Any Way To Watch Southpark On Iphone

L or promise ! Having published a few posts, I had long been prepared, I have already prepared a new post in character self-ironic, grotesque ... In short, one of those designed to talk about other things other than the news and politics. In other words, a post to lighten the tone and escape from reality in a particular way. The theme that will be? the holiday season of course!
But until then you have the patience to endure some minor post lightly, knowing that I'll do anything to relieve their burden.

First post of the series: "Long live Italy, or how to be proud of their country and live with others without having to bear all aspects.
days ago, surely you will remember, after the indictment of Amanda Knox for the murder of Meredith Kercher, have appeared in newspaper articles and television services over Tg, which told of the interest of the Clinton administration (Secretary of State is not a foo any) in respect of that matter. Most of these articles and, in practice, reported Clinton's statements with which he expressed, at the urging of a U.S. senator, his willingness to listen to anyone who fears that the decision had been influenced by anti-American sentiment.

Some articles claimed that his conviction had, in fact, deeply shaken the United States.

now three thoughts:
1) I do not think that this affair has been deeply shaken the entire nation U.S. , especially given the very different situations that should shake so;
2) I do not think Clinton, is so interested and willing to consider such matter, given the commitments and the issues much more deeply the merged;
3) there is no question that the sentence is conditioned by anti Americanism that afflicts Italy and the Italians, just because no anti-American sentiment belongs to us.

If anything this is the point to be thorough and must say that this claim outraged and offended, because such a feeling does not belong to us and the proof is that we have far more sadly ill-digested judgments and solutions that we have made little justice, without affecting the feelings of cooperation and coexistence with the United States America.

no shortage of examples:

A) the first story: Sigonella and ACHILLE LAURO : even talk of 1985 and the post is to refresh your memory. In summary, it is best to read the link, the conflict and the diplomatic crisis between the Governments of Italy and the U.S. occurred because, in spite of the Achille Lauro was in fact part of our territory, as the Italian ship, the U.S. wanted conduct an force to free the hostages, despite the opinion of Italian and the contrary decision of our government. In short, a great respect for the sovereignty of our country and good demonstration of Italian yarn (other than hatred and feeling anti-American);

B) second story CERMIS OF CABLE CAR: another link. In summary, the story is also known as the massacre Cermis as referring to a fact that has killed 20 people by a U.S. aircraft in the Italian skies.
E 'February 3, 1998 at 15:13 and a U.S. military plane took off from Aviano Air Base during a training flight, slicing the wires of the cable car Cermis in Val di Fiemme, causing the crash to the ground of the cable car from 80 meters in height, they were in the twenty people.
News: the plane despite the damage to the wing and tail returns to the base ... twenty people have could do the same. What can I say? certainly the pilot in training, had been until then, ill-trained and who knows if they took permission to fly. Of course, judgments regarding right and not influenced by Italian anti , I'll tell you how it went.
Italian prosecutors demanded the trial of four marine in Italy, but none was ever recognized the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Initially, all four crew members were investigated, but only the pilot Richard Ashby and his navigator cap. Joseph Schweitzer actually appear before the American military tribunal to answer charges of manslaughter. Summary of
proceso:
- the Military Court established that the maps do not indicate the edge of the cable car cables;
- but acknowledged that the EA-6B was flying at an altitude more quickly and much less than allowed by the military standards (the requirements imposed at the time a fact ' height of flight at least 2000 feet (609.6 mb);
- the pilot said that he believed that the minimum flight height was 1000 feet (304.8 m). The cable was cut at a height of 360 feet (110 m).
- the pilot maintained that the altimeter of the aircraft was not functioning properly, and claimed that he was not aware of speed restrictions;
RESULTS: In March 1999, the jury acquitted Ashby. Even the accusations of manslaughter against Schweitzer had no result.

But when justice is not motivated by feelings against someone and not be affected .... there is still another process, not a second-degree ). In fact, the two soldiers were again tried by U.S. court martial, but this time, for obstruction of justice for destroying a videotape recorded during the flight on the day of the tragedy . To this indictment were convicted in May of 1999. Both were demoted and removed from service. The pilot also was sentenced to six months in prison but was released after four and a half months for good behavior.

then condemned, but not for murder but for obstruction of justice ... sic!

But there is always the defense in February 2008, the two drivers have appealed the verdict and demanded the withdrawal of the radiation in disgrace, in order to recover the financial benefits accruing to the military. They said that at the time of the trial, the prosecution and the defense shook a secret deal to drop charges of multiple manslaughter, but he wanted to keep the charge of obstruction of justice "to meet the pressures that came from Italy ". It was acknowledged however that the plane was traveling at low altitude and the speed was excessive for the obstacles in the area. The icing

: occasion the accident, the husband of Clinton, dear Bill, then U.S. President, apologized for the incident several days later and promised compensation to the families of the victims money.
Result: The U.S. Senate has earmarked about $ 40 million for compensation to the families of victims and reconstruction of the cable car, but in May the same year the appropriation, which was rejected by a committee of Congress, has not been confirmed by Government in the person of the minister of defense. Compensation have therefore had to take in the first instance, the Province of Trento (fifty thousand euro for each victim and the financing of the reconstruction of the cable car) and then all of Italy (the repayment of the sums Province).

So if the wife is this and what her husband, then there is no problem for the promise of addressing the question of Amanda Knox.

To say, however, the full truth, I can not complain of an injustice to our country because the dead were not all Italians, who were only three, seven because they were Germans, five Belgians, two Poles, two Austrians and one Dutch. In short, if anything, we could talk about feelings EUROPEAN ANTI.

C) Calipari and the third story SGRENA : after the usual link I summarize, but the question is more recent (March 4, 2005) and the recall. He was killed Calipari, an Italian official or rather, the Head of Department of Information Service for Military and Security. By whom? United States Marines. Why? if we could play, I would say because he had freed a hostage, Italian journalist Sgrena, who was in the hands of kidnappers in Iraq. The truth is that the car was hit by several rounds of gunfire and the reconstruction of U.S. military and those who endured the fire (friend?) Are different. Again the American justice system "can not be affected by feelings of any kind" we have not seen. Italy, with anti-American spirit, October 25, 2007, through the Third Court of Assizes in Rome has acquitted the accused Mario Lozano, declaring not to proceed to default jurisdiction.
Tip: addestrateli better or are these troops on the ground or in flight that I do not always do much good!

D) fourth story ABU OMAR: still link you rely entirely this time and you will see that in this case of anti-American sentiment there's very little.

Morality and synthesis of the Post? If our senators and MPs are generally blamed for the lack of real and attention to the real problems of the people who elected them, the U.S. Senators shine, however, for fantasy. Talk about anti-American spirit that influences a decision issued by the Italian courts for the condemnation of a U.S. citizen as their murderer opinion that in the absence of standardized testing and just because we Americans on the boxes.
Before becoming the film (Italian cinema is always better in terms of their realism and concreteness) is going to review the many cases of justice in their country, in addition to the events that I mentioned. Yes, in those cases there were evidence, as yet to justice ...

Best Biotique Product For Hair

From our ontological understanding of eternal Defense

Understanding shapes itself through the super-position between concepts and relationships between concepts, eg, numbers and mathematical rules. The number 2 is an abstract concept and the plus symbol (+) is also a abstract concept that defines and characterizes a semantic rule for the addition of certain concepts that we call numbers. It is through this kind of relationship that most of our knowledge and understanding of the world is formed. Concepts are defined and, with them, rules for the relationship of this concept with other concepts often similar. Mathematics is a language, as well as logic. All science is an effort to conceptualize a broad universe and seemingly illogical or inconceitualizável in certain "conceptual boxes" and find rules of inter-relationship between these boxes that explain the experimental data.

Does a mouse is capable of understanding the relationship between light and dark and the presence of the sun in the sky? Certainly a laboratory mouse is not capable of this feat. To do this he must first ascertain and identify the sun, separate it from all other entities of the universe and conceptualize the star in his worldview. After realizing he needed to clear the relationship with the presence of the star in the sky. As ever talked with a mouse, do not know if he is able to make such a distinction. It is this kind of conceptualization and application of rules to pre-identified concepts that shapes the development of all our knowledge.

Our brain works so semantically, and also how our language works. First we need to conceptualize something in the world, we need to transform some "feeling" that we have in the first step, one word (neologism). If I understand well, it's often the first step is the separation between two opposing events, such as day and night, sun and moon, man and woman. Or the discovery of any event that needs to characterize: a new animal, a cell, an atom. So, after humans have a repertoire of words and ideas, they can now observe it in nature and realize it with more distinction. Before this process of conceptualization, the "thing" that we observe is simply seen as indistinguishable from any other things and difficult to observe, it is combined with the complexity of the unknowable universe. Our first step therefore is to identify it, associate it with a cerebral concept and, ultimately, to a certain word. Now we observe that we can differentiate from the rest, we can see this thing separately. The next step is to verify certain regularities in the behavior of our new concept just created. What we seek in this second point, therefore, are simple rules which could perhaps define the behavior of this new entity to a large extent. You can imagine, for example, that many animals do not understand the concept of sun, they "know" simply because their daily experience that the daily cycle is divided into: a part where you can see and elsewhere where it is not possible. But perhaps a mouse has not been able to associate with the possibility of seeing the presence of a reddish yellow ball in the sky. Humans were able to detect this regularity and, first, they thought were even able to control it through the beating of drums. Throughout our epistemological path, then we got to today complex science of astronomy, where we are able to observe astronomical events in other galaxies, and link them to other regularities and patterns. We associate these observations in words and associate those concepts to logical rules and causal formation of the same, set rules that define relationships between these symbols and that can be verified in the real world reasonably effectively. Such relationships were not invented by us, but were perceived by attentive observation of the physical world. This highly complex universe will also produce thousands of efficient causal logic that one day achieve, others are beyond our cognitive abilities and can never be understood by us.

====

A word is more frequently we use to describe something that fit a certain regularity which is in the world: fear, hunger, cold, hot. Sometimes this conceptualization may come as a first insight in the identification of a dichotomy: light and dark, full-empty, big-small. For the first time you create a light-dark dichotomy, it is understood much of the world, since it classifies certain regularities as happening on the day or night. Presence of the Sun: day. Stars in the sky: night. I am convinced that much more regularity than those in the universe we are able to check today [1] and also realize that these regularities dichotomous guide the development of science [2].

Then we need to create relationships between the words of our repertoire-of-words forming a network between these concepts and possible relations between them. Certainly we have in our brains a huge repertoire of causal relationships that never will we realize them. Something like: "if the car ahead stops abruptly step on the brake" or "if the car comes towards us astray," other people who have never thought about it (the event held the conceptualization of the idea) may enter panic when the car comes your way and do not know what to do. Both the forces of dichotomies concerning the validity and interpretation of many concepts are different from person to person, and also different relations between them. Even a cow can mean different things to different people. A guy born in the city and saw a cow two or three times in life will not have as complete an understanding of what is a cow and a cowboy who lives with them every day, but do not know much about computers, for example. In fact it is so complex inter-relationship between what we see, how we conceptualize and how we express ourselves in words and communication, which is hardly surprising that we can communicate in a "satisfactory" [4].

The set of concepts and relationships that we do is sometimes called, in philosophy of language, conceptual cluster-or group-conceptual. The formation of this group or network of concepts depends both on a formal learning - taken by individual schools and universities - and his direct experience with the concept. Probably the city boy learned what was a cow before seeing it. But it might not be able to see it grazing or ruminating. The concept of risk in large cities also depends on the individual's experience of walking through these cities, even more than what you have been told. Much information that we acquire is false or exaggerated, a social mask to hide the false reality of certain situations. There is much conceptual confusion in society and so it is always best to define what it is before you begin a certain subject.

Especially in relation to broader philosophical concepts or complex as the concept of democracy, equality and freedom are frequemente used incorrectly and misleading politicians and manipulators of public opinion.

===

Even in science, in the same area of \u200b\u200bscientific knowledge, researchers are often not able to talk in a different language. In many scientific discussions the two parties do not mean by using different vocabularies, or because they have different backgrounds - many coming from different scientific schools; chemical biologists x, x physical chemists, molecular biologists, biochemists x, etc.. not think that's an exaggeration to say that there is a science to every scientist and I am sure that many of the concepts discussed are not understood in the same way. When two scientists from different traditions or discuss times, probably one will be more convincing than the other in their arguments or have understood more completely the science of his time, perhaps if this gives better professionally than the second. Moreover, the cluster-concept formed by the second scientist to let him go toward the scientific solution to a particular issue that might become important after some time. This diversity of views is one thing that gives strength to science and any attempt to reduce her to try to produce researchers embedded in a production system is intellectually dangerous [5]. Thomas Kuhn says that a science but bland, repetitive and abrupt consists mostly of the scientific enterprise of an era and gives it its name: normal science.

Each scientist has a vision of science that practices of its own and different from the views of other scientists. Of course there is much agreement as well, but this diversity of views is one of the strengths of the scientific enterprise - which is always renew itself and rebuild itself. The Einsteinian revolution was a scientific revolution concept, where (according to Thomas Kuhn) some basic concepts of Newtonian physics have been subverted. The articulation of new concepts for this proposal which is perhaps one of the greatest geniuses of mankind has shown itself capable of universal regularities explain misunderstood before.

Every science has a well-established strong core concept, theorizes how the epistemologist Hungarian Imre Lakatos. Within this conceptual core, the scientists of the same area usually agree on the articulation of concepts and relations-between-concepts. Scientific knowledge is not yet so well settled and on the outskirts of this conceptual cluster-there are always issues that are poorly made and need to be better clarified. In these regions of the periphery of knowledge where scientists often disagree, they make connections between different concepts and their relations not being able to discuss or agree on certain particular cases [6]. Sometimes, some overly creative individual is able to penetrate the core concept of a scientific discipline and to show by arguments and predictions, it is incorrect, incomplete or poorly described. According to Thomas Kuhn, Einstein was able to question the concepts of mass and strength in Newton, transforming them in a way that changed the whole physical science, the most classic of scientific revolutions in the history of mankind. Einsteinian revolution was a conceptual revolution.

To confirm this idea I believe is still possible to generalize these considerations a little more and say that the whole world view is different for each different intelligence on our planet. Every human being has had a formal contact with the knowledge and practical contact with him. Every human being verified for himself the truth of statements like "the sun rises every day" or "the bus is 8:30" or "you can get robbed in Belo Horizonte" and know how to behave towards them: maybe the coach not so punctual, that is only off on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Every human being has a cosmogony itself, and will have throughout his life and learned about natural rules will probably a proper idea of \u200b\u200bhow the universe was created and explain it to know that you quenquer question about it. There are many scientists and science as there are many worlds as there are living beings. Each cluster-concept of each individual is unique and although many ultimate causes may be common to those living in the same universe, a single company-Christian heritage of the West, there is also much diversity within this and other cultural groups of humans. This diversity of world views only enriches the human experience. And if globalization somehow diminishes the diversity unfortunately doing all to see under the paradigm of modern times - it is possible stating that if she "steals" ideas of the original cultures and world views of diverse and contribute to forming a conceptual framework (meme) of mankind richer. If preservássemos more different cultures rather than pluck them and destroy them would certainly be able to build a set of worldviews even broader and more efficient to explain the surreality of the experience of being alive and discussing all these issues.

===

[1] I really believe - a kick - that the universe has much more order in it than any day we can conceive. I emphasize this point further limitation of our problems cognitive and computational than the infinity of the universe.
[2] In my area of \u200b\u200bacademic specialty - molecular evolution - for example, there is the eternal fight against the so-called neutralist selectionist. The former believe that most of the variations in DNA sequences found in organisms are adaptive and are there for checking the body which has a greater adaptation to the environment. Already neutralists suggest that most mutations in the DNA is neutral and does not cause any effect on the macro body [3]. Other dichotomies in evolutionary biology can be cited: x saltationism gradualism. Other concepts, like biological species, are so complex and so have been designed this way or that, which today consist of multiple-concepts are not necessarily consistent. The definition of species in bacteria is quite different from the definition of species in sexual organisms large, for example. Maybe it's time just to break this dichotomy, and invent other terms to define one or other event. Thus, the conceptualization underlying the advancement of scientific knowledge. The scientist conceptualizes, defines dichotomies, test them against nature and, if reasonably satisfactory to class division, will be specializing in a knowledge of descriptive and other class. The natural world is still completely unknown to us and that is why there is room for as many as there are scientists who really want and strive to discover and catalog the wonder of nature.
[3] neutralists we base their argument on the well-known fact that the genetic code is degenerate. Different DNA sequences give rise to the same protein, the protein molecules are "more important" for the characterization of phenotypes.
[4] Police speaking, this is disinformation generated by the media to hide the great political scandals and the big names and the wars, the manipulation of information that happens in the world becomes more diffuse concepts for many individuals who fail to understand regularities due to the exclusion manipulation and false concepts made by the media elites.
[5] See the example of genetics in Russia at the time of Lysenko.
[6] Today, the study of evolution of genes there are certain concepts known as paralogy or orthology that are traditionally difficult to be respected and there is much discussion within the science of what they actually mean. I believe that this difficulty is directly related to a theoretical problem in understanding the evolution of genes.

Want To Send Sms About New Born Baby

all my arguments

never said I was right. I'ma human being and I am limited, I will not always be right, or even a few times. My aim is to raise some concern in other human beings in relation to a particular subject in particular that I have become interested and believe that I have found - to pass it freely among the grids of my intellect - some important matter, interesting or curious about it. You can not write about everything in the world and choose some subjects in particular to write about because they are touched me somehow. Still, the moment that I write, it seems urgent to discuss such issues with another free-spirited soul.



When it comes to a more scientific or philosophical argument to write and be right, but to emphasize a point that has important finding in the discussion and see that argument being scrutinized by others. I write to be questioned, do not write and never wrote to agree with me. My main task in writing is playing with the reader, to dance with him, show him the pleasure to find this aesthetica rational thought or a particular line of argument. But my job is also to test the reader, see if that comes with the argument and check if they can build ideas that will add on the steps of our multidimensional understanding [1].

much better I'll feel better as a critic can show me a complete failure in my line of argument and show me the light that is directed logical thinking in that area of \u200b\u200bknowledge. I am not a receptacle of infinite knowledge and there are a myriad of issues that ignore solemnly - and others know where my only touches the surface. However, the reader may rest assured that when I write, I give my most sincere opinion about something. I avoid as much as I can from dogmatism or attempts of uninterrupted have my opinion manipulated or biased in some way. Often fail, however, this trail, and so I ask for help from my teammates to save me and indicate my failures.

My logical view on the world and on society, considering the regularities observed there extends from my everyday, through my political thinking to my work as a scientist and researcher. [2]



In my opinion, a scientific theory is simply an intellectual adventure where the researcher tries to describe how the universe works, in his view, for all the other people in society. This is what I am doing what is stimulating and every scientist to do. It is understood here as an intellectual study science any where you want to get some regularity in the world intellectually honest way, without bias or dogma of conduct.

There is a phrase often attributed to Albert Einstein, which reads: " The only man who is free of errors, is the one who sticks hit." Regardless of whether it was German or not that coined, I fully agree with it, risking always hit me and being covered in the same proportion of errors. I ask the reader to show me who is capable of. Humbly thank ...

(But also be sure that I will defend my ideas and their inherent logic to its limits break, where some of them have it scrapped altogether [3], and then succumb and accept competing views on the same topic. And perhaps, very careful, is you to be convinced of his own mistake by coming my question. Let us fight with loyalty and mutual admiration: I have a certain conviction that all honest search [4] the understanding is beautiful and should be praised!)

===

[1] One day I thought it would be well understood, I now see that distanced myself from the ordinary knowledge and have difficulty speaking the same language of my students.
[2] In one of the first texts of intellectual content that I wrote: " a guide to the skeptic Bohemian "already identified the difference between the scientist-to-door laboratory for the true scientist. The first is a good professional and the second also is a good citizen, always consistent in their views. Today also saw the same an interesting lecture of the controversial winner of the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1993 for his discovery of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). this TED conference, Kary Mullis differentiates individuals who are scientists during the week and are not on the weekends .
[3] Here, I quote another classic of this blog posting "Pierre Duhem was a physicist and philosopher Science Frenchman who lived between 1861 and 1916. For Duhem, a scientific theory consists of a set of statements and presents empirical consequences (EC). In contrast, however, Popper's thinking - that is, the refutation of an EC refutes the theory - Duhem states that the refutation of an empirical result does not necessarily refute the theory. Since the theory is composed of a set of statements, some of them can it be fake and some ad hoc device can be used to save the theory. The core issue is related to the fact that in an experiment, you never know exactly what you are testing a theory and is always tested in blocks, being tied to a particular set of assumptions. "Is this block Duhemian that the arguer must try to disprove my theory on that I agree to pass his version of the same event.
[4] The concept of intellectual honesty theft Imre Lakatos and consists in finding honest and non-dogmatic by the knowledge. This is so much honesty in the conversation of the day-to-day [5] and in the scientific quest [6].
[5] In the first case: how many people have not found in table bar that simply speak for speak and did not seem to make arguments that are not even logical, let alone non-dogmatic ... The normal individual does not seem to understand much on logic and appears to be highly influenced by the media to repeat falsehoods as necessary truths. Arguments from authority and outrageous fallacies are dogmatically repeated day after day by individuals who are unable to perceive themselves as mere meme machines operating to maintain the status quo. I do not believe at all that would be better to leave them so ignorant, for the good of the whole society. I do not think that it did not understand the logic of the discussion for cognitive difficulties or loss intellectuals. I believe otherwise, that education epistemological knowledge about the foundations of scientific thought is incredibly important to improve our society. I've been ignorant epistemologically and know the difference it made to my worldview better understand both the strengths and limits of knowledge, and the logical chain of assumptions and necessary consequences of them.
[6] In the latter case it is dictated by both (i) observation and analysis of empirical data and by (ii) construction of a metaphysical theory to explain all the observations logically. Such a theory should still be able to explain past events and predict future events, demonstrating that it has been able to understand certain logic inherent in the nature of the universe. This theory, in fact, need not be "correct" and can only be a crude but effective simplification (in terms of human life) of what happens in reality unattainable and absurdly complex.