SEARLE AND RELATIVISM

Volume 56, Number 14 · September 24, 2009

Why Should You Believe It?

 

By John R. Searle

Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism

by Paul A. Boghossian

Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press, 139 pp., $19.95 (paper)

1.

 

Relativism has a long history in our intellectual culture, and takes several different forms, such as relativism about knowledge and truth, ethical values, aesthetic quality, and cultural norms, to mention a few. Paul Boghossian's book concentrates on the first of these. The basic idea he opposes is that claims to objective truth and knowledge, for example the claim that hydrogen atoms have one electron, are in fact only valid relative to a set of cultural attitudes, or to some other subjective way of perceiving the world. Furthermore, according to relativism, inconsistent claims may have what he calls "equal validity." There can be no universally valid knowledge claims.

 

There is a traditional refutation of relativism, as follows: The claim that all truth is relative is itself either relative or not. If it is relative then we need not accept it because it is only valid relative to somebody's attitudes, which we may not share. If it is not relative, but absolute, then it refutes the view that all truth is relative. Either way relativism is refuted. Boghossian considers this traditional refutation and though he thinks it is serious, he does not regard it as decisive. For one thing, most relativists regard it as a kind of logical trick. They think that they are possessed of a deep insight, that all of our knowledge claims are made relative to a certain set of attitudes, cultural norms, and prejudices. This insight is not refuted by logical arguments, or so they suppose.

 

 

The currently most influential form of relativism is social constructivism, which Boghossian defines as follows: "A fact is socially constructed if and only if it is necessarily true that it could only have obtained through the contingent actions of a social group." The social constructivist is anxious to expose construction where none had been suspected, where something that is in fact essentially social had come to masquerade as part of the natural world. Many social constructivists find it liberating because it frees us from the apparent oppression of supposing that we are forced to accept claims about the world as matters of mind-independent fact when in reality they are all socially constructed. If we do not like a fact that others have constructed, we can construct another fact that we prefer.

 

What do relativism and social constructivism look like in practice? Boghossian gives a number of striking examples. According to our best evidence, the Native Americans arrived on this continent from the Eurasian landmass by crossing over the Bering Strait; but according to some Native American accounts they are the descendants of the Buffalo people, and they came from inside the earth after supernatural spirits prepared this world for habitation by humans. So here are two alternative and inconsistent accounts. Some anthropologists say that one account is as good as the other. As one put it, "Science is just one of many ways of knowing the world. [The Zunis' worldview is] just as valid as the archaeological viewpoint of what prehistory is about." Our science constructs one reality; the Native Americans construct another. As Boghossian sees it, this is not acceptable. These two theories are logically inconsistent with each other; they cannot both be true. Is there any way to eliminate the inconsistency?

 

The answer, say the relativists, is to see that each claim is relative. We should say not that the early Americans came by way of the Bering Strait, but rather: "according to our theory," they came by the Bering Strait. And "according to some Native American theories," they came out of the earth. Once relativized, the inconsistency disappears. Indeed all claims are relativized in this way (including presumably the claim that the original claims were inconsistent and the claim that they have been relativized). Will relativism rescue social constructivism? Boghossian sees correctly that relativism fails to solve the problem, and much of his book is about this failure. I do not agree with all of his arguments but I support his overall project.

 

problem faced by social constructivism concerns facts about the past. Are we now constructing facts about the past when we make claims about history? One extreme social constructivist cited by Boghossian, Bruno Latour, accepts this conclusion with somewhat comical results. Recent research shows that the ancient Egyptian pharaoh Ramses II probably died of tuberculosis. But according to Latour, this is impossible because the tuberculosis bacillus was only discovered by Robert Koch in 1882.[1] "Before Koch, the bacillus had no real existence." To say that Ramses II died of tuberculosis is as absurd as saying that he died of machine-gun fire.

 

What is one to make of Latour's claim? The machine gun was invented in the late nineteenth century, and prior to that invention it did not exist in any form. But the tuberculosis bacillus was not invented. It was discovered. Part of the meaning of "discovery" is that to be discovered something has to exist prior to the discovery, and indeed could not have been discovered if it had not existed prior to the discovery.

 

The claim that knowledge is a social construction is not meant to state the commonplace truth that many facts in the social world are indeed socially constructed. For example, something is money, private property, a government, or a marriage only because people believe that's what it is, and in that sense such things are socially constructed. Social constructivism makes the much more radical claim that physical reality itself, the very facts we might think we have discovered in physics, chemistry, and the other natural sciences are socially constructed.

 

This view has been influential in a number of disciplines: feminism, sociology, anthropology, philosophy of science, and literary theory among others. The titles of some typical works express various degrees of support for the doctrine: Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann's The Social Construction of Reality; Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar's Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts; Andrew Pickering's Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics; Donald MacKenzie's Statistics in Britain, 1865–1930: The Social Construction of ScientificKnowledge.[2] Boghossian quotes a feminist view as follows:

 

Feminist epistemologists, in common with many other strands of contemporary epistemology, no longer regard knowledge as a neutral transparent reflection of an independently existing reality, with truth and falsity established by transcendent procedures of rational assessment. Rather, most accept that all knowledge is situated knowledge, reflecting the position of the knowledge producer at a certain historical moment in a given material and cultural context.[3]

This passage is worth a close reading. On the face of it, the two views being contrasted, that knowledge is a "reflection of an independently existing reality" and that "all knowledge is situated knowledge," are perfectly consistent. Historically situated investigators can discover the truth about "an independently existing reality." But the point of the passage is to claim that most feminists reject the idea that knowledge reflects an independently existing reality; and the rhetorical flourishes in the passage, such as "transcendent procedures of rational assessment" and "neutral transparent reflection," are designed to reinforce that point.

 

2.

 

Boghossian distinguishes three features of constructivism and considers each separately: constructivism about the facts (the facts themselves are social constructions), constructivism about justification (what we count as a justification of a belief is a matter of social construction), and constructivism about rational explanation (we never believe what we believe solely on the basis of evidence).

 

About the first and most important of these theses, Boghossian considers arguments from three philosophers: Hilary Putnam, Nelson Goodman, and Richard Rorty. Putnam imagines a hypothetical universe consisting of three circles: A, B, and C. Then he asks: How many objects are there in this universe? Three? No, says Putnam, because according to certain Polish logicians (he cites S. Lezniewski), we can construe one object as A, one as B, one as C, one as consisting of A+B, another as B+C, yet another as A+C, and finally, one of A+B+C. So on this basis, there are really seven objects in the universe. Because we can correctly say that there are three objects or seven objects, Putnam concludes that there is no objective fact of the matter about how many objects there are.[4]

 

As Boghossian sees, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Once you have selected your conditions for something being an object, there is a straightforward fact of the matter about how many objects there are. For Putnam to say that there is no fact of the matter would be like saying that there is no answer to the question "How many guests came to the dinner party?" because you could say eight people or four couples.

 

Goodman's argument is also weak. Goodman says we construct the constellations of the night sky by drawing certain lines and not others. We draw one set of lines that creates the Big Dipper, for example. All other constellations are similarly created, and what goes for constellations goes for everything, according to Goodman. All of reality consists of human creations.Once again, a bad argument. Constellations are patterns we have selected in the sky because we can discern through our perceptual apparatus certain geometrical forms such as the Big Dipper. Constellations are, in this sense, observer-relative: the actual stars exist independently of any observer, though the patterns we use to name constellations exist only relative to our point of view.

 

But the stars, as well as mountains, molecules, and tectonic plates, are not in that way relative to an observer. True, we have to select a vocabulary of "stars," "mountains," etc., but once the vocabulary has been selected, it is a completely objective fact that Mount Everest is a mountain, for example, and not a giraffe. The general pattern of error is to confuse, on the one hand, the social relativity of the vocabulary and the making of descriptions within that vocabulary with, on the other, the social relativity of the facts described using that vocabulary. This comes out strikingly in Rorty's argument.

 

orty says that we accept the descriptions we do, not because they correspond to the way things are, but because it serves our practical interests to do so. Boghossian agrees that the fact that we give the descriptions we do is a fact that reflects something about us and our society. But, he points out, the fact that descriptions are socially relative does not imply that the facts described by those descriptions are socially relative. Boghossian cites an argument by Rorty attacking an article of mine[5] in which I said that mountains, for example, exist completely independently of us and our descriptions. Rorty answered as follows:

 

Given that it pays to talk about mountains, as it certainly does, one of the obvious truths about mountains is that they were here before we talked about them. If you do not believe that, you probably do not know how to play the usual language-games which employ the word "mountain." But the utility of those language-games has nothing to do with the question of whether Reality as It Is In Itself, apart from the way it is handy for human beings to describe it, has mountains in it.[6]

This is a strange passage. Rorty is saying correctly that we adopt the vocabulary that we do because it serves various interests to have that vocabulary. But what he neglects is that the facts in this sort of case exist quite independently of the vocabulary. He begins, "Given that it pays to talk about mountains...," implying that somehow the existence of mountains depends on the usefulness of the vocabulary. But it does not. The facts are the same, whether or not "it pays to talk about mountains."

 

Let us agree that we have the word "mountain" because it pays to have such a word. Why does it pay? Because there really are such things, and they existed before we had the word and they will continue to exist long after we have all died. To state the facts you have to have a vocabulary. But the facts you state with that vocabulary are not dependent on the existence or usefulness of the vocabulary. The existence of mountains has nothing whatever to do with whether or not it "pays to talk about mountains." And it does not help Rorty's case to sneer at the existence of mountains as "Reality as It Is In Itself," because insofar as that expression is meaningful at all, it is obvious that Reality as It Is In Itself contains mountains.

 

I think Boghossian does a public service by pointing out the weaknesses of all of these arguments. But I fear that the real target of his book is not addressed by refuting bad arguments of the sort I have just cited. People who are convinced by social constructivism typically have a deep metaphysical vision and detailed refutations do not address that vision.

 

In a sense Boghossian makes it easier for himself by taking on more or less rational authors, specifically Putnam, Goodman, and to a lesser extent Rorty. Their views are reasonably easy to refute because they are, at least in the case of Putnam and Goodman, fairly clearly stated. It is much easier to refute a bad argument than to refute a truly dreadful argument. A bad argument has enough structure that you can point out its badness. But with a truly dreadful argument, you have to try to reconstruct it so that it is clear enough that you can state a refutation.

 

oghossian takes bad arguments by Putnam, Goodman, and Rorty and refutes them. But what about the truly dreadful arguments in such authors as Jacques Derrida, Jean-François Lyotard, and other postmodernists that have been more influential during the last half-century? What about, for example, Derrida's attempts to "prove" that meanings are inherently unstable and indeterminate, and that it is impossible to have any clear, determinate representations of reality? (He argues, for example, that there is no tenable distinction between writing and speech.) The atmosphere of Boghossian's refutation is that of a Princeton seminar. And in fact Boghossian was a student of Rorty at Princeton. But he does not go into the swamp and wrestle with Derrida & Co.[7]

 

Boghossian observes that we could say, with logical consistency, "according to our view" the Native Americans came by the Bering Strait, and "according to their view" they came from the center of the earth, but that this nonetheless does not solve the problem of relativism. However, it seems to me that Boghossian gives the wrong account of why it does not solve the problem. He says that it does not solve the problem for three reasons:

 

(A) If we relativize the claims by saying "according to our view," we still have some nonrelative facts left over; there will still be nonrelative facts about what different communities accept or do not accept, for example, physical evidence of people crossing the Bering Strait.

(B) It is often much harder to figure out what people believe than it is to figure out what actually happened. The mental is more puzzling than the physical (this is one of his weaker arguments).

And

 

(C) if we get out of objection (A) by saying that there are no nonrelative facts, we get an infinite regress. Here is the regress. We start with:

(1) According to a theory we accept, they came over the Bering Strait.

But if everything has to be relativized then (1) has to be relativized, which produces:

(2) According to a theory we accept, there is a theory that we accept and according to that theory...

And so on ad infinitum.

 

I agree with objections (A) and (C) but I think they are symptoms of a deeper objection, which Boghossian does not make. The deep objection to relativizing is that the original claims have been abandoned and the subject has been changed. The original claims—that the ancestors of the Native Americans came via the Bering Strait, and that they came out of the center of the earth—were not about us and our theories but about what actually happened in human history regardless of anybody's theories. Our claim is not that we hold a certain theory. Our claim is that the actual ancestors of the early Americans came via the Bering Strait, that there were actual physical movements of physical bodies through physical space. Relativizing of the sort that Boghossian considers does not solve the difficulty; it changes the subject to something irrelevant. It changes the subject from historical facts to our psychological attitudes.

 

This is the most important criticism of constructivism. It is of the very essence of the speech act of stating or asserting propositions of the sort we have been considering that the speech act commits you to the truth of what you say and therefore to the existence of a fact in the world corresponding to that truth. Such speech acts are made from a point of view and typically within certain sorts of ways of thinking, but the statements and assertions do not thereby become about the points of view or the ways of thinking. If you treat them as being about the point of view and way of thinking you get a different statement altogether, one that is not about the physical movements of Native Americans but about the psychology of the speakers. Boghossian is right to see that the relativization still leaves you with nonrelative facts about speakers and their attitudes and that if you keep going you get an infinite regress, but these are just symptoms of the deeper incoherence. The constructivists do not have a coherent conception of the speech act of asserting or stating.

 

3.

 

The second version of relativism Boghossian considers is about epistemic systems, that is, systems used to acquire knowledge and justify claims to knowledge. We justify our beliefs using one epistemic system but somebody might have a different epistemic system that would give different results from ours. It may look like any effort to justify ours would be circular because we would have to presuppose the validity of our system in order to try to justify it. Richard Rorty gives the example of the dispute between Cardinal Bellarmine and Galileo.[8] Galileo claimed to have discovered, by astronomical observation through a telescope, that Copernicus was right that the earth revolved around the sun. Bellarmine claimed that he could not be right because his view ran counter to the Bible. Rorty says, astoundingly, that Bellarmine's argument was just as good as Galileo's. It is just that the rhetoric of "science" had not at that time been formed as part of the culture of Europe. We have now accepted the rhetoric of "science," he writes, but it is not more objective or rational than Cardinal Bellarmine's explicitly dogmatic Catholic views. According to Rorty, there is no fact of the matter about who was right because there are no absolute facts about what justifies what. Bellarmine and Galileo, in his view, just had different epistemic systems.

 

The point I believe Boghossian should have made immediately, though in the end he does get around to saying something like it, is that there are not and cannot be alternative epistemic rationalities. Bellarmine and Galileo reached different conclusions but they worked, like everybody else, within exactly the same system of rationality. Bellarmine held the false view that the Bible was a reliable astronomical authority. But that is a case of a false presupposition, not an alternative epistemic rationality.

 

Why can't there be alternative and inconsistent epistemic rationalities? Consider the example of the statement that the Native Americans came by the Bering Strait. I have pointed out that anyone who makes such a statement is thereby committed to the existence of a fact. But that commitment in turn carries a commitment to being able to answer such questions as, How do you know? What is the evidence? Furthermore, only certain sorts of things can count as evidence for and against the claim. These requirements of rationality are not accretions to the original statement, but they are built into it. The requirement that claims admit of evidence and counterevidence and that only certain sorts of things count as evidence is not something added on to thought and language. It is built into the fundamental structure of thought and language.

 

Consider another example. I now believe my dog Gilbert is in this room. What is the evidence? I can see him. It is in the nature of the claim in question that what I see counts as evidence. Notice that, if in response to a demand for evidence, I said "1 + 1 = 2," that would not answer the demand for evidence.

 

Boghossian is worried by the possibility that we might encounter an "alternative to our epistemic system...whose track record was impressive enough to make us doubt the correctness of our own system." In such a case, he fears, we would not be able to justify our own. But what is meant by "track record"? The fact that he uses this metaphor without adequate explanation ought to worry him and us. The only "track record" that would be relevant would be a body of established knowledge. But in order to ascertain the presence of a "track record" in this sense, to ascertain the presence of a body of knowledge, we would have to use the only epistemic rationality we have, the one already built into thought and language. The hypothesis of alternative epistemic rationalities has no clear meaning. Eventually, after three difficult chapters (5, 6, and 7), Boghossian seems to come to something like this conclusion.

 

In the great debates of the 1960s and after, I was once asked by a student, "What is your argument for rationality?" That is an absurd question. There cannot be an argument for rationality because the whole notion of an argument presupposes rationality. Constraints of rationality are constitutive of argument itself, as they are of thought and language generally. This is not to say that there cannot be irrational thoughts and claims. There are plenty of irrationalities around. (For example, given the available evidence, it is irrational to deny that the present plant and animal species evolved from earlier forms of life. Why? Because, to put it as an understatement, the evidence is overwhelming.)

 

4.

 

The last form of relativism that Boghossian considers is the explanation of belief. Here the claim is that the explanation of why we believe what we do is never a matter of evidence or solely a matter of evidence, but involves some irrational factors, some social condition in which we find ourselves. I am puzzled why Boghossian takes this claim very seriously, not because it is obviously false, but because it does not really matter to the issue of the truth or falsity or the justification of the claims under discussion. If we have justifications for our beliefs, and if the justifications meet rational criteria, then the fact that there are all sorts of elements in our social situation that incline us to believe one thing rather than another may be of historical or psychological interest but it is really quite beside the point of the justifications and of the truth or falsity of the original claim. It is a factual question to what extent people reach their beliefs by rational appraisal of the evidence, not a question adequately settled by philosophical argument.

 

I think the reason that Boghossian is so concerned about this is that some who have written about the sociology of scientific knowledge think that they can explain all of our beliefs, both the true and the false, the well-supported and the unsupported, by a common pattern of sociological explanation. He cites David Bloor's Knowledge and Social Imagery[9] as an example, along with the works by Latour, Woolgar, and Pickering that I mentioned earlier. The writers in question adopt what Bloor calls "symmetrical" modes of explanation: they argue that true and false beliefs, as well as rational and irrational beliefs, must be explained by the same causes. One example, cited by Bloor, concerns a study involving physicists in Weimar Germany who attempted to "dispense with causality in physics." A "symmetrical" understanding of this scientific project would argue that, while considering how the physicists thought about observed evidence, one should consider as well how they attempted "to adapt the content of their science to the values of their intellectual environment."

 

Boghossian points out correctly that symmetry about truth and falsehood is quite different from symmetry about rationality and irrationality. Symmetry about truth is a possible research program in the sociology of knowledge because people typically arrive at their scientific views, both true and false, through the study of evidence; thus, in most cases at least, both true and false beliefs can be seen as arising from the same cause, evidence. Some evidence may be more revealing of truth than other evidence; nevertheless, if we put aside the use of fraud, both true and false theories have the same underlying cause: observed evidence.

 

But that is not the same as treating rationality and irrationality symmetrically. First, as we've just seen, for both true views and false views to be symmetrical, they must originate in the same cause: argument based on evidence. But all argument based on evidence assumes a common rationality. Thus, as Boghossian argues, the case for the symmetry of truth is wrong because it rests on "the falsity " of the "symmetry about rationality"; both cannot simultaneously be correct. True views and false views may be arrived at by symmetrical methods, but when those methods involve evidence, they are themselves manifestations of a common rationality and thus make impossible the symmetry, or equality, of rationality and irrationality. This is one of the best arguments in Boghossian's book.

 

5.

 

What motivates social constructionism? After all, we pay an enormous intellectual price if we deny the objective validity of the past three and a half centuries of scientific investigation. Boghossian thinks constructionism is motivated partly by intellectual argument and partly by political correctness. In the postcolonial era, some have felt that we should not impose our conception of reality on other cultures. Why shouldn't we, in a multicultural democracy, grant that each culture, or indeed each person, can have his or her own reality? I think in fact the antirational, antiscientific bias of current versions of relativism and constructivism are motivated by a much deeper metaphysical vision than one based on postcolonial political correctness.

 

What exactly is that vision? Hints of it occur in the passage on feminist epistemology that I quoted from Kathleen Lennon. It is a vision according to which all of our knowledge claims are radically contingent because of their historical and social circumstances. According to this vision, all of us think within particular sets of assumptions, and we always represent the world from a point of view, and this makes objective truth impossible. For someone who accepts this argument, the idea that there are scientific claims that are objective, universal, and established beyond a reasonable doubt seems not only inaccurate but positively oppressive. And for such people the very idea of an objectively existing, independent reality must be discredited.

 

On this view, if we are to be truly free, free to create a multicultural democracy, we must above all liberate ourselves from "objectivity," "rationality," and "science." The motivation, in short, is more profound than Boghossian allows for, and it bears interesting affinities with earlier forms of Counter-Enlightenment Romanticism of the sort described by Isaiah Berlin in his The Roots of Romanticism.[10]

 

Boghossian has written an excellent book. It is very compressed, and it is not always easy reading, but it contains relentless exposures of confusion, falsehood, and incoherence.

 

Notes

[1]Bruno Latour, "Ramses II est-il mort de la tuberculose?," La Recherche, March 1998.

 

[2]Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (Doubleday, 1966); Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (Sage, 1979); Andrew Pickering, Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics (University of Chicago Press, 1984); Andrew Pickering, "Science as a Cultural Construct," letter to the editor, Nature, June 5, 1997; and Donald A. MacKenzie, Statistics in Britain, 1865–1930: The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981).

 

[3]Kathleen Lennon, "Feminist Epistemology as Local Epistemology," Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary, Volume 71 (1997), p. 37.

 

[4]Hilary Putnam, The Many Faces of Realism: The Paul Carus Lectures (Open Court, 1987), p. 18.

 

[5]John R. Searle, "Rationality and Realism: What Is at Stake?" Daedalus, Fall 1993.

 

[6]Richard Rorty, "Does Academic Freedom Have Philosophical Presuppositions?," Academe, Vol. 80, No. 6 (November–December 1994), p. 56.

 

[7]See my article and exchange about Derrida in these pages: "The Word Turned Upside Down," October 27, 1983, and "An Exchange on Deconstruction," February 2, 1984.

 

[8]Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Princeton University Press, 1981), pp. 328–331. Quoted in Boghossian, p. 61.

 

[9]University of Chicago Press, second edition, 1991.

 

[10]Princeton University Press, 2001.

   
LETTER RESPONSES TO SEARLE ON RELATIVISM
 Tuesday, December 1, 2009 at 04:09PM
     modify remove organize post follow up     
The New York Review of Books

 

Volume 56, Number 20 · December 17, 2009

'Fear of Knowledge': An Exchange

By Kathleen Lennon, Edwin M. Schur, Reply by John R. Searle

 

In response to Why Should You Believe It?* (September 24, 2009)

 

To the Editors:

 

There was something pleasantly nostalgic about John Searle's review of Fear of Knowledge by Paul A. Boghossian [NYR, September 24], riding to the defense of Enlightenment values of truth, objectivity, and rationality. I was however rather surprised to find myself (although in good company) representative of the forces of darkness he needed to justify his crusade. Along with the good old-fashioned intellectual virtues he claims to espouse, many of us were taught another one. That is to read someone's work before making it an object of discussion (or derision as I think we might say in this case).

 

On the basis of a few lines from my paper in the Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Supplementary Vol. 71), lines he urges us to read closely and then perversely misreads, he draws wild conclusions, which even the most cursory reading of the paper would have made impossible. He claims that I reject an independently existing reality, when all that was argued was the widely accepted point of the impossibility of an unmediated access to it. More astonishingly he attributes to me and my fellow barbarians (feminist, postcolonialist, and poststructuralist thinkers) the view that "if we are to be truly free, free to create a multicultural democracy, we must above all liberate ourselves from 'objectivity,' 'rationality,' and 'science.'"

 

In place of such a fantasy my paper was instead addressing how rational assessment of knowledge claims is possible, if we accept the situatedness of knowledge seekers. It points out that feminists cannot be relativists for "feminist criticisms aimed to challenge and discredit the masculine accounts they critiqued, not simply to add a further perspective. This requires the possibility of rational encounters between the positions."

NYR Holiday Subscription Special

 

One of the problems with Searle's characterization of his supposed opponents is a running together of different positions. Those who argue that historical, social, and material locatedness constrain what we can discover and make sense of are accused of relativism: here the view that knowledge is knowledge-relative-to-a-certain-framework/ time-or-place. But these are quite different claims. Searle also glosses the suggestion that facts are socially constructed as "if we do not like a fact that others have constructed, we can construct another fact that we prefer." Yet those who argue that we are the source of the frameworks in terms of which we understand the world do not have to claim that we do this in a way unconstrained by an independent reality, even while accepting that such reality does not dictate to us the single best way of making sense of it.

 

The failure of Searle to engage with the positions he is so eager to dismiss is puzzling. What is he afraid of here? That a willingness to see something valuable in his opponents might make his own position somewhat less heroic?

 

Kathleen Lennon

Ferens Professor of Philosophy

University of Hull

Hull, England

 

To the Editors:

 

In discussing Paul Boghossian's critique of relativism, John Searle cites with approval the assertion that "the fact that descriptions are socially relative does not imply that the factsdescribed by those descriptions are socially relative." From a sociological perspective, emphasizing (even claiming) such a distinction may prove inadequate.

 

In many social situations the "descriptions" (perceptions, definitions, judgments) are infinitely more consequential socially, and for a commonsense understanding of what is going on, than the alleged "facts." And since there may well be differing and even "competing" descriptions, what the anti-relativist might like to see, in a given situation, as "fact" or "truth" might better be viewed as an outcome of processes of social perception and definition. Apposite examples are myriad.

 

Is the husband hitting his wife a "mere domestic disturbance" or is it "wife- battering"? The hitting may be objective "fact," but how it is defined and reacted to will be crucial. Did the man who fell to his death have an "accident" or commit "suicide"? The evidence may be inconclusive, but in any case a social definition will be applied. What is the objective "truth" value of "clinical depression"? If the distinction between it and extreme sadness is a matter of considered yet still subjective judgment, is clinical depression a "fact"?

 

Should a critic feel that, by focusing in this way on "descriptions," I am simply by-passing the philosophical debate, I would return to my earlier point about social (and psychological) consequentiality. It may be that a chair, a tree, a human body, and a physical act are "facts." But in the arena of human interaction we constantly encounter social characterizations of people, acts, and situations. More often than not, and in the absence of a truly "established" body of supporting evidence, there is little or no consensus regarding which particular "description" or "vocabulary" is applicable. As my earlier comments suggest, in their ramifications and effects the ones that do emerge "successful" make all the difference in the world.

 

Edwin M. Schur

Professor Emeritus Department of Sociology

New York University

John R. Searle replies:

 

In my review of Boghossian's book I cited a passage that he quotes from Kathleen Lennon, in which she contrasts "knowledge as a neutral transparent reflection of an independently ordered reality, with truth and falsity established by transcendent procedures of rational assessment" (a conception she rejects) and "all knowledge [as] situated knowledge, reflecting the position of the knowledge producer at a certain historical moment in a given material and cultural context" (a conception that she accepts and that she assumes refutes the transcendent conception she rejects). I pointed out that contrary to her view, these are not inconsistent. It is trivially true that knowledge is always arrived at by historically situated individuals in historical contexts and it is also true that these individuals sometimes produce theories that meet universal standards of rational assessment.

 

She says, correctly, that I had not read her article. I was reviewing Boghossian's book, not her article. I have now read the article with some care, and I believe it contains a deep inconsistency. In her letter to me she denies that she is a relativist, and insists that the passages she quotes from her original article support her denial of relativism. But the key sentence in her original article is this: Theories cannot be assessed by reference to universal norms. This is an astounding claim, because it denies that there are universal norms such as truth, evidence, consistency, rationality, and coherence, by which we can assess theories.

 

Her grounds for this claim are in the passage Boghossian and I quoted where she assumes that the situatedness and contextual dependency of actual research is inconsistent with universal norms. They are not inconsistent. The rejection of universal norms implies relativism. If there are no universal norms, then what sort of norms can we use? And the answer is implicit in what she says: norms are derived from a given material and cultural context. That is relativism. She cannot have it both ways. She cannot insist that she is not a relativist and yet deny that there are universal norms of validity.

 

Edwin Schur makes an important point that I want to emphasize. Where brute physical reality is concerned, we can typically state facts that are totally independent of any human attitudes: that the earth is round, that hydrogen atoms have one electron, for example. But where human reality is concerned, there are many facts where the descriptions of the fact are partly constitutive of the fact in question. Something is money, property, government, or marriage only insofar as we represent it as such, and that representation requires some use of language.

 

Furthermore, there are many human attitudes where language is partly constitutive of the attitude. In order to fall in love or resent injustice, you have to have a certain way of conceptualizing your feelings, because the concepts are partly constitutive of the attitudes in question. And the point is not, as he suggests, that the evidence might be inconclusive. Given complete evidence in some cases you cannot separate the facts from the interpretation. I think these are very important points, and indeed I have written two books about them and related issues, The Construction of Social Reality (1995) and Making the Social World (forthcoming). I am glad that Professor Schur enables me to make this point.

 

A number of other questions were raised in the numerous letters commenting on my article, and I want to answer at least one familiar objection: the fact that science frequently changes is sometimes taken to support relativism. In fact scientific change is an argument against relativism. We would not bother to change our scientific theories if we did not think the new theory was closer to the truth than the old one. For example, we give up the Newtonian conception of space and time and replace it with an Einsteinian conception, because the latter is closer to the truth.

 Kevin O'Neill |  Post a Comment |  Share Article

Comments

[Fazdku]

Что Вы знаете о вашей родословной?
Вы сроду не размышляли, как тайна фамилии влияет на жизнь людей и влияет ли вообще?
Ученые долгое время пытались разузнать, почему иногда судьбы современных людей повторяют судьбы наших предков, в чем таится причина похожих судеб в истории и как связанна фамилия с будущей судьбой человека. Ради того, чтобы понять причину и найти ответы на все эти вопросы, ученые проводили изучение многих архивов, которые сохранились в наш период.

http://sezathispro.fromru.su/Istoriya-familij-pavlenko.html

тайна фамилии гришин

происхождение фамилии кистанова

происхождение фамилии игошина

значение армянских фамилий бабларьян

[url=http://postmondsabfai.fromru.su/Tajna-familii-valeev.html]происхождение фамилии османов[/url]

происхождение фамилий исаев

присхождение фамилии кальянбеков

тайна фамилии осипов

происхождение фамилии александрова

история фамилий филиппов

[url=http://daydirouvi.fromru.su/Istoriya-familii-gordienko.html]происхождение фамилии александров[/url]

[online pharmacy canada reviews]

online pharmacy england Non Prescription Free Shipping,Cheap online blood clots Pamelor Cod Saturday Delivery, Cheap right upper belly pain super cheap USA with no prescription.Acheter flushing fever Pamelor Cheapest online recently exposure to alcohol or any product that contains alcohol Real Online! It is Easy and Fast.Buy all us regions blood clots Valtrex Cod Cash Help,Side Effects

buy plavix buy plavix buy priligy buy priligy buy propecia buy propecia

[buy Viagra soft]

Great post. I was checking constantly this blog and I am impressed! Very useful information specially the remaining part :) I handle such information much. I was looking for this particular info for a long time. Thanks and good luck.

cheap Priligy

[samchesdantes]

Brytyjski inzynier i naukowiec sir Tim Berners-Lee, chwilowo boss Midwife precisely Off the mark Web Consortium (W3C), napisal w marcu 1989 schemat oparty na ENQUIRE (aplikacji i bazie danych, kt?ra stworzyl na wlasny uzytek w 1980). Przedstawil w nim duzo z wiekszym natezeniem rozbudowany process zarzadzania informacjami, kt?ry stal sie zalazkiem obecnej WWW. Po jakims czasie dolaczyl az do niego belgijski badacz Robert Cailliau, sposr?d kt?rym Lee wsp?lpracowal w osrodku CERN. 12 listopada 1990 opublikowali urzedowy schemat budowy systemu hipertekstowego zwanego "Everybody To one side Cobweb" (w skr?cie: WWW, wzglednie jeszcze kr?cej: W3), obslugiwanego pod reka pomocy przegladarki internetowej, uzywajacego architektury klient-serwer[1>. Uzycie hipertekstu umozliwilo dostep az do r?znego rodzaju informacji poprzez siec odnosnik?w, tzw. hiperlaczy – ogladajac strone internetowa, uzytkownik moze podazac za zamieszczonymi na niej hiperlaczami, kt?re przenosza take up do innych, udostepnionych w sieci dokument?w lub innych stron internetowych. Poczatkowo, "Society Encyclopedic Entanglement" zostal oparty na SGML-owej przegladarce o nazwie "Dynatext", opracowanej w ramach dzialalnosci "Instytutu Badan powyzej Dana i Wiedza" (Organize for the duration of Scrutiny in Facts and Exhibition) Uniwersytetu Browna. "Dynatext" byl projektem komercyjnym, licencjonowanym za pomoca CERN - okazal sie choc nadmiernie cenny w uzywaniu w celu szerszej spolecznosci (w?wczas bylo owo srodowisko fizyk?w wysokich energii), jako ze przewidywal oplate w ciagu kazdy nieznany dokument zas w srodku kazdorazowa jego edycje.


Sir Timothy John "Tim" Berners-Lee
System informacyjny "Superb Wide Trap" [URL=http://pl.retoria.com/]Tanie strony internetowe[/URL] zaprojektowano, zeby zbierac zasoby ludzkiej wiedzy i umozliwic wsp?lpracownikom w odleglych miejscach dzielenie sie swoimi pomyslami tudziez zglebianie wszystkich aspekt?w wsp?lnego projektu. W przypadku, gdy dw?jka projekty tworzone byly niezaleznie od chwili siebie, WWW pozwalala skoordynowac prace naukowc?w, dzieki dlaczego obie prace stawaly sie jednym sp?jnym dzielem. Biezacy projekt szacowal, ze sluzaca na to samo przegladaniu zac, rozwinie sie w ciagu trzech miesiecy, i w ciagu p?l roku uzytkownicy beda mieli mozliwosc publikowania nowych material?w tudziez odnosnik?w do nich, dzieki w jakim celu approach stanie sie w pelni zbiorowy. Usluga zostala oficjalnie uruchomiona w grudniu 1990 roku.
Jako gl?wny na swiecie serwer internetowy, Berners-Lee zastosowal blaszak NeXT, na kt?rym stworzyl r?wniez pierwsza przegladarke o nazwie WorldWideWeb (zmienionej p?zniej na Nexus). Az do czasu swiat Bozego Narodzenia 1990 roku, Berners-Lee zbudowal wszystkie narzedzia niezbedne do dzialania WWW: przegladarke WWW (kt?ra sluzyla r?wniez w charakterze edytor), wiodacy prym serwer WWW a pierwsze okolica WWW, opisujace dopiero co powstaly algorytm. 6 sierpnia 1991 roku zamiescil kr?tkie podsumowanie projektu "WordWideWeb" na grupie dyskusyjnej alt.hypertext. Ta materials jest r?wniez uznawana wewnatrz debiut publicznie dostepnych uslug w Internecie. Zwierzchni serwer nie liczac Europa zostal uruchomiony w Centrum Liniowego Akceleratora Stanforda (SLAC) w grudniu 1992. Zasadnicza koncepcja hipertekstu pochodzi ze starszych projekt?w sposr?d lat 60., takich jak: Hypertext Editing Arrangement (HES), utworzony na Uniwersytecie Browna, Xanadu, autorstwa Teda Nelsona natomiast Andriesa van Bialoglowa, a oN-Line Structure (NLS) Douglasa Engelbarta. Nelson natomiast Engelbart sposr?d kolei inspirowali sie mikrokomputerem Memex, kto w 1945 r. zostal powyzszy esejem pt. "As We May Judge" Vannevara Busha.
Przelomem w projekcie bylo polaczenie hipertekstu sposr?d internetem. W swojej ksiazce pt. "Weaving The Entanglement" ("Tkajac Siec") Berners-Lee wyjasnia, iz nieraz sugerowal mozliwosc polaczenia tych dw?ch technologii, jednakze nikt wczesniej nie podjal staran w tym kierunku, w zwiazku z czym postanowil wziac sprawe w swoje rece. Na potrzeby projektu skryba opracowal structure og?lnodostepnych, unikalnych identyfikator?w zasob?w sieci: "The Infinite Verify Identifier" (UDI) kultowy p?zniej jako Habit Resource Locator (URL) natomiast Unalterable Resource Identifier (URI), jezyk sluzacy projektowaniu stron – HyperText Markup Idiolect (HTML) i protok?l przesylania dokument?w hipertekstowych Hypertext Bring Formality (HTTP).
World Deviating Spider's web posiadala nastepstwo gildia wyr?zniajacych ja sposr?d innych system?w hipertekstowych, kt?re byly w?wczas dostepne, np. uzywal jednokierunkowych zamiast dwukierunkowych odnosnik?w. Umozliwialo owo uzytkownikowi przelaczenie sie z biezacego zasobu danych az do kolejnego, bez potrzeby reakcji ze okolica jego wlasciciela. W por?wnaniu do poprzednich system?w ulatwilo to wdrazanie nowych serwer?w natomiast przegladarek, przeciez wprowadzilo ustawiczny fine kettle of fish wygaslych odnosnik?w (hiperlaczy, link?w). W odr?znieniu od momentu poprzednik?w, takich gdy np. HyperCard, Globe Wide Web nie zostala skomercjalizowana, umozliwiajac rozbudowa serwer?w i publikowanych na nich stron, w postepowanie niezalezny natomiast rozszerzanie rozszerzen bez ograniczen licencyjnych. 30 kwietnia 1993, CERN oglosil, ze Society Broad Snare bedzie udostepniona bezplatnie gwoli kazdego. W ciagu kolejnych dw?ch miesiecy, po ogloszeniu, ze protok?l Gopher[2> nie bedzie juz dostepny bezplatnie, odnotowano duzy obnizenie jego popularnosci, na rzecz darmowej WWW. Najpopularniejsza przegladarka internetowa nie predzej byla ViolaWWW.
Punktem zwrotnym w historii World Extensive Trap bylo wtajemniczenie, w 1993 roku, przegladarki Mosaic, dzialajacej w trybie graficznym. Przegladarka ta zostala opracowana przy uzyciu zesp?l "Narodowego Centrum Zastosowan Superkomputer?w" (Patriotic Center notwithstanding Supercomputing Applications) na Uniwersytecie Illinois w Urbana-Champaign (NCSA-UIUC), kto prowadzony byl nie wczesniej przez Marca Andreessena. Mosaic byla finansowana za posrednictwem "Inicjatywe Wysokowydajnych Technik Obliczeniowych zas Komunikacyjnych" (High-Performance Computing and Communications Initiactive), powstalej dzieki "Ustawie o Wysokowydajnych Technikach Obliczeniowych oraz Komunikacyjnych" (Elevated Exhibition Computing and Communication Act) z 1991 roku, bedacej jednym z kilku opracowan dotyczacych rozwoju informatyki, zainicjowanych dzieki senatora Al Stab'a. Przed wprowadzeniem przegladarki graficznej Mosaic, strony internetowe nie posiadaly grafiki wplecionej bezposrednio w inskrypcja, natomiast popularnosc WWW byla mniejsza niz starszych protokol?w uzywanych dotychczas w Internecie, takich gdy Gopher azali WAIS – zlaczka graficzny przegladarki Mosaic uczynil WWW pewnosc siebie najpopularniejsza usluga internetowa.
World Wide Network Consortium (W3C) zostalo zalozone za sprawa Tima Bernersa-Lee po opuszczeniu za pomoca niego osrodka CERN, w pazdzierniku 1994 roku. Konsorcjum zostalo utworzone w Laboratorium Informatyki Bajanie (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Laboratory as tudziez replacement for Computer Information, MIT/LCS), z pomoca agencji "Agencji Zaawansowanych Obronnych Projekt?w Badawczych" (Defense Advanced Experiment with Projects Intermediation, DARPA), bedacej pionierem w rozwoju Internetu, tudziez Komisji Europejskiej. Az do konca 1994 r., jak calkowita wielkosc stron internetowych stanowila ulamek ich obecnej liczby, multum sposr?d znanych dzis stron bylo juz uruchomionych, tudziez czesc sposr?d nich moglo stanowic inspiracje gwoli wielu wsp?lczesnych serwis?w internetowych.
Dzieki polaczeniu sposr?d Internetem, na calym swiecie zaczely powstawac serwery WWW, tworzac og?lnoswiatowe standardy nazewnictwa domen internetowych. Od czasu tamtej pory Berners-Lee odegral wielce aktywna lines w nadawaniu kierunku rozwoju standard?w sieciowych (takich jak np. jezyki znacznik?w, w kt?rych okolica internetowe sa tworzone), i w ostatnich latach opowiada on o swojej wizji Semantic Web. Domain Encyclopaedic Snare, dzieki latwemu az do opanowania interfejsowi obslugi, aktywnie rozpowszechnia informacje wewnatrz posrednictwem Internetu – tym samym odgrywa istotna r“le w jego popularyzacji – wzdluz, ze te dubel pojecia sa czesto mylone w powszechnym uzyciu: World Deviant Web nie jest calym Internetem, i zaledwie pewna zastosowanie zbudowana na jego bazie.
Cosmos Encyclopaedic Web zas Internet[edytuj>

Okreslenia: Delighted Broad Network i Internet sa czesto stosowane zamiennie w zyciu codziennym. Chociaz Men Considerable Net natomiast Internet nie sa jednym a tym samym. Internet owo og?lny technique polaczonych ze soba sieci komputerowych. W przeciwienstwie do Web, kt?ra jest jedna z uslug dzialajacych w Internecie. WWW jest zbiorem powiazanych ze soba zasob?w oraz dokument?w, polaczonych hiperlaczami natomiast URL-ami. Tresciwie m?wiac, Web jest aplikowanie dzialajaca w Internecie. Przegladanie stron internetowych WWW z reguly rozpoczyna sie ewentualnie od chwili wpisania adresu okolica w przegladarce internetowej, badz przez opowiesc linku az do tej strony czy tez linku do konkretnego zasobu. Nastepnie przegladarka wysyla do serwera WWW, na kt?rym zlokalizowana jest strona, sekwencja niewidzialnych gwoli nas zapytan, tak aby p?zniej pobrac zawartosc danej okolica zas wyswietlic ja na ekranie monitora.
Na poczatku tytul serwera (czesc adresu URL) jest dekodowana na adres IP wewnatrz pomoca globalnej, rozproszonej bazy danych znanej jak Kingdom Label System (DNS). Adres IP jest niezbedny, by m?c polaczyc sie z danym serwerem. Przegladarka nastepnie wywoluje wiadomy rezerwa, wysylajac zapytanie az do serwera okreslonego powyzszym adresem. W przypadku typowej okolica internetowej, przegladarka najprz?d pobiera jej wyklady HTML, analizuje go oraz nastepnie wysyla watpliwosc o reszte element?w wchodzacych w jej sklad (zdjecia, grafika, dzwieki, video, animacje). Statystyki mierzace popularnosc stron na og?l sa oparte o liczbe odwiedzin jednakze r?wniez o liczbe wyslanych na serwer zapytan, kt?re mialy miejsce.
Podczas pobierania plik?w z serwera WWW, przegladarki moga ostroznie skladac strone na ekranie w podejscie okreslony za pomoca jego kod komputerowy HTML, CSS albo inne jezyki skryptowe. Wszelkie zdjecia tudziez inne zasoby sa wlaczane do okolica, kt?ra uzytkownik widzi na ekranie. Wiekszosc stron internetowych zawiera hiperlacza umozliwiajace bezposrednie przechodzenie az do innych stron sposr?d nimi powiazanych, gotowych plik?w, kt?re mozna pobierac, dokument?w zr?dlowych, definicji oraz innych zasob?w internetowych. Taki klasa przydatnych material?w powiazanych ze soba w ciagu posrednictwem laczy hipertekstowych, nazwano "siecia informacji". Udostepniajac te zac w Internecie, Tim Berners-Lee nazwal ja w listopadzie 1990 roku "Far-out Fully Spider's web" (poczatkowo "WorldWideWeb", tymczasem ?w zapis zostal p?zniej odrzucony).
Jakie korzysci przynosi WWW[edytuj>

WWW (lub coraz kr?cej: W3) jest realizacja idei nieograniczonego swiata informacji. Na jej powodzenie, pomijajac samym Internetem jako fizycznym nosnikiem, skladaja sie, przede wszystkim, nastepujace elementy:
HyperText Markup Language (HTML) – hipertekstowy jezyk znacznik?w, zrozumialy dla kazdej przegladarki, sluzacy formatowaniu zawartosci strony internetowej;
Hypertext Shift Protocol (HTTP) – protok?l lacznosciowy uzywany do przesylania stron internetowych;
Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) – sample identyfikatora zasob?w w Internecie.
Prefiks WWW[edytuj>

Wiele adres?w internetowych zaczyna sie od czasu "www" ze wzgledu na dlugoletnia praktyke nazywania host?w internetowych (serwer?w) zgodnie sposr?d uslugami, kt?re oferowaly. Miano hosta gwoli serwera Net to najczesciej www, ano gdy ftp dla serwera FTP azaliz news lub nntp w celu serwer?w informacyjnych Usenet. Te nazwy host?w ukazuja sie, jako subdomeny w Sphere Choose Way (DNS), podczas gdy w przykladzie www.example.com. Aplikowanie takich subdomen nie jest wymagane. Gl?wny na swiecie serwer Entanglement nazywal sie nxoc01.cern.ch, a masa stron internetowych istnieje bez prefiksu WWW, badz innych takich gdy "www2" , "secure" itp. Prefiksy subdomen nie maja zadnego praktycznego znaczenia, sa to z reguly nazwy nadane za pomoca administrator?w. Bez liku serwer?w internetowych jest no skonfigurowanych, tak aby korzystac sposr?d obu wersji adresu, r?wniez samej domeny () jak tudziez z subdomena (). W praktyce kieruja one uzytkownika dokladnie do tej samej strony.
W przypadku wpisania ale wrecz jednego specyficznego slowa w pasku adresu przegladarki, np.: apple , openoffice aplikowanie sama spr?buje dodac prefiks www oraz konc?wke np.: ".com", ".org" czy tez ".net" natomiast przekieruje nas np. na strone "", jednakowoz . Funkcje te zostaly wprowadzone we wczesnych wersjach przegladarki Mozilla Firefox (znanej ponizej roboczym tytulem Firebird) na poczatku 2003. Firma Microsoft otrzymala w 2008r clear w USA na owo samo rozwiazanie z tym, ze lecz wciaz w odniesieniu az do urzadzen mobilnych.
Przedrostki "http://" natomiast "https://" nalezy rozr?zniac. Hypertext Carry Formality (HTTP) zas HTTP Steady wyznaczaja protok?l komunikacyjny, kt?ry ma zostac uzyty do wysylania zas pobierania zawartosci strony. Protok?l HTTP jest podstawowym elementem dzialania struktury www natomiast HTTPS dodaje niezbedna warstwe ochronna w przypadku, gdy poufne informacje, takie podczas gdy hasla azaliz dane bankowe maja byc przesylane w publicznej sieci Internet. Przegladarki internetowe r?wniez automatycznie dopisuja ?w atmosphere (HTTPS), jesli zostanie jego osoba pominiety. Globalny szkic RFC 2396 okreslajacy postac adres?w internetowych to: ://?# , gdzie owo np. serwer internetowy (jak www.example.com) zas sciezka identyfikuje konkretna podstrone. Serwer przetwarza , kt?re moze np. w ciagu posrednictwem formularza wyslac dane do zewnetrznej wyszukiwarki, przez owo zawartosc wyswietlanej strony jest zalezna od czasu odebranych informacji zwrotnych. nie jest wysylany az do serwera. Okresla kt?ra czesc okolica ma byc wyswietlana uzytkownikowi domyslnie.
W jezyku angielskim www wymawiane jest za pomoca pojedyncze powiedzenie ciagu znak?w (double-u double-u double-u). Niekt?re kregi uzytkownik?w wymawiaja dub-dub-dub, jednak ten metoda nie jest jeszcze nazbyt powszechny. Angielski pisarz Douglas Adams zazartowal kiedys w "The Voluntary jego osoba Sunday (1999): "Everyone Wide Cobweb jest z tego co wiem jedynym wyrazeniem kt?rego skr?cona rodzaj jest trzy razy dluzsza od pelnej". Okreslenie World Extreme Cobweb jest powszechnie tlumaczone na jezyk chinski jako: waxen wei wang, co doslownie oznacza "mn?stwo wymiar?w sieci". Tlumaczenie owo bardzo porzadnie odzwierciedla koncepcje projektu oraz zalozenia WWW. Tim Berners-Lee zdefiniowal, iz wyrazenie Society Deviating Net powinno byc pisane w charakterze 3 osobne slowa bez zadnych dodatkowych lacznik?w.
Prywatnosc[edytuj>

Uzytkownicy komputer?w, kt?rzy oszczedzaja okres a pieniadze, oraz takze ci, kt?rzy poszukuja wygody zas rozrywki, sa narazeni na utrate prywatnosci w sieci. Na calym swiecie nad p?l miliarda os?b korzysta z serwis?w spolecznosciowych, tudziez mlodziez dorastajaca w dobie Internetu dokonuje kolejnej zmiany pokoleniowej. Sposr?d Facebooka, poczatkowo rozpowszechnionego posr?d amerykanskich student?w, korzysta dzis powyzej 70% uzytkownik?w sposr?d innych panstw niz USA. W 2009 roku na portalu uruchomiono trial nowych narzedzi, umozliwiajacych przystosowanie ochrony prywatnosci, jednakze na odwr?t 20% uzytkownik?w rozpoczelo korzystanie sposr?d nich. Notwithstanding serwisy wykorzystuja czesc powierzonych im danych uzytkownik?w az do cel?w reklamowych. Osoba korzystajaca sposr?d Internetu ma mozliwosc usuniecia historii przegladanych stron, zablokowania niekt?rych ciasteczek (cookies) tudziez wyskakujacych okienek, niemniej jednak nie zapewnia to pelnej ochrony prywatnosci.
Bezpieczenstwo[edytuj>

Siec Network stala sie otwarta rozwiazanie dla przestepc?w rozprzestrzeniajacych zlosliwe aplikacja. Cyberprzestepczosc prowadzona w internecie moze skladac sie sposr?d kradziezy tozsamosci, oszustw, szpiegostwa i gromadzenia poufnych informacji. Polaczenie z internetem przewyzsza tradycyjne zagrozenia w celu bezpieczenstwa danych przetwarzanych w poblizu pomocy komputera, natomiast podczas gdy szacuje Google, okolo jedna na dziesiec stron internetowych moze zawierac zlosliwy kod komputerowy. Wiekszosc atak?w opartych na sieci Trap odbywa sie sposr?d poziomu legalnych stron internetowych, i najczesciej, gdy szacuje firma Sophos, ataki sa prowadzone w Stanach Zjednoczonych, Chinach Kreator stron www zas Rosji. Najpowszechniejszym typem zagrozen jest SQL injection. Za pomoca jezyka HTML i URI siec Network zostala r?wniez narazona na ataki, takie kiedy cross-site scripting (XSS), kt?re pojawily sie pospolu sposr?d wprowadzeniem JavaScript, nastepnie zostaly rozszerzone do pewnego stopnia dzieki Cobweb 2.0 a Ajax, uzywajace duzych ilosci skrypt?w. Dzis szacunkowo 70% wszystkich stron internetowych jest niezabezpieczonych przed atakami XSS.
Archiwizacja stron WWW[edytuj>

Z bezzwlocznie czasu masa zasob?w publikowanych w Internecie zanika, zostaje przeniesionych, zaktualizowanych badz calkowicie zmienia sie ich zawartosc. Owo sprawia, ze niekt?re odnosniki staja sie przestarzale. Okresla sie je w tamtym czasie mianem "martwych odnosnik?w" (ang. dead links). Stew ?w spowodowal, ze podjeto dzialania zaradcze, oraz np. Internet Archive, dzialajace od momentu 1996 roku, jest w tej chwili w najwiekszym stopniu znana instytucja zajmujaca sie archiwizacja zasob?w Internetu.
Standaryzacja[edytuj>

Funkcjonowanie World Wide Network w Internecie oraz obocznosc informacji pomiedzy komputerami opiera sie na wielu standardach natomiast specyfikacjach technicznych. Duza czesc tych dokument?w to opracowania Superb Encyclopaedic Entanglement Consortium (W3C), kierowanego za pomoca Berners'a-Lee, zas niekt?re sposr?d nich sa dzielem Internet Engineering Upbraid Soldiers (IETF) natomiast innych organizacji.
Gdy wspominamy o standardach internetowych najczesciej mamy az do czynienia z nastepujacymi publikacjami:
Zalecenia W3C dla jezyk?w znacznik?w, zwlaszcza HTML zas XHTML. Okreslaja whole struktury interpretacji dokument?w hipertekstowych.
Zalecenia W3C w celu arkuszy styl?w, zwlaszcza CSS.
Standardy ECMAScript (zazwyczaj w formie JavaScript), z ECMA International.
Zalecenia W3C dotyczace modelowania dokument?w obiektowych.
Dodatkowe publikacje dostarczaja definicji innych podstawowych technologii stosowanych w Life Encyclopaedic Cobweb, min.:
Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), kto jest uniwersalnym systemem odniesien az do zasob?w w Internecie, takich podczas gdy dokumenty hipertekstowe oraz obrazy. URI, czesto nazywane URL jest definiowane dzieki IETF RFC 3986 STD / 66: Invariable Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax.
Protok?l HTTP, i ostro RFC 2616: HTTP/1.1 i RFC 2617: Autoryzacja HTTP, kt?re okreslaja, gdy przegladark

[HiDepagezep]

Angry Birds Seasons Angry Birds Chine pc angry birds

[piembeign]

Rio Angry Birds Angry Birds Classic pc angry birds

[Adamlambertson]

Zarzadzanie trzeba az do nauk ekonomicznych. Odkad poczatku XX wieku, od kierowanie próbowano oprzec na naukowych podstawach, az do lat 60. XX wieku kierowanie pojmowane bylo w charakterze dzialanie kierownicze, obejmujace nastepujace sekwencje postepowania: Planowanie, Organizowanie, Decydowanie, Motywowanie oraz Kontrolowanie, nazywane klasycznymi funkcjami zarzadzania. Klasyczne funkcje zarzadzania wyróznil najwyzszy "klasyk" zarzadzania Henri Fayol. Choc zespól przekonan zarzadzania zmienil sie od tego czasu radykalnie, w nastepstwie tego pozadane byloby powrócic do starszej, bardziej ogólnej definicji: zarzadzanie owo bieglosc lub doswiadczenie rozumnego stosowania srodków dla osiagniecia wyznaczonych celów.
(Zob. tez: Kierowanie, Koordynowanie)
Inne definicje zarzadzania:
Zarzadzanie jest sztuka osiagania zamierzonych rezultatów dzieki innych ludzi, zarzadzajacy (menedzerowie) osiagaja cele organizacji w poprzek organizowanie pracy innych, zas nie przez uprawianie zadan osobiscie.
Zarzadzanie owo dzialalnosc kierownicza polegajaca na ustalaniu celów i powodowaniu ich realizacji w organizacjach podleglych zarzadzajacemu, na podstawie wlasnosci srodków produkcji albo dyspozycji nimi (wg Gilinskiego).
Zarzadzanie owo impreza polegajace na dysponowaniu zasobami (wg prof. T. Pszczolowskiego).
Zarzadzanie to asortyment dzialan (planowanie, organizowanie, uzasadnianie, kontrola) skierowanych na zasoby organizacji (ludzkie, finansowe, rzeczowe, informacyjne) wykorzystywanych sposród zamiarem osiagniecia celów organizacji. (wg Griffina).
Zarzadzanie owo porzadkowanie chaosu (wg prof. B.R. Kuca)
W odniesieniu do organizacji gospodarczych zamiast slowa kierowanie uzywa sie od czasu do czasu terminu zarzadzanie biznesu (ang. Business Administration). Misja administracji biznesu ujmuje krótkie okreslenie: "Administracja biznesu ma umozliwic, by zostalo zrobione owo, co ma istniec zrobione". Zarzadzanie biznesu jest dyscyplina akademicka, i porzadek uniwersytetów natomiast szkól biznesu nadaje stopien magistra sposród tej dyscypliny (Master of Business Administration, w skrócie MBA).
Spis tresci
1 Materia zarzadzania
2 Sprawa zarzadzania w organizacjach
3 Zarzadzanie operacyjne - zarzadzanie czynnikami konkurencyjnosci
4 Inne podmioty zarzadzania
5 Teoretycy zarzadzania
6 Zobacz tez
7 Linki zewnetrzne
Przedmiot zarzadzania

Podmiot zarzadzajacy nie zawzdy jest tym, kto wyznacza cele. Przykladem takiej sytuacji byc moze byc organizacja wojskowa, która ma do spelnienia okreslona misje, jednak ani plec nadobna sama, ani jej dowódcy (podmioty zarzadzajace) nie formuluja tej misji. Formuluja choc zadania (co jest az do zrobienia) natomiast okreslaja wartosci docelowe (ang. targets), czyli wyniki, jakie trzeba dostac. Przyklad ten pokazuje, iz zrzeszenie jest srodkiem osiagania celów, i tym samym jest przedmiotem zarzadzania. Inne typowe przedmioty zarzadzania majace identycznosc to zagroda, orkiestra ludzi, jednostka. Zwykle wypelniaja one klasyczne funkcje zarzadzania, tym samym - nie zwazajac na wyjatki - powiemy, ze materia zarzadzania majacy tozsamosc jest na wsio podmiotem zarzadzania.
Z wyjatkiem szczególnych przypadków, podczas gdy np. kierowanie osobistym budzetem za pomoca pojedyncza osobe wzglednie komenderowanie gospodarstwa w pelni samowystarczalnego, osiaganie zamierzonych wyników zalezy czesciowo od dzialania innych podmiotów. W nastepstwie tego kierowanie obejmuje plus relacje (zwiazki) podmiotu sposród otoczeniem.
Kazdy osoba w swym dzialaniu wykorzystuje zasoby. Zasoby sa przedmiotem zarzadzania. Do najwazniejszych naleza zasoby ludzkie (sila robocza tudziez jej kwalifikacje), zasoby finansowe, aktywa materialne (srodki trwale) zas Chronos. Niedawno coraz to wiekszego znaczenia w dzialaniu organizacji nabieraja zasoby srodowiska naturalnego oraz zasoby niematerialne (np. licencje, prawa autorskie), erudycja oraz zaleznosci z otoczeniem spoleczno-gospodarczym zaliczane az do zasobów kapitalu niematerialnego (ang. intangibles, intangible capital). Wiec w zarzadzaniu zasobami wyrózniamy najczesciej:
zarzadzanie zasobami ludzkimi,
zarzadzanie finansowe,
zarzadzanie aktywami,
zarzadzanie czasem,
zarzadzanie srodowiskiem,
zarzadzanie wiedza,
Psychologia
zarzadzanie kultura
zarzadzanie relacjami, zwlaszcza istotne ostatnio zarzadzanie zwiazkami z klientem,
zarzadzanie kapitalem niematerialnym,
zarzadzanie problemami,
zarzadzanie konfliktami,
zarzadzanie stresem,
zarzadzanie jakoscia,
zarzadzanie ryzykiem,
zarzadzanie emocjami,
zarzadzanie nieruchomosciami,
zarzadzanie wartoscia firmy - Value Based Management.
Przedmiot zarzadzania w organizacjach

Przeznaczeniem organizacji jest systematyzowanie (porzadkowanie) dzialania jej uczestników w taki podejscie, azeby realizowala swa misje, osiagala pozadane wyniki lub wykonywala swe zadania niedaleko optymalnym wykorzystaniu (zuzyciu) zasobów.
Przedmiotem zarzadzania ogólnego (ang. General Management) jest zrzeszenie jako kompleks. Az do zadan zarzadzania ogólnego nalezy kierowanie strategiczne, modelowanie struktur organizacyjnych oraz kierowanie zasobami ludzkimi zas aktywami. Poza tego w nowym paradygmacie zarzadzania kladzie sie obszerny emfaza na przywództwo oraz formowanie kultury korporacyjnej.
Przedmiotem zarzadzania funkcjonalnego sa zadania lub autonomicznych czesci organizacji, które nazywamy funkcjami. Zgodnie z jednej z definicji (H. James Harrington) zatrudnienie w organizacji to ansambl ludzi wykonujacych owo samo zadanie. Najwazniejsza dziedzina zarzadzania funkcjonalnego jest zarzadzanie operacjami, utozsamiane dawno sposród zarzadzaniem produkcja, i dzien dzisiejszy czestokroc okreslane ogólniej jako kierowanie wytwarzaniem wyrobów oraz uslug. Obecnie wzgledne wplyw zarzadzania funkcjonalnego zmniejsza sie, bo w co chwila wiekszym stopniu uzupelniane jest ono tudziez po czesci zastepowane zarzadzaniem procesowym.
Przechodzenie z zarzadzania funkcjonalnego na administracja procesowe jest zjawiskiem charakterystycznym w celu wspomnianej zmiany paradygmatu zarzadzania. W tym nowym paradygmacie kierowanie operacjami jest dozwolone tyczyc sie w charakterze zarzadzanie czynnikami konkurencyjnosci.
Zarzadzanie operacyjne - administracja czynnikami konkurencyjnosci

Wyróznia sie trójka klasyczne czynniki konkurencyjnosci: stan, wartosc oraz dostawa. Poreka wymaganej przy uzyciu targowisko jakosci produktu (wyrobu albo uslugi badz pakietu produkty+uslugi), kosztu nabycia tudziez uzytkowania produktu a wymaganej ilosci, róznorodnosci, terminowosci dostaw produktu oraz szybkosci realizacji zamówien decyduje o konkurencyjnosci produktu, alias o jego atrakcyjnosci rynkowej w porównaniu sposród innymi produktami. Abstrahujac od czynników klasycznych duzego znaczenia nabieraja ostatnio takie czynniki, jak bieglosc obslugi klientów (ang. Customer Service) a cechy jakosci wykraczajace nie liczac postac konstrukcji a wykonania, np. ekologicznosc zas obronnosc produktu natomiast procesu produkcji.
Zapewnienie jakosci na procedura tradycyjny jest zadaniem kontroli jakosci. Nadzorowanie jakosci jest funkcja organizacyjna. Obserwacja jakosci wykonuje swoje obowiazek w ów postepowanie, ze z wytworzonych produktów wybiera produkty spelniajace wymagania tudziez kwalifikuje je w charakterze nadajace sie az do przekazania klientowi zewnetrznemu lub wewnetrznemu. Produkty nie spelniajace wymagan zostaja odrzucone z wykorzystaniem kontrole jakosci oraz kierowane az do poprawek, do naprawy czy tez do zlomowania.
Zapewnienie jakosci na strategia nowoczesny (w nowym paradygmacie zarzadzania) polega na zapewnieniu doskonalosci procesu wytwarzania zas dostarczania. Podstawa takiego postepowania jest stwierdzenie, iz gdyby praca na kazdym etapie procesu jest wysokiej jakosci, owo na wyjsciu procesu powstaje towar wysokiej jakosci. W praktyce parametry charakteryzujace forma produktu musza zawierac znaczenie sie w okreslonych a waskich granicach. Jezeli scisle mówiac jest, mówi sie, ze przebieg jest nieruchomy. Podczas gdy atoli zostanie stwierdzone, iz blizej nie okreslony sposród parametrów jakosci produktu nie miesci sie w zadanych granicach, trzeba poszukac w procesie miejsc, które sa przyczyna defektu, tudziez z kolei odwolac owe przyczyny. W ten postepowanie realizowane jest sprzezenie zwrotne miedzy wyjsciem procesu, natomiast miejscami w procesie decydujacymi o jego doskonalosci.
Opisany metoda sterowania procesem jest istota Kompleksowego Systemu Sterowania za sprawa Jakosc - (ang. TQC - Total Quality Control). W praktyce olbrzymia wieksza czesc procesów to procesy nieciagle. W takich procesach zarówno analizowanie, gdy zas forma produktu na wyjsciu maja nature statystyczna. W odniesieniu do takich przypadków natomiast w odniesieniu do procesów biznesowych mówimy o statystycznym sterowaniu procesami (ang. SPC - Statistical Process Control).
Zarzadzanie kosztami na procedura schematyczny ma na celu redukcje kosztów dzialania organizacji. Dwa najpowszechniejsze srodki prowadzace do tego to kontroling kosztów polegajacy na narzuceniu dyscypliny budzetowej (patrz: budzet, budzetowanie) wszystkim komórkom organizacyjnym zas czynienie oszczednosci.
W zarzadzaniu procesowym w zastepstwie o redukcji kosztów mówi sie o redukcji strat. Podstawa programu redukcji strat jest segmentacja strat. W odniesieniu do niektórych procesów a funkcji, takich kiedy przebieg produkcji, czy koszty utrzymania ruchu, punktem wyjscia az do klasyfikacji strat jest posegregowanie standardowa (np. siódemka rodzajów strat produkcyjnych, tzw. Szóstka Wielkich Strat w pierwszym standardzie Total Productive Maintenance, szesnascie glównych strat w drugim standardzie tego systemu). W praktyce najpowszechniejszym przedsiewzieciem majacym na celu redukcje strat jest eliminowanie sposród procesu wszystkich elementów, które nie przynosza wartosci dodanej, sa marnotrawstwem (patrz Muda). Przedsiewzieciem kompleksowym jest wyszczuplanie procesów (ang. streamlining). Zazwyczaj nie ogranicza sie ono az do eliminowania elementów zbednych, niemniej wymaga przeprojektowania procesu. Podstawowa metodologia wyszczuplania procesów, tak jak produkcyjnych podczas gdy oraz biznesowych, jest inzynieria przemyslowa - metanauka wspierajaca administracja operacyjne, traktowana cyklicznie jak samodzielna dziedzina zarzadzania.
Najprostszy sytuacja konkurowania w oparciu o koszty owo rywalizacja cenowa. Na niektórych rynkach, zwlaszcza rynkach profesjonalnych, wysoka porto produktu jest akceptowana ponizej warunkiem niskich kosztów eksploatacji produktu a niskich kosztów wylaczenia produktu sposród eksploatacji. W takich przypadkach towar konkursowy kosztowo to towar o niskim koszcie cyklu zycia.
Dostawa jako skladnik konkurencyjnosci jest nalezycie wiazka kilku róznych czynników, które - zaleznie od czasu sytuacja (gl. od momentu obszaru produktowo-rynkowego i sytuacji konkurencyjnej) - maja wieksze czy tez mniejsze ranga. Az do najwazniejszych sposród nich wypada niezawodnosc dostaw, czyli napelniacz dzieki dostawce obietnic dotyczacych terminu dostawy. Obecnie rosnie znaczenie szybkosci dostaw, czyli czasu, który uplywa odkad momentu otrzymania zamówienia dzieki dostawce az do momentu dostarczenia towaru na lokalizacja przeznaczenia. Czynnikiem podstawowym jest zapewnienie wymaganej ilosci towaru, jednakze w ramach tego rosnie wplyw róznorodnosci produktów. Jarmark wymaga dlatego ze raz po raz bardziej róznorodnych produktów dostarczanych co chwila czesciej oraz w co chwila mniejszych partiach. Spelnienie tego warunku wymaga elastycznosci systemu produkcyjnego, która jest tym wieksza, im krótszy czas i mniejszy wartosc przestawiania (przezbrajania - patrz SMED).
Jak wspomniano w góre, stan, cena natomiast dostawa nie sa jedynymi czynnikami konkurencyjnosci. Rekojmia pozostalych waznych w tym momencie czynników konkurencyjnosci odbywa sie przez kierowanie srodowiskiem natomiast kierowanie bezpieczenstwem.
Wyszczuplanie procesu przewaznie prowadzi równoczesnie do jego przyspieszenia.
Prawidlowo prowadzone przeprojektowanie procesu pozwala dostac naraz redukcje kosztów zas poprawe jakosci produktu. Przeprojektowanie radykalne procesów biznesowych to reengineering, który stosowany jest w tej chwili ogromnie z rzadka, bowiem radykalizm jego metodologii przynosi w warunkach przemyslowych na wszystko wiecej efektów negatywnych, anizeli pozytywnych. Az do mniej radykalnych metodologii doskonalenia procesów naleza Business Process Redesigning oraz Ulepszanie Procesów Biznesowych (ang. Business Process Improvement).
Inne podmioty zarzadzania

Gospodarka przyswajajaca (zbieractwo, lowiectwo, rybolówstwo, pierwotne rolnictwo) wykorzystuje ograniczone zasoby naturalne, zatem jej celem jest nie tylko akwizycja zas eksploatacja tych zasobów, lecz takze ich obrona. Wystepuja tedy wprost przeciwnie niektóre, niezbedne elementy zarzadzania, gdy rozklad pracy, programowanie robót gospodarskich tudziez koordynowanie ich a proste czynnosci administracyjne, kiedy rejestracja inwentarza.
W gospodarce pierwotnej (samowystarczalnej) równie gdy w gospodarce przyswajajacej i w wielu formach gospodarki kolektywnej (np. zagospodarowanie dzialów wodnych, gospodarka lesna) praca na wsio nie ma ustalonej ceny, totez nie musi wydarzac sie tu w ogóle zarzadzanie finansowe. Nie wystepuje po tej stronie kierowanie strategiczne, zas administracja operacyjne ogranicza sie do organizacji pracy.
W gospodarstwach rolnych tudziez w najprostszych formach dzialalnosci gospodarczej, jak blahy kupiectwo, uslugi i praca (rzemioslo) wystepuja elementy strategii tudziez zarzadzania zasobami (poniewaz wystepuje substytucja pracy, kapitalu i energii), kierowanie jakoscia i organizacja pracy. Kategoria wynikowa jest po tej stronie intrata wzglednie zarobek, wystepuje skutkiem tego administracja zakupami, niemniej jednak nie wystepuje administracja kosztami.
W gospodarstwach domowych podstawowym zagadnieniem zarzadzania jest przeznaczenie dochodu zas dysponowanych zasobów pracy a czasu miedzy konsumpcje biezaca (w tym ferie, laba a rozrywka), oszczednosci tudziez inwestycje w przyszlosc (np. edukacje).
Szczególna dziedzina zarzadzania jest administracja osobiste, którego podmiotem jest jednostka, zas przedmiotem na caloksztalt jej budzet czasu. Administracja czasem wewnatrz punkt wyjscia bierze uswiadomienie sobie przy uzyciu jednostke hierarchii wartosci dotyczacej tego, co jest dla niej wazne w jej zyciu. Celem jest racjonalne gospodarowanie od czasu do czasu, tzn. alokowanie go wg priorytetów wynikajacych z owej refleksji. Zdolnosc zarzadzania od czasu do czasu bywa równiez istotnym atutem pracownika w organizacji.
Inna szczególna dziedzina zarzadzania sa sytuacje szczególne; wyróznia sie na przyklad kierowanie katastrofami, zarzadzanie konfliktami, zarzadzanie kryzysowe.
Historycznie najwczesniejsza, w pelni dojrzala dziedzina zarzadzania jest kierowanie terytorialna oraz panstwowa. Najwczesniej uksztaltowala sie zarzadzanie w zamian (prawdopodobnie w 2 polowie VI tysiaclecia p.n.e.), albowiem miasta powstaly przedtem powstaly panstwa.
Teoretycy zarzadzania

[VPNs-GuideS]

The Company In-Disguise .Com
Glad to introduce you – private and Fully Automatic VPN Service!

In-Disguise. Com - Fully Automatic VPN service, you don’t have to waste time on:

1 - Search Supports if disconnected from a server, search for a standard installation “OpenVPN client”
spend time for installing downloaded configs to the program.
Troubleshoot the upgraded system for a stable connection to the VPN.
access to all servers for just 9 EURO.
DoubleVPN, OPENVPN and PPTP VPN - Access to 18 servers in 10 countries!
Subscribe to All Servers of Our Service for 9 Euro; 3 months = 20 Euro; 6 months = 35 Euro; 1 year = 55 Euro.

2 - Unique “VPN Client” is easy to install on all kinds of Operating Systems: MAC / Windows / Liinux!!!
Will allow you to switch easily between the VPN servers in USA / DE / UK / IT / NL / LU / EG / PA / RO / MY Continuing
In the near future our service will be available in Spain, Greece, Sweden, Mexico, Czech Republic, Poland, China, Belgium ...
Types of VPN connections included in a single subscription - DoubleVPN and OpenVPN.

3 - The program features an easy configuration of a VPN connection to your Internet: -automatically Block Internet Connection when Disconnected from a VPN.
- Automatic connection to the VPN when you turn on the Internet.

4 - Company Takes All Kinds Of Payments in Full Auto Mode!
WebMoney / Visa / Master Card / PayPal / Liberty Reserve / BitCoin / SMS and many others.
Our site is here in-disguise .com /?aff=69
Sincerely, In-Disguise .Com

========
Also,our Service has a unique N-tier, Private Partnership Program:

You will get 35% of total payments of your customers!
Registration only for an invite code - a code targeted at a single registration .
After registration you can become an Affiliated owner
Proposing an affiliation to your friends you can get up to 11% of their profits.
Our sister site is vpnincome .Com
If you are interested in our VPN Service or an Affiliation program, please refer all questions to :
ICQ: 6850058
E-mail: paul_okenfold@yahoo.com

[Buy clonazepam online]

havxulpofjmm52, Buy klonopin online consultation, VImldjo, [url=http://www.fishstixcharters.com/Southwest-Florida-Family-Fishing.htm]Uk buy klonopin online without[/url], gynACig, http://www.fishstixcharters.com/Southwest-Florida-Family-Fishing.htm Buy klonopin online, hpjGVOE.

[54r254dc]

”злы учета в √–ѕЎ http://promgazarm.ru метод измерени€ выполн€ютс€ в следующих модификаци€х: с турбинными и ротационными счетчиками, с измерительной диафрагмой.

[Cialis soft in clubs]

xgrivlpofjmm52, Buying viagra online, UOoCpAN, [url=http://sildenafilbluepill.com/]Viagra on line[/url], vkctjeh, http://sildenafilbluepill.com/ Alternative to viagra, qxlFOUJ, Cialis, LoQFnhN, [url=http://padcommunity.org/]Cialis forum[/url], LhpnuIp, http://padcommunity.org/ Cialis lawyer ohio, RFJYxaR, Buy cheap viagra online uk, sUMmyez, [url=http://bryc3.com/]Cheap viagra switch maestro[/url], arwUWEx, http://bryc3.com/ Viagra, sATqdeI, Criminal defense attorney los angeles, ScmCFBD, [url=http://findlacriminaldefenseattorney.com/]criminal defense lawyers los angeles[/url], MNnTYig, http://findlacriminaldefenseattorney.com/ criminal defense lawyer in los angeles, wXqOCPk, Top 10 plastic surgeons in atlanta, ummUnns, [url=http://bestplasticsurgeonsinatlanta.com/]plastic surgeons atlanta[/url], lHYOPrx, http://bestplasticsurgeonsinatlanta.com/ Plastic surgeons in atlanta, FQntJoJ, Casino poker game online, JXaYjvv, [url=http://aejmcdenver.org/]Online casino play roulette[/url], sbCQNOb, http://aejmcdenver.org/ Best quality casino gambling online 01qq, TvYnAXo.

[vardenafil generic]

An investigational vaccine protected some women against infection from one of the two types of herpes simplex viruses that cause genital herpes, according to findings in the Untrained England Journal of Medicine.
http://buycheaplevitragenericonline.com buy levitra online
order levitra without prescription

[Levitra testemonial]

tjmjllpofjmm52, Levitra price, njZVVlY, [url=http://www.33rdalabama.org/reenact.htm]Better viagra or levitra[/url], lZODOlP, http://www.33rdalabama.org/reenact.htm Levitra professional, IRdgzbh.

[Buy Viagra]

gngzklpofjmm52, Viagra, lrYMWkZ, [url=http://www.adamandcheri.com/]Viagra[/url], qkotSrD, http://www.adamandcheri.com/ Viagra, PgqjKPe.

[Order tramadol no prescription]

rclvxlpofjmm52, Buy Tramadol, YwDTuMl, [url=http://www.mwinstonltd.com/]Buy Tramadol[/url], ujWkHtg, http://www.mwinstonltd.com/ Buy tramadol online without prescription, sMDcHwC, Ambien online uk, LsFjmTK, [url=http://www.btxformfactor.com/ambien.html]Order ambien from canada[/url], vNTDwzV, http://www.btxformfactor.com/ambien.html Ambien online, zjjPwWl, Buy cheap generic cialis, aqYPcUm, [url=http://www.oleani.com/]Buy Cialis[/url], hhWDsTs, http://www.oleani.com/ Buy Cialis, ggdhyOU, Lorazepam anxiety, XtqtSAb, [url=http://www.bairbros.com/carousel.html]Lorazepam for well being[/url], qQbrAiQ, http://www.bairbros.com/carousel.html Lorazepam, mgqLPau, Buy tramadol online, vfohffQ, [url=http://www.cokercreekgallery.com/]Buy tramadol cialis[/url], aTvtsgP, http://www.cokercreekgallery.com/ Buy tramadol mexican pharmacy, hCQpHrW, Order xanax online overnight, Zxgmdpf, [url=http://www.btxformfactor.com/xanax.html]Buy xanax no prescription[/url], pwYLaen, http://www.btxformfactor.com/xanax.html Xanax online no prescription, JWGdnIg.

[Order tramadol no prescription]

rclvxlpofjmm52, Buy Tramadol, YwDTuMl, [url=http://www.mwinstonltd.com/]Buy Tramadol[/url], ujWkHtg, http://www.mwinstonltd.com/ Buy tramadol online without prescription, sMDcHwC, Ambien online uk, LsFjmTK, [url=http://www.btxformfactor.com/ambien.html]Order ambien from canada[/url], vNTDwzV, http://www.btxformfactor.com/ambien.html Ambien online, zjjPwWl, Buy cheap generic cialis, aqYPcUm, [url=http://www.oleani.com/]Buy Cialis[/url], hhWDsTs, http://www.oleani.com/ Buy Cialis, ggdhyOU, Lorazepam anxiety, XtqtSAb, [url=http://www.bairbros.com/carousel.html]Lorazepam for well being[/url], qQbrAiQ, http://www.bairbros.com/carousel.html Lorazepam, mgqLPau, Buy tramadol online, vfohffQ, [url=http://www.cokercreekgallery.com/]Buy tramadol cialis[/url], aTvtsgP, http://www.cokercreekgallery.com/ Buy tramadol mexican pharmacy, hCQpHrW, Order xanax online overnight, Zxgmdpf, [url=http://www.btxformfactor.com/xanax.html]Buy xanax no prescription[/url], pwYLaen, http://www.btxformfactor.com/xanax.html Xanax online no prescription, JWGdnIg.

[Carisoprodol]

qlvhqlpofjmm52, Priligy, wnZcMaN, [url=http://www.prematureejaculationdrug.net/]Priligy review[/url], ZepzBrz, http://www.prematureejaculationdrug.net/ Dapoxetine hydrochloride, YZYHHVB, Carisoprodol, SlYhuYd, [url=http://www.wcsbid.com/register.cfm]Buy Carisoprodol[/url], WpFTqQC, http://www.wcsbid.com/register.cfm Carisoprodol classification, bgbWxdb, Cost of modafinil, kyMJEXT, [url=http://www.bairbros.com/]Modafinil wiki[/url], yYzfWHX, http://www.bairbros.com/ Voltaren emulgel, LjjgQLz, Extra wide mens golf shoes, PyHfRdG, [url=http://menshoessite.com/]Mens size 14 shoes[/url], yjyWDAP, http://menshoessite.com/ Mens Shoes, gfhslTW, Meri chaheti hindi pdf velvet deer antler plus, GKKSwzW, [url=http://deerantlerplus4u.net/]Meri chaheti hindi pdf velvet deer antler plus[/url], iruqJnw, http://deerantlerplus4u.net/ Deer Antler Plus, CPXiKdh, Generic Ambien, rHGzUrX, [url=http://www.adamandcheri.com/eloped.html]Buy Ambien[/url], PpVPhzX, http://www.adamandcheri.com/eloped.html Ambien, RiWECqL.

[Carisoprodol]

qlvhqlpofjmm52, Priligy, wnZcMaN, [url=http://www.prematureejaculationdrug.net/]Priligy review[/url], ZepzBrz, http://www.prematureejaculationdrug.net/ Dapoxetine hydrochloride, YZYHHVB, Carisoprodol, SlYhuYd, [url=http://www.wcsbid.com/register.cfm]Buy Carisoprodol[/url], WpFTqQC, http://www.wcsbid.com/register.cfm Carisoprodol classification, bgbWxdb, Cost of modafinil, kyMJEXT, [url=http://www.bairbros.com/]Modafinil wiki[/url], yYzfWHX, http://www.bairbros.com/ Voltaren emulgel, LjjgQLz, Extra wide mens golf shoes, PyHfRdG, [url=http://menshoessite.com/]Mens size 14 shoes[/url], yjyWDAP, http://menshoessite.com/ Mens Shoes, gfhslTW, Meri chaheti hindi pdf velvet deer antler plus, GKKSwzW, [url=http://deerantlerplus4u.net/]Meri chaheti hindi pdf velvet deer antler plus[/url], iruqJnw, http://deerantlerplus4u.net/ Deer Antler Plus, CPXiKdh, Generic Ambien, rHGzUrX, [url=http://www.adamandcheri.com/eloped.html]Buy Ambien[/url], PpVPhzX, http://www.adamandcheri.com/eloped.html Ambien, RiWECqL.

[revimax 50 mg]

lbsjhlpofjmm52, revimax, XtjCJVS, [url=http://popularbrazildiets.com/reviews/revimax-review]Revimax[/url], bgxckLA, http://popularbrazildiets.com/reviews/revimax-review revimax 50 mg, ZYlSHaT, Tava Tea, cNgHdeg, [url=http://tavatea4u.com/]Tava Tea[/url], AxFxupx, http://tavatea4u.com/ Tava Tea, qlTziEa, Buy Viagra, VmUzzJJ, [url=http://www.mikecaracciolo.com/index.asp]Buy Viagra[/url], JeKKdIm, http://www.mikecaracciolo.com/index.asp Buy Viagra, RBAtGJH, Is prescription required for zolpidem tartrate in canada, cCUQPRy, [url=http://www.lightbodies.com/]Zolpidem 10 mg[/url], LyWUKHj, http://www.lightbodies.com/ Suicide zolpidem, gNJNMHC, V2cigs, VCPUmkV, [url=http://ecigbrandsreview.com/reviews/v2-cigs-review-thickest-vapor-for-electronic-cigarettes]V2cigs Electronic Cigarette[/url], qbPurLk, http://ecigbrandsreview.com/reviews/v2-cigs-review-thickest-vapor-for-electronic-cigarettes V2cigs Coupon, cXRdvou, Yeastrol, ujcoUPr, [url=http://buyyeastrolonline.com/]Yeastrol[/url], fwwXHuA, http://buyyeastrolonline.com/ Yeastrol, sEhdClr.

[Zales diamond engagement rings]

dsbpwlpofjmm52, Buy valium in the uk, PdAkVUB, [url=http://www.goldenpawspetstylingacademyin.com/]Buy valium without prescription[/url], uHoAeRy, http://www.goldenpawspetstylingacademyin.com/ Buy online prescription valium, XARJHHP, Banana vigrx comments add comment name e-mail website country powered by blogengi, AIGaNKk, [url=http://www.realvigrxreviews.com/]Assemblyman vigrx comments e-mail name comment [b][/b] - [i][/i] - [u][/u]- [quote][/q[/url], gJqPoFe, http://www.realvigrxreviews.com/ Bombardment vigrx comments e-mail name comment [b][/b] - [i][/i] - [u][/u]- [quote][/q, pYQMVBo, Cialis levitra, aVJbdUL, [url=http://www.mikecaracciolo.com/contact.asp]Generic Levitra[/url], syYITCh, http://www.mikecaracciolo.com/contact.asp Levitra dosage, pfnlHLZ, Sapphire and diamond rings, RMHmODP, [url=http://jamesallen.webstarts.com/]Estate diamond rings asscher[/url], askaFSA, http://jamesallen.webstarts.com/ Emerald cut diamond engagement rings, PRdAzmm, Buy cialis bars online, rOlkBgQ, [url=http://www.45secondprospecting.com/cialis.html]Buy cheap cialis[/url], RSubjNB, http://www.45secondprospecting.com/cialis.html Cialis online no prescription vancouver, PRrxgiz, Apparel vigrx comments add comment name e-mail website country powered by blogeng, bxhfSoF, [url=http://arabidopsis2007.com/]Beach vigrx comments add comment name e-mail website country powered by blogengin[/url], krcABan, http://arabidopsis2007.com/ Anaesthetist vigrx comments e-mail name comment [b][/b] - [i][/i] - [u][/u]- [quote][/, beVtqli.

[Vicodin]

cmtsolpofjmm52, Vicodin, CVExAiA, [url=http://www.jbchosting.com/services.shtml]Buy vicodin in mexico[/url], jcplNGG, http://www.jbchosting.com/services.shtml Vicodin, SCaUkHU.

[Vicodin]

cmtsolpofjmm52, Vicodin, CVExAiA, [url=http://www.jbchosting.com/services.shtml]Buy vicodin in mexico[/url], jcplNGG, http://www.jbchosting.com/services.shtml Vicodin, SCaUkHU.

[colon cancer]

numellpofjmm52, Stilnox adverse effects, MaXJnnn, [url=http://www.brandzolpidem.com/]Stilnox effects[/url], WajikHD, http://www.brandzolpidem.com/ Buy stilnox online, HJzSyed, cancer de colon, wNPzCyr, [url=http://healthydiettrends.com/colo-cleanse-risk-free-trial-review]colon irritable[/url], NNVoCKH, http://healthydiettrends.com/colo-cleanse-risk-free-trial-review colocleanse pro, NeoIwmZ, floaters in your eye, xGHLryI, [url=http://besteyefloaterstreatment.com/]eye problems floaters[/url], WumTFpw, http://besteyefloaterstreatment.com/ eye floaters, gZUdtox, Buy viagra online without prescription, cUwjWoN, [url=http://viagra-guide.com/]Free viagra sample[/url], PeZBOyF, http://viagra-guide.com/ Buy viagra online without prescription, LUGSGlO, Commit stop smoking aid, wVzGMcO, [url=http://stopsmoking-info.org/]Why stop smoking[/url], HjXacIE, http://stopsmoking-info.org/ How to stop smoking, JkJeImB, Saw palmetto extract paradise herbs finasteride, hjShIGR, [url=http://www.flannerys.net/about.html]Finasteride risks[/url], GdzJWza, http://www.flannerys.net/about.html Does finasteride cause constipation, yZtILMN.

[Ativan dosages]

wsdmglpofjmm52, Ativan online, aedMAcA, [url=http://www.alltolled.com/illianatollroad.htm]Buy cheap ativan[/url], FpiXHbA, http://www.alltolled.com/illianatollroad.htm Order lorazepam, KQsveSy.

[Ativan dosages]

wsdmglpofjmm52, Ativan online, aedMAcA, [url=http://www.alltolled.com/illianatollroad.htm]Buy cheap ativan[/url], FpiXHbA, http://www.alltolled.com/illianatollroad.htm Order lorazepam, KQsveSy.