text:
Is your resume in need of a little disruption?
Startups are all about
making things work better.
Our resume writing service is all about doing that for your CV.
StartUpHire is the place to find Application-&-Systems-Engineer jobs in and near . Review the list below of Application-&-Systems-Engineer jobs. These Application-&-Systems-Engineer jobs represent some of the most rewarding careers available. You can refine your job search for Application-&-Systems-Engineer jobs in by adding a job title, company name, or keyword to the search box above … or click the "Advanced Search" link for more options. Don't see the employment opportunity you're looking for? Check back soon for more Application-&-Systems-Engineer jobs in , or sign up for an email alert (link in upper left) to receive periodic updates on new Application-&-Systems-Engineer jobs in , .
Tier II Application Support Engineer ? Contract/Temporary Apply to this position. Location: Minneapolis Department: Operations Reports To: Application Support Lead Who is RedBrick Health? RedBrick Health is inspired by a singular purpose: to help people be healthy. We are a6/14/2016 Minneapolis, MN Save This Job
Zuora is the global leader in Relationship Business Management solutions. Zuora delivers the subscription billing, commerce and finance capabilities that have become the industry standard to help companies transition to the Subscription Economy. Enterprises and emerging5/17/2016 Foster City, CA Save This Job
Full-TimeUnited StatesArgentinaFully Remote Auth0 is a rapidly growing startup building identity solutions, so we have to pay close attention to security. That's why we're looking for an application security engineer to join us in keeping the company and our customers safe. As6/2/2016 Buenos Aires, AR Save This Job
New York, NY We?re seeking a Core (Application Infrastructure) Engineer to join one of New York?s fastest growing companies. You'll be working in a fast-paced, fun environment, where your work will have a tremendous impact on daily operations and long term strategy. The ideal5/1/2016 New York, NY Save This Job
Location:NY-East Greenbush Company Order Number:826 # of openings:1 Description About Us: We are headquartered in Colorado, with 1 Canadian office and 2 other U.S. offices. Our N.A. offices include roughly 350 employees. We also have 3 offices in Europe, including a substantial6/14/2016 East Greenbush, NY Save This Job
Campbell, California, United States Sales DESCRIPTION DreamFactory Software is the world's leading publisher of rich web applications for cloud platforms. Our products combine the agility of on demand delivery with the performance of desktop applications. DreamFactory delivers5/9/2016 Campbell, CA Save This Job
Alkami has an immediate need for several seasoned application support engineers that have customer facing cloud/SaaS experience. This position will be responsible for researching and resolving application issues reported by customers and partners. Qualified candidates must have5/9/2016 Plano, TX Save This Job
Senior FPGA Verification Engineer We are looking to hire Senior Verification Engineer with hands-on experience, excellent communication skills and leadership skills. As a Senior verification Engineer you'll help define the verification methodology for th6/27/2016 Redmond, WA Save This Job
Managed Services Engineer, Web and Database Security, Irving, TX Managed Services Irving, TX, United StatesApply Now Send Jobvite IT Security is a big deal. It?s in the news, growing rapidly, a critical tool for every company and our specialty. Now is the time to be part of6/15/2016 Austin, TX Save This Job
Location: Pittsburgh, PA Department: Product Engineering Type: Full Time Min. Experience: Senior Manager/Supervisor Company Overview Forever is driven by the belief that family stories should never be lost, and families should be able to connect and share in secure,6/28/2016 Pittsburgh, PA Save This Job
Requisition Number16-0024 Post Date5/12/2016 TitleApplication Engineer CityAlpharetta DescriptionApplication Engineer The Application Engineer job family represents positions that are highly focused in supporting business applications. They perform installations, configuration,6/2/2016 Alpharetta, GA Save This Job
Engineers, Sales (SE) New York, NY, United StatesApply Now Send Jobvite Title: Sr. Sales Engineer, Strategic Accounts IT Security is a big deal. It?s in the news, growing rapidly, a critical tool for every company and our specialty. Now is the time to be part of an6/15/2016 New York, NY Save This Job
Engineers, Sales (SE) Redwood City, CA, United StatesApply Now Title: Sales Engineer IT Security is a big deal. It?s in the news, growing rapidly, a critical tool for every company and our specialty. Now is the time to be part of an organization that is changing the game.5/16/2016 Redwood City, CA Save This Job
Application Engineer: Participate at the design, implementation and support of cutting-edge Electronic Design Automation (EDA) tools used to create, simulate, and verify physical design layout of Very Large-Scale Integrated (VLSI), CMOS and ASIC circuits, including synthesis of5/7/2016 Santa Clara, CA Save This Job
Posting Date: Jul 08,2012 Job Description As a senior application engineer you will work closely with the account teams as well as the product development team. You will troubleshoot and remove technical obstacles, develop and deliver technical presentations on new features6/13/2016 San Jose, CA Save This Job
Application Engineer - Santa Clara, CA - Austin, Texas; Taiwan; Korea; India Preferred knowledge/experience in the following areas: Design and implement integrated circuits, and support design flows using Electronic Design Automation tools, including formal verification5/7/2016 Santa Clara, CA Save This Job
Moki is currently seeking a Sales Engineer to join our rapidly growing team. You will work in a high performance team environment to drive business development and sales growth by providing technical expertise and product evaluation support to prospective customers and the Moki5/29/2016 Lehi, UT Save This Job
Marketing San Jose, CA A10 Networks is seeking exceptional Technical Marketing Engineer for our Next-generation Application Networking and Security solutions. You will deliver competitive analysis, support new product launches, provide hands-on demonstrations, and provide5/25/2016 San Jose, CA Save This Job
SAN FRANCISCO Plastiq (pronounced "Plastic") is a fast-growing tech company changing the landscape of payments, empowering you to use your cards everywhere cards aren?t accepted. Starting with a vision to drive new payment choice for tuition, Plastiq has evolved into a service5/18/2016 San Francisco, CA Save This Job
SpaceX was founded under the belief that a future where humanity is out exploring the stars is fundamentally more exciting than one where we are not. Today SpaceX is actively developing the technologies to make this possible, with the ultimate goal of enabling human life on6/6/2016 Hawthorne, CA Save This Job


text:
Dissertation Award in Nuclear Physics
To recognize a recent Ph. D. in Nuclear Physics. The award consists of $2,500 and an allowance for travel to the annual Spring Meeting of the Division of Nuclear Physics of the American Physical Society, at which the award will be presented. The award will be given annually.
Deadline: Friday, July 1, 2016
2016 Recipient:
Chun Shen
|Past Recipients:

subset: commoncrawl


text:
George Douglas Boynton
Position: DB
Height: 5-11 Weight: 190 lbs.
Born: July 6, 1937 in Los Angeles, CA
High School: Quanah
College: East. New Mexico, Texas A&M-Commerce
Drafted by the Baltimore Colts in the 16th round (191st overall) of the 1960 NFL Draft.
Weighted Career AV (100-95-...): 2 (11632nd overall since 1950)


text:
Resources By Record
Search By Records
Record Type
Chesapeake Public Records
Chesapeake County is an area on the southernmost border of Virginia that boasted a population of more than 222,000 as of the 2010 census. The county is a hub of U.S. history, although it was not officially founded until 1963. Prior to that time, it was established at South Norfolk County in 1919 and became a city in 1922. Chesapeake County public records are available on individuals who were born, died and married in the area throughout those years, offering a glimpse of lives that were touched by the pristine beauty that is now known as the City of Chesapeake County. Chesapeake County gov public records can be located through a wealth of sources, including government offices and websites specifically designed for this purpose.
There are a number of ways to conduct a Chesapeake County, VA public records search, including:
Chesapeake County Public Records at the County Clerk's Office
The Chesapeake County Clerk's office is the go-to destination for an in-person and online public records search in Chesapeake County involving real estate and land transactions. This office also offers a wealth of information for the general public involving court records, assumed names and judgments. This office offers multiple ways to access Chesapeake, VA gov public records, including in person and through their online services. A subscription fee is required to access the online system to search for their county-specific Virginia public records.
Finding Chesapeake County Public Records through the Department of Health
The Virginia Department of Health also provides a variety of Chesapeake County, Virginia public records, including birth and death certificates, marriage licenses and divorce decrees. Birth certificates in Chesapeake County become public information after 100 years, while Chesapeake County death, divorce and marriage records become public after just 50 years. Prior to this time period, access to public records in Chesapeake County is only available to authorized individuals, including the person on the certificate, family members and designated representatives.
Online Chesapeake County Public Records Searches are Easy, Convenient
To make Chesapeake public records searches as easy and convenient as possible, online tools have been made available. The County Clerk's office offers their own online public records search for Chesapeake County, VA, which requires a subscription to the service to initiate. The Virginia Department of Health has also made vital records available online, by contracting with an Internet access company known as VitalChek.com. This tool can be used to access Chesapeake County, VA public records anytime of the day and from any location. There is an additional fee to use the VitalChek service to find public records online for Chesapeake.


text:
Re: Wading into the deep end of the pool
- From: "Rolf" <rolf.aalberg@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 12:50:49 +0200
Mike Hammond wrote:
Okay - I'm going to try to address each of the substantive points in
your - sheesh - 50 responses to my post.
Why? Just because some religious folks who are ignorant of science
insist on it?
I'm in agreement that some religious folks are ignorant of science.
Probably true that a lot of non-religious are the same way.
However, it seems unnecessary to assume that if someone has a
religious view that conflicts with the scientific consensus on the
nature of history, and wants to defend an alternative interpretation
of scientific data, that such a person is being ignorant.
To the question of why (I've been persuaded towards a 6 day
interpretation) - it seems to me that I've been ignoring what seems to
be the plain meaning of Genesis 1 and 2 (6 literal days > ~6000 year
old universe) solely because there is scientific data that suggests a
much, much older age. In other words, I've been working backwards
from scientific data, trying to force other interpretations into the
Bible to make the Bible match the data. I've decided to change my
approach to front-to-back - working from what "some religious folks"
suggest is a more faithful reading of the Bible, and working forward
to see what that would mean for consideration of the existing data
that is out there (on which I admit being woefully undereducated).
Why? What makes the Bible reliable? Don't say "God" because there
is no
evidence that God had anything at all to do with the Bible.
That one is just a matter of faith for me. I just assume it's
reliable as my axiomatic starting point. My life experiences
corroborate statements I see in the Bible to such a sufficient degree
that I'll take the rest on faith. That said, I imagine this isn't the
a forum designed for debating the reliability of the Bible. I just
want to see what happens if I start from a 6-day creation, 6,000 year-
old universe perspective and then look at the data from that
Why would you accept claims about the inerrancy of the Bible when
clear, overwhelming evidence shows that the Bible is chock full of
fantasy stories, nonsense, wishful thinking and other untrustworthy
claims -- particularly if read in the modern "literal" sense? Modern
literalists have twisted the Bible beyond recognition, beyond sense.
I'm not overwhelmed, as of yet. I'll agree that there are stories
(Jonah and the 'fish', for a simple example) that seem to contradict
common sense. I'm unconvinced that there isn't some reasonable
explanation for each. But there's another topic for Talk.Theology
Bruce Salem is not surprised at your background.
Who's Bruce Salem?
Science is about testable hypotheses and evidence.
Totally agree.
If you prefer dogma that can't be verified and that is not
amenable to scientific scrutiny, there's nit much we can talk about.
That's an interesting one. I think that any assertion about the age
of the universe (or just the earth) is a kind of dogma that can't be
verified, but that nonetheless is amenable to scientific scrutiny. I
mean, the universe doesn't have a "born-on" date stamped into it
anywhere. There's no digital picture of the big bang.
You mean you can ignore all the evidence? Isn't that something like a mental
there's no digital photo of God creating the universe.
So called creation scientists insist that science actually supports
their literal biblical views.
What's wrong with that? Evolutionary scientists insist that science
actually supports their evolutionary views. Heliocentric scientists
insisted that science supported their heliocentric views. Flat-earth
scientists insist...
Isn't it obvious that most scientists interpret evidence in a way that
confirms their views until they encounter data that absolutely can't
be reconciled with their views?
Unfortunately they can't produce any scientific evidence that
supports their views. And neither can you.
I certainly can not - having no technical training in the relevant
fields. But perhaps they can. And here's the big one - perhaps
evolutionary-minded scientists can. Scientific data is scientific
data - it doesn't have a view. I think it's possible that
evolutionary scientists may one day find some piece of data that just
can't be reconciled with an old-universe perspective. Don't you?
The question is, should Genesis be interpreted as a news report --
that is, as a literally true,
factual account of a series of historical events -- or should it be
interpreted in a *non*-literal manner, perhaps as a metaphor or
something else?
Interesting question. I've been largely content with the 'metaphor'
description for some time, but I'm going to try to see what comes of
assuming the news report position.
<snip>If you don't think there's only one creation story, tell me,
please: Which did God create first, humans or horses?
>> This is a bit of a problem for literal interpretation of Genesis,The upshot is, *both* Genesis 1 *and* Genesis 2 *cannot* be
literal, historical Truth, because by a literal, historical
reading, *those two chapters of Genesis CONTRADICT EACH OTHER*.
not so?
I think it's an interesting puzzle, but I can only assume that
theologians have long ago found a satisfying explanation. If I was
researching horse fossils, maybe that would be something I would have
to explore, but until then, this isn't enough to make me throw out the
whole creation narrative.
Perhaps God is smart enough to use metaphors, or even speak in
parables which convey Truth even tho they aren't news reports. Or
perhaps not; you'll have to make that call yourself.
Agreed - and it's certainly true that the Bible uses metaphor and
parables to convey its principles. But that, on its own, doesn't give
me license to assume that the Genesis account is metaphorical.
I have never seen any reasonable argument that this interpretation
essential to the core values and beliefs of Christianity. There
are those,
some post here, who adhere to that and to more extreme views along
the lines
that if you accept evolution that automatically makes you an
I've recently listened to a speaker who argued that critical Christian
beliefs about sin and death and redemption make no sense without a
literal 6-day creation. I haven't done the homework on that myself,
but it brought my attention to the fact that I've been ignoring the
By the way, I don't think accepting evolution makes one an atheist.
I cannot see that even given the premise that the Bible is inspired
by God
it is at all necessary for it to be taken literally.
Agreed. When the Bible says God shelters us under his wings, it
doesn't mean he's a giant chicken. Lots of metaphorical language in
the Bible.
Fallible men wrote it and since the various parts were written it
has been translated and edited
many times and the context of the words as written is not the modern
context, so how you can say that every word is literally God's
intent by
reading the modern meanings of the English words is beyond reason.
This is
clearly illustrated every time the literalists cannot agree on the
An interesting topic for Talk.BibleAuthorship. My original post
claims that the text is inerrant in its original form - and again, I'm
just going on faith for that one, supported by corroborating personal
experience. Of course translation problems occur with any language.
Bible scholars are forever digging into the original language,
consulting the original manuscripts, to figure out what was going on
linguistically. But I'd argue that when literalists can't agree on
the intent of the Bible, that says more about fallible literalists,
and less about the Bible.
The literalist view forces you to choose and the choice often taken
is that
the Bible is authoritative on all things including science and thus
science that contradicts it must be false. You then spend your
life running
and hiding from the logical inconsistencies in the Book and between
view and observable reality. It must be deeply troubling to have
censor so
many observations and twist and turn to avoid yawning logical traps.
Forces you to choose? Agree. Asserting the Bible is true and
scientific observation doesn't mean what evolutionists argue it
means? Sure, why not? We're trying to answer unfathomable questions
of the nature of everything by scratching in the dust of a dinky
little planet in the middle of nowhere, cosmologically speaking.
Shouldn't we give each other a little bit of grace over the "yawning
logical traps?" Are you really asserting that evolution has no
yawning logical traps?
Keep your head above water by continuing to think and to observe.
Would He
give you a good brain and then require you not to use it?
I don't think so. Somewhere in the Bible, God says to mankind, "Come,
let us reason together." I'm on board with that plan.
You raise an interesting question of theology: how do you go about
determining if one biblical interpretation is better than another?
That's easy - you go read the FAQs at Talk.Hermeneutics. Just
<snip interesting discussion of Isaiah>
So, what is your argument why a plain reading should be preferred
to a metaphorical (or folkloric) reading?
Not my argument, exactly - or at least, not yet. See my earlier
comment on consistency with certain New Testament statements, etc.
you're going to have to explain why He *cannot* have spoken
metaphorically in Genesis, and why
he allowed the fabric of creation to contradict His account of it.
I'm not trying to argue that God cannot have spoken metaphorically in
Genesis (it's clear the Bible uses metaphor elsewhere), but just that
he also could have spoken plainly and directly, and that Genesis
mostly seems to contain the plain kind of speaking. Abraham went
here, he camped on such-and-such a hill, etc. Surely it could be
metaphorical, but it *could* also mean exactly what it says.
Most creationists resolve this by creating God in their image: if
they cannot image how God could use evolution to create mankind,
God must not have been able to figure this out either and thus had
resort to miracles. As theologies go, I think you can do better.
Interesting - I'm actually exploring the opposite problem. I think
that a lot of creationists are *too* imaginative - looking for
complicated ways of making the Bible describe a billions-of-years-old
creation and compensate for scientific data about evolution and
cosmology, instead of poking at the data to see if the data can be
described in a way that matches what I'm calling a plain reading of
My own preferred counterexample to plain literalism is this:
Song of Solomon 4:4 - "Thy neck is like the tower of David builded
an armoury, whereon there hang a thousand bucklers, all shields of
mighty men."
Now if read literally...
Let me stop you right there a second. It seems clear to me that this
text is using simile to make a comparison suggesting the strength of
the neck of the person being described. There's lots of text in the
Bible that uses standard literary devices (metaphor, simile, etc.) to
make vivid and interesting comparisons. I don't think this is a
counterexample, except inasmuch as you should not take text literally
that plainly is not meant to be.
The question now remains: which
parts of the Bible are literal and which are metaphorical,
or analogical? If someone can come up with a way to do this
principledly, more power to them.
I believe that is the art and science of hermeneutics. I have a
friend who teaches a class on it at Moody Bible Institute here in
Chicago. But to answer your question, if you're suggesting I think
all Biblical text should be read literally, rest assured I don't.
<snip>Hi Mike, welcome on board!
I am looking forward to see what questions you may ask. I may
attempt to
reply too if I think I have anything of value to say.
Thanks! Look forward to chatting with you. I agree with everything
you said, though I'd qualify your comments only by suggesting that
while faith ought not to trump facts and reason, I feel it should
inform what one believes about facts and the way in which one chooses
to reason.
So do you find that multiple lines of independent evidence converge
an age of the universe, earth and life in the mere 1000s of years?
are you prepared to critically analyze that evidence - all of it,
just the parts you like - and support it on it's own merits,
independent of any "weaknesses" you find in the data of mainstream
science (and OECs)?
Ooh - I'm way out of my depth there. I have done no original
research, and read little of the existing research on these multiple
lines of scientific exploration. Am I prepared to critically analyze
that evidence? Yes.
And would you have reached that conclusion had you never read the
Hugely important question. No. I don't think just by looking at
existing evidence I would come to a conclusion of 1000s of years. I
can agree that the majority of the scientific community is acting in
good faith when they analyze data in front of them and determine
millions of years for rocks and billions of years for the universe. I
doubt, absent a presumption that the Bible is a trustworthy document,
that I would come up with a history of thousands of years for the
universe. Just knowing the speed of light and the distance to the
stars would be enough to rule out 1000s of years - IF that was all I
had to work with. But that's just the point. What happens if you
start (as I'm doing) from a presumption that the Bible is revealed
Truth, and then look at the data to see where it fits the Genesis
account and where it does not? I don't really know yet, and I'm
looking to find out.
While you're wading, have you posted this to the "big kids" at OEC
ID sites too?
This site was referenced by a conservative political commentator (yet
staunch evolutionist, interestingly) as a good place to engage in the
evolution/creation discussion. So far, I'm comfortable I've made a
good choice. Are you recommending other locations to start a thread?
Oops, I missed the "evolutionism." I'm smelling Loki.
The only thing that saved me from Googling that was the movie "The
Mask". Heh! No mischief meant here - I've been above-board about my
background, my reasoning framework and my motivations. Was I unclear
that I'm exploring the creationism end of the creationism/evolution
If you "accept" the inerrancy of the Bible as a matter of faith
then you
need to be careful not to stray into idolatry - worshipping the
rather than God.
I can dig that.
Also, the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is of little interpretative
value; as interpretation of the Bible is not inerrant the Bible
might as
well not be inerrant.
Drifting into theological weeds a little bit, I'd argue that the
doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is extremely useful, inasmuch as that
allows the ability of clearly obvious parts of the Bible to illuminate
the interpretation of areas that are less clear. But again, I'm just
taking inerrancy as a given - I can't prove it, and I'm not really
planning to try. I just want to see what happens if one carries
forward that presumption.
And, as a Christian you would be expected to place more weight on
you are supposed to believe are the works of God (the world) than
on the
words of men (the Bible, and in particular interpretations of the
Would be expected by whom? And don't forget, I'm operating under the
working axiom that the Bible is divinely inspired - that is, it was
written down by men, but accurately represents exactly what God
intended his created beings to know.
I do not believe that it is possible to reconstruct the intended
of Genesis at this remove, but as mentioned above, the internal
contradictions are a strong hint that it wasn't intended to be taken
I think theologians can argue in good faith that there are different
internally-consistent meanings for the Genesis account, and can accept
that theologians may never agree on the "intended meaning". But I
think that at least one of the possible meanings is the obvious one,
and I plan on exploring the implications of that belief system.
If you are to reject evidence at to the nature of the world in
favour of
an interpretation of the Bible then you are stumbling into
Now there we're hitting a principle that I find extremely intriguing.
I would not use the Bible to argue that the result of some scientific-
method-based, peer reviewed experiment is not producing the data that
it produces. But I think it's perfectly reasonable to reason from
both the naturalistic/evolutionary perspective and the creationist
perspective about the meaning of the data that such an experiment
provides. I think both perspectives are vulnerable to the trap of
arguing that any experimental data point proves anything about "the
nature of the world".
The name "Mike Hammond" is rather familiar, hasn't he posted here
But Mikes are rather common on Usenet and I might be confusing him
with the guy from Jurassic Park.
Ha! No relation to John Hammond of Jurassic Park, nor to John Hays
Hammond, the inventor of radio-controlled guidance systems (sigh).
I don't think I've posted here before, but I won't rule it out either.
Merely rethinking won't do.
Only giving up thought altogether will work.
Oh, come now. There's no room for rational thought for someone
operating from a young-earth creationist point of view when evaluating
the results of scientific experimentation?
But if you don't mind me asking, why this regression?
Well, of course you can expect I don't accept the premise that this
new committment to look at evidence for origins as a regression, but
since you asked...
The church I attend put on a series of presentations some months back
laying out the argument for young-earth creationism, and I found it
intriguing. As said earlier, I've subscribed to the creation model of
origins just out of the nature of being a Christian (grew up Roman
Catholic, if anyone cares). This was the first time I saw a forceful
argument that the literal interpretation actually mattered to one's
understanding of Christian faith, and wasn't just an interesting
afterthought. So, if that's true, I decided, it was time to get in
the conversation.
Probably because YEC sells better to the "masses." That's why the
who bought into the ID scam discourage discussing the "when"
Not sure I agree there. YEC (hey, I'm picking up the lingo
already...) seems to me to be a shrinking, or even minority opinion
within the Christian community, and in my experience it makes
Christian friends I've talked to uncomfortable about the idea.
Frankly, it's a little vulnerable and embarrassing to be arguing for
an age for the universe that is 6 orders of magnitude different from a
large body of committed scientists with impressive credentials in
their resumes. I think a lot of Christians are running from YEC as
fast as they can. I know of a pastors of churches who are OEC. Some
impressive theologians are OEC. For what it's worth.
Do not claim to have an open mind if you are committed to being a
young earth creationists (YEC). One of the common mistakes that the
anti science creationist faction makes to to lie about what they
believe and their motivations. That may sound sad, but it is common
to have people claiming to be agnostic and then have them spouting
Bible verses when they run into reality.
Here's the state of my mind - you may consider it closed-minded. I'm
going to stand on the idea that YEC is Truth, and see where that
leads. That may lead to some difficult-to-accept propositions, and
I'll have to deal with that when it comes up. You're right that
creationists hold something of a Get-Out-Of-Yawning-Logical-Gaps Free
card, inasmuch as I'm arguing for analyzing evidence from a
perspective that is, admittedly, supernatural. At the last resort,
the creationist can always fall back to the position that the science
is wrong, the Bible is right, and we should wait another couple of
thousand years for the science to catch up with the truth of the
Bible. Part of my exploration is to see where the frontiers of that
thought-space lie - at what point(s) do I have to say, "There's no
logical reason for that outside of naturalistic evolution" or else say
"Well, God must have wanted it that way". In the interest of full
disclosure, I'll admit that my bias naturally leans toward the second
option in those situations. I think it's perfectly obvious to point
out that there's a lot that we don't know, and logical to posit that
there are some things that we either can't know, or will never know
before the sun boils away the seas.
There is no real science worth spit that backs up YEC. Negative
arguments against some other position don't count for much if
anything. Anyone that solves real life problems knows that fact.
Well, here's the thing. I don't think that any YEC should have any
reason to doubt that "real science" is not fairly arriving at the data
it's producing. The amount of carbon-14 in a rock is the amount of
carbon-14 in a rock, and there's no Bible verse anyone can quote that
will say it isn't. But what's interesting is how we interpret that
number. If an experiment produces a data point, and it supports
creationism but not evolutionism, does that on its own not make it
"worth spit"? What if that experiment supports both points of view?
Is science only "worth spit" if it supports the naturalistic point of
The Bible is not a scientific work.
It is basically worthless in this debate unless you want to argue
Don't agree. I'm treating the Bible as the reference point for my
argumentation, with all the logistical difficulties that entails. I'm
not really equipped to argue theology, just as I'm not trained to
measure the speed of light.
and this may not be the best venue for that.
Perhaps. So far this crowd seems to be fair-minded and willing to
converse. That's good enough for me.
What you need is actual evidence that the world might
have been created in a week only a few thousand years ago.
I suppose that's what the creation scientists are up to. But I'm
interested in exploring to what extent existing data (whoever fairly
produced it) supports the YEC perspective. Certainly I won't be doing
any original research on this subject, so I'll need to rely on my
assessment of the results produced by others. That puts me at
something of a disadvantage perhaps, but a common one.
Basically you have to present your model and the evidence to back it
up. If you know any science you know that you basically have
so that is where you are stuck as a starting point.
My model, for the purposes of this exploration, is YEC. My argument
is that the existing data can be interpreted in a way that is
compatible with YEC.
We can all agree that it is possible that some god created the
world yesterday after
you supposedly wrote this post, with all our memories intact, and
the evidence that something existed before yesterday, but that
isn't science.
That brings up an interesting point. What role, if any, do you think
science can play in the process of "supporting" a supernatural claim?
It's perfectly evident what role it can play in arguing against such a
claim. Is any argument that supports a supernatural claim inherently
unscientific, and why?
Good luck.
I doubt this will have anything to do with luck, but thank you.
On the one hand, there is the question as to why anyone would think
that the Bible was meant to be taken this way. What in the Bible is
there that says that? There are several places which assert a non-
literal reading.
Not to be ponderous about it, but - that's what it says. Evening and
morning, the second day... On the third day... yadda yadda. I think
that's a pretty good reason to posit that this is how it was meant to
be taken. The plain meaning is clear, though scientific data
currently argues it's ridiculous.
Certainly there are areas of the bible that suggest - or even demand -
non-literal readings. But I think it's perfectly tenable that Genesis
need not be one of those. It's rational to argue that there is a
plain meaning in Genesis that is unambiguous (plus or minus questions
about horses and the like).
On the other hand, there is enough in the Bible which has been taken
to support geocentrism. While things like the literal, ordinary 24
hour day have been questioned by people like Augustine, it seems
no one questioned the daily motion of the Sun around the Earth for
some 2000 years (500 BC to AD 1500 or so).
I'll may have to look into that one at some point. I'm a little
curious about what the Biblical support for heliocentrism was, but
heliocentrism/geocentrism is really not the issue that I'm interested
in exploring. Whatever that biblical support was, I doubt that it was
as explicit as the very detailed account of the other elements of
creation described in Genesis. I have to wonder if geocentrists of
their day had similar concerns about the integrity of other areas of
the Bible if their understanding of the Genesis account was
compromised. Food for thought, perhaps, but I'll let the science
historians tackle that one.
Hi, Mike. I'm an atheist, I used to be a Christian.
I think that what I want to say to you is that to appreciate and
and take stewardship of the world that we live in, which I recommend
as our role in it, you should understand clearly what it is, which
isn't necessarily what an anonymous document written before science
was popular says it is.
Maybe, but let's see what happens when operating from the presumption
that the Bible is an eyewitness account from the one individual who
claims perfectly true knowledge of origins.
There is a "tradition" that the first five "books" of the bible were
all written by Moses, but real scholarship finds that they were put
together from multiple documents at a time much later than whenever
Moses is supposed to have lived.
My understanding is 'real scholarship' of the text of the Bible is a
similarly wide-ranging discussion of conservative and liberal
positions about authorship and so on. Interesting, but outside the
scope of what I want to explore.
My atheist opinion is that there isn't a need to look for the six
biblical days to be other than the ordinary period of time of that
name, but that the story simply isn't true: quite a simple answer. I
imagine that for you it will be difficult to accept that God's
revelation contains fictions, fables, and untruths - it was for me -
Well, sure. I'm operating from the principle that it's all correct.
Accepting that list of things contradicts the fundamental axiom of my
so let me suggest to you that whether any one part of the bible is
true or not, doesn't necessarily matter, but only when it becomes
Stepping into slippery areas of amateur theology again, I'd argue that
if any part of the bible were completely, unambiguously false, then
the whole document becomes suspect as a basis of a worldview. At that
point, it's a book that may have true statements in it, or ideas that
are worth putting to use, but then it becomes just another self-help
(Also, when Jesus tells stories, are they all trueof that party.
stories?) We've got at least one someone here who professes that
sun orbits around the earth, not the other way around, although I
think they may be shamming for fun; I'm going to guess that you
Ha! No - I'm perfectly happy with heliocentrism. Were Jesus'
parables recount actual events? I'm not sure it matters. It's a
bonus if they are (though that's probably historically unprovable),
but no loss to the teaching principles in the stories if they are
not. To me, that's another interesting debate for the theologians.
A proper understanding of the nature of the universe and of the
of the species of living things on the Earth is important now if we
hope to continue living on the Earth ourselves - or off it - because
humans are now crowding many, many of the world's millions of
into extinction - once they're gone, they're gone, and that's bad
stewardship - and if we /don't/ kill them all off in the end, then
it's rather likely that somewhere in outer space there's an asteroid
that will: those fellows hit us from time to time, awfully hard,
exactly (well, more or less) like in those movies. These are just a
couple of the issues that we should pay attention to, and we have to
set the bible aside to do it.
Wow. Totally disagree with that last statement. Take away the
Bible's directives to be good stewards of the Earth, and you lose a
big incentive for a lot of people to care about the environment. Not
saying that there's no other source for that instinct, but isn't it
arguable that one of the big reasons for protecting other species (and
humans) from extinction is because God created them?
Anyway, let's briefly look at the six days. One of my favourite
glitches in the story is that God creates plants on land but not in
the water. (As far microscopic microbes, I'll let him create after
"heaven and earth" and before he invented days: it doesn't say that
that happened straight away, and the bible author surely didn't know
that microbes exist.)
Another is that the sky gets light in the day and dark at night well
before the Sun is created, whereas it's fairly well accepted
that the Sun /makes/ the sky light in the daytime. Incidentally,
Earth turns in space in about 23 hours 56 minutes (the siderial
because the Earth also orbits around the Sun, the time from "Sun
overhead" to "Sun overhead" is different, and of course more
important, for practical purposes.
Sure. Space travel, having accurate calendars, stuff like that. I'm
with you there. As to the other things, my goal isn't really to go
into detailed defenses of every element of the Genesis account. For
the purposes of my effort, it's adequate to say that the Genesis
account can be considered a legitimate description of the origin of
the all things, and makes statements in whose light current evidence
can be evaluated.
In fact, the universe has existed, gradually developing, since an
origin about 13.7 billion years ago.
Okay - that's a big one. In what sense is that a fact? I'd agree
that scientists have a consensus view that the origin of the universe
was 13.7 billion years ago. But that's very different from stating it
as fact. Facts are directly observable things that come out of
repeatable experiments. Experiments don't tell you the age of
something - age isn't an inherent characteristic of objects. You
can't take apart an object until you get to the place where its age is
stored. The best scientists can hope for is to produce data points,
and then argue the interpretation of those data points to support
particular models. But those interpretations can be flawed (see: Flat
the Sun has been burning for about five billion years and is good
for another five (or, I'm sure I
read somewhere, getting overall very gradually hotter, making
orbit uninhabitable - when the seas evaporate it's all over - in a
mere one billion years - but that could be just me), Earth itself
basically finished building about 4.5 billion ybp (years before
present, or specifically before 1950 - it's to do with radioactive
isotope dating), and for about five-sixths of the time since then,
had either nothing, or nothing but the microscopic microbes, living
it - and no air fit for us to breathe for a long while, either; life
that's large enough to make proper fossils is comparatively recent
appearance, notably in the "Cambrian explosion", a series of
developments that took place a mere 0.6 billion years ago.
showed up about 230 million years ago, and you've probably heard the
None of us has samples of the air from 4.5 billion years ago, or of
ocean water, or soil samples. All we have is today's air, water, and
soil. Anything that takes existing data points and abstracts
backwards in time is going to be limited by the assumptions about what
those data points say about the past. The further back you go, the
more unlikely it is that your assumptions account for all the events
that may have occurred in the past. You state a lot of things
confidently here, and they make a very reasonable narrative given the
data that scientists have collected, but I wouldn't classify any of
them as facts.
I am not sure you are in the right place.
The question of whether the author of Genesis
intended to "days" in the first creation story to
refer to periods of 24 hours, is a theological question
and/or a question of literary history.
Agreed. I don't intend to debate that point, except tangentially.
The question of whether the first creation story
in Genesis, however interpreted, should be considered
a journalistic account is theological.
Sure, but nothing stops me from evaluating existing origins
scholarship against the claims of that story.
The question of whether the first creation story in
Genesis should be considered to be the truth
[as opposed to other creation stories, I like the Raven
myself but I have always had a liking for trickster gods]
is a fundamental question of what "truth"
is and how one determines it.
These questions are only peripherally related to
the evolution/creation (there's a false dichotomy
if I ever saw one) debate. (Not that you won't get
lots of opinions here, some even well informed.).
The question of how well the first creation story
in Genesis fits with mainstream scientific theory
(badly, or if the "days" are considered to be 24 hours,
very badly) has a simple answer as there is not
much debate on what the mainstream scientific
theory is (the debate centres on whether it is
Forgive me, but I think that was a non-sequitur. It sounds like you
said there that the question of how well Genesis matches mainstream
thinking is answered by the fact that everybody knows what the
mainstream thinking is. How does that answer the question?
Most of the debate around here centres on the question
of the consistency or lack thereof of mainstream
scientific thinking. (e.g. is the theory of Natural Selection
self-consistent?; is the observed fossil record
consistent with Evolution?) It is not clear that you
want to discuss these issues. Even if you do
I would suggest you first visit the talk.origins
faqs and perhaps "anwersingenesis.org" to see what
has already been said. (But if you present an
argument from "answers in genesis" without
checking the talk.origins faqs you will be
I did take a quick scan of the FAQs, and found the perspectives there
slanted rather heavily in favor of the evolutionist perspective.
Perhaps that shouldn't have surprised me, but I was expecting a more
even-handed treatment of the creationist view. Forgive me if I tread
on ground that's been covered before.
As has been pointed out by others, the two versions of Genesis have
obvious and blatant contradictory features (in addition to being
contradicted by empirical reality -- the universe is not, in fact, a
mere few thousand years old, life on this planet was not 'poofed'
existence in a single day).
Slow down a second there. Empiricism rests on the idea of sensory
experience as the only source of true knowledge. With which of your
senses do you detect the age of the universe, or the duration of time
within which the Earth was formed? Those aren't factual statements
you're making - that's your belief system talking, right?
So the question arises, were the people
who wrote it incapable of reasoned thought? Were they stupid? Or
it written in such a context that the literal truth-ness or
consistency of the text does not matter? I would argue for the
latter. They weren't stupid. They were capable of reasoned
Their description has a definite "message", but one that differs
the literal interpretation, which is unsurprising for a creation
I don't see why that conclusion is necessary. Genesis tells a very
deliberate, detailed creation story. It's not stupid to suggest it
was written that way because that's exactly how it happened.
The people who wrote this down were living in a world in which what
now consider to be inanimate objects like the "sun", the "moon", and
the "earth" were all gods and the rulers of countries/tribes had
arrogated unto themselves the title of "demi-god". Often these
interfered with humans and each demanded their own sacrifices to
prevent catastrophe (disease, famine, slavery or involuntary
servitude). The tribe of the Israelites, OTOH, had only one god and
rejected the idea of many gods and human demi-gods. So, in their
creation myth (myth is not a perjorative term; it is often a way of
telling a story, particularly in tribes and before writting, often
with relevant lessons -- consider it a parable, which is also a
whose literal truth or falsness doesn't matter) they insist on the
god, who 'created' the sun, the moon, the earth, and the creatures
they saw among them. The "meaning" of such a myth is that the
and earth were, explicitly, not independent gods. Moreover, in
myth, *all* humans were created from the same 'dust'. There were no
demi-gods that came down from the heavens to rule over ordinary
humans. [That much of the writing down appears to come through
of enslavement might have something to do with this viewpoint. The
Torah likely was a written version of an older oral tradition
(around 1000 BC), so it is not surprising that there is some
variation in the
text. Ever play "telephone"?]
We're largely on the same page there. My (again amateur) theology
suggests that God meant for the story to deliberately exclude the
possibility of other gods, specifically sun gods, moon gods, etc.
In such a context, the fact that this creation myth does not match
modern scientific knowledge is irrelevant, as is the internal
contradictions in the text. And the message that is being sent
the distinction between what is "real" and what is "god" and the
equality of humans (albeit, there is the typical tribal inequality
the role of women) is still a valid "message" that the
challenged Biblical literalist completely ignores. Of course, the
metaphorically-challenged Biblical literalist claims that the
authors were not writing down ancient creation stories, but had a
directly from God. I see no reason to accept that than I do to
that Harold Camping has a direct pipeline to God.
And I'm not really asking you to. I'm operating from a framework that
says the authors were writing down *the* ancient creation story, but
it's not my purpose to demand that other people see things the same
By the way, Harold Camping is an embarrassment. A plain reading (I'm
fond of those) of the Bible should tell him what he's doing is
This /is/ an OEC and ID "site". All opinions may be discussed here,
at your own risk, of very heavy criticism.
I'll consider myself fairly warned. Thanks!
Or your position on the Bible's inerrancy.But, if it is true, (and a plain reading of the Bible makes it
clear that its author believes it is true), then that means I
need to rethink some of my concepts about the nature of the
universe as I perceive it.
Perhaps you noticed that useful *IF* at the beginning of my
sentence... :)
I think it can be said fairly that Christians rarely doubted that
events described in the bible had historically happened just as they
were described, until, in particular, evidence of geology, rather
biology, forced investigators to consider that natural processes on
the Earth have been operating for far longer than bible dates for
age of the world allow. I don't know whether people were separately
worried about other incidents such as God stopping the motion of the
Sun one day (and the Moon), which heliocentrists would have to
understand as stopping the motion of the Earth - which is about 1000
miles an hour on the equator - without other chroniclers around the
world noticing and mentioning it.
So far so good - I'm with you.
Christians then started to consider that either various kinds of
exception applied, or that the Genesis origin was some kind of
metaphor, allegory, or fable. They did this principally because
was very strong evidence that it wasn't journalism. There may have
been a secondary recognition that God is constructing the world in
rather the same way that Old Macdonald constructs his farm in the
song, and that isn't a literal account, either.
Jews and Muslims must consider the same things too, I expect.
Mormons, even?
Not to dig too deep into OldMacdonaldism, but I hope we can agree that
we can't scientifically prove or disprove that Old Macdonald did or
did not, in fact, have a farm at some point in the past. Though I do
have an interesting analysis of audio samples of kids making clapping
sounds that strongly suggest a creation date for Macdonald's farm in
the days just before some sort of catastrophic worldwide flood.
Clearly, that's what all the the EEE! Aaaaaiii! EEE! Aaaaiiii! Oh!
was about.
And now, you are wrestling with several questions, which you might
mistaking for one question: did the bible writer mean actual days in
the context of the story? And did he believe that it was an
description of the origin of the world and of living things? And is
it an accurate description?
I propose (1) yes and (2 and 3) no - it was only intended as a
Not sure how hard I'm wrestling, exactly. For the purpose of
argumentation, I'm starting from default positions of Yes for each of
those three questions.
And I propose that you are trying to avoid that conclusion not
you are comfortable with it being true and not a fable, but because
you fear that either God, or your pastor, or your friends at church,
will hold it against you. Or because you fear that in fact the
is using reasonability and your own intelligence to mislead you into
doubting God's words.
But these are not reasonable arguments in a question of fact.
Just speaking personally, I find myself wondering if I've allowed
myself to ignore the plain meaning of the opening chapter of the book
that defines my spiritual existence simply because there's a loud
crowd of passionate people declaring it can't be true. I'm exploring
the implications of the possibility that I was being too hasty.
Agreed that none of that is directly relevant to the subject of
analyzing data about origins. Just sharing what's animating me.
You sound very much like Kurt Wise: An intelligent man who
the science, but who also sees so many contradictions with Biblical
inerrancy that he has to make a definite choice between one and the
And like Kurt Wise, you've chosen to stick with Biblical inerrancy.
Just read the Wikipedia blurb - thanks for the link. I agree that I'm
thinking much in the same way he purportedly does.
There's no real way around that. Modern science and Biblical
are incompatible. You can't reconcile modern geology, astronomy,
astrophysics with the Universe being created in 6 24 hour days.
Well, there's the big question to me. Can I stand on the inerrancy of
the Bible and confidently state that all the data around me can be
interpreted in that context? And if not, where's the limitations of
that perspective?
Unless you resort to Omphalos-like solipsism, in which God created
Universe in 6 24-hour days by making it *look* like it's far
cosmic fake, in other words.
But Omphalos requires a God capable of massive deception--would you
really want to pray to such a God? And should we emulate such a God
being liars and deceivers ourselves?
The problem, to me, is taking fallible mankind's data as the starting
point, and asking what's wrong with a perfect and holy creator God. A
hardened YEC would probably turn that around the other way, wondering
why we even entertain the idea that the universe is billions of years
old when the Bible plainly says it's only 6000 years? A determined
literalist view might include a statement like the following: "The
universe *does* look 6000 years old because it is 6000 years old.
What's wrong with the way we are measuring it (or wrong with our our
assumptions about the meaning of our measurements) that gives an
answer that is wrong by six orders of magnitude?"
Take a look at this book:
James L. Kugel
The Bible As It Was
Belknap Press of Harvard U. Press, 1997
It gives a sampling of the ways that the Bible was read by
and Jews for a few centuries around the turn of the "common era".
were very imaginative.
I may at some point, but my goal is not to take a survey of all the
imaginative interpretations of the Bible, but to explore the
scientific implications of a very particular one, and not a very
imaginative one, at that. Thank you for the kind suggestion.
I see you accept Biblical inerrancy on faith. Faith is a good
thing to have, and I certainly don't have anything against
positions held by faith. I am a Christian, who does not accept
Biblical inerrancy, but my belief in God is also a matter of faith.
I accept the science of evolution, and I believe that God made use
of evolution as his means of creation. That too is a matter of
faith to me.
I hope you can understand that it's possible to be a Christian, and
accept the science of evolution as well.
I do understand that. I don't think authentic Christian belief exists
exclusive of evolutionary beliefs, but I worry about the implications
of accepting "on faith" the belief that all life arose spontaneously
in contradiction of (what seems to me) clear Biblical statements that
it didn't.
Whether or not you accept evolution is your own business. I do
suggest you read Dr. Kenneth Miller's book "Finding Darwin's God".
Miller is a devout Catholic who combines his scientific background
with his religious beliefs. Again, whether or not you agree with
Dr. Miller, I hope you can accept that such a position exists.
One does not have to be an atheist to accept evolution.
Agreed. But you may need to deliberately set aside explicit Biblical
descriptions of origins to do so.
Well, you said you accept the principle of Biblical inerrancy as a
matter of faith. That implies evidence doesn't come into it for
you. In
that case, what's the problem ? You can agree that all the evidence
shows evolution (and cosmology) happened, and you still choose to
believe it happened definitely just because.
As long as you don't distort the science and don't impose your
faith on
others, who cares.
To me, it's axiomatic that if Genesis is reporting a literal 6-day
creation, the sum total of all accurately gathered evidence will fit
into the Genesis picture. So evidence definitely comes into the
picture. I don't want to deny that existing data provides support for
the evolutionary view, necessarily. I want to argue that it also fits
into a creationistic view.
Aesop once wrote a story about a boy who cried "wolf" when there
was no
wolf, repeatedly, until people stopped listening to him even when
wolf came. The plain meaning of that story is that once, long ago,
was such a boy who had such neighbors, and the story ended there.
Do you
think, though, that Aesop might have intended something more with
story? that he might want us to draw some lesson that could be
today, even if we live where wolves are not a problem?
Well of course. Aesop's fables were all written with that intent. In
a lot of cases, the lesson is named explicitly following the story.
If you're implying by analogy that God meant for there to be something
more to the story of which day He created what - then yes. I'd argue
that God meant for us to know that He cares a great deal for mankind
that He wanted him to know with some specificity how He created the
universe. I'd argue that He has a special care for humanity, and that
when He speaks, things happen as he said. I could go on and on, but
you take my point.
I happen to agree with you that the plain reading of Genesis 1 is
God created the world in six literal 24-hour days. And if I wanted
Bible to be completely irrelevant to anybody's life, that is just
how I
would interpret it.
I mean, that's the big challenge, right? Is Genesis 1 still
legitimate for use as a demonstration of God's sovereign will and care
for humanity, or is it an outdated relic of an era of unaccountable
superstition? That's a rhetorical question - if you were wondering.
You don't need to re-think any Pentateuchal or science concepts. A
scriptural Old Earth is based on Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 1:2.
latter verse preserves a record of pre-Adamic regression. From
verse 3
onward is a RE-creation account. This is why God told Adam to RE-
plenish the Earth (as opposed to plenish). The creation days (re-
creation of the biosphere) do not, in any way, indicate a young
but a young biosphere. Our present biosphere (post-Flood) is also
Interesting perspective - old universe, young earth. Thanks for the
idea - I'm going to try it the old-fashioned way and see how it goes.
Young universe, young earth.
A word about evolution and Atheism:
Since no God exists, Atheists have no choice but to believe that
species originate species (evolution). This renders all of their
conclusions predetermined. Beware:The Evolutionists at this website
(Talk.Origins) exist to deny this self-evident fact. They love
Christians who bow their knee to Darwin at the expense of God, His
and the Bible. Richard Dawkins is famous for saying "Darwin made it
possible to be an intellectually fulfilled [A]theist." This is why
Atheists accept, defend and promote evolution. I urge you to
these facts.
There's that troublesome word *fact* again. I'll take your opinions
about the other visitors to this site under advisement - much obliged.
Okay - I think that addresses all the principal points you all brought
Let me go ahead and open the floodgates. Where do I start reading the
results of contemporary origins-related research? Naturally, my
inclination is towards those places where the science directly bears
on areas that conflict with Biblical assertions in the Genesis
- References:
- Wading into the deep end of the pool
- From: Mike Hammond
- Re: Wading into the deep end of the pool
- From: Mike Hammond
- Wading into the deep end of the pool
- Prev by Date: Re: Wading into the deep end of the pool
- Next by Date: Re: By their fruits, May 2011
- Previous by thread: Re: Wading into the deep end of the pool
- Next by thread: Re: Wading into the deep end of the pool
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages


text:
Aircrafts and Travel
Sick bag collections
"Sick bag" : you can get free when you take on the airplane. Many sick bag collectors are in the world. Don't you try to collect them that becomes the commemoration of your trip ?
Overseas travel
Here are information on the overseas tour and travels. There are the memorys of our favorite overseas travels. (sorry Japanese only)
All about iPod/iPad/iPhone
Now smartphone is very popular. The original is The Apple iPhone, which appeared in 2007 . I will introduce all of the iPod / iPad / iPhone in the overwhelming amount of information.
APOLLO spaceship and SATURN-V booster page for all childrens and adults who dream to visit the space.
Diecast Aircraft Model
Collect special airliners with special colors in diecast models. The world of precise diecast finished models are introduced here.
Flight Simulator
Original Flight Simulator. Free Windows software is introduced to the public here. Try it if you have high-speed 3D graphic board.
Drone with iPhone
Future of toy! This is a radio-controlled helicopter that can be controlled by iPod / iPad / iPhone. This is the page for enjoy the Bebop Drone / AR.Drone : forerunner of the "Quad Copter" of 4-bladed developed by Parrot.


text:
Madison J Jeter
Main Address:
Berkeley Country Club
PO Box 397
Moncks Corner, SC 29461-0397
(843) 761-4880
PO Box 397
Moncks Corner, SC 29461-0397
(843) 761-4880
Madison Jeter is a PGA Professional in Moncks Corner, SC. The PGA of America comprises 27,000 men and women professionals with one singular goal in mind - to make the game of golf more enjoyable for you.
Services Offered:
- Instruction
Professional has not entered award information.
Home » Golf Courses » South Carolina » Ladson » Madison J Jeter
PGA of America Championships
Harbor Shores
Benton Harbor, Mich.
Sahalee Country Club
Sammamish, Wash.
Baltusrol Golf Club
Springfield, N.J.
Hazeltine National Golf Club
Chaska, Minn.


text:
Ratna Ling Retreat Center
Benefitting Yourself and the World
Are you looking to be a part of something significant and meaningful to benefit yourself and others?
Are you seeking work in a community that supports your values and encourages personal growth?
Look no further! Ratna Ling Retreat Center is located in the redwood coastal hills of Sonoma County in Northern California and may be the perfect match for you. Live and thrive in a truly unique environment where personal inquiry, cooperation and spiritual exploration are supported and encouraged. Enjoy rewarding work and a healthy lifestyle in a country environment while participating in an integrated program of learning.
Ratna Ling (Tibetan for "Jewel Place") is a non-profit retreat center and intentional community grounded in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition. Supported by a spiritual community of like-minded people dedicated to service to humanity, this year-round residential work-study opportunity allows your skills and enthusiasm to flourish. Seeking those with a sincere interest and a strong work ethic.
You will receive:
- Free housing in cozy, modern cabins with a private bath, outdoor deck, gas fireplace. 2-3 people per cabin.
- Free laundry facilities, WI-FI and domestic phone calls.
- Free delicious vegetarian meals, tea and coffee.
- Monthly living allowance of $150 per month.
- Free morning and evening classes in a variety
of Buddhist studies, applicable to everyday life: Meditation, Skillful Means (how work can be a path to inner knowledge), Buddhist history and philosophy, and Kum Nye
(a style of Tibetan yogic practices).
- Opportunity to engage in an environment where meaningful work and self-development are valued.
- Clean, fresh air, wide open spaces, natural beauty, close proximity to hiking trails and the Pacific Ocean.
- The support of a caring, actively engaged community that encourages and builds meaningful interpersonal relationships.
We are seeking people who have a sincere interest in Buddhism and exploring work as a path to inner freedom. Our weekly schedule is rigorous (6 days a week) and rewarding! Visit www.ratnalingworkstudy.com for details, photos, application, and everything you need to know about living and working at
Ratna Ling Retreat Center.
Minimum commitment is 6 months. No religious affiliation required. Minimum age is 23 years old. Couples are welcome to apply.
Contact us! Phone: (707) 847-3777 ext: 115 E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.com
Our Jobs
Chef, Kitchen Staff, Gardener, Web Development, Book Binding, Maintenance
To learn more about living and volunteering at Ratna Ling please see our website.
Benefiting Yourself and Others - Work and Learn at Ratna Ling
Posted: Jun 27, 2016
Year-Round Entry Level - Work and Live in a Buddhist Community
Room and Board
Delicious vegetarian, mostly organic meals. We are known for our great food!
Housing is shared by twos, cozy cabins with private bathroom and outdoor deck.
Employee Perks
- Healthy setting of nature, wide open spaces, sacred beauty, fresh air, clean water, nutritious food
- Wholesome lifestyle of meaningful work, inner development, taking responsibility
- Classes and discussion groups on practical integration of Buddhist principles in everyday life
- Job training in marketable skills
Please review our web site for descriptions of the many types of work-study positions we have available within our projects and organization.
Lunch on the patio
Book bindery work Volunteer gardener
Volunteer artist at work Shipping
How to Apply
Contact our Work-Study program office at 707-847-3777 ext. 115 or email us at email@example.com
Length of commitment is 6 months to one year.


text:
Hi I am not very good with writing shaders. How would I make a shader that simply supports 2 texture coordinates so I can load up 2 different textures to be used at the same time but on different parts of my world? Right now I have 1 texturecoord variable setup and I load a texture through it using GraphicsDevice->SetTexture(0, &Texture); and making sure my VertexDeclaration and FVF both support that, but how can I add a second texture to this? Would I make it so that I make separate coordinates and link the coordinates to a texture? How would I write that?
render code:
hlsl declaration:
Use the vertices's other coordinates to sample Texture1.


text:
Most VPS have a team of 1+ user(s) that don't do anything but configure the system and work on the web site and/or database. I would assume all the team members would be a group like "developers" so they could all work on files in the web root as needed.
With this in mind, would
umask 007 be a much better setting than the default of
022? After all, there shouldn't be any "other/world" users since this machines primary purpose is to serve web pages. All the developers have access and there aren't any "guests" logging in...


text:
"Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water..."
Ah, what a great tagline to a halfway decent sequel. "Jaws 2" is easily the best of the sequels to Steven Spielberg's horrifying classic which became the first movie to make over $100 million dollars at the box office, so of course a sequel had to be made. Another shark is off the coast of Amity Bay, to get revenge or just to feed or just to scare the crap out of the residents who depend on the summer months for their very existence.
Some people seem to think that this is the same shark from the first movie...what are you, stupid? IT GOT BLOWN UP! This is probably the wife of the shark from the first movie, or maybe it's his mother. Maybe it was the shark's gay lover or something. We never do get to learn about the shark's relatives, do we? I am assuming that the shark in "Jaws 3-D" was not a distant relative, but someone who just hates Florida theme parks with a passion. As for the shark in "Jaws The Revenge," that one was definitely a relative. It had to be to swim all the way to the Bahamas to go after the damn Brody family!
Anyway, back to this shark, also a relative who waited a little while after the first one to strike. This sequel takes place a couple of years after the original and opens with some divers exploring the wreckage of the Orca who are then are attacked by the shark. Immediately, we zoom ahead to Chief Brody (Roy Scheider) rushing off to the opening of a new hotel on Amity Island which his wife (Lorraine Gary) has helped out with in terms of the festivities. We get to meet up again with Mayor Larry Vaughn (Murray Hamilton) who is just as excited about the summer months as he was in the last film. We also get to see the two Brody boys, Mike and Shaun, who have grown up a lot since the last time we saw them (especially Mike who has had one massive growth spurt).
Then the darn shark appears again when he (or is it a she?) is least expected. There is a good scene involving a water skier which is the movie's first big action sequence. Of course, no one actually sees this shark attack the skier, so they just assume it was some sort of boating accident. Otherwise they would have found out earlier and got rid of the shark sooner, and there wouldn't be a friggin' movie for us to watch. But then some kids find a beached killer whale on the sand that has had huge chunks of his skin bitten off, and this catches the eye of Chief Brody who quickly becomes convinced that there is another shark on the hunt. He has no proof and only his instincts to go on, so naturally no one believes him.
One of the great things about the original movie was that the human drama on the island was very strong. Spielberg wasn't just interested in giving us shark attacks. That brings me to this film's biggest weakness; the scenes on dry land suffer without the buddy relationship between Roy Scheider and Richard Dreyfuss. The characters are more like clichés this time around instead of just fully realized human beings, and the story is much more contrived. One guy standing in Brody's way is Len Peterson (Joseph Moscolo), and he doubts Brody's sanity every step of the way. He is the movie's key idiotic character, and the one guy we want to see get eaten by the shark. When movies have characters like these, it doesn't take long for audiences to get aggravated by them.
You'd also figure that Mayor Vaughn would know a lot better this time around. He went through all that crap with the first shark attack, and now he thinks that Brody is misguided in his assumptions yet again. He urges Chief Brody not to press it this time around, and their working relationship in this movie ends up seeming completely ridiculous. If the Mayor is not going to be trusting of the instincts of his Chief of police, then he should have fired him a long time ago.
There was a naturalness to the characters and the acting in the first film that unfortunately does not carry over to "Jaws 2" and the movie is deeply affected as a result. It would have been great to have Steven Spielberg and Richard Dreyfuss back on board for this one, but they had better things to do with their time like making "Close Encounters of the Third Kind." Actually, it would have been a huge shock if Spielberg came back to direct this one, considering the hell he went through making the original. I heard in interviews around the time "Jurassic Park: The Lost World" was released that he always felt guilty about how badly the "Jaws" franchise turned out. Come on Steven! Don't be so hard on yourself! Universal is more responsible for that than you will ever be.
However, if you can get past the contrived screenplay, there are still plenty of shark attacks to enjoy here. The shark is still a very threatening villain as he (or she) was in the first movie. Every time that fin comes out of the water, I get goose bumps all over my skin. The tension is still pretty taut as the shark sneaks up on its prey stealthily. There are also a couple of good jump out of your seat moments here, especially one involving Roy Scheider slowly going into the ocean to retrieve some boat wreckage.
While the first shark was indiscriminate in who he (or she) killed, the shark in this sequel seems to have a big hankering for teenagers, especially the ones that won't stop screaming. One critic, I can't remember who, said that this movie would be a good time for those who enjoy seeing teenagers getting eaten, so I can only imagine what parents around the globe feel about this "Jaws" sequel. After a while, it just seems like the shark is going after these teenagers in order to get them to shut up. It makes you wonder what this shark is thinking throughout:
The teenagers in this movie do a great job of screaming and when they are in shock. The moments where they are in shock are very effectively done, and it helps to quiet things down for a bit until the great white pops up again. Among the kids in the cast is Keith Gordon who later went on to star in "John Carpenter's Christine" and "Back to School" with the late Rodney Dangerfield. Seeing him looking so young in this movie is a bit of a shock after all these years.
The last half of this movie has the teenagers of Amity Island out sailing, basically laying themselves out as shark meat. Among these kids are the Brody boys, both who have been grounded from getting into the water because of their father's suspicions. But what's a boy to do when a girl's cousin wants to go with him to the lighthouse? She tempts Michael with that line we often hear teenagers say:
"Do you always do what your parents tell you to do?"
On top of that, why should the older brother have all the fun? Little Sean hitches a ride with Mike who really doesn't want him around. So they have the typically older brother/younger brother relationship which adds quite a bit to the story. When the teenagers find their lives in danger upon the appearance of the shark, how they feel about each other becomes completely irrelevant as they have to band together in order to survive.
Actually, I wonder if the filmmakers went with teenagers as shark meat in response of the sudden popularity of the slasher genre which was gaining in popularity at the time. I mean, the great white shark is in many ways the ultimate serial killer. He has sharp knives for teeth, and he (or she) can cut you up good. This one leaves us no leftovers even if we wanted any!
"Jaws 2" was directed by Jeannot Szwarc, and it is a good thing that I am writing down his name instead of trying to pronounce it. He takes on daunting task of following a Spielberg masterpiece with a movie that at best could hope to equal it. The fact that he does not entirely succeed is not altogether his fault. No one could ever have expected this sequel to be even better than the original, and this certainly could have been a lot worse. Szwarc pretty much films the movie in the same manner Spielberg did in terms of the shark attacks. You see more of this shark than you did in the first one, but he also does a good job of keeping the viewer on the edge of their seat as we keep wondering when the shark will strike next.
Szwarc went on to direct "Somewhere in Time" with the late Christopher Reeve and Jane Seymour, and that film has since gained a huge cult following. He later directed "Supergirl" which was intended to start a new franchise, only to see it end just as quickly. These days, he directs episodic television for the most part, but it's nice to know he is still working long after this sequel came and went.
Roy Scheider made it clear on several occasions that he did this movie mainly as a contractual obligation to Universal Pictures. I doubt that he was all that excited about doing it while a lot of the key players went off to do other things. At least Robert Shaw had a good excuse; his character got eaten in the original. All the same, he is still very strong here as Police Chief Brody as he tries to convince the town that there is a shark out there and makes it clear that he's not going to wait around for the rest of the town to realize this. Scheider is one of the best reasons to watch "Jaws 2," and he gives the audience a lot to cheer as the film comes to its inevitable conclusion.
Of course, we all know what happens to the shark at the end of "Jaws 2." If you haven't seen the movie yet and don't want to know, don't read any further. It is a very cool death as Brody gets the shark's attention by banging on a power line and drawing it in by sound. Holding the power line out for the shark to take a bite of, his glee and anxiety are ever so apparent as he invites the shark to "SAY AHH!!!!!"
The death of the shark by electrocution is right on a par with the way the first shark died. It's a scene that I am sure had audiences cheering like crazy and saying, "YES! WE GOT YOU, YOU CRAZY MUTHA!!!"
One of the other key ingredients of this sequel was also one of the main characters of Spielberg's film, and that is the music of John Williams. His score to the original still remains one of the best and most frightening pieces of music ever created for a movie. With "Jaws 2," John takes those themes from the first film and mixes them up with some new ones for the characters that inhabit this sequel. It's another great score by him, and it captures both the heart and the terror that unfolds onscreen. None of the other composers in this franchise came close to matching what Williams did. They simply lost the heart of the music, and they just relied on that main theme to carry them through.
"Jaws 2" is understandably no masterpiece, but it is "Citizen Kane" when you compare to the other two sequels that came after this one. I could go on and on about how bad "Jaws The Revenge" with its glaring errors that reeked of filmmaking ineptitude. "Jaws 2" was the last good movie in a series that would quickly descend into mediocrity. If you have to watch something on cable in the afternoon, you could certainly do worse than watch this movie.
Besides, it gave us one of the greatest taglines in movie history:
"Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water..."
Of course, by the time "Jaws The Revenge" came around, the tagline changed to:
"Just when you thought it was safe to go back to a movie theater..."


text:
Aug 28, 2012 8:51 AM
How can you do yoga if you're worrying about which direction your boob is going to fall out during downward dog? Strap in those swinging orbs with the VPL Insertion Stretch-Cotton Soft-Cup Bra ($95), a stretchy but strong cotton/lycra bra. It is much cuter than a regular sports bra, but keeps your yoga partners locked in tight to prevent any attempted escapes. Now you can work on your scorpion stand without fear of another embarrassing nipple slip.
Wow. This post gave me some serious lol's. Keep up the good work, ladies of Outblush!
If you've got a product or service that you'd like to promote on Outblush, click here to find out about our advertising opportunities.
Outblush is a blog for girls who love to shop. Our staff digs up the best clothes, home stuff, beauty items, and more. New items are posted every day — bookmark us and check out:


text:
March 17, 2013
OAK RIDGE, Tenn.- The Alabama rowing team capped off its opening weekend at the Oak Ridge Cardinal Invite, Sunday morning at Melton Hill Lake. The Crimson Tide earned one win against stiff competition on the second day of races of the spring season.
"The girls rowed well today," Alabama head rowing coach Larry Davissaid. "Obviously we were up against tough competition. The good thing in regards to the way the girls rowed was we didn't let the fact that we went against two very high level teams intimidate us. I think we made progress in the area of how we are competitors and what we need to do to improve to the next level."
The Tide was highlighted on the day by the first novice 8 that took second, ahead of Duke with a time of 7:36.15. The victory for the Tide came in the third varsity 8 race where the Tide raced past the Blue Devils with a time of 8:05.70.
"We did notice that the installation of our race plan is probably about a week or so behind the other teams that have already raced a couple times," Davis said. "Given that we have had a chance to win some races up here and have strong performances on the weekend we are looking forward to next weekend when we go up against Clemson."
In the first varsity 8 race, the Tide finished third behind top-ranked Virginia and Duke with a time of 7:02.74. In the varsity 4, Alabama finished third with a time of 8:05.55. In the second varsity 8 competition, UA finished third with a 7:19.10.The second varsity 4 saw the Tide place third with an 8:36.26.
The Tide will return to the water next weekend when it heads to Clemson to face off against the Tigers and Marist. The three teams will participate in the one day event on Saturday, March 23, at Lake Hartwell.


text:
In This Section
AES News
- Let Your Voice Be Heard: 2016 AES Elections
- Members are reminded to cast their ballots in the 2016 election for members of the Board of Governors before the election closes at 5:00 PM (EST) on Friday, July 8, 2016.
- AES President-Elect Alex Case Gives AES Paris Keynote, "Intuition, Rebellion, Courage and Chance"
- AES President-Elect Alex Case enthralled the attendees at the opening ceremony of AES Paris, in a keynote address with the theme of "Intuition, Rebellion, Courage and Chance."
- Check out the AES Paris Photo Album on Facebook
- Check out the AES Paris Photo Album on Facebook - be sure to Tag and Share
- Expanded Exhibits Hall and Tech Program Offerings for Exhibits-Plus and All Access Attendees at AES Paris
- Expanded Exhibits Hall and Tech Program Offerings for Exhibits-Plus and All Access Attendees at AES Paris
AES Historical Committee Report 2005-09-29
for the Board of Governors Meeting at the
119th Convention, New York, 2005-10-11
The Historical Committee will hold an open meeting during
this Convention, on Sunday, Oct 9, at 10...12, in Javits Center, Room 2
D02. It will
be chaired by HC Chair Jay McKnight, who will attend the Governors'
meeting to answer any questions you may have about the HC activities.
You are all welcome to attend the Historical Committee meeting. We
discuss the
activities reported below.
The presently active AES Historical Committee projects
in our Guidelines]
are as follows:
5 [Organize
and maintain an archive relating to the history of the Audio
Society itself.]
- Project
Roger Furness had said that he would be able to devote time to organizing
and cataloging the history of the AES
itself. It has not happened yet.
8 [Encourage each Local Section and each Convention Committee to organize an appropriate session on the history of audio engineering, or a display on an appropriate historical subject. When requested, provide information to help them to do so.]
- There will be seven Historical Events at this 119th Convention; times and titles are given at http://www.aes.org/events/119/historical/ .
- Planning for Historical Events at future
Conventions has not yet begun.
- Join our reflector. The email reflector continues on the "recordist.com" server, with thanks to David Josephson.
- We continue to upgrade and add to our
. The obituary
index is now beginning to link directly to the obituaries in the
Journal themselves.
- The project
leader, Myles
Cochran Davis, continues to review and annotate the links on our
which may be seen
here. He will be contacting the
museums in order to establish better coordination with the AES HC.
- We have prepared a "sampler" interview DVD at Marshall Buck's request, which we will distribute to BoG members and AES officers at this convention.
- Irv Joel plans to record more interviews during this Convention. We continue to solicit your suggestions both for interviewers and for further interviewees, especially for countries outside of the US.
- The project continues with Irv Joel
having recorded several more new
interviews in Barcelona. A complete
list of interviews completed, and their dates, and interviews
proposed, is now available.
We have now begun editing some of the interviews into a form that we
can make available. We are also transcribing a few of the
interviews. But our emphasis is still on recording new interviews.
- The several projects described in the previous report are
Jay McKnight, Chair
AES Historical Committee
Draft report written on 2005-09-29, --29 15,


text:
- Private tour of Bayeux, Honfleur and Pays d'Auge from Caen
- Visit Bayeux Cathedral and see the city's diverse architecture
- See the famous Bayeux Tapestry depicting the Battle of Hastings
- View the picturesque Port of Honfleur
- Stop in Pays d' Auge for tastings of Camembert, Calvados and cider
- Small-group tour, with a maximum of eight passengers, ensures a more personalized experience
What You Can Expect
While you're in Bayeux, you will also see the famous Bayeux Tapestry, an embroidered cloth more than 200 feet (60 meters) long. This cloth, which was originally housed in the Bayeux Cathedral, tells the story of William the Conqueror, from the build-up to the invasion of England in 1066 to the Battle of Hastings, when William defeated King Harold to become King of England. The cloth is now located in the purpose-built Bayeux Tapestry Museum.
Next, continue your tour to the port town of Honfleur, with a picturesque and colorful harbor located on an estuary of the Seine. The colors of the timber-framed homes and the quaint backstreets have inspired famous painters like Monet and Courbet. After a minute or two here, you'll realize it's no wonder that Honfleur was regarded as the cradle of Impressionism. You'll also see Saint-Catherine church, the largest church constructed from wood in France.
Finally, you'll arrive in Pays d'Auge where you'll feast your senses on the range of culinary delights found in this region. Apple-based drinks are ubiquitous here – Calvados, an apple brandy, is a solid favorite, while cider, made from fermented apple juice, was for a long time the second-most popular beverage in France, after wine. Also famous from the region is Camembert, a soft, creamy cow's cheese, first made in the 18th century in Normandy.


text:
Every bride deserves to feel special and look elegant for her wedding day. After choosing her dress, the bride must then make the big decision on how she will wear her hair. There are many options to choose from. Should she wear her hair up or down? Straight or curly? Add a veil or accessories?
Allow me to share a few of my favorite bridal hairstyles. To learn more and see step by step blogs visit my website, www.sherrijessee.com.


text:
|Shooter Games: The Range Public discussion forum for all shooter games.
|Thread Tools
|30th March 2010, 11:27 AM
|#1 (permalink)
BF Bad Company 2 "Singleplayer"
Battlefield Bad Company 2 is a recently released shooter for PC, PS3 & XBOX 360. The original Battlefield Bad Company game was released on console only.
I don't know how the console players received this game but from what I've seen, PC players are loving it. From Battlefield veterans to Call of Duty players, many are loving this game for it's online element. For me though I think Battlefield 2 (v1.5) is the superior online game but that's another story.
Battlefield Bad Company 2 has a singleplayer campaign.
Many PC players will be saying..
--What's a singleplayer?
--BF:BC2 has singleplayer?
--Yeh that's what you do when your internet is down...
BF:BC2 has given me some of the best singleplayer gaming I've ever experienced.
Serious game - NO
Did I mention FUN? - YES
Dense jungles : deserts : snow-torn mountains : destructable environments.. You'll get about 8 hours of play so two nights will do it for most. I highly recommend playing this singleplayer campaign. The game is worth the money just for this alone..... and then there's the online modes..
I give the BF Bad Company 2 Singleplayer Campaign 9/10. The only reason it doesn't get a 10 for me was the lack of Co-op. Being able to share the experience with friends would make this Campaign close to perfect. I would love to see this in a future patch! Spending a day with mates playing as 'B' Company working our way through the Campaign..
>> TOG public FPS forum º ned's FPS maps/mods xfire Team
>> ned.theoldergamers.com
|31st March 2010, 12:38 AM
|#2 (permalink)
Hi Ned,
Well i've read similar to your opinion that BC2 is a primer for the eventual BF3 coming down the pipe. I'm on my 2nd playing of the single player campaign. The first play through took me 7 hours on normal difficulty. This time however i'm taking my sweet time on easy mode looking for all the missed collectibles in the campaign.
The single player campaign holds its own but like many reviews on the Net. I tend to agree it isn't as stellar to receive a 9 out of 10. (your score) I would rather give this short single player campaign a 7.5 out of 10. However if your talking about the game in general, including the multiplayer components (besides downloadable content). Than i would concur on the 9 out of 10 for the game title overall.
Atrayo's Oracle Blog Site (10 Yrs. Plus Online) & Facebook Fan Page.
|31st March 2010, 09:49 AM
|#4 (permalink)
Hi Atrayo,
My 9/10 score is just for the singleplayer
Before I started the campaign I really wasn't expecting much. I thought at best it may look good but will probably be a token addition to the game. I was wrong!
An overall game score drops for me with BF Bad Company 2..
• no public dedicated servers
• no LAN play
• magic auto healing
• stat noobs
There's a lot more I could go on about regarding the multiplay... my point in this thread was to highlight that the singleplayer campaign is well worth playing (in my opinion).
>> TOG public FPS forum º ned's FPS maps/mods xfire Team
>> ned.theoldergamers.com
|1st April 2010, 12:10 AM
|#5 (permalink)
stat noobs are in every game though, so i just ignore them...
as with BC1, the maps for mp were just taken from the SP campaign but with more detail to some parts and less detail to others.... which i dont actually like much because it gives the feeling that they were cutting corners and being lazy with the mp design even though the maps are absolutely epic... just kinda leaves you wondering, "what if they designed a map purely for MP gaming?"
but either way, the single player was pretty good. though it takes on a much more serious tone than the first bad company, and really doesnt explain why they are still in the army after driving off with literally a truck full of gold bars. oh and wtf happened to that legionaire boss guy who managed to survive his chopper exploding in mid air after being hit by like 6 rockets?
i give it an overal 7/10 because despite being a good game, you cant really say the story continues on from the first one....
|8th April 2010, 11:12 AM
|#6 (permalink)
Hi There,
In the May magazine issue of "PC Gamer" here in the States. The game reviewer Evan Lahti was harsher on the single player campaign than all of us combined. (on pg. 57)
His overall score was 81 out of 100 for the game itself.
Atrayo's Oracle Blog Site (10 Yrs. Plus Online) & Facebook Fan Page.
|Thread Tools


text:
MEDINA — School officials parked a bus outside Medina High School before the Monday night board meeting so board members and the public could see the corrosion that has rendered many of the district's buses irreparable.
The 14-year-old bus appeared intact from the outside. But the inside of the bus told a different story, with gaping holes in the floor where rust had eaten all the way through.
Rob Travis, manager of the school district's transportation department blamed Northeast Ohio winters for much of the damage.
"Brine and salt from the roads get into every crevice and deteriorate the buses from the inside out," he said, "Our priority is maintaining a safe fleet."
At Monday's meeting, the board approved spending $1,188,785 to purchase 15 new school buses from Cardinal Bus Sales Inc. of Lima.
The board also approved soliciting bids for the purchase of two additional school buses equipped to transport district students with special needs.
Board President Tom Cahalan pointed out the funds for the new buses would not come from the 5.9-mill levy approved by voters in November.
"The levy brought busing back," he said, "but the money to buy the buses will come from sales tax dollars."
The school district promised to restore busing for high school students if the levy passed.
In other action Monday, Treasurer David Chambers presented to the board the general expenditures for the 2013-14 school year.
The analysis of the general fund showed the district spent $61.6 million — $7.9 million less than originally projected in a five-year forecast.
Contact reporter Nancy Johnson at (330) 721-4065 or email@example.com.


text:
Fear of Holes Linked to Evolutionary Survival Response
Beehives, lotus flowers, poppy seeds and bubbles are all things that can cause intense fear in people with trypophobia, or the fear of holes. Just looking at clusters of holes in various formations can cause very powerful and unpleasant visceral reactions in trypophobes.
Related News
- Study Reports Women Deal with More Psychological Disorders Than Men
- Xenophobia Does Not Affect Migrants' Happiness, Study
- Commitment Phobia May be Blamed on Relationship With Parents
- Insomnia Could be due to Phobia of the Dark: Study
- Honesty Cures Children's Dentist Fears, Study
- Researchers Discover How to Cause Fear in the Fearless
- Autistic Children Take Longer to Let Go of Fear
While trypophobia, which is sometimes called repetitive pattern phobia, is not recognized in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, many people claim to be scared of objects with small holes. A previous study revealed that 16 percent of participants reported trypophobic reactions. Based on those findings, researchers say trypophobia may be "the most common phobia you have never heard of."
A new study reveals that the fear of holes may have stemmed from an evolutionary survival response. Lead researchers Geoff Cole and Arnold Wilkins of the University of Essex explain that the fear of holes may occur as a result of a specific visual feature also found among various poisonous animals.
To see whether there is a specific visual feature common to trypophobic objects, researchers compared 76 images of trypophobic objects. The study also included 76 control images of holes not associated with trypophobia.
After standardizing various features of the images, researchers found that the trypophobic objects had relatively high contrast energy at midrange spatial frequencies in comparison to the control images.
Researchers then analyzed the images of various poisonous animals - including the blue-ringed octopus, deathstalker scorpion, king cobra snake, and other poisonous snakes and spiders - and found that they, too, tended to have relatively high contrast at midrange spatial frequencies.
Cole and Wilkins said that the findings suggest that trypophobia may have an evolutionary basis. They explain that clusters of holes may be aversive because they happen to share a visual feature with animals that humans have learned to avoid as a matter of survival.
"We think that everyone has trypophobic tendencies even though they may not be aware of it," Cole said in a news release. "We found that people who don't have the phobia still rate trypophobic images as less comfortable to look at than other images."
The findings are published in the journal Psychological Science.


text:
Research in Plastic Surgery
The Plastic Surgery Department's multidisciplinary research program concentrates on enhancing quality of life issues for cancer survivors by integrating knowledge from clinical science, life science, and engineering fields.
Our research provides a seamless bridge from innovative concepts and fundamental knowledge to discovery-centered opportunities. We achieve our mission via these strategic goals:
- Identification of the fundamental mechanisms of tissue transfer, repair, replacement and regeneration to improve patient quality of life and reconstructive outcomes
- Leverage of resources to exploit novel initiatives, conduct innovative research, develop and validate clinically translatable strategies and advance technology transfer
- Education and training of the leadership and manpower required to investigate, promote and implement newly discovered tissue restoration therapies
- Facilitation of scientific exchange among professional, educational, public and corporate entities
Research Areas
Applied & Translational Science


text:
OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla.—It was one of those days when nothing went right for Oklahoma County District Attorney Bob Macy, who asked a federal court to rule that The Tin Drum, an Academy Award-winning film, was child pornography.
First, U.S. District Judge Ralph Thompson ruled that, even according to Oklahoma's legal standard, the movie was not child porn. Then the judge said that Macy had to return all of the videos of the film his office had confiscated last year from video stores, homes and a library.
The Tin Drum, made in Germany, won the Academy Award in 1979 for best foreign film. It is the story of Oskar, a boy who refuses to grow physically after the Nazis take power in Germany, and who shows his anger and frustration by banging on his tin drum and screaming with a high-pitched voice. The movie, which starred David Bennent, was an adaptation of the novel by Gunter Grass.
In Oklahoma City, Macy looked at the film and focused on three scenes, one of them showing a minor performing oral sex.
Judge Thompson said Oklahoma law forbids movies that show underage actors either simulating or portraying sexual acts but only if the film appeals to prurient interests. In the case of this critically-acclaimed foreign film, there was no such appeal, the judge said.
The judge's ruling failed to convince Bob Anderson, executive director of Oklahomans for Children and Families. He said he still believes The Tin Drum includes child pornography.
Michael Camfield, development director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma, said there is still some unfinished business. He said issues remain concerning the way Oklahoma City police went about confiscating copies of the film, including seizing it from his own house. He has filed a lawsuit to challenge that Oklahoma roundup.