text:
Newly Diagnosed

Dear Newly Diagnosed,

Are you relieved? Scared? Frustrated? Overwhelmed? I remember vividly my early journey with “what is going on” questions to finally, six years later receiving my diagnosis.  I was relieved I had the answer I had fought so hard to get, however there were also many changes coming; decisions to be made; uphill battles to still contend with.  That was 2006.

Now I am so much better equipped to deal with this disease.  No one can tell you how to feel, how to cope, how to handle your unique situation.  However, take comfort my friend, there are many others out there going through this as well.  MS knows no boundaries, it does not discriminate based on religion, politics, race, gender, age, or sexual preference.  The biggest mistake I made, in retrospect, was thinking I could champion on as if nothing had happened, on my own.  I was a strong career woman, handling a huge job, two children, managing a household and had been dealing with these symptoms for over six years.  I got my answer.  I buried my head and moved on.

The best advice I can give, many years and a whole lot of wisdom later, is find and build a solid support system.  Use a whole-body approach, aiming for emotional, physical and spiritual health.  Strengthen these in whatever way works for you.   Do not let anyone tell you what is best for you.  Work with friends, family, MS Support advocates, your medical team, and spiritual advisors to find that special formula that works to keep you going: happy, healthy and achieving the best quality of life you possibly can.

Don’t stop!  Accommodate your symptoms by adjusting your activities, but don’t stop living.  For me, I had to find new ways to do the things I loved.  I called it reinventing myself!  Honestly, it was frustrating at times, but also rather fun.  I could finally prioritize what was most important in my life and focus on lining up my life style with my priorities.  How often do we get to do that?

I highly recommend you, your family, your care partner or caregiver reach out to groups like ours for advice, support or assistance, and most of all, for a community of folks who “get it”, no matter what your symptoms are.  We celebrate our uniqueness, not only in MS symptoms and course of disease, but in our individuality and strengths.  We offer this encouragement to all affected by MS, not just the diagnosed.

We here at the MSAV hope you and your support system connect with us as you start this journey.  We understand it will not be easy, but we have learned to laugh together, educate and empower ourselves, and most importantly, support each other through it all.  We are a strong team of advocates fighting with you, beside you, behind you: Your Bridge of Hope!

Most Sincerely,
Dianna Weiner
Former: Founding Board Member of the MS Alliance of Virginia

If you have recently given a diagnosis of MS, you are probably overwhelmed, full of questions, not sure what to do next, and feel like you are swimming upstream.  Here are some places you can turn for information that can start to help you sort through those questions and give you answers.

  1. Learn about MS: This website, the National MS Foundation,  the National MS Society , MS Association of America (MSAA), and MS Views and News websites are all trustworthy sites to go to for accurate information on the disease.
  2. Learn about Treatment Options: Finding your care team, the comprehensive medical team who will care for you in the ongoing years is a critical piece of the puzzle for you.  Make sure you interview your neurologist, that you find someone you can relate with, whose staff you can work with, that understands your needs and wishes and that above all, you can communicate openly with.  With that in place, the discussion about which treatment options are best for you will go much smoother.  MS is different for everyone, so there is not a one size fits all solution.  Having a free-flowing open communication path between you and your neurologist and the rest of your medical care team will be paramount.  Work hard to establish that.
  3. Reach out:  There are support groups in your area.  You can find these by looking at any of the websites listed above.  Most groups offer education, comradery and empowerment and can be a great source of information.  Make use of resources in your area, either online or in person, self help or group, to build connections with other peers.  There is strength in numbers!


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: text/html

WARC-Type: response

text:
Standard (Non-Emergency) Maintenance Request

Before submitting a non-emergency maintenance request please read the information below:
  • Tenant caused damages will be repaired at tenant’s expense i.e. clogged pipes due to improper items found in the drain lines/toilet/garbage disposal, broken windows, broken blinds, holes in walls, etc.
  • Please specify if we have permission to enter when you submit your request OR if you would prefer an appointment. Typically requests that have given permission to enter can be attended to more quickly than requests that require an appointment
  • NO-SHOW FEE – tenants that schedule an appointment with our staff and “No-Show” our technicians at the time of the appointment will be charged a $40 No-Show Fee. Please make sure you or an adult over the age of 18 will be home during the appointment window to avoid any unnecessary fees.
If you have an emergency that is potentially dangerous to your safety call 911 immediately!

Emergency Maintenance Requests
A maintenance emergency is anything that is threatening to life, health, or property.
Please read maintenance emergency examples below before calling our after-hours emergency line.

MAINTENANCE EMERGENCY EXAMPLES: Fire, flood or uncontrollable water leak that cannot be shut off such as a broken water pipe, sewage backing up into unit, heater/furnace out (if the weather is below 45 degrees). Again, if the emergency is life-threatening, call 911 immediately!

NON-EMERGENCY EXAMPLES: Hot water heater out, air conditioner out, refrigerator out, dripping faucets, locking yourself out of the house (if you are locked out please contact a locksmith), power or gas off, oven not working. If you have a non-emergency maintenance request please submit a maintenance request above.

If you smell gas odor call PG&E immediately at (800) 743-5000 and they will take care of the leak. Please submit a maintenance request above after calling PG&E but you do not need to call our emergency line.

After-Hours Maintenance Emergency Phone:

warcinfo:
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-50
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for November/December 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-4.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/


text:
Pinned toot

This is the percent infected in Oregon over a 14 day rolling average, since testing started.

Cy boosted
Cy boosted
Cy boosted
Cy boosted

An opalescent sea slug, looking like nothing so much as an MMO endgame shoulder pauldron come to life, searches for food on the sea floor. :weirdfish:

Cy boosted

Gee these images are loading slow. I think I'll write a little proxy to cache them as I request them. (6 hours later) OKAY MY URI PARSER IS PERFECT NOW wait what was I doing again? with

Cy boosted

Now — this isn’t widely known here, but I was a huge pen and paper nerd back in the day (Please hold your surprised gasps).

Let me be clear about something, I was better and cooler than all of you D&D people, I played GURPS. GURPS people were smarter, better gamers, better looking, just everything.

You losers go ahead and enjoy your new Diversity and Dragons.

The greatest tragedy of the movie Ready Player One is not that it's a bad movie. It's that it's not Snowcrash.

Cy boosted

1\ Imagine spending a $1,000 bucks each month while only getting paid $250. Now multiply it a BILLION times. This is what US Treasury is doing. Don't trust me - see for yourself. It's all there in the latest financial statement.

Simply unbelievable.

Cy boosted

The horror of North Korea

I've just heard a story that's so horrendous, it's hard to believe.

A young man on a trip to North Korea has stolen a propaganda poster from the wall of a hotel he was in. He was later arrested, imprisoned, sentenced to 15 years of hard labor, and most likely tortured. He was returned home in a state of coma, with severe brain injury and died a few days later.
I personally think he was subjected to waterboarding.

This is real.

#NorthKorea #USA

Cy boosted

“Just because a growing number of Terminators have ignored their AI programming and begun slaughtering humans left and right doesn’t mean we should take the dangerous and radical step of defunding the Terminator program.”

Cy boosted

"The mystifying ideological claim that looting is violent and non-political is one that has been carefully produced by the ruling class because it is precisely the violent maintenance of property which is both the basis and end of their power." - In Defense of Looting - Read more: #Ferguson

Cy boosted

so technically i did work for this company for several months but they are under no obligation to pay out because the project was cancelled before milestones were met. labor law is cool

Cy boosted

daily bunny, ec, an update, a url

a smol bunny, front paws on a hand.

tl;dr, ~35 days of cheerful bunny pictures is about all I've got in me. there are still plenty out there; there's even a website I came across earlier this week, . check 'em out.

hang in there folks & stay safe.
(or use your best judgement.)

Cy boosted

மிகவே சரியான ஒன்று

So, anyone who followed me on my fediverse instance, added my XMPP to your buddy list, or emailed me in the past... 18 years, sorry but you're cut off from me... forever, because stole my domain. All your emails go to them now. So call them if you have a problem with that.

Anyone who knew me by a non-federated trust anchor like PGP, I2P, or Tox should experience no communication issues. are still preventing me from running an instance. It's been two days. I'm worried now that they might have stolen my domain permanently

Looks like is paying to hide them from law enforcement. Tracepath of their address gets stopped cold at "Amazon Technologies Inc." (AT-88-Z)

Show thread

Some company named and/or managed to take away my domain somehow. Since the fediverse entirely depends upon federated trust anchors, that means everyone is cut off from me, with no recourse, and it's now impossible for me to run an instance. The end. CAN WE GET IDENTITIES PLEASE

Show more

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!


text:
600 X 600 Bathroom Wall Tiles

600 x 600 bathroom wall tiles Trendy rest room designs basically have three components; space, consolation and style. Space could be created even if your lavatory is small. You just must make good use of the storage potential within the room and have a very good flooring plan. What you is a toilet self-importance or cupboard. This is the very best resolution if you happen to want cupboard space for all of your bathroom necessities without impeding your toilet design. They are often wall-hung to develop the visible house in the room or give the room an open feel as the ground beneath will be seen. Rolling rest room vanities are also convenient in bogs, large or small. They’ll easily be introduced wherever you need. For example, you can deliver it with you beside the bath so you’ve gotten easy accessibility to your bathroom essentials. When not in use, they will then hide them beneath the sink in order that they do not get in the way.

Best 29+ Bathroom Tile Ideas (Tiles For Floor, Shower, And throughout 600 X 600 Bathroom Wall Tiles
Home inside 600 X 600 Bathroom Wall Tiles
Moonlight Graphite Lappato 600X600 in 600 X 600 Bathroom Wall Tiles
Horizon Light Grey Floor Tile 600X600 with 600 X 600 Bathroom Wall Tiles
Bali Waterfall Textured Effect 600 X 600Mm within 600 X 600 Bathroom Wall Tiles

When choosing from the various designs and shapes of loo vanities out there, at all times consider the dimensions and how you propose to place them in the lavatory and not simply concentrate on the value and design. A good bathroom vainness is one that’s large enough to accommodate the things it’s essential retailer within the house however not too bulky and obtrusive that it’s already taking an excessive amount of space in the room.

Well-liked Types of Toilet Design

The toilet has come along approach up to now 100 years. Once just a basic tub set in entrance of the lounge fireplace and filled with buckets of water, the showering expertise is now a luxury in nearly every western dwelling. Again then, a “rest room” was one thing only the wealthy and privileged might afford to have of their house. It was this development which lead to the mass production of toilet products.

The Conventional bathroom can mean either traditional by way of Edwardian or Victorian style, or in respect to a typical white lavatory with primary sanitary ware and tub. Here, we’ll be looking on the type of bathroom design the place it began. The Edwardian toilet.

Over the past decade, with the popularity of TV exhibits like Changing Rooms, the trend for old-fashioned bathrooms has seen an actual upsurge. A uncommon gem of an previous slipper bathtub or rusty conventional faucet may be discovered at a scrap yard or in a skip, however thankfully producers are keeping up with demand with skillfully crafted traditional toilet merchandise.

Mont Blanc Marble Effect 300 X 600 with regard to 600 X 600 Bathroom Wall Tiles
Wall - 200 X 600 Group with regard to 600 X 600 Bathroom Wall Tiles
Zaffiro White Shiny Ceramic Wall Tile - 600 X 300Mm regarding 600 X 600 Bathroom Wall Tiles
Shower Walls And Floor: Grigio Tecno 600 X 600 Https://www for 600 X 600 Bathroom Wall Tiles
600 X 300 Tile Patterns - Google Search | White Tile Floor intended for 600 X 600 Bathroom Wall Tiles

Sure rooms only work in sure houses, so in case you’re living in a modern excessive rise condominium the traditional rest room is not going to be just right for you. You probably have an outdated cottage or villa retreat this model of bathroom is one you must definitely think about.

Almost at all times, the bathtub is the centre piece attraction of the traditional toilet. A free-standing roll-top or slipper bath sits proudly on a dark polished ground, and only if going for a conventional continental fashion toilet will an inset or sunken tub maintain appeal. Both a wall-mounted faucet or a free-standing one appears to be like stylish. Deep ridges and curved angles are what makes the traditional sanitary ware what it is – bold and masculine.

When adorning a standard bathroom each mushy tones and bold colors can work well. Strong tones of browns, maroons and greens give a nice heat to the room, however be certain the lavatory is effectively lit, maybe with a lavish chandelier. With the right colors, vintage gold can look better than chrome. Go for curtains, by no means blinds. If going for a conceit unit relatively than a conventional basin and pedestal, choose an oak or cherry finish; or the white Cynk self-importance unit is a good look with traditional baths and bogs.


text:
Contact Us

Make an appointment or ask a question?

No new customer appointments available – waiting list for full grooms only.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Contact Info

General Enquiries

Please note – no new customer appointments available.

Frequently Asked Questions

What areas do you cover?2018-04-04T13:33:06+00:00

We are based in Banstead, Surrey and covering a wide range of surrounding areas. Including Sutton, Coulsdon, Tadworth, Chessington, Epsom, Ashtead, Esher, Cobham, Leatherhead, Kingswood, Chipstead and Oxshott. If in doubt, please do not hesitate to ask.

Do you need me to supply – electricity and or water etc?2017-11-16T11:19:00+00:00

We do not need you to supply electricity or water. This means that we can park in a safe location as close to your premises as possible.


text:
The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #19126   Message #194340
Posted By: M. Ted (inactive)
13-Mar-00 - 02:40 PM
Thread Name: BS: What is folk music?
Subject: RE: BS: What is folk music?
It occurs to me that this question too, belongs on the "stupid question thread"--because their isn't enough information in the question--I looked at Thomas the Rhymer's initial post, and he asks part of several other questions as well--

If Thomas would tell us what he is trying to explain, it might help a lot--other than that, there are a lot of good answers here, people--we just need mre questions to go with them--


text:
The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #22581   Message #3490083
Posted By: Rumncoke
13-Mar-13 - 10:48 PM
Thread Name: Help: Meaning of 'Chicken on a Raft'
Subject: RE: Help: Meaning of 'Chicken on a Raft'
I used to ride a BSA A10, 650cc - rebuilt it in the dining room of a (ground floor) flat in Margate Rd Southsea.

There was a motorcycle shop in Elm Grove and they were rather bemused to have a person of the female persuasion coming in and buying bits for a motorbike - it was 1970 but there was a 50 year time lag as you went through their door.

I took the bike around to show them once I had finished it and got it back on the sidecar - a double Watsonian.

I used to carry all the gear for a couple of folk singers, and often folk singers as well. We used to go to various pubs, the Thatched House and Old House at Home on Locksway Rd - and the White Swan next to the theatre in the city centre, opposite the Yorkshire Grey, The Horseshoe at the end of Elm Grove and three or four more - we took a collection at half time, did quite well from what I remember.

Ah those were the days.

Oh - and when they were frying up breakfast, the cooks would test the heat of the hotplate by spitting on it - when the drops danced it was good to go.


text:
Book Reviews 183 Book Reviews Mary Ann Weston. Native Americans in the News: Images of Indians in the Twentieth Century Press, no. 49 in the series Contributions to the Study of Mass Media and Communications. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1996. "This is not a book about Indians," notes author Mary Ann Weston. "Rather it is a book about ... perceptions-readers' perceptions fostered by newspaper and magazine articles [which] had and have a powerful role in shaping our views of Native Americans-and the actions we and our representatives in government take based on those views" (ix). In a well-written and researched one hundred and eighty-eight page account, Weston, a professor of journalism at Northwestern University, by and large succeeds in making her case. Weston successfully explores "the notion that the news media have perpetuated popular images of Native Americans, images that were badly flawed-inaccurate stereotypes, in fact. 11 Furthermore, "this repetition of inaccurate images, which runs counter to the press' ideal of fair and factual reporting, has been a consequence of the news process itself." As she points out, "the practices, traditions and forms of journalism, rather than challenging the stereotypes of popular culture, have repeated and reinforced them. By doing so the press has given these images the weight of actuality"(2). The core of the book consists of six case studies, beginning with the successful marshalling of the media by "cultural pluralists 11 during the 1920s against traditional "civilising" assimilationist policies, through the "Indian New Deal" of the 1930s, Native American participation in World War Two and the bitter struggles against "termination" in the immediate postwar years, and culminates in the "Red Power 11 confrontations beginning in the 1960s. Each study provides ample historical context with respect to the Native 184 Canadian Review of American Studies Revue canadienne d'etudes amencaines American reality, the nature of contemporary American journalism, and the larger American political and cultural environment. Chapter two, for instance, focuses on the highly successful press campaign masterminded by John Collier against a U.S. Senate bill which threatened to expropriate traditional Pueblo lands in New Mexico. Collier and others fell back on two stereotypes: the romantic views of the "good Indian,, the "ancient/exotic Indian." Shown as a noble people and a cultural treasure being wronged by the government, rarely did the Indians speak for themselves . And the more distant from New Mexico the writers and readers were, the more the former fell back on these images which failed to portray either the Pueblo culture or cause in a sophisticated or complete fashion. In chapter six, she focuses on the 1973 Wounded Knee standoff. Confrontation , as with contemporary African Americans, brought serious consideration by a media now more willing to self-criticize, to question government , and explore oppression from the perspective of the oppressed. With the emphasis on the Indians' plight, positive stories stressed the return to traditional ways-the "exotic" romanticised. Indeed, "the militant Indians were generally depicted sympathetically as romantic figures [the "noble Red man"] who were saving not only their own people but a failing white society by resurrecting the ways of the past" (137). Before long, however, the "bad Indian" imagery came to dominate, with modifiers like "hard-line,, and "militant " frequently invoked (as they had been from the outset in local coverage). Vestiges of the old imagery-"noble savage" versus the "bad Indian"-endured despite considerable "consciousness raising" for both journalists and their readers, and a growing sensitivity to the plight of nonmainstream Americans. "InAmerica," as Weston correctly asserts, "'the Indian' is ubiquitous, but Native Americans are virtually invisible.,, Mass culture images of Indians resonate widely, "but real Native Americans, because of their small numbers and relative lack of political and economic influence, are often unseen and unheard,, (16). Weston's examination of Native Americans and the news process does contribute substantially to our understanding of the press' role in creating and perpetuating the imagery by which this group was seen, not to mention judged. Her findings indicate that the images of Indians have remained amazingly unchanged since the 1920s. The tone and language used by mainstream journalists was usually either derogatory or humorous, and the subject matter...

Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 183-185
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.


text:
Young John Watson - Motor Head Baby / Sad Fool download free

Young John Watson - Motor Head Baby / Sad Fool download free

Performer: Young John Watson
Album: Motor Head Baby / Sad Fool
Country: US
Released: 1953
Style: Rhythm & Blues
MP3 version ZIP size: 1848 mb
FLAC version ZIP size: 1136 mb
WMA version ZIP size: 1282 mb
Rating: 4.3
Votes: 839
Other Formats: VQF MP4 APE DTS MP3 ADX AHX

Johnny "Guitar" Watson.

of John Mayall's "Train Kept A-Rollin". Three tracks on the album were actually composed by Lemmy while he was still a member of Hawkwind, "Motorhead", "Lost Johnny", and "The Watcher", the latter a psychedelic acoustic piece. Like the band name itself, the song "Motorhead" ( sample (help·info)) is a reference to speed – Lemmy's drug of choice at that time- and was coupled with the non-album track "City Kids" (a Larry Wallis composition from his Pink Fairies' days) for release as 7" and 12" singles.

Listen to music from Young John Watson like Space Guitar and Half Pint of Whiskey. Find the latest tracks, albums, and images from Young John Watson. Overview (current section).

The Web With John L. Watson - Baby Wont You Leave Me Alone McVernon Street free download. The Web With John L. Watson - Baby Wont You Leave Me Alone McVernon Street. 1713 mb. Motor Boys Motor - Drive Friendly free download.

Read about Sad Fool from Johnny 'Guitar' Watson's Very Best of and see the artwork, lyrics and similar artists. Johnny "Guitar" Watson (February 3, 1935 - May 17, 1996) was an American musician whose long career influenced the development of blues, soul music, rhythm & blues, funk, rock music, and rap music. John Watson, Jr. was born February 3, 1935 in Houston, Texas. His father John Sr. was a pianist, and taught his son the instrument. But young Watson was immediately attracted to the sound of the guitar, in particular the electric guitar as practiced by the "axe men" of Texas: T-Bone Walker and Clarence "Gatemouth" Brown.

Then it's on to his Federal sides, which still feature him playing piano as Young John Watson. Sad Fool" has great vocals and "I Got Eyes" has some hot piano work. He started playing a bit of guitar also in 1953, and by 1954 it was his main instrument. It was in February of 1954 that he recorded the amazing instrumental "Space Guitar," and electric guitar playing entered a new era.

Motor Head Baby 2:35
Sad Fool 3:00

Category Artist Title (Format) Label Category Country Year
12131 Young John Watson Motor Head Baby / Sad Fool (10") Federal 12131 US 1953
45-12131 Young John Watson Motor Head Baby / Sad Fool (7", Single) Federal 45-12131 US 1953

Performer: Tipps Für Wilhelm
Genre: Rock / Pop
Title: Put Your Head On My Shoulder
Released: 2018
Performer: Young John Watson
Genre: Blues
Title: Half Pint-A-Whiskey / Space Guitar
Performer: Lloyd Young
Genre: Reggae
Title: Mug Head
Performer: The Savage Young Beatles
Genre: Rock / Pop
Title: If You Love Me Baby / What'd I Say
Country: UK
Released: 1996
Performer: Mr. Melody
Genre: Hip hop
Title: Funk Motor
Country: US
Released: 1989
Performer: Various
Genre: Funk and Soul
Title: The Motor Town Revue Vol. 1 - Recorded Live At The Apollo
Country: US
Released: 1963
Head Automatica - Beating Heart Baby download free

Head Automatica - Beating Heart Baby download mp3

Alternative Rock, Emo, Pop Rock
Performer: Head Automatica
Genre: Rock
Title: Beating Heart Baby
Country: UK
Released: 2004
Performer: Melody Gardot
Genre: Pop
Title: Baby, I'm A Fool
Country: Belgium
Released: 2009
Performer: Ernest Tubb
Genre: World, Country and Folk
Title: My Hillbilly Baby
Released: 1957
Performer: Jim White & The Motor City Orchestra
Genre: Funk and Soul
Title: I'll Play The Fool / Free Style
Released: 1981


text:
Instrumental Training
Music Enrichment Classes
Area(s) of Specialization
Remote Lessons
Discover the future of learning! Skype Google talk Whatsapp Webcam Live individual lessons.
Student Level(s)

Voice teachers directory for private music lessons in Salem CT 06420 USA

Private Voice lessons music teachers directory in Salem CT 06420 USA

The above search is a free service maintained by for the benefit of private music teachers, as well as music students and their parents. Our goal is to help you locate a private music instructor, for example, a private piano teacher, a private violin teacher, a private voice coach, an online music teacher or another music education specialist who may offer private music lessons or online lessons to music students in Salem Connecticut.

Private music instruction is considered to be the best way to learn to play a musical instrument. Use this directory to find a private music teacher offering music lessons in your local area (Salem CT) or online lessons around the world. At the moment, our directory is limited to the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, United States, and New Zealand. This music teachers directory classifies private music instructors by instrument, such as private piano teachers (for private piano lessons), private voice teachers (for private voice lessons), private violin teachers (for private violin lessons), etc. Please use the above search function to find a private music teacher near you.

We welcome the following types of instructors in our Salem Connecticut directory: Harp Instructors, Harpsichord Instructors, Saxophone Teachers, English Horn Instructors, Acoustic Guitar Coaches, Tuba Instructors, Recorder Professionals, Trombone Educators, Cello Educators, Drums Tutors, Piccolo Professionals, Clarinet Coaches, Mandolin Educators, Organ Tutors, Keyboard Teachers, Dulcimer Professionals, Bass Tutors, Electric Guitar Coaches, Viola Da Gamba Teachers, Banjo Educators, Lute Professionals, Double Bass Teachers, Viola Coaches, Electric Bass Tutors, French Horn Educators, Flute Teachers, Percussion Teachers, Piano Professionals, Brass Instructors, Oboe Instructors, Woodwinds Tutors, Bassoon Educators, Voice Coaches, Bass Guitar Coaches, Classical Guitar Coaches, Violin Instructors, Ukulele Teachers, Accordion Tutors, Trumpet Educators, Bagpipes Professionals .

  • Learn to read musical notes by playing a game.
  • Improve sight reading skills while having fun.
  • Install NoteWorks Free on your iPad, iPhone
    OR Android Device

WARNING: This game can be addictive


text:
Google’s Right to be Forgotten: It’s Called Being a Shareholder Not Named Eric, Larry or Sergei

Google held their annual stockholder meeting this week.  This is always interesting given that the insiders–Schmidt, Brin and Page–control the voting stock.  Meaning that the stockholder’s meeting could be held in a Google bidet as the millions of Google stockholders have absolutely nothing to say about how the company is run.

It’s not that stockholders don’t complain about this, it’s that it really doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks about anything.  Here’s an excerpt from the meeting transcript that gives you a sense of why this matters.

The shareholder resolutions were moderated by David Drummond, Google’s SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer.  Here’s a nice picture of Drummond (to the right of Schmidt) advising his client to refuse to answer Senator Cornyn’s questions about Google spending $500,000,000 of the stockholder’s money to keep its senior management from being indicted for violating the Controlled Substances Act on a grand scale.  You know, the investigation that launched a massive shareholder lawsuit for a host of bad acts by Google stockholders against the insiders, the insiders’ board of directors and Googles senior management including Sheryl Sandberg.  (See Wired, How A Career Con Man Led A Federal Sting That Cost Google [Stockholders] $500 Million.)

schmidt senate

David Drummond SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer:  Now the next five items to be presented today are all stockholder proposals. Our Board of Directors, you should know, has recommended unanimously that our stockholders vote against all five of these proposals that will be presented today. [And Drummond already has enough proxies in his pocket to override any of the proposal, so this is all just a kabuki dance of the highest order.] Now, the first stockholder proposal is being brought by Mr. John Chevedden, Mr. James McRitchie and the NorthStar Asset Management Funded Pension Plan, as the co-lead filers, and Sonen Capital as a co-filer. I believe we have Ms. Abigail Shaw, here is she, of NorthStar Asset Management and she’ll be presenting the proposal. Ms. Shaw, you have three minutes.

Abigail Shaw – NorthStar Asset Management

Good morning. My name is Abigail Shaw from NorthStar Asset Management in Boston, the beneficial owner of over $2.6 million of Google common stock. As Google shareholders know, Google has three classes of stock, Class A with one vote per share, Class C with zero votes per share and Class B [the insiders Schmidt, Page and Brin] with an overwhelming 10 votes per share which is closely held by management insiders. This discrepancy hands over a super majority of control of the firm to insiders, essentially making it impossible for stockholders to weigh in. [For example, weigh in on decisions like spending $500,000,000 of the company’s money to keep the insiders out of jail.] Yet the concern we raise here is not just about fairness, we are also concerned that insiders and management seek to insulate the governance of the firm from shareholder oversight.

Studies have shown that excessive voting control given to insiders leads to poor performance over the long term. In fact a study has reported that the more control that the insiders have, the more they can pursue strategies that are at the expense of outside shareholders. Studies have also shown that on average and over time, companies with multiclass capital structures underperform those with a one share one vote standard in which owner’s economic risk is commensurate with voting power.

In a world where our company’s primary purpose is to expand access to information and knowledge in an open and democratic way, limiting substantial shareholder input is wildly counterintuitive. We feel that shareholder value is best derived when insider voting control of the firm is separated from insider economic ownership. Economic ownership provides enough of a reward for management when stock prices rise. The current tri-class structure eliminates shareholder checks and balances over management decisions. Without a tally of one vote per share claiming that stockholders accepted or rejected a proposal means little more than that Mr. Page, Mr. Brin and Mr. Schmidt voted for or against it.  [Like happened with this proposal, for example.]

We are very concerned that over the long term the use of insider control at Google will inhibit shareholders from weighing in on company governance and policy issues with detrimental effect on shareholder value over the long-term. We urge you to vote for proxy item number four. Thank you.

So when you’re dealing with Google employees and they seem arrogant, here’s why–the company is run as the personal fiefdom of Schmidt, Page and Brin.  They’re just imitating the boss.


text:
Finances and Administration

The Commission is funded by assessments to the seven towns of Dukes County and grants from organizations such as the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development, and other public agencies and private foundations. The MVC can also accept private donations.

  • Audited Financial Statements: These describe the financial information for the previous fiscal year (July 1 to June 30). Here are the FY2018 Audited Financial Statements for the period of July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018.

  • Budget: The budget is prepared by the Executive Director and the Administrator, working with the Commission’s Finance Committee. It describes the anticipated revenues and spending for the current and upcoming year. It is prepared in November and December, a draft is given to the Commission in December, and it is adopted in January. Here is the FY2018 Budget for the period of July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018, currently in effect.  And here is the FY2019 Budget adopted in January 2018 for the next fiscal year.

According to Chapter 831, its enabling legislation, the Commission may accept gifts of land, buildings, interests in land, or any funds or monies from any source including grants, bequests, gifts, or contributions made by an individual, association, or corporation or by any municipal, county, state or federal government. Funding is needed to support planning efforts, public information, and legal costs. For further information about making a donation to support the work of the Commission, consult the Executive Director.

The By-Laws describe how the Commission operates.

The Commission often hires interns during the summer to help with specific studies. Although salaries are modest and accommodations are not provided, this can be a good opportunity to spend a summer on the Vineyard working on a worthwhile project. If you are interested, please contact the Commission in the spring, or check back here to see a listing of available internships.

Office location:

Office location:

The Stone Building
33 New York Avenue
Oak Bluffs, MA 02557

Telephone: 508-693-3453
Fax: 508-693-7894

Mailing Address

Mailing address:

Martha's Vineyard Commission
P.O. Box 1447
Oak Bluffs, MA 02557

Site Map

© 2008 - 2020
Martha's Vineyard Commission
All Rights Reserved


text:
Psycho - Chainsaw Priest (CD)

$ 13.99

Release Date: 09/23/16

Old-school Boston grindcore/punk act, PSYCHO, is back with the band's first new full-length release in over twenty-two years!New England scene veterans Johnny X, Charlie Infection and Mike, return with 'Chainsaw Priest', the fourth PSYCHO album amidst the band's extensive discography.

Label: Selfmadegod Records
Genre: Metal
Language: English
Run Time: 40 mins

Payment & Security

American Express Diners Club Discover Elo JCB Mastercard PayPal Shop Pay Venmo Visa

Your payment information is processed securely. We do not store credit card details nor have access to your credit card information.

Estimate shipping

NOTE: International orders are shipped using FedEx International Mail Service. Delivery can take up to 8 weeks and no tracking number is provided by this service. This is done to reduce shipping costs. If you require faster shipping or shipping with tracking, please contact us for a shipping cost.

You may also like

Recently viewed


text:
Carpet cleaning in Hackney, E2 postcode area

Who are the Best Carpet Cleaning Company in Lewisham?

There are many professional carpet cleaning companies that serve Lewisham. Companies like Roger Garrett, Carpet Bright UK, London Carpet Cleaning LTD, Mvir Cleaning, etc. have an excellent feedback, but who are in fact the best carpet cleaning company in Lewisham? Let’s determine here…

Characteristics of Professional Carpet Cleaning Companies

There are certain features that all professional carpet cleaning companies have in common. These include:

  • Professional and well-trained staff that has the required experience to work with different kinds of carpets
  • A guarantee for full customer satisfaction
  • The use of eco-friendly and safe cleaning products only
  • They offer steam carpet cleaning, which is considered the best cleaning method of all although the drying time is longer
  • They are fully insured against any misfortune or incidents
  • They are available every day of the week including the weekends
  • They provide free quotes and a customer support by phone

When you choose your carpet cleaning professionals in Lewisham, if they do not have any of the listed above points, it is best to turn to another carpet cleaning company.

All of the above mentioned companies not only have a great reputation among their clients, but can provide you with effective specialized cleaning services. To the question who is the best, we choose Mvir Cleaning and here is the reason why.

In fact, Mvir Cleaning is the only one of the mentioned earlier companies that provide a full range of services. They include:

Deep Steam Carpet Cleaning & Commercial Carpet Cleaning

This service is intended to give your old dirty carpet a new life and as much as possible to restore its fibres. Steam cleaning technology provides deep cleaning for complete removal of mites, microorganisms, and allergens that can trigger health issues. The best thing is that this is done with eco-friendly cleaning solutions that do not contain any harmful chemicals.

Upholstery Cleaning

The company knows how to make your upholstery bright shining of cleanness by removing the dust with their super powerful extractor.

Stain Removal

This is next to possible to do on your own. Using special cleaning solutions and technique, Mvir technicians remove stains from coffee, food, wine, juice, tea, ink, blood, pet stains, urine, vomit, etc.

Rug Cleaning

Mvir restores the beauty of these fluffy and colourful floor accessories using the steam cleaning method. Their guarantee includes preserving the richness of rug colours. Regardless of your rug type, whether it is persian, antique, modern or oriental, your rug will be like new after their visit.

Mattress Cleaning

Mvir Cleaning takes care of the good hygiene of your bedroom by performing professional steam mattress cleaning to keep your mattresses fresh and clean.

Curtain Cleaning

Thanks to this service, all the pollutants, dust, mites, bacteria and soil, including the bad odour will be removed from your curtains.

End of Tenancy Cleaning

They prepare the house for your next tenants or help the tenant to clean the entire house before his leaving to get his deposit back.

Oven Cleaning

This service is performed using non-toxic and non-harmful cleaning products that are effective in removing contaminants, dirt and grime from both your oven inside and outside. After their cleaning, your oven will shine like new.

Thus, you can take advantage of a custom package of the cleaning services you need by calling only one professional cleaning company in Lewisham.


text:
logic Language Draft 3.1

From Lojban
Revision as of 08:21, 30 June 2014 by Conversion script (talk) (Conversion script moved page Logic Language Draft 3.1 to logic Language Draft 3.1: Converting page titles to lowercase)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Turning from the molecular to the subatomic, a wff of AFOPL is composed of a predicate and some fixed number of attached terms. Predicates differ (t this level at least) only in the number of terms they take. There are, however, several kinds of terms. So far, we have been talking only about simple terms, which directly name individuals in the universe: the analogs of names and their equivalents (generally pronouns). These are generally represented by lower case letters. However, it is customary to set aside some of these letters for a second type of term, variables, typically using letters from the end of the alphabet: "x, y, z, w" and so on. In addition, AFOPL may contain terms based on function symbols (typically letters from "f" on) and their following terms, and descriptions, which are built on other wffs.

Simple terms, names, which can also be counted as 0-place function symbols, require no further comment now. Terms based on function symbols are defined much like atomic wffs: a function symbol (analog of a predicate) "followed by" its associated terms. These following terms are officially to be recognized (as with predicates) by counting out the number of terms giving in the superscript of the function symbol. In practice, however, they are indicated in some other way, usually enclosure in parentheses or angles. Descriptions require a discussion of variables, so we will take them up after this section.

Variables are, in the syntax of atomic wffs, no different from other simple terms; their distinctive features are 1) semantic and 2) how they are used to build up other complex sentences and descriptions. A wff containing a variable is called a propositional function. The semantics of a variable is that a propositional function, though a perfectly good wff, is not like a sentence. It is neither true nor false in a given interpretation, since the interpretation as such does not assign an object to any variable. Rather, like a function generally, it returns a truth value for each object in the domain that is taken as the value of the variable. The taskof running through these objects is carried out by an assignment attached to an interpretation. It used the same domain as the interpretation and, within that domain assigns variables just as the interpretation assigns simple terms. When variables are involved, truth in an interpretation usually involves all of the possible assignments in the domain of that interpretation, all of the ways of hooking up objects to variables. Exactly how this is done will depend upon how the variables are used in the sentence at hand. A wff involving a variable is true in an interpretation + assignment, but not in an interpretation alone.

That is if the variable in question is free, not in the scope of a variable binding operator. A variable binding operator always comes with a variable attached and attaches to a wff, its scope. An occurrence of a variable is bound if it is attached to a variable binding operator or is in the scope of one. It is bound by the nearest variable binding operator which is followed immediately by the same variable. Any variable in a wff that is not bound is free.

For now, variable-binding operators are of two kinds, wff-makers and terms-makers. Each of these takes a variable and a wff and combines them to give a wff or a term, respectively. The syntax of both is about the same: the operator followed by the variable, followed by the wff (with its outermost parentheses in place if any). This unit then functions, in the one case like an atomic wff, in the other like a term, indeed, a function symbol followed by 0 or more terms, depending upon how many free variables the whole contains.

While there are a number of different types of operators of each sort, we will now be concerned with only quantifiers among the wff-making and descriptors among the term making (most other kinds are, in logic, reducible to these, by definitions, but not always in syntax). For now we shall confine our attention even within these groups to the traditional quantifiers and the range of definite, definite and "thatty" descriptions. There is room enough with these to fill our time.

The traditional quantifiers -- "all," "some," "no," and "less than all" (with various variants) -- actually began their careers in logic as something more like term-makers: "some man" was grammatical parallel to "that man" or "Socrates" as were "no man" and "every man" (a version of "all"). Indeed, they still have that character in English (and Lojban). Indeed, they did not originally involve variables at all, as the examples show. However, in the 19th century development of logic, as more complex sentences were subjected to logical analysis, a more flexible language was needed and variables came in to provide some of that, for the old system could only use the "some man" format once and subsequent references required pronouns or repetition, both of which were notoriously imprecise. A repeated "some man" might mean another man as easily as the same one, and "he" might refer back to "some dog" as easily as to "some man." And the developers were all mathematicians, used to the variables of algebra, which covered the same sorts of cases quite successfully.

You might expect that the transition would take the form of having sentences involving the quantifier terms be replaced by quantifier term + appositive variable and the use the variable ever after: "some man, x, ... x ...". But these expressions never occurred in the 19th century writings (or only in obscure and totally uninfluential ones). Rather the move was directly to a wff-making quantifier (in effect, there were no symbolic logical languages until late in the 19th century) with variable having universal range rather than each restricted to some class. Class restrictions were then built into the sentences quantified over. Only late in the 20th century did something closer to the old version appear: wff-maker quantifiers but with their variable restricted to particular classes.

The exact meaning of some of the quantifiers has also gone through a range of changes. In the earliest version, the four basic quantifiers formed an implicational square: "all" (A) and "no" (E) across the top, "some" ("more than none," I) and "less than all" ("some not," O) respectively beneath them. In each case, the upper, universal, implied the corresponding lower, particular, form (subalterns). The diagonally opposite forms (A-O, E-I) were negations of one another (contradictories). Either of the top two implied the denial of the other (contraries), while the denial of one particular implied the other (subcontraries). (These can all be derived from subalternation and contradiction alone, and all four forms derived from any two along an edge, by negation contradiction, and the rule for that edge.) Since the I form, "some S" pretty clearly says that there are Ss, the A form must do so as well, given subalternation. Consequently, the O form will be true even if there are no Ss, as will the E also -- given contradiction. In addition, E and I convert, that is, exchange the restrictive predicate of the quantifier with the descriptive one of the sentence: "some S is P" is equivalent to "some P is S," and similarly for "no." In addition, the universal partially convert, changing the order but shifting to the corresponding particular: "all s is P' entails "some P is S."

In the Middle Ages, however, the possibility of an empty class was discounted and the E and O were also taken to require that the mentioned class was not empty. The diagram remained the same, so long as the assumption that there was no empty class (or universal one, for that matter) held. In addition to the inference in the classical form, the medieval also allowed obversion (each form was equivalent to the one horizontally opposite with a negated predicate: O as "some S is not-P" comes from this period, and E is "all S is not-P," properly understood). And, once negative terms were allowed, contraposition was also recognized: A was equivalent to "All not-P is not-S" and so on.

The recognition that classes could be empty -- or that such classes might play a role in interesting arguments -- began in the 17th century and led to a reexamination of standard arguments, resulting in the new system of the 19th century. In this system, both universal were without existential import, that is, were true when the subject class was empty, while both particulars had existential import and so were false in those cases. As a result, all of the inferences on the square, except contradiction, were invalidated. Conversion (but not partial conversion), obversion and contraposition continued to hold.

The founders of symbolic logic in the late 19th century reproduced this system in their new format. They reduced the basic quantifiers to two, corresponding more or less to A and I, and separated the restriction on the quantifier from the quantifier, placing it in the body of the following sentence, conjunctively for I, conditionally for A: "some S is P" becomes "for some x, x is S and x is P," and "all S is P becomes "for all x, if x is S then x is P." The other quantifiers are defined by obversion, and conversion and contraposition follow from corresponding rules about "and" and "if." And, of course, new forms appeared that could not be formulated in the older systems. But one distinctive feature of the original system remained: the A used is the existentially importing A with respect to the domain covered by "x". The lack of existential import for the representation of "all S is P" comes from putting the subject term "S" in a condition, not from the quantifier itself. Only late in the 20th century did logicians consider the possibility of an empty domain and examine several systems that would fit into that (all "some" statements are false, of course, and universal ones are either 1) all true or 2) all false or 3) variable, depending on the subsequent structure: conditionals and equivalents true, conjunctions, disjunctions, atomics, and existentials false.

The original system is clearly the basic one, since all of the others can be defined with in it by obversion. An E with existential import is just and A with a negated predicate, and existential-free A is similarly derived from E. Within the modern system of unrestricted quantifiers reconstructing the various forms requires various additions. The modern system of restricted quantifiers presumably follows the classic pattern, with the 19th century pattern introduced by explicit additions. It would be possible also to take the 19th century pattern as basic and introduce the classic one by definition, but this would only make sense if the unrestricted quantifiers were already of the empty-universe sort.

The quantifiers of modern logic are written -- like most logical constants -- in an astounding variety of ways: "All x" "x" enclosed in parentheses or following inverted "A" or inverted "V" or simple capital pi, to list the most common; "some x" as "Vx" or inverted "E" followed by "x" or capital sigma followed by "x". But the syntax is the same in all cases, although some of the formats require that the quantifier phrase (quantifier + variable) be inclosed in parentheses. The restricted quantifiers are typically the quantifier of choice followed by the restrictive propositional function, the whole enclosed in brackets (here represented by parentheses becasue of wiki screw-ups): "(Vx Fx) Gx", "Some F is G." In any case, a universally quantified sentence "(x)Fx" is true in an interpretation just in case "Fx" is true on every assignment based on that interpretation, and "Vx Fx" just in case it is true on some assignment. The corresponding restricted case, "(Vx Fx) Gx," look at assignments that give to "x" some member of the set assigned by the interpretation to "F," and is true if at least one such assignment makes "Gx" true, false otherwise, including cases when the "F" set is empty ( this latter restriction holds for universals as well).

One of the descriptors of modern logic, the indefinite descriptor -- not the most common one -- takes up the classical particular affirmative quantifier "some S" (perhaps better "a (certain) S"). Those who use this descriptor typically write it with e (epsilon): "G exFx", "Some F is G." It differs from the usual particular quantifier (or either sort) in that repetitions refer always to the same object, like the repetitions of the variable bound by a quantifier. In addition, an interpretation fixes the object referred to by this construction; it does not change with different assignments, as it would for the quantifier. The referent is, if possible a member of the set defined by the propositional function that is the scope of the descriptor, the Fs in the example. If the set is not empty, of course. If the set is empty, there are a variety of possibilities, most of which have been explored:

  • every wff containing the description is false
  • the truth value is that of the wff obtained by taking the smallest component that contains all the occurrences of the descriptor, replacing those occurrences by a new variable, and then binding that whole component with a particular quantifier
  • every atomic wff containing the description is false, molecular sentences working out as may be
  • the description always refers to something, in this case an arbitrarily selected object, with truth worked out as may be
    • the arbitrary object is the same for all empty sets (the "null entity")
    • the arbitrary object is selected for each set separately (the "null F")
    • the arbitrary object is selected for each "failed" description (that is, even though two descriptions pick out the same set -- even necessarily, they may have different null entities.

These various possibilities give slightly different results -- well, the first major choice reduces the class of tautologies (if "exFx" is a real term). That case aside, the choice among the various readings is hard to make on theoretical -- or even practical grounds. In general, though, the view that a term always denotes something inclines the choice toward the fourth major choice, and -- for practical reasons -- toward the first subchoice: the same null entity for all.

Part of this preference comes from the problems that arose with the most common descriptor, the definite descriptor, written i or some stylized or inverted version of iota. Russell introduced this by a contextual definition, making it not a genuine term but an "improper symbol," an abbreviation for a longer expression in which no one part corresponded directly to the symbol, but the whole expression corresponded to the expression with the symbol in it. In this case the definition of "GixFx" is "for some x, both for all y (Fy <=> y=x) and Gx." This notion requires a complicated system of marks to indicate the scope of the description, that is, how to expand complex sentences containing such descriptions: is "~GixFx", to take the simplest example, saying that the unique F lacks G (which implies that there is a unique F) or just the denial that the unique F has G (which does not)? That taken care of, however, the truth of any wff containing this term can be worked out, regardless of whether there is exactly one F or not (compare the second solution for indefinite descriptions).

Before Russell introduced this expression, Frege had already introduced a similar notion -- with a different notation. But Frege's definite description was a proper symbol, a real term needing a referent assigned through the interpretation and, consequently, having a referent even when the set of Fs was not a singleton, was either empty or had more than one member. Frege used the null entity solution, the same entity for all failed definite descriptions. Since his time, all of the variations have been explored, including those that give a different null entity for an empty set from that given for a multitude. As with the indefinite quantifier, the Fregean solutions have tended toward the null entity solution Frege originally proposed.

Once you have a bunch of descriptors which purport to refer to objects of a certain sort, but that refer to something even if there are no objects of the sort mentioned in the description, it is, I suppose, inevitable that someone would suggest a descriptor in which the reference was fixed first and what propositional function was used was largely irrelevant. Of course, within logic, the simple terms function pretty much like that, referring without even any mention of a property that applies -- like proper names, in fact. Well, actually, some earlier logicians had held that proper names were always descriptions of some sort, that "Socrates" was a disguised way of saying something like "the irritating Athenian philosopher who taught Plato," for example. In denying this, the logicians of the sort presently being considered went on to note that a number of things that appeared to be descriptions also were not so in the strict sense (the one above for Socrates, for example would pick out Socrates even if we found out that Plato had several irritating Athenian philosophy teachers). The present descriptor arises to cover these cases: "G dxFx" (usually with a delta) means that G holds of whatever "dxFx" refers to, which may or may not be an F (though, for pragmatic reasons -- which play no real role in logic -- it should be an F, if one is available in context, or be somehow related to Fs).

Lojban takes a diverse sample from this historical accumulation. It has classical term quantifiers, both domain-wide and restricted variable quantifiers, and both the epsilon and delta descriptors. What it lacks -- at the current level at least -- are propositional functions: Lojban variables are never free. It also presents unique understandings of some of the items that it has, and raises some unique problems, mainly from the way that quantifiers are introduced into sentences.

Of course, most logical systems, when used, contain not free variables, since a propositional function makes no assertion and thus raises no truth issues -- what logic is ultimately about, after all. But I know of only one reasonably standard system -- Peirce's two-dimensional graphs -- in which unbound variables cannot occur syntactically. That system is also the only one I know that does not use explicit quantifiers for all the sorts of quantification it allows. But Lojban's variables are bound by an unexpressed particular quantifier unless bound by some explicit quantifier. This semantic point aside, they function like other pronoun terms.

In AFOPL each quantifiers is introduced at the beginning of the wff that is its scope. A quantifier binds occurrences of its variable only in that scope (and there only if they are not already bound by a close quantifier -- but that sort of doubling up is bad form). In Lojban, however -- like Peirce again -- quantifiers (explicit and, obviously, implicit) are usually introduced where the variable would first occur in the function, inside a sentence. To be sure, the rules say that quantifiers within a sentence are to be understood as occurring at the beginning of the sentence (well, right after any negation from just before the selbri) and that, when there is more than one quantifier in a sentence they are to be understood as being in front in the same left to right order as in the sentence. Further, a repetition of the same variable in a sentence is taken to be bound by the same quantifier as the first occurrence -- unless explicitly bound by another (but this again is bad form, if the two quantifications are meant to be independent).

The problem here is that the Lojban notion of a sentence -- unlike the AFOPL notion of a wff -- is at least vague. For the present question -- what is the scope of a given quantifier -- cases can be made for it being 1) the shortest full sentence which contains the first quantified variable 2) until the next unextended {i} (that is, not an ijek), or 3) until the last occurrence of the variable involved short of some "reset" expression ({da'o} and {ni'o} at least -- perhaps others) or 4) "long enough." The last is hopeless, of course, but the others present problems as well. The official line (discussed in a different place from quantifiers generally, 16.10, p.404) is 3, which poses the practical problem that the full impact of the quantifier is not known when it is introduced or at any time until reset. This is particularly problematic in cases -- also covered by 2 -- where some occurrences of the variable are superordinate to the original one or where negations are introduced onto the sentence within which the original quantifier lies. There does not seem to be a clear answer to how to say explicitly what {da broda ije da brode ija da brodi} says, since some occurrences of the variable are logically prior to the initial occurrence. Still, in this case, the explicit form seems to be {da zo'u tu'e da broda ije da brode ija da brodi} (and I am not perfectly sure the {zo'u} is needed). But the same cannot be said for {da broda ije da brode inaja da brodi} or even {da broda inaje da brode}, where the original quantification is now found to be in a negative context relative to its whole scope. This may just be the problem of postposed negations again and the answer is simply to bite the bullet and perform the changes in pulling it out. This makes sense for the first case (we are used to "If a boy comes to the dance, all the girls will dance with him" being a version of "All the girls will dance with any boy who comes to the dance" and to universals going with conditionals), {roda zo'u tu'e da broda ije da brode inaja da brodi}. But in the second case, the intention seems pretty clearly (influenced perhaps by the affinity of particulars with conjunctions and disjunctions) to have been to pull out the form unaltered: {da zo'u tu'e da broda inaje da brode}. The difference is, of course, what sentence the quantifier is at the front of originally (the negation is pretty clear, being outside the simple sentences already). We may -- as we have in fact done here -- use pragmatic considerations ("What is a person likely to be saying?") to decide in individual cases, but that is not a very firm basis for a logical language in any extended sense. And however this issue is decided, some apparently natural expressions are going to end up saying the wrong thing ("Gotcha"). In addition, quantification scope is inherently rightward grouping, thus running counter to Lojban's regular left grouping: in {tu broda ije da brode ija tu brodi da} one rule requires the whole to become a (particularly quantified?) disjunction with a conjunctive first part, another requires it to be a conjunction with a particularly quantified disjunction as second part. Presumably, the first is the official solution, but not necessarily the logical one.

All of these examples used implicit quantifiers to begin with, but the problems are the same with explicit ones, whether domain-wide or restricted, or in term form -- though the last uses anaphoric pronouns to pick up the same referent in other places. Logic supplies one solution -- which is not the one in Lojban usage as far as I can see. What I have called Lojban's representation of a term quantifier and what I have called the representation of an epsilon description are (virtually?) the same {su'o/lo/su'o lo broda}. But in several versions of epsilon descriptions that description is made referential outside the context in which it occurs: it is the selected member of the indicated set, even when it is referred to within a negative context. It is in effect, then, a particular quantifier fronted all the way to the beginning of the paragraph, right after the last previous reset at least. Taking this into Lojban would solve one set of problems (making a corresponding version for universal quantifiers {ro (lo) broda} would be harder to justify within logic, even thought the class of broda is determined outside context), those mentioned just above. But it would, of course, create a whole other set dealing with moving negations or even what an unmoved negation really meant. For now we leave the uncertainty as yet another mark of how far Lojban deviates from AFOPL.

Seeing that much of the work of quantifiers in one form can be done with those in another, the question arises of why the diversity, which seems greater than that of a natural language. Part of the answer seems to be a balance between efficiency and clarity: term quantifiers are short but occasionally imprecise, variable quantifiers open the way for precision, but -- when precise anyhow -- are prolix: compare {da zo'u ge da broda gi da brode} with {lo broda cu brode} which arguably says the same thing. Another, perhaps related, factor is that, even without the full apparatus of variable quantifiers and sentential connectives, some things are just easier to say with variables than with terms and anaphora: variables require no overt assigning with {goi} nor are they subject to the uncertainties of the various Lojban anaphora systems.

As for having both domain-wide and restricted quantifiers, the need seems to be more rhetorical than logical (questions of epsilon descriptors aside). Restricted quantifiers retain the natural subject-predicate, topic-comment, character-action dichotomy which is lost in the domain-wide forms: {da zo'u ge da broda gi da brode} could as easily be a version of {lo brode cu broda}, the focus is lost and yet is what makes the tale. In extreme cases, you get a whole story being nothing more than a claim that there is something with all these properties, rather than isolating a protagonist and the events. Not, perhaps, logically significant, but important for human communication.

Finally, there is the question of where Lojban quantifiers lie in scheme of quantifiers possible for the classical system, which ones have existential import, which do not. For the domain-wide quantifiers, this is a basically uninteresting question. Talking in this world presupposes that there are object in the world (else there could be no communication, indeed not sentences). And when there are objects in the domain, the importing and non-importing quantifiers behave exactly the same. If we really want to talk about the empty universe (the one God mysteriously did not let continue), the change is surely dramatic enough to call for some special attention by marking the quantifiers (though just exactly how they are to behave is open, as noted, to a variety of rules). It would seem then that assuming that the domain-wide quantifiers of Lojban are the traditional ones -- affirmatives importing, negatives not -- is the move that takes least explaining.

The issue with restricted quantifiers is rather different. The tradition again has the pattern just noted, but we do want to speak about sets we know to be empty and, more often, about sets that may -- for all we know -- be empty, but about whose members we can still say interesting things. Lojban has come down more or less clearly on the side of logical tradition here: the implicit "internal quantifier" (getting rid of which is another LoCCan note) is {su'o} and the subalternation inference is explicitly endorsed: {ro...} => {su'o...}. Further, of course, if the domain wide quantifier are traditional, it is hard to make the restricted otherwise, since the usages fade into one another: {da broda ije da brode}, {da poi broda cu brode}, {su'o broda cu brode}. As noted earlier, it is relatively easy to reproduce the opposite type of quantifier from the classical by obversion and even that is unnecessary, since the quantifiers, being numbers, can be marked "+" and "-" with the import interpretation. Getting the classical from the non-importing is more difficult, as is reproducing the effect of the importing restricted from the domain-wide: {ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode} needs {da broda} conjoined on to get the effect of {ro broda cu brode} or even {ro da poi broda cu brode}.

At the quantifier level, Lojban allows any sort of numerical expression to occur as well as {ro} and {no}, {su'o} and {me'i}. In logic, some such expressions can also occur: "exactly n," "more than n," "less than n," "at least n," "at most n" and "between n and m" for natural numbers n and m. In logic, all of these are improper symbols, defined in terms of regular quantifiers and identity, in ways so that no proper part of the definiens corresponds to the definiendum directly. They function in the two cases exactly the same, presumably, when used as external quantifiers. Lojban also allows several other types of quantifiers that do not belong to basic logic: "few," "many," "most," and "enough," and a few others. Some of these may have analogs in non-standard logic, others involve factors beyond the scope of logic altogether ("enough" is purely contextual -- pragmatic).

Lojban also has variables and so quantifiers (and perhaps descriptors) for predicates, brivla, which AFOPL, being First Order, does not have. Moving up to Second Order destroys what virtues First Order Predicate Logic has; Second Order Logic, since it contains Arithmetic, is incomplete as well as undecidable -- and, if care is not exercised -- inconsistent as well. So even in standard logic there may be -- indeed are -- several essentially different Second Order Logics. But moving to Second Order, however undesirable it may be in logic, is essential of a human language that is to be used in communication. We shall return to this point directly, starting with to what extent even bare First Order Logic in practice uses Second Order features.

When talking about descriptors from the logical point of view, the main question is always "What happens when the defining function is false on all assignments?" JCB's descriptor, in Lojban {le}, is one answer to this (earlier, but with a different motivation, than the delta descriptors of logic). {le broda} is a proper term and so always refers. Pragmatic restrictions are in effect here, so that, when there are brodas in the context, the description preferentially refers to some of them. In the event there are no relevant brodas -- and in special cases even when there are -- the referents are things plausibly connected in the context with brodas. This does not say much but prevents just arbitrarily, outside the conversational contract, calling any old thing a broda (Humpty-Dumpty is restricted by the need -- which he probably never felt -- to communicate).

The case with {lo} is, of course, quite different, since {lo} is veridical, requires that its referent actually satisfy its function. Given the close connection with particular quantification, the obvious move to make here is to call any sentence containing {lo} false, with all the usual questions about what "sentence" means here: simple, whole complex in which occurrences of the {lo} phrase or its anaphora occur, whole paragraph in which this happens, and so on. In other words, we can treat {lo broda} as a quantifier. Taking {lo broda} seriously as a term leans heavily toward the last choice, the preposed existential claim over the whole context, making it all false. But that has also the look of presuppositional failure, so rather than denying the whole lot, it might be more correct to {na'i} it.

The official Lojban line, however, is neither of these, but to take a {lo} description that fails in the present universe of discourse as a sign that the discussion has shifted to another universe of discourse, where the description holds, an implicit {da'i da broda} or however that shift is to be marked. This move is not available in logic, of course, and is objectionable in language from a pragmatic point of view. The shift is made unilaterally and most likely unconsciously, which goes against the basic contract. Further, the shift renders illegitimate the natural response of another member of the contract, {no da broda}, since, in the new universe, this is false. On the whole, the {na'i} solution is both the most revealing and the least denigrating of the possibilities -- it keeps the whole {lo broda}-containing discussion from being true, without calling it false.

Notice that the other question that disturbs logicians about descriptions does not arise here. Lojban descriptions are inherently plural and only actually singular. They are about sets of individuals, not individuals, even though the set may be a singleton. This means that some of the features of logical terms do not apply directly to them as the do to names and variables (though even names may have plural referents in Lojban). Projecting back into logic from Lojban, then, makes all the description technically improper symbols, statements containing them to be expanded in such a way that no part corresponds directly to the description. In fact, each description selects a set of objects and them makes a claim about all of the members of that set (which usually is a subset of the larger set given by the function). In this context, further quantification on a description makes sense. This does leave the question of whether {re lo broda}, {re broda} and {re da poi broda} really mean the same thing, even if they usually play the same role in the same claims.

It is in this context that requantifying a bound variable seems to make sense. If {da broda} selects a set of objects, as {lo broda}, taken as a descriptor does, then to use {re da} in the scope of that original {da} is just to take two of the things selected by the original quantifier out of the brodas. On the other hand, if there is to be in Lojban any connection with concrete individuals, variables have to remain singular, as they are the only things left for that purpose. Since I think that this connection is vital, I would recommend against requantification. The second {da} is in fact a different variable, carelessly misspelled. The effect of requantification requires a description {lo}.

Which brings us back to an earlier question: are {lo broda cu brode}, {su'o lo broda cu brode}, {su'o broda cu brode} {da poi broda cu brode} and {da broda ije da brode} all the same? Is there a grammatical clue to a distinction between a quantifier and a descriptor here? Are there contexts in which using one rather than the other makes a difference -- especially in truth value, but in pragmatic ways as well? The previous discussion shows that the answer to the last one is "Yes." So, the second question -- and thus the first -- is significant. CLL and tradition seem to come down rather heavily on the side of "Yes" for the first question and so "No" for the second. Is there a way to introduce a break in this pattern? At the moment, there does not seem to be. The matter is not terribly pressing (it can go into LoCCan), since the hard cases are rare; none seem to have occurred so far -- or at least to have been notice.

Logic Language Draft 1.1

Logic Language Draft 2.1

But the same cannot be said for {da broda ije da brode inaja da brodi} or even {da broda inaje da brode}, where the original quantification is now found to be in a negative context relative to its whole scope. This may just be the problem of postposed negations again and the answer is simply to bite the bullet and perform the changes in pulling it out.

  • Can you be more explicit? {da broda inaje da brode} is {genai da broda gi da brode}. Are you saying that this is also equivalent to {naku ga da broda ginai da brode} = {naku su'oda zo'u ga da broda ginai de brode} = {roda naku zo'u ga da broda ginai de brode} = {roda zo'u genai da broda gi de brode}, instead of being equivalent to {su'oda zo'u genai da broda gi da brode}?
    • I don't know about the also but yes, a good case can be made for that being exactly what the original means. Now, it may not be the Lojban case, but the rules do not clearly exclude it, and some seem to imply it.
      • But {da brode ijenai da broda} would in any case be {su'oda zo'u ge da brode ginai da broda}, right?
        • As things are going at the moment, yes.

This makes sense for the first case (we are used to "If a boy comes to the dance, all the girls will dance with him" being a version of "All the girls will dance with any boy who comes to the dance" and to universals going with conditionals), {roda zo'u tu'e da broda ije da brode inaja da brodi}. But in the second case, the intention seems pretty clearly (influenced perhaps by the affinity of particulars with conjunctions and disjunctions) to have been to pull out the form unaltered: {da zo'u tu'e da broda inaje da brode}. The difference is, of course, what sentence the quantifier is at the front of originally (the negation is pretty clear, being outside the simple sentences already).

  • But how could the quantifier possibly be not at the front of the connective, given that both connectands contain the variable?
    • The question is not whether the quantifier is at the front of the connective; of course it is. The question is how much the quantity of the quantifier is affected by the environment in which it initially appears at the surface level.
    • And it seems that whatever answer we give is going to be "wrong"; in some cases, that is, counter-intuitive.

We may -- as we have in fact done here -- use pragmatic considerations ("What is a person likely to be saying?") to decide in individual cases, but that is not a very firm basis for a logical language in any extended sense. And however this issue is decided, some apparently natural expressions are going to end up saying the wrong thing ("Gotcha").

  • An even more clear case is {da ganai broda gi brode}. Requiring that to mean {roda zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode} would be perverse.
    • Well, "perverse"; is rather strong. IF it means the same as {ganai da broda gi da brode}, then it seems pretty clearly to have the "perverse" interpretation (as does "if something is a broda then it is a brode"). And, of course, if it does not mean the same thing, then all that stuff about compacting compound sentences is out the window -- hanging by its nails, if not crashing to the ground below.

In addition, quantification scope is inherently rightward grouping, thus running counter to Lojban's regular left grouping: in {tu broda ije da brode ija tu brodi da} one rule requires the whole to become a (particularly quantified?) disjunction with a conjunctive first part, another requires it to be a conjunction with a particularly quantified disjunction as second part. Presumably, the first is the official solution, but not necessarily the logical one.

  • I see three alternatives:
  1. {su'oda zo'u ga ge tu broda gi da brode gi tu brodi da}. Since {da} appears within both members of the disjunction, its quantifier must be in front of it. (I suspect this one is the official solution.)
    • Yes, I am reasonably sure this is the official line. We can probably come up with some good story about how the {su'o da} gets over the whole conjunction when it appears in only one conjunct. But notice that the two stories are opposed to one another. Why not have it go over a compound in which it does not occur at all?
      • Good point. The more I think about it, the less I like having the implicit quantifier leave its home bridi.
        • But that means either that there can be no short-form quantified complexes or the complexes are not equivalent to their unpacked versiosn. Neither of these is desirable -- even feasible, I think.
          • {da ganai broda gi brode} would not be equivalent to {ganai da broda gi da brode}, that's right, but it could still be unpacked with a prenex: da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode}.
    • Notice also that this problem arises even without negtions of any interesting sort. In fact, there are in logic a number of theorems about moving quantifiers over connectives. Very few of them are equivalences. But they all assume that we know where the quantifier is in the first place, which is just what we do not know here.
      • It now seems to me that the only sane alternative is to force it to its closest prenex. That means interpretation 2 below in this case.
  1. {ga ge tu broda gi su'oda brode gi tu brodi su'ode}, i.e. two different quantifications, assuming that the quantifier of da can't jump so far outside of where the variable first appears.
    • We could get away with this only if "sentence" in the definition of "scope" was limited by anything that contained {i} , which would ruin countless other cases.
      • Which cases would be ruined? This is my favourite interpretation at the moment.
        • Any -- every -- case where we wanted the variable bound in two different components -- which is most of them, I suppose. We could, I guess, insist that only fully prenex forms were grammatical, but that is not going to fly -- nor should it.
    • An alternative might be to have the variable bound by its highest occurrence, not by its first, but that seems to open a nest of interpretation problems as well (I have not sorted tham all out, however).
  1. {ge tu broda gi su'oda zo'u ga da brode gi tu brodi da}. This one is surely wrong as it violates the left grouping of jeks.
    • But enforces the right grouping of scope: a quantifier turning up works like a left parenthesis at the beginning of its minimum sentence. Not a likely reading, but not excluded by CLL in any clear way (because CLL is never clear on any of this) and certainly justifiable logically.
      • I don't like this one at all, if the quantifier can jump out of one connective, it might as well jump out of two (why open just one left parenthesis), as you say this gets easily out of hand.
        • This was my least serious suggestion. It violates symmetry all over the place and creates a rash of new problems -- but it is possible and has good logical gounds; just no Lojban ones.

pc: I think that one of the best arguments that quantifiers leap out of complex contexts without regard to the status of their first occurrence is that all of the basic connectives (except U) are symmetriccal, so, for example, nP & Q should be equivalent to Q & nP, making the first appearance of a quantified variable in both P and Q be in Q and so recto (inside an even number of negations in conjunction-negation normal form). But this does take some rewriting, too. (I wonder, by the way, what the effect is of a quantifier in the ignored component of a U compound.) On this view, then, a particular quantifier, wherever it occurs in a compound sentence, so long as its variable occurs in in more than one component, leaps to the smallest part (including the whole) that contains all its occurrences and keeps its particular character. Very much like the epsilon descriptor, on a more limited scale. I suppose that {ganai ge da broda gi da brode gi ti brodi} still comes out to the front as a universal.

  • I don't understand why it comes out as a universal. Is it because of the {nai}? Would an explicit {roda} come out to the front as a su'oda? I think it is better not to let it leap out.
    • Yes because of the {nai}. The smallest subformula containing all occurrences of {da} is {ge da broda gi da brode}which comes out to {su'o da zo'u ge da broda gi da brode} but that is the first component of a conditional and thus negated, so that the quantifier when moved before the {ganai} is {ro da}.
      • Yes, of course, I was confused. I was thinking of {ganai da broda gi da brode}.

I note also that {ganai da broda gi da brode} looks to be equivalent to {naku ge da broda ginai da brode} by simple De Morgan, but pulling the {da} to the front of this changes it to {roda} again, by the same argument (this is Peirce's standard universal conditional).

  • So, if I understand correctly, you are suggesting this:

ge da broda gi da brode == su'oda zo'u ge da broda gi da brode

ge da broda ginai da brode == su'oda zo'u ge da broda ginai da brode

genai da broda gi da brode == roda zo'u genai da broda gi da brode

genai da broda ginai da brode == roda zo'u genai da broda ginai da brode

ga da broda gi da brode == su'oda zo'u ga da broda gi da brode

ga da broda ginai da brode == su'oda zo'u ga da broda ginai da brode

ganai da broda gi da brode == roda zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode

ganai da broda ginai da brode == roda zo'u ganai da broda ginai da brode

I don't like the asymmetry. "If something is broda then it is brode" may make {ganai da broda gi da brode} look natural with {roda}, but then what about "something is broda if it is brode", shouldn't {ga da broda ginai da brode} get the universal quantifier as well? And there are other cases of universal "something" in English, like "something made of gold is valuable", so would that extend to {da poi broda cu brode} forms?

Over night I have come to the position that it really is a recto-verso matter (even or odd number of negations in AND-NOT normal form)for the smallest chunk that contains all the occurrences of the variable. Thus, I would now reject numbers 3 and 4 from your list, since the container is an unnegated AND, but also 5 and 6, where the container is a negated AND P OR Q) is NOT(NOT P AND NOT Q. I have to admit that I am not completely happy about 5, but everything else seems clearly right. Of course, spotting side on the fly is no snap, so maybe some other plan would be better for Lojban, whatever its consequence logically. But, as a rule of thumb, if the whole scope is atomic or conjunction or U, then the occurrence is recto (the quantifier on the outside is unchanged), otherwise it is verso (quantifier changed). Of course, that scope may be buried and thus be further changed as the quantifier is moved to the front of the whole compound.

The "something" cases are a bit risky to use; at most they show that the universal reading of particulars is not unprecedented, but they cannot be generalized. I would suppose that "Something gold is valuable" needs {roda} in Lojban (unless "something" is /smthn/, in which case the claim is not universal anyhow).

  • So, would the recto-verso system work like this:

ge(nai) da broda gi(nai) da brode == su'oda zo'u ge(nai) da broda gi(nai) da brode

gu(nai) da broda gi(nai) da brode == su'oda zo'u gu(nai) da broda gi(nai) da brode

ga(nai) da broda gi(nai) da brode == roda zo'u ga(nai) da broda gi(nai) da brode

go(nai) da broda gi(nai) da brode == roda zo'u go(nai) da broda gi(nai) da brode

(where the nai's on the left match those on the right)?

  • Would we also have:

ga(nai) roda broda gi(nai) da brode == su'oda zo'u ga(nai) da broda gi(nai) da brode

go(nai) roda broda gi(nai) da brode == su'oda zo'u go(nai) da broda gi(nai) da brode

? These ones seem fairly unintuitive.

They do indeed, but the alternative seems to be to have {da} and {roda} amount to the same thing in disjunctions and equivalences and that is even more counterintuitive. Or come up with another rules that gets right what this one does but also gets these cases right as well (assuming we could agree on what is right).

On the other hand, if we treat "if everything is F then it is/ they are G" as we did the same pattern with "something," then that form does imply "there is something such that if it is F then it is G," just as the "something" form turned into a universal. In neither case does the inference go the other way, however. But these go beyond strictly working internal quantifiers outward, so again it is merely a suggestion that the step in question is not crazy, not a guarantee that it is right.

We could, I suppose, go to having the quantifier as given come out to the smallest unit containing all the occurrences of the variable, but that seems to ignore negation, to the point that one wonders why {da na broda} needs to be expanded to {roda naku broda}. But altering that does seem to be going too far.

  • "Quantifier comes out as given" seems to be the safest path. Otherwise we get very strange results for quantifiers other than su'o, things like {cida broda gi'a brode} become quite odd.
    • Numerical quantifiers are improper symbols and the way they unfold in logic makes "coming out as given" almost automatic, regardless of what happens with {su'o} and {ro}. I don't think they count as evidence either way -- from the logical point of view; maybe they do for Lojban.
  • The behaviour of {na} when right in front of the selbri is broken in any case. {da na broda} is supposed to be {roda zo'u da naku broda}, but {da na broda gi'e brode} has to be {su'oda zo'u ge da naku broda gi da brode}.
    • Does it? Giheks join bridi tails, so presumably the {na} has the whole sentence as its scope: {naku da broda gi'e brode}, that is, {naku ge da broda gi da brode}, which ends up a universally quantifed disjunction when all is said and done. Your proposal seems to come from {da broda nagi'e brode} and so is not an exception to the original suggestion nor to the negation rule within the "come out as presented" rule. Again, it is not clear how decisive all this is one way or the other.
      • At least for the parser, na is part of the bridi tail, so {da na broda gi'e na brode} parses as {da (na broda) gi'e (na brode)}. That proves nothing, of course, but if we are going against that parse we should have some justification. If the first na takes the whole sentence, bridi-tail connectors would not be symmetric. I could have given {da brode gi'e na broda} as the example, which is just slightly less striking. I agree that none of this is decisive one way or the other, but the more we stray from the parse structure, the more likely it is that we will run into this type of conflicts.
        • Well, the parse structure is notoriously uninformative for logic: the notion of a bridi tail to begin with and then putting the negation in it for another. In fact, {na} seems to turn out to be part of the selbri in the parser, and that is clearly wrong logically: {da na broda} is explictly distinguished from {da nalbroda}. The parser is constrained by the limits imposed by YACC and is often misinforming about crucial things. That being said, your reading has at least the parse going for it; mine has a couple questionable lines here and there in CLL -- probably meant to be restricted but not presented as such. A third possibility -- also based on CLL text -- would be to say that the original sentence in question is equivalent to {ge da na broda gi da na brode} from which the {da} apparently would be extracted as {su'o da} in spite of all its occurrence being in overtly negative context. If nothing else, all of this makes clear how much CLL needs further elaboration, which is the task that is being undertaken (Huzzah!). I suspect that any decision on some these issues can be made to work with only occasional difficulty (we don't do a lot of complex sentences really), but we need to be careful that the various decisions cohere and that they are expounded both in generality and in how that works out in particular cases. I notice the same run of problems coming up with tense and modals, even though tense is probably the most thoroughly worked out feature in Lojban. The "tuck it inside" design scheme kicks back mightily later on (though the "leave it front" is often unspeakable -- in several senses).
          • {roroi} and {su'oroi} are good "tenses" to start with, as they work like pure quantifiers. The usual interpretation is that {na roroi broda} and {roroi na broda} mean the same thing, but I don't see any justification for that, given that both the negation and the quantifier are at the selbri. And the same goes for other tenses "regularly not broda" is not the same as "not regularly broda".


text:
Scheduled Cloud infrastructure updates.

Latest news from the space have reached our station – seems there are some changes coming this Saturday. From 8:00 to 10:00 GMT+0 the Cloud update will be rolled out during which there might be some interruptions in the Cloud service. Other services will not be obstructed.Have an amazing weekend and do not forget to take a peek at the sky!Best ...

Hosting servers maintenance

Today we are performing maintenance work on one of our Hosting servers, which could result service disturbance. All other services will not be affected.

If you have any questions, please contact us at


text:
About Us | Contact Us
View Cart

Subdomain Hijacking Attack Gives Hackers Access To Legitimate Sites

By Vigilize | Monday, July 22, 2019 - Leave a Comment

The attack hinges on a common mistake made by large organizations…

An article review.

When evaluating a suspicious link, you probably scrutinize the URL to make sure it’s the site you intended to go to—not one that is slightly misspelled or has a zero in place of an O, for example—but what if the bad guys have access to a URL on a valid, working domain? A new attack can give hackers exactly that, and it all depends on domain owners making a minor, common mistake.

The attack, announced in June by two Israeli security firms, focuses on temporary subdomains created by a company for promotions or other special events. After the end of the promotion, the company spins down its cloud hosting for the promotional site—but forgets to remove the DNS records for that subdomain. At this point, a hacker with an account at that same cloud hosting provider can potentially create their own host, request the name used by the company’s legitimate cloud instance, and assume control of the subdomain.

With control of a valid subdomain, hackers can then set and access cookies and authentication tokens for that domain and could even appear to have a valid security certificate, making it nearly impossible for the user to know they are on a malicious site.

The good news is this attack, while potentially very damaging, requires a specific set of circumstances to be achieved. The bad news is, according to the researchers, large corporations make this kind of mistake often due to poor communications between the teams responsible for DNS records, and the teams responsible for promotional events.

Since this attack can result in a site that holds up to reasonable scrutiny, there are not many things an end user can do to avoid it–other than check to see if the promotion or event the URL was created for has ended. The impetus is on corporate network operations teams to stay on top of their DNS records, protecting both their users and their reputation.

Original article by Jim Salter writing for Ars Technica.

Latest News
      Alternatives From 2020 Conferences The 2020 Update Another one of those Dan’s New Leaf Posts, meant to inspire thought about IT Governance . . . . Each year as we go to various conferences throughout the Midwest ranging in scope; from small banker conferences that Dan himself moderates, to hacker conferences like Defcon.  We […]
    Another awareness poster for YOUR customers (and users).  Now that we have our own employees aware, maybe it’s time to start posting content for our customers! Download the large versions here: Awareness Poster (Portrait) Awareness Poster (Landscape)   You are welcome to print out and distribute this around your office.
    The IBA Presents an infotex Workshop: Tech-Shop (A Virtual Workshop for Banks IT Geeks) Live Workshop Time for a workshop for the technical side of the community-bank. Time for a workshop full of command lines and configurations, acronyms we are forbidden to use around management, and even dark-web jokes. Time for a workshop where we […]
    An Analogy… …About Taking Better Notes Another one of those Dan’s New Leaf Posts, meant to inspire thought about IT Governance . . . . An interesting set of metaphors arose out of our efforts to improve our time management practices at infotex.  In the spirit of sound strategic planning, we as a team decided […]
    A Webinar-Movie In our current world of uncertainty there is at least one thing that is certain. Business needs to continue, and that means that it is important for managers to be able to meet with their team even if everyone is working remotely at this point. In this Webinar-Movie, Dan will compare virtual meeting […]


text:
Servicing Harris County, TX, Fort Bend County, TX and the surrounding communities, Call us on 346-264-2660

Individualized care that prioritizes your safety and comfort
professional caregiver joyful nice pleasant women smiling and looking at the elderly men while helping him to walk

We work to the best of our ability to ensure that you or your loved ones can get the quality care that you deserve. This is why we provide personalized Home Care Service in Katy, Texas, available 24/7 and can be customized to meet your individual needs. Our services are a perfect solution for adults who are not ready to leave their homes, offering them a safe and reliable care option delivered right where they are most comfortable.

For your convenience and well-being, we offer:

Get in Touch

Should you have any inquiries or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us. To get a customized care plan for you or your loved one, you may also set an appointment with us for an in-home assessment of needs.


text:
Mycroft Project

Install plugin

This page allows you to install the selected plugin.

Currently only working for Firefox.

Click on the magnifying glass icon in the Firefox search bar or the Page Actions "..." in the location bar

There will be an option to 'Add UCSB Library Site Search' or 'Add Search Engine'.