had the evidence too) to believe that the Essendon players took illegal substances (putting aside the issue that them personally believing it has nothing to do with whether they charge them)? In other words, looking at the big picture: If we have some evidence but we are lacking other evidence, it is reasonable to hold a belief based on an interpretation of probability about where the current evidence points? If so, how much evidence do you need? Does it depend on what kind of situation or example you're considering? These are interesting things to consider.
Posted by T at 11:22 PM No comments:
Labels: burden of proof, epistemology, everyday issues
Sunday, July 21, 2013
Naturalism, Questioned.
1. If Naturalism is true, then every event that ever occurs in the universe is a product of, and can in theory be explained by reference to, natural laws and natural forces.
2. Universally across human cultures, in all places and times, people have reported the existence of events that seem to contravene the natural order and have reported experiences that seem to connect them with something beyond the bare, natural state of affairs.
3. If any of these events did contravene the natural order or if any of those experiences did connect someone with anything beyond the bare, natural state of affairs then naturalism is false.
4. It is likely that at least one of these events did contravene natural laws and/or that at least one of the experiences did connect them with something beyond the bare, natural state of affairs.
5. Therefore, it is likely that naturalism is false.
The key premise here is clearly number 4. The whole question is really about whether or not premise 4 is true. The other premises really just exist to explain the situation and provide a sequential framework for making this argument to question naturalism. The basic, undeveloped, intuitive idea on which the step by step argument is based, is this: It seems more likely that some miracles actually happened than it is to say that all of them didn't.
The appendix to this argument would be to list some of the examples of events that have been considered to be miracles and religious experiences. Craig Keener's book Miracles is one very comprehensive example of this.
Posted by T at 11:11 PM No comments:
Labels: Miracles, Naturalism, philosophy of religion
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Should Christians Engage in Natural Theology?
C Stephen Evans
Hayward Lectures 2012, Acadia Divinity College, Acadia University Nova Scotia.
Lecture 1:
Should Christians engage in Natural Theology?
And if so, how do we go about it?
God has always called some to defend him: Ancient World. Atheists (rejection of local Gods), superstitious- Miracles, subverters due to social stances. Justin Martyr.
1 Peter 3:15- Give reason- faith is reasonable.
New Atheists: Four Horsemen- Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris.
- - Distinguishing Factor: Religion is not just wrong but it is dangerous.
- - None of them have much experience, knowledge or awareness of philosophy of religion.
- - Some atheists are embarrassed by them.
Dawkins has a novel argument: Designer must be more complex.
- - But: Divine simplicity.
- - There is no real reason to believe this premise.
Brash confidence:
- - They want to write best sellers.
- - Religion is not just wrong but Ethically and socially harmful.
- - Questioning the idea of religious tolerance.
- - Reversal of previous thoughts. Previously, people thought LACK of religious belief was so bad that we should be wary of it. Could be harmful. Now, have we gone full circle?
- - Baptists stood up for religious freedom in this environment.
So, how should we respond?
- - Theologians and Biblical Scholars should point out the flows in how they read the Bible in wooden ways.
- - Plantinga, John Polkinghorne, Collins etc (Recommended) have shown the science and religion are compatible.
- - Christian doctrine of sin shows that ethical failures of Christians shouldn't be surprising.
- - But New Atheist analysis of ethical actions of Christians is one sided. They exaggerate wrongs but don't give credit where it is due.
- - Justice, rights and wrongs: Wolsterstorff. Doctrine of human rights stems from Biblical faith and nowadays there is no adequetae replacement for Biblical vision.
- - Jeffrey Burton Russell: Clearing the air, exposing the myths about Christianity.
- - Stark: The Victory of Reason. May go too far in answering. Starks analysis may be unbalanced towards the other side! But, makes a convincing historical case- science etc stem from faith, not from some secular ideas.
- - Good to point out their weaknesses in social analysis/ethics etc. However, at a basic intellectual level we must show why a reasonable person can believe in Christianity. Failure to clearly articulate this simply plays into the New Atheists's hands.
- - First sin of religious believers in their eyes is not to follow reason.
- - A central idea of Christianity (and some other faiths) is: God exists.
- - Response from Christians has been Natural Theology. Eg: Mere Christianity.
- - Philosophers have done Natural Theology. However, it is not prominent in theology. Some view it with suspicion.
- - This has given NA's some ground. They see religious belief as Zero grounds, all faith which means no evidence. Eg: Dawkins at Cambridge.
- - "Defined themselves into epistemological safe ground". No public voice makes it appear that no serious case can be made. "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof" (Hitchens).
- - NA's are evidentialist in their epistemology.
How to respond?
- - Attack their epistemology. Eg: Reformed epistemology. Sensus divinitas NOT belief by evidence. That kind of belief in God can be "Properly basic". It is a foundational belief. No argument or evidence? That's ok.
- - I am sympathetic towards it .Plantinga/Wolsterstorff. It's simple contentions are correct. But, it shouldn't be our whole response. To argue that religious belief can be grounded without arguments or evidence is not the same as arguing that there are no good arguments or evidence.
- - There is both propositional and non propositional evidence.
- - Views of RE's can be re stated.
- - However in simple terms it looks like confirmation of NA claims. Ie: There is no evidence (if we say "religious belief can be grounded without).
- - 2 stage apologetics- One: Reasons why faith in God can be rational THEN two- reasons why revelation rational.
- - Why NT not prominent amongst protestant theologians?
- - Perhaps enlightenment views have debilitated NT.
- - Other reasons: Widespread suspicion that it undermines centrality of revalation.
- - But NT is revelation too. But, "Special" revelation from General revelation. Karl Barth. I am sympathetic to some of his reasons against NT.
- - "Transcendence" and above us. We will end up creating God in our own image.
- - Paul Moser has criticised. NT leads to thin theism. Abstract metaphysical claims. IF there's a God, he isn't interested in us knowing propositions, rather he is personal and wants us to know him. Spectator Evidence doesn't cut the mustard of personal transformation.
- - (TDE Note: Craig response to evil borrows heavily from this).
- - We submit to God's terms not vice versa.
Anti Naturalism
- - We can accet all of these claims and STILL see value in NT response to New Atheism.
- - Value can be in "Anti naturalism".
- - Imagine not religious believer, what shou;d they think? Is the most reasonable view of our universe, naturalism? "Nature is all there is"? Should reasonabke non believers be atheists? No. There are problems with naturalism. There are difficulties. We reconceive NT as a defense of anti naturalism. Point to aspects of our natural world that point beyond nature. Natural Signs. Points towards a profound mystery. NT articulates questions that a reasonable person ought to ask. Even if N theologians cant adequetyl answer them, NT will point us in the direction of being open to the kinds of Answers that Barth and Moser would like.
- - I deny that naturalism is the most reasonable view of reality that one can take, even if they aren't a believer.
- - Epistemic situation of someone who is confronting the reasonableness of naturalism vs rivals.
- - Where does burden of proof lie? What kind of evidence would we expect there to be if God exists and wants a relationship with us?
Burden of Proof
- - Flew's the presumption of atheism.
- - They think of God as if he were one more thing in the universe. Eg "We all agree the universe contains dogs, cats, quarks, black holes". Theist goes beyond this basic common ground. Like believing in the Loch Ness monster.
- - If this were the case YES believer would have a burden.
- - It's about does the universe have a certain character or not? Is there a sustaining power behind it all?
- - Is there a purpose? Or does everything exist on it's own? Is the universe one big brute fact among many brute facts??
- - Theist and naturalist don't just disagree about God, they disagree about everything.
- - Atheist mistake: Confuse commitment to naturalism (metaphysical) with commitment to science. But, theists and atheists don't disagree about scientific facts and data!
- - Question of naturalism: Is nature all there is?
- - Science investigates the natural world, but it is not fit to investigate whether there is more than the natural world.
- - Theist holds that scientific laws hold because of God's creative activity. Atheist has no explanation. But, ultimately the question of whether there is more is a philosophical question. Like most philosophical question,s this can't be strictly proven either way. If by prove we mean an argument that no reasonable person could doubt.
- - God's existence cnnot be proven. But neither can naturalism. Proof in this sense is an ideal.
- - What is reasonable is asking which rival worldview makes the most sense?
- - What kind of evidence should we expect to find, if God did exist.
- - If God is a hypothesis, we should ask what consequences would follow if that hypothesis was true.
- - Some kind of knowledge would be available and widely available. It would be bizarre if you had to have a phd in philosophy or understand quantum physics to have a knowledge of God. We'd expect it to be fairly pervasive and easy to find.
- - Christianty theology assumes a certain kind of r'ship: Freely, motivated by God's goodness not coercion or fear. If God's existence was too obvious, that would not make sense of this. It would have to be dismissable. Ambigious. Able to be explained away. Easily resistible.
- - Pascal Pensees quote. Signs seen by those who seek but not by those who deny.
- - WAP and ERP. Two Pascallian constraints on evidence for God's existence.
To do NT, we must have three things right:
- 1. Anti naturalism, rather than positive, complete knowledge of God. It's goal is to tell us that there's something beyond the natural world.
- 2. Burden or proof must be right. No presumption of atheism. All rival worldviews are accountable to reason.
- 3. Right view of the kind of evidence that it is reasonable to seek.
Constantly changing evidence. Don't wanna hitch our wagon to the latest scientific evidence. Eg: If we had to wait until modern physics was finalised to know whether there was a God. Eg: Fine Tuning argument which is based on relatively recent science. There may be value a nd something in these arguments but ultimately We would expect universal aspects of human experience. WAP principle. BUT Can still be "defeater" against WAP. So defeaters must be considered. Defeaters of signs must be considered. My view is that the signs are neither supported by nor threatened by scientific evidence.
NA a fad? Probably not. It has a cultural influence and impact. It's stretched far. Atheists joining together.
Affecting families? Yes. Need to show not just intellectual but understand the attraction of their writing etc. Stuents with fundamentalist readings or no knowledge or bible can be easy pickings.
Calvinism- no need for apologetics? Do the Pascallian constraints lend themselves to this kind of thinking?
Evidence doesn't have to be propositional. Signs can have an immediate impact. Sign becomes focus of reflection and we articulate them. That's where the arguments come from. Don't impact everybody but always retain appeal.
Common Sense Realism George Marsden. Are you opening yourself up to the dangers that this kind of thinking opened itself up to.
Posted by T at 3:19 PM No comments:
Labels: apologetics, C Stephen Evans, culture wars, Hayward Lectures, New Atheism, philosophy of religion, philosophy of science
Rarely are truer words spoken than these:
The most signal failure of the atheist project is not that it insists on analysing religion in narrowly scientific terms, or that it cherry picks history in support of its case. It is that with its evasions and its incuriosity, its sloppy arguments and its unwillingness to question its own assumptions, it debases the currency of rational inquiry that it so claims to champion.
In doing so, its exponents shoot themselves in the foot while backing the wrong horse. This might make for a diverting YouTube video, but as a basis for public debate it is as empty as the heavens above.
From Here "The Failure of the atheist project" by Angus Macdonald
Those who advocate the extension of marriage to same sex couples have been very strong on the value of equality but almost silent on the nature of marriage they want equal access to. Whereas those who defend marriage as it is currently defined seem unable to say exactly what its value and worth is and why the institution would suffer from extension to same sex couples. A meaningful discussion about the value and purpose of the institution of marriage itself has not taken place.
From Marriage Equality or The Destruction of Difference? by Scruton and Blond
These kinds of issues will inevitably remain vexed. Public opinion decides what is offensive, and public opinion is always changing. Some of today's acceptable comments are tomorrow's taboos and vice versa. So as standards change there will always be those who are out of step with the rest.
- Me, on people taking offense at the comments of others.
Posted by T at 1:41 AM No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)


text:
Jul 262006
I enjoy a nice bookplate as much as the next guy…and genuinely love finding the occational exceptional one (e.g. Cecil B. DeMille's orange art deco plate in a nice copy of The Near East is about my favorite). I am, however, a book guy at heart.
Luckily, there are those who see books as mere vehicles for the art and pleasure that is the bookplate, and to that end, I want to introduce you to the Bookplate Junkie [disclaimer…this is a friend and client, please do not hold this against him]. The site is really wonderful.
It reminds me, yet again, that there are far too many things to learn. I am going to need decades and decades just to stay current…urgh.

subset: commoncrawl


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
Immigrant friends living in a shabby corner of Brooklyn while they pursue the American Dream are the center of this comedy-drama from Serbian director Goran Paskaljevic. Tom Conti stars as Alonso, a Spaniard and owner of the Paradiso, a run-down bar where he lives with his blind mother and where his friend Bayo (Miki Manojlovic), an illegal immigrant from Yugoslavia, works as janitor in exchange for free room. The best of friends, Alonso and Bayo are united in believing that they'll succeed in the Land of Opportunity, despite much evidence to the contrary. Bayo's family then follows him to New York from Montenegro, but his beloved youngest son is drowned in the Rio Grande during the dangerous journey. Unable to cope with his grief, Bayo blames his eldest son, Luka (Sergej Trifunovic) for the tragedy. Luka, however, turns out to be the salvation of both his father and Alonso, transforming Paradiso into a trendy ethnic restaurant and marrying a Chinese-American girl in order to gain citizenship.~ Karl Williams, All Movie Guide
Rated R .
Visit the official site
Cast: Miki Manojlovic, Tom Conti
Produced by:
Directed by:
Written by:
Running time: 1hr 36min
Opens: May 10, 1996


text:
Ewell served in the New Mexico Territory for some time, exploring the newly acquired Gadsden Purchase with Colonel Benjamin Bonneville. He was wounded in a skirmish with Apaches under Cochise in 1859. In 1860, while in command of Fort Buchanan, Arizona, illness compelled him to leave the West for Virginia to recuperate. He described his condition as "very ill with vertigo, nausea, etc., and now am excessively debilitated[,] having occasional attacks of the ague. Illnesses and injuries would cause difficulties for him throughout the upcoming Civil War.
Ewell inspired his men in spite of, not because of, his appearance. Historian Larry Tagg described him:
Ewell superbly commanded a division in Jackson's small army during the Valley Campaign, personally winning quite a few battles against the larger Union armies of Maj. Gens. John C. Frémont, Nathaniel P. Banks, and James Shields. Jackson's army was then recalled to Richmond to join Robert E. Lee in protecting the city against Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan's Army of the Potomac in the Peninsula Campaign. Ewell fought conspicuously at Gaines' Mill and Malvern Hill. After Lee repelled the Union army in the Seven Days Battles, Union Maj. Gen. John Pope's Army of Virginia threatened to attack from the north, so Jackson was sent to intercept him. Ewell defeated Banks again at the Battle of Cedar Mountain on August 9 and, returning to the old Manassas battlefield, he fought well at the Second Battle of Bull Run, but was wounded at Groveton and his left leg was amputated below the knee.
While recovering from his injury, Ewell was nursed by his first cousin, Lizinka Campbell Brown, a wealthy widow from the Nashville area. Ewell had been attracted to Lizinka since his teenage years and they had earlier flirted with romance in 1861 and during the Valley Campaign, but now the close contact resulted in their wedding in Richmond on May 26, 1863.
After his long recovery, Ewell returned to Lee's Army of Northern Virginia for the Battle of Chancellorsville. When Jackson was mortally wounded on May 3, 1863, he suggested that Ewell replace him in corps command. Lee temporarily filled the position with J.E.B. Stuart, his cavalry commander, but on May 23, Ewell was promoted to lieutenant general and command of the Second Corps (now slightly smaller than Jackson's because units were subtracted to create a new Third Corps, under Lt. Gen. A.P. Hill, also one of Jackson's division commanders).
But at the Battle of Gettysburg, Ewell's military reputation started a long decline. On July 1, 1863, Ewell's corps approached Gettysburg from the north and smashed the Union XI Corps and part of the I Corps, driving them back through the town and forcing them to take up defensive positions on Cemetery Hill south of town. Lee had just arrived on the field and saw the importance of this position. He sent discretionary orders to Ewell that Cemetery Hill be taken "if practicable." Historian James M. McPherson wrote, "Had Jackson still lived, he undoubtedly would have found it practicable. But Ewell was not Jackson. Ewell chose not to attempt the assault.
Ewell had several possible reasons for not attacking. The orders from Lee contained an innate contradiction. He was "to carry the hill occupied by the enemy, if he found it practicable, but to avoid a general engagement until the arrival of the other divisions of the army. Lee also refused to provide assistance that Ewell requested from the corps of A.P. Hill. Ewell's men were fatigued from their lengthy marching and strenuous battle in the hot July afternoon and it would be difficult to reassemble them into battle formation and assault the hill through the narrow corridors afforded by the streets of Gettysburg. The fresh division under Maj. Gen. Edward "Allegheny" Johnson was just arriving, but Ewell also received intelligence that heavy Union reinforcements were arriving on the York Pike from the east, potentially threatening his flank. Ewell's normally aggressive subordinate, Maj. Gen. Jubal A. Early, concurred with his decision.
Lee's order has been criticized because it left too much discretion to Ewell. Historians such as McPherson have speculated on how the more aggressive Stonewall Jackson would have acted on this order if he had lived to command this wing of Lee's army, and how differently the second day of battle would have proceeded with Confederate possession of Culp's Hill or Cemetery Hill. Discretionary orders were customary for General Lee because Jackson and James Longstreet, his other principal subordinate, usually reacted to them very well and could use their initiative to respond to conditions and achieve the desired results. This failure of action on Ewell's part, whether justified or not, in all likelihood cost the Confederates the battle. When Ewell's corps did attack these positions on July 2 and July 3, the Union had had time to fully occupy the heights and build impregnable defenses, resulting in heavy Confederate losses. Post-war proponents of the lost cause movement, particularly Jubal Early, but also Maj. Gen. Isaac R. Trimble, who had been assigned to Ewell's staff during the battle, criticized him bitterly in attempts to deflect any blame for the loss of the battle on Robert E. Lee. Part of their argument was that the Union troops were completely demoralized by their defeat earlier in the day, but Ewell's men were also disorganized, and decisions such as they were propounding are far simpler to make in hindsight than in the heat of battle and fog of war.
On July 3, Ewell was once again wounded, but this time only in his wooden leg. He led his corps on an orderly retreat back to Virginia. His luck continued to be poor and he was wounded at Kelly's Ford, Virginia, in November. He was injured again in January 1864, when his horse fell over in the snow.
Lee reasoned that Ewell's lingering injuries were the cause of his problems and he relieved him from corps command, reassigning him to command the garrison of the Department of Richmond, which was by no means an insignificant assignment, given the extreme pressure Union forces were applying to the Confederate capital. In 1865, Ewell was retreating from Richmond when his rag-tag force was surrounded and captured at Sayler's Creek, a few days before Lee's surrender at Appomattox Court House. He was held as a prisoner of war at Fort Warren in Boston Harbor until July 1865.


text:
News of Riverton, Lander and Fremont County, Wyoming, from the Ranger's award winning journalists.
Riverton Regional Airport employee retires
May 18, 2012 - By Emily Etheredge, Staff Writer
A City of Riverton employee was recognized for his work at the Riverton Regional Airport. George Wright retired as an airport operator after working from Sept. 1, 2003, to April 25, 2012. Wright also helped with the maintenance of the airport grounds and was an airport rescue and firefighter.
Wright was presented with a gift from the city for his service. He came to the airport during its expansion and offered his experience. Wright had once owned his own business and was a private pilot.
Riverton Regional Airport Paul Griffin said Wright was a wonderful fit at the airport, and he was appreciative of his dedicated time.
Wright said he was thankful for the time he had to work with the airport and the city of Riverton giving him the job.
"It has been a good time," Wright said. "The benefits as well as the courtesy I have been given has meant a lot, and I appreciate it very much."


text:
Does Apple have a branding problem? In search of the iTouch
I work at a local Apple Specialist on the weekends - an independent reseller authorized by Apple to sell and service Macs and iOS devices. If the customers who come through our doors are any indication, Apple has a weird problem on its hands - customers aren't remembering the names of its products very well. Is it time to rethink how Apple brands its products?
The number one case of mistaken identity is the "iTouch." People bring in "iTouches" for repair or ask about how much the "iTouch" costs all the time. They're referring to the iPod touch, of course, but that's been truncated to "iTouch" and repeated more often than not. Really. More people identify that product as the "iTouch" than "iPod touch."
We don't sell or service the iPhone 5, but we get a lot of questions anyway. And more often than not, it's about the "i5." Not the iPhone 5, just the "i5." Sometimes they'll have an "i4" that they'll need help with. Sometimes the appellations get even more meaningless. Someone asking about an "iTouch 5" might mean an iPhone 5 or an iPod touch fifth generation. Or they might just be confused.
Macs don't fare much better. iMacs are pretty well known, but MacBook Airs are commonly called "Mac Airs" or "AirBooks" or some variation thereof. Same with the MacBook Pros - "Mac Pro Book" or "Mac Pro," but only about half the time do they actually get called "MacBook Pros."
In fairness, Apple's branding isn't at all the mess that you find at some tech companies which name their products like some automobile makers. Alongside the MacBook Pros and iPod touches we sell, we also sell products with nonsense names like the HP Envy 120 or the Canon Pixma MX892. Could be a BMW 330i for all that name means. Though the BMW undoubtedly has better brand recognition.
It makes me wonder what's causing the confusion. Apple's product names are pretty easy to keep track of, but for a sizeable segment of the customer base, they still don't mean anything. Customers know what they want, or have a general idea of what they want, and can easily identify on sight what they're looking for. But expecting them to articulate it with actual product names is a hit or miss proposition.
This makes it especially interesting when customers call for help on the phone. The first order of business is figuring out what product they have. And that's easier said than done, especially if they're looking for a specific accessory.
It's a good reminder for me that we who write about this stuff - and many, if not most, of our readers - live inside a comfortable bubble of technology and specialized technical literacy that still remains impenetrable for many people.
And many of those people have absolutely no interest in developing that literacy. Because for them, Macs and iOS devices are simple means to an end - it helps me make phone calls, or I can play Angry Birds on it, or I can surf the Web with it, or use it to talk with my grandkids on the other side of the country.
It's a sign of Apple's continued success as a mainstream consumer electronics company. The focus has shifted away from highly skilled people with specialized knowledge using these products, to general consumers who couldn't care less, as long as the products do what they want them to do.
At the end of the day, we at the store really don't care what people call the devices they're looking to buy or have serviced, as long as they're actually coming in the door and spending money.
But can Apple be doing more to simplify what its products are called?
I can't help but think all those people looking for "iTouches" are on to something.
Have something to say about this story? Leave a comment! Need help with something else? Ask in our forums!
Reader comments
Does Apple have a branding problem? In search of the iTouch
Definitely not. Peter has hit the nail on the head, I see it daily. Apple indeed has a manageable number of choices, and a relatively small number of product lines. No matter how they simplify it, people are lazy and not rigorous about their language in general. Not just in technology, but everywhere do we see this. As a computing professional for 3 decades, the toughest challenge I face on each project is human communication.
It is actually amazing that they have gotten this far into non-technical people's heads. It' a bit off, sure, but they have something that is more than just an 'Apple'. Ask people what kind of TV they have, and they will just give you the brand name and size; ask them what kind of fridge they have, and you will just get a brand name and a description; ask most people what kind of PC they have, and you'll just get a brand name. For most people, technology is not their hobby, they don't care about what the proper name for it is, they just want to use it. It is amazing that Apple has been able to get them to even remember part of it.
Nope. Nope nope nope. "iTouch" is one of the most common misnomers among the younger demographic. My daily driver smart device is a 5th Gen iPod touch, and when I moved to it soon after it came out, most people asked if it was the new "iTouch." Even CS people. Makes me cringe every time.
Hmm, is 40+ the younger generation? That's typically where I hear it. My wife says "thing" all the time in place of the specific word for the thing, bugs me to no end! Ah well, doesn't mean you give up trying.
I don't think there's a problem, those who don't obsess about technology don't care what they use or what is called (my wife and my mom and dad would be great examples). I would love to know what those who use Dells or Acers or Androids for that matter, call their devices.
Hi, I need help with my Dell XPS-720MHN-Z456 (no way in hell that happens). They just say my windows won't start.
So, even though Apple's lineup has logical and easy to remember names, those who just start using stuff and don't care who makes it so long as it does what they need, won't know what it is or care that much. Only techies see a MacBook Pro with Retina Display, the rest of humanity see "that skiny laptop with a great screen."
Agree with @renstein. Most product names mean absolutely nothing to the user; Apple's are relatively memorable, but if users still don't give a crap, that only increases my respect for users. FYI, at MacUser we call "iTouch" and its ilk "malappleprisms".
it's common. I've heard this often. I'm not sure it's "a branding problem" or even a problem in that i don't think it's stopping people from buying. But i do think you can expect this when every brand is some mish mash of mac, i, book, air, pad, pro, pod, phone, and touch. Also i think "air" and "touch" does nothing but confuse the layman. I honestly didn't know what they were talking about when they announce a new "mac pro." I was thought they meant the laptop until i began to understand it was a replacement for their servers. Adding these qualifiers like pro, air, retina, touch confuse the lay person. I also don't think the Apple website helps. it's pretty but organizationally it's not linear. You click on Mac, then MacBook Pro and get a picture filled info page. I think it would be better to go straight to a page of all laptops cheapest to most expensive. That's how people think. I'd leave the pretty picture filled page for maybe farther down or a seperate page.
People are inadvertently finding simpler ways to say these names that fits around their mouths more easily, and in this case Apple could do a lot worse than to pay attention to what the general public is telling them about names. Objectively speaking, "iTouch" is a better name and easier to say and remember than "iPod Touch." And "Mac Book Air" and "Mac Book Pro" could shed a syllable without losing clarity and vastly improving casual shopper recall.
Obviously many people who read a blog like this one will disagree: that's because the majority of people who read or seek out a specifically Apple-oriented blog are *by definition* high-information consumers compared with the general public. Sneering at regular punters for "not caring enough to know the difference" is not the Apple outlook and that sort of attitude doesn't help anyone.
I don't think Apple has problem - I think you do, or you're just trying to create one where none exists.
When people call an iPod Touch just an iTouch - that's just a shortened version for ease of conversation. It's the same thing that people do with companies like McDonald's, known affectionately to millions, if not billions, as Mickey D's. Or perhaps the best example is that funky new company with the really long name known as Federal Express. So many people casually shortened the name to FedEx that the company changed its own name - literally.
People adapt.
You should too.
It's not so much a problem as just par for the coarse when trying to appeal to the average consumer who, like many have said, don't care so much what a device is called so much as what it can do for them. I worked for an Apple Store as a "Specialist" (sales person) a few years back and one of Apple's points of emphasis (at least then, no idea now) was to find out what a customer wanted to do and direct them to the system (they called it a "solution") that best suited their needs. We actually weren't encouraged to up-sell to a higher priced machine, like say a 17" Macbook Pro, when the regular Macbook was all they needed (although we would obviously show them everything and let them decide what they wanted). We were encouraged to push add-ons like iWork and .Mac and Applecare, as well as accessories or printers, but not actually up-selling to an unnecessary system. Apple knows that the majority of customers are uneducated about their products, and our job was to do the educating.
Agreed, it should be called the iTouch.
A large part of the problem is many companies, not just Apple, keep *changing* their product names too -- after years of PowerBooks Apple suddenly introduced the iBook and then a few years later both names were replaced by MacBook, with stuff like Pro and Air and so forth tacked on over time. To a non-technical consumer who doesn't obsessively follow every Apple event that's all very confusing and so they just do the best they can with what they can recall about the name.
I know a very non-technical person who I've helped a lot with setting up and supporting her iMac, iPad, Airport Express and other things who cannot cope with Apple's product name capitalization issues -- every email she sends me has variations like I-Pad, i-mac, ipad, etc., every combination except the correct ones. She has *never* got it correct! I have to bite my tongue every time and stop myself from correcting her. Oh, and she always calls her Airport Express her "Airporter" for some reason...
As long as they keep buying your products however, it's not really a huge problem.
I don't think this is anything to do with Apple or their product names, it's just people nowadays especially in the US are just lazy, and ignorant. I know that sounds bad but I really think it's the case. Literacy skills have never been lower, IQ scores have never been lower, and education in general has never been in a worse state. Everything is as abbreviated and as short as it can be now.
It's the same with product names from other companies, or place names, or even famous people's names, no one seems to want to say the whole thing anymore. It's always initials or short form words like nicknames. There are lots of pop stars with single syllable names for instance, but even that is too long, or "too hard to say,"so the public shortens them with a nickname. it's not "Rhianna" it's "RiRi," it's not "50 cent" it's "50" or even "fiddy."
If your name has more than two syllables, no one wants to pronounce it. If your article is longer than three paragraphs, no one wants to read it. If a movie has dialogue scenes, it's "boring" whereas if the characters just mouth a lot of catch phrases, it's "fast paced."
I don't think Apple help themselves either. I've owned almost every iPhone and they've all just said iPhone on the back. How is someone like my mum supposed to know what model her's is other than "it's an iPhone"?
Also, try working out what RAM chips you need for an old Mac. It'll take you a while to work out what the hell model it was even if you thought you knew.
My favorite was someone that came in asking how much it was to replace a battery in a Touch nano. That was a new one even for me.
Excellent article.
I think the iPod touch should be the iPad nano. Ever since the iPod touch came out it has been so much more than an iPod. Don't get me wrong I loved my iPod. But now I would never buy a classic or a iPod Nano as I can do so much more with a touch, iPhone, or iPad. There is a reason we don't call iPads "iPod Touch XL". Apple should rebrand and Categorize it into the iPad line. Also "Apple TV" Should be "iTV".
Sent from the iMore App
Apple TV isn't iTV because the copyright is already held by someone else.
I think this is a consumer problem more than an apple problem. Yes, in my humble opinion I think people should know the name of anything the drop $500 on. I think they should read reviews and know what they are spending all their money on, especially for that price. I'm only 18 but I have not once paid that much for an item to not remember it's name. That's crazy to me.
I think apple has much much better branding than almost everyone else, and at this point it's up to the consumer to remember the name of that $500 device they carry on them every day.
I'm not surprised that a form of Ebonics transferred to the tech sector. The whole English language is butchered, why are you surprised product names are? Do you think most people know the name of their dell or acre laptops? I blame this on the people not the product, if the Zune (haha) survived, the same issue would be at hand...
Sent from the iMore App
good read, thanks :) I too hear iTouch all the time, I've kind of gotten used to it. Sometimes think 'why not drop the 'Pod' in it?', but it would certainly complicate the whole product line. We have a Phone series, a Pod series, a Pad series. Can't think of a way to simplify it even further.
As long as the iPod has been around I can't understand the confusion with iPods. If anything, a lot of people refer to any MP3 player as an iPod. Heck I can recall many people calling any touch screen phone an iPhone. Itouch... That's hilarious.
The problem is... People get dumber and dumber. Society dumbs down in an ever increasing way.
Having worked at the counter of a gas station I could recognize it myself.
Everything needs to be easy now. so they say. It's not only for convenience. It has become a necessity because many people have become unable to perform even the easiest most basic of tasks.
It got to the point where people are too dumb or too lazy to use a simple vending machine for coffee.
"Just put in the money and push the button of the product u'd like to drink". Too hard for way too many guys...
Coffee machine at Starbucks? Where?
You are so correct.
Yes, Logitech.
I guess ultimately the name "iPod" is dead because it's now more of an app that you expect to find in all Apple hardware, so rebranding to the "Itouch", "Iwatch" and "IPhone" makes sense. I think the "phone" should stay as it tells customers, ultimately, what it is.
Sent from the iMore App
This is happening because people don't really care about Apple products, they buy them because the have an Apple logo and because their friends also have one. They don't make an elaborate research about the products that they are buying, they buy it because they are trendy... Like the Wii 5 years ago, but then we know what happens... Trends...
This is a nice article and I really enjoyed it. I can understand people who are not interested in Apple may call a device like that. However, I really agree with those stupid names of cameras, headphones, and etc. I want to get a headset now so I ask my friends what I should get. Then, I get answers like M50, AAIFAFASJIFJAPD 6843-F, or whatever. (this does not include beats product though) I really hope other companies make neats names like Apple does. :)
I will go out on a limb here and say, most folks are RETARDED. Not only about what they own, but about technology as a whole.
I have done IT, and believe me the mere fact that they can get some things started is a miracle in it's self.
But if you think about the the name scheme, it is genius in every fashion for the moron masses out there. Now matter how they say it, it is known that of which they speak of.
iPhone, iTouch, iPad, iPod, it is all ubiquitous and it is, APPLE.
What the hell is a ZUNE!?
An iTouch is a keyboard. I hear iTouch all the time.
Most of the people commenting seem to be making it a thing for people who are less tech knowledgable. I don't know that is totally the case because I would definitely consider myself tech knowledgable and I call my iPhone 5 "i5". Why? because I can, it's short and I just like to call it that. I'm not calling it that because I don't know what the name of the device so obviously that is the case for some other people. I think it's more a combination of all of the things people have commented. I just find it funny when people say they are annoyed by people calling it i4, i5, iTouch. I find it funny because I'm one of those people who says i5. It's just a name people why are you getting so annoyed? I could understand someone calling a Samsung GS4 an iPhone 5. This is just being ignorant since it's a different device from a different brand. Also the fact that an Android user might not have a love of iOS.


text:
|February 22nd, 2009
Enlisting in the Army after a OTH discharge from USMC? (please help!) info
My partner is in the USMC, he got into trouble for making lots of stupid decisions and ended up in the brig. He has not been court martialed yet but I think we are looking at an Other Than Honorable discharge. He's been thinking about his mistakes, and says he would like to join the Army if they will take him. I heard from several people that the Army would take him, but when I googled OTH discharge it didn't seem very positive. I emailed an Army recruiter but haven't heard from them. I'm a Japanese civilian and know almost nothing about the military; my partner is in the brig and has limited resources so I was hoping someone here could give me correct information or point me in the right direction?
Thank you so much for any help!
|February 23rd, 2009
Hi Team Infidel, thank you for your response. Could you please tell me where you get your information from? (I'm not doubting you, it's just that I keep hearing different answers from different people and I would like to have an official source if possible..) thanks again!
|February 23rd, 2009
I am in the Army. Awaiting a Court Martial and a possible OTH, you will not hear from any recruiters, and he needs to find a different line of work.
|March 19th, 2009
Hey Midori-san
I'm sorry these guys aren't helping you its pretty shameful. And I don't have the information either, but try and find a contact for your spouses career planner and see if you could talk to him on behalf of your husband, if you can't talk to him/her try and get your husband to talk to a local career planner. Another good thing to do is make sure he is talking with a chaplain, that way he will have the good word of the chaplain to back up an enlistment.
Semper Fi
LCpl McMaster
\"As I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, \'cause I am the meanest sunofa :censored: in the valley.\" USMC
|March 19th, 2009
Notice to all who post in this thread: Please read the rules here before posting: Facts Only, NOT Fiction! - EVERYONE READ HERE BEFORE POSTING
In other words Facts only.
"It doesn't take a hero to order men into battle. It takes a hero to be one of those men who goes into battle." - Norman Schwarskopf, Commander of Desert Storm Operations
|March 20th, 2009
2. He's renlistment ineligable. Career Planner ain't doin anything for him. He's being seperated he has no career.
Sgt. Rafael Peralta ,United States Marine Corps
Company A, 1st Bn, 3rd Marine Regt, 3rd Marine Divison
We will never forget your valor and sacrifice.
Semper Fi !


text:
RIM May Split Business Apart
Article Comments
We all knew this was coming RIM is now trying to salvage what it can. Everyone who has money in the company is now trying to sell sell sell. All the signs were there but BB10 gave people hope.
- Re: Finally by HawkeyeOC


text:
This is nothing but the newest scam by out of work tower crews.
I had one show up at one of my site saying they had been hired by AT&T to clean up the site, well AT&T doesn't own the site, they just pick whatever sign is posted and claim that's the company that hired them.
They're nothing but copper and metal thieves.
If this happens call the police or sheriff immediately!
While I'm not sure about the legal mechanics, in the abstract I would not be above filing a police report for theft and property damage. Pretty sure that tower crew won't make such an egregiously stupid mistake again after getting a felony indictment against them.
I will admit that this is really bazaar. (and your company sold the site to who?)
This is the downside to selling off station assets for some quick cash. It's not
pretty, and a complete pain to boot.
This exact thing happened to me! I was driving to another one of my sites and was listening to another one of our stations when I heard it to silent. I drove up to that site and found a tower crew cleaning up their gear with all my antennas (except my broadcast antenna) in the back of their truck!
Copyright © 2015 NewBay Media, LLC. 28 East 28th Street, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10016 T


text:
True absolute linear and absolute rotary encoders revolutionise position feedback
RESOLUTE™, a true absolute fine pitch optical encoder which has excellent dirt immunity and an impressive ground-breaking specification
Renishaw is introducing RESOLUTE™, a true absolute, fine pitch optical encoder system that has excellent dirt immunity, and an impressive specification that breaks new ground in position feedback.
RESOLUTE™ is the world's first absolute encoder capable of 27-bit resolution at 36,000 rev/min. It has an astonishing market-leading resolution of just 1 nanometre at up to 100 m/s for both linear and rotary (angle) encoding applications.
True absolute encoding
The new system reads a unique single-track optical scale and offers further attractive benefits to machine designers by acquiring absolute position immediately upon switch-on, without the need for battery back-up. This completely eliminates the need for reference returns.
Unique combinations of ruggedness, ultra-high speed and exceptional resolution, mean that RESOLUTE™ is already attracting high levels of interest from manufacturers of high-performance lathes as well as slower-moving axes requiring the highest levels of precision and motion control integrity.
Outstanding positional stability
RESOLUTE™ can serve this wide range of markets because it offers more than just raw speed and high resolution.
The RESOLUTE™ absolute encoder uses sophisticated new optics to read the fine pitch 30 µm scale with impressive low noise levels (jitter <10 nm RMS) for outstanding positional stability, while the enhanced detection method intrinsically provides a very low sub-divisional error (SDE) of ±40 nm. The result is better surface finish of machined parts from CNC machine tools, better scanning and velocity control, and rock-solid servo stiffness on linear motors or rotary direct-drives when holding position.


text:
Sacramento, Calif.
Released On: January 25, 2013
NAPA, Calif. – The Bureau of Reclamation held a public meeting on January 17 to discuss the establishment of a Community Forum to promote public input regarding future recreation opportunities and services at Lake Berryessa. At the meeting, Reclamation identified ten stakeholder groups that would be represented by a seat on the Forum:
Local landowners/residents Local ranchers
Local businesses Land-based recreation
Water-based recreation Conservation Groups
Gateway Communities Water Quality/Supply
Game and Fish Management Public Services and Public Safety
Reclamation is requesting that stakeholder groups nominate individuals to represent the interests of their group. Self-nominations will also be accepted and should include a justification for wanting to represent a certain group. Nominations are requested by Thursday, Feb. 7, and should be in the form of a letter or email that outlines the interest and background of the nominee. Nominations should be kept to a maximum of one page. Please send nominations to Lake Berryessa Park Manager Jeff Laird, 5520 Knoxville Road, Napa, CA 94558 or to email@example.com.
Nominees should be individuals who can fairly represent the entire spectrum of an interest group, are results oriented, collaborative and courteous and have the ability to attend meetings at different locations and times. There will be no compensation for those selected to serve on the Forum.
The purpose of the Forum is to promote communication and collaboration in implementing the Lake Berryessa Visitor Services Plan Record of Decision and address issues of mutual concern. The immediate focus of the Forum is to establish recreation within the Lake Berryessa concession areas as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Reclamation anticipates holding regularly scheduled Forum meetings as plans are being developed and put in place for visitor services and recreation at Lake Berryessa during the 2013 recreation season. Reclamation's goal continues to be to provide safe and enjoyable recreation experiences for visitors to Lake Berryessa.
To be added to the Lake Berryessa email or mailing lists, please contact Janet Sierzputowski, Public Affairs Specialist, at 916-978-5100 (TTY 916-978-5608) or firstname.lastname@example.com.
Lake Berryessa is managed by Reclamation's Central California Area Office as part of the Solano Project. Additional information on Lake Berryessa is available at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/ccao/berryessa/.
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Accessibility | FOIA | Quality of Information | FAQ | Notices
DOI | Recreation.gov | USA.gov
Stay in touch with Reclamation: Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Flickr | Tumblr | Instagram | RSS | Multimedia


text:
iPhone 5 Screen Protector
Designed to minimise fingerprints with new material
Keeps the screen safe from scratches and dust
The application of surface is easy and fast
Product Overview
This screen protector is so thin it preserves the ultimate iPhone 5 design and there is no loss of screen quality and its virtually so thin its hard to feel the difference. The new surface is extra smooth for better navigation.
Payment Policy
- Only PayPal is Accepted
- Immediate Payment is required after the Winning Bid
Returns Policy
- This Item is Brand New
If the item arrives damaged please contact me for a resolution
Terms Of Sale
I always try to help my customers when things don't go to plan. Please contact me with any queries.
About Us
Black_Massa is


text:
Things to see and do - Mazamet
Leaving for France
Mazamet :
Unmissable tourist sites
Where to sleep?
Mazamet Hotel tips
LOGIS Hôtel le Boulevard from54 €Book
Mazamet Travel guide
Mazamet : Michelin's recommendations
Situated between the plains of the land of milk and honey and the Montagne Noire, Mazamet developed on the banks of the River Arnette. It still earns its living with the traditional wool pulling industry and numerous spinning factories and taweries can still be seen.
Tourist attractions Mazamet : Things to see and do
Panorama from Hautpoul
Hautpoul F - 81200 Mazamet
High above Arnette Gorge and its wool pulling factories, a fine view over Mazamet and the Thoré valley.
Mazamet Historical Museum
r. des Casernes F - 81200 Mazamet
The 19C Hôtel Fuzier houses the Tourist Office and an exhibition on the Cathar religion whose members took refuge in the towns and castles of Occitania (such as Hautpoul) on the Tarn side of the Montagne Noire. Historical reconstructions, sound envir..
Church of the Sacred Heart
av. Jean-Mermoz F - 81200 Mazamet
This church built in 1959 has a fine stained-glass window in the baptistery, the work of Dom Ephrem, a monk at the abbey of En Calcat.
Hotels Mazamet
LOGIS Hôtel le Boulevard
24, bd Soult. F - 81200 MAZAMET
"The hotel ""Le Boulevard"" offers guests the comfort of 14 rooms equipped with bathroom, WC, direct telephone, automatic alarm clock and television. Friendliness and family warmth are the key words in our hotel. Two dining r..
Restaurants Mazamet
Mets et Plaisirs
7 av. Albert Rouvière F - 81200 Mazamet
A fine townhouse and a classic setting with mouldings and wood panelling. At the stove, the owner creates fresh, well-made dishes using select ingredients. A delightful dining experience.


text:
Matt Hinson was having trouble helping a customer create a specialized views in the ConfigMgr 2012 admin console. And, then he found AdminUI.ConsoleBuilder.exe in the %ConfigMgrInstallPath%\AdminConsole\Bin directory. After working with the tool for a while to get a better understanding of how it worked, Matt put up a post showing how to work with the tool to create a console to your liking or requirements.
This is a great post and highlights a hidden feature of ConfigMgr 2012:
Using ConfigMgr 2012 Console Builder – Create Custom Console Nodes


text:
Showing 1-25 of 42 results
Korg MS-20M kit$1,700.004.5 stars
Korg SQ-1 Sequencer$150.004.5 stars
10th Mar 2015 | 11:24
Plenty of functionality in a compact, cheap and portable battery-powered package.
Korg ARP Odyssey4.5 stars
Korg Electribe Music Production Station$550.004.5 stars
Korg Mini Kaoss Pad 2S$200.004 stars
10th Dec 2014 | 11:11
It's just the right size to fit in a Christmas stocking; time to drop some ...
Korg Volca Sample$224.004.5 stars
Korg RK100S$899.004.5 stars
Korg MS-20 kit4.5 stars
Korg Taktile 49$490.004.5 stars
25th Jun 2014 | 10:00
A good range of control options with a set of unexpected tricks to get your ...
Korg tinyPIANO$250.003.5 stars
Korg littleBits$159.004 stars
Korg Kross 61$699.004 stars
Korg Volca Bass$182.004.5 stars
Korg Volca Beats$182.004.5 stars
Korg Volca Keys$182.004.5 stars
2nd Oct 2013 | 13:00
The Volca synth is revolutionary at this price point. Everybody should own one!
Korg KingKORG Synthesizer$1,549.004 stars
Korg MS-20 mini$860.005 stars
Korg microKEY 25$70.003.5 stars
Korg microKorg XL+$750.004 stars
8th Nov 2012 | 16:02
The updated XL is fresh for 2013 but retains all the features which made the ...
Korg Monotron Duo$70.004 stars
28th Jan 2012 | 19:20
An extra oscillator and new ribbon modes make the Duo first-class for melodies


text:
MONDAY - April 13, 2009
RALEIGH - United States Attorney George E.B. Holding announced that in federal court on April 10, 2009, Chief United States Judge Flanagan sentenced another defendant from the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) investigation entitled Hornet's Nest. TYRICE NATHANIEL DOUGLAS, 25, of Sanford, North Carolina, received 164 months imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release.
In the course of executing an arrest warrant on co-conspirator Daryl Glover, law enforcement agents found Glover leaving a residence in Fayetteville, North Carolina, with DOUGLAS. Both were placed under arrest; Glover for the warrant and DOUGLAS for possession of marijuana, which was found under the seat of the vehicle they were in. Glover's arrest was precipitated by the December, 2006, seizure of approximately 134 kilograms of cocaine and nearly $1.5 million in cash from outside a home in Robeson County, North Carolina. The investigation revealed that following
the seizure and resulting interruption in Glover's source of supply, DOUGLAS introduced Glover to a different source in February, 2007, who then began supplying cocaine and marijuana to Glover. At the residence from which Glover and DOUGLAS were leaving on the day of their arrests, approximately 475 pounds of marijuana, one kilogram of crack cocaine, and over $10,000 in cash was seized.
Mr. Holding commented, "This investigation reveals how North Carolina has become a significant transhipment point for domestic and international drug trafficking organizations and it shows the inter-relationship of these groups. We will continue to pursue these organizations in an attempt to rid our district of illicit drugs and the crimes that accompany drug trafficking."
Rodney G. Benson, Special Agent in Charge of the DEA Atlanta Field Division stated, "DEA wants to send a clear message, in that when you deal drugs, you will be brought to justice. This large-scale cocaine and marijuana distributor was driven by greed and power. Today he stands powerless and will spend well-deserved time in prison. This case would not have been possible without the high level of cooperation between our law enforcement counterparts."
Investigation of the cases was conducted by the Drug Enforcement Administration–Wilmington, the North Carolina Highway Patrol, the Cumberland County Bureau of Narcotics, Fayetteville
Police Department, as well as the Drug Enforcement Administration–Dallas, Texas and Drug Enforcement Administration–Corpus Christi, Texas.
News releases are available on the U. S. Attorney's web page at www.usdoj.gov/usao/nce


text:
The final draft constitution has been approved by the constituent assembly late last night. It is now ready for referendum by the mid of December.
The final draft constitution rules several political principles, including that the official religion of the country is Islam and that the principles of Islamic Sharia are the main source for legislation.
Al-Azhar is an independent institution and its opinion is taken on affairs related to the Islamic Sharia. Al-Azhar's grand imam is unshakable, it stipulates.
The political system is based on the principles of democracy, consultation, pluralism, peaceful power transition, separation between powers and respect of human rights.
No political parties may be established on the basis of discriminating between the people over their sex, origin or religion.
As for economic principles, the draft says that the national economy aims to achieve integrated development, ensure social justice, solidarity and welfare, safeguard the rights of workers, ensure a fair distribution of wealth, raise the standard of living, eradicate poverty and unemployment and increase employment opportunities.
The national economy's goal is also to ensure equitable sharing of the revenues, link pay to production, lessen the disparities between incomes by introducing a maximum wage and guaranteeing a minimum wage, all to ensure a decent life for every citizen.
Agriculture is a main component of the national economy, the draft also says.
All types of natural wealth belong to the people, and the people are entitled to the returns. The state is committed to maintain and properly use such wealth without prejudice to the rights of future generations. All financial assets without owners are deemed owned by the state.
The Nile River and groundwater resources are national wealth. The State is committed to preserve, protect and develop them.
According to the draft constitution, workers hold a share in the management and profits of projects, and are committed to the development of production. Workers make up fifty percent of the membership of elected boards of directors in the public sector, and eighty percent of the membership of boards of directors in cooperatives, agricultural and industrial societies.
Private property is inviolable. It performs a social duty in serving the national economy without any kind of deviation, exploitation or monopoly. Private property may not be sequestrated except in cases defined by law and through a court order. Such property may not be confiscated except for the public good and against a fair compensation to be paid in advance. The right to inheritance is guaranteed, all as regulated by the law.
General confiscation of funds is prohibited, and specific confiscation may not be carried out except by a judicial order.
Part II - Public rights, freedoms and duties:
Human dignity is a right that all persons are entitled to. Society and the state guarantee that human dignity receives respect and protection. No citizen may be subjected to contempt or humiliation.
Personal freedom is a natural right that is guaranteed and inviolable.
With the exception of cases of flagrante delicto, no person may be arrested, searched, incarcerated, deprived of freedom in any way and/or confined unless by virtue of an order issued by a competent judge.
Any person whose freedom is restricted is provided with reasons in writing within twelve hours, and shall be referred to the investigating authority within twenty-four hours as of the time such person's freedom is restricted, and shall not be interrogated except in the presence of the person's attorney. Otherwise an attorney is to be named.
Any person who is detained or whose freedom is restricted may appeal before the courts against said measures. The matter must be decided within one week. Failure to do so will result in an immediate release of the detainee.
The law governs the duration and reasons of the pretrial detention, cases of pretrial that require compensation, and cases in which compensation is due for the execution of a penalty in a case where a second judgment is made to cancel the first.
Any person placed under arrest or detained or whose freedom is restricted in any way shall receive treatment that respects human dignity. Such person may not be subjected to intimidation, coercion and/or physical or mental abuse. No person may be detained or arrested unless placed in a humanly decent and healthy place that is subject to judicial supervision.
Any person responsible for the occurrence of any of the aforementioned shall be punished in accordance with the law.
Any confession proved to have been made under any of the aforementioned circumstances or under threat are deemed null and void.
The freedom of belief is guaranteed. The state guarantees the freedom to establish houses of worship for divine religions in a manner to be governed by law. Defaming the messengers and prophets of Allah is prohibited.
Freedom of thought and opinion are guaranteed. Each individual has the right to express thoughts and opinions verbally, in writing, by illustration or through any other means of publication and expression.
The freedom of the press, printing, publication and all other media channels is guaranteed and the censorship of publications is prohibited. Exceptions may be made at times during which a state of war is declared where newspapers, publications and media channels will be subjected to limited censorship.
The freedom of issuing and owning all kinds of newspapers by natural and legal persons is guaranteed on the condition that notification is provided. The establishment of radio and television broadcasting stations as well as digital media channels is governed by law.
The participation of citizens in public life is a national duty. All citizens have the right to elect, run for elections and state opinion in referenda.
The state guarantees the soundness and impartiality of the election process. The state shall, in the database of electors, include the names of citizens satisfying the conditions required for electing, without a need for a relevant request to be submitted.
The state guarantees the extension of due care to veterans, persons injured during or as a result of war, and families of martyrs of and persons injured during the 25 January Revolution and in the course of performing national duty. Such persons, as well as their children and spouses, take priority over others with respect to employment opportunities as regulated by law.
No individual may be a member of both the upper and lower houses of parliament at the same time, the draft constitution stipulates.
The Court of Cassation shall be competent to decide upon the validity of membership of Parliament members provided that challenges are to be referred to the court within a period that does not exceed thirty days from the date of announcing the final results of the elections. The court must decide the matter within sixty days from the date on which it receives the appeal.
A decision on revoking membership shall be issued by a majority vote of two-thirds of the chamber to which the member belongs.
Any member of Parliament and their family members shall submit to the relevant chamber financial disclosures every year and when commencing or leaving the job. If any members receive financial or in-kind gifts, the ownership of such gifts shall be transferred to the public treasury of the State.
Excluding a case of flagrant delicate, no Member of Parliament may be subject to criminal procedures except with a prior permission by the chamber to which such member belongs. If the Parliament is not in session, permission shall be taken from the chamber's secretariat and the chamber shall be notified of the decision as soon as the chamber is in session.
Parliamentary sessions shall be public. However, a meeting in camera may be held at the request of the President of the Republic, or the Prime Minister, or at least twenty members. The Parliament, shall then decide whether the debate on the question submitted thereto shall take place in a public meeting or in a meeting in camera.
The lower house of parliament may make a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister or any of the Prime Minister's deputies or any of the Ministers. A motion of no confidence shall not be made except after a question is addressed, and upon the proposal of one-tenth of the Council's members.
The President of the Republic may not dissolve the lower house unless such action is deemed necessary, provided that the President provides a reasoned decree and after calling a public referendum.
The President shall issue a decree to halt sessions and offer a referendum within twenty days. Should the majority of participants in such referendum approve such solution, the President calls voters for new elections within thirty days from the date of issuing the decision of dissolution and the council convenes within ten days following the completion of elections.
In all cases, the lower house cannot be dissolved during the session of the first year.
The President shall be elected for a four-year term, and shall not be re-elected except for one additional term. Measures taken for the new presidential elections shall start at least ninety days before the expiration of the current presidential term.
The person to be elected President shall be an Egyptian citizen born to Egyptian parents and enjoy civil and political rights. Such person may not be married to a non-Egyptian.
The person's age shall not be less than 40 years on the date of announcing the beginning of candidature.
For an applicant to be accepted as a candidate to presidency, such applicant shall be supported by at least 20 elected members from the two chambers of the Parliament, or supported by at least twenty thousand eligible voters from at least ten governorates, with a minimum of one thousand endorsements from each governorate.
The President is the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. He can declare war, after consulting the National Defense Council and upon the approval of the lower house of parliament.
The President cannot send armed forces outside the State except upon the approval of the majority of the members of the lower house.
The President can proclaim a state of emergency, after having obtained the approval of the government.
Such proclamation must be submitted to the lower house within seven days so that the parliament may take a decision. In case of prorogation, the parliament shall be called to convene immediately to review such proclamation without prejudice to the date set in the previous paragraph. In case of dissolution, the proclamation of the state of emergency decision shall be submitted to the upper parliament, and must be approved by the majority of its members.
The draft constitution stipulates the formation of a National Defense Council to be presided by the President, saying its membership should include the speakers of both chambers of parliament, the prime minister, ministers of defense, interior affairs, foreign affairs and finance in addition to head of the general intelligence service, the Chief of Staff, commanders of the Navy and Air Forces and Air Defense, the Chief of the Armed Forces Operations and Chief of Military Intelligence and Reconnaissance.
Council shall examine matters pertaining to the methods of ensuring the safety and security of the country. The minister of defense is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.


text:
Even when an orthodontist does offer 3-D imaging, not all patients are interested. Dr. Leslie Pitner, an orthodontist in Columbia, S.C, charges a third more for 3M Unitek's Incognito. Both its brackets and wires are customized, and placed discreetly on the inside of teeth.
As for the Incognito patients, "I think they are probably doing it, because they are invisible," Pitner said. "It's customized, it's added value."
Pitner never promises that using Incognito braces will speed treatment. "Boy, people hold you to that," she said.
SureSmile, which Graber uses, has been available since 2004. A patient sits upright in a machine for less than a minute, then a complete a 3-D model, showing teeth and their roots, is created. The machine is known as a CBCT scanner, because it uses a technology called cone beam computed tomography. Dr. Marc Lemchen, an orthodontist in Manhattan, uses such a machine and says that it is helpful in seeing teeth that have not yet erupted, and in assessing whether teeth impinge on one another.
The CBCT scanner is expensive, though—$150,000 to $200,000. Both SureSmile and OrthoCAD iQ also sell hand-held scanning devices that offer an alternative, but the former takes 30 minutes and the latter 5 minutes of the patient's time.
Bishop said it was a shame that the technology was not catching on more quickly, since it has proved so useful. On the plus side, he said, "3-D imaging is here to stay."
Where to Find High-tech Braces
Adoption of 3-D imaging for orthodontia is still spotty across the country. Here's how to find a doctor near you.
Nationwide, 1,400 orthodontists use Insignia, the customized system that makes specially made brackets, unlike most competitors. Find a doctor at insigniasmile.com. Roughly 550 orthodontists use OrthoCAD iQ, a simulation software made by Cadent. To find one, call 800-577-8767.
SureSmile's robotically bent custom wires are used by 300 practices nationwide, roughly 120 of which have an upright scanning machine to get a 3-D model that shows teeth and their roots. (The rest use a handheld scanner.) Find orthodontists at www.suresmile.com.
Doctors who use 3M Unitek's Incognito braces, which adhere to the inside of teeth and are thus invisible, can be found on the Incognito site.


text:
Rwanda - Travel and Tourism
The low rolling green mountains in the center of the country have lent Rwanda the nickname "land of a thousand hills".
Only in Rwanda can you combine two awesome activities: gorilla trekking and volcano exploration.
The weather in Rwanda is fairly stable all year long, with the exception of the upper slopes, which tend to be cooler.
American citizens are not required to have visas to enter Rwanda if they are staying for under 90 days.
There is no better way to experience the diversity and richness of Africa's people, cultures, and landscapes than through video.
Rwanda is a relatively safe country; contrary to popular belief, its crime level is low and the police are notably polite and well-trained in case of any problems.
Kinyrawanda is the official language of Rwanda. While English is prevalent in official settings, French is slowly losing popularity.
The National Museum in Butare contains an important collection for the study of the cultural evolution of the country.