Mental Models

A mental model is generally: --founded on hardly quantifiable, impugnable, obscure, or incomplete facts --flexible – is considerably variable in positive as well as in negative sense --effects as information filter[disambiguation needed] – causes selective perception, perception of only selected parts of information --compared with the complexities surrounding the world, it is very limited, and even when the scientific model is extensive and in accordance with a certain reality in the derivation of logical consequences of it. It must take into account such restrictions on working memory; i.e., well-known rules on the maximum number of elements that people are suddenly able to remember, gestaltismus or failure of the principles of logic, etc. --sources of information, which one cannot find anywhere else, are available at any time and can be used. Mental models are a fundamental way to understand organizational learning. Mental models are "deeply held images of thinking and acting." Mental models are so basic to understanding of the world that people are hardly conscious of them. From: Wikipedia/Mental Model

Great website!!

Ambiguous Words to Play With :-)

Dame Margaret Rutherford

Dame Margaret Rutherford

Biography and grave

Libraries of the Future: Tod Colegrove at TEDxReno

Environmental Toxins

Invisible Killers! Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Time Magazine Spacial

Truth?

WordTruth
Truth
Adultery ... Far Worse than You Might Think
Biblical Insights that are Out of Sight (part 1)
Biblical Insights that are Out of Sight (part 2)
Born To Die: The REAL Christmas Story
Confession - Insight into the Real You
Confession - The Ultimate Test of Truthfulness
Counseling Must be Based Solely on the Bible
Discipleship Must be Based Solely on the Bible
Divine Sufficiency or Divine Deficiency
Do You Really Believe What You Say About Prayer?
Every Thought Captive
False Teaching In The Church And How To Oppose It
False Teaching that is Easily Recognized and Exposed
Forgetting Your Sins . . . What Does the Bible Say?
Free Speech Either Exalts Self or Honors God
God's Truth is Your Foundation for Life
Good Works are not Good Enough and do not Work
Grace, Mercy, and Peace
Gratifying Yourself or Glorifying Your Savior
Heaven ... Are You Going There?
Illuminating the Gray Areas of Life
Is Jesus Lord of Your Life?
Is Self-Love Biblical?
Lies and More Lies: Can Lying be Eliminated?
Life's Most Important Decision
Living a Life of Grace and Truth
Living by Faith or Living by Feelings
Rejecting Popular Untruths - Forgiving Yourself and Forgetting Your Sins
Salvation Explained by the Romans Road
Spiritual Realities Before and After Receiving Christ
Taking God's Name in Vain is More than Cursing
Telling the Truth is Naturally Impossible
The Futility of Forgiving Yourself
The Most Difficult People In The World - Fools and Scoffers
Trinity - Think Bigger
TRUTH - The Measurement for All Aspects of Life and Relationships
Truth in Life Basic for Growth in Christ
Truth is Personal, Not Merely a Concept
Unmasking Lies that Masquerade as Truth
What Do You Believe? . . . No, Really
Words - The Thermometer of Your Heart
Your Way or God’s Way … Your Choice

U.S. Constitution

The Constitution of the United States of America
Fascinating Facts about the U.S. Constitution
The 1789 Project

Megan and Aaron

My dear friend Megan

Brain Games

Brain Games website with Brain Games :-)
THIS is why I say "There is NO truth"!

Conditional Logic Statements

Every geometry proof is a sequence of deductions that use if-then logic.
You write one of the given facts as statement 1. Then, for statement 2, you put something that follows from statement 1 and write your justification for that in the reason column.
Then you proceed to statement 3, and so on, till you get to the prove statement.
The way you get from statement 1 to statement 2, from statement 2 to statement 3, and so on is by using if-then logic.
A two-column geometry proof is in essence a logical argument or a chain of logical deductions, like
If I study, then I’ll get good grades.
If I get good grades, then I’ll get into a good college.
If I get into a good college, then I’ll become a babe/guy magnet.
(And so on . . .)
(Except that geometry proofs are about geometric figures, naturally.)
Note that each of these steps is a sentence with an if clause and a then clause.
From Logic for Dummies
Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic
Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic Conditional Statements and Material Implication
In logic, a conditional is a compound statement formed by combining two sentences (or facts) using the words "if ... then." A conditional can also be called an implication.
Wikipedia on Conditional Statements

Relativeism might be my box!

Relativism is the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.
Although I do not believe in boxes..........there is no spoon in the Matrix, don't try to put God in a box, etc.
My friend decided I should try this on for size............see if the box fits!!
Relativism is not a single doctrine but a family of views whose common theme is that some central aspect of experience, thought, evaluation, or even reality is somehow relative to something else. For example standards of justification, moral principles or truth are sometimes said to be relative to language, culture, or biological makeup. Although relativistic lines of thought often lead to very implausible conclusions, there is something seductive about them, and they have captivated a wide range of thinkers from a wide range of traditions.
Definition from http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/

Major Relativistic Variables

• Dependent Variables (What is Relative)
  • 2.1 Central Concepts
  • 2.2 Central Beliefs
  • 2.3 Perception
  • 2.4 Epistemic Appraisal
  • 2.5 Ethics
  • 2.6 Semantics
  • 2.7 Practice
  • 2.8 Truth
  • 2.9 Reality
• Independent Variables (Relative to What)
  • 3.1 Language
  • 3.2 Culture
  • 3.3 Historical Period
  • 3.4 Innate Cognitive Architecture
  • 3.5 Choice
  • 3.6.1 Scientific Frameworks
  • 3.6.2 Religion
  • 3.6.3 Gender, Race, or Social Status
  • 3.6.4 The Individual

  2.8 Truth Truth is important because it is a major goal of inquiry, a central component of knowledge, the thing justification is supposed to track, what valid arguments preserve, perhaps (in the form of truth conditions) a component of linguistic meanings and, for many people, a valuable end in itself. Philosophers call truth and falsity truth values, so it is natural to call relativism about truth truth-value relativism. Descriptive truth-value relativism is the empirical claim that in some cases the members of different groups believe different things to be true. Normative truth-value relativism is the claim that tokens of sentences, beliefs or the like are only true relative to a framework. Thus Kuhn says “If I am right, then ‘truth’ may, like ‘proof’, be a term with only intra-theoretical applications” (1970a, p. 266). Normative truth-value relativism comes in two versions. The weak version is the claim that there may be things that are true in one framework that are not true in a second simply because they are not expressible in the second. The strong version, which receives the most attention, is the claim that one and the same thing, e.g., one and the same belief, can be true in one framework and false in another. Relativism about truth boils down to relativism about belief, but rather different sets of issues are typically connected with central beliefs or principles, on the one hand, and issues about relative truth, on the other. The first set of issues involves what I will call framework principles, very general principles (e.g., every event has a cause) that guide classification and inquiry. By contrast, the second set of issues involves the strong version of normative truth-value relativism quite explicitly. Since the two sets of issues are rather different, we treat them separately here. Truth is a major flash point in discussions of relativism. The traditional indictment of the strong version of truth-value relativism is that it is self-refuting. The claim that truth is relative is, by the relativist's own lights, only true relative to some frameworks and it may be false relative to others. Hence, it is argued, the relativist cannot account for the status of his own claims. We examine this objection in §5.9.

5.9 Self-Refutation: Quicksand all the Way Down? Truth is the Achilles' heel of relativism. According to the normative thesis of strong truth-value relativism one and the same thing can be true relative to one framework and false relative to another, true for some groups and false for others, and ever since Plato's argument against this form of relativism in the Theatetus many philosophers have agreed that the view is self-contradictory or self-refuting. Plato's argument is sometimes known as the peritrope; it's a turning the tables, turning the relativist's line of reasoning back against itself to show that his thesis succumbs to the very relativity he defends. Relativists always face the occupational hazard of sawing off the limb they are sitting on, but with strong truth-value relativism they seem to cut down the whole tree. The Problem is General The problem of self-refutation is quite general. It arises when truth is relativized to a framework of concepts, beliefs, standards, or practices. It also arises for many of the more sweeping claims that central epistemic notions are somehow relative. If the epistemic relativist argues that all justification or rationality is framework relative, he lays himself open to the reply that his very claim is at best justified relative to his framework, only rational by his own standards, only defensible by his own guidelines, just as much a social construction as he insists everything else is. Plato's argument against strong truth-value relativism is typically said to go like this: either the claim that truth is relative is true absolutely (i.e., true in a non-relative sense) or else it is only true relative to some framework. If it is true absolutely, all across the board, then at least one truth is not merely true relative to a framework, so this version of the claim is inconsistent. Furthermore, if we make an exception for the relativist's thesis, it is difficult to find a principled way to rule out other exceptions; what justifies stopping here? On the other hand, if the relativist's claim that truth is relative is only true relative to his framework, then it can be false in other, perhaps equally good, frameworks. And why should we care about that the relativist's (perhaps rather idiosyncratic or parochial) framework? From: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/

The information trail..........

It all began as a question about medieval carts.............and lead to Gnosticism..........

Ozark Medieval Fortress

These linkspages will direct you to information on a diverse array of topics relating to the material culture of the Middle Ages and Renaissance

Renaissance Technology

Gnosticism

The Gnostic Society

And thrown in for good measure.............Zoroastrianism

And the Oxford English Dictionary, all 20 volumes!!

With a little help from StackOverflow

Celtic Myth Podshow

The Celtic Myth Podshow will tell you ancient tales and legends of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany and the Isle of Man bringing you the bravery of heroes and heroines, the magnificent pantheon of gods and goddesses and the magic and wonder of druids, faeries and folklore.
http://celticmythpodshow.com/ 

Merriam Webster dictionary

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zoroastrianism
My favorite place to "hear" words!!

Welcome to the Phrontistery!

I stumbled on this website while looking for types of materials.  The whole website is amazing!!

http://phrontistery.info/index.html

I'm your host, Forthright. Since 1996, I have compiled word lists in order to spread the joy of the English language. Here, you will find the International House of Logorrhea (an online dictionary of obscure and rare words), the Compendium of Lost Words (a compilation of ultra-rare forgotten words), and many other glossaries, word lists, essays, and other language and etymology resources. If you have a question, comment, addition, or suggestion, feel free to e-mail me. Happy word-hunting!

Freezer Meals

My daughter did a freezer meal weekend with friends and it gave me a great idea!! I want to do something like this too!! The two biggest problems I face are 1) these pies are loaded with fat, gluten and sodium 2)I don't have any recopies for doing this!
 So I am on a hunt for ideas.............

Convenience Cooking: 18 Freezer Meals from Martha
http://www.delish.com/recipes/cooking-recipes/freezer-meals#slide-1


Making 50 Freezer Meals in one Day
http://happymoneysaver.com/making-50-freezer-meals-in-one-day/

18 Casserole Recipes {including some that freeze and/or slow cook}
http://eatathomecooks.com/2012/08/18-casserole-recipes-including-some-that-freeze-andor-slow-cook.html

http://www.cranespiepantry.com/news_and_calendar.html
http://thehiddenpantry.blogspot.com/2012/10/freezing-chicken-pot-pies.html

I will look into this further...........

Austin Dillon

On November 4, 2011- Richard Childress Racing announced that Dillon would be moving up to the NASCAR Nationwide Series in 2012, driving the No. 3 that Dale Earnhardt made famous, with sponsorship from AdvoCare and American Ethanol. January 11, 2013- DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. -- Austin Dillon, the grandson of Richard Childress Racing's owner, will drive a Sprint Cup car with a Hendrick Motorsports engine at Las Vegas Motor Speedway.

Web standards for Web development

Web standards include many interdependent standards and specifications, some of which govern aspects of the Internet, not just the World Wide Web. Even when not web-focused, such standards directly or indirectly affect the development and administration of web sites and web services. Considerations include the interoperability, accessibility and usability of web pages and web sites.
Web standards, in the broader sense, consist of the following:

• Recommendations published by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)^[2]
• Internet standard (STD) documents published by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
• Request for Comments (RFC) documents published by the Internet Engineering Task Force ^[3]
• Standards published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ^[4]
• Standards published by Ecma International (formerly ECMA) ^[5]
• The Unicode Standard and various Unicode Technical Reports (UTRs) published by the Unicode Consortium ^[6]
• Name and number registries maintained by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) ^[7]

Web standards are not fixed sets of rules, but are a constantly evolving set of finalized technical specifications of web technologies.^[8] Web standards are developed by standards organizations—groups of interested and often competing parties chartered with the task of standardization—not technologies developed and declared to be a standard by a single individual or company.^[8]
It is crucial to distinguish those specifications that are under development from the ones that already reached the final development status (in case of W3C specifications, the highest maturity level).^[8]

^{From Wikipedia}

The Unicode Consortium

http://www.unicode.org/
All I wanted was a clear cut definition about the difference between Unicode and UTF-8
This opened a whole can of worms!!
Hence, my blogging..............

Unicode

Just some random musing on Unicode from  Joel's blog:

Back in the semi-olden days, everything was very simple.  EBCDIC was on its way out.  The only characters that mattered were good old unaccented English letters, and we had a code for them called ASCII which was able to represent every character using a number between 32 and 127. Space was 32, the letter "A" was 65, etc.
The IBM-PC had something that came to be known as the OEM character set which provided some accented characters for European languages and a bunch of line drawing characters,  horizontal bars, vertical bars, horizontal bars with little dingle-dangles dangling off the right side, etc., and you could use these line drawing characters to make spiffy boxes and lines on the screen, which you can still see running on the 8088 computer at your dry cleaners'.
In fact  as soon as people started buying PCs outside of America all kinds of different OEM character sets were dreamed up, which all used the top 128 characters for their own purposes. For example on some PCs the character code 130 would display as é, but on computers sold in Israel it was the Hebrew letter Gimel (), so when Americans would send their résumés to Israel they would arrive as
rsums.  (Love this analogy!!)

Eventually this OEM free-for-all got codified in the ANSI standard. In the ANSI standard, everybody agreed on what to do below 128, which was pretty much the same as ASCII, but there were lots of different ways to handle the characters from 128 and on up, depending on where you lived. These different systems were called code pages. So for example in Israel DOS used a code page called 862, while Greek users used 737. They were the same below 128 but different from 128 up, where all the funny letters resided.

Almost every stupid "my website looks like gibberish" or "she can't read my emails when I use accents" problem comes down to one naive programmer who didn't understand the simple fact that if you don't tell me whether a particular string is encoded using UTF-8 or ASCII or ISO 8859-1 (Latin 1) or Windows 1252 (Western European), you simply cannot display it correctly or even figure out where it ends. There are over a hundred encodings and above code point 127, all bets are off.

About the author.

I’m Joel Spolsky, co-founder of Fog Creek Software, a New York company that proves that you can treat programmers well and still be highly profitable. Programmers get private offices, free lunch, and work 40 hours a week. Customers only pay for software if they’re delighted. We make Trello, easy web-based collaboration software, FogBugz, an enlightened bug tracking and software development tool, and Kiln, a distributed source control system that will blow your socks off. I’m also the co-founder and CEO of Stack Exchange. More about me.

Kyle and Kurt Busch

Just about NASCAR!!