text stringlengths 8 5.77M |
|---|
There are five inhabited islands - St. Mary's, Tresco, St. Martin's, Bryher and St. Agnes – and countless uninhabited islands to explore. Not only are the entire Isles of Scilly an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, but 2,200 people are lucky enough to call it home.
Getting to Scilly...
There can’t be many places in England where you arrive on holiday on a scheduled flight in what feels like your own private aircraft with a personal pilot, as you enjoy spectacular views of the coastline.
Accommodation on Scilly...
You won't have to search far for a perfect place to stay on Scilly. Whether you're looking for a cosy B&B, a luxurious outpost, a wild camping experience or simple self catering, there are great choices on every island.
Plenty to do and see....
If you’re looking for things to do on Scilly, you won’t have far to search. From dawn till dusk there are awe-inspiring sites, amazing sporting activities, unique attractions and fabulous places to eat.
St. Mary's
Do as much or as little as you like on the beautiful island of St Mary’s
St. Mary’s is the Isles of Scilly’s largest island (population 1,800) and the gateway to the rest of the islands. Covering an area less than 2.5 square miles, it’s still not exactly bustling but with its air and sea links, it’s more than likely to be your first port of call when you visit.
Hugh Town is the central hub with its cluster of shops, banks, churches, post office, cafés, galleries, restaurants and pubs as well as the wonderful museum. It has three lovely beaches in very close proximity – Porthcressa with a children’s play area close by; Town Beach, a perfect spot to watch the comings and goings on the Quay; and Porthmellon which also hosts the Sailing Centre.
The Quay is where the Scillonian III passenger ferry docks every day. It’s also where you'll find yourself travelling from if you’re staying on any of the “off islands” or if you’re taking any tripper boats for a day out from St. Mary’s.
Old Town is the other “major” settlement on St. Mary’s, closer to the airport and with its own beautiful beach, nature reserve, Old Town Church where Sir Harold Wilson is buried, children’s soft play zone, shop, pub and cafés.
Up country, away from the relative hustle and bustle, St. Mary’s is an easy going safe haven of hidden treasures. The coastline features large stretches of deserted white sandy beaches, dramatic rocky coves, stunning seascapes, amazing archaeological sites, beautiful walks and scenery along miles of coastal and country paths and nature trails.
Island Sea Safaris operate marine wildlife safaris in their 8m RIB FIREBRAND IV around and amongst the islands and rocks of Scilly to see Grey Atlantic seals, seabirds including Puffins, Razorbills and Guillemots,Shearwaters,Fulmars,Cormorants,Shags and Various Gulls from April to mid July. and visit some of the Islands shipwreck sites. We also visit many places of historical interest on our tours. The 8 meter rib seats 10 passengers.Read more »
The Scilly Cart Co is a family owned and run business providing electric vehicles for use across St. Mary’s. With flexible hiring options and easy to use carts, it’s a great way to discover the many varied and beautiful places on the island. It is also ideal for people with reduced mobility who wish to explore.Read more »
There are daily trips to the islands and out to see the wildlife and lighthouses. Boats leave from 10:15am and return until 4:45pm. The service is seven days a week from just before Easter or the beginning of April until the end of October. There are evening trips available through the main part of the season.
There is an attractive special offer on purchases of ten or more tickets. We can cater for special groups and parties. Made up of the ten largest boats operating from St Mary's, we are the prime mover of visitor traffic.Read more »
We are a friendly and reliable taxi service based on St. Mary’s, working seven days a week, including evenings and weekends. We have two vehicles available for hire, one carrying four passengers and one carrying six passengers. The larger vehicle has two integrated baby/booster seats so children can be transported safely and comfortably. We are available for a quick taxi trip to get you from A to B, as well as more leisurely tours of the island.
We really look forward to being of service to you whilst you are on the islands.Read more »
The Phoenix Craft Studios are open all year, so even when you can't visit in person, we can still send our individually hand crafted items across to you at home. If you want a gift for someone special for a birthday or anniversary, why not browse the websites of the various artists below and ring the studio for a chat about your requirements on 01720 422962. We can take card payments by phone and send goods out by first class post.Read more »
Scilly Walks is run by Dr Katharine Sawyer and offers guided walks, boat trips and slide shows to introduce you to 8000 years of archaeology and history in the Isles of Scilly. There are full day and half day visits to all the inhabited and several of the uninhabited islands.Read more »
Scilly has a fascinating historical past and it's easy to explore ~ just take a walk, a cycle, a buggy ride or one of the tours available! Whether you're after Bronze Age or Iron Age Monuments, something from the 16th or 18th Centuries or even something from more recent history, then Scilly has lots to offer!Read more »
My name is Georgia May and I'm a qualified and accredited makeup artist based here in the Isles of Scilly. I have a huge passion for makeup which is why I enjoy working in this industry so much. I trained with one of the top makeup artists in the Country.
Located within their home at Porthloo, Glandore Gallery is a small, friendly, beachside gallery run by local artist, Stephen Morris, and his wife, Lois. Stephen paints exclusively ‘en plein air’ in watercolour and, more recently, inks, with a colourful and distinctive signature style. His cards and giclee prints are also available along with those of his late aunt, Nan Heath.Read more »
Bryony offers flowing, uplifting yoga sessions; Nick is an experienced swim guide. Both Nick & Bryony are from Scilly and have extensive knowledge of swim spots and trail running routes across the islands, and can advise you on the best way to take an active holiday that will leave you feeling fully immersed in the beauty and nature of the islands.Read more »
Situated in the tranquil and beautiful Holy Vale on the Nature Trail at the heart of St. Mary’s, the Vineyard and Winery is a must visit location during your stay on St Mary’s.
Open on weekdays 12.00 – 16.30 and by appointment only on Saturday, Sunday and Bank Holiday Mondays for; wine tastings at £17.50 per person, ‘The story of Wine Exhibition’, Cellar Door Shop and refreshments, including Robert's Wine and Lobster Lunch at £24.50 per person.Read more »
Located within their home at Porthloo, Glandore Gallery is a small, friendly, beachside gallery run by local artist, Stephen Morris, and his wife, Lois. Stephen paints exclusively ‘en plein air’ in watercolour and, more recently, inks, with a colourful and distinctive signature style. His cards and giclee prints are also available along with those of his late aunt, Nan Heath.Read more »
Isles of Scilly Flowers offer scented Narcissi and Scilly Show Pinks Flowers from the Scilly Isles, the perfect all year round gifts for family and friends. Our beautiful range of scented Scilly Flowers are freshly picked and posted from our own Family run Scillonain flower farm.
Isles of Scilly Flowers make the perfect gift for every special occasion or person. We carefully hand pick your Scilly Flowers from our finest blooms to ensure the highest quality and perfection - so your Flowers from Scilly are truly spectacular.Read more »
Demelza is a four star Gold rated garden apartment, situated just a short walk from the centre of Hugh Town, the harbour area & ever popular Porthmellon Beach. The apartment is perfectly equipped for an all year round break, having central heating & private access to a sunny decked area. Read more »
An Oberva is a modern first floor flat in Hugh Town. The flat is in a quiet location just a couple of minutes walk from beautiful Porthcressa Beach.
The flat is conveniently located in Hugh Town within walking distance of shops, pubs and all amenities. It is a short walk from the quay where the Scillonian docks and launches visit the off islands daily.Read more »
The accommodation is furnished to a good quality throughout and sleeps two in a spacious double bedroom. There is a modern shower room and comfortable open-plan lounge/diner with a modern, well-equipped kitchen from which you can see the sea as well as a slice of Town Beach, the harbour and the lifeboat at anchor.Read more »
1st floor apartment in a quiet location next to the Garrison Walls. Lovely sea views from every room! 2 bedrooms: 1 x double en-suite, 1 x king size/twin. Shower room, living room/diner and kitchen. Only a few minutes walk to the quay, beaches, shops, pubs and restaurants.Read more »
This traditional granite Scillonian building was once the farm's flower packing shed and now is converted into homely accommodation. On the ground floor is a well-equipped open plan lounge/dining and kitchen area with comfy chairs, TV, dining table and chairs, and a recently installed new kitchen with integrated oven and hobs. Also on the ground floor is a double bedroom and bathroom with shower and W.C. An open pine staircase leads to a sloping roofed attic type bedroom which has three single beds and is ideally suited to children as the ceiling is fairly low in places.Read more » |
Friday, May 20, 2011
Our bedroom has always been my least favorite room in the house. It was a total mishmash of stuff. Absolutely nothing coordinated. And it was dark. I actually like a dark bedroom...it is in fact where you go to sleep...so dark is good in my book. But it was dark in a blecky, dingy, I want to kill myself sort of way.
To top it off, we were sleeping on a horrendous fifteen year old hand-me-down mattress that made my body ache like no other. And we were using Tim's bachelor-days' queen sized headboard propped loosely - not attached - against that horrid king size mattress.
I wanted a new bed baaadly. Not just a new mattress but the whole thing. Something official.
A while back I discovered Ana White and all her fabulous building plans. I do like to build things. I surfed through her website one night until 4 o'clock in the morning drooling over all the things I could build...but particularly over her farmhouse bed...bingo.
My biggest obstacle was Tim's headboard. It has huge sentimental value for him. His grandfather built it for him as a welcome home gift after his mission. I couldn't just tell him to ditch his headboard. So I started dropping subtle hints about how badly we need a new mattress for the sake of our bodies, and how I'd found a really good deal on a memory foam mattress and how a memory foam mattress really needs to go on a platform bed, but we don't have a platform bed, but heck I could build one for cheap, and that it would be so cool for him to pass down his grandpa's headboard to Andrew (even though his bedroom isn't big enough for it with all his toys and crap).
Finally, after several particularly uncomfortable nights on our mattress, Tim made me a deal...if I could find a safe place for his headboard, I could build us a new bed.
Needless to say, I got to work immediately.
Headboard and footboard...
Painted, sanded and stained...It was at this point Tim got cold feet and said he wasn't sure he wanted to move out his old headboard. Ummm...a little too late now buddy.
I basically just built a floor for the mattress.
Then I totally split the butt of my pants as I was straddling the 2x4's.
I laid peg board on top to keep the mattress from sagging between the joists and still allow the mattress to breath.
I was having so dang much fun that I got to work on an itty bitty nightstand for Tim...
And a nice big one for me...
Done
It's still my dark little sleeping cave but seriously freshened up. I'm not a big fan of matchy matchy furniture but until I'm in the mood to rip up the nasty green carpet and repaint the walls so I have more color options, I can live with it.
Plus I love looking at it all and thinking, 'I built all of that with my bare freaking hands'.
Monday, April 25, 2011
"Flame Insane"This was Andrew's last year in cub scouts and therefore his last year doing the Pinewood Derby.
Every year his cars have been silver and this year was no exception. He is definitely a creature of habit. I made a flame stencil for him with my vinyl cutter and he did all the painting. He named it "Flame Insane".
He came in 2nd at his pack race and qualified for the city wide District Race at the mall the following month.
Districts 2011Anxiously watching his car race down the track with his best friend, Ben.
Andrew's car was doing really well at districts. At the district races the last couple of years, there have been two unbeatable boys that have always taken first and second. You just can't beat them. I noticed that Andrew's car was keeping up with theirs pretty well, so when his name got called to go into the semifinals I was pretty stoked thinking he could get third or fourth.
In the semifinals, all the other cars started to slow down a bit but Andrew's never lost any steam. So I figured third would be a piece of cake.
After the race when they started handing out trophies I was totally surprised when they didn't call his name for third...or for second! He got first place! It was a pretty major upset in the world of Pinewood Derby here in Missoula, Montana. It was a proud mommy moment.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
On the way home from Discovery, we stopped by to check out Elwood the Donkey. Tim had read a newspaper article about him and how he's kind of a mascot for some of the regular skiiers that pass through on their way to and from the mountain. His pasture is right next to the highway so people stop by to feed him carrots and other goodies...he has a weakness for doughnuts. So on our way home, we picked up some grapes and powdered doughnuts and swung by to see Elwood. It's probably going to become a tradition.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
This was our last ski trip of the season. We hadn't been to Discovery in a couple of years and I'm so glad we finally got over there. I forgot how much I love Discovery. It's my favorite! We didn't have huge expectations for the snow conditions but it ended up being gorgeous. The best snow we'd skiid on in a long time. When we got there it was a white out, then the sun came out, then it would dump snow again, then the sun would come out...it did that all day long. Yummy!
Andrew and his cousin JacksonMotherloadLunch time...camera a little fogged up.Last chair...one last quick run down Berkeley on some very tired, well used legs.To be continued...with Elwood the Donkey.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Summary: Girls night/hotel sleepover planned by my sister for two of her daughters' birthdays + some preteen friends + mom and I + I had to drag Andrew along = 7 females and 1 poor, vulnerable 10 year old boy.One smokin' hot grandma and KelseyMadyson and her friendsAndrew
We had been mildly joking with Andrew that we were going to paint his toenails when he fell asleep. He was pretty nervous. Girl stuff is not funny to him...at all. I had no intentions of actually doing it because I have witnessed the wrath of Andrew many times. But I made the mistake of telling my sister that Andrew is a verrry sound sleeper. So, once he fell asleep all heck broke loose on my poor kid. A bra may or may not have been strategically placed on him as well.
Other than taking pictures and laughing, I was NOT involved.Unfortunately Andrew woke up in the middle of the night to go to the bathroom and discovered his nails (and he may or may not have found a bra). I heard him sobbing. I got up to find him trying to rub the finger nail polish off with toilet paper and water.
I felt terrible.
Mostly because he woke me up so early.
No seriously, I felt terrible. I helped him get the nail polish off and tucked him back in bed...and I haven't heard the end of it since.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
My blog is the same every year - skiing, lake, skiing, lake, skiing, lake...
We're boring.
Anyway, more ski pictures. This time from Blacktail, featuring me and Andrew, Kelsey and Maddy, and Kelsey's boyfriend Carson.
We had debated where to go that day and chose Blacktail because they had nearly 150" of snow. Unfortunately it was set up like concrete so it wasn't a very good ski day. But skiing is always fun with my beautiful nieces and the traditional Dairy Queen fest that always accompanies a Blacktail trip!
Friday, February 25, 2011
Apparently she and Andrew were having some bonding time that I was unaware of. I don't know why these pictures are so funny to me. I guess if you really truly know my mother, you know that she is a tad bit insane. She has such a great connection with all her grandkids. She is sooo much like her dad, my grandpa :) |
Q:
Issue facing with push notification
I have a problem with push notification in my app. I followed this tutorial as an example of programming push notifications. When I run:
php simplepush.php
on the server, every time I get "message is successfully delivered", but only some of the devices get the notifications.
A:
I was facing similar kind of problem , issue is with your simplepush.php file.
I fixed it by opening and closing stream socket for each user. By doing this fixed my issue.
Sample code
foreach($iosUsers as $userDetails)
{
// Open a connection to the APNS server
$fp = stream_socket_client('ssl://gateway.sandbox.push.apple.com:2195',$err,
$errstr, 60, STREAM_CLIENT_CONNECT|STREAM_CLIENT_PERSISTENT, $ctx);
if (!$fp)
exit("Failed to connect: $err $errstr" . PHP_EOL);
// Build the binary notification
$msg = chr(0) . pack('n', 32) . pack('H*', $userDetails) . pack('n',strlen($payload)) . $payload;
// Send it to the server
$result = fwrite($fp, $msg, strlen($msg));
if (!$result)
echo 'Message not delivered' . PHP_EOL;
else
echo 'Message successfully delivered' . PHP_EOL;
fclose($fp);
}
|
Legalization of Marijuana in Georgia: The Changing Laws
Legalization of Marijuana in Georgia: The Changing Laws
The Hang-on-to-Your Hats and Buckle-Your-Seat-Belts Growth of the Legal Marijuana Industry
Remember the explosive growth of the dot.com era when the GDP rocketed to 22%, and how it changed the face of how we communicate in America? Well the legal marijuana industry sky-rocketed 30% to $7.3 billion across the United States and Canada in 2016 according to a study by Arcview Market Research. Once everything is counted after the end of 2017, the legal marijuana market in North America is expected to have leapt another 33% to a jaw-dropping $9.7 billion. North American sales are projected to top $24.5. billion by 2021 and assume a compound annual growth rate of 28%. In other words, legal marijuana is big business and likely to grow bigger.
States Including Georgia Are Passing More Lenient Marijuana Laws
Seven states and the District of Columbia have passed laws that legalize marijuana for recreational use. Marijuana for medical use is legal in 29 states plus Washington DC, Guam and Puerto Rico. Eighteen other states, including Georgia, allow use of cannabis with low THC content for limited medical purposes. In 2015, Georgia passed the Haleigh’s Hope Act, which allowed use of marijuana for limited medical conditions. Patients can possess up to 20 fluid ounces of cannabis oils with low THC, which the Act defines as containing “not more than 5% by weight of tetrahydrocannabinol and an amount of cannabidiol equal to or greater than the amount of tetrahydrocannabinol.” The law allows the University System of Georgia to develop a clinical research program for THC oil that meets FDA trial compliance. Then in 2017, Georgia passed SB 16, which expanded the list of medical problems for which it is legal to use marijuana. Today in Georgia, it is legal for registered users to use marijuana for conditions that include cancer, ALS, multiple sclerosis, seizure disorders, Crohn’s disease, sickle cell anemia, autism (for minors), Tourette’s syndrome, Parkinson’s disease, epidermolysis bullosa (a skin condition), Alzheimer’s, AIDS and peripheral neuropathy.
Atlanta Decriminalized Marijuana
Atlanta went much further. On October 11, 2017, the mayor of Atlanta signed a measure that decriminalized possession of a small amount of marijuana in that city. Those found with an ounce or less of marijuana now need only pay a $75 fine. The stricter laws of the state of Georgia technically still apply within the city limits of Atlanta, but the city itself has made their enforcement priorities clear.
It is nothing short of amazing that the marijuana industry has grown so dramatically in recent years, particularly in the face of federal uncertainty. Cannabis is still a Schedule 1 drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act, but the federal government has not acted to enforce the prohibition in the face of state legalizations. Probably the best protection against the federal government deciding to actively enforce marijuana laws is public opinion. A Gallup poll reports that 64% of American adults support legalization. Compare that to 12% approval in 1969. Clearly the attitudes of average Americans toward marijuana have become more favorable than they were during the Summer of Love.
A poll by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution at the beginning of the year found that 71% of Georgia residents polled supported expanding medical marijuana in Georgia to include an in-state harvesting program. However, over half of voters polled did not approve legalizing marijuana for recreational use.
Overall, Marijuana is Still Illegal in Georgia
Marijuana is still illegal for recreational use in Georgia. Also, marijuana is not legal for all medical conditions, only those specifically spelled out by statute. Under O.C.G.A. § 16-13-30, possession of one ounce or less is a misdemeanor that carries one year or a $1,000 fine. Possession of more than that is a felony, and the prison time and fines increase according to the amount of marijuana you have.
Driving Under the Influence of Marijuana in Georgia
Just like driving under the influence of alcohol, your right to legally possess cannabis is not a defense to driving under its influence. Under O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391, you may not drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of any drug if doing so makes it “less safe” for you to drive. There has been some controversy in Georgia law about exactly what constitutes a marijuana DUI offense. In 1999, the Georgia Supreme Court case of Love v. State, 271 Ga. 398, 517 S.E.2d 53 (1999) declared OCGA 40-6-391(a)(6) unconstitutional. Under that code section, any amount of THC in the blood or urine was a DUI violation. However, if blood tests are performed, they must be performed for the THC metabolite 11-hydroxy-THC, the substance that makes people “high,” as other THC metabolites can remain in the blood long term, even for months.Testing can be difficult, and it may be necessary for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver used marijuana and it made their driving less safe.
Trends in Georgia Marijuana Legislation
It’s always hard to predict the future, and we have recently seen that political climates can change rapidly. However, given the public’s growing acceptance of marijuana and the increasing leniency of state laws across the country, it is reasonable to expect that the laws may move toward loosening restrictions about using medical marijuana here in Georgia. It is unlikely that the state will approve legalization of the recreational use of marijuana any time soon, despite the recent decriminalization in Atlanta. |
ERISA procedures unavailable to preferred providers not within ‘beneficiary’ definition
Medical providers in contract with an insurer failed to qualify as “beneficiaries” under ERISA definition and, thus, were not entitled to procedures under ERISA concerning payments, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled, reversing the lower court’s ruling.
Background. The Pennsylvania Chiropractic Association and two chiropractors, Mark Barnard and Barry A. Wahner, (collectively, the providers) had entered into “participating provider”/“network” agreements with Independence Hospital Indemnity Plan, Inc. (the insurer) as part of the preferred-provider system operated by the insurer. According to this system, patients gain access to better benefits or have lower co-payments when they receive treatment from providers that agree to accept lower reimbursements from the insurer. The insurer is billed directly and the providers are unaware of whether a patient’s coverage is part of an ERISA-governed plan.
The conflict between the parties arose after the insurer had reimbursed the providers on a fee-for-service basis, which the insurer acknowledged was an error pursuant to the terms of the agreements with the providers, and reduced future compensable service payments to the providers. The providers asserted that the insurer was obligated under ERISA Sec. 1133 to offer hearings before it could reduce the future payments. The insurer contended that the procedures specified in the contract controlled.
The federal district court determined that the providers were “beneficiaries” pursuant to ERISA, as was required to assert a claim thereunder, and ordered the insurer to follow Sec. 1133 (in addition to a Department of Labor regulation) vis-à-vis coverage and payment-level decisions under the insurance policies. The providers were also awarded damages.
ERISA definitions. Sec. 1133 requires “every employee benefit plan” to make available to each “participant” and “beneficiary” procedures that the Secretary of Labor may supplement by regulation. ERISA Sec. 1132(a)(1)(B) permits participants and beneficiaries to sue in federal court to enforce this duty.
A “participant” is an employee/former employee who seeks benefits under the plan, and a “beneficiary” is “a person designated by a participant, or by the terms of an employee benefit plan, who is or may become entitled to a benefit thereunder.”
Analysis. The Seventh Circuit held that the providers are not “participants” or “beneficiaries” pursuant to ERISA and, thus, the providers are not entitled to the procedures thereunder. As an initial matter, the appellate court clarified that the providers have “standing” because they established an injury in fact, causation, and redressability pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court precedent, but that the issue at bar was not of standing “but whether [the providers’] claim comes within the zone of interest regulated by a specific statute.”
The providers conceded that they are not “participants” under ERISA, but are “beneficiaries.” The appellate court disagreed, explaining that the providers were not designated “by a participant” or “by the terms of an employee benefit plan” and that the case at bar had no effect upon an employee benefit plans’ duties to its participants. Further, the providers’ contention that the insurer could be equated to a “plan” was incorrect, and that the U.S. Supreme Court had rejected the argument that any document related to a plan is itself a plan. Additionally, a recent decision by the Second Circuit holding that providers are not “beneficiaries” under ERISA by virtue of having a network contract with an insurer did not conflict with Seventh Circuit precedent.
Moreover, because there was not complete diversity between the parties, the federal court could not adjudicate any contract claims. Accordingly, the lower court’s judgment was reversed and the damages, injunctions, and award of attorney fees to the providers was vacated. |
<amplify-block-switcher>
<amplify-block name="Java">
```java
// Tests only against the local state
if (post.getTitle().startsWith("[Amplify]")) {
Amplify.DataStore.save(post,
update -> { /* handle result */ },
failure -> { /* handle failure */}
);
}
// Only applies the update if the data in the remote backend satisfies the criteria
Amplify.DataStore.save(post, Post.TITLE.beginsWith("[Amplify]"),
update -> { /* handle result */ },
failure -> { /* handle failure */ }
);
```
</amplify-block>
<amplify-block name="Kotlin">
```kotlin
// Tests only against the local state
if (post.title.starts("[Amplify]")) {
Amplify.DataStore.save(post,
{ /* handle result */ },
{ /* handle failure */ }
)
}
// Only applies the update if the data in the remote backend satisfies the criteria
Amplify.DataStore.save(post, Post.TITLE.beginsWith("[Amplify]"),
{ /* handle result */ },
{ /* handle failure */ }
)
```
</amplify-block>
<amplify-block name="RxJava">
```java
// Tests only against the local state
if (post.getTitle().startsWith("[Amplify]")) {
RxAmplify.DataStore.save(post)
.subscribe(
update -> { /* handle result */ },
failure -> { /* handle failure */}
);
}
// Only applies the update if the data in the remote backend satisfies the criteria
RxAmplify.DataStore.save(post, Post.TITLE.beginsWith("[Amplify]"))
.subscribe(
update -> { /* handle result */ },
failure -> { /* handle failure */ }
);
```
</amplify-block>
</amplify-block-switcher>
|
Manchester, N.H. — Sen. Bernie Sanders Bernie SandersSenate Republicans signal openness to working with Biden Hillicon Valley: DOJ indicts Chinese, Malaysian hackers accused of targeting over 100 organizations | GOP senators raise concerns over Oracle-TikTok deal | QAnon awareness jumps in new poll Schumer, Sanders call for Senate panel to address election security MORE (I-Vt.) slammed the Iowa Democratic Party's (IDP) handling of the caucus results on Thursday, saying at a New Hampshire town hall that the party "screwed up."
“It is really sad that the Democratic Party of Iowa screwed up the counting process so severely," Sanders told CNN's Anderson Cooper, adding that the scenario "distressed" him.
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) called for a recanvass in Iowa amid the fallout and chaos over the delayed results of Monday's caucuses.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Enough is enough. In light of the problems that have emerged in the implementation of the delegate selection plan and in order to assure public confidence in the results, I am calling on the Iowa Democratic Party to immediately begin a recanvass,” DNC Chairman Tom Perez Thomas Edward PerezClinton’s top five vice presidential picks Government social programs: Triumph of hope over evidence Labor’s 'wasteful spending and mismanagement” at Workers’ Comp MORE said in a tweet.
The announcement came after a New York Times report revealed that the results contained errors and inconsistencies that contradicted caucus rules in some cases, although the newspaper noted that there was no evidence the inconsistencies were intentional.
Former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg leads Sanders by a tenth of a percentage point among Iowa State Delegate Equivalents (SDEs) with 97 percent of precincts now reporting.
The Associated Press said on Thursday that it could not declare a winner because of the tight margin between Sanders and Buttigieg, as well as the irregularities in the year's caucus process. |
As the world watched Boris Johnson become prime minister of the United Kingdom, the preeminent question, of course, is will he – or won’t he – navigate a successful exit for Great Britain from the European Union by the new extended deadline, Oct. 31?
His words and his cabinet selections reaffirm his intent to do so, but Parliament has already dug in its heels, stating its opposition to a “No Deal” Brexit, apparently setting the two sides up for a continuation of the Theresa May stalemate.
In the U.K., Brexit remains the defining issue for this generation, throwing party alliances aside and realigning friends and foes under new monikers of "Remainers" or "Leavers." In 2016, nearly 52 percent of the British people voted to leave the European Union and reaffirmed their desire to be independent, sovereign and free from the suffocating oversight and regulations of the EU. Three years later that exit still has not happened and the appetite for “Leaving” among the British people continues to intensify, not wane.
BORIS JOHNSON'S GOVERNMENT SETS ASIDE ADDITIONAL $2.8B TO DEAL WITH POTENTIAL NO-DEAL BREXIT FALLOUT
Many say this is a problem for the U.K. to work out and shouldn’t involve or affect anyone outside of the EU. However, defenders of liberty should not only be watching closely, they should be adding their voices to the global conversation where the defining question is much larger than the U.K.'s "Remain" or "Leave." The battle for the heart and soul of the world is raging, yet one side doesn’t even realize they’re in the midst of a fight for their own future.
If the results of the 2016 referendum are not upheld and the levers of power, rather than the votes of the people, are allowed to win by force rather than by free and fair elections, then democracy in the U.K. has been thwarted and the world should be gravely concerned.
The voice of the governed will be deemed entirely irrelevant. And their votes will have, in essence, been nullified. Think about that happening – and where it is happening – in one of the oldest democracies in the world. It is truly terrifying.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER
On the road ahead, just beyond the U.K.’s quest for freedom from the EU, is an even more crucial fork in the road. Two divergent paths with lasting, if not irreversible, consequence. Choices being made independently by individual countries around the world will tip the global balance of power toward greater national sovereignty, or toward surrender to multi-national organizations.
The world is "getting smaller" as everyone becomes more connected, but that does not require the surrender of identity or foregoing self-governance. Just because you are friendly toward your next-door neighbor doesn’t mean you are obligated to give him the keys to your house, your car and your bank account in order to live peacefully and cooperatively.
The enemies of Brexit have been successful in delaying its implementation and poisoning the global narrative. The will of the people has been overruled by those who think they are smarter, know better, or are more capable than the average voter.
Global alliances and national sovereignty are not mutually exclusive. They can, and should, work in harmony. Nationalism doesn’t mean animosity toward other nations, it just indicates a pride in and a preference for things affiliated with one’s own country. Until recent history, that would have been simply called patriotism. Now it’s labeled as politically incorrect hate speech.
It's a bit ironic the “colonists" who wanted independence from the U.K. now align with their former rulers to support their own battle for independence. Some say that lending a voice of support now to British "Brexiteers" constitutes interference with a foreign election. That couldn’t be further from the truth since the election already happened – over three years ago! If we want to call out interference, true interference is coming from the U.K.’s own Parliament, where members refuse to accept and carry out the results of the national vote. Talk about obstruction!
American interference did come from President Obama, though. Just prior to the Brexit vote, he warned, "The U.K. is going to be in the back of the queue” for making trade deals with the U.S. What a terrible way to treat our closest ally!
More recently, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., tried to put her own arbitrary conditions on the Brexit negotiations by threatening that the U.S. would not sign any trade deals with the U.K. if it weakened the Northern Ireland peace agreement.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
She said this knowing full well that Johnson had already expressed his desire to eliminate the Northern Ireland "backstop" altogether. The so-called backstop ties EU membership and the border question into impossible, intertwined conditions which seek to punish the U.K. and serve as a warning so that no other nation ever dares leave the EU.
The enemies of Brexit have been successful in delaying its implementation and poisoning the global narrative. The will of the people has been overruled by those who think they are smarter, know better, or are more capable than the average voter. This should be a sobering reminder that the forces against liberty will stop at nothing, even three years on, to ensure that freedom-seeking voters in the U.K. and all around the globe are silenced.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM PEGGY GRANDE |
Recent Facebook insider leaks released by Project Veritas reveal that the social media giant’s demoting of conservative content isn’t just done by human moderators, it’s built right into the code of the website as a technical action called “deboosting.”
Project Veritas latest bombshell report reveals inside info from Facebook. One of the most shocking revelations from the report is that Mark Zuckerberg’s suppression of conservative content on the platform isn’t just the result of heavy-handed moderation by human employees, but is actually built right into the code of the site.
Project Veritas reports:
According to the insider, the documents revealed a routine suppression of the distribution of conservative Facebook pages. The technical action she repeatedly saw, and for which Project Veritas was provided documentation, was labeled ActionDeboostLiveDistribution. Said the insider, “I would see [this term] appear on several different conservative pages. I first noticed it with an account that I can’t remember, but I remember once I started looking at it, I also saw it on Mike Cernovich’s page, saw it on Steven Crowder’s page, as well as the Daily Caller’s page.” Conservative commentator Steven Crowder’s page had been suppressed before in April 2016, and Crowder told Project Veritas they settled a dispute related to the issue with Facebook out of court.
Project Veritas reached out to Steven Crowder’s attorney, Bill Richmond, who stated:
Louder With Crowder is investigating the allegations of concealed stream throttling by Facebook. The accusations are deeply troubling given the previously settled dispute with Facebook uncovered by Gizmodo.com, which found the show was targeted by Facebook workers with secret audience restrictions on political grounds alongside other prominent conservative voices.
According to screenshots obtained by Project Veritas, the ActionDeboostLiveDistribution tag also appears on the Facebook page of conservative commentator Mike Cernovich. The whistleblower alleges that the tag is designed to “deboost” content produced by the pages it’s attached to, specifically suppressing the distribution of livestreams from that page. A current Facebook employee confirmed to Project Veritas that the code could reduce a “video’s visibility in news feeds, remove sharing features, and disable interactive notifications.”
Cernovich commented on the power that Facebook has over its users stating: “Facebook, or an individual at Facebook, has the unilateral power to create false allegations against someone he or she doesn’t like. The person accused not only can’t do anything about the allegation, they don’t even have an idea the allegation was made.”
The “deboost” action appears to be applied to page algorithmically rather than done deliberately by a single Facebook employee but as a result, Facebook page owners are not notified if the tag is added to their page. The Facebook insider stated: “With these ‘deboost live stream’ things, there was no warning sent to the user… These were actions that were being taken without the users knowing.”
The insider also noted that very few left-wing pages had been hit with a deboost tag: “I looked at the Young Turks’ page, I looked at Colin Kaepernick’s page, none of them had received the same deboost comment,” the insider stated. The “deboost” tag appears after another tag titled “Sigma” which refers to an artificial intelligence system developed by Facebook to block potential suicide or self-harm posts. Both Steven Crowder and Mike Cernovich stated that they don’t believe they have promoted suicide or self-harm, rather Cernovich stated that he has spoken out against suicide and self-harm on multiple occasions with blog posts and tweets to back up his claims.
Read the full report from Project Veritas here. |
Q:
Showing that the sequence $ x_n = \frac {1}{1 + x_{n-1}} $ is convergent
Sequence is recursively defined by $ x_0 = 1 $
I managed to show it is boundness by showing that $ 0 \lt x_n \lt 1 $
Now, when i try to show monotony of the sequence i got the problem because sequence is neither increasing or decreasing.
I don't know what to do here. Thanks in advance
A:
Hint: Try to show that $\{x_{2n}\}$ is monotonically increasing while $\{x_{2n + 1}\}$ is monotonically decreasing, and they converge to the same limit.
For a similar problem and the complete answer, check this post.
|
#!/usr/bin/env python3
# Copyright (c) Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates.
#
# This source code is licensed under the MIT license found in the
# LICENSE file in the root directory of this source tree.
import unittest
from test.generic.config_utils import get_test_mlp_task_config
from classy_vision.dataset import build_dataset
from classy_vision.hooks import LossLrMeterLoggingHook
from classy_vision.losses import build_loss
from classy_vision.meters import AccuracyMeter
from classy_vision.models import build_model
from classy_vision.optim import build_optimizer, build_optimizer_schedulers
from classy_vision.tasks import ClassificationTask
from classy_vision.trainer import LocalTrainer
class TestLocalTrainer(unittest.TestCase):
def test_training(self):
"""Checks we can train a small MLP model."""
config = get_test_mlp_task_config()
task = (
ClassificationTask()
.set_num_epochs(10)
.set_loss(build_loss(config["loss"]))
.set_model(build_model(config["model"]))
.set_optimizer(build_optimizer(config["optimizer"]))
.set_optimizer_schedulers(build_optimizer_schedulers(config["optimizer"]))
.set_meters([AccuracyMeter(topk=[1])])
.set_hooks([LossLrMeterLoggingHook()])
)
for split in ["train", "test"]:
dataset = build_dataset(config["dataset"][split])
task.set_dataset(dataset, split)
self.assertTrue(task is not None)
trainer = LocalTrainer()
trainer.train(task)
accuracy = task.meters[0].value["top_1"]
self.assertAlmostEqual(accuracy, 1.0)
|
We keep your personal information private and secure. When you make a payment through our site, you provide your name, contact information, payment information, and additional information related to your transaction. We use this information to process your payment and to ensure your payment is correctly credited to your account.
Custom Screen Print Cool Wraps
2” x 34” - 100% Cotton
Colors available: White, Lemon Yellow and Kelly Green
Enjoy these 2” x 34” 100% cotton cool wraps on a hot day. Ideal for gardening, sports, picnics, or any other outdoor activity. Simply soak the
wrap in water for 15 minutes and the non-toxic, high quality crystals will absorb the water and keep you cool throughout your outdoor activities.
If you work outdoors often, our cool waps are a must-have! Just tie the wrap loosely around your neck and relish the cooling effect. It’s truly amazing! |
Factors Associated with Health Care Professionals' Attitude Toward the Presumed Consent System.
This paper explores health care professionals' potential attitude toward organ donation if the presumed consent system were to be implemented in Malaysia, as well as factors associated with this attitude. We used self-administered questionnaires to investigate the attitude of 382 health care professionals from the University of Malaya Medical Center between January and February 2014. The responses were analyzed using logistic regression. Of the 382 respondents, 175 (45.8%) stated that they would officially object to organ donation if the presumed consent system were to be implemented, whereas the remaining 207 (54.2%) stated that they would not object. The logistic regression showed that health care professionals from the Malay ethnic group were more likely to object than those from Chinese (adjusted odds ratio of 0.342; P = .001) and Indian and other (adjusted odds ratio of 0.341; P = .003) ethnic groups. Health care professionals earning 3000 Malaysian Ringgit or below were more likely to object than those earning above 3000 Malaysian Ringgit (adjusted odds ratio of 1.919; P = .006). Moreover, respondents who were initially unwilling to donate organs, regardless of the donation system, were more likely to object under the presumed consent system than those who were initially willing to donate (adjusted odds ratio of 2.765; P < .001). Health care professionals in Malaysia have a relatively negative attitude toward the presumed consent system, which does not encourage the implementation of this system in the country at present. To pave the way for a successful implementation of the presumed consent system, efforts should be initiated to enhance the attitude of health care professionals toward this system. In particular, these efforts should at most target the health care professionals who are Malay, earn a low income, and have a negative default attitude toward deceased donation. |
Remote controls may be used for a variety of the purposes. For example, remote controls may be used to control televisions (e.g., high-definition televisions), monitors, MP3 players, audio receivers, radios, communication devices, personal computers, media players, digital video recorders (DVRs), game playing devices, set top boxes (STBs), security systems, household appliances, etc. Conventional remote controls may be configured to transmit data by sending transmissions (e.g., Radio Frequency (RF) transmissions, Infrared (IR) transmissions, etc.) which control the respective devices. Further, devices which are to be controlled by the transmissions from the remote control, may include, be electronically connected to or otherwise in communication with, receivers that receive the data transmissions from the remote control.
Some conventional remote controls are designed such that upon a button of the remote control being pressed and held, a single transmission is transmitted. Other conventional remote controls are designed such that upon a button of the remote control being pressed and held, repeated transmissions are transmitted (e.g., transmissions may be repeated indefinitely or transmissions may be repeated for a limited amount of time to avoid draining the battery if, for example, someone is sitting on the remote control). Such a repeated transmission may be useful for commands such as volume control and channel changing. While these remote control features are beneficial, there remains an ever-present need for even more beneficial and even more convenient remote control functionality. |
IMRT with compensators for head-and-neck cancers treatment technique, dosimetric accuracy, and practical experiences.
With three-dimensional conformal intensity-modulated radiotherapy (3D-c-IMRT) a heterogeneous dose distribution can be achieved in both planning treatment volume and in adjacent normal tissues and organs to be spared. 3D-c-IMRT demands for modified photon fluence profiles which can be accomplished with different techniques. This report deals with the commissioning of metal compensators and the first experiences in clinical use. Dosimetric accuracy, dose coverage and practical experience like treatment delivery time, monitor units and dose outside the treated volume are evaluated. From January 2002 to April 2004, 24 patients with head-and-neck cancers were treated with 3D-c-IMRT using tin-wax compensators. The dose prescription included a simultaneously integrated boost (SIB). High-dose volume was irradiated with 60-70 Gy (median 66 Gy), low-dose volume with 48-54 Gy (median 52 Gy) administered by a standardized seven- portal coplanar beam arrangement. Dose at one parotid gland was aimed at 26 Gy. The compensators used consisted of tin granules embedded in wax; recalculation was performed with compensators made of the alloy MCP96 as well. In 21 of 24 patients 3D-c-IMRT with tin-wax compensators reduced the median dose to one parotid gland to < 30 Gy. Recalculation with compensators with higher density which allowed higher attenuation revealed better protection of the parotid gland. The treatment delivery time per fraction was between 6 and 12 min (plus time for patient positioning), approximately 300 MU per 2 Gy were applied. The dose outside the treated volume was increased with regard to open fields and comparable with a physical wedge of 15-30 degrees . Quality assurance and treatment of patient were fast and simple. It was shown, that calculated dose distribution corresponded to measured dose distribution with high accuracy. The described method offers facilities for a good dose coverage of irregular target volumes with different prescribed doses and a considerable dose reduction in adjacent organs at risk. The dose sparing of organs at risk can be further improved, if a compensator material with higher density is used. |
Q:
Using Android's XML element on rootview for activity's layout
I am using the following layout:
---------------------
FrameLayout
.>>. FrameLayout
.>>. FrameLayout
---------------------
This layout is set on some Activity using setContentView().
I just run lint to analyse my project and got the following message:
MergeRootFrame: FrameLayout can be replaced with <merge> tag
I understand and use the merge element in certain layouts but I fail to understand how can I be advised to merge the root element in my layout when there is no obvious parent to merge with, when I do the correction and run it all goes well but for some reason this feels a bit fishy.
Thanks!
A:
Read the following post by Romain Guy:
http://www.curious-creature.org/2009/03/01/android-layout-tricks-3-optimize-part-1/
"the parent of an activity’s content view is always a FrameLayout"
Answered my question q:)
|
Respiratory compromise in patients with rattlesnake envenomation.
Respiratory compromise after rattlesnake envenomation (RSE) is an uncommon yet potentially lethal complication. We were interested in determining the frequency of respiratory compromise in patients treated for RSE. The incidence and indications for intubation were also determined. A retrospective chart review was conducted of all patients treated by medical toxicologists at a tertiary referral hospital between July, 1994 and November, 2000. Out of 294 total patients, 289 charts were reviewed. Of all 289 patients, 214 (74%) received Crotalidae Polyvalent Antivenin (Wyeth-Ayerst) and 23 (8%) had clinical evidence of respiratory compromise. Thirteen of 289 patients (4.4%) were intubated following RSE. No one was intubated for antivenin-induced complications. There were no deaths among studied patients during acute hospitalization. Respiratory compromise following RSE is rare, occurring in only 8% of studied patients. Only 2 patients (0.7%) required intubation as a direct consequence of RSE. No one required intubation for antivenin-induced hypersensitivity reactions. |
W. Mocroft
The answer to this is + 3x +4. You need to know what the standard form of a quadratic polynomial is. If you are not familiar with a quadratic polynomial, this is a polynomial of degree 2 or a quadratic. The highest degree term in this polynomial is the 2nd degree.
The normal formula for the quadratic polynomial is x1,2 = (-b ± √b² - 4ac) / 2a. Knowing this can be vital for you, especially if you would need to solve differential equations. Take note that the formula also requires a square root that you have to solve to get the right answer to your question. Take note that a quadratic function is not the same as a second-degree polynomial function. |
The present invention relates to apparatus and methods for substantial planarization of solder bumps for use in, for example, testing and fabrication of chip scale packages, bumped die, and other similar devices.
The demand for smaller packaging of electronic components continues to drive the development of smaller chip scale packages (CSP""s), bumped die, and other similar devices having solder bumps, ball grid arrays (BGA""s), or the like. As a result, spacing (or xe2x80x9cpitchxe2x80x9d) between adjacent solder balls on bumped devices has steadily decreased. Typical requirements for ball pitch have decreased from 1.27 mm to 0.5 mm or less, and the trend continues.
FIG. 1 is a side elevational view of a typical bumped device 10 (CSP, bumped die, etc.) mounted on, for example, a printed circuit board 20. The bumped device 10 includes a plurality of solder balls 12 attached to a plurality of ball pads (not shown) which are formed on a die 14. Each solder ball 12 has an outer edge 16 that aligns with a corresponding contact pad 18 on the printed circuit board 20. A conductive lead 22 is attached to each contact pad 18. Ideally, the outer edge 16 of each solder ball 12 contacts the corresponding contact pad 18 during assembly of the bumped device 10 with the printed circuit board 20, completing the electrical circuit between the conductive leads 22 and the die 14.
The height and width of the solder bumps 12 on the bumped device 10 are not precisely uniform. Variation of the solder bump height and width depends on several factors, including variation in size of the original unattached solder balls, variation in the sizes of the ball pads, and differences in the attachment process.
As the demand for smaller packaging continues, however, CSP reliability concerns arise. For example, using typical manufacturing methods and solders, the nominal variation between the tallest and shortest balls (shown as the distance d on FIG. 1) is presently about 60 microns (xcexcm). Therefore, when the device 10 is placed on a flat surface resting on the solder balls, the three tallest balls or bumps define the seating plane of the device, and the smaller balls do not touch the corresponding contact pads of the printed circuit board or test interposer.
During assembly, and in some cases during testing, a moderate compression force may be applied to the bumped device 10 to drive the outer surfaces 16 of the solder balls 12 into contact with the contact pads 18 of the printed circuit board or test interposer 20. Typically, the compression force needed to bring the solder bumps into contact with the contact pads varies between 30 grams and 2000 grams depending upon the manufacturing or test process involved. The applied compression force should be kept to a minimum, however, because larger forces may damage the circuitry of the die 14, the CSP solder balls, or the test interposer.
One approach to the problem is to mount the contact pads 18 of the test interposer 20 on micro-springs. As the tallest solder bumps engage the micro-spring mounted contact pads, the micro-springs are compressed, allowing the shorter solder balls to engage the corresponding contact pads. Numerous micro-spring contact pad models are available as shown and described in Robert Crowley""s article in Chip Scale Review published May 1998, p. 37, incorporated herein by reference. Although desirable results may be achieved with such devices, micro-spring mounted contact pads 18 are very expensive, relatively difficult to maintain, and may excessively damage the solder ball itself.
During assembly of the bumped device 10 with the printed circuit board 20, some of the shorter solder balls may not solder to their associated contact pads during the reflow process. In the past, to increase the numbers of solder balls making contact with the contact pads during reflow, the volume of the solder balls was increased. As packaging sizes and pitch requirements continue to decrease, however, the volume of the solder balls must be reduced accordingly, and thus, the percentage of balls that will not attach to the contact pads during reflow increases. Again, if considerable force is applied during assembly, the CSP or the printed circuit board 20 may be damaged.
The present invention is directed toward apparatus and methods for substantial planarization of solder bumps for use in, for example, testing and fabrication of chip scale packages, bumped die, and other similar devices. In one embodiment, an apparatus in accordance with the invention includes a planarization member engageable with at least some of the plurality of outer surfaces, and a securing element engageable with the bumped device to securely position the bumped device during engagement with the planarization member. During engagement with the at least some outer surfaces, the planarization member applies a planarization action on one or more of the outer surfaces to substantially planarize the plurality of outer surfaces. In one embodiment, the planarization member includes a cutting tool and the planarization action comprises a milling action. In another embodiment, the planarization member includes a heated platen and the planarization action comprises a thermo-mechanical deformation action. In yet another embodiment, the planarization member includes an abrasive surface and the planarization action comprising a grinding action. Alternately, the planarization member includes a chemical solution and the planarization action comprises a chemical reaction. In yet another embodiment, the planarization member includes a solder deposition device and the planarization action comprises a solder deposition.
Alternately, an apparatus may include a planarization gauge that measures a planarization condition of the outer surfaces. The planarization gauge may measure the planarization condition before or after the planarization member is engaged with the outer surfaces.
In a further embodiment, an apparatus includes a load device engageable with at least one of the bumped device or the planarization member to urge the at least some outer surfaces of the bumped device into engagement with the planarization member. The planarization member applies a planarization action on one or more of the plurality of outer surfaces to substantially planarize the plurality of outer surfaces.
In one embodiment, the planarization member includes a substantially flat surface and the load device includes a mass having a weight that urges the at least some outer surfaces into engagement with the flat surface to mechanically flatten the surfaces. In another embodiment, the load device includes a fixed surface and a pressurizable vessel, a pressure in the pressurizable vessel urging the bumped device away from the fixed surface and into engagement with the planarization member. In yet another embodiment, the load device includes a press engageable with the bumped device. In still another embodiment, the load device includes a centrifuge engageable with the planarization member. |
Restyle Gothic Silver Skull Moon Ring
Another lovely Gothic ring from Restyle! This beautiful silver colour ring features a classic crescent moon design, but with the added bonus of an engraved skull face in the curve. Ideal for when your alternative outfit needs an extra touch of Goth, this ring has been styled to look old and aged for an extra touch of authenticity.
Alternative Jewellery
Silver Colour
Skull Moon Design
Aged Look
If your size is not shown in the drop down menu above:
First, check the drop down menu above. If your size is not shown then please click on your size below to request a notification when it comes back in to stock. |
607 F.2d 1001
Dukev.Califano
No. 78-1076
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
10/26/79
1
M.D.N.C.
AFFIRMED
|
DirecTV and Viacom announced they have reached an agreement that will end the blackout that has kept 26 of the conglom's channels off the satcaster's lineup since July 10.
"We are very pleased to be able to restore the channels to our customers and thank them for their unprecedented patience and support," said Derek Chang, executive vice president of Content Strategy and Development for DIRECTV. "It's unfortunate that Viacom took the channels away from customers to try to gain leverage, but in the end, it's clear our customers recognized that tactic for what it was."
"Viacom is extremely pleased to bring its programming back to DIRECTV subscribers, and thanks everyone affected by the disruption for their patience and understanding during this challenging period," read a statement from the conglom. |
Power line communications (PLC) technology is aimed at transmitting digital data by utilizing the existing infrastructure of the electrical grid. It allows, in particular, remote reading of electric meters, exchanges between electric vehicles and the recharging terminals and also management and control of energy networks (smart grid). PLC technology incorporates, in particular, narrow band power line communication (N-PLC) which is generally defined as a communication over an electrical line operating at transmission frequencies of up to 500 KHz. N-PLC communication thus generally uses the frequency bands defined in particular by the European committee for electrotechnical standardization (CENELEC) or by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Thus, if the CENELEC A frequency band (3-95 kHz) is considered, the transmission frequencies are situated between 35.9375 and 90.625 KHz for the PLC-G3 standard.
The overall performance of a receiver depends on the quality of its channel estimation, i.e. on the estimation of the transfer function of this channel. It is known that a transmission channel can vary in time, in frequency, in phase and in amplitude. Moreover, the signals conveyed by power line communications and received by the receiver result from a combination of several signals having followed within the transmission channel (i.e. the electrical line) several propagation routes or paths, each having its own time delay and its own attenuation (i.e. the transmission channel is a multi-path transmission channel). This may then result in strong attenuation of certain frequencies.
Moreover, the properties and characteristics of the electrical networks are not known and may vary over time. Thus, the impedances of certain objects plugged in by the user vary with the voltage. Such is the case, for example, with halogen lamps or objects comprising voltage rectifiers. When a user plugs in such objects, it results in a periodic variation of the transfer function of the transmission channel. The channel is then considered to be linear and cyclostationary or “linear and varying temporally in a periodic manner”, this corresponding to the acronym LPTV (“Linear Periodically Time Varying”).
Contemporary receivers, compatible with the PLC-G3 standard, are not suitable for performing channel estimations when the channel is time varying. Indeed, the PLC-G3 standard provides for the use of only two orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) symbols as pilot symbols to fully estimate the transfer function of the channel. Hence, when the channel varies, and in particular, when a cyclostationary channel is present, channel estimation may be erroneous, or perhaps impossible, and consequently potentially leads to errors in decoding the symbols. |
THE LAST STATION.
We finally got around to seeing the well-reviewed 2009 movie about Tolstoy’s final days, and they did a pretty good job of it. Christopher Plummer and Helen Mirren were excellent as the Count and Countess, and young Valentin Bulgakov was a well-chosen viewpoint character. But (sigh) they butchered the Russian names (at one point Sofia Andreyevna is referred to as “Countess Tolstoya”), and they kept having close-ups of an EXIT sign at the eponymous station misspelled as ВЫХОД (missing the prerevolutionary final hard sign, ъ). You can’t have everything.
Comments
yes, apart from a few glitches it’s a very good film, Plummer and Mirren are wonderful (Mirren is of Russian descent, Mironova).
And the real Bulgakov’s story is amazing, he was arrested by the bolsheviks, then tha nazis, and he organised a Russian cultural centre in Prague saving many of the precious archives, and then returned to Russia after the war and spent the rest of his life as curator at Yasnaya Polyana estate until mid-60s. But Masha is fictional.
What puzzles me is the Russian-release title of the film ‘Последнее воскресение’ (the last resurrection). I understand that the Last Station is a referrence, if there is one, to the stations of Christ, the via dolorosa, but what is the last resurrection?
no, serious, I don’t want to go into overinterpreting, but the straightforward последняя станция, остановка, works equally well, why resurrection? Are they trying to interpret Tolstoy’s last days as him recanting? He was excommunicated and Russian Orthodox church still hasn’t reconciled itself with Tolstoy.
But it was at that station that he stood up (Auferstehung) for the last time. “Resurrection” is often understood as “the raising of the dead”, as if “raising” were transitive (and God were a forklift operator). But in Germany the dead have to fetch up standing under their own steam.
What is the historical semantics of “raising of the dead” – did it at one time mean “rising of the dead” ? Have there been theological disputes about this, as with cons- and trans- ?
It’s fascinating – and is it snobbish of me to say surprising? – how accurate ‘The Last Station’ actually is. The main departure from the truth is the invention of Masha, as Sashura points out. Of course, it’s based on a novelization of Tolstoy’s last travels by Jay Parini, which to my shame I have yet to read.
I have a review of the film with some pictures here.http://russiandinosaur.blogspot.com/2010/11/celebrating-tolstoy-in-oxford.html
Cinema, novels, biographies… has anyone written a poem about Tolstoy’s final trip?
There’s a mention in a Max Beerbohm story of a (fictitious) essayist whose works include “the End of the World–and After.”
Reminds me a bit of one of my favourite “blink-and-you’ll-miss-it” moments in Spinal Tap:
David St. Hubbins: We toured the world, we toured the States…
Derek Smalls: We toured the world and elsewhere.
Here‘s the direct link to the Dinosaur’s review. And Dino, as long as you’re here: could you jigger your comment function to allow Name/URL? I can no longer comment on your blog, since the system won’t accept my Google ID.
Sorry about that, Hat – I had a similar problem recently when I wanted to comment on the wonderful Don Livingstone’s Russian Word of the Day blog. Commenting is now open to all and sundry. Let me know by email if the Blogger Cerberus still refuses to let you post.
My guess is that ‘Последнее воскресение’ is literally correct (Last Sunday, and Nov 20 2010 was Sunday) … with the rest of it being some wordplay with the novel title and the Christ theme, which sort of eludes me in the same way as it eludes you too.
‘Последнее воскресение’ conjures up a very different place and time in my mind … ‘Ta ostania nedelia’, a famed antebellum Polish tango which took Russia by storm in its ‘Утомленное солнце’ reincarnation (including many a movie too).
Thanks, Mockba, I didn’t know about that connection. Here’s the video of ‘The Last Sunday’ in Polish. There are expansive articles on wikipedia in Polish and Russian, but only a stub in English. One famous recent version is from Mikhalkov’s subtle version of what it was like under the Great Terror – Burnt by the Sun.
Still, I’m none the wiser about the Tolstoy film Russian title.
Offtopic we go 🙂 The same tune is used over and over again, as a poignant parable for the War destroying Love, in Yuri Norstein’s beautiful Tale of Tales (and IMVHO it’s a more significant movie than any of Mikhalkov’s).
In Poland, they are really enamoured of their pre-war cultural bloom, and ‘Ta Ostatnia Nedelia’ has been remade into countless modern versions (in my collection, in addition to Fogg’s classic rendition, there also remakes even as metal and as techno LOL). Enamoured and maybe even possessive … the other famed Polish dance music transplant to Russia, of the same area, is an equally classic ‘Mala Blakitna Chustechka’, and it throws many Polish conneseurs into a fiercely possessive mode…
Yes, I also think that international metamorphoses of songs are a perfect Rio Wang material … but last time when we touched a similar topic (in the comments to this Rio Wang post), Studiolum just suggested that I write it up myself.
These days I often think that it is a master-apprentice sort of a situation, that until I can prove that I can also compose beautiful blog pieces, I should just stop annoying the master with too many comments. Truth be said, I’ve been always very eager to annoy my teachers in real life … and it’s even easier done in cyberspace.
Yeah, and apologies for the annoying misspellings of my Polish, while we are at it!
And you can support my book habit without even spending money on me by following my Amazon links to do your shopping (if, of course, you like shopping on Amazon); I get a small percentage of every dollar spent while someone is following my referral links, and every month I get a gift certificate that allows me to buy a few books (or, if someone has bought a big-ticket item, even more). You will not only get your purchases, you will get my blessings and a karmic boost!
Favorite rave review, by Teju Cole:
"Evidence that the internet is not as idiotic as it often looks. This site is called Language Hat and it deals with many issues of a linguistic flavor. It's a beacon of attentiveness and crisp thinking, and an excellent substitute for the daily news."
From "commonbeauty"
(Cole's blog circa 2003)
All comments are copyright their original posters. Only messages signed "languagehat" are property of and attributable to languagehat.com. All other messages and opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily state or reflect those of languagehat.com. Languagehat.com does not endorse any potential defamatory opinions of readers, and readers should post opinions regarding third parties at their own risk. Languagehat.com reserves the right to alter or delete any questionable material posted on this site. |
Stockholm pulls plug on 2022 Games bid
STOCKHOLM
STOCKHOLM Stockholm has surprisingly pulled the financial plug on its bid to host the 2022 Winter Olympics with the Swedish city's ruling Moderate party saying on Friday that investing in the Games was not attractive enough.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) said in November that six cities, including former summer Games hosts Beijing and Stockholm, had launched bids to stage the 2022 event.
"Arranging a Winter Olympics would mean a big investment in new sports facilities, for example for the bobsleigh and luge," the Moderate party said in a statement.
"There isn't any need for that type of that kind of facility after an Olympics."
Norway capital Oslo, which hosted the 1952 Winter Olympics, is also among those in the running, along with Krakow in Poland, Kazakhstan's Almaty and Ukraine's Lviv.
"Although the calculations are well worked out, we estimate that revenues will likely be lower and costs higher than the investigation indicates," said Stockholm city council chairman and finance commissioner Sten Nordin.
Next month's Winter Games at Russia's Sochi will have done little to make the event more attractive to potential bid cities with an overall price tag of more than $50 billion, more expensive than any previous summer or winter Games.
The IOC played down the Swedish city's withdrawal from the bidding process, saying the field of candidates remained very strong.
"I note that those who took the decision made it absolutely clear that this was not a 'no' to any future bid," IOC spokesman Mark Adams said.
"Indeed, I understand they remain strongly interested in staging the Games and are considering bidding again perhaps with a stronger bid for 2026."
"For the 2022 contest there remain five strong candidates and we look forward to a good contest to stage the Olympic Winter Games," Adams said.
IOC President Thomas Bach, who took over from Jacques Rogge in September, has pledged to make the bidding process less bureaucratic and more attractive to future bid cities.
Stockholm's refusal to back an Olympic bid is reminiscent of the Italian government pulling out of a bid by Rome for the 2020 Olympics two years ago over similar financial fears.
Switzerland's St Moritz and Germany's Munich also briefly considered a run for the 2022 Games before financial concerns and local opposition led to them dropping their plans.
"With more time to the date of application, it is possible that finding other solutions might have been possible. Stockholm is a winter sports town and I am open to staging the Winter Olympics in the future," Nordin said.
"Unfortunately we are of the opinion that it's not realistic to make a bid for the 2022 Olympics," he said. |
Q:
Does console.log invokes toString method of an object?
As per this documentation,
The string representations of each of these objects are appended
together in the order listed and output.
Also as per answer
The + x coerces the object x into a string, which is just [object
Object]:
So, my question is
If I do
str = new String("hello")
console.log(str) //prints the string object but not 'hello'
console.log(""+str) //prints "hello"
So, in first case, it simply prints the object (doesn't invoke the toString() method).
But in second case, it doesn't coerce but simply print the primitive value. Why is that so?
Which method does console.log invokes to print the object?
Please note that - this is not a duplicate of this question.
A:
Console API is not a standard API that is defined in any specification but is something that is implemented across all browsers, so vendors are usually at their liberty to implement in their own fashion as there's no standard spec to define the output of any methods in API.
Unless you check the actual implementation of the Console API for a particular browser, you can never be sure. There's a tracker on GitHub listing the differences between implementation from major browsers.
If you look at the implementation in FF (available here - search for log), it has a comment below
A multi line stringification of an object, designed for use by humans
The actual implementation checks for the type of argument that is passed to log() and based on it's type, it generates a different representation.
Coming to your case, log() prints two different values for strings created using literal notation and strings created using String constructor because they are two different types. As explained here, Strings created using literal notation are called String Primitives and strings created using String constructor are called String Objects.
var str1 = 'test';
var str2 = new String('hello');
typeof str1 // prints "string"
typeof str2 // prints "object"
As the types differ, their string representation differs in the Console API. If you go through the code for FF's Console implementation, the last statement is
return " " + aThing.toString() + "\n";
So to answer your question, Console API in FF calls toString() on the argument only if the argument type is not one of {undefined,null,object,set,map} types. It doesn't always call toString() or valueOf() methods. I didn't check the implementation of Chrome, so I won't comment on that.
|
[The importance of hypnosis in psychiatry].
This article deals with the significance of hypnotherapy which was almost forgotten in recent years but is currently regaining its position as a special treatment in psychiatry. The historical overview is followed by a discussion of the nature, present forms, indication and risks of hypnotherapy. The most recent evaluation studies are also considered. The results show that the individual forms of hypnotherapy represent an effective and at the same time low-risk form of treatment when the indication is clear and the therapy is administered professionally. It should therefore be used within the framework of both in-patient and out-patient psychiatric treatment. |
Most Fantasy Football leagues require a cash buy-in to make the season more interesting, divvying out cash prizes at the end of the year to the winners. Over the last decade, some leagues made it more compelling to the team owners going as far as handing out last place prizes.
In a local Rockford league, “Sunday’s R 4 Da Boys,” the loser had to get a tattoo of the leagues choosing.
And man was this one interesting…
On Sunday, February 26th, at around 7:30 pm, Rockford’s Jacob Starr was given this beauty at Delicious Ink in Rockford, IL. The tattoo artist got quite a kick out of it.
Make sure to check out The Bears Grind this week for the second chapter of the “Roster Overhaul” series. |
Q:
Wordpress hover over link and several elements change
This wordpress home page has the following html for the content section (the middle section with the three columns of divs)
http://goodsense.etempa.co.uk
<div class="seewidgets">[widgets_on_pages id="Home page middle box"]</div>
<div class="top-area">
<div class="image">
<img alt="Primary Care" src="/wp-content/uploads/scenarios/primary_care.png" />
</div>
<div id="contact_box" class="home_side_box">
<div class="clients">
<img alt="Contact Us" src="/wp-content/uploads/buttons/contact_button.png" />
</div>
</div>
<div class="home_side_box home_side_box_gap">
<div class="home_side_box_heading">Social Media</div>
//Social Media Stuff
</div>
<div class="home_side_box home_side_box_gap">
<div class="home_side_box_heading">Example Clients</div>
<div class="clients">
<img alt="" src="/wp-content/themes/twentytwelve/images/client.png" />
</div>
</div>
<div class="home_text_box" id="scenario_intro_text_div">
<p>If you work in primary healthcare you know that anything can happen. </p><p>Your staff may be required to handle a difficult ... <a href='/primary-care'>Read More</a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
As you can see, there is a list of Sectors on the left, which is a wordpress menu, a central image, central text and on the right, an example client.
Baring in mind this website is written in wordpress and the content above is entered in the 'Edit Page' part of Wordpress, not in a template (although I have complete access to the template files), can anyone tell me a way I can have the user hover over a Sector on the left, and then central image, the central text and the right hand side client image all change to match the sector hovered over?
The main problem I have is the list of Sectors is in a Wordpress menu and if possible, I'd like it to stay that way, but I can hard code if necessary.
A:
You'll need to use jQuery.
This should get you started:
$('#menu-item-65').mouseover(function() {
// when element is moused over, change html elsewhere on page
$('.top-area .image').html('<img src="path/to/your/image.jpg" />');
$('.home_side_box .clients').html('<img src="path/to/your/other/image.jpg" />');
$('#scenario_intro_text_div').html('<p>Your text here</p>');
});
The first line basically means that when #menu-item-65 (the id of one of the individual lis from the left "Sectors" navigation menu) is mouseovered, it replaces the inner HTML of the elements targeted inside the function with whatever you specify.
Relevant links:
http://api.jquery.com/html/
http://api.jquery.com/mouseover/
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/selector.html
Your theme already has jQuery loaded, so you will just need to include this in a custom scripts file and make sure it's loaded (either by putting the script call in header.php or by adding it via wp_enqueue_script in functions.php).
|
Another month, another holiday, another installments of Hulu’s horror anthology Into the Dark! “My Valentine” doesn’t deal with Valentine’s Day directly, but it analyzes a common issue among relationships and runs with it to a horrifying extreme, all while jamming in the meantime.
Not Your Typical Concert
The film opens with a performance by Valentine (Britt Baron) at a local club. All seems to be going well until a few people from the crowd start accusing her of ripping off another performer Trezzure (Anna Lore), who has a very similar style.
Valentine’s ex-boyfriend/Trezzure’s current boyfriend Royal (Benedict Samuel) shows up and a series of mind games, as well as murders ensue. As Valentine confronts the trauma of her abusive relationship with Royal, she is forced to look inward and gain the strength to not only survive the night, but to thrive as an individual.
Codependency
“My Valentine” has a lot to express regarding a common pitfall in relationships. So many people define themselves and their happiness based on who they’re with, which becomes an issue when a relationship ends and a person can find themself feeling lost.
If we don’t know how to be happy as our own person, we’re much more likely to stay in a toxic, or even abusive relationship just so we’re not alone. Valentine’s journey to this conclusion is inspiring and it’s the film’s strongest point.
Style vs. Substance
While it does have something good to say, the message (as well as the horror) can get clouded a bit with the split screen editing and cutaways to music video footage. Writer/Director Maggie Levin has a strong background in music (even creating a live club production called “The Rocky Horror Hipster Show”), and it certainly shows here.
Each time we do cut a music video, it’s creatively shot. And while it can feel more like a music video than a horror film, the style works in this context. Perhaps it’s just a minor nitpick, but it almost feels as if the film had too much of this stylized editing, or not enough at all. If there were more, the whole film could play out like a creative arthouse picture, or if there was less, it would just seem like a fun gimmick here and there.
Other than that, it’s a fun watch, especially if you’re a fan of music. And most importantly, it boasts a strong moral about finding love and acceptance with simply being your true self, especially at a time where society makes people feel terrible simply for being single.
For more reviews, rankings, and other fun horror content, follow Halloween Year-Round on Facebook and Twitter! |
---
-api-id: P:Windows.ApplicationModel.AppInfo.AppUserModelId
-api-type: winrt property
---
<!-- Property syntax
public string AppUserModelId { get; }
-->
# Windows.ApplicationModel.AppInfo.AppUserModelId
## -description
An identifier that uniquely identifies the app.
## -property-value
The application user model ID for the application.
## -remarks
An application user model identifier is used to associate processes, files, and windows with a particular application. See [Application User Model IDs](/windows/desktop/shell/appids) for more details.
## -examples
## -see-also
[System.AppUserModel.ID](/windows/desktop/properties/props-system-appusermodel-id) |
4– It is narrated in al-Kafi on the authority of al-Sakuni that the Prophet of Allah (AS) said to men, ‘Cut your nails’, and to women, ‘Leave them for verily that is more beautiful for you.’
[al-Kafi, v. 6, p. 490, p. 491, no. 15] |
904 F.2d 38
U.S.v.Siford (Mary Ellen)
NO. 88-2583
United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit.
MAY 24, 1990
1
Appeal From: C.D.Ill.
2
AFFIRMED.
|
The heart of a Raider is relentless. It’s a heart that fights through adversity and emerges victorious.
It’s a heart that bleeds passion. It bleeds the all-mighty Silver and Black.
No matter the doubt that ensues, no matter the skepticism that’s considered, the heart of a Raider prevails.
It’s the heart of a Raider that powers Maurice Hurst— the Oakland Raiders’ rookie defensive tackle. This 6-foot-2, 290 pound Michigan product was a fifth-round steal for the Raiders in the 2018 draft.
In Hurst’s final two seasons at Michigan, he racked up 24.5 tackles for loss and 10.5 sacks. As one of the most disruptive defensive lineman in school history, Hurst earned All-American and First Team All-Big Ten honors. Although Hurst finished as a finalist for the Chuck Bednarik award, he won Michigan’s Bo Schembechler Award, an honor given annually to the team’s Most Valuable Player. According to Pro Football Focus, he was the third-best prospect in the entire 2018 NFL draft.
A few weeks prior to the draft, Maurice’s “Raider tough” heart experienced a significant obstacle. He was devastated by the diagnosis of an irregular heartbeat — causing him to be sidelined for the 2018 NFL combine.
The combine is one of the most important dates in the NFL scouting calendar and is an event that paints polarizing opinions for various analysts, coaches, and executives. When a player doesn’t display their abilities on the combine’s prestigious stage, it can only damage his image, unfortunately, putting Hurst at a great disadvantage.
Hurst’s first-round talent dropped due to skepticism, providing Jon Gruden and Reggie McKenzie with one of the 2018 draft’s best picks. With the 140th overall pick, the Raiders chose a defensive talent that can pillage an opposing offense like Warren Sapp once did.
Maurice and his heart of a Raider were cleared by specialists at Michigan and Harvard University Medical Center shortly after the combine. He’ll be closely monitored throughout his career, but the resilient Silver and Black pumping through his veins will keep him battling on and off the field.
If Hurst’s career isn’t hindered by the heart condition, the Raiders’ decision to draft him will be marked as sheer brilliance. He’ll improve the defense immensely in an area where talent is much needed. If the heart condition does prevent him from enjoying the career he deserves, the Raiders’ decision will be judged as a failure, but failures in Round 5 usually don’t set back your franchise immeasurably.
The explosive ability Hurst brings to the table can create the defensive production that the Raiders haven’t had in a long time. He rockets off the ball with bone-chilling strength, the perfect tools to engross multiple offensive linemen and create favorable matchups for Khalil Mack and Bruce Irvin.
The heart of a Raider is hard to come by. It has a special grit, a special intensity.
Maurice Hurst has the heart of a Raider. He’ll prove it to the team, the fans, and the skeptics. It’s going to be a damn good thing that he’s playing on the Raiders’ side of the football.
0 0 vote Article Rating
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Pinterest
Email
LinkedIn
Reddit
Like this: Like Loading... |
DISCLAIMER: Content on this website is an ADVERTISEMENT, therefore it may be biased and should not be considered an objective source or independent review. Owner of this website may be compensated when you purchase a product by clicking a link on this website.
Early Warning Signs of Sinusitis
As the sinuses are part of the respiratory system, the symptoms of sinusitis are quite similar to symptoms of additional respiratory conditions. In the event you have to face the following symptoms over a period of time it is advisable to seek medical help.
Asthma
This is really a reactive airway condition characterised by intermittent airway constriction causing the sufferer to be able to gasp as well as wheeze while attempting to breathe. It can be dangerous especially in children. It is related to many diseases like sinusitis and aspirin allergy. Cold and flu may follow after about of asthma.
Cough Possibly a Combination of a Sinusitis, Cold or the Flu
In grownups, a persistent cough perhaps a symptom of tuberculosis. In children, breathing problems during the night perhaps a common symptom of chronic rhinosinusitis.
Earaches
Earaches can happen to all young and old. These ear infections are usually a condition known as otitis media, an infection of the inner ear. Babies and young children having earaches may show signs and symptoms such as a fever or tugging on their head. In grownups may indicate otitis media or even otitis externa also called "swimmer's ear".
Normal person will have heat between 97.5 and also 101 degrees Fahrenheit. A fever will occur when the temperatures hovers around 103 degrees Fahrenheit. If the a fever is combined with discomfort in the face and/or nasal congestion, the fever is often a symptom of sinusitis.
The most common causes of headaches are stress and variations of migraine. It may also occur with an acute sinusitis.
Itchy and Watery Eyes
Itchy eyes may be an indication of infection in the sinuses. Persisitent watery eyes can be the result of sinusitis or sinus tumor as the tear duct is placed near to the sinuses and can be affected by sinus irritation.
Loss of Smell
Decrease sense of smell is a common and important manifestation of chronic rhinosinusitis. It occurs because of the swelling of the nose. Thus, for those who have an infection in your sinuses, you could temporarily get rid of your own sense of smell.
chronic sinusitis this is a typical dull ache, or feeling of pressure between the eyes.
Those infected with sphenoid sinuses can experience pain in the ear, neck, or at the top of the head.
Sore Throat
When the mucous produced by the body becomes infected, it might irritate the designs of the throat. Recurrent painful throats can be a symptom of allergy symptoms, persistent sinusitis or perhaps chronic inflammation from the tonsils or adenoids.
Swelling of the Eyelids
Swelling inside the eyelids occur when the ethmoid sinuses are near the rip duct and when they're swollen the eyelids and tissues round the eyes can become swollen or perhaps discoloured or sometimes known as "allergic shiners"
Tiredness
This is certainly true of chronic sinusitis. You will feel fatigue and lose sleep.
Toothache
You feel an ache in the upper molar teeth at the back of your mouth it might be a symptom of a sinusitis.
Sinusitis Symptoms DiagnosisTreatment
Sinus Attack! Pain in the forehead or between the eyes? Upper teeth ache? Face feeling full, nose stuffy and congested? You may have a common complaint ...
Are You Facing The rest Of your life With Sinusitis Misery?Well you don't have to. Not any more...Read more at http://tinyurl.com/36m7q27 |
City Under the Sea
City Under the Sea (released as War-Gods of the Deep in the US) is a 1965 science fiction film. It was directed by Jacques Tourneur (his final film) and starred Vincent Price, Tab Hunter, Susan Hart and David Tomlinson.
The plot concerns the discovery of a lost city beneath the sea off the coast of Cornwall. Price is the captain overseeing a group of sailors who have lived there for more than a century where the peculiar mix of gases has allowed them to extend their lifespan.
The film was a period fantasy in the manner begun with Disney's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954). The film attempted to capitalize on the series of Edgar Allan Poe films that had been made by Roger Corman, starring Price. To this extent the film took the title of a Poe poem, "The City in the Sea", and attempted to exploit the Poe films' trend, even though the plot is only loosely based on the poem, with a recitation of the poem at the beginning of the film and a brief reprise at the end.
Plot
Around the turn of the century, American mining engineer Ben Harris is working on the Cornish coast in England when he finds a body washed up on the beach.
Ben makes inquiries at the nearby hotel. While talking to the hotelier's daughter, fellow American Jill Tregellis, and an eccentric artist, Harold Tufnell-Jones, a mysterious intruder appears but disappears.
Later that night Jill is kidnapped by gill men. Ben, Harold and Harold's chicken follow the trail through a secret door into the caves under the house where they are sucked into a pool.
They emerge in a cavernous city on the ocean floor. The city was built by a race of ancients who survive only as a breed of gill men. The city is now inhabited by a group of smugglers led by the cruel and tyrannical Captain who hid down there in 1803 and due to the strange mixture of oxygen have not aged in over a century. However, the volcano that powers the city has become unstable. The Captain now imprisons them until Ben can come up with a means of maintaining it.
Dan, one of the Captain's men who wishes to leave, offers to help the two escape, provided they use their influence to secure him a full pardon for his past crimes of smuggling. The Captain finds out and reveals that because of the gas they've breathed for so long, exposure to sunlight would cause them to age rapidly and die. Dan is then sent to the surface as a means of execution while Ben and Harold are granted an audience with Jill. Whereupon they meet Rev. Jonathan Ives, who had vanished several decades ago from the surface.
The Captain is shown to be under the delusion that Jill is his deceased wife Beatrice, who he believes has returned to him.
Realising that Ben and Harold are untrustworthy, the Captain decides to allow the Gill Men to sacrifice the two as a means to appease the volcano's wrath. While they await this, Jill and Ives free them and Ives instructs them all on how to escape the city. The three make it to the airlock and trek across the ocean floor to a cave, containing a tunnel that leads to the surface.
The Captain and his men pursue them there, but frequent volcanic eruptions cause rockfalls that bury him and his men. Ben and his friends decide to return to the sea and attempt to reach shore on foot. The Captain meanwhile digs himself free and follows the tunnel to the surface, where the sunlight does indeed age him to death.
Ben and the rest make it to shore and watch as the volcano erupts, finally destroying the city.
Cast
Vincent Price as Sir Hugh, The Captain
David Tomlinson as Harold Tufnell-Jones
Tab Hunter as Ben Harris
Susan Hart as Jill Tregillis
John Le Mesurier as Rev. Jonathan Ives
Henry Oscar as Mumford
Derek Newark as Dan
Roy Patrick as Simon
Production
Shooting took place in the United Kingdom. Charles Bennett says he wrote a good script and AIP wanted him to come to Britain to work on the script but would not pay his way. The script was rewritten in Britain by Louis M. Heyward. Bennett hated the changes and called the resulting film "the worst thing I was ever involved in."
According to Susan Hart, Charles Bennett's original script was good but was heavily rewritten. She also says there was tension between producers Dan Haller and his British counterpart George Willoughby.
Louis M. Heyward confirms this tension and admits to rewriting the script to add humour; in particular, he says he added the comic chicken and introduced the character played by David Tomlinson. Heyward says that Willoughby quit after these changes.
Reception
The film was released in New York on a double bill with Beach Blanket Bingo. The reviewer for The New York Times thought it was the better of the two movies, calling it "a briny safari".
Comic book adaption
Dell Movie Classic: War-Gods of the Deep (July–September 1965)
References
External links
City Under the Sea at DBCult Film Institute
Category:1965 films
Category:British films
Category:American International Pictures films
Category:1960s science fiction adventure films
Category:British science fiction adventure films
Category:British fantasy adventure films
Category:Films directed by Jacques Tourneur
Category:Underwater civilizations in fiction
Category:Films adapted into comics
Category:British historical films
Category:1960s historical films |
Q:
Use STL Containers with Struct
I want to store the address of each of the items of my linked list represented by this struct:
struct Node
{
int data;
Node* next;
};
I made an unordered set for this as:
unordered_set<Node*> h;
I defined the iterator as
unordered_set <Node*>::iterator got = h.find (&headB);
This naturally threw a lot of compiler errors. Reading up on forums, I realized that this was wrong because since Node isnt a standard data type, this iterator wouldnt work. Reading up more, I also saw somewhere that I also needed to define an operator for this implementation. I searched a lot on Stack Overflow but didnt find anything that answers this question.
So basically, I just want to know how do we make struct's work with any STL containers and iterators: How do we define containers and implement algorithms ( insert, search, deletion on them)
A:
You are inserting and finding incorrectly.
Your elements are of type Node*.
You have an "address of" operator (&) before Your elements. Which means You are trying to add a Node**, which is the incorrect type.
So the compiler is saying:
prog.cpp:67:24: error: no matching function for call to ‘std::unordered_set<Node*>::insert(Node**)’
The correct way is to add an element of the correct type, which is Node*, by removing the address of operator (&);
Unless You wanted the address of a pointer, then You need the container to store Node**
|
//
// NoBookmarksCell.swift
// DuckDuckGo
//
// Copyright © 2017 DuckDuckGo. All rights reserved.
//
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
// you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
// You may obtain a copy of the License at
//
// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
//
// Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
// distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
// WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
// See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
// limitations under the License.
//
import UIKit
class NoBookmarksCell: UITableViewCell {
@IBOutlet var label: UILabel!
static let reuseIdentifier = "NoBookmarskCell"
}
|
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago allowed Gary Peel's federal public defender to withdraw from his case.
The Seventh Circuit appointed Paul Camarena of Chicago to replace Stephen Williams of the East St. Louis federal public defender's office on Jan. 25, after Williams filed a motion to withdraw just before Christmas.
Before the appeals court would allow Williams to withdraw, it ordered him to gather all of the transcripts of Peel's trial from Stiehl's court reporter Daveanna Ramsey.
Peel filed his notice of appeal of his final judgment and sentence to the Seventh Circuit on Dec. 4.
He was sentenced to 12 years in prison by U.S. District Court Judge William Stiehl on Nov. 19. He was technically sentenced to 37 years, but Stiehl ordered the time to be served concurrently.
Peel, 63, was convicted on one count of obstruction of justice, one count bankruptcy fraud and two counts of child pornography by a federal jury in East St. Louis on March 23. He was also fined $1,000 and placed on three years supervised release.
Peel was prosecuted for blackmailing his ex-wife Deborah Peel with nude photos taken of her 16-year-old sister in 1974.
He and Deborah Peel were married in 1967 and divorced in 2003. During contentious settlement proceedings Gary Peel filed for bankruptcy in 2004.
At trial, prosecutors told jurors that Peel threatened to bankrupt his ex-wife in legal fees if she did not stop trying to get a deposition of his current wife, Deborah A. Pontious-Peel.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin Burke told the jury that Peel planned to send the nude photos to Deborah Peel's parents if she did not agree to a new divorce settlement.
The Seventh Circuit also set the deadlines for the appeal to be filed.
Peel has to file his written brief and short appendix by April 23. The government has until May 23 to file its brief. If Peel wants to reply to the government's brief, he must submit it no later than June 6.
Peel originally had until Jan. 15 to file his brief, but was allowed more time since Williams withdrew from the case.
The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Breaking Legal News. as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice ora substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. |
“Cheering for a new team” -From the EndZone
A CFL fan since 1972. Jay Nutt works and lives in the Kawarthas just north of Peterborough.
They used to be the other team.
From the End Zone
Players get traded all the time.
One day you’re playing for the team that drafted and trained you, the next day you’re playing for a different team that wanted you enough that they gave something up for you. Once in a while you’re the afterthought, the player thrown in on a multi-player trade. On rare occasions, you can be a player like Ricky Foley or QB Ricky Ray, the centerpiece in a trade that results in the team winning a championship. In Foley’s case, he’s won 3 Grey Cups and the Argos re-acquired him this off-season in the hopes he’ll help bring it home again this year.
As a player, it has to be instantaneous; you go into a new dressing room, sit beside players who were opponents, put on different colours and start playing every down as if you’ve always worn that jersey.
But what if you’re a fan?
Switching allegiances is seldom so swift, so matter of fact, so concise. Most fans are born into their CFL clan based on geography. If your parents were fans of a team, chances are you’re a fan of the same team. You stay with a team for life, loyal through good times and bad, even if you move across the country. You wear your colours proudly in your neighborhood or at the game. We don’t get a phone call from a general manager or an agent telling us to start rooting for a new team. It happens little by little, as moments and plays and seasons slip by and you suddenly find yourself hoping and wishing and cheering for a team you swore never to support.
I’m one of those fans. I was born an Eskimos fan. In 1973 I remember my parents and their friends bundling up into their Ford Meteor and driving the 360 km round-trip to Edmonton to see the Eskimos play. I was allowed to stay up late and listen to the staticky AM radio broadcast. My prized possession became a green and gold felt 1975 Grey Cup Champion pennant that hung upon my bedroom wall. In 1977 I joined the Woodward’s Knothole Gang and got to sit in the end zone for $2 a game. We lost to the Alouettes in the Grey Cup that year and I was heartbroken as only an 11 year-old can be.
There was redemption though; in 1978 the Esks moved into Commonwealth stadium and started a run of huge crowds and a string of five straight Championships that cemented a young fan’s loyalty.
Years pass. The team wins some, loses some. The faded pennant gets packed in a box and put in a parent’s basement for storage. College. Jobs. Careers. Love and loss. You follow the team from wherever you are in the world. You meet a girl. The girl. You move to Toronto.
Toronto.
When I lived in Alberta, Toronto was “out east.” When I lived in Charlottetown, Toronto was “out west.” It’s the city that the rest of Canada doesn’t want and that nobody cheers for.
It wasn’t an easy transition to trade loyalties. Holloway, Barnes, Ismail, Flutie. Some of the greatest Argos players in history had beaten my Eskimo teams. Dunigan, Ilesic, Allen. Some of my favourite Eskimos had gone on to even more success with the Argonauts. But somehow, you spend enough time in and near a city and you follow the game and you grow attached. You see the struggles in attendance, the fight for relevance in a market that is always looking for the next big thing and you develop an affinity for the underdog. When you go to a game you realize that a smaller CFL crowd in the dome is louder and more animated than crowds at hockey or baseball games in this city.
These Argonaut fans are fans of the team, the game and the league. You watch Pinball Clemons lift a team and then the franchise upon his shoulders and extend that force outside the game and into the city. You see players going into the community and making a difference in schools and non-profit organizations.
Then it happens. The Eskimos announce they’ve traded Ricky Ray to Toronto. You discover that Ray to Owens is one of the most dynamic combinations the CFL has seen in years. You volunteer for the 2012 100th Grey Cup and have a blast meeting fans in the city.
At the last minute I got a ticket to the game and was exhilarated at how loud the stadium was. When the Argos scored first I was on my feet cheering and came to the realization that I was cheering not just against the Calgary Stampeders (Esks fans know) but for Toronto. Fourteen years after moving to Ontario I was cheering for a Toronto sports team. But only one, the Argos.
It proved to be more than just the moment. In 2013 my wife (the girl) and I went to Hamilton to see Edmonton play the Ticats in their last match-up in old Ivor Wynne stadium. We both wore neutral colours rather than green and gold. In 2014 a friend and I went to the Labour Day game in the Hammer for their first game in their new stadium against the Argos. I wore double blue.
Nowadays, I don’t have a pennant, but my ticket from the Argos Grey Cup win hangs on my office wall. I’ve bought my end zone tickets for the games I can attend in 2015. And while I’ll always be a bit of an Edmonton fan, when Toronto opens their season in Fort McMurray, Alberta against the Eskimos, I’ll be wearing double blue. |
Metabolic Syndromes
===================
The 'Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity in Breast Cancer' educational session moderated by Carlos Arteaga opened with Douglas Yee who discussed the various metabolic pathways involved in breast cancer progression and the potential to target key components of these pathways for treatment. Obesity and insulin resistance are linked. Elevated levels of insulin and insulin like growth factors (IGFs) increase breast cancer risk and poor outcome in patients. This has led to the development of therapies that target the IGF receptor for breast cancer. In contrast to receptor targeting strategies, the inhibition of downstream signaling pathways such as mTORC1 have been successful in HR-positive breast cancer.
In the same session, Dr Mantzoros discussed recent insights into the role of adiponectin in breast cancer especially the potential link between adiponectin and breast carcinoma. Adiponectin, an adipocyte-secreted hormone, is inversely associated with insulin resistance and is considered to be one of the key factors in the connection between obesity and breast cancer.
Pamela Goodwin discussed the potential use of metformin to improve breast cancer outcomes. Obesity is associated with increased risk of breast cancer in premenopausal triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and postmenopausal mainly oestrogen receptor positive (ER+). Metformin, commonly used to treat type-2 diabetes, has been associated with lower breast cancer risk and improved outcomes in observational studies. Dr Goodwin hypothesised that the mode of action may be either indirect i.e. by lowering circulating insulin leading to reduced insulin receptor-mediated activation of PI3K and RAS pathways or more directly via an effect on mitochondria leading to mTOR inhibition.
The large international phase Ill trial (NCIC MA.32) was set up to examine the impact of metformin in early breast cancer survivors. Subjects were randomly assigned to metformin or a placebo for five years. Baseline weight and metabolic measurements were taken and the majority of subjects were overweight or obese in both arms. Changes in weight, body mass index (BMI), and blood variables were measured at six monthly intervals. Metformin was found to have a beneficial effect on weight, BMI, and metabolic variables in the study group. They also demonstrated an improvement in several metabolic factors associated with insulin resistance in the patients enrolled in the trial. The beneficial effects were regardless of initial weight or degree of insulin resistance.
Advanced Breast Cancer
======================
The Management of Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) educational session opened with Fatima Cardoso discussing the International Consensus Guidelines for the treatment of ABC. The ABC guidelines, developed by ESO and ESMO and endorsed by ASCO are as follows (Annals of Oncology 00: 1--18, 2014 doi:10.1093/annonc/mdu385 - ESO-ESMO 2nd international consensus guidelines for advanced breast cancer (ABC2)† F Cardoso *et al*):
- All ABC patients should be offered comprehensive, culturally sensitive, up-to-date easy to understand information about their disease and its management.
- Specialised oncology nurses (if possible specialised breast nurses) should be part of the multidisciplinary team managing ABC patients.
- Validated instruments should be considered for patients to report the symptoms of disease and side-effects of treatment they experience as a regular part of their clinical care. These patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments should be simple and user-friendly to facilitate their use in clinical practice. This systematic monitoring will help in the communication between patient and doctor, allow better quality of life (QOL), and may better characterise the toxicities of all anticancer therapies.
- The age of the patient should not be the sole reason to withhold effective therapy (in elderly patients) nor to overtreat (in young patients). Age alone should not determine the type and intensity of treatment.
- Treatment decision should take into account both HR and HER-2 status and also previous therapy.
The European parliament this year made a declaration that all ABC patients should be treated in specialised centres. Dr. Cardoso also emphasised the importance of tumour registries so that the exact number of individuals with ABC can be better calculated worldwide. An update of these guidelines will be presented at the ABC4 meeting in Lisbon in 2017.
Dr. Dickler discussed **'**Longitudinal strategies in ER+ disease'. Endocrine therapy is a well-tolerated treatment for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer and is offered as first-line treatment to patients with no evidence of clinically significant disease. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs), tamoxifen, and fulvestrant all target the oestrogen receptor and provide effective therapy with a durable response. The decision to offer chemotherapy or endocrine therapy should depend on disease burden, biological subtype (e.g. HER-2 status), menopausal status, and prior endocrine therapy.
The sequential use of anti-ER therapy with or without chemotherapy or targeted therapies has been tested in various ongoing trials. Within HR+ breast cancer, there is molecular diversity that can influence responsiveness to endocrine therapy. In addition, recent insight into the complex interactions between the oestrogen receptor and cell cycle survival and/or growth factor signaling pathways have uncovered potential mechanisms of endocrine therapy resistance in HR+ breast cancer leading to new treatment options. These include the cell cycle inhibitor palbociclib and the combination of an mTOR inhibitor, everolimus. These targeted agents appear to increase progression-free survival (PFS) when added to endocrine therapy, although overall survival (OS) benefits are still unclear. Biomarkers will be essential to understand which patients will benefit from which sequence/combination.
In advanced breast cancer, there still remains controversies and variations in practice for many of the chemotherapeutic agents used. In the presentation 'Tailoring chemotherapy' Dr Ring stressed the importance of considering all factors when deciding between combinations or sequential single agent chemotherapy. The duration of therapy and the biology of the tumour should be taken into account. He concluded that in general sequential monotherapy is preferred except for patients in which response is required because of aggressive disease. In general longer courses of chemotherapy are superior, however the problem is toxicity. Chemotherapy duration should take into account:
- Patient's wishes
- Response to initial therapy
- Residual disease
- HER-2 status
- ER status
- Patient tolerance
Chemotherapy choice should depend on the biology of the disease and emerging data will be important for these decisions.
The final presentation of this session 'Regimens in HER-2+ disease' was presented by Dr Hurvitz. HER-2-targeted therapy has substantially improved the natural history of HER-2-positive metastatic breast. The current HER-2-targeted therapies, trastuzumab, lapatinib, pertuzumab, and trastuzumab-emtansine (TDM1) have improved the survival rates but in most cases the disease will progress even with these targeted therapies.
The phase III CLEOPATRA study showed a significant 15.7-month increase in median OS over 50 months of follow-up with the addition of pertuzumab to the trastuzumab and docetaxel arm in the first-line treatment of women with HER-2 metastatic breast cancer. There was also a significant improvement in the progression-free survival (PFS) with the pertuzumab-containing regimen. The (Advanced Breast Cancer 3) (ABC3) consensus states trastuzumab with pertuzumab and a taxane is the preferred therapy at the moment.
The phase III EMILIA study evaluated T-DM1 in patients with HER-2-positive metastatic breast cancer who had previously received Herceptin and a taxane-based chemotherapy. This study provided convincing evidence that TDM-1 is efficacious in refractory metastatic breast cancer and provides clinicians with an effective new treatment in this setting. Recent studies have focused on the use of T-DM1 in combination with additional therapies as well as the use of T-DM1 in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant setting (<http://www.oncolink.org/conferences/article.cfm?id=6727>).
The results from the phase III [TH3RESA trial](https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01419197) ([Figure 1](#figure1){ref-type="fig"}), which was designed to study TDM1 in a more advanced setting, demonstrated that T-DM1 improved OS for heavily pretreated patients with HER-2-positive breast cancer.
All the patients enrolled in TH3RESA had been previously treated with a chemotherapy regimen that included a taxane and at least two HER-2-targeted agents; trastuzumab and lapatinib. Median survival was significantly longer in patients receiving T-DM1 (22.7 months) compared to patients treated according to the physician's choice (15.8 months). The benefit was regardless of age, hormone-receptor status, visceral involvement, and number of prior treatment regimens. T-DM1 now represents a good treatment option even for patients who have already received two or more HER-2-targeted treatment regimens and are in progression.
'Previously results from TH3RESA showed that T-DM1 progression-free survival was nearly doubled', commented Hans Wildiers at the press conference. 'The latest results indicate that T-DM1 also increases overall survival in heavily pretreated patients. This is significant as many breast cancer therapies increase progression-free survival but not overall survival', continued Wildiers.
The first results from the phase III BELLE-2 trial were presented. Activation of the PI3K pathway can promote resistant to endocrine therapies. The concept behind the BELLE-2 was to see if the addition of the PI3K inhibitor (buparlisib) tofulvestrant in patients who no longer respond to AIs could improve outcome. Following 14 days of fulvestrant, patients were randomised to either buparlisib or placebo. In addition blood samples were taken at the start of the trail to analyse for the presence of PIK3CA mutations. The whole study population benefited from the buparlisib--fulvestrant combination; PFS of 6.9 months in the arm buparlisib plus fulvestrant compared to 3.2 in the fulvestrant alone arm. Further patients with the mutant PIK3CA also had better buparlisib plus fulvestrant when compared with those who received fulvestrant but only slightly better (seven months) than the whole population. 'This is the first time that inhibiting the PI3K pathway may be a viable option for patients with endocrine therapy-resistant breast cancer,' said José Baselga, the lead researcher on this study.
Mutations in the oestrogen receptor are more common in patients with advanced, ER+ breast cancer and they result in the cells becoming independent of oestrogen for growth and no longer respond to tamoxifen and AIs. The group of Chandarlapaty wanted to ask the question 'Are mutations in the oestrogen receptor common in patients with advanced breast cancer'? And do they have an effect on outcomes? By evaluating blood samples from 541 of the 724 patients enrolled in BOLERO-2 they detected the D538G ESR1 mutation in samples from 83 patients, the Y537S ESR1 mutation in samples from 42 patients, and both mutations in samples from 30 patients. Those patients who had a D538G and/or a Y537S mutation had significantly worse median OS. It is not clear if the AI could be responsible for these mutations. Further, the data from the Bolero trial indicated that wild-type and patients with D538G mutation derived a benefit from the addition of everolimus, whereas those with Y537S mutation did not. These results require further validation. The potential to use these mutations as potential markers for healthy women who may be at risk of developing breast cancer is still an open question.
Early Breast Cancer
===================
The first trial examining adjuvant denosumab (Xgeva, Amgen) as a treatment for breast cancer was presented by Michael Gnant, MD, from the Medical University of Vienna in Austria. The phase 3 ABCSG-18 clinical trial ([Figure 2](#figure2){ref-type="fig"}) compares denosumab with placebo in combination with adjuvant AI therapy in 3000-plus postmenopausal women with early-stage hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer.
Denosumab is approved as a treatment to increase bone mass in breast cancer patients receiving endocrine therapy who are at high risk for fracture. Adjuvant denosumab increased DFS in AI-treated postmenopausal women with early HR+ breast cancer \[Hazard ratio (ITT): 0.82 (95% CI (confidence interval): 0.66--1.00; P = .0515); Hazard ratio (sensitivity analysis): 0.81 (95% CI: 0.66--0.99; P = .0424)\]. Denosumab was safely administered ([Figure 3](#figure3){ref-type="fig"}). No differences in adverse events (AEs), serious AEs with denosumab versus placebo was seen. No patient experienced necrosis of the jaw, or atypical fracture. Based on increased disease-free survival (DFS), safety profile, and reduction in fractures, the authors conclude that denosumab should be made available to postmenopausal patients with HR+ breast cancer on AIs.
Dr Gnant explained that there is already evidence that bisphosphonates, another type of bone-building agent, are an effective adjuvant treatment. They produce a reduction in the recurrence rate of about 30% in postmenopausal women with early-stage disease. If the data on denosumab, which is the first-in-class RANKL inhibitor, are positive, 'it's going to be hard to deny use of one of the two strategies in patients', he said. 'So what's the mechanism of action'? Dr Gnant speculated that 'Silencing the bone marrow micro-environment may reduce the chance of dormant cancer cells of waking up'.
Patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy are potentially chemoresistant, but there have been no large-scale clinical trials to test whether adjuvant systemic chemotherapy could benefit these patients. Data from the Create-X trial, presented by Dr Toi, found that capecitabine improved outcomes for breast cancer patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. After two years of follow-up, DFS was significantly improved by the addition of capecitabine in the adjuvant setting. OS was improved in patients with triple negative residual and node positive disease following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients who were assigned capecitabine had a 30% reduced risk of disease recurrence compared with those assigned no capecitabine.
In the chemopreventive setting, Dr Cuzick presented the ten year follow-up of the IBIS-II DCIS clinical trial ([Figure 4](#figure4){ref-type="fig"}), on behalf of the IBIS working party. This study, which followed on from the ATAC trial (Arimidex, tamoxifen, alone or combination) looked at disease recurrence in postmenopausal women with ductal carcinoma *in situ* (DCIS) treated with either tamoxifen or the AI anastrozole. In this multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, 2980 postmenopausal women with locally excised hormone receptor-positive DCIS were enrolled; 1471 were randomly assigned 1mg/day anastrozole, and 1509 were randomly assigned 20 mg/day tamoxifen.
Reprinted with kind permission from Jack Cuzick
-----------------------------------------------
In this trial, it was found that the women in both the anastrozole and tamoxifen groups had similar overall efficacy, with slightly better outcomes for those who took anastrozole. However, the side-effects were dramatically different. More strokes and fractures were seen in the anastrozole arm, but these women tended to have less endometrial, ovarian, and skin cancers compared with those who took tamoxifen; tamoxifen is known to cause gynaecological cancers. However, among those receiving tamoxifen had more thromboembolic events and gynaecological complications.
So in summary postmenopausal women with DCIS had similar outcomes with tamoxifen or the AI anastrozole. The clinician's choice should take into account the patient background and comorbidities when deciding between the two options.
Following on from this, Dr Patricia Ganz presented the results of a very similar trial (NSABP B-35 trial) but she focused on PRO. This trial compared anastrazole to tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with DCIS.
Just over 3000 postmenopausal women were enrolled and the primary endpoint indicated that anastrozole was slightly but significantly better than tamoxifen in terms of breast cancer-free interval, and was more beneficial in younger women.
The quality of life (QOL) study, which was embedded in this study (1193 patients), looking at symptoms such as hot flashes, vaginal dryness, muscle and joint aches indicated no differences in QOL outcomes.
The results from these two studies were published simultaneously in *Lancet* (December 10th).
There is mounting evidence that breast conserving therapy (BCT) is as good as if not better than mastectomy for patients with early breast cancer. Data was collected from a study which compared the ten-year OS and DFS after BCT plus radiation therapy with mastectomy (without radiation therapy) in women with early stage breast cancer. By analysing data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (37,207 women with early breast cancer between 2000 and 2004 to estimate ten-year OS, and 7552 patients with similar characteristics diagnosed in 2003 to estimate ten-year DFS). Dr Siesling showed that patients who received BCT had a ten-year OS of 76.8% compared to 59.7% for mastectomy. The ten-year DFS was 83.6% versus 81.5% for the two groups respectively. 'We think that radiation therapy may have played an important role in the difference in the outcomes from both treatments, although we cannot prove it with our data', Siesling said. 'We suggest that BCT should be the treatment of choice, especially in T1N0 stage breast cancer when it is medically feasible and according to the patient's wish', she added. These results will be important in the shared decision-making process and improve the quality of breast cancer care.
In the early breast cancer setting, the Multidisciplinary Approach to Novel Therapies in Cardiology Oncology Research (MANTICORE) trial should be also mentioned. This is a study for patients with HER-2-positve early-stage breast cancer. It is the first randomised controlled study to evaluate the use of antihypertensive agents for the prevention of cardiac damage associated with trastuzumab treatment. The MANTICORE researchers assessed whether one year of treatment with the ACE inhibitor perindopril or the beta-blocker bisoprolol can prevent the left ventricular remodelling (measured with MRI) associated with one year of trastuzumab therapy.
In this trial, 99 patients received either the drug perindopril, or the drug bisoprolol, or a placebo. Bisoprolol belongs to a class of drugs called beta-blockers. Perindopril is a type of drug known as a angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor.
The study found that women taking either perindopril or bisoprolol had fewer signs of heart weakening than the women in the placebo group. Heart protection effects were also found in the group of women taking perindopril. (Reference: Pituskin E, Mackey JR, Koshman S, *et al*). Prophylactic beta blockade preserves left ventricular ejection fraction in HER-2-overexpresssing breast cancer patients receiving trastuzumab: Primary results of the MANTICORE randomised controlled trial. Presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 9--12 December 2015; San Antonio, TX).
Samuel Aparicio gave the plenary lecture entitled Clonal Dynamics and Breast Cancer subtypes**.** Breast cancers exhibit interpatient and intratumoural genomic variability which underpins our understanding of intrinsic drivers of the disease. Patterns of genomic heterogeneity will be important for treatment decisions and may also prove to be prognostic. Next generation sequencing has redefined the landscape of primary breast cancer subtypes into many molecularly defined subgroups and now the identification of driver mutations in primary cancers will be important. To date at least ten primary breast cancer subtypes exist. In breast cancer 40 mutational drivers have been identified. These mutations segregate by tumour histological subtype i.e. ER+, TNBC, etc.
Apart from interpatient breast cancer heterogeneity it is accepted that most tumours are made up of dynamic clones that evolve with the progression of the disease. The evolution of the clonal composition has particular significance for cancer medicine. Over the last five years next generation sequencing of tumours and methods for single cell analysis have opened up this approach for solid epithelial malignancies.
Dr Samuel Aparicio posed the question 'How much clonal variation is there in TNBC'. His team found a wide variation in clonal common myeloid progenitor (CMP) between TNBC of the same stage. One important factor that influences the clonal complexity of the tumour was derived from engraftment experiments. Engraftments were influenced by the site of transplant, indicating that the stroma influences the propagation of the engrafted clone. So in summary clonal dyanamics of tumours can be measured in model systems. Primary breast cancers exhibit a wide variety of clonal structure at diagnosis. Some aspects of clonal complexity can be captured in the model systems.
The presence of tumour infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in invasive breast carcinoma especially in the TNBC and HER-2+ subtypes is associated with a better prognosis. So far, TILs have not been investigated in invasive lobular breast cancer (ILBC). The group of Dr Desmedt therefore decided to assess the distribution of stromal TILs in ILBC and to try to correlate their presence as pathological markers. They also want to investigate if there is a link with recurrent genomic alterations.
By analysing over 600 ILBC tumours, they found that in general most tumours have low numbers of TILs. However they found that higher numbers of TILs were significantly associated with ER-, high proliferative tumours, younger age at diagnosis, and axillary lymph node involvement.
Also as they had the genomic data on these tumours, they could look at the mutations. With this they found that greater numbers of TILs were observed in tumours harbouring ARID1A, BRCA2, KMT2C, and TP53 mutations, as well as chr3p21.31 and chr8q24.23 (PTK2) loss. Surprisingly, tumours with greater numbers of TILs were associated with worst prognosis variables at the univariate analysis.
It is now evident that genetic intratumour heterogeneity exists in many tumours. This heterogeneity may arise because of selective pressures, the most important of these being chemotherapy. This year Anne-LiseBørresen-Dalegave in the 8th AACR Distinguished Lectureship, said her laboratory uses a systems biology approach to study breast cancer using high-dimensional data in integrated approaches. She discussed data indicating that intratumour heterogeneity in breast cancer arises in response to neoadjuvant therapy. This heterogeneity probably plays an important role in developing resistance to chemotherapy and stratification is important to better understand breast cancer.
Data from the phase III DBCG77B clinical trial, presented this year demonstrated that premenopausal women with the luminal A subtype of breast cancer had comparable ten-year DFS rates regardless of whether or not they received adjuvant chemotherapy. Luminal A is a relatively common subtype of breast cancer, with high expression of the oestrogen (ER) and progesterone receptors (PR), and low Ki67 index and low HER-2. Between 1977 and 1983, 1146 premenopausal women who had lymph node-positive invasive breast cancer that was larger than 5 cm were randomised to two chemotherapy arms and two no-chemotherapy arms. After analysing tissue samples for the presence of ER, PR, HER-2, and Ki67, Dr Nielsen and colleagues identified 165 which were luminal A subtype. Within this group there was no difference in ten-year invasive DFS rates between women with luminal A disease who did and did not receive chemotherapy.
The importance of residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy was a topic of various presentations this year at SABCS. Results from the randomised phase II CALGB/Alliance 40603 clinical trial indicated that patients with cancer TNBC who had a pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a better OS compared with those who had residual invasive disease at surgery.
Circulating tumour cells (CTCs) are of prognostic relevance in early as well as metastatic breast cancer. Persisting CTCs immediately after chemotherapy are known to indicate poor prognosis but there is lack of data on the prognostic role of CTCs in long-term follow-up. Hence the prognostic value of CTCs two years after chemotherapy was analysed. Results from the adjuvant SUCCESS A trial, presented by Dr Janni, indicated that persistence of circulating tumour cells, two years after adjuvant therapy was associated with poor prognosis. Patients with persistent CTCs during long-term follow-up may serve as surveillance marker and should receive further therapy.
Several recent studies have implicated increased levels of the enzyme APOBEC3B in oestrogen receptor--positive breast cancer with poor patient outcomes. Dr Rueben Harris wanted to understand if APOBEC3B actually drives these poor outcomes. To do this in pre-clinical studies they transplanted mice with either cell lines expressing high levels of APOBEC3B or cells in which the levels of APOBEC3B had been reduced by a shRNA. After treating the mice with tamoxifen the mice with high levels of APOBEC3B developed tamoxifen resistance significantly more rapidly than those with the reduced levels. In collaboration with the group of Drs Martens and Span in the Netherlands, they analysed APOBEC3B levels in tumours samples from patients with recurrent ER+ breast cancer. They found that patients with high levels of APOBEC3B progressed significantly sooner after starting tamoxifen therapy than those with low levels of APOBEC3B. So in summary, increased levels of APOBEC3B can significantly reduce tamoxifen responses, suggesting that APOBEC3B drives resistance to tamoxifen. Harris explained that 'APOBEC3B is an enzyme that causes genetic mutations' suggesting that it is these mutations that probably drive tamoxifen resistance.
Cyclin-dependent kianses (CDKs) have been known to be critical regulators of cell cycle progression and mutations in these genes have been implicated in cancer. In breast cancer, they have been associated with various molecular subtypes, prognosis, and response to therapy. The concept of blocking CDKs has been around for some time but they have only recently seen clinical success. The first generation CDCK inhibitors were not targeted molecules but pan inhibitors with significant toxicity. Now more specific molecular targeted agents exist. However it is important to identify which patient populations are most likely to benefit.
Palbociclib (PD-0332991, Pfizer) is a first-in-class CDK 4/6 specific inhibitor. Dr Finn explained that pre-clinical studies identified that ER+ breast cancer models were most sensitive to growth inhibition with palbociclib and identified a synergistic interaction in inhibiting proliferation in combination with tamoxifen \[[@ref1]\]. Sensitive ER+ breast cancer cell lines treated with the combination went into senescence. These data served as a hypothesis for the phase II Paloma-1/ TRIO 18 study of palbociclib +letrozole versus letrozole alone \[[@ref2]\]. A significant improvement in PFS was observed with the combination and resulted in the approval of palbociclib plus letrozole as first line therapy for advanced postmenopausal ER+ breast cancer. In more advanced settings a benefit was seen in combination with fulvestrant \[[@ref3]\]. Currently there are several other CDK 4/6 inhibitors in development in breast cancer and other malignancies including abemaciclib (LY2835219, EliLilly) and ribociclib (LEE011, Novartis).
Immunotherapy in Breast Cancer
==============================
At this years SABCS meeting, there were a significant number of presentations and posters on this subject indicating that this is a hotly emerging line of research.
Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are recruited into tumours in an attempt to control its growth and there is evidence that there is a positive association between the amount of TILs present at diagnosis and outcome in various cancers. A pooled analysis of studies that investigated the presence of TILs in TNBC patients treated with chemotherapy was presented by Dr Loi. Data from 991 TNBC patients included in six randomised clinical trials indicated a strong prognostic role of TILs in TNBC. He summarised that patients with TNBC are potential candidates for immunotherapy clinical trials.
Immunotherapy using antibodies targeting the cytotoxic T-lymphotcytes associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) or PD-1 pathways have demonstrated a clear clinical efficacy in a few cancers. The PD-1 receptor and its ligand PD-L1 are key therapeutic targets in the reactivation of the immune response against cancer**.** Avelumab an anti-PD-L1 antibody was tested in a cohort of patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer refractory to or progressing after standard-of-care therapy. The main investigator, Dr Dirix, explained that despite an acceptable safety profile the agent demonstrated only modest activity in these patients. In a subgroup of patients, those with TNBC, the presence of PD-L1 expressing immune cells may be a sign of a better clinical response to Avelumab. Immunotherapy is a promising tool for breast cancer clinicians and over the next few years there will be a surge in the amount of these trials.
Precision Medicine in Breast Cancer
===================================
A mini symposium addressing the use of genome sequencing to identify driver mutations in breast cancer was held on the final day of this year's conference. Between 10--20 molecular alterations are being investigated in the context of biomarker-driven therapeutic trials, including PIK3CA, AKT1, ERBB2, PTEN, BRCA1/2, ESR1 mutations. However it is important to identify which of the mutations are actually drivers. As noted earlier, it appears that there are mutations in the PIK3CA gene that are associated with lower sensitivity HER-2 inhibition in the neoadjuvant setting. The second challenge will be to generate genomic tests that predict the sensitivity of therapies that target pathways, like mTOR or CDK4 inhibitors. In this context gene expression will be useful in quantifying pathway activation. The third challenge will be to predict much earlier resistance to targeted therapies. The development of liquid biopsies (circulating DNA)will become more and more important for early diagnosis of resistance. In the future, it will be valuable to biopsy also the solid tissue as protein identification will become important. Finally, one of the major challenges will be to integrate immune-therapeutics into precision medicine.
{#figure1}
{#figure2}
{#figure3}
{#figure4}
|
Welcome to our Dairy-Free life!
Menu
Tag Archives: vegetarian
Post navigation
First let us start with mashed potatoes. I have missed them. The creaminess from the butter and the milk. Mmm. Almond milk really can’t do this very well. I’ve tried and it just doesn’t cut it for me. This time I went a little crazy and it was delicious! I used red potatoes and boiled them with a sprig of rosemary and oregano and lots of salt. I then sautéed an onion with some more rosemary and oregano and salt and added it to the potatoes with a little almond milk and some “butter”. I was in heaven! G was in heaven too. Out of all of my kids he is my potato lover. S doesn’t mind them and B could probably never have another and not care. Both of them LOVE sweet potatoes though. This will definitely be on the menu for G and I more often!!
As for the meal planning. Ughh. I plan my meals out every 2 weeks. I try and think up breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks. I use to love meal planning and than cheese and cream was removed from my life and now I dread it just a little. Part of me realizes how much of those two items we ate and I’m a little appalled. It was definitely not in moderation! In moving to the dairy/soy free diet, we have also moved to a cleaner eating diet. Soy is in almost every processed food item we use to buy. It is crazy to me what all soy can be found it. Everything from bread to vegetable oil to crackers to soup has soy in some form in it. We are now so much better at actually looking at the ingredients of what we eat instead of just the name. However, because of that and our food budget, I now dread sitting down and figuring out what to eat. I posted on Facebook this time around and got some great ideas from friends that I am going to try out this 2 weeks. I would also like to say that without Pinterest out food life would be spaghetti, tacos and bbq chicken. I’m going to try some new stuff and we will see how it goes. Stay tuned for either some positive or not so positive reviews from my food critics who give it straight every time!
Rosemary and Oregano Dairy free Mashed Potatoes
8 red potatoes
3 sprigs fresh rosemary
3 sprigs fresh oregano
2 garlic cloves
almond milk
1 tablespoon butter (I use Earth Balance dairy/soy free spread)
salt
Directions:
Fill pot with water and salt generously. Bring to boil. Add potatoes (peeled and cubed) to water with 1 sprig each of rosemary and oregano. When potatoes are done strain and keep herbs aside. Dice onion into small pieces and chop rosemary and oregano (including ones from pot) finely. Mince garlic. Add onion, herbs and garlic to heated pan with olive oil. Sautee until soft. Add to potatoes with almond milk (add small amounts until you get the consistency you desire) and butter. Mash well and serve! |
Wild Blue Internet Service Reviews
Do not use WildBlue for an internet provider, the service is horrible, starting with the installation process. The installers were smoking on my roof, of all all places and did not ground the wires, instances that could have BURNED my house down.
Furthermore, they do not disclose during the sale of their crappy service, that you can only use the internet for a certain amount of time per month. After that, they slow your speeds down to less than that of a dial-up service, but you will still be charged the ridiculously high monthly bill for service which you are not receiving. The customer service reps are completely rude and do not even attempt to be helpful.
Ad
Furthermore, they did not disclose I would be committed to a 2 YEAR contract and that if I end the service (which I don't even have) that I will have to pay a termination fee! I am in the process of contacting my state Attorney General concerning their unfair business practices and hope to get them banned in Kentucky. It's a total scam.
Beware of WILDBLUE internet service.
Worst provider! The installers smoked on my roof, and didn't ground the wires, they could have easily burned our home down with this carelessness. WE have to pay $100 a month for internet that we can use as long as the wind isn't blowing, no rain, fog or snow. Furthermore, theydo not disclose during the sale for that $100 monthly, that you will not have unlimited service, when you reach your maximum time allowed, they slow it down to that less than dial-up, and you are still required to pay. I contacted them today about getting rid of this completely undependable service and the rude representative informed me I would have to pay an Early Termination Fee for a service I can't even use. I am in the process of contacting the KY Attorney General for their unfair business practices. Please find another provider if you value your home and freedom to surf the net!
It is 11/20/2009. Run from WildBlue. Any other option is better, including dial-up..which has far, far better latency times than WB. Dealing with this company has been one of the worst experiences in my life. Less than 2 weeks after we got it we violated our usage limit and we were slowed to 7kbps for almost a month. At that speed most web pages won't load. Look on the Internet carefully and you'll see that there are people who have had an absolutely horrible experience with this company. They are the only established company(in Englewood, CO) that doesn't have a phone number. They have 1 telephone line and if you complain too much, their system recognizes your phone number and they won't talk to you. Read all of this on the Net, go to Ripoff Reports.
Go to the National Better Business Bureau and you'll see that they lost their accreditation, went through a major headache getting it back, and since then they're strictly monitored. In fact, the BBB is the only thing that hurts them. If you want to hurt this unfair company complain to the BBB either in Colorado or nationwide. The BBB is carefull monitoring all complaints...and you should see how a mention of the BBB strikes terror into the employees.
WB is definitely one of the worst experiences I've had in my 50 years. Don't take my word for it. The people who have bad to say about this company far, far outnumber the people who say good about it. They actually went into my bank account and withdrew 502.00 without my say at a time when all our monthly bills came due. I immediately called my brother-in-law who's an attorney. He got it back for us after about 2 weeks, but said he had to tell them it was for an invalid who was handicapped.
Also, one of their installers told me that one of their policies is to charge all kinds of hidden charges so that they can pay for the dish over time (in case you haven't bought it). There is so much more that they've done to us and others that I don't have the energy to write. Just one more thing, if you have to go with satellite, go with HughesNet instead. They've got 15 satellites in the sky compare to WB who has 2. I personally wouldn't touch satellite again after my experience with WB, but there's far worse written about WB than HugesNet. Also as of 11/20/09 my average ping with WB is 3115ms, and I've got their fastest package at 86.00 per month. Thank God, DSL just came to town!
I too got screwed by wild blue and their obnoxious customer service reps. After terminating service with them (for obvious reasons) in april, they are still sending me bills. You can imagine my anger and frustration when i called them this evening and asked for a supervisor and was told (while tiffany, if that's her real name, laughed out loud) no supervision was available. I tried to access my account to remove my bank account info with no avail. My hands are tied while wild blue bends me over and screws me yet again. I will be calling them everyday, several times a day until this fiasco is cleared up, i.E. My money returned and am given a sincere apology. Do not deal with wild blue. Ever!
What happened, lets see. First off the installer had no idea what he was doing. He wanted to borrow tape from me so he could tape the wires (SAT TV/internet installation) around the walls of my bed room and I had to show him how to run wire under the carpet. Next he stuck the outside wires into crevasses of my home that later fell down all over the place.
Finally he was through and things worked fine for a few months. then I got a letter saying I had exceeded the bandwidth and my speed would be slowed down because of it. Since I am the only user and wasn't on the system that often I didn't worry about it but noticed that while they turn it down quickly they don't turn it back up "ever". Now, again I receive a notice saying that I have exceeded the bandwidth. I hadn't and this time complained, received a note saying they made a mistake and not to worry about it. the following week I received another note saying that since I had exceeded the bandwidth they had cut my speed again. Since they had never increased the speed after cutting it the first time I have a hard time seeing what they have done now, can speeds become negative.
Anyway, stay away from these people. they are crooks, liars and customer abusers and from this point I will spread the word to all. These are not the people you want to entrust anything to. By the way, "if" you can get through to their support, "if" you can understand them, they will probably tell you to not hold the phone as close to your nose and then hang up on you like they did my wife. Like I said, rude, customer abusers.
They will cheat and lie to get you money. The installation guy was so unprofessional: cursing and yelling at his wife on the phone, took the whole day. The service was as slow as dial-up except there were many outages. Getting someone on the phone to help? Almost impossible! You get put on hold for hours, then find out it's after hours so no one is available.
When I cancelled the contract, I had to pay a $150 fee to remove the equipment. He left big gaping holes on the facade of my architect designed house, cost me $1,300 to fix the damage.Now I am getting charged $300 because their service rep did not send it back (although he removed it and took it back).
One headache after the next. I, too, am reporting to the better business bureau and taking legal action. Hard to believe these crooks haven't yet been shut down!
I had Wild Blue about two years ago and at first it was fine. Then, out of the blue, pardon the pun, I exceeded my bandwidth. All work and studies online came to a screeching halt.
So, I called them up and asked them how I would go about upgrading my account to a business account. They told me to speak with one of their affiliate partners, so I did and had it all set up to continue to use them under their affiliate partner for access to a business upgrade.
The day came for the upgrade and WildBlue turned their own affiliate partner down, because I was a WildBlue AT&T customer.
What in the heck I said! I had purchased my equipment for $540 and was seven months into a two year contract when this occurred.
They informed me I would be charged this fee if I left them and I told them, that HughesNet was in my back yard installing as we spoke, their equipment had been moved to the attic and they could stick the bill where the sun don't shine.
Someone from AT&T called and asked why I left WildBlue and I repeated this very story. I have never heard from them again, they are not on my credit report and I have never received another bill.
All I wanted was a darn business upgrade and they had me do the leg work and then turned me down. I had cash in hand.
No ones perfect, but I am one of those who lives out in the rural woods and has only two choices and I have never had a problem with HughesNet so far.
I had several issues with Wildblue/Exede but after I spoke with their supervisors directly I was given back the 300 for equipment and 250 for other charges immediately.
I spoke with 3 different supervisors (Jason Webb, Immanuel Perry, and Mundy Horton) on one phone call, and the first two didn't know how to help but Mundy was able to. They were all surprised I had their direct supervisor contact, but after I persisted and let them know that I knew they were supervisors at Transcom (handle Wildblue cust svc) they helped me.
This took me 3 months to get to the bottom of this customer service smoke screen, but that's the reason Wildblue isn't very helpful when you call them...it's not Wildblue on the phone. If you had the same issues I had with bad charges call Mundy Horton @ (303)800-5912 or email mundy.horton AT transcom.com
I am not a Wild Blue subscriber or affiliated with them in any way. Actually, I am investigating alternatives to Verizon Wireless broadband. If you want to complain about something, try Verizon. 5GB per month (total) for $59.99 and $0.45 per MB overage. When I signed up you received no warning about how much you used and my 1st bill was $1600. Yes, that's right, $1600. I was able to negotiate down and complained enough about no notifications that they started sending emails at 50%, 75%, and 90% use. Since I live a good distance from the nearest tower I never get sustained download or upload speeds near their maximums. Right now I am using Carbonite and my uploads speeds are averaging <100kbps.
My neighbor has Wild Blue and has no complaints other than the cost and they have access to ComCast. I live so far off the road ComCast quoted $2000 to install the cable and the poles are already in place. Then I get to pay $42.95/mo. unless I get the triple play.
I used Wild Blue here in Clay County, Texas. The service is expensive for the speeds you get. It beats dialup but is frustrating with the outages due to rain and clouds and limited access to bandwidth. I cancelled as soon as my 12 month contract was up and went back to my wireless ISP after they installed a tower nearby. True wireless is much faster and reliable.
Absolute worst of the worst. I can't even check my e-mail most times because its so slow. I've installed their optimizer and other software they've suggested but to no avail. Can't wait till my contract is up.
I have not been happy with my Wild Blue/Hughes Net service. It is the only option we have in our rural setting. Although I pay over 80.00 per month, we are slowed to dial up speed when we reached 99% usage, that never gets us back to 65% download use. It's been 2 weeks, and we've never got below 68%. I plan to cancel and pay the price. Just not a good internet service.
I wish you luck with the attorney general's office. Their practices do sound ridiculous and predatory. If you have one in your area, I would recommend checking out Cox Communications. We have had broadband internet with them for over 6 years for $54.44 per month. It is very good service, and except for when the weather is bad, we rarely have a problem. You can also bundle other services, like home phone and cable, but we don't use either one of those. |
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-5.35898385e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-8.28427125e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-6.78908518e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-1.15470054e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-9.86290852e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-1.53465398e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-1.33635728e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-1.75395293e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-1.53465398e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-1.75395293e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-1.15470054e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-1.33635728e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
8.28427125e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
6.78908518e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
7.52746698e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
5.35898385e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.45096189e+00
2.00000000e+00
6.06693367e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.18301270e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-1.31086926e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-6.54732208e-02
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-2.63304995e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-1.96982807e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-3.97824735e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-3.30201336e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.04903811e+00
2.00000000e+00
-4.66334594e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.31698730e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.15470054e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
9.86290852e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.68301270e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.06902227e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
9.06188211e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.10566243e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
5.35898385e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.15470054e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
8.28427125e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-8.28427125e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-9.86290852e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-5.35898385e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-6.78908518e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.53465398e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.75395293e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.33635728e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.63304995e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
3.97824735e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.31086926e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.15470054e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.53465398e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.33635728e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.75395293e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-2.63304995e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-3.97824735e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-1.31086926e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.63304995e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.31086926e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.45096189e+00
2.00000000e+00
3.97824735e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.18301270e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.53465398e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.15470054e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
5.35898385e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
8.28427125e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.53465398e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.75395293e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.68301270e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.33635728e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.10566243e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-2.63304995e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-1.31086926e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.63304995e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.45096189e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
3.97824735e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.31086926e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.18301270e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-3.97824735e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.15126063e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-3.30201336e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-5.35898385e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-4.66334594e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.28291312e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-6.06693367e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.04903811e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-5.71130465e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-6.78908518e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-6.42611095e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.31698730e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-7.52746698e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-7.15611443e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-8.28427125e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
9.39339828e-01
2.00000000e+00
-7.90342216e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.35355339e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-1.15470054e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-1.53465398e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-5.35898385e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-8.28427125e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-2.63304995e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
5.35898385e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.63304995e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-1.15470054e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-1.53465398e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-1.33635728e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
5.00000000e-01
-1.75395293e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.50000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
8.28427125e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.45096189e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
6.78908518e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
9.86290852e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.18301270e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-9.86290852e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
-9.06188211e-01
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
8.16987298e-01
2.00000000e+00
-1.06902227e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.39433757e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.25000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
1.25000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
0.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
2.00000000e+00
|
August 21, 2019
Clinical Contributors to this Story Cathie Ann Mancuso, M.D. contributes to topics such as Internal Medicine. Opal Thakar, M.D. contributes to topics such as Blood Pressure, Cardiac / Heart Health, Diabetes. Sapna Rama, D.O. contributes to topics such as Internal Medicine.
A trend has swept across the country over the past few years: the use of electronic cigarettes, or “vaping.” Marketed as a healthier alternative to smoking cigarettes and with more than 7,000 flavors available, an increasing number of Americans—especially teens—are picking up the vaping habit. But is it really healthier than traditional smoking?
The short answer: No.
“While you may not be inhaling the tar associated with regular cigarettes, vaping introduces a new set of potentially damaging hazards,” says Sapna Rama, D.O., a board-certified internal medicine physician. “Certain ingredients in e-cigarettes can cause major damage to lung tissue. In addition to damaging lung tissue, e-cigarette devices have also been reported to cause burns, explosive injuries and chemical injuries.”
The U.S. Surgeon General agrees, listing several ingredients and additives that could be harmful to your body:
Ultrafine particles that you can inhale deep into your lungs
Flavorants, like diacetyl, which can contribute to severe lung issues
Heavy metals like tin, lead and nickel, which can cause poisoning
Nicotine, the extremely addictive main ingredient that is linked to heart disease
What Does the Research Say?
While research is still being conducted on the effects of using e-cigarettes, several studies have shown troubling results. One 2016 study published in the journal Thorax showed that mice who had extended exposure to electronic cigarette vapor developed symptoms similar to COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease).
Another recent study from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showed that mice exposed to e-cigarette vapor had damaged DNA in the lungs, heart and bladder, which can potentially lead to the development of a variety of cancers. Other side effects include nosebleeds, irritability or loss of flavor perception.
“There will be more research done in the future on the effects of e-cigarettes—but vaping is not healthier than smoking,” says Opal Thakar, M.D., a board-certified family medicine physician. “But in the meantime, we know already that smoking of any kind is detrimental to your health.”
How to Quit
Fortunately, there are safe ways to help you stop smoking both cigarettes and e-cigarettes. These include prescription nicotine inhalers or nasal sprays and over-the-counter options like nicotine patches, gum or lozenges. Because nicotine has its own deleterious effects, your doctor can help slowly reduce your intake until you are off nicotine for good. There are also non-nicotine medications that can be prescribed, like Zyban or Chantix.
Cathie-Ann Mancuso, M.D., a board-certified internal medicine physician, says to talk openly with your doctor to find the best options for you.
“Obviously, it would be ideal to stop using nicotine altogether, but stopping ‘cold turkey’ isn’t for everyone,” says Dr. Mancuso. “Rest assured that there are plenty of replacement aids and helpful resources available to you.”
Other effective techniques to try while quitting include:
Exercising or performing a physical activity every time you get an urge to smoke
Delaying your response to cravings. Tell yourself to wait 10 minutes and find an engaging activity to distract your brain.
Practicing yoga or meditation to help relax
Talking to professionals or attend group sessions with others who are quitting
Next Steps & Resources:
The material provided through HealthU is intended to be used as general information only and should not replace the advice of your physician. Always consult your physician for individual care. |
Q:
How to add an object to a generic list property of an instance of a class using reflection
I have a class structure below. I am getting this error. Am i missing something here?
Object does not match target type.
Class Structure
public class Schedule
{
public Schedule() { Name = ""; StartDate = DateTime.MinValue; LectureList = new List<Lecture>(); }
public string Name { get; set; }
public DateTime StartDate { get; set; }
public List<Lecture> LectureList { get; set; }
}
public class Lecture
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public int Credit { get; set; }
}
What i am trying:
Schedule s = new Schedule();
Type t = Type.GetType("Lecture");
object obj = Activator.CreateInstance(t);
obj.GetType().GetProperty("Name").SetValue(obj, "Math");
obj.GetType().GetProperty("Credit").SetValue(obj, 1);
PropertyInfo pi = s.GetType().GetProperty("LectureList");
Type ti = Type.GetType(pi.PropertyType.AssemblyQualifiedName);
ti.GetMethod("Add").Invoke(pi, new object[] { obj });
A:
It should be something like this:
// gets metadata of List<Lecture>.Add method
var addMethod = pi.PropertyType.GetMethod("Add");
// retrieves current LectureList value to call Add method
var lectureList = pi.GetValue(s);
// calls s.LectureList.Add(obj);
addMethod.Invoke(lectureList, new object[] { obj });
UPD. Here's the fiddle link.
|
Q:
Confirmation Box in C# wpf
I want to show confirmation Box in C# code. I've seen above solution for that but it shows me exception at 'Yes' as 'System.Nullable' does not contain definition for 'Yes'. How should I remove this error?
private void listBox1_MouseRightButtonDown(object sender, MouseButtonEventArgs e)
{
if (sender is ListBoxItem)
{
ListBoxItem item = (ListBoxItem)sender;
Harvest_TimeSheetEntry entryToDelete = (Harvest_TimeSheetEntry)item.DataContext;
DialogResult dialogResult = System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox.Show("Are you sure?", "Delete Confirmation", MessageBoxButtons.YesNo);
if (dialogResult == DialogResult.Yes) // error is here
{
Globals._globalController.harvestManager.deleteHarvestEntry(entryToDelete);
}
else
{
System.Windows.MessageBox.Show("Delete operation Terminated");
}
}
}
A:
Instead of using WinForm MessageBox, use the MessageBox provided by WPF and later use MessageBoxResult instead of DialogResult in WPF.
like:
MessageBoxResult messageBoxResult = System.Windows.MessageBox.Show("Are you sure?", "Delete Confirmation", System.Windows.MessageBoxButton.YesNo);
if (messageBoxResult == MessageBoxResult.Yes)
//...........
|
<?php
/**
* Test: HttpExtension.
*/
declare(strict_types=1);
use Nette\Bridges\HttpDI\HttpExtension;
use Nette\DI;
use Tester\Assert;
require __DIR__ . '/../bootstrap.php';
if (PHP_SAPI === 'cli') {
Tester\Environment::skip('Headers are not testable in CLI mode');
}
$compiler = new DI\Compiler;
$compiler->addExtension('http', new HttpExtension);
eval($compiler->compile());
$container = new Container;
$container->initialize();
$headers = headers_list();
Assert::contains('X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN', $headers);
Assert::contains('Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8', $headers);
Assert::contains('X-Powered-By: Nette Framework 3', $headers);
|
Winn-Dixie Minimizes Unsaleable Losses
The burden borne by retailers sourcing new products can be hefty given built-in marketing and product development costs and an average failure rate of 80%. But many supermarkets don't consider that unused inventories of items discontinued to make room for the new can also end up costing them big. If I know a retailer is going to take my shelf space, I have to work with them to ensure my product
PHOENIX — The burden borne by retailers sourcing new products can be hefty given built-in marketing and product development costs and an average failure rate of 80%.
But many supermarkets don't consider that unused inventories of items discontinued to make room for the new can also end up costing them big.
“If I know a retailer is going to take my shelf space, I have to work with them to ensure my product is off the shelf before that happens, because if it's not, game over. It's going to the reclamation center and you just paid 135% of the list price,” said Gene Schachte, senior manager of reverse logistics for Heinz North America, Pittsburgh.
The companies ensure new-product introductions are accompanied by an exit strategy to limit the number of discontinued items on shelf when the new product arrives.
A manufacturer-funded markdown program helps Winn-Dixie liquidate its on-shelf inventory. The retailer begins applying clearance shelf tags that indicate prices have been cut in half, four weeks before the new product is scheduled to hit shelves.
By selling off product this way, its manufacturer partner pays about 50% of the list price of discontinued items rather than the 100% or more that is sometimes charged when out-of-date items are sent to reclamation.
The markdowns have proven effective.
“Our discontinued items are almost nonexistent,” said Regina.
Under its model, Winn-Dixie isn't reimbursed for items that it sends to reclamation when discontinued products remain.
It helps minimize its losses by making the supplier of outgoing product aware of the change well in advance.
“You have to be able to communicate bad news; it's the only thing that works,” Schachte said.
Heinz stops shipping product to its retailer partners six to eight weeks in advance of the reset. While Winn-Dixie puts the brakes on shipments sent from its distribution centers to its stores, and arranges for products to be picked up by their manufacturer or donated, depending on the supplier's instructions.
Heinz has put financial penalties in place to ensure its retail partners hold their end of the bargain.
“If you don't execute this right, we reserve the right to hit your trade funds,” said Schachte.
Recently some steps in Heinz's exit strategy with a retailer were missed and what should've cost the manufacturer $10,000 ended up costing it well over $100,000, Schachte said.
Costs incurred by retailers can also add up, but many times they fly under the radar.
“The shift in [unsaleable] costs, for the most part, have moved to the retailer side, but most haven't reacted to address the issue,” noted Regina.
Compounding the problem are adjustable rate reimbursement policies based solely on damaged products, Regina said. But out-of-date unsaleables have also proven to be problematic due to the growth in the use of open code dating, an increased number of promotional products that don't meet expectations and demographic shifts.
“Today 50% of items returned to damage centers are not damaged but out of date, as compared to 17% seven years ago,” said Regina.
Many times retailers are left with a deficit.
“We're paying you an adjustable rate policy on your damages and it's [down] here, but you're actually [up] here, and here's the gap,” said Schachte. “Why? Because the adjustable rate policy was created with the purpose of handling damage.” |
Madam Saigon
On top of the diverse authentic Vietnamese menu such as Phở, Bún, rice paper roll as well as other traditional Southeast Asian cuisines, Madam Saigon integrates western ingredients, seasoning and decoration in Asian dishes. You can enjoy our contemporary Vietnamese cuisines together with our special Asian-style cocktails, discovering a delightful and unique Vietnamese dining experience at Madam Saigon. |
BOSTON -- Earlier this week, Danny Valencia was competing for a pennant in the American League Central, but now he's very much in the mix of the AL East.
Valencia officially joined the Blue Jays on Tuesday afternoon after being traded from the Royals the night before. Toronto acquired the corner infielder in exchange for catcher Erik Kratz and right-hander Liam Hendriks to provide additional depth off the bench.
The news caught Valencia a little bit off guard, considering the Royals are in second place, but he remains excited about the change of scenery.
"It's a great opportunity here," Valencia said. "Obviously this is a tough division, teams that are always really, really tough. I was fortunate enough to play in this division last year with Baltimore and see it on the other side. It's definitely going to be a fun time, and I think this team is going to be great. I'm looking forward to helping the Toronto Blue Jays win."
Valencia was acquired primarily because of his ability to hit left-handed pitching. That's an area the Blue Jays have struggled in a lot this season, and the issue became even more severe when Brett Lawrie and Edwin Encarnacion were placed on the disabled list.
The plan appears to be for Valencia to become part of a platoon at third base, with Munenori Kawasaki and Juan Francisco. Valencia also could see occasional playing time at designated hitter or first base but isn't expected to start at second, even though he appeared in a handful of games at that position in Kansas City.
Once Lawrie returns from the disabled list, Valencia's role becomes less clear. He'll likely remain on the roster and could still start at third vs. lefties while Lawrie slides over to second base. Blue Jays manager John Gibbons said it's too early to make those types of decisions and that Valencia will face a lot of lefties.
"I was never able to really pinpoint the reasoning why I hit left-handers better," said Valencia, who has a career .333 average and .879 OPS against lefties but is .227/.620 vs righties.
"Traditionally your splits should be better against left-handed pitching, but I can't really pinpoint anything. Obviously I feel comfortable in there, but it's one of those things that I carved something out for myself. You want to be able to hit lefties and righties, and I feel I can do that pretty well." |
This study tested the hypotheses that perceived risk of victimization had a stronger effect than actual exposure to victimization risk on handgun ownership and that this relationship was stronger for women than men. Perceived and actual risks of victimization have been discussed with respect to handgun ownership, but a general consensus in the literature was lacking and recent empirical research was scarce. Crime rates and respondents’ social characteristics were used as proxy measures for victimization risk, while fear of crime measured perceived risk of victimization. Three sets of models were estimated, the first with a pooled sample of men and women, the second and third on samples separated by gender. Binary logistic regression was utilized to compare the predictive power of these two major correlates of handgun ownership and observe how their effects varied by gender. Data were drawn from the National Opinion for Research Center’s (NORC) Cumulative General Social Surveys (GSS) for the years 1986 through 2008. Predictors of victimization risk, especially gender and regional crime rate, had strong effects on handgun possession, while perceived risk had no effect on handgun possession. Results also demonstrated that while women were more likely to fear crime, they were not necessarily more or less likely than men to obtain handguns in response to that fear. |
1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to a gear pump (commonly called a gerotor pump) and more particularly to a reversible gerotor pump having a movable eccentric member rotatable in response to the direction of rotation of the rotor.
2. Description of the Prior Art
Gear pumps such as the reversible pump described in U.S. Pat. No. 3,273,501 are commonly used to deliver lubricant to compressors, such as refrigerant compressors in a refrigeration system. As explained in U.S. Pat. No. 3,574,489, orbital gear-sets providing rolling contact between an outer internally-toothed gear which has one more tooth than an inner externally-toothed gear and which mesh with their axes eccentric to one another are commercially available under the generic designation "gerotors". Pumps employing such arrangement for positive displacement of fluid caused by the rolling contact between the meshing teeth are referred to as gerotor pumps.
In such gerotor pumps, inlets and outlets are generally defined in face plates on opposing planar sides of the mating gears, and are, for the most part, diametrically opposed (i.e. 180.degree. out-of-phase). Thus, with the gears rotating in one direction, the pump inlet is adjacent the area where the gears are separating and the outlet is adjacent the area where the gears are meshing. By reversing the direction of the gears the outlet becomes the inlet and the inlet the outlet.
However, in instances where reversibility of the pump is desired but yet is is also necessary that the inlet and outlet do not reverse, the rotor (i.e. the outer, internally-toothed gear) has been disposed in an opening of a rotatable eccentric collar member which can be rotated through a 180.degree. arc to change the orientation of the eccentric axes between the rotor and the internal gear such that, in either direction of rotation, the pump has a common inlet and outlet.
The movement or rotation of the eccentric collar member through the 180.degree. arc has been dependent upon a friction between the drive shaft and a rotatable face plate positively engaging the eccentric collar such as shown in U.S. Pat. No. 3,165,066 or between the outer circular surface of the rotor and the internal cylindrical surface of the eccentric member as disclosed in previously mentioned U.S. Pat. No. 3,273,501. An indexing pin or tab is provided that limits the movement of the eccentric member to 180.degree. whereby continued rotation of the rotor causes continuous friction to maintain the member in the extreme position. However, in either instance, this continuous friction also causes wear between the two parts such that in the first instance the frictionally engaging parts will wear out quite readily whereas in the second instance, over a period of time, the friction between the eccentric member and the stationary face plate covering the rotor will be greater than the friction between the eccentric member and the rotor, in which instance the eccentric member is not always responsive to the rotation of the rotor to change its orientation and the pump does not circulate the lubrication as intended, causing damage to the machinery being lubricated. |
754 N.W.2d 607 (2008)
276 Neb. 372
CRANE SALES & SERVICE CO., INC., Appellant,
v.
SENECA INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
No. S-07-799.
Supreme Court of Nebraska.
August 8, 2008.
*608 Gregory C. Scaglione and R. Scott Johnson, of Koley Jessen, P.C., L.L.O., Omaha, for appellant.
Matthew V. Rusch, Thomas J. Culhane, and Katrina L. Smeltzer, of Erickson Sederstrom, P.C., Omaha, for appellee.
HEAVICAN, C.J., WRIGHT, CONNOLLY, GERRARD, STEPHAN, McCORMACK, and MILLER-LERMAN, JJ.
HEAVICAN, C.J.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Crane Sales & Service Co., Inc. (Crane), is in the business of leasing and servicing crane equipment. In the course of this *609 business, Crane, acting as lessor, entered into an equipment rental agreement dated December 10, 2002, with Duncan & Associates Crane Rentals, Inc. (Duncan), named as lessee. Per this agreement, Duncan was required to provide to Crane "an insurance certificate naming Crane ... as addi[ti]onal insured and loss payee." The certificate was to have a value of $150,000.
On December 11, 2002, Duncan provided Crane with a certificate of liability insurance and certificate of property insurance, which identified Seneca Insurance Company (Seneca) as insurer, Duncan as the insured, and Crane as the certificate holder. The certificate also stated that the "certificate holder is listed as Loss Payee and Additional Insured." The certificate noted that it was "issued as a matter of information only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder. This certificate does not amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies below."
The record indicates that the equipment in question was in working order on the date the rental agreement was signed. However, in its complaint, Crane alleged that upon the return of the equipment to Crane, damage in the amount of $15,040.25 had been incurred. That damage was repaired, and Duncan was billed. Despite making written and oral demands on Duncan, Duncan never paid for the damage.
Crane brought suit against Duncan and Seneca on March 13, 2006, in Douglas County Court. Thereafter, on April 20, Seneca filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(6). On May 26, Seneca filed a notice with the county court expressing its intent to introduce the affidavit of Ellen O'Connor in support of its motion to dismiss. O'Connor's affidavit was attached to Seneca's notice.
In that affidavit, O'Connor, a vice president with Seneca, averred that Seneca had issued a contractor's equipment policy to Duncan for the policy period from February 16, 2000, to February 16, 2001, and that the policy was continuously renewed through the policy period ending February 16, 2004. Portions of the applicable insurance policy were also attached as exhibits to O'Connor's affidavit.
A hearing was held on Seneca's motion to dismiss on August 24, 2006. At that hearing, one exhibitO'Connor's affidavit was introduced. Crane did not object to the introduction of evidence in general, or to O'Connor's affidavit in particular. On August 31, the court granted Seneca's motion, concluding that the policy issued to Duncan did not name Crane as an additional insured. The court also found that there was no contractual relationship between Crane and Seneca, and that without such a relationship, Crane lacked standing and could not maintain a direct action against Seneca. Finally, the court found that Crane lacked standing as a third-party beneficiary to the contract between Duncan and Seneca. As such, the county court dismissed Crane's suit as to Seneca. Default judgment had already been entered in Crane's favor against Duncan on June 21.
Crane appealed the decision of the county court to the district court on September 18, 2006. The district court affirmed the county court's decision on July 2, 2007. On July 18, Crane appealed to the Court of Appeals. We moved this case to our docket pursuant to our statutory authority to regulate the dockets of this court and the Nebraska Court of Appeals.[1]
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
On appeal, Crane assigns that the district court erred by affirming the county *610 court's decision. In particular, Crane argues, restated, that the court erred by (1) not finding that Crane was a named insured under the insurance policy, (2) finding that Crane's status as a loss payee did not give it standing to file a direct claim under the policy, and (3) finding that Crane was not a third-party beneficiary of the policy.
ANALYSIS
We first consider, and find dispositive, a procedural issue presented in this case namely, whether the district court ruled on and dismissed Crane's action for the failure to state a claim under § 6-1112(b)(6) or whether Crane's motion had been converted to a motion for summary judgment.
It is clear that Seneca filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under § 6-1112(b)(6). The county court dismissed Crane's action for this reason. The parties brief this case as if it were decided under § 6-1112(b)(6). And at oral argument, both parties contended this case was dismissed for failure to state a claim under rule § 6-1112(b)(6).
Dismissal under rule § 6-1112(b)(6) should be granted only in the unusual case in which a plaintiff includes allegations that show on the face of the complaint that there is some insuperable bar to relief.[2] An appellate court reviews de novo a lower court's dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim.[3] When analyzing a lower court's dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim, an appellate court accepts the complaint's factual allegations as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.[4]
As an initial matter, we agree with Crane that its complaint, considered alongside the certificate of insurance attached to the complaint,[5] when considered in a light most favorable to Crane, was sufficient to state a claim under § 6-1112(b)(6).
However, § 6-1112(b) also provides that when matters outside of the pleadings are presented by the parties and accepted by the trial court under § 6-1112(b)(6), the motion "shall be treated" as a motion for summary judgment. Matters outside the pleadings can include written or oral evidence either in support of or in opposition to the pleading which provides some substantiation for and does not merely reiterate what is said in the pleadings.[6] We have noted that when receiving evidence that converts a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, the trial court should give the parties notice of the changed status of the motion and a reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion.[7]
The controlling procedural issue presented by this appeal, then, is whether this § 6-1112(b)(6) motion was converted to a motion for summary judgment. It is apparent that matters outside the pleadings, specifically O'Connor's affidavit, which included six exhibits, were presented and accepted by the trial court. We therefore conclude that under § 6-1112(b), Seneca's purported motion to dismiss for *611 failure to state a claim under § 6-1112(b)(6) was converted to a motion for summary judgment.
Having concluded that the motion was converted to a motion for summary judgment, we are next presented with the question of whether the county court provided the parties with adequate notice that the motion had been converted and whether the court provided Crane with a reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion. We conclude that such was not given.
First, there is no evidence in the record that the county court explicitly alerted the parties to the fact that the motion to dismiss had been converted into a motion for summary judgment. In fact, a review of the record suggests that the county court itself might have been unaware that by accepting O'Connor's affidavit, § 6-1112(b) required it to treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment.
In addition, throughout these proceedings, both parties have treated Seneca's motion as a motion to dismiss under § 6-1112(b)(6), rather than as a motion for summary judgment. There is no indication from the record that at the time of the hearing, either party believed the motion had been converted into a motion for summary judgment. Both parties have briefed this case on appeal as if it were a motion to dismiss. At oral argument, both parties continued to maintain that it was a motion to dismiss, despite explicit questioning by this court regarding whether the motion might instead have been for summary judgment.
Finally, a review of the record demonstrates that while Crane did not object to the admission of O'Connor's affidavit, Crane also did not introduce any of its own evidence at the August 24, 2006, hearing, nor was it given the explicit opportunity to do so. And there is no indication from this record that Crane was given the opportunity to conduct discovery in this case. On appeal, Crane contends that if it were allowed to conduct discovery, it would be able to prove its standing as an additional insured.
We conclude that adequate notice of the conversion from a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment was not provided and that Crane was not given a reasonable opportunity to present all material pertinent to a motion for summary judgment. We therefore reverse the decision of the district court affirming the dismissal of Crane's suit and remand the cause to the district court with directions to remand the matter to the county court for further proceedings.
CONCLUSION
Crane's motion to dismiss was converted to a motion for summary judgment under § 6-1112(b). However, the parties were not given sufficient notice of that conversion, nor was Crane provided with a reasonable opportunity to present any material it might find relevant to a motion for summary judgment. As such, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the cause to the district court with directions.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
NOTES
[1] Neb.Rev.Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Reissue 1995).
[2] Doe v. Omaha Pub. Sch. Dist., 273 Neb. 79, 727 N.W.2d 447 (2007).
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] See Kellogg v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., 269 Neb. 40, 690 N.W.2d 574 (2005).
[6] See Nebraska Coalition for Ed. Equity v. Heineman, 273 Neb. 531, 731 N.W.2d 164(2007).
[7] Id.
|
Q:
Node.JS trigger click event to OS
I'm looking for a way to trigger a click event to the OS from a NodeJS application. All I need is to have control over x/y and mouse button.
Is there anything that does that? I've searched for existing packages but didn't find any...
A:
RobotJS does exactly what you want!
http://github.com/octalmage/robotjs
Try this code:
//Get the mouse position, move it, then click.
var robot = require("robotjs");
//Get the mouse position, returns an object with x and y.
var mouse = robot.getMousePos();
console.log("Mouse is at x:" + mouse.x + " y:" + mouse.y);
//Move the mouse down by 100 pixels.
robot.moveMouse(mouse.x, mouse.y + 100);
//Left click!
robot.mouseClick();
|
Report: Microsoft Monopoly Puts Computing at Risk
Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on the desktop, and that puts networks, and
indeed computing at large, at grave risk. At least that's the claim of the authors
of a paper released today that says "the goal must be to break the monoculture,"
a new term to describe Microsoft's operating system monopoly.
The report is titled "Cyberinsecurity: The Cost of Monopoly", and
its authors include some well-known names in the IT security field, such as
Bruce Schneier of Counterpane Internet Security, and Daniel Geer of the security
firm @stake.
The seven authors held a Wednesday morning conference call with reporters.
Geer went so far as to state he was staking his professional reputation on the
report. "There is a matter of competition policy and security policy that
cannot be ignored any longer," he said. "It isn't any one factor,
but a combination of factors that make this important. It's the nature of the
platform that dominates every desktop everywhere. Its dominance, coupled with
its insecurity, can't be ignored any further."
Another of the authors, security consultant Perry Metzger, said the problem
is that there is "a gigantic susceptible population of machines. You can
do awful things to vast numbers of machines. Whether or not the vendor is trying
to protect the systems, with such a huge number of machines, any vulnerability
can be spread to huge numbers" of computers.
The report was issued by the Computer and Communications Industry Association
(CCIA), a long-time Microsoft nemesis which counts among its members America
Online, Oracle and Sun. It's also been involved in the anti-trust lawsuits against
Microsoft. The authors said they weren't influenced by CCIA's anti-Microsoft
stance, but the report's introduction, written by CCIA, is a harshly-worded
broadside against Redmond. "Microsoft's efforts to design its software
in evermore complex ways so as to illegally shut out efforts by others to interoperate
or compete with their products has succeeded The presence of this single,
dominant operating system in the hands of nearly all end users is inherently
dangerous," it states.
The report's authors are equally scathing. "Most of the world's computers
run Microsoft's operating systems, thus most of the world's computers are vulnerable
to the same viruses and worms at the same time. The only way to stop this is
to avoid monoculture in computer operating systems Microsoft exacerbates
this problem via a wide range of practices that lock users to its platform.
The impact on security of this lock-in is real and endangers society,"
the report states.
A number of authors argued the problem isn't necessarily the security or insecurity
of Microsoft products themselves, but rather their pervasiveness. As Metzger
said, "If every machine on earth ran Mac OS X, it would be the same problem."
Schneier went even further. "I wouldn't put any of the blame on Microsoft The
problem won't be fixed based by the altruism of Microsoft, but by businesses
saying this is a problem and we're going to fix it."
While the authors spent a great deal of time describing what they see as the
problem, they offered little in the way of possible solutions. "We're speaking
as scientists, not as policy people. We understand there are lots of political
ramifications to this," Schneier said. Several authors suggested that government
would have to have a leading role in any remedy of the problem, but again, no
concrete solutions were offered.
The consensus, however, was that more OS diversity was needed. "Having
diversity is necessary. It's not [all] sufficient by any means, but necessary,"
said one. One area the authors declined to discuss was the server/datacenter
environment, which is diversity-rich, and where Microsoft doesn't even have
a majority, let alone a monopoly, of the operating systems in use. |
#include "testing/testing.hpp"
#include "geometry/tree4d.hpp"
#include <functional>
using namespace std;
namespace
{
using R = m2::RectD;
struct traits_t
{
m2::RectD LimitRect(m2::RectD const & r) const { return r; }
};
using Tree = m4::Tree<R, traits_t>;
template <typename T>
bool RTrue(T const &, T const &)
{
return true;
}
template <typename T>
bool RFalse(T const &, T const &)
{
return false;
}
} // namespace
UNIT_TEST(Tree4D_Smoke)
{
Tree theTree;
R arr[] = {R(0, 0, 1, 1), R(1, 1, 2, 2), R(2, 2, 3, 3)};
for (size_t i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(arr); ++i)
theTree.ReplaceAllInRect(arr[i], &RTrue<R>);
vector<R> test;
theTree.ForEach(base::MakeBackInsertFunctor(test));
TEST_EQUAL(3, test.size(), ());
test.clear();
R const searchR(1.5, 1.5, 1.5, 1.5);
theTree.ForEachInRect(searchR, base::MakeBackInsertFunctor(test));
TEST_EQUAL(1, test.size(), ());
TEST_EQUAL(test[0], arr[1], ());
R const replaceR(0.5, 0.5, 2.5, 2.5);
theTree.ReplaceAllInRect(replaceR, &RTrue<R>);
test.clear();
theTree.ForEach(base::MakeBackInsertFunctor(test));
TEST_EQUAL(1, test.size(), ());
TEST_EQUAL(test[0], replaceR, ());
test.clear();
theTree.ForEachInRect(searchR, base::MakeBackInsertFunctor(test));
TEST_EQUAL(1, test.size(), ());
}
UNIT_TEST(Tree4D_ForAnyInRect)
{
Tree theTree;
R arr[] = {R(0, 0, 1, 1), R(0, 0, 5, 5), R(1, 1, 2, 2),
R(1, 1, 6.5, 6.5), R(2, 2, 3, 3), R(2, 2, 7, 7)};
for (auto const & r : arr)
theTree.Add(r);
TEST(theTree.ForAnyInRect(R(0, 0, 100, 100), [](R const & rect) { return rect.maxX() > 4; }), ());
TEST(theTree.ForAnyInRect(R(0, 0, 100, 100), [](R const & rect) { return rect.maxX() > 5; }), ());
TEST(theTree.ForAnyInRect(R(0, 0, 100, 100), [](R const & rect) { return rect.maxX() > 0; }), ());
TEST(!theTree.ForAnyInRect(R(0, 0, 100, 100), [](R const & rect) { return rect.maxX() > 10; }), ());
}
UNIT_TEST(Tree4D_ReplaceAllInRect)
{
Tree theTree;
R arr[] = {R(8, 13, 554, 32), R(555, 13, 700, 32), R(8, 33, 554, 52), R(555, 33, 700, 52),
R(8, 54, 554, 73), R(555, 54, 700, 73), R(8, 76, 554, 95), R(555, 76, 700, 95)};
R arr1[] = {R(3, 23, 257, 42), R(600, 23, 800, 42), R(3, 43, 257, 62), R(600, 43, 800, 62),
R(3, 65, 257, 84), R(600, 65, 800, 84), R(3, 87, 257, 106), R(600, 87, 800, 106)};
for (size_t i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(arr); ++i)
{
size_t const count = theTree.GetSize();
theTree.ReplaceAllInRect(arr[i], &RFalse<R>);
TEST_EQUAL(theTree.GetSize(), count + 1, ());
theTree.ReplaceAllInRect(arr1[i], &RFalse<R>);
TEST_EQUAL(theTree.GetSize(), count + 1, ());
}
vector<R> test;
theTree.ForEach(base::MakeBackInsertFunctor(test));
TEST_EQUAL(ARRAY_SIZE(arr), test.size(), ());
for (size_t i = 0; i < test.size(); ++i)
TEST_EQUAL(test[i], arr[i], ());
}
namespace
{
void CheckInRect(R const * arr, size_t count, R const & searchR, size_t expected)
{
Tree theTree;
for (size_t i = 0; i < count; ++i)
theTree.Add(arr[i], arr[i]);
vector<R> test;
theTree.ForEachInRect(searchR, base::MakeBackInsertFunctor(test));
TEST_EQUAL(test.size(), expected, ());
}
}
UNIT_TEST(Tree4D_ForEachInRect)
{
R arr[] = {R(0, 0, 1, 1), R(5, 5, 10, 10), R(-1, -1, 0, 0), R(-10, -10, -5, -5)};
CheckInRect(arr, ARRAY_SIZE(arr), R(1, 1, 5, 5), 0);
CheckInRect(arr, ARRAY_SIZE(arr), R(-5, -5, -1, -1), 0);
CheckInRect(arr, ARRAY_SIZE(arr), R(3, 3, 3, 3), 0);
CheckInRect(arr, ARRAY_SIZE(arr), R(-3, -3, -3, -3), 0);
CheckInRect(arr, ARRAY_SIZE(arr), R(0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5), 1);
CheckInRect(arr, ARRAY_SIZE(arr), R(8, 8, 8, 8), 1);
CheckInRect(arr, ARRAY_SIZE(arr), R(-0.5, -0.5, -0.5, -0.5), 1);
CheckInRect(arr, ARRAY_SIZE(arr), R(-8, -8, -8, -8), 1);
CheckInRect(arr, ARRAY_SIZE(arr), R(0.5, 0.5, 5.5, 5.5), 2);
CheckInRect(arr, ARRAY_SIZE(arr), R(-5.5, -5.5, -0.5, -0.5), 2);
}
namespace
{
struct TestObj : public m2::RectD
{
int m_id;
TestObj(double minX, double minY, double maxX, double maxY, int id)
: m2::RectD(minX, minY, maxX, maxY), m_id(id)
{
}
bool operator==(TestObj const & r) const { return m_id == r.m_id; }
};
}
UNIT_TEST(Tree4D_ReplaceEqual)
{
typedef TestObj T;
m4::Tree<T, traits_t> theTree;
T arr[] = {T(0, 0, 1, 1, 1), T(1, 1, 2, 2, 2), T(2, 2, 3, 3, 3)};
// 1.
for (size_t i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(arr); ++i)
theTree.ReplaceEqualInRect(arr[i], equal_to<T>(), &RTrue<T>);
vector<T> test;
theTree.ForEach(base::MakeBackInsertFunctor(test));
TEST_EQUAL(3, test.size(), ());
// 2.
theTree.ReplaceEqualInRect(T(0, 0, 3, 3, 2), equal_to<T>(), &RFalse<T>);
test.clear();
theTree.ForEach(base::MakeBackInsertFunctor(test));
TEST_EQUAL(3, test.size(), ());
auto i = find(test.begin(), test.end(), T(1, 1, 2, 2, 2));
TEST_EQUAL(R(*i), R(1, 1, 2, 2), ());
// 3.
theTree.ReplaceEqualInRect(T(0, 0, 3, 3, 2), equal_to<T>(), &RTrue<T>);
test.clear();
theTree.ForEach(base::MakeBackInsertFunctor(test));
TEST_EQUAL(3, test.size(), ());
i = find(test.begin(), test.end(), T(1, 1, 2, 2, 2));
TEST_EQUAL(R(*i), R(0, 0, 3, 3), ());
}
|
Gold Coast police have charged a 15-year-old Waterford West boy with murder and acts intended to cause grievous bodily harm over the fatal stabbing of a 17-year old at Surfers Paradise on Friday night.
He is expected to appear in the Beenleigh Children's Court on Monday.
One teenage boy died and another remains in hospital after both were stabbed during an altercation involving up to 12 young people.
No-one else was injured.
Police said two groups were involved in the incident just after 8:00pm on Surfers Paradise Boulevard.
Two 17-year-old boys were stabbed — one in the chest and the other in the chest and back.
Both were taken to Gold Coast University Hospital.
One of the boys, from the Gold Coast suburb of Parkwood, died from his injuries while he was being treated.
Police said they had "no idea" what sparked the fight but they believe the two groups were not known to each other.
"During the fight, a male person has produced what we believe to be a large hunting-type knife," Acting Detective Inspector Mark Procter said.
"He has stabbed two of the 17-year-old males — one of the males received a fatal wound and died about an hour later in hospital.
"The other 17-year-old male is currently in the Gold Coast University Hospital in a stable condition and he will survive his injuries." |
Q:
Trigonometric limit: $(1-\sqrt{\cos x})/x^2$ as $x\to 0$, without using L'Hopital
I have to evaluate this limit without using L'Hopital. Could you help me
$$\lim_{x \to 0} {1-\sqrt{\cos(x)}\over x^2}$$
I already rationalized it:
$$\lim_{x \to 0} \left({1-\sqrt{\cos(x)}\over x^2}\right) \left({1+\sqrt{\cos(x)}\over 1+\sqrt{\cos(x)}}\right)$$
And I got:
$$\lim_{x \to 0} \left({1-\cos(x)\over x^2(1+\sqrt{\cos(x)})}\right)$$
What should I do next?
A:
Note that
$$
\frac{1-\cos(x)}{x^2(1+\sqrt{\cos x})}=\frac{1-\cos^2 x}{x^2(1+\sqrt{\cos x})(1+\cos x)}=\left(\frac{\sin x}{x}\right)^2\frac{1}{(1+\sqrt{\cos x})(1+\cos x)}
$$
then you can use $\lim_{x\to 0}\sin(x)/x=1$. Arguments for this latter fact can be seen here. Some of them do not employ L'Hopital's Rule.
|
Q:
What is the simplest way to confirm or to disprove that Virtual Box virtual machines support GRE protocol
It is stated in VirtualBox manual (chapter 6) that VM network interfaces in "NAT" mode do not support GRE protocol. I'm currently trying to setup a pair of VMs as pptp server and client which would communicate via VM's network interfaces in "INTERNAL NETWORK" mode. I set up modern Linux OSes with pptp software on both machines and made some basic pptp configuration. However, I fail to connect the client to the server - server reports a failure when writing to GRE socket.
I now need a quick proof of principal ability to use the GRE protocol between VirtualBox VMs over a network in "INTERNAL" mode, such as a several-line .c program that would try to open/send/receive/close a GRE protocol connection, or like a specific lightweight tool to diagnose the GRE availability.
Any suggestions?
A:
GRE and NAT in general don't get on well together. Usually you need some form of PPTP Passthrough technology on the NAT gateway for it to work. VirtualBox doesn't have that.
There is no reason at all why GRE shouldn't work on either bridged or internal network adaptors.
I just created 2 FreeBSD* VMs and linked them with an internal network called "intnet". I gave them both IP's on the 172.16.1.0/24 range.
I then created a GRE interface on each host and set the tunnelling to work between the two IP's I just allocated.
The GRE interfaces I put on the 172.16.2.0/24 range (.1 and .2)
I can ping happily between the two GRE interfaces.
(* I chose FreeBSD as it was what I had to hand and it's very easy to set up pure GRE tunnels for testing this kind of thing)
|
President Trump Donald John TrumpSteele Dossier sub-source was subject of FBI counterintelligence probe Pelosi slams Trump executive order on pre-existing conditions: It 'isn't worth the paper it's signed on' Trump 'no longer angry' at Romney because of Supreme Court stance MORE on Thursday blamed Chicago leaders for what he described as an unbelievable surge in gun violence in the city, his first public comments since more than 70 people were shot there over the weekend.
Trump, who has threatened to send in federal officers to manage Chicago's crime and violence, brought up last weekend's violence during his opening remarks at a roundtable discussion on prison reform.
"We must strengthen community bonds with law enforcement, including city’s like Chicago that have been an absolute and total disaster," Trump told the room of governors, attorneys general and White House staff at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J.
"And we’ll be talking about Chicago today because that is something that in terms of our nation nobody would believe it could be happening," he added.
Pres. Trump calls out "leadership" in Chicago over recent gun violence: "We must strengthen community bonds with law enforcement, including cities like Chicago, that have been an absolute and total disaster" https://t.co/pmSsJfTWsT pic.twitter.com/yGEDJGtjMx — ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) August 9, 2018
The city saw one of its most violent weekends of the year when 12 people were killed and 62 people were wounded in a spate of gun violence between Friday afternoon and Monday morning.
ADVERTISEMENT
"That’s bad stuff happening and probably I guess you have to take from the leadership," Trump said. "There’s no reason in a million years that something like that should be happening in Chicago."
City officials blamed the latest outburst of violence on gangs and access to weapons.
"There are too many guns on the street, too many people with criminal records on the street," Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) said at a press conference on Monday. "There is a shortage of values about what is right, and what is wrong. What is acceptable, what is condoned, and what is condemned."
Chicago has long struggled to curb gun violence in certain reaches of the city. The Chicago Tribune reported that, as of Friday, at least 1,700 people have been shot in the city this year. That number is lower than the past two years through this date, but still much higher than in recent years, according to the Tribune.
Trump, whose family owns a building along the Chicago River, has blamed the city's leadership for gun violence and threatened to get the federal government involved on numerous occasions.
If Chicago doesn't fix the horrible "carnage" going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 24, 2017
Chicago murder rate is record setting - 4,331 shooting victims with 762 murders in 2016. If Mayor can't do it he must ask for Federal help! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 2, 2017
Crime and killings in Chicago have reached such epidemic proportions that I am sending in Federal help. 1714 shootings in Chicago this year! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 30, 2017
Emanuel, a former chief of staff for President Obama, has positioned himself as an anti-Trump stalwart. He said last year that the city would brand itself as a place where Trump is not welcome. |
Q:
ASP.NET Site Authentication Cookie sharing
I've got 2 MVC3 Internet websites. One (Site1) uses Windows authentication and is in the Local Intranet Zone. The second (Site2) is publicly available and uses Forms Authentication. Both sites are in the same Domain, but have a different sub-domain. I want to share authentication cookies between the two. In order to do this, they need identical settings in the web config. Sometimes this works, most of the time it doesn't. If anyone hits Site1 from outside our network, they get a 403 error, which is good. If a network user hits Site1, they're allowed in based on their network credentials. I then check their user's roles with the code below.
var userName = string.Empty;
var winId = (WindowsIdentity)HttpContext.User.Identity;
var winPrincipal = new WindowsPrincipal(winId);
if(winPrincipal.IsInRole("SiteAdmin")) {
FormsAuthentication.SetAuthCookie("siteadmin", false);
userName = "siteadmin"; //This is a Forms Auth user
}
else if(///I check for other roles here and assign like above)
Once I've checked the roles, I forward them onto Site2, creating a cookie for them if the user is in one of the roles determined in the if...statement above.
if(!string.IsNullOrEmpty(userName)) {
//Add a cookie that Site2 will use for Authentication
var cookie = FormsAuthentication.GetAuthCookie(userName, false);
cookie.Domain = FormsAuthentication.CookieDomain; //This may need to be changed to actually set the Domain to the Domain of the TVAP site.
HttpContext.Response.Cookies.Add(cookie);
}
//Network users not found in roles will simply be forwarded without a cookie and have to login
HttpContext.Response.RedirectPermanent(tvapUrl);
I've set up in the web.config a matching MachineKey (validationkey, decryptionkey and validation) for each site.
They also both have the same authentiation settings, with the exception of the mode. So my config for this looks like this.
<authentication mode="Forms">
<forms loginUrl="~/Account/LogOn" name=".ASPXFORMSAUTH" protection="All" path="/" domain="mydomain.com" enableCrossAppRedirects="true" timeout="2880" />
</authentication>
I think my problem is that the 'authentication' mode is different for each one, so Site2 won't use the authentication cookie from site1. This is just a guess though. Is there anyway I can figure out the issue?
According to this article, what I have going here should work. And there have been times where I think it's worked, but it's hard to tell, as I may have cookies cached and their getting reused. I'm hoping someone can see something I'm missing here, or has an alternative solution.
UPDATE
I checked my authentication cookie on Site2 after logging in normally and found the Domain wasn't set, so I've removed that line of code.
Also, I read about cookies expiring when the date isn't set, so I set an Expire Date on my cookie before sending with the request.
So, with those two changes, here's where I'm at.
It works on Chrome and Firefox, but not with IE. Not sure. I'm going to do some additional testing from another machine and another user so I know I haven't got any residual cookies sitting around.
A:
I determined my problem was not setting the Expires property of my cookie. According this Microsoft article, cookies won't be written to the client unless the Expires property is set.
"If you do not set the cookie's expiration, the cookie is created but it is not stored on the user's hard disk. Instead, the cookie is maintained as part of the user's session information. When the user closes the browser, the cookie is discarded. A non-persistent cookie like this is useful for information that needs to be stored for only a short time or that for security reasons should not be written to disk on the client computer. For example, non-persistent cookies are useful if the user is working on a public computer, where you do not want to write the cookie to disk."
In this case, I needed the cookie to be written to disk since I was doing a server transfer to another site, thereby ending the session for that user. I'm not 100% sure that this was the fix, but it is working now, so I'm assuming that.
|
Q:
Python - Detect (spammy) URLS in string
So, I've been doing some research for a while now and I could't find anything about detecting a URL in a string. The problem is that most results are about detecting whether a string IS a URL, and not if it contains a URL. The 2 results that look best to me are
Regex to find urls in string in Python
and
Detecting a (naughty or nice) URL or link in a text string
but the first requires http://, which is not something spammers would use (:P) and the second one isn't in regex - and my limited knowledge does not know how to translate any of these. Something I have considered doing is using something dull like
spamlist = [".com",".co.uk","etc"]
for word in string:
if word in spamlist:
Do().stuff()
But that would honestly do more bad than good, and I am 100% sure there is a better way using regex or anything!
So if anyone knows anything that could help me I'd be very grateful! I've only been doing python for 1-2 months and not very intensively during this period but I feel like I'm making great progress and this one thing is all that's in the way, really.
EDIT: Sorry for not specifying earlier, I am looking to use this locally, not website (apache) based or anything similar. More trying to clean out any links from files I've got hanging around.
A:
As I said in the comments,
Detecting a (naughty or nice) URL or link in a text string 's solution is a regex and you should probably make it a raw string or escape backslashes in it when using it in Python
You really shouldn't reinvent the square wheel here, especially since spam filtering is an arms race domain (couldn't remember the exact English phrase for this)
|
Q:
load external libraries inside pyspark code
I have a spark cluster I use in local mode. I want to read a csv with the databricks external library spark.csv. I start my app as follows:
import os
import sys
os.environ["SPARK_HOME"] = "/home/mebuddy/Programs/spark-1.6.0-bin-hadoop2.6"
spark_home = os.environ.get('SPARK_HOME', None)
sys.path.insert(0, spark_home + "/python")
sys.path.insert(0, os.path.join(spark_home, 'python/lib/py4j-0.8.2.1-src.zip'))
from pyspark import SparkContext, SparkConf, SQLContext
try:
sc
except NameError:
print('initializing SparkContext...')
sc=SparkContext()
sq = SQLContext(sc)
df = sq.read.format('com.databricks.spark.csv').options(header='true', inferschema='true').load("/my/path/to/my/file.csv")
When I run it, I get the following error:
java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: Failed to load class for data source: com.databricks.spark.csv.
My question: how can I load the databricks.spark.csv library INSIDE my python code. I don't want to load it from outside (using --packages) from instance.
I tried to add the following lines but it did not work:
os.environ["SPARK_CLASSPATH"] = '/home/mebuddy/Programs/spark_lib/spark-csv_2.11-1.3.0.jar'
A:
If you create SparkContext from scratch you can for example set PYSPARK_SUBMIT_ARGS before SparkContext is intialized:
os.environ["PYSPARK_SUBMIT_ARGS"] = (
"--packages com.databricks:spark-csv_2.11:1.3.0 pyspark-shell"
)
sc = SparkContext()
If for some reason you expect that SparkContext has been already initialized, as it is suggested by your code, this won't work. In local mode you could try to use Py4J gateway and URLClassLoader but it doesn't look like a good idea and won't work in a cluster mode.
|
Q:
How are users with insufficent reputation getting the Custodian badge?
So according to this badge's requirement, we need to complete at least one review task.
The lowest reputation requirement for a review task is 500. So can someone please tell me how a bunch of users with less than 500 rep are somehow getting this badge?
I can't get access to the review tasks (since I lack sufficent reputation), but somehow a bunch of users with as little as one rep and hardly any activity on the site somehow have.
I don't know about anyone else, but something seems very wrong, possibly even broken somewhere.
A:
Users at any level of reputation can always review suggested edits made to their own posts.
Looking at the first handful of single-reputation users on the badge list, it looks like all of them have approved a suggested edit to their own post. This counts as a review task and awards the badge.
|
Harry Morgan (footballer)
Henry Douglas "Harry" Morgan (16 September 1889 – 10 December 1956) was an Australian rules footballer who played senior football in three different Australian states.
Biography
Born in Irishtown, a small locality north of Northam, Western Australia, Morgan moved to Perth in the late 1900s, where he began playing for the Cottesloe Football Club in the second-rate West Australian Football Association (WAFA), a precursor to the present Claremont Football Club. In 1910, he transferred to the Subiaco Football Club in the West Australian Football League (WAFL), and spent most of his time at either half back or as a centreman. A dual Western Australian interstate representative, Morgan was a member of Subiaco's 1912 premiership teams.
When he became a VFL footballer with South Melbourne in 1914, Morgan began playing as a forward was the top goal-kicker at his club twice, on both sides of their war enforced recess in 1916. He had kicked 27 in his debut season and his most impressive tally came in 1915 when he managed 48 goals, to finish third in the league behind Dick Lee and Jimmy Freake. While at South Melbourne he also participated in their 1914 VFL Grand Final loss, playing in the forward pocket. Despite making eight appearances in 1918, Morgan was not selected in that year's premiership team.
Footscray acquired his services for the 1919 VFA season and he was a member of their premiership side that year. The following season he returned to Subiaco for another stint, before making his way back to the VFL and joining Carlton. Morgan had a good start at Carlton, kicking five goals from full-forward in his first game for the club and another five in his third. He then added another state to his resume by playing at South Australian club West Adelaide in 1922, where he made five appearances for 12 goals.
References
Holmesby, Russell and Main, Jim (2007). The Encyclopedia of AFL Footballers. 7th ed. Melbourne: Bas Publishing.
External links
Category:1889 births
Category:1956 deaths
Category:Australian rules footballers from Western Australia
Category:Carlton Football Club players
Category:Footscray Football Club (VFA) players
Category:People from Northam, Western Australia
Category:Subiaco Football Club players
Category:Sydney Swans players
Category:West Adelaide Football Club players |
Q:
WPF .NET3.5 C# Handle Object Issue
I have some trouble with my App, WPF C#.NET 3.5 VS2008, at one customer machine.
My App has nearly 1000 Installation on different windows machines (XP, Vista 32/64, Win7 32/64) and no problem so far.
Only one seems to be have a Problem on a Win7 32 PC.
Task-Manger Overview depending on the current Activity:
1 - Activity: Program started
http://i.stack.imgur.com/jA6j7.gif (See Pic)
2 - Activity: Simple click on a e.g. Menu Item, Button etc
http://i.stack.imgur.com/e0erH.gif (See Pic)
Object USER and Object GDI runs until 10'000 and the App throws the following Exception:
System.ComponentModel.Win32Exception The current process has used all of its system allowance of handles for Window Manager objects
à MS.Win32.UnsafeNativeMethods.CreateWindowEx(Int32 dwExStyle, String lpszClassName, String lpszWindowName, Int32 style, Int32 x, Int32 y, Int32 width, Int32 height, HandleRef hWndParent, HandleRef hMenu, HandleRef hInst, Object pvParam)
à MS.Win32.HwndWrapper..ctor(Int32 classStyle, Int32 style, Int32 exStyle, Int32 x, Int32 y, Int32 width, Int32 height, String name, IntPtr parent, HwndWrapperHook[] hooks)
à System.Windows.Interop.HwndSource.Initialize(HwndSourceParameters parameters)
à System.Windows.Interop.HwndSource..ctor(HwndSourceParameters parameters)
à System.Windows.Window.SetTaskbarStatus()
à System.Windows.Window.CreateAllStyle()
à System.Windows.Window.CreateSourceWindowImpl()
à System.Windows.Window.SafeCreateWindow()
à System.Windows.Window.ShowHelper(Object booleanBox)
à System.Windows.Window.Show()
à System.Windows.Window.ShowDialog()
à WPFControls.WPFMessageBox.Show(String title, String message, String details, WPFMessageBoxButtons buttonOption, WPFMessageBoxImage image)
à MyApp.Prolog.Application_DispatcherUnhandledException(Object sender, DispatcherUnhandledExceptionEventArgs e)
à System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.CatchException(Exception e)
à System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.CatchExceptionStatic(Object source, Exception e)
à System.Windows.Threading.ExceptionWrapper.CatchException(Object source, Exception e, Delegate catchHandler)
à System.Windows.Threading.ExceptionWrapper.TryCatchWhen(Object source, Delegate callback, Object args, Boolean isSingleParameter, Delegate catchHandler)
à System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.WrappedInvoke(Delegate callback, Object args, Boolean isSingleParameter, Delegate catchHandler)
à System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.InvokeImpl(DispatcherPriority priority, TimeSpan timeout, Delegate method, Object args, Boolean isSingleParameter)
à System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.Invoke(DispatcherPriority priority, Delegate method, Object arg)
à MS.Win32.HwndSubclass.SubclassWndProc(IntPtr hwnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wParam, IntPtr lParam)
à MS.Win32.UnsafeNativeMethods.SetWindowPos(HandleRef hWnd, HandleRef hWndInsertAfter, Int32 x, Int32 y, Int32 cx, Int32 cy, Int32 flags)
à System.Windows.Window.SetupInitialState(Double requestedTop, Double requestedLeft, Double requestedWidth, Double requestedHeight)
à System.Windows.Window.CreateSourceWindowImpl()
à System.Windows.Window.SafeCreateWindow()
à System.Windows.Window.ShowHelper(Object booleanBox)
à System.Windows.Window.Show()
à System.Windows.Window.ShowDialog()
à WPFControls.WPFMessageBox.Show(String title, String message, String details, WPFMessageBoxButtons buttonOption, WPFMessageBoxImage image)
à MyApp.Prolog.Application_DispatcherUnhandledException(Object sender, DispatcherUnhandledExceptionEventArgs e)
à System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.CatchException(Exception e)
à System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.CatchExceptionStatic(Object source, Exception e)
à System.Windows.Threading.ExceptionWrapper.CatchException(Object source, Exception e, Delegate catchHandler)
à System.Windows.Threading.ExceptionWrapper.TryCatchWhen(Object source, Delegate callback, Object args, Boolean isSingleParameter, Delegate catchHandler)
à System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.WrappedInvoke(Delegate callback, Object args, Boolean isSingleParameter, Delegate catchHandler)
à System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.InvokeImpl(DispatcherPriority priority, TimeSpan timeout, Delegate method, Object args, Boolean isSingleParameter)
à System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.Invoke(DispatcherPriority priority, Delegate method, Object arg)
à MS.Win32.HwndSubclass.SubclassWndProc(IntPtr hwnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wParam, IntPtr lParam)
à MS.Win32.UnsafeNativeMethods.DispatchMessage(MSG& msg)
à System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.PushFrameImpl(DispatcherFrame frame)
à System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.PushFrame(DispatcherFrame frame)
à System.Windows.Window.ShowHelper(Object booleanBox)
à System.Windows.Window.Show()
à System.Windows.Window.ShowDialog()
à MyApp.Prolog.Prolog_Startup(Object sender, StartupEventArgs e) 0 0 0
Please can anyone help ?
UPDATE - EDIT
Our Customer does Setup a new clean (as he said) Win 7 64 OS, but the Problem still exist.
Using WPF Apps seeems to be not working.
I have tried also to use the MVVM Demo App of this Article (msdn.microsoft.com/de-de/magazine/dd419663.aspx) by John Smith at the Customers Machine.
The MVVM Demo App crashes also, when i try i click to a Menu-Item, Button or select something in a DropDown-List. Enter a Text in a Textfield is okay, but click and select does stop the MVVM Demo App with the Error that the Application does not work.
Here a Event-Log of my App
<Event xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/win/2004/08/events/event">
- <System>
<Provider Name="Application Error" />
<EventID Qualifiers="0">1000</EventID>
<Level>2</Level>
<Task>100</Task>
<Keywords>0x80000000000000</Keywords>
<TimeCreated SystemTime="2013-02-07T11:04:13.000000000Z" />
<EventRecordID>2243</EventRecordID>
<Channel>Application</Channel>
<Computer>RSSec.Machine.local</Computer>
<Security />
</System>
- <EventData>
<Data>MyApp.exe</Data>
<Data>2.0.16.0</Data>
<Data>51136bd8</Data>
<Data>unknown</Data>
<Data>0.0.0.0</Data>
<Data>00000000</Data>
<Data>c000041d</Data>
<Data>74494f0d</Data>
<Data>ecc</Data>
<Data>01ce0522d9d3bc67</Data>
<Data>C:\Program Files (x86)\MyApp\MyApp.exe</Data>
<Data>unknown</Data>
<Data>1ad6d91f-7116-11e2-87c7-10604b689bfe</Data>
</EventData>
</Event>
Can anyone help again ?
Thx
A:
There is at least one problem in your code that's evident from the stack trace. You've written an event handler for the Dispatcher.UnhandledException event and display the exception with a message box. What you do not do is make sure that you avoid doing this if this message box is already displayed. Visible by the multiple appearances of MyApp.Prolog.Application_DispatcherUnhandledException() in the trace.
So there are some odds here that the user is looking at the screen filled with ten thousand message boxes. After which Windows pulled the plug when it refused to allow your program to create any more.
You do not yet know what the real exception looks like. But it is likely to be something gross, something that throws over and over again when the dispatcher loop runs. You'll need to improve your unhandled exception handling to get the real reason it crashed. Do add a bool flag that indicates that the message box is shown and terminate the program when UnhandledException fires again with the flag set to true. And log the exceptions so you can find out what was thrown without the user having to read back what the message box said.
|
A miR-29a-driven negative feedback loop regulates peripheral glucocorticoid receptor signaling.
The glucocorticoid receptor (GR) represents the crucial molecular mediator of key endocrine, glucocorticoid hormone-dependent regulatory circuits, including control of glucose, protein, and lipid homeostasis. Consequently, aberrant glucocorticoid signaling is linked to severe metabolic disorders, including insulin resistance, obesity, and hyperglycemia, all of which also appear upon chronic glucocorticoid therapy for the treatment of inflammatory conditions. Of note, long-term glucocorticoid exposure under these therapeutic conditions typically induces glucocorticoid resistance, requiring higher doses and consequently triggering more severe metabolic phenotypes. However, the molecular basis of acquired glucocorticoid resistance remains unknown. In a screen of differential microRNA expression during glucocorticoid-dependent adipogenic differentiation of human multipotent adipose stem cells, we identified microRNA 29a (miR-29a) as one of the most down-regulated transcripts. Overexpression of miR-29a impaired adipogenesis. We found that miR-29a represses GR in human adipogenesis by directly targeting its mRNA, and downstream analyses revealed that GR mediates most of miR-29a's anti-adipogenic effects. Conversely, miR-29a expression depends on GR activation, creating a novel miR-29-driven feedback loop. miR-29a and GR expression were inversely correlated both in murine adipose tissue and in adipose tissue samples obtained from human patients. In the latter, miR-29a levels were additionally strongly negatively correlated with body mass index and adipocyte size. Importantly, inhibition of miR-29 in mice partially rescued the down-regulation of GR during dexamethasone treatment. We discovered that, in addition to modulating GR function under physiologic conditions, pharmacologic glucocorticoid application in inflammatory disease also induced miR-29a expression, correlating with reduced GR levels. This effect was abolished in mice with impaired GR function. In summary, we uncovered a novel GR-miR-29a negative feedback loop conserved between mice and humans, in health and disease. For the first time, we elucidate a microRNA-related mechanism that might contribute to GR dysregulation and resistance in peripheral tissues.-Glantschnig, C., Koenen, M., Gil-Lozano, M., Karbiener, M., Pickrahn, I., Williams-Dautovich, J., Patel, R., Cummins, C. L., Giroud, M., Hartleben, G., Vogl, E., Blüher, M., Tuckermann, J., Uhlenhaut, H., Herzig, S., Scheideler, M. A miR-29a-driven negative feedback loop regulates peripheral glucocorticoid receptor signaling. |
Slideshow ( 2 images )
FRANKFURT (Reuters) - Deutsche Bank on Monday denied a magazine report that said that the bank had reported to German banking supervisors suspicious funds associated with Jared Kushner, U.S. President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and advisor.
German monthly Manager Magazin reported last week that Deutsche Bank has indications that Kushner, or people or companies close to him, have identified suspicious flows of funds through the bank. The report also said that Deutsche Bank reported its suspicions to German financial watchdog BaFin.
“It is wrong to assert that Deutsche Bank supplied the German financial supervisory authority BaFin with a report stating that the real estate investor Jared Kushner or companies or persons associated with him may have channeled suspect funds via Deutsche Bank when executing their transactions,” Deutsche Bank said.
“We are taking legal action regarding this reporting,” the bank said. |
Menu
……
My head is cloudy, it could possibly be from the amount of cold medicine that I’m taking, don’t ask me how much I’ve taken cause I couldn’t tell you.
But I had the most random dream, due to the amount of cold medicine, I assume.
Well, I’m riding in a truck with the ex in Washington, bizarre in itself, he was still dating his girlfriend and we were talking about them and their relationship. His truck is old but he had automatic side mirror thingys, like it moves them in so they don’t get hit or what not.
Then it jumps to me camping with a bunch of people from high school. First off, I don’t talk to anyone from my grade from high school. It is just a fact. I’m fine with it and it doesn’t bother me. Stuff happens and then I’m seeing my dream through a video camera. I had been in such a deep sleep in my dream that I was sleeping on an inflatable baby pool that was flipped over. They tried to wake me when we were packing up but I wouldn’t wake so they put me on top of a lumber pile, oh did I mention I was sleeping in my bathing suit? embarrassing….. Then the group starts talking about leaving and they bring up the sleeping zombie on top of the lumber pile and then the video camera zooms in on me and I start to wake up. I seriously looked like I was dead up there and I start to get up and the PILE OF WOOD THAT WAS ABOVE MY HEAD STARTED FALLING ON ME!!!!!!!!!
Then I woke up. I still have a major headache, almost like Macie jumped on my head while I was sleeping but she didn’t, she slept on the floor last night in the first place. Dark room, staying in bed until work tonight. Would it be bad to take night quill now since it is 10:37 in the morning? |
Our Sponsors
•
misogyny
•
Notes: Today's word (I hesitate to call it a Good one) is a pair with misandry "hatred of men". For those of us who hate both sexes, English allows us misanthropy to refer to a hatred of all mankind. Be careful not to confuse misanthropy with misandry. A misogynous person infected with misogyny is a misogynist.
In Play: Today's word is very topical given the Democratic candidates in the current US presidential race: "Hillary Clinton's candidacy in the 2008 presidential elections may test the misogyny in US society." Senator Clinton's popularity suggests that it has abated in the new millennium but it still rears its ugsome head now and again: "I think it is less Seymour's shyness than it is his misogyny that keeps him a prisoner of bachelorhood."
Word History: Today's word was borrowed from Greek misogynia based on misos "hatred" + gyne "woman". Gyne also appears in gynecology and is related to Old English cwene which, at various points in its career meant "woman", "wife", and "prostitute"—today's quean. It also shares a source with Old English cween "woman, wife, queen", today's queen. The Greek root is also related to the root gen- "give birth", which we find in generate, gene and oxygen. In Gaelic, for some reason, this root became bean [bayn] in the phrase bean sídhe "woman of the fairies", a phrase that English converted into a single word, banshee. (We love Jackie Strauss and Bob Scala and feel nary a drop of misogyny or misandry toward them for suggesting today's Good Word.)
P.S. - Register for the Daily Good Word E-Mail! - You can get our daily Good Word sent directly to you via e-mail in either HTML or Text format. Go to our Registration Page to sign up today!
Come visit our website at <http://www.alphadictionary.com> for more Good Words and other language resources! |
A freak accident leaves a Quad Cities toddler bleeding from the face and ends his day at the park with a trip to the emergency room.
"I'm just trying to take my kids to the park and have a normal day," Cassandra Roberts, Atticus' mother, said.
One-year-old Atticus was playing at Crow Creek Park in Bettendorf when a drone hit the swings he was on and smacked him in the face.
"You hear their drone swoop over to the swings," Roberts said. "It was a good sized drone and it had the four different propellers."
Roberts told police a group of four were flying the drone over the soccers field when it came down. She filed a police report after taking Atticus to the emergency room.
"I would think my kid falls off the playground before he gets hit with a drone," Roberts said.
The Bettendorf Police Chief said flying a drone in a city park is against city code and the persons responsible could be issued a citation for breaking city code, but they understand it was an accident.
"It was an accident. It was an accident but I can understand because it should not have happened," Roberts said. "He's pretty tough, but not tough enough for a drone."
Roberts said the group did come over and apologize but she did not get the persons information because she was worried about getting Atticus to the E.R. Bettendorf Police are asking anyone with information, including those involved, to call them.
The FAA has a number of regulations for anyone operating a drone, including registration requirements. According to the agencies website, you must be 16-years-old to qualify for a remote pilot certificate, which is required for operating a drone. There are also regulations on what time of day you can operate a drone and weather-related criteria.
The maximum speed is 100 miles-per-hour. You currently cannot fly a small aircraft over anyone not directly participating in the operation. |
New Surfing Game App Needed to Clean Trash From Our Shorelines
Recently, I spoke with a young student and an excellent surfer among others. Mitchell told me that his friend made a video of him surfing the tube of the surf zone, a perfect picture. Unfortunately, there was a piece of garbage in the photo that followed the wave around it that was visible and ruined everything. If it had been just a digital photo, someone could have taken pictures. Okay, let’s talk about it because Mitchell and I thought about it.
Why not an iPhone app game, something like Angry Birds, but it’s overfed over garbage in the sea. The goal of the game would be to stay in balance, but also to take pieces of garbage while you (actually your avatar in this case), and to stop those bits of garbage in your wetsuitzak with a backpack. You get points for every garbage that you collect and dump in the garbage of the beach. You always get points when you tell someone to pick up the discarded garbage.
Now we decided it would be wise to sell this application online for $ 0.99 and half of the money would go to the Surfrider Foundation for their work cleaning the beach. Why? Because Mitchell’s experience should never have happened that day. Nobody in the United States or anywhere else in the world should throw garbage anywhere in the ocean. Just as we paint in rainwater canals, “this water leads to the sea,” people need to understand that waste in the sea is unacceptable.
If such an application was even a tenth as popular as the Angry Birds game app, the amount of awareness and good that could be done would be enough to put an end to waste in the waves. If you search for “The Pacific Gyre” on YouTube, you’ll see how serious this problem is in the world. You may also want to watch; “Garbage Island – Gulf of Mexico” because you once learned how bad it is.
In fact, I’m sure you agree to pay a dollar for a cool iPhone game app by a surfing avatar collecting trash while playing golf. So, I hope you think about it and think about it. If you have further comments or questions, send me an e-mail. |
Q:
Is a simple id->json in SQLite store reasonable for a cheap and dirty Q&A storage?
The Situation
I have a very compressed time schedule to write a simple (basically write-only web app). The app is to be a mostly jQuery-driven question tree. The questions and tree will probably need to change both before and after the site launches.
The answers will get emailed... I probably don't even need to store them, but I'm going to just in case.
This needs to be slapped up on a shared host in very short order.
My proposed strategy
The Question Tree Itself
Implement the question-tree and validation mostly in jQuery and HTML. Keep the question-answer state stored as a javascript object with "Question text" : "Question answer" as the format for each question.
The form validation would be jQuery based only, no server side validation of individual fields other than (as mentioned later) making sure only valid JSON is inserted.
Identifying a User
Handle session state with PHP, use the PHP session ID as the unique key for each user.
As each question is answered, make a simple AJAX call to a very simple PHP script that accepts the PHP session ID, and the JSON repreentation of the object. (The reason for sending it each time is so if the user quits answering questions, at least we get SOME data.)
Storage
Storage is handled in a (php embedded) SQLite DB like this:
CREATE TABLE q_and_a_storage (
php_session_id text primary key,
json_storage text
);
Server Side
The PHP AJAX receive script is very dumb. It simply checks the DB to see if the session id exists, and then INSERT's or UPDATES's as appropriate. It also makes sure that the response is valid JSON before inserting.
I just want to know if this is incredibly foolhardy or if it is reasonable. Is there some big security hole I'm not thinking of?
Things people are going to want to know:
I'm estimating under a million fillers of the form in this iteration
All we really need to do is make sure we send an initial email with the data but I'm storing it just in case
It's VERY likely I'll need to retune the question set, and have almost no way of knowing which questions should go and which should stay.
If I need later analysis of the data I can later send it to a CouchDB and run map/reduce queries on it, which is why this model is attractive to me.
It SEEMS like the javascript only form submission deters most spam, and the only payoff for attack is useless JSON stored in the DB.
Super quick development time and flexibility of the question set are the really important factors here.
A:
Very thorough explanation, thanks. So the one weak spot I see here (if it matters) is that anybody who can evince or guess the session id can "retroactively change" the JSON that represents the answers -- I know you say that JSON is "useless", but, if that's the case, then why are you storing it in the first place?-) Maybe I'm being overly paranoid about the php session id's security (if it's essentially secure, then my objection crumbles), but if there's any value to a potential spammer in performing such retroactive changes, then I'd add a validation level (based on securely encrypted cookies under my own control...).
|
Calgary flood victims angered by alleged price-gouging
CBC
Calgary's flooding woes were further exacerbated on Saturday by reports of price-fixing at the hands of greedy merchants, many of whom appeared to be trying to profit from the desperation of people seeking basic supplies.
Enraged citizens took to social media to report being ripped off by some retailers as they tried to stock up on items such as ice, water and food. With shelves in some shops already stripped bare, reports began to surface that some businesses were taking financial advantage of the crisis.
The Twitter hashtag #YYCgreedy began to trend online, a locator reference to Calgary's airport code. Residents took to the micro-blogging service to call for boycotts on certain stores they accused of illegal price-gouging.
A fruit platter at one shop was allegedly being sold for $59, while a liquor store was reportedly hawking a bag of ice for $20.
CBC's Asha Tomlinson, who was monitoring the social media activity, said people had begun taking photos of their receipts as proof, in hopes that businesses engaging in price-gouging will be brought to justice.
'You'll be out of business,' consumers warn
One man photographed a receipt showing that he paid $48.72 for a pack of 24 bottles of water, commenting on twitter, "Talk about taking advantage of a society in crisis."
Peter McPhee tweeted: "It is called Profiteering and several companies in other provinces where convicted in other disasters. Remember that, gougers!"
Brad MacCallum also weighed in: "Think price gouging is a way to make $$? Good luck. You'll be found, pics will be taken, you'll be out of business."
The Calgary police chief says that he's aware of the reports of price-gouging, as is Bruce Burrell, the fire chief and head of the Calgary Emergency Management Association.
"Under the emergency management act in province of Alberta, price-gouging or price-fixing above normal levels during a state of local emergency is illegal and it would take some co-operation between ourselves and police, but individuals could be prosecuted for that,” Burrell told local Calgary radio station 660 News. |
The present invention relates to a semiconductor memory device, and more particularly, to an address control circuit employed in a semiconductor memory device.
Dynamic random access memory (DRAM) devices are usually operated on using typical signal paths such as a row address path, a column address path and a data path. Usually on the row address path, there are operations that extract a row address from an address supplied externally, select a word line by the row address, and amplify data of a memory cell, which is coupled to the selected word line, by a sense amplifier. Usually on the column address path, there are operations for extracting a column address from an address that is supplied externally by a column address control circuit (hereinafter, referred to as ‘column address control operation’), decoding the column address, and selecting a memory cell by an output enable signal that is selectively activated. Usually on the data path, there are operations for outputting data through bit lines to an external system in response to a selected output enable signal or for storing external data in a memory cell through a bit line.
In general semiconductor memory devices, pads through which addresses, commands and data are input and output are generally placed at the centers of chips of the semiconductor memory devices. But, in other semiconductor memory devices for mobile apparatuses, pads are disposed along the edges of the chips thereof. For example, while pads receiving an address and a command are placed at one edge of a semiconductor memory device chip, pads through which data are input/output are placed at the other edge of the chip.
FIG. 1 shows a semiconductor memory device having a general column address control circuit.
In the semiconductor memory device of FIG. 1, a command address input circuit 100, which includes receiving pads that receive an address and a command, is placed at the opposite edge region of a data input/output circuit 101, which includes I/O pads through which data are input/output, interposed by a memory cell array of banks BANK1˜BANK8. The edge region where the command address input circuit 100 is placed also includes a column address control circuit 102 that functions for column address control operations to extract a column address AY from an address A provided from the command address input circuit 100.
With this structure of the semiconductor memory device, in a read operation mode for the first bank BANK1, the column address AY generated from the column address control circuit 102 is used to select a first memory cell C1 through a first column address path CAP1 and then data is output from the first memory cell C1 to the data input/output circuit 101 by way of a first data path DP1. In a read operation mode for the eighth bank BANK8, the column address AY generated from the column address control circuit 102 is used to select a second memory cell C2 through a second column address path CAP2 and then data is output from the second memory cell C2 to the data input/output circuit 101 by way of a second data path DP2. In the read operation mode, the column address path is the same as the data path in the progress direction.
Meantime, in a write operation mode for the first bank BANK1, the column address AY generated from the column address control circuit 102 is used to select the first memory cell C1 through the first column address path CAP1 and then data DIN supplied into the data input/output circuit 101 is stored in the first memory cell C1 by way of a third data path DP3. During this operation, there is a skew between transmission times of the column address AY and the input data DIN because the first column address path CAP1 is shorter than the third data path DP3.
Further, in a write operation mode for the eighth bank BANK8, the column address AY generated from the column address control circuit 102 is used to select the second memory cell C2 through the second column address path CAP2 and then data DIN supplied into the data input/output circuit 101 is stored in the second memory cell C2 by way of a fourth data path DP4. During this operation, there is a skew between transmission times of the column address AY and the input data DIN because the fourth data path DP4 is shorter than the second column address path CAP3. |
9 Best Wiring Ceiling Light Which, 2 Switches Photos
Related photos in this diagram:
Other recommended diagram ideas:
9 Best Wiring Ceiling Light Which, 2 Switches Photos - If you want this picture please proper click on and store the image, thanks for touring this internet site, we provide plenty of alternatives associated to three way wiring diagrams and a pair of switches two light transfer three new how internal to wire a ceiling fan with pictures for you, do now not hesitate to come lower back.
If you want this photograph please right click on and keep the photo, thanks for visiting this website, we offer loads of alternatives associated with how to wire a ceiling fan with 2 switches inspirational 5 way transfer picturesque wiring photographs for you, do now not hesitate to come back again.
Inspirational the way to twine a ceiling fan with light transfer diagram and switches diagrams, ceiling fan speed manipulate switch wiring diagram on a way to wire a for internal with switches diagrams, inspirational the way to cord a ceiling fan with mild switch diagram and two switches diagrams, ceiling fan with light wiring diagram switches solutions for a way to wire a diagrams, a way to cord a ceiling fan with light package and two switches installation within diagrams, the way to wire a ceiling fan with two switches diagrams wiring internal, wiring ceiling fan with switches home design ideas at the way to for cord a diagrams, 2 manner transfer wiring diagram at a ceiling fan with two switches in the way to twine diagrams, breathtaking fan mild switch wiring 37 ceiling diagram org two and the way to wire a with switches diagrams, 3 manner wiring diagrams and a couple of switches mild transfer 3 new how internal to twine a ceiling fan with, wiring diagram ceiling fan mild switches files alivna co new how to twine a with diagrams, three manner dimmer transfer wiring diagram uk ceiling fan light housing in for the way to cord a with two switches diagrams, the way to cord ceiling fan with light switch youtube at a switches diagrams, 3 way switch ceiling fan wiring diagram diagrams schematics within a way to twine a with two switches, gallery.
Copyright & Trademark
All images and diagrams on this site have ownership rights from the source site we took. All information on this site is purely taken from several sources that we consider relevant and useful to you. So, if you feel objected to the image that we are showing now please contact me at here. |
The Ukrainian military and Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine continue to accuse each other of violating a cease-fire agreement.
The army said in a statement on August 21 that the separatists had fired 71 times at various government-controlled areas near the front line over the past 24 hours.
According to the statement, posted on Facebook, the most intense shelling occurred in the village of Avdiyivka, which came under heavy artillery fire by the separatists during the night time.
During the day, the separatists shelled Avdiyivka from mortars and grenade launchers, the statement said.
Meanwhile, the separatists claimed that the Ukrainian military launched more than 180 shells on rebel-held areas in Donetsk overnight.
The separatists said the Ukrainian government forces targeted several separatist-controlled areas, including Yasinovataya, Dokuchayevsk, and Trudovskiye.
Earlier this month, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said the situation in eastern Ukraine continues to deteriorate and accused “the enemy” of trying to undermine the Minsk peace process aimed at settling the conflict.
According to the United Nations, more than 9,500 people have been killed in the conflict since it began in April 2014.
Based on reporting by unian.net and TASS
|
Starting from the next academic year, students who enrol in teacher training courses will no longer automatically get teaching licences from the Teachers' Council of Thailand (TCT), but will instead have to pass a test set by its Professional Standards Committee.
The TCT board recently decided to scrap the automatic granting of licences to graduates from next year, thinking it would be better to test each graduate before deciding whether to give them a licence.
The Education Ministry also recently introduced a policy to cut the length of teacher-training courses nationwide from five to four years from next year, believing a shorter course is necessary to keep pace with a changing world.
This move is a reversal of the trend Thailand embraced in 2004, when the five-year teacher-training course was introduced in the hope of boosting teaching quality and enhancing the profession's prestige.
"It's time to make changes to keep pace with the changing world," Deputy Education Minister Udom Kachintorn said.
He insisted that shorter courses would not see a drop in quality.
"On the contrary, the quality will be better," he said.
According to Dr Udom, all graduates from the four-year teacher-training courses will be required to demonstrate a solid knowledge of English by achieving the B2 or Vantage level of proficiency (upper intermediate), based on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages.
"Those who teach English must be categorised as proficient speakers [C1 category] -- people demonstrating effective operational proficiency or advanced knowledge of English," he said.
He added that "soft" skills would also receive stronger emphasis in the revised programmes.
Moreover, he said, students who enrol in teacher training courses from the next academic year, and who will graduate in 2023, will also be required to pass tests designed by the Professional Standards Committee before receiving teaching licences.
Ekachai Keesookpun, head of the Professional Standards Committee, said his agency is developing tests for the teaching licence.
Under the plan, students undertaking the new four-year teacher-training course will basic teaching skills and another for up-to-date knowledge or knowledge of changes in the world and the nation.
"Tests will only be required for those seeking a teaching licence from 2023, Mr Ekachai said.
"Students who complete the present five-year teacher-training course will not be required to take any tests, but they must be evaluated by their professors as to whether they deserve a teaching licence or not," he added. |
If there's one essential truth about TransCanada's proposed Energy East pipeline, it's the project's power to divide Canadians — even after it's been abandoned.
The company announced this week it would no longer pursue the oil pipeline that would have carried unrefined product from Alberta and Saskatchewan to New Brunswick. It blamed delays in the regulatory process and higher costs associated with meeting the new, stricter emission standards for the decision.
Others will dissect the business case for, or against, Energy East. But the political consequences are just as important. As are the divides. This time it's not just West versus East. It's West and East versus Central Canada.
The response from provinces at both ends of the proposed line ranged from disappointment to anger.
Federal Conservatives, with their Western base, tilted far to the latter.
Lisa Raitt, deputy leader of the Conservatives, says Trudeau is responsible for TransCanada's decision to walk away from its Energy East pipeline project. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)
"This [decision] is a result of the disastrous energy policies promoted by Justin Trudeau and his failure to champion the Canadian energy sector," deputy leader Lisa Raitt said Thursday.
"He forced Canadian oil companies to comply with standards that are not required of foreign companies. These decisions have allowed companies operating in places like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Algeria to ship oil to Canada with an advantage over companies like TransCanada that employs middle class Canadians."
More than half of Canada's oil imports, in fact, come from the U.S., according to the most recent report from Natural Resources Canada based on 2014 numbers. Venezuela's not even in the top 10.
Blame game
But never mind. Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr, a Manitoban, was more concerned with putting the blame on TransCanada, market conditions and lower oil prices.
"This was a business decision," he sombrely told reporters, noting his government has approved two other pipelines under the new National Energy Board process. He rejected any suggestion his government is more open to foreign imports from countries with less stringent regulations.
"We won't be involved in a race to the bottom."
Not a race. But this country has a long history of playing politics with energy. The Liberals still can't win more than a handful of seats in Alberta nearly four decades after Pierre Trudeau's reviled National Energy Program.
'Not a good day for Canada'
The Conservatives' dominance in that province now spills into neighbouring Saskatchewan, where the oil sector plays a prominent role in the economy.
"Today is not a good day for Canada. It is not a good day for the federation. It is a bad day for the West," Brad Wall, the province's outgoing premier, said in a written statement.
"TransCanada made the decision to cancel Energy East but make no mistake, the reasons for it all fall at the feet of Prime Minister Trudeau and the federal government."
Energy East would have been a tough political sell ... especially among progressive voters in those urban ridings of Montreal. - Yolande James, federal Liberal candidate in Montreal
In Ontario and particularly Quebec, Energy East became synonymous with risk: to waterways and natural habitat along the route, to Canada's ability to meet its international climate change commitments and, ultimately, to the political fortunes of the federal Liberal Party.
"This takes the pressure off," said Yolande James, a former Quebec cabinet minister and federal Liberal candidate in Montreal.
"Energy East would have been a tough political sell. There was no pathway that I could see for a political win, especially among progressive voters in those urban ridings of Montreal."
Those ridings, and others in the two Central provinces, matter far more to the Liberals with an election still two years away.
Alberta and Saskatchewan offer limited political upside even if Energy East went ahead with all its construction jobs and potential for economic activity.
At the other end of the proposed pipeline, in New Brunswick, the Liberals already hold all 10 seats. As CBC polls analyst Éric Grenier points out, there's serious potential for some losses, but a friendly provincial Liberal government lessens the opposition inside the province.
There's far more to be lost (or gained) in Ontario and Quebec.
Opposition to Energy East runs strong in many urban centres of Quebec where Liberal support is heavily concentrated. Mayors like Denis Coderre in Montreal, a former Liberal MP, led the charge.
"We are against it because it represents significant environmental threats and too few economic benefits for greater Montreal," he said back in January of 2016.
Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre says the abandonment of the Energy East pipeline project is 'a major victory.' (Jacques Boissinot/Canadian Press)
On Thursday, he took large doses of credit for TransCanada's decision.
"It's a major victory."
Coderre's victory dance went over poorly in Saint John, N.B.
"This was an opportunity for our country to come together and we failed. How would he feel if we blocked Bombardier?" Mayor Don Darling wrote.
Political possibilities
Grenier says polls suggest the Liberals have the potential to pick up 10 to 20 more seats in Quebec. It's still no guarantee, but now there's far less chance of having Coderre and provincial politicians attacking the federal Liberals' credibility for allowing another pipeline to proceed while claiming to care about climate change.
The end of Energy East could also deprive the NDP, and new leader Jagmeet Singh, of some of the oxygen needed to undermine the Liberals' claim to being more progressive on environmental issues.
Polls, of course, are only a snapshot in time. The real impact, both politically and economically, of Energy East's demise could take weeks or months to sort out.
Until then, a pipeline that was supposed to connect oilfields in the West with refineries in the East serves as a reminder that energy policy in this country has a long history of fuelling divisions. |
PARTICULATE MATTERS
As they say, size matters. Nowhere is this more critical than in inhaled particulate matter. The fate of these particles in the human body is distinctly different depending upon size. Above 10 microns (micrometers) the particles tend to be captured in the nose and throat. Below that they are apt to enter the lungs. The truly small particles, less than 2.5 microns, are designated PM2.5 and go deep into the tissues. They are implicated with all manner of morbidity and mortality related to respiratory and heart disease. In some estimates 75000 premature deaths annually are attributed to this cause in the US. The numbers are greater in Europe. The worst hit are rural areas of India and Africa where the cause is biomass combustion for cooking. Women doing the cooking, often in enclosed huts, and the children in proximity, are the worst affected. In fact, in general, respiratory damage short of mortality is much greater in growing children.
One of the major sources of PM2.5 is combustion in general and of coal in particular. Natural gas substitution of coal, done for economic reasons, will have a direct positive effect on particulate emissions. The impact on carbon dioxide reduction is well known and contributed in part to the fact that the US, a non-signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has made the most progress of any nation in carbon mitigation. But the positive effect on public health through reductions in PM10 and PM2.5 are less well known and need better airing.
The EPA has gone back on forth on regulations regarding condensable particulate matter. First some definitions are in order. Particulate matter from processes such as combustion comes in two varieties. The first is material that is already solid and in the size range of under 10 microns and somewhat amenable to filtering out. The second is particulate matter or liquid droplets that form outside the process due to the condensation of vapors such as sulfuric acid mist and metal vapors, either directly or upon reacting with something. This last is almost exclusively in the PM2.5 class and hence the most deleterious.
In 2008 the EPA added condensable PM to the regulatory compliance list. In October 2012, they issued a “clarification” removing condensable PM from the list of measurements required, seemingly because it is not PM in the smoke stack. Producers are still required to calculate the value. This regulatory confusion aside (at least I am confused) PM2.5 is a killer that needs monitoring and reduction.
DME molecule: no carbon to carbon bonding means no soot on combustion
Diesel Displacement: A less obvious consequence of the shale gas bounty is the emerging area of diesel displacement. Diesel has a lot to recommend itself. The higher energy density (than gasoline) and higher efficiency engine makes it the fuel of choice for heavy duty vehicles, locomotives and ships. Advances continue to be made in particulate filtration. However, there is the question of massive legacy fleets, especially in China and India. Tens of Indian cities have converted to CNG for public transport, with well documented reductions in mortality and morbidity. So, the public health value of displacing diesel is not in dispute.
In the US shale gas has entered the debate from two angles. On the one hand the cheap gas allows for economical displacement of diesel; more on that below. But not to be forgotten is the fact that shale gas operations are often in areas proximal to homes and businesses. These operations use diesel copiously. All fracturing pumps run on the stuff. Every truck hauling water and sand runs on diesel. While it is true that trucks are a part of the existing commercial enterprise, the trucks associated with shale gas operations are additive and comprise short but intense bursts of activity. As a first step all fracturing pumps ought to switch to alternatives with low or no particulate emissions. Apache Corporation is already piloting the use of LNG in place of diesel, so feasibility is not the issue. Although the pumps belong to a service company and they are manufactured by yet another such as Caterpillar, championship by the oil company customer gets things done.
Diesel Alternatives: Stationary equipment such as described above and backup power generators are the simplest targets because the logistics of supply of alternative fuels is more straightforward. The substitutes most likely to take a hold are compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG) and dimethyl ether (DME, pictured above). Each of these has lesser energy content per gallon than diesel, but is economical even within that constraint for stationary applications.
For motive applications the energy density penalty pretty much makes the choice of alternative. For short haul applications with well-designed refueling hubs the least dense and cheapest CNG makes the most sense. The Waste Management trucks in the Research Triangle area are an excellent example. For medium haul DME make the most sense and LNG for long haul and trains and boats. DME and LNG are essentially interchangeable (engine modifications are slightly different) and the choice will depend on factors such as refueling infrastructure. This last has strongly been enabled for both by recent advances in distributed production of the fuel. This is critical for LNG because long distance supply is less practical when the container has to be maintained at -161 degrees C.
The public health imperative relative to PM2.5 needs more public activism. Displacing coal fired electricity and diesel fueled engines are worthy objectives and ought to be accelerated. The first is happening purely as a consequence of shale gas being cheap. Diesel displacement will take more effort, including policy action by cities and states. Those opposed to shale gas production on environmental grounds would do well to consider the positive impact on PM2.5 reduction. |
Introduction
============
Many cancer survivors experience a variety of disruptive and burdensome symptoms, including fatigue, pain, altered sleep, mood dysregulation, and cognitive dysfunction long into survivorship.[@b1-bctt-8-029]--[@b3-bctt-8-029] Although our ability to describe the duration, frequency, and severity of symptoms related to cancer and cancer treatments has vastly improved, our understanding of the mechanisms that influence symptom variability and our ability to personalize symptom prediction for an individual cancer survivor and intervene effectively remain limited. While still in its infancy, research is beginning to suggest that the presence and/or severity of symptoms reported by cancer survivors may not be solely the result of cancer treatments, but may be associated with disease-related factors of cancer and/or host characteristics that predispose an individual to cancer as well as a particular symptom.[@b4-bctt-8-029]--[@b6-bctt-8-029]
Breast cancer survivors have been the focus of a large proportion of cancer survivor symptom research. Studies conducted with breast cancer survivors on the symptom of cognitive dysfunction especially, are contributing an increasing amount of evidence in support of our hypothesis that disease-related factors of cancer and/or host characteristics that influence cancer development or progression contribute to the presence and severity of symptoms experienced by cancer survivors.
Cognitive dysfunction research in breast cancer survivors has traditionally concentrated on the direct neurotoxic effect of chemotherapeutic agents on the brain. Often referred to as "chemo brain" or "chemo fog", short- and long-term cognitive changes have been well-documented in women with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy.[@b7-bctt-8-029] With the increasing use of antiestrogen therapies for prevention of breast cancer recurrence, the influence of estrogen and the use of antiestrogen therapies on cognitive decline in breast cancer survivors have become an additional focus of research on treatment-related cognitive changes.[@b8-bctt-8-029]--[@b14-bctt-8-029]
However, more recent research demonstrates that cognitive changes may actually occur in breast cancer survivors prior to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy and/or antiestrogen therapy. In a study of 109 women with breast cancer scheduled to receive chemotherapy, Hermelink et al[@b15-bctt-8-029] found that group mean scores were significantly poorer than test norms on five out of twelve cognitive tests before the start of treatment. In addition, 33 survivors scored in the lower fifth percentile of test norms on two or more cognitive tests unrelated to depression, anxiety, or self-reported cognitive problems. Similarly, Wefel et al[@b16-bctt-8-029] reported that 29 out of 84 breast cancer survivors diagnosed with stage 1--3a breast cancer were classified as cognitively impaired (ie, multiple cognitive tests with *z*-scores ≤−1.5 or a single test with *z*-score ≤−2.0) before receiving chemotherapy compared to normative data.
Even more compelling are findings from studies comparing the cognitive function of breast cancer survivors to healthy controls. Ahles et al[@b17-bctt-8-029] found that women with invasive breast cancer had poorer overall cognitive performance compared to women with noninvasive breast cancer and healthy controls. Bender et al[@b18-bctt-8-029] also reported pretreatment differences in cognitive function in the domains of verbal learning and memory and attention between women with breast cancer prescribed antiestrogen therapy with or without chemotherapy and healthy controls matched on age and years of education. Although not statistically significant, Schagen et al[@b19-bctt-8-029] found that 16.4% of survivors prescribed chemotherapy and 29.8% of survivors with stage 1 breast cancer who were prescribed no systemic treatment displayed cognitive impairment before initiation of adjuvant treatment compared to 10% of healthy controls.
While multiple factors potentially predict cognitive function in women with breast cancer prior to adjuvant therapy, we hypothesize that these pretreatment findings suggest that disease-related factors inherent in breast cancer and/or host characteristics that predispose an individual to cancer as well as cognitive dysfunction may be a major determinant of cognitive changes in women with breast cancer. Additionally, only a subset of breast cancer survivors appears to be affected by cognitive dysfunction. We further hypothesize that heterogeneity in the biology of breast cancers at the cellular level could account for a significant proportion of reported discrepancies in cognitive function among survivors.
One common clinical tool used to evaluate the underlying biology of breast cancer cells is the prognostic multigene expression profile for breast cancer. These profiles enhance knowledge received from traditional tumor features and utilize predictive algorithms of tumor gene expression levels to individualize treatment through estimation of adjuvant therapy benefit and distant cancer recurrence risk. Thus, each prognostic multigene expression profile is comprised of genes that play an important role in breast cancer aggressiveness and progression, and, consequently, represent ideal candidates for a genetic association study exploring our hypotheses ([Figure 1](#f1-bctt-8-029){ref-type="fig"}).
In this article, we specifically aim to present a novel approach, based on genes examined in prognostic multigene expression profiles for breast cancer, to the identification and prioritization of biologically plausible candidate genes for future investigations of the association between genetic variation and symptoms experienced by breast cancer survivors. We will focus on 1) characteristics of five different prognostic multigene expression profiles for breast cancer, 2) prioritization of candidate genes replicated in two or more profiles, 3) biological functions of our identified, parsimonious candidate gene set, and 4) a discussion of the potential expanded clinical utility of prognostic multigene expression profiles for breast cancer, and, more generally, cancer symptom prediction.
Methods
=======
Selected breast-cancer-related prognostic multigene expression profiles
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prognostic multigene expression profiles use tumor gene expression levels to evaluate the underlying biology of breast cancer cells and predict long-term outcomes and potential benefit of additional adjuvant therapy. Several groups have developed prognostic multigene expression profiles for breast cancer: the eleven-gene expression signature (marketed as the Breast Cancer Index^SM^ by bioTheranostics, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA),[@b28-bctt-8-029] the 14-gene prognostic expression signature (described in Tutt et al[@b23-bctt-8-029]), the 21-gene breast cancer assay (marketed as the Oncotype DX^®^ Breast Cancer Assay by Genomic Health^®^, Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA),[@b29-bctt-8-029],[@b30-bctt-8-029] the 50-gene breast cancer prognostic gene signature assay (marketed as the Prosigna^®^ Breast Cancer Prognostic Gene Signature Assay by NanoString^®^ Technologies, Inc., Seattle, WA, USA) based on the PAM50 Breast Cancer Intrinsic Classifier,[@b31-bctt-8-029] and the 70-gene breast cancer recurrence assay (marketed as the MammaPrint^®^ 70 Gene Breast Cancer Recurrence Assay by Agendia^®^, Irvine, CA, USA).[@b32-bctt-8-029],[@b33-bctt-8-029]
The number of cancer genes utilized in each profile varies greatly, ranging from 7 in the eleven-gene expression signature to 70 in the 70-gene breast cancer recurrence assay. All of the prognostic multigene expression profiles provide predictions of 5- and/or 10-year distant breast cancer recurrence risk, except the 14-gene prognostic expression signature, which is specifically intended for prediction of distant metastasis. With the exception of the 50-gene breast cancer prognostic gene signature assay, which is not purposed to assist in the selection of optimal therapy, results from the remaining prognostic multigene expression profiles are intended to guide clinical treatment decisions, relaying the benefit of additional adjuvant chemotherapy and/or antiestrogen therapy. [Table 1](#t1-bctt-8-029){ref-type="table"} compares important characteristics of the five prognostic multigene expression profiles, including number of genes evaluated, clinical utility, and patient eligibility.
Identification and prioritization of candidate genes
----------------------------------------------------
A list of genes evaluated within each of the five prognostic multigene expression profiles was compiled. Lists of genes were obtained from the following locations in March 2014: the eleven-gene expression profile (Jerevall et al),[@b28-bctt-8-029] the 14-gene prognostic expression signature (Tutt et al),[@b23-bctt-8-029] the 21-gene breast cancer assay (<http://breast-cancer.oncotypedx.com>), the 50-gene breast cancer prognostic gene signature assay (<https://genome.unc.edu/pubsup/breastGEO/>), and 70-gene breast cancer recurrence assay (Tian et al).[@b40-bctt-8-029] Genes utilized in two or more profiles were prioritized for selection.
Pathway analysis of gene set
----------------------------
In order to ensure adequate representation of the biological capabilities of cancer in the parsimonious high priority candidate gene set, a gene-gene pathway analysis was conducted, using QIAGEN's Ingenuity^®^ Pathway Analysis software (IPA^®^, QIAGEN Redwood City, CA, USA, [www.qiagen.com/ingenuity](http://www.qiagen.com/ingenuity)), to evaluate functional networks. Both direct and indirect relationships were analyzed. All molecules and/or relationships were considered.
Results
=======
Among the five included prognostic gene expression profiles, 127 unique genes were identified. Twenty-one genes (*BAG1*, *BCL2*, *BIRC5*, *CCNB1*, *CENPA*, *CMC2*, *DIAPH3*, *ERBB2*, *ESR1*, *GRB7*, *MELK*, *MKI67*, *MMP11*, *MYBL2*, *NDC80*, *ORC6*, *PGR*, *RACGAP1*, *RFC4*, *RRM2*, and *SCUBE2*) are utilized in two or more of the profiles ([Table 2](#t2-bctt-8-029){ref-type="table"}). Five genes (*CCNB1*, *CENPA*, *MELK*, *MYBL2*, and *ORC6*) are used in three profiles. Primary functions of the identified candidate genes are provided in [Table 2](#t2-bctt-8-029){ref-type="table"}.
The pathway analysis revealed that the main molecular and cellular functions of the parsimonious, high priority gene set are cell cycle, cellular development, cellular growth and proliferation, cell death and survival, and gene expression. Canonical pathways containing one or more of the identified 21 genes are displayed in [Figure 2](#f2-bctt-8-029){ref-type="fig"}. Three unique networks were identified ([Figure 3](#f3-bctt-8-029){ref-type="fig"}). The main associated diseases and functions of the three networks are 1) cancer, organismal injury and abnormalities, and reproductive system disease; 2) DNA replication, recombination, and repair, connective tissue disorders, and dental disease; and 3) cellular development, reproductive system development and function, and molecular transport. The pathway analysis also identified a number of plausible upstream transcription regulators of the identified 21 gene set, including *TP53*, *CDKN1A*, *CDKN2A*, *E2F1*, and *E2F4*.
Discussion and conclusion
=========================
In the future, we envision a holistic, personalized health care environment, in which breast cancer survivors receive not only a refined cancer diagnosis and prognosis based on the results of prognostic multigene expression profiles, but genetically tailored preclinical symptom prediction and proactive symptom management as well. Inspired by findings related to reported changes in cognitive function in women with breast cancer, this project, intended to identify and prioritize biologically plausible candidate genes, represents an initial and integral step in establishing a relationship between genetic variation and symptom variability in breast cancer survivors.
Driven by our hypothesis that symptom variability in breast cancer survivors is related to variation in the biology of cancer cells, we employed the innovative approach detailed in this article to select candidate genes based on prognostic multigene expression profiles for breast cancer. While we believe that all 127 unique genes evaluated as part of the included prognostic multigene expression profiles for breast cancer should be considered as candidates to test the proposed hypothesis, our project revealed considerable overlap in genes represented in the profiles with 21 genes replicated in two or more profiles. Five of the 21 replicated genes are used in three profiles. Because each prognostic multigene expression profile was developed to individualize breast cancer prognostication based on associations between breast cancer tumor gene expression levels and clinically relevant cancer outcomes, including recurrence and metastasis, replication of genes utilized in multiple profiles may be particularly important in describing the heterogeneity of breast cancer tumor cell biology and, consequently, should be prioritized for evaluation.
Nevertheless, by limiting a future investigation to variation in genes replicated in two or more profiles, we risk the inadvertent elimination of one or more of the biologic capabilities that enable tumor growth and metastatic dissemination. Eight biologic hallmarks of cancer have been identified and include resisting cell death, deregulating cellular energetics, sustaining proliferative signaling, evading growth suppressors, avoiding immune destruction, enabling replicative immortality, activating invasion and metastasis, and inducing angiogenesis.[@b41-bctt-8-029] To ensure that our parsimonious, high priority gene set broadly incorporated these eight hallmarks, an Ingenuity^®^ Pathway Analysis was conducted. The results of our pathway analysis revealed that the main molecular and cellular functions of the gene set were cell cycle, cellular development, cellular growth and proliferation, cell death and survival, and gene expression. We also found that the majority of the canonical pathways the genes in our identified gene set are contained within are related to cancer/cellular signaling. Furthermore, the genes identified by the analysis as potential upstream regulators of the gene set, *TP53*, *CDKN1A*, *CDKN2A*, *E2F1*, and *E2F4*, all play important roles in cell cycle control and tumor suppression. Due to the overlap between the molecular and cellular functions of the gene set and the hallmarks of cancer, we believe that the biologic hallmarks of cancer are represented in the prioritized gene set.
Interestingly, a further examination of genes, molecules, gene products, and gene complexes/interactions in the identified networks revealed minimal overlap with genes in the prognostic multigene expression profiles. We were surprised to find that only six genes (*CCNE1, CCNE2, FLT1, MCM6, MMP9*, and *PRC1*), beyond those contained in the inputted 21 gene set, are utilized in one of the five included prognostic multigene expression profiles. While unintentional and not the purpose of this project, we believe that the remaining network genes could be considered as potential candidates to develop new prognostic multigene expression profiles for breast cancer, to increase the sensitivity/specificity of current profiles, and/or as a means to potentially expand patient eligibility criteria.
Although conceptualized within the context of cognitive dysfunction, the identified genes would be ideal candidates for investigations of symptom variability in other disruptive and burdensome symptoms associated with breast cancer, its treatments, or both as well. The identified 21 gene set would be especially relevant for symptoms previously found to be associated with disease-related factor of breast cancer, such as fatigue, which has been predicted by tumor size and lymph involvement.[@b42-bctt-8-029],[@b43-bctt-8-029] Moreover, the novel approach we employed to select candidate genes for investigations of variability in breast cancer symptoms can also be applied to other cancers that have biologically based commercially available prognostic multigene expression profiles, such as colon and prostate cancer, and associated symptoms.
Genetic variability within the proposed candidate gene set can be evaluated in a number of ways, including evaluation of polymorphisms, gene expression levels, protein levels, and epigenetic changes in both the host and tumor tissue. We recognize that symptom variability, especially at the time of diagnosis, may be driven by tumor gene expression, the consequences of tumor expression and related protein production on the rest of the body, and subsequent removal and treatment of the primary tumor and secondary sites. Thus, we recommend that future symptomatology studies focus on relationships between tumor gene expression/protein levels and symptom variability in cancer survivors. Significant results from tumor gene expression studies in particular, could greatly and directly expand the clinical utility of currently available prognostic multigene expression profiles. For instance, a modified version of the gene expression algorithms could potentially generate a range of Cognitive Decline Risk Scores or Fatigue Risk Scores, based on the treatment regimen that is ultimately selected, other clinicopathologic tumor features, and baseline patient characteristics for each breast cancer survivor. However, relationships between host DNA and symptom variability are desirable as well because host DNA variation remains constant over time and is not tissue specific. Prediction of symptoms using host DNA would be especially advantageous for unusable tumor tissue, survivors with a clear prognosis and treatment regimen recommendation based on other clinicopathologic tumor features who would not be eligible for further prognostic multigene expression profile testing, or post hoc symptom prediction after tissue RNA has degraded and quantified gene expression level accuracy would be questionable.
However, we would like to acknowledge that this approach is not without limitations. Of particular interest, the multigene expression profiles from which candidate genes were selected, with the exception of the 70-gene breast cancer recurrence assay, all require positive breast cancer tumor estrogen or progesterone receptor status as an eligibility criterion. Consequently, genetic variation important for symptom variability in women with hormone receptor negative and triple-negative breast cancers may not be adequately captured in the prioritized gene set. In other words, the clinical applicability of breast cancer survivor symptom prediction may be limited to women with tumors that reflect the eligibility criteria of the five multigene expression profiles used to generate the candidate gene list. Additional candidate genes should be considered for other subsets of breast cancers not emphasized in the currently available multigene expression profiles.
Undoubtedly, the results of future investigations of symptom variability in breast cancer survivors based on disease characteristics at the cellular level, such as genetic variability in the high priority 21 gene set identified in this article, have the potential to substantially impact both the care of breast cancer survivors and the practice of health care providers alike, extending the clinical utility of prognostic multigene expression profiles for breast cancer and providing the patient and the provider with a means of weighing not only cancer prognosis and recurrence, but also the quality of life due to burdensome symptoms, into treatment decisions as well.
This project was supported by the Targeted Research and Academic Training for Nurses in Genomics (T32NR009759) training program and the Cognitive Function and Breast Cancer: Genomics and Disease Characteristics (F31NR014590) study. The authors acknowledge Dr Susan Cohen, PhD, FNP-BC, FAAN, and members of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Survivorship Research Seminar for thoughtfully reviewing this manuscript. Portions of this project were presented at the International Society of Nurses in Genetics (ISONG) Silver Anniversary Conference in 2013.
**Disclosure**
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.
{#f1-bctt-8-029}
).](bctt-8-029Fig2){#f2-bctt-8-029}
). Identified candidate genes are highlighted in green. All identified candidate genes are included. The main associated functions of each network are as follows: (**A**) cancer, organismal injury and abnormalities, and reproductive system disease; (**B**) DNA replication, recombination, and repair, connective tissue disorders, and dental disease; and (**C**) cellular development, reproductive system development and function, and molecular transport. The node shapes and relationship type legend can be found at <http://ingenuity.force.com/ipa/articles/Feature_Description/Legend>.](bctt-8-029Fig3){#f3-bctt-8-029}
######
Prognostic multigene expression profiles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Provider Number of cancer genes evaluated Clinical utility Patient eligibility Website Reference
------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------
11-gene expression signature Breast Cancer Index^SM^ bioTheranostics, Inc. (San Diego, CA, USA) 7 (5 gene molecular grade index; 2 gene HOXB13: IL17BR index, an expression ratio biomarker) Predicts late (5--10 year) and overall (0--10 year) recurrence risk as well as likelihood of endocrine therapy benefit; stratifies patients into high or low risk of distant recurrence and high or low likelihood of benefit from extended endocrine therapy Patients with ER (+), lymph node (−/+, 1--3 positive nodes), early stage breast cancer who are distant recurrence-free <http://breastcancerindex.com> [@b20-bctt-8-029]--[@b22-bctt-8-029]
14-gene prognostic expression signature Not currently supported 14 Predicts distant metastasis; guides treatment decisions related to adjuvant therapy Patients with ER (+),lymph node (−), early stage breast cancer NA [@b23-bctt-8-029]
21-gene breast cancer assay Oncotype DX^®^ Genomic Health^®^, Inc. (Redwood City, CA, USA) 16 (for invasive breast cancer) 7 (for DCIS) Predicts 10-year risk of distant recurrence and likelihood of chemotherapy benefit for invasive breast cancer; gene expression levels are aggregated and provided as a scaled Recurrence Score^®^ result (on a 0--100 scale); patients are stratified into high, intermediate, or low risk groups; also provides quantitative single gene scores for ER, PR, and HER2; predicts 10-year risk of distant recurrence (DCIS or invasive) for DCIS Pre- or post-menopausal patients with ER (+), lymph node (−), HER2 (−),stage I, II or IIIa invasive breast cancer\ <http://breast-cancer.oncotypedx.com> [@b24-bctt-8-029],[@b25-bctt-8-029]
Post-menopausal patients with lymph node (+, 1--3 positive nodes), HR (+),HER2 (−), stage I, II or IIIa invasive breast cancer\
DCIS treated by lumpectomy, not mastectomy, regardless of Tamoxifen status (+/−)
50-gene breast cancer prognostic gene signature assay Prosigna^®^ NanoString^®^ Technologies, Inc. (Seattle, WA, USA) 50 Predicts 10-year distant recurrence-free survival using gene-algorithm generated Prosigna^®^ Score (0--100); stratifies patients into high, intermediate, or low risk groups. Provides risk group classification to facilitate interpretation of Prosigna^®^ score with clinical outcomes Post-menopausal patients with HR (+),lymph node (−), stage I or II invasive breast cancer to be treated with adjuvant endocrine therapy alone\ <http://www.prosigna.com> [@b26-bctt-8-029]
Post-menopausal patients with HR (+),lymph node (+, 1--3 positive nodes), stage II invasive breast cancer treated with adjuvant endocrine therapy alone
70-gene breast cancer recurrence assay MammaPrint^®^ Agendia^®^ (Irvine, CA, USA) 70 Predicts 5- and 10-year distant recurrence and guides treatment decisions, including potential chemotherapy benefit; stratifies patients into low or high risk groups Patients with ER (+/−), lymph node (−),stage I or II invasive breast cancer tumor ≤5 cm in size <http://www.agendia.com/healthcare-professionals/breast-cancer/mammaprint> [@b27-bctt-8-029]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Notes:** Information regarding Prosigna^®^ is provided courtesy of NanoString Technologies, Inc., [www.Prosigna.com](http://www.Prosigna.com). © 2014--15 NanoString Technologies, Inc. All rights reserved. Information regarding Oncotype DX^®^ is provided courtesy of Genomic Health, Inc., [www.genomichealth.com](http://www.genomichealth.com). © 2015 Genomic Health, Inc., All rights reserved.
**Abbreviations:** DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ; ER, estrogen receptor; HR, hormone receptor; PR, progesterone receptor.
######
Genes utilized in two or more prognostic multigene expression profiles as indicated by X
Gene 11-gene expression profile 14-gene prognostic expression signature 21-gene breast cancer assay 50-gene breast cancer prognostic gene signature assay 70-gene breast cancer recurrence assay Gene function
--------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*BAG1* X X Enhances antiapoptotic effect of BCL2
*BCL2* X X Blocks the apoptotic death of certain cells
*BIRC5* X X Encodes regulatory proteins that prevent apoptosis
*CCNB1*[a](#tfn4-bctt-8-029){ref-type="table-fn"} X X X Encodes a regulatory protein involved in mitosis
*CENPA*[a](#tfn4-bctt-8-029){ref-type="table-fn"} X X X Encodes for a centromere protein; histone H3 variant
*CMC2* X X Potential involvement in mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase biogenesis[@b34-bctt-8-029]
*DIAPH3* X X Involved in actin remodeling and regulation of cell movement and adhesion
*ERBB2* X X Encodes HER2, an epidermal growth factor receptor protein
*ESR1* X X Encodes an estrogen receptor
*GRB7* X X Encodes a growth factor receptor-binding protein
*MELK*[a](#tfn4-bctt-8-029){ref-type="table-fn"} X X X Involved in cell cycle regulation, apoptosis, and splicing regulation[@b35-bctt-8-029]--[@b37-bctt-8-029]
*MKI67* X X Involved in cellular proliferation
*MMP11* X X Involved in extracellular matrix breakdown
*MYBL2*[a](#tfn4-bctt-8-029){ref-type="table-fn"} X X X Encodes a nuclear protein; involved in cell cycle progression
*NDC80* X X Organization and stabilization of microtubule--kinetochore attachments
*ORC6*[a](#tfn4-bctt-8-029){ref-type="table-fn"} X X X Involved in chromosome replication and segregation
*PGR* X X Encodes a progesterone receptor; mediates effects of progesterone
*RACGAP1* X X Involved in cytokinesis initiation and control of cellular growth
*RFC4* X X Required for elongation of primed DNA templates
*RRM2* X X Catalyzes the formation of deoxyribonucleotides from ribonucleotides
*SCUBE2* X X Potential breast tumor suppressor gene[@b38-bctt-8-029]
**Notes:** Information on gene function was obtained from the NCBI's Gene Database[@b39-bctt-8-029] unless noted otherwise.
Indicates a gene used in three expression profiles.
**Abbreviation:** NCBI, National Center for Biotechnology Information.
|
Q:
How to retrieve multiple keys and values from localStorage
I am storing multiple arrays to localstorage.
firstArray = [];
secArray = [];
var firsteobj = {class: class, subject: subject, school: school, area: area, zipcode: zipcode};
firstArray.push(firstobj);
localStorage.firstRecord = JSON.stringify(firstArray);
var secobj = {student: student, grade: grade, age: age};
secArray.push(secobj);
localStorage.secondRecord = JSON.stringify(secArray);
And I am retrieving from the localstorage through the function and download the file.
function DownloadRec() {
var a = {};
for (var i = 0; i < localStorage.length; i++) {
var k = localStorage.key(i);
var v = localStorage.getItem(k);
a[k] = v;
//alert(a[k]);
}
let dataUrl = 'data:application/json,' + encodeURIComponent(a[k]);
let exportFileDefaultName = 'test.json';
let linkElement = document.createElement('a');
linkElement.setAttribute('href', dataUrl);
linkElement.setAttribute('download', exportFileDefaultName);
linkElement.click();
}
I could see both key(firstRecord,secRocord) and corresponding values to it in the browser.
I could retrieve only the first key which is localstorage.firstRecord.... I would like to retrieve second key and values which is localstorage.secondRecord also.
Could you please suggest me.
A:
Just create an array of objects like this:
arr=[
obj1:'',
.
.
.
obj2:''
]
and save it in browser using localStorage.setItem('objName') now you can retrieve the whole array.I think this is the best approach in your case.
|
For the first time, researchers have succeeded in levitating and moving arbitrarily shaped objects using acoustic (sound) waves. The researchers, from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich, have already used their new-found magical powers of levitation to collide a granule of coffee and water to create instant coffee in midair — and more excitingly, a droplet of water and a piece of sodium (the explosively awesome video is embedded below). The same approach could potentially work on humans, though, without further refinements to the technology, we would probably explode or suffer catastrophic internal bleeding.
Acoustic levitation is desirable because, unlike magnetic levitation, it can be used on any object — not just materials and liquids that are magnetic. Likewise, buoyancy can be used to “levitate” some liquids, but again there are strict limitations on what liquids can be used (they must be immiscible, as with water and oil). The only limitation with acoustic levitation is that the object’s diameter must correspond to half the wavelength of the acoustic waves. As you can see, the team have no issues levitating a toothpick — something that would be impossible with both magnetic and buoyancy levitation.
Acoustic levitation has been performed before, but with very limited control of the object’s movement (video below). The breakthrough here is that researchers are able to move their acoustically levitated objects up and down, as well as side to side. The levitation effect is created by standing waves — static (standing) waves that are held in place by a reflector that bounces the same wave back upon itself, causing interference. Whereas waves usually oscillate up and down as they move through the air, a standing wave is essentially static, with the waveform forced to stay in one place. This standing wave creates a consistent upwards pressure that, if it has a strong enough amplitude (volume), can cancel out the gravity of an object placed in the standing wave.
In short, if you have enough power, you could levitate just about anything with acoustic waves — including a human. The power required would be immense, though, and at this point it isn’t clear if a human would even survive the acoustic forces. Furthermore, before you start dreaming of a portable levitation device (a jet pack!), the power requirements would probably be well beyond the capabilities of today’s lithium-ion battery packs. (Levitating a water drop requires around 160 dB).
In reality, this new development — being able to levitate multiple objects and manipulate them in a 3D space — is much more likely to find use on a smaller scale. There are many chemical and biological processes that can be disrupted by contact with a surface, and acoustic levitation is the perfect solution for such situations. Not being confined to magnetism or buoyancy as a means of levitation is also a massive boon for science: Instead of being confined to purely magnetic objects, scientists can now react anything with levitation. This might be as straight forward as reacting water and sodium, as per the video above, or it might be as complex as introducing foreign DNA into other cells using DNA transfection.
Now read: MIT discovers a new state of matter, a new kind of magnetism
Research paper: doi: 10.1073/pnas.1301860110 – “Acoustophoretic contactless transport and handling of matter in air” |
NEW DELHI: A 14-year-old boy in R K Puram was apprehended on Wednesday morning for sexually abusing his four-year-old neighbour at his house while she had gone to relieve herself. He was later sent to a juvenile justice home.
The girl, who studies in Class I had kept mum about the incident for a day but revealed the matter to her parents when they pressed her. She said that the boy had caught her while she was coming out of the toilet, he had allegedly forced her to sit on his lap and put his fingers into her cavities. When the child cried out in pain he let her go and fled from the spot.
The girl, whose father works at central government office in Delhi stays in the same locality. The parents immediately registered a case against the accused boy under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). He was produced before a juvenile justice board and sent to a correctional home.
The police also took the child for counselling to an NGO . |
Danseur Étoile
Danseur Étoile (for men) or Danseuse Étoile (for women), literally "star dancer", is the highest rank a dancer can reach at the Paris Opera Ballet. It is equivalent to the title "Principal dancer" in Anglo-Saxon countries or to the title "Primo Ballerino" or "Prima Ballerina" in Italian.
The term of "étoile" had been used to designate the best soloists of the Paris Opera Ballet since the 19th century, but it was only in 1940 that the ballet master, Serge Lifar, decided to officialize the title at the top of the company's hierarchy. Unlike all lower ranks in the Ballet (Quadrille, Coryphée, Sujet, Premier Danseur), promotion to Étoile does not depend on success in the annual competitive examinations. Dancers have to perform in leading roles, sometimes for many years, before they can achieve the rank by nomination by the Director of the Paris Opera, on a proposal from the Directeur de la danse (the head of the Ballet), in recognition of outstanding excellence and merit.
There is no specific rule regarding the nomination. Étoiles are usually chosen among the Premiers Danseurs (the highest rank achievable through examinations), but exceptionally some dancers, such as Manuel Legris or Laurent Hilaire, have been promoted directly from the lower rank of Sujet. The nominations were initially made in an administrative setting, then later backstage with the curtain closed. They now take place at the end of a performance, with the curtain open.
The title is conferred for life and is therefore kept after retirement, which is set at a maximum age of 42, like for all other dancers of the Paris Opera Ballet. The maximum number of active Danseurs Étoiles within the company, originally limited to four, has progressively increased over time and is nowadays set at eighteen.
List of Paris Opera Ballet Étoiles
By year of nomination (first date, second date corresponding to year of resignation or retirement):
1940–1960 : Lycette Darsonval
1940–1944 : Solange Schwarz–after the première of Entre deux rondes by Serge Lifar. The nomination occurred on stage (but with the curtain closed).
1941–1946 : Serge Peretti first male "Étoile"
1941–1945 : Yvette Chauviré after the premiere of Istar by Serge Lifar
1946–1959 : Michel Renault at age 19
1946–1949 : Roger Fenonjois
1947–1951 : Roger Ritz after the premiere of Palais de Cristal by George Balanchine
1947–1957 : Christine Vaussard
1947–1960 : Alexandre Kalioujny
1948–1957 : Micheline Bardin
1948–1963 : Max Bozzoni
1949–1957 : Nina Vyroubova from outside the company
1950–1959 : Liane Daydé at age 19
1952–1960 : Madeleine Lafon
1953–1953 : Jean Babilée nominated only 4 years after entering the Company, left 9 months later to found his own company.
1953–1964 : Youly Algaroff
1954–1967 : Jean-Pierre Andréani
1955–1958 : Peter van Dijk from outside the Company
1957–1961 : Marjorie Tallchief from outside the Company
1956–1972 : Claude Bessy
1957–1961 : George Skibine
1958–1971 : Josette Amiel
1961–1964 : Flemming Flindt
1960–1977 : Claire Motte
1961–1972 : Attilio Labis after a performance of Pas de Dieux by Gene Kelly, called for by André Malraux
1961–1974 : Jacquline Rayet after a performance of Giselle
1964–1986 : Cyril Atanassoff
1964–1978 : Christine Vlassi
1965–1983 : Nanon Thibon
1966–1969 : Jean-Pierre Bonnefous
1968–1983 : Noella Pontois
1969–1989 : Georges Piletta
1969–1983 : Wilfride Piollet
1970–1980 : Claudette Scouarnec from the Opéra Comique dance troupe
1971–1989 : Jean-Pierre Franchetti
1971–1989 : Michael Denard
1972–1989 : Patrice Bart
1972–1983 : Ghislaine Thesmar
1972–1990 : Jean Guizerix
1974–1980 : Carolyn Carlson
1976–1980 : Dominique Khalfouni
1977–1998 : Charles Jude
1977–1992 : Florence Clerc
1978–1993 : Claude de Vulpian
1980–1988 : Patrick Dupond
1981–1996 : Jean-Yves Lormeaux
1981–1999 : Élisabeth Platel
1982–1996 : Monique Loudières
1983–1997 : Françoise Legrée
1984–1989 : Sylvie Guillem
1985–2001 : Isabelle Guérin
1985–2007 : Laurent Hilaire
1986–2009 : Manuel Legris
1988–2005 : Élisabeth Maurin
1989–2008 : Kader Belarbi
1990–1999 : Marie-Claude Pietragalla
1993–2001 : Carole Arbo
1993–2001 : Fanny Gaïda
1993–2014 : Nicolas Le Riche
1997–2013 : Agnès Letestu
1997–2010 : José Martinez
1998–2015 : Aurélie Dupont
2000–2008 : Jean-Guillaume Bart
2002–2012 : Clairemarie Osta
2002–2017 : Laëtitia Pujol
2004–2018 : Marie-Agnès Gillot
2004– : Mathieu Ganio
2005–2008 : Wilfried Romoli
2005–2011 : Delphine Moussin
2005–2016 : Benjamin Pech
2006–2018 : Hervé Moreau
2007– : Émilie Cozette
2007–2017 : Jérémie Bélingard
2007– : Dorothée Gilbert
2009–2014 : Isabelle Ciaravola
2009– : Mathias Heymann
2009–2018 : Karl Paquette
2010– : Stéphane Bullion
2012–2018 : Josua Hoffalt
2012– : Ludmila Pagliero
2012– : Myriam Ould-Braham
2013– : Eleonora Abbagnato
2013– : Alice Renavand
2014– : Amandine Albisson
2015– : Laura Hecquet
2016– : Germain Louvet
2016– : Léonore Baulac
2017– : Hugo Marchand
2018– : Valentine Colasante
References |
The effect of skin reflectance on thermal traits in a small heliothermic ectotherm.
Variation in colour patterning is prevalent among and within species. A number of theories have been proposed in explaining its evolution. Because solar radiation interacts with the pigmentation of the integument causing light to either be reflected or absorbed into the body, thermoregulation has been considered to be a primary selective agent, particularly among ectotherms. Accordingly, the colour-mediated thermoregulatory hypothesis states that darker individuals will heat faster and reach higher thermal equilibria while paler individuals will have the opposite traits. It was further predicted that dark colouration would promote slower cooling rates and higher thermal performance temperatures. To test these hypotheses we quantified the reflectance, selected body temperatures, performance optima, as well as heating and cooling rates of an ectothermic vertebrate, Lampropholis delicata. Our results indicated that colour had no influence on thermal physiology, as all thermal traits were uncorrelated with reflectance. We suggest that crypsis may instead be the stronger selective agent as it may have a more direct impact on fitness. Our study has improved our knowledge of the functional differences among individuals with different colour patterns, and the evolutionary significance of morphological variation within species. |
Resetting of cortically induced rhythmical jaw movements by stimulation of the cerebellar interpositus nucleus in the guinea pig.
Effects of stimulation of the cerebellar interpositus nucleus on fictive rhythmical jaw movements induced by stimulation of the cortical masticatory area were studied in ketamine-anesthetized, paralyzed guinea pigs. A short pulse-train applied to the interpositus nucleus caused a phase shift in cortically induced rhythmical jaw movements. A phase transition curve indicated that interpositus stimulation can reset the cortically induced rhythmical jaw movements. |
Search Suggestions
Total Results {{ currentCount }}/{{ totalCount }}
“It is our responsibility to get our house in order,” Afghan President Ashraf Ghani said at an event co-sponsored by the Atlantic Council and the United States Institute of Peace on March 25. Atlantic Council President and CEO Frederick Kempe (right) moderated the discussion. (Photo courtesy of USIP)
Afghan leader ‘cautiously optimistic’ about prospects of reconciliation as Pakistan, China pitch in
Afghan President Ashraf Ghani is “cautiously optimistic” about the prospects of peace with the Taliban, in part because Pakistan—where a mélange of terrorist groups have for years found safe haven and support—now acknowledges that improving ties with neighboring Afghanistan is key to ending regional violence.
“The problem, fundamentally, is not about peace with the Taliban [but] about peace between Pakistan and Afghanistan,” said Ghani, adding that Pakistani officials have “accepted this definition of the problem. That’s the breakthrough.”
Ghani made his comments in a March 25 conversation moderated by Atlantic Council President and CEO Frederick Kempe at the United States Institute of Peace. The two organizations co-hosted the event during Ghani’s visit to Washington. Ghani warned that a “new ecology of terrorism” poses a threat to South and Central Asia as well as China.
Since taking office six months ago, Ghani’s government has sought to breathe life into an on-again, off-again peace process with the Taliban. This effort got a shot in the arm from an offer of support from China, a key ally of Pakistan. Elements of Pakistan’s security sector, particularly its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, support a broad range of terrorist groups, some of which operate in Afghanistan.
“Today, there is a broad consensus among our neighbors, from India to Azerbaijan and beyond, that a stable Afghanistan is essential to stability in the region. This is an important consensus,” said Ghani.
Ghani insisted that the reconciliation effort with the Taliban must be an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned process.
The United States remains an “indispensible interlocutor” in the effort to reconcile with the Taliban, but “Afghan ownership and management of the peace process is an indispensible precondition,” he said.
Ghani said the onus is on the Taliban to break away from al-Qaeda.
Echoing that sentiment in remarks to a joint session of Congress earlier in the day, the Afghan leader said: “The Taliban need to choose not to be al-Qaeda, and be Afghan.”
Ghani described ISIS as “fast,” “brutal,” and “extraordinarily quick.”
“If al-Qaeda was Windows 1… Daesh is Windows 5,” he said, referring to ISIS by its Arabic acronym.
Even as the Afghan government pursues reconciliation efforts with the Taliban, it is bracing for a spring offensive by the militants.
It is with this threat in mind that Ghani had urged US President Barack Obama to show some flexibility on a timeline to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan. Obama acceded to that request and this week announced he would leave 9,800 US troops in Afghanistan until the end of the year. He had earlier planned to leave only 5,600 troops in Afghanistan by year’s end.
Obama, who came to office promising to end the US role in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, said he had decided to slow down the pace of withdrawal of US troops “because we want to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to help Afghan security forces succeed so we don’t have to go back, so we don’t have to respond in an emergency because terrorist activities are being launched out of Afghanistan.”
Obama said his administration would work with Congress to ensure funding to sustain 352,000 Afghan police officers and troops through 2017.
In his remarks at USIP, Ghani said he was “very gratified” by Obama’s decision on troop numbers.
“We lost about eight months of planning during 2014 because the Bilateral Security Agreement” with the United States was not signed by former Afghan President Hamid Karzai, said Ghani.
When he came to office, Ghani promptly signed the agreement, which allows US and NATO troops to remain in Afghanistan as advisers and counterterrorism specialists after all combat forces withdraw. The United States will continue to train, advise, and assist Afghan security forces. US troops will take part in some counterterrorism operations.
Looking ahead to a scenario in which his country achieves peace with the Taliban, Ghani said the Afghan government would then have to cope with the problem of refugees created by years of conflict. Many Afghan refugees live in camps across the border in Pakistan.
Stable Afghanistan vital for Asia
Ghani emphasized the importance of stability in Afghanistan, which he said was key to Asia realizing its potential to becoming the world’s largest continental economy.
“Asia cannot be integrated without a stable Afghanistan. We are not just metaphorically the heart of Asia. Without us being stable, there will be not a single pipeline taking gas from Central Asia to Pakistan or India,” he said. “So our location that was a key disadvantage, in the next fifty years is going to become solid gold.”
Ghani’s first visit to the United States as President of Afghanistan included meetings with Obama, Secretary of State John F. Kerry, and Defense Secretary Ash Carter. He also had the rare honor of addressing a joint session of Congress on March 25.
Ghani, a former World Bank economist who studied at Columbia University, has used his visit to underscore his deep, personal bonds with the United States and express gratitude for its people’s sacrifices of blood and treasure since the US invasion of Afghanistan following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
In the 13 years since, more than 2,300 US troops have been killed and nearly 20,000 wounded. The war has cost US taxpayers close to $1 trillion, according to published sources.
Standing alongside Obama at the White House on March 24, the Afghan leader thanked “the American taxpayer for his and her hard-earned dollars that have enabled us.”
Ghani’s warm relationship with Obama is in stark contrast with the frosty ties Karzai shared with Washington in his final months in office.
Afghan CEO Abdullah Abdullah, Ghani’s former election rival and current partner in government, joined the Afghan President on his trip to the United States. Both Ghani and Abdullah are former ministers in the Karzai government.
In his public remarks in Washington, Ghani emphasized his government’s commitment to combat corruption, uphold the rule of law, strengthen democratic institutions, and educate girls.
“It is our responsibility to get our house in order,” he said.
Atlantic Council award for Ghani
Later March 25, Ghani was awarded the Atlantic Council’s highest honor, the Distinguished International Leadership Award, at a reception co-hosted with the NATO Allied Command Transformation. Ghani is a former member of the Atlantic Council’s international advisory board.
Former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, an Honorary Director of the Atlantic Council’s board whom Ghani acknowledged as a mentor, presented the award.
Albright recalled her initial impression of Ghani as “a brilliant economist, a provocative thinker, and a compelling international figure.”
Ghani has devoted his energy to rebuilding Afghanistan’s relations with its partners, refocusing the international attention on his country’s future, and providing the world community “confidence that Afghanistan’s government is committed to the rule of law and protecting the rights of its people—including Afghan women,” said Albright.
“What President Ghani has done in less than six months is transformative,” she added.
Kempe said Ghani had “demonstrated unusual courage, integrity, and vision throughout his years of service to Afghanistan.”
“He epitomizes what we endeavor to recognize with this award, both for what he has already achieved and to encourage what he yet envisions for his country against all obstacles,” he added.
The award ceremony was part of the Atlantic Council’s annual Distinguished Leadership Awards to be held on April 30.
Ashish Kumar Sen is a staff writer at the Atlantic Council.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Sign up for the New Atlanticist newsletter, which showcases expert analysis from the Atlantic Council community on the most important global issues. Featuring breaking news reactions, opinion pieces, explainers, and focused analyses, New Atlanticist provides a comprehensive look at the top global headlines and the challenges facing the international community.
This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary for its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.
You accept the use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy by closing or dismissing this notice, by scrolling this page, by clicking a link or button or by continuing to browse otherwise.Ok |
408 U.S. 665 (1972)
BRANZBURG
v.
HAYES ET AL., JUDGES.
No. 70-85.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued February 23, 1972.
Decided June 29, 1972.[*]
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY.
Edgar A. Zingman argued the cause for petitioner in No. 70-85. With him on the briefs was Robert C. Ewald. E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., argued the cause for petitioner in No. 70-94. With him on the briefs was William H. Carey. Solicitor General Griswold argued the cause for the United States in No. 70-57. With him on the briefs were Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Assistant Attorney General Petersen, William Bradford Reynolds, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Sidney M. Glazer.
*666 Edwin A. Schroering, Jr., argued the cause for respondents in No. 70-85. With him on the brief was W. C. Fisher, Jr. Joseph J. Hurley, First Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in No. 70-94. With him on the brief were Robert H. Quinn, Attorney General, Walter H. Mayo III, Assistant Attorney General, and Lawrence T. Bench, Deputy Assistant Attorney General. Anthony G. Amsterdam argued the cause for respondent in No. 70-57. With him on the brief were Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III, Charles Stephen Ralston, and William Bennett Turner.
William Bradford Reynolds argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance in Nos. 70-85 and 70-94. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, and Beatrice Rosenberg.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance in No. 70-57 and reversal in Nos. 70-85 and 70-94 were filed by Alexander M. Bickel, Lawrence J. McKay, Floyd Abrams, Daniel Sheehan, Corydon B. Dunham, Clarence J. Fried, Alan J. Hruska, Robert S. Rifkind, Anthony A. Dean, and Edward C. Wallace for New York Times Co., Inc., et al.; by Don H. Reuben, Lawrence Gunnels, Steven L. Bashwiner, and Thomas F. Ging for Chicago Tribune Co.; by Arthur B. Hanson for the American Newspaper Publishers Association; and by Irving Leuchter for the American Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO, CLC.
John T. Corrigan filed a brief for the National District Attorneys Association urging reversal in No. 70-57 and affirmance in No. 70-94.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance in No. 70-57 were filed by Irwin Karp for the Authors League of America, Inc.; by W. Theodore Pierson and J. Laurent *667 Scharff for the Radio Television News Directors Association; and by Earle K. Moore and Samuel Rabinove for the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ et al.
Briefs of amici curiae in No. 70-57 were filed by Leo P. Larkin, Jr., Stanley Godofsky, and John J. Sheehy for Washington Post Co. et al.; by Richard M. Schmidt, Jr., for the American Society of Newspaper Editors et al.; by Roger A. Clark for the National Press Photographers Association, Inc.; and by Melvin L. Wulf, Paul N. Halvonik, A. L. Wirin, Fred Okrand, and Lawrence R. Sperber for the American Civil Liberties Union et al.
Opinion of the Court by MR. JUSTICE WHITE, announced by THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
The issue in these cases is whether requiring newsmen to appear and testify before state or federal grand juries abridges the freedom of speech and press guaranteed by the First Amendment. We hold that it does not.
I
The writ of certiorari in No. 70-85, Branzburg v. Hayes and Meigs, brings before us two judgments of the Kentucky Court of Appeals, both involving petitioner Branzburg, a staff reporter for the Courier-Journal, a daily newspaper published in Louisville, Kentucky.
On November 15, 1969, the Courier-Journal carried a story under petitioner's by-line describing in detail his observations of two young residents of Jefferson County synthesizing hashish from marihuana, an activity which, they asserted, earned them about $5,000 in three weeks. The article included a photograph of a pair of hands working above a laboratory table on which was a substance identified by the caption as hashish. The article stated that petitioner had promised not to *668 reveal the identity of the two hashish makers.[1] Petitioner was shortly subpoenaed by the Jefferson County grand jury; he appeared, but refused to identify the individuals he had seen possessing marihuana or the persons he had seen making hashish from marihuana.[2] A state trial court judge[3] ordered petitioner to answer these questions and rejected his contention that the Kentucky reporters' privilege statute, Ky. Rev. Stat. § 421.100 (1962),[4] the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, or §§ 1, 2, and 8 of the Kentucky Constitution authorized his refusal to answer. Petitioner then sought prohibition and mandamus in the Kentucky Court of Appeals on the same grounds, but the Court of Appeals denied the petition. Branzburg v. *669 Pound, 461 S. W. 2d 345 (1970), as modified on denial of rehearing, Jan. 22, 1971. It held that petitioner had abandoned his First Amendment argument in a supplemental memorandum he had filed and tacitly rejected his argument based on the Kentucky Constitution. It also construed Ky. Rev. Stat. § 421.100 as affording a newsman the privilege of refusing to divulge the identity of an informant who supplied him with information, but held that the statute did not permit a reporter to refuse to testify about events he had observed personally, including the identities of those persons he had observed.
The second case involving petitioner Branzburg arose out of his later story published on January 10, 1971, which described in detail the use of drugs in Frankfort, Kentucky. The article reported that in order to provide a comprehensive survey of the "drug scene" in Frankfort, petitioner had "spent two weeks interviewing several dozen drug users in the capital city" and had seen some of them smoking marihuana. A number of conversations with and observations of several unnamed drug users were recounted. Subpoenaed to appear before a Franklin County grand jury "to testify in the matter of violation of statutes concerning use and sale of drugs," petitioner Branzburg moved to quash the summons;[5] the motion was denied, although *670 an order was issued protecting Branzburg from revealing "confidential associations, sources or information" but requiring that he "answer any questions which concern or pertain to any criminal act, the commission of which was actually observed by [him]." Prior to the time he was slated to appear before the grand jury, petitioner sought mandamus and prohibition from the Kentucky Court of Appeals, arguing that if he were forced to go before the grand jury or to answer questions regarding the identity of informants or disclose information given to him in confidence, his effectiveness as a reporter would be greatly damaged. The Court of Appeals once again denied the requested writs, reaffirming its construction of Ky. Rev. Stat. § 421.100, and rejecting petitioner's claim of a First Amendment privilege. It distinguished Caldwell v. United States, 434 F. 2d 1081 (CA9 1970), and it also announced its "misgivings" about that decision, asserting that it represented "a drastic departure from the generally recognized rule that the sources of information of a newspaper reporter are not privileged under the First Amendment." It characterized petitioner's fear that his ability to obtain *671 news would be destroyed as "so tenuous that it does not, in the opinion of this court, present an issue of abridgment of the freedom of the press within the meaning of that term as used in the Constitution of the United States."
Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to review both judgments of the Kentucky Court of Appeals, and we granted the writ.[6] 402 U. S. 942 (1971).
*672 In re Pappas, No. 70-94, originated when petitioner Pappas, a television newsman-photographer working out of the Providence, Rhode Island, office of a New Bedford, Massachusetts, television station, was called to New Bedford on July 30, 1970, to report on civil disorders there which involved fires and other turmoil. He intended to cover a Black Panther news conference at that group's headquarters in a boarded-up store. Petitioner found the streets around the store barricaded, but he ultimately gained entrance to the area and recorded and photographed a prepared statement read by one of the Black Panther leaders at about 3 p. m.[7] He then asked for and received permission to re-enter the area. Returning at about 9 o' clock, he was allowed to enter and remain inside Panther headquarters. As a condition of entry, Pappas agreed not to disclose anything he saw or heard inside the store except an anticipated police raid, which Pappas, "on his own," was free to photograph and report as he wished. Pappas stayed inside the headquarters for about three hours, but there was no police raid, and petitioner wrote no story and did not otherwise reveal what had occurred in the store while he was there. Two months later, petitioner was summoned before the Bristol *673 County Grand Jury and appeared, answered questions as to his name, address, employment, and what he had seen and heard outside Panther headquarters, but refused to answer any questions about what had taken place inside headquarters while he was there, claiming that the First Amendment afforded him a privilege to protect confidential informants and their information. A second summons was then served upon him, again directing him to appear before the grand jury and "to give such evidence as he knows relating to any matters which may be inquired of on behalf of the Commonwealth before . . . the Grand Jury." His motion to quash on First Amendment and other grounds was denied by the trial judge who, noting the absence of a statutory newsman's privilege in Massachusetts, ruled that petitioner had no constitutional privilege to refuse to divulge to the grand jury what he had seen and heard, including the identity of persons he had observed. The case was reported for decision to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.[8] The record there did not include a transcript of the hearing on the motion to quash, nor did it reveal the specific questions petitioner had refused to answer, the expected nature of his testimony, the nature of the grand jury investigation, or the likelihood of the grand jury's securing the information it sought from petitioner by other means.[9] The *674 Supreme Judicial Court, however, took "judicial notice that in July, 1970, there were serious civil disorders in New Bedford, which involved street barricades, exclusion of the public from certain streets, fires, and similar turmoil. We were told at the arguments that there was gunfire in certain streets. We assume that the grand jury investigation was an appropriate effort to discover and indict those responsible for criminal acts." 358 Mass. 604, 607, 266 N. E. 2d 297, 299 (1971). The court then reaffirmed prior Massachusetts holdings that testimonial privileges were "exceptional" and "limited," stating that "[t]he principle that the public `has a right to every man's evidence' " had usually been preferred, in the Commonwealth, to countervailing interests. Ibid. The court rejected the holding of the Ninth Circuit in Caldwell v. United States, supra, and "adhere[d] to the view that there exists no constitutional newsman's privilege, either qualified or absolute, to refuse to appear and testify before a court or grand jury."[10] 358 Mass., at 612, 266 N. E. 2d, at 302-303. Any adverse effect upon the free dissemination of news by virtue of petitioner's being called to testify was deemed to be only "indirect, theoretical, and uncertain." Id., at 612, 266 N. E. 2d, at 302. The court concluded that "[t]he obligation of newsmen . . . is that of every citizen. . . to appear when summoned, with relevant written or other material when required, and to answer relevant and reasonable inquiries." Id., at 612, 266 N. E. 2d, at 303. The court nevertheless noted that grand juries were subject to supervision by the presiding *675 judge, who had the duty "to prevent oppressive, unnecessary, irrelevant, and other improper inquiry and investigation," ibid., to insure that a witness' Fifth Amendment rights were not infringed, and to assess the propriety, necessity, and pertinence of the probable testimony to the investigation in progress.[11] The burden was deemed to be on the witness to establish the impropriety of the summons or the questions asked. The denial of the motion to quash was affirmed and we granted a writ of certiorari to petitioner Pappas. 402 U. S. 942 (1971).
United States v. Caldwell, No. 70-57, arose from subpoenas issued by a federal grand jury in the Northern District of California to respondent Earl Caldwell, a reporter for the New York Times assigned to cover the Black Panther Party and other black militant groups. A subpoena duces tecum was served on respondent on February 2, 1970, ordering him to appear before the grand jury to testify and to bring with him notes and tape recordings of interviews given him for publication by officers and spokesmen of the Black Panther Party concerning the aims, purposes, and activities of that organization.[12] Respondent objected to the scope *676 of this subpoena, and an agreement between his counsel and the Government attorneys resulted in a continuance. A second subpoena, served on March 16, omitted the documentary requirement and simply ordered Caldwell "to appear . . . to testify before the Grand Jury." Respondent and his employer, the New York Times,[13] moved to quash on the ground that the unlimited breadth of the subpoenas and the fact that Caldwell would have to appear in secret before the grand jury would destroy his working relationship with the Black Panther Party and "suppress vital First Amendment freedoms . . . by driving a wedge of distrust and silence between the news media and the militants." App. 7. Respondent argued that "so drastic an incursion upon First Amendment freedoms" should not be permitted "in the absence of a compelling governmental interestnot shown herein requiring Mr. Caldwell's appearance before the grand jury." Ibid. The motion was supported by amicus curiae memoranda from other publishing concerns and by affidavits from newsmen asserting the unfavorable impact on news sources of requiring reporters to appear before grand juries. The Government filed three memoranda in opposition to the motion to quash, each supported by affidavits. These documents stated that the grand jury was investigating, among other things, possible violations of a number of criminal statutes, including 18 U. S. C. § 871 (threats against the President), 18 U. S. C. *677 § 1751 (assassination, attempts to assassinate, conspiracy to assassinate the President), 18 U. S. C. § 231 (civil disorders), 18 U. S. C. § 2101 (interstate travel to incite a riot), and 18 U. S. C. § 1341 (mail frauds and swindles). It was recited that on November 15, 1969, an officer of the Black Panther Party made a publicly televised speech in which he had declared that "[w]e will kill Richard Nixon" and that this threat had been repeated in three subsequent issues of the Party newspaper. App. 66, 77. Also referred to were various writings by Caldwell about the Black Panther Party, including an article published in the New York Times on December 14, 1969, stating that "[i]n their role as the vanguard in a revolutionary struggle the Panthers have picked up guns," and quoting the Chief of Staff of the Party as declaring: "We advocate the very direct overthrow of the Government by way of force and violence. By picking up guns and moving against it because we recognize it as being oppressive and in recognizing that we know that the only solution to it is armed struggle [sic]." App. 62. The Government also stated that the Chief of Staff of the Party had been indicted by the grand jury on December 3, 1969, for uttering threats against the life of the President in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 871 and that various efforts had been made to secure evidence of crimes under investigation through the immunization of persons allegedly associated with the Black Panther Party.
On April 6, the District Court denied the motion to quash, Application of Caldwell, 311 F. Supp. 358 (ND Cal. 1970), on the ground that "every person within the jurisdiction of the government" is bound to testify upon being properly summoned. Id., at 360 (emphasis in original). Nevertheless, the court accepted respondent's First Amendment arguments to the extent of issuing a protective order providing that although respondent had to divulge *678 whatever information had been given to him for publication, he "shall not be required to reveal confidential associations, sources or information received, developed or maintained by him as a professional journalist in the course of his efforts to gather news for dissemination to the public through the press or other news media." The court held that the First Amendment afforded respondent a privilege to refuse disclosure of such confidential information until there had been "a showing by the Government of a compelling and overriding national interest in requiring Mr. Caldwell's testimony which cannot be served by any alternative means." Id., at 362.
Subsequently,[14] the term of the grand jury expired, a new grand jury was convened, and a new subpoena ad testificandum was issued and served on May 22, 1970. A new motion to quash by respondent and memorandum in opposition by the Government were filed, and, by stipulation of the parties, the motion was submitted on the prior record. The court denied the motion to quash, repeating the protective provisions in its prior order but this time directing Caldwell to appear before the grand jury pursuant to the May 22 subpoena. Respondent refused to appear before the grand jury, and the court issued an order to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. Upon his further refusal to go before the grand jury, respondent was ordered committed for contempt until such time as he complied with the court's order or until the expiration of the term of the grand jury.
*679 Respondent Caldwell appealed the contempt order,[15] and the Court of Appeals reversed. Caldwell v. United States, 434 F. 2d 1081 (CA9 1970). Viewing the issue before it as whether Caldwell was required to appear before the grand jury at all, rather than the scope of permissible interrogation, the court first determined that the First Amendment provided a qualified testimonial privilege to newsmen; in its view, requiring a reporter like Caldwell to testify would deter his informants from communicating with him in the future and would cause him to censor his writings in an effort to avoid being subpoenaed. Absent compelling reasons for requiring his testimony, he was held privileged to withhold it. The court also held, for similar First Amendment reasons, that, absent some special showing of necessity by the Government, attendance by Caldwell at a secret meeting of the grand jury was something he was privileged to refuse because of the potential impact of such an appearance on the flow of news to the public. We granted the United States' petition for certiorari.[16] 402 U. S. 942 (1971).
II
Petitioners Branzburg and Pappas and respondent Caldwell press First Amendment claims that may be simply put: that to gather news it is often necessary to agree either not to identify the source of information published or to publish only part of the facts revealed, or both; that if the reporter is nevertheless *680 forced to reveal these confidences to a grand jury, the source so identified and other confidential sources of other reporters will be measurably deterred from furnishing publishable information, all to the detriment of the free flow of information protected by the First Amendment. Although the newsmen in these cases do not claim an absolute privilege against official interrogation in all circumstances, they assert that the reporter should not be forced either to appear or to testify before a grand jury or at trial until and unless sufficient grounds are shown for believing that the reporter possesses information relevant to a crime the grand jury is investigating, that the information the reporter has is unavailable from other sources, and that the need for the information is sufficiently compelling to override the claimed invasion of First Amendment interests occasioned by the disclosure. Principally relied upon are prior cases emphasizing the importance of the First Amendment guarantees to individual development and to our system of representative government,[17] decisions requiring that official action with adverse impact on First Amendment rights be justified by a public interest that is "compelling" or "paramount,"[18] and those precedents establishing the principle that justifiable governmental goals may not be achieved by unduly broad means having an unnecessary impact *681 on protected rights of speech, press, or association.[19] The heart of the claim is that the burden on news gathering resulting from compelling reporters to disclose confidential information outweighs any public interest in obtaining the information.[20]
We do not question the significance of free speech, press, or assembly to the country's welfare. Nor is it suggested that news gathering does not qualify for First Amendment protection; without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated. But these cases involve no intrusions upon speech or assembly, no prior restraint or restriction on what the press may publish, and no express or implied command that the press publish what it prefers to withhold. No exaction or tax for the privilege of publishing, and no penalty, civil or criminal, related to the content of published material is at issue here. The use of confidential sources by the press is not forbidden or restricted; reporters remain free to seek news from *682 any source by means within the law. No attempt is made to require the press to publish its sources of information or indiscriminately to disclose them on request.
The sole issue before us is the obligation of reporters to respond to grand jury subpoenas as other citizens do and to answer questions relevant to an investigation into the commission of crime. Citizens generally are not constitutionally immune from grand jury subpoenas; and neither the First Amendment nor any other constitutional provision protects the average citizen from disclosing to a grand jury information that he has received in confidence.[21] The claim is, however, that reporters are exempt from these obligations because if forced to respond to subpoenas and identify their sources or disclose other confidences, their informants will refuse or be reluctant to furnish newsworthy information in the future. This asserted burden on news gathering is said to make compelled testimony from newsmen constitutionally suspect and to require a privileged position for them.
It is clear that the First Amendment does not invalidate every incidental burdening of the press that may result from the enforcement of civil or criminal statutes of general applicability. Under prior cases, otherwise valid laws serving substantial public interests may be enforced against the press as against others, despite *683 the possible burden that may be imposed. The Court has emphasized that "[t]he publisher of a newspaper has no special immunity from the application of general laws. He has no special privilege to invade the rights and liberties of others." Associated Press v. NLRB, 301 U. S. 103, 132-133 (1937). It was there held that the Associated Press, a news-gathering and disseminating organization, was not exempt from the requirements of the National Labor Relations Act. The holding was reaffirmed in Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 327 U. S. 186, 192-193 (1946), where the Court rejected the claim that applying the Fair Labor Standards Act to a newspaper publishing business would abridge the freedom of press guaranteed by the First Amendment. See also Mabee v. White Plains Publishing Co., 327 U. S. 178 (1946). Associated Press v. United States, 326 U. S. 1 (1945), similarly overruled assertions that the First Amendment precluded application of the Sherman Act to a news-gathering and disseminating organization. Cf. Indiana Farmer's Guide Publishing Co. v. Prairie Farmer Publishing Co., 293 U. S. 268, 276 (1934); Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States, 394 U. S. 131, 139 (1969); Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, 342 U. S. 143, 155-156 (1951). Likewise, a newspaper may be subjected to nondiscriminatory forms of general taxation. Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, 250 (1936); Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105, 112 (1943).
The prevailing view is that the press is not free to publish with impunity everything and anything it desires to publish. Although it may deter or regulate what is said or published, the press may not circulate knowing or reckless falsehoods damaging to private reputation without subjecting itself to liability for damages, including punitive damages, or even criminal prosecution. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, *684 279-280 (1964); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64, 74 (1964); Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U. S. 130, 147 (1967) (opinion of Harlan, J.,); Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 277 (1971). A newspaper or a journalist may also be punished for contempt of court, in appropriate circumstances. Craig v. Harney, 331 U. S. 367, 377-378 (1947).
It has generally been held that the First Amendment does not guarantee the press a constitutional right of special access to information not available to the public generally. Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1, 16-17 (1965); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S. 713, 728-730 (1971), (STEWART, J., concurring); Tribune Review Publishing Co. v. Thomas, 254 F. 2d 883, 885 (CA3 1958); In the Matter of United Press Assns. v. Valente, 308 N. Y. 71, 77, 123 N. E. 2d 777, 778 (1954). In Zemel v. Rusk, supra, for example, the Court sustained the Government's refusal to validate passports to Cuba even though that restriction "render[ed] less than wholly free the flow of information concerning that country." Id., at 16. The ban on travel was held constitutional, for "[t]he right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information." Id., at 17.[22]
Despite the fact that news gathering may be hampered, the press is regularly excluded from grand jury proceedings, our own conferences, the meetings of other official bodies gathered in executive session, and the meetings of private organizations. Newsmen have no constitutional right of access to the scenes of crime or *685 disaster when the general public is excluded, and they may be prohibited from attending or publishing information about trials if such restrictions are necessary to assure a defendant a fair trial before an impartial tribunal. In Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U. S. 333 (1966), for example, the Court reversed a state court conviction where the trial court failed to adopt "stricter rules governing the use of the courtroom by newsmen, as Sheppard's counsel requested," neglected to insulate witnesses from the press, and made no "effort to control the release of leads, information, and gossip to the press by police officers, witnesses, and the counsel for both sides." Id., at 358, 359. "[T]he trial court might well have proscribed extrajudicial statements by any lawyer, party, witness, or court official which divulged prejudicial matters." Id., at 361. See also Estes v. Texas, 381 U. S. 532, 539-540 (1965); Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U. S. 723, 726 (1963).
It is thus not surprising that the great weight of authority is that newsmen are not exempt from the normal duty of appearing before a grand jury and answering questions relevant to a criminal investigation. At common law, courts consistently refused to recognize the existence of any privilege authorizing a newsman to refuse to reveal confidential information to a grand jury. See, e. g., Ex parte Lawrence, 116 Cal. 298, 48 P. 124 (1897); Plunkett v. Hamilton, 136 Ga. 72, 70 S. E. 781 (1911); Clein v. State 52 So. 2d 117 (Fla.1950); In re Grunow, 84 N. J. L. 235, 85 A. 1011 (1913); People ex rel. Mooney v. Sheriff, 269 N. Y. 291, 199 N. E. 415 (1936); Joslyn v. People, 67 Colo. 297, 184 P. 375 (1919); Adams v. Associated Press, 46 F. R. D. 439 (SD Tex. 1969); Brewster v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp., 20 F. R. D. 416 (Mass. 1957). See generally Annot., 7 A. L. R. 3d 591 (1966). In 1958, a news gatherer asserted for the first time that the First Amendment *686 exempted confidential information from public disclosure pursuant to a subpoena issued in a civil suit, Garland v. Torre, 259 F. 2d 545 (CA2), cert. denied, 358 U. S. 910 (1958), but the claim was denied, and this argument has been almost uniformly rejected since then, although there are occasional dicta that, in circumstances not presented here, a newsman might be excused. In re Goodfader, 45 Haw. 317, 367 P. 2d 472 (1961); In re Taylor, 412 Pa. 32, 193 A. 2d 181 (1963); State v. Buchanan, 250 Ore. 244, 436 P. 2d 729, cert. denied, 392 U. S. 905 (1968); Murphy v. Colorado (No. 19604, Sup. Ct. Colo.), cert. denied, 365 U. S. 843 (1961) (unreported, discussed in In re Goodfader, supra, at 366, 367 P. 2d, at 498 (Mizuha, J., dissenting)). These courts have applied the presumption against the existence of an asserted testimonial privilege, United States v. Bryan, 339 U. S. 323, 331 (1950), and have concluded that the First Amendment interest asserted by the newsman was outweighed by the general obligation of a citizen to appear before a grand jury or at trial, pursuant to a subpoena, and give what information he possesses. The opinions of the state courts in Branzburg and Pappas are typical of the prevailing view, although a few recent cases, such as Caldwell, have recognized and given effect to some form of constitutional newsman's privilege. See State v. Knops, 49 Wis. 2d 647, 183 N. W. 2d 93 (1971) (dictum); Alioto v. Cowles Communications, Inc., C. A. No. 52150 (ND Cal. 1969); In re Grand Jury Witnesses, 322 F. Supp. 573 (ND Cal. 1970); People v. Dohrn, Crim. No. 69-3808 (Cook County, Ill., Cir. Ct. 1970).
The prevailing constitutional view of the newsman's privilege is very much rooted in the ancient role of the grand jury that has the dual function of determining if there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and of protecting citizens against unfounded *687 criminal prosecutions.[23] Grand jury proceedings are constitutionally mandated for the institution of federal criminal prosecutions for capital or other serious crimes, and "its constitutional prerogatives are rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history." Hannah v. Larche, 363 U. S. 420, 489-490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result). The Fifth Amendment provides that "[n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."[24] The adoption of the grand jury "in our Constitution as the sole method for preferring charges in serious criminal cases shows the high place it held as an instrument of justice." Costello v. United States, 350 U. S. 359, 362 (1956). Although state systems of criminal procedure differ greatly among themselves, the grand jury is similarly guaranteed by many state constitutions and plays an important role in fair and effective law enforcement in the overwhelming *688 majority of the States.[25] Because its task is to inquire into the existence of possible criminal conduct and to return only well-founded indictments, its investigative powers are necessarily broad. "It is a grand inquest, a body with powers of investigation and inquisition, the scope of whose inquiries is not to be limited narrowly by questions of propriety or forecasts of the probable result of the investigation, or by doubts whether any particular individual will be found properly subject to an accusation of crime." Blair v. United States, 250 U. S. 273, 282 (1919). Hence, the grand jury's authority to subpoena witnesses is not only historic, id., at 279-281, but essential to its task. Although the powers of the grand jury are not unlimited and are subject to the supervision of a judge, the longstanding principle that "the public . . . has a right to every man's evidence," except for those persons protected by a constitutional, common-law, or statutory privilege, United States v. Bryan, 339 U. S., at 331; Blackmer v. United States, 284 U. S. 421, 438 (1932); 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2192 (McNaughton rev. 1961), is particularly applicable to grand jury proceedings.[26]
*689 A number of States have provided newsmen a statutory privilege of varying breadth,[27] but the majority have not done so, and none has been provided by federal statute.[28] Until now the only testimonial privilege for unofficial witnesses that is rooted in the Federal Constitution *690 is the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination. We are asked to create another by interpreting the First Amendment to grant newsmen a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy. This we decline to do.[29] Fair and effective law enforcement aimed at providing security for the person and property of the individual is a fundamental function of government, and the grand jury plays an important, constitutionally mandated role in this process. On the records now before us, we perceive no basis for holding that the public interest in law enforcement and in ensuring effective grand jury proceedings is insufficient to override the consequential, but uncertain, burden on news gathering that is said to result from insisting that reporters, like other citizens, respond to relevant *691 questions put to them in the course of a valid grand jury investigation or criminal trial.
This conclusion itself involves no restraint on what newspapers may publish or on the type or quality of information reporters may seek to acquire, nor does it threaten the vast bulk of confidential relationships between reporters and their sources. Grand juries address themselves to the issues of whether crimes have been committed and who committed them. Only where news sources themselves are implicated in crime or possess information relevant to the grand jury's task need they or the reporter be concerned about grand jury subpoenas. Nothing before us indicates that a large number or percentage of all confidential news sources falls into either category and would in any way be deterred by our holding that the Constitution does not, as it never has, exempt the newsman from performing the citizen's normal duty of appearing and furnishing information relevant to the grand jury's task.
The preference for anonymity of those confidential informants involved in actual criminal conduct is presumably a product of their desire to escape criminal prosecution, and this preference, while understandable, is hardly deserving of constitutional protection. It would be frivolous to assertand no one does in these casesthat the First Amendment, in the interest of securing news or otherwise, confers a license on either the reporter or his news sources to violate valid criminal laws. Although stealing documents or private wiretapping could provide newsworthy information, neither reporter nor source is immune from conviction for such conduct, whatever the impact on the flow of news. Neither is immune, on First Amendment grounds, from testifying against the other, before the grand jury or at a criminal trial. The Amendment does not reach so far as to override the interest of the public in ensuring *692 that neither reporter nor source is invading the rights of other citizens through reprehensible conduct forbidden to all other persons. To assert the contrary proposition.
"is to answer it, since it involves in its very statement the contention that the freedom of the press is the freedom to do wrong with impunity and implies the right to frustrate and defeat the discharge of those governmental duties upon the performance of which the freedom of all, including that of the press, depends. . . . It suffices to say that, however complete is the right of the press to state public things and discuss them, that right, as every other right enjoyed in human society, is subject to the restraints which separate right from wrong-doing." Toledo Newspaper Co. v. United States, 247 U. S. 402, 419-420 (1918).[30]
Thus, we cannot seriously entertain the notion that the First Amendment protects a newsman's agreement to conceal the criminal conduct of his source, or evidence thereof, on the theory that it is better to write about crime than to do something about it. Insofar as any reporter in these cases undertook not to reveal or testify about the crime he witnessed, his claim of privilege under the First Amendment presents no substantial question. The crimes of news sources are no less reprehensible and threatening to the public interest when witnessed by a reporter than when they are not.
*693 There remain those situations where a source is not engaged in criminal conduct but has information suggesting illegal conduct by others. Newsmen frequently receive information from such sources pursuant to a tacit or express agreement to withhold the source's name and suppress any information that the source wishes not published. Such informants presumably desire anonymity in order to avoid being entangled as a witness in a criminal trial or grand jury investigation. They may fear that disclosure will threaten their job security or personal safety or that it will simply result in dishonor or embarrassment.
The argument that the flow of news will be diminished by compelling reporters to aid the grand jury in a criminal investigation is not irrational, nor are the records before us silent on the matter. But we remain unclear how often and to what extent informers are actually deterred from furnishing information when newsmen are forced to testify before a grand jury. The available data indicate that some newsmen rely a great deal on confidential sources and that some informants are particularly sensitive to the threat of exposure and may be silenced if it is held by this Court that, ordinarily, newsmen must testify pursuant to subpoenas,[31] but the evidence fails to demonstrate that there would be a significant constriction of the flow of news to the public if this Court reaffirms the prior common-law and constitutional rule regarding the testimonial obligations of newsmen. Estimates of the inhibiting effect of such subpoenas on the willingness of informants to make disclosures to newsmen are widely divergent and *694 to a great extent speculative.[32] It would be difficult to canvass the views of the informants themselves; surveys of reporters on this topic are chiefly opinions of predicted informant behavior and must be viewed in the light of the professional self-interest of the interviewees.[33] Reliance by the press on confidential informants does not mean that all such sources will in fact dry up because of the later possible appearance of the newsman before a grand jury. The reporter may never be called and if he objects to testifying, the prosecution may not insist. Also, the relationship of many informants to the press is a symbiotic one which is unlikely to be greatly inhibited by the threat of subpoena: quite often, such informants are members of a minority political or cultural group that *695 relies heavily on the media to propagate its views, publicize its aims, and magnify its exposure to the public. Moreover, grand juries characteristically conduct secret proceedings, and law enforcement officers are themselves experienced in dealing with informers, and have their own methods for protecting them without interference with the effective administration of justice. There is little before us indicating that informants whose interest in avoiding exposure is that it may threaten job security, personal safety, or peace of mind, would in fact be in a worse position, or would think they would be, if they risked placing their trust in public officials as well as reporters. We doubt if the informer who prefers anonymity but is sincerely interested in furnishing evidence of crime will always or very often be deterred by the prospect of dealing with those public authorities characteristically charged with the duty to protect the public interest as well as his.
Accepting the fact, however, that an undetermined number of informants not themselves implicated in crime will nevertheless, for whatever reason, refuse to talk to newsmen if they fear identification by a reporter in an official investigation, we cannot accept the argument that the public interest in possible future news about crime from undisclosed, unverified sources must take precedence over the public interest in pursuing and prosecuting those crimes reported to the press by informants and in thus deterring the commission of such crimes in the future.
We note first that the privilege claimed is that of the reporter, not the informant, and that if the authorities independently identify the informant, neither his own reluctance to testify nor the objection of the newsman would shield him from grand jury inquiry, whatever the impact on the flow of news or on his future usefulness as a secret source of information. More important, *696 it is obvious that agreements to conceal information relevant to commission of crime have very little to recommend them from the standpoint of public policy. Historically, the common law recognized a duty to raise the "hue and cry" and report felonies to the authorities.[34] Misprision of a felonythat is, the concealment of a felony "which a man knows, but never assented to . . . [so as to become] either principal or accessory," 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *121, was often said to be a common-law crime.[35] The first Congress passed a statute, 1 Stat. 113, § 6, as amended, 35 Stat. 1114, § 146, 62 Stat. 684, which is still in effect, defining a federal crime of misprision:
"Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be [guilty of misprision]". 18 U. S. C. § 4.[36]
*697 It is apparent from this statute, as well as from our history and that of England, that concealment of crime and agreements to do so are not looked upon with favor. Such conduct deserves no encomium, and we decline now to afford it First Amendment protection by denigrating the duty of a citizen, whether reporter or informer, to respond to grand jury subpoena and answer relevant questions put to him.
Of course, the press has the right to abide by its agreement not to publish all the information it has, but the right to withhold news is not equivalent to a First Amendment exemption from the ordinary duty of all other citizens to furnish relevant information to a grand jury performing an important public function. Private restraints on the flow of information are not so favored by the First Amendment that they override all other public interests. As Mr. Justice Black declared in another context, "[f]reedom of the press from governmental interference under the First Amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests." Associated Press v. United States, 326 U. S., at 20.
Neither are we now convinced that a virtually impenetrable constitutional shield, beyond legislative or judicial control, should be forged to protect a private system of informers operated by the press to report on criminal conduct, a system that would be unaccountable to the public, would pose a threat to the citizen's justifiable expectations of privacy, and would equally protect well-intentioned informants and those who for pay or otherwise betray their trust to their employer or associates. The public through its elected and appointed *698 law enforcement officers regularly utilizes informers, and in proper circumstances may assert a privilege against disclosing the identity of these informers. But
"[t]he purpose of the privilege is the furtherance and protection of the public interest in effective law enforcement. The privilege recognizes the obligation of citizens to communicate their knowledge of the commission of crimes to law-enforcement officials and, by preserving their anonymity, encourages them to perform that obligation." Roviaro v. United States, 353 U. S. 53, 59 (1957).
Such informers enjoy no constitutional protection. Their testimony is available to the public when desired by grand juries or at criminal trials; their identity cannot be concealed from the defendant when it is critical to his case. Id., at 60-61, 62; McCray v. Illinois, 386 U. S. 300, 310 (1967); Smith v. Illinois, 390 U. S. 129, 131 (1968); Alford v. United States, 282 U. S. 687, 693 (1931). Clearly, this system is not impervious to control by the judiciary and the decision whether to unmask an informer or to continue to profit by his anonymity is in public, not private, hands. We think that it should remain there and that public authorities should retain the options of either insisting on the informer's testimony relevant to the prosecution of crime or of seeking the benefit of further information that his exposure might prevent.
We are admonished that refusal to provide a First Amendment reporter's privilege will undermine the freedom of the press to collect and disseminate news. But this is not the lesson history teaches us. As noted previously, the common law recognized no such privilege, and the constitutional argument was not even asserted until 1958. From the beginning of our country the press has operated without constitutional protection *699 for press informants, and the press has flourished. The existing constitutional rules have not been a serious obstacle to either the development or retention of confidential news sources by the press.[37]
It is said that currently press subpoenas have multiplied,[38] that mutual distrust and tension between press and officialdom have increased, that reporting styles have changed, and that there is now more need for confidential sources, particularly where the press seeks news about minority cultural and political groups or dissident organizations suspicious of the law and public officials. These developments, even if true, are treacherous grounds for a far-reaching interpretation of the First Amendment fastening a nationwide rule on courts, grand juries, and prosecuting officials everywhere. The obligation to testify in response to grand jury subpoenas will not threaten these sources not involved with criminal conduct and without information relevant to grand jury investigations, and we cannot hold that the Constitution places the sources in these two categories either above the law or beyond its reach.
The argument for such a constitutional privilege rests heavily on those cases holding that the infringement of protected First Amendment rights must be no broader than necessary to achieve a permissible governmental purpose, see cases cited at n. 19, supra. We do not deal, however, with a governmental institution that has abused *700 its proper function, as a legislative committee does when it "expose[s] for the sake of exposure." Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S. 178, 200 (1957). Nothing in the record indicates that these grand juries were "prob[ing] at will and without relation to existing need." DeGregory v. Attorney General of New Hampshire, 383 U. S. 825, 829 (1966). Nor did the grand juries attempt to invade protected First Amendment rights by forcing wholesale disclosure of names and organizational affiliations for a purpose that was not germane to the determination of whether crime has been committed, cf. NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449 (1958); NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415 (1963); Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U. S. 516 (1960), and the characteristic secrecy of grand jury proceedings is a further protection against the undue invasion of such rights. See Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 6 (e). The investigative power of the grand jury is necessarily broad if its public responsibility is to be adequately discharged. Costello v. United States, 350 U. S., at 364.
The requirements of those cases, see n. 18, supra, which hold that a State's interest must be "compelling" or "paramount" to justify even an indirect burden on First Amendment rights, are also met here. As we have indicated, the investigation of crime by the grand jury implements a fundamental governmental role of securing the safety of the person and property of the citizen, and it appears to us that calling reporters to give testimony in the manner and for the reasons that other citizens are called "bears a reasonable relationship to the achievement of the governmental purpose asserted as its justification." Bates v. Little Rock, supra, at 525. If the test is that the government "convincingly show a substantial relation between the information sought and a subject of overriding and compelling state interest," Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, *701 372 U. S. 539, 546 (1963), it is quite apparent (1) that the State has the necessary interest in extirpating the traffic in illegal drugs, in forestalling assassination attempts on the President, and in preventing the community from being disrupted by violent disorders endangering both persons and property; and (2) that, based on the stories Branzburg and Caldwell wrote and Pappas' admitted conduct, the grand jury called these reporters as they would othersbecause it was likely that they could supply information to help the government determine whether illegal conduct had occurred and, if it had, whether there was sufficient evidence to return an indictment.
Similar considerations dispose of the reporters' claims that preliminary to requiring their grand jury appearance, the State must show that a crime has been committed and that they possess relevant information not available from other sources, for only the grand jury itself can make this determination. The role of the grand jury as an important instrument of effective law enforcement necessarily includes an investigatory function with respect to determining whether a crime has been committed and who committed it. To this end it must call witnesses, in the manner best suited to perform its task. "When the grand jury is performing its investigatory function into a general problem area . . . society's interest is best served by a thorough and extensive investigation." Wood v. Georgia, 370 U. S. 375, 392 (1962). A grand jury investigation "is not fully carried out until every available clue has been run down and all witnesses examined in every proper way to find if a crime has been committed." United States v. Stone, 429 F. 2d 138, 140 (CA2 1970). Such an investigation may be triggered by tips, rumors, evidence proffered by the prosecutor, or the personal knowledge of the grand jurors. Costello v. United States, 350 U. S., at 362. It is *702 only after the grand jury has examined the evidence that a determination of whether the proceeding will result in an indictment can be made.
"It is impossible to conceive that in such cases the examination of witnesses must be stopped until a basis is laid by an indictment formally preferred, when the very object of the examination is to ascertain who shall be indicted." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, 65 (1906).
See also Hendricks v. United States, 223 U. S. 178 (1912); Blair v. United States, 250 U. S., at 282-283. We see no reason to hold that these reporters, any more than other citizens, should be excused from furnishing information that may help the grand jury in arriving at its initial determinations.
The privilege claimed here is conditional, not absolute; given the suggested preliminary showings and compelling need, the reporter would be required to testify. Presumably, such a rule would reduce the instances in which reporters could be required to appear, but predicting in advance when and in what circumstances they could be compelled to do so would be difficult. Such a rule would also have implications for the issuance of compulsory process to reporters at civil and criminal trials and at legislative hearings. If newsmen's confidential sources are as sensitive as they are claimed to be, the prospect of being unmasked whenever a judge determines the situation justifies it is hardly a satisfactory solution to the problem.[39] For them, it would appear that only an absolute privilege would suffice.
*703 We are unwilling to embark the judiciary on a long and difficult journey to such an uncertain destination. The administration of a constitutional newsman's privilege *704 would present practical and conceptual difficulties of a high order. Sooner or later, it would be necessary to define those categories of newsmen who qualified for the privilege, a questionable procedure in light of the traditional doctrine that liberty of the press is the right of the lonely pamphleteer who uses carbon paper or a mimeograph just as much as of the large metropolitan publisher who utilizes the latest photocomposition methods. Cf. In re Grand Jury Witnesses, 322 F. Supp. 573, 574 (ND Cal. 1970). Freedom of the press is a "fundamental personal right" which "is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. . . . The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion." Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, 450, 452 (1938). See also Mills *705 v. Alabama, 384 U. S. 214, 219 (1966); Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105, 111 (1943). The informative function asserted by representatives of the organized press in the present cases is also performed by lecturers, political pollsters, novelists, academic researchers, and dramatists. Almost any author may quite accurately assert that he is contributing to the flow of information to the public, that he relies on confidential sources of information, and that these sources will be silenced if he is forced to make disclosures before a grand jury.[40]
In each instance where a reporter is subpoenaed to testify, the courts would also be embroiled in preliminary factual and legal determinations with respect to whether the proper predicate had been laid for the reporter's appearance: Is there probable cause to believe a crime has been committed? Is it likely that the reporter has useful information gained in confidence? Could the grand jury obtain the information elsewhere? Is the official interest sufficient to outweigh the claimed privilege?
Thus, in the end, by considering whether enforcement of a particular law served a "compelling" governmental interest, the courts would be inextricably involved in *706 distinguishing between the value of enforcing different criminal laws. By requiring testimony from a reporter in investigations involving some crimes but not in others, they would be making a value judgment that a legislature had declined to make, since in each case the criminal law involved would represent a considered legislative judgment, not constitutionally suspect, of what conduct is liable to criminal prosecution. The task of judges, like other officials outside the legislative branch, is not to make the law but to uphold it in accordance with their oaths.
At the federal level, Congress has freedom to determine whether a statutory newsman's privilege is necessary and desirable and to fashion standards and rules as narrow or broad as deemed necessary to deal with the evil discerned and, equally important, to refashion those rules as experience from time to time may dictate. There is also merit in leaving state legislatures free, within First Amendment limits, to fashion their own standards in light of the conditions and problems with respect to the relations between law enforcement officials and press in their own areas. It goes without saying, of course, that we are powerless to bar state courts from responding in their own way and construing their own constitutions so as to recognize a newsman's privilege, either qualified or absolute.
In addition, there is much force in the pragmatic view that the press has at its disposal powerful mechanisms of communication and is far from helpless to protect itself from harassment or substantial harm. Furthermore, if what the newsmen urged in these cases is truethat law enforcement cannot hope to gain and may suffer from subpoenaing newsmen before grand juries prosecutors will be loath to risk so much for so little. Thus, at the federal level the Attorney General has already fashioned a set of rules for federal officials in connection *707 with subpoenaing members of the press to testify before grand juries or at criminal trials.[41] These rules are a major step in the direction the reporters herein desire to move. They may prove wholly sufficient to resolve the bulk of disagreements and controversies between press and federal officials.
Finally, as we have earlier indicated, news gathering is not without its First Amendment protections, and grand jury investigations if instituted or conducted other than in good faith, would pose wholly different issues for resolution under the First Amendment.[42] Official harassment of the press undertaken not for purposes of law enforcement but to disrupt a reporter's relationship *708 with his news sources would have no justification. Grand juries are subject to judicial control and subpoenas to motions to quash. We do not expect courts will forget that grand juries must operate within the limits of the First Amendment as well as the Fifth.
III
We turn, therefore, to the disposition of the cases before us. From what we have said, it necessarily follows that the decision in United States v. Caldwell, No. 70-57, must be reversed. If there is no First Amendment privilege to refuse to answer the relevant and material questions asked during a good-faith grand jury investigation, then it is a fortiori true that there is no privilege to refuse to appear before such a grand jury until the Government demonstrates some "compelling need" for a newsman's testimony. Other issues were urged upon us, but since they were not passed upon by the Court of Appeals, we decline to address them in the first instance.
The decisions in No. 70-85, Branzburg v. Hayes and Branzburg v. Meigs, must be affirmed. Here, petitioner refused to answer questions that directly related to criminal conduct that he had observed and written about. The Kentucky Court of Appeals noted that marihuana is defined as a narcotic drug by statute, Ky. Rev. Stat. § 218.010 (14) (1962), and that unlicensed possession or compounding of it is a felony punishable by both fine and imprisonment. Ky. Rev. Stat. § 218.210 (1962). It held that petitioner "saw the commission of the statutory felonies of unlawful possession of marijuana and the unlawful conversion of it into hashish," in Branzburg v. Pound, 461 S. W. 2d, at 346. Petitioner may be presumed to have observed similar violations of the state narcotics laws during the research he did for the story that forms the basis of the subpoena in Branzburg v. Meigs. In both cases, if what petitioner wrote was true, *709 he had direct information to provide the grand jury concerning the commission of serious crimes.
The only question presented at the present time in In re Pappas, No. 70-94, is whether petitioner Pappas must appear before the grand jury to testify pursuant to subpoena. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court characterized the record in this case as "meager," and it is not clear what petitioner will be asked by the grand jury. It is not even clear that he will be asked to divulge information received in confidence. We affirm the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and hold that petitioner must appear before the grand jury to answer the questions put to him, subject, of course, to the supervision of the presiding judge as to "the propriety, purposes, and scope of the grand jury inquiry and the pertinence of the probable testimony." 358 Mass., at 614, 266 N. E. 2d, at 303-304.
So ordered.
MR. JUSTICE POWELL, concurring.
I add this brief statement to emphasize what seems to me to be the limited nature of the Court's holding. The Court does not hold that newsmen, subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury, are without constitutional rights with respect to the gathering of news or in safeguarding their sources. Certainly, we do not hold, as suggested in MR. JUSTICE STEWART'S dissenting opinion, that state and federal authorities are free to "annex" the news media as "an investigative arm of government." The solicitude repeatedly shown by this Court for First Amendment freedoms should be sufficient assurance against any such effort, even if one seriously believed that the mediaproperly free and untrammeled in the fullest sense of these termswere not able to protect themselves.
As indicated in the concluding portion of the opinion, the Court states that no harassment of newsmen will *710 be tolerated. If a newsman believes that the grand jury investigation is not being conducted in good faith he is not without remedy. Indeed, if the newsman is called upon to give information bearing only a remote and tenuous relationship to the subject of the investigation, or if he has some other reason to believe that his testimony implicates confidential source relationships without a legitimate need of law enforcement, he will have access to the court on a motion to quash and an appropriate protective order may be entered. The asserted claim to privilege should be judged on its facts by the striking of a proper balance between freedom of the press and the obligation of all citizens to give relevant testimony with respect to criminal conduct. The balance of these vital constitutional and societal interests on a case-by-case basis accords with the tried and traditional way of adjudicating such questions.[*]
In short, the courts will be available to newsmen under circumstances where legitimate First Amendment interests require protection.
*711 MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting in No. 70-57, United States v. Caldwell.
Caldwell, a black, is a reporter for the New York Times and was assigned to San Francisco with the hope that he could report on the activities and attitudes of the Black Panther Party. Caldwell in time gained the complete confidence of its members and wrote in-depth articles about them.
He was subpoenaed to appear and testify before a federal grand jury and to bring with him notes and tapes covering interviews with its members. A hearing on a motion to quash was held. The District Court ruled that while Caldwell had to appear before the grand jury, he did not have to reveal confidential communications unless the court was satisfied that there was a "compelling and overriding national interest." See 311 F. Supp. 358, 362. Caldwell filed a notice of appeal and the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal without opinion.
Shortly thereafter a new grand jury was impaneled and it issued a new subpoena for Caldwell to testify. On a motion to quash, the District Court issued an order substantially identical to its earlier one.
Caldwell refused to appear and was held in contempt. On appeal, the Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of contempt. It said that the revealing of confidential sources of information jeopardized a First Amendment freedom and that Caldwell did not have to appear before the grand jury absent a showing that there was a "compelling and overriding national interest" in pursuing such an interrogation.
The District Court had found that Caldwell's knowledge of the activities of the Black Panthers "derived in substantial part" from information obtained "within the scope of a relationship of trust and confidence." Id., at 361. It also found that confidential relationships of this sort are commonly developed and maintained by *712 professional journalists, and are indispensable to their work of gathering, analyzing, and publishing the news.
The District Court further had found that compelled disclosure of information received by a journalist within the scope of such confidential relationships jeopardized those relationships and thereby impaired the journalist's ability to gather, analyze, and publish the news.
The District Court, finally, had found that, without a protective order delimiting the scope of interrogation of Earl Caldwell by the grand jury, his appearance and examination before the jury would severely impair and damage his confidential relationships with members of the Black Panther Party and other militants, and thereby severely impair and damage his ability to gather, analyze, and publish news concerning them; and that it would also damage and impair the abilities of all reporters to gather, analyze, and publish news concerning them.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the findings of the District Court but held that Caldwell did not have to appear at all before the grand jury absent a "compelling need" shown by the Government. 434 F. 2d 1081.
It is my view that there is no "compelling need" that can be shown which qualifies the reporter's immunity from appearing or testifying before a grand jury, unless the reporter himself is implicated in a crime. His immunity in my view is therefore quite complete, for, absent his involvement in a crime, the First Amendment protects him against an appearance before a grand jury and if he is involved in a crime, the Fifth Amendment stands as a barrier. Since in my view there is no area of inquiry not protected by a privilege, the reporter need not appear for the futile purpose of invoking one to each question. And, since in my view a newsman has an absolute right not to appear before a grand jury, it follows for me that a journalist who voluntarily appears before that body may invoke his First Amendment privilege to specific questions. *713 The basic issue is the extent to which the First Amendment (which is applicable to investigating committees, Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S. 178; NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449, 463; Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, 372 U. S. 539; Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, 401 U. S. 1, 6-7; In re Stolar, 401 U. S. 23) must yield to the Government's asserted need to know a reporter's unprinted information.
The starting point for decision pretty well marks the range within which the end result lies. The New York Times, whose reporting functions are at issue here, takes the amazing position that First Amendment rights are to be balanced against other needs or conveniences of government.[1] My belief is that all of the "balancing" was done by those who wrote the Bill of Rights. By casting the First Amendment in absolute terms, they repudiated the timid, watered-down, emasculated versions of the First Amendment which both the Government and the New York Times advance in the case.
My view is close to that of the late Alexander Meiklejohn:[2]
"For the understanding of these principles it is essential to keep clear the crucial difference between `the rights' of the governed and `the powers' of the governors. And at this point, the title `Bill of Rights' is lamentably inaccurate as a designation *714 of the first ten amendments. They are not a `Bill of Rights' but a `Bill of Powers and Rights.' The Second through the Ninth Amendments limit the powers of the subordinate agencies in order that due regard shall be paid to the private `rights of the governed.' The First and Tenth Amendments protect the governing `powers' of the people from abridgment by the agencies which are established as their servants. In the field of our `rights,' each one of us can claim `due process of law.' In the field of our governing `powers,' the notion of `due process' is irrelevant."
He also believed that "[s]elf-government can exist only insofar as the voters acquire the intelligence, integrity, sensitivity, and generous devotion to the general welfare that, in theory, casting a ballot is assumed to express,"[3] and that "[p]ublic discussions of public issues, together with the spreading of information and opinion bearing on those issues, must have a freedom unabridged by our agents. Though they govern us, we, in a deeper sense, govern them. Over our governing, they have no power. Over their governing we have sovereign power."[4]
Two principles which follow from this understanding of the First Amendment are at stake here. One is that the people, the ultimate governors, must have absolute freedom of, and therefore privacy of, their individual opinions and beliefs regardless of how suspect or strange they may appear to others. Ancillary to that principle is the conclusion that an individual must also have absolute privacy over whatever information he may generate in the course of testing his opinions and beliefs. In this regard, Caldwell's status as a reporter is less relevant than is his status as a student who affirmatively pursued empirical research to enlarge his own intellectual view-point. *715 The second principle is that effective self-government cannot succeed unless the people are immersed in a steady, robust, unimpeded, and uncensored flow of opinion and reporting which are continuously subjected to critique, rebuttal, and re-examination. In this respect, Caldwell's status as a news gatherer and an integral part of that process becomes critical.
I
Government has many interests that compete with the First Amendment. Congressional investigations determine how existing laws actually operate or whether new laws are needed. While congressional committees have broad powers, they are subject to the restraints of the First Amendment. As we said in Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S., at 197: "Clearly, an investigation is subject to the command that the Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or press or assembly. While it is true that there is no statute to be reviewed, and that an investigation is not a law, nevertheless an investigation is part of lawmaking. It is justified solely as an adjunct to the legislative process. The First Amendment may be invoked against infringement of the protected freedoms by law or by lawmaking."
Hence, matters of belief, ideology, religious practices, social philosophy, and the like are beyond the pale and of no rightful concern of government, unless the belief or the speech, or other expression has been translated into action. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642; Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, 401 U. S., at 6-7; In re Stolar, 401 U. S. 23.
Also at stake here is Caldwell's privacy of association. We have held that "[i]nviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs." NAACP v. *716 Alabama, 357 U. S., at 462; NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415.
As I said in Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, 372 U. S., at 565: "the associational rights protected by the First Amendment . . . cover the entire spectrum in political ideology as well as in art, in journalism, in teaching, and in religion. . . . [G]overnment is . . . precluded from probing the intimacies of spiritual and intellectual relationships in the myriad of such societies and groups that exist in this country, regardless of the legislative purpose sought to be served. . . . If that is not true, I see no barrier to investigation of newspapers, churches, political parties, clubs, societies, unions, and any other association for their political, economic, social, philosophical, or religious views." (Concurring opinion.) (Emphasis added.)
The Court has not always been consistent in its protection of these First Amendment rights and has sometimes allowed a government interest to override the absolutes of the First Amendment. For example, under the banner of the "clear and present danger" test,[5] and later under the influence of the "balancing" formula,[6] the *717 Court has permitted men to be penalized not for any harmful conduct but solely for holding unpopular beliefs.
In recent years we have said over and over again that where First Amendment rights are concerned any regulation "narrowly drawn,"[7] must be "compelling" and not *718 merely "rational" as is the case where other activities are concerned.[8] But the "compelling" interest in regulation neither includes paring down or diluting the right, nor *719 embraces penalizing one solely for his intellectual viewpoint; it concerns the State's interest, for example, in regulating the time and place or perhaps manner of exercising First Amendment rights. Thus, one has an undoubted right to read and proclaim the First Amendment in the classroom or in a park. But he would not have the right to blare it forth from a sound truck rolling through the village or city at 2 a. m. The distinction drawn in Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303-304, should still stand: "[T]he Amendment embraces two concepts,freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be."[9]
Under these precedents there is no doubt that Caldwell could not be brought before the grand jury for the sole purpose of exposing his political beliefs. Yet today the Court effectively permits that result under the guise of allowing an attempt to elicit from him "factual information." To be sure, the inquiry will be couched only in terms of extracting Caldwell's recollection of what was said to him during the interviews, but the fact remains that his questions to the Panthers and therefore the respective answers were guided by Caldwell's own preconceptions and views about the Black Panthers. His *720 entire experience was shaped by his intellectual view-point. Unlike the random bystander, those who affirmatively set out to test a hypothesis, as here, have no tidy means of segregating subjective opinion from objective facts.
Sooner or later, any test which provides less than blanket protection to beliefs and associations will be twisted and relaxed so as to provide virtually no protection at all. As Justice Holmes noted in Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 624, such was the fate of the "clear and present danger" test which he had coined in Schenck v. United States, 249 U. S. 47. Eventually, that formula was so watered down that the danger had to be neither clear nor present but merely "not improbable." Dennis v. United States, 341 U. S. 494, 510. See my concurring opinion in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 450. A compelling-interest test may prove as pliable as did the clear-and-present-danger test. Perceptions of the worth of state objectives will change with the composition of the Court and with the intensity of the politics of the times. For example, in Uphaus v. Wyman, 360 U. S. 72, sustaining an attempt to compel a witness to divulge the names of participants in a summer political camp, JUSTICE BRENNAN dissented on the ground that "it is patent that there is really no subordinating interest . . . demonstrated on the part of the State." Id., at 106. The majority, however, found that "the governmental interest in self-preservation is sufficiently compelling to subordinate the interest in associational privacy . . . ." Id., at 81. That is to enter the world of "make believe," for New Hampshire, the State involved in Uphaus, was never in fear of being overthrown.
II
Today's decision will impede the wide-open and robust dissemination of ideas and counterthought which *721 a free press both fosters and protects and which is essential to the success of intelligent self-government. Forcing a reporter before a grand jury will have two retarding effects upon the ear and the pen of the press. Fear of exposure will cause dissidents to communicate less openly to trusted reporters. And, fear of accountability will cause editors and critics to write with more restrained pens.
I see no way of making mandatory the disclosure of a reporter's confidential source of the information on which he bases his news story.
The press has a preferred position in our constitutional scheme, not to enable it to make money, not to set newsmen apart as a favored class, but to bring fulfillment to the public's right to know. The right to know is crucial to the governing powers of the people, to paraphrase Alexander Meiklejohn. Knowledge is essential to informed decisions.
As Mr. Justice Black said in New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S. 713, 717 (concurring opinion), "The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. . . . The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people."
Government has an interest in law and order; and history shows that the trend of rulersthe bureaucracy and the policeis to suppress the radical and his ideas and to arrest him rather than the hostile audience. See Feiner v. New York, 340 U. S. 315. Yet, as held in Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1, 4, one "function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute." We went on to say, "It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions *722 and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea."
The people who govern are often far removed from the cabals that threaten the regime; the people are often remote from the sources of truth even though they live in the city where the forces that would undermine society operate. The function of the press is to explore and investigate events, inform the people what is going on, and to expose the harmful as well as the good influences at work. There is no higher function performed under our constitutional regime. Its performance means that the press is often engaged in projects that bring anxiety or even fear to the bureaucracies, departments, or officials of government. The whole weight of government is therefore often brought to bear against a paper or a reporter.
A reporter is no better than his source of information. Unless he has a privilege to withhold the identity of his source, he will be the victim of governmental intrigue or aggression. If he can be summoned to testify in secret before a grand jury, his sources will dry up and the attempted exposure, the effort to enlighten the public, will be ended. If what the Court sanctions today becomes settled law, then the reporter's main function in American society will be to pass on to the public the press releases which the various departments of government issue.
It is no answer to reply that the risk that a newsman will divulge one's secrets to the grand jury is no greater than the threat that he will in any event inform to the police. Even the most trustworthy reporter may not be able to withstand relentless badgering before a grand jury.[10]
*723 The record in this case is replete with weighty affidavits from responsible newsmen, telling how important is the sanctity of their sources of information.[11] When we deny newsmen that protection, we deprive the people of the information needed to run the affairs of the Nation in an intelligent way.
Madison said:
"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." (To W. T. Barry, Aug. 4, 1822.) 9 Writings of James Madison 103 (G. Hunt ed. 1910).
*724 Today's decision is more than a clog upon news gathering. It is a signal to publishers and editors that they should exercise caution in how they use whatever information they can obtain. Without immunity they may be summoned to account for their criticism. Entrenched officers have been quick to crash their powers down upon unfriendly commentators.[12]E. g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254; Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64; Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U. S. 563; Gravel v. United States, ante, p. 606.
The intrusion of government into this domain is symptomatic of the disease of this society. As the years pass the power of government becomes more and more pervasive. It is a power to suffocate both people and causes. Those in power, whatever their politics, want only to perpetuate *725 it. Now that the fences of the law and the tradition that has protected the press are broken down, the people are the victims. The First Amendment, as I read it, was designed precisely to prevent that tragedy.
I would also reverse the judgments in No. 70-85, Branzburg v. Hayes, and No. 70-94, In re Pappas, for the reasons stated in the above dissent in No. 70-57, United States v. Caldwell.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART, with whom MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, dissenting.
The Court's crabbed view of the First Amendment reflects a disturbing insensitivity to the critical role of an independent press in our society. The question whether a reporter has a constitutional right to a confidential relationship with his source is of first impression here, but the principles that should guide our decision are as basic as any to be found in the Constitution. While MR. JUSTICE POWELL'S enigmatic concurring opinion gives some hope of a more flexible view in the future, the Court in these cases holds that a newsman has no First Amendment right to protect his sources when called before a grand jury. The Court thus invites state and federal authorities to undermine the historic independence of the press by attempting to annex the journalistic profession as an investigative arm of government. Not only will this decision impair performance of the press' constitutionally protected functions, but it will, I am convinced, in the long run harm rather than help the administration of justice.
I respectfully dissent.
I
The reporter's constitutional right to a confidential relationship with his source stems from the broad societal interest in a full and free flow of information to the public. It is this basic concern that underlies the Constitution's *726 protection of a free press, Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, 250; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 269,[1] because the guarantee is "not for the benefit of the press so much as for the benefit of all of us." Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U. S. 374, 389.[2]
Enlightened choice by an informed citizenry is the basic ideal upon which an open society is premised,[3] and a free press is thus indispensable to a free society. Not only does the press enhance personal self-fulfillment *727 by providing the people with the widest possible range of fact and opinion, but it also is an incontestable precondition of self-government. The press "has been a mighty catalyst in awakening public interest in governmental affairs, exposing corruption among public officers and employees and generally informing the citizenry of public events and occurrences . . . ." Estes v. Texas, 381 U. S. 532, 539; Mills v. Alabama, 384 U. S. 214, 219; Grosjean, supra, at 250. As private and public aggregations of power burgeon in size and the pressures for conformity necessarily mount, there is obviously a continuing need for an independent press to disseminate a robust variety of information and opinion through reportage, investigation, and criticism, if we are to preserve our constitutional tradition of maximizing freedom of choice by encouraging diversity of expression.
A
In keeping with this tradition, we have held that the right to publish is central to the First Amendment and basic to the existence of constitutional democracy. Grosjean, supra, at 250; New York Times, supra, at 270.
A corollary of the right to publish must be the right to gather news. The full flow of information to the public protected by the free-press guarantee would be severely curtailed if no protection whatever were afforded to the process by which news is assembled and disseminated. We have, therefore, recognized that there is a right to publish without prior governmental approval, Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697; New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S. 713, a right to distribute information, see, e. g., Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, 452; Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U. S. 501; Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U. S. 141; Grosjean, supra, and a right to receive printed matter, Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U. S. 301.
*728 No less important to the news dissemination process is the gathering of information. News must not be unnecessarily cut off at its source, for without freedom to acquire information the right to publish would be impermissibly compromised. Accordingly, a right to gather news, of some dimensions, must exist. Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1.[4] Note, The Right of the press to Gather Information, 71 Col. L. Rev. 838 (1971). As Madison wrote: "A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both." 9 Writings of James Madison 103 (G. Hunt ed. 1910).
B
The right to gather news implies, in turn, a right to a confidential relationship between a reporter and his source. This proposition follows as a matter of simple logic once three factual predicates are recognized: (1) newsmen require informants to gather news; (2) confidentiality the promise or understanding that names or certain aspects of communications will be kept off the recordis essential to the creation and maintenance of a news-gathering relationship with informants; and (3) an unbridled subpoena powerthe absence of a constitutional right protecting, in any way, a confidential relationship from compulsory processwill either deter sources from divulging information or deter reporters from gathering and publishing information.
*729 It is obvious that informants are necessary to the news-gathering process as we know it today. If it is to perform its constitutional mission, the press must do far more than merely print public statements or publish prepared handouts. Familiarity with the people and circumstances involved in the myriad background activities that result in the final product called "news" is vital to complete and responsible journalism, unless the press is to be a captive mouthpiece of "newsmakers."[5]
It is equally obvious that the promise of confidentiality may be a necessary prerequisite to a productive relationship between a newsman and his informants. An officeholder may fear his superior; a member of the bureaucracy, his associates; a dissident, the scorn of majority opinion. All may have information valuable to the public discourse, yet each may be willing to relate that information only in confidence to a reporter whom he trusts, either because of excessive caution or because of a reasonable fear of reprisals or censure for unorthodox *730 views. The First Amendment concern must not be with the motives of any particular news source, but rather with the conditions in which informants of all shades of the spectrum may make information available through the press to the public. Cf. Talley v. California, 362 U. S. 60, 65; Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U. S. 516; NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449.[6]
In Caldwell, the District Court found that "confidential relationships . . . are commonly developed and maintained by professional journalists, and are indispensable to their work of gathering, analyzing and publishing the news."[7] Commentators and individual reporters have repeatedly noted the importance of confidentiality.[8]*731 And surveys among reporters and editors indicate that the promise of nondisclosure is necessary for many types of news gathering.[9]
Finally, and most important, when governmental officials possess an unchecked power to compel newsmen to disclose information received in confidence, sources will clearly be deterred from giving information, and reporters will clearly be deterred from publishing it, because uncertainty about exercise of the power will lead to "self-censorship." Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147, 149-154; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S., at 279. The uncertainty arises, of course, because the judiciary has traditionally imposed virtually no limitations on the grand jury's broad investigatory powers. See Antell, The Modern Grand Jury: Benighted Super-government, 51 A. B. A. J. 153 (1965). See also Part II, infra.
After today's decision, the potential informant can never be sure that his identity or off-the-record communications will not subsequently be revealed through the compelled testimony of a newsman. A public-spirited person inside government, who is not implicated in any crime, will now be fearful of revealing corruption or other governmental wrongdoing, because he will now know he can subsequently be identified by use of compulsory process. The potential source must, therefore, choose between risking exposure by giving information or avoiding the risk by remaining silent.
The reporter must speculate about whether contact with a controversial source or publication of controversial material will lead to a subpoena. In the event of a *732 subpoena, under today's decision, the newsman will know that he must choose between being punished for contempt if he refuses to testify, or violating his profession's ethics[10] and impairing his resourcefulness as a reporter if he discloses confidential information.[11]
Again, the commonsense understanding that such deterrence will occur is buttressed by concrete evidence. The existence of deterrent effects through fear and self-censorship was impressively developed in the District Court in Caldwell.[12] Individual reporters[13] and commentators[14] have noted such effects. Surveys have verified that an unbridled subpoena power will substantially *733 impair the flow of news to the public, especially in sensitive areas involving governmental officials, financial affairs, political figures, dissidents, or minority groups that require in-depth, investigative reporting.[15] And the Justice Department has recognized that "compulsory process in some circumstances may have a limiting effect on the exercise of First Amendment rights."[16]No evidence contradicting the existence of such deterrent effects was offered at the trials or in the briefs here by the petitioner in Caldwell or by the respondents in Branzburg and Pappas.
The impairment of the flow of news cannot, of course, be proved with scientific precision, as the Court seems to demand. Obviously, not every news-gathering relationship requires confidentiality. And it is difficult to pinpoint precisely how many relationships do require a promise or understanding of nondisclosure. But we have never before demanded that First Amendment rights rest on elaborate empirical studies demonstrating beyond any conceivable doubt that deterrent effects exist; we have never before required proof of the exact number of people potentially affected by governmental action, who would actually be dissuaded from engaging in First Amendment activity.
Rather, on the basis of common sense and available information, we have asked, often implicitly, (1) whether there was a rational connection between the cause (the governmental action) and the effect (the deterrence or *734 impairment of First Amendment activity), and (2) whether the effect would occur with some regularity, i. e., would not be de minimis. See, e. g., Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S., at 244-245; Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495, 503; Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234, 248 (plurality opinion); NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S., at 461-466; Smith v. California, 361 U. S., at 150-154; Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U. S., at 523-524; Talley v. California, 362 U. S., at 64-65; Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479, 485-486; Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, 368 U. S. 278, 286; NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 431-438; Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, 372 U. S. 539, 555-557; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S., at 277-278; Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51, 59; DeGregory v. New Hampshire Attorney General, 383 U. S. 825; Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U. S. 11, 16-19. And, in making this determination, we have shown a special solicitude towards the "indispensable liberties" protected by the First Amendment, NAACP v. Alabama, supra, at 461; Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 66, for "[f]reedoms such as these are protected not only against heavy-handed frontal attack, but also from being stifled by more subtle governmental interference." Bates, supra, at 523.[17] Once this threshold inquiry has been satisfied, we have then examined the competing interests in determining whether *735 there is an unconstitutional infringement of First Amendment freedoms.
For example, in NAACP v. Alabama, supra, we found that compelled disclosure of the names of those in Alabama who belonged to the NAACP "is likely to affect adversely the ability [of the NAACP] and its members to pursue their . . . beliefs which they admittedly have the right to advocate, in that it may induce members to withdraw from the Association and dissuade others from joining it because of fear of exposure of their beliefs shown through their associations and of the consequences of this exposure." Id., at 462-463. In Talley, supra, we held invalid a city ordinance that forbade circulation of any handbill that did not have the distributor's name on it, for there was "no doubt that such an identification requirement would tend to restrict freedom to distribute information and thereby freedom of expression." Id., at 64. And in Burstyn, Inc., supra, we found deterrence of First Amendment activity inherent in a censor's power to exercise unbridled discretion under an overbroad statute. Id., at 503.
Surely the analogous claim of deterrence here is as securely grounded in evidence and common sense as the claims in the cases cited above, although the Court calls the claim "speculative." See ante, at 694. The deterrence may not occur in every confidential relationship between a reporter and his source.[18] But it will certainly *736 occur in certain types of relationships involving sensitive and controversial matters. And such relationships are vital to the free flow of information.
To require any greater burden of proof is to shirk our duty to protect values securely embedded in the Constitution. We cannot await an unequivocaland therefore unattainableimprimatur from empirical studies.[19] We can and must accept the evidence developed in the record, and elsewhere, that overwhelmingly supports the premise that deterrence will occur with regularity in important types of news-gathering relationships.[20]
Thus, we cannot escape the conclusion that when neither the reporter nor his source can rely on the shield of confidentiality against unrestrained use of the grand jury's subpoena power, valuable information will not be published and the public dialogue will inevitably be impoverished.
II
Posed against the First Amendment's protection of the newsman's confidential relationships in these cases is society's interest in the use of the grand jury to administer *737 justice fairly and effectively. The grand jury serves two important functions: "to examine into the commission of crimes" and "to stand between the prosecutor and the accused, and to determine whether the charge was founded upon credible testimony or was dictated by malice or personal ill will." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, 59. And to perform these functions the grand jury must have available to it every man's relevant evidence. See Blair v. United States, 250 U. S. 273, 281; Blackmer v. United States, 284 U. S. 421, 438.
Yet the longstanding rule making every person's evidence available to the grand jury is not absolute. The rule has been limited by the Fifth Amendment,[21] the Fourth Amendment,[22] and the evidentiary privileges of the common law.[23] So it was that in Blair, supra, after recognizing that the right against compulsory self-incrimination prohibited certain inquiries, the Court noted that "some confidential matters are shielded from considerations of policy, and perhaps in other cases for special reasons a witness may be excused from telling all that he knows." Id., at 281 (emphasis supplied). And in United States v. Bryan, 339 U. S. 323, the Court observed that any exemption from the duty to testify before the grand jury "presupposes a very real interest to be protected." Id., at 332.
Such an interest must surely be the First Amendment protection of a confidential relationship that I have discussed above in Part I. As noted there, this protection does not exist for the purely private interests of the *738 newsman or his informant, nor even, at bottom, for the First Amendment interests of either partner in the newsgathering relationship.[24] Rather, it functions to insure nothing less than democratic decisionmaking through the free flow of information to the public, and it serves, thereby, to honor the "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S., at 270.
In striking the proper balance between the public interest in the efficient administration of justice and the First Amendment guarantee of the fullest flow of information, we must begin with the basic proposition that because of their "delicate and vulnerable" nature, NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S., at 433, and their transcendent importance for the just functioning of our society, First Amendment rights require special safeguards.
A
This Court has erected such safeguards when government, by legislative investigation or other investigative means, has attempted to pierce the shield of privacy inherent in freedom of association.[25] In no previous case have we considered the extent to which the First Amendment limits the grand jury subpoena power. But the *739 Court has said that "[t]he Bill of Rights is applicable to investigations as to all forms of governmental action. Witnesses cannot be compelled to give evidence against themselves. They cannot be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure. Nor can the First Amendment freedoms of speech, press . . . or political belief and association be abridged." Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S. 178, 188. And in Sweezy v. New Hampshire it was stated: "It is particularly important that the exercise of the power of compulsory process be carefully circumscribed when the investigative process tends to impinge upon such highly sensitive areas as freedom of speech or press, freedom of political association, and freedom of communication of ideas." 354 U. S., at 245 (plurality opinion).
The established method of "carefully" circumscribing investigative powers is to place a heavy burden of justification on government officials when First Amendment rights are impaired. The decisions of this Court have "consistently held that only a compelling state interest in the regulation of a subject within the State's constitutional power to regulate can justify limiting First Amendment freedoms." NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S., at 438. And "it is an essential prerequisite to the validity of an investigation which intrudes into the area of constitutionally protected rights of speech, press, association and petition that the State convincingly show a substantial relation between the information sought and a subject of overriding and compelling state interest." Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, 372 U. S., at 546 (emphasis supplied). See also DeGregory v. Attorney General of New Hampshire, 383 U. S. 825; NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449; Sweezy, supra; Watkins, supra.
Thus, when an investigation impinges on First Amendment rights, the government must not only show that *740 the inquiry is of "compelling and overriding importance" but it must also "convincingly" demonstrate that the investigation is "substantially related" to the information sought.
Governmental officials must, therefore, demonstrate that the information sought is clearly relevant to a precisely defined subject of governmental inquiry. Watkins, supra; Sweezy, supra.[26] They must demonstrate that it is reasonable to think the witness in question has that information. Sweezy, supra; Gibson, supra.[27] And they must show that there is not any means of obtaining the information less destructive of First Amendment liberties. Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S., at 488; Louisiana ex rel. Gremillion v. NAACP, 366 U. S. 293, 296-297.[28]
These requirements, which we have recognized in decisions involving legislative and executive investigations, serve established policies reflected in numerous First *741 Amendment decisions arising in other contexts. The requirements militate against vague investigations that, like vague laws, create uncertainty and needlessly discourage First Amendment activity.[29] They also insure that a legitimate governmental purpose will not be pursued by means that "broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be more narrowly achieved." Shelton, supra, at 488.[30] As we said in Gibson, supra, "Of course, a legislative investigationas any investigation must proceed `step by step,' . . . but step by step or in totality, an adequate foundation for inquiry must be laid before proceeding in such a manner as will substantially intrude upon and severely curtail or inhibit constitutionally protected activities or seriously interfere with similarly protected associational rights." 372 U. S., at 557.
I believe the safeguards developed in our decisions involving governmental investigations must apply to the grand jury inquiries in these cases. Surely the function of the grand jury to aid in the enforcement of the law is no more important than the function of the legislature, and its committees, to make the law. We have long recognized the value of the role played by legislative investigations, see, e. g., United States v. Rumely, *742 345 U. S. 41, 43; Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U. S. 109, 111-112, for the "power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent . . . [encompassing] surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them." Watkins, supra, at 187. Similarly, the associational rights of private individuals, which have been the prime focus of our First Amendment decisions in the investigative sphere, are hardly more important than the First Amendment rights of mass circulation newspapers and electronic media to disseminate ideas and information, and of the general public to receive them. Moreover, the vices of vagueness and overbreadth that legislative investigations may manifest are also exhibited by grand jury inquiries, since grand jury investigations are not limited in scope to specific criminal acts, see, e. g., Wilson v. United States, 221 U. S. 361, Hendricks v. United States, 223 U. S. 178, 184, United States v. Johnson, 319 U. S. 503, and since standards of materiality and relevance are greatly relaxed. Holt v. United States, 218 U. S. 245; Costello v. United States, 350 U. S. 359. See generally Note, The Grand Jury as an Investigatory Body, 74 Harv. L. Rev. 590, 591-592 (1961).[31] For, as the United States notes in its brief in Caldwell, the *743 grand jury "need establish no factual basis for commencing an investigation, and can pursue rumors which further investigation may prove groundless."
Accordingly, when a reporter is asked to appear before a grand jury and reveal confidences, I would hold that the government must (1) show that there is probable cause to believe that the newsman has information that is clearly relevant to a specific probable violation of law;[32] (2) demonstrate that the information sought cannot be obtained by alternative means less destructive of First Amendment rights; and (3) demonstrate a compelling and overriding interest in the information.[33]
This is not to say that a grand jury could not issue a subpoena until such a showing were made, and it is not to say that a newsman would be in any way privileged to ignore any subpoena that was issued. Obviously, before the government's burden to make such a showing were triggered, the reporter would have to move to quash the subpoena, asserting the basis on which he considered the particular relationship a confidential one.
*744 B
The crux of the Court's rejection of any newsman's privilege is its observation that only "where news sources themselves are implicated in crime or possess information relevant to the grand jury's task need they or the reporter be concerned about grand jury subpoenas." See ante, at 691 (emphasis supplied). But this is a most misleading construct. For it is obviously not true that the only persons about whom reporters will be forced to testify will be those "confidential informants involved in actual criminal conduct" and those having "information suggesting illegal conduct by others." See ante, at 691, 693. As noted above, given the grand jury's extraordinarily broad investigative powers and the weak standards of relevance and materiality that apply during such inquiries, reporters, if they have no testimonial privilege, will be called to give information about informants who have neither committed crimes nor have information about crime. It is to avoid deterrence of such sources and thus to prevent needless injury to First Amendment values that I think the government must be required to show probable cause that the newsman has information that is clearly relevant to a specific probable violation of criminal law.[34]
*745 Similarly, a reporter may have information from a confidential source that is "related" to the commission of crime, but the government may be able to obtain an indictment or otherwise achieve its purposes by subpoenaing persons other than the reporter. It is an obvious but important truism that when government aims have been fully served, there can be no legitimate reason to disrupt a confidential relationship between a reporter and his source. To do so would not aid the administration of justice and would only impair the flow of information to the public. Thus, it is to avoid deterrence of such sources that I think the government must show that there are no alternative means for the grand jury to obtain the information sought.
Both the "probable cause" and "alternative means" requirements would thus serve the vital function of mediating between the public interest in the administration of justice and the constitutional protection of the full flow of information. These requirements would avoid a direct conflict between these competing concerns, and they would generally provide adequate protection for newsmen. See Part III, infra.[35] No doubt the courts would be required to make some delicate judgments in working out this accommodation. But that, after all, *746 is the function of courts of law. Better such judgments, however difficult, than the simplistic and stultifying absolutism adopted by the Court in denying any force to the First Amendment in these cases.[36]
The error in the Court's absolute rejection of First Amendment interests in these cases seems to me to be most profound. For in the name of advancing the administration of justice, the Court's decision, I think, will only impair the achievement of that goal. People entrusted with law enforcement responsibility, no less than private citizens, need general information relating to controversial social problems. Obviously, press reports have great value to government, even when the newsman cannot be compelled to testify before a grand jury. The sad paradox of the Court's position is that when a grand jury may exercise an unbridled subpoena power, and sources involved in sensitive matters become fearful of disclosing information, the newsman will not only cease to be a useful grand jury witness; he will cease to investigate and publish information about issues of public import. I cannot subscribe to such an anomalous result, for, in my view, the interests protected by the First Amendment are not antagonistic to the administration of justice. Rather, they can, in the long run, only be complementary, and for that reason must be given great "breathing space." NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S., at 433.
III
In deciding what protection should be given to information a reporter receives in confidence from a news source, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the holding of the District Court that the grand *747 jury power of testimonial compulsion must not be exercised in a manner likely to impair First Amendment interests "until there has been a clear showing of a compelling and overriding national interest that cannot be served by any alternative means." Caldwell v. United States, 434 F. 2d 1081, 1086. It approved the request of respondent Caldwell for specification by the government of the "subject, direction or scope of the Grand Jury inquiry." Id., at 1085. And it held that in the circumstances of this case Caldwell need not divulge confidential information.
I think this decision was correct. On the record before us the United States has not met the burden that I think the appropriate newsman's privilege should require.
In affidavits before the District Court, the United States said it was investigating possible violations of 18 U. S. C. § 871 (threats against the President), 18 U. S. C. § 1751 (assassination, attempts to assassinate, conspiracy to assassinate the President), 18 U. S. C. § 231 (civil disorders), 18 U. S. C. § 2101 (interstate travel to incite a riot), 18 U. S. C. § 1341 (mail fraud and swindles) and other crimes that were not specified. But, with one exception, there has been no factual showing in this case of the probable commission of, or of attempts to commit, any crimes.[37] The single exception relates to the allegation that a Black Panther Party leader, David Hilliard, violated 18 U. S. C. § 871 during the course of a speech in November 1969. But Caldwell was subpoenaed two months after an indictment was returned against Hilliard, and that charge could not, subsequent to the indictment, be investigated by a grand jury. See In re National Window Glass Workers, 287 F. 219; United *748 States v. Dardi, 330 F. 2d 316, 336.[38] Furthermore, the record before us does not show that Caldwell probably had any information about the violation of any other federal criminal laws,[39] or that alternative *749 means of obtaining the desired information were pursued.[40]
In the Caldwell case, the Court of Appeals further found that Caldwell's confidential relationship with the leaders of the Black Panther Party would be impaired if he appeared before the grand jury at all to answer questions, even though not privileged. Caldwell v. United States, 434 F. 2d, at 1088. On the particular facts before it,[41] the court concluded that the very *750 appearance by Caldwell before the grand jury would jeopardize his relationship with his sources, leading to a severance of the news-gathering relationship and impairment of the flow of news to the public:[42]
"Appellant asserted in affidavit that there is nothing to which he could testify (beyond that which he has already made public and for which, therefore, his appearance is unnecessary) that is not protected by the District Court's order. If this is trueand the Government apparently has not believed it necessary to dispute itappellant's response to the subpoena would be a barren performance *751 one of no benefit to the Grand Jury. To destroy appellant's capacity as news gatherer for such a return hardly makes sense. Since the cost to the public of excusing his attendance is so slight, it may be said that there is here no public interest of real substance in competition with the First Amendment freedoms that are jeopardized.
"If any competing public interest is ever to arise in a case such as this (where First Amendment liberties are threatened by mere appearance at a Grand Jury investigation) it will be on an occasion in which the witness, armed with his privilege, can still serve a useful purpose before the Grand Jury. Considering the scope of the privilege embodied in the protective order, these occasions would seem to be unusual. It is not asking too much of the Government to show that such an occasion is presented here." Id., at 1089.
I think this ruling was also correct in light of the particularized circumstances of the Caldwell case. Obviously, only in very rare circumstances would a confidential relationship between a reporter and his source be so sensitive that mere appearance before the grand jury by the newsman would substantially impair his newsgathering function. But in this case, the reporter made out a prima facie case that the flow of news to the public would be curtailed. And he stated, without contradiction, that the only nonconfidential material about which he could testify was already printed in his newspaper articles.[43] Since the United States has not attempted to *752 refute this assertion, the appearance of Caldwell would, on these facts, indeed be a "barren performance." But this aspect of the Caldwell judgment I would confine to its own facts. As the Court of Appeals appropriately observed: "[T]he rule of this case is a narrow one. . . ." Caldwell, supra, at 1090.
Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in No. 70-57, United States v. Caldwell.[44] In the other two cases before us, No. 70-85, Branzburg v. Hayes and Meigs, and No. 70-94, In re Pappas, I would vacate the judgments and remand the cases for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views I have expressed in this opinion.
NOTES
[*] Together with No. 70-94, In re Pappas, on certiorari to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, also argued February 23, 1972, and No. 70-57, United States v. Caldwell, on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued February 22, 1972.
[1] The article contained the following paragraph: " `I don't know why I'm letting you do this story,' [one informant] said quietly. "To make the narcs (narcotics detectives) mad, I guess. That's the main reason.' However, Larry and his partner asked for and received a promise that their names would be changed." App. 3-4.
[2] The Foreman of the grand jury reported that petitioner Branzburg had refused to answer the following two questions: "#1. On November 12, or 13, 1969, who was the person or persons you observed in possession of Marijuana, about which you wrote an article in the Courier-Journal on November 15, 1969? #2. On November 12, or 13, 1969, who was the person or persons you observed compounding Marijuana, producing same to a compound known as Hashish?" App. 6.
[3] Judge J. Miles Pound. The respondent in this case, Hon. John P. Hayes, is the successor of Judge Pound.
[4] Ky. Rev. Stat. § 421.100 provides:
"No person shall be compelled to disclose in any legal proceeding or trial before any court, or before any grand or petit jury, or before the presiding officer of any tribunal, or his agent or agents, or before the General Assembly, or any committee thereof, or before any city or county legislative body, or any committee thereof, or elsewhere, the source of any information procured or obtained by him, and published in a newspaper or by a radio or television broadcasting station by which he is engaged or employed, or with which he is connected."
[5] Petitioner's Motion to Quash argued:
"If Mr. Branzburg were required to disclose these confidences to the Grand Jury, or any other person, he would thereby destroy the relationship of trust which he presently enjoys with those in the drug culture. They would refuse to speak to him; they would become even more reluctant than they are now to speak to any newsman; and the news media would thereby be vitally hampered in their ability to cover the views and activities of those involved in the drug culture.
"The inevitable effect of the subpoena issued to Mr. Branzburg, if it not be quashed by this Court, will be to suppress vital First Amendment freedoms of Mr. Branzburg, of the Courier-Journal, of the news media, and of those involved in the drug culture by driving a wedge of distrust and silence between the news media and the drug culture. This Court should not sanction a use of its process entailing so drastic an incursion upon First Amendment freedoms in the absence of compelling Commonwealth interest in requiring Mr. Branzburg's appearance before the Grand Jury. It is insufficient merely to protect Mr. Branzburg's right to silence after he appears before the Grand Jury. This Court should totally excuse Mr. Branzburg from responding to the subpoena and even entering the Grand Jury room. Once Mr. Branzburg is required to go behind the closed doors of the Grand Jury room, his effectiveness as a reporter in these areas is totally destroyed. The secrecy that surrounds Grand Jury testimony necessarily introduces uncertainties in the minds of those who fear a betrayal of their confidences." App. 43-44.
[6] After the Kentucky Court of Appeals' decision in Branzburg v. Meigs was announced, petitioner filed a rehearing motion in Branzburg v. Pound suggesting that the court had not passed upon his First Amendment argument and calling to the court's attention the recent Ninth Circuit decision in Caldwell v. United States, 434 F. 2d 1081 (1970). On Jan. 22, 1971, the court denied petitioner's motion and filed an amended opinion in the case, adding a footnote, 461 S. W. 2d 345, 346 n. 1, to indicate that petitioner had abandoned his First Amendment argument and elected to rely wholly on Ky. Rev Stat. § 421.100 when he filed a Supplemental Memorandum before oral argument. In his Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus, petitioner had clearly relied on the First Amendment, and he had filed his Supplemental Memorandum in response to the State's Memorandum in Opposition to the granting of the writs. As its title indicates, this Memorandum was complementary to petitioner's earlier Petition, and it dealt primarily with the State's construction of the phrase "source of any information" in Ky. Rev. Stat. § 421.100. The passage that the Kentucky Court of Appeals cited to indicate abandonment of petitioner's First Amendment claim is as follows:
"Thus, the controversy continues as to whether a newsman's source of information should be privileged. However, that question is not before the Court in this case. The Legislature of Kentucky has settled the issue, having decided that a newsman's source of information is to be privileged. Because of this there is no point in citing Professor Wigmore and other authorities who speak against the grant of such a privilege. The question has been many times debated, and the Legislature has spoken. The only question before the Court is the construction of the term `source of information' as it was intended by the Legislature."
Though the passage itself is somewhat unclear, the surrounding discussion indicates that petitioner was asserting here that the question of whether a common-law privilege should be recognized was irrelevant since the legislature had already enacted a statute. In his earlier discussion, petitioner had analyzed certain cases in which the First Amendment argument was made but indicated that it was not necessary to reach this question if the statutory phrase "source of any information" were interpreted expansively. We do not interpret this discussion as indicating that petitioner was abandoning his First Amendment claim if the Kentucky Court of Appeals did not agree with his statutory interpretation argument, and we hold that the constitutional question in Branzburg v. Pound was properly preserved for review.
[7] Petitioner's news films of this event were made available to the Bristol County District Attorney. App. 4.
[8] The case was reported by the superior court directly to the Supreme Judicial Court for an interlocutory ruling under Mass. Gen. Laws, c. 278, § 30A and Mass. Gen. Laws, c. 231, § 111 (1959). The Supreme Judicial Court's decision appears at 358 Mass. 604, 266 N. E. 2d 297 (1971).
[9] "We do not have before us the text of any specific questions which Pappas has refused to answer before the grand jury, or any petition to hold him for contempt for his refusal. We have only general statements concerning (a) the inquiries of the grand jury, and (b) the materiality of the testimony sought from Pappas. The record does not show the expected nature of his testimony or what likelihood there is of being able to obtain that testimony from persons other than news gatherers." 358 Mass., at 606-607, 266 N. E. 2d, at 299 (footnote omitted).
[10] The court expressly declined to consider, however, appearances of newsmen before legislative or administrative bodies. Id., at 612 n. 10, 266 N. E. 2d, at 303 n. 10.
[11] The court noted that "a presiding judge may consider in his discretion" the argument that the use of newsmen as witnesses is likely to result in unnecessary or burdensome use of their work product, id., at 614 n. 13, 266 N. E. 2d, at 304 n. 13, and cautioned that: "We do not suggest that a general investigation of mere political or group association of persons, without substantial relation to criminal events, may not be viewed by a judge in a somewhat different manner from an investigation of particular criminal events concerning which a newsman may have knowledge." Id., at 614 n. 14, 266 N. E. 2d, at 304 n. 14.
[12] The subpoena ordered production of "[n]otes and tape recordings of interviews covering the period from January 1, 1969, to date, reflecting statements made for publication by officers and spokesmen for the Black Panther Party concerning the aims and purposes of said organization and the activities of said organization, its officers, staff, personnel, and members, including specifically but not limited to interviews given by David Hilliard and Raymond `Masai' Hewitt." App. 20.
[13] The New York Times was granted standing to intervene as a party on the motion to quash the subpoenas. Application of Caldwell, 311 F. Supp. 358, 359 (ND Cal, 1970). It did not file an appeal from the District Court's contempt citation, and it did not seek certiorari here. It has filed an amicus curiae brief, however.
[14] Respondent appealed from the District Court's April 6 denial of his motion to quash on April 17, 1970, and the Government moved to dismiss that appeal on the ground that the order was interlocutory. On May 12, 1970, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal without opinion.
[15] The Government did not file a cross-appeal and did not challenge the validity of the District Court protective order in the Court of Appeals.
[16] The petition presented a single question: "Whether a newspaper reporter who has published articles about an organization can, under the First Amendment, properly refuse to appear before a grand jury investigating possible crimes by members of that organization who have been quoted in the published articles."
[17] Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U. S. 130, 145 (1967) (opinion of Harlan, J.); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964); Talley v. California, 362 U. S. 60, 64-65 (1960); Bridges v. California, 314 U. S. 252, 263 (1941); Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, 250 (1936); Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697, 722 (1931).
[18] NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 439 (1963); Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 530 (1945); DeGregory v. Attorney General of New Hampshire, 383 U. S. 825, 829 (1966); Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U. S. 516, 524 (1960); Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 161 (1939); NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449, 464 (1958).
[19] Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51, 56 (1965); NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U. S. 288, 307 (1964); Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U. S. 141, 147 (1943); Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U. S. 11, 18 (1966).
[20] There has been a great deal of writing in recent years on the existence of a newsman's constitutional right of nondisclosure of confidential information. See, e. g., Beaver, The Newsman's Code, The Claim of Privilege and Everyman's Right to Evidence, 47 Ore. L. Rev. 243 (1968); Guest & Stanzler, The Constitutional Argument for Newsmen Concealing Their Sources, 64 Nw. U. L. Rev. 18 (1969); Note, Reporters and Their Sources: The Constitutional Right to a Confidential Relationship, 80 Yale L. J. 317 (1970); Comment, The Newsman's Privilege: Government Investigations, Criminal Prosecutions and Private Litigation, 58 Calif. L. Rev. 1198 (1970); Note, The Right of the Press to Gather Information, 71 Col. L. Rev. 838 (1971); Nelson, The Newsmen's Privilege Against Disclosure of Confidential Sources and Information, 24 Vand. L. Rev. 667 (1971).
[21] "In general, then, the mere fact that a communication was made in express confidence, or in the implied confidence of a confidential relation, does not create a privilege.
". . . No pledge of privacy nor oath of secrecy can avail against demand for the truth in a court of justice." 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2286 (McNaughton rev. 1961). This was not always the rule at common law, however. In 17th century England, the obligations of honor among gentlemen were occasionally recognized as privileging from compulsory disclosure information obtained in exchange for a promise of confidence. See Bulstrod v. Letchmere, 2 Freem. 6, 22 Eng. Rep. 1019 (1676); Lord Grey's Trial, 9 How. St. Tr. 127 (1682).
[22] "There are few restrictions on action which could not be clothed by ingenious argument in the garb of decreased data flow. For example, the prohibition of unauthorized entry into the White House diminishes the citizen's opportunities to gather information he might find relevant to his opinion of the way the country is being run, but that does not make entry into the White House a First Amendment right." 381 U. S., at 16-17.
[23] "Historically, [the grand jury] has been regarded as a primary security to the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive persecution; it serves the invaluable function in our society of standing between the accuser and the accused . . . to determine whether a charge is founded upon reason or was dictated by an intimidating power or by malice and personal ill will." Wood v. Georgia, 370 U. S. 375, 390 (1962) (footnote omitted).
[24] It has been held that "infamous" punishments include confinement at hard labor, United States v. Moreland, 258 U. S. 433 (1922); incarceration in a penitentiary, Mackin v. United States, 117 U. S. 348 (1886); and imprisonment for more than a year, Barkman v. Sanford, 162 F. 2d 592 (CA5), cert. denied, 332 U. S. 816 (1947). Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 7 (a) has codified these holdings: "An offense which may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by indictment. An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or at hard labor shall be prosecuted by indictment or, if indictment is waived, it may be prosecuted by information. Any other offense may be prosecuted by indictment or by information."
[25] Although indictment by grand jury is not part of the due process of law guaranteed to state criminal defendants by the Fourteenth Amendment, Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516 (1884), a recent study reveals that 32 States require that certain kinds of criminal prosecutions be initiated by indictment. Spain, The Grand Jury, Past and Present: A Survey, 2 Am. Crim. L. Q. 119, 126-142 (1964). In the 18 States in which the prosecutor may proceed by information, the grand jury is retained as an alternative means of invoking the criminal process and as an investigative tool. Ibid.
[26] Jeremy Bentham vividly illustrated this maxim:
"Are men of the first rank and considerationare men high in office men whose time is not less valuable to the public than to themselves are such men to be forced to quit their business, their functions, and what is more than all, their pleasure, at the beck of every idle or malicious adversary, to dance attendance upon every petty cause? Yes, as far as it is necessary, they and everybody. . . . Were the Prince of Wales, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Lord High Chancellor, to be passing by in the same coach, while a chimney-sweeper and a barrow-woman were in dispute about a halfpennyworth of apples, and the chimney-sweeper or the barrow-woman were to think proper to call upon them for their evidence, could they refuse it? No, most certainly." 4 The Works of Jeremy Bentham 320-321 (J. Bowring ed. 1843).
In United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 34 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807), Chief Justice Marshall, sitting on Circuit, opined that in proper circumstances a subpoena could be issued to the President of the United States.
[27] Thus far, 17 States have provided some type of statutory protection to a newsman's confidential sources:
Ala. code, Tit. 7, § 370 (1960); Alaska Stat. § 09.25.150 (Supp. 1971); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-2237 (Supp. 1971-1972); Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-917 (1964); Cal. Evid. Code § 1070 (Supp. 1972); Ind. Ann. Stat. § 2-1733 (1968); Ky. Rev. Stat. § 421.100 (1962); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 45:1451-45:1454 (Supp. 1972); Md. Ann. Code, Art. 35, § 2 (1971); Mich. Comp. Laws § 767.5a (Supp. 1956), Mich. Stat. Ann. § 28.945 (1) (1954); Mont. Rev. Codes Ann. § 93-601-2 (1964); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 49.275 (1971); N. J. Rev. Stat. §§ 2A:84A-21, 2A:84A-29 (Supp. 1972-1973); N. M. Stat. Ann. § 20-1-12.1 (1970); N. Y. Civ. Rights Law § 79-h (Supp. 1971-1972); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2739.12 (1954); Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 28, § 330 (Supp. 1972-1973).
[28] Such legislation has been introduced, however. See, e. g., S. 1311, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971); S. 3552, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970); H. R. 16328, H. R. 16704, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970); S. 1851, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963); H. R. 8519, H. R. 7787, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963); S. 965, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959); H. R. 355, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959). For a general analysis of proposed congressional legislation, see Staff of Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., The Newsman's Privilege (Comm. Print 1966).
[29] The creation of new testimonial privileges has been met with disfavor by commentators since such privileges obstruct the search for truth. Wigmore condemns such privileges as "so many derogations from a positive general rule [that everyone is obligated to testify when properly summoned]" and as "obstacle[s] to the administration of justice." 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2192 (McNaughton rev. 1961). His criticism that "all privileges of exemption from this duty are exceptional, and are therefore to be discountenanced," id., at § 2192, p. 73 (emphasis in original) has been frequently echoed. Morgan, Foreword, Model Code of Evidence 22-30 (1942); 2 Z. Chafee, Government and Mass Communications 496-497 (1947); Report of ABA Committee on Improvements in the Law of Evidence, 63 A. B. A. Reports 595 (1938); C. McCormick, Evidence 159 (2d ed. 1972); Chafee, Privileged Communications: Is Justice Served or Obstructed by Closing the Doctor's Mouth on the Witness Stand?, 52 Yale L. J. 607 (1943); Ladd, Privileges, 1969 Law & the Social Order 555, 556; 58 Am. Jur., Witnesses § 546 (1948); 97 C. J. S., Witnesses § 259 (1957); McMann v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 87 F. 2d 377, 378 (CA2 1937) (L. Hand, J.). Neither the ALI's Model Code of Evidence (1942), the Uniform Rules of Evidence of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (1953), nor the Proposed Rules of Evidence for the United States Courts and Magistrates (rev. ed. 1971) has included a newsman's privilege.
[30] The holding in this case involved a construction of the Contempt of Court Act of 1831, 4 Stat. 487, which permitted summary trial of contempts "so near [to the court] as to obstruct the administration of justice." The Court held that the Act required only that the conduct have a "direct tendency to prevent and obstruct the discharge of judicial duty." 247 U. S., at 419. This view was overruled and the Act given a much narrower reading in Nye v. United States, 313 U. S. 33, 47-52 (1941). See Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 194, 205-206 (1968).
[31] Respondent Caldwell attached a number of affidavits from prominent newsmen to his initial motion to quash, which detail the experiences of such journalists after they have been subpoenaed. Appendix to No. 70-57, pp. 22-61.
[32] Cf., e. g., the results of a study conducted by Guest & Stanzler, which appears as an appendix to their article, supra, n. 20. A number of editors of daily newspapers of varying circulation were asked the question, "Excluding one- or two-sentence gossip items, on the average how many stories based on information received in confidence are published in your paper each year? Very rough estimate." Answers varied significantly, e. g., "Virtually innumerable," Tucson Daily Citizen (41,969 daily circ.), "Too many to remember," Los Angeles Herald-Examiner (718,221 daily circ.), "Occasionally," Denver Post (252,084 daily circ.), "Rarely," Cleveland Plain Dealer (370,499 daily circ.), "Very rare, some politics," Oregon Journal (146,403 daily circ.). This study did not purport to measure the extent of deterrence of informants caused by subpoenas to the press.
[33] In his Press Subpoenas: An Empirical and Legal Analysis, Study Report of the Reporters' Committee on Freedom of the Press 6-12, Prof. Vince Blasi discusses these methodological problems. Prof. Blasi's survey found that slightly more than half of the 975 reporters questioned said that they relied on regular confidential sources for at least 10% of their stories. Id., at 21. Of this group of reporters, only 8% were able to say with some certainty that their professional functioning had been adversely affected by the threat of subpoena; another 11% were not certain whether or not they had been adversely affected. Id., at 53.
[34] See Statute of Westminster First, 3 Edw. 1, c. 9, p. 43 (1275); Statute of Westminster Second, 13 Edw. 1, c. 6, pp. 114-115 (1285); Sheriffs Act of 1887, 50 & 51 Vict., c. 55, § 8 (1); 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *293-295; 2 W. Holdsworth, History of English Law 80-81, 101-102 (3d ed. 1927); 4 id., at 521-522.
[35] See, e. g., Scrope's Case, referred to in 3 Coke's Institute 36; Rex v. Cowper, 5 Mod. 206, 87 Eng. Rep. 611 (1696); Proceedings under a Special Commission for the County of York, 31 How. St. Tr. 965, 969 (1813); Sykes v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1961] 3 W. L. R. 371. But see Glazebrook, Misprision of FelonyShadow or Phantom?, 8 Am. J. Legal Hist. 189 (1964). See also Act 5 & 6 Edw. 6, c. 11 (1552).
[36] This statute has been construed, however, to require both knowledge of a crime and some affirmative act of concealment or participation. Bratton v. United States, 73 F. 2d 795 (CA10 1934); United States v. Farrar, 38 F. 2d 515, 516 (Mass.), aff'd on other grounds, 281 U. S. 624 (1930); United States v. Norman, 391 F. 2d 212 (CA6), cert. denied, 390 U. S. 1014 (1968); Lancey v. United States, 356 F. 2d 407 (CA9), cert. denied, 385 U. S. 922 (1966). Cf. Marbury v. Brooks, 7 Wheat. 556, 575 (1822) (Marshall, C. J.).
[37] Though the constitutional argument for a newsman's privilege has been put forward very recently, newsmen have contended for a number of years that such a privilege was desirable. See, e. g., Siebert & Ryniker, Press Winning Fight to Guard Sources, Editor & Publisher, Sept. 1, 1934, pp. 9, 36-37; G. Bird & F. Merwin, The Press and Society 592 (1971). The first newsman's privilege statute was enacted by Maryland in 1896, and currently is codified as Md. Ann. Code, Art. 35, § 2 (1971).
[38] A list of recent subpoenas to the news media is contained in the appendix to the brief of amicus New York Times in No. 70-57.
[39] "Under the case-by-case method of developing rules, it will be difficult for potential informants and reporters to predict whether testimony will be compelled since the decision will turn on the judge's ad hoc assessment in different fact settings of `importance' or `relevance' in relation to the free press interest. A `general' deterrent effect is likely to result. This type of effect stems from the vagueness of the tests and from the uncertainty attending their application. For example, if a reporter's information goes to the `heart of the matter' in Situation X, another reporter and informant who subsequently are in Situation Y will not know if `heart of the matter rule X' will be extended to them, and deterrence will thereby result. Leaving substantial discretion with judges to delineate those `situations' in which rules of `relevance' or `importance' apply would therefore seem to undermine significantly the effectiveness of a reporter-informer privilege." Note, Reporters and Their Sources: The Constitutional Right to a Confidential Relationship, 80 Yale L. J. 317, 341 (1970).
In re Grand Jury Witnesses, 322 F. Supp. 573 (ND Cal. 1970), illustrates the impact of this ad hoc approach. Here, the grand jury was, as in Caldwell, investigating the Black Panther Party, and was "inquiring into matters which involve possible violations of Congressional acts passed to protect the person of the President (18 U. S. C. § 1751), to free him from threats (18 U. S. C. § 871), to protect our armed forces from unlawful interference (18 U. S. C. § 2387), conspiracy to commit the foregoing offenses (18 U. S. C. § 371), and related statutes prohibiting acts directed against the security of the government." Id., at 577. The two witnesses, reporters for a Black Panther Party newspaper, were subpoenaed and given Fifth Amendment immunity against criminal prosecution, and they claimed a First Amendment journalist's privilege. The District Court entered a protective order, allowing them to refuse to divulge confidential information until the Government demonstrated "a compelling and overriding national interest in requiring the testimony of [the witnesses] which cannot be served by any alternative means." Id., at 574. The Government claimed that it had information that the witnesses had associated with persons who had conspired to perform some of the criminal acts that the grand jury was investigating. The court held the Government had met its burden and ordered the witnesses to testify:
"The whole point of the investigation is to identify persons known to the [witnesses] who may have engaged in activities violative of the above indicated statutes, and also to ascertain the details of their alleged unlawful activities. All questions directed to such objectives of the investigation are unquestionably relevant, and any other evaluation thereof by the Court without knowledge of the facts before the Grand Jury would clearly constitute `undue interference of the Court.' " Id., at 577.
Another illustration is provided by State v. Knops, 49 Wis. 2d 647, 183 N. W. 2d 93 (1971), in which a grand jury was investigating the August 24, 1970, bombing of Sterling Hall on the University of Wisconsin Madison campus. On August 26, 1970, an "underground" newspaper, the Madison Kaleidoscope, printed a front-page story entitled "The Bombers Tell Why and What NextExclusive to Kaleidoscope." An editor of the Kaleidoscope, was subpoenaed, appeared, asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, was given immunity, and then pleaded that he had a First Amendment privilege against disclosing his confidential informants. The Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected his claim and upheld his contempt sentence: "[Appellant] faces five very narrow and specific questions, all of which are founded on information which he himself has already volunteered. The purpose of these questions is very clear. The need for answers to them is `overriding,' to say the least. The need for these answers is nothing short of the public's need (and right) to protect itself from physical attack by apprehending the perpetrators of such attacks." 49 Wis. 2d, at 658, 183 N. W. 2d., at 98-99.
[40] Such a privilege might be claimed by groups that set up newspapers in order to engage in criminal activity and to therefore be insulated from grand jury inquiry, regardless of Fifth Amendment grants of immunity. It might appear that such "sham" newspapers would be easily distinguishable, yet the First Amendment ordinarily prohibits courts from inquiring into the content of expression, except in cases of obscenity or libel, and protects speech and publications regardless of their motivation, orthodoxy, truthfulness, timeliness, or taste. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S., at 269-270; Kingsley Pictures Corp. v. Regents, 360 U. S. 684, 689 (1959); Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507, 510 (1948); Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S., at 537. By affording a privilege to some organs of communication but not to others, courts would inevitably be discriminating on the basis of content.
[41] The Guidelines for Subpoenas to the News Media were first announced in a speech by the Attorney General on August 10, 1970, and then were expressed in Department of Justice Memo. No. 692 (Sept. 2, 1970), which was sent to all United States Attorneys by the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division. The Guidelines state that: "The Department of Justice recognizes that compulsory process in some circumstances may have a limiting effect on the exercise of First Amendment rights. In determining whether to request issuance of a subpoena to the press, the approach in every case must be to weigh that limiting effect against the public interest to be served in the fair administration of justice" and that: "The Department of Justice does not consider the press `an investigative arm of the government.' Therefore, all reasonable attempts should be made to obtain information form non-press sources before there is any consideration of subpoenaing the press." The Guidelines provide for negotiations with the press and require the express authorization of the Attorney General for such subpoenas. The principles to be applied in authorizing such subpoenas are stated to be whether there is "sufficient reason to believe that the information sought [from the journalist] is essential to a successful investigation," and whether the Government has unsuccessfully attempted to obtain the information from alternative non-press sources. The Guidelines provide, however, that in "emergencies and other unusual situations," subpoenas may be issued which do not exactly conform to the Guidelines.
[42] Cf. Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, 49, 53-54 (1971).
[*] It is to be remembered that Caldwell asserts a constitutional privilege not even to appear before the grand jury unless a court decides that the Government has made a showing that meets the three preconditions specified in the dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE STEWART. To be sure, this would require a "balancing" of interests by the court, but under circumstances and constraints significantly different from the balancing that will be appropriate under the court's decision. The newsman witness, like all other witnesses, will have to appear; he will not be in a position to litigate at the threshold the State's very authority to subpoena him. Moreover, absent the constitutional preconditions that Caldwell and that dissenting opinion would impose as heavy burdens of proof to be carried by the State, the courtwhen called upon to protect a newsman from improper or prejudicial questioningwould be free to balance the competing interests on their merits in the particular case. The new constitutional rule endorsed by that dissenting opinion would, as a practical matter, defeat such a fair balancing and the essential societal interest in the detection and prosecution of crime would be heavily subordinated.
[1] "The three minimal tests we contend must be met before testimony divulging confidences may be compelled from a reporter are these: 1. The government must clearly show that there is probable cause to believe that the reporter possesses information which is specifically relevant to a specific probable violation of law. 2. The government must clearly show that the information it seeks cannot be obtained by alternative means, which is to say, from sources other than the reporter. 3. The government must clearly demonstrate a compelling and overriding interest in the information." Brief for New York Times as Amicus Curiae 29.
[2] The First Amendment Is An Absolute, 1961 Sup. Ct. Rev. 245, 254.
[3] Id., at 255.
[4] Id., at 257.
[5] E. g., Schenck v. United States, 249 U. S. 47 (wartime anti-draft "leafleting"); Debs v. United States, 249 U. S. 211 (wartime anti-draft speech); Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616 (wartime leafleting calling for general strike); Feiner v. New York, 340 U. S. 315 (arrest of radical speaker without attempt to protect him from hostile audience); Dennis v. United States, 341 U. S. 494 (reformulation of test as "not improbable" rule to sustain conviction of knowing advocacy of overthrow); Scales v. United States, 367 U. S. 203 (knowing membership in group which espouses forbidden advocacy is punishable). For a more detailed account of the infamy of the "clear and present danger" test see my concurring opinion in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 450.
[6] E. g., Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U. S. 485 (protection of schools from "pollution" outweighs public teachers' freedom to advocate violent overthrow); Uphaus v. Wyman, 360 U. S. 72, 79, 81 (preserving security of New Hampshire from subversives outweighs privacy of list of participants in suspect summer camp); Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U. S. 109 (legislative inquiry more important than protecting HUAC witness' refusal to answer whether a third person had been a Communist); Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U. S. 399 (legislative inquiry more important than protecting HUAC witness' refusal to state whether he was currently a member of the Communist Party); Braden v. United States, 365 U. S. 431, 435 (legislative inquiry more important than protecting HUAC witness' refusal to state whether he had once been a member of the Communist Party); Konigsberg v. State Bar, 366 U. S. 36 (regulating membership of bar outweighs interest of applicants in refusing to answer question concerning Communist affiliations); In re Anastaplo, 366 U. S. 82 (regulating membership of bar outweighs protection of applicant's belief in Declaration of Independence that citizens should revolt against an oppressive government); Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 367 U. S. 1 (national security outweighs privacy of association of leaders of suspect groups); Law Students Research Council v. Wadmond, 401 U. S. 154 (regulating membership of bar outweighs privacy of applicants' views on the soundness of the Constitution).
[7] Thus, we have held "overbroad" measures which unduly restricted the time, place, and manner of expression. Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 161 (anti-leafleting law); Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 102 (anti-boycott statute); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296 (breach-of-peace measure); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536 (breach-of-peace measure); Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229 (breach-of-peace statute); Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15, 22 (breach-of-peace statute); Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518 (breach-of-peace statute). But insofar as penalizing the content of thought and opinion is concerned, the Court has not in recent Terms permitted any interest to override the absolute privacy of one's philosophy. To be sure, opinions have often adverted to the absence of a compelling justification for attempted intrusions into philosophical or associational privacy. E. g., Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U. S. 516, 523 (disclosure of NAACP membership lists to city officials); Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, 372 U. S. 539, 546 (disclosure of NAACP membership list to state legislature); DeGregory v. Attorney General of New Hampshire, 383 U. S. 825, 829 (witness' refusal to state whether he had been a member of the Communist Party three years earlier); Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, 401 U. S. 1, 6-7 (refusal of bar applicant to state whether she had been a member of the Communist Party); In re Stolar, 401 U. S. 23 (refusal of bar applicant to state whether he was "loyal" to the Government); see also Street v. New York, 394 U. S. 576 (expression of disgust for flag). Yet, while the rhetoric of these opinions did not expressly embrace an absolute privilege for the privacy of opinions and philosophy, the trend of those results was not inconsistent with and in their totality appeared to be approaching such a doctrine. Moreover, in another group of opinions invalidating for over-breadth intrusions into the realm of belief and association, there was no specification of whether a danger test, a balancing process, an absolute doctrine, or a compelling justification inquiry had been used to detect invalid applications comprehended by the challenged measures. E. g., Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183 (loyalty test which condemned mere unknowing membership in a suspect group); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479 (requirement that public teachers disclose all affiliations); Louisiana ex rel. Gremillion v. NAACP, 366 U. S. 293, 296 (disclosure of NAACP membership lists); Whitehill v. Elkins, 389 U. S. 54, 59 (nonactive membership in a suspect group a predicate for refusing employment as a public teacher); United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258 (mere membership in Communist Party a sole ground for exclusion from employment in defense facility). Regrettably, the vitality of the overdue trend toward a complete privilege in this area has been drawn into question by quite recent decisions of the Court, Law Students Research Council v. Wadmond, 401 U. S. 154, holding that bar applicants may be turned away for refusing to disclose their opinions on the soundness of the Constitution; Cole v. Richardson, 405 U. S. 676, sustaining an oath required of public employees that they will "oppose" a violent overthrow; and, of course, by today's decision.
[8] Where no more than economic interests were affected this Court has upheld legislation only upon a showing that it was "rationally connected" to some permissible state objective. E. g., United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 152; Goesaert v. Cleary, 335 U. S. 464; Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U. S. 483; McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420; McDonald v. Board of Election Comm'rs, 394 U. S. 802; United States v. Maryland Savings-Share Ins. Corp., 400 U. S. 4; Richardson v. Belcher, 404 U. S. 78; Schilb v. Kuebel, 404 U. S. 357.
[9] The majority cites several cases which held that certain burdens on the press were permissible despite incidental burdens on its news-gathering ability. For example, see Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U. S. 333, 358. Even assuming that those cases were rightly decided, the fact remains that in none of them was the Government attempting to extract personal belief from a witness and the privacy of a citizen's personal intellectual viewpoint was not implicated.
[10] "The secrecy of the [grand jury's] proceedings and the possibility of a jail sentence for contempt so intimidate the witness that he may be led into answering questions which pry into his personal life and associations and which, in the bargain, are frequently immaterial and vague. Alone and faced by either hostile or apathetic grand juries, the witness is frequently undone by his experience. Life in a relatively open society makes him especially vulnerable to a secret appearance before a body that is considering criminal charges. And the very body toward which he could once look for protection has become a weapon of the prosecution. When he seeks protective guidance from his lawyer he learns that the judicial broadening of due process which has occurred in the past two decades has largely ignored grand jury matters, precisely because it was assumed that the grand jury still functioned as a guardian of the rights of potential defendants." Donner & Cerruti, The Grand Jury Network: How the Nixon Administration Has Secretly Perverted A Traditional Safeguard of Individual Rights, 214 The Nation 5, 6 (1972).
[11] It is said that "we remain unclear how often and to what extent informers are actually deterred from furnishing information when newsmen are forced to testify before a grand jury." Ante, at 693. But the majority need look no further than its holdings that prosecutors need not disclose informers' names because disclosure would (a) terminate the usefulness of an exposed informant inasmuch as others would no longer confide in him, and (b) it would generally inhibit persons from becoming confidential informers. McCray v. Illinois, 386 U. S. 300; Scher v. United States, 305 U. S. 251; cf. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U. S. 53.
[12] For a summary of early reprisals against the press, such as the John Peter Zenger trial, the Alien and Sedition Acts prosecutions, and Civil War suppression of newspapers, see Press Freedoms Under Pressure, Report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on the Government and the Press 3-5 (1972). We have not outlived the tendency of officials to retaliate against critics. For recent examples see J. Wiggins, Freedom or Secrecy 87 (1956) ("New Mexico, in 1954, furnished a striking example of government reprisal against . . . a teacher in the state reform school [who] wrote a letter to the New Mexican, confirming stories it had printed about mistreatment of inmates by guards. . . . [Two days later he] was notified of his dismissal."); Note, The Right of Government Employees to Furnish Information to Congress: Statutory and Constitutional Aspects, 57 Va. L. Rev. 885-886 (1971) (dismissal of an Air Force employee who testified before a Senate committee with respect to C-5A cargo plane cost overruns and firing of an FBI agent who wrote Senators complaining of the Bureau's personnel practices); N. Y. Times, Nov. 8, 1967, p. 1, col. 2; id., Nov. 9, 1967, p. 2, col. 4 (Selective Service directive to local draft boards requiring conscription of those who protested war); N. Y. Times, Nov. 11, 1971, p. 95, col. 4; id., Nov. 12, 1971, p. 13, col. 1; id., Nov. 14, 1971, pt. 4, p. 13, col. 1 (FBI investigation of a television commentator who criticized administration policies); id., Nov. 14, 1971, p. 75, col. 3 (denial of White House press pass to underground journalist).
[1] We have often described the process of informing the public as the core purpose of the constitutional guarantee of free speech and a free press. See, e. g., Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 369; De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 365; Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147, 153.
[2] As I see it, a reporter's right to protect his source is bottomed on the constitutional guarantee of a full flow of information to the public. A newsman's personal First Amendment rights or the associational rights of the newsman and the source are subsumed under that broad societal interest protected by the First Amendment. Obviously, we are not here concerned with the parochial personal concerns of particular newsmen or informants.
"The newsman-informer relationship is different from . . . other relationships whose confidentiality is protected by statute, such as the attorney-client and physician-patient relationships. In the case of other statutory privileges, the right of nondisclosure is granted to the person making the communication in order that he will be encouraged by strong assurances of confidentiality to seek such relationships which contribute to his personal well-being. The judgment is made that the interests of society will be served when individuals consult physicians and lawyers; the public interest is thus advanced by creating a zone of privacy that the individual can control. However, in the case of the reporter-informer relationship, society's interest is not in the welfare of the informant per se, but rather in creating conditions in which information possessed by news sources can reach public attention." Note, 80 Yale L. J. 317, 343 (1970) (footnotes omitted) (hereinafter Yale Note).
[3] See generally Z. Chafee, Free Speech in the United States (1941); A. Meikeljohn, Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government (1948); T. Emerson, Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment (1963).
[4] In Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1, we held that the Secretary of State's denial of a passport for travel to Cuba did not violate a citizen's First Amendment rights. The rule was justified by the "weightiest considerations of national security" and we concluded that the "right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information." Id., at 16-17 (emphasis supplied). The necessary implication is that some right to gather information does exist.
[5] In Caldwell v. United States, 434 F. 2d 1081, the Government claimed that Caldwell did not have to maintain a confidential relationship with members of the Black Panther Party and provide independent reporting of their activities, since the Party and its leaders could issue statements on their own. But, as the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit correctly observed:
"[I]t is not enough that Black Panther press releases and public addresses by Panther leaders may continue unabated in the wake of subpoenas such as the one here in question. It is not enough that the public's knowledge of groups such as the Black Panthers should be confined to their deliberate public pronouncements or distant news accounts of their occasional dramatic forays into the public view.
"The need for an untrammeled press takes on special urgency in times of widespread protest and dissent. In such times the First Amendment protections exist to maintain communication with dissenting groups and to provide the public with a wide range of information about the nature of protest and heterodoxy." Citing Associated Press v. United States, 326 U. S. 1, 20; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 102. Id., at 1084-1085.
[6] As we observed in Talley v. California, 362 U. S. 60, "Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. . . . Before the Revolutionary War colonial patriots frequently had to conceal their authorship or distribution of literature that easily could have brought down on them prosecutions by English-controlled courts. . . . Even the Federalist Papers, written in favor of the adoption of our Constitution, were published under fictitious names. It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most constructive purposes." Id., at 64-65. And in Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U. S. 301, we recognized the importance to First Amendment values of the right to receive information anonymously.
[7] Application of Caldwell, 311 F. Supp. 358, 361.
[8] See, e. g., F. Chalmers, A Gentleman of the Press: The Biography of Colonel John Bayne MacLean 74-75 (1969); H. Klurfeld, Behind the Lines: The World of Drew Pearson 50, 52-55 (1968); A. Krock, Memoirs: Sixty Years on the Firing Line 181, 184-185 (1968); E. Larsen, First with the Truth 22-23 (1968); R. Ottley, The Lonely WarriorThe Life and Times of Robert S. Abbott 143-145 (1955); C. Sulzberger, A Long Row of Candles; Memoirs and Diaries 241 (1969).
As Walter Cronkite, a network television reporter, said in an affidavit in Caldwell: "In doing my work, I (and those who assist me) depend constantly on information, ideas, leads and opinions received in confidence. Such material is essential in digging out newsworthy facts and, equally important, in assessing the importance and analyzing the significance of public events." App. 52.
[9] See Guest & Stanzler, The Constitutional Argument for Newsmen Concealing Their Sources, 64 Nw. U. L. Rev. 18 (1969); V. Blasi, Press Subpoenas: An Empirical and Legal Analysis, Study Report of the Reporters' Committee on Freedom of the Press 20-29 (hereinafter Blasi).
[10] The American Newspaper Guild has adopted the following rule as part of the newsman's code of ethics: "[N]ewspapermen shall refuse to reveal confidences or disclose sources of confidential information in court or before other judicial or investigating bodies." G. Bird & F. Merwin, The Press and Society 592 (1971).
[11] Obviously, if a newsman does not honor a confidence he will have difficulty establishing other confidential relationships necessary for obtaining information in the future. See Siebert & Ryniker, Press Winning Fight to Guard Sources, Editor & Publisher, Sept. 1, 1934, pp. 9, 36-37.
[12] The court found that "compelled disclosure of information received by a journalist within the scope of . . . confidential relationships jeopardizes those relationships and thereby impairs the journalist's ability to gather, analyze and publish the news." Application of Caldwell, 311 F. Supp., at 361.
[13] See n. 8, supra.
[14] Recent commentary is nearly unanimous in urging either an absolute or qualified newsman's privilege. See, e. g., Goldstein, Newsmen and Their Confidential Sources, New Republic, Mar. 21, 1970, pp. 13-14; Yale Note, supra, n. 2; Comment, 46 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 617 (1971); Nelson, The Newsmen's Privilege Against Disclosure of Confidential Sources and Information, 24 Vand. L. Rev. 667 (1971); Note, The Right of the Press to Gather Information, 71 Col. L. Rev. 838 (1971); Comment, 4 U. Mich. J. L. Ref. 85 (1970); Comment, 6 Harv. Civ. Rights-Civ. Lib. L. Rev. 119 (1970); Comment, The Newsman's Privilege: Government Investigations, Criminal Prosecutions and Private Litigation, 58 Calif. L. Rev. 1198 (1970). But see the Court's opinion, ante, at 690 n. 29. And see generally articles collected in Yale Note, supra, n. 2.
Recent decisions are in conflict both as to the importance of the deterrent effects and, a fortiori, as to the existence of a constitutional right to a confidential reporter-source relationship. See the Court's opinion, ante, at 686, and cases collected in Yale Note, at 318 nn. 6-7.
[15] See Blasi 6-71; Guest & Stanzler, supra, n. 9, at 43-50.
[16] Department of Justice Memo. No. 692 (Sept. 2, 1970).
[17] Although, as the Court points out, we have held that the press is not free from the requirements of the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the antitrust laws, or nondiscriminatory taxation, ante, at 683, these decisions were concerned "only with restraints on certain business or commercial practices" of the press. Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States, 394 U. S. 131, 139. And due weight was given to First Amendment interests. For example, "The First Amendment, far from providing an argument against application of the Sherman Act . . . provides powerful reasons to the contrary." Associated Press v. United States, 326 U. S., at 20.
[18] The fact that some informants will not be deterred from giving information by the prospect of the unbridled exercise of the subpoena power only means that there will not always be a conflict between the grand jury's inquiry and the protection of First Amendment activities. But even if the percentage of such informants is relatively large compared to the total "universe" of potential informants, there will remain a large number of people in "absolute" terms who will be deterred, and the flow of news through mass circulation newspapers and electronic media will inevitably be impaired.
[19] Empirical studies, after all, can only provide facts. It is the duty of courts to give legal significance to facts; and it is the special duty of this Court to understand the constitutional significance of facts. We must often proceed in a state of less than perfect knowledge, either because the facts are murky or the methodology used in obtaining the facts is open to question. It is then that we must look to the Constitution for the values that inform our presumptions. And the importance to our society of the full flow of information to the public has buttressed this Court's historic presumption in favor of First Amendment values.
[20] See, e. g., the uncontradicted evidence presented in affidavits from newsmen in Caldwell, Appendix to No. 70-57, pp. 22-61 (statements from Gerald Fraser, Thomas Johnson, John Kifner, Timothy Knight, Nicholas Proffitt, Anthony Ripley, Wallace Turner, Gilbert Noble, Anthony Lukas, Martin Arnold, David Burnham, Jon Lowell, Frank Morgan, Min Yee, Walter Cronkite, Eric Sevareid, Mike Wallace, Dan Rather, Marvin Kalb).
[21] See Blau v. United States, 340 U. S. 159; Quinn v. United States, 349 U. S. 155; Curcio v. United States, 354 U. S. 118; Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1.
[22] See Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385.
[23] See Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of Judicial Conference of the United States, Revised Draft of Proposed Rules of Evidence for the United States Courts and Magistrates (1971); 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence §§ 2290-2391 (McNaughton rev. 1961).
[24] Although there is longstanding presumption against creation of common-law testimonial privileges, United States v. Bryan, 339 U. S. 323, these privileges are grounded in an "individual interest which has been found . . . to outweigh the public interest in the search for truth" rather than in the broad public concerns that inform the First Amendment. Id., at 331.
[25] The protection of information from compelled disclosure for broad purposes of public policy has been recognized in decisions involving police informers, see Roviaro v. United States, 353 U. S. 53, United States v. Ventresca, 380 U. S. 102, 108, Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108, 114, McCray v. Illinois, 386 U. S. 300, and military and state secrets, United States v. Reynolds, 345 U. S. 1.
[26] As we said in Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S. 178,
"[W]hen First Amendment rights are threatened, the delegation of power to the [legislative] committee must be clearly revealed in its charter." "It is the responsibility of the Congress . . . to insure that compulsory process is used only in furtherance of a legislative purpose. That requires that the instructions to an investigating committee spell out the group's jurisdiction and purpose with sufficient particularity. . . . The more vague the committee's charter is, the greater becomes the possibility that the committee's specific actions are not in conformity with the will of the parent House of Congress." Id., at 198, 201.
[27] We noted in Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234:
"The State Supreme Court itself recognized that there was a weakness in its conclusion that the menace of forcible overthrow of the government justified sacrificing constitutional rights. There was a missing link in the chain of reasoning. The syllogism was not complete. There was nothing to connect the questioning of petitioner with this fundamental interest of the State." Id., at 251 (emphasis supplied).
[28] See generally Note, Less Drastic Means and the First Amendment, 78 Yale L. J. 464 (1969).
[29] See Watkins, supra, at 208-209. See generally Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360, 372; Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 526; Ashton v. Kentucky, 384 U. S. 195, 200-201; Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479, 486; Smith v. California, 361 U. S., at 150-152; Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507; Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S., at 369. See also Note, The Chilling Effect in Constitutional Law, 69 Col. L. Rev. 808 (1969).
[30] See generally Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241, 249-250, and cases cited therein; Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U. S. 611, 616; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 307; De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S., at 364-365; Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 164; Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 559, 562-564. Cf. NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 438. See also Note, The First Amendment Overbreadth Doctrine, 83 Harv. L. Rev. 844 (1970).
[31] In addition, witnesses customarily are not allowed to object to questions on the grounds of materiality or relevance, since the scope of the grand jury inquiry is deemed to be of no concern to the witness. Carter v. United States, 417 F. 2d 384, cert. denied, 399 U. S. 935. Nor is counsel permitted to be present to aid a witness. See In re Groban, 352 U. S. 330.
See generally Younger, The Grand Jury Under Attack, pt. 3, 46 J. Crim. L. C. & P. S. 214 (1955); Recent Cases, 104 U. Pa. L. Rev. 429 (1955); Watts, Grand Jury: Sleeping Watchdog or Expensive Antique, 37 N. C. L. Rev. 290 (1959); Whyte, Is the Grand Jury Necessary?, 45 Va. L. Rev. 461 (1959); Note, 2 Col. J. Law & Soc. Prob. 47, 58 (1966); Antell, The Modern Grand Jury: Benighted Supergovernment, 51 A. B. A. J. 153 (1965); Orfield, The Federal Grand Jury, 22 F. R. D. 343.
[32] The standard of proof employed by most grand juries, federal and State, is simply "probable cause" to believe that the accused has committed a crime. See Note, 1963 Wash. U. L. Q. 102; L. Hall et al., Modern Criminal Procedure 793-794 (1969). Generally speaking, it is extremely difficult to challenge indictments on the ground that they are not supported by adequate or competent evidence. Cf. Costello v. United States, 350 U. S. 359; Beck v. Washington, 369 U. S. 541.
[33] Cf. Garland v. Torre, 259 F. 2d 545. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit declined to provide a testimonial privilege to a newsman called to testify at a civil trial. But the court recognized a newsman's First Amendment right to a confidential relationship with his source and concluded: "It is to be noted that we are not dealing here with the use of the judicial process to force a wholesale disclosure of a newspaper's confidential sources of news, nor with a case where the identity of the news source is of doubtful relevance or materiality. . . . The question asked . . . went to the heart of the plaintiff's claim." Id., at 549-550 (citations omitted).
[34] If this requirement is not met, then the government will basically be allowed to undertake a "fishing expedition" at the expense of the press. Such general, exploratory investigations will be most damaging to confidential news-gathering relationships, since they will create great uncertainty in both reporters and their sources. The Court sanctions such explorations, by refusing to apply a meaningful "probable cause" requirement. See ante, at 701-702. As the Court states, a grand jury investigation "may be triggered by tips, rumors, evidence proffered by the prosecutor, or the personal knowledge of the grand jurors." Ante, at 701. It thereby invites government to try to annex the press as an investigative arm, since any time government wants to probe the relationships between the newsman and his source, it can, on virtually any pretext, convene a grand jury and compel the journalist to testify.
The Court fails to recognize that under the guise of "investigating crime" vindictive prosecutors can, using the broad powers of the grand jury which are, in effect, immune from judicial supervision, explore the newsman's sources at will, with no serious law enforcement purpose. The secrecy of grand jury proceedings affords little consolation to a news source; the prosecutor obviously will, in most cases, have knowledge of testimony given by grand jury witnesses.
[35] We need not, therefore, reach the question of whether government's interest in these cases is "overriding and compelling." I do not, however, believe, as the Court does, that all grand jury investigations automatically would override the newsman's testimonial privilege.
[36] The disclaimers in MR. JUSTICE POWELL'S concurring opinion leave room for the hope that in some future case the Court may take a less absolute position in this area.
[37] See Blasi 61 et seq.
[38] After Caldwell was first subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury, the Government did undertake, by affidavits, to "set forth facts indicating the general nature of the grand jury's investigation [and] witness Earl Caldwell's possession of information relevant to this general inquiry." In detailing the basis for the belief that a crime had probably been committed, the Government simply asserted that certain actions had previously been taken by other grand juries, and by Government counsel, with respect to certain members of the Black Panther Party (i. e., immunity grants for certain Black Panthers were sought; the Government moved to compel party members to testify before grand juries; and contempt citations were sought when party members refused to testify). No facts were asserted suggesting the actual commission of crime. The exception, as noted, involved David Hilliard's speech and its republication in the party newspaper, the Black Panther, for which Hilliard had been indicted before Caldwell was subpoenaed.
[39] In its affidavits, the Government placed primary reliance on certain articles published by Caldwell in the New York Times during 1969 (on June 15, July 20, July 22, July 27, and Dec. 14). On Dec. 14, 1969, Caldwell wrote:
" `We are special,' Mr. Hilliard said recently `We advocate the very direct overthrow of the Government by way of force and violence. By picking up guns and moving against it because we recognize it as being oppressive and in recognizing that we know that the only solution to it is armed struggle.'
"In their role as the vanguard in a revolutionary struggle, the Panthers have picked up guns.
"Last week two of their leaders were killed during the police raid on one of their offices in Chicago. And in Los Angeles a few days earlier, three officers and three Panthers were wounded in a similar shooting incident. In these and in some other raids, the police have found caches of weapons, including high-powered rifles." App. in No. 70-57, p. 13.
In my view, this should be read as indicating that Caldwell had interviewed Panther leaders. It does not indicate that he probably had knowledge of the crimes being investigated by the Government. And, to repeat, to the extent it does relate to Hilliard's threat, an indictment had already been brought in that matter. The other articles merely demonstrate that Black Panther Party leaders had told Caldwell their ideological beliefsbeliefs that were readily available to the Government through other sources, like the party newspaper.
[40] The Government did not attempt to show that means less impinging upon First Amendment interests had been pursued.
[41] In an affidavit filed with the District Court, Caldwell stated:
"I began covering and writing articles about the Black Panthers almost from the time of their inception, and I myself found that in those first months . . . they were very brief and reluctant to discuss any substantive matter with me. However, as they realized I could be trusted and that my sole purpose was to collect my information and present it objectively in the newspaper and that I had no other motive, I found that not only were the party leaders available for in-depth interviews but also the rank and file members were cooperative in aiding me in the newspaper stories that I wanted to do. During the time that I have been covering the party, I have noticed other newspapermen representing legitimate organizations in the news media being turned away because they were not known and trusted by the party leadership.
"As a result of the relationship that I have developed, I have been able to write lengthy stories about the Panthers that have appeared in The New York Times and have been of such a nature that other reporters who have not known the Panthers have not been able to write. Many of these stories have appeared in up to 50 or 60 other newspapers around the country.
"The Black Panther Party's method of operation with regard to members of the press is significantly different from that of other organizations. For instance, press credentials are not recognized as being of any significance. In addition, interviews are not normally designated as being `backgrounders' or `off the record' or `for publication' or `on the record.' Because no substantive interviews are given until a relationship of trust and confidence is developed between the Black Panther Party members and a reporter, statements are rarely made to such reporters on an expressed `on' or `off' the record basis. Instead, an understanding is developed over a period of time between the Black Panther Party members and the reporter as to matters which the Black Panther Party wishes to disclose for publications and those matters which are given in confidence. . . . Indeed, if I am forced to appear in secret grand jury proceedings, my appearance alone would be interpreted by the Black Panthers and other dissident groups as a possible disclosure of confidences and trusts and would similarly destroy my effectiveness as a newspaperman."
The Government did not contradict this affidavit.
[42] "Militant groups might very understandably fear that, under the pressure of examination before a Grand Jury, the witness may fail to protect their confidences . . . . The Government characterizes this anticipated loss of communication as Black Panther reprisal . . . . But it is not an extortionate threat we face. It is human reaction as reasonable to expect as that a client will leave his lawyer when his confidence is shaken. . . . As the Government points out, loss of such a sensitive news source can also result from its reaction to indiscreet or unfavorable reporting or from a reporter's association with Government agents or persons disapproved of by the news source. Loss in such a case, however, results from an exercise of the choice and prerogative of a free press. It is not the result of Government compulsion." Caldwell v. United States, 434 F. 2d, at 1088.
[43] Caldwell stated in his affidavit filed with the District Court, see n. 40, supra:
"It would be virtually impossible for me to recall whether any particular matter disclosed to me by members of the Black Panther Party since January 1, 1969, was based on an understanding that it would or would not be confidential. Generally, those matters which were made on a nonconfidential or `for publication' basis have been published in articles I have written in The New York Times; conversely, any matters which I have not thus far disclosed in published articles would have been given to me based on the understanding that they were confidential and would not be published."
[44] The District Court reserved jurisdiction to modify its order on a showing of a governmental interest which cannot be served by means other than Caldwell's grand jury testimony. The Government would thus have further opportunity in that court to meet the burden that, I think, protection of First Amendment rights requires.
|
Like this:
Flipkart mentioned on there website, that Moto G launch will be 6th February 2014, at 12:00 hours.
This is how the whole launch was handled.
When it is mentioned that the launch is 6th feb, 1200 hours. You are not suppose to launch it at 11:45pm, 5th Feb. It is misleading info on Flipkart’s part. Which led to many loose on buying at the said time. Lucky users browsed through before time. Were really lucky and placed an order.
More over, glitches on giving the proper offer was also not expected. Like 70% off on accessory was not being executed properly. Thus leaving customer to frequently fiddle with cart, and scratching their head; as in to what is happening to the discount. In the meanwhile, the phone went out of stock.
And how can they say, we did not anticipate such a huge response for the launch. Don’t they do a market survey or analysis. As in how many hits a product get from a particular geography? How many potential buyers can the gadget/product might have. As stated by Flipkart, that they sold 20000 units. Well that is not at all huge. And if you cannot anticipate this for a product launch, kindly don’t partner with any brand per-say. Flipkart is planning to partner with Motorola, read it here.
What is the use of partnering, when you cannot fulfill the demand. Also as they have started ‘booking’ for 16G.B NOW! This should have been done pre-launch. Not when the phone is launched, and people are left frustrated. So next time, as you are incapable of handling such a launch.
Kindly follow a pre-booking method. That will not leave people, just on luck to hit the buy now button on time. And then following 3 more steps to reach the final payment page. And abracadabra, the product is no longer available.
Might be, we will be excused you. As this was the first time, a product is being launched exclusively via shopping portal. But we cannot forgive and overlook such a management, when you (yes you! Flipkart), claim to be the best shopping portal of India.
Like this:
This a simulation game published on 17th Oct 2013, by Simogo. The link to the game Device 6
Description
A surreal thriller in which the written word is your map, as well as your narrator.
DEVICE 6 plays with the conventions of games and literature, entwines story with geography and blends puzzle and novella, to draw players into an intriguing mystery of technology and neuroscience.
Anna wakes up in a castle on a remote island, with little recollection of how she got there. All she remembers is an unusually unpleasant doll…
Why are there two identical castles on the island? Who is the mysterious man in the bowler hat? And above all, what is the purpose of the tests Anna is put through?
Read, listen and peek into three-dimensional photographs to solve the bizarre mysteries of DEVICE 6.
Personal note :
The interface is a simple and clean. Swipe to scroll through the novel/book or story or whatever you call it. The idea behind, is to take you through a story with a little eerie background music. And interactive windows on a page to interact.
The game is meant for people who like simulation and will be definitely enjoyed by readers. People who have played Machinarium and Walking Dead and enjoy such games, can give this one a try.
This screen grab is from the game N.O.V.A 3. And there was this bug in the game. While crossing a bridge, i fell through the gap and landed on this amazing place. The virtual moon looked good and i had to capture it.
More bugs that i encountered… This time, this happened suddenly without falling in any pit! The only way-out was to close the game.
Follow me on Twitter
About me
A student, doing his masters. Took up photography as a hobby and life is pleasant!!
An amateur, who is still learning the art of Photography. Introduced to the subtle art since childhood, as was surrounded by uncles, who had film cameras. But was not allowed to touch an equipment, as feared that I may destroy gadgets within seconds. Slowly time passed by, and started borrowing point and shoot when was a teenager. And finally picked it up as a hobby after crossing, 20. Currently pursuing Masters of Computer Application. Oh yes! I am a foodie, so treat (umm, is this a pun) me well and I,m happy... |
Q:
Update property asynchronously c# MVVM
The XAML is bind to a ViewModel MainVM that loads 2 other sub-ViewModels SubVM1 and SubVM2. I'm using the asynchronous command presented by John Thiriet. My intend : use a command defined in the MainVM, using an asynchronous function from SubVM1 to update a property from SubVM2.
(XAML)
<Window.Resources>
<local:MainVM x:Key="main"/>
<local:SubVM2 x:Key="subvm2"/>
</Window.Resources>
<Grid>
<Label Content="{Binding MyValue}" DataContext="{StaticResource subvm2}" FontSize="40"/>
<Button Command="{Binding MyCommand}" DataContext="{StaticResource main}" Width="100" Height="100" Content="GO"/>
</Grid>
MainVM
class MainVM : VMBase
{
private SubVM1 _subvm1;
private SubVM2 _subvm2;
private bool _isBusy;
public SubVM1 Subvm1
{
get => _subvm1;
set
{ _subvm1 = value; OnPropertyChanged("Subvm1"); }
}
public SubVM2 Subvm2
{
get => _subvm2;
set
{ _subvm2 = value; OnPropertyChanged("Subvm2"); }
}
public bool IsBusy
{
get => _isBusy;
set
{ _isBusy = value; OnPropertyChanged("IsBusy"); }
}
public IAsyncCommand MyCommand { get; set; }
public MainVM()
{
Subvm1 = new SubVM1();
Subvm2 = new SubVM2();
MyCommand = new AsyncCommand(Increment, MuchBusiness);
}
private async Task Increment()
{
try
{
IsBusy = true;
await Subvm1.MyAsyncFunc(Subvm2.MyValue);
}
finally
{
IsBusy = false;
}
}
private bool MuchBusiness()
{
return !IsBusy;
}
}
SubVM1
class SubVM1 : VMBase
{
public async Task MyAsyncFunc(double MyValue)
{
await Task.Run(() =>
{
int i = 0;
while (i < 20)
{
MyValue = i;
i++;
Console.WriteLine(MyValue);
}
});
}
}
SubVM2
class SubVM2 : VMBase
{
private double _myValue;
public double MyValue
{
get => _myValue;
set
{ _myValue = value; OnPropertyChanged("MyValue"); }
}
public SubVM2() { }
}
I tried using this article from Stephen Cleary. This was really instructive, but I only understood I was doing it wrong. I don't seem to be able to figure out how to use the code he provided. Plus I could not find the source code which usually really helps me understanding.
I have also read about dispatchers, but same, no source code
There was this solution that aimed at modifying OnPropertyChanged, however that was from a win8 app, and I could not extrapolate from there.
A:
Detailed solution, and the link to get the file related to the article
I ended up using MVVMLight. All function from this library are preceded with GS
XAML
<Window.Resources>
<local:ViewModelLocator x:Key="Locator"/>
</Window.Resources>
<Grid DataContext="{Binding Main, Source={StaticResource Locator}}" >
<Label Content="{Binding SubVM2.MyValue}" FontSize="40"/>
<Button Command="{Binding SubVM1.OkCommand}" Width="100" Height="100" Content="GO"/>
</Grid>
MainVM
public class MainVM : VMBase
{
public SubVM1 SubVM1 { get; }
public SubVM2 SubVM2 { get; } = new SubVM2();
public MainVM()
{
SubVM1 = new SubVM1(SubVM2);
//Subvm2 = new SubVM2();
}
}
SubVM1 (usage of IsBusy as a canexecute parameter)
using GS = GalaSoft.MvvmLight.Command;
[...]
public class SubVM1 : VMBase
{
private SubVM2 _subVM2 { get; set; }
private bool _isBusy;
public bool IsBusy
{
get => _isBusy;
set
{ _isBusy = value; OnPropertyChanged("IsBusy"); }
}
public SubVM1() { }
public SubVM1(SubVM2 SubVM2)
{
_subVM2 = SubVM2; ;
}
private GS.RelayCommand _okCommand;
public GS.RelayCommand OkCommand
{
get
{
return _okCommand
?? (_okCommand = new GS.RelayCommand(
async () =>
{
IsBusy = true;
Console.WriteLine(IsBusy);
await Task.Run(
() =>
{
// This is a background operation!
IsBusy = true;
_subVM2.MyValue = 0;
while (_subVM2.MyValue < 30)
{
_subVM2.MyValue++;
// Sleep for a while
Thread.Sleep(500);
}
});
IsBusy = false;
Console.WriteLine(IsBusy);
},()=> { return !IsBusy; },false));
}
}
}
SubVM2
public class SubVM2 : VMBase {
private double _myValue;
public double MyValue
{
get => _myValue;
set
{ _myValue = value; OnPropertyChanged("MyValue"); }
}
public SubVM2() { } }
ViewModelLocator
public class ViewModelLocator
{
/// <summary>
/// Initializes a new instance of the ViewModelLocator class.
/// </summary>
public ViewModelLocator()
{
ServiceLocator.SetLocatorProvider(() => SimpleIoc.Default);
////if (ViewModelBase.IsInDesignModeStatic)
////{
//// // Create design time view services and models
//// SimpleIoc.Default.Register<IDataService, DesignDataService>();
////}
////else
////{
//// // Create run time view services and models
//// SimpleIoc.Default.Register<IDataService, DataService>();
////}
SimpleIoc.Default.Register<MainVM>();
}
public MainVM Main
{
get
{
return ServiceLocator.Current.GetInstance<MainVM>();
}
}
public static void Cleanup()
{
// TODO Clear the ViewModels
}
}
I don't know how pretty this solution is, so I'll wait a little bit before marking it as the answer. It does the job for me though ! :)
|
FEMEN Topless Protesters
Ukrainian Topless Protesters: What's Their Message?
There were many sheer looks yesterday at Nina Ricci's Spring 2014 show in Paris, but two uninvited women showed even more skin on the catwalk. Two topless women from Ukraine's FEMEN protest group ran on stage before one was punched by a model and they were escorted out by security. Shouting "fashion fascism" and apparently protesting the assumption that Ukrainian women are sex slaves, the pair managed to disrupt the show momentarily.
FEMEN, founded in 2008, protests sex tourism, fashion, and even environmental causes. On Friday, a group of topless members armed with flares stormed a boat on the Seine in Paris in support of Greenpeace. And earlier this year, they reportedly protested "anorexic" models outside the Versace show in Paris. The group's website defines FEMEN as a "famous organization of topless women activists, who defend with their breast sexual and social equality in the world." While some may question the sensibility of going nude to protest sexual exploitation, FEMEN claims "the magic of the body" gets people interested and gives them "the courage of the act make you want to riot."
High-profile fashion brands aren't FEMEN's only targets. In April, a member of the group flashed Russian President Vladimir Putin when he was in Hanover, Germany, with Chancellor Angela Merkel. The demonstration was in support of the feminist punk band Pussy Riot, whose members are being detained in Russia. Putin didn't seem to mind, giving the women thumbs-ups. He also added later, "It is better to be dressed if one wants to discuss political matters." That might be true, but it won't get you as much attention. |
$Title = "Find Phantom Snapshots"
$Header = "VM's with Phantom Snapshots: [count]"
$Comments = "The following VM's have Phantom Snapshots"
$Display = "Table"
$Author = "Mads Fog Albrechtslund"
$PluginVersion = 1.2
$PluginCategory = "vSphere"
# Start of Settings
# End of Settings
$OutputPhantomSnapshots = @()
ForEach ($theVM in $VM){
ForEach ($theVMdisk in ($theVM | Get-HardDisk | Where-Object {$_.Filename -match "-\d{6}.vmdk"})){
# Find VM's which don't have normal Snapshots registered
if (!(Get-Snapshot $theVM))
{
New-Object -TypeName PSObject -Property @{
"VM Name" = $theVM.name
"VMDK Path" = $theVMdisk.Filename
}
}
}
}
# Change Log
## 1.2 : Code refactor |
You May Now Kiss the... Uh... Guy Who Receives
"You May Now Kiss the... Uh... Guy Who Receives" is the 25th episode of the fourth season of Family Guy. The episode originally aired on April 30, 2006, on Fox. In the episode, Brian's gay cousin Jasper comes to Quahog with his boyfriend Ricardo to get married. Mayor West tries to ban same-sex marriage to divert attention from a bad investment he made with the taxpayers' money. Brian fights for gay marriage and ends up taking Mayor West hostage to get his view across.
The episode was written by David A. Goodman and directed by Dominic Polcino. The episode received polarized reviews from critics. The week it aired, the episode had an estimated 7.8 million viewers. The episode features guest performances from Michael Clarke Duncan, Ralph Garman, Rachael MacFarlane, Chad Morgan, Charles Reid, Craig Reid, Kevin Michael Richardson, and Stark Sands, as well as several recurring voice actors for the series.
Plot
Brian’s gay cousin Jasper comes to Quahog with his Filipino boyfriend Ricardo, and announces that they are going to get married. Everyone is delighted — except for Lois, who is against same-sex marriage. Later, Mayor Adam West reveals in the city center a solid gold statue of the Honey Smacks mascot Dig 'Em, and dedicates the statue to the servicemen who died in what he refers to as the "recent Gulf conflict". The cost of the statue puts the city in debt. In order to distract the townspeople, he proposes a bill outlawing same sex marriage. Meanwhile, Chris falls for Alyssa, a beautiful girl who belongs to the Young Republicans, and joins the group to impress her.
An enraged Brian vows to make West change his mind, getting 10,000 people to sign a petition to oppose the bill. Lois refuses to sign and takes Stewie to visit her parents. Before Brian can present the petition to the mayor, Chris burns it because Alyssa has agreed he may touch her breasts if he destroys the document, much to Brian's anger. Brian manages to get 10,000 more signatures on a new petition to show it to Mayor West, but West still won't change his mind. Out of desperation, Brian takes a security guard’s gun, and holds the mayor hostage.
Lois hears about Brian on TV, and then discovers that her parents do not love each other, and even raised her to believe that a heterosexual couple who hate each other have every right to marry while a homosexual couple who love each other don't. Horrified, Lois changes her mind on same-sex marriage, deciding that gay couples who love each other have the right to be together. She returns to Quahog to convince Brian to free the mayor, saying that if he pursues this any further, he will be hurting his own cause. Brian agrees, and ends the hostage situation. Since it has distracted the town from the Dig 'Em scandal, Mayor West agrees to drop the ban on gay marriage. Brian gives him a key for a Volkswagen Scirocco, and West drops the hostage charges. Jasper and Ricardo get married in the backyard of the Griffin house.
Production
Written by David A. Goodman, and directed by Dominic Polcino, series creator Seth MacFarlane came up with the idea for the episode while writing a pilot episode featuring two gay men. MacFarlane describes himself as "incredibly passionate about [his] support for the gay community", and finds it to be "infuriating and idiotic" that two gay partners "have to go through this fucking dog and pony act when they stop at a hotel and the guy behind the counter says, 'You want one room or two?'"
In addition to the regular cast, actor Michael Clarke Duncan, voice actor Ralph Garman, actress Rachael MacFarlane, actress Chad Morgan, actor Charles Reid, actor Craig Reid, voice actor Kevin Michael Richardson, and voice actor Stark Sands guest starred in the episode. Recurring guest voices include Lori Alan, Alex Breckenridge, Johnny Brennan, writer Mike Henry, writer Chris Sheridan, writer Danny Smith, writer John Viener, and actor Adam West, who portrays an exaggerated version of himself. Actor Patrick Warburton has a guest appearance as well.
Censor issues required multiple changes to the episode. The line when Peter says, "It's not like we're going to have a gay sex orgy in the living room," was originally, "Come on Lois, we're not going to drill glory holes in the living room." The show received a broadcast standards request that the anti-gay video the priest shows Lois say "Pat Robertson Industries," so as not to make it look like Fox had an opinion about homosexuals. The writers had a problem with Lois being against gay marriage, as they felt they were not portraying her in a way that is consistent with other episodes as she expressed a more liberal viewpoint on many past issues on the show and even expressed a generally more accepting view of gays in the episode Brian Sings and Swings. The DVD version has a deleted scene during the backyard wedding ending where Ricardo (who doesn't speak English) asks Stewie what's going on and Stewie (who speaks Tagalog) tells Ricardo that he'll find out on his wedding night.
Cultural references
Mayor West builds a statue of Dig 'Em, the Sugar Smacks mascot, which causes controversy and causes West to ban gay marriage. Stewie takes over air traffic control, and causes Matthew McConaughey's private plane to crash into the ocean. The film, The Sound of Music, is also referenced in the episode. West also swallowed a Stratego board game and an older issue of People magazine which features the actor Paul Hogan. A cutaway gag involves Peter in the band The Proclaimers, in a recording for the song "I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles)", while another involves Popeye at Dr.Hartman's office, where he is told his bulging forearms are full of tumors and his speech patterns are the result of a stroke.
Reception
"You May Now Kiss the... Uh... Guy Who Receives" had an average of 7.82 million viewers and ranked 82nd out of 215 programs airing that week. Bob Sassone from TV Squad wrote that he could not stop laughing throughout the episode, feeling that there is "just something really funny about gay dogs getting married and a giant gold statue of Dig 'Em, the Sugar Smacks mascot". While reviewing the Family Guy: Volume 4 DVD, Nancy Basile of About.com called the episode "sharp".
See also
References
External links
Category:2006 American television episodes
Category:Family Guy (season 4) episodes
Category:American LGBT-related television episodes
Category:Same-sex marriage in television
Category:LGBT-related animation |
Introduction {#S0001}
============
Intestinal helminthic infections are important public health problems in developing countries \[[@CIT0001]\]. They are the most common infections among school age children and they tend to occur in high intensity in this age group \[[@CIT0002]\]. The World Health Organization estimates that over 270 million pre-school children and over 600 million of school children are living in areas where the parasites are intensively transmitted and are in need of treatment and preventive interventions \[[@CIT0003]\]. These infections are most prevalent in tropical and subtropical regions of the developing world where adequate water and sanitation facilities are lacking \[[@CIT0004]\].
The global prevalence and number of cases of intestinal helminths infection in school age children have been estimated to be Roundworm 35% (320 millions); Whipworm 25% (233 millions); Hookworm 26% (239 millions), others 14% (128millions) \[[@CIT0005]\]. Other species of intestinal helminths are not widely prevalent. Intestinal helminths rarely cause death. Instead, the burden of disease is related to less mortality than to the chronic and insidious effects on health and nutritional status of the host \[[@CIT0006], [@CIT0007]\]. In addition to their health effects, intestinal helminth infections also impair physical and mental growth of children, thwart educational achievement, and hinder economic development \[[@CIT0008], [@CIT0009]\]. The high prevalence of these infections is closely correlated with poverty, poor environmental hygiene and impoverished health services \[[@CIT0010]\]. Intestinal helminth infections occur in all regions of Africa; particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, they are common and of major health concerns because of factors that predispose man to the infections such as poverty, poor sanitation, ignorance and malnutrition prevail \[[@CIT0011]\].
In Ethiopia, intestinal parasitic infections are highly prevalent because of low living standards, poor environmental sanitation, unsafe human waste disposal systems, inadequacy and lack of safe water supply, and low socio-economic status \[[@CIT0012]\]. Report from a literature survey indicated that Ethiopia has one of the lowest quality drinking water supply and latrine coverage in the world \[[@CIT0013]\]. This could be one reason for why intestinal parasitism has been widespread in Ethiopia. Moreover, parasitic helminthic infections are the second most predominant causes of outpatient morbidity in the country \[[@CIT0012]\].
In Ethiopia the prevalence of *Ascaris lumbricoides* infection was 29% in the highlands, 35% in the temperate areas and 38% in the lowlands. The prevalence of hookworm infection was highest in the lowlands (24%) followed by the temperate (15%) and highland (7%); whereas *Trichuris trichiura* infection exhibited similar prevalence\'s in all altitudinal regions (13% on the average) \[[@CIT0014]\].
So far several studies identifying the prevalence of intestinal parasites in general and the prevalence of intestinal helminths in particular have been carried out in Ethiopia \[[@CIT0015]--[@CIT0019]\]. Conducting a survey on the prevalence of various intestinal helminthic infections in different geographic regions is a prerequisite for developing appropriate control strategies. Hence, the World Health Organization (WHO) presented a simple methodology to assess the prevalence of helminths, stratified by ecozones, for settings where information is scarce \[[@CIT0020]\].
Data from a study in Nigeria indicated that intestinal helminthiasis differs by sex of school children \[[@CIT0021]\]. In contrast, a similar study in Gondar has shown; intestinal helminthiasis did not differ by sex of school children \[[@CIT0017]\]. Previous study in Babile town reported an overall prevalence of intestinal helminthiasis to be 27.2% and the predominant species identified being *Hymenolepis nana* with a prevalence rate of 10.1% \[[@CIT0022]\].
In spite of the fact that a number of studies have been undertaken over the years on the prevalence of intestinal helminths among school children in different part of Ethiopia, yet there are several areas in all the regional states from which epidemiological information is lacking including our study area, Babile town. Therefore, this study is aimed at determining the prevalence of intestinal helminthic infections among elementary students of Babile town. It is believed that this study will provide recent information for those who are working in the prevention and control of intestinal helminthiasis.
Methods {#S0002}
=======
This study was conducted in Babile town, Eastern Hararghe from May 14 to June 8, 2012. The town is located about 561 Km away from the capital, Addis Ababa. It is situated in eastern Hararghe Zone between two nearby towns named: Harar and Jigjiga. The total population of the town are 17, 704 of which 8782 are males and 8922 are females. Babile town is situated at an altitude of 1340 meters above sea level with mean annual rainfall and mean annual temperature of 410 -- 800mm and 24°C -- 28°C respectively. In the town there are two elementary schools (Babile Elementary School \#1 & Babile Elementary School \#2) and one secondary school. In the town there are 3742 students of which 2086 are males and 1656 are females. The heath coverage of the town reached almost 100%. The water and latrine coverage of the town were 28% and 90% respectively \[[@CIT0023]\].
Six hundred forty four students were selected from the schools to participate in the study and the sample size was determined using the standard formula for single population proportion & the proportion of STHs among elementary students of Babile town was 14.2% (p = 0.142) \[[@CIT0022]\] to get maximum sample size, expected margin of error set at 4% (d = 0.04) and with 95% confidence level. Hence, the calculated sample size becomes 644. Then, the sample size was allocated to the two elementary schools proportional to size and the sampling frame was the students' enrollment list from the two schools. Hence according to probability proportional to size calculation Elementary school No 1 contributed 567 students of the 644 sample size and Elementary school No 2 contributed 77 of the 644 required sample size. Then the study subjects were selected from the list at random using random number table i.e. 567 students from the enrollment list of Elementary school No 1 and 77 students from the enrollment list of Elementary school No 2. All the selected 644 students were voluntary to participate in the study and hence received an interview after providing the stool sample. This makes the response rate to be 100%.
All the necessary information was collected using pre-structured questionnaire. Two Technicians from the local health center were recruited and assigned as data collectors. School teachers and unit leaders helped the data collectors in the entire data collection process.
All the time before beginning stool sample collection, the latrines were inspected for cleanliness by the data collectors to get them cleaned. After giving adequate instruction on how to collect the stool sample, each study subject was provided a stool cup and applicator stick to bring at least 3gm of fresh stool sample of his/her own, that was sufficient for egg count by the McMaster method to determine the prevalence and infection intensity of soil transmitted helminths and the prevalence of other helminthic parasites. Unit leaders of the two schools attended students who are small enough for proper stool sample collection. A laboratory Technologist supervised the appropriateness of the stool sample delivered by the study participants before accepting as a sample. After providing the required stool sample, all the students were interviewed by the data collectors for the completion of data collection. Finally each sample was labeled and transported (after being preserved using formalin) to Harar Campus side lab together with filled questionnaire for processing and examination.
All collected stool samples were processed by the McMaster Method for egg count to determine the prevalence and infection intensity of soil transmitted helminths and to determine the prevalence of other intestinal helminths \[[@CIT0024]\].
The generated data were entered, cleaned and analyzed using SPSS version 16.0. Intestinal helminth prevalence was expressed as the percentage of subjects found positive for each helminth. Univariate analysis was carried out using the Chi-square test to check for presence or absence of association between each exposure and the presence of infection and odds ratios with 95% CI were computed to measure the strength of association. Logistic regression was used to calculate predictors of helminthic infection. Statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.
Ethical clearance was obtained from Institutional Research Ethics Review Committee (IRERC), College of Health and Medical Sciences, Harar campus, Haramaya University. Informed written consent from the parents of each student and verbal ascent from the students were obtained before data collection. The objective and benefit of the study was thoroughly explained to the Parents/Guardians/Teachers of the study subjects. Only volunteers were involved and students were having the right to withdraw from the study. Information meeting was held with parents/guardians/school teachers and with the students to explain the purpose of the study, and the procedure involved. Results were kept confidential. All students positive for *Hymenolepis nana* were treated with Praziquantel at a dose of 25mg/kg and those students positive for *Trichuris trichiura, Enterobius vermicularis* and hookworms were treated with Mebendazole at a dose of 100mg for three days.
Results {#S0003}
=======
Socio-demographic characteristics {#S20004}
---------------------------------
A total of 644 students from the two elementary schools of Babile town were participated in this study. Of the 644 stool specimens examined 89 were positive for one or more intestinal helminths making the prevalence rate 13.8%. Out of the 644 study participants 364 (56.5%) were males and 280 (43.5%) were females. The age range of the students varies between 5 and 25. Of which age range 5 -- 14 years consists of the highest number of students 593 (92.1%) the remaining 51 (7.9%) students were found in the age range 15 -- 25 ([Table 1](#T0001){ref-type="table"}). Mean age of the students was 10.45 years + 2.9 SD. The weight of the students varies between 15kg and 70 kg with mean weight of 31.84 kg + 10.15SD. Similarly the height of the students varies between 1.04m and 1.80m with mean height of 1.38m + 14.43SD.
######
Socio-demographic characteristics of students in Babile town, Eastern Ethiopia, 2012
Variables Frequencies (n = 644) \%
------------ ----------------------- ------ ------
Sex Male 364 56.5
Female 280 43.5
Age group 5-14 593 92.1
15-25 51 7.9
Ethnicity Oromo 352 54.7
Somali 165 25.6
Amhara 101 15.7
Gurage 24 3.7
Harari 1 0.2
Tigray 1 0.2
Religion Muslim 515 80.0
Orthodox 99 15.4
Protestant 30 4.7
Prevalence of intestinal helminths {#S20005}
----------------------------------
The prevalence of intestinal helminths was 13.8% (89 out of 644). The most prevalent detected parasite was *Hymenolepis nana* 13% (84/644) followed by *Enterobius vermicularis* 0.6% (4/644) and the by Hookworms 0.3% (2/644). The least prevalent was *Trichuris trichiura* 0.2% (1/644). Furthermore, the prevalence of soil transmitted helminths was 0.47% (3/644). Both hookworm infected students were with light infection intensity (100 eggs per gram of feces and 200 eggs per gram of feces respectively). Similarly *Trichuris trichiura* infected student was with light infection intensity (300 eggs per gram of feces).
Risk factor analysis for intestinal helminthic infections {#S20006}
---------------------------------------------------------
Out of the 89 positive students for intestinal helminths 41 were males and the remaining 48 were females. There is a statistical significant intestinal helminth infection difference between males and females (OR 0.61 and 95% CI is 0.39 -- 0.96) and (P = 0.033) ([Table 2](#T0002){ref-type="table"}). Out of the 89 intestinal helminthiasis infected students, 85 were found in the age range 5-14, four were in the age range 15-25. Intestinal helminthiasis infection is independent of age range of students (cruds OR 1.97 and 95% CI is 0.69 -- 5.60) (P = 0.205) ([Table 2](#T0002){ref-type="table"}). Of 89 infected students, only 2 (2.2%) students were infected with two parasites i.e. by *Enterobius vermicularis and Hymenolepis nana*. The remaining 87 (97.8%) were infected with one parasite only. Out of the 89 intestinal helmiths infected students, 26 (16.7%), 18 (17.5%), 15 (17.2%), 19 (19.6%), 3 (5.1%), 4 (7.5%), 2 (5.3%), and 2 (3.9%) students were from grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 respectively. A statistically significant intestinal helminthic infection difference was observed among the different grades (P = 0.018) Six hundred forty four students from the two elementary schools participated in this study. Of which 443 (68.8%) were first cycle students (Grades 1 - 4) and the remaining 201 (31.2%) were second cycle students (Grades 5 - 8). Out of the 89 intestinal helmiths infected students, 78 (17.6%) were first cycle students and the rest 11 (5.5%) were second cycle students. A statistically significant intestinal helmithic infection difference was observed between first and second cycle students (OR 3.70 and 95% CI is 0.69 -- 5.60) (P = 0.205) (P = 0.001) ([Table 2](#T0002){ref-type="table"}). All the other risk factors such as parents' occupation, family size, finger nail status, shoe wearing habit, presence or absence of latrine, and water source for drinking were not associated with intestinal helminthiasis (P \> 0.05).
######
Univariate risk factor analysis for intestinal helminthic infection among students of Babile town, Eastern Ethiopia, 2012
Variables Result of stool examination OR(95% CI) P-value
------------------- ----------------------------- ---------------------------- ------------------- -------
**Sex**
Male 323(88.7%) 41(11.3%) 0.61(0.39, 0.96) 0.033
Female 232(82.9%) 48(17.1%) 1
**Negative for Helminths** **Positive for Helminths**
**Age range**
5 - 14 508 (85.7%) 85 (14.3%) 1.97 (0.69, 5.60) 0.205
15 - 25 47 (92.2%) 4 (7.8%) 1
**Negative for Helminths** **Positive for Helminths**
**Grouped grade**
First cycle 365 (82.4%) 78 (17.6%) 3.70 (1.92, 7.12) 0.001
Second cycle 190 (94.5%) 11 (5.5%) 1
After adjusting for all predictors of helminthic infection, females were two times more likely to develop intestinal helminthic infection than males (Adjusted OR 1.67 and 95% C.I. is 1.04 -- 2.67) (P = 0.033). Similarly, students of lower grade were four times more likely to develop helminthic infection than students of higher grade (Adjusted OR 3.75 and 95% C.I. is 1.65 -- 8.55) and (P = 0.002) ([Table 3](#T0003){ref-type="table"}).
######
Parameter estimates from multivariable logistic regression model predicting the probability of helminthic infection among students of Babile town, Eastern Ethiopia, 2012
Predictors of helminthic infection B P-Value Adjusted OR 95.0% C.I.
------------------------------------- ------- ----------------------------------------- ------------- ------------ -------
Sex (Male) 1.00
Sex 0.51 0.033[\*](#TF0001){ref-type="table-fn"} 1.67 1.04 2.67
Age (Years) -0.02 0.710 0.98 0.88 1.09
Grade of students (Second cycle) 1.00
Grade of students 1.32 0.002[\*](#TF0001){ref-type="table-fn"} 3.75 1.65 8.55
Finger nail status (Trimmed) 1.00
Finger nail status -0.59 0.354 0.56 0.16 1.93
Latrine usage (Always) 1.00
Latrine usage 0.50 .668 1.64 0.17 15.86
Hand washing after defecation (Yes) 1.00
Hand washing after defecation -0.51 0.666 0.60 0.06 6.02
Eating uncooked vegetables (No) 1.00
Eating uncooked vegetables 0.26 0.707 1.30 0.33 5.07
Water for drinking (Tap water) 1.00
Water for drinking 0.19 0.574 1.21 0.627 2.32
P-value significant at \<0.05
Discussion {#S0007}
==========
Helminths are the most common infectious agents of humans in developing countries and produce a global burden of disease that exceeds better-known conditions, including malaria and tuberculosis \[[@CIT0025]\]. The inhabitants of thousands of rural, impoverished villages throughout the tropics and subtropics are often chronically infected with several different species of parasitic worms \[[@CIT0026], [@CIT0027]\]. For reasons not well understood, compared with any other age group, school-aged children (including adolescents) and preschool children tend to harbor the greatest numbers of intestinal worms \[[@CIT0028]\]. Despite the fact mentioned above the prevalence rate of intestinal helminthiasis in present study was 13.8% the majority being mono-infection. This was happened due to the regular de-worming of schoolchildren that had already been started by the local Health Bureau (Personal Communication). The concerned health professionals of the Bureau is undertaking the de-worming campaign regularly every six month using a single day dose of 400mg Albendazole during the school days in collaboration with teachers, unit leaders and Directors of the two schools. It may also be due to the improved health service coverage by the local Health Buearu \[[@CIT0023]\].
In the present study an overall prevalence of 13.8% intestinal helminthic infection was found. This finding was lower when compared with previous study conducted in the same area 11 years ago 27.2% \[[@CIT0022]\]. This difference could be explained by the increased involvement of College of Health and Medical Sciences, Haramaya University through its normal teaching learning processes i.e. students assigned for Team Training Program (TTP) for the last many years might have contributed to the improvement of the health status of the community in the study area through time in addition to the de-worming campaign introduced in the area. It is also in disagreement with previous studies in Ethiopia; 26.9% among school children of community school at University of Gondar \[[@CIT0017]\], and 47.1% among school children of Jimma zone \[[@CIT0019]\]. The possible explanation for this difference could be better climatic and geographic condition of Babile town than Jimma and Gondar areas that prohibits the transmission of intestinal helminths.
In this study the prevalence of soil transmitted helminths was 0.47%; which was very much lower in comparison to different previous studies conducted in Ethiopia such as 14.2% in Babile \[[@CIT0022]\], 38.4% in Jimma zone \[[@CIT0019]\], 43.3% in Zarima, Gondar \[[@CIT0018]\], 63% in Chencha, Southern Ethiopia (Ashenafi), and 66.5% in Delgi, Gondar \[[@CIT0015]\]. This low prevalence could be due to the increased health service coverage by the local health Buearu in addition to the launching of periodic de-worming program by the Ethiopian government.
The predominant parasite detected in this study was H. nana with a rate of 13% which is almost similar to the study conducted among school children of Community school at the University of Gondar 13.8% \[[@CIT0017]\]. However, it was slightly higher than the study conducted in the same area some 11 years ago with a rate of 10.1% \[[@CIT0022]\]. This is may be associated with the life cycle of the parasite; it is one the auto-infecting helminths that can be transmitted by autoinfection means if and only if remained untreated. This finding revealed that despite periodic de-worming the prevalence of *H. nana* is on increase. This is because the de-worming focuses primarily on soil transmitted helminths by the known anthelminthic Albendazole which has little effect on eliminating *H. nana* on a single day dose administration. This increment in prevalence rate of *H. nana* shows absence of concern towards hymenolepiasis by the responsible bodies. This is an indication for the need to do further investigation on hymenolepiasis with its determinant factors for a plausible solution to be forwarded.
The observed 13% prevalence of Hymenolepiasis is in contrast with previous reports from different regions of Ethiopia; 0.8% in Chencha, Southern Ethiopia \[[@CIT0016]\], 2.1% in Jimma zone \[[@CIT0019]\], and 6.8% in Delgi, Gondar \[[@CIT0015]\]. This difference may be explained by variations in socio-economic status, climatic and geographic condition of the study area as well as local endemicity of the study area for this particular parasite. In our study univariate analyses indicated that more female children 48 (17.1%) were infected with intestinal helminths than male children 41(11.3%) and found to be statistically significant (P = 0.033) ([Table 2](#T0002){ref-type="table"}). This is in agreement with data obtained from a study in Nigeria; reported as female children (56.6%) were more infected than male children (46.4%) and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.0019) \[[@CIT0021]\]. However, it is in disagreement with Gondar\'s study reported that no statistical significant association was observed between males and females (p = 0.301) \[[@CIT0017]\]. Higher helminthic infections were observed among the age range 5 -- 14 compared to the age range 15 -- 25 in the present study although the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.205) ([Table 2](#T0002){ref-type="table"}).
In the present study, a strong association between intestinal helminths and grades of students was detected (P = 0.018). That is, the lesser the grades of the students the more will be the intestinal parasites seen. This study also revealed that the existence of an overall intestinal helminthic infection difference between first and second cycle students (P = 0.001). This is in accordance with a previous report in Gondar town indicating that Children in grade one to grade three had a higher prevalence of intestinal helminthic infections than those in grades four to eight (p = 0.031) \[[@CIT0017]\].
Of all the predictors of intestinal helminthic infection, sex is significantly associated with intestinal helminthic infection. Because logistic regression analysis showed that females are two times more likely to develop intestinal helminthic infection than males (Table-3). This could be due to carelessness and unhygienic habits practiced by female children than male children in Babile town.
Similarly, of all the predictors of intestinal helminthic infection, grade of the students is significantly associated with overall intestinal helminthic infection. Because logistic regression analysis showed that students of lower grade are four times more likely to develop intestinal helminthic infection than students of higher grade. This could be speculated by increase in awareness; as grade increases awareness increases so that students of higher grade will have less exposure to intestinal helminthic infection than students of lower grade ([Table 3](#T0003){ref-type="table"}). Because students of higher grade are the more mature age group with a higher level of personal hygiene in contrast to students of lower grade.
Conclusion {#S0008}
==========
The current study identifies low prevalence of intestinal helminthiasis. Nearly one out of ten students was infected with intestinal helminths; almost all with *Hymenolepis nana*. Extremely low number of students almost one out of two hundred was infected with soil transmitted helminths. Female children are two times more likely to develop intestinal helminthic infection than male children. Students of lower grade are four times more likely to develop intestinal helminthic infection than students of higher grade. Generally health information dissemination is suggested to be given to students on how to protect themselves from intestinal helminthic infections with special emphasis for female children. It is also suggested that the local Education Bureau as well as the local Health Bureau need to provide safe learning environment especially for students of lower grade such as school sanitation. Since infection by *Hymenolepis nana* is a long term health problem in the area, provision of regular treatment to students of the town by anthelminthic drug of choice against hymenolepiasis is also recommended.
This study was financially supported by Haramaya University government fund. We would like to thank M/rs. Zuhera Shafi, M/rs. Ayantu Gerba M/rs. Serawit Tamrat and M/rs. Meskerem Yeshitla for their unreserved support during data collection and sample processing. We are greatful to S/r Firehiwot for her helpfulness in assisting us in some part of data analysis. We also thank directors, Unit Leaders and Teachers of the two Elementary schools of Babile town.
Competing interests {#S0009}
===================
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors' contributions {#S0010}
======================
Ephrem Tefera conceived the study and drafted the proposal, carried out data collection, laboratory examination, data analysis and interpretation of the results, ultimately finalized write up of the manuscript. Jemal Mohammed assisted in proposal preparation, carried out data collection, and laboratory examination. Habtamu Mitiku carried out data collection, laboratory examination and analysis of data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
|
Q:
What is meant by "evenly divisible"?
"What is the smallest positive number that is evenly divisible by all of the numbers from 1 to 20?"
Is it different from divisible?
A:
Evenly divisible means that you have no remainder.
So, 20 is evenly divisible by 5 since 20 / 5 = 4.
Though, 21 is not evenly divisible by 5 since 21 / 5 = 4 R 1, or 4.2.
A:
evenly divisible = divisible .
|
Q:
React to systemdialog SmsManager
My application sends a text like this:
SmsManager smsManager = SmsManager.getDefault();
smsManager.sendTextMessage(NUMBER, null, "sms message", null, null);
before sending the user is presented a system-dialog that he has to confirm.
"App would like to send a message to 000"
I would like to react to the case when the user cancels that dialog. Is there a way to do that?
A:
Found a solution to my problem. The "sent" PendingIntent will fail if the user cancels the dialog.
String SENT = "sent";
Intent sentIntent = new Intent(SENT);
PendingIntent sentPI = PendingIntent.getBroadcast(
getApplicationContext(), 0, sentIntent,
PendingIntent.FLAG_UPDATE_CURRENT);
registerReceiver(new BroadcastReceiver() {
@Override
public void onReceive(Context context, Intent intent) {
String result = "";
switch (getResultCode()) {
case Activity.RESULT_OK:
result = "Transmission successful";
break;
case 5: // SmsManager.RESULT_ERROR_LIMIT_EXCEEDED
// The static variable is hidden.
// The user denied sending the sms
break;
case SmsManager.RESULT_ERROR_GENERIC_FAILURE:
result = "Transmission failed";
break;
case SmsManager.RESULT_ERROR_RADIO_OFF:
result = "Radio off";
break;
case SmsManager.RESULT_ERROR_NULL_PDU:
result = "No PDU defined";
break;
case SmsManager.RESULT_ERROR_NO_SERVICE:
result = "No service";
break;
}
Log.i("debug", result);
}
}, new IntentFilter(SENT));
SmsManager sms = SmsManager.getDefault();
sms.sendTextMessage(SMS_NUMBER, null, MESSAGE, sentPI, null);
|
Custom Venue Login Settings
You have 10 Custom Venue sections. Use them for any venue that has not been integrated for full support with AOB.
In each Custom Venue section you will see the following fields
Field Name
Description
Custom Venue Display name
Name your venue for display purpose internal to AOB
SFTP
Used if your FTP account is a secure FTP
FTP hostname
a hostname will be something like ftp.bookvenue.com ( just 'gemm' or 'booksupply' won't work).
FTP username
These fields are case and character sensitive so check for accuracy.
FTP password
Copy over or delete the asterisk (*) its only a placeholder.
Format
Select the format your venue is expecting from the corresponding drop-down menu
Custom Venue FTP Directory
Leave blank unless you KNOW there is a specific directory into which you need your upload files placed
Our system will validate the login then save the information. If it can not validate the information (it'll try to login), then nothing will be saved and you will see notice at the top of the page as to what happened.
All contacts with the FTP server will use a Passive interface and have a 10 second timeout. |
Archives
Grinnell Monologues began in 2002 as a response to The Vagina Monologues about feminism and women’s empowerment, written and preformed by Eve Ensler. Grinnell Monologues expands Ensler’s themes to include body, relationship, and sexuality issues. The pieces represent a diverse cross-section of the Grinnell student body, and the event is open to anyone interested in writing or performing such pieces.
This semester I preformed my fourth monologue in a warm lounge packed with Grinnellians. The audience sat on the floor and in chairs with bottles of water, cans of soda, and pink cheeks, eagerly awaiting the start of the performance. Grinnell Monologues is preformed in the round, and the audience is required to scoot back and forth and turn around when each new performer stands up. This unique presentation style is only part of G-Mons history.
Twice a week, the leaders of G-Mons (two other students and me) organize writing workshops. The leaders work as a team to create writing prompts, secure performance dates, buy pizza, reserve lounges, and keep everyone on track. G-Mons features a specific type of personal narrative focusing on the body, relationships, coming out, staying in, and everything in between. Some memorable monologues have been about holding hands, first kisses, crushes, failed love interests, falling in love again, body hair (both lack of G and excess of), and self-governance as love, as well as several more risqué topics. Grinnellians tend to have unique perspectives. Even when topics overlap, each individual tells a different story from a personal perspective.
Each time we meet, we write for about 25 to 30 minutes. Then we share our work. Some bring a piece they have been working on and will continue to work on for the entire semester, in order to become really comfortable with it by the time we perform. Others write something new each week.
The most interesting and rewarding part of Grinnell Monologues is the community that forms around writing and sharing personal stories. We trust that what we share with the group will remain in a safe space: what’s said here actually stays here. We quickly learn to trust each other, and become a sort of monologue-writing family. G-Mons is unlike any other student group in that regard, and the friendships and trust built between us last even beyond the twice-weekly meetings.
I highly encourage new writers, and all Grinnellians, to come to workshops to see what G-Mons is about. Each person uses the space, time, and creative energy in a different way. It’s a great change of pace and a break from studying in the midst of a busy week, because it requires each person to think and write differently and outside of academic thought pattern.
G-Mons is love! G-Mons is sexy! G-Mons is what you decide to make of it. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.