Nowhere is the piecemeal nature of the Bible more evident than in the books detailing the kings of Israel and Judah from the time of David’s ascension to the time Babylon sacks Jerusalem and burns the temple. Kings and Chronicles are each broken up into two books, but according to sources, in the Hebrew Bible, each was originally a single volume. The narrative flow of Kings is disrupted by the break, which occurs during the story of Ahaziah of Israel, while Chronicles is less so, book one ending with David’s final days and book two beginning with Solomon building the temple.
While both collections tell essentially the same story, and appear to be based on the same source material, volumes referred to as The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, there are numerous differences between the two, suggesting they were written by different authors for different purposes and combined in the Jewish scriptures without making any attempt to reconcile the differences. Kings references the source material as two works, one for Israel, one for Judah, but Chronicles often references it as one work. This may indicate that by the time the author of Chronicles was writing, the texts had been combined into one. Even in translation, the books have a different feel to them, Kings a bit more flowery in its descriptions than Chronicles, and a good deal more concise, Kings at a combined forty-seven chapters and Chronicles at a combined sixty-five.
Kings alternates between the stories of Israel and Judah, from their status as a unified kingdom under David and Solomon, to independent entities following Solomon’s reign. Chronicles concerns itself exclusively with Judah, only bringing in relevant facts about Israel when the king being profiled interacts with his counterpart in Israel. Kings often uses the reign of the opposing king to date his counterpart; for instance, Ahaziah becomes king of Israel in the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat’s reign in Judah. Chronicles is far more sympathetic to the House of David than is Kings, which reports the failings of the kings of Judah with the same critical eye the kings of Israel receive. This also means the author of Kings has to come up with excuses for why Judah doesn’t suffer the same fate as Israel, despite committing the same offenses. This is usually accomplished by citing God’s commitment to David.
First Chronicles is complicated by having the first nine chapters provide a painstakingly tedious recitation of the genealogies of every generation between Adam and David. I haven’t taken the time to check this genealogy against others that occur within the Bible, but it doesn’t just document a single line down to a specific individual, though it does end with Saul’s death and David becoming king of the unified kingdom. The genealogy covers most of the major figures in the narrative up to that point, and also provides some details about other tribes such as Edom. Even after David comes into the story, at just about every step, the author provides lists of David or one of his descendants’ followers, names and numbers of different tribes, sizes and weights of the materials used in constructing various buildings, and other trivial facts surrounding the kings. There’s some of this in Kings as well, but Chronicles takes it to ludicrous extremes.
One of the significant differences concerns the building of the first temple, as well as the portrayal of Solomon. In Kings, David wants to build a temple to the Lord but is told, without much elaboration, that it’s Solomon’s responsibility to do so. In Chronicles, David is also told it’s Solomon’s responsibility, but this time is given the explanation that David is a man of war and the temple must be built by a man of peace. In Kings, it’s Solomon who provides this information after David has died, but he puts a slightly different spin on it. Nevertheless, in Chronicles, David assumes all of the responsibility for everything short of actually building the temple, designing it, financing it, hiring the workers, electing priests, designating all the temple personnel, in addition to naming Solomon as his successor. In this version of the story, David’s decision to designate Solomon as the next king is to facilitate Solomon building the temple, not in reaction to Adonijah’s challenge to the throne as related in Kings. There’s also none of the palace intrigue of Solomon eliminating his older brother after taking the throne, or having to rid himself of his father’s army commander or other enemies at David’s insistence.
In Chronicles, Solomon is depicted as young, inexperienced, and totally devoted to doing the work of God, not the cunning politician ruthlessly consolidating his rule as depicted in Kings. Also, Kings reports that later in life Solomon married wives from the surrounding nations, and often worshipped other gods earning the disfavor of the God of his ancestors. Chronicles doesn’t mention any of this, portraying Solomon as a wise and godly ruler throughout his reign. Kings is also the source for the story of Solomon deciding between two mothers arguing over a child, perhaps his most famous decision. Chronicles doesn’t mention it, though it does laud the wisdom of Solomon.
Both narratives agree on the dimensions of the temple (1 Kings 6 & 2 Chronicles 2): Sixty cubits long, twenty cubits wide, thirty cubits high, with a portico twenty cubits wide. Footnotes in the NIV interpret the dimensions as 90 feet (27 meters) long, 30 feet (9 meters) wide and 45 feet (14 meters) high. By way of comparison, the US White House is 168 feet (51.2 meters) long, 85 feet 6 inches (26.1 meters) wide without porticos and 152 feet wide with porticos. In Kings the father of Huram, the metal worker, is from Tyre and his mother is from the tribe of Naphtali. In Chronicles, he’s Huram-Abi and his mother is from Dan. Both narratives also state that David took a census of the people which earned the disfavor of God, prompting a punishment, but Chronicles states Solomon later used the census to find foreigners to press into service in the building the temple.
Kings is preceded in the Protestant Bible by first and second Samuel, and Chronicles is followed by Ezra, giving a full accounting of Israel and Judah from the anointing of Saul to the return of exiles from Babylon under Cyrus of Persia. Both Kings and Chronicles make it clear throughout that they’re only summarizing the source material, the aforementioned Chronicles of the Kings of whichever kingdom is being profiled. It seems clear that whoever wrote Chronicles intended to promote the Davidic line of kings, and also show that Israel’s problems arose from failing to follow the word of God as written in the Commandments and Leviticus. During the reign of Josiah, a text was discovered during the renovation of the temple which most scholars agree was Deuteronomy, which purports to be the last commentary by Moses. The initial intent of Kings is less apparent, stating kings failed to remain faithful to their God, but not hammering home the idea that this is what led to the destruction of Israel or the exile of Judah. The prophets Elijah and Elisha are prominent figures in Kings, but since their dealings were mostly with Israel, they’re hardly mentioned in Chronicles.
Chronicles ends with Cyrus, king of Persia issuing his decree allowing the Jews in exile in Babylon to return to Jerusalem, which is picked up in Ezra, almost without a break. Kings ends with the release of King Jehoiachin, one of the last kings of pre-exile Judah from captivity in Babylon, but he’s not allowed to return to Jerusalem. This suggests the writer was aware of these events but not of the return from exile and gives a clue as to when Kings was compiled. It also gives us a clue to who wrote the history, since this person appears to have access to official documents pertaining to the reigns of the Davidic kings. Most of those carted off were among the upper eschelons of society.


Periodic Reporting 1st Cycle: Latin America and the Caribbean (2004)
The UNESCO World Heritage Centre, through the Adviser for World Heritage in Latin America and the Caribbean based at the UNESCO Office in Montevideo, coordinated the periodic reporting process, providing assistance to States Parties and ensuring the preparation of the regional synthesis report.
The Committee expressed its wish to examine States Parties periodic reports region by region. The World Heritage Committee decided to examine the Report on the state of the World Heritage in Latin America and the Caribbean at its 28th session in 2004.
Periodic Reporting: State of the World Heritage
in Latin America and the Caribbean, 2004
In order to ensure a truly regional and participatory process, the periodic reporting was coordinated by the Adviser for World Heritage in Latin America and the Caribbean, who is based at the UNESCO Office in Montevideo, in close cooperation with the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies.
To initiate the regional periodic reporting process, staff of the World Heritage Centre attended a meeting of the Permanent Delegates of Latin America and the Caribbean in June 2000 to discuss the approach that should be taken in setting up a work plan for the periodic reporting in the region.
Work plan (2000-2004)
The work plan for the periodic reporting in the region approved by the World Heritage Committee was organised along three sub-regions:
South America, the Caribbean and Central America/Mexico.
The work plan approved by to the World Heritage Committee at its session in December 2000 is as follows:
Preparation of the periodic reporting exercise
The World Heritage Centre prepared documents on the State of Implementation of the World Heritage Convention for each of the three sub-regions mentioned above as well as a data base with relevant information on the inscription history and the examination of the state of conservation of World Heritage properties.
The Centre set up an information system through the Internet to provide States Parties with the baseline information on the application of the Convention in the region, the World Heritage sites and the advances of the reporting exercise as well as facilitate communication within the sub-regions. Baseline information will also be made available in paper copy and/or CD-ROM.
States Parties and the Advisory Bodies requested to identify focal-points for periodic reporting activities from natural and cultural heritage fields. These focal points were expected to participate in the whole periodic reporting exercise.
The questionnaires that the World Heritage Centre has developed to assist the States Parties in the preparation of the periodic reports will be translated into Spanish.
Sub-regional information meetings
(first half of 2002)
Two sub-regional information meetings (South America, Montevideo, Uruguay, March 2002, and Central America/Mexico, Mexico, May 2002) were held with the participation of the States Parties focal points, the Advisory Bodies and experts from the region.
The Caribbean States Parties were informed of the periodic reporting through the Regional Training Course on the Application of the World Heritage Convention (September-October 2001). Considering the limited number of World Heritage sites in this area, with the exception of Cuba, emphasis was placed on the general provisions of the Convention and the capacity to preserve and manage cultural and natural heritage sites (Section I of the Periodic Reports). To this end, an analysis of the legal and institutional framework was undertaken. Further information and advice was provided in writing and through missions under Phase 3.
Preparation of national reports
(second half of 2002 – first quarter of 2003)
Following the sub-regional information meetings, States Parties prepared their national reports. The States Parties focal points were expected to monitor this process and to maintain contact with UNESCO on the progress and the needs for advice or assistance. Assistance was provided upon request of the State Party concerned.
Sub-regional review meetings
(second half of 2003)
Three sub-regional meetings were held in the second half of 2003 to review the national reports from the sub-region and to draw preliminary conclusions and recommendations as an input to the regional review meeting.
Regional review meeting and preparation of Regional State of the WH Report
A regional review meeting was held at which the conclusions and recommendations were formulated and submitted to the World Heritage Committee at its session in June 2004.
- 2004 Plan de Acción para Centro América y Mexico 2004-2014 - Listas Indicativas (Costa Rica).pdf
- 2006 Recommendations for RSOUV (Expert meeting in Barbados)
- 2006 Reporte de seguimiendo RP América Central y México (Mexico)
- 2006 RP Plan de Acción Américal Central y México (Mexico).pdf
- 2007 Reporte seguimiento Reporte Periódico en América del Sur(Chile).pdf
- Caribbean Action Plan 2004-2014 (Haiti 2003).PDF
- Informe Periodico 2004 (28COM16 en español).pdf
- LAC Action Plan 2004-2014(Cartagena).pdf


Cross-Disciplinary Research at Muhlenberg College –
Funded by the National Science Foundation
In nature, the degree to which insects eat plants (herbivory) can be quite variable from location to location. Scientists have traditionally hypothesized that the physical environment can influence a plant, which in turn affects the ability of that plant to defend itself against herbivory. Thus, variation in local conditions is what drives the degree to which certain plants get eaten. More recently, the focus on herbivory has shifted from these environmental influences to biological influences. This has included studies of how predators and parasites of insect herbivores can be signaled chemically by plants being eaten by those insects. In other words, plants are using aromatic or volatile chemicals to attract enemies to their enemies. This type of interaction is referred to as a tritrophic interaction because it involves three feeding or trophic levels: the plant, the herbivore insect, and the predators or parasites of the herbivore. Other biological factors that can influence levels of herbivory include interactions with other plants, and variation in the genetic make-up of the plants
Research on herbivory has typically taken an either-or approach. Many studies have focused on how the physical environment, particularly light, influences plant-insect interactions, but have not considered biological factors such as tritrophic interactions. Conversely, studies of biological factors have been done without considering variation in the physical environment. By not considering both the local environmental conditions and the biological factors simultaneously, the complete picture of how herbivory varies in nature or in agricultural systems has not been fully understood. In this study, a plant ecologist, analytical chemist, insect molecular biologist, and a statistician will take an integrative approach to examine how light interacts with biotic factors in determining levels of herbivory in a natural system. Our study will focus on the caterpillar, Tulip Tree Beauty or Epimecis hortaria, and its primary food source Spicebush or Lindera benzoin. These native insects and plants are abundant in Northeastern forests. The plant, Spicebush, is easily recognizable by its aromatic condition or volatile chemistry.
Feeding rates of this insect on Spicebush have been demonstrated to differ between light and shade environments. Our goal here is explore the mechanisms responsible for this variation. We will examine how differences in light influence leaf characteristics such as leaf digestibility, leaf chemicals that could serve as defense against herbivory, and leaf volatile compounds that may cue the predators or parasites of the insect herbivore. We will also examine how light environment directly and indirectly mediates insect feeding, growth, and development. We will focus on how predation and parasitism of the herbivore, and association with other plants impact our system in relation to light environment. Finally, we will incorporate molecular and plant propagation techniques to test hypotheses about the relative importance of plant genotype and environment in determining levels of herbivory in this system. In so doing, this will be the first study that simultaneously examines how both physical and biological factors, including plant genotype, intersect in the determination of insect feeding rates in a natural, woody plant system.
The interdisciplinary and collaborative aspect of this work and its occurrence at Muhlenberg College, an undergraduate institution dedicated to broad scientific training and community outreach, will provide the opportunity for achieving significant, broader impacts. With the guidance of the investigators and as part of an already vibrant summer research program in the sciences, undergraduate students will develop independent research projects that will support the overall goals of this work. Participating students will have the opportunity to engage fully in science including project conception, experimental design, field and laboratory research, data analysis, presenting in-house and at national meetings, and writing for professional journals. In our work we will integrate a diversity of approaches to studying biological systems. We will model this for students that participate in this research, the other faculty and student researchers in all of sciences and the broader Muhlenberg College community, and local, less privileged high school students and their teachers who we interact with through our existing outreach programming. A Post-Doctoral Research Associate will receive scientific training, and experience and preparation for a teaching/research career at a primarily undergraduate institution. The investigators will also design and teach an interdisciplinary research/seminar course on plant-insect interactions that is based on this collaborative research project. Our model of research will serve to help remove the barriers of specific, discipline-based research, and show that collaboration is vital for fully understanding biological systems.
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0442049. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.


Library Fact Sheets
Printable Fact Sheet
Space Radar is a system that will provide a range of radar-generated products from space to enhance the nation's Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. The system will consist of a space segment (a constellation of radar satellites) and a ground segment (networked ground stations to control the satellites, process the data, and distribute the products).
The need for such a system has been identified and agreed upon by the Intelligence Community (IC) and the Department of Defense (DoD), and the two communities are now working together to develop and refine the approved system requirements documents to meet national security needs.
The Space Radar constellation is envisioned to consist of nine satellites, providing worldwide coverage with a frequent revisit rate. This robust constellation will be integrated into the nation's collection capabilities to significantly enhance our level of persistent surveillance against our adversaries.
Space Radar will provide five types of tailorable products:
· Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Imagery: grayscale imagery
· Surface Moving Target Indication (SMTI): movement detection and characterization
· Open Ocean Surveillance (OOS): wide area coverage to detect ships at sea
· High Resolution Terrain Information (HRTI): 3-D topographic maps of an area
· Geospatial Intelligence Products (GEOINT): advanced products
Individually, these products will be able to satisfy many users' intelligence requirements. When combined, fused products yield even deeper understanding of targets. Yet Space Radar's truly transformational capability derives from the powerful combination of products and persistence, provided by a responsive, timely, and assured system. The products described above will be available during day or night, and during inclement weather conditions. The users will be able to rapidly update tasking, determine when the collection will occur, and plan operations with the confidence that Space Radar will be there to support them. Central to this capability is the introduction of Electronically Steered Array (ESA) technology onto the satellites, which allows the radar to shift its focus on different targets almost instantaneously, and the creation of a robust, interdependent ground system being developed in partnership with multiple national agencies.
Space radar will profoundly change the nature of global persistent ISR, and its effects will be widespread. It will significantly advance intelligence analysts' abilities to solve hard intelligence problems, enable situational understanding throughout the full spectrum of conflict, and enhance global deterrence through the mere threat of observation. Space Radar is a joint effort of great benefit to the National Intelligence, Military, and Civil user communities.
In response to the FY01 Department of Defense (DoD) Authorization Conference Report, the Air Force was task to lead a multi-service, multi-agency effort to bring together requirements for both the DoD and Intelligence Community (IC) users. Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman were awarded Space Radar (SR) study contracts in April 2004 with the focus of identifying and solving risk areas so the program could successfully enter the design and development phase. This dual prime contractor approach was chosen to maximize the benefits of the competitive process and better evaluate multiple architecture concepts, related technologies and concepts of operations.
In January 2005, The Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence together signed a letter appointing the SR program as the single future space radar program for the nation. This one program is to be responsible for meeting the specific requirements of both the DoD and IC or stakeholders.
The Air Force announced a change to the structure and focus of the SR Program Office on 28 January 2005 to facilitate better communication and cooperation between the IC and DoD. Brig. Gen. John "Tom" Sheridan was named program executive officer and system program director, leading the Space Radar program office from Chantilly, Virginia.
During a congressional hearing on March 9, 2005, PeterTeets, undersecretary of the Air Force for space, defended the Space Radar program by stating, "We have restructured the Space Radar program in a way that will allow us to move forward in a team sense - the military community and the intelligence community - to use the same satellites for warfighting information as well as intelligence analysis..." Mr. Teets also directed the name change from Space Based Radar to Space Radar. The new Space Radar name was coined to pick up on the fact that there is a new integrated responsibility and the name of the "JPO" --Joint Program Office -- was also changed to "IPO"--an integrated program office -- The IPO crosses departmental and agency boundaries to make sure all stakeholder needs are addressed and understood.
A jointly approved Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) was released on 15 February 2006.
Between 2006 and 2008 the program's requirements will be taken through both the DoD's Joint Requirements Oversight Council [JROC] and the IC's Mission Requirements Board [MRB] to get validation on both of their parts. One of the toughest challenges is to balance those requirements and focus on technology that is doable within the timeframe needed to build and field the system.
The next program Key Decision Point (KDP), which would be the decision to go into the design phase, is KDP-B, roughly at the end of FY08 or in FY09. The first operational satellite is schedule to be fielded about 2015.


Today, energy conservation efforts within the construction industry aim at increasing operational efficiency and reducing fuel costs. These efforts have lead to the insulation of virtually every commercial and industrial building’s furnaces, boilers, pipes and ducts. Insulation is a tremendous energy savings tool. Trained insulation mechanics are needed to install the insulation and weatherproofing materials. Insulators must be mechanically inclined and enjoy working with mathematical formulas that are needed to fabricate the insulation for the piping and ducts.
Working with both hands and mind, both indoors and outdoors, in all temperatures and weather conditions, will prove to be a challenge in today’s construction industry.


[FOM] definition of N without quantifying over infinite sets
friedman at math.ohio-state.edu
Tue Aug 10 09:57:13 EDT 2004
> The significance of FFF - Friedman's Finite
> Form of Kruskl's theorem is of course that it is a fct about N probable
> only by reasoning about infinite sets.
> When explaining this to my students I of course have to anticipate that
> the inductive definition of N involves quantifying over ininite sets -
FFF has much stronger properties than indicated.
FFF is provable only by reasoning about uncountably many infinite sets -
specifically what is normally called impredicativity.
In particular, the use of infinite sets for FFF is not removable in the
same way that simply regarding N as a predicate removes use of infinite
sets. In fact, the use of infinite sets for FFF is not even removeable
using predicates defined by natural number recursion (along with
quantification over natural numbers). The use of predicates defined by
natural number recursion (along with quantification over natural numbers)
is enough to prove, e.g., the Paris/Harrington Ramsey theorem.
For state of the art FFFs see my paper in the Feferfest volume dedicated
to Solomon Feferman.
More information about the FOM


Tan, Y. (2006) Identification of the pollution source in steel plant. [Study Group Report]
Kimitsu Works is among the biggest steel mills in the world with several big blast furnaces and other steelmaking equipments which is located near the sea. There are three high chimneys in the mill which produce plume pollution and there are a big coal yard and many dusty roofs which produce dust pollution when the sea wind brings the dust up. Unfortunately, the downtown is just located at the downwind direction about 4km away. To reduce the pollution to the downtown, the administrator of Kimitsu works wants to identify the main sources of the pollution then to adopt some methods such as fixing new dust filter on the top of the chimneys or spraying water to the locations where main dust pollution are produced. Some monitoring instruments which are placed somewhere not far from the pollution sources in the downwind direction is used to measure the concentrate of the plume and dust. During three very busy days, we set up some mathematical models for this problem, obtained some initial results and made clear what future work should be done.
|Item Type:||Study Group Report|
|Study Groups:||Chinese Study Groups with Industry > Workshop on Industrial Applications 2006 (Hong Kong, Dec 4-8, 2006)|
|Deposited By:||Dr Kamel Bentahar|
|Deposited On:||30 Jan 2012 16:25|
|Last Modified:||29 May 2015 20:08|
Repository Staff Only: item control page


The first modern humans who arrived in Northern Europe, around 45,000 BC, don’t seem to have made any art. But by around 30,000 BC, around the time that the last of the Neanderthals died, the modern humans began to paint vivid, exciting scenes on the walls of the caves where they lived and worked. This may be about the same time that people in South Africa also started to do rock art.
Stone Age sculpture
Not long after they started painting, these people were also carving small stone and ivory statues of people and animals. Some of these may have had a religious purpose, but they could also be for decoration or for artistic expression (if there was even any difference).
The end of cave painting
European artists continued to create new cave paintings, off and on, until about 8000 BC, but after that, people in Northern Europe seem to have lost interest in painting animals or carving people, and instead they created only abstract patterns and designs.


Fertilizers, sprinkler systems, special garden tools abound with the promise of healthier plants and harvest. Have you ever considered the health benefits to plants that follow simply blocking wind?
Crop yields vary in increase from 100% increase in such crops as avocado to 45% in corn, 60-70% in alfalfa, 30% in wheat, and lesser gains (7-8%) for row crops such as lettuce. All these follow windbreak establishment on exposed sites
Not that anyone in the north is wringing their hands over their exposed avacados. As far as wind goes, I would say Paw Paws are about the same. The leaves are large and catch lots of wind; the wood is weak and easily breaks; the flowers are pretty tender; fruits even more so, being scratched easily or falling off because they don’t have a very strong attachment to the branch.
Even when wind isn’t blowing, windbreaks can increase ambient temperature on the leaves of plants. Martin Crawford cites 2 degrees average increase, which over a whole summer in a cool climate can really surge growth forward.
Besides enhancing growth, lack of wind saves on leaves. I’ve mentioned the lovely Catalpa in the food forest. That tree has a heck of a lot of enormous leaves that come storming down in autumn, none of which I’ll happily part with.
Lacking a large windbreak right now, my strategy for slowing wind onyoung plants and keeping leaves is to constrict my mowing to early summer and let all the food forest grow tall in fall. This way the grass and asters manage leaf collection and wind breaks for me. Eventually the N fixers and fruit trees will grow up and function the same way but taller.
Another way to keep plants out of the wind is planting in a niche sometimes in front of a windbreak.
For instance I have a chaste tree (Vitex agnus-castus), which is rather tender for my area, planted in front of a stump.
Wind moving over and around the stump makes a gentle buffer that’s quite noticeable when I stick my hand in there. I also notice in general snow is blown away 4-6 inches from trees, further from larger things like houses, but piles up at the border of the bare zone. So I have planted the chaste tree about that distance from the stump in its ‘sweet zone.’
Add in the good effect of sun hitting the stump heating everything up and this makes for a superior growing sight.
Not that theory alone confirms this spot is good. I have observed unusually good plant growth here. For example, out of the belated blue lupines I mentioned in Blue abounds, I found a bloom not long after writing nestled in the sweet spot of the stump. All the others waited a full year later to bloom.
Now to see if the chaste tree likes it too.
So until I have my N fixers to full size, that’s what I’m doing to slow the wind, decrease winter mortality, and increase summer growth.


On March 19, 1814, Captain Thomas Boyle and the Comet arrived at Beaufort, North Carolina where he ended his third and final cruise as the ship’s commander.
Excerpts from Boyle’s log were published in the Baltimore Patriot where he gave an account detailing their voyage from their escape from the Chesapeake Bay in October to the ship’s battle with the Hibernia in January to the “large man of war brig” that gave chase on March 5 before his ship “out sailed her with ease.” Boyle concluded the with satisfaction, writing:
On the 19th, arrived at this place after a cruize of 5 months, and being chased during that time thirty four times, by frigates and men-of war brigs, but always out sailed them.
At half past meridian got under way from Point Look Out, and stood down the bay. Left the U.S. frigate Adams at anchor. At 3 P.M. discovered three sail standing up the bay by the wind—immediately beat to quarters and cleared ship for action. At 20 m. past 3, spoke the headmost, which proved to be a schooner from Norfolk for Baltimore—received from her information of the number and situation of the enemy below; hove too until dark. Off New Point, he heard the report of a gun; we supposed it to be the Admiral’s 8 o’clock gun; passed one 74 and two brigs at anchor. – At 10 P.M. discovered two large ships at anchor in the Middle Channel—supposed them to be frigates; hauled our wind and run close in with Cape Henry; finding we were not perceived, made sail and went to sea.
From the journal of the Chasseur, excerpted in Baltimore American, June 2nd, 1814, Maryland Historical Society.
Captain William Wade left Baltimore on January 15 and found little success as a privateer in the first several months of 1814. When Thomas Boyle (still making his way back to Baltimore after a bruising battle with the Hibernia) took over as commander in July, the Chasseur embarked on a remarkable cruise to the British Isles, capturing an astonishing number of prizes, and earning the nickname the “Pride of Baltimore” from the Niles Weekly Register.
Special thanks to Baltimore Heritage volunteer Dennis Lilly and the Maryland Historical Society for helping us share excerpts from the ship’s log from now through April. Continue to follow along for more updates on William Wade, Thomas Boyle and the Chasseur in the months ahead!
On January 11, 1814 at half-past midnight, the British ship Hibernia fought desperately against an attack by The Comet. Over a year before, in December 1813, the 187-ton Baltimore-built Comet slipped past a British blockade of the Chesapeake Bay and sailed south towards the Caribbean. The ship’s captain, Thomas Boyle, carried a letter of marque from President James Madison—one of five hundred letters Madison issued authorizing private ships to bring the fight to British shipping across the Atlantic.
In a little over a year at sea, Boyle and his crew recorded an astonishing twenty-seven prizes. They were on their way back to Baltimore when the ship spotted and engaged the 800-ton Hibernia in the early afternoon of January 10. After hours of maneuvers and exchanges of cannon fire that continued into the morning hours of January 11, both ships were badly damaged.
Contradictory accounts of the conflict do leave some room for interpretation. British sources, including excerpts from the British ship’s log, suggest the Hibernia was disabled, with only six cannons and a skeleton crew but still managed to kill twenty of Boyle’s crew in a desperate defense. Popular American sources describe the Hibernia differently—a formidable opponent with twenty-two guns and a full crew that left the Comet badly despite Boyle’s brave assault.
The battle ended inconclusively before dawn. The Comet retreated to Puerto Rico for repairs before finally returning home in Baltimore on March 17.


how to graph a slope intercept
y=2x+10 <ex first place a 0 in the x spot and solve for y. then do the same by putting a 0 in the y spot and solve for x. that give you a 0,y and x,0 formula. therefor you can graph it and check it by graphing y=2x+10
What is the coefficient of corelation
You are trying to find the linear relationship between the two variables formula: r= n(Exy) - (Ex.....
x/y/xy/x2/y2 get the sums of these columns to put into the formula
What does SSE stand for and what is it used for
The Sum of the Squares of Error.
Finding the vertical error between the points and the given line
x/y/Predicted Y with the ^ over it (y=mx+b)/y-(^Y)/y-(^y)(squared)
this ^ is the way the chart must look... to get the predicted you must plug in the given X to get the predicted y
to get the SSE you must sum up the (Y-(^Y)(squared))
THe regression line is the formulas where there is
Least squares line, best fit line
slope for price and quantity
or just get y=mx+b and chose any given xy coordinate and plug it in to the x and the y and also plug in the slope
What does it mean when 2 equations in 2 unknowns are linear
Geometrically they are the same line, so they have infinitely many solutions.
What does it mean when 2 equations in 2 unknowns are inconsistent
They are parallel so they are two different lines that never meet
explain the geometric meaning of a 2 x 2 system having exactly one solution?
The equations are 2 lines that intersect at one point looks like X


According to a research bulletin released on January 15 by the Southern Education Foundation (SEF), for the first time in recent history, just over 50 percent of children attending U.S. public schools come from low-income families.
SEF collected data from the National Center for Education Statistics that broke out by state the percentage of students who were eligible to receive free or reduced price lunches during the 2012-13 school year. At least half of students fit this eligibility in 21 states, including California, Texas, and Florida.
Nineteen states have low-income student populations in the 40-48 percent range and 10 states have between 38 and 42 percent of their students living in poverty. Mississippi had the highest rate with 71 percent; New Hampshire the lowest percentage with 27 percent.
The nation reached this milestone rather quickly. In 1989, about one-third of students came from low-income households. In 2000, that figure had grown to 38 percent. The weak economy over the next decade, culminating in the Great Recession in 2008, sped up the pace. From 2006 to 2013, the percentage of public school students in poverty grew from 42 to 51 percent.
The trends are staggering, and yet the national debate over public education still provides inadequate space for a serious discussion about poverty and its impact on student achievement. Growing up in poverty is one of the greatest impediments to a child’s cognitive development and his ability to learn.
According to 2011 data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, for example, fourth-graders who were eligible for free lunch scored 29 points lower on reading than those not eligible. Similar results were seen in eighth grade, where students eligible for free lunch scored 25 points lower.
Compared to high-performing nations, the United States does not direct its education funding toward students who live in these low-income areas.
“(High-performing) countries spend their money in highly equitable ways,” explains Linda Darling-Hammond of Stanford University. “If you spend more in schools on the education of children who have fewer socioeconomic advantages, you do better as a country. Other countries invested more money and that is what shot them up in the rankings.”
Ensuring that children in poor neighborhoods have the same learning opportunities that children in more affluent neighborhoods have is a pillar of Whole Child Education, explains NEA President Lily Eskelsen García. “Equity in resources and programs should be in every single school building.”
If the United States is to build a skilled workforce for the 21st Century, every child should have a chance to succeed academically, the Southern Education Fund report concludes.
“Their success or failure in the public schools will determine the entire body of human capital and educational potential that the nation will possess in the future. Without improving the educational support that the nation provides its low income students – students with the largest needs and usually with the least support — the trends of the last decade will be prologue for a nation not at risk, but a nation in decline.”


Last week I gave a presentation called, “Code Dread,” at a tech conference. I’m not sure who had more dread at the time – the attendees who hadn’t tried coding before, or me, the teacher who can only speak publicly in front of people 10 and younger.
My target audience was people who are interested in using coding in the classroom but have some reservations like:
- I don’t know how to do this.
- I don’t have time to learn how to do this.
- I can’t fit this into my curriculum.
Here are my recommended solutions:
- Pretend you’re pretending you don’t know how to do this because that’s what’s best for your students; it will make them better problem solvers. This has the added benefit of being true. (Not the pretending part – the better problem solver part.) If you don’t know how to do it, you won’t feel tempted to rescue them too quickly.
- Learn along with your students. You don’t have to spend time during the weekend learning it. Just put it in your lesson plans and jump in. It will be messy and chaotic, but learning will happen. You’re modeling a growth mindset, and showing students that it’s okay to make mistakes as long as you learn from them.
- Once students know the basics, there are all kinds of ways coding can be used as part of your everyday curriculum. For example, Sphero provides lessons that connect to math. With Scratch Jr. you can teach Kinders how to program while they learn their sight words. And I taught my 1st graders geography with Dash and Dot.
Here is the link to my presentation – though it may not make a whole lot of sense without my narration.
Hour of Code will be here soon (12-7 thru 12-13). The Code.org site provides extremely user-friendly resources and tutorials. They just announced their newest tutorial yesterday – Star Wars! This is a great way to dip your toes into coding and find out that it really isn’t that intimidating. Here is a simplified scope and sequence I offered to our faculty last year (with a few updates for 2015).
But don’t stop there! Your students will love being able to code on a regular basis – especially when they are able to create games or art with their programming. You can find many resources in my Code Dread presentation. I also have a “Programming for Kids” Pinterest board.
So, jump on in. Who cares if you don’t know what you’re doing?
I certainly don’t. Know what I’m doing, I mean 🙂
Take a risk, and get rid of your


This is the story of two men, and the two decisions, that transformed world history in a single tumultuous year, 1917: Wilson’s entry into World War One and Lenin’s Bolshevik Revolution.
In April 1917 Woodrow Wilson, champion of American democracy but also segregation; advocate for free trade and a new world order based on freedom and justice; thrust the United States into World War One in order to make the “world safe for democracy”—only to see his dreams for a liberal international system dissolve into chaos, bloodshed, and betrayal.
That October Vladimir Lenin, communist revolutionary and advocate for class war and “dictatorship of the proletariat,” would overthrow Russia’s earlier democratic revolution that had toppled the all-power Czar, all in the name of liberating humanity—and instead would set up the most repressive totalitarian regime in history, the Soviet Union.
In this incisive, fast-paced history, New York Times bestselling author Arthur Herman brilliantly reveals how Lenin and Wilson rewrote the rules of modern geopolitics. Through the end of World War I, countries only marched into war to increase or protect their national interests. After World War I, countries began going to war over ideas. Together Lenin and Wilson unleashed the disruptive ideologies that would sweep the world, from nationalism and globalism to Communism and terrorism, and that continue to shape our world today.
Our New World Disorder is the legacy left by Wilson and Lenin, and their visions of the perfectibility of man. One hundred years later, we still sit on the powder keg they first set the detonator to, through war and revolution.