Harrison claims that he is the emporer when he breaks into the TV studio.

Dianna Moon Glampers is the Handicapper General.

To make his have equal looks, Harrison wears a red rubber ball for a nose, keeps his eyebrows shaved off, and covers his even white teeth with balck caps at snaggletooth random.

The transmitter George wears in his ear is used to make sure he does not take an unfair advantage of his brain.

The United States Handicapper General.

Harrison Bergeron was the son of Hazel and George Bergeron. He was astoundingly smart and an incredible athlete. He was also highly feared and uncontrollable.

How do plants of the same species recognize each other?

Will you and others have access to our fail logs or is it for our own personal records? If others need access am I missing the step with how to connect with others?

Question 3

Question 1 or 2

This is ultimately how cancer cells are then successful

a question: the fact that men tend to have more hair mean that they are "wiser" or "smarter" than women?

Marcus Brutus has been regarded as the "noblest Roman of them all" who acts only with the interest of the State at heart. The assassination of Caesar was even justified by him; he exclaimed to the public "it’s not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more."

In his last moments, it is obvious that Brutus was feeling remorseful of the past atrocities, but is this enough to ground Brutus as a fundamentally heroic character? Is Brutus in fact delusional, attempting to redeem himself via radical patriotism? Do his actions speak louder than his words?

Therefore, my question is:

Is Brutus deserving of a tragic hero status, or does he portray a more antagonistic character in the play?

Why would this be beneficial? Obviously this limit prevents pathways from using entire layers, but how does that help the agents find a suitable pathway? Does this make the agent less localized?

So, in a way, it is but an imitation of a bridge? I'm trying to think of this in terms of Hume's Bundle Theory. Is Heidegger saying that we cannot reduce the things we make to 1. the reason we made them 2. their properties 3. both 4. neither?

Umm, are they non-ground or ground?

This conflicts with the possible world (3), so... is this a new example?

OK, but this is the marginal distribution that Mary calls? Not conditional on the facts that we already know, that a burglary happened, that an earthquake did not, that Mary heard the alarm?

Does this mean to prove 'there exists a call'?

What are two examples of queries?

What does this mean?

"using only symbols from the program" as opposed to what?

I'm not versed in The History of Sexuality, but I know it's been quoted in this class before: can someone fill me in on what Foucault means here?

A rhetorical question is already answered. Does the correct response to a "rhetorical situation" already exist and it is up to rhetor to "read the prescription accurately?"

rhetoric questions, without argumentation but supposedly the hyperlinks contradicted it. But it is not clear hyperlink would be effective here (or if the linked page does provide good evidence)

How does that happen?

I need to look more into how to address the absence of certain data points. If I recall correctly, 133 of 144 students in the 9th grade at my school participated. Reasons for absences vary, and I need to look into what to do about the missing nodes. Any suggestions?

So this is a sub theory of network theory that focuses on concepts such as structural holes and brokers?

So dose the basic statistical package in R work, If I am not mistaken, I think we also can't use statistical package to make estimates for relational data.

Oy. This (multiple linear regression) is much harder for me to wrap my brain around, but I'm going to give it a go (especially since I have so many variables and it might be useful for tying them together). Again, I have SP, CP, and discussion forum type. If I did the surveys, I'd also have perceived sense of belonging. How well does a student's perceived sense of belonging predict his/her level of CP in discussion posts, controlling for discussion forum type (for example, only looking at large group discussions)? That doesn't get the SP in there though, and may not actually be a great model of regression. :/ Help?

I have next to no stats knowledge, so I'm going to try to extrapolate this out in regards to my own research to try to better understand it (hopefully!). In using my own research with SP (social presence) and CP (cognitive presence). I'm going to start with the varibles: levels of SP, levels of CP, discussion forum type. A question I have been asking is whether discussion forum type affects SP and/or CP. Modeling the question the same way as this one, it might be whether students are more likely to show higher CP with students they were in a programmatic small group discussion with versus just large group. I think this models this line of questioning, at least. This probably doesn't get the SNA part in. So, trying again... Are students more likely to respond to a student in a large group discussion that they formed a connection with in a programmatic small group discussion or a random small group discussion? This doesn't get the SP or CP working in there, but it gets the SNA. So part of what I'm studying. But, since I'm graphing SP as a weighted measure for SNA, maybe it could be whether students are more likely to demonstrate higher SP in an ensuing large-group discussion with students they were in small programmatic group discussion with in a previous module. Does that get all the parts working approporiately in a MR-QAP-procedure question??

Can ERGMs be used for nonreciprocal networks?

I am using ego-level networks for my final project, but how would I go about ensuring that the ego in question was chosen randomly?

Maybe I missed something in our previous readings/videos, but can someone explain to me what is meant by the term "artifacts"?

Would running such tests require a need for assessing latent variables that emerge from network analysis? I will keep reading, but from what I know of SNA, it seems like you are only analyzing observable variables and it would be difficult to obtain a correlation from such unique variables. Am I way off here?

when reading this, I don't know why but a question suddenly came into my mind, why do we need so complicated/fancy models in social science research, specifically, except core independent variables and outcome variables, why do we use covariate/ control variables in a given model. I had an insight from a professor's explanation: for natural science, most objects of study are homogeneous and scientists can have a good control of interference in lab environment with careful experimental design. However, in terms of social science phenomenons, they are so complicated and are impacted by so many factors, including which we already know, and also a lot of which we don't know yet, let alone the subjects of social science study are so unique and heterogeneous. So we have to use advanced model to get closer to understanding those complex phenomenons, and we have to try our best to control the covariates we already know to carefully test the real relationship between independent variables and dependent variable. In addition, because we can not know or measure all factors that will impact a certain complex phenomenon, this is one of the reasons that a model is a simplification or approximation of reality and hence will not reflect all of reality.

Some good Qs by Max Ogden on DOI resolving and other persistent urls.

In terms of my project (looking at racial and gender-based biases in communication between undergarduate students in an online class), then I could use this same rationale and process in order to make generalizations to a broader population?

What are the differences?

I am confused as to the difference between these two terms in this context...

Who is Bruner? https://hyp.is/cPSoyBJCEee8FGMc9GZQJg/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Bruner

Does anyone know if this is a valid exercise still? Line 260 of cifar10.py specifically states:

# linear layer(WX + b),
# We don't apply softmax here because
# tf.nn.sparse_softmax_cross_entropy_with_logits accepts the unscaled logits
# and performs the softmax internally for efficiency.

or is this saying it would be useful to get the scaled logits too using tf.nn.softmax and keep both, passing unscaled to the loss(logits, labels) call in line 72 of cifar10_train.py as required by the tf.nn.sparse_softmax_cross_entropy_with_logits(). And using the scaled logits for tracking the classifications of our inference. It'd be cool to get some thoughts on this!

Given the nature of my data (Forbes top companies), I think it would be appropriate to look at specific countries as the Ego and the job categories as the alters. Am I correct in assuming that the local pattern of relations would be how my selected county (the ego) is connected to other countries through job category?

Is it not valualbe to analyze the size of ego networks for social media? This likely wouldn't limit the size of the networks to 6, right?

There seem to be two types of questions here: relational questions and attribute questions. Might it be worth categorizing these questions about eliciting egocentric network data into two seperate categoies?

I notice that Leader 35 has the smallest number of alters and the highest efficacy score. Did I read that correctly? I am sure this is too tiny of a data set to conclude anything, so I'm curious what would happen to that pattern with broader analysis.

I believe SIZE and DENSITY are very intuitive measures that enable readers to understand the characteristics of eco-centric networks, especially, when we try to compare the different eco-centric networks. My related question is "how we can statistically compare those values from different networks?". To expand the qustion, "how we can statistically test the differences among different networks?"

I can't insert permutation and combination formula here, I will try to explain my confusion. I don't understand why use C 5 3 instead of C 5 2, although C 5 3 equals to C 5 2, I still think only using C 5 2 can make sense in this setting. Maybe I get something wrong, please correct me if so.

Based on what I have learnt, betweenness captures brokerage, and closeness captures reachability (it is about how far away the rest of the network is from a certain actor). However, we also talked about eigenvector centrality a few weeks ago (the thought of eigenvector centrality is that your importance is determined by your neighborhoods’ importance) , I was wondering why the author didn't introduce eigenvector centrality of egocentric network in this chapter. I think one actor's eigenvector can indicate this actor's potential value or importance, it can be very useful in some specific settings.

Could one use bidrectionality of connections as a emasure of density?

These two types of measures sound like the traditional statistical methods analyzing independent variables(to get some descriptive results of central tendency and tendency of dispersion). However, I think egocentric data is relational data which violates independence assumption. What are the differences between relational data analysis and independent data analysis. I am not sure whether I propose my question appropriately and correctly, and I remember I had read some detailed information relating to this question before, but I am still confused about it. (According to these examples listing in this paragraph, maybe the author talks about attribute data, not relational data?)

Did he serve in the French Army?

To identify "core" actor, what is a difference between a K-core collapse and centrality. I understand that there are difference logics between them. However, considering the expected results, I am not sure how we differenciate those different techniques.

Which means, what I understand that, there is no diffence between a strong and a weak component if a network is undirected. Is it right?

What would result from analyzing the similarities and differences between the results from each of these methods of group analysis? Each is distinct, for good reason. Nevertheless, overlap may rightly be expected. Might there be a way to identify that overlap and then make mearning from the overlap?

This seems to be an unweildy number of cliques for a group of 17 people. How can this bottom-up analysis conclude similar findings as a simple ethnographic inquiry? Would more analysis be necessary? If so, what analysis?

I trust that there was a theoretical framework for this choice. Nevertheless, I am at a loss to understand that framework. Why were three blocks chosen?

While I certainly understand this in a real-world sense, I do interact with friends-of-friends in social media, either directly or through group membership. As such, is it acceptable to increase n when doing research, if one's research questions/interest require?

Does anyone know of a way to illustrate this in a GIF or similar? I guess maybe doing it manually could be workable, but it sure seems to me that automating the charting of this process would make for increased ease when discussing research online.

I 'm confused to tell the difference between "top-down" approach and "bottom-up" approach, it seems like they begin with different unit, "top-down" approach starts first with the whole network and then try to find its subgroups, and "bottom-up" approach starts first with more micro unit like dyad. Do I understand correctly?

What does non-normative mean here?

the agent must follow the quality of the scene. Why does the quality of the scene not follow the quality of the agent?

scene = egg; agent = chicken... which comes first?

EDIT: ...nevermind... I think he answers it in the next sentence... read before you write!

To what extent does imagination play in this early "bad science"? And how is imagination hindered/lost or accelerated/sustained in the paradigms of modern "good science"?

Coincidence that Will Strunk called Elements of Style his "little book?"

I think...

Who gets to do this?

What makes it natural?

Bundle Theory?

Would this simply be the forum? or the stage on which Douglass stood?

What is at stake in this question, or why does it need to be asked?

so is this directly correlated to structural cohesiveness?

1. Would it be right to say that a decentralized network would mean that more actors have a say in the evaluation process?
2. Could a measure like high transitivity indicate more equitable practices in evaluation?
3. Would high reciprocity mean that there was healthier communication (not just directed "at" the new teachers, but feedback loops and supportive avenues of communication)?
4. And finally, what would high density scores indicate -- that resources are more accessible and basically better connections overall - so a more well-connected network, with fewer actors in isolated or peripheral positions?

If they were asked at a later point to similarly identify three friends, if reciprocity increases, would that leave more structural holes?

So if we have a large (size) cohesive network with minimal clustering, does it follow logically that there will be high transitivity and high reciprocity and low centralization?

But who would be excluded? Or is it possible to imagine a network with high reciprocity, where there is high inclusion as well?

Is this an acceptable format for an excel/csv file in R - or is it better to convert to weighted format, which is I think how LesMis data was presented?

From my understanding of this, structural holes differ from triads since triads generally indicate that all three actors are connected in some way. Is this correct?

Is it fair to say that networks with high reciprocity and transitivity might mitigate some of the negative effects of clustering?

Hmmmm, high reciprocity is associated with network stability and social equality, but it might also be associated with clique-i-ness (clustering). What is the nature of a social network with high reciprocity and low clustering? What is the value of this type of network?

So are 'purposes of presentation' valid basis for data manipulation? I am left yearning for more explanation.

(Mental Note) The concept that I have to focus on...

Foundational math question: Does this CDi mean all other scores added together, or is this calculation meant to be applied between the actor with the highest degree against every other actor? So, in the scenario with the 17 frat brothers, is calculating the centrality a matter of doing Freeman's formula once, or 16 times?

Is there a typo in this equation? I would think that instead of having Aij in all 4 positions, of the equation, that Aji would be in 2 of them (as that would indicate the relationship of j to i instead of just i to j). Am I thinking about this wrong? Why are all 4 of the equation factors with a focus on actor i to j?

What's the difference between the fields of philosophy of language and linguistics? This is a really interesting potential distinction.

Better question, what isn't rhetorical?

With the marginal note from Nathaniel in mind, this binary is really interesting (and necessary) to unpack. I've had to read a lot of Foucault lately, so I'm thinking with him through a lot of my other readings right now. But his use of episteme, in some ways, breaks down that binary. By treating an episteme as the "epistemological unconscious" of an era (meaning that some knowledge and some assumptions are so inherent at a specific time and place that society doesn't even know it's happening), Foucault seems to suggest that opinion and knowledge can uniquely shift and intertwine in each epoch (again, within a culture that doesn't even know it's happening).

Are we allowed to include nodes for John and Holly if they are identified by others, but without using their name? For example, we would refer to John as Anonymous 1 and Holly as Anonymous 2. Or would we have to exclude any data that involves them, regardless of anonymity?

Pardon the heartache, but would this be a fitting example?

Utilizing something emotional to invoke people to care about a certain topic?

I think about this split quite often. As someone with two degrees largely focused on literature, and seeking one focused on rhetoric, I find myself lost in the (messy and often blurred) boundaries between the two fields. The later assertion from Mill, "For poetry, utterance is the end, not, as in rhetoric, the means to an end" (996) seems to hold true even today. Literature is rarely seen as social action, let alone socially engaged. I wonder how damaging (or not) this is as we attempt to think about "our disciplinary identity crisis less as a crisis of identity and more as an opening of alterity" (Muckelbauer).

This is probably why I am so intrigued by Muckelbauer's argument that "we might even conceive of rhetoric as, in a certain way, disengaging from the entire problematic of 'fields,' disconnecting from both 'interdisciplinary studies' and work in the 'rhetoric of x' genre (indicating, perhaps, an ontological rhetoric)."

But what does this look like? How does this happen? The end of this intro seem to give some hope -- "Literary theorists, too, began to acknowledge...the wider scope afforded by a rhetorical approach to discourse" (998, emphasis mine). But how often is literature viewed as discourse? And is this a reciprocal engagement?

Direct nod to Quintilian and the "Q" Question.

This is interesting for my own likely research needs/goals in looking at how technology integration processes spread. That said, it might also be difficult to track in a truly large-scale project. For example, there isn't one "universal" place for teachers to go and find technology integration processes. Perhaps this will have to be bound by the PLC/PLN I have in place?

Taste is different for everyone versus taste is universal, but everyone perceives it differently?

I have an issue with this as stated. Couldn't it be that the "return" of social capital, as it is considered here, is only looking for extrinsic motivation? What about intrinsic motivations, such as helping someone simply because it feels good or is seen as the "right" thing to do judged solely by one's moral compass?

I keep coming back to the "mind as rhizome" metaphor as we talk about social networks and the theories that surround it. It seems to me that we, as humans, often create things that are structurally or functionally similar to our own bodies (i.e., the ways that a computer works and it's internal hardware mimicking the structures of the brain). Perhaps the same is true with social capital and social media: are these actually extensions of our brain?

I don't think I adequately understand the difference between these two. They are both about connecting separate networks, and I thought at first the terms were interchangeable, but they're used together here, so clearly they're not. What's the difference?

This is such an interesting question! My area is in college students, so I don't have to worry so much about parental involvement, but for those in K-12, the assumption that this sort of close communication is good. I wonder if it's like the stroke victims where having more weak ties among the network is a good thing. Though I can't fathom why that would be the case in this situation.

OK. Now I'm confused. Can anyone help clarify the difference between network and contact resources? It sounds like contact resources are an attribute of one's network resources--is that accurate?

I believe this is also referred to as a bridge. Is that accurate?

I find it interesting that there isn't an agreed-upon definition. Is there one theorist's definition considered the most valid in educational SNA?

Words are inherently inferior to the larger ideas they represent?

This part made think: what is the nature of the relationship between Napoleon "the actual man" and Napoleon the 'historical character' that is responsible for "rousing feelings" in readers and writers? It seems to me that historical figures or celebrities take on a very different role in our consciousness than do actual people that we personally know and therefore than the actual people that form the basis for those icons or public/historical personas. Don't these people really exist in two capacities: on one hand a living, breathing person (or once living, breathing person), and on the other an icon or character of sorts? Clearly there is a link between Napoleon the physical human that lived and died and Napoleon the character in the drama of history, Jesus the historical person and Jesus the religious/spiritual/cultural icon, Kim Kardashian the physical human being and Kim Kardashian the celebrity/icon/public persona, etc., but are they really the same thing? If someone were to mistakenly believe that Hamlet was a real person that once lived on this earth and that the play about him was a dramatization of historical events, wouldn't Hamlet exist for them in the same way that Napoleon does--a character or icon derived from a once real human being?

Being the empirical world?

I can see where the inductive may align more with qualitative whereas deductive may be more quantitative, but SNA still strikes me as much more quant than qual. I'm still new to research ideas, but it seems that to move SNA from quant to qual, you'd need to include more than just the mathematical modeling, such as having interviews to add some color to the SNA. Without those interviews, though (or something like that), it seems despite being more inductive, it would still be considered quant, not qual. As I said, though, I'm newer to this, so if someone wants to provide opposing reasoning, I'm very open to it!

Is this basically dominant traits becomes the phenotype over the recessive gene and two recessive genes become the phenotype? Did that make sense?

Will we discuss this in class? As well as the 9:3:3:1 ratio?

Divide and conquer! Is this the precursor to Whitehead's table of contents?

What does "preservice teacher" refer to in this context? I associate these two terms together with either an undergraduate student who is working towards licensure or a student doing a post-bac licensure program. Is that the same meaning here?

I wonder what are the molecular controls that control chromosome condensation.

What did he do now that he regrets having multiple wives? Did he have major divorces?

Why do the women have no legal status???

it was outlawed before but know he changed his thought process. I wonder why? Was it just soleful for the purpose to get more power?

Thinking how? Feeling how? Acting how? What are the best relational and pedagogic practices for "intertwining" analog and digital as suggested?

What is special about the "genesis rock"?

Original Question:

Anybody knows what does it mean? I cannot see a design change in OrderProcessor...

Update:

It's about "concrete implementation of the IOrderShipper interface"

The remark @ploeh makes later in the article is that you can solve the problem without need to change high level design (OrderProcessor) to fix low level issue (OrderShipper)

Tough questions: It makes me wonder if this is foreshadowing something that will happen later on in the book.

Je me demande si la référence au texte d’Otto renvoie à l’explication du terme « numineux », ou si l’information contenue dans la phrase est issue de son texte. Parle-t-il de la collection du Louvre dans son ouvrage? Une autre question m’est venue à l’esprit à la lecture de cette phrase. Est-ce que vraiment tous les objets de la collection ont un rapport à la religion, au divin, ou bien l’utilisation du terme « mystique » est liée à l’idée de mystère?

After I did the symptom tracker, it took me right back to this page and the "Get Started". It seems like a prompt or direction of clicking on My Tips would be helpful to aid the user experience. I knew I should look at My Tips, but had momentarily forgotten as a pretend user.

This seems misleading. I've just finished tracking my symptoms. Why is it prompting me to "get started". I see it says you can use it "as often as you'd like", but it seems that information would be helpful to bold or highlight or have closer to the top of paragraph.

Is the wording to this intro for the survey 'official' or may we edit it?

Humans why we always change our mind in the simple staff in live ? why we make it so complicated in this world?

How will this lead to violence, waste, war, and destruction?

But is this idea not true for almost everything in life? If someone wins, someone must lose, right? Is this system poorly designed because some people lose? The alternative would be nobody wins, would that be preferable?

So by quoting this, what is the author trying to say? Should we stop the pursuit of knowledge after instituting these 'limits'?

Why would we fear to become inhuman and monstrous? What most people really care about is extinction. Yet her it states that's not the case. How? And why would we ned to become inhuman and monstrous?

True in a sense, But why must we have limits if we have never reached them. theoretically speaking isn't there always room for improvement regardless of the subject?

Can we as a society be "free" without restraints then?

Why do we think of limitless as a godly trait? Mankind continues to do the unthinkable as we progress. We have done things we once thought were never achievable.

How can a limitless knowledge affect a human brain dangerously ?

Is waste and greed the cause of global warming?

This thought process has guided America's economic choices from the beginning. There's always more: money, oil, freedom, opportunity...etc. But was it to occur when we are forced to realize that this way of thinking can only be temporary, and at some point time will catch up with innovation.

Humans beginning are not define as animals and not all religions agree with at. Some religions doesn't agree that human heritage begin from animals. That may be true scientifically but not culturally or religiously.

Because us as humans consume limitless amounts we lose respect for each other and humanity? Wouldn't sharing these limitless needs give us a common ground and make us a community?

How do you feel about renewable energy? and do you believe this argument is valid and appropriate regarding the necessity to follow nature in the essence of "natural ecosystems"?

How do you feel about renewable energy? and do you believe this argument is valid and appropriate regarding the necessity to follow nature in the essence of "natural ecosystems"?

what is the circumstance of giving up the right of being godlike animals and how would it effect the earth?

If we as a society focus less on big business, and more on what nature is giving us, would we have to worry about running out of what nature is already giving us as energy resources?

But why are we talking about this? Like why does it matter?

How would we even be able to present a limitless economy and what kind of an ending effect would it had on us?

The author talks about our "abused cropland" which opens up a lot of problems with un-regulated farming and deforestation in different places. And if we don't regulate farm land we can farm the land to the point where it has no nutrients and if we just keep moving to the next plot of land, eventually we are going to end up like the movie interstellar where the money is in crops instead of the progression of the technology.

Having studied the issue of Global Warming in detail under the direction of two other professors here, I find this claim Berry makes to be utterly flattering. It suggests that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions (less than 5% of total CO2 surface emissions) rival those that can be attributed to natural processes. Do you believe Berry to be employing a "truthful hyperbole"--as Trump would say--here to illustrate the danger of our "limitless" view of the Earth; or do you believe Berry himself to be caught up in a view of human limitlessness (in other words, do you believe he thinks the impact humans have on this planet to be limitless)?

Why would anyone think that a limitless economy would be easy to demonstrate?

What limits can we create to ensure we are still able to exist as human beings or to exist at all?

Do the points in this essay refer to us as selfish in a way? The people and the government seem to look at things as limitless but in reality stuff will run out. Example being the gas we use is not limitless and someday will run out. We need to be more resourceful and mindful. But of course no one thinks of these things while they fill their cars up..

How is monetary not a stats about wealth of land, but instead about wastes and depletes?

Why is hell everywhere for those who reject heaven?

Do we have a delusion that there will be enough oil and that it isn't going to ever run out?

So, by this metaphor, is the author implying that if we use our freedom to destroy nature, will there be no place to go where the environment is safe for living plants and animals?

Are we entitled to a limitless economy? Should we consume whatever we please in the world without regard to consequences of that unrestrained use of resources?

Why does our society have an assumed limitlessness when we are capable of doing things thought not possible?

Discussion: How can limits be acknowledged positively without the impediment of progress?

As a society, we tend to function in a rat race mentality, that we are busy people who focus on what is important and urgent. We usually put off what is urgent but can wait to be dealt with later. Is it wrong to let the next generation solve this problem so that we can continue on, "business as usual"?

Will looking away from science and technology and going to focus on the arts really help with limitless? If you look at a broad spectrum of things are technology and art really limitless? Is anything limitless?

Not really sure what "already abused cropland" is supposed to be referring to. The USA has plenty of land that is useful for crops, so we won't be running out of land anytime soon. Crops can be rotated to put the nutrients back in that a certain type of crop takes away. I would say that a shortage of water would be a bigger concern. As it is, we import about 19% of the food we consume for more variety of choices. With advances in farming, there is less crop loss and more yield per acre than ever before. Do you think that growing so-called bio-fuels such as wheat, corn, soybeans and sugarcane will really cause problems?

Why will we need to start over? We can learn the concepts of ideas and things but we would not need to restart completely to understand it.

Is the problem about us assuming limitlessness, true? Do we assume EVERYTHING is limitlessness?

Were limits learned by time and society or did we always have them instilled in us? ( ex: attention span of an audience)

By segmentation does she mean categorization? In which case, didn't she warn against categorization earlier in the article?

To me, this links back to what Edbauer (Rice) was saying about temporality and the connection of that to the sender to receiver model. Networks cannot be rooted in one fragment of time, she claims, because then they become inflexible-- they may be perceived differently at different times, may reform over time, or many grow over time. Likewise, with the sender-receiver model, that is not a one and done thing. Perception of a message is flexible. So this begs the question, how do we recognize temporality in our rhetoric?

Familiarity effect - the more often you hear something, the more often you believe it to be true, regardless of other factors... What skill-sets are students employing to remain aware of this? How does the role of technology in their lives influence this phenomenon or not?

It is a valid assumption because total correctness is assumed which subsumes partial correctness.

"First, we argue that there is some initial configuration in which the decision is not already predetermined." - this is the proof of this part.

But why is a proof of this needed when the partial correctness already assumes that it is true that the configuration is bivalent (if all P begins with an initial config)?

What's the relation between a step and an event?

Hard to follow. Explain please?

Also, why is this particular assumption made, that at infinity receives, every message is eventually delivered - how does not making this assumption change things?

Can we discuss the choices of models that we have and why this one might be particularly stronger than the others?

Why?

what does this mean?

What's this?

im white....?

Why do they want to force latinos to pick one race?? There are so many different microcultures and sub groups that latinos are included in, the Census would have to add so many more options.

browser?

how will someone live like this?

Starting off with a darker image of the damage that has been done so that the reader may ask "What can be done?"

This a use of "Begging the Question", or circular reasoning because it asserts that [the embargo] is a burden on the Cuban people, and goes on to invoke that it likewise impedes Americans. But is the embargo actually burdensome to either populations? It is not addressed.

Obama uses a rhetorical question here to show the stark difference between the present and the 1950s in America. He calls people to reflect on the past and therefore to draw conclusions about the progress and change that has occurred since then. By reflecting on the past, he calls his audience to consider the future. He uses this strategy to engage his audience and invite them to participate.

Which sentence BEST summarizes how Rio de Janeiro has been characterized by TV coverage of the Olympic games?

Read the following two paragraphs from the beginning of the article. This favela of concrete homes and corrugated roofs, with a trash-filled canal running through the middle and gang graffiti tagging its walls, hasn't shed its reputation. But with the 24-year-old judo master's win, Roberto said, "you forget about your own suffering a little bit." "For this community, her victory means everything," said Tony Barros, a photographer and community organizer in City of God. "What other legacy will we get from the Olympics?" How do the two paragraphs reflect a CENTRAL idea of the article?

What is the syntax that a derived Read parses when reading a list?

The response code suggests the request succeeded, but the URI in the response is different from the URI in the request. And do I understand correctly that the update does not need the full object, but only changed fields are needed? (That sounds more like a PATCH request, but I'm not sure what HTTP semantics are in this context.)

Im E-Skript steht der Übergang vom Laufen zum Gehen hat eine Froude-Zahl von 0.4. Spielt es keine Rolle ob vom Gehen zum Laufen oder umgekehrt betrachtet wird? Bleibt die Froude-Zahl gleich gross?

Everyone gets their own annotation page, is that why no one else has marked this page up?

Q: i和arguments[0]是相互独立的吗？如果我修改arguments[0]， i会保持原来的值么？

A: 下面Q&A部分有解释。i和arguments[0]应该reference to each other。

但是究竟什么是reference to each other？ 如果是object，我可以理解它们都reference到同一个object。但是如果是primitive呢？

How this inheritance is implemented? Does it suggest that Fruit's prototype will hold a reference of Plant's prototye?

Q: Why Fruit's prototype is Plant.prototype instead of the Plant object? A: Because aBanana.showNameAndColor().

If Fruit.prototype is Plant.prototype, then shouldn't every object's prototype is just a reference of the Object.prototype?

如果要这么绕圈的话，为啥不直接用new呢？

这句话在暗示this其实和ThisBinding的值是不一样的？

那么在Execution Context里面存的究竟是this还是ThiBinding呢？

Title: What is it? An oral history of Izzy, the mascot marketing snafu of Olympic proportions - Atlanta Magazine

Keywords: fantastic mascot—cobi, public appearances—, bob cohn, atlanta-based artist, york city, billy wanted, spanish art, children thought, vice president, senior director, blue blob, acog spokesperson, billy looked, easy character, olympic city, olympic games, olympic bid, question billy

Summary: <br>Bob Cohn, cofounder of public relations agency Cohn & Wolfe, member of Payne’s mascot committee: In Barcelona in 1992, they had a fantastic mascot—Cobi, who was typical of Spanish art and filled with creativity.<br>Some of them wrote us back letters [that essentially said] “The nerve!” or “We’re not doing anything for nothing.”<br>So it couldn’t be characters that existed in Georgia lore.<br>Somebody sent us a deer.<br>John Ryan, then senior director at DESIGNefx, the animation division of Crawford Communications: The basic job was to design something that would appeal to children and broadly on a world stage.<br>Photograph by Rich Mahan/Atlanta Journal-Constitution via AP<br>It wore five Olympic rings—two on its eyes and three on its tail—and oversized sneakers nearly half the size of its body.<br>Bob Brennan, then ACOG spokesperson: Billy Payne wanted to do something modern, reflective of the technological world we lived in.<br>You had movies like Jurassic Park, Total Recall.<br>Shuman: I received Hi-Rez right at the deadline, a Friday.<br>When Billy looked at that [proposal], he said, “Gee whiz, wow.<br>Payne: As CEO of the Olympic Games, I felt it was both our responsibility and within my authority to make whatever decisions needed to be made.<br>Shuman: By the time I got back on Monday afternoon, Ginger told me Billy had made his decision.<br>Were we raising enough money?<br>Shuman: You didn’t question Billy.<br>Payne: The logical question that you would ask on seeing it is “What is it?” I guess we just said, “Well, we should just put it into one word.”<br>Shuman: The name, Whatizit, was almost worse than the character itself.<br>Does it all run together?<br>Ryan: We had to have [final] designs submitted by March [1992], knowing it’d be debuted in August at the Barcelona Games.<br>It really looked funky.<br>In a huge stadium it can’t be little.<br>Shuman: To generate interest about the mascot, we did these billboards all over town saying, “Whatizit?” We built up this huge anticipation.<br>Ryan: It was made very clear that if secrecy was violated, Crawford could lose future contracts.<br>Photograph courtesy of Harry Shurman<br>Meanwhile an amorphous animated character filled the stadium’s video monitors.<br>Evans: I took the field with Gregg Burge, the famous New York [tap] dancer.<br>Joel Babbit, CEO of the Narrative Content Group, veteran ad exec who worked with Payne to promote the Olympic bid, and City Hall’s first-ever chief marketing and communications officer under Jackson: If Maynard had an opinion, he kept it to himself.<br>“How do you say ‘Whatizit’ in Mandarin?”<br>Like, this is it?<br>Completely and totally horrified.<br>They’re complaining: This is terrible.<br>But [ACOG] had a lot riding on the mascot financially from license sales.<br>Robert Hollander, then ACOG’s vice president of licensing: My heart dropped into my stomach.<br>Hula: It’s something that’s supposed to evoke an image of Atlanta, the host city, and it really didn’t do that at all.<br>We didn’t even think we were compelled to do something that would make somebody in Australia say, “That mascot must be from Atlanta, Georgia.” It never crossed our minds.<br>It was sort of like a bigger Charlotte.<br>Photograph courtesy of R. Land<br>Ronnie Land, an Atlanta-based artist, better known as R. Land, who has made Izzy-inspired art: This was our “Hey, world, we’re Atlanta” moment.<br>LaTara Smith (née Bullock), ACOG’s “project coordinator for Izzy appearances” during the Olympics: I’ve heard everything from toothpaste to blue blob.<br>Hiskey: People were going to focus on the crazy blue thing because there wasn’t a lot of other cool stuff here.<br>Bob Hope, president of Atlanta-based public relations firm Hope-Beckham Inc.: I thought [Billy] briefly lost his mind.<br>Kevin Sack, a New York Times reporter based in Atlanta, wrote in a 1996 story that “[i]t is precisely Izzy’s nothingness that has unwittingly made him an apt symbol for this Olympic city.<br>Whatizit’s costume made Mike Luckovich’s punchline.<br>People were embarrassed [by Whatizit].<br>You wish people would look at the good stuff instead of focusing on the minutiae and losing the big picture.<br>Campbell: I suspect I hurt some people’s feelings.<br>Photograph by Raymond McCrea Jones<br>ACOG officially retired Whatizit in October 1993.<br>It worked.<br>Babbit: I liked the name Izzy.<br>Jacqueline Blum, senior vice president of Film Roman, the animation studio behind The Simpsons, King of the Hill, and Garfield and Friends, which produced an Izzy cartoon for TV: Izzy was a character created by committee.<br>Ryan: You got into a scenario where you have multiple art directors and bosses.<br>Hope: [Izzy was] like New Coke.<br>Smith: Izzy developed a nose.<br>Shuman: We had these stars coming out of his tail at one point.<br>I raised my hand and said, “Maybe not?” They left the shoes the way they are.<br>The costume had to get softer.<br>Evans: Children loved the mascot.<br>I’d guess probably close to 15 percent.<br>Watkins: I’m guessing [the bestselling item] would be the doll that was 12 inches that could be carried under a kid’s arm.<br>Lounge chair pillows.<br>Shuman: Billy wanted to market the shoes.<br>Blum: It’s not a particularly easy character to animate.<br>Hollander: Our broadcast partner, NBC, had gotten out of the children’s program business.<br>Watkins: They created an Izzy balloon that flew in New York City in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade.<br>Photograph by Caroline C. Kilgore<br>Evans helped create a mascot program that recruited volunteers through auditions.<br>Smith: By the time the Olympics came around, we had upwards of 20 Izzys that could be in different places at one time.<br>I asked [Izzy], “How does one become the mascot?” They were having tryouts the next weekend.<br>Don’t exclude children.<br>For example, Izzy loved everyone, so whether it was a critic or a fan, you didn’t show any negative emotion.<br>Izzy had a size 22 sneaker, so you had to fit your shoe inside Izzy’s shoe, inside another little pocket, and be able to walk around in his big feet.<br>Jay: You entered through the top of his mouth.<br>Smith: A lot of children thought it would be fun to swing on the tail.<br>Evans: The lighting bolt eyebrows and rings on the tail were prime targets for being pulled, punched, or ripped off for a souvenir.<br>Smith: Handlers began watching the perimeter.<br>Photograph courtesy of Harry Shuman<br>Is he still waiting for a shuttle bus?<br>Smith: We took over one of the Olympic headquarters offices.<br>Other times it would be outside as a crowd-pleaser.<br>Jay: We were instructed to wear the Izzy costume 30 minutes on, 30 minutes off, because you would sweat.<br>Wilsterman: There were two fans at the top of Izzy’s head [inside the costume].<br>I was able to whisper into a little microphone that went into the escort’s ear.<br>Smith: Izzy didn’t talk.<br>Izzy didn’t do public appearances—only [ones for] ticketed sponsors.<br>Brennan: I don’t think Izzy showed up at the closing ceremony.<br>Jay: When the flame went out, so did Izzy.<br>The question came up: Can someone dress up in the Izzy costume to greet visitors in the Atlanta History Center?<br>Photograph courtesy of LaTara Smith<br>Smith: I still have one of the Izzy costumes.<br>Payne: People didn’t like it.<br>I never lost my enthusiasm for Izzy.<br>Was it the greatest experience of my life?<br>Evans: I do appreciate the originality and willingness to do something different.<br>Land: Atlanta tries so hard to be what we think the world wants to view us as.<br>Shuman: Izzy was kind of like Colony Square—a little bit before his time.<br>Smith: It would’ve been easier to have a phoenix.<br>It didn’t say anything.<br>Babbit: It doesn’t matter what it was.<br>It was bizarre.<br>An image of Izzy?<br>Shuman: Usually everything Billy touched turned to gold.<br>This article originally appeared in our July 2016 issue.<br>Tags: 1996 Atlanta Olympics, 1996 Olympics, Atlanta Olympics, Billy Payne, Izzy, John Ryan, Olympics, R. Land, Whatizit<br>

... in order to achieve what? Statement doesn't seem complete.

Perhaps "when we need lower dimensional embeddings with d = D', we can't obtain them from higher dimensional embeddings with d = D."?

However, it is possible, to a certain extent, to obtain lower dimensional embeddings from higher dimensional ones - e.g. via PCA.

After answering that question, the next question will be : for how long is the allocated right to enter the park valid ?

What is it meant by this?

Related question on stats

Orthogonal matrix

Again, might be so - but quite ambiguous statement. Since we see a decreasing function on the plot.

"nearby" would make sense if the right-most plot of Fig. 3 shows the first diagonal, which it doesn't.

Or perhaps "nearby", but one of the cameras is upside down.

All in all, quite ambiguous statement.

New basis, right?

Guest users in Moodle - can we make it easier to get them into the space to engage with students? No more boring forums when the community members or guest speakers in a f-2-f class can contribute. What about a Google form for requests? Is there a way to limit guests to only one forum?

what?!

This is likely true for any study system. Then comes my question, how do I balance that flexibility with having some sort of overarching direction and plan? I need to be open to be guided by the Spirit (especially since I don't even have a mission president LOL).