Litecoin – Wikipedia

Litecoin was released via an open-source client on GitHub on October 7, 2011 by Charlie Lee, a Google employee.[7] The Litecoin network went live on October 13, 2011.[8] It was a fork of the Bitcoin Core client, differing primarily by having a decreased block generation time (2.5 minutes), increased maximum number of coins, different hashing algorithm (scrypt, instead of SHA-256), and a slightly modified GUI.[9]

During the month of November 2013, the aggregate value of Litecoin experienced massive growth which included a 100% leap within 24 hours.[10]

Litecoin reached a $1 billion market capitalization in November 2013.[11]

In May 2017, Litecoin became the first of the top 5 (by market cap) cryptocurrencies to adopt Segregated Witness.[12] Later in May of the same year, the first Lightning Network transaction was completed through Litecoin, transferring 0.00000001 LTC from Zrich to San Francisco in under one second.[13]

Litecoin is different in some ways from Bitcoin.

Due to Litecoin’s use of the scrypt algorithm, FPGA and ASIC devices made for mining Litecoin are more complicated to create and more expensive to produce than they are for Bitcoin, which uses SHA-256.[16]

Continue reading here:

Litecoin – Wikipedia

Litecoin r/litecoin – reddit

If it ever gets its own ETF you can be sure it’ll be under more scrutiny. People (haters) will knock it and say its a test net, spreading fear and doubt.

Here are 8 features we can list that’ll instill confidence in traditional investors

Made in 2011 (never hacked)

Runs On Lightning Network

Atomic Swaps with Bitcoin

4x faster than Bitcoin

Confidential Tx

Strongest In Scrypt Mining



Its really important we as a community continuously mindful of these so newcomers know what they’re getting with litecoin. We take a conservative approach to our features, unlike many coins/projects that are daring and throw caution to the wind when updating their code base, which is risky and not something you’d want to invest in. Litecoin is a sound investment in the decentralized future.

See more here:

Litecoin r/litecoin – reddit

Check out the Latest News on Litecoin | Cointelegraph

Litecoin (LTC) is a cryptocurrency and an open-source project released in 2017, inspired by and very close technically to Bitcoin. The key idea of the project was to make a faster and cheaper to use alternative to Bitcoin

Although there are some similarities between BTC and LTC, you cant define Litecoin without pointing out some key differences, such as instant and near-zero cost transactions, increased speed of adding a new block into the Blockchain (2.5 minutes against 10 in the Bitcoin network) and a scrypt usage in its Proof-of-Work process to make it easier for regular PC users to mine new blocks against ASIC miners. It is also one of the first cryptocurrencies that adopted SegWit.

Litecoin is hugely popular to this day, ranked sixth place on CoinMarketCap with a more than eight billion dollars market cap.

Continue reading here:

Check out the Latest News on Litecoin | Cointelegraph

What is Litecoin? | A Beginner’s Guide

What is Litecoin?

Litecoin (LTC) is a decentralized peer-to-peer cryptocurrency that was released on October 7th, 2011 and went live on October 13th, 2011.

The silver to Bitcoins gold.

Bitcoins little brother that doesnt get out much.

These are just a few of the things you might hear being tossed around when talking about Litecoin. At a first glance, Litecoin doesnt garner much respect as a top 10 market cap cryptocurrency.

However, once you get into the weeds, Litecoin presents an extremely useful and interesting application of the original Bitcoin blockchain.

For all the flak Litecoin gets, its easy to overlook what it actually is, and what functions it serves.

Litecoin was founded by former Google employee Charlie Lee. It was one of the first forks of the Bitcoin core client. It was proposed as a solution to some of the bottlenecks and scalability issues with Bitcoin, most notably the number of transactions that could be processed within a given time.

The edge Litecoin has over Bitcoin is that the payment transaction costs are extremely low, and it is capable of facilitating payments around 4x as fast.

Litecoin originally started gathering attention during its explosive growth in November 2013, where it saw a near 15x spike in price. This jump in price, however, was short-lived and Litecoin hovered around the $4 per LTC range for about two years. It wasnt until May 2017 that it started to pick up steam again during a time where generally all cryptocurrencies experienced massive growth.

Litecoin has also been relatively innovative, adopting new technologies such as Segregated Witness and carrying out the first Lightning Network transaction that sent 0.00000001 LTC from Zurich, Switzerland to San Francisco, USA in under a single second.

Theres a reason Litecoin receives a lot of comparisons to Bitcoin. Except for a handful of minor distinctions, Litecoin serves the exact same purpose as Bitcoin. After all, it was one of the first Bitcoin forks.

Comparing Litecoin to Bitcoin not only makes sense from a convenience point of view, it also lets us zone in what makes it different at a technological level. Litecoin is meant to be used as peer-to-peer cryptocurrency and is actually able to accomplish the same job Bitcoin does at a faster and cheaper rate.

Transaction confirmation speed plays a huge role in how quickly a currency gets adopted. Bitcoin confirmations usually take around ten minutes and have been steadily increasing with periods hitting as high as 2,548 minutes. Litecoins network is able to confirm transactions at a much quicker rate.

Litecoins verification period lasts a fixed 2.5 minutes. For every individual Bitcoin block that gets confirmed, four Litecoin blocks of equal size get confirmed.

The cost of sending any denomination of Litecoin costs around $0.09, whereas Bitcoin currently hovers around $5.00. This is an immediate advantage Litecoin has over Bitcoin for small transactions, since splitting a $10 Uber with a friend doesnt make sense for most people if you have to pay $5.00 on top of that. Litecoin offers the option to pay for everyday goods without high fees that will start add up very quickly.

One of Litecoins goals is to distribute hash power more evenly than Bitcoins network. The problem that Litecoins founder Charlie Lee wanted to address was how Bitcoins hash power was largely distributed among mining pools, groups of miners, and generally a much smaller (and less decentralized) subset of miners. Litecoin aims to keep the hashing power decentralized.

Litecoins mining also keeps transaction fees relatively low due to the inherently higher total supply. There can only be 21 million Bitcoins existence, whereas there can be up to 84 million Litecoins. This matters because it makes mining less competitive, and the more competitive mining gets, the higher the transaction fees.

Whereas Bitcoin is near hitting some pretty serious scalability issues due to its high transaction fees, Litecoin is able to churn out block after block and retain its lower transaction costs. Granted, not as many people are using Litecoin as they are Bitcoin and Litecoin could theoretically end up dealing with the same scalability issues if it were to experience proportionate growth and usage, but that simply just isnt the case today.

Litecoin also uses the Scrypt hashing algorithm that utilizes much less processing power than the Bitcoin SHA256 hashing algorithm. Placing a higher emphasis on utilizing high-speed RAM, Litecoin makes it much less possible for a single player (or small collective group of big players) to dominate the mining world.

Fundamental Non-Technical Differences

Its important to also look at the differences in how both Bitcoin and Litecoin came about.

Bitcoins founders origins are relatively shrouded in mystery. Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonym of Bitcoins founder, is essentially relegated to legend and myth.

Litecoins founder, on the other hand, has been publicly available and active in the community. You can find Charlie Lee on Linkedin or on Twitter, as @SatoshiLite. After working at Google and founding Litecoin, he also worked on the engineering side at Coinbase, one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges in the world.

Personally, I much rather prefer Lees accessible and open nature to the mysterious secretive Satoshi, and the fact that Lee is capable of making light (Lite) of the situation is very humanizing.

Additionally, youd be hard pressed to find any serious claims or illusions of grandeur within the Litecoin camp. Its meant to make cryptocurrency accessible and usable for everyone, and is perfectly fine with taking a back-seat role to Bitcoin.

Well, the fact that Litecoin can hold its own weight when it comes to having a legitimate use case says a lot, especially in a cryptocurrency world with over 700+ alt-coins with dubious purposes.

It does, after all, hold a market cap of upwards of $3 billion. That doesnt just happen by dumb luck.

When compared to Bitcoin, which has a market cap about 33x bigger, Litecoin does pose several advantages. As listed above, its capable of offering users lower transaction fees, faster transaction processing times, a more decentralized mining network, and its founder even throws out the occasional zinger on Twitter. These advantages technically make Litecoin a better coin for the vast majority of small transactions.

However, to be fair, Litecoin hasnt been pushed to its limits because there simply arent that many people using it. For the time being, Litecoin does exactly what it was created to do: offer low-cost, speedy transactions in a way that Bitcoin couldnt.

As is, Litecoin is simply another cryptocurrency that just so happened to prove its use case as a low-cost decentralized peer-to-peer payment method.

Litecoin was never made to go head to head with Bitcoin, but its technological advantages do pose somewhat of a threat. While it might be theoretically better than Bitcoin, Bitcoin has already run off with the network effect of having rapidly onboarded a much larger and active user base.

Bitcoin also has the benefit of being a near household name by now, whereas Litecoin is much more obscure (especially with hot new tokens on the block like Ethereum). The vast majority of people who jump into the cryptocurrency world will buy Bitcoin first, and if their hunger isnt satiated, maybe some Litecoin and Ethereum.

While Litecoin seems to function very well for what its meant for, its interesting to postulate ideas about situations where it could experience massive user adoption and growth. There isnt much meat on the bones of whatever Litecoin loyalists are chewing on, but its worth noting that it could only be a matter of time before more people start to add Litecoin into their portfolios.

If, and this is a big IF, Bitcoin isnt able to address its scalability issues, Litecoin will be there to at least offer the same utility without having to pay high (and if Bitcoin reaches the climax of its scalability problems extremely high) fees.

Until then, Litecoin will likely hang around the top 10 market-cap cryptocurrencies, doing the same thing it always has.


Excerpt from:

What is Litecoin? | A Beginner’s Guide

Litecoin Definition | Investopedia

DEFINITION of ‘Litecoin’

Launched in the year 2011, Litecoin is an alternative cryptocurrency based on the model of Bitcoin. Litecoin was created by an MIT graduate and former Google engineer named Charlie Lee. Litecoin is based on an open source global payment network that is not controlled by any central authority. Litecoin differs from Bitcoins in aspects like faster block generation rate and use of scrypt as a proof of work scheme.

Litecoins were launched with the aim of being the “silver” to Bitcoin’s “gold,” and have gained much popularity since the time of inception. Litecoin is a peer-to-peer internet currency. It is a fully decentralized open source, global payment network. Litecoin was developed with the aim to improve on Bitcoin’s shortcomings, and has earned industry support along with high trade volume and liquidity over the years. The broader differences between the two cryptocurrencies are listed in the table below.

[ Litecoinhas become one of the most popular cryptocurrencies, after Ethereum and Bitcoin. If you’re interested in trading cryptocurrencies, Investopedia’sCrypto Trading Course will teach you everything that you need to know to get started. You’ll learn cryptocurrency basics, how to setup your own wallet, and how technical analysis can help you identify profitable opportunities from an experienced Wall Street veteran.]







Satoshi Nakamoto

Charles Lee

Coin Limit

21 Million

84 Million

Block Generation Time

10 Minutes

2.5 Minutes




Initial Reward

50 BTC

50 LTC

Current Block Reward (as of June 2014)

25 BTC

50 LTC


Halved every 210,000 blocks

Halved every 840,000 blocks

Difficulty Retarget

2016 Block

2016 Block

Litecoin is designed to produce four times as many blocksas Bitcoin (1 new block every 2.5 minutes to Bitcoin’s 10), and it also allows for 4x the coin limit, making it’s main appeal over Bitcoin to do with speed and ease of acquisition. However, because Litecoin uses scrypt(as opposed to Bitcoin’sSHA-2)as a proof-of-work algorithm, the use of mining hardware such as ASIC miners or a GPU mining rig requires significantly more processing power.

Litecoin is consistently among the largest cryptocurrenciesinterms of market capitalization (though still remaining far below that of Bitcoin)and it currently has more than 50 million coins in circulation.

See the original post:

Litecoin Definition | Investopedia

Political correctness – Wikipedia

This article is about political correctness. For other uses of “PC” or “P.C.”, see PC (disambiguation).

The term political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated to PC or P.C.) is used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society.[1][2][3][4][5] Since the late 1980s, the term has come to refer to avoiding language or behavior that can be seen as excluding, marginalizing, or insulting groups of people considered disadvantaged or discriminated against, especially groups defined by sex or race. In public discourse and the media, it is generally used as a pejorative, implying that these policies are excessive.[6][3][7][8][9][10][11]

The contemporary usage of the term emerged from conservative criticism of the New Left in the late 20th century. The phrase was widely used in the debate about Allan Bloom’s 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind,[7][9][12][13] and gained further currency in response to Roger Kimball’s Tenured Radicals (1990),[7][9][14][15] and conservative author Dinesh D’Souza’s 1991 book Illiberal Education, in which he condemned what he saw as liberal efforts to advance self-victimization and multiculturalism through language, affirmative action, and changes to the content of school and university curricula.[7][8][14][16] It was also the subject of articles in The New York Times and other media throughout the 1990s.[17][18][19][20][21][22]

Commentators on the political left contend that conservatives use the concept of political correctness to downplay and divert attention from substantively discriminatory behavior against disadvantaged groups.[14][23][24] They also argue that the political right enforces its own forms of political correctness to suppress criticism of its favored constituencies and ideologies.[25][26][27] The term has played a major role in the United States culture war between liberals and conservatives.[28]

The term “politically correct” was used infrequently until the latter part of the 20th century. This earlier use did not communicate the social disapproval usually implied in more recent usage. In 1793, the term “politically correct” appeared in a U.S. Supreme Court judgment of a political lawsuit.[29] The term also had use in other English-speaking countries in the 1800s.[30] William Safire states that the first recorded use of the term in the typical modern sense is by Toni Cade Bambara in the 1970 anthology The Black Woman.[31][clarification needed] The term probably entered use in the United Kingdom around 1975.[11][clarification needed]

In the early-to-mid 20th century, the phrase “politically correct” was used to describe strict adherence to a range of ideological orthodoxies. In 1934, The New York Times reported that Nazi Germany was granting reporting permits “only to pure Aryans whose opinions are politically correct.”[2]

As Marxist-Leninist movements gained political power, the phrase came to be associated with accusations of dogmatic application of doctrine, in debates between American Communists and American Socialists. This usage referred to the Communist party line which, in the eyes of the Socialists, provided “correct” positions on all political matters. According to American educator Herbert Kohl, writing about debates in New York in the late 1940s and early 1950s,

The term “politically correct” was used disparagingly, to refer to someone whose loyalty to the CP line overrode compassion, and led to bad politics. It was used by Socialists against Communists, and was meant to separate out Socialists who believed in egalitarian moral ideas from dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance.

In the 1970s, the American New Left began using the term “politically correct”.[32] In the essay The Black Woman: An Anthology (1970), Toni Cade Bambara said that “a man cannot be politically correct and a [male] chauvinist, too.” Thereafter, the term was often used as self-critical satire. Debra L. Shultz said that “throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the New Left, feminists, and progressives… used their term ‘politically correct’ ironically, as a guard against their own orthodoxy in social change efforts.”[7][32][33] PC is used in the comic book Merton of the Movement, by Bobby London, which was followed by the term ideologically sound, in the comic strips of Bart Dickon.[32][34] In her essay “Toward a feminist Revolution” (1992) Ellen Willis said: “In the early eighties, when feminists used the term ‘political correctness’, it was used to refer sarcastically to the anti-pornography movement’s efforts to define a ‘feminist sexuality’.”[35]

Stuart Hall suggests one way in which the original use of the term may have developed into the modern one:

According to one version, political correctness actually began as an in-joke on the left: radical students on American campuses acting out an ironic replay of the Bad Old Days BS (Before the Sixties) when every revolutionary groupuscule had a party line about everything. They would address some glaring examples of sexist or racist behaviour by their fellow students in imitation of the tone of voice of the Red Guards or Cultural Revolution Commissar: “Not very ‘politically correct’, Comrade!”[36]

Allan Bloom’s 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind[12] heralded a debate about “political correctness” in American higher education in the 1980s and 1990s.[7][9][13][37] Professor of English literary and cultural studies at CMU Jeffrey J. Williams wrote that the “assault on … political correctness that simmered through the Reagan years, gained bestsellerdom with Bloom’s Closing of the American Mind.” [38] According to Z.F. Gamson, Bloom’s book “attacked the faculty for ‘political correctness’.”[39] Prof. of Social Work at CSU Tony Platt says the “campaign against ‘political correctness'” was launched by Bloom’s book in 1987.[40]

An October 1990 New York Times article by Richard Bernstein is credited with popularizing the term.[19][21][22][41][42] At this time, the term was mainly being used within academia: “Across the country the term p.c., as it is commonly abbreviated, is being heard more and more in debates over what should be taught at the universities”.[17] Nexis citations in “arcnews/curnews” reveal only seventy total citations in articles to “political correctness” for 1990; but one year later, Nexis records 1532 citations, with a steady increase to more than 7000 citations by 1994.[41][43] In May 1991, The New York Times had a follow-up article, according to which the term was increasingly being used in a wider public arena:

What has come to be called “political correctness,” a term that began to gain currency at the start of the academic year last fall, has spread in recent months and has become the focus of an angry national debate, mainly on campuses, but also in the larger arenas of American life.

The previously obscure far-left term became common currency in the lexicon of the conservative social and political challenges against progressive teaching methods and curriculum changes in the secondary schools and universities of the U.S.[8][44] Policies, behavior, and speech codes that the speaker or the writer regarded as being the imposition of a liberal orthodoxy, were described and criticized as “politically correct”.[14] In May 1991, at a commencement ceremony for a graduating class of the University of Michigan, then U.S. President George H.W. Bush used the term in his speech: “The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones. It declares certain topics off-limits, certain expression off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits.”[45]

After 1991, its use as a pejorative phrase became widespread amongst conservatives in the US.[8] It became a key term encapsulating conservative concerns about the left in culture and political debate more broadly, as well as in academia. Two articles on the topic in late 1990 in Forbes and Newsweek both used the term “thought police” in their headlines, exemplifying the tone of the new usage, but it was Dinesh D’Souza’s Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (1991) which “captured the press’s imagination.”[8] Similar critical terminology was used by D’Souza for a range of policies in academia around victimization, supporting multiculturalism through affirmative action, sanctions against anti-minority hate speech, and revising curricula (sometimes referred to as “canon busting”).[8][46][not in citation given] These trends were at least in part a response to multiculturalism and the rise of identity politics, with movements such as feminism, gay rights movements and ethnic minority movements. That response received funding from conservative foundations and think tanks such as the John M. Olin Foundation, which funded several books such as D’Souza’s.[7][14]

Herbert Kohl, in 1992, commented that a number of neoconservatives who promoted the use of the term “politically correct” in the early 1990s were former Communist Party members, and, as a result, familiar with the Marxist use of the phrase. He argued that in doing so, they intended “to insinuate that egalitarian democratic ideas are actually authoritarian, orthodox and Communist-influenced, when they oppose the right of people to be racist, sexist, and homophobic.”[3]

During the 1990s, conservative and right-wing politicians, think-tanks, and speakers adopted the phrase as a pejorative descriptor of their ideological enemies especially in the context of the Culture Wars about language and the content of public-school curricula. Roger Kimball, in Tenured Radicals, endorsed Frederick Crews’s view that PC is best described as “Left Eclecticism”, a term defined by Kimball as “any of a wide variety of anti-establishment modes of thought from structuralism and poststructuralism, deconstruction, and Lacanian analyst to feminist, homosexual, black, and other patently political forms of criticism.”[15][38] Jan Narveson wrote that “that phrase was born to live between scare-quotes: it suggests that the operative considerations in the area so called are merely political, steamrolling the genuine reasons of principle for which we ought to be acting…”[6] Glenn Loury described the situation, in 1994,as a situation where “power and authority within the academic community is being contested by parties on either side of that issue, is to invite scrutiny of one’s arguments by would-be “friends” and “enemies.” Combatants from the left and the right will try to assess whether a writer is “for them” or “against them.”[47]

Liberal commentators have argued that the conservatives and reactionaries who used the term did so in effort to divert political discussion away from the substantive matters of resolving societal discrimination such as racial, social class, gender, and legal inequality against people whom conservatives do not consider part of the social mainstream.[7][23][48] Commenting in 2001, one such British journalist,[49][50] Polly Toynbee, said “the phrase is an empty, right-wing smear, designed only to elevate its user”, and, in 2010, “the phrase ‘political correctness’ was born as a coded cover for all who still want to say Paki, spastic, or queer”.[51] Another British journalist, Will Hutton,[52] wrote in 2001:

Political correctness is one of the brilliant tools that the American Right developed in the mid1980s, as part of its demolition of American liberalism…. What the sharpest thinkers on the American Right saw quickly was that by declaring war on the cultural manifestations of liberalism by levelling the charge of “political correctness” against its exponents they could discredit the whole political project.

“Words Really are Important, Mr Blunkett” Will Hutton, 2001

In the US, the term has been widely used in books and journals, but in Britain, usage has been confined mainly to the popular press.[53] Many such authors and popular-media figures, particularly on the right, have used the term to criticize what they see as bias in the media.[6][14] William McGowan argues that journalists get stories wrong or ignore stories worthy of coverage, because of what McGowan perceives to be their liberal ideologies and their fear of offending minority groups.[54] Robert Novak, in his essay “Political Correctness Has No Place in the Newsroom”, used the term to blame newspapers for adopting language use policies that he thinks tend to excessively avoid the appearance of bias. He argued that political correctness in language not only destroys meaning but also demeans the people who are meant to be protected.[55] Authors David Sloan and Emily Hoff claim that in the US, journalists shrug off concerns about political correctness in the newsroom, equating the political correctness criticisms with the old “liberal media bias” label.[56]

Much of the modern debate on the term was sparked by conservative critiques of liberal bias in academia and education,[7] and conservatives have used it as a major line of attack since.[8]University of Pennsylvania professor Alan Charles Kors and lawyer Harvey A. Silverglate connect speech codes in US universities to philosopher Herbert Marcuse. They claim that speech codes create a “climate of repression”, arguing that they are based on “Marcusean logic”. The speech codes, “mandate a redefined notion of “freedom”, based on the belief that the imposition of a moral agenda on a community is justified”, a view which, “requires less emphasis on individual rights and more on assuring “historically oppressed” persons the means of achieving equal rights.”[57] Kors and Silverglate later established the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which campaigns against infringement of rights of due process, in particular “speech codes”.[58][unreliable source?] Similarly, a common conservative criticism of higher education in the United States is that the political views of the faculty are much more liberal than the general population, and that this situation contributes to an atmosphere of political correctness.[59]

Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term “political correctness” to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community they feel is corrupted by liberal politics.[60]

“Political correctness” is a label typically used to describe liberal terms and actions, but not for equivalent attempts to mold language and behavior on the right.[61] However, the term “right-wing political correctness” is sometimes applied by commentators,[62] especially when drawing parallels: in 1995, one author used the term “conservative correctness” arguing, in relation to higher education, that “critics of political correctness show a curious blindness when it comes to examples of conservative correctness. Most often, the case is entirely ignored or censorship of the Left is justified as a positive virtue. […] A balanced perspective was lost, and everyone missed the fact that people on all sides were sometimes censored.”[25]

In 2003, French fries and French toast were renamed “Freedom fries” and “Freedom toast” in three U.S. House of Representatives cafeterias in response to France’s opposition to the proposed invasion of Iraq; this was described as “polluting the already confused concept of political correctness.”[63] In 2004, then Australian Labor leader Mark Latham described conservative calls for “civility” in politics as “the new political correctness.”[64]

In 2012, Paul Krugman wrote: “the big threat to our discourse is right-wing political correctness, which unlike the liberal version has lots of power and money behind it. And the goal is very much the kind of thing Orwell tried to convey with his notion of Newspeak: to make it impossible to talk, and possibly even think, about ideas that challenge the established order.”[27]

After Mike Pence was booed at a November 2016 performance of Hamilton, president-elect Trump called it harassment and asked for “safe place”.[65] Chrissy Teigen commented that it was “the very thing him and his supporters make fun of as liberal political correctness.”[66]

Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute defined the right’s own version of political correctness as patriotic correctness.[67] Vox editor Dara Lind summarized the definition as “a brand of right-wing hypersensitivity that gets just as offended by insults to American pride and patriotism (like protests against the president-elect or The Star-Spangled Banner) as any college activist gets over insults to diversity.”[68] Jim Geraghty of National Review replied to Nowrasteh, stating that “There is no right-wing equivalent to political correctness.”[69][why?]

In 2015 and 2016, leading up to the 2016 United States presidential election, Republican candidate Donald Trump used political correctness as a common target in his rhetoric.[68][70][24] According to Trump, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were willing to let ordinary Americans suffer because their first priority was political correctness.[71]

In a column for the Huffington Post, Eric Mink characterized Trump’s concept of “political correctness”:

Political correctness is a controversial social force in a nation with a constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression, and it raises legitimate issues well worth discussing and debating. But thats not what Trump is doing. Hes not a rebel speaking unpopular truths to power. Hes not standing up for honest discussions of deeply contentious issues. Hes not out there defying rules handed down by elites to control what we say. All Trumps defying is common decency.[24]

Following the 2016 election, Los Angeles Times columnist Jessica Roy wrote that “political correctness” is one of the key terms used by the American alt-right.[72]

Some conservative commentators in the West argue that “political correctness” and multiculturalism are part of a conspiracy with the ultimate goal of undermining Judeo-Christian values. This theory, which holds that political correctness originates from the critical theory of the Frankfurt School as part of a conspiracy that its proponents call “Cultural Marxism”, is generally known as the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory by academics.[73] The theory originated with Michael Minnicino’s 1992 essay “New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and ‘Political Correctness'”, published in a Lyndon LaRouche movement journal.[74] In 2001, conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan wrote in The Death of the West that “political correctness is cultural Marxism”, and that “its trademark is intolerance”.[75]

In the United States, left forces of “political correctness” have been blamed for censorship, with Time citing campaigns against violence on network television as contributing to a “mainstream culture [which] has become cautious, sanitized, scared of its own shadow” because of “the watchful eye of the p.c. police”, even though in John Wilson’s view protests and advertiser boycotts targeting TV shows are generally organized by right-wing religious groups campaigning against violence, sex, and depictions of homosexuality on television.[76]

In the United Kingdom, some newspapers reported that a nursery school had altered the nursery rhyme “Baa Baa Black Sheep” to read “Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep” and had banned the original.[77] But it was later reported that in fact the Parents and Children Together (PACT) nursery had the children “turn the song into an action rhyme…. They sing happy, sad, bouncing, hopping, pink, blue, black and white sheep etc.”[78] This story was widely circulated and later extended to suggest that other language bans applied to the terms “black coffee” and “blackboard”.[79] Private Eye magazine reported that similar stories had been published in the British press since The Sun first ran them in 1986.[80]

Political correctness is often satirized, for example in The PC Manifesto (1992) by Saul Jerushalmy and Rens Zbignieuw X,[81] and Politically Correct Bedtime Stories (1994) by James Finn Garner, which presents fairy tales re-written from an exaggerated politically correct perspective. In 1994, the comedy film PCU took a look at political correctness on a college campus.

Other examples include the television program Politically Incorrect, George Carlins “Euphemisms” routine, and The Politically Correct Scrapbook.[82] The popularity of the South Park cartoon program led to the creation of the term “South Park Republican” by Andrew Sullivan, and later the book South Park Conservatives by Brian C. Anderson.[83] In its Season 19 (2015), South Park introduced the character PC Principal, who embodies the principle, to poke fun at the principle of political correctness.[84]

The Colbert Report’s host Stephen Colbert often talked, satirically, about the “PC Police”.[85]

Graham Good, an academic at the University of British Columbia, wrote that the term was widely used in debates on university education in Canada. Writing about a 1995 report on the Political Science department at his university, he concluded:”Political correctness” has become a popular phrase because it catches a certain kind of self-righteous and judgmental tone in some and a pervasive anxiety in others who, fearing that they may do something wrong, adjust their facial expressions, and pause in their speech to make sure they are not doing or saying anything inappropriate. The climate this has created on campuses is at least as bad in Canada as in the United States.[86]

In Hong Kong, as the 1997 handover drew nearer, greater control over the press was exercised by both owners and the Chinese state. This had a direct impact on news coverage of relatively sensitive political issues. The Chinese authorities exerted pressure on individual newspapers to take pro-Beijing stances on controversial issues.[87] Tung Chee-hwa’s policy advisers and senior bureaucrats increasingly linked their actions and remarks to “political correctness.” Zhaojia Liu and Siu-kai Lau, writing in The first Tung Chee-hwa administration: the first five years of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, said that “Hong Kong has traditionally been characterized as having freedom of speech and freedom of press, but that an unintended consequence of emphasizing political ‘correctness’ is to limit the space for such freedom of expression.”[88]

In New Zealand, controversies over PC surfaced during the 1990s regarding the social studies school curriculum.[89][90]

The term “politically correct”, with its suggestion of Stalinist orthodoxy, is spoken more with irony and disapproval than with reverence. But, across the country the term “P.C.”, as it is commonly abbreviated, is being heard more and more in debates over what should be taught at the universities.

See original here:

Political correctness – Wikipedia

20 Outrageous Examples That Show How Political Correctness …

The thought police are watching you. Back in the 1990s, lots of jokes were made about political correctness, and almost everybody thought they were really funny. Unfortunately, very few people are laughing now because political correctness has become a way of life in America. If you say the wrong thing you could lose your job or you could rapidly end up in court. Every single day, the mainstream media bombards us with subtle messages that make it clear what is appropriate and what is inappropriate, and most Americans quietly fall in line with this unwritten speech code. But just because it is not written down somewhere does not mean that it isnt real. In fact, this speech code becomes more restrictive and more suffocating with each passing year. The goal of the thought Nazis is to control what people say to one another, because eventually that will shape what most people think and what most people believe. If you dont think this is true, just try the following experiment some time. Go to a public place where a lot of people are gathered and yell out something horribly politically incorrect such as I love Jesus and watch people visibly cringe. The name of Jesus has become a curse word in our politically correct society, and we have been trained to have a negative reaction to it in public places. After that, yell out something politically correct such as I support gay marriage and watch what happens. You will probably get a bunch of smiles and quite a few people may even approach you to express their appreciation for what you just said. Of course this is going to vary depending on what area of the country you live in, but hopefully you get the idea. Billions of dollars of media programming has changed the definitions of what people consider to be acceptable and what people consider to be not acceptable. Political correctness shapes the way that we all communicate with each other every single day, and it is only going to get worse in the years ahead. Sadly, most people simply have no idea what is happening to them.

The following are 20 outrageous examples that show how political correctness is taking over America

#1 According to a new Army manual, U.S. soldiers will now be instructed to avoid any criticism of pedophilia and to avoid criticizing anything related to Islam. The following is from a recent Judicial Watch article

The draft leaked to the newspaper offers a list of taboo conversation topics that soldiers should avoid, including making derogatory comments about the Taliban, advocating womens rights, any criticism of pedophilia, directing any criticism towards Afghans, mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct or anything related to Islam.

#2 The Obama administration has banned all U.S. government agencies from producing any training materials that link Islam with terrorism. In fact, the FBI has gone back and purged references to Islam and terrorism from hundreds of old documents.

#3 Authorities are cracking down on public expressions of the Christian faith all over the nation, and yet atheists in New York City are allowed to put up an extremely offensive billboard in Time Square this holiday season that shows a picture of Jesus on the cross underneath a picture of Santa with the following tagline: Keep the Merry! Dump the Myth!

#4 According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it is illegal for employers to discriminate against criminals because it has a disproportionate impact on minorities.

#5 Down in California, Governor Jerry Brown has signed a bill that will allow large numbers of illegal immigrants to legally get California drivers licenses.

#6 Should an illegal immigrant be able to get a law license and practice law in the United States? That is exactly what the State Bar of California argued earlier this year

An illegal immigrant applying for a law license in California should be allowed to receive it, the State Bar of California argues in a filing to the state Supreme Court.

Sergio Garcia, 35, of Chico, Calif., has met the rules for admission, including passing the bar exam and the moral character review, and his lack of legal status in the United States should not automatically disqualify him, the Committee of Bar Examiners said Monday.

#7 More than 75 percent of the babies born in Detroit are born to unmarried women, yet it is considered to be politically correct to suggest that there is anything wrong with that.

#8 The University of Minnesota Duluth (UMD) initiated an aggressive advertising campaign earlier this year that included online videos, billboards, and lectures that sought to raise awareness about white privilege.

#9 At one high school down in California, five students were sent home from school for wearing shirts that displayed the American flag on the Mexican holiday of Cinco de Mayo.

#10 Chris Matthews of MSNBC recently suggested that it is racist for conservatives to use the word Chicago.

#11 A judge down in North Carolina has ruled that it is unconstitutional for North Carolina to offer license plates that say Choose Life on them.

#12 The number of gay characters on television is at an all-time record high. Meanwhile, there are barely any strongly Christian characters to be found anywhere on television or in the movies, and if they do happen to show up they are almost always portrayed in a very negative light.

#13 House Speaker John Boehner recently stripped key committee positions from four rebellious conservatives in the U.S. House of Representatives. It is believed that this purge happened in order to send a message that members of the party better fall in line and support Boehner in his negotiations with Barack Obama.

#14 There is already a huge push to have a woman elected president in 2016. It doesnt appear that it even matters which woman is elected. There just seems to be a feeling that it is time for a woman to be elected even if she doesnt happen to be the best candidate.

#15 Volunteer chaplains for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department have been banned from using the name of Jesus on government property.

#16 Chaplains in the U.S. military are being forced to perform gay marriages, even if it goes against their personal religious beliefs. The few chaplains that have refused to follow orders know that it means the end of their careers.

#17 All over the country, the term manhole is being replaced with the terms utility hole or maintenance hole.

#18 In San Francisco, authorities have installed small plastic privacy screens on library computers so that perverts can continue to exercise their right to watch pornography at the library without children being exposed to it.

#19 You will never guess what is going on at one college up in Washington state

A Washington college said their non-discrimination policy prevents them from stopping a transgender man from exposing himself to young girls inside a womens locker room, according to a group of concerned parents.

#20 All over America, liberal commentators are now suggesting that football has become too violent and too dangerous and that it needs to be substantially toned down. In fact, one liberal columnist for the Boston Globe is even proposing that football should be banned for anyone under the age of 14.

Read the original post:

20 Outrageous Examples That Show How Political Correctness …

Political correctness – Simple English Wikipedia, the free …

Political correctness (or PC for short) means using words or behavior which will not offend any group of people. Most people think it is important for everyone to be treated equally, fairly and with dignity. Some words that are unkind to some people have been used for a long time. Some of these words have now been replaced by other words that are not offensive. These new words are described as politically correct.The term is often used in a mocking sense when attempts at avoiding offense are seen to go too far.

This term has been used since the early 1970s. It started being used in the modern negative sense in the late 80s in America.

Politically correct words or terms are used to show differences between people or groups in a non-offensive way. This difference may be because of race, gender, beliefs, religion, sexual orientation, or because they have a mental or physical disability, or any difference from what is considered the norm.

Throughout the 20th century women fought to have the same rights as men. In PC language this is seen in changes to job titles such as “policeman”, “postman”, and “chairman” which now commonly go by the gender-neutral titles “police officer”, “letter carrier” and “chairperson” or “chair” as well as with terms having broader application, such as “humankind” replacing “mankind”.

People who are attracted to the same gender are usually referred to as ‘homosexual’. Likewise, people who are attracted to people of both genders are usually referred to as “bisexual”. However, both of these terms are seen as being perfectly fine by the more politically liberal oriented people.

People who are mentally disabled are now rarely described as “mentally retarded” (sometimes called “M.R.”) but may be said to have “special needs”. M.R. has been changed to I.D.; Intellectual Disabilities.

People who are blind or deaf may be referred to as “vision impaired” and “hearing impaired”. People who cannot speak are never “dumb” but “mute” or “without speech”.

The overall terms ‘handicapped’ and ‘disabled’ are no longer considered appropriate (there is no distinction between physical or mental, acquired or inborn.) The people first/PC term is ‘challenged’. This term better reflects the fact they are different, rather than less.

Some of the new politically correct words are often criticized for being rather ridiculous. Some examples of these are the terms ending in challenged. For example, someone who is very short might be described as “vertically challenged”. People also say that things that are obviously bad are called by something else which hides the fact that they are bad. For example, young people who are in trouble with the law, instead of being called “juvenile delinquents” became “children at risk”. Some PC terms may be ambiguous i.e. have two possible meanings. “hearing impaired” can also refer to someone who has partial hearing (hard of hearing) and “vision impaired” can also refer to someone who has partial vision.

Read more from the original source:

Political correctness – Simple English Wikipedia, the free …

The Abolition of Work – Wikipedia

“The Abolition of Work” is an essay written by Bob Black in 1985. It was part of Black’s first book, an anthology of essays entitled The Abolition of Work and Other Essays published by Loompanics Unlimited.[1] It is an exposition of Black’s “type 3 anarchism” a blend of post-Situationist theory and individualist anarchism focusing on a critique of the work ethic.[2] Black draws upon certain ideas of Marshall Sahlins, Richard Borshay Lee, Charles Fourier, William Morris, and Paul Goodman.

Although “The Abolition of Work” has most often been reprinted by anarchist publishers and Black is well known as an anarchist, the essay’s argument is not explicitly anarchist. Black argues that the abolition of work is as important as the abolition of the state. The essay, which is based on a 1981 speech at the Gorilla Grotto in San Francisco, is informal and without academic references, but Black mentions some sources such as the utopian socialist Charles Fourier, the unconventional Marxists Paul Lafargue and William Morris, anarchists such as Peter Kropotkin and Paul Goodman, and anthropologists such as Marshall Sahlins and Richard Borshay Lee.

In the essay Black argues for the abolition of the producer- and consumer-based society, where, Black contends, all of life is devoted to the production and consumption of commodities. Attacking Marxist state socialism as much as Liberal capitalism, Black argues that the only way for humans to be free is to reclaim their time from jobs and employment, instead turning necessary subsistence tasks into free play done voluntarily an approach referred to as “ludic”. The essay argues that “no-one should ever work”, because work – defined as compulsory productive activity enforced by economic or political means is the source of most of the misery in the world. Black denounces work for its compulsion, and for the forms it takes as subordination to a boss, as a “job” which turns a potentially enjoyable task into a meaningless chore, for the degradation imposed by systems of work-discipline, and for the large number of work-related deaths and injuries which Black characterizes as homicide.

He views the subordination enacted in workplaces as “a mockery of freedom”, and denounces as hypocrites the various theorists who support freedom while supporting work. Subordination in work, Black alleges, makes people stupid and creates fear of freedom. Because of work, people become accustomed to rigidity and regularity, and do not have the time for friendship or meaningful activity. Many workers, he contends, are dissatisfied with work (as evidenced by absenteeism, goldbricking, embezzlement and sabotage), so that what he says should be uncontroversial; however, it is controversial only because people are too close to the work-system to see its flaws.

Play, in contrast, is not necessarily rule-governed, and, more important, it is performed voluntarily, in complete freedom, for the satisfaction of engaging in the activity itself. But since intrinsically satisfying activity is not necessarily unproductive, “productive play” is possible, and, if generalized, might give rise to a gift economy. Black points out that hunter-gatherer societies are typified by play (in the sense of “productive play”), a view he backs up with the work of anthropologist Marshall Sahlins in his essay “The Original Affluent Society,” reprinted in his book “Stone Age Economics” (1971). Black has reiterated this interpretation of the ethnographic record, this time with citations and references, in “Primitive Affluence,” reprinted in his book “Friendly Fire” (Autonomedia 1994), and in “Nightmares of Reason” (a critique of Murray Bookchin posted at TheAnarchistLibrary.org).

Black responds to the criticism (argued, for instance, by libertarian David Ramsey-Steele) that “work,” if not simply effort or energy, is necessary to get important but unpleasant tasks done, by contending that much work now currently done is unnecessary, because it only serves the purposes of social control and economic exploitation. Black has responded that most important tasks can be rendered ludic or “salvaged” by being turned into game-like and craft-like activities, and secondly that the vast majority of work does not need doing at all. The latter tasks are unnecessary because they only serve functions of commerce and social control that exist only to maintain the work-system as a whole. As for what is left, he advocates Charles Fourier’s approach of arranging activities so that people will want to do them. He is also sceptical but open-minded about the possibility of eliminating work through labor-saving technologies, which, in his opinion, have so far never reduced work, and often deskilled and debased workers. As he sees it, the political left has, for the most part, failed to acknowledge as revolutionary the critique of work, limiting itself to the critique of wage-labor. The left, he contends, by glorifying the dignity of labor, has endorsed work itself, and also the work ethic.

Black has often criticized leftism, especially Marxism, but he does not consider anarchism, which he espouses, as always advocating an understanding of work which is consistent with his critique of work. Black looks favorably, if critically, on a text such as “The Right to Be Greedy”, by the Situationist-influenced collective For Ourselves (he wrote a Preface for the Loompanics Unlimited reprint edition), which attempts to synthesize the post-moral individualism of Max Stirner (“The Ego and Its Own”) with what appears to be an egalitarian anarcho-communism. What has been called “zero-work” remains controversial on the left and among anarchists.

“The Abolition of Work” has been reprinted, as the first essay of “Instead of Work,” published by LBC Books in 2015. Eight more essays follow, including an otherwise unpublished, lengthy essay, “Afterthoughts on the Abolition of Work.” The introduction is by Bruce Sterling.

“The Abolition of Work” was a significant influence on futurist and design critic Bruce Sterling, who at the time was a leading cyberpunk science fiction author and called it “one of the seminal underground documents of the 1980s”.[3] The essay’s critique of work formed the basis for the antilabour faction in Sterling’s celebrated 1988 novel Islands in the Net.[3] In the September/October 1995 issue of Mother Jones, Maya Sinha praised the essay’s provocative contention, paying particular note to Black’s observation that much of what is termed “free time” is consumed by efforts related to facilitating or recovering from work itself.[4] “The Abolition of Work” has been widely reprinted. It has been translated into French, German, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese (both continental Portuguese and Luso-Brazilian), Swedish, Russian, Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, Esperanto, Azari (the language of Azerbaijan), and probably other languages.

Read more:

The Abolition of Work – Wikipedia

Atlas Shrugged Movie (Official Site)


Little Pink House is in theaters Friday, April 20th!


Watch the new “Draw My Life” video, featuring Envy, from The Atlas Society.


The Atlas Society warns us all of some very serious diseases: STDs (Socially Transmitted Diseases).


Midas Mulligan’s Black Friday Sale is back for its 7th year!


Read a speech by Atlas Shrugged Producer John Aglialoro.


The Atlas Society founder, Dr. David Kelley, is retiring.


Anthem is being made into a graphic novel!


Atlas Shrugged Movie (Official Site)

SparkNotes: Atlas Shrugged: Plot Overview

In an environment of worsening economicconditions, Dagny Taggart, vice president in charge of operations,works to repair Taggart Transcontinentals crumbling Rio Norte Lineto service Colorado, the last booming industrial area in the country.Her efforts are hampered by the fact that many of the countrysmost talented entrepreneurs are retiring and disappearing. The railroadscrisis worsens when the Mexican government nationalizes TaggartsSan Sebastian Line. The line had been built to service Francisco dAnconias copper mills, but the mills turn out to be worthless.Francisco had been a successful industrialist, and Dagnys lover,but has become a worthless playboy. To solve the railroads financialproblems, Dagnys brother Jim uses political influence to pass legislationthat destroys Taggarts only competition in Colorado. Dagny mustfix the Rio Norte Line immediately and plans to use Rearden Metal,a new alloy created by Hank Rearden. When confronted about the SanSebastian mines, Francisco tells Dagny he is deliberately destroyingdAnconia Copper. Later he appears at Reardens anniversary partyand, meeting him for the first time, urges Rearden to reject thefreeloaders who live off of him.

The State Science Institute issues a denunciation of Rearden metal,and Taggarts stock crashes. Dagny decides to start her own companyto rebuild the line, and it is a huge success. Dagny and Reardenbecome lovers. Together they discover a motor in an abandoned factorythat runs on static electricity, and they seek the inventor. Thegovernment passes new legislation that cripples industry in Colorado.Ellis Wyatt, an oil industrialist, suddenly disappears after settingfire to his wells. Dagny is forced to cut trains, and the situationworsens. Soon, more industrialists disappear. Dagny believes thereis a destroyer at work, taking men away when they are most needed.Francisco visits Rearden and asks him why he remains in businessunder such repressive conditions. When a fire breaks out and theywork together to put it out, Francisco understands Reardens lovefor his mills.

Rearden goes on trial for breaking one of the new laws,but refuses to participate in the proceedings, telling the judgesthey can coerce him by force but he wont help them to convict him.Unwilling to be seen as thugs, they let him go. Economic dictatorWesley Mouch needs Reardens cooperation for a new set of socialistlaws, and Jim needs economic favors that will keep his ailing railroadrunning after the collapse of Colorado. Jim appeals to Reardenswife Lillian, who wants to destroy her husband. She tells him Rearden andDagny are having an affair, and he uses this information in a trade.The new set of laws, Directive 10-289,is irrational and repressive. It includes a ruling that requiresall patents to be signed over to the government. Rearden is blackmailedinto signing over his metal to protect Dagnys reputation.

Dagny quits over the new directive and retreats to a mountain lodge.When she learns of a massive accident at the Taggart Tunnel, shereturns to her job. She receives a letter from the scientist shehad hired to help rebuild the motor, and fears he will be the nexttarget of the destroyer. In an attempt to stop him from disappearing,she follows him in an airplane and crashes in the mountains. Whenshe wakes up, she finds herself in a remote valley where all theretired industrialists are living. They are on strike, calling ita strike of the mind. There, she meets John Galt, who turns outto be both the destroyer and the man who built the motor. She fallsin love with him, but she cannot give up her railroad, and she leavesthe valley. When she returns to work, she finds that the governmenthas nationalized the railroad industry. Government leaders wanther to make a speech reassuring the public about the new laws. Sherefuses until Lillian comes to blackmail her. On the air, she proudlyannounces her affair with Rearden and reveals that he has been blackmailed. Shewarns the country about its repressive government.

With the economy on the verge of collapse, Francisco destroys therest of his holdings and disappears. The politicians no longer evenpretend to work for the public good. Their vast network of influencepeddling creates worse chaos, as crops rot waiting for freight trainsthat are diverted for personal favors. In an attempt to gain controlof Franciscos mills, the government stages a riot at Rearden Steel.But the steelworkers organize and fight back, led by Francisco,who has been working undercover at the mills. Francisco saves Reardenslife, then convinces him to join the strike.

Just as the head of state prepares to give a speech onthe economic situation, John Galt takes over the airwaves and deliversa lengthy address to the country, laying out the terms of the strikehe has organized. In desperation, the government seeks Galt to makehim their economic dictator. Dagny inadvertently leads them to him,and they take him prisoner. But Galt refuses to help them, evenafter he is tortured. Finally, Dagny and the strikers rescue himin an armed confrontation with guards. They return to the valley,where Dagny finally joins the strike. Soon, the countrys collapseis complete and the strikers prepare to return.

Originally posted here:

SparkNotes: Atlas Shrugged: Plot Overview

Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011) – IMDb

Edit Storyline

It was great to be alive, once, but the world was perishing. Factories were shutting down, transportation was grinding to a halt, granaries were empty–and key people who had once kept it running were disappearing all over the country. As the lights winked out and the cities went cold, nothing was left to anyone but misery. No one knew how to stop it, no one understood why it was happening – except one woman, the operating executive of a once mighty transcontinental railroad, who suspects the answer may rest with a remarkable invention and the man who created it – a man who once said he would stop the motor of the world. Everything now depends on finding him and discovering the answer to the question on the lips of everyone as they whisper it in fear: Who *is* John Galt? Written byRobb

Taglines:Who is John Galt?

Budget:$20,000,000 (estimated)

Opening Weekend USA: $1,686,347,17 April 2011, Limited Release

Gross USA: $4,752,353

Runtime: 97 min

Aspect Ratio: 2.35 : 1

View post:

Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011) – IMDb

Atlas Shrugged | AynRand.org

Reason and freedom are corollaries, Ayn Rand holds, as are faith and force. Atlas Shrugged showcases both relationships.

The heroes are unwavering thinkers. Whether it is a destructive business scheme proclaimed as moral, the potential collapse of the economy, or a personal life filled with pain, the heroes seek to face the facts and understand. To them, reason is an absolute. Politically, therefore, what they require and demand is freedom. Freedom to think, to venture into the new and unknown, to earn, to trade, to succeed and fail and pursue their own individual happiness.

The villains, by contrast, reject the absolutism of reason. They want a world ruled by their feelings, in which wishing makes it so. James Taggart, for instance, wants to be the head of a railroad without the need of effort. No amount of thinking can bring such a world about he must attempt to bring it about by force. As Rand puts it elsewhere, Anyone who resorts to the formula: Its so, because I say so, will have to reach for a gun, sooner or later.

View post:

Atlas Shrugged | AynRand.org

My Medicine – WebMD

WebMD My Medicine Help

Q: What is an interaction?

A: Mixing certain medicines together may cause a bad reaction. This is called an interaction. For example, one medicine may cause side effects that create problems with other medicines. Or one medicine may make another medicine stronger or weaker.

Q: How do you classify the seriousness of an interaction?

A: The following classification is used:

Contraindicated: Never use this combination of drugs because of high risk for dangerous interaction

Serious: Potential for serious interaction; regular monitoring by your doctor required or alternate medication may be needed

Significant: Potential for significant interaction (monitoring by your doctor is likely required)

Mild: Interaction is unlikely, minor, or nonsignificant

Q: What should I do if my medications show interactions?

A: Call your doctor or pharmacist if you are concerned about an interaction. Do not stop taking any prescribed medication without your doctor’s approval. Sometimes the risk of not taking the medication outweighs the risk or the interaction.

Q: Why can’t I enter my medication?

A: There may be medications, especially otc or supplements, that have not been adequately studied for interactions. If we do not have interaction information for a certain medication it can’t be saved in My Medicine.

Q: Do you cover all FDA warnings?

A: WebMD will alert users to the most important FDA warnings and alerts affecting consumers such as recalls, label changes and investigations. Not all FDA actions are included. Go to the FDA for a comprehensive list of warnings.

Q: Can I be alerted by email if there is an FDA warning or alert?

A: Yes. If you are signed in to WebMD.com and using My Medicine you can sign up to receive email alerts when you add a medicine. To unsubscribe click here.

Q: Can I add medicines for family members?

A: Yes. Click the arrow next to your picture to add drug profiles for family or loved ones.

Q: Can I access My Medicine from my mobile phone?

A: Yes. Sign in to the WebMD Mobile App. Your saved medicine can be found under “Saved.”

Q: Why are there already medicines saved when this my first time using this tool?

A: If you have previously saved a medication on WebMD, for example, in the WebMD Mobile App, these may display in My Medicine.

The rest is here:

My Medicine – WebMD

Medicine | Define Medicine at Dictionary.com


c.1200, “medical treatment, cure, remedy,” also used figuratively, of spiritual remedies, from Old French medecine (Modern French mdicine) “medicine, art of healing, cure, treatment, potion,” from Latin medicina “the healing art, medicine; a remedy,” also used figuratively, perhaps originally ars medicina “the medical art,” from fem. of medicinus (adj.) “of a doctor,” from medicus “a physician” (see medical); though OED finds evidence for this is wanting. Meaning “a medicinal potion or plaster” in English is mid-14c.

To take (one’s) medicine “submit to something disagreeable” is first recorded 1865. North American Indian medicine-man “shaman” is first attested 1801, from American Indian adoption of the word medicine in sense of “magical influence.” The U.S.-Canadian boundary they called Medicine Line (first attested 1910), because it conferred a kind of magic protection: punishment for crimes committed on one side of it could be avoided by crossing over to the other. Medicine show “traveling show meant to attract a crowd so patent medicine can be sold to them” is American English, 1938. Medicine ball “stuffed leather ball used for exercise” is from 1889.

Read the original post:

Medicine | Define Medicine at Dictionary.com

medicine – Wiktionary

English[edit]Alternative forms[edit]Etymology[edit]

From Middle English medicin, from Middle French medicine, from Old French medecine, from Latin medicna (the healing art, medicine, a physician’s shop, a remedy, medicine), feminine of medicinus (of or belonging to physic or surgery, or to a physician or surgeon), from medicus (a physician, surgeon), from medeor (I heal).

medicine (countable and uncountable, plural medicines)

Terms derived from medicine (noun)

Terms etymologically related to medicine (noun)

ritual Native American magic

Translations to be checked

medicine (third-person singular simple present medicines, present participle medicining, simple past and past participle medicined)


From Old French medecine, with the i added back to reflect the original Latin medicna.

medicinef (plural medicines)


Read more:

medicine – Wiktionary

Ascension | Define Ascension at Dictionary.com


ExamplesWord Origin


Dictionary.com UnabridgedBased on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2018

Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012

c.1300, “ascent of Christ into Heaven on the 40th day after the Resurrection,” from Latin ascensionem (nominative ascensio) “a rising,” noun of action from past participle stem of ascendere “to mount, ascend, go up” (see ascend). Astronomical sense is recorded late 14c.; meaning “action of ascending” is from 1590s. Related: Ascensional.

Online Etymology Dictionary, 2010 Douglas Harper

Go here to see the original:

Ascension | Define Ascension at Dictionary.com

Ascension (TV Mini-Series 2014) – IMDb

Edit Storyline

Ascension is an ambitious original drama following a covert U.S. space mission launched in the 1960’s that sent hundreds of men, women and children on a century-long voyage aboard the starship Ascension to populate a new world. Half way into their journey, as they approach the point of no return, the mysterious murder of a young woman causes the ship’s population to question the true nature of their mission. The series features the confident and capable First Officer Aaron Gault, the eponymous ship’s Captain William Denninger, and Viondra Denninger, the captain’s beautiful, manipulative and dangerous wife (who also serves as the ship’s Chief Steward). Also included are Chief Astronomer Emily Vanderhaus, the ship’s head doctor Juliet Bryce, the doctor’s daughter, Nora Bryce, and Nora’s love interest, James Toback. Written byahmetkozan

Read more from the original source:

Ascension (TV Mini-Series 2014) – IMDb

What is Virtual Reality? – Virtual Reality Society

The definition of virtual reality comes, naturally, from the definitions for both virtual and reality. The definition of virtual is near and reality is what we experience as human beings. So the term virtual reality basically means near-reality. This could, of course, mean anything but it usually refers to a specific type of reality emulation.

We know the world through our senses and perception systems. In school we all learned that we have five senses: taste, touch, smell, sight and hearing. These are however only our most obvious sense organs. The truth is that humans have many more senses than this, such as a sense of balance for example. These other sensory inputs, plus some special processing of sensory information by our brains ensures that we have a rich flow of information from the environment to our minds.

Everything that we know about our reality comes by way of our senses. In other words, our entire experience of reality is simply a combination of sensory information and our brains sense-making mechanisms for that information. It stands to reason then, that if you can present your senses with made-up information, your perception of reality would also change in response to it. You would be presented with a version of reality that isnt really there, but from your perspective it would be perceived as real. Something we would refer to as a virtual reality.

So, in summary, virtual reality entails presenting our senses with a computer generated virtual environment that we can explore in some fashion.

Answering what is virtual reality in technical terms is straight-forward. Virtual reality is the term used to describe a three-dimensional, computer generated environment which can be explored and interacted with by a person. That person becomes part of this virtual world or is immersed within this environment and whilst there, is able to manipulate objects or perform a series of actions.

Although we talk about a few historical early forms of virtual reality elsewhere on the site, today virtual reality is usually implemented using computer technology. There are a range of systems that are used for this purpose, such as headsets, omni-directional treadmills and special gloves. These are used to actually stimulate our senses together in order to create the illusion of reality.

This is more difficult than it sounds, since our senses and brains are evolved to provide us with a finely synchronised and mediated experience. If anything is even a little off we can usually tell. This is where youll hear terms such asimmersiveness and realism enter the conversation. These issues that divide convincing or enjoyable virtual reality experiences from jarring or unpleasant ones are partly technical and partly conceptual. Virtual reality technology needs to take our physiology into account. For example, the human visual field does not look like a video frame. We have (more or less) 180 degrees of vision and although you are not always consciously aware of your peripheral vision, if it were gone youd notice. Similarly when what your eyes and the vestibular system in your ears tell you are in conflict it can cause motion sickness. Which is what happens to some people on boats or when they read while in a car.

If an implementation of virtual reality manages to get the combination of hardware, software and sensory synchronicity just right it achieves something known as a sense of presence. Where the subject really feels like they are present in that environment.

This may seems like a lot of effort, and it is! What makes the development of virtual reality worthwhile? The potential entertainment value is clear. Immersive films and video games are good examples. The entertainment industry is after all a multi-billion dollar one and consumers are always keen on novelty. Virtual reality has many other, more serious, applications as well.

There are a wide variety of applications for virtual reality which include:

Virtual reality can lead to new and exciting discoveries in these areas which impact upon our day to day lives.

Wherever it is too dangerous, expensive or impractical to do something in reality, virtual reality is the answer. From trainee fighter pilots to medical applications trainee surgeons, virtual reality allows us to take virtual risks in order to gain real world experience. As the cost of virtual reality goes down and it becomes more mainstream you can expect more serious uses, such as education or productivity applications, to come to the fore. Virtual reality and its cousin augmented reality could substantively change the way we interface with our digital technologies. Continuing the trend of humanising our technology.

There are many different types of virtual reality systems but they all share the same characteristics such as the ability to allow the person to view three-dimensional images. These images appear life-sized to the person.

Plus they change as the person moves around their environment which corresponds with the change in their field of vision. The aim is for a seamless join between the persons head and eye movements and the appropriate response, e.g. change in perception. This ensures that the virtual environment is both realistic and enjoyable.

A virtual environment should provide the appropriate responses in real time- as the person explores their surroundings. The problems arise when there is a delay between the persons actions and system response or latency which then disrupts their experience. The person becomes aware that they are in an artificial environment and adjusts their behaviour accordingly which results in a stilted, mechanical form of interaction.

The aim is for a natural, free-flowing form of interaction which will result in a memorable experience.

Virtual reality is the creation of a virtual environment presented to our senses in such a way that we experience it as if we were really there. It uses a host of technologies to achieve this goal and is a technically complex feat that has to account for our perception and cognition. It has both entertainment and serious uses. The technology is becoming cheaper and more widespread. We can expect to see many more innovative uses for the technology in the future and perhaps a fundamental way in which we communicate and work thanks to the possibilities of virtual reality.

Read the original:

What is Virtual Reality? – Virtual Reality Society

Virtual Reality – YouTube

This item has been hidden

This item has been hidden

Witness those who have conquered the impossible.

This item has been hidden

Immerse yourself in a few of today’s most beloved games.

This item has been hidden

Instead of merely listening to music: live it.

This item has been hidden

Vast landscapes, iconic cities, and other mind-blowing natural places will leave you in awe at the beauty of planet Earth.

This item has been hidden

Watch as these stories unfold all around you.

This item has been hidden

The places, people, and events that are shaping our world.

This item has been hidden

This item has been hidden

Originally posted here:

Virtual Reality – YouTube