text:
Template:Wikis

Search for :

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Template:Wikis


text:
Textbook Chapter Lesson

What is the difference between a TBCL and a TBL?
After completing this tutorial, you will be able to:
 * Differentiate examples of “text-book-chapter lesson” (TBCL) and “technology-based lesson” (TBL)

 * Have procedures for converting a TBCL into a TBL.

 * Take a rubric with you to determine if you have a good converted lesson.

 * See an example TBCL converted into a TBL and graded against the rubric.

When should it be switched from a TBCL to a TBL
CONTENT

Back to Topic: Instructional Design

title: Textbook Chapter Lesson


text:
Elements of a Good TBL

Elements of a Good TBL
add in info

Rubric for a Good TBL
CONTENT

Back to Topic: Instructional Design

title: Elements of a Good TBL


text:
Instructional design/Technology-based lessons/What is a TBL

Key Componenets of a TBL
A TBL is easily recognized when you walk into a classroom/computer lab and see a group of students actively engaged

learning the material at hand, and a teacher who is walking around assisting students with their computers.

The key components of a TBL are the students, teacher, computers, and other pieces of technology.

Teacher Perspective
A technology based lesson (TBL) allows the teacher and students to work together to

achieve the common goal of learning the material. However, in a TBL the students are given

more interaction both with each other and the instructor to ensure maximum learning in

this environment.

Student Perspective
Students that learn through a TBL are given the parameters of a project and a computer.

They are required to use the technology to give them the information needed to complete the project.

Here is an example TBL on plate tectonics.

Advantages and Disadvantages

 * Back
 * Next

Back to Topic: Instructional Design


text:
Instructional design/Converting a textbook chapter lesson into a technology based lesson

Back to Topic: Instructional Design

What is the difference between a TBCL and a TBL?
After completing this tutorial, you will be able to:
 * Differentiate examples of “text-book-chapter lesson” (TBCL) and “technology-based lesson” (TBL)

 * Have procedures for converting a TBCL into a TBL.

 * Take a rubric with you to determine if you have a good converted lesson.

 * See an example TBCL converted into a TBL and graded against the rubric.

Why should it be switched from a TBCL to a TBL

 * A TBCL involves the students using their book to gather information.

 * The student would then use the book to complete review questions and study for a test.
 * Sounds boring, right?

 * A TBL involves students using a variety of technology to engage the information.

 * Students would use this technology to showcase their subject knowledge in ways that interest them

 * Sounds more engaging, right?

Back to Topic: Instructional Design


text:
Pulmonology/Hyperinflation Therapies

 * Incentive Spirometry (IS)
 * Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation (IPPB)
 * Positive Expiratory Pressure (PEP)
 * Lung Recruitment Maneuvers

title: Pulmonology/Hyperinflation Therapies


text:
User:Egm6341.s10.Team4.roni/HW5/5.4

= Problem 4: Comparing Richarson Extrap. Coeff. to Coeff. from Trap. Error Estimate =

Given
Richardson Extrapolation Coefficients on slide [[media:Egm6341.s10.mtg19.djvu|19-3]], which is:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0" align="left"

$$ $$
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle a_i=d_i*(f \overset{(2i-1)}{(b)} -f \overset{(2i-1)}{(a)})
 * style= |
 * }
 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0" align="left"

$$ $$
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle
 * $$\displaystyle d_i=- \frac{{B}_{2i}}{(2i)!}
 * style= |
 * }
 * }

$$\displaystyle $$ $$\displaystyle d_1=- \frac{1}{12} \ \ d_2= \frac{1}{720} \ \  d_3=- \frac{1}{30240} $$

Show
That these coefficients are equal to the following: equation (3) on slide [[media:Egm6341.s10.mtg27.djvu|27-1]]

$$\displaystyle $$ $$\displaystyle \bar{d}_{2r}= \frac{{P}_{2r} (t=1)}{(2^2r)!} $$

$$\displaystyle $$ $$\displaystyle d_1=\bar{d}_{2r}= \frac{{P}_{2r} (t=1)}{(2^2r)!} \ \ where  \ \  r=1 $$

$$\displaystyle $$ $$\displaystyle d_2=\bar{d}_{2r}= \frac{{P}_{2r} (t=1)}{(2^2r)!} \ \ where  \ \  r=2 $$

$$\displaystyle $$ $$\displaystyle d_3=\bar{d}_{2r}= \frac{{P}_{2r} (t=1)}{(2^2r)!} \ \ where  \ \  r=3 $$

Solution
Recalling:

equation (2) on slide [[media:Egm6341.s10.mtg21.djvu|21-2]]

P_1(t)=-t $$

equation (1) on slide [[media:Egm6341.s10.mtg21.djvu|21-3]]

P_2(t)=- \frac{t^2}{2}+\frac{1}{6} $$

equation (4) on slide [[media:Egm6341.s10.mtg21.djvu|21-3]]

P_3(t)=- -\frac{t^3}{6}+\frac{t}{6} $$

on slide [[media:Egm6341.s10.mtg21.djvu|26-3]]

P_4(t)=- \frac{t^4}{24}- \frac{t^2}{12}- \frac{72}{360} $$

In General, from the Paper by Patch Kessler we have:

P_{2k}(t)=c1 \frac{t^{2k}}{(2k)!} + c_2 \frac{t^{2k-2}}{(2k-2)!} + c_5 \frac{t^{2k-4}}{(2k-4)!} + c_{2k-3} \frac{t^{4}}{(4)!} + c_{2k-1} \frac{t^{2}}{(2)!} + c_{2k+1} \frac{t^{0}}{(0)!} $$

Giving (also from HW 5.2 and it's solution) [[media:Egm6341.s10.mtg27.djvu|27-1]]

P_6(t)= -\frac{t^{6}}{(720)}+\frac{t^{4}}{(144)}-\frac{7t^{2}}{(720)}+\frac{(31)}{(15120)} $$

We only need P1, P4 and P6

Giving,

 * {| style="width:20%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle d_1=\bar{d}_{2}= \frac{{P}_{2} (t=1)}{(4)} \ \ =-1/12 $$
 * style="width:20%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * style="width:20%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |

 * style= |
 * }
 * }

 * {| style="width:20%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle d_2=\bar{d}_{4}= \frac{{P}_{4} (t=1)}{(16)} \ \ = 1/16*(-1/241/12-7/360)=1/720 $$
 * style="width:20%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * style="width:20%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |

 * style= |
 * }
 * }

 * {| style="width:20%" border="0"

$$\displaystyle d_3=\bar{d}_{6}= \frac{{P}_{6} (t=1)}{(64)} \ \ = 1/64*(-1/720+1/144-7/720+31/15120)=-1/30240 $$
 * style="width:20%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * style="width:20%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |

 * style= |
 * }
 * }

Author
Solved and typed by - Reviewed by -

title: User:Egm6341.s10.Team4.roni/HW5/5.4


text:
User:Egm6341.s10.Team4.roni/HW5

HW5.4

HW5.10

title: User:Egm6341.s10.Team4.roni/HW5


text: User:Dexhu

title: User:Dexhu


text:
User:B9 hummingbird hovering/Blog/Learning Sanskrit Weblog/Uddhava Gita/Chapter 6

BhP_11.06.040/1 tan nirīkṣyoddhavo rājan śrutvā bhagavatoditam BhP_11.06.040/3 dṛṣṭvāriṣṭāni ghorāṇi nityaṃ kṛṣṇam anuvrataḥ BhP_11.06.041/1 vivikta upasaṅgamya jagatām īśvareśvaram BhP_11.06.041/3 praṇamya śirisā pādau prāñjalis tam abhāṣata BhP_11.06.042/0 śrī-uddhava uvāca BhP_11.06.042/1 deva-deveśa yogeśa puṇya-śravaṇa-kīrtana BhP_11.06.042/3 saṃhṛtyaitat kulaṃ nūnaṃ lokaṃ santyakṣyate bhavān BhP_11.06.042/5 vipra-śāpaṃ samartho 'pi pratyahan na yad īśvaraḥ BhP_11.06.043/1 nāhaṃ tavāṅghri-kamalaṃ kṣaṇārdham api keśava BhP_11.06.043/3 tyaktuṃ samutsahe nātha sva-dhāma naya mām api BhP_11.06.044/1 tava vikrīḍitaṃ kṛṣṇa nṛnāṃ parama-maṅgalam BhP_11.06.044/3 karṇa-pīyūṣam āsādya tyajanty anya-spṛhāṃ janāḥ BhP_11.06.045/1 śayyāsanāṭana-sthāna- snāna-krīḍāśanādiṣu BhP_11.06.045/3 kathaṃ tvāṃ priyam ātmānaṃ vayaṃ bhaktās tyajema hi BhP_11.06.046/1 tvayopabhukta-srag-gandha- vāso-'laṅkāra-carcitāḥ BhP_11.06.046/3 ucchiṣṭa-bhojino dāsās tava māyāṃ jayema hi BhP_11.06.047/1 vāta-vasanā ya ṛṣayaḥ śramaṇā ūrdhra-manthinaḥ BhP_11.06.047/3 brahmākhyaṃ dhāma te yānti śāntāḥ sannyāsīno 'malāḥ BhP_11.06.048/1 vayaṃ tv iha mahā-yogin bhramantaḥ karma-vartmasu BhP_11.06.048/3 tvad-vārtayā tariṣyāmas tāvakair dustaraṃ tamaḥ BhP_11.06.049/1 smarantaḥ kīrtayantas te kṛtāni gaditāni ca BhP_11.06.049/3 gaty-utsmitekṣaṇa-kṣveli yan nṛ-loka-viḍambanam BhP_11.06.050/0 śrī-śuka uvāca BhP_11.06.050/1 evaṃ vijñāpito rājan bhagavān devakī-sutaḥ BhP_11.06.050/3 ekāntinaṃ priyaṃ bhṛtyam uddhavaṃ samabhāṣata


text:
User:B9 hummingbird hovering/Blog/Learning Sanskrit Weblog/Uddhava Gita/Chapter 7

BhP_11.07.001/0 śrī-bhagavān uvāca BhP_11.07.001/1 yad āttha māṃ mahā-bhāga tac-cikīrṣitam eva me BhP_11.07.001/3 brahmā bhavo loka-pālāḥ svar-vāsaṃ me 'bhikāṅkṣiṇaḥ BhP_11.07.002/1 mayā niṣpāditaṃ hy atra deva-kāryam aśeṣataḥ BhP_11.07.002/3 yad-artham avatīrṇo 'ham aṃśena brahmaṇārthitaḥ BhP_11.07.003/1 kulaṃ vai śāpa-nirdagdhaṃ naṅkṣyaty anyonya-vigrahāt BhP_11.07.003/3 samudraḥ saptame hy enāṃ purīṃ ca plāvayiṣyati BhP_11.07.004/1 yarhy evāyaṃ mayā tyakto loko 'yaṃ naṣṭa-maṅgalaḥ BhP_11.07.004/3 bhaviṣyaty acirāt sādho kalināpi nirākṛtaḥ BhP_11.07.005/1 na vastavyaṃ tvayaiveha mayā tyakte mahī-tale BhP_11.07.005/3 jano 'bhadra-rucir bhadra bhaviṣyati kalau yuge BhP_11.07.006/1 tvaṃ tu sarvaṃ parityajya snehaṃ sva-jana-bandhuṣu BhP_11.07.006/3 mayy āveśya manaḥ saṃyak sama-dṛg vicarasva gām BhP_11.07.007/1 yad idaṃ manasā vācā cakṣurbhyāṃ śravaṇādibhiḥ BhP_11.07.007/3 naśvaraṃ gṛhyamāṇaṃ ca viddhi māyā-mano-mayam BhP_11.07.008/1 puṃso 'yuktasya nānārtho bhramaḥ sa guṇa-doṣa-bhāk BhP_11.07.008/3 karmākarma-vikarmeti guṇa-doṣa-dhiyo bhidā BhP_11.07.009/1 tasmād yuktendriya-grāmo yukta-citta idam jagat BhP_11.07.009/3 ātmanīkṣasva vitatam ātmānaṃ mayy adhīśvare BhP_11.07.010/1 jñāna-vijñāna-saṃyukta ātma-bhūtaḥ śarīriṇām BhP_11.07.010/3 atmānubhava-tuṣṭātmā nāntarāyair vihanyase BhP_11.07.011/1 doṣa-buddhyobhayātīto niṣedhān na nivartate BhP_11.07.011/3 guṇa-buddhyā ca vihitaṃ na karoti yathārbhakaḥ BhP_11.07.012/1 sarva-bhūta-suhṛc chānto jñāna-vijñāna-niścayaḥ BhP_11.07.012/3 paśyan mad-ātmakaṃ viśvaṃ na vipadyeta vai punaḥ BhP_11.07.013/0 śrī-śuka uvāca BhP_11.07.013/1 ity ādiṣṭo bhagavatā mahā-bhāgavato nṛpa BhP_11.07.013/3 uddhavaḥ praṇipatyāha tattvaṃ jijñāsur acyutam BhP_11.07.014/0 śrī-uddhava uvāca BhP_11.07.014/1 yogeśa yoga-vinyāsa yogātman yoga-sambhava BhP_11.07.014/3 niḥśreyasāya me proktas tyāgaḥ sannyāsa-lakṣaṇaḥ BhP_11.07.015/1 tyāgo 'yaṃ duṣkaro bhūman kāmānāṃ viṣayātmabhiḥ BhP_11.07.015/3 sutarāṃ tvayi sarvātmann abhaktair iti me matiḥ BhP_11.07.016/1 so 'haṃ mamāham iti mūḍha-matir vigāḍhas BhP_11.07.016/2 tvan-māyayā viracitātmani sānubandhe BhP_11.07.016/3 tat tv añjasā nigaditaṃ bhavatā yathāhaṃ BhP_11.07.016/4 saṃsādhayāmi bhagavann anuśādhi bhṛtyam BhP_11.07.017/1 satyasya te sva-dṛśa ātmana ātmano 'nyaṃ BhP_11.07.017/2 vaktāram īśa vibudheṣv api nānucakṣe BhP_11.07.017/3 sarve vimohita-dhiyas tava māyayeme BhP_11.07.017/4 brahmādayas tanu-bhṛto bahir-artha-bhāvāḥ BhP_11.07.018/1 tasmād bhavantam anavadyam ananta-pāraṃ BhP_11.07.018/2 sarva-jñam īśvaram akuṇṭha-vikuṇṭha-dhiṣṇyam BhP_11.07.018/3 nirviṇṇa-dhīr aham u he vṛjinābhitapto BhP_11.07.018/4 nārāyaṇaṃ nara-sakhaṃ śaraṇaṃ prapadye BhP_11.07.019/0 śrī-bhagavān uvāca BhP_11.07.019/1 prāyeṇa manujā loke loka-tattva-vicakṣaṇāḥ BhP_11.07.019/3 samuddharanti hy ātmānam ātmanaivāśubhāśayāt BhP_11.07.020/1 ātmano gurur ātmaiva puruṣasya viśeṣataḥ BhP_11.07.020/3 yat pratyakṣānumānābhyāṃ śreyo 'sāv anuvindate BhP_11.07.021/1 puruṣatve ca māṃ dhīrāḥ sāṅkhya-yoga-viśāradāḥ BhP_11.07.021/3 āvistarāṃ prapaśyanti sarva-śakty-upabṛṃhitam BhP_11.07.022/1 eka-dvi-tri-catus-pādo bahu-pādas tathāpadaḥ BhP_11.07.022/3 bahvyaḥ santi puraḥ sṛṣṭās tāsāṃ me pauruṣī priyā BhP_11.07.023/1 atra māṃ mṛgayanty addhā yuktā hetubhir īśvaram BhP_11.07.023/3 gṛhyamāṇair guṇair liṅgair agrāhyam anumānataḥ BhP_11.07.024/1 atrāpy udāharantīmam itihāsaṃ purātanam BhP_11.07.024/3 avadhūtasya saṃvādaṃ yador amita-tejasaḥ BhP_11.07.025/1 avadhūtaṃ dviyaṃ kañcic carantam akuto-bhayam BhP_11.07.025/3 kaviṃ nirīkṣya taruṇaṃ yaduḥ papraccha dharma-vit BhP_11.07.026/0 śrī-yadur uvāca BhP_11.07.026/1 kuto buddhir iyaṃ brahmann akartuḥ su-viśāradā BhP_11.07.026/3 yām āsādya bhavāl lokaṃ vidvāṃś carati bāla-vat BhP_11.07.027/1 prāyo dharmārtha-kāmeṣu vivitsāyāṃ ca mānavāḥ BhP_11.07.027/3 hetunaiva samīhanta āyuṣo yaśasaḥ śriyaḥ BhP_11.07.028/1 tvaṃ tu kalpaḥ kavir dakṣaḥ su-bhago 'mṛta-bhāṣaṇaḥ BhP_11.07.028/3 na kartā nehase kiñcij jaḍonmatta-piśāca-vat BhP_11.07.029/1 janeṣu dahyamāneṣu kāma-lobha-davāgninā BhP_11.07.029/3 na tapyase 'gninā mukto gaṅgāmbhaḥ-stha iva dvipaḥ BhP_11.07.030/1 tvaṃ hi naḥ pṛcchatāṃ brahmann ātmany ānanda-kāraṇam BhP_11.07.030/3 brūhi sparśa-vihīnasya bhavataḥ kevalātmanaḥ BhP_11.07.031/0 śrī-bhagavān uvāca BhP_11.07.031/1 yadunaivaṃ mahā-bhāgo brahmaṇyena su-medhasā BhP_11.07.031/3 pṛṣṭaḥ sabhājitaḥ prāha praśrayāvanataṃ dvijaḥ BhP_11.07.032/0 śrī-brāhmaṇa uvāca BhP_11.07.032/1 santi me guravo rājan bahavo buddhy-upaśritāḥ BhP_11.07.032/3 yato buddhim upādāya mukto 'ṭāmīha tān śṛṇu BhP_11.07.033/1 pṛthivī vāyur ākāśam āpo 'gniś candramā raviḥ BhP_11.07.033/3 kapoto 'jagaraḥ sindhuḥ pataṅgo madhukṛd gajaḥ BhP_11.07.034/1 madhu-hā hariṇo mīnaḥ piṅgalā kuraro 'rbhakaḥ BhP_11.07.034/3 kumārī śara-kṛt sarpa ūrṇanābhiḥ supeśakṛt BhP_11.07.035/1 ete me guravo rājan catur-viṃśatir āśritāḥ BhP_11.07.035/3 śikṣā vṛttibhir eteṣām anvaśikṣam ihātmanaḥ BhP_11.07.036/1 yato yad anuśikṣāmi yathā vā nāhuṣātmaja BhP_11.07.036/3 tat tathā puruṣa-vyāghra nibodha kathayāmi te BhP_11.07.037/1 bhūtair ākramyamāṇo 'pi dhīro daiva-vaśānugaiḥ BhP_11.07.037/3 tad vidvān na calen mārgād anvaśikṣaṃ kṣiter vratam BhP_11.07.038/1 śaśvat parārtha-sarvehaḥ parārthaikānta-sambhavaḥ BhP_11.07.038/3 sādhuḥ śikṣeta bhū-bhṛtto naga-śiṣyaḥ parātmatām BhP_11.07.039/1 prāṇa-vṛttyaiva santuṣyen munir naivendriya-priyaiḥ BhP_11.07.039/3 jñānaṃ yathā na naśyeta nāvakīryeta vāṅ-manaḥ BhP_11.07.040/1 viṣayeṣv āviśan yogī nānā-dharmeṣu sarvataḥ BhP_11.07.040/3 guṇa-doṣa-vyapetātmā na viṣajjeta vāyu-vat BhP_11.07.041/1 pārthiveṣv iha deheṣu praviṣṭas tad-guṇāśrayaḥ BhP_11.07.041/3 guṇair na yujyate yogī gandhair vāyur ivātma-dṛk BhP_11.07.042/1 antarhitaś ca sthira-jaṅgameṣu brahmātma-bhāvena samanvayena BhP_11.07.042/3 vyāptyāvyavacchedam asaṅgam ātmano munir nabhastvaṃ vitatasya bhāvayet BhP_11.07.043/1 tejo-'b-anna-mayair bhāvair meghādyair vāyuneritaiḥ BhP_11.07.043/3 na spṛśyate nabhas tadvat kāla-sṛṣṭair guṇaiḥ pumān BhP_11.07.044/1 svacchaḥ prakṛtitaḥ snigdho mādhuryas tīrtha-bhūr nṛṇām BhP_11.07.044/3 muniḥ punāty apāṃ mitram īkṣopasparśa-kīrtanaiḥ BhP_11.07.045/1 tejasvī tapasā dīpto durdharṣodara-bhājanaḥ BhP_11.07.045/3 sarva-bhakṣyo 'pi yuktātmā nādatte malam agni-vat BhP_11.07.046/1 kvacic channaḥ kvacit spaṣṭa upāsyaḥ śreya icchatām BhP_11.07.046/3 bhuṅkte sarvatra dātṛṇāṃ dahan prāg-uttarāśubham BhP_11.07.047/1 sva-māyayā sṛṣṭam idaṃ sad-asal-lakṣaṇaṃ vibhuḥ BhP_11.07.047/3 praviṣṭa īyate tat-tat- svarūpo 'gnir ivaidhasi BhP_11.07.048/1 visargādyāḥ śmaśānāntā bhāvā dehasya nātmanaḥ BhP_11.07.048/3 kalānām iva candrasya kālenāvyakta-vartmanā BhP_11.07.049/1 kālena hy ogha-vegena bhūtānāṃ prabhavāpyayau BhP_11.07.049/3 nityāv api na dṛśyete ātmano 'gner yathārciṣām BhP_11.07.050/1 guṇair guṇān upādatte yathā-kālaṃ vimuñcati BhP_11.07.050/3 na teṣu yujyate yogī gobhir gā iva go-patiḥ BhP_11.07.051/1 budhyate sve na bhedena vyakti-stha iva tad-gataḥ BhP_11.07.051/3 lakṣyate sthūla-matibhir ātmā cāvasthito 'rka-vat BhP_11.07.052/1 nāti-snehaḥ prasaṅgo vā kartavyaḥ kvāpi kenacit BhP_11.07.052/3 kurvan vindeta santāpaṃ kapota iva dīna-dhīḥ BhP_11.07.053/1 kapotaḥ kaścanāraṇye kṛta-nīḍo vanaspatau BhP_11.07.053/3 kapotyā bhāryayā sārdham uvāsa katicit samāḥ BhP_11.07.054/1 kapotau sneha-guṇita- hṛdayau gṛha-dharmiṇau BhP_11.07.054/3 dṛṣṭiṃ dṛṣṭyāṅgam aṅgena buddhiṃ buddhyā babandhatuḥ BhP_11.07.055/1 śayyāsanāṭana-sthāna vārtā-krīḍāśanādikam BhP_11.07.055/3 mithunī-bhūya viśrabdhau ceratur vana-rājiṣu BhP_11.07.056/1 yaṃ yaṃ vāñchati sā rājan tarpayanty anukampitā BhP_11.07.056/3 taṃ taṃ samanayat kāmaṃ kṛcchreṇāpy ajitendriyaḥ BhP_11.07.057/1 kapotī prathamaṃ garbhaṃ gṛhṇantī kāla āgate BhP_11.07.057/3 aṇḍāni suṣuve nīḍe sta-patyuḥ sannidhau satī BhP_11.07.058/1 teṣu kāle vyajāyanta racitāvayavā hareḥ BhP_11.07.058/3 śaktibhir durvibhāvyābhiḥ komalāṅga-tanūruhāḥ BhP_11.07.059/1 prajāḥ pupuṣatuḥ prītau dampatī putra-vatsalau BhP_11.07.059/3 śṛṇvantau kūjitaṃ tāsāṃ nirvṛtau kala-bhāṣitaiḥ BhP_11.07.060/1 tāsāṃ patatraiḥ su-sparśaiḥ kūjitair mugdha-ceṣṭitaiḥ BhP_11.07.060/3 pratyudgamair adīnānāṃ pitarau mudam āpatuḥ BhP_11.07.061/1 snehānubaddha-hṛdayāv anyonyaṃ viṣṇu-māyayā BhP_11.07.061/3 vimohitau dīna-dhiyau śiśūn pupuṣatuḥ prajāḥ BhP_11.07.062/1 ekadā jagmatus tāsām annārthaṃ tau kuṭumbinau BhP_11.07.062/3 paritaḥ kānane tasminn arthinau ceratuś ciram BhP_11.07.063/1 dṛṣṭvā tān lubdhakaḥ kaścid yadṛcchāto vane-caraḥ BhP_11.07.063/3 jagṛhe jālam ātatya carataḥ svālayāntike BhP_11.07.064/1 kapotaś ca kapotī ca prajā-poṣe sadotsukau BhP_11.07.064/3 gatau poṣaṇam ādāya sva-nīḍam upajagmatuḥ BhP_11.07.065/1 kapotī svātmajān vīkṣya bālakān jāla-samvṛtān BhP_11.07.065/3 tān abhyadhāvat krośantī krośato bhṛśa-duḥkhitā BhP_11.07.066/1 sāsakṛt sneha-guṇitā dīna-cittāja-māyayā BhP_11.07.066/3 svayaṃ cābadhyata śicā baddhān paśyanty apasmṛtiḥ BhP_11.07.067/1 kapotaḥ svātmajān baddhān ātmano 'py adhikān priyān BhP_11.07.067/3 bhāryāṃ cātma-samāṃ dīno vilalāpāti-duḥkhitaḥ BhP_11.07.068/1 aho me paśyatāpāyam alpa-puṇyasya durmateḥ BhP_11.07.068/3 atṛptasyākṛtārthasya gṛhas trai-vargiko hataḥ BhP_11.07.069/1 anurūpānukūlā ca yasya me pati-devatā BhP_11.07.069/3 śūnye gṛhe māṃ santyajya putraiḥ svar yāti sādhubhiḥ BhP_11.07.070/1 so 'haṃ śūnye gṛhe dīno mṛta-dāro mṛta-prajaḥ BhP_11.07.070/3 jijīviṣe kim arthaṃ vā vidhuro duḥkha-jīvitaḥ BhP_11.07.071/1 tāṃs tathaivāvṛtān śigbhir mṛtyu-grastān viceṣṭataḥ BhP_11.07.071/3 svayaṃ ca kṛpaṇaḥ śikṣu paśyann apy abudho 'patat BhP_11.07.072/1 taṃ labdhvā lubdhakaḥ krūraḥ kapotaṃ gṛha-medhinam BhP_11.07.072/3 kapotakān kapotīṃ ca siddhārthaḥ prayayau gṛham BhP_11.07.073/1 evaṃ kuṭumby aśāntātmā dvandvārāmaḥ patatri-vat BhP_11.07.073/3 puṣṇan kuṭumbaṃ kṛpaṇaḥ sānubandho 'vasīdati BhP_11.07.074/1 yaḥ prāpya mānuṣaṃ lokaṃ mukti-dvāram apāvṛtam BhP_11.07.074/3 gṛheṣu khaga-vat saktas tam ārūḍha-cyutaṃ viduḥ


text:
User:B9 hummingbird hovering/Blog/Learning Sanskrit Weblog/Uddhava Gita/Chapter 8

BhP_11.08.001/0 śrī-brāhmaṇa uvāca BhP_11.08.001/1 sukham aindriyakaṃ rājan svarge naraka eva ca BhP_11.08.001/3 dehināṃ yad yathā duḥkhaṃ tasmān neccheta tad-budhaḥ BhP_11.08.002/1 grāsaṃ su-mṛṣṭaṃ virasaṃ mahāntaṃ stokam eva vā BhP_11.08.002/3 yadṛcchayaivāpatitaṃ grased ājagaro 'kriyaḥ BhP_11.08.003/1 śayītāhāni bhūrīṇi nirāhāro 'nupakramaḥ BhP_11.08.003/3 yadi nopanayed grāso mahāhir iva diṣṭa-bhuk BhP_11.08.004/1 ojaḥ-saho-bala-yutaṃ bibhrad deham akarmakam BhP_11.08.004/3 śayāno vīta-nidraś ca nehetendriyavān api BhP_11.08.005/1 muniḥ prasanna-gambhīro durvigāhyo duratyayaḥ BhP_11.08.005/3 ananta-pāro hy akṣobhyaḥ stimitoda ivārṇavaḥ BhP_11.08.006/1 samṛddha-kāmo hīno vā nārāyaṇa-paro muniḥ BhP_11.08.006/3 notsarpeta na śuṣyeta saridbhir iva sāgaraḥ BhP_11.08.007/1 dṛṣṭvā striyaṃ deva-māyāṃ tad-bhāvair ajitendriyaḥ BhP_11.08.007/3 pralobhitaḥ pataty andhe tamasy agnau pataṅga-vat BhP_11.08.008/1 yoṣid-dhiraṇyābharaṇāmbarādi- dravyeṣu māyā-raciteṣu mūḍhaḥ BhP_11.08.008/3 pralobhitātmā hy upabhoga-buddhyā pataṅga-van naśyati naṣṭa-dṛṣṭiḥ BhP_11.08.009/1 stokaṃ stokaṃ grased grāsaṃ deho varteta yāvatā BhP_11.08.009/3 gṛhān ahiṃsann ātiṣṭhed vṛttiṃ mādhukarīṃ muniḥ BhP_11.08.010/1 aṇubhyaś ca mahadbhyaś ca śāstrebhyaḥ kuśalo naraḥ BhP_11.08.010/3 sarvataḥ sāram ādadyāt puṣpebhya iva ṣaṭpadaḥ BhP_11.08.011/1 sāyantanaṃ śvastanaṃ vā na saṅgṛhṇīta bhikṣitam BhP_11.08.011/3 pāṇi-pātrodarāmatro makṣikeva na saṅgrahī BhP_11.08.012/1 sāyantanaṃ śvastanaṃ vā na saṅgṛhṇīta bhikṣukaḥ BhP_11.08.012/3 makṣikā iva saṅgṛhṇan saha tena vinaśyati BhP_11.08.013/1 padāpi yuvatīṃ bhikṣur na spṛśed dāravīm api BhP_11.08.013/3 spṛśan karīva badhyeta kariṇyā aṅga-saṅgataḥ BhP_11.08.014/1 nādhigacchet striyaṃ prājñaḥ karhicin mṛtyum ātmanaḥ BhP_11.08.014/3 balādhikaiḥ sa hanyeta gajair anyair gajo yathā BhP_11.08.015/1 na deyaṃ nopabhogyaṃ ca lubdhair yad duḥkha-sañcitam BhP_11.08.015/3 bhuṅkte tad api tac cānyo madhu-hevārthavin madhu BhP_11.08.016/1 su-duḥkhopārjitair vittair āśāsānāṃ gṛhāśiṣaḥ BhP_11.08.016/3 madhu-hevāgrato bhuṅkte yatir vai gṛha-medhinām BhP_11.08.017/1 grāmya-gītaṃ na śṛṇuyād yatir vana-caraḥ kvacit BhP_11.08.017/3 śikṣeta hariṇād baddhān mṛgayor gīta-mohitāt BhP_11.08.018/1 nṛtya-vāditra-gītāni juṣan grāmyāṇi yoṣitām BhP_11.08.018/3 āsāṃ krīḍanako vaśya ṛṣyaśṛṅgo mṛgī-sutaḥ BhP_11.08.019/1 jihvayāti-pramāthinyā jano rasa-vimohitaḥ BhP_11.08.019/3 mṛtyum ṛcchaty asad-buddhir mīnas tu baḍiśair yathā BhP_11.08.020/1 indriyāṇi jayanty āśu nirāhārā manīṣiṇaḥ BhP_11.08.020/3 varjayitvā tu rasanaṃ tan nirannasya vardhate BhP_11.08.021/1 tāvaj jitendriyo na syād vijitānyendriyaḥ pumān BhP_11.08.021/3 na jayed rasanaṃ yāvaj jitaṃ sarvaṃ jite rase BhP_11.08.022/1 piṅgalā nāma veśyāsīd videha-nagare purā BhP_11.08.022/3 tasyā me śikṣitaṃ kiñcin nibodha nṛpa-nandana BhP_11.08.023/1 sā svairiṇy ekadā kāntaṃ saṅketa upaneṣyatī BhP_11.08.023/3 abhūt kāle bahir dvāre bibhratī rūpam uttamam BhP_11.08.024/1 mārga āgacchato vīkṣya puruṣān puruṣarṣabha BhP_11.08.024/3 tān śulka-dān vittavataḥ kāntān mene 'rtha-kāmukī BhP_11.08.025/1 āgateṣv apayāteṣu sā saṅketopajīvinī BhP_11.08.025/3 apy anyo vittavān ko 'pi mām upaiṣyati bhūri-daḥ BhP_11.08.026/1 evaṃ durāśayā dhvasta- nidrā dvāry avalambatī BhP_11.08.026/3 nirgacchantī praviśatī niśīthaṃ samapadyata BhP_11.08.027/1 tasyā vittāśayā śuṣyad- vaktrāyā dīna-cetasaḥ BhP_11.08.027/3 nirvedaḥ paramo jajñe cintā-hetuḥ sukhāvahaḥ BhP_11.08.028/1 tasyā nirviṇṇa-cittāyā gītaṃ śṛṇu yathā mama BhP_11.08.028/3 nirveda āśā-pāśānāṃ puruṣasya yathā hy asiḥ BhP_11.08.029/1 na hy aṅgājāta-nirvedo deha-bandhaṃ jihāsati BhP_11.08.029/3 yathā vijñāna-rahito manujo mamatāṃ nṛpa BhP_11.08.030/0 piṅgalovāca BhP_11.08.030/1 aho me moha-vitatiṃ paśyatāvijitātmanaḥ BhP_11.08.030/3 yā kāntād asataḥ kāmaṃ kāmaye yena bāliśā BhP_11.08.031/1 santaṃ samīpe ramaṇaṃ rati-pradaṃ vitta-pradaṃ nityam imaṃ vihāya BhP_11.08.031/3 akāma-daṃ duḥkha-bhayādhi-śoka- moha-pradaṃ tuccham ahaṃ bhaje 'jñā BhP_11.08.032/1 aho mayātmā paritāpito vṛthā sāṅketya-vṛttyāti-vigarhya-vārtayā BhP_11.08.032/3 straiṇān narād yārtha-tṛṣo 'nuśocyāt krītena vittaṃ ratim ātmanecchatī BhP_11.08.033/1 yad asthibhir nirmita-vaṃśa-vaṃsya- BhP_11.08.033/2 sthūṇaṃ tvacā roma-nakhaiḥ pinaddham BhP_11.08.033/3 kṣaran-nava-dvāram agāram etad BhP_11.08.033/4 viṇ-mūtra-pūrṇaṃ mad upaiti kānyā BhP_11.08.034/1 videhānāṃ pure hy asminn aham ekaiva mūḍha-dhīḥ BhP_11.08.034/3 yānyam icchanty asaty asmād ātma-dāt kāmam acyutāt BhP_11.08.035/1 suhṛt preṣṭhatamo nātha ātmā cāyaṃ śarīriṇām BhP_11.08.035/3 taṃ vikrīyātmanaivāhaṃ rame 'nena yathā ramā BhP_11.08.036/1 kiyat priyaṃ te vyabhajan kāmā ye kāma-dā narāḥ BhP_11.08.036/3 ādy-antavanto bhāryāyā devā vā kāla-vidrutāḥ BhP_11.08.037/1 nūnaṃ me bhagavān prīto viṣṇuḥ kenāpi karmaṇā BhP_11.08.037/3 nirvedo 'yaṃ durāśāyā yan me jātaḥ sukhāvahaḥ BhP_11.08.038/1 maivaṃ syur manda-bhāgyāyāḥ kleśā nirveda-hetavaḥ BhP_11.08.038/3 yenānubandhaṃ nirhṛtya puruṣaḥ śamam ṛcchati BhP_11.08.039/1 tenopakṛtam ādāya śirasā grāmya-saṅgatāḥ BhP_11.08.039/3 tyaktvā durāśāḥ śaraṇaṃ vrajāmi tam adhīśvaram BhP_11.08.040/1 santuṣṭā śraddadhaty etad yathā-lābhena jīvatī BhP_11.08.040/3 viharāmy amunaivāham ātmanā ramaṇena vai BhP_11.08.041/1 saṃsāra-kūpe patitaṃ viṣayair muṣitekṣaṇam BhP_11.08.041/3 grastaṃ kālāhinātmānaṃ ko 'nyas trātum adhīśvaraḥ BhP_11.08.042/1 ātmaiva hy ātmano goptā nirvidyeta yadākhilāt BhP_11.08.042/3 apramatta idaṃ paśyed grastaṃ kālāhinā jagat BhP_11.08.043/0 śrī-brāhmaṇa uvāca BhP_11.08.043/1 evaṃ vyavasita-matir durāśāṃ kānta-tarṣa-jām BhP_11.08.043/3 chittvopaśamam āsthāya śayyām upaviveśa sā BhP_11.08.044/1 āśā hi paramaṃ duḥkhaṃ nairāśyaṃ paramaṃ sukham BhP_11.08.044/3 yathā sañchidya kāntāśāṃ sukhaṃ suṣvāpa piṅgalā


text: Template:Blackbox

title: Template:Blackbox


text:
User:B9 hummingbird hovering/Blog/Learning Sanskrit Weblog/Avadhuta Upanishad

avadhūtopaniṣat gauṇamukhyāvadhūtālihṛdayāmbujavarti yat tattraipadaṁ brahmatattvaṁ svamātramavaśiṣyate OM saha nāvavatu saha nau bhunaktu  saha vīryaṁ karavāvahai tejasvināvadhītamastu mā vidviṣāvahai OM śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ hariḥ OM atha ha sāṁkṛtirbhagavantamavadhūtaṁ dattātreyaṁ parisametya papraccha bhagavanko'vadhūtasya kā sthitiḥ kiṁ lakṣma kiṁ saṁsaraṇamiti taṁ hovāca bhagavo dattātreyaḥ paramakāruṇikaḥ akṣaratvādvareṇyatvāddhṛtasaṁsārabandhanāt tattvamasyādilakṣyatvādavadhūta itīryate 1 yo vilaṅghyāśramānvarṇānātmanyeva sthitaḥ sadā ativarṇāśramī yogī avadhūtaḥ sa kathyate 2 tasya priyaṁ śiraḥ kṛtvā modo dakṣiṇapakṣakaḥ pramoda uttaraḥ pakṣa ānando goṣpadāyate 3 gopālasadṛśāṁ śīrṣe nāpi madhye na cāpyadhaḥ brahmapucchaṁ pratiṣṭheti pucchākāreṇa kārayet 4 evaṁ catuṣpathaṁ kṛtvā te yānti paramāṁ gatim na karmaṇā na prajayā dhanena tyāgenaike amṛtatvamānaśuḥ 5 svairaṁ svairaviharaṇaṁ tatsaṁsaraṇam sāṁbarā vā digaṁbarā vā na teṣāṁ dharmādharmau na medhyāmedhau  sadā sāṁgrahaṇyeṣṭyāśvamedhamantayāgaṁ yajate sa mahāmakho mahāyogaḥ kṛtsnametaccitraṁ karma svairaṁ na vigāyettanmahāvratam na sa mūḍhavallipyate yathā raviḥ sarvarasānprabhuṅkte hutāśanaścāpi hi sarvabhakṣaḥ tathaiva yogī viṣayānprabhuṅkte na lipyate puṇyapāpaiśca śuddhaḥ 6 āpūryamāṇamacalapratiṣṭhaṁ samudramāpaḥ praviśanti yadvat tadvatkāmā yaṁ praviśanti sarve sa śāntimāpnoti na kāmakāmī 7 na nirodho na cotpattirna baddho na ca sādhakaḥ na mumukṣurna vai mukta ityeṣā paramārthatā 8 aihikāmuṣmikavrātasiddhai mukteśca siddhaye bahukṛtyaṁ purā syānme tatsarvamadhunā kṛtam 9 tadeva kṛtakṛtyatvaṁ pratiyogipuraḥsaram anusandadhadevāyamevaṁ tṛpyati nityaśaḥ 10 duḥkhino'jñāḥ saṁsarantu kāmaṁ putrādyapekṣayā paramānandapūrṇo'haṁ saṁsarāmi kimicchayā 11 anutiṣṭhantu karmāṇi paralokayiyāsavaḥ sarvalokātmakaḥ kasmādanutiṣṭhāmi kiṁ katham 12 vyācakṣatāṁ te śāstrāṇi vedānadhyāpayantu vā ye'trādhikāriṇo me tu nādhikāro'kriyatvataḥ 13 nidrābhikṣe snānaśauce necchāmi na karomi ca draṣṭāraścetkalpayantu kiṁ me syādanyakalpanāt 14 guñjāpuñjādi dahyeta nānyāropitavahninā nānyāropitasaṁsāradharmā naivamahaṁ bhaje 15 śṛṇvantvajñātatattvāste jānankasmāñchṛṇomyaham manyantāṁ saṁśayāpannā na manye'hamasaṁśayaḥ 16 viparyasto nididhyāse kiṁ dhyānamaviparyaye dehātmatvaviparyāsaṁ na kadācidbhajāmyaham 17 ahaṁ manuṣya ityādivyavahāro vināpyamum viparyāsaṁ cirābhyastavāsanāto'vakalpate 18 ārabdhakarmaṇi kṣīṇe vyavahāro nivartate karmakṣaye tvasau naiva śāmeddhyānasahasrataḥ 19 viralatvaṁ vyavahṛteriṣṭaṁ ceddhyānamastu te bādhikarmavyavahṛtiṁ paśyandhyāyāmyahaṁ kutaḥ 20 vikṣepo nāsti yasmānme na samādhistato mama vikṣepo vā samādhirvā manasaḥ syādvikāriṇaḥ nityānubhavarūpasya ko me'trānubhavaḥ pṛthak 21 kṛtaṁ kṛtyaṁ prāpaṇīyaṁ prāptamityeva nityaśaḥ vyavahāro laukiko vā śāstrīyo vānyathāpi vā mamākarturalepasya yathārabdhaṁ pravartatām 22 athavā kṛtakṛtye'pi lokānugrahakāmyayā śāstrīyeṇaiva mārgena varte'haṁ mama kā kṣatiḥ 23 devārcanasnānaśaucabhikṣādau vartatāṁ vapuḥ tāraṁ japatu vāktadvatpaṭhatvāmnāyamastakam 24 viṣṇuṁ dhyāyatu dhīryadvā brahmānande vilīyatām sākṣyahaṁ kiṁcidapyatra na kurve nāpi kāraye 25 kṛtakṛtyatayā tṛptaḥ prāptaprāpyatayā punaḥ tṛpyannevaṁ svamanasā manyatesau nirantaram 26 dhanyo'haṁ dhanyo'haṁ nityaṁ svātmānamañjasā vedmi dhanyo'haṁ dhanyo'haṁ brahmānando vibhāti me spaṣṭam 27 dhanyo'haṁ dhanyo'haṁ duḥkhaṁ sāṁsārikaṁ na vīkṣe'dya dhanyo'haṁ dhanyo'haṁ svasyājñānaṁ palāyitaṁ kvāpi 28 dhanyo'haṁ dhanyo'haṁ kartavyaṁ me na vidyate kiṁcit dhanyo'haṁ dhanyo'haṁ prāptavyaṁ sarvamatra saṁpannam 29 dhanyo'haṁ dhanyo'haṁ tṛpterme kopamā bhavelloke dhanyo'haṁ dhanyo'haṁ dhanyo dhanyaḥ punaḥ punardhanyaḥ 30 aho puṇyamaho puṇyaṁ phalitaṁ phalitaṁ dṛḍham asya puṇyasya saṁpatteraho vayamaho vayam 31 aho jñānamaho jñānamaho sukhamaho sukham aho śāstramaho śāstramaho gururaho guruḥ 32 iti ya idamadhīte so'pi kṛtakṛtyo bhavati surāpānātpūto bhavati svarṇasteyātpūto bhavati brahmahatyātpūto bhavati kṛtyākṛtyātpūto bhavati evaṁ viditvā svecchācāraparo bhūyādoṁsatyamityupaniṣat OM saha nāvavatu saha nau bhunaktu  saha vīryaṁ karavāvahai tejasvināvadhītamastu mā vidviṣāvahai OM śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ ityavadhūtopaniṣatsamāptā


text:
User talk:MiAmigoElMexicano

 Hello MiAmigoElMexicano, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Mu301Bot 08:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need help. --mikeu talk 08:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:MiAmigoElMexicano


text:
InsertionSort

InsertionSort is a „natural“ sorting algorithm. In the simplest form it works with an input list and an already sorted list. If the sorted list is empty, the first record of the input list is moved to the sorted list. Then record after record is taken and its appropriate position in the sorted list is searched; all records behind this position are moved up by one position and the record is inserted, hence the name.

Variants
There are three main ways to find the appropriate position (we assume that the input records are read in original order):
 * Start to End
 * Starting with the first record, the key of the actual record is compared record by record with those of the sorted list; if a matching or bigger key is found, the insertion position is just in front of this element. The sorting is not stable, since sequences of identical key values are inverted.

 * End to Start
 * Starting with the last record, the key of the actual record is compared record by record with the keys in the sorted list; if a matching or smaller key is found, the insertion position is just behind this element. The sorting is stable, since the order of records with identical keys is the same as in the input array.

 * Binary Search
 * When searching in a sorted list, binary search is said to be the fastest solution to find a matching record or a position next to a matching key, if it existed. Normally InsertionSort with binary search is not stable. This can be changed by help of a little addition: if the key at the insertion position matches with the key of the input record, the last record with identical key is identified and the insertion position is just behind this element.

Timing
In order to make an estimate about the timing we asume to have n records in the sorted list and we are going to add one. If the input data are evenly distibuted, in average we will have

 * CO ≈ ½ n

compare operations in order to find the correct position. Then we will have

 * RM ≈ ½ n

record moves in order to get the correct position cleared for inserting the actual record. The time for this can be estimated with

 * Tn+1 = n * (CO + RM) = n * F

where F, CO and RM are constants. Since we allready did n insertions, we can estimate the total time for sorting a list as

 * Ttot = n * Tn+1 = n2 * F

The charactristic of InsertionSort is quadratic.

When comparing InsertionSort with other algorithms one should take into account that copying or moving records can be a very expensive operation. When using binary search instead of linear search for finding the appropriate position, the sorting speed is in maximum doubled what is near to nothing when working with an algorithm with a quadratic characteristic.

Example
For a short demonstration we start with this input list and the empty output list:

When starting a sort, the first record can be moved directly to the output list

When now looking for the correct new position of the second record with the key value 310, this position is found directly in front of the first element of the sorted list.

The key value 529 is bigger than any of the sorted list, so this record goes to the last place.

The key value 174 is smaller than any of the sorted list, so this record goes to the first place.

The principle should be clear by now, so we stop the demonstration.

But we can already see a very interesting effect: The sorted list has the same length as the part of the input list, which has already been processed. Therefore it is not necessary to have distinct input and output lists. If they are combined, InsertionSort turns out to be "in place".

title: InsertionSort


text:
Wikiversity talk:Research ethics

IRB

 * create an IRB (which would be necessary for any Wikipedia sponsored research involving gathering personal information from research subjects).
 * We will need this for Lunar Boom Town eventually so we can collect user preferences and interest scientifically to improve our game components and ability to mix and match. Also so we can semiautomate diagnostics to help people acquire working permutations of components.  No desperate rush.  We are starting to attract interest in various elements and levels of play but we have quite a ways to go before we get systematic and statistical about feedback and long term data archives. Mirwin 02:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Reserach guidelines
Don't forget the Reserach guidelines.Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 11:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Moving insertions to talk page
Hi!

May I suggest that the three new sections to Protecting humans, animals and nature be moved here for discussion and a sampling of views rather than being allowed to remain on the Research ethics resource page. Some discussion is already ongoing in the sections above but consensus has not been sampled as yet. The new section titles are
 * 1) Animal studies,
 * 2) Genetically modified, and
 * 3) Potential weapons. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I've made a change to animal studies to include primary sources by a university. If you still feel a need to bring it here, you may do so, but I'd really like to keep it there, however, suggestions welcome. Note, the GM section is altered from the resource page. I admit, I know little about these two areas below. Marshallsumter, what is your suggestion for these? - Sidelight12 Talk 02:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I've placed the Animal studies section below. The research ethics page does mention concern for humans and animals. I've also created a new section for environmental impact statements. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 07:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I moved those portions of our earlier discussions from above to their respective sections below so I can follow what's been discussed. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Animal studies

 * "Data from invasive animal studies is not allowed on Wikiversity unless it is limited to information that is cataloged by Pubmed, or that is published by a university, a medical institution, a reliable secondary source, or a reliable tertiary source. The information may be interpreted or analyzed by the editor to be inserted into Wikiversity. Invasive animal studies include in vivo and ex vivo studies. The only exception that can be made is for cadaver research, for rare exceptions, and this must pass IRB. In situ, in papyru, in vitro, and in silico studies are allowed by any source, including the editor, as long as no harm is done to animals." --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Invasive live animal studies are not allowed that are conducted by the editor or affiliated party. Animal cruelty is not advocated by Wikiversity." These are the actual two paragraphs as returned to Research ethics by Sidelight12. Below is the older version. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Data from invasive animal studies is not allowed on Wikiversity unless it is limited to information that is cataloged by Pubmed, or that is published by a university, a reliable secondary source, or a reliable tertiary source. The information may be interpreted or analyzed by the editor to be inserted into Wikiversity. Invasive animal studies include in vivo and ex vivo studies. In situ studies are allowed by any source, including the editor, as long as no harm is done to animals.
 * Invasive animal studies are not allowed that are conducted by the editor or affiliated party.
 * Animal cruelty is not advocated by Wikiversity."

 * Take a look at the edit I made to animal studies. If someone did a study and its on pubmed, by all means use it, and interpret it. The purpose was to discourage someone from vivisecting an animal to post their findings on here. - Sidelight12 Talk 02:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

One example you mentioned concerns the hypothetical situation where an editor presents dissection results on live animals (or recently killed animals) as part of their own research effort. It has been quite a while since I took a zoology class (it was in high school, a pre-college class). One of the projects we had to perform was the dissection of a fish to expose its brain and nerve cord along its back. If such a class were conducted here either as part of a zoology class or as part of a medical class, would you want this class prevented from being at Wikiversity? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 07:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I'd say yes to prevent the class that does this, but no prevention on an anatomy class. Wikiversity has no way of overseeing or the ability to oversee a high school or other project. Wikiversity doesn't prevent the school from doing it, it just shouldn't be published here. If anyone wants to document the anatomy of a fish, there are many books that already do that, and this reference can be added to Wikiversity. The gains in personal knowledge are already documented in books, and the ethical consequences outweigh this. If someone is knowledgeable of a study like this from highschool, let them use a book to reference what they know. To have a class on anatomy is perfectly acceptable, everything (or almost everything needed for the knowledge is in a book or other publication). In an extreme scenario for wiki-students to dissect an animal to follow a wiki-teachers instructions is irresponsible. The teacher cannot supervise the students. I feel strongly about this proposed guideline, and less so of the others. Are you saying if a teacher did this and posted pictures? This is a small amount of data inclusion that is documented in books, and the ethical consequences outweighs it. - - Sidelight12 Talk 21:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Allowing this could also draw negative attention to the contributor from groups or legal entities, harming Wikiversity. - Sidelight12 Talk 21:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

 * In the particular high-school class I described, the fish were commercially supplied as dead and preserved in formaldehyde. None of us were advised where the fish were from or how they were killed. They may have been from a fish farm. They were a common variety of fish. Students here at Wikiversity who wished to learn dissection technique would need to perform such a dissection at home to experience how to do it and accomplish the surgical exposure successfully. No matter how good the textbook, it cannot replace hands-on experience, especially where developing surgical skill is concern. Such skill is useful both to a zoologist and to a surgeon. We watched the teacher perform the access surgery and then went to our dissection tables to perform the same technique ourselves. It is likely the instructor would place a video here in the public domain for the students to watch as often as necessary to understand each step. If I remember correctly the fish was a species of perch that may have also been used for food commercially. I believe the fish were adults. Does any of this affect your decisions? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I wish to keep the proposal as it is. The only part that might be adjusted is ex vivo/cadavers. Still a rule would need to be set on this. It would be impossible for Wikiversity to monitor how studies are conducted according to this rule(s). Also, anyone who is serious about going into surgery would do the training at their medical institution or university. It is irrelevant for Wikiversity to do that task, and Wikiversity is not imposing on someone from doing the research at their school. Do you understand the ethical consequences of not having a guideline like this? - Sidelight12 Talk 01:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This should stay as is. Let the school do that. - Sidelight12 Talk 22:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

 * With a view to the current text under Animal studies presently d by me to be allowed to remain on the Community source page, I would like to offer this. Original research by definition is not yet "cataloged by Pubmed, or that is published by a university, a medical institution, a reliable secondary source, or a reliable tertiary source.", if it were, it would not be original research! Please consider the following partial texts from already published formerly original research. These are from Google Scholar:

There are about 1,150 such results. Independent of where these studies were conducted, such research here including visual descriptions of the minimally invasive surgery prior to publication anywhere, would be in violation of the above. Why should such research be prevented here that is permitted at a brick and mortar institution? Keeping the above condition currently under Animal studies out of the research ethics would have allowed the research in these 1,150 or so published studies to have been performed here also as learning resources prior to publication! Minimally invasive studies followed by dissection is currently ethically allowed! It should also be allowed here! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) "Endoscopic minimally invasive thyroidectomy: first clinical experience" 2010 - contains "To verify the safety and feasibility of the method, an animal trial was conducted in August 2008. Surgery was performed securely on five pigs, with very low blood loss. The postoperative behavior with special regard for feeding and pain reaction was normal until dissection."
 * 2) "Initial United States clinical trial of robotically assisted endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting" 2000 - contains "Successful endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting: an acute large animal trial."
 * 3) "Feasibility of endoscopic transgastric distal pancreatectomy in a porcine animal model" 2001 - contains "Animal trial at a tertiary-care academic hospital."

 * I have removed the Animal studies subparagraph per discussions on the colloquium page. Here's a further example of what original research would not be permitted:

 * 1) "Effects of ovulation induction on ovarian morphology: an animal study" 2004 - which contains "We have not found any experimental animal trial that evaluates whether the ovulation induction causes preneoplastic or postneoplastic ovarian lesion." --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That is ethical? Your view of ethics is only from a original research point of view. This is not ethical from a dignity, respect for life, or suffering standpoint. What you are saying is not ethics. The point of my edit was not to give brick and mortar institutions or pubmed power. This and hospitals is where most studies come from. BTW, the third example made would be allowed by the rules, because it is done by a medical institution. "Initial United States clinical trial of robotically assisted endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting", "Effects of ovulation induction on ovarian morphology: an animal study" and "Feasibility of endoscopic transgastric distal pancreatectomy in a porcine animal model" are cataloged by pubmed, so the proposed rules allow this. - Sidelight12 Talk 04:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

 * So to summarise, you have (valid) concerns about Wikiversity allowing publication of original research in ethically controversial areas, such as animal and human research. Could the guideline simply be that all original research conducted on animals / humans must be approved by an institutional review board (IRB) or institutional ethics committee (IEC) etc.? I don't think it necessarily has to be published by a university etc... For example: "Original research involving humans or animals is not allowed on Wikiversity unless it has been approved by an institutional review board (IRB) or institutional ethics committee (IEC).  Original research is defined as research not yet cataloged by Pubmed, published by a university, a medical institution, a reliable secondary source, or a reliable tertiary source." Thoughts?

 * Out of interest, is this a hypothetical problem or have people actually tried to publish unethical studies on wikiversity to prompt this debate? Bron766 (discuss • contribs) 08:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So far its hypothetical. I see how Wikipedia works, and some of its rules that try to restrict published primary sources are in stalemate, and I disagree with editors there who delete well published data.

 * It may not seem like it, but that might may be more restrictive. Something that is widely known from pubmed, which I believe has its ethical standards, may have to go through this process. A university seems to have its problems, but that's where all other primary studies comes from, most from pubmed. I wanted a solid rule to prevent sacrificial invasive studies on live animals that was not overview-ed by a high standard institution. Mostly, it was inclusive, if those primary sources didn't cover it, a secondary published source would cover it, if its important enough. Cadaver research done by the editor can be up for review. Studies where monkeys are administered medicine, but they are not mutilated nor sacrificed might have been allowed (in situ). That can either be allowed or up for wiki review. Obviously a lot of this applies to people, which sounds silly to mention because its too obvious, but then again there is a such thing as a black-market medical community. Wikipedia considers the editor's interpretation as original research too, so that is unrestricted on wikiversity. Thanks for your concern.

 * I found only one problem with pubmed affiliates, its that literature may take a year before it reaches it. So anything from a high quality journal might also be used. - Sidelight12 Talk 22:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I have both sat on review boards and had my proposals and original research assessed or reviewed (at the end of a grant period) by a review board. Although an occasional board member is or attempts to be objective, most really are political and should not have the final say. The boards I'm referring to were all advisory only (every one knows about the politics anyway!). They never were allowed to have the final say. Ultimately, any such decision rests with the principal investigator or the funding institution. We already have peer review by request. That really is the best system! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

 * It was to automatically allow pubmed, published secondary and tertiary sources without any voting necessary. This doesn't apply to inventions, theories, space exploration and etc that doesn't have anything to do with animals, no restriction on that. If you've sat at irb meetings, then don't you have an advantage? I am dubious about university published research, since I notice its only professors who get credit (when it is said this is done during class time), when its hard to believe they stumbled upon it themselves (its more likely some student/s came in with ideas/work and had a lot to do with it). Cadaver research can be lightened up on, but it still doesn't escape the responsibility by ethics. Really, something close to what I proposed needs to be a guideline. - Sidelight12 Talk 02:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes, I do have an advantage, thank you for the compliment! That's why I made the advisory only recommendation for all your areas of concern including animals. The overall R&D community whether original or contentious has reached a somewhat moving consensus on each of these. That's why opinions such as yours are so important. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Environmental impact statements
":[A note to make here on environmental impact statements - use or lack of.]"

For certain research activities in the United States, an environmental impact statement is often required. Here's an example:

In Arizona there is somewhat a shortage of drinking water. One possible way of solving this would be to create a water reservoir, say between two of the mountain ranges south of Tucson. Between two such ranges is a riparian area designated as a preserve because specific species of frogs, toads, fish and other wildlife occur there naturally. An environmental impact statement would be required on this riparian area before any effort could be considered regarding building a reservoir. Does this scenario in some way touch on your concerns about such statements or the lack of? Original research could be conducted here at Wikiversity regarding
 * 1) construction of the reservoir,
 * 2) movement of the riparian area (about one fiftieth of the area of the reservoir) to a higher location on an inlet of the reservoir, and
 * 3) bringing about sufficient rainfall recovery to make the reservoir functional for drinking water and recreation.

Am I understanding your concerns? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 07:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This one doesn't address my concerns. I have little opinion on what to make of this one. For clarification is this saying, an environmental impact statement is required by the US government for this particular study? If an organization does this, there is no restriction on a wikieditor documenting it for wikiversity. Original research would be allowed for the three criteria listed.
 * adding "[A note to make here on environmental impact statements - use or lack of.]" wasn't my edit. - Sidelight12 Talk 21:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

 * As I recall, the riparian area is a State of Arizona preserve and Arizona may not require an impact statement, but would probably seek to preserve the riparian region in some form. My guess is this would not change your opinion and you would allow all three research programs, as would I. I would require that the research demonstrate a successful transfer of a similar riparian area to higher altitude just in case the increased altitude may affect one or more species. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Genetically modified

 * "Experimental data on genetically modification is not allowed on Wikiversity unless it is cataloged in Pubmed, or published by a university, a reliable secondary source, textbook or an encyclopedia. In other words, data on genetic modification experiments is allowed if it is indexed in pubmed, or published by a reputable secondary source, a textbook or an encyclopedia. The information may also be interpreted or analyzed by the editor to be inserted into Wikiversity."

Hi!

I believe we may need to clarify this section a bit.

One topic that is currently receiving much press is GMO (genetically modified organic) food. Is this what we are banning?

Unfortunately, one way to cure or remedy "diseases" like Parkinson's may require genetic modification of host DNA for reintroduction to host cells so that the missing sections of DNA that result in the disease are no longer present. Should we ban this type of research? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I'm glad we can discuss this. Data on gmo is allowed if it was indexed in pubmed, or published by a reputable secondary source, a textbook or an encyclopedia. The editor's interpretation of this is also ok. I was trying to ban studies made by the contributor to be posted directly to Wikiversity (but not for most other subjects). - - Sidelight12 Talk 01:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I'd like to focus on the phrase "unless it is cataloged in Pubmed, or published by a university, a reliable secondary source, textbook or an encyclopedia. In other words, data on genetic modification experiments is allowed if it is indexed in pubmed, or published by a reputable secondary source, a textbook or an encyclopedia." As you probably know most of my resources here on Wikiversity are designed to describe the state of the art or science. But, my original research will go beyond this. While I want the journals I submit to put the paper(s) in as open access so they may also be studied here, they may not be cataloged in Pubmed unless the journal requests it. While I hope to get a grant to at least cover page charges, the publication obviously will not be by a university, a reliable secondary source, textbook or an encyclopedia. Restricting original research to the scrutiny of brick and mortar universities means the same thing as handing it over to them so some professor may steel it and put his/her own name on it. And, I'm not kidding about this. It happens all the time! It's happened to me!

 * Consider my conjecture about a remedy for Parkinson's disease. Parkinson's is caused by missing portions of DNA for specific genes. Hypothetically, an inverse transposon (IT) may be used to carry a portion of DNA into a host euchromatin, the IT then travels along the template strand, snips at the appropriate nucleotide and inserts the needed strand. The inverse transposon then travels away to become food. That one cell is remedied of Parkinson's. When some 98% or more of host cells are so treated, the host is likely to be and remain remedied of the disease for life and future children. You won't find this on pubmed because it's beyond the current state of the science. Would you vote to prevent this original research? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Point taken about the university problem. I am not as opinionated on this one as I am on animal research. For this one, do you think an exception should be made for the IRB to be used to allow GM experiments here? Once its here, I believe that should give ownership of who wrote the material to the author and to open source (but I'm not so certain its a guarantee). What do you suggest? I am more lenient on this one. You brought up a point, that could go for another rule, not related to this, but it is regarding school assignments and student's work (I bet neither of us or anyone else want to discuss that one). - Sidelight12 Talk 21:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I may find gm that turns off a gene, or modifies a gene without contamination from other species genes acceptable (it could be modeled from genes of other species in the same kingdom, but not contaminated by them), this could be allowed without restriction by an irb board. I think an IRB board should be used for exceptions. - Sidelight12 Talk 21:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

New suggestion

 * "Experimental data on genetically modification is not allowed on Wikiversity unless it is: cataloged in Pubmed, published by a university, a reliable secondary source, textbook or an encyclopedia, or passed wikiversity's IRB review. In other words, data on genetic modification experiments is allowed if it is: indexed in pubmed, published by a reputable secondary source, a textbook or an encyclopedia, or passes Wikiversity's IRB review. The information may also be interpreted or analyzed by the editor to be inserted into Wikiversity." - Sidelight12 Talk 22:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

 * The fundamental problem is still the same "unless it is: cataloged in Pubmed, published by a university, a reliable secondary source, textbook or an encyclopedia, or passed wikiversity's IRB review. In other words, data on genetic modification experiments is allowed if it is: indexed in pubmed, published by a reputable secondary source, a textbook or an encyclopedia, or passes Wikiversity's IRB review." You are inviting obstructionist censuring, piracy, or worse. We have been genetically modifying ourselves and other life on Earth for millennia. At least in original research, these modifications can be studied. Perhaps, what I should add is that the original researcher bears the responsibility to be sure the research is ethical where, when, and in what it is to be published or presented as a resource. While I might ask you or another colleague to read a preprint or pre-submission manuscript, I would only do this if I was thoroughly convinced that you are ethical. Does this help? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I thought it was clear this was not referring to natural selection by farmers or grafting. This is mostly about introducing genes from a plant into an animal, or genes from a spider into a goat. - Sidelight12 Talk 04:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Potential weapons
Traditional nuclear energy details are not allowed. Even if the intent is for safe generation of energy, there is potential for this information to be misused. There is a reason the U.S. patent department doesn't patent this information, doing so would allow access to it.

Nuclear energy research

Hi!

I have some comments and questions regarding the nuclear energy research ethics. I have worked in the nuclear energy research environment, including analyzing samples from the core of Three Mile Island.

Research connected with using nuclear reactors for power generation should be an acceptable research topic. Most concerns focus on the production of weapons grade fissionable uranium or plutonium. I don't believe a neutron bomb was ever perfected. The key point in addition to weapons grade fissionable materials is making a bomb that won't explode while it's being made. Some critics also want research connected with breeder reactors restrained because under certain circumstances a breeder can be used to make weapons grade fissionable materials, while in others, they can be used to eliminate all radioactive wastes except tritium (usually in superheavy water). All anyone has to do is make a sure-bottomed lake and let the tritium set for 11 days and it's gone. It even kills harmful bacteria and other microbes in the water and makes the water perfectly drinkable.

Questions:
 * 1) How focused do we want our research ethics to be regarding nuclear energy research?
 * 2) During the Cold War, researchers were, and may still be, working on nuclear rocket power alternatives for deep space high velocity travel. Should we prevent this type of research?
 * 3) What alternative methods, especially those that are environmentally safe, should we consider regarding the disposal of radioactive wastes? By the way, most coal burning plants produce more radioactive wastes than nuclear reactors. The radioactive isotopes are in the coal.
 * 4) Is it okay to perform research on isotope preparation (radiotracers) for biological studies? I assume it is, but these isotopes are produced in nuclear reactors.
 * 5) What decision should we make about high-flux neutron reactors? These are used to produce neutron beams for crystallography and chemical analysis by neutron-activation analysis. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I did a quick Google Scholar search using "nuclear reactor" and "patent" as key words. Google produced about 51,300 patents; for example,
 * 1) Nuclear reactor RV Moore - US Patent 2,863,815, 1958.
 * 2) NUCLEAR REACTOR CORE AND CONTROL ELEMENT ARRANGEMENT RJ Rickert - US Patent 3,481,832, 1969.
 * 3) Shield for nuclear reactor vessel AL Gaines - US Patent 3,744,660, 1973.
 * 4) Nuclear reactor M Treshow - US Patent 2,999,059, 1961.
 * 5) Installation for measuring and controlling a nuclear reactor J Brecy - US Patent 3,769,156, 1973.
 * 6) Device for supporting a nuclear reactor core D Costes - US Patent 3,953,289, 1976.
 * 7) Nuclear reactor fuel element assemblies LF Raven - US Patent 3,886,038, 1975.
 * 8) Nuclear reactor installation UD Ing - DE Patent 3,212,266, 1983. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

 * My concern is not to be restrictive, but it is to think ahead for safety concerns. I'm concerned with nuclear energy knowledge also being used for bombs, the same way countries say they want nuclear energy, but other nations worry about their use of bombs (I'm not worried about Iran, this is only a comparison, I'm worried about individuals/organizations doing this). There are a lot of studies that should be done for space travel, but isn't this kept secret by the government? Not all nuclear subjects should be banned: nuclear medicine is fine; disposal of nuclear waste might be ok, chemical analysis is fine. Too many questions were asked. As for why these patents are available, I don't know, I heard that the US patent office does not patent material on nuclear weapons, they rather keep it a trade secret. If cold fusion is safe, and has no potential for harm, then I have no qualms against it. Honestly, I know nothing about cold fusion. Hence why I asked, and not went to outright delete it. - Sidelight12 Talk 02:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

 * First let me say that I glanced at the View History before you entered the three subjects: Animal studies, Genetically modified, and Potential weapons. The IRB seems like a limited but a good idea. Adding these three subtopics may appear more like an attempt to do the IRBs job for them. I would suggest a separate resource as you have suggested with Institutional Review Board, where your views can be recorded for consideration rather than being put here prior to any effort at consensus.

 * Regarding nuclear energy research, I believe your concerns express popular views. I conducted my career without being exposed to highly classified material because my views are novel on those matters so I do not know what is classified about making nuclear weapons. Usually, agencies and companies working on classified matters do not transmit this information to the US patent office. The patents that are there are open resources. Just as an aside, today many conventional weapons pack a far deadlier punch locally than nuclear weapons. I doubt any original research we do here on any aspect of nuclear energy is going to accidently help individuals or organizations to make a nuclear bomb. If such is started unwittingly, Wikiversity will receive a take down notice from the NSA or DoD.

 * For the other two topics: Animal studies and Genetically modified organisms, I would ask that these paragraphs also be transferred to an IRB resource as your opinions before changes to these guidelines. I would be happy to toss in my two cents worth there.

 * Space travel has always been an open research area. As a former Fellow with the British Interplanetary Society, I enjoyed considering many alternatives and believe Wikiversity should also be an open research resource. NASA also has open research on space travel propulsion systems. The early work using nuclear rocket propulsion was declassified years ago and now is another aspect of ion propulsion. I hope this helps. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we can cooperate on this. Just wanted to be on top of this. Your input is important. Many nuclear subjects are ok. I'm for consensus, and for input on this, limited talk happens on the talk pages here. Which page is IRB? What are your two cents on it? - Sidelight12 Talk 03:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Regarding an IRB, let's say I'm conducting original research on a faster-than-light propulsion system. If this device got into the hands of a weaponer (a person or organization that has the expertise to turn just about anything into a weapon) it could be used to circumvent retaliatory strikes. Should we ban the original research or let the powers at be take care of the weaponers. As someone who would like to safely journey around the Galaxy, I would vote for the latter. When such a research effort is reviewed by an IRB, it receives a political decision. An IRB that recognizes the weaponer scenario may vote to allow the original research to proceed. Or, it may want to know too many details so as to help a weaponer steel the research. The function of an IRB is not to prevent original research but to point out the obvious such as the only thing design A can be used for is to hurt people, like the Saturday night special. Yet, a bunch of people in Syria being terrorized by any of the combatants might be begging for the plans on how to build one. About the only thing an IRB can do is advise how to direct the research so that it minimizes the likelihood a weaponer may steel it and hurt people. I hope this helps. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Nuclear weapons today are more of a terror weapon than a real threat. Countries who want these bombs want to be free of nuclear terrorizers or they want to be nuclear terrorizers. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * An IRB should be able to reject materials if they are dangerous. My concerns here are data not allowed to be patented by the US and anything that would grab the DoD's attention. - Sidelight12 Talk 22:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

 * See my comments above under New suggestion. Here's the problem. The US prevents patents for many reasons, not always ethical, that's why so many inventors get patents elsewhere first like Switzerland, Japan, or even Norway. Again, any IRB or international version is political. It's the responsibility of the OR principal investigator only. No one else should be allowed to interfere except if invited. A cotton ball is dangerous in the hands of a weaponer. Let it grab DoD's attention. It's your tax dollars at work if you pay taxes in the US. Don't do their guessing for them. I hope this helps. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Again, my concern about this is anything that would grab the DoD's attention. and anything that cant be patented by an UN nation. I'm not talking about patent office politics, I think you should already know that. Also, this is not about patents of anything else. A cotton ball is not even a comparison. If something has to catch the attention of the DoD first, what a lack of responsibility. IRB was your idea. - Sidelight12 Talk 04:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for separate existing page
What do you think should happen with this page? Wikiversity ethics
 * I propose to make it into Wikiversity: namespace. At the very least add hat-notes to redirect it to Wikiversity: pages. It can also apply to scholarly ethics. - Sidelight12 Talk 02:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I believe when the colon is used the resource may become a guideline or policy where support needs to be generated. Right now Wikiversity ethics is only a resource anyone can contribute to. I'm not familiar enough with Wikiversity procedures to know any of this for certain. A resource on ethics addressing wiki ethics may be better than the current title. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Inclusive animal studies
New proposition
 * "All studies from any database under National Center for Biotechnology Information (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) or affiliated journals is allowed: this includes Pubmed, Pubmed Central, and The National Library of Medicine. Other allowed animal studies must be from reliable secondary (press releases included) or reliable third party sources. The information may be interpreted or analyzed by the editor to be inserted into Wikiversity. In situ, in papyru, in vitro, and in silico studies are allowed by any source, including the editor, as long as no harm is done to animals. Any other animal research can be challenged.

 * The restriction is against cruel animal experimentation. These measures also obviously apply to humans."

Wikipedia doesn't have the resources, efficiency, oversight, nor jurisdiction to control its own IRB for this. - Sidelight12 Talk 22:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

title: Wikiversity talk:Research ethics


text:
Category talk:Research

Subcat for research pages in Wikiversity namespace?
Tx for the work on categorising and improving pages in this category by Darklama recently. I'm thinking the pages in this category which are in the Wikiversity: namespace could be put into a subcategory called maybe something like Wikiversity Research. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sub-category hierarchy
We need to figure out an efficient categorization scheme for research projects. We also need to make it easy for users to categorize their research projects into proper categories. I propose we use the namespace 'Research:' for any research page, and have a category taxonomy that is specific to the Research: namespace. This way, a user can simply use a descriptive category, and it will automatically be inferred that this is part of the Research: namespace taxonomy.--Brylie Oxley (discuss • contribs) 22:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Research


text:
C Sharp/Lambda

Introduction
Lambda expressions are one of the forms of anonymous methods in .Net, which can be used for passing as inputs for local functions or as an expression to execute inline. Lambda expressions are particularly helpful for writing LINQ query expressions.

Lambda expressions helps in simplifying the logical statements and looping statements. This is possible for enumerable types where we can use Lambda expressions instead of writing looping statements or logical statements in multiple execution lines making code look cleaner and simple.

title: C Sharp/Lambda


text:
Category:Research process

Learning materials that teach how research is done. Research process is the main page for this category.

title: Category:Research process


text: Category:Research by type

title: Category:Research by type


text: Category:Secondary research

title: Category:Secondary research


text:
User:John Bessa/Reason Vs Sense

__NOINDEX__

This is at the moment a scratch page. As the material gels, and I can form a structure, I will move the scratch material to Reason_Vs_Sense/Scratch.

It seemed to be finished as I expanded my research from the Wictionary  into an artcile by the same name on OpEdNews when I started looking further at a Greek connection to Roman ratio and sense. I found little connecting Greece to sense, but landed squarely in the what I now know is the initiating camp of capital while following up on "logos," the Socrates-Plato-Aristotle circle. My only book on the topic these early teachers is IF Stone's The Trial of Socrates, which paints an excellent background for the creation of Western society. Stone, as a Libertarian, shows us that this circle was largely Libertarian, and even tells us that freedom is rational for taking others' freedoms, all in a single paragraph, but fails to make the connections that tell us why our freedom-based culture cyclically fails.

My approach has been a mono-diet of empathy, or emotional communication, fortified by the Sciene of empathic neurological constructs. Perhaps this neurological knowledge is necessary to empirically define why the removal of the ancient empire-based structure that is killing is so necessary, with the restoration of the natural community, tribal, family-based culture that successfully brought us here. Otherwise, the empathic tendency, stupidly based on rational thought processes, is to extend freedom everywhere, almost as a religious belief, even if these freedoms are used to take away freedoms of democracy to install fascism. The school, of course, opposed Athenian democracy, supporting instead oligarchy such as the Spartans had. Even after Sparta attacked the school, most of its pupils and teachers still supported oligarchy.

I call oligarchy fascism here because Rome, with its capital can colonial structure, is the real connection. Greece, in contrast, seems to have followed a tribal model which allowed it to preserve individual freedoms, no matter how malignant. Stone shows that the Holy Roman inquisition was actually designed at the school; the concept laid dormant for so many years, and was revived during the Roman Church's Platonic (and anti-Aristotle) period. They made the pagan Plato one of their own!

What is most important, that the majority of humans think normally; that our thoughts are based on experiences--sensed, learned, and remembered--and that the purely rational approach is for the few that lack the neural links between sense and thought, as we see in Plato's cave model. Plato's isolated thought is the model for dominant thought, and cannot easily be dislodged because the natural sensually connected thought tends to the peaceful path of least resistance.

But still, much as Christ taught, the path (a derivation of the roots of the term sense as you will see) will always be peace and love, if for no other reason than to mitigate the dangerous paranoia resulting from the ruinous mistakes that result from the continually risk-vs-benefit ratio calculations of the purely rational.

(If we are going to use Christ's parables as a model, then we have to do so fundamentally--but not in the sense of the Calvinists! There is no understating the damages of Holy Roman Capital, or the conflicts of the Reformation. In no case did any of those people do what Christ would have done.)

=Scratch Material=

From Old French rationel, rational < Latin rationalis (“‘of or belonging to reason, rational, reasonable’”) < ratio (“‘reason’”)

The term historically initiates with the latin "ratio," where "rat-" means thought. The ratio article here also shows "calculation" as a translation for the Latin noun, and hence the line should read:

From Old French rationel, rational < Latin rationalis (“‘of or belonging to reason, rational, reasonable’”) < ratio (“‘reason or calculation’”)

Interestingly, the English part of the page shows ratio used entirely in mathematical terms or as a legal term, which supports including "calculation" in the above line. Judaical decisions are, in a sense, calculations; often they are political calculations. I have read a judicial opinion that separated "rational" from "right and wrong," where an argument simply needs to be rationalized to be judicially supported. This was a State of Rhode Island court decision to uphold a police department's desire to hire only candidates who had low scores on an intelligence exam. It seems that the judge was be calculating a decision based on a finite set of ideas before him, which brings to mind the legal use of the term. The decision would seem absurd, as a stupid police department would create a clear channel for crime and corruption. The definition shows rational as meaning "not absurd," but the Judge's rational decision in this case is absurd!

From common use, the English word "ration" would, on the surface, to appear to be derived from math; a ration as a portion, or ratio, of an under-supplied resource such as food or gasoline. English "ration" derives from from the French word of the same spelling, which, in turn, derives from the accusative singular of Latin ratiō, which brings us back to "calculation." The English "reason," which is usually associated with rationality, likewise comes to us from the French: "raison." This French word, in turn, comes to us from the Latin "rationem," again an accusative of the Latin "ratiō."

There is an interesting nuance about the Roman use of the word that implies that Roman thought was calculating, what I would think of as Machiavellian. And Roman history would support this! But we know healthy thought to be a mixture of different kinds of thought components including emotion, imagination, analysis, and conceptual construction. And we know that the facilities that support this various kinds of thought components come to us through evolution, so we know that they existed before Roman times! I wonder if there is another Latin term for thought that is more emotional or creative, or if Romans simply did not think in these "modern" ways. If so, I wonder how the use this term in modern language has influenced modern schools of thought such as we find in the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment. My gut sense is that there were Roman terms for the different components of thought, and that ratiō actually refers only to calculating thought. I am looking hard for examples to support this above hypothesis.

I looked further, and found my gut sense to be correct. My first guess from common language that compares rational and reasonable brought me to the same Latin ratiō, which leans towards the calculating and mathematical. But saying that Romans thought purely mathematically would be biased as that would make them like no others, so I took another synonym of reasonable: sensible. This brought me to the other components of thought that I mentioned above.

The path to wiktionary references went thus:

sensible > Latin sentire or sentio > Lithuanian sintėti > Proto-Indo-European *sent- (“to head for, go")

Rome did not have a native word to describe this "flip side" of thought, so presumably Romans used Northern European-based words.

Definitions from wide-spread languages group closely giving an impression of seeking, which implies travel and absorbtion, in contrast to calculating, which is stationary and introverted:

 * to head for
 * to go
 * to think
 * to desire
 * path
 * way

Spanish sensible is actually referred to as a false friend to reasonable, further widening the gap.

It would likewise be biased to say that unrelated cultures don't have these language components. Zen gives us a clue with the idea of "thinking with no mind," in other words, without preconception almost like RADAR. The impression I got of this Zen approach (usually to violence) is that calculation happens in a Samurai's mind as information is "acquired," giving a machine-like response, but the incoming information is really sensed, and hence "felt" further supporting the above progression. The Samurai's response is hence empathic rather than calculating, as described by "no-sword technique" in the Life-giving Sword.

Other relevant pages I went to: etymonline, sensible vs. reasonable (last entry raises questions), Tocharian (root language for sensible)

This example of well-developed "sense" comes of course from the easternmost island nation, Japan. Interestingly, the terms path and way, concepts associated with Buddhism, come from the westernmost island of Ireland.

Other relevant pages I went to:etymonline, writing about reason and faith (last entry raises relevant questions),Tocharian(root language for sensible)

This writing resulted, ultimately, from a conflict. I don't mention the whole situation in the introduction, but perhaps I need to tell you that I know the "rationalist," as I think of him, from the Wikiversity, which is a subset of the Wikipedia. His interactions with others are purely negative, and he erases others' good writing; he is predatory. He is not alone; he is a type of person that is not unique--especially on the Wikipedia and the Internet in general. He is not critical; he is destructive.

His rationalization of his absurd statement prompted me to look further in the nature of rationalization, a short journey that brought me to the evolution of the meanings of classical words. I picked up one of my books describing the classical ages, IF Stone's The Trial of Socrates, and found a succinct description the mess of rationalizations and contradictions that formed the basis for structuring Western society. Interestingly I recognized modern Libertarianism in Stone's description of Plato's and Socrates's circle of philosophers, and quickly understood the Athenian's anger who would promote totalitarianism as a freedom. Obviously the powerful Romans owed their successes to the Greek structure they copied, and even more interesting, the Holy Roman Inquisition was architected by one of this circle.

The Wikipeidia, and the Wikiversity with it, is dominated by Libertarians who have a vast toolkit to maintain dominance has been adapted to the Web. The structure and symbolism of the Wikipedia is strongly influenced by these philosophers, though I believe that the strongest influence is Capital, which is purely Roman.

From any perspective, however, we see in the Internet, our newest component of the Information Society plagued with the disorder that ancient empires experienced as they attempted to organized their capital structures. Ironically this is presented to us in the form of radicalization as if the strategy of using freedom and free speech to implement control specifically to take away freedom is something new.

When I realized that I could see the roots of contemporary conflict, however trivial, in the Imperial societies as actual identifiable forms of mental illness that can be shown to be neurologically based, I realized that my last few years of research can conclude. Rational thought, as a a subset of general thought, which is described in terms of sense, at a certain point replaced general thought, perhaps what can be described as common sense. And the people who replaced common sense with rational thought, clearly cannot think clearly.

Certainly math is necessary as a component of thought, but the idea that calculation can actually replace sensibility is the result of a mass of thinking disorders.

Where this brings us with respect to the mass of capital structure that has grown from the Greek "polis" is a very good question, but I think that with the development of new ideas based on empathic concepts, such as Constructivism, we can guide ourselves away from the crash-course with destruction that we were put on so long ago. But we have to be realistic; sympathy with these specific types of mentally illness should not include fulfilling obsessive needs for control and consumption, despite what the Greek philosophers, or other Imperialist debaters, may have said about freedom.

It is biased to think that only these philosophers spun these control structures; all societies react in similar ways to similar situations. Very likely we see this debate in the Asian empires.

title: User:John Bessa/Reason Vs Sense


text: Category:Wikimedia Ethics/Case Studies

title: Category:Wikimedia Ethics/Case Studies