text:
Q: How to split a wikipedia page into paragraphs using python? I used the Python wikipedia library to extract the content of a Wikipedia page. I want to process each paragraph of this content (for example count words of each). What is the best way to split wikipedia content into paragraphs?
import wikipedia as wikipedia

def getPage(title):

    content = wikipedia.page(title).content
    #for each paragraph in content do:
        #...

A: Bad way
The wikipedia library does not provide such information.
You can see in this example that the returned page content does not contain most layout elements:
import wikipedia
print(wikipedia.page("New York City").content)

"[...] and sports. Home to the headquarters of the United Nations, New York is an important center for international diplomacy.Situated on one of the world's largest natural harbors, [...]"

There certainly are hints of them though, but these are tedious to parse:

*

*Some paragraph splits like the one above have no spaces after the last period of the previous paragraph;

*Titles use a notation like == MyTitle ==\n;

*Newlines are printed.

Defined wikipedia sections
If you're looking for defined sections, try the wikipediaapi library, which is more active and more complete.
With it, you can get the sections easily:
import wikipediaapi
page_py = wikipediaapi.Wikipedia('en').page('New_York_City')
print(page_py.sections[0].text)

"In 1664, the city was named in honor of the Duke of York, [...] seized it from the Dutch."

This approach gives you very clean text, but there is no way to identify paragraphs within sections.

Html paragraphs
If however you're looking for paragraphs defined as <p>...</p>, you'll need to parse the html and do some cleaning.
Here's one way to achieve that (using BeautifulSoup4):
import bs4
import requests
import unicodedata
import re

def get_paragraphs(page_name):

    r = requests.get('https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/html/{0}'.format(page_name))
    soup = bs4.BeautifulSoup(r.content)
    html_paragraphs = soup.find_all('p')

    for p in html_paragraphs:
        cleaned_text = re.sub('(\[[0-9]+\])', '', unicodedata.normalize('NFKD', p.text)).strip()
        if cleaned_text:
            yield cleaned_text

print(list(get_paragraphs('New_York_City'))[0])

"New York City (NYC), often called simply New York, is the most populous city in the United States. [...] Home to the headquarters of the United Nations, New York is an important center for international diplomacy."

This approach might be the best despite the cleanup not being perfect.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


If my example is anything to go by, a McKinsey career can blend with family life very well.
As the general manager of a country club in LA, California, I was unsure about changing careers. I led a manageable lifestyle and considered myself a family-oriented person. Consulting demanded long hours, I had been warned, and it was therefore not a good fit. I quickly learned that this wasn't true.
When joining McKinsey, I already had four young children and wanted both to excel at work and spend enough quality time with my wife and kids. I learned it's not only doable, but McKinsey has a few unique advantages that I'd be hard-pressed to find elsewhere -- like bringing my family along on events or projects, or taking extended time off. I was especially excited by how easy it was to take a month or two off in the summer to spend with the kids.
There's no question you need support to balance work and family and neglect neither. My support comes not only from my saintly wife, Laira, but also from McKinsey in many ways. For example, I can limit my travel to spend more time at home and less on the plane. The office also provides many opportunities for my family to meet and make new friends among my colleagues, and it feels like a genuinely family-friendly environment.
Although a consultant's work is amazing for single people keen to travel the world, have impact like nowhere else (where else can you train 500 people on transformation techniques or coach a global CEO?) and make lots of new friends, it can be very rewarding for people keen on a family as well. Just set and communicate clear expectations and lean on the support you have, both at home and at McKinsey. In the end, I find it sustainable to give both the client and the family 100% -- and I wouldn't have it any other way!


That seems to be the battle cry these days. Keeping your blog as updated as possible does make sense. Although some argue that quality matters less than quantity, while this is true, I can say without a doubt through my own experiences, that if you have more content, you're going to get more traffic than if you have less content, as long as you maintain quality. At one of our past events, Chris Brogan mentioned seeing similar results – when he posts fewer times per week, his traffic goes down.
That of course doesn't mean you should just be throwing crap up on your blog to try to hit a certain number of posts every week. I think most serious bloggers understand this. However, I still see a lot of bad posts in my Twitter stream every day. Remember, it only takes one bad post to make someone unsubscribe (or never subscribe in the first place).
In other words, make your coverage of the story something different than what people are going to read from a huge news outlet. For example, when Pinterest announced the addition of "secret boards," we didn't just post about this new feature, which many were doing. We posted three ways to use secret boards, so our story was unique and helpful to readers.
If you're dead-set on posting news stories that report just the facts, consider taking a new approach to your blog completely and really attacking one specific niche. For example, if you like entertainment news, maybe instead of posting all sorts of celebrity news, which sites like TMZ already do, you can post specifically about celebrity babies or a certain genre or music or celebrities who are buying homes. Nich-ifying can help you find an audience even if you're not publishing unique stories.
I love a good quote, but if the entire story is just quoting another blogger or news story, you might as well be scraping their content. Yes, it might be completely valid to publish a small part of someone's post with a link back to the rest, but that doesn't make you a blogger. It makes you a content curator. Again, what can you add that makes the story special or adds another layer or helpfulness?
Your actual posts should be more than just republishing someone else's words.
I love to read what you think about a certain topic, but what I love every more are practical tips. Don't just tell me why. Tell me how. If all I can do is read your information, but I have no idea how to actually apply it to any part of my life, your post isn't very beneficial to me.
I'm guilty of this one. I think we all have a tendency to get really passionate about our opinions. And while opinions are great, they rarely stand alone if there's no practical counterpart. Sometimes, this is as simple as including a few links to post that are straight-forward how-tos. Your entire post doesn't have to be about teaching someone how to do something.
The problem is that many bloggers publish these types of posts but never follow up. So, as a reader, I'm lost. Don't write "10 Reasons Why You Should…." unless you follow up or link to how to actually do that task. You've convinced me! Now tell me what to do to get started.
Worse than "theory" posts are common sense posts. I get it; we're all beginners at some point. You can't ignore your readers who are just learning about a topic for the first time. Only posting advanced-level stuff isn't the right choice for most bloggers.
But even beginners have common sense.
For example, let's say that your blog is about cooking and you want to publish "10 Things Every Kitchen Needs." That sounds like a great post – but if your 10 items include a pot and a pan, I'm going to roll my eyes. Newbie cooks might not realize how helpful it can be to own a strainer or a food processor, but come on…they know that they need a pot and a pan.
Take things a step farther and be more useful. If you're going to do something so 101-leve that it includes telling new home chefs to buy a pot and pan, at least tell them what kind to buy and why. What size is best? What material? What brand? Go a step beyond common sense, even with your beginner-level posts.
If I click on a post you share on Twitter and the content doesn't deliver what the headline promised, I'm probably going to unfollow you. Your headline builds trust with the reader. If your content isn't what they expect, you lose that trust, and it's nearly impossible to get it back again once lost.
The biggest offender I see of this is the use of the term "secret." If you're going to give me "10 Secrets to Writing Better Blog Posts," I better not show up to your post and see that secret number one is to optimize for search engines, secret number two is to use headers, secret number three is to include an image, etc. Those are not secrets. Those are 101-level tips. "Secrets" implies that the post is going to be advanced – that these are tips I've probably not come across before or am not already using.
Another offender is telling me something is "awesome" or "killer" or "ninja" or "rock star." If you use any of those terms, you better deliver on that promise. It's not that you have to stop using these words (and related words) to describe your content. Just understand that you're setting the bar high, so there's a bigger probability that people will be disappointed by the content if it doesn't deliver.
Sometimes, there are unforeseen circumstances that require us to be away from our blogs. When you're ready to start up again, it's really tempting to write a "Sorry for being gone" post to explain what you were doing.
To me, that's a throw-away post. Unless what you were doing is super interesting, I don't need to hear your excuses and explanations. I just want posts like you used to publish. Mention why you were gone at the beginning of your next post if you must, but just get back to your schedule instead of spending 500 words to tell me that you had the flu or were snagging some beach time.
A few months ago, I wrote a post about blogging success and whether your success stems from content that helps people or content that is simply what people want to hear. The latter is little more than ego-stroking. It really isn't hard to get people to rally behind you when you say, "Hitler was bad." This is also true with less extreme examples. If your audience is primarily working moms, it isn't hard to get people to agree with an op-ed about the need for flexible scheduling for parents who work.
When I first started blogging, I wrote a lot of this type of post. But you know what? They're kind of dumb. Congratulations, you found a creative comparison between two things. Unless your post is meant to be funny (Think: "How Your Baby is like a Tiny Ninja") or teaches you something interesting (Think: "How Soft Drinks are like Addictive Drugs"), the post is another throw away.
Even if you think your post is teaching something, ask yourself…"Is it really?" Remember, you want people to walk away with specific, practical tips not a bunch of random information that doesn't really relate because you were stretching to find comparison points.
When you're snarky on your blog, you're really nothing more than an online, adult bully. Yes, it can make you popular, because some people thrive on drama, but will it make you respected? No way.
You can still be opinionated and even write in a "snarky" style. The key with snark is to talk about things that happen, not specific people or companies. Erika Napoletano is a great example of something who has a snarky writing style, but in a good way.
Of course, you can also still voice your opinion about someone or some company you don't like, but when you do so, have a little class. Make points that you can back up instead of just snarking. You're not going to do yourself any favors if you're just flat-out mean.
And keep in mind that when you're snarky, you lose business. Even if you see your traffic go up because people think you're funny or are attracted to negative leadership, when all you do is snark about crap you don't like, brands won't want to work with you. Brands like bloggers who give honest, thoughtful, thorough opinions, not drama queens (and kings).
When you post a rumor like it is news, it makes me question your dedication to the niche. It's okay to comment on rumors, but I've seen several popular blogs run rumors as though they are confirmed stories.
This happens even more frequently when bloggers are republishing blog posts that are republished from other blog posts. It's like a game of telephone. Along the way, rumors turn to facts, which can be confusing for the reader and unfair for all parties involved.
Take the time to find the original source of a story and confirm facts with a reputable site or expert. Hint: Wikipedia is not a reputable site.
Remember, gossip is as bad as rumors. Sometimes gossip is made up of rumors but other times, gossip is someone saying to you "I'm not supposed to know this, but I overheard…" If you can't confirm it by printing the source, it is as good as a rumor. "Facts" are overheard out of context all the time.
The media thrives on emotion. Facts are skewed so that someone's agenda is supported in the most emotionally charged way possible.
Sensationalism can drive a ton of traffic, but it ultimately damages your credibility.
When you post facts on your blog, be aware of your own biases. It's okay to post your opinion, but if you're presenting supporting facts, make sure those facts are accurate. If there was a study done, how many people took part in the study, how were they chosen to participate, and when were the stats collected? A survey of 60 people in rural Texas asked about their opinion on gun laws will yield a much different result than a survey of 10,000 people from across the country on the same topic. A study on cancer patients' diets done 50 years ago is going to give you different results than a study on the same topic done today.
In the end, make sure that the information you're posting is the most up-to-date, unbiased information possible, not just the best information to support your personal viewpoints. That way, if you're firing people up, it's for the right reasons, not because you're manipulating data to scare people.
Finally, I'm using a picture of a peacock here, because I hope you are always proud to show off your work. If a post isn't your best work, don't hit that publish button. Simple as that.
All the time, I hear the advice that your work doesn't need to be good, it needs to be "good enough." There's something to be said for analysis paralysis and being so caught up in the details that you never get the job done. However, if you write a post and feel "meh" about it, reconsider before you publish. How can I as the reader get excited if you as the writer don't even care?
You should always strive for the best. Pretend this post you're writing is going to be seen by Oprah. Imagine if you lost your job today and your last post was the post a new employer would be looking at to consider you for their open position. Get morbid and think about how the last post would represent you if you died tomorrow.
Take pride in the work you do, always. It only takes one bad post to make me hit the back button and be gone from your blog forever.
Your turn: What kind of posts do you wish people would stop writing?
Bloggers, Are You So Focused On "What Works" That You Forget "What's Right"?
Like all bloggers, I can sometimes get a little wrapped up in stats. I love looking at my traffic, doing split testing, and trying out new techniques. One of the reasons I enjoy attending NMX (previously BlogWorld) is learning new ways to get traffic, how to create content that engages readers, and build a brand online. I'm always interested in hearing about others' experiences with what works and what doesn't work.
But sometimes, I worry that we get so focused on what works that we forget what's right.
NMX has been part of the "are Internet marketers scammers" debate for quite some time, and I feel like this is the core of the issue: Almost any tool or technique used to make money online can be manipulated by scammers.
Let's use SEO (search engine optimization) and guest posting as an example. You can boost your SEO through writing high-quality guest posts on others' blogs and linking back to your own blog within the post or at the end of the post in a bio line.
Someone using this technique the right way will link to high-quality, relevant posts that give the reader more information. They'll be upfront about where the link leads and seek to guest post on blogs that have a connection to their own niche.
Someone trying to game the system will write low-quality articles stuffed with keyword links. They don't care about the topic. They don't care about whether or not the links are beneficial for readers. They only care about their precious links. Often, they don't even write these posts themselves, but instead hire freelancers. Now, as a freelance writer myself, I can say that there's nothing wrong with hiring a freelancer to write guest posts for you, but not if you pay them $3 per post to basically "spin" or even blatantly plagiarize stuff already online.
Luckily, Google is increasingly improving their search engine algorithm to prevent any kind of manipulation like this, but it still happens. I see it all the time.
It's tempting to do whatever works. You have to keep up with the Joneses, and if all the other bloggers in your niche are doing it to gain advantage, it's hard to say no. If crappy guest posts on unrelated blogs give you a huge boost in search engine traffic why wouldn't you do it?
Because despite it being what works, it's not what's right.
What is right for your readers? What is right for the Internet? Are you making the world better in some way or are you contributing to the problem?
I haven't always made the best decisions with my own blogs. I've tried techniques and tools that resulting in huge ROI, but just didn't sit right with me from an ethical standpoint. I think it's okay to make these mistakes as long as you're constantly monitoring yourself.
When's the last time you held yourself accountable?
The reason people who make money online (especially those teaching others how to make money online too) get labeled as scammers is because there's a lack of this self-regulation. We need to be better than that. Before calling out others we feel are scamming people or only contributing trash to the Internet, it's important to look internally. Ask yourself, what can I be doing better?
And definitely speak up. It can be intimidating to say that a popular blogger is doing something you don't agree with, but the only way this world of online content will get better is if we're all honest about our own activities and willing to vet our role models. When you go against the crowd with legitimate concerns, you might be surprised at how many people agree with you.
Lastly, if you're heading to NMX this January, please take the time to fill out the surveys about individual speakers after attending sessions or even just shoot us an email with any concerns. We don't just want to know who is a good public speaker. We also want to know who is teaching valuable information, not contributing to the problem by promoting techniques you consider to be scams. There is definitely some grey area here, but your opinion matters to us.
Of course, outrage ensued. Nearly all of my social-media-savvy friends commented on this story on Facebook, with most linking to it and some even writing their own blog posts about it. On the New Media Expo Facebook page, there's currently 50 comments on our share of this story…and counting.
In other words, people are not happy.
Cathryn is right that every generation has defining events and overall themes. These events or themes shape the way you think. I would go even further and say that this is not age-related. When you belong to a certain group, you have experiences that shape the way you think. I'm from a rural area, so I'm going to think differently than someone from a large city. I'm female so I'm going to think differently than a male. I'm tall so I'm going to think differently than someone who is short.
I'm 27, so I'm going to think differently than someone who is 67.
These differences do not wholly define us, nor do they make us better or worse than someone else. But let's not pretend that these differences aren't there at all, and age definitely leads to a different way of thinking. We don't always understand why someone older or younger than we are acts a certain way. This lack of understanding is not a problem unless we fail to acknowledge it.
In fact, I don't like the term lack of understanding. I would instead say that with each generation, there is a new understanding of the world. Not better, just new. We need to be honest about that.
Generation Y has a new understanding of social media. When we dismiss this fact, we fail to see the whole picture.
Social media is nothing new. At the heart of it, marketing is marketing, whether you are doing it on Twitter or on in a print ad campaign. But when marketing to different age groups, you wouldn't do it the same way. Think of an extreme case, like promoting a product to a 70-year-old grandparent versus a 7-year-old grandchild. If you use the same technique, you will probably fail because these people are at different points in life and want different things. But these people also want different things because of how and when they grow up. If you take that 70-year-old person and rewind until they are once again seven years old too, he's probably going to respond to the same marketing differently than the 7-year-old from current times.
As the age gap narrows, these differences aren't as stark, but they're still there.
So a member of Generation Y is, in general, going to have different needs than a member of Generation X. In fact, studies have show that there are stark differences between Generation Y and other generations.
These are of course just three examples of how Generation Y is different. Why does this matter when it comes to the age of social media managers? Because these differences aren't learned and can't be unlearned. They are natural and inherent. Many members of Generation Y don't remember what it's like to not have a cell phone in hand and they aren't on the same life paths that members of older generations were on when they were leaving high school and college.
I'm not afraid to admit that Cathryn is right: at 27, I'm already over the hill. How do I know this? Because whenever I'm visiting my family over holidays, I take the time to talk to my younger cousin, Katie (pictured at right), who is now 17 years old. Technically, we're both members of Generation Y, but I find picking her brain is fascinating and enlightening.
Did you know that when her and her friends want to plan something special, they don't send out evites? Okay, maybe not so surprising…but how about this: they usually don't create events on Facebook either. It's not for lack of checking Facebook. They're just not into it for anything casual. They instead start a text message chain and invite people and track RSVPs that way.
Did you know they don't have email? Part of the reason they definitely don't do evites or any other party-planning that requires email is not because they see it as out-of-date. It's because most of them do not have email addresses that they check with any level of frequency, just throw-away accounts they can use to sign up for stuff, but they never check.
Did you know that there's an immense amount of social pressure to be "seen" with the right people online? If someone who's not part of the "in" crowd in high school likes your Facebook status, your other friends will automatically NOT like your status unless a third person steps in and also likes the status? It's seen as a social stigma if you and a single other undesirable person like the same status.
I'm not ashamed to say that I did not know any of that stuff until Katie told me – and I don't understand it. I grew up liking evites and Facebook events. I grew up liking email. I grew up without social pressure online. I am different than she is. I wouldn't know these things without a discussion because they don't come naturally to me.
And that's what we need: not a debate or all-out war over who understand social media better, but rather a discussion so we can education ourselves about how different age groups view social media differently.
When you write definitive and defensive posts about how your generation is better, you close the door to this discussion. Similarly, when you leave comments on said post that are patronizing, you close the door.
I think Cathryn's post was poorly written and her argument was full of holes, yet every commenter who called her a child, claimed that she needs to grow up, or otherwise dismissed her opinions based on her age just proved her point that the older generation does not know how to effective communicate with the younger generation. We can't respect your experience if you can't respect our fresh point of view.
Where Cathryn ultimately fails in her piece is not in suggesting that companies need to consider hiring younger workers for social media management spots. I actually agree with her on that one to some degree. I do think that omitting younger people from this industry based on lack of professional experience is the wrong approach. Practical experience with social media should be worth as much as professional experience.
No, where I think she goes wrong is in asserting that there is nothing to be valued in professional experience at all. Being in the workplace, no matter what your job, teaches you valuable skills like team work, leadership, and organization. I know several people way past the age of 25 who do a lovely job as social media managers. What they lack in social media immersion they make up for in real-world education.
The solution is to open the doors to discussion in the world of social media. As a business owner, it's important to hire people who "get" social media. This might translate to mean hiring a 60-year-old candidate who has been active online in a professional sense for several years and was a marketing professional for decades before that. Or it might translate to mean hiring a recent grad who has a passion for social media and understand your consumers. Better yet, it might translate to mean hiring a team comprised of people from several different backgrounds.
In any case, in the new media industry, we need to open the doors to discussion more often. Instead of talking about why we're better and what we can teach one another, let's talk about why we're different and what we can learn.
For the past few weeks, and especially over the past few days, everyone is talking about the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), new legislation in the United States that seeks to punish people for posting pirated content. I didn't pay much attention at first. The name sounds nice, after all. I don't support illegal downloading, and I certainly don't want people illegally distributing the content I create. So my first impression, when I started seeing people tweeting about it, was that people were mad that they'd have to pay for things they should have been buying in the first place.
Today, I had coffee with Thursday Bram. She was in town (I live in the Washington, D.C. area) to hear Alexis Ohanian, co-founder of Reddit, speak to the Young Entrepreneur Council – and he was in town first and foremost to speak out against SOPA. So I thought I better come home and actually read about the legislation, to see what the big deal was.
Let me preface what I'm about to say with this: I'm not a lawyer and I normally don't get super political. So if you believe I'm thinking about this the wrong way or don't correctly understand what I've read about SOPA, please leave a comment telling me that. This is just how I'm interpreting things, and it is giving me an upset stomach, so I'd love to be wrong.
If passed, this legislation will scare people from sharing any link or user-created content at all because if the government (and those controlling the government though lobbyists) doesn't like it, you can be shut down. I'm reminded of futuristic dystopian works of fiction like V for Vendetta and 1984, where government controls the message at all times. That might sound a little dramatic, but those type of imagined futures don't happen overnight. They happen bit by bit, starting with legislation that seems like it's meant to protect us (or so we're led to believe). Legislation like SOPA.
Basically, what SOPA does is create a way for content creators (anyone from a large movie studio to an individual artist) to fight piracy, which is a good thing. But it also creates tons of loopholes for content creators to shut down anything they don't like or understand that they feel infringes on their rights. We're trusting people – people who have a lot of money at stake – to ignore these loopholes. It's like putting a big chocolate chip cookie and some carrots in front of a three-year-old and saying, "Honey, we trust you to only eat the carrots while I'm in the other room." Yeah right.
The loopholes in this legislation will get abused. That's a guarantee. They're too tempting.
And not just that, but frankly, a lot of the people in charge of the government and even businesses don't really use the Internet. They have interns who answer their emails and support staff who update their websites. We're putting our faith to make good decisions about our industry in the hands of people who have no clue what this industry is about. That's terrifying.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is supposed to protect us. Its "safe harbor" clauses give websites the chance to fix problems before being sued. Websites who make an effort to discourage copyright shenanigans don't have to worry about getting being blacklisted. Essentially, if you try to do the right thing, you're given the benefit of the doubt.
SOPA doesn't give you a second chance. I'm not advocating that a piracy site should get one, but I am advocating that a social sharing site, including forums, blogs that allow comments, social media networks, bookmarking sites, and so forth be given the chance to rectify any infringement problems, rather than just being shut down because a reader/user/member/etc. posted something that a content creator doesn't like. This is the kind of government blacklisting we're seeing in places like China. That scares me.
Worse yet is the vast amount of gray area when it comes to infringement. SOPA will squash creativity like song mash-ups, spoofs, covers by amateurs, and more. Even stuff that is technically allowed by law could be at risk because people will be scared. Today, they're taking down videos of someone covering a pop song. Tomorrow, they're showing up at the small-town bar we're you're singing karaoke. Like I said, complete government control doesn't happen overnight. Baby steps lead us down that path, a path where free speech is no longer allowed as we know it.
And to take things a step further…what about opinion pieces like I'm writing right now? It's a leap, but if SOPA passes, could someone in the future read this post and categorize it as content that promotes piracy just because I disagree with an anti-piracy bill? Okay, yes, that's quite a leap, but when writing this, I've been very careful to say multiple times that I don't support piracy, just in case. Baby steps.
Let me not forget to mention how ridiculous the penalties are for someone suspected of promoting piracy in any way. A content creator can completely cut you off financially in as little as five days, which is not enough time for most people to defend themselves. You could even go to jail.
That's right – jail. Up to five years. Because I posted a link to a YouTube video that uses background music without permission. Because that seems much more reasonable than just asking that the video be removed. Cue the black hood and handcuffs as I'm being dragged away by men in suits and sunglasses.
He's probably not a *real* pirate, right? Let's send him to jail just in case.
SOPA means that anyone who owns a website or creates any kind of online profile has to walk on eggshells. Part of the problem is that this legislation is so open to interpretation, that even if you aren't doing anything wrong but just look like you might be doing something wrong, you could be at risk. Guilty until proven innocent is not okay in my book. There are a lot of innocent people out there who could get unjustly accused.
This legislation could even affect what you send via email, from what I understand. That requires a heck of a lot more email monitoring than I'm comfortable with. I'm not naive enough to think that something I send via email has no chance of getting read by anyone else, but I am un-paranoid-y (that's a technical term because I can't think of a better word) enough to think that right now, people don't have a reason to care about my emails, so they probably don't get read by "the man." Under SOPA, email providers will have to care, and if you're sending something that looks like an illegal link, the black hoods will come out again.
Up until now, I've been pretty outlandish with some of my what-ifs, but something that is very real and that absolutely will happen if SOPA is passed is that really cool start-ups won't have a chance to succeed simply because they don't have the manpower to fight lawsuits or police what users are creating to the high standards that will be legally required. Tumblr, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, GOOGLE for crying out loud – these are all companies that couldn't have happened if SOPA had passed before they were founded. People out there are wondrously creative and smart, and we're going to miss out on a lot of really cool stuff because it will be too hard for these companies to gain any traction under SOPA. Take a moment to think of the crazy number of jobs that won't be created. Sounds really awesome for the economy, right? Even some big-name companies might call it quits if it because too cost-intensive to comply.
A world without Twitter? I think I have to change my pants again.
And you know what? SOPA has all these bad effects WITHOUT STOPPING PIRATES. Even if every single pirate safe haven online gets shut down, people will find a way to get what they want if they don't have the money for it. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to stop piracy, plagiarism, and general mean-spirited mischief online. It just means what we need to do so in a way that doesn't blanket-punish all the good kids in class because one student was talking during nap time.
Get out there and write to your congressmen and women. Blog about it. Support companies speaking out against it. Educate people who are, like me, in need of education about the topic. Let it be known, even if it passes, that you don't agree.
My name is Allison Boyer, and while I don't speak for the rest of the staff here at BlogWorld, personally, I don't agree.
I think I've ranted long enough, so now I want to hear your opinions. Has SOPA made you soil your undergarments? What are you doing about it? What do you think would be a better answer to online piracy?
Do We Really Need Another Blog About Social Media?
Earlier, I was talking to a friend about my job, and she mentioned that she's really been enjoying learning about Twitter and Facebook for her job. She's a great writer, so I asked her if she ever considered running her own blog about the topic.
Is this niche too crowded?
She's right. It's not just social media – it seems like the make money online/online marketing niche is getting more and more crowded every day. When I compile my Brilliant Bloggers posts, there's never a shortage of bloggers writing about SEO or copywriting or social networking strategies or whatever the new media topic of the week may be. My feed reader is overflowing, and every day, hundreds of links about social media and other online topics pass through my Twitter stream as people work to promote their work.
And I love it – I enjoy reading interesting posts. But at the same time, one of my pet peeves is seeing new blogs pop up that are saying the same thing that could be found everywhere else. Do we really need another blogger giving us Twitter tips? Do we really need another blogger writing about how because to market your blog on Facebook? Do we really need another blogger selling another e-course or ebook or whatever about promoting your posts?
Because here's the thing – although this is a super crowded niche, if you have a real passion for new media, I want to read what you have to say. Maybe I'll be interested in your point of view. Maybe it won't be for me. But you'll find your fans, as long as that passion for the industry shines through. As long as you let yourself come through in your posts, your blog will have something special that no other blog has.
Believe me, I'd like to tell you to stop. I'd like to say that we have enough – but we don't! Every day, I'm amazed to find intelligent bloggers who have original ideas about the same old topics. The best is when I find a gem that is so smart that I'm mad I didn't write it myself. You don't have to be someone who's been blogging for five years to write such a post – in fact, often the newest bloggers have fresh opinions that throw my mind for a loop.
I hate reading thrown-together blogs that people start without much thought just because they think blogging is an easy way to make money. I hate seeing blogs that have no personality, that are filled with content that is essentially rewritten posts from other sites. But if we're being honest, that's not what most bloggers are about. Most bloggers love this industry and really do want to get their opinion out there.
It is undeniably harder to stand out if your niche is crowded, but for bloggers that truly are passionate, it isn't impossible to be successful. There's always room for one more. In my opinion, no niche will ever be so crowded that someone who is passionate about the topic shouldn't start a blog if that's what they really want to do. The water's fine; come on in.
So yes, we really do need another blog about social media (or whatever your overcrowded niche of choice may be). We need you. There might be a million other blogs covering the same topic, but only your blog has you.
Given the name of this post, I wanted to have a picture of a fly. But ew, close up pictures of flies are nasty. Butterfly instead!
I think it is part of the human experience to wonder what other people think about us. For bloggers, keeping a finger on the pulse of your readers is important if you're trying to make money or increase your readership. If you get few comments, however, it is hard to know what people really think about you. Even if your community is vocal, its often the most violently upset or emotionally moved that comment, so you may only be seeing the extremes.
1. Set up a Google Alert for your name.
People mention other people all the time, but just because someone talks about you doesn't mean that they link back to your site. Or, they could link to your homepage, so you don't get the ping, but they don't send a ton of traffic your way, so you don't notice a spike and figure out where it's coming from either. Google Alerts isn't a perfect method, but it will help you see where people are mentioning you. Often, if they aren't talking about you on your site, such as they would in the comments section of a post, they speak more freely about their thoughts about you be prepared for both positive and negative comments!
Also, avoid telling people that you found out something they said because you were googling yourself. It still sounds creepy, even if we all do it.
2. Check out what Twitter lists you're on.
One of my favorite things to do is to see how other people have me categorized on Twitter. You'll likely see a ton of people listing you according to your niche (such as on a list called "food bloggers" or "writers"), but you'll be amazed with just how creative people can get with list names – and those names are telling. Are people calling you a teacher or guru or expert? That's an awesome sign. Are people constantly listing you as something you're not? You might be giving off the wrong impression. For example, it would be awesome to be on a list called "blogging authorities" if you blog about blogging. Not so awesome to be on that same list if you talk more about social media than you do about blogging tips. And if lots of people have you listed as someone who blogs about blogging, but your site is mainly about pets or dating or fashion or gardening or whatever? Well, perhaps you should reevaluate the links you're sharing on Twitter and your tweets, because you might not be reaching the right audience.
3. When you comment somewhere, subscribe to follow-ups.
People are often more vocal about your opinions when it isn't on your site, and if you don't have a ton of traffic, leaving comments on others' sites is a great way to get some feedback about your ideas (as long as you're actually adding to the conversation in a relevant way, not just spamming a popular site because you want attention). But often, we leave passionate comments and forget to actually check if there were any responses! Don't be afraid to subscribe to follow-up comments on websites if you say something passionate. Worried about getting too many emails? Bookmark the site. I keep a bookmark folder of the last ten places I left comments. When I comment somewhere new, I bump the oldest one so the list always stays manageable, and at the end of the day, I check over these posts to see if I got any responses.
Ok, those are my best three tricks for finding out what people really think of you and your blog so you can better manage your own community – what are your best tricks?
It's been a few days since Facebook announced their groups feature upgrades and bloggers are still buzzing about it. What I'm hearing most from people is the sentiment that your friends shouldn't be allowed to just add you to a group willy-nilly. You should have to opt in – agree to become a part of whatever group they're creating.
Frankly, the New Groups have clearly been designed for Facebook's "average" user. That is, he/she has around 130 friends and predominantly uses the platform for personal/social connecting, playing games, sharing photos, etc. I can actually see some reasonable benefits for the more personal users to connect with small groups of known Facebook friends and, of course, family.
Sure, we can adjust our notifications and we can just quietly remove ourselves from any Groups we don't care to belong to. But, we cannot turn off the "option" to be added to Groups.
I was shocked to read on Facebook's official announcement that we could "use Groups as a replacement for mailing lists." A forced opt-in mailing list? I don't think so!
But the question I have is this: Is a forced opt-in really the root of the problem with the new feature?
If you know someone and they share their contact information with you, you have the right to categorize them. Twitter already has this feature – you can create lists for people. Granted, Twitter does not have a way for you to mass-tweet to this list, but there's also no opt-in/out going on. People can add you to whatever list they want, so you might show up on some list called "hates-women" even if you do not, in fact, hate women.
When someone becomes your friend on Facebook, they are opting in to be contacted by you. The groups have a lot of functionality problems, which I'll talk about in a moment, but this isn't about opting in. If you don't want a specific person to contact you, don't be their friend on Facebook.
There is the argument that you want to keep in touch with someone but not be on some kind of mailing list for their business. That's where the "remove" feature comes in handy, in my opinion. You can very well decide that you don't want to be a part of a person's specific group, and once you do that, you can't be added by someone else again. It's like if someone has your email and is sending you personal notes, business communications, and funny chain letters. You shared your contact information with that person, so you can't be upset when they contact you. What you can do is email the person and say, "Hey Alli, your funny chain letter forwards* are clogging up my inbox and I'm not really interested in them. Can you stop sending them to me?"What Facebook does is even better – it forces the user to not email you in a specific way any longer. You're guaranteed not to get my forwards with the Facebook system, whereas with email, I might forget and keep sending them to you anyway.
Opting in is not the problem here, in my opinion. The problems lie with how the groups function. As it stands, they're nothing more than pages that a current member has to invite you to like. That's…well…stupid.
To be completely honest with you, I was about to take off for a flight to Vegas yesterday and opened up Facebook and saw the new groups. I created one for sports professionals and one for social media and realized that people were active in them immediately. It wasn't until I landed 6 hours later that even more people were commenting on them, everyone was trying to join them, and I was getting notifications like crazy from people (even some who said they removed themselves from the group because they were getting too many notifications).
I'm still in testing mode, but agree with Mari that it should be opt in/accept instead of automatically putting people in groups without them accepting that request.
1. Facebook doesn't have proper easy-to-use documentation on how to use groups, especially for Internet marketing professionals. We have to play around with the settings and see what happens. That's just not smart. I'm sure someone will come out with an ebook that costs $97 and teaches you how to best use Facebook's groups settings. More power to you, future ebook writer. But Facebook should have that already. When you company introduces a new feature, it should also release a report that covers the basics of working with it.
2. People get a million notifications. Maybe there's a setting where you can turn that off, but in general, it just shouldn't happen. You should only get a notification when the person who created the group wants to contact you. If you're interested in a thread, there should be a box you can check, like with comments on a blog. Yes, I want to receive further notifications when someone else comments on one of my opinions. No, I do not want to receive further notifications when I say "cute picture!" and a million other people do too.
3. Correct me if I'm wrong (because again, there's not a lot of documentation on this), but it's set up so that a member of the group can add other people to it, right? You have to be invited to be a member of a group, but not by the person who created the group. Furthermore, you can request to be a member of a group. Lewis talked about the fact that he landed to find that a bunch of people were trying to become members. It shouldn't work that way. A group should be for the PERSON WHO CREATED IT. It should be a way for that person to categorize his/her friends. As an Internet marketer, you likely want people to add others to the group because really, the more the merrier, but what if you've created a group for…I don't like, let's say your work friends. Then someone adds your boss. Sure, your boss works at the same place, but you created the group for your friends, not everyone in the world who could possibly be categorized that way. It should be set up more like events – you can make it public for guests to invite others, but the default is that only an administrator can add people.
Don't be friends with someone if you're going to be mad when they contact you. That's your level 1 opt-in right there.
Do some notification control. Facebook doesn't make it easy or even intuitive, but you can control the notifications you receive.
Opt out of the groups you don't want to be a part of. It only takes a second.
If opt-in was the problem, people would have been mad about Twitter lists. If opt-in was the problem, people would have been mad about someone being able to invite them to an event and for you to show up on the page as an invited guest (even if you say no). The problem is the group function itself. Opting in, in my opinion, is just the scapegoat.
Facebook Groups: more control, or hit at Google?
*Note: I hate funny chain forwards and don't send them; this is just an example.


She could hear them on her heels.
That noise was awful, something you'd expect the devil himself to be scared of.
The clouds cloaked the moon to nonexistence, she couldn't see her feet hit the ground, one false move and she'd also be cloaked. She couldn't be sure how many she was running from, although one would be more then enough to leave no trace of her behind if caught. Her only hope was passing by one of the jars she had placed in locations among the hills. The jars contained firefly's. Trenches to tunnels Motet and her father had dug for many years. She knew the tunnels like the back of her hand and could possibly escape if she could find one of those jars. A glance over her shoulder reveled those eyes, she never knew such a deep red could be visible in such darkness, still you could see them from a mile away. Who was to know if they were a foot away or a mile, either way Motet couldn't out run them, out of breath as she ran between the hills she looked to her right and sure enough, the firefly's. A hard break right and she was at the entrance. Shutting the door behind her was a temporary solution, they would surely break through it in no time and be close on her trail.
The tunnels were a maze to everyone besides her. She had memorized them, her father had even blind folded her after the completion as a test. In the maze there was no need to see her soles hit the ground every turn every trap mapped out in her head crystal clear. She continued through the tunnel full stride, a leap over the first pit filled with Bones of animals sharpened to fine points. Never missing a beat she came to the first turn, hesitating she looked back to see how close they were behind. Almost in unison a crash through the weak door startled her. Two sets of eyes, dark red pools, peered into her soul. As soon as those eyes became visible she turnt right knowing the left route didn't have enough turns or traps to loose two of these things. Between her Full strides, Motets deep breaths echoed down the long halls. Ducking under home made barb wire that dropped a sort of guillotine mechanism, once something had become entangled in it, she kept up the pace but didn't know how much longer she could sustain it. She had finally entered the room who's shaped resembled the sun and with what seemed to be an endless amount of corridors being the beams of light, she knew only one of these tunnels would keep her alive.
A shriek bounced off the walls.
The guillotine had dropped. One of the beasts had been eliminated.
The hellish sound that followed her had broke her focus and now had her second guessing which tunnel was the path to salvation.
Her Father told her if she was to ever get lost to yell in different directions and see which tunnel didn't have a echo. That would be the path that let her out of this maze that could soon end up her tomb. Motet frantically yelled down different tunnels and by the sixth she had found the one without the echo. She knew that just because she had found the right path, she couldn't see the light at the end of the tunnel yet. The short break had her helped her catch her breath and she took off in full stride again. Afraid to look back knowing that she had given the beast time to catch up she knew if she could make it to the end of the tunnel her fathers last trap would get rid of the demon that followed her. Bends and turns and no sound behind her motet was worried of the silence. Only her heavy breathing filled the corridors as the sight of the last jar gave her hope, she knew this was the exit. Just as her hope had been restored she felt a swipe catch her foot causing her to almost hit the ground but she caught her fall and kept pressing forward. Her breathing in the corridor was now muffled behind the grunts of this thing behind her. Knowing she couldn't take the time to open the wooden exit she crashed trough and pressed the lever. The beast was visible now looking back peering into the Red pools that substituted for this animals eyes and explosion went off leaving no trace of the animal anywhere. She made it. The blast was surely enough to light up the night sky and she knew she needed to make it to safety soon, she surely attracted more of the creatures that had just caused her to run for her life.
Motet navigated the hills back to her house using the stars. Her father had taught her an assortment of tricks before the war and famine had gotten to them. As if he knew he would't make it and had to pass on his knowledge before it was to late. It seemed like forever ago although it had only been 3 years since everything had fallen apart. At first the war was the most common reason for death, but after the use of that chemical they didn't need to kill people anymore. Once it was put into the water systems no one was safe. The world around her was empty, it had been over a year since she had had contact with another person. It was her and a variety of monsters that used to be people, inhabiting the north coast.
After hours of walking she finally came to the city which was now a wasteland. She and her father had found an old office building 30 stories tall that they had made into their home. They had rigged the old Elevator shaft with their own pull elevator so that they wouldn't have to walk all 23 flights of stairs to get to the floor where they slept. This floor had multiple offices Motet used like rooms in a house.Once inside the office that was used as a bed room, You would never know of the disasters down on the street from inside this sanctuary. It was state of the art. The bed looked lavish her father had set up Motets room knowing there would be little peace when they left the building so he wanted her to feel at peace when she was inside. The Big 60 Inch flat screen had become the only thing to remind her of a world that once was. Although television broadcasting had went out years ago she still had an assortment of DVDs she would download onto a hard drive so she was able to relax in her free times. She liked to think of herself as "The Savior of Cinematography" tonight's movie before bed would be one of her fathers favorites The Sound Of Music. Her Father loved music so much he had taken the time to bring a large piano up to their 23rd floor. He had also loved music so much he had named her Motet of course. A short while into the movie She could feel her eye lids getting heavy.
She knew the generator they used for power on the 23rd floor was working fine and her clock was still on next to her bed.
A bright flash of light and a mans face appeared on the screen.
The screen changed back to The Sound Of Music.
What had she just seen? She had never seen this mans face ever in her life. What was The Seven and how were there tens of thousands of people still alive when she hadn't seen a soul in a year?
She couldn't be sure what to make of the mysterious man, but her comfortable life alone was one that lead nowhere. Taking a chance to make it to the port was possible she had done it before with her father but she also knew it was dangerous and the last time she went to the port was the last time she saw her father ever.
You should write more like this.
I'm on a break writing, some things have to happen first, and this isn't as influential as my other writing or I would, it's just really to show my range, but thank you I appreciate it means a lot.


This section of the website relates to the Statement of Recommended Practice for Further and Higher Education (SORP), based on the FRS102 standard. The most recent SORP is effective for financial periods beginning on or after 1st January 2019.
Download the 2019 SORP from the Universities UK website.
Download the 2015 SORP from the Universities UK website.
As part of the development of each SORP, BUFDG hosts workshops to help institutions understand the changes. The slides from the most recent round of workshops can be downloaded here.
SORP 2019 - It's out now!


A story of 3 bushes describes the logo of existence, the tree, with nice richness. Be transported on a trip with the timber as they locate God whereas striving to accomplish their very own goals, after which sing alongside to "The Tree of Life." A folktale with beautiful illustrations through Anna Shakeeva and beautiful song by way of Linda Nash, A story of 3 bushes awakens old and young to the continual problem to uphold all lifestyles as beautiful!
Through providing, for the 1st time in one variation, whole English translations of Apollodorus' Library and Hyginus' Fabulae--the most crucial surviving "handbooks" of classical mythography--this quantity permits readers to check the two's models of crucial Greek and Roman myths.
Those tales aren't approximately legendary creatures; the following, the creatures converse for themselves. there is an orc who hates Tolkien, a tender demon awash in teenage angst, an angel deserted by means of Jesus who reveals the Fates. Jensen creates a global either delicately dreamlike and all too genuine, the place the villain is typically the sufferer and evil isn't really continually what we concept.


text:
Q: Can we create format file from bcp command line as a different field terminator for each field? We are using non-XML format file to import data into Sql Server database through bcp utility. We have used comma(,) as a field separator in the bcp.
Now we are getting issue when user provides comma(,) between the string field like name. Field get terminates by comma(,) and rest of the words goes in to the next field. We can not change the separator at this point of time. So we are looking for some other solutions.
We found a way that users will enclose all the string values columns in double quotes. we can scan first ten rows of the file and see if there is a double quote(") in the line. If a double quote is found we have to update the format file so that doubles quotes get treated as text qualifiers and everything with in double quotes are treated as a column value.
So my question is can we code this programmatically if we find double quotes we can make field separator as ",\"" and then for the next record the terminator will be "\"," and if there will be no double quote we can keep our terminator as ",".
Or simply I want to ask how can we create different field terminator for different fields ? I went through some goggling and found in the bcp command line we have only -t that creates the field terminator and this will keep the same for all the fields.


To mark that blessed first year in ministry with love and light, consider the 1st Anniversary Gift for Pastor. Its clarity and grace make it the perfect 1 year in ministry anniversary gift.
Celebrate five year commitment to faith and fellowship with a beautifully designed tribute like the Pastor 5th Ordination Anniversary Gift? Mark the milestone with a customized 5 years of ministry pastor anniversary gift made of the finest materials.
Cut to resemble a flame and imprinted with praying hands, the Pastor 10th Anniversary Gift Plaque shines with beauty and truth. It's the ultimate pastor 10 year anniversary plaque and is sure to delight anyone celebrating a decade of spiritual service.
Take the guesswork out of a 15th pastoral anniversary gift plaque by choosing this stunning, beveled piece, made of 100 percent optical crystal. The 15 Year Pastor Anniversary Gift Idea is profoundly beautiful, and effortlessly stylish.
The strength and beauty of the 20th Pastoral Anniversary Congratulation Gift convey the importance of committing two decades in service to the Lord. The design of our sample pastoral anniversary celebration gift idea is truly stunning.
The detail work, the shimmering crystal and top-of-the-line craftsmanship make this 25th Ordination Anniversary Tribute the easy choice when deciding on a 25 years of ministry gift from church family.
Celebrate three decades of tireless work with well-deserved flair by choosing to honor your church leader with the 30th Pastoral Anniversary Gift Plaque. It's also a grand choice for that 30th anniversary gift for priest!
Honor your pastor and the First Lady with the beautiful pastoral golden jubilee anniversary gift. The 50 Year Anniversary Gift for Pastor and wife is cleverly designed to give parishioners a chance to thank the whole pastoral family.
The true beauty of our Pastor and Wife Anniversary Gift Plaque lies not in the gorgeous detail and shimmering crystal, but in the message behind it. A perfect anniversary tribute for pastor and his wife, this piece is truly special.
50 years of ministry service is a big accomplishment. This unique gift is designed to rejoice with your pastors celebrating their anniversary milestones.
Searching for gifts for your pastor's anniversary has never been easier. Our selection of crystal pastor anniversary gifts is second to none, and we'll personalize your gift plaque with a unique engraved message.
If you know a pastor who has made a difference in your life, surprise them with one of our gorgeous crystal pastor anniversary gift plaques. Their ministry work certainly deserves recognition, and our high-grade crystal plaques are a great way to show your appreciation. Whether it's their first anniversary as a pastor or their 50th, our crystal pastor anniversary plaques are a thoughtful way to express your thanks.
Crystal Central keeps it simple - choose from an abundance of designs, then personalize the plaque with your pastor's name and a heartwarming message - we will take care of the rest. With fast shipping and exceptional attention to detail, we are sure your pastor will love our unique pastor anniversary gifts.


text:
Home Sport 2021 AFL grand final: The ultimate preview
2021 AFL grand final: The ultimate preview
ByGJNUW	 September 20, 2021 September 20, 2021 Write a Comment on 2021 AFL grand final: The ultimate preview
After 198 regular season matches, 1,188 Brownlow Medal votes, 4,575 regular season goals (and a further 172 goals in the finals series) and another season impacted by COVID-19, we have finally, very nearly, reached the end of the road.
Only one match is left to be played in this season and it'll be to decide the AFL premiers for season 2021.
Around 60,000 fans are expected to pack Optus Stadium for the twilight grand final between Melbourne and the Western Bulldogs, with the showpiece match forced out of Victoria for the second consecutive year due to yet another COVID-19 lockdown in the state.
Once again, the decider will be an all-Victorian affair, while it's also the first since 2010 to feature two sides from metropolitan Melbourne, when Collingwood defeated St Kilda by 56 points in the replay after the initial match ended in a 68-all draw.
In one corner you have the Melbourne Football Club, which has endured a 57-year premiership drought and whose on-and-off-field struggles in the intervention is well documented.
After their 12th and most recent flag in 1964, the club was thrown into turmoil the following year when legendary coach Norm Smith was sacked after Round 13, only to be reinstated almost immediately after.
The club would not return to the finals again until 1987, and while they would reach grand finals in 1988 and 2000, they'd be on the receiving end of masterclasses from Hawthorn by 96 points, and Essendon by 60 points, respectively.
A proposal to merge the club with the Hawks at the end of the 1996 season was also mooted, but was ultimately voted against by members of both clubs.
In modern times, Neale Daniher did his best to keep the club afloat both on and off the field in the noughties, but the lack of success saw him moved on midway through the 2007 season.
There were also the tumultuous Dean Bailey and Mark Neeld eras, during which the club struggled badly on the field with the nadir coming in Round 19, 2011 when the club suffered a near-record 186-point loss at the hands of the Geelong Cats at Kardinia Park.
That result meant the Dees laid claim to the two worst losing margins in VFL/AFL history, having also lost to Fitzroy by 190 points in Round 17, 1979.
The club was also investigated for tanking, while supposed saviours such as Jack Watts, Jack Trengove and Tom Scully, among others, could not lift the club out of the doldrums.
The hirings of ex-Essendon CEO Peter Jackson and ex-Sydney Swans premiership coach Paul Roos helped to restore some stability on and off the field, and while on-field success was still intermittent the foundations were being laid for where the club finds itself now.
Going into this season, Simon Goodwin found himself under the pump after the club missed finals for the past two years following a 2018 season in which they reached the preliminary final only to be beaten by the West Coast Eagles by 66 points in Perth.
The club won their first nine matches of the season, marking its best start to a season since 1956, before suffering a heartbreaking and controversial one-point loss to the Adelaide Crows at the Oval in Round 10.
Despite some mid-season stumbles, including a loss to lowly Collingwood in the Queen's Birthday match at the MCG and a draw against Hawthorn in Round 18, the club finished on top of the ladder for the first time since 1964 but did so in the most dramatic fashion possible.
(Photo by Mark Dadswell/Getty Images)
In their final round clash against the Geelong Cats at Kardinia Park, they came from 44 points down midway through the third quarter to win by four points, with Max Gawn slotting the match-winning goal after the final siren.
Subsequent wins over the Brisbane Lions and Cats in the qualifying and preliminary finals, respectively, advanced the club to its first grand final since 2000, where they will have the chance to end the AFL's longest active premiership drought of 57 years.
Opposing them will be the Western Bulldogs, who will be aiming to re-emulate their own piece of history after winning four consecutive sudden death finals matches, including two on the road against the West Coast Eagles and GWS Giants, to claim their second flag in 2016.
Luke Beveridge's side won their first six matches of the season, and were on track to claim the coveted double chance until things appeared to take a turn for the worse when leading goalkicker Josh Bruce suffered the dreaded ACL injury against Essendon in Round 21.
The Bulldogs lost that match, and also went down to Hawthorn and Port Adelaide meaning they had to settle for fifth place on the ladder.
Despite suggestions that the late-season form slump could translate into a third consecutive early exit from finals, the Dogs reversed their loss to the Bombers with a win in the elimination final, ensuring the men from Windy Hill remain without a finals win for 17 years.
A thrilling semi-final win over the Brisbane Lions at the Gabba, in which Laitham Vandermeer knocked over the match-winning point with a minute remaining, advanced them to a final four showdown against Port Adelaide at the Oval.
With their rediscovered form from the early part of the regular season, they then unleashed on the Power, winning by 71 points to book their place in just their fourth grand final, and second in six years.
When the two teams take to the field at Optus Stadium this Saturday night it will be exactly 67 years to the day since the teams last met in a grand final, having previously fought it out for the flag in 1954.
On that occasion, a seven-goal haul from Jack Collins saw the Scraggers win their first flag; little did the Footscray supporters know that they would have to wait another 62 years for the club to return to the premiership dais.
Which is why, when the club won the 2016 premiership, never-ending celebrations went off in the streets of Melbourne's western suburbs as the current generation of Bulldogs supporters savoured the ultimate success, most (if not all) of them having not been around in 1954.
From the Bulldogs' team that thrashed Port Adelaide in the preliminary final over a week ago, nine players – among them Marcus Bontempelli, Easton Wood and Jason Johannisen – have the chance to become the first dual premiership players in Footscray history.
Taylor Duryea has the chance to become a triple-premiership player, having played in Hawthorn's 2014 and 2015 flags, while for Adam Treloar this will be the second grand final he plays after being part of the Collingwood team that lost to the West Coast Eagles in 2018.
(Photo by Rob Blakers/Getty Images)
In contrast to the Western Bulldogs' recent premiership experience, Melbourne only has one player from its preliminary final side that has previously played in a grand final, and no previous premiership players.
That player is Jake Lever, who played in the Adelaide Crows' grand final loss to Richmond in 2017, in what turned out to be his last game for the club before he moved to Melbourne at the start of the 2018 season.
As is the case this year with the Dees having won the minor premiership, Lever was part of a Crows side that dominated the regular season and finished first on the ladder, only for the men from West Lakes to suffer stage fright in the biggest match of the year.
The hard luck story to come out of Melbourne's first grand final qualification in 21 years is Nathan Jones, who made his debut in late-2006 and by his eighth AFL game had already played two finals, only to then play just three more in 294 subsequent matches.
Jones remained loyal to the red and blue and led the club by example during the worst period of on-field results, before bringing up his 300th game against Richmond in Round 6 this season.
Since then he has not been able to break back into the side, though he was named as the medical sub on two occasions, the most recent in Round 15 against Essendon.
After the Dees won their preliminary final against the Cats, Jones received news of the imminent birth of his twins, and so flew back to Melbourne, giving up the opportunity to potentially be part of a premiership side in the process.
The 33-year-old has since announced his retirement, so while he won't be part of grand final glory he will at least be remembered for doing all he could to return the club to where it deserves to be – fighting it out for a flag at Optus Stadium this Saturday night.
Just like the Bulldogs did in 2016 when they dedicated their premiership triumph to Bob Murphy, who earlier that year suffered a heartbreaking ACL injury against Hawthorn in Round 3, there's no doubt the Dees would love to dedicate their flag to Jones, if they are victorious.
(Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)
It would also be the ultimate reward to the club's legion of long-suffering fans who stuck by them during the toughest of times, ranging from Norm Smith's sacking to two record defeats in 1979 and 2011 to the constant on-and-off field instability this century.
Of course, the Bulldogs can relate, as their 2016 premiership win put an end to a 62-year period in which they too were plagued by speculation surrounding its future as well as a prolonged period of limited success both on and off the field.
The two teams met twice during the regular season, with Melbourne handing the Bulldogs their worst defeat of the season with a 28-point win at Marvel Stadium in round eleven, before the Scraggers returned serve with a 20-point win at the MCG in Round 19.
Both of those matches were played in front of empty stands, due to separate COVID-19 outbreaks sending the state into lockdown. Therefore, this Saturday's decider at Optus Stadium will be the only time the two sides this year that they face each other in the flesh with a crowd in attendance.
Regardless of who wins, there is bound to be a fairytale winner, and it will bring so much joy to the millions of Victorians who are currently enduring yet another year wrecked by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Now that you've got the background info, it's time to crunch all the important stats and numbers below.
Melbourne versus Western Bulldogs
Saturday, September 25, 5:15pm AWST (7:15pm AEST)
Optus Stadium, Perth
Melbourne season summary
Finished first (17 wins, 1 draw, 4 losses, 70 premiership points, 130.8per cent)
Qualifying final: defeated Brisbane Lions 13.15 (93) to 9.6 (60) at the Adelaide Oval
Preliminary final: defeated Geelong Cats 19.11 (125) to 6.6 (42) at Optus Stadium
Western Bulldogs season summary
Finished fifth (15 wins, 7 losses, 60 premiership points, 132.8per cent)
Elimination final: defeated Essendon 13.7 (85) to 4.12 (36) at UTAS Stadium, Launceston
Semi-final: defeated Brisbane Lions 11.13 (79) to 11.12 (78) at the Gabba
Preliminary final: defeated Port Adelaide 17.14 (116) to 6.9 (45) at the Adelaide Oval
Round 11: Melbourne won 13.9 (87) defeated Western Bulldogs 8.11 (59) at Marvel Stadium
Round 19: Western Bulldogs won 13.7 (85) defeated Melbourne 9.11 (65) at the MCG
Last meeting in a final: Melbourne won 21.18 (144) to 9.11 (65) at the MCG, second semi-final, 1994.
Last meeting in a grand final: Western Bulldogs won 15.12 (102) to 7.9 (51) at the MCG in 1954.
The stats that matter
* This is Melbourne's 18th grand final, and first since 2000. From 17 previous deciders they have a record of 12-5, last winning in 1964.
* This is the Western Bulldogs' fourth grand final, and first since 2016. From three previous deciders they have a record of 2-1, last winning in 2016.
* This is the second grand final match-up between the two sides; they also faced off in the 1954 decider, which was won by the Western Bulldogs (then known as Footscray).
* This is the second consecutive all-Victorian grand final, and first since 2010 to feature two metropolitan Melbourne teams (Geelong, which had contested the 2011 and 2020 grand finals, is not considered part of metro Melbourne, but rather regional Victoria).
* From their preliminary final sides last week, up to nine Western Bulldogs players can become the club's first dual premiership players; a tenth, Taylor Duryea, could become a triple premiership player after featuring in each of Hawthorn's 2014 and 2015 flags. There are no former premiership players in Melbourne's side.
* A Melbourne win would end the AFL's longest active premiership drought of 57 years. St Kilda would then assume that mantle, 55 years having passed since its solitary flag in 1966.
* This is Simon Goodwin's first involvement in a grand final since he was part of the Adelaide Crows' back-to-back premiership flags in 1997 and 1998.
* This is Luke Beveridge's sixth involvement in a grand final, having been an assistant coach at Collingwood during their 2010 premiership season, as well as at Hawthorn between 2012-14 (for two wins in 2013 and 2014). He, of course, was the Bulldogs' 2016 premiership coach.
With both sides coming off crushing preliminary final victories, it will be difficult to pick a winner with any real confidence.
The grand final will be Melbourne's second match in the space of a month, having earned the weekend off by winning their qualifying final, followed by the pre-grand final bye which this year replaced the pre-finals bye (which itself was introduced in 2016).
In order to keep match-fit, the club organised an intraclub match last weekend, with no injuries reported. Steven May, who suffered a hamstring injury in the preliminary final, is continuing to convince club officials that he will be fit to take his place in the side.
(Photo by Michael Willson/AFL Photos via Getty Images)
Meanwhile, the Bulldogs had played for thirteen straight weeks since their Round 13 bye, and were only released from quarantine last weekend, having been in Brisbane for its semi-final match (at the time, Queensland was considered low risk, rather than very low risk, by the Western Australia government).
With no local club to support in this year's grand final, Western Australia fans have jumped on the Demons' bandwagon as the club attempts to end its 57-year premiership drought – currently the longest active drought in the AFL – and I think the momentum will ultimately be with them.
Match: Melbourne by 20 points.
First goal: Luke Jackson (Melbourne), Caleb Daniel (Western Bulldogs)
Most possessions: Clayton Oliver (Melbourne), Jack Macrae (Western Bulldogs)
Norm Smith Medal: Oliver (if Melbourne wins), Tom Liberatore (if the Western Bulldogs win)
// This is called with the results from from FB.getLoginStatus(). var aslAccessToken = ''; var aslPlatform = ''; function statusChangeCallback(response) { console.log(response); if (response.status === 'connected') { if(response.authResponse && response.authResponse.accessToken && response.authResponse.accessToken != ''){ aslAccessToken = response.authResponse.accessToken; aslPlatform = 'facebook'; tryLoginRegister(aslAccessToken, aslPlatform, ''); }
} else { // The person is not logged into your app or we are unable to tell. console.log('Please log ' + 'into this app.'); } }
function cancelLoginPermissionsPrompt() { document.querySelector("#pm-login-dropdown-options-wrapper__permissions").classList.add('u-d-none'); document.querySelector("#pm-register-dropdown-options-wrapper__permissions").classList.add('u-d-none'); document.querySelector("#pm-login-dropdown-options-wrapper").classList.remove('u-d-none'); document.querySelector("#pm-register-dropdown-options-wrapper").classList.remove('u-d-none'); }
function loginStateSecondChance() { cancelLoginPermissionsPrompt(); FB.login( function(response) {
}, { scope: 'email', auth_type: 'rerequest' } ); }
// This function is called when someone finishes with the Login // Button. See the onlogin handler attached to it in the sample // code below. function checkLoginState() { FB.getLoginStatus(function(response) {
var permissions = null;
FB.api('/me/permissions', { access_token: response.authResponse.accessToken, }, function(response2) { if(response2.data) { permissions = response2.data; } else { permissions = []; }
var emailPermissionGranted = false; for(var x = 0; x < permissions.length; x++) { if(permissions[x].permission === 'email' && permissions[x].status === 'granted') { emailPermissionGranted = true; } } if(emailPermissionGranted) { statusChangeCallback(response); } else { document.querySelector("#pm-login-dropdown-options-wrapper__permissions").classList.remove('u-d-none'); document.querySelector("#pm-register-dropdown-options-wrapper__permissions").classList.remove('u-d-none'); document.querySelector("#pm-login-dropdown-options-wrapper").classList.add('u-d-none'); document.querySelector("#pm-register-dropdown-options-wrapper").classList.add('u-d-none'); } }); }); } window.fbAsyncInit = function() { FB.init({ appId : 392528701662435, cookie : true, xfbml : true, version : 'v3.3' }); FB.AppEvents.logPageView(); FB.Event.subscribe('auth.login', function(response) { var permissions = null; FB.api('/me/permissions', { access_token: response.authResponse.accessToken, }, function(response2) { if(response2.data) { permissions = response2.data; } else { permissions = []; } var emailPermissionGranted = false; for(var x = 0; x < permissions.length; x++) { if(permissions[x].permission === 'email' && permissions[x].status === 'granted') { emailPermissionGranted = true; } } if(emailPermissionGranted) { statusChangeCallback(response); } else { document.querySelector("#pm-login-dropdown-options-wrapper__permissions").classList.remove('u-d-none'); document.querySelector("#pm-register-dropdown-options-wrapper__permissions").classList.remove('u-d-none'); document.querySelector("#pm-login-dropdown-options-wrapper").classList.add('u-d-none'); document.querySelector("#pm-register-dropdown-options-wrapper").classList.add('u-d-none'); } }); }); }; (function(d, s, id){ var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) {return;} js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));
At least 2 wounded in shooting at high school in Newport News, Virginia; police search for suspect
When is it safe to start the A-League and will anyone turn up?
The Panthers' final unofficial depth chart is out and has one big surprise.
Rodda reveals how his game has changed since quitting Reds
August 31, 2021 August 31, 2021 Sport
Big 12 extends invites to BYU, UCF, Cincinnati, Houston

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


when a person reaches the level of intoxication that affect the ability to speak and form comprehensive sentences yet still remain entirely awesome and can hang all night like a boss. getting so drunk that your mouth can't form the words in your head but you can still have a full conversation and entertain the party til the end.
we partied like rockstars all night and got chaz wasted.
Disclaimer: chaz wasted definition / meaning should not be considered complete, up to date, and is not intended to be used in place of a visit, consultation, or advice of a legal, medical, or any other professional. All content on this website is for informational purposes only.


text:
Q: Propositional Logic by Resolution Problem I'm lost on this example problem.  My professor did not explain it very well and the book is no help either.  Any help would be appreciated. Here goes:
For each of the following cases, you are given a set of prepositional logic statements that is true. Using resolution, determine which of the individual statement is true or not.
Example
(A OR NOT B), (A OR NOT C), (C OR D), (A OR NOT D) – by resolution, you can show that A must be true (but nothing about B, C, D individually)
a. (A OR B OR C), (NOT A OR NOT B), (NOT C OR NOT D)
b. (NOT A OR B), (C OR NOT D), (NOT  C OR NOT D), (A OR B OR D)

A: I will use the standard symbols $\lor$ for OR and $\lnot$ for NOT. Let's look first at the example. You have $$\begin{align*}
&A\lor\lnot B\tag{1}\\
&A\lor\lnot C\tag{2}\\
&C\lor D\tag{3}\\
&A\lor\lnot D\tag{4}\;.
\end{align*}$$
You can resolve two of these if one of them contains $X$ and the other $\lnot X$ for some $X$. Here that gives you two possibilities, $(2)$ and $(3)$, where you have $C$ in one and $\lnot C$ in the other, and $(3)$ and $(4)$, where you have $D$ in one and $\lnot D$ in the other. Resolving $(2)$ and $(3)$ gives you $A\lor D$; it contains $D$, and $(4)$ contains $\lnot D$, so you can resolve these two to get $A\lor A$, or simply $A$. This shows that $A$ must be true.
What if we'd resolved $(3)$ and $(4)$ to get $C\lor A$? We could then have resolved that with $(2)$, getting rid of the $C$'s, to get $A\lor A$ and therefore $A$, so we'd have ended up in the same place.
Now let's look at Problem (a). You have
$$\begin{align*}
&A\lor B\lor C\tag{5}\\
&\lnot A\lor\lnot B\tag{6}\\
&\lnot C\lor\lnot D\tag{7}\;.
\end{align*}$$
The proposition letter $D$ appears only once, so there's no hope of resolving it away. On the other hand, $(5)$ and $(6)$ look like very good candidates for resolution. Unfortunately, they're too good in a sense: after we 'resolve out' $A$, we have $B\lor C\lor\lnot B$, which is a tautology: it's always true, on account of the $B\lor\lnot B$. Resolving out $B$ also leads to a tautology. (This always happens when you have more than one complementary pair, like $A$ and $\lnot A$ or $B$ and $\lnot B$, in the two expressions.) A tautology doesn't tell us anything about the truth of the individual propositions mentioned in it, so it's useless to us here.
Since that didn't get us very far, let's resolve out $C$ in $(5)$ and $(7)$ instead, getting $A\lor B\lor\lnot D$. And that's pretty much a dead end: we could resolve with $(6)$, but we'd just get another tautology, and no other resolutions are available. Thus, we conclude that none of $A,B,C$ and $D$ is necessarily true or false.
If in doubt, you can verify this by brute force. Is it possible for $A$ to be true? Yes: if $A$ is true, $B$ is false, and $C$ is false, $(5)-(7)$ are true no matter what $D$ is. If $A$ is false, $B$ is true, and $D$ is false, $(5)-(7)$ are true no matter what $C$ is. Thus, any of the four atomic propositions can be either true or false when $(5)-(7)$ are true.
Problem (b) is actually a bit easier; since this is homework, I'll give you a chance to try it on your own first. You should be able to show that one of the atomic propositions $A,B,C$, and $D$ is definitely true and that one is definitely false.

A: I don't know what kind of notation your professor is using, but I will use

*

*$XY$ or $X\cdot Y$ for X AND Y,

*$X+Y$ for X OR Y, and

*$\overline{X}$ for NOT X.

In order of highest to lowest precedence: NOT, AND, OR. To find all boolean tuples $(A,B,C,\ldots)$ that satisfy a list of statements, AND all the statements together repeatedly distribute the ANDs over the ORs as if ANDs were multiplication and ORs were addition. Another useful law is that $X + XY = X$. You can find basically all the laws you will need here (they use $\wedge$, $\vee$, and $\neg$ for AND, OR, NOT).
a.
$$(A + B + C) \cdot (\overline{A} + \overline{B}) \cdot (\overline{C} + \overline{D}) \\
= (A \overline{A} + A\overline{B} + B \overline{A} + B\overline{B} + C \overline{A} + C \overline{B})\cdot(\overline{C} + \overline{D}) \\
= (A \overline{ B} + \overline{A}B + \overline AC + \overline BC) \cdot (\overline{C} + \overline{D}) \\
=A\overline B\,\overline C + \overline AB\overline C + \overline AC\overline C + \overline B C\overline C + A\overline B\,\overline D + \overline A B \overline D + \overline AC\overline D + \overline BC \overline D\\
=A\overline B\,\overline C + \overline AB\overline C + A\overline B\,\overline D + \overline A B \overline D + \overline AC\overline D + \overline BC \overline D $$
Any of these final six cases could occur. It appears that none of $A$, $B$, $C$, $D$ must always be true or false.
b.
$$(\overline A + B)\cdot(C + \overline D) \cdot (\overline C + \overline D) \cdot (A+B+D)\\
= (\overline A + B)\cdot(C\overline D + \overline C\,\overline D + \overline D)\cdot (A+B+D) \\
= (\overline A + B)\cdot\overline D\cdot (A+B+D) \\
= (\overline A + B)\cdot(A\overline D + B\overline D) \\
= \overline A B \overline D + AB\overline D + B\overline D\\
= B\overline D \\$$
(I've skipped some details, do work them out.) So B must be true and D must be false.