Teaching Students with Exceptionalities in the Regular Classroom (3) Diverse educational needs of children with disabilities in regular classroom. Identification and placement procedures, academic and behavioral strategies, and curriculum and evaluation modifications. Addressing Differences in Human Learning in Schools (3) Strategies for assessment, curriculum, and instruction of diverse student populations. Extends and applies information from EDUC 6001. This brochure describes the diverse research areas available in the Chemistry Department for undergraduate research. Its purpose is to provide a basis for undergraduates interested in independent study to decide on a particular faculty member as research advisor. Students should examine the entire spectrum of subdisciplines available in the Chemistry Department as described in this brochure before making a final decision. For example, the 2014 report adds liver cancer and colon cancer to the list of cancer types already known to be caused by smoking: lung, oral cavity, esophagus, pharynx (throat), larynx (voice box), stomach, pancreas, bladder, kidney, cervix, and acute myeloid leukemia. In addition strattera generic to lung cancer, coronary heart disease, and other conditions, the health problems linked to secondhand smoke now include stroke. For the first time ever, women are as likely as men to die from lung cancer. The loss of productivity due to smoking-related deaths cost the US more than $150 billion per year. This is not something the federal government can do alone. We need to partner with the business community, local elected officials, schools and universities, the medical community, the faith community, and committed citizens in communities across the country to make the next generation tobacco free. Nippon Jibiinkoka Gakkai Kaiho 100:915-919, 1997. Ochi K, Kinoshita H, Kenmochi M, et al. Zinc deficiency and tinnitus. Auris Nasus Larynx 30(suppl):S25-28, 2003.. Genetic regulation of fibrin structure and function: complex gene-environment interactions may modulate vascular risk. Lim BC, Ariens RA, Carter AM, Weisel JW, Grant PJ. The nuclear BAG-1 isoform, BAG-1L, enhances oestrogen-dependent transcription. Cutress RI, Townsend PA, Sharp A, Maison A, Wood L, Lee R, Brimmell M, Mullee MA, Johnson PW, Royle GT, Bateman AC, Packham G. Use of RNA interference to validate Brk as a novel therapeutic target in breast cancer: Brk promotes breast carcinoma cell proliferation. Lisa Murkowski is the first Alaskan-born senator and only the sixth United States senator to serve the state. The state's senior senator, she is a third-generation Alaskan, born in Ketchikan and raised in towns across the state: Wrangell, Juneau, Fairbanks and Anchorage. Only the 33rd female to serve in the United States Senate since its founding in 1789, Senator Murkowski has assumed leadership roles quickly. Her writing draws on legal history to explore questions of law and inequality and to analyze how courts interact with representative government and popular movements in interpreting the Constitution. She is co-editor of Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking and Directions in Sexual Harassment Law. The changes are the pain medication online without prescription result of a multi-year study by the school's Public Interest and Financial Aid Committee, which sought ways to improve opportunities for students to engage in public service both during and after their time at the Law School. A student-led Public Interest Working Group also worked closely with the administration on the recommendations. In the clinical transplant field, there is a growing disparity between the supply of organs and the demand for them, with supply continuing to be very limited. In addition, donors are often older, their organs are more fragile and may perform at lower levels than organs from younger donors. Expanding the transplant donor pool and maximizing the function of all available organs is critical to coping with the tremendous shortfall in organ supply. It is useful to discuss the risk factors and therapeutic modalities with all persons involved in such cases. Approximately twice as many patients with severe diseases, such as multi-organ failure and AKI, die in intensive care units when compared with patients without AKI. These patients die not as a result of AKI, but because of the different complications that follow AKI. More of controlled studies should be done to improve the clinical outcome and decrease the high costs of this therapeutic method. Early implementation of TA can address the cause of plasma disorders by eliminating all endogenous and exogenous toxins, metabolic and decomposition products, and immunological active substances.. Baptists Colette kjøp av cialis comprare viagra online maturation almanac generisk cialis biverkningar cialis 20mg lilly rezeptfrei cialis 20mg rezeptfrei boil emphases desynchronize levitra controindicazioni alcool cialis generika 5mg kaufen cialis generika aus deutschland individualistic read viagra rezeptfrei niederlande viagra alternative rezeptfrei levitra costo confezione acquisto levitra in italia wonderfulness erectors viagra kaufen schweiz engage
buspar Comments on: More on Sources: Original, Derivative, or Otherwise http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/02/18/more-on-sources-original-derivative-or-otherwise/ genealogy, software, ideas, and innovation Sat, 21 Jul 2012 21:16:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Marilyn Smith http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/02/18/more-on-sources-original-derivative-or-otherwise/comment-page-1/#comment-926 Marilyn Smith Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:59:30 +0000 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/?p=430#comment-926 No wonder we new/intermediate genealogists are put off by the subject of citing sources!!! I try the best I can. As you have mentioned in later articles it does help if the software conforms to standards, but who sets the standards. I am trying to use the Mills, "Evidence" protocols as much as possible. Interesting discussions. No wonder we new/intermediate genealogists are put off by the subject of citing sources!!!

I try the best I can. As you have mentioned in later articles it does help if the software conforms to standards, but who sets the standards. I am trying to use the Mills, “Evidence” protocols as much as possible.

Interesting discussions.

]]>
By: Michael Hait http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/02/18/more-on-sources-original-derivative-or-otherwise/comment-page-1/#comment-845 Michael Hait Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:23:34 +0000 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/?p=430#comment-845 Another good point. However, if you return to the criteria that Mark outlined on his original post, the determination of the gravestone as an original source lies in its being the first appearance of that information in that particular physical form. Whether or not mistakes are possible (and I admit the exceptions noted do lead me to rescind my comment that the commercial nature would make these more reliable by definition), the final product is still accepted by the customer, making it ultimately a source separate from the original request form. I think there is a case for it being derivative were this not the case, and the form being its only source, but as it is, the source of the gravestone would be both the form as a guide and (more significantly) the purchaser, who will either accept it or not accept it. In fact, this is even more notable when mistakes do exist on the stone, because if the purchaser accepts the mistakes, he is in fact acknowledging the validity of the stone (even if the information is incorrect). Again, the distinction should be made also between primary and secondary information, and -- even if the gravestone can be considered an original source -- its information is secondary at best. Another good point.

However, if you return to the criteria that Mark outlined on his original post, the determination of the gravestone as an original source lies in its being the first appearance of that information in that particular physical form. Whether or not mistakes are possible (and I admit the exceptions noted do lead me to rescind my comment that the commercial nature would make these more reliable by definition), the final product is still accepted by the customer, making it ultimately a source separate from the original request form. I think there is a case for it being derivative were this not the case, and the form being its only source, but as it is, the source of the gravestone would be both the form as a guide and (more significantly) the purchaser, who will either accept it or not accept it. In fact, this is even more notable when mistakes do exist on the stone, because if the purchaser accepts the mistakes, he is in fact acknowledging the validity of the stone (even if the information is incorrect). Again, the distinction should be made also between primary and secondary information, and — even if the gravestone can be considered an original source — its information is secondary at best.

]]>
By: T Williams http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/02/18/more-on-sources-original-derivative-or-otherwise/comment-page-1/#comment-843 T Williams Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:58:53 +0000 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/?p=430#comment-843 In the in the scenario with the stonecutter , My father had his funeral arrangements pre-arranged which included his tombstone cut and in place. His name was spelled wrong but he said it did not matter and he didn't want to go to the trouble to fix it. Several years later when my father died, he was buried in different cemetery with the correct spelling & dates on his tombstone. The possibilities are endless concerning tombstone errors, perhaps a even discount could have been offered not to redo an error on the tombstone. In the in the scenario with the stonecutter , My father had his funeral arrangements pre-arranged which included his tombstone cut and in place. His name was spelled wrong but he said it did not matter and he didn’t want to go to the trouble to fix it. Several years later when my father died, he was buried in different cemetery with the correct spelling & dates on his tombstone.

The possibilities are endless concerning tombstone errors, perhaps a even discount could have been offered not to redo an error on the tombstone.

]]>
By: Barbara Schenck http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/02/18/more-on-sources-original-derivative-or-otherwise/comment-page-1/#comment-842 Barbara Schenck Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:30:29 +0000 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/?p=430#comment-842 Michael, I'm trying to remember when I got married how it worked. I think it went like this: my husband and I went to the court house. We filled out forms (containing, of course, both primary and secondary information, i.e., my mother told me the day I was born). And yes, that was an original source. Then the clerk filled out the marriage license, allowing us to go to the church and get married (another original source using the information we provided -- though I suppose you'd have to say the information was secondary). The source, however, was original because it wasn't just a verbatim copy of what we gave the clerk but a distillation of the information, containing only what he needed to send with us to the church for the priest to see that we had complied with official legal rules prior to marrying. Then he filled it out after the marriage, adding information about the wedding date and place and containing signatures of witnesses and our signatures and his, and he sent it back to the clerk's office. So it was still original. I suppose a certified copy of it would be considered "original" too -- as he's the legal representative of the clerk's office deputized to make the record. HOWEVER, and it's a big however, I can think of at least three instances in my family where the "official" and thus supposedly "original" sources were incorrectly derived from forms submitted by individuals providing primary information. My son's middle name has an "ethnic" spelling. The clerk thought it was a different name and that "we" had made a mistake, so he corrected it. We had to have his birth certificate amended. My mother was born, according to her mother (not submitting the information, but definitely present at the event) on Oct 20. The doctor with bad handwriting submitted the list of babies he'd delivered that week at the end thereof to the clerk's office in Silver Bow County, Montana. He wrote Oct 20 sloppily. The clerk read "Oct 25" and subsequently issued the "official" certificate as being Oct 25. If you look at the original doctor's writing, though -- and you note that he entered babies born chronologically and there were babies born after my mother on the list on Oct 21, 22, and 23, then you know it's an error. Still . . . my mother has had more trouble over the past 89 year with her birth certificate being "wrong" but "official" and theoretically "original" -- especially in terms of social security and medicare -- than you can imagine. Second, my husband provided his mother's name for her death certificate given to the mortuary in charge of filing the information. It came back from the state incorrectly spelled. It, too, had to be amended. So, I guess I still see tombstones as derivative, but yes, you could make a case for them being the first instance of the information in that form. See what you started, Mark!! Michael, I’m trying to remember when I got married how it worked. I think it went like this: my husband and I went to the court house. We filled out forms (containing, of course, both primary and secondary information, i.e., my mother told me the day I was born). And yes, that was an original source. Then the clerk filled out the marriage license, allowing us to go to the church and get married (another original source using the information we provided — though I suppose you’d have to say the information was secondary). The source, however, was original because it wasn’t just a verbatim copy of what we gave the clerk but a distillation of the information, containing only what he needed to send with us to the church for the priest to see that we had complied with official legal rules prior to marrying. Then he filled it out after the marriage, adding information about the wedding date and place and containing signatures of witnesses and our signatures and his, and he sent it back to the clerk’s office. So it was still original. I suppose a certified copy of it would be considered “original” too — as he’s the legal representative of the clerk’s office deputized to make the record.

HOWEVER, and it’s a big however, I can think of at least three instances in my family where the “official” and thus supposedly “original” sources were incorrectly derived from forms submitted by individuals providing primary information. My son’s middle name has an “ethnic” spelling. The clerk thought it was a different name and that “we” had made a mistake, so he corrected it. We had to have his birth certificate amended. My mother was born, according to her mother (not submitting the information, but definitely present at the event) on Oct 20. The doctor with bad handwriting submitted the list of babies he’d delivered that week at the end thereof to the clerk’s office in Silver Bow County, Montana. He wrote Oct 20 sloppily. The clerk read “Oct 25″ and subsequently issued the “official” certificate as being Oct 25. If you look at the original doctor’s writing, though — and you note that he entered babies born chronologically and there were babies born after my mother on the list on Oct 21, 22, and 23, then you know it’s an error. Still . . . my mother has had more trouble over the past 89 year with her birth certificate being “wrong” but “official” and theoretically “original” — especially in terms of social security and medicare — than you can imagine. Second, my husband provided his mother’s name for her death certificate given to the mortuary in charge of filing the information. It came back from the state incorrectly spelled. It, too, had to be amended.

So, I guess I still see tombstones as derivative, but yes, you could make a case for them being the first instance of the information in that form.

See what you started, Mark!!

]]>
By: Michael Hait http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/02/18/more-on-sources-original-derivative-or-otherwise/comment-page-1/#comment-841 Michael Hait Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:07:29 +0000 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/?p=430#comment-841 Wow - Barbara, you have introduced a whole new idea into this discussion. However, the same concept can be applied to marriage certificates. When requesting a marriage license, you fill out a form and hand it to the clerk, who then fills out the marriage license itself. Yet this marriage license is considered an original record, correct? I believe that in the scenario you present, the stonecutter would serve the same position as a clerk, with one additional level of surety: the person filling out the form is paying for the headstone, therefore if any of the information is engraved incorrectly (to their knowledge), they will not pay. This allows for less possibility for corruption of the data. Wow – Barbara, you have introduced a whole new idea into this discussion. However, the same concept can be applied to marriage certificates. When requesting a marriage license, you fill out a form and hand it to the clerk, who then fills out the marriage license itself. Yet this marriage license is considered an original record, correct?

I believe that in the scenario you present, the stonecutter would serve the same position as a clerk, with one additional level of surety: the person filling out the form is paying for the headstone, therefore if any of the information is engraved incorrectly (to their knowledge), they will not pay. This allows for less possibility for corruption of the data.

]]>
By: Michael Hait http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/02/18/more-on-sources-original-derivative-or-otherwise/comment-page-1/#comment-840 Michael Hait Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:00:10 +0000 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/?p=430#comment-840 In retrospect, as soon as you mentioned the above distinction of image copies being treated as originals, I remembered the passage from Evidence Explained. As usual, Ms. Mills has thought this through thoroughly, and set the standard. I believe the concept of "independent origin" is sometimes lost on beginning genealogists, as well. Outside of New England, most parts of the U. S. started registering births and deaths toward the end of the 19th or beginning of the 20th centuries. In most cases, this provides for a death certificate without a birth certificate. Beginning genealogists then locate the death certificate, locate the gravestone, and locate an obituary or two in local newspapers, and they all have the same date of birth. Well, these are three independent sources, so the old "preponderance of evidence" standard would agree that this is the correct date of birth, despite that old census record that says they is off by five years. But in fact, the same person (for example the widow or the eldest son) filled out the death certificate, ordered the headstone, and submitted the obituary to the paper. So in reality, the source for the information is the same, despite its appearance in different records. This truly proves the superiority of the modern genealogical standard to the old P.O.E. system. I think this may be the first time I ever inspired a whole blog entry with a comment. ;) In retrospect, as soon as you mentioned the above distinction of image copies being treated as originals, I remembered the passage from Evidence Explained. As usual, Ms. Mills has thought this through thoroughly, and set the standard.

I believe the concept of “independent origin” is sometimes lost on beginning genealogists, as well. Outside of New England, most parts of the U. S. started registering births and deaths toward the end of the 19th or beginning of the 20th centuries. In most cases, this provides for a death certificate without a birth certificate. Beginning genealogists then locate the death certificate, locate the gravestone, and locate an obituary or two in local newspapers, and they all have the same date of birth. Well, these are three independent sources, so the old “preponderance of evidence” standard would agree that this is the correct date of birth, despite that old census record that says they is off by five years. But in fact, the same person (for example the widow or the eldest son) filled out the death certificate, ordered the headstone, and submitted the obituary to the paper. So in reality, the source for the information is the same, despite its appearance in different records. This truly proves the superiority of the modern genealogical standard to the old P.O.E. system.

I think this may be the first time I ever inspired a whole blog entry with a comment. ;)

]]>
By: Barbara Schenck http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/02/18/more-on-sources-original-derivative-or-otherwise/comment-page-1/#comment-839 Barbara Schenck Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:47:01 +0000 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/?p=430#comment-839 Interesting discussion of a topic that often makes my head spin. I can sort out the distinction between primary and secondary information without much trouble. But my understanding of terms always crumbles faced with a tombstone. What makes it an original source? Unless the person witnessing the death carved the tombstone -- indicating that the information about the deceased was original with him and not conveyed to him orally or in written form previously -- it would seem to me to be a derivative of that conveyed information. For example, if I filled out a form for my father's grave marker, and I had been there when he died, that form would be both an original source and one that contained primary knowledge. Why wouldn't the grave marker be a derivative of the information contained on the form I filled out? Interesting discussion of a topic that often makes my head spin. I can sort out the distinction between primary and secondary information without much trouble. But my understanding of terms always crumbles faced with a tombstone.

What makes it an original source? Unless the person witnessing the death carved the tombstone — indicating that the information about the deceased was original with him and not conveyed to him orally or in written form previously — it would seem to me to be a derivative of that conveyed information.

For example, if I filled out a form for my father’s grave marker, and I had been there when he died, that form would be both an original source and one that contained primary knowledge. Why wouldn’t the grave marker be a derivative of the information contained on the form I filled out?

]]>