Hindu militants storm a disputed mosque-temple site December 6, 1992, climbing atop the building’s dome as they demolish it to clear the site for a Hindu temple. [Representational Image]ReutersA group of Hindu ascetics, Nirmohi Akhara, who are one of the original litigants in the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case on Tuesday, April 9, moved the Supreme Court, pleading against the Centre’s decision to return the non-disputed land around the disputed site of Ayodhya to its rightful owners.The akhara or religious denomination filed the plea stating that the release of the 67.390 acres of land could lead to the construction of smaller temples. It went on to say that the acquisition of the land by the government led to the destruction of many temples which the organisation managed.The Nirmohi Akhara is one of the original plaintiffs in the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid case. Back in 2010, the Allahabad High Court has decided that the disputed 2 acres of land will be divided equally between the Sunni Waqf board, Ram Lalla and the Nirmohi Akhara.What are the Nirmohi Akhara? Nirmohi Akhara Mahant Dharam Dass clicked after the Ram Janmabhoomi case hearing at Supreme Court in New Delhi.Qamar Sibtain/India Today Group/Getty ImagesThe Nirmohi Akhara, roughly translated to “Group without Attachment” is a group of Hindu sadhus who are devotees of Lord Ram. They are set to receive one-third of the Babri Masjid land. According to a blog by Washington Post Journal, they claimed that no Babri Masjid every existed on the disputed land. They added that the Mughal emperor Babur, who is said to have constructed the Babri Masjid, did not conquer India. Another claim by the Akhara is that Babur and his army did not occupy any land during the said conquest.In 2011, shortly after the Allahabad High Court’s order in 2010 regarding the division of the land into three equal parts, the Nirmohi Akhara split ties with its long-standing partner, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. The two groups were allies for 21 years since 1989.The Nirmohi Akhara said, according to Economic Times, that one of the main reasons for the split was that the VHP was trying to assert its dominance over the Ayodhya dispute.”VHP does not have any claim over Ram Janmabhoomi. It just created communal riots and disturbed the peaceful atmosphere of country. It is responsible for whatever has happened in its so-called Ram temple movement’,” Mahant Jagannath Das, the chief priest of the Akhara was quoted as saying by ET. Close PM Modi’s tenure is ‘undeclared Emergency’: Asaduddin Owaisi IBTimes VideoRelated VideosMore videos Play VideoPauseMute0:02/1:40Loaded: 0%0:02Progress: 0%Stream TypeLIVE-1:38?Playback Rate1xChaptersChaptersDescriptionsdescriptions off, selectedSubtitlessubtitles settings, opens subtitles settings dialogsubtitles off, selectedAudio Trackdefault, selectedFullscreenThis is a modal window.Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.TextColorWhiteBlackRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyOpaqueSemi-TransparentBackgroundColorBlackWhiteRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyOpaqueSemi-TransparentTransparentWindowColorBlackWhiteRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyTransparentSemi-TransparentOpaqueFont Size50%75%100%125%150%175%200%300%400%Text Edge StyleNoneRaisedDepressedUniformDropshadowFont FamilyProportional Sans-SerifMonospace Sans-SerifProportional SerifMonospace SerifCasualScriptSmall CapsReset restore all settings to the default valuesDoneClose Modal DialogEnd of dialog window. COPY LINKAD Loading …
The 17th session of the 10th parliament will continue until 14 September next.The sitting of the house began at 5:25pm with speaker Shirin Sharmin Chaudhury in the chair. Earlier, the business advisory committee of the house sat at a meeting at 4pm with the speaker in the chair to fix the duration and businesses of the session. A five-member panel of chairmen was nominated by the speaker for the 17th session of the 10th parliament. Members of the panel are Lt Col (retd) Muhammad Faruk Khan (Gopalganj-1), Motahar Hossain (Lalmonirhat-1), Suhrab Uddin (Kishoreganj-2), Fakhrul Imam (Mymensingh-8) and Mahjabeen Khaled (Women Seat-18). The speaker announced their names at the beginning of the day’s business. They will conduct the proceedings of parliament in chronological order in the absence of the Speaker and the deputy speaker.President Abdul Hamid on 22 August last called the 17th session of the 10th parliament exercising the power bestowed upon him as per Article 72 (1) of the Constitution. On 13 July last, the 16th session (4th budget session of 10th parliament) of the Jatiya Sangsad was prorogued after 24 sittings that passed the national budget for fiscal 2017-18 .
Texas Agricultural Commissioner Sid Miller wades into last week’s fight between President Trump and Gold Star family Listen 00:00 /18:38 Bob Daemmrich for The Texas TribuneTexas House Speaker Joe Straus, a San Antonio Republican, announced Wednesday he will not run for re-election. On this episode of Party Politics: Texas Edition, co-hosts Jay Aiyer and Brandon Rottinghaus get into the politics of: X Interim charges released by the Texas Legislature before they meet in 2019L.A. versus TX in baseball and a governors’ bet as the Dodgers take on the AstrosThen, the guys unpack the political bombshell of the week if not the century, Texas House Speaker Joe Straus decides not to run for re-election. By the way, don’t forget to check out our national episodes of Party Politics, too.Party Politics is produced by Edel Howlin and our audio engineer is Todd Hulslander. To embed this piece of audio in your site, please use this code: Rep. Dawnna Dukes has criminal charges dropped This article is part of the Party Politics podcast Share
Share Manuel Balce Ceneta/APFormer California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger speaks at a rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court in October on the day arguments took place in a case about political maps in Wisconsin.Updated at 4:39 p.m. ETThe U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up a Republican challenge to the newly drawn Pennsylvania congressional map ahead of the 2018 elections.The decision means Republicans have few, if any, options remaining to try to stem a map that will almost certainly result in Democrats picking up potentially three or four seats and could make half a dozen or more competitive.Tuesday is the filing deadline for candidates for Pennsylvania’s April 26 primaries.Last month, the Supreme Court also declined to block the state court decision that said the old GOP-drawn map violated the Pennsylvania Constitution.Republicans drew a gerrymandered map in 2011 that resulted in a 13-5 congressional district advantage. That was despite Democrats having won the state in five straight presidential elections at the time.Democrats need to win a net of 24 seats to win a majority in the U.S. House.The decision comes on the same day a federal court dismissed a lawsuit filed by Republican congressmen challenging the new map. It’s a double gut punch to the GOP and all but guarantees that Democrats pick up a few seats, and in an election with control of Congress at stake, every seat counts.Legally, the challenge could also open the path to a slew of state court challenges.Challengers to the 2011 GOP-drawn map called into question its legality based on the state constitution, a rarity that could provide a road map for challengers in other states.The Supreme Court’s decision Monday also shows a possible reluctance to weigh in on state law when it comes to redistricting.This is not the last say the Supreme Court will have, however, on redistricting. It is hearing arguments March 28 on a Republican challenge to Maryland’s Democratic-drawn congressional map, and the court has a decision pending on a Democratic challenge to GOP-drawn state legislative districts in Wisconsin.Both cases deal with political rather than racial gerrymandering. While the court has ruled previously on racial gerrymandering, it has never ruled on political gerrymandering.The Supreme Court will hear arguments April 24 on racial gerrymandering in Texas as well. And the court also temporarily blocked a lower court’s decision in a racial gerrymandering case in North Carolina ordering the state to redraw a map that was favorable to Republicans.Copyright 2018 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.
Scott Aaronson Citation: Quantum physicist explains $100K offer for proof scaled-up quantum computing is impossible (2012, February 8) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2012-02-quantum-physicist-100k-proof-scaled-up.html (PhysOrg.com) — MIT researcher Scott Aaronson has certainly riled the physics community with his offer this past Friday, of $100,000 to anyone who can prove that scaled-up quantum computing is impossible. His original reason for doing so was, as he describes in his blog, due to adding his two cents to an argument between skeptic Gil Kalai and researcher Aram Harrow about assumptions regarding the Quantum Fault-Tolerance Theorem, on another blog, where he argued that refuting the idea of scalable quantum computing would amount to more than just taking apart the QFT Theorem; it would he suggested, mean coming up with a new version of physical reality. Then, because of the response he got from the blog owner, he felt compelled to defend his assertions in a rather bold and some might say, foolhardy way. Thus was born the $100,000 bet, or prize. Explore further Now, after some time has passed and many hundreds of comments posted, Aaronson has posted to IEEE Spectrum, about the deeper reasoning behind the prize offer.First he answers a query from IEEE’s Rachel Courtland, who wants to know why the possibility of a scaled up quantum computer has come up, and why does there need to be a prize about it?From his answer it appears it’s because, as a quantum physicist whose goal is to find a way to create a scaled up quantum computer, he gets an awful lot of comments on his blog questioning his career choice in light of the fact that there is no certainty that his goal is even achievable. Many of the posts have clearly irked him and he now in response, appears to be hoping that his daring those who throw stones from afar, will either pipe down, or simply go away. Or, perhaps, miraculously free him from his dream by proving that it’s an impossible one that will lead him and the rest of his colleagues to eventual embarrassment.It’s clear that Aaronson believes a means of building a true scaled up quantum computer will be found one day, and that the problem at this juncture, as Courtland points out, is more one of pouring additional resources into figuring out how to make it happen, rather than sitting around wondering if it’s possible. He points out that as everyone in the small community of quantum physicists knows, tiny quantum computers have already been built that can perform small, rather insignificant operations; hence the need for the “scalable” part of the prize. To win the money, someone would need to prove that what has been done so far, will never be done on a larger scale, i.e. building a quantum computer that can actually do useful stuff.It’s all a matter of decoherence he says, where the quantum parts of the computer must of necessity interact with those that are not. Thus, the issue is whether that one little problem can ever be overcome. He clearly thinks it can, while others think not. Aaronson just wants them to back up their reasoning with actual science. Researchers conduct experimental implementation of quantum algorithm © 2011 PhysOrg.com This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.