#william f. aicher | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

honeyleesblog · 1 year

Text

Astrological Outlook and Character Analysis for Individuals with a May 13th Birthday

They are strangely delicate individuals and have a kind of conduct that makes it simple for them to be tricked by others. Their fearlessness, conviction of their solidarity, and internal strength are very sensible. In any case, they express profoundly clashing political abilities. Brimming with enthusiasm, expectations, projects: they need to satisfy their objectives and plans no matter what. The most straightforward method for beating your imperfections is love. What compromises them: That they can arrive at a high spot, however lose it in a lamentable mishap. They are additionally at risk for falls. Their overstated desire can likewise drag them into perilous circumstances. How to bring up a youngster brought into the world on this day? They have a great deal of persistence and enthusiastically follow the case of others. So their instructors ought to safeguard them from superfluous attributes. Despite the fact that they are extremely difficult, they can be reached with compassion and love. Individuals brought into the world on this day have an inconceivable feeling of excellence, an affection for style, and an imaginative energy that should be sustained. More than anything, they must be enjoyed their propensity to turmoil. Astrological Outlook and Character Analysis for Individuals with a May 13th Birthday

In the event that your birthday is May 13, your zodiac sign is Taurus May 13 - character and character character: insightful, quiet, well-suited, energetic, malicious, twofold sided; calling: dental specialist, janitor, railwayman; colors: green, cream, green; stone: red emerald; creature: orangutan; plant: Basil; fortunate numbers: 4,5,11,22,41,46 very fortunate number: 11 Occasions and observances - May 13 Guatemala: Typographer's Day. Spain: დ?scar (Valladolid): Virgin of the Saints, supporter holy person of the town. Spain: Valladolid: San Pedro Regalado, supporter of the city. May 13 VIP Birthday. Who was conceived that very day as you? 1900: Inocencio Burgos, Spanish lawmaker (d. 1988). 1900: Pedro Laxalt, Argentine entertainer (d. 1965). 1900: Karl Wolff, German SS official (d. 1984). 1901: Murilo Mendes, Brazilian essayist (d. 1975). 1901: Witold Pilecki, Clean military man (d. 1948). 1904: Pepდn Bello, Spanish author (d. 2008). 1904: Betty Compton, American entertainer (d. 1944). 1904: Gilberto Owen, Mexican author (d. 1952). 1905: Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, Hindu legislator and attorney, fifth Leader of India (d. 1977). 1906: Hans Krainz, Swiss botanist (d. 1980). 1906: Mauricio Magdaleno, Mexican author and columnist (d. 1986). 1906: Nils Tycho Norlindh, Swedish botanist (d. 1995). 1907: Daphne du Maurier, English author (d. 1989). 1907: Emilio Guinea, Spanish botanist (d. 1985). 1908: Carlos Iniesta Cano, Spanish military (d. 1990). 1909: Ken Darby, American guide and author (d. 1992). 1909: Jany Holt, French entertainer (d. 2005). 1911: Kosta Naე', Yugoslav military (d. 1986). 1912: Gil Evans, Canadian jazz piano player, arranger and writer (d. 1988). 1912: Edward David Freis, American doctor (d. 2005). 1912: Federico Lohse, Chilean painter (d. 1992). 1913: William R. Tolbert, Jr., Liberian legislator, twentieth Leader of Liberia (d. 1980). 1914: Antonia Ferrდn Moreiras, Galician mathematician and space expert (d. 2009). 1914: Joe Louis, American fighter (d. 1981). 1914: Carlos Riquelme, Mexican entertainer (f. 1990). 1915: Bernard Schultze, German painter (d. 2005). 1917: Luis Pasquet, Uruguayan author, guide and musician (f. 2013). 1920: Toni Schneiders, German picture taker (d. 2006). 1920: Judith Sulian, Argentine entertainer (d. 1991). 1920: Stuart Max Walters, English botanist (d. 2005). 1922: Lillian Adams, American entertainer (d. 2011). 1922: Otl Aicher, German visual originator and typographer (d. 1991). 1922: Beatrice Arthur, American entertainer (d. 2009). 1922: Billy Gabor, American b-ball player. 1923: Red Festoon, American musician (d. 1984). 1923: Jean Haritschelhar, French author (d. 2013). 1923: Wenceslao Lდ³pez Martდn del Campo, Mexican analyst and teacher (d. 1981). 1924: Robert Bailey Drummond, South African botanist and naturalist (d. 2009). 1924: Giovanni Sartori, analyst in the field of Italian Political Theory. 1924: Harry Schwarz, South African legal advisor and legislator (d. 2010). 1925: Sergio Castillo Mandiola, Chilean stone worker (d. 2010). 1926: Wallace Breem, English essayist. 1926: Dewey Phillips, American circle jockey (d. 1968). 1926: Jo Roos, South African craftsman (d. 2010). 1927: Juan Bautista Avalle-Arce, Argentine scholarly pundit (d. 2009). 1927: Herbert Ross, American producer (d. 2001). 1928: Enrique Bolanos, Nicaraguan president somewhere in the range of 2002 and 2007. 1928: დ‰douard Molinaro, French entertainer and producer (d. 2013). 1928: Washington Ortuno, Uruguayan soccer player. 1929: Rigoberto Lდ³pez Pდ©rez, Nicaraguan writer (d. 1956). 1929: Juan Munoz Martდn, Spanish essayist. 1930: Josდ© Jimდ©nez Lozano, Spanish essayist and writer. 1930: Emilio Laguna, Spanish entertainer. 1931: Miguel Fernდ¡ndez, Spanish writer (f. 1993). 1931: Jim Jones, American strict (d. 1978). 1931: Gდ©rard Mulliez, French finance manager. 1931: Oscar Cantuarias, Peruvian Ecclesiastical overseer. (f. 2011). 1932: Riverito, Argentine TV have. 1935: Waldemar De Gregori, Brazilian humanist. 1935: Burny Mattinson, American illustrator, screenwriter and chief. 1935: Jan Saudek, Czech craftsman. 1935: Andrდ© Georges Marie Walter Albert Robyns, Belgian botanist (d. 2003). 1935: David Wilkinson, American cosmologist (d. 2002). 1937: Trevor Baylis, English innovator. 1937: Josდ© Agustდn Ortiz Pinchetti, Mexican legislator. 1937: Beverley Owen, American entertainer. 1937: Roger Zelazny, American author (d. 1995). 1938: Giuliano Amato, Italian legislator. 1938: Roberto Carnaghi, Argentine entertainer. 1938: Francine Pascal, American author. 1939: Saby Kamalich, Peruvian entertainer. 1939: Harvey Keitel, American entertainer. 1940: Bruce Chatwin, English writer (d. 1989). 1940: Enrique Escudero de Castro, Spanish legislator (f. 2001). 1941: Senta Berger, Austrian entertainer and author. 1941: Jean Froc, French scientist (d. 2009). 1941: Pedro Sabando, Spanish legislator. 1941: Ritchie Valens, American vocalist (d. 1959). 1941: John Vermeulen, Belgian author (d. 2009). 1942: Pდ¡l Schmitt, Hungarian legislator. 1943: Kurt Trampedach Danish painter (d. 2013). 1944: Armistead Maupin, American creator. 1945: Sam Anderson, American entertainer. 1945: Lasse Berghagen, Swedish vocalist and guitarist. 1945: Eduardo Pდo de Braganza, Portuguese admirer. 1945: Maneco Galeano, Paraguayan performer (d. 1980). 1945: Lou Marini, American saxophonist. 1945: Adriდ¡n Ramos, Mexican entertainer (f. 1999). 1945: Philippe Roussel, American PC engineer. 1946: Ismail Haron, Thai vocalist (d. 2012). 1946: Marv Wolfman, American illustrator. 1947: Marisa Abad, Spanish moderator. 1947: Marდa Badდa, Spanish legislator. 1947: Charles Baxter, American author. 1947: დ"scar "Cuervo" Castro, Chilean film and theater entertainer. 1947: Stephen R. Donaldson, American author. 1948: Pepe Cibriდ¡n Campoy, Argentine entertainer, theater chief and dramatist. 1948: Carlos Dდ¡vila, Spanish writer. 1948: Senior member Meminger, American b-ball player and mentor (d. 2013). 1950: Conrado Domდnguez, Mexican painter. 1950: Joe Johnston, American movie producer. 1950: Faisal container Abdullah canister Mohammed Al Saud, Saudi legislator. 1950: Ferran Ranდ©, Spanish entertainer. 1950: Stevie Marvel, American performer. 1951: Miguel დ?ngel Uzquiza Gonzდ¡lez, Spanish lawmaker and teacher. 1951: Jorge Trezeguet, French-Argentine footballer. 1952: John Kasich, American lawmaker. 1952: Luis Oruezდ¡bal, Argentine soccer player. 1952: Jorge Luis Siviero, Argentine footballer and mentor. 1953: Kiti Mდ¡nver, Spanish entertainer. 1954: Alejandro Encinas, Mexican lawmaker. 1954: Jorge Garcდ©s, Chilean footballer. 1954: Eugenio Leal, Spanish footballer. 1954: Johnny Logan, Irish vocalist and lyricist of Australian beginning. 1954: Renდ© Stockman, Belgian strict. 1955: Pedro Alba, Spanish footballer. 1955: Marდa Cecilia Botero, Colombian entertainer. 1955: Ermy Kullit, Indonesian vocalist. 1956: Oscar Roberto Domდnguez Couttolenc, Mexican cleric. 1956: Josდ© Damiდ¡n Gonzდ¡lez, Spanish writer. 1956: Sri Ravi Shankar, Indian Hindu strict. 1956: Roberto დ?lvarez, Spanish entertainer. 1956: Vjekoslav Bevanda, Bosnian-Croat lawmaker. 1956: Michael Jacklin, Dutch stone carver. 1956: Fred Melamed, American entertainer. 1957: Alan Ball, American screenwriter and movie producer. 1957: Kenneth Eriksson, Swedish assembly driver. 1957: Inmaculada Gonzდ¡lez, Spanish legislator. 1957: Claudie Haignerდ©, French researcher, space traveler and lawmaker. 1957: Andrea Klump, German fear monger. 1957: Miguel Sebastiდ¡n, Spanish legislator and financial expert. 1957: Koji Suzuki, Japanese author. 1957: Stefano Tacconi, Italian footballer. 1958: Tshala Muana, Congolese vocalist and artist. 1958: Juan დ?ngel Napout, Paraguayan financial specialist and sports pioneer. 1958: Willie Gonzდ¡lez, Puerto Rican vocalist. 1959: Morten Sather, Norwegian cyclist. 1960: Alberto Mდ¡rcico, Argentine soccer player. 1960: Teresa Palacios Criado, Spanish appointed authority. 1961: Siobhan Fallon Hogan, American entertainer. 1961: Nდ©stor Montalbano, Argentine movie producer. 1961: Dennis Rodman, American b-ball player. 1961: Yutaka Sado, Japanese guide and arranger. 1961: Guido Sდ¼ller, Argentine TV character, entertainer and designer. 1962: Roxana Baldetti, Guatemalan legislator and VP. 1962: Jesდºs Casillas Romero, Mexican legislator. 1962: Eduardo Palomo, Mexican entertainer (f. 2003). 1963: Fernando Carrillo Flდ³rez, Colombian attorney and ambassador. 1963: Alison Goldfrapp, English vocalist. 1963: Wally Masur, Australian tennis player. 1964: Stephen Colbert, American entertainer. 1964: Ronnie Coleman, American jock. 1964: Chris Maitland, English drummer, of the band Porcupine Tree. 1964: Jordi Sდ¡nchez Zaragoza, Spanish entertainer, author, screenwriter and maker. 1964: Tom Verica, American entertainer and movie producer. 1965: Josდ© Antonio Delgado Sucre, Venezuelan mountain dweller (d. 2006). 1965: Chris Washburn, American b-ball player. 1966: Alison Goldfrapp, vocalist and English

1 note · View note

book-review-and-impression · 4 years

Text

The Trouble With God- by William F. Aicher

This entire post will include spoilers (below the cut) and my thoughts on the book itself.

Going into this, I have no experience reading anything from this author. This book was recommended to me on Amazon and so I looked at it and investigated it and the responses to it. It appeared that this book was a hit or miss for people but there was generally good feedback.

My initial impression without reading the book was that it sounded incredibly interesting. The mystery behind why a priest would be targeted and killed seemed intriguing to me. The philosophy in the questions typed at the bottom of the summary also grabbed my attention. The cover of the book was simplistic but served its purpose. Personally, I actually quite rather like the design.

When I began reading this book, I was confused as to why the first chapter was put in. It was definitely intriguing, but it put emphasis on how short that chapter was. I would have preferred if it was longer but it is what it is. And then there was the theme of having it each day which made the first chapter actually make sense. Then I got to the second chapter; which you could say is the actual beginning/opening of the book? And then my reaction was just: why are the chapter so short? Flipping through I noticed how many chapters are there and that is just unnecessary but whatever, author’s choice and I will roll with it.

The character, Steven, is introduced to us. Most of the time the main character should be liked but I really do not like this character. He has to defend why he has a beer in the shower and why he uses his girlfriend’s shower items to himself, but no one asked and I personally was not questioning it to begin with so why was there elaboration on his reasoning? Steven is also a work-over-personal life type of guy, which I can respect but then he’s also an asshole (for lack of a better word) to those in his personal life. His relationship with his girlfriend is just so full of tension and throughout the majority of the book I was just thinking “why are they together still?” I do like how their relationship sort of developed though.

We also get the cop, good ol’ best friend to Steven who gives him hot leads and is a one-dimensional character with basically no development. Also, how is he getting away with giving information like that to a reporter? The dude should be fired, honestly. And the dialogue he has with Steven is awkward... no one speaks like that so it sounded very generic and did not flow well but then again all of the dialogue was like this.

Then there is Karen, the bitchy girlfriend. Honestly, why were Steven and Karen still in a relationship together? She’s always yelling for no reason (is this how the author thinks women are like-- because there are only three female characters 1) a woman with shitty hair 2) a woman who doesn’t know how to mind her business 3) Karen). There is a scene where she goes out with John Paluniak and throughout it she is basically drooling over him, like honey you have a boyfriend? Like no wonder Steven was wary of you going out with him. And then... Steven actually cheats on her.

As for the writing, was there no editor? There were so many times where there was not a quotation mark and it just yanked me out of the book especially when it was at the beginning of the dialogue. Also some sentences seemed unnecessary especially in between the paragraphs of dialogue. And then there were the monologues that Steven liked to go into: like we get it you’re an atheist, calm down. It was almost like the author wanted to shove down my throat the idea that this book was, in fact, about the concept of God.

Now for the story itself. Whenever Miles and Steven would discuss the killer, they would reach conclusions and it was just like, how the hell did you reach that because you are stretching so much. And literally each person killed was connected to Karen at first (and then Jeffery died way later), so why did no one suspect her? Instead they suspect crusty ass Steven who then suspects himself because he is a budding sociopath (I say that because he does not seem empathetic at all yet he is perfectly mimicking emotion sometimes to fit i with his girlfriend).

Skipping all the way to the end of the book, why did Steven think the killer was him when he was meeting the killer? Like clearly not if he is right there and you are awake. And then it was saying Karen “found” her lover’s body in the basement... no, she found her lover dying but didn’t find his body, she found him. And how were people going to blame Steven when he got his jaw chopped off, he clearly would not be able to do that himself? Did they think Karen did that? Because that’s brutal.

The epilogue: did Karen find out that Alana fucked her past lover? And how did that relationship even form? They literally talked for like 20 minutes, if that. And I get Karen and Steven had a poor relationship, but homegirl moved on quick. She even has a new child now, like damn. I also would have liked to have seen Miles’ reaction to his friend dying, but alas he’s a one-dimensional character. The ending in general seemed rushed and abrupt. If it was delved into more, it would have been more pleasant. Especially since the killer was never revealed.

This book took me six months to fully get through, mainly because I hated Steven as a person. The plot was good until it was decided the killer won’t be revealed. The writing and characters were all very eh. Like, they weren’t good and weren’t too terrible. I wouldn’t recommend this book, especially with the ending. I only enjoyed like two lines out of this entire book which was “The trouble with being god is god’s not real. But I am” (Aicher 253). And those lines were like the climax of the story too so...

Total rating: three or four out of ten.

#the trouble with being god #william f. aicher #book review #book reflection #book

0 notes

wisewisegeek · 5 years

Link

via Twitter https://twitter.com/wisewisegeek

#IFTTT #Twitter

0 notes

roctownlive · 6 years

Text

Tweeted

Hey William F. Aicher ✍️ ... thanks for the follow 😉. Check out https://t.co/kqEBt0p5xF

— LIVE 8 FIVE (@RocTownLive) September 12, 2018

#IFTTT #Twitter

0 notes

scifiandscary · 6 years

Text

The Unfortunate Expiration of Mr. David S. Sparks by William F. Aicher #BookReview

The Unfortunate Expiration of Mr. David S. Sparks

Fans of mind-bending mystery, action and technology will…

View On WordPress

#books #reading #reviews #sci-fi dystopia #sci-fi mystery #unfortunate expiration

0 notes

number244 · 6 years

Photo

Hey there, William F. Aicher! Thanks for following! I hope to hear from you soon! https://t.co/UgIvPA0Nke https://t.co/VxbAmEwKf8

0 notes

danhowardphoto · 6 years

Link

via Twitter https://twitter.com/OfficialDan

#IFTTT #Twitter

0 notes

djgblogger-blog · 7 years

Text

Rebooting the mathematics behind gerrymandering

http://bit.ly/2h3LzKF

How can geometry track with our political values? Pixabay, CC BY

On Oct. 3, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a major case about the Wisconsin State Assembly districts.

In the U.S., we elect members to the House of Representatives and to state legislatures in a way that depends heavily on how states are divided into geographical districts. To win, you must simply get more votes than anyone else within your district’s borders. Whoever draws those borders can have a profound effect on the outcome of an election.

In the Wisconsin case, the court is being asked to find – for the first time – a legal framework to control partisan gerrymandering. Their decision could limit the ability of a political party to draw maps to their own advantage.

However, partisan gerrymandering is just one way to rig election maps. With districting cases in contention around the country, citizens and experts alike need to better understand the math of redistricting and the choices involved in drawing electoral maps.

Our group of mathematicians is hosting free public workshops around the country. By improving understanding of the mathematics of redistricting, we hope to empower the public to engage in informed debates about district boundaries and composition.

An old problem

The original gerrymander. Wikimedia

The word “gerrymandering” derives from an 1812 political cartoon ridiculing a map drawn under Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry. The cartoon suggested that one district in Boston’s North Shore was shaped like a menacing reptile. (Gerry + Salamander = Gerrymander.)

That district actually isn’t too bad by modern standards, either in terms of shape or demographic sophistication. Early 19th-century politicians lacked the tools of modern gerrymanderers.

Compare that with the current Seventh Congressional District in Pennsylvania, drawn by partisan actors armed with data on every registered voter. The district looks like fractal tumors oozing out from the suburbs of Philadelphia. Its only geometrically tame feature, a circular arc, comes from the Pennsylvania-Delaware state boundary!

Pennsylvania’s 7th Congressional District. Wikipedia

But even more troubling than maps like these are those that push an agenda without such flagrant irregularities by, for instance, slicing a city into several pieces in order to dilute the votes of urban dwellers.

Each voter has numerous attributes, such as race, age, wealth and partisan preference. By clumping certain groups of voters together, line-drawers can give one particular group a substantial advantage over its competitors. This way, they might strengthen or weaken the representation of minority groups; protect incumbents or aid challengers; and make primary campaigns more or less likely.

The authorities who control the lines – usually state legislatures, but sometimes nonpartisan commissions or judges – are practicing political geometry, whether they think of it that way or not. They’re carving up the population into pieces, and the shapes of those pieces matter.

Fair maps are complicated

What makes a map fair? Since competing values are at stake, there’s no purely mathematical solution.

The Constitution and subsequent court decisions suggest that each district should have very nearly equal populations. Other legally recognized principles tell us that districts should be connected; should try, when possible, to keep political subdivisions (like counties and cities) together; should respect natural geography; and should be “compact,” or not too eccentrically shaped.

Many reasonable people believe that districts should be competitive and follow some guidelines of rough proportionality. In other words, the electoral representation shouldn’t be too out of whack with the state’s partisan breakdown, racial demographics and so on.

These values often conflict, and no technical analysis could decide which should matter more.

For the first time, technology is catching up to the redistricting problem. Teams of mathematicians, political scientists and computing experts at Duke and University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are building algorithms that can explore the enormous universe of possible districting maps.

These computer samplers generate thousands or millions of alternative maps in a given state. The maps can be used to assess whether a legislature’s proposed plan is an outlier.

If a programmer is given specific rules for fair districting, they can then compare a given plan to a pool of valid alternative plans to figure out if its properties are too extreme.

Compactness

Let’s look at just one possible constraint on plans: compactness.

Compactness is a legally recognized districting principle with a clear geometric flavor. It’s intuitive that districts shouldn’t have shapes that look manipulated or eccentric.

The more degrees of freedom the map-drawer has, the more control he or she exerts over the outcome. The ability to draw wild and wiggly shapes simply gives too much power to the person who wields the pen. Compactness is meant to constrain that.

But what does “compact” mean? At least 30 definitions can be found in the technical literature. Some invoke “isoperimetry,” the idea that a district shouldn’t have a very long boundary relative to its area. Some are based on “convexity,” which means a straight line between two points in the district should stay in the district. Others are based on “dispersion,” or the idea that districts shouldn’t sprawl.

Looking back at Pennsylvania’s Seventh District, you can see that it would fail all of these kinds of tests.

However, most existing definitions look at only the outline of the district on a map. They don’t take into account the “guts” of the district, or how population clusters are lumped together by the line-drawers. A square district that completely encompasses a city is very different from one that splits it right down the middle.

One simple idea is to represent districts as networks, where the nodes are population units like census blocks and the edges represent proximity or similarity. Ideas from discrete geometry may help us reinterpret compactness in a way that is much more relevant to the political realities.

But even with this new framing, compactness will still be in tension with other values. Citizens must consider the trade-offs between all the political ideals in play. Mathematical analysis can help clarify the choices.

Empowering debate

Shortly after the Supreme Court heard arguments on partisan gerrymandering, our group convened a conference in Madison, Wisconsin to discuss that case and the national scope of the gerrymandering challenge.

In a few weeks we are headed to Durham, North Carolina for public workshops that will center on the complex ongoing litigation there.

We hope to keep seeing a broad spectrum of people – mathematicians, political scientists, demographers, legal experts, coders, election officials, citizen advocates and more – coming together to figure out what is fair and how to measure it.

If you’re interested, you can see public talks from our first workshop in August or join us at upcoming workshops around the country.

Moon Duchin receives funding from the National Science Foundation and from the Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts; the Metric Geometry and Gerrymandering Group has received funding from the Sloan Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, and the Scholars Strategy Network.

Peter Levine has received funding from: Abt Associates, American Association of University Women, Aspen Institute, Beldon Foundation, JEHT Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Solidago Fund Bill of Rights Institute, Bonner Foundation Bridging Theory to Practice, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Case Foundation, Center for Public Integrity, Civic Enterprises LLC Close Up Foundation Corporation for National and Community Service Deliberative Democracy Consortium Democracy Fund Democracy Fund with Knight Foundation and McCormick Foundation Engelhard Foundation Ford Foundation Ford Foundation Foundation for Civic Leadership and The Bernard and Audre Rapoport Foundation Generation Engage Grosvenor Fund, National Geographic Foundation Indiana Humanities Council Jobs for the Future Kellogg Foundation (via Brandeis University prime) Kettering Foundation Knight Foundation Massachusetts Department of Education National Conference on Citizenship Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek. New America Foundation Next Generation Learning Challenge Omidyar Network Online News Association Poynter Institute S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation Spencer Foundation State of Florida through University of South Florida The Florence and John Schumann Foundation The McCormick Foundation The Nonzero Foundation The Pew Charitable Trusts The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Tides Foundation US Department of Education WT Grant Foundation. He is affiliated with: Paul J. Aicher Foundation, Director (2009-present) Discovering Justice (2013-present) Charles F. Kettering Foundation, Trustee (2004-present; program committee chair 2012-14) Street Law, Inc., Director and Program Committee Chair (2004-present) Partners

0 notes