text:
A thrilling, mind-bending view of the cosmos and of the human adventure of modern science. In a conversation ranging from free will to the meaning of the Higgs boson particle, physicist Brian Greene suggests the deepest scientific realities are hidden from human senses and often defy our best intuition.
Share Episode
Shortened URL
is a professor of physics and mathematics at Columbia University. He is also co-founder of the World Science Festival. His books include The Elegant Universe, The Fabric of the Cosmos, and The Hidden Reality.
Pertinent Posts
Would the Higgs boson exist without our thinking it existed in the first place. Is it possible that by thinking differently – about ourselves, about others, about our universe – we might begin to see things differently?
Kindred Episodes
About the Image
Episode Sponsor
Share a Reflection
(Re: Brian Green on free will
(Re: Brian Green on free will) There is no need to redefine choice in order to acknowledge free will. We have a sentient being that is aware of two or more alternatives and selects one (or more if they are non-exclusive). That's what free will entails: what else could it? Let's say selections made had nothing to do with predispositions and awareness of consequences—in other words a completely random event: How would this constitute a choice? Green and the theologians get tied up in knots because the target they both have in mind is a naïve, absolute (fantastic) idea of choice that is disconnected from anything physical (or any context in which the word is ordinarily used): the immaterial spirit influencing the laws of physics. That is all Green is denying, which in no way denies any defensible idea of free will. He says the elements of choice are made up of events governed by deterministic laws of physics, so those elements don't constitute a "real" choice—which is why he speaks of merely "experiencing a choice". Fine: let's say the laws of physics were non-deterministic, the underlying processes completely random, and there was no regularity in the world whatsoever that could enable persistence and evolutionary change: would the elements of "choice" ever have got a foot hold? I would argue the only reason we have free will is because of those underlying deterministic processes.
It's so simple. What's called
It's so simple. What's called "free will" is simply the degree of choices available.
A rich kid on the Upper West Side has infinitely more life's choices ("free will")
than the child of a wellfare mother in inner city Philadelphia. To believe in
something called "free will" is to chase an illusion!
I'm afraid it's not so simple
I'm afraid it's not so simple at all. Although the Upper West Side kid has more choices available, he will still have to select one from them, won't he? He couldn't go with all of them, right? So how would that selection take place? Through making a singular choice. And how is that done?
Yes, but who says we start
Yes, but who says we start from zero? Who says that choice isn't structured [even determined by] by past experience?
I absolutely agree with you.
I absolutely agree with you. No body starts at zero. All humans start out with an individual personality given them by the Lord God. It's our personalities that determine our interests in life. For example, some people love to play music, while others love science and engineering, and still others gardening or baking, etc. Now everyone may enjoy music from time to time, but not everyone desires to make a career about playing music. I know from personal experience that I prefer vanilla ice cream over chocolate ice cream, and although I've eaten chocolate ice cream a few times, and even enjoyed it, I will always prefer vanilla because that desire is God given. If our personalities were not God given and unique from other people's, then the world would be a boring place. There would be too many people all doing the same thing. If everyone loved to build houses for a living, then who would cook. Now I can cook. In fact I'm pretty good at it. But I realized some time ago I will never love to cook as much as teach science and the Bible.
Listening to Brian's
Listening to Brian's explanation of choice and free will, the thought occurs: perhaps God "IS" the law of physics. I think on the idea that we are thoughts in the mind of God, and from that perspective, I can see how as humans we simply have a sensation of choice that may be just that and not complete separation from God. It is my current belief that humanity is God's way of creating "separation" and "independence" necessary that we might "know" God. We can live purely by instinct - as animals - or we can live with insight, and both can look exactly the same on each end of the spectrum.
Merton speaks of the
Merton speaks of the inability to define/describe contemplation. That moment of clarity that comes from contemplation that intuits the larger beneath the mundane. This is the moment the non-God proponents miss entirely. The vastness and complexity of what they endlessly quantify is merely a formula, and they miss the obvious intelligence behind it all.
Which god?
Which god?
I love this broadcast because
I love this broadcast because I find it so provocative. I am becoming more and more comfortable with some of these concepts and find comfort in them as I go through my daily life. I am a school counselor and encounter many frustrations all day long but I don't feel anything is out of control. Everything is evolving. Sometimes I wish I could influence students more. Yesteday I found a boy wandering the halls as he was avoiding Algebra class. I asked him how that would help him achieve his goals because my goal is that he graduate. He told me his goal is to drop out and that he doesn't need Algebra. The big questions discussed in this show don't seem to address this kind of situation but somehow I hope that student ends up in a good place and I hope it includes Algebra and a high school diploma.
This contact that you are having with this boy, this interest in talking with him, the connection you and others are making with him is the invisible substance that he needs and may guide him on to that
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could instill in our students this excitement for Algebra and Science that Brian Greene has experienced? I think this will eventually happen.
But I also think that there is something really important that should never be lost, and that is the connection with all our kids so that they can experience empathy and understanding at times when they so need it.
If we're all just a product
If we're all just a product of a mathematical equation how do we differ from the computers we're building?... Or do we ?
dear natasha:
dear natasha:
computers don't have consciouses (consciousness). we would have to program it for them and with the human minds, brains and variations and crosspaths of other influencing categories influencing our conscience. it wouldn't work.. what about feelings? we have, computers can't have feelings, computers and machines can only solve problems we put into them...we are the ones that give them direction and programs to find answers. a computer doesn' t have a soul, a spirit, a mind,...but a computer has a programs and those are its brain.
Greene seems full of it.
Greene seems full of it. Depends on what the meaning of the word "the" is. In that case, the professor can't hold conversations bc you have to define every word for him. Math is math. Religion is religion. People know what those words mean. If someone asks you a direct question, why not answer it without the Clintonion rhetoric? Or saying"this is uninteresting to me." No one asked you about what was interesting to you. Quantum mechanics has NOTHING to do with free will. Free choice has nothing to do with apples falling from trees. What a bunch of total B.S.!
Greene saying "this is
Greene saying "this is uninteresting to me" is very much to the point in all of this - namely that scientists choose - subjectively - their involvement with a physical, material sense of what they regard as reality. However, while they don't need to be interested in any other version of reality, they don't seem to realize that the practice of science is nothing other than their own individual subjectivity… which they insist on labeling (subjectively) as being objective. In only choosing what can be observed and verified by their limited senses, they will hardly have the last word on "reality."
Greene spoke condescendingly
Greene spoke condescendingly at points, especially considering the forum in which he was appearing. He, and I'm afraid sometimes Krista as well, falls victim to the fallacy that expertise in one field implies competence in another.
It is clear that he has any training, basic understanding, or even interest in learning about the theological concerns he took on. That's fine, but then he should develop the grace to defer.
If puzzle-solving satisfies something akin to a personal need for him or other scientists, then that is wonderful. But neither he nor we should be deceived into thinking that such an endeavor specially qualifies him in the fields of philosophy, theology, or ethics.
Krista, why do you keep giving this kind of overweening scientism a platform? At least toss them a real challenge now and again.
Totally agree with you. The
Totally agree with you. The danger, however, that Greene and countless other scientists pose for our cognitive evolution is that they have already assumed that everything can be explained by one of sciences or another, and in due course of time. Also, there are still far too many people whose thinking is conditioned by them, and by our overwhelmingly materialistic education system, and have not been able to see just how much subjectivity is determining their views and projects… I could get more metaphysical than this, but in a forum as compromised as "On Being" it's not worth it.
Those last two sentences sum
Those last two sentences sum up my disappointment with this interview and with how Krista tends to conduct interviews with proponents of scientific materialism. I am eager to hear from scientists who are adept at speaking about the philosophical and/or theological implications they draw from their work, but scientists such as Greene seem completely blind to their own underlying philosophical commitments and condescendingly dismissive of those who don't share these commitments (most evident in this interview, I think, in his back-and-forth with a woman theologian who tried to engage him on a series of questions). And Krista, usually a fabulous interviewer who asks evocative questions, doesn't appear to have the ability to name and challenge the underlying assumptions behind Green's responses. And we, the listeners, are expected in the end to discover meaning in a worldview that reduces the human person to a mere purposeless accident in a mathematically precise, rigorously deterministic universe, the totality of which reducible to mere laws of physics? Krista, please wake up and pose challenging questions here!!!
I wouldn't hold my breath
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Krista if I were you... If she were to interview someone like Ervin Laszlo, for example, that would be a sign that she is ready to engage with something quite different than the round of usual suspects which fully meet the standard safety requirements of NPR, PRI, etc. But it is unlikely, at least in this particular universe...
If math proves that the
If math proves that the universe is ordered why would we disturb it? Its vastness and design are beyond our natural human makeup. Scientist are boundary pushers. They are not God(s). Men are prone to error along the path of discovery. They have no right to gamble with humans lives.
Dr. Brian Greene's hypothis
Dr. Brian Greene's hypothis that there is no free will, or that free will is merely a sensation, needs to be further examened. I propose an experiment; dr Greene will attempt, using the laws of physics, to predict my selection of a color (one out of six stated options). If he is correct 80% of the time, his hypothis will be given some credibility. If not, he has much work to in fortifying his hypothis.
Brian Green's comments that
Brian Green's comments that free will is not part of the equations of physics is disturbing to many but we must keep in mind that we are dealing with the exact meaning of words (which is an oxymoron to begin with). Green's comments are within a particular hypothetical interpretation of quantum theory proposed by Hugh Everett a half century ago called the many worlds theory (hypothesis to be more accurate). There are many other competing interpretation and the dust has yet to have settled on this issue. But even within this way of viewing things the concept of predestination, which is traditionally coupled with a lack of free will, is not at all part of the concept. The many worlds hypothesis is the opposite of predestination in that every thing that can happen happens in at least some of the many worlds. Predestination assumes that there is only one world, not many. The question of free will in the the many worlds interpretation is whether or not the odds of a particular world (its probability relative to the total ensemble) can be influenced by our conscious decisions. The question then is can our decisions tilt the odds of one world outcome verses another? Just choose to run a red light at 100 mph at rush hour to answer this one.
This then leads to the discussion of Camus' issue of whether life is worth living or should we just choose a pleasant suicide. Green's approach to this is right on. He finds inspiration in the amazing structure of the physical reality from which we evolved. I am totally in tune with this approach. Like Green, I have published on the intricate nature of the physical substructure of the universe that was necessary for the raw energy of the Big Bang to have evolved into anything like ourselves anywhere in the vast visible universe (see ImprobableUniverse.com , Our Improbable Universe, ISBN 1-56858-301-X, Thunder's Mouth Press, 2004 and also go to for a 1 hour video presentation). Here I identify more than 14 physical laws (or phenomena) that had to be more or less exactly as they are for intelligence to have evolve anywhere. If these laws were set up by a deity after much contemplation (and perhaps computer simulations), the great effort of the creator implies that life has value (i.e. derived value) and must be taken seriously and helped to flourish. A non-deistic approach is a many universes hypothesis which is not the same as the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. In this approach one hypothesizes a huge metal universe in which our visible universe (what we can see) is one of a zillion pocket universe each of which has a different set of physical laws (String Theory implies 1,000, .... with 500 zeros potential structures) . With this hypothesis we have gotten the one universe in a zillion with the built in spontaneous creativity that can result in beings such as ourselves. We won a rare gem in the rough that has inherent value based on its huge creative potential.
So either way(a deistic or non-deistic hypothesis) life and the universe has unimaginable creative value. This is my answer to Camus' paradox.
I wrote this a few months ago
I wrote this a few months ago while contemplating the motivations of the main antagonist in my novel:
"Consider, for a moment, the notion that how we think, what we say and how we behave is not simply a function of all of our experiences and gained knowledge. Indeed, these are gathered via our senses, in regions of our brains and then processed by synaptic junctions - they are imbedded in masses of biological tissue, and are regulated - not necessarily consistently so, however - by biochemical electronic impulses. Our thoughts, words and behavior are simply the outcome of this biological process. Who we are is defined by the chemistry of our cells: we are a compilation of the chemical reactions of our collective thoughts, feelings and actions, which have been nurtured by the senses - of which, even those are based on cells. We don't have free will. We have chaos will."
If who you are is defined by
If who you are is defined by the chemistry of your cells, which are a product of random mutation and natural selection through the mindless process of evolution leaving you with chaos will, then why should anyone attribute worth to a word you say? If that is the worldview to which a physicist submits, then why should anyone attribute any worth to his or her claims and musings? Intelligent people rejecting to acknowledge their Intelligent Creator end up as fools making irrational and self-refuting statements. How we think and what we say and how we behave is a function of our rebellion against the God of Creation. Only when we submit to Him and His love demonstrated through His Son Jesus Christ, the Creator, who came to rescue us from our rebellion against Him, can we experience a rebirth that you are longing for so much but will never find outside of a relationship with Him.
I am holding an apple. And
I am holding an apple. And your discourse refers to an orange. I also failed to identify a segue; you initially disregard the reality of biochemistry which comprises us, and then shift abruptly, atop your podium, to lament some "lost soul looking for rebirth." While I do not wish to belittle or critique your religious zeal, let me propose that one's lack of commitment to Christianity - or any religion, for that matter - has nothing to do with one's understanding of the perceptual environment, as it is transferred through the medium of biochemistry. I admire your interest in my salvation, but, sir, no, thank-you. Now can we please get back to the subject at hand?
Many years ago I was a
Many years ago I was a physicist and part of a group, the head of which won the Nobel Prize. After a few years I quit my job and physics because "something" in me was not being nourished in that work and in the way I was able to be in that environment; something was missing. As I listened to Brian Greene I heard that same emptiness that I had to leave in order to find, what I might call a "Greater Life." Greene speaks from a heady place and does not yet realize how limiting this is. He proclaimed the verities of science and was indignant and even hurt that science is not adequately appreciated in our culture; this is a common theme with many science "true believers," but in his conversation with Krista he was not open and reflective in response to her questions and offerings. Marcelo Gleiser was not like that. The status of science and how it is held in our culture is changing and I'm not talking about the latest exciting, seductive theories. There is more to every phenomenon than can be accounted for by our explanations, whether scientific, ideological or theological. This is the most compelling understanding and basis for humility I have found.
While Dr. Greene was
While Dr. Greene was discussing his definitions of choice, and where free will may or may not exist, I could only think of Lao Tzu. In Lao Tzu's teachings of Taoism there are two "ways." Our way which is imperfect implementation of life and The Way of the divine. It seems to fit quite well in this discussion of choice, Free Will, and their relevance within string theory. I can't fully explain this idea at the moment, I star work in 15 minutes, but I chose to post this in its incomplete form for future discussion.
Other interesting ideas on
Other interesting ideas on this topic I've listened to come from Dr. John Hagelin, a Quantum Physicist. As a layman, I can't expound upon hypothetical or tested theories. What I do know is what I experience. I am a long time meditator so come from a different angle. Sometimes I loose the experience of time/space altogether in a linear fashion as if all that has, is or will be is happening at the same time. Hard to describe, but I'm sure many have experienced this.Sometimes I do have an inkling that everything is predestination (karma?, multiverses? hard to know for sure) in the time/space reality we experience. It's a fascinating subject. I thoroughly enjoyed Krista's interview with Brian Green!
Dr. Greene, as many others
Dr. Greene, as many others like him who operate in submission to the philosophy of naturalism, limit science to an investigation of our reality within the confines of the Big Bang Theory and the Grand Theory of Evolution. These are foundational axioms to which an individual does not have to submit. In fact, hundreds of cosmologists and physicists have signed an open letter rejecting the Big Bang Theory and many have attended 2 recently held conferences on the Crisis in Cosmology which acknowledge significant and multiple contradictions with what we observe and what the Big Bang Theory predicts. They have gone as far as saying that we need to get rid of the Big Bang Theory and start with a clean slate, at the least challenging the consensus cosmology. The BBT has been propped up time and again with ad hoc assumptions and "theories" that are not supported by evidence, as Dr. Greene admitted with String "Theory" when answering an audience member's question. Why are they called "theories" when a Theory in science is something that has so much evidential support that it's practically a law. There are other cosmologies as solutions to Einstein's equations with different starting assumptions that are supported by what we observe and do not need to invoke ad hoc assumptions like Inflation, Dark Matter or Dark Energy--read about the cosmologies of Moshe Carmeli, John Hartnett or Russell Humphreys. Regarding the Grand Theory of Evolution, he assumes that molecules evolved to man and man is still evolving. This requires an earth history of millions and billions of years. This kind of discussion is outside the realm of scientific observation. Conclusions about evidence collected, whether it be fossils, DNA or radiometric dating, are inherently dependent upon the worldview of the observer. For example, DNA, collagen, blood cells, osteocytes, etc. have been found in dinosaur bones. From what we know though objective science, these products do not last in the environment for more than tens of thousands of years. Some scientists see this as supporting evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existed only thousands of years ago. Other scientists conclude that these products do last for tens and hundreds of millions of years, even though that is contrary to what we observer in the laboratory, because their worldview requires the dinosaurs to have existed 65 million years ago or more. Some German scientists have carbon dated dinosaur bones and found the radiocarbon ages to be in the tens of thousands of years with the radiocarbon concentration highest in the bone and decreasing as one digs away from the bone, arguing against external sources of radio carbon. A purely objective scientist would consider these findings and do further and more extensive research, possibly finding more evidence in support of the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. However, most scientists operating in submission to the consensus position that radiometric dating of rock layers is irrefutable will reject the radiocarbon ages of dinosaur bones outright, acting not as scientists but as philosophers protecting their strongly held worldview that is not open to scientific scrutiny. If Dr. Greene's beliefs about how his brain works and how we are simply operating according to laws of physics and the consequences of random mutations and natural selection over billions of years of directionless evolution, then why should anything he says be attributed worth by the rest of us who apparently have no free will anyway?
I too am a believer in Free
I too am a believer in Free Will, for many reasons, but I record one of my suspicions here, as it applies to Brian Greene's specialty.
Can an expert in Quantum Mechanics, which is deterministic mainly in many-particle interactions, apply that determinism to
brain action, which is microscale - possibly viewable as amplified (through network) single particle interactions, which are
not deterministic, as I recall QM physics.
- - -
There are other attacks to use too, but this one is from physics so I record it here possibly for Mr Greene or another Physicist to see.
As I see it, "free will" is
As I see it, "free will" is simply the number of choices available to an individual.
The child of rich parents living on the Upper West Side and going to an exclusive prep school has infinitely
more choices in life (infinitely more "free will"). Than a child of an impoverished family in inner city Phila.
Someone severely crippled by accident has many less choices (much less "free will") than before the accident.
Ain't no such thing as "free will", per se, just the degree of choices you have. Believing in "free will" is
chasing an illusion!
One danger in destroying the
One danger in destroying the concept of will contained in the individual (freely) is the danger of destroying the legal sovereignty of the individual - He can not be seen as responsible. Guess what? that's the basis of the entire legal system. Anti free will philosophers (with followers accepting them as true prophets) are really playing with the destruction of society. Will is where things that get done come from - guess there's a rash of anti free will types in Congress too, not that that should be tolerated.
Cool show.
Cool show.
It's understandable that one
It's understandable that one of the portions of the discussion that has attracted the most attention (and ire) is the question of Free Will. There are many occasions in history where scientific discoveries have forced us to re-examine our own cherished assumptions. In such situations it is not unusual for people to initially seek ways to reject this information, and even to attack those who present it, as a sort of protective disgust-reflex, instead of engaging with this new data in order to ask questions and consider new possibilities (good as well as bad).
Apparently the way Dr. Greene himself handles this sense of intuitive conflict in his own life, is to go on living with a healthy dose of curiosity and humor, accepting that things may not always be quite as our intuition tells us they should be, while recognizing that we can honor the importance of Free Will as a part of our subjective experience of living, within our limited ability to sense and intuitively grasp the underlying physics at work in each moment. Ironically, he as a scientist seems more willing to accept a certain amount of paradox in life than some religiously-minded folks are.
The question of Choice is a thorny one for us humans, and similar issues (and strong opinions) arise in discussions of psychology and neuroscience, and of crime, mental illness, and punishment. Not to mention theological discussions surrounding ancient notions such as "karma" and "sin". We can be sure that as artificial intelligence continues to develop, there will even more discussion of the intersection of science and Free Will.
Gerry's reflection is so well
Gerry's reflection is so well-written and concise. Also, he makes a good defense for how Dr. Greene conducts his life, even while acknowledging the absence of Free Will.
It is deeply offensive to see
It is deeply offensive to see the interviewer Krista Tippett throughout the interview in her incessant grasping for her god of the (her) gaps repeatedly misappropriate and distort the legacy of one of history's greatest men of reason - Albert Einstein.
Einstein did NOT not "necessarily" mean a creator god. He ABSOLUTELY and unequivocally did not mean a creator god. Throughout his lectures, conversations, correspondence and publications he categorically rejected a creator god and viewed ALL religions as "an incarnation of the most primitive superstitions" and the word God as "nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses"
As to the effects of organized religion whose methods he described as "mass indoctrination" Einstein had this to say (just to scratch the surface): "…the unspeakable crimes of the Church for 2,000 years…" and "If I were allowed to give advice to the Churches I would tell them to begin with a conversion among themselves, and to stop playing power politics. Consider what mass misery they have produced in Spain, South America and Russia."
To "believe" in "free will"
To "believe" in "free will" is to chase an illusion.
What many call "free will" is simply the number of choices one has.
A rich kid on the Upper West Side has infinitely more "free will" (choices available)
compared to the child of an impoverished, ill-educated inner city welfare mother.
There's no such thing as "free will", per se, only choices available.
Herman, I agree with you on
Herman, I agree with you on that. I call that phenomenon "bandwidth of choice". Some have a greater bandwidth than others. I'd like to call this "karma" which is to a large extent pre-determined with a variable bandwidth of ability to change it, or not.
There is a saying that if a
There is a saying that if a handyman only carries a hammer, then he'll treat everything as if it's a nail. Similarly, if all that scientists want to acknowledge and work with is a material, physical reality, then they won't discover anything else. (And no, the universe doesn't make you "choose" it either, Mr. Greene).
As human beings, scientists are like everyone else limited beings, who don't want to appreciate the extent of their own limitations. All their "expertise" has been highly conditioning, producing an inability to see through to how much of their methodologies are already the complex products of assumptions (which are comprised of what is already "known" or established). In this sense, Greene's disavowal of subjectivity is a good example of a blind spot which appears unable to recognize that one is already fully speaking from within the universe - since this "within" is already positing you contextually as subject.
Nonetheless, while methodology is over-controlled at the expense of a greater openness (which might inspire views of other, less material possibilities), it also seems clear that in the end, the necessary methodologies which would either verify or disprove various unexplained things - such as psychic phenomena - are nonexistent. And will never likely exist.
Why? Because they lie outside the ability of science to determine either their causes or even their very nature. Consciousness is a good case in point. The science has been good with explaining what consciousness does in the body, but not how to get it IN the body in the first place. And it won't, because it doesn't originate in the body… something a mystic or yogi would actually know experientially.
I'm afraid that the materialistic "seeing is believing" of science is just attempting to judge the Book of Reality by its cover - the physical, material surfaces of existence through the limitations of various measurements - but it's the book within that science is actually unable to read: because it doesn't understand the language… while a "mystic" or an adept does. Or, at the very least, someone who is open to allowing the contributions from that quarter.
Mr. Greene can say he is simply not interested in metaphysical questions, but it seems disingenuously offered to cover his scientific behind… which I accept. In the end, while it is true that everyone has a right to their opinions, there are opinions which provide more meaning and value than others. And those will not come from science.
On the topic of free will,
On the topic of free will, perhaps dr. Green has some new england puritans in his ancestry. They certainly believed that "free will" was of little consequence in this life, and that one's fate in the afterlife was utterly and completely predetermined, even prior to one's birth. Thank goodness that the majority of colonists believed in free will! Otherwise, we would still be clinging to the coattails of king george, and probably be drinking tea every afternoon at 4 pm.
Yes, we can do without the
Yes, we can do without the clinging to coattails... but I do like tea at 4... ;-)
While I won't wade in to the
While I won't wade in to the free will debate (though I do think he is a bit cavalier in general about science), one of the aspects that disturbed me in the interview was the story of the soldier in Iraq who was comforted in the midst of war by going to the theoretical bigger questions of science. To my mind, this is an ethical failure of science if it used in this manner. Science should lead us to a deeper reality with all of its ethical quandaries rather than allow us to zoom out far enough that our actions in war don't seem to make much difference. Perhaps despair is the correct emotion that leads us to question our ethical choices in regards to war and the devastation it causes.
I thought he was clutching at
I thought he was clutching at straws on this point, suggesting that science has the capacity to answer the big questions, even moral questions. That is a dubious assertion and, just as you mentioned, I was disturbed by the implication that we might throw in to an unjust mass-killing like the Iraq War and absolve ourselves because, hey, turns out quarks don't care. Religion has a mixed track record indeed and I tend towards moral skepticism, but this portion of his presentation only reaffirms his thorough-going scientism.
The program was as one of the
The program was as one of the best, lot of to think about; thanks a lot.
Dr Green is certainly the leading thinker between the modern physicists. It is special interesting when Professor talks about new physic, however he considers "free will" in Newtonians approach. He does not give any attention to "the principle of uncertainty".
The application of this principle is much more interesting on our human scale, when we are dealing with the real natural, engineered and social systems.
This conversation reminds me
This conversation reminds me of George MacDonald (1840-1905):
"There is no word to represent that which is not God,
no word for the 'where' without God in it; for it is not,
could not be."
Just acknowledge the absence of mathematical evidence of free will (and a small 'g') and this could be Brian Green
Brian mentions that there is
Brian mentions that there is no room for freewill mathematically, which I'm ok with, but what about the notion that a perceiver can change the outcome of the perception? Isn't that perceiver or freewill, then mathematically accounted for? Or is it just a random reaction that is a natural part of quantum physics?
Leaving the question of
Leaving the question of choice and free will aside (no logical resolution possible in my mind), I want to express a sigh of relief and appreciation for Greene's integrity in stating his perspective on the question of "God's role." Clean and forthright, his view seems to be founded in the same essential wonder driving whatever pursuits hold a person's passion: "Not that it's wrong, I don't find it interesting." It's a respectful personal statement unencumbered by self-doubt or approval-seeking. Hearing this part of the interview hit me in the place of YES.
I'm afraid that Greene's
I'm afraid that Greene's ostensible "integrity" (as you'd have it) matters little in the overall trajectory of his - and scientists' in general - continual disingenuity regarding their own unacknowledged subjectivity, in all matters. Your response is merely an attempt to cover his disingenuity with your own… The question of raising "God's role" tends to be a dishonest trump that has become truly tiresome, as it posits the metaphysical in the most simplistic yet unanswerable terms, and which therefore can neither be successfully defended nor removed from the premises; however, even as such, it hardly remains the elephant in the room. Until scientists have the courage to admit their inadequate efforts (or their convenient lack of interest) in accounting for the many various (so-called) paranormal phenomena at large - which indeed remain pristinely undefiled by their "expertise" - I'm afraid their supposed integrity is quite transparent.
What "paranormal phenomena"?
What "paranormal phenomena"?
As Louise said here,
As Louise said here, meditation does take you to a place of suspended time..
Does anyone know which
Does anyone know which equations are depicted on Dr. Brian Green's children T-shirts referenced in the broadcast? I'm not aware of any quantum mechanics equations that sum up reality.
In the Q and A session which
In the Q and A session which accompanied the recording of the interview with Brian Greene as presented over the airways I was hoping that two questions could have been asked in response to Greene's assertion that the mind is the brain and its processes and that choice is merely the "sensation" of choice.
Question One: What about out of body experiences. Although there is no way to induce this phenomenon in a lab, we have tons of anecdotal evidence that it is a reality. People have reported what the doctors actually said while attempting to revive the patient from death in the operating room.. If consciousness is limited to the brain, how can these people do this?
Question 2:
If choice is but the "sensation" of choice, why can we not say that discovery in the realm of physics is not itself the "sensation" of discovery.
Synapses firing in the brain that provide the sensation of choice which, according to Greene is the effect of physics manifesting itself in the cranium, can be seen likewise as the same thing when we claim that the brain has made some sort of breakthrough in the intricacies of scientific awareness.
Why do you not say that physics reveals itself to us when and where it pleases. Our choice of the time and place we conduct an experiement is a matter of only the sensation of choice, i. e. an illusion.
Greene is positing a scenario in which physics acts as a god if not God himself, herself, or itself, in that physics induces in us the sense that we are free but really are not.
How can a new discovery be seen as a human accomplishment if it is physics that is choosing to reveal it to us?
Greene's atheism has gotten itself mixed up with the notion of physics as God or God as physics which sounds a lot like a quest to discover what the nature of God is rather than a rejection of the idea that there could be a God at all.
I think that the boredom he describes as his experience with "church" growing up can be attested to by many Christians, myself included. But boredom in the act of corporate worship does nothing to diminish the sense of adventure a Christian can have when he or she also.discovers a central meaning for one's life that is nurtured in religious community..
Is this incredible underlying
If free will existed, we
If free will existed, we would be living in a paradise. Because free will doesn't exist, we continue destroying ourselves, others, and the world we live in.
I have something in common
I have something in common with Brian Green, I am a graduate of Columbia School of Social Work. As an RC interested in all religious and philosophic thought, I share my belief.
In relation to "time". I believe everything happened at once, the big bang was a solitary encounter of everything that is. Jesus said "I am the Alpha and the Omega". God is the beginning and end, and is enmeshed in our time, reconciling us to our original state in the Garden of Eden - where time first was experienced by our original parents - who separated themselves in some way from God. Time is a human invention. Everything comes out of this understanding, the Incarnation, the redemption and salvation. Many of the hints of this reality show up in some way in other faiths. I think the infant in utero is, perhaps, a better example than the fish. As my four year old granddaughter said when speaking of the name of her baby (to my response that I hope I'll be there). "I know, we are all in God's belly." I had compared death with birth. Mariology shows up in different conceptualizations everywhere. Of course what Adam and Eve represent is in question as well as many other accounts in the Hebrew and Christian scripture. There's much more, but I found the tape validating.
Also, I disagree that "free will is the sensation of choice". If everything happened at once, all of the zillions of choices we are presented with and do, but - at the same "time" everything happened at once, in a sense it has happened but it also includes choice. In addition, God intervening can be understood in just the same way. All happened at once (in the sense that we are speaking of human time and creation....God's creation) The Word/The Incarnation "in" time is enmeshed and intervening in the rupture at the same time that they are happening. "for to those who love God and are called in God's plan everything works out to the good." So, in my view, the speaker is missing the context for creation and time.
I find the dialogue fascinating. It will take a great deal of humility to "hear" one another. As a scientist to find an entire world outside of your discipline uninteresting isn't surprising if you cannot allow another discipline to enhance, inform, or modify your science. The same applies to spiritual, philosophic, or religious thought.
So are we holograms, or are we living in a time that is and was and will be. Does deja vu disclose this to us? Is fruitful intuition the consciousness of our unity in one body, not just our perception of our unity? Lots of fascinating questions.
Great conversation. Dr. Thérèse M. Craine Bertsch, DSW
Re: free will - in the future
Re: free will - in the future, will the justice system cease to exist? Courts are already beginning to incorporate diagnoses into the definitions of innocence and guilt. If the very notion of decision making is debunked, won't the debunking of "fault" immediately follow?
Isn't that Elephant's Feet
Isn't that Elephant's Feet Utah? Or somewhere there-a-bouts? Been there several times on my travels. I love the desert...really one of my favorite places to be. Thanks for the beautiful photography. The Universe is an amazing thought continuum, wouldn't you agree?
But what about all those
But what about all those mutations? I believe in this conversation that free will is a mutation of universal laws.
Earlier I submitted a comment
Earlier I submitted a comment, but I would appreciate it if you would erase it and not consider it for publication. I started to submit a revised version, and unfortunately the revisions got lost. It was a wonderful interview!
it seems to me that people
it seems to me that people who don,t understand math or maybe they just don,t want to take the time to Learn math physics they always revert back to that dreaded 3 Letter word God" something that has never been seen heard or in fact proven at all at all EVER in the History of human beings" but they always go back to it and it makes me very mad ..not because they want to believe in some god" because I really don,t care...the thing is it makes me mad because god and all the religion that go,s with that word makes people forget all about science and instead of going forward in their Learning"- their going backwards to where NOTHING Can be Learned or proven once again ...I really Like Brian because he doesn,t want to hurt anyones Feelings about their beliefs".. but he is an incredible physicist - he believes in the Nature of things and the physics of how it all works whats creating all that we see and all we haven,t seen yet' ./..and this is how my mind works or at least how I want it to work ...I Look at Life Like if I was making a stew or cooking anything which has lots of ingrediants in them and when its all done it taste Delicious! but in nature the only difference to me is that Nature has been working a very Long time and it has been trying or at least mixing ingrediants throughout space until something comes together that is Fantastic in this case I,m of course talking of Life.. this to me is better than forcing my mind to believe that theres an invisible man in the sky watching us at all times making everything happen this not only sounds irrational but it is"! ...in any case even if it turned out that there was such a creator?...I,m sure that it would be aliens far advanced than we are ..instead of some magical one great super man who Runs the Whole Show. ..../Thank you Brian I could Listen to you talk for on and on., Mike,
Jan 30 2014 Broadcast
Jan 30 2014 Broadcast
Reimagining the Cosmos with Brian Greene
This was the first on being episode that I have listened to. It was right on the front page with a cool picture of a starry background. I was quite surprised that the topic was about the best topic I would want to listen to. A famous theoretical physicist that also talks very philosophical, my favorite.
He talks about many interesting topics, one of them was time. How it is relative to the person observing it. We all run along our own path of time. What he talks about is more that the speed of time changes based on the motion, gravity and other forces that are acting on it.
So if a twin leaves his sibling and travels in space at very very fast speed and then returns to Earth. His watch would be far behind the twin, by an order of many years. This is something that has been experimentally shown. By taking radioactive particles with a known half life and putting them in a particle accelerator. After accelerating them very fast, the particles took longer to decay. A human is a little different than a radioactive particle though, so I don't know if I'd quite reach that conclusion yet.
I like thinking of time as relative because we all precieve it to take so long. If your enjoying an activity, it seems to go by much more quickly. During a dream it seems like we accomplish so much, when in reality it was only 10-15 minutes.
So the time that we keep is really just a measure of either how for the earth has moved around the sun if your talking years, or a measure of how much the earth has rotated if your talking seconds or hours.
Wow this really got away from the total concepts of the show, because there is so much science that he explains quite simply. If you have any interest in what theoretical scince means or entails, this is a great broadcast.
Thanks for reading,
Shane Feld - NHCC
This episode was really hard
This episode was really hard to follow. Brian Greene discussed many scientific findings that I was unfamiliar with, such as String theory and the Higgs field. Even after he explained some of these ideas further, I'm still don't feel like I get it. It was as if I was watching an episode of my favorite show, but in another language. So rather then get into details about these scientific ideas, I'll just share some things that grabbed my attention.
I like how he views science as one of the greatest adventure stories. You can really get a sense of how much he enjoys his line of work. He even goes as far as comparing what he does to that which a artist does. He claims his work helps us find our place in this world and reveals knowledge of our deepest questions.
A couple things that blew my mind was when he explains that complex ideas can be reduced to simple mathematical equations, and that every outcome allowed by the quantum laws of physics is played out in parallel universes. To me much of this seemed more science fiction, but It also intrigued me to learn more. After listening to this I spend a good hour or so doing my own online research to understand his ideas better.
Lastly, I wanted to get some opinions about where religion can play into these ideas. While I was listening to this, I couldn't help to notice that there was really no room for religious ideas in Brian's scientific studies of the cosmos. Where do you place "god" or religious views in this???
I'm listening to these
I'm listening to these conversations about science a couple of years
after they took place, so I guess it is likely that few will read further comments. However, on reading the existing comments, it does seem that
all viewpoints are not fully represented. I found that Brian Greene was more careful to distinguish speculation from established scientific truth than I expected from his reputation among physicists. However many of the commenters missed those distinctions. There is no consensus among physicists that there are many universes, for example. In a few places, Greene seems to have exaggerated the achievements of his subfield: I do not believe that string theory has succeeded in accounting in detail for the
Standard Model, which correctly describes all experimental results from high energy physics.
With regard to 'free will' I am in wholehearted agreement with Greene's statements, but it might help nonphysicists to understand the issue to discuss the idea of emergence which he barely mentions. 'Emergence' refers to the fact that qualitatively unexpected phenomena can emerge from complex systems obeying fundamentally simple basic physical laws. We understand this in detail in metals at low temperatures, for example, when they suddenly start conducting electricity without any resistance. It seems likely that consciousness and the process of choice are similarly emergent phenomena, though we do not yet understand the details of how they work. I imagine consciousness as a continually renewed cycle of electrochemical currents in my brain which form images of my self and its environment. Choice emerges in a context in which two or more alternatives enter my consciousness and, often after a period of oscillation between them, I , that is my brain, settles into one of them, sometimes leading to motor activity. Models along these lines do correctly describe simple choices in simpler organisms. This emergent behavior is determined by the underlying physical laws, but it is perfectly sensible to say that, at the emergent phenomenological level, a choice was made. I think it's confusing and unnecessarily provacative to say that it is an 'illusion' or a 'lie'. The idea of
emergence is further discussed in semipopular books by Phillip Anderson and
Robert Laughlin (both Nobel prizes, if that reassures you).
I think, as might be expected from Greene's subfield, that he overstates the role of mathematics in physics. Of course it is enormously important as a language and as a way of straightening out the consequences of hypotheses. But physics is about observable phenomena, not about mathematics. We believe that relativity describes reality because it correctly accounts for the surprising results of thousands of experiments, not because of Einstein's thought experiments or Hilbert's mathematics. It is entirely conceivable to me that if another scientific civilization is ever found to exist it will describe the same phenomena in an entirely different, though essentially equivalent way. To say that Einstein got to his theories through pure mathematics is not correct, even though Einstein himself sometimes gave that impression in his later years. Actually, the attempt to make discoveries in physics by starting with the mathematics does not have a very fruitful history, and that may be the reason that string theory has not, to date, had much success as a physics theory. In most cases in the past, the phenomena came first and the mathematics was produced to account for the phenomena, not the other way around. (Of course the mathematics then had to predict some further phenomena in order to be taken seriously.)
Similarly I would take issue with the emphasis on phenomena 'which we cannot see'. In fact, new physics emerges when we literally 'see' something unexpected: Like the redshifts in spectral lines leading to the understanding that the universe is expanding or the image on a photographic plate leading to the discovery of radioactivity. The explanation of these unexpected observations often involves entities which the technology of the times cannot directly detect. But over time such direct detection often becomes possible: Atoms were not directly imaged until nearly a century after their existence was definitely and quantitatively established by indirect experiments.
One of the most relevant
One of the most relevant concepts (at least to me)that I find missing from the discussion of free will, both by Dr. Greene and the comments here, is the role of intention. I realize that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but that doesn't mean that choosing to have good intentions isn't important, not only from a moral standpoint, but also from a practical one. Psychological research demonstrates that how others perceive our intentions, whether the perception is accurate or not, largely influences their response. (There are some intermediary, internal processes of cognition and emotion). It appears that Dr. Greene is saying the choice of a response, affected by our perception of the other's intent, is illusory, since our responses (and all the internal processes that influence them) are pre-determined by the math. Does that also mean we have no freedom in choosing our intentions? A member of the audience noted that Dr. Greene's children have a great excuse for their "bad" behavior- they had no choice! He laughingly replied that indeed, his children often DO give that as an excuse for their inappropriate behavior. What he said next was said quickly and almost under his breath, as if he didn't really want people to hear what he said, and unfortunately, he succeeded. Even though I did not hear all of what he said, I got the distinct impression he did not accept the "I had no choice" excuse from his children, and then he quickly changed the subject. So either he does not totally buy his own theory that there is no free will, or he can't integrate this concept into his own daily life. He did say that this is often the case, such as when he acts as if the ground were solid. But if humans truly have no free will, it is ESSENTIAL that we integrate that concept into the fabric of our daily life, including how we respond to people. Oh, wait! We have no choice in how we respond to people! If that's true, psychologists may as well give up on teaching people to change their thoughts and behavior (which in turn, will change their emotions). If Greene is correct, then all the fairly consistent research results of cognitive psychology are a mere coincidence. (In other words, when certain strategies are taught to people, which seemingly change their habitual ways of thinking, in fact, the results are merely coincidence, since those thoughts are pre-determined and not chosen by the person. One can also substitute ways of behaving for thinking here, and also the research on how changing habitual ways of thinking and/or behaving seemingly leads to changes in habituals ways of feeling.....all an illusion, since all of those changes would have occurred anyway without instruction by a therapist, as Greene says that humans have no choice in what we think, do, or feel). Or maybe the relatively consistent results of cognitive psychological research are due to observer bias, as physics has taught us that observation changes outcomes, or at least their probabilities. Dr. Greene did not discuss the role of the observer in changing outcomes, even though it's proven by math, which I find perplexing, as it certainly seems relevant to free will. Also, what about the seemingly relevant concepts of morphic fields and morphic resonance? I realize that physics is a very broad field, and you need to specialize. But for somebody who is allegedly trying to integrate disparate physics findings into a Theory of Everything, Greene seems to be leaving out some critical scientific findings. If Greene is correct, psychologists would be foolish not to abandon their profession. I'm a psychologist, and while I admit to being biased, I'm not ready to abandon my profession. I think Greene has many brilliant ideas, but I find his notion that free will is an illusion and not real is not very "interesting." I'm using that word in the same way that he used it - it's not useful. But the notion that people CAN choose to change their habitual ways of thinking and behaving, which in turn leads to changes in their habitual ways of feeling, has been very useful. I guess that's why I'm more "interested" in the ideas of non-deterministic physicists such as Arthur Zajonc.
I think this writer is
I think this writer is oversimplifying the implications of microscopic determinism in discussing human choices. When a human makes a choice, it is entirely consistent with microscopic determinism to say the that the reasoning processes which went on in the brain of the person making the choice were the proximal cause determining what choice was made. I think that when the person then claims to have made the choice freely he or she
really means that his or her thought processes led to the choice and therefore there is not really any contradiction. Microscopic determinism is not contradicted because those thought processes themselves were determined by microscopic physics which is deterministic. And so forth in
a chain of causal processes stretching back to the person's birth and before. But for a psychologist, who is a phenomenologist dealing with
a macroscopic description and with proximal causes, it is unnecessary and probably disfunctional to be worrying about or even conscious of that all
the time. So I think that Kathleen is right to proceed the way she says she does in her professional work, but wrong to think that she can't do that without preferring Zajonc's physics (which I think is just wrong) to Greene's.


text:
Surge in Foreclosures Could Threaten Housing Rebound
NEW YORK ( TheStreet) -- New foreclosures are up, and that could prove to be a drag on the U.S. housing market.
RealtyTrac.com reports that home foreclosures are up 2.26% from January to February, and the average price to buy a foreclosed home rose 3.84%, to $179,000.
Still, some states are seeing even more significant upticks in foreclosure activity.
Take Oregon, where new rules on judicial foreclosures have taken effect, including measures that mandate mediation between homeowners and lenders. According to The Oregonian , statewide foreclosures are up by 65% from January to February:
Oregon's seven largest counties collectively reported legal action on 996 properties, according to Gorilla Capital , a Eugene company that buys, redevelops and sells foreclosed homes. Those numbers mostly represent foreclosure cases.
That's 65% more cases than seen a month earlier. And it rivals the 1,036 out-of-court foreclosure starts recorded in those counties a year earlier, before legal complications sent most foreclosures into the court system.
RealtyTrac points out that while U.S. foreclosures were up in February, home repossessions are actually down 25% year to year. Officials at the Irvine Calif., real estate services provider say the foreclosure bonfire is largely extinguished after five years of historically high activity.
Not completely, though.
"At a high level, the U.S. foreclosure inferno has been effectively contained and should be reduced to a slow burn in the next two years," says Daren Blomquist, vice president at RealtyTrac. "But dangerous foreclosure flare-ups are still popping up in states where foreclosures have been delayed by a lengthy court process or by new legislation making it more difficult to foreclose outside of the court system. Foreclosure starts have been steadily building in those states over the last several months and likely will end up as bank repossessions or short sales later this year."
Blomquist points to Oregon's neighbor, Washington, along with other states as examples of heightened foreclosure activity
"These new foreclosure hotspots include states like Washington, where seven straight months of rising foreclosure activity pushed the state's foreclosure rate to fifth-highest nationwide-- the highest it's ever been in our report-- and Maryland, where eight straight months of rising foreclosure activity placed the state's foreclosure rate among the top 10 nationwide for the first time since July 2010," Blomquist adds.
All told, U.S. foreclosure starts were up in 32 states in February, with some states showing alarmingly high rates. Look at these states' foreclosure rate growth in February:
Nevada +334%
Maryland +319%
Washington +172%
New York +139%
New Jersey +70%
On the plus side, the more foreclosures sold off, the more surrounding homes are worth. (Foreclosed homes usually drag down the prices of nearby homes.)
But an increase in foreclosures also signals that the U.S. housing market is not out of the woods yet. Until the inventory of foreclosed homes is largely sold off, there can't be significant recovery in the nation's residential housing market.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Moderators: peeker643, swerb, danwismar, furls
by e0y2e3 » Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:55 am
by peeker643 » Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:56 am
e0y2e3 wrote:Oh Boy! We're HERE again!!!
by peeker643 » Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:05 pm
e0y2e3 wrote:Truth: being bald exposes the brain to more radioactive rays emitting from the sun, making the bald man in question a function asshat.
by e0y2e3 » Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:12 pm
peeker643 wrote:e0y2e3 wrote:Oh Boy! We're HERE again!!!Am I being unfair or singling anyone out in this thread? I'm not trying to. AM I way out of line on what I'm saying?If I am I will apologize directly.
by danwismar » Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:21 pm
by JCoz » Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:45 pm
@KyleRowland Melvin Fellows and Scott McVey applied for medical hardships.
by furls » Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:06 pm
by noles1 » Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:15 pm
by furls » Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:25 am
by neoleo » Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:18 am
by JCoz » Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:33 am
by danwismar » Thu Dec 29, 2011 12:37 pm
neoleo wrote:Rumors popping up everywhere that Kalis is looking to visit OSU. No way can this be true, can it?
by furls » Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:00 pm
by e0y2e3 » Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:11 pm
by danwismar » Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:20 pm
by e0y2e3 » Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:21 pm
by furls » Sat Dec 31, 2011 2:12 pm
by jb » Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:56 pm
e0y2e3 wrote:To be fair, supposedly Kalis never fully recovered from his injury this year and probably should have shut it down per Greene.
by furls » Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:28 pm
by e0y2e3 » Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:49 pm
by furls » Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:58 pm
by e0y2e3 » Tue Jan 03, 2012 4:13 pm
by JCoz » Tue Jan 03, 2012 4:28 pm
by furls » Tue Jan 03, 2012 9:22 pm
by e0y2e3 » Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:25 pm
by jb » Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:33 pm
e0y2e3 wrote:New LB slated to visit 1/27 per Greene http://ohiostate.scout.com/a.z?s=145&p= ... id=5222489
by e0y2e3 » Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:40 pm
by e0y2e3 » Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:55 pm
by jb » Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:58 pm
e0y2e3 wrote:
by furls » Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:23 pm
jb wrote:e0y2e3 wrote:You can see the turkey and stuffing on that kid from the holidays. Is he faster than Klein?
by e0y2e3 » Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:46 pm
by furls » Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:37 pm
by e0y2e3 » Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:52 pm
by furls » Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:08 pm
by jb » Thu Jan 05, 2012 8:50 am
furls wrote:Instincts are good on Santos, and he reads plays well, he is just not the type of athlete I really wanted to see in tOSU's back seven. After this year's disaster at LB (caused in large part by a lack of athleticism at the LB position), I really wanted to see more Ryan Shazier and less Storm Klein so to speak.
by e0y2e3 » Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:56 am
by danwismar » Thu Jan 05, 2012 4:15 pm
by e0y2e3 » Thu Jan 05, 2012 4:31 pm
danwismar wrote:Taylor Decker is out. Reconfirmed his commitment to ND coaches. Blame this one on Bollman and past regime. Kid always wanted to be a Buckeye. They ignored him for a year. Next.
by Bayou Tribe » Thu Jan 05, 2012 8:12 pm
by e0y2e3 » Thu Jan 05, 2012 8:17 pm
by e0y2e3 » Thu Jan 05, 2012 8:38 pm
by e0y2e3 » Thu Jan 05, 2012 8:56 pm
by furls » Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:06 pm
by JCoz » Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:35 am
e0y2e3 wrote:Oh and Cam Williams hosted Vrable recently, will take an official to PSU on the 13th then come back to OSU with his mom so she can meet Urban. Then he'll be deciding.
by JCoz » Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:19 pm
A DESPERATE NEED FOR OFFENSIVE TACKLESI've been accused in the past of being biased towards Ohio State --NO! SHOCKING! The People's Champion favors the Bucks? Mind. Boggling. -- so I feel the need to say it: not all is completely hunky dory in Buckeye recruiting land right now. The potential of turning Decker could not come at a better time, because the one glaring hole in Urban's recent pillaging of elite recruits is the continued dearth of offensive tackles in this class. Sure, Kyle Dodson and Jordan Diamond visited in December and sure, we like our chances, but both players are still taking visits elsewhere with recent history of buying off recruits and neither will decide until close to National Signing Day. The only other O-Lineman visiting in January is Joey O'Connor, who most see more as a guard. Things are so bad at the position that both Reid Fragel and Darryl Baldwin are apparently switching positions this spring to give us some badly needed depth on the outside. But even with both players switching positions, that still only leaves Ohio State with ten scholarship O-Linemen this spring. It also leaves one of the tackle positions in next year's lineup up for grabs between two recent position changes, enigmatic Marcus Hall (who might be a better guard) and any true freshmen we bring in. Thanks, Bollman. How desperate is our need? Well, the Front Row last week was hit with the rumor that Buckeye boogeyman and thoroughly illogical Michigan commitment Kyle Kalis may be considering a January visit to Columbus. Now, while this is only a rumor, this is a recruitment that I firmly believe is not over, no matter what Kalis says. This is a young man who was committed to Ohio State for months before Coach Tressel's resignation. Then, as we all know, he changed his mind and waffled for a few weeks before buying into Flounder Flintstone's ridiculous notion that Ohio State would get hit with a five year bowl ban and never bring in top recruits. He said as much when he switched his commitment. Remember his comments? • "I can't go there (Ohio State) and take penalties for something I never did. I'm just not sure how long it will take them to recover." No, Kalis didn't do anything and he shouldn't be punished. But is there any question whatsoever that Ohio State is going to be gangbusters under Urban Meyer? • I want a solid, grounded coaching staff with a safe environment. Where there aren't such tough questions." The only tough question left is whether Urban Meyer wins a National Championship in the next four years. • "I want to face the best every day in practice." So where would Kalis be more challenged on a daily basis? At Ohio State against Se'Von Pittman, Noah Spence, Tommy Schutt and Adolphus Washington or at Michigan against Tom Strobel? Here's what Kalis is probably asking himself today: "Can I really go back, even if I want to?" After all, even if Kalis decides to take another look at Ohio State, there are a lot of angry fans who remember his "Open Border" comment when he switched to Michigan. He's built up so much Michigan equity that he probably wonders if Buckeye fans would ever accept him. I know plenty of you reading this right now are probably thinking something along the lines of "#@#$&ing TRAITOR! We don't want you!" Looking forward to 2013, Brionte Dunn's cousin Dymonte Thomas is probably thinking the same thing, but we have a lot more time left to get through to him. But despite the anger from fans at two Ohioans spurning the Buckeyes (for now, at least), let's be real here: We accepted Justin Boren with open arms and he PLAYED AGAINST US TWICE! Plus, this class has kids who committed to Penn State, Michigan State and (hopefully soon) Wisconsin. That's how recruiting works. No one will care about things either Kalis or Thomas said in high school after they make their first appearance in Scarlet and Gray. Plus, Ohio State's worst need right now in recruiting is at offensive tackle, where we still don't have a single commitment. Kalis (or any of the other tackles we're chasing) have to have taken a favorable look at our 2012 tackle depth chart? Here you go: 1) Andrew Norwell2) Converted Tight End Reid Fragel3) Converted Defensive End Darryl Baldwin4) Nobody While that terrifies fans like us, to top tackle recruits it screams, "Early Playing Time!" in neon lights. In short, of all the recruits who reconsidered Ohio State since Urban Meyer's arrival, the kid who theoretically should be at the top of the list is Kyle Kalis! Heck, with our tackle situation, fans that were cursing him and calling him a glorified guard six months ago will be back to calling him the next Mike Adams on Signing Day if he actually decides to come back from the brink. And all those nice Michigan fans who make him feel so wanted right now? Well, Kyle should ask his buddy Brionte how that 'love' can turn into racial slurs overnight. You know Thomas saw every N-Bomb thrown his cousin's way too. Way to stay classy, Michigan. It is also important to remember that Kalis is a 17 year old (who, judging by his virtual anonymity since the summer, has been silenced to the press by his parents) that is in a tough family situation. His parents are divorced and around the time of his switch, the discussion centered on his father wanting him to visit Michigan and his stepfather subsequently calling in to a Cleveland radio station to admit that he and his wife were displeased with the decision. Let me repeat that: His stepfather CALLED A SPORTS RADIO STATION to publically air his wife's disapproval. Remember the uproar that caused when it happened? There's a lot more going on here under the surface than people realize. In the end, does anyone doubt that all of these same points that I just made haven't been brought up with him by his mom and stepfather? Judging by his defiant comments on the All-Star circuit this week, most of his family apparently still want him to be a Buckeye and it hasn't fallen on deaf ears. Either way, these are only RUMORS around Kalis, but there's a lot of logic on board if he decided to visit. The other thing to remember is that even if he is reconsidering, this will be the most undercover visit in history after the way things went down in the spring. In the end, I don't know what is fact or fiction in this kid's case. We'll find out in the next month if there is anything to these rumors when Signing Day rolls around. I said it on yesterday's Front Row Radio: We need at least two tackles from the Decker/Dodson/Diamond/Kalis grouping in this class for our O-Line numbers to start getting back on track. Our need is desperate, but my rule of thumb still applies: NEVER bet against Urban Meyer, especially on a kid from Ohio. Best bet is that we get Dodson and one of the other Ohioans. If not, O'Connor is a strong back up plan. There's another fresh breath of air in January: When our plan A options don't work out, we have a fall back in place to ensure we still get four linemen in this class! I wish that policy had been in place during the days when Seantrel Henderson's wannabe rapper dad took up 83 percent of the Front Row conversation and we were left with exactly one lineman on Signing Day. I think Buckeye Nation has a great deal of faith in Urban Meyer and his new staff. I said it two weeks ago: This will be a top five class THIS YEAR and I fully expect a pair of great offensive tackles to be a part of it. Man, do we ever need them.
by e0y2e3 » Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:24 pm
by JCoz » Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:42 pm
by jb » Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:44 pm
e0y2e3 wrote:That's a lot of words to say "yeah, there are a lot of internet rumors around Kalis"
by e0y2e3 » Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:52 pm
JCoz wrote:Thomas?
by JCoz » Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:59 pm
e0y2e3 wrote:JCoz wrote:Thomas?Dymonte (SP?). You know, the guy that will be a five star next year, whose cousin was committed to OSU and who grew up a huge OSU fan? You know, the guy that begged Fickel to offer him so he could accept and be done with it? OSU dragged their feet and now he is verbaled to scUM. Granted Meyer has a whole year to work on him (and for fucks sake we still hadn't offered him until Meyer came on board) but this situation is beyond stupid.
Return to College Sports Arena
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


text:
Student Media
Power in Diversity 2013
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Eric Thomas, motivational speaker, educator, author and minister.
Talk show host, author and commentator Tavis Smiley will address poverty in America at the Power in Diversity Leadership Conference Jan. 24-27 in Atwood Memorial Center.
Now in its fourth year, the conference brings together students and employees from Minnesota State Colleges and University system schools and regional colleges and universities. This year's theme is We Are the Change: Where Do We Go From Here?
- Register online or through the mail
- View the conference brochure (PDF) for a tentative schedule
- View the conference poster (PDF)
Smiley is one of six keynote presenters with national or regional reputations. Public tickets for keynote speakers are available at SCSUTickets.com, Atwood Memorial Center and 320-308-4636.
Power in Diversity builds leadership and communication skills, promotes academic excellence and reinforces education and cultural development -- all in the spirit of change.
While the conference focuses on the experiences of students of color, Power in Diversity is open to all who wish to take part.
Likely conference sessions include academic success, cross-cultural communication, leadership development, community service/civic engagement, current events, graduate school, careers, cultural equity and LGBT issues in communities of color.
Among the many components of Power in Diversity are the Variety Show (PDF), the Job & Internship Fair and the Graduate School Fair (PDF).
Meet the conference speakers booked to-date:
Tavis Smiley is host of the "Tavis Smiley" television show on PBS. On public radio he hosts two shows: "The Tavis Smiley Show" and "Smiley & West." The Indiana University graduate has written 16 books. His latest is "Rich and the Rest of Us: A Poverty Manifesto," co-written with educator and philosopher Cornel West.
Cheryl Jacques is one of the leading voices for equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans. An administrative law judge in Massachusetts, Jacques is a former Massachusetts state senator and former president of the Human Rights Campaign, a leading LGBT advocacy group.
Brown University professor Tricia Rose is author, commentator and social critic. She is best known for books on rap music, including "Black Noise: Rap Music and Black Culture in Contemporary America" and "The Hip Hop Wars." The latter is a critique of contemporary hip hop that, among other things, discusses the genre's celebration of black ghetto excess and dysfunction.
C.T. Vivian is an activist, minister and author who has devoted most of his life to working for the progress of African Americans and the civil and political rights of all people. As a lieutenant for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, Vivian did executive staff work during King's campaigns in Birmingham, Selma, Chicago, St, Augstine and elsewhere.
Speaker, educator, author, activist and minister Eric Thomas is the very example of success through mentoring. He was plucked from the streets by a pastor who saw great potential. Today Thomas pastors A Place of Change Ministries in Lansing, Mich., and is an academic advisor at Michigan State University.
California State Sacramento professor Carlos Neverez is an expert on leadership theory and training in higher education. Formerly a doctoral fellow for the Kellogg Foundation, Neverez has focused on developing academic programs designed to cultivate transformational leaders.
Institutional partners include Anoka Ramsey Community College; College of SaintBenedict;Saint John's University; Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, Office of the Chancellor; Minnesota State University, Moorhead; Southwest Minnesota State University; St. Cloud Technical & Community College and Winona State University.
Hosted in Atwood Memorial Center, the conference is
managed by St. Cloud State's Office of Multicultural Student Services
For more information, contact Harry Jackson at firstname.lastname@example.com or 320-308-5393.
University Communications
St. Cloud State University


text:
Contemporary cuisine that is rich in contrasts
First and Business Class passengers on long-haul flights from Germany in January and February 2010 can look forward to sophisticated menus created by Nils Henkel.
A top German chef in Shanghai
Born in Hildesheim in 1966, star chef Stefan Stiller learnt his cooking skills from the bottom up, working in leading restaurants such as the 'Fürstenhof' in Celle and the 'Goldener Pflug' restaurant in Cologne, which at the time had three Michelin stars.
The culinary World Cup
Holger Stromberg is currently devoting much of his time to the wellbeing of Germany's national football team.
Bach without a score
Bernard Bach's Michelin-starred restaurant is located in the little village of Pujaudran, not far from the Airbus plant in Toulouse.
Ten years of Lufthansa Star Chefs
In September and October 2010 our passengers can enjoy a menu which has been chosen in advance online by frequent flyers.
The salt of the earth - Marc Fosh
Marc Fosh, the British star-winning chef who is extremely successful in Majorca with his exceptional recipes, will be the Star Chef on long-haul flights from Germany in November and December 2010.
'Simple and ingenious' - Léa Linster
During January and February 2011 Luxembourger Léa Linster, as our Star Chef, will be responsible for the culinary service in First and Business Class on long-haul flights from Germany.
An all-round talent - David Burke
During March and April 2011 David Burke will be spoiling First and Business Class passengers on long-haul flights from Germany with his unusual culinary creations.
Successfully blending two culinary worlds - Wahabi Nouri
German haute cuisine spiced with a distinct pinch of Morocco - this best sums up the exceptional dishes created by Wahabi Nouri, our Star Chef for the months of May and June.
- Wahabi Nouri (May/June 2011)
Star Chef Roland Schmid takes to the air
Holder of 17 Gault Millau points, Swiss chef Roland Schmid will delight our First and Business Class passengers with his sophisticated dishes in July and August.
- Roland Schmid (July/August 2011)
Anna Matscher - from hobby chef to Michelin star
When Anna Matscher, a trained massage therapist who cooked as a hobby, took over the Matscher family inn 'Zum Löwen' in Tesimo, Italy, with her husband 22 years ago, they both faced an undreamt of challenge.
- Anna Matscher (September/October 2011)
Douce Steiner - a chef with elegance and passion
Classical elegance with influences from seasonal French cuisine - that best describes the culinary art of German chef Douce Steiner. In November and December, this exceptional chef will be treating our First and Business Class passengers to her elegant menus on long-haul flights from Germany.
- Douce Steiner (November/December 2011)
Two Star Chefs for the price of one
In January and February 2012, twins Thomas and Mathias Sühring will be responsible for the Star Chef menus in our premium classes on long-haul flights from Germany.
- Thomas and Mathias Sühring (January/February 2012)
The culinary variety of the Rheingau
Patrik Kimpel is the Lufthansa Star Chef in March and April 2012.
- Patrik Kimpel (March/April 2012)
In the kitchen and on the high seas...
one is entirely at the mercy of Stefan Wilke – and no-one has ever regretted it!
- Stefan Wilke (May/June 2012)
'C'est la vie'
In July and August Thomas Bühner will be enhancing the in-flight service in our First and Business Class as the Lufthansa Star Chef on long-haul flights from Germany.
- Thomas Bühner (July/August 2012)
A wanderer between many worlds
As our Star Chef in September and October, we were able to persuade Armin Leitgeb to devise creative menus for our First and Business Class passengers on long-haul flights from Germany.
- Armin Leitgeb (September/October 2012)
On a culinary voyage of discovery
In November and December, chef Joachim Wissler, holder of three Michelin stars, will entertain First Class passengers flying from Germany with his menu creations.
- Joachim Wissler (November/December 2012)
Early practice makes the perfect gourmet
In January and February, Michelin-starred chef Jean Baptiste Thomaes will be responsible for the menus for our First Class passengers on long-haul flights from Germany.
- Jean Baptiste Thomaes (January/February 2013)


text:
frozen_string_literal: false REXML is an XML toolkit for Ruby, in Ruby.
REXML is a pure Ruby, XML 1.0 conforming, non-validating toolkit with an intuitive API. REXML passes 100% of the non-validating Oasis tests, and provides tree, stream, SAX2, pull, and lightweight APIs. REXML also includes a full XPath 1.0 implementation. Since Ruby 1.8, REXML is included in the standard Ruby distribution.
Sean Russell <serATgermaneHYPHENsoftwareDOTcom>
This API documentation can be downloaded from the REXML home page, or can be accessed online
A tutorial is available in the REXML distribution in docs/tutorial.html, or can be accessed online
Commenting is here to help enhance the documentation. For example, code samples, or clarification of the documentation.
If you have questions about Ruby or the documentation, please post to one of the Ruby mailing lists. You will get better, faster, help that way.
If you wish to post a correction of the docs, please do so, but also file bug report so that it can be corrected for the next release. Thank you.
If you want to help improve the Ruby documentation, please visit Documenting-ruby.org.


text:
Your course is using MyLab / Mastering by Pearson, which requires the purchase of an
access code. This code is usually packaged with a new textbook, but may also be purchased
separately from the MyLab / Mastering website if it is not included with your book.
Information about MyLab / Mastering can be found at
Please check the Systems Requirements page to verify your computer compatibility.
Your instructor will provide an additional course code you will need to
access your specific course.
While you may purchase your books and other course materials from the provider of your choice (using the
ISBN number available through the course's academic department
where applicable to ensure the correct version), both the campus bookstore
and our online bookstore,
guarantee that they stock the correct version for your course.
Approximately 3 weeks prior to the start of the session you can use the link
below to see the list of books that have been selected by your instructor. If you have
any questions about the course materials listed, please contact your instructor or the academic
department directly.
this link to see the book list for your course.
Students will be required to take 2 online tests and a final exam at testing centers on any of the BCCC campuses. Options for other testing locations require the approval of the instructor. Please note: All tests and the final exam must be taken in a proctored environment. In addition students are required to take 6 online quizzes. This course follows an assigned schedule and is not a self-paced course.
Questions about Online Learning? Contact the Virtual Campus
at 215-968-8052 or email@example.com


text:
Nov 28, 2012
Complexity Leads To Frustration
The results of our 2013 Application Performance Management Survey are in, and they're pretty shocking. By virtually every measure in our survey, APM is less trusted, less desired and less used than it was in 2010 when we ran our last survey. The percentage of respondents who say APM is critically important was down eight points; those who say APM takes too much staff time, up a whopping 19 points; those who say APM has met or exceeded expectations was down 12 points, and on and on.
A number of factors contribute to IT's disillusionment with APM. First, legacy APM systems just never got easier to set up and rarely delivered on their promise of root cause analysis. Second, the dynamic nature of virtualized and cloud environments rendered most installed APM systems useless. Finally, application revision life spans are such that APM systems must be easy to install and reinstall. It's simply not the case with legacy systems.
The answer is to look to a new breed of APM products, oftentimes ones that won't even attempt to get at root causes but will help tell you when trouble is coming. Performance monitors can at least track what your end users are experiencing and hopefully point you in the right direction to troubleshoot.
One thing that smart organizations do is consider the importance of app performance to business results. If you can't quantify the cost of a bad experience, it's probably not worth using APM to monitor it. Excessive monitoring puts a needless strain on staff and budgets.
The bottom line is this: APM is still useful, but success means being smart, being selective and looking beyond legacy tool providers. (R6041212)
Survey Name InformationWeek 2013 Application Performance Management Survey
Survey Date October 2012
Region North America
Number of Respondents 300
Purpose To determine the extent of the use of application performance management products in the enterprise
Research Report


text:
New Markdowns
view full screen
Embraceable Cool Nights
Powdered Petals Ivory PJ Top
Style: 4570062620
Out of Stock
A sleepy-time shower of little black petals on ivory. Feminine scalloped knit trim accents our ultra-soft top's notched collar, placket, chest pocket and 3/4 sleeves. Pair with the matching Powdered Petals Ivory Picot Trim PJ Crop.
- From the Embraceable™ collection of PJs. The softest, most luxurious in the world.™
- Cool Nights® breathable knit keeps you cool and dry.
- Notched collar with button front, chest pocket and 3/4 sleeves.
- Ribbon-covered neck seam.
- Non-cling stretch knit retains shape and silky drape, even after countless washings.
- Length: about 26.5" from shoulder.
- 93% Rayon, 7% Spandex. Machine wash, cold; tumble dry low. Imported.
Read more… Read less…


text:
Vintage Galvanized Potting Table
- Summary
This hardworking table offers a convenient work surface for transplanting, seed starting, potting and other garden tasks. It's crafted from a salvaged German biergarten table and reclaimed timber for eco-friendliness and vintage pedigree.
- Found table base repurposed as a potting table.
- Metal legs fold to pack flat for easy storage or transporting.
- Tabletop is made from galvanized metal; trim is created from reclaimed 19th-century European pine salvaged from buildings scheduled for demolition.
- Food-safe.
- Galvanized legs are painted gray.
- Sizes will vary slightly.
- Approx. 70" x 21" x 30" high.
- 115 lb.
- Quantities are limited.
- Found in Germany. Repurposed in Hungary.
- A Williams Sonoma exclusive.
- Shipping
Shipping Information
This item will be shipped directly from the manufacturer and is not eligible for rush shipping. Please allow one to two weeks for delivery.
Shipping Rates
The shipping rate varies depending on your order total and shipping destination. View Shipping Options and Charges.
Return Policy
At Williams-Sonoma, we take great pride in the quality and craftsmanship of our products. Attention to design, materials, safety and construction are our priority. Upon receipt, please inspect your purchase and notify us of any damage; we will arrange for a prompt replacement.
If within 30 days, you are dissatisfied for any reason, you may return your purchase for a refund of the merchandise value. An original receipt or gift receipt is required for all returns and exchanges. Returns with a gift receipt will be refunded in the form of a Merchandise Credit for the amount indicated on the gift receipt. Returns with original receipt will be refunded in the original form of payment, cash and check refunds over $100 will be issued as a company check (may take 14 business days from time of request).
For all cutlery returns (knife sets, single knives, cutting boards, knife sharpeners, and knife storage) please contact us at 888.922.4108 to initiate the return.
We cannot accept returns on monogrammed, personalized, special-order items, custom upholstery, food, items shipped direct from the vendor, or on items damaged through normal wear and tear. Final sale items ending in .97 or .99 cannot be returned.
For returns of items purchased from your Williams-Sonoma Gift Registry, we will gladly provide a refund or exchange for the merchandise within 90 days of your event or within 90 days of purchase, whichever date is later. View Full Return Policy.


text:
Speed Skating
Speed Skating slideshow
Rating failed. Try again.
Request failed. Try again.
We will promote constructive and witty comments to the top, so that everyone sees them!
Sunday's Daily Fantasy Gameweek 22 must-haves and must-nots
Sunday's Daily Fantasy Gameweek 22 must-haves and must-nots More »Yahoo Sport UK - Thu, Jan 19, 2017 16:52 GMT
Charlton, Ferguson hail 'true great' Rooney
Wayne Rooney received glowing praise from Manchester United greats Bobby Charlton and Alex Ferguson after his goal record. More »Omnisport - 13 hours ago
Guardiola blasts missed chances, not referee, after Spurs draw
Manchester City were denied a clear penalty before conceding an equaliser to Tottenham, but Pep Guardiola was not angry with Andre Marriner. More »Omnisport - 12 hours ago
Candid Pochettino says City were unlucky not to beat Spurs
Manchester City deserved to beat Tottenham in the 2-2 Premier League draw between the sides on Saturday, Mauricio Pochettino says. More »Omnisport - 12 hours ago
Rooney: Record means a hell of a lot but I'm still disappointed
Jose Mourinho described Wayne Rooney as a Manchester United legend after a record-breaking equaliser but the captain was still disappointed. More »Omnisport - 14 hours ago


text:
New Markdowns
view full screen
Embraceable Cool Nights
Black PJ Tank
Style: 2570069475
Out of Stock
Sheer embroidered floral lace romances the neckline and hem of a long tank. A shirred, double-layered bodice provides soft support, and pleats ease the fit. Pair with the Embraceable™ Black Pant and Sleep Wrap for lounging pajamas that look as beautiful as they feel.
- From the Embraceable™ collection. The softest, most luxurious in the world.
- Our exclusive Cool Nights® knit keeps you cool and dry.
- Non-cling stretch knit retains shape and silky drape, even after countless washings.
- Length approximately 31.5" from shoulder.
- 93% Rayon, 7% Spandex. Machine wash, cold; tumble dry low. Imported.
Read more… Read less…


text:
Same-Day Shipping
Orders placed before 3pm EST will be shipped same-day via UPS or Fedex.
Get Loyalty Points
Earn 1 point for every dollar spent. Earn even more with referrals and product reviews!
The Perfect Recipe for Shipping
Top » Catalog » Packaging Materials » Kraft » Kraft Paper »
A Division of Florida A&M Tape & Packaging, Inc.
Established 1977
5201 Nob Hill Road
Sunrise, Florida USA 33351
M - F 8:30am - 4pm EST
Midwest Branch
Chicago, IL
Phone: 954-572-2500
Toll Free: 800-231-8806
Fax: 954-572-8902
© 2015 MrBoxOnline.com.
All Rights Reserved.
Website development by


text:
Clark and Diversity
Purchase Tickets
Clark and Diversity
Saturday, November 30, 2013 9:00 PM
Second City Chicago Skybox Theater, Chicago, IL
Clark and Diversity
See the show that you wish you had everyone for a friend
For Us, Bias.
Second City Outreach & Diversity brings it's funniest pics of material from the Second City vault and pairs them with some of the freshest new diverse improvisers to bring one twisted show that takes race, gay pride and relationships and turns it upside down.
Every Saturday at 9PM.
Performed by Aasia Bullock, Rammel Chan ,Bente Engelstoft, Michael Jando Peter Kim, and Saliha Muttalib.
Directed by Second City Touring Company director, Anthony Leblanc with live music by Sean Sykes.
Tickets: $13 - General, $10 - Students and $8 - Training Center Students


text:
New Markdowns
Limited Edition
Romantic Chemise
Style: 570066091
Out of Stock
Love-worthy, velvety soft chemise with dimensional floral chiffon appliqué and mesh lace overlay on the bodice.
- From our Limited Edition collection.
- Bodice lavishly covered in netted lace and chiffon appliqué flowers, with scalloped lace at contoured seam under bust.
- Shirred straps in front, adjustable satiny stripes in back.
- Double-lined bodice darted for soft support.
- Elastic in back.
- Approximate length: 35.5".
- 90% Polyester, 10% Spandex. Machine wash, cold. Imported.
Read more… Read less…


text:
You limited your search to:
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Language: German
Collection: World War Two Newsmaps
Newsmap. For the Armed Forces. V-E Day + 4 weeks, 181st week of U.S. participation in the war
Date: June 4, 1945
Creator: [United States.] Army Service Forces. Army Information Branch
Description: Front: Text describes action on Okinawa, in Foochow, Tokyo, Mindanao. Maps: Pacific action flares; Okinawa; Foochow; Tokyo; Mindanao. Relief shown by spot heights and hill shading. Back: Paper bullets. Text describes propaganda leaflets as part of psychological warfare. Illustrations and text detail German and Jap Safe-Conduct Surrender Pass instructions.
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department