Cool. Where can I learn more about this?

The importance of a teacher searching for incomplete understandings is to mature the student, not to brainwash them by replacing the students' understanding with their OWN incomplete understanding. How often does this happen via informal learning outlets (social media, for example) in today's society, and how does a teacher avoid this? More importantly, how do teachers teach their students to avoid misinformation via informal outlets on their own?

This seems very similar to the concept of 'mindfulness' researched and taught by Dr. Frank Diaz. In what ways is active learning different from this? Is 'mindfulness' simply an application of active learning unto oneself?

How will the understanding of learning gained through this class allow us, as music educators, to innovate in new learning environments? Is the key 'transfer' from this understanding of learning one where we are capable of facilitating a learning environment unique to our own person, as well as being unique to the needs and desires of our students?

is this required?

What is the purpose of this paragraph?

What is this?

Opening says they weren't going to shard but how is this not sharding?

So looks like the coordination happens across nodes with these "guild" processes

Is this across the entire set of clusters or is this per single node or set of nodes for a given "guild"?

Is this saying that the memory of APP23 p38 negative mice is worse or that APP23 p38 mice memories are worse?

nonsense?

what about missense mutations of unknown significance?

What does this mean?

Is this an effective chapter title?!

This table of contents page allows people to navigate the book both in a traditional fashion and through a network graph. Do you think this strategy is effective?

This is my understanding of the author's central research question and that she is looking to illicit a 'call-to-action' of sorts.

[I need to understand:] How this is even possible.

What counts as a visual mode of communication can become a bit confusing in certain cases.

For example, authors of fantasy fiction these days rely heavily on the reader to imagine visuals. They carefully describe physical objects and scenes, much like in Prownian Analysis or our descriptions of the AIDS Quilt panels, to cause the reader to "see" things that they might have never seen or imagined before. I realize that using writing would technically fall under the category of the linguistic mode of communication, but this descriptive writing exists to evoke our visual senses. These authors depend on us visualizing the worlds that they create to tell their story. If this communication uses our "visual-spatial intelligence" according to the Theory of Multiple Intelligences, should it not be considered a mix of the visual and linguistic modes?

I think that the importance that "other characteristics" can have as a visual mode is commonly overlooked. The layout of a webpage can communicate to the reader what to emphasize on, the color of an "Open/Closed" sign can communicate the status of a restaurant from beyond a legible distance, and the size of a specific visual object on a billboard can communicate what exact product is being advertised.

A good example of the utilization of visual modes of communication without the direct use of an image is visual poetry. This type of poetry is known for having dominant visual elements. A common technique of achieving this is using the words of the poem to create the perception of a shape or image.

This is a good example of a simple visual poem. The topic of the poem is coffee, hence the writer adjusted the layout of the text to create a shape. This shape is perceived by our minds as a coffee mug, even though there is no actual picture of one.

On an interesting side note: the reason we are able to perceive this image is due to the Gestalt psychology. This is a philosophy of mind of the Berlin School of experimental psychology which studies the self-organizing tendencies of the human brain (especially with images). According to this psychological phenomenon, our mind is always trying to find patterns in the data it receives and many times organizes sets of randomness in order to perceive them as a whole. This is why the seemingly random positions of the words in the poem cause our mind to try to find a pattern in the darker areas of the poem's white background, eventually leading us to seeing a coffee mug.

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_poetry , https://www.britannica.com/science/Gestalt-psychology

Image source: https://collaboems.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/visual-poetry-2/

inversely proportional?

I'm having difficulty understanding this part. So H0 of F-test is that there's no difference between group means in the population. But what we actually test is between-group variance and within-group variance? But the result of F-test is still about the difference in population?

This is an excellent research question! Does access and use of social media improve the mental and emotional health of older people/

This seems like the article's thesis to me. Here, the author argues that we should not seek to identify which authors/works are seemingly "worthy" of having an influence on other authors/works. Rather, we should explore on how literary influence is actually functioning in related works.Readers must look to different methods of influence, such as "distortion" and "misinterpretation" in their study of the topic. In the demands that she places upon her readers to be well-informed and attentive, Austen invites us to be a part of a complicated and ongoing literary conversation. Additionally, through studying Austen's works, we can observe the influence of those traditionally left out by the canon.

This argument does seem relevant and original to me. In my admittedly brief study of literary influence, the discussion is usually exclusively related to the canon. Murphy asks us to consider influence in a broader sense. However, the main question that I have after reading this article relates to computational literary study. Franco Moretti, Matthew Jockers, and other such scholars have made significant strides in the application of computational tools in the study of literary influence. I am very curious as to how this article's premises and main argument would hold up when subjected to such tools. This seems like a weakness to me. Even after my brief study of computational literary analysis, it seems that any conversation of literary influence is incomplete without actually looking at the data.

I wonder why she decided to start the pageant. Where did she get the idea from?

I wonder why the author decided to write about this particular topic. Maybe they have struggled with their own personal history.

Why dose Ismene ask for Antigone's permission, If she is willing to do so, Ismene can confess without anybody's approval.

Does "performance" here refer to training performance or overall accuracy of the model?

Harrison's parents are very sad, but cannot seem to remember why.

The dancers grace and beauty are hidden by masks and heavy weights.

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?