Insurance coverage is a necessity of the current society. It guarantees the employee's health to remain secure and safe and also the worker avails a sustainable growth. A typical strategy that has been offered is on the common concern from the employees' also as their families' well being insurance and welfare, worker productivity, retention and recruitment. The typical cost of health insurance that the worker avails is 3,000 dollars annually.
Any small company understood that two to fifty employees ought to be offered the same medical health insurance coverage for smaller businesses. It's impossible to deny coverage towards the concern which pays their premium, conducting business not much less than two a number of weeks, providing the coverage to any or all its workers like the part-time employees. It's also down towards the health insurance provider to share using the minimal quantity of workers permitted for any strategy, to ensure that they have the authority to withdraw the total amount. The insurance coverage can cancel when the minimal quantity of workers didn't participate in health insurance.
Any worker can avail insurance based on his typical age and placement. The business backed plans were instructed to improve their rates to preserve these expanding expenses and there is only a great deal of it that may be passed onto the worker. The benefit of the health insurance coverage expected is cautiously related to the status from the worker. The unions mandated that medical health insurance coverage ought to be provided while there's no demand from non union companies. This result in a poor speculation about individuals companies of one of the employees. So, businesses were instructed to offer this simply because they struggle to find the best employees. The government also suggested plans that will make health insurance mandatory for companies so that the employees will have the medical insurance coverage that they deserve without age restrictions.
A current survey found that as much as 50 % from the small business businesses in California do not offer medical health insurance for his or her workers. Contributing to this, based on study launched through the College of California-La Center for well being Policy Study, there is a decline within the employer-backed medical well being insurance coverage plan from 56.4% in 2001 to 54.3% in 2005, La Occasions dated 11/07/07. The report also talked about that 80% from the employees without insurance coverage either function with companies who did not offer them the insurance strategy or weren't titled to obtain the health advantages. What is more drastic was that 20% didn't even enroll within the accessible insurance coverage.
The research also further reported the rise in the premium family coverage by 66% through employer-backed plans from 2001 to 2005. Even though there are a lot of citizens availing the benefit of employer-based coverage proportion of Californians who haven't insured rejected from 21.9% in 2001 to 20% in 2005. The research features the decline to enrollment increases in medicals; the state's State Medicaid programs plan Healthy-Families and county-based insurance programs. Based on Occasions, about 1 out of three California children are insured through such programs. The report also mentioned that 63% of without insurance Californians had been U.S. people, 15% non people getting eco-friendly cards and 22% from the states' without insurance citizens were undocumented immigrants.
Also, on the day that the middle on Policy Initiatives launched a study proclaiming that 8.7 million of California's employees, three million adult employees do not have employer-based well being insurance coverage and 2.9 million have no insurance. Based on the study, people with high wages were more prone to possess the coverage of health insurance in comparison with employees with low wages. Like a significant requirement, Medical well being insurance for workers makes monetary sense to inspire employees, keeps them pleased and reduces absence.
Employer-backed medical health insurance coverage is within crisis and only informed people will be reaping helpful benefits themselves and creates help towards the nation. It's about time to make sure that these difficulties is worked using the right plan and technique.


text:
Q: > and >= at Assembly level I two time_t variables say start_sec and end_sec. Now I've to perform million operations of finding out whether a given random time_t falls in this range.
if(given_sec >= start_sec && given_sec <= end_sec) {
    /* given_sec falls in the interval*/
}

or
start_sec -= -1; //keep it for million comparisons
end_sec += 1; //keep it for million comparisons

if(given_sec > start_sec && given_sec < end_sec) {
    /* given_sec falls in the interval*/
}

which one is better?
I guess at the assembly level je loc; jle loc; jg loc; jge locare used to jump. I was wondering if jg loc; jl locsave any CPU cycles.

A: No, they don't save anything and if they were, optimizer would help you anyway.

A: A perfect example of premature optimization at the micro level, worrying about single CPU cycles, that gives you nothing, but obfuscates your code -- start_sec and end_sec no longer contain the values that the names suggest. And you even optimized it wrong:
start_sec -= -1; //keep it for million comparisons

This will add one to start_sec.
Where do the millions of time_t values come from? An input file? A database? From the system clock? A random generator? Each of these sources will be magnitudes slower than the comparison. So even if < and > are some CPU cycles faster than <= and >= (for your given instruction set on your given specific CPU), and profiling shows that this loop is in fact your bottleneck, this "optimization" is unlikely to solve this problem. Especially for just a few million comparisons on modern GHz CPUs with billions of cycles per second.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Editor's Note: Bob Frodeman and Adam Briggle were kind enough to share a draft (further abridged) of the introduction to their proposed book Socrates Tenured: The Institutions of 21st Century Philosophy. The book is under consideration for publication in our "Collective Studies in Knowledge and Society" series. A reply to their Frodeman and Briggle's introduction is forthcoming.
Dewey soon traveled to China, where he delivered nearly 200 lectures on education and democracy to large crowds across a two-year stay. In America Dewey commented on the public questions of the day, a role that he inhabited until his death in 1952. Since then, however, a different set of expectations has ruled. Professional philosophers have followed Quine's path in treating philosophy as a technical exercise of no particular interest to the layman. While it is possible to point to philosophers who work with (rather than merely talk about) non-philosophical stakeholders, among the mass of philosophers societal irrelevance is often treated as a sign of intellectual seriousness.
Today we live in a global commons created and constantly modified by technoscientific invention. We are surrounded by phenomena crying out for philosophic reflection. Indeed, open your computer and you will find thoughtful exploration of issues as varied as the creation of autonomous killing machines, the loss of privacy in a digital age, the remaking of friendship via Facebook, and the refashioning of human nature via biotechnology. In this sense, as Romano (2012) and Goldstein (2014) have recently argued, philosophy abounds.
The discussion is entirely framed in terms of the discipline of philosophy – and only 20th century analytic philosophy at that. We find no reference to people's actual lives, to the metaphysical issues tied to the births and transformations and deaths that we all endure, no acknowledgement that questions of metaphysics involve some of the most intimate and transcendent questions of our lives. Instead, metaphysics is a tale told in terms of professionals: Moore and Russell, Bosanquet and Bradley, Quine and Lewis.
Why do philosophers begin with insider topics when issues laden with metaphysics are in the news every day? Today's (May 25, 2014) Washington Post describes a patient taking heart pills that include ingestible chips: the chips link up with her computer so that she and her doctor can see that she has taken her medicine. The story also describes soon-to-be marketed nanosensors that live in the bloodstream and will be able to spot the signs of a heart attack before it occurs. These are issues that fall under "Existence and Identity," one of the sections of the Oxford Handbook: at stake here are not just new physical instruments, but metaphysical questions about the nature of self and the boundary between organism and machine. Loux and Zimmerman miss the chance to frame this section in terms of our increasingly Borg-like existence rather than solely in terms of scholastic debates.
This needs to change, for the health of our culture, and for the health of philosophy itself. Unless professional philosophy embraces and institutionalizes an engaged approach to philosophizing, working alongside other disciplines and abroad in the world at large, it will become a casualty of history.
Nearly 100 years after Dewey's essay it is time for another reconstruction of philosophy.
This won't be easy. To philosophize today–by which we mean professionally, in a salaried position, at a college or university–is to live within a paradox. Now, one could claim that it has always been so. A gap has always existed between the concerns of philosophers and our real world philosophic problems. Everyone wrestles with how to live a rich and fulfilling existence. Yet formalize the question–what constitutes the good life?–and the topic tends to ossify. People dismiss it as wool gathering. But the contradiction remains. People often describe ethics as merely a matter of opinion, even while they also struggle to ensure that their children are treated fairly. And they reject aesthetics as subjective even as they plan trips to national parks and pour over the details of their kitchen remodel.
The tension between the language and concerns of philosophers and everyday philosophical problems has been part of the West's DNA since the milkmaid laughed at Thales tumbling into a ditch. But Thales had practical chops, too, which he proved when he made a killing in the olive market. The vexed nature of the relationship between philosophers and society was demonstrated early on by Socrates' fate. With one leg in abstruse contemplation and the other planted in contemporary affairs, philosophy has alternately bored and irritated the outside world. It is a tension that philosophers have often sought to lessen. Chief among those complaining about the uselessness of philosophy have been philosophers themselves. Thus Descartes scorned the abstractions of the Schoolmen and Marx said the point of philosophy was to change, rather than merely interpret the world.
But if the relationship between philosophy and the polis has always been fraught, and laced with perhaps more than a bit of subterfuge, it was also in the end a workable one. Until the 20th century, that is. Since then the tension has grown into a paradox, the gap into a chasm. Socrates Tenured offers an account of how this chasm was created – how philosophy, the most relevant (if not the most efficient) of subjects, lost the creative tension between contemplation and engagement and slipped into cultural irrelevance. But more than simply critique, this book also proposes a way forward, describing how philosophy can regain a relevant role in culture.
Our argument turns on the single greatest impediment to philosophy's greater relevance: the current institutional situation of philosophy. The early 20th century research university disciplined philosophers, placing them in departments, where they wrote for and were judged by their disciplinary peers. Oddly, this change was unremarked upon, or was treated as simply the professionalization of another academic field of research. It continues to be passed over in silence today. Like Moliere's Gentleman, to whom no one had explained that he had been speaking prose, philosophers seem innocent of the fact that they have been disciplined, or that one might have reasons to object to this fact. And so even when their subject matter consists of something of real significance to the wider world, philosophers typically discuss the topic in a way that precludes the active interest of and involvement by non-philosophers. Philosophers may have had much to say to their fellow citizens, but unlike Nietzsche's Zarathustra they no longer come down from the mountaintop to say it.
Philosophers view themselves as critical thinkers par excellence who have been trained to question everything; but they have overlooked the institutional arrangements that govern their lives. The department is seen as a neutral space from which thought germinates, not itself the object of reflection. One finds no exploration of the effects that disciplining might have had on philosophical theorizing, or of where else philosophers could be housed, or of how philosophers, by being located elsewhere, might have developed alternative accounts of the world or have come up with new ways of philosophizing. In fact, the epistemic implications of the current institutional housing of philosophy are profound. For when philosophers leave behind disciplinary standards, living and working elsewhere than in philosophy departments, their standards for sound theoretical work change as well.
Philosophers once recognized that there is something problematic about treating philosophy as simply one discipline alongside the others. It was once understood that in addition to fine-grained analyses philosophy offered perspectives that undergirded, capped off, or synthesized the work of other disciplines such as physics or biology, and then connected those insights to our larger concerns. Such work lost favor in the twentieth century–dismissed as Weltanschauung philosophy by analytic philosophers, and as foundationalism by continental philosophers. But reopen this perspective and questions abound: if philosophy is not, or not exclusively a regional ontology, why are philosophers housed within one region of the university? Why is peer-reviewed scholarship the sole standard for judging philosophic work, rather than also the effects that such work has on the larger world? And why is there only one social role for those with PhDs in philosophy–namely, to talk to other PhDs in philosophy?
Rinella's comment (2010) is drawn from an interview that Foucault gave to Paul Rabinow shortly before his death. Foucault was concerned with "what one could call the problems or, more exactly, problematizations"–how we decide what questions do or do not get asked (Rabinow, 1984). Why, for instance, has the philosophy of science de facto consisted of the philosophy of physics and not geology (Frodeman 2003)? Why has the philosophy of technology, our reflection on the ways in which we modify our environment, not included an account of the ways in which we modify our internal environment via drugs? Similarly, we seek here to problematize the institutional aspects of philosophy, and the humanities generally. We envision a wide range of theoretical, practical, and political consequences to result.
Philosophers may have ignored their institutional placement, but for other disciplines critical reflection on the structures of knowledge production is par for the course. Perhaps the most important site for such analysis is the interdisciplinary field of science, technology, and society studies (STS). One influential book in STS–Gibbons et al, 1994–chronicles the shift in late 20th century science from "Mode 1" to "Mode 2" knowledge production. Mode 1 is academic, investigator-initiated, and discipline-based. By contrast, Mode 2 knowledge production is context-driven, problem-focused, and interdisciplinary. This framework is a good rough sketch of our basic point: we are tracing and promoting the 21st century development of Mode 2 philosophy.
Make no mistake: we are pluralists on this point. We believe Mode 1 or disciplinary scholarship should continue to have a central place in philosophy. But this needs to be counter-balanced by an equal focus within the philosophical community on conducting work that is socially engaged. In part this is simply recognizing a new reality: increasingly society is demanding that academics demonstrate their broader relevance. This demand has so far largely skipped over philosophy and the humanities, but this is unlikely to remain the case for much longer. Philosophy needs to demonstrate its bona fides by showing how it can make timely and effective contributions to contemporary debates. We believe that this is best done in a way that also shows that Mode 2 philosophizing is enriched by the insights of Mode 1 or traditional philosophy.
It is instructive to extend some of the debates within STS and the related field of science policy into the realm of philosophy. One of the central questions for science policy is; how does scientific research translate into social value? Since the end of World War II, the answer to this question has basically been serendipity. In a 1945 letter to President Truman, Vannevar Bush (who had led scientific R&D efforts during the war), argued that basic research is foundational to social progress. We know science will improve society, he argued, but we don't know which research project will lead to which improvements. There is no way to predict how things will turn out. So it is best to conduct as much basic research as possible, trusting that somewhere down the line it will somehow pay off. This allowed scientists to wall off a narrow domain of responsibility: their job was to conduct good research as judged by their disciplinary peers and then "throw it over the wall" to society. The later use of that research was not their responsibility.
This is the institutional form that philosophy also took on. What do we have in philosophy departments if not, in Bush's words, "the free play of free intellects, working on subjects of their own choice, in the manner dictated by their curiosity"? There is the same guiding faith that somehow, somewhere down the line those words in peer-reviewed academic philosophy journals will pay rewards to society.
Increasingly, that faith is not good enough. At the federal level, budget cuts and a growing animosity toward the public sphere have led to Congressional attacks on individual research grants and even entire research programs. This has also led to increasing attempts to measure the broader social impacts of research. Attempts at such measurement include bibliometrics, patent analysis, Altmetrics, community-engaged research, and translational research. But while such questions are a hot area of research across a number of fields, for the most part philosophers and other humanists still plod along with the old serendipity model of mode 1 disciplinary scholarship. They have not yet seen this as an opportunity for interesting theoretical work which also holds important practical outcomes.
It's time for a philosophy policy analogous to science policy, and indeed we believe that this is already beginning to germinate. While Mode 1 philosophy is still the reigning orthodoxy, there is a growing heterodoxy within the ranks of philosophers, sometimes lumped under the title of "public philosophy." We call our own version of Mode 2 work (which we describe below) "field philosophy." There are a number of similar approaches in areas such as environmental justice, critical race theory, feminism, and bioethics that we recognize as allies. We celebrate these diverse approaches to Mode 2 philosophizing, whether they go by the name of 'public', 'applied', or by some other title. But we believe that the lack of thought given to the institutional dimensions of philosophizing has limited the effectiveness of this work. A new philosophical practice, where philosophers work in real time with a variety of audiences and stakeholders, will lead to new theoretical forms of philosophy – once we break the stranglehold that disciplinary norms have upon the profession.
We have two audiences in mind for this book. First, for administrators, scientists, engineers, and others who would benefit from the work of Mode 2 philosophy, our goal is to introduce a kind of philosophy that shatters preconceived notions of philosophers as navel-gazing nook-dwellers. Second, for philosophers, our goal is to open up new opportunities for theorizing and for employment. Quite often, when philosophers follow the urge to engage in real-world problems they wind up working through a set of thorny theoretical and practical issues with no resources to help them cope. We hope this book serves, perhaps not as a set of best practices but as a reference to help foster a community of practitioners. In the absence of such a self-reflexive community, the various experiments in Mode 2 philosophizing will remain a sequence of one-off attempts. Isolated individuals fed up with the disciplinary status quo will reinvent the wheel of alternative philosophy anew each time. Lessons learned will not be shared. Traps that could be avoided won't be, and alternative career paths for philosophers will remain closed, because making a generational change takes collective and sustained effort.
More importantly, it will take a community to institutionalize Mode 2 practices. As it stands now, heterodox practitioners (however they may self-identify) exist on the margins and lead professional lives that run against the grain. As the feminist public philosopher Linda Martín Alcoff notes, many Mode 2 philosophers try to "walk a fine line between responsiveness to community needs and employment survival, pushing the boundaries of academic respectability even while trying to establish their credentials in conventional ways" (Alcoff 2002, p. 522). It is these "conventional ways" that must change. We have to invent a philosophy where responsiveness to community needs (not just disciplinary interests and imperatives) is an integral part of one's employment and is viewed as academically respectable.
This is how to shrink the chasm between philosophy and society. In practice, this will require many changes, from revised promotion and tenure criteria to alternative metrics for excellence and impact. As these changes are implemented, it will be important to consider at what point the chasm has been reduced to a suitable-sized gap. After all, we don't want to eliminate the space between philosophy and society altogether. Socrates was engaged, but still an outsider. He certainly was no pundit looking to score the most outrageous sound bite and rack up the most "likes" on Facebook. We need a people's philosophy that reserves every right to be unpopular.
 But don't ethics textbooks, and classes, often take the tact that we are advocating? See below, but we happily concede that our account applies to different degrees to different aspects of philosophy. But even ethics classes need to do a better job of hooking onto the world.


This post is a revised version of my Commentary on this week's OneMother'sVoice podcast.
Before commenting on President Trump's remarks yesterday to an audience of local, state, and federal law enforcement in Long Island, NY, in the interests of full disclosure, I acknowledge that I come from a family of law enforcement officers–three correctional officers, a NYPD detective, and an NYPD police officer–my father.
So, I respect the difficult job that law enforcement officers do and the dangers that they face every day.
That said, the aforementioned quote by Lord Acton is apropos across the criminal justice spectrum. Police officers, prosecutors, judges, and parole and probation officers have almost absolute power to determine the fates of the individuals they encounter for the good or the bad.
And let's be clear, under our American legal system, there is (or should be) a presumption of innocence unless and until one is judged by a jury of one's peers.
For sure, as citizens, we do not want those entrusted with our safety hampered by inadequate training, lack of resources, or public mistrust.
On the other hand, we cannot turn a blind eye to abuses of power. When communities of color view police officers with a wary eye, it creates barriers to effective policing.
So, when President Trump invokes inflammatory rhetoric that pits law enforcement against the public it is sworn to serve, it is dangerous and counterproductive to the goals of keeping communities and police officers safe.
It is this kind of "get tough" thinking that has fueled mass incarceration over the last two decades.
Perhaps, President Trump needs to read the scorecard vis-a-vis police-involved shootings of black males (and females).
It seems that the laws protecting police officers are doing just fine.


text:
Sophisticated Palate
by Johanna Harlen
The Little Pigs and the DJ Wolf
by Maria Vergara
In Chadwick's Eyes
by Rae Yung
A Dash of Romance
by Paullett Golden
The Last Lumenian
by S.G. Blaise
Mortal Blow
by Eliza Hendrix
Delinquent Magic
by M W Fowler
Aggie Boyle & the Lost Beauty
by David Fine
Dreamshores
by Mike Robinson
The Perfect Sister
by Gail Meath
You Were Created for Greatness
by Jackson Hale
Kali and Sida
by Margaret Mendoza
by Sandi Gelles-Cole and Kenneth Salzmann, editors
Mara and the Magic Sketchbook
by John-Paul Goorjian
Cortii Series Box Set
by J C Steel
Breakaway World
by Niles Keith
Vineyard Vengeance
by Robert Joseph
Two Images of God
by Brian P Sheets
Contact Author - Brian P Sheets
Brian Sheets is an award winning author with books spanning several genres. In writing the Two Images of God series, he relied on his experience as a veteran and as a student of religious literature. His composition style makes widespread use of everyday language as opposed to academic-eze, thus increasing reader enjoyment and the pace at which the books can be read.
"In viewing events in the Middle East during the past 25 years, the question arose for me "Why can't we all get along?" Wars in the past had well-defined moral goals of right over wrong or freedom over tyranny. Now, the struggle appears to center around religious doctrine that has been redefined to achieve an end-goal for which there will only be losers. I wanted to write a book that provided a platform for people to explore this question along with me."
Reviewed by Arya Fomonyuy for Readers' Favorite
I started the series Two Images of God by Brian P Sheets with the second book. And, thrilled by the depth of the story, I decided to pick up the first to read as well. Quest is the introduction to the series, and it is a stunning introduction. I read it straight through the night, intrigued by the author's skill and mastery of the conflict that has been at the center of violence across different times and places in human history.
This book looks at the root cause of religious conflict, which, unfortunately permeates different areas of life in communities and in nations. Readers meet a group of very interesting characters, most of them learned professionals who desire only one thing — to focus their energies in building a better world, characterized by religious tolerance and values of dialogue. They are about to make history and present a different image of God than what we know today. But this group is suddenly challenged by terrorist groups that see them as a threat to their fundamental beliefs.
This book features a great conflict, handled by a skilled writer and a great storyteller, and I marvelled at the author's narrative skills. One of the things that kept me reading is the author's boldness in creating a style of his own and moving from the conventions that seem to govern mainstream thrillers. At times, one gets the feeling that the writing is more of telling than showing, but the author's gift for descriptive prose is impeccable and irresistible, and the social and cultural commentaries enrich the story and make it a deeply satisfying read. Two Images of God: Quest is fast-paced, sometimes troubling, and filled with moments that force the reader to ask the question: Do we really have to fight each other in the name of God?
Christian Sia
Two Images of God: Quest by Brian P Sheets is a unique kind of thriller that explores religious themes and focuses on the old-age conflict between Christianity and Islam. In this thrilling opening to the Two Images of God series, the author creates a very powerful community composed of adherents of different religions — Christians and Muslims — who have decided to put aside their religious differences and focus only on what unites them. At the opening of the story, the reader becomes witness to what the museum director calls history in the making. But this pursuit of peaceful co-existence and mutual tolerance is threatened by a radical force that will stop at nothing to see their own aims fulfilled. How long can this group stay together?
Brian P Sheets explores very pertinent and relevant themes in this first book in the series, topics that should be of real concern to anyone who cares about the health of our society. The reader is left in no doubt that the work is well-researched and that the author has a deep understanding of the religious differences that have been behind the many calamities and wars that humankind has kindled. The question is: can Christians and Muslims unite to fight the fanaticism that creates the chaos in the world? Two Images of God: Quest is written in a powerful, arresting narrative voice and the author combines compelling dialogues with vivid descriptions to create scenes that are as absorbing as they are interesting. I couldn't put this book down and can't wait to see its vision come true. Very engaging and inspirational!
Charles Remington
In the first part of Two Images of God: Quest, Brian P. Sheets assembles the large cast of characters that will comprise the core of the narrative. They include a pair of experienced archaeologists who are introduced while on a dig in the port of Alexandria where they uncover the huge reflecting lens from the historical Pharos Lighthouse, and two professors, one Sunni, one Shia, who teach at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, along with a Catholic monk and his good friend, the Prioress of a nearby convent. We are then introduced to two doctors working in emergency medicine in Egypt and Turkey and their nursing assistants, two young but very successful American archaeologists, and a group from the Centre for Women's Studies at the University of Jordan. With the various protagonists assembled, we then learn more about an important archaeological discovery to the north of Tel Aviv in Israel - an exciting and internationally significant find which is to be excavated by a joint Israeli/Egyptian team. To give the project a truly international profile, both professionals and amateurs from around the world are invited to participate, and in their own ways, the various characters that have been introduced earlier become involved in the project. On site, the professionals and amateurs mingle, their various faiths are discussed and compared, finding many surprising similarities between their guiding tenets. As the archaeological work moves on, and notwithstanding their disparate backgrounds, a strong camaraderie is established. But they are working in a troubled region - dark forces are massing, forces that would like to see the site destroyed. Can the Israeli security forces keep them at bay?
Two Images of God: Quest is a carefully structured narrative which involves a large cast of characters along with a good number of themes, which in the end boil down to one principal question: why can't we all just get along? Brian P. Sheets displays a depth of knowledge and a great deal of skill in presenting the political differences, the historical backgrounds and the sometimes obvious similarities between the religions of this troubled corner of the world. The question is a simple one, but to try to answer it from a religious perspective is like trying to douse a fire using petrol. As Mr Sheets himself admits, all the region's creeds have blood on their hands. Put individual educated Jews, Muslims and Christians together on an archaeological dig and they will get along. Put those same religions together in the population of one country and sooner or later there will be strife. There are those who believe that religion is itself at the core of the world's troubles and if a God exists, He must be one that enjoys seeing His subjects tormented, tortured and killed in ways that defy any semblance of logic or humanity. I have given this book five stars because I think it is an important work and represents an increasingly urgent topic for discussion. I may not agree with some of the views expressed, but I think this book should be read. Make your own decision.
Edith Wairimu
Two Images of God: Quest by Brian P. Sheets asks the baffling question: "Why can't we all get along?" Everywhere we turn, the world is riddled with terrorism fuelled by a misguided hatred towards those who are perceived differently by the terrorist groups. In the book, the religious differences that build walls between people of different faiths slowly melt into bridges. Through the various characters in Two Images of God: Quest, Sheets shows how similar we are and why violence and intolerance are unnecessary. The characters in the book come from different religious or denominational backgrounds. For instance, Abdul is a Sunni professor at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies and teaches with Hadiya, who is a Shia professor at the same institute. The book culminates in an interesting and captivating plot.
In Two Images of God: Quest, Brian P. Sheets sets out to demystify the global issue of religious intolerance. He creates characters who are complex, thought-provoking, and who fit superbly into the narrative. I liked the way he brings all the characters together to reflect the message behind the whole story, which is filled with emotion and action. Two Images of God: Quest expertly develops the theme of co-existence, bringing out its vital importance and the possibility of living harmoniously with open-mindedness. The plot is thrilling and told in simple yet impactful language. It is difficult to point out one single element that I liked about Two Images of God: Quest since there are quite a number. Top of the list is undoubtedly the message contained in it. It is truly an excellent book. I am definitely looking forward to reading more of Brian P. Sheets's work.
Divine Zape
Anyone who is familiar with the history of human civilization knows that religion has often been at the heart of any significant cultural movement and we all know that traumas and wars have caused immense suffering to humanity, wars inspired by religious fanaticism. In Two Images of God: Quest, Brian P Sheets skillfully explores the nature of the ancient rivalry between two major religions, Christianity and Islam, and leads readers to consider a new form of truce, a way of living together, bringing onto the scene a cast of very compelling characters — scientists, archaeologists, and experts from diverse fields, all sharing different beliefs but determined to live and work together. It's the kind of utopia any sane person would want for our society. But then there are forces that are set against them, determined to subdue them and destroy the amity they enjoy. What would it take for the ideological war to end?
This is a well-crafted novel that is infused with humanity and realism, and the realism cries out powerfully through each page. Brian P Sheets has a singular style of narrative and whether he indulges the reader with great images or makes them witnesses to his intense and action-packed scenes, the spell of the writing remains strong and unwavering. The pacing is steady and fast and the characters are well-thought out and beautifully developed. The plot comes out as original, filled with surprises that readers won't see coming. Two Images of God: Quest is a powerful novel and even though it is very entertaining, it is purpose-driven, compelling readers to reflect about the form of dialogue that could restore peace in the world — the dialogue of religions.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
from django import VERSION
from django.conf import settings

def compatible_staticpath(path):

    """
    Try to return a path to static the static files compatible all
    the way back to Django 1.2. If anyone has a cleaner or better
    way to do this let me know!
    """

    if VERSION >= (1, 10):
        # Since Django 1.10, forms.Media automatically invoke static
        # lazily on the path if it is relative.
        return path

    # >= 1.4
    try:
        from django.templatetags.static import static
        return static(path)
    except ImportError:
        pass

    # >= 1.3
    try:
        return '%s/%s' % (settings.STATIC_URL.rstrip('/'), path)
    except AttributeError:
        pass

    try:
        return '%s/%s' % (settings.PAGEDOWN_URL.rstrip('/'), path)
    except AttributeError:
        pass

    return '%s/%s' % (settings.MEDIA_URL.rstrip('/'), path)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


A wonderful duplex attic with southerly position in the exclusive Valgrande complex.
The apartment has in the ground floor of entrance hall, toilet, closet, living-room, dining-room, completely furnished kitchen with office and two bedrooms with bathrooms en suite and decorated wardrobes.
From the living-room in the ground floor access to a grand terrace with views to the green and south zone.
On the first upper floor are two bedrooms with bathrooms en suite and wardrobes.
The floor is made of aged marble, the doors are made of solid woods and in the ceilings exist plaster moulds.
The air-conditioning is through the hot-cool air and radiant floor. The attic includes two parking spaces and a lumber room.


Mutual exchange enables tenants to swap their home with another GUHG tenant or a tenant of any other housing association or council. This can be a great way of finding a more suitable home, either locally or away from the area.
One way of finding another tenant to swap with could be via a Mutual Exchange website, the House Exchange website is free to use for GUHG tenants and holds details of tenants from all over the country looking to swap their property.
GUHG are part of a partnership with other local landlords for the House Exchange service, and you will see the 'Four Counties' logo for any GUHG properties. The landlord details are always listed under the 'Property Details' section.
Please note: Some Mutual Exchange websites charge to view and advertise properties.
If you are a GUHG tenant and exchange into another GUHG property which has less bedrooms than your current home, you may be entitled to a Fresh Start payment of £2,000. To find out more click here.
I have found another tenant to swap properties with.
Please view our page on Mutual Exchange, Next Steps.
GUHG tenants can contact our Allocations Team if you have any queries about this. For example the type of tenancy you currently have, when your tenancy started and what type of rent you pay.
You may also wish to seek independent advice before deciding whether to move by mutual exchange. For example from a Citizens Advice or housing law centre.
▸ Will the exchange affect the security of your Tenancy Agreement?
If you have an Assured Non Shorthold Tenancy Agreement or a Secure Tenancy Agreement, you have the right to occupy your home for as long as you wish provided that you pay the rent and comply with the terms of your Tenancy Agreement.
If your own Tenancy Agreement started after 1 April 2012.
This is because the Tenancy you will exchange to will probably be a Fixed Term Tenancy.
At the end of the Fixed Term your landlord may decide that you are not entitled to a new Fixed Term Tenancy Agreement, for example because you are under occupying the property or your financial situation has changed. If your landlord terminates your occupation because you are not entitled to a new Fixed Term Tenancy Agreement, then you may need to find alternative accommodation in the private sector or move to another property more appropriate to your needs.
▸ Will you be paying a social, affordable or intermediate rent when you exchange?
If you are exchanging with a flexible Fixed Term or Assured Shorthold tenant whose rent is calculated on a different basis to your own, you may find that the rent that you will be paying for the new property is higher. You will want to check this position especially carefully if you are currently paying your rent at a social rent level and the Fixed Term Tenancy you intend to move to is an intermediate or affordable rented property.
▸ What succession rights will be available to you?
GUHG's Assured Non Shorthold Tenancy Agreements allow one succession to your husband, wife or civil partner (or those living with you as husband, wife or civil partner) provided that they were in occupation of your home as their only or principal home at the date of your death. Where one joint tenant dies, this will count as a succession.
Some of our Assured Non Shorthold Tenancy Agreements also allow for close family members to succeed to your tenancy provided that there has not already been a succession and they have been in occupation of your home as their only or principal home for at least 12 months prior to your death. Although tenancies offered by all local authority and housing association landlords will continue to provide for one succession to your spouse or civil partner, some modern Tenancy Agreements will not now provide for succession by close family members including your children.
If the right of a family member to succeed is important to you, you should ask about the Tenancy Agreement you will get should you proceed with the exchange and the succession rights it contains.
▸ Will the right to buy or right to acquire be available to you if you exchange?
Some GUHG tenants have the preserved right to buy i.e. if you were a tenant of Mid Bedfordshire District Council or South Northants Council when your home transferred to GUHG and your tenancy has continued since the stock transfer.
Some tenants may be able to purchase their home under a scheme called Right to Acquire.
Before you decide whether or not to move by mutual exchange you should check whether you have rights and if they will be affected by the move.
▸ Do you believe that you will want to move home again?
If you are currently in occupation under an Assured Non Shorthold Tenancy which commenced before 1 April 2012 and you wish to exchange your home with a Fixed Term Flexible or an Assured Shorthold tenant who is in occupation under a social rent, (affordable and intermediate rents are different, please see above) then the landlord of your new property will ensure that your security of tenure is protected by granting you a new tenancy, which will either be a fully secure or an Assured Non Shorthold Tenancy depending upon whether your landlord is a local authority or a housing association. Your right to have a new tenancy given to you with a high security of tenure is based upon the fact that the Tenancy Agreement you are exchanging from is a tenancy which commenced prior to 1 April 2012 and which is fully secure or an Assured Non Shorthold Agreement.
Your new agreement will, of course, be dated after 1 April 2012. If you wish to exchange again in the future, you will not enjoy the same protection and may be given a Fixed Term Tenancy if you chose to exchange with a tenant in occupation under a Fixed Term Secure or an Assured Shorthold Agreement. As mentioned above, if this happens upon the end of the fixed term, your landlord may decide that you are not entitled to a new Fixed Term Tenancy Agreement if your circumstances have changed (for example you are under occupying or your financial circumstances are now different).
If you think that you will wish to exchange again in the future, you will need to consider how important the security of your tenancy is and your ability to live in your home for as long as you like.


Are You Living A Fictitious Life?
In the recent days we can truly say so many people are living a fake life which can be classify as a forfeited life which has been of bad impact to the live of people than good, having to live a non comfortable life can be stressful as big as you don't expert, you want to live in a certain world which your capacity can't take. Living a live which is higher to your budget can ruin your world and life in general. Trying to please people by wearing expensive gadget which you know quite well you won't be able to afford can be harmful than good for your life.
You live your life base on what people will say: Everything you do, you always think about the opinion of others, you try to impress everyone around you instead of living a fulfilled life. You want people to see the highness of you and want no one to see you in your lowest time, pleasing others become more important to you than pleasing yourself, these is one the few reasons to know you are living a fictitious life.
You spend all your income on material things: All your income goes to material things, you often starve hard to impress the world with materialistic things, your world is center around the things of the world and how to achieve them. You don't want people to see the poor side of you.
You are obsessing with the internet and the people there: You spend everyday of your live on the internet thinking of how to achieve the things of the world instead of building your future, you all about the trends and everything going on, on the internet instead of building your world.
You speak too high of yourself: Speaking too high of your self is also another way of living a fake life, you only tell people the great and mighty things about yourself and you want people to see them only without seeing the dead side of you.
You are always thinking about the short cut to success: People living a fictitious life often go extra length in achieving the things of the world, so they sometimes resort to doing dangerous and harmful things for money. If you find yourself in this category, it means you are not being real to yourself in the first place.