With the backing of the United States, Panama seceded from Colombia in 1903, allowing the construction of the Panama Canal to be completed by the US Army Corps of Engineers between 1904 and 1914.
I would like to know more about the Panama canal since its a huge part of Panama but i dont know much about it.
transcontinental country in Central America[10] and South America
I have never heard transcontinental country before, until i looked up the definition.
If you find a suitable archive URL, then you can add it to the citation. If the citation uses one of the common templates (e.g. {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{Citation}}), then you can edit as follows: Leave the |url= unchanged, pointing to the source URL. Add |archive-url=, pointing to the archive URL. Add |archive-date=, specifying the date when the archived copy was saved. YYYY-MM-DD format is usually easiest but any format can be used. Add or change |url-status=. Use |url-status=dead if the old URL does not work. Use |url-status=unfit or |url-status=usurped if the old URL has been usurped for the purposes of spam, advertising, or is otherwise unsuitable. Use |url-status=live if |url= still works and still gives the correct information, but you want to preemptively add an |archive-url=. Leave the |access-date= unchanged, referring to the date when a previous editor last accessed the |url=. Some editors believe |access-date= should be removed once a working |archive-url= is established since the |url= is no longer available, maintaining an |access-date= is redundant clutter.
Bookmarklets to check common archive sites for archives of the current page(all open in a new tab or window) Archive site Bookmarklet Archive.org javascript:void(window.open('https://web.archive.org/web/*/'+location.href)) UKGWA javascript:void(window.open('http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/*/'+location.href))
Wardley map
Great Oxidation Event
Similar to 403 Forbidden, but specifically for use when authentication is required and has failed or has not yet been provided. The response must include a WWW-Authenticate header field containing a challenge applicable to the requested resource.
Levels
White-box testing (also known as clear box testing, glass box testing, transparent box testing, and structural testing) is a method of software testing that tests internal structures or workings of an application, as opposed to its functionality (i.e. black-box testing)
trunk
this is an annotation
More history here on the page than I would have thought.
Definitely worth digging into some of the older examples going back to [[Conrad Gessner]] and [[Johann Jacob Moser]].
When faced with the same request from Caesar, Cato used the device of filibuster, speaking continuously until nightfall, to prevent the senate from voting on the issue of whether or not Caesar would be allowed to stand for consul in absentia. Thus Caesar was forced to choose between a Triumph or a run for the consulship. Caesar chose to forgo the Triumph and entered Rome in time to register as a candidate in the 59 BC election, which he won. Caesar's consular colleague was Marcus Bibulus, the husband of Cato's daughter Porcia.
Cato did this with both Pompey and now Caesar.
vow
Later, Cato was married to a woman called Atilia. By her, he had a son, Marcus Porcius Cato, and a daughter, Porcia, who would become the second wife of Marcus Junius Brutus.
Cato killed himself because of Caesar. His son-in-law kills Caesar. Wow.
DigiNotar was a Dutch certificate authority owned by VASCO Data Security International, Inc.[1][2] On September 3, 2011, after it had become clear that a security breach had resulted in the fraudulent issuing of certificates, the Dutch government took over operational management of DigiNotar's systems.[3]
Dutch Certificate Authority gets hacked.
In the mainstream media, the Higgs boson has often been called the "God particle" from the 1993 book The God Particle by Nobel Laureate Leon Lederman,[10] although the nickname is not endorsed by many physicists.[11][12]
福柯曾在1976年3月17日于法兰西科学院的一次演讲中，提出过一个概念，叫“生物政治”（biopolitics）。福柯说，在生物政治的时代，统治者不再像是过去的君王或大革命后的共和国，它并不关心改变某个特殊的现象，或者惩罚某个具体的人，而是关注作为统计数字的“人口”：调节寿命、出生率、死亡率等一系列指标，优化生活状态。在“生物政治”思路的指引下，人命必须是要经过准确和细致衡量的，必要时该付的代价是必须的，只是我们要尽可能通过计算，让代价最小化。
1919年，一位加利福尼亚工程师威廉·亨利·史密斯（William Henry Smyth）就提出了“技术统治”（Technocracy）这个术语。他写了一篇《“技术统治”——实现工业民主的道路与方法》（“Tchnocracy” — Ways and Means to Gain Industrial Democracy）的文章，认为只有让人民从科学家和工程师中选举代表治理国家，才能有效实现民主统治。
ISO 639-3 extends the ISO 639-2 alpha-3 codes with an aim to cover all known natural languages.
The terms autonym and xenonym also had different applications,[3] thus leaving endonym and exonym as the preferred forms.
nativeName in https://gist.github.com/piraveen/fafd0d984b2236e809d03a0e306c8a4d is the endonym for the language.
Through a linkpin called "Property Value Alias", Unicode has made a 1:1 connection between a script defined, and its ISO 15924 standard.
The following standards are referred to as indispensable by ISO 15924.
To put it succinctly, differential topology studies structures on manifolds that, in a sense, have no interesting local structure. Differential geometry studies structures on manifolds that do have an interesting local (or sometimes even infinitesimal) structure.
Differential topology take a more global view and studies structures on manifolds that have no interesting local structure while differential geometry studies structures on manifolds that have interesting local structures.
As of 4 September 2020[update], 98 out of 193 (51%) United Nations (UN) member states, 22 out of 27 (81%) European Union (EU) member states, 26 out of 30 (87%) NATO member states, and 31 out of 57 (54%) Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) member states have recognised Kosovo. The government of Serbia does not recognise it as a sovereign state.
is a part of the United Kingdom that is variously described as a country, province, territory or region
Similarities in dialects[edit]
The lexicon (or, roughly, the base or essential vocabulary – such as "say" but not "said, tell, told")
Coupling (computer programming)
National Conference of Black Mayors
What happened?
In late 2014, a number of technology-oriented companies such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook, eBay, and Yahoo! announced that they were ending their ties to ALEC. Multiple companies cited environmental concerns as a point of contention with the organization
2014 is the shift change
Many ALEC legislators say the organization converts campaign rhetoric and nascent policy ideas into legislative language.[5]
hmm
《Aniara》是诺贝尔奖得主Harry Mattinson在1956年完成的小说，同时也是电影《安尼亚拉号（Aniara）》的原著。这部小成本科幻作品，在释放出人类通过高科技逃离生存危机的欣喜之后，又一点点将其剥夺，最终把极低的生存希望拉长到了天文数字般的年限后才能达成——这时我们大概才会如梦初醒：所谓的时间，原来只不过是神用来把玩人类的道具罢了。
从工业机器诞生之日开始，我们就已经幻想这些非碳基生物有一天会成为人类的精神主宰了：1909 年，英国作家E.M.福斯特的科幻短篇《大机器停止（The Machine Stops）》，就已经描述了一个人类被机器控制甚至拜机器为神的极端工业化时代。
Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused[5][6] with a related effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the system, that is, without changing something in a system.
the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.
Such variable pairs are known as complementary variables or canonically conjugate variables
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities (even in other applications running on the same domain) allow attackers to bypass essentially all CSRF preventions.
The NoScript extension for Firefox mitigates CSRF threats by distinguishing trusted from untrusted sites, and removing authentication & payloads from POST requests sent by untrusted sites to trusted ones. The Application Boundary Enforcer module in NoScript also blocks requests sent from internet pages to local sites (e.g. localhost), preventing CSRF attacks on local services (such as uTorrent) or routers.
The Self Destructing Cookies extension for Firefox does not directly protect from CSRF, but can reduce the attack window, by deleting cookies as soon as they are no longer associated with an open tab.
The advantage of this technique over the Synchronizer pattern is that the token does not need to be stored on the server.
The same-origin policy prevents an attacker from reading or setting cookies on the target domain, so they cannot put a valid token in their crafted form.
.
Security of this technique is based on the assumption that only JavaScript running on the client side of an HTTPS connection to the server that initially set the cookie will be able to read the cookie's value.
As the token is unique and unpredictable, it also enforces proper sequence of events (e.g. screen 1, then 2, then 3) which raises usability problem (e.g. user opens multiple tabs). It can be relaxed by using per session CSRF token instead of per request CSRF token.
In particular, the convention has been established that the GET and HEAD methods SHOULD NOT have the significance of taking an action other than retrieval. These methods ought to be considered "safe". This allows user agents to represent other methods, such as POST, PUT and DELETE, in a special way, so that the user is made aware of the fact that a possibly unsafe action is being requested.
.
Attacks were launched by placing malicious, automatic-action HTML image elements on forums and email spam, so that browsers visiting these pages would open them automatically, without much user action. People running vulnerable uTorrent version at the same time as opening these pages were susceptible to the attack.
.
Details were not released, citing "obvious security reasons".
.
Cross-site request forgery is an example of a confused deputy attack against a web browser because the web browser is tricked into submitting a forged request by a less privileged attacker.
This link may be placed in such a way that it is not even necessary for the victim to click the link. For example, it may be embedded within an html image tag on an email sent to the victim which will automatically be loaded when the victim opens their email.
A user who is authenticated by a cookie saved in the user's web browser could unknowingly send an HTTP request to a site that trusts the user and thereby causes an unwanted action.
Can a user really unknowingly send an HTTP request? Or would it be more accurate to say the browser (user agent) sends the HTTP request, unknown to its (supposed) operator (user)?
Data tainting[edit] Netscape Navigator briefly contained a taint checking feature. The feature was experimentally introduced in 1997 as part of Netscape 3.[10] The feature was turned off by default, but if enabled by a user it would allow websites to attempt to read JavaScript properties of windows and frames belonging to a different domain. The browser would then ask the user whether to permit the access in question.
seems to have nothing to do with tainted data, more about trusting frames from other domains?!
This mechanism bears a particular significance for modern web applications that extensively depend on HTTP cookies[1] to maintain authenticated user sessions, as servers act based on the HTTP cookie information to reveal sensitive information or take state-changing actions. A strict separation between content provided by unrelated sites must be maintained on the client-side to prevent the loss of data confidentiality or integrity.
.
Cross-site scripting attacks are a case of code injection.
is-a hyponym
A reflected attack is typically delivered via email or a neutral web site. The bait is an innocent-looking URL, pointing to a trusted site but containing the XSS vector. If the trusted site is vulnerable to the vector, clicking the link can cause the victim's browser to execute the injected script.
explains how
By finding ways of injecting malicious scripts into web pages, an attacker can gain elevated access-privileges to sensitive page content, to session cookies, and to a variety of other information maintained by the browser on behalf of the user.
.
Exploiting one of these, attackers fold malicious content into the content being delivered from the compromised site. When the resulting combined content arrives at the client-side web browser, it has all been delivered from the trusted source, and thus operates under the permissions granted to that system.
.
Any code designed to do more than spread the worm is typically referred to as the "payload".
the "tangled" code
tangled code
Literate programming is a programming paradigm introduced by Donald Knuth in which a computer program is given an explanation of its logic in a natural language, such as English, interspersed with snippets of macros and traditional source code, from which compilable source code can be generated.
programming paradigm
explanation interspersed with snippets of source code
Post/Redirect/Get (PRG) is a web development design pattern that lets the page shown after a form submission be reloaded, shared, or bookmarked without ill effects, such as submitting the form another time.
.
. Given b ( s ) {\displaystyle b(s)} , then after taking action a {\displaystyle a} and observing o {\displaystyle o} ,
Pr(s' | b,a,o) proportional to Pr(o | b,a,s') x Pr(s'|b,a)
s'的先验概率可以由我的belief和我的动作和环境状态转移算出。 在观测到o 之后的后验概率可以由贝叶斯定理算出。就这么简单
Polemics are mostly seen in arguments about controversial topics.
Polemics is distinct from most academic writing in that academic writing does not focus on conflict between parties, but rather distinct and controlled contributions to a problem. It would be incorrect, however, to suggest academics do not engage in polemics. Perhaps the communicative mode or medium might be worth focus here.
Polemics often concern issues in religion or politics.
Contentious people, contentious issues. The connection is important to understand as we seldom come to clear and easy answers with such topics.
A polemic (/pəˈlɛmɪk/) is contentious rhetoric that is intended to support a specific position by forthright claims and undermining of the opposing position.
Unlike philosophical or some political argumentation, the polemicist's goal is assert the dominant argument. Most polemists assume they have arrived at the best informed argument.
make inferences about the antecedents of a communication describe and make inferences about characteristics of a communication make inferences about the effects of a communication.
Almost but not quite past, present and future.
"To make valid inferences from the text, it is important that the classification procedure be reliable in the sense of being consistent: Different people should code the same text in the same way".[
Notice the word 'should' here, as well as the following content on reliability. Coding text often demands correspondence and scrutiny, as we are discussing language and culture. Answers and interpretations aren't always simple, but differences can contribute to more refined understanding.
Qualitative and quantitative content analysis
Understanding what either approach tells us is important for critical consideration. For example, what would a frequency count tell us about one category's presence in text?
Content analysis is best understood as a broad family of techniques. Effective researchers choose techniques that best help them answer their substantive questions. That said, according to Klaus Krippendorff, six questions must be addressed in every content analysis:[5]
When we see content analysis applied in non-fiction writing, we obviously have a different expectation for this than with research writing. For example, sample data might be cherry picked to make a point, or little information in method is presented.
Content analysis is the study of documents and communication artifacts, which might be texts of various formats, pictures, audio or video. Social scientists use content analysis to examine patterns in communication in a replicable and systematic manner.[1]
Let's understand that "text" can have many definitions:
then that the "desolation" will last for 1290 days (12:11); and finally, 1335 days (12:12). Verse 12:11 was presumably added after the lapse of the 1150 days of chapter 8, and 12:12 after the lapse of the number in 12:11
It's amazing how they avoid interpreting the text accurately. They think these various numbers were just appended onto the text when the previous predictions failed. Their commentary is quite useless, because if they took the text seriously they would see that the numbers are referring to different events.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
So, what's the conclusion from this review of this Wiki article? If you want to get a better understanding of something biblical, do not read Wikipedia. It is overtly anti-Christian and will deceive and mislead the reader to achieve its end. Go to one of the good, reputed bible commentaries. https://biblehub.com/ is a great place to start.
I haven't addressed damaging claims in other Wikipedia articles, such as:
These probably come up in other Wikipedia articles, though they are easily answerable.
The stories of the first half are legendary in origin
Again, another anti-divine claim made as a lone statement, alleging to be a fact. The atheistic agenda is apparent, so there's little reason to take all its claims at face value without getting the other side of the story from a bible-affirming source.
the predicted war between the Syrians and the Egyptians (11:40–43) never took place, and the prophecy that Antiochus would die in Palestine (11:44–45) was inaccurate (he died in Persia).[29] The obvious conclusion is that the account must have been completed near the end of the reign of Antiochus but before his death in December 164 BCE, or at least before news of it reached Jerusalem, and the consensus of modern scholarship is accordingly that the book dates to the period 167–163 BCE
First of all, according to the text in Daniel itself, it was written around 530 BCE. That is a far cry from the 165 BCE date claimed by this article. Whilst there are good reasons for landing on the earlier date, scholars who don't actually believe the bible prefer the later date for Daniel. That is because it would put Daniel's book after the main events it prophesies about. That means Daniel was not writing prophecy, but simply recording history, pretending it was originally a prophecy. Many modern scholars like this because it removes the supernatural element from Daniel.
The Wiki author says this view is the 'consensus of modern scholarship'. Understand that 'modern scholarship' is not referring primarily to bible-believing scholars, but those who study the bible as a piece of ancient literature, usually saying it is a mixture of myths and history. They are secular scholars, often not even believing that God exists. They study the bible and other ancient texts for their literary and cultural value. It is therefore not surprising that the later date for Daniel -- the date that essentially makes the book out to be fake -- finds a lot of acceptance amongst 'modern scholars'.
Regarding the apparently failed prophecies of Daniel mentioned here, those prophecies have not failed. As you might know, when it comes to biblical prophecy, there are often different interpretive theories (the book of Revelation is a prime example). In this case, this article has chosen an interpretation that does not fit the data in Daniel.
This is where the intentions of the author (that is, of 'modern scholars') shines through. Instead of presenting other options which do work for Daniel's prophecy, the Wiki author sticks to this failed interpretation, and leverages it to claim support for his erroneous dating of Daniel.
The author's argument is false. Daniel's prophecy was referring to the Roman Emperor, not the Syrians, and in this the prophecy works simply. Daniel spoke the plain truth, and there's no reason to doubt that the book was written when it says it was, in the 6th century BCE. That, of course, would not be discussed or admitted in an article on Wikipedia, because it gives too much legitimacy to the bible, and particularly to Divine realities.
From the point of view of the Maccabean era, Jeremiah's promise was obviously not true
Their selective analysis makes one laugh and cry at the same time. Yes, if we insist on interpreting Jeremiah's prophecy only through the lens of the Maccabean era, then it is wrong. But why would you do that? The Maccabean era has nothing to do with Jeremiah's prophecy. If we interpret it instead through the lens that Jeremiah gives us -- the exile of Judah -- then the prophecy is spot on. The Wiki author has no real interest in the facts, only in pushing their worldview, regardless of how dishonest they must be with the facts along the way. There is no reason, from Jeremiah's words, to bring in the Maccabeans.
There are actually two options to see the 70 years fulfilled:
The temple of Solomon was destroyed by Babylon in 587 BC. The Second temple was completed and dedicated in 517 B.C., which is exactly 70 years. Notice that Daniel prayed in Daniel 9: "Lord, look with favor on your desolate sanctuary," suggesting a prophetic focus on the temple.
Calculate the date from the first invasion of Nebuchadnezzar in 605 B.C. to the laying of the foundation of the Second Temple in 536 B.C. That was exactly 70 years (to the very day, apparently).
(Source: https://www.robertjmorgan.com/uncategorized/jeremiahs-seventy-years/ )
Notice how this article's author (i.e. 'modern (secular) scholars') bypass data that doesn't fit their narrative? Then they pretend that's all the data there is to see. They simply cannot allow the possibility that Scripture is divine, that prophecy is real, and that God reigns over the earth.
Daniel reinterprets Jeremiah's "seventy years" prophecy
The author is suggesting that Daniel supposedly noticed that Jeremiah's 70-years prophecy (about the exile of Judah) was supposedly wrong, so Daniel decided to 'reinterpret' Jeremiah's prophecy, turning it into a new 70-week (490 year) prophecy (which is found in Daniel 9), hoping that by extending the timeline of the prophecy by 490 years, it might eventually come to pass. Thankfully that is not what biblical prophecy is like!
This line of reasoning would never be entertained by a Christian scholar, only by someone who has interest in dismantling the accuracy of Scripture. Needless to say, they are wrong. Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy was fulfilled quite nicely.
resembles the portrayal of the Canaanite god El as an ancient divine king presiding over the divine court.
Yes, which is why the name 'El' is used of God Most High in the bible (https://hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/El/el.html ). It is an ancient term for God. It is not surprising that other people's also understood that El reigns over the divine council. This is simply the truth. It doesn't mean Daniel borrowed the concept from anyone.
However, for an atheist who does not believe that God exists, then they would see the same idea in other literature and think that Daniel got this 'mythical' idea from there. Thus this Wiki author's reasoning is wrong, but it makes sense in light of their disbelief in God to start with.
the four "beasts from the sea" in chapter 7 reflect Hosea 13:7–8
This is an extremely loose correlation. Look up Hosea 13:7-8 and see if you can find Daniel's vision reflected there. One would not in the least think of Daniel's vision of four kingdoms reading these two verses.
By writing that Daniel "reflects Hosea 13:7-8", this article is attempting to build up the narrative that the book of Daniel is not an authentic work on its own, but that it largely borrowed and embellished other people's works a long later in the 2nd century BCE.
To conclude that an entire vision in Daniel is actually just reflecting a brief passing comment in Hosea, even though the two passages have no contextual correlation or relevance at all, is poor scholarship, and it shows the Wiki author is grasping at straws to delegitimise Daniel.
comes from Persian writings
This is truly laughable. Again, looking at the source material (Niskanan, 2004, pp.27,31, see URL below), we see that two Persian texts are of interest here. They are 'Zand-i Wahman yasn (Bhaman Yasht)' and 'Denkard'. There is only one problem though... the former text is from the medieval period, and the latter is from the 9th century CE. The author there (Niskanan) even states explicitly that they came after Daniel. So unless Daniel could time-travel to many centuries into the future, then guess who got the idea from whom? The Persians got it from Daniel, not the other way around.
The willful aberration of facts by Wikipedia to peddle their own narrative is shocking and truly unscholarly. It's no wonder that their conclusions differ so much from genuine biblical scholarship.
Niskanan, 2004: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=G0YFSrClQOkC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA31#v=onepage&q&f=false
stems from Greek theories of mythological history
Not true if Daniel was written when the book says it was written, in the 6th century BCE. That's too early for there to have been any Greek influence. Of course, the Wiki article cannot accept that date because it would legitimise Daniel's prophecies, so they go with the 2nd century BCE, which would theoretically allow the possibility of Greek influence.
However, even then, the correlation with Greek thought is barely there, and certainly not to the extent that this article intimates. If one refers to the source cited in this Wiki article (Niskanan, 2004, pp.27,31, see URL below), then it is seen that the concept in Greek thought was not specifically four successive world empires as in Daniel's vision, but simply the general notion that empires will routinely come and go in succession throughout history, instead of one empire ruling the world forever. This basic idea was, apparently, a particularly Greek perspective on world history. That is a very small correlation. Suffice to say, if anything, it is the Greeks who got the idea from Daniel, for his vision predates them by a couple of centuries.
Niskanan, 2004: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=G0YFSrClQOkC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA27#v=onepage&q&f=false
drawn from a wide range of sources
This is an assumption. You see, the Wiki author would like to attribute as much of Daniel as they can to 'other sources'. This would delegitimise Daniel as an authentic, divine revelation, which is what the Wiki author wants. However, as we shall see, the 'other sources' that this article mentions are not so compelling. Daniel remains unique and authoritative in its own right, not simply a mish-mash rehash of other people's ideas.
and pseudonymity (false authorship)
This is not of concern to us. Some books of the bible had anonymous input or authorship, though what these anonymous authors recorded was accurate history. For example, we say Moses wrote Deuteronomy, but the end of Deuteronomy includes Moses' death and the events immediately afterwards. Moses would have provided the primary source material, and scribes after him would have filled in the missing details. It would appear that a scribe after Daniel compiled some of Daniel's history with Daniel's own records of his visions, and put them together into one book, the book of Daniel today. This is fine. It is not an issue for Scripture.
Book of Daniel From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia is not the place I would go to for anything related to the interpretation or critique of Scripture. The simple reason is that Wikipedia is moderated by the culture at large, and our culture has an active interest in de-affirming Scripture. The desired (and intended) outcome is to downplay the authenticity of Scripture, and remove all its divine/supernatural realities.
Removing the divine is done by:
For an example of all this, look at Wikipedia's treatment of the historicity of Jesus' resurrection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus#Historicity_and_origin_of_the_resurrection_of_Jesus). Note how brief the section is for such an immense topic, and note the absence of any suggestion that there is actually a logical, evidenced-based case for the resurrection.
Taking Wikipedia as an authority on Scriptural matters is like taking Richard Dawkins as an authority on biblical creation. It's shooting yourself in the foot.
We should therefore approach the claims of this article with due skepticism.
I have started my comments in the section, 'Historical Background', and they continue sporadically for nearly the rest of the article. So head down there now and click on the highlight texts to read my comments. I have not commented on everything that is questionable, only what particularly caught my attention.
probably the High Priest Onias III
So because they deviously apply Daniel's 70-week prophecy to the exile, instead of to the time of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (Dan 9:25), they think the 'anointed one' in the 70th week is Onias III. I'm sure Onias III would be quite chuffed that he gets a mention here, but he'd be scratching his head at their logic. Their intent to avoid the obvious conclusion of Daniel's prophecy is quite shocking.
If we don't say that Daniel was 'reinterpreting' Jeremiah's prophecy, and we just let Daniel's 70-week prophecy stand on its own merits, applying it to the inter-testimental period as it is supposed to be, then guess who the anointed one in the 70th week turns out to be who? The date lands right in the lap of the Messiah, Jesus, in the very week of his death in fact, when he is 'cut off' as Daniel says.
In fact, this 70-week prophecy is possibly the most amazing prophecy in all Scripture, for it accurately predicted when the Messiah would die, yet the prophecy itself spans nearly five centuries of history (70 weeks of years = 490 years). Again, secular scholars would not go anywhere near admitting all that, so they prefer to come up with really odd ideas instead.
Daniel's attempt
See again how secular their view is? They say that Daniel was merely attempting, of his own ability, to predict how long until 'the end'. There is no room for the Holy Spirit in their view. We should not be surprised, then, that their conclusions drift so far from any true biblical scholarship. They don't even think Daniel was talking to a real angel (for it was the angel telling Daniel when the end would come, not 'Daniel attempting' it by himself). They essentially think Daniel was making all this up about the angel, etc.
to the real prophecy with which the passage ends
Notice which part of Daniel they call 'real prophecy' (i.e. a real prediction of the future) -- only the last part of chapter 12, supposedly about the death of Antiochus. That's because the rest of what Daniel prophesied before that is so unavoidably historically accurate that they are forced to say, "It can't be prophecy, there is no God, and no human can predict things that accurately, so it must have been written after the events." So for the Wiki author, the only bit they would concede as an attempt at prophecy is a bit that they explain away as wrong. (As I said at the start, they either reinterpret a prophecy to make it look wrong, or they will change the date of writing to be after the events, not before.)
Since they interpret last part of chapter 12 wrongly, they escape its real fulfillment and claim Daniel was just guessing.
That is the only form of biblical prophecy which they will allow... just people taking a human-minded guess at what might happen in the future, with no divine input.
draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it.
A misleading statement. Yes, the Sirach was written in the 2nd century BCE as claimed, however the Sirach omits other key figures like Ezra. Does that mean Ezra wasn't written until after the Sirach as well? No, not according to Wikipedia. This time, Wikipedia accepts the biblical view that Ezra was written about 450 BCE, a very long time before Sirach. So why does Daniel's omission from Sirach mean it was written after Sirach? That's only because Daniel contains prophecies, and the atheistic scholar can't allow the Divine. Ezra does not contain prophecies, it is just historical narrative, so there is no problem accepting its textual date of ~450 BCE, despite the Sirach not referencing it.
Again, keep in mind that we're reading an atheist's opinion on the book of Daniel where their agenda is to support their own worldview, not the facts. I see the same thing in evolutionary literature regularly -- contradictory reasoning, dubious reinterpretation of data, and selective omission of unwanted data.
closed around 200 BCE
Yes, the canonicity of the Nevi'im was settled around 200 BCE, but this is a moot point since Daniel was not grouped with the Nevi'im writings, but with the Ketuvim writings (which was also part of the Hebrew canon). It does not matter when the Nevi'im was closed. What matters is when the Ketuvim was closed (but the author won't discuss this, because it does not support their agenda).
Regarding the Ketuvim, it is actually hard to get data on when its canonicity was settled, but the general consensus appears to be that it was anywhere from the 6th to the 2nd centuries BCE. That means Daniel was written anywhere in or before that time (which is consistent with the text of Daniel), not strictly in the 2nd century BCE as this Wiki author claims.
As with the other dating claims made in this article, there is a clear bias away from a plain and reasonable assessment of the information at hand. There is, instead, a clear priority to only permit discussion on what fits the atheistic worldview.
Daniel is excluded from the Hebrew Bible's canon of the prophets
This statement is misleading and is worded as a deliberate attack on the authenticity of Daniel. It sounds like the Hebrew people EXCLUDED Daniel from their original canon of Scripture.
Note that the text mentions not 'the canon', but 'the canon OF THE PROPHETS'. That is just one section of the Hebrew canon. It's just like we divide the Old Testament into the Pentateuch, Major Prophets, Minor Prophets, etc. It's just categories, but it's all Scripture.
Daniel was not EXCLUDED from the Hebrew canon in any sense. Using that word 'excluded', as if there was an active renunciation of the book of Daniel by the Hebrews, is not only factually false, but it is designed to lead the reader against accepting Daniel as legitimate.
The truth is that Daniel was in the Hebrew canon, but just classified in the section called the Ketuvim ('Writings'), along with Ezra, Nehemiah and 10 other books of the Old Testament (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketuvim). Daniel was no doubt classified there because so much of his book is historical narrative (like Ezra and Nehemiah), not primarily prophetic like Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc. Daniel was in the canon, and was not excluded from it at all.
Again, it is clear this Wiki author has an agenda and will deceptively present his ideas accordingly.
Further evidence of the book's date
Note that the author claims they're citing "evidence of the book's date", in a general sense. The unsuspecting reader would assume that what they are about to read is a good summary of all the data pertaining to the book's date. In reality, however, the author is only going to cite (loose) evidence of the date that THEY want to support, which is the 2nd century BCE. Why do they want this date, and what other dates might we consider?
They want (need) this date because then Daniel's amazingly accurate prophecies are not prophecies at all, and were actually just someone writing known history well after the events, and PRETENDING it was originally a prophecy. Thus this Wiki author avoids the notion of divine prophecy in Daniel and attempts to refute the inspiration of Scripture.
This would put the book in the inter-testimental period (that period of silence between the close of the Old Testament and Jesus' birth). But this is in contrast with the actual text of the book, which says it was penned in the 6th century BCE.
Normally, the actual text of the book would be considered primary evidence of when it was penned, but in this case it's ignored entirely because that would mean accepting that divine prophecy is real. Their materialistic worldview cannot tolerate a Divine essence. In the words of evolutionary Professor Richard Lewontin, "Materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
a collection of Aramaic court tales
Notice that the claim that Daniel is essentially 'court tales' is made as a statement of fact, not an opinion, and to the exclusion of all other perspectives. The author's mind is already made up -- the book of Daniel is false -- and they write in a way to condition the reader to not consider or be aware of other possibilities. That's the definition of propaganda (https://www.wordnik.com/words/propaganda). This article is not a scholarly investigation. We need to read it like propaganda, as it truly is.
(Wikipedia is framed as an Encyclopedia, yet it is often 'hijacked' for very biased and closed-minded reporting. It is thus often simply a propaganda tool, and I don't think many people realise this, wrongly treating it as an unbiased source of information. As I've said, it is decidedly atheistic and I would not use it for serious biblical analysis. There are plenty of good bible websites for that.)
The failure of prophecy helps pinpoint the date of composition
Their way of assessing the date of composition is very deviant. If they can't explain away the fulfillment of a prophecy, they it wasn't a prophecy, it was written after the events and only recounting known history. If they can explain away the fulfillment and make the prophecy out to be wrong, then they say, "Aha, that was when the biblical author was trying to predict the future, and he got it wrong, so the book must have been written before those events."
If they weren't so intent on distorting the text to try and diminish the bible's authority, then they would see that these prophecies were comfortably fulfilled.
are folktales
Another baseless claim instead of reviewing the evidence.
there is a broad consensus that the book was completed shortly after that crisis ended
This is wrong, but they say it is because Daniel's prophecies are so precise. It was written about 540-530 BCE, not in the second century BCE as they say here. For more discussion on Wikipedia's treatment of the date of Daniel, see my annotations at: https://hyp.is/go?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBook_of_Daniel&group=__world__
much of the history it recounts is accurate
Again it is seen how they frame it as recounting history (that is, written after the events), not prophesying events that were still in the future at the time of writing. They are essentially saying the author was being deceptive, deliberating seeking to mislead the reader into thinking that they received divine insight when it was all just written after the events (so they say).
Because many modern scholars deny the existence of the supernatural realm, the idea of accurately predicting future events is too far fetched to entertain. So any accurate prophecies get recast as history written after the fact. They do this with Isaiah and other prophets who accurately foretold events in advance.
Essentially, don't read Wikipedia for any true biblical scholarship. You will only get a view that is stripped of all divine and supernatural elements, which amounts to not much value or accuracy in the end.
late Persian/early Hellenistic period
That is, they say chapters 1-6 were written about 350 to 300 BCE. Notice how far removed it is from their opinion about when chapters 7-12 were written: ~165 BCE. That's a gap of about 150-200 years between when chapters 6 and 7 were penned. Since they deny that Daniel ever existed, they remove any need to fit the writing of the book into one person's lifetime. In an effort downplay its authenticity, they have instead chosen to view it as a compilation of tales and history, not visions and prophecy. They can therefore flex with whatever dates will make it most unsupernatural and palatable to a secular mind.
It is generally accepted by modern scholars that the Daniel who appears as the hero of the Book of Daniel never existed
A baseless claim, but quite convenient if one wants to dismiss the authenticity of the book and its excellent prophecies.
modify their environment using architectural constructions
left pic
Key sentence
the derivative of a function of a real variable measures the sensitivity to change of the function value (output value) with respect to a change in its argument (input value).
what the exact difference between derivatives and differentiation???
Glossary of terms
Metamagical Themas
The Cluetrain Manifesto
A strong argument is said to be cogent if it has all true premises. Otherwise, the argument is uncogent.
The definition of "cogent" is "clear, logical and convincing." If any premises turn out to be untrue, the argument becomes strong yet not cogent. For example, the argument that Earhart safely landed and lived out her days on a deserted island is strong (there are such islands out there; as a pilot she'd logically look for one) yet not cogent (she had limited time flying over a near landless ocean).
If the premises of an inductive argument are assumed true, is it probable the conclusion is also true? If yes, the argument is strong. If no, it is weak.
The strength of an argument relies in its ability to resist dispute or skepticism. While there are many theories on how pilot Amelia Earhart disappeared and died, these are usually based in what could have probably happened in the region where we lost contact with her.
Arguments that involve predictions are inductive since the future is uncertain.
Deductive reasoning can help us define what has been and what exists in the moment, while inductive reasoning can help us define what might have been or may exist in the moment.
Inductive reasoning can go into the future in ways deductive reasoning cannot. If we say something like "the sun will rise and set tomorrow," that is still inductive reasoning because it assumes circumstances or conditionals (i.e., the sun doesn't suddenly go supernova, or get blown up by an alien fleet).
An inductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is supported by the probability of the premises.
Good inductive arguments are one that are hard to dispute, but the difficulty is based on agreeable and logical premises.
For example, consider the following arguments:
None of these conclusions can be supported by deductive reasoning, but can be supported by varying qualities of inductive reasoning.
If a deductive argument is valid and its premises are all true, then it is also referred to as sound. Otherwise, it is unsound, as "bats are birds".
Deductive arguments must be valid before they are sound. We declare an argument sound when we cannot deny any of the presented premises.
If one assumes the premises to be true (ignoring their actual truth values), would the conclusion follow with certainty? If yes, the argument is valid.
Here are some examples to help.
Deductive arguments are sometimes referred to as "truth-preserving" arguments.
In other worlds, deductive arguments help us cut to where we can all agree. They provide a foundation on which to establish more deductive or inductive arguments.
A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises.
Understand that truth is not the same as facts. Truth is sometimes agreed upon, and certainly based on perception. Consider, for instance, how the sun is portrayed as yellow and red in different parts of the world. Are some people wrong?
An argument cannot start from purely logical principles. An argument is based on premises and some methods for reasoning from premises to conclusions.
Case in point: Something like "murder is the most evil crime" will often serve as a premise for other arguments, like "murderers should get the death penalty."
This premise, however, is itself an argument. It is neither fact nor truth.
Though any argument about politics is in a sense a political argument, an effective political argument is one that can actually change the social preference ranking. Effective political argument is a concept distinct from valid political argument.
One (perhaps unfortunate) implication of this: You don't always have to worry about the logic of your argument, if you have found an argument that works.
In this case, political argument is an important element of political strategy.
Consider your positionality in political argumentation. Maybe you are arguing about health care because you have an important medical concern. Maybe you are sharing an argument because a politician respect influenced you, but you yourself have not further investigated the issue. We all can potentially take part in someone else's strategy.
Political argument though is not generally a purely intellectual activity, since it may also serve the strategic goal of promoting a political agenda.
We accept political arguments as having practical goals (like convincing you to vote), but these can of course be philosophical or (as we see on the Internet) intensely personal.
Political argument should be distinguished from propaganda, in that propaganda has little or no structure or the rationale, if it exists, is egregiously fallacious.
Another way of looking at it: Propaganda exists to discourage or eliminate debate. You believe or you don't, and that's all that matters, with propaganda.
A political argument is an instance of a logical argument applied to politics.
Emphasis on logic. If we cannot rely on agreeable truths or facts, we cannot argue. For example, consider the difference between these religious arguments:
Notice what can be argued (the first) and not (the latter).
Qualifier
You'll only reach this point if a rebuttal was required, and sometimes qualifications can be as simple as using some hedging to allow for remote possibilities.
Rebuttal (Reservation)
Not every claim requires a rebuttal, but it's imperative you consider it. Also, think of rebuttals as 'checks' against your work. If checks are necessary, that's where qualifiers come in.
Backing
We cannot expect readers to immediately respect our grounds or warrants, and the backing therefore may be necessary to guide them to our viewpoint.
Warrant
Think of the warrant as an 'invisible bridge' between claim and grounds. It's the thing you don't necessarily have to say because the reader will understand it once the other two are established.
Ground (Fact, Evidence, Data)
This is the backbone or impetus of your claim. Without this you are just stating a preference or generic belief.
Claim (Conclusion)
In your own essays, you'll make many claims. There will be the thesis, of course, but all sorts of other claims within your writing.
Whereas theoretical arguments make inferences based on a set of principles to arrive at a claim, practical arguments first find a claim of interest, and then provide justification for it.
What's the best approach for a problem we're looking at: theoretical or practical? Circumstances often dictate this. If I look at college rankings and think 'that doesn't look useful,' I consider a practical approach to making sure I'm right.
Stephen E. Toulmin's contributions
Toulmin is not the only source when it comes to argumentation theory, but he's a great reference. We will practice with the Toulmin Model for class.
Argumentation includes deliberation and negotiation which are concerned with collaborative decision-making procedures.
Though note how different that may be in a monolinguistic circumstances. In essays, writers do what they can to before putting together these ideas, and attempt to coax you into their way of thinking after the fact.
Argumentation theory, or argumentation, is the interdisciplinary study of how conclusions can be reached through logical reasoning; that is, claims based, soundly or not, on premises.
Note how different this is from simply opinions. Many people can tell you their favorite color and never articulate the reason why.
The intention economy is an approach to viewing markets and economies focusing on buyers as a scarce commodity. Customers' intention to buy drives the production of goods to meet their specific needs. It is also the title of Doc Searls book: The Intention Economy: When Customers Take Charge published in May, 2012.
The various connections between op-eds, editors, and funding from interest groups have raised concern. In 2011, in an open letter to The New York Times, a group of U.S. journalists and academics called for conflict of interest transparency in op-eds.[9][10]
Another useful item to consider. For example, what if the op-ed writer stands to profit from his advocation?
Swope included only opinions by employees of his newspaper, leaving the "modern" op-ed page to be developed in 1970 under the direction of The New York Times editor John B. Oakes.[5] The first op-ed page of The New York Times appeared on 21 September 1970.[6]
This should suggest the idea of op-eds being a source of pride for the NYT.
An op-ed, short for "opposite the editorial page" or as a backronym the "opinions and editorials page", is a written prose piece typically published by a newspaper or magazine which expresses the opinion of an author usually not affiliated with the publication's editorial board.[1]
Among other things, op-eds are important for a media publisher's credibility. By entertaining input from non-affiliated persons, the media allows for multiple informative and persuasive perspectives.
The history of anonymous expression in political dissent is both long and with important effect
We should also consider this in the context of opportunity cost. If a political figure publishes an op-ed on a controversial topic, there will likely be some kind of backlash that impacts their career.
Most modern newspapers and magazines attribute their articles to individual editors, or to news agencies. An exception is the Markker weekly The Economist. All British newspapers run their leaders, or editorials, anonymously. The Economist fully adopts this policy, saying "Many hands write The Economist, but it speaks with a collective voice".[10] Guardian considers that "people will often speak more honestly if they are allowed to speak anonymously".[11][12] According to Ross Eaman, in his book The A to Z of Journalism, until the mid-19th century, most writers in Great Britain, especially the less well known, did not sign their names to their work in newspapers, magazines and reviews.[13]
This can be quite different in the American context.
Anonymity is perceived as a right by many, especially the anonymity in the internet communications. The partial right for anonymity is legally protected to various degrees in different jurisdictions.
If an American publisher shares an anonymous piece that details outstanding criminal activity, it can become a major court issue of freedom of the press vs. protecting criminals.
Attempts at anonymity are not always met with support from society. Anonymity sometimes clashes with the policies and procedures of governments or private organizations
For op-eds, we are right to speculate at the choice of anonymous submissions, though such skepticism should be supported by logic.
Here Comes Everybody
Petrus Ramus
Just making note of the fact that Petrus Ramus was the advisor of Theodor Zwinger and apparently influcnced Jean Bodin, about whom Ann M. Blair writes about in Too Much to Know: Managing Scholarly Information Before the Modern Age.
I suspect these influences may impinge on my work on the history of memory and its downfall due to Ramism since the late 1500s and which impacts the history of information.
The inability to match blank nodes increases the delta size (the number of triples that need to be deleted and added in order to transform one RDF graph to another) and does not assist in detecting the changes between subsequent versions of a Knowledge Base. Building a mapping between the blank nodes of two compared Knowledge Bases that minimizes the delta size is NP-Hard in the general case.[6]
blank nodes increase delta size
In RDF, a blank node (also called bnode) is a node in an RDF graph representing a resource for which a URI or literal is not given.[1] The resource represented by a blank node is also called an anonymous resource. According to the RDF standard a blank node can only be used as subject or object of an RDF triple.
The open-world assumption (OWA) codifies the informal notion that in general no single agent or observer has complete knowledge, and therefore cannot make the closed-world assumption. The OWA limits the kinds of inference and deductions an agent can make to those that follow from statements that are known to the agent to be true. In contrast, the closed world assumption allows an agent to infer, from its lack of knowledge of a statement being true, anything that follows from that statement being false.
codifies lack of complete knowledge
Open-world assumption
中心再难维系。这个国家随处可见破产通告,拍卖通知,谋杀报道,寻人启事,被遗弃的房屋,以及无法正确拼写四字单词的涂鸦。这个国家的家庭随时随地可能消失，留下跳票的支票和房屋充公的报告。青年们从城市漂泊到破败的城市，甩掉过去和未来就像蛇脱掉旧皮。小孩们从未被教育也不再能习得维系社会稳定的游戏。人群失踪。儿童失踪。父母失踪。留下的人潦草地发表了寻人启事后便不再等待。这不是一个公开革命的国家，也不是一个被敌军包围的国家。这是1967年晚春的美利坚合众国。市场平稳，GNP高涨，而且那些思路保持清晰的人们似乎仍然能看到社会的终极目标。或许对这些人来说，这仍然是一个坐拥伟大希望的春天。但事实并非如此，而且越来越多的人意识到，事实并非如此。 ——琼恩·迪迪安(Joan Didion),《缓缓走向伯利恒(Slouching Towards Bethlehem)》，1967
Of the past let us make a clean slate
Du passé faisons table rase
Is that Tabula rasa here?
Tabula rasa (/ˈtæbjələ ˈrɑːsə, -zə, ˈreɪ-/; "blank slate") is the theory that individuals are born without built-in mental content, and therefore all knowledge comes from experience or perception.
Hopscotch (Cortázar novel)
Orbis Pictus, or Orbis Sensualium Pictus (Visible World in Pictures), is a textbook for children written by Czech educator John Amos Comenius and published in 1658. It was the first widely used children's textbook with pictures, published first in Latin and German and later republished in many European languages.
This would seem to be the sort of ancestor of the bestiary that might be used as a mnemonic tool, but given it's 1658 publication date, it's likely the case that this would have been too late for it to have served this purpose for most (without prior knowledge).
Apparently the Encyclopaedia Britannica labeled it as “the first children’s picture book.”
He proposed the standardized paper size system used globally today except in Canada and the US defined by ISO 216, which has A4 as the most commonly used size.
This is an interesting bit of trivia.
Arthur Schopenhauer admired Lichtenberg greatly for what he had written in his notebooks. He called him one of those who "think ... for their own instruction", who are "genuine 'thinkers for themselves' in both senses of the words".[4] Other admirers of Lichtenberg's notebooks include Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Jacques Barzun.
It would almost have to be the case that with his method and notebooks being so well known that they influenced Niklas Luhmann's idea of a zettelkasten.
The scrapbooks reveal a critical and analytical way of thinking and emphasis on experimental evidence in physics, through which he became one of the early founders and advocates of modern scientific methodology. The more experience and experiments are accumulated during the exploration of nature, the more faltering its theories become. It is always good though not to abandon them instantly. For every hypothesis which used to be good at least serves the purpose of duly summarizing and keeping all phenomena until its own time. One should lay down the conflicting experience separately, until it has accumulated sufficiently to justify the efforts necessary to edifice a new theory. (Lichtenberg: scrapbook JII/1602)
Georg Christoph Lichtenberg used his notebooks as thinking tools with respect to scientific methodology.
Waste books were also used in the tradition of the commonplace book. A well know example is Isaac Newton's Waste Book in which he did much of the development of the calculus.[4] Another example is that of Georg Christoph Lichtenberg, who called his waste books sudelbücher, and which were known to have influenced Leo Tolstoy, Albert Einstein, Andre Breton, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Ludwig Wittgenstein.[
I added this section.
I've heard references of people using these in combination with or also for commonplace books.
compare Vademecum with commonplace books
Turkic peoples[edit] Main article: Taoyuan County, Hunan § Taoyuan Uyghurs Descendants of Uyghurs who migrated to Taoyuan County, Hunan have largely assimilated into the Han Chinese and Hui population and practice Chinese customs, speaking varieties of Chinese as their language.
wow. no cite
Hi, Professor Goodwin's students! This is a page note--an annotation of the entire webpage. Cool feature, huh? One other cool feature of this is that you can attach images, hyperlinks, lists (bulleted or numbered), as well as make your text bold or italicized.
that allows a Buddha to remain engaged in the world.
remain engaged in the world
Some argue that a more appropriate standard should be fairness and accuracy (as enshrined in the names of groups like Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting). Under this standard, taking sides on an issue would be permitted as long as the side taken was accurate and the other side was given a fair chance to respond. Many professionals believe that true objectivity in journalism is not possible and reporters must seek balance in their stories (giving all sides their respective points of view), which fosters fairness.
With fairness, we are recognizing conflicts, even if we take a side. With accuracy, we are representing those perspectives in ways agreeable to the source.
Some scholars and journalists criticize the understanding of objectivity as neutrality or nonpartisanship, arguing that it does a disservice to the public because it fails to attempt to find truth.[6] They also argue that such objectivity is nearly impossible to apply in practice—newspapers inevitably take a point of view in deciding what stories to cover, which to feature on the front page, and what sources they quote.[6] The media critics Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky have advanced a propaganda model hypothesis proposing that such a notion of objectivity results in heavily favoring government viewpoints and large corporations.[6] Mainstream commentators accept that news value drives selection of stories, but there is some debate as to whether catering to an audience's level of interest in a story makes the selection process non-objective.[6]
Note that even with subjective reporting, some of those virtues or practices of objective journalism still stand. For example, an editorial might come across as neutral or detached in its presentation, even if the language is clearly subjective.
truthfulness, neutrality, and detachment.[6]
Truthfulness is always required, even when being subjective. Neutrality rests in your angle and purpose for the piece. Detachment is a matter of tone, and its importance shifts with the reporting context.
Most newspapers and TV stations depend upon news agencies for their material, and each of the four major global agencies (Agence France-Presse (formerly the Havas agency), Associated Press, Reuters, and Agencia EFE) began with and continue to operate on a basic philosophy of providing a single objective news feed to all subscribers. That is, they do not provide separate feeds for conservative or liberal newspapers. Journalist Jonathan Fenby has explained the notion:
As you take sources from other reporting, you'll want to consider how you represent them, and how that collection represents you.
Journalistic objectivity is a considerable notion within the discussion of journalistic professionalism. Journalistic objectivity may refer to fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and nonpartisanship, but most often encompasses all of these qualities. First evolving as a practice in the 18th century, a number of critiques and alternatives to the notion have emerged since, fuelling ongoing and dynamic discourse surrounding the ideal of objectivity in journalism.
Not every article requires complete objectivity or neutrality, but then we readers really start caring about issues of transparency and informed perspective.
In journalism, attribution is the identification of the source of reported information.
Rather like references and citations in academia, attributions are vital considerations.
News organizations may impose safeguards, such as requiring that information from an anonymous source be corroborated by a second source before it can be printed.
This is an important consideration as well. As well as possible, we want to confirm that anonymous sources aren't fiction.
The identity of anonymous sources is sometimes revealed to senior editors or a news organization's lawyers, who would be considered bound by the same confidentiality as the journalist.
In context to a class assignment, if the professor is something like a senior editor then you should be clear about source identities in your notes. Also consider that anonymous sources will often be taken less seriously than other options.
Off-the-record material is often valuable and reporters may be eager to use it, so sources wishing to ensure the confidentiality of certain information are generally advised to discuss the "terms of use" before disclosing the information, if possible.
In context to a class assignment, you most need to worry about this as it concerns publishing anything online. You'll want to be quite clear with your human sources about how you'll use their information.
As a rule of thumb, but especially when reporting on controversy, reporters are expected to use multiple sources.
Note that multiple sources suggests multiple perspectives. For example, an article about a politician's speech might have multiple reactions from the crowd, not just one. Yet in addition, the article might have recent polling data to contextualize the event.
Reporters often, but not always, give greater leeway to sources with little experience. For example, sometimes a person will say they don't want to talk, and then proceed to talk; if that person is not a public figure, reporters are less likely to use that information.
This of course reminds us that evidence has a hierarchy. A direct eyewitness, or a knowledgeable expert, often has more to tell us than some random person.
Examples of sources include but are not limited to official records, publications or broadcasts, officials in government or business, organizations or corporations, witnesses of crime, accidents or other events, and people involved with or affected by a news event or issue.
A good way to think about how to seek out sources is to consider what entities have connections to the news. For example, are there stakeholders or influencers?
In journalism, a source is a person, publication, or other record or document that gives timely information.
As with academia, primary and secondary sources are vital and abundant in journalism. In this field, however, the rigor of source collection is defined by the journalist's attempts to reach a complete perspective on an event or phenomena where controls seldom exist.
A virtual community is a social network of individuals who connect through specific social media,
We need Personal First social media for virtual communities to thrive
https://social.coop/@indiehub Empower individuals to Weave their own
WebNative
Decent(ralized)
Personal first
Inter Planetary
Emergent
spontaneously self-organizing
Virtual Communities
to connect with each other engage in deep conversations aimed at bootstrapping, co-creating, co-evolving the digital means they need, to augment their ability to solve their problems themselves together
Group (online social networking)
Isthmus of Panama
this is interesting and I didn't know what it was until I looked it up
Hale ʻaina, the women's eating house. Women ate at their own separate eating house. Men and women could not eat with each other for fear that men were vulnerable while eating to have their mana, or divine spirit, stolen by women.
this is wise
Native legends often talk of the little people playing pranks on people, such as singing and then hiding when an inquisitive person searches for the music.
Why is this such a common description? COINCIDENCE??
Large regions of memory can be allocated without the need to be contiguous in physical memory – the IOMMU maps contiguous virtual addresses to the underlying fragmented physical addresses. Thus, the use of vectored I/O (scatter-gather lists) can sometimes be avoided.
2008
SUMMARY: Indigenous people in modern-day Canada experienced some of the same tragedies as in modern-day America. However, it seems like some interactions were less antagonistic and since then, Canada has tried to help heal collective trauma.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada
This reminds me of the restorative justice component of our last unit
redress
redress: remedy or compensation for a wrong or grievance.
These attempts reached a climax in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with forced integration and relocations
This reminds me of Andrew Windy Boy and other Indigenous people who were in colonial schools
Although not without conflict, European Canadians' early interactions with First Nations and Inuit populations were relatively peaceful
This seems "couching"
The decline is attributed to several causes, including the transfer of European diseases, such as influenza, measles, and smallpox to which they had no natural immunity,[29][33] conflicts over the fur trade, conflicts with the colonial authorities and settlers, and the loss of Indigenous lands to settlers and the subsequent collapse of several nations' self-sufficiency
Painful and persistent history
Some of these cultures had collapsed by the time European explorers arrived in the late 15th and early 16th centuries and have only been discovered through archeological investigations
Ancient civilizations
First Nations
This seems like a better term than "Native Americans"
the last being a mixed-blood people who originated in the mid-17th century when First Nations people married European settlers and subsequently developed their own identity
In Central & South America, they say "Creole" or "Mestizo"
